03.09.2016 08:11 AM

Why hasn’t Hillary won by now?

I keep asking myself the same thing.

My wife is readying herself to go Stateside to help the cause. But, after a couple more Michigans, it may be too late.

What the sweet Hell is going on? I have a few theories of my own, but I’d love to hear from y’all. Highly-scientific poll, vote now, vote often, etc.

65 Comments

  1. James Bow says:

    None of the above. The Democrats are actually having a real debate on substantive issues with two candidates who, unlike the Republican field, are perfectly sane. As long as Democrats commit to voting for whoever comes out of the nomination process (the overwhelming majority are), there is no real danger here. Just as Clinton hanging on for so long in 2008 kept the debate going, helping Obama energize voters in North Carolina and Indiana, an interesting (but respectful) debate on the Democratic side will help whoever comes out with the ticket come November.

    Really, you shouldn’t be afraid of an honest debate from decent competition, should you?

    • Kelly says:

      The Democrats aren’t having an honest debate. They can talk all they want but if they win Goldman Sachs will run the government again, like always. This whole exercise is phony. If Americans tried to achieve real democracy and someone like FDR came along again, there would be a coup … like there almost was once. Good interview at NPR, here … http://www.npr.org/2012/02/12/145472726/when-the-bankers-plotted-to-overthrow-fdr.html

    • davie says:

      I am not sure anything is wrong with Clinton’s campaign and her campaigning. Sanders’ message is one that a fair number of people have been thinking for some time. I think of American Howard Gardner describing a leader as one who best articulates the group’s story, and its meaning. Sanders is saying things that people find represents their own stories and meaning.
      It can be a good debate about the future direction of their country – if they can avoid slithering into the accusations and insults that most remaining Republican candidates have been wallowing in.

      Women have been to top political office, in several Central American, South American and Caribbean nations. Canada has had heads of state appointed, and a woman was appointed top political post for a few months, but Mexico, Canada and USA are yet to elect a woman to the top political post.
      If USA elects a woman as president, they will not only catch up with many fellow Americas nations, but will catch up with 7 or 8 Muslim countries around the world.

      North America…coming right along!

  2. Steven says:

    The main reason is because you are not running her campaign. However I believe it’s the year of the crazies in American politics, and if this trend continues, Trump will win the White House, and Americans will look back and say what have we done!

  3. Matt says:

    What’s going on?

    People are fed up with the status quo. They’re fed up with “traditional” politics/politicians.

    Trump won 3 of 4 States yesterday increasing his lead despite the Republican establishment spending millions, maybe tens of millions on anti Trump advertising in the last week.

    • P. Brenn says:

      agreed …little hope for many americans , lotsa spin from politicians , many people are fed up – lack of jobs, hope – healthcare issues , war issues…

      as US goes economically so will Canada..I think we are in for some very tough years …

  4. Eric says:

    I’m not sure what the ballot question is, but I am certain that Bernie represents change and Hillary represents the status quo. It seems to me that the voters haven’t figured out which path is the best to retain the White House.

    • Cath says:

      Agree Eric. There’s a revolution happening in the Democatic party too. It’s just not getting as much coverage and the Republican wave.

  5. Kevin says:

    One option missing from your poll: she’s a woman. Sad to think that in this day and age that could be a factor, but….

    • ottawacon says:

      I suspect that a male candidate running on her platform would have been obliterated long ago. She is drawing significant support from progressive Democrats specifically because of her gender, and the deep desire to see a woman in charge in the Oval Office for the first time. I really don’t think it is a major issue in the nomination race, notwithstanding some of the dumb comments from Sanders supporters.

      On the other hand, it is very clearly an issue for the as-yet hypothetical general election.

  6. Michael Bluth says:

    I chose all of the above, but the most important of them is it is the year of the outsider populist.

    If it weren’t for super delegates in the Democrat party the narrative would be very different.

    Hillary has been the establishment choice from day 1.

    Sanders supporters are the flip side of the coin from Trump supporters. it will be interesting to see how many people now supporting Sanders choose Trump over Hillary in the general.

  7. HarryR says:

    All of the above – no brainer. What surprised me was, at my reading, only 4.49% were influenced by the scandal component. A sad indictment on modern society, in my view.

  8. Inncent III says:

    Bit of the Olivia Chow syndrome – talented spouse of a remarkable political performer who appears to enjoy campaigning as much as she would plucking chickens. Both Ms Chow and Ms Clinton carry an air of entitlement that voters find off-putting and this is before we get to Ms Clinton’s ties to Wall Street. Finally, there is no getting around the fact that dynasty politics are fundamentally undemocratic.

    • Cath says:

      Good points!

      • The Doctor says:

        I agree, we’ll put. Hillary clearly does not have the gift for retail politics that her husband had, and that has zero to do with gender. You either have that gift or you don’t. As a politician and speaker, she’s about as exciting as a pair of brown socks. And I think it’s telling that I’m a political junkie and I can easily name 2 or 3 of Sanders’ key policy proposals (e.g., the free tuition, tax on financial transactions). I honestly can’t name one of Hillary’s. WTF does she actually stand for? Maybe if she actually articulated a clear, distinguishable platform, she wouldn’t be seen as such a status quo opportunist.

    • Vancouverois says:

      Meanwhile, in Washington this week, Trudeau the Second is being widely feted…

    • Scotian says:

      I know this is a couple of days later, but I can’t just ignore this comparison. Are you seriously saying that Olivia Chow, and Hillary Clinton have the same equivalent work history in politics? Really? Chow was a city counselor and an MP in her husband’s party and failed on her own merits for mayor and MP after his death. Clinton was after being First Lady elected twice as a Senator and then asked to be Secretary of State for 4 years (which is way up there on the seniority of jobs position, far above Senator except for Majority/minority leaders). Chow essentially rode on Layton’s coattails and never really thrived on her own in elected politics that I am aware of, whereas Hillary Clinton clearly did with the Senate and then held one of the most important cabinet jobs on this planet, Sec of State for America. NOT a fair comparison. The only similarity is that their spouses rose farther than they did in their political careers (to date, that may be changing this year for Clinton), and one can make the case they helped each get their foot in the door. After that though the trajectories are very different. One failed to grow outside her husband’s influence electorally, the other thrived and became far more and is now the likely nominee for the Dems for President given her pledged delegate lead and the proportional delegate awarding in the Dem Primaries. They have no winner take all States ever anymore, unlike the GOP, and with her current lead that is no small thing at all. She has more of a lead in pledged delegates against Sanders than Obama did against her at this point in the race, and we saw where the math ended up on that one.

      HRC is still the choice of the majority of registered Dems according to the exit polls, where Sanders is making up the most ground is in open primaries/caucuses where independents and same day new voters can register, but only two of the remaining States allow for that after next Tuesday, which does not bode well for Sanders over time.

  9. MississaugaPeter says:

    1. Too many scandals,
    2. Arrogant, and
    3. Seen as part of the problem (establishment, big business), not the solution.

    Better question is, what exactly does she really offer other than first woman president?

  10. James Keelaghan says:

    As with James, above, I believe at there is actually a policy debate going on, and that’s a great thing. What’s not a great thing is that if Hilary gets the nomination you can say goodbye to the progressive pieces. I also think that if they nominate and run Hilary, she’ll get slaughtered. There is a mood out there and it’s undeniable and this is not the year that you want to be running someone who is “the personification” of the establishment.

  11. patrick says:

    All of the above except guaranteeing Trump in the White House. It will be so much easier for the “anything but that dump Trump” momentum to focus on one candidate so that he won’t get elected. Unlike Ford the first time, there will be no vote split, or side distractions to hide how horrific Trump would be as president and this should bring out one of the largest percentages of voters in a long time.

    • The Doctor says:

      Perhaps, but to this point, I believe that Trump is the one who has been good at getting voter turnout. Hillary not so much.

      • Scotian says:

        Well, this is the Primaries, the General Election may be something else. If it like 2008 where the turnout numbers and intensity was on the Dem side and the GOP side was meh, then you are right. If it is like 2000 though where GOP intensity was far greater in the primaries for turnout than the Dems, not so much seeing as that election was razor thin in the electoral college and the Dems had the clear majority of the popular vote/turnout nationally. The big question will be which this year ends up being on that front, and no-one who is honest about these things can tell you for sure one way or the other. Would higher turnout on the Dem side make them feel better, of course (and supposedly this is Sanders greatest strength, yet the actual numbers have not been showing this, which raises real questions about his candidacy and turnout for the General), but turnout in the Primaries is not always a determinant of the turnout in the General.

        I’m not saying it can’t turn out to be the sign of things to come, just that recent history shows equally good arguments that it can be and also that it isn’t in similar situation over the last 16 years. IOW it is not a useful indicator for the General Election turnout based on actual recent history in similar contested situations in the last two elections where there is not a sitting President running for re-election.

  12. Michael says:

    Bernie represents the growing Occupy Wall Street faction of the Democratic Party. Hillary is seen as an establishment politician that is too close to Wall Street.

  13. Kelly says:

    You missed a few…

    [ ] Her smile is fake (look at her eyes)
    [ ] She comes across as presumptuous
    [ ] Her laugh is fake
    [ ] Her middle name is “It’s MY turn, dammit”
    [ ] Her accent is fake (Well, one of them has to be, but which one? The polished mid-atlantic accent or the us folks southern drawl?)
    [ ] She’s fake

    Take your pick

  14. smelter rat says:

    Bernie is the only sane option.

    • Steve T says:

      Only if you define “sane” as the Disney-esque utopian fantasy that ignores fiscal reality, and feeds into the same monochromatic view of the world that Trump holds on the other end of the spectrum.

    • Matt says:

      Sanders, the guy who says climate change is directly responsible for the rise of ISIS is the sane one to you???

      • davie says:

        A person might get the climate change part from the news of the drought that has seared a fair chunk of Syria since 2005. The drought drove numbers of people to the cities. They had little or no help in the cities. They contributed to the unrest and protest that brought the regime’s harsh response. That response was eventually met by armed resistance. The regime’s war on the resistance gave Western and Arab Gulf nations the opportunity to pour in arms and mercenaries. Some of those mercenaries were faith based fundamentalists. The Sunni dissatisfaction with the Ba’ath regime in Syria, and Shia regime in Baghdad gave Islamic State a ready community to provide a base for their successes.

        I think that is the connection between climate change and ISIS.

      • smelter rat says:

        People say stuff. You really want to cherry pick quotes? Name your favourite candidate and we’ll see how that pans out. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/16/bernie-s/fact-checking-bernie-sanders-comments-climate-chan/

      • G. McRae says:

        That is same position as the Canadian Minister of Defense.

  15. Caligula Jones says:

    Can I add “perhaps her absolute hypocrisy”? Or is that covered, in general, by being part of the establishment, where this is considered a feature, not a bug?

    https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/707425601708097536

  16. Rich says:

    She leads two to one in delegates. As I understand it,she almost has a lock on the nomination
    given the Dems procedures which are not a straight vote what with super-delegates.
    Did I miss something?

  17. Cath says:

    Hey Warren! I thought for sure you’d lead Kinsella Nation with this article this morning. A nod to the diehards here who remember the GREAT KD Debate
    http://news.nationalpost.com/life/food-drink/kraft-changed-the-recipe-for-mac-cheese-three-months-ago-and-nobody-noticed

  18. Reason_Asylum says:

    All of the Above except the last two. I actually fear that she will lose to Trump whereas Sanders would assure a victory, especially if a second shoe drops out of this email thing. In many regards it’s a reject of the neo-liberal orthodoxy that has existed since Reagan.

  19. ian turnbull says:

    People sense that things have changed for the worse over the last 10 years and are starting to feel may never be able to go back.

    From any perspective – the economy – loosing middle class jobs to China and the developing countries, the environment – all the climate change hysteria, security – with ISIS and years of Islamist terrorism not appearing to end.

    The establishment has taken an approach of scaring voters across all three perspectives and promising ridiculous solutions. Remember Obama announcing he was going to put a stop to the rising sea levels, or Harper trying to convince us there is a terrorist hiding behind every hijab. Voters now fall into two camps. The first camp are those convinced by the politicians and now scared shitless. Camp two, are those who are sick and tired of politicians trying to scare them and are now calling bullshit.

    Either camp the natural reaction is to say fuck you to the establishment. Trump, Saunders and Trudeau although completely different all have one thing in common – nobody would consider them or their style/approach to be “establishment”. Harper, Mulcair, Clinton, Rubio, Bush, Cruz, Christy, etc all stink of establishment.

    I am convinced that is what is going on. It will be interesting to see just how far voters take this.

  20. billg says:

    She reminds me of the tradesperson you hire who when things go horribly wrong has every stock answer as to why its not their fault.
    She’s just not likeable. Cruz isn’t likeable. Harper wasn’t likeable.
    I still think she’ll win, but, this has to scare the bejeezus out of the Dems.

  21. doconnor says:

    “She’s the literal personification of the establishment” and “It’s the year of outsider populists – Trump, Sanders, et al.” are really the same answer and the correct one.

    If Muclair gets the boot, I expect we’ll see our version of Sanders taking control of the NDP. Had someone like that been in charge during the last election it probably would have been a minority.

  22. Steve T says:

    While the “anti-establishment” sentiment may be the cause for the popularity of Trump and Sanders, it seems to ignore the ugliness of both candidates.

    Both Trump and Sanders have painted cartoonishly-simple pictures of how to solve the perceived problems in America. For Trump, it all rests with immigrants, foreigners, and anyone who disagrees with him. For Sanders, it all rests with evil corporations and anyone perceived to be “rich”. In both cases, their supporters have appealed to the “thinking is hard – we want simple answers!” crowd.

    It is sad that those who oppose the “establishment” are so woefully blind to the major shortcomings of Trump and Sanders. Then again, dissecting the nuances of domestic and foreign policy is challenging (and often involves compromise), so there is tremendous appeal to candidates who just boil things down to very simplistic heroes and villains.

    • The Doctor says:

      Very well put. Sanders’ evil blood-sucking Wall Street bankers are not that terribly far removed from Hitler’s evil blood-sucking Jewish bankers.

      • davie says:

        You fellows are defending the people who have offshored jobs, evaded taxes, undermined democracy, moved government to carry out tax payer funded wars to protect their profits, pushed harmful drugs, created toxic environments, polluted the skies and degraded our oceans.
        But, yeah, we should avoid calling them out on it.

        • The Doctor says:

          Congratulations, you win today’s non-sequitur award AND today’s sweeping generalization award.

          First of all, I’m not “defending” anything that you describe. I’m condemning demagoguery, scapegoating and demonization.

          If Sanders wanted to be principled instead of a hate-mongerer, he should focus his speeches on positive solutions to those problems, like campaign finance reform, which is a huge cause of many of the problems Sanders talks about. How about a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision? Well, that’s not sexy, so instead Bernie just focuses on burning witches, er, bankers. So should we all just walk into a bank and start punching out everyone who works there? How progressive.

  23. Eastern Rebellion says:

    Unfortunately, Hilary should have won two terms ago. That would have been her time. I think she is past her best before date now. The American electorate is fed up with the corruption and malfeasance of their leaders. I watched the Michigan primary debate between the two of them last Sunday evening. The difference between them is stark. I believe most Americans don’t find her credible, and they see her as someone who will say anything to get elected, and part of the elites (or political class, or whatever you want to call that group). I think most Americans see the Republican and Democratic elites as two sides of the same coin. Bernie (and Donald) are outsiders who are campaigning on the fact they are not part of the status quo, and that is makes them so attractive to their supporters. Her involvement in the Wall Street bailouts is toxic (as it should be). Just my two cents…

  24. Phil says:

    I think Hillary’s cozy big money relationships with Goldman Sachs ($675K for 3 speeches) et. al. raises a lot bad questions.

    ie: What else were Goldman Sachs paying for?

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969

  25. Ridiculosity says:

    It’s simple. People don’t trust Hillary.

    But I think her biggest political mistake was that she didn’t kick Bill to the curb.

    She lost the respect of a lot of people because of it. Respect that she – by all appearances – hasn’t been able to earn back.

  26. Mac says:

    All of the above, unfortunately. Although not so much the email thing. That’s just a controversy being pumped up by Republicans.

    Truth is Hillary is obviously the best candidate of either side. She’s the only one I could see on the White House. I’m a fan of Sanders, but it’s just not feasible to do some of the things he wants. I think he’d make a great VP and would help Clinton with her progressive angle.

    The GOP is just a shit show.

    Sadly, Americans are looking to bring chaos and anarchy to the system. They are angry at the upper echelons of power and want to rebel against it.

  27. mrburnsns says:

    Only going to get worse in the west. Sanders has a good chance of winning the entire west coast if he stays in. I think the success of Trump and Sanders has a lot to do with a youth (Sanders) and a middle class (Sanders and Trump) that’s afraid that they are a couple of paychecks away from disaster. If you are worried about bills, food, health care, mortgage, and college tuition, people that come along with simple solutions (even if they aren’t practical) are going to grab your attention. That being said, I think Sanders is touching on a lot of pain points for the young and middle class, and he has some policy behind his position. I think he’s talking about a lot of important issues, but as Hillary correctly points out, achieving those goals with the house and senate as they are is pretty much impossible. She needs to start talking about the common ground on those issues and start talking about how to move towards those goals (it would be great if we could do that, here’s how I plan to move in that direction right now). However Sanders has an advantage in that he’s been consistent for a long time. She has been, umm, pretty “flexible.” She also has this perception of being almost robotic – she doesn’t have the “Hell of a Person” public perception that say W. or Bill have.

    Needs to be fixed – I don’t have any great ideas, but showing her as more human would definitely help. Having a good time on the campaign trail would help. Co-opting Sanders’ territory and talking more about what they have in common would help. Talking about pain points for the young and middle class would help. Explaining how her thinking has evolved over the 25 years she’s been on the public stage would help. But right now Sanders is in the best position to beat Trump in a general election, and given her campaign so far I’m just not seeing that reality changing.

  28. Bruce A says:

    http://www.unz.com/runz/is-the-republican-party-just-too-stupid-to-survive/

    “Consider the Iraq War”

    “Yet today that calamitous legacy and its five trillion dollar total cost is warmly embraced by many of the top Republican leaders and publicly criticized by almost none of them”.

    “Trump blasted the war and the Bush Administration lies behind it on nationwide television during a Republican debate, inducing total shock within the Republican commentariat, shock that turned into apoplexy when he immediately afterward won a landslide victory in ultra-rightwing and pro-military South Carolina”.

    Pay attention Democrats, this is important.

    It’s your election to lose, not Republicans to win.

    Last names aren’t special anymore.

  29. gyor says:

    Its not unfornate, Bernie is the better candiate.

  30. Pat Morfee says:

    I happen to like Hillary. She should have won the last nomination. I even have bought her former campaign, pins, buttons and have the T shirt after she lost the nomination to Obama. Apparently because of the polls in her favour in Michigan, some people who supported her decided to vote Kasich to help him against Trump. A lot of Sanders supporters are Independents who vote both Republican and Democrat. His followers are basically white younger voters although for some reason Muslims in Michigan voted for him, not sure why. Bernie Sanders supporters from websites I read are very aggressive young people who attack her at every opportunity and attack anyone who supports her. They are rabid. He comes across to me as a grumpy old man and I am in my 70’s. If Hillary gets tossed aside, I would hope she would tell them to all go to Hell which is the mildest I can think of. She has the most experience and is the most suited for the job. Sure she has mad mistakes but she has evolved because of them. I still think Americans are afraid to vote a Woman President above all.

  31. Liam Young says:

    She’s not a great candidate for all the reasons listed above (and being a woman) but let’s face it: as far as the media is concerned because she’s not a headline like ‘Getting Trumped’ or ‘Feeling the Bern’. Yes, modern media is that stupid and wants America to be equally so.

  32. Ruth says:

    I was torn on this survey because I wanted to go with populist for Sanders but crazy for Trump. That said I think that Bernie Sanders is like Trump only in that they have both found a following that is away from the status-quo. In the end Hillary will probably win but she is lucky because if Bernie Sanders had sold education on the premise of being very low cost instead of free he probably would have been perceived as more of a realist and attracted a lot more of the common sense voters if there are any of them left in the U.S.

    My theory on Trump is that he was sent by God (tongue in cheek only – I’m really not that crazy).
    God saw the mess of the GOP and the corruption they brought upon their people and he knew that sending a good man or woman in would only lead to their demise and destruction. So instead he decided to send in a piece of crap who could show them that they destroyed their own party using methods that are despicable but not unlike what they had be doing to their own people. Trump would amazingly withstand all criticism and actually seem to thrive. After winning the nomination, the Republican hold on the democratic process is swept away as the Democrats literally clean all US houses previously held by the GOP. Trump shrugs his shoulders and walk away to a new reality show and the Republicans start again to rebuild a new party. God tells the Democrats that if they do a good enough job they can stay in for 8 years and wipe out the anger that had so many voting for the evil one. Yes, the Lord works in mysterious ways. 🙂

    That’s all I got.

  33. Maps Onburt says:

    Hillary isn’t losing because she’s a woman. She’s losing because she’s everything on Warren’s list. Three of the strongest leaders of the 20th century were women (Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir). Unfortunately, in North America we’ve had Kim Campbell, Sarah Palin and Kathleen Wynne to sour us. Hilary is Ben worse. Of course we’ve had our share of men duds too… Obama and W to name just a few. That’s why the US wants to throw them all out. Electing a B actor wasn’t a bad move in the 80’s – still the best president since WW2 so I guess they figure trump can’t be that bad an idea. I’d rather have him than Hilary any day of the week but that like choosing dying by firing squad or being eaten alive by crocodiles. Scary times.

  34. e.a.f. says:

    As an old feminist and I do mean old. I would suggest Americans are still not ready for a female president.

    Saunders won Michigan because of the “youth” vote.

    Americans are in the mood for change. The rEpublicans have Trump and the dEmocrats have Saunders. If the Democrats want to win this election they had better get Saunders and Clinton to agree as to whom will be pres and who will be vice president.

    America is not Europe and they simply are still in the “dark ages”. Have a look at the level of poverty. Flint, Michigan and their water. Now the Detroit schools system will run out of money in April and its been in some sort of state receivership for years. The U.S.A. has a big military but has ceased to function as a rational country. The result is being seen in this election.

  35. smelter rat says:

    One of the best summaries I’ve read to date: http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/03/09/trump-lead-how-did-this-happen/

  36. Maps Onburt says:

    Hillary was leading in Michigan by 20 points and she campaigned hard there. She lost and it was clear Sanders wasn’t even expecting to win as his acceptance speech looked like he was in a hotel bathroom and not in front of screaming supporters and US flags. She’s trying t win this by leaning on the black vote but they are increasingly going Trump too. She’s done.

  37. Art says:

    A lot of nonsense comments here. Clinton had a big lead in the polls. Older Dems didn’t come out because they thought she was a lock. It’s an old story. Sanders has inspired hordes of youth to show up. She is still favoured by a wide margin over Sanders in most States. I suspect Michigan will inspire her voters to come out in better numbers from here on in.

    • Art says:

      I feel I should add that there are a number of informed and insightful comments here also. Don’t want to sound too dismissive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*