Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LAS14

(13,749 posts)
Sat May 21, 2016, 05:03 PM May 2016

66% to 39% approval -- Nothing's changed except Sanders' smears.

When Hillary was Secretary of State, she had a 66% approval rating. She's the same person. All the Republican smears had been tried. Only when Sanders began beating the drum that she's beholden to Wall Street did the approval begin to slip. Sanders' charges are unfounded.... not even made directly, just innuendo. Even if he "supports" her after the convention, he runs the risk of becoming another Nader. I hope he makes a 180 degree turn soon.

49 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
66% to 39% approval -- Nothing's changed except Sanders' smears. (Original Post) LAS14 May 2016 OP
Yes. I blame Bernie for much of that.. DCBob May 2016 #1
It is not fake karynnj May 2016 #13
Mistakes are not necessary scandals... thank goodness. DCBob May 2016 #45
If you accept that it was a "mistake" karynnj May 2016 #48
Unless he makes a complete shift and is her #1 supporter, you can bet that his behavior will eastwestdem May 2016 #2
This message was self-deleted by its author artislife May 2016 #14
Yeah, I've barked plenty today. Kinda tired. nt eastwestdem May 2016 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author artislife May 2016 #18
Once again, joined mid April. panader0 May 2016 #21
This message was self-deleted by its author artislife May 2016 #22
When I see an inane pro HRC post by someone new I look at their profile. panader0 May 2016 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author artislife May 2016 #25
Actually, there's something else the Democratic establishment will remember jeff47 May 2016 #36
"It was only when that bully rightfully pointed out JUST how beholden she was to Wall Street... Shandris May 2016 #3
What utter horse shit. cali May 2016 #4
She didn't start cashing in until after she left office as Secretary of State virtualobserver May 2016 #5
Just maybe Hillary should have been more prudent about appearances? Fumesucker May 2016 #6
Bullshit. AirmensMom May 2016 #7
So even if he supports her he'll be running against her for the Greens? TransitJohn May 2016 #8
It's really quite Hillogical. frylock May 2016 #32
If Wall Street paid me $250,000 to give a 1 hour speech, I'd feel beholden to them. Vinca May 2016 #9
You're just ignorant about the world of high profile... LAS14 May 2016 #10
If Hillary is worth so many millions that $250,000 is pocket change, how on earth can she relate Vinca May 2016 #40
It's ridiculous to think that no wealthy... LAS14 May 2016 #44
Uhmmm - you ignore several things - most having NOTHING to do with Sanders karynnj May 2016 #11
This message was self-deleted by its author artislife May 2016 #16
It's the approval rating they offered. hellofromreddit May 2016 #12
.. frylock May 2016 #33
Sanders has a complete lack of integrity. nt LexVegas May 2016 #17
Look at Hillary's trust numbers real hard. Get back to me. nt Logical May 2016 #20
lol, the irony vintx May 2016 #30
#math frylock May 2016 #34
Pathetic pmorlan1 May 2016 #35
Agreed. NurseJackie May 2016 #37
That's rich. tazkcmo May 2016 #38
Sanders has been fighting for liberal causes for over 50 years. NT Eric J in MN May 2016 #43
LOL, wow, is this a total mess of a post. Hill never had great likability. nt Logical May 2016 #19
Link to your approval rating as SofS? tabasco May 2016 #24
Hillary runs the risk of being another GWB. Broward May 2016 #26
Three Words - Iraq War Vote cantbeserious May 2016 #27
"I made a mistake" I made a mistake, I made a mistake...that's what hurts. bahrbearian May 2016 #28
LAS14—Hillary is not the right candidate. CobaltBlue May 2016 #29
Bullcrap. Her approval and disapproval ratings are about the same as a year ago. chascarrillo May 2016 #31
LOL! people are learning about HRC's terrible record of reckless regime change, emails, quid pro quo amborin May 2016 #39
Job approval as SoS and favorabity as a presidential candidate Eric J in MN May 2016 #41
Yeah, Bernie is the only explanation. LOL. aikoaiko May 2016 #42
Hillary lies are at the heart of this EPIC FAIL Attorney in Texas May 2016 #46
Henry Kissinger gave her high approvals for her role as Secretary of State timmymoff May 2016 #47
Link? morningfog May 2016 #49

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
13. It is not fake
Sat May 21, 2016, 06:20 PM
May 2016

She herself says that what she did was a "mistake". What is crystal clear is that her intent was to not provide ANY of her email to either Congress or the media if she could help it.

If the issue was really convenience, at minimum, she could have had a system that sent all incoming and outgoing State Department email to a State.gov account that would have existed just to archive her work product. (In fact, the current Secretary has his private account reviewed by State Department staff and any work related emails archived along with all the state.gov ones.)

In fact, had the emails been available, it is likely no one would ever have realized that she had an unusual process. (The fact that they were not even separated into personal and work folders suggest that she never intended to give them to State Department.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
45. Mistakes are not necessary scandals... thank goodness.
Sat May 21, 2016, 09:46 PM
May 2016

Its my understanding the mishandling of classified information is a common issue with high ranking officials in the government.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
48. If you accept that it was a "mistake"
Sat May 21, 2016, 11:17 PM
May 2016

And she really wasn't trying to thwart legal oversight. I do not think she will be charged, but I think it hurt for reputation because she was already seen as secretive. It does not have to rise to a crime to hurt.

 

eastwestdem

(1,220 posts)
2. Unless he makes a complete shift and is her #1 supporter, you can bet that his behavior will
Sat May 21, 2016, 05:24 PM
May 2016

be remembered by the Democratic establishment for years to come.

Response to eastwestdem (Reply #2)

Response to eastwestdem (Reply #15)

Response to panader0 (Reply #21)

panader0

(25,816 posts)
23. When I see an inane pro HRC post by someone new I look at their profile.
Sat May 21, 2016, 06:47 PM
May 2016

Dozens and dozens joined right around the middle of April. A few have over 1000 posts already.
It seems to be a mystery......

Response to panader0 (Reply #23)

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
36. Actually, there's something else the Democratic establishment will remember
Sat May 21, 2016, 08:01 PM
May 2016

He has amassed a very, very large donor list.

 

Shandris

(3,447 posts)
3. "It was only when that bully rightfully pointed out JUST how beholden she was to Wall Street...
Sat May 21, 2016, 05:26 PM
May 2016

...that her numbers slid!!"

"The problem isn't her being beholden to Wall Street, it's that some mean MAN dared to point it out!"

Sure thing, Felicia.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
4. What utter horse shit.
Sat May 21, 2016, 05:28 PM
May 2016

Go back to 2008 and look how bad her favorable were. It's Hillary that is the problem. And Bernie's attacks on her have been largely mild. Trump will not hold back.




 

virtualobserver

(8,760 posts)
5. She didn't start cashing in until after she left office as Secretary of State
Sat May 21, 2016, 05:30 PM
May 2016

All Bernie has done is tell the truth about Hillary.....

Rational people used to believe that taking enormous sums of money from corporations corrupted a politician.

Then along comes Hillary, the first incorruptible politician.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
6. Just maybe Hillary should have been more prudent about appearances?
Sat May 21, 2016, 05:30 PM
May 2016

Most Presidents wait until *after* they hold office to cash in, Hillary's premature eagerness for the lucre is a bit unseemly.

AirmensMom

(14,600 posts)
7. Bullshit.
Sat May 21, 2016, 05:31 PM
May 2016

And if she can't stand up to Bernie, she has no hope against Trump. You think this stuff is new? SMDH

TransitJohn

(6,932 posts)
8. So even if he supports her he'll be running against her for the Greens?
Sat May 21, 2016, 05:34 PM
May 2016

How could he be 'another Nader' if he is stumping for her. That literally makes no sense.

Vinca

(50,170 posts)
9. If Wall Street paid me $250,000 to give a 1 hour speech, I'd feel beholden to them.
Sat May 21, 2016, 05:39 PM
May 2016

I don't know who wouldn't. In any case, Bernie hasn't come close to "smearing" Hillary. You'll be seeing real smear in the months to come and I'm sure you'll be able to discern the difference.

LAS14

(13,749 posts)
10. You're just ignorant about the world of high profile...
Sat May 21, 2016, 05:52 PM
May 2016

... people and the money they can legitimately make on the circuit. And if you're worth the millions that Hillary is worth, $250,000 is way less than 1% of what she gave to charity. And don't tell me she gave it to the Clinton Foundation. It rates as one of the highest in terms of administrative costs (ie, low) and does great work. Citation in a post elsewhere on DU. And if it's given away, it's given away.

Vinca

(50,170 posts)
40. If Hillary is worth so many millions that $250,000 is pocket change, how on earth can she relate
Sat May 21, 2016, 08:37 PM
May 2016

to average people of modest means? She can't . . . and that's one of her problems. Her entire campaign has been like a scripted play and she's playing the part of caring politician when in fact her primary goal is a page in the history books.

LAS14

(13,749 posts)
44. It's ridiculous to think that no wealthy...
Sat May 21, 2016, 08:56 PM
May 2016

... people can relate to the rest of us. Besides that, she grew up firmly middle-class and has been working for the disenfranchised her whole life. Anyone who has been a president or a first lady can be expected to acquire millions from books and speaking engagements. That's just the way it is.

karynnj

(59,475 posts)
11. Uhmmm - you ignore several things - most having NOTHING to do with Sanders
Sat May 21, 2016, 06:10 PM
May 2016

1) Her damned email - There are many who were appalled and think it pretty obvious that she did so to avoid the legal oversight of the media and Congress. Bonus - it did not help that she had to change her story a few times.

2) Her book and the interviews from it, defined her as being more hawkish than Obama. It was Clinton herself who defined herself as having wanted to do more to arm the Syrian rebels.

3) Her interviews on that book included many gaffes - like saying she and Bill were dead broke when they left the WH - ignoring her large advance on her book and his likely even bigger advance. Not to mention, when one is "dead broke" one can not buy two expensive homes - one in NY state and one in DC.

4) Accepting big bucks to speak to Wall Street and banks, in a year when they are hobgoblins. It was not just Sanders who made this an issue.

He is not running as an "independent", so no he is not a "Nader". In fact, if you want to speak of 2000, consider NO ONE argues that the fault was Bill Bradley's for running against Gore and arguing that he had negatives from having been part of Clinton/Gore.

If you think the Republicans would not have raised the issue of the talks, you are deceiving yourself. Note that Sanders did not go after her on the lack of judgment in mixing her private and government email on her own server and not bothering to archive any of it -- in spite of inquiries that should have had access to it even before she left office. Note that he has not brought of anything about the fact that they violated the agreement to prevent conflict of interest between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.

Hillary WORKED to get those negatives.

Response to karynnj (Reply #11)

amborin

(16,631 posts)
39. LOL! people are learning about HRC's terrible record of reckless regime change, emails, quid pro quo
Sat May 21, 2016, 08:28 PM
May 2016

at state, etc.

even the pro-HRC NYT had front page account of her disastrous Libya regime change

Eric J in MN

(35,619 posts)
41. Job approval as SoS and favorabity as a presidential candidate
Sat May 21, 2016, 08:38 PM
May 2016

...are different things.

For example, if I were asked if I approve of the job Joe Biden is doing as VP, I'd say Yes.

But if he were running for president and I were asked if I viewed him favorably, then I might think about his pro Drug War policy in the Senate and say No.

 

timmymoff

(1,947 posts)
47. Henry Kissinger gave her high approvals for her role as Secretary of State
Sat May 21, 2016, 10:34 PM
May 2016

So she does have that vote of confidence in her corner.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»66% to 39% approval -- N...