BigMacPhisto
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 6,351
Clinton's a corporatist and war hawk, so in a lot of ways, there isn't much difference. Unlike recent Obama, she'll actually concede to GOP demands and sign legislation that the inevitable Republican-held House decides to pass.
The only way she really loses though is if Bernie Sanders manages to catch on. The guy's pretty likable once people realize what he stands for and who he is, but he's going to have literally no money to work with (he's foregoing Super PACs and large donations out of principle) and even if Sanders were to win a lot of early states (which really wouldn't be that surprising), how in the hell is he going to do well in states like California that are going to be loaded with millions of low-information voters that will just check the box next to Hillary's name?
Meanwhile, all of the other Dem contenders to Clinton are pretty much to her right, so nobody would have any reason to actually vote for them. As sad as it sounds, Clinton was one of the more liberal Senators while she was in Congress. Pathetic, really.
Warren is not going to run. People forget that most of the Democratic Party establishment has already endorsed Clinton, including Warren. Warren's also not much of a campaigner/debater and tends to just read prepared speeches in public verbatim. She's controlling her image to a great degree and trying far too hard to avoid slip-ups...convincing evidence that the people around her don't think she'd be able to survive a grueling campaign without making a lot of snafus.
And again, she doesn't want to run whatsoever and has already endorsed Hillary. Move on.
It's either a populist revolt that gets Sanders into the White House or we'll be crowning our first queen in Jan 2017.
The only way she really loses though is if Bernie Sanders manages to catch on. The guy's pretty likable once people realize what he stands for and who he is, but he's going to have literally no money to work with (he's foregoing Super PACs and large donations out of principle) and even if Sanders were to win a lot of early states (which really wouldn't be that surprising), how in the hell is he going to do well in states like California that are going to be loaded with millions of low-information voters that will just check the box next to Hillary's name?
Meanwhile, all of the other Dem contenders to Clinton are pretty much to her right, so nobody would have any reason to actually vote for them. As sad as it sounds, Clinton was one of the more liberal Senators while she was in Congress. Pathetic, really.
Warren is not going to run. People forget that most of the Democratic Party establishment has already endorsed Clinton, including Warren. Warren's also not much of a campaigner/debater and tends to just read prepared speeches in public verbatim. She's controlling her image to a great degree and trying far too hard to avoid slip-ups...convincing evidence that the people around her don't think she'd be able to survive a grueling campaign without making a lot of snafus.
And again, she doesn't want to run whatsoever and has already endorsed Hillary. Move on.
It's either a populist revolt that gets Sanders into the White House or we'll be crowning our first queen in Jan 2017.