Page 1 of 1

#1 How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 12:29 am
by frigidmagi
NyTimes
AS fleetly as Hillary Clinton vacuums up the money, she piles up the paradoxes.

She showed fatal weaknesses the last time she chased the presidency and her inevitability evaporated like a California puddle, but she’s somehow inevitable all over again. Invincible, even. Journalists have to remind themselves daily not to type or say “presumptive Democratic nominee” before her name.

She’s fashioning herself as someone uniquely attuned to “everyday Americans” while her husband fashions $500,000 speeches as amulets against the bill collector. Someone’s got to pay for the burrito bowls.

And her Republican rivals convince themselves that “I’m not Hillary” is their strongest argument and best bet, although the reverse holds true. At least for now, not being any one of them is her ace in the hole.

The 2016 race in its adolescence is between the dependably messy, perpetually maddening spectacle of the Clintons and a party with a brand-decimating profusion of mad hatters like the two who announced their bids and grabbed the spotlight last week, Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson.

Advantage: Hillary Clinton.

That’s a clear takeaway from several surveys of voters released last week. They showed that despite her email shenanigans, despite the ethical muddle known as the Clinton Foundation, despite the growing confusion about whether the Hillary Clinton of 2016 will be of an ideological piece with the Hillary Clintons of yesteryear, voters will gladly take her, considering the alternatives.

According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, she was six points ahead of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in head-to-head contests with either. She was 10 points ahead of Scott Walker.

Inexplicably and rather alarmingly, she was only three ahead of Rand Paul. The mysteries of the American electorate are boundless.

Meanwhile a New York Times/CBS News poll found that over the past month and a half, during which she weathered a veritable hurricane of negative news coverage, her favorability rating improved, and the percentage of voters who see her as a strong leader rose to 65 from 57. Nearly 80 percent of the Democrats surveyed deemed her honest and trustworthy.

Hillary Rodham Clinton at Columbia University in New York last week.Hillary Clinton’s Appeal Survives Scrutiny, Poll SaysMAY 5, 2015
There are many explanations. For starters, the hurricane I mentioned was experienced as a drizzle, if that, by many Americans, who aren’t exactly riveted by political news. Inasmuch as they notice journalists pouncing on the Clintons, they’re apt to shrug. The substance of the accusations is eclipsed by the familiarity of the tussle. It’s like lions on an impala: bloody, yes, but the natural order.

And the Clintons are being accused of what? Greed? There’s plenty of that to go around. Just ask Huckabee, a self-styled man of God and slave to Mammon.

As recounted by Trip Gabriel in The Times, Ron Fournier in the National Journal and Max Brantley in Salon, he’s a case study in financial high jinks, a master class in shamelessness. He reportedly used the Arkansas governor’s office “as a personal ATM,” in Fournier’s description, channeling public money toward private expenditures (a doghouse, Taco Bell) and accepting tens of thousands of dollars in highly questionable gifts, some from people who later received prominent political appointments.

More recently he did an infomercial hawking dietary supplements as a diabetes cure, even though reputable physicians and medical associations call it poppycock. Only three of the following four adjectives correctly describe that decision: tacky, mercenary, irresponsible and presidential.

Clinton benefits from not being Huckabee, who described Obamacare’s contraception provision as a big-government sop to women who can’t “control their libido,” blamed an absence of God in schools for the deadly shooting rampage in Newtown, Conn., in 2012 and then proceeded to write a book with a title that put firearms on a comforting par with breakfast food. Run, don’t walk, to pick up your copy of “God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy.”

Clinton also benefits mightily from not being Carson, who has lumped together homosexuality and bestiality and has likened Obamacare to slavery, President Obama to a psychopath and the United States under President Obama to Nazi Germany. It is said that Carson is a talented brain surgeon. I’m taking my cerebellum elsewhere if it ever comes to that.

And Clinton benefits as well from not being Carly Fiorina, who also declared a candidacy for the presidency last week. When Americans look askance at professional politicians, it doesn’t mean that they long for the polar opposite and are poised to award the presidency to someone who, in Fiorina’s case, has never held elected office, routinely failed to vote in the past, bungled her role as a surrogate for John McCain in 2008, had a miserable showing in her 2010 race for the United States Senate against Barbara Boxer, and claims a business expertise that’s long been in vigorous dispute. Her campaign will be powered by hubris, not logic.

REPUBLICANS crow about their deep bench. And they do have some formidable candidates, including Marco Rubio, who is an anti-Hillary in ways that could indeed work for him, and Jeb Bush. But Rubio and Bush share the bench with an unruly crowd that pulls them and the party too far to the right.

Republicans also take heart from their majority in the Senate and their greater number of governors. But voters behave somewhat differently in presidential elections than in other ones, which is one reason Wisconsin has remained blue even during Walker’s red reign.

The party’s image hasn’t gone through the intended upgrade after its defeat in 2012. According to the Times/CBS poll, just 29 percent of Americans now view Republicans favorably, though 43 percent feel that way about Democrats. That number is unlikely to improve much with the likes of Huckabee, Carson, Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum roaming Iowa and foaming at the mouth.

Besides, these two words come into play: Supreme Court. I know voters who’d give more consideration to Rubio, Bush, Chris Christie or John Kasich if they didn’t fear the kind of jurist one of them might nominate at the behest of the religious right. And the next president could easily wind up filling two vacancies on the high court.

That thought is the soil in which love for Hillary Clinton flowers. It’s a prompt for people who otherwise suffer bone-wearying Clinton fatigue to focus on her unquestioned smarts over her questionable scruples, her experience over her i.o.u.s, her sturdiness over her slipperiness. There’s a case to be made for her, and there’s motivation to make that case.

In another recent poll, by CNBC, she was the preferred candidate of voters with a net worth of $1 million or more. Apparently they, too, have made peace with her. Or maybe they just recognize a kindred spirit.
Well it's early days.

#2 Re: How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 4:04 am
by LadyTevar
Any port in a storm, and by the gods the GOP is a nasty hurricane of insanity

#3 Re: How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 11:38 am
by Josh
The country endured eight years of the Clintons and their cartoon levels of greed and mishandling and it can again, but it's nothing to look forward to. Hillary's greatest asset has always been the behind-the-scenes arm-twisting, opposition research, and that sort of thing. Bill was the popular frontman who could sell ice to the Eskimos, Hillary's never had that kind of theatrical ability. Hence why she goes in for crafted setpieces and ridiculousness like her listening tour for her senate campaign.

This is way too early to be gauging anything, though. The vast, vast majority of the public is barely aware of the race and won't be until the conventions.

Don't like any of our options particularly, but whatevs. The standard state of American presidents has been fairly mediocre and still we go on.

#4 Re: How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 5:33 pm
by frigidmagi
Josh wrote: The standard state of American presidents has been fairly mediocre and still we go on.
I wouldn't go that far, but we do seem to be low on talent right now.

#5 Re: How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 5:56 pm
by rhoenix
I don't know about that, Bernie Sanders should be interesting to watch. I don't see him having much of a realistic chance, but I have to respect what he's doing.

#6 Re: How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 6:45 pm
by General Havoc
frigidmagi wrote:
Josh wrote: The standard state of American presidents has been fairly mediocre and still we go on.
I wouldn't go that far, but we do seem to be low on talent right now.
I would go that far. There has never been a point in US history where we were not shockingly devoid of talent, compared to the halcyon summer days of two decades ago, when giants walked the earth as men.

#7 Re: How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 9:18 pm
by Lys
Two decades ago? You mean the Clinton Adminstration? The one that Hillary is basically running to try and reinstate? That can only mean one thing: Vote Hillary Clinton, and giants shall once again walk the earth!

Sarcasm aside, there have been plenty of times where the American public showed overwhelming favour for a particular candidate, indicating that they did not think themselves shockingly devoid of talent. In the past century and change there's been: Teddy Roosevelt, Harding, Hoover, FD Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan. We have not seen the kind of mass popular support that leads victory margins of greater than ten points for any candidate since 1984. So the halcyon summer days were three decades ago, and that is in fact by far the longest dry spell in the last century.

#8 Re: How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 9:53 pm
by Josh
I'm not being overly negative, it's just that out of 44 presidents we've had some good ones, some really bad ones, and a lot of fair-to-middling completely unnotable ones.

