Tough Luck Destroyers of Hillary Clinton: You Won the Battle, You Won’t Win the War
Sasha Stone

More lies and brainless bullshit from Clintonite Stone. I’ve sure everyone is just as shocked by this as I.

“Either you never knew or you never cared that Hillary polled higher than everyone else when the race began (yes, even higher than Bernie Sanders) but you sure loved to crow when a systematic take-down caused her popularity to dip.”

Both RealClearPolitics and Huffpost Pollster collect and aggregate the polling on all of this; there’s a lot of overlap in the polls they use but both use ones not employed by the other, so it gives a range. Contrary to your narrative, Clinton’s favorability ratings have been in long-term decline; they’d been dropping since Sept. 2010. By the RCP’s database, they’d fallen below 50% by mid-March 2015, never to return. Huffpost Pollster had it falling below 50% even earlier — from July 2014. By mid-April 2015 — the same week Clinton officially entered the presidential race — it was underwater, with more people telling pollsters they disliked her than liked her. And it stayed underwater, dropping, dropping, dropping.

It’s true her poll numbers were better than Sanders around the time she entered the race. It’s also true that’s a bullshit factoid; while Clinton’s name was near-universally recognized, huge swathes of the population had never even heard of Bernie Sanders. In March 2015, 62% of respondents so told Gallup. The corporate press, firmly in Clinton’s pocket when she stood against a left candidate, prolonged this as much as it could via the “Bernie Blackout,” barely reporting his existence, not including him in large numbers of polls, etc. On the few occasions when he was covered, it was usually in a mocking or dismissive way. And the more people learned about him, the more they liked him. While Clinton’s ratings were already underwater before he was even a factor and continued to decline, the arc of his approval rating was up, up, up:

“As poor conflicted Andrew Sullivan recently spat out, why do we “feel sorry” for her. The answer is simple: we love her. I’ll say it again — we love Hillary Clinton.”

That’s all good and fine but whether you like it or not, most people definitely do not. Clinton was the 2nd-most unpopular general election candidate in the history of polling and was beaten by the most unpopular one. In the latest Harris/Harvard poll this month, her favorability stands at 42% — lower than Trump’s (44%). Fully 53% of the population has an unfavorable opinion of her and as usual, that’s heavily concentrated in the “very unfavorable.”

Bernie Sanders, by contrast, is the most popular politician in the U.S., with a 57% approval rating.

“Who wants to hear that?”

“Shattered” is currently the #2 bestseller on Amazon.

“Despite the near impossibility of electing two Democratic presidents in succession when the previous one leaves office (last time it happened? 1856)”

Try Harry Truman, 1948 (yeah, I saw what you did there). The reason it’s so difficult to elect a candidate of the incumbent party after an 8-year presidency is that people just get tired of a long-running incumbent. Typically, the party out of power will portray the new candidate as just a continuation of the one of whom everyone is already sick to death by that point. The Republicans didn’t need to do that in this race — the brainless Clinton did it for them, trying to portray herself as Obama’s twin and the defender of his legacy in a cynical bid to suck up to the black vote.

How’d that work our for her in the general?

“We weren’t even allowed to be excited about it. Not even allowed to talk about it because it meant we were VOTING WITH OUR VAGINAS!”

That’s because, encouraged by the awful candidate herself, people were running around asserting they were going to vote for Clinton because she’s a woman. To note the obvious, that constitutes no argument for voting for anyone and even the people who were parroting it didn’t believe it (because if the woman in question had been Sarah Palin, every one of them would have stood against that candidate). Clinton was the candidate of old people, including old women. Younger women — and younger people in general — supported Sanders by overwhelming margins, sometimes over 80%.

“Hillary’s movement remains strong. No, some of our core principles are not ever going to be enough to woo the white working class males or the still whipped-up Sanders supporters.”

Any Clintonite with any “core principles” is a very different creature from their chosen candidate, who was an opportunistic low-life who spent an entire career flip-floppping on virtually every issue. Whichever way the polls showed the wind blowing.

“It’s like the last scene in Jaws where Quint has been eaten by the shark, and they have to go with Hooper’s dumb idea of getting in the shark cage”

They’d already tried the shark cage idea before Quint was eaten.

“Shame on the hard left for its dismissal of her”

That would be 53% of the public. “Hard left” my ass.

“I pity the candidate who dismisses us. You will never win. You will always lose. We outnumber you by tens of millions.”

Again, 53% of the public with an unfavorable view of Clinton. More to the point though, Clinton is, from a political perspective, a dead woman. She’ll never run for office again and couldn’t be elected dog-catcher if she did. Sanders, by contrast, drew the youth vote by those staggering numbers. In offering these delusional, hate-filled fantasies in article after article, you are, in effect, lining up with a dead woman in a war against the future of your own party. Good luck with that.