Politico: GOP insiders applaud Clinton rollout

[mudwhistle]

GOP insiders applaud Clinton rollout - James Hohmann - POLITICO

Hillary Clinton has found a new constituency: Republicans.

A significant — and surprising — majority of GOP insiders in the early states offered at least some praise for her presidential campaign rollout in a special Wednesday edition of The POLITICO Caucus, our weekly bipartisan survey of the most important activists, operatives and elected officials in Iowa and New Hampshire.

These are people who will never vote for her, but they have their fingers on the political pulse in the two states that kick off the nominating process. While most Republicans thought the former secretary of state’s announcement was contrived or phony, they nevertheless viewed it as a savvy and effective campaign launch.

“Honestly, I was very impressed,” said a top Iowa Republican, who — like all 72 respondents — completed the questionnaire anonymously in order to speak candidly. “She’s always been seen as cold. I think this helps warm her up for the general election. It also creates a soft launch for her.”

“She can be very hard to listen to speak, at times shrill, so this was refreshing and a little inspirational,” said a second Iowa Republican. “She knows she needs to earn people’s vote. It’s a smart way to brush off being the ‘anointed one.’”

“The drive to Iowa is the smartest play I’ve seen her make in a while,” declared a New Hampshire Republican.

A second Granite State Republican described the road trip as a masterstroke. “The campaign is, rightly, underplaying it and letting the social media activity promote her and her travels,” he said. “Really, really well played.”

Less surprisingly, the vast majority of Democratic insiders thought Hillary nailed her announcement and said her first foray into Iowa on Tuesday went as successfully as could be expected. Four in five surveyed said that this week’s rollout — from the launch video to the van ride to the low-key Iowa events — signals that she has learned the right lessons from her 2008 loss.

Much, much more at the link to read. The GOPers are anonymous, but the states from which they hail are listed.

Plenty of stuff to talk about.

Remember: Politico is a decidedly Right-leaning publication, with no love for the Clintons.


Read more: GOP insiders applaud Clinton rollout - James Hohmann - POLITICO

Yep.......and I really love them Cankles she has too!!!!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Remember: Politico is a decidedly Right-leaning publication,

Who decided that?

Real simple. Count the number of Conservative oriented articles and notice the slant.

The result is quite obvious.

Apparently not because I've always considered them to skew towards the left.

 

[BluePhantom]

I'm still chuckling over the 2014 gop landslide.

I'm still chuckling over all the predictions of a Romney landslide. Don't be making it worse by predicting Hillary "will end up getting slaughtered". Do you rubes never learn?

Are you somehow not understanding that there is no correlation between Mid-term elections and presidential elections? Are you really that daft? Are you not understanding that a vastly different clientele shows up for presidential GE years? Poor you.

Here's the deal, though. When I was teaching, several years ago, I did a great deal of research on discrimination in regard to authority figures. I was trying to determine the best way to connect with my students and identify what things may stand in the way of that. What I found was that gender discrimination and age discrimination are far and away the most common forms we experience in United States society. I was very surprised to find that racial discrimination doesn't even come close. What I also found that was interesting was that women discriminated against women only slightly less often than men did.

So in the Obama elections we saw a lot of things going on. African-Americans turned out en masse and voted for Obama and a lot of Republicans didn't turn out at all because they would not vote for a Mormon. It's more complicated than that, of course, but those elements played a part. I don't think you are going to see women turn out to support Hillary the same way we saw African-Americans turn out for Obama. Furthermore, the research I did would suggest that many women would vote against Hillary because she is a woman...as fucking crazy as that sounds. Then consider Hispanic voters. I have worked with the Latino community my entire life and I can tell you that their culture is very male-dominated. Women are often strongly discriminated against so that is going to play a factor.

Now for age. Fair or not, older men are more likely to be seen as 'wise' or 'distinguished' where older women are more likely to be seen as...well...'old women'. It's going to play a factor. So you add all that up and...yeah Hillary could possibly win, but she is going to have a LOT of discriminatory barriers to overcome. Far more than Obama had. She is also a very polarizing figure and people have already made up their minds on her. She is not going to change a lot of opinions, I don't think. But we will see.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I'm still chuckling over the 2014 gop landslide.

I'm still chuckling over all the predictions of a Romney landslide. Don't be making it worse by predicting Hillary "will end up getting slaughtered". Do you rubes never learn?

Are you somehow not understanding that there is no correlation between Mid-term elections and presidential elections? Are you really that daft? Are you not understanding that a vastly different clientele shows up for presidential GE years? Poor you.

When the American people decided to punish republicans for Nixon it STARTED in the off year and finished in the general election. Are YOU to stupid to remember history?

Mid-term elections have no, and I mean, no direct correlation to the next GE. Please do not be so stupid.

Were this the case, then Eisenhower would not have won re-election in 1956 and Bush 41 would not have been elected in 1988.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I'm still chuckling over the 2014 gop landslide.

I'm still chuckling over all the predictions of a Romney landslide. Don't be making it worse by predicting Hillary "will end up getting slaughtered". Do you rubes never learn?

Are you somehow not understanding that there is no correlation between Mid-term elections and presidential elections? Are you really that daft? Are you not understanding that a vastly different clientele shows up for presidential GE years? Poor you.

Here's the deal, though. When I was teaching, several years ago, I did a great deal of research on discrimination in regard to authority figures. I was trying to determine the best way to connect with my students and identify what things may stand in the way of that. What I found was that gender discrimination and age discrimination are far and away the most common forms we experience in United States society. Racial discrimination doesn't even come close. What I also found that was interesting was that women discriminated against women only slightly less often than men did.

So in the Obama elections we saw a lot of things going on. African-Americans turned out en masse and voted for Obama and a lot of Republicans didn't turn out at all because they would not vote for a Mormon. It's more complicated than that, of course, but those elements played a part. I don't think you are going to see women turn out to support Hillary the same way we saw African-Americans turn out for Obama. Furthermore, the research I did would suggest that many women would vote against Hillary because she is a woman...as fucking crazy as that sounds. Then consider Hispanic voters. I have worked with the Latino community my entire life and I can tell you that their culture is very male-dominated. Women are often strongly discriminated against so that is going to play a factor.

Now for age. Fair or not, older men are more likely to be seen as 'wise' or 'distinguished' where older women are more likely to be seen as...well...'old women'. It's going to play a factor. So you add all that up and...yeah Hillary could possibly win, but she is going to have a LOT of discriminatory barriers to overcome. Far more than Obama had. But we will see.

Oh, please.

Romney still got 61 million votes, just 1.1 million less than Bush in 2004.

Conservatives and Mormon-allergic types did NOT stay home in 2012.

The black vote was 13% of the electorate in both 2012 and 2008. It was 12% in 2004. Not a huge shift.

Try again.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I think this last election was different. It wasn't a vote for Republicans, it was a vote against the Democrats.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Remember: Politico is a decidedly Right-leaning publication,

Who decided that?

Real simple. Count the number of Conservative oriented articles and notice the slant.

The result is quite obvious.

Apparently not because I've always considered them to skew towards the left.

Guess it depends on how you look at it.


Politico - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In a 2007 opinion piece, progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America accused Politico of having a "Republican tilt". In a letter to Executive Editor Jim VandeHei, Senior Political Writer Ben Smith and Chief Political Correspondent Mike Allen, Editor in Chief John F. Harris reminded his colleagues that they had left the more "traditional news organizations" where they had worked previously, starting Politico with the intent to be more transparent. To that end, he asked his colleagues for an honest assessment of the claims set forth in the letter from Media Matters. Ben Smith answered: "Media Matters has a point: ...that Bush's public endorsement made us seem too close to the White House. That was clearly a favor from the president to us (albeit a small one), and felt to me like one of those clubby Beltway moments that make the insiders feel important and the outsiders feel (accurately) like outsiders." The other primary editors disagreed with the general accusation for a variety of reasons and some pointed to accusations of a liberal bias from the other side of the political spectrum.[15] In 2011 and 2012, The Daily Caller, Mediaite, andBreitbart.com, each published stories saying that Politico.com has a liberal bias.[16]

 

[DarkFury]

I'm still chuckling over the 2014 gop landslide.

I'm still chuckling over all the predictions of a Romney landslide. Don't be making it worse by predicting Hillary "will end up getting slaughtered". Do you rubes never learn?

Are you somehow not understanding that there is no correlation between Mid-term elections and presidential elections? Are you really that daft? Are you not understanding that a vastly different clientele shows up for presidential GE years? Poor you.

When the American people decided to punish republicans for Nixon it STARTED in the off year and finished in the general election. Are YOU to stupid to remember history?

Mid-term elections have no, and I mean, no direct correlation to the next GE. Please do not be so stupid.

Were this the case, then Eisenhower would not have won re-election in 1956 and Bush 41 would not have been elected in 1988.

I suggest you use the net to search for Crow cooking books.
You are SO going to need one.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm still chuckling over the 2014 gop landslide.

I'm still chuckling over all the predictions of a Romney landslide. Don't be making it worse by predicting Hillary "will end up getting slaughtered". Do you rubes never learn?

Are you somehow not understanding that there is no correlation between Mid-term elections and presidential elections? Are you really that daft? Are you not understanding that a vastly different clientele shows up for presidential GE years? Poor you.

When the American people decided to punish republicans for Nixon it STARTED in the off year and finished in the general election. Are YOU to stupid to remember history?

Mid-term elections have no, and I mean, no direct correlation to the next GE. Please do not be so stupid.

Were this the case, then Eisenhower would not have won re-election in 1956 and Bush 41 would not have been elected in 1988.

Depends on the level of change.

In 2006 Democrats took back Congress.
In 2008 Democrats took the Whitehouse.

I expect the same thing in 2016. This is why Democrats are so desperately trying to give illegals the right to vote.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Man, she might get 99 percent of the vote like saddam got.

 

[DarkFury]

Man, she might get 99 percent of the vote like saddam got.

Well Obozo DID get 105% in some areas. Could happen.

 

[MisterBeale]

LOLz

Anonymous GOPers include: Jake Starkey, bucs90 and g5000

You really are not very smart, now are you.

Politico, though it is Right-leaning, is a respected publication and prints material that is SOURCED.

We are talking about REAL GOP operatives in the real world, not anonymous avatars in cyberspace.

Get a grip on yourself, if you can.

Hillary is a globalist, an internationalist. She works for the NWO, the CFR, just the same as most of the GOP operatives. That means they all work for the same people. What you have posted means nothing, it isn't interesting at all. They all have the same boss, who gives a shit?

Politico, if you didn't know, is the political slum rag for intellectual light weights that can't handle REAL political science and don't have the patience for propaganda of Foreign Affairs Magazine.
Michael Hirsh Hillary Clinton s Legacy as Secretary of State Foreign Affairs


Either way, the CFR is behind it all.

 

[FA_Q2]

Are we getting testy, are we? Simmer down.
Honey, you are right but what you fail to understand is so much has happened, a great awakening has occurred. True, only time will tell, but I am willing to hedge my bets, if she is the nominee, now. The press knows they will be questioned more this time around. And id laws have been upheld in a number of states this time around.

I'm still chuckling over the 2014 gop landslide.

I'm still chuckling over all the predictions of a Romney landslide. Don't be making it worse by predicting Hillary "will end up getting slaughtered". Do you rubes never learn?

Are you somehow not understanding that there is no correlation between Mid-term elections and presidential elections? Are you really that daft? Are you not understanding that a vastly different clientele shows up for presidential GE years? Poor you.

Just like the ‘awakening’ in 2010 that carried over to 2012…
Wait…
Here is the deal – there is no ‘awakening.’ Most Americans are still woefully uninformed and completely oblivious to politics in general. The smallest and most idiotic things control most people’s votes (and they are usually completely false to boot).
2014 was not an awakening either. The dems do not have 2016 in the bag by no means but the right is going to have to fight for every inch they get or have and fight very hard.

 

[FA_Q2]

Remember: Politico is a decidedly Right-leaning publication,

Who decided that?

Real simple. Count the number of Conservative oriented articles and notice the slant.

The result is quite obvious.

Apparently not because I've always considered them to skew towards the left.

Guess it depends on how you look at it.


Politico - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In a 2007 opinion piece, progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America accused Politico of having a "Republican tilt". In a letter to Executive Editor Jim VandeHei, Senior Political Writer Ben Smith and Chief Political Correspondent Mike Allen, Editor in Chief John F. Harris reminded his colleagues that they had left the more "traditional news organizations" where they had worked previously, starting Politico with the intent to be more transparent. To that end, he asked his colleagues for an honest assessment of the claims set forth in the letter from Media Matters. Ben Smith answered: "Media Matters has a point: ...that Bush's public endorsement made us seem too close to the White House. That was clearly a favor from the president to us (albeit a small one), and felt to me like one of those clubby Beltway moments that make the insiders feel important and the outsiders feel (accurately) like outsiders." The other primary editors disagreed with the general accusation for a variety of reasons and some pointed to accusations of a liberal bias from the other side of the political spectrum.[15] In 2011 and 2012, The Daily Caller, Mediaite, andBreitbart.com, each published stories saying that Politico.com has a liberal bias.[16]

Yes, it matters very much. I see no ‘right’ tilt in Politico at all. I think that you are the very first person to claim so here on this board. I do see the left use them all the time here though and have found a decidedly left slant in much that they have used. I don’t know about the reporting as a whole though because I do not follow Politico’s reporting all that much.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Are we getting testy, are we? Simmer down.
Honey, you are right but what you fail to understand is so much has happened, a great awakening has occurred. True, only time will tell, but I am willing to hedge my bets, if she is the nominee, now. The press knows they will be questioned more this time around. And id laws have been upheld in a number of states this time around.

I'm still chuckling over the 2014 gop landslide.

I'm still chuckling over all the predictions of a Romney landslide. Don't be making it worse by predicting Hillary "will end up getting slaughtered". Do you rubes never learn?

Are you somehow not understanding that there is no correlation between Mid-term elections and presidential elections? Are you really that daft? Are you not understanding that a vastly different clientele shows up for presidential GE years? Poor you.

Just like the ‘awakening’ in 2010 that carried over to 2012…
Wait…
Here is the deal – there is no ‘awakening.’ Most Americans are still woefully uninformed and completely oblivious to politics in general. The smallest and most idiotic things control most people’s votes (and they are usually completely false to boot).
2014 was not an awakening either. The dems do not have 2016 in the bag by no means but the right is going to have to fight for every inch they get or have and fight very hard.

Yepp.

 

[DarkFury]

Are we getting testy, are we? Simmer down.
Honey, you are right but what you fail to understand is so much has happened, a great awakening has occurred. True, only time will tell, but I am willing to hedge my bets, if she is the nominee, now. The press knows they will be questioned more this time around. And id laws have been upheld in a number of states this time around.

I'm still chuckling over the 2014 gop landslide.

I'm still chuckling over all the predictions of a Romney landslide. Don't be making it worse by predicting Hillary "will end up getting slaughtered". Do you rubes never learn?

Are you somehow not understanding that there is no correlation between Mid-term elections and presidential elections? Are you really that daft? Are you not understanding that a vastly different clientele shows up for presidential GE years? Poor you.

Just like the ‘awakening’ in 2010 that carried over to 2012…
Wait…
Here is the deal – there is no ‘awakening.’ Most Americans are still woefully uninformed and completely oblivious to politics in general. The smallest and most idiotic things control most people’s votes (and they are usually completely false to boot).
2014 was not an awakening either. The dems do not have 2016 in the bag by no means but the right is going to have to fight for every inch they get or have and fight very hard.

And the democrats are not helping their cause by putting some aging plow horse in the front.

 

[MisterBeale]

Much more interesting read here. . .
Tweets about whyimnotvotingforhillary hashtag on Twitter

You have a much, much lower threshold for "interesting" than I do.

I said it was more interesting than that Politico piece, I didn't intimate that it was necessarily of interest to all folks.

 

[The Irish Ram]

You are correct Mister. If we don't get over the stupidity stage and start electing Americans instead of globalists this country and its constitution and our freedom and our paychecks will become a thing of the past. The ball is in our court.

 

[FA_Q2]

Are we getting testy, are we? Simmer down.
Honey, you are right but what you fail to understand is so much has happened, a great awakening has occurred. True, only time will tell, but I am willing to hedge my bets, if she is the nominee, now. The press knows they will be questioned more this time around. And id laws have been upheld in a number of states this time around.

I'm still chuckling over the 2014 gop landslide.

I'm still chuckling over all the predictions of a Romney landslide. Don't be making it worse by predicting Hillary "will end up getting slaughtered". Do you rubes never learn?

Are you somehow not understanding that there is no correlation between Mid-term elections and presidential elections? Are you really that daft? Are you not understanding that a vastly different clientele shows up for presidential GE years? Poor you.

Just like the ‘awakening’ in 2010 that carried over to 2012…
Wait…
Here is the deal – there is no ‘awakening.’ Most Americans are still woefully uninformed and completely oblivious to politics in general. The smallest and most idiotic things control most people’s votes (and they are usually completely false to boot).
2014 was not an awakening either. The dems do not have 2016 in the bag by no means but the right is going to have to fight for every inch they get or have and fight very hard.

And the democrats are not helping their cause by putting some aging plow horse in the front.

That is YOUR opinion of her. You do realize that the left is more than willing to swallow Hillary to 'win' for their 'side' as that is the pathetic excuse for a political system that we currently employ.
The FACT is (and it is a fact) Hillary is currently doing far better than any potential republican candidate can even dream of doing. That means they have a head start no matter how much you might see Hillary as a 'plow horse.'
You do realize that the fastest and surest way to lose is to be absolutely sure of your victory. Ever hear of the tortoise and the hair? That little tale fits nicely into the current attitude of the right - the SAME EXACT ATTITUDE THEY HAD IN 2012. How did that work out - disastrous.

 

[MisterBeale]

Remember: Politico is a decidedly Right-leaning publication,

Who decided that?

Real simple. Count the number of Conservative oriented articles and notice the slant.

The result is quite obvious.

Apparently not because I've always considered them to skew towards the left.

Basically, it's an establishment paper. It's reporters and infarstructer are in D.C.

It is conservative when the WH is conservative. When the administration is liberal, then it is perceived as liberal.

It just a CFR oriented site, that is all.

In a 2007 opinion piece, progressive watchdog group Media Matters for America accused Politico of having a "Republican tilt". In a letter to Executive Editor Jim VandeHei, Senior Political Writer Ben Smith and Chief Political Correspondent Mike Allen, Editor in Chief John F. Harris reminded his colleagues that they had left the more "traditional news organizations" where they had worked previously, starting Politico with the intent to be more transparent. To that end, he asked his colleagues for an honest assessment of the claims set forth in the letter from Media Matters. Ben Smith answered: "Media Matters has a point: ...that Bush's public endorsement made us seem too close to the White House. That was clearly a favor from the president to us (albeit a small one), and felt to me like one of those clubby Beltway moments that make the insiders feel important and the outsiders feel (accurately) like outsiders." The other primary editors disagreed with the general accusation for a variety of reasons and some pointed to accusations of a liberal bias from the other side of the political spectrum.[15] In 2011 and 2012, The Daily Caller, Mediaite, and Breitbart.com, each published stories saying that Politico.com has a liberal bias.[16]
Politico - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia