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.
There is no cult-like obsession over Hillary Clinton.
Clinton simply enjoys such widespread popularity right now that her numbers make both Republican and Democratic rivals very cautious at the moment. Getting into the race too soon is more dangerous than taking the time to plan, weigh the opposition's strengths and weaknesses, and raise more money. More money is always needed at this point in time.
Will Hillary's current favorability change in later polls? With no doubt. She could become even for favorable than at present, or less; each is equally possible.
Her gender doesn't make much difference. Everyone on either side believes we will have a female President pretty soon regardless of Hillary's choice to run or not; Bachmann, Palin, Warren, and a host of other women who are prominent in our current politics have created the acceptance of the fact that a woman will eventually win the White House. If not in 2016, it could happen in 2020 or afterward.
Familiarity, i believe, is going to be more important than any other factor in 2016. Bush was relatively unknown in 2000, Obama even less so in 2008, and a host of newcomers came forth in 2012 in the GOP in 2012, but the most familiar, Romney, won the nomination. I think 2016 will be the year when the voters want someone they know everything, good or bad, about over another unknown who packs along a surprise that's uncovered part-way through the campaigns.
I can't say whether that is pathetic or not, but I think the voters want the comfort of some assurance and familiarity over more newbie experimentation for the next 4 years, and that's not necessarily pathetic at all. But even if it is, Clinton is most likely to be the next Prez, and you'll be doomed to 4 more years of discontent.
In these times, no candidate is going to pull off a landslide. Half of us are going to be quite disappointed no matter what happens.
I would tend to disagree. The entire Clinton family is the second coming of the Kennedys. They have been the darlings of the media's ridiculous over-obsession. Chelsea Clinton's wedding was the biggest news story this side of the OJ Simpson trial, while Jenna Bush getting married got vastly less attention -- despite her being the daughter of the current POTUS at the time. Jeb Bush and others in the Bush family get vastly less attention across the board. Ronald Reagan's children also do not get the same treatment as the Clintons. Could you pick Ronald Reagan's son Ron Reagan out in a crowd?
But everything the Clintons do is big news. I think it's for the exact reasons you outline. People want to vote for somebody they know. The media has gone out of their way to ensure that you know Hillary. Hell, Chelsea Clinton could run for Senate or Governor somewhere. She'd win, mostly cuz she's a Clinton. She could then serve a term or two, run for President and have a very strong chance of winning the Democrat nomination. But I think it's important to note that Hillary and the rest of the Clintons are manufactured familiar faces.
Watching her lose to Barack Obama in 2008 showed me something about Hillary. She's billed as been a vastly better candidate than she actually is. If she wins the nomination it'll be for all the wrong reasons, just like George W Bush, Bob Dole or Mitt Romney. The vast majority of Democrats I know desperately want a good alternative instead of Hillary Clinton. I think we're going to see a large divide in the Democrats. Dems who actually think before they vote are going to fishing for somebody other than Hillary. Those that just vote for people on name recognition alone will vote Hillary. Since the former group tend to actually show up for the party caucus, there's a decent chance she loses the nomination once again.
If she wins the nomination it'll be for all the wrong reasons, just like George W Bush, Bob Dole or Mitt Romney. The vast majority of Democrats I know desperately want a good alternative instead of Hillary Clinton. I think we're going to see a large divide in the Democrats. Dems who actually think before they vote are going to fishing for somebody other than Hillary. Those that just vote for people on name recognition alone will vote Hillary. Since the former group tend to actually show up for the party caucus, there's a decent chance she loses the nomination once again.
The problem with the Democrats is they really don't have young, fresh blood out there at this point in time to offer as an alternative to the old heads in charge now.
John Edwards went bust with his general sleaziness, Pennsylvania's Bob Casey is pretty lackluster to say the least, Blagojevich is sitting in a penitentiary cell, other newer politicians like Sherrod Brown and Al Franken aren't that young and really have just been "me-too" in favor of President Obama's policies, not making a name for themselves at all.
There are currently 27 (!!!) threads making reference to Hillary Clinton in their titles, on just the first page of this Elections forum alone. Maybe everyone isn't enamored with her (I'm definitely not, though I'll probably vote for her over whatever person the GOP nominates), but they are sure as heck talking about her. I think frankly the Republicans are scared to death of trying to beat her in a general election.
There are currently 27 (!!!) threads making reference to Hillary Clinton in their titles, on just the first page of this Elections forum alone. Maybe everyone isn't enamored with her (I'm definitely not, though I'll probably vote for her over whatever person the GOP nominates), but they are sure as heck talking about her. I think frankly the Republicans are scared to death of trying to beat her in a general election.
Hillary was just as talked about and just as inevitable in 2008. Back then, the GOP spent so much energy attacking Hillary while ignoring Obama, they pretty much guaranteed their defeat in the national election (if they ever stood a chance to begin with.) The GOP was so sure they were going to be facing Hillary back then, they doubled down on attacking her. History seems to be repeating itself. The only thing missing this time around: A strong alternative to Hillary emerging.
The problem with the Democrats is they really don't have young, fresh blood out there at this point in time to offer as an alternative to the old heads in charge now.
John Edwards went bust with his general sleaziness, Pennsylvania's Bob Casey is pretty lackluster to say the least, Blagojevich is sitting in a penitentiary cell, other newer politicians like Sherrod Brown and Al Franken aren't that young and really have just been "me-too" in favor of President Obama's policies, not making a name for themselves at all.
Putting all your eggs in the Hillary basket seems like a bad idea. It remains to be seen how her many scandals will play in an election. The woman just went full-on one-upmanship on Tricky Dicky by destroying evidence. Disappearing evidence in Whitewater and Benghazi scandals could ruin her chances. The Dems would be wise to find a solid alternative. Is the Democrat field really so barren as all that?? Elizabeth Warren has the requisite vagina to appease the need for that novelty of electing a woman president, and she's vastly less flawed. The Dems should be screaming for her to run.
The problem with the Democrat nomination process is that they "fall in love" which precludes any interference from things like logic and common sense. (Granted, the Republican's "fall in line" approach is equally flawed.) They tend to overlook huge flaws that ruin their chances in the national election.
Elizabeth Warren has the requisite vagina to appease the need for that novelty of electing a woman president, and she's vastly less flawed. The Dems should be screaming for her to run.
A lot of Democrats are screaming for her to run because she is more left-wing than Hillary. (And yet complaining that the GOP caters to its fringe). One would think someone who can be portrayed as far left of center might be at a disadvantage with moderates and independents.
Then there's the whole Fauxcahontas deal, which makes her look rather opportunistic and cynical.
She led the "you didn't build that" chorus, and I'm not so sure that really resonates well with the public. I could be wrong though.
Uh; not for me. I voted FOR Obama in 2008 because Palin worried me and, I'm a Repub.
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.
