True. I’m not saying all independents are moderates, just that due to their lack of party affiliation I believe they are somewhere in the middle. Independents have been won over in past elections by moving toward the center, not the fringe.
If Trump wins the best thing she’ll have going for her is that her name isn’t Trump. That will be all she needs.
This is simply a ridiculous statement, and shows your blind spot due to Hillary hatred. Hillary didn’t set any new records as Senator or Secretary of State, but service in those roles isn’t “literally” nothing.
Absurd. And you complain that others are driven by emotion?
Brainless cheerleading aside, Hillary can be beaten, but not if she is underestimated.
Yes…that is how it appears today. Did you see my post regarding who was ahead in the polls in 6-8 months out in previous Presidential elections? Please take the time and give a glance it’s interesting how many were behind and then magically won the Presidency. Funny how that happens. And it happens because people are emotional beings. And that makes them unpredictable and very fickle.
All you know is what is happening TODAY. But, history demonstrates that the person who is behind in the polling, or has high negatives does not necessarily lose when November rolls around. That’s why we have elections. Otherwise all we would need is a poll 6-8 months from the election and decide the winner from that poll. How silly right? People change their minds. One (there are many) example of this is George HW Bush’s poll ratings after he drove saddam back into Iraq as he tried to move into Saudi Arabia. his poll numbers were something like 85%. Everyone was saying "oh my that no name Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton doesn’t have a chance…of course you know how that ended up.
Yes, yes, I know this is a unique year with Trump in the race. But what is not unique is that people are still emotional beings which makes them very susceptible to changing their minds over and over again.
Just think about it a while.
Thank you,
ZEB
You demonstrate not only a lack of knowledge regarding Presidential politics but also a lack of understanding of how people think and consequently vote. Do you honestly think that the typical voter in 2016 cares that Hillary Clinton was a Senator from New York, or even Secretary of State? Especially in a time when there is great distrust of the status quo. Those things may actually hurt her chances, especially her Secretary of State gig. That’s one reason that Bernie the old bald hunched over Socialist is giving her a run. Hei is viewed as an outsider, among many other things.That is why Donald Trump, arrogant, profane and lots of other unattractive qualities is in the lead.
Now if Trump the consummate outsider faces off against Hillary the consummate insider who do you think will win? Keeping in mind that we are in a place in this country where neither party wants an insider.
You may not see it right now…But you will…you will.
Zeb, I didn’t site polling. I know they can change, and they usually change as people get to know the candidates.
People have gotten bombarded by the media with Trump. They know who he is and his negatives are higher than Hillary’s. I don’t see him overcoming that, even with Hillary’s baggage.
I’ve thought about it, and I know where you stand on the issue. Hopefully we don’t have to find out who’s right because the GOP nominates a candidate who can win, but maybe we will.
Yes, of course the average voter cares if someone was a Senator or SOS. You have it exactly backwards - low-information/low-engagement voters generally stick to high level resume marks when evaluating candidates. They don’t necessarily drill down to specific policy accomplishments, but they pay attention to what people did before running, especially if it involves work at the national level.
Part of voter heuristics involve evaluating experience at topline levels (“he was the governor of California, and California is a big state”), and yes, serving as SOS does matter, even if you don’t want it to.
I’m not siding with either of you but I have to tell you being a NYer, there are a hell of a lot of people, especially college kids (for obvious reasons), that didn’t even know she was a Senator. It’s scary.
Evaluating her experience shows 3 bills naming something and 74 bills ( and a couple of amendments) that she co-sponsored in 8 years. Who knows her role in those, but where is the leadership of creating legislation that cures some of the ills she talked about since the the 80’s?
Her SOS tenure is considered without any signature action. Liberals say Obama wouldn’t give her free rein.
So should we consider her record of the Mid East, Africa, Honduras as her failures, or should we think she just was just a figurehead empty (pant)suit?
I see her as occupying several positions without accomplishment, yet unlimited amount of entitlement.
All that is fine and fair criticism of her record in those jobs, if voters want to get into that kind of detail. My point is that being in those jobs in and of itself matters to the average voter as an assessment of her qualifications.
Zeb’s point that was she had nothing except her gender to make her case for the presidency to voters, in particular the “average” voter. That’s flatly wrong - serving as SOS is impressive.
Everyone knew who Ronald Reagan was before he got his party’s nomination. He was a movie star and then Governor of California. His negatives were so high that not many thought that he could unseat a sitting President (Jimmy Carter) and as my historical poll above shows he was far behind Carter 6-8 months out.
But, as the general election process got underway his negatives came down. Odd, everyone knew who Ronald Reagan was but somehow his negatives came down. And that is sometimes what happens in a general election when it is just one on one.
I agree, I hope Cruz is the nominee is far and away more qualified for the job. But, neither you or anyone else can predict who will have the higher negatives after a one on one general election…especially against Hillary Clinton.
Trump is in no way a Reagan. There is no charm to him He’s an immature bullying buffoon who turns into a crybaby when he someone gets one over him. His negatives will barely move.
If I was part of some secret anti-GoP organization who wanted to bring down the party from the inside, Trump would be candidate.
[quote=“thunderbolt23, post:268, topic:215570, full:true”]
Yes, of course the average voter cares if someone was a Senator or SOS. You have it exactly backwards - low-information/low-engagement voters generally stick to high level resume marks when evaluating candidates. They don’t necessarily drill down to specific policy accomplishments, but they pay attention to what people did before running, especially if it involves work at the national level.[/quote]
I think the positions that she held harms her as I explained in a previous post. Those (not all ready in the Clinton camp) who know she held those positions are against her because she is an “insider”. Also, she was not exactly a stand-out in either position which further damages her credibility with those who are aware. As I clearly explained in a previous post Clinton is fighting many problems and one of them is actually having held elected and appointed offices. If you add up the other problems that she has, one major one being that most people just don’t like her and view her as a hold-over from the 90’s, yesterday’s bad news and she has an insurmountable problem on her hands.
This is the year of the outsider more so than any other year in modern politics.
It seems to me, and you may disagree, that the low information voter who is interested in the Presidential race currently has already selected their candidates. Trump and Sanders seem to be pulling that crowd to their cause. No?
I’ve been to three campaign rally’s just to get a non-scientific personal read: Trump, Sanders and Cruz. I have looked in the eye’s of the Trump and Sander’s supporters and trust me…I could practically see the backs of their heads. I’ve spoken with the supporters and was literally shocked at how little they knew about their own candidate and even much less about the Presidency and the US government. If that’s true when Sanders goes away there will be many democrat voters who go away with him. Should Trump get the nomination he have his share of LIV and also the people who do not want to see a third Obama term brought to us by Hillary Clinton.
Anyway, we will both see in the end. I will stick to my prediction that Hillary will not be elected to the Presidency.
I could not agree with you more Trump is certainly not a Reagan. But I never said he was. If you followed my previous email you will see that the only comparison I made was that they were both very well known prior to running for the Presidency.
In fact, I agree with every word you said up to the final point. Negatives can move almost daily and you and I cannot predict that his will not move based on a very active and vital campaign. His core supporters will not desert him if he suddenly behaves, acts Presidential and vastly increases his knowledge on the issues. Will any of that happen? Does any of that need to happen?
One more point, the voters of 1980 were more intelligent regarding the issues. They were more polite and had a higher moral standard. It seems that while you and I both detest Trump for various reasons you might be forgetting about what sort of people that walk the street in 2016 vs 1980. I’ve walked both streets and I can tell you that Trump is appealing to many BECAUSE he is a loud mouth buffoon. The people who go to the market in their pajama bottoms, the tattooed earing clad freaks (sorry if I offended anyone-certainly not everyone who looks strange is an illiterate voter) who drop the F bomb on a regular basis in front of women (you didn’t do that in the 80’s) and children alike are more attracted to Trump BECAUSE he seems more like them.
And…that’s also why his negatives are so high. There are still decent, thoughtful normal people in the electorate who really can’t stand Trump. But how many of them are attracted to Hillary?
Let’s both pray that Cruz gets the nomination and Kasich is his VP. Trump is more of a gamble but I am of the mind that anyone can beat Hillary and the only way I will change my mind is if I watch with my own eyes Hillary win the election in November. At which time I will keep my promise and drop from T Nation for one year.
But, I just don’t see her winning.
“I’ve spent over 22 years in the Navy serving this country and its security, and as a patriot, Trump’s candidacy has me deeply concerned. Trump is not just an embarrassment to the Republican Party. He is a danger and a disgrace to the United States of America . . . Any endorsement of Trump lends legitimacy to his dangerous vision for America, further placing our military service members in danger and further weakening our national security.”
Anyone around who supports Trump or fails to vigorously condemn him is a fool, plain and simple.
I’m a Truman Democrat. I wouldn’t associate myself with Cruz’s odious and ill informed world view for any amount of money. Don’t take my word for it. (Though you don’t possess anything vaguely resembling a 101 understanding of American foreign policy and national security.)
In a snap poll conducted by TRIP, IR scholars were asked which Republican candidate would most effectively manage the foreign policy issues confronting the United States today. Back in February, 1.7 percent of IR scholars selected real estate mogul Donald Trump, while 1.5 percent selected Sen. Ted Cruz. There is no doubt that both would be terrible foreign policy presidents. Both are a disgrace to a party that has had a decisive advantage when it came to confidence in its foreign and national security policy since the time of LBJ.
The worst foreign policy President in decades is Barack Obama. No other President comes close to his incompetency in this area.
You’re utterly predicable. Respond to the post in full.
P.S., your elavalulation is meaningless because you aren’t so much as a dilettante. Bush and company, who had significant accomplishments in the foreign policy realm, nevertheless monumentally screwed the pooch in both the decision to invade Iraq and the conduct of the war. It was the single largest foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam War.
That has precisely nothing to do with whether Trump or Cruz would be terrible foreign policy presidents.
It should be noted that 58% of Senate Dems and 39% of House Dems voted for the Iraq Resolution, not exactly a sign of stellar opposition.
People keep talking about hyper partisanship, I would say it’s the opposite. Both parties voted to deregulate banks, both voted in favor of the war, and both are responsible for reckless immigration policies that have destroyed the middle class.
People talk about how we need government to act, look at the messes created when they do act.
2 Likes