Hillary vs __________(insert name here) 2016: Hillary Loses badly (1 Viewer)

[Slapdash]

tommyboy making a political prediction is like LHUCKS making a stock market prediction. I guess Hillary is going to win this going away now.

 

[RCon]

There was also in 2006, among many liberal Democrats, a visceral dislike of Hillary Clinton, and a general tiredness of the whole Clinton thing. I know that NC Commish still feels that way, but I don't think this is a common reaction among most Dems. They've long since forgiven her for the Iraq vote (the main reason she lost in 2008)- that's water under the bridge. Her performance as Secretary of State has given her even a greater gravitas than she had before.

I think the main reason she lost in 2008 had nothing to do with Iraq, Clinton overload, or anything related to policy. The main reason she lost was her campaign team wasn't anywhere near as good as Obama's, in terms of using the internet, advance ground game, and even the simple idea of focusing more heavily on states with an odd number of electors.

 

[RCon]

It'll be interesting to see if Cruz or Rubio can bring 95 percent of the Hispanic vote like Barack did for the black vote. Not just from a voting standpoint, but from a sociological aspect as well.

Interesting? More like impossible.Cruz won't get more than 30% of the Hispanic vote. Rubio might do slightly better, especially in Florida. But even these numbers might be optimistic if the GOP continues to block immigration reform.

Replacing the word interesting with impossible in that sentence implies that you believe it's impossible for either Cruz or Rubio to win the GOP nomination. I'd agree on Cruz, but at this point I can't rule Rubio out.

I never wrote that. I was replying to Stat's shtick comment that either guy could get the vast majority of Latino support in this country. Of course Rubio could win the nomination, but that's not relevant to his comment or my response.

I know. I was more making a bad joke about your phrasing. As in, if you literally replace "interesting" with "impossible" in the post you quoted...

 

[timschochet]

There was also in 2006, among many liberal Democrats, a visceral dislike of Hillary Clinton, and a general tiredness of the whole Clinton thing. I know that NC Commish still feels that way, but I don't think this is a common reaction among most Dems. They've long since forgiven her for the Iraq vote (the main reason she lost in 2008)- that's water under the bridge. Her performance as Secretary of State has given her even a greater gravitas than she had before.

I think the main reason she lost in 2008 had nothing to do with Iraq, Clinton overload, or anything related to policy. The main reason she lost was her campaign team wasn't anywhere near as good as Obama's, in terms of using the internet, advance ground game, and even the simple idea of focusing more heavily on states with an odd number of electors.

Those are all good reasons, but IMO her vote for the Iraq war was the catalyst. Have you read Game Change? Excellent book.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

IMO the folks Hillary should be worried about are on her left. Warren (who says she's not running) or Brian Schweitzer for example...

He loathes Obamacare and believes it should be replaced by a single-payer health-care system. He calls the NSA revelations "un-effing-believable." He says the Obama administration "just haven’t been very good at running things." It's an outline of where one extremely savvy politician thinks the left might be unhappy with Obama -- and, by extension, Hillary Clinton.

But Schweitzer didn't become governor of right-leaning Montana by accident. He's skeptical of gun control and likes to shoot at things in campaign ads. He's a big believer in coal production and expanded oil drilling.

That's an interesting group of policy positions and he's a no-nonsense red state kind of guy. Not sure he has the political chops for a national run, but I do think someone like him could be dangerous. Certainly more dangerous than the red meat right-wingers like Rand, Ryan, Santorum and etc.

 

[CBusAlex]

One more thought: in the past, the Republicans have been very good about nominating whoever came in second the previous primaries. That would be Rick Santorum. I am not sure is Santorum is planning to run, but he should be default be the favorite if he runs.

Huckabee came in third in 2008, just behind Romney. I'm not sure if he's even interested in running at this point but he could also have a strong claim to being "next in line" - if only because Santorum is such a dumpster fire of a candidate.

 

[cstu]

IMO the folks Hillary should be worried about are on her left. Warren (who says she's not running) or Brian Schweitzer for example...

That's an interesting group of policy positions and he's a no-nonsense red state kind of guy. Not sure he has the political chops for a national run, but I do think someone like him could be dangerous. Certainly more dangerous than the red meat right-wingers like Rand, Ryan, Santorum and etc.

Schweitzer is interesting but I find his anti-Obama stance strange. While I agree with him on his single payer stance, he's oblivious to the reality that it was impossible for Obama to enact single payer. Republicans would have filibustered to prevent it from ever happening so Obama passed what was possible to pass.

