Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
NAFTA for starters, although she tried to reverse course in 2008 and say she'd actually been against it.
Walmart board of directors. (gee, does that count as being pro-corporation?)
Voted for Afghanistan and Iraq wars. (Yep, no pro-war hawkishness here...)
Sec of State during years of afghanistan fighting. (or here....)
Advocated military force in Lybia during Arab Spring. (or here....)
All this is moot of course. I personally believe she was perhaps the best candidate in the 2008 primaries from EITHER Party but she was kicked to the curb despite an enormous gulf in experience by a younger, more charismatic figure in President Obama.
This leads me to believe that the dems may not even nominate her in 2016 if they can dig up another 1st year senator that has the sparkle. I find all this Hillary 2016 talk ironic in that regard.
You do realize that the First Lady does not have the power to actually make policy(and also has an obligation to stand by her husband), and when she was out on her own as an elected official, She highlighted the problems with NAFTA.
There is nothing wrong with being on the Wal Mart board of directors. When you say "pro-corporation", that resonates to me that you are saying that she was for some group of laws that disadvantaged workers in favor of a corporation.
Voting for a war when you believe that war is justified(with trumped up evidence) does not make you pro war either. Or are you seriously claiming that if you believe someone else's lie that mean you were actually a conspirator ?
Doing your job now makes you pro war ? I didnt know the Secretary of State had the power to remove troops ?
Advocating for an end to a senseless death of thousands of people by a simple no fly zone is considered pro way to you, come on ?
Hillary didnt lose to Barack because he was more charismatic. He won for the same reason Mitt Romney lost, the way the campaigns were run. People may get riled up from negative campaigns like Romney and Clinton's but they dont get out and vote for them. She went negative in the states where she was losing, does great for phone polls and gathering crowds at rallies, not so much for the polls. it turns off a portion of your own base when you attack someone else's stances while not putting up your own.
Barack Obama was also in his 3th year as being a senator when he ran for President, not 1st (yea, im being a smart #%$), and I dont see anyone with his profile other than Warren, and she isnt going to beat Hillary.
in 2004, Hillary was simply a front runner getting between 30 and 45% in a 3 way race, as of Now, she doesnt even have competition with 50 to 70% in any given poll.
Hillary didnt lose to Barack because he was more charismatic. He won for the same reason Mitt Romney lost, the way the campaigns were run. People may get riled up from negative campaigns like Romney and Clinton's but they dont get out and vote for them. She went negative in the states where she was losing, does great for phone polls and gathering crowds at rallies, not so much for the polls. it turns off a portion of your own base when you attack someone else's stances while not putting up your own.
Hillary lost because the media was in the tank for Obama from the get-go, and because black voters put their own race above all else. Even the political correspondent from NBC, Chuck Todd, called blacks out on that.
I think any decent Democratic candidate is going to have a field day with whatever goon the Republicans decide to run. Anyone who looks at the demographic and voting trends of the last presidential election and says otherwise is deluding themselves.
The blacks will return to their normal voting rates when Barry is gone. Hillary is a glorified housewife with ZERO executive experience. The country cannot afford another 8 years of "learning on the job".
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
Hillary as the inevitable 2016 nominee? Don't hold your breath. If she runs, could she win? Of course she could win the nomination, but I'm certain that a Hillary 2016 campaign will not be the coronation that people are expecting. As for the Republicans, there are Republicans out there who can beat her, if nothing else due to the factors of age, 25 years of baggage, and a good chance that the mood of the 2016 electorate will be in favor of change rather than more of the same. Even if a Republican cannot beat her, there's the question of whether a Democrat can beat her in the primary. Will the Democrats go for a Washington insider with 25 years of baggage who will be the oldest nominee in the history of the party? That's an open question, and it's similar to the question Democrats were asking themselves in 2008.
Indeed. Although I wouldn't vote for him, as of this point I actually think Cory Booker is the best man the Democrats have, and if he wins the Senate election this October he could mount a credible campaign. He's a fresh face, exudes strength, and is a skilled leader who's not afraid to get his hands dirty - or at least, that's his image at the present time, one that may prove popular among the people in 2016. It would be really rotten luck for Hillary if her expected coronation was again ruined by a rising black Senator .
Could a Republican bet Hillary, possibly, but the likelihood of that happening is low. Hillary beats Rick Perry head to head in Texas in the latest polls 48% to 44% (June 28, July 1st.), although 500 people is a very small sample i must say.
She beats Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in Florida again, 500 people is a small sample, but its from Quinnipiac which is right leaning.
She also beats Rubio in Georgia.
25 years of baggage is what others would call experience, you see that as a minus others will see it as a plus.
I will vote for Hillary of Cory Booker and im a 21 year old college student.
You do realize that the First Lady does not have the power to actually make policy(and also has an obligation to stand by her husband), and when she was out on her own as an elected official, She highlighted the problems with NAFTA.
There is nothing wrong with being on the Wal Mart board of directors. When you say "pro-corporation", that resonates to me that you are saying that she was for some group of laws that disadvantaged workers in favor of a corporation.
Voting for a war when you believe that war is justified(with trumped up evidence) does not make you pro war either. Or are you seriously claiming that if you believe someone else's lie that mean you were actually a conspirator ?
Doing your job now makes you pro war ? I didnt know the Secretary of State had the power to remove troops ?
Advocating for an end to a senseless death of thousands of people by a simple no fly zone is considered pro way to you, come on ?
Hillary didnt lose to Barack because he was more charismatic. He won for the same reason Mitt Romney lost, the way the campaigns were run. People may get riled up from negative campaigns like Romney and Clinton's but they dont get out and vote for them. She went negative in the states where she was losing, does great for phone polls and gathering crowds at rallies, not so much for the polls. it turns off a portion of your own base when you attack someone else's stances while not putting up your own.
Barack Obama was also in his 3th year as being a senator when he ran for President, not 1st (yea, im being a smart #%$), and I dont see anyone with his profile other than Warren, and she isnt going to beat Hillary.
in 2004, Hillary was simply a front runner getting between 30 and 45% in a 3 way race, as of Now, she doesnt even have competition with 50 to 70% in any given poll.
1. The only reason she spoke out on NAFTA was to try to get union votes in the 2008 primaries, she still supports it and always has despite obvious lipservice for votes.
2. Walmarts very existance is anti-worker, there have been a million threads on this around here. Dear god, if this were a (R) candidate you'd be screaming bloody murder about their walmart ties, low worker wages etc etc.
3. You can't write off close to a decade of afghanistan support as Hillary being "tricked".
4. Obama was winning primaries before it went negative. Hillary was the clear front runner when he started winning and he wasn't even on the attack radar. Oprah factored huge in Iowa where she is beloved.
Could a Republican bet Hillary, possibly, but the likelihood of that happening is low. Hillary beats Rick Perry head to head in Texas in the latest polls 48% to 44% (June 28, July 1st.), although 500 people is a very small sample i must say.
She beats Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in Florida again, 500 people is a small sample, but its from Quinnipiac which is right leaning.
She also beats Rubio in Georgia.
25 years of baggage is what others would call experience, you see that as a minus others will see it as a plus.
I will vote for Hillary of Cory Booker and im a 21 year old college student.
Now factor in most of the uninformed electorate that allow Hillaries lack of charisma, age etc. to (stupidly) impact how they choose to vote.
I don't like it but young and hip type candidates, good looking presidents....do better with voters. It's like the old Nixon vs. Kennedy debates where the TV viewers liked Kennedy a whole lot more than radio listeners.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme305
Hillary lost because the media was in the tank for Obama from the get-go, and because black voters put their own race above all else. Even the political correspondent from NBC, Chuck Todd, called blacks out on that.
No, she lost because of the way she ran her campaign, not the media. If that was the cause, wouldnt you think Barack Obama would have won in a land slide when in reality it was 17.5 million to Barack and 17.8 million for Hillary ( 3 states ended up not counting at all)and the delegate count only being 100 in difference ?
You guys have got to stop believing the crap that the media is picking these people because they arent.
No, she lost because of the way she ran her campaign, not the media. If that was the cause, wouldnt you think Barack Obama would have won in a land slide when in reality it was 17.5 million to Barack and 17.8 million for Hillary ( 3 states ended up not counting at all)and the delegate count only being 100 in difference ?
You guys have got to stop believing the crap that the media is picking these people because they arent.
You can turn a blind eye to reality all you want. But I was sitting back enjoying my popcorn while watching the media denigrate Hillary's image. Her desire to stay in the race till the very end was perfectly justified and she had a feasible case to take to the convention. But the media tore her to shreds.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Now factor in most of the uninformed electorate that allow Hillaries lack of charisma, age etc. to (stupidly) impact how they choose to vote.
I don't like it but young and hip type candidates, good looking presidents....do better with voters. It's like the old Nixon vs. Kennedy debates where the TV viewers liked Kennedy a whole lot more than radio listeners.
People have a different view of what is good looking, to make the claim you are making, you would have to paint with some very broad stokes .
And what's to say uninformed voters only look at charisma ? why cant they look only at experience ?
Support appears to be gaining for Hillary Clinton to succeed the great President Obama as President of the United States in 2016. She would be the first WOMAN to hold that position, a result of the CHANGE that President Obama represents. Should would get even more support than President Obama did in this last election, completely obliterating the GOP opposition. The GOP will again waste a FORTUNE in the losing effort. Imagine her having Colin Powell as her running mate. How about an Latino as her running mate, or an Asian? Maybe she would pick someone who is of mixed-race and GAY? Any combination dooms the hapless GOP. There isn't a GOP candidate alive who could compete.
Your brain washing is first class... were did you get it done?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
