HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Hillary Clinton45 should ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:27 AM

 

Hillary Clinton45 should get 400-413 electoral votes in 2016, based on the current map of the states

I see no states that voted for President Obama turning red.
I see a bunch of states that will vote for Hillary45 either because they like her already, or because of demographic change equal to 81 more electoral votes.

In 2012 it was
President Obama44 332
Mitt the loser 206

In 2016 I see
President Hillary Clinton45 413 plus
Jeb the loser 125 or less

and I predict Texas as blue by then and in Hillary's count.

this means
WVA-the one state Hillary was much more popular than President Obama in 2008
GA
SC
ARI
TEXAS
NC

and this doesn't include Arkansas and Tenn. where, with Bill's help and the racism issue off the table, might be turnable in 2016

By the time Hillary45 finishes her 8 years, the US Supreme Court will be 8 to 1 in our favor.
(though I hope it will be 6 to 3 or 7 to 2 in our favor by the end of President Obama's 2nd term.)

Jeb can't swiftboat Hillary, can't Dukakis Hillary, and as long as the dems aren't the fractured party, and as long as it's Hillary, we got it in the bag.
Put somebody less than Hillary, and Jeb will Dukakis them like they did to Dukakis himself and Mondale when Mondale ran against Reagan and later for Senate.
There is no dirt on Hillary that hasn't been yawningly talked about for decades now.


(and if it is a different republican, the margin could be even wider.
The odd thing is, though, if it is a different Democrat, we could be looking at the exact opposite)
imho

60 replies, 3714 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 60 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary Clinton45 should get 400-413 electoral votes in 2016, based on the current map of the states (Original post)
graham4anything Dec 2012 OP
exboyfil Dec 2012 #1
Tunkamerica Dec 2012 #8
AnnieK401 Dec 2012 #11
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #2
graham4anything Dec 2012 #3
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #4
aaaaaa5a Dec 2012 #42
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Dec 2012 #57
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #5
davidpdx Dec 2012 #12
Sherman A1 Dec 2012 #6
graham4anything Dec 2012 #24
wyldwolf Dec 2012 #7
leftofcool Dec 2012 #10
graham4anything Dec 2012 #25
Ford_Prefect Dec 2012 #9
Capt. Obvious Dec 2012 #13
hobbit709 Dec 2012 #14
kentuck Dec 2012 #15
fadedrose Dec 2012 #16
Cleita Dec 2012 #20
karynnj Dec 2012 #45
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #17
NewJeffCT Dec 2012 #18
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #19
northoftheborder Dec 2012 #32
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2012 #39
tradecenter Dec 2012 #21
Sherman A1 Dec 2012 #50
MadHound Dec 2012 #22
graham4anything Dec 2012 #26
Comrade_McKenzie Dec 2012 #23
graham4anything Dec 2012 #38
LeftyMom Dec 2012 #27
graham4anything Dec 2012 #28
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2012 #40
graham4anything Dec 2012 #48
tradecenter Dec 2012 #31
vaberella Dec 2012 #29
datasuspect Dec 2012 #30
graham4anything Dec 2012 #35
datasuspect Dec 2012 #41
graham4anything Dec 2012 #46
datasuspect Dec 2012 #49
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #33
SheilaT Dec 2012 #34
coalition_unwilling Dec 2012 #36
graham4anything Dec 2012 #37
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #44
graham4anything Dec 2012 #47
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #51
graham4anything Dec 2012 #52
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #53
graham4anything Dec 2012 #55
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #54
tradecenter Dec 2012 #59
graham4anything Dec 2012 #60
Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2012 #43
Little Star Dec 2012 #56
Ford_Prefect Dec 2012 #58

Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:41 AM

1. I think you are mistaken

I know the first attack on Clinton - age - 6 years separate her from Jeb Bush

The second will be anything wrong in Obama's administration - she owns it

The third thing will be how she is leaving SoS - her falling (or was it a stroke) convenient to avoid testifying in Benghazi. The right will remind folks of her many "I don't remember" testimony on the billing records

I am not being critical of H. Clinton, and I think she could win. I just don't think it would be a walk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:50 AM

8. i agree on a few points but she is testifying, last i heard

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to exboyfil (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:58 AM

11. You make some great points.

I agree with everything you've said. Age would be a factor. We have seen what the Presidency does to relatively young people. Also, she has decided not to serve another 4 yrs. as Secretary of State. This might raise even more questions about whether or not she is up for at least 4 yrs. as POTUS. Also, we'll see how Obama's 2nd term goes. That will of course, fairly or unfairly, reflect on her. Even though on one level I would love to see it happen, the realities mentioned make it somewhat questionable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:46 AM

2. Ahahaha, no.

There's no way that GA, SC, WV, TX and NC go blue in 2016. Maybe NC. Not the rest. Not happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:57 AM

3. W.Va has a democratic senator, and she was extra popular in 2008 there.

 

Texas can go blue if Castro wins the Governorship

some of the others with GOTV there and getting rid of some Jim Crow laws can turn
along with Demographic shifts in Arizona and the south

It might be 2020 for some, but even so, can't see with the solid support of President Obama any blue state turning. He solidly won almost all the swing states by much larger amounts than any poll picked up and no reason it would be less.

With Jeb running Rubio won't, nor can he be VP(not that the racists in their party would vote for him anyhow) and Christie wouldn't win the really red states as they don't like the vast majority of views Christie has on republican wedge issues.(plus Christie would not secure any blue states votes, though he would make a good VP pitbull choice).

As for Bengazi its a phony issue that nobody who is a democrat blames on Rice let alone Hillary and it will show how while the red meat people will devour it, they already are anti-any dem, so it is meaningless.
Besides, with Kerry leading the SOS, it will all be on his lap, the one genius part of putting him at SOS, he will get any/all blame and take all the hits.(an Obama rope the dope working again).
It's a dead non-issue. Nobody gives a shit about it.
Remember it was President Obama and Hillary that got BinLaden. And BinLaden will be in the news all through April, drowning out any bullshit with McCain(who should be satisfied getting his BFF Kerry), what with the Zero DarkThirty most likely being a best picture nominee if not outright winning some awards (including Best actress for Jessica Chastain, continuing the year of the women meme). Some could say she is Hillary in the movie though not really, but reality don't matter anyhow.

as Hillary said, there is a rightwing conspiracy, and she was right then and it still is, but it won't affect here(also, she fights dirty, and knows where the dirt is on Jeb and
it takes a Clinton to beat a Bush. She cannot be Dukakissed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:08 AM

4. West Virginia went for Romney by 27 points

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:38 PM

42. Agreed. The OP was a bit optimistic.

In 2016 we should win the Obama 2012 states plus:

Indiana-Obama won here in 2008. In 2012 it was shockingly much closer than people thought. I think had Obama put resources here, it would have been close again. Romney and the GOP badly underperformed their 2004 numbers.

North Carolina-Obama won here in 2008. In 2012 this race was much closer than most pollsters reported it would be. Demographic changes over the next 4 years should add at least a 1 point to the Democrats column. I think if Obama had invested more here, he would have carried the state in 2012. He did not visit NC once after the convention. And NC was still very close on election day.

In addition, these will be the new battle-ground tossup states:

Arizona-Demographic changes will continue to bring this state closer to us. In 2016 I think Hillary can put in play.

Montana-Nobody pays attention to the mountain west, but has anyone noticed what is going on here. Obama ran relatively competitively here in 2008. I think Hillary could put it in play in 2016. Gun legislation could kill us in a state like this this however.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #42)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:07 PM

57. The poster lives in the same area code as the people who listened to Dick Morris

Kool-Aid Land.

No one will be winning 400 EV's any time soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:12 AM

5. A lot can happen in four years

Indeed a lot will happen in four years, there is a reason we have time and that is to keep everything from happening all at once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:27 AM

12. Apparently some people want to write the future before it happens

Cart before the horse

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:12 AM

6. Begging the question

(should she run and that in and of itself is not certain) assuming all the above (and that is a huge stretch, me thinks), why is she not the current President of the United States?

Never believe that in politics there is a sure thing. While demographics are changing as you state, we have not seen the true effect of money on an election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:45 AM

24. because she would have won except for one thing-President Obama & his voters

 

next time she will have them(me included).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:50 AM

7. If she gets into the race, I really dread 2016

She can definitely hold her own against the right wing attack machine, I just dread how she's going to savaged by the left. I'm going to stay out of the coming primary wars. 2004 and 2008 were enough for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:57 AM

10. I don't think she will run just for that reason.

Most Republicans respect her, it's the left who hates her. She won't run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wyldwolf (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:47 AM

25. Obama's fans and her fans are all that is needed.Nader lied, and anyone stupid enough to still

 

believe him or a 3rd party must want the republican to win (like Nader did).

there is only one other person around that can beat Jeb, and that would be running as a Democrat, Mike Bloomberg.(but a white male won't ever be the democratic nominee again anyhow based on who votes Democratic.

all the others will lose like Dukakis did to Bush and the same way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:53 AM

9. I am sorry to say that Saint Hillary of all corporations has much yet to answer for, as does Obama.

The DLC has already done us in on free trade, welfare reform and privatizing public education. What other luxuries await working class citizens under the DLC umbrella of Neo-Liberalism?

Yuppie re-branded Liberalism does not equal New Deal/ Great Society Democratic values.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:31 AM

13. Why stop there?

Dream big!

She also picks up AL, AK, OK, SD, ND, ID, UT, MT, MO, KY, TN, MS, IN, and WY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:37 AM

14. Now THAT is some major amount of delusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:08 AM

15. Unless, of course...

...the right-wing decide that she really did kill Vince Foster and they really don't like her anymore...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:23 AM

16. Health care may be a factor - Dean would deliver

We were all hyped up on a single-payer health care plan, and who got us started on it? Howard Dean in 2004, that's who. The DLC screwed him.

If he gets the right campaign manager, he still has DFA collecting contributions and it could happen.

Too many of us still love him and will support him before ANYONE else. He had nothing to do with Nafta, Iraq, etc., and has always been loyal to Obama throughtout this president's term(s). A Biden-Dean ticket would work for me as well.

The DLC is not progressive enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:36 AM

20. Until we get rid of global corporate influence in our politics, Dean or another

like him will never have a chance. We will get Hillary or another DLC pet rammed down our throats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:35 PM

45. Dean had an excellent plan in 2004, but it was not single payer --- any more than Kerry's

excellent plan. Dean and Kerry had the best 2004 plans and they laid the groundwork for the plans in 2008 - a year where Democrats could be more ambitious.

I honestly don't think Dean would undertake another run for the Presidency. I think running for President has become increasingly grueling and I doubt he puts himself through that again. (I do agree that he would need a better campaign manager, but one thing about Trippi, is that almost anyone who runs high level campaigns on the Democratic side is better!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:44 AM

17. I like Hillary, but she is too old.

She would be in her mid 70s by the time she finished her second term. She was exhausted by 4 years as Sec. of State, how is she going to handle 8 years of the most stressful job in the world? Hell, Obama looks like he has aged 10 years in the past 4.

She had her chance in 2008, she lost in the primaries.

Also, given her age there is the risk of her developing Alzheimer's in office like Reagan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:51 AM

18. I think either Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio could swing Florida to Republican

I don't think Texas is ready to go blue in a presidential election yet - maybe in 2020 or 2024. I think Chris Christie is a possibility as well - even though he's less stridently far right on some issues than most of the GOP these days, the teabaggers love his tough talk and tough guy attitude.

If the economy is going well in 2016, I think Clinton would be tough to beat even if Republicans ran the ghost of Reagan.

