I think, generally, people are happy with Democratic progress, on health care, on protecting reproductive rights, on gay marriage, on the economy, more or less. What they’d really like to see is a democrat with some damn balls. Someone willing to call out (and stomp on) republican stupid, instead of trying to make nice and get along.
Being the party of the first black president, AND the party of the first female president wouldn’t be too shabby either!
Based on all the stupid the republicans like to throw around during their primaries, I don’t think she can lose, to be honest.
I’ll certainly concede she has many flaws and lacks many of her husband’s and Obama’s strengths.
She isn’t very charismatic, doesn’t seem like much of a schmoozer, one for small talk or someone you’d want to hang out with, and come across more like a bureaucrat than a leader, but she still shouldn’t be underestimated.
Besides neither the Republican or Democratic fields look terribly exciting.
They even named an aircraft carrier after him too …
I think a dark horse is going to come in on the democrats side after Hillary tells us she just wants to spend the rest of her life with her husband Bill and her new adorable grand daughter.
Jeb Bush can beat out the other two serious unnamed candidates in the GOP
leaving a tie for the next President of the United States.
I also think VP Biden is seriously thinking about taking a shot at it the crown.
I always like the slinging mud part where even Hillary and Biden both ran for the nomination you world see some real dirty faces.
Perhaps it’s you who should read more carefully. I specifically said “all the polls taken in March”. The March 18 poll has Hillary up by double digits, but three nationwide polls from earlier in the month show at least one Republican candidate within 5 points of her.
Not really, you said also that “One poll shows her ahead by double digits”, if you were correct you would had said that all the ones from the 18 do show her up by double digits not just one, I was indeed talking about the latest general election polls.
In 2008 I was quite ready to vote for her, and expected her to be the Democratic nominee. I’m on record that I thought Obama couldn’t win in this country. (I voted for him twice.)
But during that campaign, she appeared to me to be the type of managers, vice-presidents, and presidents I experienced in the corporate world. The ones who gave glowing reports of how well the company was doing and how much they appreciates everyone’s efforts, while at the same time making deals to outsource our functions and planning massive layoffs. Whether she’s like that in actuality, I don’t know. But that’s how she came off to me.
Again, if she’s the nominee, then I’ll vote for her.
I think Hillary Clinton can win just fine, but if she does, it will be because her opponents, both in the primaries and the general election, failed as candidates. Beating Hillary Clinton involves a fairly low threshold: just prove you’re a viable alternative. She’s the epitome of “generic Democrat”. Ultra cautious, does nothing to distinguish herself from her opponents, and avoids saying anything interesting at all if she can help it. The only thing that makes her interesting is her propensity to always be in trouble and have tons of associates who are also in trouble. The rather amusing infighting within her campaign is always a treat as well.
But given the problem Republicans have of even meeting the viability threshold, sure she can win. She’s not an idiot. The reason she thinks she can win an election with her extremely plastic public demeanor is that she’ll look like the safe choice.
Precisely. So ITR, if Hillary is going to lose, who is she going to lose to? It is generally recognized that in polls any individual generally fairs poorly against generic Republican and generic Democrat. Just saying she is a weak candidate isn’t enough, you have to finish the sentence “She’s a weaker candidate than…”
Well, the Republican race looks wide open at the moment, so I’ve no idea who Hillary will face in the general election. It seems worthy to note that Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio have all won closely-contested elections in swing states. Walker has won three such elections. Hillary has never won any. Her 2000 and 2006 Senate races in New York were cakewalks through a deep blue state.
And she lost a national election involving only Democrats. Which by itself wouldn’t normally be remarkable(most Republican nominees lost the primary before winning it), except that she lost despite having the most name recognition and tons of money. Her weaknesses in 2008 are still here in 2016. She hasn’t improved as a candidate.
I think any Republican who has proven they can win over independents and some Democrats will beat her. I wouldn’t put Rubio in that class though, because he won a three way race with mostly Republican voters. Walker, Bush, Kasich, and especially Christie have proven their appeal outside the Republican base.
Leaving their competitiveness as individuals as a separate item that I am sure we will disagree with each other about, there is the simple fact that Congress and for practical purposes the Supremes are in GOP control. Swing voters who have a preference do not prefer one party rule. Moderates (not necessarily the exact same block of voters) are a bit scared about what this particular incarnation of the GOP in Congress would do without a counterweight. Any GOP candidate who wins the primary will have had to pander to those far Right portions of the party in order to have won the nomination. Those statements will hang them high in the general. A different process than having run in their state-wide elections.
Given that as backdrop voters will have to do more than view one of those three as equally otherwise qualified as HRC (a hard sell in my mind anyway) to convince those swing/moderates to vote for them. They are handicapped by the success in Congress of the most batshit elements of their party.
True. I’ve been saying that things will be tough for Clinton because it’s always hard to succeed a President of the same party. Voters want change. But if voters choose change, that will mean total GOP control, which voters do not want.
I guess the voters could give the Democrats the Senate in 2016 and elect a Republican President. Personally, I’d prefer Clinton to win and Republicans keep the Senate if I had to choose.
At the very least, it shows that Democrats’ contention that they were the ones who engaged in smart diplomacy was just arrogant posturing. Despite their supposedly more nuanced, intelligent policies, the Middle East has gotten even more screwed up.
We’re even supporting the Iranians in Iraq while fighting them in Yemen. Now that’s some nuance.
Right. And I’m sure the conservatives who control the Republican party will choose George Pataki as the 2016 nominee.
The reality is whoever will get the Republican nomination will be expected to spend the next year proving their conservative credentials. And by the time they’re done, they will have alienated every Democrat and Independent voter - and even a lot of non-conservative Republicans like me.