This poll from CBS is very ugly for Clinton:
http://pollingreport.com/hrc.htm
19% of voters are now undecided about her. 42% think she’s trustworthy, 47% think she’s not.
Not so much:
And a few days back on a different poll:
Those are a couple of good things. But her dishonesty is a weakness that can be exploited. And those who insist on TV that she’s honest aren’t going to be taken very seriously by the public. if there’s one thing Hillary has that most candidates don’t to the same extent, it’s an army of big name shills who will go out and defend her even if they don’t yet have the facts. Which they did in the opening days of the email controversy, and embarrassed themselves in the process.
Seriously, complaining that you had to go out without talking points just proves your dishonesty, people. It means you went out and made an argument that you knew was almost certainly not true.
It’s such fun to watch you cling desperately to these two-dimensional characterizations of Democrats. Endless repetitions of “Obama is an incompetent leader who throws his subordinates under the bus” and “Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy” don’t make it true any more than the constant right-wing harping on Benghazi makes it true that Obama and Clinton did anything wrong there. But keep fucking those chickens, man.
Hillary Clinton is honest? Good luck with that.
What’s your basis for comparison? I mean, this thread is about her winning. Are the Republicans inherently more honest? What metrics are you using? Or is this all about the “feelz”?
She starts out at negative on the subject. When Republicans are polled on honesty, we’ll know more.
No she doesn’t start out at negative. What a ridiculous statement.
She does if you’re a Republican.
Personally I don’t particularly like Clinton. She’s too hawkish and reactionary for my tastes; I thought her skills, experience and personality were much better suited to the SoS role than the Presidency and I had no problem choosing Obama over her in 2008 (which is not to say I didn’t have my doubts about him either). I’m currently keeping an eye on O’Malley, but it’s still very early.
Do I trust her? It depends. I assume every politician is lying to me about something; the only question is about what and whether it’s something I care about. When Bill ran in 1992 I was pretty sure he was a cheating horndog but I was also sure that he was serious about focusing on economic recovery, on which he ultimately delivered. I’m sure that if she runs Hillary will promise all things to all people as all candidates do, and as always I’ll have to judge where I trust her.
But I’ll tell you this: based on current standings, regardless of her negatives from my standpoint, I’d still vote for her in a hot second against any of the likely candidates from the other party. Not because she has a D after her name - I’m still an Independent myself - but because the ones with R after their name are promoting utterly repugnant policies. And given the choice between someone I don’t trust to do the right thing and someone I trust to do the wrong thing, the least worst choice is fairly clear.
Has she never told a lie? Of course not.
Is she as honest as the average presidential candidate? Sure.
Don’t go creating a standard that your own candidate won’t be able to meet.
[QUOTE=Gyrate]
What’s your basis for comparison?
[/QUOTE]
The poll that found that 47% of the electorate found her untrustworthy, vs. 42% who did not.
There are no standards of anything positive that a Republican can meet on the SDMB.
Regards,
Shodan
So who ya got who’s gonna beat her?
You won’t find a lot of support for anti-vaxxers or scientologists on this board either.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the consensus on this board is right?
On science issues, I have no doubt. It’s what I like about this place. How that applies to politics and governance, however, is another story.
I am trying to imagine if any politician with widespread name recognition would consistently score with significantly greater trustworthy than untrustworthy. Given that politicians as a whole score below car salespeople and real estate agents. Obama had done well for a long time but has been more not trusted than trusted for a year and a half. Overall a solid majority just doesn’t trust government, hasn’t since Nixon, and it has only gotten lower since. (A brief jump up right after 911 with a rapid drop back off.)
No question though that lack of trust will a preferred line of attack while competency will be the sales pitch.
Interesting that you seem to consider governance outside the purview of science…
Science has a role to play, depending on the policy and the politics surrounding the policy. The idea that a modern government can scientifically manage a country has long since been discredited.
Thank goodness we elected Obama instead of the juvenile McCain in 2008. McCain would have spent the last year chuckling and singing “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” while Obama and Kerry hammered out the framework of a very good deal to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions. I predict a Nobel Prize for Kerry, sour grapes for McCain.
:rolleyes:
The problem is not with science managing the country (and that “managing” bit is really a straw man), the problem is with Republicans undermining the lessons and the warnings that scientists are reporting on many fronts.
And science and technology are essential for the thriving of an economy and business and industry.
Here, lets Neil Degrasse Tyson explain:
Looking at the current efforts of adaher and many other republicans, it is very clear that Tyson is a very optimist scientist.
It’s more pernicious than that. Responsible management of any organization requires honesty with oneself, objectivity about the facts, and sound logic, all of which are fundamental to science as well. To discount science, such as to support denialism or anti-vaxxery or voodoo economics, indicates a mindset that is just as unsuited to governance as well.