67% of Americans say Hillary not honest and trustworthy

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's amazing how much denial there is from Hillary supporters about this 67% rating being a problem. If Bernie had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating, I would have abandoned ship.

It is a problem. I'm not denying that. I just happen to believe that she's the right person for the job and believe that a lot of this is based on decades of attacks AND her reaction to them, which is her fault. She's too guarded, too worried about saying the "right" thing, rather than what she feels. It means those attacks are potent. So when she shows the emotions and humanity that is there (going by those I know who have dealt with her personally and professionally, it's very much there) it gets mocked and ridiculed as fake or tactical. Frankly, if I were her, I would never have put myself through this again. But again, a lot of this is her fault for not being more open but since none of us have ever been through this kind of life, I'm not going to judge her for it, but I think it's hurt her massively.

I don't expect you to have any particular sympathy for that or necessarily believe it. But that's where I am.

[Adam Griffin]

Jesus, it's getting even worse. I guess a little bit of that will dissipate if she is the nominee/after the primary, but she's going to go into the general with 3 out of 5 Americans at minimum feeling about her how they did Romney and in the exact same way.

I honestly think this election will come down to "who do hate the least".

Yup - personal ratings have a tendency to start to parallel voting intentions when it becomes a horse race.

Which is a race to the bottom...which means low turnout...which means we're fycked.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's amazing how much denial there is from Hillary supporters about this 67% rating being a problem. If Bernie had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating, I would have abandoned ship.

It is a problem. I'm not denying that. I just happen to believe that she's the right person for the job and believe that a lot of this is based on decades of attacks AND her reaction to them, which is her fault. She's too guarded, too worried about saying the "right" thing, rather than what she feels. It means those attacks are potent.

I don't expect you to have any particular sympathy for that or necessarily believe it. But that's where I am.

So how come Obama never had ratings anywhere as bad? He's arguably been attacked more than Hillary as a sitting Democratic President for 7 years that were easily the most partisan in at least several decades.

[IceSpear]

It's amazing how much denial there is from Hillary supporters about this 67% rating being a problem. If Bernie had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating, I would have abandoned ship.

It is a problem. I'm not denying that. I just happen to believe that she's the right person for the job and believe that a lot of this is based on decades of attacks AND her reaction to them, which is her fault. She's too guarded, too worried about saying the "right" thing, rather than what she feels. It means those attacks are potent.

I don't expect you to have any particular sympathy for that or necessarily believe it. But that's where I am.

So how come Obama never had ratings anywhere as bad? He's arguably been attacked more than Hillary as a sitting Democratic President for 7 years that were easily the most partisan in at least several decades.

Obama always had the media and the left on his side. Hillary has essentially nobody going up to bat for her outside of her campaign.

[Adam Griffin]

I will say this about Bernie: I highly doubt that anything could get his favorables and other numbers to the point that Hillary's are at right now - most of what will be said are variations of what is already bouncing around to some degree currently; the intensity would be the difference.

Considering that any pathway to the nomination for Sanders will almost certainly result in an unknown outcome that goes all the way to the convention, the GOP smear machine would have only three months to give him the full force of whatever they got. Prior to that, they would assume that Clinton is still going to be the nominee and would be primarily attacking her.

[indysaff]

It's amazing how much denial there is from Hillary supporters about this 67% rating being a problem. If Bernie had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating, I would have abandoned ship.

It is a problem. I'm not denying that. I just happen to believe that she's the right person for the job and believe that a lot of this is based on decades of attacks AND her reaction to them, which is her fault. She's too guarded, too worried about saying the "right" thing, rather than what she feels. It means those attacks are potent.

I don't expect you to have any particular sympathy for that or necessarily believe it. But that's where I am.

So how come Obama never had ratings anywhere as bad? He's arguably been attacked more than Hillary as a sitting Democratic President for 7 years that were easily the most partisan in at least several decades.

Obama always had the media and the left on his side. Hillary has essentially nobody going up to bat for her outside of her campaign.

She isn't likeable.

[Joe Republic]

I remember the days when Hillary had Bernie's kind of ratings.  Of course the slow decline set in once the conservative attack mob started talking about Benghaaaaazi, "the damn emails", her terminal coughing illness, and whatever else.  I can only imagine how quickly Bernie's ratings would fall off a cliff once the GOP and media start actually attacking him (rather than one SuperPAC spending a few $100k's on a couple of ads).  It'd be brutal, and honestly I'd just feel sorry for him.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's amazing how much denial there is from Hillary supporters about this 67% rating being a problem. If Bernie had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating, I would have abandoned ship.

It is a problem. I'm not denying that. I just happen to believe that she's the right person for the job and believe that a lot of this is based on decades of attacks AND her reaction to them, which is her fault. She's too guarded, too worried about saying the "right" thing, rather than what she feels. It means those attacks are potent.

I don't expect you to have any particular sympathy for that or necessarily believe it. But that's where I am.

So how come Obama never had ratings anywhere as bad? He's arguably been attacked more than Hillary as a sitting Democratic President for 7 years that were easily the most partisan in at least several decades.

Obama always had the media and the left on his side. Hillary has essentially nobody going up to bat for her outside of her campaign.

Hillary has the backing of the DNC and something like 80% of the members of Congress in her party. That isn't enough? And the media spun some glitches with the ObamaCare website in to some sort of epic scandal, so it's not like the media is always on Obama's side.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Considering that any pathway to the nomination for Sanders will almost certainly result in an unknown outcome that goes all the way to the convention, the GOP smear machine would have only three months to give him the full force of whatever they got. Prior to that, they would assume that Clinton is still going to be the nominee and would be primarily attacking her.

I don't think they could get his numbers as bad as Hillary's even if they had 25 years to do it.

I remember the days when Hillary had Bernie's kind of ratings.  Of course the slow decline set in once the conservative attack mob started talking about Benghaaaaazi, "the damn emails", her terminal coughing illness, and whatever else.  I can only imagine how quickly Bernie's ratings would fall off a cliff once the GOP and media start actually attacking him (rather than one SuperPAC spending a few $100k's on a couple of ads).  It'd be brutal, and honestly I'd just feel sorry for him.

The main thing that made them drop is closer scrutiny. And the way she attacks Bernie, who is running a relatively clean campaign. Of course the emails didn't help either.

Bernie faced a Senate campaign where the Republican spent over $100 per vote (that the Republican received). Bernie won over 2-1. I'm sure the Republicans won't be spending that much per vote this time.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's amazing how much denial there is from Hillary supporters about this 67% rating being a problem. If Bernie had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating, I would have abandoned ship.

It is a problem. I'm not denying that. I just happen to believe that she's the right person for the job and believe that a lot of this is based on decades of attacks AND her reaction to them, which is her fault. She's too guarded, too worried about saying the "right" thing, rather than what she feels. It means those attacks are potent.

I don't expect you to have any particular sympathy for that or necessarily believe it. But that's where I am.

So how come Obama never had ratings anywhere as bad? He's arguably been attacked more than Hillary as a sitting Democratic President for 7 years that were easily the most partisan in at least several decades.

For the exact reasons I added above. People want to like Obama, he's cool etc. Hillary has been too guarded and too careful. Have a look back at the attacks from the 90s on her personally, when she was pushing for radical overhauls of the Healthcare system... the Clintons reacted in an understandable way, but one that has hurt her long-term. Basically, people have wanted Obama to succeed because people want to like him. Hillary's problem (and I do think it's a gender thing in some cases, where her ambition has been used as a negative for decades now) is that people's natural response to her cagey-ness is to assume the negative.

When I've asked people who have issues with her, I never hear Iraq or Syria or Wall Street. I hear generalities based on the vibe "oh, I just don't think I would trust her" "she seems like a typical lawyer".

So, yes. It's my theory, it might be WAY off the mark. But I don't the issue is based on policy differences, it's based on entrenched intangibles. It's my biggest concern about her and always has been.

[IceSpear]

It's amazing how much denial there is from Hillary supporters about this 67% rating being a problem. If Bernie had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating, I would have abandoned ship.

It is a problem. I'm not denying that. I just happen to believe that she's the right person for the job and believe that a lot of this is based on decades of attacks AND her reaction to them, which is her fault. She's too guarded, too worried about saying the "right" thing, rather than what she feels. It means those attacks are potent.

I don't expect you to have any particular sympathy for that or necessarily believe it. But that's where I am.

So how come Obama never had ratings anywhere as bad? He's arguably been attacked more than Hillary as a sitting Democratic President for 7 years that were easily the most partisan in at least several decades.

Obama always had the media and the left on his side. Hillary has essentially nobody going up to bat for her outside of her campaign.

She isn't likeable.

Case in point. A media/GOP smear that is taken as gospel because there isn't enough of an apparatus to fight it. When the right wing media hates you because of your party affiliation, husband, and assorted conspiracy theories, the "mainstream media" is focused on tearing you down for ratings and a horserace, and the left wing media is either tacitly promoting your opponent or outright attacking you as a right wing neoliberal bankster warmonger blah blah, obviously you're going to have a rough time.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Considering that any pathway to the nomination for Sanders will almost certainly result in an unknown outcome that goes all the way to the convention, the GOP smear machine would have only three months to give him the full force of whatever they got. Prior to that, they would assume that Clinton is still going to be the nominee and would be primarily attacking her.

I don't think they could get his numbers as bad as Hillary's even if they had 25 years to do it.

I remember the days when Hillary had Bernie's kind of ratings.  Of course the slow decline set in once the conservative attack mob started talking about Benghaaaaazi, "the damn emails", her terminal coughing illness, and whatever else.  I can only imagine how quickly Bernie's ratings would fall off a cliff once the GOP and media start actually attacking him (rather than one SuperPAC spending a few $100k's on a couple of ads).  It'd be brutal, and honestly I'd just feel sorry for him.

The main thing that made them drop is closer scrutiny. And the way she attacks Bernie, who is running a relatively clean campaign. Of course the emails didn't help either.

Bernie faced a Senate campaign where the Republican spent over $100 per vote (that the Republican received). Bernie won over 2-1. I'm sure the Republicans won't be spending that much per vote this time.

1. I think Hillary can still get elected with numbers like that, but I don't think for a second they'll stay that bad, even if I bought QU's numbers, which for a number of reasons, I don't. I certainly don't think Bernie would.

2. Bernie himself might be running a clean campaign, but they're running their own shenanigans that they need to be very careful about.

3. Bernie is probably going to win the VT GOP nomination too. So, a VT race isn't a fair comparison.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's amazing how much denial there is from Hillary supporters about this 67% rating being a problem. If Bernie had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating, I would have abandoned ship.

It is a problem. I'm not denying that. I just happen to believe that she's the right person for the job and believe that a lot of this is based on decades of attacks AND her reaction to them, which is her fault. She's too guarded, too worried about saying the "right" thing, rather than what she feels. It means those attacks are potent.

I don't expect you to have any particular sympathy for that or necessarily believe it. But that's where I am.

So how come Obama never had ratings anywhere as bad? He's arguably been attacked more than Hillary as a sitting Democratic President for 7 years that were easily the most partisan in at least several decades.

For the exact reasons I added above. People want to like Obama, he's cool etc. Hillary has been too guarded and too careful. Have a look back at the attacks from the 90s on her personally, when she was pushing for radical overhauls of the Healthcare system... the Clintons reacted in an understandable way, but one that has hurt her long-term. Basically, people have wanted Obama to succeed because people want to like him. Hillary's problem (and I do think it's a gender thing in some cases, where her ambition has been used as a negative for decades now) is that people's natural response to her cagey-ness is to assume the negative.

When I've asked people who have issues with her, I never hear Iraq or Syria or Wall Street. I hear generalities based on the vibe "oh, I just don't think I would trust her" "she seems like a typical lawyer".

So, yes. It's my theory, it might be WAY off the mark. But I don't the issue is based on policy differences, it's based on entrenched intangibles. It's my biggest concern about her and always has been.

One thing the Clintons have always done is do what is technically legal, but of questionable ethics. That has encouraged a lot of Republican investigations that weren't so successful, but did create distrust. However, Bill has charisma that Hillary doesn't.

What people have against Hillary isn't that she's ambitious, but that she lets that get in the way of having principles. In 2008, she attacked Obama for supposedly criticizing her for being for universal health care, for being too pro gun control, and she made a play for "hard working" whites. She did the opposite this time, all for purely political reasons. She's been free trade except during primaries. This general lack of principles, and running for President just to get power is what is bad. Not the ambition. Elizabeth Warren certainly seems to have some ambition, but also has some basic principles.

Just because some people aren't able to give good reasons for their distrust doesn't mean that others don't have a good reason. Hillary always seems to give good reasons. In 2014, she said voting for the Iraq war was a mistake. But then this last debate she claimed she didn't vote for the Iraq war.

Also hurting her is some of her more wacky positions. Like that we should deport child refugees if they weren't treated well before they came here. Or that we need a no fly zone where Russian planes are flying.

[IceSpear]

I remember the days when Hillary had Bernie's kind of ratings.  Of course the slow decline set in once the conservative attack mob started talking about Benghaaaaazi, "the damn emails", her terminal coughing illness, and whatever else.  I can only imagine how quickly Bernie's ratings would fall off a cliff once the GOP and media start actually attacking him (rather than one SuperPAC spending a few $100k's on a couple of ads).  It'd be brutal, and honestly I'd just feel sorry for him.

Those ratings were actually wayyyyy better than Bernie's.

And yeah, I agree. On one hand I'd love to say "I told you so", but on the other hand, it would be extremely painful to watch. I'd support him in a heartbeat, but watching the inevitable slow motion trainwreck culminating in complete GOP domination in the government would be a nightmare. Then again, we'll probably get that with Hillary too, if the media's Chosen One ends up being the GOP nominee.

[IceSpear]

It's amazing how much denial there is from Hillary supporters about this 67% rating being a problem. If Bernie had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating, I would have abandoned ship.

It is a problem. I'm not denying that. I just happen to believe that she's the right person for the job and believe that a lot of this is based on decades of attacks AND her reaction to them, which is her fault. She's too guarded, too worried about saying the "right" thing, rather than what she feels. It means those attacks are potent.

I don't expect you to have any particular sympathy for that or necessarily believe it. But that's where I am.

So how come Obama never had ratings anywhere as bad? He's arguably been attacked more than Hillary as a sitting Democratic President for 7 years that were easily the most partisan in at least several decades.

Obama always had the media and the left on his side. Hillary has essentially nobody going up to bat for her outside of her campaign.

Hillary has the backing of the DNC and something like 80% of the members of Congress in her party. That isn't enough? And the media spun some glitches with the ObamaCare website in to some sort of epic scandal, so it's not like the media is always on Obama's side.

That was to hurt Democrats, not Obama. He was safely re-elected by that point.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Considering that any pathway to the nomination for Sanders will almost certainly result in an unknown outcome that goes all the way to the convention, the GOP smear machine would have only three months to give him the full force of whatever they got. Prior to that, they would assume that Clinton is still going to be the nominee and would be primarily attacking her.

I don't think they could get his numbers as bad as Hillary's even if they had 25 years to do it.

