# I don't think Hillary can win. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 28, 2015, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184 "2015-03-28T03:51:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/101 "2015-03-31T16:01:48Z")
> [@bup](#): > > By what measure are you calling Obama the most successful presidential candidate of all time? Number of votes. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/102 "2015-03-31T16:03:11Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Businesses have no interest in personal liberty, so that says nothing other than that they fear a backlash. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, speaking to a shareholder complaining about the company’s support for SSM: > [@Howard Schultz](#): > > Not every decision is an economic decision. Despite the fact that you recite statistics that are narrow in time, we did provide a 38% shareholder return over the last year. I don’t know how many things you invest in, but I would suspect not many things, companies, products, investments have returned 38% over the last 12 months. Having said that, it is not an economic decision to me. The lens in which we are making that decision is through the lens of our people. We employ over 200,000 people in this company, and we want to embrace diversity. Of all kinds. > > If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38% you got last year, it’s a free country. You can sell your shares in Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much. So…businesses are interested in all sorts of things. And better keep an eye on the NCAA… > [@](#): > > Once the furor dies down and consumers figure out that the only people that really have a right to discriminate are those that have always had a right to discriminate, it’ll be a whole lot of nothing. Uh-huh. Good luck with that. > [@](#): > > The furor will die down even sooner once the law is explained, and Mike Pence is giving it a go. No he isn’t. He’s blatantly avoiding explaining it. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/103 "2015-03-31T16:05:17Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Hobby Lobby disagrees. Hobby Lobby is a Christian business. The minority of businesses that have a higher priority than money of course do care about liberty. > [@](#): > > That is not the case in Indiana. Please inform yourself. The text is right here: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/03/31/religious-liberty-or-discrimination-read-the-text-of-indianas-religious-freedom-law/?wprss=rss\_national](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/03/31/religious-liberty-or-discrimination-read-the-text-of-indianas-religious-freedom-law/?wprss=rss_national) All it says is that the state cannot substantially burden a person’s practice of their religion without proving a compelling governmental interest. > [@](#): > > Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. The 1st amendment was always intended to be interpreted in this way. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/104 "2015-03-31T16:06:48Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Number of votes. Wouldn’t that make GWB the second most successful Presidential candidate of all time? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/105 "2015-03-31T16:09:38Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Businesses have no interest in personal liberty, so that says nothing other than that they fear a backlash. Once the furor dies down and consumers figure out that the only people that really have a right to discriminate are those that have always had a right to discriminate, it’ll be a whole lot of nothing. > > The furor will die down even sooner once the law is explained, and Mike Pence is giving it a go. The gay rights train has left the station and the GOP is still on the platform. As seen by the backlash against Indiana, the people no longer find it acceptable to discriminate based on sexual preference. There was a time when Republicans could motivate their base to turn out by putting an anti-SSM referendum on the ballot. Those times are gone forever. Now the Republican candidates are stuck defending what most find indefensible just to placate the extreme right wing of their party. If the GOP’s chance at gaining the White House was ever less than a long shot, the odds just got a whole lot longer. Thank you, Indiana! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/106 "2015-03-31T16:09:52Z")
Before we get into the weeds on this issue and hijack the thread, I’m just going to say that if you think this is going to be a “forcible rape” moment you’re wishing for something that’s not going to happen. The Republicans are all endorsing this law because they believe, I think correctly, that if it comes down to a debate between religious freedom and defending the right of gays to force wedding planners to work for them, Republicans will win that argument. What you’re seeing now is simply the media telling one side of the story in a very distorted way. That will change. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/107 "2015-03-31T16:11:10Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > The gay rights train has left the station and the GOP is still on the platform. As seen by the backlash against Indiana, the people no longer find it acceptable to discriminate based on sexual preference. There was a time when Republicans could motivate their base to turn out by putting an anti-SSM referendum on the ballot. Those times are gone forever. Now the Republican candidates are stuck defending what most find indefensible just to placate the extreme right wing of their party. If the GOP’s chance at gaining the White House was ever less than a long shot, the odds just got a whole lot longer. Thank you, Indiana! I agree that that train has left the platform. What I don’t agree with is that gay rights can be used as a pretext to go after freedoms the original Civil Rights Act didn’t go after. I don’t think the public will go for that. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/108 "2015-03-31T16:15:20Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Before we get into the weeds on this issue and hijack the thread, I’m just going to say that if you think this is going to be a “forcible rape” moment you’re wishing for something that’s not going to happen. The Republicans are all endorsing this law because they believe, I think correctly, that if it comes down to a debate between religious freedom and defending the right of gays to force wedding planners to work for them, Republicans will win that argument. Except that the evidence actually suggests that this will merely be another left-right shibboleth. The Republicans are not going to “win” this one; those who support them will use this as a reason to continue to support them, and those that oppose them will use this as a reason to continue to oppose them. The real question is whether the damage caused by any boycotts will be transitory or significant and the extent to which that will harm Pence, and it’s too early to call that one. > [@](#): > > What you’re seeing now is simply the media telling one side of the story in a very distorted way. That will change. Ah - so we’ve moved from “skewed polls” to “skewed reporting”. I repeat: good luck with that. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/109 "2015-03-31T16:18:20Z")
That’s more Hillary’s problem than Republicans, this bill aside. The media doesn’t get along too well with her. That’s the downside to obsessive secrecy. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/110 "2015-03-31T16:22:18Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Wouldn’t that make GWB the second most successful Presidential candidate of all time? I suppose, but I don’t know what that has to do with Hillary’s ability win over Democrats when faced with real competition. > [@adaher](#): > > She wasn’t even all that good at winning over Democrats when faced with real competition. The fact is, she got just about as many votes in the Democratic primaries of 2008 as the all time presidential vote getter. Describing that as “not all that good” seems slightly divorced from reality. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/111 "2015-03-31T16:24:07Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s more Hillary’s problem than Republicans, this bill aside. The media doesn’t get along too well with her. That’s the downside to obsessive secrecy. Step 1: Write narrative Step 2: Pretend facts support narrative. Cite that Hillary is any more “obsessively secretive” that her predecessors or peers? Did she have a “man-sized safe” in her office, the contents of which were never revealed? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/112 "2015-03-31T16:30:51Z")
The fact that she has never responded to a controversy by being transparent. The media has asked her directly, in many situations, if they she will release relevant information. Her answer is always “no”. Plus she lies. A lot. Such as her private emails consisting of conversations with a man who says he’s only sent two emails in his life, both as President. Which wasn’t the only lie she got caught on. And the media reported those lies, because the media reports relevant news, but especially doesn’t like being played for fools. Remember what David Geffen said about the Clintons? If you don’t, you’ll be reminded soon. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/113 "2015-03-31T16:40:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Wouldn’t that make GWB the second most successful Presidential candidate of all time? And makes Mitt Romney the 3rd most successful candidate of all time. I think this may be an imperfect measure… ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/114 "2015-03-31T16:44:50Z")
But I will concede that as a “phenomenon”, he was the greatest we’ve seen in our lifetime. Guy goes from state legislator to President in only four years. And I do think it’s fair to say that Hillary Clinton was up against a historic candidate, so that’s why she fell short. But she also had major campaign missteps and all the advantages starting out. As great as Obama was, I think that Democratic voters would have been happy to place him second and make him “next” for 2016. What changed was Clinton’s dysfunctional campaign and her husband’s bizarre behavior in the early primaries. There’s no evidence so far that she’s corrected those deficiencies. Infighting within the 2016 campaign began as far back as last year: > **[The Hillary 2016 campaign infighting begins even before the Hillary 2016...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/11/14/what-the-mook-mafia-e-mails-really-tell-us-about-hillary-clintons-presidential-bid/)** > > What the 'Mook Mafia' e-mails really tell us. And once again, this reached the press because someone with an agenda who doesn’t like other people who are likely to be in the campaign wanted to give them some bad press. This circus is likely to be a trademark of her campaign again. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/115 "2015-03-31T16:48:56Z")
Would you still characterize her ability to get Democratic votes in the face of real competition as not all that good? Because to me it seems like she did a good job, but lost to a historic candidate. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/116 "2015-03-31T16:51:18Z")
I would say that it was less than it should have been, which probably translates to less than it should be at winning over independents. But I would never declare that she can’t win. I just don’t think she controls her own destiny. She’s a generic Democrat. As in 2008, she’ll lose if the public has an alternative. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/117 "2015-03-31T16:58:42Z")
Ok, so she’s good at getting Democrat votes, but she didn’t live up to the even higher expectations you had for her in 2008. Is that what you’re saying? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/118 "2015-03-31T17:30:33Z")
He’s saying she’s a generic Democrat. There’s nothing that makes people get excited. As the adage goes, “Republicans fall in line. Democrats fall in love.” Bill Clinton got people energized, made them feel involved. So did Obama. Hillary is just the default “it’s my turn” (D) option. The great thing on her side is the Republican field looks \*awful \*(at least to me). ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/119 "2015-03-31T17:34:38Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Hillary Clinton=Martha Coakley. topkek ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2015, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184/120 "2015-03-31T17:37:35Z")
> [@bup](#): > > He’s saying she’s a generic Democrat. > > There’s nothing that makes people get excited. As the adage goes, “Republicans fall in line. Democrats fall in love.” Bill Clinton got people energized, made them feel involved. So did Obama. > > Hillary is just the default “it’s my turn” (D) option. > > The great thing on her side is the Republican field looks \*awful \*(at least to me). As does the rest of the Democratic field. But all it would take is for O’Malley or another qualified Democrat to catch fire. He doesn’t have to be the next Obama to beat Clinton. The next Howard Dean will be more than good enough. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-hillary-can-win/716184.md?page=7)