Come to think of it, I bet he can wait.
I’m curious if anyone will answer my question from yesterday.
I don’t care what your position on Clinton is. I’m trying to get a feel for the distribution of such a thing.
For me, X would be 30-ish, probably. The caucuses aren’t until February. We don’t even have any other official Dem primary candidates yet (although it looks like Bernie’s next). By roughly a month prior (say Christmas-New-Year-ish), everyone who’s playing is going to be in the mix and the polls and I’d feel confident about what the polls say.
Iowa don’t mean shit. Look who wins there - President Santorum, President Huckabee, President Harkin, President Gephardt … New Hampshire is much more predictive.
It’s actually predicted the winner on the Democratic side the last two times there was a competitive primary. Obama won it in 2008 and Kerry won it in 2004.
Well there wasn’t a New Hampshire poll released today. There was one yesterday from Gravis.
Clinton is at 45% or 54% depending on whether Warren is included in the poll. Leads of 21 and 35 points respectively.
Interesting thing though … Bill Clinton’s approval INCREASED during the whole Lewinsky impeachment thang while his perception as “honest” went down to 21% … in fact even before then it was not great. It was only 34% in '93. People who thought he was less than honest voted for him in droves.
Now this Fox poll, the actual numbers, are interesting. Go to page 17, question 29 and following. Honesty rating for the GOP candidates from 32 to 46% and HRC is 45%. Now true there are more who answer “no” too, and fewer who “don’t know” but no one breaks 50% as “yes” to the “is this person honest?” question. And no one get more than 1% more “yes” than HRC does.
Me being one of them. I thought he was a lying horndog at the time but that he was serious about addressing the economy. And this viewpoint turned out to be correct on all points.
I guess they’re all “damaged” then.
Looks like Hillary is attempting to capture the populist sentiment:
We all knew he was a horndog when we elected him. Most of us knew it was none of our business and irrelevant to the job anyway. Others of us never figured it out, though, and still haven’t, as that’s the only thing they could ever find to rationalize their hatred.
Republicans overreached, that’s why. It was not an impeachable offense, plus the titllating nature of the story made it all about sex and the legal issues surrounding the Paula Jones case became less relevant in the public’s mind.
In the end, justice was done. Clinton settled for a huge gob of money(he gave Jones everything she asked for except admission of guilt) and was disbarred. The Republicans should have just let the legal system work.
The GOP candidates have a large number of “don’t knows” though. Clinton is the only one where the majority deems her dishonest. Jeb is the only one in the 40s for dishonesty, and I wonder how much of that is actually about Jeb and not about the Bush legacy. I doubt many voters outside of Florida actually have a handle on who Jeb Bush is.
The highest +/- ratio for honesty is Marco Rubio. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he leads the field. Voters do actually care about honesty, even while knowing that most politicians lie. But there are degrees of lying. There’s lying us into wars. There’s lying to get an unpopular policy passed. There’s lying to hide bribery and graft. And there’s lying about sex. I think that I’ve listed them pretty much in the order that people care about them.
You’ll also notice further down that Marco Rubio has nearly a majority describing him as a “leader of the future”, the only candidate to achieve that feat despite being much lesser known than Clinton.
It *did *work. That’s why the Jones case was dismissed. You might also have noted how the case was created, and why and by whom, although it’s no mystery why you didn’t.
And your example is?
You mean defeated or repealed, right?
Your side seemed to care a whole lot about that one not too long ago. What happened?
You said nobody outside Florida knows about Jeb? Isn’t that even more true about Rubio?
“Leader of the future” is another way of saying “up and coming prospect for some future election”. But not necessarily this one.
Good point. Was there a “Leader of the Present” option?
Red Auerbach used to say “Potential is a Latin word that means you ain’t worth a damn yet.”
Wow, it’s amazing how someone can say something truthful yet stay as far away from the truth as possible. Clinton paid her the entire amount she demanded and he was then disbarred by the state of Arkansas. the system did work, but it did not work by exonerating Clinton. It worked by punishing him for lying, and the punishment was proportional to the crime.
But those who do know him see him as a leader of the future. That’s a very good sign. Clinton is seen about evenly as a leader of the future and a leader of the past. But such things are often viewed in relative terms. Put Rubio next to Clinton on a debate stage and I bet her standing in that regard falls significantly.
She’ll have the experience advantage, definitely. Might keep the “strong leader” advantage too, because she’s got gigantic balls. But she’s lost on honesty before she’s even really gotten started and she’s not doing well on relating to everyday Americans’ problems. The Clintons are the richest ex-Presidential family in the country right now, without having done anything but give speeches. How could they relate to working Americans? Even Mitt Romney had an actual business. She also appears likely to lose on the “past vs. future” aspect.
Says the guy doing the evasion. You understand the question, and we both understand why you won’t acknowledge it.
“Thanks, Mom!”
How could the Roosevelts? Or the Kennedys? Or the Rockefellers?
THey couldn’t. FDR won because he was competing against a President who oversaw the worst Depression in history, and Kennedy won because he was ultra charismatic and running against someone who was in his 40s but seemed like he was in his 70s and made Dick Cheney look personable.
Clinton will not face such favorable conditions. She’s trying to succeed an unpopular incumbent of her own party and she will likely face a younger, more charismatic candidate with working class roots.
None of these assertions (except “younger” and perhaps the working class roots, though perhaps not) are factual. Obama is not particularly unpopular right now, and it’s dubious at best (and more likely comical) that Rubio (or any of the Republicans so far) are “more charismatic” than Hillary (not that she’s terribly charismatic, but none of the Republicans so far are charismatic at all in terms of Presidential politics).
The question you asked was how the Clintons can relate to working Americans, not how others (who were born patrician, btw) got elected.
Nobody but you would think you replied.
Your nominee is Jeb Bush. :rolleyes:
If Jeb Bush was going to be the nominee, he’d be leading right now. He has the most name recognition and the most money. The only way he comes back is if like Romney, all the other candidates disqualify themselves. Romney couldn’t win in this field either. Bush will not.
Call that a prediction. Jeb Bush will not be the nominee. If he can’t even outpoll a fellow Floridian he has no chance.
So who specifically were you thinking of as being “a younger, more charismatic candidate with working class roots”? Someone you predict *will *be your nominee, somehow successfully defeating the desires of its patrons? 
(Cue: More **adaher **evasion and handwaving.)