She was right in 2008 too. She didn't lose because American's suddenly started paying attention she lost because Obama was better at wooing the existing primary voters.
Hillary Clinton expected to announce presidential run this weekend
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
- Status
She was right in 2008 too. She didn't lose because American's suddenly started paying attention she lost because Obama was better at wooing the existing primary voters.
Bill 'Best rated living president' Clinton?
Presided over an economic boom?
A disadvantage?
JesseEwiak
Member
Nah, what actually happened was that Obama consolidated the disaffected portions of the primary electorate (anti-war, progressives, etc.) _and_ got establishment support. Also, let's be blunt here - Obama was only able to win the primary because he was able to get black support. If he'd been a white Chicago politician named Barry O'Bama, he would've been out after South Carolina or Super Tuesday because the black vote would've stayed with the "1st Black President."
teruterubozu
Member
It's debatable. Obama had a huge populist surge.
RockTurtle
Member
teruterubozu
Member
It was actually when Kennedy threw in his support to Obama just before the DNC when Hillary got screwed.
Karsticles
Member
I feel like, for every Hispanic voter he pulls in for speaking Spanish, some bonehead won't vote for him for the same reason.
I'd love to vote and help elect a woman for President. Not Hillary though.
For an outsider its quite fascinating to see how a people that once organized the Boston Tea Party now tries very hard to create their own kind of royalty - from yesteryears Kennedy clan to the modern Bush´s and Clinton´s.
Is this really the best you can come up with? Seriously?
Is this really the best you can come up with? Seriously?
He also didn't drop out like he was "supposed to" like candidates tended to do a lot up to that point. Went for the long primary game.
Now with unlimited campaign funds, damn near everyone is going to be sticking it out because anyone can be propped up until it's mathematically impossible for them to continue.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
What. It's not like we're electing these people on name alone...
Also, Hilary is going to win.
gutter_trash
Banned
the term Hispanic is a ridiculous over general term coined by the Nixon administration.
they are not one monolithic group that can be over generalized into a box.
It's not that she wouldn't make a good president, it's that the Fox audience will lap up all the "points" against her.
RockTurtle
Member
maybe so, but run him with Ricky Rubio as his vice-president pick and you have nasty one-two punch that any potential racist loss is gained by 3 hispanic/swing voter vote.
She won't announce anything until she secures enough delegates to win the nomination but surely to be on the list are Senator Michael Bennett, Secretary Julian Castro, Senator Martin Heinrich, Senator Kaine. There are certainly others, perhaps better choices. But my preference is the first three. She will need some youthful vigor in the ticket.
gutter_trash
Banned
I learned in the Rand Paul thread that a Presidential candidate cannot pick a running mate from the same state
RockTurtle
Member
*phew*
My only concern for Hillary is that she's almost too obvious a strong candidate. Everyone thinks she's got this in the bag (and really, unless a miracle R candidate shows up in the 11th hour she kind of does), but that's the exact kind of thing that can create voter apathy and effect her turnout.
I hope her campaign creates a sense of urgency.
I hope her campaign creates a sense of urgency.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
Starting with the fact that Cuban exiles in the US are very different, politically speaking, from Hispanic immigrants from pretty much anywhere that isn't Cuba. Winning over Cuban exiles isn't that big a 'get' for a Republican nominee.
Ciastek3214
Junior Member
But some people say things like: "I'd like a woman president, but Hillary...", and they give no reasons. I'd like to know why is that.
Rubio doesn't have hispanic support. I don't know where this idea is coming from but hispanic voters aren't going to be swayed by an ethnic name. W had a large base of hispanic support because his record proved he was an ally, Rubio shits all over immigration reform from a large height.
The Hill said:
I have serious doubts that his addition to a Jeb ticket will add significantly to the hispanic GOP vote unless the debates go really well.
Hillary is the prototypical establishment candidate. She's more center-left than Obama and likely won't continue this hard progressive push we've been seeing from the Dems in the past 8 years. While she's perfectly capable of leading the country, she's not the ideal progressive candidate and so many people (including me) are upset that theres no strong contender from her left.
Well, but that's what it looks like in the far corners of the world.
Why do you think that f.i. Obama was so universally embraced around the world, with his message of change and positive yes-we-can attitude?
I doubt that even 10% of the people cheering for him in the capitals of the world knew his political program.
JesseEwiak
Member
Actual polling has been done on this. Basically, Walker/Jindal/etc. lose Hispanics 65-35. Bush loses them 55-45.
Ciastek3214
Junior Member
I guess what the "far corners of the world" don't understand is that a normal person votes for a candidate he/she agrees with, not because of some hypocrisy related to what created the US.
Yellowtail
Member
Receipts?
No Republican candidate is going to get above 40% with Hispanic voters. That has never happened and it's not going to start now as the GOP tear themselves apart over immigration.
They'll be lucky to even approach 30% with Hillary facing them.
SolarPowered
Member
Crazy stuff
Perhaps
I'm thinking this group (regardless of name) voting blue is big and solid enough that he can't break off large enough pieces after all the bad press the Republican party has gotten with Hispanics/latinos.
She better embrace the Islamic Shock. Really, she should present herself as someone who will pick up where Obama left off and then some (if Obama's popularity continues to grow towards the end of his term). Not that she'll be able to do much with this congress.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
It's a little strange that people, especially political reporters, just assume Hispanic voters have the same kind of solidarity the Black vote does. Immigrants and their children have a long history of being screwed over by people with dark hair and Spanish surnames in their home countries. A Spanish name isn't a free pass.
Ciastek3214
Junior Member
Obama is more center-right, isn't he? Wouldn't Hillary being on the left side of the center make her more progressive? Also in what way is Hillary more of an establishment candidate than Obama ever was?
Hmm, okay. To me it looks more like the normal person votes for the party he/she agrees with - and that the game is a bit rigged to favor a candidate from one of said dynasties to make it on the ticket.
You pretty much nailed it there.
The GOP is in a tough spot here. If Jeb wins the nomination, he'll likely do slightly better than Romney among Hispanics. But then there's a huge portion of the GOP base who despises him, which shaves off a percentage point or two in the other direction. And because demographics are changing, the GOP is in a spot where they need everyone - a near-perfect run - in order to barely get to 269.
In 1988, winning 60% of the white vote got Poppa Bush over 400 electoral votes. In 2012, Romney got almost the same percent of white voters and was lucky to crack 200. For the first few months after 2012, the GOP did some public soul-searching about where the country is headed demographically, but they did nothing of consequence to change their appeal to non-white voters, and the topic quickly faded into the background.
Meanwhile, Hillary's probably going to do a bit better than Obama among working-class white voters. And females. For some strange reason. Hmm.
RockTurtle
Member
its because i hear my mother and her friends mention it all the time.
i know that 2nd and 3rd generation young hispanics usually vote liberal, BUT when i hear comments from my older family members and some of my peers like "we need to get a hispanic in there no matter the party, or someone with a hispanic name" often enough and from enough people, it makes me shake in my boots.
JesseEwiak
Member
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...d-nationally-although-down-from-february.html
Head-to-heads among Hispanics
Clinton - 57
Bush - 35
Clinton - 65
Cruz - 32
Clinton - 63
Walker - 28
My bad, I forgot Bush doesn't get to 40. But, at least there's more undecided Hispanic's. Yay?
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
Haha everything ?
I'm not "that" bad
Let's say Bill Clinton, it is time for a comeback.
The emails were kind of a big deal, though. I mean, she used her personal email for work? Who does that? It shows either a huge lack of understanding of technology and just common sense, or she was trying to avoid oversight, which takes it out of the ignorance category and tosses it into maliciousness. Then, when she was caught, they had to go through and delete something like 30,000 emails...
Yellowtail
Member
This is true and Jeb Bush is the worst Republican to appeal to working class white voters. Bush is even more of an aloof patrician than Romney was and is going to struggle at relaying a convincing economic populist message while Bill Clinton is working his magic as Hillary's surrogate across Appalachia.
Ciastek3214
Junior Member
So what? It would be stupid of Democrats not to take advantage of the name Clinton and what it entails (dat Bill). And what is it with dynasties? What makes them so bad that people go "Oh, I won't vote for the wife of the best living president.", actually, why are they even called dynasties? What, you think Chelsea is going to run for president after Hillary? Look, I think a monarchy is as bad idea as you think it is, but come on. That is a little paranoid to say the least.
Now that would be an overkill.
"And thanks to that, my mails weren't stolen when the Russians hacked the White House unlike all those Bush mails".
Ballots with four different names are hard, Clinton/Clinton and Bush/Bush would be so much easier to remember. Do you even remember who is VP?
SolarPowered
Member
Bush vs Kerry was crushing. I remember watching it with my Dad and I think it was the most in sync we'd ever been. I couldn't vote yet and it just sucked so much. Freaking Florida, man.
Hillary didn't get to where she is by her merit alone, and so she's not seen as someone who represents empowered women. Hillary become Senator because she was First Lady, she became Secretary of State because Obama needed her in a position where she couldn't challenge him in 2012 or constantly backbite him his whole Presidency. Everyone knew John Kerry was the person most qualified for the job.
The two biggest tasks she took on in life where health care reform in 1993 and her 2008 Presidential run, both of which she failed at despite starting with big advantages. It's hard to shake the feeling that she'd just be a partner at a small law firm if it wasn't for being a hanger-on to Bill.
Ciastek3214
Junior Member
It is however hard to imagine someone looking at George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, and saying here are two guys who clearly achieved everything they have on their own.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
When the rubber hits the road and they're faced with voting for someone who will tear families apart,institute ID checks for everyone with a tan and build a wall at the Mexican border, they won't give a toss if the guy's name is José Maria Aristóteles del Castillo Castellano.
Dude Abides
Banned
What hard progressive push? Any differences between Hillary and Obama are marginal.
Ciastek3214
Junior Member
Fair enough, then how does she compare to GOP candidates based on merits then?
- Status