My only question would be how will these poll numbers change following weeks and months of revelations about the sources of Clinton's wealth. And what if a challenger does emerge to Clinton's left? Will the former first lady, New York senator and Secretary of State manage to hold on to her aura of inevitability?
It may also be true that Clinton's money won't matter at all in a general election, certainly not the way Mitt Romney's did in 2012. Democrats roasted Romney for allegedly slashing jobs as a private equity executive and proposing tax policy that would benefit himself and other rich people. Clinton won't have these problems.
But she could still face scorching negative ads suggesting that while she talks about inequality and reigning in Wall Street and other hot-button issues for Democrats she also collected fat checks from Wall Street and occupies the top wrung of the economic ladder while crying poverty.
Such ads might not drive swing voters to an establishment Republican. But they could move rust belt voters toward a GOP populist in the mold of [...]
[emphasis added] Given the money ladled out for the brief speaking appearances, Ms. Clinton might be viewed in a sense as the Queen of Wall Street, reigning in that sense; but if the intent was the homonym as in, "Whoa, Bessie now slow down," that would involve tugging on the reins, etc.
But one can like that Queen of Wall Street sense of things, unless and until a few key transcripts are made public by the transcript owner seeking credibility as one caring for the 99% - or for Romney's 47% together with enough moderate independents to get to a majority.
" . . . reigning in Wall Street . . ." indeed. From the 2014 CNBC item:
UPDATE: More CNBC posting of interest, basically contemporaneous with the Ben White item, here. With this studied choice of image:
