Bliz Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 I think technically you could do this, but it would be suicide to her campaign. There are enough people who hate the Clintons that a Bill and Hillary campaign could never fly. I think it loses all the Republicans and way too many independents.Everyone loves Bill. More importantly, it's (far) beneath the office for an ex prez to take a job like V.p or senator or whatever. Bill would never do it, even if polling data showed it would improve her chances. It would be a humiliation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 when hasn't a moderate won the nomination? I think Reagan was the nearest thing to a extremist in my lifetime Neocons? GW?The small government type is a dying breed. Now we have the police state type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Neocons? GW? The small government type is a dying breed. Now we have the police state type.  small government type is not a moderate in either party  W was forced by circumstances....just as O (and the next one as well)  you plan on voting for Rand or Cruz?   ....both are more small goverment than Hillary or Jeb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtdrums Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 This "everyone loved Bill Clinton" thing has me confused. I'm not sure how that oft-repeated myth started, but he's nigh universally despised in many red regions. Like, very close to Obama-level hate. The successes under his presidency are rightly or wrongly attributed to the Gingrich Revolution. And there's about half of the Democratic machine that hates the Clintons as well. Granted, this doesn't extend to voters, but many of the same brokers that backed Obama wouldn't piss on the Clintons if they were on fire. It is for this reason that I anticipate another contender who isn't necessarily on our radar right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted December 27, 2014 Author Share Posted December 27, 2014 Nah, she'd totally pick a Latino-American as her running mate. That's the demographic you win it all with if she is nominated. It would reverse any value of a Jeb have Rubio on his ticket. I think constitutionally that can't happen. The presidential and vice-presidential nominee can't be from the same state. Marco Rubio has got be one of the most overrated politicians ever. He's nothing of substance and seems more like a himbo to me. The only reasons Republicans like him is because he is a young Cuban; who they think will appeal to hispanics.   **********************  Bill Clinton could've gone down as one of the greatest presidents and actually, some of the problems we have today would've been gone. Alas, he is a sex addict and pretty much gave his enemies just enough to derail any momentum his final 2 years.  Remember, all that whitewater investigation did was produce nothing but the fact he lied under oath about an affair. Woopee. How many Republicans admitted or had to resign not to long after the 1998 elections?  **********************   I've been wrong on predicting the right winger split with the Republican party. I do think the final push that will lead to a split; will be the 2016 election.    I don't think Hillary vs. Jeb is a lock. If the Dems can get Warren or a strong Warren type candidate to run; that candidate will beat Hillary. The Democratic race will only be interesting if Hillary does receive a strong challenge. The Republican race is far more interesting. The establishment vs. the tea party fanatics vs. a the liberatarian type candidates. Also, you know the religious right will still hold sway of what the Republicans will have to say.   2016 does have an opening for frankly a candidate to the left and to the right of the 2 parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 This "everyone loved Bill Clinton" thing has me confused. I'm not sure how that oft-repeated myth started, but he's nigh universally despised in many red regions. Like, very close to Obama-level hate. The successes under his presidency are rightly or wrongly attributed to the Gingrich Revolution. And there's about half of the Democratic machine that hates the Clintons as well. Granted, this doesn't extend to voters, but many of the same brokers that backed Obama wouldn't piss on the Clintons if they were on fire. It is for this reason that I anticipate another contender who isn't necessarily on our radar right now. Well "everyone" was hyperbole of course. It started with polls in later elections when people were asked whether they would vote for him again if they could and the numbers were very favorable. Lots that could account for that though including dissatisfaction with later candidates and presidents, the fact that it's just a hypothetical, and seeing the past with rose colored glassesYour statement re dems is exaggerated. Bill is the godfather. The closest dems have to Reagan. He doesn't have to convince majorities in Utah, any more than Jeb has to convince majorities in Connecticut. There will always be people who despise a candidate regardless of how qualified. And there will always be people who love a candidate regardless of how unfit. But that's not the real test. Let's think of it this way. If there was no such thing as term-limits and he was running, how many people would you give a 50/50 (or better) chance of beating him head to head in a presidential election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtdrums Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Let's think of it this way. If there was no such thing as term-limits and he was running, how many people would you give a 50/50 (or better) chance of beating him head to head in a presidential election? Exactly as many as I would give for Hillary or an Obama clone. Answering specifically would require that I delve into the fractured nature of the Republican Party and the fact that the requested number would be low against any candidate Dems trot out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Exactly as many as I would give for Hillary or an Obama clone. Answering specifically would require that I delve into the fractured nature of the Republican Party and the fact that the requested number would be low against any candidate Dems trot out.Really? You think Hillary and generic dem Obama clone would do as well as Bill in an election?? I would put MANY more people in that category against Hillary (and tons against Obama), with plenty from both parties. But against Bill, I honestly can't think of a single person I'd give a 50/50 shot to. He's the #1 seed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 ] I think constitutionally that can't happen. The presidential and vice-presidential nominee can't be from the same state. . That's not exactly right. It's a prohibition on what electors can do that could make it a little complicated, in a particularly close race. But nothing that stops two people from the same state from running, being elected and serving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 ] That's not exactly right. It's a prohibition on what electors can do that could make it a little complicated, in a particularly close race. But nothing that stops two people from the same state from running, being elected and serving  besides they can always pull a Hillary and move residency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 besides they can always pull a Hillary and move residency Admiring the way you try to claim (while carefully not actually saying it) that Hillary did something unprecedented in choosing which state she wanted to claim, for residency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Admiring the way you try to claim (while carefully not actually saying it) that Hillary did something unprecedented in choosing which state she wanted to claim, for residency. Especially considering the much more relevant precedent of Cheney's Wyoming residency, which was claimed in order to avoid this precise issue from possibly becoming a problem... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Admiring the way you try to claim (while carefully not actually saying it) that Hillary did something unprecedented in choosing which state she wanted to claim, for residency. Â admiring the way you rush to the conclusion instead of it simply being a recent famous case of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Especially considering the much more relevant precedent of Cheney's Wyoming residency, which was claimed in order to avoid this precise issue from possibly becoming a problem...  you could certainly use him or his daughter....of course him being a former congressman there sorta muddies the water in way the Hillary example isn't  what all of them do is legal, though it would probably need to be Jeb since Rubio is a Senator (that would be awkward )  personally I think Jeb would look elsewhere to broaden the base and has a Hispanic outreach of his own . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 when hasn't a moderate won the nomination? I think Reagan was the nearest thing to a extremist in my lifetime  Unless you died before Obama, I'm sorry that you don't realize that he's a far left/progressive believer who makes JImmy Carter look good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Unless you died before Obama, I'm sorry that you don't realize that he's a far left/progressive believer who makes JImmy Carter look good.  Carter was a moderate, he just sucked as a leader....Like O  one/= the other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted December 27, 2014 Share Posted December 27, 2014 Re: Bill Clinton. Almost everyone I know was making more money in the late 90s, we had a balanced budget, and there was no big war. The Clinton era was one of peace and prosperity. If we could get back to that, the president can get all the BJs he wants in the Oval Office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Yeah, compared to his successors, the Clinton Years look like paradise. (I think even Republicans will admit that.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Yeah, compared to his successors, the Clinton Years look like paradise. (I think even Republicans will admit that.)  certainly, and point out it was Reps that enabled it ......and probably say Clinton ****ed it up  bubbles are fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Yeah, compared to his successors, the Clinton Years look like paradise.(I think even Republicans will admit that.) certainly, and point out it was Reps that enabled it ......and probably say Clinton ****ed it up  bubbles are fun Admit it, AND try to claim credit for it, AND try to blame somebody else for the best growth in my life not being even better, AND try to claim that it didn't exist, at all. Doesn't matter if their spin contradicts itself. As long as they enthusiastically repeat the slogans on command. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Kool-Aid and sand castles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurseReversed Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 You would think people would be able to recognize a bubble now when they see one. Especially with the benefit of 2008 in hindsight.  With Youtube you can go back to 2007 and see our trusted news anchors and mainstream media find the most imaginative ways to completely ignore the problem and repeatedly tell everyone that everything was going to be fine, most all the way up until the breaking point.    Its sad and a little comical trip down memory lane, I would highly suggest it.  Somehow though, we are falling for the same tricks, buying into the same illusions, and trusting the same people that either ignored or helped facilitate the problem in the first place.  Fighting over the blame of parties and presidents while the economic policies that got us in this position, and continue to keep us there, are BI-Partisan and accepted status quo by the leadership of both sides.  The idea that we are going to slowly be able to slip out from under this bubble with shrewd planning from the FED, is the grandest of Illusions offered by the wizards of Oz.   All this talk about raising rates and ending the bailouts, will not last past the backlash we will see when an economy addicted to cheap and free money starts feeling withdraw pains from even the most moderate of fed tightening.  They will go right back to holding down rates and continue to bail people out until they can simply no longer get away with it. Its the only tool left in their bag.  Ironically the one tool they have left to keep this bubble from popping is the one making it continue to grow and the one that started blowing it up in the first place.   Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 I have zero excitement about the next presidential elections nor do I of any of the eligible candidates. If it's another Clinton or Bush, I'm out. Not voting. Enough with these two families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Obama's first election, in '08, was the first since 1980 that did not have a Bush or a Clinton on the ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 would Walker or the faux Indian maiden get yer juices flowing PJ?  maybe Biden or Perry?  just anyone other than a Ivy League lawyer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.