Hillary’s toughness may be her greatest strength. I’m increasingly under the impression that she could win, and win big. How, after all, do Republicans capture the White House if the women’s vote breaks 52-48 (a low-ball estimate) for Clinton? Surely, there are not enough angry white dudes (the white right) to overcome even this modest degree of female support. And if there are, you pay a price for elevating their turn-out. Casting red meat to these pissed-off guys tends to be off-putting to females, driving up the percentages of women voting for Clinton even more. She seems to be sitting in a pretty darn good position right now. Darn good. I’m definitely impressed.
I’ll call it early. Hillary in 2016.
Thursday’s hearing on Benghazi was a reminder that Mrs. Clinton does best when she doesn’t try to hide her toughness.
TAKINGNOTE.BLOGS.NYTIMES.COM|BY ANDREW ROSENTHAL
Prometheus Unbound 
I just got done reading your article “How Crazy is Dr. David Jeremiah” about a Christian Pastor back in 2010. Back to the Future, you seem to be supportive of Hillary Clinton being very impressed with her as well. I can’t think of anyone more crazy then Hillary Clinton. Here’s a message for you, when you vote for Hillary Clinton, you are helping to usher in the BEAST of Biblical end times and will fall into eternal hell and damnation along with her.
For the record, I don’t think you will burn in hell. I rather think like my fellow countryman Swedenborg, that hell is something we build for ourselves and you don’t seem like the sort of person to do that.
As for Clinton, I doubt she can win. You see, here is where regular folks are smarter than academics. They are better at detecting bad people. They may not have seen through her husband but Hillary does a bad job concealing her callous narcissism. The more she is in the spotlight, the worse it gets, as people’s alarm bells start to go off.
You can see this in the polls. Her long-term trend is downhill. She is even beaten by a lame cuck like Bush. Trump has gained on her for some time now, getting very close. Carson is already beating her in the polls and on the rise,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_carson_vs_clinton-5119.html
52-48 is not much if Carson can win more Black voters than other GOP candidates, which surely he can. Carson is also more popular among women than Trump, no doubt because of his less controntational style.
And finally, Clinton and Sanders are splitting the party between Blacks and progressive Whites. The latter may look for a third party or not vote at all if Clinton becomes their party’s candidate.
Staffan:
Your analysis here strikes me as wishful thinking. Focus, Staffan, focus. If Hillary gets 52% of the female vote, however that vote is carved up racially, she’s likely to be the next president for two reasons: (1) women vote in larger numbers than men; and (2) that means that something like 54% of men will have to go against Hillary to overcome her advantage with females. I just doubt that Hillary is going to do that poorly with men in a general election (losing them 54-46), and that she’ll only get 52% of the female vote. I think she’ll likely rise to 53-55% of the female vote, which suggests that Rubio will have to carry men by about 10 points. What electoral male-voter-appeal magic achieves that in a closely divided electorate?
I’m not sure where you got that number (I don’t have FB) but it’s one poll. Look at RealClearPolitics where all the big polls are collected. If you’re right, she should be in the lead in most of these polls. But clearly she is not. Carson caught up with her in August and has consistently beaten her since then,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_carson_vs_clinton-5119.html
For her to win, you would have to introduce some new development. Instead, you cherry-picked that one poll that looked like maybe she could win. That is the wishful thinking here.
(Why mention Rubio? He is nowhere near Trump or Carson.)
Staffan:
I’m thinking that the novelty of truly electing a female president has not kicked into the consciousness of most voters, and won’t do so until closer to the election. Once women engage, it’s hard for me to imagine Clinton losing the female vote. I suppose it’s possible, but it’s akin to black voting patterns for Obama. It’s logically possible that Obama could have seen less voter excitement among African Americans than among the general populace, but this obviously is not how it played out.
Likewise with women. Women will be energized to vote, for here we have a historic moment–the opportunity to elect a woman President of the United States–and if she wins even a modest majority of the women’s vote, Republicans will then have to outperform with men to make up for that. Yet men simply do not turn out for general elections in numbers as large as women do, so you’ve got to get men to be more enthusiastic about voting in 2016 than women–or you have to somehow get the majority of women turning on the female candidate.
You tell me the scenario for how you get the majority of women to vote against Hillary, and likewise spike the anti-Hillary male vote. It strikes me as a catch-22. You spike the male vote with anti-Hillary rhetoric, you piss off women.
I read in Australia* that our ex-prime minister, Julia Gillard, has lent her support to Hilary Clinton, appearing in one of Clinton’s campaign videos.
Gillard’s career in the legal profession and then in politics was marked by a total lack of professional and personal integrity. And a honed skill in telling brazen lies – not to be mistaken for toughness.
Everything I have read about Clinton suggests this is the proverbial case of “birds of a feather ……..”.
*(probably not reported in US. —– “Who the hell is Julia Gillard?”)