Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hillary Clinton in 2016: Be Afraid, Republicans

Hillary Clinton’s polling ahead of GOP challengers in Texas and Kentucky. And then there’s the youth vote, minorities, women, and the white working class. She’s the one to beat in 2016, writes Lloyd Green, former opposition research counsel to the George H.W. Bush campaign.

Feb 3, 2013

Message to the Republican Party: Be afraid, be very afraid.

Hillary Clinton stands atop of the Democratic 2016 scrum, set to resume where Bill left off. A second Clinton candidacy would likely put the white vote in play and jeopardize the GOP’s dominance in the Old Confederacy. Recent polls put Hillary ahead of possible Republican challengers in vote-rich Texas and in Kentucky, home of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Tea Party favorite Rand Paul.

Unlike her husband, Hillary is personally disciplined. Unlike Barack Obama, she has demonstrated an ability to connect with beer-track voters across the country.

To understand why Hillary is particularly dangerous to the Republican Party, recall where the Democratic Party stood on the eve of Bill’s 1992 run for the White House, poised for what would have been their sixth loss in seven presidential elections.

The 1960s marked the exodus of blue-collar ethnics and Southerners from the Democratic Party. What was once the base of the FDR’s New Deal coalition headed for the exits in the aftermath of inner-city rioting, violent protests and rancorous demonstrations. White flight marked Richard Nixon’s 1972 landslide victory over George McGovern. Nixon won 61 percent of the popular vote and two-thirds of ballots casts by white voters. Not even Ronald Reagan equaled that margin. And in the South, the Democratic vote crumbled, as McGovern gleaned less than three in 10 voters there.

Roe v. Wade came next. The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision recognized abortion as a constitutionally protected right and was a milestone for the Women’s movement. But in politics as in physics, actions generate reactions, and it also helped to forge an alliance between devout Catholics and evangelical Protestants. By the end of 1988, white Catholics had voted Republican in three consecutive presidential elections. The Democratic Party was no longer their natural home. For its part, the GOP was no longer the exclusive enclave of Thurston Howell III, the descendants of Union soldiers or northern rural Protestants. Instead, the Republican Party had morphed into a winning, albeit monochromatic, coalition.

Enter Bill Clinton. His candidacy and presidency reversed the Democrats’ fortunes by playing to voters who had become dissatisfied with the Republican’s Party’s overt piety and Southern-fried politics, but who were wary of the Democrats’ sympathy for identity and grievance politics, foreign policy by McGovern-Carter and disdain for market-based economics. Both Ice Storm suburbanites and Reagan Democrats were receptive to Bill’s message.

Bill’s attack on Sister Souljah and embrace of free trade signaled that he was breaking from Democratic orthodoxies. The numbers told the story.

In 1992, Bill Clinton came within one point of winning a plurality of white voters. He came within three points in 1996. No Democratic candidate has since come that close. Indeed, Barack Obama garnered less than two in five white votes against a hapless Mitt Romney. To top it off, Clinton also tied the Republicans in the South in 1996. There was stirring in Dixie.

At the electoral high-end, the Ivy Leaguers of the 1960s had grown up and traded their beards, tattered jeans, and placards for Wall Street, Ralph Lauren suits, business cards, and a home in Larchmont. And so, Clinton won an outright majority of voters with graduate degrees and kept the GOP to less than 60 percent among affluent voters. In fact, since 1992 grad degree voters have gone Democratic in each subsequent presidential election.

by Anonymousreply 7902/06/2013

(continued)

Bill’s successes served as the electoral predicate for Obama’s victories, and position Hillary to pick up where Obama ultimately leaves off. Obama won reelection by forging a New Deal 2.0 coalition in the industrial Midwest, while cementing a high-end low-end coalition in the South of college-educated whites and minorities.

Although Obama lost among non-college graduate whites by 19 points nationwide, his deficit among that same demographic in the Great Lakes was only in the single digits. Significantly, Ohio and Pennsylvania held for Obama in 2012, two of the states which Obama lost to Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries.

by Anonymousreply 102/04/2013

I hope her health and stamina hold out, and I hope she DOES run, and I hope she wins in a landslide that shames Republicans for decades, and that her coat-tails are long and she brings with her super-majorities in the House and Senate.

Wouldn't THAT be a kick in the pants?

Then I would hope that, unlike her husband, she could run an Administration as scandal-free as Obama's has been so far, and get shit done.

by Anonymousreply 202/04/2013

That's some incisive political analysis, R3. Surely, if Romney got 10 percent of the black vote, as opposed to the 7 percent he did get, that would have made a dramatic difference of... .39 percent (3 percent of 13 percent, the black share of the national vote), clearly closing Romney's gap of 4 percent.

by Anonymousreply 402/04/2013

R5:

Most of the gun supporters were conservative Republicans before. Obama stands to pick up Republicans who don't like guns. At best a wash.

by Anonymousreply 602/04/2013

Looks like the Republican trolls for 2016 are arriving early.

Are R3 & R5 being serious? This is the propaganda you are putting out?

Obama only won because of racist blacks? Obama won a majority of the women's vote, and a huge majority of the Latino vote. Not to mention a majority of many other demographics. R3, if Hillary runs in 2016 she will do very well, and will pick up a lot of Independent and white-working class support. The Republicans are obviously worried since they are trying to pass immigration reform and trying to restructure the electoral college since they know they are losing on the current map.

And as for you R5, I guess you've forgotten that Bill Clinton was easily re-elected in 1996 after passing the assault weapons ban in 1994.

by Anonymousreply 702/04/2013

R5 seems blissfully unaware that a SUPER-MAJORITY of American Citizens supports Obama's gun safety proposals. He's totally in the mainstream, and this is totally a winning issue for him.

by Anonymousreply 802/04/2013

thank you r8!

by Anonymousreply 902/04/2013

R3's vapid fantasy ignores all the racist whites that voted against the black guy.

by Anonymousreply 1002/04/2013

[quote]If you take the normal 10% of blacks and assign them back to the Republicans you would see Obama would lose.

I hate to even bother addressing R3, but in case he didn't know, the black population is a Democratic strong hold. The Republicans lost that population and for the foreseeable future, there's no winning them back. That's why some Republicans are terrified that they may lose Latinos forever as well and are now wanting to tackle immigration issues. What they refuse to accept is that according to polling, Latinos are mainly concerned with the economy. Immigration is important, but they're not going to start voting Republicans just because of that.

by Anonymousreply 1102/04/2013

Also Latinos love the Clintons. Hillary won their support overwhelmingly during the primary over Obama.

by Anonymousreply 1202/04/2013

She can be our first woman imperialist president!

by Anonymousreply 1302/04/2013

R13, why should she be different from those who came before her?

We'll let her know your scorching words, though!

by Anonymousreply 1402/04/2013

Alas, I think the beer-track voters are lost to the Dems for the forseeable future whomever tops the ticket.

by Anonymousreply 1602/04/2013

r15=functionally retarded.

by Anonymousreply 1702/04/2013

If the economy continues to improve in the next 4 years, and Hillary and Bill stay healthy, then it's demographically impossible for Hillary to lose, should she decide to run. She would expand the electoral map like no candidate has done since Reagan.

by Anonymousreply 1902/04/2013

How long does Hillary get a pass for her opposition to same-sex marriage and her office-imposed silence during the period this ship set sail?

by Anonymousreply 2202/04/2013

"Obama only won because of racist blacks.

If you take the normal 10% of blacks and assign them back to the Republicans you would see Obama would lose.

Blacks voted for Obama because they THINK he's black, ignoring his white half.

Unless the Dems come up with a light skinned black guy in 2016, they will lose. "

With that warped logic, consider all the Republican women who will be swayed to Hillary's side when she runs...

by Anonymousreply 2302/04/2013

oh, retard r21! I know the ongoing smell of defeat is making you and your brain dead Republican ilk apoplectic with anger. But must it make you so extra *extra* special retarded on top of all of that?

"People chose Obama because unlike Hilary he doesn't come across as a bullshit artist of the highest order. "

According to whom? You and you're mahjong group?

It was a hot contest and Obama won because he was and is a once-in-a-lifetime candidate: shrewd, poised, intelligent, warm and human ... and most of all he was new. Clinton at the time suffered simply from being a known quantity. People wanted change.

