Posted on 12/02/2015 9:47:53 AM PST by Starman417
But worse. Much worse. Although Hillary Clinton is widely expected to prevail in the democrat primaries, there is concern for her. She's not likable.
Allies of Hillary Clinton are confident she will win the Democratic presidential nomination, but they are worried about one big thing: her likability problem in the general election.All the rabid support that exists for Hillary really is curious, given that Clinton is everything the left said it despised about Mitt Romney- too rich, too white, too old.Clinton has rebounded from a rough spring and summer with a strong fall. And while her eyes remain on the primary, she is already testing general election themes against her possible GOP opponents as they do battle in what could be a drawn-out Republican primary.
Presidential elections are often decided on personality instead of specific policies. Along those lines, people in Clinton's orbit are worried she doesn't pass the would-you-like-to-have-a-beer-with-her test.
It's a test she failed against then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in 2008. Throughout that cycle, Clinton stressed her "35 years of experience" while Obama pitched his "hope and change" message.
The likability test came up often on the campaign trail, most notably in the last New Hampshire debate that year when Clinton acknowledged Obama is "very likable."
In a quip that may have cost him New Hampshire, Obama responded, "You're likable enough, Hillary."
TOO WHITE
Liberal group calls Romney too white for blacks to like
Michael Tomasky: Romney is too white for Hispanics:
It seems clear that the main issue Mitt Romney is going to use to try to reestablish himself as a moderate is immigration. He told a private audience on April 15 that "we have to get Hispanic voters to vote for our party" and warned that current polling "spells doom for us." Then, on Monday, he made himself available to the media for the first time in a month—while standing beside Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a leading veepstakes name. Can Romney, who staked out an immigration position during the primaries that left him sounding like Pat Buchanan, really pull this off? My bet: He’ll be smooth, he’ll do almost everything right, he’ll say all the right things—and he’ll end up with something very much like the 31 percent of the Latino vote John McCain got, maybe two or three points more, tops. The reason is simple: Romney, like his party, is just too white.Bill Maher: I really think this election comes down to one thing - is Mitt Romney too white to be president?
One cannot be more white than Hillary Clinton. And Mitt never faked a southern drawl.
TOO RICH
Romney seen as "too rich for too long"? - CBS News
Is Romney just too rich? | MSNBC
But now it appears that all that business knowledge was great for Romney and made him a much richer man, but there is scant evidence that he helped average workers along the way - or at least not on purpose. Inadvertent job creation is not exactly a concrete foundation for electoral success.Romney may be too rich to be president
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — It may be that even in the land of the American Dream, some people are just too rich to run for president. American voters seem to have trouble connecting with zillionaires who own multiple homes or a fleet of cars or who just sound false when they try to talk about the preoccupations of normal people.Romney Is Kerry. Or Maybe Gore.
He's too handsome, too rich, and too pompous to win the hearts of ordinary Americans.And of course, this from the NY Times:
But every discussion of Romney's campaign, no matter the angle, winds up referring to riches. It's uncanny. Wealth is the Go on the Monopoly board of Mitt: you're either starting there, heading there or circling past it. If only you collected $200 each time.Together, Bill and Hillary Clinton are worth about $125 million. They control a Foundation which has raised about $2 billion. Much of that has come from foreign governments, which will be looking for a Clinton Presidency payback.
TOO OLD
GOP soul-searching: 'Too old, too white, too male'?
Mitt Romney - Is He Too Old To Be US President?
Mitt Romney's Dirty Little Secret: He's Old
Many completely correct adjectives come to mind when you think of presidential frontrunner Willard "Mittens" Romney: Slick, gross, rich, cheesy, evil, hilarious, weird, and, especially, white. But no one ever talks about how old he is. Did you know he's kind of old?Hillary hasn't driven a car since 1996. She has suffered brain damage, is unable to use a fax and she often gets confused. And she isn't likable. And then there's that God-awful cackle:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
If she really loved the Democratic party. if she wanted what was BEST for the USA, if she had a real concern for her grandkids. She would gracefully bow out. She has way too much baggage and too many poc marks of liars, cheaters, scandals plaguing her. Please Hill, toss in the towel.
Mrs. Bill has advantages unavailable to a Republican candidate:
Much higher level of vote fraud than previously.
Millions of newly minted Democrat citizen voters (happening right along).
Throwout of the Military vote.
Probable GOPe Republican candidate as the opponent, no matter what the primaries produce.
Clinton got a million and a half new voters by swearing them in by the stadiumful before the 1996 election. Hussein will get much more than that.
I think that would cause some waves.
Clinton has rebounded from a rough spring and summer with a strong fall. And while her eyes remain on the primary, she is already testing general election themes against her possible GOP opponents as they do battle in what could be a drawn-out Republican primary.
Shes been invisible for weeks.
They’re hypocrites. Tell us something we didn’t know.
They are probably having a hell of a time trying to keep her sober.
Hillary took flak for proclaiming that upon leaving the WH the Clintons were “dead broke” - but now it is reported that the Clintons control (directly or thru the Clinton Foundation) about a quarter of a BILLION dollars. Reportedly a lot of that money was contributed to the Clinton Foundation or paid to Bill for fabulously remunerative speeches he gave abroad.Much has been made of the likelihood that the Clinton Foundation has functioned as a slush fund for the Clintons (see, Clinton Cash for example), but the reality is that unless Congress explicitly authorized it, the acceptance of foreign government money by Bill or Hillary, or by a foundation which they control, is unconstitutional no matter how that money was used.
It is not generally known that not only are presidents not elected by the overall popular vote in the country but by the Electoral College, the Constitution does not even provide for a popular vote to determine the winners of the electoral votes of each state.
- Article 1 Section 9:
- No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the CongressThis implies that although most states traditionally conduct winner-take-all elections for all of their electors, a state can - and Nebraska and Maine do - make other arrangements. The latter two states elect only two electors at-large in the state, and the remaining electors are elected in the Congressional Districts of the state.The upshot is that each state legislature bears some responsibility for who the electors from their state are. Because each state legislature has “plenary power” as one SCOTUS justice put it, over the selection process. If the Democrats nominate Hillary, and if Hillary is on the take from foreign governments (and was so, unconstitutionally, while she was Secretary of State or senator), your state legislature is responsible if she gets your state’s electoral votes.
There are a number of things your state legislature has the authority to do, of various levels of courage/efficacy. The one which would require the most courage, and which would be most efficacious, would be to enact a law creating a cause of action against the state election authorities requiring that any violator of the anticorruption stricture in the Constitution be prevented from being on the ballot anywhere in the state, and that no electors pledged to vote for such person be named on the ballot.
That is not excessive; it is not even a criminal penalty of any sort. Placed in the context of the strictures of McCain-Feingold against otherwise constitutional (even constitutionally protected, in the opinion of three still-sitting SCOTUS justices) behavior, the lack of such a law in your state looks less like an imposition than like minimal necessary civic hygiene. Failing the courage to do what is right, your state legislature could allow pledged electors for such a miscreant to be on the ballot but outlaw the naming of the candidate to whom they are pledged on the ballot.
The least that your legislature should do is allow the miscreant and electors committed thereto on the ballot, but require that the line of the ballot assigned to them not be on either the top or the bottom row. Preferably in the middle of the list of fringe party candidates.
What is your state legislator/state senator doing about this issue?The very least that should happen in your state is that the issue be bruited, and the Democrats be forced to defend the indefensible (which we all know is a habit with “liberals”).
. . . and substantially ill-gotten, by all reports.
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.