Hillary Clinton

[_Brackite]

With Joe Biden officially announcing that he is not going to run for President, Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming the 2016 Democratic Nominee for President has significantly increased.

There's no doubt Biden's decision will help Clinton's poll numbers more than Sanders' in the short term.

Polls have consistently shown Biden siphoned most of his support from Clinton. A CNN/ORC poll last week showed that Clinton held a 16 percentage point lead -- 45% to Sanders' 29% -- with Biden in the race and drawing 18% support. But with Biden removed from the list of candidates, Clinton's lead widened to 23 percentage points, at 56% to Sanders' 33%.

Sanders has sought to run to Clinton's left. Biden, meanwhile, would have staked a claim on the legacy of President Barack Obama -- attempting to inherit much of the coalition that had swept him into office twice while also appealing to older blue-collar voters.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politics/ ... index.html


And Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee recently dropped out of the Democratic Presidential Primary race. (I kind of liked Webb and Chafee.)
I believe now that Hillary has at least a 90% chance of becoming the 2016 Democratic Nominee for President. I believe now that Hillary has about a 60% chance of becoming the next President.
The Benghazi Committee Hearing went pretty well for Hillary yesterday.

Republicans and Democrats have long been divided on the purpose of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans. GOP lawmakers, particularly the committee's chair, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), have insisted the panel is focused on investigating potential wrongdoing leading up to the attack, while Democrats have alleged that the GOP-led committee is a political stunt targeting Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.

But after the former secretary of state's marathon testimony on Thursday, in which she endured 11 hours of questioning, even conservatives admitted the hearing accomplished very little.


Republicans and Democrats have long been divided on the purpose of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans. GOP lawmakers, particularly the committee's chair, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), have insisted the panel is focused on investigating potential wrongdoing leading up to the attack, while Democrats have alleged that the GOP-led committee is a political stunt targeting Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.

But after the former secretary of state's marathon testimony on Thursday, in which she endured 11 hours of questioning, even conservatives admitted the hearing accomplished very little.

Washington Examiner columnist Byron York, disappointed the hearing had been "billed as an epic, High Noon-style confrontation," concluded the day was "a bust."

"In other words, no big deal. And that is very, very good news for Hillary Clinton," York wrote.

Right-wing radio host Erick Erickson wrote that the hearing "was all a political spectacle" and "a waste of time."

"God bless Trey Gowdy for trying to learn the facts and understand what happened. But the rest of it was just a carnival road show of back bench congresscritters playing to the cameras and Hillary Clinton working hard to play persecuted victim," Erickson wrote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hil ... f=politics

[_honorentheos]

My gut and my reason are surprisingly unified right now about the 2016 Presidential campaign. Neither is happy that it's what it is, or even that it is at this moment in 2015. A friend at work found out I would view the nomination of both Trump and Sanders as legitimate grounds for repatriating and questioned why given Sanders expresses many of the same concerns I have expressed. My argument to him is that having an ideologue as President leads to political dysfunction; that what made Clinton so effective was his ability to operate as an insider even with a hostile Congress, and what made Bush 2 so destructive was his willingness to let his party do whatever the hell they wanted and he'd just sign off on it. Another term with a high-minded but ineffective President could be fatal to the Republic. We can get the right person or persons to run without trouble. But not at the right time because it seems Democracy is inherently reactionary rather than predictive. Obama, in my opinion and by way of example, might have been the perfect President to have taken over in 2004. In 2008 I was for Hillary because it seemed we needed someone who could get past the learning curve as quickly as possible. In 2016, I think we need someone who can restore government to something that actually functions which means someone who can work with a house led by Republicans and I'm not sure who that is exactly. Polarizing candidates of both stripes or ideologues do not seem to fit the bill, though.

Or it's all just hyperbole on my part.

[_Brackite]

In 2016, I think we need someone who can restore government to something that actually functions which means someone who can work with a house led by Republicans and I'm not sure who that is exactly.

Yep. The Republicans are very likely going to maintain control over the House of Representatives until at least 2020.

viewtopic.php?p=920918#p920918

[_EAllusion]

Trump isn't an ideologue. He's about as much the opposite of a an ideologue as is possible. So much of what he says clearly is out of political convenience and button-pressing than philosophical commitment. If you are a Democrat, chances are he's also the candidate who by far has the political views most similar to yours. The only exception is if you are a Democrat with civil/libertarian sensibilities, in which case it's Rand Paul. His rhetorical style may be deplorable and a legitimate concern for his ability to actually be president, but the content of his positions are easily the most liberal of the bunch. His horrific stances (from a liberal perspective) generally aren't that different from the Republican pack outside of the brazen way in which he states them. And he's probably not sincere about a decent chunk of that.

Trump might be the greatest thing in a long time to happen to Democrats if he could actually win*. First, because a Republican president could do liberal things that a Democrat could never get accomplished, and Trump probably is quite sympathetic to some Democrat causes. It's an "Only Nixon can go to China" effect. This same process happened with Obama when he ossified George with. Bush's war on terror policies and attendant civil rights abuses into a bipartisan consensus. Prior to him it was a source of tremendous anger and opposition from Democrats. Now it is just how America does things. Trump might move Democrats further along in their national healthcare aims than any Democrat ever could by softening Republican opposition, for example.

Second, Trump might produce a spectacular backlash in 2018 and 2020, which is exactly what Democrats need to have happen to realign Republican control of legislatures and regain more power in government.

*Trump probably can't win, guys.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't know that I can vote for Hillary. She just seems like a more polished GOP candidate. It would be Obama in a pantsuit, who turned out to be nothing like the image he portrayed of himself in his campaigns.

[_honorentheos]

Trump isn't an ideologue. He's about as much the opposite of a an ideologue as is possible. So much of what he says clearly is out of political convenience and button-pressing than philosophical commitment. If you are a Democrat, chances are he's also the candidate who by far has the political views most similar to yours. The only exception is if you are a Democrat with civil/libertarian sensibilities, in which case it's Rand Paul. His rhetorical style may be deplorable and a legitimate concern for his ability to actually be president, but the content of his positions are easily the most liberal of the bunch. His horrific stances (from a liberal perspective) generally aren't that different from the Republican pack outside of the brazen way in which he states them. And he's probably not sincere about a decent chunk of that.

Trump might be the greatest thing in a long time to happen to Democrats if he could actually win*. First, because a Republican president could do liberal things that a Democrat could never get accomplished, and Trump probably is quite sympathetic to some Democrat causes. It's an "Only Nixon can go to China" effect. This same process happened with Obama when he ossified George with. Bush's war on terror policies and attendant civil rights abuses into a bipartisan consensus. Prior to him it was a source of tremendous anger and opposition from Democrats. Now it is just how America does things. Trump might move Democrats further along in their national healthcare aims than any Democrat ever could by softening Republican opposition, for example.

Second, Trump might produce a spectacular backlash in 2018 and 2020, which is exactly what Democrats need to have happen to realign Republican control of legislatures and regain more power in government.

*Trump probably can't win, guys.

Very good points, EA. I always appreciate and gain from your perspective. Trump is an ongoing discussion between me and this particular coworker and friend who is in a committed relationship with a lady, also a friend, with roots in Mexico and has taken his rhetoric against illegals personally. (She's not, but anyone in Arizona who doesn't know someone who is lives a sheltered life.) So my feelings about Trump as a viable candidate were already known to this particular person in light of our sharing articles frequently on how he's impervious to the typical dynamics of politics. Ideologue isn't how I'd describe him; more as an opportunist than anything. You do raise interesting points, though. Part of your point is why I'm not entirely opposed to a Republican President in '16, if perhaps because it seems the best chance to make progress on the war on drugs, prison reform, and immigration. But if it comes down to voting for Trump or Sanders, I just don't know if I could vote for either in good conscious. I'd probably vote for Sanders but only in that his principles align somewhat more with mine even if I strongly suspect a Sanders presidency would further entrench the partisanship we see today. I don't know. I think I'm losing faith in democracy as a viable system, to be honest. That in part because I honestly see it as reactionary, combined with our belief as a nation that we have it right so it's just a matter of getting the right person in rather than being open to meaningful examination of the American experiment. It's more at the root than the details surrounding any particular candidate from either side.

[_ajax18]

I think I'm losing faith in democracy as a viable system, to be honest.

I hope Themis didn't read that.

[_honorentheos]

I think I'm losing faith in democracy as a viable system, to be honest.

I hope Themis didn't read that.

How so?

[_honorentheos]

If you have an hour, I'd invite you to listen to this to see a pretty good outline of how I view the underlying root problems and why I see debate over candidates as details rather than getting at where/how I think we need to be considering that as the world has changed the narrative in which democracy as a system needs to be reevaluated and updated:

https://player.vimeo.com/video/36128360?title=0&byline=0&portrait=0