And though there are legitimate grounds to criticize her, Clinton's reputation was never as a "bullshit artist" -(well, except with sub-mentals like you and your party).

These past 4-years have burnished her reputation however. She worked beautifully with Obama, restored the country's reputation after the guy you jerk off to - Dubya - destroyed our credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world, and oh - did you see how crazy people went over Bill's speech at the convention? A lot of folks wouldn't mind having him in the white house again.

People want Hillary for a variety of reasons. If she runs, she will win handily. Leaving imbeciles like you to continue to wet yourself in anger because you and your party as it currently stands have absolutely nothing to offer this country besides stale, failed policies.

And yes, you are Republican - all of this "thank god that Obama is our President..." is a lame attempt at hiding that fact.

by Anonymousreply 2402/04/2013

The Republican Party is inching closer to extinction.

by Anonymousreply 2502/04/2013

That was my point R14.

by Anonymousreply 2602/04/2013

r22 -- everything you need to know (but likely won't be able to comprehend) is at this link:

by Anonymousreply 2702/04/2013

R21, use the twinkie defense.

by Anonymousreply 2802/04/2013

You must be very young, R25. Your post assumes that Dems will be in charge of everything and that there will be smooth sailing forever more. There will be bumps - some severe - and, as the party in control, Dems will be held responsible. I've lived long enough and seen both parties been given their last rites too many times to think the 2-party system is over.

by Anonymousreply 2902/04/2013

r30 you sound deranged, to be blunt.

by Anonymousreply 3102/04/2013

"Tell Democrat Party senators who are up for reelection in red states that they have to espouse President Obama's passion for gun control."

Yoohoo, imbecile r30? People who are Democrats never refer to it as the "Democrat Party."

by Anonymousreply 3202/04/2013

R15 is an example of the backstabbing democrat. Hillary can get around the republicans because of her self-discipline and hard work, but the dems betrayed her with a willing Obama in 2008. Those dems with their own agendas may find a way to do it again.

by Anonymousreply 3302/04/2013

This thread is full of Freepers and fags with mommy issues.

by Anonymousreply 3502/04/2013

I don't know about that r35, I've met people in person who are actually as stupid as r34. Their brains are so limited that they can't even follow a rational argument to its end.

by Anonymousreply 3702/04/2013

R38 I get your points BUT what is wrong with being a Scorpio? I think you're being facetious BUT you don't want to know her life number either...;)

by Anonymousreply 3902/04/2013

Wow. A nasty infestation of retarded right wing operatives, being paid by the word no doubt.

How 2012. Yawn.

"You sound witless. Bad form and a terrible retort."

I posted a fact, moron, that tipped your hand. So the terrible retort is your own.

You're a loser republican half-wit using tired, ineffective tactics from the last election cycle. Tactics that didn't do much for your side. At all.

You guys are such geniuses. *snicker*

by Anonymousreply 4002/04/2013

Er, Clinton's "issues" campaigning were more left-wing than Obama's; there were many comparative studies.

I voted for Obama (twice). But r35, your irrational hatred of Hillary is either based in sexism or you're a rethuglican plant, because it sure ain't based in logic. I personally agree that you have "powerful woman" issues a.k.a. momy issues. Because your vitriol is based on something else than rationality. P.S. Obama is a fan of Hillary, too.

by Anonymousreply 4402/04/2013

I meant R41, not R35. ^^^

by Anonymousreply 4502/04/2013

Wtf? I like Obama and campaigned for him. I am just pointing out that Clinton's views were more progressive during the (sexist AND racist campaign). Why does sexism bother you less than racism? Both prejudices are both odious.

Your post doesn't even make sense. WHat kind of faux-Republican would be posting in favor of BOTH Hillary and Obama? I love both of them. I think Obama has been a very good president, inasmuch as he can do with Republican control of one of the halves of congress. There are things he can do better too. Release the hostages of Guantanomo Bay, for starters. But generally he has been good. And she has been a great secretary of state too. Again, she could have been much more left-wing. But she is working FOR the Obama administration and is part of that administration.

