Some reputations are sort of settled on a person by circumstances, and some are EARNED.
Herself, Madame Benghazi, the Cold & Joyless, has truly and well earned that part of the reputation of “liar”, “dishonest”, and “untrustworthy”.
“Strong” and “ambitious” are not necessarily any kind of mutual exclusives with the first three traits listed. Nor is “experienced”.
and don’t forget ‘’criminal’’...
Don’t forget thief and murderer.
The American people who answered this Quinnipiac poll were far too polite to Hillary.
Their covert answers really were “Lying Commie Narcistic Cuckholed Witch”.
If we can get a 1,000 FR posters to vote for this description, we can start our own polling service, as opposed to the poling service of Bill Clinton and company.
haha...who would you rather vote for...a dishonest liar or an arrogant blowhard?
When the House united and took on Bill the Bull Clinton for the Lewinsky scandal; the Senate - R and D refused to back them up. Of course, the media got in his corner & he skated. Now, the Clintons will NEVER leave. - Monica Lewinski, the very young woman that her superior, Bill Clinton used & abused has never been able to live down “luring” the saintly Bill. Meanwhile, Hillary has been “some little woman standing by her man” all these years. If she isn’t coronated Queen of America; there’ll be hell to pay. - After that, enter Chelsea; after that, Chelsea’s baby girl. - Arkansas Kennedys.
The internals of this poll are truly frightening.
It looks like so far with the 2016 election, ideology reigns as #1, with popularity #2, with specific competencies and trustworthiness far behind. In 2008, popularity was king.
Look at the 18-34 year old, 35-49 year old, and college educated vote. All Democrat candidates have the strongest support in these three cohorts. The age groups have shifted from In 2008, younger people supported Obama first and foremost because he was charismatic, young, hip, and cool (popular). Clinton, Biden, and Sanders have none of Obama’s charisma, youth, or hipness, but all are ideologically left.
Even among the college educated, Bush fares poorly against all three. So the supposedly nuanced, educated voters, when faced with a totally untrustworthy Clinton, or a socialist flake Sanders, prefer them to a GOPe Bush.
The Republicans, conservatives, and the populists have lost the future.
How damaged is the Republican brand at this point? How much damage did George W. Bush, Iraq, and Katrina do to the Republican party? The answer is enough to insulate the Stuttering Clusterf—k or a Miserable Failure that is Obama from any repercussions of his failures, and the ossified Democrat party.
Is this a vote for liberal policies, or is this a vote against Republicans? I think it is both. Republicans were still a tarnished brand in 1980, but Reagan was able to win against a failed Democrat president by selling conservatism as the answer.
We have a problem. Rubio’s youth, charisma, and optimism cannot move the scale with the under 50 and the college educated. Bush’s supposed broad appeal cannot move the scale with the under 50 and the college educated. Trump’s populism and brashness cannot move the scale with the under 50 and the college educated.
Everyone in the political class is worried about the Hispanic vote, but Bush or Rubio getting 35% of the Hispanic vote is not going to be enough to win the election. But I think the under 50 vote is far more important, as is the college educated.