We have had some nice discussions after each of the Republican nominees have entered the race. The prevailing thought has been the HRC is a shoe in and can't be beat. But recent polling has her trailing the leading GOP candidates in swing states. Will this lead to me Dems throwing their hats in the ring?
HRC trails GOP in swing states - (
New Window )
HRC problem is how to spend the money, not unlike Romney four years ago. Spending more money on your primary takes away from what you can do in the general election. That could be alot of trouble for her. Ideally she cruises through the primaries and prepares to blast the GOP leading up to and after the convention. These polls will distract her. Obama's rise was partly due to HRC's inability to marshall her resources in 2008. I could easily see it happening again, in the general.
Hillary seems spiteful enough that a primary challenger would likely be blacklisted from the Veep slot.
She's going to be, barring a miracle, the nominee. I wish someone else got in, ala Warren, Biden, or even Gore. But I doubt it.
It's also worth keeping in mind that the Republican nominee could win all of the Romney states, plus Florida, Ohio and Virginia and would still fall short on election day.
Further, a HRC presidency does advance women substantially, and since there wouldn't be a Democratic challenge to her incumbency next Presidential election, it completely eliminates the prospect of a Warren presidency who will be too old or dead eight years from now.
And Conservative does not equal Corporatist.
I think any women that advances to the Presidency would be to the benefit of women, and while I am not fan of hers, you simplify her career, accomplishments and abilities far too much (shocker).
Bottom line is if turnout is up to snuff, Hillary is going to be damn near impossible to beat because the demographic edge is just that strong for the democrats. But I continue to worry about her ability to energize voters and unite the Obama coalition that is virtually unbeatable in the modern political landscape. Again, forget about trustworthiness, she's just not an inspiring personality. The first woman thing will help, but she's otherwise an uninspiring, bland figure.
With that cleared up, enjoy the day.
Quote:
That might jump in the race just for the heck of it - she does have to pick a VP for the ticket after all. But clearly most Dems are not as enthusiastic as the volume of republican candidates in the race about their chances of progressing very far in the primaries against Hillary.
Hillary seems spiteful enough that a primary challenger would likely be blacklisted from the Veep slot.
Definitely could be a reason why some potential candidates are hedging their bets and staying out.
If i had to guess now, I think they're serving up Julian Castro to eventually join her on the ticket.
She's going to be, barring a miracle, the nominee. I wish someone else got in, ala Warren, Biden, or even Gore. But I doubt it.
Elizabeth Warren is the darling of the academic set. Whether she has any sort of mass appeal even among the wider Democratic base is debatable.
I think western states (except Cali) are the weakness for Hillary
that is why I think John Hickenlooper will be her VP pick
It is funny Hillary's primary run 2016 reminds me of GWB primary run in 2000 - GWB was inevitable candidate from the beginning
Many complained about Republican Primary as coronation rather than contest so some were attracted to McCain
McCain was seen as the independent maverick and briefly had his moment early in Iowa and NH only to see the wheels come off in SC.
So, as president, will she have an agenda, and what would it be? she's always struck me as someone who merely wants power. if she gets it, will she know what to do with it? Will her power base carry over to being able to enact an agenda? Or would she simply spend the first four years not fucking up (most of her career MO) so she'll be re-elected, and then the next four years protecting her legacy?
It's why some on the right in recent years want to get rid of the electoral college. The realization has set in it's become stacked against the Republicans. And if indeed as some predict that 55 vote Texas turns blue in the next 10-15 years, then forget it. No chance ever again in any of our lives.
So, as president, will she have an agenda, and what would it be? she's always struck me as someone who merely wants power. if she gets it, will she know what to do with it? Will her power base carry over to being able to enact an agenda? Or would she simply spend the first four years not fucking up (most of her career MO) so she'll be re-elected, and then the next four years protecting her legacy?
Nobody seems to have a good answer, even the people who like her (or at least like her candidacy. Will her foreign policy be a continuation of Obama's or will she distance herself from it? Will her economic policies hew more toward her husband's or toward Obama's, or will they be, umm, lefter? Will she run a general election campaign based on a positive program or will she just make some vague assurances and base her sales pitch on what she ascribes to the Republicans?
[quote] The entire media conversation has been Republican primary Hillary has kept under the radar so not shocking her poll numbers are softening
I think western states (except Cali) are the weakness for Hillary
that is why I think John Hickenlooper will be her VP pick
It is funny Hillary's primary run 2016 reminds me of GWB primary run in 2000 - GWB was inevitable candidate from the beginning
Many complained about Republican Primary as coronation rather than contest so some were attracted to McCain
McCain was seen as the independent maverick and briefly had his moment early in Iowa and NH only to see the wheels come off in SC.
[/quote
i think one of the castro bros from texas will be the vp pick.
It's why some on the right in recent years want to get rid of the electoral college. The realization has set in it's become stacked against the Republicans. And if indeed as some predict that 55 vote Texas turns blue in the next 10-15 years, then forget it. No chance ever again in any of our lives.
Really? No chance? There is nothing in the history of the Republic to suggest that would ever be the case. Either the Republicans would reinvent themselves or another party would come to the fore, that has been the American experience.
i wish pres obama could run for a 3rd term. sorry rightwingers.
So, as president, will she have an agenda, and what would it be? she's always struck me as someone who merely wants power. if she gets it, will she know what to do with it? Will her power base carry over to being able to enact an agenda? Or would she simply spend the first four years not fucking up (most of her career MO) so she'll be re-elected, and then the next four years protecting her legacy?
It will be the time to payback all those donors for their contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Oh, and set up Chelsea to run for something. It's the family business.
Interesting. On BBI, which may or may not be representative, I'd estimate 90% of those who want the electoral college eliminated come from the left side of the political aisle.
There really isn't anything to draw on for cues, since other than her time in the Senate we don't have much to draw on. She was rated something like 11th most liberal, but she represented NY so is that a function of her personal beliefs or her sense of her constituency? She wasn't exactly hawkish in the Senate but she was centrist in her foreign policy speeches (and this in advance of 2008), and then she served as Secretary of State in an Administration whose foreign policy is not understood to be particularly centrist, so who knows?
No, DC has too much power. It was not meant to be this way. Maybe the states can have their convention and propose amendments that will limit some of that power with term limits and other restrictions.
Quote:
in a country of 300 million citizens, these are the best people we can find to become the leader of the free world!? I think it's time that conservatives and liberals stop bitch slapping each other and wake-up. We fight each other about wedge issues (abortion, gay marriage, immigration, gun control, etc.) while politicians change positions and sell influence to the highest bidder. Is is possible for political rivals in the electorate to get on the same page and look at how we can preserve our political system before we lose complete control?
No, DC has too much power. It was not meant to be this way. Maybe the states can have their convention and propose amendments that will limit some of that power with term limits and other restrictions.
That ship sailed with direct election of senators. I don't much care about the electoral college, for or against, but it would be nice if I could watch a f-cking television show in the year that preceded a presidential election without having to endure two or three political ads each break.
Webb probably has less than a snow ball's chance of getting the Democratic nomination. If Republican nominee were Santorum or Huckabee I'd probably just not vote for anyone rather than vote for them (I'd still vote on the rest of the ticket). If Webb were the nominee versus Santorum or Huckabee, I might actuatlly considered voting for Webb. Again, he'll never be the nominee, so it's a moot point.
I think western states (except Cali) are the weakness for Hillary
that is why I think John Hickenlooper will be her VP pick
It is funny Hillary's primary run 2016 reminds me of GWB primary run in 2000 - GWB was inevitable candidate from the beginning
Many complained about Republican Primary as coronation rather than contest so some were attracted to McCain
McCain was seen as the independent maverick and briefly had his moment early in Iowa and NH only to see the wheels come off in SC.
Hillary was also the inevitable candidate in 2008. You think her numbers are softening because of lack of exposure? I think the more people see/hear her the lower her numbers will go. But the Republicans still need to find someone with mass appeal to beat her.
There's good news and bad news when you live in a swing state. Of course I bet you're spared the 1-877 Kars 4 Kids commercials so it might be a break even
Quote:
aside from her early attempts to be co-president with Bill, her entire career has been about building a power base (political whore as Bill in UT said) while doing nothing - go through the motions/don't rock the boat. Got to hand it to her, she built a magnificent power base, but her resume is all padding without any real oomph to it.
So, as president, will she have an agenda, and what would it be? she's always struck me as someone who merely wants power. if she gets it, will she know what to do with it? Will her power base carry over to being able to enact an agenda? Or would she simply spend the first four years not fucking up (most of her career MO) so she'll be re-elected, and then the next four years protecting her legacy?
Nobody seems to have a good answer, even the people who like her (or at least like her candidacy. Will her foreign policy be a continuation of Obama's or will she distance herself from it? Will her economic policies hew more toward her husband's or toward Obama's, or will they be, umm, lefter? Will she run a general election campaign based on a positive program or will she just make some vague assurances and base her sales pitch on what she ascribes to the Republicans?
It's always been said that her politics are to the left of Bill's. She'll run as a populist, accusing the R's of being anti-women, anti-Hispanic, anti-Black, anti-gay anti-poor and in favor of the rich vs "the rest of us", lol.
Quote:
but it would be nice if I could watch a f-cking television show in the year that preceded a presidential election without having to endure two or three political ads each break.
There's good news and bad news when you live in a swing state. Of course I bet you're spared the 1-877 Kars 4 Kids commercials so it might be a break even
If I had money I'd be the equivalent of a snowbird for election season. Every four years, maybe a contested senatorial election, retreat to Vermont or Alabama or somewhere the opposing party has no chance in hell of winning.
Quote:
In comment 12380518 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
but it would be nice if I could watch a f-cking television show in the year that preceded a presidential election without having to endure two or three political ads each break.
There's good news and bad news when you live in a swing state. Of course I bet you're spared the 1-877 Kars 4 Kids commercials so it might be a break even
If I had money I'd be the equivalent of a snowbird for election season. Every four years, maybe a contested senatorial election, retreat to Vermont or Alabama or somewhere the opposing party has no chance in hell of winning.
You'd be safer in Utah than Alabama, lol
Quote:
It's why some on the right in recent years want to get rid of the electoral college.
Interesting. On BBI, which may or may not be representative, I'd estimate 90% of those who want the electoral college eliminated come from the left side of the political aisle.
Well that would be foolish. In a scenario where a Democrat carries Texas, the Democratic candidate would start the election with 200 of the 270 votes needed. Is it possible that at some point in this scenario in some election the Republican candidate wins a majority of the following states, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and wins that way? Or flips, what I'm counting as a Democratic stronghold? Sure, it's possible.
Given though that over the last 20 years most of those "swing states" have not had a consistent voting pattern and have gone one way one election and another the next, and sent people from both parties to Congress, and elected people from both parties to Governor, the likelihood of this occurring I'd say is quite low. It's much more likely most Presidential elections will see these states split between the two candidates, with maybe one election seeing the Democrat winning 4 of them, the next election the Republican winning 4 of them. A clean sweep or one side carrying 70-80% of them is not something you're likely to see on a consistent basis in my opinion.
It's why some on the right in recent years want to get rid of the electoral college. The realization has set in it's become stacked against the Republicans. And if indeed as some predict that 55 vote Texas turns blue in the next 10-15 years, then forget it. No chance ever again in any of our lives.
The GOP has won one popular vote since '88. The Electoral College seems their best bet.
Quote:
In comment 12380518 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
but it would be nice if I could watch a f-cking television show in the year that preceded a presidential election without having to endure two or three political ads each break.
There's good news and bad news when you live in a swing state. Of course I bet you're spared the 1-877 Kars 4 Kids commercials so it might be a break even
If I had money I'd be the equivalent of a snowbird for election season. Every four years, maybe a contested senatorial election, retreat to Vermont or Alabama or somewhere the opposing party has no chance in hell of winning.
Or you could just get a DVR :)
Quote:
And Hillary starts the election with 162 of the 270 electoral votes needed. And of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana...she'll have trouble getting only 108 more? Doubtful.
It's why some on the right in recent years want to get rid of the electoral college. The realization has set in it's become stacked against the Republicans. And if indeed as some predict that 55 vote Texas turns blue in the next 10-15 years, then forget it. No chance ever again in any of our lives.
The GOP has won one popular vote since '88. The Electoral College seems their best bet.
This is true. I guess my contention is I think the Electoral College is going to get difficult for them as well. Not impossible, but very difficult.
It's so nice that HRC has so many Knights in Shining Armor on BBI.
if you look at electoral map and pull all the swing states out
Penn
Florida
Ohio
Colorado
Virginia (I actually think Virginia might be moving from Purple to Blue)
the Democrats start with 243 and Republicans 206
it just looks tough for a Republican.
Matter of fact if Republicans lose Florida in just about any scenario they will lose the election.
The is why there are two Floridians running for Republican Nomination
and why it is almost a guarantee that if Jeb does not win nomination Rubio ends up VP nominee
Walker/Rubio might have a chance because you put Wisconsin and Florida in play.
National polls really don't matter. It's the state polls that are important, especially the swing states.
Quote:
well ahead of the GOP contenders, so either all those national polls are wrong or Quinnipiac got a bad sample. Betting on the latter
National polls really don't matter. It's the state polls that are important, especially the swing states.
Quinnipiac needs to put out a national poll to match because their results are wildly divergent from all the national polls and almost all the state polls. These #s are outliers until we see confirmation. Since these are swing states, national polling #s would be pretty close
Those are fun...we haven't had one of those in a while. Chaos on national TV is the result
Not likely. The Republicans changed the rules. All primaries on or after March 15 are winner take all. Ohio Florida, Illinois and Missouri all hold primaries on the 15. You will have a nominee shortly thereafter.
One final thing. Scott Walker has polled far better in Iowa than he has nationally ever since he became a potential candidate. He's from a neighboring state. So I think his numbers are much less an outlier than Bush's or Rubio's.
It is far from hitting a nerve with me; polls at this stage of the process are a notch above worthless.
So, as president, will she have an agenda, and what would it be? she's always struck me as someone who merely wants power. if she gets it, will she know what to do with it? Will her power base carry over to being able to enact an agenda? Or would she simply spend the first four years not fucking up (most of her career MO) so she'll be re-elected, and then the next four years protecting her legacy?
These are good questions that I hope the voters will ask themselves before pulling the lever.
So, as president, will she have an agenda, and what would it be? she's always struck me as someone who merely wants power. if she gets it, will she know what to do with it? Will her power base carry over to being able to enact an agenda? Or would she simply spend the first four years not fucking up (most of her career MO) so she'll be re-elected, and then the next four years protecting her legacy?
So Yale Law, director of legal aid clinic, litigation career, law professor, Senator, Secretary of State, author. Leading roles in development/securing of SCHIP, the foster care bill, NIH funding for asthma and other conditions, early investigation into Gulf War Syndrome, WTC redevelopment funding, health service for 1st responders, bi-partisan compromise on the Patriot Act reform/renewal, secured Gaza cease-fire, most traveled SOS in history, several new free trade agreements. Not to mention a lot of work on stuff that didnt quite make it to law, but was hard work nonetheless. And the fantastic work of her family charity.
But yeah, she just fucked her way to the top. And she didnt do anything to rock the boat, which is why she was so universally beloved for stuff like "Hilarycare". Though I guess she wants to be president just to gain more power, while everyone else running is doing it "for the kids".
Now, what the fuck has Marco Rubio ever done?
[Sorry to single you out. Im responding more to popular sentiment than you specifically]
And Conservative does not equal Corporatist.
Seems to me not only is this insulating to HRC but any women who has put their aspirations on hold to bring up a family and be supportive of their husband. Are you saying none of our 1st Ladies could have been successful leaders in their own right? What ever success they may have after leaving the WH is only because they married for power?
Michelle Obama was graduated cum laude from Princeton and received her law degree from Harvard. She met her husband at their law firm. She was assigned to mentor him when he was a summer associate. I don't know what she will choose to do but whatever it is I'm sure she is more than capable of a leadership role.
