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 PREV 1 2
 

Thaluikhain:

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.

It's as good as it's ever been in the last thirty years, which is to say that we're no longer conceding the ground to the corporate sellouts.

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

An interesting thing about Hillary Clinton's approval ratings across her career is that she enjoyed very positive approval ratings when she was in a government position, but very low approval ratings when she was seeking a government position.

So, she had a 60% approval rating while serving in the Senate in 2001, which declined and dropped to 48% when she was gearing up for a presidential run in 2008. But after being appointed as Secretary of State, her approval shot back up to 66% and stayed high all through her term. In 2014, just before announcing her second presidential run, she had a solid 54% approval rating, but after that announcement her rating plummeted back underwater and just kept dropping throughout the campaign and afterwards.

There's something to be said there about how society reacts to a woman who is perceived as ambitious, or about Hillary's generally poor campaign performance vs. her generally solid work performance, but I think ultimately the hate against Clinton was fueled by three things. The first was that the left didn't like her because she represented the hated neoliberal "Third Way" wing of the party that everyone was sick to death of by 2008. The second was that the right had always hated Hillary Clinton, ever since the early 90s, and they had two decade's worth of political baggage to draw on when it came to criticising her. Didn't matter if any of it was true - 99% of it wasn't - they just had to keep repeating it and hitting the old buttons to create this miasma of filth that stuck to her and wouldn't wash off.

The third was just a backlash against being told what to do. When Clinton ran, she cleared the field because almost all other candidates backed out simply because they felt they were sure to lose against a Clinton. The perception given to the voters was that Clinton was saying "Hey, it's my turn. Go vote for me." And people hate being told what to do. Clinton really underestimated Trump massively; she underestimated the power of his bullshit promises and dog whistles, and she overestimated her ability to get out the vote.

And, naturally, society lets rich white guys get away with ten times as much bullshit as they do women. Trump and the rest of the right-wing media keeps bringing up Clinton again and again because they love using her to distract from their own bullshit. Just look at Trump's tweets raving about heracid-washed emails (???) or some made-up fucking bullshit like that. He desperately wants to be running against Hillary Clinton, because Clinton was the only candidate who could plausibly be made to look as corrupt as he is. Trump was an astoundingly weak candidate, and weak candidates profit better by dragging their opponents into the mud than they do by trying to stand on their own strengths.

Put someone like Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris on the ticket, they'd thrash Trump sideways. Especially now that the Supreme Court vacancy has been filled and the big-ass tax cut for rich blokes has passed. Republicans don't need Trump anymore. Come 2020, they'll have no convincing reason to continue staining their morals by voting for him.

bastardofmelbourne:

Put someone like Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris on the ticket, they'd thrash Trump sideways. Especially now that the Supreme Court vacancy has been filled and the big-ass tax cut for rich blokes has passed. Republicans don't need Trump anymore. Come 2020, they'll have no convincing reason to continue staining their morals by voting for him.

Do you imagine those who voted for Trump once will do anything but vote for him again?

They will not vote Democrat, and they will not abstain if the alternative is a Democrat. Anybody semi-moderate already refused to vote for him the first time.

Silvanus:

bastardofmelbourne:

Put someone like Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris on the ticket, they'd thrash Trump sideways. Especially now that the Supreme Court vacancy has been filled and the big-ass tax cut for rich blokes has passed. Republicans don't need Trump anymore. Come 2020, they'll have no convincing reason to continue staining their morals by voting for him.

Do you imagine those who voted for Trump once will do anything but vote for him again?

They will not vote Democrat, and they will not abstain if the alternative is a Democrat. Anybody semi-moderate already refused to vote for him the first time.

We need lazy Dems to not be lazy, and to not have any Bernie Sanders to be a vote vampire.

Saelune:
We need lazy Dems to not be lazy, and to not have any Bernie Sanders to be a vote vampire.

Depends on how good the GOP is at suppressing votes for the next election. Might not matter if they do a good enough job.

I always laugh at those polls since it seems to me that everyone forgets that she's not the president, nor is she is any public office. Nor will she ever run for public office because she said so.

Getting a little tired of this whataboutism though from people that want to deflect from what Trump is doing to what Clinton has allegedly done. I mean, sure, she has done some questionable things, but that doesn't excuse from what Trump is doing.

Those polls about Clinton are bullshit, and I really wish people would just let it die.

Saelune:

Silvanus:

bastardofmelbourne:

Put someone like Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris on the ticket, they'd thrash Trump sideways. Especially now that the Supreme Court vacancy has been filled and the big-ass tax cut for rich blokes has passed. Republicans don't need Trump anymore. Come 2020, they'll have no convincing reason to continue staining their morals by voting for him.

Do you imagine those who voted for Trump once will do anything but vote for him again?

They will not vote Democrat, and they will not abstain if the alternative is a Democrat. Anybody semi-moderate already refused to vote for him the first time.

We need lazy Dems to not be lazy, and to not have any Bernie Sanders to be a vote vampire.

We need corporate Dems to not be corporate tools, and to not have the DNC tilt the primary and destroy the party's credibility.

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:

Silvanus:

Do you imagine those who voted for Trump once will do anything but vote for him again?

They will not vote Democrat, and they will not abstain if the alternative is a Democrat. Anybody semi-moderate already refused to vote for him the first time.

We need lazy Dems to not be lazy, and to not have any Bernie Sanders to be a vote vampire.

We need corporate Dems to not be corporate tools, and to not have the DNC tilt the primary and destroy the party's credibility.

Nah. We need to nip future Sanders in the buds is my take-away from this. They can recrop up when Clintons really are the actual problem, but with how far Trump sent us back, it will be awhile. We were close though with Obama raising the bar so high, but then *makes falling whistle sound* SPLAT, the bar is under ground.

Fiz_The_Toaster:
I always laugh at those polls since it seems to me that everyone forgets that she's not the president, nor is she is any public office. Nor will she ever run for public office because she said so.

Getting a little tired of this whataboutism though from people that want to deflect from what Trump is doing to what Clinton has allegedly done. I mean, sure, she has done some questionable things, but that doesn't excuse from what Trump is doing.

Those polls about Clinton are bullshit, and I really wish people would just let it die.

But that requires there being alot less sexist Nazis in power.

Saelune:

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:
We need lazy Dems to not be lazy, and to not have any Bernie Sanders to be a vote vampire.

We need corporate Dems to not be corporate tools, and to not have the DNC tilt the primary and destroy the party's credibility.

Nah. We need to nip future Sanders in the buds is my take-away from this. They can recrop up when Clintons really are the actual problem, but with how far Trump sent us back, it will be awhile. We were close though with Obama raising the bar so high, but then *makes falling whistle sound* SPLAT, the bar is under ground.

Clintons are the (vanguard of the) actual problem, which started decades before and was mainstreamed by Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. Trump is a symptom of that problem. The Clintons destroyed the party's credibility when it comes to representing the poor and workers (welfare reform, deregulation, NAFTA). Obama hardly helped in that regard, but he did better at the optics. Neither Clinton nor Trump got more than 20% of the population of the United States to vote for them.

image

Bernie was more popular beforehand (and performed significantly better in head to head polls against Trump than Hillary did) and he's FAR more popular afterward. Candidates like Hillary Clinton just get worse and worse and worse as campaigns drag on and people actually get acquainted or reacquainted with their dismal moderate Republican politics.

If the DNC squashes another Bernie Sanders, you WILL see a rebellion amongst progressives and a situation where we actually decline to vote for the Democrat (rather than warn the Democrats about all the less political people the party has been ignoring for decades who will stay home). We will not tolerate the same shit again and we will not vote for another shit candidate who buys the party because it's 'her turn'.

Saelune:
Nah. We need to nip future Sanders in the buds is my take-away from this. They can recrop up when Clintons really are the actual problem, but with how far Trump sent us back, it will be awhile. We were close though with Obama raising the bar so high, but then *makes falling whistle sound* SPLAT, the bar is under ground.

What exactly do you mean by "nip in the bud"? Do you not believe the candidacy should be decided by the Primaries?

Silvanus:
Do you imagine those who voted for Trump once will do anything but vote for him again?

They will not vote Democrat, and they will not abstain if the alternative is a Democrat. Anybody semi-moderate already refused to vote for him the first time.

I mean that there were a lot of people in 2016 who wouldn't normally vote for someone like Trump who did so anyway because "we want a tax cut" or "there's a Supreme Court seat in play." Those people are more likely to abstain in a future election.

I mean, Hypothetical President Warren wouldn't really be able to unseat Neil Gorsuch, and she'd have a hard time repealing any of the tax cuts that just got passed. That shit may as well be set in stone now. Any voters who tolerated Trump solely to get to those goals now has no reason to tolerate Trump.

Silvanus:

Saelune:
Nah. We need to nip future Sanders in the buds is my take-away from this. They can recrop up when Clintons really are the actual problem, but with how far Trump sent us back, it will be awhile. We were close though with Obama raising the bar so high, but then *makes falling whistle sound* SPLAT, the bar is under ground.

What exactly do you mean by "nip in the bud"? Do you not believe the candidacy should be decided by the Primaries?

I think he means that at the current point, it is more important for the party to be unified in support of their eventual candidate than it is to make sure that the candidate ticks all our criteria for an ideal progressive.

Sanders went into the primaries with good intentions, and largely succeeded in pushing Clinton's platform to the left. But what Sanders and Clinton didn't realise was that voters were not really paying attention to the details of a candidate's platform; they were paying attention to which one was the rebel and which one was the establishment.

Clinton eventually lost a decisive chunk of Bernie voters in critical states, largely because of her perceived mistreatment of Sanders during the primary. Those are voters who decided that they would rather abstain - or vote for Trump - than vote for someone they perceived as a corporate shill. And one thing Bernie did very effectively was hammer Clinton for being a corporate shill. It was the core of his whole line of attack in the primary, and it made it very difficult for Clinton to get those voters on her side in the general.

Silvanus:

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.

Hey now, Trump had record-low out-poll numbers too but somehow got the votes he needed to win regardless. Don't just use his poll numbers as some kind of actual proof of anything, because they can't exactly be trusted.

bastardofmelbourne:

Silvanus:
Do you imagine those who voted for Trump once will do anything but vote for him again?

They will not vote Democrat, and they will not abstain if the alternative is a Democrat. Anybody semi-moderate already refused to vote for him the first time.

I mean that there were a lot of people in 2016 who wouldn't normally vote for someone like Trump who did so anyway because "we want a tax cut" or "there's a Supreme Court seat in play." Those people are more likely to abstain in a future election.

I mean, Hypothetical President Warren wouldn't really be able to unseat Neil Gorsuch, and she'd have a hard time repealing any of the tax cuts that just got passed. That shit may as well be set in stone now. Any voters who tolerated Trump solely to get to those goals now has no reason to tolerate Trump.

Hard disagree: can always skew tax policy even further (or prevent it from being changed back). And supreme court seats are always in play. There has literally never been a Presidential election where people weren't freaking out about the Supreme Court.

bastardofmelbourne:
snip

Late reply.

I never knew that about her poll numbers. That carries a lot of depressing implications about politics and how the skillset for campaigning seems diametrically opposed to that for competently governing.

jademunky:

bastardofmelbourne:
snip

Late reply.

I never knew that about her poll numbers. That carries a lot of depressing implications about politics and how the skillset for campaigning seems diametrically opposed to that for competently governing.

The idea that we've had any amount of competent governance in the last few decades.

Seanchaidh:

The idea that we've had any amount of competent governance in the last few decades.

Assuming you live in the US, you at least had 8 years of leadership by one of the three (or possibly 4) American presidents whom I would have welcomed into my house.

jademunky:

Seanchaidh:

The idea that we've had any amount of competent governance in the last few decades.

Assuming you live in the US, you at least had 8 years of leadership by one of the three (or possibly 4) American presidents whom I would have welcomed into my house.

Second that. You aren't going to get a PotUS without serious flaws and failings, but you get relatively decent ones every so often.

Thaluikhain:

jademunky:

Seanchaidh:

The idea that we've had any amount of competent governance in the last few decades.

Assuming you live in the US, you at least had 8 years of leadership by one of the three (or possibly 4) American presidents whom I would have welcomed into my house.

Second that. You aren't going to get a PotUS without serious flaws and failings, but you get relatively decent ones every so often.

Very relatively. And this is all to say nothing of competent governance. We've had some very personable faces of Empire, no doubt.

Fiz_The_Toaster:
Getting a little tired of this whataboutism though from people that want to deflect from what Trump is doing to what Clinton has allegedly done. I mean, sure, she has done some questionable things, but that doesn't excuse from what Trump is doing.

Little late to this one, but...

Surely, if you are a Democrat supporter, in the current situation where the President is at least theoretically Republican and the Senate has a Republican majority, trying to figure out who might be your best shot next time round and what angle you should be taking on issues is the only thing you can do?

It's not whataboutism or deflectionism. It helps everyone to have this sort of information. In theory. As far as polls can be trusted. One needs to compare potential candidates to previous ones to gain any sort of touchstone, and to figure out whether it's a candidate that's unpopular or an entire party philosophy. Sort of thing.

Catnip1024:

Fiz_The_Toaster:
Getting a little tired of this whataboutism though from people that want to deflect from what Trump is doing to what Clinton has allegedly done. I mean, sure, she has done some questionable things, but that doesn't excuse from what Trump is doing.

Little late to this one, but...

Surely, if you are a Democrat supporter, in the current situation where the President is at least theoretically Republican and the Senate has a Republican majority, trying to figure out who might be your best shot next time round and what angle you should be taking on issues is the only thing you can do?

It's not whataboutism or deflectionism. It helps everyone to have this sort of information. In theory. As far as polls can be trusted. One needs to compare potential candidates to previous ones to gain any sort of touchstone, and to figure out whether it's a candidate that's unpopular or an entire party philosophy. Sort of thing.

Except Trump isn't a presidential candidate anymore; he is the President There's no relevance to Clinton (unless I missed a Hillary Clinton presidency somehow). Want to make comparisons regarding poll numbers? Use any of the previous Presidents (recent ones preferably). About the only valid comparison between the current White House and Hillary Clinton would be between her role as First Lady and Melania's role as First Lady.

Avnger:
Except Trump isn't a presidential candidate anymore; he is the President There's no relevance to Clinton (unless I missed a Hillary Clinton presidency somehow). Want to make comparisons regarding poll numbers? Use any of the previous Presidents (recent ones preferably). About the only valid comparison between the current White House and Hillary Clinton would be between her role as First Lady and Melania's role as First Lady.

Comparing a potential Democrat candidate to Trump is useful but flawed, as it also includes the party aspects. Comparing a potential Democrat candidate to previous potential Democrat candidates overcomes this.

Actual Presidential comparisons are useful, sure, but... Obama will suffer due to his not being able to pass many of the things he wanted, in a way that candidates don't / haven't yet. And as for Presidents before Obama, do you really think people will retain a proper knowledge of what they did, as opposed to feelings and vague memories?

Historical poll data is irrelevant, as the populations ideas and expectations change over time.

Saelune:
Nah. We need to nip future Sanders in the buds is my take-away from this. They can recrop up when Clintons really are the actual problem, but with how far Trump sent us back, it will be awhile. We were close though with Obama raising the bar so high, but then *makes falling whistle sound* SPLAT, the bar is under ground.

You will pretty much never get to a happy place by suppressing wings of your own support base. There's little much more you could do to convince them to hand you a huge electoral slap in the face instead.

Even worse than that, it is exactly the sort of stitch-up often associated with arrogant political machines that are usually being rund by small cliques of self-interested elitists. That isn't necessarily the worst thing in the world for good governance as long as those cliques are interested in the national welfare. But it surely is a huge problem when you have to win elections in a zietgeist of intense suspicion and dislike of politicians as corrupt, distant, unrepresentative, and bought out by big money.

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.

Well to be fair my parents who emigrated from Haiti hate the Clinton's as a whole. Hillary did some ugly foreign policy shit that really knocked the wind out of small countries like them. It has nothing to do her being a woman. As a whole that whole family has really fucked over a lot of people in the long run and she is suffering the consequences of that now.
That being said Jesus fucking Christ let her go. How does she manage to still be relevant in any political discourse? She lost. MOVE ON

 Pages PREV 1 2

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