And the inevitable begins to show:

Polls reflect troubles for Clinton and Bush | OnPolitics

Hillary allows men at ‘women-only’ event amid weak turnout | Page Six

Somehow I am not surprised. There are MANY women (much to some posters dismay) that are not enthusiastic about Hillary being the representative "first woman president". Having someone of better character and integrity would appeal more to many of us. Aside from that, I don't think she is, for lack of a better word, "fresh" enough for the younger voters.....JMHO.

Originally Posted by Guest

Somehow I am not surprised. There are MANY women (much to some posters dismay) that are not enthusiastic about Hillary being the representative "first woman president". Having someone of better character and integrity would appeal more to many of us. Aside from that, I don't think she is, for lack of a better word, "fresh" enough for the younger voters.....JMHO.

Tactfully correct!

It is a little early but the boding is not good right now....

"More people have an unfavorable view of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton now than at any time since 2001, according to a new CNN/ORC poll on the 2016 race.

While Clinton remains strikingly dominant in the Democratic field, the poll shows that her numbers have dropped significantly across several key indicators since she launched her campaign in April.

A growing number of people say she is not honest and trustworthy (57%, up from 49% in March), less than half feel she cares about people like them (47%, down from 53% last July) and more now feel she does not inspire confidence (50%, up from 42% last March)."

Poll: New speed bumps for Hillary Clinton - CNNPolitics.com

Originally Posted by Guest

Somehow I am not surprised. There are MANY women (much to some posters dismay) that are not enthusiastic about Hillary being the representative "first woman president". Having someone of better character and integrity would appeal more to many of us. Aside from that, I don't think she is, for lack of a better word, "fresh" enough for the younger voters.....JMHO.

Really? She isn't "fresh" enough for young voters? Or women are not enthusiastic about Hillary being the representative "first woman president"?

Really??? Is there any evidence to back that up - or is this more wishful daydreaming?

Here - let me help you ............

Hillary Clinton is killing it with women and young voters

Folks are beginning to fight back (verbally) to her very thinly veiled hypocrisy....

First a quote from Ms Clinton....

"“There’s something wrong when hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than nurses or the truckers that I saw on I-80 as I was driving here over the last two days,” Clinton declared in mid-April as she campaigned in Iowa.

“People aren’t getting a fair shake. Something is wrong when CEOs earn more than 300 times than what the typical American worker earns and when hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than truck drivers or nurses,” she repeated a month later when she returned to the state."

Now some retorts and the last one just shocked me....but first....an actual hedge fund manager....

"“I don't need anybody crapping all over what I do for a living,” Leon Cooperman, the billionaire founder of the Omega Advisors hedge fund, told CNN on Monday, adding that she “hangs out with all these people in Martha's Vineyard and in the Hamptons and then the very first thing she has to say is to criticize hedge funds.”

Cooperman says he and other maligned hedge fund managers have given millions of dollars back to society in the form of donations to universities, charitable organizations, and cultural institutions.

“I have nothing to apologize for. I've made a lot of money. I'm giving it all back to society,” he said.

Clinton's populist critique of hedge fund manager tax rates has also come under scrutiny for its accuracy.

“Her broad-brush assertion does not hold up to scrutiny, even when the talking point is uttered correctly,” the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler wrote in May. “Overall, even hedge fund managers pay higher taxes—and tax rates—than middle-class Americans.”


The Tampa Bay Times politifact ALWAYS backed Ms Clinton and her husband....this is their comment..

"The Tampa Bay Times' Politifact concurred.

“She is certainly wrong for dollar amounts, which is what her statement was about. If she meant to say tax rates, that's more complicated, and the data doesn't clearly back up the point. Here, we're looking at just taxes paid, so we rate her claim False,” Louis Jacobson wrote. "

Hedge Fund Giant*Tells*Hillary Clinton to*Cut the 'Crap' - Bloomberg Politics

I thought the Democratic primary would be boring, but maybe not. It is so early in the game for both parties and a lot needs to shake out

Originally Posted by Guest

Really? She isn't "fresh" enough for young voters? Or women are not enthusiastic about Hillary being the representative "first woman president"?

Really??? Is there any evidence to back that up - or is this more wishful daydreaming?

Here - let me help you ............

Hillary Clinton is killing it with women and young voters

Your link is from APRIL 4......the link below which I will quote once again from is from TODAY...

"More people have an unfavorable view of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton now than at any time since 2001, according to a new CNN/ORC poll on the 2016 race.

While Clinton remains strikingly dominant in the Democratic field, the poll shows that her numbers have dropped significantly across several key indicators since she launched her campaign in April.

A growing number of people say she is not honest and trustworthy (57%, up from 49% in March), less than half feel she cares about people like them (47%, down from 53% last July) and more now feel she does not inspire confidence (50%, up from 42% last March)."

Poll: New speed bumps for Hillary Clinton - CNNPolitics.com

This is from ONE HOUR AGO......


"Hillary Clinton has a numbers problem.

No question, as her retinue of aides and supporters is quick to point out, she still polls better than any of her putative Republican rivals. And yes, it was inevitable that as she moved squarely into the political arena, Americans would see her as less of an above-the-fray stateswoman and more of a partisan Democrat. And of course it’s still June 2015 – six months before any actual voters will be picking sides in an Iowa caucus room, and well over a year before the main event.

But still: Her untrustworthy ratings are stubbornly high, and perhaps most alarming of all for Team Hillary, the “so-called scandals,” as Clinton campaign operatives like to refer to them, are starting to take their toll on her favorability numbers, sending chills down the spines of Democrats who have put all their eggs in the Hillary basket."

Read more: Hillary Clinton's poll numbers signal trouble ahead - Annie Karni and Gabriel Debenedetti - POLITICO

I will give you that it is still early but the trend is not good at this moment.

None of this actually matters. The democrats don't have anyone else to offer.

Originally Posted by Guest

This is from ONE HOUR AGO......


"Hillary Clinton has a numbers problem.

No question, as her retinue of aides and supporters is quick to point out, she still polls better than any of her putative Republican rivals. And yes, it was inevitable that as she moved squarely into the political arena, Americans would see her as less of an above-the-fray stateswoman and more of a partisan Democrat. And of course it’s still June 2015 – six months before any actual voters will be picking sides in an Iowa caucus room, and well over a year before the main event.

But still: Her untrustworthy ratings are stubbornly high, and perhaps most alarming of all for Team Hillary, the “so-called scandals,” as Clinton campaign operatives like to refer to them, are starting to take their toll on her favorability numbers, sending chills down the spines of Democrats who have put all their eggs in the Hillary basket."

Read more: Hillary Clinton's poll numbers signal trouble ahead - Annie Karni and Gabriel Debenedetti - POLITICO

I will give you that it is still early but the trend is not good at this moment.

Originally Posted by Guest

None of this actually matters. The democrats don't have anyone else to offer.

It is both sad (for lack of better terminology) and may be some what telling.

Are the Clintons so all powerful they determine whether and or if there should be any other candidates offered?

Is there no democrat willing to take on the Clinton dynasty?

Have the democrats given up and acknowledge this election is going republican anyway so why should anybody else waste their time?

I actually think Clinton, despite her lack of honesty and character, has a very good chance to be elected. The demographics favor the democrats. The country is so polarized that issues, leadership, character, accomplishments no longer matter (they certainly didn't in the 2008 and 2012 elections). Most people are so poorly informed that they won't realize just how shady Clinton is. Many of those who do, won't care. Hunker down, it is going to be a rocky ride.

Originally Posted by Guest

It is both sad (for lack of better terminology) and may be some what telling.

Are the Clintons so all powerful they determine whether and or if there should be any other candidates offered?

Is there no democrat willing to take on the Clinton dynasty?

Have the democrats given up and acknowledge this election is going republican anyway so why should anybody else waste their time?

Originally Posted by Guest

I actually think Clinton, despite her lack of honesty and character, has a very good chance to be elected. The demographics favor the democrats. The country is so polarized that issues, leadership, character, accomplishments no longer matter (they certainly didn't in the 2008 and 2012 elections). Most people are so poorly informed that they won't realize just how shady Clinton is. Many of those who do, won't care. Hunker down, it is going to be a rocky ride.

Yes, all demographics do point to a Clinton win. The country has seen the Party of No doing absolutely nothing in Congress except to block all of the President's plans and spend untold amounts of money on trying to "investigate" Mrs. Clinton or AG Holder. Partisan nonsense! Voters are tired of this nonsense.

All the Democrats have to do now is to find a great VP candidate to guarantee 8 more years in the White House.

I honestly think there are a lot of the regressive conservatives on this forum who, like Rush Limbaugh, were hoping from the very beginning that President Obama would fail in 2008 - but he got re-elected and now has a higher approval rating than George Weasel Bush did at the same time in his presidency.

Originally Posted by Guest

I actually think Clinton, despite her lack of honesty and character, has a very good chance to be elected. The demographics favor the democrats. The country is so polarized that issues, leadership, character, accomplishments no longer matter (they certainly didn't in the 2008 and 2012 elections). Most people are so poorly informed that they won't realize just how shady Clinton is. Many of those who do, won't care. Hunker down, it is going to be a rocky ride.

I tend to agree with you on this.

On TOTV alone, there is very little if any, talk of any good that Ms Clinton can do, no response on the always ongoing talk of...for want of a better word I will use..."stuff".

Ms Clinton is the total and complete opposite of everything the Democratic Party has said they embrace, yet she will be the candidate (nobody will even welcome any opposition) and as you said has a better than good chance of being elected.

There is a post on here calling the opposition (republicans) the party of no. These are people who simply will not take the time to read and be aware (the NO was Sen Reid and his manipulation, something even democrats were shocked at, which does not relieve any obstruction by the Republicans) but the point is, the same tired old revised history people will vote for Ms Clinton ignoring anything negative about her.

No Republican candidate to even talk about yet, but these folks are already in line to vote straight party. The recent congressional elections, the fact that most states are Republicn controlled does not affect these folks. They continue with the same dialogue that is tired, not true, but makes them feel good.

But we have seen what the Soros money can do come election time so you make a good point.

Originally Posted by Guest

I honestly think there are a lot of the regressive conservatives on this forum who, like Rush Limbaugh, were hoping from the very beginning that President Obama would fail in 2008 - but he got re-elected and now has a higher approval rating than George Weasel Bush did at the same time in his presidency.

Funny....from TODAYS Politico...

"Americans now have a more favorable view of former President George W. Bush than they do of President Barack Obama.


Read more: George W. Bush outpolls Barack Obama - Nick Gass - POLITICO