Mitt Romney was the classic example. Like Clinton, an eminently decent person, but evidently he felt Mitt Romney couldn’t get elected so he pretended to be whoever the heck that guy was. I think that Wes Clark also got handled to within an inch of his life when he ran for President. It just never seemed like the real Wes Clark was talking during that campaign. Always seemed like Mickey Cantor was feeding him his words.
I think perhaps a better word than fake would be “Overly scripted”. Voters like to think they are voting for a real person, rather than an actor playing a role.
I thought I was answering a question about what I don’t like about my preferred candidate - not what you think I shouldn’t like about my preferred candidate. I don’t find her either dishonest (I think that she is probably too honest) nor do I find her fake an insincere. I just don’t find her likeable - she doesn’t come across as a warm person. And, as I said, the person I know who knows her as a person says she is much different when you get to know her.
You can mansplain my preferences to me all you want, but you’ll be wrong.
There is no valid data on honesty. Liberals. Sigh. Think that everything can be measured by Nate Silver, who I’d note has not actually tried to measure honesty, because it’s STUPID. Politifact also does not claim to measure honesty. Liberals who are citing that(including Nicholas Kristoff today), are making fools of themselves.
They select statements that pique their interest(Selection bias), and then grade them individually. They do not claim to measure overall truthfulness of candidates. They don’t even claim to measure truth vs. lies. They measure accuracy of individual statements.
Now if you guys want to hang your hats on this, go right ahead. You won’t convince any actual voters, but if it makes you feel better, knock yourselves out. Clinton is perceived as dishonest because she is, and that perception isn’t going to change unless you can go back and make true all her false statements that voters know about.
I am also a Hillary supporter by default and my biggest problem with her is that she is too focused on the wealthy donor class. Unlike you I think she hasn’t done Enough to condemn Wall Street and the role of greed in the financial crisis of 2008. Noone, not even Bernie wants to shut down Wall Street, no one thinks that most people on wall street are crooks, but people do think that wall street got away with something in the aftermath of the financial crisis. No one thinks that the majority of the top 1% haven’t earned their money but they do think that we have been asking less and less of the 1% while they have been getting more and more of the pie.
A lot of people don’t like Elizabeth Warren. She is beloved by a small set of progressives. But she is also described as shrill and bitchy by a lot of people.
From a likeability perspective, I like Warren more, but that’s because I knew her first as an academic who said sensible things about banking and consumer protection.
Clinton’s problem is the hate machine run by Karl Rove… which is not feeding it’s lies and disinformation to the Bernie Bros, who are only too happy to help the GOP win by spreading the lies and disinformation.
Snopes has like 5 dozen bogus Hillary rumors thus spread.
I’m a Clinton supporter all the way, and hate the disparity in scrutiny between her and ol’ Bern. He’s still getting treated with kid gloves by the media when any rational pundit could pounce on any number of dubious things in his campaign. That said, I wish Clinton was a bigger supporter of Palestine. I hate that dems and repubs alike brown-nose Israel at every chance. Bernie says he’s for Palestine, but where was he during the AIPAC convention this year? He was a no-show, and that’s telling.
I don’t think it counts if there are Republicans and free market fundamentalists who don’t like Elizabeth Warren. How many Democrats don’t like Elizabeth Warren?
My biggest problem with Elizabeth Warren is that she has a pretty specific core competency and she has to stray into areas where she is not expert in order to win elections. She sounds very scripted in those areas, mostly because she is. I once saw her give a speech on immigration and I think she got it off of Wikipedia.
I am a Hillary supporter and was in the 2008 election, as well.
My problem with her is my own preference for idealistic women. I admire women who take a strong moral position on certain issues and stick with it, come hell or high water. I find that to be an attractive trait. This is not who Hillary is as a candidate. She is a total realist and avoids idealistic statements as much as possible. She does so because she knows it limits the number of people who will embrace her candidacy and vote for her. I don’t think she lacks ideals, but she is savvy enough not to show her hand until after she’s elected. As long as she remains ahead, she will remain a realist.
To accomplish what? If you’re worried about the deficit, you need to tax the rich more. But you’re going to only raise real money with higher middle class taxes. Taxing the rich is a purely symbolic gesture. Taxing the middle class is how you actually solve problems.
It also has the virtue of being true. The middle class is where the money is. Heck, just the Bush tax cuts alone on the middle class cost $3.3 trillion over the last ten years. If you want to raise taxes on the rich that’s fine, but it doesn’t actually pay for anything and presumably people who want higher taxes want something out of it.
Answering the OP - she’s a soulless fairweather automaton that flip flops more than a drowning salmon on a river bank, with opinions based solely on trying to say what the latest polls and prevailing opinion indicate people want to hear, whose only true loyalty lies in the interests of her billionaire backers / owners.
And unbelievably, that will be the BEST option in this upcoming election. I weep.