The “power over” aspect is precisely the most troubling part about Clinton’s blowjob, agreed.
Now, compare that to Daniels, wherein the president’s attorney is threatening to sue her for $20 million for talking about the affair, wherein the president’s attorney told a reporter that she’d never work in this town again if she wrote about the affair.
I don’t give a wet fart if my president cheats on his wife: I’m not voting for a good person. I don’t even give a wet fart if my president lies about cheating on his wife, for much the same reason. But I do give a wet fart if my president threatens people into silence.
If I might hazard a prediction. Perhaps the President will (somehow) fire Mueller just as the Sixty Minutes story airs to use one thing to distract from the other.
Saw this today:
11% of Republicans believe that Stormy Daniels’ story has merit. That means 89% of Republicans believe Trump is suing her for $20M because she breached an agreement to say nothing about nothing.
Drive? Hell, they’re allowed to vote. We don’t need driverless cars nearly as much as we need the benevolent robot conquest that takes over human governance to eliminate tribalism from decisions which impact the global economy and biosphere.
Yes. But liberals for the past 20 years have self-policed more than conservatives. (During the 1970s I would argue that the nutbaggery was balanced between parties).
So again, I’m not going wave my hands and engage in lazy bothsidesism.
Thanks for digging: sincerely. I know it’s frustrating not to get solid data. But without a partisan breakout from the 1990s, we haven’t moved the ball forwards.
…
Ok, check out this article. Here’s a quote: [INDENT][INDENT][INDENT] Much more pronounced is the decline in the percentage of Mid-westerners who saw Bill Clinton as moral. Although public judgments of Clinton’s morality had already soured significantly by 1996, the change from 1996 to the end of 1998 was dramatic among all parti- san subgroups (see Figure 1).
Relatively few Republicans had ever thought of Clinton as a moral individual (25% in 1996 and only 12% in 1998). More than three-fourths of Democrats (77%), and roughly half of Independents (49%), on the other hand, thought of Clinton as moral in 1996, but less than half of the members of these groups judged him as moral toward the end of 1998 (49% and 26% respectively). Clearly, the revelations of Clinton’s scandal-related behavior provided an initial disappointment for many Democrats while it simply confirmed what most Republicans already felt. [/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT] Emphasis added.
New information changed Democrats’ view of Clinton’s morality. That’s how they roll. They continued to think Clinton was a strong leader during the era, but views of his morality dimmed among Democrats and Independents.
And note the language (Something like, “Do you consider Clinton moral?” - though I couldn’t find exact wording) is weaker than today’s question (How well do you think the phrase ’moral leader’ describes Donald Trump?) Only 17% of Trump voters don’t look up to him that way at all. In contrast, at least half of all Democrats acknowledged that Bubba was a horndog.
New completely undeniable information eventually did. Great find that article and note what else it observes in that section.
Democrats view of Clinton’s morality only changed after it was impossible to deny that he indeed had cheated on his wife, with an intern, and baldfaced lied about it to the public and Congress. And even then almost half saw him as moral. Really? Almost half still said he was “moral”?
Meanwhile most of the GOP are still in the denial phase. They do not believe she is credible. Given the hypothetical that Trump did have the affair then more than half, 54%, say it would be immoral.
As to variations in the language … yes it makes it difficult. The current poll includes a scale, not just yes/no. Only 16% of Republicans believes the phrase “moral leader” describes Trump “extremely well”. Heck 4% of Democrats apparently believe that!
Making it a “leader” question muddies it as a comparison too. Not in a less strong way, but by conflating private morality with leadership. The point of that article you cited was how the public was easily able to conclude that Clinton was seen as personally immoral in his private life but still a strong leader.
So, yes, we all can compartmentalize.
On the plus side Democratic leadership is not making the same mistake the GOP did then. Mostly they are ignoring the affair and saving fire for actual crimes and lies about policy. The media will do what they will do.
Dick pic thing is not true, her lawyer never said that. It was tweeted by a crackpot but was also retweeted by at least 1 legit person, Ana Navarro, she fell for it too.
The first one you mention is interesting because unlike Stormy Daniels, the woman was NOT paid to keep silent. Instead, she was paid to tell her story. (The payer then deep-sixed the story, to protect Trump.)
So, conceivably we might hear that story first.
In any case, it wouldn’t be wise to bet against the possibility that more women may be coming forward.