• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Democratic Candidates for POTUS, 2016 edition

PhDeac said:
Aside from bringing juice boxes?
Click to expand...

I find it doubtful that she didn't have some involvement. But whatever. I don't think Skins' narrative is correct. Her senate campaign and 2008 primary successes defeat that argument. I think it is also very likely that she wins the nomination. Can't say if she'll win the general, of course. But I think she is a formidable candidate.
 
Ball State Deac said:
I find it doubtful that she didn't have some involvement. But whatever. I don't think Skins' narrative is correct. Her senate campaign and 2008 primary successes defeat that argument. I think it is also very likely that she wins the nomination. Can't say if she'll win the general, of course. But I think she is a formidable candidate.
Click to expand...

Sincerely,

2007
 
Ball State Deac said:
I find it doubtful that she didn't have some involvement. But whatever. I don't think Skins' narrative is correct. Her senate campaign and 2008 primary successes defeat that argument. I think it is also very likely that she wins the nomination. Can't say if she'll win the general, of course. But I think she is a formidable candidate.
Click to expand...

2008 primary successes??? She was almost as big a shoe in in 2008 as she is this year and she got smoked by an unknown one term Senator. It's easy to see President Obama now as the political Goliath that he has become but that was not what he was in the primary of his first run. That was App State beating Michigan.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
2008 primary successes??? She was almost as big a shoe in in 2008 as she is this year and she got smoked by an unknown one term Senator. It's easy to see President Obama now as the political Goliath that he has become but that was not what he was in the primary of his first run. That was App State beating Michigan.
Click to expand...

Hardly. Obama was far more talented politically than App State was at football. Obama was just a somewhat un-known entity at the time. He was a one-in-a-generation type of political candidate. Hillary still won something like 20 states. Not exactly a shitty performance.
 
It was absolutely a shitty performance. Both in accomplishment of expectations and in practice. Again, she was a shoe in and that sad joke of a "campaign" was a debacle.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
It was absolutely a shitty performance. Both in accomplishment of expectations and in practice. Again, she was a shoe in and that sad joke of a "campaign" was a debacle.
Click to expand...

You can keep saying she was a shoe in, but that was not the case. There was an open seat with an incredibly unpopular president leaving office. There was a reason there were so many people running on the Dem side, and so few this time (b/c she's now extremely likely to win the nomination).
 
Before Obama took off, she was the most likely nominee. Obama, however, went Obama. It's not like she lost to Biden.
 
We can argue about this forever but part of the reason Obama became Obama is because she was so terrible. Once he became a viable candidate she ran one of the worst primary campaigns this side of John Huntsman. She was worse that terrible...and that is my point.
 
Almost every campaign is this side of John Huntsman. You're exaggerating. It was a bad campaign but not disastrous. Obama was the right candidate at the right time.
 
It was disastrous. The veiled...or not so veiled racism (she was the first birhter) The whining about the media, the literal crying on the campaign trail, the inabilty to control her out of control husband. If she were a Republican running that campaign you guys would think she was the worst human on earth.

And the Huntsman remark was meant to be funny...I need to stop trying to be funny.
 
I already think she's one of the worst people in the world.

The reality is she got upset but she parlayed that into being appointed Secretary of State. Running and serving was a net benefit to her public image and put her in the position to be the frontrunner now. It wasn't a clear disaster. Compare where she stands to others like Gore and Guiliani or even Romney.
 
Sure. For the same reason I vote for anybody. The other options are worse.
 
bobknightfan said:
The bottom line is that the race of the Democratic nomination is tantamount to the race for the presidency. If Hillary wins the nomination, she will be the next president. Unfortunately for the country, the Republican Party has gradually gotten itself into the position where it is not going to elect a president in a nationwide election in this country for a long, long time.....and maybe never again. Simply put, the Republican Party....as a result of its own self-destructive policies & attitudes....is dead at the national level.

Personally, I hope the Democratic nominee is not Hillary Clinton....but at this point I certainly wouldn't bet that it isn't.
Click to expand...

I think the party will turn on her before long. How long do they keep rewarding her for not packing her bags, taking her kid and leaving the White House like any self respecting woman would have? She saved what could have devastated the Democrats for decades. She isn't any more qualified then Obama.

The one thing the Pubs and the Dems should be able to agree on is we need to move on without a Bush or Clinton in the WH.
 
bobknightfan said:
I have long said that the Clintons were the closest thing you could get to the old mainstream GOP (which doesn't exist anymore) and still be in the Democratic Party.

That some would still think of the Clintons as "liberals" is a testament to how far that right-wing talk radio has been able to move the "liberal/conservative demarcation line" during the last 25 years or so. Though these people will not admit it...and still like to lazily refer to Reagan as the "ideal conservative" to which they think every candidate should aspire to be...Reagan would fail their own "conservative purity test" if they ever decided to hold him to the same standards that they do with candidates that they denounce today.
Click to expand...

The crazy old man still makes good points every now and again. The wonders of advanced age.
 
aceeight said:
I think the party will turn on her before long. How long do they keep rewarding her for not packing her bags, taking her kid and leaving the White House like any self respecting woman would have? She saved what could have devastated the Democrats for decades. She isn't any more qualified then Obama.

The one thing the Pubs and the Dems should be able to agree on is we need to move on without a Bush or Clinton in the WH.
Click to expand...

There has been one Clinton in the White House. The country did alright while he was sitting in the Oval Office.
 
Don't think Hillary could win purely on her own merit, but fortunately for her she doesn't have to. Electoral college advantage, demographic changes, first female president, and the Bubba factor all work for her. Despite all that, her biggest advantage is the GOP base. Nobody's forgotten claims that the Clintons bumped off 30+ people, Obama's birth certificate, or 40+ pointless Obamacare repeal votes. HRC has a ton of flaws, but people really don't trust the GOP. Benghazi's not going to work. Fundraising might, but the server's their best shot. Hillary can still bait the GOP on policy positions. Immigration reform drives the GOP base crazy, but easily carries swing states. Will splinter the GOP, but puts HRC well above 300 electoral votes, the only score that matters.
 
PhDeac said:
Almost every campaign is this side of John Huntsman. You're exaggerating. It was a bad campaign but not disastrous. Obama was the right candidate at the right time.
Click to expand...

Oh good Gawd....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top