Posted on 07/21/2014 12:06:08 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
When asked just how vulnerable former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is to a challenge from her left, the Acela Corridor’s political class is quick to note that 2016 is not 2008.
They observe that the factors which made Clinton vulnerable to a challenge from then Sen. Barack Obama in 2008 simply do not exist today.
For example, those grounded political reporters say, the former secretary is wildly popular among Democrats. They cite polling data which shows the former secretary leading her most likely challenger – the sitting Vice President of the United States – often by more than 30 points.
Finally, they note that Clinton’s major vulnerability in 2008, her 2002-2003 support for the Iraq War, is no longer a major concern within the Democratic Party’s left-wing. Her recent apology for her vote in favor of that operation, they say, has buried any hard feelings which might persist.
While the polls do not yet bear this assumption out, it is fair to say that most in the press believe that only individual who could mount a credible challenge to Clinton from her left is Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). The “reality-based community,” as it were, is however quick to note that even that scenario is highly unlikely.
This sentiment is best expressed by Slate’s Dave Weigel who recently performed an interview with the founder of campaign aimed at drafting Warren to run in 2016. He confessed that his questions for the founder of this group were “skeptical” in nature, which slightly undersold just how suspicious Weigel seemed to be of the effort to force the junior Massachusetts senator to run for the presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
That because Democrats are wildly insane, seriously. They have a far leftist as POTUS and he is just doing a bang up job isn't he, so of course what is the solution? Let's have ANOTHER far leftist as POTUS!!
No. It is Obama and ValJar who wants to get Warren going.
She is his mini-me
He know Hillary will run against him and promise to crank back some of the more obnoxious provisions, and he can’t stand that prospect.
McCain and Romney were both successfully portrayed as raving right-wing lunatic ideologues. And all of us here really know what they were, right?
Just watch what they do to an authentic Conservative like Cruz. I’m not saying that Cruz is the wrong candidate, just that he, like anyone the GOP runs, is going to get taken apart in an incredibly painful way. And with a lock on 262 (or so) EVs the Dems are going to take, gleefully take, the GOP nominee apart in the most brutal manner possible. Because they can.
UG !
I thought Hillary was Brokeahontas!!!!
From what I remember, Elizabeth Warren is the one who proposed the Guaranteed Retirement Account scheme, where the Feds would confiscate everyone’s IRA’s, 401K’s, etc... (for their own good of course) and require everyone contribute a certain percentage of their income to the government (for them to keep in a “lock box” until their retirement).
In understanding this to be not merely a concept that Warren supports, but CAME UP WITH, I wonder how many Democrats would still be willing to pull the lever for her?
Squaw has much wampum....................
if u mean bullshit by “wampum” I agree!
Oh she’s just there to make Hillary look centrist. It’s like a NASCAR team.
There is no way Fauxcahontas can win over the middle. As long as a conservative ran against her it would be a Reagan v. Mondale landslide.
Look at the other side of the argument.
The Democrat “blue wall” (states that have voted Dem POTUS six times consecutively or more) is about 242 evs.
So basically all the Dems need is Fl or Oh.
Where Dems appear to be very adept at voter fraud.
And Obama won with $4 gas, 8% unemployment (13% real), surging food prices, and trillion dollar deficits to the end of time.
Obama is the quite conceivably the worst president in US history, and anyone that honestly thinks that a Democrat running on his record can win office either has rocks in their head, or it's time for another revolution. I'm going to bet the former rather than the latter.
“Somebody” may have said Reagan couldn’t win, but in 1980 it had only been 4 years since two consecutive Republican POTUS terms.
Nixon won 60% of the vote in 1972. And Ford, a very weak candidate with the Nixon “baggage” only lost to Carter by 3 percentage points.
America was a very different demographic then.
The demographics (based on race, religion, registered voters, party membership, pretty much any way you want to dice it) allowing for population growth, are far more similar to 1980 than they are different.
Every year 2.48m (mostly white, majority R voting people) die and are replaced by 2.52m (majority non-white, heavily D voting people).
Unfortunately that probably won’t be changing, and may actually accelerate with the Obamacare Death Panels and unfettered immigration.
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.