Ms. Clinton is not a Shoo-in for the 2016 Nomination

[candycorn]

She was supposedly a shoo-in for 2008. Then we found out just how few people liked her when you hold her brand of liberalism up to that of a more main-stream opponent. I voted for Ms. Clinton. I definitely found out. She may have learned her lesson (she definitely learned humility) from 2008 but she still has a likability problem. If she runs in 2012--I'm not sure she will--look for a replay of the "We were under fire" lie she told in the 08 campaign.

I don't agree with Stephanie on much of anything but the Clintons should withdraw from public life. Its time for new blood. They are loved and even cherished by some (me included to an extent--I'd use the term admired). But if the Dems want to win in 2016, they should learn the lessons on 2000...the voters do not want Obama reloaded. They want a new release.

Pragmatic liberalism won in 2008, it was ratified in 2012.

The Dems should continue the trend but move more to the center. This assault weapons ban, for example, is going to be widely unpopular. When these whackjobs want to kill people, they often use pistols so banning them is a category B response (sounds good--does nothing like the TSA). Dems should not be trying to ban anything. What you do to modify behavior is make alternative behavior more unappealing...tax the shit out of the weapons. On the other hand, most sane people would say that they don't want the mentally ill being able to purchase firearms....highlight that Ms. Feinstein (sp?).

I think the Dems could wallop--and I mean a total bitch slapping--of the GOP in terms of vocational education funding. Introduce a bill in Congress where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will fund, staff, and maintain 5,000 vocational education programs in schools across the nation to teach high school kids how to turn a wrench, take a pulse, wire a house for electricity or plumbing. If the GOP wants to oppose this, they'll have a much harder case to middle-income Americans who agree with the GOP when it opposes the more exotic classes our schools teach.

I don't think Ms. Clinton has it in her to move enough to the center. She has way too much baggage, way too much of a paper trail, and even if she tried, it would ring hollow.

 

[Katzndogz]

If the election were today, Hillary would be a shoo in. The election won't be held today. In four years of being out of the public eye, getting four years older. It might be different.

The dems might well bitch slap the GOP IF the democrats supported vocational training, but they don't. It is a tenet of democrat belief that every child is entitled to a tax payer funded COLLEGE education. Not vocational education. In fact, supporting vocational education might well be considered racist. It's saying that some high school aged aren't smart enough, or qualified to go to college (meaning minorities) and are shunted off to vocational training.

If vocational training is what you are looking at, check into community colleges that offer vocational training. Or any of the many, many, many vocational training colleges like Bryman, Everest, ITT, there are dozens of them. After ALL this, we still need vocational training schools. We can't put vocational training back in high schools. Every kid is on the college track, qualified or not. There are more kids in college remedial classes than in vocational training.

 

[Big Black Dog]

My hope is that both of the Clintons will take a long walk off of a short pier. I'm sick of them and their horse shit.

 

[Greenbeard]

She was supposedly a shoo-in for 2008. Then we found out just how few people liked her when you hold her brand of liberalism up to that of a more main-stream opponent.

I'm not sure what you mean here--she got more votes in the Democratic primaries in 2008 than Obama did. The Obama campaign people, however, had a much greater understanding of the primary system than Clinton's people did.

I agree that she's not a shoo-in next go around, but not because she isn't "mainstream" (she's one of the most popular political figures in the country). Her age and her health issues will be the real barriers for her.

 

[blackhawk]

I was not even aware Hillary was running for President in 2016 still four year's away and were already guessing who will or will not be a shoo in for 2016 wow.

 

[candycorn]

She was supposedly a shoo-in for 2008. Then we found out just how few people liked her when you hold her brand of liberalism up to that of a more main-stream opponent.

I'm not sure what you mean here--she got more votes in the Democratic primaries in 2008 than Obama did. The Obama campaign people, however, had a much greater understanding of the primary system than Clinton's people did.

Yeah, she did better in larger states. This is true. She won Texas as I recall. She won Ohio as I recall.

But when the contest goes National, The 11 states that matter(FL, VA, WI, OH, PA, MI, CO, NM, NC, MO, NH) are not overtly friendly to Ms. Clinton when her far left credentials are placed next to a more conservative opponent sure to come from the GOP. Obama's win in 08 was impressive. His win in November was more so.

I agree that she's not a shoo-in next go around, but not because she isn't "mainstream" (she's one of the most popular political figures in the country). Her age and her health issues will be the real barriers for her.

Do you think she is to the left of Obama on immigration, on guns, on China and trade, on reproductive rights, on energy, and yes...on guns? I think she is or at least will be when/if she does run . Age and health are big factors.

But then again, there is always this:

 

[candycorn]

If the election were today, Hillary would be a shoo in. The election won't be held today. In four years of being out of the public eye, getting four years older. It might be different.

The dems might well bitch slap the GOP IF the democrats supported vocational training, but they don't. It is a tenet of democrat belief that every child is entitled to a tax payer funded COLLEGE education. Not vocational education. In fact, supporting vocational education might well be considered racist. It's saying that some high school aged aren't smart enough, or qualified to go to college (meaning minorities) and are shunted off to vocational training.

If vocational training is what you are looking at, check into community colleges that offer vocational training. Or any of the many, many, many vocational training colleges like Bryman, Everest, ITT, there are dozens of them. After ALL this, we still need vocational training schools. We can't put vocational training back in high schools. Every kid is on the college track, qualified or not. There are more kids in college remedial classes than in vocational training.

All good reasons to put VOCE back into high schools. We used to have AC/Refrigeration, Auto Mechanics, Electronics (it would surely be computer repair at this point), Heath Occupations (what I took).

As for your racist hyperbole...nonsense.

The same for the community/VOC training colleges. While these are legitimate career paths it's a separate issue. The ball is there to be won by either side. Who will champion the cause? Obviously, we will always have kids who want to go to college to become lawyers, doctors, philosophers, poets, authors. We're in do danger of running out of these people or those who insist their kids do anything other than turn a wrench, operate a backhoe, or care for the sick.

Politically, as I said, the ball is at midfield and either side can take possession. It's a direct conduit to middle-income voters in fifty states. Both are insane for not wanting to tap the well of goodwill that will come from such a move. Socially, a component of the American landscape that used to be both championed and taken for granted can be restored. The trades and those who practice them are in demand. Lets fill the need.

 

[Katzndogz]

Guiding high school children into vocational training rather than college IS RACIST. No matter how unprepared or unqualified for course work those children are.

Should we have VOCE in high school? Absolutely, but every black or hispanic child in those classes will have irate mothers down at the school screaming HOW DARE YOU. My child wants to be a doctor.

 

[Delia]

I think she's going to be too old.

And four years is a long way away. She may have had a 69% favorability rating on Jan 17th, but that was before the hearings.

 

[Missourian]

Learn a free lesson from Republicans...don't nominate the last primaries loser.

 

[cereal_killer]

I think she's going to be too old.

And four years is a long way away. She may have had a 69% favorability rating on Jan 17th, but that was before the hearings.

I don't know about her being too old but those hearings will haunt her forever just as 9/11 and Condi Rice.

 

[Rocko]

I think after Obama is finished with his second term, Americans won't elect another Democrat as president for a long time, but it's four years away, find of pointless to talk about it now.

 

[whitehall]

There are a lot of skeletons in Hillary's closet including Bubba Bill. If the media ever stops defending her she is finished politically.

 

[Rocko]

There are a lot of skeletons in Hillary's closet including Bubba Bill. If the media ever stops defending her she is finished politically.

Why would they stop defending her?

 

[cereal_killer]

I think after Obama is finished with his second term, Americans won't elect another Democrat as president for a long time, but it's four years away, find of pointless to talk about it now.

Lets say your prediction is correct, they surely won't vote in a Republican, so that leaves the Green Party or Libertarian. Which would actually be the best thing to happen to this country.

Real change will happen when the Dems/Repubs are kicked to the curb.......

 

[Katzndogz]

Four years is an eternity. In four years of being out of politics the public may well say "Hillary who?" The public is very fickle. Mostly what they want to know is what have you done for me lately?

 

[Missourian]

I think the Dems could wallop--and I mean a total bitch slapping--of the GOP in terms of vocational education funding. Introduce a bill in Congress where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will fund, staff, and maintain 5,000 vocational education programs in schools across the nation to teach high school kids how to turn a wrench, take a pulse, wire a house for electricity or plumbing. If the GOP wants to oppose this, they'll have a much harder case to middle-income Americans who agree with the GOP when it opposes the more exotic classes our schools teach.

Fund maybe, but federally staff and maintain? I think the States would slap down that sort of federal power grab.

 

[Katzndogz]

I think after Obama is finished with his second term, Americans won't elect another Democrat as president for a long time, but it's four years away, find of pointless to talk about it now.

Lets say your prediction is correct, they surely won't vote in a Republican, so that leaves the Green Party or Libertarian. Which would actually be the best thing to happen to this country.

Real change will happen when the Dems/Repubs are tossed to the curb.......

Whether or not they will vote in a republican depends on how much pain democrats will inflict in the next four years. After all, obama won by a very slim majority of voters and didn't at all win a majority among the voting public. obama won 51% of the votes cast, which means he didn't get the votes of people who voted for Romney, someone else, or just didn't vote at all.

 

[candycorn]

I think the Dems could wallop--and I mean a total bitch slapping--of the GOP in terms of vocational education funding. Introduce a bill in Congress where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will fund, staff, and maintain 5,000 vocational education programs in schools across the nation to teach high school kids how to turn a wrench, take a pulse, wire a house for electricity or plumbing. If the GOP wants to oppose this, they'll have a much harder case to middle-income Americans who agree with the GOP when it opposes the more exotic classes our schools teach.

Fund maybe, but federally staff and maintain? I think the States would slap down that sort of federal power grab.

Do the states "slap down" other federally funded and staffed entities like the FAA offices at local airports? No. Of course not.

Also, it's only a grab if you are taking it from someone. The districts in many cities aren't fielding a VOC program.

 

[Missourian]

I think the Dems could wallop--and I mean a total bitch slapping--of the GOP in terms of vocational education funding. Introduce a bill in Congress where the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will fund, staff, and maintain 5,000 vocational education programs in schools across the nation to teach high school kids how to turn a wrench, take a pulse, wire a house for electricity or plumbing. If the GOP wants to oppose this, they'll have a much harder case to middle-income Americans who agree with the GOP when it opposes the more exotic classes our schools teach.

Fund maybe, but federally staff and maintain? I think the States would slap down that sort of federal power grab.

Do the states "slap down" other federally funded and staffed entities like the FAA offices at local airports? No. Of course not.

Also, it's only a grab if you are taking it from someone. The districts in many cities aren't fielding a VOC program.

The FAA is not equal to education...that power has been adjudicated under the 10th amendment to be a state power. I'm not saying funding the schools is a bad idea...I'm saying the trouble comes from the attempted expansion of federal powers.

An expansion that I'm sure you understood before you posted.