When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Not sure I get what you're questioning.

Don't know about the House-that would be a big shift-but the Senate is possible, and given the bizarre course of the Republican presidential race, more possible than it seemed a year ago.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/11/calculating_democrats_chances_of_regaining_the_senate.html

BTW, Obama is up to 51% approval rating in the polls. That's a factor.

Good information on Obama's current approval rating. Thanks.

For the last couple of days, Gallup in its Daily Tracking poll has him up to 53%. The Republican circus is taking a toll, apparently.

Poll on Trump: 63% Unfavorable and 36% Favorable.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating

Arnt you afraid one of the Berniebots would assassinate her if he was vice. Just listen to some on this site.

Nah, I don't think him being v.p. would make them any more likely to do
crazy things. Not that there aren't some that are rabid enough, just that they probably wouldn't be any crazier if he was veep.

Quote Rabel222:


I think about the only thing stopping some of them would be the fact that unless the election is such a rout that the Democrats take back the house, if Hillary goes only the heartbeat of a man in his mid seventies is preventing Paul Ryan from becoming President.

yikes

I thought that was something from the Onion

How wrong you are:

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/958/votingrecord#tabset-4

Aren't you afraid that Bernie himself might strangle Hillary with his bare arms, pour arsenic in her tea, or use the white house lawnmower to chop her into tiny tiny bits, if he was vice president? After all, that damn Bernie Sanders is so very ambitious, and she's so soft and naturally trusting of others...

She can't take such a risk! She should pick her husband as VP. After all, many people support her because of Bill already.

The idea that Sanders hasn't done much in senate comes straight from the Hillarettes' handbook. It doesn't fit with facts, but who cares? The narrative is that she "gets things done", while he just rants.

Indeed, why oh why couldn't Bernie Sanders summon the courage to vote for the Iraq war???? Hillary could, big girl that she is.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-new-york-times-sandbagged-bernie-sanders-20160315

Question: Hillary voted, along with just about everyone else in the Senate, to give Bush the power to enter Iraq if he felt the circumstances indicated it. Nothing in what she voted for mandated the invasion. And everyone admits the information that was given the Senators was bad info.

However, does the fact that Hillary voted as a Senator to give Bush the power to enter Iraq if he wanted-does that necessarily mean that if Hillary is president she will invade other countries? Because I'm thinking about the Yugoslavian breakup, and the vicious militias of Serbs, (mostly-the other side also did some "ethnic cleansing" of their own), going from town to town murdering the men in the town of "the other side". And how Bill got NATO together to do some limited bombing, and how he put together the Dayton Accords to stop the blood from running in the streets. It was a masterful performance, and by the way also kept Russia from getting re-involved in the newly independent states which just won their freedom.

How Hillary voted, along with all other Senators, in Iraq is not as good an indicator of her philosophy as watching how her husband brought peace to Eastern Europe and kept Russia mostly out of it with a limited use of force and no American lives lost at all.

Yes, he voted for bills in the congress. That is undeniable. I guess that was basically his job, at a bare minimum (although, I understand many Senators can't even do that much of their job).

What I meant by his ineffectiveness, was his demonstrated inability to bring about any real changes. How many bills has he written that have passed? How has he made himself known/heard in the Senate and to what extent did that dictate legislation? How many legislators has he persuaded to join his side? He's got all these ideas, and really no record (that I've seen) in getting anyone to join him.

I get and appreciate that his vote was one of 3 dissenting votes for the Iraq war for example. But he knew before that vote was cast that the bill was going to pass and living in Vermont and being a 15 year incumbent he also knew that his seat was completely safe. I suppose that you could call it taking a stand, but it was probably one of the safest votes that he could make. He was a win-win situation for him.

It was fairly obvious that the Bush administration was pursuing a war of choice in Iraq. The evidence presented to me through the press never convinced me and Senator Sanders saw though it (along with a bunch of other Senators), so Clinton doesn't get a pass on that one. I'm ok with her saying she made a mistake and learned from it, but I wish she'd been more critical at the time. I'm also not so positive on the Serbian/Kosovo engagement but that should be another thread. More recently, Clinton was a backer of military force in Libya which President Obama (wisely IMO) decided against.

Overall, I think Clinton is a lot more willing to use the US military on the world stage than Sanders or President Obama. (As posted elsewhere I give the President a lot of credit for not involving the US military in engagements where there are fuzzy, political objectives instead of rational, military ones and expanding the use of diplomacy.) I think she sees Iraq I and Kosovo as models and tends to ignore the lessons of Iraq II and Afghanistan.

whoa

that's a stretch

how she voted is not as good an indicator of her thinking as what someone else did?

__


you'd have to be double-if-not-triple jointed to pull that stretch off

Her husband and she are different people. There is no doubt that Hillary is a foreign policy hawk and a staunch supporter of Israel, more so than her husband.

The way she voted on Iraq highlights the fact that she's got a petty political mind -- judging issues based on what's in it for her politically rather than on their own merit -- and/or that she can be easily fooled. Sanders -- on this issue at least -- was far more of a stateman than she was, smarter and more courageous.

Exactly. She must have known it was phony, but voted for it nevertheless because not doing so would have implied a risk to her carrier.

"The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally." - Flannery O'Conner (1925-1964)