I voted for Obama & I don't think Hillary Clinton has prayer of being the next POTUS

[Gyrate]

@adaher

You’re right on both counts the way I see it, but I don’t think every liberal will see conservatives’ favorite Democrat, or K Street’s favorite Democrat, as the one they want.

I’m sure there are those who will consider those to be demerits against her, but much will depend on who else runs. I suspect that the liberals will end up overlooking a lot in order to elect the strongest Democratic female candidate since, well, since Clinton herself in 2008.

You’d think my partial endorsement would change some minds too.

Nobody’s perfect.

If she’s elected, the Republican Congress and her are going to do great things. We’ll reform welfare a little more, pass more free trade agreements, cut spending and the federal workforce, deregulate, and maybe we’ll even throw in a tax cut.

Ha ha! Good one. Wait - were you serious? Hillary Clinton drives the conservative fringe crazier than Bill did, and possibly as much as Obama does. You’ll see the same obstinate obstructionism we’ve seen since January 2009 from Congressional Republicans. No way in hell do they work with her. And now that she knows that they’ll do this, she’ll have no reason to try to appease them.

[Marley23]

@adaher

She’s also clearly conservatives’ favorite Democrat, with 25% willing to vote for her:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/04/poll-a-quarter-of-republicans-say-they-would-vote-for-clinton-in-2016/

I continue to think that should she run in 2016, almost zero of these people will vote for her. It’s easy to say you’re willing to vote for a candidate because it costs nothing anyway - and it’s doubly easy when the Republican field is unsettled and not looking very good from a distance.

[adaher]

@Gyrate

Ha ha! Good one. Wait - were you serious? Hillary Clinton drives the conservative fringe crazier than Bill did, and possibly as much as Obama does. You’ll see the same obstinate obstructionism we’ve seen since January 2009 from Congressional Republicans. No way in hell do they work with her. And now that she knows that they’ll do this, she’ll have no reason to try to appease them.

Used to. For quite a few years now her traditional conservative enemies have been fondly remembering the Clinton years. I personally thought the Clinton administration was just fine myself, even at the time. A lot of conservative victories were won during the 90s, and most of the time Clinton didn’t stand in the way, and often actively helped(the budget battles of his first term that led to the government shutdown were an exception).

Yeah, at least 75% of us would rather have a conservative, and unless the Republicans nominate a Bible thumper like Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee, I’ll be voting for the GOP candidate. But Clinton’s good enough for me that I don’t see a need to go all out to oppose her candidacy, nor will my head explode should she win, like it did when Obama won. Took about three months for them to put my head back together again.

[adaher]

@Marley23

I continue to think that should she run in 2016, almost zero of these people will vote for her. It’s easy to say you’re willing to vote for a candidate because it costs nothing anyway - and it’s doubly easy when the Republican field is unsettled and not looking very good from a distance.

She won’t get anywhere near 25%, but she’ll easily outperform Obama among conservatives I bet. A lot also depends on who is running on the GOP side.

With the GOP divided, there’s a lot of Republican voters who for their own reasons would be happy to jump on the Clinton bandwagon if a candidate they can’t stand gets the nomination. This would not be true if the nominee was Liz Warren, someone who would unite conservatives against her.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Used to. For quite a few years now her traditional conservative enemies have been fondly remembering the Clinton years. I personally thought the Clinton administration was just fine myself, even at the time. A lot of conservative victories were won during the 90s, and most of the time Clinton didn’t stand in the way, and often actively helped(the budget battles of his first term that led to the government shutdown were an exception).

Yeah, at least 75% of us would rather have a conservative, and unless the Republicans nominate a Bible thumper like Rick Santorum or Mike Huckabee, I’ll be voting for the GOP candidate. But Clinton’s good enough for me that I don’t see a need to go all out to oppose her candidacy, nor will my head explode should she win, like it did when Obama won. Took about three months for them to put my head back together again.

I think you’d be right if the current incarnation of Republicans in office weren’t in thrall of complete nutbars. But they are in thrall of nutbars, and I see no evidence that they would suddenly start to act rationally if Hillary was elected.

