Well, since he lost the election for President in 1932 and was appointed Chancellor, probably not good.
But what the bleep does that have to do with claims that Hillary Clinton is historically unpopular in the United States during a presidential election?
I didn’t argue that she was or wasn’t going to win. I am just tired of the media saying she is historically unpopular as a presidential candidate. It is demonstrably false, yet is repeated as a truth.
I generally agree with you, but I have to note that the individual ballot is secret but the aggregate vote is not. If enough people vote to protest, it will be noted.
Don’t forget Eleanor Roosevelt. Not only did she help seed the next wave of feminism but she set the watermark for First Spouse activism.
Fair enough. If anyone’s saying she’s the least popular candidate ever, they’re dead wrong.
Sorry, I should have copied your original comment. You gave a list of some phenomenally unpopular American presidents and then pointed out that her approval ratings were consistent with theirs. Bush, was deeply unpopular. Carter was one of my personal favorite presidents but after iran took hostages and the failure of the rescue mission he was about as unpopular as they come. Im guessing LBJ was in there too cos god knows US voters hated him.
Im guessing Hitlers popularity was no worse than any of the list. Not till 1943 anyhow.
Whether you realize it or not, it’s not 1972. James Bond isn’t a role model anymore. Walter White isn’t a role model, ever.
Hillary’s problem, in my opinion, is that on any given issue she has had three positions and four surrogates further confusing her message.
That’s a fair sight better than Trumps positions, which seem to be chosen purely to inspire cynicism and anger in the majority and the educated.
Just please don’t tell me that me not liking Hillary is MY problem. My problem is that the democrat already lost this race.
I was only asked for people who were more of a “feminist hero” than HRC, not people I’d like to marry my daughter.
What the left should do is what the bluedogs did in the 80s, namely take over the Party. Their example showed that it isn’t all that hard, if people are willing to invest the effort. That won’t help for this year, of course.
Many Sanders delegates at the DNC were upset because they worked hard this last year and they felt that the campaign was unfairly stacked against them (it was) and therefore HRC’s win was unfair (it wasn’t). It is painful to throw yourself into a campaign and then lose, especially if it is close and especially if it is not conducted completely on the square. That doesn’t mean it is hopeless, it just means that it didn’t work this time, and that next time you have to invest more time in building coalitions well before the actual campaign. That was Nixon’s take-away in 1960 and Clinton’s take-away in 2008, and should be the progressive wing’s take-away this year.
How can you respect her judgment? She’s strongly supporting that monster Hillary Clinton.
The people probably the best at running the government, aren’t
necessarily likable. Charisma goes a long way to get you elected, and
while this might help in direct diplomacy, it does nothing to help you
actually govern or chart the best course for the government.
I totally disagree with you. A big part of being successful as a leader is being likeable if only for the fact that a big part of that job is to inspire the people you lead. So much of things like the economy are 100% dependent on sentiment.
As for charting the best course, the president generally doesn’t have a whole lot to do with that. If you want to see what course a government is going to take, see who the president chooses as advisors and cabinet members.
Actually there have been many rumors which suggest the Obamas dont like the Clintons. Particularly with respect to Michelle and HRC.
And then there’s Edith Wilson, who more or less all but in name took over the job from her husband after he had a severely debilitating stroke. A woman who had the presence of mind to temp in for her husband’s job of president in the era where there wasn’t a ‘glass’ ceiling. Ther was an Iron Cage on what women were allowed.
Then to rub salt in the wound they waited til Carter was out of office before authroizing the hostages to be released.
I consider carter to be one of the few genuinely decent people that had served in the office. Have to say the man has had a pehominal post-presidental career.
Right. So the playing field is equal in that sense. You can’t use it as a reason not to like her when they’re all wealthy.
It doesn’t matter. Whether she’s pulling troops out of Afghanistan, creating jobs, or starting a war - her Likability does not matter.
It is wrong to think about fitness for presidency in these terms. George W. Bush was a popular hero for much of his presidency and look where he and we ended up.
You can be greatly loved by the people but make terrible decisions. It’s hard, but to a large degree, you need to remove emotion from the voting process; study the candidate’s political history and based on that, try to predict the future decisions and policies they will implement.
In any case, other women are not running for office right now, Hillary is. Her likability is a moot point.
But why? George W. Bush was a popular hero for much of his presidency and look how that turned out. It shouldn’t matter how you feel but how and what policies she will or won’t implement as president. These decisions might actually benefit your daily life; whether or not you like her.
I was expecting you to go the direction of ‘a good leader doesn’t let emotion obscure their decision-making process’, but I can roll with this, too.
For me, a politician can be as cold as liquid CO2 so long as they do their job (which also entails finding and matching the right people with the right jobs) and competently lead from behind with their eyes locked on a vision of a more just, verdant, and peaceful world (due credit to the MacArthur Foundation for that phrasing). That’s likeable.
Um, I think you’re responding to the wrong person.
Exactly. Her policies may affect your life. Perhaps daily. Perhaps for the better or perhaps for the worse, but it won’t matter if you’d like to grab a drink with her or not.
It’s hard to fight against our natural instinct to vote for someone we would want to be our friend, but I’d rather have my unlikable president create a job for me, get me affordable healthcare, bring my kid home from war… Whatever it is you want your candidate to DO. Maybe that’s not Hillary for you then, but at least we’re deciding based on reason, not emotion.
Does she even want to be president? Of course, not wanting to be president probably makes her that much more qualified for the position, but, as I was saying…
Did you write that post? [It does have your username attached] I’m sick of ableist and eugenicist slurs. I replied to one post containing that eugenicist slur,* and explained why I hate these slurs.
I’m not familiar with the site, but this seems relevant:
Ha! True.
