Why is Clinton not polling in the upper double digits against trump?

[sportage]

Well... somebody here doesn't like Hillary very much, thats for sure.

I'd guess the real reason is that Hillary is fairly boring.
Too old school.
She lost last time and losers generally do not do very well a second time, that is why Mitt was smart enough not to run a again
Hubby Bill Clinton has lost his mojo with the public so his influence is pointless.
She laughs weird and creepy,
She acts boxy, stiff, and robotic.
If she has a personality it sure doesn't show thru.
People are not interested in old product, repackaged.
People want celebrity and Hillary is not celebrity.
The first woman thing has lost it's appeal.
When she whines about obnoxious Donald, no one really cares or listens.
The Clinton's live in a glass house and tossing stones just ain't gonna sell.
She turns people off.

 

[werepossum]

Still, with all of that luggage she's dragging around, with all of those skeletons in her closet and cankles to boot, there's no denying that Hillary is, for all practical purposes, qualified (based on time in gov't service at the highest levels) whereas Trump, with that misfiring mouth spouting nothing but empty promises has zero, zilch, nada, nichts experience in gov't.

Shoots, even Obama had more experience than Trump when he tossed his hat in.

Can't wait for Trump and Hillary to square off in debate. Should be fun.

Maybe it's fun if one can forget that one of these two horrible people is going to become President.

 

[PokerGuy]

you have 17 candidates on one side so naturally they'll be more overall votes.

Wow, it's early in the morning and you already are the leader in the clubhouse for dumbest post of the day. The number of candidates does not change the number of overall votes. What it does is affect the number of votes cast per candidate.

Still, with all of that luggage she's dragging around, with all of those skeletons in her closet and cankles to boot, there's no denying that Hillary is, for all practical purposes, qualified (based on time in gov't service at the highest levels)

Screwing up things at the highest levels of government and flouting regulations while doing it does not make one qualified to be the president. She's completely unqualified, as is Trump for that matter.

whereas Trump, with that misfiring mouth spouting nothing but empty promises has zero, zilch, nada, nichts experience in gov't.

Lack of experience in government is not a negative, it's generally a positive.

Can't wait for Trump and Hillary to square off in debate. Should be fun.

For all the insanity we've seen in the primaries and now that we're stuck with two horrible choices, I am looking forward to Trump and hildebeast debating. We already know what to expect from her, more shrill lies and left wing garbage, playing the woman card etc. That stuff will play well to her idiot core supporters. More interesting to me is to see if he can hold his own, and whether he can withstand a hostile environment (as opposed to one of his rallies), and an environment where he won't be able to just spout off complete BS without getting called on it (whether during or afterwards).

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Lack of experience in government is not a negative, it's generally a positive. ...

There are a lot of crazy ideas enshrined in right-wing mythology, but this is always one of the nuttiest. Just like any large business, government is a complex endeavor. Being effective in it requires skills and experience, just like any other field. Having good private sector experience is certainly valuable, but it's not enough. Government and business are intrinsically different in major ways. They require different skill sets. It is just as reckless to insist POTUS is a great spot for a government novice as it would be to suggest your local DMV clerk should head General Motors. "Hey, he's got experience with cars. That's exactly what we need at GM." No.

 

[Brainonska511]

Lack of experience in government is not a negative, it's generally a positive.

When you want a pilot, do you want the experienced on or the inexperienced one? Perhaps the latter is an outsider and decided to forgo licensing, because that's a tool of the establishment.

What about surgery? Do you go with the experienced one or the Dr. Nick outsider?

I don't see being an "outsider" as inherently better in government, and could actually see it as a negative, since part of being an effective leader is understanding how your organization functions in the first place.

 

[werepossum]

There are a lot of crazy ideas enshrined in right-wing mythology, but this is always one of the nuttiest. Just like any large business, government is a complex endeavor. Being effective in it requires skills and experience, just like any other field. Having good private sector experience is certainly valuable, but it's not enough. Government and business are intrinsically different in major ways. They require different skill sets. It is just as reckless to insist POTUS is a great spot for a government novice as it would be to suggest your local DMV clerk should head General Motors. "Hey, he's got experience with cars. That's exactly what we need at GM." No.

If for heading up General Motors one is forced to select between a highly successful CEO of another major corporation and the long-serving GM CFO who is widely known to be the most venal, corrupt, dishonest person in the entire organization, then suddenly new blood at Government Motors doesn't seem nearly that bad an idea.

Apologies to Chuck Stevens and Dan Ammann for catching them up in my analogy. lol

 

[sm625]

Neither of them are that likable.

Trump is very likeable. Except for those who are offended by him. But most of those who are offended by him are either collecting welfare checks, in the country illegally, crying over some stupid college safe space, throwing a fit over the lack of transgender bathrooms, screaming about global warming and trying to shut down all industry in this country, or they just want to take his money and give it to a bunch of poor schmucks so they can buy more 40 oz'ers and lottery tickets.

 

[fskimospy]

Trump is very likeable. Except for those who are offended by him. But most of those who are offended by him are either collecting welfare checks, in the country illegally, crying over some stupid college safe space, throwing a fit over the lack of transgender bathrooms, or screaming about global warming and trying to shut down all industry in this country.

So to be clear you think at least about 60% of the US falls into this group?

I guess your post does indicate that he is very popular with the 9/11 truther crowd though, haha. That's not exactly super surprising considering his embrace of dozens of insane conspiracy theories.

 

[IBMer]

Trump is very likeable. Except for those who are offended by him. But most of those who are offended by him are either collecting welfare checks, in the country illegally, crying over some stupid college safe space, throwing a fit over the lack of transgender bathrooms, screaming about global warming and trying to shut down all industry in this country, or they just want to take his money and give it to a bunch of poor schmucks so they can buy more 40 oz'ers and lottery tickets.

Trump has no substance. Yesterday he was supposed to talk about energy policy, yet sounded like he was reading a News Paper article to his wife. "Listen to this". The worst part is that if he actually listened to his staff and started doing well done speeches he would be a much better sell, but he is too arrogant and thinks that this primary strat will work in a general election.

 

[glenn1]

There are a lot of crazy ideas enshrined in right-wing mythology, but this is always one of the nuttiest. Just like any large business, government is a complex endeavor. Being effective in it requires skills and experience, just like any other field. Having good private sector experience is certainly valuable, but it's not enough. Government and business are intrinsically different in major ways. They require different skill sets. It is just as reckless to insist POTUS is a great spot for a government novice as it would be to suggest your local DMV clerk should head General Motors. "Hey, he's got experience with cars. That's exactly what we need at GM." No.

Eisenhower didn't have political experience and he was perhaps our best president of the post WW2 era. Hoover was considered to have the best experience and political background of any POTUS candidate up to that time and he's considered one of the worst failures as president.

IOW, Trump if elected might be a terrible POTOS or a good one, his "government experience" or lack thereof won't be what determines that. What seems more worrisome right now is how polarizing he appears to be; one of your key attributes as President needs to be the ability to influence and generate a consensus and it seems like the GOP won't be rushing to work with him much less the Democrats.

 

[sm625]

So to be clear you think at least about 60% of the US falls into this group?

60% sounds about right. But at least 1/4 of that 60% is not so blind that they cannot see their own stupidity when it is thrown right back into their face. They will come around. As for the rest of them, let them scream and blather and throw their fits.

 

[fskimospy]

60% sounds about right. But at least 1/4 of that 60% is not so blind that they cannot see their own stupidity when it is thrown right back into their face. They will come around. As for the rest of them, let them scream and blather and throw their fits.

Interesting that you so freely denigrate the morals and intelligence of a majority of people you share a country with. It's also interesting that you would talk about people being so blind as to not see their own stupidity thrown back in their face while being an active 9/11 truther.

Might want to attend to that beam in your eye, brotha.

 

[Genx87]

Take a look at her unfavorable ratings. It is just a touch below Trumps. Both parties nominated the worst possible candidates and expect us to get in line behind them.

 

[fskimospy]

Take a look at her unfavorable ratings. It is just a touch below Trumps. Both parties nominated the worst possible candidates and expect us to get in line behind them.

I imagine hers will improve dramatically after she secures the nomination. Just look at how Trump's numbers among republicans have changed.

I think our elections are dominated by negative partisanship and so these favorable/unfavorable ratings will be the new norm, regardless of nominee. I mean look at how much Republicans hate Obama, who has by most standards has been a pretty moderate and competent president.

 

[Bowfinger]

If for heading up General Motors one is forced to select between a highly successful CEO of another major corporation and the long-serving GM CFO who is widely known to be the most venal, corrupt, dishonest person in the entire organization, then suddenly new blood at Government Motors doesn't seem nearly that bad an idea.

Apologies to Chuck Stevens and Dan Ammann for catching them up in my analogy. lol

No, bad analogy. Your choices are a CEO from another company or the DMV clerk. You hate the CEO and the DMV clerk has yuge ideas and a great sales pitch, but no actual experience running a corporation.

 

[Bowfinger]

Eisenhower didn't have political experience and he was perhaps our best president of the post WW2 era. Hoover was considered to have the best experience and political background of any POTUS candidate up to that time and he's considered one of the worst failures as president.

IOW, Trump if elected might be a terrible POTOS or a good one, his "government experience" or lack thereof won't be what determines that. What seems more worrisome right now is how polarizing he appears to be; one of your key attributes as President needs to be the ability to influence and generate a consensus and it seems like the GOP won't be rushing to work with him much less the Democrats.

Eisenhower had substantial government experience, though I agree it wasn't the same as your typical "experienced" politicians. I also agree that plenty of experience in no way guarantees success. We see that in the business world as well, where someone with superb credentials fails miserably in a new role. Nonetheless, the odds of a novice succeeding are much, much lower.

 

[PokerGuy]

There are a lot of crazy ideas enshrined in right-wing mythology, but this is always one of the nuttiest. Just like any large business, government is a complex endeavor. Being effective in it requires skills and experience, just like any other field. Having good private sector experience is certainly valuable, but it's not enough.

Absolute baloney of course. People leading any large organization need certain skills traits and experience to be effective. You don't need to have worked in government to be the president, any more than you need to have been a doctor to run a hospital.

Private sector skills don't necessarily mean someone is a good fit to be president, but lack of government experience also does not mean someone isn't.

You can always surround yourself with people who understand government to help bridge gaps in your own understanding. The notion that you need to have worked in government to lead the country is absurd. Having someone not already accustomed to the usual ineptitude and incompetence of government is a plus, not a minus.

Government and business are intrinsically different in major ways. They require different skill sets.

No, they do not, they require good leadership, which can take many forms.

It is just as reckless to insist POTUS is a great spot for a government novice as it would be to suggest your local DMV clerk should head General Motors. "Hey, he's got experience with cars. That's exactly what we need at GM." No.

Your analogy is completely absurd, because (presumably) the hypothetical DMV clerk does not have the skills and experience to head up a large organization (public or private), whereas in the scenario we were actually talking about, you're talking about whether leadership skills can be effectively applied in public and private sector settings. You're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[PokerGuy]

Nonetheless, the odds of a novice succeeding are much, much lower.

And your evidence for this is.....?

 

[fskimospy]

Absolute baloney of course. People leading any large organization need certain skills traits and experience to be effective. You don't need to have worked in government to be the president, any more than you need to have been a doctor to run a hospital.

Private sector skills don't necessarily mean someone is a good fit to be president, but lack of government experience also does not mean someone isn't.

You can always surround yourself with people who understand government to help bridge gaps in your own understanding. The notion that you need to have worked in government to lead the country is absurd. Having someone not already accustomed to the usual ineptitude and incompetence of government is a plus, not a minus.

Having someone who understands how government works is not a minus. If Trump somehow became president it's likely he would struggle with this lack of experience at least initially.

Overall though, I agree. Experience in government is by no means a prerequisite to success as a politician. I would say that this works both ways though, as I also find success as a businessman to have no bearing on success as a politician or president.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Trump is very likeable. Except for those who are offended by him. But most of those who are offended by him are either collecting welfare checks, in the country illegally, crying over some stupid college safe space, throwing a fit over the lack of transgender bathrooms, screaming about global warming and trying to shut down all industry in this country, or they just want to take his money and give it to a bunch of poor schmucks so they can buy more 40 oz'ers and lottery tickets.

if you're an arrogant, vapid, narcissist, yea drumpf is a good match. However those that can understand a cohesive thought process and aren't concerned about "a young and beautiful piece of ass" *drumpf, Esquire mag, 1991
as a metric of substance, then no, drumpf is buffoon. And wholly unlikable.

 

[glenn1]

Having someone who understands how government works is not a minus. If Trump somehow became president it's likely he would struggle with this lack of experience at least initially.

Overall though, I agree. Experience in government is by no means a prerequisite to success as a politician. I would say that this works both ways though, as I also find success as a businessman to have no bearing on success as a politician or president.

Everyone struggles and has some hiccups at the beginning of their term as POTUS, even those with tons of "experience with government." Obama had relatively little experience and did OK to better than average, I see no reason why Trump is destined to do poorly.

And you're giving a bit too much weight to "government experience" and the delta between the "politician" skillset vs. the executive skillset; in reality there's a large degree of overlap. I can provide lots of examples of businessmen turned politician, I'm guessing you would find a lot fewer examples of politicians turned into CEOs or senior corporate executives however. You see people like Bloomberg or Romney being successful at politics, when was the last time you saw someone like Bill Clinton or Dubya take over the CEO position for a Fortune 100 company?

 

[trenchfoot]

Maybe it's fun if one can forget that one of these two horrible people is going to become President.

On the serious side of this issue, of course I agree. But there is the thrill of the hunt, the emotional energy one experiences during a debate, the tit for tat, the "strategerizing" over how the battle is planned and executed.

That's mostly what I was referring to when I mentioned the word "fun".

 

[trenchfoot]

Wow, it's early in the morning and you already are the leader in the clubhouse for dumbest post of the day. The number of candidates does not change the number of overall votes. What it does is affect the number of votes cast per candidate.



Screwing up things at the highest levels of government and flouting regulations while doing it does not make one qualified to be the president. She's completely unqualified, as is Trump for that matter.



Lack of experience in government is not a negative, it's generally a positive.



For all the insanity we've seen in the primaries and now that we're stuck with two horrible choices, I am looking forward to Trump and hildebeast debating. We already know what to expect from her, more shrill lies and left wing garbage, playing the woman card etc. That stuff will play well to her idiot core supporters. More interesting to me is to see if he can hold his own, and whether he can withstand a hostile environment (as opposed to one of his rallies), and an environment where he won't be able to just spout off complete BS without getting called on it (whether during or afterwards).

Well I sure don't see things the way you do in any number of ways, yet I agree with a bit of it. In essence, I've never ever liked Hillary simply because she's just not the kind of person I could have a beer with, like I could with Bush 43, or Bernie Sanders for example. Hell I'd even toss back a few with Trump because he's a really good entertainer.

Yet, Hillary touts the flag of the party that represents my economic interests, whereas the Repub Party regrettably, does not.

Just as you side with Trump because he represents your interests and the party of your choice, should Hillary win the nom, I'll be compelled to hold my nose and breath when I enter that hallowed voting booth and vote for my interests, as I'm sure you will too.

edit - It seems to me that it really doesn't matter if Trump or Hillary wins, as both will end up being mostly middle of the road presidents, pulling more in favor of the very wealthy while tossing scraps to the middle class and the poor. The only way that could change is if Sanders wins.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow, it's early in the morning and you already are the leader in the clubhouse for dumbest post of the day. The number of candidates does not change the number of overall votes. What it does is affect the number of votes cast per candidate.

Actually the number of candidates likely correlates with how competitive a primary is and the competitiveness of the primary is the #1 indicator of how many votes will be cast in it.

So in a way it probably does.

 

[werepossum]

No, bad analogy. Your choices are a CEO from another company or the DMV clerk. You hate the CEO and the DMV clerk has yuge ideas and a great sales pitch, but no actual experience running a corporation.

So which part of Hillary's experience do you think will be most useful, her experience at how to hide her machinations from the little people (you know, the people she nominally serves) or her glorious results in Syria and Libya?

Having someone who understands how government works is not a minus. If Trump somehow became president it's likely he would struggle with this lack of experience at least initially.

Overall though, I agree. Experience in government is by no means a prerequisite to success as a politician. I would say that this works both ways though, as I also find success as a businessman to have no bearing on success as a politician or president.

I'd much rather have that experience in a federal judge nominee than in a Presidential nominee. Presidents have very many checks on their power, and if unsuitable can be gone in four. Federal judges are appointed for life and especially in SCOTUS have very few to no checks on their power.

On the serious side of this issue, of course I agree. But there is the thrill of the hunt, the emotional energy one experiences during a debate, the tit for tat, the "strategerizing" over how the battle is planned and executed.

That's mostly what I was referring to when I mentioned the word "fun".

lol I've not watched a single debate. All these people are pretty well known to me going in. (Well, maybe not Cruz, but he creeps the bejesus out of me.) I prefer the people here to all ~20 of them.