Maybe. The 22nd Amendment actually says no person can be elected twice. He wouldn't be elected. It would be up to the Supreme Court to decide if he could actually become president if his wife died. It would be the same problem if he took another cabinet position.
Hillary Clinton expected to announce presidential run this weekend
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
- Status
bone_and_sinew
breaking down barriers in gratuitous nudity
RandyBobandy
Banned
Is Hillary really the only choice for democrat? There's nobody better?
DrGonzo615
Banned
Ugh, anticipating a Hilary v. Bush election coming up.
Unless she fucks up royally, the dems have already practically given her the nod. Who's going to run against her in the primaries?
All I have to say is that political dynasties are bad
Unless she fucks up royally, the dems have already practically given her the nod. Who's going to run against her in the primaries?
All I have to say is that political dynasties are bad
There's plenty of people "better" but I don't know if there's anyone else who has the name recognition, debate skills, and establishment backing.
You'll see a bunch of names thrown around this Primary season who won't be ready for another 8 years (ex. Warren).
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...
1. Jeb Bush already had his own email controversy that was almost as bad.
2. I'm pretty sure the Hillary campaign is the one that leaked the email scandal. Get all of the potential scandals out of the way early, because the American public has no memory.
In the primaries... Martin O'Mally, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden? That'w all that comes to mind.
Poor Governor Ann Richards, already forgotten.
Baron_Calamity
Member
Martin O'Mally has a tough road ahead. I like the guy and voted for him but most Marylanders hate him and he has the charisma of wet cardboard. Bernie Sanders is way to old and liberal (though his liberalism is my type) and then we have Biden. I guess he would do ok.
It's too bad that Sanders won't win because he's so no-bullshit it hurts.
I just want him to debate Hillary into the ground, though it'll probably be a few gotcha moments that will blow over as long as she appears unfazed.
Vermont will continue to be a weird hippie utopia while the rest of the country violently convulses trying to progress into 2015.
I just want him to debate Hillary into the ground, though it'll probably be a few gotcha moments that will blow over as long as she appears unfazed.
Vermont will continue to be a weird hippie utopia while the rest of the country violently convulses trying to progress into 2015.
How many times am I going to see this?
Out of 43 Presidents, how many have been a Clinton or a Bush?
-Many people in elected office today as we speak have family as elected officials more than you realize.
-Al Gore and his father were senators. Senator Roy Blunt (MO) son was Govenor Matt Blunt. Jeb Bush 94' oppoent in FL Govenor Chiles niece is Former Senator Kay Hagan (NC).
The list goes on.
Chance Hale
Member
Heh, the state has just changed a lot since then. Who Texas elected 25 years ago didn't seem relevant to Hilary's chances now so the reference slipped my mind.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
Still not a fan of Hillary, but more so one than when she ran in 08. I don't know, some of the stuff with video games and music didn't sit well with me. I'd rather have Elizabeth Warren, but I think she is just letting Hillary do her thing. Warren is young enough to wait if she would even want to run.
With all that said, if the only thing the GOP can promote is FREEDOM, LIBERTY, CONSTITUTION and TAXES, they will lose. The majority of the country, those who are the lower class, middle class, upper middle class, they want MONEY. No amount of tax cutting will help them achieve their wages increasing to where inflation adjustment says they should be at. Cutting taxes isn't going to help the generation of college debt. Clear fact is, the pendulum needs to swing where growth returns to the bottom part of the economic ladder. Basically all the profits stay in the top %s of earners or they stay over seas. Imagine the help our economy would receive if corporations returned the 2-3 trillion they have stashed over seas.
Majority of the country is bleeding while they try to sell you buzzwords like 'freedom'. Any time someone says freedom in relationship to politics/economy, I always take it as "give the wealthy more freedom to construct a system that funnels money up."
With all that said, if the only thing the GOP can promote is FREEDOM, LIBERTY, CONSTITUTION and TAXES, they will lose. The majority of the country, those who are the lower class, middle class, upper middle class, they want MONEY. No amount of tax cutting will help them achieve their wages increasing to where inflation adjustment says they should be at. Cutting taxes isn't going to help the generation of college debt. Clear fact is, the pendulum needs to swing where growth returns to the bottom part of the economic ladder. Basically all the profits stay in the top %s of earners or they stay over seas. Imagine the help our economy would receive if corporations returned the 2-3 trillion they have stashed over seas.
Majority of the country is bleeding while they try to sell you buzzwords like 'freedom'. Any time someone says freedom in relationship to politics/economy, I always take it as "give the wealthy more freedom to construct a system that funnels money up."
Bush won in 2000 because of the bullshit that is the electoral college and because 50 million people voted for him.
Gnome Scat
Member
Underwood 2016.
GoldenEye 007
Member
I think the VP has to be eligible to be president. Other positions are just skipped on the line of succession, though.
Deified Data
Banned
Pretty much. Conservatives are going to be walking on eggshells around women this election cycle. I don't expect as much dogwhistling for Hillary's gender as Barack's race.
And the circling of the wagons begins in earnest.
If even a small percentage of Nader voters voted Gore in Florida election would have had a different outcome. No recount, simple easy Gore win if some liberals had got over their 'The two parties are no different!" attitude in 2000. Gore would have been a dramatically different President.
And Hillary would be dramatically different than any of the GOP nominees. She'd appoint liberal supreme court justices for one thing.
Poodlestrike
Banned
If we're electing fictional presidents, I'd much prefer Bartlet.
Deified Data
Banned
Before this argument even begins I suggest reading this informative article. Before you complain about the source, it is well-cited.
Gore could have made up those votes by demanding a recount of disqualified paper and pencil ballots (enough to win, most likely). He could have demanded a recount of the very confusing butterfly ballots that had people voting for candidates they had zero interest in. He could have appealed to the 12% of Florida Democrats that ended up voting for Bush. He didn't. End of story. Nader was a footnote in Gore's defeat in Florida, but I understand why he makes an appealing scapegoat.
DrGonzo615
Banned
So because its commonplace today that makes it better?
EDIT: actually wait, so your saying its not commonplace....then you are saying it IS commonplace. Not sure what position you have on this.
Dude Abides
Banned
There's no reason to think that Hillary would not have done any of those same things. The only plausible case you could make is on Iran, but even there their campaign stances were virtually identical.
But he isn't left of Hillary to any discernible agree.
No it isn't. As noted, their campaign stances in 2008 on Iran were virtually identical. The only thing that meaningfully paints her as more hawkish is her vote for Iraq, and Obama has shown that he's perfectly willing to engage in military adventurism.
And Obama was against the individual mandate in 2008. This is a whole lot of nothing. Obama's governed as a centrist Democrat for 6 years. There's no daylight between him and Hillary on domestic issues.
The point is that he didn't even try with the EFCA, and barely did so for the public option. Recall that this debate is about Marrec's unfounded assertion that Obama is meaningfully more progressive than Hillary. If your argument is that Congress is all that matters it doesn't matter who the President is as long as it's a Democrat. That's a defensible stance but it's not what Marrec and I are talking about.
I am pointing out we wouldn't even need a recount, none of that nonsense would happen. No need for demands of a recount. There wouldnt be an issue of a recount if a small sliver of the liberals who voted Nader voted Gore instead.
As to your point about the 12% Dems who voted Bush? That is a common occurrence. The registered democrats who tend to vote republican traditionally show to be just as conservative as republicans when it comes to the issues.
Gore was not going to ever appeal to these conservative democrats who vote like Republicans. The Nader voters who far and away had liberal views agreed with Gore far far far more on the issues than Bush. The same can't be said the the registered democrats who vote Republican.
I would probably vote for Hilary in the end but the whole thing is very dispiriting.
She has gained a lot of experience that would suit her well in the Oval Office but really she is such a political creature. She panders without style. Early on she went after the video gamer mom vote and spoke of their evils with much ignorance. That vote calculation has always been in effect and unlike her husband she can't hide it with a solid political persona or vision.
But that's not what bothers me the most. It's the continuation of the establishment, of America sinking deeper into an Oligarchy thanks to politician's relationships with banks and other big donors. This is what the Hilary years will be; capitualtion to corporations without even Obama's social sentiments to round off the edges. A vote for Hilary is a vote for everything as it is today. She's worked the system for a couple decades and now that very same system will work for her.
She has gained a lot of experience that would suit her well in the Oval Office but really she is such a political creature. She panders without style. Early on she went after the video gamer mom vote and spoke of their evils with much ignorance. That vote calculation has always been in effect and unlike her husband she can't hide it with a solid political persona or vision.
But that's not what bothers me the most. It's the continuation of the establishment, of America sinking deeper into an Oligarchy thanks to politician's relationships with banks and other big donors. This is what the Hilary years will be; capitualtion to corporations without even Obama's social sentiments to round off the edges. A vote for Hilary is a vote for everything as it is today. She's worked the system for a couple decades and now that very same system will work for her.
DrGonzo615
Banned
Dont expect anybody that is seriously considered for the presidency to rock that boat too much. Politics is bought and paid for and there is almost ZERO appetite in government to do anything about it.
I'll go for David Palmer.
Fox Mulder
Member
it's pretty sad.
the democrat side is a barren wasteland of personalities capable of running for president. The republicans at least have a couple flavors of candidates. I don't think Hillary will excite people as much as Obama did as well.
I've gotta go with Andrew Shepherd. Sorry for minor derail, but this is perhaps my favorite speech by a fictional president.
Let's hope Hillary registers a new e-mail address for the campaign.
I've already got Hilldawg2016@gmail.com on lockdown though.
Yes, political dynasties are bad, but this is not a political dynasty. No one is handing Bush or Clinton the White House. They have to make their case to the electorate and run for election. This argument that it's a political dynasty is a ridiculous one to me. It's not like Bush or Clinton have no political experience. This is not a monarchy where an inexperienced individual can ascend to the throne. Bush was Governor and won two terms in his own right. Clinton was a Senator and won two terms in her own right and was Secretary of State.
This is a blatant strawman; there's no evidence that Nader voters had any such attitude. Regardless, you're also creating a false dichotomy where the only choice in 2016 is between Hillary and whoever the GOP nominates.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
I hope she gets elected but the USA is full of idiots and I can actually see Bush getting elected.
It's going to be a long 1.5 years of hearing about benghazi and emails
It's going to be a long 1.5 years of hearing about benghazi and emails
That IS the only choice. Hillary is 100% the democratic nominee. There is no question about it.
And the way our election works there is nothing to be gained by voting third party other than it hurts the chances of whichever of the big two parties you would have otherwise supported. We do not have a system setup in which it is at all possible for a third party candidate to be a viable option.
Well said. Blaming Nader or third party voters is the easy, lazy narrative for rationalizing why "our guy" didn't win. It takes more effort to acknowledge the deeper issues in the two-party system. One can point to virtually any demographic or group and say, "It's these guys fault! They should have voted differently." Preferential/runoff voting could be one solution to eliminating the "third party votes are wasted votes" stigma, but there's no chance in hell the people in Washington let that happen.
Well she has no choice but to make you a top campaign adviser now.
Yup. There's always a choice - the media simply sells the idea that there isn't to people in order to get them to fall in line with one party or the other. If we're talking likelihoods of winning that's another matter, but as far as I'm concerned every voter has the right to vote for whom he/she wants. Sure, Hillary is a lock for the official Democratic bid, but she won't the only Democratic/liberal candidate in the running (ex - Jill Stein).
Empyrean Heaven
Member
If I could play devils advocate, I think he means that Fox News' female talking heads (Kelly, Coulter, Malkin, etc) will probably hammer home the fact that Bill cheated on her and Hilary still stood by him, when she should have kicked him to the curb as a way to turn woman voters against her.
Sure, that goes against the whole "die feminism die" mantra of women conservative pundits, but if it puts a Republican in office, why not?
The GOP are definitely going to politicize Benghazi further. I can see them trying to get the families of the four men who died to run ads against Clinton. That will be damning.
The problem is, other than republicans, no one cares about Benghazi.
DrGonzo615
Banned
You mean who can pander the hardest right? Politicians have no convictions, especially when it comes to the Presidency. In the primaries you will see the Republicans try to out "Right" each other and the Dems will try to out "Left" each other, then they will both move as close to the middle as they can in the general election. They're are very few hardline stances. The only ones they have are the ideas that appeal to their base.
As for political dynasties. The problem is an issue of ideological stagnation. Jeb and Hillary have been around politics for most of their lives and are more entrenched with how they play the game than their actual positions IMO.
gutter_trash
Banned
as First Lady, she was more Left than Obama on Healthcare but as gone closer to the center as a Senator with he same alignment as Bill
She is economically Center-Right (from an international point of view)
She is close to Wall Street
Fox Mulder
Member
some people in the middle might if they can get a fresh angle. People on the right and left already made their minds up on it.
Duane Cunningham
Member
Yeah, but don't forget that the Republicans nuked themselves in the foot with women last time... they just couldn't stop talking about rape.Todd "shut it down" Aiken is the most memorable example, but there were a handful of candidates that also had to drop out because they just couldn't stop themselves. Maybe they learned their lesson, but I doubt it.
Jawbreaker
Member
I'd take Cynthia McKinney (loose screws and all) before Hilary or Warren if that were at all an option or possibility. I wish the Green Party would start to infiltrate the Democratic Party in the way "Constitutionalists" and soft libertarians have with the Republican Party.
Link
The Autumn Wind
You're confusing private email with personal email. It was still on a secure server, and it's not like it was the same email address she used to send recipe ideas to Chelsea. Both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private email addresses as well.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...
Fragamemnon
Member
Campaigned for Hillary in 2008, will probably do so again (though less-I'm busier now) this go around , especially if things are still in flux by the time the primaries get to my state.
I'm looking for an operator, not a visionary, someone who will exact backroom political vengeance and retaliation as needed to get their goals across the finish line no matter what. An operator who will treat the monolithic Republican congressional block like the group of petty children that they are.
So yeah, Hillary. So far I haven't seen anyone else I trust to carry through with getting tough to get things done.
I'm looking for an operator, not a visionary, someone who will exact backroom political vengeance and retaliation as needed to get their goals across the finish line no matter what. An operator who will treat the monolithic Republican congressional block like the group of petty children that they are.
So yeah, Hillary. So far I haven't seen anyone else I trust to carry through with getting tough to get things done.
That's how politics have worked since day 1. I don't understand why people expect different. Since the Roman Republic that's how politics have worked. But, it is the job of the candidate to explain their vision and it is our job to hold them to that vision and if they don't we vote them out of office. That's how democracy works.
A country does not run on principles or conviction. It runs on compromise.
Ideological purity and conviction? We got that, with the terribly unproductive Congress of the past few years.
I think knowing how to play the game is a valuable skill in itself. That's why for all the hate she gets, Nancy Pelosi is actually quite good to be the leader of her party in the House, and why John Boehner is a failure of a leader. It's not about grandstanding and holding to your principles and looking heroic. It's about getting in the mud, understanding the interests of everyone involved, and learning to wrangle and herd cats and hoping that at the end of all this something substantial still gets done.
- Status