• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Hillary Clinton officially launches presidential campaign

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last thing I'll say, since I don't think I'm conveying my points intelligently at all and I really don't mean to be read the way your responses tell me I'm coming off.


Both parties have set ideals, and they grab whatever ideals that crop up and fit into their general persona. They absorb these, sometimes extreme, ideas to prevent the growth of a third party that could take away their votes.

Honestly, what you sound salty about is that both parties try to get the vote of WASP america, which is some 40-50% of the population.

Believe it or not, there's no conspiracy.
There's no big party for liberal rights, socialized medicine, legalization of minor drugs, and all other issues that are 'niche' because there's more voters that are in opposition than in support.
And because people think that voting is bad unless you have a candidate that has 100% of your views on everything.
If a cause was as popular as you think, it'd earn democrats votes if they supported it. And for that, they would.
But it doesn't.

The issue isn't with the system, it's with the voters.

A view that 'Gets votes' is the view of those people who'll vote the politician who offers those views. A working system means a politician's views are those that earn her the most votes; which is democracy working.
It's just there's a lot of people who just can't understand why people wouldn't hold their own views - So they start thinking about conspiracies that are disrupting the system.
It's true, there are disruptions. But at large, and at very large in issues which don't carry economic consequences worth lobbying heavily over, the system is working. The GOP hates women because there's an electorate that hates women, not because they're magicians.
 
I just want to see an Elizabeth Warren campaign where she goes around the country with a hammer breaking shit up saying "THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE BANKS!"
We'll have Bernie Sanders for that. He's running and he's been preaching about this shit since before the Clintons were in the white house. Don't know why the Warren fans aren't getting more hyped for Bernie.
 
What makes you and other believe that? I really want to know. Is there something I and others are missing about Clinton?

Just wait until she starts campaigning. She's an extremely conservative politician scarred from the brutality of 90's political combat. She focuses so intensely on not making mistakes she barely says anything at all. The problem is she has no philosophical core other than a vague commitment to neoliberalism and internationalism, so she's a very inauthentic politician, a lot like Romney.

She isn't fast on feet like her husband either, she's tried to copy Elizabeth Warren's political shtick a couple of times when talking to democratic audiences and has botched it terribly every time, inadvertently making radical left wing comments, which Warren despite her reputation is very careful not to do. Based on her '08 campaign there's evidence she's a terrible administrator as well.

Against mediocre opposition, which is probably all she's going to get, she'll be fine, but against a prize fighter like Obama in '08, Clinton in '92 or Reagan in '80 she'd be finished.
 
Just wait until she starts campaigning. She's an extremely conservative politician scarred from the brutality of 90's political combat. She focuses so intensely on not making mistakes she barely says anything at all. The problem is she has no philosophical core other than a vague commitment to neoliberalism and internationalism, so she's a very inauthentic politician, a lot like Romney.

She isn't fast on feet like her husband either, she's tried to copy Elizabeth Warren's political shtick a couple of times when talking to democratic audiences and has botched it terribly every time, inadvertently making radical left wing comments, which Warren despite her reputation is very careful not to do. Based on her '08 campaign there's evidence she's a terrible administrator as well.

Against mediocre opposition, which is probably all she's going to get, she'll be fine, but against a prize fighter like Obama in '08, Clinton in '92 or Reagan in '80 she'd be finished.

The Republicans aren't going go have a good candidate for at least another 20 years so she'll be fine.
 
What makes you and other believe that? I really want to know. Is there something I and others are missing about Clinton?

Lets take a look at her claims to fame:

  • Got cheated on by Bill
  • Voted for war in Iraq
  • Failed presidential campaign
  • Failed tenure as Secretary of State (Kerry has blown her away 15 times over)
  • Endless pro-nanny state policies
  • Endless pro-Wall Street policies

Oh, but hey, shes a woman, so forget all that and let's make history!


...but the voters in Massachusetts and Maryland showed us all last election that a sham candidate = Republican win. Choakley proved it not once, but twice.
 
Lets take a look at her claims to fame:

  • Got cheated on by Bill
  • Voted for war in Iraq
  • Failed presidential campaign
  • Failed tenure as Secretary of State (Kerry has blown her away 15 times over)
  • Endless pro-nanny state policies
  • Endless pro-Wall Street policies

Oh, but hey, shes a woman, so forget all that and let's make history!

This all sucks, but lets get some perspective.
 
What makes you and other believe that? I really want to know. Is there something I and others are missing about Clinton?

Clinton ran two successful campaigns for Senate and got 18 million votes and won 20+ states in a Democratic primary. Coakley squandered 20-point+ leads in the bluest of states---twice!
 
Lets take a look at her claims to fame:

  • Got cheated on by Bill
  • Voted for war in Iraq
  • Failed presidential campaign
  • Failed tenure as Secretary of State (Kerry has blown her away 15 times over)
  • Endless pro-nanny state policies
  • Endless pro-Wall Street policies

Oh, but hey, shes a woman, so forget all that and let's make history!


...but the voters in Massachusetts and Maryland showed us all last election that a sham candidate = Republican win. Choakley proved it not once, but twice.

So she's nothing but a failure in life who only got where she is now because of her husband?
 
I guess the question is whether the GOP actually believes they have a candidate that could pull Florida, Virginia and Ohio outside of an unforeseen economic collapse or world war.

What makes you and other believe that? I really want to know. Is there something I and others are missing about Clinton?

Her commanding lead in every preliminary poll obviously. Everyone knows those are a vast liberal conspiracy.

Regards,

The GOP circa 2012
 
I guess the question is whether the GOP actually believes they have a candidate that could pull Florida, Virginia and Ohio outside of an unforeseen economic collapse or world war.

I think there's a crash incoming, but sometime in 2017. It will be the student loan bubble that's ripe for bursting. But short of that, It's very hard to carry VA and OH for a republican especially in a national election. GOP couldn't carry VA in the blood red electorate of 2014, so its nigh impossible for any GOP candidate to win there in 2016. Florida...maybe. Because it's Florida.
 
Although I don't like Hillary Clinton, but it would be just too idiotic if I voted for Republicans, considering their stance on various issues. I wish there was a right to reject or something where you can reject both the candidates.

Obama/Biden 2016 please.
 
Lets take a look at her claims to fame:

  • Failed presidential campaign

How is this a negative? Like at all?

Several presidents in our history have failed presidential campaigns before re-organizing a winning. Or the opposite, they failed to secure a re-election after a single term (or in Teddy's case. after 2 terms)
 
YecJxTp.png


thats her logo?

eh
so she's more red than blue? we kinda all knew she was a closet republican. :P i'm voting for her only because of possible supreme court nominations and that's it.
 
Could Walker swing Wisconsin? That'd throw a kink in things, given Wisconsin is a swing state that's not typically up for grabs.

Or is it kinda like Massachusetts, where a guy like Romney could win locally, but could never carry the state in a national election.

On the one hand I think that if the Republicans can put themselves in a position where they could win the election, Wisconsin would more likely than not be in play. The truth is it's just not as Democratic as its reputation. Its reputation comes from having voted Democratic in every election from 1988 on. However, let's dig deeper into that.

1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012 were all comfortable Democratic victories. We would expect the Democrats to win an average state, or even a slightly Republican one.

2000 and 2004 were close Republican victories. In 2000, when Al Gore of course actually won the popular vote, he won Wisconsin by a razor thin margin. It gave him his second smallest margin of victory. In 2004 Wisconsin indeed gave John Kerry his smallest margin of victory.

That leaves 1988, where Wisconsin went for Dukakis by a decent margin despite Bush's comfortable victory. However, there's two factors we should consider here. The first was that, despite his poor performance overall, Dukakis ran quite strongly in the Upper Midwest. The second is that 28 years is a long time; we really shouldn't look at what happened in 1988 as a guide for what will happen in 2016.

To make a long story short, Wisconsin leans Democratic, but not as much as you might think.

The second part is whether Walker could make the difference for the Republicans. I'm actually pretty skeptical on that one. I think there would be a little bit of a home state effect, but it's not like Walker is overwhelmingly popular either. Remember he won his elections during Republican wave years against weak candidates, plus a special election against one of those same weak candidates where a lot of people disagreed with the idea of a recall itself. If conditions favor Republicans he could absolutely win the state, but I don't think he'd be likely to swing an election the Republicans would otherwise lose by winning Wisconsin either.
 
I'm voting for her because the GOP is batshit crazy so she's really the only realistic candidate I could vote for when it comes down to the election.
 
How is this a negative? Like at all?

Several presidents in our history have failed presidential campaigns before re-organizing a winning. Or the opposite, they failed to secure a re-election after a single term (or in Teddy's case. after 2 terms)

It's more so how she failed. In the end tally she only needed a >5% vote or delegate flip to win. So even though Obama ran a near flawless primary campaign, any shred of competence in many different areas could've saved her considering her huge starting advantages. She just completely abandoned caucuses and entire States. After her miraculous New Hampshire save she then won Nevada and was back in a healthy front-runner position, before completely ceding South Carolina and let Obama run up the score so badly there that he clawed back into contention by Super Tuesday. I remember in the days before the South Carolina primary she was campaigning in different States.

In February 9-19 after Super Tuesday there was 10 primaries and caucuses. Obama won all 10 of them. It was as though the Clinton campaign wasn't aware there were even contests being held. There was no primary night concession speech or anything, it's like they didn't even show up to the game. The referee just called it for Obama by means of forfeit.
 
Random question, could Obama be vice president? Or no cause hes run his two presidential terms?

He could I think, but it'd never happen. It'd be way too easy to paint it as him maneuvering for a third term which is something people are already spinning.

But going down that hypothetical road, he'd take over if something happened to the President and finish the term, but be ineligible to run again.

The way I see it all Hillary has to do this election is keep her head down and not get caught saying anything stupid that can be spun into a scandal. Just looking at the electoral map, a ton of things have to go wrong for any Democrat to lose, let alone someone who is as popular as she is. The strategy for Republicans I think is spend the next 8 years doing serious image rehabilitation aimed at people besides a demographic that is already no longer the majority when it comes to voting (older white people)
 
Setting aside the dynasty aspect of it, and the gender/symbolism thing: I think she'll be a good president. She's experienced, intelligent and knows the material.

Note: I'm not American.
 
Ah, there it is.

“I don’t need her to drown me in estrogen every time she opens her mouth.”

So just facts about her? That seems civil enough. It hasn't gone to: "Muslim Kenyan and secretly gay wed" ... yet.

I'm guessing the issue is they're using the fact that she's a woman as a reason why she isn't qualified to be president.
 
GOP couldn't carry VA in the blood red electorate of 2014, so its nigh impossible for any GOP candidate to win there in 2016.
It wasn't until the final weeks that people didn't assume that Warner wasn't winning by 20 points. Then they thought it might be tight enough that Gillespe could get within single digits.
 
I'm seeing a lot of "Hillary Clinton is a woman and old!" on Facebook.
I'm guessing the issue is they're using the fact that she's a woman as a reason why she isn't qualified to be president.
Maybe in the past, but now that's double evidence for Hillary:

http://time.com/3763552/hillary-clinton-age-president/
Forget politics — she's biologically primed to be a leader

At 67, Hillary Clinton is now a “woman of a certain age.” So much emphasis and worry are put on physical aging in women that the emotional maturity and freedom that can come at this time are given short shrift. That robs everyone of a great natural resource. As women of a certain age, it is our time to lead. The new standard for aging women should be about vitality, strength, and assertiveness.

One of the largest demographics in America is women in their forties to sixties, and by 2020 there will be nearly 60 million peri- and post-menopausal women living in the United States. Because women’s average life expectancy is currently 81 years, we’re easily spending a third of our lives postmenopausal. That is a great opportunity for growth and change.

The long phase of perimenopause is marked by seismic spikes and troughs of estrogen levels, which can last for more than a decade in many women. But afterward, there is a hormonal ebbing that creates a moment of great possibility. As a psychiatrist, I will tell you the most interesting thing about menopause is what happens after. A woman emerging from the transition of perimenopause blossoms. It is a time for redefining and refining what it is she wants to accomplish in her third act. And it happens to be excellent timing for the job Clinton is likely to seek. Biologically speaking, post-menopausal women are ideal candidates for leadership. They are primed to handle stress well, and there is, of course, no more stressful job than the presidency.

Estrogen is a stress hormone that helps a woman be resilient during her fertile years. It rises and falls to help her meet her biological demands, which are often about giving to others: attracting a mate, bearing children, and nurturing our family. When estrogen levels drop after menopause, the cyclical forces that dominated the first half of our lives have been replaced with something more consistent. Our lives become less revolved around others’ and more about finally taking our turn.

...

And the post–menopausal emergence, if you will, coincides with the point at which most women will have a fair amount of experience under their belts. (Perhaps they’ve already served as a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State, for instance.) This is often the right time to make a push, to take more of a leadership position, enter a new arena, or strike out on your own. My mother was a great role model in her perimenopause, taking her symptoms in stride and referring to her hot flashes as “power surges.” She got another degree and switched careers; that appealed to me as a teenage girl. Now I see this rise in power as a way to channel new energy and even new anger. It’s a chance to make changes that should’ve been made decades ago. This may also be the time when children — adolescents, in particular — are ready to take on more responsibility, so perhaps there is a benefit for everyone in changing that family dynamic.

“I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience,” said a 73-year-old Ronald Reagan of 56-year-old Walter Mondale. Hillary would begin her presidency at exactly the same age Reagan did, but her life expectancy would be longer than any other president in recent times. And she would have all the experience and self-assuranceof a post-menopausal woman, ready to take her rightful place at the table — or in the Oval Office.
 
It wasn't until the final weeks that people didn't assume that Warner wasn't winning by 20 points. Then they thought it might be tight enough that Gillespe could get within single digits.

Virginia's 2014 results are hard to interpret. Is it safe blue since Warner held the State on a worse than expected night for Democrats? Or was the lack of an expected runaway evidence that it's not as blue as originally thought? I don't think we know the answer to that yet, but polls show Hillary strong there.
 
I think that Scott Walker will actually be the nominee. I don't know why. I think he just speaks to his base better than Bush.
 
so she's more red than blue? we kinda all knew she was a closet republican. :P i'm voting for her only because of possible supreme court nominations and that's it.

I didn't realise this until I saw your post, good observation. It also points right. Hmm.
 
Virginia's 2014 results are hard to interpret. Is it safe blue since Warner held the State on a worse than expected night for Democrats? Or was the lack of an expected runaway evidence that it's not as blue as originally thought? I don't think we know the answer to that yet, but polls show Hillary strong there.
I'm fine with lean D or whatever, but Rusty said "nigh impossible" citing the 2014 election.

I think that Scott Walker will actually be the nominee. I don't know why. I think he just speaks to his base better than Bush.
Yes, yes, join me and PD. Realize the dark side* has been the font of truth all along.

*Racist.
Also, of electoral politics analysis, not the whole legitimacy of the state and so on bullhonkey.
 
So she's nothing but a failure in life who only got where she is now because of her husband?

No, shes obviously hasnt been a failure, and is one of the most successful people in the world. But yes, being married to old Billy certainly helped. I don't see how you could deny that it didn't provide a boost to her.

And yes, she does have large failures which will make her vulnerable in an election, keep the left, youth, and immigrants home, ceding yet another seat to the Republicans.
 
bitches get shit done

#hilldawg2016

I have a feeling she won't have a trademark legislation like Obama has during her presidency. Her statements that she would go across the aisle and work with republicans as if Obama hasn't tried to leaves me with the impression that she won't rock the boat her entire presidency. I always had a feeling that Hilary would of gave up on healthcare reform when Rahm Emmanuel was lobbying Obama to do that.
 
Where does Hillary lose? I can't see it anywhere. I'd love to see what pickups conservatives think they can get though. :)

map_zps95j4ds7e.jpg

FL and OH possibily? That doesn't get them to 270 though

Even WI OH FL isn't Enough, and if they lose FL? I don't see it as possible. Republicans cannot lose florida and still win. Its kinda why I'm hoping to get out of the state before 2016. The amount of ads and campaign stops is going to be insane here
 
I have a feeling she won't have a trademark legislation like Obama has during her presidency. Her statements that she would go across the aisle and work with republicans as if Obama hasn't tried to leaves me with the impression that she won't rock the boat her entire presidency. I always had a feeling that Hilary would of gave up on healthcare reform when Rahm Emmanuel was lobbying Obama to do that.
Obama himself, among many others, have all mused on maybe pushing for more stimulus/economy focus being a better tact than using political capital on the ACA in retrospect.

The problem with the "go big in the second term strategy" is that you can't ever get anything significant done then for all sorts of reasons. As Clinton and W. Bush both found out and I think Obama has as well. Bush team books have shown that they were blinded by the fact that getting through 2004 made them safe but didn't do anything for the other 535 members they have to deal with on policy. So Social Security and then immigration skidded right off the tracks within his own party before they could get across the aisle.

And skipping Iraq wouldn't have helped on that front because political capital doesn't roll over for very long.
 
Where does Hillary lose? I can't see it anywhere. I'd love to see what pickups conservatives think they can get though. :)

map_zps95j4ds7e.jpg

Damn, I forgot how much Obama trounced Romney.

Very tough fight to 270 for the GOP. They basically need to run a perfect game (and probably not have a primary at all) and the Democrats need to make several big errors.
 
Where does Hillary lose? I can't see it anywhere. I'd love to see what pickups conservatives think they can get though. :)

map_zps95j4ds7e.jpg

If she faces Bush, then Florida could go red. Besides that, I'm expecting more or less the same results from 2012. Maybe Bill will allow Arkansas to flip blue, but I'm not holding my breath. North Carolina will also be a heavy battleground for both parties.
 
Where does Hillary lose? I can't see it anywhere. I'd love to see what pickups conservatives think they can get though. :)

map_zps95j4ds7e.jpg

Only good thing about living in Kansas is that once primaries are over the foregone conclusion is that Kansas will vote red and they don't do as much advertising here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom