Rethinking Hillary 2016: Is She really the best the Democrats can do?

National Review ^ | 11/8/2014 | George Will

[EDINVA]

Re the Castros. Would the Dems nominate someone who couldn’t carry his own state?

[Slyfox]

You never can tell, the dems may get desperate and run some ham sandwiches.

[ntnychik]

Cuomo won re-election by a far lower percentage than he’d hoped for.
Rob Astorino won 46 counties, most by huge margins. Prince Andrew won 16, one of which has 8 million people. Oh well.

[PGalt]

Run Hillaryous, run.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Yes they would.

Al Gore didn’t carry his home state when he ran in 2000.

Romney and Ryan in 2012 for the GOP, each failed to carry his home state.

Generally the national ticket will carry their home states, but not always.

[VideoDoctor]

I keep telling people that Hillary is akin to a "television rerun" or a tv series that has run the gamut of situations and has finally waned in popularity.

Yes, she has supporters, but not enough to keep her "show" going.

[ronnie raygun]

Give me a definition of best as it relates to rats

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The last time voters awarded a party a third consecutive presidential term was 1988, when George Herbert Walker Bush’s candidacy could be construed as promising something like a third Reagan term. A Clinton candidacy make sense if, but only if, in 24 months voters will be thinking: Let’s have a third Obama term.

As Reagan’s VP Bush couldn’t have won without offering hope of constituting Reagan’s third term. That is always true of VPs, and before Reagan you have to go all the way back to Andrew Jackson to find another historical example (man, does it make me feel old to find myself referring to Reagan as “historical”). Not counting FDR’s actual third term, of course . . .

Hillary’s case is similar because of a small episode known as “HillaryCare.” Which helped blow up the 40-year Democrat lock on the House of Representatives. SCOTUS is going to “uphold” ObamaCare again - against the wishes of Obama - by saying that the ACA means what it says. And it says that millions of Democrats and Iindependents (as well as Republicans) will be getting hosed even worse by ACA than they are now. The pressure to repeal and replace ACA - or at a minimum, to gut it - is only gonna go up. And Hillary is even less credible a vessel for the Democrats to claim to want to “fix” ACA than Romney was for the Republicans.

But then, who else do they have? Obama came out of “nowhere" to snatch the nomination from Hillary in ’08 - but he was a fresh-faced senator then. Fresh-faced Democrats are thin on the ground since the passage of ACA . . . they haven't even had a fresh-faced dogcatcher since then.

But speaking of SCOTUS and the ACA, I just had an image of what its ruling will have to say:

This court held (the infamous Roberts decision) that the ACA is a law. It didn’t say it was a wise law, but it is a law. And as such it means what it says, no matter who now wishes it said something different.

Exactly who on SCOTUS votes against that proposition? To do so would be to abandon the very idea of law itself, and thus of SCOTUS itself. Do the Obama appointees stand against that proposition? Does anyone? Their original vociferous opposition to ACA notwithstanding, do Alito, Scalia, et al? Roberts would lose all respect if he did . . .

[COUNTrecount]

Loretta Lynch, Barry’s pick for AG, kind of a stick in Cuomo’s eye.

http://publiccorruption.moreland.ny.gov/sites/default/files/remarks-of-loretta-e-lynch-moreland.pdf