The Shrike
Philosopher
I'm not sure Biden would've gotten the nod, but I do know plenty of blue dog Democrats who really like him but with every fiber of their being detest Hillary Clinton.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
If not Hillary, who?
- Thread starter Bob001
- Start date
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Re: Trump defeating Biden...
Granted, its not universal (I'm sure someone could dig up a few measures by which Obama isn't as popular) but he's not leaving office as a pariah (like GW Bush did).
So being tied to a president with an approval rating of 53-42% in favor would be an OK starting point.
And yes, there are some ameriicans whom have an extremely strong dislike for Obama. But the strongest hatred comes from the hardcore republican base, who wouldn't be voting democrat in the first place.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval_economy-2820.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval_foreign_policy-2821.html
Not sure why you're so sure of that. After all, Trump lost the popular vote, and only won because of the allocation of electoral votes. His victory was tenuous, and a hypothetical Biden candidacy wouldn't have to improve much on Hillary's totals to tip the election in his favor. (Something that might have happened if the republican side couldn't shout "E-mail" every 30 seconds.)
Actually, the American electorate isn't quite as dissatisfied with Obama as you might think. Current polling data has Obama's approval rating at 53% (and only 42% disapproval). On individual issues, most voters also approve of Obama's handling of the economy, while foreign policy approval is a pretty much evenly split.
Granted, its not universal (I'm sure someone could dig up a few measures by which Obama isn't as popular) but he's not leaving office as a pariah (like GW Bush did).
So being tied to a president with an approval rating of 53-42% in favor would be an OK starting point.
And yes, there are some ameriicans whom have an extremely strong dislike for Obama. But the strongest hatred comes from the hardcore republican base, who wouldn't be voting democrat in the first place.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval_economy-2820.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval_foreign_policy-2821.html
And as I pointed out, those strategies would likely be far less effective on Biden than they were on Clinton, given the short duration that they would have existed.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Not really sure how seriously we can assume your post was, given these 2 names on your list.
Donal
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 9,372
<snip>
Anyway...part of the problem is the (alleged) setting up of Hillary since 2008.
This is a problem both parties have run into, "my turn" politics. The idea that someone gets to run for president just because they have been a notable presence in the party for a certain amount of time. Granted, the GOP's problem for the last few elections has been every other idiot can get up on the debate stage.
What the DNC needs to do is fight like hell in the Congress to keep some semblance of a functioning government and win enough seats in 2018 to at least take the Senate. And pick up a few governorships along the way. After that, take a step back and look to see who actually emerged as a leader. Then start looking for presidential candidates.
Anyway...part of the problem is the (alleged) setting up of Hillary since 2008.
This is a problem both parties have run into, "my turn" politics. The idea that someone gets to run for president just because they have been a notable presence in the party for a certain amount of time. Granted, the GOP's problem for the last few elections has been every other idiot can get up on the debate stage.
What the DNC needs to do is fight like hell in the Congress to keep some semblance of a functioning government and win enough seats in 2018 to at least take the Senate. And pick up a few governorships along the way. After that, take a step back and look to see who actually emerged as a leader. Then start looking for presidential candidates.
Edited by Loss Leader:
Edited for Rule 12
Last edited by a moderator:
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
I suspect all parties will have potential candidates that look old or somehow faulty long before the election date. (Heck, look at the Republican primaries... the winner was a barely trained orangutan and the second place finisher was Cruz, a man who it was once said could be murdered on the floor of the senate and they wouldn't be able to find any witnesses.)
Obama almost came out of nowhere when he won the nomination. I suspect the same thing could happen in the next set of primaries.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Keep in mind that while Hillary was sitting out and waiting "her turn" to be president, she:
- Spend years as Secretary of State, which would improve her abilities to handle foreign policy
- Assisted in running a charity which, despite Republican attacks, was actually pretty successful and was viewed by many with pretty high regard
Personally, I would much rather see a president who builds up their skills as much as possible while "waiting" than an unqualified orangutan who has no skills and sort of just 'falls' into the position, like Forest Gump the Shrimp-boat captain.
Edited by Loss Leader:
Quoted post edited to conform.
Last edited by a moderator:
For that matter, Jimmy Carter was a big surprise in 1976. With an open field, there's no way to know who might have emerged.
Specifics? The right-wing has always opposed the Negro Kenyan Muslim Communist just because. But on specific policy issues, a lot of voters are generally pretty content that Obama saved a collapsing economy, cut unemployment in half, more than doubled the stock market, ended two wars, and got 22 million people health insurance. Etc., etc. And he might have done much more except for the obstructionist Republican Congress. It amuses me to hear people complain about the premiums for their Obamacare insurance when they previously couldn't buy any health insurance at any price due to pre-existing conditions. Those folks might be less enthusiastic about Trump if the Repubs actually do what they've promised. And of course, three million more of "the American electorate" voted for Clinton over Trump, and an actual majority of voters supported someone other than Trump.
Last edited:
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
I am one hundred percent sure of it by virtue of my self-bestowed PhD in the outcomes of revisionist history. No one is more expert on the subject that I. Additionally, I possess special magic powers which allow me to peer into alternate, reverse-parallel universes (we are in one now). Biden would have entered the Democrat convention unopposed. In that universe, there is no patsy, fall guy Sanders.
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
How did that starting point work out for Hillary?
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
Which is exactly how presidents are elected in the United States.
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
I can't imagine there are many people in this category who would switch their vote to Trump. I think you are making it up.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
I'd have gone for just about anyone over Trump, being a dyed-in-the-hide blue dog Democrat, and I do not despise Hillary. But I kind of liked Bernie, and I'd have enjoyed seeing him go up against Trump.
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
Based on the assumptions of the opening post, are you saying that if Hillary had not run, Sanders would have secured the nomination? I don't think so.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Maybe not, but he said he wanted the nomination, ran for the nomination, and nobody else but Hillary did. Who knows what might have happened if what happened didn't happen?
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
I can answer that question. Please refer to my previous posts in this thread.
I am not a political wonk, but it was clear to me that the Dems would be running Hillary after 2008 and 2012. As much as people dislike the phrase, it WAS her turn. And if complete incompetents had not voted or had voted in primaries for slightly less foul tirds in the republicker toilet bowl she would have - but, as mostly since late 70's, they just cannot resist a odorous POS to vote for. They deserve what we are getting. We do not (by we, I mean Democrats and non-aligned not racist/murderous slime( Nazis/kkk/etc.).
That thinking is what sunk the Democrats. Hillary lost the 2008 primaries to an unknown black guy named Hussein. That should have been a clue that she was not America's sweetheart. At the very least she should have had to fight for the 2016 nomination against real opposition, not just an elderly socialist who almost beat her himself. In a real sense the Democrats gave us Trump.
Last edited: