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

Politics & Elections
101

“Outdated” to whom?
Even I would be loath to tell people how they should feel about someone.

Hillary’s last minute shenanigans when it was clear the the party wanted someone else besides her have left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths. Whether that’s been cleared remains to be seen.

To win, she’ll need to craft a coalition of minority voters, women,union members,etc. If she can do that and allay the concerns that many have about her, she’ll win. If she does the exact same thing that she did in 2008, she’ll garner the exact same results.

Side note: Since right wingers have whiffed two POTUS elections in a row and are now f*cking up as far as gay rights and immigration reform are concerned, what they “think” or “wish” is really only a concern for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

102

And the goalposts begin their march to the sea…

103

That’s five years in the past now, and in 2015-16 it’ll be even older news.

That actually sounds a lot like her base of support in 2008. Minority voters gravitated to Obama over time, but I think she always did well with women and union members.

I will go out on a limb and say she’ll never allay your concerns- and that she’ll still probably win if she runs.

104

Clinton disavows the financial deregulation he signed. As he should – it was a really terrible idea, with really terrible consequences (including the 2008 crash!). Thankfully, Obama does not support that (and today, neither do the Clintons). As to welfare reform, free trade, and balanced budgets – Obama supports all of these, depending on the particulars. Which is not surprising – every politician to the right of Bernie Sanders says they support some form of welfare reform, free trade, and balancing the budget.

In the real world, Obama and Clinton support nearly the exact same economic policies.

105

We’ll see.
I don’t think that her positives outweigh her negatives and she has done much to change my mind. If that’s what I think and I follow politics closely, we’ll have to see what the masses who just go out to vote every four years think.

106

Following politics closely isn’t the same as following politics well.

107

I wouldn’t know.
I do both.:smiley:

108

If she won the nomination, would you vote for her or the Republican nominee? Let’s say the Republican is Paul, or Cruz, or Rubio.

109

Based on what you’re been posting- no, you’re not even close. You’re getting a lot of stuff wrong. Following politics closely isn’t the same as focusing on gossip and media garbage about “divisiveness.”

110

Possibly.
Either that, or I would vote for an independent or not vote at all.
Even yellow dogs have limitations….:wink:

111

Please feel free to “enlighten” on what I’m getting “wrong.”
Also, wouldn’t that be YOUR opinion of them being “wrong” more than anything else?

If/when I am wrong I am willing to admit it.
And I don’t see anything on here that I have stated which is factually or historically inaccurate. That’s pretty much the “definitions” of what most people consider to be “wrong”, is it not?

112

You could start by telling us where you get that sexual orientation stuff from.

113

I did already. Read (or re-read) posts 100 and 103.

114

It’s no secret that people have claimed that Hillary Rodham has been bisexual since her college days. Huma Abedin has been rather “coyly” tossed about as being former Secretary Clinton’s “personal assistant” for years now, But then a woman with no known private life outside of Mrs. Clinton, conveniently becomes the “bride” (read: beard) of a former Congressional rising star.

Hmm…

People don’t say that powerful people are gay (or even hint at it) for lengthy periods of time without there being some measure of truth to the claim. There libel and slander laws which make that expensive and powerful people are known to retaliate when lies are constantly being told about them. When someone claims or hints at your being anything other than straight (especially in politics) and your best response is to ignore them, then there are probably things in your closet that you are seeking to hide.

While the GOP can be despicable, they can also be accurate, Especially when it’s not something that someone isn’t hiding very.

For those who don’t know Mrs. Abedin-Weiner

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2023831_2023829_2025219,00.html

115

People claim a lot of stupid things about a lot of people. Like the guy who said he’d had sex with Obama in exchange for drugs, they shouldn’t be taken seriously.

These words shouldn’t be in quotes, but who needs an argument about quotation marks?

116

Old news?
In politics?
Really?

Bill Clinton had sex with a woman in the White House 15 years ago and yet it still comes up. He made numerous crude sexual advances more than 25 years ago when he was Governor of Arkansas. That still bubbles to the surface.

People have long memories. If they didn’t, then Richard Nixon would now be seen as an elder statesman of American politics instead of a liar and a crook. People will still remember Hillary and Bill’s foibles in two years.

It’s not as if the media will allow them to forget.

I’m a minority, so I think that I’m pretty good judge of how many feel about Clinton. A number of African Americans still resent her actions late in the 2008 primary election when it was clear that she wasn’t going to win. And they see how limited her support was when the President ran again. Also Bill’s.

Maybe they can let that go.
Maybe not.
Maybe we’ll just wait four years and see if someone better comes along.

While she will do well with White women, she may do poorly with minority women. After all, simply because she’s a woman doesn’t mean that women will vote for her or that they even LIKE (hence, the polarizing factor)

I’ll go out even further on a limb and state that unless the President throws his weight behind, she may not win 2016. She was never an “insider” in the Obama Administration and she is doing little since she left office to ingratiate herself to them it seems.

She will be a 69 year old woman, whose husband will publicly screw anything that smiles at him and who dissed the guy who gave her the most important job that she has ever had.That’s not a recipe for success in most people’s book.

And she’ll face a GOP that is DESPERATE to get a winner in the White House. That will make 2008 look like a cakewalk. Even worse for her.

Politics is a horse race.
Two men look at the same thing and think that something different is going to happen.

I have stated why I think that she won’t win.
You disagree.
Again,we’ll have to wait and see.

117

She’s 66 now, and people discussed her age upthread. I rest my case.

118

I changed my posting
Thanks

119

So you’re repeating defamatory rumors as fact. Gotcha.

They most certainly do.

Wrong there too. Public persons have no effective protection against libel in the US, and less against rumormongering.

No, making a political opponent deny something is exactly what you want them to do. For them to ignore it instead is the correct approach.

So, the factual basis for the assertion is … what, again? That rumors have been spread by people who are afraid of her as a candidate? Really? :rolleyes:

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for that.

120

Oh, what the hell.

Yes.
Yes.
Really.

The issue is will it affect how they vote. And I don’t think it will. She had a health scare about a year ago - and it’s not shocking that a woman in her 60s had one medical problem after 20 years in the public eye - but I don’t think that’s going to be a big deal unless she has other problems. (John McCain had several bouts with skin cancer and I don’t think that affected his showing in 2008.) She stayed in the race for a long time, but she eventually bowed out and became part of Obama’s team, where people generally feel that she did a good job. That counts for a lot more than the end of the primary process in 2008.

I don’t. I think you’re assuming your opinions are widely shared, and I see no basis for that assumption.

Most people felt that Bill Clinton’s support for Obama - including his speaking slot at the convention (he got a slot usually reserved for the VP) was kind of a big deal.

She did well with women in 2008, and as far as I know, she is still popular with women.

She was the secretary of state, and she wasn’t a marginalized SoS like Colin Powell.

Both sides are always desperate to win.

There’s a reason people hate it when the media covers a campaign like a horse race: they mean the press broadcasts a lot of noise, focuses on all the wrong things, doesn’t analyze the important stuff, and doesn’t impart any understanding of what’s happening. So I think you picked the right metaphor for you. And again, I’m not predicting that she’s going to win. I think it’s dumb to make predictions at this point - which means it’s goofy to say she doesn’t have a chance. She has a really good one.

Ahahahahaha.