Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
rgbecker
rgbecker's Journal
rgbecker's Journal
January 18, 2015
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
October 26th, 1947 - January 20th, 2017 = 69 years, 86 days
2 presidents started after 66th birthday, one died two months in and the other served his second term while suffering from Alzheimer’s.
Today, class, let’s review past presidential election results and see if that review can shed any light on where the Democratic Party should look when picking its candidate for the 2016 election. My conclusion points to Elizabeth Warren over Hillary Clinton, though there may be a better choice yet somewhere waiting in the wings.
1. In past elections, Democrats have done better (won by a greater percentage of popular vote) when the candidate delineates clear differences from the Republican candidate.
Starting with Cleveland in 1892, we see he actually received fewer votes than his two major opponents, Harrison (R) and Weaver (Populist).
This after essentially tying with Harrison in 1988 and with Blaine in 1984.
The next Democratic Party president, Woodrow Wilson in 1912, was able to beat his main rival, T. Roosevelt, running as a Progressive, with fewer voters than those supporting Roosevelt and Taft (R) combined.
This pattern of the Democrats winning only because the opponents split their votes, benefited Truman and Clinton, who never won the majority of the votes but secured the presidency thanks to Ross Perot’s independent run in both 1992 and 1996.
FDR, positioning himself as significantly populist and different from the Republicans, won every election with more than 6% advantage. (1932 = 18.32%, 1936 = 24.92%, 1940 = 10%, and 1944 = 7.32%).
Kennedy barely won while LBJ, presenting himself as significantly different than Goldwater and benefiting from a Right Wing take over of the Republicans won with a 22.69% difference.
I hate to mention the Gore/Bush 2000 election other than to point out the cries at the time of no difference between the candidates which resulted in a strong showing for the 3rd party Nader. Not to mention the backlash to Clinton’s escapades and the resulting loss of his campaigning support for Gore during the election.
Obama’s 2008 victory by 7.38% was the biggest margin since FDR’s in 1940. The 3.9% margin in 2012 was larger than Carter’s 2.1% even as Carter gained some evangelical votes.
In 2016, the Democrats will do better with a candidate that shows significant differences between his/her policies and the rivals. Clinton, as a female candidate will appear significantly different on that count, but her silence on wall street issues, support of military intervention in foreign affairs, support of “free trade” and perceived membership with the “Powers that Be” puts her at a disadvantage concerning differentiation compared to Elisabeth Warren.
2. Clinton will suffer greatly in the campaign because of her age. She would be second only to Ronald Reagan in age at inauguration having turned 69 in October of 2016. Reagan, by all accounts, served his entire second term with an advancing case of Alzheimer’s disease. The other President inaugurated after an age of 66, Harrison, died less than 2 months into his first term. A review of the other 20th century presidents that started at an age over 60 is very short and yields Truman, Eisenhower, Ford and Bush. I think you will find the press very unkindly covering all of these men’s health issues throughout their terms. I’m not making any claims as to Hillary’s health, but I can sort statistics as well as any insurance actuarial when it comes to human aging metrics.
Every misspoken utterance, stutter and hesitation will be questioned by the press, bringing questions to the public’s mind. That is, assuming anyone who hasn’t already decided thinks they might actually bother to show up and vote between say JEB Bush and Hillary. I’m just two months older than Hillary and I can tell you I’m thinking a lot more about retiring than taking on anything new. The prospect of a presidential run has got to be weighing heavy on Hillary right now and I wouldn’t be surprised if she can’t complete the bid if she actually chooses to make an attempt.
Elisabeth Warren carries little negative baggage with her into 2016. As a female she starts with the same distinction Hillary would benefit from, bringing people out to vote as they won’t want to miss out on voting for the first female president. Warren’s lack of history and past record that the press will cling onto in Clinton’s case is a plus and her strong support of Wall Street reform sets her apart from every other contender save Sanders. Warren is smart to claim no status in the 2016 run, but she will the first people turn to when they see Hillary falter. Other than the usual Hillary supporters, of which I should be counted as a class of 1992, when the polls start showing Bush ahead, primary voters will be searching for an alternative. Warren, Moveon.org and others like me will be ready and waiting.
Hillary Clinton is too old to run for President. There, I said it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_agehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
October 26th, 1947 - January 20th, 2017 = 69 years, 86 days
2 presidents started after 66th birthday, one died two months in and the other served his second term while suffering from Alzheimer’s.
Today, class, let’s review past presidential election results and see if that review can shed any light on where the Democratic Party should look when picking its candidate for the 2016 election. My conclusion points to Elizabeth Warren over Hillary Clinton, though there may be a better choice yet somewhere waiting in the wings.
1. In past elections, Democrats have done better (won by a greater percentage of popular vote) when the candidate delineates clear differences from the Republican candidate.
Starting with Cleveland in 1892, we see he actually received fewer votes than his two major opponents, Harrison (R) and Weaver (Populist).
This after essentially tying with Harrison in 1988 and with Blaine in 1984.
The next Democratic Party president, Woodrow Wilson in 1912, was able to beat his main rival, T. Roosevelt, running as a Progressive, with fewer voters than those supporting Roosevelt and Taft (R) combined.
This pattern of the Democrats winning only because the opponents split their votes, benefited Truman and Clinton, who never won the majority of the votes but secured the presidency thanks to Ross Perot’s independent run in both 1992 and 1996.
FDR, positioning himself as significantly populist and different from the Republicans, won every election with more than 6% advantage. (1932 = 18.32%, 1936 = 24.92%, 1940 = 10%, and 1944 = 7.32%).
Kennedy barely won while LBJ, presenting himself as significantly different than Goldwater and benefiting from a Right Wing take over of the Republicans won with a 22.69% difference.
I hate to mention the Gore/Bush 2000 election other than to point out the cries at the time of no difference between the candidates which resulted in a strong showing for the 3rd party Nader. Not to mention the backlash to Clinton’s escapades and the resulting loss of his campaigning support for Gore during the election.
Obama’s 2008 victory by 7.38% was the biggest margin since FDR’s in 1940. The 3.9% margin in 2012 was larger than Carter’s 2.1% even as Carter gained some evangelical votes.
In 2016, the Democrats will do better with a candidate that shows significant differences between his/her policies and the rivals. Clinton, as a female candidate will appear significantly different on that count, but her silence on wall street issues, support of military intervention in foreign affairs, support of “free trade” and perceived membership with the “Powers that Be” puts her at a disadvantage concerning differentiation compared to Elisabeth Warren.
2. Clinton will suffer greatly in the campaign because of her age. She would be second only to Ronald Reagan in age at inauguration having turned 69 in October of 2016. Reagan, by all accounts, served his entire second term with an advancing case of Alzheimer’s disease. The other President inaugurated after an age of 66, Harrison, died less than 2 months into his first term. A review of the other 20th century presidents that started at an age over 60 is very short and yields Truman, Eisenhower, Ford and Bush. I think you will find the press very unkindly covering all of these men’s health issues throughout their terms. I’m not making any claims as to Hillary’s health, but I can sort statistics as well as any insurance actuarial when it comes to human aging metrics.
Every misspoken utterance, stutter and hesitation will be questioned by the press, bringing questions to the public’s mind. That is, assuming anyone who hasn’t already decided thinks they might actually bother to show up and vote between say JEB Bush and Hillary. I’m just two months older than Hillary and I can tell you I’m thinking a lot more about retiring than taking on anything new. The prospect of a presidential run has got to be weighing heavy on Hillary right now and I wouldn’t be surprised if she can’t complete the bid if she actually chooses to make an attempt.
Elisabeth Warren carries little negative baggage with her into 2016. As a female she starts with the same distinction Hillary would benefit from, bringing people out to vote as they won’t want to miss out on voting for the first female president. Warren’s lack of history and past record that the press will cling onto in Clinton’s case is a plus and her strong support of Wall Street reform sets her apart from every other contender save Sanders. Warren is smart to claim no status in the 2016 run, but she will the first people turn to when they see Hillary falter. Other than the usual Hillary supporters, of which I should be counted as a class of 1992, when the polls start showing Bush ahead, primary voters will be searching for an alternative. Warren, Moveon.org and others like me will be ready and waiting.
January 10, 2015
France to invade Yemen and kill 100,000 in bid to stop future terrorism.
Will the French follow W's lead and do the right thing? We're told Yemen is the new base for our arch enemy, Al-Qaida.
Tune in to Fox News and find out soon.
Or not.
January 7, 2015
Merry Fucking Christmas!
Oklahoma City Pastor shoots 14 year old burglar right before Christmas.
http://www.newson6.com/story/27697748/police-identify-suspect-shot-killed-by-pastor-as-14-year-old-boyMerry Fucking Christmas!
January 1, 2015
Veronica Rutledge and her husband loved everything about guns. They practiced at shooting ranges. They hunted. And both of them, relatives and friends say, had permits to carry concealed firearms. Veronica typically left her Blackfoot, Idaho, home with her gun nestled at her side. So on Christmas morning last week, her husband gave her a present he hoped would make her life more comfortable: a purse with a special pocket for a concealed weapon.
A little more info about 2 year old shooting mother at Walmart in Idaho.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/31/the-inside-story-of-how-an-idaho-toddler-shot-his-mom-at-wal-mart/?tid=hybrid_1.1_default_strip_1Veronica Rutledge and her husband loved everything about guns. They practiced at shooting ranges. They hunted. And both of them, relatives and friends say, had permits to carry concealed firearms. Veronica typically left her Blackfoot, Idaho, home with her gun nestled at her side. So on Christmas morning last week, her husband gave her a present he hoped would make her life more comfortable: a purse with a special pocket for a concealed weapon.
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Oct 2, 2006, 10:23 PMNumber of posts: 4,831