Uh-oh! Terrible news for Hillary in new poll

How long will it take for Democrats to realize that Hillary Clinton is terrible candidate who will lead them to disaster in 2016?  That is the key question that most of them are unable to face as the former first lady and disastrous secretary of state rides momentum (and her potential opponents’ fear of her retribution) toward the nomination. Once she is nominated in late July, 2016, they will be stuck with her, an act of God being the only out. So they have a year to think it over.

I will leave aside her terrible track record, her inability to speak extemporaneously without committing gaffes, her unappealing screech when excited, her inner arrogance and anger, and the ethical compromises as SecState that led her to destroy the email evidence that could have either exonerated or convicted her. What is of concern here is some terrible polling results over something she can do nothing about.

Jennifer Harper reports in the Washington Times:

…there’s a YouGov poll revealing what age Americans actually prefer. Less than 1 percent look to anyone over 70. And the rest of the numbers: 8 percent prefer a candidate from 60-69 years old, 9 percent want someone under 40, 38 percent preferred a candidate between 40 and 49 and 44 percent went for the 50-59 set.

Analyst William Jordan did the basic math here and reports that, essentially, 92 percent of the nation would like somebody under 60 on the ballot.

I am on the far side of the age 60 divide, so have no particular desire to see the wisdom that comes with age dismissed by popular opinion. But when it comes to politics, it is pretty clear that the federal government keeps repeating failures, and so new approaches are needed. There is a definite weariness among Americans, an ennui over the failed promises of the past. And nothing says the past like Hillary, who entered the White House as first lady a quarter of a century ago as “co-president” (until unfavorable polling told the Clinton War Room” to drop the phrase).

Hillary can try to ditch her husband’s (and her own expressed) immigration policies, but without her marriage, who would even think of her as a potential candidate, much less a lock-in for the nomination?

Face it: Hillary is old, old, old, the candidate of the last millennium. Face lifts, baggy clothes, and her own insistence that being a granny matters somehow, will not change that perception. And 92 percent of Americans want something different.  

How long will it take for Democrats to realize that Hillary Clinton is terrible candidate who will lead them to disaster in 2016?  That is the key question that most of them are unable to face as the former first lady and disastrous secretary of state rides momentum (and her potential opponents’ fear of her retribution) toward the nomination. Once she is nominated in late July, 2016, they will be stuck with her, an act of God being the only out. So they have a year to think it over.

I will leave aside her terrible track record, her inability to speak extemporaneously without committing gaffes, her unappealing screech when excited, her inner arrogance and anger, and the ethical compromises as SecState that led her to destroy the email evidence that could have either exonerated or convicted her. What is of concern here is some terrible polling results over something she can do nothing about.

Jennifer Harper reports in the Washington Times:

…there’s a YouGov poll revealing what age Americans actually prefer. Less than 1 percent look to anyone over 70. And the rest of the numbers: 8 percent prefer a candidate from 60-69 years old, 9 percent want someone under 40, 38 percent preferred a candidate between 40 and 49 and 44 percent went for the 50-59 set.

Analyst William Jordan did the basic math here and reports that, essentially, 92 percent of the nation would like somebody under 60 on the ballot.

I am on the far side of the age 60 divide, so have no particular desire to see the wisdom that comes with age dismissed by popular opinion. But when it comes to politics, it is pretty clear that the federal government keeps repeating failures, and so new approaches are needed. There is a definite weariness among Americans, an ennui over the failed promises of the past. And nothing says the past like Hillary, who entered the White House as first lady a quarter of a century ago as “co-president” (until unfavorable polling told the Clinton War Room” to drop the phrase).

Hillary can try to ditch her husband’s (and her own expressed) immigration policies, but without her marriage, who would even think of her as a potential candidate, much less a lock-in for the nomination?

Face it: Hillary is old, old, old, the candidate of the last millennium. Face lifts, baggy clothes, and her own insistence that being a granny matters somehow, will not change that perception. And 92 percent of Americans want something different.