2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton numbers may be better than some think
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/08/30/hillary-clinton-approval-ratings/71310258/Clinton numbers may be better than some think
August can be the cruelest month of the year for Democratic presidential candidates. Just ask Hillary Clinton.
The Democratic presidential front-runner's favorable rating is down to 39% in a recent Quinnipiac poll, from as high as 48% earlier this year. A Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll released Saturday showed her lead over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders down to seven points in the state that hosts the first caucus early next year.
It's a month that's been unkind to other Democrats, too. In August a year before his re-election, President Obamas approval rating stood at 40%, the low point of his presidency, according to Gallup; the same month in 1995, Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton, was at 46%, 12 points lower than shortly after he was re-elected.
Much of the handwringing in the Democratic Party is over the 61% of Americans who now say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy. Its evidence of the damage done by a drumbeat of summertime stories about whether she sent and received classified material over her private email server as secretary of State.
(more) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/08/30/hillary-clinton-approval-ratings/71310258/
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)The grief she has to put up with everyday.
I think she is still clearly the front runner but a lot of damage was done this summer.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)[img][/img]
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Except it's not.
Just yesterday Drudge posted a link to the UK Sun which essentially accused the Clintons of murdering a UK spy.
A bullshit story, a hit piece... And they just keep coming.
You'd think at some point people would stand up and say stop the lies and utter fabrications, I have yet to really see that.
There is more at play here than simply not supporting her.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)You realize she isn't solely responsible for that votes outcome, nor is she solely responsible for the invasion?
Sure she gave a speech in support of it, most likely for political expediency... But she isn't alone.
"Outlive"? That was odd.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)She let a lot of us down with that vote that is responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people based on lies. Are you suggesting we just forget about them all?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Nothing wrong with admitting the truth. It was pretty obvious to everyone anyway.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)This was your post...
She let a lot of us down with that vote that is responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people based on lies. Are you suggesting we just forget about them all?
The bold part was the section I was responding too.
Pretty sure we agree here, but for some reason your instinct is to attack? Why?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)7. Odd comment.
You realize she isn't solely responsible for that votes outcome, nor is she solely responsible for the invasion?
Sure she gave a speech in support of it, most likely for political expediency... But she isn't alone.
"Outlive"? That was odd.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Honestly I have no idea what are you talking about...
Are you saying she is solely responsible for the actions taken in Iraq?
She isn't. She supported it, I don't feel she should have.
I don't give her a pass for that.
I'm not voting for her in the primary.
I'm honestly not sure what you are getting at?
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)If you don't know what you were talking about well ....
BooScout
(10,406 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I find your inability to maintain a conversation without personal jabs when we are on the same side of an issue somewhat ridiculous.
We aren't going to get anywhere and I'm not about to hurl insults.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)If I somehow missed you real point, I apologize. I can only go by what I you posted and I read.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)BooScout
(10,406 posts)It's not worth it to try and engage them.
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)Which you picked up on as someone willing to admit it. After that, it all went to crazy town. Cheers!
Cha
(295,929 posts)him insult me again, now.
It's sickening.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
uwep
(108 posts)shrub was supposed to get a second approval for the war by the UN. He never did , he never listened to the UN weapons inspectors, he falsified the information from the CIA and invaded without waiting for the UN approval or the advice from both the former weapons inspector or the current weapons inspector. Can we put this dog to rest. Hillary wanted to support the interests of the United States and thought that a president of the United States has the best interest of the country in mind and would avoid war. The asshole did not.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)And still she is somehow okay with this:
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)She voted yes because she was running for president and calculated that if she voted no she would come off as weak.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)didn't "sense real danger," Debbie Wasserman Schultz wouldn't be putting off the first Democratic Primary Presidential debate until Oct 13th.
It's a long view of the former first ladys polling data that explains why it'll take far more adversity before Clinton and her allies sense real danger. As the email controversy drags on, her unfavorable ratings could dial further upward. Thats particularly true as the summer comes to a close, voter interest in the election perks up and Republicans prepare to grill her before a House special committee on Benghazi on Oct. 22.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/08/30/hillary-clinton-approval-ratings/71310258/
We would be having more debates and earlier in the primary season.
Thanks for the thread, BooScout.
4139
(1,893 posts)And once a month the press will cover the dump into next year. The article passes it off as just a summer thing.... It is going to slowly grid on and also be a Fall and Winter thing
riversedge
(69,731 posts)And each time the crap starts anew.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)hoping people will fall for it.
Most polls on President Obama were skewed by intense hatred by Republicans (for the life of me, why would they even ask a Republican to rate a Democratic president?), according to a Pew Research study. it'll be no different for Hillary Clinton since the GOP and the moneyed elite in this country will do everything they can to stop another Democrat from winning the White House for another eight years.
Views of the president among members of the opposing party have become steadily more negative over time. Our 2014 report on political polarization documented this dramatic growth in partisan divisions over views of presidential job performance. Over the course of Obamas presidency, his average approval rating among Democrats has been 81%, compared with just 14% among Republicans.
During Eisenhowers two terms, from 1953-1960, an average of 49% of Democrats said they approved of the job the Republican president was doing in office. During Ronald Reagans presidency, an average of 31% of Democrats approved of his job performance. And just over a quarter (27%) of Republicans offered a positive assessment of Clinton between 1993 and 2000. But the two most recent presidents George W. Bush and Obama have not received even this minimal level of support.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/16/presidential-job-approval-ratings-from-ike-to-obama/
This is why I believe polls are no longer an accurate reflection of where the people are. These days, polls show what the purchaser of those polls want them to reflect. We've learned that lesson back in 2012 when Romney's numbers by most polls were even or higher than President Obama's...and Obama still beat Romney with 51.1% of the vote.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Romney beating President Obama up to the last day before the election. Then election day happened, President Obama lost the "White" vote, and he still went on to win a second term with 51.1%!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i am now having to go all the fuckin way back to 2002 and into 2005.
i just went 2007-2008. there is a lot to remember in these times and they are still a part of conversation. hugest pain in the ass this is becoming. i have an old brain. and it is getting older, lol
dsc
(52,130 posts)in the reality based community Obama and a steady but small lead throughout the campaign. The first debate put him into the MOE but he was still ahead and after the second debate he was back to being ahead even accounting for MOE and never looked back. The polls were very good in 2012.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)President Obama's lead was well within the margin of error, and some polls even showed Mitt Romney ahead. As it turns out, President Obama won by nearly 4 pts, which none of the polls showed.
http://www.rawstory.com/2012/11/how-the-2012-election-polling-really-was-skewed-for-mitt-romney/
So I disagree. The polls were NOT good in 2012, let alone very.
riversedge
(69,731 posts)//\\\\\Among Democrats, her numbers havent changed much. From March before she officially announced her campaign and when her use of the private email account first surfaced through August, Quinnipiac found her unfavorable rating increased from six to 11%.
"What youre seeing is, well, Republicans dont like her, Witt said. As Clinton served as the nations top diplomat, Republican attitudes about her warmed, pushing her ratings as high as 62%. Now, however, shes back in the political arena where opinions are more polarized.
"There was a period of several years as secretary of State where she was extremely popular by a large margin, Democratic pollster Mark Mellman said. "That was bound to change when she became a candidate.
What may matter most is how Clinton ranks relative to her Republican competitors, whove yet to face the same intensity of scrutiny.
Right now, shes still either ahead of or within the margin of error vis-a-vis Trump, Bush and Marco Rubio, three of the GOP's top performing candidates.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)I think most Dems see her as our nominee. She's proven overwhelmingly that the GOP smears roll off her and she can call the GOP on their bullshit with aplomb!
riversedge
(69,731 posts)EXACTLY!!
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)There certainly are many who do not think that the race is over yet.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I think the latter more appropriate.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)But she sure is and feels entitled.
BooScout
(10,406 posts)PADemD
(4,482 posts)I think the gentleman who asked how she would vote on Keystone XL would agree.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017282158
We voters deserve frank answers on important issues, not evasion.
IMO, too much is being made of the email issue as a cause for the lower favorable rating.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)Now sit down, be quiet, and enjoy your shit sammich.
And if your good boys and girls...you can get dessert!...poo-berry pie!..yummy!
BooScout
(10,406 posts)ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)That is what you repeatedly are arguing?
Let it go. That horse won't bark, and that dog won't fly.
There are many good and strong reasons for progressives and democrats NOT to want her as our nominee. Not one of them is based on her sex.
frylock
(34,825 posts)just keep picking it back up and fling it.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)incantation that will keep her safely in the lead. Even as her numbers swoon you dig up reasons while the polls are just fine and she is doing just great.
Maybe she should actually get out there and talk about the issues. Maybe Bernie is surging because he is out mingling with voters, not just donors, and talking about issues that people care about.
Read all the polls you want; looking in the rear view mirror is a sure way for the car to go off the road.
OnlinePoker
(5,702 posts)They were talking about the surge in support for Sanders in the recent Iowa poll. The article compared his outsider campaign to that of Trumps. What was odd was the final statement. It went: "It is unclear if either party establishment will allow the outsiders to be nominated". Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the voter's job to make that decision?
djean111
(14,255 posts)The current peevishness, IMO, reflects this. I think the DNC only accepted Bernie because it was thought they could scoop up Bernie's contributions and Bernie's host of supporters who would not have bothered for Hillary. Thus the instantly created contribution page on the DNC website. A ;ot of us said no, we will just contribute to Beernie, we have been smugly told that HRC is bathing in dollars, so - 'kaythanksbyei.
And " 'kaythanksbye(don't forget to vote for Hillary)", IMO , is exactly the attitude the DNC has for Bernie and his supporters.
On Reddit, there are 96,933 subscriber, with 605 currently signed on, for the Bernie support group. Hillary group - 610 subscribers, none currently signed on.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident
https://www.reddit.com/r/hillaryclinton/
I believe that the DNC assumes those Bernie supporters will switch over to Hillary if Bernie does not get the nomination.
I believe the DNC is wrong. Those people do not think of politics as some sort of team sport, with the rich guys sitting in the skyboxes, laughing their asses off and swilling expensive brandy and champagne.
But I do also believe that this campaign is a lot more contentious than was planned for, and that it was the fervent hope of the DNC that there would not be much in the way of pimary activity at all.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)or support from the oil industry or for-profit prisons.
My bad.
askew
(1,464 posts)useless BS at voters, we'd actually know where Hillary stands on issues. Instead it is just insult after insult for voters.
Her numbers are bad period. No one outside Democrats likes her and even her likability among Democrats is falling. The most commonly used word to describe her in the last Q-poll was liar. The general public doesn't trust. Her email saga has been mishandled from the start. Her campaign and Hillary can't even stick to one story explaining it. And now we are left hearing how her #s might not be that bad because her more talented husband was able to win with low #s? The difference is people actually like Bill. Fewer and fewer people by the day like Hillary.
I wish she'd come out and answer some questions. The more time passes the worse off her numbers. This snowball is picking up speed.