Ms. Clinton has some of the highest negatives, that is, the percentage of people that say they won't vote for her, isn't that correct? As I see it, there is a pretty small percentage of people that represent swing voters in the middle there that would determine if she can be elected. It is a fact that Clinton is a very polarizing figure.
okie wrote:Ms. Clinton has some of the highest negatives, that is, the percentage of people that say they won't vote for her, isn't that correct? As I see it, there is a pretty small percentage of people that represent swing voters in the middle there that would determine if she can be elected. It is a fact that Clinton is a very polarizing figure.
Regardless of the above, I believe she is very electable. Don't forget many women may vote for her; if Obama isn't running, much of the Black vote would go to her; plus other minorities; plus liberals. Did I leave anyone out? So, without a recent census, I don't know which demographics are greater, the conservative or liberal?
My point is, I believe she would make any general election a close race. She might even win. I would hope if she did win, she'd bring a big apple pie to her cabinet the first day.
Hillary's ship may be sinking, who knows for sure, but it is apparent that even the Democrats are looking for another alternative to Clinton. And 35 years of experience she talks about, 35 years experience doing what? People aren't stupid and if they see anyone else that could further their agenda besides Clinton, they will abandon the sinking ship pretty fast. This happens because she was not that likeable and is not likeable. There is not much allegiance.
Another analogy. People's relationship with Walmart is a love/hate relationship. If ever another alternative equal or better comes along, goodby Walmart. How many people shop there now, but how many people say they love Walmart?
this thread has gotten big in my absence. I'll try to read some of this stuff tomorrow. I got to the parts where the Hillary bashers stepped in and I find it unappealing.
I don't understand how she became status quo.
Gala wrote:this thread has gotten big in my absence. I'll try to read some of this stuff tomorrow. I got to the parts where the Hillary bashers stepped in and I find it unappealing.
I don't understand how she became status quo.
By taking status quo positions in an effort to triangulate the victory.
Cycloptichorn
Foofie wrote:okie wrote:People will vote for anyone that will forward their agenda. Likeability is not an absolute requirement; Nixon proved that.
But Hillary is likeable. One doesn't have to be wearing a skirt to like her. If you think many people don't like her, that could be correct. However, I believe an equal number of people do like her, and likely those people are from a different demographic. Don't forget this is a big country, the size of three Europes. And, your
ignoring my point about her charming New Yorkers is typical for this forum.
And, by the way, people like Nixon; he ended the Vietnam war.
This concern with likeability in this thread is silly, in my opinion.
Is it anymore silly to consider someone's "likeabilty" than the degree of a Presidential image they convey?
Is it really any more silly than voting for Obama because his words inspire you?
Many people vote for a candidate without really having a clue about what they believe or what they done. Feeling some emotional connection with them - "liking them" - seems as good a shallow reason as any other, and assuming that you have studied the candidates closely and agree with what they believe and approve of what they have done, than "liking" thems seems a reasonable measure for breaking a tie.
In order to be "likeable" you must exert some measure of attraction over people who don't agree with your beliefs or approve of your actions. Reagan did this. Bill Clinton did this. George Bush has done this. His father is doing it. Charlie Rangle can do it; Chuck Schummer and Harry Reid cannot. Tip O'Neil did it and Newt Gingrich did not.
Hillary Clinton does not.
It doesn't mean she wouldn't be a great president, but it does mean she probably won't get the chance.
There is a language of communication that exists "below" that of the spoken word. It is not necessarily any more reliable than speech, but it's anything but silly.
I'll try to make an analogy that all can understand: Santa Claus is liked in countries with sizable Christian (western Christian denominations) populations. Santa Claus is not liked (he might not be disliked, but not liked; there's a difference) in countries with a miniscule Christian population.
O.K., Hillary's likeability is based on who is asked. Ask a Democrat in NYC, and she's more likely liked. Ask a Democrat somewhere in the Bible Belt, and we might more likely get a "dislike" as the answer.
So, let's stop attempting to make universal statements about likeability and dislikeability in a country as diverse as the U.S.
I would guess Republicans would like to see Barak Obama win the nomination, since I believe many Republicans believe that a white, Republican male candidate would win the general election over Barak Obama. And, that might not be the case with a white, Republican male running against Hillary.
But, there might be the Bloomberg factor, if he decides to run, since as we can all agree, he would siphon off potential Democratic votes. Voila a Republican is elected.
If that happened, women who wanted a "lady President," and Black Americans that wanted "the first Black President" will all be disappointed.
However, what I find interesting is that if it was the reverse, and either a lady (aka Hillary) won, or a Black candidate won (aka Barak Obama), I believe, the voters that voted Republican would not be disappointed for the same reason, meaning their disappointment is not based on a white, male did not win. I believe, their disappointment would be based on their candidate of choice did not win, and the hoped for election platform will not likely be implemented. Doesn't that say something about how this country votes - some vote based on issues, others on race or gender (or religion).
Shouldn't there be a better way. I believe ideally we should vote like an essay question on the S.A.T. - "In no less than 250 words, tell the election officials why you believe the candidate you're voting for is better for the U.S." So, any mark under B- is a disqualified vote. No hanging chads; just make a case for your vote that's not based on race, religion, or gender! Who knows, when the "singularity" is reached, super computers could be used for elections to "mark" our voting essay! Personally, this can be added to a list, "In a perfect world..."
Foofie wrote:I'll try to make an analogy that all can understand: Santa Claus is liked in countries with sizable Christian (western Christian denominations) populations. Santa Claus is not liked (he might not be disliked, but not liked; there's a difference) in countries with a miniscule Christian population.
O.K., Hillary's likeability is based on who is asked. Ask a Democrat in NYC, and she's more likely liked. Ask a Democrat somewhere in the Bible Belt, and we might more likely get a "dislike" as the answer.
So, let's stop attempting to make universal statements about likeability and dislikeability in a country as diverse as the U.S.
I would guess Republicans would like to see Barak Obama win the nomination, since I believe many Republicans believe that a white, Republican male candidate would win the general election over Barak Obama. And, that might not be the case with a white, Republican male running against Hillary.
But, there might be the Bloomberg factor, if he decides to run, since as we can all agree, he would siphon off potential Democratic votes. Voila a Republican is elected.
If that happened, women who wanted a "lady President," and Black Americans that wanted "the first Black President" will all be disappointed.
However, what I find interesting is that if it was the reverse, and either a lady (aka Hillary) won, or a Black candidate won (aka Barak Obama), I believe, the voters that voted Republican would not be disappointed for the same reason, meaning their disappointment is not based on a white, male did not win. I believe, their disappointment would be based on their candidate of choice did not win, and the hoped for election platform will not likely be implemented. Doesn't that say something about how this country votes - some vote based on issues, others on race or gender (or religion).
Shouldn't there be a better way. I believe ideally we should vote like an essay question on the S.A.T. - "In no less than 250 words, tell the election officials why you believe the candidate you're voting for is better for the U.S." So, any mark under B- is a disqualified vote. No hanging chads; just make a case for your vote that's not based on race, religion, or gender! Who knows, when the "singularity" is reached, super computers could be used for elections to "mark" our voting essay! Personally, this can be added to a list, "In a perfect world..."
You're wrong, plain and simple.
There are people who have a "likeability" that transcends political or cultural bias. I have given you examples and I can give you more.
That some people who agree with Hilary profess to like her, doesn't imbue upon here relative "likeability".
That "likeability" may or may not be a valid reason to vote for someone has no bearing on whether or not the concept is real and far broader than you would suggest.
Geez. What does her sexuality have to do with it? Why does anyone care? I'm voting for her if she's nominated.
Human beings love a scapegoat. she being excoriated.
What Senator Clinton (and Bob Dole and Walter Mondale and GH Bush and Al Gore, etc) lacks is charisma. That's what sets Reagan, Bill Clinton, GW Bush and now Ralph Wiggum apart from the rest. That charisma should overwhelm policy is not so much a bad statement about the US as it is a factor for humans in general. Edwards, Obama and Huckabee have it. Clinton, McCain, Romney don't. For those that don't, this is going to be an uphill campaign for primaries and it will be even harder in the general election.
engineer wrote:What Senator Clinton (and Bob Dole and Walter Mondale and GH Bush and Al Gore, etc) lacks is charisma. That's what sets Reagan, Bill Clinton, GW Bush and now Ralph Wiggum apart from the rest. That charisma should overwhelm policy is not so much a bad statement about the US as it is a factor for humans in general. Edwards, Obama and Huckabee have it. Clinton, McCain, Romney don't. For those that don't, this is going to be an uphill campaign for primaries and it will be even harder in the general election.
Hale to the Chief Wiggum. You are so correct.
Obama plans on increasing the capital gains tax to 40%.
How can any sane person with invested money consider Obama to be "likable"?
Obama has always reminded me of Elmer Gantry...
Miller wrote:Obama plans on increasing the capital gains tax to 40%.
How can any sane person with invested money consider Obama to be "likable"?
Could you provide the source for the 40% increase on capital gains tax?
Gala wrote:Geez. What does her sexuality have to do with it? Why does anyone care? I'm voting for her if she's nominated.
Human beings love a scapegoat. she being excoriated.
Well, it's certainly true that she can't win for losing. If she's too tough and forceful then she's not likable. If her voice shows the slightest touch of emotion, then she's weak. If she triangulates then she's dishonest. If she doesn't, she's not a good enough politician to win. She's still not my candidate, but I can see how she's kind of screwed. Which is why she'd be better off just being straight up and acting like herself and taking whatever comes with that.
Foofie wrote:McTag wrote:Is she a practising lesbian, and if so, could that hurt her?
Please avoid the obvious joke.
To re-phrase: How much could that tell against her in the opinion polls, if widely believed?
The question itself is offensive; but then again you have a monarchy that's half German. (Nothing wrong with that, but do you like to be on the receiving end of inappropriate statements?)
Let me be clear: I like Hillary, and if I could I would vote for her.
I am trying to find out why a surprisingly large number of Americans, some of them Democrats, don't feel the same way as me. What do they know that I don't? That was the reason for the question, and I'm sorry if you found it offensive. It wasn't meant to be.
McTag wrote:Foofie wrote:McTag wrote:Is she a practising lesbian, and if so, could that hurt her?
Please avoid the obvious joke.
To re-phrase: How much could that tell against her in the opinion polls, if widely believed?
The question itself is offensive; but then again you have a monarchy that's half German. (Nothing wrong with that, but do you like to be on the receiving end of inappropriate statements?)
Let me be clear: I like Hillary, and if I could I would vote for her.
I am trying to find out why a surprisingly large number of Americans, some of them Democrats, don't feel the same way as me. What do they know that I don't? That was the reason for the question, and I'm sorry if you found it offensive. It wasn't meant to be.
As I've told ya before - she is
the corporate and washington-insider candidate for the Dems. I have zero confidence that she will represent me well at all as president.
Cycloptichorn
McTag wrote:Let me be clear: I like Hillary, and if I could I would vote for her.
I am trying to find out why a surprisingly large number of Americans, some of them Democrats, don't feel the same way as me. What do they know that I don't? That was the reason for the question, and I'm sorry if you found it offensive. It wasn't meant to be.
This really is a tough question. On the Republican side, there is an almost viseral hatred of the Clintons as a family. I could guess at the reasons, but there's really no logic to it. They will say is it a morals thing, but Republican figures have done the same or worse and not been villified the way the Clintons are. I think there is a sense that "these people have done terrible things and gotten away with it." On the Democratic side, Clinton has tried to run a middle of the road campaign pandering to the conservative side and has alienated some Democrats, but even before there was a group that feel the same way the Republicans do. I would say they represent the right wing of the Democratic Party. They are the Reagan and Bush Democrats. The reality is that there is a fair overlap between parties and a lot of people check the party affiliation their parents did even if that doesn't typically reflect their views.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
In order to be "likeable" you must exert some measure of attraction over people who don't agree with your beliefs or approve of your actions. Reagan did this. Bill Clinton did this. George Bush has done this. His father is doing it. Charlie Rangle can do it; Chuck Schummer and Harry Reid cannot. Tip O'Neil did it and Newt Gingrich did not.
I think we might be talking at cross purposes based on different semantics. Likeability is just a subjective feeling that is related to the concept of biases. For example: popular culture considers some ethnic groups less likeable to those who identify with mainstream biases. So if one from a mainstream background has friend(s) from that "unlikeable" group, others might ask, "But they're really not likeable." In effect, the ascribing to someone an objective likeability index is specious, in my opinion, since it is a false premise to ascribe to likeability anything other than a subjective view. Sort of like some people like dogs and not cats, and vice versa. Can one say dogs are more likeable? Tell that to a cat person.
And your premise above that likeability requires one to "overcome" (with others) the drawback of one's beliefs or actions doesn't make sense to me. In effect, it sounds like one can then say that anti-Catholic Protestants voted for JFK because of his likeability factor? And, Al Smith was unlikeable, so his Catholicism cost him the election? I believe likeability isn't a deodorant to overcome the possible distaste (by others) of one's beliefs, or actions.
Again, I believe likeability is not an objective factor. Those who believe it may just feel more comfortable believing in this particular popular, but specious, notion. A related popular, but specious, notion is: It's not what you know, but who you know. O.K. at times that might prove correct, but it is not a natural law that means the most popular moves through a charmed life. Yet many people believe this.
McTag wrote:Foofie wrote:McTag wrote:Is she a practising lesbian, and if so, could that hurt her?
Please avoid the obvious joke.
To re-phrase: How much could that tell against her in the opinion polls, if widely believed?
The question itself is offensive; but then again you have a monarchy that's half German. (Nothing wrong with that, but do you like to be on the receiving end of inappropriate statements?)
Let me be clear: I like Hillary, and if I could I would vote for her.
I am trying to find out why a surprisingly large number of Americans, some of them Democrats, don't feel the same way as me. What do they know that I don't? That was the reason for the question, and I'm sorry if you found it offensive. It wasn't meant to be.
A lot of men dislike her. I think because she's an ambitious smart woman. Your lez remark is a typical reaction of most men when they meet/encounter a woman who wants to play in their sandbox.
On the other hand, a lot of people love her. I happen to have a lot of respect and empathy for her. I thought for sure she'd be the nominee. Now, with NH happening, she is painfuul to listen to (no TV, just radio here).
Then there is the morals issue. Bill couldn't keep it in his pants-- and I truly believe all the married men on the planet who have shtooped around on their wives have to act outraged or else they'll be caught too.
And, the man, from what I've heard, from people who have seen him in person and from all the extra women in his life, is supposed to be so appealing and good looking etc. That's enough to invoke some green envy from the uptight crowd.
From a political standpoint-- both he and Hillary are just too Liberal.
