Stephanie Cutter - Obama Deputy Campaign Manager...
http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/07/12/obama-camp-calls-romney-felon
Move that goalpost. To the best of my knowledge Romney still hasn't been arrested. Weird.
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by alloak41]
Did you read the article? It said that if he misrepresented his position at Bain it was a veiny. It did not say he committed a felony. You can't read and I find that to be very sad.
BTW, that was a conference call, not an ad. So, by your rules, it doesn't count.
Move those goalposts! Block that kick! 😛
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by jkeller]
Stephanie Cutter - Obama Deputy Campaign Manager...
http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/07/12/obama-camp-calls-romney-felon
Move that goalpost. To the best of my knowledge Romney still hasn't been arrested. Weird.
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by alloak41]
Did you read the article? It said that if he misrepresented his position at Bain it was a veiny. It did not say he committed a felony. You can't read and I find that to be very sad.
BTW, that was a conference call, not an ad. So, by your rules, it doesn't count.
Move those goalposts! Block that kick! 😛
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by jkeller]
A conference call with the Boston Globe which is why it ended up in the papers, and it clearly accused Mitt of being a felon. Did you miss all this during the campaign? It got an awful lot of coverage.
Stephanie Cutter - Obama Deputy Campaign Manager...
http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/07/12/obama-camp-calls-romney-felon
Move that goalpost. To the best of my knowledge Romney still hasn't been arrested. Weird.
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by alloak41]
Did you read the article? It said that if he misrepresented his position at Bain it was a veiny. It did not say he committed a felony. You can't read and I find that to be very sad.
BTW, that was a conference call, not an ad. So, by your rules, Mit doesn't count.
Move those goalposts! Block that kick! 😛
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by jkeller]
A conference call with the Boston Globe which is why it ended up in the papers, and it clearly accused Mitt of being a felon. Did you miss all this during the campaign? It got an awful lot of coverage.
I repeat, they said IF he was still at Bain in 2002 it was a felony. IF. And that was correct. So, what was wrong with the comment?
Stephanie Cutter - Obama Deputy Campaign Manager...
http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/07/12/obama-camp-calls-romney-felon
Move that goalpost. To the best of my knowledge Romney still hasn't been arrested. Weird.
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by alloak41]
Did you read the article? It said that if he misrepresented his position at Bain it was a veiny. It did not say he committed a felony. You can't read and I find that to be very sad.
BTW, that was a conference call, not an ad. So, by your rules, Mit doesn't count.
Move those goalposts! Block that kick! 😛
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by jkeller]
A conference call with the Boston Globe which is why it ended up in the papers, and it clearly accused Mitt of being a felon. Did you miss all this during the campaign? It got an awful lot of coverage.
I repeat, they said IF he was still at Bain in 2002 it was a felony. IF. And that was correct. So, what was wrong with the comment?
A lot was wrong with it. I even heard Democrats say so. You shouldn't go running to the papers with a felony accusation without proof. If she had it, why wasn't he arrested? Why is he still free to this day? No matter, the damage was done.
I don't care to offer anything further. Time to move on.
Stephanie Cutter - Obama Deputy Campaign Manager...
http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/07/12/obama-camp-calls-romney-felon
Move that goalpost. To the best of my knowledge Romney still hasn't been arrested. Weird.
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by alloak41]
Did you read the article? It said that if he misrepresented his position at Bain it was a veiny. It did not say he committed a felony. You can't read and I find that to be very sad.
BTW, that was a conference call, not an ad. So, by your rules, Mit doesn't count.
Move those goalposts! Block that kick! 😛
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by jkeller]
A conference call with the Boston Globe which is why it ended up in the papers, and it clearly accused Mitt of being a felon. Did you miss all this during the campaign? It got an awful lot of coverage.
I repeat, they said IF he was still at Bain in 2002 it was a felony. IF. And that was correct. So, what was wrong with the comment?
A lot was wrong with it. I even heard Democrats say so. You shouldn't go running to the papers with a felony accusation without proof. If she had it, why wasn't he arrested? Why is he still free to this day? No matter, the damage was done.
I don't care to offer anything further. Time to move on.
You never move on from anything until you are beaten. Even then you continue. There was no accusation.
You will be back with this. We both know it.
Since when did the liberals care about calling someone?
I don’t hear ant liberal calling for Holder, an actual felon, to be arrested.
Stephanie Cutter - Obama Deputy Campaign Manager...
http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/07/12/obama-camp-calls-romney-felon
Move that goalpost. To the best of my knowledge Romney still hasn't been arrested. Weird.
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by alloak41]
Did you read the article? It said that if he misrepresented his position at Bain it was a veiny. It did not say he committed a felony. You can't read and I find that to be very sad.
BTW, that was a conference call, not an ad. So, by your rules, Mit doesn't count.
Move those goalposts! Block that kick! 😛
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by jkeller]
A conference call with the Boston Globe which is why it ended up in the papers, and it clearly accused Mitt of being a felon. Did you miss all this during the campaign? It got an awful lot of coverage.
I repeat, they said IF he was still at Bain in 2002 it was a felony. IF. And that was correct. So, what was wrong with the comment?
A lot was wrong with it. I even heard Democrats say so. You shouldn't go running to the papers with a felony accusation without proof. If she had it, why wasn't he arrested? Why is he still free to this day? No matter, the damage was done.
I don't care to offer anything further. Time to move on.
You never move on from anything until you are beaten. Even then you continue. There was no accusation.
You will be back with this. We both know it.
"You.....you.....you"
Stephanie Cutter - Obama Deputy Campaign Manager...
http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/07/12/obama-camp-calls-romney-felon
Move that goalpost. To the best of my knowledge Romney still hasn't been arrested. Weird.
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by alloak41]
Did you read the article? It said that if he misrepresented his position at Bain it was a veiny. It did not say he committed a felony. You can't read and I find that to be very sad.
BTW, that was a conference call, not an ad. So, by your rules, Mit doesn't count.
Move those goalposts! Block that kick! 😛
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by jkeller]
A conference call with the Boston Globe which is why it ended up in the papers, and it clearly accused Mitt of being a felon. Did you miss all this during the campaign? It got an awful lot of coverage.
I repeat, they said IF he was still at Bain in 2002 it was a felony. IF. And that was correct. So, what was wrong with the comment?
A lot was wrong with it. I even heard Democrats say so. You shouldn't go running to the papers with a felony accusation without proof. If she had it, why wasn't he arrested? Why is he still free to this day? No matter, the damage was done.
I don't care to offer anything further. Time to move on.
You never move on from anything until you are beaten. Even then you continue. There was no accusation.
You will be back with this. We both know it.
"You.....you.....you"
Someone's feelings are hurt. Too bad. One should never enter a debate with thin skin. And one should never whine when they get beaten frequently. Poor baby.
Stephanie Cutter - Obama Deputy Campaign Manager...
http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/07/12/obama-camp-calls-romney-felon
Move that goalpost. To the best of my knowledge Romney still hasn't been arrested. Weird.
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by alloak41]
Did you read the article? It said that if he misrepresented his position at Bain it was a veiny. It did not say he committed a felony. You can't read and I find that to be very sad.
BTW, that was a conference call, not an ad. So, by your rules, Mit doesn't count.
Move those goalposts! Block that kick! 😛
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by jkeller]
A conference call with the Boston Globe which is why it ended up in the papers, and it clearly accused Mitt of being a felon. Did you miss all this during the campaign? It got an awful lot of coverage.
I repeat, they said IF he was still at Bain in 2002 it was a felony. IF. And that was correct. So, what was wrong with the comment?
A lot was wrong with it. I even heard Democrats say so. You shouldn't go running to the papers with a felony accusation without proof. If she had it, why wasn't he arrested? Why is he still free to this day? No matter, the damage was done.
I don't care to offer anything further. Time to move on.
You never move on from anything until you are beaten. Even then you continue. There was no accusation.
You will be back with this. We both know it.
"You.....you.....you"
Someone's feelings are hurt. Too bad. One should never enter a debate with thin skin. And one should never whine when they get beaten frequently. Poor baby.
I'm perfectly OK with it. Page after page of links support my position. I hope that's not bothersome, because I can't find a single retraction.
Stephanie Cutter - Obama Deputy Campaign Manager...
http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/07/12/obama-camp-calls-romney-felon
Move that goalpost. To the best of my knowledge Romney still hasn't been arrested. Weird.
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by alloak41]
Did you read the article? It said that if he misrepresented his position at Bain it was a veiny. It did not say he committed a felony. You can't read and I find that to be very sad.
BTW, that was a conference call, not an ad. So, by your rules, Mit doesn't count.
Move those goalposts! Block that kick! 😛
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by jkeller]
A conference call with the Boston Globe which is why it ended up in the papers, and it clearly accused Mitt of being a felon. Did you miss all this during the campaign? It got an awful lot of coverage.
I repeat, they said IF he was still at Bain in 2002 it was a felony. IF. And that was correct. So, what was wrong with the comment?
A lot was wrong with it. I even heard Democrats say so. You shouldn't go running to the papers with a felony accusation without proof. If she had it, why wasn't he arrested? Why is he still free to this day? No matter, the damage was done.
I don't care to offer anything further. Time to move on.
You never move on from anything until you are beaten. Even then you continue. There was no accusation.
You will be back with this. We both know it.
"You.....you.....you"
Someone's feelings are hurt. Too bad. One should never enter a debate with thin skin. And one should never whine when they get beaten frequently. Poor baby.
I'm perfectly OK with it. Page after page of links support my position. I hope that's not bothersome, because I can't find a single retraction.
Really? Page after page of links support your position? Wrong. You get shot down on a regular basis and then commence to swerving and whining. 😛
Stephanie Cutter - Obama Deputy Campaign Manager...
http://nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/07/12/obama-camp-calls-romney-felon
Move that goalpost. To the best of my knowledge Romney still hasn't been arrested. Weird.
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by alloak41]
Did you read the article? It said that if he misrepresented his position at Bain it was a veiny. It did not say he committed a felony. You can't read and I find that to be very sad.
BTW, that was a conference call, not an ad. So, by your rules, Mit doesn't count.
Move those goalposts! Block that kick! 😛
[Edited on 11/15/2014 by jkeller]
A conference call with the Boston Globe which is why it ended up in the papers, and it clearly accused Mitt of being a felon. Did you miss all this during the campaign? It got an awful lot of coverage.
I repeat, they said IF he was still at Bain in 2002 it was a felony. IF. And that was correct. So, what was wrong with the comment?
A lot was wrong with it. I even heard Democrats say so. You shouldn't go running to the papers with a felony accusation without proof. If she had it, why wasn't he arrested? Why is he still free to this day? No matter, the damage was done.
I don't care to offer anything further. Time to move on.
You never move on from anything until you are beaten. Even then you continue. There was no accusation.
You will be back with this. We both know it.
"You.....you.....you"
Someone's feelings are hurt. Too bad. One should never enter a debate with thin skin. And one should never whine when they get beaten frequently. Poor baby.
I'm perfectly OK with it. Page after page of links support my position. I hope that's not bothersome, because I can't find a single retraction.
Really? Page after page of links support your position? Wrong. You get shot down on a regular basis and then commence to swerving and whining. 😛
Awful lot of links there. Who knows? Maybe it's some kind of web conspiracy.
I'm perfectly OK with it. Page after page of links support my position. I hope that's not bothersome, because I can't find a single retraction.
alloak,
You do realize that in this day & age of internet & the numerous articles written & posted that one can always find an article to support a point of view. For the same issue, one can find articles supporting viewpoints that are opposing.
And to make it clear - we all post links & articles supporting our side & beliefs. You will never change the mind of those differing with your viewpoint, and others will not be able to enlighten you with their viewpoints. It's just the way it is.
I'm perfectly OK with it. Page after page of links support my position. I hope that's not bothersome, because I can't find a single retraction.
alloak,
You do realize that in this day & age of internet & the numerous articles written & posted that one can always find an article to support a point of view. For the same issue, one can find articles supporting viewpoints that are opposing.
And to make it clear - we all post links & articles supporting our side & beliefs. You will never change the mind of those differing with your viewpoint, and others will not be able to enlighten you with their viewpoints. It's just the way it is.
IMO, many people post links to an opinion piece and present it as fact. The difference between opinion and fact blurs when an opinion piece supports a persons view. Sometimes it would help if one reads the link before one posts it. The headline is often misleading.
Advice for Hillary Rodham Rodham
1. Don't take 2016 for granted
2. It's still about the economy
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcmanus-hillary-clinton-challenges-20141116-column.html
Back to the thread title...
I don't see myself voting for Hillary. She is pro-war, pro-corporate spending on elections, and way too status quo. In the decades she has participated in the political process I've been less and less represented.
I find the confidence of the liberals here that Hillary Clinton will easily become president astounding. It's as if no one accepts that there are cycles and external factors that affect these races. It's as if they believe that it is the natural inclination of the country to elect liberals. Obama was an aberration. The times were correct for him in 2008. Just as the times were correct for Roosevelt in 1932 and Johnson in 1964 and of course Reagan in 1980. I was in 9th grade but I remember oh so well how the Carter people WANTED to run against Reagan and hoped he would be nominated. They just figured he was too right wing and...let's face it... nutty to be elected. In retrospect it seems insane to believe that the country would re-elect Carter because of fear of Reagan. And so it goes. Ultimately, the U.S. electorate will elect the candidate they trust more, the candidate they believe will make their lives better. When the economy sputters for this amount of time and the U.S. is the laughing stock of the world and people realize it, it just seems to me that regardless of the "Red-Blue" map, it's the Republican race to lose. It can be lost of course but rather than thinking its Hillary's race to lose, I think its the other way around.
As for the map, I remember quite well when the GOP had a virtual lock on California and also frequently won quite a few north eastern states. Things change and can change again.
The only real question is whether the Democrats can fool people into supporting a not particularly likeable septargenarian who has been around for 25 years because they believe the Republican will make a "war on women and minorities." They tried it this year. It didn't work. Is it more likely to work in a presidential year? Yes. Will it? I sure hope not. Campaigns should be run on the issues that really matter.
Come on Doug you seem like a pretty smart person you know as well as anyone that campaigns are rarely rum based on issues anymore. In fact most candidates avoid giving their views on controversial issues for fear of alienating voters. IMHO campaigning these days are usually based on fear and throwing mud. The candidates push an agenda that plays to the voters fears, like immigration and terrorism, and then spend the rest of their time picking at the supposed flaws of their opposition. Sadly this seems to be the norm these days.
You and the other conservatives keep ignoring the question of who in the GOP has the charisma to beat her? Sure the election is 2 years off but based on current polls there are multiple mediocre GOP candidates who are about equal in poll appeal. Who is your next "Great White Hope"?
I don't need a "GREAT WHITE HOPE" and neither does the GOP. I believe circumstances will be ripe for a recapture of thw WH by the Republicans. Hillary is NOT a talented or charismatic political candidate. She never has been. She never will be. There are NUMEROUS Republicans who can win the presidency. I don't even know who they all are at this point. By way of example lets look at history. In 1992 Bill Clinton was seen as a small state bubba of a governor best known for an endless speech at the 1988 convention. NO ONE thought he could beat George H.W. Bush. NO ONE. Except him. The smugness with which those on the left here believe they have a permanent lock on the presidency even after a catostrophic failure like Obama is pretty amazing.
Come on Alloak you seem like a reasonably logical thinking Conservative so you don't think the candidate the GOP runs against Hillary will have no bearing on the results?
I'm not talking about the results. I'm talking about what bearing that has on the selection of
your candidate.There is no bearing so not sure where you are going? Based on the polls most Liberals think Hillary is the best choice. You hoping she will not run is not going to make it a reality and if that is your plan on winning in 2016 it just shows your lack of confidence in the GOP candidates.
I agree there is no bearing, but was just wondering why it keeps getting put into the equation.
Honestly, I'm neither optimistic or pessimistic about either side's chances at this point. It's early yet, and so much can happen. However, I do wonder why the Democrats make it seem a foregone conclusion and wish to hand Hillary the nomination unopposed.
I realize she's popular with Liberals and far be it from me to understand her appeal.
You don't understand her appeal because your perceptions are based upon conservative values, mindset, & thought process. Just to clarify - this is not a criticism. It is based upon the hundreds of posts you have made and your point of view presented in these posts.
Point taken, but let's examine the difference between Hillary and her husband (IMO.) I liked Bill right off the bat. I thought he was a great speaker, charismatic, seemed very intelligent, was LIKABLE with a good sense of humor. The exact opposite of Hillary in all those attributes. Compared to him, Hillary is about as exciting as a tin plate, and the gaffes....
I felt that Bill presented the right image for an American President and I voted for him. (Plus, being a Southerner didn't hurt.) I thought he turned out to be a pretty good President.
It's funny how so many of us far right lunatics supported Clinton back int he 90's. Could it be the Democratic party has changed since then?
Or could it be that times have changed and the political parties have very little common ground today?
Or could it be that the party hasn't changed, but the individuals that voted one way back then have changed? Don't guess that's a possibility?
Yeah we all voted Democratic in the 90's and turned into raving right wing lunatics while the party stayed the same. Makes a lot of sense.
I find the confidence of the liberals here that Hillary Clinton will easily become president astounding. It's as if no one accepts that there are cycles and external factors that affect these races. It's as if they believe that it is the natural inclination of the country to elect liberals. Obama was an aberration. The times were correct for him in 2008. Just as the times were correct for Roosevelt in 1932 and Johnson in 1964 and of course Reagan in 1980. I was in 9th grade but I remember oh so well how the Carter people WANTED to run against Reagan and hoped he would be nominated. They just figured he was too right wing and...let's face it... nutty to be elected. In retrospect it seems insane to believe that the country would re-elect Carter because of fear of Reagan. And so it goes. Ultimately, the U.S. electorate will elect the candidate they trust more, the candidate they believe will make their lives better. When the economy sputters for this amount of time and the U.S. is the laughing stock of the world and people realize it, it just seems to me that regardless of the "Red-Blue" map, it's the Republican race to lose. It can be lost of course but rather than thinking its Hillary's race to lose, I think its the other way around.
As for the map, I remember quite well when the GOP had a virtual lock on California and also frequently won quite a few north eastern states. Things change and can change again.
The only real question is whether the Democrats can fool people into supporting a not particularly likeable septargenarian who has been around for 25 years because they believe the Republican will make a "war on women and minorities." They tried it this year. It didn't work. Is it more likely to work in a presidential year? Yes. Will it? I sure hope not. Campaigns should be run on the issues that really matter.
Problem is they don't have anyone remotely like Reagan unless they are hiding them or unless they won't get involved because all of their views don't coinside with those on the far right which would make them have to flip some of their core views to get the GOP nomination.
So issues like equal pay for equal work for women isn't a worthy issue???? Women's right's to their own reproductive choices isn't a worthy issue??? The Dems never made it just about those issues although the right would like people to think that. The Dems have engaged on all major issues, not just the small ones and they will again in the next election and the whole of the country, at least the voting whole will decide who they think is better for the majority of American people on the majority of major issues.
Abortion is legal and that is not going to change no matter who is president so it's a phony issue. Equal pay for women is complete bull. Women already get equal pay for equal work. Statistics have proven it. To the extent there is a discrepency it is based on other factors and is most certainly not because of sexism. But it helps the Democrats to demonize Republicans. It's a phony wedge issue.
If you actually think the Democratic party is running on serious issues that are important to the people of the United States I have no idea what you are watching. They simply are not. To name one example Mark Udall in Colorado was such a demagogue on this war on women thing he was riducled as "Mark Uterus." and in January he will be gone from office.
The Republicans don't need a Reagan. They need a decent effective communicator and campaigner who can demonstrate that he (or she) can do the job. As I've mentioned in another thread, when Reagan ran in 1980, the Carter campaign considered him the weakest of all the Republicans running. I don't pretend to know who will run and who will be effective and who will win. But I think it's absurd to think Hillary Clinton is a shoo in. The general lay of things will be against her and she will have to hope for a truly weak opponent to have a shot. Contrary to what many here think, the Democratic party does not have a permananet structural advantage.
It's amusing to see many Democrats continually trot out the vast demographic changes
that all but assures a Democrat occupant in the White House moving into the future. Likely
as not, at the same time throwing out some disparaging remark at the GOP for their appeal
to "old people."
That would be fine. This demographic is set to double by 2030!
Come on Alloak you seem like a reasonably logical thinking Conservative so you don't think the candidate the GOP runs against Hillary will have no bearing on the results?
I'm not talking about the results. I'm talking about what bearing that has on the selection of
your candidate.There is no bearing so not sure where you are going? Based on the polls most Liberals think Hillary is the best choice. You hoping she will not run is not going to make it a reality and if that is your plan on winning in 2016 it just shows your lack of confidence in the GOP candidates.
I agree there is no bearing, but was just wondering why it keeps getting put into the equation.
Honestly, I'm neither optimistic or pessimistic about either side's chances at this point. It's early yet, and so much can happen. However, I do wonder why the Democrats make it seem a foregone conclusion and wish to hand Hillary the nomination unopposed.
I realize she's popular with Liberals and far be it from me to understand her appeal.
You don't understand her appeal because your perceptions are based upon conservative values, mindset, & thought process. Just to clarify - this is not a criticism. It is based upon the hundreds of posts you have made and your point of view presented in these posts.
Point taken, but let's examine the difference between Hillary and her husband (IMO.) I liked Bill right off the bat. I thought he was a great speaker, charismatic, seemed very intelligent, was LIKABLE with a good sense of humor. The exact opposite of Hillary in all those attributes. Compared to him, Hillary is about as exciting as a tin plate, and the gaffes....
I felt that Bill presented the right image for an American President and I voted for him. (Plus, being a Southerner didn't hurt.) I thought he turned out to be a pretty good President.
It's funny how so many of us far right lunatics supported Clinton back int he 90's. Could it be the Democratic party has changed since then?
Or could it be that times have changed and the political parties have very little common ground today?
Or could it be that the party hasn't changed, but the individuals that voted one way back then have changed? Don't guess that's a possibility?
Yeah we all voted Democratic in the 90's and turned into raving right wing lunatics while the party stayed the same. Makes a lot of sense.
Forget the 90s. The Ds were firmly in control and gaining seats in both chambers (not to mention winning the White House) as recently as 2008.
I find the confidence of the liberals here that Hillary Clinton will easily become president astounding. It's as if no one accepts that there are cycles and external factors that affect these races. It's as if they believe that it is the natural inclination of the country to elect liberals. Obama was an aberration. The times were correct for him in 2008. Just as the times were correct for Roosevelt in 1932 and Johnson in 1964 and of course Reagan in 1980. I was in 9th grade but I remember oh so well how the Carter people WANTED to run against Reagan and hoped he would be nominated. They just figured he was too right wing and...let's face it... nutty to be elected. In retrospect it seems insane to believe that the country would re-elect Carter because of fear of Reagan. And so it goes. Ultimately, the U.S. electorate will elect the candidate they trust more, the candidate they believe will make their lives better. When the economy sputters for this amount of time and the U.S. is the laughing stock of the world and people realize it, it just seems to me that regardless of the "Red-Blue" map, it's the Republican race to lose. It can be lost of course but rather than thinking its Hillary's race to lose, I think its the other way around.
As for the map, I remember quite well when the GOP had a virtual lock on California and also frequently won quite a few north eastern states. Things change and can change again.
The only real question is whether the Democrats can fool people into supporting a not particularly likeable septargenarian who has been around for 25 years because they believe the Republican will make a "war on women and minorities." They tried it this year. It didn't work. Is it more likely to work in a presidential year? Yes. Will it? I sure hope not. Campaigns should be run on the issues that really matter.
Come on Doug you seem like a pretty smart person you know as well as anyone that campaigns are rarely rum based on issues anymore. In fact most candidates avoid giving their views on controversial issues for fear of alienating voters. IMHO campaigning these days are usually based on fear and throwing mud. The candidates push an agenda that plays to the voters fears, like immigration and terrorism, and then spend the rest of their time picking at the supposed flaws of their opposition. Sadly this seems to be the norm these days.
You and the other conservatives keep ignoring the question of who in the GOP has the charisma to beat her? Sure the election is 2 years off but based on current polls there are multiple mediocre GOP candidates who are about equal in poll appeal. Who is your next "Great White Hope"?
I don't need a "GREAT WHITE HOPE" and neither does the GOP. I believe circumstances will be ripe for a recapture of thw WH by the Republicans. Hillary is NOT a talented or charismatic political candidate. She never has been. She never will be. There are NUMEROUS Republicans who can win the presidency. I don't even know who they all are at this point. By way of example lets look at history. In 1992 Bill Clinton was seen as a small state bubba of a governor best known for an endless speech at the 1988 convention. NO ONE thought he could beat George H.W. Bush. NO ONE. Except him. The smugness with which those on the left here believe they have a permanent lock on the presidency even after a catostrophic failure like Obama is pretty amazing.
You keep saying there are "NUMEROUS" GOP candidates who can win the Presidency in one breath and then in another you have no idea who they might be. Seems like a contraction to me.
How about telling us who these "NUMEROUS" GOP candidates are and why you think they can beat Hillary in 2016?
If Obama 's administration had actually been a catastrophic failure you might have a point but it hasn't as the economy is in recovery, unemployment is down, and the stock market is soaring so while not perfect he has done an amazing job in the face of the GOP's obstructionism.
Anything is possible Doug but based as long as the GOP keeps alienating women, minorities and gays and the GOP seemingly not having a front running candidate it is easy for us Liberals to like our chances in 2016.
I find the confidence of the liberals here that Hillary Clinton will easily become president astounding. It's as if no one accepts that there are cycles and external factors that affect these races. It's as if they believe that it is the natural inclination of the country to elect liberals. Obama was an aberration. The times were correct for him in 2008. Just as the times were correct for Roosevelt in 1932 and Johnson in 1964 and of course Reagan in 1980. I was in 9th grade but I remember oh so well how the Carter people WANTED to run against Reagan and hoped he would be nominated. They just figured he was too right wing and...let's face it... nutty to be elected. In retrospect it seems insane to believe that the country would re-elect Carter because of fear of Reagan. And so it goes. Ultimately, the U.S. electorate will elect the candidate they trust more, the candidate they believe will make their lives better. When the economy sputters for this amount of time and the U.S. is the laughing stock of the world and people realize it, it just seems to me that regardless of the "Red-Blue" map, it's the Republican race to lose. It can be lost of course but rather than thinking its Hillary's race to lose, I think its the other way around.
As for the map, I remember quite well when the GOP had a virtual lock on California and also frequently won quite a few north eastern states. Things change and can change again.
The only real question is whether the Democrats can fool people into supporting a not particularly likeable septargenarian who has been around for 25 years because they believe the Republican will make a "war on women and minorities." They tried it this year. It didn't work. Is it more likely to work in a presidential year? Yes. Will it? I sure hope not. Campaigns should be run on the issues that really matter.
Problem is they don't have anyone remotely like Reagan unless they are hiding them or unless they won't get involved because all of their views don't coinside with those on the far right which would make them have to flip some of their core views to get the GOP nomination.
So issues like equal pay for equal work for women isn't a worthy issue???? Women's right's to their own reproductive choices isn't a worthy issue??? The Dems never made it just about those issues although the right would like people to think that. The Dems have engaged on all major issues, not just the small ones and they will again in the next election and the whole of the country, at least the voting whole will decide who they think is better for the majority of American people on the majority of major issues.
Abortion is legal and that is not going to change no matter who is president so it's a phony issue. Equal pay for women is complete bull. Women already get equal pay for equal work. Statistics have proven it. To the extent there is a discrepency it is based on other factors and is most certainly not because of sexism. But it helps the Democrats to demonize Republicans. It's a phony wedge issue.
If you actually think the Democratic party is running on serious issues that are important to the people of the United States I have no idea what you are watching. They simply are not. To name one example Mark Udall in Colorado was such a demagogue on this war on women thing he was riducled as "Mark Uterus." and in January he will be gone from office.
The Republicans don't need a Reagan. They need a decent effective communicator and campaigner who can demonstrate that he (or she) can do the job. As I've mentioned in another thread, when Reagan ran in 1980, the Carter campaign considered him the weakest of all the Republicans running. I don't pretend to know who will run and who will be effective and who will win. But I think it's absurd to think Hillary Clinton is a shoo in. The general lay of things will be against her and she will have to hope for a truly weak opponent to have a shot. Contrary to what many here think, the Democratic party does not have a permananet structural advantage.
IMHO no Presidential campaign is run real issues anymore Doug and has not for many recent elections. Candidates of both parties dance around the real issues and instead concentrate on pointing out the flaws of their opponents or pandering to the publics fears like Immigration or Terrorism like the GOP does.
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't the GOP have two decent moderate "communicators", McCain and Romney, run and lose in the last two elections? I will give you McCain had a tough uphill battle following Bush but Romney was running against the incumbent Obama, who you conservatives claim has been a total failure, yet still could not beat him. Why is that? Romney had the credentials and a decent choice of running mate in Ryan but could not beat the failure of Obama. Go figure.
And you claim in another post that there are "Numerous" GOP candidates who can beat Hillary yet can't seem to name one viable candidate.
No I think it runs deeper than that for the GOP in that they have alienated too many groups like women, minorities and gays. It is their own philosophies which has been their undoing not the fact that they have not had qualified candidates and until they address this they will have a hard time taking back the White House. Even Rand Paul realizes this.
And besides being a good candidate you know why I think Hillary wins? because if Bubba. Don't underestimate the mans influence and charisma campaigning for Hillary.
Wow!! 20 pages and 572 posts! This is quite an impressive thread. Well done Alloak!
just the mere mention of Hillary invokes such passion...
such long, drawn out, mindless passion...
anoint the woman already and let's be done with it... 😛
just the mere mention of Hillary invokes such passion...
such long, drawn out, mindless passion...
anoint the woman already and let's be done with it... 😛
I find it equally as interesting that that there is such a lack of passion from the Conservative's on this forum for any GOP candidate to the point they can't even name who they think can beat Hillary.
But I agree with you, let's just name Hillary the next President so we can eliminate all the mindless Campaign adds and useless Presidential Debates that are going to dominate the TV airwaves shortly. 😛
I find it equally as interesting that that there is such a lack of passion from the Conservative's on this forum for any GOP candidate to the point they can't even name who they think can beat Hillary.
Nobody (including Hillary) has even declared yet.
I find it equally as interesting that that there is such a lack of passion from the Conservative's on this forum for any GOP candidate to the point they can't even name who they think can beat Hillary.
Nobody (including Hillary) has even declared yet.
Yes, you have said that many times. You are aware of what is going on though, right? Several potential candidates are already campaigning on some level and the volume of 2016 talk is ramping up. I saw Bobby Jindal on TV over the weekend looking and sounding more like a candidate than a sitting governor. If it is too early for you to care or to offer an opinion, it's ok to just say that. But don't try to pass it off as if there aren't any potential candidates to discuss because no one has made an official declaration, because the discussion is happening now with or without any of us.
Here's a fresh list of 20 possible GOP candidates to chew on...
http://www.politico.com//story/2014/11/2016-elections-republicans-to-watch-113014.html
[Edited on 11/19/2014 by gondicar]
I find it equally as interesting that that there is such a lack of passion from the Conservative's on this forum for any GOP candidate to the point they can't even name who they think can beat Hillary.
Nobody (including Hillary) has even declared yet.
Yes, you have said that many times. You are aware of what is going on though, right? Several potential candidates are already campaigning on some level and the volume of 2016 talk is ramping up. I saw Bobby Jindal on TV over the weekend looking and sounding more like a candidate than a sitting governor. If it is too early for you to care or to offer an opinion, it's ok to just say that. But don't try to pass it off as if there aren't any potential candidates to discuss because no one has made an official declaration, because the discussion is happening now with or without any of us.
Here's a fresh list of 20 possible GOP candidates to chew on...
http://www.politico.com//story/2014/11/2016-elections-republicans-to-watch-113014.html
[Edited on 11/19/2014 by gondicar]
_______________________________________________________
Okay, a liberal website lists what they think about possible Republican candidates for 2016
Where is "the list" of democrat candidates for 2016?
Frederick J. Ryan, Jr. (also known as Fred Ryan, born April 12, 1955) was the Chief of Staff for former United States President Ronald Reagan (1989–1995), and currently serves as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation. He is the President and COO of Allbritton Communications Company and Founding CEO and President of Politico.
I find it equally as interesting that that there is such a lack of passion from the Conservative's on this forum for any GOP candidate to the point they can't even name who they think can beat Hillary.
Nobody (including Hillary) has even declared yet.
Yes, you have said that many times. You are aware of what is going on though, right? Several potential candidates are already campaigning on some level and the volume of 2016 talk is ramping up. I saw Bobby Jindal on TV over the weekend looking and sounding more like a candidate than a sitting governor. If it is too early for you to care or to offer an opinion, it's ok to just say that. But don't try to pass it off as if there aren't any potential candidates to discuss because no one has made an official declaration, because the discussion is happening now with or without any of us.
Here's a fresh list of 20 possible GOP candidates to chew on...
http://www.politico.com//story/2014/11/2016-elections-republicans-to-watch-113014.html
[Edited on 11/19/2014 by gondicar]
_______________________________________________________
Okay, a liberal website lists what they think about possible Republican candidates for 2016
Where is "the list" of democrat candidates for 2016?
Don't agree with the "liberal" websites list then give us your list. It is amazing that conservatives here keep saying Hillary will never get elected yet can't even propose even one GOP candidate they think might beat her and give reason why that candidate will get elected. That says to me they have no idea who has a prayer of beating her should she run.
And if you want to see a list of Democratic candidates all you have to do is Google my friend and you will get quite few hits. And you know what you will find? that all the major polls to date have Hillary as the over 60% favorite to get the nomination while the other contenders do not break 20%.