The reason I think you are a freeper plant (and/or mommy issues) is because you seem to forget that she is working for Obama and undertaking Obama's foreign policy issues. THEY get along. THEY work together. Hillary campaigned hard for Obama in the general in 2008 and all through 2012. You are either working a divide-and-conquer tactic a-la-PUMA or you are irrational.

Seriously, I am now curious on purely psychological grounds... Do you get along with your mother?

by Anonymousreply 4802/04/2013

I am growing fond of r48.

by Anonymousreply 4902/04/2013

I'm not a lesbian, freeper. I'm not a straight woman. I'm a bisexual woman who gets along great with my sweet, respectful dad (and my amazing, sweet mom, just by the by). They voted for Obama too. I do indeed know about the NATO war in Yugoslavia. My feelings about the rightness or wrongness of that aside, can you please point to the date that Hillary was leader of the free world at the time, as you seem to be blaming her (not fairly, anyway) for something you deem wrong that was undertaken by a totally different person? You seem to conflate Hillary Clinton into her husband, which is peculiar. It's also a tactic used by the right wing.

Obama clearly feels fine about Hillary's decisions and credentials, as he made Clinton secretary of state. How do you feel about that; do you think she has been a poor secretary of state? If not, why not? Do you think it reflects poorly on Obama? If not, why not?

Why don't *you* stop evading me and let me know how you get along with your own mother? I've exposed my relationship with both of mine for your judgement and viperish tongue.

by Anonymousreply 5202/04/2013

Lets see how many more times r50 adds to his unhinged, lunatic response.

by Anonymousreply 5302/04/2013

R54; R55 - you are birds of a crazy feather. R54 - your relationship with your mother, please.

by Anonymousreply 5602/04/2013

truth r55. Nut-job r54 should be just as infuriated with Obama as Hillary given his dark drone dealings.

by Anonymousreply 5702/04/2013

BAN WOMAN-HATER R58 (I can't list all his 47 posts).

by Anonymousreply 5902/04/2013

r52, don't use the word sweet again. And don't feed this psychotic troll.

by Anonymousreply 6002/04/2013

Hillary should have left Bill a long time ago. That would have given her some authenticity and respect.

Bill Clinton is an icky. Too much baggage, scamming, war mongering, fucking aroung with women--she should have struck out on her own and established herself as an independant woman.

She is such a contradiction it's confusing.

by Anonymousreply 6102/04/2013

Agreed. Let this thread die. There is a seriously disturbed pathetic troll who is finding their purpose in life with all of this anti-Hillary stuff.

by Anonymousreply 6202/04/2013

[quote] Recent polls put Hillary ahead of possible Republican challengers in vote-rich Texas and in Kentucky, home of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Tea Party favorite Rand Paul.

Mitt Romney carried Kentucky by a percentage margin of 22.69%. (He won it with 60.49% to President Obama nabbing 37.80% in Ky.) Romney carried Texas by 15.79%. (He won it with 57.17% to Obama's 41.38%.)

If the Democrats win a third consecutive presidential cycle, in 2016, and it is with Hillary Clinton elected the 45th president of the United States ... in order for her to flip and carry Texas and Kentucky, she'd be winning an electoral-map blowout to the tune of at least 450 electoral votes. Much more in the way of Republican bastions beyond Tex. and Ky. would be going for her under those circumstances.

This, of course, is silly at this point. But it would be delightful.

by Anonymousreply 6302/04/2013

[quote]Hillary has no shot because she is a lying Clinton, and we are tired of them. Too icky, too much baggage.

You're going to have to do better than this.

Both the Clintons have huge approval ratings in the 60's right now. Let's compare that to how the Bushes are doing.

by Anonymousreply 6402/05/2013

R63, with regard to Texas, it's important to remember that Obama did well there in 2008, and to look at that number rather than the 2012 number which was not as impressive.

And as Julian Castro has said, Texas is becoming more Latino in each election cycle.

Remember too that Hillary doesn't necessarily have to win states like Texas or Kentucky - just making them competitive hurts the Republicans because they have so many other states they need to win and it ties their resources down. This is how Obama won in 2008 & 2012 - he drained their resources away in states like Virginia & North Carolina where they had been used to winning in the past, and not only did he win those states, but he also won Ohio and Florida as well.

by Anonymousreply 6502/05/2013

It should be pointed out that Obama took most of the major cities... Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, and El Passo. Only Ft Worth didn't go to Obama. And virtually every county along the Rio Grande (most of South, South-West Texas) went to Obama as well.

If Hillary & Bill Clinton worked the satellite towns all around Texas, I'm sure they could pull enough votes (minorities, gays, women, and plenty of blue-collar workers) to flip Texas. It would take significant investment, but I really think it could be done. The big cities are theirs, they just have to work on, talk to, and convince the smaller towns all around them.

by Anonymousreply 6602/05/2013

With regard to Kentucky, Bill Clinton won that state twice, as he did with Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia & Missouri.

Gore, Kerry & Obama were unable to win in any of those states, and while it is not a guarantee that Hillary will either, she is likely to come closer than anyone else since Bill.

by Anonymousreply 6702/05/2013

R66 is correct. That is exactly what Hillary did when she ran for senator from NY. She covered every little pork chop county in NY state and met EVERYONE there.

by Anonymousreply 6802/05/2013

Imagine that campaign... Bill Clinton working Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas, Arkansas, & Missouri... Obama working big urban areas around the country to GOTV in places that already are likely to go Democrat, and Hillary working everywhere in between. It would be a landslide.

by Anonymousreply 6902/05/2013

True, R68, and there was a big increase in Hillary's vote between her 1st election in New York and her 2nd election. She had a solid win in 2000, but it wasn't massive. She then decided to work harder in 2006 and get upstate New York on board too and not just rely on NYC and won by a huge margin the 2nd time.

by Anonymousreply 7002/05/2013

Yes.

by Anonymousreply 7102/05/2013

I would send the Obamas to Georgia, North Carolina and Florida to get out the black vote for Hillary.

by Anonymousreply 7202/05/2013

Tarrant County (Fort Worth) is key to carriage of Texas. It's a county that has been lately voting for the winner of the state with a percentage, and a percentage margin, of the vote that closely reflects the statewide outcome. Win Texas with, say, 55 percent of the vote. Tarrant County delivers just about on target.

Democrats will need to figure out that area.

These days, Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic base states -- what Ron Brownstein calls "The Blue Firewall" (blue since at least the 1990s) -- which are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Hillary would win the general election carrying the swing states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico (which is getting bluer), Ohio, and Virginia. And, if she would be winning better than Barack Obama (who nationally beat John McCain by 7.26% and Mitt Romney by 3.84%), this would include North Carolina, for certain, and then a mix of other states tearing themselves away from being automatically red. In the past, for prevailing Democrats, it was the majority or all of Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia. She may be better in the likes of Indiana, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas. Georgia, as well.

Again, it's too early. And a lot of white people, nationally, will cling to the Republicans -- with their numbers skewered in the South. Nationally, with the gender vote, Hillary would be better than Obama if she nationally nabbed 49% of men (in a statistical tie with the Republican nominee) and 60% of women. That would deliver her at least 55% of the vote nationally. And an outcome for her would be very impressive.

by Anonymousreply 7302/05/2013

Hillary would also win New Hampshire. Forgot to mention because it was in the column for George W. Bush in 2000. But when Democrats prevail, N.H. carries.

by Anonymousreply 7402/05/2013

Barbra Streisand and billionaire Haim Saban had a closed-door meeting with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi last Thursday to lay out party plans for recapturing the House in the 2014 mid-terms. Streisand is not happy that one half of Congress remains out of their control.

Streisand will also be the chief money organizer in Hollywood should Hillary Clinton decide to run for the White House in 2016. We're talking in the $100 million range.

by Anonymousreply 7502/05/2013

And Bill R72.

by Anonymousreply 7602/05/2013

Too bad there's no more Secretary of the Interior; Streisand would be perfect for it. Did you see her book?

by Anonymousreply 7702/05/2013

Bumping the crazy

by Anonymousreply 7802/06/2013

Anti-Hillary trolls: You've got a little under four years to develop your coping mechanism.

Because at that point, unless the planet starts spinning backwards, Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to plunk her pussy right on your face and keep it there for four to eight more years.

by Anonymousreply 7902/06/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.