Is Hillary's campaign manager, Mook, in trouble?

Is her campaign really imploding? Seems that it's just a lot of hype just like every week someone will write TRump is Done after he's said the next outrageous thing.

No, r1, her campaign isn't imploding. We have some anti-Hillary types around here who love to mistake their fantasies for political analysis.

I hope so! We need less homosexuals around. The fewer the better.

He is not the problem. She is. And her need to control and hide. That is why she is failing. And she is what the rotting apple of feminism has produced. She thinks she is showing you she still can have it all and still keep an authentic identity. But you can't. And her hands are a little dirty. When she lost the first time( when it was a given that she would win) that was gut punch. She is only trying to prove a point. What is she really going to do that will make her a great leader and president? You can't tell me Bill won't have a say. Let her crumble a little- that will allow a place for Gore and/or Biden. Her only real selling point is that next to the other seventeen little dwarfs she seems sane.

OP is the case of someone who doesn't really follow the news but only what makes headlines. She's leading in IA and in most respectable poll, leading in NH. In South Carolina, she's ahead almost 30pt. There was this one poll called Franklin Pierce that sampled a little 400 in NH that had Sanders ahead, but Franklin Pierce hasn't been pretty dormant for a couple of years and its pollster is on of the most failed poster.

r4 That is, or should be, one amazingly attractive selling point. And it's enough, or should be, to get HRC into the White House. Percentages, my friend, percentages.

r4 Gore and Biden? You think Gore is Presidential material after all these years? As for Biden, he may be a good man and good at delivering eulogies, but he is a walking victim of foot-in-mouth. Biden is also as old as Bernie Sanders and his people are talking about him skipping IA and NH and going straight for South Carolina. They are also saying that Biden is only interested in one-term. Who will vote for someone who only intends to be a one-term President?

I watch HRC's policy speeches r4 and that woman is as much a wonk as any professor at Harvard. She goes into nitty gritty details. She's thoughtful and detail-oriented.

With Bernie Sanders, he's a lot like Trump, but not flashy or polemic. He doesn't tell you much how he's going to be able to push what he wants or how it's going to be implemented. It's a lot of feel-good but impractical ideas.

At 75 if he takes office, sorry, but he's too old. Even if he wins, he'll be a one-termer. No way in hell the electorate will re-elect an 80y/o knowing what we know about Reagan and Alzheimer.

Jimmy Carter R7. But there might be someone outside of Biden or Gore willing to run. R8 that's the problem. She can't communicate to the Average Joe. He never went Harvard and doesn't give a flying fuck about the math work of policy reform. His money never increases and his kids will be lucky to get out of community college without a student loan. She can't understand or touch that person in the same way Bill did. And there is no celebrity about her. No chemistry with people. Pity because we need a few female presidents.

I can't wait to see her fail, again.

[quote][R8] that's the problem. She can't communicate to the Average Joe. He never went Harvard and doesn't give a flying fuck about the math work of policy reform. His money never increases and his kids will be lucky to get out of community college without a student loan. She can't understand or touch that person in the same way Bill did. And there is no celebrity about her. No chemistry with people.

And yet she still leads in almost all polling. It's almost like you're confusing your own perceptions with reality.

[quote]the rotting apple of feminism

Now THAT line sounds like it could be written by the "Datalounge 'gay' man, 58, closeted, single, mental problems, addicted to porn" R3 was joking about.

Her campaign is doing just fine. The strategy this time isn't to be flashy from the beginning but to make policy speeches and hang on until the GOP finishes fighting with itself during the primaries.

She's right on track

R2 An FBI investigation is a "fantasy"? Regardless of where you lean on the spectrum, is throwing every egg in the Hillary basket a good idea?

OP = FFC

r14, what a perfect little word salad, having nothing at all to do with what I said except to prove it true.

Meanwhile, in what really matters, Robby Mook is TFA.

R16 I think you don't understand what the phrase "word salad" means. You just use it when someone disagrees with you. You've used it before, on here, when someone disagreed with you.

I'm quite sure you've heard the phrase "Don't put all your eggs in one basket", before. Don't be disingenuous.

In other words, r18, I used it before in a response to you, because you have a tendency to throw word salads at people with whom you disagree. For instance, I never said a word about the FBI investigation because I was responding to your wild supposition (all evidence to the contrary) that Clinton's campaign is "imploding," nor did I say a word about putting any eggs in any baskets. I, of course, know what the saying means which is why I'm confident in declaring that your use of it has no relation to anything I said. Pure word salad on your part to cover the fact that when you say things like "Hillary's campaign is imploding" it's really just you talking out your ass about something you desperately, DESPERATELY (and quite obviously so) want to happen.

R19 Don't you think it's a bit egotistical to assume I'm the faulty part of that dialogue?

And sometimes they clean him up and send him out to act all serious and stuff....

JImmy Carter was a feckless, buffoon who didn't know how to be a President. Thanks for ushering 12 years of GOP domination. The gay community especially thanks you for the Reagan during the AIDS crisis.

R19 I wasn't the one who wrote that. So you have multiple people disagreeing with you. I simply don't understand why we shouldn't critically valuate Clinton's choices as SoS.

But it's us. It's always everyone else.

R23 [evaluate]

[quote][R19] Don't you think it's a bit egotistical to assume I'm the faulty part of that dialogue?

LOL

No, but I do think your constant attempts to deflect do a pretty good job of showing how weak your points are.

[quote][R19] I wasn't the one who wrote that.

You're lying, of course. It's what I would expect you to do right around now. Listen, this has been fun, but your ejaculations get less entertaining with each post. There's no point to you.

R26 No, I'm not lying. I didn't write that.

[quote]I hope so! We need less homosexuals around. The fewer the better. —Datalounge "gay" man, 58, closeted, single, mental problems, addicted to porn

Gay closeted and single 58 with mental problems and addicted to porn....now that's a sad depressing life dude

It's amazing how personal people get about politics. Aside from anything else Clinton shouldn't be president because we had one other Clinton. By supporting Clinton you are covertly supporting oligarchy. Maybe you would rather pick among the few than not be able to pick at all. But that woman has no business thinking she is entitled to the Iron Throne of America. And any premature support of her is an assumption. We should ask more of our leader than that they are familiar .

OP is a GOP anti-gay troll

I'm baffled by Hillary's refusal to deal with the media. The two parties already have an unfriendly, hostile relationship as it is with one another (do the 2008 primaries ring any bells?). Why give them as well as the GOP ammunition for their "entitled", "out of touch" narrative?

OP HUH!? WTF what makes you think that?

Hillary's campaign is not "imploding". Silliness.

Why don't they have a rapid response team to reply to any and all negative statements about the candidate, as Obama had. It wasn't that hard to set up.

Because it's ridiculously early in the primary season, r34. If she went out and blasted every negative statement made by 16 different Republican candidates and at least 3 Democratic ones, she'd never have time to campaign. r13 has it exactly right.

He is not the problem. The candidate is.

That's not true R35. She doesn't have to do it. She has to create a dedicated team of people to do it.

A team who'd be sending out rebuttals 24/7 and exhausting the public 15 months before the election, r35? Not a good idea. She's doing it exactly right now. She's got a long road and she's taking it slow.

The problem is that the headlines and memes about HRC play into preexisting negative narratives about her character. Once your personal character ratings go negative with the public in politics, it is exceedingly hard to repair them

I was going to vote for her when she ran for president but since then I have changed my mind. I won't vote for her.

R40 Did you decide to vote Trump?

"The strategy this time isn't to be flashy from the beginning but to make policy speeches and hang on until the GOP finishes fighting with itself during the primaries."

Here we go again. I was here 8 years ago when everyone was making excuses for her. Once again, the campaign has no coherent strategy. I bet the glamour boy campaign manager is gone over the upcoming Labor Day weekend.

Her poll numbers are dropping. She mocked Trump's hair, so now her cankles and hips are fair game.

Hillary the Loser

I'm excited about that!

And yet, she still polls far and away ahead of every other candidate.

Keep dancing, Freepers.

Hillary's poll numbers slide.

[quote]He is not the problem. She is.

Truth.

From r46's link:

[quote]But while the numbers have softened in recent months, Clinton is continued to be viewed as a strong leader by 58% of Americans.

[quote]Clinton’s position as a front-runner for the Democratic nomination remains solid with 55 percent of Democrats supporting her—roughly unchanged from a year ago. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ gains, meanwhile, have slowed. The May poll found the avowed socialist’s support spiking from 8% to 15% from a month before; this month he has the backing of 17% of Democrats.

FAR from "imploding."

These numbers are from last month, before her email scandal really hit. Bye-bye Cankles.

From 8/13:

[quote]The first CNN/ORC poll of likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa finds Hillary Clinton firmly in the lead in the state that kicks off the nation's nominating contests, holding a 50% to 31% lead over upstart Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

[quote]Among women, Clinton tops Sanders by more than 30 points, 58% to 26%. Among men, the two are even: 38% back Clinton, 37% Sanders. Likewise, among the party's moderates, 57% back Clinton, 21% Sanders, while liberals split 46% for Clinton to 41% for Sanders. And liberals are most apt to say they are firm in their choice: Fully 42% say they've definitely decided whom to support, compared with 30% overall.

RealClear Politics, as of this morning, has Clinton leading Trump in a general matchup by 5 points.

Keep spinning, little Freepers.

Polls are meaningless 15 months before elections.

They're not meaningless in the face of outright lies that her campaign is imploding, r52.

R53 It's all about how you spin it. THAT'S why polls are meaningless.

See, the conservative Dems on DL just LOVE Hil, and they'll call you a freeper if you don't. But she'll never, ever be President, so the Dem party had better find a viable candidate. The last thing we need is another President Bush (aaargh).

I don't have to spin it, r53. Facts are facts. Despite the fantasies of a bunch of freepers on here, Clinton's campaign is not only NOT "imploding," she remains the strongest of all the candidates.

And Romney's embarrassment in the last election cycle put the lie to the old chestnut that polls are meaningless. He based the entire latter half of his campaign on such thinking.

[quote]See, the conservative Dems on DL just LOVE Hil, and they'll call you a freeper if you don't. But she'll never, ever be President, so the Dem party had better find a viable candidate. The last thing we need is another President Bush (aaargh).

Shriek and dance, little Freeper. Shriek and dance.

R56 Spin is spin. Google "why polls are meaningless". Learn something.

R57, I'm more liberal than you, honey. And you're the one "shrieking".

r58 = "Facts are so hard! Google an argument that proves my point!"

[quote][R57], I'm more liberal than you, honey. And you're the one "shrieking"

Hey, did you hear the one about how Hillary continues to be the frontrunner for the presidency, topping almost every poll?

R60 Truth is hard for those too invested to clearly see.

r62, I am wounded by your typically vague and pointless retort.

R61, Who cares? That's largely because of folks like you who have absolutely no clue. I don't want another "democratic" President who's going to launch a program of significant cuts in programs that help poor people. Like her hubby did. You folks are actually the 'freepers' here. Sanders is a great candidate who really represents the ideals of the party. Biden would be too. Hil's time in Congress was spent going to Republican prayer meetings every week, and being a blue dog. No THANKS.

R63 The only one vague and pointless is over-the-hill Hill. And Hillbot and her fangurls.

"Who cares?"

r64, this entire thread was started based on the premise that Clinton's campaign is "imploding." Current polling proves it's not. Sorry it's so hard for you to follow the conversation.

Every single time you engage the rabid anti-Hillary brigade with actual facts, they respond with sulking and name-calling.

R56 Why should we see her as inevitable? She lied to everyone. She, strangely, feels the need to cover-up her supposed innocence. It's insulting and makes no sense that no one but Sanders is challenging her in The Democratic Party.

r68, who said anything about seeing her as inevitable? I'm merely pointing out that her campaign, despite OP's assertion, is not imploding.

The fact that Trump is within five points of Hillary is disconcerting. 2008 proved that Hillary has a tendency to be unresponsive to rapid changes in the political dynamic. She seems stuck on unresponsiveness.

So it's notable that Sanders had gained on her, leading to claims that her campaign is imploding, and it's "troubling" that she only leads Trump by 5 points, but if you point out she's far and away the front runner, then "polls are meaningless."

How is Sanders doing against Trump, r70?

He is just too young. I know Hillary needs to get the millenial vote., specifically the African American and Latino Millenial vote, and a Millenial seems like the logical solution. But it is ridiculous to think that a trained professional with decades of experience can't accurately target a campaign because they are older. She made the same mistake many employers across the country are making. And I think his quality of work and the decisions show his youth.

[quote]And I think his quality of work and the decisions show his youth.

And yet, Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner.

The money junkies at Goldman Sachs will win the election regardless which one of their corporate flunkies takes the prize.

Her two recurring issues are she does not embrace the media,or connect to everyday people well. She reminds me of H.W. in that she has the expertise and experience but she is too engrossed with the elite, has an open contempt for the press, and cannot do the folksy act very well. The media needs to be in a love affair with a candidate in order for victory to even happen. Hopefully, Bill remains in good health on the campaign trail. She is going to need him

[quote]The money junkies at Goldman Sachs will win the election regardless which one of their corporate flunkies takes the prize.

After 8 years of Bush, we went from a booming economy with a budget surplus to a tanking economy with the largest deficit ever run up by one administration. We also got over 5000 dead Americans on American soil, from 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, as well as two trillion-dollar fuckup wars in the middle east and a coast-to-coast rash of anti-gay ballots and initiatives that passed.

After 8 years of Obama, we have the closest thing to universal healthcare this country has ever gotten, with tens of millions of newly insured people. We also got gay marriage across the land, not least because of his two Supreme Court nominees, but also because he was the first president to take an open stand in support of gay marriage, which turned the tide of public opinion. He also pulled the troops out of Iraq, killed Bin Laden, and forged a historic anti-nuclear treaty with Iran. Oh, and he prevented the economy from going straight into the toilet. None of this would have happened if John McCain or Mitt Romney had won the '04 and '08 elections. I realize it's easier to assume that everyone's bad and corrupt and it doesn't matter who one votes for, but it actually does matter and there are real and measurable differences between the two major parties in this country.

R76 Is it really just The Press she has contempt for? Is it really just The Press?

If i were president on January 20 armed guards would appear at Goldman Sachs and take everybody away.

At this early stage, people poll well based on their name recognition, not their policies.

The Republicans all have mostly the same policies, which is why there's not really a breakout candidate other than Trump. He probably has the biggest name recognition of any of them, including Jeb Bush, whom is mostly famous for being a Bush brother.

A few months down the road, a few of the lesser known Republicans will go broke and the field will thin out. Then you'll see better how Hillary does against the potential competition. Hillary had the best name recognition of a Democrat going in. It's hers to lose.

BTW, MSNBC is doing a story right now about Hillary's negatives and how a lot of Democrats have mixed feelings about her. I guess you Hillbots are now going to say that MSNBC are all Freepers speaking "word salad."

[quote]BTW, MSNBC is doing a story right now about Hillary's negatives and how a lot of Democrats have mixed feelings about her. I guess you Hillbots are now going to say that MSNBC are all Freepers speaking "word salad."

I don't see why, since there's a huge difference between saying you have mixed feelings about Hillary Clinton and proclaiming that her campaign is imploding/that no one likes her/that she will never be President. One is a legitimate concern and the other is obvious agenda-based concern-trolling.

A fair number of Democrats don't much like her, feeling she cannot relate to regular peoples' lives as she's been a spoiled brat since he won re-election as AR gov in 1984. You think she's had to deal with replacing a furnace AND a crown/root canal bill at the same time? HA HA! I'd love to know the last time she actually SHOPPED at a supermarket (NOT visited as a campaign stop)? It pains me to say this as I loathe the guy, but I think even JEB! has a better track record there. She'll get the nomination, but mark my words, it will NOT be a coronation. I'm familiar with the activist left, and they'll show up at caucuses and work primary states with genuine enthusiasm for The Bern. She'll win in November, as Dems who aren't thrilled with her will be terrified of the opposition ... kinda like the last two times.

[quote]You think she's had to deal with replacing a furnace AND a crown/root canal bill at the same time? HA HA! I

This criterion has not been applied to any President in the history of the office, nor is it being applied to any of the other candidates running in this election.

R83, stop being so literal. That "understanding the struggles of the common man" criteria has been applied to every candidate at least back to "born in a log cabin" Abe Lincoln, and FDR and TR serving hot dogs to foreign dignitaries.

It also normally extends to politicians practically burning $100 bills to light their cigars in front of starving people, so it shows how much Republicans support oligarchy that Trump is never criticized for his ostentatious gestures, and is in fact praised for them.

[quote]After 8 years of Obama, we have the closest thing to universal healthcare this country has ever gotten,

We don't have anything close to resembling Universal Health Care.

We have an windfall for Insurance companies.

Democrats are suicidal. They gambled on Hillary and lost.

[quote]We don't have anything close to resembling Universal Health Care.

Which is why I phrased it the way I did.

[quote]We have an windfall for Insurance companies.

And tens of millions of Americans insured who couldn't get insurance before. Nothing can change that fact.

[quote]Democrats are suicidal. They gambled on Hillary and lost.

She leads the vast majority of the polling, Freeper.

Not every image crisis is the result of PR and campaign management. Hillary's troubles are the consequence of her decisions as Secretary of State, not as presidential candidate.

That said, Mook is hot and I thank you for making me aware of his existence.

True, R89, but Mook seems to have lost control of things. That's why there is this impression by everyone that her campaign is imploding.

there you go again, r90. Confusing your fantasies with reality. Her campaign is doing just fine.

Does Robby Mook have a boy friend? Or is he too busy with the Hilary cam-paign to have one?

Some of you do nothing but watch Fixed News and rush to the DL to post their lies.

Hillary's fine, she sends her love. She looks forward to seeing you at her inauguration.

[quote]Mook seems to have lost control of things. That's why there is this impression by everyone that her campaign is imploding.

LOL:

[quote]Hillary's fine, she sends her love. She looks forward to seeing you at her inauguration.

I saw her there, but she seemed to be in a bad mood.

[quote] And yet she still leads in almost all polling. It's almost like you're confusing your own perceptions with reality.

Nicely summing up the last five years of datalounge's disconnect from the real world

i know he's the nemesis of DL, and this thread is 5 years old.

but robby mook is forever handsome.

R95/2015 bumper is a shit-posting interloper with chronic halitosis.

R97 he is definitely fuckable.