2016 Election
Quote: AZDuffmanSo you are saying they wanted him in 2010 and 2014 but they only voted for him in 2012 because of "fairness?"
He won three times in a blue state. He could win nationally.
The swing voters in exit polling said they were voting against the recall, not FOR Walker; they felt he was fairly elected and deserved to serve out his term, despite their party alliance or their distaste for him. I don't remember the statistics from the election and am not sure where to find them, but somewhere around 10-12% of Wisconsin voters took this stance. Most didn't vote for him initially, but they respected the process enough to leave him in office once he got there. I was working in DC at the time and it was covered/discussed extensively.
Maybe you have to have grown up in the WI/MN/IA area to "get" this concept; I recognized it when I heard it from them, though I didn't agree with them. If they thought he was doing a bad job, they should've voted to recall, IMO. Seems like there was some issue with whoever it was that likely would replace him; some negative thing came out a few days before the election about that person, and a few interviewees didn't want that person in office either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-to-announce-2016-run-for-president-on-sunday.html?_r=0
She's getting in earlier than some of others. I wonder if part of her strategy isn't to get rid of as many existing issues as possible before things really get ramped up--the Clinton's ties to foreign countries (getting lots of money from foreign countries could mean they want some consideration to be possible; it is a unique position for her because her husband was already President), her involvement in the current administration, some of the past issues (Whitewater and making a lot on a cattle deal in a way no one else seems to make near as much), etc.
She also can set the tone for how much she wants to distance herself from the current administration. That is going to be interesting. Too far and she may alienate certain people; to little, another group may be offended. The Clintons have been good at finding the middle; can they bring back the magic?
All that stuff will be sorted out as others get in and it won't matter as much if brought up later. That is the way things go in elections. Some will say it is unfair to bring up the White House stuff and other things because they have already been hashed out, but she is running for President again and it will all be mentioned.
I also wonder how much she'll use the "W" (Woman) card--she has stated that it is time to have a woman President. I don't disagree. The question of having a woman is much different than the question of having a particular woman.
It is starting to get interesting...you have this, the Pauls disagreeing on the Senate letter about Iran, etc. all getting going.
Quote: RonC
She's getting in earlier than some of others. I wonder if part of her strategy isn't to get rid of as many existing issues as possible before things really get ramped up--the Clinton's ties to foreign countries (getting lots of money from foreign countries could mean they want some consideration to be possible; it is a unique position for her because her husband was already President), her involvement in the current administration, some of the past issues (Whitewater and making a lot on a cattle deal in a way no one else seems to make near as much), etc.
Might be, but also to keep others from jumping in. It is amazing how everyone in the Democrat Party is so afraid of her. I think issues are starting to bite so before others see a reason to jump she wants to jump in and lock up the big donations.
Quote:Some will say it is unfair to bring up the White House stuff and other things because they have already been hashed out, but she is running for President again and it will all be mentioned.
Some will say that but they are just trying to deflect. It is all part of the person's record. What she did with that server is criminal, but much of the nation doesn't realize it or likes her so much they do not care. To the later group she is a cult of personality who can do no wrong.
Quote:I also wonder how much she'll use the "W" (Woman) card--she has stated that it is time to have a woman President. I don't disagree. The question of having a woman is much different than the question of having a particular woman.
She will play it, but quietly same as Obama quietly played being black. The moment a guy attacks her then her people will pull her usual "you hit a girl" routine. IOW, say she is "tough enough" until it gets tough. Then play the woman card. Then the guy will spend weeks denying it and hesitate doing anything again. Whearas a smart guy would say, "so, if Putin does something are you going to just call him "sexist?"
At the moment she does not have excitement except among women baby boomers and some whipped males. She cannot inspire. She is not likable. The question is how long until her next scandal?
Using the "you hit a girl" routine should be seen as a sign of weakness. We don't need a weak President--if anything, we need a stronger one to fix the issues the fellow in office has caused in foreign affairs.
Quote: RonCRealistically, the "don't pick on me, I am this or that" thing is very weak for someone running for President. Putin could care less what color your skin is or what gender you are. The Islamic Extremists might be even more hateful if we have a woman in charge (not that we should let that stop us; it is just a possible consequence). The Ayatollahs won't care. There a re a bunch of bullies out there who will try to push everyone around, as they are doing successfully right now.
Using the "you hit a girl" routine should be seen as a sign of weakness. We don't need a weak President--if anything, we need a stronger one to fix the issues the fellow in office has caused in foreign affairs.
I completely agree, but I am saying what her history is.
Another issue I have is how she defended a husband sleeping around on her for years as far back as 1992. She has more of a desire for power than she does for self-respect.
Quote: RonCToday is the big day...Hillary tosses her name in the hat (officially):
She officially put her name in the hat, but she has been campaigning for about a year. I have seen her campaign bus on the Kennedy Expressway multiple times going all the way back to last summer
Quote: Gabes22She officially put her name in the hat, but she has been campaigning for about a year. I have seen her campaign bus on the Kennedy Expressway multiple times going all the way back to last summer
You are correct; others have been doing the same thing.
It gets more intense when they announce...
She already has a built in advantage without playing it. Just the fact that she IS a woman. In this country at this particular time, we are sensitive to discrimination and bullying. Some may argue over-sensitive. Right or wrong....that's the current climate.
When Senator Paul, attacks Hillary in a way that he has promised to, I don't think it will play well. It will generate sympathy and votes from voters, especially female voters, but men as well, who don't like seeing a female aggressively attacked like that, even in the political arena.
I think whoever the republican nomination turns out to be (assuming male), he will have an extra hurdle in the general election, balancing political attacks without seemingly like he is "bullying" a woman.
Quote: kewljWhen Senator Paul, attacks Hillary in a way that he has promised to, I don't think it will play well. It will generate sympathy and votes from voters, especially female voters, but men as well, who don't like seeing a female aggressively attacked like that, even in the political arena.
I agree... But by the time the general election comes around Rand Paul will be long out of the race... He has 0 chance.
I'm guessing the republican nominee will either be Jeb Bush or Scott Walker. As a far left loon who wants the Democrat to win, Jeb Bush scares me more, electability-wise. Scott Walker is a weasel who will never gain traction with independents and has no chance.
(they were playing one of his campaign ads)
Quote: rxwineDon't care how much EB goes on about Hillary being ugly, having my screen filled with Ted Cruz's mug is nearly unbearable.
I can't stand Rubio or Cruz, especially Cruz.
He's a phoney baloney politician.
Hillary. She has so much history and none
of it is good. I don't get why the Dems
would saddle themselves with her.
Quote: EvenBobI don't get why the Dems
would saddle themselves with her.
The simplest answer is there is no bench.
There are some possibilities, but that's about it so far. Another contender has to basically steal her thunder like Obama did, and make their run believable to the party. No one is in that position.
Quote: EvenBobI have no respect for somebody in the public eye
who loses a bunch of weight only to put it all
back on again.
Surely you would make an exception for our own HotBlonde?
Quote: WizardSurely you would make an exception for our own HotBlonde?
I've never struggled with weight so I can't relate on a strictly personal level, however we all know folks who battle this daily. What she did was remarkable regardless of her motives.
The question I have is has she kept the weight off?
So much truth in one place.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/why_hillary_cant_be_in_the_moment.html
intention of running in 2016. She used
it as a leverage card to enrich her and
Bill with the hundreds of millions to the
Clinton Foundation from foreign countries.
Even the Lib press is all over this, how
can she possibly win a nomination for
dog catcher now, let alone president.
Quote: EvenBobhow
can she possibly win a nomination for
dog catcher now, let alone president.
Is your window open?
Liz Warren instead of Hillary. Is the bench for
the Left that depleted of qualified people?
Quote: FinsRuleJust remember everyone, Bob is great at predicting elections.
+10000
Benghazi? Ben-what-zi?
Personal email server? Zzzzzz
Donations to the Clinton foundation from foreign scumbags? Meh, yada yada yada.
Quote: EvenBobhow
can she possibly win a nomination for
dog catcher now, let alone president.
Time to put your money where your mouth is. I'll lay 3 to 1 on Hillary to get the nomination and I'll offer even money she wins the general election.
Quote: WizardTime to put your money where your mouth is. I'll lay 3 to 1 on Hillary to get the nomination .
I'm praying she does. Can you see her
running with all that's been happening
hanging over her head? Are any
of you even watching the news? Even
the liberal press is talking about the
Criminal Clintons.
Quote: WizardTime to put your money where your mouth is. I'll lay 3 to 1 on Hillary to get the nomination and I'll offer even money she wins the general election.
I'll take twenty [dollars] that says she doesn't win the general, if you would be willing to take bets that small?
Quote: EvenBobNow they're talking about the fauxindian princess
Liz Warren instead of Hillary. Is the bench for
the Left that depleted of qualified people?
