Posted on 05/10/2014 3:50:10 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Ignore the talk about purity tests, progressive cred, and skipping to a post-presidency status. Clinton won’t be denied this time—and she’s going to make history.
The non-race for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, all but unprecedented in non-incumbent contests, is confounding to journalists and pundits, to the quoteratti whose words sustain their output, and to the partisan spinners whose mission is to bend the arc of the story. But the political cycle—-and the 24-hour news cycle—has its own relentless rhythms. If you’re one of the boys, and now girls, on the bus, even if it hasn’t rolled into Iowa yet, it’s hard to cover a foregone conclusion. If you’re a Republican, then just maybe Hillary Clinton, the certain nominee if she runs, can be damaged or deterred.
If you’re on the left, maybe you can nudge her ideologically. Or you can just come up with a fresh take, attention-getting and perhaps friendly, even if it’s implausible and unpersuasive, an unavailing piece of unsolicited advice.
All this will happen all the way until Hillary announces—and will mutate into variant strains until the day she’s inaugurated.
One recurrent meme is that she isn’t liberal enough to prevail in the primaries—a wish dressed up as analysis or a weirdly poll-uninformed argument....
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
The Dems would be idiotic to not run at least a few electable candidates. Too many things can happen. Biden probably, maybe Elizabeth Warren. They won’t beat Hillary, but what if Hillary gets sick? She aint no spring chicken.
Wow. Shrum managed to crawl out from under his rock.
I challenge her to tell the truth...about anything. The “smartest woman in the world” insults life by existing.
On her own merits Hillary could never win the presidency. I have no fear of her. What I fear is the crooked voting systems. We most likely never see another Republican elected because the dem crooks have rigged the system beyond any cure.
Definitely Gore and Biden too.
LOL! Run Hillaryous, run!
So the Mushshrum says it will be Hillary? Okay, so then we know it ain’t Hillary.
So who then——Cuomo, Senator Scummer, Clooney, Rahm Tinkerbelle? Governors Chickencooper, McAuliffe, some other rat?
The real nominee has probably already been picked and will be kept under cover by Big News to protect them from exposure of their flaws as long as possible.
Why do we always have to suffer thru a couple of years of what the criminal Hillary is going to do? The endless speculation about this woman is just disgusting. She is an attention hog (and I mean hog) or she would just say she isn’t running. I heard that the insiders in DC say she is not running because of a weak heart or some other health issue. I can’t imagine that she would attract young voters.
Probably.
But that too.
I don't follow your reasoning on this, but to repeat, "a qualified female candidate who will challenge her on these issues and run an error free campaign." If we can get a candidate who can give us both, we might have a chance.
hillary's a crone who has not aged well. The best counter is someone younger, intelligent, and established who appeals to youthful votes. I'd think Ted Cruz would be the best one to run against hillary,
Hillary would have to really blow it to lose to Cruz. But then again, in 2008 she proved she was at least capable of doing that.
at least among those who we're considering now. But someone might emerge from the Benghazi committee.
Maybe, we're still two years away.
Racist? No....it's practical. People have "hope and change" fatigue. If the 'pubs choose a guy who could be perceived as Putin's equal in skill as a leader, that would be powerful.
How so?
It's a dumb time not to choose the most qualified, articulate, conservative white (including Hispanics) male there is.
I have no problem with Ted Cruz, but will middle America (forget about leftist America) vote for his qualifications over Hillary's, uh, image or whatever it is she brings to the table?
Racist? No....it's practical.
It's not racist to choose the most qualified candidate, but it's sexist to reject a woman for no other reason than her gender, and it is not practical. I know you think choosing a woman would be some kind of concession, but you haven't demonstrated how.
People have "hope and change" fatigue.
People had "Clinton fatigue" in 2000, but Al Gore nearly won.
If the 'pubs choose a guy who could be perceived as Putin's equal in skill as a leader, that would be powerful.
I don't think anyone in the middle will ask "Can this man be like Putin?"
The election will be chosen on perception. hillary has not aged well, and opposed to anyone energetic and articulate who articulates constitutional conservative views, she will not seem presidential. It'll be a factor people can't identify.
The country's in bad shape. We need someone who we would trust in bad situations. A lot of it will be on an undefined level. We need someone who seems capable of good decisions, whose goal is to save the US.
Ted Cruz seems to have it, except I'm not sure about him on foreign affairs.
The EBT vote, flukes, homosexuals, and free stuff crowd will also likely vote for her. That leaves us with our work cut out for us if we want a Conservative to win again.
And I disagree with you about losing if we ran a woman. A woman would eliminate the "first woman president" advantage Hillary would have, at least among the middle.
I don't know how surveys do what they do. I still think an attractive, in-charge, intelligent, constitutional-conservative, articulate and energetic guy will attract votes in subliminal ways "the x factor".
People are sick of lousy presidents who don't control an agenda in positive ways. An American equivalent of Putin would win in a landside...if he can get past the political class.
Know any who poll well in a match up against Hillary?
People are sick of lousy presidents who don't control an agenda in positive ways.
It was the people who re-elected our current President.
An American equivalent of Putin would win in a landside...if he can get past the political class.
I don't think even Reagan could have overcome the free money vote in 2012. Unless the free money stops, I don't see how Hillary can lose, short of really screwing up again.
What we need is a US equivalent of Putin.....someone people can believe in to do the best for his people, and not let anyone make choices for him. Someone with good instincts who understands setting goals and having strategies that meet them. I don't know who it would be. The current crop seem woefully inadequate on the history of civilization and on federal incursion into states rights.
Agree, but why would a Conservative women be unable to accomplish this? If anything, a Conservative woman could go after Hillary on these issues without the leftists invoking the sexist card.
What we need is a US equivalent of Putin
Putin is a KGB (as in lost to Reagan) thug, whose only advantage is who we have in the White House.
It's not Palin. Her negatives are such that she wouldn't win over hillary voters. Personally, I'm okay with Palin on a lot of issues, but she hsn't had the actual experiences on the world stage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.