Hillary Clinton Leads Potential Republican Rivals By Double Digits

Advantage: Hillary.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that Hillary Clinton continues to maintain strong leads over any of her potential Republican challengers:

Hillary Rodham Clinton holds double-digit leads over potential Republican challengers Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney as the likely Democratic presidential candidate moves closer to entering the 2016 race, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds.

Although Clinton, Bush and Romney are all longtime politicians and members of political dynasties, registered voters are less likely to count that familiarity against Clinton. That is a good sign for Clinton, a failed 2008 presidential candidate and the focus of Republican criticism that her time has come and gone.

Clinton’s potential to make history as the first female U.S. president makes little difference to most voters and is a net positive for others.

The former first lady, U.S. senator from New York and secretary of state has said she is considering a second run for the White House. She joked about the anticipation surrounding her decision during remarks in Canada on Wednesday but did not offer hints about her thinking or the timing of a possible announcement. Democratic strategists say she is likely to enter the race in late March or April — some 10 months before the Iowa caucuses open the 2016 primary contests.

Clinton approaches the nominating season in a dominant position, leading Bush by 54 percent to 41 percent among registered voters and Romney by 55 percent to 40 percent.

Beyond Bush and Romney — the two Republicans who have made the firmest moves toward a 2016 run — Clinton holds equally large leads over other potential Republican hopefuls. She tops Rand Paul and Chris Christie by 13 percentage points each, and leads Mike Huckabee by 17 points.

Additionally, while much has been made about the issue of political dynasties and the problems that public distaste for the same old faces in politics could pose for potential campaigns by candidates such as Clinton, Jeb Bush, and Mitt Romney, the poll indicates that Bill Clinton is far from being a drag on a potential Hillary 201 6 campaign:

Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, appears to create little drag on her potential.

Among all voting-age adults, more than 6 in 10 say the fact that Bill Clinton served as president has no bearing on whether they would support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. And among those who say her spouse’s presidency will matter, 23 percent say it will make them more likely to support her, while 14 percent say less likely.

A presumed voter distaste for dynasties has long been seen as a barrier to Clinton should she run, along with a sense, off-putting to some, that Clinton’s candidacy has been a foregone conclusion for years.

Jeb Bush’s family connections are less benign. A 55 percent majority says the fact that Bush’s father and brother served as president would not make them more or less likely to support him. But among those for which this will be a factor, it runs in a negative direction by 3 to 1.

Romney’s 2012 bid for the presidency as the Republican nominee makes no difference for just over 6 in 10 respondents. But among those for whom it does matter, about twice as many say it makes them less likely to support him.

Clinton also maintains leads over her potential GOP rivals across the gender gap:

Clinton’s advantages over Republican hopefuls are greater among both male and female voters in the new poll. Female voters favor Clinton by 20 to 24 points depending on which potential Republican candidate is matched against her, while men split more closely. Romney won male voters by 52 percent to 45 percent over Obama, according to 2012 exit polls. Clinton edges Romney by 50 percent to 46 percent among male voters in the new poll. Her 59 percent to 36 percent lead over Romney among female voters is bigger than Obama’s 55 percent to 44 percent over Romney among women in 2012.

Obviously, early polling like this must be taken with a grain of salt since it reflects, at least to some degree, name recognition and personal popularity absent the heat of a long, drawn out Presidential campaign far more than anything else. However, these numbers have been largely consistent over a long period of time that stretches back to the time when Clinton was still Secretary of State to the point where it is difficult to dismiss them entirely. Even as Clinton’s own approval numbers have, predictably, fallen from the stratospherically high levels they were at when she was at Foggy Bottom, she has generally proven to be out performing her potential Republican rivals in head to head match ups. While these numbers will likely tighten as we get closer to the actual election, it’s rather obvious that the GOP has huge obstacles to overcome between now and November 2016 . These range from the demographic issues with young, Latino, and female voters, to the issues involved in trying to win back states such as Florida, Virginia, and Ohio, all of which are must-win for the GOP in 2016. If Hillary Clinton maintains strong numbers like this going forward, then Republicans are going to find themselves with a tough job ahead of them.

In the end, I suspect that the ultimate outcome of the 2016 election will be closer than the double digit leads that we’re seeing from Hillary Clinton today. American politics is essentially divided straight down the middle at this point, and we’re far more likely to get results at the national level like those we saw in 2004, 2008, and 2012 than we are to see anything like the landslide victories that have been scored in the past by Presidents ranging from Lyndon Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and Bush in 1988. Slowly but surely, the grind of the campaign will drag down some of these high numbers that Clinton is enjoying at the moment and, when we finally do get to Election Day, the split between Republicans and Democrats will be about the same as it has been in pretty much every election going back to the one that put her husband in office in 1992. Clinton would still seem to have the advantage in such an election, of course, but it won’t be an overwhelming one and the possibility does exist for the GOP to pull off a victory if they have the right candidate. Of course, if the GOP goes far to the right and nominates someone like Ted Cruz, then it becomes far more likely that we could see an overwhelming Democratic victory, although even then its unlikely that Clinton’s coattails would be sufficient to take back the House, and may not even be sufficient to take back the Senate. As far as the Presidency goes, though, Hillary still has the advantage and that’s unlikely to change any time soon.

FILED UNDER: *FEATURED, Campaign 2016, Hillary Clinton, Politicians, Public Opinion Polls, US Politics, , , ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. Neil Hudelson says:

    She has double digit numbers now, but only because Romney and Bush are the front runners. As soon as a True Conservative gains some traction, we’ll see most of America side with the Republicans.

    It’s a strange fact of American politics that if there isn’t an ultra-orthodox Conservative as a nominee, voters will vote for the liberal candidate because something something.

  2. humanoid.panda says:

    Usually, it’s better to discount those early polls. I suspect this time it’s different, because Hillary is so very well-known that it’s hard to imagine new information changing voters’ perceptions of her significantly.

    What I think is those polls are telling us is that unless another recession or some scandal or major crisis hit and hobble the Dems as a brand, Clinton is something like 70:30 favorite for 2016.

    Of course, all this will change once the Behnghazi Select committee reveals that Clinton personall sent a squad of lesbian assassins to eliminate ambassador Stevens for what he knew about her murder of Vince Foster.

  3. Michelle Gallagher says:

    Something to consider is that in 1999 at roughly the same time in the 2000 presidential election cycle as we are now in comparison to the 2016 presidential election, George W. Bush routinely led Al Gore in polls like this. As we all know, Bush ended up winning. Here, it’s reversed with the Democrat on top. Polls do not become very meaningful until Labor Day of the year of the election, but the GOP should still be concerned. Ultimately, if Obama’s approval rating ticks up more from the 46% range to at or near 50%, Clinton becomes the favorite (assuming she is the nominee). Since approval ratings are closely tied to the economic situation, if Obama’s approval rating goes up another 3-4% or so, that means the economy is doing well also which clearly helps Clinton.

    Something else to consider. One term presidents are typically considered failures. Think Hoover, Carter, etc. Two term presidents are typically considered average (though many are considered above average or below average). But, two term presidents who are succeeded by members of their own party are among the top Presidents in this country’s history. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, FDR (he succeeded himself twice and then Truman won a term of his own), and Reagan are examples. I probably missed one or two others. If Clinton wins, like him or hate him, Obama joins that club.

  4. superdestroyer says:

    If the results were broken down by state, then Clinton’s lead would be much larger due to the massive advantage the Democrats have in the electoral college. What the results really how is uncompetitive the 2016 election is going to be. Maybe pundits would help us all if the focused less on the horse race aspects and more on the what a Hillary Clinton Administration would probably look like, what issues will gain in prominence, and what issues will fade away.

  5. CSK says:

    @Neil Hudelson:

    Yes, I’ve heard that argument, if it can be called that. True conservatives will stay home by the battalions if a socialist progressive like Bush or Romney is nominated. If, on the other hand, a Palin or a Cruz is nominated, Hillary (or whoever the Democratic nominee is) will be defeated in a 75-25 landslide.

  6. Neil Hudelson says:

    ABC interpreted the findings on Bush and Romney’s family history a bit differently than WaPo (but interpreted the findings on Clinton largely the same):

    Those results stand in contrast to Bush’s and Romney’s backgrounds. The fact that his brother and father held the office is a net negative for Bush by a broad 25 percentage points; a third of registered voters say it makes them less likely to support him for president. And Romney’s having run as the Republican nominee three years ago is a 14-point net negative for him.

    And to back up @humanoid.panda point:

    As with Barack Obama, the recovery helps Clinton. About three-quarters of registered voters who rate the economy positively support her, and she leads overwhelmingly among those who say they’ve gained ground financially under Obama’s presidency. But she also leads, by 16 to 20 points, among those whose finances have just held steady.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2015/01/historys-a-positive-for-clinton-not-so-for-bush-or-romney/
    And for those of you hoping for an O’Malley or Warren challenge:

    She’s stronger in her base, backed by nine in 10 or more Democrats who are registered to vote, as well as by at least eight in 10 liberals and about six in 10 moderates.

  7. Neil Hudelson says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Since she hasn’t put out a position paper or commented on much policy in the last 2 years, that would be exceedingly difficult, wouldn’t it?

    Yes, pundits specialize in asserting a dystopian/utopian future for each candidate based mostly out of conjecture, but I don’t see how that would be any more helpful than the horse race aspect.

    That said, I know you put out that comment just hoping someone would reply so you can start talking about a one party state and what that means for scared white folks, so by all means go ahead…

  8. Modulo Myself says:

    Bill Clinton is in serious trouble with his connections to Jeffrey Epstein. Sex is one thing; being in the same plane numerous times with a sex-offender billionaire and the women he was running in his sex ring is another. The lawyer representing the woman suing Epstein and dragging in Prince Charles’ brother is Paul Cassell, a Bush-appointed judge.

    Of course the GOP will probably screw it up and bring up Juanita Broderick rather than focusing on how utterly corrupt Hillary Clinton’s connections are and how vacant her ideology is.

    If I was Romney, that would be my selling point–he may be a rich guy who hates the 47% but he’s not going to find himself directly linked to jet-set sex rings.

  9. michael reynolds says:

    @Modulo Myself:

    So. . . are we calling this Pedogate or Jetghazi?

    Poor, sad righties, always waiting for the magic scandal that will, like a returning messiah, solve all their problems and return them to glory. Then, when the scandal finally comes, it turns out to be a Republican scandal. Must be frustrating.

  10. Modulo Myself says:

    @michael reynolds:

    I’m not a conservative or right-winger by any means. My scandal news comes from Gawker, which is probably too mainstream for me.

    It’s not a silver bullet but if it holds it’s seriously damaging to her. It’s not Lewinsky redux. Her husband was not having an affair. He was palling around with a rich guy who picked up 17-year old girls by the dozens and passed them out to his friends. That this rich guy managed to escape any serious time for his crimes only makes it look bad. That this stuff was happening right in front of Bill Clinton looks even worse.

  11. ernieyeball says:

    @Modulo Myself:..If I was Romney, that would be my selling point–he may be a rich guy who hates the 47% but he’s not going to find himself directly linked to jet-set sex rings.

    Now we know why he made this ad three years ago…
    https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/for-no-particular-reason-mitt-romney-wants-to-remind-you-that-hes-only-been-married-to-one-woman/

  12. Moosebreath says:

    @Neil Hudelson:

    “And for those of you hoping for an O’Malley or Warren challenge”

    I am hoping for a challenge to Hillary not out of any chance it will win, but so that the pundits don’t give 24-7 coverage to the Republicans as the only game in town. If all people hear for the next 18 months is clips of Republican candidates telling everyone what an unprecedented disaster the Obama Administration has been and how the Clintons are deviants who should never be permitted anywhere near civilized people, it may swing a few percentage points of voters.

  13. michael reynolds says:

    @Modulo Myself:

    So your theory is that Bill Clinton got on a jet with Epstein and four Secret Service agents and one evidently underage woman en route to an AIDS event in Africa for which Epstein volunteered his jet and . . . and what, exactly?

    So far zero under age women have made allegations about Clinton. Epstein was a very rich man and very rich men have lots and lots of friends, are all of his friends under suspicion? How about Ken Starr, the Lewisnky special prosecutor? Are the universities Epstein contributed to under suspicion? How about the charities?

    How about this: how about we prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone who abused an underaged woman. And if that’s Bill Clinton, then it’s Bill Clinton. And in the meantime maybe we could drop the guilt-by-association McCarthyism.

  14. humanoid.panda says:

    @Moosebreath: Well, during the last presidential cycle, Republicans got all the attention for 18 months to talk about how Obama was a socialist destroying the country, and the result was an unmitigated disaster for the Republicans. There is a reason why the RNC is desperate to cut short the primary season…

  15. Modulo Myself says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Of course he’s under suspicion. This isn’t a court of law. It’s common-sense crossed with gossip. I would take Dominique Strauss-Kuhn and his lifestyle as the template for the modern male political figure. It’s endless amounts of sex and money tied together–this is what Epstein was all about. Read one of the creepy profiles of him in 2002 in NYMag or Vanity Fair. Way before any of the allegations emerged, they make him sound like a character in a Robbe-Grillet novel.

    Personally, I’m quite positive that Bill Clinton picked this vibe up in a second from the guy. Most likely, he enjoyed the hell out of the spectacle, even if he was just a voyeur.

  16. Modulo Myself says:

    @michael reynolds:

    I”d also add that this isn’t about Bill Clinton or scandals. If the GOP is smart, they don’t play up the sex part–they play up that this is the world (money, private planes, using people) that Hillary Clinton is connected with. All of her homespun Wellesley-feminist turned normal American BS aside, this is where she’s coming from.

  17. al-Ameda says:

    I was listening to conservative radio at drive time this morning and the guest was opining that the polling did not include any of the new true conservatives – such as Cruz – therefore the polling, in his mind, was not especially interesting. Then he predictably went into “the media is trying to determine who the Republican Party runs.” theme.

  18. Moosebreath says:

    @humanoid.panda:

    There’s a difference between 2012, a primary where the only person who could be taken seriously was the one whom no one trusted and a freak show all around him, and what we will see in 2016, with a significant number of serious contenders.

  19. humanoid.panda says:

    @Moosebreath: That is true. However, during the primary process, Romney’s rivals both attacked him for issues that got aired again during the election, and forced him to take hard right positions he would have prefereed not to. I think those problems will be even worse in a primary with several heavyweights, as people like Cruz will have more money and staying power to attack the eventual nominee.

  20. mannning says:

    I would most definitely like to know just what her qualifications are to become President. So far as I can see, she has been a listener and a follower not a doer for the last 20 years, except for her aborted attempt to solve the health insurance issue, and she lied to the press about being under fire in one of her travels to the ME. Liars should not be elected to the office of president. We have had quite enough lies to cope with for the past 6 years and counting. When compared to Romney or Bush, who have had extensive experience in the details of governing, she is assuredly a lightweight. I suggest we be done with Clintons.

  21. liberal capitalist says:

    yaaaayyy!

    Our perceived candidate sucks less that the other team’s perceived candidates!

    … at least in the polls that have recently occurred, but may change at any time. right?

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    yaaaayyy!

  22. Franklin says:

    @Modulo Myself: I hadn’t heard of this stuff yet. But the fact that Bill had some tenuous connection to something about exploiting young women isn’t going to surprise many people. But if it does, all the more sympathy for Hillary.

  23. Argon says:

    Recall that the 2000 race was Gore’s election to lose and he managed to thread that needle perfectly… If Clinton plays the same game, like she did in the 2008 primaries, she’ll succeed in failing too.

  24. Neil Hudelson says:

    @mannning:

    So far as I can see, she has been a listener and a follower not a doer for the last 20 years, except for her aborted attempt to solve the health insurance issue, and she lied to the press about being under fire in one of her travels to the ME

    First, welcome to the U.S. I assume you haven’t been living here for at least the past decade, so let me fill you in on what has happened with Hillary since you left.

    1. She was elected as a U.S. Senator, during which time she led efforts to secure more than $21 billion for redeveloping the WTC site, took the lead role in investigating first responders’ health issues. I could list more, but frankly she wasn’t my Senator so I really didn’t pay attention much to her during this time.

    2. After she was elected Senator she ran one of the largest Presidential campaigns in history that, while failing to win her the nomination, set her up for her next leadership position…

    3. She was Secretary of State for 4 years, during which time she greatly improved America’s image around the world, one that was left in tatters at the end of the last administration. She also transitioned a lot of the Iraqi diplomatic work from the Defense Department to the State Department, walked a tightrope between promoting democracy and keeping China as a strong partner (see: Chen Guangcheng), promoted free trade which culminated in FTA’s with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea; promoted democracy in Burma which has since led to a dramatic democratic restructuring of that country’s government (work that is not yet finished); and advocated for a more hawkish approach to Afghanistan, including prevailing over Biden in pushing for more troops to be sent overseas.

  25. Modulo Myself says:

    @Franklin:

    It’s not a tenuous connection. Clinton was definitely around Epstein long enough to pick up on how young the women were in his world. It’s not like he was around some rich guy and a twenty-five year old model who isn’t his wife. We’re talking about underage girls and Bill Clinton repeatedly hanging out with this guy. The women suing Epstein and bringing in the British Royals is not represented by some sleazeball lawyers. She’s represented by serious attorneys and though she says she never was offered to Clinton, she says he must have seen the numerous naked photographs Epstein had taken of her (while she seventeen) on his private island where Clinton stayed.

    The bottom line is that either Bill Clinton knew or did not know what was going on. I find it hard to believe he didn’t know. If he did know, there’s no defense in it being ‘tenuous’. He knew and did nothing.

    Being married to a guy who done wronged you is much different than being married to a guy willing to overlook numerous crimes in order to get some dough.

  26. Will Taylor says:

    @Franklin:

    Bil Clinton exploiting young women is as surprising as hearing that the Bush family loves Oil.
    In any event, common sense tells me that Clinton would not be involved with any of these underage women. He’s way too smart for that. I’d rather go after Hillary’s limited record and light record of accomplishments than campaign on this crap.

  27. humanoid.panda says:

    @Argon: Actually, that is not true. At all. Gore was behind int he polls consistently throughout the election.

  28. wr says:

    @Modulo Myself: So the candidate’s husband knows a guy who’s accused of being icky. Let’s start impeachment proceedings now, just in case she wins.

  29. wr says:

    @Modulo Myself: I would argue some of your points, but I’m so pleased to find someone else who’s read Robbe-Grillet, I don’t have the heart…

  30. JKB says:

    Well, if Hillary wins then there goes the economy. She’s a strong supporter of the illegal importation of cheap labor across the Southern border. And as First Lady, she had one job, just one job but she outsourced that to a White House intern.

    Not to mention, she left good men in harms way to die and sought to legitimize the enemy by blaming the attack on a video, even going so far as to have the producer arrested.

    Oh and just keep telling yourselves that Hillary improved America’s image in the world. Just don’t, you know, ask anyone of consequence outside the United State or you bubble will burst.

  31. grumpy realist says:

    I can see the media headlines already: “Snow White and the Seven Dwarves….”

    Still, the squabbling among the clown car inhabitants on the Republican side will be amusing.

  32. Rafer Janders says:

    Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, appears to create little drag on her potential. Among all voting-age adults, more than 6 in 10 say the fact that Bill Clinton served as president has no bearing on whether they would support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. And among those who say her spouse’s presidency will matter, 23 percent say it will make them more likely to support her, while 14 percent say less likely…Jeb Bush’s family connections are less benign

    What’s the mystery here? People recall, correctly, that the Clinton presidency was a time of peace and prosperity, and the Bush presidency was a time of war, disaster and economic ruin. So of course the Clinton name is a positive while the Bush name is a lead weight.

  33. Rafer Janders says:

    @JKB:

    Well, if Hillary wins then there goes the economy.

    Wait, so the economy is good now?

  34. Barry says:

    @Michelle Gallagher: “If Clinton wins, like him or hate him, Obama joins that club.”

    Also, if a GOP President takes office in 2017, that likely means that the GOP will continue to hold the Senate (and the House). They’ll be in an excellent position to erase as much of Obama’s actions as they can. They’ll paint a picture of Obama as ‘not really president’ (ignoring reelection, of course).

    It’s in Obama’s political interest for Hillary to win. She’d have a really tough time getting a second term, but that’d still be four years to cement Obama’s legacy, and perhaps improve on it.

  35. C. Clavin says:

    Double digit lead?
    Well it is kinda like the Seahawks playing football against the Victoria Secret models (only the ugly old white male version).
    So yeah….double digits make sense.

  36. Barry says:

    @Modulo Myself: “If the GOP is smart, they don’t play up the sex part–they play up that this is the world (money, private planes, using people) that Hillary Clinton is connected with. All of her homespun Wellesley-feminist turned normal American BS aside, this is where she’s coming from.”

    From your lips to the GOP’s ears.

  37. Rafer Janders says:

    @Modulo Myself:

    If the GOP is smart, they don’t play up the sex part–they play up that this is the world (money, private planes, using people) that Hillary Clinton is connected with.

    Yes, if there’s one thing that putative GOP nominees Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush can denounce with the righteousnes of a Jeremiah, it’s the world of money, private planes, and using people….

  38. Barry says:

    @Argon: “Recall that the 2000 race was Gore’s election to lose and he managed to thread that needle perfectly”

    It was clear that The Village and its media were doing their best to stop Gore and put Bush in the WH.

  39. Barry says:

    @JKB: “Not to mention, she left good men in harms way to die and sought to legitimize the enemy by blaming the attack on a video, even going so far as to have the producer arrested.”

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT.

  40. humanoid.panda says:

    @JKB:

    r. And as First Lady, she had one job, just one job but she outsourced that to a White House intern.

    As a liberal, there is nothing I am afraid more than Republicans arguing that Hillary is a frigid bitch who drove her husband to infidelity. That will sure bring along a fifty state GOP wave.

  41. humanoid.panda says:

    @JKB:

    Well, if Hillary wins then there goes the economy. She’s a strong supporter of the illegal importation of cheap labor across the Southern border

    Yes. Support of immigration reform is electoral poison. This is why Obama lost the 2012 election to Mitt “self-deport” Romney.

  42. C. Clavin says:

    @Barry:
    Yup…that was the whole point of the SOTU the other night.

  43. grumpy realist says:

    @humanoid.panda: Remember Gingrich and his “I cheated on my wife because I love America so much”?

    Yep, run with either of those and see how much support you get from women just dying to hear the equivalent excuse from their husbands….

  44. superdestroyer says:

    @Neil Hudelson:

    I put out the comment because people seem to be working hard to ignore policy and governance issues. Instead of worrying about which candidate is quickest with a quip during a debate or who has the friendliest demeanor, wouldn’t it make more sense to talk about poltential management styles, their vision, who their close advisors will be, and how the candidate would rank order their priorities.

  45. humanoid.panda says:

    @grumpy realist: Yes. It’s one thing to play out racial anxieties with Obama- African Americans constitute 15% of the electorate, and are not beloved by the other 85%. The JKBs of this world can’t wait to do the same regarding Clinton’s gender, age, and failure to arouse them- and women constitute 51% of the electorate, and, besides MRAs and bitters divorced guys, the other 49% of the electorate tend to like them.

  46. Modulo Myself says:

    @wr:

    That’s the thing. You have to search high and low in America to find somebody who even knows who Alain Robbe-Grillet is, let alone someone who knows how perverse and excellent a majority of his novels are. We are not France.

    Eventually Bill Clinton is going to have to address what he was doing when Epstein was parading 17-year old girls around him. Does he have his A-game left? I don’t think so. Does she have any of the political instincts that allowed her to be an object of sympathy after the Lewinsky? I’m not so sure about that either. They’ve spent a lot of years with people who live in a bizarre bubble–far more so, I think, than their fellow plutocrats on the Republican side.

  47. Mikey says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Instead of worrying about which candidate is quickest with a quip during a debate or who has the friendliest demeanor, wouldn’t it make more sense to talk about poltential management styles, their vision, who their close advisors will be, and how the candidate would rank order their priorities.

    This is a great point, SD. It’s entirely legitimate to consider all those. In Hillary’s case, she’s been around so long there’s almost too much to sift through. Management style and vision could be drawn from her time as a senator and Secretary of State. I’m pretty sure her advisers would include current Virginia Governor McAuliffe, who’s been a friend for many years. Priorities…not that sure at this point, although no doubt they’d come out in the campaign.

    Does anyone else have any insights they might share? I mean, it seems she has a high likelihood of getting the nomination, so discussion seems appropriate.

  48. JKB says:

    @Rafer Janders: Wait, so the economy is good now?

    Nope, but we do have hope for change in 2 years. Also, things can get a lot worse

  49. gVOR08 says:

    @superdestroyer: If we’re talking about how I’ll vote, sure, we should discuss policy, and management style, and advisers, and so on*. If we’re talking about how the American electorate will vote, no, not much. There we’re into who to have a beer with.
    ____________
    * And all of that’s been aired enough to know I’ll vote for the Democratic nominee in the general and the most electable Dem in the primary. Because the alternative is shaping up to be a guy with W’s advisers and ideology; and a guy with W’s ideology who hates the “47%” and lies like a rug.

  50. Mikey says:

    @gVOR08:

    If we’re talking about how the American electorate will vote, no, not much. There we’re into who to have a beer with.

    Bill Clinton. No doubt in my mind going out on the town with that guy would be quite memorable.

  51. grumpy realist says:

    @JKB: We can’t help it if you were dumb enough to keep your entire portfolio in bonds for the last 8 years. Stupidity should hurt.

  52. C. Clavin says:

    @grumpy realist:
    Guarnari has been advising the wing-nuts like JKB, Jenos, Jack, etc.
    Which explains why they are unaware of the economic recovery.

  53. MikeSJ says:

    @JKB:

    Not to mention, she left good men in harms way to die and sought to legitimize the enemy by blaming the attack on a video, even going so far as to have the producer arrested.

    Actually the producer of that video was arrested for breaking the terms of his parole.

    But I’m sure you knew that already.

    Hillary’s been around the block many times; it should be possible for you to find something other than made up nonsense to attack her with. This reminds me of all the attacks on Obama over the birth certificate. How’d that work out for you?

    You guys really need to up your game.

  54. jukeboxgrad says:

    JKB:

    she left good men in harms way

    Link:

    Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security

    Something Rush and Sean and Glenn and Bill forgot to mention to you.

    blaming the attack on a video

    Obama and Clinton blamed the video because the video was to blame. Link.

    even going so far as to have the producer arrested

    Try reading National Review. If you did, you would know this (link):

    … if you’re a two-time felon who is out on parole and told not to use an alias in business dealings or use the Internet and then you lie to reporters at the AP and WSJ using your alias and admitting you used the Internet, then what do you think is going to happen?

    The GOP is tough on crime except when it’s not.

  55. Moosebreath says:

    @superdestroyer:

    “I put out the comment because people seem to be working hard to ignore policy and governance issues.”

    Actually, I agree with you. For all we grumble about horse race coverage of election races, it seems it is all we get at times.

  56. michael reynolds says:

    Ah, it’s good to hear Republicans trotting out the inevitable non-existent scandals again. Democrats were getting tired of Hillary, frankly, but there’s nothing like some Republican sewer-swimming to remind me why I like her and why I’ll vote for her and why I’ll give her money and why I will dance a little dance when she crushes the zombies of the GOP under her heel.

    Bring it, aszholes. Bring it all.

  57. Grewgills says:

    @wr:

    So the candidate’s husband knows a guy who’s accused of being icky.

    No, icky is leering at 16-17 year old girls. Sending your assistant to gather them from Easter Europe so you can pass them around to your friends and colleagues as party favors is quite another. The first is icky. The second is essentially running a rape slavery ring for the rich and famous. I don’t know what world you live in that the second is merely icky.

  58. Tyrell says:

    I would want to know what her policy would be concerning the growing radical Islamic threat and the spread of ISIS through cells.
    See “Europe Burns While America Sleeps” (Washington Post)

  59. Gustopher says:

    Additionally, while much has been made about the issue of political dynasties and the problems that public distaste for the same old faces in politics could pose for potential campaigns by candidates such as Clinton, Jeb Bush, and Mitt Romney,

    Mitt Romney is not a political dynasty, he just won’t go away. He changes his positions so much that he might briefly appear to be someone else, I suppose, but underneath it all is good old Mittens.

  60. humanoid.panda says:

    @Moosebreath: Well, the site just underwent a very long and acrimonious debate about taxation and inequality..

  61. Modulo myself says:

    @michael reynolds:

    A lot has changed since 1998. The empathy that existed was predicated on Clinton being an outsider with a fondness for trashy women. Being on a private jet that is transporting underage prostitutes for billionaires is not the sewer that outsiders and trashy women reside in.

  62. humanoid.panda says:

    @Gustopher: Well, Romney’s dad was the governor of Michigan and a presidential candidate (as well as a far, far, far better man than his son). Still bootstrapping him into the poltiical dynasty status looks like a stretch, at least until such time as Tagg Romney is the junior Senator from Utah.

  63. stonetools says:

    In the end, Hillary will likely win because people view her as steady, competent and stable. They’ve seen Obama try for transformation and saw it fail, because of Republican obstruction. They aren’t looking any longer for CHANGE! Most people trust Hillary to steer a moderate, centrist course and to do that well. Liberals won’t be happy with Hillary (too corporatist! too hawkish!) but she will beinfinitely preferable to any Republican, if only because of Supreme Court and other judicial appointments).
    Most people outside the right wing fever swamps will ignore the faux scandals.I think people by now are onto the RW fake scandal BS machine. I hope Hillary follows the Obama Administration’s approach to scandal management-which is to project cool competence, quickly fix anything that’s wrong, and to stick to the facts. It annoys the hell out of liberals, who would like a more combative approach, but i the end, it seems to work. Republicans usually end up looking ridiculous and unreasonable, and those scandals (which are always heralded as ” Obama’s Katrina”) tend to just disappear over time (remember DeepwaterIRSBenghaziObamacarewebsiteEbola?).
    Im hoping HRC hires at least Obama’s campaign team. They are battle hardened and are proven winners (twice, as Obama reminded Republicans). No reason to think they can’t three-peat.

  64. Rafer Janders says:

    @JKB:

    Also, things can get a lot worse

    I think you’ve just coined the Jeb Bush in ’16 campaign slogan….

  65. michael reynolds says:

    @Modulo myself:

    Sounds like your candidates are all 15 points and what, 60, 80 electoral votes behind? But you just keep slinging the mud, kid, it’s worked so well for you guys in the past.

  66. wr says:

    Vote for Jeb because Hillary’s husband knows someone who has been accused of doing bad things!

    Yeah, that’s a winning slogan. You guys run with that.

  67. Modulo Myself says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Dude, trust me when I tell you that I am planning on voting for Hillary Clinton rather than a Republican…

    I would point that she lost to Obama when she ran as the establishment candidate. If the GOP nominates Bush or (maybe) Romney they have a good chance to replicate that. The Clinton’s were obtuse as hell against Obama. They and their supporters seem as confident now in her inevitability and the lack of interest in scandal as they were in her becoming the nominee in 2008. To me, on paper, this thing looks like it will be a serious issue, especially if some royal in Britain ends up caught in the legal crossfire. Bill Clinton’s name will be everywhere, along with this sex trafficking, pedophilia, orgies, and basically the set for the masqued party scene in Eyes Wide Shut.

    Gawker has an article up about Epstein’s address book or whatever it is that people do on paper for that sort of thing. There’s circles around names of Bill Richardson, George Soros’ son, and some other politician, with the insinuation that these guys were given some of Epstein’s girls. Apparently references abound to apartments for models and massages in the same book.

    True? I have no idea. But this is not Vince Foster or Katherine whatever her name was. Normal people are going to eat this up and wonder what really happened.

  68. anjin-san says:

    @Tyrell:

    “Europe Burns While America Sleeps”

    Hmm. When 12 people are murdered in France, Europe is “burning”

    When 20 children are murdered at Sandy Hook, it’s what. “an unavoidable tragedy”?

    Wingnut logic at work. If Europe is burning, America is toast.

  69. Robin Cohen says:

    Just the thought of another Clinton Presidency is enough to make me ill.
    Jon Huntsman, where are you?

  70. Matt says:

    @Modulo Myself: People like you will be there lying about what happened. Clinton wasn’t on a plane with a load of under-aged prostitutes as you stated earlier. Clinton did fly on some on the plane though. Not even the article you keep bringing up said much beyond Clinton flew some on the plane and that the log book says there might of been a girl that was on the flight amongst other people including Clinton. The article itself even states that those log books aren’t very accurate….

  71. Tyrell says:

    @superdestroyer: Won’t happen, not with the debates being controlled, programmed, scripted, and staged. You will not see a candidate tell the people what is really going on.

  72. rodney dill says:

    @liberal capitalist: lol….. you broke the code.

  73. mannning says:
  74. Moosebreath says:

    @humanoid.panda:

    “Well, the site just underwent a very long and acrimonious debate about taxation and inequality.. ”

    And it was far more interesting than this one.

  75. PJ says:

    @mannning:

    YAWN!

    Excellent skills of argument, you really have convinced us all that Neil Hudelson’s takedown of your original comment is all crap.

  76. Ebenezer_Arvigenius says:

    “Give me facts”
    *FACTS*
    “Bah. What gave you the idea I was interested in facts anyway”

    😀

  77. michael reynolds says:

    @Modulo Myself:

    My apologies. You know what I did? I confused you with an occasional troll whose screen name also has two ‘M’s.’ I thought you were a completely different person.

    Could be senility, could be drugs, could be this annoying cold. Or maybe I’m just not very bright. Either way, sorry.

  78. @Modulo Myself:

    they play up that this is the world (money, private planes, using people) that Hillary Clinton is connected with

    As opposed to, say, Romney’s world?

    @mannning:

    I would most definitely like to know just what her qualifications are to become President

    A) Are we really going to trot out that failed 2008 (then used against Obama) line?

    B) I am not exactly a fan of Hillary, but Senator and Sec of State are rather significant qualifications. And First Lady isn’t a bad resume item, either.

    @Rafer Janders:

    People recall, correctly, that the Clinton presidency was a time of peace and prosperity, and the Bush presidency was a time of war, disaster and economic ruin. So of course the Clinton name is a positive while the Bush name is a lead weight.

    There is a lot to this. Further, after the wars and the Great Recession of the Bush administration, the whole Clinton business seems rather silly in retrospect to a lot of people (and I say this as someone who, at the time, supported impeachment–a position that really does now seem more than a bit ridiculous).

  79. humanoid.panda says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    There is a lot to this. Further, after the wars and the Great Recession of the Bush administration, the whole Clinton business seems rather silly in retrospect to a lot of people (and I say this as someone who, at the time, supported impeachment–a position that really does now seem more than a bit ridiculous).

    This exactly why I find all this talk of political dynasties a little silly. Americans dislike the Bush dynasty, because it is associated with the last Bush. They happen to like the Clinton last name, because the President of that name is pretty much the most beloved man in America today. As for Romney, maaaaybe 5% of the public even know he had a politician father.

  80. Modulo Myself says:

    @michael reynolds:

    No worries.

    @wr:

    GWB ‘won’ in 2000 by running as someone too regular to know things.

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Romney’s a Republican. He made his money the butch way. He wasn’t hanging out with some pervert named Epstein. Seriously–just look at the 2000 election when despite George W Bush having been a President’s son and backed by tons of money, Gore was the guy portrayed as the elitist desperate for cash and willing to say anything to anyone. And it worked.

    Where I live the Democratic Speaker was just indicted, to the surprise of nobody. It’s quite possible that Andrew Cuomo might be indicted. One of the things that Obama has done is remain untouched by even the hint of corruption, even though virtually every politician in this country is desperately envious of the lifestyles of the super-rich they grovel before.The Clintons are definitely not untouched. They stand out.

  81. @Modulo Myself:

    The Clintons are definitely not untouched. They stand out.

    I guess I am having a hard time seeing how the Clintons standout in this case vis-a-vis Romney and his car elevators and such.

  82. jukeboxgrad says:

    all this talk of political dynasties

    Consider this common definition of “dynasty:” ‘A line of hereditary rulers of a country.’

    “Hereditary” is an important aspect of the word “dynasty,” and it applies to Mitt and Jeb but not to Hillary. This is an important distinction that is often overlooked in these “dynasty” discussions.

  83. Modulo Myself says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Romney is basically old money, though he’s not a Wasp or anything. He certainly knows how to behave like old money. GWB did the same thing too–you can rebel, maybe dabble innocently in coke and drink too much but you end up behaving exactly like your dad.

    The Clintons are not old money. They cashed in after he was President by using his name. They connected themselves (or at least he did) with people who believe that money gives you the right to behave however you want (short of hunting humans for sport) and redeem yourself however you wish through charity. Someone like Epstein, minus the interest in underage girls, fears boredom and repetition. Socially, it’s very different than using the money you made doing LBOs on enjoying family activities, sobriety, tithing, and dressage. The caveat is that once you are rich enough to deal with boredom and repetition you cross a line.

    And I would add that Bil Clinton deep down knows this. He survived the Lewinsky affair when everybody was telling him to resign. He knew that people would be sympathetic re: the Lewinsky affair. When you actually read the Starr Report there was a sad sleazy sweetness to both Bill and Monica. He was not sitting around bored with his high-powered job. He was lonely and he connected with her. He wasn’t some rich guy who has a time slot between giving a speech to investors and giving a speech to a foundation where he gets a handjob from an indifferent model. This is who he would be now if he could get away with it. It’s a huge difference.

  84. humanoid.panda says:

    @jukeboxgrad: I think this a little bit too narrow. In the American political tradition, it was not so rare for wives to inherit their husbands’ positions.
    The Clintons are of course different in that Hillary has an accomplished career in her own right, but her presidential run will be based on networks of affection and money and favors that go back to her husband’s presidency. That is I think close enough to be considered a dynastic run.

  85. Xenos says:

    @Grewgills: it has been a few years decades since I have dated any 16 year olds or 17 year olds. .. is that considered pedophilia these days?

  86. Pharoah Narim says:

    @liberal capitalist: Same core group of donors control all these people which means you MAY get meaningful productivity the last 2 years of their lame duck term. “There’s a different face on our sock puppet! Yaaaayyy!”

  87. anjin-san says:

    The Clintons are definitely not untouched. They stand out.

    As opposed to say, Sarah Palin, who decided to skip the part where she does the job the voters gave her and went directly to cashing in?

  88. Mikey says:

    I think MM is on to something here that the bears paying attention to, even if it ends up not coming to much.

    MM may believe more strongly than most of us that Bill Clinton’s association with Epstein could pose some level of difficulty or threat to Hillary’s Presidential bid (should she decide to pursue one). I for one am not sure this will ever gain any traction–after all, even if the Clintons’ kind of “rich” is different from the Romneys’, rich people tend to hang out with each other and Bill’s association with Epstein is hardly surprising. But at the same time, there is still much to be revealed, and if nothing else those of us on the liberal side of the aisle should know the GOP will seize on anything that comes out and try to club Hillary’s candidacy to death with it.

    Pooh-poohing all this could come back to bite us if we’re not ready to deal with it, even if that means the possibility of accepting that something untoward actually happened.

  89. wr says:

    @Modulo Myself: ” This is who he would be now if he could get away with it. ”

    So now Hillary is in trouble because you can read her husband’s mind and you find him wanting?

    This was weak tea when you started — sorry, but I have trouble taking seriously massive international scandals I hear about only on comments sections of a website — and it’s getting sillier with every new posting.

  90. wr says:

    @Mikey: “Pooh-poohing all this could come back to bite us if we’re not ready to deal with it, even if that means the possibility of accepting that something untoward actually happened.”

    If Hillary runs, then she and her staff need to be ready to deal with it. I don’t see why we have to deal with anything. There are some rumors. Either some or all of them will turn out to be true or they won’t. Either they will have an impact or they won’t.

    But what does that have to do with you or me or anyone here?

  91. Mikey says:

    @wr: Of course, you’re right, the most direct potential for “dealing with it” will sit with Mrs. Clinton’s staff, should she decide to run. Her supporters out here in the electorate have a different job. I suppose in this context “deal with it” means “have some facts at the ready to counter any BS.” And that can actually be important as to the impact, at least among voters who are coming down as “undecided.”

  92. Matt says:

    @Modulo Myself: I bet you hang out with perverts too. You might even find out when one gets busted but most likely you’ll never know.

    I’m tired of your guilt by rare association crap…

    Also BTW federal age of consent is 16 and states range from 16-18 (a couple situations have lower ages of consent).

    Since when is 16 prepubescent? hebephile is the word you’re looking for.

  93. jukeboxgrad says:

    all this could come back to bite us

    Here’s why I think the Bill-Epstein story has no political traction. We’ve all known for 17 years or more that Bill is a dirty old man. Long ago the public decided to forgive him. If they don’t blame him, they certainly don’t blame her. On the contrary; she is a victim of his bad behavior, not someone who supports it. Stories about Bill and his dick just create more sympathy for Hillary.

    No one is alleging sex between Bill and a minor, and Bill is not the candidate. There’s just not enough there there.

  94. Matt says:

    Apparently my edit failed to work. I wanted to add that 31 states of the union have the age of consent at 16.

    There’s just no there there. No one claims Clinton did anything other then maybe fly on the plane once with other people that included a 17 year old girl. The 17 year old girl is of course of age according to federal law and in 39 states.

    It’s ridiculous that people like Modulo thinks it’s a scandal that Clinton flew on the same plane as an adult. I have no doubt though that this will be brought up by the right wingers. When I saw the gawker article the first thought I had was “oh god the next right wing talking point”..

    Not to mention gawker’s headline tried as hard as it could to imply that Clinton was jetting around having sex with underaged girls…

  95. Mikey says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Yeah, I’m leaning more in this direction than MM’s. Unless something really directly involving Bill comes out–and so far, as you say, there’s no “there there”–most people will see this as nothing really new. Certainly, as I said above, it’s no surprise Clinton and Epstein associated with each other.

    I’m just choosing to err a bit on the side of caution. If it comes to nothing, so much the better, and all I’ve gained is the ability to tell my conservative friends to shuffle off. 😉

  96. Grewgills says:

    @Xenos:
    It’s icky if you’re in your 30s or older. If you have someone gather them for you from Eastern Europe (or anywhere really) and coerce them into having sex with colleagues it is more than icky and is quite potentially running a rape slavery ring. He was convicted of doing that a couple decades ago and served 18mos I think. You can get away with a lot when you have that kind of money and connections.

  97. Modulo Myself says:

    @Matt:

    I know plenty of people who are into consensual perversion. In fact, I may be one of them. This isn’t about consensual perversion or one rumor about a plane.

    Instead, there’s a woman claiming in a lawsuit that while she was a seventeen-year old sex slave of a billionaire she had dinner with Bill Clinton and two other young women. If it it’s false, if she never met Clinton, it should be easy to disprove and I will be totally wrong. Then this story–the meat of it–will go away. But if not, then Bill Clinton will have to explain exactly what he was thinking when he laid eyes on this girl and Epstein together. There’s a picture of her with Prince Andrew; she looks young. I’m honestly curious what he will say that will not come out to mean he was basically okay with this guy dating a very young woman. He can’t hide behind lawyers with this. If he met this girl and Epstein, he has to have an answer as to what he thought was going on. If it’s a good one, it will go away. I just don’t think there is a good answer for someone in his public position.

    What will Hillary say? I’m disappointed in my husband? He was as shocked as I was to find out that the guy with the young girlfriend was really into young girls? We stopped talking to him when he was charged? She’s quite capable of saying something incredibly trite and detached, but in this case not about a house but about her husband’s witnessing of a convicted pedophile in action.

    BTW–Al Gore was mocked endlessly for his ‘no controlling legal authority’ comment. People think that the Clinton-era scandals were won on every occasion by the good guys. Not true. The finance scandals totally laid the ground for the way Gore was treated by the media during the election, which he lost in a way that the GOP hopes Hillary Clinton will also lose, minus the Supreme Court theft and popular vote victory.

  98. wr says:

    @jukeboxgrad: ” We’ve all known for 17 years or more that Bill is a dirty old man.”

    Sorry, I disagree. Clinton is (or was — don’t know how he acts as a private citizen in his 60s) a man with a strong sex drive and a weak will to control it. It’s something he had in common with a huge percentage of men in every society throughout history — and an even bigger percentage of powerful men. (It’s pretty obvious that for many males the drive for power is closely connected with the sex drive.) Some of these guys we choose to admire (Jack Nicholson, JFK) and some we choose to disapprove of (Clinton, Tiger Woods). And generally society decides to frown on them if they keep at it past an age we feel comfortable with.

    None of that makes Clinton a “dirty old man.” And to say so is just another reflection of Americans’ bizarre fear of sex — the same fear that leads another poster here to refer to a rich man having sex with 17 year-old girls as a “pedophile.”

    We can find either man morally reprehensible if we choose — but let’s condemn them for what they actually do, not for some cartoon construct created out of our Puritan baggage.

  99. jukeboxgrad says:

    wr:

    None of that makes Clinton a “dirty old man.”

    I agree with everything you said, and the term I used is not the right term. I was being lazy and generous. I also agree that the word “pedophile” is not being used correctly.

  100. jukeboxgrad says:

    Modulo Myself:

    there’s a woman claiming in a lawsuit that while she was a seventeen-year old sex slave of a billionaire she had dinner with Bill Clinton and two other young women … her husband’s witnessing of a convicted pedophile in action

    You shouldn’t imply that the conviction preceded the dinner. Clinton was not “witnessing … a convicted pedophile in action.” That dinner supposedly took place in 2001 or 2002, years before the investigation and conviction. Link:

    … Roberts stresses that she was never ‘lent out’ to Mr Clinton. On one occasion, she adds, Epstein did invite two young brunettes to a dinner which he gave on his Caribbean island for Mr Clinton shortly after he left office. But, as far as she knows, the ex-President did not take the bait. … “there were two olive-skinned brunettes who’d flown in with us from New York. … I’d say they were no older than 17 … Maybe Jeffrey thought they would entertain Bill, but I saw no evidence that he was interested in them.”

    This has been known since 2011. Politicians have dinner with rich people all the time, and plenty of rich people are creeps, thugs and even criminals. Based on what we know so far, this is going nowhere, especially because this witness says Bill wasn’t interested.

  101. wr says:

    @Modulo Myself: ” I’m honestly curious what he will say that will not come out to mean he was basically okay with this guy dating a very young woman. ”

    Maybe he was thinking “Hey, he’s banging a young girl. What a shock.”

    Do you run around to everyone you know making sure they are living up to your moral standards? Should he have said “If you don’t show me that girl’s driver’s license I’m calling the cops, you pervert!”

    This is cartoon land. Rich men sleep with young beatiful women all over the world. And by some shocking coincidence, there are a lot of young beautiful women who are more than happy to sleep with rich men — even if they are older.

    If in this case the rich man in question committed a crime, then he should go to jail. But unless she was wearing shackles at the dinner. why would Clinton ever be so rude as to start making moral judgments on what would have been from the outside a completely normal scene?

  102. wr says:

    @jukeboxgrad: And I know what you mean, and I hope I didn’t sound too strident… there’s such a lot of nonsense going on in this thread — “How dare Bill Clinton not ask his business companion if his young-looking girlfriend was actually a sex slave — Hillary must never be elected!” — that I launched into lecture mode. But it was aimed at the word, not the poster!

  103. jukeboxgrad says:

    Rich men sleep with young beatiful women all over the world

    Exactly, and you are correct to point out that this is about our Puritan baggage.

    “How dare Bill Clinton not ask his business companion if his young-looking girlfriend was actually a sex slave — Hillary must never be elected!”

    And that’s a good summary of the ridiculous story.

  104. anjin-san says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    Politicians have dinner with rich people all the time, and plenty of rich people are creeps, thugs and even criminals.

    If there is even a single politician in DC who does not have some dirt under his/her fingernails, I want to meet them and shake their hand.

  105. anjin-san says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Romney and his car elevators and such.

    That story goes a little deeper. Romney does not wish to simply add an underground garage and car elevator to his 12 million dollar beach house. He wants to tear down what is a beautiful home, beyond the dreams of almost everyone on the face of the earth, and replace it with a bigger, fancier beach house.

  106. anjin-san says:

    Here’s a look at the house Romney wants to tear down. It’s just not nice enough…

    http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2012/03/29/tour-mitt-romneys-endangered-la-jolla-beach-house/

  107. Modulo Myself says:

    @wr:

    Right, Bill Clinton was a man of the world. I’m not faulting him for that. He hung around with super-rich people who paraded their much younger accessories in front of him. Personally, I don’t think it’s a big deal, but Hillary Clinton will not be asking for my vote. I’m quite positive that she will win NYC. They’re asking for votes in Ohio and northern Virginia and Florida, and I’m really not sure that voters okay with the middle-class hedonism of infidelity and smoking pot will translate into being okay with the hedonism of the super-rich. Bill Clinton served up a picture of just how great it is to be rich. It’s a world that most people who vote will never enter.

    I’m really sorry about hijacking the thread and I’m not trolling this s–t or anything but I’m really perplexed as to what Hillary Clinton will do as a candidate to relate to the quintessential normal Americans. She’s worse off, in my opinion, than a Republican man, because nobody expects anything from them in the first place.

    Let’s not even get into stuff like Chelsea Clinton getting 600K from NBC…”If you work hard you will be rewarded, though let’s be honest while your children struggle to get jobs for which they are underpaid and way overqualified, my daughter cashed in our name!”

  108. wr says:

    @Modulo Myself: I didn’t think you were trolling. I (obviously) disagree with your point of view, but I have no doubt it’s sincerely held.

    So sure, the Clintons have a lot of money. But they don’t have a fraction of what Romney has… and I suspect they have less than Jeb, although I don’t know. Find me a working class candidate for president in the past decades.

    And the Chelsea thing, while annoying, is an annoying thing about our current celebrity culture, not about the Clintons or Hillary specifically. We live in a Kardashian media environment — and everyone knows it. People in Ohio know it.

    If Hillary were running against a poor dirt farmer who’d been screwed over by the banks, maybe he could make these points you think will hurt so much. But what actual Republican can without being laughed out of the room?

  109. Tillman says:

    Jesus, have we [inaccurately] slung enough mud at Modulo Myself for presenting what might be a viable political weakness Republicans could cash in on come the next year?

    Guys, Benghazi was nothing. Look what they did with that. It might be dreck, but it certainly motivated their base. This Epstein sex thing (not a pedophile, but certainly close to a statutory rapist) is waaay better than Benghazi, so far.

  110. wr says:

    @Tillman: “This Epstein sex thing (not a pedophile, but certainly close to a statutory rapist) is waaay better than Benghazi, so far.”

    Possibly, if anything ever comes of it. Right now it doesn’t promise to be anything more than Obama’s birth certificate — something of great concern to a lot of people who would never vote for her no matter what. It really doesn’t matter if Breitbart spends five years hyperventilating about this…

  111. Grewgills says:

    @wr:
    Obama’s birth certificate faux scandal was completely fabricated.
    Epstein did run a rape slavery ring where he imported girls and coerced them into having sex with people he was attempting to impress. I’ve seen no credible evidence that Clinton slept with any of these girls. That said both he and Prince Andrew have enough handlers that they had to know about the allegations and still chose to associate themselves with him. There are an awful lot of people refusing to answer and the rich and powerful are circling the wagons. He will once again likely face minimal or no sanctions for his actions. Such is the way in a virtual plutocracy. Minimizing this dirt bag Epstein running a rape slavery ring as though it were a fabricated scandal like the birth certificate nonsense is vile.

  112. An Interested Party says:

    I’m really sorry about hijacking the thread and I’m not trolling this s–t or anything but I’m really perplexed as to what Hillary Clinton will do as a candidate to relate to the quintessential normal Americans. She’s worse off, in my opinion, than a Republican man, because nobody expects anything from them in the first place.

    Let’s not even get into stuff like Chelsea Clinton getting 600K from NBC…”If you work hard you will be rewarded, though let’s be honest while your children struggle to get jobs for which they are underpaid and way overqualified, my daughter cashed in our name!”

    Are these not weaknesses of any viable presidential candidate? Who among all of them has some Lincolnesque background and certainly who among them doesn’t spread their own perks on to their offspring…

  113. Matt says:

    @Modulo Myself: Oh she’s claiming she had dinner with Clinton now? Before she said she was never on the same plane. That’s interesting that her story is changing…

    None of what you’re claiming was in the gawker article or any of the other ones I saw. Would you care to give some links?

  114. anjin-san says:

    @wr:

    I suspect they have less than Jeb

    I think it will get interesting if a deeper look is taken at the connections between Saudi Arabia and the Bush family.

  115. Just 'nutha' says:

    @Modulo Myself: Have you ever actually read any Horatio Alger stories? One Hundred percent of them are about young men who were able to cash in by hard work, grit, determination, and the machinations on their behalf of rich and powerful captains of industry–mostly quality four.

    When I was young, I worked at a job that had a very high salary at and for the times (I was making more than a friend of mine who was an associate at a major law firm in my city). I was able to keep the job because I was good at it–even though I was a major pain to work with–but I got the job because my dad was high enough in the company to ask if they would hire me instead of posting the job open.

    As it was in the beginning, it is now, and ever will be.

  116. Just 'nutha' says:

    @anjin-san: i had the same reaction to this news that I to Elin Woods purchase of a house in order to tear it down (and in that case, she DID have the excuse that it wasn’t habitable because of termite infestation); how rich is someone when they are willing to pay that kind of money for a bulding lot? I have no abliity to even conceive of that kind of money.

    They live in a whole different world. Why are we impressed? Why do we even imagine that people like this will be able to make wise choices about economic matters? What can they POSSIBILY know about my economic interests? I suspect that they will suffer from the same issues on foreign policy, warfare, and anything else.

    I was just reminded of a line from the second Superman movie (Christopher Reeve era): “I wonder why he cares so much about these people…maybe he thinks of them as pets.”

  117. wr says:

    @Grewgills: “Minimizing this dirt bag Epstein running a rape slavery ring as though it were a fabricated scandal like the birth certificate nonsense is vile.”

    I can’t minimize whatever Epstein might have done, because I don’t know anything about it other than what people have posted in messages here. And with all due respect to you and MM and whoever else, I try — try — not to make judgments based on second-hand accounts of stories read on gossip sites.

    What I am minimizing is not only the effect on Hillary’s campaign, but the moral culpability of someone who “should have known” or “must have known” something something something.

    And frankly I find it a little odd that suddenly conseratives are in a tizzy over the idea that rich white people are treated differently than the little guys…

  118. wr says:

    @anjin-san: “I think it will get interesting if a deeper look is taken at the connections between Saudi Arabia and the Bush family.”

    I think so too… and I’m also pretty sure that won’t happen. It seems to be one of those stories that the media industry has decided is taboo.

    Heck, just look at the glowing tributes from all the major media of the late Saudi king… about what a lovely moderate he was, even though the country beheaded more people than ISIS last year and sentenced a blogger to 1,000 lashes for saying mean things about the royal family.

  119. Grewgills says:

    @wr:
    Try google and you will see the story in gossip rags like the New York Times. Epstein was convicted of having his assistant bring in underage girls from Eastern Europe and coercing them to have sex with his friends and colleagues. He managed to plea it down to prostitution charges in Florida. The girls he victimized weren’t consulted by the prosecutor, as is required by FLA law.

  120. jukeboxgrad says:

    Epstein was convicted … He managed to plea it down

    “Convicted” only applies to whatever was left after he managed to “plea it down.”

  121. Tillman says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Yes, that makes it look better. I’m sure that’s the kind of nuance the American people catch on to pretty quick. 🙂

  122. jukeboxgrad says:

    I agree about “American people” not noticing nuance, but I have higher expectations regarding commenters here whom I generally respect.

  123. ernieyeball says:

    @jukeboxgrad:.. whom I generally respect.

    Don’t put yourself out…

  124. SC_Birdflyte says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: We can expect a debate about inequality of incomes and wealth in 2016. Part of Hillary’s problem is that, while the long-term trend dates back to 1974 or thereabouts, when the stock market started its vigorous climb in the mid-90s, it became easier to everyone to slip into the assumption that this was the new normal. It was easier for the Clinton Administration to ride the wave rather than try fixing the underlying problem. Of course, Mitt and Jeb have no answers either.

  125. @SC_Birdflyte: I absolutely agree that this is an issue. My point is (and I think you would agree based on your last sentence) that no GOP candidate has a comparative advantage on this topic.

  126. grumpy realist says:

    @Just ‘nutha’: That’s why I can’t stand Ann Romney. What in the heck does she know about earning a living? She went from being supported by Daddy to being supported by dear Mittens, and she has the gall to get up and finger-wag at us about how her life is so marvelous and wonderful and how all the rest of us women should go out and find a man just like dear old Mitt.

    Feh. How many multi-millionaires with wealth of 250M$ are there in the US? Furthermore, how many of them are still on their first marriage?

    I’d have better chances becoming a Congresscritter.

  127. mannning says:

    @PJ:

    Thank you!
    The so-called takedown you refer to is a true YAWNER, because my post speaks the truth about Clinton’s very superficial contributions to the national good, and real lack of effective experience in administration of anything, plus the tatters she has left around the world while playing traveling secretary. She listens and follows well, but what else? Nothing.
    Soooooooo YAWN! If the qualifications mentioned are her sole attributes, we are in deep trouble, since the lazy and uninformed will vote for her out of pure name recognition, rumor, and a democratic label. That is the coming tragedy of the year 2016 should she be elected.

  128. al-Ameda says:

    @mannning:

    since the lazy and uninformed will vote for her out of pure name recognition, rumor, and a democratic label

    Not that there are ANY lazy uninformed non-reality based people who vote Republican based on name recognition and a Republican label.

  129. mannning says:

    @al-Ameda:

    That is exactly the point! There are far too many of those types of voters on both sides, and they do sway the results out of sheer ignorance and traditional voting for their inherited party affiliations. There is nothing new about uninformed, biased or single issue voters determining our fate. Here lies one result from the kinds of education, both at school and in life itself, that weak-minded modern-day citizens acquire. The problem is they listen to the propaganda emitted from the parties and go with their perceptions, regardless of the truth, since the political messages were inculcated into them from their schooling. It is a question of whose lies win, not what is best for the nation.

  130. ernieyeball says:

    @mannning:..There is nothing new about uninformed, biased or single issue voters determining our fate.

    Do you have a politically realistic remedy for this dilemma or should we just let you grant franchise to citizens you approve of?

  131. mannning says:

    @ernieyeball:

    NO! Do you?

  132. mannning says:

    @mannning:

    The only solution I can think of is a good, unbiased education to begin with, together with motivation to vote for what is best for the nation. That opens the argument up to decide what is best, and that is the rub! There are many philosophical differences involved, as well as sheer ignorance. But, we have what we have.

  133. @mannning:

    a good, unbiased education

    It would be intriguing hearing what that would look like.

  134. mannning says:

    @mannning:

    Franchise? What a stupid comment!

  135. mannning says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Think the insights of Harold Bloom on professors that delight in twisting young men into the liberal modes of thinking.

  136. ernieyeball says:

    @mannning:..Franchise?

    franchise
    2 (usu. the franchise) the right to vote.
    • the rights of citizenship.
    New Oxford American Dictionary

    Oh. Sorry. Should have been “the franchise.”

  137. mannning says:

    @mannning:

    liberal and progressive I should have said.

  138. ernieyeball says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:..It would be intriguing hearing what that would look like.

    It will likely include classes demonizing the “weak minded, modern day citizens” and chronicle how they have been “twisted into liberal and progressive modes of thinking.”

  139. mannning says:

    @ernieyeball:

    You avoided my point. That you suggest I franchise voters–what drivel!

  140. mannning says:

    @ernieyeball:

    Of course!

  141. mannning says:

    @mannning:

    Scare the wits into them!