And prepare for more head explosions – Obama and Clinton, especially Hillary Clinton, are so close on political issues that they’ve both admitted they had to stretch themselves during the '08 campaign to find ways to disagree.

[adaher]

In Obama’s case, he had to lie. But as the Man himself would point out, campaign talk is just that: campaign talk. The anti-NAFTA stuff being a great example. Both Obama and Clinton are pro-NAFTA, but weren’t going to say that during a competitive primary campaign.

I’m sure Clinton will say all the things liberal wants to hear in the primary, say all the things independents want to hear in the general, and then the Clintons will do what they did last time.

As for Republicans being unreasonable, I say that’s because of who the President is. They will work with Clinton. And I’ve got a feather in my cap now: I predicted the Republicans would not do a government shutdown again or threaten the nation’s credit, and they didn’t. Turns out they can be reasonable when it’s in their interests to be reasonable. They can also be reasonable when a President is actually trying to work with them. They passed Obama’s free trade agreements when he needed them to and when the President couldn’t rely on his own party.

[Marley23]

@adaher

As for Republicans being unreasonable, I say that’s because of who the President is. They will work with Clinton.

And you’ll be saying the same when Clinton (or someone else) is president and you want to talk up some other alternative. Nobody’s buying it.

I predicted the Republicans would not do a government shutdown again or threaten the nation’s credit, and they didn’t. Turns out they can be reasonable when it’s in their interests to be reasonable.

Everybody knew that: the shutdown was a humiliating loss for them.

They can also be reasonable when a President is actually trying to work with them.

Obama offered them nothing during the shutdown and they caved anyway. Remember? They demanded tradeoffs in return for raising the debt limit, the Democrats said no, and they passed the clean debt limit increase they swore they wouldn’t pass because there was no other way out. They weren’t being reasonable. They lost, and they didn’t shut down the government again because they knew they’d lose again.

[ElvisL1ves]

Did the Republicans work with the *last *Clinton, adaher? Why would they be different this time?

@adaher

And I’ve got a feather in my cap now: I predicted the Republicans would not do a government shutdown again or threaten the nation’s credit, and they didn’t.

Which time are you taking credit for? Surely not the last *two *times they *did *do it. If you think it’s to their *credit *that they finally learned a lesson about basic responsibility, well, to most adults, no it really isn’t.

[erysichthon]

@Chronos

And I think that both Clinton and Biden are old enough that they’d both rather just retire. If they want to keep in the game, they’ll do it in the informal way, by giving speeches and managing foundations and so forth.

Unless you are a time traveler from the future, I question your certainty.

If Clinton doesn’t run, then someone else will be the first female POTUS. I don’t think she can live with that. (Of course, that could still happen if she does run.)

Biden desperately longs to be President and has run twice. As a sitting VP, he is better-positioned than he’s ever been. This is his last, best shot at the job he’s always wanted.

Yes, they’re both too old, but they are both too driven and ambitious to pass on this opportunity.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

The anti-NAFTA stuff being a great example. Both Obama and Clinton are pro-NAFTA, but weren’t going to say that during a competitive primary campaign.

Yes, a great example of something they agree on, thus supporting my argument.

I’m sure Clinton will say all the things liberal wants to hear in the primary, say all the things independents want to hear in the general, and then the Clintons will do what they did last time.

So she’ll govern as a centrist Democrat? Pretty much exactly like Obama has governed?

As for Republicans being unreasonable, I say that’s because of who the President is.

LOL. No, it’s because of who they are. There are no more Bob Doles, and the present wing in charge of the Republicans would believe someone like Bob Dole is virtually a traitor.

They will work with Clinton.

LOL. Perhaps if they have a brain transplant. You think Bachmann, King, Broun, Cruz, and the like will work with any Democrat?!?

And any Democrat who will work with the likes of those troglodytes is doing the country a profound disservice.

And I’ve got a feather in my cap now: I predicted the Republicans would not do a government shutdown again or threaten the nation’s credit, and they didn’t.

Wow, what a profound prediction. They went from batshit suicidal insane to batshit self-destructive insane.

Turns out they can be reasonable when it’s in their interests to be reasonable.

LOL. Apparently, your bar for “reasonable” is so low that any human not currently flinging their feces qualifies.

They can also be reasonable when a President is actually trying to work with them.

Like Obama was for most of his first term? Piffle. Those guys are incapable of being reasonable. Until Boehner and the few other non-insane Republicans in high positions put their feet down and expel the nuts, they wouldn’t work with Chris Christie, much less Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Not only is your analysis of liberal thought ludicrous, but your assessment of the current incarnation of the Republican party is nonsense. The nuts are in charge. Obama went way, way farther than he should have during his first term to try and work with them, including offering unprecedented federal budget cuts, and still they refused.

It’s a very, very good thing for America and for Americans that he’s not trying to work with the Republican party right now. If Hillary becomes president, and the Republican party has not changed in a major way, then I very much hope she doesn’t work with them either. Working with Steve King, Paul Broun, Ted Cruz, and company, on nearly any issue, will only result in a weaker, less free, and less prosperous America.

[Chronos]

Quoth steveroo:

Unless you are a time traveler from the future, I question your certainty.

I was taking it for granted that there’s a certain level of uncertainty implicit in any political discussion. Whenever anyone makes an assertion on any political topic, there’s a chance that they will be wrong, and yes, that includes myself.

[adaher]

@ElvisL1ves

Did the Republicans work with the *last *Clinton, adaher? Why would they be different this time?
.

Yes they did. And they hated him just as much. But together they passed tons of consequential legislation: NAFTA, welfare reform, tax cuts, spending cuts, deregulation, just to name a few.

Look up “triangulation”. Obama could learn something about it. Then maybe he wouldn’t be spending his entire Presidency with approval ratings in the 40s.

[adaher]

@iiandyiiii

So she’ll govern as a centrist Democrat? Pretty much exactly like Obama has governed?

Very different paths towards that centrism. Clinton took the lead through his triangulation strategy. Obama says stuff, gets ignored, then settles for what Republicans give him. He’ll end up with about $300-400 billion less in spending than he wants this time around too. And rather than be smart and take credit for deficit reduction, he’ll attack Republicans for it.

LOL. No, it’s because of who they are. There are no more Bob Doles, and the present wing in charge of the Republicans would believe someone like Bob Dole is virtually a traitor.

There are still John McCains and Lindsey Grahams. Some of the Tea Partiers are maturing too, like Marco Rubio.

LOL. Perhaps if they have a brain transplant. You think Bachmann, King, Broun, Cruz, and the like will work with any Democrat?!?

Bachmann’s gone and there have always been some hardcore partisans in both parties. Think Barbara Boxer will ever work with a Republican? Or Liz warren?

And any Democrat who will work with the likes of those troglodytes is doing the country a profound disservice.

Clinton won’t be where Cruz and Broun want her to be, but she’ll be able to work with McCain and Graham certainly, as well as Boehner.

Wow, what a profound prediction. They went from batshit suicidal insane to batshit self-destructive insane.

It seems obvious now, but a lot of Dopers didn’t believe they would back down.

Like Obama was for most of his first term? Piffle. Those guys are incapable of being reasonable. Until Boehner and the few other non-insane Republicans in high positions put their feet down and expel the nuts, they wouldn’t work with Chris Christie, much less Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

“Just remember, I won.” Then there were all of his partisan speeches attacking Republicans when supposedly there were negotiations going on. The guy knows nothing about diplomacy, and now he’s proving it on the foreign stage as well.

Not only is your analysis of liberal thought ludicrous, but your assessment of the current incarnation of the Republican party is nonsense. The nuts are in charge. Obama went way, way farther than he should have during his first term to try and work with them, including offering unprecedented federal budget cuts, and still they refused.

I agree that the Republicans should have been more willing to consider revenue increases, and I think Obama’s offers to them were fair. I also do not believe they were sincere, and his current budget proves his bad faith. He agreed to certain spending levels for the coming year and his budget busts those caps.

It’s a very, very good thing for America and for Americans that he’s not trying to work with the Republican party right now. If Hillary becomes president, and the Republican party has not changed in a major way, then I very much hope she doesn’t work with them either. Working with Steve King, Paul Broun, Ted Cruz, and company, on nearly any issue, will only result in a weaker, less free, and less prosperous America.

Well, if she doesn’t work with them, that’s still a good result, because spending goes down, and new laws don’t get passed. This is the best job Obama’s ever done right now as President, now that he’s given up on trying to get legislation passed.

[Marley23]

@adaher

Yes they did. And they hated him just as much. But together they passed tons of consequential legislation: NAFTA, welfare reform, tax cuts, spending cuts, deregulation, just to name a few.

Then they tried to remove him from office. Way to send a message!

[adaher]

That’s the whole point. They hated him, yet still worked with him, becuase he was willing to work with them. Obama hates them as much as they hate him. And frankly, he spends a lot more time attacking Republicans than Republicans do attacking him. Thats’ really all he’s ever done since 2010.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

That’s the whole point. They hated him, yet still worked with him, becuase he was willing to work with them. Obama hates them as much as they hate him. And frankly, he spends a lot more time attacking Republicans than Republicans do attacking him. Thats’ really all he’s ever done since 2010.

This is complete nonsense. You are not living in the real world.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Very different paths towards that centrism. Clinton took the lead through his triangulation strategy. Obama says stuff, gets ignored, then settles for what Republicans give him. He’ll end up with about $300-400 billion less in spending than he wants this time around too. And rather than be smart and take credit for deficit reduction, he’ll attack Republicans for it.

Factually wrong, for the most part.

There are still John McCains and Lindsey Grahams. Some of the Tea Partiers are maturing too, like Marco Rubio.

McCain and Graham are Benghazi nuts and offer pretty much nothing of real value that would actually help America. Rubio is a cipher.

Bachmann’s gone and there have always been some hardcore partisans in both parties. Think Barbara Boxer will ever work with a Republican? Or Liz warren?

Boy I hope not, in their current incarnation. In their current incarnation, working with Republicans is bad for America.

Clinton won’t be where Cruz and Broun want her to be, but she’ll be able to work with McCain and Graham certainly, as well as Boehner.

I sure hope not.

“Just remember, I won.” Then there were all of his partisan speeches attacking Republicans when supposedly there were negotiations going on.

They deserved to be attacked. Attacking the Republicans at the time was good, smart, and true.

The guy knows nothing about diplomacy, and now he’s proving it on the foreign stage as well.

LOL. Nonsense.

I agree that the Republicans should have been more willing to consider revenue increases, and I think Obama’s offers to them were fair. I also do not believe they were sincere, and his current budget proves his bad faith. He agreed to certain spending levels for the coming year and his budget busts those caps.

Your beliefs about their sincerity are irrelevant – and the Republicans should have agreed to them, based on their stated goals. It’s far more likely that the republicans were not sincere – that what was really important to them was hurting Obama, not reducing spending.

Well, if she doesn’t work with them, that’s still a good result, because spending goes down, and new laws don’t get passed. This is the best job Obama’s ever done right now as President, now that he’s given up on trying to get legislation passed.

You’re hilarious. Your views are never consistent, you walk back nearly every claim you make, and you can’t even make up your mind about Obama! It’s like arguing with a classroom full of 5 year olds.

[adaher]

Republicans don’t need to compromise to win. They win when the government does nothing. Obama needs Republicans more than Republicans need Obama. Clinton is smart enough to see that.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Republicans don’t need to compromise to win. They win when the government does nothing. Obama needs Republicans more than Republicans need Obama. Clinton is smart enough to see that.

So basically Republicans win when Americans lose. No wonder their approval ratings are so abysmal.

[adaher]

Americans lose when Congress doesn’t pass at least 2000 laws per session regulating their lives? Americans lose when Congress doesn’t spend more of their money than they did last year?

No wonder Republicans continue to win a lot, despite your worldview that this should be impossible. Despite what many voters say in polls, voters LOVE gridlock. They prove it by keeping government divided.

Of course, if Democrats could find a way to govern without taking huge losses in the very next election…