Discussion: Why Hillary 2016 Thinks She Can Win Even Bigger Than Obama

TPM Article Topics
41

So a key part of the strategy is to force the RepubliKochs to spend more money? Doesn’t sound too sound a strategy, given that the billionaires now own the RTP and want to use it to establish dominion over what’s left of the democratic Republic so they can turn it into a moral cesspool and an ethical black hole, and re-establish the aristocracies of old Europe in the bad old days of kings and emperors and Inquisitions.

Perhaps we need a law making it a felony to become a billionaire. Or even a millionaire. They don’t want to play fair, then burn 'em down. They’ve already bought the government, so we won’t get any help there. This is going to go to the streets in the not too distant future.

1 Like
42

Very odd to see them claim Georgia but not North Carolina.

2 Likes
43

Also, the idea that Perot won the presidency for Clinton is a right-wing canard. If you check the polling, http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm, it’s clear that Clinton led Bush when Perot was out of the race. Furthermore, exit polling indicated that Perot drew equally from Bush and Clinton.

1 Like
44

That horrible Hillary, counting her chickens before she’s even nominated. She is just the worst. Did she learn nothing from 2008 etc., etc.? Thanks again TPM for your continued, subtle attempts to combine click-bait with making Mrs. Clinton seem grabby and arrogant. You’re the best.

1 Like
45

Just what the electorate needs to feel all enthused about 2016: Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush.
Joy.
I predict the lowest Presidential Turnout in 100 years.

46

It has been interesting reading both this article and the comments. It would seem that many, including Hilary’s team, seem to forget that part of her lack of appeal has been the fact that she is in bed with the bankers who tanked this nation, and that the accomplishments of HER HUSBAND are not her accomplishments.

Her stint as SOS was singularly unsuccessful, with her advice to bomb Libya added to her Bengahzi problem, making her a rich target for the GOP fearmongers. She is a neo-liberal in her politics which is approximately the same as GOP conservative, so her economic policies will be no different than her husband’s.

In fact, as I write this, I wonder if this woman has ever had an independent thought or if she truly follows The Family line of a woman should be subservient to her husband. It will make her gender an issue for the GOP voters and the Religious Right will have a field day at the grassroots level by equating her with her husband.

Hilary has shown that she is not a great administrator in all of her campaigns on the national level or in the State Department. She allowed her husband to run roughshod over her last campaign for president driving out much of her staff and including race attacks and asassination into the discussions.

Hilary is not presidential material, and unfortunately for her, she is regarded as nothing more than a shill for her husband, who wants another shot at the White House. And for that fact alone, white-collar working women will not vote for her; they see her for what she is and they do not respect her. This is a fact that many pundits in the DNC do not understand - educated women will support only educated women who can stand alone, like Warren, and do not tolerate well women who think that they can run on their husband’s record and be accepted as independent.

I do not like Hilary for a variety of reasons, but if you want to continue the policies of both Bush and Obama, then by all means elect her. Her husband’s advice did so much good for Obama that we have had gridlock for 6 years now and are facing at least two more years of horrific governance. Clinton’s advice did not serve Obama well, and I hate to think what it would do for the first female President ot be perceived as nothing by some man’s mouthpiece. By following Clinton’s example, Obama will be the only African-American president for many more generations to come. By doing the same thing, Clinton would assure that she is the only female president ever. This is not winning anything, it is losing for a vast majority of Americans.

1 Like
47

Then instead of simply taking (and leaving) the sad state of KS affairs at face value-- I’d like to know how many voters were purged from voting roles through the manipulations of KS Sec State Kris Kobach.

And yes, I’ll agree to the concept being somewhat fantastic between now-- and the possibility of redistricting post-census in 2020-- as (R)s have parasitically dug themselves in deep at the state-level-- and ALEC’d their way to this high-point advantage on the electoral battlefield.

But it’s from this position that (D)s/liberals/progressives have to take stock of not only what is possible-- but what is required-- to keep the RW media-juggernaut from overwhelming low-info voters in the run-up to elections every two years.

After this last mid-term? That? To me-- is the real danger.
There are ways to countermand what’s occurring politically.
But there will be no way back if (R) political advertising dark monies saturate the major media markets-- ad infinitum. The major media markets are where the bulk of (D) votes reside.

That aspect? Limits the window to minimize the GOTP politically-- by having a (D) POTUS, with possibly both Houses of Congress in (D) hands-- to basically 2016.

If it doesn’t happen in 2016-- (R)s may be able to resuscitate their brand, and extend their shelf-life indefinitely.

That’s my opinion. I could be wrong.

jw1
.

1 Like
48

Except the poster NCSteve was replying to who said the Republicans were going to try and get rid of “winner takes all” in the red states, resulting in NCSteve’s post explaining why they will actually be trying to get rid of it in blue states.

1 Like
49

For her sake I hope the top minds of her 2016 campaign are more on the ball than her top minds in 2008. I get what they are doing, signaling that they aren’t going to be playing defense, but she is not going to win Arkansas or West Virginia. Those states have turned increasingly hostile to the Democrats over the last eight years, and even Bill himself would have trouble with them now. Missouri may be possible, but I’m doubtful there as well. Georgia may turn blue eventually, but the turnout was the same in 2014 as it was in 2010 when the Gov. and Senate races were less dramatic. It’s not going Dem in 2016, and it’s very doubtful AZ will either. Depending on who the Republican nominee is, the Clinton team will actually be defending ground in many of the traditional battleground states in 2016 ( particularly the midwest/ great lakes region). Fortunately, even the 2012 Dem map leaves a lot of room for error.

3 Likes
50

Additionally, if the media isn’t confronted and humiliated or snared in its own self-disemboweling ‘Dean scream’ moment and allowed to smear by adjective and adverb in the final months of the campaign the ‘hill’ could be too steep.

3 Likes
51

Hahahahaha… no. She didn’t help Grimes in Kentucky or anyone she campaigned for, nor did the former President. She is hiring the same old people to run her campaign, which is another huge mistake. Ugh, I don’t know if I can vote for Team Clinton, I just don’t know if I can. Of course if she survives the primary I’ll have to, but with no great conviction, just with the thought that I hate Republicans so much I can never let them win. Calling Gov. Jerry Brown…

52

Since you’re able to look into the future and declare positively what Hillary will or won’t do, how about telling us what the winning Powerball numbers are going to be?

53

The problem she’s going to have is that this is a nation that likes the bright, new, shiny object. That’s what Obama was in 2008.

People buy a cell phone, then they get tired of it in six months and want something newer and better. We’re just a disposable culture. We binge on a particular thing to the nth degree, then tire of it and move on to the next thing. It’s a troubling element of the current culture.

Hillary Clinton simply isn’t a bright, new, shiny object. And I don’t think this is going to nearly the cakewalk the pundit class has been telling us it’s going to be.

He won’t get the nomination, but I think Al Franken is going to run and will at least say what needs to be said about the state of the nation.

54

How’s your unicorn doing?

1 Like
55

Horseshit, dear.

1 Like
56

Why is North Carolina still red on the map?

57

Speaking of that map… it bears shocking similarity to this one. - File:Number of hate groups, by state, per million inhabitants..png - Wikimedia Commons

1 Like
58

I noticed that too, given the article says “North Carolina, now an established battleground,” and it went for Obama in 2008. I suspect somebody goofed.

1 Like
59

Yeah, especially when they use NC as an example of what they think is going on in GA.

Obviously a long way away still, but I would disagree with the assessment that GA goes blue and NC stays red. GA “may” be competitive in 2016, but its still quite a long way to go to voting blue. Republican governor. Heavily republican state legislature. Nearly every state office is held be republicans. Both Senators are republicans.

None of that is changing in 2 years.

1 Like
60

If she’s running,and I think she is,these are things her advisers have to look at now. If the money is there,NC,IN and MO are the first 3 states to make another run at. McCain only won Missouri by 3900 votes in 2008. If the money is really,really there,there’s a reason to make a run at other states. A candidate doesn’t have to win a state to have coattails there. Pres. Obama came to TX a few times in 2008 to raise money.He didn’t campaign here but the increased Dem turnout effected down ballot races.

1 Like