timschochet
Footballguy
when did I write I was supporting Hillary? Haven't decided yet.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.At least Tim is actually owning up being a Dem supporter with Hillary. Never understood the Obama game that Tim plays.
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.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.
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.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).That's true. If Dwight Eisenhower was the GOP candidate, I'd question Hillary's chances.
This "The same party can't win three terms" sounds nice, but doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.
Adonis didn't leave until 2 years after the election . So I take it you hope I stick around for the next 4 years?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.
Clinton vs Bush.What we've all been waiting for :X
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.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 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.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.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.
As an independent, I do not like Hillary and I hope she is not the Dem nominee.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.
Kasich sounds way too pro choice for republicansKasich 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.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.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.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.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.
The Democrats need a win and will go with her as the safe option.I do not think she will be the nominee.
I don't think she fits either (winner or safe option).The Democrats need a win and will go with her as the safe option.I do not think she will be the nominee.
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.
He will be the First Lady now. He needs to get used to that.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.
When did I champion her? I think she's inevitable, but that's not the same as an endorsement.I'm starting to hear things that make this seem more likely than previously thought.I do not think she will be the nominee.
A lot of people championing her, like Tim, are behind the times.
And if your grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon.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).That's true. If Dwight Eisenhower was the GOP candidate, I'd question Hillary's chances.
This "The same party can't win three terms" sounds nice, but doesn't hold up to close scrutiny.
And yet this comes from - GASP! - The New Republic!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.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.
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.
Andrew CuomoWhen did I champion her? I think she's inevitable, but that's not the same as an endorsement.I'm starting to hear things that make this seem more likely than previously thought.I do not think she will be the nominee.
A lot of people championing her, like Tim, are behind the times.
My question for you and Yankee: if she's not the Democratic nominee then who? I'm failing to see a viable alternative here.
I see you're seconding my thoughts as well...Andrew CuomoWhen did I champion her? I think she's inevitable, but that's not the same as an endorsement.I'm starting to hear things that make this seem more likely than previously thought.I do not think she will be the nominee.
A lot of people championing her, like Tim, are behind the times.
My question for you and Yankee: if she's not the Democratic nominee then who? I'm failing to see a viable alternative here.
Sorry, didn't see you post it.I see you're seconding my thoughts as well...Andrew CuomoWhen did I champion her? I think she's inevitable, but that's not the same as an endorsement.I'm starting to hear things that make this seem more likely than previously thought.I do not think she will be the nominee.
A lot of people championing her, like Tim, are behind the times.
My question for you and Yankee: if she's not the Democratic nominee then who? I'm failing to see a viable alternative here.
If she falls behind in Iowa to some upstart, she'll be in a state of crocodile tears in New Hampshire.BTW, what state is Hillary going to be "from"? Arkansas? Illinois? New York?
I would have prefered her over Obama. FWIW.Hillary might make me vote Republican for the first time. Ish.
If we can't get him, who would you want to replace him?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.
When you finally set up the pole we know you are going to, my vote for the 2016 tickets are:He will be the First Lady now. He needs to get used to that.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 is one of the names as well being tossed around. If he announces on St. Patrick's Day that would be awesome.Martin O'Malley going to run?
CR8F. Dude was money in the Walker thread.If we can't get him, who would you want to replace him?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.
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.I'm starting to hear things that make this seem more likely than previously thought.I do not think she will be the nominee.
A lot of people championing her, like Tim, are behind the times.
Polls disagree.I don't think she fits either (winner or safe option).The Democrats need a win and will go with her as the safe option.I do not think she will be the nominee.
Polls disagree.I don't think she fits either (winner or safe option).The Democrats need a win and will go with her as the safe option.I do not think she will be the nominee.
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.)Polls disagree.I don't think she fits either (winner or safe option).The Democrats need a win and will go with her as the safe option.I do not think she will be the nominee.
Very wise given the predictions you make.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.)Polls disagree.I don't think she fits either (winner or safe option).The Democrats need a win and will go with her as the safe option.I do not think she will be the nominee.
Shes hot!Tim's obsessed.