Clinton is bad at running for President
Sorry about the headline fellow DLers. I’m just being fact based. That sick feeling in the pit of your stomach is your unconscious mind telling you that you know it too. Hillary will be a good President, but she sucks at running for President. Luckily she is running against Trump. And luckily Trump overshadowed her horrible speech on “American Exceptionalism” last night. If she was running against any other Republican (with the possible exception of Ted Cruz), she’d be ten points behind right now.
If there’s one core belief that has guided and inspired me every step of the way, it is this. The United States is an exceptional nation. I believe we are still Lincoln’s last, best hope of Earth. We’re still Reagan’s shining city on a hill. We’re still Robert Kennedy’s great, unselfish, compassionate country.
Who can say all of that and make it sound like she is hitting Lincoln, Reagan, and Robert Kennedy in the head with a hammer? Only HRC, that’s who.
I concur, which is why the polls have tightened a bit. If Trump wasn’t ….Trump, this thing would be ugly for the Democrats. I think she’ll be a fine president, but I’m still not 100% she’s going to get there. If she does, I fear she may be one and done.
I know. I’ve been worried on and off, and while I realize that part of the nation’s general dislike of Clinton is based on the GOP’s 25 year character assassination campaign, part of it is her. That speech last night wasn’t the result of he GOP’s 25 year character assassination campaign – that was just her being terrible at running for President.
She should have fixed that part by now.
I’m sure you are being sexist somehow.
lol. No doubt.
W, on the other hand, was great at running for president. (so good infact, he lost and STILL got to be POTUS) Gives ya something to look forward to.
Is it because you disagree with going after Republicans as a Progressive? I think that is genius actually. Speeches like yesterday’s are to give those wavering Republicans and Independents permission to vote for her even though she will not be pursuing Republican policies.
I do agree, she is not a stylistically compelling candidate with charisma like Obama, her husband or John Edwards or even Howard Dean. If that is your compliant, I agree.
If you disagree with the American is Exceptional outreach, you’re dumb.
Speeches before the American Legion where she praises ‘American Exceptionalism’ are one of the reasons why many of us who will vote for her have so little enthusiasm for her.
She panders AND she believes it.
I think HRC is a good example of “weak on style, strong on substance”….. unfortunately our world demands mostly style.
She’ll still probably win, and will be able to run for re-election (against Cruz) on her record and not need to worry about style.
Ben, what worries me here is the substance, not the style. BTW, here’s a pretty good definition/history of American Exceptionalism:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/American_exceptionalism
Last night’s speech had nothing to do with it for me. She’s just tone deaf at times to the way her actions can be perceived and she makes numerous unforced errors. Against Trump, the Democrats should be running 10 points plus ahead; instead, she’s limping along with what is now a 3-4 point lead nationally in the latest polls.
Conversely, against her I think a number of Republicans would be in the lead too, so they must be thinking similar thoughts of “how did we screw this up.” The thing is, I voted for Clinton in the primary because I believe she’ll be a damned good president. It is exactly as Jason says…she just sucks at running for the office.
How is a speech that refers to American exceptionalism pandering? I can’t remember a single President who doesn’t promote this. You can’t know that she doesn’t believe this. Besides, since Trump tells people that America is not exceptional, she’s got a wedge issue. Why wouldn’t you remind people that you believe in America when your opponent tells people he does not?
The national polls were always going to tighten, especially as people start to pay more attention. Still, the game is the Electoral College and whether she can get 270+ votes.
She’s not her husband or Obama, but she is still running a damned solid campaign. The race speech was killer, the material coming from her team is fantastic, she’s building a solid field operation PLUS she hasn’t had to pivot.
“GOP’s 25 year character assassination campaign” REALLY!
I don’t think she needs any help in that area, she (& Bill) have done a great job of digging her own hole.
There is no prize here, the American people loose either way! Part of the American people are fed up with career politicians, there’s the Trump side.
The others, just are voting their Demo, party.
I think turnout is going to be low, this time around. Very sad!
“Speeches like yesterday’s are to give those wavering Republicans and Independents permission to vote for her…”
Permission? Did you see it? What story was she trying to tell? What story is this campaign trying to tell? If the story is, “I’m a fraud”…then, I suppose, the speech was a success.
Too many Democrats think voters will look at the data, that they’ll forsake their “gut” and make the correct choice. Why? After all these years, why don’t we get it?
Jason, I think you are worry-worting a bit here. Trump cant win. His snarling, lip-spittle speech yesterday, and the perfectly-predicted-by-me (not on this site, for you gum-shoes who want to try and find it) lie about the Wall show that he is not going to try and broaden his appeal. I think his ceiling is 42%, and that will fall as it becomes clear he has no shot.
If you want something to worry about……. He wont concede, and Jonny-Rebs everywhere will claim he is the rightful president. He might even try to issue executive orders.
OR Romney enters the race, denies everyone 270EVs, and the GOP Congress makes him President.
OR….. the GOP blocks everything Clinton does… even to the point of leave 2 or more SCOTUS seats open, the media “fairly blames both sides”, and Cruz wins 42 sates in 2020.
…. Trump winning? nah. She rigs elections, remember? 😉
I think you are worry-worting a bit here. – I agree.
Trump cant win. – I disagree.
I just read the transcript and saw some video clips. I thought it was a pretty good speech. You have to take the audience into account – it was the American Legion. Picture her speaking to the audience of older white veterans in their Legion caps and service patches – natural Trump supporters. Clinton was bearding the lion in its den as part of her outreach to the Trump demographic. She’s trying to expand the playing field.
Referencing Reagan’s shining city on the hill was a bit of a clinker for me, after Mario Cuomo’s definitive takedown with his “Tale of Two Cities” speech, which should be Democratic canon when it comes to shining cities. But I’m sure the audience ate it up so I’m OK with it.
Clinton gets barely any coverage on MSM. MSNBC is 23 hours of Trump with maybe an hour of Clinton. And the coverage of Clinton is usually critical. The speech she gave at the American Legion was not fully aired, only a snipet here or there followed by criticism of her focus on American Exceptionalism. Trump’s speeches are often given full coverage. Based on MSM, a person casually interested in politics would have almost no knowledge of the Clinton campaign and her positions on issues. Today, HUFFINGTON POST had about seven photos and stories on Trump, all pretty critical. There was one story on Clinton on the theme that nobody likes her.
It’s outreach to moderate Republicans, making them more comfortable sitting this one out. The best way to help down-ballot candidates is to dissuade the other side’s unmotivated voters to stay home; if they vote for Clinton but also down-ballot Republicans, the impact of the GOP Trumpocalypse is muted.
truthatlast is correct. This election is the Trump show. It’s all Trump all the time. Which… isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Not sure Hillary should fight for the spotlight when Trump is doing a lot of her work for her.
As we’ve said many times: “When your opponent is imploding, stay out of the way.” or “Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.”
The only thing I’m worried about, and I’m not TOO worried about it, is what I call the ‘D’Amato’ strategy. Al D’Amato was a crooked and pretty much disliked NY pol who ended up in the Senate. ‘Senator Pothole’, they called him. Previously a corrupt County Executive, which I know sounds familiar.
He won his elections by first recognizing that he was never gonna be well-liked, so he set out to make his opponent EVEN MORE disliked than him. That’s why I worry about what seem to be ridiculous trial balloons about Hillary’s health and the like. Drive up the negatives enough, and people stay home.
Which is why I think there’s at least some method to Trump’s (or Trump’s campaign staff’s) madness. It’s the D’Amato strategy. Having said that, even D’Amato didn’t reach Trumpian levels of dislike.
Hillary has been living with the D’Amato strategy pointed at her for more than 25 years. What’s remarkable about this is that the media legitimizes every bit of this crap — apparently no media person can be caught sleeping if any of this turns into a real scandal or something.
“Hillary will be a good President, but she sucks at running for President.”
Makes no sense- if she sucks at RUNNING for President, she will suck at BEING President. Don’t know why I’m even here, wasting my time. Think I’ll go delete a few emails.
Two different skill sets. Anyway…bye.
some of you guys are so fucking naive. she’s going for moderate voters, so she tells them how great their country is. this is how you win elections — more important than ever with trump running. you’d rather feel good about your political purity than keep trump out. this is why the far left never gets anywhere.
Blah blah blah… Naive, purity… far left….
Give me a break. Are you really this intellectually lazy, or just pretending?
The only air-time Clinton can expect next is the debates.
Doesn’t this seem familiar to you guys? We have lived all of this before. Does Sarah Palin ring a bell? The press loved covering her because so many of them are lazy, and covering in-depth policy isn’t as fun as “winks” and “you betchas!” I remember people worrying about Joe Biden. He did fine, but the “story” was, “Palin didn’t drool, so… Tie!”
When it comes to the debates, Hillary is in the exact same position as Joe Biden was with Palin – the standard for him was high, while Palin could tie by not drooling. I expect the same narrative with Hillary and Trump. Of course, Trump can change it by going completely off the rails (and he probably will). But the press will want to keep this race competitive for as long as possible, so I’m expecting the “tie” narrative until the last debate. (Again, unless Trump goes completely off the rails.)
All that said, what exactly do you guys want her to do? Make headlines? How? By behaving like Trump? No thank you.
I don’t have a problem with how she’s running her campaign – mainly because every politician has to shape their campaign, in large part, by who they’re running against. They highlight their differences in policies and temperament. It would be great if the press actually, you know, covered her, but they don’t. However, whenever they do cover her she comes across as the exact opposite of Trump – and that’s not a bad thing; it’s a winning strategy.
(FYI: We’re guilty of not covering her as much as we cover Trump. I know, I know. I can’t help myself either. He’s so off the charts. How do you not cover him?)
“Trump cant win. – I disagree.”
Everyday I see evidence that he can’t and won’t win. I am convinced he won’t
But what if I’m wrong? What if he does?
While only a football aphorism, it still applies – On any given Sunday…
i’d say it’s intellectually lazy to fall back on your progressive platitudes no matter who you take down with you — even if it’s not in your own interest. it’s the same thing you accuse conservatives of doing on the other end.
That would be fine if this post had anything to do with progressive platitudes, which it clearly doesn’t. It is solely and entirely concerned with HRC’s weakness as a candidate.
But anytime some people here any thing remotely critical of HRC, they say “blah blah blah purity, etc….” as part of a Pavlovian call and response feedback loop, which – I think we can all agree – is intellectual laziness.
“Hillary is in the exact same position as Joe Biden was with Palin – the standard for him was high, while Palin could tie by not drooling. I expect the same narrative with Hillary and Trump.”
I agree. The expectations for Trump are that low. Still, I am looking forward to the debates because I do expect Clinton to be able to convey her competence, her knowledge and ideas to those who doubt her AND I expect that Trump will not do very well without aid of a teleprompter or a canned speech. Meaning that Trump will have no restraint to keep him from being Trump.
Depending on the questions, debates can be wonky affairs, in which she should excel. These debates won’t be the GOP fare where the size of one’s “hand” is a topic.
Maybe the post’s author is jaded. Maybe the standard for good speeches is now being defined by bluster, and not content. Maybe the new standard for great speeches is solely based on crowd audience reaction? I can’t speak for the post’s author…
But if one who particularly enjoys the nuances of the English language across the entire history of its language, as well as the history of democracy from its inception to this point in medias res were to read the script of that said speech, they would conclude: it was a most excellent of speeches.
Have any debates been agreed to yet? I don’t think they have.
The big difference here between the Biden/Palin debate is she is free to make him look like an idiot without the risk of her looking like a bully. No, the debates have not yet been agreed to, but Trump will look like an utter coward if he doesn’t show. If he were ahead as he was in the primaries, he’d have everything to lose. Here, he needs to move the needle the last few points. I don’t know that he’s capable, but he’s a narcissist incapable of recognizing his own weaknesses.
@Pandora “Hillary is in the exact same position as Joe Biden” at least Joe has not taken money from foreign entities, so they could line their pockets.
@Jason330
http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-presidential-debate-schedule/
I know that the Commission has scheduled them, I don’t think they’ve been agreed to by the candidates yet.
jason: yeah, it was a little lazy. doesn’t make it incorrect. just wanted to mock your touching idealism.
As far as American exceptionalism is concerned, I remember in the early 70s, the Canadian broadcaster commentary “The Americans.” That’s my view of our place in this world: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gordonsinclairtheamericans.htm
Other countries have stepped up over the years, but it remains true that when disaster strikes, Americans respond. Others take a narrow view of the country focusing on intervention, exporting democracy, and other nefarious affairs, but that’s a binary view.
A more balanced view would also note that the US dollar is the most widely used currency in the world and for countries like Ecuador, East Timor, El Salvador, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Turks and Caicos, British Virgin Islands, Zimbabwe it’s the official currency. The reason is our stability.
It would also note that every 4 years we kick out the bum in the Oval Office and put in a new bum. What’s remarkable about that is the bum (the most powerful person in the world) leaves when their time has come.
America is pretty exceptional all right. Not perfect, but still exceptional.
The less emotional analysis is that we are exceptional due to our pluralism and our hybrid vigor.
“hybrid vigor”!?
What you do in the confines of your own home is your business, but it sure sounds pretty far out there!
While some take comfort in the claim that every American president has held some form of American exceptionalism, I find that revolting and a flimsy excuse for holding and promoting such a vile doctrine. It becomes the slimmest pretext for intervening in the world where it’s really not needed or desired and a convenient excuse for failing to critically examine the many errors and crimes the USA have committed during its interventions. That Hillary holds a doctrine that causes much animosity toward the USA and its citizens is hardly a virtue but should raise for people of genuine conscience serious questions about her for foreign policy perspective.
@puck: I’m sure you are being sexist somehow.
Great way to get one in the bank and pretend (you know, between “us guys”) that pandora’s default reaction to any criticism of Secretary Clinton is “sexism,” so that you can continue to belittle the idea that belittling women ain’t a problem. Noticeably, she didn’t rise to the dead worm on the end of your hook.
@cassandra: she is still running a damned solid campaign. I agree, which is a change for me over the past couple weeks. She doesn’t have to win with style, she doesn’t have to compete with Bill or Barack on points, she doesn’t even have to have a landslide. She just needs to win, and the best way to win when you are not a particularly charismatic candidate and not the “outsider” and not the “Candidate of change” (which you can’t be when effectively running as Obama’s “third term”–the best way to win under those conditions is to execute everything solidly, build the ground game, raise the money, touch the bases, and put the bastard into the position where he needs not just one Hail Mary pass to win, but four of them in a row.
@dana garrett–I agree with you that I dislike American Exceptionalism and I hate the fact that she’s doing it, but (a) I understand the political move [see above]; and (b) I tend to agree with cassandra–I think she actually does believe it, because her entire tenure as SecState suggests that she does, and to expect anyone as conventional as Secretary Clinton to renounce American Exceptionalism would be as unlikely as for her to go into the National Cathedral and announce that she’s an atheist. From her perspective no chance like that is worth taking.
l tend to agree with cassandra–I think she actually does believe it, because her entire tenure as SecState suggests that she does….”
I agree Hillary does believe it. But my point is that is no defense of her precisely because she believes that obscenity. A sincerely held rotten belief isn’t redeemed by the sincerity.