2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumEveryone is "beatable," but look who's talkin'
I saw that while getting doused with ice water (kinda redundant as we knew long ago they were both all wet), Rolls Romney and Lyin' Ryan declared that Hillary Clinton was beatable in 2016.
Well, Duh. Anyone is beatable. But even with a half billion dollar advantage plus a 24/7 propaganda TV station at their behest, the ticket of those two turned out to be VERY beatable.
So, sure: Hillary, or, for that matter ANY Democratic candidate is beatable, especially in a country where a Republican ticket of Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer would still be guaranteed 40% of the vote before they spent their first dollar, of which they will have around two billion more where the first one came from.
But their roster so far is looking pretty weak. Rand Paul? Ted Cruz? Marco Rubio? Or the Losers-In-Chief, Romney and Ryan themselves? If that's all they've got, I like our chances. If Hillary runs (not a given so far), our real battle will be dragging Hillary leftward once she's in the Oval Office, not getting her there.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)40 % for any megalomaniac say's more about our citizens .
CrispyQ
(36,478 posts)former9thward
(32,020 posts)The Times said they were about even. http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
DFW
(54,403 posts)(and minus National Hate Radio+Fox Noise)
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)If she is going to win the primary she has to go left, otherwise there are many who won't vote for her. Assuming she gets this landslide that others on DU have been talking about and is elected she'll be further to the right of President Obama.
DFW
(54,403 posts)There was no way in the world another Republican was going to get elected in 2008. If they thought they had a chance, McGrandpa would not have won the nomination so easily, and someone would have cared who got chosen for VP. If Obama had had to mount a serious defense in 2012 instead of running unopposed for the nomination, it might even have led to president Willard.
A rightward Hillary having a tough battle in the primaries in 2016 could easily lead to a President Jeb. A leftward-leaning Hillary (or anyone else) coasting to a united nominating convention means they probably nominate another loser and we coast again to the White House, although more likely than not with the same Congressional gridlock.
Everyone knows Hillary would love to be president. I'm still not convinced she wants to be a CANDIDATE for president. It has gotten to be a rather demeaning ordeal these days.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)and if she did decide not to run it would be a relief. People maybe in for a very large surprise if she opts out.
I have to wonder if in 2008 had the R's nominated someone besides McGrumps© and had the financial crisis had not happened if that election would have been much tougher than it was. After he picked Palin and then melted down the day he "suspended" his campaign it was over. Granted our side campaigned like hell (which explains how we won North Carolina).
All I know is if it is a right-ward Clinton there are going to be many on the left who are going to have a serious problem voting for her (including myself and my mom). Whether she runs or not I'll be fighting for an alternate candidate in the primary.
DFW
(54,403 posts)She would be 69 if she took office. She might just think, "I've made my mark on history, I don't need this."
I seem to be in the minority, though. Two days ago, I had breakfast in New York with a senior CNN friend and MSNBC's Krystal Ball, also a good friend. Krystal even went out on a limb and publicly implored Hillary not to run on her show. But both of them were convinced Hillary would run. I was the only one of the three who was by no means sure of it, and the two of them are way more dialed in to the American political scene than I am.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)She passed on a chance in 2004 and didn't run a very good campaign in 2008. The latter is really when she had the shot at it. Even despite the polls and the pundits I don't think she'll fair as well as people think.
There is all this swooning about there being no one else to run, but in reality there will be others who run.
DFW
(54,403 posts)She knows by now that if she had run a better campaign in 2008, she'd be president now, and Obama would still be the junior senator from Illinois (and a hot prospect for 2016).
I'm sure she has learned from many of the mistakes she made in 2008, but I think the biggest one--the one that denied her the nomination in the first place, and therefore the presidency--is one she may not yet have taken to heart. That is, of course, rely on professionals and not your friends. Obama made the same mistake, too, but not until after he was elected (picking Rahm Emmanuel for Chief of staff, and NOT picking Howard Dean for HHS).
I have not detected much swooning at all about there being no one else to run--at least not by anyone really heavily involved in national Party politics. It's a line you'll see on blogs, but what the hell, you see EVERYTHING on the blogs. Some people are even convinced Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are sane. "It ain't necessarily so."
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Easy-peasy.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Fearless
(18,421 posts)They will happily pad the pockets of whomever gets elected.