Born Free
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Messages
- 9,161
- Reaction score
- 2,142
- Location
- Sonny and Nice
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What say you?
My dog would do a better job than Hillery
What say you?
It is a year and a half till the election. Plenty of time to decide by then, no reason to rush out and decide now. With that said, I would lean towards favoring her over any of the other candidates or presumed candidates that I know of. That of course is subject to change as events dictate. It is silly to decide who you will vote for this far from the election.
I don't think she's particularly liberal or progressive, but I'd consider voting for her as a lot of Republicans reluctantly voted for Romney and McCain.
I don't think that her values or beliefs line up particularly with my own, but I think she'd be better than Obama perhaps at playing the game of politics and dealing with Congress and being an administrator and dealbroker overall.
What else could we vote for her as?
I don't think she's particularly liberal or progressive, but I'd consider voting for her as a lot of Republicans reluctantly voted for Romney and McCain.
I don't think that her values or beliefs line up particularly with my own, but I think she'd be better than Obama perhaps at playing the game of politics and dealing with Congress and being an administrator and dealbroker overall.
Pretty much this. I'd far prefer a more progressive candidate. Hillary will do the job well, I'm sure, but her policy is hardly ideal. Of course, letting the Republican establishment or even worse, the Tea Party fringe, get any more power is a lot worse than ideal.
Except that you fail to realize that both Republicans and Democrats are at their core the exact same.
And if Clinton is President, the GOP Senate will block any new SCOTUS selections, setting up a Constitutional crisis .
We already have three parties--the DEMs and the two within the GOP.
Freedom Caucus/TEAs versus Elites/AAN is a far more vicious fight than the one between DEMs and GOPs .
I would actually prefer the Schweitzer -Clinton ticketClinton should choose her VP very carefully, Mark Warner, Wesley Clark, Tim Kaine, Brian Schweitzer are possible candidates.
A few I would never choose, Mrs. Warren (2 women on the ticket is not a good idea), Charlie Crist (don't trust him), Bill Clinton (no way on earth), Joe Biden (mr. Poltical foot in mouth should remain a 2 time VP, no more and no presidential run), Cuomo (not enough upside, Hillary will win NY with or without Cuomo), Julian Castro (too little experience), Gillibrand/Klochubar (same problem as Warren, no 2 women on a ticket). Other bad options are Al Gore, mr. Scream himself Howard Dean, John Kerry, Rahm Emanuel or Bernie Sanders.
Two points to this. First, I don't really approve of giving people who act like children what they want for throwing temper tantrums. Second, it's very likely that the senate will flip back in 2016. All of the electoral good fortune that setup the Republicans for their big win last year will be operating in reverse next year.
It is a year and a half till the election. Plenty of time to decide by then, no reason to rush out and decide now. With that said, I would lean towards favoring her over any of the other candidates or presumed candidates that I know of. That of course is subject to change as events dictate. It is silly to decide who you will vote for this far from the election.
We need a third party though.
To split the Republicans, I presume?
The only thing a third party would do is take majorities from whoever is more aligned with the major party.
Or, perhaps... Just perhaps... That third party would better represent the increasing population that no longer feels represented by ole (D) and (R,) and that has been well covered well documented polling supported material.
I doubt that.
When you vote for Party C on the basis of Party B not going far enough, you end up with getting Party A who is seen as your worst nightmare.
For now, yes. But I do not think that will always be the case, and there seems to be some level of empirical data to back up my assumption.
View attachment 67183053
If you separate the empirical tendency of Tea Partiers identifying as Independent, you would have half a point. If we presume that Party C retains a large amount of their ideological consistency (and that's a big if), and if we presume Party C will adequately claim the splintered independents, you are just going to dislodge members of Party B. Party B voters would become the new Independents and you'd be looking at the same phenomenon.
The split doesn't change while the platform would.
It is unlikely that the Tea Party entirely drove the results of that poll. Some impact, of course but not all... Come on, you can do better than that.
Two points to this. First, I don't really approve of giving people who act like children what they want for throwing temper tantrums. Second, it's very likely that the senate will flip back in 2016. All of the electoral good fortune that setup the Republicans for their big win last year will be operating in reverse next year.
Just goes to show that people vote more along party lines than on who will actually be good for the country. No one in this thread knows who she will be running against and you've already chosen that you'll vote for her (or would if you could).
She has been crowned the nominee of the democratic party and you sure as hell would never vote for a Republican Redress.