If the economy is still making slow progress like now, the outcome is very much in doubt. They'll say Obama had 8 years to turn things around and it still hasn't happened (no matter that we suffered through 8 years of unprecedented obstructionism, or that the downturn was caused by W's economic policies...)

The media seems to love Rubio and Christie as well, but had no real love for Romney. I could see some of the swing states going Red in 2016 because of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:32 AM

19. Good GAWD. Can we live in the PRESENT for just 5 minutes??

She has not said she will run, AND President Obama is weeks away from being sworn in for his second term.

Sheesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:08 PM

32. Please, please, don't start the next presidential election yet. Wait until 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:54 PM

39. I'm with you guys. Check back in a couple of years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:43 AM

21. Pure conjecture on your part.

 

You or anyone else has no idea of what's going to happen in 2016, you don't even know if mankind will still be around.
How about living in the present instead of the future and let's work on making this country a better place, like addressing Climate Change, gun control, equal rights for all, bring all our troops home, rebuild our infrastructure, things like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tradecenter (Reply #21)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:45 PM

50. Don't Stop Him Now.....

he's on a roll....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:45 AM

22. First off, the election is four years away, a lot can happen between now and then,

 

Second, few presidents have gotten that many electoral votes, and given Hillary's record, I seriously doubt that she would.

Third, a Hillary candidacy would lose of lot of support among liberals, including myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #22)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:53 AM

26. how that Nader thing do for the SCOTUS in 2000. Threats to not vote or 3rd party run mute

 

when dealing with the reality

Nader lied and 3000 people died in 9-11
corporate parenthood directly because of Nader and his egotistical 3rd party run
and the dumb ass gun ruling by THIS Scotus

same screw the dems worked so well in 1968, 1980 and 2000.

why not screw the dems again in 2016

Dean wouldn't get 20%, that is a pipe dream. He should have been the candidate in2004
not Kerry. He wouldn't have been swiftboated. But that was long ago and far away.

I think Biden will flank for Hillary and maybe be her VP for another 4 or 8 years.

the only wild card would be Vicky Kennedy should she be senator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:51 AM

23. She will get Kentucky. Kentucky LOVES both Clintons. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Reply #23)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:34 PM

38. if only Gore let Clinton campaign in 2000 in KY and Tenn and Ark

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:55 AM

27. Please don't waste bandwidth posting nonsense.

She's not running, and that's a wish list, not a reasonable guess at an EV count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftyMom (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:04 PM

28. that's your opinion. But why would you think it not reasonable?

 

and even if it isn't, 388 instead of 415 is still a landslide over 270

actually, 270 is enough, anything else is gravy.

if only Ralph Nader didn't cause NH to go to Bush in 2000, Al Gore would have been president with 271 and Florida would not have even mattered.

as there are only two choices
win
lose

winning by a democrat is all that matters, having republicans lose is all that matters

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #28)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:56 PM

40. Yeah, keep blaming Nader. That's a winning strategy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #40)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:19 PM

48. if it stops forever any 3rd party presidential candidate on the left, I shall be 100% happy

 

and you can blame Ralph Nader for only having 2 choices

which are fine by me, a lifetime Democratic voter for President

ain't life wonderful with no Ralph Nader's able to run anymore? I sure do think so.

I think the purpose of the Naderites is to make the wrong side win, so they can whine

they should name their party The Whiners


Ralph Nader=Rush Limbaugh
both whine alot
and both are mega millionaires off their whining
Ron Paul is another member of the Whiner club. Making speeches at $50,000 a clip
off the suckers that idolized the nutjob for some reason
and Ross Perot-who never wanted to win, just settle a personal grudge with 41.

we got the benefit that time, as Perot kept 41 from the Presidency and allowed Clinton to sneak in there with way under 50%, twice.
You win some, you lose some, but thanks to Nader in 2000, that shall never again be a problem.

