Slowly but steadily, Hillary dips against repubs

[cali]

Hillary's much vaunted advantage over republicans has been slipping- something I've long predicted. I assume that when she announces, this will change- temporarily. And then? I think we'll see it slipping again. I don't have faith in her campaigning skills. I don't think she's "likeable enough". She had every advantage in 2008 and yes, she BLEW it. If she hadn't she would have easily beat Obama in the primaries. Yeah, she's inevitable as our candidate. I don't think she's inevitably the winner in the general. At all.


April 9, 2015 - Paul Blooms As Clinton Wilts In Colorado, Iowa, Virginia, Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's lead is wilting against leading Republican presidential candidates in three critical swing states, Colorado, Iowa and Virginia, and she finds herself in a close race with U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky in each state, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today. In head-to-head matchups, every Republican candidate effectively ties her in Colorado and almost all Republicans effectively tie her in Iowa.

Secretary Clinton has lost ground in almost every matchup in Colorado and Iowa since a February 18 Swing State Poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. The Swing State Poll focuses on key states in the presidential election.

One bright spot for Clinton is Virginia, the largest of the three states, where she leads all Republicans, including 47 - 40 percent over Bush, compared to a 42 - 42 percent tie in February.

Voters in each state say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy. Her overall favorability has dropped significantly in Colorado and Iowa, while Virginia is unchanged. Favorability ratings for the Republicans are lackluster, at best.

"These numbers are a boost for U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky as he formally launches his campaign," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

"Ominous for Hillary Clinton is the broad scope of the movement today compared to her showing in Quinnipiac University's mid-February survey. It isn't just one or two Republicans who are stepping up; it's virtually the entire GOP field that is running better against her.


<snip>

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2184

[DetlefK]

1. She lost against Obama because she was old.

People wanted Anybody-but-Bush. They wanted someone new. Clinton had the baggage of being famous and well-known: She wasn't new. Obama was new and (implied by his skin-color) he was different.


EDIT:
And in the 2016 election it will be Anybody-but-this-republican-whackjob. The Republicans have no charismatic candidate to rally around, they have no past presidents they can show off, they have no accomplishments to tout.
The voters will want Anything-but-dysfunction. And if Hillary Clinton can get across that she CAN get shit done, she will win.

[cali]

3. that's waaay to simplistic- a factor, but by no means all of the "why"

[Sunlei]

33. she lost the primary because republicans piled on the attack & voted in the primary against her.

Only good thing republicans ever did was help Obama rise to the top

personally, I'm amazed at the billions RW spends this early and the way Rs let a different loonie R dominate the media for a week. Last week was Cruz 'headlines', this week it's Pauls turn...next week who knows, maybe Palin and Trump will do Vegas.

I still think Mrs. Clinton will not actually run, but she will drain dry RW warchests.

[cali]

36. Of course she's running. She's hired a ton of campaign staffers, rented a campaign headquarters

etc.

She lost the primary due to her own missteps and Obama's well run campaign and excellence as a campaigner. And if you read the actual article and poll results, you'll get that she's slipping against all the repubs, not merely Paul.

[Sunlei]

41. all Rs 'running' do the same thing. It's legal to gather donations,pay staff, rent, from the $$.

One can always suspend a campaign, or change mind and decide not to run.

Obama has always been excellent, I bet he backs Mrs Clinton if she runs.

[cali]

44. No, he hasn't always been excellent. Good on some things, lousy on others. Mixed bag.

and clearly she's running. It's ridiculous and none too swift to pretend she is not. She'll announce in a very short time. I'll point that out to YOU when it happens.

[Sunlei]

46. maybe she will 'run', maybe not. Maybe she will run and leave at the last second.

I don't really care much who 'runs' at this early point. As long as they are a D & have backing from those with opinions I respect.

I don't think Obama has been a mixed bag at all. Except a greenhorn who got taken advantage of from the good old boys RW club at first. Took a long while to get Salazar to resign.

Thank God he could multitask & worked on Obamacare first! didn't wait a year like republicans wanted.

[Stellar]

38. Helped Obama?

By running Rev Wright video 24/7, and that's why he won?

[Sunlei]

42. no by attacking mrs clinton and voting against her in primary.

republicans, are very shallow tabloidish attackers- they underestimated Obamas Extreme awesomeness

[DonCoquixote]

35. Obama was new and (implied by his skin-color) he was different.

really? UIt had nothign to do with the fact that she could not get her bignouthed hubby to shut up and stop sayign things like "we got mugged?" Bill comfoirmed the one fear that people had, that he would try to turn Hillary into his 3rd term.

[EL34x4]

43. Sorry, but "not charismatic"

Is not a term I would use to describe the current roster of potential GOP nominees.

The Repubs are likely to run at least 4 Gen-X candidates: Cruz, Paul, Walker and Rubio. They're young and energetic. They know how to use social media and raise money. Paul's blunder with Savannah Guthrie aside, they're increasingly media-savvy, something that has previously plagued conservative GOP candidates.

Cruz shares the same right-wing politics as Sarah Palin but won't be nearly as entertaining to laugh at. He's a seasoned litigator and skilled debater. Paul has co-opted many libertarian positions popular with younger voters. Walker withstood a well-funded and coordinated effort to defeat him in recall elections. He has been thoroughly vetted. Rubio could potentially deliver Florida.

America has had 23 years now to get to know Hillary Clinton. They've solidly formed their opinions about her, good and bad.

There won't be any Bachmanns, Gingriches, Santorums or Cains running vanity campaigns this time around. Nobody takes Trump seriously and Sarah Palin knows she's not electable. She'll stay out of the race.

I dare say it's the strongest roster of Republican candidates fielded in a long time and it would be perilous to underestimate them. They're going to put up a fight.

[cali]

2. from another interesting recent article:

<snip>

Then, over the past few weeks, the country watched as Clinton dealt with the fallout from the revelation that she used a personal email server while heading up the State Department. Her fiercest critics have charged that she employed the private email system to skirt government transparency laws and, in the process, endangered national security. Her supporters worry that, even if Clinton’s private email was legal and innocent, it was a self-inflicted error that has needlessly handed her enemies yet another cudgel to wield against her. But the glee and regret among Republicans and Democrats have been most pronounced over the disastrous press conference Clinton held at the United Nations to try to put the matter to rest, which served to remind them of something many had forgotten: what an abominable candidate she can be.

Standing in front of a tapestry replica of Picasso’s Guernica, she was testy, brittle, and, above all, unpersuasive — failing to demonstrate the most elementary political skills, much less those learned at Toastmasters or Dale Carnegie. “She read her prepared remarks like a high-school student,” marvels Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster who’s been a close observer of Clinton for more than two decades. “She looked down at her notes, then she looked up to the left, down at her notes, then up to the right. Almost the entire time, she avoided making eye contact with anyone.” A prominent Democratic operative is still horrified by the spectacle. “She came off as defensive and artificially put-off,” he says. Another Democratic operative says, “I’m a huge Hillary Clinton fan. I hope desperately she’s the next president of the United States, because I think she’d be a great president. But after that press conference, I do have major concerns about her ability as a campaigner and to get elected.”

The performance made a host of other recent Clinton missteps — seemingly minor at the time — suddenly loom larger in the minds of anxious Democrats. There was her strangely vapid Foggy Bottom memoir, Hard Choices, which racked up middling sales, and her obvious rust in the interviews she did to promote it. There was her continued buck-raking on the paid-speaking circuit, which seemed tone-deaf, if not downright greedy, for someone about to embark on a presidential campaign. And there was her hard-to-figure delay in assembling a staff for the campaign, so that, when news of the hidden emails broke, she had no infrastructure to defend her and instead had to rely on a hodgepodge of veteran freelancers like James Carville and Lanny Davis, whose reappearance made the latest Clinton scandal feel exhaustingly familiar. Democrats may be constitutionally prone to hysteria, but even so, the whiplash of these few weeks has been notable. Now, days before Clinton’s official announcement that she is, once again, in it to win it, some in her party are on edge.

<snip>

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/04/hillary-clinton-2016-campaign.html

[KittyWampus]

5. "Democrats may be constitutionally prone to hysteria"??? Quoting Frank Lutz?

Her memoir was a misstep?

Speaking to audiences is a misstep?

The excerpt posted here is really close to bottom of the barrel.

[cali]

6. it's a very good- and balanced article. I suggest you read the whole thing.

[bigtree]

9. I agree

Luntz is no better than the weasel, Dick Morris, when writing about the Clintons.

"Wherever I go, I get one question, "Is Herman Cain for real?" My answer is, "Yes, I think so," Luntz said (in 2012).

"I've never seen a presidential candidate with Obama's current numbers who has succeeded in winning for president. But 2012 isn't a traditional election year," he explained. "The level of anger and divisiveness and dissonance is so great on the left and on the right."

"The Tea Party, the Wall Street protests -- we're all agitated and we're all yelling about it," Luntz said. "If the Republicans get their act together... Obama loses."

GOP Pollster Frank Luntz Became ‘Depressed’ After 2012 Election

The crisis began, he says, after last year’s presidential election, when Luntz became profoundly depressed. For more than a month, he tried to stay occupied, but nothing could keep his attention. Finally, six weeks after the election, during a meeting of his consulting company in Las Vegas, he fell apart. Leaving his employees behind, he flew back to his mansion in Los Angeles, where he stayed for three weeks, barely going outside or talking to anyone.

“I just gave up,” the pollster said. After the election, he seemingly realized Americans want to “impose their opinions rather than express them,” and that a divided country will find it harder to warmly receive his conservative sales pitches.

“I’m not good enough,” he said. “And I hate that. I have come to the extent of my capabilities. And this is not false modesty. I think I’m pretty good. But not good enough.”

[karynnj]

23. Sure they quote Luntz, but NY magazine is anything but right wing

I am not that concerned that they quote Luntz on how she delivered the remarks. This was seen by anyone who wanted to see it and his opinion is just that - an opinion. Further, the accusation is not to anything she did managing the State Department.

My own take was that she and probably others had worked out the best way to answer the questions - and she wanted to say exactly what she had worked out. This is a prudent method if there were very complex details. If this were to answer questions on the START treaty, you would WANT her looking at notes and if needed - even wearing reading glasses.

However, the email issue was not that complicated and it was totally her decision. Here, she probably should have looked straight at the reporters (thus camera) and explained what the server set up was and why she opted to do this. This is what her WORDS actually did. If it was important to keep to specific words, she really should have learned her lines and said them as if for the first time.

The problems for that media availability on the whole email issue were:

- It was a done deal that could not be changed - she did what she did. Her only choice was to defend it. She did the best she could on this giving what many will call a lame excuse, but there really was likely not a better one.

- That she handed the emails, that her team deemed for work, to the State Department only after they negotiated with her over the summer of 2014 makes it harder to accept that the reason was just convenience. ( However, the State Department tried to help her by asking for Powell and Rice to provide anything they had. This allowed HRC's email to be portrayed as from the only one to hand it over. This helped her because they (implicitly) showed that there were not strong traditional precedents for saving email from SoS -- until they were adopted when Kerry came in.)

- This played into a decades long meme that HRC is secretive. It resurfaced things like the behind closed doors creation of the health care plan and the 2 year disappearance of the Rose law firm billing records. It is possible that they really were misplaced by this exceptionally organized woman - especially as nothing bad was in them. Still - like the concept that Quayle was not brilliant allowed the "potatoe" incident to make a dent, the past perception of Clinton as secretive, gave this resonance. (How could she counter that in her comments? Other than APPEARING completely open - looking the cameras in the eye -- and asking people to trust that she gave State everything she had, there is nothing to do. If my take on that is true, then what Luntz said is important. The KEY thing she needed to convey was that she was not being secretive. (Yes I know that her team put "secretive" on their list of sexist words - it isn't and I think it telling they put it there - implying they knew it was something negative said of her.)

At this point, the email issue is for the most part over -- and it did do some damage.

1) It did hurt her image as honest and trustworthy.
2) NOW, for the RW, there will always be an open issue of whether HRC had an email exchange with someone that also was not on state,gov that was disappeared - thus a coverup. This gives them some cover as they continue to beat the Benghazi dead horse or to (as Rand Paul seems to be signalling) go after foreign contributions while she was SoS to the Clinton Foundation.

That latter part is scary as it really threatens the entire Democratic party. Remember Al Gore, a former Eagle Scout, having to defend the donations at a Buddhist temple (in 1996) during his 2000 campaign?

[bigtree]

24. looking at the email issue as a Hillary scandal is a Rovian mind-trick

...this issue won't be raised in the campaign without an equal focus on the activities of whoever seeks to use it as an advantage. As you say, republicans will always seek to exploit the issue, but they didn't need any pretext to oppose Hillary. the real political question - who is dissuaded among the party faithful from supporting her - has already been answered by a clear majority of those polled who couldn't care less.

Jeb Bush has no cover, at all. How much have you heard from his 'campaign' since the revelations surfaced about his own handling of emails; notably questions about email related to his brother's theft of the election while he was governor of Florida? By the best accounts, only half of those emails in his private account are subject to public record and scrutiny. Glass houses and all, it makes no sense to reason that he's not vulnerable to the same type of innuendo and muckraking Hillary's been subjected to in the press. Who knows what he's hiding?

Who knows what lurks in other potential candidate's private stashes? We really won't know how this affects anyone until an actual campaign is underway, but to reason that this manufactured scandal is going to dominate the election is an exaggeration of the importance of the actual subject and content, and an inflation of the empty case republicans believe they have in highlighting and conflating Benghazi with the kerfuffle.

[karynnj]

30. Note I did not use the word scandal

It also is not a "Rovian" trick.

Where there IS something is that there were FOIA and Congressional requests for State Department information -- and for the ENTIRE Clinton years and nearly two years of Kerry time, there are likely Clinton email that should have been included that weren't. This is why the State Department spokesperson has answered that they are intending to run those requests against what they now have. (Yes, you can argue that that would have been true for the Powell years and quite likely the Rice years if you don't believe that she never used email -- come on - a university professor at a school on usenet since the 1970s or earlier didn't use email??)

The best argument is that HRC was there when the standards changed -- and thus is being held to a higher standard. Now, imagine that she moved to change her own practices moving to state.gov when the new guidelines were being written, bringing in all her old government related emails. Then, there would not be a story -- other than her citing as an accomplishment that she made the State Department more transparent.

In fact, given the timing, I think the big mistake was not even setting up the server, but in not being sure to give State everything before she left. After all, she KNEW that there were investigations and should have known someone would notice that the only HRC emails included (because the other end was there) were from a strange email.

[bigtree]

39. i'm just not impressed with the seriousness some attach to this

...I think most Democrats agree. I think it would be a tactical error for an opposition candidate to take her on using this issue as a cudgel.

This is pure Rovian politics. The GWB team Jeb has assembled (including Rove) know Jeb is vulnerable on this issue from his earlier stumble on his partial release of emails and tried to exploit the NYT article to their advantage against the person they believe is his main rival. The Senate committee on Benghazi also took a disingenuous swipe at Hillary, knowing full well that they already had enough emails and zero proof of wrongdoing on her part in their manufactured nonsense. This is standard Rovian politics to use a visually equalizing issue and hammer it until it sticks to their opponent more than it does to their own candidate. For a time there, it looked like Democrats were going to fall for it; that is, until the stories broke about Jeb's own use of private email. Check, checkmate.

[Sunlei]

34. hey at least they don't go after her voice tone, like the old 2008 days :P

[Ms. Yertle]

4. President Obama

had an amazing strategy, which included using high tech methods of targetting potential voters. I think that's probably what defeated Hillary, more than anything else.

[cali]

7. I think it was largely her own missteps

[karynnj]

25. I think it was both - he needed an exceptional campaign and he needed her mistakes

I think he also needed Edwards to implode before Supertuesday. Edwards pulled out then because he was polling too little to get delegates in any states (because he was below the 15% threshold.) I know in NJ, that the Obama phonebankers - at least in my county - did work to get those for Edwards to vote Obama instead.

What was ignored by those just looking at who won a state, was that Obama did surge even in all the big states he lost on SuperTuesday. This made a huge difference. There were stories that Mark Penn expected Hillary to be the only candidate above 15% , giving her ALL the California electors. Instead they split 166 (Obama) and 204 (HRC). THough there were many obnoxious comments about Kennedy and Kerry having no impact in MA, she was likely to get the lion's share there too - instead, that was 55(Clinton) 38(Obama). The fact that Obama succeeded in shaving her margins from what was predicted even a week or two in advance, was as necessary as his gains in the caucus states that she ignored.

