Archive for category Hillary Clinton
Both parties’ presidential front-runners are growing increasingly unpopular, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds, with Hillary Clinton showing an especially steep decline over the past month.
Among voters in both parties, 56% hold a negative view of Clinton and 32% hold a positive view. That 24-point gap is almost twice as wide as in a Journal/NBC poll last month, when 51% viewed her negatively and 38% positively, a 13-point gap. In other words, the more Americans get to see of Clinton the more they don’t want her.
Compared to frontrunners in previous presidential primary races, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s unfavorable ratings (57 percent and 52 percent respectively) are the highest in CBS News/New York Times Polls going back to 1984, when CBS began asking this question.
If the two major parties nominated Clinton and Trump, the electorate would be divided three ways:
1. American voters who would refuse to vote for Trump.
2. American voters who would refuse to vote for Clinton.
3. American voters who would refuse to vote for either one of them!
And we could forget about the actual issues in the 2016 election, because the media would cover all the mud slinging and nothing else.
By contrast, Bernie Sanders has the highest favorability of any candidate. Bernie averages a +5.3 compared to Hillary’s -24.
Democrats March Toward Cliff
Unpopularity dogs Trump, Clinton, Cruz: Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton viewed unfavorably by majority – CBS/NYT poll
Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump: General Election Match-Up Polls & Favorability Ratings
Posted on YouTube by Afnan Thakur.
We try to help New Yorkers decide which of the two candidates can actually win the Presidential election.
Note: This is not any campaign’s official ad. Source for the numbers are from RealClearPolitics and other polling agencies. And the scale for Hillary’s unfavorable polling goes from 39-54%
— C. R. Bergen (@crbergen) March 31, 2016
Utah’s never seen anything this bizarre.
The republicans are turning out in “Huuge” numbers to vote AGAINST their presumed nominee, (Donald Trump), and democrats are turning out in “Huuge” numbers to vote AGAINST their presumed nominee also, (Hillary Clinton).
We won’t know until morning, but from what I’ve seen on my, (so far), republican-bias TV stations here, the democrats are voting for the person they actually want.
Guess we’ll find out in the morning. I saw a lot of Hillary supporters. My “Bernie” badge didn’t get any real opposition on my little walk.
[T]he Michigan upset is not, as America’s foremost poll analyst Nate Silver claimed, a freak event not witnessed since the New Hampshire primary of 1984, but part of a new pattern of poll-defying results that will, if they continue, carry Bernie Sanders into the White House.
…[H]ow accurate are all the other recent polls showing Clinton victories on the March 15th Super Tuesday sequel? If Bernie surpasses the polls in these states by as much as he just did in Michigan, he stands to score historic upsets in the important delegate-rich states of Ohio and even North Carolina.
If Sanders does nearly as well as the 41 percent average poll-to-reality discrepancy of the four state pattern described above, Bernie may even win Illinois and Florida next week. Should that happen, it will be Bernie, not Hillary, who will have become “inevitable.”
The reason cable TV talking heads are hitting us over the head with pro-Hillary polls is that her campaign has bet heavily on supposed “inevitability” and “electability.” Her actual record and policy positions are unappealing to progressives. Even mainstream Democrats are repulsed by her neocon hawk foreign policy, which Hillary now tries to avoid talking about. When cornered, she’ll fake it by parroting Bernie Sanders proposals in her stump speeches.
There has been an attempt by the media, and even the allegedly progressive website DailyKos, to declare Hillary the “presumptive nominee.” If they can narrow the choice down to Hillary or Trump, then the “lesser evil” narrative kicks in and Dem-leaning voters will be told to fall in line and abandon their idealism.
Why are the polls wrong? Cenk Uygur has remarked that when registered voters are surveyed, Bernie usually comes out ahead. But then pollsters apply a “likely voter” screen to the results, which produces a predicted win for Hillary. When the “unlikely voters” turn out to vote, the polls don’t match the election returns. That may be a too-simple explanation, but it’s as good as any.
All Bernie has to do is rack up at least 54 percent of the remaining pledged delegates. He needs a string of solid wins to do that, but it can be done.
Cenk Uygur’s real-world commentary
Online Hillary Clinton supporters keep telling us, in effect: “It’s all good, Bernie Sanders has done his job. He has moved Hillary to the left and now he can exit the race with his head held high.” Bullshit. “Progressive Hillary” is an illusion. She is stealing Bernie’s anti-Wall Street applause lines from his stump speeches, while taking money from billionaires in closed-door meetings. The Hillary campaign has made no commitment to progressive principles.
Bernie is authentic. He doesn’t have to pretend to change who he is to be likeable. He will make a great President!
‘Those are our words’: Bernie Sanders jokes that he’s ‘looking into the copyright issues’ as Hillary Clinton smacks Wall Street in her Nevada victory speech
Clinton blasts Wall Street, but still draws millions in contributions
NRA Lobbyist Will Co-Host Hillary Clinton Fundraiser
“We have to bring them to heel”: Watch a decade of Hillary Clinton’s shameful hypocrisy on racism
Clinton backtracks on moratorium on fossil fuel extraction on public land
The New York Times Accurately Portrays Hillary Clinton as an Unrepentant Warmonger
The Democratic presidential primary is causing me trouble. I like both candidates for very different reasons. As I’m writing this, I’m wearing my Hillary t-shirt and Bernie hoodie.
