How will Hillary weather the various fake scandals?

[Dazey]

We know, as in, people who follow politics regularly, know that the scandals that GOP keeps finding are fake, just as they were 20 years ago. But what about the public, who make up the majority of voters - the "low information voters"? What is the chance they will be reeled in and turned against Hillary if enough fake scandals are produced?

Look at 1996. Bill Clinton ran against the utterly boring Bob Dole in a time when the economy was booming, things were great and prosperous, the GOP were seen as crybabies due to the 95-96 government shutdown, and he still didn't crack 50% of the popular vote. Yes, a part of that can be blamed on Ross Perot's second run, but even without Ross Perot, this wouldn't have been any landslide, which, considering the circumstances and opposition, it should have been. If you read any Clinton biography, in terms of polls, most Americans either didn't trust him or viewed him as unethical at the time. I wonder if that factored into his narrow victory?

And in 1996, Bill Clinton had a tangible executive record he could point to and run on. Hillary Clinton has a Senate record, and a muddled SoS record (the GOP will scream Benghazi and emails anytime she mentions her tenure as SoS--she can't run on foreign policy); her main selling points are '90s nostalgia and her husband and the fact that most of the opposition is crazy.

But produce enough of these fake scandals and perhaps her opponents, in the eyes of the general voting public, don't look so crazy.

I wonder if trying to do what her husband did in the 90s in the general election could help her - come off as the bigger conservative than the actual conservatives?

I say this as someone who will pull the lever for Hillary next November if she is the nominee. I want her to win, and I want the current crop of GOPhers to lose. But these are concerns I hold as a Democrat. I don't want to see a Tea Partier in the White House, and given the stranglehold the TP has on the GOP, that means ANY GOP candidate is a Tea Party candidate - even moderates like Jeb will be forced to kiss the ring of the TP.

[Lincoln Republican]

Most of the Clinton scandals are not fake, they are very real.

[WVdemocrat]

I actually know a lot of people who don't pay as much attention to politics as we do, who would never vote for Hillary because of all the "scandals." Which angers me, because obviously they are nonsense.

I have this friend, goes to my school, he says he would never vote for Hillary. He thinks she's corrupt and untrustworthy. If I had to guess, I'd say he's a moderate conservative, but he supports Bernie Sanders because he thinks the GOP field is crazy, would never support a Bush, and thinks Sanders is sincere when he talks about the issues. Also, my grandfather, he's a Democrat, he says he would never vote for Hillary (see: reasons above). He would also never vote for Jeb. Given, he's not really low information, he's actually more informed than your average bear, but I'm not sure he's really looked in-depth into these "scandals."

My point is, this is seriously hurting Hillary with low information voters. It's really depressing that they make up so much of the electorate. With people who are informed, and are not grasping at straws trying to find something to kill Hillary's campaign, these "scandals" are obviously nonsense. But high information voters make up a minority of the electorate. These "scandals" are damaging her with people who vote based on the candidates' character (which benefited us in 2012, because they surely vote against Romney) and not on their stances on the issues.

[Beet]

The real scandal is the constant obsession with Hillary "scandals".

[Sumner 1868]

Look at 1996. Bill Clinton ran against the utterly boring Bob Dole in a time when the economy was booming, things were great and prosperous, the GOP were seen as crybabies due to the 95-96 government shutdown, and he still didn't crack 50% of the popular vote. Yes, a part of that can be blamed on Ross Perot's second run, but even without Ross Perot, this wouldn't have been any landslide, which, considering the circumstances and opposition, it should have been. If you read any Clinton biography, in terms of polls, most Americans either didn't trust him or viewed him as unethical at the time. I wonder if that factored into his narrow victory?

52% of Americans had an overall negative view of the economy in 1996, which probably made a difference.

[bobloblaw]

Like she always does. Dismis them and say it is old news and attack the source of the story.

But her polling is quite mediocre. Even is she leads

[Lincoln Republican]

The real scandal is the constant obsession with Hillary "scandals".

You simply refuse to face up to the fact that the Clintons are absolutely scandal ridden, power obsessed, and entitlement driven. 

[Mr. Reactionary]

[Beet]

The real scandal is the constant obsession with Hillary "scandals".

You simply refuse to face up to the fact that the Clintons are absolutely scandal ridden, power obsessed, and entitlement driven. 

Throwing around a bunch of name calling doesn't convince anyone. Perfectly innocent things become "scandals" when it comes to Hillary Clinton, particularly when she's perceived to be coming close to political power.

[IceSpear]

The real scandal is the constant obsession with Hillary "scandals".

[henster]

People don't trust Hillary and people rarely vote for pols they don't trust. I think the effect these scandals is that it depresses turnout among her base blacks/Hispanics/women, people don't like voting for pols they feel is corrupt.

[Dazey]

I know quite a few people who love Bill, but despise Hillary.
I'm not sure if it's because of sexism (though, some of those I know who dislike Hillary are women), or if it is something about Hillary that is off-putting, but people I know find her "shrill", "nasty" and a "b--tch." And these are people who love Bill and who are either centrist or center left.

[Dazey]

People don't trust Hillary and people rarely vote for pols they don't trust. I think the effect these scandals is that it depresses turnout among her base blacks/Hispanics/women, people don't like voting for pols they feel is corrupt.

Please tell me why Nixon got 61% in 1972, then.

McGovern was seen even by his own party as a looney-tune, plus the Thomas Eagleton controversy. You had a lot of "Democrats for Nixon" in 1972. Also, McGovern was part of a very tiny wing of his party to begin with and was only nominated because Nixon sabotaged the candidacies of more electable or more potentially challenging opponents such as Muskie. It would be like...Ron Paul versus Hillary in 2016. Add to this that McGovern was successfully tarred as standing for/representing "Acid, Amnesty and Abortion" and the counterculture in general and that put him way out of step with the everyday voter. Add further to this the coverage of the '72 Convention, which seemed more like a Hippie get-together rather than a serious political event, and that McGovern's nomination speech didn't air on TV until after midnight. Further add to this the crumbling state of the Democratic Party at that time, which had been reduced to 4 fighting factions in 1968 and on top of this, the fact that the GOP had already begun to take away from much of the traditional Democratic base: The South, Caucasian Americans, blue collar workers....Even union guys were for Nixon in 1972.

[Dazey]

People don't trust Hillary and people rarely vote for pols they don't trust. I think the effect these scandals is that it depresses turnout among her base blacks/Hispanics/women, people don't like voting for pols they feel is corrupt.

Please tell me why Nixon got 61% in 1972, then.

McGovern was seen even by his own party as a looney-tune, plus the Thomas Eagleton controversy. You had a lot of "Democrats for Nixon" in 1972. Also, McGovern was part of a very tiny wing of his party to begin with and was only nominated because Nixon sabotaged the candidacies of more electable or more potentially challenging opponents such as Muskie. It would be like...Ron Paul versus Hillary in 2016. Add to this that McGovern was successfully tarred as standing for/representing "Acid, Amnesty and Abortion" and the counterculture in general and that put him way out of step with the everyday voter. Add further to this the coverage of the '72 Convention, which seemed more like a Hippie get-together rather than a serious political event, and that McGovern's nomination speech didn't air on TV until after midnight. Further add to this the crumbling state of the Democratic Party at that time, which had been reduced to 4 fighting factions in 1968 and on top of this, the fact that the GOP had already begun to take away from much of the traditional Democratic base: The South, Caucasian Americans, blue collar workers....Even union guys were for Nixon in 1972.

So corruption is no vice, then?

Not when the alternative is seen as insanity, no.
People didn't vote for Nixon because they liked him. They voted for him because they thought McGovern was a nutbag who was out of step with the mainstream.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The effect of 1990's nostalgia has made a lot of people forget the various situations of what happened and what was going on in different areas. The Clintons have a long history of pushing the line and managing to not pay a price for it in a number of areas. Not all of these scandals are/were fake, but the media created a narrative and generally protected the Clintons from the serious scrutiny on the basis that if most were nothing, all were nothing.

Bob Dole was far more respectable than Bill Clinton on a personal level. There was also not much accomplished in Bill's first term because of th simple fact that Healthcare failed and the GOP took congress. There were two things that Clinton did get, and they were Crime and the Tax hike. Amazingly, Clinton did not pay a price for these, but his party did and that was a good reason why the Democrats go hammered down ballot simultaneously both in suburbs and also in the Southern districts like GA, VA and other areas that they had controlled for years. This was when the NRA was really effective and many districts held by Dems forever flipped in 1994 and 1996 on that issue. By 1996 though, they had Newt to rail against though in the suburbs and Bill was still able to pull in Appalachia for himself.

[SWE]

Damn that guy cannot draw

[Vega]

Damn that guy cannot draw

I know; Bill Clinton looks like Jay Leno. 

[DS0816]

Re: How will Hillary weather the various fake scandals?

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016, Hillary Clinton will "weather the various fake scandals" by winning election to become the 45th president of the United States.

[Lincoln Republican]

Re: How will Hillary weather the various fake scandals?

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016, Hillary Clinton will "weather the various fake scandals" by winning election to become the 45th president of the United States.

Then we have Nixon II in terms of politics on the scale of corruption. 

[bobloblaw]

Re: How will Hillary weather the various fake scandals?

On Tuesday, November 8, 2016, Hillary Clinton will "weather the various fake scandals" by winning election to become the 45th president of the United States.

Then we have Nixon II in terms of politics on the scale of corruption. 

Salon certainly doesnt think taking cash from nations that wanted arms deals approved by State is a fake scandal
http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/