TacticalFox88
Banned
That would be the STUPIDEST thing they could do. For a variety of reasons. They'd hand the election to the GOP on silver platterJaladinozozo said:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
Jaladinozozo
Banned
TacticalFox88 said:
Why?
because of the electoral college?
Byakuya769
Member
Jaladinozozo said:
Gets your candidates' faults out there and demoralizes half the base during a time where the Republican candidates should be beating up on one another and your candidate should be campaigning freely.
No, because of how it would affect the Dem vote and the GOP message.Jaladinozozo said:
Say Clinton runs against Obama. Now we have a situation where the Dems have to chose who they vote for come November. This is bad, as there has to be a new battle between the candidates. While this is happening, the GOP has the opportunity to run campaign adds bashing both individuals throughout all 50 states while Clinton and Obama have to run adds bashing each other and GOP. Also, the GOP can say "look, that party doesn't even believe in the president, how can you trust their party at all."
Coming into an election season unified towards one candidate makes pooling money easier, makes campaigning easier, makes demonizing the opposition easier, etc.
I could be wrong, but this is my opinion at least.
jamesinclair
Banned
Bush doesnt find Osama in 7 years
Obama finds him in 1
Bush isnt able to bring freedom to Iraq
Obama does it in Libya in 6 months.
Obama does what buscant
Obama finds him in 1
Bush isnt able to bring freedom to Iraq
Obama does it in Libya in 6 months.
Obama does what buscant
PhoenixDark
Banned
jamesinclair said:
This is just stupid. How many days did it take to defeat Iraq again...
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
TacticalFox88 said:
Jeebus knows we'd all be ready to shit on him if the rebels were crushed.
jamesinclair said:
The GOP counters with a young Bill Clinton.
It's super effective!
Plus man, I'm not sure he can take credit for Libya.
Edit: yeah, it's just a weird comparison through and through.
Jaladinozozo
Banned
TacticalFox88
Banned
I stopped reading afterJaladinozozo said:
Hope you realize there was a vote in the Senate approving the action. Based on that I can only assume it's highly flawed.
Jaladinozozo
Banned
besada said:
i have this feeling that a large part of the country hates obama, and many of the people that voted for him before really regret it and would love to vote for hillary or anyone other than the gop, and that if she ran she might actually beat both obama and whatever batshit crazy fuck wins the gop nomination
Jaladinozozo
Banned
TacticalFox88 said:
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/17/bombing-libya-without-congressional-approval/
this is bush league shit, pun intended
Jaladinozozo said:
I don't know why. Hillary was a very similar candidate to Obama, maybe even more right leaning. And she's much more polarizing.
This is all despite the fact that primarying an incumbent in our current system would never work in the way you'd want it.
TacticalFox88 said:
Congress voted to fund the war, but against authorizing it. Why they're allowed to fund an unauthorized war? I don't know.
Jaladinozozo said:
what?
I'd have to double check but I don't think it's ever been done (or almost never) that a party runs against its own incumbent. The President IS the leader of the Democratic party at the moment. There would have to be a mutiny and a very very strong candidate to even consider running against the power that comes form the bully pulpit when campaigning.
edit: oh chit just saw I was badly beaten.
Byakuya769
Member
Not happy with Obama, but wouldn't change my choice in the slightest.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Byakuya769 said:
Same here. President McCain, folks...
Byakuya769
Member
Also, I think anyone who thinks that Hillary's chummy relationship with some Republicans would have helped in her presidency is just as naive as Obama. Their political strategy was set in stone no matter who was in office.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
Byakuya769 said:
I hate to jump on the Hillary bandwagon but I do think she at least would not have shared Obama's frustrating reluctance to call Republicans out publicly on their bullshit.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Considering the campaign is coming up, I don't think Obama has a choice. He'll HAVE too, if he wants to competeDOO13ER said:
teruterubozu
Member
Hitokage said:
Which is why this election is gonna get ugly. Obama won't take the high road (not a lot there to ride on). It's gonna be a down & dirty mudslinger.
Jaladinozozo
Banned
TacticalFox88 said:
you gonna continue reading the link i posted about obama now that i showed you that you were wrong?
teruterubozu
Member
Averon said:
Yeah but at least there wouldn't be a fuckin' Tea Party.
Byakuya769
Member
DOO13ER said:
Likely. Though unfortunately, she'd quickly get labeled a "bitch", have high unfavorables, and present the same center-right policies that wouldn't move us far enough away from the prior recession. Then we're left with the prospect of her being a one-term President.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
SoulPlaya said:
Yeah. I'm a bit perplexed by his reply. A bit asinine.
Anyway, If Qaddafi surrenders, I wonder how the GOP nominees will spin the story?
teruterubozu
Member
Byakuya769 said:
Yeah, but she would listen to Bill, whom Obama shuns.
Averon said:
It would be a different animal though, probably not as race-rage-filled and they probably wouldn't be as hardcore about calling her an illegitimate president.
i think the biggest improvement in a potential Clinton presidency would be that the lines of communication between the WH and Congressional Dems would be handled better. especially of late, it seems as if Obama's team is content with giving their statements first without any vetting or consideration from other Dems.
how that would inform policy, especially the health care bill, is debatable.
how that would inform policy, especially the health care bill, is debatable.
Byakuya769
Member
teruterubozu said:
Welfare-reformer Bill?
teruterubozu
Member
Byakuya769 said:
Balanced budget Bill.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
teruterubozu said:
Capital gains tax cut Gingrich.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Chichikov said:
The way the GOP derided him for Libya, he definitely can take some credit for it.
teruterubozu said:
There would be less of a race angle, true, but I don't think their message and actions would be much different at all. They would still be crying socialism and Marxism, implying death panels, and risking the US to default. I don't see how Hillary being tougher on the GOP would change things all that much. She would still have to deal with Blue Dogs, a 41>59 Senate, and the public's short term memory.
teruterubozu
Member
Averon said:
But the Blue Dogs actually like her. Obama has like, zero friends.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Jaladinozozo said:
You keep posting that link. Is the page yours?
Jaladinozozo
Banned
quadriplegicjon said:
no, im just genuinely shocked to find out all of these things about obama, i looked at every source too, everything seems legit and from trusted news/media, not some basement blogger
PhoenixDark
Banned
teruterubozu said:
And she'd be less toxic in some of their home states. Obama is so easily demonized in party due to his race. That wouldn't work as effectively with Hillary, someone everyone has been familiar with for years. It's true there are many people who hate her, and the right would have no problems attacking her viciously, but I think many rural and working class democrat and independent voters wouldn't abandon her, or tepidly support her.
She's not afraid of starting a fight, even if it results in a loss. Obama's entirely presidency has been clouded by his refusal to fight battles that may result in losses. Everything is calculated to appeal to one group while expecting democrats to be content. 2012 is going to be about turn out, and as I see it there's really not much of a reason for certain demographics to come out in mass for someone who hasn't fought for them.
I'm not saying Hillary is any less of a corporate democrat than Obama is. But there's no doubt in my mind she would handle the opposition better, and make her positions known. Obama constantly shows up once the PR war has been lost on an issue. That happened with healthcare and the various debt deals that followed. He's an effective speaker, so why deploy him only when it's Damage Control time? He's NEVER seen on the offensive. I'm not suggesting a magical speech from him will solve these issues, but I find it odd the WH only uses their ace to close losing games.
I love watching progressives curse themselves for supporting Democrats after hoping for unabashed progressivism from a decidedly centrist party, then calling for putting someone even more aligned with centrism in power. Surely this will lead to more progressive outcomes.
After effectively losing the democratic nomination, Hillary re-branded herself as simply "a fighter" by continuing the race (since there was little permanent political cost), and many liberals bought it hook line and sinker. Being "a fighter" must outweigh having your political power firmly rooted in the centrist wing of the party. Being "a fighter" also means you can assume all you like about an alternate presidential scenario too, it seems.
Surely Hillary would have fixed the economy in two years, where Obama could not. Evidence: well, she's fighter. Maybe she wouldn't have compromised on things like the stimulus. Because after all, Republicans will back down if you call their bluffs, right? It's not like they'll let the country burn to the ground if given the chance to stick their fingers in a Democratic president's eyes. If the national Republican Party has shown anything in the last three years, it's that they are rational actors playing by established political courtesies and rules, right? And we have all sorts of proposals that Hillary would have gone through with had she been elected, that we could use to compare with Obama's, correct? It's not like we're just fantasizing or anything.
Surely Hillary would have passed a better healthcare bill than Obama. Evidence: Well, she failed back in the nineties, and antagonized just about every interested party... but Obama didn't get us a public option, so Hillary surely would have passed this proposal which she herself never talked about.
And Hillary obviously would have gotten us out of the Middle East faster. Evidence: I mean, she voted for going into Iraq, and gave no indication of doing anything differently from Obama in terms of actual policy, and of course she is in fact his Secretary of State, his top foreign policy person. These facts of course lead me to believe she would do things differently and get far better results.
Hillary would have done better than Obama on social issues too. Evidence: Obama does not publicly support marriage equality, despite supporting civil unions and working to give gay couples benefits, and ending things like DADT which Hillary's husband signed into legislation (along with ending enforcement of DOMA, also signed by Clinton). This must mean that Hillary supports gay marriage, and would have done more than Obama on this front. I remember a lot of people calling Obama out on not supporting gay marriage, but for some reason I didn't see people confronting Hillary on that, despite never supporting gay marriage. I wonder why?
There would have been no Tea Party if Hillary was elected, right? I mean, all those Republicans calling for supporting Hillary must really have meant it. It's not like they're trying to divide and conquer or anything, that would be silly.
That grass is looking mighty green.
The thing is, I actually like Hillary Clinton. I really like her. I wouldn't have been sad if she had won the nomination, and she's done a fine job as SoS. In fact, I think she's about one of the few public figures who handled her loss without bitterness, and without using every moment of Obama's vulnerability to say "heh, told ya we shoulda voted for Hillary."
After effectively losing the democratic nomination, Hillary re-branded herself as simply "a fighter" by continuing the race (since there was little permanent political cost), and many liberals bought it hook line and sinker. Being "a fighter" must outweigh having your political power firmly rooted in the centrist wing of the party. Being "a fighter" also means you can assume all you like about an alternate presidential scenario too, it seems.
Surely Hillary would have fixed the economy in two years, where Obama could not. Evidence: well, she's fighter. Maybe she wouldn't have compromised on things like the stimulus. Because after all, Republicans will back down if you call their bluffs, right? It's not like they'll let the country burn to the ground if given the chance to stick their fingers in a Democratic president's eyes. If the national Republican Party has shown anything in the last three years, it's that they are rational actors playing by established political courtesies and rules, right? And we have all sorts of proposals that Hillary would have gone through with had she been elected, that we could use to compare with Obama's, correct? It's not like we're just fantasizing or anything.
Surely Hillary would have passed a better healthcare bill than Obama. Evidence: Well, she failed back in the nineties, and antagonized just about every interested party... but Obama didn't get us a public option, so Hillary surely would have passed this proposal which she herself never talked about.
And Hillary obviously would have gotten us out of the Middle East faster. Evidence: I mean, she voted for going into Iraq, and gave no indication of doing anything differently from Obama in terms of actual policy, and of course she is in fact his Secretary of State, his top foreign policy person. These facts of course lead me to believe she would do things differently and get far better results.
Hillary would have done better than Obama on social issues too. Evidence: Obama does not publicly support marriage equality, despite supporting civil unions and working to give gay couples benefits, and ending things like DADT which Hillary's husband signed into legislation (along with ending enforcement of DOMA, also signed by Clinton). This must mean that Hillary supports gay marriage, and would have done more than Obama on this front. I remember a lot of people calling Obama out on not supporting gay marriage, but for some reason I didn't see people confronting Hillary on that, despite never supporting gay marriage. I wonder why?
There would have been no Tea Party if Hillary was elected, right? I mean, all those Republicans calling for supporting Hillary must really have meant it. It's not like they're trying to divide and conquer or anything, that would be silly.
That grass is looking mighty green.
The thing is, I actually like Hillary Clinton. I really like her. I wouldn't have been sad if she had won the nomination, and she's done a fine job as SoS. In fact, I think she's about one of the few public figures who handled her loss without bitterness, and without using every moment of Obama's vulnerability to say "heh, told ya we shoulda voted for Hillary."
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Jaladinozozo said:
Some of those things are taken a bit out of context though and completely ignore other things he has done. But yes, Obama has generally continued some of Bush's policies that many liberals were not happy about.
- Status