Why isnt Hillary destroying Trump in the polls?

[sportage]

We're entering into the Twilight Zone portion of the election.
We will hear total crazy insane stuff from both sides here on out.
And most of it will mean nothing for whether this one or that one would be able to run the country.
Weiner.
I know you are so what am I?
Laughing vs mental illness.
Hippie doctors.
Blacks for Trump.
Republicans for Hillary.
Rudy Giuliani.

None of this will matter or make any sense. It only makes us crazy and we pray this all ends asap.
Two months to go.
Sixty days more or less.
Eight simple weeks.
The one thing we do know for sure, the next eight weeks will seem like an eternity.
I'd suggest eight weeks is an excellent time frame to catch up on your reading, catch up on those movies you missed at the theater, take the family on a fall vacation, something... anything else besides watching TV news.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

She's a crappy candidate? Why? Because of all of the endless stories about her that lead to no where? Because of the endless investigations by Republicans that lead to nothing? Because of the endless scandals that turn out to be nothing?

She's a bad candidate because you've been led to believe she's a bad candidate because you aren't much of an independent thinker.

Uh huh. And GWB was never found guilty of anything either. Does that fact not make him a crappy president in your eyes?

Independent thinker indeed. I doubt clowns like you and Jhhnn have any idea what that really means while you're so busy toeing the party line.

 

[Jhhnn]

Uh huh. And GWB was never found guilty of anything either. Does that fact not make him a crappy president in your eyes?

Independent thinker indeed. I doubt clowns like you and Jhhnn have any idea what that really means while you're so busy toeing the party line.

You should wait until you have something to say before you say it because that's just empty derision.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

You should wait until you have something to say before you say it because that's just empty derision.

The truth always hurts Jhhnn. At least make an attempt to take it like a man.

Hillary is not going to be elected due to her stellar political record, her likeability, her political savvy, or her experience in politics. She is being elected for 2 reasons:

1) She's Bill Clinton's wife.

2) The GOP candidate really, really, rreeaaalllllyyyyy sucks.

Don't try to build Hillary into something she is not.

 

[Jhhnn]

The truth always hurts Jhhnn. At least make an attempt to take it like a man.

Hillary is not going to be elected due to her stellar political record, her likeability, her political savvy, or her experience in politics. She is being elected for 2 reasons:

1) She's Bill Clinton's wife.

2) The GOP candidate really, really, rreeaaalllllyyyyy sucks.

Don't try to build Hillary into something she is not.

She's extremely savvy & carries a lot of clout among Dems. She'll do a good job & advance the Democratic agenda at every opportunity.

Horrifying, ain't it?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

She's extremely savvy & carries a lot of clout among Dems. She'll do a good job & advance the Democratic agenda at every opportunity.

Horrifying, ain't it?

You mean horrifying in the way that a month or so ago I began a thread in here that predicted Hillary would be president?

Honestly, Jhhnn, your constant penchant for grasping at stereotypes that involve Republicans, and don't actually apply to me, just goes to show how often you rely on party-line thinking. Such a shill.

 

[Triloby]

Why isnt Hillary destroying Trump in the polls?

Because there's a group of people out there (Trump supporters) that hate Hillary so much that they would rather have some disingenuous sociopath with far worse to no qualifications and experience sitting on the President's chair.

 

[nageov3t]

The truth always hurts Jhhnn. At least make an attempt to take it like a man.

Hillary is not going to be elected due to her stellar political record, her likeability, her political savvy, or her experience in politics. She is being elected for 2 reasons:

1) She's Bill Clinton's wife.

2) The GOP candidate really, really, rreeaaalllllyyyyy sucks.

Don't try to build Hillary into something she is not.

it's not like any of that is her fault, though.

I'm sure she'd be happy running an issues-oriented campaign, but her chief opponent can't seem to go a week without insulting minorities and military families.

 

[Commodus]

The notion that Clinton may be elected solely on her name and "because she's not Trump" is oversimplifying things.

Those play a part, but a large aspect of the Clinton vote would apply regardless of who she was married to, or who the GOP candidate was. A large chunk of the Republican field is anti-LGBT, anti-choice and frequently anti-minority, all issues that ultimately hurt a candidate's chances in 2016. Trump is just the rawest expression of that regressive mindset.

And it's not just that Clinton has political experience where Trump is clueless... it's that she actually has a lot of experience, moreso than many candidates tend to have going in. I wouldn't call her track record perfect, but it's stellar compared to most of the Republican hopefuls (certainly better than an obstructionist like Cruz).

 

[Jhhnn]

The notion that Clinton may be elected solely on her name and "because she's not Trump" is oversimplifying things.

Those play a part, but a large aspect of the Clinton vote would apply regardless of who she was married to, or who the GOP candidate was. A large chunk of the Republican field is anti-LGBT, anti-choice and frequently anti-minority, all issues that ultimately hurt a candidate's chances in 2016. Trump is just the rawest expression of that regressive mindset.

And it's not just that Clinton has political experience where Trump is clueless... it's that she actually has a lot of experience, moreso than many candidates tend to have going in. I wouldn't call her track record perfect, but it's stellar compared to most of the Republican hopefuls (certainly better than an obstructionist like Cruz).

Hillary has a breadth & depth of govt experience at the highest levels that is unmatched by any modern President. She knows how it works, been in the room to be part of that many times in many ways. She is an extremely competent administrator who has built a team & a network of support reflecting that.

She's tough, too, & cool under fire. We know she can take it. It'll be interesting to see how well she can dish it out as President.

 

[JEDI]

The notion that Clinton may be elected solely on her name and "because she's not Trump" is oversimplifying things.

Those play a part, but a large aspect of the Clinton vote would apply regardless of who she was married to, or who the GOP candidate was. A large chunk of the Republican field is anti-LGBT, anti-choice and frequently anti-minority, all issues that ultimately hurt a candidate's chances in 2016. Trump is just the rawest expression of that regressive mindset.

And it's not just that Clinton has political experience where Trump is clueless... it's that she actually has a lot of experience, moreso than many candidates tend to have going in. I wouldn't call her track record perfect, but it's stellar compared to most of the Republican hopefuls (certainly better than an obstructionist like Cruz).

shes being elected because AMerica wants Bill Clinton for a 3rd term.
he's the best chance to save this great country

 

[ivwshane]

shes being elected because AMerica wants Bill Clinton for a 3rd term.
he's the best chance to save this great country

Maybe for some people. I certainly am not voting for her because of Bill.

 

[sm625]

This is the mainstream media:

This is its job:

If this is where you get your worldview, then you will not understand why Clinton isnt winning. Because your worldview is spoonfed to you by a system that is trying to bring you Clinton. But luckily not everyone is under the control of this system.

 

[fskimospy]

This is the mainstream media:

If this is where you get your worldview, then you will not understand why Clinton isnt winning. Because your worldview is spoonfed to you by a system that is trying to bring you Clinton. But luckily not everyone is under the control of this system.

Do you care to explain why if the media is trying to help Clinton has gotten the least favorable media coverage of any candidate so far this election?

http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/

Those pesky facts seem to be getting in the way of whatever narrative you've been duped into swallowing.

You seem to get your information from some pretty unreliable websites and it shows with you frequently posting about things that are, frankly, insane conspiracy theories. You're being deliberately misinformed by unscrupulous people and even worse they've tricked you into thinking they're giving you the 'real news'. I sincerely hope one day you have the self awareness to see that you're being taken for a ride.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is the mainstream media:

This is its job:

If this is where you get your worldview, then you will not understand why Clinton isnt winning. Because your worldview is spoonfed to you by a system that is trying to bring you Clinton. But luckily not everyone is under the control of this system.

Barring a miracle, Clinton will annihilate Trump at the polls despite all the slime slinging from Repubs over the last two decades. Any mention of the Donald will cause Repub politicos to flinch reflexively for a couple more. I'm hoping for the kind of attitude adjustment that's not quickly forgotten.

And then she'll go to work, advancing the Democratic agenda whenever possible. After that, we'll work on taking back Congress & statehouses, replacing the govt of the lootocracy with the govt of the people.

 

[trenchfoot]

I'm just wondering how bad/sad/worse things are going to get for the GOP before they finally snap out of their state of denial, admit that they were/are their own worst enemy, get the loonies in their midst stuffed back into the basement where they broke out of and have their moderates take back control of the party.

The GOP needs to realize that the propaganda war of intense hate and fear they perpetrated against Obama and the Dems created a monster that got out of their control and turned on them in a very messy, calamitous fashion. The failed Benghazi hearings is a perfect example of that, along with their self-defeating strategy of totally blockading and obstructing the process of governing the nation with the hope of bringing Obama to his knees. That ploy not only failed to bear fruit, it also got their own constituency frustrated and outraged as they saw Obama skip, hop and dance around the barricades their Repubs in Congress put up against him.

Those Repub legislators made themselves look foolish and extremely partisan, to the point where it became quite obvious that the principle of "Party First and Foremost" was for all practical purpose and intent, a mechanism of their own undoing.

If the GOP refuses to recognize that continuously piling up the chips on a losing hand will just get them deeper and deeper in the hole, then guys like Trump will become the norm for their stable of horses rather than the rare limp hoofed exception.

I look forward to the day when the Repubs get back on track and provide the nation with credible and notable candidates that realize their futures lie with their moderates and not that uncontrollable base of frenzied reactionaries that they over-zealously created for themselves.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The notion that Clinton may be elected solely on her name and "because she's not Trump" is oversimplifying things.

Those play a part, but a large aspect of the Clinton vote would apply regardless of who she was married to, or who the GOP candidate was. A large chunk of the Republican field is anti-LGBT, anti-choice and frequently anti-minority, all issues that ultimately hurt a candidate's chances in 2016. Trump is just the rawest expression of that regressive mindset.

And it's not just that Clinton has political experience where Trump is clueless... it's that she actually has a lot of experience, moreso than many candidates tend to have going in. I wouldn't call her track record perfect, but it's stellar compared to most of the Republican hopefuls (certainly better than an obstructionist like Cruz).

If she was just Hillary Rodham Whoever and not the wife of Bill Clinton it's unlikely she would be in the position she is in now. The are plenty of Dem women senators that have more political experience than Hillary. Yet they aren't running for Prez. Bernie had waaay more experience.

Electing a president is not so much about politics. It's ultimately a popularity contest. She'll win because she's a Clinton. She won't win by a landslide because she's Hillary.

 

[Vic]

I find almost daily that Hillary is held to a double standard. I saw a bumper sticker with her face on it that said "Life is a bitch, don't vote for one". I think the same person would hate her if she was "soft". Also saw an opinion piece calling her a bitch for criticizing Mylan's cost of the Epipen. The reason she was considered a bitch was because, according to them, Mylan donated to the Clinton foundation and she had now "turned her back" on her donors. As if Clinton's doing the opposite and seeming OK with the price increase, and the insinuation she was bought off, was better.

For some, no matter what Hillary does, she loses. I wish I could figure out why that's the case for these people.

They've been programmed by long exposure to media propaganda. Keep in mind, these are also the same people who tell you that they don't believe the media, but they're glued to their media 24/7 and they believe whatever their media tells them regardless of how ridiculous it is.

 

[Commodus]

If she was just Hillary Rodham Whoever and not the wife of Bill Clinton it's unlikely she would be in the position she is in now. The are plenty of Dem women senators that have more political experience than Hillary. Yet they aren't running for Prez. Bernie had waaay more experience.

Electing a president is not so much about politics. It's ultimately a popularity contest. She'll win because she's a Clinton. She won't win by a landslide because she's Hillary.

That's why I said it was oversimplifying things, not that it isn't a factor. To abuse car analogies: Clinton's name is the fast car that gives her an edge in the race... but in the end, she still has to drive well enough to win.

 

[ivwshane]

If she was just Hillary Rodham Whoever and not the wife of Bill Clinton it's unlikely she would be in the position she is in now. The are plenty of Dem women senators that have more political experience than Hillary. Yet they aren't running for Prez. Bernie had waaay more experience.

Electing a president is not so much about politics. It's ultimately a popularity contest. She'll win because she's a Clinton. She won't win by a landslide because she's Hillary.

Which Dem women senators have more political experience than Clinton?

The only people who I hear bringing up bill Clinton as a reason to vote for Hillary have been people on the right. When she first ran in 08, I heard it a lot more but after becoming SoS, I rarely hear that from Democrats.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Which Dem women senators have more political experience than Clinton?

The only people who I hear bringing up bill Clinton as a reason to vote for Hillary have been people on the right. When she first ran in 08, I heard it a lot more but after becoming SoS, I rarely hear that from Democrats.

Feinstein, Boxer, Warren, Mikulski. None of those names would mean squat on the national stage though.

And apparently the big delusion in P&N is that some people in here actually believe that the US public votes for candidates for political reasons.

lol

 

[ivwshane]

Feinstein, Boxer, Warren, Mikulski. None of those names would mean squat on the national stage though.

And apparently the big delusion in P&N is that some people in here actually believe that the US public votes for candidates for political reasons.

lol

The only one on your list who has more qualifications is Feinstein, who was also a mayor of san Francisco and who also happens to be 83. The rest, while great politicians and definitely worthy of being president on their own, do not have more experience than Hillary (not to mention that all of them except Warren are older than Hillary).

And it is pretty obvious that a lot of America vote for presidents based on popularity but it's not the only thing they look at.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Do you care to explain why if the media is trying to help Clinton has gotten the least favorable media coverage of any candidate so far this election?

http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-trump-clinton-sanders/


Those pesky facts seem to be getting in the way of whatever narrative you've been duped into swallowing.

You seem to get your information from some pretty unreliable websites and it shows with you frequently posting about things that are, frankly, insane conspiracy theories. You're being deliberately misinformed by unscrupulous people and even worse they've tricked you into thinking they're giving you the 'real news'. I sincerely hope one day you have the self awareness to see that you're being taken for a ride.

That study compares coverage over the primary period, not since then. Libbies wanted Trump to win the primary, for obvious reasons. Other questionable things there too; they mix "positive and neutral" together in figure 2 for Trump without showing how Clinton would using the same metric, rather than just the positive vs negative in the first graph you posted. Additionally, the way they define positive coverage seems skewed and ridiculous. They cite a WP article as an example of positive coverage, simply because it commented on the unexpected popularity of Trump during the primary cycle (a neutral, objective observation) and quoted a Trump supporter within. An entire fifth of his coverage was about his success. Trump's success is arguably the biggest story behind Trump, and certainly if you were to use the same standards today, Clinton would be dominating with positive feedback on the basis that there are no stories of Trump's poll successes in the general election (minus one brief blip).

EDIT: lmao, they later even admit that most of the criticism of Clinton came from FOX. Oh no, not all those FOX-viewers that totally would have voted Clinton if it wasn't for the mean stories on her! No shit, what about trying to balance representation of news organizations according to viewership? What percent of the coverage of Clinton from the other major networks was negative?

 

[ivwshane]

I look forward to the facts you will be bringing to the conversation to refute the facts and the claims eskimospy has brought to the conversation that contradicted smc's claim.

That study compares coverage over the primary period, not since then. Libbies wanted Trump to win the primary, for obvious reasons. Other questionable things there too; they mix "positive and neutral" together in figure 2 for Trump without showing how Clinton would using the same metric, rather than just the positive vs negative in the first graph you posted. Additionally, the way they define positive coverage seems skewed and ridiculous. They cite a WP article as an example of positive coverage, simply because it commented on the unexpected popularity of Trump during the primary cycle (a neutral, objective observation) and quoted a Trump supporter within. An entire fifth of his coverage was about his success. Trump's success is arguably the biggest story behind Trump, and certainly if you were to use the same standards today, Clinton would be dominating with positive feedback on the basis that there are no stories of Trump's poll successes in the general election (minus one brief blip).

EDIT: lmao, they later even admit that most of the criticism of Clinton came from FOX. Oh no, not all those FOX-viewers that totally would have voted Clinton if it wasn't for the mean stories on her! No shit, what about trying to balance representation of news organizations according to viewership? What percent of the coverage of Clinton from the other major networks was negative?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I look forward to the facts you will be bringing to the conversation to refute the facts and the claims eskimospy has brought to the conversation that contradicted smc's claim.

I'm attacking their reasoning, not their data. I don't particularly care if one or the other is favored in the MSM, as I don't watch it and I don't like either candidate. It's still a study with many glaring holes, and the incorrect one for eskimospy to cite given sm625's contention regarding a bias towards Clinton in favor of Trump, when the study does not address the general election at all.