TenuredVulture wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

allentown wrote:I guess this explains why Republicans are already attacking H Clinton. If they need to collect most of the white vote to win, then she is real trouble for them. This is a swing area and she is extremely popular among blue collar Dems here, especially older women.

I don't think she's a great option for the Dems.

I have my own reasons for thinking this, but I am curious, what are yours?

I don't see many voters under 50 being excited by her candidacy.

Except for millions of women who'd love to see the first female President.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

allentown wrote:I guess this explains why Republicans are already attacking H Clinton. If they need to collect most of the white vote to win, then she is real trouble for them. This is a swing area and she is extremely popular among blue collar Dems here, especially older women.

I don't think she's a great option for the Dems.

I have my own reasons for thinking this, but I am curious, what are yours?

I don't see many voters under 50 being excited by her candidacy.

Except for millions of women who'd love to see the first female President.

Elizabeth Warren would appeal more to independents and the left alike. Though she has the Massachusetts albatross.

I'm not sure the American people are ready to elect a Native American president.

TenuredVulture wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

allentown wrote:I guess this explains why Republicans are already attacking H Clinton. If they need to collect most of the white vote to win, then she is real trouble for them. This is a swing area and she is extremely popular among blue collar Dems here, especially older women.

I don't think she's a great option for the Dems.

I have my own reasons for thinking this, but I am curious, what are yours?

I don't see many voters under 50 being excited by her candidacy.

Except for millions of women who'd love to see the first female President.

Elizabeth Warren would appeal more to independents and the left alike. Though she has the Massachusetts albatross.

Oprah probably has more appeal too. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be excited for Hillary. Remember that she was the frontrunner for a long time against Obama in 2008. And her stint as Secretary of State made her more appealing to moderates, IMO.

Another thing about Hilary is she seems to have no real principles. Now, I'm pretty much against the idea of politicians having principles, but you can go too far. What is Hilary about? Given that almost everyone prioritizes domestic issues in choosing a President, how does her recent history help her there? What accomplishments can she really point to during her time in the Senate?

Werthless wrote:I'm not sure the American people are ready to elect a Native American president.

if it turns out she doesn't have a birth certificate, do we know for sure if she is or isn't?

TenuredVulture wrote:Another thing about Hilary is she seems to have no real principles. Now, I'm pretty much against the idea of politicians having principles, but you can go too far. What is Hilary about? Given that almost everyone prioritizes domestic issues in choosing a President, how does her recent history help her there? What accomplishments can she really point to during her time in the Senate?

Her senate tenure was a big reason why I couldn't support her in '08. Every action was so clearly calibrated toward a presidential run.

The time at State did help her establish a public profile that's fuller and more appealing than "Bill's wronged wife" or "Clinton restoration standard bearer." she's responsible and probably would be a more effective party leader, if not president (and there's some connection between the two), than Obama.

I'm sick and tired of political families. Feels like a half-assed monarchy.

Get some new blood into the mix. On both sides of the aisle. For that matter, create more aisles.

Rick Perry won't be running for a 4th term as Texas governor, maybe hope for sanity in Texas.

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:Another thing about Hilary is she seems to have no real principles. Now, I'm pretty much against the idea of politicians having principles, but you can go too far. What is Hilary about? Given that almost everyone prioritizes domestic issues in choosing a President, how does her recent history help her there? What accomplishments can she really point to during her time in the Senate?

Her senate tenure was a big reason why I couldn't support her in '08. Every action was so clearly calibrated toward a presidential run.

The time at State did help her establish a public profile that's fuller and more appealing than "Bill's wronged wife" or "Clinton restoration standard bearer." she's responsible and probably would be a more effective party leader, if not president (and there's some connection between the two), than Obama.

Not that I'm saying anything that hasn't been said by others a million times, but I'm pretty sure Obama's profile rising so quickly over 6 years really pissed off a lot of the democratic establishment.

Luzinski's Gut wrote:I'm sick and tired of political families. Feels like a half-assed monarchy.

Get some new blood into the mix. On both sides of the aisle. For that matter, create more aisles.

The other huge honking reason, in addition to liking Obama, that I just couldn't stomach Hillary in 2008. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton... blech.

slugsrbad wrote:Rick Perry won't be running for a 4th term as Texas governor, maybe hope for sanity in Texas.

Things have been going so poorly there. Maybe the next governor will make sure all of the new jobs in the US are created there instead of merely an insane chunk of them.

Or guarantee that 21+ week fetuses can be killed. Because that's a prereequisite for sanity.

The beers at the Indians game were big

jerseyhoya wrote:The beers at the Indians game were big

that explains a couple of things

how was the ballpark?

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The beers at the Indians game were big

that explains a couple of things

how was the ballpark?

It was nice. Not one of the best I've been to, but I'm probably unfairly punishing it for the crappy weather.

dajafi wrote:

Luzinski's Gut wrote:I'm sick and tired of political families. Feels like a half-assed monarchy.

Get some new blood into the mix. On both sides of the aisle. For that matter, create more aisles.

The other huge honking reason, in addition to liking Obama, that I just couldn't stomach Hillary in 2008. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton... blech.

H Clinton ran one of the worst and most expensive primary campaigns in the history of Democratic primaries. She had too many high paid, competing manager-level staff who never agreed on an approach. She made the opposite error of Romney, moving to the center too fast at the start of primary season and losing a lot of her natural supporters for appearing to be too pro-Iraq war for the Democratic primary electorate. She made Political Science 101 errors, like not running a 50-state campaign and blowing through way too much of her money early on for a candidate who had enormous name recognition. Then Bill was too prominent and went off the reservation a few times too many, making her seem like she was running for Bill's third term and raising the whole family dynasty issue. Obama was a much weaker candidate, but had a cheaper, more cohesive staff and a strategy which took full advantage of the changes to the rules for primaries and delegate selection. He ran up a lot of delegates, basically without challenge, in states that Clinton assumed she wouldn't need and didn't organize.

I'm beginning to think that the explosion of politically oriented websites on the internet is a bad thing. At first, it was like "hey this is interesting--new and fresh." And you always knew that you'd need very solid critical evaluation skills to sort through it all. But I think almost all of it now is an embarrassment. Even my favorite aggregator, realclearpolitics, seems to have about 70 percent stupid. Horse race journalism, polling, and little to no real policy analysis.

You just spent the past two pages discussing the 2016 presidency.