Hillary Clinton is Done

[Foolmewunz]

Telling people it is more moral to vote according to one principle over another is morally desolate.

I think you're speaking with the sensibilities derived from being part of a parliamentary system. The parties MUST stand for something in that system. Ours is turning into stricter party lines and ideology, but the idea that you vote for the person and not the party is pretty deeply entrenched in America.

In Canada or the UK, a party leader generally stands for the party principles. Yeah, they can rewrite those principles somewhat, but nothing like the US where the winning candidate can (and often does) simply ignore the planks of the platform agree upon at his own nominating convention. I'd bet that if a questioner worded the question deviously enough, you could get either major candidate to disagree with the platform in the first Presidential Debate, usually within 3/5 weeks of the second convention. I'm pretty sure they barely read the thing.

 

[12AX7]

You should never ever vote Democrat. You should vote for the best candidate regardless of their party. Straight-ticket voting is morally and intellectually lazy.

This.

I'm a registered Independent. It looks (as of right now), that Hillary Clinton will get the nomination.

So, it'll be (D) Hillary Clinton vs (R) ____________.

Republicans: If you want my vote, give me a candidate that isn't a flaming hypocrite that panders to the fringe loons. Give me a candidate who's "scandals" are less than some deleted emails and donations from foreign entities. Give me a candidate that isn't trying to "out-Jesus" the other candidates. Give me a candidate that supports equal rights and protections for all citizens, whether they agree with their lifestyles or not. Give me a candidate who's first idea when faced with a foreign policy issue isn't "WAR!".

Can you do that?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

But somehow "democrat" is a grievous insult that must be protested and made the subject of signature lines. It's just funny to me is all.

"Democrat Party" (with or without capitalization) has been an intentional pejorative for at least several election cycles and intervening years. Perhaps you're not aware of this.

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

I can't wait for the election. Most Republicans will be in denial of the probability that the American people are going to elect Hillary as their President right up until it actually happens. Then their heads will explode.

Republicans have been trying to find the silver bullet that will slay the Clinton's for decades now. They will get ever more desperate as election day approaches. Extremely pathetic, but it isn't like they can win on policy.

The Republicans are running on tax and spending cuts.

What are the Democrat's issues/ war on women, global warming and income inequality? Those aren't even policies policies they are scare tactics. Democrats have no real agenda

 

[3point14]

This.

I'm a registered Independent. It looks (as of right now), that Hillary Clinton will get the nomination.

So, it'll be (D) Hillary Clinton vs (R) ____________.

Republicans: If you want my vote, give me a candidate that isn't a flaming hypocrite that panders to the fringe loons. Give me a candidate who's "scandals" are less than some deleted emails and donations from foreign entities. Give me a candidate that isn't trying to "out-Jesus" the other candidates. Give me a candidate that supports equal rights and protections for all citizens, whether they agree with their lifestyles or not. Give me a candidate who's first idea when faced with a foreign policy issue isn't "WAR!".

Can you do that?

So, you'll be voting for Clinton?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The Republicans are running on tax and spending cuts.

What are the Democrat's issues/ war on women, global warming and income inequality? Those aren't even policies policies they are scare tactics. Democrats have no real agenda

What a refreshingly uninformed viewpoint to find in the usually over-informed politics subforum. Thanks!

 

[hgc]

Ours is turning into stricter party lines and ideology, but the idea that you vote for the person and not the party is pretty deeply entrenched in America.

The idea that you vote for the person, not the party, may be a popular sentiment, but I don't believe it for a minute. As I've said multiple times already, people are mostly interested in policy outcomes. The candidates are affiliated with the parties (the 2 main parties being broad coalitions of various constituent positions) based on which policy aims they hope to achieve. The voters vote accordingly, and thus are fairly stable in their choice of which party's candidates they vote for.

The reasoning of those who vote based on the particulars of the individual candidates is a mystery to me. Almost nothing about an elected official's personal character is relevant to me. How that person votes in a legislature, for instance, is what affects me.

 

[12AX7]

So, you'll be voting for Clinton?

If she's the "lesser" of the two evils, yeah.

The Republicans are running on tax and spending cuts.

Maybe they can also run on smaller government and less government intrusion into people's personal lives. They seem to really understand those two issues.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The idea that you vote for the person, not the party, may be a popular sentiment, but I don't believe it for a minute. As I've said multiple times already, people are mostly interested in policy outcomes. The candidates are affiliated with the parties (the 2 main parties being broad coalitions of various constituent positions) based on which policy aims they hope to achieve. The voters vote accordingly, and thus are fairly stable in their choice of which party's candidates they vote for.

The reasoning of those who vote based on the particulars of the individual candidates is a mystery to me. Almost nothing about an elected official's personal character is relevant to me. How that person votes in a legislature, for instance, is what affects me.

I think that you've got that backwards, actually. The current sentiment is that with the great partisan divide people are voting for the party and not the personality. If that was the case, we'd be like a parliamentary democracy and the views of the party would be more important than the views/record/personality of the candidate. And that's simply not the case.

If "GOP Principles" resonate with the public then they ought to be able to win with Hubie the Dog Catcher on the top of the ticket. Ditto "Dem Principles". The "big tent" two party system creates this problem. The successful candidate might very well win being the one that best exemplifies all the segments of the party, or could very well be the one who waffles the most over into the other party's territory. And the latter version is much more common.

 

[Francesca R]

"Democrat Party" (with or without capitalization) has been an intentional pejorative for at least several election cycles and intervening years. Perhaps you're not aware of this.

Why is it pejorative?

 

[Francesca R]

the idea that you vote for the person and not the party is pretty deeply entrenched in America.

Got any stats about the extent to which folks vote POTUS across party divide?

 

[TriangleMan]

You see what this thread is about? Hillary is done.

I, for one, am glad Hillary is done . . . . . with 60s and 70s fashion! Have you seen those old pictures?

Hillary, what were you thinking?!

 

[fuelair]

Hillary Clinton is Done




Naaaaaahhh!!! She's still rising!!!!!
































While republicker doughnuts are walking around playing circular firing squad...............

 

[bruto]

Erm, why is "democrat party" any insult at all??

It's a small insult, because it is a purposeful mis-statement of the correct name. In most circles, it is considered impolite to purposely miswrite or mispronounce a name, because barring ignorance, which applies only the first time, there is no good reason for doing so other than malice or stupidity. It's small and petty, for sure, but I don't see why people who think they have something useful to say should be small and petty themselves.

 

[mgidm86]

Too busy to type those extra two letters? Too important? Cut the baloney. It is done on purpose with the intent of saying a name wrong for no good reason. It is beneath the dignity of anyone who wishes to pretend he is arguing actual ideas. There's plenty to argue about without carrying on like a schoolyard brat.

Tell that to all the "democratics" here who use terms like Republicker, Republitard, Teabagger, stupid, idiot (oh and now "schoolyard brat"). The name calling on this board is practically owned by dems/left/liberals, not all of course, but many. Why get so upset because someone says "Democrat Party, and how is that even offensive in any way, especially by comparison?

I see most posts from people resorting to these terms and losing their cool, as well as asterisk laden paragraphs, coming from the left.

I'd rather not mention names, but a comparison between some of the more prolific "controversial" (or radical, I don't know what to call them) posters from each side show that conservatives have a lot more restraint when it comes to personal attacks and getting angry.

Why don't I see more threads on all the positive things that the Dems are doing rather than the constant barrage of "A republican said this" and a "Republican nobody ever heard of did that"? Democrats say and do stupid things every day in the media but I don't see conservatives starting "megathreads" about it.

This is just something I have noticed over the years from the left in general, on this board and in real life as well. Rant over.

 

[fuelair]

Tell that to all the "democratics" here who use terms like Republicker, Republitard, Teabagger, stupid, idiot (oh and now "schoolyard brat"). The name calling on this board is practically owned by dems/left/liberals, not all of course, but many. Why get so upset because someone says "Democrat Party, and how is that even offensive in any way, especially by comparison?

I see most posts from people resorting to these terms and losing their cool, as well as asterisk laden paragraphs, coming from the left.

I'd rather not mention names, but a comparison between some of the more prolific "controversial" (or radical, I don't know what to call them) posters from each side show that conservatives have a lot more restraint when it comes to personal attacks and getting angry.

Why don't I see more threads on all the positive things that the Dems are doing rather than the constant barrage of "A republican said this" and a "Republican nobody ever heard of did that"? Democrats say and do stupid things every day in the media but I don't see conservatives starting "megathreads" about it.

This is just something I have noticed over the years from the left in general, on this board and in real life as well. Rant over.

republicker because they started it with the democrat party thing AND the ones now are really nothing like the Republicans they pretend to be as has been noted multiply. As to the teabaggers, they named themselves that. I didn't, you didn't, they did. That it was an idiot/ignorant (amazingly ignorant) thing to do is not my problem - and it does help show their level of knowledge and brainpower.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Why is it pejorative?

Multiple reasons are suggested for the use of the term. A 1984 New York Times article suggested Republicans began to use the term when Democrats used their own party name to imply "they are the only true adherents of democracy."[2] Republicans "feared that 'Democratic' suggested Democrats [had] a monopoly on or are somehow the anointed custodians of the concept of democracy."[3]

New Yorker commentator Hendrik Hertzberg wrote, "There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. 'Democrat Party' is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but 'Democrat Party' is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams 'rat.'"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

 

[Elagabalus]

Snip.

Rant over.

Do you not remember the ... ah ... "rhetorical flourishes" unceasingly applied to all Liberals during the 8 Imperial years of "Chimpy McFlightsuit"?!!

 

[barehl]

She is done she won't even be able to run for president my prediction is she resigns or worse ends up in Jail.

My prediction. It won't have any effect on her campaign and there were will be at least one more "campaign ending pseudo-scandal" before January. How desperate do you have to be to ask Romney for commentary? I guess only slightly less desperate than if you had to ask Newt.

 

[bruto]

One thing I find interesting in the style of posting here is that a large part of the needless controversy could be avoided and the anti-Hillary sentiment expressed better if the original post had said, rather than that Hillary Clinton is Done, that Hillary Clinton ought to be Done.

I suppose liberals ought to be thankful that their opponents are so clumsy. Instead of presenting them with an opinion that must be argued, they get one that can simply be denied. Supporters of Hillary can simply say "no she's not done yet" and never have to swallow the cat food.