As if you had to look outside the guy currently in office. His qualifications were 2/3 of a term in Congress (1/2 of which he spent campaigning), a term in the Illinois State Senate where his most popular vote was "present" and attempting to negotiate gun ceasefires with Chicago Gang Lords. Is the depleted of qualified people you ask? Yes, and it has been for nearly 20 years
Quote: WizardTime to put your money where your mouth is. I'll lay 3 to 1 on Hillary to get the nomination and I'll offer even money she wins the general election.
I'm not going to bet against you; I think you've got it about right. So my usual function as square rather than sharp will have to go on hiatus. I would, however, take a small piece of the action along side you.
Quote: ams288I feel like right wingers are shooting their wads way too early with all these Clinton non-scandals.
Benghazi? Ben-what-zi?
Personal email server? Zzzzzz
Donations to the Clinton foundation from foreign scumbags? Meh, yada yada yada.
Obviously this must be satire as no rational person can simply say none of this matters.
Quote: WizardTime to put your money where your mouth is. I'll lay 3 to 1 on Hillary to get the nomination and I'll offer even money she wins the general election.
At this time it looks as though she will get the nomination because same as the NY Senate race the powers that be have cleared the field for her. Before you lay odds for the general though you might want to consider your position in 2012 that "the more likable person usually wins." Hillary is not likable. She has the aging feminists that seem to like her, but generally she simply does not have a nice personality.
Quote: AZDuffman...Before you lay odds for the general though you might want to consider your position in 2012 that "the more likable person usually wins." Hillary is not likable.
This is a major issue for her. She could win in spite of her flawed record that would absolutely sink her candidacy if she was a Republican (all those non-scandals really do add up to something...but you have to have a press willing to at least look into things for them to hurt her a lot), in spite of her being part of the Bush/Clinton gang, in spite of her looks (they DO matter, even though everyone would like to believe "we" are better than that...), and everything else, but she just is not likeable. Her speeches don't make you want to spend time with her, they make you want to run away.
It isn't that she is a woman. We should someday have a woman President. I don't think just running as a woman is going to help her nearly as much as running as a person of color helped the current President. She comes with a record; he had none. He is likeable and comes across as such; she is not.
Think of the last five Presidents--notwithstanding their politics, I'd rather have a conversation with ANY one of them than with Hillary Clinton.
Elizabeth Warren 1 to 5 to a real longshot 1 to 16 for the nomination.
Clinton winning election are averaging even odds.
Jeb next at about 1 to 4
Rubio about 1 to 8
My advice, listen to Evenbob and bet the house on the candidate he predicts to lose :-)
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner
Quote: RonCThis is a major issue for her. She could win in spite of her flawed record that would absolutely sink her candidacy if she was a Republican (all those non-scandals really do add up to something...but you have to have a press willing to at least look into things for them to hurt her a lot), in spite of her being part of the Bush/Clinton gang, in spite of her looks (they DO matter, even though everyone would like to believe "we" are better than that...), and everything else, but she just is not likeable. Her speeches don't make you want to spend time with her, they make you want to run away.
It isn't that she is a woman. We should someday have a woman President. I don't think just running as a woman is going to help her nearly as much as running as a person of color helped the current President. She comes with a record; he had none. He is likeable and comes across as such; she is not.
Think of the last five Presidents--notwithstanding their politics, I'd rather have a conversation with ANY one of them than with Hillary Clinton.
I don't buy that they are "non-scandals." The server thing is huge. The problem is you have nearly half the population that does not understand how huge. Both security and criminal offenses in it. Anyone that has worked with any level of security know this. At a low level in the bank we were not allowed to use a personal email for ANYTHING. They even blocked access to your personal email.
Then there are all the tax problems the Clinton Landry, er Foundation has been caught with let alone where they are taking money from. I still ask why on earth this woman even has a chance?
Ditto on the last five POTUS. Even Obama who reminds me of Pete Campbell, we could probably talk sports or something.
As Obama said in 2008, she's "likable enough" for the rest of us.
Quote: FinsRuleJust remember everyone, Bob is great at predicting elections.
I don't know if anyone is great at predicting election especially this early on.
Look at any predicions that even the most highly regarded experts make long before the primaries actually start, they are almost always wrong, or off as far as votes gained.
Almost nobody would have bet on President Obama's victory of the primaries let alone the general this early on. And yet he went on to win the general by a large percentage.
Quote: ams288You're republicans, OF COURSE Hillary isn't likeable to you.
As Obama said in 2008, she's "likable enough" for the rest of us.
The only people she is likable to are aging feminists and wingnuts who like extremist liberal policies. Nothing about her seems friendly or trustworthy. She is the woman in the office that nobody wants to deal with unless they have to.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe only people she is likable to are aging feminists and wingnuts who like extremist liberal policies.
This is just flat out incorrect. You are incapable of looking at her in a non-partisan way.
Also - "aging feminists"...? In your opinion, why don't young feminists like her?
Quote: ams288This is just flat out incorrect. You are incapable of looking at her in a non-partisan way.
Also - "aging feminists"...? In your opinion, why don't young feminists like her?
Well, as she is nothing but a partisan what is the difference? But you are not correct. I dislike her politics but also see zero likability in her. She always looks either miserable, angry, or acting happy to impress someone. There is not one thing genuine about her except her greedy "give me things" attitude.
She would not only sell her mother for something she wanted, she would send her FOB from her side.
As to young feminists, I do not think they identify with her. They might vote for her same as they will vote for whoever comes from the left, but they will not fire up like younger folks were fired up for Obama. She is their grandmother, not them.
Quote: AZDuffmanAs to young feminists, I do not think they identify with her. They might vote for her same as they will vote for whoever comes from the left, but they will not fire up like younger folks were fired up for Obama. She is their grandmother, not them.
You don't really seem like someone who has their finger on the pulse of what feminists identify with....
Quote: ams288You don't really seem like someone who has their finger on the pulse of what feminists identify with....
I hope not because most of them are crazy and suffer from misandry.
Quote: AZDuffmanI hope not because most of them are crazy and suffer from misandry.
Feminism is simply the belief that women and men are equal...
Do you not think that women are equal to men??
Quote: ams288Feminism is simply the belief that women and men are equal...
Do you not think that women are equal to men??
I don't believe feminism is the belief that women are equal to men, rather it is the belief that women are superior to men. If it were the former, 98% of the country would be feminists
Quote: ams288Feminism is simply the belief that women and men are equal...
Do you not think that women are equal to men??
You are incorrect. Feminism is the belief that men and women are IDENTICAL.
And that I absolutely do not believe, no rational person can.
Feminists also believe women and men should be paid the same for different work. Do you believe in that?
Quote: petroglyphI'll take twenty [dollars] that says she doesn't win the general, if you would be willing to take bets that small?
I accept! Please remind me, win or lose, about about the bet after the election. I'm very likely to forget about it.
I voted for Hillary in 2008 primary. I thought she was the best candidate on either side. In 2016, I am a lot less likely to vote for her. She will be 69 at the time of election and I just think her time has passed. But my main concern is the repubs win the white house and congress and repeal some current rights and benefits that are important to my household, like Gay Marriage and Social Security (which my spouse receives). That's not far fetched as they have threated to attempt repeal on both issue. So I likely may have no choice but to vote for Hillary
Objectively looking I see a problem for Hillary in current polling numbers. It's a long way out and things can change, but she currently is in a danger zone.
Conventiional wisdom says that an incumbent politician, whether president, senate, congress, polling at 47 percent of less (47/48 is the cut off) is in serious danger, regardless of whether they are leading or trailing in the poll. It's that 47% number that matters. The thinking is that people KNOW the incumbant, and if they aren't supporting him/her currently. they most likely will not. In other words the remaining undecided break something like 3-1 against.
Now, Hillary isn't an incumbent, but she is as close as you can be. Everyone knows her and knows whether they like her or not. I they aren't supporting her now.....
So 2 recent polls this week: Fox has Hillary at 45,46,46,46,47 vs Bush 41, Walker 40, Rubio, 42, Paul 43, and Cruz 42. Ok fox is Fox (right leaning)
Quinnipiac who is left leaning has almost identical numbers Hillary 45, 46, 45, 46, 48 vs 39, 41, 43, 42, 41 respectively for the same people. The only poll that Hillary is barely above that danger 47 mark is the Quinnipiac poll vs Cruz, where she is barely above at 48. Cruz is not going to be the repub nominee, and all others she is currently below. Long way to go. She could improve her numbers, but currently she is in danger zone.
Quote: kewlj
I voted for Hillary in 2008 primary. I thought she was the best candidate on either side. In 2016, I am a lot less likely to vote for her. She will be 69 at the time of election and I just think her time has passed. But my main concern is the repubs win the white house and congress and repeal some current rights and benefits that are important to my household, like Gay Marriage and Social Security (which my spouse receives). That's not far fetched as they have threated to attempt repeal on both issue. So I likely may have no choice but to vote for Hillary
I seriously have to ask where you have gotten this idea? The GOP has never threatened to repeal Social Security. Bush43 offered to make it better which the Democrats successfully shot down. "Gay Marriage" was never passed as a law, so it really cannot be repealed. I thing the GOP realizes that America has lost the gay marriage battle to activist judges and will move on.
Quote: AZDuffmanI seriously have to ask where you have gotten this idea? The GOP has never threatened to repeal Social Security. Bush43 offered to make it better which the Democrats successfully shot down. "Gay Marriage" was never passed as a law, so it really cannot be repealed. I thing the GOP realizes that America has lost the gay marriage battle to activist judges and will move on.
OMG. Two of the three publican candidates that have currently declared are huge proponets of doing away with SS. Paul and Cruz. A number of others senators and congressmen, Like Senator Mike Lea are big supporters of doing away with SS. I won't even get into gay marriage. And whether you believe gay marriage right or wrong, now that people have that right and are married, like myself, a change would be taking rights away.
Quote: AZDuffman. "Gay Marriage" was never passed as a law, so it really cannot be repealed. I thing the GOP realizes that America has lost the gay marriage battle to activist judges and will move on.
Ted will never move on.
Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz filed two bills this week, one of which would establish a constitutional amendment protecting from legal action states that define marriage as only between a man and a woman, according to Bloomberg News. The other would stop federal courts from considering the same-sex marriage issue until that amendment is in place.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-24/ted-cruz-introduces-bills-to-stop-gay-marriage
Quote: AZDuffmanThe only people she is likable to are aging feminists and wingnuts who like extremist liberal policies. Nothing about her seems friendly or trustworthy. She is the woman in the office that nobody wants to deal with unless they have to.
I half agree with you and half with AMS.
The words "Hillary" and "charming" rarely reside in the same sentence. Back in the day she was never the gracious wife of the President and tea tray serving host. And she never intended to be.
All of the first ladies, including Michelle have adopted a more traditional role, though Michelle's is updated and kind of straddles a modern feminist image with a more traditional one.
That said, Hillary is kind of in the position Romney was in. Had Romney said, "hey I'm a rich guy who really does spend a lot of time with other rich guys sometimes at country clubs, but don't hold it against me, as this is what I can do for the country" it might of worked better for him from the beginning.
If she figures out how to roll with her image she will do better than if she tries another route. As a VERY unlikely republican voter, I wish her the best at getting it right.
The Clintons didn't rob the treasury the first time, so all the hubbub about financial gain doesn't concern me. They are also older and can pretty much do want they want and meet who they want. I don't see a lot of incentive. That leaves policy. Well, I'm not voting for most conservative policies so that's out.
Quote: rxwine
The Clintons didn't rob the treasury the first time, so all the hubbub about financial gain doesn't concern me. They are also older and can pretty much do want they want and meet who they want. I don't see a lot of incentive. That leaves policy. Well, I'm not voting for most conservative policies so that's out.
Didn't rob the Treasury, just hauled away the dishware from the WH...........
The thing is, though, who they associate with, who they get their money with, and what is happening to all that Clinton Foundation money. Back in the day the Carnegies, Mellons, Rockefellers, Fords, and others; when they founded a foundation it was their money they put up. The Clintons, OTOH, are taking funds from others. Quite a bit from foreign interests. And they all of the sudden have to refile their taxes for the thing? They have any number of ways to make more than enough money to live as comfortable a life as anyone could want yet all this scandal still around them?
I get it that you are not voting conservative. I am not ever voting liberal. I just hate when people (not you) try to hide that they are voting their beliefs.
Quote: kewljOMG. Two of the three publican candidates that have currently declared are huge proponets of doing away with SS. Paul and Cruz. A number of others senators and congressmen, Like Senator Mike Lea are big supporters of doing away with SS. I won't even get into gay marriage. And whether you believe gay marriage right or wrong, now that people have that right and are married, like myself, a change would be taking rights away.
I have yet to see a proposal for "doing away with SS." Any proposal I have ever seen wither makes it optional or privatizes it and grandfathers in pretty much anyone over 30. I am getting too old for a better system, but why not let people choose?
Senators cannot "do away" with gay marriage, it is a state issue. How would the Feds do this?
