CLINTON FAVORABILITY AT LOWEST LEVELS EVER RECORDED - 24, BERNIE + 9 FAVORABLITY, NEW NBC/WSJ POLL
*NBC News/WSJ Poll: Hillary Clinton's Favorability at Her Lowest Levels Ever Recorded*, Daily Kos, April 17, 2016.
A new NBC News/WSJ Poll looks at the favorability ratings of the remaining presidential candidates, and THE RESULTS SHOULD SCARE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SEE HILLARY ELECTED in the fall should she win the nomination.
*HILLARY'S FAVORABILITY AMONG REGISTERED VOTERS IS NOW HER LOWEST EVER RECORDED by NBC News/WSJ (32% favorable, 56% unfavorable). CLINTON is 24 percentage points UNDERWATER, with a 32 percent positive rating compared to a 56 percent negative score. That's the former secretary of state's LOWEST RATING since the poll started tracking her favorability in January 2001.
*BERNIE SANDERS is viewed significantly more favorably (+9 net favorability):
For Sanders, who is continuing his hard-fought race against his Democratic rival despite long odds to surpass Clinton in the delegate math, it's 45 percent positive, 36 percent negative.
More disturbing is that in this poll, CLINTON HAS ACTUALLY FALLEN BEHIND TED *CRUZ (!!!) in terms of net favorability, who scores a -23 rating nationally. Take a look at the favorability trends from the chart:
One could hope that this is a temporary blip. But unfortunately, looking at the aggregate favorability from Huffington Post, it sure doesn’t seem to be (and note that as of this writing, they have not included this poll which will skew the average even more downward:
SEE *GRAPH at Link, ''Hillary Clinton Favorable Rating'
(added from HuffPo, 'HC Favorability Charts':http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating#!estimate=custom
Hillary Clinton is the favorite to win the nomination. BUT SHE IS VIEWED IMMENSELY UNFAVORABLY BY VOTERS NATIONWIDE. Although TRUMP is in an even worse position, we should be wary of the risks here — Clinton’s favorability is derived almost universally from democrats. She has virtually NO CROSS-OVER APPEAL to independents or republicans. Trump is viewed unfavorably by about half of Republicans, but does better among independents.
So what’s the risk? If Hillary and Trump win their respective nominations, I believe (scary as it is) Trump has significantly more upside potential in his numbers. He will have to merely convince republicans to support him over Hillary, and he’ll have several months to do that. If he holds onto his relative strength among independents, It puts Hillary in a bind unless she can find a way to improve her image outside of her core base of democratic voters.
One way to do that is to *win over the Sanders coalition of independents. And that would mean staking out strong progressive positions in the general. On the other hand, I think a reality-based community needs to start dispensing with the notion that Hillary would be a stronger general election candidate than Bernie.
*If ELECTABILITY is the primary concern, it's time to VOTE BERNIE SANDERS if you have yet to do so.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/17/1516469/-NBC-News-WSJ-Poll-Hillary-Clinton-s-Favorability-at-Lowest-Levels-Ever-Recorded
= new reply since forum marked as read
And that's all that matters.
"HENRY KISSINGER, HILLARY CLINTON'S TUTOR," The Nation.
"Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clinton’s Tutor in War and Peace: Last night, Clinton once again praised a man with a lot of blood on his hands."
By Greg GrandinTwitter, February 5, 2016
http://www.thenation.com/article/henry-kissinger-hillary-clintons-tutor-in-war-and-peace/
Welcome to reality.
You can lead a Hillary supporter to water but you can't make them drink it.
On and on it goes.
Clinton loses patience with environmental activist accused as one of those Sanders supporters (but isn't) she's so sick of.
But if the chicken is fried, I am on board.
Last edited Mon Apr 18, 2016, 04:55 PM - Edit history (1)
people who will not vote for her.
You're welcome.
Couldn't POSSIBLY be the craptastic, outdated campaign, the David Brock shit, the "I still believe in a place called nope" uninspiring negativity crap, the downright DELIBERATE condescending alienation of Millennials, etc etc.
Nah, it's all Bernie's fault, right?
Yeah, we know what's Bernie's fault, of course. He ran in the first place, and ITS HER TURN. 
Their "revolution" has done well in ensuring Trump or Cruz have their best shot at taking the Whitehouse from one of most popular Democratic Presidents in modern history.
Viva la Republican 2016...
...for example, look at the position she is in below:
If you like Kissinger's policies, you'll absolutely love Hillary!
