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.
We'll find out if/when she runs. I think Republicans have the biggest problem of all: how to market themselves after 36 years and counting of nothing but Republican ineffectiveness, obstruction, deception, lies, bigotry and racism, and rich-only supporting policies.
Hillary's biggest problem will be to fight off the crap that Republicans will throw at her, since they can't hope to get votes and support on their own record.
You have stated your own demise. You claim to think while in fact you only spew the regurgitated talking points you have been spoon fed. Opinions are fine, but you don't even have your own opinions to vomit forth.
She will run on lies, distortions and division of the nation. Just like Obama.
But it will be a campaign based on positive lies , distortions and marginalization of aging white males because Americans especially aging white males can't handle the truth!
Identity politics will be her strategy, just as it was for Obama, but it will be gender and sexual orientation instead of skin tone. Obama won in 2012 not because of any 'blue wall.' He lost the white vote by 59%, but won the non-white vote by 80%, and thus won the election.
This is why Pres. Obama chimed in on every high profile race-baiting dust-up from Skip Gates to Trayvon Martin to Michael Brown, but not, for example when a white delivery driver named Steven Utash was beaten nearly to death by blacks. Obama knows exactly what he's doing. He also brought in Al Sharpton as a close advisor.
Hillary is hiring many of Obama's top campaign people from 2012, including Jim Messina. They will follow the same strategy, just with gender and orientation substituted for race. I bet you will be able to see it in her announcement that she's running, which is supposed to be sometime this month. We'll soon find out if I am right.
The same ol', same ol'. Hillary as president would just be a continuation of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama Administrations that all run together and seem like the same Administration. She'll support the policies as she will be backed by the same banksters and elites. Just another statist tyrant trying to run our lives for us.
Deflection is not your friend pgh.
GWB was mighty quick to violate another sovereign nation's boundaries. To the tune of 6,000 dead soldiers and trillions of wasted dollars. And then walked away and disappeared forever, leaving Obama to mop up his bloody mess. A mess that so far, refuses to be mopped up.
more zeros for you.
Surprised to see that you supported a third term for Bush.
Deflection is not your friend pgh.
GWB was mighty quick to violate another sovereign nation's boundaries. To the tune of 6,000 dead soldiers and trillions of wasted dollars. And then walked away and disappeared forever, leaving Obama to mop up his bloody mess. A mess that so far, refuses to be mopped up.
more zeros for you.
Exactly 100% bass-ackwards, and here is your opportunity to gracefully retract it, as one of the voices of sanity from the CD left side of the aisle. W Bush never "walked away," he had no choice except to go, per 'Amendment XXII.' It was Obama who walked away in 2011, precipitously withdrawing. And now he has us back over there, trying to shut the barn door after the horse has bolted.
"Identity politics will be her strategy, just as it was for Obama, but it will be gender and sexual orientation instead of skin tone. Obama won in 2012 not because of any 'blue wall.' He lost the white vote by 59%, but won the non-white vote by 80%, and thus won the election."
The 'blue wall' is just a term for an electoral trend that's persisted for 20 years. Obviously, past results are no guarantee of future returns, but they do suggest certain proclivities. Also, you might find this interactive graphic/map interesting:
Personally, I set the 'citizenship' and 'voting' switches to 0% (they're intended to reflect the effects of immigration reform) and focus on the past/immediate future. You'll notice that the 2012 'vote share' defaults are a little bit different than the national exit polls. I have to assume that these adjustments were necessitated by the exclusion of third parties (per the exits, Obama won 39% of whites, but Romney won 59%, not 61%, so FiveThirtyEight went with 40/60). Anyhow, if you modify the 'vote share' to reflect the following configuration,
the only thing that changes is that Obama loses Florida. In fact, with the white and black shares in the default setting (40/60 & 95/5, respectively), Romney could've won 50% of the remaining vote (Hispanics/Asians/others) and he still would've narrowly lost (268/270). Likewise, if all of the other groups are held constant, Obama could've prevailed with a mere 75% of the black vote.
I haven't seen a site (CNN, NYT etc) whose exit polling gives totals for the 'non white' vote. Instead they give the pct for each group, and the share of the overall electorate the group comprises. That is enough to calculate the percentage of the non-white vote won by Romney and by Obama. Total number of voters was 126.8 million, and Romney lost by 5 million, so from that we can calculate what pct of the non-white vote Romney would have needed to win.
Romney got 20% of the non-white vote. If you run the numbers you'll find that if he had gotten 27% of the non-white vote, it would have been a tie election. So I round it up to 30% and say that if Romney had gotten 30% of the non-white vote, he would have won.
"I tend to skip the electoral math, because 9.5 times out of 10, the candidate who wins the popular vote also wins the electoral vote."
That's overwhelmingly the case, but the rigidity/closeness of recent elections makes me think that the converse scenario is more likely than it's been for most of the past century. And at the moment, the Democratic Party seems to have a structural advantage in the electoral college, so it's not inconceivable that a mediocre Democratic candidate could lose the popular vote by a couple of percentage points (an aggregate deficit potentially in the millions) but nonetheless win the presidency. Which would not be welcome development, IMHO.
Quote:
"Based on CNN exit polling I calculated that Romney would have won had he been able to reach 30% of the non white (black+hispanic+Asian+'other'). As it was he only got to 20%."
The FiveThirtyEight graphic/map shows the same outcome (286/252 {R/D}). However, it's worth noting that the black vote is doing most of the heavy lifting -- upping the Democratic share by even 5% (to a still-anemic 75%) results in an Obama victory. At 85% (a smaller share than Kerry received), Romney would've required almost 40% (~39%) of the remaining non-white vote to secure a narrow win (272/266 {R/D}). Taking 38%, per the graphic/map, would've netted Romney a 1.4% popular vote margin (1,775,000 votes), but the electoral outcome would've been reversed.
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.
