Polls Show Little Damage To Clinton From Reports About The Clinton Foundation

So far at least, there's little evidence in the polls that Hillary Clinton has been hurt by the news reports about the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton inducted into the Irish America Hall of Fame

In the past several weeks, Hillary Clinton’s campaign rollout has been met with headwinds in the form of questions and allegations regarding the dealings of the Clinton Foundation during the time when she was Secretary of State, as well as continued questions regarding her use of a personal email server for official correspondence during the time she was in office. The reports regarding the Foundation in particular have been picked up by the mainstream press as reports have come out regarding the Foundation’s  failure to report donations from foreign sources while Clinton was Secretary of State, the Foundation’s relationship to a multinational deal involving a Russian uranium company, and other information that seems to clearly indicate that the Foundation failed to comply with an agreement with the Obama Administration regarding disclosure of foreign donations. More recently, while the Clinton campaign has confined its responses to press releases, former Bill Clinton jumped to the defense of his Foundation with comments that were, to put it nicely, less than helpful. So far, though, it does not appear from the available polling that these reports are having much of an impact on Clinton herself.

First, in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released yesterday, we see that while Clinton has taken somewhat of a hit from these reports, she remains in a very strong position politically:

Hillary Clinton’s stature has been battered after more than a month of controversy over her fundraising and email practices, but support for her among Democrats remains strong and unshaken, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

In just seven weeks, a period in which Mrs. Clinton formally began her presidential campaign, the share of people with a negative view of her jumped to 42% from 36% in last month’s survey, and only a quarter of registered voters said they viewed her as honest and straightforward, down from 38% last summer.

But she remains highly regarded among Democrats, with 76% saying they viewed her favorably—a greater hold on party loyalty than any of her potential Republican rivals had in the poll taken between April 26-30.

In an early assessment of the still-emerging GOP field, Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, drew the most support among GOP primary voters, with 23% naming him their top choice. But by some measures, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, Mr. Bush’s onetime protégé, showed signs of broader strength. Nearly three quarters of GOP primary voters said they could see themselves supporting him, even if he wasn’t their first choice, a larger share than claimed by any rival.

Mrs. Clinton is also a polarizing figure and has been buffeted in recent weeks by reports about her use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state, which critics see as an attempt to evade oversight. She and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have been criticized for allowing their family’s charitable foundation to accept donations from foreign governments, which critics say could allow those governments to influence Mrs. Clinton during her time in government or as a presidential candidate.

“She’s had a very rocky two months, and we can see the impact,” said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who directed the survey with Democratic pollster Fred Yang. “But all of this has played out—the emails, the Clinton Foundation—all of that made no fundamental difference to the Democratic primary voters.”

Peter Hart, another Democratic pollster who worked on the survey, sees the results as a sign of Mrs. Clinton’s political stamina. “America’s ‘Iron Lady’ does not have a glass jaw,” he said.

(…)

n assessing Mrs. Clinton, about half of those surveyed said she has the knowledge and experience to handle the presidency. Pluralities saw her as effective, compassionate, willing to find consensus and setting a proper moral tone. But she drew lower ratings when people were asked if she was inspirational and honest. Among Democratic primary voters, however, she drew far stronger marks, with 86% rating her as knowledgeable and experienced enough to serve in the White House. Only 14% doubted her honesty.

“I think she would be a good leader,” said Sandra Burnett, a retiree in upstate New York who participated in the poll. Asked about the controversies over emails and fundraising, Ms. Burnett said, “It doesn’t change my view of her. I think she is as honest and straightforward as any politician can be.”

But the poll also found signs that negative views of Mrs. Clinton are growing among the swing voters she would need in the general election. Among independents, the share of people viewing her negatively grew to 48% from 34% last month.

“I used to be a very avid supporter of Hillary Clinton,” said poll participant Don Friedman, an independent from California. Now, “I’m beginning to wonder. She doesn’t seem to be open to the media about specifics about her plans for the administration, should she win.”

One important source of strength for Mrs. Clinton is likely to be her appeal among women, including white women—a group Mr. McInturff said the GOP will have to win over to win the White House. In head-to-head matchups with four leading GOP candidates, the poll found Mrs. Clinton outpolled them among white women by 2 to 10 percentage points.

In those matchups against four potential rivals, Mrs. Clinton topped Messrs. Bush and Rubio by 49% to 43%, and she topped Mr. Walker by 50% to 40%. The GOP candidate who came closest to Mrs. Clinton was Sen. Rand Paul, who trailed by 47%-44%.

Clinton fares better in CBS News/New York Times poll, which shows her favorability and leadership numbers at higher levels than previous surveys:

Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to have initially weathered a barrage of news about her use of a private email account when she was secretary of state and the practices of her family’s foundation, an indication that she is starting her second presidential bid with an unusual durability among Democratic voters.

Americans now view Mrs. Clinton more favorably and more see her as a strong leader than they did earlier in the year, despite weeks of scrutiny about her ethics, a New York Times/CBS News poll has found. And nearly nine in 10 Democrats say the nation is ready to elect a woman president.

Republican voters showed the most openness to considering SenatorMarco Rubio of Florida and former Govs. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas andJeb Bush of Florida among their party’s presidential contenders, the survey found.

Mrs. Clinton remains a polarizing figure — nearly the same percentage of Americans view her positively as negatively — but her favorability rating has improved by nine percentage points since the disclosure in late March that she did not use a government email account as secretary of state.

And the number of Americans who think Mrs. Clinton has strong qualities of leadership has risen by eight percentage points, to 65 percent from 57 percent, in that period. Still, Mrs. Clinton begins this campaign with fewer voters saying she possesses such qualities than did in July 2007, near the outset of her first presidential bid.

Mrs. Clinton has one primary opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and more Democrats are likely to enter the race, but her party seems particularly unbothered by questions relating to the emails and to the foundation that she, her husband and their daughter oversee.

While roughly 48 percent of Americans say Mrs. Clinton is honest and trustworthy, about four of five Democrats think she has those traits — and about the same numbers of Democrats say she shares the values most Americans try to live by.

Fifty-two percent of Democrats said they knew nothing or very little about the Clinton Foundation, and only 10 percent said foreign donations to the foundation affected Mrs. Clinton’s decisions while she was the nation’s top diplomat. Just 9 percent of Democratic voters said they would not consider voting for Mrs. Clinton.

“I think the whole thing is political and it’s going to wash away eventually,” Herbert Levengard, 83, a Democratic retiree from Maryland, said in a follow-up interview. “There are always going to be people who mess around and look for things to yell about, but I don’t care.”

The last two paragraphs above are the one caveat to keep in mind on either of these polls, because so far it does not appear that most Americans are paying much attention to the reports that have been coming out regarding the Clinton Foundation’s affairs during the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. To a large degree, of course, this is because most Americans are not really paying much attention to the Presidential race, at least not in any significant detail. To the extent that they are getting bits and pieces of these stories about the Foundation, they are most likely tuning them out as just another example of the same kinds of things that they’ve heard about the Bill and Hillary Clinton for the past two decades. Until we see poll numbers that show that significant numbers of voters, and especially independent voters are paying attention to these reports, then it’s hard to say what impact they’re having on Clinton’s political fortunes one way or the other. These reports may also not be resonating with the public because of the simple fact that to, a large degree, most people have already made their minds up about Hillary Clinton when it comes to issues such as favorability and trustworthiness. There are, I would imagine, very few people out there who don’t have some opinion of her and her husband at this point, and given that it’s unlikely that yet another story about questionable behavior by the two of them is going to have much of an impact unless there’s something more substantial to the story, such as evidence of the quid pro quo that is presently lacking from the reports about the Clinton Foundation. In that sense, what we’re seeing now isn’t all that different from the relatively modest effect on Clinton’s poll numbers that we saw in the wake of the initial reports about her use of private email servers while Secretary of State.

That isn’t to say that Clinton doesn’t have anything to worry about, though. The fact that both her favorability numbers and her trustworthiness continue to decline is certainly something that her advisers ought to be concerned about. It’s unlikely to have any impact on the race for the Democratic nomination, of course, but it could become a problem when the General Election rolls around. Unless, of course, Republicans end up doing something to shoot themselves in the foot. Given how the last couple Presidential elections go, that’s certainly a distinct possibility.