Historically, as much as I despise Bill Clinton and anticipate despising President Hillary, Bill will probably go down as another one of the unnotable mediocre ones, beyond the novelty of his impeachment.

#9 Re: How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 10:08 pm
by frigidmagi
Josh wrote:I'm not being overly negative, it's just that out of 44 presidents we've had some good ones, some really bad ones, and a lot of fair-to-middling completely unnotable ones.
Expect you're only comparing them to their fellow Presidents in that regard. If I gather up 44 anyones we'll get the same effect.

#10 Re: How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 10:38 pm
by General Havoc
I think you missed my point. Everyone thinks they live at the end of a trail of giant presidents, but that their misfortune is to live in an age devoid of talent, forced to put up with mediocre hacks instead of the great men who lived in the previous generation. The same complaints repeat endlessly. Thirty years from now they will say the same thing.

#11 Re: How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 11:34 pm
by Josh
frigidmagi wrote:Expect you're only comparing them to their fellow Presidents in that regard. If I gather up 44 anyones we'll get the same effect.
More in terms of overall leadership capacity and effectiveness.
General Havoc wrote:I think you missed my point. Everyone thinks they live at the end of a trail of giant presidents, but that their misfortune is to live in an age devoid of talent, forced to put up with mediocre hacks instead of the great men who lived in the previous generation. The same complaints repeat endlessly. Thirty years from now they will say the same thing.
Not sure who you're arguing this at, because that's not my point at all. I'm most definitely not one of the "golden age is just behind us" types, I think this is the best point in history yet.

#12 Re: How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 12:46 am
by General Havoc
Josh wrote:Not sure who you're arguing this at, because that's not my point at all. I'm most definitely not one of the "golden age is just behind us" types, I think this is the best point in history yet.
I was speaking to Lys.

#13 Re: How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 2:48 am
by Lys
General Havoc wrote:I think you missed my point. Everyone thinks they live at the end of a trail of giant presidents, but that their misfortune is to live in an age devoid of talent, forced to put up with mediocre hacks instead of the great men who lived in the previous generation. The same complaints repeat endlessly. Thirty years from now they will say the same thing.
We're experiencing a sustained dry spell in terms of greatness, that much is demonstrable, and there is frankly no-one in the field that makes me think it'll change in the near future. As things are, i fully expect Hillary Clinton's administration to be like her husband's in both lasting two terms and failing to be particularly exceptional. But who knows? Maybe the world will throw her a curve ball and she winds up knocking it straight out of the park. There'll always be the chance for greatness as long as the Republic stands, and sooner or later someone will step up to bat who is up to the challenge.

#14 Re: How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 2:10 pm
by General Havoc
What's demonstrable is that greatness is defined in retrospect. I don't think Obama was a "great" president, but it is not possible to make that evaluation yet, nor will be for twenty years to come. What is demonstrable is that there has never, ever been a point in US history when we were not thought to be in the midst of a terrible dry spell of leadership talent, as opposed to the unending line of giants and learned men who had been leaders several decades previous. The exceptions to this rule are very few. Washington of course, perhaps FDR, and him only because of how long he served as President. Even Lincoln was widely believed to be unworthy of the office ennobled by such great leaders from the past during the middle of the Civil War.

This does not mean we are NOT in a drought of talent at the top, but only that the mere fact that we think we are is no evidence whatsoever. And for every analysis you could make "proving" that we have no smart people running the show anymore, I can show you a dozen different analyses from the presidencies of men like Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt or Reagan or Eisenhower or Jefferson that will passionately argue the exact same thing. Some will even have charts and math.

#15 Re: How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 4:06 pm
by Lys
We are talking about popular perceptions, whether people think that they have talent available or not. This is readily measurable by seeing how people vote, as large swells of popular support for a particular candidate generally indicate that many people think them to be a giant. That is why i cited men like Hoover and Harding as "great", because while they are not so in retrospect, they were clearly considered so when they first ran for office. Are you seriously going to argue that when Eisenhower ran and then got re-elected that the general sentiment was that there was a terrible void of available talent? That the American populace thought FDR and Raegan were mediocre Presidents when they re-elected them with 60% and 59% of the vote? As little as seven years ago there were people who genuinely thought that Barack Obama would be one of the greats, and i was one of them.

The events of the last century of American history do not support your thesis that people always think they are shockingly devoid of talent, what it supports is that Americans are an earnest and enthusiastic people who will throw behind someone en masse because they truly believe in them. That has not happened in quite a while, and it has demonstrably not happened in quite a while because you don't need a long retrospective to count the damn votes. Now maybe Hillary Clinton will gather up that kind of enthusiastic support, maybe she wins with a great avalanche votes behind her, and if so i will happily declare the dry spell over. It's simply the case that i do not believe that will happen.

#16 Re: How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 5:29 pm
by General Havoc
There is more to an election than who won by how much, or do you imagine that Reagan triumphing by the margin he triumphed by had nothing to do with the fact that he was running against an opponent who was entirely incompetent at running a presidential campaign (which is its own skill)? Same with Eisenhower, same with Nixon, at least the second time. Was Nixon's victory due to the country having decided with one voice that he was a great man and a great president, a leader to be venerated throughout the ages? Or did they simply decide he was the best option available? Any answer simple enough to be reduced to a Yes or a No to a question that size is necessarily suspect.

Yes, people did think that Hoover and Harding were eminently qualified. How did that turn out? If your position is that it has been a long time since we deluded ourselves into thinking someone was qualified for office, then that's a seperate question, but Greatness is not defined by who won what election by what percentage and if those are the numbers you're using to "demonstrably" prove that greatness has fled the top echelons of office, then all you're going to get is the length of time since people last got super-excited over a candidate, a fact which has nothing whatsoever to do with whether that candidate was actually talented.

Hell, even then your math doesn't make any sense. Obama's '08 election was one of the most groundswelling, hyped-up, expectation-laden electoral campaigns of the last half-century, and it was only seven years ago! Half the reason why people now express this sentiment that Obama was a failure (a sentiment that does not hold up to fact) is because the expectations were sky high for him. This is the first election since '08 to see new candidates from both parties, and you're claiming that because, a full year and a half out from the election itself, people have not become immensely buzzed about one or the other presumptive candidates, that we've consequently hit a new low in American leadership? I'm really glad you weren't here for the entirety of the 70s then.

Moreover, where did you get this idea that the margin of victory for a candidate is somehow an index of people's excitement level about the president in question? When Kennedy beat Nixon by a razor's margin, is that because nobody cared who won, a pox on both their houses, they're both mediocrities not worth caring about? Did that election somehow generate less passion than the one that followed, in which Johnson crushed Goldwater? Or Nixon's defeat of McGovern?'

Look, we can argue that the perception of the political leadership today is worse than ever, which is highly questionable, as I can produce you volumes of paper expressing this exact sentiment at almost any point in American history you choose to take, or we can argue that the reality of it is worse than ever, in which case you have absolutely no metrics to select from, as voting records are entirely irrelevant in gauging the greatness of a given candidate. In either case, bear in mind, I'm not arguing that this is or is not the worst period we've had for a while. I'm arguing that claiming it's the worst period we've had for a while is an old saw that is constantly, endlessly repeated, whether it's actually the case or not.

#17 Re: How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 5:49 pm
by frigidmagi
I actually think history is going to look back pretty favorably on Obama's achievements. Yeah he wanted to do more and we wanted him to do more but isn't that always the case?

#18 Re: How Hillary Is Winning

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 6:10 pm
by Lys
It has not been my argument that today's perception of the political leadership is worse than ever. It is my argument that people are fully capable of estimating that the political leadership is good in the present day and not only when looking at the past with rose tinted glasses. It is further my argument that an estimation of greatness among the candidates from the populace at large hasn't happened in a while but will happen again. Those are the points i'm driving at.

As for Obama, the way i see it he was good but not great. While myself and others wanted more from him, what we got is frankly all that we truly needed. A long unbroken string of good enough is frankly far better than swinging wildly between the great and the terrible, as such swings have a way of breaking nations and empires. It's not as exciting or as interesting, but it is better for those who live through it, and for the most part American Presidents have been up to par.