I remember the days when Hillary had Bernie's kind of ratings.  Of course the slow decline set in once the conservative attack mob started talking about Benghaaaaazi, "the damn emails", her terminal coughing illness, and whatever else.  I can only imagine how quickly Bernie's ratings would fall off a cliff once the GOP and media start actually attacking him (rather than one SuperPAC spending a few $100k's on a couple of ads).  It'd be brutal, and honestly I'd just feel sorry for him.

The main thing that made them drop is closer scrutiny. And the way she attacks Bernie, who is running a relatively clean campaign. Of course the emails didn't help either.

Bernie faced a Senate campaign where the Republican spent over $100 per vote (that the Republican received). Bernie won over 2-1. I'm sure the Republicans won't be spending that much per vote this time.

1. I think Hillary can still get elected with numbers like that, but I don't think for a second they'll stay that bad, even if I bought QU's numbers, which for a number of reasons, I don't. I certainly don't think Bernie would.

2. Bernie himself might be running a clean campaign, but they're running their own shenanigans that they need to be very careful about.

3. Bernie is probably going to win the VT GOP nomination too. So, a VT race isn't a fair comparison.

Other polls have had pretty bad numbers for her too, although Qunnipiac may have set a new low water mark.

Anyone voting for a Democrat in a Republican primary in an open primary state didn't think very carefully about which party to vote in. Anyways, Bernie beat the candidate running the most expensive campaign in Vermont history over 2-1. Ironically this was even with 3rd party liberal candidates taking away some of the vote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I remember the days when Hillary had Bernie's kind of ratings.  Of course the slow decline set in once the conservative attack mob started talking about Benghaaaaazi, "the damn emails", her terminal coughing illness, and whatever else.  I can only imagine how quickly Bernie's ratings would fall off a cliff once the GOP and media start actually attacking him (rather than one SuperPAC spending a few $100k's on a couple of ads).  It'd be brutal, and honestly I'd just feel sorry for him.

Those ratings were actually wayyyyy better than Bernie's.

And yeah, I agree. On one hand I'd love to say "I told you so", but on the other hand, it would be extremely painful to watch. I'd support him in a heartbeat, but watching the inevitable slow motion trainwreck culminating in complete GOP domination in the government would be a nightmare. Then again, we'll probably get that with Hillary too, if the media's Chosen One ends up being the GOP nominee.

It's a lot easier to win a general election when you start with good ratings than when you don't. And there's plenty of stuff to attack Hillary with, while it seems that every attack on Bernie is recycled. Basically all they have is that he's a 75 year old relatively secular Jewish democratic socialist. But people already knew that. They'll probably attack him for having a kid out of wedlock, but most people won't care.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's amazing how much denial there is from Hillary supporters about this 67% rating being a problem. If Bernie had a 67% not honest and trustworthy rating, I would have abandoned ship.

It is a problem. I'm not denying that. I just happen to believe that she's the right person for the job and believe that a lot of this is based on decades of attacks AND her reaction to them, which is her fault. She's too guarded, too worried about saying the "right" thing, rather than what she feels. It means those attacks are potent.

I don't expect you to have any particular sympathy for that or necessarily believe it. But that's where I am.

So how come Obama never had ratings anywhere as bad? He's arguably been attacked more than Hillary as a sitting Democratic President for 7 years that were easily the most partisan in at least several decades.

For the exact reasons I added above. People want to like Obama, he's cool etc. Hillary has been too guarded and too careful. Have a look back at the attacks from the 90s on her personally, when she was pushing for radical overhauls of the Healthcare system... the Clintons reacted in an understandable way, but one that has hurt her long-term. Basically, people have wanted Obama to succeed because people want to like him. Hillary's problem (and I do think it's a gender thing in some cases, where her ambition has been used as a negative for decades now) is that people's natural response to her cagey-ness is to assume the negative.

When I've asked people who have issues with her, I never hear Iraq or Syria or Wall Street. I hear generalities based on the vibe "oh, I just don't think I would trust her" "she seems like a typical lawyer".

So, yes. It's my theory, it might be WAY off the mark. But I don't the issue is based on policy differences, it's based on entrenched intangibles. It's my biggest concern about her and always has been.

One thing the Clintons have always done is do what is technically legal, but of questionable ethics. That has encouraged a lot of Republican investigations that weren't so successful, but did create distrust. However, Bill has charisma that Hillary doesn't.

What people have against Hillary isn't that she's ambitious, but that she lets that get in the way of having principles. In 2008, she attacked Obama for supposedly criticizing her for being for universal health care, for being too pro gun control, and she made a play for "hard working" whites. She did the opposite this time, all for purely political reasons. She's been free trade except during primaries. This general lack of principles, and running for President just to get power is what is bad. Not the ambition. Elizabeth Warren certainly seems to have some ambition, but also has some basic principles.

Just because some people aren't able to give good reasons for their distrust doesn't mean that others don't have a good reason. Hillary always seems to give good reasons. In 2014, she said voting for the Iraq war was a mistake. But then this last debate she claimed she didn't vote for the Iraq war.

Also hurting her is some of her more wacky positions. Like that we should deport child refugees if they weren't treated well before they came here. Or that we need a no fly zone where Russian planes are flying.

I didn't say that people can't give good reasons, I just don't think policy issues or inconsistency are at the centre of MOST people's issues.

There's only a few things I disagree with you on here, but most of those go back to that fundamental defensiveness. The number of times I've sat there and listened to Hillary answer a question or whatever, instead of saying "You know, I was wrong" ... she tries to dance around it. It's very political and pretty much every serious politician does it. Sanders does it with guns and immigration, but because Hillary has a longer record and more exposure - since she doesn't have to explain her own record, but everything during her husband's presidency whether she was involved or not. Sanders is given the benefit of the doubt by many, Hillary is not. That's life and something with her profile but I personally don't think it's especially fair.

But the point remains, this is as much Hillary's fault as anyone else's. Which I've said. I support Hillary for the same reasons I've always wanted her as President.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I didn't say that people can't give good reasons, I just don't think policy issues or inconsistency are at the centre of MOST people's issues.

There's only a few things I disagree with you on here, but most of those go back to that fundamental defensiveness. The number of times I've sat there and listened to Hillary answer a question or whatever, instead of saying "You know, I was wrong" ... she tries to dance around it. It's very political and pretty much every serious politician does it. Sanders does it with guns and immigration, but because Hillary has a longer record and more exposure - since she doesn't have to explain her own record, but everything during her husband's presidency whether she was involved or not. Sanders is given the benefit of the doubt by many, Hillary is not. That's life and something with her profile but I personally don't think it's especially fair.

But the point remains, this is as much Hillary's fault as anyone else's. Which I've said. I support Hillary for the same reasons I've always wanted her as President.

Both the Clintons are known for triangulating a lot. Usually they're careful enough to avoid an outright lie, but it does hurt one's sincerity. If there is one thing that has been unfair to Hillary is that she's seen as less positive than her husband.

Bernie has become more in favor of gun control during his congressional career. As for immigration, I think that's only because of one vote for specific reasons. Bernie has thousands of votes over 25 years, as well as his 8 years as mayor, so it's not like his record is really any shorter than Hillary's.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I didn't say that people can't give good reasons, I just don't think policy issues or inconsistency are at the centre of MOST people's issues.

There's only a few things I disagree with you on here, but most of those go back to that fundamental defensiveness. The number of times I've sat there and listened to Hillary answer a question or whatever, instead of saying "You know, I was wrong" ... she tries to dance around it. It's very political and pretty much every serious politician does it. Sanders does it with guns and immigration, but because Hillary has a longer record and more exposure - since she doesn't have to explain her own record, but everything during her husband's presidency whether she was involved or not. Sanders is given the benefit of the doubt by many, Hillary is not. That's life and something with her profile but I personally don't think it's especially fair.

But the point remains, this is as much Hillary's fault as anyone else's. Which I've said. I support Hillary for the same reasons I've always wanted her as President.

Both the Clintons are known for triangulating a lot. Usually they're careful enough to avoid an outright lie, but it does hurt one's sincerity. If there is one thing that has been unfair to Hillary is that she's seen as less positive than her husband.

Bernie has become more in favor of gun control during his congressional career. As for immigration, I think that's only because of one vote for specific reasons. Bernie has thousands of votes over 25 years, as well as his 8 years as mayor, so it's not like his record is really any shorter than Hillary's.

Pretty every bit of mud thrown at Bill has splashed back on her and stuck (even things she was never involved with)... but again that goes back to the fundamental personality differences. Hillary is more of a policy wonk and not a natural big-game politician.

The fact is, Bernie has 'evolved' on a number of issue to bring him more the mainstream. It's just nobody cared what he said or did before.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Pretty every bit of mud thrown at Bill has splashed back on her and stuck (even things she was never involved with)... but again that goes back to the fundamental personality differences. Hillary is more of a policy wonk and not a natural big-game politician.

The fact is, Bernie has 'evolved' on a number of issue to bring him more the mainstream. It's just nobody cared what he said or did before.

Well, I don't like Bill either.  I'd expect a policy wonk to have better positions than Hillary's. What did Bernie evolve on besides guns? As for guns, he has D- NRA rating, compared to a C or above for everyone else from Vermont, including Howard Dean, who has an A rating.

[Shadows]

It is due to the fact that she is a corrupt candidate, bought by big money & frequently lies.

Her record -

Huge money from Wall Street - Paid speeches
Received money from Wall Street - Turned around Bankruptcy vote & backstabbed Warren
Lobbied for trade deals when in office, campaigns against it
Was anti-gay all her life, now claims to be a champion of gay marriage


How can you like such a candidate -> Full scale Wrestling heel.

When she says she is tougher on Wall Street than Sanders, she is a progressive,  a champion of LBGT rights all her life, she is against these trade deals, there is a problem. She is not authentic.

Was Erica Garner a Right Winger? -> She said Hillary flip flops all the time & has  no authenticity.

At this point only Hillary's core voters & a few other uninformed people think she is honest. And honestly this will get much worse because she & her fans are in denial that this is only due to right wing attacks & not her problems.

[Shadows]

Pretty every bit of mud thrown at Bill has splashed back on her and stuck (even things she was never involved with)... but again that goes back to the fundamental personality differences. Hillary is more of a policy wonk and not a natural big-game politician.

The fact is, Bernie has 'evolved' on a number of issue to bring him more the mainstream. It's just nobody cared what he said or did before.

Well, I don't like Bill either.  I'd expect a policy wonk to have better positions than Hillary's. What did Bernie evolve on besides guns? As for guns, he has D- NRA rating, compared to a C or above for everyone else from Vermont, including Howard Dean, who has an A rating.

I used to be a huge fan of Bill, especially given that he had this ability to connect with people. Always liked good orators. Not a fan of all his policies but he never said I am the champion of gay rights & against trade deals & progressive. He knew what he was, he was a moderate democrat, he had this "New Democrat" thing & stuck to it. That is why people may not like him but outright don't call him a "phony" or a "lier" (apart from those cases with women)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This mentions the 67% statistic.

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/19/hillary_clinton_just_cant_win_democrats_need_to_accept_that_only_bernie_sanders_can_defeat_the_gop/

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This mentions the 67% statistic.

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/19/hillary_clinton_just_cant_win_democrats_need_to_accept_that_only_bernie_sanders_can_defeat_the_gop/

Too bad early polls don't mean anything at all. In 9 months, after 6 months of Trump dominating the news with his insanity (can you just imagine him giving his acceptance speech at the convention?), Hillary's poll numbers will soar and she will send him and the GOP Senate majority packing.


Oh and Bernie lost today if you didn't see the news

People aren't going to suddenly start trusting Hillary more. And Trump will damage Hillary when he attacks her on the Iraq war, TPP, and H-1Bs.