Hillary Clinton, (not) for 2016

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Hillary Clinton, (not) for 2016

Postby Bludgeon » Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:57 pm

I think that's not going to happen, and I say that as a person who could pretty much be happy whoever won 2016 if she was on the ballot. That being the case, I predict she will not win.

More likely I see a real piece of human garbage like Eric Holder getting the nomination. Like 2008, the black candidate will always have an automatic 92% of the black vote in the Democratic constituency, from here on out. It's a way early prediction but I could see Holder and Kerry being the only major candidates left by fall of 2016, with Holder sitting around 43% to Kerry's 22%. The Democrats will again have fun treating the Kerry/Clinton/Whitey constituency like racist pigs for 12 months and expecting them to show up for their candidate.

I don't see Democrats reaching for any part of the Clinton coalition unless they prove they need to by losing a big national election.

CBS wrote:Will she or won't she?

That's the question that will follow former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton until she announces whether or not she's running for president in 2016, a decision that likely won't be made until sometime this year. In the meantime, though, her supporters are practicing their ground game even as top advisers are still ambivalent on whether she should take another shot at a White House bid.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/some-close- ... -2016-bid/

kurt_w
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6095
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Hillary Clinton, (not) for 2016

Postby kurt_w » Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:07 am

Bludgeon wrote:I say that as a person who could pretty much be happy whoever won 2016 if she was on the ballot.

You also say that as the person who thought Herman Cain had a good shot at the GOP nomination in 2012, and that "Nobody really thinks Romney is going to get the nomination - nobody likes him".

Then there was your entertainingly self-deluding approach to the polling data during the final month of the election.

So, you may find it somewhat difficult to convince people here to take your prognostications seriously.

Stella_Guru
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1216
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 6:08 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton, (not) for 2016

Postby Stella_Guru » Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:10 am

Bludgeon wrote:I don't see Democrats reaching for any part of the Clinton coalition unless they prove they need to by losing a big national election.

I guess you missed Hillary telling the American Jewish community she will keep the military option open with Iran, soon after Droneman's call for respect of "international law".

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 24683
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Hillary Clinton, (not) for 2016

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:07 pm

I wonder who the Hillary haters will vote for. Bludge, probably the most extreme conservative the GOP has to offer while Stella wishes that Gus Hall was still alive.

Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 14951
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Hillary Clinton, (not) for 2016

Postby Ned Flanders » Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:21 pm

I'm not sure the old girl is in very good physical condition.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 24683
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Hillary Clinton, (not) for 2016

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:26 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:I'm not sure the old girl is in very good physical condition.

You know Stella?

nutria
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 862
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:53 am

Re: Hillary Clinton, (not) for 2016

Postby nutria » Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:30 pm

Ned Flanders wrote:I'm not sure the old girl is in very good physical condition.


...says the McCain voter.

Although I will point out you are being consistent with you gerontophobia, pervert.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9947
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Hillary Clinton, (not) for 2016

Postby Huckleby » Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:43 pm

Bludgeon wrote: More likely I see a real piece of human garbage like Eric Holder getting the nomination. Like 2008, the black candidate will always have an automatic 92% of the black vote in the Democratic constituency, from here on out. It's a way early prediction but I could see Holder and Kerry being the only major candidates left by fall of 2016, with Holder sitting around 43% to Kerry's 22%. The Democrats will again have fun treating the Kerry/Clinton/Whitey constituency like racist pigs for 12 months and expecting them to show up for their candidate.


Why would a political party build their strategy around capturing 92% of 12% of the voters?

The best I can say about your predictions is that they are original. Your Ukraine predictions are one-of-a-kind. Your thoughts on Dem politics are all you, truly unique.

Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 14951
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Hillary Clinton, (not) for 2016

Postby Ned Flanders » Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:54 pm

nutria wrote:
Ned Flanders wrote:I'm not sure the old girl is in very good physical condition.


...says the McCain voter.

Although I will point out you are being consistent with you gerontophobia, pervert.

Image

Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: Hillary Clinton, (not) for 2016

Postby Bludgeon » Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:54 pm

Huckleby wrote:
Bludgeon wrote: More likely I see a real piece of human garbage like Eric Holder getting the nomination. Like 2008, the black candidate will always have an automatic 92% of the black vote in the Democratic constituency, from here on out. It's a way early prediction but I could see Holder and Kerry being the only major candidates left by fall of 2016, with Holder sitting around 43% to Kerry's 22%. The Democrats will again have fun treating the Kerry/Clinton/Whitey constituency like racist pigs for 12 months and expecting them to show up for their candidate.


Why would a political party build their strategy around capturing 92% of 12% of the voters?


92% OF 12% of the vote is a lot of the vote. But I'm just talking about the primary, where the numbers are higher. It's hard to lose a national primary with 92% of any demographic.

nutria
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 862
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 8:53 am

Re: Hillary Clinton, (not) for 2016

Postby nutria » Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:56 pm

Imagine that, the CP consumer posted an idea that isn't his own. Shocking. Note all the usual conservative opinion sites represented well.

Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: Hillary Clinton, (not) for 2016

Postby Bludgeon » Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:08 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:Bludge, probably the most extreme conservative the GOP has to offer.


I'm "extreme GOP"? I guess progressives can't have an ideology cult if they're not constantly hypnotizing themselves all day. It's like a minute to minute mind-wipe with devotional partisans. By all means, don't wait for the propaganda, just program your own mind. We won't stop you. Hail new-age jesus.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 24683
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Hillary Clinton, (not) for 2016

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:12 pm

Well, you certainly don't sound like you would vote for Democratic candidate. Maybe your allegiance goes to the Constitutional Party or some other splinter group. But do tell us who you might vote for. This could be very interesting.

Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: Hillary Clinton, (not) for 2016

Postby Bludgeon » Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:23 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:Well, you certainly don't sound like you would vote for Democratic candidate. Maybe your allegiance goes to the Constitutional Party or some other splinter group. But do tell us who you might vote for. This could be very interesting.


In the Democratic primary, any candidate who steers the party away from the progressive ideology cult; in the Republican primary, anybody who steers the party away from the big government Bush coalition. In the other parties, anyone who isn't "New Age".

You should consider leaving the cult yourself; you may be surprised to find they can't take your name or your wife or your birthday.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 24683
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Hillary Clinton, (not) for 2016

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:27 pm

Bludgeon wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:Well, you certainly don't sound like you would vote for Democratic candidate. Maybe your allegiance goes to the Constitutional Party or some other splinter group. But do tell us who you might vote for. This could be very interesting.


In the Democratic primary, any candidate who steers the party away from the progressive ideology cult; in the Republican primary, anybody who steers the party away from the big government Bush coalition. In the other parties, anyone who isn't "New Age".

Non-answer, as you can only vote in one party's presidential primary.


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests