That’s the best thing about electing Hillary Clinton: the chance of disaster is pretty much nil. She’s smart and cautious, which means probably nothing huge will happen that’s good, but it also means nothing bad is likely to happen other than the typical errors Presidents make.
She’s a steady hand on the steering wheel. I trust her judgment more than Obama’s far more than Bush’s or Trump’s.
The only real downside to a Clinton Presidency is the extracurricular drama. Some of that is caused by Republicans just dying to get her for something, but a lot of it is also self inflicted. WIth 2018 already looking like it’ll be 1994 on steroids due to the map, Republicans would love to repeat history and then some. Even if Democrats win the Senate in 2016, the Republicans have a good chance to head into 2019 with more seats than they do now. So they’ll be motivated to keep her approval ratings down.
Given the likely alternative (which is Trump destroying every last iota of the Obama recovery and the social advances we’ve made in the last 8 years), the status quo is preferable. At least if Hillary maintains the status quo, things will more or less still EXIST in 8 years.
Don’t see what great benefits Russia has snagged lately. They invaded Ukraine and got possession of a military base that was already theirs and incurred a bunch of sanctions. They propped up their man in Syria. Big whoop. Meanwhile their economy is in a death spiral. I’ll grant they may have tweaked America’s nose and got away with it, just don’t think it adds up to much worth worrying about.
The military campaigns have not benefited Russia, they have benefited Putin. His approval went from record lows (for him) to record highs during this span, despite the sanctions and economy.
As I said in another thread, this one has already been done with Obama, to the point where a SIGNIFICANT portion of Republican voters think that Obama is the literal Antichrist.
So they have to up the ante with Hillary. So where do you go from here? What’s worse than the literal Antichrist? At some point they run out of crazed hyperbole, don’t they?
I think the Right may be on the fringe of becoming, ‘the boy who cried wolf’, with all the overblown, unending, ‘scandals’ of Hilary. They may recognize too late that they are handing her a big advantage, as America grows deaf to the din from their constant, fearful, outrage.
When you think about it, what are the chances Hilary can ‘make nice’ enough to garner a second term? That positions her to recognize now is her time. Regardless to whom she is/was/seems/ought to be, beholden to, she perhaps needn’t be concerned with reelection. Isn’t it just possible political expediency could move her to burn some bridges as a result, to achieve her goals? I mean she never has to suck up to the money guys again, right?
For these reasons I think Hilary could prove a more surprising and interesting president than people can currently imagine.
If support for the primary doesn’t translate to support at the polls, and the Republicans crumble, there could be a shift in either house that could put a lot of control into the hands of a woman, who by all accounts, is a demanding, pushy, hardass. With no delusion of a second term.
The odds are stacked WAY against her assuming no Republican implosion next time. Four straight terms for one party in the White House hasn’t happened in a very, very long time.
I think she’s been aiming for political power for her whole career, and that she’s an achiever that will push her agenda hard. And she already rubs even her constituents the wrong way! I’m guessing once elected strident pursuit of her goals may make her less likeable still.
elbows wasn’t taliing about some historical truth though. He specifically said Hillary couldn’t make nice so she’s unlikely to get a second term.
And with the shifting demographics I wouldn’t rely on historical party in power flips too much.
Eta: she doesn’t really have constituents right now so I am still confused what you mean elbows. Her favorability didn’t fluctuate that wildly when she was in the Senate.
Ya know, I actually think she’ll be fairly popular as a President, because I don’t think she has any particular things she cares about getting done, so much as getting the job and doing the job well. She’s always been a bit strident and annoying as a candidate, but you’ll notice that as an officeholder she actually gains popularity pretty quickly. It’s only candidate Clinton that people hate.
We don’t often agree but I’m pretty much thinking the same thing. I’m okay with her not having grandiose expectations of what she will do or any great plans that she might have. Her function is to keep Trump out of the White House and keep the ship of state from hitting the shoals. Anything she does beyond that is a bonus.
Worst case scenario with Hillary in the White House is that nothing worthy of significant mention will happen during her presidency. Hillary is the consummate bureaucrat, not a bold visionary. Her presidency will be much ado about nothing. Her legacy, if she’s lucky, will be that she prevented erosion of Obama’s accomplishments.
Yeah it will basically be like the Bill Clinton presidency but without the sex scandals, and with (if one can believe it) an even more antagonistic opposition. So maybe half way between the Bill Clinton and the Obama presidencies.