Thank God Ralph Nader did that, right? It's his fault you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftyMom (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:08 PM

31. I tend to agree with you.

 

Plus I'm thinking that she's having some health problems that she'll want to deal with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:08 PM

29. Why are we worried about 2016 when we should be focused on getting the House back?! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:08 PM

30. no.

 

no more clintons, no more bushes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to datasuspect (Reply #30)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:16 PM

35. did you say this about Jerry Brown and FDR, Al Gore and the Kennedy's too?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:21 PM

41. what does that have to do with anything?

 

please respond with something intelligible or make your point.

jerry brown is irrelevant to me.

fdr would have shit chunks of modern democrats after breakfast.

kennedy died during his first term.

al gore, well, al gore.

the stupidity on this site is breathtaking sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to datasuspect (Reply #41)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:01 PM

46. every one of them is related to someone before them who ran for office, be consistent

 

when you say you don't want a 2nd Clinton then you obviously did not
want JFK or RFK or Teddy as their father already ran

you didn't want FDR because Teddy was President

you didn't want Jerry because his father was in office

you didn't want Al because his father was in office

otherwise it is very demeaning to HIllary as you are penalizing her for being a wife to a President and saying she cannot run on her own as her own person.

words mean something.

these inane blanket statements like
1%
or
bankers
or
burn it down
or
no more Clinton's or Bush's

just make no logical sense

the NRA is the 1%
gun owners are the 1%
walmart is the 1%
and none of them is on wallstreet or bankers

logic just plain logic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #46)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:40 PM

49. sweet beefy christ

 

oy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:14 PM

33. think big!

and I predict Texas as blue by then

you're quite the optomist! nice!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:14 PM

34. Every time someone posts

threads like these I like to point out that in 2004 no one saw Barack Obama as the '08 candidate. Yes, he'd had that amazing speech at the Convention, but EVERYONE was saying, "Gosh, he'd make a fine President someday, but of course four years from now he'll be too young and inexperienced and of course the nominee will be Kerry or Gore." And then, at the start of the '08 campaign the common wisdom was that Hillary Clinton was an absolute shoo-in.

Go back a little farther, to 1991. George H.W. Bush was riding so high in the aftermath of the (first) Gulf War that all the other obvious candidates on the Democratic side simply folded their tents. It was obvious to the most casual observer that he'd be re-elected in a landslide, so why bother to run? Wait until 1996. Remember Bush 1's second term? No?

There are any number of reasons why Hillary is highly unlikely to be running four years from now. First of all is her age. But I think it's a lot more important that she lost and did not get the nomination in '08 and so her time is past, even if she were ten years younger than she is. Democrats do not do the Republican thing where there is a pretty clear line of succession about who will be the nominee four years down the road, although I have to say that at this point it's not remotely clear who'll be their nominee in 2016.

But far, far more important is that we haven't a clue what's going to happen between now and then. What kind of crises will happen. What will happen to the economy. How the mid term elections will go.

My prediction is this: There will be unexpected events which will turn this country in directions we can't begin to foresee at this point, and because of that, the Democratic field four years from now will be one none of us could have predicted at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:17 PM

36. Akin\Mourdock 2016. (My dream R machine :) - n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:30 PM

37. for those that say it's too soon

 

the Republicans/tea/libertarians are already started

and being that IMHO 2016 should be a continuation and not radical change from now, it's like having a coach in place to lead and recruit for the house and senate

It is a team effort, not an individual effort.

and fractures of the party ruined 1968, 1980 and 2000, so history should not repeat itself
imho

and if only we can lead with getting rid of guns, now there is a dream

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:46 PM

44. You left out 1972 when the "moderate" Democrats voted Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #44)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:06 PM

47. 1972 put up a candidate that was a sweet guy, but come one noone thought he would win

 

it was an insane pick but it sure made us happy then

retrospection shows how bad that was

no one in their right mind ever thought McGovern would win in 1972
same as Eugene(a really, really nice guy) McCarthy.

I wish we could go back and beg, borrow, plead with LBJ not to retire, and run for reelection
but the people threw him out like trash

and those people gave us Nixon.

fess up, it is their fault.

Same as Gore lost 100% because of Nader's NH votes. 270 with NH,
Bush ended up with 271
minus the 4
and he had 267, 3 short
Thanks Ralph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #47)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:02 PM

51. LBJ? Mass murerer and war criminal? I think not.

Gore ignored the left and didn't get their votes. He went after the moderates and lost them too.

If you want peoples' votes you have to appeal to them and their interests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #51)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:06 PM

52. ironic. Gore ditched Clilnton. Had he used Bill, he would have won Arkansas, KT and Tenn

 

people who want 100% get nothing

see Lincoln the movie
all great presidents learn to get something instead of nothing

LBJ was the greatest President of the modern age.Any real democrat knows that.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #52)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:11 PM

53. "Hey, Hey, LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?"

There were a lot of "real" Democrats chanting that in '68 and I was one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:20 PM

55. In retrospect,ditching LBJ it led directly to Bush and Bush

 

say what you want, it led to all the bad

sometimes burn it down comes back to bite one in the rear

same like people are wanting to do to this President

when you tear something down, better to make sure you have some idea of what will rebuild it before burning it down

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #52)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:14 PM

54. So, it wasn't Nader's "fault" after all. It was Gore's.

Gore certainly didn't dump Clinton because he was afraid of Nader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #52)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:17 PM

59. "Any real democrat knows that".

 

I'm a real democrat and I don't know that. LBJ was guilty of war crimes and just like Bush, should have been arrested for crimes against humanity and hauled before the Hague for trial.
"LBJ was the greatest President of the modern age". ridiculous statement at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tradecenter (Reply #59)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:42 AM

60. Your opinion, but his more important social acts, voting rights acts, civil rights acts trump that

 

tossing around words like war crimes would be for Eisenhower, for what he did to the POWS at the end of the war, and all the founding fathers,
not to mention that every single settler who came here and killed the native americans
would apply

its so ridiculous and Vietnam is now a tourist attraction, same as Disney World.
Thousands and thousands now go there and eat drink and be merry.
Same with Korea
Same with Germany, now there is one Germany, not two
Same with everywhere

Hey, JFK and RFK wiretapped illegally Martin Luther King Jr. people seem to forget that, and forget that they escalated Eisenhowers beginning of the war.

people move on in 45 years

But ditching LBJ over it in retrospect was quite wrong.

LBJ would have beaten Nixon
RFK would still have been alive to run in 1972 and 1976
and HHH was a great nice guy, but again, as he ran with all of HHH's baggage and was not a very good candidate himself politically speaking, it was a 2nd string choice(not to mention he didn't win many states in the primaries itself, so he was himself selected not elected to be the candidate.)


When talking raw cold truths, one puts emotion aside and looks at what happened.

HHH was no better than Gore or Kerry or any other person who could have, should have, would have blah blah blah, but a look on the list of Presidents shows none of them did.

When going through ones balance sheet at the end of their lives
and takes out the one bad and the one best, it is the other stuff that makes the person

LBJ comes far ahead on the plus side.
What LBJ did for Civil Rights alone is more than anyone ever did, including Lincoln
LBJ did what no one else would have before him. Without LBJ there would be no President Obama anyhow.
Thank God for that. I personally don't believe the Kennedy's would have done it, it would have taken too much to get done, especially in the Democratic party itself at the time, and JFK would have had not only to think about his reelection, but RFK's in the future, so I don't think they would have bothered at least very quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:42 PM

43. Ugh! ; No more Clintons. No more 3rd Way. No more Triangulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:58 PM

56. I hope she runs....

She is no Bill Clinton. She will be the best person in the room if she decides to do it. I like and respect her very much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:23 PM

58. Wow Home grown Trolling OP. It's a wonder we ever talk about anything meaningfull...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread