Who would Hillary not want to face?

[Nice Squirrel]

As more and more states legalize (by either court or legislation) gay marriage in 2014 and 2016, it will be hard for the Repug candidates not to feel compelled to dwell on spewing out anti-gay garbage. I suspect that by the 2016 election more people will be discussing the idea that the Federal govt. needs to make gay marriage rights a national mandate. Younger people see this issue much as people now see racial discrimination, and I think more and more of them will get to the point of being unwilling to vote for anyone that is anything less than at least neutral on gay marriage rights. This describes my 22 year old son to the tee. And more older people will be dead in the next 2 years.

I remember when Obama came out in support of gay marriage, there wasn't (IIRC) a single elected Republican who criticized him for it on the basis that gay marriage was wrong. They all just said that he was just doing it to be popular. I think they realize that the issue is a non-starter and it doesn't have anywhere near the same kind of play that it did even a decade ago when they could make a central part of a strategy.

Yep, it not only doesn’t have the same effect, the effect has generally completely inverted except in the reddest states. Below are 4 states where it looks like the issue won’t be pushed to the background in 2014, keeping the pressure on the Repugs to keep up the vitriol. Which will frustrate the national Repugs, as they want the subject to go away.

From: http://ballotpedia.org/Potential_2014_ballot_measures
Legalize on 2014 ballot: Ohio, Michigan

Renewed ban on 2014 ballot: Ill (constitutional), NJ

In which the Republicans will be arguing to take away the right to marry.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Been over 20 years since Clinton went into the national spotlight and you bring up an attempt at national health care and Benghazi to prove she is a failure. That is all you have?

Could be because she hasn't really done that much. What major legislation has she sponsored while in Senate? What were her major accomplishments during her tenure as SecState (and mileage covered does not count as an accomplishment in its own right)

Please state the accomplishments of the following president-elects:
Barack Obama
George W. Bush
"Slick" William Jefferson Clinton
George H.W. Bush

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think even her supporters acknowledge that she is not very likable.

We know how you think.

Been over 20 years since Clinton went into the national spotlight and you bring up an attempt at national health care and Benghazi to prove she is a failure. That is all you have?

Could be because she hasn't really done that much. What major legislation has she sponsored while in Senate? What were her major accomplishments during her tenure as SecState (and mileage covered does not count as an accomplishment in its own right)

So being the Secretary of State or being a Senator means nothing now?

Why? She was Secretary of State, not of the Treasury. And you are always whining about the economy.

It's her party and she was even part of the administration. Obviously any shit is going to stick to her as well, as would any gold. Fortunes of a same party candidate are closely linked to popularity and performance of the administration they want to follow.

Didn't seem to work that way for Gore. Massive growth under Bubba and he saw no spoils of that.

- - - Updated - - -

Been over 20 years since Clinton went into the national spotlight and you bring up an attempt at national health care and Benghazi to prove she is a failure. That is all you have?

Could be because she hasn't really done that much. What major legislation has she sponsored while in Senate? What were her major accomplishments during her tenure as SecState (and mileage covered does not count as an accomplishment in its own right)

Please state the accomplishments of the following president-elects:
Barack Obama
George W. Bush
"Slick" William Jefferson Clinton
George H.W. Bush

George HW Bush ran the CIA, among other things.

 

[funinspace]

All I know is that Republican turnout in 2012 was below expectations and some commentators are saying that it was because evangelicals did not turn out in their normal numbers. Others have claimed that Romney simply didn't have the appeal to blue collar Republicans. I don't know the answer. Maybe, if you examined the results very carefully you could figure it out but a lot of blue collar Republicans are also Christian evangelicals. Some Evangelicals regard the Mormon Church as something little less that Satanism. I have no idea why.

My essential point was this. Romney lost because Republicans didn't turn out as they were expected to, and that is the primary reason why Romney lost. So Democrats should hardly feel that the next race is going to be a walk in the park.

Except that Dum turnout fell more than Repug turnout....
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/news/pr...ps-below-2008-and-2004-levels-number-eligible

Turnout was down for both Republicans and Democrats, falling 4.2 percentage points for the Democrats from 33.0 percent of eligible citizens in 2008 to 28.8 this year; and 1.2 percentage points for the GOP from 28.4 in 2008 to 27.2 this year.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/23/gop-turnout-myths-and-reality/

This past week, Romney’s totals surpassed McCain’s in an election that had a smaller overall turnout, Kimberly Strassel reports for the Wall Street Journal — and Romney did significantly better in swing states than the GOP did in 2008 as well

 

[boneyard bill]

If the dems lose the senate in November, it will have more to do with the Balkanization that I referred to. They may lose some of the blue dogs that usually vote with the republicans anyway. (Hillary, or whoever wins the nomination should pick Castro as a running mate-this would, IMO assure them of winning the election in '16.)

If the GOP wins all the red states that are up, there of six of them, then they would win control of the Senate, but this means they will have to beat several Democrat incumbents. And that counts Montana as a red state although it is really rather purplish. But how would you explain anything in excess of that? By your standards Republicans shouldn't win any purple states, but they are running very strong in a number of them. If Democrats hold on, it will probably be by winning in a red state such as Kentucky or Georgia.

 

[boneyard bill]

You are mistaking the human being Hillary Clinton with the fictional monster Hillary Clinton that the right-wing has been tilting at since '91.

Bill was likeable even if you disagreed with him. Everything she's involved with turned to shit (Hillarycare, Benghazi).

Been over 20 years since Clinton went into the national spotlight and you bring up an attempt at national health care and Benghazi to prove she is a failure. That is all you have? The first was a political miscalculation which wasn't helped much by a rather hateful Republican minority. The other a tragedy that has been spun on its head for political gain by the Republicans.

Meanwhile, she's also going to have shit economy to explain.

Why? She was Secretary of State, not of the Treasury. And you are always whining about the economy.

Benghazi was a lot less than 20 years ago, and it isn't some sort of tragedy being exploited by Republicans. If that's all there was too it, the White House would be a lot more forthcoming that it has been. It probably has to do with illegal gun-running to Syria, but Republicans are exploiting the issue so they're concentrating on the failure of the State Department (i.e. Hillary) to provide the protection that the Ambassador was desperately asking for.

But what can you name that Hillary has accomplished besides Hillarycare and Benghazi?

 

[boneyard bill]

I have no idea who could get thru the GOP primary gauntlet, and still be a reasonable candidate for the middle/independent voters. Romney bought his way thru a bunch of weak competitors. I think many of the Repugs have reached a wrong conclusion about the 2012 race. I think that many of them think they need to fight harder to get a purer candidate, and will fight harder for that in 2016. Add the gay marriage issue, and mix some salt into the wound.

As more and more states legalize (by either court or legislation) gay marriage in 2014 and 2016, it will be hard for the Repug candidates not to feel compelled to dwell on spewing out anti-gay garbage. I suspect that by the 2016 election more people will be discussing the idea that the Federal govt. needs to make gay marriage rights a national mandate. Younger people see this issue much as people now see racial discrimination, and I think more and more of them will get to the point of being unwilling to vote for anyone that is anything less than at least neutral on gay marriage rights. This describes my 22 year old son to the tee. And more older people will be dead in the next 2 years.

So, unless the economy starts obviously sagging by early summer 2016, I see the odds of almost any Dum candidate, upsetting the atypical electorate choosing the other party for president after an 8 year run (aka something like the 1988 race). The current economic muddling slowly forward should be sufficient for the Dums to defend themselves on the political front. And Obamacare won’t be bad enough to roil the independents in 2016. Afghanistan will still be winding down, but even with 10k troops still there, it will be even more off the radar.

I think things are going to be a lot more exciting in the next two years than your post suggests, and I don't mean that in a good way. I don't think gay marriage will be a very big issue by 2016. Obamacare will have been repealed or "reformed" out of existence by then.

 

[boneyard bill]

Except that Dum turnout fell more than Repug turnout....
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/news/pr...ps-below-2008-and-2004-levels-number-eligible

Turnout was down for both Republicans and Democrats, falling 4.2 percentage points for the Democrats from 33.0 percent of eligible citizens in 2008 to 28.8 this year; and 1.2 percentage points for the GOP from 28.4 in 2008 to 27.2 this year.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/23/gop-turnout-myths-and-reality/

This past week, Romney’s totals surpassed McCain’s in an election that had a smaller overall turnout, Kimberly Strassel reports for the Wall Street Journal — and Romney did significantly better in swing states than the GOP did in 2008 as well

Not surprising that Romney did better in swing states since he also ran better than McCain in the popular vote. Democrats often disappoint their part on turnout. For Republicans it's a big surprise.

 

[Tristan Scott]

If the dems lose the senate in November, it will have more to do with the Balkanization that I referred to. They may lose some of the blue dogs that usually vote with the republicans anyway. (Hillary, or whoever wins the nomination should pick Castro as a running mate-this would, IMO assure them of winning the election in '16.)

If the GOP wins all the red states that are up, there of six of them, then they would win control of the Senate, but this means they will have to beat several Democrat incumbents. And that counts Montana as a red state although it is really rather purplish. But how would you explain anything in excess of that? By your standards Republicans shouldn't win any purple states, but they are running very strong in a number of them. If Democrats hold on, it will probably be by winning in a red state such as Kentucky or Georgia.

By "my standards"? How can you say that when I just said the same thing you are saying. The Balkanization I'm referring to pertains directly to the Red State/Blue State horses hit you keep talking about. The Blue Dogs I was referring to are mostly the democrat incumbents you are referring to. Why are you arguing when there is no argument? My original statement was pertaining to national elections, which I don't think the GOP will be able to win because they can't come up with a moderate candidate. Romney was moderate, but he had to support a radical right wing agenda to get the nomination.

 

[boneyard bill]

If the dems lose the senate in November, it will have more to do with the Balkanization that I referred to. They may lose some of the blue dogs that usually vote with the republicans anyway. (Hillary, or whoever wins the nomination should pick Castro as a running mate-this would, IMO assure them of winning the election in '16.)

If the GOP wins all the red states that are up, there of six of them, then they would win control of the Senate, but this means they will have to beat several Democrat incumbents. And that counts Montana as a red state although it is really rather purplish. But how would you explain anything in excess of that? By your standards Republicans shouldn't win any purple states, but they are running very strong in a number of them. If Democrats hold on, it will probably be by winning in a red state such as Kentucky or Georgia.

By "my standards"? How can you say that when I just said the same thing you are saying. The Balkanization I'm referring to pertains directly to the Red State/Blue State horses hit you keep talking about. The Blue Dogs I was referring to are mostly the democrat incumbents you are referring to. Why are you arguing when there is no argument? My original statement was pertaining to national elections, which I don't think the GOP will be able to win because they can't come up with a moderate candidate. Romney was moderate, but he had to support a radical right wing agenda to get the nomination.

You classify Mark Begich, Mary Landrieux, David Pryor, Kay Hagan, and Tom Udall as "Blue Dogs"? Maybe, just maybe, you could put Landrieux into that category because of the Louisiana oil and gas interests, but I think that's a stretch. All voted for Obamacare.

Romney's positions in the primary were not a radical right-wing agenda and didn't differ much from his presidential campaign. He had to flip-flop on some issues that he had supported in Massachusetts, but he stuck to those issues in the presidential campaign. If you want to win the GOP nomination you are going to have to be anti-abortion and anti-gun control and if you're a Democrat you are going to have to be pro-abortion and pro-gun control. That comes with the territory, but it's a given that candidates in each party have to deal with. The fact that there are a few Republicans around the country who support abortion and a few Democrats who oppose it, doesn't turn them into "moderates" in their parties although the news media seem to put it that way.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are mistaking the human being Hillary Clinton with the fictional monster Hillary Clinton that the right-wing has been tilting at since '91.

Bill was likeable even if you disagreed with him. Everything she's involved with turned to shit (Hillarycare, Benghazi).

Been over 20 years since Clinton went into the national spotlight and you bring up an attempt at national health care and Benghazi to prove she is a failure. That is all you have? The first was a political miscalculation which wasn't helped much by a rather hateful Republican minority. The other a tragedy that has been spun on its head for political gain by the Republicans.

Meanwhile, she's also going to have shit economy to explain.

Why? She was Secretary of State, not of the Treasury. And you are always whining about the economy.

Benghazi was a lot less than 20 years ago, and it isn't some sort of tragedy being exploited by Republicans.

Really? So from the initial outrage from them, to Romney trying to corning Obama on it in the Debate, and the dozen or so hearings on it.... that isn't exploitation?

If that's all there was too it, the White House would be a lot more forthcoming that it has been.

Umm... the Obama Admin has been forthcoming.

It probably has to do with illegal gun-running to Syria, but Republicans are exploiting the issue so they're concentrating on the failure of the State Department (i.e. Hillary) to provide the protection that the Ambassador was desperately asking for.

Wasn't that also already debunked?

But what can you name that Hillary has accomplished besides Hillarycare and Benghazi?

For a guy who doesn't like the Republican Party, you seem to love their memes.

 

[funinspace]

I have no idea who could get thru the GOP primary gauntlet, and still be a reasonable candidate for the middle/independent voters. Romney bought his way thru a bunch of weak competitors. I think many of the Repugs have reached a wrong conclusion about the 2012 race. I think that many of them think they need to fight harder to get a purer candidate, and will fight harder for that in 2016. Add the gay marriage issue, and mix some salt into the wound.

As more and more states legalize (by either court or legislation) gay marriage in 2014 and 2016, it will be hard for the Repug candidates not to feel compelled to dwell on spewing out anti-gay garbage. I suspect that by the 2016 election more people will be discussing the idea that the Federal govt. needs to make gay marriage rights a national mandate. Younger people see this issue much as people now see racial discrimination, and I think more and more of them will get to the point of being unwilling to vote for anyone that is anything less than at least neutral on gay marriage rights. This describes my 22 year old son to the tee. And more older people will be dead in the next 2 years.

So, unless the economy starts obviously sagging by early summer 2016, I see the odds of almost any Dum candidate, upsetting the atypical electorate choosing the other party for president after an 8 year run (aka something like the 1988 race). The current economic muddling slowly forward should be sufficient for the Dums to defend themselves on the political front. And Obamacare won’t be bad enough to roil the independents in 2016. Afghanistan will still be winding down, but even with 10k troops still there, it will be even more off the radar.

I think things are going to be a lot more exciting in the next two years than your post suggests, and I don't mean that in a good way. I don't think gay marriage will be a very big issue by 2016. Obamacare will have been repealed or "reformed" out of existence by then.

LOL...well first the Repugs will need to win control of the Senate this November, then they can crash the economy, then they can nominate Cruz...

PS I said "unless" (now underlined above) for a reason...yeah if the economy tanks, then gay marriage becomes irrelevant.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Do you mean "staggering even more than it currently is"?

But you're right, the worse the economic news, the less relevant gay marriage becomes to most people.

 

[funinspace]

Do you mean "staggering even more than it currently is"?

Not really, I think what I said fits what I see. Yeah, the economy isn’t great. However, it is better than the depths of the crash at the end of 2008 and all of 2009. Even though far too many of the jobs have become part time, the numbers are still better. One other difficulty with employment numbers (like civilian labor participation rate) is the huge swath of Boomers that are retiring. Even though 4 years into…cough…a recovery, the Federal budget deficit should be better, but the numbers and its percentage of GDP have improved. Are there things, nationally and internationally, that could knock our economy of its rails and back into recession? Of course...

 

[Sarpedon]

Didn't the republicans think that the mediocre economy would guarantee Romney's victory, and were shocked that voters actually remembered who caused it?

 

[boneyard bill]

Jimmy Higgins writes:

You are mistaking the human being Hillary Clinton with the fictional monster Hillary Clinton that the right-wing has been tilting at since '91.

Bill was likeable even if you disagreed with him. Everything she's involved with turned to shit (Hillarycare, Benghazi).

Been over 20 years since Clinton went into the national spotlight and you bring up an attempt at national health care and Benghazi to prove she is a failure. That is all you have? The first was a political miscalculation which wasn't helped much by a rather hateful Republican minority. The other a tragedy that has been spun on its head for political gain by the Republicans.

Meanwhile, she's also going to have shit economy to explain.

Why? She was Secretary of State, not of the Treasury. And you are always whining about the economy.

Benghazi was a lot less than 20 years ago, and it isn't some sort of tragedy being exploited by Republicans.

Really? So from the initial outrage from them, to Romney trying to corning Obama on it in the Debate, and the dozen or so hearings on it.... that isn't exploitation?

Of course not. Debates are meant to force the opponents to answer tough questions, and it is the job of Congress to investigate such incidents. The real question is why Democrats in the Senate aren't doing their job and inquiring into extensively as well. We know the answer to that: partisanship.

If that's all there was too it, the White House would be a lot more forthcoming that it has been.

Umm... the Obama Admin has been forthcoming.

You mean after many denials that they finally admitted that a video might not have had something to do with the attack?

It probably has to do with illegal gun-running to Syria, but Republicans are exploiting the issue so they're concentrating on the failure of the State Department (i.e. Hillary) to provide the protection that the Ambassador was desperately asking for.

Wasn't that also already debunked?

It's been denied. I've never heard where it has been debunked.

But what can you name that Hillary has accomplished besides Hillarycare and Benghazi?

For a guy who doesn't like the Republican Party, you seem to love their memes.

For a guy who likes to ask questions, you sure are reluctant to answer them.

- - - Updated - - -

I have no idea who could get thru the GOP primary gauntlet, and still be a reasonable candidate for the middle/independent voters. Romney bought his way thru a bunch of weak competitors. I think many of the Repugs have reached a wrong conclusion about the 2012 race. I think that many of them think they need to fight harder to get a purer candidate, and will fight harder for that in 2016. Add the gay marriage issue, and mix some salt into the wound.

As more and more states legalize (by either court or legislation) gay marriage in 2014 and 2016, it will be hard for the Repug candidates not to feel compelled to dwell on spewing out anti-gay garbage. I suspect that by the 2016 election more people will be discussing the idea that the Federal govt. needs to make gay marriage rights a national mandate. Younger people see this issue much as people now see racial discrimination, and I think more and more of them will get to the point of being unwilling to vote for anyone that is anything less than at least neutral on gay marriage rights. This describes my 22 year old son to the tee. And more older people will be dead in the next 2 years.

So, unless the economy starts obviously sagging by early summer 2016, I see the odds of almost any Dum candidate, upsetting the atypical electorate choosing the other party for president after an 8 year run (aka something like the 1988 race). The current economic muddling slowly forward should be sufficient for the Dums to defend themselves on the political front. And Obamacare won’t be bad enough to roil the independents in 2016. Afghanistan will still be winding down, but even with 10k troops still there, it will be even more off the radar.

I think things are going to be a lot more exciting in the next two years than your post suggests, and I don't mean that in a good way. I don't think gay marriage will be a very big issue by 2016. Obamacare will have been repealed or "reformed" out of existence by then.

LOL...well first the Repugs will need to win control of the Senate this November, then they can crash the economy, then they can nominate Cruz...

PS I said "unless" (now underlined above) for a reason...yeah if the economy tanks, then gay marriage becomes irrelevant.

And that's exactly what I think is going to happen.

 

[boneyard bill]

Do you mean "staggering even more than it currently is"?

Not really, I think what I said fits what I see. Yeah, the economy isn’t great. However, it is better than the depths of the crash at the end of 2008 and all of 2009. Even though far too many of the jobs have become part time, the numbers are still better. One other difficulty with employment numbers (like civilian labor participation rate) is the huge swath of Boomers that are retiring. Even though 4 years into…cough…a recovery, the Federal budget deficit should be better, but the numbers and its percentage of GDP have improved. Are there things, nationally and internationally, that could knock our economy of its rails and back into recession? Of course...

Remember that first quarter growth was negative and a recession is defined as two successive quarters of negative growth. Output figures do not look good right now so we could very well be in a recession right now. Investors always seem to be the last to know so it doesn't really hit home until the stock market crashes. But I think we're headed for more trouble than just a routine recession.

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't the republicans think that the mediocre economy would guarantee Romney's victory, and were shocked that voters actually remembered who caused it?

From what I read, the voters thought that Romney could do a better job of handling the economy than Obama, but they voted for Obama because they liked him, and they didn't like Romney.

I think the voters were wrong on both counts.

 

[Tristan Scott]

[
You classify Mark Begich, Mary Landrieux, David Pryor, Kay Hagan, and Tom Udall as "Blue Dogs"? Maybe, just maybe, you could put Landrieux into that category because of the Louisiana oil and gas interests, but I think that's a stretch. All voted for Obamacare.

Yes, if you recall Obama had to modify the Affordable Care Act in order to get their votes. They better have voted for it.

 

[boneyard bill]

[
You classify Mark Begich, Mary Landrieux, David Pryor, Kay Hagan, and Tom Udall as "Blue Dogs"? Maybe, just maybe, you could put Landrieux into that category because of the Louisiana oil and gas interests, but I think that's a stretch. All voted for Obamacare.

Yes, if you recall Obama had to modify the Affordable Care Act in order to get their votes. They better have voted for it.

Blue Dog Democrats are conservatives, and I don't think any of these guys qualify on that score. Joe Manchin might be a Blue Dog and Sam Nunn definitely was, but I think these guys toe the party line pretty much in their Senate votes unless they have very specific problems with special interests in their states as Landrieux would have with oil and gas in Louisiana.