Had she ran a campaign anywhere near as good as his - it would have ended as planned with her the defacto nominee on superTuesday. Clinton's team had put few or no resources in the states after that day - so when Obama ended that day almost tied with her, even though she was still ahead, he was really the one with momentum. When he won the next set and moved slightly ahead, he was really - for the first time - amazingly the frontrunner.

Looking back, it is obvious that the Clinton people knew they had trouble starting the night of SuperTuesday. One clue is that is when Clinton people started the discussion of both the concept of a "national popular vote" - rather than the delegate count of all previous elections and the idea of the superdelegates perhaps swinging the election to a person who was a close second. (In the articles it is blatantly obvious that no one meant that this would happen FOR Obama if Clinton earned the most pledged delegates. Leaving Obama surrogates the luxury of stating (as Kerry did) that he could not imagine that superdelegates would second guess the process nor would Democrats accept that.

[bigtree]

8. the early numbers were obviously unrealistically high

...and it isn't any surprise at all that once others start campaigning and the public actually focuses on the next election that the numbers will tighten, so this narrative about her advantage 'slipping' is made in a vacuum of a non-existent campaign which is filled with little more than the stale air from pundits and other political prognosticators.

[MANative]

10. ^^^This^^^ nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. ^^^ yep. ^^^ eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. I also suggest having the press run against her...

I also suggest having the press run against her is harder than running against the GOP clowns which she soon will be...

[Savannahmann]

15. Not to everyone.

For many it was the clarion call to get on the Hillary Bandwagon. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026277404

The trumpets of a hugely successful 50 state win were heard in the early polls. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026380105

Republicans have been destroyed!!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. If I were you I would be obsessed with me too...

My friend of forty years died and I can't afford the Los Angeles to Orlando air fare so a hide is the last thing on my mind.

I am sorry if my basking in the glow of good news for Democrats causes you so much consternation....Actually, no, I don't give a rip...

[Savannahmann]

18. I'm sorry for your loss

I know what it is like to lose someone after a long and intimate friendship. I sincerely hope that the good memories give you comfort during this time. Please know you have my best wishes at this time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. He was a minister whom I had known since I was fourteen.

My dad passed away when I was fourteen and he was with my dad, holding his hand, at the hospital when he literally drew his last breath...He also baptized me when I was fifteen and before I moved to L A three years ago I spent a lot of time with him.

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. Is it too late to get my absentee ballot back?

I mean, come on..........

[JaneyVee]

13. She only needs to win by 1 EC vote.

This country is too polarized for anyone to win a landslide victory.

[Half-Century Man]

16. Two years ago I asked if this might not be the case.

Today, I can state with confidence.
Hillary Clinton's "inevitability" is mostly a product of the main stream corporate media. She is being presented as inevitable because she is as far left as the right leaning owners of corporate media are willing to contemplate.

While she has a good record on social issues; she has spent her entire adult life, both as a politician and before, deeply associated with the artificial entities "corporations". She truly believes that the legal means of separating someone's personal wealth from any liability a business that said person owns might bring has the same rights as a citizen of this country. That an artificially constructed sociopathic entity is best left to bloom in the wild free of constraints, like kudzu.

The majority of her life has been among those who blur the distinction between wealth and worth.

This is an issue with some of us, myself included.

[cali]

19. really good posts. Thanks

[emulatorloo]

20. The more Rand and Ted talk, the lower their numbers will go

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. I still see a lot of blue

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

[TheNutcracker]

26. Interesting, they leave out the Quinn poll from Florida also showing her under the Bush (JEB)

It is....what is is! We can raise another candidate if they appear...that's OUR JOB!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. I still see a lot of blue

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

[leftofcool]

27. This is simple to fix. Find another candidate that you think can beat the GOP.

[trumad]

29. Yawn

[Historic NY]

31. She hasn't even announced yet....

and it pointless.

[cali]

32. She's running. She's rented office space, hired campaign staff, etc.

[Orsino]

37. The temperature outside seems to be fluctuating, too.

It's not news.

[leveymg]

40. Her negatives rise the closer she comes to being the nominee. This happened in '08, as well.

This time, she's saddled with some serious personal ethics/legal issues that have to be neutralized if nominated lest they eat into the vaunted Independent vote. Unfortunately, most of the electorate are not committed partisans, and they are up for grabs.

[Metric System]

45. Great news! So happy to hear this.

I'm sure that's the reaction of some here on this supposedly pro-Dem site.