Regarding Hillary Clinton
I want her to run in 2020
9.1% (4)
9.1% (4)
I do not want her to run in 2020
86.4% (38)
86.4% (38)
Other
4.5% (2)
4.5% (2)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Hillary Clinton record low polling

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

http://news.gallup.com/poll/224330/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-new-low.aspx

Hillary Clinton, who may try to run again in 2020, has record low approval ratings.

Is this because of rising polls for Republicans? I don't think so. I think it is sinking in that she sucked up all the DNC cash, left down the ticket Democrats adrift without support and cost the party a great deal.

Do you want her to run again in 2020? Am I wrong and she really is losing to a growing Republican world view? Is something else going on?

I would think, now that she is currently not running for anything, her poll numbers should be fine but they are not. Your thoughts on why this is happening? As always, your advice is appreciated.

This really isn't a mystery. She ran a bad campaign and is blaming everybody else for it. What did people think was going to happen?

Some of it is a sustained smear campaign by the Republican party but it's largely the electorate knows she's a corporate shill, like almost the rest of the House, whereas Trump appeared not to be. It's to her credit that 36% approval is far higher than US Congress, which is now in the low teens. I credit that to competency in office.

Do you know who people blame more than the monster who destroys the village? The Hero that didn't defeat the monster.

The Hero that didn't muster enough support to actually shore up the defenses. The Hero that didn't take the threat seriously, but instead went around saying How awesome they are because they were born that way and whatever. The Hero that says "Hey, just trust in me. Because if you don't... well, all you're left is the Monster"

I never really had a problem with Clinton before. Now, I think she's a whiner, but I still don't have a problem with her. But it should have been Bernie. If she TRULY had a hand in making sure it wasn't Bernie (I know tens of thousands of votes here in New York that might have gone to Bernie 'mysteriously vanished'), then she had a chance of indirectly voting in one of the most unpopular presidents ever, who's gone out of his way to take away land from the American Citizens and charge it at a premium, the pipeline that already leaked hundreds of thousands of gallons, a tax reform that's deeply unpopular with the public at large and is forecast by many to be the burden of the 'middle class'.

They need a new face. Bernie needs to groom someone in his image with the fire and anger that Trump ran on. Enough people are already angry at how this country is being run. The apathetic voter now sees what harm they caused.

I said it before, I'll say it again and again; While painful now, Trump's election was the best thing for Democrats ever. Because the anger he causes with almost everything he does only endears him to the hardest of hardcore republicans. The apathetic, the undecided, the "both sides are bad" are waking up and truly seeing that there's one side who is always worse.

Nobody likes Hillary. I mean I voted for her, but she was far from my first choice for President.

Gorfias:
Clinton, who may try to run again in 2020

You're making claims without sourcing them again Gorfias...

Gorfias:
Is this because of rising polls for Republicans? [...] losing to a growing Republican world view?

Um... which Republicans? Sources, sources, sources mate.

Congressional Republicans have their approval ratings so far in the toilet that they're poking out at the end of the sewer system[1], Trump is sitting on record low approval for a President in his first year[2], and the Republican party as a whole is dropping too[3].

=======================================================================================

tldr: Your reliance on alternative facts from browsing right-wing blogs is showing again mate.

image

A growing Republican worldview? Haha, no. The opposite: Hillary Clinton is essentially a moderate Republican.

What we're seeing here is the result not only of disenchantment with Hillary Clinton's electoral strategy, but also disgust at her politics and a growing realization that the Clinton family played a large part in getting us into this mess.

There is a growing disconnect between television and print/internet media regarding politics; you're actually able to find progressive views online and not just the regular corporate propaganda. (There is still plenty of corporate propaganda online as well.)

Because a number of people have been trying to keep Hillary Clinton relevant, her poll numbers continue to drop because people have cause to examine her record and the Clinton legacy. And they find things like NAFTA, Telecommunications Act 1996. Crime Bill 1994. Wall Street speeches, public and private positions, money flowing into Bill Clinton's pocket from beneficiaries of State Dept. largess. Most people want Hillary Clinton to just go away, but she's on a book tour pretending people care what she has to say.

image

She failed.

It's that simple. In politics, once you've been seen to fail it's very difficult to come back from that. She wasn't a popular candidate to begin with, now in addition to being an unpopular candidate she has also lost a presidential election. There's going to be some backlash to that, because a lot of people were counting on her to win and now have to live with the consequences of the fact that she didn't.

Speaking of which, Trump's approval rating has been hovering around the "record low" levels for Hillary's for some time. In some polls they actually have the same approval rating. Make of that what you will.

image

The current administration killed Net Neutrality, pushed through Rich Guy Welfare, and is leading a positively Orwellian war against reality, but sure, let's drag up Hilary again. She's the REAL threat here.

Hillary lost what should have been the easiest win in US election history.
The presidency was practically being handed to her on a golden goddamn platter and she still fucked it up. Now she's on a book tour trying to make excuses for why she lost, placing the blame on Bernie and everyone else, stroking her newfound cult of personality. The only people who still bother to bring her up are right-wingers trying to deflect criticism and the "Still With Her" cultists.

Please, for the love of whatever goddamn extraplanar entity you worship, just let her fucking fade out of the public eye. She's been disgraced, she's left the political field in order to milk her rabid following to make herself feel better. She's no longer relevant. Let this horse decompose in peace and get out of the goddamn way so the carrion birds can do their bloody job.
image

In politics, people (both voters and representatives) are sometimes willing to forgive ineffectiveness if the individual in question has integrity. Similarly, people are also sometimes willing to forgive a lack of integrity if the individual is a very effective operator for their party or platform.

It was pretty widely known beforehand that Hillary Clinton lacked one of those ingredients. The loss in the election seems to have demonstrated that she also lacks the other. And that's why the numbers go down.

It would be safer if she didn't run. Being unable to prevent a Trump presidency leaves her with zero credibility.

Now I don't think its completely her fault. Without Comey going out of his way to sabotage Clinton she might have scored a narrow victory and I feel the majority of Trump voters who view her as the devil are completely delusional. I do kinda Pity her, especially with just how hated she is and how much more she's hated after her loss.

But then again.....who gave Comey the means to take her out? Clinton herself because she just wouldn't behave and while Clinton may be a victim of slander and delusions of rabbit Trump voters she herself has given them plenty of ammunition, not nearly enough to ever be considered worse than Trump by any sane person but the large amount of hate do stem from her own actions.

Clinton isn't going to defeat Trump so she shouldn't bother anymore. She might have beaten him last year but by failing she doesn't have a place in any presidential race anymore. Its far safer to send someone without all that baggage to face Trump.

I want her to run just because she's loose with even greater assurance then anyone else. Which is saying something given Trump's likely to win regardless.

Are we kidding? She wouldn't win the nomination.

Hillary Clinton is done. She might do a Romney and run for Senate again, and there was some buzz about her running for mayor of New York, but her presidential ambitions are dead. She has to recognise that.

I mean, I thought she got the short end of the stick, what with the relentless focus on her emails and the Russian interference and Comey deciding to publicly re-open the investigation at the last minute, but the key factor is that she would lose again. She's not what the Democrats want from their party anymore.

Why do we care what her approval ratings are? She has no role in government, now or in the future. What are people even approving?

Polling for fucking what?

In case you didn't notice, she didn't win the Presidency, hombre.

Yeah but how's John Kerry polling? What about All Gore? I need to know John McCain's numbers goddamit!!!

Who fucking cares, she lost the election. She doesn't matter, let her fuck off down a hole and stop dragging her up.

Gorfias:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/224330/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-new-low.aspx

Hillary Clinton, who may try to run again in 2020, has record low approval ratings.

She's publicly stated that she won't run again. Repeatedly.

Is this because of rising polls for Republicans? I don't think so.

Polls for Trump are still falling too. More relevant, because he's actually the president.

I think it is sinking in that she sucked up all the DNC cash, left down the ticket Democrats adrift without support and cost the party a great deal.

You're reading too far into it. She was never popular. It's just that now, the rank-and-file Democratic and progressive voters are starting to realize that being a toadying appeaser to the reactionary angst of the right wing isn't a winning strategy.

Do you want her to run again in 2020?

Please no. I don't think I could survive another "Pokemon Go to the polls"-style gaffe.

Am I wrong and she really is losing to a growing Republican world view? Is something else going on?

The Republican worldview's dead. It's not going to be possible to reconcile the neoliberalism of Ronald Reagan with the reactionary nationalism of Steve Bannon. Religious conservatism is no longer viable in a country where Christianity loses more and more followers with each passing year and where the religious right has been handed defeat after defeat on every single one of its issues. The jingoistic American exceptionalism of Bush JR is no longer good policy in a world where the US isn't the only superpower.

And Hillary Clinton and her wing of the Democrats is dying along with it, because if Republicanism is dead, then she can't win because there's nothing for her to appease. Progressives have finally started to take to heart what the left has been saying for decades: liberalism always slides to fascism, and you can't reason or compromise with reactionaries because the very concept of compromise and cooperation is alien to them.

Zontar:
Which is saying something given Trump's likely to win regardless.

Let's put aside the fact that he's the least popular president in recent memory. Let's also put aside the fact that the rest of the Republican establishment (which, like it or not, he depends on) is starting to consider him to be a toxic political asset. Let's ignore the fact that he alienates potential allies. And let's lastly ignore the fact that his administration's only major political achievements, the tax reform and the repeal of net neutrality, are both wildly unpopular.

Instead, let's honestly ask ourselves a more practical question. Is Trump going to survive that long?

The man is now 71 years old. He subsists on a diet of fast food and coca-cola. He spent a good chunk of the 80s and 90s strung out on off-label diet pills. He claims to only sleep for four to five hours a night. He apparently struggles to walk even relatively short distances.

None of this suggests a person who's going to last until the age of 78.

Eh, all sorts of reasons. Her enemies keep attacking her, often in lieu of getting anything useful done.

Having said that, she's still got support, a lot of people really wanted her as PotUS, and not just because she wasn't Trump. Muddle along boring competency is preferable to a magic solution you don't believe will happen. Popularist candidates playing a simple narrative get votes, but they alienate groups not included in it. Not enough to make it a bad idea, it seems, however.

renegade7:

Gorfias:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/224330/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-new-low.aspx

Hillary Clinton, who may try to run again in 2020, has record low approval ratings.

She's publicly stated that she won't run again. Repeatedly.

Is this because of rising polls for Republicans? I don't think so.

Polls for Trump are still falling too. More relevant, because he's actually the president.

I think it is sinking in that she sucked up all the DNC cash, left down the ticket Democrats adrift without support and cost the party a great deal.

You're reading too far into it. She was never popular. It's just that now, the rank-and-file Democratic and progressive voters are starting to realize that being a toadying appeaser to the reactionary angst of the right wing isn't a winning strategy.

Do you want her to run again in 2020?

Please no. I don't think I could survive another "Pokemon Go to the polls"-style gaffe.

Am I wrong and she really is losing to a growing Republican world view? Is something else going on?

The Republican worldview's dead. It's not going to be possible to reconcile the neoliberalism of Ronald Reagan with the reactionary nationalism of Steve Bannon. Religious conservatism is no longer viable in a country where Christianity loses more and more followers with each passing year and where the religious right has been handed defeat after defeat on every single one of its issues. The jingoistic American exceptionalism of Bush JR is no longer good policy in a world where the US isn't the only superpower.

And Hillary Clinton and her wing of the Democrats is dying along with it, because if Republicanism is dead, then she can't win because there's nothing for her to appease. Progressives have finally started to take to heart what the left has been saying for decades: liberalism always slides to fascism, and you can't reason or compromise with reactionaries because the very concept of compromise and cooperation is alien to them.

Zontar:
Which is saying something given Trump's likely to win regardless.

Let's put aside the fact that he's the least popular president in recent memory. Let's also put aside the fact that the rest of the Republican establishment (which, like it or not, he depends on) is starting to consider him to be a toxic political asset. Let's ignore the fact that he alienates potential allies. And let's lastly ignore the fact that his administration's only major political achievements, the tax reform and the repeal of net neutrality, are both wildly unpopular.

Instead, let's honestly ask ourselves a more practical question. Is Trump going to survive that long?

The man is now 71 years old. He subsists on a diet of fast food and coca-cola. He spent a good chunk of the 80s and 90s strung out on off-label diet pills. He claims to only sleep for four to five hours a night. He apparently struggles to walk even relatively short distances.

None of this suggests a person who's going to last until the age of 78.

What if he pulls an Anthony Eden, getting addicted to painkillers while his health continually deteriorates and refusing to step down until ending up in a political crisis and having to cede territory.

Zontar:
I want her to run just because she's loose with even greater assurance then anyone else. Which is saying something given Trump's likely to win regardless.

Yeah, those record-low polling numbers have put him in really good stead.

Can we please stop bringing her up? She's a non-entity. She lost.

NemotheElvenPanda:
Can we please stop bringing her up? She's a non-entity. She lost.

But then we'd have to acknowledge the shit that's actually happening, and that would be bad for reasons.

Avnger:

Gorfias:
Clinton, who may try to run again in 2020

You're making claims without sourcing them again Gorfias...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/10/24/hillary-2020-trump-better-hope-not/?utm_term=.d9f436b89261

I'm not the only one, buy far, that thinks it could happen. Not that I want it to... just it could. Most of the rest of my post is questions, not assertions. The responses in this thread have been interesting.

bastardofmelbourne:
Are we kidding? She wouldn't win the nomination.

I can only hope you are right. I nearly puked from the toes when I thought we would have no choice but a Bush or a Clinton... again.

The US needs two functioning parties worth a damn from which to choose. Thanks all for your thoughts on this matter.

Gorfias:

Avnger:

Gorfias:
Clinton, who may try to run again in 2020

You're making claims without sourcing them again Gorfias...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/10/24/hillary-2020-trump-better-hope-not/?utm_term=.d9f436b89261

I'm not the only one, buy far, that thinks it could happen. Not that I want it to... just it could.

That article opines that she would win if she ran. It says absolutely nothing about if she should or will. Your (and other rightwingers) need for a leftwing boogeyman to justify your fear politics is well received though.

Most of the rest of my post is questions, not assertions. The responses in this thread have been interesting.

Your questions make assumptions of facts not in evidence anywhere other than the alternate realty espoused on righrwing blogs though. Evidence in the real world shows those assumptions to be nonsense.

Oh, god sakes, Gorf. Give it a rest. What is it with people and not focusing on the real issue, which is the actual idiot on the throne? Yours and everyone else's 'But Hillary' nonsense is just scapegoatism, period. People voted for the worst candidate and that's it. There's no arguing around them making REALLY bad decisions. It's like taking a dip in vinegar or hydrochloric acid, and then you want to blame the vinegar for confusing you...as you basically melt to death. Pointless.

Gorfias. Buddy. Pal. Look, I hate Clinton as much as the next guy. Perhaps even more than most. But she lost. She's not going to run again in 2020. We won. We can stop rubbing it in people's faces.

CM156:
Gorfias. Buddy. Pal. Look, I hate Clinton as much as the next guy. Perhaps even more than most. But she lost. She's not going to run again in 2020. We won. We can stop rubbing it in people's faces.

image

I never fully understood the hate against Hillary Clinton.

I mean, I understand it, but only because I live next to the United States and understand the weird bigotry that permeates it where any woman or minority at any job needs to be 100% free of any superficial appearance of wrongdoing (regardless of whether said wrongdoing is routinely committed by their colleagues) and twice as competent as any white man just to be considered passable.

jademunky:
I never fully understood the hate against Hillary Clinton.

I mean, I understand it, but only because I live next to the United States and understand the weird bigotry that permeates it where any woman or minority at any job needs to be 100% free of any superficial appearance of wrongdoing (regardless of whether said wrongdoing is routinely committed by their colleagues) and twice as competent as any white man just to be considered passable.

That's certainly a factor (and not confined to the US), but also "the Left" (or the US equivalent) is going through a noisy period of fighting over who gets to define "the Left", which issues are important, and which issues should be ignored. This is never not a thing, but seems to be a bit worse than usual.

jademunky:
I never fully understood the hate against Hillary Clinton.

I mean, I understand it, but only because I live next to the United States and understand the weird bigotry that permeates it where any woman or minority at any job needs to be 100% free of any superficial appearance of wrongdoing (regardless of whether said wrongdoing is routinely committed by their colleagues) and twice as competent as any white man just to be considered passable.

Considering the effects of being a president any corruption should be scrutinized regardless of gender or race, and while Trump is (likely more) corrupt this doesn't create a shield of "look at me! I'm holier by comparison" for Hillary but rather make the competition being "corrupt guy" vs. "corrupt lady" which drives cynicism further.

Though I think Hillary is still better than Bernie, heck Trump is likely better than Bernie.

inu-kun:

Considering the effects of being a president any corruption should be scrutinized regardless of gender or race, and while Trump is (likely more) corrupt this doesn't create a shield of "look at me! I'm holier by comparison" for Hillary but rather make the competition being "corrupt guy" vs. "corrupt lady" which drives cynicism further.

But I was not talking about actual corruption on Clinton's part, rather the wholesale creation of the outward appearance of such. Let's be honest, very few right-wingers genuinely care about the rampant cronyism and mutual backscratching within the DNC nor would it matter anyway being a private club that can make it's own rules and ignore the opinions of it's constituency at it's own peril.

What they hate her for is, and has always been, nonsense: Vince Foster, Arkansas cocaine empires, Benghazi, email scandals & (my favourite of this list of gems) pedophile cults hiding out in pizza joints.

jademunky:

inu-kun:

Considering the effects of being a president any corruption should be scrutinized regardless of gender or race, and while Trump is (likely more) corrupt this doesn't create a shield of "look at me! I'm holier by comparison" for Hillary but rather make the competition being "corrupt guy" vs. "corrupt lady" which drives cynicism further.

But I was not talking about actual corruption on Clinton's part, rather the wholesale creation of the outward appearance of such. Let's be honest, very few right-wingers genuinely care about the rampant cronyism and mutual backscratching within the DNC nor would it matter anyway being a private club that can make it's own rules and ignore the opinions of it's constituency at it's own peril.

What they hate her for is, and has always been, nonsense: Vince Foster, Arkansas cocaine empires, Benghazi, email scandals & (my favourite of this list of gems) pedophile cults hiding out in pizza joints.

Corruption is corruption and every weapon that can be used in politics will be used. As such, even if the people talking about it don't think it much as long as they have some point others will believe them and with Clinton's case at the very least the email scandals are, while not stricktly corruption, criminal negligence of an extremely high order and have a very big point over how professional Clinton is, when she does the digital equivelance of leaving her laptop unattended at a cafe with a sign "please don't touch".

inu-kun:

Corruption is corruption and every weapon that can be used in politics will be used. As such, even if the people talking about it don't think it much as long as they have some point others will believe them

???

and with Clinton's case at the very least the email scandals are, while not stricktly corruption, criminal negligence of an extremely high order and have a very big point over how professional Clinton is, when she does the digital equivelance of leaving her laptop unattended at a cafe with a sign "please don't touch".

Such a high order that similar circumstances of neglect have not once resulted in criminal charges being filed against any public servant in the history of the country.

MC1980:

CM156:
Gorfias. Buddy. Pal. Look, I hate Clinton as much as the next guy. Perhaps even more than most. But she lost. She's not going to run again in 2020. We won. We can stop rubbing it in people's faces.

image

I picked the avatar because I like the smile.

jademunky:

inu-kun:

Corruption is corruption and every weapon that can be used in politics will be used. As such, even if the people talking about it don't think it much as long as they have some point others will believe them

???

and with Clinton's case at the very least the email scandals are, while not stricktly corruption, criminal negligence of an extremely high order and have a very big point over how professional Clinton is, when she does the digital equivelance of leaving her laptop unattended at a cafe with a sign "please don't touch".

Such a high order that similar circumstances of neglect have not once resulted in criminal charges being filed against any public servant in the history of the country.

Basically mean (in bad english) that she's done a bad thing and pays for it.

That's more due to countries not getting too much into this "technology" thing yet and less due to it being a non issue (and will likely be patched up after people start shutting up about the elections). I did find a person who nearly got in jail for doing something similar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Deutch

inu-kun:

Basically mean (in bad english) that she's done a bad thing and pays for it.

I wondered because it kinda looked like you were trying to say that people talking about a thing makes that thing real or at least punishable.

That's more due to countries not getting too much into this "technology" thing yet and less due to it being a non issue (and will likely be patched up after people start shutting up about the elections). I did find a person who nearly got in jail for doing something similar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Deutch

The guy was the CIA director. 100% of his job was properly handling intelligence. Also nothing happened to him either. Also he had lost his job years earlier for other reasons altogether and still, to this day, sits on boards with considerable influence.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here