Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Bob001]

OK, I was just offering my opinion.

Another female, NE state, does more good in the senate, didn't endorse her until a few weeks ago, ... none of that screams good pick.

Kaine - male, semi-contested swing state, executive experience, but boring. I think he would be a much more sensible choice.

Brown - idk what he brings other than ohio, kind-of.

The problem with Warren and Brown is that their replacements in the Senate would be Republicans, named by Republican governors. Losing a Democratic Senator would be too high a price to pay.

Former two-term Mass. governor Deval Patrick and Sen. Corey Booker, former Newark mayor, both generally well-respected African-Americans, should be on HC's list too.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The only Veep pick that would disappoint me is if she picks a white male. Hispanic, black or female please. Thank you.

 

[Dog Town]

The only Veep pick that would disappoint me is if she picks a white male. Hispanic, black or female please. Thank you.

Oddly, honest.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Oddly, honest.

Unabashed and brazen racism and sexism.

But, honest about it.

 

[Travis]

Yes, white men have it so awful in this country. They never get nominated to be Veep.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Yes, white men have it so awful in this country. They never get nominated to be Veep.

Yeah, but that isn't what she said.

However, she does have a "license", which allows her to make flat-out racist comments with impunity.

 

[RobRoy]

On the Democratic side?

On any side.

Ted Kennedy challenged Carter in 1980 and damaged him severely.

This doesn't meet the required criteria. It appears the last time was 1884. I find it fairly untenable that an incumbent President Hillary would lose the party nomination for her second term bid. That scenario would require a fairly accurate crystal ball.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Clinton-Trump Race Too Close To Call

Democrat Hillary Clinton has 42 percent to Republican Donald Trump's 40 percent - too close to call - as American voters say neither candidate would be a good president and that the campaign has increased hatred and prejudice in the nation, according to a Quinnipiac University National poll released today.

The 2016 election has increased the level of hatred and prejudice in the U.S., 61 percent of American voters say.

This is where we are. Voters find themselves in the middle of a mean-spirited, scorched earth campaign between two candidates they don't like.

Read more:
http://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2363 (June 29, 2016)

"Hatred and prejudice" has increased.

Well, not to worry, it's probably all George Bush's fault.

"What difference does it make? It's time to move on." -- Crooked Hillary

 

[The Big Dog]

The only Veep pick that would disappoint me is if she picks a white male. Hispanic, black or female please. Thank you.

How about an Asian male, or would you be "disappointed."

 

[The_Animus]

Unabashed and brazen racism and sexism.

But, honest about it.

Switching it around is the best way to show it.

The only Veep pick that would disappoint me is if she picks a black woman. Hispanic, white or male please. Thank you.

Yes, white men have it so awful in this country. They never get nominated to be Veep.

Irrelevant

The point is that the qualifications she stated are entirely based on the candidates race and gender, which is inherently racist and sexist.

 

[Fudbucker]

On any side.



This doesn't meet the required criteria. It appears the last time was 1884. I find it fairly untenable that an incumbent President Hillary would lose the party nomination for her second term bid. That scenario would require a fairly accurate crystal ball.

The criteria was that Clinton would be challenged and become a one-termer. I didn't say the primary challenger would win. I just said Clinton would lose. Carter in 1980 fits this criteria.

As far as crystal balls are concerned, who thought Trump would be the Republican GOP? Who thought Sanders would win more than a handful of contests?

My opinion that a challenge to Clinton would be fatal stems from how weak a candidate is. I think Rolling Stone had it right:

"If they had any brains, Beltway Dems and their clucky sycophants like Capeheart would not be celebrating this week. They ought to be horrified to their marrow that the all-powerful Democratic Party ended up having to dig in for a furious rally to stave off a quirky Vermont socialist almost completely lacking big-dollar donors or institutional support.

They should be freaked out, cowed and relieved, like the Golden State Warriors would be if they needed a big fourth quarter to pull out a win against Valdosta State."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...from-brush-with-bernie-20160609#ixzz4CzTU1Xo0

The Democratic party is ripe for a takeover by an outsider. Bernie almost pulled it off. If it appears, after four years, that Clinton is just paying lip service to taking on Wall Street and issues of economic fairness, I don't think she'll make it to a second term.

 

[RobRoy]

The criteria was that Clinton would be challenged and become a one-termer. I didn't say the primary challenger would win. I just said Clinton would lose. Carter in 1980 fits this criteria.

Your original post isn't that clear, hence my question:

Interesting. I'm curious. When was the last time this actually happened? Also, when was the last time another presidential candidate actually challenged and won over the incumbent president?

But since we were passing in the night, that meant my question wasn't clear either. I was asking when an incumbent president did not receive the nomination from their party and when the other challenger, who did receive the nomination over the incumbent, actually managed to win the presidency. Thus, Carter does not fit the criteria.

But as you didn't provide the answer, I found it all on my little lonesome.

As far as crystal balls are concerned, who thought Trump would be the Republican GOP? Who thought Sanders would win more than a handful of contests?

Exactly. And since we're talking the 2020 presidential race, when 2016 is far from settled, the only accurate prediction a crystal ball could make is: Outlook Cloudy, Ask Again Later.

 

[wareyin]

My opinion that a challenge to Clinton would be fatal stems from how weak a candidate is.

And yet, Clinton was the strongest candidate, beating Sanders easily by a large margin (56-44% of the vote is huge for elections), and currently and consistently polling well above her challenger from the right, with a polling average of 6.2% in her favor. Perhaps your repeated claims that she is a terrible candidate are false.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not racism or sexism, consider my Veep comment as affirmative action.

 

[RobRoy]

And yet, Clinton was the strongest candidate, beating Sanders easily by a large margin (56-44% of the vote is huge for elections), and currently and consistently polling well above her challenger from the right, with a polling average of 6.2% in her favor. Perhaps your repeated claims that she is a terrible candidate are false.

As I keep saying, you're allowed to vote for Hillary, you're just not allowed to like her. We have to keep claiming that she's a terrible person for . . . reasons.

 

[Fudbucker]

Your original post isn't that clear, hence my question:



But since we were passing in the night, that meant my question wasn't clear either. I was asking when an incumbent president did not receive the nomination from their party and when the other challenger, who did receive the nomination over the incumbent, actually managed to win the presidency. Thus, Carter does not fit the criteria.

But as you didn't provide the answer, I found it all on my little lonesome.



Exactly. And since we're talking the 2020 presidential race, when 2016 is far from settled, the only accurate prediction a crystal ball could make is: Outlook Cloudy, Ask Again Later.

2016 is settled enough for some takeaways: the GOP has come completely unglued, the Democrats are bitterly divided, whoever wins the presidency will be loathed and distrusted by half the country, we can expect more gridlock (we can't even pass a Zika funding bill).

I don't see things getting any better in four years, but you're right that four years is a long way off. Maybe the Dems win back the House in 2018 and get some things done.

 

[Fudbucker]

As I keep saying, you're allowed to vote for Hillary, you're just not allowed to like her. We have to keep claiming that she's a terrible person for . . . good reasons.

Clinton and Trump are the two most disliked and distrusted candidates in modern times. That doesn't happen in a vacuum. There are good reasons to dislike and distrust both of them.

And if you don't want to talk about Hillary, then what are you doing posting in the "Hillary is Done" thread in the 2016 USA Presidential Election sub-forum? What do you expect people to do, just bash Trump all the time? There are TWO candidates in this race.

 

[RobRoy]

Clinton and Trump are the two most disliked and distrusted candidates in modern times. That doesn't happen in a vacuum. There are good reasons to dislike and distrust both of them.

That's exactly what I said. I said good reasons. Not certain why that's unclear.

And if you don't want to talk about Hillary, then what are you doing posting in the "Hillary is Done" thread in the 2016 USA Presidential Election sub-forum?

Bwahahahahaha! It seems like you're a bit confused. I'm in this thread because I want the information the thread claims to offer—Hillary Clinton is Done. I definitely want to talk about Hillary and I definitely want to know when she's done.

Is she, by the way? Done, that is?

Until I have that information, I don't think there's any reason for me to leave. Do you?

What do you expect people to do, just bash Trump all the time?

Trump doesn't need my help. He hangs himself on Twitter with less style and class than David Carradine.

 

[Travis]

Yeah, but that isn't what she said.

However, she does have a "license", which allows her to make flat-out racist comments with impunity.

Irrelevant

The point is that the qualifications she stated are entirely based on the candidates race and gender, which is inherently racist and sexist.

BZZZT

Sorry. But no. White men are always the nominee. Hoping for a change of pace is neither inherently sexist or racist.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

If it appears, after four years, that Clinton is just paying lip service to taking on Wall Street and issues of economic fairness, I don't think she'll make it to a second term.

"At least $4.2 million from Wall Street has gone into Clinton's presidential campaign, and another $18.7 million has gone to the super PAC backing her."
-- Hillary Clinton is Wall Street’s preferred candidate (May 9, 2016)

"Wall Street financial institutions have donated around $40 million to the Clinton Foundation."
-- Clinton Foundation Discloses $40 Million in Wall Street Donations (Feb 29, 2016)

"The Clinton's reported earning $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs, with Hillary Clinton collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks."
-- $153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees (Feb 5, 2016)

“Big banks are now part of Senator Clinton’s constituency.”
-- Elizabeth Warren wrote in her 2003 book, “The Two-Income Trap.”