Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (4 Viewers)

[timschochet]

At least Tim is actually owning up being a Dem supporter with Hillary. Never understood the Obama game that Tim plays.

when did I write I was supporting Hillary? Haven't decided yet.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Hurdles to Hillary winning in 2016

The chief obstacle that any Democratic nominee will face is public resistance to installing a president from the same party in the White House for three terms in a row. If you look at the presidents since World War II, when the same party occupied the White House for two terms in a row, that party’s candidate lost in the next election six out of seven times.

There are three reasons why the three-term obstacle has prevailed. The first and most obvious has been because the incumbent has become unpopular during his second term, and his unpopularity has carried over to the nominee. That was certainly the case with Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson in 1952, Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Gerald Ford (who had succeeded Richard Nixon) in 1976, and George W. Bush and John McCain in 2008.

The second reason has to do with an accumulation over eight years of small or medium-sized grievances that, while not affecting the incumbent’s overall popularity, still weighed down the candidate who hoped to succeed him. Dwight Eisenhower remained highly popular in 1960, but some voters worried about repeated recessions during his presidency, or about his support for school integration; Bill Clinton remained popular, and unemployment low, in 2000, but his second term had been marred by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and coal-state voters worried about Democrats’ support for Kyoto while white Southern voters worried about the administration’s support for African American causes.

The third reason has to do with the voters’ blaming party gridlock between the president and congress partly on the president and his party.

This is an empty argument for a number of reasons. First, it shapes the sample size to make its point, conveniently cutting it off right before you reach the run of five consecutive wins by Roosevelt and Truman that would have altered the statistic significantly. Second, it ignores that Gore won the popular vote in 2000 - I have a hard time believing that it was history/the two previous Clinton presidencies that created the favorable electoral map and/or caused those old people in Florida to accidentally vote for Buchanon. Plus Kennedy's win over Nixon in 1960 was also by a very narrow margin- can't really read anything into that one either IMO.

Change it to "who won the popular vote" and expand the sample size to ten and all of a sudden it's 5 of the last 10. And if you keep going back even further, two-term incumbent parties won 3 of the previous 4 before Roosevelt (Hoover, Teddy Roosevelt, Taft). Now we're at 6 of the last 13. Not quite as convincing.

 

[Aerial Assault]

That's true. If Dwight Eisenhower was the GOP candidate, I'd question Hillary's chances.

Nobody could have beaten Ike in 1952. Humphrey had the baggage of the Vietnam war, the disastrous 68 convention and the Dixiecrats leaving the Democratic party, plus Nixon's southern strategy. The GOP made a serious blunder in 76 going with Ford just because he was the incumbenrt, when they could have won with Reagan (as proven in 1980) and Gore was a piss-poor candidate and won the popular vote (and may have won the election too if not for the SCOTUS decision in Florida barring a full recount).

This "The same party can't win three terms" sounds nice, but doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.

Yup, good post. That's a nice "trend" they're claiming, but it's only five out of seven times, as GWB actually lost in 2000, and five out of seven times doesn't really constitute a massive, unassailable trend in any circumstance. They also neglected to mention the one that doesn't fit, which the real George Bush being elected after Reagan. I think there are probably more parallels between that situation and a Hillary Clinton run in 2016 than between the latter and most if not all of the other examples, but that didn't fit the narrative of the article.

 

[timschochet]

I hope Tim turns out like adonis did after he started the Official Obama Thread two years before the election: quickly disillusioned, followed by abruptly leaving the FFA forever.

Adonis didn't leave until 2 years after the election . So I take it you hope I stick around for the next 4 years?

 

[dickey moe]

Clinton vs Bush.What we've all been waiting for :X

 

[timschochet]

Jeb Bush will not be the nominee. He should be; he's smart, moderate and one of the most visionary of the Republicans. But his very reasonable views on immigration are a non-starter with the conservative base.

 

[timschochet]

Republicans have a lot of emerging stars right now: Scott Walker and John Kasich most prominent among them. Either one would make a formidable candidate.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Republicans have a lot of emerging stars right now: Scott Walker and John Kasich most prominent among them. Either one would make a formidable candidate.

Emerging stars? No opinion on Kasich as he's reinvented himself completely and I'm not really that familiar with Version 2.0, but Walker is unelectable as president. Even more baggage than Christie, amazingly.

 

[cstu]

In the last 5 elections after a two term President:

Eisenhower beat Stevenson (U.S. was in the middle of the Red Scare)

Kennedy beat Nixon (won a narrow victory partly due to his charisma)

HW Bush beat Dukakis (Dukakis was a terrible candidate)

W Bush beat Gore (although Gore won the popular vote)

Obama beat McCain (country was sick of W)

In the 2016 election the country is very evenly split and will come down to each party's 'get out the vote' campaign. Democrats have a lot more to lose (full Republican control of the government, future Supreme Court nominees) than Republicans so it should be easier to get them to the polls.

 

[cstu]

Republicans have a lot of emerging stars right now: Scott Walker and John Kasich most prominent among them. Either one would make a formidable candidate.

Emerging stars? No opinion on Kasich as he's reinvented himself completely and I'm not really that familiar with Version 2.0, but Walker is unelectable as president. Even more baggage than Christie, amazingly.

Kasich says he supports abortion in the case of rape, incest, and health of the mother but signed in strict abortion laws to shut down abortion clinics. He also made a gag order on rape counselors that stopped them from mentioning abortion as an option.

ETA: Kasich does seem like the Republicans best chance to win, if they will support him.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I agree with a lot of what you wrote Squisition. One thing that conservatives don't get: they think that liberals don't like Hillary. While this is true of a few like NC Commish, the majority of liberals love Hillary. So do most independents.

Also I predict that after this latest election, Dems won't fool around much: they'll settle on Hillary quickly as their strongest candidate and one who can carry the party down ticket.

As an independent, I do not like Hillary and I hope she is not the Dem nominee.

But sadly she will be better than anyone the KooKs nominate.

 

[Fennis]

Republicans have a lot of emerging stars right now: Scott Walker and John Kasich most prominent among them. Either one would make a formidable candidate.

Emerging stars? No opinion on Kasich as he's reinvented himself completely and I'm not really that familiar with Version 2.0, but Walker is unelectable as president. Even more baggage than Christie, amazingly.

Kasich says he supports abortion in the case of rape, incest, and health of the mother but signed in strict abortion laws to shut down abortion clinics. He also made a gag order on rape counselors that stopped them from mentioning abortion as an option.

Kasich sounds way too pro choice for republicans

 

[Todd Andrews]

Republicans have a lot of emerging stars right now: Scott Walker and John Kasich most prominent among them. Either one would make a formidable candidate.

Kasich is old news although he is trying to reinvent himself.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I do not think she will be the nominee.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Republicans have a lot of emerging stars right now: Scott Walker and John Kasich most prominent among them. Either one would make a formidable candidate.

Kasich / Martinez is my pick at this moment. I reserve the right to revise and amend in the course of ongoing discovery.

 

[cstu]

I do not think she will be the nominee.

The Democrats need a win and will go with her as the safe option.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I do not think she will be the nominee.

The Democrats need a win and will go with her as the safe option.

I don't think she fits either (winner or safe option).

 

[TheAristocrat]

Hillary knows all about that. She's good with it now . Besides Bill won't be allowed inside the Oval. That's a work area. He has to stay in the Residence like all First Ladies.

Not a chance in the world that Bill does that. It's like putting me close to a beer and saying I can't drink it.

 

[Trey]

Obama continues to #### Clinton but I think she will be able to pull it put in the end.

She's definitely the D nominee.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary knows all about that. She's good with it now . Besides Bill won't be allowed inside the Oval. That's a work area. He has to stay in the Residence like all First Ladies.

Not a chance in the world that Bill does that. It's like putting me close to a beer and saying I can't drink it.

He will be the First Lady now. He needs to get used to that.

 

[timschochet]

I do not think she will be the nominee.

I'm starting to hear things that make this seem more likely than previously thought.

A lot of people championing her, like Tim, are behind the times.

When did I champion her? I think she's inevitable, but that's not the same as an endorsement.

My question for you and Yankee: if she's not the Democratic nominee then who? I'm failing to see a viable alternative here.

 

[Tom Servo]

That's true. If Dwight Eisenhower was the GOP candidate, I'd question Hillary's chances.

Nobody could have beaten Ike in 1952. Humphrey had the baggage of the Vietnam war, the disastrous 68 convention and the Dixiecrats leaving the Democratic party, plus Nixon's southern strategy. The GOP made a serious blunder in 76 going with Ford just because he was the incumbenrt, when they could have won with Reagan (as proven in 1980) and Gore was a piss-poor candidate and won the popular vote (and may have won the election too if not for the SCOTUS decision in Florida barring a full recount).

This "The same party can't win three terms" sounds nice, but doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.

And if your grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon.

Winning the WH 3 times in a row has been done only once in 7 tries. I guess you could call that an "inconvenient truth".

 

[Tom Servo]

Hurdles to Hillary winning in 2016

The chief obstacle that any Democratic nominee will face is public resistance to installing a president from the same party in the White House for three terms in a row. If you look at the presidents since World War II, when the same party occupied the White House for two terms in a row, that party’s candidate lost in the next election six out of seven times.

There are three reasons why the three-term obstacle has prevailed. The first and most obvious has been because the incumbent has become unpopular during his second term, and his unpopularity has carried over to the nominee. That was certainly the case with Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson in 1952, Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Gerald Ford (who had succeeded Richard Nixon) in 1976, and George W. Bush and John McCain in 2008.

The second reason has to do with an accumulation over eight years of small or medium-sized grievances that, while not affecting the incumbent’s overall popularity, still weighed down the candidate who hoped to succeed him. Dwight Eisenhower remained highly popular in 1960, but some voters worried about repeated recessions during his presidency, or about his support for school integration; Bill Clinton remained popular, and unemployment low, in 2000, but his second term had been marred by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and coal-state voters worried about Democrats’ support for Kyoto while white Southern voters worried about the administration’s support for African American causes.

The third reason has to do with the voters’ blaming party gridlock between the president and congress partly on the president and his party.

This is an empty argument for a number of reasons. First, it shapes the sample size to make its point, conveniently cutting it off right before you reach the run of five consecutive wins by Roosevelt and Truman that would have altered the statistic significantly. Second, it ignores that Gore won the popular vote in 2000 - I have a hard time believing that it was history/the two previous Clinton presidencies that created the favorable electoral map and/or caused those old people in Florida to accidentally vote for Buchanon. Plus Kennedy's win over Nixon in 1960 was also by a very narrow margin- can't really read anything into that one either IMO.

Change it to "who won the popular vote" and expand the sample size to ten and all of a sudden it's 5 of the last 10. And if you keep going back even further, two-term incumbent parties won 3 of the previous 4 before Roosevelt (Hoover, Teddy Roosevelt, Taft). Now we're at 6 of the last 13. Not quite as convincing.

And yet this comes from - GASP! - The New Republic!

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I do not think she will be the nominee.

I'm starting to hear things that make this seem more likely than previously thought.

A lot of people championing her, like Tim, are behind the times.

When did I champion her? I think she's inevitable, but that's not the same as an endorsement.

My question for you and Yankee: if she's not the Democratic nominee then who? I'm failing to see a viable alternative here.

Andrew Cuomo

 

[Tom Servo]

I do not think she will be the nominee.

I'm starting to hear things that make this seem more likely than previously thought.

A lot of people championing her, like Tim, are behind the times.

When did I champion her? I think she's inevitable, but that's not the same as an endorsement.

My question for you and Yankee: if she's not the Democratic nominee then who? I'm failing to see a viable alternative here.

Andrew Cuomo

I see you're seconding my thoughts as well...

 

[Tom Servo]

BTW, what state is Hillary going to be "from"? Arkansas? Illinois? New York?

 

[skol asylum]

Hillary might make me vote Republican for the first time. Ish.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I do not think she will be the nominee.

I'm starting to hear things that make this seem more likely than previously thought.

A lot of people championing her, like Tim, are behind the times.

When did I champion her? I think she's inevitable, but that's not the same as an endorsement.

My question for you and Yankee: if she's not the Democratic nominee then who? I'm failing to see a viable alternative here.

Andrew Cuomo

I see you're seconding my thoughts as well...

Sorry, didn't see you post it.

 

[skol asylum]

BTW, what state is Hillary going to be "from"? Arkansas? Illinois? New York?

If she falls behind in Iowa to some upstart, she'll be in a state of crocodile tears in New Hampshire.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Hillary might make me vote Republican for the first time. Ish.

I would have prefered her over Obama. FWIW.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

The biggest lesson I learned in 2012 is that presidential election season sucks around here without BGP. He proved irreplaceable, as I suspected he would. My #1 hope for 2016 election is unequivocal - bring back the Beej.

 

[Tom Servo]

The biggest lesson I learned in 2012 is that presidential election season sucks around here without BGP. He proved irreplaceable, as I suspected he would. My #1 hope for 2016 election is unequivocal - bring back the Beej.

If we can't get him, who would you want to replace him?

 

[skol asylum]

Martin O'Malley going to run?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Hillary knows all about that. She's good with it now . Besides Bill won't be allowed inside the Oval. That's a work area. He has to stay in the Residence like all First Ladies.

Not a chance in the world that Bill does that. It's like putting me close to a beer and saying I can't drink it.

He will be the First Lady now. He needs to get used to that.

When you finally set up the pole we know you are going to, my vote for the 2016 tickets are:

R - Kasich / Martinez

D - Cuomo / Warren

 

[skol asylum]

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-18/everybodys-running-martin-omalley-edition

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Martin O'Malley going to run?

He is one of the names as well being tossed around. If he announces on St. Patrick's Day that would be awesome.

 

[StrikeS2k]

The biggest lesson I learned in 2012 is that presidential election season sucks around here without BGP. He proved irreplaceable, as I suspected he would. My #1 hope for 2016 election is unequivocal - bring back the Beej.

If we can't get him, who would you want to replace him?

CR8F. Dude was money in the Walker thread.

 

[skol asylum]

O'MALLEY / WEBB 2016

 

[squistion]

I do not think she will be the nominee.

I'm starting to hear things that make this seem more likely than previously thought.

A lot of people championing her, like Tim, are behind the times.

What things exactly and from whom? Certainly not the polls or the projections of most experts, or the talk on liberal outlets like Daily Kos or MSNBC. And I doubt it is hearing from all your friends/associates who are Democrats as you don't impress me as the type who runs in progressive circles.

If you want to argue she can't win the election, fine, but her being the nominee is almost a fait acompli (unless of course she, for whatever reason, decides not to run).

 

[timschochet]

I can't comment on Cuomo because I know almost nothing about him. Has he mentioned running? He certainly doesn't get any media play at all (in terms of as a national candidate.)

 

[cstu]

I do not think she will be the nominee.

The Democrats need a win and will go with her as the safe option.

I don't think she fits either (winner or safe option).

Polls disagree.

 

[jonessed]

I do not think she will be the nominee.

The Democrats need a win and will go with her as the safe option.

I don't think she fits either (winner or safe option).

Polls disagree.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I do not think she will be the nominee.

The Democrats need a win and will go with her as the safe option.

I don't think she fits either (winner or safe option).

Polls disagree.

I know. Today. We've been down this road with Hillary for about 6 Presidential election cycles now. She has the name recognition and therefore will be the front runner this early. I still stand by my statement though. (and before anyone asks, I don't do ibets or whatever the heck you people do to entertain yourselves.)

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Fwiw I ran a search and there are 17 threads about Hillary started by Tim.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?app=core&module=search&section=search&do=search&fromsearch=1

17.

 

[squistion]

I do not think she will be the nominee.

The Democrats need a win and will go with her as the safe option.

I don't think she fits either (winner or safe option).

Polls disagree.

I know. Today. We've been down this road with Hillary for about 6 Presidential election cycles now. She has the name recognition and therefore will be the front runner this early. I still stand by my statement though. (and before anyone asks, I don't do ibets or whatever the heck you people do to entertain yourselves.)

Very wise given the predictions you make.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Next in line has usually been more the Republican MO. Democrats are more likely to with candidates out of the field... Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Obama all won over more recognizable (at the time) names.

The Democrat bench is pretty thin right now though. If you get a field with the likes of Jerry Brown, Biden, Andrew Cuomo, I think she wins. The only establishment candidate I think could come up that would be problematic for her is Al Gore.

Warren is other potential wild-card, as she would draw a lot of populist support from the left.

 

[timschochet]

Tim's obsessed.

Shes hot!

 

[skol asylum]

uke:

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Looks like Jim Webb is going to run. I could see him getting some traction as the anti-Hillary candidate.

 

[timschochet]

Interesting that hardline conservatives here such as tommyboy and GrandpaRox both asserted that Obama's immigration order tonight will cost Hillary the election. Personally, I believe that it will help sew it up.