Interesting CNN article about Democrats' concern regarding Hillary

[Pooh]

Looks like toastercunt is quite the politico

Just common knowledge, Elliot. Most sycophants on this site don't realize that Druff pulls a large percentage of his info out of his ass.

What are your political views?

[JimAfternoon]

Jeb is the GOP's only chance, IMO.

[thesparten]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politi...ics/index.html

Bottom line is that some are concerned that she will have such an easy primary that she won't be properly tested in dealing with the various controversies surrounding her, and the Republicans will blindside her.

Of course, things can change quickly. In 2007, it was also assumed that Hillary would skate through and be the nominee. But the Dems don't have another Barack Obama in their bullpen, so it probably will be Hillary this time.

I think the Republicans actually have a good shot at this one, provided they field a non-terrible candidate.

Hillary has various things working against her:

- Will be 69 years old in 2016

- 20+ year history of scandals surrounding her, as well as a public perception of being generally dishonest and secretive

- Public may be ready for a change in party at the White House, given Barack Obama's low approval ratings (45% right now)

- Hillary is associated with Obama now, so those wanting to see a change won't want to vote her in

- As stated in the article, Hillary may arrogantly walk through the primary and not be ready for the tough campaign versus the Republican candidate


Personally, it will bother me a lot more to see Hillary win in 2016 than it did to see Obama win in '08. While I disagreed with Obama's politics, I didn't see him as shady or dishonest. I still don't see Obama that way. He has other issues, but he's not really a liar. Even the "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" was more of a situation of promising something he didn't understand (still inexcusable) than lying. Anyway, Hillary has been shifty for decades, just like Bill.

I just hope it won't come down to Hillary versus Christie, because America will lose either way.

ACTUALLY THE OBAMA MACHINE IS GOING TO PURGE THE PARTY OF DEMACRATES THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED HOSTILE TO OBAMA...HILLARY WILL BE DESTROYED SO Warren WILL RUN INSTEAD..MENEDEZ FROM JERSEY IS BEING DESTROYED.a HILLARY supporter ..MIND YOU, THEY ALL HAVE DIRT BUT THE NON OBAMA DEMOCRATES WILL BE PUSHED OUT..NOTHING ABOUT PELOSI OR REED BUT IF A NON OBAMA DEMOCRATE EVER TOOK A FREE HOTDOG THE D.O.J. WILL DESTROY THEM. ONLY ABSOLUTE IDEOLOGS WILL BE ALLOWED...this is all being done by the Obama cabal..they want Warren to run...Mark my words..all HILLARY democratic supporters will get the message from the administration and keep there head down and mouth shut or it will happen to them..there making and end run to replace HILLARY with Warren..any democrat who doesn't go along with that, WILL BE DESTROYED..ITS VERY MACHIAVELLI...BUT!! ITS EXACLY WHAT'S HAPPENING!!!!

[sonatine]

[Pooh]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politi...ics/index.html

Bottom line is that some are concerned that she will have such an easy primary that she won't be properly tested in dealing with the various controversies surrounding her, and the Republicans will blindside her.

Of course, things can change quickly. In 2007, it was also assumed that Hillary would skate through and be the nominee. But the Dems don't have another Barack Obama in their bullpen, so it probably will be Hillary this time.

I think the Republicans actually have a good shot at this one, provided they field a non-terrible candidate.

Hillary has various things working against her:

- Will be 69 years old in 2016

- 20+ year history of scandals surrounding her, as well as a public perception of being generally dishonest and secretive

- Public may be ready for a change in party at the White House, given Barack Obama's low approval ratings (45% right now)

- Hillary is associated with Obama now, so those wanting to see a change won't want to vote her in

- As stated in the article, Hillary may arrogantly walk through the primary and not be ready for the tough campaign versus the Republican candidate


Personally, it will bother me a lot more to see Hillary win in 2016 than it did to see Obama win in '08. While I disagreed with Obama's politics, I didn't see him as shady or dishonest. I still don't see Obama that way. He has other issues, but he's not really a liar. Even the "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor" was more of a situation of promising something he didn't understand (still inexcusable) than lying. Anyway, Hillary has been shifty for decades, just like Bill.

I just hope it won't come down to Hillary versus Christie, because America will lose either way.

