Poll: Trump Would Still Beat Clinton

Hillary_Clinton_Testimony_to_House_Select_Committee_on_Benghazidonald_trump_president-elect_portrait_croppedWe have previously discussed how the Democrats lost the last presidential election when the Democratic establishment pushed through the nomination of Hillary Clinton — the least popular Democrat ever to run for the White House.  There has been a concerted effort by Democratic members (who uniformly supported Clinton) to shift the blame to the Russians or Comey or others.  Clinton herself has a long list of people responsible with the notable exception of herself.  This includes her explanation (and her supporters) that it was not Clinton but self-hating, misogynistic women who could not vote for any woman for President.  Now another poll shows just how unpopular Clinton is.  Even with Trump showing record lows in polls as president, he would still beat Clinton.  This is consistent with other polls showing that voters continue to view Clinton in a highly negative light.

 

The latest Bloomberg poll shows that Clinton is viewed favorably by only 39 percent of Americans.  That is two points lower than Trump in the poll.

Before the establishment all but anointed Clinton as their candidate in the primary, polls clearly showed that the voters did not want an establishment figure so the DNC worked to guarantee the nomination to the ultimate establishment figure. However, it clearly goes deeper than that.  Even against one of the most unpopular figures in history (Trump was even worse at 63 percent unfavorability), Clinton could not even maintain a majority of women with favorability ratings.  I believe that voters are willing to elect a woman and I do not believe that the last election was decided by self-hating women. There was ample reason to vote against Clinton who was not just the ultimately establishment figure but was dragging a long chain of controversies stretching back to her time as the First Lady of Arkansas.

Nevertheless, DNC figures like Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are working back into the mainstream as part of the Trump “resistance.”  Brazile, who lied to the media and even her employer CNN, is soon going to be on a book tour.  The Russian investigation has given the Democratic establishment a new lease on life as they try to deflect attention away from their concerted effort to guarantee Clinton the nomination.  Yet, these polls show that Clinton continues to be a polarizing figure with voter and that the Democrats may have done more to lose the election than Trump did to win it.

177 thoughts on “Poll: Trump Would Still Beat Clinton”

  1. A poll to determine how people would have voted 7 mos. ago, if they knew then, what they know now?
    How common is that exercise in beating a dead horse?

    1. I was a Sanders supporter, yet I would not change my decision to vote 3rd party in November even knowing what I know now. The destruction of the utterly corrupt Clinton political dynasty was the only positive to come out of that whole fiasco last year. In fact. Trump’s utter unfitness made Clinton’s loss even sweeter for me.

    1. Obongo, being an empty suit son of a foreign citizen, will never be suitable or eligible for POTUS.

      Obongo was simply a “citizen” who held foreign allegiances, derived from his father who was a foreign citizen, anti-American anti-colonialist, against whom the Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, placed a “strong check.”

      Obongo was ensconced by globalists who colluded to manipulate American elections through illegal, incongruous, unassimilable and deleterious invasion/immigration of democrat voters – check out the Founders in 1790 on immigration: “…free white person(s)…”

      Oh, and Hillary? Yeah, Hillary lost!

      1. You’re “fighting” a loosing cause. Just like Herr Drumpfenfuhrer.

        Losers?

          1. That’s all you have? Btw, he wasn’t approved by the senate until McTurtle invoked the nuclear option. He’s that bad.
            Legislatively, Reptilicans has squat. See “Trumpcare.”

  2. I do not know why the word Pole is mis spelled in the article. We have Poles around here and they are mostly for Trump. Same with the Czechs. Germans like Hillary.

  3. A Choice Not An Echo. The marina that I go to for my sailboat has public restrooms. There is a choice of toilet paper in there. One has photo of Trump and the other roll has a photo, just like the one above, of Hillary. Hillary gets used more. Now, how would that turn out in voting. Some might think that if you wipe your rear with Hillary’s toilet paper and her face on it that you do not like her. Others might choose that because they would not want Trumps face on their rear.

    I think Trump would win the voters here.

  4. Jonathan: you are mixing the concepts of approval ratings with how a voter would vote today, knowing what they know now. The two concepts are by no means comparable, but what it does expose is your personal anti-HRC and pro-Chump bias, and how your credentials are for rent. How sad.

    1. Horse pucky.

      Typical Pinko to smear analysis as being for rent

      You just made Turley’s point about the Democratic party.

      1. Pollsters didn’t ask whom the respondent would vote for–it was about approval ratings. Two different things. People may well vote for someone they don’t approve of if the only other choice were more odious.

  5. HRC baggage past and current. Sane folks associate HRC with corruption – and then there all are those mysterious deaths as well in 2016 (Seth Rich, Shawn Lucas) and continuing in 2017 (Wisenoth, Peter Smith, Klaus Oberwein). Elizabeth Beck, one of the DNC Fraud lawsuit attorneys, seems to be terrified. Strange interview .

    1. Putin is constantly excoriated for the well publicized

      assassination of Alexander Litvinenko by poisoning with polonium-210.

      Clinton’s Body Count is up to 34 and CNN, PMSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR

      and the rest of the MSM never mention it.

      What did “Slick Willy” threaten AG Lowretched Lynch with

      on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport?

  6. More deaths of people just prior to testifying against the Clinton Foundation corruption:

    Haiti Official Who Exposed The Clinton Foundation Is Found Dead
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-16/haiti-official-who-exposed-clinton-foundation-found-dead

    U.N. Official ‘Accidentally’ Crushes Own Throat Right Before Testifying Against Hillary Clinton

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-02/un-official-accidentally-crushes-own-throat-right-testifying-against-hillary-clinton

  7. I’ve often said that the worst thing about this election is that Trump’s buffoonery removes any incentive for Democrats to self-reflect on the party’s direction and purpose. Instead, they’re sticking to the (dishonest) line of, “See? Trump is terrible, therefore all our positions are perfect.” It’s sad for those of us who are liberal but not academic intersectional feminists, anti-Zionists, or Luddites.

  8. I’m actually amazed that Trump polls around 40%, considering that he is bashed by the media 24/7.

    1. Republicans by and large watch Fox and they are staying with him for the most part.

      1. Frankly, so what? Misguided liberals “by and large” watch CNN and MSNBC, and they are against Trump “for the most part” as you say!

    2. When facts are reported, the people make their own decision. If such is “bashing,” then its the American people doing the “bashing.”

      This is to sierra

    1. Some polls have him at 35 or 36 percent. As long as the economy holds up he probably won’t go too much lower.

      1. And the WAPO, Bloomberg, Gallup, NYT, ABC, NBC, etc. polls are Democrat “polling outfits”!

        1. How many of the “liberal polling outfits” predicted the 2016 presidential election correctly? Answer-none! Rasmussen did predict it correctly!

        2. Actually, no, they’re not. WAPO, etc. do not take in money from Republican campaigns. And many of the major polling firms were correct – that Hillary was likely ahead by a couple of points on election day. She indeed carried the popular vote by such a margin. BTW, when referring to something of the Democratic Party, please use “Democratic” not the neandrathalistic “Democrat.” TIA.

      2. Remember when election day came all of your polls indicated a big win by Clinton so your hubris is a bit out of place.

  9. ” Even against one of the most unpopular figures in history (Trump was even worse at 63 percent unfavorability)…”

    This is just the kind of unhinged, weird, thought that makes me wonder why I follow this blog. I certainly wouldn’t hire Turley as a lawyer if his reasoning is so obviously asinine.

    Take a look at the Red/Blue map. Then commission two polls, one in the red counties and one in the blue counties. The vast majority of America would declare Trump one of the most popular figures in American history–guaranteed. The tiny, tumor-like, blue enclaves of the elite establishment would declare an almost zero popularity of the man.

    Blending the two is simply stupid.

    Normal people want Trump to succeed at putting America first in priorities foreign and domestic. Keeping out “refugees” who don’t intend to become one of us; stopping sneaky trespassers from invading our country, and deporting those who prior administrations allowed to sneak in; declaring to the welfare queens of Europe that their free ride is over, and that if they want us to be their protectors they better help finance the effort.

    Normal people live in the Red counties. Weirdoes live in the Blue ones. The Blue people don’t want America to come first. Blending them in with the normals is not a legitimate way of polling. Turley should certainly understand that. Does he? If he doesn’t, I don’t, again, know why I bother with this blog.

    1. You’re right. There is a huge chasm between the blues and the reds regarding our country. And no, you don’t need to see a priest. The Blue residents do, though, so that they can follow a real religion.

      1. The fact that Trump even had a chance is the point. He won because normal people are so disgusted by the blue tumors, and the weirdoes there who pretend to speak for all of us.

        He wants back the America he grew up in, the America of the 50s. I do too. Red America resonates with him on this.

        The stark reality of globalization, and the relentless rise of the smug elite establishment in recent decades, has finally become so disturbing that normal people could hear the truth in Trump’s message, and sigh with relief that finally, someone understands the nightmare America had entered.

        Can he reverse it? It’s worth a shot. Lock her up. Podesta and Obama and Lynch and Holder, too.

        1. Patrick–I am impressed by your accurate analysis of the situation. I could not agree with you more. Keep posting!

        2. Please describe what from the 50s you’d like back – perhaps ‘separate but equal,’ no integration of schools, a ban on interracial marriage?

          1. Or perhaps morals, respect from gentlemen to ladies and vice versa, pride in one’s country, strong communities? Or perhaps you’re just obsessed with racism.

            1. Those things, for sure. Also, almost complete safety; women could walk to the store at night in big cities without a thought of danger. Tom Sowell and Walter Williams grew up in Harlem and the housing projects of Philadelphia, respectively, in the 1940s. Nightmare neighborhoods today; then, they could sleep in the park across the street or on the fire escape when the summer was hot.

              Kids could spend all day wandering the city far and wide, without parents being remotely concerned.

              The day was started in public schools with a Christian prayer, or Bible reading. Barry Levinson’s movie Avalon depicts this (not in this trailer though):

              [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln9j330rvDE&w=560&h=315%5D

              America was a country where factories and machine shops dotted the landscape, including urban neighborhoods. Anyone just out of high school could get a decent job, get married, and have a bunch of kids–and leave them a substantial inheritance. And the wife never had to work a job outside the home.

              A lost dream.

                  1. “And the wife never had to work a job outside the home.” Never bothering to consider what women might be interested in achieving.

                    1. What astonishing blindness you suffer from. What a bizarre way of interpreting my answer to your question.

                      I spoke of the wonderfulness of a world where there were plenty of jobs throughout the country that paid enough that a man could raise a family without the need for the mother of his children to be enslaved to the chains of the capitalist treadmill. How you can regard that as somehow negative–in any way–is too weird words.

            2. Most of that can’t be legislated, so I don’t see what you expect Trump to accomplish. As if he could accomplish anything.

              1. Are you intentionally missing the point? America was great because America was good; America stopped being great because she stopped being good. Duh. He wants America to be great again; HE can’t do that, he can only encourage us to return to what we used to be. If we refuse, it won’t be Trump’s problem. It will be ours. He can bring back factory jobs, and encourage public prayer, and cast out the sneaks among us who commit heinous crimes. He can set the stage. But WE are the actors on that stage. It will obviously be up to us.

                Do we want to be happy, free, and safe in our communities again?

                1. Please enlighten us and let us know how Trump can “bring back factory jobs.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/carrier-sends-jobs-to-mexico-workers-say-trump-misled-them

                  Also was America being “good” when it allowed in the immigrants that helped build our society? Is it “good” to build a wall along our Southern border? Is it “good” to bring back legal discrimination against certain segments among us? MAGA, for many folks, just means a return to white, male-dominated culture.

                  1. MAGA, for many folks, just means a return to white, male-dominated culture.

                    I’m sure it means many things to many people. That’s called having an opinion. Whether it’s a rational opinion or not is really what is in question. For instance, what proof is there that we are returning to a white, male-dominated culture?

                  2. Are you capable of rational thought, JC? A sneak is not an “immigrant,” any more than a burglar is a house guest.

                    Countries are defined by their borders. We are entitled to decide who comes here, and how long they are allowed to stay. If it takes a wall to keep the sneaky trespassers out, well, that’s what it takes, just as it takes locks on doors to keep burglars out of houses. This is kind of obvious. What does household greatness have to do with keeping home invaders out of one’s house? Are you mentally well? National greatness is not compromised by defending the nation’s borders, and it does not define it. What perfidious leadership does, though, when it refuses to defend the borders, and allows sneaks to traipse in, is to make a country less great–because it sends a message to all the sneaky people that don’t belong here that we’re a bunch of chumps. Ask Angela Merkel.

                    1. “Also was America being “good” when it allowed in the immigrants that helped build our society?”

                      Yes, it is good to allow in immigrants “LEGALLY” to help build our society!

                      “Is it “good” to build a wall along our Southern border?”

                      Yes, it is good to build a wall to attempt to keep out illegal immigrants, drug traffickers, terrorists, etc.

                      “Is it “good” to bring back legal discrimination against certain segments among us?”

                      Which segments are being legally discriminated against?

                      “MAGA, for many folks, just means a return to white, male-dominated culture.”

                      Oh, of course, a “white male dominated culture” would elect a black President on two consecutive occasions!

                  3. JC – How is the Ford Motor Co. helping by sending Fusions built in Mexico across the border loaded with marijuana? Is Ford looking for a second revenue stream? They didn’t tell their dealers in Ohio who are finding it packed in the wheelwells of the spare tire.

                  4. ” Is it “good” to build a wall along our Southern border? ”

                    JC, we shouldn’t need a Southern border wall but for the left that doesn’t respect American sovereignty.

                    …And there is no discrimination in protecting one’s borders from people that wish to illegally cross it.

                    …MAGA is BS and racist to the core. There is an American culture that people are flocking to because they believe their lives will be better here. If that is the case then one should accept those things in American culture that made America so much better that one would want to come here. We don’t see you telling us how you wish to adopt another’s culture by moving do we?

                2. Patrick you are totally correct. And yes, JC is deliberately missing the point. I’m pretty sure he’s not really that dense, so it has to be intentional.

                  1. How do we know “jC” is a male? Could be a female or a transgender?

          2. “Please describe what from the 50s you’d like back”

            JC, We didn’t have the Democratic Party of today that is antithetical to American values.

              1. My values certainly don’t equal yours. I believe in merit plus a bit of charity. Those are inherent American values.

                What do you believe in? Racism? Lawbreaking? Revolution? Destroyed families?

    2. That JT continues to cite “polls”, any poll, long ago diminished the weight one should give to his opinions. His ramblings are just personal opinions, and it is his blog to share them.

      I am in the midwest, I can assure all that the support for Trump has grown exponentially since the election in every State he handily won. Of most importance, with moderate democrats and independents. I would surmise that his approval rating is upward of 70% in the real world.

      1. I live in a midwestern state that went Trump. There was euphoria among his voters when he won. However, each negative event (particularly the Russian links), erodes support for him.

    3. “Normal people” know Trump is a blowhard braggart who has no idea what he’s doing, and who only wanted to be President because he was stupid enough to think he’d receive the adulation he so desperately craves. Well, his incompetence becomes more and more evident each and every day. Chump has no idea how to put anything first other than himself, so it will be interesting to see who gets thrown under the bus first in the Russia matter. Will it be Donnie, Jr. or Jared? Can’t wait to find out.

      BTW: No prior administration “allowed” anyone to sneak in. This statement implies that it was intentional. Illegal immigration has been around for decades. If you recall, Reagan gave them a supposedly one-time free pass. All that did was encourage even more of them to cross the border. You can put much of the blame on the increase on good ole Ronnie.