"Montana has a population of 990,000 people," he explains. "Saskatchewan has a population of 1,050,000. Their average age is about the same average age of Montana. They're about 10 percent Indian, we're about 7 and a half percent Indian. The other ethnic groups—they're a mirror image of us ... So we have the same ethnic population, we're farmers, we're loggers, we're miners, we're oil developers ... They, in Saskatchewan, live two years longer and have lower infant mortality."

Looking at those basic elements, Schweitzer asked province Premier Brad Wall for details on their health system. He discovered that the province spends about $4 billion a year on universal health care, about $4,000 per person. In Montana, all systems—public and private, state and federal—it's a little more than $8 billion, and about twice as much per person.

"So they're living longer, less infant mortality, and they're paying half as much," said Schweitzer. "Unlike Washington, D.C., that piqued my interest. This is maybe a system that I want to look into."

 

[cstu]

There was also in 2006, among many liberal Democrats, a visceral dislike of Hillary Clinton, and a general tiredness of the whole Clinton thing. I know that NC Commish still feels that way, but I don't think this is a common reaction among most Dems. They've long since forgiven her for the Iraq vote (the main reason she lost in 2008)- that's water under the bridge. Her performance as Secretary of State has given her even a greater gravitas than she had before.

I think the main reason she lost in 2008 had nothing to do with Iraq, Clinton overload, or anything related to policy. The main reason she lost was her campaign team wasn't anywhere near as good as Obama's, in terms of using the internet, advance ground game, and even the simple idea of focusing more heavily on states with an odd number of electors.

Those are all good reasons, but IMO her vote for the Iraq war was the catalyst. Have you read Game Change? Excellent book.

The vote played a part in her loss, but without a nearly perfect opponent for her she would have won. Speaking for most of the people I know who supported Obama over Hillary the issue of the Iraq vote was a small part of the decision.

 

[humpback]

There was also in 2006, among many liberal Democrats, a visceral dislike of Hillary Clinton, and a general tiredness of the whole Clinton thing. I know that NC Commish still feels that way, but I don't think this is a common reaction among most Dems. They've long since forgiven her for the Iraq vote (the main reason she lost in 2008)- that's water under the bridge. Her performance as Secretary of State has given her even a greater gravitas than she had before.

I think the main reason she lost in 2008 had nothing to do with Iraq, Clinton overload, or anything related to policy. The main reason she lost was her campaign team wasn't anywhere near as good as Obama's, in terms of using the internet, advance ground game, and even the simple idea of focusing more heavily on states with an odd number of electors.

Those are all good reasons, but IMO her vote for the Iraq war was the catalyst. Have you read Game Change? Excellent book.

Oprah had more of an impact on the nomination than Iraq did.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Schweitzer is interesting but I find his anti-Obama stance strange.

Good politics probably.

 

[squistion]

There was also in 2006, among many liberal Democrats, a visceral dislike of Hillary Clinton, and a general tiredness of the whole Clinton thing. I know that NC Commish still feels that way, but I don't think this is a common reaction among most Dems. They've long since forgiven her for the Iraq vote (the main reason she lost in 2008)- that's water under the bridge. Her performance as Secretary of State has given her even a greater gravitas than she had before.

I think the main reason she lost in 2008 had nothing to do with Iraq, Clinton overload, or anything related to policy. The main reason she lost was her campaign team wasn't anywhere near as good as Obama's, in terms of using the internet, advance ground game, and even the simple idea of focusing more heavily on states with an odd number of electors.

Those are all good reasons, but IMO her vote for the Iraq war was the catalyst. Have you read Game Change? Excellent book.

You are right it was Iraq. The Democrats I knew at the time were lukewarm in their support for her (if they supported her at all) but we would have held our nose and voted for her over any GOP opponent. However when Obama emerged as a viable alternative, it was pretty easy to jump ship and it was based in her vote for the Iraqi war.

 

[roadkill1292]

What's the Republican strategy for winning the necessary swing voters who will be 60%+ in favor of gay marriage and marijuana legalization? Keep quiet about the subject? Good luck with that, Santorum and Rubio and Cruz, ####### libs like me aren't gonna let that happen.

 

[Fennis]

People at this point before 2008 0bama was a run of the mill Chicago state senator, even when he ran for US Senator he was facing an 8-2 favorite who just luckily got caught up in an unpredictable divorce scandal. You have no idea who's out there waiting for Hillary right now.

No, at this point Barack Obama was a HUGE star in the Democratic party, and increasingly seen as a potential underdog to Hillary. There is nobody currently that fills that role. And that's why it's Hillary's to lose.

John Edwards and Hillary Clinton were the huge favorites by this point in early 2006.

That's true. But my point is, Obama was already a big star. He was already appearing on Meet The Press, Oprah, etc. He wrote a book that was a #1 bestseller. There is nobody that has close to that exposure.

There ARE Democrat stars waiting in the wings- Elizabeth Warren, Corey Booker, etc. But nobody quite ready yet. It's already too late, IMO, for one of them to emerge in 2016.

No one (and I mean no one) was thinking Obama at this time in 2006. Here is a poll from March 2006 (we are in the equivalent of Jan 2006). Obama didn't start showing up in polls until Nov 2006.

 Diageo/Hotline Poll conducted by Financial Dynamics. April 19-23, 2006. N=603 registered Democrats nationwide. MoE ± 4.			"If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary were held today, whom would you support if the candidates were [see below]?" If "all": "If you absolutely had to choose, which one person would you support?"					  		Hillary Clinton 					38							John Kerry				14							John Edwards				13			 							Joe Biden				5							Wesley Clark				3							Russ Feingold				3							Bill Richardson				2							Mark Warner				2							Evan Bayh				1							Tom Vilsack				-							All of these (vol.)				1							None of these (vol.)				5							Unsure				12

 

[Fennis]

There was also in 2006, among many liberal Democrats, a visceral dislike of Hillary Clinton, and a general tiredness of the whole Clinton thing. I know that NC Commish still feels that way, but I don't think this is a common reaction among most Dems. They've long since forgiven her for the Iraq vote (the main reason she lost in 2008)- that's water under the bridge. Her performance as Secretary of State has given her even a greater gravitas than she had before.

I think the main reason she lost in 2008 had nothing to do with Iraq, Clinton overload, or anything related to policy. The main reason she lost was her campaign team wasn't anywhere near as good as Obama's, in terms of using the internet, advance ground game, and even the simple idea of focusing more heavily on states with an odd number of electors.

Those are all good reasons, but IMO her vote for the Iraq war was the catalyst. Have you read Game Change? Excellent book.

Oprah had more of an impact on the nomination than Iraq did.

endorsements don't matter

 

[fatness]

What's the Republican strategy for winning the necessary swing voters who will be 60%+ in favor of gay marriage and marijuana legalization? Keep quiet about the subject?

Probably preventing them from voting.

 

[CBusAlex]

What's the Republican strategy for winning the necessary swing voters who will be 60%+ in favor of gay marriage and marijuana legalization? Keep quiet about the subject? Good luck with that, Santorum and Rubio and Cruz, ####### libs like me aren't gonna let that happen.

The Democratic candidate, whoever it is, will also oppose marijuana legalization.

 

[roadkill1292]

What's the Republican strategy for winning the necessary swing voters who will be 60%+ in favor of gay marriage and marijuana legalization? Keep quiet about the subject? Good luck with that, Santorum and Rubio and Cruz, ####### libs like me aren't gonna let that happen.

The Democratic candidate, whoever it is, will also oppose marijuana legalization.

The Democratic candidate will read the writing on the wall and, at worst, admit the "need for a realistic" discussion about the subject. Voters will interpret that to mean exactly how it sounds -- that the stupid Dems are at least friendlier to the issue than the stupid Repubs. Voters will not believe that the Dems will do anything worse than letting things continue to slide along, a far cry from the other side being opposed even to medical marijuana like Mr. Romney.

 

[Fennis]

What's the Republican strategy for winning the necessary swing voters who will be 60%+ in favor of gay marriage and marijuana legalization? Keep quiet about the subject? Good luck with that, Santorum and Rubio and Cruz, ####### libs like me aren't gonna let that happen.

The Democratic candidate, whoever it is, will also oppose marijuana legalization.

The Democratic candidate will read the writing on the wall and, at worst, admit the "need for a realistic" discussion about the subject. Voters will interpret that to mean exactly how it sounds -- that the stupid Dems are at least friendlier to the issue than the stupid Repubs. Voters will not believe that the Dems will do anything worse than letting things continue to slide along, a far cry from the other side being opposed even to medical marijuana like Mr. Romney.

Legalized marijuana will not be a much of an issue for either the D or the R candidate. Peoples votes are not swayed by legalizing weed, especially when both candidate will likely have similar positions.

 

[timschochet]

I believe in legalizing pot, but given all the problems that face this nation, I would NEVER form my vote based on this issue as a priority. Is there anyone here who would?

