Althouse: "Several of Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the race candidly, said that they were anxious but not panicking about Iowa..."

January 12, 2016

"Several of Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the race candidly, said that they were anxious but not panicking about Iowa..."

"... saying that they believed she would still deliver a victory here.... Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is trying to shore up her base among female voters: Lena Dunham, the star of the HBO series 'Girls,' was deployed on Saturday to make a feminist pitch for Mrs. Clinton to crowds of mostly young women in Iowa City and Des Moines. Yet many younger women who gathered did not share Ms. Dunham’s visceral enthusiasm for Mrs. Clinton, saying that for most of their lives she has been a familiar fixture of establishment politics rather than an exciting new voice or an agent of change."

From a new NYT piece soberly titled "Hillary Clinton Races to Close Enthusiasm Gap With Bernie Sanders in Iowa." I say "soberly" because of the decorous exclusion of panic. I mean anxiety. They're anxious but not panicking, even when speaking anonymously.

I'm glad to read that wheeling out The Dunham doesn't work on the young. Dunham herself is young... ish. She's 29. But maybe instead of freshening up Hillary, she herself is looking like a familiar fixture of establishment politics.

77 comments:

Big Mike said...: Hillary Clinton is a terrible manager. She chooses her subordinates very poorly, and does not know how to reach out to people who can help her. She may yet win Iowa by chicanery, but she will not win it by winning hearts and minds.; 1/12/16, 8:21 AM
Limited blogger said...: It's hilarious. Bernie Sanders is trying not to win, but he might end of taking Iowa and New Hampshire. How inept can Clinton be?; 1/12/16, 8:25 AM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Young-ish! Most women in American probably got married and started families before 29 over the last few decades, although I understand it's later and later these days.

Oh, those silly women, always with the anxiety and the hysteria, whatever's to be done with them?; 1/12/16, 8:31 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: My Millennial daughters view Ms Dunham as a cautionary tale, though they rather like Amy Schumer.; 1/12/16, 8:35 AM
David Begley said...: Hillary should be worried.

People are very angry. Hope and change was a failure.

Bill in Council Bluffs on Saturday.; 1/12/16, 8:35 AM
rehajm said...: Several of Mrs. Clinton's advisors speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the race candidly suggests several of Mrs. Clinton's advisors are willing to risk The Clinton Wrath™ speaking ill of her while angling for a job with the Sanders campaign.; 1/12/16, 8:44 AM
Lewis Wetzel said...: Iowa City and Des Moines? She should be working the medium-sized, non-college towns by now, not shoring up her base of urban and college age women.; 1/12/16, 8:46 AM
Ron Winkleheimer said...: saying that for most of their lives she has been a familiar fixture of establishment politics rather than an exciting new voice or an agent of change

So they have been paying attention, good for them.

Also, Dunham is a child of privilege who, if she was set down among the working and middle classes, would look as inept as Paris Hilton in "The Simple Life."

She is the epitome of someone who was born on third base, but thinks she hit a triple.; 1/12/16, 8:47 AM
Brando said...: I guess they figure Dunham is hip and edgy (tattoos! Grown woman wearing rompers! Lied about being raped!) and therefore part of Sanders' swampy demographic, so the Clintons would use her to try and undercut some of that. But is there any evidence whatsoever that voters could be swayed by celebrity opinion? Liberals have good reason to not trust Hillary, and the fact that Dunham is in the bag hardly alleviates any concerns.

Strategically, I think Hillary's making a big mistake by trying to flank Sanders from the left. Partly because it's so ridiculous but also because Hillary risks losing moderates in the general election. While the GOP does a good job alienating middle roaders, it's still not clear who their candidate will be or what sort of campaign he will run--and frankly the leftists will swallow their reservations when the primaries are over and grudgingly go with Hillary anyway. Why demonstrate just how pandering she can be right now, when it convinces no one?; 1/12/16, 8:59 AM
damikesc said...: Does anybody legitimately LIKE Lena Dunham or Hillary Clinton?

I don't hear a lot of people speaking of how nice, friendly, or kind they are.; 1/12/16, 9:13 AM
MayBee said...: Are there men who like Lena Dunham? Does she turn off male voters?; 1/12/16, 9:22 AM
traditionalguy said...: At this rate, Hillary and Bill will have no influence left to sell soon. And then what good are they to anyone?

But that Joe Biden guy is a nice person and a much better campaigner than Hillary. Hmmm.; 1/12/16, 9:27 AM
LYNNDH said...: Ironic, using a woman who claimed rape to support a woman who's husband was accused of rape.; 1/12/16, 9:27 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: "Hillary, I know it may not my place to say..."

"Yes, Lena?"

"Don't you think you should...um...cut back on the drinking a bit?"

"I don't have a problem, Lena."

"It's just that you drink and fall down, you black out and then go into rages, you..."

"Spit it out, Lena."

"Ha!"

"What's so funny?"

"'Spit it out' makes me think of blow-jobs. Like, not swallowing. And, well..."

"Do NOT go there, child."

"Hillary, it's just that you tinkle yourself. Like, all the time."

"America is electing my Vagina, Lena, not my Bladder. They want me to be in My Rightful Place, where I can administer to their needs as I see Fit. For the fucking Children, Lena: for the fucking Children."

"I fully support you in that Hillary -- it's just that, well, I'm afraid you're going to have a stroke and die before the Election."

"Death knows not to fuck with me, Lena. I'll be alive long after America is but a memory."

"But maybe just a little less Vodka might help your stamina..."

"You don't see them, Lena."

"See what, Hillary?"

"Them. The faces, like wolves. They chase me, and they tear at me in my dreams. Except they are not dreams, they are all around me. Some dress like my Secret Service agents. They don't know that I know, but I know."

"Maybe this Election might be too much for you right now, Hillary. You know, Bernie isn't such a bad guy, and you can do good work with your Charity..."

"Bernie?! Are you a fucking traitor? Is that it, you bitch? I'll fist-fuck you in your ass -- I'll fist-fuck you so fucking hard..."

"No, Hillary, no! I support only you..."

"Bernie is part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy -- don't you see that? He is being funded by the Koch Brothers to try to ruin me! "

"Hill--"

"Everyone thinks he is this gentle Socialist, but he's not! You can't be a gentle Socialist, you gotta be ruthless to be a Socialist if you expect it to work -- you got to be willing to get bloody! I'm not afraid to have blood on my hands!"

"Uh, Hillary, I think you're due to meet the rally..."

"The Rally, right. Time to be the Caring Grandmother for the stupid fucks..."

I am Laslo.; 1/12/16, 9:29 AM
Jason said...: Heh.

"Close Your Enthusiasm"; 1/12/16, 9:37 AM
Peter said...: "I guess they figure Dunham is hip and edgy (tattoos! Grown woman wearing rompers! Lied about being raped!)"

But even if assumes that's true, does any of that "hip and edgy" transfer to Clinton?

Or would Hillary! have to actually get some tats herself (plus the rompers and false-rape story)?; 1/12/16, 9:39 AM
Ron Winkleheimer said...: With a 39% free-fall, this Sunday’s Season 4 premiere of Girls had just 680,000 viewers at 9 PM.

Deadline Hollywood

The Hollywood Reporter

Admittedly, Duck Dynasty's ratings have been declining too. Cause people aren't down with the homophobia according to time.com. Or maybe its because the show has been on the air for six seasons, which is a long time for a TV program.

Anyway, Duck Dynasty has lost almost four times as many viewers from its peak than actually watched Lisa Dunham's "hit" during its fourth season premier.

I'm not saying this because I am a fan of Duck Dynasty (I'm not) but just offer it up as an indication that the people who consider themselves the cultural elite along with the political class have no idea what the rest of the country is thinking and feeling.

For the most part they are incapable of processing the data to do so. Their basic assumptions concerning reality are too divergent.; 1/12/16, 9:42 AM
Anonymous said...: Dunham is the great pioneering artist credited with the first depiction of analingus on TV.; 1/12/16, 9:44 AM
Ron Winkleheimer said...: The sixth season of A&E megahit Duck Dynasty debuted on Wednesday night, averaging 4.3 million viewers

Hollywood reporter

Don't know how that happened.; 1/12/16, 9:45 AM
Ron Winkleheimer said...: Also, Laslo wins the thread.; 1/12/16, 9:45 AM
Titus said...: Happy Birthday Mary!; 1/12/16, 9:54 AM
MayBee said...: Ah, Peter.

Suddenly all I want in life is to see Hillary in a romper.; 1/12/16, 10:03 AM
jr565 said...: why are they bringing out Lena Dunham as the feminist standard? I'd think that would drive voters away, not towards; 1/12/16, 10:08 AM
Jupiter said...: "Yet many younger women who gathered did not share Ms. Dunham’s visceral enthusiasm for Mrs. Clinton, saying that for most of their lives she has been a familiar fixture of establishment politics rather than an exciting new voice or an agent of change."

"Visceral enthusiasm for Mrs. Clinton". Gag me with a spoon. My viscera are getting enthusiastic.

And isn't she supposed to be Ms. Rodham? When did she start baking cookies? While I was tossing mine?; 1/12/16, 10:09 AM
Sebastian said...: OT, but if I'm not mistaken today's your birthday, and if so: happy birthday! And keep up the good work.; 1/12/16, 10:10 AM
David said...: Anxious but not panicking = we're panicked.; 1/12/16, 10:13 AM
garage mahal said...: #Bernmentum; 1/12/16, 10:16 AM
cubanbob said...: I suspect the looming prospect of an indictment is severely curbing the enthusiasm of Team Hillary.

As for Lynch's machinations I presume the next Republican president can resort to a mass firing without fear a Republican Congress will impeach him.; 1/12/16, 10:20 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: Anxious but not panicking

It's like "I'm responsible, but not to blame..."; 1/12/16, 10:30 AM
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...: "I guess they figure Dunham is hip and edgy (tattoos! Grown woman wearing rompers! Lied about being raped!)"

I can't imagine how tattoos and rompers would still be considered edgy. Maybe they're impressed because she sexually assaulted her litter sister.; 1/12/16, 10:35 AM
Bob Boyd said...: Long time Clinton associate speaking on condition of anonymity: "We threw Lena at the wall. She didn't stick. She just hit the wall and slid down.

Reporter: "Why wouldn't Lena stick? She seems... you know...sticky."

LTCASOCA:"We've thrown so many things at that wall for so many years...the wall is a fucking mess. Everything just hits the wall and slides down, hits the wall and slides down. You know what I mean?"

Reporter: "There's a problem with America's wall isn't there?"

LTCASOCA: "It's very frustrating."; 1/12/16, 10:49 AM
Brando said...: "Ironic, using a woman who claimed rape to support a woman who's husband was accused of rape."

In the world of the Clintons, Dunham was telling the truth about her rape but Brodderick was lying about hers. The mental gymnastics required to be a Clinton supporter are going to eventually prove too much for even the most rabid morons.; 1/12/16, 10:51 AM
jr565 said...: ""Yet many younger women who gathered did not share Ms. Dunham’s visceral enthusiasm for Mrs. Clinton, saying that for most of their lives she has been a familiar fixture of establishment politics rather than an exciting new voice or an agent of change."

Bernie Sanders has been on the scene for decades. he is a senior citizen. How are they not viewing him as established politics? he is just the branch of the democratic party that was always standing in the sidelines beucase what he proposed was SO far fetched.

What he is proposing isnt' new. And HE isn't new. Is he older than John Mccain? Who the left thought would drop dead during his first term?; 1/12/16, 10:53 AM
Scott M said...: My Millennial daughters view Ms Dunham as a cautionary tale, though they rather like Amy Schumer.

So did I, up until recently.; 1/12/16, 10:54 AM
Brando said...: "But even if assumes that's true, does any of that "hip and edgy" transfer to Clinton?"

I don't see how it could--the thinking here is "look, if someone cool and edgy likes her, maybe there's something to her that I don't see!" I don't buy it as a workable tactic. However, when it comes to fundraising and events, sometimes getting a "popular" celebrity to show helps justify the high donation cost or fill seats with people who otherwise wouldn't want to see Hillary speak. (I do question the value of hearing Lena Dunham speak though--maybe she has some niche fans that the Clintons are going for? I could see some turning out for a comedian or singer, but what is Dunham going to do to entertain? Whine?).

"Or would Hillary! have to actually get some tats herself (plus the rompers and false-rape story)?"

Well we have the rape denials...; 1/12/16, 10:58 AM
jr565 said...: Just checked the birthdates. Mccain is 5 years older than Sanders.
however, the argument about his age was made back in 2008 when he ran for president. Which would mean that Sanders is older running for president than Mccain was when HE was running for president. And he was deemed OLD.
Yet another talking point gets swept up under the rug.; 1/12/16, 11:05 AM
Drago said...: Brando: " The mental gymnastics required to be a Clinton supporter are going to eventually prove too much for even the most rabid morons."

Au contraire mon frère. Au contraire.

All we can do is pray that the most rabid morons that occupy the nether regions of leftism are too few in number to turn the tide.

I fear though that the left has been successful in manufacturing legions of precisely these types of voters for decades now and we are close to or have already passed the tipping point.; 1/12/16, 11:06 AM
Sal said...: I'm glad to read that wheeling out The Dunham doesn't work on the young.

Plan B: Cyndi Lauper comes out and sings, "Girls Just Want To Have Fun".; 1/12/16, 11:12 AM
William said...: Those thousands of Dunham fans who used to pad out the Clinton rallies in Iowa have moved on to fresher, more exciting vehicles for their enthusiasm. They're now Amy Schumer fans. Amy Schumer is the voice of her generation. She's BFF with Jennifer Lawrence. That's how you can tell who the coolest hip comedian is. I don't see Jennifer Lawrence hanging out with Sara Silverman or Lena Dunham. Their day is over.......,,I see this as a variation of LBJ's reputed statement that if I lost Cronkite, I have lost America. If Hillary has garnered Dunham, she has lost America. Perhaps if Sean Penn could come to some of her Iowa rallies, Hillary could reignite the enthusiasm.; 1/12/16, 11:13 AM
Brando said...: "Just checked the birthdates. Mccain is 5 years older than Sanders.
however, the argument about his age was made back in 2008 when he ran for president. Which would mean that Sanders is older running for president than Mccain was when HE was running for president. And he was deemed OLD.
Yet another talking point gets swept up under the rug."

Why so surprised? In 2004, having served in Vietnam was considered the sole qualification for commander in chief, and merely serving in the TANG made you a whimpering craven too chickenhawk to sit in the Oval Office. Only four years later, McCain's Vietnam service became irrelevant and it was okay to have a president who never even made it into the Boy Scouts.

Remember when being rich and out of touch meant being unqualified for the White House, as in 2012? Now having a person who hasn't driven a car in 20 years and considered a net worth in the millions to be "dead broke" doesn't matter if they favor the right policies.; 1/12/16, 11:14 AM
MaxedOutMama said...: The thing about Sanders is that if I decided Trump were lethal, I could vote for Sanders in the general. I would never vote for Hillary.

No one is more lethal and corrupt than Hillary. I am personally distraught over even the prospect of her nomination - if she wins it, what remains of the soul of the Democratic party? It's horrifying to contemplate, and if I try to actually think about what will happen if she gets the nomination for ten minutes, I get an acute stomachache. It's the Zantac choice.

People who wonder why Obama ever got elected in the first place should just take a good hard look at Hillary now and understand. Compared to her, Obama is a paragon of virtue, and he generally has tried to be honest. If we had the same choice today, we'd nominate Obama again.

Since I like alternatives, I am sending Sanders money. It is true that his economic plans are close to suicidal, because he doesn't know what he is talking about. He doesn't even understand the economies he holds up as examples. But to rein in that fatal enthusiasm, there is Congress, which can be counted on to do it. Personally, he can be trusted. He will try to do right and he will try to do right honestly, and many of the issues he is focusing on are issues that are real to the voters and should be discussed. He is too old, but Hillary is probably about the same biological age as he is.

I think, btw, that the Blogstress is absolutely correct in theorizing that Trump and Sanders are products of the same voter concerns. Power group politics has led to abysmal politics, and the average voter is interested in something that is at least workable. Given the chance to vote for someone who is at least willing to admit the problems versus someone who is dedicated to pretending the problems don't exist, the choice is rather obvious.; 1/12/16, 11:21 AM
PatHMV said...: I think the Professor is right, there's more afoot than just left/right.

In my own state of Louisiana, which is very conservative (but ultimately populist), we just elected a Democrat as governor, and a fairly liberal one at that (liberal by Louisiana Democrat standards, at any rate), over a reliable conservative. I guarantee you that 70% of the people that voted for the new Governor Edwards over Senator David Vitter would have preferred Vitter's policies over Edwards'.

But we had just had 8 years of knee-jerk ideology and staffing and political decisions made almost solely based on the presidential ambitions of our governor and how he and his political machine would benefit from any policy judgment. Vitter, though no friend of Jindal's, was perceived as more of the same, as someone who would bring Washington power-politics to Louisiana. Louisiana just wanted somebody to make things work, not pick partisan fights.

The vote for Edwards had very little to do with policy preferences, and everything to do with personal character and overall tone. He focused on "just business, working through our issues together." Vitter was well-known as a pretty ideological, inflexible policy guy. That lost. But it did not mean that Louisianians suddenly love Democratic policies... far from it.; 1/12/16, 11:34 AM
narciso said...: As if Edwards is going to operate ten degrees different than the Party mandarins mandate, the drop in crude, cratered the Lousiana economy, that's the explanation,; 1/12/16, 11:43 AM
Char Char Binks, Esq. said...: They have to secretly say they hope to win, but could lose? Loose lips sink ships (which is why they should be worried about bringing in Lena Dunham).; 1/12/16, 12:08 PM
Rusty said...: Oh and thank you for removing that moderation bullshit and no I didn't learn anything from it.; 1/12/16, 12:18 PM
eric said...: Trump should insinuate that her rape was by Bill Clinton. That she used a fake name in her book. Make them come out and say Clinton didn't rape me.; 1/12/16, 12:24 PM
samanthasmom said...: The only people I know who watch "Girls" are 50+ year old men.; 1/12/16, 12:53 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: When Chelsea starts stumping for her Mom, she (Chelsea) should also be asked about her predator father and the claims of rape and sexual harassment and how that jibes with women's rights.

If Hillary is gonna use Chelsea as a political pawn, then such questions are within bounds.; 1/12/16, 12:57 PM
Dan Hossley said...: Lena Dunham is to Hillary Clinton as Naomi Wolfe is to Al Gore. It will probably work just about as well for her as it did for him.; 1/12/16, 1:02 PM
damikesc said...: He doesn't even understand the economies he holds up as examples. But to rein in that fatal enthusiasm, there is Congress, which can be counted on to do it.?

Not sure where that optimism hails from.; 1/12/16, 1:11 PM
Jeff said...: My daughters are now 34 and 33. They were teenagers in the time of Monica. Like most of their friends, they viewed Hillary as an enabler, not a victim. I suspect that most of Hillary's support among women under 35 comes from people who think the opposite.

My daughters' opinions on this were at least partly shaped by their parents. Unfortunately for Hillary, the people in my generation who thought poorly of her were much more likely to reproduce than the people who thought highly of her. Millions of potential Hillary supporters were aborted in the seventies and eighties.; 1/12/16, 1:19 PM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: I would hazard a guess that HBO has less than 200,000 subscribers in Iowa, and most of those are only watching Game of Thrones. Girls did do a program or programs about the Iowa Writer's Workshop at the University of Iowa, but very few people for Iowa are in that program. So Lena Dunham would have done about all she could do for Hillary Clinton by visiting Iowa City and Des Moines.

This was described in the Des Moines Register as crowd of about 150: "Television star and writer Lena Dunham drew a crowd to the Java House coffee shop in downtown Iowa City Saturday to rally support for Hillary Clinton."; 1/12/16, 1:41 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: Latest polls:

NH: Sanders 49-44 over Clinton (Quinnipiac)
Iowa: Sanders 53-39 over Clinton (Monmouth)

Dream question by CNN Reporter: "Ms. Clinton, if Sanders wins the Dem nomination as a socialist, would you be willing to entertain a third party run?"

Yes, I can dream:)

Hillary delende est; 1/12/16, 2:03 PM
Eric said...: Thatcher never had to bring in her husband to win an election.; 1/12/16, 3:02 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Talking to 20 something young (college educated) young women, and Hillary is in serious trouble. As with everyone else of that generation, the problem is one of being authentic and honest, and she fails miserably on both. She might grudgingly get their votes based on her stand on abortion. Maybe. But, maybe not, and the big reason is her honesty, or lack of it, as well as being part of the problem (23 years in DC), and not part of the solution. But, mostly it is her lack of honesty. And, being (supposedly) ignorant about the basics of life like servers, and not being able to drive or use electronics don't help either.; 1/12/16, 3:31 PM
The Godfather said...: So if Hillary! doesn't get the Dem nomination, does the Clinton Foundation have to give the bribes back?; 1/12/16, 3:39 PM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: My daughters' opinions on this were at least partly shaped by their parents. Unfortunately for Hillary, the people in my generation who thought poorly of her were much more likely to reproduce than the people who thought highly of her.

+1 Hillary is no blank slate, that is for sure. I think I read that only 2% of people are open to changing their mind on Hillary and she is nowhere near 50% in the polls.

Has anybody else noticed the troll that isn't barking? The ones coming in here every day telling us we better get used to Hillary as president? If she gives Sanders the vicious pegging she'd dearly love to dish out, it will only hurt her and open the door for somebody else.; 1/12/16, 3:43 PM
damikesc said...: Thatcher never had to bring in her husband to win an election.

Nor did she have to attack women her husband harassed to protect her future.; 1/12/16, 3:55 PM
grackle said...: I do not believe Hillary is in a panic about the Democrat primaries except perhaps the temporary embarrassment of losing the 2 earliest primaries. She knows all the rest of the primaries are hers. It’s simple arithmetic. Sanders cannot win the Democrat primaries that are coming after Iowa and New Hampshire.

The real panic is the realization of the Democrat establishment that Trump would demolish her in the general election. The proof to them must be the fact that Trump shut her and Slick Willie up with just a few words. That’s powerful.

And then there’s that FBI investigation hanging over her head like a guillotine. Fear of Sanders has nothing to do with that. It’s the only thing that could prevent her from winning the nomination. I’m sure important Democrats are waiting to see if Obama trips that blade.; 1/12/16, 4:53 PM
jr565 said...: PatHMV wrote:
The vote for Edwards had very little to do with policy preferences, and everything to do with personal character and overall tone. He focused on "just business, working through our issues together." Vitter was well-known as a pretty ideological, inflexible policy guy. That lost. But it did not mean that Louisianians suddenly love Democratic policies... far from it.

Well you are now going to learn to hate those democratic policies. Be careful what you vote for.; 1/12/16, 5:06 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: "speaking on condition"

"speaking on a condition"

"speaking on the condition"

Paid by the letters unsaved, just like Stalin said.

But not Vince Foster, he was murdered.; 1/12/16, 6:27 PM
Saint Croix said...: Bernie is up 5 points over Hillary in Iowa and up 14 points in New Hampshire. Holy shit!

Cranky socialist for the win! And I thought our party had gone nuts.; 1/12/16, 6:37 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: I have thought this over.

"If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" was repeated to me.

Much like that, decades from now (know) the lies revealed will themselves reveal.

"context" can now be said to mean "conservative" "text" such like proto-neaulogisms attempt.
"context" refers to Orwell-aware, anti-Brave-New-World and Huxley-awed rightly containing idolism of Word alone.; 1/12/16, 7:21 PM
Big Mike said...: @Saint Croix, your party has gone nuts. Trust me on this.

@grackle, I have been saying that Hillary would be lucky to take ten states in the general election. Art Laffer is now saying that she'll take three, maybe five.; 1/12/16, 7:48 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: They are talking about Iowa because they don't want the press to talk about nationally, and they don't want the press to think they are out of touch.

CSS News released a poll tonight. Bernie Sanders is now leading Hillary in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and he's close nationally.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbsnyt-poll-hillary-clintons-lead-over-bernie-sanders-shrinks/

The Clinton people must have known about this too, from their own polling, and maybe a leak or two.

This has to be related to all that discussion (that Donald Trump started, and the media and some others joined in) about how Hillary was hypocritical about believing women who claimed they had been sexually harassed or raped, and she was in fact an enabler for Bill Clinton. Her answers have not been good. She's been embarassed. She;s been avoiding the question. She's been refusing to answer.

You would think this issue couldn't harm her too much, at least compared to all the other things, but maybe it's the way she's not been able to handle the questions. I don't know - are some people just learning about Hillary Clinton??; 1/12/16, 8:05 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: Sanders is almost running away with it in New Hampshire.

It may have something to do with Indepedents choosing to vote in the Democratic primary. This helps Trump, since most of those people would vote for someone else in the Republican priumary.; 1/12/16, 8:06 PM
Drago said...: Sammy: "This has to be related to all that discussion (that Donald Trump started, and the media and some others joined in) about how Hillary was hypocritical about believing women who claimed they had been sexually harassed or raped, and she was in fact an enabler for Bill Clinton. Her answers have not been good. She's been embarassed. She;s been avoiding the question. She's been refusing to answer."

Hillary is the worst candidate in the last 100 years, and that includes Stalin.

And Stalin was cuter. Though, in some lighting circumstances, I'll allow that it is close.; 1/12/16, 9:42 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: Drago said...1/12/16, 9:42 PM

Hillary is the worst candidate in the last 100 years, and that includes Stalin.

Stalin wasn't a candidate for president of the United States. I suppose you mean Lyndon LaRouche.

and I think what you really mean, worst candidate with a plausible shot at the nomination of a major political party. Although that isn't really true, either.

By worst candidate, do you mean very bad at campaigning, or unfitted for the office?; 1/12/16, 10:10 PM
Gahrie said...: Hillary is going to pull a Torricelli, and the Dems will replace her with Biden or Warren.; 1/12/16, 10:33 PM
Etienne said...: Mary Brigid McManamon has an article in the Washington Post which puts an end to the question about Cruz and his eligibility to be President or Vice-President.

She is a professor of law, and has said that common law requires a person to be born within a country, in order to be called "natural-born."

Statutes only change the naturalization of the person. We currently allow naturalization by birth, for people born outside the USA. Their status as natural-born does not change, and cannot be changed by Congress.

So, Cruz is a natural-born Canadian, who is a naturalized American by birth (because at least one parent was natural-born).

Since he has given-up his Canadian citizenship (renounced it), he still remains a natural-born Canadian.; 1/13/16, 3:52 AM
Brando said...: "I have been saying that Hillary would be lucky to take ten states in the general election."

"Hillary is going to pull a Torricelli, and the Dems will replace her with Biden or Warren."

I'm less confident in these things happening because we've time and again heard "major indictments for the Clintons are coming!" and "this time it'll sink 'em!" over again. I just can't picture Hillary stepping down and doubt the DOJ will indict her unless something more turns up. It's not fair or just, but this is the CLintons we're talking about.

As for her losing, it's possible she'll lose but the GOP cannot pull a landslide this year. The Dems have about 45% of the electorate absolutely unwilling to vote for the GOP, and even a lousy candidate like Clinton can add at least a couple points to that from the moderates. Electorally, they have a lock on the Northeast, the West Coast, and most Great Lakes states getting them well over 200 electoral votes just to start.

Sanders I think will give her a scare in the primaries, but this year the Dems are more like the GOP used to be--flirting a bit with an upstart when they're not too excited about the nominee, but giving it to who is next in line. So the only thing keeping Hillary out of the White House is if the GOP can cobble together a coalition of its right and moderate wings, and break off just enough minority votes to hold the swing states.; 1/13/16, 8:08 AM
Brando said...: "So, Cruz is a natural-born Canadian, who is a naturalized American by birth (because at least one parent was natural-born)."

Cruz is in exactly the same position the Obama birthers believed Obama was in--the difference being it's indisputable that Cruz was born in Canada and there really was no evidence Obama was born overseas. So the question is, if Cruz is not legally eligible but gets elected, what then? Who has standing to bring suit to keep him from taking office?

For that matter, how does this normally work with Congressmen, etc. who have certain eligibility requirements (e.g. age, residency) to take office--if they got elected but someone wanted to challenge their eligibility, how does that process work?; 1/13/16, 8:13 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "So the question is, if Cruz is not legally eligible but gets elected, what then? Who has standing to bring suit to keep him from taking office?"

I think the correct answer, as a matter of constitutional law, is that the final determination belongs to Congress. Under the 12th Amendment: "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted."

The procedure in Congress is governed by a statute, 3 USC § 15, reprinted in full below. The key thing is that when the count comes in, the President of the Senate calls for objections, and an objection can be submitted and it "shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives."

This was the point at which GWB won the 2000 election. No objection was submitted.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/provisions.html; 1/13/16, 8:32 AM
Ann Althouse said...: I'm not saying a court couldn't decide it if there were a proper case that could be submitted. I don't want to be too negative about that possibility, but I think the argument is happening in the political sphere and the people are deciding if Cruz is natural born enough.

If it did go to the Supreme Court, I'd bet my money on the broader definition prevailing, favoring Cruz.

Which is why Cruz opponents are better off without that court case. They can screw with him in the political sphere.; 1/13/16, 8:36 AM
Just asking questions (Jaq) said...: I think that Cruz is in the exact same position that was alleged for Obama. The only evidence that Obama was born out of the country was his own claims in his marketing material as an author. Once everybody realized that Obama was a habitual liar, any evidence based on his own word became worthless. Chester A. Arthur was dropped off at an orphanage not far from the Canadian border by parties unknown, didn't stop him.; 1/13/16, 8:44 AM
Brando said...: "I think the correct answer, as a matter of constitutional law, is that the final determination belongs to Congress. Under the 12th Amendment: "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.""

Thanks--I figured it was something like that but wondered if Congress favored the "questionable" president-elect, and decided to drop the issue, and yet there was still a constitutional argument but no one had standing to bring it (say, if a 34 year old got elected).; 1/13/16, 9:50 AM
Etienne said...: Interestingly, Professor Polly Price (Emory) outlines how the western hemisphere is different than the eastern. Pointing out that the west needed to populate its lands, and opened up citizenship using both "by blood" and "by soil".

The US allows automatic citizenship to anyone born in this country (legal residency or not) (jus soli), and they also allow citizenship to their children (jus sanguinis) born elsewhere.

Cruz obviously falls under "by blood", and as such this is a completely different concept from "by soil".

Interestingly, the professor never goes into the term "natural born". She completely avoids it. Both are citizens, case closed.

Limiting her lectures to citizenship. I believe the relevancy of the term is only on eligibility for the offices of the Presidency, and she wants to stick to the 14th Amendment, and not get into the other parts of the Constitution.; 1/13/16, 12:19 PM