Home Politics and Debate

Hilary Clinton - US President

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
So she has officially entered the race.

Hilary CLinton enters U.S. Presidential race

I think a democrat will win this time round, and if she does beat Obama to be the Democratic candidate, we might well see her in the White House.
Worse things have happened.

What do you guys think?
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well she probably will win the democratic nomination. As bad as it seems I don't think any of the political parties would risk putting an African-American up for election considering race is still a major issue in America. I've never really like Hilary, no where near as much as Bill but any democrat is better than the GOP.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote:
    So she has officially entered the race.

    Hilary CLinton enters U.S. Presidential race

    I think a democrat will win this time round, and if she does beat Obama to be the Democratic candidate, we might well see her in the White House.
    Worse things have happened.

    What do you guys think?

    I'm holding out for Obama *fingers crossed*
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just as previous Democratic presidential nominees, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry lost, Hillary Clinton will lose. John Kerry epitomises the arrogant Massachusetts liberal elite, Dukakis once did and Hillary is firmly a part of that. The two most recent successful Democrat nominees, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were both Southerners with a much broader appeal. Hillary is on the left of her party and she's very unpopular in most of the country. If the Democrats are to win back the White House they need to nominate a moderate (like they did with Bill Clinton in '92). And even if the Democrats do go for a moderate, if the Republicans nominate Rudy Giuliani or John McCain I wouldn't bet on a Democrat win. Tbh despite the setbacks in November I think supporters of the GOP can feel pretty optimistic. The Democrats aren't going to win back the White House. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think i have been saying she would run for President since the day she left the white house as first lady to be a Senator.

    I think she will indeed win the Democratic nomination for the Race reason. And then i think she will kick Republican ass, because the Republicans are heading for a kicking as bad as when Nixon and then Ford governed!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just as previous Democratic presidential nominees, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry lost, Hillary Clinton will lose. John Kerry epitomises the arrogant Massachusetts liberal elite, Dukakis once did and Hillary is firmly a part of that. The two most recent successful Democrat nominees, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were both Southerners with a much broader appeal. Hillary is on the left of her party and she's very unpopular in most of the country. If the Democrats are to win back the White House they need to nominate a moderate (like they did with Bill Clinton in '92). And even if the Democrats do go for a moderate, if the Republicans nominate Rudy Giuliani or John McCain I wouldn't bet on a Democrat win. Tbh despite the setbacks in November I think supporters of the GOP can feel pretty optimistic. The Democrats aren't going to win back the White House. :)

    But you are wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The republicans have been trying to get mud to stick to Clinton for ten years, and they still haven't managed yet.

    I don't know if she would win if selected as candidate, but any republican chosen is going to have to go a long way to repair the damage done by Bush. Bush got the radical Christians to vote through lies and deceit, and it will be a long long time before they forget that and return to the ballot to vote Republican.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Just as previous Democratic presidential nominees, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry lost, Hillary Clinton will lose. John Kerry epitomises the arrogant Massachusetts liberal elite, Dukakis once did and Hillary is firmly a part of that. The two most recent successful Democrat nominees, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were both Southerners with a much broader appeal. Hillary is on the left of her party and she's very unpopular in most of the country. If the Democrats are to win back the White House they need to nominate a moderate (like they did with Bill Clinton in '92). And even if the Democrats do go for a moderate, if the Republicans nominate Rudy Giuliani or John McCain I wouldn't bet on a Democrat win. Tbh despite the setbacks in November I think supporters of the GOP can feel pretty optimistic. The Democrats aren't going to win back the White House. :)
    You sound like John Major circa 1996.

    The Republicans have run their course in this era. They will return to power of course, but their time for now is over. It's rather like the Tories in 1997. You knew that it was time for a change and that the old Tories were due a beating they would never forget.

    America and the world are sick- nearly to death, literally- of the Republican Party and the Bush legacy. Time for change.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The democrats are almost certain to win but having a southern candidate will help them. Lets face it, all the East and West Coast States belong to the Democrats, it's the South and Mid West that's up for contention, Ohio always seems to be the key State so the Democrats need to place someone who has a broad appeal to them. Most likely, Hilary will win because America is sick of the GOP but they need a bit of insurance imo.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In 2000 and 2004 the Democrats and their supporters over here have been disappointed, I remember plenty of people predicting a Kerry win being adamant that the Democrats would get the White House back...By all means, get your hopes up and consider a Democrat win inevitable but 2008 is a still a very open race. If the Democrats nominate Mark Warner (which now seems unlikely) any Republican candidate would be facing an uphill struggle. However, since Hillary or Obama look more likely I think the Republicans have a very strong chance. The Republican candidate will need to be untainted by the Bush administration (sadly ruling out the excellent Condoleezza Rice) - but that still leaves lots of excellent candidates; John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.
    Bullseye wrote:
    because the Republicans are heading for a kicking as bad as when Nixon and then Ford governed!

    You might hope that will be the case but I wouldn't be so sure. And anyway, it didn't take the Republicans long to recover that time...Ronald Reagan made sure Carter only got one term.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think the candidate matters (unless he were a prominent anti-war campaigner, and how many of those do you get in the Republican Party?)

    The American public is sick. Sick of lies. Sick of wars. Sick of corruption. Sick of incompetence. The Republicans were very lucky to win in 2004, and only with the help of religious fundamentalists and rather dodgy voting machine practices. Practically everyone who is a swing voter is bound to vote Democrat. How could it be otherwise?

    Can you actually name a single good thing the Republican government has done in the last 6 and a half years?

    America and indeed the world need a break from what can only be described as the most dangerous and destructive US government in living memory.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You might hope that will be the case but I wouldn't be so sure. And anyway, it didn't take the Republicans long to recover that time...Ronald Reagan made sure Carter only got one term.

    Carter was only really elected as a protest over Gerald Ford pardoning Nixon and he was always a poor candidate and president. It was easy for Reagan to beat him.

    The lead that the Republicans have over the Democrats amongst the voting public is very small - and Bush has done enough damage to ensure that even a small swing is all that is required for a Democrat win. It would have to be someone quite incredible in the Republican party to stand and convince people that they ought to keep a Republican president at the next election.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If the Democrats want to win they've got to pick up voters like my parents in law who voted for Clinton both times, then Bush happily voted for Bush the first time and then voted for less happily for him the second time, on the basis he was better than Kerry. I'm not convinced Hilary Clinton can pull people in.

    And foreign policy and the war isn't the only thing. Many Americans are worried by the economy and extreme Christianity, but aren't convinced by a total move leftwards or by taking religion totally out of politics.

    Bush wouldn't win again (if they allowed third stands), but the Republicans could, depending on who the Democrats put up. It may be a repeat of the UK in 1996, but it may also be a repeat of the UK in 1991.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    YAY!!! Clinton back int he Whitehouse, albit Hilary in the driving seat but still. Good news I say.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    I don't think the candidate matters (unless he were a prominent anti-war campaigner, and how many of those do you get in the Republican Party?)

    Within the Republican Party there are plenty of libertarians and paleoconservatives who are anti-war.

    But, anyway if you think the candidate does not matter you do not understand American politics. The candidate does matter in US politics. The reason that the Democrats did well in November was because they recognised this; in Virginia, Montana and Pennsylvania the Democrats won Senate seats from the Republicans. In all three states 'typical' Democrats were not elected.

    The Democrat and Republican parties are 'big tents' - there's enormous range of opinion within the parties and regional differences. (e.g. A Californian Republican such as Schwarzenegger is more liberal than some conservative Democrats such as Jim Webb).

    Fundamentally any failures of President Bush are failures of his administration and won't hugely affect the chances of someone like John McCain.
    Aladdin wrote:
    The Republicans were very lucky to win in 2004, and only with the help of religious fundamentalists and rather dodgy voting machine practices.

    John Kerry lost in '04. Bush received a very clear endorsement in '04 from the American people.
    Aladdin wrote:
    Practically everyone who is a swing voter is bound to vote Democrat. How could it be otherwise?

    But, the Republicans can usually get more of their supporters out. And anyway, John McCain and Giuliani appeal to swing voters.

    Anyway '08 is far too early to call when neither party has a nominee.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You might hope that will be the case but I wouldn't be so sure. And anyway, it didn't take the Republicans long to recover that time...Ronald Reagan made sure Carter only got one term.


    Well, that was because Carter was a travesty of a Democratic candidate. Clinton is a real political figure like her Husband before her.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fundamentally any failures of President Bush are failures of his administration and won't hugely affect the chances of someone like John McCain.
    That depends. Is he going to get rid of the neo-con brigade or let them stay? Is the lovely Ms. Rice going to remain in the team, for instance?

    The current government has failed as a team. They really haven't got one thing right, not only on foreign policy but domestically. If McCain parts with the past, stops lying about climate change, takes the troops out of Iraq, closes Guantanamo and starts making amends with the international community, he'll have a chance of winning some swing voters.

    If he continues the ultra-right wing, warmongering, polluting, neo-con policies of the current government, he hasn't got much of a chance.


    John Kerry lost in '04. Bush received a very clear endorsement in '04 from the American people.
    I wouldn't call winning by the skin of your teeth thanks only to your competitor being hugely unpopular and the religious fundamentalists coming out to vote in force in exchange for influence an 'endorsement' to be quite honest.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Those very same reliogious fundamentalists won't vote Rep again for a long time- the feeling of betrayal from Bush is still strong and seething.

    It will never be a one-horse race, but the republicans only got in originally through electoral fraud, and I doubt that even they would manage to pull the same stunt twice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Those very same reliogious fundamentalists won't vote Rep again for a long time- the feeling of betrayal from Bush is still strong and seething.

    You think?

    Have to say I agree with Dis here, I can't see a Democrat in the House at the moment. The republicans will use the fear/religion cards again because they work.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    my_name wrote:
    I'm holding out for Obama *fingers crossed*

    Fingers crossed indeed.

    Opponents of the Clintons have a tendancy to be accident prone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not convinced Hilary Clinton can pull people in.

    Have you watched http://funhouse.bubble.ro/352/Why_People_Believe_Americans_Are_Stupid/ ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Those very same reliogious fundamentalists won't vote Rep again for a long time- the feeling of betrayal from Bush is still strong and seething.

    Some might not vote Republican, but they certainly are not going to vote Democrat, they cant because of the abortion issue.

    Frankly, whether its Republican or Democrat I dont think is the most important issue, there needs to be a candidate which people on both sides can like. That's why it cant be Clinton, she is too devisive, she will split the country like Bush.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote:
    Some might not vote Republican, but they certainly are not going to vote Democrat, they cant because of the abortion issue.

    Some of the new Democrats in Congress who won seats in November oppose abortion. (And at least one of the moderate Republicans who lost in Nov was pro-choice, Lincoln Chafee). Despite that you're right as it would seem unlikely that the Democrats would nominate somebody against abortion - but the Republicans nominating a pro-choice and pro gay rights candidate is a possibility (Giuliani).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Some of the new Democrats in Congress who won seats in November oppose abortion. (And at least one of the moderate Republicans who lost in Nov was pro-choice, Lincoln Chafee). Despite that you're right as it would seem unlikely that the Democrats would nominate somebody against abortion - but the Republicans nominating a pro-choice and pro gay rights candidate is a possibility (Giuliani).

    True - a lot of Dixie Democrats are less pro-choice than your average East Coast Republican.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    True - a lot of Dixie Democrats are less pro-choice than your average East Coast Republican.

    And in real terms, both parties are pro-choice, the Republicans might talk about restricting abortions and in some states this has happened (largely because of state action not national), but the general picture isnt very different.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I still find it hard to believe Bush was voted back in in 2004, pure madness!

    I think to be honest whoever it is will be better than him, and I just hope it's someone with a bit of fucking sense. For gods sake.:banghead:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    George Bush may have had a popular vote, but the margin wasn't completely massive in a lot of the states, and the electoral college vote was not massively different either.

    Thanks to Karl Rove putting antigay issues front and centre on pretty much every piece of state legislation that was to be voted on in 2004.

    This brought all of the religious people to vote, therefore because most of them were republican gw bush won. If they had stayed at home, kerry would likely have won.

    When elections happen in america they Vote for everything from the president to the dog catcher all at once. You put something on a state voting (local) board and get your people to vote, you win the bigger (national) prizes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    migpilot wrote: »
    So she has officially entered the race.

    Hilary CLinton enters U.S. Presidential race

    I think a democrat will win this time round, and if she does beat Obama to be the Democratic candidate, we might well see her in the White House.
    Worse things have happened.

    What do you guys think?
    I think that the democrats are in politically dire straights if their two front runners are Obama, and Hillary.

    Obama having described his politics as "purple" (by which he meant a combination of red and blue but lets face it, that's gonna be misconstrued). There is enough covert racism in the US that a black man isn't going to be elected any time soon.

    And Hillary, who has been demonized by the media ever since Clinton became president.

    The truth is that while both of their candidacies are great gestures and (hopefully) a demonstration of the direction our country is going, the Dems are going to find someone more suitable to run for the position.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the Dems are going to find someone more suitable to run for the position.

    I think you're probably right...Like Mark Warner? But he's ruled himself out...for now. And I'm not sure John Edwards could win it. But there's still Al Gore.

    And there's still speculation about John Kerry. (Whilst Reagan and Nixon won the presidency after a defeat I can't see it happening with Kerry...I think the Dems would be making a big mistake to nominate him again).

    If the Democrats want to win Gore or Warner would seem wiser choices than Clinton or Obama. It's Gore/Warner who the Republicans fear.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    it's all highly irrelevant anyways, two puppets, same puppetmasters so expect to see rising inequality, lower standards of living for the average joe, and foreign US bloody interventions whoever gets in, it's a recurring theme.....lol makes you wonder why they need to rig the votes in the first place.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i think Obama might have it as the fresh faced black american, america needs a change,
    but more interesting is the Republican nomination which is completely open, the only two people have officially added there name to the nomination and both are relatively unknown; Sam Brownback and John Cox

    but there is also the possible nominees, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Newt Gingrich
    but thankfully Jeb Bush declined to be become an entrant, i dont think anyone could put up with another Bush
Sign In or Register to comment.