 

[roadkill1292]

People who aren't single issue voters weigh a lot of factors in their decision. Small issues may be the tipping point for many.

You election wonks tend to overthink things a lot.

 

[humpback]

There was also in 2006, among many liberal Democrats, a visceral dislike of Hillary Clinton, and a general tiredness of the whole Clinton thing. I know that NC Commish still feels that way, but I don't think this is a common reaction among most Dems. They've long since forgiven her for the Iraq vote (the main reason she lost in 2008)- that's water under the bridge. Her performance as Secretary of State has given her even a greater gravitas than she had before.

I think the main reason she lost in 2008 had nothing to do with Iraq, Clinton overload, or anything related to policy. The main reason she lost was her campaign team wasn't anywhere near as good as Obama's, in terms of using the internet, advance ground game, and even the simple idea of focusing more heavily on states with an odd number of electors.

Those are all good reasons, but IMO her vote for the Iraq war was the catalyst. Have you read Game Change? Excellent book.

Oprah had more of an impact on the nomination than Iraq did.

endorsements don't matter

From Wiki:

On November 21, Obama announced that Oprah Winfrey would be campaigning for him in the early primary states,[19] setting off speculation that, although celebrity endorsements typically have little effect on voter opinions, Winfrey's participation would supply Obama with a large, receptive audience.[20] As word spread that Oprah's first appearance would be in Iowa, polls released in early December revealed Obama taking the lead in that decisive state.[21] Then, on December 8, Oprah kicked-off a three-state tour supporting Obama's campaign,[22] where she drew record-setting crowds in Iowa, New Hampshire,[23] and South Carolina, and was described as "more cogent, more effective, more convincing" than anyone on the campaign trail.[24][25]The Oprah-Obama tour dominated political news headlines[26] and cast doubts over Clinton's ability to recover her recently-lost lead in Iowa caucus polls.[27] A poll released less than two weeks after Winfrey campaigned found Obama achieving more popularity in Iowa than ever before recorded.[28] Two economists would later estimate that Winfrey's endorsement added more than one million votes to Obama's total in the Democratic primaries, and that without it, Clinton would have received more votes.[29]

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There was also in 2006, among many liberal Democrats, a visceral dislike of Hillary Clinton, and a general tiredness of the whole Clinton thing. I know that NC Commish still feels that way, but I don't think this is a common reaction among most Dems. They've long since forgiven her for the Iraq vote (the main reason she lost in 2008)- that's water under the bridge. Her performance as Secretary of State has given her even a greater gravitas than she had before.

I think the main reason she lost in 2008 had nothing to do with Iraq, Clinton overload, or anything related to policy. The main reason she lost was her campaign team wasn't anywhere near as good as Obama's, in terms of using the internet, advance ground game, and even the simple idea of focusing more heavily on states with an odd number of electors.

Those are all good reasons, but IMO her vote for the Iraq war was the catalyst. Have you read Game Change? Excellent book.

She has still voted for the Iraq War.

The main thing Obama & Axelrod did was work the caucus system, Hillary's team never saw that coming.

The Clintons still won more primaries and a majority of primary votes.

 

[Fennis]

People who aren't single issue voters weigh a lot of factors in their decision. Small issues may be the tipping point for many.

You election wonks tend to overthink things a lot.

I don't think there will be substantial difference between the two nominees' positions when it comes to marijuana

for early 2016

 

[squistion]

http://linkis.com/politi.co/CWJIy

2016 poll: Hillary Clinton ahead of Chris Christie

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie continues to face backlash from the George Washington Bridge scandal as the gap widens between him and Hillary Clinton in a potential 2016 match-up, according to a new poll.



Christie, who led Clinton by one percentage point in December, now trails the former secretary of state 46 percent to 38 percent in a new Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday.

Support between the two, both considered top 2016 contenders, shifted largely among independent voters who now favor Clinton 41 to 40 percent. Christie previously had a notable 47 to 32 percent lead in December among independents.

 

[Fennis]

There was also in 2006, among many liberal Democrats, a visceral dislike of Hillary Clinton, and a general tiredness of the whole Clinton thing. I know that NC Commish still feels that way, but I don't think this is a common reaction among most Dems. They've long since forgiven her for the Iraq vote (the main reason she lost in 2008)- that's water under the bridge. Her performance as Secretary of State has given her even a greater gravitas than she had before.

I think the main reason she lost in 2008 had nothing to do with Iraq, Clinton overload, or anything related to policy. The main reason she lost was her campaign team wasn't anywhere near as good as Obama's, in terms of using the internet, advance ground game, and even the simple idea of focusing more heavily on states with an odd number of electors.

Those are all good reasons, but IMO her vote for the Iraq war was the catalyst. Have you read Game Change? Excellent book.

Oprah had more of an impact on the nomination than Iraq did.

endorsements don't matter

From Wiki:

On November 21, Obama announced that Oprah Winfrey would be campaigning for him in the early primary states,[19] setting off speculation that, although celebrity endorsements typically have little effect on voter opinions, Winfrey's participation would supply Obama with a large, receptive audience.[20] As word spread that Oprah's first appearance would be in Iowa, polls released in early December revealed Obama taking the lead in that decisive state.[21] Then, on December 8, Oprah kicked-off a three-state tour supporting Obama's campaign,[22] where she drew record-setting crowds in Iowa, New Hampshire,[23] and South Carolina, and was described as "more cogent, more effective, more convincing" than anyone on the campaign trail.[24][25]The Oprah-Obama tour dominated political news headlines[26] and cast doubts over Clinton's ability to recover her recently-lost lead in Iowa caucus polls.[27] A poll released less than two weeks after Winfrey campaigned found Obama achieving more popularity in Iowa than ever before recorded.[28] Two economists would later estimate that Winfrey's endorsement added more than one million votes to Obama's total in the Democratic primaries, and that without it, Clinton would have received more votes.[29]

interesting part of the wiki article, thanks for posting. I can't counter with other than my opinion that it doesn't matter. I believe Obama would have won Iowa with or without Oprah.

 

[humpback]

There was also in 2006, among many liberal Democrats, a visceral dislike of Hillary Clinton, and a general tiredness of the whole Clinton thing. I know that NC Commish still feels that way, but I don't think this is a common reaction among most Dems. They've long since forgiven her for the Iraq vote (the main reason she lost in 2008)- that's water under the bridge. Her performance as Secretary of State has given her even a greater gravitas than she had before.

I think the main reason she lost in 2008 had nothing to do with Iraq, Clinton overload, or anything related to policy. The main reason she lost was her campaign team wasn't anywhere near as good as Obama's, in terms of using the internet, advance ground game, and even the simple idea of focusing more heavily on states with an odd number of electors.

Those are all good reasons, but IMO her vote for the Iraq war was the catalyst. Have you read Game Change? Excellent book.

You are right it was Iraq. The Democrats I knew at the time were lukewarm in their support for her (if they supported her at all) but we would have held their nose and voted for her over any GOP opponent. However when Obama emerged as a viable alternative, it was pretty easy to jump ship and it was based in her vote for the Iraqi war.

How can the catalyst have been something that happened 6 years earlier?

 

[squistion]

There was also in 2006, among many liberal Democrats, a visceral dislike of Hillary Clinton, and a general tiredness of the whole Clinton thing. I know that NC Commish still feels that way, but I don't think this is a common reaction among most Dems. They've long since forgiven her for the Iraq vote (the main reason she lost in 2008)- that's water under the bridge. Her performance as Secretary of State has given her even a greater gravitas than she had before.

I think the main reason she lost in 2008 had nothing to do with Iraq, Clinton overload, or anything related to policy. The main reason she lost was her campaign team wasn't anywhere near as good as Obama's, in terms of using the internet, advance ground game, and even the simple idea of focusing more heavily on states with an odd number of electors.

Those are all good reasons, but IMO her vote for the Iraq war was the catalyst. Have you read Game Change? Excellent book.

You are right it was Iraq. The Democrats I knew at the time were lukewarm in their support for her (if they supported her at all) but we would have held their nose and voted for her over any GOP opponent. However when Obama emerged as a viable alternative, it was pretty easy to jump ship and it was based in her vote for the Iraqi war.

How can the catalyst have been something that happened 6 years earlier?

Progressives/liberals were still very bitter about going into what they thought at the time was an unnecessary war (which turned out to be the case). And although the decision was six years earlier the consequences (lives lost, billions spent) were still being felt in 2008, it wasn't viewed as some distant vote that only mattered in 2002.

 

[CBusAlex]

I believe in legalizing pot, but given all the problems that face this nation, I would NEVER form my vote based on this issue as a priority. Is there anyone here who would?

Considering the sheer volume of people who are arrested or killed as a direct result of the war on drugs, I absolutely would. (In fact, I have done so in past elections.) I honestly can't understand how anyone could be pro-legalization but consider it a less important issue than something like gay marriage or the top marginal tax rate.

 

[humpback]

interesting part of the wiki article, thanks for posting. I can't counter with other than my opinion that it doesn't matter. I believe Obama would have won Iowa with or without Oprah.

Her endorsement of Obama actually has its own Wiki Page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey%27s_endorsement_of_Barack_Obama

 

[timschochet]

I believe in legalizing pot, but given all the problems that face this nation, I would NEVER form my vote based on this issue as a priority. Is there anyone here who would?

Considering the sheer volume of people who are arrested or killed as a direct result of the war on drugs, I absolutely would. (In fact, I have done so in past elections.) I honestly can't understand how anyone could be pro-legalization but consider it a less important issue than something like gay marriage or the top marginal tax rate.

Well as much as I believe in the right of gays to marry each other, that wouldn't be decisive for me either. Nor would taxes OR spending, both of which are, in the big picture, irrelevant. My biggest issues are immigration and energy.

 

[Fennis]

interesting part of the wiki article, thanks for posting. I can't counter with other than my opinion that it doesn't matter. I believe Obama would have won Iowa with or without Oprah.

Her endorsement of Obama actually has its own Wiki Page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey%27s_endorsement_of_Barack_Obama

that page reminds me of the Michael Scott quote

Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information

 

[Good Posting Judge]

William Hill currently has the Dems at -110, GOP +125, 3rd party +100000.

 

[humpback]

There was also in 2006, among many liberal Democrats, a visceral dislike of Hillary Clinton, and a general tiredness of the whole Clinton thing. I know that NC Commish still feels that way, but I don't think this is a common reaction among most Dems. They've long since forgiven her for the Iraq vote (the main reason she lost in 2008)- that's water under the bridge. Her performance as Secretary of State has given her even a greater gravitas than she had before.

I think the main reason she lost in 2008 had nothing to do with Iraq, Clinton overload, or anything related to policy. The main reason she lost was her campaign team wasn't anywhere near as good as Obama's, in terms of using the internet, advance ground game, and even the simple idea of focusing more heavily on states with an odd number of electors.

Those are all good reasons, but IMO her vote for the Iraq war was the catalyst. Have you read Game Change? Excellent book.

You are right it was Iraq. The Democrats I knew at the time were lukewarm in their support for her (if they supported her at all) but we would have held their nose and voted for her over any GOP opponent. However when Obama emerged as a viable alternative, it was pretty easy to jump ship and it was based in her vote for the Iraqi war.

How can the catalyst have been something that happened 6 years earlier?

Progressives/liberals were still very bitter about going into what they thought at the time was an unnecessary war (which turned out to be the case). And although the decision was six years earlier the consequences (lives lost, billions spent) were still being felt in 2008, it wasn't viewed as some distant vote that only mattered in 2002.

So progressives/liberals supported her all the way up until 2008 or so, then they switched because of something she did in 2002?

 

[humpback]

interesting part of the wiki article, thanks for posting. I can't counter with other than my opinion that it doesn't matter. I believe Obama would have won Iowa with or without Oprah.

Her endorsement of Obama actually has its own Wiki Page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey%27s_endorsement_of_Barack_Obama

that page reminds me of the Michael Scott quote

Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information

I suppose even with the sources given it isn't quite as solid as admitting that all you have to counter with is your opinion.

 

[Fennis]

interesting part of the wiki article, thanks for posting. I can't counter with other than my opinion that it doesn't matter. I believe Obama would have won Iowa with or without Oprah.

Her endorsement of Obama actually has its own Wiki Page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey%27s_endorsement_of_Barack_Obama

that page reminds me of the Michael Scott quote

Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information

I suppose even with the sources given it isn't quite as solid as admitting that all you have to counter with is your opinion.

There is a single study by two economists, with no criticism of their study stating that Oprah endorsement was worth exactly 1,015,559 votes. It doesn't pass the smell test, but you are right I don't have more beyond that.

 

[squistion]

Those are all good reasons, but IMO her vote for the Iraq war was the catalyst. Have you read Game Change? Excellent book.

You are right it was Iraq. The Democrats I knew at the time were lukewarm in their support for her (if they supported her at all) but we would have held their nose and voted for her over any GOP opponent. However when Obama emerged as a viable alternative, it was pretty easy to jump ship and it was based in her vote for the Iraqi war.

How can the catalyst have been something that happened 6 years earlier?

Progressives/liberals were still very bitter about going into what they thought at the time was an unnecessary war (which turned out to be the case). And although the decision was six years earlier the consequences (lives lost, billions spent) were still being felt in 2008, it wasn't viewed as some distant vote that only mattered in 2002.

So progressives/liberals supported her all the way up until 2008 or so, then they switched because of something she did in 2002?

What support there was (if you could call it that) was not enthusiastic - it was pragmatic as for quite awhile she seemed the only candidate that had a chance to take the White House in 2008. We didn't particularly like her, but the alternatives were either worse or were viewed as unelectable (Obama initially fell in the latter category as the feeling was the country wasn't ready yet to elect a black president). If a viable candidate had emerged before Obama, the progressives/liberals would have been on board - Hillary was the choice in the meantime only by default.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Tommy, just out of curiosity, how much would you be willing to bet right now that Hillary (assuming she gets the nom) loses?

 

[humpback]

interesting part of the wiki article, thanks for posting. I can't counter with other than my opinion that it doesn't matter. I believe Obama would have won Iowa with or without Oprah.

Her endorsement of Obama actually has its own Wiki Page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey%27s_endorsement_of_Barack_Obama

that page reminds me of the Michael Scott quote

Wikipedia is the best thing ever. Anyone in the world can write anything they want about any subject, so you know you are getting the best possible information

I suppose even with the sources given it isn't quite as solid as admitting that all you have to counter with is your opinion.

There is a single study by two economists, with no criticism of their study stating that Oprah endorsement was worth exactly 1,015,559 votes. It doesn't pass the smell test, but you are right I don't have more beyond that.

Did you read the link? There's a heck of a lot more in there about her influence besides that one study.

In any event, I'm certainly not saying Wiki is the be all end all, just saying there's a bit more substance to that point than you've presented.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Those are all good reasons, but IMO her vote for the Iraq war was the catalyst. Have you read Game Change? Excellent book.

You are right it was Iraq. The Democrats I knew at the time were lukewarm in their support for her (if they supported her at all) but we would have held their nose and voted for her over any GOP opponent. However when Obama emerged as a viable alternative, it was pretty easy to jump ship and it was based in her vote for the Iraqi war.

How can the catalyst have been something that happened 6 years earlier?

Progressives/liberals were still very bitter about going into what they thought at the time was an unnecessary war (which turned out to be the case). And although the decision was six years earlier the consequences (lives lost, billions spent) were still being felt in 2008, it wasn't viewed as some distant vote that only mattered in 2002.

So progressives/liberals supported her all the way up until 2008 or so, then they switched because of something she did in 2002?

What support there was (if you could call it that) was not enthusiastic - it was pragmatic as for quite awhile she seemed the only candidate that had a chance to take the White House in 2008. We didn't particularly like her, but the alternatives were either worse or were viewed as unelectable (Obama initially fell in the latter category as the feeling was the country wasn't ready yet to elect a black president). If a viable candidate had emerged before Obama, the progressives/liberals would have been on board - Hillary was the choice in the meantime by default.

Do I remember correctly that Obama helped swing the tide by garnering progressive passion by supporting universal coverage / public option while the Clintons kept pushing the mandate & coverage system, like what we see now?

 

[humpback]

Those are all good reasons, but IMO her vote for the Iraq war was the catalyst. Have you read Game Change? Excellent book.

You are right it was Iraq. The Democrats I knew at the time were lukewarm in their support for her (if they supported her at all) but we would have held their nose and voted for her over any GOP opponent. However when Obama emerged as a viable alternative, it was pretty easy to jump ship and it was based in her vote for the Iraqi war.

How can the catalyst have been something that happened 6 years earlier?

Progressives/liberals were still very bitter about going into what they thought at the time was an unnecessary war (which turned out to be the case). And although the decision was six years earlier the consequences (lives lost, billions spent) were still being felt in 2008, it wasn't viewed as some distant vote that only mattered in 2002.

So progressives/liberals supported her all the way up until 2008 or so, then they switched because of something she did in 2002?

What support there was (if you could call it that) was not enthusiastic - it was pragmatic as for quite awhile she seemed the only candidate that had a chance to take the White House in 2008. We didn't particularly like her, but the alternatives were either worse or were viewed as unelectable (Obama initially fell in the latter category as the feeling was the country wasn't ready yet to elect a black president). If a viable candidate had emerged before Obama, the progressives/liberals would have been on board - Hillary was the choice in the meantime by default.

Yes, I know the whole "hold your nose and vote" schtick, but I don't think you're understanding "catalyst" here. Obama didn't become a viable candidate, nor did the nation become ready to elect a black president, because Hillary voted for the war in 2002.

 

[fatness]

Tommy, just out of curiosity, how much would you be willing to bet right now that Hillary (assuming she gets the nom) loses?

He's going to have to check out some polls before replying. You know, those unbiased polls that remove bias.

 

[Insein]

She really is just butt ugly these days. She never was much to look at, but now, just horrifying even for an old lady. Unelectable IMO. I think a woman can be president but she'll need to be right in that sweet spot between hot and matronly.

This. Palin could have pulled it off if not for the whole talking thing.

 

[roadkill1292]

Tommy, just out of curiosity, how much would you be willing to bet right now that Hillary (assuming she gets the nom) loses?

He's going to have to check out some polls before replying. You know, those unbiased polls that remove bias.

Yes. Tell me again why someone as spectacularly wrong (in the face of almost overwhelming contrary evidence) as he was should be engaged in this debate?

 

[fatness]

Tommy, just out of curiosity, how much would you be willing to bet right now that Hillary (assuming she gets the nom) loses?

He's going to have to check out some polls before replying. You know, those unbiased polls that remove bias.

Yes. Tell me again why someone as spectacularly wrong (in the face of almost overwhelming contrary evidence) as he was should be engaged in this debate?

I guess the thinking is that, once biased poll results are manipulated to remove bias and show desired results, the only remaining detail is to remove bias from the electorate and get the desired election results. So, prevent more people from voting.

 

[MaxThreshold]

It's not the GOP that's going to beat her, if anything it's going to be her age. She's going to be 68 when election time rolls around. Way too old. Plus, she isn't EVER going to see the turnout Obama did in 2008 (heck, even Obama didn't in 2012) or 2012. I just think people are tired of the Clintons. She represents the "boomers" - is America really going to go back to that after Obama, who represents a younger generation? I don't think so. Look for a younger Democrat to emerge and take the nom for the left.

I'm not going to bet any money on that, though. Just my opinion.

 

[Gr00vus]

I believe in legalizing pot, but given all the problems that face this nation, I would NEVER form my vote based on this issue as a priority. Is there anyone here who would?

Considering the sheer volume of people who are arrested or killed as a direct result of the war on drugs, I absolutely would. (In fact, I have done so in past elections.) I honestly can't understand how anyone could be pro-legalization but consider it a less important issue than something like gay marriage or the top marginal tax rate.

Well as much as I believe in the right of gays to marry each other, that wouldn't be decisive for me either. Nor would taxes OR spending, both of which are, in the big picture, irrelevant. My biggest issues are immigration and energy.

U.S. policy on recreational drug use may have nearly as far reaching effects as U.S. energy policy. You want to reduce violent crime in the U.S.? Killing the black market for recreational drugs would go a long way towards that. Also consider the impact on overcrowded prisons, government spending on enforcement, potential tax revenues to be gained, health problems, international relations, etc. It's kind of a big deal.

Now marijuana is just one recreational drug, but at least it'd be a start.

 

[Dr Oadi]

Checking out at the grocery store the other day I saw the bad news about Hillary having a brain tumor.

 

[Gr00vus]

It's not the GOP that's going to beat her, if anything it's going to be her age. She's going to be 68 when election time rolls around. Way too old. Plus, she isn't EVER going to see the turnout Obama did in 2008 (heck, even Obama didn't in 2012) or 2012. I just think people are tired of the Clintons. She represents the "boomers" - is America really going to go back to that after Obama, who represents a younger generation? I don't think so. Look for a younger Democrat to emerge and take the nom for the left.

I'm not going to bet any money on that, though. Just my opinion.

It'd be another potentially groundbreaking campaign, so I wouldn't be too sure of that.

 

[Dr Oadi]

It's not the GOP that's going to beat her, if anything it's going to be her age. She's going to be 68 when election time rolls around. Way too old. Plus, she isn't EVER going to see the turnout Obama did in 2008 (heck, even Obama didn't in 2012) or 2012. I just think people are tired of the Clintons. She represents the "boomers" - is America really going to go back to that after Obama, who represents a younger generation? I don't think so. Look for a younger Democrat to emerge and take the nom for the left.

I'm not going to bet any money on that, though. Just my opinion.

It'd be another potentially groundbreaking campaign, so I wouldn't be too sure of that.

It would be an honor for any American to cast a ballot for theFIRST WOMAN POTUS!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yes, wife of one ex-president is as ground breaking as the son of another.