Hillary Does It Again

[Zam-Zam]

Obviously, the Russians and/or James Comey are to blame::


President Trump is viewed more favorably than his 2016 Democratic presidential rival Hillary Clinton, according to a new poll.

A Bloomberg News survey finds Clinton is viewed favorably by just 39 percent of Americans, compared to Trump, who is viewed favorably by 41 percent of Americans.

Fifty-eight percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of Clinton, compared to a slightly lower majority — 55 percent — who have an unfavorable view of Trump.


Complete text: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342462-poll-clinton-more-unpopular-than-trump


I had earlier postulated that the DNC had succeeded in nominating perhaps the only nationally-known mainstream political figure that could actually lose to Donald Trump. This would seem to bolster that assertion.

Becoming more unpopular after losing an election is a rare feat that few could pull off......Behold! The Clinton legacy.......:>)

 

[Dawg]

Well, now postal service is in deep dooooo because of her:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/wa...gn-work/ar-AAoqLaX?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

 

[Jen]

Obviously, the Russians and/or James Comey are to blame::


President Trump is viewed more favorably than his 2016 Democratic presidential rival Hillary Clinton, according to a new poll.

A Bloomberg News survey finds Clinton is viewed favorably by just 39 percent of Americans, compared to Trump, who is viewed favorably by 41 percent of Americans.

Fifty-eight percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of Clinton, compared to a slightly lower majority — 55 percent — who have an unfavorable view of Trump.


Complete text: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342462-poll-clinton-more-unpopular-than-trump


I had earlier postulated that the DNC had succeeded in nominating perhaps the only nationally-known mainstream political figure that could actually lose to Donald Trump. This would seem to bolster that assertion.

Becoming more unpopular after losing an election is a rare feat that few could pull off......Behold! The Clinton legacy.......:>)

The Democrats really didn't have anyone else to put up there. Besides, it was still Hillary's turn since Obama stole her turn in 2008.

It probably won't be anyone's turn but Hillary's as long as she is alive.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

I have anonymous source that tells me Trump and Putin colluded with the polling company and paid them off for these results.

Please keep this quiet. We don't Mueller to get on the case.

 

[Zam-Zam]

The Democrats really didn't have anyone else to put up there. Besides, it was still Hillary's turn since Obama stole her turn in 2008.

It probably won't be anyone's turn but Hillary's as long as she is alive.

Let's review her record in national elections:

In 2008 she lost the nomination to a relatively obscure junior Senator who was dismissed as a fairy tale by her husband.

In 2016, after barely edging out a Socialist (with some much-needed help from the soon-to-be ousted DNC Chair) to win the nomination, she managed to lose the national election to a political novice/ former reality TV star.

Quite a resume.

 

[Arkady]

Obviously, the Russians and/or James Comey are to blame::


President Trump is viewed more favorably than his 2016 Democratic presidential rival Hillary Clinton, according to a new poll.

A Bloomberg News survey finds Clinton is viewed favorably by just 39 percent of Americans, compared to Trump, who is viewed favorably by 41 percent of Americans.

Fifty-eight percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of Clinton, compared to a slightly lower majority — 55 percent — who have an unfavorable view of Trump.


Complete text: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342462-poll-clinton-more-unpopular-than-trump


I had earlier postulated that the DNC had succeeded in nominating perhaps the only nationally-known mainstream political figure that could actually lose to Donald Trump. This would seem to bolster that assertion.

Becoming more unpopular after losing an election is a rare feat that few could pull off......Behold! The Clinton legacy.......:>)

It's amazing just how consistently low Trump's numbers have been. Is there any president in history who has gone a whole presidency without cracking 50%? So far, Trump's peak in the Gallup poll was just 46%, and even that was way back on his fourth day in office. He hasn't cracked 42% since mid-March. Is there any precedent for that kind of presidency-spanning public dislike?

 

[resident_evil]

It's amazing just how consistently low Trump's numbers have been. Is there any president in history who has gone a whole presidency without cracking 50%? So far, Trump's peak in the Gallup poll was just 46%, and even that was way back on his fourth day in office. He hasn't cracked 42% since mid-March. Is there any precedent for that kind of presidency-spanning public dislike?

You need to start and win a war often enough to crack 50%. Are you advocating for war?

 

[Sickofleft]

The Democrats really didn't have anyone else to put up there. Besides, it was still Hillary's turn since Obama stole her turn in 2008.

It probably won't be anyone's turn but Hillary's as long as she is alive.

They could have ran Biden and should have. He is never been right about anything his entire career but he would probably be President now.

 

[Arkady]

Let's review her record in national elections:

In 2008 she lost the nomination to a relatively obscure junior Senator who was dismissed as a fairy tale by her husband.

In 2016, after barely edging out a Socialist (with some much-needed help from the soon-to-be ousted DNC Chair) to win the nomination, she managed to lose the national election to a political novice/ former reality TV star.

Quite a resume.

Here's another way to state her record:

In 2000, Clinton took on one of the biggest-name Republicans of the time -- a man with serious presidential aspirations. Soon, she was embarrassing him so badly in the race that he withdrew, leaving Rick Lazio to get beaten down hard in his place.

In 2006, when she ran again, the people of New York loved her even more, and gave her a 36-point victory over her Republican opponent.

In 2008, she got more votes than Obama, but he took the nomination thanks to his popularity among party activists, who handed him the caucus states. Obama turned out to be no slouch when it came to campaigning, going on to manhandle both McCain and Romney.

In 2016, she bucked a global trend in favor of outsider candidates to win the Democratic nomination (at a time when the Republican establishment candidates were losing by huge margins to an outsider). She then got about three million more votes than Trump in the general election, despite a cynical "October surprise" by Comey that killed her in the polls during the closing days of the contest. Even with Clinton's campaign having won over a lot more voters than Trump's the Electoral College chose to install him into the presidency instead.

Things would look different if Clinton had done poorly against Obama and Trump relative to how others did against them in those years. Losing big against a weak opponent would look bad. But the opposite is true. In each case, she won the popular vote and lost very narrowly on technical grounds. And in each case she lost to someone nobody else could beat -- someone who beat all other opponents by large margins.

To put it in sports terms, it's like a team that loses in overtime on a buzzer-beater, or in the seventh game of a close series, against a team that wiped the floor with their other opponents -- something like the 2015/2016 Golden State Warriors, for example. A loss is as loss, but they come in a lot of flavors.

 

[Arkady]

You need to start and win a war often enough to crack 50%. Are you advocating for war?

No, you don't need to start and win a war to crack 50%. Obama didn't start any wars and he spent much of his presidency over 50%, ending at 59%. Clinton didn't start a war, either, and he ended at 66% - -the highest for any outgoing president on record.

 

[resident_evil]

No, you don't need to start and win a war to crack 50%. Obama didn't start any wars and he spent much of his presidency over 50%, ending at 59%. Clinton didn't start a war, either, and he ended at 66% - -the highest for any outgoing president on record.

And neither was ever under 50%?

 

[Arkady]

And neither was ever under 50%?

Both were. But neither were CONSISTENTLY under it, the way Trump is. As far as I can tell, Trump is the most consistently unpopular president in American history. A few others touched on lower lows (e.g., GW Bush around the time that the economy was in free-fall), but at points they were also well liked. And the way Trump is so consistently disliked is also fascinating coming, as it does, in the midst of an epic-long economic growth cycle, with unemployment near "full employment" levels and the stock market riding high. If people dislike him this much when things are going well, picture what it will be like if the nation actually has to struggle for a while.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

Hillary was simply not likable. That's the end of it. Trump isn't likable either, but evidently, more than Clinton.

What a shit choice we were asked to make.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Here's another way to state her record:

In 2000, Clinton took on one of the biggest-name Republicans of the time -- a man with serious presidential aspirations. Soon, she was embarrassing him so badly in the race that he withdrew, leaving Rick Lazio to get beaten down hard in his place.

In 2006, when she ran again, the people of New York loved her even more, and gave her a 36-point victory over her Republican opponent.

In 2008, she got more votes than Obama, but he took the nomination thanks to his popularity among party activists, who handed him the caucus states. Obama turned out to be no slouch when it came to campaigning, going on to manhandle both McCain and Romney.

In 2016, she bucked a global trend in favor of outsider candidates to win the Democratic nomination (at a time when the Republican establishment candidates were losing by huge margins to an outsider). She then got about three million more votes than Trump in the general election, despite a cynical "October surprise" by Comey that killed her in the polls during the closing days of the contest. Even with Clinton's campaign having won over a lot more voters than Trump's the Electoral College chose to install him into the presidency instead.

Things would look different if Clinton had done poorly against Obama and Trump relative to how others did against them in those years. Losing big against a weak opponent would look bad. But the opposite is true. In each case, she won the popular vote and lost very narrowly on technical grounds. And in each case she lost to someone nobody else could beat -- someone who beat all other opponents by large margins.

To put it in sports terms, it's like a team that loses in overtime on a buzzer-beater, or in the seventh game of a close series, against a team that wiped the floor with their other opponents -- something like the 2015/2016 Golden State Warriors, for example. A loss is as loss, but they come in a lot of flavors.

A liberal winning in a liberal state is as impressive as a conservative winning in a conservative state, i.e., not very.

In national races, she remains 0-for-2, despite lackluster competition. You can paint a smiley face on that if you wish (it's what you do, no?), but I believe most would agree she's one awful candidate. Who else has "Lost to Donald Trump" on their political resume?

 

[marvin martian]

No, you don't need to start and win a war to crack 50%. Obama didn't start any wars and he spent much of his presidency over 50%, ending at 59%. Clinton didn't start a war, either, and he ended at 66% - -the highest for any outgoing president on record.

Your version of history consistently amuses me.

 

[Zam-Zam]

It's amazing just how consistently low Trump's numbers have been.

Even more amazing that Hillary's are lower, no?

 

[Barbella]

It's amazing just how consistently low Trump's numbers have been. Is there any president in history who has gone a whole presidency without cracking 50%? So far, Trump's peak in the Gallup poll was just 46%, and even that was way back on his fourth day in office. He hasn't cracked 42% since mid-March. Is there any precedent for that kind of presidency-spanning public dislike?

Democrats have decided to be at war with Trump from day one, as has the mainstream media. Constant lies, deception, and fake news have succeeded in turning low-information, lemming-like voters (like you) into Trump haters, even IF they would have been willing to give him a chance.

Traitors, all of you.

 

[Barbella]

Here's another way to state her record:

In 2000, Clinton took on one of the biggest-name Republicans of the time -- a man with serious presidential aspirations. Soon, she was embarrassing him so badly in the race that he withdrew, leaving Rick Lazio to get beaten down hard in his place.

In 2006, when she ran again, the people of New York loved her even more, and gave her a 36-point victory over her Republican opponent.

In 2008, she got more votes than Obama, but he took the nomination thanks to his popularity among party activists, who handed him the caucus states. Obama turned out to be no slouch when it came to campaigning, going on to manhandle both McCain and Romney.

In 2016, she bucked a global trend in favor of outsider candidates to win the Democratic nomination (at a time when the Republican establishment candidates were losing by huge margins to an outsider). She then got about three million more votes than Trump in the general election, despite a cynical "October surprise" by Comey that killed her in the polls during the closing days of the contest. Even with Clinton's campaign having won over a lot more voters than Trump's the Electoral College chose to install him into the presidency instead.

Things would look different if Clinton had done poorly against Obama and Trump relative to how others did against them in those years. Losing big against a weak opponent would look bad. But the opposite is true. In each case, she won the popular vote and lost very narrowly on technical grounds. And in each case she lost to someone nobody else could beat -- someone who beat all other opponents by large margins.

To put it in sports terms, it's like a team that loses in overtime on a buzzer-beater, or in the seventh game of a close series, against a team that wiped the floor with their other opponents -- something like the 2015/2016 Golden State Warriors, for example. A loss is as loss, but they come in a lot of flavors.

Ok, this is hilarious, thanks for the laugh...

All this 'WINNING'.... and yet... and yet.... she never won. There hasn't been a President Hillary Clinton, despite all those "WINS".... ROTFLMAO...

 

[resident_evil]

Both were. But neither were CONSISTENTLY under it, the way Trump is. As far as I can tell, Trump is the most consistently unpopular president in American history. A few others touched on lower lows (e.g., GW Bush around the time that the economy was in free-fall), but at points they were also well liked. And the way Trump is so consistently disliked is also fascinating coming, as it does, in the midst of an epic-long economic growth cycle, with unemployment near "full employment" levels and the stock market riding high. If people dislike him this much when things are going well, picture what it will be like if the nation actually has to struggle for a while.

Your favorability polls are probably fake in that people aren't rooting for a leftist agenda. People are upset he isn't getting repeal done and has Sessions re-enforcing Civil Asset Forfeitures. Doesn't mean they won't for him again and against obstructionist GOPers.

 

[Arkady]

A liberal winning in a liberal state is as impressive as a conservative winning in a conservative state, i.e., not very.

Certainly New York was "home turf" for a centrist Democrat like Clinton, since it tends to favor centrists. But the state is hardly a no-fly zone for Republicans. Giuliani did quite well in the most liberal part of the state before Clinton took him down hard. And others like Pataki and D'Amato have won state-wide office.

In national races, she remains 0-for-2, despite lackluster competition

No. You're not being honest there. You can't get to two losses in your count unless you count primaries as well as general elections, in which case she'd be 1-for-3, obviously.

Anyway, Clinton is someone who has NEVER failed to get more votes than her opponent, over the course of four Democratic primaries and three general elections. She's 7 out of 7 when it comes to appealing to the actual voters. What she's worse at is dealing with the political elites who get the final say -- the convention delegates or electors, respectively, who have twice favored the candidate with fewer public votes. She has a lot of popular appeal but the political types are less sure about her.

The other way your comment is odd is your claim that there was "lackluster competition." Again, try to reality-check your spin job against real-world facts. Was Obama a "lackluster" opponent? If so, how did he wipe the floor with everybody else he faced? He won his Senate seat by 43 points! That's for a seat previously occupied by a Republican. The last candidate to get as large a share in two presidential elections as Obama did was Reagan. Obama faced off against the best candidates the GOP could muster in 2008 and 2012, and won each contest pretty easily.

Similarly, was Trump "lackluster"? Well, he was in the sense that absolutely nobody, other than a hate-saturated imbecile, would vote for him. But there are over 60 million hate-saturated imbeciles in this country, so that's not actually a huge obstacle for a candidate. The fact is Trump made complete mincemeat of the vaunted "deep bench" of the Republicans. Nearly all the top names in the party threw their hats in the ring, and Trump beat the strongest of them by nearly 2-to-1. Nobody even came within shouting distance of him until he met up with Clinton and she got three million more votes than him.

Who else has "Lost to Donald Trump" on their political resume?

Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Jim Gilmore, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, and George Pataki. The difference, of course, is that even the best of them lost to Trump by a margin of nearly two-to-one, whereas Clinton made a fight of it.