Will they come around ASSUMING SHE GETS THE NOMINATION and where will they come around?

Will general voter apathy be so great as to actually give the Republican product (regardless of who it is, from the beginning)?

Those have been the two most important questions of this whole race, from the beginning.

To hide an attack on public services via a free trade agreement that attacks public healthcare and education

You can read more about that in the gray text below this post. And no, she is not going to get my vote.

She is very very very very very dishonest.

BTW my answer about our side coming around isn't specific to her. I've been saying that for almost 2 years. Everyone should have seen Bernie rising.

she's profoundly misleading the American public.

Her "plan" for everything is globalization which will kill Americans jobs. Jobs may exist in the US building infrastructure, etc, but they wont be done by Americans they will be done by whatever firms from dozens of countries puts in the winning lowest bids.

Ive spent a lot of time today explaining these things, and I have other things to do but if you read the links in the gray text below you will have an idea of some of the problems. She is part of a global scheme to hijack the entire future world making it impossible for normal people to live as automation replaces jobs, something that is happening far faster than politicians admit to.

This long existing FTA means that all of the so called "health care debates "we have had since 1994 have been faked. Including the current one.

My point was that it does matter where you live if you aren't going to vote for her.

Now watch the misogyny deniers show up.

I've heard about Monica, Vince Foster, Whitewater, Travelgate, her Rose Law Firm days and more right here on DU. I've even read in other places that Webb Hubbell is Chelsea's dad, with pictures that supposedly prove a physical resemblance.

showing up. Make this 25-30 years if smears, lies, and innuendos by the right - anything is possible.

This is one of those times. The workaholic angle is a good one. I don't think she's soulless at all, but the trustworthiness numbers come from somewhere, and I think he gets to heart of the matter there, or at least circles the target.

Why can't the little people see that?

There is a lot of "well, let them eat cake then" from inside the bubble right now.

Because she is running for President. If she had just retired and given her speeches (although there probably wouldn't be too many speech requests), there wouldn't be as much dislike.

There are videos out there where she is lying and flip flopping. She is being investigated by the FBI. The Clinton Foundation is going to be investigated. The whole primary campaign has been rigged. And, even if you can't believe it was rigged, there is the appearance of huge bias against Bernie. And then there is the attacks against Bernie who is one of the most respected politician we have had in a very, very long time.

Hillary is brought it on herself. Period.

Z

in order to milk the absolute most profits out of all of us while giving the least possible back.

Playing the workers here against the workers in the corrupt developing world in competition for the same jobs.

By Elspeth Reeve
May 24, 2016

New York Times columnist David Brooks asks, Why is Hillary Clinton so unpopular? His unlikely answer: She doesn’t have hobbies.

Clinton was very popular as secretary of state—a 66 percent approval rating!—and not very popular now. Some might argue that’s because she’s back in partisan politics. Others might point to social science research that shows women are punished for the way they talk, for showing anger, for not wearing makeup, for not showing warmth, for acting authoritatively, etc—you know, all the sexist stuff. Not David Brooks. He writes:

Can you tell me what Hillary Clinton does for fun? We know what Obama does for fun—golf, basketball, etc. We know, unfortunately, what Trump does for fun.

But when people talk about Clinton, they tend to talk of her exclusively in professional terms.

for months with the notable exception of the 3 weeks right after she kicked GOP asses at the Benghazi hearing for hours on end. The trolls were pretty much silent then, lest defenders remind everyone she rocks under pressure and is honest and brilliant.

She's brought it on herself. He said she had 66% favorable rating when she was SOS. She had to push her luck though and run again for President, even after she said she wouldn't in her 60 minutes interview. There is video after video with her contradicting herself, or known outside of political circles as LYING. And let's not forget her "we came, we saw, he died" video, with her cackle laugh, that was really insane.

People don't like her policies and they don't like her, just face the facts. The RW had nothing to do with it this time. Yeah, you can blame the RW for what happened when she and Bill were in the White House, but not now. This is all hers.

Z

Last edited Tue May 24, 2016, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)

I bet Democrats will make a great ad on Flint lead scandal too, proof positive humans need to be regulated and taxes need to be paid.

Last month, Donald Trump stood on stage during one of his primary night victory press conferences and declared that the only thing Hillary Clinton had going for her is “the women’s card.” The now-presumptive GOP nominee continued: “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote.” It was a remarkable statement even in the moment—one that would have been all the more gobsmacking if Trump hadn’t already dulled everyone’s senses with a year’s worth of bluster. It’s a comment worth revisiting in the wake of new polling that suggest a large swath of voters are buying what Trump is selling.

According to the latest Washington Post/ABC News survey, 32 percent of registered voters said that Clinton is getting “more of an advantage in this election” because of her gender than Trump is because of his. (Another 33 percent saw no net-advantage for either candidate). Put another way, roughly 1 in 3 voters in a nation that has never elected a woman to its highest office in its 240-year history—and which was still denying the vote to women as recently as this past century—believes that Hillary has it easier because she's a woman than Trump does because he’s a man. Um, really?!

This specific survey asked about Trump and Clinton, not generic male and female candidates. So it’s possible some Americans are simply assuming Trump’s unapologetic misogyny will come back to bite him down the road and hand the election to Clinton in the process. But the fact that nearly two-thirds of those who saw her with an advantage because of gender told pollsters it was “unjustified” suggests something else is at play here. More importantly, the perception that voters’ views on female candidates isn’t something that Clinton has needed, and will continue to need to overcome doesn’t square with reality.

For the better part of a century, Gallup has been trying to gauge Americans’ willingness to vote for a female candidate for president. When pollsters started asking the question back in the 1930s, only a third of respondents said they would be willing even “if she were qualified in every other respect.” Last year, that number was 92 percent. Progress? Sure. But the inverse of that number means that there are still 8 percent of Americans who aren’t only unwilling to vote for a female candidate no matter what, they’re willing to openly acknowledge it. It should not surprise you that Gallup doesn’t feel the need to bother itself with asking the same question about a hypothetical male candidate.

Other historical data tells a similar story. The General Social Survey has been asking Americans for the past four decades whether they agree with the claim that “most men are better suited emotionally for politics than most women.” In 1974, 44 percent of respondents agreed. In 2014, 17 percent still did.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/05/24/a_third_of_voters_think_hillary_clinton_has_an_advantage_because_she_s_a.html