When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

The stories of Clinton duplicity and lies are about as constant as are the Clinion lies and evasions.

Well apparently they have had some effect because in all but the Monmouth poll, (Which only reports results within this year) it's pretty darn clear that her unfavorables have gone up since 2013.

Considering that the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy had been working on her for "almost a quarter century" why did things change so dramatically in such a short period of time. Because they finally, after so long, wore the voters down? Does that seem feasible?

And THAT is what is wrong with this current political system and what is wrong with Clinton. Only the wealthy get access and the rest of us get crushed. You I guess are OK with that. You do not want change, you want more of the same.

No, I'd love change. I'd much prefer public financing of elections and to eliminate individual campaign contributions in general. Democrats are the ones who try to pass bills to limit the influence of money on elections. Clinton herself has voted for such measures and has made it an issue in her various elections.

Your side (the right) doesn't want that though. Show me how many Republicans are pushing to limit campaign finance laws or support public financing?

You think the libertarians want to do that? Hell no, that's just more government intrusion on the private lives of citizens.


I'm not ok with the current system, but I understand how the current system works. You're in some dreamland where you see Clinton doing it as corrupt but apparently have no problem with the other thousands of politicans (on both sides) doing it as well.

When the Opposition Research goes into high gear, yes the unfavorables will go up-especially when you are far, far in advance of Election Day.

One thing that few people mention in the media is that issues that make a big difference far in advance of Election Day completely lose steam when Election Day nears and people start thinking about bread and butter issues. This is about the fourth election cycle where the immigration situation was early on seen as a huge problem, (ie, too much illegal immigration), and by Election Day nobody was talking about that and if anything, the issue shifts to "we don't want to piss off the Hispanic vote".

Apparently, the people who pay attention to the race early on are not indicative of the people who pay attention only after Labor Day and the conventions. In previous elections, the conventions were only over until shortly before Labor Day, so that period is considered as a unit. This year the conventions were both over five weeks before Election Day when people were still thinking about vacations and their "beach bodies", so we don't even know if this election campaign is in high gear even now.

Regardless, Trump has built his whole appeal around the anti-illegal immigration platform, and that issue has faded the last three election cycles as Election Day draws near. Indications are that he is trying to artfully back away gradually from it, but he's in so deep now that it is going to be hard to see how. Not surprisingly, as we near Election Day, Hillary's favorables have gone UP quite a bit and are nearly even now. The same cannot be said for her opponent. Here's the ABC News / Washington Post poll.

...............................Favorable ...............Unfavorable.............No opinion
8/1-4/16....................48.............................50.............................2
7/11-14/16.................42............................54.............................4

Well, can't say I agree with you on the VRWC's efforts being the only reason why her unfavorables increased so highly since 2013. Surely you don't believe Trump's unfavorables only have to do with a VLWC do you?

This refusal to apply common sense in the support of any candidate makes it difficult to accept arguments that are made in favor of them.

Voters viewing Clinton as a scumbag has everything to do with the opposition and nothing substantial as regards her character.

Voters viewing Trump as a scumbag do so because that's what the guy is.

It gets back to my earlier point that Clinton supporters want to credit the polled with the wisdom of seeing through the opposition and being sick of the stories, but at the same time want to blame their wrongheaded views about her trustworthiness on the opposition.

You really can't have it both ways.

According to the poll Nimh posted, most still don't think she was honest about the email issue, but they simply don't care anymore. When you get down to it, it is really not a big deal.

Polls are a useful too for what they are.. nothing more, nothing less. There are some questions they can answer; others that are beyond their grasp. One thing's always a given, though: whenever people don't like what polling shows, they will dig around for reasons to dismiss it.

In this case - sure, in general, the way questions are worded can tip results more in one direction or more in another. So if they show a narrow margin one way or another, by all means, do take into consideration that a different wording might have tipped the result the other way. But when a poll shows this kind of fairly massive proportions - almost two to one - that's really kind of beyond something you can explain away with arguments about question wording.

I gather you don't take any issue with the wording of their other question - the one that shows people think by equal margins that Hillary's been dishonest about the emails?

I keep over estimating his followers' need for fact and truth. My bad! They know all about arguments and yelling over opposing views and not a freaking thing about an honest debate.

This election for the GOP requires their base to support the concept of Trumps capacity for "good" governance all the while believing all big government is bad and all government is too big.

Here in Texas the Teapublicans are going to defeat proposed legislation against texting and cell phone use while driving on the grounds of government over-reach and free speech issues. Seriously.

When I see a poll I like I don't question it, even though I know it can be.

EDIT: At least not in this forum.

Well, we'll see, won't we?

The undecideds right now are the one's who will vote for Trump if Hillary gets indicted.

I guess honest debate from the left comes in the form of calling people racist or bigots if they don't agree with your point of view? Have you seen the video of the SJW's on college campus's disrupting scheduled events? You should check out Trigglepuff and her antics at an event at the University of Massachusetts. Honest debate? Pfft

Quote Finn:

I notice you adroitly sidestepped the issue of the poll that shows Hillary's favorable numbers are rising to the point where she is nearly even with the unfavorable rating. No comment on that? I shall post it again just so you can refresh your memory. ABC / Wash Post Poll:

...............................Favorable ...............Unfavorable.............No opinion
8/1-4/16....................48................................50.............................2
7/11-14/16.................42...............................54.............................4

Funny, isn't it how embarrassed racists get having their racism pointed out to them, so much so there is a new movement called 'alter-conservatism' who claim to be (seriously, I can't make this stuff up) "racialists". The only difference I can see is they don't use the "n" word publicly.

The glimmer of hope is it shows some faint blush of embarrassment over their racism, er .. racialism.

Actually, "racialist" is the British version of the American "racist". Whether this means the "alter-conservatives" are a British, Australian, or perhaps South African movement or an American movement that wants to separate itself from the word "racist", I don't know.

I heard about the new racialist movement last night watching Rachel Madow's show. I might have missed something but all I heard were flat midwestern accents.

No, racialist is what stupid people say when they mean racist. In Britain at least.

Even if you eliminated all but public finding it still wouldn't be a Level Playing Field and the Republicans know this... When you have such a slanted biased mainstream media who's ultimate goal is to elect liberal left-leaning Progressive socialists there's no way that any Republican with half a brain would except only Public Funding.