ACTUALLY THE OBAMA MACHINE IS GOING TO PURGE THE PARTY OF DEMACRATES THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED HOSTILE TO OBAMA...HILLARY WILL BE DESTROYED SO Warren WILL RUN INSTEAD..MENEDEZ FROM JERSEY IS BEING DESTROYED.a HILLARY supporter ..MIND YOU, THEY ALL HAVE DIRT BUT THE NON OBAMA DEMOCRATES WILL BE PUSHED OUT..NOTHING ABOUT PELOSI OR REED BUT IF A NON OBAMA DEMOCRATE EVER TOOK A FREE HOTDOG THE D.O.J. WILL DESTROY THEM. ONLY ABSOLUTE IDEOLOGS WILL BE ALLOWED...this is all being done by the Obama cabal..they want Warren to run...Mark my words..all HILLARY democratic supporters will get the message from the administration and keep there head down and mouth shut or it will happen to them..there making and end run to replace HILLARY with Warren..any democrat who doesn't go along with that, WILL BE DESTROYED..ITS VERY MACHIAVELLI...BUT!! ITS EXACLY WHAT'S HAPPENING!!!!

How much are you willing to wager on this?

[thesparten]

Say a number but it's 2/1 because what I'm saying is so far fetched and Warren doesn't even have an exploratory committee or anything..HILLARY being replaced by the administration is far fetched..even though if anyone supports her will have the d.o.j at there door..so call a number 2/1 in my crazy ass favour..

[thesparten]

My 10 to your 20...my 50 to your 100.. my 100 to your 200..what???

[thesparten]

It's free money for you, c'mon...you've been trolling me telling me how flawed my shit is like the good Borg, Fabian society slut u are..but actually I'm sooooo fucken more right then wrong on all my threads..just poor literary execution on my part..call a number punk ass..

[Pooh]

It's free money for you, c'mon...you've been trolling me telling me how flawed my shit is like the good Borg, Fabian society slut u are..but actually I'm sooooo fucken more right then wrong on all my threads..just poor literary execution on my part..call a number punk ass..

I don't ever remember trolling you. I'm willing to wait for Warren to announce. Then we'll just do $100 each straight up. Escrow with Druff of course. Democratic nominee. My clinton to your warren.

[thesparten]

No no no..u know all my OBAMA conspiracies are not based in facts..Here and now 2/1 it's free money for you, what's wrong.....I wish I could post the video of Jackie Gleason going humdidy,humidity,humdidy with a stutter.lol..

[Pooh]

No no no..u know all my OBAMA conspiracies are not based in facts..Here and now 2/1 it's free money for you, what's wrong.....I wish I could post the video of Jackie Gleason going humdidy,humidity,humdidy with a stutter.lol..

Oh ok. So all the stuff you write is pure crap? Got it. No need to bet then. Will reconsider as election nears.

[thesparten]

Humdidy,humidity,humdidy humdidy,humidity,humdidy humdidy,humidity,humdidy humdidy,humidity,humdidy

[ToasterOven]

Seriously, who is running the sparten dupe? Pretty masterful.

[thesparten]

The Clinton machine was always know as hardcore but the Obama/holder combination are true believers and zealots..they have locked down Washington...

[Dan Druff]

I'm not just tossing things out there. From the CNN article I posted:

But if regular voters aren't paying attention, the Democratic power brokers who hold sway over the nomination process in key states — the legislators, local party chairmen and plugged-in activists — most definitely are. The questions some of them are raising are less about the specifics of the stories and more about the long-established narratives they feed: That the secretive Clintons, enabled by unquestioning loyalists, play by their own rules.

But I didn't have to read the article to know that.

The Clintons have been dogged by a perception of shiftiness for decades. I'm surprised that you don't think Hillary's integrity will be an issue during the election. Even if she wins, it will be one of the bigger things she'll have had to overcome.

Barack Obama didn't have to deal with this. Sure, there were a few wackos claiming he wasn't born in the US or that he was a Muslim, but there were no credible reports about Obama during either election indicating wrongdoing. He was a clean candidate, even if you didn't agree with his politics. He was also assisted by the fact that he was viewed as an outsider in '08 (which was a huge advantage during that troubled year), and then enjoyed incumbent status in 2012 (and also faced a lousy Republican candidate). Plus, most of the fails of the Obama Presidency either occurred or came to light after the 2012 election, so honestly he didn't have that hard of a time winning twice.

The Republicans have a thick book of Hillary Clinton scandals to choose from, dating back 25 years or so, and it's a consistent pattern of shady behavior.

Even her personal life is weird.

It is well known that Bill cheated on her countless times. Obviously Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers weren't the only ones. Why would an intelligent, successful, empowered woman stay with a man like that? Clearly it was for political reasons, and the public recognizes that. So while you look at Barack Obama or George W. Bush and basically see a normal family man who loves his wife, you look at Hillary and see her in a marriage of convenience, marred by repeated infidelity in a tradeoff for political aspirations.

The bottom line is that there's an endless amount of legitimate material that can be used against Hillary in an election, and she had better be prepared for it.

Oh, and there is still an anti-political-establishment sentiment among voters, in case you haven't noticed. That definitely won't help Hillary.

What about the poll you talked about? I haven't looked at it, but was it taken before or after the recent e-mail scandal? And what are her numbers among non-Democrats?

I can tell you that, as a Republican, candidate Barack Obama scared me from the start. Hillary never scared me, because she carries so much baggage.

So, your "information" comes from an article where anonymous sources are worried about Hillary's integrity. That amounts to "the public perception of her being dishonest" to you?

https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/0...llary-clinton/

Here 59% of the people believe she is more honest or as honest as most politicians. I'm not making it up, it's a legit poll.

How can you study politics in this country at all and think that "scandals" from 25 years ago are going to be anything at all. You can't be serious.

I'm not arguing for Hillary, I think she sucks. You just seem to be projecting your wishes here and are not really presenting a reality based argument. 25 years of scandals sounds impressive until you remember that she ran in 2008 and bringing up issues from when Bill C was president was stale then. You think Whitewater is going to get some traction with an undecided? You think a PAC is going to run a Vince Foster piece and get some traction? That big Monica Lewinsky ad going to sink her? Please.

Read again what I wrote.

I didn't say that the Republicans will be drawing from scandals of 25 years ago.

I said that there are 25 years worth of scandals involving Hillary -- some old, some more current.

It's one of these things where you keep adding it all together, and the easy conclusion is, "Wow, that woman is pretty damn shady."

When all the stories get laid out together, it will be tough to give her the benefit of the doubt.

You keep mentioning this YouGov poll which supposedly proves your point. But dig deeper into the results:

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net...nTabReport.pdf

13. Hillary Clinton honesty: Do you think Hillary Clinton has more honesty and integrity than most people in public life, less honesty and integrity than most people in public life, or about the same honesty and integrity as most people in public life?

35% of independents said "Less honest", while only 17% said "More honest".

Also, in that same poll (question #8), 52% of independents also said that they thought she wasn't sincere.

Besides, this poll was from June, 2014. That's nearly 2 years removed from the Benghazi scandal, and obviously before the recent e-mail scandal, which eroded public trust in her further, and is the reason for the CNN article. I assure you that a poll taken today would show very different results -- and not in Hillary's favor.

Hillary also didn't have to deal with much negative campaigning in 2008. Barack Obama was finding success with his whole "outsider bringing hope and change" thing, so he didn't have to go very negative. So she lost, but she got off easy as far as political campaign attacks were concerned. 2016 will be a very different story in the general election, and she will face a level of scrutiny about her past that she has never faced before.

Even minor, little-discussed scandals, such as the fact that she hired Sandy Berger as an adviser AFTER he was caught stealing documents for Bill from the National Archives, will become fodder for the campaigns against her.

Her trustworthiness and integrity will be the biggest hurdle she faces. It won't be her age (though that might affect her a little), and it won't be her gender.

Her second-biggest hurdle will be the fact that she's already very polarizing, and while many Democrats love her, they can't vote twice (except maybe in Chicago), and I believe many middle-of-the-road voters will be tough to sway if they already have decided they don't like her. Most candidates don't face anything like that going in.

[Dan Druff]

And regarding the other argument currently taking place here, yes, it is highly likely Hillary will be the nominee.

It is worth noting, though, that she was the assumed nominee at this point in 2007, and Bill Clinton was not on anyone's radar in March, 1991.

[thesparten]

AND P.S. POOHTITANG, WARREN WON'T TAKE THE NOMINATION UNLESS HILLARY DROPS, THE POWERS THAT BE WILL MAKE SURE SHE DROPS..THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION IN THE TRADITIONAL SENSE..IT WILL SIMPLY BE A CORONATION..

[thesparten]

Stuff I agree with you as it pertains to conventional wisdom but the Obama administration is sticking the thumbs in HILLARY and her supporters eyes..watch there not GOING to Get any cover or help from the majority of the democrats. There going to leave her out to dry BY DESIGN!!

[ToasterOven]

Druff, Benghazi isn't a scandal to rational humans. It's a scandal to wing nut dipshits.

[thesparten]

I know HILLARY is as dirty as it gets, just giving inside baseball stuff here..