FILED UNDER: 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. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. C. Clavin says:

    So far at least, there’s little evidence in the polls that Hillary Clinton has been hurt by the news reports about the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation.

    Fixed up that sub-title for you!!!!

  2. EddieInCA says:

    Doug, Dr. Joyner –

    As many on this blog have already stated, but which you two seem unable to grasp:

    Hilary Clinton has been vetted for 30 years. She has almost 100% name recognition. She has a long, long public record with detractors shooting arrows in her direction for all of those 30 years.

    She’s annually towards the top of the “Most Admired Woman” lists, and she has a base of 51% of the population.

    Anyone who is going to vote for Hilary Clinton isn’t going to be swayed by Benghazi/Foundation/Email Server – and whatever other “gate” is dug up by the GOP in the next 18 months.

    It’s not surprising that none of the foundation “discoveries” are affecting her numbers.

    1. Most rational people aren’t worried, interested, or engaged in a presidental contest 18 months out.

    2. When the GOP switches into full sexism mode – and they will; they can’t help themselves – it will only further alienate that 51% block and move them more forcefully into her camp.

    3. Until a GOP Candidate has a path to 270 votes, it’s all just political junkie masturbation.

  3. Tony W says:

    Polls Show Little Damage To Clinton From Reports About The Clinton Foundation

    Not that Doug isn’t trying….

  4. grumpy realist says:

    Considering that 99% of the “coverage” about this “scandal” has come from the Usual Suspects on the Right, it’s no wonder it hasn’t had any effect.

    This is the political version of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. No one on the left will listen, because the Right has screeched too many times.

    (I don’t like Clinton and will probably vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary, but honestly–can you say that any in the clown car on the Right aside from Jeb have any brains or ability to govern at all?)

  5. michael reynolds says:

    1) Toldja so. You can’t define (in the political hit sense of the word) a politician who is already defined.

    2) Hillary has probably close to 50% already who are absolutely going to vote for her, no matter what.

    3) Republicans have made themselves utterly unacceptable to way too many people, and people understand that it’s a binary choice between candidate A and candidate B. It doesn’t matter how much you damage candidate A if candidate B is Satan.

  6. @EddieInCA:

    Your words are well taken. However, I am a political blogger so, you know, I write about politics.

    I suppose I could switch over to blogging about cookie recipes or something but that doesn’t really interest me very much.

    Cheers!

  7. Console says:

    It’s an incoherent attack. I gotta sit here and pretend Super Pacs are fine but the Clinton foundation is scandalous.

    Ridiculous ass country.

  8. CB says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    I bet you could make a mean bisque, if you were only willing to try.

  9. JohnMcC says:

    @Doug Mataconis: Did you intentionally pick the ‘baking cookies’ example because you subconsciously identify with HRC?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68OBqcON9o0

  10. An Interested Party says:

    However, I am a political blogger so, you know, I write about politics.

    Indeed..it must be tough for you to write different scenarios when the outcome of this is almost a foregone conclusion…

  11. James Pearce says:

    That isn’t to say that Clinton doesn’t have anything to worry about, though.

    Lots of stuff is being thrown at the wall, of varying legitimacies, but sooner or later something is going to stick. It won’t move those already devoted to her, but I also don’t think it will really move very many skeptics either.

    I’m muy muy skeptical of Clinton, though I do like some of her recent policy proclamations (path to citizenship), but I’m even more skeptical of the other side. I don’t trust them on legal weed, on gay rights, on race relations, foreign affairs, women’s health, or economic policy. That’s not to say I “trust” the Democrats.

    I just don’t harbor as many suspicions.

  12. DA says:

    I haven’t had time to check in on the stories on outsidethebeltway today until now, and I thought that I would come to read the daily story on the Clinton Foundation. And there it was! I’m satisfied, until tomorrow’s story on the Clinton Foundation!

  13. Hal_10000 says:

    Even a big scandal (which this isn’t; yet) can’t be expected to move polls much more that the statistical noise, especially 18 months away from the election. Most people aren’t political junkies. We’ll know what people really think of Clinton a year and half from now.

  14. C. Clavin says:

    @EddieInCA:

    whatever other “gate” is dug made up by the GOP in the next 18 months.

    Fixed that up for you…

  15. C. Clavin says:

    The sorry thing is that the American public just doesn’t get this. It’s too complex. If it could be dumbed down…maybe. Something like BENGHAZI that the likes of Jenos can latch onto. This is complicated. If you aren’t already suffering from CDS this won’t infect you with CDS.

  16. MBunge says:

    The problem with the Clinton Foundation stuff is that it’s fundamentally about corruption but…

    1. There’s little to no evidence the supposed corruption led to anything really bad.

    2. Conservatives have so thoroughly demonized the Clintons and government service that no one really cares. They can remind some folks that they don’t like Hillary but the abity to do any new damage is pretty limited.

    Mike

  17. Cd6 says:

    I am interested in this proposed cookie blogging

  18. bill says:

    she could be on record as being;
    -aloof about benghazi- even ordering the executions of those killed there.
    -wiping her azz with clinton foundation cash…just ‘cuz
    -insert something normally offensive to moral people here.
    -slamming the rich (even those who have less than her n her hubbie’s 7 figure stash)
    and the reason she has carte blanc?
    her husband cheated on her……..more than twice.
    unfortunately that makes her a formidable candidate.

  19. anjin-san says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    I suppose I could switch over to blogging about cookie recipes

    I hear both sides like chocolate chip…

  20. anjin-san says:

    @bill:

    Sniffing that cooking spray is not doing you any good at all…

  21. MarkedMan says:

    This goes way beyond “the boy who cried wolf”. Republican leadership is currently insane. They say and do insane things. And maybe in Texas or one of the other fever swamps you can make political hay spouting off about how “that black ‘Bama man is sending the army to take away our guns and lock up those who protest in concentration camps”, but in the rest of the country it sounds like crazy people. And this isn’t some fringe of the Republican party – these words are coming from the mouths of the Republicans getting the most press at the moment – the presidential candidates and, in the case of crazy Randy, his even crazier dad.

    Bottom line, this is not only not hurting Hillary, by having it come out at the same time as the cray-crays are running on at the mouth about the “gubmint invasion”, it is actually innoculating her. Every time crazy Randy or spaced out Perry or “Shut down the government!” Cruz says something about this, normal people just look at them and think “aren’t these the looney toons who think the US army is taking over Texas?”

  22. Todd says:

    At this point, I think the only thing that could stop Hillary Clinton from becoming the next President would be her health (not saying there’s anything wrong with her, but many people her age are “healthy”, right up until the point that they’re not).

    Baring that, the fact is, there’s no credible alternative on the Democratic side, and once she gets the nomination, there are too many people (like me) who although they don’t particularly care for her, couldn’t imagine voting for ANY Republican candidate … if for no other reason than the number for Supreme Court Justices likely to be replaced in the relatively near future.

  23. Xenos says:

    @EddieInCA:

    3. Until a GOP Candidate has a path to 270 votes, it’s all just political junkie masturbation.

    This is really the issue, though. The “blue wall” looks to really be effective for Hillary. She is capable of screwing it up, but it will take a lot of work.

  24. Xenos says:

    @bill:

    None of your points, such as they are, will have much resonance beyond the anti-Clintonites.

    -She has not been ‘aloof’ re Benghazi (and suggesting it was a hit job on her part is ridiculous, which means anyone saying that is rightfully ridiculed, see, eg., Jade Helm 15);

    -crude comments about cash make the commenter in question seem immature, vulgar, and foolish (see previous sentence);

    -many people richer than her, including respected entrepreneurs and titans of finance, think that the wealthiest 1% should be paying a lot more taxes, so her policy position is not subject to meaningful critique due her relative wealth;

    -if she can live with a somewhat open marriage as far as casual sexual relationships by her husband are concerned, then it is her right to choose this and anyone criticizing this looks judgmental and petty. If the sanctity of marriage means anything it should mean that a couple have some privacy on this sort of thing. I strongly suspect around 90% of the country agrees with me on that.

    So, to sum up, you got nothin’. Try to argue against her actual positions and maybe you will come off as somewhat persuasive rather than a crank.

  25. superdestroyer says:

    Once again, a massive fact that supports the trend that the U.S. will soon be a one party state. Ms. Clinton is immune from scandal, is immune from public disfavor, and is immune from viable Democrats running against her.

    Considering how the Baltimore riots have turned into a huge public relations win for the Democrats and no Republican has found a safe way to discuss any issue brought up by the Democrats, I wonder how all of the wonks and pundits will entertain themselves during such an uncompetitive election cycle.

  26. C. Clavin says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Ms. Clinton is immune from scandal

    What scandal?
    Perhaps you mean Mrs. Clinton is immune from unsubstantiated partisan allegations of scandal?

  27. C. Clavin says:

    @bill:

    ordering the executions of those killed there.

    The crazy is strong with this one.

  28. Pete S says:

    There could be a million articles about the Clinton Foundation, even with more proof of wrongdoing than we have seen to date. Until there is one article about a genuinely viable alternative candidate either in the primary or the general election where exactly is her support supposed to go?

  29. stonetools says:

    Let’s face it, conservatives cannot credibly attack the Clintons on the influence of big money donors on the Clintons. Amusingly, Doug has tried to charcterize the Clintons’ conduct as “questionable, but given his devotion to Citizens United, he can’t really render a coherent critique of the Clinton Foundation’s conduct. He’ is left to criticising the Clintons for not responding quickly enough, or for not being transparent (!). Considering that he passes over in silence the vast amounts of secret donor money flowing directly to the Republican presidential candidates, his analysis sounds superficial at best, partisan at worst.
    Without further revelations, I suspect this attempted right wing smear to fade awayshortly.

  30. superdestroyer says:

    @C. Clavin:

    Since every scandal will be assumed to be an unsubstantiated partisan allegations of scandal, then is standards that Ms. Clinton is immune to scandal. The number of influential individuals who will defend her no matter the issue is more than enough to make her immune to scandal.

    One of the benefits to the establishment of having a dominant party system is that the graft is easier and the accountability is nonexistent.

  31. Xenos says:

    @Xenos:

    -many people richer than her, including respected entrepreneurs and titans of finance, think that the wealthiest 1% should be paying a lot more taxes, so her policy position is not subject to meaningful critique due her relative wealth;

    At this point I am talking to myself, which is not a healthy sign, but criticizing anyone proposing raising taxes because they have too much income or too little income raises the question: What level of income or wealth is someone allowed to advocate raising taxes?

    Joe is poor, so he is just advocating redistribution into his own pockets, so this is not legitimate:

    Bill is richer than a lot of the people being taxed more, so of course he does not care, he can afford it, so this is not legitimate;

    Tony is middle class, he is not that affected either way, so he does not have a dog in this fight, so his opinion is not legitimate.

    I would appreciate knowing who exactly has the right to hold this position? I suppose the argument is that nobody has the right to advocate increasing taxes, ever. I guess it is clarifying to know that.

  32. C. Clavin says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Since every scandal will be assumed to be an unsubstantiated partisan allegations of scandal

    Unless you have proof of actual scandal…you are just typing blah blah blah blah blah.

  33. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Doug Mataconis: clap clap clap Doug 😉

  34. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @bill:

    -insert something normally offensive to moral people here.

    What? Like your comments?

  35. superdestroyer says:

    @C. Clavin:

    Thank you for confirming what I wrote. The Clintons get to start with the assumption that any accusation of scandal will be an “unsubstantiated partisan allegation” and must be proved by the accuser to the satisfaction of highly partisan Democrats. When such proof cannot possibly exist, then the Clintons are immune to scandal. Also, welcome to the one party state where the establishment Democrats get to pick who will be the Democratic Party nominee for President, and thus the President.

    For the future, the only question is what group will replace the Republicans as the excuse for anything going wrong. Looking at the commentary after Baltimore, it seems that whites will fill the role after the Republicans will fade away.

