Obama has learned he has nothing whatsoever to lose by telling the R’s to yell as loudly as they want, he’s going to do the right stuff for Americans. Well, some things.
Obama has restored most of what we think of as ‘normal’ for America. Ironically, the R’s have been so warlike, we start to think of a warlike foreign policy and sock it to the poor and middle class domestically as being normal.
Be fair. It could just be an admission that their racism is stronger than their misogyny.
I’m sure none of us are surprised to learn you prefer Democrats who are out of office to Democrats who are in office.
It wasn’t intended as an insult. But I notice that when somebody referred to the Pubbies earlier in this thread you didn’t raise any objections.
Pubbies doesn’t have the long history of intent to degrade the other side that “Democrat Party” does.
Yeah, I don’t think the GOP can win a national race as long as they keep talking like this:
Sure, they do mention some specifics like the debt ceiling and immigration reform, but those issues are big losers that won’t take the GOP anywhere. You really want to damage the faith and credit of this country because you don’t understand math? Please.
This endless talk of ‘liberals’ has become meaningless drivel that gets the desired emotional reaction from a shrinking number of people. Probably the only thing that makes the GOP look more stupid is when they talk about policy specifics they endorse, which is pretty rare anymore (just listen to the newspeak drivel they deliver to their base. Can you identify a policy specific? Does it even respond to Obama’s speech?)
I think the GOP needs a miracle to win in 2016. That said, I don’t think Hillary is it. Focusing as much attention as possible on her takes attention away from emerging, more viable candidates, and that’s probably the point of it.
Ah, but you miss the point. We like someone who is about to become President, possibly, better than the current one. We haven’t just changed our talking points because it’s convenient like your side did with John McCain once he actually became a threat.
If you want to know who would drive us crazy, it’s Liz Warren. O’Malley wouldn’t go over well either.
The point of my original post was that there is no party in the the US named the Democrat Party. Hillary is not likely to seek the nomination for President from a non-existent party. The additional explanation was because I was surprised you weren’t aware of the history of the term. You generally strike me as being pretty savvy in that regard and it struck me as unusual.
My failure to comment on the use of the term “Pubbies” is irrelevant to that point. Frankly, there isn’t enough time in the day for me, or anyone else, to point out every potentially disparaging political term used here. All I can do is avoid using them myself. 
Where I come from “Republican” is the most disparaging political term that you can call someone.
Object away. Admittedly, I chose the term because it’s shorter to type on my phone (and “Pubs” just sounds stupid to me), but I proudly declare my sneering contempt for the GOP and I actually prefer it for my expressions of that contempt to sting.
To be honest, when you say ‘conservatives like Clinton better than Obama’ I hear three things.
None of those arguments are very persuasive.
If it makes you feel better, if Elizabeth Warren actually decided to run for president she would have a really good chance of beating Clinton in a primary. Warren represents the repressed progressive populist urges of the democratic party that have had no outlet for 30+ years. But she said she doesn’t want to run this cycle. A major reason Obama won the primary against Clinton was he pretended to be more progressive than he really is.
You forgot drug dealing.
For whatever it’s worth, that’s not what the polls say (though again, it’s very very early).
It’s funny – this board has existed since 1999, and not once has the prevailing mood here countenanced the election of a Republican president. According to the general tone and majority predictions of this board, Gore won in 2000, Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2008 and '12.
Depending on what you think happened in Florida and Ohio, that’s what *did *happen.
The Republicans don’t get much respect here. For good reason.
Right, we aren’t practicing affirmative action here. We aren’t treating the Republicans equally just to “be fair” to them - in fact, we *are *being fair to them.
**Bricker **is also confusing support with prediction.
Even if we take your statement at face value that would make us right 75% of the time.
Which is true- Florida was stolen for Bush in 2000 and Ohio was stolen for Bush in 2004. The last Republican to win a convincing presidential election was Bush The Smart One in 1988. Based on that, I predict Hillary wins without breaking a sweat.
Just adding some additional stuff in support of your comment:
As you say, there was another strong candidate in the race. And this was recognized early on: on the Sunday after the 2006 midterms, the front page of the WaPo Outlook section was all about Hillary v. Obama for the 2008 Dem nomination. (You’d think for just one Sunday they’d have been able to focus on the Dems retaking Congress for the first time in a dozen years, but I digress.) So it wasn’t like the political world was regarding Hillary’s nomination as inevitable. Hillary’s campaign was based on her supposed inevitability, but that’s a whole 'nother thing. And while the polls back then gave Hillary the edge, it was nothing like the edge she’s got now.
I’m trying to think of when a non-incumbent Presidential candidate has come into an election cycle with quite the set of advantages Hillary has, and I’m drawing a blank. (Maybe Ike in 1952, but that’s before my time.) I really don’t see how she fails to win the Dem nomination in 2016. And while it’s certainly possible for the Dem nominee to lose the election, the GOP needs to thread a needle in the Electoral College to win, and I don’t see that happening unless (a) the economy sucks in 2016 more than it sucks already, and (b) the GOP actually nominates someone that the relative handful of remaining swing voters can see as a plausible President.
So assuming Hillary runs, I’d take her against the field, and give away points.
Tru dat. And while I know there are people out there who don’t like Obama because he’s black, having lived through the 1990s, I think it’s pretty clear that the level of antipathy would have been there regardless of the color of the nominee.
Or gender, for that matter, though I’m sure the wingnuts will do their best to portray Hillary as a castrating bitch. That won’t be the main source of their hate for her, but it’ll be an available weapon, so they’ll use it. But I doubt it will do much good; as Little Nemo pointed out upthread, the right-wing attack dogs have already been throwing everything but the kitchen sink at her for over two decades now, and reprising the old favorites isn’t likely to do any good at this late date.
You mean Terry McAuliffe has fans? Who knew??
Hey, Gore did win in 2000, so we’re 3 out of 4.
And it should make you somewhat nervous that John Kerry, the weakest Dem candidate in the last 6 elections, running against an incumbent GOP President, was able to get 252 electoral votes.