How many millions of your voters do you think will die by 2016? how many millions of new Democrats do you think will be able to vote by then? We won’t need Obama’s black turn out, we just need you to continue being the old party and us to continue wiping the floor with you with young voters. I don’t think Republicans are not going to win in my lifetime, but they won’t right the ship by 2016, not when the crazies are still in charge. Eventually someone is going to have to tell them Obamacare is a done deal, abortion has already been decided, gays will marry and hispanics will receive amnesty. No one wants to do it right now, but they will have to.
I really don’t think Hillary will run, primarily because of her age. She can be more effective, politically, by campaigning for a younger Democratic star candidate. I really like Liz Warren, but with the same objection. It will be hard enough to elect a liberal woman; an old liberal woman has one more hurdle to overcome.
If she runs, I probably would not vote for her in the primaries. Of course it depends on who the other Dems are that run.
I’ll surely vote in the general for whatever Dem gets the nomination, but if the GOP is sane enough to nominate Christie (big IF) he’ll be tough to beat.
Right now, we’re barely into Obama’s second term, so any predictions at this point are basically just speculation. Hell, we still have midterms and seeing how those results pan out on the electorate before we can see which way things are going. It’s highly unlikely that things will remain the status quo in 3 1/2 years, but we can suppose that.
In all of that Clinton strikes me very much as a McCain or Romney type of candidate, people see her as the inevitable candidate, if she runs, and unless the Republicans are in a significantly worse spot than they are now, she’ll have a hard time getting the Democratic base fired up. Assuming the congressional obstructionism stays in place, rightly or wrongly, Obama will be seen as part of the problem (as the president always gets more than his fair share of blame or credit of legislative activity) by a lot of the swing voters. So, if the Republicans can get their crap together well enough to nominate a moderate candidate, like Christie, she’ll have an uphill battle. Hell, Christie has made a point of demonstrating his ability to work across party lines. Meanwhile, Clinton is an old name in Washington. So, IMO, if she gets the nomination, if the Republicans nominate a moderate, which admittedly looks iffy right now, she probably doesn’t stand much of a chance.
But, really, we need to see mid-terms before we can say anything. Best case scenario for Clinton, I think, is that the Republicans gain seats, possibly even the Senate, in the midterms, they get all the blame for obstructionism, and then the Republicans nominate someone like Santorum. But even that all assumes that she doesn’t face stiff competition in the Democratic nomination. I think she would beat most of the other current front runners, but who knows.
An argument that boils down to “the Republicans will always increase their numbers while the Democrats will always decrease their numbers, just like I predicted in 2008 and 2012” does not get better with age.
It’s true that many Republicans share this magical thinking with adaher. There’s an interesting counterargument that does not involve the black or Hispanic votes, merely the loss of white votes. It’s made in this National Journal article.
It’s not just Democrats saying this.
The reality of every election is that there are gains and losses from all segments of adherents. Winning requires net gains. It completely falsifies your position to look at gains without losses or losses without gains. That’s wishful thinking at best, ludicrous propaganda at worst.
P.S. Just so nobody writes off the site as a propaganda machine itself, look at the link on the page I cited, Here’s How Republicans Can Take Over the Senate. It’s analytical and correctly, IMO, notes how close the Senate races will be in 2014.
Oh come on. The GOP “hate machine’ can’t be revved any higher than it was vs Obama.
Could this utterly-predictable RNC reaction to the planned Hillary Clinton documentary/miniseries be a harbinger of 2016?
I thought the same thing after Bubba left office. I was wrong. I’m afraid I will be wrong again.
The GOP tried that in 2008 and 2012. The frother won.
Regards,
Shodan
I think that all of the Hillary-hate is a product of the Dems’ imaginations. I think you’re still living in the 90s. (This reminds me of something I heard in 1995/6: In 92, the Dems used the phrase “The last 12 years” to indicate that things had been bad since the Pubs got in in 1980. In 1995/6, I was listening to the radio, and some knee-jerk liberal was going on about what a glorious new wonder Clinton was, and then she said that it would be much better than ‘the last 12 years’-which would mean a Reagan-Bush-Clinton time frame.
Hillary is being blown up as a big-time contender, now, but, when the time comes, she won’t even get the nod from the Democratic camp. Unless, of course, McCain is running. Her age will kill her off.
Reagan, age-wise, was an anomaly, and McCain, well, how well did he do?
Can’t, they already have gone up to ten, all that remains is painting the number 11 on their hate machines dial. 
And, they already launched most of the nastiest stuff vs her already. In a way this actually is a Good Thing. They have fully vetted her as a candidate for the Dems. 
The racist shit they unloaded on Obama, including “where’s the birth cert’ won’t stand. Sexist? Great, best thing that could do is attacking her even more as a woman and alienate their female voters too, just like they have completely lost the blacks and Hispanics.
In fact, they will try that, and attack her on age also. Thus losing seniors and women. The GOP will hate themselves into a minor party. This will turn the GOP into Ross Perot or The American party. Hilary may be the best thing that happens to this nation, just based upon that.
2014 will tell us more, but I believe I’m on solid ground because when Obama wasn’t at the top of the ticket in 2010(or 2009 for that matter in two states), black voters didn’t turn out. Or young voters. I think that won’t be a problem for Clinton, because she brings her own enthusiastic supporters to the table. Just making the point that the Clinton coalition is not going to look exactly like the Obama coalition. And a Republican can bring his own unique coalition to beat her given the right set of circumstances.
This too. The campaign apparatus matters. But demographics alone can’t win elections. Democrats actually have to get their supporters to vote, which is never guaranteed. The Republican coalition is far more reliable.
That’s what I’ve been talking about in the other thread, it’s the rhetoric, not the platform.
The only thing the GOP is adamantly opposed to is all the goodies coming before effective enforcement. If they pass an enforcement first bill, or set of bills, it will be very popular.
No, the only thing they’re adamantly opposed to is getting voted out of office.
And the enforcement bills already exist.
And are not enforced. Which is why the public doesn’t believe that enforcement will ever happen. So to build trust, enforcement should start happening.
Which is Congress’s business how?
While we’re at it, got any numbers for deportations under Obama vs. Bush?
I’m well aware of the increased deportations under Obama, which were done for political reasons, and stopped as soon as they ceased to be politically useful. There is no reason to trust that he’ll go back to even previous levels of enforcement once he has a bill in hand.
However, if citizenship and legalization is contingent on enforcement goals, then he’ll meet those goals.
??? The one thing Obama has done from day one to appease the Republican xenophobes is to ramp up enforcement of immigration laws big-time (even as the actual “problem” diminished mainly due to a less attractive economy), in the hope (I presume) that having proven his enforcement bona fides he would then be granted sane cooperation to make immigration laws resemble reality.
ETA: adaher, you’ve begun to address the issue, I see. But why harmonizing law and reality (while thus improving law enforcement, health, and the economy, not to mention compassion) should be contingent on anything, is beyond me. But fine, have your stupid fence and all that crap.
It shouldn’t be contingent on anything. The law should be enforced, full stop, no negotiation on that point. Whether to grant amnesty, that’s negotiable. Enforcing the law is not.
Obama stopped his stricter immigration policy before the 2012 elections and has no intention of reinstating it. Now he has a laxer policy than any President in history, only deporting criminals.
I call bullshit. The last 2 RINO’s GOP primary voters idiotically put on the general election ticket couldn’t beat a candidate who obviously doesn’t know WTF he’s doing, how is the RINO Supreme going to defeat a candidate that exhibits some traces of competence?
Who said anything about a RINO? We’re talking about Christie. The only, only, way that he’s not a Republican is that he was willing to cooperate with Obama on one very specific issue that was unambiguously to his (and his constituency’s) advantage.
Cool, we’re in agreement – the final immigraton law package should be enforced 100%. But that will only work if the law 100% is based on reality. Right now it’s based on about 20% of reality (my vague estimate), and was being enforced about 60% (Bush enforced it about 40%, and Obama is back down to maybe 35% – thanks for that info, I really wasn’t aware he’d loosened up).
But enough of this hijack. Back to Hillary.