So, everyone who's met with and discussed international affairs with Henry Kissinger deserves smearing? Well, Hermy baby, you got a long list to smear:
http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Henry+Kissinger+James+E+Cartwright+Obama+Biden+-4LQGB2_3c1l.jpg
Kissinger and Obama
https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mf66974466d458519df83aa601e13ab98o0&pid=15.1
Kissinger and Nelson Mandela
Kissinger and Biden
Kissinger and President Carter
But you all just go on with your cute little smear machine. Don't be hating just because Hillary actually has international diplomatic and state department experience, and the connections that goes with it. It's not her fault Bernie has hidden away in the smallest populated and 2nd most homogeneous state for the last 40 years, and just heckled from the stands while others did all of the heavy lifting. Here's a great house seat for him where he'd fit right in!
What's next, the photo's of her with Putin?
You'd do the republicans proud!
Oh, and I AM thankful for Hillary. Every day. For her leadership, actual experience, and for doing more than heckling all those who actually do get things done.
Maybe the honeymoon in the Soviet Union thing will bring him down.
If she loses, it's because of who she is, what she represents, and what she's done. Here's her story, and Bernie had nothing to do with it. Read it and learn.
HRC rode Bill's coat tails to power. He had the intellect (Georgetown Univ, Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law), charisma, gift of gab, and natural ability to connect with people. She was smart, too (Wellesley, Yale Law). After law school, she went to DC to work on the Nixon impeachment committee, but her stint there did not last long because, among other reasons, she did not pass the DC bar. She tells the story that she went to work for the Children's Defense Fund (CDF) founded by Marian Wright Edelman as evidence of her advocacy for children and that's true... some 20 plus years ago. But recall that Marian’s husband, Peter Edelman who became Bill Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, resigned in protest over the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act better known as Welfare Reform because of the dire effects it would have on the poor, especially women and children. HRC supported Bill and the bill; but Peter Edelman was right.
So after leaving DC, what did HRC do? She ran off to Arkansas! Yes, this dynamo of feminism whom so many women say could have done anything, been anything on her own… did not go back to her native Chicago, did not go back to New England (MA, CT) where she was educated. No, she ran off to Arkansas. She chased after Bill because she recognized his rising star. As I said above, he had the talent to go along with the intellect. He had held leadership positions nearly all his life: high school (Boy’s State) and college (class president for 2 years, etc.). He became Governor, chaired the National Governors’ Association and finally became POTUS. It was only through him that she was introduced to the nation and even then, it was rocky because of her abrasive, snarky remarks about baking cookies.
When she ran for POTUS in 2008, she cited her 20 years of experience. Really? First Lady of AK for 12 years and FLOTUS for 8 years. Oh, and she was a corporate lawyer at the Rose Law Firm where her client was Walmart – that champion of poor people – and where she relied heavily on the counsel of Vince Foster.
She could never have carpet bagged her way to the NY Senate seat had she not been FLOTUS. And once in the Senate, what did she DO? What legislation or amendments to legislation illustrate her initiative or activism on behalf of the people. The aye votes for IWR, the Patriot Acts 1 & 2 and Bush's Bankruptcy bill sure were a big help to us all
And let's talk about that IWR vote in depth because there was, and remains, no excuse or justification for it and here's why
Reason 1: Iraq did not attack the US; fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis while the other four were from the UAE, Egypt, Yemen. They learned to fly here in the States (Florida, Arizona). Bin Laden was also Saudi!
Reason 2: Iraq had been under horrific UN sanctions since the first Bush war on Iraq in 1991; so how could it have morphed into an imminent threat to the US in 2002 when IWR was being peddled
Reason 3: W's administration introduced IWR and demanded a vote on it right before the 2002 midterm elections. Wise men and women questioned the timing and the rush, but not those who voted aye... they had their eyes on being POTUS and cast calculating votes that reeked of political and moral cowardice.
Reason 4: Anyone who was paying attention knew about PNAC and therefore knew how the Bush cabal and Carlyle group had their eyes on carving up Iraq's oil fields. Clinton sure knew because the signers of PNAC policy papers wrote Bill seeking pre-emptive action while he was POTUS.
Reason 5: the Bush cabal STOLE the White House in 2000 because they had their PNAC plans. Then, they ignored all the warnings/chatter leading up to 9/11 including the August 6th PDB. They allege they were blindsided and could not have foreseen such an attack. But that flies in the face of the fact that the airspace had to be closed around the G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy in July 2001 precisely because of terrorists' threats to fly planes into buildings! So therefore, why would any sentient 'leader' of the opposition party trust or "have good faith" in ANYTHING proposed by W
Reason 6: Anyone who knew history, knew that Reagan sold WMDs to Saddam/Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war (recall the photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand). So when Cheney took to the airwaves in 2002 talking about WMDs and said he knew where they were and how they'd been used against the Kurds, he was telling the truth... about 1988. He was using his dirty past to foment a new war for oil
Reason 7: the Bush cabal withdrew the weapons inspectors because they were not finding anything. Scott Ritter (who was smeared) and his fellow inspectors' findings would not/did not conform to the desired Bush narrative, so Colin Bowel sold his soul and did his 'tube' presentation to the UN
Reason 8: Citing the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, Robert Byrd gave an eloquent and passionate speech about lies that lead to war, about the waste of war, about the unintended consequences of war... and he challenged the rush to war. Bob Graham (who actually read the documents available to Congress) and Ted Kennedy spoke as well. Why didn't HRC listen to them rather than Bush or Cheney? No, she gave Bush bipartisan cover with her aye vote, and so she has blood on her hands, too!
Clearly the rationale for IWR was all a LIE, and if millions of citizens could see all this THEN, why not Clinton?! She voted aye, ran for POTUS and lost in large measure because of that vote. Votes have consequences and there is no apology large enough to cover a cowardly, finger-in-the-wind vote that has caused so much death, debt, destruction and destabilization (ISIS)!
Back to the narrative. Then there was her abysmal management and nasty conduct during the 2008 primary campaign. She had the money, she had the name, she was entitled, she was "in it to win it" and so arrogant that she claimed it would be over by Super Tuesday. But when it wasn't and she was losing, she resorted to the gutter. She praised McCain and derided Obama as someone who only gave pretty speeches. And when the Party urged her to bow out gracefully, she said that she was going to stay in the race through the CA primary because "you never know... remember Bobby Kennedy..." Her insinuation (a veiled wish?) that Obama might be assassinated like RFK was beyond classless and tasteless. It was evil (google Keith Olbermann on that atrocity). And when she finally, gracelessly bowed out, she did so on condition that the Obama organization and DNC pay off her campaign debt. Some management skills, just like her Wall Street benefactors who f--- things up, then expect others to pay for the disaster they created.
On to SOS, where Obama selected her because he'd been inspired by Lincoln's team of rivals and wanted to keep her busy and away so she couldn't be a quasi-backbencher sniping at him. In the end, she was also terrible in that position. Her Honduras regime change led many men, women and children, some alone, to flee the disaster that nation subsequently became. Same with Libya and Syria. HRC, the consummate pro-MIC corporatist, never saw a war she didn't like. And last I checked, war is not good for women, children or men! Oh, and also at State, she sold weapons to Saudi Arabia (home of bin laden and most of the Sept 11th hijackers) while the Saudis donated to that slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation.
She is also part of the Clinton legacy (the two for one, the 8 years of reflected experience derived from Bill). She helped found the DLC and fully supported: NAFTA, the Telecommunications Bill of 1996, Welfare Reform (not), and overturning Glass-Steagall. She and Bill kept Alan Greenspan at the Fed, placed the then Mr. Goldman Sucks himself Robert Reuben as head of Treasury and hired as financial advisor that abominable Wall Streeter Larry Summers (who lost a $1.8 billion from Harvard's endowment!). This Clinton triumvirate wrecked the economy for main street, but saved Wall Street, especially Goldman-Sachs which has subsequently paid her handsomely. And as DUer tularetom once said: "They didn't pay her that kind of money because of her oratorical skills, her charismatic personality or her insight into current events. She has none of the first two and very little of the third."
We, the people, reaped the whirlwind of that 1999 Glass-Steagall reversal for which every repuke in the Senate voted AYE while every Dem -- save one -- voted NAY. Bill signed it into law anyway, paying no heed to the canary-in-the-mine Dems who said that this dastardly new law would lead to disaster 10 years hence. Sure enough it did, harming families throughout the land. And Wall Street, Hillary's BFF, continues to be such a benefactor for the people
Then there's fracking, the TPP, Keystone XL, etc. All of this is HRC's history. What she has DONE that is positive or constructive? She's in it for herself, she plays sexist gender politics, she lies about her awful record, she changes her mind with the political winds, she panders, she pads her pockets, and she is a triangulator to her core.
Sanders is not at the root of her electoral problems. SHE is. She owned her defeat on 2008, she owns her ratings for being untrustworthy now, and she deserves to lose.
Let's get the whole picture
CATCH!!
not to mention a person with mega brains, super attitude, much experience and other attributes. Bernie loves service, life and people, is a true mensch and it shows. Also a real fighter, so admirable...
Still enjoys a good game of B.ball with F & F too! 
Cool beans Hightops!
Hopefully NOT, I'm optimistic. With good reason...
It has zip to do with TPTB, super delegates or any other conspiracy theory your side can conjure.
I guess reality is also off-topic for you.
who only joined the Democratic party to avail himself of its resources when he decided to run for president. Hillary is winning because more registered Democrats have voted for her than for Sanders. He has yet to win a closed primary.
Obviously, more Democrats have voted for Hillary. Why is that so hard for some of you to grasp?
and that isn't Sanders. He wins in caucuses and in open primaries where Independents can vote. Registered Democrats have voted for Hillary in larger numbers than have voted for Sanders.
one of the candidates is a former long distance Champion Runner, and Capt. of Track & Field and Cross Country.
HINT: The one born and raised in NEW YORK...
Thanks Loudestlib: If she can't handle Bernie she needs to drop out.
Imagine what the repukes will do with all her baggage and the reams of video footage substantiating her lies and pandering on Youtube!
???????????
she has all the power behind her and can't draw more than a hundred peops to a freakin rally and somehow it will be bernie's fault when she loses the general
There are none so blind...
HRC started damaging the party when she helped create the DLC. Read $Hillary's story and tell me how any of it is Bernie's fault.
For starters, HRC rode Bill's coat tails to power. He had the intellect (Georgetown Univ, Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law), charisma, gift of gab, and natural ability to connect with people. She was smart, too (Wellesley, Yale Law). After law school, she went to DC to work on the Nixon impeachment committee, but her stint there did not last long because, among other reasons, she did not pass the DC bar. She tells the story that she went to work for the Children's Defense Fund (CDF) founded by Marian Wright Edelman as evidence of her advocacy for children and that's true... some 20 plus years ago. But recall that Marian’s husband, Peter Edelman who became Bill Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, resigned in protest over the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act better known as Welfare Reform because of the dire effects it would have on the poor, especially women and children. HRC supported Bill and the bill; but Peter Edelman was right.
So after leaving DC, what did HRC do? She ran off to Arkansas! Yes, this dynamo of feminism whom so many women say could have done anything, been anything on her own… did not go back to her native Chicago, did not go back to New England (MA, CT) where she was educated. No, she ran off to Arkansas. She chased after Bill because she recognized his rising star. As I said above, he had the talent to go along with the intellect. He had held leadership positions nearly all his life: high school (Boy’s State) and college (class president for 2 years, etc.). He became Governor, chaired the National Governors’ Association and finally became POTUS. It was only through him that she was introduced to the nation and even then, it was rocky because of her abrasive, snarky remarks about baking cookies.
When she ran for POTUS in 2008, she cited her 20 years of experience. Really? First Lady of AK for 12 years and FLOTUS for 8 years. Oh, and she was a corporate lawyer at the Rose Law Firm where her client was Walmart – that champion of poor people – and where she relied heavily on the counsel of Vince Foster.
She could never have carpet bagged her way to the NY Senate seat had she not been FLOTUS. And once in the Senate, what did she DO? What legislation or amendments to legislation illustrate her initiative or activism on behalf of the people. The aye votes for IWR, the Patriot Acts 1 & 2 and Bush's Bankruptcy bill sure were a big help to us all
And let's talk about that IWR vote in depth because there was, and remains, no excuse or justification for it and here's why
Reason 1: Iraq did not attack the US; fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudis while the other four were from the UAE, Egypt, Yemen. They learned to fly here in the States (Florida, Arizona). Bin Laden was also Saudi!
Reason 2: Iraq had been under horrific UN sanctions since the first Bush war on Iraq in 1991; so how could it have morphed into an imminent threat to the US in 2002 when IWR was being peddled
Reason 3: W's administration introduced IWR and demanded a vote on it right before the 2002 midterm elections. Wise men and women questioned the timing and the rush, but not those who voted aye... they had their eyes on being POTUS and cast calculating votes that reeked of political and moral cowardice.
Reason 4: Anyone who was paying attention knew about PNAC and therefore knew how the Bush cabal and Carlyle group had their eyes on carving up Iraq's oil fields. Clinton sure knew because the signers of PNAC policy papers wrote Bill seeking pre-emptive action while he was POTUS.
Reason 5: the Bush cabal STOLE the White House in 2000 because they had their PNAC plans. Then, they ignored all the warnings/chatter leading up to 9/11 including the August 6th PDB. They allege they were blindsided and could not have foreseen such an attack. But that flies in the face of the fact that the airspace had to be closed around the G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy in July 2001 precisely because of terrorists' threats to fly planes into buildings! So therefore, why would any sentient 'leader' of the opposition party trust or "have good faith" in ANYTHING proposed by W
Reason 6: Anyone who knew history, knew that Reagan sold WMDs to Saddam/Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war (recall the photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand). So when Cheney took to the airwaves in 2002 talking about WMDs and said he knew where they were and how they'd been used against the Kurds, he was telling the truth... about 1988. He was using his dirty past to foment a new war for oil
Reason 7: the Bush cabal withdrew the weapons inspectors because they were not finding anything. Scott Ritter (who was smeared) and his fellow inspectors' findings would not/did not conform to the desired Bush narrative, so Colin Bowel sold his soul and did his 'tube' presentation to the UN
Reason 8: Citing the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War, Robert Byrd gave an eloquent and passionate speech about lies that lead to war, about the waste of war, about the unintended consequences of war... and he challenged the rush to war. Bob Graham (who actually read the documents available to Congress) and Ted Kennedy spoke as well. Why didn't HRC listen to them rather than Bush or Cheney? No, she gave Bush bipartisan cover with her aye vote, and so she has blood on her hands, too!
Clearly the rationale for IWR was all a LIE, and if millions of citizens could see all this THEN, why not Clinton?! She voted aye, ran for POTUS and lost in large measure because of that vote. Votes have consequences and there is no apology large enough to cover a cowardly, finger-in-the-wind vote that has caused so much death, debt, destruction and destabilization (ISIS)!
Back to the narrative. Then there was her abysmal management and nasty conduct during the 2008 primary campaign. She had the money, she had the name, she was entitled, she was "in it to win it" and so arrogant that she claimed it would be over by Super Tuesday. But when it wasn't and she was losing, she resorted to the gutter. She praised McCain and derided Obama as someone who only gave pretty speeches. And when the Party urged her to bow out gracefully, she said that she was going to stay in the race through the CA primary because "you never know... remember Bobby Kennedy..." Her insinuation (a veiled wish?) that Obama might be assassinated like RFK was beyond classless and tasteless. It was evil (google Keith Olbermann on that atrocity). And when she finally, gracelessly bowed out, she did so on condition that the Obama organization and DNC pay off her campaign debt. Some management skills, just like her Wall Street benefactors who f--- things up, then expect others to pay for the disaster they created.
On to SOS, where Obama selected her because he'd been inspired by Lincoln's team of rivals and wanted to keep her busy and away so she couldn't be a quasi-backbencher sniping at him. In the end, she was also terrible in that position. Her Honduras regime change led many men, women and children, some alone, to flee the disaster that nation subsequently became. Same with Libya and Syria. HRC, the consummate pro-MIC corporatist, never saw a war she didn't like. And last I checked, war is not good for women, children or men! Oh, and also at State, she sold weapons to Saudi Arabia (home of bin laden and 15 out of 19 Sept 11th hijackers) while the Saudis donated to that slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation.
She is also part of the Clinton legacy (the two for one, the 8 years of reflected experience derived from Bill). She helped found the DLC and fully supported: NAFTA, the Telecommunications Bill of 1996, Welfare Reform (not), and overturning Glass-Steagall. She and Bill kept Alan Greenspan at the Fed, placed the then Mr. Goldman Sucks himself Robert Reuben as head of Treasury and hired as financial advisor that abominable Wall Streeter Larry Summers (who lost a $1.8 billion from Harvard's endowment!). This Clinton triumvirate wrecked the economy for main street, but saved Wall Street, especially Goldman-Sachs which has subsequently paid her handsomely. And as DUer tularetom once said: "They didn't pay her that kind of money because of her oratorical skills, her charismatic personality or her insight into current events. She has none of the first two and very little of the third."
We, the people, reaped the whirlwind of that 1999 Glass-Steagall reversal for which every repuke in the Senate voted AYE while every Dem -- save one -- voted NAY. Bill signed it into law anyway, paying no heed to the canary-in-the-mine Dems who said that this dastardly new law would lead to disaster 10 years hence. Sure enough it did, harming families throughout the land. And Wall Street, Hillary's BFF, continues to be such a benefactor for the people!
Then there's HRC's support for fracking, the TPP, the Keystone XL pipeline, etc. So how is any of this Bernie's fault? HRC is the root of her problem because she has DONE nothing that is positive or constructive. She's in it for herself, she plays sexist gender politics, she lies about her awful record, she changes her mind with the political winds, she panders, she project, she pads her pockets...
Very proud seeing Bernie's Bounce. He's nearly back to is 2015 high. That's just fantastic!
....
