# Will Hillary Clinton be the next U.S. President? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 4, 2015, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557 "2015-10-04T23:04:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/41 "2015-10-07T02:16:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Yeah, I think that McCarthy gaffe\* could be a really huge deal, and totally nullify this particular line of attack. Hillary will be turning to it every single time she is attacked on Benghazi – possibly even with the email stuff. It isn’t just Benghazi (and the e-mail bullshit that stems from it), it’s anything they can dream up. There is \*no \*“investigation” they can drum up of any sort that will have credibility with any but the True Believers. She was bulletproof before, but now she’s bombproof. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/42 "2015-10-07T04:02:46Z")
Yeah, except the State Department wants to know why there’s a gap in her emails. “Gaps” are a very, very bad looking thing. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/43 "2015-10-07T04:13:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Yeah, except the State Department wants to know why there’s a gap in her emails. > > “Gaps” are a very, very bad looking thing. And again, I think that once again Media Matters is more on the money than any of your sources. > **[Myths And Facts On Hillary Clinton's Email And Reports Of "Top Secret" Materials](https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-nation/myths-and-facts-hillary-clintons-email-and-reports-top-secret-materials)** > > Media are exploiting news that two emails Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton turned over to the State Department from her time as secretary of state may be retroactively classified as "top secret" to push myths about Clinton's handling... > [@](#): > > There’s no evidence Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton or her aides violated any laws with her use of a private email server while secretary of state, according to government secrecy experts cited by the Associated Press. > > Conservative media have tried their best to spin Clinton’s email use into accusations that she committed a crime by mishandling classified information, even baselessly comparing her to those who did, such as former Gen. David Petraeus and John Deutch, despite the fact that this smear has been debunked. > > Yet intelligence and government secrecy law experts refute claims that Clinton could face criminal action for the handling of her emails, according to the Associated Press on August 31. As AP explained, “[T]o prove a crime, the government would have to demonstrate that Clinton or aides knew they were mishandling the information – not that she should have known,” and as one expert noted, “A case would be possible if material emerges that is so sensitive Clinton must have known it was highly classified, whether marked or not,” but “no such email has surfaced”: As I noted, and as the current McCarthyism goes, just continue with the baseless accusations, it will do no more than convince others that Clinton is right once again about how unfair the media was and the extreme right just fooled many conservatives as always. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/44 "2015-10-07T04:17:39Z")
I doubt there’s a crime as well, and even if there was, she wouldn’t be charged. She’s running for office, so the only jury that matters is the voters. Plus whether she broke laws is completely irrelevant. “I haven’t broken any laws” is not a case for your election. “I didn’t turn over all work related emails” is guilty enough for most voters. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/45 "2015-10-07T04:21:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I doubt there’s a crime as well, and even if there was, she wouldn’t be charged. She’s running for office, so the only jury that matters is the voters. And the voters are seeing now the hatchet job and kangaroo court that the republicans did set for their hearing. > [@adaher](#): > > Plus whether she broke laws is completely irrelevant. “I haven’t broken any laws” is not a case for your election. “I didn’t turn over all work related emails” is guilty enough for most voters. Already death with many times before, and again, that does show that you still need to clean up the sources of information that you are relying on. You are indeed in your last post claiming that it is ok for the media to mislead the American people. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/46 "2015-10-07T04:24:17Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And the voters are seeing now the hatchet job and kangaroo court that the republicans did set for their hearing. Just because they are out to get you doesn’t mean you aren’t guilty. She lied, she lied badly, and her use of a private server is an admission that she has something to hide from the public. It IS the smoking gun. Her poll numbers will not go up because of this, although Republicans in Congress will probably see their poll numbers go down. > [@](#): > > Already death with many times before, and again, that does show that you still need to clean up the sources of information that you are relying on. I realize you can’t trust Obama’s government, but that’s what they said. There are gaps, and Clinton attested under penalty of perjury that she turned over all work related emails. So technically she is actually guilty of a crime, although when it comes to the Clintons, perjury isn’t considered a real crime. That’s just their day to day life. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/47 "2015-10-07T04:32:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Just because they are out to get you doesn’t mean you aren’t guilty. She lied, she lied badly, and her use of a private server is an admission that she has something to hide from the public. It IS the smoking gun. Just grasping at straws. And really **adaher** , what it was shown and your acknowledgement that there was no crime is enough to tell all that your affirmations here make no sense at all. > [@adaher](#): > > I realize you can’t trust Obama’s government, but that’s what they said. Not really, you are using the spin from the right wing media, again when I see the more detailed information it is clear that Clinton is not accused of anything and what we are seeing is an internal bureaucratic fight. > [@adaher](#): > > There are gaps, and Clinton attested under penalty of perjury that she turned over all work related emails. So technically she is actually guilty of a crime, although when it comes to the Clintons, perjury isn’t considered a real crime. That’s just their day to day life. Again with the nonsense, you already told us that “I doubt there’s a crime as well” As I told you I have seen this movie before I expect more conservatives like McCarthy stepping on their dicks because they believed in their own propaganda and they will become unhinged when they suddenly realize that their spin (to get Hillary at all costs) is not reality. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/48 "2015-10-07T04:36:16Z")
Since this isn’t the thread for a long discussion on this(we already have a few for it), I’ll just close with Clinton’s numbers: [http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating) 40-53 unfavorable [http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-carson-vs-clinton](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-carson-vs-clinton) [http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton) [http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-bush-vs-clinton](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-bush-vs-clinton) General election trial heats show her trailing Carson and nearly tied with Trump and Bush. These are not the numbers of a prohibitive favorite. She’s no longer even a prohibitive favorite to win the nomination. If her name was Hillary O’Malley she’d be at 1%. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/49 "2015-10-07T04:38:40Z")
So Carson and Trump, so much for not carrying water for yahoos like those ones. And as I pointed before a lot of those numbers are affected by the pollsters also asking about Biden. In the end (as I also pointed before) Biden can be the nominee and I would be ok with that, but I think it is more likely that he will not run and will tell his supporters to support Hillary. That IMHO will make the difference and Hillary will most likely win the presidential race. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/50 "2015-10-07T04:40:53Z")
The polls say what the polls say. I’m carrying water for them by reporting that they are ahead or tied with Clinton? That says less about them than about Clinton. Sanders is now doing better than Clinton in trial heat polls. As a general rule, the least electable candidate in the field according to polls should not be your nominee. That’s like starting the 7th game of the World Series with your 5th best pitcher. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/51 "2015-10-07T04:45:33Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The polls say what the polls say. I’m carrying water for them by reporting that they are ahead or tied with Clinton? Yes. Because you offer no context other than just sandbagging Clinton. I looked at the context already and I concluded that many on the media are not telling all of it. > [@adaher](#): > > That says less about them than about Clinton. Sanders is now doing better than Clinton in trial heat polls. Again, same thing, Sanders is bound to give his support to Hillary in the presidential election. > [@adaher](#): > > As a general rule, the least electable candidate in the field according to polls should not be your nominee. That’s like starting the 7th game of the World Series with your 5th best pitcher. What you are doing is adding handicaps that will not be there once the presidential race starts. Both Sanders and Biden will support Hillary, even more after McCarthy gave the game away in an unforced error. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/52 "2015-10-07T04:55:08Z")
Unelectable candidates don’t become electable just because more popular candidates endorse them. Endorsements by losing candidates are expected. They count for nothing when there’s only one choice. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/53 "2015-10-07T04:58:37Z")
> [@E-DUB](#): > > But even if she actually is unelectable she may be running against a Republican who is unelectable as well and _one_of them has to win, right? This made me laugh. If neither is electable, maybe, then, suddenly, the Greens win the whole thing! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/54 "2015-10-07T05:02:15Z")
Nah, Clinton will win if she’s up against an unelectable Republican. The Republican brand is shit, so all things being equal the Democrat will win. But put an old, tired, dishonest, skating-purely-on-her-name candidate against a Republican who is fresh, interesting, and doesn’t say things that a majority of Americans would regard as nuts, and she’ll lose huge and drag the Democrats’ Senate hopes with her. But never fear, Joementum is about to begin. So many of you keep saying that Clinton’s numbers must implode for that to happen, but if you’re actually paying attention you’d see that her numbers already have. Biden is going to run, and is probably going to win the nomination. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/55 "2015-10-07T05:02:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Unelectable candidates don’t become electable just because more popular candidates endorse them. Endorsements by losing candidates are expected. They count for nothing when there’s only one choice. The problem with this is that in the end the polls are telling us that Clinton is ahead or tied with any Republican candidate regarding likely voters. But this is once again with a lot of chewing that is still coming up in the Republican side many skeletons are in reality not well known by the people and Trump specially is a target rich environment. The reality is that if Trump or Carson (and I could make the case for every Republican candidate) is the Republican candidate there will be a lot of moderates and independents that will never will vote for them. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/56 "2015-10-07T05:12:23Z")
Ah, that’s where you’re wrong. Clinton is tied among REGISTERED voters. Most pollsters aren’t using likely voter models yet. Which means that Clinton’s support will fall once that screen is used. Nate Silver can give the exact numbers: > **[Registered Voter Polls Will (Usually) Overrate Democrats](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/registered-voter-polls-will-usually-overrate-democrats/)** > > Over the long run, Republicans and Democrats each win elections about half the time. This is not only a strong historical tendency, but also one well predicted … So Clinton is probably actually losing by a few points. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/57 "2015-10-07T05:21:44Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Ah, that’s where you’re wrong. Clinton is tied among REGISTERED voters. Most pollsters aren’t using likely voter models yet. Which means that Clinton’s support will fall once that screen is used. Nate Silver can give the exact numbers: > > [Registered Voter Polls Will (Usually) Overrate Democrats | FiveThirtyEight](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/registered-voter-polls-will-usually-overrate-democrats/) > > So Clinton is probably actually losing by a few points. You are wrong on this one, many of the polls do claim that are asking likely voters. > **[Google](https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=trump+poll+%22likely+voters%22&tbs=qdr:m)** > > Search the world's information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many special features to help you find exactly what you're looking for. (Not a Google Vomit, the point here is to just look at the first page of results in Google from the previous month and notice that indeed Rasmussen and many others do point that they are talking about likely voters.) (I like how a link talks about how a good number of Republicans describe Trump as an idiot and other choice words, but that is another story) And you are once again looking at an analysis that points mostly at the polls from the midterm elections, in the Presidential ones it is clear that the bias was almost not there or it existed **in favor** of the Republicans in the previous presidential election. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/58 "2015-10-07T05:28:59Z")
I went to Real Clear Politics and the vast majority of polls, as in about 90%, are registered voter polls. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general\_election\_bush\_vs\_clinton-3827.html](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/59 "2015-10-07T05:46:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I went to Real Clear Politics and the vast majority of polls, as in about 90%, are registered voter polls. > > [2016 General Election: Bush vs. Clinton | RealClearPolling](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_clinton-3827.html) Again, you are telling us that Registered poll numbers are not like the likely voter numbers, that is true, but not by much as pointed before: [http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/ppp-d-22856](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/ppp-d-22856) And the other point stands, the article you pointed at showed that in the previous presidential election the polls were biased in favor of the Republicans. That may be happening here too so this makes me more confident on Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557/60 "2015-10-07T07:58:19Z")
Polls are always skewed, you just can’t predict in advance which way. But one way polls are almost never skewed is that Democrats do better in registered voter polls than likely voter polls. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-hillary-clinton-be-the-next-u-s-president/733557.md?page=4)