Is Hillary Clinton the unelectable one ?

[khon]

Presidential matchups among American voters show:
 Sanders over Trump 48 – 42 percent;
 Sanders tops Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas 49 – 39 percent;
 Sanders leads Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida 47 – 41 percent;
 Sanders beats Bush 49 – 39 percent;
 Sanders edges Kasich 45 – 41 percent.
 Clinton with 44 percent to Trump’s 43 percent;
 Cruz with 46 percent to Clinton’s 43 percent;
 Rubio topping Clinton 48 – 41 percent;
 Bush at 44 percent to Clinton’s 43 percent;
 Kasich beating Clinton 47 – 39 percent.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us02182016_Urpfd42.pdf

Sanders crushes every Republican, while Hillary loses to everyone but Trump, and even then she only wins by 1 point. And it's not like she has much upside, everyone already knows who she is.

And this isn't just a single poll, the same trend is shows by other polls http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

So why do people still pretend that Hillary is the electable one, when facts clearly say otherwise ?

 

[PokerGuy]

If nothing else, history has shown us that polls at this early stage of the process are not very good indicators of what happens in November.

Regardless of what those polls say, I'll bet you that the vast majority of republicans would prefer to go have their candidate (whoever that ends up being) go up against the old loon Bernie instead of hildebeast.

The only thing I found somewhat surprising is Kasich trouncing hildebeast in the polling.... too bad he can't win in the primaries.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us02182016_Urpfd42.pdf

Sanders crushes every Republican, while Hillary loses to everyone but Trump, and even then she only wins by 1 point. And it's not like she has much upside, everyone already knows who she is.

And this isn't just a single poll, the same trend is shows by other polls http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

So why do people still pretend that Hillary is the electable one, when facts clearly say otherwise ?

Because the predictive power of these head to head matchup polls at this time are near zero, regardless of who they are about. For example, right around this time last election cycle some polls showed Rick Santorum of all people beating Obama. Do you think that was accurate?

Sanders has been subject to virtually no attacks by Republicans and he is not viewed as the plausible nominee so his numbers are less affected by partisanship.

So yeah, the facts say Sanders is more electable than Hillary the same way the facts said Santorum was more electable than Obama. With that in mind, now what do you think the facts say?

 

[pcgeek11]

Yes, She is.

 

[khon]

If nothing else, history has shown us that polls at this early stage of the process are not very good indicators of what happens in November.

Regardless of what those polls say, I'll bet you that the vast majority of republicans would prefer to go have their candidate (whoever that ends up being) go up against the old loon Bernie instead of hildebeast.

And what exactly do you base this on ? I agree that polls this early have a large margin of error, but why would that necessarily favor Hillary ?

 

[FerrelGeek]

Hillary is, as the Brits call it, barking mad - literally. Her barking like she did in that speech, along with her coughing fits, have given anyone campaigning against her comic gold.

 

[christian1990]

She does not have any direction in her campaign, all i hear is the women card.

 

[LPCTech]

Yes, She is.

She does not have any direction in her campaign, all i hear is the women card.

I hope people are smart enough to vote for Bernie so, ya know, we can win.

I mean a black guy with a muslim name snatched away the nomination from her before. And now an weird old jewish guy is about to do the same.

She isnt wanted. Sorry. She reeks of establishment and bank bribes. In addition to being a weather-vane that changes the direction of her opinions with the wind.

In addition to being careless and clueless with technology.

nty.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't know...but she is actually quite popular with the canine community.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgCP9vOUd1o

 

[PokerGuy]

And what exactly do you base this on ? I agree that polls this early have a large margin of error, but why would that necessarily favor Hillary ?

I didn't say it would favor her, just saying that polls at this stage are notoriously bad (eskimo provided a good example in an earlier post), so I take them with a big grain of salt in saying who's electable and who isn't.

One thing that polls don't tend to capture is the get-out-the-vote machine on the ground, the organization at the local level. hildebeast has had decades of experience with that, she has had lots of time and a huge warchest. They might not love her right now, but I assure you that come November, hildebeast will have general media in her pocket and 100% behind her over any gop candidate.

As a conservative, I think the chances of a conservative president are 10x higher if Bernie wins the nomination.... but that's just IMO.

 

[PokerGuy]

She does not have any direction in her campaign, all i hear is the women card.

When you don't have any real substantive accomplishments, it's always good to be able to fall back on something like that.

 

[sportage]

She does not have any direction in her campaign, all i hear is the women card.

Then you need to listen to Hillary and not the pundits.
Actually, Hillary's message is very sound and very much in line with the party and the country.
But I will agree that with Hillary just being Hillary, her message is often lost
or ignored.

Hillary's problem is that Hillary is missing the gimmick.
In order to gain attention and be taken seriously in todays politics one needs a gimmick.
Hillary is lacking her gimmick.
Trump has a gimmick, no need to explain what that is.
Rubio has a gimmick, his youth and boyish looks.
Cruz has a gimmick with his anti everything philosophy.
Bernie Sanders has a gimmick, his war against the banks and the top 1%.
Hillary should have the gimmick of her gender potentially making history, but that gimmick of making history was stolen by Obama when he ran. So Hillary's gender gimmick doesn't add up to much. Not this time.
Blame Obama for that.

Hillary is not the only candidate that is missing a good old fashion attention getting gimmick. Other gimmick deficient poor souls out there include Jeb Bush and John Katich. And notice both of them are not doing very well either. Hillary is not alone.

If a candidate doesn't have a gimmick going for them, their not going anywhere.
The people won't listen, the candidate appears boring or as Donald puts it "low energy", and no mater how good or sound their ideas might be without that gimmick they are just not on the radar.
Without a gimmick, no one pays attention. And the media will not cover a candidate without a gimmick to stir things up.
The media is only interested in covering the gimmick.
And the electorate only interested in following the gimmick.
Should a hint of a message break through when covering the gimmick, that is really an oddity and real achievement for the candidate.
But that usually never happens, the message getting through.
If people were interested in the message, just the facts ma'am as it were, then this would be a completely difference race for president.
Jeb would be leaving his opponents in the dust, and Bernie wouldn't have a chance in hell.

PS...
This is why Donald Trump will get the nomination, and Bernie nominated on the democratic side. And the people along with the media will eat this up. They sure love a gimmick.
.
.
.

 

[Spungo]

Hillary is, as the Brits call it, barking mad - literally. Her barking like she did in that speech, along with her coughing fits, have given anyone campaigning against her comic gold.

She certainly makes a good meme though

What difference does it make if we lie and say something we know was a planned terrorist attack was actually the result of some shitty internet video. What difference does it make if the government shows absolute contempt toward its citizens?

I don't know...but she is actually quite popular with the canine community.

She goes through oven mitts like you wouldn't believe.

 

[fskimospy]

She certainly makes a good meme though

What difference does it make if we lie and say something we know was a planned terrorist attack was actually the result of some shitty internet video. What difference does it make if the government shows absolute contempt toward its citizens?

I'm not sure, what difference does it make that you've been duped by Benghazi truther nonsense?

Here's a fairly comprehensive link on what people knew and when they knew it:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...rubio-portrays-hillary-clinton-liar-her-stat/

I hope what you're saying here is just the result of you being woefully misinformed.

 

[Spungo]

I'm not sure, what difference does it make that you've been duped by Benghazi truther nonsense?

Here's a fairly comprehensive link on what people knew and when they knew it:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...rubio-portrays-hillary-clinton-liar-her-stat/

I hope what you're saying here is just the result of you being woefully misinformed.

I love how you didn't even read your own link.

(the attack happens on September 11, 2012)

Sept. 12, 2012: In the first CIA assessment of the attacks, the CIA said "the presence of armed assailants from the incident’s outset suggests this was an intentional assault and not the escalation of a peaceful protest."


Sept. 18, 2012: The CIA and FBI reviewed video footage from the Benghazi compound that showed no protests preceding the attack.

Sept. 19, 2012: Director of National Intelligence Matt Olsen said during a congressional hearing that the State Department officials in Benghazi died "in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy."

Sept. 20, 2012: Clinton said during a press conference that "the video that sparked these protests is disgusting and reprehensible, and the United States government, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with it."

1 day after the attack, the CIA concluded that it was a terrorist attack, and it was not the result of a protest.
7 days after the attack, the CIA and FBI have video proof that it was a terrorist attack, and it was not the result of a protest.
8 days after the attack, Matt Olsen says to congress that it was a terrorist attack.
9 days after the attack, Hillary Clinton lies to the public by saying it was the result of a protest over an internet video, and it was not a terrorist attack.

Then again, what difference does it make?

 

[soundforbjt]

The only thing I found somewhat surprising is Kasich trouncing hildebeast in the polling.... too bad he can't win in the primaries.

I thought Kasich was pretty reasonable until I saw a "Town Hall" interview with him last night. He was asked what his plan for Isis was and he said "planes in the air & boots on the ground". That's the last thing i want to see is boots on the ground.

 

[Sonikku]

Hillary is like Romney but for Dems. Nobody wants her, but they will vote for her anyway.

"Would you support their bid in the primary?"

"meh."

"But would you vote for them if they ended up as the nominee for your party?"

"yep"

 

[Spungo]

Hillary is like Romney but for Dems. Nobody wants her, but they will vote for her anyway.

Any chances we'll catch Hillary wearing blackface?

Thankfully, the internet laughed at him for doing that

 

[fskimospy]

I love how you didn't even read your own link.

I definitely read my own link, but it's pretty clear you didn't.

1 day after the attack, the CIA concluded that it was a terrorist attack, and it was not the result of a protest.

Looks like you left out this part:

According to the bipartisan House Intelligence Committee report, the CIA later said the initial assessment lacked supporting evidence and was subsequently left out of reports. Meanwhile, analysts "received 21 reports that a protest occurred in Benghazi." Fourteen of those reports were issued from the Open Source Center (a CIA intelligence center), while the rest came from the CIA, the Defense Department and the NSA.

Oops.

7 days after the attack, the CIA and FBI have video proof that it was a terrorist attack, and it was not the result of a protest.

So what? The CIA and FBI REVIEWED the footage, they did not change their assessments of the cause of the attack until the 24th of September, which was after Clinton's statement.

If you had actually bothered to read my link this would have been obvious to you.

8 days after the attack, Matt Olsen says to congress that it was a terrorist attack.

So what?

9 days after the attack, Hillary Clinton lies to the public by saying it was the result of a protest over an internet video, and it was not a terrorist attack.

And by 'lied' you mean 'said something entirely consistent with intelligence estimates available at the time'. This is quite clear from the supporting links located in my link.

Then again, what difference does it make?

So hopefully that settles that. I again hope that you were simply duped by unscrupulous people and weren't deliberately lying here, because basically everything you said was easily disprovable directly from the link you claimed you read.

 

[sm625]

So why do people still pretend that Hillary is the electable one, when facts clearly say otherwise ?

It isnt "people", it is the establishment forcing its will over what people perceive. It is simply the collective wishful thinking of those with the most money.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I again hope that you were simply duped by unscrupulous people and weren't deliberately lying here, because basically everything you said was easily disprovable directly from the link you claimed you read.

Somebody is lying. It's either Hillary or the 3 families of the Benghazi attack victims that she spoke to at a memorial service on 9/14.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/31/hillary-goes-on-the-offensive-against-benghazi-victims-families/

 

[Jhhnn]

I love how you didn't even read your own link.



1 day after the attack, the CIA concluded that it was a terrorist attack, and it was not the result of a protest.
7 days after the attack, the CIA and FBI have video proof that it was a terrorist attack, and it was not the result of a protest.
8 days after the attack, Matt Olsen says to congress that it was a terrorist attack.
9 days after the attack, Hillary Clinton lies to the public by saying it was the result of a protest over an internet video, and it was not a terrorist attack.

Then again, what difference does it make?

And, uhh, so what? The Obama Admin admitted to having been mistaken in short order.

Why wasn't that just the end of it? How is that not good enough?

Oh, wait... I forgot about Righties' innate love of jumping to conclusions in pursuit of conspiracy theory. Now I get it.

 

[fskimospy]

Somebody is lying. It's either Hillary or the 3 families of the Benghazi attack victims that she spoke to at a memorial service on 9/14.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/31/hillary-goes-on-the-offensive-against-benghazi-victims-families/

Either that or the obvious happened, which was that interpretations of the attack were shifting constantly at that point. This has been established over and over again.

DSF, duped again.

 

[Strk]

It would be both funny and sad if she got the nomination and Trump didn't, but then Trump runs as an independent. And she only wins because a third party ran and killed the GOP vote like Perot did for Bill. It wouldn't be surprising either since she is just a lousy candidate.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Either that or the obvious happened, which was that interpretations of the attack were shifting constantly at that point. This has been established over and over again.

DSF, duped again.

You don't seem to get it. Hillary said that she never told the families that they would “arrest and prosecute” the man that made the video critical of Islam which caused the attack. Three of the victim's families say she did. Somebody's lying.

http://www.conwaydailysun.com/newsx...talks-iraq-and-benghazi-with-the-sun-ed-board

Sun Columnist Tom McLaughlin said she told an Egyptian diplomat the Benghazi attack was planned and not a protest but that she told family members of the deceased that the attack was the result of a demonstration. He said she then told George Stephanopoulos that she didn't tell the families the attack was a demonstration about a film.

"Somebody is lying," said McLaughlin."Who is it?

Clinton replied, "Not me, that's all I can tell you."