• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT5| Archdemon Hillary Clinton vs. Lice Traffic Jam

Status
Not open for further replies.
Man, Hillary's favorables are rough. Thank god she's running against Trump, but jeez...
Am I too cynical in thinking that any woman who gets to the position she's in is going to get similar (if not necessarily the same level of) hate. (And no, Warren isn't in the same position).

Harris or Gillibrand 2024 for instance.
Although 8 years is a while and maybe one or two cycles of a female commander-in-chief could help.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Am I too cynical in thinking that any woman who gets to the position she's in is going to get similar (if not necessarily the same level of) hate. (And no, Warren isn't in the same position).

Harris or Gillibrand 2024 for instance.
Although 8 years is a while and maybe one or two cycles of a female commander-in-chief could help.

Nah, Hillary is pretty unlikable. You wouldn't see the same problem with Warren if she was in her place.
 
Am I too cynical in thinking that any woman who gets to the position she's in is going to get similar (if not necessarily the same level of) hate. (And no, Warren isn't in the same position).

Harris or Gillibrand 2024 for instance.
Although 8 years is a while and maybe one or two cycles of a female commander-in-chief could help.

Hillary has the bonus of having not only been the Head Feminzai to the Right since 1992 or so (with a brief break where Michelle was when she dared think it might be a good idea for kids school lunches not to be complete crap) and as a bonus, she's also a Neoliberal Corporate Whore to about 1/3 of white liberals under 30 who only know she voted for the Iraq War.

Any female is going to get a whole bucketload of misogyny, but of course, it's going to be a bonus heaping if you're a Democrat.

Nah, Hillary is pretty unlikable. You wouldn't see the same problem with Warren if she was in her place.

Hey, look somebody forgets the Warren/Brown Senate race where Fauxhocantas was a thing and Warren did run several points behind Obama.
 
lol what? The Fauxhocantas thing backfired immensely.

It backfired because Massachusetts is a liberal state. If you want some fun, go to the comments of any article about Warren on a conservative site. Believe me, it worked pretty well for them.

But still, even putting that aside Obama got 60% and Warren got 53%. In a state that's even a notch more conservative, Scott Brown wins reelection.

I don't get this myth of Liz Warren, Liberal Superhero who would easily roll to the Presidency if she wanted this cycle. In a lot of ways, she's like Hillary in that she's policy wonk that's not that good an actual politician.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
It backfired because Massachusetts is a liberal state. If you want some fun, go to the comments of any article about Warren on a conservative site. Believe me, it worked pretty well for them.

But still, even putting that aside Obama got 60% and Warren got 53%. In a state that's even a notch more conservative, Scott Brown wins reelection.

I don't get this myth of Liz Warren, Liberal Superhero who would easily roll to the Presidency if she wanted this cycle. In a lot of ways, she's like Hillary in that she's policy wonk that's not that good an actual politician.

I didn't mean to imply that she's invincible, or even as popular as Obama. I was mainly referring to her favorables/likabliity. Unless you're an avid Fox News viewer, people in general trust Obama and Warren, even if they may not agree with their positions. The same can't be said about Hillary, as she comes off way more as a typical politician than either of those two. I'm not necessarily saying I agree with that point of view, but I understand where it comes from.
 
Nah, Hillary is pretty unlikable. You wouldn't see the same problem with Warren if she was in her place.
She isn't in the same position though. And she still manages to get hate. So were she ever to get to such a position, I'm not convinced that she wouldn't see the same vitriol.

You note that Clinton is "pretty unlikable" without a particular rationale. She's just plain unlikable as a human being? Even Chelsea hates her?

What I'm positing is that the position of authority she's in and the behaviour and activities undertaken to get there, while overlooked or considered positive for a male politician - such as assertiveness or "ambition" - are negatives or particularly reviled as a women in politics.
 

besada

Banned
Am I too cynical in thinking that any woman who gets to the position she's in is going to get similar (if not necessarily the same level of) hate. (And no, Warren isn't in the same position).

I think you are. I think a lot of Hillary fans are incapable of seeing how disliked Hillary is for being Hillary, rather than being a woman. There's no question a good portion of the dislike stems from sexism, but she's given people -- in and out of the party -- plenty of reasons to dislike her over the years.

Frankly, we're lucky Trump is her opponent. She's one of the most disliked Democrats, and against a reasonable candidate (and let's be happy the Republicans are short on those) she'd likely have a much harder time.
 
I think you are. I think a lot of Hillary fans are incapable of seeing how disliked Hillary is for being Hillary, rather than being a woman. There's no question a good portion of the dislike stems from sexism, but she's given people -- in and out of the party -- plenty of reasons to dislike her over the years.

Frankly, we're lucky Trump is her opponent. She's one of the most disliked Democrats, and against a reasonable candidate (and let's be happy the Republicans are short on those) she'd likely have a much harder time.
I think there are valid reasons to dislike her. She flip flops. And panders. She occasionally lies. She's incredibly guarded or aloof. She can be aggressive. And she's "ambitious." But these aren't things that lead to men in her position being reviled to remotely similar degree. These aren't things that are held against a John Kerry or Al Gore. A Joe Biden or a Bill Clinton. To the same extent.

But somewhat reiterating, I think that setting aside a lot of overtly sexist reasons, these typically rationale are exacerbated as a women in politics. It's a hard and untestable notion, given how there are very few people in quite the same position.

This isn't necessarily conscious bias either. There are bodies of research on the negative correlation between leadership positions and likability for women, while there's a positive correlation with men.
 

CCS

Banned
I think you are. I think a lot of Hillary fans are incapable of seeing how disliked Hillary is for being Hillary, rather than being a woman. There's no question a good portion of the dislike stems from sexism, but she's given people -- in and out of the party -- plenty of reasons to dislike her over the years.

Frankly, we're lucky Trump is her opponent. She's one of the most disliked Democrats, and against a reasonable candidate (and let's be happy the Republicans are short on those) she'd likely have a much harder time.

The thing is though, any politician who is senior enough to run for president is going to have done things that will cause people to dislike them. I suspect if you flip Hillary to being a man, her unfavourable ratings are at or only slightly below the average favourables for a senior Democrat. Everything on top of that comes from sexism.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I think you are. I think a lot of Hillary fans are incapable of seeing how disliked Hillary is for being Hillary, rather than being a woman. There's no question a good portion of the dislike stems from sexism, but she's given people -- in and out of the party -- plenty of reasons to dislike her over the years.
This Atlantic article has a chart of her approval rating dating back to 1992:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/among-the-hillary-haters/384976/

She was at 40% before becoming First Lady, she spent half her time as First Lady under 50%, she never cracked 60% as a Senator/Presidential candidate.

Her peak was when Bill got impeached.

Also, decent read:
I don’t hate the clintons,” says R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr., the founder and longtime editor of The American Spectator and the father of … let’s call it “Clinton disdain.” “I have always seen them as comic figures.” Tyrrell’s particular brand of fun began when, in 1993, he sent a reporter to dig through the Clintons’ tax returns and discovered that they had listed donations of Bill’s old underwear as a tax write-off, valued at $1 each. But as the couple settled into the White House, the allegations grew darker. Later that year, Tyrrell and some cronies hatched the “Arkansas Project,” a $2.4 million effort, financed by the right-wing philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaife, to delve deeper into the Clintons’ past. Whitewater, Troopergate, and the death of Vince Foster were merely the highlights. Over the years, Tyrrell wrote dozens of columns and four books filled with murky Clintoniana. He accused the couple of abusing staff and benefiting from a cocaine-smuggling operation run out of an Arkansas airport. He claimed that Bill had bought women string bikinis in Rio and perfume in Sydney. Tyrrell’s sources were often described merely as “sources” or “sources familiar with the questioning.” But even Tyrrell had his limits. He grew indignant when he thought that Terry McAuliffe, a close friend of the Clintons and now the governor of Virginia, had accused him of calling the president a murderer. A complete falsehood! In fact, Tyrrell had merely quoted The Economist, which had noted a “peculiar pattern of suicides and violence” surrounding “people connected to the Clintons.”
Up to this point in our conversation, Tyrrell had been polite and jovial, but now he moved out of lazy-Sunday-morning mode and to the edge of his chair.

