A pass-agg reminder: at this point in the 2016 cycle:

[Recursion]

Hillary Clinton was the 2nd-most admired politician in the country, with approval ratings up in the 60s. By the time the actual primaries and caucuses rolled around, even smart liberal people had convinced themselves that there was somehow an ethical problem with working the lecture circuit, and her favorables were down with Trump's.

They can do this again, and they will try. If you think your particular candidate is immune, you're wrong. This is what Trump does. It will be something that, in retrospect, is equally as fatuous as working the lecture circuit.

Don't. Fall. For. Bullshit.

Don't. Spread. Bullshit.

[TwilightZone]

1. Agreed.

Many "smart liberal" people had also convinced themselves that she had *always* been unpopular, which was clearly not true. Her approval ratings as SoS were some of the highest of any politicians.

In 2011/2012, her ratings were higher than Obama's.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/22/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-approval-rating-secretary-state-w/

[Celerity]

33. here is the Gallup chart history, up until last fall (new one should be out soon)

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/snapshot-hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-low.aspx

[TwilightZone]

35. The Gallup history is already linked in the article.

So, thanks, I guess?

[Celerity]

36. that link only has a chart up to 2015, this one is from September 2018

[rzemanfl]

2. K&R.

Also trying out my preference, became decided after Rachel last night and sleeping on it.

[Amimnoch]

3. Who do you think "they" are?

I seem to recall that most of the damage you mention that was done to her was done long before Cheetolini went on the attack.

Maybe I missed it, but I'm certain the attacks of "oligarch" "millionaires" "paid speeches" and "corporate donations" weren't the attacks of Cheetolini or the tRumpublicons. I distinctly recall their chants of attack being more about emails and Benghazi bullshit.

Hmm, I wonder where the attacks that damaged her with her base came from?

Maybe we could ponder where the attack's on most of our actual Democratic Party candidates are coming from today, and refuse to accept those?

[Recursion]

4. Russian influence was not limited to supporting Trump

A lot of Facebook ads, paid for in rubles, were run during the Democratic primaries.

[marylandblue]

5. This is one the main things I like about Buttigieg.

He can turn attacks around and throw them back at his attacker with devastating calmness, as he showed in his dustup with Pence.

[Kaleva]

6. Hillary had a favorable rating of 49% when she announced her candidacy for president in Apr 2015

https://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/

She was in the 60% range back when she was SOS.

[athena]

10. That's because the moment a woman appears "politically ambitious",

she becomes “unlikable”. It’s a well-known effect.

The people who liked her as Secretary of State didn’t think she would run for the presidency.

[Kaleva]

12. When Hillary was talking about running back in 2012 and 2013....

her favorability ratings were in the mid to high 50's. Her ratings started to decline about the time she was testifying to Congress on the Benghazi attacks.

[thesquanderer]

8. She was at 49% in May of 2015, roughly same point in election cycle

Hadn't been in the 60s since late 2012/early 2013.

https://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/

But your greater point is well-taken.

[IronLionZion]

9. Plenty of smart liberals fell for divisive stuff during and after the primaries

known GOP operatives were openly trying to turn Bernie supporters against Hillary because of the DNC interference, for example.

Hillary supporters still hold hostility against anyone who even suggests our party/candidate should do things differently this time, like campaign more in upper midwest states. Even if our candidate is busy, they should send surrogates from the area to go and talk to people and listen and make them feel valued. Mayor Pete can do this. Bernie can do this.

The fact that I will be flamed for posting this is a big part of the problem. Dems are easily divided and many are looking for a reason to be angry at other Dems.

[athena]

11. I agree enthusiastically!

Russian trolls are already at work. They never stopped. We must not allow the infighting that took over DU in 2016 to repeat itself.

[StevieM]

13. The timeline on her approval numbers may be a little off, but the point is spot on.

Hillary had stunningly high job approval and favorability ratings for many years. In 2012 she was the most popular politician in America.

Then she got swift boated into oblivion.

[karynnj]

15. Her favorability went down because of things like her email server

and her Goldman Sachs speeches. Look at the first poll and the later CNN one to get a long time series. Her numbers were high when she was Obama's SoS. They fell somewhat as she left office, but the BIG decline was in spring 2016 when the entire email server stuff came out and she handled it badly.

Both of these were self inflicted, unlike what swiftboating came to mean. Kerry was a real hero, who served his country at the risk of life and limb -- only to have the RW use his service against him through lies.

PS Hillary is not in oblivion and never will be.

[artislife]

16. Her time as SoS

I was pro Obama early in 2008, so I never was a Hillary supporter but I didn't hate her. Her esteem fell in my eyes during that election cycle but Obama made her his SoS and I thought that was something of merit to her character and his.

However, I hated what we did in North Africa and the Middle East. I really believed we would stop bombing brown children around the globe. I was and am wrong. Yemen is in shambles, Libya is a mess.
https://www.aljazeera.com/topics/country/libya.html

I was one of the 40% I guess in the polls then. Not because of her personally but because of what she was the face of during that time.

She wasn't a happy vote by me at the end of the 2016 election but I didn't vote for anyone else when it came down to it.

[StevieM]

17. No. The fake email scandal was not self-inflicted.

James Comey's actions made the entire story into a MUCH bigger deal in people's minds than it otherwise would have been. She was guilty of no crime, and yet people were persuaded that she was.

George Bush and Karl Rove had a private server inside the White House, and they actually did lose government emails. That was never a big story or scandal.

And I will repeat what I have said before: I have no doubt that if the FBI hadn't initiated a pointless investigation into the email server, they would have found a different reason to place her under investigation.

[karynnj]

18. Believe what you want, but the series shows when her numbers tanked

I did not say she committed a crime - the SD and FBI both said she didn't. However, it was a political disaster for her.

The fact is that when she left there were Congressional requests and FOIA requests for HRC email related to Benghazi. (Note that there was nothing embarrassing inthe email) The State Department could not stone wall for 4 years -- and eventually they got HRC to return those emails that were work related.

In fact, they should have been left with the State Department when she left. Had she left them then, the relevant ones would have come out probably some time in 2013 and there would have been NO email story. Thus no Comey report.

[StevieM]

20. I don't disagree about when her numbers tanked, but that I do disagree about the notion

that they were ever not going to find some reason to investigate her and label her "under investigation."

Comey's July press conference and October intervention were not just the wrong way of doing things--they were totally outrageous. They were insane actions to have taken, and they were inconsistent with liberal democracy. If he could be persuaded to do those things, then he would have easily been persuaded to take other illegitimate actions under whatever scenario played out in the absence of the email saga.

Barack Obama should never have appointed Comey as FBI Director, and he also shouldn't have allowed a Chuck Grassley staffer (or any Republican) into the State Department IG office. That would have prevented the story from playing out in the ridiculous way that it did. Not having an email server would have simply meant that the GOP would have cultivated a different story.

[karynnj]

22. Did you look at the link to polling report.com?

There was as much as a 10 point shift downward in March/April. i agree there was also a shift when the Comey letter came out. If she would have given the SD the emails when she left, NEITHER would have happened.

[StevieM]

24. I am not disputing when her numbers first dropped.

I do believe that the Comey press conference, which also led to a drop, prevented a recovery that had long been expected.

I don't agree that giving the SD emails earlier would have prevented an investigation and some kind of story, it just would have meant that the GOP ran with a somewhat different story. But they were always going to make up a reason to say that the FBI had to investigate her and the FBI was always going to do just that.

Had Hillary not run for president there would have been no story about an email server, let alone an FBI investigation.

Let me put this in a way that I think you can more easily associate with: If Wes Clark had been the 2004 nominee, instead of John Kerry, there would have been a group similar to the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth that was telling outrageous stories about Clark. The only thing that would have changed would have been the specifics of the lies, not whether or not there were reprehensible lies being told about the 2004 nominee.

[karynnj]

25. Your second paragraph is speculation as was my comment

One thing we do know is that had she given the SD the emails, the ones related to inquiries would have come out in 2013 or 2014. This would have eliminated the monthly dump of emails after HRC said to put all of them online after reacting as needed. It is possible that the fact that they were not on state.gov might never have come up as it was customary to not include the email, instead identifying the person by name.

I agree that any Democrat would be attacked. In fact, in 2005 and 2006, I said that repeatedly and many people argued that it could not happen with Hillary Clinton because unlike Gore and Kerry, the Clintons knew how to fight the right wing.

Not to mention, where there was no real questions about John Kerry's Navy record and the summary of his record that had been on his MA Senate record and campaign site was written by the Navy at his request when he first became a Senator. In 2004, the damage of those lies is that they were disruptive and likely made it harder for him to use his sailors' validation of him as a compassionate, intelligent leader through tough times. In fact, many memes like being elitist or aloof are directly refuted by them.

The difference with HRC is that many Democrats and independents were troubled by her essentially hiding work documents for 2 years until convinced to return it. I was also disheartened by her several lame attempts to put it behind her.

[StevieM]

29. She was not "hiding" anything. (eom)

[karynnj]

31. Because she had the emails, the SD could not comply with Congressional and FOIA requests

In essence she hid them for two years. The truly sad thing is nothing damaging was there. As I said, had she left them with the SD they would have released those related to requests and it would have been another futile effort on the Republican side.

[StevieM]

32. Believe what you like.

This was not a matter she gave a significant amount of thought to, certainly not to the point of "hiding" anything.

You don't seem too troubled by the fact that George W. Bush and Karl Rove had a private server and lost/deleted countless government emails.

[karynnj]

34. I was very very concerned with the Bush and Rove private seever

Especially as to how that server potentially impacted 2004. That is a ridiculous claim for you to make. Not to mention, I would never have accepted the response from one of my kids I was questioning on doing something wrong that someone else did worse.

Following in that vein, nothing will ever matter again after Trump.

As to not thinking about it much, before she left the SD there were legal requests for those email, which her team pushed off. This meant every hearing Kerry or assistant secretaries went to they were asked for them. When they realized they did not have many of them, SD people started negotiating withHRC leading to getting them back.

[StevieM]

65. You are obviously determined to believe that this phony scandal was real

and there is nothing I can do to change your mind.

My point was that we don't even remember the Bush/Rove story because it was never a big story to begin with.

The GOP was determined to make this into a story and they were always going to find a way, especially with the FBI and State Dept. IG office in their pockets. The details that they focused on along the way were always flexible. And if it wasn't this absurd story it would have been a different absurd story.

The election was probably lost once Obama appointed Comey as FBI director.

[karynnj]

66. The state department of was not a Republican

He was appointed by Obama early in his second term. The position was never filled when Clinton was Secretary, though it should have been.

No I will never agree with you that Clinton acted 10p percent appropriately .. Nor with Republicans who thought this a huge scandal.

[StevieM]

68. I am well aware of who Obama appointed.

He allowed the GOP to take control, just like he did at the FBI.

[Voltaire2]

19. Comey brought it back to the foreground after Clinton had pretty much dealt with it.

And at the worst possible time, at the very end of the campaign.

But it was at least partially self inflicted. However shitty the existing state department system was, that is what she should have used.

[StevieM]

21. Colin Powell used private email too. It was a non-issue.

The story was completely idiotic from day one. It was the scandal about nothing.

[karynnj]

23. When Powell was the SoS, the email system was an intranet

That meant it was a closed system where he could only email people on that network. For internal emails, that was what he used. He used personal email to email non State Department people - in other organizations and outside the government.

The SD IG exhaustively described what all SoS from Albright through Kerry. Over that interval, the use of email, rather than paper, increased enormously. The strongest thing that could be said for Clinton was there was no clear precedent when she came in for email.

However, there was a long term requirement to archive government documents. In addition, there was a practical thing she ignored. Starting while she was SoS, there were requests for her emails. That was not going to go away. It left the SD in a very awkward position. They could not stonewall for 4 years.

[Drunken Irishman]

27. This is my biggest issue with the whole e-mail scandal...

It was just pure negligence on Hillary's part and baffling, to me at least, that she didn't see this as a potential landmine back when she set things up. Hillary is a lot of things, to a lot of people, but I know that even her most harshest critics, people who hate her guts, will concede one thing she is not is stupid. Yet Hillary had to have known she was going to seriously run for president in 2016, even back in 2009 and 2010. She has been through the ringer, as First Lady, Senator and then got a first-hand glance at it again as SoS under Obama, who the GOP did everything in their power to undermine through investigation, and she somehow didn't see the possible issues related to this? I don't get it.

It was a serious lapse in judgment that absolutely cost her the presidency. You can blame the Russians, Trump's collusion, which played a role - but had Hillary handled the e-mail server correctly from the start, this would not have been an issue. But the issue raised just enough concern that people who did not like Hillary now had enough reason to not vote for her.

It's why I absolutely believe the Comey Letter killed her campaign - twice, in fact. The first instance was the initial reporting to its release and the second instance was the last-minute report that there was no reopening of the investigation and nothing found in regards to that investigation. It killed her twice because the first allowed for nearly universal, unabated coverage of the potential that she was going to be indicted (FOX News even had to apologize later for saying as much) or hinting that the investigation was going to reopen, for that entire weekend and it essentially dominated every aspect of the news, taking away from Trump's own gaffes, before it finally left the front page toward the end of the final leg of the campaign. But then Comey came out and brought it back into the mainstream and while the next report was more favorable, as it said there would not be an investigation, it was the last thing the voters heard before going to the polls and, to be honest, it just hammered home the point that Trump stressed well, even if not accurately: Hillary is corrupt.

This is why I struggle to defend everything about Hillary's campaign. There were a lot of self-inflicted wounds. The good news is that, despite all that, she nearly beat Trump and very well could have all things considered. That bodes well in 2020 for the Democrats.

[Kentonio]

28. +1

[StevieM]

30. Had there not been a fake scandal about an email server there would have been

a fake scandal about something else.

Once the GOP operatives at the FBI and State Department Inspector General's office decided to abuse their power there was always going to be some sort of FBI investigation, along with chants of "lock her up."

Had she not run for president there would have been no story about an email server, and there would have been no FBI investigation.

[ehrnst]

41. Her server turned out to be way more secure than the State Dept's server.

So it wasn't negligence, in terms of her job, especially in light of the fact that senior officials at state were told not to use their gov't issued laptops for classified work, because they weren't secure enough.

So she's damned if she did and damned if she didn't.

[karynnj]

14. At this point in the 2016 cycle, Hillary had already fallen from the 60s

to 48 (early April, 2015). Her numbers were as high as the mid 60s for the time she was Secretary of State. Starting as early as 2014, they started to decline slowly until slightly before this time in 2015 when the story came out about her email server and it was handled very poorly. http://pollingreport.com/hrc.htm (Look at the first poll and then scroll down to the CNN poll to get polls in that early time frame.)

Starting in March/April 2015 there was a big jump down in her numbers. Obviously, the mainstream of the Democratic party thought she would recover from that, but her favorablity remained underwater. In retrospect, that is when a mainstream Democrat (not Sanders) should have jumped in to challenge her possibly winning the nomination and possibly saving us from Trump.

I write "possibly" because it is clear that the Trump voters voted for him despite all the many flagrant flaws - far beyond any Democrat's ever.

[Drunken Irishman]

26. Not quite...

Hillary's numbers pretty much started dropping the second she left the Obama administration.

The day Obama's second term began, she was at 63%.

A year later, in January, 2014, she was at 50%.

A year after that, in January, 2015, she was at 51% - so, for a bulk of 2014, she was able to sustain her numbers and remain at, or above, 50%, which does go to your point. But that was right before her approval crash in early 2015. At this point in 2015, Hillary's approval was at 45.8. A month later, she had a higher unfavorable rating than favorable and it essentially remained that way through to the election.

Her favorable ratings tanked in 2015.

[corbettkroehler]

37. Not Just The Paid Speech Circuit But Speaking To Wall Street

We have to remember that a former politician could and should turn down such offers from for-profit entities he/she will be called upon to regulate upon returning to elective office. Goldman-Sachs, which makes billions every year as the Treasury's agent for issuing new federal debt, is a good example.

Parlaying a successful career in politics into lucrative speechmaking is not, inherently, bad. In fact, it's part of the reason some politicians tolerate a salary which is so far below what they could earn in the private sector. Senator Jim DeMint is my favorite example. When he resigned all of the sudden, it was to take a lobbying job which boosted his salary by more than an order of magnitude.

[ehrnst]

38. How about selling books through corporations like Amazon and WalMart?

Does making millions that way also count as profiting from "Wall Street"?

[corbettkroehler]

39. Can Individual Book Sales Lobby You On A Particular Piece Of Legislation?

Your point strikes me as a false equivalence. Selling a copy of your own thoughts and being rewarded for it by individuals or small groups, not ones offering you $250,000 for a 45-minute speech, is quite a different thing.

[ehrnst]

40. I'm talking about millions of $$ of personal income made via sales through Amazon and Walmart,

Last edited Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:52 PM - Edit history (6)

with part of the proceeds going to those companies.

I'm curious as to what you are talking about concerning groups paying an elected official involved in legislating a speaking fee in order to "lobby them" on that "piece of legislation," because elected officials, by law, can't take money for speeches. Can you explain what you are talking about there?

I believe you may have believed a politician who falsely accused other policians of this in a campaign ad, or you may be confused or poorly informed about some specific paid speeches that were made by people who were not policians and had nothing to do with legislation pending whatsoever.

But to clarify - you don't think getting millions of $$ in personal wealth from sales on Amazon and Walmart, with a cut going to those companies isn't profiting off of and benefiting those mega-corporations that are major Wall Street players, isn't enjoying a hefty personal financial benefit directly from engaging with them and their business model? Especially when there are alternative outlets?

Did I understand that correctly?

[ehrnst]

42. No Comment? (nt)

[corbettkroehler]

43. To The Same Extent You Think I've Missed Your Point, You've Missed Mine

The question is how my or anyone else's tiny purchase of a book could influence legislation. An author profits off Amazon's and Walmart's assistance in selling his writings. I self-published once and can tell you that sales fulfillment is a full-time job. Sanders' newfound wealth came from symbiosis with one channel within Amazon and Walmart. They didn't write the book. He did and they helped him sell it. Was there a requirement that he propose specific legislation before listing his book on their eCommerce platform?

Draw me the line from authorizing a purchase of $25 to influencing legislation and I'll reconsider your retort.

[ehrnst]

44. You Haven't Given Any Examples of the 'Influencing of Legislation" by Paying An

elected official to speak, in order to "lobby them" on legislation to "draw a line to."

As I corrected you, that's illegal, and you've avoided giving any examples of this actually happening outside of your statements and a false claim in a campaign ad, as well as avoiding acknowledging that you had been corrected.

The fact is you are barrelling around the uncomfortable facts in an effort to portray the selling of millions of $$ worth of apples on Amazon and Walmart while giving them a cut, when there are alternatives, as less of a relationship with Wall Street player mega corporations, than one of fictional elected oranges giving fictional speeches for fictionalWall Street fees. How does one "draw a line" to a fictional situation?

That's the question that isn't being answered here. That's the point that's being deliberately avoided.

Care to retort?

[corbettkroehler]

48. My Previous Response Stands (n/t)

[ehrnst]

49. So You Can't Give An Example Of The Purported Official Being Paid $$$$$ For A Speech

By Groups Wanting To Influence Legislation, Which Is The Entire Basis For Your Claim That Making Millions Partnering With Wall Street Players Amazon And WalMart Is Way "Better" Than The Fictional Officials Being Paid Fictional Fees By Wall Street.

Falls Apart Without One.

So, Instead, You Just Walk Away While Saying "I Win." That's One Way To Avoid The Inevitable Self-Unmasking.

Easier Than Actually Saying What One Really Wants To, And Keeping On Trying To Defend That Beloved Little Piece Of Debunked Anger Stoking Fiction One Has Clung To So Tightly For Years to Validate Ones Feelings, Isn't it? But Sometimes That Just Peeks It's Head Out When One Feels They Have Been Cornered With One's Own Double Standards And Not So Hidden Agendas.

Do You Publish Fiction?

[corbettkroehler]

50. I Could If I Wanted To But Suspect That It Would Be Disregarded Out Of Hand

Alas, I find this friendly debate pointless. I have failed to make a prima fascie case in the voir dire, let alone the trial because my evidence is considered suspect despite being corroborated.

[ehrnst]

53. Another Evasion. You Can't Make A Prima Fascie Case Because Your "Evidence" Is "Fictional."

You Have No Corroboration.

However, my example of millions of $$$ in personal gain from and shared with two major Wall Street players via book sales by an elected official who rails against Wall Street is factual, and stands corroborated.



But If You Think You Have A Double Secret Non-Fiction Example Of An Elected Official Giving Access To Being Lobbied On Legislation In Exchange For A Wall Street Speaking Fee, Why Don't You Private Message It To Me?

I Won't Hold My Breath For This Prima Fascie "Evidence" Of Yours, Since You've Been Shown To Have Been Insinuating Falsehoods Promoted In A Politician's Campaign Ad.

You Can't Deliver "Corroboration" And We Know It, Even In Private.



You Didn't Answer My Question - The Work You Published, Was It Fiction?

[ehrnst]

61. Still Waiting. (nt)

[ehrnst]

63. Still waiting for that PM from you with that "corroboration."

[NYMinute]

45. Hillary had challenged people to come up

with a single action or legislation she voted for that could be regarded as returning a favor.

No one ever came up with anything.

Hillary was railroaded.

[ehrnst]

46. Those making that false smear still aren't able to produce anything

but a lot of people willing to spread the smears far and wide, even years later in this very thread, even after being shown that it was an political smear invented to gin up rage.

There are plenty of people ready and willing to stoke the engine on that train.

[ehrnst]

47. {crickets}

Thought as Much.

When You Got Nothing, It's Best To Just Stop Digging Oneself Into An Even Deeper Hole, I Suppose.

[NYMinute]

55. They just keep churning the same non-issues

that came as divine epiphanies from the messianic leader.

[ehrnst]

57. That's not the half of it.

[NYMinute]

59. This is why I've seen the word "devotees" used by some people

It is not a normal, rational political movement.

[ehrnst]

54. Still No Examples Of Actual, Non-Fictional "Influencing of Legislation"

For Me To "Draw A Line From?"

[ehrnst]

58. Still Waiting On That "Corroboration" Of Fictional Wall Street Speaking Fees For Elected

Officals.

Until Then, There Is Only Evidence That It's Just Made Up Story.

[JHan]

67. LOL :) Looks like a long wait.

[Fresh_Start]

51. That is your opinion, it is not fact

They should talk to everyone that will listen.

They should talk factually about what occurred,
They should talk factually about what they tried to do.
They should talk factually about the inherent weaknesses and issues with our system

They should talk factually about what is going on in the world.

Being an industry lobbyist however is another thing entirely.

[ehrnst]

60. Not only not fact, but debunked falsehood.

But when someone needs a falsehood to hang on to what they want to believe about a "savior/demon" conflict , well, there's not much one can do to convince someone that Dogma and tribal loyalty doesn't = reality based observations.

[ehrnst]

64. The radio silence is telling, isn't it? (nt)

[betsuni]

56. K&R