US Presidential Election 2016...because it's never too early

[BVS]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

You are many things, but "waiting for a response" is not one of them and never has been.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

ftw


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Obama is cow-towing to 'Death to America' Iran

Please explain how seeking diplomatic solutions (and, in this case, a solution that most nuclear arms experts agree is actually a rather good one given our options) is "cow-towing" to Iran.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

And? Right now someone who votes Republican is also a member of the KKK.

Might even be a leader in the Klan like Senator Robert Byrd.

[deep]

so you are saying, the GOP are always a few decades behind the Democrats.

[Oregoropa]

Yes Mrs. Clinton is doing well in current polling. But this article from The New York Times shows many of ethical landmines she'll have to navigate soon.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company

[BVS]

As will all the nominees...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[U2DMfan]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Yes Mrs. Clinton is doing well in current polling. But this article from The New York Times shows many of ethical landmines she'll have to navigate soon.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company

And there will be 20 more 'scandals' like this and it literally will not matter.

1. A Democrat will win the White House. Period. One sober look at demographics, the electoral college and the GOP platform will tell you this. Besides all of that (it's enough)...the GOP's best candidate has the surname of Bush. Surely a real attraction to middle voters who decide swing states.

2. HRC will be the Democratic nominee. Period. She's polling so high, all the smart money is already with her. Any opposition is permanently on the outside looking in. Said another way...Obama announced his candidacy for President 21 months before the 2008 election. We are already almost 18 months away.

3. She will be the next President no matter how hard the media tries A) to get someone else to run on the Democratic side (if not because of ideology, conflict is the narrative that always sells) and B) to convince everyone of something they already believe w/r/t HRC.

4. Most of the 300 million people in America did not sleep through the supposed-Clinton-scandal-a-week 1990's. Everybody knows her. They believe what they believe about her. And she's still the strong favorite. And those that don't know her as well, younger people, are going to vote Democrat no matter what.

5. Obama rode a wave of excitement the likes of our generations have never seen and he coasted by a media too afraid to dig into him too much. And he still barely got past her.

The 2016 election, most likely, is already over with. It would be a HUGE upset if she doesn't win. In a word, it would be shocking. In most election cycles, it would be far too early to be so declarative. But this is entirely unique in our modern era. It would normally take a scandal or a viable challenger to doom her. And no challenger exists...and the more the GOP nitpicks a bunch of supposed scandalous crap nobody but FOX News viewers (never voting for HRC to begin with) cares about...the more numb everyone else grows to it.

Oh, and I almost forgot...she's going to get quite a bit of female votes, maybe even some moderate conservatives. So, yeah.

[deep]

That's a pretty good assessment

tapatalk, it works

[Oregoropa]

Your analysis was a good read.

Originally Posted by U2DMfan

3. She will be the next President no matter how hard the media tries A) to get someone else to run on the Democratic side (if not because of ideology, conflict is the narrative that always sells) and B) to convince everyone of something they already believe w/r/t HRC.

The Left wants her out. It's not Fox News, its the New York Times attacking her. Not to mention the Daily Beast. They want Warren bad. I want Warren to run, because I don't think she plays well to the audience outside the Liberal Cities and Academic Enclaves (Which that is not lost on Dem voters. may save Clinton for the nomination) The country is hungry for a non Clinton/Bush.

Read the articles that come out about the Uranium deal over the next few days and you'll see who has their knives out on the Left.

(It's fun to watch, I'm a political junkie)

[Mrs. Garrison]

Originally Posted by U2DMfan

And there will be 20 more 'scandals' like this and it literally will not matter.

1. A Democrat will win the White House. Period. One sober look at demographics, the electoral college and the GOP platform will tell you this. Besides all of that (it's enough)...the GOP's best candidate has the surname of Bush. Surely a real attraction to middle voters who decide swing states.

2. HRC will be the Democratic nominee. Period. She's polling so high, all the smart money is already with her. Any opposition is permanently on the outside looking in. Said another way...Obama announced his candidacy for President 21 months before the 2008 election. We are already almost 18 months away.

3. She will be the next President no matter how hard the media tries A) to get someone else to run on the Democratic side (if not because of ideology, conflict is the narrative that always sells) and B) to convince everyone of something they already believe w/r/t HRC.

4. Most of the 300 million people in America did not sleep through the supposed-Clinton-scandal-a-week 1990's. Everybody knows her. They believe what they believe about her. And she's still the strong favorite. And those that don't know her as well, younger people, are going to vote Democrat no matter what.

5. Obama rode a wave of excitement the likes of our generations have never seen and he coasted by a media too afraid to dig into him too much. And he still barely got past her.

The 2016 election, most likely, is already over with. It would be a HUGE upset if she doesn't win. In a word, it would be shocking. In most election cycles, it would be far too early to be so declarative. But this is entirely unique in our modern era. It would normally take a scandal or a viable challenger to doom her. And no challenger exists...and the more the GOP nitpicks a bunch of supposed scandalous crap nobody but FOX News viewers (never voting for HRC to begin with) cares about...the more numb everyone else grows to it.

Oh, and I almost forgot...she's going to get quite a bit of female votes, maybe even some moderate conservatives. So, yeah.

Great post.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by deep

so you are saying, the GOP are always a few decades behind the Democrats.

Maybe. But what I was really trying to point out is that you have to be careful with the usual stereotypes of each party.

