2016 Election
Quote: RonC...and those odds clearly mean she will win!!
"In December 2006, President Obama’s odds of being elected president in 2008 were behind then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark R. Warner, former Vice President Al Gore, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, according to BETUS and 1800-Sports."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/13/presidential-betting-odds-for-palin-in-2012-same-as-they-were-for-obama-two-years-before-2008-presidential-election/#ixzz34us7xtEG
Running from the front is not necessarily a good position to be in...
Hillary was definitely the frontrunner in 2008. Until someone on her left came into the picture, charmed the Democratic base, stole the nomination from her, and won the Presidency in a landslide (twice).
It seems like you're trying to apply this to 2016, I guess that means Elizabeth Warren will be the next President.
Fine with me!
Hillary Clinton is going through this process now. She tells us how she was penniless when they left the White House, which would be tough for anyone to do. The Presidency comes with a trough of cash that is pretty easy to get to--speaking fees, book fees, etc. By all accounts, they did well at capitalizing on it. Were they mega-rich? No, but the path to monies beyond all needs was clear. Very few actually have that available to them...
The press is trying to debunk the myths of Hillary, which they should do with all candidates who tell whoppers, and there is a whole lot of squirming going on. There are those hefty fees. That grabs the headlines...and suddenly we are told the money all goes to the Clinton Foundation. Though I am sure there a lots of needy beneficiaries of the Clinton Foundation, I'm betting that the Clintons are beneficiaries, too.
They try to explain the controversy away in articles like this:
"Another Republican scandal has been blown to tiny bits as Hillary Clinton has confirmed that all of her speaking fees from universities are donated to charity."
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/07/05/republican-scandal-dies-hillary-clinton-reveals-university-speaking-fees-donated-charity.html
...but that "charity" supports things like this:
"Bill Clinton’s foundation has spent more than $50 million on travel expenses since 2003, an analysis of the non-profit’s tax forms reveal."
http://nypost.com/2013/08/20/bill-clinton-foundation-has-spent-more-than-50m-on-travel-expenses/
and this:
"Amid those shortfalls, the foundation has sometimes catered to donors and celebrities who gave money in ways that raised eyebrows in the low-key nonprofit world. In 2009, during a Clinton Global Initiative gathering at the University of Texas at Austin, the foundation purchased a first-class ticket for the actress Natalie Portman, a special guest, who brought her beloved Yorkie, according to two former foundation employees."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/us/politics/unease-at-clinton-foundation-over-finances-and-ambitions.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&hp
Mrs. Clinton, it'd be much easier just to admit you are very wealthy and live without guilt while working to improve the lives of others. The Foundation does do SOME of that work; make it do more and less of the bad stuff. It really is okay to be wealthy. Just don't lie to everyone about how broke you are when you haven't known "broke" in a long, long time.
...on second thought...just keep torturing yourself!!
You need the middle to become President.
Republican party has taken a hard right turn due to the tea party, insuring Clinton will be the next President.
Thats the big picture.
Quote: terapinedThe above is all small potatoes.
You need the middle to become President.
Republican party has taken a hard right turn due to the tea party, insuring Clinton will be the next President.
Thats the big picture.
The post really had little to do with whether or not Hillary would be the next President; it has everything to do with the Liberal need to tell everyone that they need to redistribute wealth...so long as it isn't THEIR wealth.
Of course, I don't want Hillary to be the next President because I don't think she would do a good job as President. She was below average as Secretary of State. She is "qualified" as is the current incumbent. She could be just as incompetent.
Everything is "small potatoes" to Liberals. Every scandal is non-important, a non-event, and there is nothing that can change the fact that there were four dead folks in Libya--so why investigate it at all? Maybe Hillary will carry the middle; maybe the middle will be tired of the poor leadership and scandals and it will break the other way...
Quote: RonCLiberals with money are the funniest folks on earth. They have this huge guilt trip about being wealthy. This is caused by some of their deeply held beliefs that wealth should be redistributed...which is torments them because they don't want THEIR wealth redistributed.
Hillary Clinton is going through this process now. She tells us how she was penniless when they left the White House, which would be tough for anyone to do. The Presidency comes with a trough of cash that is pretty easy to get to--speaking fees, book fees, etc. By all accounts, they did well at capitalizing on it. Were they mega-rich? No, but the path to monies beyond all needs was clear. Very few actually have that available to them...
The press is trying to debunk the myths of Hillary, which they should do with all candidates who tell whoppers, and there is a whole lot of squirming going on. There are those hefty fees. That grabs the headlines...and suddenly we are told the money all goes to the Clinton Foundation. Though I am sure there a lots of needy beneficiaries of the Clinton Foundation, I'm betting that the Clintons are beneficiaries, too.
They try to explain the controversy away in articles like this:
"Another Republican scandal has been blown to tiny bits as Hillary Clinton has confirmed that all of her speaking fees from universities are donated to charity."
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/07/05/republican-scandal-dies-hillary-clinton-reveals-university-speaking-fees-donated-charity.html
...but that "charity" supports things like this:
"Bill Clinton’s foundation has spent more than $50 million on travel expenses since 2003, an analysis of the non-profit’s tax forms reveal."
http://nypost.com/2013/08/20/bill-clinton-foundation-has-spent-more-than-50m-on-travel-expenses/
and this:
"Amid those shortfalls, the foundation has sometimes catered to donors and celebrities who gave money in ways that raised eyebrows in the low-key nonprofit world. In 2009, during a Clinton Global Initiative gathering at the University of Texas at Austin, the foundation purchased a first-class ticket for the actress Natalie Portman, a special guest, who brought her beloved Yorkie, according to two former foundation employees."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/us/politics/unease-at-clinton-foundation-over-finances-and-ambitions.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&hp
Mrs. Clinton, it'd be much easier just to admit you are very wealthy and live without guilt while working to improve the lives of others. The Foundation does do SOME of that work; make it do more and less of the bad stuff. It really is okay to be wealthy. Just don't lie to everyone about how broke you are when you haven't known "broke" in a long, long time.
...on second thought...just keep torturing yourself!!
As an Independent who is in the middle in this country, and will vote for either party depending on how I feel, I find it hilarious that Republicans like Mike Huckabee are now attacking Hillary for being rich and out of touch with the working class. They never attacked Mitt Romney for being rich and out of touch. This kind of stuff is just all silly to me. Just politics as usual.
Quote: mickeycrimmThey never attacked Mitt Romney for being rich and out of touch.
Of course not.
I've been waiting years for the first Republican to say a word of criticism of Chris Christie spending millions of taxpayer money backing the Revel. Meanwhile, just count how many times Solyndra was mentioned right here at WoV.
Quote: mickeycrimmAs an Independent who is in the middle in this country, and will vote for either party depending on how I feel, I find it hilarious that Republicans like Mike Huckabee are now attacking Hillary for being rich and out of touch with the working class. They never attacked rich Mitt Romney for being rich and out of touch. This kind of stuff is just all silly to me. Just politics as usual.
They never HAD to talk about Romney's wealth for two reasons:
--The Liberal/Democrat folks did plenty of that
--He never tried to deny his wealth
The "middle" of the country likely only cares a little that Hillary is rich, if at all. What brings attention from Huckabee and others is that she attempts to portray herself as broke and poor as heck in the midst of charging $225,000 for speaking engagements. Her answer to critics on that one is that it goes to The Foundation...from which a great deal of money is spent on the Clinton's activities. The middle shouldn't shouldn't like being lied and pandered to, but they must decide that for themselves.
Romney = rich. No lies about it.
Gore = rich. Wants everyone else to sacrifice for the environment while flying in on his private jet.
Clinton = rich. Wants to downplay her wealth because she can't reconcile her redistribution desires with that wealth.
There is NOTHING wrong with ANY of them being wealthy. I applaud their success. My point is this--there is no reason to deny your success to look better. Instead, use your success to breed more success for you and others.
Quote: RonCThey never HAD to talk about Romney's wealth for two reasons:
--The Liberal/Democrat folks did plenty of that
--He never tried to deny his wealth
The "middle" of the country likely only cares a little that Hillary is rich, if at all. What brings attention from Huckabee and others is that she attempts to portray herself as broke and poor as heck in the midst of charging $225,000 for speaking engagements. Her answer to critics on that one is that it goes to The Foundation...from which a great deal of money is spent on the Clinton's activities. The middle shouldn't shouldn't like being lied and pandered to, but they must decide that for themselves.
Romney = rich. No lies about it.
Gore = rich. Wants everyone else to sacrifice for the environment while flying in on his private jet.
Clinton = rich. Wants to downplay her wealth because she can't reconcile her redistribution desires with that wealth.
There is NOTHING wrong with ANY of them being wealthy. I applaud their success. My point is this--there is no reason to deny your success to look better. Instead, use your success to breed more success for you and others.
It's just more spin to me. She never would have had to answer the question if she weren't attacked for being rich in the first place.
Quote: mickeycrimm[..] I find it hilarious that Republicans like Mike Huckabee are now attacking Hillary for being rich and out of touch with the working class. They never attacked Mitt Romney for being rich and out of touch. This kind of stuff is just all silly to me. Just politics as usual.
Exactly: it's wrong only when the other party does it.
Then there's this: The Three Languages of Politics
Quote: RonCClinton = rich. Wants to downplay her wealth because she can't reconcile her redistribution desires with that wealth.
You really can't "reveal" Hillary to most of the long term voting public at this point. Most people even know what gaffes she's likely to make. Your net advantage here is about zero. If it turns out she really killed Vince Foster, that would be something. Or something of value to the right at least.
Also, except for a very special kind of tax even flat tax is redistribution, and every sort of tax used past and present has been almost always redistributive. It can be ignorance the first time you say it, after that, it's just a lie.
Much of the right supports redistributive taxing (at least if they support the Constitution), whether they're ignorant of it or not.
The right is the party of prostitutes who yell they aren't prostitutes because they sleep with fewer customers. But they are almost all redistributors, none the less.
Quote: rxwineYou really can't "reveal" Hillary to most of the long term voting public at this point. Most people even know what gaffes she's likely to make. Your net advantage here is about zero. If it turns out she really killed Vince Foster, that would be something. Or something of value to the right at least.
Also, except for a very special kind of tax even flat tax is redistribution, and every sort of tax used past and present has been almost always redistributive. It can be ignorance the first time you say it, after that, it's just a lie.
Much of the right supports redistributive taxing (at least if they support the Constitution), whether they're ignorant of it or not.
The right is the party of prostitutes who yell they aren't prostitutes because they sleep with fewer customers. But they are almost all redistributors, none the less.
Any form of taxation is a socialist policy. I see Americans as Libertarian Socialists. What we disagree on is the degree of socialism we want in this country.
Quote: WizardOf course not.
I've been waiting years for the first Republican to say a word of criticism of Chris Christie spending millions of taxpayer money backing the Revel. Meanwhile, just count how many times Solyndra was mentioned right here at WoV.
Conservative-leaning web site says this about Christie's deal:
"Even after Morgan Stanley "abandoned the project before construction was complete and wrote down nearly its entire $1.25 billion investment" in 2011, Christie decided to invest taxpayer dollars into the casino, saying if the casino succeeded, it would be a sign that "Atlantic City is back."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/20/Chris-Christie-s-Bad-Bet-Casino-that-Received-Taxpayer-Funds-to-File-for-Bankruptcy
A Republican who was critical of the deal:
"“The bankruptcy of the Revel casino today proves the total failure of the bi-partisan pay-to-play political culture that has crippled and corrupted the economy of New Jersey during the past 30 years,” Grossman said in a press release issued shortly after the announcement."
http://www.uncoveredpolitics.com/2013/02/22/christie-challenger-says-revel-casino-bankruptcy-latest-failure-of-crony-capitalism/
Quote: rxwineYou really can't "reveal" Hillary to most of the long term voting public at this point. Most people even know what gaffes she's likely to make. Your net advantage here is about zero. If it turns out she really killed Vince Foster, that would be something. Or something of value to the right at least.
Quote:
If I hadn't already lost any respect [I had] for Hillary [ The "governer's school in Ark. , the Mena stuff, Tyson, Rose Law] and on and on the Vince Foster incident would have done it. I might have been a little easier to brainwash if when she could she went after the perp's.
Just in case she is reading this, being broke with a few mill and a huge line credit is vastly different then living in your car broke. How come she can feel my pain but I can't feel hers?
Quote: mickeycrimmIt's just more spin to me. She never would have had to answer the question if she weren't attacked for being rich in the first place.
She wasn't attacked for being rich. It is okay to be rich. She was attacked for lies about being broke when she wasn't...
I see betting markets continue to predict the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election as essentially an even proposition among the political parties, with "Dem" a very slight favorite at implied odds of about 52% in what is effectively a coin flip prediction at this point. Perhaps not too surprisingly, since the most recent winner was in fact just re-elected with 51% of the vote (actually 51.01% to be precise) and neither major party has either exceeded 53% (attained by both parties, twice) or received less than fractionally under 47% (also both parties, twice) of the vote in any recent election for that office, extending for nearly twenty years now to before the turn of this century, during which time the ratios of both party identification and actual votes have been and continue to remain distributed as evenly as they have been for many years, and each party has occupied that office for roughly the same proportion of the time with each winning an equal number of very narrowly decided elections. And the unique Electoral College system used in the US continues to have the effect it was (partly) designed to accomplish, by magnifying small slivers of difference in ambiguous voting results into more formally decisive outcomes in both appearance and practical effect. And that is not what I learned or re-learned here.
What I've found or reconfirmed here is that none of that reality makes any significant detectable penetration into the minds of those who are most highly motivated to chant political manifestos, instead preferring to characterize and most likely actually believe the fantasy that those who are not in their tribe are generally stupid, evil, usually insincere in motivation and not legitimate in some fashion or other, and probably are also a small unpopular and shrinking sect or about to get that way soon - and that by contrast they and THEIR group of the "good people" as the popular voice of moderate reason are not doing that, just those other stupid evil people over there do that - even as they continue to repeatedly and crudely do exactly that. While isolating into a tribe the tribal members characterize themselves as enlightened manifestations of "the people" and those who are not of their political tribe are defined as the ones who are really in an exotic tribe. Each tribe concocts noxious potions that are placed high in a tree with a symbolic name assigning the odor to the other tribe, while the tribe holds hands and ceremonially recommits to tribal loyalty to protect them from dangerous smelly potions. Tribal members avoid straying outside of tribal-approved summary description of others and perform rituals to neuter information that might tend to conflict with tribal beliefs, conducting these rituals with chants that non-members of their political tribe are ignorant, and tribal.
And it seems there's some kind of informal law that the degree of motivation to engage in tribal political conflict is inversely proportional to competence in the sort of fundamentals formerly required for passing high school introductory civics exams back in the day when such things existed. Basic non-controversial commonly understood things are confused or conflated with their opposites even to the detriment of the narrative apparently desired by some doing it, readily available and widely known actual numerical election outcomes become part of the vapor of belief systems, even some of the most significant of the largest major states are misidentified with wildly incompatible attributes, etc. That doesn't seem to be the sort of thing anyone would do deliberately; it wouldn't help advance any cause. This paradox of online tribal political trench warfare mystifies me. I think I at least partly get how cultural tribalism can happen, and even simultaneous denial of same. But this paradox of the apparent incompatibility of absorbing rather neutral information with high intensity of online political motivation is something I don't get, not even the start of a clue about a theory about how that one works. Someone really, really, extra-super ultra-deeply cares about being an energetic booster of the team of their beloved saintly alma mater, but doesn't know the color of their uniforms & gets the name of mascot confused, and in this conference the most intense fans of the competitors frequently do the same... how does that ever come to be?
I'm afraid I missed the external attack or criticism on this one. I had the impression she initiated and was conducting this public argument with herself.Quote: RonCShe wasn't attacked for being rich. It is okay to be rich. She was attacked for lies about being broke when she wasn't...
Quote: DrawingDeadI learned or relearned a few things after breaking my promise to myself by clicking into this thread.
Rex Murphy?
This website and forum is populated by passionate believers of both sides with not many people in the middle interjecting. People in the middle are doing what they should be doing in the middle of 2014, 2.5 years away from a presidential election: living their lives. The people who are really paying attention are the FoxNews and MSNBC diehards and these number at most 1% of the general populace, and I would suspect that perhaps 10% are passionate and extreme about their political beliefs.
When it comes to voting, people will generally vote party lines unless there is a reason to vote differently. Democrats know Hillary will reflect the dem cause, despite her comments. The fact is that it takes a special candidate to swing the a electoral vote 3-5% necessary to win an election, and really, it's about the key battleground states anyway and about adding up to 270. Those 3-5% in the swing are not on this forum, and are certainly not really paying attention today. It's also about getting those who do not vote to the stations. You figure with a 50% voting rate, there is 1/2 of the country that you can get motivated.
Quote: DrawingDeadI'm afraid I missed the external attack or criticism on this one. I had the impression she initiated and was conducting this public argument with herself.
I heard others comment on it, but it is possible she created the story and then created the answer to the story herself. She's not a favorite of mine, but those Clinton's have some mighty good political abilities!!
Quote: RonCShe wasn't attacked for being rich. It is okay to be rich. She was attacked for lies about being broke when she wasn't...
It wasn't a lie though. They WERE broke when the left the White House relative to where they are today.
Quote: RonCThey never HAD to talk about Romney's wealth for two reasons:
--The Liberal/Democrat folks did plenty of that
--He never tried to deny his wealth
No, the republicans did not attack Romney for being rich and out of touch for one reason and one reason only....he's a republican.
Quote: boymimbo
Those 3-5% in the swing are not on this forum, and are certainly not really paying attention today. It's also about getting those who do not vote to the stations. You figure with a 50% voting rate, there is 1/2 of the country that you can get motivated.
I'm here. I classify myself as independent. I hate foxnews and hate MSNBC. I have voted for Republicans to be President, Bob Dole, I have voted for Independents to be President, John Anderson, Ralph Nader and voted for Obama last 2 elections.
I classify myself as Independent but in Florida independents are barred from participating in primaries so I register as republican so I can vote in the interesting republican primaries.
I live in a battle ground state, Florida.
North Florida votes right, South Florida votes left, I live in the middle of Florida, the Tampa Orlando I4 corridor determines how Florida votes.
Last cycle, Everybody came to campaign in the area, Obama, Romney, Michelle Obama, Biden, Ryan ect., its nice to live in an area where candidates visit to try to get my vote.
Quote: RonCShe wasn't attacked for being rich. It is okay to be rich. She was attacked for lies about being broke when she wasn't...
Quote: mickeycrimmIt wasn't a lie though. They WERE broke when the left the White House relative to where they are today.
Perhaps so. To the rest of us, that being those without the benefit of the potential income that comes with being the former President. it sounds ridiculous.
Kind of like all the other spin/lies...Romney's 47% (there is some fact in there, but it is not totally accurate) and others...they were not as wealthy as they would become, but they were not dead broke.
I condemned Romney for the statement and I have chided folks here for perpetuating it. I don't think Hillary should be talking about being "dead broke"...neither thing looks good in spite of any truth in them...
Quote: RonCI condemned Romney for the statement and I have chided folks here for perpetuating it. I don't think Hillary should be talking about being "dead broke"...neither thing looks good in spite of any truth in them...
False equivalence.
Romney doubled down on his stupid 47% comment and never really apologized. It hurt him immensely in 2012.
Hillary immediately started to walk her comment back once she realized she stepped in it. No one will remember the dead broke comment two years (!!!) from now during the election.
The LIVs won't, but we'll remind you. Again, and again, and again...Quote: ams288No one will remember the dead broke comment two years (!!!) from now during the election.
Quote: ams288
Hillary immediately started to walk her comment back once she realized she stepped in it. No one will remember the dead broke comment two years (!!!) from now during the election.
Foxnews will be determined to keep the dead broke comment alive by discussing over and over for the next 2 years.
I predict the day before the 2016 election, for 24 hrs straight, Foxnews is gonna be all about benghazi and the dead broke comment.
Thank you. And the liberal drive-by media will try to sweep under the carpet for the next two years. You really want that woman as POTUS? Amazing.Quote: terapinedFoxnews will be determined to keep the dead broke comment alive by discussing over and over for the next 2 years.
I predict the day before the 2016 election, for 24 hrs straight, Foxnews is gonna be all about benghazi and the dead broke comment.
Quote: chickenmanYou really want that woman as POTUS? Amazing.
I'll be happy with any Democrat.
I support Hillary because at this point, it seems like she will have the easiest time winning.
THAT was really a thoroughly thought out analysis. Enjoy if you get your wish. But be careful what you wish for.Quote: ams288I'll be happy with any Democrat.
I support Hillary because at this point, it seems like she will have the easiest time winning.
Quote: chickenmanTHAT was really a thoroughly thought out analysis. Enjoy if you get your wish. But be careful what you wish for.
Any Democrat would be better than any Republican, so there isn't need for a thorough analysis for me.
Quote: chickenmanThank you. And the liberal drive-by media will try to sweep under the carpet for the next two years. You really want that woman as POTUS? Amazing.
Its just a prediction based on the current reality.
Of course there are better and worse candidates.
I go to vegas to gamble, odds wise, its Hillary.
Live in Tampa, saw a Hillary bumper sticker couple days ago. Really surprised too see one so early. Said "I'm ready for Hillary"
Quote: ams288False equivalence.
Romney doubled down on his stupid 47% comment and never really apologized. It hurt him immensely in 2012.
Hillary immediately started to walk her comment back once she realized she stepped in it. No one will remember the dead broke comment two years (!!!) from now during the election.
His timing was worse than hers. That doesn't make it a "false equivalence"--all I said was both things made the people who said them look bad.
A. Democrats wanting to raise taxes on the rich?
B. Republicans wanting to cut welfare and social security benefits to the poor and middle class?
My answer: It depends on if you are a leftie or a rightie.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner
Odds are shortening on Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney's name is coming up a lot more...
Hillary had the advantage early in the cycle last time, too, but a combination of attacks on her and President Obama's campaign led to he losing in the primaries.
I'm getting excited about the 2014 races and the upcoming 2016 cycle...
Quote: RonC
Hillary had the advantage early in the cycle last time, too, but a combination of attacks on her and President Obama's campaign led to he losing in the primaries.
I'm getting excited about the 2014 races and the upcoming 2016 cycle...
Hillary had the advantage because nobody else was known. Same thing this time. She is demanding the nomination be handed to her just as she demands everything because she feels entitled.
The key is will the GOP candidate want to win or be like McCain and just want to run and lose? Hillary has failed at every job she has had. And yes, Benghazi matters when you make the statement that you are "qualified to take the 3:00 AM call." As she tries to distance herself from Obama's foreign policy failures the GOP candidate needs to ask, "weren't you in charge of it?" Then watch her squirm.
And the GOP needs to not fall into the "you can't hit a girl, this is a HISTORIC candidacy" trap. They need to attack Hillary twice as hard as the left attacked Sarah Palin. Clearly the left does not mind conducting a "war on women" as long as the women are not liberal.
Alas, everyone who goes against Hillary caves. I don't know what she has on everyone, but she must.
Quote: AZDuffman. She is demanding the nomination be handed to her just as she demands everything because she feels entitled.
Where does this come from?
No way she is demanding the nomination.
She has no right to make that demand, I have not heard of any such a demand, and the demand cannot be met regardless.
Then again I don't watch Fox. Is this what Fox is reporting? Please cite a reference please.
I expect contested primaries .
I expect Martin O'Malley to run. (I was quite impressed with his band. Pretty good on the guitar. Saw his band at Baltimore Artscape festival waiting for Los Lobos to come on) Would be pretty neat to have a rock-n-roll President :-)
Quote: AZDuffmanHillary had the advantage because nobody else was known. Same thing this time. She is demanding the nomination be handed to her just as she demands everything because she feels entitled.
I don't think she's demanding anything, either. She's getting drafted, and so far, she hasn't said no.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe key is will the GOP candidate want to win or be like McCain and just want to run and lose? Hillary has failed at every job she has had. And yes, Benghazi matters when you make the statement that you are "qualified to take the 3:00 AM call." As she tries to distance herself from Obama's foreign policy failures the GOP candidate needs to ask, "weren't you in charge of it?" Then watch her squirm.
Disagree with this assessment of her performance as well, but not willing to engage on this forum.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd the GOP needs to not fall into the "you can't hit a girl, this is a HISTORIC candidacy" trap. They need to attack Hillary twice as hard as the left attacked Sarah Palin. Clearly the left does not mind conducting a "war on women" as long as the women are not liberal.
Women were harshest on Sarah Palin because she was incompetent and a sock puppet for whoever briefed her last. We were horrified; left, right, and middle. The only person who made Sarah Palin look good was Michele Bachmann.
Strong Republican women worth voting for (mostly in the past, unfortunately, but active within the last 40 years). Not sure who might be in the pipeline; can't think of any currently prominent who would have a serious shot. Maybe Susana Martinez of NM, someday.
Olympia Snowe
Jeanette Rankin
Elizabeth Dole
Nancy Kasselbaum
Kay Bailey Hutchison
Susan Collins
Christine Todd Whitman
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Quote: AZDuffmanAlas, everyone who goes against Hillary caves. I don't know what she has on everyone, but she must.
Naw. Personally, I think she missed her shot. But a lot will depend on who runs in both parties.
Quote: beachbumbabsWomen were harshest on Sarah Palin because she was incompetent and a sock puppet for whoever briefed her last. We were horrified; left, right, and middle. The only person who made Sarah Palin look good was Michele Bachmann.
Perhaps, but most people would agree that even Sarah Palin was more qualified to become president than Obama was.
Quote: KeyserPerhaps, but most people would agree that even Sarah Palin was more qualified to become president than Obama was.
You can't be serious? It is fair to say that Obama was underqualified to be president, but saying Sarah Palin was more qualified is ridiculous. Let's look at her resume. Wasilla town council. A part-time position for a town of 4000 people at the time. Wasilla Mayor. Again a part-time position for a town of 6300 people at the time. She won the mayor's race with 651 votes. And the mayor has very limited responsibilities. The majority of decisions are made by the town administrator and city council.
And then the biggie...Governor of Alaska, state with the 4th smallest population, 730,000. About the same as the cities of Charlotte, North Carolina or Fort Worth, Texas. She was 18 months into that position when tapped to be vice president nomination. I have no idea what kind of job she did as Governor of Alaska. I'll let the people of Alaska decide that. But she quit that job, after Mccain and her lost the presidential election, 2.5 years into that first 4 year term, not fulfilling her responsibility simply because she had become a public figure and could make more money not being Governor. That speaks to her character.
But maybe it's her education that compares favorably with Barack Obama. Lets see...Sarah Palin attended Hawaii Pacific University for a year, then North Idaho Community College for a year, followed by Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska, at the end of which time she held a degree in communications.
Or perhaps it was her early employment as a sportscaster for an Anchorage TV station that better prepared her to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Hillary is a terrible candidate who could only beat an even worse one by default. Apart from the usual red-herring social issues, she's so far to the right on things like economic policy, war and corporate influence that a great number of liberals or leftists will stay home or vote for a third party. She has very little charisma. Many other female candidates seem maternal, or confident and professional, or have an otherwise appealing persona. So I am not saying this to be sexist. She just happens to be a woman who comes of as shrill. She turns off a lot of men on that kind of a level.
All she really has going for her is the glass-ceiling narrative and, perhaps, people thinking that her husband will be heavily involved in the administration. Those things kind of contradict each other though. Break the glass ceiling by marrying a powerful man and riding his coattails!
I still think Christie is an intriguing horse. I don't know much about him but he comes from a big swing state, is fairly convincing at pretending to not be a psychopath and I like the obesity angle. Hillary has the glass ceiling, he has the the glass manhole.
I think she'll be a very beatable front runner again. She hasn't distinguished herself since running last time. If anything, she has diminished her stature a good bit.
We don't hear anything about other candidates on the Democrat side; I think that will change shortly after the election.
I think there will be plenty to talk about on both sides...
Quote: kewljYou can't be serious? It is fair to say that Obama was underqualified to be president, but saying Sarah Palin was more qualified is ridiculous. Let's look at her resume. Wasilla town council. A part-time position for a town of 4000 people at the time. Wasilla Mayor. Again a part-time position for a town of 6300 people at the time. She won the mayor's race with 651 votes. And the mayor has very limited responsibilities. The majority of decisions are made by the town administrator and city council.
And then the biggie...Governor of Alaska, state with the 4th smallest population, 730,000. About the same as the cities of Charlotte, North Carolina or Fort Worth, Texas. She was 18 months into that position when tapped to be vice president nomination. I have no idea what kind of job she did as Governor of Alaska. I'll let the people of Alaska decide that. But she quit that job, after Mccain and her lost the presidential election, 2.5 years into that first 4 year term, not fulfilling her responsibility simply because she had become a public figure and could make more money not being Governor. That speaks to her character.
But maybe it's her education that compares favorably with Barack Obama. Lets see...Sarah Palin attended Hawaii Pacific University for a year, then North Idaho Community College for a year, followed by Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska, at the end of which time she held a degree in communications.
Or perhaps it was her early employment as a sportscaster for an Anchorage TV station that better prepared her to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
OK, so lets compare her resume to that of Obama when he ran at the top of the ticket, where you arguably have to have better experience than as VEEP.
Community Organizer, is that really a job?
State Senator in Illinois, a place where he voted "present" more than anyone else in the chamber.
US Senator for a whopping 145 days before he "quit" and "didn't fulfill his responsibility" by seeking a new job 145 days into a 6 year term.
So he had no executive experience, no management experience not even managing a Subway. He had no leadership positions in any legislative chamber, and when he had to vote he was too stupid to even know how he wanted to vote so he voted "present." Explain again how Obama was more qualified than Palin. I seriously do not see how.
Quote: RigondeauxPalin is also an ignoramus of perhaps slightly above average intelligence. Obama, who I am not much of a fan of, is a Harvard lawyer of obvious intelligence and all that stuff. Not that you have to be an ultra-brainiac, but you should know more about the political world and the world in general than the average person and be the smartest person in the room once or twice over the course of your life.
Palin summed it up best I ever heard when she said Obama was "book smart and street stupid." I have been around many "smartest people in the room" and they are usually not very effective leaders. It is for the reason Palin mentioned. They see what happens in books and theory but they do not understand that is not how the world works. Obama thinks if he passes a bill or makes a speech all is done. He thinks people will not change their behavior based on him changing outside inputs (e.g.: raises taxes, threatens action but does not follow up.) Harry Truman I believe did not even attend college yet he is a POTUS who is rising in esteem as history unfolds.
I would be on a team Palin was leading any day of the week. If I was on a team Obama was leading I would ask to be traded.
Seriously, she will have nothing to do with the 2016 election.
She is just a trashy hillbilly from Alaska who is too busy getting into huge brawls with her family to focus on politics at the moment.
Quote: KeyserPerhaps, but most people would agree that even Sarah Palin was more qualified to become president than Obama was.
In reality, I think most people would agree that you pulled this fact out of thin air.
Quote: terapinedWhere does this come from?
No way she is demanding the nomination.
She has no right to make that demand, I have not heard of any such a demand, and the demand cannot be met regardless.
You need to learn to look at Hillary and her past behavior then look at what the party does for her. Please do not be so simple as to think she can be quoted as saying "I demand this nomination."
If someone in the party is not afraid of her they could, however, take her down. She is extremely risk-adverse and sticks to just friendly public venues. Even Obama will go on FNC when he knows he needs to reach a broad audience. Hillary does not have the guts to sit for a fair and balanced interview. So if say Cuomo hits her back she will crack like glass.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf someone in the party is not afraid of her they could, however, take her down. She is extremely risk-adverse and sticks to just friendly public venues. Even Obama will go on FNC when he knows he needs to reach a broad audience. Hillary does not have the guts to sit for a fair and balanced interview. So if say Cuomo hits her back she will crack like glass.
"A broad audience" aka "an audience of mostly right wing nutbags"
Wasn't Hillary just on Fox News for a highly publicized interview with Greta and that other guy recently?
Quote: ams288"A broad audience" aka "an audience of mostly right wing nutbags"
Wasn't Hillary just on Fox News for a highly publicized interview with Greta and that other guy recently?
FNC was recently the highest rated cable network, not just news but all of cable. That is a broad audience. I always ask for evidence of bias at FNC but never get any examples. FNC is watched because the most people like the fair and balanced product.
No idea if Hillary was on Greta. I am a cord-cutter and never much was into Greta so I would not know. I do know Hillary refused to be on FNC in 2012 just as all dems refused a debate hosted by same.
FNC is the most popular because it resonates with the people more than the other options. It is easy to lump that into one group and disparage them; it doesn't matter if that is a false grouping to those who do the attacking--they'll say anything to try and knock down #1...the truth doesn't matter.
Quote: RonCIt is interesting how many on this board attack FNC but not MSNBC. Both have commentators who lean in one direction or the other; I guess it is okay if you are on one side but not the other.
FNC is the most popular because it resonates with the people more than the other options. It is easy to lump that into one group and disparage them; it doesn't matter if that is a false grouping to those who do the attacking--they'll say anything to try and knock down #1...the truth doesn't matter.
You've followed the standard right-wing template of responding to Fox News criticism:
1) Brag about the ratings
2) Bring up MSNBC for some reason
MSNBC is liberal. They don't try to hide and claim to be "fair and balanced." That is the difference. FNC is the media arm of the Republican party.
As for the ratings, yes they're number 1 in cable. That equates to what? 2-3 million viewers on average? Big whoop.