“They wouldn’t understand that the Clintons used Arkansas state troopers as pimps.”

It was as if someone had propped him up before an audience, pushed a button, and turned him on. More pronouncements poured forth, at least half a dozen, a heated “lest we forget” filtered through the National Enquirer.

“They wouldn’t understand that Clinton and Mrs. Clinton privately hired PIs to harass the women who were sleeping with him.”

“They wouldn’t understand the repeated thwarting of election laws and financial caps on fund-raising.”

“They wouldn’t understand the funny money coming out of China and other parts of Asia.”

“They wouldn’t understand that she stole White House furniture.”

And so on.
When Clinton went on tour to promote her new book, Hard Choices, for instance, America Rising was determined to counter all the free positive press. It sent trackers to record her every move and updated its site constantly. It aggregated unflattering news coverage, but almost always from reputable origins—a Politico summary of negative reviews of her book; or a Wall Street Journal poll showing that only 38 percent of voters thought she was “honest and straightforward”; or a Daily Mail article reporting that “U.S. taxpayers spent $55,000 on travel expenses for Hillary Clinton’s book tour,” including “a $3,668-a-night hotel suite.” The trick for America Rising is to find material that is damaging but still credible and mainstream. “If we were caught peddling really terrible stuff, wild conspiracy theories, it would have a terrible impact on our brand,” Miller told me.
If republicans are lucky, Comstock’s story will serve as proof that the early, paranoid years of Clinton disdain drew upon a very particular generational context, a civil war between the Boomers. The straightlaced types looked at the Clintons and saw everything they hated about the hippie 1960s and early 1970s: draft dodging, feminist excess (Hillary Rodham wasn’t “baking cookies”), Saul Alinsky–style radicalism, casual drug use, and sexual promiscuity. Every time something came up that conservatives thought should be disqualifying—past pot use and the ridiculous “I didn’t inhale” defense; Bill’s infidelities with Gennifer Flowers, then Paula Jones, then Monica Lewinsky—somehow the Clintons got away with it (which is just a less flattering way of calling someone a “comeback kid,” the label that was attached to Bill for rebounding from exactly these episodes).

One of the more interesting elements of the cultural response to the 1990s Clintons was the feeling Hillary evoked in conservative women. In his book, Brock writes that Comstock told him she couldn’t get Hillary’s “sins off her brain ‘because Hillary reminds me of me. I am Hillary.’ ” Comstock has never confirmed anything in Brock’s book, and she declined to be interviewed for this article. But her comment lines up with what other women of that era have expressed. In her 2000 polemic, The Case Against Hillary Clinton, the former Republican speechwriter Peggy Noonan wrote of herself:

I look at Mrs. Clinton and see the kneesocked girl in the madras headband [meaning Noonan herself], the Key Club president who used to walk into the bathroom in Rutherford High School, wrinkle her nose at the tenth-grade losers leaning against the gray tile walls, leave, go down the hall, and mention to a teacher that they’re smoking in the girls’ room again. That’s my own private Hillary, or at least one aspect of her.
And then, of course, there’s R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. In his foyer, Tyrrell keeps all the personal presidential mementos he’s been given over the years. There’s a picture of him meeting with Ronald Reagan. Then one of Richard Nixon jumping on a trampoline. And then, more oddly, a photo of Bill Clinton with his arm around Tyrrell. There’s nothing to indicate that it is different from the other photos, that those are admiring and this one mocking. Tyrrell says the picture was taken when he got a friend to invite him as her date to Bill Clinton’s 60th birthday party. And while he presents it as a prank, it’s clear that he genuinely wanted to attend. Indeed, he seemed the tiniest bit annoyed while recounting that when he got to the front of the photo line, Clinton gave no sign of recognizing him.

Tyrrell said he saw Clinton once more at the end of the party, when both of them walked into the bathroom at the same moment. Two old guys, facing off once again in the realm of underwear. By now, it’s clear which man won. Tyrrell’s magazine is a footnote, in danger of going under once and for all. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, may be on the verge of returning to the White House with his wife. But that doesn’t mean Tyrrell is giving up. Before our interview was over, he offered me one final scoop. “Bill,” he reported, “didn’t wash his hands.”
rofl at bill's underwear write-offs

As I mentioned once, R. Emmett Tyrrell is amazing in his Firing Line episode with Christopher Hitchens btw.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
She isn't in the same position though. And she still manages to get hate. So were she ever to get to such a position, I'm not convinced that she wouldn't see the same vitriol.

You note that Clinton is "pretty unlikable" without a particular rationale. She's just plain unlikable as a human being? Even Chelsea hates her?

What I'm positing is that the position of authority she's in and the behaviour and activities undertaken to get there, while overlooked or considered positive for a male politician - such as assertiveness or "ambition" - are negatives or particularly reviled as a women in politics.

As I said responding to Jesse, I meant that she's unlikable in the sense that most people don't trust her. If Warren were in her position, would the attacks increase and her numbers would go down? Almost definitely. But again, the difference between her and Hillary is that Warren could still have positive/high trustworthy numbers even if her overall approval rating goes down. It's the same thing that happened with Obama. Even at his worst approval ratings, which were in the low 40s, he still commanded a solid majority of people who viewed him as trustworthy.
 

besada

Banned
The thing is though, any politician who is senior enough to run for president is going to have done things that will cause people to dislike them. I suspect if you flip Hillary to being a man, her unfavourable ratings are at or only slightly below the average favourables for a senior Democrat. Everything on top of that comes from sexism.

The problem with arguing counterfactuals is we're essentially just asserting our opinions over and over. Clinton's got a history of dishonesty, on a scale that has done significant damage to people in other professions, but which she's managed to get past. One example is the "sniper fire" lie. If you look at the difference in outcome between what happened to her and Brian Williams, who told a very similar lie, for likely very similar reasons, it isn't clear to me that she got treated especially poorly there.

I can't think of many politicians, other than her husband, who got away with such a clear, unambiguous lie, with such minor damage.

That's a single example of dishonesty that spreads back multiple decades now. A lot of people like to ignore this facet of Clinton, just like they like to ignore that she and Bill spent years hanging out with Trump as friends, a guy each and every one of you finds odious. She spent years hanging out with Kissinger as a personal friend.

While most of the country is quick to condemn her on frivolous bullshit, there's also a segment that's unwilling to acknowledge any wrong doing, moral or legal, regardless of what she does.

I'm not asking anyone to feel about her the way I do. But I do ask people to consider that her unfavorability numbers did not just magically appear, and they are not entirely based on the fact that she's a woman. Many of them are based on the fact that she has a long history, and so much of it is questionable.
 

CCS

Banned
The problem with arguing counterfactuals is we're essentially just asserting our opinions over and over. Clinton's got a history of dishonesty, on a scale that has done significant damage to people in other professions, but which she's managed to get past. One example is the "sniper fire" lie. If you look at the difference in outcome between what happened to her and Brian Williams, who told a very similar lie, for likely very similar reasons, it isn't clear to me that she got treated especially poorly there.

I can't think of many politicians, other than her husband, who got away with such a clear, unambiguous lie, with such minor damage.

That's a single example of dishonesty that spreads back multiple decades now. A lot of people like to ignore this facet of Clinton, just like they like to ignore that she and Bill spent years hanging out with Trump as friends, a guy each and every one of you finds odious. She spent years hanging out with Kissinger as a personal friend.

While most of the country is quick to condemn her on frivolous bullshit, there's also a segment that's unwilling to acknowledge any wrong doing, moral or legal, regardless of what she does.

I'm not asking anyone to feel about her the way I do. But I do ask people to consider that her unfavorability numbers did not just magically appear, and they are not entirely based on the fact that she's a woman. Many of them are based on the fact that she has a long history, and so much of it is questionable.

As Benjipwns points out though, she had horrible favourables even before she developed that history, and in the long run her favourables have remained relatively stationary despite her dishonesty etc. Don't really know what else you can blame it on.
 

benjipwns

Banned
As Benjipwns points out though, she had horrible favourables even before she developed that history.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/1992/05/hillary-clinton-first-lady-presidency
The most controversial figure of the election year so far has been a woman, Hillary Clinton, and she isn’t even running for office. Or is she? Whether she loves the boy in Bill Clinton as much as the man or whether she is simply unwilling to forfeit her sixteen years’ investment in their political partnership, Hillary is determined to seize the national stage.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/18/u...ing-first-lady-role-model.html?pagewanted=all
"Hillary Clinton is exceedingly polarizing," said Roger Stone, a Republican consultant. "It's not that she's an accomplished modern woman. It's just that she's grating, abrasive and boastful. There's a certain familiar order of things, and the notion of a coequal couple in the White House is a little offensive to men and women."

She has become a paradigm of the over-structured super-mom. A recent New Yorker cartoon showed a woman asking a salesclerk for a jacket and saying, "Nothing too Hillary."
Even among women who are Mrs. Clinton's natural constituents, there is criticism about what they call "the Hillary situation." Some leading Democratic women privately worry that, while Mrs. Bush may be the last of the First Ladies who have never worked outside the home, the public is still skittish about the idea of a First Lady who is more involved in substance than ceremony.

These critics say that the Clintons may have pushed too hard on the concept of an unprecedented partnership in the White House, and suggest that they should wait until after the election to break precedents.

There was Mr. Clinton's suggestion, since revoked, that he might give his wife a Cabinet job. And there was Mrs. Clinton's petulant defense on conflict-of-interest questions about her legal career in Arkansas, when she said she could have "stayed home, baked cookies and had teas."
Vince_Foster.jpg


Pat warned us:
Elect me, and you get two for the price of one, Mr. Clinton says of his lawyer-spouse. And what does Hillary believe? Well, Hillary believes that 12-year-olds should have the right to sue their parents, and Hillary has compared marriage and the family as institutions to slavery and life on an Indian reservation.

Well, speak for yourself, Hillary.

This, my friends, is radical feminism. The agenda that Clinton & Clinton would impose on America – abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat units – that’s change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America needs. It is not the kind of change America wants. And it is not the kind of change we can abide in a nation that we still call God’s country.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Hillary's favorables were surprisingly in the high 70s/low 80s when she was Sec. of State.
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/18/u...ing-first-lady-role-model.html?pagewanted=all
"Hillary Clinton is exceedingly polarizing," said Roger Stone, a Republican consultant. "It's not that she's an accomplished modern woman. It's just that she's grating, abrasive and boastful. There's a certain familiar order of things, and the notion of a coequal couple in the White House is a little offensive to men and women."
Even among women who are Mrs. Clinton's natural constituents, there is criticism about what they call "the Hillary situation." Some leading Democratic women privately worry that, while Mrs. Bush may be the last of the First Ladies who have never worked outside the home, the public is still skittish about the idea of a First Lady who is more involved in substance than ceremony.

These critics say that the Clintons may have pushed too hard on the concept of an unprecedented partnership in the White House, and suggest that they should wait until after the election to break precedents.

This is the root of it all. She didn't know her place. I think we've done enough revisiting of the early-to-mid 90s this year to remember how dreadful the country still was for women. But there have also been enough missteps, sketchy dealings, etc., to keep those first impressions in place, or within reach, for many people.
 
The more interesting thing is that Trumps unvfavorables are lower among liberals than Hilary's are with conservatives. I don't see her favorability numbers getting much better during her term
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Also, does it really make sense Sanders is MORE favorable to the "very conservative" than Hillary? That part seems pure animus and not policy driven. Which is fine. Sanders' favorability has really come down over the course of the primary.

And holy shit, did Ted Cruz sink himself or what
 

CCS

Banned
Also, does it really make sense Sanders is MORE favorable to the "very conservative" than Hillary? That part seems pure animus and not policy driven. Which is fine.

If you're very conservative then the chances of you voting for Hillary are lower than the chances of HA Goodman displaying self-awareness, so I guess it does make sense.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I think that's the second or third bit of polling showing things being far closer than they were a week ago.

I wonder how much of that is Sanders still being in the race and the dem primary still not over?
Meanwhile the Republican side is over...
 
So Maddow had an interesting segment today where she showed (by using polling from PPP) that despite Trump's record breaking unfavorables, and all the talk about the Republican "civil war" threatening to destroy the party, it turns out that 79% of Republican voters don't give a shit and are just fine with voting for him in November.

Thoughts?

I would think 79% is disastrously low for members of your own party. And I imagine it's worse around independents who normally vote GOP.
 
More data from PPP. They had Clinton up 42-38 on Trump in the polling previewed on Maddow's show last night, but that was in an open field with Johnson and Stein. In a head to head she's up 47-41 nationally.

Bernie Sanders continues to do the best in general election match ups, leading Trump 47-37 with Johnson at 3% and Stein at 1% in the full field, and leading Trump 50-39 head to head. The difference between how Clinton and Sanders fare against Trump comes almost completely among young people. In the full field Clinton leads 46-24, but Sanders leads 64-18 with voters between 18 and 29. In one on ones with Trump, Clinton leads 49-27, but Sanders leads 70-14.

The undecideds in a Clinton-Trump match up right now support Sanders 41-8 in a match up with Trump, so the bad news for Clinton is that she has work to do to win over a certain segment of Sanders supporters in the general, but the good news is that they are at least somewhat Democratic leaning and she has the potential to increase her advantage over Trump by a couple points if she is eventually able to get them in her corner. Democrats lead a generic question about which party people would vote for President 49-41, so that may be somewhat of a forecast for where the race could be headed if/when Sanders supporters unify around Clinton for the general.
Her margins over Trump at least in the short term are going to depend on how Sanders decides to exit the stage.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Qpiac continues its habit of assuming that the 2016 electorate will be a few percentage points whiter than 2012's. Riiiiight.

There's "tied" and then there's "Quinnipiac tied." If she's Quinnipiac tied, she's winning. But we knew the hand-wringing would be coming.. :)
 

benjipwns

Banned
From that PPP poll: 43% of Democrats would consider moving to another country if Trump wins the Presidency. Only 49% would not.
 
Looks like Hillary is just struggling with Bernie Stans right now in some of these polls.

Are black people not going to turn out against the most racist general election candidate since at least Goldwater, QPac?
 
There's been a lot of recent coverage of Donald Trump's embrace of various conspiracy theories, so we asked about a bunch of them on this poll to see which ones his supporters believe and which ones even they say are a bridge too far. Among voters with a favorable opinion of Trump:

-65% think President Obama is a Muslim, only 13% think he's a Christian.
-59% think President Obama was not born in the United States, only 23% think that he was.

-27% think vaccines cause autism, 45% don't think they do, another 29% are not sure.

-24% think Antonin Scalia was murdered, just 42% think he died naturally, another 34% are unsure.

-7% think Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK, 55% think he was not involved, another 38% are unsure.

And closing the loop on the greatest conspiracy theory of this election- a rare one that Trump didn't embrace- 5% of voters nationally think Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer, 18% are unsure, and 77% find Cruz not guilty of the charge of being a serial killer in diapers. So at least he has that going for him.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...ound-trump-clinton-still-has-modest-lead.html

1/4 of Trump voters think vaccines cause autism, dear god.
 

Kusagari

Member
Exit Polls had Obama with 33% of white men in Florida in 2012. Hillary is apparently going to do 8% worse against Trump.

Yeah, I don't buy it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom