So was Nixon and Bush I.
Are you trying to refute me, or support me? 
Hillary isn’t the greatest campaigner, I’ll agree with that, but she does perform well in the debates. She mopped the floor with Obama. I think she’s several notches better than Kerry in that area. Won’t matter much in the primary, but it will in the general.
Obama used up all the enthusiasm for “hooray for the Presidential candidate who isn’t a white guy” and she doesn’t have any charisma to make up for its lack. Besides, all she has been doing about the various scandals and cover-ups that come to light is to stonewall them and carry on with a standard-issue campaign, and that isn’t exciting.
The comparison to Nixon is apt - same combination of paranoia, and real enemies.
Regards,
Shodan
The reason I’m concerned about “excitement” is that low-turnouts favor Republicans. I fear that if some of her would-be voters aren’t excited about her, they’re not going to turn out to vote.
On the Republican side, my impression is there are Republicans excited about their candidates. Now, it’s the crazyist ones who seem to get the most excitement, so… If they actually nominate a nutter, that would be a good thing.
I live in Atlanta. I do not understand your simile.
I am not excited about Hillary per se, but I sure am excited about the possibility of a Democrat holding the White House for four more years and maybe, just maybe, having the chance to shift the balance of power on the Supreme Court.
You think so? There are a hell of a lot more women than blacks in the US, if you’re going to take that approach.
Given their origins and truthfulness, that is exactly the right approach. You may note that these latest smear attempts have been just as effective at reducing her popularity as all those that have gone before, and that continuing them can have no more effect than further solidifying the lack of credibility of their purveyors.
You’ll see the contrast more when the Reps finish nominating the last clown out of the car. The “excitement” that, say, Ted Cruz offers does not translate to voter confidence.
How about “the day after the Dawgs’ season ends”, then?
Sorry - double post.
Why would there be honestly? She is a more poll driven and centrist candidate than Obama, and Obama has been so-so. I’m not sure why 4-8 more years of a less liberal and less principled version of Obama would be a thing to be excited about.
Personally I think losing the 16 elections would be a good thing. The 2020 election is the big election. That one will involve redistricting, plus it will be one where all millennials are eligible to vote.
It’s easier to win the 2020 election if you won the 2016 election. Anyway, there’s a good chance that the 2016 winner will appoint two SCOTUS justices. Each of the past four presidents got to appoint two in his first term (including GHWB, who obviously didn’t have a second term anyway.) Four of the incumbent justices are over 75, including half of the liberal wing (Ginsburg, Breyer, and the left half of Anthony Kennedy.)
It’s a fucking year and a half away. I wouldn’t be excited for a threesome with Emma Watson and Emma Stone that far away.
Yes you would.
With each democratic president, doesn’t the odds of another democrat being elected go down? It is rare for one party to remain in power more than 8-12 years. So if the GOP wins in 2016, the democrats will have a higher chance of winning in 2020.
The SCOTUS is a good point though, I’m not sure what will happen with that.
You would at least circle the date on the calendar…
Except W., who got two justices appointed in his second term.
Are you assuming whoever wins in 2016 won’t run again? Incumbency comes with a pretty big advantage.
Yes, I think the incumbency advantage outweighs the outsider advantage.
Whoops. I forgot we had a president from 2000-2004. :smack:
They’re all big, and they all matter. The electorate, at least the swing portion of it that decides elections, has a very short memory. Losing is never good preparation for winning later; you need to win *now *or else the regressive agenda takes hold for four years. Remember the damage W did in his first term alone?
Depending on what you think happened in Florida and Ohio, the Democrats have won every Presidential election since 1988.