I get Bernie’s appeal. His laser like focus on economic inequality as the primary problem in US politics resonates with me (and lots of voters) for very good reasons. The disproportionate distribution of wealth and its corrupting influence on US politics cannot be allowed to continue. James Carville once described campaign finance reform as the reform that makes all other reforms possible. Bernie’s narrow focus on income inequality feels like its not nuanced enough for a nation as large as ours.
Hillary, by contrast, impresses me with her command of policy. Watching her testify before Trey Gowdy’s laughable Benghazi committee reminded me of why I’ve long found her impressive. She spent 11 hours being grilled by intellectual midgets and didn’t lose her cool. She laughed at the risible question if she “home alone.” She demonstrated a greater command of facts than any of the Republican yutzes on the committee.
After the Benghazi hearing, Matt Taibbi observed:
With Thursday’s interminable, pointless, haranguing, disorganized, utterly amateurish attempt at a smear job, the Republicans and their tenth-rate congressional attack schnauzer, South Carolina’s Trey Gowdy, got people feeling sorry for Hillary Clinton. Over the course of 11 long hours, they made the most eloquent argument for a Hillary Clinton presidency yet offered by anyone, including Clinton herself.
But there is one overriding principle that does animate and define the Clinton campaign, and that’s keeping Republicans out of office. For years, this has been the Democratic Party’s stock answer for every sordid legislative compromise, every shameless capitulation to expediency, every insulting line of two-faced stump rhetoric offered to get over: We have to do this to beat the Republicans.
I never bought that argument, for a lot of reasons, but Trey Gowdy made it look pretty good Thursday. Those idiots represent everything that is wrong not just with the Republican Party, but with modern politics in general. It’s hard to imagine a political compromise that wouldn’t be justified if its true aim would be to keep people like those jackasses out of power.
I agree wholeheartedly with Matt Taibbi. If nominating Bernie makes is an even shot that a Republican becomes President while nominating Hillary makes it 40% likely a Republican wins, I’ll support Hillary without a moment’s hesitation.
But there is a deeper reason I can support Hillary. She’s possesses a deep strength of character, as a powerful, educated woman in a deeply sexist society:
It is strange, then, to find myself, eight years later, not only rooting for Clinton, but feeling exasperated by her left-wing critics. I know their case against Clinton. I agree with a lot of it. I worry about what Clinton’s many flaws would mean for a potential presidency. Now, however, watching her be rejected by young people swept up in an idealistic political movement, I feel sadness instead of glee.[snip]
Since the 2008 election, I’ve grown more understanding about why Clinton made some of the ugly compromises I once held against her. Last year, I wrote a cover story for the Nation about her sometimes vexed relationship with the left. Reading biographies of her and histories of her husband’s administration, talking to people she worked with, and revisiting news stories from the 1990s, I was reminded that before she was excoriated as a sellout corporatist, she was excoriated as a feminist radical. She was widely seen as being to her husband’s left, in a way that threatened his political viability. Time after time, under intense pressure, she would overcorrect, trying to convince a skeptical mainstream press that she was a sensible centrist. Eventually, her tendency toward triangulation became almost instinctive.[snip]
Empathizing with Clinton, however, is a painful business. It means wincing along as she endures yet another round of public humiliation, another batch of stories about women’s indifference to her feminist appeal, another explosion of punditry about her lack of charisma. It means being constantly reminded that people on the left as well as the right find aging women pathetic. It means watching the Sanders phenomenon, in most ways a hugely welcome renaissance of American socialism, with dread as well as delight. There was no shame for Clinton in losing to Obama. But the fact that she’s fighting for her political life against Sanders, a man who initially joined the race more to make a statement than to contend for power, is a mortifying public rebuke.
Hillary Clinton has spent her public life – almost three decades now – on the losing side of America’s complicated misogyny. In the 1990s, she was excoriated for not being a stay at home wife and mother. She was feminazi shrew, a controlling iron bitch, a crazy lesbian murderess, a soulless Lady MacBeth. The genuine Hillary – who is apparently funny, warm, and caring – cannot safely emerge.
Hillarys’ line – “I am not a single-issue candidate and I do not believe we live in a single-issue country” – is brilliant. It’s accurate. It also feels like the basis of a great general campaign theme that could easily separate her from the Republicans.
Watching her run circles around Trey Gowdy and his gormless stooges convinced me that she’s got the chops to be president.
She’s also an awkward candidate. Bernie shouldn’t be giving her a run for her money – he’s not a great speaker or campaigner. But I suspect he’s also more cunning and cagey than I previously thought. He might pull off a general election win. But then, so could she.
I want it to be both.
Here’s the bottom line: No matter which candidate wins the Democratic primary I will support them. I will vote for them.
