Clinton's Weakness in Important States

Hillary Clinton has relaunched her campaign on Roosevelt Island with a 4,687-word speech. But it's not clear whether she and her husband, Bill Clinton, can win four presidential elections as Franklin D. Roosevelt did.

Negative news for Clinton's prospects comes in the latest Quinnipiac polls in the key mega-states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. In each of them, she leads or ties Republican opponents, though in many cases not by statistically significant margins. But she also is running under 50 percent of the vote in every pairing, averaging 47 percent against six different Republicans in Florida, 44 percent against seven Republicans in Ohio and 46 percent against four Republicans in Pennsylvania. That's a danger zone for a candidate with universal recognition.

Similarly, less than 50 percent -- 47 percent in Florida, 44 percent in Ohio and 46 percent in Pennsylvania -- of voters express favorable feelings about her. Only 43 percent in Florida and 40 percent in Ohio and Pennsylvania feel she is honest and trustworthy.

And, perhaps surprisingly for a Democrat, only 48 percent of voters in Ohio and Florida and 45 percent in Pennsylvania say she "cares about the needs and problems of people like" them.

Clinton campaign spokesmen have said their goal is to reassemble Barack Obama's winning coalition. But she's falling short in these three large states, which Obama carried in 2012 with 50, 51 and 52 percent of the vote, respectively. These states have 67 electoral votes, without which Obama would have won only 265 -- and Mitt Romney would be president.

The latest Detroit News poll has Clinton averaging 44 percent against four Republicans in Michigan, whose 16 electoral votes Obama won with 54 percent of the vote in 2012.

Two other polls suggest Clinton may encounter some bumps in primaries and caucuses. Both were taken in New Hampshire after Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont announced his candidacy in May. They showed Clinton leading Sanders by margins much smaller than ones in earlier surveys. Morning Consult showed her leading 44 to 32 percent. Suffolk University had her lead at a similar 41 to 31 percent.

Is Sanders doing well in New Hampshire just because he's from next-door Vermont? Yes and no. He's tapping a constituency that is nationwide -- look at the crowds he's drawing in Iowa -- but his popularity is especially concentrated in parts of New England.

Call it the Birkenstock Belt, spreading beyond Vermont (population 625,000) to include an area with 1.6 million people -- including western New Hampshire (where it has turned a once-red state purple), the Berkshires and Pioneer Valley of Massachusetts, Litchfield County in Connecticut (where Joe Lieberman got thrashed in the 2006 Democratic Senate primary), and parts of New York's Hudson Valley.

These are physically beautiful areas, with anti-sprawl zoning, that have attracted college-educated Manhattanite liberals (Sanders himself is a native of Brooklyn, and Ben and Jerry are from Long Island), who now sharply outnumber the waning number of flinty Yankee farmers who once made this area Republican. The Birkenstock Belt, which voted for Alf Landon over FDR in 1936, voted 65 percent Obama in November 2012.

It's widely remembered that Clinton rallied to beat Obama in the 2008 New Hampshire primary after finishing third in the Iowa caucuses. It's less remembered that she won only narrowly, 39 to 36 percent, with the now forgotten John Edwards at 16 percent. In the four Connecticut River counties adjacent to Vermont -- part of the Birkenstock Belt -- Obama beat her 40 to 34 percent. Overall, the Birkenstock Belt favored Obama over Clinton 52 to 41 percent.

So it's possible that Clinton will lose New Hampshire -- and other Birkenstock-inclined areas around the country. Note that in 2008, she won only 20 and 22 percent in Iowa's two university counties and lost Florida's two big university counties by a 2-1 ratio.

Clinton's likely support from blacks and Hispanics could enable her to rally from Iowa and New Hampshire setbacks in South Carolina and Nevada. And her presumed appeal to what have been called "beer Democrats" (as opposed to Obama's appeal to "wine Democrats") probably gives her an edge in big state primaries from Pennsylvania through Illinois.

But it seems that Sanders, perhaps because of the unlikelihood of his winning the nomination, is stirring the excitement of the Birkenstock constituency. Which brings to mind the discovery, by some scurrilous right-winger, that one anagram of "Hillary Rodham Clinton" is "idol, monarch -- any thrill?"

She is a gawdawful candidate and the Media knows that. They are cheerleaders for our continual march to the Left, and fear that Hillary could totally muck that up by imploding late in the campaign and handing the Presidency to (gulp) Scott Walker or (ack...gag) Ted Cruz.

Being more loyal to ideology than the Clintons, they are going to sink her before she sinks their movement.

The RNC focus-tested issues.....and finds that the transfer of strategic US uranium reserves that Hillary's husband helped transfer to Russia is “the most persuasive message tested” and one that “severely undercuts her perceived strength of resume.”

Hillary was asked why her State Dept greenlit the transfer of 20% of strategic US uranium to the Russians. Clinton claimed she had no involvement..."...it wasn’t something the secretary of state did.”

On an issue of utmost national security, Hillary's statement strains credulity for these reasons:

<><> First, nine investors who profited from the uranium deal collectively donated $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

<><> Hillary notes that “nine US government agencies signed off on that deal.”.....but she was the only US agency signoff who banked $145 million from uranium shareholders.

When Hillary was asked about the Kremlin-backed bank that paid Bill $500,000 for a single speech in Moscow, Hillary offered a blurry evasion. “It happened in terms of the support for the foundation before I was secretary of state.” Yet, the Times confirms the gargantuan fee was pocketed, “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One.”

Plus----at the time Hillary’s State Dept was considering the Uranium One deal, Uranium One’s then-chief Ian Telfer donated $2.35 million that the Clinton foundation kept hidden.

American voters are left to ponder Hillary's involvement in strategic US uranium reserves now in Vladimir Putin's hands: She's either dangerously incompetent or deeply dishonest. (hat tip Clinton Cash author Schweizer's NY Post op-ed)

At the lavish Clinton Global Initiative event hosted by a king in Marrakesh, Bill Clinton was asked why he isn't defending the Clinton Foundation from increased scrutiny.

The question came from billionaire supporter Mo Ibrahim: "I opened the newspaper and I was shocked to see these attacks on the foundation." The billionaire continued, " What is this money for? What have you done with it?"

"I just work here," Clinton responded. "I don't know."

(waiting for hysterical laughter to die down)

=============================================

So let's get this straight. Ignoramus Bill Clinton got on a plane w/ mining tycoon, Frank Giustra, that just happened to be flying to far-off Kazakhstan. But both brain-dead Clinton and dumbbell Giustra had no idea the place had uranium mines.

So, just by chance, dopey Clinton met w/ the Kazhak dictator. It was strictly "dumb luck" that Clinton knew Kahzak govt approvals were needed.

Here's the ignoramus Bill Clinton in Kazakhstan--
lavi$hly prai$ing the reigning dictator who then signed
off on the mine deal....... b/c he's just a nice guy.

As Judge Judy might say to Bill Clinton:

Tell me about the conversation you had w/ uranium businessman Frank Giustra about uranium mines in Kazkhstan.

How did you know Giustra was looking to get govt approvals to buy uranium mines?

How did you know about getting govt approvals?

What did you say to Giustra? What did he say to you?

“Similarly, less than 50 percent — 47 percent in Florida, 44 percent in Ohio and 46 percent in Pennsylvania — of voters express favorable feelings about her. Only 43 percent in Florida and 40 percent in Ohio and Pennsylvania feel she is honest and trustworthy.”

This is negative for Clinton but still indicates an amazingly high number of brain dead people in these states, how out of touch must you be to think she is honest and trustworthy? I would find it easier to believe that Joe Biden has a three digit IQ.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.