February 17, 2016

Why the Democratic establishment should dump Clinton

Sam Smith - Based on reality rather than preferences, the establishment backing Hillary Clinton seems to have picked the wrong candidate. Here are a few reasons why:
    She's not making new friends. In fact support for her has dropped during the campaign. For example, last July CNN reported that "Looking ahead to the general election, Clinton continues to hold significant leads over Bush (54% Clinton to 41% Bush) and Christie (56% Clinton to 37% Christie). She has also opened up wide leads over Rubio (56% Clinton to 39% Rubio) and Walker (57% Clinton to 38% Walker), as those two have slipped among independents. Clinton's clearest advantage, however, is over Donald Trump, 59% say they would vote for Clinton if the 2016 match-up were between her and Trump, 34% say they would back Trump." Our latest poll averages find Clinton losing to Rubio by 5 points (down from a 17 point lead in July and statistically tied with Trump (down from a 25 point lead last July). One of the major differences with Sanders - and an important one in a campaign - is that, win or lose, Sanders is regularly picking up new voters. Clinton has been a failure in this regard.

    The trustworthy factor. Not only is this a a big problem in attracting independents, in a New Hampshire exit poll less than half of Democrats considered her trustworthy. And she doesn't seem to be learning from the experience. For example, she's been referring to Sanders as a one issue candidate, which is patently false.
      There is a lot of unpacked baggage. Baggage that the Republicans are waiting to deal with until she is nominated. Examples: 
      - The way she and her husband conned buyers of land at Whitewater, serious enough to come under scrutiny by the Arkansas Supreme Court. Thanks to the sleazy financing, about half the purchasers, many of them seniors, lost their property.
      - The fact that she was the first First Lady in history to come under criminal investigation. 
      - And the first First Lady to almost be indicted according to one of the special prosecutors. What if material from that case is exposed during the campaign?

      - Having nine major fundraisers and/or backers who were convicted of, or pled no contest, to crime accusations. 

      - The fact that in testifying under oath before Congress she said that she didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar 250 times.

      - The fact that the Clintons' two partners in Whitewater were convicted of 24 counts of fraud and conspiracy. Hillary Clinton's partner and mentor at the Rose law firm, Webster Hubbell, pleaded guilty to federal mail fraud and tax evasion charges, including defrauding former clients and former partners out of more than $480,000. Hillary Clinton was mentioned 35 times in the indictment. 

      - In the 1980s Hillary Clinton made a $44,000 profit on a $2,000 investment in a cellular phone franchise deal took advantage of the FCC's preference for locals, minorities and women. The franchise was almost immediately flipped to the cellular giant, McCaw.

      - In 1993 HRC and David Watkins moved to oust the White House travel office in favor of World Wide Travel, Clinton's source of $1 million in fly-now-pay-later campaign trips that essentially financed the last stages of the campaign without the bother of reporting a de facto contribution. The White House fired seven long-term employees for alleged mismanagement and kickbacks. The director, Billy Dale, charged with embezzlement, was acquitted in less than two hours by the jury.

      - Two months after commencing the Whitewater scheme, Hillary Clinton invested $1,000 in cattle futures. Within a few days she had a $5,000 profit. Before bailing out she earns nearly $100,000 on her investment. Many years later, several economists will calculate that the chances of earning such returns legally were one in 250 million.

      - In 1996, Hillary Clinton's Rose law firm billing records, sought for two years by congressional investigators and the special prosecutor, were found in the back room of the personal residence at the White House. Clinton said she had no idea how they got there.

      - Drug dealer Jorge Cabrera gave enough to the Democrats to have his picture taken with both Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. . . Cabrera was arrested in January 1996 inside a cigar warehouse in Dade County, where more than 500 pounds of cocaine had been hidden. He and several accomplices were charged with having smuggled 3,000 pounds of cocaine into the United States through the Keys

      - In 2000, Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign returned $22,000 in soft money to a businesswoman linked to a Democratic campaign contribution from a drug smuggler in Havana.

      - In August 2000, Hillary Clinton held a huge Hollywood fundraiser for her Senate campaign. It was very successful. The only problem was that, by a long shot, she didn't report all the money contributed: $800K by the US government's ultimate count in a settlement and $2 million according to the key contributor and convicted con Peter Paul. This is, in election law, the moral equivalent of not reporting a similar amount on your income tax. It is a form of fraud. Hillary Clinton's defense is that she didn't know about it
      There's never been a leading presidential candidate with this sort of record. Thanks to the media ignoring much of this, it is not generally known how many controversial Clinton issues have not yet been brought forth.

      The Clinton political myth - One of the Clinton myths is that they are superb politicians. It is seldom mentioned that Bill Clinton won his first presidential election with only 43% of the vote and won reelection with 49%.

      There were other serious problems with Clinton. During the Clinton administration, Democrats lost over 1,200 state legislative seats. Further, the Democrats lost control of 9 legislatures and for the first time since 1954 the GOP controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats. In addition, the GOP won 45 seats in the House, 7 in the Senate, 11 governorships and 439 Democratic officeholders switched to the Democratic Party. Only three Republicans went the other way. In short, the Clinton administration was a disaster for the Democrats.

      And perhaps the most important, but seldom mentioned, factor in the outcome of Gore's attempt to follow him was the impact of the Clinton scandals. 68% of voters thought Clinton would go down in history more for his scandals than for his leadership. 44% said that the scandals were somewhat to very important and 57% thought the country to be on the wrong moral track.  In short, the individual who did the most harm to Gore was Bill Clinton. If Gore had distanced himself from the Clinton moral miasma he would probably have become president. Although Democrats try to blame Nader for Gore's loss, in fact the biggest factor was Bush's  14 point rise in the polls from September to October during the campaign, a rise boosted by the Clinton scandals.

      In short, the Democratic establishment is badly risking its own future clinging to the Clinton myth and not looking at the facts.

      5 comments:

      Anonymous said...

      It was reported, months after the Supremes selected Bush as president, that had the Florida votes been allowed to be recounted, Gore would have won. The election was not lost at all but stolen.

      Gore did not lose in Florida but he was unable to win in Tennessee, his home state.

      Blaming Nader was the story and now B. Clinton. The blame remains with Bush, the Supremes and Gore, who quit.

      Anonymous said...

      Oh please..., Gore did NOT win Florida. Any true recount of actual cast votes was impossible due to discovered fraud,...remember all the hanging chad issues? The hanging chads were shown to be results of multiple voter cards punched at one time. In addition there were the counties that turned away voters standing in line. Exit polls of the time show were voting republican. Gore did not win Tennessee because Tennessee folks knew him. The U.S. Supreme court made the correct ruling after the voter data was cleaned up which took a great effort to compare number of voters and number of votes. Don't put Florida's dysfunctional process off on the U.S. Supreme court. The blame is squarely Florida's.

      Sylvia Valls said...

      I AGREE with Anonymous 1... The Supreme Court is to blame. It should have disqualified the Fla. vote... if neither candidate had gotten those Fla. votes, Gore would have been President... and his performance would probably have made no difference historically... coward and a cheat that he is! Revolting sob...

      Iggy said...

      " The way she and her husband conned buyers of land at Whitewater, serious enough to come under scrutiny by the Arkansas Supreme Court."

      The Clintons lost money in Whitewater.

      The Clintons lost money in Whitewater.

      The Clintons lost money in Whitewater.

      Just because Republicans say that something is a scandal doesn't mean it is one. Whitewater was a land fraud where the Clintons were among the defrauded.

      Republicans make a lot of accusation because they have no other ideas.

      Richard said...

      I do not know where you got your figures on Democratic down-ballot losses under Clinton, but I believe your figures are incorrect. Political scientist Larry Sabato published a study of all two-term Presidents since WWII, starting with Truman, “Why Parties Should Hope They Lose the White House,” Politico, December 1, 2014.

      According to Sabato, net Democratic losses under Clinton were as follows: 11 governorships, seven Senate seats, 45 House seats, 524 state legislative berths, and 18 state legislative chambers.

      Sabato showed that Obama’s record was the worst in either party since WWII: “From 2008 to the present, Democrats in the Obama era have racked up net forfeitures of 11 governorships, 13 Senate seats, 69 House seats, 913 state legislative seats, and 30 state legislative chambers. In the latter three categories, Obama has doubled (or more) the average two-term presidential loss from Truman through Bush.”

      Other state legislative seat losses, for comparison were:
      Truman, -191
      Eisenhower, -843
      JFK/LBJ, -437
      Nixon/Ford, -800
      Reagan, +6
      Clinton, -524
      G.W. Bush, -324
      Obama, -913

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/presidents-bad-for-their-parties-113241#ixzz41VhiXXO