But right now? I’m not sure which one I want to win. I know for damn sure there’s not a single Republican running for the Presidency that I’d trust within a hundred miles of the office.
Last night, Hillary Clinton told Anderson Cooper that she doesn’t regret taking $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for making three speeches. It wasn’t a good answer. Bear in mind that many Americans won’t earn that much money in a lifetime of hard work.
Hillary justifies her outrageous speaking fees because other former Secretaries of State did the same thing.
In the MSNBC debate tonight, Rachel Maddow offered Hillary a do-over on the same question. The answer was better this time. But everybody knows that these exorbitant speaking fees are not buying inspiring rhetoric or even policy advice. It’s just a way to funnel enormous sums to political allies.
January 2014 to March 2015, Clinton lists a total of 51 speech fees that have been added to her personal account from a variety of companies. Not including her husband’s fees which also appear on the same disclosure, Clinton’s speech fees end up totaling more than $11 million.
In tonight’s debate, Chuck Todd asked Hillary if she would release the transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches. “I will look into it,” was her response.
Here we are with less than three weeks until Americans begin casting their first votes in Iowa and New Hampshire, and the Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton campaigns are tied, polling within the margin of error.
Months ago, the consensus of the pundits was that Bernie had entered the presidential race with the hope of nudging Hillary’s campaign platform just a little bit left. That happened, of course – she has switched positions on marriage equality, gun safety, undocumented immigrants, so-called “free trade” treaties, and the Keystone XL pipeline. What few saw at the outset was that significant numbers of Democratic primary voters were not enthusiastic about another Clinton administration, whatever the promises.
Bernie has relentlessly stayed on message, and his message is that income and wealth inequality are destroying our democracy. We have to rein in the “billionaire class,” he says.
“Greed is not good,” Sanders said, countering the famed Wall Street movie character Gordon Gekko played by Michael Douglas in the 1987 film Wall Street. “In fact, the greed of Wall Street and corporate America is destroying the very fabric of our nation.”
A centerpiece of his plan is a pledge to break up the biggest banks and financial institutions, whose size and complexity threaten the financial system as a whole and the U.S. economy.
Sanders says that if he were elected president one of his first acts would be to tell the Treasury Department to establish a “too-big-to-fail” list of commercial banks plus shadow financial institutions and insurance companies whose failure would pose a “catastrophic risk” to the U.S. economy and move to downsize them to make them safer.
Bernie wants to restore Glass-Steagall protections against risky “shadow” banking activities that were put in place in 1933 to prevent another Great Depression. In 1999 President Bill Clinton signed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act into law, permitting the partial repeal of Glass–Steagall – which led to the formation of the housing bubble over the next decade until it burst in 2008 at the end of George W. Bush’s presidency. The result was the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Glass-Steagall “worked for more than five decades until Wall Street watered it down under President Reagan and killed it under President Clinton,” said Sanders pointedly in his speech.
There is a clear difference between the two candidates on Wall Street regulation: Clinton won’t support the restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act. Bernie also wants to bring back a financial transaction tax like the one that was in effect from 1914 to 1966. A small tax could actually raise big money and discourage the sort of large-volume program trading that causes a “flash crash” in the stock markets.
Some media talking heads are still not willing to entertain the idea of Bernie Sanders as the Dem nominee. This morning on MSNBC, Joe Scarborough was speculating about a “Plan B” featuring Biden or Kerry if Hillary doesn’t win Iowa and New Hampshire. Mika Brzezinski quite reasonably asked, why not Bernie?
A recent poll surprised a lot of insiders by suggesting that Bernie Sanders would do better against Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton would –beating Trump by 13 points.
This was confirmed by an NBC-Wall Street Journal poll.
But this should be no surprise at all. With a lot of angry voters in a populist mood, they would likely opt for the real economic populist rather than the fake one.
I know the media are going all out to claim that Hillary Clinton won the debate. Hillary held on and did well, but she didn’t win. Bernie Sanders won the polls, raked in the campaign contributions, and reached many more voters with his message (15 million people watched the debate).
In the debate, Bernie was the only candidate who identified climate change as the number one national security threat (not Russia, not ISIS, not China).
Remember when the USA PATRIOT Act passed the Senate 99-1? Last night Bernie proudly reminded us that he was the one vote against it. Hillary is still defending the USA PATRIOT Act.
Hillary doesn’t want to bring back Glass–Steagall. Lincoln Chafee said he didn’t even know what the Glass-Steagall Act was when he voted to repeal it.
Oh, and Jim Webb killed a guy in Vietnam. That was an awkward thing to bring up in a presidential debate, but it does carry commander-in-chief cred.
Ignore the Media Pundits: Bernie Sanders Won the First Democratic Debate
DC insiders think Bernie Sanders lost the debate. Here’s why they might be wrong.
CNN Focus Group Says Bernie Sanders Won The First Democratic Debate
Frank Luntz Focus Group Agrees: Bernie Sanders Won Debate
All Marco Rubio Heard At Last Night’s Debate Was ‘Free Stuff’