• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton’s Appeal Survives Scrutiny, Poll Says

Do not be deceived by appearances.

She is a very strong candidate who happens to be enjoying the privilege of being able to run as though she has it won. By deliberately [at this stage] presuming the win, by a regal approach above the usual fray, by the visuals alone she sets herself apart from the riff raff.

In the US, what is said is no longer relevant. Who remembers what Obama promised in 2012? Did they even notice then./

Elections in the US are won on TV. The visuals and the ads do all the work, all they need do with her right now is put lipstick on the pg and drag her out for the fair.


Much of what you said is what consultants are probably telling her but with her, there's no there there and there should be some basic skills to work with.
I don't agree ... she's not at all a strong candidate.
A strong candidate wouldn't have bungled that press statement about the emails.
Watching that performance was cringeworthy.

That was a visual.
That was on TV.
That WON'T be in HER ads but her performances WILL be in opponent's ads.

I'm not gonna touch the lipstick on a pig comment.
 
She a formidable candidate by virtue of the fact that there really is no alternative at this point. That could change. And Democrats have a lot of locked in constituencies, like blacks, who don't care who is running as long as they are Democrat.
 
Most of the million dollar donors to the Clinton "charity" were foreign, and most large donations came while Hillary was SOS!?!?



Yep Monte.
yepp.gif
Even Podesta lobbied State when Hillary was there. Before going to work for her on her Campaign Team.




According to Vox's Jonathan Allen, formerly of Bloomberg, at least 181 Clinton Foundation donors lobbied the US State Department while Hillary Clinton was in charge, highlighting new questions over whether the Clintons profited from effectively renting out American foreign policy:

Clinton's defenders insist that nobody has offered concrete proof that this multi-million-dollar "slush fund" favor bank ever resulted in direct action by the State Department; at some point, though, enough smoke convinces people there's a fire. And the smoke is billowing:

Former President Bill Clinton accepted more than $2.5 million in speaking fees from 13 major corporations and trade associations that lobbied the U.S. State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, an International Business Times investigation has found. The fees were paid directly to the former president, and not directed to his philanthropic foundation. Many of the companies that paid Bill Clinton for these speeches -- a roster of global giants that includes Microsoft, Oracle and Dell -- engaged him within the same three-month period in which they were also lobbying the State Department in pursuit of their policy aims, federal disclosure documents show. Several companies received millions of dollars in State Department contracts while Hillary Clinton led the institution. The disclosure that President Clinton received personal payments for speeches from the same corporate interests that were actively seeking to secure favorable policies from a federal department overseen by his wife underscores the vexing issue now confronting her presidential aspirations...When she became secretary of state in 2009, Hillary Clinton agreed to subject Bill Clinton’s speaking engagements to a conflict-of-interest review by an ethics counsel in Clinton’s State Department. Documents from Judicial Watch show the counsel’s office approving the bulk of the speaking engagements -- even those that came during or after periods when the firms paying Bill Clinton were filing disclosure forms notifying government regulators that they were lobbying the State Department. The revelation that the Clinton family accepted money from 13 firms actively working to influence the Clinton-run State Department follows IBTimes’ report on Monday showing that Goldman Sachs paid Bill Clinton $200,000 just before the banking giant began lobbying the State Department......snip~

Report: At Least 181 Clinton Foundation Donors Also Lobbied Hillary's State Department - Guy Benson
 
The 2016 presidential campaign has barely started and, as usual, the MSM (especially the NYT) is unlikely to suddenly favor more conservative candidates. Don't worry, be happy articles are going to be the normal MSM fare offered up in HRC's defense.
Erm... The NYT has not exactly pulled its punches.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/u...ies-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/u...th-laureate-chain-of-for-profit-colleges.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/u...-returns-amid-scrutiny-of-foreign-grants.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/opinion/candidate-clinton-and-the-foundation.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/u...uestions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html

The Foundation issues aren't being ignored by the media. They're being ignored by much of the public.

The people who hate Hilary, or any Democrat running for office on principle, do pay attention -- but they were never going to vote for her anyway. The rest are disconnected from the process (too early) or aren't perturbed by it.
 
She a formidable candidate by virtue of the fact that there really is no alternative at this point. That could change.
Yep. Obama was practically an unknown, and Clinton was the sure-fire winner for awhile. I'm sure the anti-Hilary set would be thrilled with another Obama-type politician running for the Presidency.... ;)
 
I'm aware of some of these stories circulating, but they don't appear to be the kind of high-impact matters that could materially damage her candidacy. Even if one assumes that Clinton was warned of a risk of terrorist attacks in Libya, but assumed a lower risk (perhaps from other information sources), that outcome probably won't have a large impact. The disintegration of Libya does not pose a critical threat to the U.S., even as it poses some risk. If, on the other hand, one can tie Clinton to a materially worse U.S. position vis-a-vis Russia, the Mideast as a whole, etc., then one is dealing with a potentially larger-impact scenario. A substantially worse U.S. position in the balance of power, in a vital region (as opposed to a single rather marginal country), would have potentially significant adverse implications for the nation as a whole.

