I haven't visited T-Web for a while. I really miss being able to talk to people who lean conservative, but are able to articulate their arguments in a concise, coherent manner. So let me have it T-webbers,
Who will beat Clinton? The Republican group of challengers this time is quite large. I will list some of the most prominent ones along with a very brief reason of why I don't think they'll be able to win. (In no particular order)
1. Jeb Bush. I think he is the "establishment" candidate who has the best chance of beating her. Both candidates have a lot of political baggage, and most of it is based on their family, not on their actual options. Clinton has a host of prior issues/scandals, but things like Benghazi, e-mails, her husband's infidelity, her "it's my turn mantra" appear to be more red meat to motivate the base, and won't convince border-line voters.
2. Scott Walker. His anti-union credentials may play well with the base, but it will motivate unions and other interest groups. Plus, as his recent foreign policy missteps show that he's more of a Rick Santorum/ Rick Perry hybrid. He's probably the favorite of the social conservatives, but will probably lose to Bush for the same reasons as those two. (IOW, he can't even make it to Clinton)
3. Marco Rubio. It's stupid, but I don't think he'll ever live down his SOTU response when he looked really thirsty. He just did not "look" presidential. That's not the main reason he'd lose. I doubt a Hispanic person could win the nomination right now. He's also more of a war hawk in recent times. This puts him at odds with people who would vote for Rand Paul, for example.
4. Rand Paul. As much as I disagree with him, he actually seems to be the candidate that's willing to work with Democrats at least on some social issues, as well as sharing some foreign policy agreements. While this would be good for him as a president, it really hurts his chances of getting a nomination. I think he will do much better than his father, but ultimately will lose the nomination.
5. Chris Christie - Bridgegate. For better or worse, this pretty much killed his future as a viable presidential candidate.
6. Others - Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Santorum, Ben Carson, Sara Palin. This group would at most, at this time, be also-rans, and I don't think anyone at this point would take their bids seriously. Of this group, Rick Perry may be able to make a bounce back, but I think it would be a long shot.
Two other reasons have very little to do with Hilary Clinton and more to do with the electoral trends.
1. Demographic Shift. Until President Obama, for the most part, all a candidate needed to do to win was to win the male white vote. Now, with Romney loosing almost 75% of the Hispanic vote, it is absolutely necessary for candidates to win or at least come even with minority votes.
2. This is the even bigger reason. Since 1992, 18 states, plus DC, have been Blue. That's 242 ECV. 14 have gone red, for a total of 102 votes. Hilary Clinton would only need to win Florida, for example to win the presidency. Even if Republicans managed to steal Pennsylvania, for example, they would still have much more difficult path to the 272 ECVs needed to win.
It was therefore, no surprise why President Obama was able to win re-election.
I'd say that barring an economic collapse or foreign policy complete blunder (another 9/11, for example), it's highly unlikely that Republicans will win the presidency. I predict they will hold the House, but lose the Presidency and the Senate.
One good point of contention for Republicans: The Democratic field this time is very, very shallow. If anything happens to Clinton, if she makes a major blunder, then they have virtually no-one else to take her place. If she goes thru the Primary virtually unchallenged, while this will help with her fund-raising, for all her political experience, she will be facing her first real campaign in 8 years. She will be liable to make big mistakes.
Best of luck to you all, but I'd say the odds weren't in your favor,
Cheers,
Nick
Who will beat Clinton? The Republican group of challengers this time is quite large. I will list some of the most prominent ones along with a very brief reason of why I don't think they'll be able to win. (In no particular order)
1. Jeb Bush. I think he is the "establishment" candidate who has the best chance of beating her. Both candidates have a lot of political baggage, and most of it is based on their family, not on their actual options. Clinton has a host of prior issues/scandals, but things like Benghazi, e-mails, her husband's infidelity, her "it's my turn mantra" appear to be more red meat to motivate the base, and won't convince border-line voters.
2. Scott Walker. His anti-union credentials may play well with the base, but it will motivate unions and other interest groups. Plus, as his recent foreign policy missteps show that he's more of a Rick Santorum/ Rick Perry hybrid. He's probably the favorite of the social conservatives, but will probably lose to Bush for the same reasons as those two. (IOW, he can't even make it to Clinton)
3. Marco Rubio. It's stupid, but I don't think he'll ever live down his SOTU response when he looked really thirsty. He just did not "look" presidential. That's not the main reason he'd lose. I doubt a Hispanic person could win the nomination right now. He's also more of a war hawk in recent times. This puts him at odds with people who would vote for Rand Paul, for example.
4. Rand Paul. As much as I disagree with him, he actually seems to be the candidate that's willing to work with Democrats at least on some social issues, as well as sharing some foreign policy agreements. While this would be good for him as a president, it really hurts his chances of getting a nomination. I think he will do much better than his father, but ultimately will lose the nomination.
5. Chris Christie - Bridgegate. For better or worse, this pretty much killed his future as a viable presidential candidate.
6. Others - Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Santorum, Ben Carson, Sara Palin. This group would at most, at this time, be also-rans, and I don't think anyone at this point would take their bids seriously. Of this group, Rick Perry may be able to make a bounce back, but I think it would be a long shot.
Two other reasons have very little to do with Hilary Clinton and more to do with the electoral trends.
1. Demographic Shift. Until President Obama, for the most part, all a candidate needed to do to win was to win the male white vote. Now, with Romney loosing almost 75% of the Hispanic vote, it is absolutely necessary for candidates to win or at least come even with minority votes.
2. This is the even bigger reason. Since 1992, 18 states, plus DC, have been Blue. That's 242 ECV. 14 have gone red, for a total of 102 votes. Hilary Clinton would only need to win Florida, for example to win the presidency. Even if Republicans managed to steal Pennsylvania, for example, they would still have much more difficult path to the 272 ECVs needed to win.
It was therefore, no surprise why President Obama was able to win re-election.
I'd say that barring an economic collapse or foreign policy complete blunder (another 9/11, for example), it's highly unlikely that Republicans will win the presidency. I predict they will hold the House, but lose the Presidency and the Senate.
One good point of contention for Republicans: The Democratic field this time is very, very shallow. If anything happens to Clinton, if she makes a major blunder, then they have virtually no-one else to take her place. If she goes thru the Primary virtually unchallenged, while this will help with her fund-raising, for all her political experience, she will be facing her first real campaign in 8 years. She will be liable to make big mistakes.
Best of luck to you all, but I'd say the odds weren't in your favor,
Cheers,
Nick
Comment