2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton is the most formidable presidential frontrunner in modern era
Hillary Clinton remains the most formidable presidential nomination frontrunner for a non-incumbent in the modern era. As I wrote about last year, Clintons combination of a number of factors made her strength pretty much unprecedented. Clinton has, if anything, become stronger over the last 12 months."
*The only candidate anywhere close to Clinton was Al Gore for 2000. Gore had long been in the upper 40s to mid 50s. Gore went on to waltz to the nomination in the single strongest non-incumbent performance in the modern era. He won every single primary and took 76% of the primary vote.
Clintons numbers look a lot more like an incumbent. Bush was in the low 70s for 1992. Clinton was in the low 60s to low 70s for 1996. Obama mostly was in the low to mid 60s for 2012, even when matched up against Hillary Clinton."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/09/hillary-clinton-is-the-most-formidable-presidential-frontrunner-in-modern-era/
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The cheerleaders are already here.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)but it is true- she will be a formidable candidate.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The "cheerleaders" are only posting articles from the media.
Logical
(22,457 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 11, 2013, 05:02 PM - Edit history (1)
First penguin bankie for my collection.
Thank you, sweets!!!
dionysus
(26,467 posts)in the den...
Beacool
(30,247 posts)We'll just have to sit on the bankies.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)dionysus
(26,467 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Makes sense.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)yesirrreeeee.
CTyankee
(63,889 posts)chief of state. I am willing to back Hillary. I know a candidate further left might not make it and I want to see what she can do with the presidency. Now that Warren has lined up for her, why can't we accept her judgment on this?
I think Hillary would enter the office of President with the backing of the free world and we would be highly regarded for electing her by people all over the globe.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)But I am a supporter... And I get maybe that not a legitimate reason to not/support someone.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I don't necessarily think it has to be Hilary Clinton though. I'd rather have someone more progressive, less hawkish, and with less DLC ties. I would gladly back a woman running for president as a Democrat. In the 2016 primary I will not vote for her.
I also disagree with her being the most formidable front runner in modern history. She was suppose to be that in 2008 and it was proved untrue. Her campaign imploded so badly that she lost credibility as a candidate. I don't think you get a second shot at history.
By the way South Korea, which has a shorter history of democracy has elected a women president. Women in Korea tend to face more scrutinize because the country is a male dominated society. I wasn't very surprised she was elected given she is powerful, was the daughter of a dictator and had the party's backing.
CTyankee
(63,889 posts)We probably won't have something that transforming in 2016. In fact, SHE will be the tranforming candidate.
But 2016 is a long time away. She could have a scandal or get sick and who knows might step into the fray? I would hope it would be another woman, either Warren or Gillibrand or another good female candidate...lots can happen between now and then.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)If she were the only one that would benefit her greatly. I need to spend more time looking at candidate profiles as I'm not as up on that kind of information anymore with my heavy doctoral load.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)"I think Hillary would enter the office of President with the backing of the free world and we would be highly regarded for electing her by people all over the globe. "
The mid east will not be happy with the person that gloated over killing gaddafi.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Bill can stick both feet in tho.
CTyankee
(63,889 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)NO HILLARY!
NO WAY!
NO HOW!
Lamonte
(85 posts)She is a proverbial lock. It will be entertaining to see what kind of lies the conservatives will use against her.
Sognefjord
(229 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)DFW
(54,277 posts)I don't care if she is running at 99% of some poll. Three years before an election, they mean about as much as a prediction of what the weather will be like in three years.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)So far the 'nominee' is the only one talking about herself, basically.
btw, do you know if Dean was one of those that took that Clinton loyalty oath way back in 92?
oh, and btw, I read here you were a personal friend of Helen Thomas - I loved her too.
DFW
(54,277 posts)She and my father were colleagues in the Washington print press, so I had known her for about 50 years, i.e. most of my life.
In 1992, I don't think Howard was overly concerned about some oath. He had just become governor of Vermont by surprise (the governor had died of a heart attack, and he was LG), and had other things on his mind. However, I don't know this, and I'm not about to wake him up to ask (it's 8:30 in the morning here, which is 2:30 AM in North America's eastern parts--although he could be anywhere, knowing Howard).
Response to damnedifIknow (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
caine1969
(10 posts)That's what they said in 2008
highmindedhavi
(355 posts)as usual.