      1. Clearly, Natacha, you know little of the subject (sneaky trespassing).

        Reagan’s amnesty was obviously a very stupid thing to do, but subsequent presidents simply refused to enforce the laws, and defend the border. Why? It kept growing worse, and then Obama came along, and ordered our Border Agents to stand down. The icing on the cake came with the trainloads of MS13 savages Mexico gave fee passage to (https://www.google.com/search?q=central+american+unaccompanied+minors+train+image&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&imgil=W5FyPaphEXGTvM%253A%253BgbU058dWdj4FOM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Famerica.aljazeera.com%25252Fopinions%25252F2014%25252F6%25252Fmigrant-childrenussouthernborderimmigrationreform.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=W5FyPaphEXGTvM%253A%252CgbU058dWdj4FOM%252C_&usg=__YVZOzp5XwUsw1f56Ujfco9btsM8%3D&biw=1734&bih=1215&ved=0ahUKEwij9bvPwpPVAhXE2SYKHQsvBSIQyjcIOw&ei=YltuWaO8K8SzmwGL3pSQAg#imgrc=W5FyPaphEXGTvM:).

        Why did so many presidents refuse to defend our southern border? Ann Coulter knows:

        [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1YHTaO29Fw&w=560&h=315%5D

        Trump, amazingly, wants to enforce existing law and defend the rights of the citizens he is sworn to protect. What a crazed loon, that guy! Doesn’t he know that the Democrats need more voters, and toplofty, elite, lawyers need cheap gardeners to keep their Hamptons estates looking good enough to host George Soros at fundraising affairs?

        1. Ronald Reagan succumbed to the “amnesty” he signed as it was to be

          “THE AMNESTY TO END ALL AMNESTIES.”

          It was to end the Mexican invasion/immigration.

          Invasions are to be repulsed.

        1. Natachacha gotcha is but a progressive troll with a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome!

  10. JT, where in the link does it show that Trump would beat Clinton? You seem to just be extrapolating from poll numbers of favorability/unfavorability. But then HRC was more ‘favorable’ than Trump in November and lost. So you can’t just go by that. I suspect, on a re-do, more folks would hold their noses and vote for the competence of Hillary over the nepotism, scandals and do-nothingness of Trump.

    1. No head to head poll is cited. The only conclusion one can draw is that neither one is popular with the majority of Americans.

      1. If no conclusion can be drawn, why is the title of the article “Trump would still beat Clinton?”

        1. “why is the title of the article “Trump would still beat Clinton?””

          JC, Because that is his opinion.

          1. Actually, wrong. The full title of the article is “Poll: Trump Would Still Beat Clinton.” Not “It Appears Trump Would Still Beat Clinton,” but actually the title refers to a Poll telling us that he would still beat her. Which is not at all what the poll questioned, or shows.

            1. ” Even with Trump showing record lows in polls as president, he would still beat Clinton. This is consistent with other polls showing that voters continue to view Clinton in a highly negative light.”

              That is considered opinion.

  11. Word has it the Dims are looking at running Kamala Harris – as usual they focus on the big donors (never mind that HRC outspent the Donald bigly) rather than the grass roots. Didn’t learn a damn thing. Tulsi Gabbard is the only decent Dim in the party and they unite along with the MSM to destroy/ignore here. No fixing stupid – but then maybe they don’t care about losing again so long as $$ flow into the DNC coffers.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/342431-dem-donors-buzzing-about-kamala-harris

    1. Agree. That’s my concern as well. The tech tyrants and Wall Street donors to the DNC view Democratic losses favorably. Otherwise, DNC messages would have changed. One huge problem is the Walton/Gates- funded Center for American Progress.

    2. It looks grim indeed. Really, the D party is dead or at least in it’s death throws. The R party is not far behind. Both are utterly dysfunctional and no longer related in much of any way to their past. They are simply historical leftovers and temporary extensions of the international corporate and military elite class.

      But take heart. If Jeremy Corbyn can win in the UK it can happen here. The desire for real change is taking place and will be increasingly hard to suppress.

      1. What looks grim i.e. frightening – from Town and Country magazine highlighting “philanthropists”, June/July 2017, ” Laura and John Arnold…partner with Pew Trusts …to research and enhance COMMUNITY SUPERVISION SYSTEMS (my caps) and electronic monitoring.” Earlier this year, the Baltimore Sun reported that the Arnold’s (Enron and hedge funds) provided funds for police aerial surveillance, about which community leaders had no knowledge. Couple that with the research content of the newly published book, “Democracy in Chains”, which describes a hostile takeover of American governance, in the planning for decades, and the United States tragedy takes on clear focus.

        1. An excerpt from the above link,

          In one respect, Buchanan [the recently deceased individual whose trove of confidential letters/papers was discovered by the author (2013)] was right: there is an inherent conflict between what he called “economic freedom” and political liberty. Complete freedom for billionaires means poverty, insecurity, pollution and collapsing public services for everyone else. Because we will not vote for this, it can be delivered only through deception and authoritarian control. The choice we face is between unfettered capitalism and democracy. You cannot have both. [emphasis mine]

          Buchanan’s programme is a prescription for totalitarian capitalism. And his disciples have only begun to implement it. But at least, thanks to MacLean’s discoveries, we can now apprehend the agenda. One of the first rules of politics is, know your enemy. We’re getting there.

    3. Gabbard speaks the truth re: interventionism; we can’t have that. And like Linda said already, the political insiders get paid no matter what.

  12. I agree without a doubt that Clinton would have lost to Trump regardless of the Russian involvement. Clinton was a flawed candidate on so many levels. In part due to her own doing, some of it not. Any reasonable candidate without such baggage should have literally crushed Trump, to the extent that any meddling by Russians or anyone else wouldn’t have mattered.

    That being said, the potential Russian election meddling story still needs thorough investigation, but Democrats can’t fall under the illusion that it somehow made a difference in the results.

  13. If there had been a huge popular vote landslide for Trump, I would agree with the premise of this story. But Trump squeaked by with just enough votes, in a few key states, to carry the Electoral College.

    Now we have somebody who is not part of “the establishment.” That is, he doesn’t really know how government works, doesn’t know much about history or economics or foreign policy or (you name it), Someone who wants to govern via bumper-sticker slogans and tweets.

  14. 1. Denial and isolation; 2. Anger; 3. Bargaining; 4. Depression; 5. Acceptance.

    The theory is one cannot skip a stage through the grieving process. It’s not difficult to determine where many of our contributors have become stuck.

    MPP

        1. You are in denial. Study up on some psychology. A psychotic narcissist occupies the wh.

          1. Ken – a psychotic narcissist just left it. What is you problem, that he is not labeled Democrat?

              1. Obama was a narcissist. He couldn’t make a speech without the word “I” appearing all over the text. Trump might be a narcissist or not, but I think a lot more study needs to be done to pin that label on him at least to a significant degree.

                Though some don’t bother to look at the facts, who cares if the President is a narcissist or not? We should care about results.

  15. We are poised for the rise of a political party that will not hold itself above the law. I believe this is a core concern across the political spectrum but I don’t believe the people are prepared to make that leap.

    1. The rise of a new political party? To take one example, half a year already (“We’re going to do it quickly!”) and still no healthcare repeal (and certainly no replacement), and only with all of Congress and the presidency in hand. Impressive.

      Take it easy on the melodrama.

      1. I get it Dave. Not everyone is a progressive or constitutionalist. But I would like to see a poll that asked one question: 1. Do you believe those in the political class (politicians, civil servants, etc.) are treated with immunity from the same laws that the average citizen is prosecuted for?

        That answer is what I believe largely denied Clinton the Presidency. The beneficiary of that of course was Trump. If he somehow manages to weather this onslaught and his Justice Department begins to hold the political class accountable regardless of party (and family connections), then that would be a turning point in American politics.

        You can hate Trump, hate the conservative brand and all that. I get it. But denying the people want the rule of law restored is a fool’s errand.

          1. Trump is being investigated because he won the Presidency –

            the most egregious of crimes of high office.

        1. Do you believe those in the political class (politicians, civil servants, etc.) are treated with immunity from the same laws that the average citizen is prosecuted for?

          A great question Olly, and I suspect Dave would be among the first to be grateful to Trump or any President of any stripe who brought it, or even approached bringing an a positive answer, to fruition (especially if you included bankers and finance in that bucket). But we are not quite there yet and in the mean time you are taking on the same aspect that the Obama enthusiasts took on 8 years ago.

          Moreover, Dave – among many others – does not appear to hate Trump as much as he is willing to criticize his shortcomings. Frustration at the fact that Trump is under a veritable siege by an out of control MSM has made a necessary and healthy critical attitude toward ANY President or Politician look mean spirited – it is not.

          1. Thanks BB. Criticizing shortcomings is healthy, as long as it comes from a legitimate frame of reference. So what’s the reference point for the President? If the answer is it depends on his policies, then what’s the legitimate measure of the policies? If we never get down to the root of the proper measure of government; if what they do is perceived as good or bad depending some utilitarian end, then the means become irrelevant. This is why criticizing shortcomings has become such a partisan dogfight. If we $hit-canned all the subjective measures and just criticized the performance relative to the constitution, what remains to debate?

            1. The terms I take away from your comment are: legitimate frame of reference , utilitarian end, proper measure and relative to the constitution.

              In our democracy (perhaps even in any democracy), many consider a legitimate frame of reference or perhaps better yet, the legitimacy of anything related to government, to be first and foremost, the consent of the governed. Our Constitution, along with our Bill Of Rights, for all their merit, codify principals that help ensure such consent remains the foundation of legitimacy but there is a also a very real and present utilitarian aspect to it as well. Time and things and populations and resources change. Needs change. Government can hew to a magnificent Constitution and still become oppressive to the point it looses the consent of the governed and ultimately it’s legitimacy.

              Do you feel better off now than four years ago?, remains a damned good question suggesting the proper measure of government is more elusive and dynamic than only our attempts, no matter how sublime, to capture it in stasis in any one historical moment.

              1. Government can hew to a magnificent Constitution and still become oppressive to the point it looses the consent of the governed and ultimately it’s legitimacy.

                Buddy Ryan once said: “If you listen to the fans, you’ll be sitting up there with them.

                That might work in sports but not so much in government. The consent of the governed is expressed through our election process and despite Congress having an approval rating in the teens, they enjoy a reelection rate of about 90%. Consent of the governed went the way of tar and feathers. Now what we have is the people being bribed with their own money; or someone else’s money.

                1. What is expressed through our election process is our choice of who governs. It is frequently confused with “consent” only as a matter of rhetorical double speak specifically to avoid the subject of legitimacy. As if a bunch of pre-selected hacks whose only mission is to fleece the public constitutes any form of consent in anything but the most cynical propagandistic definition.

                  An interesting proof of this is that over time, and aside from external threats (the real kind) the less consent of the governed there is, the larger the army. Another more definitive proof occurs but rarely and seems independent of the size of the military since they often join in.

                    1. BTW, that’s a pip of an expression – Now your just picking the fly$hit out of the pepper., 🙂 But that fact doesn’t make it accurate. It just happens to be accurate in this case. You did serve me a heaping helping after all.

                      Seriously, the choice between Hillary and Trump was “consent”??? What ever you’re on, don’t share it.

                    2. Seriously, the choice between Hillary and Trump was “consent”???

                      BB,
                      What is your point here? You commented above that your vote was Not Clinton. That was mine as well.

                    3. BB,
                      What is your point here? You commented above that your vote was Not Clinton. That was mine as well.

                      My point in this particular sub-thread, after my claim that a critical attitude towards the President is healthy, was that different people have different criteria for criticism of the President and I consider theirs, at least initially, as valuable as yours regardless of whether or not it matches your claim that the only valid (you use the term legitimate) criteria for taking “the measure of the government” is the Constitution.

                      That, btw, doesn’t stop me from admiring your path and your persistence as honorable. But I’ll go quite a ways in defending others, myself included, in their own.

                      As to Clinton and my distaste for everything about her and what she and her husband have contributed to the country as well as to the Democratic party, you know that as well as I do (not that I mind repeating it 🙂 ). We’ve been over it for months and months.

                      The quibble about consent and legitimacy was essentially just that. We disagree. Something I do with a – to me- surprising number of friends and people I respect. But I will admit to being touchy about voting as some sort of tacit agreement or consent with the whole con job of the political robber stooges we are served up as if it were actually a choice. It’s like a prearranged marriage I have no control over and then someone telling me, “well, you chose your spouse, so you get to live with it.”

                  1. I’ve posted on this blog that we function like a utilitarian democracy instead of a constitutional republic. I don’t care how noble the cause, government policy cannot be considered legitimate if it violates the constitution. No consent can be granted for that purpose and still be considered legitimate.

                    1. To me, should this Constitution, or the government that is supposed to abide by it, should either or both no longer protect the people from an oppressive government, then in that exact measure, it and/or they are no longer legitimate. The consent of the people is therefore the last and most fundamental form of legitimacy. . Voting can be corrupted by gerrymandering, onerous identity conditions targeting specific classes of voters, rigged selection of candidates, and so on. To call that process “consent of the governed” is Kafkaesque.

                      This is like the argument about corporations and people. Who came first? Are the corporations there to serve the people or visa-versa?

  16. Trump will go down in history as the least competent candidate ever “elected” to the presidency.

  17. If Hillary Clinton was the least popular candidate ever to run for the White House, how could she have she won the popular vote by 3 Million votes?

    1. Also the largest, most tremendous inauguration crowd in all of human history was composed of less people than previous years.

    2. The Sun rises in the East and sets in the West.
      Some things work because of the way they were designed.
      For those of you that insist on denying the reality of the Electoral College and the way it works all I can say is move to change the law.
      The Clinton team strategy was never designed to win the popular vote.
      They knew how it works, it’s unfortunate their supporters didn’t and still don’t know.
      Please admit to yourselves that the Electoral College is the final arbiter or you will continue to look just like the Trump supporters you so conspicuously deride.

    3. How? Because California, New York, Illinois and the strange decision to run up the numbers trip to New Orleans at the last minute. Places Trump didn’t bother to campaign in, because there was no chance he could win them.

      The wonderful, glittering beauty of the Electoral College.

    4. Answer: Illegal and unconstitutional invasion/immigration in California – a situation that requires immediate and vigorous “corrective action.”

      Did you know that the status of slaves changed from “property” to “illegal alien” upon the issuance of the eminently unconstitutional Emancipation Proclamation because citizenship required “…free white person(s)…” in 1863, and the status of “illegal alien” requires deportation?

    5. Quite simple. Because we were given two absolutely terrible choices. That’s why she got three million votes. Do you seriously imagine that Hillary would have gotten three million anything (other than slush funds or contributions to her “foundation” from foreign governments to “buy influence”) had there been a viable choice? Read the article.

      You are trying to complain that Hillary should have won the election even though she didn’t. She just didn’t. Not by the rules anyway and she has still not convinced the public that she should have won by divine right..

  18. Clinton had a chance to represent reality and sanity, regardless of her baggage. She started out on the right track focusing on the issues and details. Then, her idiot advisors noticed how well Trump was doing with his jingoism, lies, and attacks so they advised her to stop focusing on the issues and how to make things better and pull a Trump. That’s when the ‘deplorable’ stuff started and Clinton just doesn’t come off as the snickering, slimy, lying piece of sh*t that Trump does and get away with it. Trump has always been a lying sack of sh*t and reveled in it. Nobody expects anything else. Clinton started off presenting herself as someone with substance, regardless of her faults, and when she left that, she looked stupid and lost. People expected more than another Trump. So Trump won because the lying sack of sh*t you get used to doesn’t smell as bad as the new one. She still would have been better or less bad. No one can be worse than Trump. One wants to mention the three stooges but they had eight years and Trump has surpassed them in six months.

    1. Dream on. Hillary lost the election long before Trump was nominated. Her treatment of Sanders was the real deplorable and her Vichy shape shifting on issues such as the toxic trade deals, or the oil pipe lines, or fracking, or protection from predatory bank lending practices, or her efforts to “save” the social safety net by destroying it one privatized piece at a time, or her hawkish insistence that we go to the very brink of all out war with Russia unless we get the regime change (out with Putin) that we want. All of these things and many more like them and the fact that she covered most of them up, are what made her utterly utterly undetectable.

Comments are closed.