Why isnt Hillary destroying Trump in the polls?

[TheGardener]

No matter how many citations, you will never understand. One sentence? It now occurs to me that you are the one with the 3rd grade education. Go back sleep Rip VW.

 

[ivwshane]

No matter how many citations, you will never understand. One sentence? It now occurs to me that you are the one with the 3rd grade education. Go back sleep Rip VW.

You are too stupid to have a conversation with that deals with more than one sentence. I am dumbing down the conversation for your benefit.

I expected my question to take two pages until you are able to answer, so far it appears I'll be right.

What crime, specifically, has Clinton committed?

 

[Sunburn74]

I too really don't understand the unfavorability of clinton other than being in all sense a completely average career politician. Her one scandal (her private email server) seems paltry compared to past presidents and really is probably just a sign of there just not being that much interesting stuff to talk about her. But being uninteresting isn't necessarily bad and she clearly is a talented and qualified individual. I'd take an uninteresting but stable and well run presidency over a presidency that daily makes the news due to mishaps, errors, and gross miscalculations.

 

[Jhhnn]

I too really don't understand the unfavorability of clinton other than being in all sense a completely average career politician. Her one scandal (her private email server) seems paltry compared to past presidents and really is probably just a sign of there just not being that much interesting stuff to talk about her. But being uninteresting isn't necessarily bad and she clearly is a talented and qualified individual. I'd take an uninteresting but stable and well run presidency over a presidency that daily makes the news due to mishaps, errors, and gross miscalculations.

Have you forgotten about Benghazi & poor Vince Foster? About the rest of the relentless slime attacks the Clintons have endured for decades?

Try to remember you're dealing with people who think Obama might not have been born in this country & that crop circles mean aliens, OK? You're also dealing with people who'd rather break the govt than to let anybody else do the job decently well.

 

[yllus]

I too really don't understand the unfavorability of clinton other than being in all sense a completely average career politician. Her one scandal (her private email server) seems paltry compared to past presidents and really is probably just a sign of there just not being that much interesting stuff to talk about her. But being uninteresting isn't necessarily bad and she clearly is a talented and qualified individual. I'd take an uninteresting but stable and well run presidency over a presidency that daily makes the news due to mishaps, errors, and gross miscalculations.

Politically, the Clintons are extremely dangerous to the side they're not on - they're pragmatists who tack to the centre by picking and choosing to champion the most palatable and appealing policies that are out there, and generally do a good deal in implementing said policies. As a result, those policies become Democrat wins, and the Republican party has to tack ever farther to the right and lose ever more of the middle ground.

So the Clintons are a threat to the very viability of the Republican party; so unrelenting attack is completely called for from their perspective. A socialist like Mr. Sanders or even an Ms. Warren who are fairly to the left, in comparison, are viewed with some mixture of relief as the right doesn't see non-centrists as nearly the threat the Clintons are.

 

[nickqt]

Politically, the Clintons are extremely dangerous to the side they're not on - they're pragmatists who tack to the centre by picking and choosing to champion the most palatable and appealing policies that are out there, and generally do a good deal in implementing said policies. As a result, those policies become Democrat wins, and the Republican party has to tack ever farther to the right and lose ever more of the middle ground.

So the Clintons are a threat to the very viability of the Republican party; so unrelenting attack is completely called for from their perspective. A socialist like Mr. Sanders or even an Ms. Warren who are fairly to the left, in comparison, are viewed with some mixture of relief as the right doesn't see non-centrists as nearly the threat the Clintons are.

Pretty much this. Bill Clinton was one of the most effective Republican Presidents since T. Roosevelt, and they're still pissed that he chose to use a (D) as his brand.

 

[Jhhnn]

Pretty much this. Bill Clinton was one of the most effective Republican Presidents since T. Roosevelt, and they're still pissed that he chose to use a (D) as his brand.

I remember laughing out loud the first time I heard Repubs mewling about how "He stole our issues!"

Their counter was to charge off to the right fringe in order to differentiate themselves.

 

[nickqt]

I remember laughing out loud the first time I heard Repubs mewling about how "He stole our issues!"

Their counter was to charge off to the right fringe in order to differentiate themselves.

Right off the damn cliff of sanity and straight into the pit of delusion.

 

[Sunburn74]

Have you forgott
en about Benghazi & poor Vince Foster? About the rest of the relentless slime attacks the Clintons have endured for decades?

