• 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!

Clinton’s Explanations on Benghazi Attacks Winning Over Voters — WSJ/NBC Poll

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Clinton’s Explanations on Benghazi Attacks Winning Over Voters — WSJ/NBC Poll

Hillary Clinton has put to rest many voters’ questions about her handling of the 2012 Benghazi attacks, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted after her 11-hour appearance before a House investigative panel last month.


The number of people who are unsatisfied with her response to questions on the attacks on a U.S. diplomatic compound dropped to 38% in the poll, from 44% in a poll taken before she testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Oct. 22.The new poll found Republicans’ opinion remained largely unchanged, but among Democrats and swing voters, there was a significant rise in satisfaction with Mrs. Clinton’s response.


However, that shift did not have much impact on voters’ more general assessment of Mrs. Clinton’s honesty and character: A broader set of questions about her professional and personal attributes found that just 27% of voters rated her highly on being honest and straightforward — roughly the same as in the earlier poll.
Snip

Clinton?s Explanations on Benghazi Attacks Winning Over Voters ? WSJ/NBC Poll - Washington Wire - WSJ

 
Clinton’s Explanations on Benghazi Attacks Winning Over Voters — WSJ/NBC Poll

Hillary Clinton has put to rest many voters’ questions about her handling of the 2012 Benghazi attacks, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted after her 11-hour appearance before a House investigative panel last month.


The number of people who are unsatisfied with her response to questions on the attacks on a U.S. diplomatic compound dropped to 38% in the poll, from 44% in a poll taken before she testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Oct. 22.The new poll found Republicans’ opinion remained largely unchanged, but among Democrats and swing voters, there was a significant rise in satisfaction with Mrs. Clinton’s response.


However, that shift did not have much impact on voters’ more general assessment of Mrs. Clinton’s honesty and character: A broader set of questions about her professional and personal attributes found that just 27% of voters rated her highly on being honest and straightforward — roughly the same as in the earlier poll.
Snip

Clinton?s Explanations on Benghazi Attacks Winning Over Voters ? WSJ/NBC Poll - Washington Wire - WSJ


On average there's a 5 point shift with Democrats in three different categories, and Republican's view of her hasn't changed. It's way too early to either declare victory or bury the dead.
 
On average there's a 5 point shift with Democrats in three different categories, and Republican's view of her hasn't changed. It's way too early to either declare victory or bury the dead.

In my opinion, it will get much better for Hillary as times goes on. The Republians are shooting themselves in the foot with the farse Benghazi committee.
 
This only means that voters believe the **** lies Hillary vomited up during her testimony
 
In my opinion, it will get much better for Hillary as times goes on.
You're probably correct. As time goes on, the American people tend to forget things, even those that are important.
The Republians are shooting themselves in the foot with the farse Benghazi committee.
As long as there are people that believe it is a farce and do not care about the fact that politicians lie to us for personal gain except (when it's in the opposition party of course), then you are probably correct here as well. Honesty and integrity seem to mean less and less every year. Very sad, actually.
 
You're probably correct. As time goes on, the American people tend to forget things, even those that are important. As long as there are people that believe it is a farce and do not care about the fact that politicians lie to us for personal gain except (when it's in the opposition party of course), then you are probably correct here as well. Honesty and integrity seem to mean less and less every year. Very sad, actually.

I think the people who believe the Obama adminstation purposely lied because of the election are nuts. I believe they come to this conclusion because they subconsciously know this is what they would do in the same situation. The world views of liberals and conservatives are quite different.

You say Obama/Hillary is doing this for political gain, however this applies to you as well. You talk about honesty and integrity, yet you rejected the fine article from from the WashPost Factchecker I gave to the other day. It has some nuances but it there. It's so easy for you to reject it, because you don't like that side of the arguement. This 6is from a guy who turned 7B[SUB]16[/SUB] on Sunday.
 
I think the people who believe the Obama adminstation purposely lied because of the election are nuts. I believe they come to this conclusion because they subconsciously know this is what they would do in the same situation. The world views of liberals and conservatives are quite different.

You say Obama/Hillary is doing this for political gain, however this applies to you as well. You talk about honesty and integrity, yet you rejected the fine article from from the WashPost Factchecker I gave to the other day. It has some nuances but it there. It's so easy for you to reject it, because you don't like that side of the arguement. This 6is from a guy who turned 7B[SUB]16[/SUB] on Sunday.

Well, if I'm nuts, you're certifiable to believe they didn't. Pete, my friend, please read below:

All politicians lie and they all lie even more blatantly to get elected.

All means all, not just one party... But all. The difference, the only difference, is what they will lie about.
 
I think the people who believe the Obama adminstation purposely lied because of the election are nuts. I believe they come to this conclusion because they subconsciously know this is what they would do in the same situation. The world views of liberals and conservatives are quite different.

You say Obama/Hillary is doing this for political gain, however this applies to you as well. You talk about honesty and integrity, yet you rejected the fine article from from the WashPost Factchecker I gave to the other day. It has some nuances but it there. It's so easy for you to reject it, because you don't like that side of the arguement. This 6is from a guy who turned 7B[SUB]16[/SUB] on Sunday.

Wait, what? That last sentence just hit me... What did you mean?
 
Well, if I'm nuts, you're certifiable to believe they didn't. Pete, my friend, please read below:

All politicians lie and they all lie even more blatantly to get elected.

All means all, not just one party... But all. The difference, the only difference, is what they will lie about.

What was the lie and the motive.
 
We all know the answer to both. In this context, all also includes you.

If it's about the video and the election I reject it. If Obama said it was a terrorist attack by al Qaeda it would have no effect on the election whatsoever. The bogus narrative was pushed by the RNC because they despirately want the White House because of the Supreme Court picks that will be available in the next 4-8 years.
 
If it's about the video and the election I reject it. If Obama said it was a terrorist attack by al Qaeda it would have no effect on the election whatsoever. The bogus narrative was pushed by the RNC because they despirately want the White House because of the Supreme Court picks that will be available in the next 4-8 years.

"bogus narrative was pushed"

So who, exactly, Pete, was pushing the bogus narrative of the Internet video?

Are you now denying that they, as in Obama, Hillary and Rice and the rest of the Obama administration, didn't push this narrative?
Really?

You know, I'm sure I could find all the Rice interviews the following Sunday on the Sunday talking shows on YouTube to prove you wrong on that.
 
So who, exactly, Pete, was pushing the bogus narrative of the Internet video?

Are you now denying that they, as in Obama, Hillary and Rice and the rest of the Obama administration, didn't push this narrative?
Really?

You know, I'm sure I could find all the Rice interviews the following Sunday on the Sunday talking shows on YouTube to prove you wrong on that.

This is about Hillary Clinton and she never said the attack was caused or motivated by the video
 
If it's about the video and the election I reject it. If Obama said it was a terrorist attack by al Qaeda it would have no effect on the election whatsoever. The bogus narrative was pushed by the RNC because they despirately want the White House because of the Supreme Court picks that will be available in the next 4-8 years.

See? You know. You just reject any and all actual evidence and replace it with what the folks that have been proven to be lying, tell you because they're your guys.

I can understand that - you're not the only one, and it happens to people on the right as well when they don't want to think a Republican could do something this bad. In fact, I respect you for your loyalty and the honesty that you yourself have shown me over the years. I may completely disagree with you on this issue, but I still respect you, and we still have a number of issues where we see pretty much eye to eye. I just think on this one you have your partisan blinders on, and that's okay, because even I get lost in the fog at times - we all do.
 
See? You know. You just reject any and all actual evidence and replace it with what the folks that have been proven to be lying, tell you because they're your guys.

I can understand that - you're not the only one, and it happens to people on the right as well when they don't want to think a Republican could do something this bad. In fact, I respect you for your loyalty and the honesty that you yourself have shown me over the years. I may completely disagree with you on this issue, but I still respect you, and we still have a number of issues where we see pretty much eye to eye. I just think on this one you have your partisan blinders on, and that's okay, because even I get lost in the fog at times - we all do.

I think you have it wrong, I don't reject the "evidence" because it involves my guy, I reject it because he whole narrative make no sense to me. Also, the right has made up stories about the Clintons since before Bill was president. She did a fantastic job with her 11-hour deposition. She is a tuff lady. Look at the Republicans, if they can't handle debate moderators, how do they expect to handle Putin?
 
Back
Top Bottom