This makes no sense at all. Chronos has already addressed the RINO bit, but are you really saying that HRC is a better campaigner than Obama? ‘Cause we had that discussion as a nation and Obama won. Fer cryin’ out loud, the GOP is spending a lot of money studying and trying to copy the man’s campaign organization.
I think HRC’s appeal is more limited than the true believers think. Voters vote issues but they also vote personalities they resonate with. HRC is an earnest technocrat, but Christie has true personal magnetism. However, if he wants to be taken seriously as a candidate Christie has got to lose weight, you can’t win the Presidency in 2016 as a morbidly obese person regardless of how charismatic you are.
I tend to agree on HRC, but she has the advantage of being a known quantity. Christie is not, and a personality that supporters describe as brash and refreshing can also be characterized as bullying and arrogant.
For example, it’s easy to forget that Christie gave the keynote address at the GOP convention last year–in part because of the Eastwood disaster, but also because his speech was roundly panned for its relentless self-promotion. I also found this passage in Dan Balz recent book on the 2012 campaign interesting:
I’m not necessarily criticizing Christie’s actions here, but it should be clear even to supporters that incidents like these are easily spun into a caricature similar to, say, Rush Limbaugh without the charm. HRC has been at this far too long to let opportunities like these slip by if she’s running against him in 2016.
Your thinking is skewed here. You’re looking at it from the wrong angle.
The fact is, when true conservatives run (or at least GOP candidates that cast the illusion of true conservatism, i.e… W) they tend to win. Those that aren’t, don’t, i.e. Bush the Elder, Dole, McCain, and Romney. All had the baggage of some moderate to liberal auras.
Christie is not going to energize the base enough, and GOP voters need to stop listening to the left about candidates we could have with cross party appeal. That’s how we ended up with the likes of McCain in '08.
Your argument is that those candidates weren’t conservative enough, and voters chose to punish them for that by electing the fully liberal candidate?
He “cast the illusion” during his campaign that he was a “*compassionate *conservative”, his handlers obviously considering the qualifier necessary.
Hillary Clinton’s weaknesses are known, but doesn’t anyone think that her stature increased greatly as a result of her tenure as Secretary of State? Her approval ratings certainly went up, to 60%+.
Yes, because liberals tend to stick to their principles, as sick as they are. Moderates are a conglomeration of shit that nobody knows where exactly they stand or are going to stand. McCain, for example, babbled out of both sides of his mouth on several issues over the years. The populace seems to embrace those that take a stand and stick to it over wishy washyness, even if the stand is opposite to their own and not in their best interest or the interest of the nation.
If this post leads you to believe that I find the electorate collectively to be a bunch of muttonheaded idiots, then you’re finally getting it.
I don’t agree with all of that, but it is true that working class whites did not turn out for McCain or Romney or Obama. They did, however, turn out for Clinton in the primaries.
My belief is that it’s because they thought she would be easier to defeat in the general election, and if elected she wouldn’t of been as radically left as Obama.
It’s beyond the scope of this thread but I have a big problem with the primary system. Why does Joe Sixpack who isn’t an official member of a party get to pick a parties candidate? Why is he allowed to cross party lines in the primary and try to pick the candidate for the party he intends to vote against in the general? That’s what I did in '08 when I voted for Hillary in the primary. It’s unethical but it’s legal and status quo in open primary states.
The party itself should pick their candidate and present him/her to the public. The primary election experiment we’ve had the last century is a bust IMHO. Yes, I am suggesting a return to the Smoke Filled Room.
I realize I am a minority in this position.
The only question is going to be “Does Hillary want to run for President?” She would win all the states Obama won in 2012, make Pennsylvania non-competitive, and probably win back Indiana and West Virginia. It’d be a landslide.
Maybe. that depends on the Republican candidate and how safe she plays it. Her major fault in 2008 was an unwillingness to take risks. Against a younger, edgier GOP candidate, I don’t think she’d fare as well as expected. Unlike her husband, she’s not actually a natural politician and her fakeness shows when she’s dishing out slogans and dodging questions.
For me, one of the big moments was in a debate where she was asked if Ross Perot was right about trade. She laughed loudly, and then… didn’t answer the question. It was pretty inartful.
I don’t remember that, and I’m not pushing Hillary for office. But if she did do that, I think it’s wonderful. Laughing out loud would be the only proper, honest response to the question anybody ever gave.
What are you basing this on?
Working class whites. They traditionally vote Democratic and supported Clinton heavily in the 2008 primaries and didn’t show up to vote for Obama either time.
She was campaigning against NAFTA. Her husband sent Al Gore to debate Perot on the issue. I think it’s entirely fair to ask her if she believes Perot was right.
They are Reagan Democrats too. They came out for Clinton, but also came out(less enthusiastically) for GWB. They are apparently the ultimate swing group, and yes, Hillary Clinton is a draw for them. But Chris Christie could be able to compete with her for those voters.
Not only does the outcome depend on who the Republican candidate is, it also depends on what happens between now and then. Three years is a long time. How will the economy be doing? Will we still be in Afghanistan? Will we be anywhere else as well? How will we be faring in such places? Will there be any major foreign developments we aren’t directly involved in? Will there be any major domestic scandals tied to one party or another?
Yes. (Probably GOP accusing Demos.)
I don’t see Clinton in the White House in 2016. At some point, and correct me if I’m wrong, the Republicans are going to bring up the crap job she did as Secretary of State and honestly even if she pulls off winning the Dem. Non, I don’t think she will get far in the General Election. Clinton is a good politician but I believe a lot of people don’t think that she is capable of running the country.