The Coming Democratic Panic

[US Conservative]

When a CNN poll last week showed Hillary Clinton leading Rand Paul by a single percentage point (48-47) and only three points ahead of Marco Rubio (49-46) and Scott Walker (49-46), it was mildly shocking. In April, her lead over the three Republican presidential candidates had been in double digits: Paul (58-39), Rubio (55-41), and Walker (59-37). But wait. If the next CNN survey shows Clinton actually behind one or two or three of the GOP candidates, it won’t be just shocking. It will send Democrats into a near-panic over the possibility of losing the White House in 2016, even with their preferred candidate, Clinton, as nominee.

Such a poll result isn’t far-fetched as we watch Clinton’s campaign deteriorate. True, head-to-head matchups this early in the presidential cycle are almost never predictive. But in this case, it’s the psychological impact that matters. That Clinton’s candidacy is in trouble is indisputable. She’s not threatened with losing the Democratic nomination—at least not yet. She has the well-financed Clinton machine and a national network of supporters on which she can rely. The campaigns of her Democratic opponents are small and weak in comparison.

The Coming Democratic Panic | The Weekly Standard

 

[US Conservative]

Yes, we are still early in the campaign. But I can see dems very easily jumping ship like its cool.

 

[azgreg]

Interesting, but still wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to early to project.

 

[Redress]

When a CNN poll last week showed Hillary Clinton leading Rand Paul by a single percentage point (48-47) and only three points ahead of Marco Rubio (49-46) and Scott Walker (49-46), it was mildly shocking. In April, her lead over the three Republican presidential candidates had been in double digits: Paul (58-39), Rubio (55-41), and Walker (59-37). But wait. If the next CNN survey shows Clinton actually behind one or two or three of the GOP candidates, it won’t be just shocking. It will send Democrats into a near-panic over the possibility of losing the White House in 2016, even with their preferred candidate, Clinton, as nominee.

Such a poll result isn’t far-fetched as we watch Clinton’s campaign deteriorate. True, head-to-head matchups this early in the presidential cycle are almost never predictive. But in this case, it’s the psychological impact that matters. That Clinton’s candidacy is in trouble is indisputable. She’s not threatened with losing the Democratic nomination—at least not yet. She has the well-financed Clinton machine and a national network of supporters on which she can rely. The campaigns of her Democratic opponents are small and weak in comparison.

The Coming Democratic Panic | The Weekly Standard

So yeah, that is pretty stupid. It is expected that people with less name recognition will gain ground as they start to campaign against some one with more name recognition. It would be surprising if they did not. Since many of us predicted exactly this, it is not like it is particularly shocking, nor reason to panic. This is a classic case of conservatives telling each other what they want to hear, much like how last elections the polls where wrong, it was not that Romney was behind. Create a narrative, reality does not matter.

 

[US Conservative]

So yeah, that is pretty stupid. It is expected that people with less name recognition will gain ground as they start to campaign against some one with more name recognition. It would be surprising if they did not. Since many of us predicted exactly this, it is not like it is particularly shocking, nor reason to panic. This is a classic case of conservatives telling each other what they want to hear, much like how last elections the polls where wrong, it was not that Romney was behind. Create a narrative, reality does not matter.

She's got a ton of baggage, and more will be released to remind us at fairly regular intervals. Many leftists dont want her in. She's as establishment as can be.

Beyond all this, though-she's tripping. Shes running a TERRIBLE campaign up to this point, and the warning signs-lack of responsiveness to criticism, failure to answer questions, kicking handicapped kids out of parks-they dont suggest she's got a grasp of the situation. Its no secret Im not a fan of Clinton, but even just from a political level-she's doing a very bad job in campaigning. If she does not change things up, even if she wins the primaries, she's not going to be president, I predict.

 

[Fiddytree]

The problem I have with the Weekly Standard is that perhaps because it is a weekly short-form magazine, its main duty is to continuously remind Republicans of their upcoming victories, rather than discuss at length what it should do with the power granted or not granted to it. Perhaps that's why National Affairs remains a superior publication.

The polls will close in, and it's hardly unexpected. There will probably be a good dance between the GOP contenders and Clinton. I myself believe it is close to routine that the Republican candidate shall become victorious, but a weekly poll won't be a good indicator of that systemic and historical trend.

Is it a panic? Not yet. Wait a while for the primary process to shake out and see what happens at the DNC.

 

[Redress]

She's got a ton of baggage, and more will be released to remind us at fairly regular intervals. Many leftists dont want her in. She's as establishment as can be.

Beyond all this, though-she's tripping. Shes running a TERRIBLE campaign up to this point, and the warning signs-lack of responsiveness to criticism, failure to answer questions, kicking handicapped kids out of parks-they dont suggest she's got a grasp of the situation. Its no secret Im not a fan of Clinton, but even just from a political level-she's doing a very bad job in campaigning. If she does not change things up, even if she wins the primaries, she's not going to be president, I predict.

She is not really campaigning at this point, nor should she. She is established, she gains little from campaigning except to possibly screw up. She does not have to really distinguish herself from the other candidates until much closer to vote time.

 

[Redress]

The problem I have with the Weekly Standard is that perhaps because it is a weekly short-form magazine, its main duty is to continuously remind Republicans of their upcoming victories, rather than discuss at length what it should do with the power granted or not granted to it. Perhaps that's why National Affairs remains a superior publication.

The polls will close in, and it's hardly unexpected. There will probably be a good dance between the GOP contenders and Clinton. I myself believe it is close to routine that the Republican candidate shall become victorious, but a weekly poll won't be a good indicator of that systemic and historical trend.

Is it a panic? Not yet. Wait a while for the primary process to shake out and see what happens at the DNC.

There will not be panic until the democratic candidate is selected and polling behind in too many swing states. With the built in lead democrats have in the electoral vote, until then things are going well for us.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

When a CNN poll last week showed Hillary Clinton leading Rand Paul by a single percentage point (48-47) and only three points ahead of Marco Rubio (49-46) and Scott Walker (49-46), it was mildly shocking. In April, her lead over the three Republican presidential candidates had been in double digits: Paul (58-39), Rubio (55-41), and Walker (59-37). But wait. If the next CNN survey shows Clinton actually behind one or two or three of the GOP candidates, it won’t be just shocking. It will send Democrats into a near-panic over the possibility of losing the White House in 2016, even with their preferred candidate, Clinton, as nominee.

Such a poll result isn’t far-fetched as we watch Clinton’s campaign deteriorate. True, head-to-head matchups this early in the presidential cycle are almost never predictive. But in this case, it’s the psychological impact that matters. That Clinton’s candidacy is in trouble is indisputable. She’s not threatened with losing the Democratic nomination—at least not yet. She has the well-financed Clinton machine and a national network of supporters on which she can rely. The campaigns of her Democratic opponents are small and weak in comparison.

The Coming Democratic Panic | The Weekly Standard

You have to keep in even then with such polls they might be selectively poll areas.

 

[US Conservative]

She is not really campaigning at this point, nor should she. She is established, she gains little from campaigning except to possibly screw up. She does not have to really distinguish herself from the other candidates until much closer to vote time.

She absolutely is campaigning, now for the primaries and we all know the goal is the white house. Trying to "play it safe" or whatever she's doing could also hurt her-remember there are constant scandals about her, and she isn't answering questions or giving very guarded responses. It makes it look like she's hiding something-and with all of the dirt coming out about her thats not exactly implausible.

As the article succinctly states, she's actually running a worse campaign this time around-but she still appears to have that air of inevitability that is every bit as likely to hurt her.

 

[US Conservative]

There will not be panic until the democratic candidate is selected and polling behind in too many swing states. With the built in lead democrats have in the electoral vote, until then things are going well for us.

Remember how dems jumped ship in the closing days of last novembers election? That might happen much sooner with Hillary. Even within her own party, there are plenty that would like to see her fall flat on her face.

 

[US Conservative]

You have to keep in even then with such polls they might be selectively poll areas.

Absolutely, polls are never the whole picture.

 

[Chomsky]

This Clinton 'heir of inevitability' campaign smacks of loss, to me.

It's far too reminiscent of Mitt Romney's "heir of inevitability" campaign.

The similarities are just too convergent, and we know how '12 turned out, right?

The GOP brass wanted Mr Romney from-the-getgo, and everyone knew in advance how it would turn out. Oh, there were some other colorful rising candidates de jour (or should I say, 'de week'?), but he blasted them to smithereens with negative ads from his PACs & ample war-chest, and they were each safely allayed within a week or so, only to be replaced by a new contender who soon met the same fate as his predecessor.

Mr. Romney had the GOP brass' 'nod', and the GOP big-money contributors; that's all he needed - it was fait accompli.

And now I see Mrs. Clinton in the same situation. She has the Dem nod, and she has the Dem big-money contributors; and that's all she needs.

And I can't help but wonder, if she will meet the same fate as Mr. Romney?

 

[US Conservative]

This Clinton 'heir of inevitability' campaign smacks of loss, to me.

It's far too reminiscent of Mitt Romney's "heir of inevitability" campaign.

The similarities are just too convergent, and we know how '12 turned out, right?

The GOP brass wanted Mr Romney from-the-getgo, and everyone knew in advance how it would turn out. Oh, there were some other colorful rising candidates de jour (or should I say, 'de week'?), but he blasted them to smithereens with negative ads from his PACs & ample war-chest, and they were each safely allayed within a week or so, only to be replaced by a new contender who soon met the same fate as his predecessor.

Mr. Romney had the GOP brass' 'nod', and the GOP big-money contributors; that's all he needed - it was fait accompli.

And now I see Mrs. Clinton in the same situation. She has the Dem nod, and she has the Dem big-money contributors; and that's all she needs.

And I can't help but wonder, if she will meet the same fate as Mr. Romney?

Iceberg, dead ahead!

 

[TheDemSocialist]

More predictions. More and more predictions. Less and less happens. Predictions like these relate to predictions bay in 2012: "Obama is doomed!", "Obama the coming one term president" etc.

 

[US Conservative]

More predictions. More and more predictions. Less and less happens. Predictions like these relate to predictions bay in 2012: "Obama is doomed!", "Obama the coming one term president" etc.

Hillarys dropping like its cool in polls, the more people know, the less they like her.

And those "fake" scandals aren't going away, it appears.

 

[Kurmugeon]

The question all Democrats should be asking themselves, "When Hillary Tanks, who do we want as the alternative, Bernie Sanders or Jim Webb?"

( Ummm, No, Liz Warren is not even in the running. )

-

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Hillarys dropping like its cool in polls, the more people know, the less they like her.

And those "fake" scandals aren't going away, it appears.

Hear the exact same thing a couple years ago.

 

[US Conservative]

The question all Democrats should be asking themselves, "When Hillary Tanks, who do we want as the alternative, Bernie Sanders or Jim Webb?"

( Ummm, No, Liz Warren is not even in the running. )

-

I think thats why they will be terrified. Between Bernies "rape fantasy" discussions, Warrens (who isn't running) high cheek bones, and the rest who are largely unknown or have their own issues, its not a comfortable thought.

They are putting all their eggs in one basket that is full of holes-even the DNC is violating its own rules to fund raise for her.

Forget what party she is or what her views and history are-thats a VERY shortsighted strategy.

 

[US Conservative]

Hear the exact same thing a couple years ago.

She was a sure thing in 2008 as well. You'd be unwise to not see her flaws, they are real.

 

[iguanaman]

She was a sure thing in 2008 as well. You'd be unwise to not see her flaws, they are real.

I think your optimism is premature....look what you have on your side. Rube-eo is far too inexperienced, Walker has zero charisma, and Jeb is a Bush. I think the voters are intrigued by the thought of a woman President. You will be disappointed yet again and I will be laughing. Your side will have even less of a chance in 2020 and 2024 will be worse yet. Demographics will spell the end of the GOP in the Whitehouse at least. Want to feel worse? Imagine what the Supreme Court will look like in 10 years.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

I think your optimism is premature....look what you have on your side. Rube-eo is far too inexperienced, Walker has zero charisma, and Jeb is a Bush. I thin the voters are intrigued by the thought of a woman President. You will be disappointed yet again and I will be laughing.

Rubio is a Rino, Jeb Is a moron, and Walker will destroy your side, mix him with Cruz/Paul or have both of take the same side as Walker/Santorum have taken on immigration and will have a unstoppable force... The voters are intrigued by the thought of a Competent President.

 

[coyotedelmar]

The voters are intrigued by the thought of a Competent President.

Walker has no shot if that's the case.

 

[US Conservative]

I think your optimism is premature....look what you have on your side. Rube-eo is far too inexperienced, Walker has zero charisma, and Jeb is a Bush. I think the voters are intrigued by the thought of a woman President. You will be disappointed yet again and I will be laughing. Your side will have even less of a chance in 2020 and 2024 will be worse yet. Demographics will spell the end of the GOP in the Whitehouse at least. Want to feel worse? Imagine what the Supreme Court will look like in 10 years.

I reject your assessments for excellent reasons. I believe she will be handed the nomination (the freaking DNC is fundraising for her, and she's oh so establishment), but it will be a show Americans dont appreciate.

She will lose the general. I will be pleased with that result.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Walker has no shot if that's the case.

Really? Election and poll results say other wise?