tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post550703332340293604..comments2024-03-07T19:25:22.346-08:00Comments on Last Men and OverMen: Et Tu Nate Silver?Mike Saxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-53194375020170177492016-09-17T07:40:44.462-07:002016-09-17T07:40:44.462-07:00Thanks for your comment. I too was a 2008 Hillary ...Thanks for your comment. I too was a 2008 Hillary supporter. <br /><br />Regarding her reputation, as I mentioned above, she was much more popular just a few years ago. <br /><br />When she was SOS she had a 64% approval rating. So a lot of this is simply that when your'e running for POTUS you tend to be a lot less popular. <br /><br />Recall that in 2011 some on Obama's team were seriously considering dropping Biden for her. Back then the media narrative was that Biden was such a 'gaffe machine' that he was a serious liability. <br /><br />There was even a book published making that case. <br /><br />Those who say that 'any other Republican could have beaten her' need to say who?<br /><br />Ted Cruz? Well, not Ted Cruz, he's too extreme. Jeb Bush? Well, no, he couldn't even get past questions of his last name in interviews.<br /><br />Little Marco? Ok, he seems more likely. But he surely had his own weaknesses as demonstrated in his robot glitch in NH and the way he demeaned himself in trying to match Trump insult for insult. <br /><br />You may believe that Kasich or Rubio would have beaten her but she sure is doing better against Trump than either of them did. <br /><br />So as you note, generic Republicans or generic Democrats don't exist. <br /><br /><br /><br />Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-78675087564778573362016-09-17T06:33:57.106-07:002016-09-17T06:33:57.106-07:00FWIW, I didn't take FiveThirtyEight's comm...FWIW, I didn't take FiveThirtyEight's comment that "Clinton is nearly as bad a candidate and mostly offsets this effect" as a judgment of her as a person or how should would act as President, but rather how she has fared as a candidate.<br /><br />I am a Clinton supporter. Not just in a lesser-of-two-evils sort of way, but in a I-supported-her-in-the-08-primary sort of way. I think that if she is ultimately President, it will be a good thing.<br /><br />However, Clinton has clear problems as a President. 25 years of being slimed by the Right has tarnished her reputation in the eyes of a lot of people, even people who are generally Democrats. Her long history in politics has also meant that she has held positions that, out of context, look bad (see supporting tough-on-crime laws and AUFM for Iraq War). She also has, for various reasons, a rocky relationship with the press. All of these things make her a less-than-ideal candidate, even if they may not speak to how she would perform as President.<br /><br />That being said, I am open to the idea that flesh-and-blood candidates rarely poll as well as the generic democrat or generic republican. Such imaginary candidates tend to have all of the attributes that the person answering the poll want and none of the blemishes in a way that few flesh-and-blood candidates ever could. It is possible that, despite her flaws, Clinton is a better candidate than any that could have actually been fielded in this cycle. She did, after all, win the primary.Robert Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04828107034907217474noreply@blogger.com