15
   

Has Hillary's Time Come?

 
 
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 11:33 am
I read a fascinating piece in the WSJ today. The author spoke about how Obama's approval ratings are at a dismal low. He apparently appears to be unable to pull Congress together to accomplish much, and in the author's opinion, it would only get worse if he got elected to a second term.

He would like Obama to bow out for a 2nd term, and have Hillary Clinton run for president. He believes that Hillary has the best chance of bringing the country together.


I don't know how she feels about running, but, IMO, I think that it is a great idea. She certainly has the smarts, the experience, and the approval of the majority of citizens.

I think that the people on the Republican side of the fence, are a poor bunch. There is not a one in the bunch who would capture the imagination of the American people.

The voters who will decide this election, IMO are the moderates and the independents. THEY certainly will not vote for any of the anti-gay, pro-life bible bangers.

What do you think? Should Obama step down for the good of the country? Should Hillary run?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 15 • Views: 5,581 • Replies: 67

 
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 11:50 am
@Phoenix32890,
Hillary's time has come, and gone... She would make her self no friend of the Democratic party by dividing them and losing the black vote... No one is going to vote for her that did not vote for Mr. Obama, and a whole lot less Obama voters will vote for her... Don't worry though.. She has enough sense to not try to run against a sitting president from her own party...
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 11:51 am
@Phoenix32890,
Quote:
The voters who will decide this election, IMO are the moderates and the independents. THEY certainly will not vote for any of the anti-gay, pro-life bible bangers.

Not sure how you determined this factoid. Clearly most who vote for Democratic candidates would follow this voting pattern but not any Tea Baggers or typical Republicans (even those who claim the moderate social mantel). In the next election with record lows in voting, the most ... passionate voters will vote their allegedly principled candidates in.

What does that mean? Independents and so-called moderates WILL LIKELY not be turning up to the polling booths in any large numbers to authenticate your thesis.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 11:56 am
@tsarstepan,
Best case scenario: Obama gets reelected and the country continues to slide backwards even if the Democrats gain a greater foothold of the US Senate and increase their collective mass in the US Congress.

Worst case scenario: George W. Bush II (any Republican candidate other then Huntsman, Romney, or Ron Paul) will take the election. Then that means the Republicans would likely further gain in Congress and even the Senate perhaps.

Then the country slides right back into the deepest of recessions.
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 12:08 pm
@tsarstepan,
I'm not saying I don't like the idea. The theory behind a Hilary Clinton candidacy would a great improvement over a stalled and uninspiring Obama presidency. I'm not too enthusiastic over it actually be plausible even in the best of scenarios.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  5  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 12:15 pm
@tsarstepan,
I suspect you are wrong on the voting inclinations of the moderates, and especially the ones you call tea baggers. Actually, I think you are wrong on the moderate/independent voter turnout, too, but I could be wrong. I'm expecting a fairly good anti Obama turnout amongst that group.

I could accept Hillary. Like Phoenix, I'm not greatly impressed by the Republican field. Not crazy about the presumed Democratic candidate either. On the other hand, Obama stepping aside seems even less likely than Cain giving up.

I guess that in summary, I'm not optimistic about the future of the country for the next five years.
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 12:18 pm
@roger,
I'm not saying Tea Baggers are moderate. I'm saying Tea Baggers will vote en masse and in numbers while moderates and centrists will not turn up to the voting polls.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 12:45 pm
@tsarstepan,
I see and understand.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  6  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 12:49 pm
@Phoenix32890,
That scenario seems extremely unlikely to me. I can't see any sitting president ever bowing out for anything other than personal reasons (like traumatic illness or something).

Has any sitting president ever bowed out of potential re-election on the grounds that someone else could do a better job?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 01:00 pm
not only is Obama too ego filled to bow out but Hillary does not have the fire anymore. I expect to to retire from politics and do some part time non-profit work. Maybe Chelsea will give her some grandkids to dote on.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 01:32 pm
He wont quit. why should he with the bunch of duds the repubs are planing to run. And dont make me laugh with that good of the country crap. When did a modern politician worry about anyone but himself?
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 02:44 pm
@Phoenix32890,
Phoenix32890 wrote:

He believes that Hillary has the best chance of bringing the country together.

She certainly has the smarts, the experience, and the approval of the majority of citizens.

I think Hilary has the smarts and the experience, but I don't think her approval is much higher than the President's nor do I think she has a good chance of bringing together the country. I do think she is more decisive than Obama but I don't think she has a bigger stick to wield in Congress and I don't see how she could be more effective given the Republicans are completely unified in screwing the country. If you have one faction that values their principles over the continued existence of the country and another that values the existence of the country over their principles, the former will always win no matter who is President.
JPB
 
  8  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 02:53 pm
I don't think it much matters who the President is at this point. We have a major ideological divide in this country over the role of the federal government. We will remain in gridlock as long as we have a split congress. The next election will be a referendum on how the people feel about the role of gov't at the federal level. Republicans are convinced that they can gain the Senate and the WH. I disagree. In fact, I think the House will revert back to the dems. Everybody wants their cake and eat it too. Those screaming, "No more taxes, but don't touch my Medicare" are as much the problem as any currently elected official - Obama included.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 03:07 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
I think Hilary has the smarts and the experience, but I don't think her approval is much higher than the President's nor do I think she has a good chance of bringing together the country. I do think she is more decisive than Obama but I don't think she has a bigger stick to wield in Congress and I don't see how she could be more effective given the Republicans are completely unified in screwing the country. If you have one faction that values their principles over the continued existence of the country and another that values the existence of the country over their principles, the former will always win no matter who is President.
According to many polls Hillary has a substantially higher approval rating than Obama.
From April- at above 60%: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373622/Will-Hillary-Clinton-run-2012-Poll-shows-68-approval-rating-Americans.html "Will Hillary run for 2012? Poll shows 68% approval rating among Americans"
and from more current time (via a CNN poll in September this year mentioned in this article): http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/former_clinton_pollster_obama.html

She tends to be ahead of Obama in majority if not all polls and fattens the lead in showings against various Republican options. Of course she keeps saying she will not run and that this may be true. Then again sometimes a person changes their mind.

In the meantime or meanwhile many that voted for Obama are disgusted with him and the lack of change and won't be giving him a second vote. This doesn't mean they will turn to the alternative; just that they won't vote at all. If wise the liberals get too secure in their belief that the Republicans don't have a candidate of any vote pulling power, they won't go and vote and the Republicans will handily win. Future President Gingrich and V.P. Rubio are quite happy about this.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  3  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 03:24 pm
I'm not a happy puppy re Obama for some reasons but like him quite a bit for others, and plan to vote for him.

As I've said elsewhere, it's "the company they keep". That's a reference to hematology - you can figure what a blast cell in a cbc smear is by seeing the cells around it (blasts being, at least in my day, hard to distinguish as to type). So... a president comes with a bag of cohorts.

I don't like Hillary much. She's hawky to me and I found her wish for Kaddafi's demise to be intemperate at the least. I'd vote for her in a kind of self defense re the present GOP if it came to that.

I also remember all the Hillary hating going on. I'd be surprised if that has somehow completely dissipated.

Re Obama sliding away, no way.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  7  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 03:30 pm
@Phoenix32890,
Phoenix32890 wrote:
I read a fascinating piece in the WSJ today. The author spoke about how Obama's approval ratings are at a dismal low. He apparently appears to be unable to pull Congress together to accomplish much, and in the author's opinion, it would only get worse if he got elected to a second term.

That's one way to look at it. The other way is to see it as hack piece by a couple of faux (spelled F-o-x) Democrats who think that the best way for the Democratic Party to succeed would be for it to become the Republican Party.

The Worst Political Column of All Time

Fake Democratic Pollsters Have Stupid Idea
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 03:34 pm
@joefromchicago,
loved this from the 2nd link

Quote:
The Wall Street Journal publishes nonsense from Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell, because they think you're an idiot
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 03:48 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.



Quote:
Certainly, Mr. Obama could still win re-election in 2012. Even with his all-time low job approval ratings (and even worse ratings on handling the economy) the president could eke out a victory in November. But the kind of campaign required for the president's political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern—not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.

Put simply, it seems that the White House has concluded that if the president cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and below 40% on the economy, the president cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. He—like everyone else—knows that they are worse off.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203611404577041950781477944.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Rosborne- Looks like this HAS happened before. Check out

the entire article. Personally, I find it fascinating!
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 04:14 pm
So far, Obama is coming up with the fewest votes on who's to blame in the failure of the supercommittee to reach an agreement. At least in this poll...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/21/8933628-poll-who-is-to-blame-for-deficit-panel-failure
0 Replies
 
tsarstepan
 
  3  
Reply Mon 21 Nov, 2011 04:17 pm
@Phoenix32890,
It's nice and quaint to place your trust in the Rupert Murdock OWNED and CONTROLLED Wall Street Journal.

Remember the devil isn't going to seduce his followers with bitter and cold-hearted cynicism but sweet and well-reasoned fallacies.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Has Hillary's Time Come?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2019 at 06:15:46