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.
First Gentleman? Who would that be? The same "gentleman" who was impeached due to lying under oath, obstructing justice & witness tampering and who is a decades-long adulterer? Some "gentleman!"
"I think just the reverse. If the nominee is Jeb Bush he will lose to Hillary. It will turn into a proxy battle between W Bush and Bill Clinton ...
If the GOP nominee is one of the new faces, Hillary still could win, but at least the GOP would have a chance. Then the narrative becomes 'do we want to go back to the past, or ahead to the future?' And those many voters who have Bush-Clinton fatigue will be inclined to take a look at the GOP nominee ... "
I think that makes sense. On the other hand, Jeb seems polished and levelheaded on TV, and he's much better than Mitt Romney at making ambiguous statements that might allow him to appeal to both conservatives and moderates. The only problem is his last name. So the GOP needs Jeb from another mother. No sure who that would be.
If you wish to see HC lose, the GOP nominee must appeal, massively, to Latinos and swing state moderates (independents not registered to a party). Those groups are far less socially conservative then the GOP base, so it would take socially moderate positions to appeal to them. (Not the Hobby Lobby nonsensical RWNJ mindset).
Fail to win those groups, and even Bush cannot overcome the obstacles the NJs would be placing before him.
They tried that last two times. Mr. McCain particularly was a rabid advocate for amnesty, and neither Mr. McCain nor Mr. Romney spent any time during the entire fall campaign rallying social conservatives. Why do you think that the strategy that failed in the past, will work in 2016 for the Republicans?
Further, since you yourself are quite the liberal, why would a Republican think that you have their best interests at heart by advocating such a strategy? If the Republicans are crushed again, doesn't that forward your own ideas?
Hearing that over and over. Because she will be the first woman President.
Isn't that offensive to all women? Who wants to be judged and defined on their gender, not their merits and character?
Has Hilary earned the Presidency, or is she entitled to it?
Big question to ask yourself....
What's really interesting about the last six years is that the far left has overplayed its hand SO much, that their shrieking has reached almost dog whistle pitch, and I no longer even hear it.
I'm a racist? A sexist? An Islamaphobe? I hate the poor? I hate gays? I hate immigrants? I want to throw granny off the cliff while feeding the war machine and spewing toxic deadly-fumes into the air?
Sure. Whatever.
I don't CARE anymore what I keep "hearing over and over". Shriek all you want because I no longer hear it. It's all just white noise and I care too much about this country and its people, to give a damn anymore about the crap that gets spewed by the far left.
I don't think that Hilary will run for all the reasons that have already been posted by those who do not think that Hilary will run. If she does run, fine. She and everyone else in the ring can battle it out. She won't be the last person standing when the dust settles though.
I Like Spam, I'm fiscally conservative, actually a lifelong JM fan who would have supported him with anyone except the WN Palin. Lieberman would have been perfect.
In 2008, no Repub stood a chance. That is the penalty for a POTUS, W, leaving behind the worst economic situation -750k month job LOSSES-to ever have on 1/20 of the year a new POTUS is sworn in.
Do not keep thinking, incorrectly, the circus the Todd Akins of the world create can be kept apart from the POTUS nominee trying to run a normal campaign surrounded by freaks. It cannot be, and the Wing Nuts ruin the brand. Add in, neither JM nor Mittens sounded like themselves; they pandered to the Wing Nuts. Romney sounded like he was running against the MR I remember and liked in Massachusetts, when I lived in Ct. 2012 MR was that Mitten's polar opposite; he ran vs Ted Kennedy as the more pro choice man in the race.
Hearing that over and over. Because she will be the first woman President.
I hear this from ignorant women who don't realize you can't just be in a race in win. There's some who thought Danica Patrick should win NASCAR races because she's a woman and cheer her for that reason. Regardless she is not that great at racing and only won one major racing series race (a 2008 IRL race in Japan.) Her problem she is a good driver in the mesh of great drivers. Right now, Hilary is the lone gun in the Democratic party (whether that is a media thing or not is out of this conversation) so she is and has been the perennial favorite for the Democratic nomination and Presidency because she was basically the loser of a close conference finals while both teams in the finals for the league had major changes (coach and player retirements, trades, free agency, etc.)
Quote:
Isn't that offensive to all women? Who wants to be judged and defined on their gender, not their merits and character?
I agree that it is offensive. Just like those that thought Obama should win for the first black/African-American President. IMO I would have rather seen the first woman President be the first black/African President. Just to get the "first ____ President" crap overwith. But on merit of course.
Quote:
Has Hilary earned the Presidency, or is she entitled to it?
I don't think so but by this time next year, we will know if she honestly should be in contention for the Nomination, let alone the presidency.
Exactly but it isn't a guarantee that she will win the nomination, let alone the presidency. Kentucky won every single game going into the Final Four and still lost to Wisconsin last night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
Why would she be entitled to the Presidency?
I thought you have to earn it?
Did anyone say she was entitled to it? Most of us are saying she is a favorite.
Quote:
From her record, I'd say the only thing she has earned is an F, for failure at everything she has ever tried to accomplish.
From corruption in the Watergate investigation all the way through her elite hob-nobbing, to E-mailgate recently.
If you are saying she is the only one, she isn't. I feel these issues COULD be a problem if presented the right way and with facts.
Quote:
Laws of the people, do not apply to the queen.
But it does. Several presidents faced controvesies. Grant had a lot of corruption, Jackson had alleged corruption, Johnson and Clinton both were impeached and Nixon was close to impeachment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
The word entitled was in your post, not mine. I'm a Met fan, their present world series odds are 33 to 1 against , while the Nationals are 4-1 against. That does not entitle the Nationals to anything, but they are properly viewed far more favorably in terms of odds of success.
HC is simply the likely POTUS given all reputable polling data I have seen, and given her success running against a 2 term POTUS who won with ease.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
That's all well and good, but what about all the misinformed voters that are going to vote for her, just because she will be the first woman President. Like they did, just because Obama would be the first black President.
There are always misinformed voters that think that a President should or shouldn't be elected for some stupid reason. I'm sure there's some people who don't want Hilary elected because she is a woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw
Who are you hearing that from? The right wing echo chamber?
That the left wing echo chamber.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan
To be fair: many people DO put Hillary and Obama together; kinda like McCain and Bush 43 back in 2008. I was leaning towards Bush then but; him picking Palin scared me so, I held my nose and voted Obama.
I do but had Obama actually had accomplished the economic fixes he has done now, I may have voted for him in 2012 over Romney. He didn't and sounded like the Obama that I didn't vote for in 2008.
Quote:
IMHO what may make it or BREAK it for Hillary in 2016 IF even she wins the Dem nod; is who her running mate is. A strong anglo white dude under about 50 years old would help, anything else would probably hurt. A "Hispanic" for VP may kill her chances come November, especially if he or she favor amnesty for illegal aliens.
Depends on who the hispanic is. Cruz wont really tick the needle all that much if chosen as VP (and he WONT be the presidential nominee except if the favorites decide not to run or die like in 1968 with the Democrats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
I think just the reverse. If the nominee is Jeb Bush he will lose to Hillary. It will turn into a proxy battle between W Bush and Bill Clinton, especially among low info voters. And Hillary is snapping up all of Obama's campaign people who are masters at appealing to the LIV's.
But they need to be able to say that Hilary wants to continue Obama policy similar to LBJ continuing JFK policy in 1964.
Quote:
If the GOP nominee is one of the new faces, Hillary still could win, but at least the GOP would have a chance. Then the narrative becomes 'do we want to go back to the past, or ahead to the future?' And those many voters who have Bush-Clinton fatigue will be inclined to take a look at the GOP nominee...but not if it's Bush.
It depends on the voice of the new face. If it's a tea party candidate or a social conservative, the election is up for the Democrats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
If you wish to see HC lose, the GOP nominee must appeal, massively, to Latinos and swing state moderates (independents not registered to a party). Those groups are far less socially conservative then the GOP base, so it would take socially moderate positions to appeal to them. (Not the Hobby Lobby nonsensical RWNJ mindset).
This is the same problem I see. We have too much pandering towards the social religious conservative part of the party.
Quote:
Fail to win those groups, and even Bush cannot overcome the obstacles the NJs would be placing before him.
Yeah and he has already pandered to that with the Indiana bill, a question I now have for his ability to provide civil rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
The Republican Base will vote for a tea party republican.(they are team players, regardless who is the person with the R on their chest)
It depends on who the other option is...
Quote:
The grassroots conservatives will not vote for a Progressive Establishment Republican.
Would they really or is this not another ad nosieum argument by you?
Quote:
That is the whole reason Reagan won, when he did. Crushing the competition. The Grass Roots of the nation(silent majority), has always been for more freedoms, more choice and more liberty, not less. Bush squeaked buy, both times.
Reagan won because of a lack of faith in the other option on top of the grassroots Christian conservatives that Reagan played to during the election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobtn
Reagan's MO to win is NOT repeatable. He might have lost in 2008 if alive. We are a very different nation. Reagan's wins occurred when 7 in 8 voters were white; today's POTUS vote will be around 5.6 of 8 voters being white.
That is a part of it too. There needs to be crossover to win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael
I think that makes sense. On the other hand, Jeb seems polished and levelheaded on TV, and he's much better than Mitt Romney at making ambiguous statements that might allow him to appeal to both conservatives and moderates. The only problem is his last name. So the GOP needs Jeb from another mother. No sure who that would be.
As I said before, Jeb supporting the Indiana law is a bit of a faux-pas to some independent moderates like myself while pandering to social conservatives.
To be fair: many people DO put Hillary and Obama together; kinda like McCain and Bush 43 back in 2008. I was leaning towards Bush then but; him picking Palin scared me so, I held my nose and voted Obama.
IMHO what may make it or BREAK it for Hillary in 2016 IF even she wins the Dem nod; is who her running mate is. A strong anglo white dude under about 50 years old would help, anything else would probably hurt. A "Hispanic" for VP may kill her chances come November, especially if he or she favor amnesty for illegal aliens.
There are lots of white Hispanics. Hispanic is listed as a culture, not a race.
I think either party could benefit from a young but mature Hispanic man as VP, especially one who's a 2nd generation native. Both parties have 'em… Rubio is one.
The fact is which party supports immigration reform the most will probably get the Hispanic vote. Obama has taken the issue off the table for 2016 with his Executive Order, but that's only a temporary patch on what needs to be a very large overhaul of the system. As soon as receiving work visas for the US takes 6-9 weeks, much of the issue will disappear on its own. But that will require some major changes in the visa system, a lot of new State Dept. personnel, and a bunch of other stuff first.
There are lots of white Hispanics. Hispanic is listed as a culture, not a race.
I think either party could benefit from a young but mature Hispanic man as VP, especially one who's a 2nd generation native. Both parties have 'em… Rubio is one.
The fact is which party supports immigration reform the most will probably get the Hispanic vote. Obama has taken the issue off the table for 2016 with his Executive Order, but that's only a temporary patch on what needs to be a very large overhaul of the system. As soon as receiving work visas for the US takes 6-9 weeks, much of the issue will disappear on its own. But that will require some major changes in the visa system, a lot of new State Dept. personnel, and a bunch of other stuff first.
Hispanic is a culture? Not really even tho la raza and the Feds try to keep pushing that lie.
A dude from England who was born and raised over there, even if of Spanish family, ain't Hispanic at all, even with a Spanish name. Especially if he doesn't speak Spanish and sees himself as a Brit.
An Argentine born and raised dude of full Irish heritage IS a Hispanic, even if he has a Gaelic name.
Hearing that over and over. Because she will be the first woman President.
Isn't that offensive to all women? Who wants to be judged and defined on their gender, not their merits and character?
Has Hilary earned the Presidency, or is she entitled to it?
Big question to ask yourself....
If you are constantly hearing that refrain, I might suggest that you spend less time with low information voters and present a viable alternative.
OTOH, there are those that will vote for Ted Cruz because they believe their world is actually on fire so . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
I don't see Hilary getting 98% of the black voters to turn out at the polls.
On a side note, I don't see here getting 50% of the woman vote.
The quickest way to get Democrats to the polls is to nominate someone like Cruz. That's all it will take.
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.
