I think Hillary may be hitting the sauce

by lestro

Hillary’s been out of this thing for a while now, but they continue forth as if it is neck and neck and she’s got a shot at this thing. However, the complete disconnect may be explained by this photo published recently by the New York Times.

Ah, sweet bourbon.

It also explains recent statements by Harold Ickes at the DNC’s rules committee meeting this past weekend. During his rant on why all the votes from an unfair election – an election that broke the rules he helped write – should count now that his candidate’s campaign has stalled, Ickes said he didn’t believe the committee had the “gall and chutzpah to substitute our judgment for 600,000 voters.”

Of course, for his candidate to win, he has to convince the superdelegates to do exactly that: use their judgement to subvert the will of party voters around the country and choose his candidate as the standard bearer for the establishment.

It would be great to be Ickes’ kids. Imagine, being able to break rules and change your story at will with no repercussions.

But Ickes also did a little foreshadowing on the next step in the Clinton’s campaign, saying – as supporters chanted “Denver! Denver!” like rowdy pledges at a frat party – the candidate reserved her right to take this to the credentials committee.

I am not sure what the credentials committee is or what they do, but this is their move: keep their flailing campaign alive by taking it from committee to committee, arguing every little point and continuing to kneecap the party candidate while raising the specter of assassination all for her own personal glory.

She must be drunk.

It’s also the only way they can look at this graph of polling data and think they’ve run a successful campaign. Running a successful, winning campaign means continually drawing people into your cause and gaining in popularity. Candidates that don’t do that generally drop out.

It just happens that due to tremendous name recognition and brand approval, one of those campaigns has a base that is just under half the party. But that’s to be expected when one has been on the national stage for 16+ years.

A base of 35 to 40 percent? Incredible. What an advantageous position from which to start. Should be easy to secure a majority of the party when your base starting point is that high. You’d have to run an idiot’s campaign not to win. I mean, you’d have to throw away money and ignore half the party rules. Hell, you’d probably have to lie and doublespeak and play dirty tricks and get caught doing it to lose that.

And surely, that wouldn’t hap – oh, my bad.

It is time to recognize how remarkably ineffective the Hillary campaign is. The people that support her now are the same people that supported her when she started. There are no Hillary converts.

She is right now at 43 percent. Which is exactly where she was in early October 2007 and within 10 points of where she was when she launched her campaign. She has a huge base, but she has never been able to grow beyond it.

Just a quick glance at the graph shows you that only one campaign has been been able to gather people to it, to grow, to gain momentum.

Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure. People either like her or they don’t and the tricky thing is that though it looks like a big approval rating and popularity, it is important to recognize that just as strong is the support is the opposition and, well, there isn’t anyone left who hasn’t made up their mind one way or the other about hillary and she can’t even get beyond her base within her party.

And nationally, not just among Democrats, her numbers have gone down.

How could she possibly continue on thinking she is the best candidate in a general campaign when she couldn’t even take advantage of a huge head start within her own party?

Right, bourbon.

Advertisements

6 Responses to I think Hillary may be hitting the sauce

  1. Shagata Ganai says:

    Elect a woman president? Sure. Just not THIS woman. Her supporters just can’t get that into their heads. We’re not anti-woman, we’re anti-Hillary.

  2. Butterfly3344 says:

    As a middle aged white woman it is hard to figure out how she duped so many of my sisters. My mother raised me to believe changing the rules because you are losing is cheating. I can’t believe their mothers didn’t teach them that!

  3. J L Quick says:

    I am not a Hillory supporter . but I do read , and know the facts . Which are not exactly as you state. One has to consider that like it or like it not Hillory has won every major state in the country . Regarding the states of Flordia and Michigan , it was certainly not the fault of the 2 million plus voters [ in FL. alone ] that the DP in that state couldn’t get it right. So you are saying that these millions of people should not be considered ? Obviously you are not a Hillory supporter or your commentary may have been very different .

  4. I wouldn’t like it if Hillary won all the “big” states, it’s true, but fortunately, she didn’t even do that…

    For example, in Texas, Obama won 99 delegates to Clinton’s 94

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914#TX

    In Virginia, Obama won 54 to Clinton’s 29

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914#VA

    and that’s an actual swing state… just like Missouri…

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914#MO

    And no one is blaming the voters of MI and FL. That their elected representatives decided to kneecap the voices of their citizens is not their fault. There was an agreement to not campaign in FL, made by all candidates and violated only by HIllary. To now call it a win is an insult to the intelligence of every voter who knew at the time they were voting in an unsanctioned election.

    In MI, Obama wasn’t on the ballot and didn’t campaign in the state, in accordance with the agreement made by every candidate. It is a big state, but it never got a chance to cast an informed vote.

    It is tragic that FL and MI let their voters down. But it is ridiculous to cast the debate as to whether these unsanctioned votes should count as an issue of which candidate is favored.

    Especially when Obama can win regardless of how many votes are allocated to FL and MI.

    “Even if she were awarded all the delegates in proportion to her popular vote in those states — her best-case scenario — she could not overtake Senator Obama’s delegate lead.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/us/politics/28cnd-politics.html

  5. lestro says:

    The facts are exactly as stated, though we would love to hear what your version of what you think the facts are.

    And counting an unfair election is not the way to honor democracy in the way you seem to want to. It may not be the voters’ fault that their votes do not count, but that does not mean they should be counted.

    Also, “Hillary” is spelled with an “a.”

  6. Pingback: The Resurrection of Hillary Clinton « The Church of the Apocalyptic Kiwi

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: