Election 2016

Is Hillary Clinton the HealthCare.gov of Presidential Candidates?

Why Hillary Clinton's inevitability could be a big weakness in 2016.

|

White House Flickr

For a sense of how crowded and chaotic the potential Republican presidential field is, it's worth reading Sean Trende's RealClearPolitics analysis of the coming race, "What If No One Wins the GOP Presidential Nomination?"

Trende makes a compelling argument—complete with a simple but smartly devised scoring system—that the Republican candidate pool is deeper and stronger than at any time in recent history, based mostly on fundamentals like offices held and elections won.

With a field this deep and this strong, Trende argues, two things are likely: the first is that some candidates who seem like strong candidates will significantly underperform; the second is that no candidate will break away with a clear lead coming out of the primaries.

What that means is that a brokered convention, where no candidate has locked up the nomination based on primary voting, is a real possibility. Indeed, Trende says "it might well be the most likely outcome, if only because no particular outcome is particularly probable."

The Republican primary contest, in other words, is at this point utterly, fascinatingly unpredictable.

The Democratic contest, on the other hand, is set to be boringly, perfectly predictable. Hillary Clinton will run and win the nomination.

It's possible she will never face off against a challenger. It now appears likely that she will run either unopposed or effectively unopposed. As Politico's Mike Allen reported earlier this week, "the potential opposition is so weak that Clinton might wind up not even debating during the primaries."

It won't be a competition. It will be a coronation.

Indeed, in a follow-up today, Allen reports that Clinton is considering delaying the launch of her campaign from April, as reportedly planned, into the middle of the summer, likely July. The reason for the delay is that she expects to face no serious challenge for the nomination. According to one anonymous adviser who spoke to Allen, "She doesn't want to feel pressured by the press to do something before she's ready. She's better off as a non-candidate. Why not wait?"

Think about that one for a moment: She's better off as a non-candidate. That's not exactly a stirring testament to her strengths as a politician, especially given her flop of a book launch and the general timidity with which she's conducted her shadow campaign so far.

But it does suggest a looming potential problem for Clinton and the Democratic ticket in 2016: She won't be challenged before the general election.

In contrast, the Republican nominee will have run a brutal primary gauntlet.

That doesn't mean that Republicans will nominate the best possible candidate, or even a very good one. But it does mean that the Republican candidate will been proven to some extent through user testing. Now, as software developers everywhere will tell you, successful user testing on a small scale in-house can still flop on launch day. But some testing is better than no testing. Hillary Clinton may well be launching with none. She'll be the HealthCare.gov of candidates.

Right now, Clinton has a commanding lead in the polls over every likely GOP opponent. Polls this early don't tell us much of anything about likely election outcomes, but they do suggest that Clinton starts from the presumption of strength. People assume she's a strong candidate, and that comes with certain benefits—in particular, a lock on party resources. But the lack of a primary challenge means that will remain an unproven assumption. 

Indeed, Clinton's inevitability could prove to be a weakness for Democrats in 2016. Her dominance, combined with the limits imposed by her connections with the current administration, will make it harder for her campaign to respond to events flexibly and, in the process, will make her vulnerable to an unpredictable upstart challenger in the general election.

The unusually uncertain state of the Republican field makes this an even bigger potential weakness. Whether she launches in April or July, Clinton won't know who is going to win, or what kind of campaign the winner will have run—and therefore won't know how to design a campaign that specifically counters her general election opponent. Republicans, in contrast, will have spent roughly a year testing various approaches that might prove effective against Clinton.

 The GOP's wide-open primary race gives the party an opportunity not only to win but to experiment and change. For those of us who are consistently disappointed with or frustrated by the party's candidates, that should at the very least be intriguing, and perhaps even provide a smidgen of hope. Democrats, on the other hand, are for all practical purposes stuck with a single option, one that won't truly be tested until it's too late to change.

NEXT: School Choice Battle Is 'About Power,' Says Ex-Black Power Leader

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. More woman-hating from the wingnut right-wing smear machine! YOU HAVE NO IDEAS!

    1. Thanks for the canned response. Lucky thing Ms Clinton isn’t also black and a member of the Islamic religion. Then you would have been able to accuse her critics of being racist and xenophobic. A trifecta!

      1. Does this purple dress make my butt look big?

    2. What ideas does Hillary have? I’ve heard nothing coming from her, except that she said it was Obama’s idea to blame the video. And she went along with it.

      What’s her proposed budget? What is her plan to address the debt? Is she happy with Obamacare (would would presume so). Does she have any plans to deal with crony crapitalism, or being part of the corporate Democrats does she want to continue the crime?

      I suppose Hillary’s idea it to run on and promise Hope and Change. Of course, we have no idea what this is, just like for Obama.

      Hillary should be smeared for not telling us what she supports, and expecting us to support her. At least she supports the right of Muslim countries to jail people for speech, to keep women from voting and to engage in gential mutilation of of girls. She sure treated Monica, Georgia, and Juanita like she hated those women, and she’s said nothing about the pedophile friend and campaign contributor the to the family, the billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who started a ring of sex slaves for his rich friends like Bill Clinton, who stayed at his sex slave house. At least we know who hates women, unlike you.

  2. First of all, there are some challengers, the media just wants to pretend that there aren’t.

    Second, this election is quite likely going to the GOP, unless they do something extraordinarily stupid. Which is possible, of course. As a result, most Democrats are sitting in the wings, waiting to see if people are shifting back away from the GOP. This has happened on the other side recently, too. They may easily come out of the woodwork if the GOP screws up enough.

    Finally, Clinton has been a stumbling buffoon almost constantly since she’s been “running,” and her record is shitty at best. Not to mention that she’s quite strongly disliked by all Republicans, a large number of moderates, and Democrats not in the Clinton clique (especially the Obama fanboys). Not sure how she wins with all of that. Unlike Obama, she isn’t a blank slate–she’s a known incompetent and a known unprincipled fuck.

    1. “election is quite likely going to the GOP, unless they do something extraordinarily stupid. ”

      Wouldn’t bet on that, they’ve done quite well in Presidential elections lately

      1. I think the line has been crossed. There’s clearly a pretty major backlash happening, which seems likely to roll right through 2016.

        If the Democrats were smart, which they aren’t, they’d totally shitcan Obama and do something popular, like agree to repeal Obamacare (while mouthing something about replacing it later with something more effective). A move like that could give them a fighting chance.

        1. Don’t count your backlashes off of mid term elections in gerrymandered seats and lots of red state Dem incumbents is all I’m saying

          1. The various factions that make up the democratic coalition are far, far more pissed at each than I have seen in any time since Nixon smoked Humphrey.

            1. The various factions that make up the democratic coalition are far, far more pissed at each than I have seen in any time since Nixon smoked Humphrey.

              Yeah, but how do they feel about straight white middle-class males?

              1. Who?

                I thought they were projected to have all died off by 2016. That’s what the Hillary campaign is counting on.

        2. A “bug fix” reform rather than a repeal might go even better?

          1. Full repeal of the individual mandate or they needn’t bother wasting anyone’s time.

        3. From your lips to God’s ears. Sorry that there is not a snowballs chance in hell of it happening, however.

        4. The GOP blew it last time by nominating Willard the Douche. He was right-wing enough for the leftards to get out and vote against him, and he was too much of a RINO scumbag to motivate the Republicans to turn out and vote for Romneycare. Not to mention all the people he alienated by turning the convention into a Supreme Soviet.

          -jcr

      2. It’s pretty hard for a person of the same party to win after a president has held office for two terms in a row. There’s got to be a broad level of satisfaction with the way things are. Unless the economy and foreign policy take a serious turn in Obama’s favor, the Democrats have their work cut out for them in 2016.

        1. But economic confidence and other numbers are up, and viola so are Obama’s numbers. We’ve a fickle and quickly changing public mood

          1. Up =/= strong, Bo. The Michigan index is still below favorable (i.e. less than 100). The Conference Board numbers haven’t even recovered from the recession. And there’s still a lot of people who have “exited” the labor force.

            1. I hear you but falling unemployment,, high Dows and cheap gas resonates

              1. Unemployment is only falling because the labor force participation rate is at historic lows, the high Dows and cheap gas have nothing to do with anything Obama’s done. of course there’s a lot of stupid people out there who are too dumb to recognize that. It’s also a long time between now and November 2016. How was the economy doing in Jauary 2007 again?

                1. Sure, but perceptions matter in politics. Those numbers resonate, all I’m saying.

                  1. all I’m saying.

                    I hope this is true.

                2. Unemployment is only falling because the labor force participation rate is at historic lows,

                  In other words, unemployment isn’t falling at all, the regime is just lying about it.

                  -jcr

              2. One problem, the primary is still 21 Months away.

                Given all the economic problems this country has been facing what do you think the odds are that it holds on even another 12 before some sort of correction happens?

                The headline numbers look nice, the core fundamentals continue to look horrible and it is likely that the only thing still holding the whole house of cards up is the Fed continually pumping up that bubble machine. A tactic which cannot last forever.

                1. The general election is 21 months away, not the primary.

                  1. Mea Culpa, that is what I had meant

              3. High Dows are going to be very, very, difficult to maintain if the Fed tries raising rates (as predicted).

                And I think you’re missing my point. It doesn’t take just “improving”. It takes really, really strong. Bush 41 pulled it off during the 1980s boom (things kind of fell apart for him not too long after). Before that, to find a president that won on the back of a two-termer of their own party (without a dead predecessor), you have to go back to Hoover and the boom of the 1920s. Again, boom economy.

                That’s not what the economy looks like now. And I think there’s precious little reason to think it will in 2016 (hope I’m wrong). What we have looks a lot more like the late stages of an anemic expansion.

                1. Didn’t Truman win after four FDR wins?

                  1. He did, although that was a bit different as he was a sitting president.

                    1. Sitting president in the middle of a war that we were winning.

                      The only real way the American Public replaces a wartime President is if we are losing big and maybe not even then.

                    2. I was thinking 48

                  2. Which is why I stipulated “without a dead predecessor” (the same would have applied to Johnson). Post-WWII, I think it’s fair to say FDR was essentially deified. Truman ran as his hand-picked successor and still barely won.

                    1. Even Johnson didn’t win after two terms. JFK only served 2+ years, and LBJ served the balance of that term before winning in 64.

                    2. True. I was working on the “Third Kennedy term” line of thought. But, of course, you’re right about that.

          2. If the Koch conference is any indicator, the GOP will run on weak middle and lower class income growth and how, under Obama, most gains were for the wealthy.

          3. Economic numbers are up for the rich, which is partly why Obama is aware of it.

            As for household annual incomes, they are still $2000 lower than when Obama took office. Under normal circumstances (say growth of 4% each year) household incomes would be up $16,000 instead of down $2000, since Obama took office. Democrats are celebrating with their “Mission
            Accomplished” banner, but average citizens don’t see it. Nor do they see any rise in wages.

            Welcome to the statist Democrats’ (and RINOs as well) economy and new normal. That’s all you get, plus Democrats want to tax away your gas savings, even though they’ve worked to make gas more expensive.

    2. “this election is quite likely going to the GOP, unless they do something extraordinarily stupid. Which is possible, of course.”

      By “possible,” you mean “really darned likely”?

    3. As in previous contests, it depends on the economy.

      If the economy is doing well, Team Blue wins (unless they do something really stupid like nominate Warren.)

      If the economy is not doing well, Team Red wins (unless they nominate Huckabee or Santorum.)

      All other things being equal, Clinton vs Romney – edge to Clinton as ‘The First Woman President’.

      Backlash on Obamacare: Team Blue plays the “GOP wants the poor to die in the streets” card.

      1. If the GOP nominates Romney, they have a problem. The fact is perennial presidential candidates just don’t have a stellar track record of getting it right the second time around. You have Nixon, Jackson and Jefferson (and Cleveland if you want to consider a guy who lost re-election).

    4. Oh come on, Pro Libertate! Tell us how you feel about Ms Clinton, really. Don’t mince words, or beat around the bush. Tell it like you feel it.

  3. Hillary is a terrible candidate for two reasons:

    1. She has no accomplishments to speak of other than leveraging her husband’s name and influence to achieve positions of power.

    2. Absent any accomplishments to speak of, she utterly lacks charisma or the appeal of a transformative candidate. Barack Obama in 2008 had both.

    And with Barack Obama bringing the Democratic Party brand to an all-time nadir, Clinton only appeals to demoralized Democrats who want a do-over from 2008, not swing voters who are skeptical of liberals after 8 years of Obama.

    In short, the Democrats are utterly insane to not have another viable candidate lined up. The GOP will have to work extra hard to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on this one.

    1. The GOP will have to work extra hard to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory on this one.

      And they will do their damnedest to rise to the challenge.

    2. ” She has no accomplishments to speak of other than leveraging her husband’s name and influence to achieve positions of powe”

      That hasn’t stopped many a Presidency from having, from Bush to Adams

      1. JQ Adams had quite a record of achievement, admittedly some of which was after his Presidency.

        1. Achievements that didn’t involve leveraging his family name to get to the positions where he acheived them?

          1. Achievements like freeing slaves?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amistad_(film)

            How many slaves have *we* freed?

            1. That’s pretty late in his life

              1. He was, like, old and stuff!

                1. If it was after his presidency, then it probably didn’t have much to do with his election.

                  1. “If it was after his presidency, then it probably didn’t have much to do with his election.”

                    Good thing I said:

                    “JQ Adams had quite a record of achievement, *admittedly some of which was after his Presidency*.”

                    1. Right, but the whole discussion is about people without many achievements getting elected president, not presidents who went on to do interesting things after being president.

                2. “admittedly some of which was after his Presidency.”

              2. “That’s pretty late in his life”

                Apparently it’s Bo’s assertion that accomplishments after 50 don’t count.

                1. Reading comprehension fail. As Eddie acknowledges with his ‘admittedly’ when we’re discussing whether someone has accomplishments to be President other than their family name their long post Presidency accomplishments hardly matter.

            2. How many slaves have *we* freed?

              I’ve freed all of mine.

              1. Then, sirrah, how do your monocles get polished, and who bears your sedan chair?!?!?!

                  1. Yes, robots. They require a lot less whipping and they don’t drip tears on my monocles while polishing them.

                1. Why my employees.

                  I have found that “freeing” them and then making them pay for their food, clothing, and housing at my company store which is the only place that will accept the script I pay them with is so much more cost effective.

                  1. My dear chap! I liked the cut of your jib. I shall consider instituting such reforms myself.

                    1. What’s a jib?

              2. *looks on with quizically, sharing Swiss S’s concern*

          2. There’s getting advantages due to your name and solely obtaining office due to your name. Bush is that, and Clinton is solely that.

            1. She’s still done more on her own merits than Obama has. I don’t think it is quite fair to say that the name is all she has.

              1. The next office she is handed or job she is hired for based purely on her own merits will be her first.

                1. Very few people accomplish anything purely on their own merits.
                  I’m not trying to praise Hillary here. Just saying that she isn’t solely riding on Bill’s coattails. They have always been sort of a team and she has never been just the dutiful wife.
                  Most of what she has done she has done badly, but she has done some stuff besides being married to the right person.

                  1. Yeah, she is. Senator of New York was totally based on her being his spouse. More so, frankly, than even Bush’s election in Texas was based on his connection to Daddy.

                  2. “she has never been just the dutiful wife.”

                    Except, she has been most popular when playing the dutiful wife.

                    Her very first appearance on most of our TV screens was in March 1992 when she insisted that she wasn’t playing some Tammy Wynette and standing by her man. She then proceeded to stand by her man and lie about whether he had an affair with Ginnifer Flowers.

                    Her popularity plumetted when she screwed up Hillarycare, and only really recovered when the Lewinski Blow Job came out and she was revered for standing by her man and playing the dutiful wife.

                    1. That’s all true, but you are just talking about public perceptions. Of course she played the roll of the dutiful wife. I’m talking about the actual facts. This is a silly argument. We all think she sucks and wouldn’t be a good president.

                      Anyone else remember how she had (or affected) a southern accent in 1992?

                    2. She did that the whole time as First Lady of Arkansas. Is there anything lower than people in politics?

              2. What has Hillary done? Anything positive?

                I put her biggest accomplishment at failing to implement HillaryCare; thus, failing to have a miserable rollout and unhappy customers who were promised savings and got price increases instead. How did the Russia reset work? How about our adventures in killing Ghadaffi (Libya is safer now?)? How about that $100,000 in cattle futures she got? Why did it take so long to find her Rose billing records?

                Why didn’t she object the night Obama insisted on blaming a video for the attack in Benghazi? She said it was his idea, but she went along with it enough to tell the families of the dead she’d lock up a guy nobody had heard of, for exercising their free speech and making a video. At least we know she’ll protect Islamic fantics against those who speak out against them. That’s one of her policies, reflected in her actions.

                She also shows she believes in the politics of personal destruction, and attacked women who were victims of her sexual predator husband. Who by the way, stayed at billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s sex slave mansion. What is her position on Epstein and does she support prosecuting him?

    3. And with Barack Obama bringing the Democratic Party brand to an all-time nadir

      Obama has an approval rating of 50% on the most recent Gallup and WaPost polls. He would beat some delirious GOP whackjob by 4 points again if he ran in 2016.

      Jeb is known as the sensible one among the GOP bigshits and his last name is Shit.

      Hil-Dog could win just by keeping her mouth shut. In fact she should do just that since she offers nothing as a candidate.

      1. Obama has an approval rating of 50% on the most recent Gallup and WaPost polls.

        He’s been such a winner for the Dems so far. That’s why they did so well in the midterms last year and why they can’t distance themselves from Obo fast enough.

      2. Obama’s approval rating is entirely a function of the fact that he has a 90% approval rating among blacks, despite fucking them in the ass.

        Basically, black people love him no matter what he does, so his actual achievements have no bearing on that part of his approval rating. If he had even a 50% rating among them (which would still be too high, given that black people have gotten vastly worse off under Obama) his approval rating would be about 45%.

        There are also white progs who love him no matter what because they remember the feeling of 2008.

        It’s a basic, provable fact that most people are no better off after 6 years of Obama despite what should have been a recovery from a recession. The fact that his approval rating is mediocre rather than atrocious simply proves that Democrats are easily led cult members who aren’t bright enough to accurately gauge a president’s success.

        1. Most of what you have to say here would have applied in 2012 to. What happened there?

          1. He won a presidential election? Are you thinking of the wrong year, because him winning a presidential election in the teeth of the worst economic recover in 70 years actually is evidence of my point.

            1. There are not that many Democrats, Irish.

              1. No, there’s not. But let’s follow a train of thought here:

                1. In 2012, Barack Obama lost both the Republican vote AND THE INDEPENDENT VOTE.

                2. The only group he won was Democrats.

                3. They turned out in massive numbers to vote for him, despite his myriad failures.

                4. Enough independents voted for him (despite the fact that he lost the overall vote) that with his high Democratic turnout he managed to win.

                At no point did I ever even suggest that he won only through the Democratic vote, merely that the Democratic vote is substantial enough, and pro-Obama enough, that he can lose independents and Republicans and still maintain the presidency.

                This isn’t difficult. It’s basic electoral math.

                1. Furthermore, and I don’t know if you realize this, you run against someone in an election.

                  Therefore, you don’t have to be good, you just have to be better than the alternatives.

                  Obama beating Romney is therefore irrelevant to the discussion, since it had just as much to do with Romney’s failures as Obama’s successes.

                  1. I don’t think it had much to do with either. I don’t think the GOP could’ve nominated anyone significantly better or worse in terms of vote getting. GOP turnout was not especially low either. The votes Romney got, and that any GOP nominee would’ve gotten, were votes against Obama, not votes for whomever.

                    Meanwhile Obama got re-elected on the premise that failing to re-elect him would’ve meant a black man had failed, so it was important to re-elect him to prove that blacks could be competent enough to be a good president. If he got re-elected, that’d mean to hx that he must’ve been good, right?

                    The votes against Obama had little to do with his being black, but the votes for him had everything to do w it. And none of the votes that made a dif had anything to do with his opponent, or with Obama personally for that matter.

                    1. The data shows many typically GOP voters, didn’t bother to show up an vote for Romney. That’s simply because many conservative voters realized that Romney promised more of the same high spending and heavy regulation as Bush and Obama. And rather than the Obamacare disaster, I’m sure Mitt would have had a better working website as well, since Obamacare is based on Romneycare and is the law of the land. Why vote for a RINO to implement a Democrat agenda? I didn’t, and I’m glad for it.

                    2. In 2012 Obama was scraping by until the big states kicked in and also the close states. There was also a lot of people like Al Sharpton before the election calling these battleground states being questionable because of voter suppression tied to Republicans. In away this was groundless, but if they had a high black voters there. It mobilized them and sent them to the polls that is what happened in the first election.

                      This was cover up for voter fraud that was perpetuated by the Democrats. In battleground states more Democrats voted more than once and bragged about.

                      Also you had some vale threats. Such as if the President is not elected back. Racism would be used. Blacks would be mobilized and demonstrations would be turn into riots.

                  2. If Obama could pull it off in a terrible economy why not Hillary?

        2. “Obama’s approval rating is entirely a function of the fact that he has a 90% approval rating among blacks, despite fucking them in the ass.”

          Hey, everyone I fuck in the ass gives me a 90% approval rating too.

          The only complaint I get is that it is too big to fit comfortably at first.

    4. US Senator, and US Secretary of State are not insignificant. People have won the presidency on the strength of either of those offices, though not recently as SOS.

      1. And when you dig beneath the title, what can Hillary point to as a big win? In either office?

        1. Pantsuits? The Dr. Strangelove selfie on her plane (as SOS)? Besties with Sen Byrd?

          OK, I got nuthin’

        2. Permit me: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    5. “she utterly lacks charisma…”

      When she speaks, my gawd, she screeches!

  4. The Republican primary contest, in other words, is at this point utterly, fascinatingly unpredictable.

    I think ‘fascinating’ is a bit of a stretch.

    And as for ‘unpredictable’, I would predict that whoever emerges victorious from the Team Red slapfight will be a dull white guy without the ability (or probably even the desire) to seriously challenge the status quo of burgeoning federal government authority and spending.

    1. I was totally going along with you, and I thought you were going to say “without the ability (or probably even the desire) to seriously challenge” — HILLARY CLINTON. Never mind what the dull white guy would confront in office; I bet he won’t even want to win.

      1. That’s entirely possible. Whoever it is might just be going for it so he can get free food and travel for two years and land on the lucrative lecture circuit afterwards.

    2. If they decide on a black guy. The NAACP will go after and frame him up like they did before with Cane. After all the NAACP is the Democratic hatchet man.

  5. Indeed, Trende says “it might well be the most likely outcome, if only because no particular outcome is particularly probable.”

    Yes, that makes sense. Expert work here. I’m glad Mr. Trende is out there, performing this kind of hard analysis.

    1. Trende holds a B.A. degree Yale University, M.A. in political science and J.D. from Duke University.

      1. So he paid a lot of money for fancy paper stock. That certainly doesn’t add to his credibility.

        1. But look at those credentials, Hugh. Just look at them!

          1. My God. Sean Trende for Senate! Of whatever state he lives in!

    2. Sounds like a fancy way of saying “we don’t know what will happen”. Which seems like the right thing to say.
      It kind of an odd, convoluted statement, but I don’t see anything really wrong with it.

      1. “We don’t know what will happen” doesn’t get you a paycheck. You gotta fancy that shit up.

        1. Or as market pundits are wont to say…”technical factors”.

          1. Whoa, deja vous…I though I ws reading something from our investment people…

      2. He’s trying to say something, to impart some kind of knowledge and insight, while admitting that he doesn’t have any relevant knowledge. He’s not only saying, “we don’t know what will happen,” he’s also trying to make this narrative he’s invented sound credible. If you don’t know what will happen, on what basis or of what use it is it to say what “might well be the most likely outcome”? Anything might well be the most likely outcome.

        1. If you don’t know what will happen, on what basis or of what use it is it to say what “might well be the most likely outcome”? Anything might well be the most likely outcome.

          You just answered your own question there. If no particular outcome is significantly more likely than others, then any of them might well be the most likely outcome.

          My only point is that any harder analysis would be just as irrelevant at this point.

  6. I used to drive by the AZ Democratic Party HQ every day, and I remember a car in the lot that had a faded and cracked anti-war bumper sticker, next to a slightly weathered Hillary sticker, next to a shiny Obama sticker.

    1. I’m surprised the Obama sticker wasn’t placed over the anti-war one.

    2. I have noticed a strange correlation between Priuses, faded Obama 2008 stickers, and horrible, terrible driving. Correlation is not causation, of course.

      1. Have you ever seen the driving of Jesus freaks? Evidently “God is my co-pilot” means “The dashboard Jesus is watching the road while I text”.

      2. The Prius and the faded Obama 2008 sticker do indicate low intelligence combined with a tendendcy to be easily distracted by shiny objects, both of which could be indicators of poor driving skill.

        1. All bumper stickers indicate low intelligence. In proportion to the number of stickers.

  7. …other than leveraging her husband’s name and influence to achieve positions of power.

    Let’s not discount the appeal of Bill in her run at the White House. He’s going to bring her a significant number of votes.

    1. The problem with bringing Bill back is that (if you believe the rumors) he and Obama detest each other. So if Bill was part of the 2-for-1 deal in this campaign, the Obama folk would sit it out.

      On the other hand, I think that Obama is such an ego maniac that he will sit it out anyhow because there is no way he could be second banana (not racist).

      1. I think O will sit it out, and DANG you have triggered one of my favorite speculations: how will he spend his years post-White House? The plight of the lazy, narcissistic adulation addict. Well, we shall see.

        1. Just the look on his face when he shows up to take Airforce 1 to Hawaii for his next vacation and is told it isn’t his anymore would be priceless.

          I don’t think he is going to take being out of the limelight well. Especially when the tell all books start coming out.

          1. It’s going to be fun.

            Especially when Hillary appoints him to the Supremes.

            1. that shit isnt funny

        2. how will he spend his years post-White House?

          Prediction: Republicans will nominate another milqutoast establishment candidate (Christie, Jeb, Romney, etc.) in 2016. After ekeing out a victory over Hill-dog in 2016 and someone else in 2020*, Elizabeth Warren will win the election in 2024. The first chance she gets to nominate a SC justice, she nominates Obama, if at all possible as Chief Justice.

          *or possibly losing his re-election bid to Feauxcahontas in 2020.

          1. Prediction: Co-host on The View

          2. I say he runs for President again in 2016.

            When asked why he thinks that he can still run despite there being a constitutional ammendment against it, he will reply.

            “Well, since I was born in Kenya and that didn’t stop me, why should I care about this as well?”

            1. “Everyone knows that america wants me to serve a third term, but congress refuses to do anything about repealing the 22 ammendmment. So I will have to change it without them.”

              1. Why not, it worked for Bloomberg.

              2. Technically, it only prohibits being elected more than twice. There’s nothing in there about actually serving as president three or more terms.

        3. For me as a political junkie, this will be the most interesting thing about the 2016 race.

          Obama has won both of his Presidential races, true, so he’s not going to be on the ballot. But the only President since World War 2 to hand off the White House to a member of his own party after two terms was Reagan. I’ve read several times that Obama thinks of himself as a ‘Democrat Reagan’, in the sense of somebody who had a huge transformational impact on the political dialogue in this country. So is indulging his ego by withholding support from Hillary worth the risk of failing in an area where Reagan succeeded?

        4. I think he goes on to be ‘President of Hollywood’, the Democrats who run the entertainment industry will cast him to play the part of President in every movie (unless the President is a scum bag, in which case he will be played by that guy who was a Republican Senator whose name I can’t be bothered to look up, Fred Thompson I think)

          Also, he will play himself in a string of adoring bio-pics.

  8. She is extremely polarizing – I would expect even among Democrats. I don’t see how she could possibly win against any dope the GOP puts up.

    1. Within her own party she’s only polarizing in the sense that the progressives don’t trust her.

    2. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. No way she wins. Half of the country absolutely hates her and half of democrats are ambivalent to say the least.

      I still think Urkobold had the right idea and she should run as a Republican.

      1. She is running as a Republican, she just uses the (D) in front of her name because their primaries are easier to win.

      2. Clinton (R, Bengazi)?

  9. not only to win but to experiment and change

    Who’s gonna do what now?

  10. Democrats, on the other hand, are for all practical purposes stuck with a single option

    Doesn’t that make her more like the single payer healthcare of candidates?

  11. If there is one lesson that the McCain and Romney campaigns teach it is that “it is my turn” really doesn’t sell very well. It is true that Obama would have never been nominated much less elected had he not been black. There was, however, more to his campaign in 08 than that. If there hadn’t been, he would have ended up like Jesse Jackson and gotten the black vote in the primaries and not much else. Obama sold himself as a uniter and a pragmatist who could bring the country together after after all of the partisan nastiness of the Bush years. That of course was an appalling lie, but he was able to sell it and in doing so provided a compelling reason for people to want him to be President.

    Of course Hillary has the “its a woman’s turn” thing going for her like Obama had the “I have always wanted to vote for a black man to be President” going for him. What else does she have? The only compelling reason I can think of beyond her being a woman is because her husband is still popular and people will think voting for her is a vote for a return to the Clinton years.

    1. She is, however, not her husband. Worse still, because the Democratic party has gone bat shit insane she won’t be able to run anything like the campaign her husband ran. The nature of the Democratic Party is going to force her to run as the same evil leftist twin of Bill that people thought she was when he was in office. And if she doesn’t have “vote for me I will bring back the Clinton years” going for her, what does she have?

      I don’t think she can win.

      1. I don’t think Hillary can win, either, but just imagine Bill back in the White House. Think of the parties he would throw while Hillary is off in Asia or wherever. Take about hedonistic indulgence.

        1. A Hillary Administration might manage to be a bigger train wreck than the Obama one. The Democrats have no bench or fresh blood. The entire administration would just be a rehash of the same doofuses that have been in there under Obama. Only this time, they wouldn’t have the “its racist to pick on the black man” thing going for them and instead of Michelle as first spouse they would have Bill playing Keith Richards in the White House.

          1. You just don’t like her because she’s a woman.

      2. Even her husband is barely her husband.

      3. The Democrats, especially those who would be super delegates, realize all this, which is why, if she even runs (if she’s even healthy enough to run), they won’t nominate her.

      4. Didn’t you think Romney would win in a landslide?

        Not picking on ya, just pointing out your predictions may not be so good. I myself called for Clinton in ’08, I could not fathom how an outsider from Chicago could out-gangster the Clinton’s but he did.

    2. When have you ever been right?

      Never.

      Where is that lock Romney, John? You guaranteed his win back in 2012.

      1. When I said Obama was going to be the death of the Democratic Party in Congress and at the state level and damage the Democratic Brand for a generation.

        That prediction is looking pretty good as the Democrats have the smallest minority in Congress since the 19th Century and fewer state governments than at any time since forever.

        1. Unfortunately, I think our loathsome cretin Dave Weigel here is probably right.

          Every Obama butt-boy like him who voted for Obama twice is going to go out and vote for Hillary, and so will all their low-information moronic allies who don’t know that there’s any such thing as a midterm election.

        2. I thought Obama would lose in 2012, but I think my error was only in mis-assessing Americans’ collective tolerance for a problematic economy. That seems to have hit home since then, not to mention the obamanation that is Obamacare.

          1. You went brain dead in the 2008 Bush economic collapse then.

            Still are.

            1. Only about 8% of that post made sense.

      2. BOOOSHPIG! LIBYA WASN’T A WAR! ROOMMMNNEEEY!

      3. He was right about your mom being a stretched out whore. It was like throwing a hot dog down a hallway last night.

      4. Palin’s Buttplug|1.29.15 @ 1:58PM|#
        “When have you ever been right?”

        Mr. 8%, tell us again how O-care isn’t going to effect the mid-terms. I love a good laugh

    3. Hell, if there’s one thing Clinton’s first run tells us it’s that ‘it’s my turn’ doesn’t sell well.

      One big issue with Hillary is that she’s got the least amount of poise I’ve ever seen from a politician. It’s not just that she gets confused and can’t effectively answer questions, but she gets angry when challenged.

      Perry crushed his chances of winning in 2012 with his bad performances at the debates, but Perry at least comes off as relatively amiable. Clinton will make the same sorts of mistakes, and when challenged on them she freaks out and makes herself look even worse.

      1. In fairness to her in 08, she won every primary there was. She lost in 08 because she lost every caucus. Remember, caucuses are not elections. They are meetings of party apparatchiks. Obama came out of Chicago and knew how to play dirty. His supporters basically stole the caucuses from Hillary. Obama never won a public vote against Hillary. People forget that.,

        Now, how Hillary managed to be so asleep at the switch and to so under estimate Obama to allow him to do that, is another question. I think she lost in 08 because of arrogance and negligence more than because she couldn’t win with the public. She did win with the public, every time the public got a vote.

        1. The caucuses weren’t entirely stolen. A lot of it was simply that party leaders saw how bad a candidate Hillary was & were willing to give someone else a shot. The funny thing is that when the party instituted the super delegate system in binding-primary states, it’d been expected to favor “insider”, “establishment” candidates like Clinton. It turned out that even those who seemed favorable to her weren’t going to vote for her at the convention.

    4. John, you might be discounting the power of “FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT!!!” Identity politics bullshit is super hot among the left right now, and they also got super high on Obama’s 2008 run and “FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT!!!”. They’re going to want that feeling again, and will try to get it even with a terrible candidate like Hillary.

      I mean…what else do they have?

      1. Nothing. They are screwed. It might work. Time will tell. But it is going to be tough. It is hard to imagine getting the black vote out in historic numbers to support Hillary. And whatever the power of “elect a women”, it is not the same as “elect the first black guy”. Obama won the same way Bush won, totally united the party and got the faithful to come out in huge numbers. It is going to be very hard for Hillary or anyone to do that with the Dems again. Meanwhile, the Republicans are probably desperate and hungry enough to suck it up and turn out for whoever they run the way Democrats turned out for Obama in 08.

        1. But it is going to be tough. It is hard to imagine getting the black vote out in historic numbers to support Hillary

          Especially if the GOP nominee is actually campaigning on school choice, drug policy and criminal justice reform.

          If only the GOP had someone who could credibly run on those things and appeal to minorities…

          1. I agree. Call me crazy but I honestly think a decent portion of the black vote is close to leaving the Democratic Party. The Democrats should have never gone for a black President. It was good while it lasted but now blacks are starting to realize the Democrats can’t or won’t do anything for them. They finally got a black President and things got worse for blacks. After that, how does a Democrat convince blacks that they will improve anything?

            Sure, they will still get a big majority of black voters out of cultural habit and the usual race bating. But I am not convinced they will continue to get 90 or 95%. If the Republicans even pulled 20% of the black vote, the Democrats would cease to be competitive at the national level.

            1. But the party of Give Them Free Stuff is still going to give out free stuff. It’s hard for a base of voters to give up on that gravy train. But you may be right. BO fucked up royally, didn’t he? I just can’t believe how bad of a President he has been. Sure, BO had zero qualifications to have the job but good god, what a terrible 8 years in office.

            2. Call me crazy but I honestly think a decent portion of the black vote is close to leaving the Democratic Party.

              Seems like it has to happen at some point. It’s kind of amazing that the Democrats have managed to keep so much of the black vote for so long.

          2. The GOP brand is pretty much poison to most blacks right now. It would take a lot to turn that around, something as radical as what the Dems did under Johnson.

            1. Major criminal justice and drug policy reform would do that. And there is actual bipartisan support for those things.

            2. That is the thing. They no longer have a hold on the black vote. They just have the bad reputation of the GOP in the black community. And that, while significant, is not impervious.

              More importantly, the GOP doesn’t have to win even a significant minority of black votes to cripple the Democrats. They only need about 20 or 25%. The Democrats have very little margin of error with the black vote. Getting 75 or even 80 percent of the black vote isn’t good enough. So it won’t take much of a shift to be significant.

      2. “First Black President!”
        “First Woman President!”

        Epi,

        This is confusing.
        I thought President Obama was bi-racial.
        That’s what I remember hearing when he was still a senator at least. And are you entirely sure that Senator Clinton is cis-gendered?
        Very confusing times….

        1. Obama is a white guy who happens to be half black. But apparently the one drop rule is still in effect.

        2. Fuck, what is wrong with us? Did we learn nothing from the complete non-event that electing the first black president was? Did anyone benefit from that (aside from Obama), especially blacks?

          1. Michelle benefitted handsomely.

            1. handsomely
              What you did, i haz seen it

      3. The problem with Hillary is that there are a lot of blue collar dudes in the Democratic party who were OK with voting for a black guy, but will balk at voting for a shrew like her.

        I’m not saying that a blue collar union guy wouldn’t vote for a woman, I’m saying Hillary reminds every guy out there of the worst traits of a wife without anything to make up for that.

        1. There other problem is that Obama has greatly reduced the number of dudes and gals in the Democratic party and damned near eliminated the blue collar ones.

          The Democratic Party is now almost entirely composed of blacks, the gentry left, a soft majority of Hispanics and public employees. It is going to be hard to get 51% with that coalition.

          1. What about unions and young people who haven’t paid a lot of taxes yet?

            1. The yutes don’t vote and the private sector unions are almost gone. And the ones that are still there are utterly alienated from the party thanks to Keystone and Obama spending 8 years loathing them.

              1. No, I suppose Hillary won’t excite the yutes like Obama. First woman isn’t exciting enough when she’s a crabby old coot.
                Private sector unions are certainly less and less of a factor, but where else are they going to go? And there was the whole auto bailout thing.

                What do I know? I just hope something interesting happens and we don’t end up with Hillary vs. Jeb or Romney or something boring like that.

                1. The thing is Zeb that Obama has totally alienated the white working class. GM bailout or no, those people are not voting Democrat in significant numbers and are unlikely to for a while.

        2. Is there that much makeup in the world?

          1. . . . Hillary reminds every guy out there of the worst traits of a wife without anything to make up for that.

            Is there that much makeup in the world?

    5. If there is one lesson that the McCain and Romney campaigns teach it is that “it is my turn” really doesn’t sell very well.

      They should have learned that from the Bob Dole disaster.

      -jcr

  12. Just remember, kids: pointing out she is only slightly younger than Reagan was when he ran the first time is sexist.

    Naughty, naughty.

    1. Or pointing out she suffered a serious head injury not too long ago and has some fairly serious health problems.

      Can you imagine what the media would do to a Republican candidate who suffered a head injury the way Hillary did? It would be a national joke. The poor bastard wouldn’t have a chance. Everything he did, good or bad, would be the punch line to a “poor old Bill got his brains scrambled” joke.

      And for Hillary, it is the great unmentionable.

      1. The Dem party and the press can try to keep it unmentionable, but I wonder how long they’ll be able to keep it under wraps as Clinton goes through the stress and rigors of the election campaign.

        1. Maybe. The problem is that the Republicans and even the right leaning major media are so cowed, I doubt they will have the guts to even mention it.

          1. True, but what I was meaning that it will literally be written all over her face, and it will lead to mistakes in public forums that will be damn hard to hide unless they go so far as to simply forbid cameras within 10 miles of her. In this day and age I’m not sure a campaign can survive for long like that.

            1. Well if Admiral Stockdale gets the GOP nomination she has a chance to win a few debates.

              1. +N “What am I doing here?”

                1. Which is the greatest moment in debate history. What is more true than that? He should’ve stood up and walked out.

        2. Clinton goes through the stress and rigors of the election campaign.

          There are fit, energetic 60-somethings, and there are people, like Hillary, who are going seriously and irreversibly downhill.

          When she sits down, her head sinks into her shoulders and she looks like she’s speaking from a pillow the color of whatever her pantsuit is.

          Her pantsuits are now less tailored and more like maternity outfits.

          Her little black shoes look like her feet are about to explode out the top.

          She never strides; she simply ambles.

          I bet a good deal of her handlers’ strategy will be to minimize her physical activity and maximize an appearance of energy has as Bill flogs that old nag onto the track for one last match race.

          1. FDR had polio…just sayin’

            1. And sho nuff, he and his handlers did their level best to hide it.

              Also, there’s a diff between catching a common contagious disease and being old and crumbley.

      2. Yeah, don’t underestimate the value of the MSM campaigning for Hillary and working to torpedo her opponent.

    2. Just wait until we get to see how her plastic surgery turned out. She won’t look a day over 67!

  13. I suspect he’s right about the brokered convention, though. The real goal of that will be to deny the nomination to Rand Paul.

    1. I fear this may be the case, though I also think Rand is a lot more palatable to the party as a whole than his dad was.

      1. Only slighty touched, as opposed to barking mad? This is not my view of the Pauls, but how I feel the party establishment sees them. Remember that the GOP is ultimately a statist organization, despite their rhetoric.

        1. Every indication I’m getting from reading Red Team sites is that the powers that be and their minions will do nearly anything to keep Rand from getting the nomination. I also think that it maybe possible that Rand is better served staying in the Senate where, over time, he might be able to move the needle towards liberty a bit as he accumulates seniority.

          1. “Every indication I’m getting from reading Red Team sites is that the powers that be and their minions will do nearly anything to keep Rand from getting the nomination.”

            I agree, although I don’t think they’ll be as obvious about it as they were with the elder Paul.

        2. I agree, but what’s different is that a number of people who were actively trashing Ron give grudging and sometimes not so grudging respect to Rand. I think he’s secretly a lot of people’s second choice, and he’s plenty of people’s first.

          I bet one thing that motivates GOP insiders is the apparently widespread belief that his maverickness and appeal to moderate voters would absolutely kill in the general. It’s not like Clinton or any other likely candidate has much to offer in that regard.

    2. If it gets to that point where they try to force Romney or something like that on us for a GOP nom, and Rand has good numbers, he should pull off blackmail and tell them he’ll run as an independent if they don’t give him the nomination.

      1. That’s not blackmail. That would be a credible threat, but he’d immediately lose any GOP support and probably deliver the election to Hillary.

        1. I would have Rand do it through a trusted intermediary in back rooms. Then again, maybe he should just stay in the senate.

          1. I agree that from our POV he should just stay in the Senate.

            I think the Pauls are destined to be the John the Baptists of libertarianism.

      2. He has already said on multiple occasions that he will run as a Republican or not at all. Do try to keep up.

        1. I know what he said, twit. I am saying he should perhaps reconsider.

          1. So you want him to be a flip-flopper?

    3. Which is bad because if there’s any real Anti-Hillary it’s him. He’s okay with the God Squad, he’s got cred with the Chemtrail Kooks and far-right loonie types (mostly due to Ron) as well as having staked out conservative turf on some traditionally left issues while still offering a clear alternative. If he’s the candidate, Hilly’s going to still have to tack farther to the right then her base will accept in order to triangulate.

      1. I doubt Rand will get the nomination because the war-boners and cop-boners will never support him.

        1. I don’t think so either. But still…

        2. The borderites are a bigger problems. Rand has pacified many GOPers on foreign policy with his entirely reasonable positions.

          1. Yeah. The xenophobic wing of the Republican party is quite strong.

      2. I agree Susan. Paul has played this brilliantly. He has managed to say just enough to make the SOCONS happy with him without being defined as one. And he has managed to take a stand on civil liberties and the war, something which is going to give the Democrats fits, without being particularly vulnerable to the charges his dad was.

        The GOP establishment is going to try everything it can to make Rand Paul look like Ron and convince people he is some closet American hating kook. I seriously doubt however those attacks will do much damage to him. Even the GOP base is tired of foreign entanglements and Rand is much smarter about what he is saying than his father was.

        1. Would it be better for Rand Paul’s career if he was the VP nominee instead? I sincerely mean that. I think one of the knocks against Paul is his lack of experience in Congress, and that is a valid point because look at what a lack of experience got us. I’m not saying that Paul is like Obama by any stretch, just that some more seasoning may be a good thing for Paul’s career going forward. That said, I don’t know who the Republican’s Presidential nominee would be then.

          1. Maybe. I think the biggest thing that is going to hurt Paul is not his inexperience but the fact that he is in Washington at all. I think a governor like Walker is a problem for Paul. After the Obama debacle people are going to want someone with executive experience and someone from outside of Washington.

      3. Hilly’s going to still have to tack farther to the right then her base will accept in order to triangulate.

        They will whine and moan, but still vote for her. The Dem turnout machine is more powerful at this point.

        1. Of course they will. The problem is that she won’t be able to tack right until after she gets the nomination. She is going to have to go full retard to win the nomination. The faithful want full retard. They may be okay with lying in the general election. But they are not going to vote for anything short of full retard in the primaries.

          1. The article indicates that she won’t even have competition in the primaries.

            1. Perhaps, but I find that hard to believe. A lot of people hate the Clintons. Any Democratic politician who picks up and runs on the anti-Clinton banner is going make themselves a national figure win or lose. I find it hard to believe that every Democrat is going to resist that temptation.

              Maybe Obama has damaged the party so much that there just isn’t anyone else available. That is possible. He has just obliterated them at the state level. They don’t have much of a pool to draw from. But it only takes one person.

              1. All she’s got to do is tell the faithful that after historically electing the first black president that they can make history again by electing the first woman president. That way if you don’t support her you’re sexist.

                1. And her entire presidency will be one long “You just hate her because she’s a woman” wail.

                  1. And her entire presidency will be one long “You just hate her because she’s a woman” wail.

                    Exactly.

                    1. Sarc beat me to it.

                      Yes and double yes.

    4. Wasn’t there a panic of this in 2012, or 2008? Really people, we still have a year until primaries and caucuses. There are any number of ways this will shake out. Remember how fast Giuliani burned out? Or how McCain somehow survived? How Perry completely sunk after all of the hype?

      For all we know, Rand Paul will shit his pants on stage and Santorum will start blowing a guy at a stump speech.

      1. I’d pay cash money to see Santorum to do that, just so I could mock his socon ass.

  14. OT: Via Facebook from this hippie girl I went to high school with

    “From Rand Paul’s snapchat interview: “Drones should only be used according to the constitution. But if they fly over my house, they better beware, ‘cuz I’ve got a shotgun.”
    Hold up.
    Let’s ignore the fact that he has apparently decided a drone over his house is an actual possibility. Does this man actually think that if a drone– an actual military grade drone– flew over his house, he would be able to shoot it down with a SHOTGUN? Better call Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Pakistan and let them know what they’ve been missing out on!”

    1. I hope that she was at least a good time back in the day.

      1. She wasn’t/isn’t much of a looker so I can assure you that was never on my radar.

        Despite this stupidity, she’s a pretty nice girl and honestly not dumb. Just really, really biased when it comes to politics.

    2. Jokes make progressives confused.

      ‘What is this humor of which you speak, this talk of irony? BLEEP BLOOP! Progressivebot 9000 cannot comprehend the use of non-literal comments.

      *ERROR, ERROR*

      CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE RICH WHITE MALE! PATRIARCHY! DIVEST FROM ISRAEL!’

      1. Someone replied saying that he was pretty sure Rand was being facetious. Her response:

        “Well the rest of the interview was pretty serious, if equally stupid. It was the headlining quote for the story too.”

        Well that settles it then.

      2. Humor requires not taking yourself and everything else utterly seriously. Oh, and actually having a sense of humor.

        1. The only time I ever see progressive types crack a smile or laugh is when someone else, preferably someone with improper politics, suffers pain and misfortune.

          1. Well, just ask yourself, how much different does a SJW feminist talking about men sound from a dominatrix?

            Yeah, these people do have a sick sadistic streak.

        2. That is the thing that doesn’t get mentioned enough Episiarch. Progressives pretend like they are so hip and it is their opponents who are uptight. In reality, they are the most repressed, uptight, humorless fucks imaginable. They should constantly be called on that.

          1. The thing about humor is that it must contain at least a grain of truth. Progressives don’t like the truth. That makes humor lost on them.

          2. This is one of the things, like considering themselves the most intelligent, where you cannot dent their surety that they are super funny. It’s literally untouchable because it is such a bedrock belief in their little delusional world. It’s part of the foundation of their identity. To dent it would require completely breaking them down.

            1. You once said on here that they are incapable of moderating or learning, that their answer to everything is to “just Prog harder”. And that is true and this is the reason. Their entire self worth and identity is wrapped up in their politics. So they can’t ever back off or admit that maybe someone from the other side might also be funny or smart or have any redeeming characteristic without their entire self image being destroyed.

              It is just nuts.

              1. Their entire self worth and identity is wrapped up in their politics.

                That’s been my (admittedly anecdotal) experience. They just can’t stop talking it. Their Facebook news feeds contain little or nothing of any genuine interest, even though the ones I know are accomplished musicians and the like. It’s just a constant string of reposts from Bernie Sanders, Daily Kos, etc. And they seem to expect people to give a fuck about it.

    3. Hold up!

    4. Now I want to see a “debate” consisting of Rand and Joe Biden trying to shoot down drones (any drones, don’t have to be Predators) with shotguns.

    5. Just for the record, I have a drone. And I have a shotgun. The shotgun can definitely down the drone. No question.

    6. The biggest thing Rand Paul has going against him is that from now until the election every single thing he says is going to be twisted into something batshit crazy and/or pants shittingly stupid. It’s obvious that he wasn’t refering to “military grade” drones, and anyone with half a functioning brain knows that yes, someone can fly a quadcopter or something similar pretty much anywhere they want, with a few exceptions, and that yes they can be shotdown with a shotgun. But that won’t stop twats like this fucktard from making shit up.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if SNL runs a “hillbilly Rand” sketch featuring someone impersonating Rand Paul trying to shoot at what he thinks is a Predator drone (but it turns out to be an airliner) with a shotgun, and by the time the general election comes around all the left-twats will believe that shit actually happened. It’ll be Palin/ Tina Fey shit all over again.

      1. I wouldn’t be surprised if SNL runs a “hillbilly Rand” sketch featuring someone impersonating Rand Paul

        I wouldn’t either. But I am not sure that will stick. The problem with Paul is that he has been able to create a public persona before the media and the establishment could create one for him. I think Paul has enough of a persona as a reasonable well spoken person to withstand that kind of nonsense.

        1. The problem with Paul is that he has been able to create a public persona before the media and the establishment could create one for him.

          I’d add that Paul has inherited his father’s facility with digital media. This gives him the wherewithal to go around the media gatekeepers more than most Republicans have proven able.

    7. Does this man actually think that if a drone– an actual military grade drone

      Who said anything about military drones?

      A civilian drone could easily be hovering over his backyard, sending video images of his kid’s birthday party. That’s a shooter, IMO.

  15. I can’t wait for her first debate where she blames the previous guy for the shitty economy.

    Brian Williams: You mean our God-King Obama?
    Hilary: NO! Not him, I meant the previous previous guy.

  16. Well the hot new victim class on the left is “sexually assaulted” women. If Hillary really wants to be the “First Woman President” she is going to have to come out with a sob story about how she was sexually assaulted.

    The beauty of such an accusation is that with Bill as her hubby, it will be plausible to a whole lotta people.

    1. No. Her obvious play is to come out as a lesbian. Regardless of whether she actually is or not.

      1. When I worked in Kennebunkport the secret service agents who covered the Bush family at Walker’s Point would come in to drink at my employer’s bar. It’s an open secret within the secret service that she swings both ways.

        1. That’s certainly the rumor. Why not come out? Given the stupid that dominates our culture and its obsession with identity issues, that would give her an edge she really lacks.

          1. Sad but true.

      2. Nope. She already has a vapor lock on the lesbian vote. A divorce/adultery scandal would lose her some votes – probably black and hispanic women.

        1. I dunno, maybe they say they have an open, loving marriage or some other kind of bullshit? What, they’re going to lose the conservative and/or moral vote?

          1. Obviously the GOP Socons won’t go for her.

            That’s why I mentioned black and latino women since they are the traditional Dem constituency most likely to be turned off by an open marriage or revelations of adultery on her part. They are the Socons of their party.

            1. She’ll have to work around that. Maybe she’ll discover that she’s half-black as well as bisexual? Any handicaps we can throw in?

              Really, now that I think about it, Bill needs to die for her to succeed.

        2. And nobody saw what I did there, not even Sug. I slave away at the keyboard for you people, and what do I get? [sobs]

          1. You need SF’s PR machine.

            1. I do have my little scribblings. Maybe I should share them here…

    2. I think that is a good point. Thinking about it, I’d probably bet money on her coming out with a sexual assault story. It isn’t like anyone could corroborate it or deny it at this point in time.

      And, I’m saying that because it would have had to have been 45 years ago. No one, no matter how sexually messed up could assault her anytime in the last 30 years.

  17. Oh, hey, isn’t Biden expected to run? I mean, sure, he’s an idiot, but really, so is Clinton, and he is, you know, Vice President.

    1. And, he might have a shotgun.

    2. People laugh, but we could do worse than Biden. Seriously, there is a pretty long list of real contenders who would be measurably worse than Biden.

      Christy,
      Huckabee
      Warren,
      Jerry Brown,
      Rubio,

      Just to name a few.

      1. While i agree Rubio is a weak presidential candidate, do you see a problem with him as a VP?

        1. Not as a VP. He just seems like such a nasty, opportunistic little bastard. I don’t trust him for a moment. I don’t believe anything he says. I think he will support anything he thinks is going to get him ahead.

          1. I think he will support anything he thinks is going to get him ahead.

            Yup.

  18. They did a survey of pundits on FOX the other day on who they thought could/should/would win the GOP nomination, and to my surprise, the leading candidate was Scott Walker by a significant margin (~40% – the remainder split between the whole pool, with bush getting ~20%, Romney/Rubio 10% each, rest split the field)

    It may have simply been “who would you pick as the best candidate”, not a realistic handicapping of actual outcomes. But when i thought about it a bit, i agree that a Walker/Rubio GOP ticket would probably present the best-case scenario.

    First in my criteria for a good challenger to Hillary is relative “Youth”/Freshness. People always want to dump the past and ‘start fresh’. Bush and Romney have the stench of bad history on them. and *so does Clinton*; anyone who presents a ‘forward’ looking character will have an advantage.

    I think Walker – despite how reviled he is on the hard-left – has some advantages. I think he has the ability to unite republican groups in the way that Romney/Bush fragment them. Neither of the latter are going to be able to present any convincing alternatives on Obamacare or Immigration, and without those issues, i doubt they would inspire the GOP base to really come out.

    While I like Rand the best, he doesn’t seem to have any real broad support from his own party.

    My expectation is actually that (as Pro L suggested) the GOP will do something appallingly stupid and end up running w/ Bush III v Clinton II = The Worst Re-Run Ever

    1. I have a feeling Walker is going to be hard to beat. He is from Wisconsin, so the media just won’t be able to pin the “he is a crazy red neck” tag on him. And the voters loath Washington. A successful governor with no connection to Washington is going to be very appealing, especially one from a purple state like Wisconsin.

      And whatever you think of Walker, the full force of the entire Prog enterprise was thrown at him. They flooded that state will millions of outside dollars. They tried to criminalize his opponents. They made him run for re-election three times in four years. They did everything they could to make his life and the lives of Wisconsin voters so miserable that people would vote against him if for no other reason than to end the nastiness. And yet, he beat them every single time. Walker is just one hell of a politician.

      1. “the full force of the entire Prog enterprise was thrown at him”

        If there’s something I like best about him, its that he knows how the hard-left creates such popular distaste with moderates. he retains GOP voters while splitting off moderates from the left.

        I may be in the minority, but i think the problem with GOP candidates is not their lack of “Conservative Credentials” but rather their ability to hold together moderates AND the redder-GOP base with mere *credibility*

        Bush/Romney’s approach to this problem is to try and pretend they are more SoCon than they really are. No one buys it. Walker succeeds by not even trying there. I think conservatives are more likely to vote for a moderate candidate they can trust more than Bush/Romney pretending to be reborn as RED BLOODED CONSERVATIVES that they aren’t.

        If Rubio is NG as a Veep for you… who do you think complements Walker the best? for all rubio’s faults, i think he’s still got the youth thing, and… well, ‘Florida’. Someone’s got to give the candidate some extra punch in battleground states.

        1. Who else? Joe Fucking Biden.

          1. The Universal Veep? What *can’t* he do?

            1. Exactly. The Unity Sub-Human Sub-Candidate.

        2. One of the definitive moments in American politics in the 20th Century was when Reagan listened to Carter accuse him of wanting to end Social Security and shook his head and said “there you go again”.

          The problem for any Republican candidate is to stand for enough to keep the Republican coalition while also preventing the media and the Democrats from painting him as extreme or uncaring.

          The common wisdom is that the Democrats beat Romney by portraying him as some rich guy who didn’t care about them. The problem with that theory is that Romney actually won moderates by a decent margin. Romney’s problem was that he didn’t stand for enough to get the GOP base to show up and vote. Obama won in 2012 because the Dem base cared more about Obama than the GOP base cared about Romney.

          The GOP has to run someone who stand for something more than Romney did but also manages to look reasonable and appeal to moderates. If the Republican nominee in 2016 could do as well as Romney did among independents and get the GOP base to turn out like they did in 2014, the Democrats are in a lot of trouble.

          I think Walker would have a good chance at doing that. He may not have been a perfect governor, but he took on the unions and the worst the Progs had to give and won. That should be enough to get the GOP to turn out. And he is too successful of a governor from too moderate of a state for the Dems to easily portray him as some kind of radical nut.

          1. Romney actually won moderates by a decent margin

            That’s actually not true: Romney won independents by a decent amount, but was crushed among self-proclaimed moderates, 56 – 41.

            1. Okay. Good point. I assumed independents mean moderates. And they apparently are not.

              I wonder though, if someone like Romney cannot win “moderates” who can?

              1. I would argue that voters with no party affiliation is a more accurate measure of true ‘moderates’.

                Lots of people don’t like to think of themselves as partisan, so if you ask them about their politics they would describe themselves as ‘moderate’.

          2. My wife’s relatives are Christian fundamentalists. Hard-core Republican. They didn’t vote for Romney because he isn’t Christian. According to them.

            They sat out the election.

      2. Didn’t pro-Walker spending match or was greater than anti-Walker spending in the recall?

        1. maybe, but so what? That doesn’t change the fact that the Dems spent millions of outside money and did everything they could to try and beat him and failed.

          That just means Walker was good enough to raise enough money to match it.

          1. It’s a bit less impressive when Goliath beats David than the other way around…Especially if in the national election an equally sized opponent is expected.

            1. It’s a bit less impressive when Goliath beats David than the other way around.

              No its not. There was a huge difference in outside money. The Republicans didn’t put anywhere close to what the Democrats did. So if the money was equal, and you have provided no proof it was, that just means that Walker was popular in Wisconsin and raised enough money in state to make up the difference.

              The bottom line is that Walker was governor of a purple state and took on the public sector unions such that the national public sector union and Democratic apparatus was brought to bear trying to remove him for office and he won anyway.

              That is very impressive. The fact that it bugs you that a Republican could do something impressive, doesn’t mean it isn’t impressive. It just means you don’t like it.

            2. Probably not enough of a difference in total spending on each side to matter.

              http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/…..tml?ipad=y

              1. They nut of that piece seems to be (in the case of Wisconsin at least) that the spending levels *didn’t matter* because the divide between Red/Blue sections of the state is so clearly defined that there was almost zero population that was being swayed by ‘adspend’

                I tend to find arguments about minor variances in spending-levels extremely stupid; ads help get people out to vote, not change minds. a 10% difference in spending either way is pretty fucking meaningless.

  19. Hillary looked inevitable in 2008 too, and she’s in worse position now. A year from now she won’t even be in contention for the nomination. The only reason she’s in such a dominating position in polls now is name recognition.

    1. I actually agree, assuming some other Democrats start openly running.

    2. The only reason she’s in such a dominating position in polls now is name recognition.

      It would be beneath the dignity of this forum to speculate on other possible reasons for, and characterizations of her dominant position.

      1. She can’t actually be a man, Tonio. She bore young.

        1. That’s not where I was going, PL.

          1. You never go full Sullivan right out the gate, Switzy.

            Chelsea is clearly her daughter.

            1. Could be a clone, I guess.

            2. Sure, Chelsea is her daughter.

              But is she Chelsea’s mother? That’s the question.

            3. They’ve got equal levels of attractiveness, that is for sure.

  20. Don’t forget Fauxcahontas. Lizzie could give Hillary a real run for the money.

    1. Mark my words, Warren will run if only to keep Hillary from moving too far towards the center in the primary. Warren will not get the nomination.

      But the perfect storm, for Libertarians would be a Warren/Paul race. No way that Warren would win a general election, and she’d scare enough people to ensure a decisive Paul victory. He’d get lots of votes in that contest that he wouldn’t get if running against Hillary. That’s not going to happen, though.

      1. I’ve watched Warren speak a few times and it made my head hurt. She has the emotion thing down so well that she could literally say “Blah blah blah” for ten minutes and her followers would swoon over the emotion in her voice.

        1. Her eyes glow with that special crazy energy of a rabid do-gooder.

          1. Palin-Bachman v. Clinton-Warren! The World demands it.

            1. “Bachmann” which is important since one “n” is Jewish, two “n” is German.

            2. That would be hilarious.

    2. Warren couldn’t possibly win the nomination, of course, but she could do some great dividing and fucking things up. The country could use a good, hard look at the reality of the Democratic party these days, too. Well, another good, hard look. Apparently, they haven’t paid enough attention to the man speaking in front of the curtain.

      1. I would imagine that the Democratic party leadership is scared shitless at the prospect of a Warren run for the reasons outlined by Pro Lib. It’s going to take heap big blackmail or payoff to keep her from running. Probably blackmail because she’s a true believer and really wants power and I can’t think of anything they could offer her which would slake that thirst.

        1. I say offer her Ambassador to India, not bothering to explain that India isn’t where American Indians come from.

          1. No, we need to embrace India.

            1. Yeah, what did India do to deserve that?!

              1. It was looking really hot in that Salwar with it’s dark flashing eyes and dusky skin and all. And the smell of curry.

            2. Oh, yeah, I’m a big supporter of building up a stronger relationship with India. Better make in Ambassador to Nunavut. Those are actual Native Americans.

      2. I don’t know about that. She’s got the emotional platitude thing down pat, and sadly it works.

        1. For some people, Sarc.

          1. Yes, this is my feeling. Her appeal is hardly broad, nor is it feasibly going to become broad.

            1. If her platitudes are broad enough, her support just may be as well. I mean, can you get any more broad than “Hope and Change”? And that won two elections.

              1. I think the problem with that is that Liawatha is a true believer. All it would take is just a little nudging to push her over the edge, even if she were running the broad platitude campaign.

            2. Are you kidding me? Broads are the only ones who will support her.

      3. Up here in Seattle (a left-progressive bubble if there ever was one, of course, but a rather large one) all the Good Liberals I know are absolutely giddy at the prospect of Warren running. It sounds crazy to me, but then I remember that that’s how I sound to them when I express hope that Rand Paul will run, so…

  21. I wonder if the age thing is going to hurt Hillary more than people think. Reagan was her age in 1980, but Reagan was a very fit, young looking man. He looked and acted a lot younger than he actually was. His opponents tried to make his age an issue but the public saw him and didn’t see it as one since he acted and looked young enough for the job.

    Hillary in contrast looks to me at least older than she is. Someone above noted how she seems to slump when she sits down. I have noticed that too. She just doesn’t seem very energetic or act like she feels very well when you see her. She gives a totally different impression than Reagan ever did.

    Sure, the media will do everything they can to downplay that. But, even the media can’t hide the impression she gives. Americans are weird when it comes to electing a President. They don’t often do it on strictly ideological grounds. They elect a president almost by feel in some ways. Does this guy look up to the job? Do I like this person? Do I want to have to listen to them for the next four years? Do I think they care about me?

    Those are the kinds of questions your typical non partisan or soft partisan low information voter asks themselves when they vote for President. And I am not sure Hillary does so well when examined in that light.

    1. I wonder if the delay isn’t because of some health issues, myself.

      1. Contrast Hillary’s public schedule to the schedule of someone else who is obviously running like Rick Perry or Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush. There is no comparison. Hillary just isn’t out t here. And that can’t be by choice. It has to be because she is having health issues. If nothing else, she should be out raking in millions on the speaking circuit. God knows the Clintons love money and Bill has expensive tastes. Yet, she is not.

    2. Part of it is, Reagan ran on a vision. A young vision, at that. That did a couple of things. It downplayed Reagan personally. The story with Reagan wasn’t “Is Reagan really up to saving us?”. It was, “Does Reagan have the answer?”. So far, I’ve seen no particular evidence that Ms. Clinton has such a vision. That leaves her as the focus. Also, as I said, what Reagan was pushing was a young vision. Even an old man saying “This is America! We can do it. Our best days are ahead of us!” is going to sound more youthful than a younger person wringing their hands.

      1. That is a great point. Maybe part of the reason Hillary seems so old is because the Democratic message is so old and intellectually bankrupt.

        It is hard to look young running on “vote for me to show that you are not part of the evil, intolerant other side”, which is really all the Democrats have left at this point.

    3. I think the electorate votes for the person who appears to be most powerful.

      In which case Hilary should lose. But, this first woman thing is huge.

      I, too think she is sick. It wouldn’t surprise me if she is battling cancer or something and won’t tell anyone. I don’t see her having the strength to serve a term.

  22. She’s better off as a non-candidate.

    So are we, Hillary. So are we.

  23. Only in a rotting from the inside hole such as this could a succubus such as she be “elected” to public office. If any of you would like to see the amazing number of deaths to people in business/associated with the Clinton clan it’s not too difficult to locate, wait…this being the U.S., perhaps you’d like a “road-map”?

  24. One problem for the rest of us is that with what has effectively been a 10 year campaign, no one in the media will seriously ask Clinton a single question or demand she make a single statement about anything on any issue let alone something hard or controversial. It’s one thing to run as ‘The first Ovarian-American President’. It’s quite another to treat the last decade as an accident of history that’s merely being corrected by the technicality of a vote. On the day after he inauguration what could she possibly say except “thank you and goodnight”.

  25. She will run a campaign of personal destruction. Simply insert a name , any name to a lie.

  26. I hate to say it, but Hillary wins next election. It is her turn. The media will be all over her, ignoring any mistake she makes, and putting in neon every supposed misstep the GOP candidate makes.

    Meanwhile, Bill’s escapades with 14 year olds on Epstein’s sex island will continue to be ignored. Because that does not fit the GOP war on women trope.

    Women will nod their heads knowingly and say ‘let’s prove we women can run things’.

    And, in the meantime a hick GOP politician from Cowlick, Alabama will make a sort of stupid statement and that will play over and over and over for a year.

    Elections are won on a swing of 4 or 5 percent. She gets some women votes from the other side. She gets the black vote. That is enough. Plus, she gets all the lesbian vote and every woman with three names. For sure, those last ones.

  27. She is truly miserable and she will win compared to the even more miserable GOP candidate.

  28. Hillary Clinton will not run. Obama will have a designated successor, like Bill De Blasio or another “The New Party” member.

  29. I am a firm believer in an election that provides the voter a choice. Hillary Clinton does not need to be a shoe in. I do not think that she has a good record. She is a weak person. She was Republican before she was a Democrat. She changed because of who she married. Her husband was an Arkansas boy that did not really care about the state that he came from. When he was governor of that state he stayed out of it more than he stayed in it. Both Bill and Hillary are very much politicians that only think of empowering themselves.

    There should be no coronation for a President. The Democratic voters should have a choice.

  30. I wonder who will be Hillary’s running mate.
    +1 for Hugh Jazz.

    …. Hillary Clinton/Hugh Jazz 2016 ….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.