Originally Posted by U2DMfan

And there will be 20 more 'scandals' like this and it literally will not matter.

1. A Democrat will win the White House. Period. One sober look at demographics, the electoral college and the GOP platform will tell you this. Besides all of that (it's enough)...the GOP's best candidate has the surname of Bush. Surely a real attraction to middle voters who decide swing states.

2. HRC will be the Democratic nominee. Period. She's polling so high, all the smart money is already with her. Any opposition is permanently on the outside looking in. Said another way...Obama announced his candidacy for President 21 months before the 2008 election. We are already almost 18 months away.

3. She will be the next President no matter how hard the media tries A) to get someone else to run on the Democratic side (if not because of ideology, conflict is the narrative that always sells) and B) to convince everyone of something they already believe w/r/t HRC.

4. Most of the 300 million people in America did not sleep through the supposed-Clinton-scandal-a-week 1990's. Everybody knows her. They believe what they believe about her. And she's still the strong favorite. And those that don't know her as well, younger people, are going to vote Democrat no matter what.

5. Obama rode a wave of excitement the likes of our generations have never seen and he coasted by a media too afraid to dig into him too much. And he still barely got past her.

The 2016 election, most likely, is already over with. It would be a HUGE upset if she doesn't win. In a word, it would be shocking. In most election cycles, it would be far too early to be so declarative. But this is entirely unique in our modern era. It would normally take a scandal or a viable challenger to doom her. And no challenger exists...and the more the GOP nitpicks a bunch of supposed scandalous crap nobody but FOX News viewers (never voting for HRC to begin with) cares about...the more numb everyone else grows to it.

Oh, and I almost forgot...she's going to get quite a bit of female votes, maybe even some moderate conservatives. So, yeah.

So, then it looks like the Republicans will be favored to win the White House in 2024? What do you think about 2024?

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

The country is hungry for a non Clinton/Bush.

On the contrary, we've had nearly 8 years without any Clinton/Bush in the White House. I say the country is ready for both.

[BVS]

The GOP will not win another presidential race for a long time unless there is drastic change in the party, or a drastic misstep by the Democrats. You can't be that out of touch and win the highest seat in the country.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[martha]

Originally Posted by BVS

The GOP will not win another presidential race for a long time unless there is drastic change in the party, or a drastic misstep by the Democrats. You can't be that out of touch and win the highest seat in the country.

And when your base is that old and not getting replaced.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Your analysis was a good read.









The Left wants her out. It's not Fox News, its the New York Times attacking her. Not to mention the Daily Beast. They want Warren bad. I want Warren to run, because I don't think she plays well to the audience outside the Liberal Cities and Academic Enclaves (Which that is not lost on Dem voters. may save Clinton for the nomination) The country is hungry for a non Clinton/Bush.



Read the articles that come out about the Uranium deal over the next few days and you'll see who has their knives out on the Left.



(It's fun to watch, I'm a political junkie)

What/who is "The Left"?

Are you equating the NYT with Fox News?

[Oregoropa]

The Left wing of the Democratic Party. Who? The Obama team-appartus, Warren, Sanders, O' Malley. New York Times, New Republic, Daily Beast. They want a truer blue liberal to attack Wall St. instead of cozy up to her.

I was saying the article wasn't a hit piece from Fox News, I was mentioning that it was from NYT which is a liberal institution. It's almost shocking to see how it is a media feeding frenzy already with her campaign three weeks underway.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

The Left wing of the Democratic Party. Who? The Obama team-appartus, Warren, Sanders, O' Malley. New York Times, New Republic, Daily Beast. They want a truer blue liberal to attack Wall St. instead of cozy up to her.

I was saying the article wasn't a hit piece from Fox News, I was mentioning that it was from NYT which is a liberal institution. It's almost shocking to see how it is a media feeding frenzy already with her campaign three weeks underway.

I think you have a very skewed vision of how the media works. The NYT is not a left wing equivalent of Fox News, it's reporting is not left wing. The New Republic is classical liberal, much more hawkish than the Democratic left, and has no right wing equivalent. The Dailey Beast is much the same (minus the intelligence of TNR), and neither has the readership that would approach Fox News or the reach of right wing radio. The "feeding frenzy" you see is a right wing fabrication.

All that said, the NYT story may be an issue not because it's some liberal attack machine recalibrated to go after Hillary by the powers-that-be, but because it's the newspaper of record digging into the presumptive Democratic nominee. We will see how it develops, but it's silly to imagine that Elizabeth Warren and Obama have passed out a talking points memo to the media in the way that the Bush White House would do with Roger Ailes.

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

because it's the newspaper of record digging into the presumptive Democratic nominee.

It is very rare to see this type of bloodletting in the Times aimed at any Democrat, let alone the Clintons. 88 paragraphs in length.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

It is very rare to see this type of bloodletting in the Times aimed at any Democrat, let alone the Clintons. 88 paragraphs in length.

Is it? Or is there just an actual story here that the NYT reported on because they are a newspaper and it is their job to do so?

There's no master plan at work here, no one is lining up to assassinate HRC because she's not left enough. This is actual journalism at work.

[Vlad n U 2]

NYT and The Daily Beast are leftist? Incredible.

[PhilsFan]

The New York Times is centrist. I wish there was more liberalism in the media, but alas, there is not.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference