I think it likely Hillary will be the Democratic nominee. And more importantly, I think she believes she will be the nominee. Today she gave a very good speech. She defined the issues upon which she will run for POTUS, She made Republican extremism and the Republican Supreme Court, which has been an agent of that extremism, the center point of her campaign. That's a winning strategy. This is really the first time I have been impressed with Hillary. She is on to something. If she keeps this up, she will decimate Republicans this fall. This is a message that will resonate with most Americans. Making the Supreme Court and Republican extremism and their frankly un-American agenda the centerpiece of her campaign is a winning strategy not only for Hillary but for any Democrat running for office this year. So do you agree, is this a winning strategy for Hillary and Democrats at large this fall? Will this election end or at least diminish the Republican extremism which has become integral to the Republican Party? Hillary may be able to do what President Obama has not been able to do.
Hillary's principal roadblock is Bernie. He won overwhelming victories last Saturday (Washington, Alaska, Hawaii).
If she's running against Trump, it's a potential misfire. He's not identified with Republican Party extremism, has no ties to the current Court, and can easily dismiss all that stuff as part of the petty and incompetent partisanship we've been seeing from "both sides". He can make better deals than those guys on both sides, see - which will include Clinton, as an establishment figure fully co-opted by one of the sides. As far as the Congress, the House races are largely gerrymandered and vote suppression will be employed where they aren't. So it's an uphill battle, made harder by the clear establishment of the "both sides" meme in all national media. So while some vague Republican extremism is obviously to be deplored, the Democrat extremism is just as bad, and the local Representative is to be cheered for their valiant efforts to compromise and get something done amid this polarized situation of partisan politics by both sides. Given a muddled situation, the familiar local incumbent wins. The Senate doesn't succumb to gerrymandering, is easier to saddle with a history over six years. Better odds there. Don't mean to be discouraging, but the momentum here is not favorable. The economy is not doing well for most people, and that threatens the incumbent Party in a Presidential vote; the terrorist situation is going to get worse before it gets better, that favors the Republican as well as the male and physically large candidate.
I think she is actually in a better position than most Dems would be if a terrorist attack does occur between now and the election... Sorry Bernie. If another 9/11 type of situation occurs then who knows.. Maybe Trump's nuclear option will sound favorable for some of our fellow citizens... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But yeah I think joepistole assessment is spot on, right now it looks like its going to be a landslide for her winning against Trump or Cruz. A little closer with Kasich. Just imagine all the ridiculous non-sense she can use in attack ads that's come out of the Republican Party thus far...
Uh, maybe not. That depends on who the terrorists are, and how the media handles it - some of the Cliven Bundy/Timothy McVeigh crowd, she gets a boost; Sunni jihadists - that will depend on how the dots connect in the US media. Will she have the media in her pocket against Trump as she has against Sanders? The French and Germans may be too polite to say so, but Clinton more than any other US Democratic politician right now (even more than Obama, counting back over the decades) is solidly connected to, and partially responsible for, the spread into Europe of the terrorist threat from the Sunni wildings in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and various older Russian hot spots. The US, in combination with Israel (to which she is bound at the hip) and the Arab Oil "allies" of the US, has been finding ways both purposeful and incompetent to fund and arm those guys, while at the same time weakening their opposition and preventing local governments from dealing with them. Trump is not going to be too polite to say so, and he will have plain facts to point at. How will the media react? Bernie would at least have a counter-argument - he has always opposed that kind of realpolitik, including the Iraq War that is the source of the current fountain of hatred. His judgment has been sound.
I'm ignorant of what events or decisions she directly has made/caused that are linked in wholesome to the terrorist attacks in Europe.. While I think its true that many voters might lean towards a Republican in the event of a jihadi terrorist attack here at home, or even abroad.. I say that Hillary is in a better position than say an Biden, O'malley or definitely a Sanders presidential candidate (as these issues aren't even at the forefront of his campaign.. and rightfully so..), due to her Hawkish stands on many issues.. She's also associated with President Obama who himself can tote he has killed more terrorist than any Republican has through his drone policies. I guess I'm also thinking back to Gore and Kerry who were perceived as weak by the media, Hillary won't have that issue especially with the ridiculous rumors from the right wing media stemming from Benghazi and about her having people assassinated. Plus if Trump, although I think Kaisich will be the nominee, ever does start his trash antics and claims she would be "weak on terrorist", she could easily pull the feminist card and claim the criticism as irregular.
Just on top and flying the "uh oh" flag, her inexcusable approval of the Iraq Invasion and Occupation launched by W - not only the one vote, but a continuing support and defense of it, long after its nature had become obvious to even its initial backers let alone the main body of American liberal thought and all of the Left. But as is common knowledge among many non-Americans, she is connected in various ways over the past thirty years or so (including direct oversight as Secretary of State) to almost all the major US contributions to the rise of Sunni jihad and its export of terror: from cozying up to the Saudis and Israeli actions against Iran from Clinton tenure until now, to weakening regimes that were suppressing Sunni jihad (Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc), to abetting the radicalization of Taliban-associated Sunnis and all Palestinian sympathizers, to supplying unreliable allies with top grade weaponry and watching it appear in jihadist hands, and so forth. Trump, unlike the other Republican politicians in the field, doesn't need to cover his own ass in these matters. He can drag all that stuff into the spotlight. Of course she will. She's a Democrat, and female, with no military background and a track record of muffing things. How do you think Gore and Kerry - both with genuinely commendable military experience, and records of abetting successful violence - came to be "perceived as weak by the media"?
Better work hard for Bernie, then - if she's in a close race with any of the current Republican possible nominees, you aren't going to have a reasonable choice.
The really sad thing is that the entrenched powers want "anyone but Trump" on one side and Hillary on the other side.......the sides are smoke and mirrors, what really matters is the entrenched powers................... Damn the electorate, and screw democracy, this is Tweedism.---------------("they can vote for anyone they want as long as we get to choose who they can vote for")
That's bullshit. Hillary isn't connected with terrorists and isn't even remotely responsible for European terrorism. Unfortunately for you Iceaura, facts do matter. Hillary is a well respected former Secretary of State. Oh, and what would those "facts" be exactly? The only difference between Hillary and Bernie on the Iraq war is that Hillary voted for the authorization which allowed Baby Bush to enforce UN resolution and invade Iraq. As she has repeatedly explained over the years, her vote was based on assurances from the Baby Bush administration, assurances which Baby Bush failed to back up. Hillary has made mistakes, we all have, and we are deceiving ourselves if we think or say otherwise. Bernie is not without his share of mistakes. You don't think Republicans are going to have a field day with Bernie's self proclaimed socialism? If you do, you are once again kidding yourself.
If change is to occur, it must come through the electorate. There are entrenched powers of that there is no doubt. If you want to throw out the entrenched powers, then Bernie is your man. But the leader of our country needs to do more than that. While you are throwing out the entrenched powers, you need to make sure you don't throw out the baby as well. The problem with Bernie and with Trump is their numbers don't add up. Each have big change agendas, but their promises are not grounded in reality. We need to elect someone this fall, and I think at this point, that best person is Hillary. Hillary seems to be a very centrist candidate. Her campaign promises are reasonable and doable. Bernie's along with those on the Republican side are not. At some point, reality must matter. My hope is that Bernie will continue to push Hillary for serious campaign finance and ethics reforms. On the Republican side, no one is pushing for campaign finance reforms. Trump likes to rail about special interests, but he really doesn't have a plan do deal with them.
If true, that would disqualify her from the Presidency. I choose to believe she wasn't that foolishly gullible and incompetent, and instead was making a cynical political calculation designed to set her up for a Presidential run. Several professional and solidly accomplished economists and financiers have weighed in - Krugman, Edelman, Reich, etc - and the general assessment is that Sanders's declared economic program is the soundest. His numbers add up better than anyone else's in the running, and he's addressing the critical issues.
Oh, then perhaps you can show he how that disqualifies her as POTUS? You can't because you are making shit up yet again. It doesn't disqualify her. Well, while you may believe that one vote was "foolishly gullible and incompetent" that doesn't make it so. Except, as is normally the case with you, that isn't true either. From Salon.com: "Krugman, as has become increasingly clear, belongs to the Clinton camp." http://www.salon.com/2016/01/29/pau..._of_the_bernie_sandershillary_clinton_divide/ From Paul Krugman: "Just to be clear: Hillary Clinton is no paragon of political virtue, although she’s nothing like the monster everyone on the right and some people on the left like to portray. Actually, on policy she has generally been pretty good (Iraq aside, but that was a special and awful time). Health reform, in fact, as actually enacted is much more like her proposal in 2008 than Obama’s — during that campaign Obama ran some quite ugly Harry-and-Louise type ads attacking the individual mandate, which she correctly insisted was essential. Her biggest vice, from my point of view, is listening too much to consultants who want to make cheap shots, like the claim that the Sanders plan would kill Medicaid, when her real strength comes when she lets her inner wonk and fundamental toughness shine through. But here’s the thing: we now have a clear view of Sanders’ positions on two crucial issues, financial reform and health care. And in both cases his positioning is disturbing — not just because it’s politically unrealistic to imagine that we can get the kind of radical overhaul he’s proposing, but also because he takes his own version of cheap shots. Not at people — he really is a fundamentally decent guy — but by going for easy slogans and punting when the going gets tough." On finance: Sanders has made restoring Glass-Steagal and breaking up the big banks the be-all and end-all of his program. That sounds good, but it’s nowhere near solving the real problems. The core of what went wrong in 2008 was the rise of shadow banking; too big to fail was at best marginal, and as Mike Konczal notes, pushing the big banks out of shadow banking, on its own, could make the problem worse by causing the risky stuff to “migrate elsewhere, often to places where there is less regulatory infrastructure.” On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders “plan” isn’t just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice. To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich — and single-payer really does save money, whereas there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect. And look: if the political theory behind supporting Sanders is that the American people will vote for radical change if you’re honest about what’s involved, the campaign’s evident unwillingness to fully confront the issues, its reliance on magic asterisks, very much weakens that claim. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/ Clearly economists, and Krugman in particular, do not favor Bernie for all the reasons elucidated in Krugman's New York Times article. Bernie's numbers don't add up. You are making shit up again Iceaura. Your assertion isn't truthful.
If you have to ask why Clinton handing W&Cheney those war powers because she believed their "assurances" would disqualify her from the Presidency, you'll never understand. If you read what you just quoted, you will notice that the reasons Krugman favors Clinton have nothing to do with the comparative soundness of their economic programs, and absolutely nothing to do with Clinton's numbers adding up better. They are all straight criticisms of Sanders, not comparative praising of Clinton, and they are not primarily economic criticisms. There's a reason for that, which you can discover by reading Krugman's analyses of Clinton style economic proposals in the past. When he compares their health care plans, for example, he points out that Sanders seems to be underestimating the extra taxes necessary - but he is silent about the relative cost to the country, and coverage, of Clinton's tweaking of Obamacare. You have to read elsewhere to discover what Krugman thinks about that vs Sanders's Medicare expansion. When he criticizes Sanders on his banking reforms not being adequate, he does not compare them to Clinton's reforms. He is at least partly correct in his criticism, but that does not change the relative strength of Sanders's vs Clinton's even less adequate proposals. He points out that breaking up the big banks is not enough, and leaves it to you to recall that Clinton isn't even proposing that much. Krugman's criticism rests largely on Krugman's opinion of political feasibility and political rhetorical style, not economic soundness. On the basic economic soundness, we read that the problem in 2008 was centered in unregulated banking, "and single-payer really does save money", and so forth, as Krugman has explained so often before. Bernie's numbers don't add up, true. They just add up better than anyone else's, and Krugman has explained why they would do that many times in the past.
Well, here is the thing, I didn't ask why. I asked you to show me where that disqualifies her to become POTUS. Just because Hillary made a decision you don't like, it doesn't disqualify her to become POTUS. Well here again, you are not being honest. You wrote, "Several professional and solidly accomplished economists and financiers have weighed in - Krugman, Adelmann, Reich, etc - and the general assessment is that Sanders's declared economic program is the soundest. His numbers add up better than anyone else's in the running, and he's addressing the critical issues." Clearly, per the previously referenced articles, it is very clear Krugman does not favor Bernie for all the reasons he elucidated in his article. You were making shit up again as you are known to do. And if you think that the reason Krugman opposes Sanders and favors Clinton isn't based on the "comparative soundness" then you are either making shit up again or you don't understand English. Krugman clearly explains Bernie's numbers don't add up. Once again for you edification: "But here’s the thing: we now have a clear view of Sanders’ positions on two crucial issues, financial reform and health care. And in both cases his positioning is disturbing — not just because it’s politically unrealistic to imagine that we can get the kind of radical overhaul he’s proposing, but also because he takes his own version of cheap shots. Not at people — he really is a fundamentally decent guy — but by going for easy slogans and punting when the going gets tough." On finance: Sanders has made restoring Glass-Steagal and breaking up the big banks the be-all and end-all of his program. That sounds good, but it’s nowhere near solving the real problems. The core of what went wrong in 2008 was the rise of shadow banking; too big to fail was at best marginal, and as Mike Konczal notes, pushing the big banks out of shadow banking, on its own, could make the problem worse by causing the risky stuff to “migrate elsewhere, often to places where there is less regulatory infrastructure.” On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders “plan” isn’t just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice. To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich — and single-payer really does save money, whereas there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect. - Krugman Well, not surprisingly, you are not being honest. You are cherry picking and misrepresenting, it's what you do. Krugman did compare Hillary and Bernie and clearly and reasonably stated why he favored Hillary over Bernie. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less real. And remember, you had claimed Krugman favored Bernie, and he very clearly doesn't. You are trying to obfuscate. Clearly you were wrong. Clearly you were making shit up when you claimed he and other economists favored Bernie. Actually, it doesn't. Krugman's opinion is based not only on political feasibility but on economic soundness as well. You are back to cherry picking again. Krugman says much more than that. Here is one of the things you left out, "To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up.". Well now that is a reversal, probably a brief one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now you are making shit up again. Krugman in the article I referenced explained why Bernie's numbers don't add up better than anyone else's numbers and in particular why they don't add up better than Hillary's numbers. That's why , contrary to your statement, Krugman favors Hillary over Bernie. You are not being honest again Iceaura.
If you have to ask, you'll never understand. I'm sorry, but it's not really up for debate - if she was actually taken in by that dog and pony show, from her well informed and well connected position and years of experience, she has no business in any office of great political responsibility. But I don't think she was. He does not compare Sanders's economic program to Clintons. Why do you suppose that is? If you want to know what Krugman thinks of Sanders's economic program compared with Clinton's, just on the numbers without the political presumptions, you have to read elsewhere - or read between the lines, as I quoted (single payer saves money, breaking up the big banks is just a start, etc).
You are not being honest again Iceaura. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Just because you don't like someone or something they have done, it doesn't disqualify them to become POTUS. The unfortunate fact for you, and contrary to your assertion, there is there is nothing Hillary has said or done which disqualifies her from becoming POTUS. There is nothing in the US Constitution which says voting against the wishes of Iceaura disqualifies anyone from becoming POTUS. Well, I think it's pretty obvious Krugman favors Hillary, and I think that's pretty evident to any honest reader. Contrary to your assertion, Krugman outright proclaims his endorsement of Hillary in his New York Times article, the article I referenced. He favors her based on economics and based on her programs and the economic impacts thereof. What do you think economic plans are? Are healthcare reform, taxation, and financial reform not "economic programs"? They are economic programs and Krugman addresses them in his article. Healthcare alone constitutes nearly a fifth of the economy. All those issues are part and parcel of Bernie's "economic program. You are not being honest. You are obfuscating again. The bottom line here is contrary to your assertion, Krugman does not believe Bernie's numbers add up. He believes Bernie isn't being realistic. KRUGMAN says they are FANTASIES, "To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up.".
Yes. I made no assertion otherwise. Lots of people who favor Sanders's economic policies over Clinton's have endorsed Clinton anyway - some of them because they think Clinton is a better bet to enact Sanders's agenda (you've seen that on this forum). Not according to anything he has written. He favors her according to her political approach of transactional politics, or what used to be called realpolitek. We do need a transPacific trade deal, of some kind. We did need welfare reform, etc. He appears to regard Sanders as an idealist who can't get done what needs doing. In which the following key modifier appears: "a little bit". Why key? Because he repeats it, with emphasis, and elaborates on the supposed resemblance, immediately following: Without that modifier, his assessment there would be blatantly inaccurate. As it is, one can make allowances for his detour into political slander by association, because he is not putting the weight of his economic expertise behind it (the supposed resemblance is political and rhetorical, not economic) and just call it "harsh". Now, for your edification: there is no comparison with Hillary's proposals visible. If you know that Sanders is proposing single payer, which Krugman thinks would save significant money, and Clinton is proposing some minor tweaks to Obamacare, which Krugman thinks would save much less money (he has written on it elsewhere), you can read a comparison between the lines. But it isn't there. You have to have familiarity with Krugman's writing even to see where it would fall into place. btw: Krugman is not the only economic heavyweight to have written or spoken in support of Sanders's economic proposals. I listed two others (Edelman, Reich) and the list could be expanded significantly by the diligent.
Oh, so you don't remember writing, "Several professional and solidly accomplished economists and financiers have weighed in - Krugman, Adelmann, Reich, etc - and the general assessment is that Sanders's declared economic program is the soundest. His numbers add up better than anyone else's in the running, and he's addressing the critical issues." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh, well then you should be able to back that up with some evidence. So let's see it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You are not being honest. Well, per the article I wrote and have repeated several times now, Krugman wrote much more than that. Krugman didn't write that Sanders was an "idealist". And Krugman didn't address Bernie's competence. He did say Bernie's economic plans are "disturbing". Per Krugman's previously referenced article: "But here’s the thing: we now have a clear view of Sanders’ positions on two crucial issues, financial reform and health care. And in both cases his positioning is disturbing — not just because it’s politically unrealistic to imagine that we can get the kind of radical overhaul he’s proposing, but also because he takes his own version of cheap shots. Not at people — he really is a fundamentally decent guy — but by going for easy slogans and punting when the going gets tough." Krugman clearly states Bernie's positions are "disturbing". Krugman said of Hillary, "on policy, she has generally been pretty good". That "little bit" wasn't in reference to Hillary, but in reference to Republican tax cut plans. So again, you are not being intellectually honest. LOL....bullshit. I suggest you reread Krugman's article, though I doubt it will help you. Once again for your edification: "Just to be clear: Hillary Clinton is no paragon of political virtue, although she’s nothing like the monster everyone on the right and some people on the left like to portray. Actually, on policy she has generally been pretty good (Iraq aside, but that was a special and awful time). Health reform, in fact, as actually enacted is much more like her proposal in 2008 than Obama’s — during that campaign Obama ran some quite ugly Harry-and-Louise type ads attacking the individual mandate, which she correctly insisted was essential. Her biggest vice, from my point of view, is listening too much to consultants who want to make cheap shots, like the claim that the Sanders plan would kill Medicaid, when her real strength comes when she lets her inner wonk and fundamental toughness shine through. I hate repetition, but, with you, it's needed. Krugman states in reference to Hillary, "Actually, on policy she has generally been pretty good". Krugman thinks Hillary is pretty good on policy. You have to be able to read and comprehend what was read, something you are clearly having great difficult doing. Contrary to your assertion and per my previous references, Krugman and other accomplished economists clearly favor Hillary. This is what Krugman wrote about Bernie: "And look: if the political theory behind supporting Sanders is that the American people will vote for radical change if you’re honest about what’s involved, the campaign’s evident unwillingness to fully confront the issues, its reliance on magic asterisks, very much weakens that claim." - Krugman