Laura Bush received her master's degree from the University of Texas. The Bush Family has credited her with her her husband get over his drinking problem. Since leaving WH, Foundation for American Libraries which funds neediest school libraries. To date, 715000 books & materials provided. She serves as the chair of the Bushes Institute's Global Women's Initiatives. Besides these charities, she serves on many boards including Advisory Board for Salvation Army, National Trust for Historic Preservation. Would you insinuate she was only asked to take a seat because she married into a powerful family?
Hillary Clinton was graduated from Wellesley and received her law degree from Yale. It was her senior speech at Wellesley that first gained her national attention. She was featured in an article published by Life Magazine. I'm sure Life chose her because they just knew she would marry well and therefore amount to something.
Quote:
aside from her early attempts to be co-president with Bill, her entire career has been about building a power base (political whore as Bill in UT said) while doing nothing - go through the motions/don't rock the boat. Got to hand it to her, she built a magnificent power base, but her resume is all padding without any real oomph to it.
So, as president, will she have an agenda, and what would it be? she's always struck me as someone who merely wants power. if she gets it, will she know what to do with it? Will her power base carry over to being able to enact an agenda? Or would she simply spend the first four years not fucking up (most of her career MO) so she'll be re-elected, and then the next four years protecting her legacy?
So Yale Law, director of legal aid clinic, litigation career, law professor, Senator, Secretary of State, author. Leading roles in development/securing of SCHIP, the foster care bill, NIH funding for asthma and other conditions, early investigation into Gulf War Syndrome, WTC redevelopment funding, health service for 1st responders, bi-partisan compromise on the Patriot Act reform/renewal, secured Gaza cease-fire, most traveled SOS in history, several new free trade agreements. Not to mention a lot of work on stuff that didnt quite make it to law, but was hard work nonetheless. And the fantastic work of her family charity.
But yeah, she just fucked her way to the top. And she didnt do anything to rock the boat, which is why she was so universally beloved for stuff like "Hilarycare". Though I guess she wants to be president just to gain more power, while everyone else running is doing it "for the kids".
Now, what the fuck has Marco Rubio ever done?
[Sorry to single you out. Im responding more to popular sentiment than you specifically]
One problem with HRC has she only been elected to office 1 time (IIRC) and that election was senator for a state she never lived in. Her position of SOS she was basically hand picked by democrats so she could be in the position she is now as presidential favorite.
Also, she was elected twice. Like Reagan. And GWB. And twice more than Eisenhower!
Also, she was elected twice. Like Reagan. And GWB. And twice more than Eisenhower!
I was counting non-presidential elections. Reagan and GWB were each elected to office twice before winning the presidency, like Hilary (different jobs). Eisenhower's first election was the presidency.
CO: 29-26-36
IA: 29-27-38
VA: 27-28-35
Then I look at the 2012 exit polls (consortium of all the networks including Fox). Actual turnout was:
CO: 29-34-37
IO: 33-33-34
VA: 32-39-29
I have serious concerns about Q's ability to call this far out such a massive shift in the presidential electorate in VA and CO (and early polling of Iowa may be inherently unreliable given what's going on there with the GOPers campaigning full bore). Off year elections like 2014 are irrelevant to predicting presidential year turnout since so many fewer people vote and the off-year electorate is much more conservative than presidential year electorates.
So this pollster says in 4 years VA has gone net 8 points red, by going +5R and -11D? I dont want to say ridiculous, but I'd be real curios to see how you model a swing for VA like that, especially given the reports about VA generally trending Dem demographically (growth of NoVA). I mean, that state just elected Terrible Terry McAuliffe as governor in 2014 (albeit by plurality).
2012 Exit Polls - ( New Window )
Quote:
enough votes for the nomination after the primaries. It's almost certainly going to be a brokered convention, so the Party pros will be deciding the nominee. Anyone with an independent streak can forget about it.
Not likely. The Republicans changed the rules. All primaries on or after March 15 are winner take all. Ohio Florida, Illinois and Missouri all hold primaries on the 15. You will have a nominee shortly thereafter.
That assumes all or most are won by the same person. I don't know who that would be at this point. There are a lot of people splitting the moderate vote. Maybe Rick Santorum sneaks in by winning most of the social/religious conservative vote. Bush would have to hope a bunch of people run out of money early.
Quote:
well ahead of the GOP contenders, so either all those national polls are wrong or Quinnipiac got a bad sample. Betting on the latter
National polls really don't matter. It's the state polls that are important, especially the swing states.
Quote:
In comment 12380871 Bill in UT said:
Quote:
enough votes for the nomination after the primaries. It's almost certainly going to be a brokered convention, so the Party pros will be deciding the nominee. Anyone with an independent streak can forget about it.
Not likely. The Republicans changed the rules. All primaries on or after March 15 are winner take all. Ohio Florida, Illinois and Missouri all hold primaries on the 15. You will have a nominee shortly thereafter.
That assumes all or most are won by the same person. I don't know who that would be at this point. There are a lot of people splitting the moderate vote. Maybe Rick Santorum sneaks in by winning most of the social/religious conservative vote. Bush would have to hope a bunch of people run out of money early.
Candidates gather momentum, voters front-run, certain candidates will do better in certain states but you're not likely to see, say, six candidates winning a state in a given week.
Quote:
presidency advances women. She is probably the worst example of what a first female leader should be. The fact that she was married to a President and all of her positions since then have fed off of that makes her the epitome of marrying for power, everything feminists should be against. She also has a bad record of not being female friendly in her attacks on Bill's 'bimbos'and paying women less than men in her staff.
And Conservative does not equal Corporatist.
Seems to me not only is this insulating to HRC but any women who has put their aspirations on hold to bring up a family and be supportive of their husband. Are you saying none of our 1st Ladies could have been successful leaders in their own right? What ever success they may have after leaving the WH is only because they married for power?
Michelle Obama was graduated cum laude from Princeton and received her law degree from Harvard. She met her husband at their law firm. She was assigned to mentor him when he was a summer associate. I don't know what she will choose to do but whatever it is I'm sure she is more than capable of a leadership role.
Laura Bush received her master's degree from the University of Texas. The Bush Family has credited her with her her husband get over his drinking problem. Since leaving WH, Foundation for American Libraries which funds neediest school libraries. To date, 715000 books & materials provided. She serves as the chair of the Bushes Institute's Global Women's Initiatives. Besides these charities, she serves on many boards including Advisory Board for Salvation Army, National Trust for Historic Preservation. Would you insinuate she was only asked to take a seat because she married into a powerful family?
Hillary Clinton was graduated from Wellesley and received her law degree from Yale. It was her senior speech at Wellesley that first gained her national attention. She was featured in an article published by Life Magazine. I'm sure Life chose her because they just knew she would marry well and therefore amount to something.
Nice try, but no cigar. She didn't have to put her career on hold and if she really did the work to be a Senator and Presidential Candidate and SOS then fine. But she didn't. She was granted the Senate slot because of her name, nothing more. From that she ran for President and then got the SOS slot because Obama wanted to either watch her or placate the Clintons.
And a speech from college? Really? And I'll say it again, Bush also went to Yale.
What this is is an insult to women who did put in the work their entire lives and started from nothing but were elected at a state level then maybe Congress and then took it from there. Geraldine Ferraro is a great example:
And yes, if Laura Bush hadn't married George Bush, I doubt she would have been offered that position.
Quote:
In comment 12380789 dpinzow said:
Quote:
well ahead of the GOP contenders, so either all those national polls are wrong or Quinnipiac got a bad sample. Betting on the latter
National polls really don't matter. It's the state polls that are important, especially the swing states.
Anything good for the person I hate doesn't count! C'mon, you're laughable now.
Don't worry Randy! You have reinforcements now!!!
Nevermind. She was re-elected.
Nonetheless her elections were for a state she never lived in.
I've said this before but our family had an interaction with her office when she was Senstor. We found that her office, as compared to our Representative and Schumer, was incredibly efficient and professional. I have nothing negative to say about that experience.
Quote:
In comment 12380932 fireitup77 said:
Quote:
In comment 12380871 Bill in UT said:
Quote:
enough votes for the nomination after the primaries. It's almost certainly going to be a brokered convention, so the Party pros will be deciding the nominee. Anyone with an independent streak can forget about it.
Not likely. The Republicans changed the rules. All primaries on or after March 15 are winner take all. Ohio Florida, Illinois and Missouri all hold primaries on the 15. You will have a nominee shortly thereafter.
That assumes all or most are won by the same person. I don't know who that would be at this point. There are a lot of people splitting the moderate vote. Maybe Rick Santorum sneaks in by winning most of the social/religious conservative vote. Bush would have to hope a bunch of people run out of money early.
Candidates gather momentum, voters front-run, certain candidates will do better in certain states but you're not likely to see, say, six candidates winning a state in a given week.
On March 15, it's entirely possible that Kasich wins Ohio, Rubio or Bush wins Florida. Santorum wins Missouri and Santorum or one of the moderates wins Illinois. (The Santorum wins are based on 2012 primary voting)
I've said this before but our family had an interaction with her office when she was Senstor. We found that her office, as compared to our Representative and Schumer, was incredibly efficient and professional. I have nothing negative to say about that experience.
Rudy had to drop out because he got prostate cancer. I think he could have beat her. She ran against Rick Lazio, who was my congressman at the time (or was since I moved right before the election).
Quote:
Did they choose NY in,part because of the upcoming open seat and because it's not tough to beat a Rep in NY? Likely. But she did run a decent campaign (honestly, though,mr here really was no Repub who credibly could run against her once someone got rudi's mistress in the papers (I think I have that have left ion right, don't I?... Foggy memory).
I've said this before but our family had an interaction with her office when she was Senstor. We found that her office, as compared to our Representative and Schumer, was incredibly efficient and professional. I have nothing negative to say about that experience.
Rudy had to drop out because he got prostate cancer. I think he could have beat her. She ran against Rick Lazio, who was my congressman at the time (or was since I moved right before the election).
Thanks. I don't know where I got mistress from...I guess I spent too much time on the Ashley Madison thread. I do sort of remember the Lazio race. He got a raw deal from the press who made him out to be some sort of misogynist monster for his debate style. Really messed up but that's the press for you.
And the mistress and cancer stuff all came out around the same time. Probably deliberately on his part but still...
Link - ( New Window )
Rudy ran a terrible campaign too -- essentially refused to go upstate, and people in NYC were growing very tired of him before 9/11/01. Especially after the tone-deaf character assassination of Dorismond.
I dont doubt that the prostate cancer may have weighed on his decision to drop out (though after the announcement but pre-Nathan he said it was full steam ahead on the campaign), but there has been some revisionist history in some circles that Rudy was felled by a faulty prostate.
Quote:
In comment 12380362 buford said:
Quote:
presidency advances women. She is probably the worst example of what a first female leader should be. The fact that she was married to a President and all of her positions since then have fed off of that makes her the epitome of marrying for power, everything feminists should be against. She also has a bad record of not being female friendly in her attacks on Bill's 'bimbos'and paying women less than men in her staff.
And Conservative does not equal Corporatist.
Seems to me not only is this insulating to HRC but any women who has put their aspirations on hold to bring up a family and be supportive of their husband. Are you saying none of our 1st Ladies could have been successful leaders in their own right? What ever success they may have after leaving the WH is only because they married for power?
Michelle Obama was graduated cum laude from Princeton and received her law degree from Harvard. She met her husband at their law firm. She was assigned to mentor him when he was a summer associate. I don't know what she will choose to do but whatever it is I'm sure she is more than capable of a leadership role.
Laura Bush received her master's degree from the University of Texas. The Bush Family has credited her with her her husband get over his drinking problem. Since leaving WH, Foundation for American Libraries which funds neediest school libraries. To date, 715000 books & materials provided. She serves as the chair of the Bushes Institute's Global Women's Initiatives. Besides these charities, she serves on many boards including Advisory Board for Salvation Army, National Trust for Historic Preservation. Would you insinuate she was only asked to take a seat because she married into a powerful family?
Hillary Clinton was graduated from Wellesley and received her law degree from Yale. It was her senior speech at Wellesley that first gained her national attention. She was featured in an article published by Life Magazine. I'm sure Life chose her because they just knew she would marry well and therefore amount to something.
Nice try, but no cigar. She didn't have to put her career on hold and if she really did the work to be a Senator and Presidential Candidate and SOS then fine. But she didn't. She was granted the Senate slot because of her name, nothing more. From that she ran for President and then got the SOS slot because Obama wanted to either watch her or placate the Clintons.
And a speech from college? Really? And I'll say it again, Bush also went to Yale.
What this is is an insult to women who did put in the work their entire lives and started from nothing but were elected at a state level then maybe Congress and then took it from there. Geraldine Ferraro is a great example:
Quote:
Ferraro grew up in New York City and worked as a public school teacher before training as a lawyer. She joined the Queens County District Attorney's Office in 1974, heading the new Special Victims Bureau that dealt with sex crimes, child abuse, and domestic violence. In 1978 she was elected to the House, where she rose rapidly in the party hierarchy while focusing on legislation to bring equity for women in the areas of wages, pensions, and retirement plans. In 1984, former vice president and presidential candidate Walter Mondale, seen as an underdog, selected Ferraro to be his running mate in the upcoming election. Ferraro became the only Italian American to be a major-party national nominee in addition to being the first woman.
And yes, if Laura Bush hadn't married George Bush, I doubt she would have been offered that position.
I get that you don't like HRC. As a youngster, she already showed an interest in politics. At 13 she canvassed with her Dad for Nixon's 1960 campaign. In high school she was a Goldwater volunteer. Yes originally she was a Republican.
I mentioned her commencement speech because these don't get attention. How many 21 year old seniors get featured in a national magazine? I brought these up because clearly knowledgeable adults saw something special. Yes, way before Bill.
Frankly, your contention that HRC could never have had a high level political career with out Bill is absurd. She had a clear interest and demonstrated talent at a very young age.
I understand that your political views are conservative. But why the continual personal attacks? Have you no confidence that the conservative message can be articulate so the majority of the electorate will see its the proper course? Have you no confidence in your candidates abilities and therefore feel the need to ripe the opposition on a personal basis? Or are you just pissed that she did not remain a Republican?
Robert Pinsky on the moment Hillary became a Public Figure - ( New Window )
And making a speech, even if it was covered by a magazine doesn't make her fit to be President. And also, I never said she wouldn't have had a career if she didn't marry Bill Clinton. But she did and she did not have a career. So yes, what came after he left office was mostly due to her being known from being First Lady, not her speech 40 years earlier.
CO: 29-26-36
IA: 29-27-38
VA: 27-28-35
Then I look at the 2012 exit polls (consortium of all the networks including Fox). Actual turnout was:
CO: 29-34-37
IO: 33-33-34
VA: 32-39-29
I have serious concerns about Q's ability to call this far out such a massive shift in the presidential electorate in VA and CO (and early polling of Iowa may be inherently unreliable given what's going on there with the GOPers campaigning full bore). Off year elections like 2014 are irrelevant to predicting presidential year turnout since so many fewer people vote and the off-year electorate is much more conservative than presidential year electorates.
So this pollster says in 4 years VA has gone net 8 points red, by going +5R and -11D? I dont want to say ridiculous, but I'd be real curios to see how you model a swing for VA like that, especially given the reports about VA generally trending Dem demographically (growth of NoVA). I mean, that state just elected Terrible Terry McAuliffe as governor in 2014 (albeit by plurality). 2012 Exit Polls - ( New Window )
Those Party ID crosstabs are whacked. They used a 2014 midterm sample when a presidential election is much more Democratic in general
Basically add 8 points to Hillary in Colorado, 5 points to her in Iowa and 7 to her in Virginia based on the 2012 part ID stats and Quinnipiac's poll becomes more accurate. That puts her in a dead heat with all three leading GOP candidates which makes a lot more sense
Colorado: R+4
Iowa: R+2
Virginia: D+1
When the actual 2012 election crosstabs were:
Colorado: D+4
Iowa: Even
Virginia: D+7
And two of the three states (Colorado and Virginia) have rapidly trended D due to minority population growth
As to your attacks not being personal, as an example, earlier in response to the question what will a HRC presidency look like. You said at 12:21. - "It will be the time to payback all those donors for their contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Oh, and set up Chelsea to run for something. It's the family business."
What can I say. I guess we have a difference in opinion on what constitutes a personal attack.
As to your attacks not being personal, as an example, earlier in response to the question what will a HRC presidency look like. You said at 12:21. - "It will be the time to payback all those donors for their contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Oh, and set up Chelsea to run for something. It's the family business."
What can I say. I guess we have a difference in opinion on what constitutes a personal attack.
Watson, I like you. But my opinions about HRC are valid. You are obviously a fan and I get that. But most of what I have said is pretty much being said by a lot of people. If she is going to be your candidate, she's going to have to put up with a lot worse than what I've said. The Presidency is not a prize to be awarded, it has to be earned. And frankly, I don't think she has earned it.
Maybe you confused sympathy with evaluation?
Quote:
or SoS her popularity numbers were in the mid 60's. The day she became a candidate without doing 1 thing differently she became a monster. SMH
Maybe you confused sympathy with evaluation?
The sympathy numbers had a lot more to do with her seeming "humanized" in the impeachment bit. When she was front and center again we were reminded that she isn't human. Rather, she is an android. A frumpy android.
If I believed that people were nuanced I might suppose that the world seemingly going to shit within a year or so of her leaving the top diplomatic post might be the cause of those numbers. Probably a safer assumption is just that she was the most prominent Democrat not named Obama, that most of his supporters liked her and that plenty of people who didn't like him liked her because she isn't a Republican and isn't him.
then I guess that disqualifies Jeb Bush who got everything handed to him on a plate because his father was President
then I guess that disqualifies Jeb Bush who got everything handed to him on a plate because his father was President
I agree. Can we kick them both out of the race?
I mentioned her commencement speech because these don't get attention. How many 21 year old seniors get featured in a national magazine? I brought these up because clearly knowledgeable adults saw something special. Yes, way before Bill.
Robert Pinsky on the moment Hillary became a Public Figure - ( New Window )
After linking that puff piece by Pinsky I hope you never criticize someone for linking a Fox article.
And let's put the Wellesley speech into context. It was 1969, and any anyone from an Ivy League/Seven Sister school making an Alinsky inspired radical speech at commencement would make the news. Mark Rudd made Life Magazine a year or two earlier for occupying the President's office at Columbia. The media ate that stuff up.
WASHINGTON — The 11 million people who receive Social Security disability face steep benefit cuts next year — unless Congress acts, the government said Wednesday.
The trustees who oversee Social Security said the disability trust fund will run out of money in late 2016, right in the middle of a presidential campaign. That would trigger an automatic 19 percent cut in benefits.
The report said the fund faces “an urgent threat” that requires prompt action by Congress.
There is an easy fix available: Congress could shift tax revenue from Social Security’s much larger retirement fund, as it has done in the past.
President Barack Obama supports the move. But Republicans say they want changes in the program to reduce fraud and to encourage disabled workers to re-enter the work force.
Link - ( New Window )
And I don't think it disqualifies people. But when that is really all a candidate has to recommend them (leaving out their valedictorian speeches) then I think it's an issue.
Quote:
I mentioned her commencement speech because these don't get attention. How many 21 year old seniors get featured in a national magazine? I brought these up because clearly knowledgeable adults saw something special. Yes, way before Bill.
Robert Pinsky on the moment Hillary became a Public Figure - ( New Window )
After linking that puff piece by Pinsky I hope you never criticize someone for linking a Fox article.
And let's put the Wellesley speech into context. It was 1969, and any anyone from an Ivy League/Seven Sister school making an Alinsky inspired radical speech at commencement would make the news. Mark Rudd made Life Magazine a year or two earlier for occupying the President's office at Columbia. The media ate that stuff up.
I've no problem with Fox News links provided they are relevant & appear to be factually correct. I believe I've used them. However, when linking a more conservative viewpoint, more often I've used either Forbes or WSJ. These generally are perceived to be not so politically charged.
I only made reference to HRC's speech & Life article because we have some who believe HRC never had any public recognition prior to Bill.
As to the article, I specifically listed Robert Pinsky in link title so people could determine quickly if they wished to read or not. He is a known poet. I would think the expectation would be that this would be a lyrical article. I used it because it was based on the only first hand account I could find. All others were either second or third hand.
Hope this clears things up.
Yeah, but a while before that there was a stretch where they ran Nixon, Ford and Reagan who were no better off than Hillary. And the Dems had a stretch, interrupted only by Truman, where they ran FDR, Stevenson and Kennedy, 3rd basers all.
Frankly I don't think family connections are disqualifying. Talk to me about the individual.
Quote:
It's funny how little I heard about that from GOPers when they ran GWB, McCain, and Romney in 4 consecutive elections. Those guys were all born on 3rd base, unlike HRC. Al Gore too, just so people dont think Im being unfair.
Yeah, but a while before that there was a stretch where they ran Nixon, Ford and Reagan who were no better off than Hillary. And the Dems had a stretch, interrupted only by Truman, where they ran FDR, Stevenson and Kennedy, 3rd basers all.
Frankly I don't think family connections are disqualifying. Talk to me about the individual.
I agree. But I just think tagging HRC as some sort of 3rd baser is particularly off base. It's borderline ignorant.
It's okay to like your candidate, but let's elect people to be the President of the United States because they're the best person for the job. A good litums test is achievement. If a person's only achievement is that they held a position, they sat on airplanes a lot, or they tried hard, where's the beef? If you support them, you're it has to be because of likability, or the HOPE that they'll do something you like. In fact, if someone has held a high office and we can't cite their achievements, that should be a big red flag. A duty with a lot of responsibility should provide ample opportunity to have big ticket achievements.
We elect our high school president based on popularity, we should elect our Commander in Chief based on their fitness for the duties.
Quote:
In comment 12381787 Deej said:
Quote:
It's funny how little I heard about that from GOPers when they ran GWB, McCain, and Romney in 4 consecutive elections. Those guys were all born on 3rd base, unlike HRC. Al Gore too, just so people dont think Im being unfair.
Yeah, but a while before that there was a stretch where they ran Nixon, Ford and Reagan who were no better off than Hillary. And the Dems had a stretch, interrupted only by Truman, where they ran FDR, Stevenson and Kennedy, 3rd basers all.
Frankly I don't think family connections are disqualifying. Talk to me about the individual.
I agree. But I just think tagging HRC as some sort of 3rd baser is particularly off base. It's borderline ignorant.
But now you get into the question of how you define "3rd baser". She was raised in Park Ridge, a fairly affluent town, and I haven't heard about her needing significant scholarship assistance at Wellesley (of course tuition was a different world back then). Certainly she wasn't in Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush territory, but was ahead of Reagan, Ford and Nixon and way ahead Truman, Carter & LBJ.
As I said above, it's of relatively limited relevance to me as I want to focus on the individual.
So, as president, will she have an agenda, and what would it be? she's always struck me as someone who merely wants power. if she gets it, will she know what to do with it? Will her power base carry over to being able to enact an agenda? Or would she simply spend the first four years not fucking up (most of her career MO) so she'll be re-elected, and then the next four years protecting her legacy?
My guess is that on many such things as health care, abortion, and gun control her proposals will be left of center, but her foreign policy and clamor for war might be enough to make Donald Rumsfeld blush.
Quote:
would be good for women. Rather, you indicated it was the opposite she's "the epitome of marrying for power". This initiated my original response. Imo it's insulting to women who have put their aspirations on hold and have all their later success attributed to their spouse. I mentioned the national attention she received at such a young age, because she was clearly identified as a talented young women.
As to your attacks not being personal, as an example, earlier in response to the question what will a HRC presidency look like. You said at 12:21. - "It will be the time to payback all those donors for their contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Oh, and set up Chelsea to run for something. It's the family business."
What can I say. I guess we have a difference in opinion on what constitutes a personal attack.
Watson, I like you. But my opinions about HRC are valid. You are obviously a fan and I get that. But most of what I have said is pretty much being said by a lot of people. If she is going to be your candidate, she's going to have to put up with a lot worse than what I've said. The Presidency is not a prize to be awarded, it has to be earned. And frankly, I don't think she has earned it.
There is along way to go before election day. Who will I vote for? We don't know who the nominees will be. Like everyone I do have my biases. However, candidates spend alot of time and effort to ask people for their vote. Yes, often putting up with alot of abuse. Perhaps I'm old fashion, but imo the least voters can do is extend the courtesy of hearing them out. What I take exception to are personal attacks, repeating politically motivated comments by others and excepting them as facts.
You seem to be hung up on everything she's been able to do is the result of Bill and just dismiss. She can't be considered as having leadership capabilities in her own right. You seem to be interested in politics and therefore thought you would be familiar with her background before WH. You mentioned women who have put the work in their entire lives and cited Geraldine Ferraro. So maybe you don't know. Yes her political career was on hold but it's not like she didn't do anything.
Short list of experiences and recognition prior to WH:
At Yale
Assisted local hospital on cases of child abuse
Volunteer at Legal Service for the poor
Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor worked as researcher
Children Defense Fund served as staff attorney (post grad)
Carnegie Council on Children consultant (post grad)
After Yale
1974 House Judiciary Com. staff member impeachment inquiry
U of Arkansas School of Law 1 of 2 female faculty members
1977 Rose Law Firm later partner. Child Advocacy pro bono
Co-founded Advocates for Children and Families
1978-1981 Legal Services Corp. served on Board of Directors
1979 Rural Health Advisory Committee chair
1983 Arkansas Educational Standards Committee chair
1985-1992 TCBY served on corp. Board of Directors
1986-1992 Wal-Mart Stores served on corp. Board of Directors
1988-1992 Children Defense Fund served on board
1988 & 1991 National Law Journal 100 list influential Lawyers
It's okay to like your candidate, but let's elect people to be the President of the United States because they're the best person for the job. A good litums test is achievement. If a person's only achievement is that they held a position, they sat on airplanes a lot, or they tried hard, where's the beef? If you support them, you're it has to be because of likability, or the HOPE that they'll do something you like. In fact, if someone has held a high office and we can't cite their achievements, that should be a big red flag. A duty with a lot of responsibility should provide ample opportunity to have big ticket achievements.
We elect our high school president based on popularity, we should elect our Commander in Chief based on their fitness for the duties.
Thank you.
Quote:
In comment 12381468 Watson said:
Quote:
would be good for women. Rather, you indicated it was the opposite she's "the epitome of marrying for power". This initiated my original response. Imo it's insulting to women who have put their aspirations on hold and have all their later success attributed to their spouse. I mentioned the national attention she received at such a young age, because she was clearly identified as a talented young women.
As to your attacks not being personal, as an example, earlier in response to the question what will a HRC presidency look like. You said at 12:21. - "It will be the time to payback all those donors for their contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Oh, and set up Chelsea to run for something. It's the family business."
What can I say. I guess we have a difference in opinion on what constitutes a personal attack.
Watson, I like you. But my opinions about HRC are valid. You are obviously a fan and I get that. But most of what I have said is pretty much being said by a lot of people. If she is going to be your candidate, she's going to have to put up with a lot worse than what I've said. The Presidency is not a prize to be awarded, it has to be earned. And frankly, I don't think she has earned it.
Short list of experiences and recognition prior to WH:
At Yale
Assisted local hospital on cases of child abuse
Volunteer at Legal Service for the poor
Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor worked as researcher
Children Defense Fund served as staff attorney (post grad)
Carnegie Council on Children consultant (post grad)
After Yale
1974 House Judiciary Com. staff member impeachment inquiry
U of Arkansas School of Law 1 of 2 female faculty members
1977 Rose Law Firm later partner. Child Advocacy pro bono
Co-founded Advocates for Children and Families
1978-1981 Legal Services Corp. served on Board of Directors
1979 Rural Health Advisory Committee chair
1983 Arkansas Educational Standards Committee chair
1985-1992 TCBY served on corp. Board of Directors
1986-1992 Wal-Mart Stores served on corp. Board of Directors
1988-1992 Children Defense Fund served on board
1988 & 1991 National Law Journal 100 list influential Lawyers
Of course while she was in Arkansas, Bill was governor, so I'm not sure if that list of achievements supports your premise. Board of Directors of Walmart?.....
Quote:
In comment 12381468 Watson said:
Quote:
would be good for women. Rather, you indicated it was the opposite she's "the epitome of marrying for power". This initiated my original response. Imo it's insulting to women who have put their aspirations on hold and have all their later success attributed to their spouse. I mentioned the national attention she received at such a young age, because she was clearly identified as a talented young women.
As to your attacks not being personal, as an example, earlier in response to the question what will a HRC presidency look like. You said at 12:21. - "It will be the time to payback all those donors for their contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Oh, and set up Chelsea to run for something. It's the family business."
What can I say. I guess we have a difference in opinion on what constitutes a personal attack.
Watson, I like you. But my opinions about HRC are valid. You are obviously a fan and I get that. But most of what I have said is pretty much being said by a lot of people. If she is going to be your candidate, she's going to have to put up with a lot worse than what I've said. The Presidency is not a prize to be awarded, it has to be earned. And frankly, I don't think she has earned it.
There is along way to go before election day. Who will I vote for? We don't know who the nominees will be. Like everyone I do have my biases. However, candidates spend alot of time and effort to ask people for their vote. Yes, often putting up with alot of abuse. Perhaps I'm old fashion, but imo the least voters can do is extend the courtesy of hearing them out. What I take exception to are personal attacks, repeating politically motivated comments by others and excepting them as facts.
You seem to be hung up on everything she's been able to do is the result of Bill and just dismiss. She can't be considered as having leadership capabilities in her own right. You seem to be interested in politics and therefore thought you would be familiar with her background before WH. You mentioned women who have put the work in their entire lives and cited Geraldine Ferraro. So maybe you don't know. Yes her political career was on hold but it's not like she didn't do anything.
Short list of experiences and recognition prior to WH:
At Yale
Assisted local hospital on cases of child abuse
Volunteer at Legal Service for the poor
Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor worked as researcher
Children Defense Fund served as staff attorney (post grad)
Carnegie Council on Children consultant (post grad)
After Yale
1974 House Judiciary Com. staff member impeachment inquiry
U of Arkansas School of Law 1 of 2 female faculty members
1977 Rose Law Firm later partner. Child Advocacy pro bono
Co-founded Advocates for Children and Families
1978-1981 Legal Services Corp. served on Board of Directors
1979 Rural Health Advisory Committee chair
1983 Arkansas Educational Standards Committee chair
1985-1992 TCBY served on corp. Board of Directors
1986-1992 Wal-Mart Stores served on corp. Board of Directors
1988-1992 Children Defense Fund served on board
1988 & 1991 National Law Journal 100 list influential Lawyers
I would love to hear Hillary out. When is she going to submit to interviews that other candidates do? When is she going to answer the hard questions? When is she going to give her server to the Special Investigation (which subpoenaed her). The Republican candidates are subject to much worse treatment, especially here on BBI, when are you going to comment on those? Should HRC get special treatment because she's a woman? And again, bringing up her past and her connections are not personal attacks, they are facts. And I don't see you commenting to others who have made much more personal comments about HRC. I see this pattern again. We couldn't criticize or question Obama because he's black and that made us racist. We now can't say anything about HRC because it's a personal attack and probably sexist. If you really want to know about Hillary, you know she and her staff are the ones who put out personal attacks on their political enemies (did you know that it was the HRC Campaign that started the Obama birther campaign?). So no, she will not get a pass. She wants to be president, she has to earn it.
And please stop posting her resume on here, it's embarrassing. Those are almost all things she was appointed to while Bill was Governor. It doesn't really prove your point. Serving on a board is not something that qualifies you to be President.
I really like what I hear from Fiorina. What makes her less qualified than Trump (rhetoric aside)?
I guess, wrt HRC you're saying only gov't experience people can be President. I am not sure why that actually is so, even though it's mostly been done that way.
My issue with her is I believe that she is the most dishonest person ever to run for president, where we knew about their character beforehand and had to choose while knowing it.
Quote:
More lulz from buford. The same person who thinks Carly Fiorina is more qualified to be president than HRC.
I really like what I hear from Fiorina. What makes her less qualified than Trump (rhetoric aside)?
I guess, wrt HRC you're saying only gov't experience people can be President. I am not sure why that actually is so, even though it's mostly been done that way.
She's arguably as qualified as Trump. But that's not exactly setting the bar high seeing as you'd get close to a bipartisan consensus that Trump as an incompetent attention whore.
I have no beef with HRC but, I don't know how she became the presumtive Democrat nominee for President. I'd really like someone like you, who says you'll vote for her regardless of who the GOP might nominate -- what do we need to know that you know. Without calling me names or making judgement of what you think I believe, please explain what she has accomplished that makes her qualified to be in this position. Don't tell me what titles she's owned, or how many air miles she logged... what did she accomplish as a citizen and public servant?
Quote:
In comment 12382448 rut17 said:
Quote:
More lulz from buford. The same person who thinks Carly Fiorina is more qualified to be president than HRC.
I really like what I hear from Fiorina. What makes her less qualified than Trump (rhetoric aside)?
I guess, wrt HRC you're saying only gov't experience people can be President. I am not sure why that actually is so, even though it's mostly been done that way.
She's arguably as qualified as Trump. But that's not exactly setting the bar high seeing as you'd get close to a bipartisan consensus that Trump as an incompetent attention whore.
This isnt with respect to you, but effectively I think people are totally ignorant of Hillary except the purported "scandals" and then, without any knowledge, have just concluded that because they only know about that stuff that there must not be achievement.
On the flipside I have no idea what Marco Rubio's accomplishments are. Which puts him ahead of Scott Walker's failed governorship -- lots of red meat for the GOP (understandable) but he ran as the jobs candidate, appointed himself the head of the jobs agency (Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation) and Wisconsin has spectacularly underperformed in jobs vis a vis both his promises and other states.
In our lives, we get praised for working hard at our jobs. That's standard fare and employers have a right to expect hard work. However, rewards come for results and achievement. In my professional life, people don't advance just because they work hard; people get rewarded for what they have done. Why is this standard not applied to people seeking the highest office in the country?
IMO, non-supporters of Hillary Clinton should give her credit for being an accomplished politician on her own and for that fact that having her by his side benefited Bill throughout his career. So she does deserve some credit for the titles she earned as a result of her established name recognition.
But on the other hand, the odds that Hillary would be in this position without having been part of the duo is low in my opinion simply due to the long odds amassed against everyone who vies for political power without massive family connections. So there is some truth to the opinion that she used "name value" to advance further than she would have on her own or at the very least, to take a more direct path to her current position
As to Wal-Mart this came up in debates with Obama. IIRC she was appointed directly by Sam Walton. Wal-Mart obviously didn't need "Mrs Clinton" as Window dressing. One of HRC legal specialties was patent and intellectual property rights and at this time was a partner of Rose Law Firm. It was through this that I believe the relationship was born.
Did you wake up last week?
Do you not remember 2008 ? She ran in one of the closest primary races
in the past 50 years .
Why did Romney get to nod in 2012? because he was second place to McCain in 2008 .
The Same Reason that Reagan was the front runner in 1980 After LOSING to Ford in 1976
The second place finisher is usually the next on deck -- this is modern American Politics
Even eliminating her 8 years as First Lady
She was a Senator for 8 years and Secretary of State for 4
I think only John Kaisch on the Republican side as a longer resume than Hillary .
You may not like Hillary but to question her qualifications is incredibly insulting
The idea that her being elected is good for women is incredibly insulting and demeaning.
As to Wal-Mart this came up in debates with Obama. IIRC she was appointed directly by Sam Walton. Wal-Mart obviously didn't need "Mrs Clinton" as Window dressing. One of HRC legal specialties was patent and intellectual property rights and at this time was a partner of Rose Law Firm. It was through this that I believe the relationship was born.
So you think she actually did legal work for Walmart and not there as 'window dressing'? Most of these board appointments are just that. I've attached an article that highlights her tenure at Walmart.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
please explain what she has accomplished that makes her qualified to be in this position. Don't tell me what titles she's owned, or how many air miles she logged... what did she accomplish as a citizen and public servant?
IMO, non-supporters of Hillary Clinton should give her credit for being an accomplished politician on her own and for that fact that having her by his side benefited Bill throughout his career. So she does deserve some credit for the titles she earned as a result of her established name recognition.
But on the other hand, the odds that Hillary would be in this position without having been part of the duo is low in my opinion simply due to the long odds amassed against everyone who vies for political power without massive family connections. So there is some truth to the opinion that she used "name value" to advance further than she would have on her own or at the very least, to take a more direct path to her current position
There are a few in the race that do not have massive family connections. Rubio's parents were Cuban refugees and his father was a bartender. Fiorina started out as a secretary, Cruz parents were not rich or connected. Walker comes from a fairly modest background.
While studying law, Rubio interned for U.S. Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.[17] He also worked on Republican Senator Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign.[18][19] He served as a City Commissioner for West Miami before being elected to the Florida House of Representatives in early 2000.[15]
n December 2002, Rubio was appointed House Majority Leader by Speaker Johnnie Byrd.[28][29] In November 2003, Rubio clinched the Speakership after State Representatives Dennis Baxley, Jeff Kottkamp, and Dennis A. Ross dropped out. He became the first Cuban American to become Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives.[30]
He was elected to the Senate in 2010, you can see the rest of his resume on the link
Link - ( New Window )
Let's see.
Rose Law Firm - one of the oldest law firms in the US.
Heavy hitter client list including Wal-Mart.
HRC partner of said law firm.
HRC appointed to the Board of Directors by Sam Walton
HRC graduate of Yale Law School
Do I think she actually did some legal work for Wal-Mart Hmmm.
Well I'm going to say let's not let those embarrassing facts get in the way.
As you stated before your opinions are valid. Clearly,HRC has gone through life with the "Mrs. Clinton" name tag pinned on.
Buford, when you figure out how Bill arranged for Hillary to get that Yale law degree can you let me know?
Thanks
Let's see.
Rose Law Firm - one of the oldest law firms in the US.
Heavy hitter client list including Wal-Mart.
HRC partner of said law firm.
HRC appointed to the Board of Directors by Sam Walton
HRC graduate of Yale Law School
Do I think she actually did some legal work for Wal-Mart Hmmm.
Well I'm going to say let's not let those embarrassing facts get in the way.
As you stated before your opinions are valid. Clearly,HRC has gone through life with the "Mrs. Clinton" name tag pinned on.
Buford, when you figure out how Bill arranged for Hillary to get that Yale law degree can you let me know?
Thanks
So she has a law degree from Yale. Big fucking whoop. So do a lot of people. Does something she did 45 years ago qualify her for president?
Quote:
So you think she actually did legal work for Walmart and not there as 'window dressing'?
Let's see.
Rose Law Firm - one of the oldest law firms in the US.
Heavy hitter client list including Wal-Mart.
HRC partner of said law firm.
HRC appointed to the Board of Directors by Sam Walton
HRC graduate of Yale Law School
Do I think she actually did some legal work for Wal-Mart Hmmm.
Well I'm going to say let's not let those embarrassing facts get in the way.
As you stated before your opinions are valid. Clearly,HRC has gone through life with the "Mrs. Clinton" name tag pinned on.
Buford, when you figure out how Bill arranged for Hillary to get that Yale law degree can you let me know?
Thanks
So she has a law degree from Yale. Big fucking whoop. So do a lot of people. Does something she did 45 years ago qualify her for president?
Once again you missed the point. But never mind. You have a good day.
I don't think she needs to or should play the female card. That would be against what she stands for.
THE STAT: HP stock lost half its value during Fiorina’s tenure.
Since getting fired she's done almost nothing (and it's more than a decade) except work for and get fired by the McCain campaign.
She's not a good candidate.
Link - ( New Window )
Fiorina's best contribution to the GOP is as their official 'attack dog' against HRC. In a party where they cower at the thought of being critical of a major political candidate, she has the ability to be hyper critical and not get auto-labeled by the press as anothre GOP sexist, racist, homophope, tea bag loving, environment plundering, big business tody, gun freak.
You can disagree with someone's politics or parts of their track record without outright dismissing their life's work and accomplishments. That's just fucking bush league.
The Republican powers that be want a vanilla establishment "electable" person as nominee. In order to counter that you're going to have to make a really big splash with the public on your own. So far no one not named Trump can get that kind of exposure. Carly would have to be a cause celeb with the mainstream and social media or just spend megabucks to get her message out. Even then it would be a huge uphill fight.
She's a known and discarded entity. Failed profoundly in tech, and then for some reason thought that and 20M could get in the California Senate. One could argue that was an equally poor outcome. So she's very well known out west, and its solidly negative.
I've seen Hillary. The idea that she fucked her way to the top IS patently absurd
Quote:
The idea that Hillary fucked her way to the top is patently absurd
I've seen Hillary. The idea that she fucked her way to the top IS patently absurd
I'll agree to that.
yeah, but she was apparently never good looking. And I haven't even seen her thumbs
You can disagree with someone's politics or parts of their track record without outright dismissing their life's work and accomplishments. That's just fucking bush league.
Without a doubt she helped him. But again, what does that mean? She assisted him in a lot of bad behavior and only cared when it threated his Presidency. And it's not that she 'fucked her way to the top'. Not at all. But you say we are dismissing her accomplishments. What exactly did she excel in at being Senator or SoS that recommends her for the top position? She had a terrible tenure as SoS and an unremarkable one at the Senate.
SoS seems the same. Worked hard. Travelled endlessly, but never came close to doing something visionary like Kerry just did.
Admit it, you'd hit it.
Everyone looks good at closing time.
That goes both ways.
SoS seems the same. Worked hard. Travelled endlessly, but never came close to doing something visionary like Kerry just did.
Lots of Senator's work hard and of course SoS travel, that isn't an accomplishment. And Kerry visionary? LOL.
I think you just want to think she's this very accomplished person.
WALKER!
SoS seems the same. Worked hard. Travelled endlessly, but never came close to doing something visionary like Kerry just did.
What's the correlation between 'pretty productive' and did 'far more' than 90% of her peers... how is that possible? Same question I posed to Eclipz, who had similar general statements. No response... I'm not interested in a comparison between HRC and another candidate, or how hard she worked. We should EXPECT hard work from public servants. We elect people to do things and in a huge state like New York, that should be easy to recall.
I really want to hear from someone like you who talks about her achievements in significant positions of responsiblity in and out of the Government and believes she was among the top-10 Senators.
But since its the weekend, I'll get them early next week and put them on a thread. Of course you know there will be one.
Honestly, I can't complain about anyone's accomplishments, democrat or republican. I still think public servants should only be farmers and shopkeepers who leave their life because they are compelled solely by a need to serve the country, do that service for s very finite time and go home. Obviously, that's not happened in forever. But it's what I want and what I think it should be.
My differences with everyone who I would not vote for are only ideological. And that's with respect to what they say about their beliefs and what they propose to enact. The only exception is with Hillary where I have an ideological difference and a an antipathy based on honor/integrity (as is discussed in other threads). But her resume and even her competency as my Senator? No issues for me.
HRC has a B.A. degree in political science from Wellesley College, and a J.D. degree from Yale University Law School. She is not an academic weakling... I don't think anyone questions that point. Does this count as an achievement... sure, keep going.
Quote:
RE: Her Senate career was pretty productiveShe's a hard-working wonk. Doesn't craft the visionary stuff, but really did far more than 90% of her peers while in the Senate.
SoS seems the same. Worked hard. Travelled endlessly, but never came close to doing something visionary like Kerry just did.
What's the correlation between 'pretty productive' and did 'far more' than 90% of her peers... how is that possible? Same question I posed to Eclipz, who had similar general statements. No response... I'm not interested in a comparison between HRC and another candidate, or how hard she worked. We should EXPECT hard work from public servants. We elect people to do things and in a huge state like New York, that should be easy to recall.
I really want to hear from someone like you who talks about her achievements in significant positions of responsiblity in and out of the Government and believes she was among the top-10 Senators.
So I posted her accomplishments 2 days ago on this thread. Then yesterday you asked what her accomplishments were, and I directed you to my post, and you thanked me. On this thread. And then today you ask again for someone to point you to her accomplishments.
What gives?
So they should all be presidential candidates?
Further, a HRC presidency does advance women substantially,
Just for the record, this is what started the discussion about her accomplishments. Not that it's not a valid discussion just in general.
But I don't see how HRC advances women substantially, far from it. That was my whole point. We had a black man for a President, how well are black people doing? Economically Obama has been a disaster for them. Women are people. They want jobs a secure country and not to be taxed to death. Is Hillary going to give them that?
Link - ( New Window )
My issue w Obama ( and to some extent HRC) goes back to a branch Rickey. At least I think it was Branch Rickey...he was very sel drive in who he chose to be the first. It was a person who was without question a superstar b cause if you suck with the first, it might be that much longer to get a second. I simply don't believe that we heeded that advice.
If there was ever a President to judge in 10 years, its Obama. A lot of his programs may have long lasting affects. So far they favor him, but if in 5-10 years they come across as a failure, then he will take the heat for it. Too soon to tell on Obama's presidency.
There's a reason that she gets a lot of praise from Republican senators who served contemporaneously to her.
There's a reason that she gets a lot of praise from Republican senators who served contemporaneously to her.
Yeah, they don't want to get on her bad side. And DC is a club. They fight in the press and then laugh at us behind our backs. Ted Cruz stood up in the Senate Chamber today and called out Mitch McConnell for lying. I respect that.
There's a reason that she gets a lot of praise from Republican senators who served contemporaneously to her.
Lol I had a couple fraternity brothers intern for him for a good while. I remember a long time ago my fraternity brothers helped set up a fundraiser for Sargent shriver and part of it was an open house at teddy's home. Some of us acted as guards to make sure people didn't steal stuff. I met Ted when he came out in his bathrobe to pick up the newspaper from his driveway
[quote] Ted Kennedy, who for whom I had the pleasure of interning, routinely did this. Because he could reach consensus with some Senators on something but they'd say "Teddy, I'll get killed if my name is attached to the Kennedy-Me bill".
Are you sure you were showing up in the right office?
"Some historians have called Ted Kennedy one of the most effective legislators in the history of the U.S. Senate. During nearly 47 years on Capitol Hill, his office wrote some 2,500 bills, over 300 of which became law. Additionally, over 550 bills that he co-sponsored became law. A skilled orator and gifted storyteller, Kennedy was known for his ability to collaborate with Democrats and Republicans alike."
Link - ( New Window )
The man wasnt a saint, but he was really a master of the Senate. Not sure there is anyone like him around today -- I think in the era of 24 hour news, twitter, and over saturation of media, it may not be possible anymore. There are no more backbenchers in the US Senate.
The man wasnt a saint, but he was really a master of the Senate. Not sure there is anyone like him around today -- I think in the era of 24 hour news, twitter, and over saturation of media, it may not be possible anymore. There are no more backbenchers in the US Senate.
Yeah, but he sponsored at least 300 bills that became law. Hillary sponsored zero. I have the utmost respect for Kennedy, even tho I disagree with him politically by 180 degrees. But I have none for Hillary.
Quote:
Im dead sure. Those stats underrate his impact. There was a lot of stuff he kept his name off of.
The man wasnt a saint, but he was really a master of the Senate. Not sure there is anyone like him around today -- I think in the era of 24 hour news, twitter, and over saturation of media, it may not be possible anymore. There are no more backbenchers in the US Senate.
Yeah, but he sponsored at least 300 bills that became law. Hillary sponsored zero. I have the utmost respect for Kennedy, even tho I disagree with him politically by 180 degrees. But I have none for Hillary.
I know. The Clintons are history's greatest monsters.
Quote:
In comment 12384807 Deej said:
Quote:
Im dead sure. Those stats underrate his impact. There was a lot of stuff he kept his name off of.
The man wasnt a saint, but he was really a master of the Senate. Not sure there is anyone like him around today -- I think in the era of 24 hour news, twitter, and over saturation of media, it may not be possible anymore. There are no more backbenchers in the US Senate.
Yeah, but he sponsored at least 300 bills that became law. Hillary sponsored zero. I have the utmost respect for Kennedy, even tho I disagree with him politically by 180 degrees. But I have none for Hillary.
I know. The Clintons are history's greatest monsters.
Typical liberal response. Create a straw man. I haven't said a word about Bill and all I've said about Hillary is that she has no track record in the Senate to run on.