• 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

When she was asked about the Clinton Foundation & erasing her emails at the press conferences during her campaign events, how did she explain them?

IMO, not great. She could have done better. But in the larger and more important context (than my opinion), her polling resiliency suggests that she did enough to meet the public's expectations. Winning the support of enough of the electorate is the ultimate test of a candidate.
 
He is such a slug.

Well, it is rich people that rake up debts that can only be satisfied by million dollar speaking fees. The Clintons are in the top of the 1%. Was he expecting people to feel sorry for him with that. :roll:
 
IMO, not great. She could have done better. But in the larger and more important context (than my opinion), her polling resiliency suggests that she did enough to meet the public's expectations. Winning the support of enough of the electorate is the ultimate test of a candidate.

There have been no press conferences with Hillary since her campaign began so there have been no opportunities to ask her about the Foundation & emails.
 
Well, it is rich people that rake up debts that can only be satisfied by million dollar speaking fees. The Clintons are in the top of the 1%. Was he expecting people to feel sorry for him with that. :roll:

Yeah that was a big unforced error but he doesn't have much to work with on the subject these days.
He was dancing as fast as he could.
 
IMO, the electoral outcomes are not certainties, as much can happen between now and the end of the primary process and general election. However, I suspect that if Hillary Clinton is defeated, that outcome will have little to do with either Benghazi or the e-mail issue. The Benghazi issue has been repeatedly and thoroughly investigated. The e-mail issue was under intense scrutiny. There really don't appear to be too many "unknowns" left, especially with respect to the former matter.

Instead, a defeat would more likely result from among the following possible scenarios:

4. Errors and missteps by the Clinton campaign. In the Democratic Party nominating process, there are no really strong opponents. Sen. Sanders has a small, passionate base of support. In some ways, as a Socialist, he's the "Ron Paul" of the Democratic Party. Gov. O'Malley also stands little chance. He was succeeded by a Republican governor in an overwhelmingly Democratic Party majority state and that's a fairly decisive repudiation of his record. Sen. Warren almost certainly won't seek the nomination and would have limited appeal (mainly the progressive wing), though she would be stronger than either Sanders or O'Malley.

That list is not all-inclusive. More than likely, some combination will be required, especially if the economic expansion continues. For now, at least the way I see it at this point in time, those are some big challenges and the electoral landscape continues to tilt toward a Clinton election. Such an outcome is not cast in stone and things can change.


Well here is some news that will come out with the Benghazi part which will be connected to her emails and her server.....but like Gowdy stated. He also had questions concerning Libya Policy and the rest of Libya and Security. So that will be some more new revelations that will arise.

Moreover other committee members have stated they will be calling in Blumenthal to testify. He can of course, take the 5th.




If the motives to wipe the hard drive on Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server weren’t already crystal clear, a new development last night put it in Ultra HD. Gawker’s Jeff Girth and Sam Biddle uncovered a secret, private intelligence network run by Sidney Blumenthal for Hillary’s benefit, apart from the State Department’s own Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Hackers got e-mails that went through Hillary’s private server between her and Blumenthal, e-mails that show her own private intel group was also warning her that Libya was collapsing in the weeks and months prior to the sacking of the consulate in Benghazi:

It also seems that Hillary’s private intelligence operation penetrated other intel groups, including those of allies. On one level, one could be impressed with the organization of such an effort — if it had led to better choices. Instead, the hacked e-mail trail here has Hillary’s own network warning her of a string of terrorist attacks in Benghazi three weeks before the attack on our consulate. By that time, of course, the US facility had already been hit by a bomb attack two months prior to these warnings, yet Hillary and Patrick Kennedy did nothing to boost security or get American personnel out of harms’ way. Why, with these warnings ringing in her ears, did she allow US Ambassador Chris Stevens to come to Benghazi at all? By the way, the e-mails also speak to the “YouTube video” cover story, and makes it clear that Hillary’s own private network had discounted the claim 48 hours after the attack:

This goes beyond cover stories, though. What was a Secretary of State doing in running her own private intelligence service — and providing so little security for its communications? It’s getting very obvious why 32,000 e-mails got deleted from a four-year period, something like 21 e-mails every day in every year. It wasn’t just notes to Bill or discussions of Chelsea’s wedding plans that got wiped, but the records of Clintons’ clandestine network of operatives......snip~

Was Hillary running a secret intel network? « Hot Air

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...670-hillary-running-secret-intel-network.html
 
I think Boone Pickens was speaking about his hope rather than reality. He know how formidable she is.

More than likely, he was hoping he could save some money. Rather than have to put out a lot of cash to help dash her dream.
 
There have been no press conferences with Hillary since her campaign began so there have been no opportunities to ask her about the Foundation & emails.


Mornin B. :2wave: Well they do ask her questions.....she just refuses to answer them and walks out. Soon the Press will get tired of that and it wont matter what the NY Times, Media Matters, nor any Team Clinton has to say.

Other than when the Times ends up being forced to do their job. That is.
 
Yeah sure, the NY Times was the one who broke email story. :roll:

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. ;)
 
Mornin B. :2wave: Well they do ask her questions.....she just refuses to answer them and walks out. Soon the Press will get tired of that and it wont matter what the NY Times, Media Matters, nor any Team Clinton has to say.

Other than when the Times ends up being forced to do their job. That is.

She hasn't even gone on any one-on-ones (even friendly ones) that candidates usually do.
Very weak candidate.
 
Well here is some news that will come out with the Benghazi part which will be connected to her emails and her server.....but like Gowdy stated. He also had questions concerning Libya Policy and the rest of Libya and Security. So that will be some more new revelations that will arise.

Moreover other committee members have stated they will be calling in Blumenthal to testify. He can of course, take the 5th.




If the motives to wipe the hard drive on Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server weren’t already crystal clear, a new development last night put it in Ultra HD. Gawker’s Jeff Girth and Sam Biddle uncovered a secret, private intelligence network run by Sidney Blumenthal for Hillary’s benefit, apart from the State Department’s own Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Hackers got e-mails that went through Hillary’s private server between her and Blumenthal, e-mails that show her own private intel group was also warning her that Libya was collapsing in the weeks and months prior to the sacking of the consulate in Benghazi:

It also seems that Hillary’s private intelligence operation penetrated other intel groups, including those of allies. On one level, one could be impressed with the organization of such an effort — if it had led to better choices. Instead, the hacked e-mail trail here has Hillary’s own network warning her of a string of terrorist attacks in Benghazi three weeks before the attack on our consulate. By that time, of course, the US facility had already been hit by a bomb attack two months prior to these warnings, yet Hillary and Patrick Kennedy did nothing to boost security or get American personnel out of harms’ way. Why, with these warnings ringing in her ears, did she allow US Ambassador Chris Stevens to come to Benghazi at all? By the way, the e-mails also speak to the “YouTube video” cover story, and makes it clear that Hillary’s own private network had discounted the claim 48 hours after the attack:

This goes beyond cover stories, though. What was a Secretary of State doing in running her own private intelligence service — and providing so little security for its communications? It’s getting very obvious why 32,000 e-mails got deleted from a four-year period, something like 21 e-mails every day in every year. It wasn’t just notes to Bill or discussions of Chelsea’s wedding plans that got wiped, but the records of Clintons’ clandestine network of operatives......snip~

Was Hillary running a secret intel network? « Hot Air

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...670-hillary-running-secret-intel-network.html

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.
 
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.



Depends on what one considers High Impact huh, DS?



The House Select Committee on Benghazi will talk to longtime Clinton insider Sidney Blumenthal about his emails with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a committee member said Wednesday. Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo confirmed the panel’s interest in talking to Blumenthal in an interview with talk radio host Hugh Hewitt. “The committee will also speak with Mr. Blumenthal,” Pompeo said. “We’ve got other folks who we’re still pursuing who may well have also had personal email accounts.”

Gowdy said that Clinton must appear before May 1 to clear up the status of the emails and server. After that, Gowdy plans to call her to testify in front of the committee about the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

Gawker also reported that Blumenthal lobbied Clinton on behalf of John Kornblum, a former Clinton White House aide who became ambassador of Germany. Kornblum was promoting Georgian politician Bidzina Ivanishvili, an ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin. In working in such a way on behalf of a foreign interest, Blumenthal may have violated the Foreign Agent Registration Act.....snip~


Benghazi Committee Wants To Interview Clinton Insider Sidney Blumenthal
 
She hasn't even gone on any one-on-ones (even friendly ones) that candidates usually do.
Very weak candidate.

If you were a candidate's adviser, the candidate had an enormous lead in the polls, recent data also showed strong enthusiasm among his/her Party, and putting him/her into a forum where the perceived benefits of participation were marginal relative to the risks involved, would you advise that candidate to put his/her standing at risk? Most advisers would suggest that the candidate focus on areas that have the highest potential benefit-to-cost outcomes unless there were some long-term gain from preempting a risk. That's why candidates who have strong polling support typically are reluctant to agree to too many debates. Clinton is no exception.

It will be up to Clinton's opponents to build a sufficient case that makes it imperative that she appear in such forums. In other words, they will need to shift the calculus so that the costs of her not engaging in such forums substantially exceed the potential benefits of her engaging in them. At present, that's not the situation.
 
Depends on what one considers High Impact huh, DS?

High-impact, at least for me, is something that could adversely and materially impact a significant number of Americans, critical national interests, etc. Right now, the circulating reports don't seem to rise to such a magnitude. There are things that could be tied together (not scandals, but choices) that might allow opponents to create a compelling high-impact narrative. To get there, a campaign would need to inventory the areas in which Secretary Clinton made unambiguously flawed choices (significant and credible information existed for alternatives and such information rose above ideological or partisan differences), lay out the consequences and risks of those choices, demonstrate that those consequences/risks are of a regional or global magnitude (imperil critical or vital U.S. interests), and that a continuation of the same kind of decision making process would, therefore, be damaging to the nation. Presently, no Democratic or Republican opponent has attempted, much less created such a narrative. Will they do so? Time will tell. Moreover, one can't expect Secretary Clinton to be indifferent to such a narrative. She will launch a vigorous defense, and the narrative will need to survive that defense. So long as enough people believe that her choices, given the information available at the time (not in hindsight), were reasonable, her defense will be successful. That's why her opponents will almost certainly need a compelling positive rationale for their election, rather relying exclusively on making a case as to why Secretary Clinton should not be elected.
 
If you were a candidate's adviser, the candidate had an enormous lead in the polls, recent data also showed strong enthusiasm among his/her Party, and putting him/her into a forum where the perceived benefits of participation were marginal relative to the risks involved, would you advise that candidate to put his/her standing at risk? Most advisers would suggest that the candidate focus on areas that have the highest potential benefit-to-cost outcomes unless there were some long-term gain from preempting a risk. That's why candidates who have strong polling support typically are reluctant to agree to too many debates. Clinton is no exception.

It will be up to Clinton's opponents to build a sufficient case that makes it imperative that she appear in such forums. In other words, they will need to shift the calculus so that the costs of her not engaging in such forums substantially exceed the potential benefits of her engaging in them. At present, that's not the situation.

Strategy is one thing but in this case it's more accurate to say it's abject fear of being shown to be a weak corrupt candidate.
Or to put it another way ... she's got nothing to gain and everything to lose by coming out of hiding.
There's going to be a half dozen DNC debates so she'd better start working on her presentation.
 
Strategy is one thing but in this case it's more accurate to say it's abject fear of being shown to be a weak corrupt candidate.

Current polling shows that she's anything but weak right now. Additional polling data and forthcoming fundraising reports will provide additional insight. It's risky for any candidate to underestimate his/her opposition. Assuming that Secretary Clinton, who may or may not ultimately win, will be a "pushover" is a dangerous assumption at this stage of the race given her polling numbers and campaign organization.

Or to put it another way ... she's got nothing to gain and everything to lose by coming out of hiding.

If this assumption is accurate, then it would be irrational for her to take a course that could only be self-destructive.

There's going to be a half dozen DNC debates so she'd better start working on her presentation.

I'm sure she, like other candidates, will try to prepare for a range of questions and responses for her opponents. But unless her opponents make it necessary for her to dramatically expand upon her stated and restated responses and/or devote much greater attention to any given issue, she won't do so unless she believes other factors make it necessary. Right now, it appears that her strategy is about avoiding mistakes that could benefit her opponents and leaving the task of catching her completely to her opponents. Things could change in the heat of battle, but that's how they appear at the present time.
 
I really do not understand how anyone could even think of voting for Hillary considering the emails, and the money scandals. Yeah, all politicians are crooks. But she's an open crook in a house that is made of doors and no windows in the window frames.

Unless the money is somehow determined to be illegal, just about the only thing that will stick is the email issue. That can't just be isolated to the legal requirements that were only put into place two years ago. With the server problem and the deletion of emails, it kind of transcends either the traditional political ignorance and technology and the idea that you could only see it as a problem with hindsight. Digital record keeping ethics have been much more developed than a simple regulatory improvement.

Now, simply put, unless they find something dramatic, Clinton is so built up that nothing could pull her down until we start the general election process when a lot more than individual political candidates matter. Someone that is a relative newcomer like a Christie or someone behind the scenes without much recognition will be much more influenced by individual scandals.
 
She hasn't even gone on any one-on-ones (even friendly ones) that candidates usually do.
Very weak candidate.

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.
 
High-impact, at least for me, is something that could adversely and materially impact a significant number of Americans, critical national interests, etc. Right now, the circulating reports don't seem to rise to such a magnitude. There are things that could be tied together (not scandals, but choices) that might allow opponents to create a compelling high-impact narrative. To get there, a campaign would need to inventory the areas in which Secretary Clinton made unambiguously flawed choices (significant and credible information existed for alternatives and such information rose above ideological or partisan differences), lay out the consequences and risks of those choices, demonstrate that those consequences/risks are of a regional or global magnitude (imperil critical or vital U.S. interests), and that a continuation of the same kind of decision making process would, therefore, be damaging to the nation. Presently, no Democratic or Republican opponent has attempted, much less created such a narrative. Will they do so? Time will tell. Moreover, one can't expect Secretary Clinton to be indifferent to such a narrative. She will launch a vigorous defense, and the narrative will need to survive that defense. So long as enough people believe that her choices, given the information available at the time (not in hindsight), were reasonable, her defense will be successful. That's why her opponents will almost certainly need a compelling positive rationale for their election, rather relying exclusively on making a case as to why Secretary Clinton should not be elected.



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
 
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

I haven't commented on the Clinton Foundation, as there's currently a little more uncertainty given that the developments are still in a fairly early stage. Whether one is dealing with perceived issues, actual issues, or nothing beyond errors, inefficiency, etc., remains to be seen. The State Department has denied that donors used the Foundation as a means to influence Secretary of State Clinton.

For now, I'm reserving my judgment. I tend to err on the side of being risk-averse when stories break and will hold off on reaching firm conclusions until I have reasonable certainty that I have enough credible information to support such conclusions.
 
I haven't commented on the Clinton Foundation, as there's currently a little more uncertainty given that the developments are still in a fairly early stage. Whether one is dealing with perceived issues, actual issues, or nothing beyond errors, inefficiency, etc., remains to be seen. The State Department has denied that donors used the Foundation as a means to influence Secretary of State Clinton.

For now, I'm reserving my judgment. I tend to err on the side of being risk-averse when stories break and will hold off on reaching firm conclusions until I have reasonable certainty that I have enough credible information to support such conclusions.


That's where I did mention about not counting out scandals that correlate with others. Donors, Charities, Foreign Donors......especially when it comes to emails, records, and a server. Business with State and Personal mixed in together. Emails like from Blumenthal.....then playing Lobbyist. Now it is out and other News Organizations and Outlets are all jumping in the bandwagon.

News cycles round and round.....made for those that don't like to pay attention or aren't interested. ;)



Boston Globe: Even More Undisclosed Foreign Money Flowed to Clinton Groups, Violating Rules.....

Drip, drip, drip. Last week, we learned that the Clinton Foundation had failed to report tens of millions of dollars in foreign government donations in their tax filings, a revelation that has forced them to go back and amend at least five years' worth of documents. In three of those years -- all during Hillary Clinton's tenure at State -- the organization falsely listed foreign government income at $0. Yesterday, we discovered that at least 1,100 individual donors, many of them non-US citizens, managed to anonymously contribute to the Clintons' money pot through a Canadian offshoot "charity." Team Clinton's justification has completely fallen apart, with the New York Times piling on this morning. This secretive windfall violated the transparency agreement she signed upon joining the Obama administration as America's top diplomat. The idea, of course, was to provide the American people with an open look at any outside influences that may have been trying to pay for access and favor. Hillary broke those rules, just like she ignored "clear cut" regulations on private email usage and did so in the most egregious way imaginable (secret, insecure, private server, with tens of thousands of emails deleted and then wiped clean, without any oversight). Today, the Boston Globe blazes another path down the Clinton foreign money trail:

An unprecedented ethics promise that played a pivotal role in helping Hillary Rodham Clinton win confirmation as secretary of state, soothing senators’ concerns about conflicts of interests with Clinton family charities, was uniformly bypassed by the biggest of the philanthropies involved. The Clinton Health Access Initiative never submitted information on any foreign donations to State Department lawyers for review during Clinton’s tenure from 2009 to 2013, Maura Daley, the organization’s spokeswoman, acknowledged to the Globe this week. She said the charity deemed it unnecessary, except in one case that she described as an “oversight.” During that time, grants from foreign governments increased by tens of millions of dollars to the Boston-based organization. Daley’s acknowledgement was the first by the charity of the broad scope of its apparent failures to fulfill the spirit of a crucial political pledge made by the Clinton family and their charities. The health initiative has previously acknowledged failing only to disclose the identity of its contributors, another requirement under the agreement. The failures make the Clinton Health Access Initiative, which is headquartered on Dorchester Avenue in South Boston, and goes by the acronym CHAI, a prominent symbol of the broken political promise and subsequent lack of accountability underlying the charity-related controversies that are dogging Clinton as she embarks on her campaign for president. The charity defended the lack of some disclosures on the grounds that the donations in question were simply passed through the charity to fund an existing project. Previously, it has acknowledged that mistakes were made......snip~

Boston Globe: Even More Undisclosed Foreign Money Flowed to Clinton Groups, Violating Rules - Guy Benson

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...-failed-disclose-1-100-foreign-donations.html
 
Most of the million dollar donors to the Clinton "charity" were foreign, and most large donations came while Hillary was SOS!?!?
 
Clinton propaganda from the pen masters at the NYTimes

Let me guess. You were one of those who believed every poll leading up to the 2012 election were wrong and that Romney was actually going to win. Am I right?
 
Current polling shows that she's anything but weak right now. Additional polling data and forthcoming fundraising reports will provide additional insight. It's risky for any candidate to underestimate his/her opposition. Assuming that Secretary Clinton, who may or may not ultimately win, will be a "pushover" is a dangerous assumption at this stage of the race given her polling numbers and campaign organization.



If this assumption is accurate, then it would be irrational for her to take a course that could only be self-destructive.



I'm sure she, like other candidates, will try to prepare for a range of questions and responses for her opponents. But unless her opponents make it necessary for her to dramatically expand upon her stated and restated responses and/or devote much greater attention to any given issue, she won't do so unless she believes other factors make it necessary. Right now, it appears that her strategy is about avoiding mistakes that could benefit her opponents and leaving the task of catching her completely to her opponents. Things could change in the heat of battle, but that's how they appear at the present time.

I said she was a weak candidate.
You don't have to be strong to capture die-hard Party members.
That's what she's getting now ... in polls, anyway.
And she's getting support from the money-men of her Party.
How's her strength with the so-called Independents?

If you think no one has noticed that she's in hiding and they naturally wonder why, you're mistaken.
You're also mistaken if you think she can coast along without showing any skill as a campaigner.
For crissake, she had to read her boilerplate immigration amnesty statement.
She's being managed like crazy and it's not just typical campaign strategy.
 
Back
Top Bottom