Why is Hillary guaranteed to win?
- Thread starter DeaconKnowledge
- Start date
- Status
You realize Warren will be 75 in 2024 right?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
But the country is getting older too. Maybe the best candidate for the future will be a minority candidate who is a senior. Two demographics that are growing.
Third Strike
Member
I wonder if Chelsea Clinton will jump into the world of politics. Pretty crazy to think she'll be 40 in five years. Maybe the next in line after Gillibrand or Schumer, or a seat in the House.
It's getting older but the people dying off are being replaced by people who are far more liberal.
Thanks, Dubya! (And the internet)
Aaron Strife
Banned
Hillary has a strong lead in primary polling. It's highly likely she'll be the Democratic nominee. Bernie has just about peaked. It's not like it's impossible that he'll win, it's just that his support so far mainly has come from young white liberals, which only make up a small portion of the party. Hillary is getting far more support from minorities, conservative/moderate Democrats and older voters.
As for the general election, every Republican candidate is a joke with the exception of maybe John Kasich whose chance of being the nominee is about as good as Lincoln Chafee's is of being the Democratic nominee. They'll start off with a base 46-47% of the vote just like every other GOP nominee, but it's worth noting the country has moved left since 2012. Obama's performance in 2012 with the 2016 electorate would result in a winning margin of 5.4% instead of 3.9%, and North Carolina would be a Democratic pick-up.
Plus Trump is a bit of an anomaly and makes this hard to predict. I keep waiting for him to crash and burn but he's proven quite resilient.
As for the general election, every Republican candidate is a joke with the exception of maybe John Kasich whose chance of being the nominee is about as good as Lincoln Chafee's is of being the Democratic nominee. They'll start off with a base 46-47% of the vote just like every other GOP nominee, but it's worth noting the country has moved left since 2012. Obama's performance in 2012 with the 2016 electorate would result in a winning margin of 5.4% instead of 3.9%, and North Carolina would be a Democratic pick-up.
Plus Trump is a bit of an anomaly and makes this hard to predict. I keep waiting for him to crash and burn but he's proven quite resilient.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
I don't see the GOP winning another presidential election without a complete restructuring of their platform. I think we might be looking at 24, or at least 20, uninterrupted years of democratic presidency. History says that's unlikely though. The last time the democrats held office for 20 years was the combination of FDR for 12 of them, and Harry S Truman for 8 from 1933-1953.
Edit- and since the party realignment that occurred around the time JFK took office, no party has had more than 12 consecutive years at the presidency. If Hillary (or Bernie) won two terms, it would be unprecedented in the modern era.
Edit- and since the party realignment that occurred around the time JFK took office, no party has had more than 12 consecutive years at the presidency. If Hillary (or Bernie) won two terms, it would be unprecedented in the modern era.
Hmm. I didn't realize she was that old but my larger point still stands, Hillary is really just the holdover tip the more exciting liberal up and comers move into the spotlight.
Never understood why professional politician is always a bad thing to some people? The logical conclusion to this is the sort of incompetent tea party representatives that wear their political ignorance like a badge of pride that we have seen conservatives fall In love with. Give me your Ted Kennedy's over that any day.
And if she nominates a liberal judge, like she likely would, that will definitely rock the boat of corporate America.
Of all the individual candidates, Hillary is the one with the best chance of winning, by virtue of being closest to the nomination of her party -- she has a much better chance of being a major party nominee than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican. So she's the front runner even if you assume the chances of the Democrat winning are about 50/50.
Add to that the fact that the Democrats probably have a slightly better than 50/50 chance of retaining the White House due to favorable demographics and a recovering economy, and Hillary's chances look pretty good.
Forgone conclusion though? Nah.
Add to that the fact that the Democrats probably have a slightly better than 50/50 chance of retaining the White House due to favorable demographics and a recovering economy, and Hillary's chances look pretty good.
Forgone conclusion though? Nah.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Was watching a CNN discussion about Bernie Sanders, the host asked the first guest what kind of chances Sanders has against Clinton and before the question was even finished he put a smug smile on his face and made a "zero" with his hand and screamed "ZERO CHANCE!"
I think we deserve a better discussion than that.
I think we deserve a better discussion than that.
I am a Democrat who voted for Obama in both elections (2008 and 2012). I also voted for John Kerry back in 2004.
But I'll be honest, I'm not that enthusiastic about voting Hillary Clinton.
She voted yes to the War in Iraq, which she now says was a mistake.
She didn't do a good job leading a health care overhaul effort back in the 1990's.
And she's not even that liberal to begin with. She is a very moderate Democrat.
It also amazes me how the black community, and the gay community, let the Clinton family off the hook for so many things.
In 1994, Bill signed a bill into law that made the mass incarceration of black people much worse. When he won his first presidential election in 1992, there were 847,000 people in prison. By the time he ended his second term in 2000, that population had grown to 1,334,000.
And the Clinton Family's history with LGBT rights has been very sketchy (and flip-floppish), to say the least.
But I'll be honest, I'm not that enthusiastic about voting Hillary Clinton.
She voted yes to the War in Iraq, which she now says was a mistake.
She didn't do a good job leading a health care overhaul effort back in the 1990's.
And she's not even that liberal to begin with. She is a very moderate Democrat.
It also amazes me how the black community, and the gay community, let the Clinton family off the hook for so many things.
In 1994, Bill signed a bill into law that made the mass incarceration of black people much worse. When he won his first presidential election in 1992, there were 847,000 people in prison. By the time he ended his second term in 2000, that population had grown to 1,334,000.
And the Clinton Family's history with LGBT rights has been very sketchy (and flip-floppish), to say the least.
Expecting a better discussion from CNN was your first mistake.
Stick to BBC and PBS(Al Jazeera English if you are fortunate enough to get it) for TV news. Outside of that you are just getting mostly empty rhetoric and half-assed or misleading reporting.
Manmademan
Member
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.
Probably.
your analysis ignores that one party has a complete, utter, total domination of minorities, women, and LGBT voters- the other has doubled down on white voters in decline and evangelical christians. It is VERY difficult to reverse this, given the absolutely toxic stance the GOP has taken. Black and LGBT voters are gone forever, Latinos are basically there as well- The overwhelming leader in the GOP primary has come out painting mexicans as criminals and rapists and his support in the party went UP. Hispanics aren't stupid, they know exactly what kind of party the GOP is right now.
Sure, the GOP could reverse course, but they would immediately lose the evangelical and racist vote which has been propping them up for some time now, and it would take decades for minorities/women/LGBT voters to treat the 180 as anything authentic.
They've boxed themselves into being a regional party at this point- winning safe house and senate races that rely on low voter turnout and gerrymandering, but the presidency will be out of reach for 15-20 years.
well she's not her husband
and as disappointing as mainstream democrats were on LGBT issues in the last decade, the politics were very different at the time. "it's between man and woman" was just one of the things you had to say to pass the hurdle nationally. even obama was guilty of this
Well he was not wrong and CNN sucks.
Obama supported gay marriage in the late 90s when running for his state seat until he didn't. And then he did again. Gay rights were political poison for Democrats until it wasn't. That's not to suddenly champion Obama's or Hillary's position as some sort of act of political bravery. It's not. But let's be honest: of course Obama and Hillary supported gay marriage, probably far before it was even close to a political winner in blue states. They're more liberal Democrats. This is probably true for almost all liberal Democrats who voted for DOMA.
If we were to give them magic Truth Potions, most moderate Republicans would probably say they're for gay marriage too. I don't for a second think Jeb! or Kasich give a shit about gay marriage as an actual issue of policy.
If we were to give them magic Truth Potions, most moderate Republicans would probably say they're for gay marriage too. I don't for a second think Jeb! or Kasich give a shit about gay marriage as an actual issue of policy.
...Scatter...
Banned
Not everything needs to be "balanced". News intake needs to be honest and truthful. I don't think news outlets like FOX which are clear Republican propaganda machines can be compared to CNN which is just reporting (sometimes shitty, but honest) news. CNN is not liberal. They are honest. Conservatives moved the goalposts to label regular news as "liberal".
Manmademan
Member
LOL. CNN is clown shoes, like most other 24 hour news networks. They will push whatever narrative will get them the ratings.
PBS/NPR/BBC and MAYBE AJE have political coverage that isn't completely batshit.
...Scatter...
Banned
You're right. But they're not liberal. They're just clowns.
She was the 11th most liberal member of the Senate based off of her voting record.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...as-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate
What are you people basing this picture you have of her off of?
...Scatter...
Banned
Most people feel this way because she's not afraid of the military and is seen as a hawk in that regard. Truth is somewhere in the middle.
Always-honest
Banned
Because of republicans.
You're being very generous with NJ and Penn. A republican candidate hasn't won those two states in a Presidential election since 1988. At this point in time, I don't see that changing anytime soon.
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Could you point me toward what you see in Heitkamp? I just read up on her a bit and she seems like a very conservative democrat. This was at a cursory glance, though, based on her opposition to expanding background checks for gun purchases as well as her support of fracking and the keystone XL pipeline.
That has a good chart about her political leanings while in senate:
Code:
Most liberal Dem 1 Sanders -0.523
11 CLINTON -0.391
Median Dem 33 Biden -0.331
Most conservative Dem 51 B. Nelson -0.035
Most liberal Rep 52 Specter 0.061
Median Rep 76 McConnell 0.409
Most conservative Rep 101 Coburn 0.809Obama ranked 23rd in the 110th Congress.
Manmademan
Member
Pennsylvania is republican fools gold. Registered democrats outnumber republicans in the state by somewhere around a million voters.
They're all heavily concentrated around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh though, meaning the state house and senate are GOP controlled- and gubernatorial/senatorial elections in off years generate little interest since Philly tends to be up its own ass in terms of politics and ignore the role Harrisburg has in how things are run.
When Philadelphia ACTUALLY pays attention (like say...a presidential election year) the state GOP is screwed. Popular Philly Mayor Ed Rendell obliterated all comers by massive margins in both Gubernatorial elections because of this. State Senator Pat Toomey is a dead man walking and will lose to whoever the democratic nominee is, because a presidential election year means a good 400-500K extra votes coming in that ALL are going democratic.
Here's Clinton's spread vs the GOP frontrunner
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Rolling Average
Clinton - 51.0
Trump - 37.8
Clinton +13.2
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Rolling Average
Clinton - 51.0
Trump - 37.8
Clinton +13.2
OrangeGrayBlue
Member
Sure:
Well I didn't know she had USA folding lawn chairs! Gamechanger
I take it you were being sarcastic about her...
Well I didn't know she had USA folding lawn chairs! Gamechanger
I take it you were being sarcastic about her...
She has the mom jean demo down!
Yes, but I still love her. There's probably no bigger champion for Native Americans in the Senate
As far as I know, he has the least number of executive orders for quite some time.
It most certainly has been a success, and by just about every metric. Millions more people are covered and the incredible rate of premium increases has been slowed.
It's been incredible, somehow people can't see that though.
She's not guaranteed but she's definitely the best shot for a Dem in the White House.
Bernie is a high risk no matter what the electoral map for the general says. Funny the subtle narrative going on now that Hillary is the high risk one. Divide and conquer™.
All the Clinton dirt is out (and naturally voters and people have made their mind about that - positively or negatively - you know what you get)...
Bernie is fresh and is still relatively untouched when it comes to political dirt. My guess is the GOP prefers him being unspoiled as it helps Bernie against Hillary and they would certainly love Bernie AND NOT Hillary as the candidate. The GOP has spent quite a bit trying to bury her so far - for a good reason. Otherwise the same viciousness and dirt digging tactics the GOP uses against Hillary would be placed on socialist Bernie and god knows how that's going to turn out.
In short, she's the best Dem choice for a successful White House run compared to the GOP candidates on the ballot. She's well financed, well organized and has practically all the right people on-board her campaign: including past Top 10 GOAT POTUS and current POTUS if/when she gets the party nomination.
That's what makes her such a clear no-nonsense choice. This time around it's more of strategic voting for me than anything else. Last two elections were clear Obama.
Bernie is a high risk no matter what the electoral map for the general says. Funny the subtle narrative going on now that Hillary is the high risk one. Divide and conquer™.
All the Clinton dirt is out (and naturally voters and people have made their mind about that - positively or negatively - you know what you get)...
Bernie is fresh and is still relatively untouched when it comes to political dirt. My guess is the GOP prefers him being unspoiled as it helps Bernie against Hillary and they would certainly love Bernie AND NOT Hillary as the candidate. The GOP has spent quite a bit trying to bury her so far - for a good reason. Otherwise the same viciousness and dirt digging tactics the GOP uses against Hillary would be placed on socialist Bernie and god knows how that's going to turn out.
In short, she's the best Dem choice for a successful White House run compared to the GOP candidates on the ballot. She's well financed, well organized and has practically all the right people on-board her campaign: including past Top 10 GOAT POTUS and current POTUS if/when she gets the party nomination.
That's what makes her such a clear no-nonsense choice. This time around it's more of strategic voting for me than anything else. Last two elections were clear Obama.
Kurt Angle
Member
I'll vote for anyone to get bill back in the white house
King Tubby
Member
No guarantees. But the dem nomination is a lock (Bernie needs more than a minor miracle to give her trouble) and the Republicans are an even worse clown show than 2012. IF the Republicans can a) get one of these scandals to actually stick to Hillary and b) field a candidate considerably more competent than what was frankly a complete embarrassment in Mitt Romney, they have a shot at winning in 2016.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Never gets old seeing shit like this.
Manmademan
Member
well at least it makes it easy to pick out the low information voters
I get the feeling Congress will be obstructionist toward Hillary but not nearly as much as it was for Obama. The reason should be plainly clear.
Sanders OTOH would be an interesting case study since he's further to the left of Obama.
Always? Why do we keep using 2012 as the rule? Seems to me a frontrunner quickly emerges like Dole, Dubya or McCain and they rally around him.
For a lot of people (and media outlets), recognizing the success means potentially confronting the shortcomings of a worldview.
I really appreciate a fact-based post when I see it. Especially when I don't sense purposeful cherry-picking.
But that being said, the flaw in vote counts is they don't weight votes according to importance (which is subjective so it's probably impossible anyway). Different votes carry more weight than others for different voters.
For example, Hillary voted for war. Bernie voted against. On the other hand, Bernie voted against key gun control. Which issue matters more to you affects how liberal you see each one.
And on top of all that, as the most active First Lady in our country's history, she was a cheerleader for those policies in the post that you were responding to.
She isn't. She could lose the primary to Sanders (O'Malley seems a long shot at this point) or the general to whoever emerges victorious from the Republican primary.
But she seems the most likely at this point. She's got the resources (I think only Jeb Bush has raised more, but via Super PACs), and unless there's an implosion she looks set to win a few primaries.
But she seems the most likely at this point. She's got the resources (I think only Jeb Bush has raised more, but via Super PACs), and unless there's an implosion she looks set to win a few primaries.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Poligaf likes to live in an echo chamber.
This gives the GOP far too much credit. They've spent the last four years dead certain Hillary would be the nominee (and I don't blame them; everyone has felt this way) and have rightly put their efforts towards torpedoing her campaign. Sanders doesn't have any dirt because nobody thought to dig up dirt on him. They are actually terrified of a Sanders nomination, because his message is extremely populist and they have no way to fight back on policy. Sanders would have them caught with their pants down.
In fact the *only* ammunition they have against Sanders is calling him an extremist socialist over and over (while he calmly explains that his ideas aren't very different from what we've done in the past...). The only voters that's going to convince is their right-wing constituency who would never vote for a Democrat anyway, even if Ronald Reagan himself rose from the grave. It's the undecided they have to convince, and his voting record has him on the right side of nearly every unpopular decision over the last 20 years.
Like it or not, there are a lot of people like that. Especially some people for Bernie. The question is are there enough enough those types of make a difference in the general election.
That same poligaf that has been pretty much dead on the last 2 presidential elections?
Poligaf is probably one of the few legitimate bastions of consistently high quality info on this site. It isn't what it once was but there was a time Poligaf was better then any news feed you could find and had some posters that were pretty incredible at their forecasting and grasp of election politics.
Not sure what you are on about.
Realizing this is currently Hillary's race to lose is merely the result of paying attention. Ideas that can only be sustained with the echo chamber are easy to disprove with facts, and there are none at the moment to contradict that position.
- Status