CNN does first major "hit" piece on Hillary with their "trustworthy" poll.

[kentuck]

Polls are done everyday on every subject matter possible. Yet, when a poll asks whether or not a politician can be "trusted", it can do irreparable harm. Can Donald Trump be trusted? Can Jeb Bush be trusted? This was a low blow by a so-called reputable news organization, in my opinion.
======================


http://time.com/3904698/hillary-clinton-2016-presidential-race-poll/

<snip>

A growing proportion of Americans have negative views of Hillary Clinton, according to new polls, even as the former Secretary of State remains the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The CNN/ORC survey released Tuesday showed that more Americans now have an unfavorable view of Clinton than at any time since 2001. Fifty percent of Americans say Clinton does not inspire confidence, up from 42% in March of 2014. Fewer think she cares about people like them. And a growing number of people, now up to 57%, do not consider her honest and trustworthy.

...more at link

[Duckhunter935]

1. Sorry, I am one that does not trust her

The truth is not a hit piece.

[kentuck]

2. I don't trust any of the Republican candidates running for the Presidency...

...but do you think we might see a "trustworthy" poll on any of them?

That is why it was unfair, in my opinion.

[Exilednight]

8. They do ask that question about Republicans. You will not see it with a Republican candidate at this

Very moment since there is no break away front-runner. Once there is, you'll see this poll question asked about Republicans, too.

[dsc]

25. that is flat out, gold carat false

no candidate, not a single, solitary one, save Hilary has had that question asked about them this cycle. Not one. I don't recall the media even asking that about Romney in 2012.

[Exilednight]

27. They asked it. They ask it every election cycle. You might not remember, but they do it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. This is a standard polling question

it is reserved for front runners...and they have asked this about Jeb Bush as well, a couple times

It is called likability.

She has a trust issue, republicans as a whole have an empathy problem.

Anecdotally one of my neighbors has told us that he will not vote for her, because she is a Clinton...period, end of discussion, full stop. If she gets the non, he will write in another candidate.

[dsc]

33. then I am sure you can cite these polls

I eagerly await.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. For starters PPP

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/jeb-bush/

You welcome.

It took me longer than expected since the IPad was having issues with copy and paste.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. And here is an article from Feb 27 from US news and World Report

on Jeb Bush

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ken-walshs-washington/2015/02/27/the-likability-factor

You welcome.

[dsc]

62. I read both your links

and unless I am missing something, neither one has any questions about trustworthyness.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Did I mention the lerm likability? Oh wait, yes, yes I did

that is the other term used for this. And it is even in the headline of the February story.

This is procedural, every day, coverage that happens every election. Partisans think the media is picking on their chosen candidate. When that Feb 27 story came out, a few I know who are hyper partisans on the other side, and they don't like Bush, were complaining.

What is hysterical is that I could remove the candidate name, because that is a generic complaint. And these polls happen every time. This goes back to early polling.

What is even more hysterical is that every four years partisan complain.

You asked you got. Me, having a raucous laugh, really. This shit is way predicable.

Now do I have time to do the Chafee launch story or not? NOPE, I need to be downtown in an hour and parking is a pain. One of those stories that should be covered by more than just me, but it is not, but we are. I don't mind the exclusive.

[demtenjeep]

69. I think it is cute your little blog

what is your readership?

Do you think you might launch in paper form soon?

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. I find your personal attack funny as hell too

you should realize by now that I don't care if you attack. But this is a classic example of a personal attack, This is also one that juries will not hide.

Have a wonderful evening. I need to write an exclusive story from the Mexican consulate today. You do know the meaning of that term I hope.

[demtenjeep]

74. I am hurt. I do not feel I attacked you at all. I gave you a complement. Spent some time on blog

and you have a variety of your opinions on there.


hard hitting like the NYT or Chicago Tribune not likely but still it occupies your time. I guess it is a good hobby.

I can't see how a true living could be had but since you won't share...



I however feel attacked but I will not bother the jury system for something so petty.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. And then there you are

we are doing some actual journalism. I am sorry that you cannot distinguish actual journalism, from opinion. Those opinion pieces are clearly identified as such. They are analysis or EDITORIAL pieces.

