Active Users:1053 Time:01/11/2024 04:06:10 AM
Re: Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Cannoli Send a noteboard - 23/07/2016 02:53:36 AM

View original post
The downright hatred from many on the right for Rodham Clinton (that's for Cannoli - he has a point on the first name thing, but of course it'd be rather ironic to call her by her husband's last name as a sign of 'enlightenment' )

It's the name she chooses to use. Back before she had to run for office, everyone called her Rodham Clinton. She could have stayed Rodham when she married too. To call "Clinton" her husband's name is just as sexist. He's been married to her for more than half his life, and she has used the name Clinton for more than half of hers. She might not have been born with it (but then neither was he), but she has made it her own.
is pathological, not explainable in any rational way that I've ever seen.

And the left's affection for Obama, or detestation of any number of leading Republicans was? The hatred for Nixon was far closer to pathological, and don't go blaming Watergate for that - Watergate happened because of that hatred, not the other way around. Nixon's ethical misconduct as president was a fraction of what was ignored under Johnson & Roosevelt. Much of the complaints about Nixon, such as his enemies list, are bullshit. Bush was hanged in effigy and a book and movie were made fantasizing about his assassination. What equivalent has been done to (either) Clinton?
But she does have obvious weaknesses as a candidate, and plenty of people dislike her for valid reasons.
I would assume a more objective person would categorize those as "reasons with which you happen to agree" as opposed to other reasons which are "pathological".
Perhaps more importantly, there is a clear trend in American elections towards stronger party-based voting - you often see that in Senate elections where even Senators with a strong individual reputation are less and less able to buck national trends during a particular election in favour of one party or the other. They will both get a huge share of their votes from people who just hold their noses and vote the party ticket, and who would have done just the same if it had been Cruz versus Sanders.



That's the way its been for decades. The myth is that there is a small swing group that both sides try to appeal to, but a recent opinion piece I saw somewhere made the much more plausible claim that there is no real undecided group, that both sides campaign to rally the base and get a turnout in their favor. I would hazard that the leftwing media has been promulgating the swing vote theory hoping to induce Republicans to try leaning left to garner these alleged centrists, when the reality is that conservatism sells and has been responsible for nearly every GOP presidential win in the last century or so. Dole & McCain & Wilkie & Dewey & Bush I failed, with the latter winning his sole election as the perceived successor to Reagan. Bush 2 ran as a more conservative candidate than he actually served. Once safely into his second term and he began trying to appoint women with no credentials to the Supreme Court and offering amnesty to illegal immigrants, he lost the good will from running as the anti-Clinton and then based on his supposedly strong post 9-11 performance.

I think Trump's success will depend on being able to draw out more people who ordinarily wouldn't give a crap, in addition to the 'anyone but Clinton' vote, than he will lose by not being allowed to appear sufficiently "presidential".

Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Reply to message
as the GOP convention winds down one question remains.... - 21/07/2016 09:16:35 PM 728 Views
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. - 22/07/2016 12:23:36 AM 523 Views
Re: Don't count your chickens before they hatch. - 23/07/2016 02:53:36 AM 507 Views
the Electoral College map suggests Trump has too much ground to cover - 25/07/2016 10:28:12 PM 507 Views
Depends which prediction you're looking at. - 25/07/2016 11:15:40 PM 479 Views
Two things - 26/07/2016 01:35:52 AM 522 Views
Re: Two things - 26/07/2016 11:27:22 PM 453 Views
The number is much higher than that - 27/07/2016 02:59:45 AM 503 Views
Con men do sometimes win - 22/07/2016 05:37:01 AM 688 Views
Do you ever get tired of this? Talk about con men... - 23/07/2016 03:22:09 AM 649 Views
I have told you in the past I am not going to respond to your content or your response to my posts - 23/07/2016 11:06:45 AM 532 Views
You replied to his marriage vows post *NM* - 23/07/2016 12:11:55 PM 233 Views
Your sloppy use of pronouns led me to think they were - 23/07/2016 03:10:53 PM 575 Views
1984 is a non-starter. - 22/07/2016 01:05:45 PM 530 Views
It is a bit early to let Bill start highering interns - 22/07/2016 06:34:22 PM 475 Views
Hillary should win by around 5-10% of the popular vote - 28/07/2016 12:54:35 PM 482 Views

Reply to Message