Thread: RedState: Tomorrow’s Biggest Loser Might Be Hillary Clinton

The Townhall.com Presidential Straw Poll

It all comes down to Tuesday =====>



Tomorrow's Biggest Loser Might Be This 2016 Hopeful
redstate.com



Tomorrow’s Biggest Loser Might Be Hillary Clinton

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary) | November 3rd, 2014 at 12:00 PM | 14



Obviously, there are a ton of races that are too close to call at the present moment and the Democrats might well end up retaining control of the Senate and perhaps gaining a couple of gubernatorial seats. However, the smarter money right now is on the Democrats losing at least 6 seats in the Senate (and possibly as many as 10) while failing to capitalize on a number of choice opportunities at gubernatorial mansions. Obviously, these losses stand to damage President Obama’s public standing as they are at least partially a reflection of the public’s deep discontent with his handling of the Presidency. Additionally, they will likely make his life more difficult over the final two years of his Presidency.
However, while Democrats have been running scared from being seen in public with President Obama, other prominent Democrats have attempted to step into the fundraising and star-power void left behind by a toxic incumbent, and none have been more notable or prominent than the Clintons. Hillary Clinton in particular has been hitting the stump hard as she attempts to earn herself chits to fend off any possible 2016 primary challenge. The Washington Post notes that she has headlined at least 45 prominent events over the last 54 days in support of Democrat candidates.
Clinton’s decision to step down as Secretary of State after President Obama’s first term was definitely a politically shrewd one. Recent political history indicates that Presidential second terms tend overwhelmingly to be scandal-ridden train wrecks and Clinton definitely did the right thing by exiting that particular train. But this year as midterms approached, Hillary faced a difficult choice. Probably the smarter play for Hillary was to sit this election out rather than risk associating herself with a Democrat bloodbath. However, doing so would have given ammunition to her enemies within the party who have long grumbled (correctly) that the Clintons are mostly interested in helping to advance the Clintons. And so Hillary decided to roll the dice on Election Day 2014 perhaps not being as bad as the Democrats feared and thus earning credit as the savior of the Democrat party.
Unfortunately for Hillary, her most high profile causes appear to be among the most prominent Democrat underperformers in this election. Clinton has virtually camped (for obvious reasons) in New Hampshire in 2014 on the stump for Jeanine Shaheen, who once held a comfortable lead but now appears in very real danger of losing to a Massachusetts carpetbagger. Clinton has likewise gone to the wall for Alison Grimes in Kentucky, whose campaign has overtly played up the connection with the Clintons and has floundered and all but collapsed down the stretch. Clinton has likewise headlined four events for Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO)Heritage ActionScorecard

Sen. Mark Udall

Senate Democrat Average See Full Scorecard 0% during the week that almost perfectly coincided with Udall’s more-or-less permanent slide to underdog status in the race. Clinton has likewise stumped for Martha Coakley who appears to be on the verge of losing statewide for the second time to a Republican in Massachusetts. Clinton has likewise been a regular visitor to Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA)Heritage ActionScorecard

Rep. Bruce Braley

House Democrat Average See Full Scorecard 4% campaign stops, and Braley is likewise headed in the wrong direction in the polls. Of the candidates Clinton has stumped for over the last two months, only Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC)Heritage ActionScorecard

Sen. Kay Hagan

Senate Democrat Average See Full Scorecard 4% can be said to be running anywhere above where you would expect to see a Democrat running at this point of the race, and Hillary has done exactly one event with Hagan during this time.
Given this rather dismal record on the trail, it seems that Hillary is really mostly racking up a series of chits with people who are likely to lose their elections tomorrow and thus not have meaningful chits to give in return. And moreover, during the course of this bloodbath, she has forcibly reminded many Democrat voters of what they might have otherwise forgotten since the debacle of 2008; namely, that in terms of political skill, Hillary is not Bill. In fact, not only is she not Bill, she’s very good at all, or even average. Literally the only thing that connects her to the man who won the Presidency twice is a last name, which is enough to give her a lead in meaningless polls at this point, but which many remain nervous will not translate into actual campaign success in 2016.
Many Democrats stand to lose their jobs tomorrow, which will of course have a meaningful impact on those Democrats as they migrate over to K Street. But in terms of long-term opportunity costs, perhaps no one has more to lose tomorrow than Hillary Clinton.

http://www.redstate.com/2014/11/03/t...campaign=straw

Rand Paul

Hillary Clinton campaigned for many losing candidates this cycle, one of which is the defeated Senate candidate from Kentucky ‪#‎HillarysLosers‬

Human Events

2016 REALLY isn't looking so good for Hillary:



Hillary Clinton's economic knowledge is abysmally low
You won't hear a discouraging word from her about Obamanomics, either, which suggests she still thinks it's working just fine.
humanevents.com

Hillary Clinton’s economic knowledge is abysmally low



By: Donald Lambro
11/5/2014 06:00 AM

Video at the page link:

WASHINGTON — The two-year battle for the presidency, which officially begins today, got an early start last week when Hillary Clinton gave us a dumbfounding lesson in Democratic economics, saying that businesses do not create jobs.
It was a fiery political statement that betrayed a depth of economic ignorance that will haunt her likely presidential candidacy throughout the entire 2015-16 election cycle.

“Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” Clinton flatly declared at a recent political rally in Boston. “You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly,” said the former secretary of state, who has experienced economic failure firsthand.
Remember Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Whitewater real estate investment disaster, which turned into an immense scandal of financial corruption and backroom cover-up?
Clinton later said she misspoke, adding that what she told Democrats in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts was a “short-handed” version of her real economic views.
Still, her abysmally stupid remarks were widely seen as a gaffe that her apologists said will soon be forgotten as her campaign for the White House gets fully underway.
But there is reason to believe that what she said was a revealing, unguarded look into the muddled mind of a liberal ideologue who thinks, like Barack Obama, that real job creation actually begins and ends with big government telling us how to run our economy and our businesses.
And her economic observation about where jobs come from sounded vaguely similar to one of Obama’s famous gaffes in his 2012 re-election campaign when he said, “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Somebody like President Obama who, to this day, still thinks his impotent policies have created many jobs and pulled the economy out of the 2008 recession.
Clinton apparently believes Obama’s delusions, too. That $1 trillion in infrastructure spending to repair roads and bridges, and enlarge local, state and federal budgets, rescued the economy and put people back to work.
But his program failed “rather spectacularly,” to use Hillary’s words. Governments were given a lot money to spend in the hope that the money would “trickle down” to middle- and low-income Americans, the people Democrats say they most want to help.
Instead, it is widely acknowledged by economists and others that this has been the longest economic recovery since the Great Depression.
In previous decades, the average recovery period took about two years. Six years into Obama’s presidency, we’re still struggling in a so-so recovery.
Obama lives in his own little world of denial, saying the economy is better than ever, and apparently Clinton thinks so, too.
But the dark underbelly of the Obama economy tells a different story. Middle- to lower-income Americans are still tightening their belts. Good-paying full-time jobs are hard to find, especially among young adults just out of college. Income growth has slowed, and consumers are spending less, the Commerce Department says.
Equally disturbing, the labor force continues to shrink, as discouraged, long-term unemployed workers drop out of the work force. The payroll-to-population ratio is at 44 percent, says the Gallup Poll.
Gallup’s daily survey that asks people how they’re doing reveals a still-distressed economy: 41 percent say they’re “struggling,” while another 9 percent say they’re “suffering” or under “stress.”
Gallup’s surveys put the real unemployment rate at 6.3 percent, and the underemployed — people who need a full-time job but can’t find one — at nearly 15 percent.
The National Association of Realtors said this week that the share of first-time homebuyers has fallen to its lowest rate (33 percent) in 27 years.
In his Washington Post “Wonkblog,” economic analyst Matt O’Brien writes that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has become much more pessimistic about the economy — “revising its estimate of potential economic activity down in each of the past seven years.”
But if anyone thinks Hillary Clinton knows how to lift the underperforming U.S. economy out of its lethargy, they’d better think again. Her knowledge of economics is close to zero.
Her latest blunder “highlighted a problem that has plagued Clinton in the past: overshooting in her language when she is outside her immediate comfort zone,” says Politico reporter Maggie Haberman.
Moreover, Clinton is a huge fan of ultra-leftist, anti-free market Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, whose idea of economic policy is going after big business and the banks with more government regulation, higher tax rates, bigger stimulus spending bills, and raising the minimum wage on small businesses.
Will Hillary also champion higher taxes on business at a time when the economy remains anemic? She hinted just that at a rally last week in New York where she said, “To make America great, we need to do our part and pay our fair share.” And you know what that means.
If there’s one thing this economy doesn’t need, it’s higher job-killing taxes on business. “What we need is a critique of Keynesian economics,” says The Wall Street Journal’s Jason Riley.
“That’s what we’ve been experiencing. Government spending as a stimulus. How is that going for us? The slowest recovery in a generation or two. That’s what I would like (to) hear her defense of,” Riley told Fox News.
One job-creating idea you won’t hear Hillary defend is how her husband signed a bill the GOP sent him in his second term to cut the capital gains tax on investors. New investment in businesses soared, the economy grew, and the jobless rate plunged to less than 4 percent.
But you won’t hear a discouraging word from her about Obamanomics, either, which suggests she still thinks it’s working just fine.

http://humanevents.com/2014/11/05/hi...paign=thupdate