All of the above.

It's b/c she's a woman
It's b/c her voice
It's b/c her looks
It's b/c her mannerisms
It's b/c she's been in the limelight for so long

She also happens to be running at a time in which her opponent (Bernie, not Trump) built a platform on (perceived) anti-establishment and honesty and decency. So when combined with all the above, in comparison it makes her look worse

slugsrbad wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

slugsrbad wrote: Hillary Clinton has been a politician for my entire life and then some, it seems like par for the course.

You're 15?

Hillary was an involved First Lady (in Arkansas and FLOTUS), so I've counted that too. One does not need to be elected to be a politician, though the actual definition says "professionally involved" so perhaps she doesn't meet the literal meaning. I apologize swichbuckolson.

slugsrbad wrote:

SK790 wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

pacino wrote:It seems like a totally unfair way of reading the situation.

Not coincidentally, PBS re-ran the American Experience about Richard Nixon last night.

Now, I think what PBS had in mind was the Nixon strategy in 68, and the startling similarities it shares with a certain presidential campaign being run right now.

But the story of Watergate, and in particular the "smoking gun," where Nixon tells Haldeman that the FBI needs to be told to back off, that there's nothing to see here, sounds a little familiar in a moment where the DOJ declines to investigate, and tells the FBI not to investigate, the possibility of an inappropriate relationship between the State Department and a private foundation run by the husband of the head of the State Department, when there appears to be probable cause to ask such questions.

Stop it with these totally valid criticisms of Hillary. I kept hearing that if Trump gets elected I'm at fault for not voting for her. I hope all Clinton voters remember that the next 8 years as shit like this continues to happen. Then we'll just get the slugs defense, "ah well, they're all corrupt, what can you do?". Carlin said it best, we get the government we deserve.

That wasn't my defense at all. I'm trying to figure out why the level of disfavor seems much higher for Hillary Clinton than other politicians (non-Trump category)? Most of her transgressions seem mundane, and not atypical of Washington. Is there disfavor because the nation is finally sick of this behavior (as it should be)? Is it because she's a woman? Is it because she's been in the national limelight for so long that it's accumulated?

Everyone states that Hillary Clinton is dishonest, but I don't remember that being an issue in 2008 or during her time in Senate.

just normal transgressions like the party colluding to help her win the primary, calling black people super predators(which Bill is still moronically defending, and being accused of trying to destroy the lives of people who accused bill of sexual assault.

you know, the usual.

slugsrbad wrote:Everyone states that Hillary Clinton is dishonest, but I don't remember that being an issue in 2008 or during her time in Senate.

I'm a Hillary supporter, but she has had these sorts of questions being asked about her since at least 1994 and the discussion of her turning a $1,000 initial investment in cattle futures into $100,000 in 10 months' time in 1978-1979, and money she had not paid taxes on from such trading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_R ... ontroversy

Woody wrote:All of the above.

It's b/c she's a woman
It's b/c her voice
It's b/c her looks
It's b/c her mannerisms
It's b/c she's been in the limelight for so long

She also happens to be running at a time in which her opponent (Bernie, not Trump) built a platform on (perceived) anti-establishment and honesty and decency. So when combined with all the above, in comparison it makes her look worse

she also happens to be a corrupt politician(redundant, i know). more people than normal care about that this election, which has proven to be refreshing(rise of the left; get money out of government) and annoying(trump telling lies to rubes and having them believe it; the polls/media/judges/weather/science is biased against me).

Does anyone have biggest swing between % of voters who split ticket from their president and backed their state incumbent? Because right now that percentage is 10 points in the Trump/Rubio dynamic. Which I'm pretty sure has never even close to happened before.

SK790 wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

SK790 wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

pacino wrote:It seems like a totally unfair way of reading the situation.

Not coincidentally, PBS re-ran the American Experience about Richard Nixon last night.

Now, I think what PBS had in mind was the Nixon strategy in 68, and the startling similarities it shares with a certain presidential campaign being run right now.

But the story of Watergate, and in particular the "smoking gun," where Nixon tells Haldeman that the FBI needs to be told to back off, that there's nothing to see here, sounds a little familiar in a moment where the DOJ declines to investigate, and tells the FBI not to investigate, the possibility of an inappropriate relationship between the State Department and a private foundation run by the husband of the head of the State Department, when there appears to be probable cause to ask such questions.

Stop it with these totally valid criticisms of Hillary. I kept hearing that if Trump gets elected I'm at fault for not voting for her. I hope all Clinton voters remember that the next 8 years as shit like this continues to happen. Then we'll just get the slugs defense, "ah well, they're all corrupt, what can you do?". Carlin said it best, we get the government we deserve.

That wasn't my defense at all. I'm trying to figure out why the level of disfavor seems much higher for Hillary Clinton than other politicians (non-Trump category)? Most of her transgressions seem mundane, and not atypical of Washington. Is there disfavor because the nation is finally sick of this behavior (as it should be)? Is it because she's a woman? Is it because she's been in the national limelight for so long that it's accumulated?

Everyone states that Hillary Clinton is dishonest, but I don't remember that being an issue in 2008 or during her time in Senate.

just normal transgressions like the party colluding to help her win the primary, calling black people super predators(which Bill is still moronically defending, and being accused of trying to destroy the lives of people who accused bill of sexual assault.

you know, the usual.

they were mostly low level employees that have since been fired emailing largely after the election was essentially over. it is not good, but i dont see how their transgressions are hillary's fault. also, it didn't practically affect anything.

crime rates were pretty goddamn high in the early 90s and it wasn't uncommon to paint the picture simply as gang violence. with the benefit of history it was an overreaction to a probably sensationalized problem that both sides of the aisle subscribed to. bill regrets signing the law and i'd say she's certainly for crime reform to help reverse this.

i don't really know much about the sexual assault things so i have no comment on it.

it's almost as if politics both attracts and rewards a specific personality type

Yeah, I don't get the outrage over the super-predators comment. It's clear she wasn't talking about all black people, or even all black criminals, or eve just black "super-predators." There are super-predators of all sorts out there, each community, especially marginalized ones, has a few, and they do need to be put away. I don't get the problem.

SK790 wrote:just normal transgressions like the party colluding to help her win the primary, calling black people super predators(which Bill is still moronically defending, and being accused of trying to destroy the lives of people who accused bill of sexual assault.

you know, the usual.

Do I really need to dig up quotes from the mid 90s, 2000s, and today of politicians using terms like thug to try and sell prison as punitive and not rehabilitation? It's unfortunately, but not unusual. Your second point, I'll admit ignorance on, but the only mention of "destroy" I see is destroying a story, not a life. There's also a blackmail accusation which is also troubling, and also not uniquely Hillary.

Perhaps I'm unclear, I'm not trying to say that none of this should concern people, and it's appropriate if this disqualifies her in your opinion, but she's not the first politician to have these shadows, nor will she probably be the last. She does, however, seem to have a disproportionate amount of distrust and dislike as compared to a typical shitty politician.

Also, I want to make clear that I'm not trying to imply that you're a hypocrite, or unfairly focusing on Hillary Clinton. I know that you would share the same feelings for any politician who has these issues surrounding him/her.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Does anyone have biggest swing between % of voters who split ticket from their president and backed their state incumbent? Because right now that percentage is 10 points in the Trump/Rubio dynamic. Which I'm pretty sure has never even close to happened before.

In 2008 Susan Collins won reelection by 23% against a sitting congressman when Obama was carrying the state by 17%. Grassley and Portman are running further ahead of Trump than Rubio is.

Woody wrote:All of the above.

It's b/c she's a woman
It's b/c her voice
It's b/c her looks
It's b/c her mannerisms
It's b/c she's been in the limelight for so long

She also happens to be running at a time in which her opponent (Bernie, not Trump) built a platform on (perceived) anti-establishment and honesty and decency. So when combined with all the above, in comparison it makes her look worse

Ever since being FLOTUS and trying to get health care passed, the GOP has gone after her with such vitriol. We're talking 23 years of almost constant accusations and name calling and such. That will affect public perception on anyone. Granted she isn't great at being forthright and apologetic when she does gaffe or fuck up (she's very defensive) but she's no where near the lying criminal monster that she's painted to be

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Does anyone have biggest swing between % of voters who split ticket from their president and backed their state incumbent? Because right now that percentage is 10 points in the Trump/Rubio dynamic. Which I'm pretty sure has never even close to happened before.

In 2008 Susan Collins won reelection by 23% against a sitting congressman when Obama was carrying the state by 17%. Grassley and Portman are running further ahead of Trump than Rubio is.

There are different dynamics in a congressional race than a state wide race, but thanks. I can't find recent historical precedent for ticket splitting like this for the senate, but I'm sure it's there.

I think it's odd that dishonesty has been the complaint rather than ineffectiveness

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I think it's odd that dishonesty has been the complaint rather than ineffectiveness

She seems pretty ruthlessly effective to me, the health care thing in the 90s notwithstanding.

I dont think it's fair to say she called black people super predators. she was referring to street criminals, and our shitty criminal justice system disproportionately targets and persecutes minorities, but 1994 crime bill was targeting WT, black street criminals, eastern European thugs, vatos, Mexican mafia, m13, etc.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Does anyone have biggest swing between % of voters who split ticket from their president and backed their state incumbent? Because right now that percentage is 10 points in the Trump/Rubio dynamic. Which I'm pretty sure has never even close to happened before.

In 2008 Susan Collins won reelection by 23% against a sitting congressman when Obama was carrying the state by 17%. Grassley and Portman are running further ahead of Trump than Rubio is.

There are different dynamics in a congressional race than a state wide race, but thanks. I can't find recent historical precedent for ticket splitting like this for the senate, but I'm sure it's there.

(Senator) Susan Collins won reelection by 23% against a sitting congressman when Obama was carrying the state by 17%.

JUburton wrote:

SK790 wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

SK790 wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

pacino wrote:It seems like a totally unfair way of reading the situation.

Not coincidentally, PBS re-ran the American Experience about Richard Nixon last night.

Now, I think what PBS had in mind was the Nixon strategy in 68, and the startling similarities it shares with a certain presidential campaign being run right now.

But the story of Watergate, and in particular the "smoking gun," where Nixon tells Haldeman that the FBI needs to be told to back off, that there's nothing to see here, sounds a little familiar in a moment where the DOJ declines to investigate, and tells the FBI not to investigate, the possibility of an inappropriate relationship between the State Department and a private foundation run by the husband of the head of the State Department, when there appears to be probable cause to ask such questions.

Stop it with these totally valid criticisms of Hillary. I kept hearing that if Trump gets elected I'm at fault for not voting for her. I hope all Clinton voters remember that the next 8 years as shit like this continues to happen. Then we'll just get the slugs defense, "ah well, they're all corrupt, what can you do?". Carlin said it best, we get the government we deserve.

That wasn't my defense at all. I'm trying to figure out why the level of disfavor seems much higher for Hillary Clinton than other politicians (non-Trump category)? Most of her transgressions seem mundane, and not atypical of Washington. Is there disfavor because the nation is finally sick of this behavior (as it should be)? Is it because she's a woman? Is it because she's been in the national limelight for so long that it's accumulated?

Everyone states that Hillary Clinton is dishonest, but I don't remember that being an issue in 2008 or during her time in Senate.

just normal transgressions like the party colluding to help her win the primary, calling black people super predators(which Bill is still moronically defending, and being accused of trying to destroy the lives of people who accused bill of sexual assault.

you know, the usual.

they were mostly low level employees that have since been fired emailing largely after the election was essentially over. it is not good, but i dont see how their transgressions are hillary's fault. also, it didn't practically affect anything.

crime rates were pretty goddamn high in the early 90s and it wasn't uncommon to paint the picture simply as gang violence. with the benefit of history it was an overreaction to a probably sensationalized problem that both sides of the aisle subscribed to. bill regrets signing the law and i'd say she's certainly for crime reform to help reverse this.

i don't really know much about the sexual assault things so i have no comment on it.

and the head of the corrupt org, who was also terrible at her job, was immediately given another high ranking position on Clinton's team.

so she was wrong and played to a narrative that led to racist policing and in turn raised racial tension to a level they were at while they were using this rhetoric, but it's okay because other people were doing it too? i'm glad she and bill regret their bad decision/rhetoric. they still have to live with it and it's perfectly valid to criticize them for it.

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Does anyone have biggest swing between % of voters who split ticket from their president and backed their state incumbent? Because right now that percentage is 10 points in the Trump/Rubio dynamic. Which I'm pretty sure has never even close to happened before.

In 2008 Susan Collins won reelection by 23% against a sitting congressman when Obama was carrying the state by 17%. Grassley and Portman are running further ahead of Trump than Rubio is.

There are different dynamics in a congressional race than a state wide race, but thanks. I can't find recent historical precedent for ticket splitting like this for the senate, but I'm sure it's there.

(Senator) Susan Collins won reelection by 23% against a sitting congressman when Obama was carrying the state by 17%.

Well I'm an idiot.

Because Mississippi and Louisiana have such large black and Hispanic (mostly black) populations, Clinton could win either state if the following happen:

1. Minorities vote at the same rate as whites
2. Blacks/Hispanics overwhelmingly support Hillary
3. She gets 30% of the vote of white women
4. She get 10% of the vote of white men

JH, do you know of any recent polls that break down the vote in those two states? Are they competitive? If not, in which of those four benchmarks is she falling short?