Not excited about Clinton's candidacy

Michchamp · Apr 24, 2015

In case you thought my distaste for Scott Walker and the Koch's means I'm excited about Hillary Clinton for president in any way shape or form... I'm not.

This could be the worst presidential election since Bush v. Kerry, in terms of the options. Actually I think Clinton v. Walker or Clinton v. Jeb Bush is worse than '04.

The only good thing would be the development of more populist parties on the Right & Left that would force the media to focus on some of the substantive issues, instead of the "candidate you'd rather have a beer with" and "who is out-of-touch with the common man" kinda crap.

but even then, they might just completely tune those third/fourth parties out, like they did with Nader in 2000 & Ron Paul in 2008/2012. the second any third party candidate starts polling well, they drop out of the news. Just watch.

Gulo Blue · Apr 24, 2015

I'm writing in Harbaugh, but only because I'm not afraid he'll win. Wouldn't want to actually lose him. Just send a message.

Monster · Apr 24, 2015

IMO Kerry would have been an excellent president. Just not an exciting candidate. Hillary has issues but the way she terrifies and gets under the Right's skin makes me SMIIIILLLE.

grandy · Apr 24, 2015

Another election where people vote for one candidate solely because the other option is worse. I think I'm already to the point where I just don't care anymore.

Spartanmack · Apr 24, 2015

Monster said:
IMO Kerry would have been an excellent president. Just not an exciting candidate. Hillary has issues but the way she terrifies and gets under the Right's skin makes me SMIIIILLLE.

She (and her husband) are loathed, not feared.

tinselwolverine · Apr 24, 2015

grandy said:
Another election where people vote for one candidate solely because the other option is worse. I think I'm already to the point where I just don't care anymore.

I'm not even registered to vote anymore.

I moved about a couple and never re-registered at my new address.

I'm figuring it might possibly keep me out of jury duty.

Michchamp · Apr 24, 2015

tinselwolverine said:
I'm not even registered to vote anymore.

I moved about a couple and never re-registered at my new address.

I'm figuring it might possibly keep me out of jury duty.

you need to get rid of your car then too. at least in OC "prospective jurors? names are obtained from voter registration and DMV records."

I assume the rest of CA follows the same standard.

also this: "Business casual attire is suggested. Shorts and tank tops are not appropriate courtroom attire."

good luck enforcing that among the slobs who live in CA.

tinselwolverine · Apr 24, 2015

michchamp said:
you need to get rid of your car then too. at least in OC "prospective jurors? names are obtained from voter registration and DMV records."

I assume the rest of CA follows the same standard.

also this: "Business casual attire is suggested. Shorts and tank tops are not appropriate courtroom attire."

good luck enforcing that among the slobs who live in CA.

They'll probably catch up me some how someday, but I'm going to make it as difficult as possible.

I suppose I could always get myself convicted of a felony...but that can lead to more problems than it solves.

Mitchrapp · Apr 24, 2015

Why isn't the dem party getting others to run against Hilary?

Monster · Apr 24, 2015

Mitchrapp said:
Why isn't the dem party getting others to run against Hilary?

Same reason nobody would run against Ronald Reagan if he were to return from the dead. They know they're going to lose. Sadly, I don't think there's a Democrat out there that could give Hillary a challenge. The ones who would could actually be president are either too old, too inexperienced, or too unknown as of now.

Mitchrapp · Apr 24, 2015

Monster said:
Same reason nobody would run against Ronald Reagan if he were to return from the dead. They know they're going to lose. Sadly, I don't think there's a Democrat out there that could give Hillary a challenge. The ones who would could actually be president are either too old, too inexperienced, or too unknown as of now.

IMO, Hilary is not a great candidate and has some things on her resume others can really go after. I'm not all familiar with it but can someone else run if they choose or do they need get to get backed by the parties?

tinselwolverine · Apr 24, 2015

Monster said:
Same reason nobody would run against Ronald Reagan if he were to return from the dead. They know they're going to lose. Sadly, I don't think there's a Democrat out there that could give Hillary a challenge. The ones who would could actually be president are either too old, too inexperienced, or too unknown as of now.

Except -

This is EXACTLY what the situation was on April 24, 2007.

EDIT:

I just checked back at what was happening exactly eight years ago to the day, and it looks like my claim the situation was EXACTLY the same was a bit of an overstatement.

That said, the polls had Clinton as the sizable front runner eight years ago, and my impression was that most were considering her to be the presumptive nominee.

It didn't seem to me that most people were taking Obama seriously until he started having success against her in primaries and caucuses early the following year.

tinselwolverine · Apr 24, 2015

Mitchrapp said:
IMO, Hilary is not a great candidate and has some things on her resume others can really go after. I'm not all familiar with it but can someone else run if they choose or do they need get to get backed by the parties?

Yes, of course, somebody could run against her for the Democratic nomination, and I have no doubt somebody will.

How formidable they might be I don't know.

The parties themselves don't "back" anybody until they've nominated a candidate through the nominating process; i.e., the primaries and caucuses.

Read The Making of the President 1960 by Theodore H. White and Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 by Hunter S. Thompson if you want to familiarize yourself with how this sort of works.

Mitchrapp · Apr 24, 2015

tinselwolverine said:
Yes, of course, somebody could run against her for the Democratic nomination, and I have no doubt somebody will.

How formidable they might be I don't know.

The parties themselves don't "back" anybody until they've nominated a candidate through the nominating process; i.e., the primaries and caucuses.

Read The Making of the President 1960 by Theodore H. White and Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 by Hunter S. Thompson if you want to familiarize yourself with how this sort of works.

I guess backing wasn't the right word. I do realize, at least somewhat, how that works. I guess I see it as the party wants Hilary to be President and want's it to be the easiest path possible. Not wanting Hilary to get slammed by other teams before she goes against a Rep.

I just thought the dem party would have a say whether someone else should run..I'm wrong on that apparently.

Spartanmack · Apr 24, 2015

if you pay closer attention you'll hear rumblings about Martin O'Malley (former Gov of MD), Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The latter 2 are extreme lefties, both are idiots and probably unelectable (Sanders (Independent) is a self-proclaimed socialist). O'Malley is the only one that really has a chance and I would bet he's not going to run against her for the nomination unless something big happens - like maybe the fallout from this book ends up being a big deal and really hurts her standing.

I don't think Hillary is a lock in the general election - she may not even be a lock for the nomination, but she has the best chance of any Dem. The best thing that could happen for Republicans would be for the world to wake up to what a horrible human being she is and Elizabeth Warren to enter the race and beat out O'Malley - sadly, even Dems aren't foolish enough to nominate Sanders.

Mitchrapp · Apr 24, 2015

So if Hilary gets elected the next phase would be a black women..who would be in line for that? Condoleezza Rice? Maybe that's why she's waiting to run, all timing.

tinselwolverine · Apr 24, 2015

Mitchrapp said:
I just thought the dem party would have a say whether someone else should run..I'm wrong on that apparently.

It's individuals themselves who choose to be candidates.

That said, different groups within each party may back a particular candidate; for example, the Tea Party types will be backing Ted Cruz within the Republican party while the establishment types will likely be backing either Jeb Bush or maybe Scott Walker. The Koch's are kind of their own group that really isn't part of the establishment or the Tea Party or the fairly under-represented libertarian wing (there really is one, but unfortunately it's not that influential). There are few civil libertarian Republicans who might back Rand Paul; I really don't think he has much of a chance.

Hillary Clinton might be in the moderate or "establishment" wing of the Democratic party; Elizabeth Warren would be more the liberal or progressive wing. Warren had been insisting that she wouldn't seek the nomination but she may be backing off from that.

I have no doubt Clinton will be challenged from the left; it might be that tired old fossil Kucinich; who nevertheless has an infrastructure of support from previous presidential endeavors.

Monster · Apr 24, 2015

Spartanmack said:
if you pay closer attention you'll hear rumblings about Martin O'Malley (former Gov of MD), Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The latter 2 are extreme lefties, both are idiots and probably unelectable (Sanders (Independent) is a self-proclaimed socialist). O'Malley is the only one that really has a chance and I would bet he's not going to run against her for the nomination unless something big happens - like maybe the fallout from this book ends up being a big deal and really hurts her standing.

I don't think Hillary is a lock in the general election - she may not even be a lock for the nomination, but she has the best chance of any Dem. The best thing that could happen for Republicans would be for the world to wake up to what a horrible human being she is and Elizabeth Warren to enter the race and beat out O'Malley - sadly, even Dems aren't foolish enough to nominate Sanders.

warren has said dozens of times that she would not run. IMO she would destroy Hillary and anyone the gop nominates. She's much more likable and much more of a Liberal.

Michchamp · Apr 24, 2015

I think of the potential challengers, Elizabeth Warren was the most legit, and had the best chance to force a serious fight in the primaries.

I can't think of anyone else right now who'd be willing to jump in the ring & has some name recognition (at least among most progressives). Maybe a senator like Ron Wyden or Sherrod Brown?

state governors are overwhelming GOP right now (31 to 18, plus 1 independent).

I had to look them up... among the democrats who are governors... yikes a lot of them would probably run to the right of Hillary.

not sure where else you find a candidate; there are a handful of congressmen with some name recognition outside their state (e.g. Alan Grayson). I haven't read anything about drafting one of them to run. Among failed or former politicians, or others in office... there's Howard Dean... and Kucinich... eh... Joe Biden? I don't see Biden running to the left of Hillary.

Monster · Apr 24, 2015

Mitchrapp said:
So if Hilary gets elected the next phase would be a black women..who would be in line for that? Condoleezza Rice? Maybe that's why she's waiting to run, all timing.

Michelle Obama lol.

Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

Not excited about Clinton's candidacy

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Manager

Senior Member

Senior Member

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Moderator

Forum Manager

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Moderator

Forum Manager

Well-known member

Forum Manager

About Us

Stay Connected

Forum statistics

Affiliates