The only working class people who love ignorance aren’t ever going to vote for a Democrat. She would do well to inform the voters that her opponent, should it be Walker (which I highly doubt), only has a HS diploma. Such an “attack” could be crafted without being risky.
So she’s more liberal than your average Democrat, in your view. A lot of Democrats would disagree with that.
Then she’d be closer to Pryor.
I’m well aware that she’s popular. Her only critics are in the Warren wing. And you managed to pretty much put her in both the Blue Dog and the progressive camp at the same time. One cannot be a Clinton Democrat and a Schumer Democrat. you’re making my argument for me.
I like an education vs. experience fight. Walker: “I ran a state government. You ran what? A Senate office? Oh, how sweet.”
Talking heads can also remind voters about the last time liberals put the “best and brightest” in charge of world affairs.
No, she’s right in the middle. Schumer is center-left (within the party), and Pryor is rather far-right (within the party).
Clinton Democrats are just “Democrats”. She has barely any critics within the Democratic party. She’s not a Schumer Democrat – she’s a Clinton Democrat (or just a Democrat). She’s certainly not a Blue Dog.
Your analysis is way, way off.
“You ran a state very badly. I ran the State Department very well.” No way Hillary loses anything on “experience”. Your obsession with governors is not borne out by facts, nor is your obsession with experience overall. Looking at all the presidents, there’s no correlation between governorships/experience and performance.
Yep – way, way fewer dead Americans, and way, way less money spent on blowing things up far away from home. One more dead 9/11 mastermind. Long term continuous growth. Health care reform. Immigration reform (albeit through exec action). Etc.
Well, shit. I thought this was the thread about Republican candidates for President. Maybe someone should ask the mod for a title correction?
Or maybe you guys could take the Hillary talk to the appropriate thread.
Um, Clinton helped found the DLC. That’s the right-wing of the party.
We are discussing matchups with the likely Democratic candidate. The Republicans will all have an advantage in that they will clearly stand for something, while the Democrat, as is often the case, will not take firm stands on anything. This will be defended vociferously before the election, and attacked mercilessly after the election, by the very same people. And it will happen even though it’s happened a dozen times before, as recently as 2014.
According to your theory that gubernatorial experience is all important, then these 20th and 21st century presidents had good experience:
McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, Coolidge, F. Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush
And these modern presidents lacked experience:
Taft, Harding, Hoover, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, George HW Bush, Obama
Somehow the republic managed to survive from the day FDR died to the day before Carter was sworn in (1945-1977) without having a former governor as president.
Call be crazy, but I think Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson were better presidents than Coolidge, Reagan, and George W. Bush. And I think George HW Bush was a better president than George W. Bush.
As Adam and Jamie would say, myth busted!
The DLC doesn’t exist anymore.
Dodging again. YOu don’t actually know what she stands for, do you?
However, you do know very well how she will market herself, so that’s something.
Anyway, we are again discussing matchups. The only reason you’re even in this thread is to trash the Republicans’ chances to win the election. If you don’t want to talk about Clinton, then don’t talk about the general election. Stick to the Republican nomination contest while somehow not discussing electability.
She doesn’t stand for defunct political organizations. In my view, she stands for mainstream Democratic priorities like women’s rights, health care, gay rights, a robust safety net, better education, trust in science, environmental stewardship, strong national defense, and a more hawkish view on fighting terrorism than I’d like (though, from what I understand, she’s been very good on Iran).
I’m sure you’ll dismiss this. If you haven’t recognized by now that you’re absolutely terrible at reading the minds of Democratic supporters, then you probably never will. I’ve told you this before, but just stop trying to imagine that you know what Democrats think – you’re just inevitably going to be wrong.
In his case, that is not something to which he should want to call attention.
[shrug] Worked just fine for Carter in '76.
So glad that the right shone a bright light on Benghazi!! numerous times and came up empty…Americans have Benghazi!! fatigue, now so it should be met with yawns when mentioned.
And Hillary comes from the main stream of the Dem party…doesn’t really matter where she is on the political spectrum, Dems will vote for her, as will some women that are swing voters.
Wait, did I stumble into the wrong thread? A lot of talk here about Hillary, but it says up top that this is the thread about the 2016 Republican candidates.
Guess adaher wishes his party had a potential candidate as good as Hillary. Sorry, guy.
I really don’t think it’s a mystery. She’ll be like Obama, Bill Clinton, Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren. The issues that unite Democrats are much more numerous than the distinctions between them.
What’s interesting is that where she has put herself out there, it’s been well to the right of the Democratic mainstream. She might actually end up to the right of the GOP nominee on issues like corporate welfare and national security.
Depending on your definition of “very,” that’s not so: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83510.html
I guess it bothers me a little. The Presidency is now far more complex than the office that relatively uneducated men like Washington and Lincoln held. All things being equal, I’d want a candidate with at least a bachelor’s. But if I loved him or her for experience, maturity, policy views, political skills etc., I could accept the lack of such a degree.
I don’t have an issue with people expecting a degree, as long as they also expect experience. People don’t become CEOs out of college(unless they found the company themselves), but people without degrees can rise to become CEOs. Experience> education.