President Jim Webb?
Let's how long it takes the Hillary operatives to perform their opposition research.
Jim Webb said:
Let's how long it takes the Hillary operatives to perform their opposition research.
-
Features
First challenger to Hillary raises his head
- Thread starter ksen
- Start date
Exactly. She's just going to stroll straight into the White House. No running involved and nobody can legitimately be called a challenger to her.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,564
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Just like in '08.
Terrell
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,197
- Location
- DMV
- Basic Beliefs
- socially liberal/libertarian on most issues, but not all.
At this point I'd say that the safe money is on Hillary for the Democratic nomination, but it's a bit too early to be betting. In 2008 she was expected to be nominated, and Obama won the primary, I think she should be careful not to be complacent.
James Brown
Suspended by Member Request
Being a Presidential Candidate forces a person to adopt such a different role compared to being a President. You have to do and say things on a campaign that you don't have to do or say once in office. In my opinion, Hillary Clinton comes across as an acceptable President for many people, but she wasn't as great a Presidential Candidate compared to Obama.
Unfortunately, many voters judge a person by their Presidential Campaign persona. Make a flub on a campaign, goes the thinking, and people presume that you'll make a poor President. I strongly doubt that Howard Dean, if he had won the Presidency, would ever have to stand in a room of screaming people and shout "Yeah!" But he did so as a Presidential Candidate, the media's microphones picked up his rallying cheer (but, most importantly, not the noise of the screaming crowds) and America decided that he must be unhinged. Pity poor Howard Dean.
But for nearly eight years, Hillary has played her current role quite well and has come across as faux-Presidential. But get her into a room of screaming delegates and tell her to rally the troops with a rousing pep-rally chant, and she may come across as shrill and fake. Then she'll be easy pickings for a more charismatic Presidential Campaigner like Obama was.
Unfortunately, many voters judge a person by their Presidential Campaign persona. Make a flub on a campaign, goes the thinking, and people presume that you'll make a poor President. I strongly doubt that Howard Dean, if he had won the Presidency, would ever have to stand in a room of screaming people and shout "Yeah!" But he did so as a Presidential Candidate, the media's microphones picked up his rallying cheer (but, most importantly, not the noise of the screaming crowds) and America decided that he must be unhinged. Pity poor Howard Dean.
But for nearly eight years, Hillary has played her current role quite well and has come across as faux-Presidential. But get her into a room of screaming delegates and tell her to rally the troops with a rousing pep-rally chant, and she may come across as shrill and fake. Then she'll be easy pickings for a more charismatic Presidential Campaigner like Obama was.
Horatio Parker
Veteran Member
It's Hillary's if she wants it.
I'm curious what king of First Man Bill would be.
I'm curious what king of First Man Bill would be.
Derec
Contributor
She wanted it in 2008 as well. Didn't work out too well, did it. And now she is 8 years older too.
Well if Obama changed his mind and now wants to be emperor I am sure Bill could at least be king.
Earl IV
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 238
- Location
- Between lost and hopelessly lost
- Basic Beliefs
- Keep Calm and Chive On!
I thought this was going to be about Bernie Sanders.
My bad, I forgot about him.
So did everyone else. Hence the main problem with his potential campaign.
Jayjay
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2002
- Messages
- 7,173
- Location
- Finland
- Basic Beliefs
- An accurate worldview or philosophy
Hilllary Clinton is keeping it ambiguous only to shield other candidates from the media circus. I know I'm alone with my opinion, but when Hillary announces that she's not going to run, I'll dig back all these Hillary threads from over the years and rub it in your faces how right I was.
Technically though, even Jim Webb hasn't announced a candidacy but has launched an Exploratory Committee whether he should run or not. How early do these races usually start? When did Democrats start announcing their candidacies for 2008, for example?
boneyard bill
Veteran Member
Webb has no chance. Hillary has some vulnerabilities, but I don't think Webb is likely to be able to exploit them. In her book tour and her "pre-campaign" leading up to an announcement, she has committed some stupid flubs that you shouldn't expect from an experienced campaigner.
Personally, I like Webb. He's one Democrat I might actually consider voting for if the GOP nominates the types they've chosen in recent past. But I don't expect to be getting the opportunity to vote for Webb.
Personally, I like Webb. He's one Democrat I might actually consider voting for if the GOP nominates the types they've chosen in recent past. But I don't expect to be getting the opportunity to vote for Webb.
Sabine Grant
Member
Were I a voter in this nation, I would be like other millions reduced to coping with a 2 party system. There is no pluralistic political representation. Your Independents are not really "Independent" as they caucus with the GOP or Democratic Party. It is a sad state of affair because political minorities are not represented. As a result they cannot gain momentum among voters who are sick and tired of the incessant politic of obstruction between both political blocks.
lpetrich
Contributor
Here's the reason:
Duverger's law First past the post -> 2 parties.Proportional representation would make it a LOT easier for third parties to get anywhere. But the US political and commentator classes continue to treat it as unthinkable.
Derec
Contributor
Wouldn't it require a constitutional amendment which is very difficult to do federally? A much better chance would be for a state to adopt it for their state legislature.
NobleSavage
Veteran Member
Here's the reason:
Proportional representation would make it a LOT easier for third parties to get anywhere. But the US political and commentator classes continue to treat it as unthinkable.
There are advantages to a two party system as well. In the end I think it would be a wash.
Terrell
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2006
- Messages
- 1,197
- Location
- DMV
- Basic Beliefs
- socially liberal/libertarian on most issues, but not all.
For the nation, I'd agree. Having a couple of states do it in their state assemblies might be a good test drive for such a situation. It may, or may not, work. Even if there were proportional representation, it may not necessarily be better.
Even if we had a parliamentary system with multiple parties, you'd likely still need a coalition government. If you really think about it the two major parties are coalitions, disparate groups that don't agree with everything, but have enough common interests that they work together.