Attitudes to Hillary Clinton

.

Seneca, I meant that the fact that Clinton isn't beating trump at 70:30 or whatever doesn't make her a weak candidate. The Scottish independence result was a lot less close than people expected at 55:45 but it still wasn't a trouncing.

The 2008 election was not really close. 53 percent of the popular vote is actually pretty high and the Electoral College margin was quite high. The 2000 election was very close indeed. Gore won the popular vote by a close margin but lost in the Electoral College when the Supreme Court put a stop to the recount in Florida.

In 2008 Obama got 53% of the vote (68% electoral college) - again, showing it was close. Gore/Bush of course was close as well (thank you hanging chads). As with the U.K., there are swing voters and swing states that influence everything.

From the ny times a couple of weeks ago

At this point – 167 days before the election – a simple polling average has differed from the final result by about nine percentage points. We expect this average to become more meaningful by the week, until the national party conventions temporarily make it less so, as shown in the bump about 100 days before the election. The average difference begins to flatten about two months before the election. The day before the voting, an unadjusted polling average has been about 3.5 points off the final result.

To me the equivalent would be say Nicola Sturgeon standing against Tommy Sheridan ( not in political views but as in proper candidate versus joke candidate). Unfortunately US voters are not , it seems, seeing Trump as the joke candidate.

So far as Clinton herself if her opponent were say John McCain I think she'd lose so from that point of view (bearing in mind I'm not American and could well be completely wrong) she does not look like a strong candidate.

As with the U.K., many people will vote for their party no matter who heads it. As with the U.K., the leader's views are far from the only things that matter as there are the Houses plus the Secretaries to actually enact things

People who hear what Trump has said and still says and still consider voting for him rather than any other candidate must share or at least be prepared to tolerate his views. Which reflects on them.

And perhaps some don't want a woman president.

Trump is scary, but the fact that he has any chance at all, when he should have none, says a lot about Clinton!

No it does not. Trump's candidacy has been driven by racist and sexist elements in the Republican party that the party has drawn to itself over the years. As someone posted on another forum, Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again" resonates with many of his supporters as "Make America White Again."

Noodle I agree with most of your observations. I have supported Hillary Clinton from the beginning, but I am one of those people who is glad that Bernie has moved the party to the left. As for Elizabeth Warren, I would love to see her be the VP candidate.

If it was Obama, or Bill Clinton running for president , Trump would not stand a chance, not a hope in hell would Donald have. However, with Hilary he does, and that's because she does not come across well Dozer.

The Queen?!

No, it says a lot about certain voters in the USA.

Lets be honest...... Both candidates are poor. Trump is scary, but the fact that he has any chance at all, when he should have none, says a lot about Clinton!

I think Clinton has more to offer globally: Trump is a joke, and could write off America. I know many young American women who have said they will leave America if Clinton doesn't get in to office. They just don't want to be in America with trump.
Unfortunately globally we are at a critical juncture with climate change, and we cannot afford to have a blithering gung-ho idiot as president of energy guzzling America.

I'm not impressed with the (reported / quoted) comments from the BBC. Wtf is the inner bitch? I think some editor may get into hot water in beggars bush, for not reporting that as a quote from an external source. It looks like the BBC have said it.

I'm glad that there is a women candidate for the us presidency at last.

As a PP said, Thatcher, the Queen and Merkel have beaten a track through the male, stale political jungle for other women to follow.
My country has a woman deputy priminister at the moment, and has had two women presidents. I'm delighted to say that gender of a candidate has lost its novelty value.

The issues for the next US president will be multi faceted and far reaching. I would say the number one issue for America and globally, is climate change, and how it will effect the global economy.

Clinton is the best qualified candidate for this actually international job as president of America- she has intelligence, education, experience and breadth of vision. She understands how the political system works and can work within it.
Clinton may not set the world aflame with her sartorial choices, but a suit is a suit, and America is a lot more conservative than the west and eastern edges seem. The Queen or Merkel are hardly trailblazers in that regard either. This isn't a dance of the seven veils anyhoo, it's a professional job.

Suit wearing (no comments about that I see) Trump seems very backward, inward, vindictive, immature, and ingrown: he hasn't got any vision, just some kind of simplistic, redundant, ignorant, fear driven solipsism. I'd say he has a horrible temper. He definately has a lot of Freudian influences- trump towers anyone

I pity the republicans and the GOP actually.... they really are in crisis and have nothing to offer at all! Embarrassed for them!

Certainly no need to apologise to me about the name! I wasn't making a pointed remark at you in particular, there were a few posts on the thread referring to him as 'Saunders', while also strongly implying that his reasons for running against Clinton, or for staying in the race to the end, were sexist. I think that both things - calling him by the wrong name and assuming that about his motivation - make it clear that some people commenting really don't know much at all about Bernie Sanders. So I wanted to explain from my point of view why a feminist who respects Hillary and very much wants a woman president might still vote for Bernie in this primary, or might vote for Hillary but still be grateful that Bernie has shifted the party platform significantly leftward from Hillary's earlier positions, which will be the reason that she may have to choose Elizabeth Warren for her running mate in order to bring the progressives back into the fold.

I am waiting for the announcement and really really hope it happens. Elizabeth Warren is a force of nature - if a Vice Presidency sets her up for her own run in eight years' time, that will be the best outcome out of this whole thing. And in this election, Bernie's campaign will have been the catalyst for the Dems having an extremely viable female POTUS/ female Veep ticket with a centrist / progressive platform, rather than the female POTUS / male Veep ticket with a center right platform that would have been likely had the Bernie phenomenon not happened.

Noodle

Apologies for the miss spell on Sanders surname.

It seems Warren has now given her full support for Clinton and may even throw her hat into the vice presidential ring. Now two women running together would be phenomenal.

I just listened to the clip. I can see why the BBC wanted to use the word "bitch." I'm not sure that they could have conveyed the same sense of what Tina Brown said with a headline that didn't use it. But it underscores how that word is really just another word to most people; it's offensive to me and I don't use it. I gather that younger feminists are reclaiming it to some extent, but I have no wish to do so.

Tina Brown's comments are sexist in my opinion, but even more ageist.
So Hillary needs to wear sunglasses and change her wardrobe to appeal to younger women?

Have to say I agree with Lass.
It's like when that woman said "the n word" on Big Brother a few years back and everybody reported it, and you are incensed about the people reporting it!
Don't shoot the messenger.

Unfortunately at least here in the US it's hard to get excited about Hilary's nomination. She ran for Democratic Presidential Candidate 8 years ago with Obama and was likely to take it but stepped aside when it was clear Obama was now likely to win the nomination.

So it is an anticlimax after she has been campaigning for the best part of a decade. She is not exciting and is very much an establishment candidate. Americans want change and are looking for candidates outside the classic establishment. That's how Obama was elected and many people are disappointed with his presidency as he wasn't the radical they were hoping for.

Assuming it does not get removed Fela here it is. I'm very surprised you can't summon up a single word of criticism about the person who said it as opposed to the person who reported what was said.

Hillary Clinton 'must own her inner bitch' - www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36478571

The interview with Tina Brown is on the second link you posted and is still live.

Have you listened to it ?

Why can't you comment on Tina Brown? She is the one who was talking about "inner bitches". You can hear what she said , the link is still live.

Or is it all right for her to say it but just not for anyone to report it?

I've seen subtitles like that on the BBC website before be changed, hopefully because someone at the BBC gets it's not OK!

It interests me what someone said up thread about black people using the word bigger. If that happened I doubt the BBC would use a snippet as a headline

I'm very much sure they would- not the word itself but the fact that someone had used it. I'm still struggling to see why you think the BBC rather than Tina Brown is at fault.

I come from a country that at one point had a woman Prime Minister (now vying for first woman SG of the UN), leader of the opposition, head of the judiciary, and Govenor General all at the same time. Oh, for those halcyon days.

We were also the first country to give women the vote in 1893.

We're back to all male now of course, although the next GG is another woman. Even a so-called progressive country such as ours (admittedly not at all progressive in other ways - e.g. appalling DV stats), still reverts back to the default of men in charge...