I would like to take this time to congratulate the media, republicans and the anti-Clinton crowd...

[liberal N proud]

A collective effort may have possible knocked down Hillary Clinton.

With all the ongoing attacks and extra scrutiny only reserved for the Clintons from the media and repulbicans, Clinton's favorability takes a major hits.

The Democratic presidential candidate is viewed unfavorably by 48 percent of likely voters, compared with 37 percent who view her favorably.

Her ratings are down significantly from the last NBC/WSJ poll in June, when 44 percent viewed Clinton favorably versus 40 percent who viewed her unfavorably.
These numbers will certainly add to the consternation already permeating Democratic circles following a recent Quinnipiac University poll which showed Clinton’s favorability drowning in key swing states.

NBC News points out that Clinton’s fav/unfav ratio, while worse than Barack Obama’s throughout his presidency, is identical to her husband Bill Clinton’s score heading into the Democratic nomination in ’92.

Pollster Bill McInturff compared Clinton’s campaign to a battleship able to withstand several torpedo strikes, “but there has been a torpedo that has hit something, and there are some leaks.”

Despite her low favorability numbers, Clinton remains the clear frontrunner among the current field of Democratic presidential candidates.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/250148-poll-clintons-favorability-takes-a-major-hit

Despite her low favorability numbers, Clinton remains the clear frontrunner among the current field of Democratic presidential candidates.

spin it negative, spin it negative!

[Adrahil]

1. Easy sparky.... She'll be fine. :). nt

[olddots]

2. yes it is

N.T.

[Vinca]

3. Hillary has done this all on her own.

From day one she has been too scripted and overhandled. Now she won't answer yes or no questions. I have always said I will vote my heart in the primary (Bernie) and my head in the general (Hillary), but I'm beginning to think she might not be able to win the general and that's scary. While we might get comedy with Trump, we'd surely get war with any of the rest of them.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. I'm voting my heart AND my head.

Hillary won't win in a general, which is why she also needs to lose the primary.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. How do you come to that conclusion ... Or heart or your head? n/t.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. Head.

First, none of the most clownish of the Republican clowns will win the primary. It will almost certainly be Bush or Walker, and I think it will be Bush. A Bush v Clinton election turns off massive numbers of voters, more of them Democrats, while at the same time an election with a Clinton draws out all of the Republicans who love to hate a Clinton.

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. I agree with the first part ...

I think Bush will be the likely republican nominee. But, I think the second part is more heart than head ... the vast majority of Democrats support a HRC, as either their first choice or as a hold their nose defensive vote.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

13. I don't think it'll be enough, if it's Bush.

I think too many, especially on the left, will simply stay away out of apathy, while hate will draw out anti-Clinton Repubs. Besides, as usual, there will be a spate of hate legislation referendums added to various state ballots, as there always is, to draw out the rw loonies.

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. But we keep told the left doesn't do that! ...

(only with a pinch of sarcasm)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

16. When I say 'on the left' (in this instance) I mean Democrats and left leaning independents.

Not 'the left wing of the party'.

[jeff47]

42. Well, let's use one purple state as an example.

North Carolina. Went for Obama in 2008, Went for Romney in 2012.

It's very much an urban/rural divide state. Rural voters are extremely Republican and always turn out, but there are less of them. Urban voters are Democratic, and there are more of them, yet they turn out less reliably.

Republicans here are already frothing at the mouth over voting against Clinton. They are nearly orgasmic to vote against her. They are excited to vote for a not-very-intelligent hunk of granite smeared with shit if it means voting against Clinton. They will vote for a Republican who promises to execute everyone in the state in order to vote against Clinton. Yes, they really are that excited by hatred of Clinton.

Democrats, on the other hand, are not really excited about Clinton. She's far too centrist to excite the people behind "Moral Mondays". She will not be able to inspire large urban turnout.

As a result, a Bush/Walker vs. Clinton election means NC votes for Bush/Walker. Massive Republican turnout, and "meh" Democratic turnout.

Someone other than Clinton would still be opposed by Republicans, but not with the same intensity. The Republicans spent the last 30 years turning Clinton into Satan incarnate among their faithful. Meanwhile, Sanders or O'Malley have a chance to tap into the "Moral Mondays" voters that Clinton can not.

Another Democrat is by no means a guaranteed win in NC. Especially because there are easier states to win, so we are not likely to see active campaigning by any Democratic candidate in NC. But Clinton is a guaranteed loss.

[Comrade Grumpy]

53. The general election isn't just about Democrats.

One of the parties is going to have to get independent voters to win.

Can Hillary do that?

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. Per the early polling ... yes. n/t

[Comrade Grumpy]

58. Let's hope so. She's the probable nominee for the party.

I hope somebody can get excited about Clinton v. Bush. Status quo politics.

I live in a non-competitive state. If it's Clinton v. Bush, I'm voting third party.

[frylock]

60. The vast majority of republicans have been waiting nearly 25 years to pull the lever against Clinton

and you're going to need more than the vast majority of Democrats to win the GE.

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. "You're "? ... Don't you mean, "we're"?

[frylock]

62. We're, you're, they're...

my point stands. Republicans are going to be motivated as all hell to get out and vote against Hillary Clinton.

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. It is a matter of perspective. n/t

[frylock]

65. I'm not a Democrat and have made no effort to hide that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. Okay. it's difficult to keep up. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. Multa novit vulpes, verum echinus unum magnum.

("a fox knows many things, but a hedgehog one thing&quot

I will elaborate if you desire.

[artislife]

69. Okay

I'll bite.

I see you post this a few times.

Elaborate what you mean by this. Thank you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

70. The hedgehog knows one thing. The fox knows many things.

It is a way of looking at the world. Foxes are inductive thinkers, Hedgehogs are deductive thinkers. The former is more conducive to investigation and problem solving.

[artislife]

71. So when you post this

You are saying Hillary and her supporters are the fox? And the Sanders crowd it the hedghog.

Just clarifying. Thank you

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. Yes, but you are free to disagree...

It’s a matter of judgement style, first expressed by the ancient Greek warrior poet Archilochus: “The fox knows many things; the hedgehog one great thing.” The idea was later expanded by essayist Isaiah Berlin. In Tetlock’s interpretation, Hedgehogs have one grand theory (Marxist, Libertarian, whatever) which they are happy to extend into many domains, relishing its parsimony, and expressing their views with great confidence. Foxes, on the other hand are skeptical about grand theories, diffident in their forecasts, and ready to adjust their ideas based on actual events.

The aggregate success rate of Foxes is significantly greater, Tetlock found, especially in short-term forecasts. And Hedgehogs routinely fare worse than Foxes, especially in long-term forecasts. They even fare worse than normal attention-paying dilletantes — apparently blinded by their extensive expertise and beautiful theory. Furthermore, Foxes win not only in the accuracy of their predictions but also the accuracy of the likelihood they assign to their predictions— in this they are closer to the admirable discipline of weather forecasters.

http://longnow.org/seminars/02007/jan/26/why-foxes-are-better-forecasters-than-hedgehogs/

[artislife]

73. Thank you

We will disagree on who we support, but that is okay.

I like knowing the quotation with it's fleshed out definition.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. I am reading Nate Sliver's 'The Signal And The Noise.'

He has a whole chapter on pundits and how woefully inaccurate their punditry is because most pundits are hedgehogs.

[artislife]

76. He certainly is interesting

I must admit, I feel that polling in this day and age is less accurate due to the structure from which they pull their data. And I have felt this before Sanders jumped in, actually the last big election. Landlines being just one of the reasons

I could be soothing myself with this thought, however....

[Adrahil]

18. Sanders will be devoured in the generals.

He doesn't have the organization. He doesn't embrace the Democratic party, so he will get lukewarm support from party leaders, and he will not have the means to make use of the party's resources. He has no idea how to run a national campaign.... though I hope he learns. So far, he's running his campaign like the U.S. is a big Vermont. It's not. He won;t have enough money to counter the MASSIVE media smear campaign the Kochs will orchestrate. It would be very tough to watch, IMO. Fortunately, we'll never have to see that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

19. Is'n that exactly why the left of the party is always told to fall in line behind the centrists?

To avoid exactly that sort of thing, with Republicans winning? Election after election, we get 'Shut up, hold your nose, and vote for the Democrat so the Republican doesn't win'. But if we actually manage to run a lefty candidate in the general, you're telling me the centrists won't return the favour, and they'll simply let a Republican win, rather than vote for someone on the left?

If that turns out to be true, I'd say it would be the signal that the left needs to abandon the centrists who would rather see a Republican elected, and never again believe the 'hold your nose and vote for a centrist' line.

[Adrahil]

23. I think Democrats will vote for Sanders...

I know I will for sure, though I'm not sure I'd call myself a "centrist." Though I'm sure some here would, I guess.

It'll be Independents who will will not vote for him. They tend to be fickle, and I think they will respond to the truly epic smear campaign the Kochs et al would unleash on him, and that he is totally unprepared for. I think he would lose in pretty large fashion.

I hope I'm wrong. I really do.... because it means the nation I want is close than I believe. But I just don't think I am.

But as I said, I don't believe Sanders will win the nomination, so it won't be something we have to deal with.

[cascadiance]

49. It is independents that have been fed up with BOTH parties, and he is an INDEPENDENT!

Look as this story notes that even many Republicans like Bernie. Thom Hartmann, a former Vermont resident has repeatedly said the same thing this story says on his show. People appreciate honest politicians who don't parse their words for what will offend their campaign contributors. Bernie is the epitome of that kind of politician that we hardly have any of now. Many disaffected voters would vote in this election if he were the nominee.



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/23/1395700/-Republicans-for-Bernie-Sanders#

[Adrahil]

50. Not many people are independent because...

... they are democratic socialists. Just saying. If Bernie is running under the democratic banner, he can't fly the "independent" flag anymore with much credibility. I've argued that at this point he MUST embrace being a Democrat in any case.

[cascadiance]

51. Based on WHAT! Many here on DU have said they've left the Democratic Party...

... precisely because they feel it no longer stands for the traditional Democratic values it once stood for before it got taken over by big money corporatists!

The Democratic Party doesn't have the credibility it once had when it was the party of FDR's then. With the Koch brothers funded DLC leadership started many years ago right prior to the Clinton administration, it has abandoned many of the strong stances it used to take on issues that even Eisenhower as a Republican stood strong on (social security, a living wage, stopping the military industrial complex).

Bernie is running as a Democrat, because he doesn't want to be a spoiler to help a Republican candidate win the election like many have crucified Nader over the years for doing when running as an independent in the general election. By doing that he is showing that he wants to be loyal to the concept that the more progressive party wins, whether it is the tainted Democrats or him as a progressive independent, and not the Republicans.

If those here say he needs to join the Democratic Party or run as an independent in the general election for him to be able to run as president, then you SHOULD advocate that the Democratic Party have a platform plank of instituting instant runoff voting. Because if you don't and take these positions, then you are advocating that this country have a TWO PARTY system ONLY and not really in effect allow much, if any third party presence to have a voice in it. If we had instant runoff voting, then yes, I think Bernie would run as an independent then, as then he wouldn't be the spoiler that Nader was in 2000, and he very likely could win if the two parties both nominate corporatist candidates that the general public is starting to hate now!

[blackspade]

24. Excellent point.

Will the DLC wing of the party pony up like they demand of the left wing of the party?

[jeff47]

43. Of course not.

The entire reason that the "DLC wing" exists is because "liberals can't win".

If a liberal actually wins, they have lost their reason to exist.

Now, not all Clinton supporters are "DLC wing", so that doesn't mean "not Clinton" can not win. Many would vote for the nominee if Clinton manages to lose the primary.

[cascadiance]

44. The millenials would SURGE for the Democrats in the general with Bernie as the nominee

And they would likely stay home and feel alienated by the process if it were another Bush vs. Clinton battle. They've been screwed especially by both parties recently with the outsourcing of jobs, them being asked to pay far more for college education than any other generation, being spied upon heavily, having the old guard in both parties still trying to lock them up the way the prison industrial complex wants them to for things like drug "crimes", and being told and believing that there won't be any social security or medicare for them when they get old.

Bernie speaks to them on changing the system for what can work. The "party" of the Democrats will learn that if they don't want to die a horrible death (especially the centrists that try to continue their cancerous infection of them), they will either get behind Bernie and help him win in the general if he gets nominated, or they will be put in power in short order after the election in the party.

if the Dems nominate a centrist, there won't be motivation for traditional Democrats who have continued to be screwed to come out against the Koch money. They will though come out against the Koch money through things like social media, etc. to say *ENOUGH* of that sh*t! The "Bernie Spring" will have arrived then!

[Adrahil]

48. Based on what?

Even among Democrats, Sanders is pulling less than half of millenials.

This kind of rhetoric is EXACTLY the kind of stuff you'd see posted about Ron Paul on right wing sites during their primaries. It isn't supported by anything but wishful thinking.

[cascadiance]

52. There are many here documenting how millenials are starting to embrace Sanders

As noted in this article...

http://mic.com/articles/118292/millennials-are-with-bernie-sanders-on-almost-every-issue

and this one...

http://college.usatoday.com/2015/07/09/viewpoint-bernie-sanders-perfect-fit-for-millennials/

social media...

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Millennials-for-Bernie-Sanders-2016/441553002677062

and the millenials' movement Occupy Wall Street put aside it's tradition of not "picking leaders" and endorsed Bernie Sanders...

http://www.attn.com/stories/1564/occupy-wall-street-endorses-bernie-sanders-president

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. You ARE quick on the uptake ...

I've been reading your stuff and tend to agree. I especially love your use/knowledge of statistics/polling (I got hooked in grad school).

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. BTW, I'll revisit my prediction if one of the total clowns actually wins the Republican primary.

Hillary can win vs Trump. But so could any other Dem.

[retrowire]

4. well

just don't take it personally or anything.

she's not the only way to win. rest assured in that.

[JackInGreen]

6. Sooooo....

instead of furthering to help your candidate or ours, or OURS in the greater sense as they're both pretty damned fantastic, or offering the news, you'll first complain and line up your fellow party members with your enemies, then gloat that you're still ahead.
That's a hare kind of statement.
See.....if I let supporters of candidates turn me off to them, that'd do it.
Thankfully she's got plenty on her own, your's won't, and it won't even turn me off to anything else you write where we're more aligned. It's just more of the same us/them/mine-uber-alles/if-you-don't-support-my-candidate-you're-a-traitor or (R) or worse bullshit that's been dividing the site lately.
Can you help our community try and get beyond that with the rest of us that are attempting to please? We've got a hard enough fight ahead with our inner party identity struggles and the coming general without it.

I guess it might be run of the mill snark, but the fucking wedge is killing our vibe.

[m-lekktor]

7. yeah, it's everybody's fault but hers.nt

[Armstead]

8. You're welcome

[el_bryanto]

14. Well thank you - Wait until I tell my close personal friend Karl Rove

about how our scheme is going, because as well all know the only reason a Liberal would oppose Hillarly Clinton in a primary is that they are secretly a Republican.

Bryant

[tularetom]

20. She's been running since the day after the 2008 election and she's suffering from overexposure

The more you see of her the less you like her and the two years she spent playing that cutesy little "will she run or won't she run" game when everybody knew she was going to run turned off a lot of people.

Unless the republicans nominate Trump she won't win a general election and that will become obvious long before November 2016.

So Democrats had better start thinking about Plan B before we have nominated a guaranteed loser and its too late.

[blackspade]

21. Who are the 'anti-Clinton' crowd?

[whatchamacallit]

31. People who don't worship her

I guess.

[beam me up scottie]

75. Yep. And anyone who criticizes her for any reason whatsoever.

It's all our fault for holding her record against her.

[jomin41]

22. Plan B! B for Bernie! I agree.

[lobodons]

25. Just as planned

Media wants a close race. Last thing they wanted was for Hillary to win in landslide.

[Recursion]

26. Mrs. Clinton is not owed the Presidency

She's my second choice after O'Malley, but this notion that people are ingrates for not supporting her is ridiculous.

I have a ream of complaints against Sanders fans, but Clinton supporters also really need to stop rolling their eyes at people who support a different candidate.

[Thinkingabout]

30. I do not hear this from Hillalry supporters, it comes from those who do not support her. Why is

this happening?

[Recursion]

36. That's basically in my social circle, which is very pro-Clinton

There are a lot of rolled eyes if I mention that I'm supporting O'Malley. Who can say what that anecdote actually translates to?

[Thinkingabout]

39. Perhaps they are ardent Hillary supporters, I am supporting Hillary, never have thought she should

be coroneted nor given the nominee, and I don't say she will. Hillary has come a long way, had to get doors opened by herself and I would bet she would be the first one to say the she should receive the nominee without going through the process. If she thought this why would she gather the campaign workers, advisors, etc, it would be a waste of money. I don't have anything against O'Malley but all candidates has to sell themselves and like Hillary are not entitled to coronation.

[Laser102]

27. She may not be owed the presidency but she should at least be treated fairly.

Tagging her with crap like the New York rag did has to damage her. Do you think this is fair? Let her take the hits for the things she actually did. But this other stuff is pure bull. By the way, this makes me more determined to vote for her, not less. Go Hillary!!!!

[liberal N proud]

33. Exactly!

[Thinkingabout]

28. In your congradulations to the ability of knocking down Hillary's favorability rating, how has this

helped or hurt the abilities of the candidates? Let me help you, none. It is a sad day when swift boating or Rovian candidates is the choice instead of the records of what the candidates have accomplished.

[quickesst]

29. Heh heh...

"I would like to take this time to congratulate the media, republicans and the anti-Clinton crowd..."

If one didn't know better, this sounds like a mutually beneficial, but unspoken alliance. In a blind taste test I couldn't tell one from the other.

[FlatBaroque]

38. Passive aggressive behavior is adorable.

[quickesst]

59. Nah...

I show my anger at anything or anyone flatout head on, but I do think what I wrote was kinda cute

[Cal33]

32. More and more Democrats are beginning to realize that Third-Way or so-called "Centrist" Democrats

are incapable of making any real changes. The best they can do is to maintain the status quo -- all
of which will help the Republicans to become even stronger. Third-Way Democrats have proven
themselves to be failures. And we are tired of having nothing but failures for leaders.

I'd vote for a Centrist Democrat in the General Election only because having a Republican win the
presidency in 2016 would probably mean the final coup de grace of democracy in our country, and
it will be a long, long time before we'll see democracy again in our nation.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

68. I would be interested

in your opinion about how things HAVE changed for the better from 2008-present under a moderate/left-of-center Democratic President even with struggling with a mad House Tea Party for most of his two terms. There has actually been some quite significant moves of the pendulum back towards the left and HRC (and all other Dems) are planning to continue the movements made by President Obama.

[Cal33]

77. Are you referring to Pres. Obama as a "moderate/left-of-center" Democratic President? He, himself,

Last edited Wed Aug 5, 2015, 11:27 PM - Edit history (6)

had said tt if he had been president in the 1980s, he might have been described as a "moderate
Republican": http://Obama says he'd be seen as moderate Republican as president in 1980s.

The first two years Pres. Obama had both a Democratic Senate and House of Representatives.
After two terms of GW Bush, the American people had had it with the Republicans. We wanted
the changes Obama had promised during his campaign -- we wanted it so badly!! But he seemed
to have been obsessed by the idea of Bi-Partisanship. And, Boy! Did he ever try to please and
appease them! To begin with, he appointed to the Treasury Dep't top positions only Republicans
who were connected to Wall Street. He also appointed a few others who were left-overs from
Bush, Jr.'s Administration.

As for bargaining with the Republicans, he was occasionally known to have given in to some of
their demands before the bargaining sessions even had begun! On one occasion Boehner came out
of one of these sessions crowing that he had gotten "98%" of what he had wanted. In order to
have a working bi-partisanship, it takes two to tango. With Obama it was mostly one-sided. He
did most of the giving, and the Republicans did most of the taking. A lot of people were
disappointed in his actions. Two years later Democrats lost the House. He wasted those precious
2 years, and we haven't had both Senate and House on our side since.

It should have taken not more than 6 months, at the most, for him to have realized that they did
not have the slightest intention of cooperating with him whatsoever, and that they never would.
Not much later they said that they were out to destroy him and his Party! They were openly

insulting with him. He simply took it -- for years. These Republicans had no respect for any
president who wasn't one of them. This does not say much for the Republicans. It shows up their
sense of values and how some of them might have been brought up -- these have shown manners
that are reminiscent of people raised in the gutter. Remember the congressman who shouted
"Liar!" while Obama was delivering his speech there? It was a dreadful moment of sheer embarrass-
ment! What kind of people are we electing to Congress?!?

Well, in his 7th year, Obama finally did become a little tougher with the Republicans. He has
only a year and a half left. He was still trying to get another Wall Street man into the Treasury
Dep't earlier this year, until Warren said openly that enough was enough.

Back to the year 2007. In January, one of the first things the new Speaker of the House, Rep.
Pelosi said was that impeachment (of Bush, Jr.) was off the table. One of the reasons she gave
was that it was too time-consuming, and the House had a lot of work to do. And Bush, Jr. had,
among many other things, lied our nation into war with Iraq! This was a crime of the first
order - regardless of who was president! The whole world takes Bush, Cheney and Co. for war
criminals. Only our American Republicans don't.

Never mind the fact that Democrats probably wouldn't have enough votes to make the verdict of
"Guilty" stick. The important thing was that the weeks and months of public trial on TV and other
mass news media on a daily basis, would have let the entire American people, especially the
dyed-in-the-wool Republican masses, finally know what kind of people Bush, Jr. and Co., as well
as other top Republican politicians, REALLY were. This is exactly the kind of information that the
90% Republican-owned press has been (and are still) keeping the Republican masses from
knowing. There is a high percentage of sociopaths among the top politicians and corporate
business executives, but the Republican masses are ordinary people who have been (and are still
being) fooled. And many of these would have been aroused into thinking twice about their Party
leaders.

What an unimaginably big difference it would have made, if Pelosi had proceeded with an
impeachment of Bush, Jr.! In my opinion, Wall Street and the Big Banks wouldn't have become
so daring with their corruption, because they would have known that an already aroused public
(which, for a change, also included many Republicans) would not be so easy to fool around with.
It's quite possible that the financial collapse of 2008 might never have happened at all. If some-
one like Sanders or Warren had been president, do you think they would have bailed out the banks?
Do you think Hillary Clinton would have bailed out the banks? And the top execs. of these banks
are as crooked as ever. They are so sure of never having to answer for their corrupt practices!

[brooklynite]

34. I'm not worried...

...Clinton planned out a methodically slow campaign rollout, that has frustrated some supporters and press people, and has allowed ancillary topics to get airtime. Her plan has always been to start energetically campaigning in the Fall, and she's clearly ready to take on Jeb Bush with gusto. That's likely to change the news coverage.

[liberal N proud]

35. This is what everyone is missing about that article

Despite her low favorability numbers, Clinton remains the clear frontrunner among the current field of Democratic presidential candidates.

No matter how hard they spin it negative for Hillary, she is still on top!

[Fawke Em]

46. Yeah, but nearly half have never heard of Sanders.

So... let's see after the debates.

BTW... when are those debates? Debbie? Debbie? Bueller? Anyone?

[liberal N proud]

47. Plenty of time for the debates - just because the clowns are putting on a circus so early

doesn't mean the Democrats need to stoop so low.

We are still full year away from any conventions for gods sake, voters are going to be numb to anything a candidate has to say by the time the election rolls around. Non-stop flogging of this candidate or that is over the top and destroying the process.

[Recursion]

37. I must agree her tactics are looking very good this year

I'll be voting O'Malley unless he concedes before the DC primary (and let's be honest, he probably will), but I'm much more impressed with 2016 Clinton than I was with 2008 Clinton.

And, hey, look at that: learning from the past is something I really value in a President.

[Trajan]

40. Easy solution

Support and promote the candidacy of Senator Bernie Sanders ...

Problem resolved ...

[Romulox]

41. I guess being a Wall Street funded, finger-in-the-wind "centrist" has its downsides.

[artislife]

45. But, but ...she's a fighter

She lives for this stuff.


That's what I have been told.


She wasn't getting scrutinized before because no one was challenging her.

Get a grip. We don't do well with emotional blackmail.


Really. We don't.

[Mike Nelson]

56. Hillary knew this was coming, and...

...that it will get worse. No surprise.

[JI7]

57. doesn't this show those running against her are weak also

Since they not just remain behind her but FAR behind her .

[ericson00]

67. and beating ALL Republicans

as serious polls, not Quinnipiac polls, show.

[misterhighwasted]

78. Despite her low favorability numbers, Clinton remains the clear frontrunner among the current field

Despite her low favorability numbers, Clinton remains the clear frontrunner among the current field of Democratic presidential candidates.

HaaaHaaaaaaaaaaaaaHAAhAA
Oh my sides hurt..STOP IT !!


torpedo
low favorability
major hits
drowning

And best one of all: The carefully selected Quinnipiac Poll.
What ever would the Hillary haters refer to if not for the Q Poll.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW Did they say anything about how Hillary kicked JEBs' ass in Her Denver Speech? Bet Not.

I remember quite well Bill Clinton's campaign speech in Denver in his 92 Pres run against GHW Bush.

I was there.
GHW Bush spoke in Denver to a crowd of 9000.

Bill Clinton, spoke in downtown Denver to a crowd of 30,000, the following week

"NBC News points out that Clinton’s fav/unfav ratio,...is identical to her husband Bill Clinton’s score heading into the Democratic nomination in ’92. "

Our Girl Hillary is thus defying the same odds they had for Bill Clinton vs incumbent Pres GHW Bush.
She has proven the Q Poll to be liars.

Rock On, Hillary !!

^H^R^C

2016
EQUAL RIGHTS are HUMAN RIGHTS
Hillary Clinton