I guess it is my opinion that the American Red Cross San Diego\ Imperial Chapter took their CEO out to sleep in a simulated disaster shelter, and not an actual fact. And that is from today. So, right now I am curious, how do you call that an opinion? Or that the State of California has a deficit, quite significant on the infrastructure budget. You can go check the document yourself. I even give you a link for that.

For that matter, I guess my opinion of the infrastructure hole in my city matches that of the Chair of the infrastructure committee.

I guess if you saw journalism in front of you, well, you cannot recognize it. I feel sorry for you. At this point, I really feel sorry for you. There is nothing else to do, but thanks for the traffic.

[demtenjeep]

76. perhaps show me the real journalism?

I also read (I don't know why) Orly Taitz blog and I am trying to find some difference


same references to "the regime" and other similarity



I am an Historian I have a minor in PolyScy I teach Government daily, I do current events daily. I'm sorry, if one of my students were to use one of your blog posts as an actually article I would have to re-direct them.

I am sorry to say this but have asked you for specifics before and all you do is attack me and tell me how much better you are than I am so until you are willing to actually prove not just make references to things that are not there I will keep pushing for truth. Sorry, just the way I am .

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. That is fine

you can do that.

Thanks for the traffic.

But here is some things the references are not there. (They are embedded)

http://reportingsandiego.com/2015/05/27/california-underfunds-infrastructure/

And the document

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2015-Infrastructure-Plan.pdf

ALL the direct quotes in that article come from that report. ALL OF THEM

So I guess you are correct, the State of California and myself are imagining that report.

Here is more

http://reportingsandiego.com/2015/04/21/water-infrastructure-in-rural-areas-and-the-border-region/

Here I am quoting the non existent EPA

Here is the direct link to their site:

http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/wastewater/mexican/

And I could go on. You think I am lousy at this and you are free to think that. You do not like me. I cannot say that about you. I don't know you from shinola. I don't care to know you.

But you are hilarious, because we source things even further than most media. I give links the WAPO will not give you. So with that. I am back to one that you will not have any links to, because we had an actual exclusive story where there are no links. And quite honestly, I doubt you care about Nestora Salgado. Or for that matter know who she is. So will clue you in. She is one of the two currently prominent political prisoners in Mexico.

And with that, I have a story to write. I really could not care what you think.

But I suppose the state of California, the US Census and other agencies I quote regularly, don't exist. Or for that matter the Congressmen we at times to talk to, as part of our job. City Council members are also figments of my imagination.

You don't have to believe me. Not one word.

But once again, thanks for the traffic.



And what you just did, is also a personal attack

You are not very good at trying to disguise them. And I just have one question, are you the one i IP banned? Because those personal attacks were real nasty.

[demtenjeep]

80. no I did not make any personal attacks at you here or there. I would never

mess with someone else's blog ever


see you just hurt me again accusing me of things I didn't do and would never do

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. I jusk asked

and you are playing victim, which is a classic too.

Feel free to have the last word.

[kenfrequed]

12. Hmm

Good point I think. I really don't trust Hillary quite enough to go after the banks or Wall Street like we need our president to do.

But, I think the media is way too light on the Republicans who I wouldn't trust with ANYTHING EVER.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

15. I trust Hillary more than any Rethug, for sure; but less than a used car salesman.

[Marr]

20. +1

I really don't understand the people who give credence to the words of politicians when they've previously acted counter to their current statements.

Right here yesterday, I saw an argument in which one poster was insisting that Hillary was against H1B visas, though she has a very long record at this point as being one of that program's staunchest promoters. Their evidence that she was against it? Hillary Clinton sort of vaguely suggested something to that effect. In a primary season. Talking to a crowd of working class people.

It's really odd-- there are people who weigh words as not just equal to deeds, but will actually claim that they trump years and years of actual actions.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

21. Good points Marr. I believe it was P.T. Barnum who said "there's a sucker born every minute."

Last edited Wed Jun 3, 2015, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

[Bluenorthwest]

24. In fact, Barnum did not say that, a critic of Barnum's said it as a wise crack about Barnum's

popularity. It's a basic, elitist snark at entertainments popular with regular people.

[Oktober]

30. Hillary has a reputation for changing as the wind blows and the focus groups decide...

It's absolutely appropriate...

[m-lekktor]

4. exactly. I think it is a legitimate question to ask.

I think she is extremely untrustworthy.

[840high]

77. Naither do I.

[JaneyVee]

3. Those 600 landlines must've been the Benghazi crowd.

[Exilednight]

9. They poll, also, poll cell phones now. This poll is pretty consistent

With others I have seen. ABC/WaPo had pretty much the same numbers yesterday.

[TM99]

5. Why isn't it fair?

Clinton is currently the front-runner polling higher than any other Democratic candidate. She is also polling higher than an GOP candidate every state with regards to the general election. So right now, Hillary Clinton is in the top candidate.

So asking Americans if they trust the defacto lead candidate in all polls seems like a very logical question to ask.

Personally, no I do not trust her. She has been caught in lies. She pushes the boundaries of ethical and legal considerations. And I remember very well her racist comments in her 2008 campaign. These are all in line with her history so she is congruently distrustful for me.

Apparently 57% of those polled agree with me.

[kentuck]

6. Because it did not include all the other "untrustworthy" folks running for the White House.

When someone is portrayed as "untrustworthy", it can do irreversible damage, in my opinion. It would have been fair if it had included all the candidates.

[TM99]

7. Again, she is the front runner in all polls.

She is the defacto 'winner' at this point.

I think it is fair to know where people stand on the front runner.

And obviously they don't have as much confidence and trust in her as many would have hoped.

I am not surprised, and I have predicted that if she takes the Primary, she will lose the General because of this. My own opinion of course.

[kentuck]

11. I see your point but...

I think the "media" will do everything they can to try to put a Republican in the White House in the next election. They think that Hillary will be much more difficult to beat than Bernie Sanders or any other Democrat that might be in the race? I don't agree with that assessment but I could see why they would like Hillary out of the race.

With that said, I think it is naive of many Hillary supporters to think the Clinton "scandals" of the '90s are behind her and will never be brought up again. It is going to be a tumultuous and controversial campaign, I have no doubt.

[TM99]

13. The media is not 'fair' to any candidate really.

They seek advertising dollars, scandal, sensationalism, and higher rates. The Newsroom CNN is not!

True Millenials and post-Millenials may not remember the 1980's and 1990's Clinton 'scandals' but everyone else will. Some it will influence. Others it will not. It is very naive to think otherwise.

We are barely a month into it really, and it is already a bumpy ride.

[HereSince1628]

14. Yes, at least a handful of things at work...

Closing the gap makes it more interesting.
A front-runner with flaws is more interesting than a saintly unimpeachable front runner
Making it interesting increases visits to websites and channels...hits raise the price of advertising

The news industry sells advertising, not news. The news is a come-on.

[TM99]

79. Very well said.

We no longer have just the news. We have news selling other things.

[R B Garr]

28. "the 1980's and 1990's Clinton scandals". omg, it's obviously you who

aren't remembering. The "scandals" like Vince Foster, Travelgate...? Those scandals? I figured it was only time before someone here brought those up as if they were ever real to begin with. Hmmm.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Those are the starting point at the usual places

where the cottage industry lives. If you are so naive to understand that those are the warm up exercise at hannity for example...well that is extremely naive those still excite a large portion of his listening audience.

And some will demand to dig up Vince Foster...literally.

[R B Garr]

43. LOL @ me being naive. You've pretty much just reiterated what I said.

It was just a matter of time before someone here started throwing up those so-called "issues" as if they were ever legitimate and not just a way to harass and intimidate the Clintons for their own political gain.

And don't even get me started on Fox News. That was a given, of course. I was just waiting for them to surface here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Well, they are already an issue

I got no idea then why you posted that mild attack on other posters.

I follow this crap ( on both sides). And your post read extremely naive v

[R B Garr]

47. So this is personal now? Really? Where was my "mild attack"

You just reiterated exactly what I said, so how was that an attack?

Yeah, and I follow "this crap" on both sides, too. So why are YOU attacking "both sides"?

And no kidding they are already "an issue". For the Fox News types and Hillary haters, lol.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. Not on me

on another poster... when you said

R B Garr (1,646 posts)
28. "the 1980's and 1990's Clinton scandals". omg, it's obviously you who

aren't remembering. The "scandals" like Vince Foster, Travelgate...? Those scandals? I figured it was only time before someone here brought those up as if they were ever real to begin with. Hmmm.[/div

That was a mild attack, but it was. Get used to it. Even things like that will come here and are valid issues of discussion. To me, they are more of the cottage industry. But they are.

I hope we are now crystal clear.

[R B Garr]

52. More lol @ "not on you". You said the same thing I did,

and then you called me naïve. Of course they will be drug up. That's what I said, and then I wondered when they would be drug over here as if they were legitimate issues to begin with and not transparent political stunts, which you never addressed, I see.

So yes, crystal clear: you agreed with what I said and then got yourself confused by calling me naïve.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Whatever dude

have an excellent day.

[R B Garr]

58. Dude? Okay, cowboy.

You too.

[TM99]

64. There are GOP

generated scandals. And there is the very real sex scandals that Bill Clinton was involved with since Little Rock. I am sorry to burst your bubble but Bill was a serial womanizer who slept around on Hillary.

And while the other 'scandals' have little validity to many Americans, both Democrats & Republicans, yes, they were real. Come on if it is on the news then it must be real, right?

[R B Garr]

65. Ah, yes, like the Ken Starr report. So real. Uh huh.

Well, look where he is now and all the other GOP clowns involved in the Clinton impeachment and look where the Clintons are now and that should tell you all you need to know about how "real" all their phony "scandals" were.

Yes, more of the "real" news during that impeachment era: Congressman Jim Rogan lost his seat to Adam Schiff because of his unpopular involvement in the "impeachment." Linda Tripp was prosecuted for felony wiretapping (sort of dropped later, but it still ruined her). Larry Flynt exposed several perverts and womanizers from the GOP impeachment posse itself -- sorry to burst your bubble about those hypocrites.

The only reason to bring those things up here, at this site, is to just annoy people or whatever other word there is for "annoy". The pretend "Clinton Fatigue" is just an old axe to grind for some types, and I figured it was just a matter of time before they showed up out of desperation.

[TM99]

66. You are so obsessed

with the GOP and their use of very real sex scandals that you ignore the reality that yes, Bill Clinton fucked around.

Who cares really? But hey don't get caught. And if you do, best not to lie about it.

And yes, I do have Clinton fatigue. You take care now.

[R B Garr]

67. LOL, it's you who are obsessed with Clinton "fucking around" some 20 years ago

that "news" is. So why ever would you bring up some old bullshit GOP talking points from so, so, so long ago??

Funny how you only apply your standards to Clinton and you have nothing to say about the cheating fuckers from the GOP who Larry Flynt exposed. Double standards much? Hmm.

You take care too. I'll be curious to see how burnt out you are on the Bush REAL scandals -- you know, like phony wars and tax cuts for the rich and REAL shit like that.

[TM99]

70. Try to keep up.

Why would I even need to say anything about the GOP people who fuck around? I don't vote for them. I didn't vote for them. I won't vote for them. I think they are as fucked up as he is, if that makes you feel any better. We are on a Democratic site discussing Democrats.

I am burnt out on Bush and the Clintons (Obama's New Dem agenda as well!) I am sick to death of money in politics, the war on terror, neo-con foreign policy agendas, neo-liberalism as a domestic economic agendas, no universal health care, TPP, etc. etc. I am done with all of it. That is why I am voting for Sanders.

[R B Garr]

71. None of that has to do with so-called "scandals" from the 80's and 90's,

so you should take your own advice about keeping up. Why on earth bring up some non-issues as if they have any significance now or then, with the only "benefit" being that you get to slam the Clintons and call it "news". And why bring up the GOP? Well, probably because they created most of those things you claim to be against, so that's why you would be against the GOP and not some fabricated political stunts from decades ago.

[TM99]

72. Never mind.

You just aren't paying attention.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Feb 27 article on Jeb

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ken-walshs-washington/2015/02/27/the-likability-factor

This is standard.

[kentuck]

40. Amd look where he is in the polls...

He should be sitting shotgun in the clown car but he is squeezed between the red noses in the back seat...

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. And this is standard

Moreover Jeb has yet to officially launch. There are legal reasons for that.

I will repeat myself, this is standard

And let me clarify this. A lot of jeb's issues are self inflicted. Such as my brother george will be my foreign policy advisor.

[kentuck]

48. Would be interested to know what those "legal reasons" are..?

If I were guessing, it would be the necessary time to either clear or hide his foreign investments, and to clear his board memberships?

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Nah, simpler than that, The moment he declares

he has to file FEC filings.

[kentuck]

55. Does he have to give his net worth and his contributions?

On the proper FEC forms?

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Yes, all that has to be part of the public disclosure

which he had to do when he ran for governor too. They are delaying not becuase of that. but big donors can right now give to PACs and there is no issue with coordination. As it were, this is a nice little truck sized hole. In a way, all politicians delay as long as politically feasible.

This is way too standard and procedural, and way too boring to most people.

[kentuck]

59. Will this report be open to the public?

I assume it would be?

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Yup, which is why HRC was asked about their

income over the last few due to speeches by a reporter

Here you go

http://www.fec.gov/info/report_dates_2015.shtml

Me, giving up the secrets! What will the world come to next?



And here, specifically for HRC.. these are the 2008 ducuments

http://www.fec.gov/audits/2008/AuditReport_2008_HillaryForPresident.shtml#search=clinton

And look at this today from the NYT

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026774556

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

16. Did Bernie put you up to this? (/sarcasm)

[TM99]

23. Yes, of course.

He and I chat daily about what I should say on DU. I play bad cop to his good cop, don't you know?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

38. LOL, good one!

[MissDeeds]

61. Well said, TM99

I think the more people see her and hear her, the more her "front runner" status will be eroded. Your third paragraph sums it up; HRC has so many self inflicted wounds. I doubt she will be able to overcome them as the primary process proceeds and scrutiny becomes more intense.

[betterdemsonly]

10. It is not a reputable network to those who lived through the iraq war.

It is neocon central and while they may prefer Hillary as the democratic candidate, since she is more hawkish than other demns, they will not prefer her over a Bush, Lindsey Graham, Rick Perry, or other neocon candidates. She depends on media, since she has little gotv. So she is basically born to lose this one.

[joshcryer]

17. Careful.

[99Forever]

18. "Major hit piece on Hillary"?

When you see reporting facts as a "major hit piece" on your candidate, you might want to take a step back and question why you support that candidate at all.

[Capt. Obvious]

19. So polls are bad now?

[wyldwolf]

22. As Howard Dean said this morning on Morning Joe...

Can she be trusted compared to... what? Who? The poll doesn't say. When the GOP field starts beating the hell out of each other very soon, we'll get that answer.

[Fred Sanders]

26. Push polls are "for entertainment purposes only". CNN or Fox do not do polls, they do propaganda.

[krawhitham]

29. They've been asking that question for months, & NOW you object because the #s are not to you liking?

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Standard question that appears every year

they have asked this about Jeb too.

Ah...how wonderful to see the world as it is.

[ananda]

39. Forget CNN.

Does anyone really watch that channel any more?

It's worthless these days.

Not much better than Fox.

[Logical]

42. I dont like hillary, but she is 1000% better than any GOP idiot! nt

[spanone]

44. the media hates the Clintons....they are working overtime.....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. Like Nadin said it's a standard question.

The MSM still feels HRC doesn't have a primary opponent so they are acting as a primary opponent surrogate...

This will even out when HRC has a Repuplicant challeger with whom she can throw the dirt back on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. They have been doing it with Jeb since February

and they have done it with unarmed republican candidate. This is where the lack of empathy problem is coming from for the party.

I follow this crap, FULLY... as non partisan press we have to keep an eye on all this. And quite frankly, I cannot pay gallup, but I will gladly take their polling to determine who gets more and who gets less coverage. It is a resource thing, not a political bias thing.

[AtomicKitten]

49. It's standard election polling.

Sniveling about the results doesn't make it a "hit piece."

[underthematrix]

56. And now let the PYSOP games begin in earnest.

You are better off reading books about HRC or books and articles written by HRC. I would suggest the same with Bernie Sanders. They would both be People Presidents but in different ways. The 2016 election will be about policies, not personalities.

[L0oniX]

68. Gee ...you mean I am not the only one who does not trust her?