IMO, even as I could be incorrect, current and would-be opponents are making a strategic blunder in focusing so heavily on the Benghazi tragedy. Gov. Romney made that error during his campaign against President Obama. Ahead of his foreign policy debate, the Romney campaign signaled that it was going to make a case that U.S. foreign policy had fallen apart. Instead, at the debate, excessive time was devoted to Benghazi. The anticipated case was not attempted and a strategic opportunity was squandered, especially as Romney had done well in his first debate. While that lost opportunity was not as dramatic as Sen. McCain's panic during the financial crisis when he canceled and then un-canceled his debate appearance, the lackluster performance wiped out Romney's gains from his first debate. What might have happened had he made his case and built upon the momentum coming out of that first debate?

a challenger typically has to prove why the incumbent should not be re-elected. An incumbent typically does not have the burden of proof as to why he/she should be re-elected when the nation is not in a recession, on the brink of a recession, or facing some other large crisis.

Romney hardly touched on Benghazi.
 
Yep. Obama was practically an unknown, and Clinton was the sure-fire winner for awhile. I'm sure the anti-Hilary set would be thrilled with another Obama-type politician running for the Presidency.... ;)

Do you see that happening again? It's not out of the realm by any means. Politics aside ,she's just a very unlikeable person.
 
Do you see that happening again? It's not out of the realm by any means. Politics aside ,she's just a very unlikeable person.
I have no idea. I don't see why not, although I'm pretty sure it won't be Bernie Sanders. Sorry, Bernie....
 
Do you see that happening again? It's not out of the realm by any means. Politics aside ,she's just a very unlikeable person.


Well even her own people are a bit worried. Democrats too.





Hillary’s email trainwreck has some of Hillary’s staunchest supporters “really freaked out,” according to National Journal’s Ron Fournier. He said on CNN earlier this month that he got calls from Democrats in awe of the email development and unimpressed with how the former first lady conducted herself at the UN presser explaining her actions. Even die-hard Clinton supporters, people who want her to run unchallenged for the Democratic nomination, are worried, or at least very uneasy about the whole situation. As Cortney aptly noted, some Democrats are saying this is what happens when you “put all your eggs in one basket.”

So, does Clinton’s email flap mean Democrats are lining up to challenge her? Well, sort of -- there’s some folks trying to motivate California Gov. Jerry Brown, Al Gore (I’m not kidding), Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and Vice President Joe Biden to consider 2016 runs. Yes, it’s quite the motley crew of people who’ve never been successful in mounting national campaigns for president and one senator who won because her state is insanely Democratic.....snip~

Hillary Just Avoided The 'Pepsi Throwback' Of Presidential Primaries - Matt Vespa
 
I have no idea. I don't see why not, although I'm pretty sure it won't be Bernie Sanders. Sorry, Bernie....

I would like to see Bernie enter the ring. I obviously don't agree with his politics,but I'll give him this- he doesn't pretend to be something he's not, which is more than I can sat about most of them.
 
Well even her own people are a bit worried. Democrats too.
Of course they are. However, IF poll results continue to hold (which they might not), then they will probably relax a bit.

It's also not 1992. The Clinton crew already have an approach to these types of media dust-ups. The candidate says as little as possible and stays on message, while the campaign and surrogates wage trench warfare on the negatives.

And of course, almost every major candidate has issues like this.


does Clinton’s email flap mean Democrats are lining up to challenge her?
Meh. There's not really much new here. Every potential candidate for President with half a brain knows they will be thoroughly tarred and feathered by next March. Nor is running for President such an impulsive decision that a couple of scandals (real and fake) will encourage someone to jump in the ring.
 
I'm flabbergasted that America would even consider electing this woman. Do you seriously want four and potentially eight years of this? It's like finally getting gypsies off your front lawn and you find out you left the back door open and they're now camped out in your kitchen. Shut the back door, for God's sake.
 
That may be our biggest problem as a voting society. IMO.

I'd tend to agree with that, as well as the dramatic lack of critical thinking and analysis skills.
 
Hopefully the republicans will shut the back door and keep Jeb Bush out too. But that's prolly different.
 
It appears as though the idea she will quit the race is unfounded, as she is seen as a strong leader.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/06/u...ton-gains-favor-times-cbs-poll-says.html?_r=0

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


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


Snip

Why use the word weathered?

Do they think this is over and done with?
 
Hillary has no appeal.

She couldn't even get anyone to show up for that book tour or even get anyone to buy the stupid book.

The candidates that she stumped for in 2014 are now unemployed and she has the unfortunate characteristic of turning voters off just by opening her mouth.

I wouldn't give much credence to any poll that shows her in the lead.

It is easy to be in the lead if nobody is running against you.
 
Yep, get the "scandals" out of the way as early as possible (allowing the public to soon forget about them?) and then, when the real campaigning begins, claim that any further mention of that "old news" is a simply partisan attack. ;)

With her and her husband, there will always be the next one. You can bank on that.
 
Well currently the donor issue with Foreign Interests with Pay to play is what is impacting her......moreover I wouldn't count out that the scandals couldn't be tied together.

Also pointing out what her flawed choices were is the Republican candidates job. Not for the Media investigating her. Nor any IG's. Unless it is in violation of some policy or law.

Yeah her Team is out defending her and so to her followers......But the ripples have already started. Once the money starts to leave.....what sign would that be?


Clinton Foundation in campaign tailspin

By Kenneth P. Vogel @kenvogel

A handful of deep-pocketed donors are reconsidering their gifts to the $2 billion Clinton Foundation amid mounting questions about how it’s spending their money and suggestions of influence peddling,....snip~

Oops: Bill Clinton 'Mistakenly' Misreports Taxable Income as Tax-Free Donations - Guy Benson

We can't forget about Bill tripling his speaking fees when Hillary became SOS. What would make him worth tree times as much? We will have to ponder that question.
 
Back
Top Bottom