Even more bad news for Hillary Clinton

Washington Post ^ | June 30, 2015 | BY JENNIFER RUBIN

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Hillary Clinton’s re-launch did absolutely nothing to improve the trajectory of her campaign. And there are daily reminders that far from being Democrats’ best bet she may be the Republicans’ ideal opponent.

First, she generates as much enthusiasm as dental surgery. But don’t just take my word for it. A new poll from Democracy Corps and Women’s Voices, Woman Vote Action Fund shows that Clinton’s hopes rest with “the changing demographic reality of the new American electorate. Unmarried women, people of color, millennials—voters of the Rising American Electorate (RAE)—will make up a majority of voters for the first time in 2016.” But therein lies Hillary’s problem. “[Democrats’] base, specifically RAE voters and unmarried women, betray a huge disparity in interest and enthusiasm for participating in the 2016 elections compared to their more conservative counterparts. A 67 percent majority of non-RAE voters describe their level of interest in the highest terms (a ‘ten’ on a ten-point scale). Among RAE voters, this number drops to 48 percent. These voters demonstrate real doubts about the ability of the government to deliver on the change they need. The disparity in interest among Democratic base groups is a direct threat to their strategy, regardless of the outcome in 2016.”

... And third, Hillary Clinton’s noxious sense of entitlement, cronyism and lack of transparency continue to dog her. When an MSNBC panel rips her for lying that she turned over “all” her work emails and says her private server was instead an attempt to evade Americans’ right to know what is going on in their government, it’s a sign things are not well for her.

[dontreadthis]

yes, I support Cruz.
but if Bush is the nominee, are you going to say that it’s due to people like me that Clinton won?
I supported Romney in 2012, but will not make that kind of mistake again.

[trebb]

yes, I support Cruz. but if Bush is the nominee, are you going to say that it’s due to people like me that Clinton won? I supported Romney in 2012, but will not make that kind of mistake again.

I guess it depends on what the meaning of "support" is. If one defines it as donating time and money to a campaign, then that person can have a clear conscience. If it means talking a lot and then "holding one's nose to vote for the person", then those people own a good bit of the blame.