Hillary Clinton’s Poll Numbers Suggest Email Scandal May Have No Lasting Impact

Despite the ongoing email controversy, Hillary Clinton remains well positioned heading into 2016.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

While the story about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account continues to percolate in the political media, not the least because of Clinton’s own response to questions about the entire issue, a new poll from Gallup demonstrates quite clearly why she remains the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination and well positioned against her Republican opponents, and why the ongoing email “scandal” may not end up having any lasting impact:

Hillary Clinton is one of a few potential 2016 presidential candidates to have a significantly higher favorable (50%) than unfavorable (39%) rating among the American public. And the 89% of Americans who are familiar enough with Clinton to have an opinion of her is more than any other potential 2016 presidential candidate. Clinton’s relatively high scores on both dimensions give her a better starting position regarding her image than other competitors would have in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

These results are based on a March 2-4 Gallup poll of 1,522 U.S. adults, conducted just as revelations about the private email account Clinton used to conduct business while secretary of state became a major news story, but before her Tuesday press conference addressing questions about the issue.

Here’s a chart showing where the candidates mentioned in the poll stand:

 

Gallup 2016 Chart

The graph plots 16 potential candidates –11 Republicans and five Democrats — on a two-dimensional chart displaying their familiarity and favorability ratings. The candidates who appear in the upper-right quadrant are in the most advantageous position at this point as they are both relatively well-known and have higher favorable than unfavorable ratings. In addition to Clinton, Republicans Jeb Bush, Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul reside in this space. However, Americans rate each of those Republicans only slightly more positively than negatively, with net favorable scores of +2 or +3, compared with Clinton’s +11. And Huckabee and Paul have just slightly above average familiarity. Generally speaking, the further candidates are away from the intersecting lines, the better their image.

Candidates in the lower-right quadrant — including Chris Christie and Rick Perry — are among the better-known candidates, but Americans do not view them positively overall. Joe Biden and Ted Cruz are on the edges of this quadrant. Biden is well-known, but opinions of him are equally positive and negative, while Cruz is viewed negatively but has average familiarity. The challenge for these politicians should they run for president is to alter existing perceptions about them so they are more positive than now, or alternatively, to get the smaller group of Americans who are unfamiliar with them to get to know them and view them positively.

Americans view candidates in the upper left quadrant — including Republicans Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and Ben Carson and Democrat Elizabeth Warren — more positively than negatively, but these candidates have lower than average familiarity.

These numbers are largely consistent with other polling that we’ve seen over the past year or more that shows Clinton with both an overwhelming lead over any of the other candidates for the Democratic nomination, and with a consistently solid lead over each of her potential Republican opponents in 2016. While it is obviously far too early to put much weight on these horse race polls, they do indicate that Clinton remains in a stronger position than any other potential Presidential candidate. In the Democratic Party, she is quite simply head and shoulders above any of the other potential candidates in  a way that wasn’t true in 2008, when Clinton was in the lead but even in 2007 it was clear that a candidate like Barack Obama could potentially take the nomination from her. This time, there is no Obama-like candidate in the Democratic field, and it is highly unlikely that any of the potential candidates could become that kind of candidate over the next year. Barring some kind of epic implosion or a decision on her part not to run for personal reasons, the odds that someone other than Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee in 2016 are infinitesimally low.

The Washington Post’s Philip Bump notes that there is potential bad news in the Gallup poll for Clinton. Specifically, as he correctly notes, Clinton’s overall favorability has declined significantly since she left the State Department while there has been a smaller, but noticeable, uptick in her unfavorable numbers. As I’ve noted before, when Clinton was Secretary of State she was largely above politics and wasn’t making public statements about controversial domestic policy issues, and thus benefiting from the image that she had been cultivating since the time she was First Lady without any of the negatives she’d experienced before. You’ll note, for example, that the chart that Bump refers to in proving his point shows that her favorable numbers didn’t start rising until after she was a candidate for President and, then, when she was named Secretary of State. Once she left office in 2013 and it became obvious to everyone that she was again a candidate for President, her numbers changed to reflect this fact. So, while the decline in favorability is something to keep an eye on if it continues after she enters the race for the White House, it isn’t necessarily as big a problem as Bump makes it out to be, especially considering that, even after this decline is taken into account, Clinton is still better situated than her Democratic and Republican opponents.

More importantly, though, what this poll shows is not only that Clinton is viewed more favorably than any other candidate, but that she is the candidate that nearly every American has made up their mind about. Given the fact that she, along with her husband, has been part of American political life and American culture for the past twenty-two years, this isn’t really very surprising. In those two decades, we’ve seen repeated Clinton scandals and accusations by political opponents directed at her and the former President, and that continued after Clinton became a Senator, ran for President, and became Secretary of State. To a large degree, to the extent that people have a negative opinion of Hillary Clinton they usually end up being people who have held that opinion for a long time, and the same goes for the people who view her positively. Given this, it’s not all clear that the latest revelations about her use of private email as Secretary of State are going to have any real impact on her going forward. Indeed, a poll released last week after the story broke, but before Clinton’s press conference earlier this week, showed that the majority of Americans were not paying much attention to the story at all. If that remains true, and assuming that there aren’t any smoking guns discovered in Clinton’s State Department emails when they are finally released, it’s not at all clear that this latest Clinton “scandal” is going to have any more of an impact than all the others.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2016, Hillary Clinton, Politicians, 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. Dave Schuler says:

    That follows from what I’ve been saying quite well. Most Americans of voting age have already made up their minds on Sec.Clinton, whether for or against. Assuming Sec. Clinton runs (as practically everybody assumes she will), the 2016 election will be less about approval and much more about turnout, i.e. whose voters turn out for the election.

  2. al-Ameda says:

    This whole email “outrage” is already discounted and accounted for – we know where everyone stands on this.

    Those who hate Hillary (Republicans) can hardly hate her more, and they never had any intention of voting for her. Many Democrats are not enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton, however we all know that no Democrats would vote Republican over this. Independents? There are none.

    Turnout? The “First Female President” angle is going to override any possibility of a low turnout – on either side.

    Hillary is not good on the campaign trail, and it remains to be seen if she can get through the primary grind.

  3. dennis says:

    @al-Ameda:

    Those who hate Hillary (Republicans) can hardly hate her more …

    Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Side …

  4. michael reynolds says:

    Elections are not up-votes on Reddit, they are choices between X and Y. Given that Y is the GOP there is zero chance I will vote for anyone but X.

    If Hillary Clinton stabbed a room service waiter and used his hollowed-out skull as an ashtray, I would still vote for her over any Republican. And I really like room service.

  5. Will Taylor says:

    The only thing stopping Hillary is Hillary. The Clinton Way, They write their own rules. Is anyone truly shocked that Hillary supporters don’t care? We’re well past the idea that we elect our leaders based on their experience and qualifications.

    http://time.com/magazine/us/3741835/march-23rd-2015-vol-185-no-10-u-s/

  6. MBunge says:

    Josh Marshall posted recently how tired he is of the “drama” surrounding the Clintons. Drama isn’t the problem, however. The problem with the Clintons is they elevated “getting away with it” to being all that matters and convinced people it was okay to stand back and marvel at anyone who “gets away with it.”

    Mike

  7. michael reynolds says:

    @MUNCHBOX:
    No, that’s the inevitable result of one party being racist, sexist, homophobic, irresponsible and treasonous.

  8. al-Ameda says:

    @MUNCHBOX:

    ….and that’s why you are a partisan ass hat….

    Why are conservatives obsessed with “poop”?

  9. michael reynolds says:

    @Will Taylor:
    Actually, Hillary has experience and is clearly qualified. Lawyer for the Watergate committee. Private practice lawyer. First lady at both the state and national level. Former Senator from an actual state, New York. Secretary of State. That’s a pretty good resumé. Far better than George W., for example, or John McCain who only has Senatorial experience, or Sarah Palin the half-term governor of a “state,” or any of the GOP candidates.

    You need to update your hates, dude. The GOP has no one who can challenge Hillary on resumé.

  10. michael reynolds says:

    @al-Ameda:
    That’s unfair. It’s not just poop, it’s also bestiality and having “things” shoved down their throats.

  11. Mikey says:

    Mrs. Clinton’s great advantage going into 2016 is how much of a known quantity she is. At the same time, it’s her great disadvantage, because there will be essentially nobody she will be able to “swing” to her side. It will be interesting to see how she handles having the choice for or against her already made by nearly all the voting population.

  12. Gavrilo says:

    @MUNCHBOX:

    What’s wrong with you? There is nothing more important than discussing poll numbers 20 months before the election!

  13. Gavrilo says:

    @michael reynolds:

    You forgot that she’s also a Certified Network Engineer who installs home-based email servers on weekends. Suck on that, Jeb Bush!

  14. michael reynolds says:

    @Gavrilo:
    Has to be better than Apple’s mail.

  15. Will Taylor says:

    @michael reynolds:

    How come we can’t just discuss Hillary? You Dems always need to throw Bush in everything. Anyway, I’ll take the bait today and tell you that Hillary’s resume is remarkably light when you really examine what she has really done. I know you’ve been Ready for Hillary for a long time, but can you honestly tell me that this whole email fiasco doesn’t bother you.

    http://freebeacon.com/blog/hillarys-state-department-won-deals-for-clinton-foundation-donors/

    http://www.propublica.org/article/hillary-clintons-top-five-clashes-over-secrecy

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114790/how-doug-band-drove-wedge-through-clinton-dynasty

    This is a woman who pretty much stands for nothing. She’s just biding her time and trying to figure out what she stands for. Stories are buried and the media is bullied.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/02/how-team-clinton-shut-down-the-cnn-and-nbc-hillary-shows.html

    “Former Senator from an actual state, New York. Secretary of State. That’s a pretty good resumé” – Well, I live in NY and I can’t seem to recall anything significant Hillary did for NYS other than jump starting her presidential campaign.

    Please let me list what her accomplishments were exactly at State.

  16. wr says:

    @MBunge: ” The problem with the Clintons is they elevated “getting away with it” to being all that matters and convinced people it was okay to stand back and marvel at anyone who “gets away with it.” ”

    Got away with what, precisely? Got away with not being involved in a shady land deal except as victims? Got away with not smuggling drugs through Mena airport? Got away with not murdering Vince Foster?

    This is the laziest, sloppiest thinking, brought to you by the right-wing Clinton haters and their accomodating media tools. The reason the Clintons “keep getting away with it” is because the charges made against them are almost entirely lies. But the press gets invested in the lies, spends months scrounging for evidence, and when they can’t find it complains that the Clintons “got away with it.”

    Enough already.

  17. michael reynolds says:

    @Will Taylor:

    How come we can’t just discuss Hillary? You Dems always need to throw Bush in everything.

    Because we aren’t talking about middle school cliques, we’re talking about an election. Which is a choice. Right now the choice looks like Hillary vs. Jeb.

    can you honestly tell me that this whole email fiasco doesn’t bother you.

    Actually, I’ve said just that. Repeatedly.

    Please let me list what her accomplishments were exactly at State.

    Nothing much. Which is irrelevant. She’s not running against Henry Kissinger, she’s running against the Republicans.

    I can see why you want to pretend this is an up or down vote on Hillary. But it’s not. Again: it’s an election, a choice. A binary choice between Hillary and a party that makes common cause with Likud and the Ayatollahs against the United States and its allies; a party that despises gay people, brown people, black people, women people, poor people, sick people, people with IQ’s above room temperature, young people. A party that threatens our own government. A party that displays absolutely jaw-dropping incompetence.

    You’ve got Jeb, Scott Walker, and a cast of clowns and morons. We’ve got the former Senator from New York, the former Secretary of State, the most admired woman in America. That’s the choice.

  18. Will Taylors says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Not bad, You might want to offer your services to the Hillary campaign. Excellent job of ignoring my points and deflecting my questions. Bravo Sir, Your hypocrisy knows no limits!

  19. michael reynolds says:

    @Will Taylors:

    Bullsh!t. Which point did I “ignore?” It’s an election. Figure it out. The choice is between two people representing two parties.

  20. Will Taylors says:

    @michael reynolds:

    So, you are basically saying that you don’t care what Hillary’s record is and that you have no problems with her deliberately hiding her emails while using her office as a one stop lobbying shop for the Clinton Foundation?

    She should basically be president because she;s not a Republican and she’s a woman. Your candidate is the same Wall Street whore that Jeb is but somehow you really believe that there is a big difference between them. Tell me, when did you abandon reason and logic for stupidity? I’m not a big fan of Elizabeth Warren, but I at least understand why people support her. You’ve offered no explanation for supporting Hillary other than all Republicans are racists and homophobes.

  21. michael reynolds says:

    @Will Taylors:

    You’ve offered no explanation for supporting Hillary other than all Republicans are racists and homophobes.

    Duh.

    Let me ask you something. Name our major allies in the fight against Hitler. I’ll help you out:

    1) The British Empire which was busy starving Indians to feed its war effort and insisting despite the direness of the situation that its empire be maintained at all costs.

    2) Canada, Australia, New Zealand, all part of that empire.

    3) And the number one ally? The Big Kahuna? The one who killed 9 out of 10 dead Wehrmacht soldiers? That would be Stalin. Stalin, whose crimes. . . well, we don’t have time to list all his evil.

    It’s a choice, dude. A or B. Little evil over Big Evil.

    This is what you people should have thought about when you were transforming the party of Lincoln into the Klan. You’ve made it categorically impossible for anyone with a shred of decency or patriotism to vote for the GOP.

  22. anjin-san says:

    @ Doug

    > MUNCHBOX

    I believe James explicitly warned Jenos to drop the sock puppetry. This crap really diminishes the quality of OTB. Why do you guys put up with it?

  23. anjin-san says:

    @michael reynolds:

    You’ve made it categorically impossible for anyone with a shred of decency or patriotism to vote for the GOP.

    Somewhere, Dwight David Eisenhower is weeping for his party…

  24. Will Taylors says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Why do you continue to attempt to change the conversation? This is about Hillary, not WW2. I know its early in 2015, but you’re going to have to do better than this. I know you are busy writing books, but I’m kind of disappointed that this is the best you have. You even pulled out the Klan which is just crazy. I’m supposed to take from this rant that Hillary could be as bad as Stalin but you’d still vote her because she wouldn’t be as bad any of the GOP nominees?

  25. michael reynolds says:

    @Will Taylors:
    Dude, you’re being dense.

    Hillary is only of interest as a candidate. So obviously if it’s about Hillary it’s about the elction. Why the hell else would we care? Come on, man, get in the game. The game is called “politics.”

  26. Will Taylors says:

    @michael reynolds:

    I know all too well how the political game is played and thats why i don’t put any politician on a pedestal. We all know that Hillary is going to be the nominee. That basically means people here on the left need to come up with reasons why she should be president and be able to defend her record or lack of it. It’d at least make this a more interesting board than just calling out the GOP as racist and homophobe all the time. I expect better from you Michael than some of your other pals on the Left and maybe i’ve been wrong to try to hold you to a higher standard.

    At some point, people on here are going to have Own Hillary and be prepared to defend it instead of just bashing Republicans. For my part, I’m prepared to defend Jeb and Walker, warts and all. I draw the line though at Rand Paul.

  27. Pinky says:

    @Will Taylors:

    Hillary could be as bad as Stalin but you’d still vote her

    Heh. That’s exactly what he’s saying.

  28. anjin-san says:

    @Will Taylors:

    Own Hillary and be prepared to defend it

    So, is referring to Hillary Clinton as “it” part of the refined, high minded discourse you seek?

  29. Rafer Janders says:

    @Will Taylors:

    She should basically be president because she;s not a Republican and she’s a woman.

    Actually, “she’s not a Republican” is enough right there.

    Your party is toxic. It’s not winning this presidential election or the next or the next. You can whine about that all you want, or you can try to convince the rest of the GOP that their years long campaign of alienating women, gays, immigrants, racial minorities, the educated and those who care about national security and the economy has some real world consequences.

  30. MikeSJ says:

    If Hillary Clinton stabbed a room service waiter and used his hollowed-out skull as an ashtray, I would still vote for her over any Republican. And I really like room service

    I’d also still vote for her but the smoking would bother me.

    Jeb or Walker or Rubio. vs. Hillary.

    Rubio, from what I’ve seen, seems to be a remarkably ignorant man (see him discuss Iran and ISIS). I don’t see him getting traction.

    Walker comes across as a smarmy time share salesman. I can’t see him going the distance before he implodes.

    That leaves Jeb. Who knows at that point? Hillary is a terrible campaigner. Why hasn’t she had speech and voice training??? I can easily see her running a rerun of Al Gore’s campaign and blowing the election.

    I like to think Jebs Terry Schiavo meddling would hurt him but that would require the Democrats to actually fight back effectively.

    I’m thinking a slight edge to Jeb here. (unfortunately)

  31. michael reynolds says:

    @Will Taylors:
    Defend Hillary? Easy.

    She’s pro-choice, she supports a strong defense, she is for full legal equality for gays and for women, she believes in a social safety net, she believes in science and reality.

    There you go. Done.

  32. PJ says:

    @Will Taylors:

    That basically means people here on the left need to come up with reasons why she should be president

    I’ll give you one reason why Hillary Clinton should be President if she wins the Democratic Party primary.

    Supreme Court Justice nominees.

    No other reasons needed.

  33. Rafer Janders says:

    @Will Taylors:

    That basically means people here on the left need to come up with reasons why she should be president and be able to defend her record or lack of it.

    Here’s one: when Senator, did not treasonously join with 46 other Democratic senators to undermine American national security by subverting high-level multi-nation nuclear negotiations.

  34. anjin-san says:

    @Will Taylors:

    For my part, I’m prepared to defend Jeb and Walker

    Well let’s get started then. Walker is seeking devastating cuts to higher education, while at the same time proposing that the state be put on the hook for $220 million to build a dandy new arena for the billionaire owners of the Milwaukee Bucks.

    Defend that.

  35. Will Taylors says:

    @anjin-san:

    i don’t seek anything from you. You’re probably the most predictable person on here. But, If you ever find the time to take your head out of Michael’s ass and make an original point, I’ll respond to you.

  36. dennis says:

    @Will Taylors:

    So, you are basically saying that you don’t care what Hillary’s record is and that you have no problems with her deliberately hiding her emails while using her office as a one stop lobbying shop for the Clinton Foundation?

    From Michael Reynolds:

    If Hillary Clinton stabbed a room service waiter and used his hollowed-out skull as an ashtray, I would still vote for her over any Republican. And I really like room service.

    A little slow on the uptake today, aren’t you?

  37. Rafer Janders says:

    @Will Taylors:

    That basically means people here on the left need to come up with reasons why she should be president and be able to defend her record or lack of it.

    1. Pro-choice
    2. Pro marriage equality.
    3. Pro science.
    4. Will nominate liberal Supreme Court justices.
    5. Strong on national security.
    6. Will not attempt to destroy Social Security.
    7. Has more than a kindergarten-level understanding of economics.

    Each of 1 to 7, right, there, puts her way ahead of anyone the GOP will nominate.

  38. anjin-san says:

    @PJ:

    Supreme Court Justice nominees.

    Robert Reich today proposed that Barack Obama should be President Clinton’s first nominee.

    That’s an interesting idea…

  39. anjin-san says:

    @Will Taylors:

    So in other words, you are not prepared to defend Scott Walker, but you do share the right wing’s unfortunate butt fetish.

    Hardly a surprise.

  40. Rafer Janders says:

    @Will Taylors:

    That basically means people here on the left need to come up with reasons why she should be president and be able to defend her record or lack of it.

    Actually, despite my reply above, we really don’t. What we really need to do is this:

    That basically means people here on the left need to come up with reasons why she should be president INSTEAD OF HER GOP OPPONENT and be able to defend her record or lack of it AS COMPARED TO THAT OF HER GOP OPPONENT.

  41. Will Taylors says:

    @anjin-san:

    I’ll defend Scott Walker as soon as people here defend Hillary. Why don’t you wait for Michael or one of the more smarter liberals to do that before you jump in with your usual cheerleading.

  42. anjin-san says:

    @Will Taylors:

    I’ll defend Scott Walker as soon as people here defend Hillary.

    Really? And I will hold my breath and stamp my feet until you play marbles by my rules 🙂

    You should stick to name calling. It rings far truer that the patina of reasonableness that you attempt to frame your arguments in.

    BTW. several commentators here have “defended” Hillary. Now why don’t you address Walker, education cuts, and corporate welfare?

    Put up or shut up.

  43. Will Taylors says:

    @Rafer Janders:

    Of course you don’t have to make an argument because that would be too difficult. It’s much easier calling every Republican a racist and homophobe instead of listing why you actually support someone. Maybe throw out Sarah Palin in a pinch.

  44. michael reynolds says:

    @dennis:
    Obviously he has no empathy for room service waiters or he’d have understood.

  45. Will Taylors says:

    @anjin-san:

    Why don’t you head over the bridge to Tiburon and visit Michael and come up with some talking points because your reflexive liberal responses are beyond boring at this point.

  46. michael reynolds says:

    @Will Taylors:

    Actually, as Anjin points out, we have defended Hillary. Are you half asleep? Drunk? Incapable of reading?

  47. PJ says:

    @Will Taylors:

    I’m supposed to take from this rant that Hillary could be as bad as Stalin but you’d still vote her because she wouldn’t be as bad any of the GOP nominees?

    You and Pinky are quite dense aren’t you?

    As bad as Stalin was, he still was better than Hitler.
    As bad as Hillary is to some on the left, she’s still better than any of the GOP nominees.

    If what you get from that is that Hillary could be as bad as Stalin and people on the left would still vote for her, then you really need to have your logic board replaced…

    It’s a choice, dude. A or B. Little evil over Big Evil.

    A lesson lots of Democrats learned in 2000. The idiots who voted for Nader.

  48. Rafer Janders says:

    @Will Taylors:

    Of course you don’t have to make an argument because that would be too difficult. It’s much easier calling every Republican a racist and homophobe instead of listing why you actually support someone.

    Um, I did list why I actually supported Clinton at 5:44 above. Do you suffer from Selective Reading Syndrome?

  49. Will Taylors says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Those are some pretty weak points and hardly call them arguments. i forgot how low the bar is on here that you don’t need to actually make an argument. You just need to agree with liberals and give an enthusiastic thumbs up.

  50. wr says:

    @MikeSJ: “I’d also still vote for her but the smoking would bother me.”

    That line alone makes it worth wading through all the crap our recent trolls have spewed around here…

  51. anjin-san says:

    @Will Taylors:

    Those are some pretty weak points and hardly call them arguments. i forgot how low the bar is on here that you don’t need to actually make an argument. You just need to agree with liberals

    Will, you’ve basically descended into drivel here. If you simply want to whine about liberals, there are blogs that have turned that into an art form, and I am sure they would welcome you.

    I was actually looking forward to your defense of Walker, as he seems to be at very least, the flavor of the month for the GOP. Unfortunately, it seems that not only do you not walk the walk, you don’t even do a good job of talking the talk.

  52. Pinky says:

    @PJ:

    As bad as Stalin was, he still was better than Hitler.
    As bad as Hillary is to some on the left, she’s still better than any of the GOP nominees.

    So basically you agree? I mean, isn’t that what you’re saying?

  53. Pinky says:

    @anjin-san:

    …and I am sure they would welcome you

    You heard him, Will – you’re not welcome in these parts if you whine about liberals!

  54. Will Taylors says:

    @anjin-san:

    Why would i ever try to make a case for Walker to you? You and your pals are Pro Union. any argument i can make for Walker ends for you guys at that point. i can post countless articles from left to center websites and it still would not change anything. There are very few folks on the left on here i can have a discussion with and obviously thats never been you. I also posted a bunch of links earlier than none of you liberals read. I don;t have the time you obviously do to post links and try to convince you.

  55. wr says:

    @Will Taylors: Those are weak points? Are you an idiot? In case you are, let me make them a little clearer for your dim thought process:

    1: 1. Pro-choice. HRC is in favor of a woman’s right to choice; every Republican candidate is in favor of the state controlling women’s sexualilty, first on access to abortion then on access to birth control.

    2. 2. Pro marriage equality.HRC is in favor of equal rights for gay and lesbians; the Republicans are only concerned about the terrible toll this will take on bigoted wedding photographers and bakers, and believe that gays should continue to be treated as second-class citizens so that these bigots don’t have their feelings hurt.

    3. Pro science.HRC accepts the almost uniformly accepted scientific concensus that man-made global warming is real and presents a real and present danger to our civilization; Republicans throw snnowballs on the floor of the Senate and say that since it’s cold outside, this is a hoax to hurt oil companies.

    4. Will nominate liberal Supreme Court justices. As opposed to putting one more person on the court who will vote in favor of corporate privilege over human rights.

    5. Strong on national security. Despite her innate hawkishness. HRC is smart enough to know that invading Iran or Russia would be a disaster that would make the last Iraq war look like a holiday; there isn’t a single Republican candidate who isn’t trying to start a war with Iran to make Israel’s government happy.

    6. Will not attempt to destroy Social Security. Whereas the Republicans will attempt to, and have stated so repeatedly.

    7. Has more than a kindergarten-level understanding of economics. And she even knows that if you cut taxes, less tax money comes in. And that if you cut taxes on rich people, then they will get richer and everyone else will get poorer.

    Those are seven reasons right there, which you will again pretend not to have read, doling out grade-school insults in a pathetic attempt to hide the obvious.

    Which is, of course, that you are incapable of defending the pond scum you’ve decided to vote for.

  56. michael reynolds says:

    @Will Taylors:

    Jesus, dude, wake up.

    We vote for people we think agree with us on whatever issue we think is important. Right? I don’t know what you think you’re asking for, but your obtuseness is getting tedious.

  57. wr says:

    @Will Taylors: So you’re busy criticizing liberals for not giving you more than seven reasons why they support Hillary… but you can’t be bothered to explain why you’d support Walker, except that liberals suck.

    What a sophisticated thinker you turn out to be. You are indeed the soul of your party.

  58. anjin-san says:

    @Will Taylors:

    Why would i ever try to make a case for Walker to you?

    Well, you said you would. That seems like a pretty good reason.

  59. Will Taylors says:

    @wr:

    I don’t need a lecture from a washed up tv writer, ok? You listed broad points and listed very single Republican as opposing everything you wrote. I need someone like Gregwills or one of the
    more astute folks than this dribble. I’ll be happy to discuss Walker when I see that.

    @michael reynolds:

    We all know how big your ego is but please stop trying to censor people. This isn’t your website as much as you want it to be. If you don’t like my comments, please feel free to ignore them. I’ve tried being civil with you but you just get angry when people disagree with you. why dont you go outside and take a walk down Red Hill or something instead of trying to get rid of me?

  60. michael reynolds says:

    @Will Taylors:
    Red Hill is a circle, so I would just end up right back here.

    No one is trying to censor you. We’re trying to get you to understand that we are talking about POLITICS not a junior high miss popularity contest.

  61. humanoid.panda says:

    @Will Taylor:

    We’re well past the idea that we elect our leaders based on their experience and qualifications.

    I really don’t thnk that experience and qualifications matter nearly as much as most people pretend for a president.
    First off, literally no job anyone held before, qualifies anyone to be president.

    Second , there is very little correlation between experience and performance in office. Do we really think that Cheney would have been a better president than W?

    Most importantly, in this era of polarization and the existence of two non-overlapping talent pools to staff the courts and administration, partisan identity is 95% of of all the information we need about the president. Let’s say the ghost of Eisenhower returns and somehow wins the GOP nomination. That ghost would still sign bills signed by the GOP house, appoint SCOTUS justices vetted by the Federalsit society, and staff its foreign policy apparatus with neocons, and and the economic staff with supply siders- because otherwise it will face a party rebellion and will go down in flames.

  62. michael reynolds says:

    @wr:
    Hey, as a “washed up TV writer” I don’t suppose you’d take a look at a script I’m working on, would you?

  63. humanoid.panda says:

    Same factors apply for Democrats too, of course. If you believe abortion is murder, even a pro-life democrat is a non-starter, because his judges will be prochoicers.

  64. michael reynolds says:

    @humanoid.panda:

    It’s like explaining color to a blind man. Why is he obsessed with politics if he doesn’t get politics?

  65. Will Taylors says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Why are you Obsessed with bashing Republicans? You’re just an asshole who doesn’t practice what he preaches. You pretend to be Tolerant of everyone, but the real angry guy comes out on here when a Republican has the audacity to challenge him. I’ll side with the folks who actually are real in their beliefs instead of some limousine liberal living in a 2MM home in Tiburon who preaches economic inequality.

  66. anjin-san says:

    Another day, another serving of victimhood and name calling from our friends on the right. I’m off to work on my mother’s taxes. Livin’ la vida loca here in the people’s republic!

  67. LC says:

    what is with the troll explosion lately? its unbearable.

  68. wr says:

    @Will Taylors: “I don’t need a lecture from a washed up tv writer, ok”

    Oooh — you cut me to the quick! Some loser on the internet says I’m “washed up.” Oh, the pain, the pain.

    I guess I could do a Michael Reynolds and list all the things I’m working on. But whether or not I ever work again, I’ve written, produced and/or directed about 300 hours of dramatic televison… which I suspect is about 300 more than you have. So instead I think I’ll outsource my reply to that master of the pop lyric, William Shatner:

    Has been, has been, has been
    You talkin’ to me? You talkin’ to me?
    You callin’ me, has been?
    What’d you say your name is?

    Jack, never done Jack
    Glad to meet you
    Who’s your friend?
    Dick, don’t say Dick
    What do you know?
    And you friend, what’s your handle?
    Don Two Thumbs Don

    Riding on their armchairs
    They dream of wealth and fame
    Fear is their companion
    Nintendo is their game

    Never done Jack and Two Thumbs Don
    And sidekick don’t say Dick
    Will laugh at others failures
    Though they have not done shit

    {I’ve heard of you the ready-made connecting with the ever ready, yeah
    The never was talking about still trying I got it
    Forever bitter gossiping about never say die
    May I inquire what you’ve been doing mister?}

  69. michael reynolds says:

    @Will Taylors:

    Ah, resentment of the well-to-do? Is that a Republican thing now?

    I have talent and I work hard. And I’m lucky. Why don’t you see if you have some talent and work hard? Maybe you’ll get lucky, too. Probably better than stalking people and giving their addresses out.

    Hey, want to see my car? http://imageonthefly.autodatadirect.com/images/?width=380&height=287&img=CAC40MBC684A021001.jpg

    By the way, I don’t think the house is 2 mil. Last time I talked to John about buying it he was talking 1.6. Could be 1.8 now though, with the booming market we have in Jerry Brown/Barack Obama California.

  70. wr says:

    @michael reynolds: Any time, sir. It would be my honor.

  71. wr says:

    @Will Taylors: ” You pretend to be Tolerant of everyone”

    Michael Reynolds pretends to be tolerant of everyone?

    Man, you really don’t know how to read, do you?

  72. David M says:

    @Will Taylors:

    Here’s a quick list of reason to support Hillary (or really any Democrat), cribbed from the others

    1. Will not attempt to destroy Obamacare, Social Security or Medicare
    2. Will nominate liberal Supreme Court justices.
    3. Not a Rubio level moron on national security.
    4. Has more than a kindergarten-level understanding of economics.

    Are there GOP candidates that support any of these? Especially when the priorities of the national GOP in Congress are taken into account?

  73. michael reynolds says:

    @wr:
    Thanks, man. I’m working on it even as we speak. It requires me to learn stuff I don’t know how to write (yet.) Mystery plotting plus stand-up routines. Not easy. I should be done within 30 days. After that I have to get back to the next book.

  74. Pinky says:

    @wr: Agreed. I don’t think Michael’s ever claimed to see anything but white hats and black hats. There are a lot of things he could be accused of, but camouflaging himself as tolerant? No way.

  75. wr says:

    @michael reynolds: Cool. Give me a holler when you’re done.

  76. anjin-san says:

    @wr:

    Dr. Smith and William Shatner in a single comment?

    Oh Myyyyyyy…

    Ok, now I really have to be productive for a few hours.

  77. Will Taylors says:

    @wr:

    i looked at your IMDB page after your last rant against me. Call me unimpressed about a guy who Wrote for SeaQuest. Love how you try to teach people about writing when you haven’t written anything viable in years. You must really be Bigtime these days with the new mediums like Netflix and Amazon banging down your door. The sad fact that the people who used to watch your crap are most likely Dead and now you live in the past while trying to hawk your books at aspiring writers.

    @michael reynolds: Its worth 2 Million. check Zillow and i didnt give out your address. I dont care enough to do that, but i cant say the same for other people you might have pissed off. If you are going to run your mouth at strangers and be reckless, you should be prepared for a few of them to hit back. Enjoy your weekend!

  78. Anonymouse says:

    @Will Taylors: I loved SeaQuest,. so you can go to hell.

  79. ElizaJane says:

    OK, I’ll just say it — I’ve decided to LIKE Hillary. She was a pretty good Sec. of State, ie., she failed to start any new wars, preferring to talk to people instead. She visited an incredibly large number of countries personally, doing her best to repair the damage done to the reputation of the USA by the Bush administration. Her favorable ratings during her time at State were in the 65% range, which explains why the R’s grasped so desperately at Benghazi. They saw the writing on the wall and it was not pretty for them.

    As a Senator, she was sane, which seems to be pretty rare in that august body. She was senator from NY at the time of 9/11 (which may help explain her war vote) and she lead the investigation of health effects of the disaster on first responders. She has been steadily in favor of protecting same-sex marriage. She’s a strong, determined, smart woman who can withstand the relentless negativity that she gets from Republicans and from the media as well. I mean, honestly — the e-mail server thing is SUCH a non-scandal yet the press has covered it wall to wall for a week and more, much more than they have covered the 47 Traitors which is actually what the public cares about. It’s disgusting.

  80. Kylopod says:

    @humanoid.panda:

    there is very little correlation between experience and performance in office.

    What nonsense! Look at Obummer…. Before he was president, he was just a lawyer from Illinois who became a measly state legislator before serving two years in the House of Representatives. THAT’S IT. How could that minimal level of experience have possibly qualified him to be president?!

    …Oh, wait. Sorry, I had a brain freeze there. I wasn’t describing Barack Obama. I was describing Abe Lincoln.

  81. wr says:

    @Will Taylors: Dude, please try to imagine exactly how impresed I am with what some anonymous loser on the internet thinks of my IMDB page. But please, feel free to post your own accomplishments up here. I’m sure we’ll all be tremendously impressed.

    So come on, “Will Taylor.” Post your page from the Internet Loser Data Base and we can all see just how accompished this “maker” really is.

  82. wr says:

    @Will Taylors: Oh, and now passive-aggressive threats against MR. You really are the complete package, aren’t you? One nasty little Republican who pretends to be civilized, but scratch a tiny bit and discover the seething rage of the lifetime loser.

    You should have lunch with Jenos. I’m sure you’d have lots to talk about.

    Oh, by the way, before you realized you were getting your ass kicked and switched to ad hominems and threats, we were talking about why one would support a particular candidate. Those who support Hillary have spoken up. Maybe you could explain your preference, if you’d prefer to stop wallowing in filth.

    Of course, you support Walker, whose sole campaign issue is to make those people you don’t like have lives as rotten as yours. So maybe you don’t want to explain that.

  83. al-Ameda says:

    @Will Taylors: What’s with your class warfare, Will?

  84. anjin-san says:

    @al-Ameda:

    There is some serious success envy at work, no doubt about that.

  85. Will Taylor says:

    @wr:

    Oh it’s the liberal gang coming to get me. I’ve announced who i am on more than one occasion. It’s not my fault if you don’t read other people’s posts. It still makes you a hack Bill, a washed up writer who is irrelevant in today’s media. If my words weren’t true, I doubt you would care to respond.

  86. michael reynolds says:

    @Will Taylor:

    Well, congratulations. You’ve managed to go in a single thread from “ill-informed” to “obtuse” to “creepy stalker.” Nice work.

  87. ElizaJane says:

    Another positive thing about Hillary (I’m on a roll here): in all her years in the Senate and at State, she never made a spectacle of herself, never took an incredibly idiotic and ill-informed position and never paraded and postured and spouted drivel. This sets her apart from everybody on the Republican bench. She actually behaved like an adult. I want a president who is capable of being consistently sane and grown-up. Is that too much to ask?

  88. michael reynolds says:

    @Will Taylor:
    Bill has generated more cash flow and more wealth than you will ever see in ten lifetimes, dude. Not to mention laughs, tears, excitement, joy, anticipation. All the stuff that you can’t do. Have never done. Will never do.

  89. michael reynolds says:

    @Will Taylor: @wr:

    BTW, learn how to read an IMDB page. Writer, producer, executive producer? Baywatch, Diagnosis Murder, Cosby Mysteries, Monk, Psych, The Glades? Are you kidding me? You know how many people have that kind of pedigree? This guy wrote for Dick Van Dyke, Tony Shalhoub, Timothy Hutton and Cosby? Not to mention Hasselhoff and Pamela Anderson?

    Wow. You really don’t know anything about anything, do you?

  90. will Taylor says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Don’t be so sure. Just because you two morons like to brag on here about your “accomplishments” don’t expect me to do the same. Btw if I wanted to stalk you buddy, you’d sure damn know it. I don’t care enough about you to do that, but I do find it funny how open
    Your whole damn life is on the Internet. You’re not too tech savvy are you?

  91. will Taylor says:

    @michael reynolds:

    That’s great. Shitty tv from 20+ years ago. Maybe you can buy the DVD sets on amazon and help support Bill.

    Bill reminds me of bob the washed up producer martin landau played on entourage. Hey Bill,
    Can I get you a Sanka?

  92. michael reynolds says:

    @will Taylor:

    Dude, if you give money to politicians, your address is online. Goes with the territory.

    Now, do you want to keep up the sad little stalker routine? Because I’m going to have to ask Joyner to shut you down for making not-very-veiled threats.

  93. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @PJ:

    Supreme Court Justice nominees.

    Agreed. We’re at a tipping point for the court (4 justices almost certain to be replaced within the next 8 to 12 years) which will set the character of its rulings going forward. No matter which side wins, they’ll nominate young, relative ideologues who will determine the ideological bent of the court for a generation. I’d prefer not to have those 4 slots populated with 4 more Alitos …

    People moan about Congress this or the president that, but if we’re honest with ourselves, neither branch possesses the finality of dictate, nor the lasting effect on American life, that SCOTUS has. In many ways, it’s by far the most powerful branch of government.

    That’s far too important to be left to the whims of someone like Walker or Bush, and regardless of whatever other qualms I might have about her, I would vote for her on that basis alone.

  94. michael reynolds says:

    @will Taylor:
    Oh but thanks for being such a loser – thanks to your harassment I just found “wr’s” book on TV writing. Yay. I can use that.

  95. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Don’t you love these veiled “I know who you are and where you live” threats this clown likes to throw out?

    If it helps, Will Taylor, I live near Locust Avenue in Rye, NY. Feel free to start burning up Google 😀

  96. EddieInCA says:

    As someone who has worked with “wr” on a recent series, I can tell Will Taylor that he’s full of shit.

    You know what a writer with that pedigree gets that you’ll never get?

    Residuals.

    Money coming in for work you did 20 years ago on “shitty TV”?

    “wr” is doing quite nicely.

    Now crawl back into the hole from which you slithered out.

  97. wr says:

    @ElizaJane: “This sets her apart from everybody on the Republican bench.”

    And half the Democrats in the Senate as well!

  98. Gustopher says:

    @Will Taylors:

    There are very few folks on the left on here i can have a discussion with and obviously thats never been you.

    Who are these liberals you can have a discussion with? Names please — either the alias they use here, or their real name, since you seem to like that.

    And, for the record, I would probably vote for a Republican over Stalin, but I would really have to think about whether Stalin would be effective at promoting his agenda, as an ineffective Stalin might be better than an effective Republican.

    I used to be a Republican, but I don’t recognize the party at all anymore.

  99. wr says:

    @michael reynolds: “Not to mention Hasselhoff and Pamela Anderson?”

    Must correct you there, sir. No Pamela Anderson. I was on the NBC version, with Erika Eleniak. (Still had the Hoff… let’s just say I wasn’t surprised when he tried to drink his entire minibar instead of saving his life by going to Betty Ford…)

    It was a lousy show, it was hard as hell to write because of that… but at least our version was a failure!

  100. wr says:

    @michael reynolds: Don’t know which one you found. Go with “Writing the Pilot.” Much more up to date, much more useful.

