She has similar weaknesses to Romney. Plus she also sorta failed despite having all the early advantages, even though it wasn’t in a general election. Plus she failed in scorched earth fashion, doing everything she could to bring Obama down. Nearly all the famous smears against Obama originated from her campaign.
If she can run and be viable, so can Mitt Romney.
Yes, they’re kind of similar if you ignore all the facts and context. Polls show Clinton with a lead of 50 points in the (early) 2016 Democratic field. Find a poll that shows Romney doing that in the Republican field.
Romney is polling strongly in Iowa, but I take him at his - and, by all accounts, his wife’s - word that he won’t run again: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/27/poll-suggests-romney-on-top-in-iowa-if-he-runs-again/?hpt=hp_t2
This shaping up to be another shitty election. This country has a wealth of smart and competent people, but for some reason the major parties offer up a slew of egomaniacal douchebags. Something is broken.
Clinton or Biden? Seriously? Cruz, Paul, Santorum or Bush? No, no, no and no. If a republican has to win, I hope it’s Christie. Simply because he’s closer to sane than those other guys.
I really don’t want to vote for Clinton. I’d welcome Al Gore, but that’s not going to happen. I really hope there is some surprise candidate out there. Bleh.
If there was a grassroots movement to draft Gore I bet he’d reconsider. Assuming Clinton wasn’t running.
The parties aren’t the ones doing the selecting. What’s broken is the fundraising system. It is prohibitively expensive to campaign if you can’t line up millions of dollars in money long before you give a major speech, so people who can’t raise tens of millions and don’t want to spend years of their lives doing it need not apply.
True, but at least at the Presidential level, given that donations are limited and the amount of money needed is huge, you need a ton of donors, which indicates grassroots support. Unless you can get at least a million people to give you money, you’re dead in the water. Obama got 3.1 million to donate to his campaign in 2012:
Hey, come on- he’s the perfect example of American bootstrapper-ism. If he can be born to wealthy parents and increase that wealthy by exploiting failing companies, anyone can.
But that doesn’t make “she’s a millionaire” an effective attack on her, because, per Marley, it doesn’t connect with her perceived faults.
Now I fully expect the wingnuts to go large with the “Hillary’s a castrating bitch” line, though I’m sure they’ll usually use other words for it that mean the same thing.
You mean, if the election’s about the things that it should be about, she wins?
I think you’ve just given Hillary your endorsement. 
Other than your claim of lack of authenticity, I just don’t see this at all.
She did have the early advantage in the 2008 cycle, but it wasn’t a huge advantage, and her side blew it in part by just never learning how the primary/caucus arithmetic worked. This time she’s got a huge advantage (seriously, has any non-incumbent ever had this big a polling advantage for a major-party Presidential nomination, going into primary season?), and I doubt she’ll let her team make the same mistakes this time that they made in 2008. Plus she became a better campaigner as she went along in 2008.
And scorched earth? Sorry. Bringing up things she said that you think should have had that effect is different from showing actual scorched earth. Where’s the residue of ill will that should be the evidence? The polls say it doesn’t exist.
I had been saying that there was plenty of time for people to forget about Rubio’s earlier problems, and for him to make a comeback.
But the more I see of him, the less I think he’s capable of it. The whole anti-DREAMer bit is going to keep biting him in the ass, especially contrasted with his earlier attempt to run on immigration reform. And it’s not an issue he will be able to run from: his ethnicity, his earlier attempt to make immigration reform his big issue, and the DREAM kids following him around are a triple threat there.
And cozying up tothe leadership of a fundie university that blames campus rape victims for being raped, and demands that they repent and forgive their rapists, would certainly hurt him in the general election.
I’m sure you do think so. But your thoughts are not based on the facts. The facts that you’re claiming the Kennedys are “old money” (they were second generation rich) or the Roosevelts “super wealth” (Hoover was actually substantially wealthier than FDR).
According to Forbes, the wealthiest Kennedy is Caroline Kennedy and her total wealth is approximately $175,000,000. Now that’s obviously rich but it’s not super-rich. The Forbes 400 lists the four hundred richest people in America and the poorest person on that list has $1,300,000,000.
How the hell can you not put Christie at the very top of the “egomaniacal douchebag” list?
He’s certainly in my top five.
They all are. I was selecting the least offensive egomaniacal douchebag, politically speaking. If a republican wins, I hope it’s Christie because he’s not an extremist and there would be a lot of entertainment value.
Yeesh. Romney is sounding a bit cagier about another run these days…
Regarding the 47% comment…
[QUOTE=Romney]
“My mistake was that I was speaking in a way that reflected back to the man. If I had been able to see the camera, I would have remembered that I was talking to the whole world, not just the man.”
[/QUOTE]
Wow. That is a very telling quote.
And another article from CNN this time speculationg on a Clinton v Romney 2016 campaign.
At this point I think CNN may be trying to wag the dog.
If he runs again, he’ll have spent more time running for president than FDR did being president. His 2012 campaign strategy of sprinting to the microphone the first Friday of every month and wailing about the unemployment data isn’t going to work too well in 2016. What are we going to see now that we haven’t seen and rejected earlier?
Was he truly rejected, or just beaten by a better campaigner? That’s the question that Republicans will be asking ourselves if he chooses to get back into the race. Another factor is that Romney’s 2012 run was much better than his 2008 run. Maybe he’ll be even better in 2016. Whether Clinton has learned anything from 2008 remains to be seen. Judging from her still overly cautious and artificial public persona, it does not appear that she has.