# Media forces for and against Hillary Rodham Clinton



## Statistikhengst (Jan 22, 2014)

Sodahead put out this article:

Can Anyone Stop Hillary Clinton?

And it showed the graphic of the TIME magazine cover:







Nothing like exaggerating to get your point across, what?

Rasmussen rushed out this poll:

46% Think Benghazi Will Hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016 - Rasmussen Reports?






The emails from Sodahead and Rasmussen literally landed in my mailbox at the same time. It was kind of wild...

I don't believe that both can be right at the same time.

I'm taking away three things from this:

*1.) *Media forces are at work much earlier for the next presidential cycle than they usually are. We are 2 years and 10 months aways from the GE 2016 and not even into the 2014 primaries yet.

*2.)* If you want to know who is behind those forces, follow the money. Who owns Time, and who supports Rasmussen?

*3.)* Lots of people are either thrilled with or terrified of Hillary Clinton. Otherwise, they would not be so motivated to speak out about her so early.

Now, the purpose of this thread is neither to praise the former Secretary of State or attack her. The purpose is to show that timing is everything and it is no surprise to me that TIME put out that mag cover and Rasmussen responded so quickly.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would really, really like to use this thread to collect media data over the ascent (or possible descent) of HRC, based on the timing. In other words, if you see something that is a positive media wave for her, and on the same day, a media backlash to her, feel free to post those two things together to show the timing of this all.

For Righties who hate her, this could even bolster their argument. But for Lefties, the same could apply. So, instead of people just showing their asses and being mad, why not bring some data onto this thread? Put your feelings in your back pocket for just a sec and just look at what the media is doing. Give it a try...

I started. Who is next?  I don't care if you love or hate her, that's your thing. If you bring two totally opposite buy yet concurrent pieces of media data about her to the thread, I will respect you for it. Guaranteed. Enjoy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 22, 2014)

A friendly shout out to some folks who may really enjoy the information in the OP:  [MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]  [MENTION=40495]AngelsNDemons[/MENTION]  [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]  [MENTION=26011]Ernie S.[/MENTION]  [MENTION=9429]AVG-JOE[/MENTION]  [MENTION=45886]Mad_Cabbie[/MENTION]  [MENTION=42649]Gracie[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]  [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION]  [MENTION=38281]Wolfsister77[/MENTION]  [MENTION=21679]william the wie[/MENTION]  [MENTION=23424]syrenn[/MENTION]  [MENTION=43625]Mertex[/MENTION]  [MENTION=37250]aaronleland[/MENTION]  [MENTION=36767]Bloodrock44[/MENTION]  [MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION]  [MENTION=40540]Connery[/MENTION]  [MENTION=30999]daws101[/MENTION]  [MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION]  [MENTION=33449]BreezeWood[/MENTION]  [MENTION=31362]gallantwarrior[/MENTION]  [MENTION=24610]iamwhatiseem[/MENTION]  [MENTION=46750]Knightfall[/MENTION]  [MENTION=46690]Libertarianman[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20594]Mr Clean[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20704]Nosmo King[/MENTION]  [MENTION=43268]TemplarKormac[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]  [MENTION=41494]RandallFlagg[/MENTION]  [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION]  [MENTION=21357]SFC Ollie[/MENTION]  [MENTION=18905]Sherry[/MENTION]  [MENTION=43491]TooTall[/MENTION]  [MENTION=25451]tinydancer[/MENTION]  [MENTION=31918]Unkotare[/MENTION]  [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION]  [MENTION=21524]oldfart[/MENTION]  [MENTION=42498]Esmeralda[/MENTION]  [MENTION=43888]AyeCantSeeYou[/MENTION]  [MENTION=19302]Montrovant[/MENTION]  [MENTION=11703]strollingbones[/MENTION]  [MENTION=18988]PixieStix[/MENTION]  [MENTION=23262]peach174[/MENTION]  [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION]  [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION]  [MENTION=18905]Sherry[/MENTION]  [MENTION=29697]freedombecki[/MENTION]  [MENTION=38146]Dajjal[/MENTION]  [MENTION=18645]Sarah G[/MENTION]  [MENTION=46193]Thx[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]  [MENTION=24452]Seawytch[/MENTION]  [MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]  [MENTION=18990]Barb[/MENTION]  [MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION]  [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION]  [MENTION=11278]editec[/MENTION]  [MENTION=22983]Flopper[/MENTION]  [MENTION=22889]Matthew[/MENTION]  [MENTION=46136]dreolin[/MENTION]  [MENTION=19867]G.T.[/MENTION]  [MENTION=19302]Montrovant[/MENTION]  [MENTION=24208]Spoonman[/MENTION]  [MENTION=20285]Intense[/MENTION]  [MENTION=24122]racewright[/MENTION]  [MENTION=5176]RetiredGySgt[/MENTION]  [MENTION=44536]BobPlumb[/MENTION]  [MENTION=46351]Shrimpbox[/MENTION]  [MENTION=39072]mamooth[/MENTION]  [MENTION=45320]Nyvin[/MENTION]


Anyone who doesn't want to be on this occasional mention list: just let me know, I will drop the name immediately.

Thanks, 

-Stat


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 22, 2014)

I think the problem is, Hillary is the only Democrat who is polling well at this time. 

The obvious thing people point to was that Obama came out of nowhere and swiped the nomination right out from under her.  

Clearly, Hillary has people who've hated her for decades.  They are making Chris Stevens into the new Vince Foster, but they will get just about as far- which is to say, nowhere.  

I still think the GOP's biggest problem is the GOP.  They still don't understand why they lost a winnable election in 2012.


----------



## aaronleland (Jan 22, 2014)

I hate to speculate on Hillary's future. Two years is a long time in politics. In four years Obama went from being a complete unknown to beating a popular First Lady in the primaries, and becoming the first black POTUS. For all we know Hillary will decide not to run in 2016.


----------



## Esmeralda (Jan 22, 2014)

aaronleland said:


> I hate to speculate on Hillary's future. Two years is a long time in politics. In four years Obama went from being a complete unknown to beating a popular First Lady in the primaries, and becoming the first black POTUS. For all we know Hillary will decide not to run in 2016.



I agree: for all we know, she may not choose to run.  I do wonder who would be potential, viable candidates on either side, other than Mrs. Clinton.  I would have voted for Mrs. Clinton in the general election, had she been the party candidate.  I think the mistake people made in voting for Obama was his lack of experience with national and international politics.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 22, 2014)

At this point in time is the money involved to promote a candidate or sell media content?  

There is no doubt Hillary has an effective fund raising apparatus at her fingertips.  It is also apparent that she is a known figure in American politics.  So she doesn't need either exposure or a huge campaign war chest in January of 2014.

But media outlets need to put product in the store window, as it were.  And Mrs. Clinton is a salable commodity.

I don't think she or her minions are responsible for planting stories about her impending candidacy today.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 22, 2014)

The developing technology for propagandizing today would have thrilled the British in WWI (where they became masters of the tool) and the Nazis in WWII.

S/he who controls the "word" will have tremendous impact on the outcome of the presidential election of 2016.

Let's see how HRC responds to the media and how her craft masters shape it to her advantage.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 22, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> I think the problem is, Hillary is the only Democrat who is polling well at this time.
> 
> The obvious thing people point to was that Obama came out of nowhere and swiped the nomination right out from under her.
> 
> ...



I just don't understand Republicans

Hillary has been on the political scene for 20 years. Her act has gone stale and she jumped the shark quite a while ago. She is electable, but far from inspiring. Run a candidate who looks fresh, new ideas, a real compassionate conservative. Beat Hillary on the contrast

But, no

The Republicans insist on being Republicans. Overplay your hand once again. Trot out a four year old Benghazi story that nobody cared about at the time. Turn Hillary into a victim of an obvious witch hunt. See how that works


----------



## Sallow (Jan 22, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> I think the problem is, Hillary is the only Democrat who is polling well at this time.
> 
> The obvious thing people point to was that Obama came out of nowhere and swiped the nomination right out from under her.
> 
> ...



Basically..yeah.

And they haven't changed.

There mantra is still "vote for us because you hate the other guy".

And what do they do?

Obstruct.

Not a winning combination.

Americans want people to work. Not stop work.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 22, 2014)

Sallow said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the problem is, Hillary is the only Democrat who is polling well at this time.
> ...


There is a 'civil war' within the GOP.  The far right insurgency is still trying to wrest control from the mainstream, moderate Republicans.  Primaries is their weapon of choice.  The Tea Party types know that the zealous vote in primaries and the majority of voters ignore them waiting for November.  The Tea Party puts radically Conservative candidates on the ballot through primary challenges (Richard Luger we hardly knew ye!) and then, once their newly minted ideologically driven candidates are exposed for what and who they truly are, the mainstream Republican voter walks away frustrated.  That leaves the Democrat alone to take the election.

Now you and I can figure this out.  But the zealous Conservative is assured by himself and the talking points proffered by the pundits employed to get their minds right that this is a grand idea and a winning approach.

Meanwhile, bright shiny things like Hillary Clinton are waved before the befuddled eyes of the Tea Party types and here in January of 2014, suddenly she becomes the target.  Why aren't they wiser?  Why haven't they discovered that their strategy has become so transparent?  Ideology and political zeal are powerful anesthetics.


----------



## Esmeralda (Jan 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the problem is, Hillary is the only Democrat who is polling well at this time.
> ...



I think it is a mistake to elect someone who looks 'fresh, new' etc.  That's what we thought about Obama, but it could have turned out better had we elected the older and more experienced Mrs. Clinton. It is a mistake to elect as  president the new, inexperienced candidate.  The best ticket is an older, more experienced candidate with a younger, fresher person as a running mate. Four years of being VP could, should, prepare someone to be a better President.  That's what we should have done last time.  If only they'd listened to me!!


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Jan 22, 2014)

Here's the thing...not one Democrat would change their vote no matter if she was standing out there at Benghazi and firing weapons herself. If she gets the nomination, which she absolutely will IF she runs, then Democrats will vote for her no matter what.
 The question is, can she capture enough independent and Republican votes to win?
And THAT - depends on who the Republicans nominate. If it is another idiot who runs on Benghazi-Benghazi-Benghazi then he/she would lose in a landslide to Hillary.
Ben Carson is wisely fading back, I hope he runs. Having said that though, he will be hurt by the rightwing rhetoric he will be forced to engage in to attract $$ from far-right groups.


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Jan 22, 2014)

Yeah, I don't think the Benghazi issue will hurt her. If she decides to run, there will be plenty of media stories positive and negative to post here, but she'll get the nomination regardless. If the Republicans can't find a good candidate-haven't seen one yet-they won't be able to beat her. She's got experience, name recognition, considerable fund raising abilities and none of the scandals they are going to try to dirty her with will stick. Now, if they had a better candidate, she might get a run for her money but who do they have? So yes, she will be in the media, her name sells stories. The media being in a 24 hour cycle will be talking about her until she comes out and says she's not running. If she does run, they'll talk about her even more. They'll analyze every detail and I'm sure the GOP will bring up Benghazi again. It's hers to lose if she decides to run.


----------



## racewright (Jan 22, 2014)

Sallow said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the problem is, Hillary is the only Democrat who is polling well at this time.
> ...



Are you kidding me its the Dems who demonize the GOP  vote for OBAMA because you hate the Rich 1 %er  Mitt Romney.   
 If everyone had a meaningful job it sure will not be because The democrats helped them get it--   its easier to give them food than to teach them how to grow food...


----------



## racewright (Jan 22, 2014)

You people have to be kidding--if the hip hop voters do not come out then the Dems will not win.
 They came out for the big O as a strong group because he was black and he won the young revolutionary types in college as well as all the blacks...  

For Hillary to win she will need to have all this group and the woman vote.  Well we think she is a woman but she ain't black...

Oh and if the dems want another 8 years they better find another Black guy and ride the Obama wave, because that is the real reason they won and not because of his promises and policy's..
You really think that the black voters understand prosperity. Only sports figures and entertainers the rest voted for him because of his skin color (so who are most of the racist in the USA?)
Again Hillary is not Black therefore she will lose. (and she is not a hot babe like she was in her 20's.)    You know what they say old age is not friendly to white women.


----------



## Spoonman (Jan 22, 2014)

Dead wood, a candidate with nothing positive to offer.  A poor track record.  Scandals.  an expected favorite who failed to even beat obama. a lot of bagage from that ugly campaign battle to overcome.  Is this the democrats have to offer? looks to me like your bench is pretty weak


----------



## Jroc (Jan 22, 2014)

Hillery would have been better off not working for Obama...Now I can see the adds from the parents of those killed in Benghazi slamming Hillery for her response to the warnings sent out by the dead ambassador prior to the *terrorist assault* "What difference does it make" I can see all those people kept from the public, those who were at Benghazi speaking out in adds against her. I can see adds showing her telling the Egyptian military to hand over power in Egypt to the muslim brotherhood. Hillery was a disaster as Security of State, 0 accomplishments. Not to mention Bill Clinton's so-called charitable foundation racking in 10s of millions of dollars and running at a loss! because of 10s millions spent on travel and all the crony friends hired on racking in the money. How pathetic these people really are. Hillery is no Obama. She can be attacked and defeated, if she even decides to run.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 22, 2014)

Spoonman said:


> Dead wood, a candidate with nothing positive to offer.  A poor track record.  Scandals.  an expected favorite who failed to even beat obama. a lot of bagage from that ugly campaign battle to overcome.  Is this the democrats have to offer? looks to me like your bench is pretty weak



Looks to me like Tepublicans do not have anyone in her league

Care to name one?


----------



## Bloodrock44 (Jan 22, 2014)

I am pretty much done with discussing politics. This thread is one example why. Both sides just throw darts at each other. Neither side listens. Issues are not logically discussed or debated. Just flame throwing. No use talking to brick walls. I am not going to change your mind and you won't change mine. I will vote and keep my mouth shut.


----------



## Esmeralda (Jan 22, 2014)

racewright said:


> You people have to be kidding--if the hip hop voters do not come out then the Dems will not win.
> They came out for the big O as a strong group because he was black and he won the young revolutionary types in college as well as all the blacks...
> 
> For Hillary to win she will need to have all this group and the woman vote.  Well we think she is a woman but she ain't black...
> ...



Oh, come on, come on.  The reason the Democrats won was because GW Bush's administration was such a massive disaster.  Face reality.

Oh yes, and because the Republicans had Sarah Palin on the ticket. Another major disaster.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jan 22, 2014)

Much ado about nothing...  Hillary will never be elected President.


----------



## Esmeralda (Jan 22, 2014)

Big Black Dog said:


> Much ado about nothing...  Hillary will never be elected President.



Don't bet the farm on it. Never say never.


----------



## Spoonman (Jan 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Dead wood, a candidate with nothing positive to offer.  A poor track record.  Scandals.  an expected favorite who failed to even beat obama. a lot of bagage from that ugly campaign battle to overcome.  Is this the democrats have to offer? looks to me like your bench is pretty weak
> ...



all i hear from the left is the republicans have no one fresh.  You call hillary fresh?  Wow.  now i've heard it all.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 22, 2014)

I mean, it's interesting reading this stuff, but I wonder if people actually read the intent of the op:



> I would really, really like to use this thread to collect media data over the ascent (or possible descent) of HRC, based on the timing. In other words, if you see something that is a positive media wave for her, and on the same day, a media backlash to her, feel free to post those two things together to show the timing of this all.
> 
> For Righties who hate her, this could even bolster their argument. But for Lefties, the same could apply. So, instead of people just showing their asses and being mad, why not bring some data onto this thread? Put your feelings in your back pocket for just a sec and just look at what the media is doing. Give it a try...
> 
> I started. Who is next? I don't care if you love or hate her, that's your thing. If you bring two totally opposite buy yet concurrent pieces of media data about her to the thread, I will respect you for it. Guaranteed. Enjoy.




I will not disagree when some people say she might not run, but I find the possibility of this to be very, very low. She is currently making all the moves that a candidate in making does at this point in time:

1.) lays low
2.) writes a book
3.) gives an occasional speech before a select group

-and-

4.) PACS in support of her "spring out of the ground".

I am quite sure she is going to run.

Just my two cents, again.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 22, 2014)

Spoonman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



I just stated that Hillary is not fresh

I also note you cannot identify anyone who could defeat her


----------



## Spoonman (Jan 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Christie would beat her.  even though i'm not a fan of christie.  any repubican beyond that we'll have to wait and see who puts their hat in the ring.  how she polls against anyone else right now is meaningless because no other candidate has made their intentions formal or provided a platform.


----------



## Barb (Jan 22, 2014)

I don't have the media for you, but as the media, it is owned by the establishment, and they trend towards the hedging of bets. Bill was corporate friendly - Howard Dean, not so mutch. Different race, I know, but much different treatment ala the "Dean Scream," And that was a well enough known (to those who follow these things) bit of audio manipulation. On the flip side, remember the media treatment of (not a favorite of mine, but pretty popular on the right) Ross Perot. 

Hillary is a known quantity to the powers that actually be, both in the Democratic party and in corporate everything and everywhere. Now, I would like to see an Elizabeth Warren / Bernie Sanders ticket, no matter who wound up at the top of it, but I sincerely doubt the corporate owned media would allow such popular and populist people anywhere NEAR either one of the two party tickets. 

Now, what would be interesting would be if another Ross Perot or Ralph Nader were allowed to become a threat again, or one of each, only for one to have that plug pulled. The one left would not indicate media preference FOR the dark horse candidate left standing, but for the opposition left to have their votes split.   

That is how the corporate and monied world controls the menu.


----------



## Misty (Jan 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The fact you say no one can defeat her speaks to the ignorance of the left. She is a failure as a politician.  She hasn't done anything except yell and get people killed because of her incompetence.


----------



## Zander (Jan 22, 2014)

Stop blaming Republicans for Hillary. 

She doesn't need Benghazi to be a lousy candidate. She lost to an unknown black man with no experience in 2008. Let that sink in for a moment...she was "ordained" by the lefdtmeida in 2008 - she was going to be the nominee, then the President......it was a done deal. Instead she got rick-rolled by a con-man who spoke in slogans of "hope and change"..... 

Face it, Hillary is a lousy candidate. We've seen her pantsuit schtick and frankly, it's boring the hell out of the country. The first "new" flavor that comes along and Democrats will drop Hilary faster than Bill dropped his pants for Monica.....

She's OLD news.


----------



## Spoonman (Jan 22, 2014)

Zander said:


> Stop blaming Republicans for Hillary.
> 
> She doesn't need Benghazi to be a lousy candidate. She lost to an unknown black man with no experience in 2008. Let that sink in for a moment...she was "ordained" by the lefdtmeida in 2008 - she was going to be the nominee, then the President......it was a done deal. Instead she got rick-rolled by a con-man who spoke in slogans of "hope and change".....
> 
> ...



the fact that hillary is even being talked up shows she is the democrats last and only resort.  They have nothing to go on. They haven't fixed the economy, they haven't addressed unemployment.  Foriegn policy is a disaster.  The mid east has lost the ground bush gained. obamcare is a disaster.  a failed gun grab that clearly showed the democrats would take away citizens constitutional rights if they had the votes in congress.  the democrats squandered a golden opportunity, coming of the heals of a very unpopular bush administration and having a vast majority of puplic support to initiate the change they promised.  there was no change.  there was no improvement.  it was all a smoke screen.  and worse, they turned on the american public.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 22, 2014)

Misty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



If Republicans can't beat her, how does that speak to the ignorance of the left?


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 22, 2014)

Zander said:


> Stop blaming Republicans for Hillary.
> 
> She doesn't need Benghazi to be a lousy candidate. She lost to an unknown black man with no experience in 2008. Let that sink in for a moment...she was "ordained" by the lefdtmeida in 2008 - she was going to be the nominee, then the President......it was a done deal. Instead she got rick-rolled by a con-man who spoke in slogans of "hope and change".....
> 
> ...



Hillary was very close in that primary. The best available Republican got beaten by a two to one margin by that same unknown black man


----------



## Zander (Jan 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Stop blaming Republicans for Hillary.
> ...



After 8 years of Bush and a financial crisis, any Democrat was going to win the election.  The leftmedia told us all that Hillary was the "one".   She was "ordained". It was a "done deal". She was picking out drapes for the oval office. She was going to be the first woman POTUS.  WOOHOO!!!

What happened? She lost to an inexperienced black man. Period. 

Hillary (and any Democrat) doesn't stand a chance in 2016. After 8 years of Obama's feckless incompetence any Republican will beat any Democrat.  

Tissue?


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 22, 2014)

Zander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Give the tissue to President Romney!


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 22, 2014)

Regardless who is in or out of office, who runs or does not run,
the key to solving America's problems is still the people.
We can use our own party structures to organize our own solutions,
and fund these ourselves.

We don't need the media to tell us who to worship as the enemy
or person in control.  If we quit worshipping people as icons and
handing over authority and control to one bully after another.
We don't need to sit around, whining as victims while collective
groups suppress our dissent. We don't have to give them our money
or power. We can invest our labor and resources in our own solutions
if we organize these ourselves, nationwide, such as by using the
very party system that has divided us in groups, and use that in our favor.

In short, if we don't fix our problems and resolve our conflicts ourselves,
nobody in government or the media can magically fix that for us.

And if we DO fix our own problems, then nobody else can tell us what
to do, how to do it, and what to fund or not to fund.

Anyone, any group can set up an LLC, nonprofit, church, business or
school, organize and invest resources to build a program, and deduct
either the business expenses or donations from taxes accordingly.

If local taxing authorities impose restrictions, there are more and more groups
who have either rewritten and passed new ordinances, or bought out property
as a church or nonprofit that was tax-exempt.

Only thing missing is people are not organized but too busy
fighting each other over the next "bogeyman" (or woman)
touted in the media like a scarecrow, a head on a stick,
to scare people into submission or running scattered,
paying government and funding bully campaigns hoping that
will solve the problem or protect us from the "bigger bully."

How long will this game go on before we run out of resources?
We need to invest our labor and time we have into building
solutions directly, and quit playing political bully games that
only profit the commercial media, campaign finances, and political careers
of people who exploit the conflict and divert attention and resources from solutions.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jan 22, 2014)

If anything will stop Hillary, Benghazi will. What difference does it make, right?


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 22, 2014)

Zander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



And the same American public preferred that inexperienced black man over the best the GOP could muster TWICE?


What makes you think those same Republicans can beat Hillary?

Name names


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 22, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> If anything will stop Hillary, Benghazi will. What difference does it make, right?



A four year old story that had no legs in the 2012 election?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jan 22, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Had HRC been the winner in 2008 I have no doubt whatsoever that the Republicans would have embarked on an identical strategy to obstruct her at every turn and make sure that she was a "1 termer" only just as they did with Obama. For all his lack of experience he still managed to do something that none of his more experienced predecessors had accomplished.


----------



## Nyvin (Jan 22, 2014)

TemplarKormac said:


> If anything will stop Hillary, Benghazi will. What difference does it make, right?



No it won't.   It's been beaten to death, lay it to rest already.


----------



## Zander (Jan 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Pick up a phone book......


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 22, 2014)

Zander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



I guess that gives Republicans as good a chance as with any of their current candidates


----------



## Zander (Jan 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Pray tell, who are these Republican "candidates" you speak of?


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



And none of this will solve the problem
of people abusing party politics to impose and compete for their political agenda to dominate at the expense of the dissenting side.

What we need is for people to equally respect representation by party
and quit trying to impose one over the other by majority vote.
We would not tolerate religious agenda imposed through public policy by majority rule.
why do we continue to push political agenda and beliefs on each other
in violation of equal Constitutional rights, freedoms and protections to
fund and represent our own beliefs through leadership and affiliation by choice?


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 22, 2014)

Zander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



You have been asked to name names

As usual, Zander runs away


----------



## Zander (Jan 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



As usual wrongwinger misses the point. 

Hilary's biggest problem is not the GOP, It's the Democrat party. She can't win her own party nomination.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> The Republicans insist on being Republicans.





Gee, imagine that. 

You know what doesn't work, has never worked, and will never work? Trying to be something you're not. This has never worked for democrats and it has never worked for Republicans.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



P.S. If the rightwing who wants free market health care and the leftwing who wants singlepayer both team up and out the corporate corruption and abuse that created ACA
they can take back both parties, and put together a mixed ticket of conservative President
with liberal Vice President and organize support of vast populations betrayed on both sides.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 22, 2014)

Zander said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...





Ahem..... I guess that made Ronald Reagan a terrible Republican, what?

Sorry, that argument doesn't cut it.

Ronald Reagan LOST his bid for the GOP nomination in 1976, very narrowly, to incumbent President Gerald R. Ford.

Ronald Reagan went on to WIN four years later.

The history of YOUR OWN PARTY proves that HRC can not only come back to win the DEM nomination, she can and very likely will win the GE.  

Nice try, though...


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Look up Richard Nixon


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 22, 2014)

Hillary suffered from Clinton fatigue in 2008.  Had she won the nomination, she would have easily beat McCain.  But folks were tired of the dynasty problem.  Had she won, we would have had a president named either Bush or Clinton for twenty years.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...




*Indeed:* he won the nomination in 60, lost the GE, said in 62 that no one was gonna have "Richard Nixon to kick around any more", then he chopped of George Romney's balls in late 1967, and in spite of being arguably the most hated man in the GOP, won the nomination and sqeaked by in the GE 1968, by +0.70% over Humphrey and that fucking racist bigot Wallace. It was 5 pm on the day after the GE when Illinois was called for Nixon and put him over the top. And of course, he won re-election in 1972 with 60.80% of the vote and 520 EV and then jumped ship in 1974.... but he never lost a nomination and then came back to win four years later.


----------



## Zander (Jan 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Possible? Yes. Of course almost anything is possible. 

Probable? Not really. 

Hillary has no clear cut advantage over anyone else in the Democrat party. Her "name recognition" is a double edged sword. She has a great deal of inherent negatives. 

Her biggest problem is most liberals do not believe she is "liberal" enough. She's not exciting anyone anymore. She's older than yesterdays news....  

Now, if she actually wins the nomination - she'll most likely lose. Obamacare is going to bury the Democrats for at least 2-3 elections. It's a clusterfuck that no democrat can escape. They voted for it, now they'll have to live with it. 

I could be wrong though....lots of things change over 2-3 years....



PS- your Reagan Analogy is pure bullshit. Reagan ran against a SITTING PRESIDENT and lost the nomination at the convention.  Just like the famous dipsomaniac from Chappaquidick did against Peanut boy...what happened to his Presidential aspirations?? Hmmm???


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 22, 2014)

Zander said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...


I think your thinking is a bit narrowed by the hate and fear ginned up by what passes for Conservative punditry.  Americans aren't as skeptical of Obamacare as the radical right.  And the radical right has fears and suspicions of Hillary not shared by most Americans.

If you were a betting man, I would not let your outlook cloud your judgment.  The far right is a decided minority not capable of fielding a candidate acceptable to the majority of voters.


----------



## Zander (Jan 22, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



 

Americans aren't skeptical of Obamacare?  Obamacare is at 39% approval. Is that skeptical enough?   If Obamacare is so great, why aren't all of the Democrats running on their big achievement?  Why are they distancing themselves from it? 

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 22, 2014)

As I indicated earlier, Hillary Clinton is doing the things that a "candidate in waiting" does, and here is yet another piece of evidence toward that end:

Hillary Clinton to do California swing in April - Katie Glueck - POLITICO.com

Will be speaking in California.



> The former secretary of state and likely Democratic presidential contender is making stops in San Francisco, San Jose and San Diego in mid-April, as first noted by CNN.
> 
> She will keynote at the Marketing Nation Summit, a gathering for the marketing industry; at the women&#8217;s lecture series titled &#8220;Unique Lives and Experiences&#8221;; and at the Western Health Care Leadership Academy, a conference for medical practitioners.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...




Hillary Clinton is no Ronald Reagan. I don't think she'll run. We have 3 more years of Obama. Most Americans are already tired of the liberal bullshit. Please... Can we actually adhere to the Constitution


----------



## Zander (Jan 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> As I indicated earlier, Hillary Clinton is doing the things that a "candidate in waiting" does, and here is yet another piece of evidence toward that end:
> 
> Hillary Clinton to do California swing in April - Katie Glueck - POLITICO.com
> 
> ...



I wonder how many "candidates in waiting" have gone on to win the Democrat Party Nomination?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Jan 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I'm voting for the Ronald Reagan avatar. The Ronald Reagan avatar will be the only candidate to defeat the Lezbionic Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Unless Alan West gets a sex change - then It will close. 

I think Hilary has a bigger Johnson, though.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Jan 22, 2014)

Clinton still has that white water thing hanging over her, even though no one knows what it is or why it's even a scandle. "White Water" - it sounds scandalous.

Time to take Ken Star out of the moth balls.


----------



## MarcATL (Jan 22, 2014)

Esmeralda said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


I disagree...

It's a false belief that one has "experience" no one has experience to be a U.S. President, the job is the most unique and most powerful position in the world.

The only prerequisite is character. Your character is the most important and most determining factor as to how good or bad they will do.

Think of all the good Presidents in your mind, they all possessed character.

Think of all the bad Presidents in your mind, they all lacked character.

Experience, IMO, is  a BS media-driven idea for ratings and excitement. However, it's not true.

With that said, I still believe that folks will be talking about experience well into more elections.



Bloodrock44 said:


> I am pretty much done with discussing politics. This thread is one example why. Both sides just throw darts at each other. Neither side listens. Issues are not logically discussed or debated. Just flame throwing. No use talking to brick walls. I am not going to change your mind and you won't change mine. I will vote and keep my mouth shut.


I feel your pain. I often have the same sentiments, but then I realize that I'm too opinionated to just sit and be quiet.



rightwinger said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


I'm an Elizabeth Warren man myself. Would LOVE to see her run.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 22, 2014)

It simply amazes me how the Left tells the right not to attack their candidates when that is all the left has done since 08......


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 22, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> It simply amazes me how the Left tells the right not to attack their candidates when that is all the left has done since 08......



Welcome to politics


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 22, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Reagan adhered to the Constitution?


----------



## Spoonman (Jan 22, 2014)

I would have voted for Hillary had she run in 2008.  I think she was a much better candidate than Obama.  history has proven my opinion right on Obama.   I wasn't real happy with Hillary as a NY Senator, but where she really disappointed me was as Secretary of State.   Still, I think a lot of her ineptness there fails squarely on Obama who was a megalomaniac and interfered far too much.  never the less, I have lost the confidence I once had in her to be an effective leader.   there are a lot better choices out there.


----------



## Spoonman (Jan 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


I don't recall him trying to change it


----------



## MarcATL (Jan 22, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


Was Iran Contra Constitutional?



Spoonman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...


It is Constitutional to try to change the Constitution if you do it the Constitutional way.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 22, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> It simply amazes me how the Left tells the right not to attack their candidates when that is all the left has done since 08......




Wait a minute: exactly WHO here on this thread is telling you that you cannot attack a DEM candidate? Who?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 22, 2014)

*Now, to some actual data since "Bridgegate":* Chris Christie is slumping all over in polling, and the slump is uniform.


Nationally:

NBC / Marist / McClatchy, released 01/15/2014:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/ChristiePoll.pdf

*Clinton 50*
Christie 37

Margin: *Clinton +13*


Quinnipiac, released 01/21/2014:

National (US) Poll - January 21, 2014 - Bridgegate Takes Toll On Chris | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

*Clinton 46*
Christie 38
Margin: *Clinton +8*

Also:

Clinton 49 / Paul 39 - Clinton +10
Clinton 49 / Bush, J. 38 - Clinton +11
Clinton 50 / Cruz 35 - Clinton 15


And in NY State:

Siena Poll, 01/20/2014

http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/...nity/community_page/sri/SNY0114 Crosstabs.pdf

*Clinton 60*
Christie 32
Margin: *Clinton +28*

But the shocker, released TODAY, is Rutgers/Eagleton, for NEW JERSEY:

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~redlawsk/EP/Tables2014/ChristieRatingsGWBScandalJan2014.pdf

*Clinton 55*
Christie 34
Margin: *Clinton +21*

The poll before this one, from Monmouth, one month ago, had Christie up by +3.

How good is Rutgers/Eagleton? Well:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...0U3aFBuT09zQ2xXQ29fTjlJRlE&usp=sharing#gid=61

In 2012, the final Rutgers/Eagleton poll for New Jersey showed Obama +17. He won by +17.68 (+18). So, Rutgers was the closest to the actual results in this state and actually had a very slight CONSERVATIVE mathematical bias.

So, Rutgers is currently the GOLD STANDARD for New Jersey, and that is mathematically provable.

Little tidbit for you.  Obama and Bill Clinton's electoral records in New Jersey are almost perfect mirror images of each other.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=34&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

Clinton won NJ by almost +18 in 92 and by close to +16 in 96.
Obama won NJ by close to +16 in 08 and by almost +18 in 12.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, if this were just one poll in the last days, I would say, pfft, one poll.

But here are four, three of them in the last 48 hours, and they ALL show a shift. And if Christie cannot even be close to competitive in his home state of New Jersey, a state he would desperately need if he cannot pry Virgina away from Clinton (there have been 9 polls of VA so far with 21 match-ups and Clinton has won 20 of them), then he cannot win nationally.

Those are the current numbers.
 [MENTION=31057]JoeB131[/MENTION] [MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION] [MENTION=45104]WelfareQueen[/MENTION] [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION]


----------



## Jroc (Jan 22, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...



Changing laws passed by congress is unconstitutional...Declaring congress not in session is unconstitutional. the President doesn't have such power. Ignoring immigration laws because you don't feel like enforcing them is unconstitutional. Obamacare in an if itself is unconstitutional. That spineless Judge Roberts rewrote it declaring it a tax when it was never sold as such.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > It simply amazes me how the Left tells the right not to attack their candidates when that is all the left has done since 08......
> ...



Allow me to rephrase then. Change the word tells to advises. And not only in this thread,


----------



## Zander (Jan 22, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> ]I'm an Elizabeth Warren man myself. Would LOVE to see her run.



So if you had to choose between Hillary and Elizabeth Warren who gets your vote in the primary?


----------



## Zander (Jan 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> *Now, to some actual data since "Bridgegate":* Chris Christie is slumping all over in polling, and the slump is uniform.
> 
> 
> Nationally:
> ...



Wowsa!!  that that surely is impressive.....especially 3 years before the  2016 Presidential election and before either one of them has announced their candidacy.


----------



## Jroc (Jan 22, 2014)

Zander said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > *Now, to some actual data since "Bridgegate":* Chris Christie is slumping all over in polling, and the slump is uniform.
> ...


The last thing I'm worrying about is Chris Christie...Just saying


----------



## Zander (Jan 22, 2014)

Jroc said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



But, but, but...HE'S THE PRESUMPTIVE GOP NOMINEE!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 22, 2014)

3 years out? I hope both parties have better choices by then.........


----------



## Zander (Jan 22, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> 3 years out? I hope both parties have better choices by then.........



Silly SFC Olllie!! This is already decided!

It's gonna be Triple C from the NJZ 
VERSUS 
Hill -a-ree from the (carpetbagger) NYC.

PS- there is no N/E liberal bias in the media- none!!


----------



## MarcATL (Jan 22, 2014)

Zander said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > ]I'm an Elizabeth Warren man myself. Would LOVE to see her run.
> ...


Warren all the way.

Warren is for the People.
Clinton is a corporatist.
Hillary over any Republican of course.
At least any Republican on the scene today.


----------



## MarcATL (Jan 22, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> *Now, to some actual data since "Bridgegate":* Chris Christie is slumping all over in polling, and the slump is uniform.
> 
> 
> Nationally:
> ...


Right now Crispy, I mean uh...Christie is toast.

However, we have 3 years to go.

A LOT can happen in that time.


----------



## Barb (Jan 23, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Absolutely correct


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 23, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...





Well, ok. Now, exactly WHO advised you to not attack and DEM candidate?? And where?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 23, 2014)

Zander said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > *Now, to some actual data since "Bridgegate":* Chris Christie is slumping all over in polling, and the slump is uniform.
> ...



I think I'm gonna bookmark that for the day after the 2016 election...


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 23, 2014)

Zander said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > 3 years out? I hope both parties have better choices by then.........
> ...




Well, ok, if you feel that way. You sure did miss the point of the OP, however, and you definitely miss the point of the last posting of mine that you quoted. You definitely missed the last sentence.

Just to be clear, in more than one years time, since the beginning of 2013, there have been 108 Hillary polls with 318 matchup and Hillary has won 72% of them.

Your right to stay fact-free, if that's your fancy, but I watch most all of the data.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 23, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > *Now, to some actual data since "Bridgegate":* Chris Christie is slumping all over in polling, and the slump is uniform.
> ...




The operative sentence was the last sentence of my post:



> Those are the *current numbers*.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 23, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...






What people? People who lie about their ethnicity in order to land jobs they are not qualified for? Arrogant socialist ideologues? Buffoons with an unearned sense of entitlement? 

We've already got one of those in the White House and it's not working out so well...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 23, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> It simply amazes me how the Left tells the right not to attack their candidates when that is all the left has done since 08......



When did they do that?  

Frankly, McCain wasn't really attacked by the left.  

Romney was attacked, but most of what happened to Romney was self-inflicted.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 23, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > It simply amazes me how the Left *tells* the right not to attack their candidates when that is all the left has done since 08......
> ...



Romney shot most of the holes in his own ship, he needed only a thumb-full of help from Obama to get it to go under.



But I notice that the main part of Ollie's sentence is in present tense.


----------



## Zander (Jan 23, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I didn't miss any point -  We both agree that electoral opinion polls using hypothetical candidates 3 years prior to an election have little to no predictive value. That was your point, right?


----------



## Zander (Jan 23, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...


Thanks! 

Elizabeth Warren is a far left wingnut radical,  and every liberal I have asked prefers her over Hillary....apparently, Hillary is not extreme enough for many liberals....


----------



## Spoonman (Jan 23, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



ows and the general revolt against the 1% is what killed romney.  he did a poor job by trying to play down his tenure at bain rather than trying to promote it.  he had quite a success story to tell.  obama's crew capitalized on painting him as mr for the people, anti corporate while he  was selling the healthcare industry out to the insurance companies and big pharma.  

Mccain was't as heavilly attacked. all the focus was put on palin.  mccain was painted as the decrepid old man who was going to croak in office and leave palin as president.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 23, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > It simply amazes me how the Left tells the right not to attack their candidates when that is all the left has done since 08......
> ...



Maybe McCain wasn't attacked as Much as His running mate, but when was the last time Republicans went digging through Obamas garbage to dig up dirt on him? The Dems sure did attack Palin like that. Anything they could dream up.

You mean like allowing his son to adopt a black baby? Really?

But none of that matters.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 23, 2014)

Zander said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...




*Actually, we do not agree on that*. Nate Silver proved twice (and I have done it too, btw) that early polls tend to be more predicative than people realize.

That being said, that was NOT the point of that post. The only point of that post was to give current data, nothing more. And that data is important, for it shows a Bridgegate shift away from Christie. If the trend continues, that could be a problem for him.

Again, look at the last sentence of that long data post. That will answer your question.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 25, 2014)

So, this is more of what I meant by creating this thread. Actual data about what is going on right now. Pro - and - Contra Hillary.

Points - and - Counterpoint, crossposted from Boop's http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...beral-super-pac-raising-cash-for-clinton.html



Statistikhengst said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Biggest liberal super PAC raising cash for Clinton - SFGate
> ...




Thanks, [MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION]


----------



## Zander (Jan 25, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



So you think you're Nate Silver now?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 25, 2014)

Zander said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...




No, I'm a Statistikhengst. And I do numbers just like he does....


----------



## Rozman (Jan 25, 2014)

The thing that puts Hillary in play is her gender..
We are all pretty much done with the Bush and Clinton deal.
She has age on her and health issues against her...
But people want to be part of the history angle.They want to be part of the voters that put the first woman in the WH....

Being black made all the difference in the world for Obama.
That's how he made it.He wasn't vetted by the media.
He was 10 minutes in the office of state Senator and all of 15 minutes as a United States senator.

As as Biden put it he was a clean,articulate black man who the media pushed and the low information voters fell in love with.

But don't count Hillary out.When the Clintons want stuff they go balls to the walls for it.


----------



## Shrimpbox (Jan 27, 2014)

Thank you stat for including me on you might be interested list.

This pre pre pre pre election talk is dispiriting on many fronts. Don't some people get it,we don't want another bush( jeb) and we don't want another Clinton. This is not a monarchy and although in the early days of the republic we had lots of Adams and later Roosevelt's all but the media are tired of the soap opera.

I would agree that the only attraction of Hilary is the first woman president, but that is no reason to be elected. No one seems to have commented on the baggage that any demo candidate will have to carry in 2016. Obamacare will live in infamy for the next three years and the fullness of failure that will dog Obama for the rest of his life will be fodder for any smart pol in the future either dem or rep. And let's face it, Obama could not have been elected without bill Clinton's support and Hilary will not be elected without his continual stumping either. God I hope we don't have to endure Chelsea for a whole election cycle. And nothing is going to change if Hilary is elected, it will continue to be special interests over the country's interests. Dull and boring. Finally, Hilary took very little intErest in her appearance in her waning years as sec of state, many times looking like a slob. While this is admittably sexist, if the country has to look at that untended hair and that out of control ass politics will be even more of a turnoff.

Repubs don't have a front runner but they need more of a change in strategy and tactics. If they continue to fail to respond vigorously to the democratic play book they will continue to deserve the dem lite monicker. Obama always gets the talking points right but does not have the talent and abilities to close the deal. Repubs have so many opportunities to counter this mediocrity but themselves cannot get their heads out of their asses. All it would take for starters is to put the country before your career, but both sides are sorely lacking for honorable men and women. When the other side gives you their play book and you still can't score more points it's time to change the coaches and the team.

Who do I like? I have always thought SenJohn Thune of the Dakotas would make a good candidate, or maybe I should say a good pres. The question remains though in the post Obama era whether an unglamorous, grounded, thoughtful, and patriotic Midwesterner could successfully run the gauntlet. Speculation guys, speculation, that's all this is. How about the boards offering a billion dollars for the one who gets all the candidates, all the primaries and the general election right?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 28, 2014)

Shrimpbox said:


> Thank you stat for including me on you might be interested list.
> 
> This pre pre pre pre election talk is dispiriting on many fronts. Don't some people get it,we don't want another bush( jeb) and we don't want another Clinton. This is not a monarchy and although in the early days of the republic we had lots of Adams and later Roosevelt's all but the media are tired of the soap opera.
> 
> ...




Dude, I am really glad you stopped by. And thanks for the sane posting. A lot of your thoughts I share.

If you notice the tone of the opening post, I never indicated that I am a massive fan of Hillary's, I am simply pointing out the media war that is being presented in front of us right away.

Then again, we just had a totally unknown candidate shoot to the front and win the Presidency not once, but twice: Barack Obama (D).  So, it is entirely possible that people might - even though they would say the opposite in public - be amenable to a "family" name in the mix in 2016.

It is also entirely possible that for the first time since 1940, a true dark horse candidate could appear among the Republicans. It certainly is not uncommon that the presidential field of the opposing party is larger and more racous than that of the party in power in the WH, regardless whether the next election is a re-election campaign or an open election. See: DEMs 1968, 1972, 1976, 2004 GOP 1996, 2008, 2012. I am quite sure that there are a number of very competent Republicans who could make a decent president. Ditto for the Democratic side. But getting there is the problem.

At this point in time, Hillary is stomping the GOP field, and she hasn't even announced yet. Wait until the polls show the announcement bump that she is very likely to get.  I personally think that Mitch Daniels should not be underestimated.  And it is too early for Susanne Martinez right now, but in the future, she could make it to prime time. But the most unsung hero of the GOP is probably Haley Barbour - a stalwart, steady kind of guy.

I am pretty sure that Scott Walker has his eyes on the White House - could be very interesting, also for Wisconsin electoral politics. Wait and see.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 28, 2014)

Rozman said:


> The thing that puts Hillary in play is her gender..
> We are all pretty much done with the Bush and Clinton deal.
> She has age on her and health issues against her...
> But people want to be part of the history angle.They want to be part of the voters that put the first woman in the WH....
> ...



You know, you wingnuts keep repeating the bolded, but exactly WHAT wasn't vetted about Obama? 

What fact was there about him that we didn't fully know before we went to the polls in 2008 (or 2012 for that matter)? 

Obama won because Bush fucked up everything.  

It really isn't that complicated.  

The GOP brand name from Nixon to Bush-41 was "We're assholes, but we get the job done!" 

And after Bush, it was "We're assholes, and we fucked it all up!"


----------



## Sallow (Jan 28, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Is that a reference to McCain?

That was done, by the way, by the George W. Bush campaign. And McCain's still sore about it.

Palin? She beat herself up. Interviewers just let her talk and it became blazingly apparent how clueless she was about national and world affairs. That, along with her vicious and nonsensical attacks on President Obama did her in.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 28, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Republicans sure did dig through his birth certificate didn't they?


----------



## Sallow (Jan 28, 2014)

Rozman said:


> The thing that puts Hillary in play is her gender..
> We are all pretty much done with the Bush and Clinton deal.
> She has age on her and health issues against her...
> But people want to be part of the history angle.They want to be part of the voters that put the first woman in the WH....
> ...



That's ridiculous.

President Obama was completely "vetted" by the media. They even gave credence to some wild and outlandish stories. Like being foreign born. Or a "friend" of a terrorist. Or the whole Reverend Wright "issue". It was a black mark on journalism.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > The thing that puts Hillary in play is her gender..
> ...



No president was vetted more than Obama

Republicans just chose petty things to vet him on..........birth certificate, Rev Wright, failure to have a flag pin.....teleprompter reading


----------



## Sallow (Jan 28, 2014)

Rand Paul has "evoked" an interesting line of attack on Hillary which started last night. He dug up the bones of Lewinsky. In his hilarious diatribe, he said the "media" gave Bill Clinton a pass. Did he miss the wall to wall coverage? Did he miss the New York Times running a several page play by play of Clinton's encounter with Lewinsky? Did he miss the impeachment?

He's also trying to make himself bullet proof against the "War on women" meme.

He's definitely going for the gold ring.

Of course this "strategy" is going to backfire.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 28, 2014)

SFC Ollie said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



The only thing the Media did to Palin is what McCain should have done.  _ACTUALLY LOOK AT HER RECORD. _  You didn't need to look through her garbage to find she did things like try to get her brother in law fired from his job as a state trooper, and then fire the head of the state police when he pointed out the guy hadn't actually done anything to merit a dismissal. 

Oh, yeah, and the real damage done to Palin was when she opened her mouth and revealed she was stone cold stupid.  

As for Romney's black "grandson", that didn't happen until after the election, and no one made a big deal about it. Sorry, all the hyperventalating because a comedian made a bad joke isn't up there with some of the truly horrible things Hillary and Obama have been accused of by the wingnuts.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 28, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



yes.


----------



## Shrimpbox (Jan 31, 2014)

There is hope for you stat. I was impressed by Mitch Daniels myself but I think he is too vanilla to make it through an election. scott walker can't win the general. I think history has and will continue to prove Sarah palin right even if she is not a glib speaker but her brand has been nationally damaged as the left hoped it would be. A woman would be fine I just don't know any that have enough name recognition to throw their hat in the ring.

Now Haley Barbour would be a great choice. Talk about someone who knows how to negotiate and get things done. Guarantee there would not be gridlock in Washington if he were pres, but he represents the pols from days past. Cigar chomping, bourbon drinking, ass slapping and horse trading sob would probably be easy target for the antiseptic dems but he is a giant among political operatives. Obama wouldn't make a pimple on his ass.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jan 31, 2014)

Shrimpbox said:


> There is hope for you stat. I was impressed by Mitch Daniels myself but I think he is too vanilla to make it through an election. scott walker can't win the general. I think history has and will continue to prove Sarah palin right even if she is not a glib speaker but her brand has been nationally damaged as the left hoped it would be. A woman would be fine I just don't know any that have enough name recognition to throw their hat in the ring.
> 
> Now Haley Barbour would be a great choice. Talk about someone who knows how to negotiate and get things done. Guarantee there would not be gridlock in Washington if he were pres, but he represents the pols from days past. Cigar chomping, bourbon drinking, ass slapping and horse trading sob would probably be easy target for the antiseptic dems but he is a giant among political operatives. Obama wouldn't make a pimple on his ass.





Oh, you made me work there, dude. Should quote me. I post a lot of information.

Glad to know there is yet hope for me. 

I liked the ass slapping part.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 3, 2014)




----------



## Zander (Feb 3, 2014)

2 words to remember come 2016...


"Clinton fatigue."


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 3, 2014)

Shrimpbox said:


> There is hope for you stat. I was impressed by Mitch Daniels myself but I think he is too vanilla to make it through an election. scott walker can't win the general. I think history has and will continue to prove Sarah palin right even if she is not a glib speaker but her brand has been nationally damaged as the left hoped it would be. A woman would be fine I just don't know any that have enough name recognition to throw their hat in the ring.
> 
> Now Haley Barbour would be a great choice. Talk about someone who knows how to negotiate and get things done. Guarantee there would not be gridlock in Washington if he were pres, but he represents the pols from days past. Cigar chomping, bourbon drinking, ass slapping and horse trading sob would probably be easy target for the antiseptic dems but he is a giant among political operatives. Obama wouldn't make a pimple on his ass.



Haley Barbour would make a great choice for used car salesman.

Why does the right set their sights so low?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 3, 2014)

Zander said:


> 2 words to remember come 2016...
> 
> 
> "Clinton fatigue."



Yeah, cuz the Clintons left our country in financial ruin and was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people just so they could line their own pockets.



Oh wait, that's BUSH FATIGUE.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Feb 3, 2014)

Bloggers and the internet have largely emasculated the most overtly biased media outlets.  That is a good thing.  They can say their crap, but if false, it is almost immediately shut down.  

As for Hillary...she will run in 2016.  She is already setting up shop in Iowa and New Hampshire.  But the next Presidential Election is a political eternity away.  Anyone who would say Hillary (or anybody) is a shoe in at this point is a fool.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 4, 2014)

WelfareQueen said:


> Bloggers and the internet have largely emasculated the most overtly biased media outlets.  That is a good thing.  They can say their crap, but if false, it is almost immediately shut down.
> 
> As for Hillary...she will run in 2016.  She is already setting up shop in Iowa and New Hampshire.  But the next Presidential Election is a political eternity away.  Anyone who would say Hillary (or anybody) is a shoe in at this point is a fool.



A shoe-in, no. 

But the GOP is doing nothing to address the demagraphic issues that caused them to lose. 

In fact, they are doing exactly the oppossite.  They are finding new ways to offend the demagraphics they lost.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > Bloggers and the internet have largely emasculated the most overtly biased media outlets.  That is a good thing.  They can say their crap, but if false, it is almost immediately shut down.
> ...



Nor do they have qualified candidates who can actually win.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 4, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > 2 words to remember come 2016...
> ...



chuckle-chuckle...


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 4, 2014)

JoeB131 said:


> WelfareQueen said:
> 
> 
> > Bloggers and the internet have largely emasculated the most overtly biased media outlets.  That is a good thing.  They can say their crap, but if false, it is almost immediately shut down.
> ...


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 4, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > WelfareQueen said:
> ...




Oh, they definitely have some, of this I am quite sure. 

Only, in order to get through the nomination process in the first place, otherwise half-way reasonable guys (or gals) in the GOP are forced to say just batshit crazy things in order to assuage the frothers on the Extreme-Right, and then all of that batshit crazy stuff becomes poison for them in the GE. So much for Mitt's campaign manager's idea of an "etch-a-sketch"!!

I personally hope that the GOP has about 20 debates for the nomination in 2016.


----------



## natstew (Feb 4, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


>




You mean, the rapist or the clit licker?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 4, 2014)

Statistikhengst said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Once they open their mouth, they're history. 

At least for the thinkers among us. 

The knee-jerkers will vote for damn near anything.


----------



## racewright (Feb 5, 2014)

Some one please tell me what has Hillary done (besides marry Willie) that qualifies her to be President???  I do not want to hear she is going to do this and she is going to do that--only accomplishments ???


----------



## emilynghiem (Feb 5, 2014)

racewright said:


> Some one please tell me what has Hillary done (besides marry Willie) that qualifies her to be President???  I do not want to hear she is going to do this and she is going to do that--only accomplishments ???



She got elected Senator, so she knows how to get her name out and run a winning campaign.
She proved she is electable.

Apparently that's all you need to qualify for public office.
That's all Obama needed to win a Nobel Prize.


----------



## Zander (Feb 5, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> racewright said:
> 
> 
> > Some one please tell me what has Hillary done (besides marry Willie) that qualifies her to be President???  I do not want to hear she is going to do this and she is going to do that--only accomplishments ???
> ...



Well, Obama was also clean. And articulate. Speaking in simple metaphors that are open to interpretation didn't hurt either....... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## racewright (Feb 8, 2014)

emilynghiem said:


> racewright said:
> 
> 
> > Some one please tell me what has Hillary done (besides marry Willie) that qualifies her to be President???  I do not want to hear she is going to do this and she is going to do that--only accomplishments ???
> ...



ok that counts for something she fooled the new yorkers


----------

