If Hillary Clinton Is Too Old

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm more worried about the fact that she'd be an awful President.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm more worried about the fact that she'd be an awful President.

Is that so?  Are you so certain of it? 

Yep, pretty d*** certain.  She's a completely unprincipled, war-mongering, race-baiting corporatist demagogue who would sellout her mother for a vote and has the wrong temperament for the job.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm more worried about the fact that she'd be an awful President.

Is that so?  Are you so certain of it? 

Yep, pretty d*** certain.  She's a completely unprincipled, war-mongering, race-baiting corporatist demagogue who would sellout her mother for a vote and has the wrong temperament for the job.

I can't believe I see a D by your Name

Contrary to what the media would have you believe plenty of Democrats don't want to nominate her.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm more worried about the fact that she'd be an awful President.

Is that so?  Are you so certain of it? 

Yep, pretty d*** certain.  She's a completely unprincipled, war-mongering, race-baiting corporatist demagogue who would sellout her mother for a vote and has the wrong temperament for the job.

I can't believe I see a D by your Name

Contrary to what the media would have you believe plenty of Democrats don't want to nominate her.

As is well reported, 65+% do, we get it. You're not a persecuted minority and there's no conspiracy to suppress other candidates.

I wouldn't be so sure about that last bit. There was a conspiracy to suppress other candidates back in 2008, I can't even imagine how entitled the Clintons must feel this time around.

Yes, the hundreds of polls showing Hillary being the overwhelming choice of Democrats to be the nominee (many of which were done by non partisan or Republican firms) are a conspiracy. The Hillary derangement syndrome people are starting to make truthers and birthers look rational by comparison.

I have no doubt Republicans would love to run against her, so its no surprise they're trying to help give her an aura of invincibility.  Btw, polls have also shown her leading in states like Arkansas and if you think that she can come even close to winning states like that, I've got a bridge to nowhere I'd like to sell you.  Fortunately, there is still plenty of time for someone to overcome her name recognition advantage (Hilary and Giuliani were supposed to be locks at the equivalent point in 2006).  Her current support is a mile wide and inch deep, a large chunck of it will disappear once she actually has to take positions on controversial issues and respond to non-conspiracy theory attacks. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The conspiracy here is the will of the people. That is the conspiracy.

Agreed. I humbly suggest we let a panel of Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader pick our nominee instead.

No, those seem more like your type of candidates.  They're all egomaniacal demagogues who are unfit for public office and you seem to be into that sort of thing.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm more worried about the fact that she'd be an awful President.

Is that so?  Are you so certain of it? 

Yep, pretty d*** certain.  She's a completely unprincipled, war-mongering, race-baiting corporatist demagogue who would sellout her mother for a vote and has the wrong temperament for the job.

I can't believe I see a D by your Name

Contrary to what the media would have you believe plenty of Democrats don't want to nominate her.

As is well reported, 65+% do, we get it. You're not a persecuted minority and there's no conspiracy to suppress other candidates.

I wouldn't be so sure about that last bit. There was a conspiracy to suppress other candidates back in 2008, I can't even imagine how entitled the Clintons must feel this time around.

Yes, the hundreds of polls showing Hillary being the overwhelming choice of Democrats to be the nominee (many of which were done by non partisan or Republican firms) are a conspiracy. The Hillary derangement syndrome people are starting to make truthers and birthers look rational by comparison.

I have no doubt Republicans would love to run against her, so its no surprise they're trying to help give her an aura of invincibility.  Btw, polls have also shown her leading in states like Arkansas and if you think that she can come even close to winning states like that, I've got a bridge to nowhere I'd like to sell you.  Fortunately, there is still plenty of time for someone to overcome her name recognition advantage (Hilary and Giuliani were supposed to be locks at the equivalent point in 2006).  Her current support is a mile wide and inch deep, a large chunck of it will disappear once she actually has to take positions on controversial issues and respond to non-conspiracy theory attacks. 

Lol, Republicans want to run against Hillary? They're terrified of her. Why do you think they've been desperately trying to bring her down ever since Obama won re-election? She's by far the most popular Democratic figure in the country.

Every pollster that has polled Arkansas has shown Hillary doing very well there. I'm going to apply Occam's razor and suggest it is not a vast conspiracy and that she actually IS polling well there. Whether those numbers will hold is a different question altogether.

Hillary was polling in the 30s at this point in 2006. Now she's in the 60s/70s. Quite a big difference, wouldn't you say?

The Republicans have largely been attacking her on red-meat non-sense that only tea-partiers care about (ex: Banghazi).  If anything, the Republican attacks against her (and Eric Holder, for that matter) seem to have been largely used as a proxy for attacking Obama.  You may believe the Republicans are terrified of running against her (just as I believe they would love nothing more than for the Democrats to nominate her), but the Republicans haven't really gone after her yet in ways that would resonate with anyone other than tea-partiers.  If they were so terrified of her, they'd be trying to attack her in ways that stood a chance of resonating with people other than those who would never consider voting for her under any circumstances. 

Hilary Clinton is only the most popular Democrat in the country in a certain sense of the word.  Does she have a significant base of supporters?  Absolutely.  That being said, her popularity is a mile wide and an inch deep (plus a good chunk of her support is due to name ID and the fact that no one is running against her yet).  She hasn't had to vocally take a position on something truly controversial since her unsuccessful campaign for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination.  She hasn't been attacked by other Democrats since then either.  Hilary Clinton may be many things and she may have many strengths as a candidate, but likability is not (and never will be) one of them.  She's terrible at retail campaigning and people simply don't like her (even many who'd be willing to vote for her).  After her support for the Iraq War, this was her single biggest problem in 2008 and it will be a major problem for her if she runs in 2016 (and btw, her views on foreign policy and civil liberties could easily be a problem in the primaries this time around).  If she does win the nomination, I suspect the primary campaign will be a lot like the 2012 Republican primaries.  There will be a bunch of different "not-Hilary" candidates who will rise and fall as voters search in vain for somebody else to vote for.  If she loses the nomination...well, we all know what that looks like.  Hopefully, she will do the right thing and not run.  Anyway, regarding states like Arkansas, think about this logically.  What appeal does she have in a state like that which would allow her to carry it despite the hard Republican trend.  Why would she appeal to the voters in a state like that?  Gore already proved being closely tied to the Clintons (which he was in 2000, whether he liked it or not) wasn't enough and he was a semi-conservative Southern Democrat who lost when Arkansas, Tennessee, etc were far more willing to vote for Democrats than they are today. 

I believe Hilary Clinton is polling well in Arkansas right now, but quite frankly, you simply don't know what you're talking about if you think she could actually win there.   I'm not really sure what you're talking about whole polling conspiracy straw-man nonsense, given that I never alleged any such conspiracy existed.  The reason she polls so much higher now than at this point in 2008 is that many of the people included in the polls at that point had far higher name recognition than anyone she is often tested against other than Biden.  I also want to note that many polls at this point in 2006 didn't even bother to include Obama.  If you think she'll be the nominee that's fine, but there is no reason to think she has everything all locked up this far out.  However, we've diverged quite a bit from the original point which is simply that she'd be a horrible President, regardless of her electability (or lack thereof).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The Republicans have largely been attacking her on red-meat non-sense that only tea-partiers care about (ex: Banghazi).  If anything, the Republican attacks against her (and Eric Holder, for that matter) seem to have been largely used as a proxy for attacking Obama.  You may believe the Republicans are terrified of running against her (just as I believe they would love nothing more than for the Democrats to nominate her), but the Republicans haven't really gone after her yet in ways that would resonate with anyone other than tea-partiers.  If they were so terrified of her, they'd be trying to attack her in ways that stood a chance of resonating with people other than those who would never consider voting for her under any circumstances. 

Hilary Clinton is only the most popular Democrat in the country in a certain sense of the word.  Does she have a significant base of supporters?  Absolutely.  That being said, her popularity is a mile wide and an inch deep (plus a good chunk of her support is due to name ID and the fact that no one is running against her yet).  She hasn't had to vocally take a position on something truly controversial since her unsuccessful campaign for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination.  She hasn't been attacked by other Democrats since then either.  Hilary Clinton may be many things and she may have many strengths as a candidate, but likability is not (and never will be) one of them.  She's terrible at retail campaigning and people simply don't like her (even many who'd be willing to vote for her).  After her support for the Iraq War, this was her single biggest problem in 2008 and it will be a major problem for her if she runs in 2016 (and btw, her views on foreign policy and civil liberties could easily be a problem in the primaries this time around).  If she does win the nomination, I suspect the primary campaign will be a lot like the 2012 Republican primaries.  There will be a bunch of different "not-Hilary" candidates who will rise and fall as voters search in vain for somebody else to vote for.  If she loses the nomination...well, we all know what that looks like.  Hopefully, she will do the right thing and not run.  Anyway, regarding states like Arkansas, think about this logically.  What appeal does she have in a state like that which would allow her to carry it despite the hard Republican trend.  Why would she appeal to the voters in a state like that?  Gore already proved being closely tied to the Clintons (which he was in 2000, whether he liked it or not) wasn't enough and he was a semi-conservative Southern Democrat who lost when Arkansas, Tennessee, etc were far more willing to vote for Democrats than they are today. 

I believe Hilary Clinton is polling well in Arkansas right now, but quite frankly, you simply don't know what you're talking about if you think she could actually win there.   I'm not really sure what you're talking about whole polling conspiracy straw-man nonsense, given that I never alleged any such conspiracy existed.  The reason she polls so much higher now than at this point in 2008 is that many of the people included in the polls at that point had far higher name recognition than anyone she is often tested against other than Biden.  I also want to note that many polls at this point in 2006 didn't even bother to include Obama.  If you think she'll be the nominee that's fine, but there is no reason to think she has everything all locked up this far out.  However, we've diverged quite a bit from the original point which is simply that she'd be a horrible President, regardless of her electability (or lack thereof).

Because Benghazi and 90s rehashes is all they have against her. What else are they going to attack her on? The Iraq War vote is going to be old news by 2016 (in fact, it already is). And even if it isn't, who's going to exploit it and beat her for the nomination? Brian Schweitzer? Martin O'Malley? Yeah, that's about as likely as hitting the lottery, getting struck by lightning, and witnessing pigs fly all in the same day.

Gore distanced himself from Clinton and refused to let Clinton campaign for him. Arkansas still thinks very highly of the Clintons, including Hillary. I never argued she would win the state against a competent Republican, but the facts are clear that she is performing better than any Democrat there (and in many other states that have gone solid GOP recently as well) since 1996.

Actually, I wasn't even quoting polls that asked about the Democratic primary, simply because I know that it would be countered with the name recognition argument (which doesn't work anyway since Hillary cracks 50%, but I digress). I quoted polls asking whether Hillary is seen favorably and if they think she would make a good president. Her favorability rating is 90-5 among Democrats (apparently, we don't find her to be as "unlikable" as you think). Democrats think 87-5 she would make a good president. This vast undercurrent of anti-Hillary Democrats that Atlas thinks exists actually don't exist in great numbers. Obama didn't win (close to a 50-50 primary, by the way) because his supporters hated Hillary Clinton. He won because the Democrats liked Obama slightly more.

Do you really believe all that Hillary Clinton can be attacked for are Iraq (by Democrats, which btw, wasn't what I meant when I said her foreign policy and civil liberties views could be problematic) and Banghzai/90s rehashes (Republicans)?  It is a serious question.  I agree with you that people liked Obama more, but her problem is that the "not Hillary" will always be the more likable candidate.  I suppose time will tell if that favorability is real favorability like you think or soft, "___ hasn't done anything controversial since 2008" favorability that will fade significantly as the primary season gets underway (as I think it is).  Gore tried to distance himself from the Clintons and that hurt him, but he was also tied to them in many people's minds simply by being Clinton's Vice-President.  Btw, the Clintons are not popular and well-regarded in Arkansas.  Bill Clinton's still beloved there, Hillary not so much.  Lastly, I'd bet you there were plenty of Hillary voters in 2008 who found Obama more likable, but voted for her for other reasons.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm more worried about the fact that she'd be an awful President.

The Tea Party agrees. Democrats do not.

Labeling all those who have doubts about Hillary with Tea Party is unbecoming of you, dude.

Judging by some of the posts here, they're just as deranged.

We are Ready 4 Hillary.  Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own.  Your culture shall adapt to service the Clinton Collective.  Resistance is futile.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

See what I mean?

No