Better memory than me – I endorse your grades. 
Somebody decided it would be a good idea to vandalize Hillary’s father’s tombstone on the day of her announcement.
Which makes her a fairly typical middle-class/upper-class American nowadays.
Once again, you mean “presumptive.”
I agree that the Democrats don’t need new strategy, but they face a similar problem in 2016 to what they faced in 2004. Just as incumbents are hard to beat, it’s also hard to succeed a two term incumbent of the same party. Whether or not that can be done depends on how well they governed. Campaign strategy is not too important when the public already has firm feelings about how a party has governed. If Obama is unpopular in 2016, Clinton will not succeed him. Simple as that. If he is, then she has a good chance. There’s just no way she can run as anything but Obama’s third term, so her fate is tied up in his.
Well, after 2016 the Democrats may need to figure out why they can’t get their voters to turn out. I still believe that the increased turnout of 2008 and 2012 was an Obama phenomenon. If I’m right, then 2016 will go much as 2014 and 2010 did.
You think Democratic turnout in a presidential election is likely to go the same way it did in midterm election years? Despite decades of evidence to the contrary?
Okay…
Obama wasn’t that popular in 2012, and he won handily. “Popular” and “unpopular” are grey rather than black and white. If Obama’s approval/favorability is in the high 40s to low 50s (or higher, which is probably unlikely) around election day, then the Democrat will probably win easily. If it’s in the low 40s or lower, then the Democrat will probably lose. If it’s in the mid 40s, it will probably be close.
Since you said “decades”, I agree that Democratic turnout will be along the lines of the pre-Obama era. I did not mean to imply that Democrats would turn out at 30% rates again, just that turnout would be a problem for them, rather than an asset as it was in 2008 and 2012. Turnout being an asset for Democrats is unique to those two elections, it’s not something that’s been going on for decades. It’s just worse in midterms than in general elections.
Did you mean 2000 rather then 2004? 2004 was the year Bush was running for re-election. 2000 was when Gore was seeking to replace Bill Clinton. And while Bush ended up winning the election, Gore received half a million more votes. I don’t think the Republicans want to base their strategy on winning the election again through the Electoral College and the Supreme Court.
2010 and 2014 were not Presidential elections - midterm elections get different turnouts. And assuming Hillary Clinton is nominated, we’re going to have an election where Bill Clinton and Barack Obama will be out there campaigning. Plus the first female nominee for President. I don’t think you should count on a low turnout.
Easy. In adaher’s universe, elections won by Democrats just don’t count.
If the same people that voted for President Obama show up it won’t be a low turnout, but I think they will sit this one out. The poor people (at least they looked poor didn’t they) stood in line for hours to cast their votes for President Obama.
They showed their passion … some say Barrack Obama bribed them with subsidized health care. I say they were sure of Obama and not so sure of Romney.
and as for Gore … he has proven that he would’ve been a bad choice. Gore didn’t even win his home state of Tennessee, divorced his wife, sold his television channel to the Arabs making tons of money and now he can sleep with his Oscar.
I’m a Buffalo Bills fan. I know all about denial.
But the reality is that if you want your team to win, the first step is to make a honest review of what happened and admit you lost. And then figure out why you lost and what you need to change in order to win. If you lose and refuse to acknowledge your defeat, you’re just going to lose again.
Read my previous post. You don’t have a plan. You’re just hoping that all of the people who voted for the Democratic candidate in the last six elections will decide for some reason to not do it this time.
It doesn’t matter if you think Obama and Gore were mistakes. It doesn’t even matter if everyone else agreed with you that they were mistakes. The only thing that matters is they got the votes on Election Day. If Hillary Clinton manages to do that as well, it won’t matter what people think about her for the next four years after that.
I don’t understand the term “She got forked” Does that equate to pulling the straw out of the cake to see if it is done?
I see a path for not being the next POTUS … not so sure about the nomination yet with Hillary being the only one running.
I brought this subject up last year and got laughed at that it was a joke.
Surely this would evoke a law suit if not true: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bill-eleanor-roosevelt-passed-me-message-through-hillary-week
Hillary Clinton talks to Eleanor Roosevelt
Why doesn’t this news shock people to ask her out loud if she hears voices?
You can not hear voices and be considered a sane person … no matter who you are especially a person as high up as Mrs Clinton.
That news is two and half years old, but this one is from this morning and from Hillary’s camp I do believe:https://www.yahoo.com/politics/how-eleanor-roosevelt-inspired-hillary-clintons-116324891731.html
She can’t impress anyone with hearing the voice of Eleanor Roosevelt while she was living in the White House of all places. Isn’t Bob Woodward a reliable source?
I can see the news now, “What happened to Hillary”
Stick a fork in it, its done. During her last primary campaign, we had several “Fork Hillary” threads indicating people thought her campaign had bit the dust.
Oh yeah, that reads just like it came from Mrs. Clinton’s camp. :rolleyes:
I don’t think that finding out that Mrs. Clinton engaged in imaginary conversations will sway voters one way or the other. It’s not like she’s consulting an astrologer regularly, right?
So, Hillary and Lizzie Warren had nice cup of tea and settled the Democratic Platform. And then this:
Hillary Clinton pens admiring blurb on Elizabeth Warren
My fellow American men, has it not become perfectly obvious that the soft guys with the wobbly bits are much better at this shit than we are? I say let us stand together in solidarity, finish our beer and belch out with a mighty roar “Yes, dear”! Let* them* run shit, we can always go fishing!
Maybe, just maybe, they won’t do better than we have over the last several thousand years. But could they do worse? Perhaps now, at long last, we can realize our truest destiny, as the Goddess intended: running naked through the woods, drinking beer and peeing on trees! All we need is a viable system of preventing stampedes when the snoos-snoos bell rings…
“Yes, dear”! Say it, mean it, and be free!
I would need a reputable source before even raising an eyebrow. There are few sources worse than the one you chose.
Maybe we can convince them to run for PotUS and VPotUS. We can let Tina Fey and Amy Poehler write their speeches.
CNN is better maybe? http://edition.cnn.com/US/9606/22/hillary.book/index.html
Sure it’s 19 years ago, but if true she’s a looney bin and nobody knows it. Talking to dead people is just simply not allowed in normal people.