Yeah but that stuff is like really nothing. Regarding benghazi, I mean if you want to think about the number of US embassies that have been attacked over time benghazi wasn't the first, or the worst and won't be the last. Regarding Vince Foster, the guy incontrovertibly committed suicide. Anything beyond that is tin-foil hat conspiracy theory. Finally, the use of her email server really just shows a lack of savviness and understanding with modern computing more than anything else (but then again there are high ranking congressmen who have never even sent a single email!). Its shameful and makes you scratch your head about the decision making process and her staff, but again its not that bad imo.

Honestly I just don't see the lack of favorability other than she's not mind blowingly inspiring and is a career politician. But thats also a good thing in many ways.

Politically, the Clintons are extremely dangerous to the side they're not on - they're pragmatists who tack to the centre by picking and choosing to champion the most palatable and appealing policies that are out there, and generally do a good deal in implementing said policies. As a result, those policies become Democrat wins, and the Republican party has to tack ever farther to the right and lose ever more of the middle ground.

So the Clintons are a threat to the very viability of the Republican party; so unrelenting attack is completely called for from their perspective. A socialist like Mr. Sanders or even an Ms. Warren who are fairly to the left, in comparison, are viewed with some mixture of relief as the right doesn't see non-centrists as nearly the threat the Clintons are.

Yes I understand that. What I don't get is why people who are centrists don't back her or find her so unfavorable. You'd think moderates would fling to her in droves seeing as most people are somewhere in the middle about most things. Even more, I don't understand why the republican party just doesn't say look lets become a bit more moderate about somethings because most people are moderates and we are trying to get most people on our side.

Polarization in politics is a bad strategy because as the politician only decrease your support over time and as the voter, it allows demagogues to rise to power.

 

[sportage]

Back to the original question in this thread, latest labor day polls show Hillary opening up further gains in swing states. And we all know it is that electoral college that matters in the end.
If Hillary has a path, several frankly to that 270, then she wins. Period.
The important states she must take to succeed are Pennsylvania and Ohio.
And while polls and pundits show Trump taking Iowa, I will wager right here and now that Hillary does in fact take Iowa too. Even though taking Iowa is not that important for Hillary.

In the past, polls have been all over the place in all presidential elections.
Especially when no incumbent is running,
But what always happens about two or three weeks before the election, people really start paying attention and making up minds. And I would not be surprised if Hillary nears double digit leads in swing states and a solid lead in the national.
Trump has been fun and amusing, but its time to get serious.
I always figured in the end people would make the right decision and not go along with some whim or a fluke of a candidate like Trump.
Trump really has no experience at all, and no one really knows how he would or could run the country.
Just too much of a gamble.

Also, as much as everyone talks about Hillary emails, I don't think or believe anyone really cares that much.
Sure, republicans care because that is about all they have to go on, but most voters don't really care about something as nit-picky as emails.
If you think about it you're accusing Hillary of blatantly engaging in criminal acts, purposely and knowingly breaking the law, which makes no sense. I mean, what has she to gain?
What is so important about the security of emails that Hillary would purposely want to break the law?
It's not like she is some secret double agent working for China or Putin.
It doesn't make any sense.
One would be accusing Hillary of being a traitor, and for what gain to her?
For emails marked confidential and non-confidential?
What is the point of even going down that road, purposely conducting criminal acts, if one were Hillary Clinton?
She has nothing gain out of this unless one can prove she was in fact a double agent working for China.
Or in bed with Putin. Which is total nonsense.
If you want to talk about Putin, Donald is the one to ask about "his" Putin connection.

And Trump, I think he simply bit off more than he could chew.
Here we have a person that has no experience, zilch, other than the personal arrogance to think he can run the entire country.
If Donald was serious about this presidency thing, he would have first ran for a governor of a state or even a mayor of a city.
Had at least some experience under his belt.
And at least the voters would know if Donald was capable at running a state or city before taking on the grand presidency.

Saying you are the outsider sounds good on paper, possibly, but when it comes to voting I think most people want actual experience, including the flaws, rather than a super ego combined with personal arrogance.
Voters would prefer a flawed Hillary Clinton with some actual experience rather than a game show host with absolutely no experience what so ever.
We've had our share of so called "outsiders", mostly from the Tea Party sector, and what did that get us?
A totally dysfunctional congress that not only drove democrats nuts, but drove republicans nuts as well.
Even to the point where their own, leader John Boehner, could not stand the dysfunction any longer and he got out.

So to answer the original question from the op, do not be surprised if Hillary pulls into double digit leads in the polls. Despite emails, servers, and charity foundations.
Frankly, all of which no one really cares about.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah but that stuff is like really nothing. Regarding benghazi, I mean if you want to think about the number of US embassies that have been attacked over time benghazi wasn't the first, or the worst and won't be the last. Regarding Vince Foster, the guy incontrovertibly committed suicide. Anything beyond that is tin-foil hat conspiracy theory. Finally, the use of her email server really just shows a lack of savviness and understanding with modern computing more than anything else (but then again there are high ranking congressmen who have never even sent a single email!). Its shameful and makes you scratch your head about the decision making process and her staff, but again its not that bad imo.

Honestly I just don't see the lack of favorability other than she's not mind blowingly inspiring and is a career politician. But thats also a good thing in many ways.

You ignored the second part of my post, the important part. The continuous attacks spanning decades created a lot of FUD surrounding the Clintons. It alters basic attitudes. The rational mind cannot evaluate anything until it has passed thru that attitude filter.

It leads too many people to think that where there's smoke there's fire when it's really more like crop circles & aliens.

Yes I understand that. What I don't get is why people who are centrists don't back her or find her so unfavorable. You'd think moderates would fling to her in droves seeing as most people are somewhere in the middle about most things. Even more, I don't understand why the republican party just doesn't say look lets become a bit more moderate about somethings because most people are moderates and we are trying to get most people on our side.

Polarization in politics is a bad strategy because as the politician only decrease your support over time and as the voter, it allows demagogues to rise to power.

It's all in the portrayal of the Clintons as some kind of cartoon Bond villains, the image & attitude created rather than actual reality.

Repubs can't pivot away from their central tenet, trickle down economics. They can't pivot away from the FUGM attitude behind it, either. They prey upon the John Galt/ Lone Ranger/ rugged individualist fantasies of their flock to do so & arrange peripheral issues as shiny objects to keep them voting for it- abortion, guns, religion & idealized notions of the past, of an America that never was.

 

[emperus]

A good article by Krugman that explains this.

True, there aren’t many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon of honesty. But it’s hard to escape the impression that he’s being graded on a curve. If he manages to read from a TelePrompter without going off script, he’s being presidential. If he seems to suggest that he wouldn’t round up all 11 million undocumented immigrants right away, he’s moving into the mainstream. And many of his multiple scandals, like what appear to be clear payoffs to state attorneys general to back off investigating Trump University, get remarkably little attention.
..
Consider the big Associated Press report suggesting that Mrs. Clinton’s meetings with foundation donors while secretary of state indicate “her possible ethics challenges if elected president.” Given the tone of the report, you might have expected to read about meetings with, say, brutal foreign dictators or corporate fat cats facing indictment, followed by questionable actions on their behalf.

But the prime example The A.P. actually offered was of Mrs. Clinton meeting with Muhammad Yunus, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who also happens to be a longtime personal friend. If that was the best the investigation could come up with, there was nothing there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?_r=0

 

[Jhhnn]

A good article by Krugman that explains this.

They won't read Krugman. Might burn their eyes out & a person can't be too careful about that.

 

[emperus]

They won't read Krugman. Might burn their eyes out & a person can't be too careful about that.

lol

 

[Starbuck1975]

Is this the Krugman article where he compares Trump v Clinton to Bush v Gore?

It was a good article and makes a compelling argument in blaming the media for choosing innuendo over fact.

However, the article conveniently overlooks Gore's utter lack of charimsa and decision to distance himself from Clinton on the campaign trail as contributing factors to the race being so close.

What the Republicans did to Kerry was far more tragic, inappropriate and dishonest, and is a better fit to Krugman's arguments. However, I felt the Democrats returned the favor with innuendos around McCain. However, like Gore, McCain crippled himself in choosing Palin.

 

[rockyct]

At present there are 4 people on the ballot for president. So a simple poll comparing Clinton and Trump is leaving out the people voting for the other 2 candidates. Demand 4-way polls all the time to see the real results.

Most polling companies are taking 4 way and 2 way polls. In any case, it only really matters until the debates start. Once it's officially that Johnson won't be in the debates, then the media will stop writing articles like "Will <blank> candidate steal the election from <blank>?" People often say they will vote for a 3rd party candidate but on election day, they really pick one of the two main candidates.

 

[emperus]

Is this the Krugman article where he compares Trump v Clinton to Bush v Gore?

It was a good article and makes a compelling argument in blaming the media for choosing innuendo over fact.

However, the article conveniently overlooks Gore's utter lack of charimsa and decision to distance himself from Clinton on the campaign trail as contributing factors to the race being so close.

What the Republicans did to Kerry was far more tragic, inappropriate and dishonest, and is a better fit to Krugman's arguments. However, I felt the Democrats returned the favor with innuendos around McCain. However, like Gore, McCain crippled himself in choosing Palin.

I thought the point of the article is how the media uses a frame of a personality narrative they choose vs. a frame of policy in framing the candidates. The Bush example was particularly tragic as it led us into war.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I thought the point of the article is how the media uses a frame of a personality narrative they choose vs. a frame of policy in framing the candidates. The Bush example was particularly tragic as it led us into war.

Cult of personality seemed to be the overall theme. If you assume or accept 9/11 as inevitable under either a Bush or Gore Presidency, which is likely, what would a Gore response to Al Quaida have looked like? I am guessing troops inevitably on the ground in Aghanistan, but avoiding the mistake of invading Iraq

 

[fskimospy]

I thought the point of the article is how the media uses a frame of a personality narrative they choose vs. a frame of policy in framing the candidates. The Bush example was particularly tragic as it led us into war.

Well that and in the 2000 election Gore was inexplicably framed as a liar and Bush as a straight shooter when GWB was freely spreading gigantic lies at every opportunity.

I have to say he is totally right and I am also amazed that the Times has yet to cover what appears to be the bribery of the Florida AG in the Trump University scandal. It's unreal that the media has repeatedly investigated Clinton and found no wrongdoing while glossing over blatant corruption with Trump.

But remember guys, the media is in the tank for Clinton! lol.

 

[OutHouse]

Trump tops Clinton 45% to 43% in the new survey,

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/_poli...-vs-clinton-presidential-polls-election-2016/

 

[fskimospy]

Trump tops Clinton 45% to 43% in the new survey,

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/06/_poli...-vs-clinton-presidential-polls-election-2016/

Clinton tops Trump in the new survey,

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-surveymonkey-50-state-poll/2086/

Clinton tops Trump in the new survey,

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...rump-campaign-enters-final-weeks-poll-n642931

Clinton tops Trump in the new survey,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/31/fox-news-poll-trump-narrows-clintons-lead.html

Why do some people continue to cherry pick polls? Does it make you feel better about him losing or something?

 

[Starbuck1975]

But remember guys, the media is in the tank for Clinton! lol.

The media is in the tank for themselves. Gore and Kerry both got taken out by underhanded tactics. To a lesser extent so did McCain. Is that a poor reflection of the media, the electorate or the candidates themselves?

 

[OutHouse]

Clinton tops Trump in the new survey,

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-surveymonkey-50-state-poll/2086/

Clinton tops Trump in the new survey,

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...rump-campaign-enters-final-weeks-poll-n642931

Clinton tops Trump in the new survey,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/31/fox-news-poll-trump-narrows-clintons-lead.html

Why do some people continue to cherry pick polls? Does it make you feel better about him losing or something?

humm a brand new CNN poll that came out today putting trump ahead is cherry picking? fuck off.

 

[fskimospy]

humm a brand new CNN poll that puts trump ahead is cherry picking? fuck off.

Of course it is, it's selecting a single poll out of many that gives you the result you want. That's pretty much the definition of cherry picking. Or did I miss your posts highlighting all the polls Clinton is winning in? They must be around here somewhere, right?

lol. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself. If that makes you feel better then enjoy it I guess?

 

[Starbuck1975]

humm a brand new CNN poll that puts trump ahead is cherry picking? fuck off.

The CNN article is actually interesting. The voting demographics are very polarized and quite locked. Neither candidate is going to be able to change that dynamic at this point. Trump has no ground to gain. Clinton is slowly bleeding independent voters to Johnson or Stein, with some going to Trump. I don't think the bleed will be enough for Trump to overcome Clinton save a self inflicted wound or October surprise.