Manmademan
Member
Clinton in 1992, probably.
Why is Hillary guaranteed to win?
- Thread starter DeaconKnowledge
- Start date
- Status
Clinton in 1992, probably.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
It's just disgusting is all. If Hdawg lost and Bernie, Webb, Biden, were the nominee I would vote for that individual and do my best to convince my friends/family to do the same. I do not want to see the progress we have made in the past eight years get pissed away all because I'm some petulant child who didn't get exactly what he wanted.
People really don't get it. If you are in anyway a progressive, liberal, w/e you do not want a Republican president with this congress.
By all means, vote your heart in the primary. But you had best support the nominee in the general.
neogaffer1
Banned
it used to be simply that no other democrat had the broad party and public appeal she enjoyed and the republicans as a whole are pretty much unelectable, but that's been changing as hillary's been completely mismanaging her campaign by not really campaigning and letting all this negative news (think email server) stick to her.
now barring a miracle the gop is still fucked nobody who they put up and if hillary gets any more sludge or gets charged as a criminal for the email thing we'll either get bernie or biden as the next president.
now barring a miracle the gop is still fucked nobody who they put up and if hillary gets any more sludge or gets charged as a criminal for the email thing we'll either get bernie or biden as the next president.
Hardly. EMILY's List is not donating to Jeb. Kochs aren't donating to Hillary. Soros isn't donating to a Republican candidate, and neither is Steven Spielberg.
BertramCooper
Banned
Not to mention labor unions.
You're excluding a lot of Wall Street firms to make this claim.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Honestly though, what can she do about the email shit?
But she has been campaigning. She's been laser focused on Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina, and that's where she's been spending the majority of her time. She's also released more comprehensive policy plans than almost any other candidate, and certainly more than any of her Republican opponents.
I agree with the way that this email situation's been handled -- not well -- but it also hasn't really resonated with voters. Her numbers have gone down, but of course they were going to because that's what happens when you go from a non-politician to running for office.
Uh, he won with under 50% of the popular vote. I don't think people were really expecting that kind of scenario. At all.
What are the big future swing states that arent quite primed yet?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Arizona is turning more and more into leaner category. Might be a true swing state in 5-10 years.
Texas will be purple before the next ten years are out, too. Believe.
Manmademan
Member
popular vote doesn't matter. Electoral vote does. This is an electoral equivalent of an ass whipping. it wasn't even close.
and since we're talking specifically PRE-election results:
http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm
Even without Perot running (which skewed the popular vote numbers, even though he won 0 electoral votes) Bush's approval rating was in the toilet before the election and he was viewed as extremely vulnerable.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-the-2020-elections-yes-you-read-that-right/
But also, just general thoughts:
From Red to Blue:
-- Georgia and Arizona are going to be a lot more competitive. Maybe not in 2016, but certainly in 2020 and 2024.
-- Montana is slowly becoming bluer. Its small population also allows for variances in voting habits to be even more pronounced.
-- Alaska is also becoming bluer (slowly) as its gender gap (slowly) begins to close. See Montana on small population.
From Blue to Red:
-- Michigan and eventually Pennsylvania will be much more competitive for Republicans going forward. Same with Wisconsin, probably.
Demographically, if things stay the same (and there's really no reason over the next few years to believe any differently), it will be very hard for Republicans to win an election. When they have to campaign to defend Arizona and Georgia, the election is over.
Texas is the big one.
Trends show that by 2024 it very well could be a purple state. There are counter trends that Republicans are clinging too such as Texas Latinos trending toward the GOP(though for context they are still a majority democratic voting bloc) but as they continue to double down on the hawkish and borderline racist attitudes I personally think it is wishful thinking on the GOP's part.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
I wish it were true, but I honestly don't see it happening.
I'm less inclined to believe Texas will ever be a true swing state due to the more conservative nature of Texas Latinos compared to the rest of the country. We'll see.
Also, the South will inevitably reach a tipping point where minority votes will cobble together a coalition to be competitive in Mississippi, Alabama, and other states. Not now or anytime soon (save for Georgia and the already swingy North Carolina), but the trends are there and should be worrying to Southern Republicans.
AngmarsKing701
Member
And that's basically what OP is asking.
Right now, Hillary is the likely Democratic candidate. I realize here on GAF there's a lot of love for Bernie, but he's not going to pull an Obama and overtake Hillary. Yes, she's somewhat boring, but Bernie isn't exactly the charming orator Obama was. Look, Obama came along with the right message at the right time and delivered it with the right charisma. We had all realized that Dubya was a complete moron, that we were in a war we shouldn't necessarily have been in and that we'd grown far enough from the shadow of 9/11 that this young leader preaching "Change" would be heard.
We don't have the same set of circumstances. Again, GAF loves Obama, but his approval rating is below 50%. That being said, it's not terribly below 50% (45% I believe). He's taken the executive order schtick a bit far and--I know this is unpopular with GAF--Obamacare hasn't exactly been a success. He promised that ACA was going to reduce costs across the board, but my costs are up in the neighborhood of 60%+. So no, I'm not a fan of Obamacare, though as a POTUS he's been a breath of fresh air after W.
What could derail Hillary?
1. Scandal. It's nagged at her for decades at this point. In some respect, she has a little bit of that teflon on her (Reagan used to be called the Teflon President) because regardless of whether she's been unfaithful (well, her husband was first) or Benghazi (happened long enough ago that it doesn't really matter) or this email fiasco (yes it's serious but most likely not damaging enough), she seems to shake it off and keep going. However, between now and Nov 2016 there's ample opportunity for something else to pop up that would damage her significantly. Not out of the question, given her background. Sort of like the whole "well the Pats are cheaters so clearly everything that happens with that team involves cheating."
2. An Obama-like candidate. I really think the only way something like this happens is if there's a world event that produces an opportunity for a leader to step forward with the right credentials. Not out of the realm of possibility but I don't think we see the "lightning in the bottle" of Obama happening again.
Other than that, she's the presumptive Dem candidate, and as many others have pointed out, the country is leaning left these days. Lots of young voters with idealistic intent, lots of old people (Baby Boomers retiring) who want the gov't to help keep funding critical social programs that they will need in their retirement years. There's simply way more of them than there are of the conservative right... and when you look at the other parts of the world that have more progressive policies, the general feeling is that the US is still behind and needs to push a more progressive agenda vs. a conservative one.
Now, all that being said, she can still lose the GE to the GOP. But the GOP would need to put up a candidate other than those currently in the field. Trump actually has the charisma and brashness that she lacks, making her seem dull by comparison, but he's too off kilter for most Americans to vote for him. Now, if he was going after this whole thing like a business, the way Perot did, he might actually have a chance at the nomination, because the rest of the GOP field is boring as fuck.
And please, not Bush vs. Clinton. I don't know who the GOP is going to put up, but I do think the entire party needs a long look in the mirror, because most of what the GOP stands for is simply not engaging in the 21st Century, and in some cases is quite frankly insulting and offensive. What I'd like to see is a more moderate/middle ground party come along that marginalizes the GOP. Until the GOP moves left I think they will struggle to win another GE, at least until the demographics change.
I think ten years is right about the time it starts being true. People claiming 2020 are being too optimistic(as optimistic as those that said by 2016 Texas would be in play) but if the GOP still hasn't reformed and demographic trends hold I think 2024 will be the first time we hear about Texas not fully being safe anymore.
If the Democrats have a strong Latino candidate things could get even more interesting.
It can stay red if the GOP stops its march toward the far right and moves closer to the center. Demographics are one thing, but by my estimate the real reason they have been losing ground in the Electoral College is due to alienating huge swaths of the population by appealing to their fringe.
neogaffer1
Banned
so i'm a bit confused about this. i've heard anecdotal evidence from gaf and random places that if you take something top secret outside of the closed loop like clinton did there's a chance you could go to jail for treason, so is there any chance clinton would face criminal charges? or is that just FUD?
Does that make Donald Trump... Vince McMahon?
Manmademan
Member
spot on analysis. Keep in mind that Obama wasn't just a great orator (though he definitely was), either he or his team were also rockstar political STRATEGISTS, taking advantage of caucus states in a way that Clinton's team didn't. Clinton's team was banking on relying on super tuesday to sweep them to a win and neglected everything else and got blindsided.
That is ABSOLUTELY not going to happen again. Even Obama couldn't "Obama" clinton twice in the same scenario.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
If that's the case then Colin Powell and/or Rice are gonna be a co-defendant. They also used private e-mail during their times at her position.
FUD. Nothing at all about Clinton's emails will materialize into criminal charges. Count on it.
In fact I'm skeptical they will even materialize in to having a real impact on her campaign.
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
I live in Houston. Texas is most definitely turning purple. Houston and Austin are already blue not sure abot SA and Dallas.
My concern is that Hillary doesn't seem that liberal, particularly when it comes to the justice system. I also can't imagine any form of redistribution (which I think is necessary in order to lessen the economic effects of racial inequality) to occur under the reign of someone helped into office on the back of immeasurable sums of corporate money.
(But I'm not American/don't live in America so what I think doesn't matter)
(But I'm not American/don't live in America so what I think doesn't matter)
Yeah, it's not great that the Democrats don't have a strong bench of Latino candidates especially in states like New Mexico or Colorado or Nevada.
Catherine Cortez Masto is a good start (if she wins), but the Senators and Governors that the Democrats have don't really reflect the Democratic coalition.
Also Kamala's got 2024 in her sights.
as a texan i've heard "in about ten years, it'll go purple..." for the past 15+ years. i just don't see it happening. i don't know logistics of the districts but i don't see it happening without a portion of the working white class vote
the caveat is texas slung far right because of obama. with him out of the picture it'll be interesting to see where it winds up
the caveat is texas slung far right because of obama. with him out of the picture it'll be interesting to see where it winds up
Expect in the coming years to see Julian/Joaquin Castro vetted by the DNC regardless of what happens in 2016.
Everyone was fretting over the Hillaryis44 PUMA crowd in '08 and it turned out to be a non-issue. I don't expect Bernie supporters to be any different. They'll hem and haw and then vote for Hillary.
gutter_trash
Banned
The biggest hurdle running as a candidate is obviously money.
I doubt that Sanders can survive Super Tuesday.
The Democratic establishment is already backing Hillary without any other establishment challengers.
Its sad that that's the way campaigns are run in the age of SuperPACs
I doubt that Sanders can survive Super Tuesday.
The Democratic establishment is already backing Hillary without any other establishment challengers.
Its sad that that's the way campaigns are run in the age of SuperPACs
Well, go on then, look around here and find me someone who has donated both to a Republican candidate and to a Democratic one.
If you want to sell the narrative that Hillary is also supported by the same people who support the Republicans, you'll need information and data that proves the same. Don't have it? Don't make claims.
Oh hey, look!
Fair Share Action (donated $1 million to Hillary Clinton)
An organization advocating for economic and political equality.
UA Political Education Committee (donated $1 million to Hillary Clinton)
A PAC run by a plumbers and pipefitters union.
I suppose those guys are also outliers that donated to a Democrat but didn't donate to a Republican. Or maybe secretly Fair Share Action, an organization advocating to economic and political equality, is donating to Republicans. Maybe a PAC run by a union is donating to a Republican.
If you want to compete, soleil, make better use of Google. Next.
Yeah but they need bigger platforms than they have now to be serious contenders. If Texas were like 2-3 more points Blue, I think they'd have a good shot at taking on Cruz or Abbott. Until then...
So she went from one of the most liberal Senators to... what? More liberal, right? For popularity? Please explain.
No way.
You know every time I look at those US political maps I keep forgetting you guys use Blue for left leaning politics and Red for right leaning. Canada does the opposite (Liberal is Red, Conservative is blue).
For a second I was wondering what crazy ass fucking charts those were where the left won the south.
For a second I was wondering what crazy ass fucking charts those were where the left won the south.
...Or not vote at all like many were likely to do anyways.
But Bernie isn't Trump, he has pretty much said he isn't going third party and will likely get behind Hillary.
Frankly Hilary is just the holdover til 2024 when Warren will probably run and Julian Castro will be in the mix.
For me the long term goal is just cementing a democrat in the white house for the next decade or two to guarantee a super majority Supreme Court strong-hold and slowly move the country left and toward better policies like a more comprehensive UHC and block Republican climate change fuckery and such.
And yet he is catching up to Clinton. He is not there yet and maybe never will, but he has massive support given that he isn't as rich as virtually any other candidate. I think this and his direct honesty are something that Hillary just can't match. And maybe, just maybe America's hot now for some more change, further away from the old ways.
If that doesn't confuse you enough, more than a century ago the parties represented nearly their polar opposites as what they do now:
Warren won't run. She doesn't have the type of personality to make it work.
Warner/Kaine have been waiting to give it a shot for a while now but can't really try while Clinton's in the orbit.
Manmademan
Member
Clinton was 15 full points over bush in July-September of 1992. And his primary map looked like this:
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
There's a lot of data that suggests he has hit his peak.
If that doesn't confuse you enough, more than a century ago the parties represented nearly their polar opposites as what they do now:
Now the colours make sense.
There are only so many straight white men in the democratic coalition.
I think a Warren type could win in 2024. Assuming the right storm of events: Democrat gets two terms with a successful presidency, Better re-dstricting that slowly erodes the toxic atmosphere, overturning Citizens United, continuing demographic shifts away from GOP favor.
If nothing else she could be a strong VP candidate that does an even better job of forcing the debate left then Bernie is and could do.
Clinton was 15 full points over bush in July-September of 1992. And his primary map looked like this:
Wow, I don't remember it like that at all. I was just looking at the wiki page. That was the first election I voted in (had just turned 18). Probably because I was in Texas.
0.1.1.2.3.5.8.13.21.34.55
Banned
She's not.
Dr. Benton Quest
Banned
I'm personally excited for Castro.
- Status