  101. wr says:

    @EddieInCA: Thanks Eddie. Where do I know you from?

  102. michael reynolds says:

    @wr:
    Erika Eleniak who rose nude from a fake cake in the movie UNDER SIEGE? Why, I’m um, not familiar with her. And I certainly have never rewound that particular scene. Nor did I look it up on YouTube.

    I bet I’ve written more awful sh!t than you have. I used to ghostwrite spin-off books for Disney. I wrote spin-off books from the TV show CHRISTIE. I wrote an entire series called BARF-O-Rama.

    Oh, I’ll match your crap. And as much as I think Ariel is cute, she’s no Erika.

    Yeah, I got the pilot book. Should be here in our twice-daily Amazon delivery in a few days.

    You live in LA or up in the Bay?

  103. PJ says:

    @Gustopher:

    And, for the record, I would probably vote for a Republican over Stalin, but I would really have to think about whether Stalin would be effective at promoting his agenda, as an ineffective Stalin might be better than an effective Republican.

    I’d vote for a Republican over Stalin too.

    But unless I got what Michael Reynolds wrote completely wrong, that wasn’t the choice, it was Stalin vs. Hitler, and Stalin was the lesser evil.

    But maybe Pinky or Will Taylors would have picked Hitler.

  104. wr says:

    @michael reynolds: I’m in La Quinta, outside of Palm Springs, Grew up in Berkeley, long to get back to the Bay Area… but since I’m washed up, the places I love are a little insanely overpriced for me. One of these days…

  105. michael reynolds says:

    @wr:
    We should get a drink next time I’m in LA and you happen to be somewhere in range. EddieinCA too if we figure out who he is.

  106. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Dude, if you give money to politicians, your address is online. Goes with the territory.

    Eh, not necessarily. Establish a Delaware LLC, shell out as much money as you like, and then close it down. Nary a soul will know your name, or your address.

  107. EddieInCA says:

    @michael reynolds:

    @wr:
    We should get a drink next time I’m in LA and you happen to be somewhere in range. EddieinCA too if we figure out who he is.

    I will contact you both privately.

    wr – I have your info from the crewlist.

    Michael – I know how to reach you as well.

  108. An Interested Party says:

    What’s with your class warfare, Will?

    Well of course conservatives are always saying how liberals play class warfare when, in reality, it is conservatives themselves who practice class warfare…

    I’ve announced who i am on more than one occasion.

    Oh, wow, is he like, the second coming of Drew? Now that is impressive…

    This thread has been hilarious…we have some guy ranting against Hillary and demanding why she is qualified to be president (and dismissing said qualifications when they are listed for him) while he offers nothing about why his favorites are qualified…oh, and the personal insults and veiled threats against those who call him on his BS are rich…we’re very close to the satire of James P here…

  109. Steve V says:

    @michael reynolds: Hey if you guys meet up in Hollywood I’d love to join you. I live and work in Hollywood. And hey, I can give you legal advice on copyright issues. Nothing more fun than that.

  110. anjin-san says:

    @ wr

    We will be in Berkeley tomorrow evening to see “What we do in the shadows” at the Shattuck. (7:30 show if any creepy stalker types are interested) Sounds like a pretty good flick. May hit the Cheese Board first. You should come up sometime, Berkeley is still great.

  111. anjin-san says:

    @ Will

    I used to be acquainted with a comedian named Mitch Mullany (sadly, he is no longer with us, he was a very funny guy). Back in the 90s, he starred in a TV show called “Nick Freno: Licensed Teacher?” It was the lowest rated show on network television, dead last.

    I remember reading an interview with Mitch, and they asked him what it was like starring on the lowest rated show. His reply was something like “Well, I have a house in the Hollywood Hills with a nice pool, I drive a Porsche, Donna D’errico is on my show, and beautiful women I don’t even know want to sleep with me. It could be worse.” (Nick Freno footnote, Don Adams appeared on one episode)

    I know some other comedians who went on to become TV writers, and I have a pretty good idea what their income is. The moral of the story is that that is a very good industry to be in.

    Giving credit where credit is due is alway a good thing, even if it involves people you don’t necessarily agree with or even like. Long term success in highly competitive industries is a pretty good sign that someone has both talent and good career management skills. Your pouty little shots at guys who have achieved that kind of success simply make you look petty and bitter.

  112. dennis says:

    @wr:

    Meh, Will Taylor’s an idiot. Not that it would be necessary, but I’d go run security for MR any day. For free. I’ve been waitin’ to get off parade rest for a while anyway.

  113. michael reynolds says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    I already had to establish one corp just to get health insurance pre-Obamacare. That was like six years ago, and I’ve already managed to get suspended once. Apparently they want minutes of our board meetings? Since my wife and I are the entire corporation, the temptation to have a “board meeting” and send the state minutes. . . but we resisted.

    10 years ago I would not have been so mature.

  114. humanoid.panda says:

    And here is exhibit no. 199294959 why people should vote for Hillary, even if she is indeed a serial bellhop killer, as Michael alleges:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/war-with-iran-is-probably-our-best-option/2015/03/13/fb112eb0-c725-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html

    Now, she is more hawkish than I would prefer, but in her White House, people like Moravchik will be howling at the moon, not providing strategic advice to the President.

  115. michael reynolds says:

    @Steve V:

    I didn’t know you were Hollywood, too.

    I may have to go down in a few weeks to watch some more stand-up. It’s work. Shut up, it is too work. Tax deductible expenses kind of work.

  116. michael reynolds says:

    @anjin-san:
    I don’t think TV money is as good nowadays. Option money’s crap, that’s for sure. Movie money’s not that great for book rights at least. I mean, good money by any normal, rational standard, and money that would have staggered me back in my living-under-the-overpass days, but not life-altering money.

    But my wife’s movie has a decent chance of being greenlit, so maybe we’ll clean up on the back end. Ah hah hah hah. Just kidding. Profit participation. Yeah, right, that’s a good one.

    They tried to peg our back end at six times cost. For a 60 MM dollar movie about a gorilla. So our ‘back end’ would kick in if it cleared 360 MM plus whatever else they tacked on. Negotiating with the Mouse.

  117. michael reynolds says:

    @dennis:
    Any time, man.

  118. humanoid.panda says:

    And as for the meta debate here: unlike you all, I am a newly minted history PhD, meaning that if things work out ridiculously well for me, the best I can expect is a fraction of what Michael and wr and most other people on this thread make. I am also a social-democrat. Yet, I don’t feel a fraction of the bitterness or envy that the self-declared lovers of the free market feel towards y’all. Interesting conundrum, that.

    [All this being said, if anyone of you is planning a project that requires ridicilous amounts of knowledge of Eastern European culture, politics and history, I hope you know who to call :-)]

  119. michael reynolds says:

    @humanoid.panda:
    I suppose it’s a good that they’re really starting to come out and admit what has been obvious from the start: they want a war.

    No thought given to the fact that it would be a partisan war, a Republican war, an Israeli war, and what that would mean for national unity, for our own internal cohesion. Or what it would mean to Jews all over the world, who would see anti-semitism escalate rapidly as Hezbollah bombs started going off in Hamburg and Paris and Manchester.

    Iran is four times the size and twice the population of Iraq, and they are not divided by sect. It is an absolute fantasy to think this would force regime change. It would almost certainly unite Iranians behind rapid weaponization. Which in turn would have Saudi Arabia building a bomb. The home of Al Qaeda.

    Iran is right across the Caspian from Russia which would surely bombard them with free weapons. The Baghdad government would turn against us. NATO unity might be threatened.

    What dangerous idiots these people are.

  120. michael reynolds says:

    @humanoid.panda:
    Damn, I’m working on a WW2 alt-history thing, but not eastern Europe. For Book #2 I may have to go back to Sicily and then up the boot from Salerno to Anzio. You can imagine how I dread the idea of driving around Italy, stopping only to drink espressos the consistency of peanut butter, eat long lunches in sidewalk cafes and even longer dinners on hotel terraces.

    It’s almost as if I designed a job that required me to eat tax-deductible pasta and drink tax-deductible wine. Yeah, almost like that.

    To be serious, I envy the history PhD. I came to history in my 30’s, but never in an organized way. It’s the backstory of the human race, and any writer will tell you backstory is the font of character and to some extent plot. You don’t understand the now if you don’t understand the then.

  121. Matt says:

    @michael reynolds: What you list is just the start of a massive avalanche of bad stuff that would eventually land on us..

    I’m expecting genocide in Iraq if we do engage in a war with Iran.. Might even happen regardless at this rate (Tikrit).

  122. humanoid.panda says:

    @michael reynolds: Well, if you ever want to launch a new series on the Eastern Front, come and talk to me. Seriously, there is so much fodder for alternative history there: what if Hitler decides to delay the attack to 42, and Stalin attacks preemptively (some Russian historians think that was his plan?). What if Russians don’t defeat the Japanese in 38, and face a war on two fronts? What if the Nazis take Moscow, or Stalingrad, and the USSR retreats to the Urals and continues the war. Seriously, that is worth pondering. Also, the research trips don’t have as much good food, but oh my god, the women!

  123. humanoid.panda says:

    @Matt: The most astounding thing about that piece (well, besides the fact that it was published in a reputable newspaper) is that it contains no planning, or nods towards planning: we just bomb, and if it doesn’t work, we bomb again, and if bad things happen, well, we’ll just have to bomb again. I mean, the Iraq war had a plan, a bad, utopian, idiotic plan, but a plan nonetheless. What Muravchik is selling is warfare for people who like to see the world burn.

  124. EddieInCA says:

    @michael reynolds:

    I don’t think TV money is as good nowadays. Option money’s crap, that’s for sure. Movie money’s not that great for book rights at least. I mean, good money by any normal, rational standard, and money that would have staggered me back in my living-under-the-overpass days, but not life-altering money.

    For writers… maybe.

    For people like me, TV Money is effing amazing right now. I just wrapped a small show, with an even smaller budget, but for producing it, I made more per episode than the average US person makes in a year (Google will give you the number). Multiply that by 13 episodes in four months of shooting and it’s a damn good way to start the year. I’m off to Atlanta for a 24 episode order next, so 2015 is going to be a great year.

    30 years ago, we had three networks and a fledgling cable infrastructure, and no sateliite TV. Today, there are so many freaking buyers. Writers are getting hosed – I admit that – but they still need people like me to produce. It’s alot harder than it looks. But now, we have ABC, NBC, Fox, CBS, HBO, Starz, Cinemax, A&E, AMC, IFC, Showtime, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, MTV, VH1, BET, ESPN, Pivot, SyFy, USA, TNT, which are ALL buying and producing original dramatic and comedic scripted series.

    For someone like me, who can breakdown, budget, staff, manage, and deliver a weekly series on time, on budget, and with few problems…. it’s a golden time.

  125. Grewgills says:

    Poe?

  126. Grewgills says:

    As long as people are sharing, if anyone wants to dive or no where to dive on Big Island or where to drink or hike on Oahu let me know.

  127. Tony W says:

    @EddieInCA:

    For someone like me, who can breakdown, budget, staff, manage, and deliver a weekly series on time, on budget, and with few problems…. it’s a golden time.

    Sounds like I need to redirect my management skills a new direction. Not much of that work happening in San Diego I imagine….

  128. ElizaJane says:

    @michael reynolds: Wait, I am working on a WWII alt-history thing too. How small of a world can this be?

  129. Tyrell says:

    Bill Clinton said that he has sent only two e-mails in his life. The problem with emails and text is that some people know how to get into these, trace them to others, get numbers, and information. If I were a top government official, general, member of Congress, or intelligence officer, I would use a system of form letters, responses, and memos on email. It seems that the email system has opened up private communications to those who otherwise would have to get a search warrant.
    “If you want to contact Hillary, she is at hillary@pantsuit.com” (Letterman)

  130. Grewgills says:

    @Grewgills:
    The above offer was made while slightly intoxicated, but I guess the offer stands.

  131. Mikey says:

    You California guys are great. I’m on the whole other coast and I can’t tell anyone what I do at any more detail than “I work in telecommunications.”

    But it pays well enough to support a family in the D. C. ‘burbs on my income alone, so there’s that.

    I’d love to move to California but my wife isn’t having it. Maybe one day, but we’re not getting any younger…

  132. al-Ameda says:

    @Will Taylor:

    Oh it’s the liberal gang coming to get me.

    Oh, I see. It’s all about you.

  133. michael reynolds says:

    @EddieInCA:

    Dammit, no, stop doing this to me. You’re dangling filet mignon in front of my face. Hollywood has done nothing but frustrate me. I can go to New York, have a book deal in a month, signed. sealed, paid.

    And then I go deal with Hollywood and it’s a long, slow descent into quicksand. Hannah M- from a large Japanese corporation with very bad email security looked me in the eye and said, “We want to be in the Michael G– business.” And what does that mean? Nothing. I have a property optioned for movies, a property optioned for TV, interest (conference calls) in yet another property and my wife has a movie deal. The totality of it has meant not much in tangible terms.

    And yet. . . It calls to me, Eddie. Hollywood. LA. It whispers to me. Just smoke one bowl, it’ll be okay, it’s just crack.

  134. michael reynolds says:

    @Mikey:
    Dude, it is crazy expensive. We’re dealing with some aged in-laws who live in the Richmond (VA) area, trying to get them set up with a new handicap-access home, nursing care, etc…, and it’s expensive, but damn, for what I pay in rent for a run down, 3 bedroom, essentially condo (with a stunning view) here, I could cover Alzheimer’s level of care in Virginia. I could have someone spoon-feeding me and wiping my ass.

    And isn’t that what everyone wants?