Hillary Clinton expected to announce presidential run this weekend
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
- Status
BertramCooper
Banned
Hillary Rodham would have been an extremely successful and accomplished person without Bill Clinton.
Has being Bill Clinton's wife been beneficial to her career? Absolutely. But she still would have been a successful person and probably a successful politician without him.
FaustsBoon
Member
I am thinking that not enough here really see the merit in Bill's name in proximity to the Presidency.
I suspect a lot of voters will vote Clinton hoping that Hilary is a proxy for Bill's third term, and knowing (probably rightly) that he will have a major voice in policy behind closed doors.
That is neither good nor bad, but I do suspect a fair contingent of voters will be voting as if this somehow ensured Bill Clinton a chance to Putin/Medvedev another four years in office.
I suspect a lot of voters will vote Clinton hoping that Hilary is a proxy for Bill's third term, and knowing (probably rightly) that he will have a major voice in policy behind closed doors.
That is neither good nor bad, but I do suspect a fair contingent of voters will be voting as if this somehow ensured Bill Clinton a chance to Putin/Medvedev another four years in office.
This is not what I´m getting at.
Would Hillary and Jeb both be the clearcut favorites to get the nomination if they had a different family name?
And if your answer is No, doesn´t that reek of same-old, same-old? Or to put it otherwise: its hard to judge them on their own merits, when comparisons to other influential persons with the same family name are inevitable.
Conservative voters aren't going to vote for a democrat regardless of gender.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Anyone But Hillary 2016
Yellowtail
Member
I definitely think Jeb will do better than any other Republican with Hispanic voters but it's a ridiculous beltway myth that he'll be able to get some Hispanic majority because he has a Hispanic wife and speaks Spanish.
And it gets overlooked that Hillary is probably the most popular national politician among Latinos. She has higher approval ratings among Hispanics than Obama and trounced him 2-1 in the 2008 primaries (her coalition then was women + working class whites + Latinos which is the foundation of her support now). The Clintons have have had entrenched ties and support in Hispanic circles for decades and are going to be extensively outreaching for the next year while the Republicans are going to be doing everything to alienate minorities throughout their primary.
Anyone?
No, but it could encourage more to get out and vote.
Pilgrimzero
Member
I have a friend on FB that won't shut up about her emails (deleting them) and how she broke federal law and can't run for president.
I keep wanting to say something but I know it won't do any good. He's very "Tea Party".
I keep wanting to say something but I know it won't do any good. He's very "Tea Party".
maybe, but it wont be motivated by her gender. The Conservative wing of the party had no trouble voting for a woman to be a heartbeat away from the presidency in 2008.
Schattenjäger;159585532 said:
Alright not EVERYTHING I guess.
Don't mistake the internet progressives who are hating on Obama for his drone program, he is quite a bit more left than Hillary. And he was only ever an establishment candidate by default. He wasn't supposed to win the 2008 primary.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Unconstitutional, sadly.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
I'm still hopeful Warren runs. Hillary once again thinks she's going to have the nomination delivered on a silver platter because she thinks it's her turn and not because of anything she does/did. I'd love to see someone swoop in and shut her down again like Obama did.
Pretty much.I am thinking that not enough here really see the merit in Bill's name in proximity to the Presidency.
I suspect a lot of voters will vote Clinton hoping that Hilary is a proxy for Bill's third term, and knowing (probably rightly) that he will have a major voice in policy behind closed doors.
That is neither good nor bad, but I do suspect a fair contingent of voters will be voting as if this somehow ensured Bill Clinton a chance to Putin/Medvedev another four years in office.
There will likely be a not-small group of voters who go into their voting booths thinking about Bill Clinton returning to the White House. Even in 1992, Bill & Hillary were advertised at some points as a "co-presidency" (there were some great Jan Hooks SNL sketches on this point); it'd be easy to see voters (older ones who remember the 1990s especially) jump right back into that thought pattern, especially if the campaign gently nudges the idea.
Over the next 16 months, we're going to see articles about Hillary's approval ratings with the voting public. In my mind, since Bill comes with her, it might be risky to assess her chances and position only based on her own individual ratings. The effective rating for her might be a bit higher because of overwhelmimg good will towards Bill. It'll be fun to see how she leverages him. This is uncharted territory, so it should be fascinating.
Dude Abides
Banned
No he is not. He left the employee free choice act to die, didn't push for a public option, and did nothing about the banks who caused the financial crisis. Obama is indistinguishable from Hillary.
Elizabeth Warren would be crushed in a general. Wouldn't even make it out of the primaries.
shadowsdarknes
Member
Because the scandals are forced and non existent?
Or because... Obama is a foreign Muslim socialist weak willed dictator who purposely wanted Benghazi to happen?
We all know why he didn't push the public option or do anything about the banks. Just because he has to work within the established political rules does not mean he's the same politically as Hillary. You're starting to see that now.
I don't think Hillary would have followed through with her healthcare promises of the primaries and Obama's actual legislation was still more left leaning than her Primary promises.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Is that Hillaryis44 site still up? Good times.
What a bunch of dumb nut jobs.
What a bunch of dumb nut jobs.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
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...
The previous Secretary of State
FaustsBoon
Member
Well, let us also just be realistic.
Its time for morning briefings... a former President is standing right next to the current President. This unprecedented scenario creates all kinds of quirks, opportunities, questions, etc...
But just as a matter of practicality, you're telling me Bill wouldn't be more involved in daily affairs than any other first-spouse in history? It isn't even a gendered item... its just a matter of asking who would possibly be the one denying him access and a voice in things?
There will be a lot of discussion on this point, I suspect.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
You support Obama then jump sides to Bush? Weird.
Ciastek3214
Junior Member
See, I don't think hypothetics (if that is even a word) like that work, because if Hillary wasn't Bill's wife then her service up to now would be likely so much different there would be no point in comparing.
What would be the main differences in their agendas that you feel need emphasis?
I don't think anyone would have a problem with Bill Delano Roosevelt, I mean the constitution is made of amendments, they can be changed.
Ugh... First of all I am not a fan of dynasties. We have 300 million people in this country! The only leader we can find is the wife of a president from 20 years ago? Second of all I don't people realize how much a lot of the country absolutely hates Hilary. I am calling it right now. SHE WILL NOT WIN! Even if she wins the democratic nod it will be an automatic win for the Republicans. Don't do it Hilary. If you care about your party step aside.
BertramCooper
Banned
No she wouldn't.
Hillary would do better than Warren, no question, but Democrats' built-in advantage on the electoral map means that only a completely incompetent Democratic candidate would get "crushed" in the general election.
Dude Abides
Banned
Because he didn't care enough about them to do so. Like the Free Choice Act.
Starting to see what? Nice quips and tweets now that he doesn't have legislative majorities and can't actually do anything to enact this fabled inner progressive he's been hiding for 6 years?
So Obama's Eugene Debs because of your coubterfactual speculation about what Hillary might have done. Come on man.
I'm absolutely kidding. I would not vote for Jeb; Republicans in general need to do a lot of work to ever get my vote.
But I will not vote for Hillary either. Aside from health care she lacks true convictions, is rash and excessively hawkish regarding foreign policy, is already stirring some shit up with China, and is just not too smart. Smarter than average, but does not meet my threshold for the Presidency like Obama and Kerry did.
I would vote for Hillary if Bill is forced to take over all of Michelle Obama's projects.
"Hillary's always telling me, Bill, ya gotta eat yer broccoli..." <adjusts headband and queues up Zumba track>
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
I've always liked Hilary. She's a highly intelligent, competent person in her own right--I've been glad to see her out of Bill's shadow, vocationally these past several years.
Yeah, she's more centrist than I like. Then again, that's always the case for me.
One thing I know is that her Supreme Court nominations will be better than anything the Republicans can come up with. & we are stuck with those folks waaaaay more than an electoral cycle. At a certain point, liking Hilary is almost irrelevant. I don't want another damn Clarence Thomas. Or Scalia. etc
I think she can do it, too. I love E. Warren, but she's doing great where she is now. I hope she just keeps doing her.
Yeah, she's more centrist than I like. Then again, that's always the case for me.
One thing I know is that her Supreme Court nominations will be better than anything the Republicans can come up with. & we are stuck with those folks waaaaay more than an electoral cycle. At a certain point, liking Hilary is almost irrelevant. I don't want another damn Clarence Thomas. Or Scalia. etc
I think she can do it, too. I love E. Warren, but she's doing great where she is now. I hope she just keeps doing her.
Because there would have been no way to get the 60 votes he needed to pass the legislation.
His executive orders on immigration for one, his direct negotiations with Iran in spite of Bibi's temper tantrum, his endorsing of free community college, pushing new pollution standards and net neutrality. I could go on. Lets not pretend these last 6 months have been spent taking shots at Repubs.
Stop being crazy, I just said he's left of Hillary. He's not some progressive savior.
The most substantive differences are in foreign policy. Hillary has a much stronger relationship with Bibi and Israel, she would probably have taken a more interventionist position in Crimea, same with Syria. It's hard to say exactly what she would have done given the same position... but she's said enough to see that she's much more hawkish than Obama when it comes to foreign intervention.
As far as domestic policy. We don't know much beyond what she's been saying recently and what she said in the 2008 primaries. She was for a more conservative form of immigration reform than Obama in 2008, but agrees with his executive actions in 2014. These differences are subtle enough on paper but point to a more centrist position for Hillary overall.
Again, I'm not claiming that she's an evil conservative or that Obama is a progressive superhero, just that he is more left than her. We'll see if that remains consistent when she is elected President.
I have no doubt he'd be involved. If she should win, I'd bet that Bill's especially going to end-up being her point man on big-ticket items. He's going to be able to pick up his phone and call a world leader, and they'll put him through. (Hell, he might even be on a first-name basis with the people he'd be dealing with.) He'd be an asset, but at the same time, he'd also have to clear everything with her; whether that's realistic or not, I'm not sure.. he seems like a guy who couldn't resist getting involved in certain situations, hehe..
JesseEwiak
Member
Ask Nader voters in Florida how that works out for progressive goals in the short-term.
The public option never had 51 votes, let alone 60, the EFCA was killed by the fact again, there were Democratic Senator's against it, and Dodd-Frank barely passed.
Again, all holier than thou progressive who think Obama could've done more is convince me what more progressive legislation than Jim Costa would've been the 218th vote for in the House and Ben Nelson would've been the 60th vote for in the Senate for cloture, and that Max Baucus or Mark Warner would've been the 50th vote for in the Senate.
Baron_Calamity
Member
Pretty much everyone in Washington at the time. Even G.W.Bush's White House used a private server supplied by RNC and they deleted 22 million emails. Also I refuse to believe any of this was a conspiracy. Government email during that entire time period was a mess. Borderline nightmare to deal with. It was a tangled mess of contractor supplied servers mixed with government supplied servers all using different systems, different protocols. Different organizations would not trust each other ended up firewalling each other. Not to mention servers were often under powered to deal with the amount of traffic and went down frequently. Everyone knew that there needed to be one authority to get a handle on the problem but everyone thought they should be the one. Then procurement would get involved and time tables to solve the problem would get stretched out. I'm totally not surprised with anyone just saying "screw this" and using a private server. Just remember, everyone running against Hillary did the exact same thing. It wasn't a conspiracy to hide anything on either side. It was just the only way to get work done.
That said, this isn't a problem now and anyone caught doing this has no excuse.
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm somewhat curious if there's any rational rationale to the apparent foregone conclusion that her winning is an impossibility against the current or potential field of Republican candidates. Although I don't expect there is.There's no way she's going to win the presidential elections. I really hope she's the only candidate for the democrats, the future is looking bright
shadowsdarknes
Member
DAT bubbleThere's no way she's going to win the presidential elections. I really hope she's the only candidate for the democrats, the future is looking bright
Step outside. The country is not bubbaville, Huckabee Junior.
Yellowtail
Member
I had forgotten all about that glorious moment.
Admiral Woofington
Member
Hilldaaaaaaaaaaawg.
Arf arf arf
Arf arf arf
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
I'm ready for a repeat of this:
hahaha, oh man.
You can see his fabricated reality collapse around him as he struggles to accept what's really happening.
CreeperBlocks
Banned
I'm ready for a repeat of this:
Omg Yes.
BertramCooper
Banned
I'm ready for a repeat of this:
But the suburbs in Hamilton County are totally going to change everything in Ohio!
This a thousand times.
We can elect the most progressive president in history, but it won't do us a damn bit of good if the House stands in the way.. which it will until at least 2022, after redistricting takes effect.
In the meantime, Scalia and Kennedy will both be 80 in 2016. Ginsburg will be ready to retire. The winner of this one could reshape the high court for a generation.
"Corporations are people."
"Money is equal to speech."
"Business are capable of sincere religious belief."
...
With a liberal court, all of that bullshit goes down, and a whole variety of progressive law becomes viable. Campaign finance would be allowed. Most really egregious social conservative legislation - regardless of what level of govt it's passed at - becomes DOA.
It'd be really short-sighted to sneer at her because she's too allegedly moderate. This is the equivalent of the GOP base sneering at Jeb because he takes a moderate-ish view on a few big items; they'd still get 90% of what they want on other conservative causes - plus court nominees who are willing to do really big dirty work on other key issues - if he were to win.
This is another thing I wonder about.
It's one thing for the GOP to piss-off a group of voters that comprises about 13% of the electorate and votes 90-95% against them.
What happens when they piss-off a group of voters that comprises about 52% of the electorate and only votes 55-45 against them?
There's a lot more margin to be lost by angering women.
I can sympathize with seeing Hillary as a step down, but the Presidency is more than one person. It's agency nominations, judicial nominations, Supreme Court nominations, cabinet department heads. It's an absence of the other party being in charge. If Hillary is not elected, then the Republican President in 2017 will sign whatever bill Boehner and McConnell put on their desk, and you'll have people like John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz whispering into Bush or Walker's ear on foreign policy.
Policy-wise, she is viewed as being more pro-Wall Street and more of a hawk. So the establishment here is big business and the military.
That's aside from the fact that she is part of a political dynasty and has served in federal government for a long time, which naturally makes her more connected to the political establishment than Obama was at the start of his presidency.
- Status