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.
Thinking of her and her family, I wish she had not run.
Think about it. Her husband, redneck philanderer, but undeniable political genius, with Reaganesque charisma to boot, was elected twice.
I think it is very likely she will go from front runner to loser... twice. Ouch! I would not want to be around the dinner table when that came up...
She is a smart woman who could do great things in just about any field, but I think all she will get from this presidential run is humiliation.
Most people just don't like her much. Full stop.
Agreed on all counts. I do think she's been hell-bent on becoming POTUS since well before Bill Clinton even announced his campaign to run for president. She's laser-beam focused on that goal for such a long time, it makes it awfully hard to sell Americans on "I'm doing this to help America." I'm sure she means well, but the overwhelming perception is that she's just in it for herself.
Still, it's quite amusing watching the GOP losing their damn minds desperately trying to demonize the lady. Unfortunately, many Democrat strategists have taken it all as, "Lookie! They're scared of Hillary! We must be right to nominate her!"
Fitting Mia Love into the equation anywhere just tickles me I guess. A black, Mormon, woman Republican candidate. That's just awesome! Shatters so many false stereotypes in a single stroke and I just love the irony of it! I'd love it if somebody could talk Condoleezza Rice into running, but I think we all know she won't. Part of me would just love to see the GOP run a black woman against Hillary, just for the sake of novelty candidate one-upmanship.
I don't know a great deal about Susana Martinez. If she's well spoken and nothing like Sara Palin's airheadedness, that would be a great option. Apparently she used to be a Democrat until 1995 and an ugly falling out with her boss.
The Democratic Party has nothing to do with the political left. Essentially, The Democrats are a centrist party, while The Republicans are a right-of-center party. Both parties are avidly and unapologetically capitalist. While an occasional progressive (i.e. Kucinich or Warren) may achieve some influence at the grass roots level, The Democratic Party's real power structure will ensure that they remain symbolic at best. Bernie Sanders, of course, is not a member of The Democratic Party.
For those of us who actually are on the political left, every presidential election brings about a nauseating set of options: vote for a third party (or write-in) candidate, abstain from the process, or fall into the "lesser of two evils" trap.
A third party candidate may well represent our ideological goals. However, the electoral system is structured to ensure that the capitalist-supported duopoly of Republican/Democratic Parties will always yield the winner. Thus, this course of action becomes nothing more than a feel-good choice which is incapable of promoting any of the changes we may seek. One might even be blamed for a Republican victory, as were Nader voters in 2000.
Making the conscious choice to refrain from participating (my personal choice) will result in many people suggesting that you've given up your right to have an opinion ("you didn't vote, you can't complain!"), even as others will blame you for the victory of The Republican Party candidate, via your non-vote for The Democratic candidate.
The 'lesser of two evils" argument is perhaps the most insidious choice of the lot. It suggests that you should actively support a candidate based upon the theoretical assumption that this candidate will somehow do marginally less damage than another candidate--even though you know very well that both candidates have historically done the bidding of the same corporate masters.
As to Hillary Clinton's campaign, she has only two core groups of supporters: Democratic Party insiders, and a segment of the feminist community which is willing to overlook her numerous character and political flaws in order to experience the symbolism of a female president.
I know a lot of people who drank the Obama kool-aid, only to realize that Obama maintained--even expanded upon--Bush's imperialism, militarism, Wall Street brown-nosing, and domestic surveillance atrocities. Clinton is even further to the political right than is Obama. I certainly hope that progressives will not buy into this BS again.
The Democratic Party has nothing to do with the political left. Essentially, The Democrats are a centrist party, while The Republicans are a right-of-center party. Both parties are avidly and unapologetically capitalist. While an occasional progressive (i.e. Kucinich or Warren) may achieve some influence at the grass roots level, The Democratic Party's real power structure will ensure that they remain symbolic at best. Bernie Sanders, of course, is not a member of The Democratic Party.
For those of us who actually are on the political left, every presidential election brings about a nauseating set of options: vote for a third party (or write-in) candidate, abstain from the process, or fall into the "lesser of two evils" trap.
A third party candidate may well represent our ideological goals. However, the electoral system is structured to ensure that the capitalist-supported duopoly of Republican/Democratic Parties will always yield the winner. Thus, this course of action becomes nothing more than a feel-good choice which is incapable of promoting any of the changes we may seek. One might even be blamed for a Republican victory, as were Nader voters in 2000.
Making the conscious choice to refrain from participating (my personal choice) will result in many people suggesting that you've given up your right to have an opinion ("you didn't vote, you can't complain!"), even as others will blame you for the victory of The Republican Party candidate, via your non-vote for The Democratic candidate.
The 'lesser of two evils" argument is perhaps the most insidious choice of the lot. It suggests that you should actively support a candidate based upon the theoretical assumption that this candidate will somehow do marginally less damage than another candidate--even though you know very well that both candidates have historically done the bidding of the same corporate masters.
As to Hillary Clinton's campaign, she has only two core groups of supporters: Democratic Party insiders, and a segment of the feminist community which is willing to overlook her numerous character and political flaws in order to experience the symbolism of a female president.
I know a lot of people who drank the Obama kool-aid, only to realize that Obama maintained--even expanded upon--Bush's imperialism, militarism, Wall Street brown-nosing, and domestic surveillance atrocities. Clinton is even further to the political right than is Obama. I certainly hope that progressives will not buy into this BS again.
To the bolded part, the answer is automatic runoffs. Any candidate failing to get a majority vote must be subject to an automatic runoff between the two candidates who got the most votes. The beautiful part is that automatic runoffs for every type of election can be instituted at the local and state levels. No need to ask the US Congress for permission or anything like that. With automatic runoffs, a person voting for Perot doesn't get blamed for helping Clinton win and a vote for Nader wouldn't be blamed for Gore losing.
It is absolute idiocy to think that two political parties can adequately represent the incredibly diverse range of opinions of the American people. It's weird that the two-party system has survived this long.
Interesting. Elizabeth Warren's in the lead. Not sure how much a poll here truly means but seems like somebody ought to tell her to seriously consider running.
Remember last election? Remember how the biggest question in the GOP was, "Can we find anyone other than Mitt Romney? Please??" Welcome to history repeating itself, but this time on the Democrat side of things.
Americans on both sides of the aisle are already grumbling in disgust against another Bush or another Clinton POTUS. A Jeb Bush vs Hillary Clinton national election might just drive election turnout to all-time lows.
But the rhetoric coming from the Left sounds awfully familiar. "There just isn't anyone else that stands any chance of winning the national election." Sound familiar? That's exactly what we heard about Mitt all through the 2012 election cycle.
Will a good alternative to Hillary please stand up? Please???
I don't think the DNC has any interest in a good alternative to Hillary standing up....but we'll see.
However, I cannot imagine a worse situation for this country than the two "choices" for president being Clinton or Bush.
Interesting. Elizabeth Warren's in the lead. Not sure how much a poll here truly means but seems like somebody ought to tell her to seriously consider running.
Yes, knowing she has 26% of the vote on a city data poll would be a compelling argument for running for president.
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.