  36. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Xenos: All you had to do to get that answer was talk to Grover. Kind of like asking the NRA about reasonable regulations on guns.

  37. C. Clavin says:

    @superdestroyer:
    You Republicans have been making un-founded accusations about the Clintons for over 2 decades.
    So the starting point is that any accusation from Republicans is unsubstantiated…until it is substantiated. Maybe you’ve heard of innocent until proven guilty of more than a blow job? The Republican party that cried wolf?

  38. al-Ameda says:

    @bill:
    So much … content …
    she could be on record as being;
    -aloof about benghazi- even ordering the executions of those killed there.
    ** Aloof? Republicans have run, what? 8 investigations? in an attempt tag her with what amounts to the political equivalent of a manslaughter charge.
    -wiping her azz with clinton foundation cash…just ‘cuz
    ** as opposed to Koch Foundation or Sheldon Adelson cash?
    -insert something normally offensive to moral people here.
    ** I can’t think of anything that Hillary would or could do that would NOT be morally offensive to so-called “normal” Republican people.
    -slamming the rich (even those who have less than her n her hubbie’s 7 figure stash)
    ** “slamming the rich” LOL!
    and the reason she has carte blanc?
    her husband cheated on her……..more than twice.
    ** in a related matter, I love the way Republicans see Hillary’s not leaving Bill as a crass political career maneuver on Hillary’s part
    unfortunately that makes her a formidable candidate.
    ** Her weakness is that she really is not good on the campaign trail. That may be trumped by the “first woman as president” factor, unless that is, she is enveloped in a REAL scandal.

  39. rodney dill says:

    Nothing seems like it will shake Hillary’s followers. Her biggest problem is she has all the controversy of Obama, but none of the glamour. The switch from Obama to Clinton is akin to going from following the Kardashians to following Honey Boo Boo.

  40. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @rodney dill:

    she has all the controversy of Obama,

    All the manufactured controversy you mean. Sorry, I have no great love for Hillary, but there is no there there. The only thing that is there is the undying loathing that conservatives have for the Clintons and Obama. No matter how hard they try, how deep they dig, they never find the dirt they are certain is there.

    Is it because the Clintons and Obama are so clever and devious, or because the Republicans are so incompetent, or because there just isn’t anything there?

  41. al-Ameda says:

    @rodney dill:

    Nothing seems like it will shake Hillary’s followers. Her biggest problem is she has all the controversy of Obama, but none of the glamour. The switch from Obama to Clinton is akin to going from following the Kardashians to following Honey Boo Boo.

    All of this has been valued and discounted. Because the Clinton have been the subject of so many perceived-to-be purely partisan investigations for over 20 years, it is no surprise that most people have already staked out their turf vis-à-vis the Clintons. I can’t imagine a single Democratic voter who would vote Republican because of any of these ‘scandals.’

    Also, to me, I definitely see the Kardashians in Bill analogy, however the growing Republican campaign posse seems to be analogous to following Honey Boo Boo.

  42. Tillman says:

    @rodney dill: The Republicans, going off your analogy, are much like Sonja Henie — outdated, waaaay too much money for the same BS, and a little too close to crazy people.

    And if we’re going to call Democrats the Kardashians/Honey Boo Boos, let’s at least get it right — Obama’s the naive idealist, so he’s obviously Honey Boo Boo. The Kardashians are a scheming family trying to stay in the spotlight — the Clintons!

  43. Moosebreath says:

    @Xenos:

    “At this point I am talking to myself, which is not a healthy sign”

    Meh. Talking to yourself is OK. Answering yourself is OK. When you start interrupting yourself, that’s when you need to seek professional help.

  44. Xenos says:

    @Tillman: In that context, who is Bruce Jenner and who is the Human Thumb?

  45. Moosebreath says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    “The only thing that is there is the undying loathing that conservatives have for the Clintons and Obama any Democrat who is elected President.”

    FTFY. What the Clinton and Obama Administrations have shown is that to Republicans, there is no such thing as a legitimate Democratic President.

  46. humanoid.panda says:

    @superdestroyer: For once, C. Clavin is hardly “the establishment.” To the extent the “establishment” has a voice, that is the New York Times, and somehow, they didn’t get the Central Comiittee order to ignore Hillary’s wrongdoings…
    More importantly, the reason why partisan democrats and pretty much everyone else presumes that Clinton scandals are a crock until proven otherwise, is not to curry favor with the one party state, but because they were hounded for years in the 1990s, and found to be guilty of nothing worse than a coverup of a blowjob. The boy who cried wolf is a very useful moral fable.

  47. humanoid.panda says:

    @al-Ameda: If I get bill correctly, and that’s not easy between the seething hatred, bad syntax, and meth fumes, he is speaking hypotethically. In other words, he is saying that even if Hillary planned Benghazi, we’d support her because she was cheated on by her husband.

    For the record, if Hillary did order the Benghazi attack, I will not support her for president.
    If Bin Laden was not killed, but is actually living in the White House as Obama’s gay lover, then I support impeaching Obama.
    If Lebron James has a secret identity as a crime-fighting supervillain, I will root for Cleveland in the playoffs.
    If FDR was actually Hitler (the two came to power and died within a month of each other, and were never seen together! Wake up sheeple!) I will support a serious revision of our textbooks.
    If the constitution was written by Jesus himself, then yes, we are a Christian nation.

    Hypotheticals are fun!

  48. humanoid.panda says:

    @al-Ameda:

    Her weakness is that she really is not good on the campaign trail. That may be trumped by the “first woman as president” factor, unless that is, she is enveloped in a REAL scandal.

    That is actually quite a myth .In both her Senate campaign and in 2008, she was excellent in connecting with people on the stump. Where she went wrong in 2008 was by choosing terrible advisers and failing to impose order and discipline on her campaign. That is a major concern, but so far, she seems to be doing excellent job in that regard.

  49. humanoid.panda says:

    But truth is that, looking in that map, in the short term, in the presidential election, SuperD has a point:

    These guys have spotted NV (where Romney did not compete), VA (where Democrats just won an off-off year gubernatorial election), NH (went Democratic last 3/4 elections) and Iowa (Democratic 6/7 elections) as toss up and still come up with 247 electoral college votes that lean democratic. Add those, and you have 276 elecctoral seat majority before hitting Colorado, Ohio, Florida and North Carolina, the real toss-ups (and Colorado might be also tilting Dem).

    Where SuperD goes wrong
    1. PResuming that short term fluctuations don’t matter: a major recession can move public opinion 3-5 points to the right, and GOP wins elections handily.
    2. Presuming that parties don’t change, ever, even as they face extinction..

  50. An Interested Party says:

    The switch from Obama to Clinton is akin to going from following the Kardashians to following Honey Boo Boo.

    As opposed to the entire GOP field, which could be summed up as American Horror Story: Freak Show…and guess who is Twisty the Clown…

  51. rachel says:

    @humanoid.panda:

    If Lebron James has a secret identity as a crime-fighting supervillain, I will root for Cleveland in the playoffs.

    Because… What? Crime-fighting super-villains are deeply confused and so are people who root for the Cavaliers? I don’t get it.

  52. MarkedMan says:

    I would be interested in hearing from other NY’s who lived there during her Senator career. So far the national conversation around Hillary seems to be exactly following that script. The MSM press really doesn’t like the Clintons and spend a lot of time discussing “perceptions” about her. “Cold”, “Doesn’t have the charisma of Bill”, “Not very likable”. And I think this helped her in NY because she didn’t come off that way at all in her campaign efforts. And from the limited exposure I had to people who had to interact with her (mostly a public service charity) they said she was helpful, supportive but on point and focused. The press has a narrative and the public doesn’t see it and so discounts what the press has to say.

    And the Republicans, man, they just gave it away. They just hated her so much and had built this mental picture of the horrible shrewish b*tch lady from h*ll and that it was so obvious everyone must see it as soon as they started paying attention. They just felt all they had to do was say “But hey, look! It’s Hillary!”. The candidate, who’s name I can’t even remember, had virtually nothing to say about himself. It was all about the she-devil and the public just didn’t see it.