“I have never heard a candidate – never – who’s received huge amounts of money from oil, from Wall Street, from the military industrial complex who doesn’t say, ‘Oh, these contributions will not influence me. I’m going to be independent.” A further example of the disproportionate influences (re conflict of interest) in politics and governance... Wall Street Has Given Hillary Clinton $29 Million. What Does She Owe Them? | The Fiscal Times
That the Democrats are coalescing around this dreadful person speaks very poorly of them. In a country with over 310 million people, that's the best they can do?
Democrats are getting behind Clinton because she's the safe choice. She'll win this in a walk. If the GOP was more competitive, the Democrats would have to be more daring. (I feel this is why they backed Obama, ultimately, instead of Clinton in 2008). There's also a bit of "it's her turn" afoot as well, something the GOP is very familiar with. If Clinton was vulnerable, other Democrats who've chosen to sit this one out would have been more tempted to jump in. The race will boil down to an inevitable vs. an incompetent. You can rail against her all you wish, but if she's so bad, where is the GOP candidate who will defeat her? I guess we'll see in the coming year.
So as previously pointed out … she’s the best the Democrats want to and/or feel the need to offer (e.g., safe choice). Either way, and as Steve pointed out earlier … Hillary’s a dreadful proposal—no matter whether she's a win, lose or draw in the 2016 General election. I consider that Hillary’s certainly there in both categories...
The political duopoly by both the Republican and Democratic Parties keep competition out of the process (generating a closed democracy (?)). The U.S. two party political systems are a political monopoly that assures mediocrity just as does a monopoly in industry.
Better get used to the second President Clinton. The GOP simply cannot muster an opponent capable of beating her. If they could, the Democrats would have other contenders in the race. Clinton will win the Presidency. But it will be very, very hard for her to be re-elected. Bush showed that, as did Johnson, Truman (in '52), Ford, Bush 41, and others who were trying to get re-elected for a fourth term from the same party. The difference in 2020: demographics. There just aren't enough angry white men staying alive, and the GOP seems utterly incapable of widening its net. Because to do so would require them to, well, become more like Democrats; more like Americans in general. That doesn't seem to be on their radar. But not to worry. The GOP will hang on for a long time because our Constitution favors the less-populated states and they do well there. For now. But America is changing rapidly and leaving the GOP and its constituency behind. There's only so much gerrymandering and voter suppression can do to hold it off.
We’ll just have to wait and see what the 2016 election results bring Rich. I certainly can’t see around corners … and neither can you. So at this juncture … your opined prediction is essentially immaterial. :smokin:
It's true that there's only one poll that really counts, but if I had to put money on a particular outcome at this point, sadly, it would have to be on Clinton.
Brought to us by the Grand Wizard (I mean...Grand Strategist)...very deep and meaningful analysis here. Your HR strategery has got to be on point. I corrected your typo :baby:
Ah, I get it. You don't like what I say, so you call me childish names. Nice. Mis-quoting me purposely--even when you acknowledge it--is dishonest.
The Clintons were flat broke when they left the Oval Office in 2001? I'm thinking, "Damn! What's next? Brothers in Gortex?" Dame, that's the wrong song. But I've just gotta say it, but I've been a card carrying Democrat/Socialist ever since casting my vote in my second presidential election. HINT!!! HINT!!! I have voted in every presidential election in 1980. So, I like the Clintons and I don't want them broke and falling down and becoming street persons. I want them to continue in some sort of lucrative employment so that they can finance Chelsea's preszidential election campaign come 2016. HINT!!! HINT!!!: I also want Jeb to set aside his presidential ambitions aside for the next election or two so that his son George Bush III can run against Chelsea. You see, regardless of whether the winner in 2016 be Chelsea or George III, we will as of our next presidential election cycle we will have our first 35 y.o. prez.
Better get used to having the second Presidential Clinton? NOT!!NOT!!!NOT!!!:Better get used to the third Presidentess Clinton! Chelsea will be the second and Hillarty will be the third. The Repubs can't find a presidential candidate capable of beating Hillary? NOT!!! Jeb, even though he is, like Eli, the not as good as little brother, he can still give Presidentess Clinton a run for her money. But he would be well advised to let his son George III run in 2016 and Jeb's turn will come in 2020. Hillary doesn't need to be re-elected. If she wins in 2016, she will be keeping the presidential chair warm for Chelsea's turn in 2020. What about all these presidents running for a fourth term? The only prez to get a fourth term was FDR and the Repubs saw to it that that would never happen again by ramrodding through a new Constitutional amendm,ent term limiting the POTUS. What about all those old angry DWMs in the Reps Party? Hmm.
I would have preferred a not-Clinton to win the Democratic Party's nomination in 2016. But she's inevitable, so everyone got out of her way. Where are the GOP's Hillary topplers? Not this bunch. Perhaps they decided to sit this one out, too?
She's only inevitable because everyone got out of her way. A heavy hitter like Warren or Biden could have beat her, had they entered early and taken it seriously. (Yes, I understand why Biden did not.) I thought Trump would be history by now, so I'm going to stop making predictions. I will say that while I don't think that he would appeal to independents who usually vote and thus typically make the decision, he may appeal to independents who usually do not vote but might do so to support someone they see as an "outsider". You may laugh, but that's how Jesse Ventura became governor of Minnesota, and he had the added disadvantage of being a third party candidate.
No, I won't laugh. It's a very serious point. But I would offer that a state's population is typically much more homogeneous and thus more likely to get behind a peculiar candidate who happens to push their particular buttons. This theory doesn't explain Schwarzenegger, though. But in both cases, celebrity had a lot to do with it. (Like Trump!)