Skip to main content

View Diary: Politico already losing head over Hillary, and it's still 2014 (264 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  AMEN. (7+ / 0-)

    This is the same person that ran one of the worst Presidential campaigns in U.S. history. Both Bill and Hillary continually inserted their feet into their mouths, repeatedly relied on the truly odious Mark Penn for guidance and wasted tens of millions of dollars on absolutely awful campaign ads. (I can't wait to see the 2016 version of "3AM Phone Call.")

    HRC for President Version 2.0 is isn't going to fare any better than Al Gore 2.0 or John Kerry 2.0 would've fared, either.

    What Amy Poehler so brilliantly parodied about Hillary as a Presidential candidate in 2008 still stands today, too:

    https://screen.yahoo.com/...

    Oh, and as for the meme that no GOP candidate has a chance in 2016? Seriously, if you're betting that Americans aren't stupid enough to vote for a Republican presidential candidate who isn't qualified...I mean, really?

    I still run into people on a regular basis who will argue until they're blue in the face that George W. Bush was a better President than people give him credit for.

    Bottom line: Hillary hasn't miraculously overcome all her weaknesses and completely transformed into a Teflon-coated, guaranteed-to-win candidate. And more sadly, Americans are still idiotic enough to let themselves get swiftboated into voting for a bad Republican candidate.

    •  It's elementary (0+ / 0-)
      I still run into people on a regular basis who will argue until they're blue in the face that George W. Bush was a better President than people give him credit for.
      Well, he's probably twice as good a president as people think, but twice nothing is still nothing.  On the other hand, if we can use negative numbers for his rating this "logic" does not hold.


      My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.—Carl Schurz
      "Shared sacrifice!" said the spider to the fly.—Me

      by KingBolete on Tue Jun 10, 2014 at 03:12:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Case in point (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      navane50mg, Gay CA Democrat
      Seriously, if you're betting that Americans aren't stupid enough to vote for a Republican presidential candidate who isn't qualified...I mean, really?
      The folks in New Jersey relected Chris Chrispie.


      My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.—Carl Schurz
      "Shared sacrifice!" said the spider to the fly.—Me

      by KingBolete on Tue Jun 10, 2014 at 03:13:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. Though I still hope a Democrat wins (0+ / 0-)

        Even a candidate as flawed as Hillary.  I'll vote for her and I want her to win. I do not want a Republican president.

        The problem is, historical odds are running firmly against any Democrat winning. Any political party winning the Presidency 3 times in a row is like lightning in a bottle. Electorally, the odds are running against either party doing this except under the absolute rarest of political conditions.

        There are statistical and electoral reasons why it has only happened once in the past 70 years. It would take extraordinary odds and an unusually strong candidate to beat history.

        I don't think either the odds or the likely candidate are in our favor. Especially when there are far stronger and better suited candidates whose traits and strengths lend themselves more effectively to this political era.

        We need to go forward. A Clinton (or a Bush) is a backward-looking choice that is the opposite of where our culture and our political era are heading.

        But if she's to be our nominee? I hope she beats the odds and proves me wrong. Because the alternative scares the hell out of me...

    •  One ofthe worst Presidential campaigns in history? (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, Anne Elk, cpresley, hbk, Radiowalla

      ??????????????????

      I'm guessing you're too young or naive to have heard of George McGovern (carried 1 state, MA, lost his home state of SD badly, and lost election by 23 pts. Or Walter Mondale (again, carried only 1 state, and lost by 18 pts.

      In 2008 Hillary won more primaries that Obama and had more delegates from primary states than Obama. Obama won by carrying the caucus states and winning more of the 'super' delegates. It was a very close contest.

      I get that you don't like HRC, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, you're just not entitled to your own set of "facts". And as for Bill & Hillary "continually inserted their feet into their mouths", I have 7 words: "they cling to their guns and religion".

      David Koch, a teacher and a Tea Partier sit down a table with a plate of a dozen cookies. Koch quickly stuffs 11 cookies in his pockets, leans to the bagger and says "watch out, the union thug will try to steal your cookie".

      by Dave in AZ on Tue Jun 10, 2014 at 03:15:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That wasn't my perspective at all. (3+ / 0-)

      I think she ran a perfectly reasonable campaign except for the fact that she was up against arguably the best assembled, best run campaign in history with a truly charismatic candidate. Under that kind of pressure, the losing campaign begins to hemorrhage and make unforced errors. So, it's pretty unfair to make such a judgement.

      You are also saying that HRC's campaign was worse than Dukakis's and worse than Gore's, and worse than Kerry's, and that pretty much ruins your credibility on this issue. Dukakis was so abysmal that he blew a 19-point lead over Poppy Bush in 3 months. His campaign management was a joke of a bitter kind.

      Voting is the means by which the public is distracted from the realities of power and its exercise.

      by Anne Elk on Tue Jun 10, 2014 at 03:44:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't recall Gore trumpeting (0+ / 0-)

        that he was the choice of "rural white voters."

        Then there's the whole issue of the Iraq War and how spectacularly awful Hillary was in speaking to her vote on that issue and addressing concerns and questions about it.

        I could cite several other examples, but those are the 2 that first leap to mind. Any Democrat who resorts to trumpeting their appeal to whites and defending a vote for war is exceptionally politically tone-deaf in modern times by modern standards.

        Lastly, I never directly compared nor did I imply Hillary's campaign was worse than Kerry, Gore or Dukakis. I certainly did not rank her campaign numerically in relation to others. I simply stated my view that it was ONE of the worst--and I stand behind my conclusion that it is one of the worst.

    •  I run into these people, too (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radiowalla
      I still run into people on a regular basis who will argue until they're blue in the face that George W. Bush was a better President than people give him credit for.
      And their candidates lost in 08 and 12. I expect more of the same in 16.
      •  I certainly hope so. However... (0+ / 0-)

        the problem with this assumption is the implication that no Republican can win the race for President again in the near future.

        Pride goeth before a fall. And yes, Hillary can indeed lose to a Republican in 2016. This is not a coronation; it is a race that may or may not be won fairly. (Just ask Al Gore.)

        There is NO guarantee that Hillary will win nor any guarantee that voters won't be foolish or ignorant enough to buy into a deceptive and manipulative GOP presidential campaign that resorts to every single dirty trick in the book.

        The GOP can still win elections. And Hillary can lose.

        We absolutely cannot assume that we will win the Presidency on a regular basis from here on out and never lose again. After 3 straight Presidential wins in 12 years, the GOP learned that in 1992.

        And if we're not careful, we will learn that lesson, too, in 2016.

        •  I make no such assumption (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Gay CA Democrat

          It's almost an article of faith on this site that the GOP is headed for extinction because it's the party of old white men. But they can clearly still win elections. In fact, that's why I support Clinton, because she represents our best chance to win and win big. She could lose either the nomination contest or the general election. I don't discount that possibility, but I think that both are unlikely.
            If Hillary can lose, so too can Warren, Schweitzer, O'Malley, Webb etc.  In fact, I feel that the rest of the field is more likely to lose than win. Sanders would lose for certain and very, very badly. I don't want that to happen.

          •  I have to agree with that statement: (0+ / 0-)
            It's almost an article of faith on this site that the GOP is headed for extinction because it's the party of old white men. But they can clearly still win elections.
            That's exactly what I'm talking about.

            There is a ton of hubris running around DK lately that HRC is all but guaranteed to win because, of course, the GOP really doesn't have anyone who can beat her.

            Which is what I thought when Al Gore ran. I mean, we had the best economy in, what, 40 years? And unemployment was around 4%. How could anyone vote for a Republican given how well Clinton & Gore turned things around after the last recession and gave us the best economy ever?

            Then we got 8 years of hell with George W. Bush, 2 wars and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

            I am taking absolutely nothing for granted this time. Plus, HRC is still an awful candidate in my book.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site