Bloomberg Poll: Hillary Clinton more unpopular than Donald Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
D4Danger said:
clearly but when you turn politics into a team sport you're either with her or a misogynistic racist piece of human garbage though
Click to expand...

Yeah. There have certainly been examples of that thinking on GAF. The most notable, of course, being a convicted pedophile who spent years asserting his moral superiority over everyone else.

During the election any attempt to doubt Hillary's strategy, or even question whether she was the best nominee was met with so much hostility that it led to very poor discussions without any room for subtlety or nuance.
 
Not surprised sadly. Republicans spent 20 fucking years painting her as some kinda boogyman. And guess what, they succeeded.

Hell... Even I kinda dislike her a little, and I voted for her. (I still think she would have made a wonderful President). She came off so Smug during the campaign trail..

I wonder how things would have went if we had a different Democrat on the ticket (someone other then Berney Sanders too..)
 
kmfdmpig said:
Yeah. There have certainly been examples of that thinking on GAF. The most notable, of course, being a convicted pedophile who spent years asserting his moral superiority over everyone else.

During the election any attempt to doubt Hillary's strategy, or even question whether she was the best nominee was met with so much hostility that it led to very poor discussions without any room for subtlety or nuance.
Click to expand...

Yeah because invoking and associating Amirox with everyone else is certainly not disingenious or anything
 
I never "liked" Hilary, but I did vote for her as I supported many of the things she campaigned on. But I never liked her, ever. How would the poll reflect that? I imagine thats how a lot of people are represented. If given the option they'd easily vote for her 10 out of 10 times against Trump, but never actually liked her.
 
BrutishMrFish said:
She's literally telling you to read your own sources and post something that actually supports your argument because you clearly haven't, and you're asking her to be more mature? You have no self awareness.
Click to expand...

eBay Huckster said:
legacyzero is very concerned that she will run again, based on articles that do not say or imply that she wants to run again
Click to expand...
You're right, I agree my sources weren't the best. More of a who's who of DNC potentials.

But cmon- until Hillary confirms she isn't, I believe she's on track to. Hell, Elizabeth Warren hasn't said she's running. But she sure seems to be positioning herself for it. Bernie is as well. Dude has been running town halls where Red state incumbents won't even dare.

So to me, it's the positioning.

Apologies
Steve Youngblood said:
Huh? The linked article does not explicitly or implicitly suggest that she is considering a 2020 run.
Click to expand...
You're right, I goofed 👆
 
excelsiorlef said:
Yeah because invoking and associating Amirox with everyone else is certainly not disingenious or anything
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that he was representative of the majority of GAF posters, but there's no denying that he was quite active and outspoken in many of the political threads and shouted down anyone that was not 100% on board with every step Hillary took. Thread after thread that was the case, and it had an influence on the discussions, IMO.
 
legacyzero said:
You're right, I agree my sources weren't the best. More of a who's who of DNC potentials.

But cmon- until Hillary confirms she isn't, I believe she's on track to. Hell, Elizabeth Warren hasn't said she's running. But she sure seems to be positioning herself for it. Bernie is as well. Dude has been running town halls where Red state incumbents won't even dare.

So to me, it's the positioning.

Apologies
Click to expand...

So now you're just going sure I can't prove it but I'm going to claim it anyway based on less than zero.

Your sources weren't just not the best. They literally didn't support your claim at all.
 
kmfdmpig said:
I'm not saying that he was representative of the majority of GAF posters, but there's no denying that he was quite active and outspoken in many of the political threads and shouted down anyone that was not 100% on board with every step Hillary took. Thread after thread that was the case, and it had an influence on the discussions, IMO.
Click to expand...

wrt clinton-gaf last year, what amir0x did with political discussions has no bearing on anything except his own personal inability to not be a shithead

(there's literally more of a case that adam stifled discussion among this wing)
 
The Repub party went overdrive in making her enemy number one. She just ended up being the right candidate for character assassination in terms of her personality, which can come across as cold and calculating if advertised correctly (and boy did they nail that).
 
kmfdmpig said:
I'm not saying that he was representative of the majority of GAF posters, but there's no denying that he was quite active and outspoken in many of the political threads and shouted down anyone that was not 100% on board with every step Hillary took. Thread after thread that was the case, and it had an influence on the discussions, IMO.
Click to expand...

You're using him as a weapon come on.
 
I think a lot of the panic that Hillary is going to run again is based on an assumption that she's always "scheming" something.

"Oh my God Hillary Clinton is going to scheme to steal the Democratic nomination again in 2020 even though both her and the DNC knows that nomination would be certainly doomed to failure and would end in public ruination for everyone involved !! OH MY GOD"
 
legacyzero said:
You're right, I agree my sources weren't the best. More of a who's who of DNC potentials.

But cmon- until Hillary confirms she isn't, I believe she's on track to. Hell, Elizabeth Warren hasn't said she's running. But she sure seems to be positioning herself for it. Bernie is as well. Dude has been running town halls where Red state incumbents won't even dare.

So to me, it's the positioning.

Apologies

You're right, I goofed 👆
Click to expand...
So basically you're going to prove that she's running again because she likes hot sauce or something?
Heck for all we know Trump is going to get rid of term limit for president and Obama is going to win in 2020.
You can't prove I'm wrong.
 
excelsiorlef said:
You're using him as a weapon come on.
Click to expand...

He was, by far, the most outspoken person who shouted down anything that was not 100% in line with Hillary's campaign or strategies. The fact that he presented his arguments as morally superior seems ironic to me given what he was actually up to in real life.
I don't believe, nor did I try to imply, that other posters in those threads were like him in that regard.
 
minor effort said:
I think a lot of the panic that Hillary is going to run again is based on an assumption that she's always "scheming" something.

"Oh my God Hillary Clinton is going to scheme to steal the Democratic nomination again in 2020 even though both her and the DNC knows that nomination would be certainly doomed to failure and would end in public ruination for everyone involved !! OH MY GOD"
Click to expand...

It's just not really grounded in reality. Forget Clinton specifically. In the modern era, you can lose a primary and run again, but you don't lose in the general and run again.
 
jph139 said:
39% is higher than I thought. She's down to 50% or so from Republicans alone. So that means only 22% of Democrats/left-leaning moderates have turned on her.

I'd imagined her down to 25% or so at least. I feel like there's pretty sharp division over her legacy right now.
Click to expand...

No, I think Hillary's legacy is pretty clear- after four decades of political experience, and going into election day projected to win the presidency in a landslide, she managed to lose badly to a reality TV show star in his first political campaign. This is why she's more unpopular than Trump, she choked away the 2016 election worse than the Atlanta Falcons choked away the Super Bowl. I did my part and showed up to vote for her, but after hearing how she bungled up her campaigning plus her many self-inflicted wounds, a lot of us Dems are pretty furious still about Clinton's performance in 2016. She fucked up, badly, and the country (and the world) are now paying the price.

We have got to pick a stronger candidate in 2020. We fucked up in 2016 and we can't afford to give Trump a second term.
 
kmfdmpig said:
I'm not saying that he was representative of the majority of GAF posters, but there's no denying that he was quite active and outspoken in many of the political threads and shouted down anyone that was not 100% on board with every step Hillary took. Thread after thread that was the case, and it had an influence on the discussions, IMO.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't put that just on Ami, but there was quite a handful of participants in those threads that shouted down and snarked dissenting discourse. Wasn't exclusive to him
Mael said:
So basically you're going to prove that she's running again because she likes hot sauce or something?
Heck for all we know Trump is going to get rid of term limit for president and Obama is going to win in 2020.
You can't prove I'm wrong.
Click to expand...


Dude cmon....

Just read the wind. Her 2018 plans (to me) alone is enough to say she's considering a run.
 
It's not just misogyny or sexism motivating opinions here.

There's lots of people who voted for Clinton or who supported her over Donald Trump who flipped on her after the election, mostly through revisionism, e.g., "If she ran a better campaign!" or "If we elected Bernie!" Those people may have supported Clinton up to the election, and maybe a couple of weeks after, but as reality set in, they've become critical of her. I'm not one of them -- I voted for Clinton because I thought she'd be a good president, and I still have a favorable opinion of her, but saying that all of those people who voted for her (the difference between her 49% plurality and the 61% disapproval) are misogynists or sexists is revisionism.

Many of my very liberal friends, who have been with, say, Elizabeth Warren since the start, still had a negative opinion of Hillary Clinton, though virtually all still voted for her. I doubt that they're sexist, or at least, that sexism is what informs their distaste for Clinton.

I'd imagine that this is more normal after a failed election, where a percentage of the base turns on the candidate who lost. That was the case with Romney for sure, as the far-right or tea party right became harshly critical of him after he failed to defeat Obama in 2012, and they thought a more conservative or conservative-populist candidate could have won. Romney only regained some general popularity when Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea a year after Obama stood up for Putin and Russia during one of the most watched television segments in the world.
 
WorldofMiku said:
That's the thing. Trump voters/Republicans love Trump and stick by him. Can't be said for most Clinton supporters. Most Clinton supporters voted for her just to not get Trump as president. Not because they genuinely love her.
Click to expand...

Every time I visit my wife's parents, there is a house near the highway that has signs along the road that bash Hillary and Obama with the biggest sign at the end stating "We Love Trump".
 
benicillin said:
I mean Gore and Kerry were both pretty unpopular after losing, I'm pretty sure.

People don't like people who lose!



This is literally all it is.
Click to expand...

Not really.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/212705/hillary-clinton-unique-no-post-election-image-gain.aspx

I do think there's probably merit to the notion that Clinton has suffered more backlash from her own voters than past losing candidates because of how singularly awful Trump is, but I haven't seen polling granular enough to confirm that yet.
 
Steve Youngblood said:
It's just not really grounded in reality. Forget Clinton specifically. In the modern era, you can lose a primary and run again, but you don't lose in the general and run again.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Nixon managed it, but Nixon was from a pre-internet, pre-24-hour-news era. It's hard to run again as a nominee in the modern era after the deluge of information accrued from a failed candidacy.
 
Not terribly surprising.

Donald Trump's voter base hates her, and anyone who voted for her likely dislikes her as well considering how much she and her campaign dropped the ball last year.
 
Hollywood Duo said:
He's not totally wrong unfortunately, he was very aggressive towards people with differing opinions. At the very least it caused some people who disagreed to not join in on the discussion at all.
Click to expand...

And?

It's pretty clear invoking his horrific crimes was used to paint a broader picture. Hence a weapon
 
ApharmdX said:
No, I think Hillary's legacy is pretty clear- after four decades of political experience, and going into election day projected to win the presidency in a landslide, she managed to lose badly to a reality TV show star in his first political campaign. This is why she's more unpopular than Trump, she choked away the 2016 election worse than the Atlanta Falcons choked away the Super Bowl. I did my part and showed up to vote for her, but after hearing how she bungled up her campaigning plus her many self-inflicted wounds, a lot of us Dems are pretty furious still about Clinton's performance in 2016. She fucked up, badly, and the country (and the world) are now paying the price.

We have got to pick a stronger candidate in 2020. We fucked up in 2016 and we can't afford to give Trump a second term.
Click to expand...

Revisionist bullshit only 8 months after the elction? Unless you don’t know what « winning by a landslide » means.

Everyone thought that was going to happen after the primaries, but the polls were clear that it was going to be a tight race right until the end.
 
Hollywood Duo said:
He's not totally wrong unfortunately, he was very aggressive towards people with differing opinions. At the very least it caused some people who disagreed to not join in on the discussion at all.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the point of contention is with the relevancy, not whether a terrible person acted aggressively.
 
Steve Youngblood said:
It's just not really grounded in reality. Forget Clinton specifically. In the modern era, you can lose a primary and run again, but you don't lose in the general and run again.
Click to expand...
I mean, that's as anecdotal as my view on it. That's what I'm trying to say. It's all conjecture at this point. If she didn't want this kind of rumors floating, she would squash them. Or not be planning a political campaign for 2018, (and probably also for incumbent corporate Dems like Pelosi and Manchin getting primaried).
xxracerxx said:
Well that sure is a link to an article. Not sure how that says anything about Clinton being rumored to run again.
Click to expand...
We already talked about this and I apologized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

More hype than you expected.
34
1K
MaestroMike replied
  • Poll
Dark meat is always better than white meat..
Opinion Poll  2
96
4K
8bitpill replied
  • Poll
Favorite cryptid?
Poll 
35
1K
Liljagare replied
Foldable iPhone to Cost ~$1,000 More Than Today's Pro Max - (Probably one gazillion with tariffs)
37
1K
Great Auk replied
Lilly Allen makes more on OF than Spotify
2
70
4K
Soltype replied
Top Bottom