“Been holding this Ace in the Hole all along.”
If Hilary couldn’t beat Obama, she can’t beat anyone. Plus she keeps making stupid comments about being not really well-off, how tough it was get a million-dollar+ mortgage when Bill left office, how she and her husband clawed their way up from nothing by dint of giving $700K speeches to Africans, etc., etc.
And she is like Obamacare - nobody really likes Hilary per se.
Granted, we aren’t even at the end of the 2014 cycle, and there is no way to tell who the GOP will nominate, so this is all speculative to the point of fantasy. But she won’t get the nom, and if she does she won’t win the race.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes.
I am against the plutocratic oligarchy that gains ever more power over We the People. There’s at least one plank in the Democratic platform I am against, but I’m in favour of most or all of the rest. Since I feel that the Republican party is destroying our country, and since I feel the Democrats will bring us back onto an even keel, I’m hoping for a Democratic landslide.
Since that’s what I’m hoping for, it ain’t gonna happen. Republicans take over. 
Are you kidding? He ran a terrific primary campaign, and then a terrific general election campaign twice, winning by big margins. I’ve heard a lot of criticism of Obama, but this might be the first time I’ve read criticism about his skill at electoral politics.
I don’t like Hillary Clinton. See, most of my working life has been in large corporations. (I’m currently working for a much-less-corporate non-profit.) There’s a certain ‘type’ of Management person in large corporations, and I dislike them. During Clinton’s primary campaign, in one speech in particular, she exuded the disingenuousness exhibited by corporate management.
But if she’s the Democratic nominee, I’ll have to vote for her.
The fact remains, however, that all Clinton ever did was win two Senate races in a blue state. Her first competitive race, even one where she was heavily favored, she fell short.
And it’s not like it’s just bad luck. Clinton’s campaign style is cautious, artificial, and boring. She only knows how to run a campaign in which she’s the assumed winner. It’s possible she learned how to fight from 2008, but given her current persona I’m seeing no evidence of that. She seems to have fallen back on the idea that her 2016 race will be a coronation. Which means she’ll be ultra cautious and never say anything remotely interesting.
BTW, one guy I forgot, but who Matt Yglesias has written about, is Mike Pence:
Well, we’re going through something somewhat similar now, aren’t we?
It also has something to do with their ideology. Nothing the Pubs would ever actually try will ever lift the black poor out of poverty, and the blacks know it. The Pubs can’t win that vote without changing what their party stands for.
You do realize what that says about your own candidates, right? That even the best of them couldn’t even beat Obama? 
Can’t beat somebody with nobody.
You guys are too fixated on stars rather than candidates of substance. Something like six dozen Democratic governors have done a solid job in their states since 1992 and the Democrats don’t have a use for any of them.
No offense, but this attitude is why discussions about US elections on the SDMB bear so little resemblence to the real elections. And is why Hilary won’t win the general election - the moderate middle does not “have to vote” for whoever the Democrats tell them. And if she is basing her run on people who vote for candidates they don’t like, I wouldn’t advise her on picking out curtains for the Oval Office anytime soon.
Granted, “anyone the Democrats pick” is pretty much guaranteed 80+% support on the SDMB. But the knees don’t jerk as hard in the general electorate.
Regards,
Shodan
It all comes down to states. Show me states that Obama carried that Hillary won’t.
In an election where Clinton is dragged down by an incumbent with a 40% approval rating, she’ll be lucky to win all the states that Kerry did.
Thereby opening the door for … Jindal, you say?
Gotta give 'em someone, and something, to vote *for *if you want 'em to switch. Not being Obama is only enough for people like you.
I agree completely. Problem is, the only reason you think the GOP class contains nobodies is because like most Democrats, you think that if a candidate isn’t a national name before getting in the race, they have no chance.
Bill Clinton might have some words with you about that one.
You CAN be a current relative unknown and get the Democratic nomination. Not so the Republicans- it has to be your turn (like Romney, McCain, Elder Bush, Reagan) or anointed by the powers that be (Younger Bush, Ford). So either the GOP nominates Romney again, or it’s Santorum’s turn, or they anoint Jeb Bush.
Hillary’s certainly not a sure thing, nor is any other Democrat, but considering the ease in which Obama won under rather difficult circumstances in 2012, and considering how the demographics favor the Democratic party more and more strongly each year, it would be ridiculous to be confident of Republican victory.
If the Republicans can pull out a one-in-a-million political talent like Clinton out from under a rock somewhere, then they’ll take the presidency with ease. But in the real world, they’re not going to do that.
The guy who was at the top of the Mentioners’ lists as a rising star when he was chosen from among all of them to deliver the 1988 convention nominating speech? The one who was the frontrunner all the way through the primaries, even after the horndog stories came out? If you think he makes a fine example for not being a national name prior to his nomination, it says far more about your own awareness and level of attention than about anything else.
The guys you keep holding out to us as your Great White Hopes should be grateful they’re *not *more nationally known than they are.