Hillary Clinton: Achieved NOTHING As Secretary Of State

[_Markk]

Bill Clinton is relatively popular. George Bush left the presidency as the most unpopular president in the history of measuring presidential popularity. You would have to go back to at least Hoover to find a more disliked president. If it was a simple matter of Clinton and Bush running on the reputations of Bill and George, Hillary would win in a landslide.

It's a little more complicated than that, though. And Jeb is not a likely candidate for the Republican nomination. That's very much an outside shot. His association with Bush II is a major drawback. Christie's chance at the nom is probably seriously hurt. It's too early to be confident in anyonne, but the frontrunners are Rubio and Paul and maybe Jindal.

A landslide? no way. It would be like all recent elections...Clinton would get their votes, Bush would get their votes, and the deciding factor would be who spun the best to get the independent vote...one smoking gun or "slip" late in the election could/would turn the vote.

To tell you the truth, while I am a conservative Independent, and I am tired of both the Clintons and the Bush's...we need someone who can stitch our country back together from a political perspective..."fat" chance...pun intended.

Anyways... right or wrong it will be interesting.

Take care

MG

[_EAllusion]

Again, Bill Clinton is popular. George Bush II is the most hated president in modern American history. If there was an election held solely off those reputations, team Clinton is going to win that in a landslide. There are many factors outside of personal appeal that help decide presidential elections, but it is a factor and you'd be hardpressed to have a more extensive contrast. Clinton wins 3/4ths electoral votes in that scenario, at least.

[_krose]

The people conservatives alienate are those who like social welfare programs.

News flash... that's pretty much everybody (even if your claim were true, which it isn't). It certainly is not Mitt's mythical 47%.

Candidates can always appeal to certain voters by characterizing "welfare programs" as something benefiting only lazy people, mostly black and Latino. But that isn't the reality, and most of us are not coldhearted or greedy enough to cut off the elderly and other people who sometimes need help, just to save a few bucks.

Any candidate who tried to run on a platform of getting rid of Medicare and Social Security wouldn't even get the nomination, let alone survive long enough to be obliterated in the general election.

Having an Allen West, Ted Cruz, or Michelle Bachman get the nomination would prove that.

Add in Palin, and you've got a nice list of dream candidates for the DNC.

Please, please, please, GOP. Give us a Cruz/Bachmann ticket in 2016. It would be well worth it just to see how the birthers deal with a candidate who actually was born outside the USA.

[_krose]

If Democrats are in power long enough, Republicans will win by default, regardless of the positions they stake out. Presidential elections are in significant part driven by being a referendum on the party currently in power. The popularity of the party in power, in addition to being influenced by things like the state of the economy, has its popularity erode simply on the basis of length of reign. If a Democrat holds the office long enough, a Republican will eventually win by default.

I don't think it's quite that simple. What has usually happened is that the challenging party modifies itself to appeal to the electorate (for example, Bill Clinton as a fiscally responsible New Democrat to counter the "tax and spend" image). That's why some pundits assumed Rs would embrace immigration reform and stop trying to limit reproductive freedom.

[_ajax18]

But that isn't the reality, and most of us are not coldhearted or greedy enough to cut off the elderly and other people who sometimes need help, just to save a few bucks.

It's a cradle to grave culture of dependency, a far cry from sometimes. There's nothing charitable about taking money from other people to give it to someone you think is more deserving.

Dick Morris was right in that the left has fundamentally transformed the culture of this country from one of work to entitlement.

Any candidate who tried to run on a platform of getting rid of Medicare and Social Security wouldn't even get the nomination, let alone survive long enough to be obliterated in the general election.

That's why we're not a free country.

[_Brackite]

I am waiting for Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush in 2016. That should be a very exciting Presidential race to watch.

I dunno. Even Jeb's mom doesn't want him to run. If he does, he will be running as with's brother. Not a great place to start from.

I think Christie may be out because of the recent problems. I'm at a loss as to who the Republicans will field. Any thoughts?

From my point of view, If Hillary wants to be President, there is nothing in her way at this point.

I have been thinking lately that Jeb Bush is going to be the GOP Nominee for President in 2016, because Chris Christie has been basically damaged by the Bridge-gate scandal. I do think that Jeb Bush will be better at getting the Hispanic vote than Mitt Romney was, but I still don't think that will be enough for him to be able to defeat Hillary Clinton.

[_Brackite]

The people conservatives alienate are those who like social welfare programs. Having an Allen West, Ted Cruz, or Michelle Bachman get the nomination would prove that.

Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann won her last re-election by 2 percentage points while Mitt Romney won that Congressional district by about 14 percentage points. I do like Allen West, but he lost his last Congressional race in Florida while Romney won that Congressional district by 4 percentage points

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/1 ... elections#

News flash... that's pretty much everybody (even if your claim were true, which it isn't). It certainly is not Mitt's mythical 47%.

Here is Mitt's real 47%:

Mitt Romney (Republican) --- 60,933,500 - 47.20%

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/federa ... ns2012.pdf

[_ajax18]

I see your point Brackite, but bottom line, Romney still lost the election by a lot. I still think that as the left continues to rub it in the face of working people with their tax and spend entitlement state, they will make people angry enough to get a true conservative elected just as easily as a Chris Christie.

[_Markk]

Again, Bill Clinton is popular. George Bush II is the most hated president in modern American history. If there was an election held solely off those reputations, team Clinton is going to win that in a landslide. There are many factors outside of personal appeal that help decide presidential elections, but it is a factor and you'd be hardpressed to have a more extensive contrast. Clinton wins 3/4ths electoral votes in that scenario, at least.

I couldn't disagree more....it is a red and blue country, and they tow the line...independents, and more and more the Hispanic vote, decide elections. Maybe we will see, if Hillary beats Jeb by 3/4 EV's I'll buy you a steak dinner.

They both made good decisions, and both made bad ones...in the end only one was impeached. It will be interesting how history paints their Presidency's?

[_EAllusion]

I couldn't disagree more....it is a red and blue country, and they tow the line...independents, and more and more the Hispanic vote, decide elections. Maybe we will see, if Hillary beats Jeb by 3/4 EV's I'll buy you a steak dinner.

They both made good decisions, and both made bad ones...in the end only one was impeached. It will be interesting how history paints their Presidency's?

Jeb isn't even likely to win the nomination. And Clinton vs. Bush isn't simply a proxy election for their predecessors. Non-partisan voters would not be likely to split evenly between a Bill Clinton / with. Bush choice. Clinton's impeachment did not change the fact that he has good popularity in his office and after, while George with. Bush left office as the most disliked president in the history of that measurement. The economic collapse at the end of his presidency took his numbers from already hated to absolutely despised. His post-presidency numbers have rebounded due to the ex-president halo effect, but he is still by far the most disliked ex-president in the history of that measurement.

That's why you didn't see him in the 2008 or 2012 national stage for Republicans, while Bill Clinton is a key speaker for the Dems. One is a benefit while the other is election poison.