So...I'm Thinking About Next U.S. Presidential Election

[Imran Siddiqui]

And the Iraq War vote issue.

[rah]

Yes, but before Obama got hot she was pictured as the ordained one. There is still time for another star to rise if they keep chipping away.
Heck if it was anybody but her, I bet a lot more of this stuff would be sticking,

[Imran Siddiqui]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-hillary-clinton-steamroller-rumbles-to-life/

Clinton has pretty much already won the endorsement primary, the all-important pre-voting race to lock up party establishment support.2 Last time she ran for president, Clinton lost the endorsement primary. By this point in the 2008 campaign, she had only one senator endorse her publicly. According to a CNN count in February, Clinton has already secured endorsements from 27 of 46 Democratic senators. That’s a ton of support so early in the campaign.

But here’s the more amazing thing about those 27 endorsements: That total would still be impressive even if no one else were to endorse Clinton. Only George W. Bush’s 2000 machine picked up more senator endorsements (33), and it took him the entire primary campaign. He didn’t reach 27 until November 1999. The only other two campaigns to come close to 27 were Bob Dole’s in 1996 and Al Gore’s in 2000; each picked up 26. Like Bush, Dole and Gore rolled over the competition.

Unlike in 2008, Clinton has her left flank well-covered. She has the endorsement of liberal stalwarts such as Sens. Tammy Baldwin and Elizabeth Warren. Clinton also has the endorsement of moderate senators such as Joe Manchin and Claire McCaskill.

Clinton also has the most dominant poll numbers of any candidate at this point in the election cycle in the modern era.

Clinton is in a far stronger position than she was last time around. Back in 2008, she was trailing in early Iowa polls. She earned only a third of the vote in early New Hampshire polls and was below 40 percent nationally.

Nor are there any real holes in her support. According to YouGov polling conducted in March, 68 percent of Democrats believe she is “about right” ideologically.3 Only 12 percent of Democrats would not consider voting for her, according to a February CBS News survey. In the latest Marist College survey, she earns more than 60 percent among liberal,4 moderate and conservative Democratic primary voters.

So feel free to continue to hope against hope. It's just not based on reality.

[jsorense]

Heck if it was anybody but her, I bet a lot more of this stuff would be sticking,

rah raises a couple of questions: Is Hillary covered with socio-econo-political Teflon and, is more stuff being thrown at her because she is Hillary?
I don't know the answer, I'm just asking.

[Bosh]

This is the only problem when the coronation starts so early. There is a lot of time to chip chip chip away at a single target. Eventually they may all add up to something meaningful.

IT probably won't amount to anything but it would be funny if she was denied again.

Yeah but last time she had a strong early poll lead this time her early poll lead is just monstrous, the kind incumbent presidents have, enough to discourage potential challengers. Hopes she gets a decent challenger for the nomination but she`s pretty much a shoe in now.

[DinoDoc]

Did anyone think the Dem primary would be anything other than a coronation?

[PLATO]

Did anyone think the Dem primary would be anything other than a coronation?

Nope. Given the electoral college make-up, it may just be an overall coronation.

While I really do not like Hillary and many of her policies, I believe that she would make a better administrator than the current President. Both parties have their flaws, but if you really study the points in time and specific events that have caused recession in the last 50 years, you will most likely find a democrat with good intensions at the same place.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um, in the last 50 years, it's roughly 50/50 as to which party was in in office for the last 2-4 years prior to it - including 2 of the last 3 (the Great Recession of 2007-09 and the Recession of 1990-91 - the only one of those you could possibly lay on a Dem's feet is the one in 2001)

[PLATO]

Um, in the last 50 years, it's roughly 50/50 as to which party was in in office for the last 2-4 years prior to it - including 2 of the last 3 (the Great Recession of 2007-09 and the Recession of 1990-91 - the only one of those you could possibly lay on a Dem's feet is the one in 2001)

I guess I should not have opened that can of worms. I really just don't want to spend the time to go through all the reasoning. I do understand your point and it is certainly the conventional wisdom. Can I just say that I disagree?

[Dinner]

Yeah, piss it away.

If I vote for the party who best represents my position then how is that pissing away my vote? Sure, they won't win because Americans are mostly slaves to the two party system but I still voted for the party that best represent me, no?

[kentonio]

If I vote for the party who best represents my position then how is that pissing away my vote? Sure, they won't win because Americans are mostly slaves to the two party system but I still voted for the party that best represent me, no?

The irony here being that if everyone actually did that there wouldn't be a two party system any more.

[I AM MOBIUS]

There isn't. It's just that no other party stands a chance of winning in the archaic and undemocratic FPTP system. Anyone would think you're advocating PR, Ken?

[I AM MOBIUS]

Modius is wrong again.


I will probably vote green as a protest vote, not that it will matter.

A green Republican? Isn't that an oxymoron? [emoji38]

[kentonio]

There isn't. It's just that no other party stands a chance of winning in the archaic and undemocratic FPTP system. Anyone would think you're advocating PR, Ken?

I was talking about America, what with replying to a Dinner post and all.

You're wrong about FPTP btw, its perfectly democratic, just not the system of democracy you apparently want.

[Dr Strangelove]

I guess I should not have opened that can of worms. I really just don't want to spend the time to go through all the reasoning. I do understand your point and it is certainly the conventional wisdom. Can I just say that I disagree?

It's the 47% thing. Really, whose idea was it to give those lay-abouts a vote anyway? Obviously it was just the Dems stacking the deck.