Well if she is elected, it will certainly signal to other women that something that was previously considered too steep a hill to climb, is now achievable. Just as Obama has done for minorities.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Well if she is elected, it will certainly signal to other women that something that was previously considered too steep a hill to climb, is now achievable. Just as Obama has done for minorities.
I don't know anything about Ford but Reagan is a ridiculous counter-example - he was a puppet president whose strings were manipulated by big business.
I'm not denying that she created a successful legal/business career on her own merit, I don't know enough about it. I'm talking about her political career. She became a senator after her husband was president, so clearly her status as the former wife of the POTUS helped her there. Not that that is particularly important, because it's not like she was the first female senator. I'm focusing on her possible position as the first female POTUS, and I'm sorry, but her position as wife to Bill is just too much for me to be able to take seriously the idea that her potential election to the White House has any meaning for ordinary women in politics.
It signals that it is achievable if you marry someone who becomes president. I'm sure if someone were to compile a list of all the women who were democratically elected as heads of government around the world and look at their marital/family status, the percentage of them who were either married or related to men in power would be very high.
The more I think about it, the more I think that Hilary becoming president would actually be an insult to women.
Last edited:
You're rather missing the point if you think feminism is about women doing things a certain way. More so when you consider how many people want Elizabeth Warren to run.
And there are no ordinary people at the top of politics. They're all fecking weird.
And there are no ordinary people at the top of politics. They're all fecking weird.
As we discussed earlier, her connection to Bill was helpful in the late 90s, but she's become her own candidate since then, and has gone on to win various elections and become sec state, which in addition to her 8 years in the White House, qualifies her to be President more so than any other person running.
As for being an insult to women, perhaps in an alternate Universe where straw men reign supreme, but in this one, she's going to get overwhelming support from women who will no doubt view Hillary's candidacy as the final hurdle of equality towards having access to the world's most important job.
Nonsense about Hilary. I agree being married to a POTUS gives you a leg up but then you have to prove yourself, perhaps more so than typical senators etc.
This isn't far off those old, white republicans last time round saying Obama winning wouldn't be an advancement for african-americans because his mum was white.
It's like Elizabeth I, she was a great monarch in her own right, which is quite ironic considering how Henry VIII killed so many people, and caused wars and crippled the church all in his search for a son.
Her first campaign ad.
So the US is likely to be stuck with another Bush or Clinton? Brilliant.
Stuck's definitely the wrong word there.
Just realized I got a tag line from this 
I feel honoured.
I feel honoured.
Bush was dead last in a republican nominbee poll I just saw.
Bernie Sanders is your candidate.
I'm a huge fan of Sanders but I'm just as optimistic of us winning the league as I am of the US electing a self-proclaimed socialist.
We have a much better chance of winning the league than Sanders getting anywhere near the Presidency, which would be like QPR or Leicester winning the league.
You may like some of Rand Paul's policies though.
Developing a bit of flip-flopping attitude regarding foreign policy though.
His father was consistent with where he stood on foreign relations, Rand on the other was one of the signatories of that moronic open letter towards Iran, and also voted for the sanctions against Iran in the first place. Now he's all like "I'll think about it". I can understand why and how he's trying to suck into a diverse group of voters ranging from social liberals and moderates down to the fiscal conservatives and the batshit insane types of the right, but he's just coming across as desperately nomadic and insincere to me.
All things considered she was a good junior senator for NY. Even better as a Secretary of State (Benghazi was overblown IMO).
Those votes are just hedges in case one of his GOP presidential mates tries to call him out as an isolationist during the debates. The trouble with Paul is he seems to have an erratic personality much like McCains, which is why I doubt he will go far in the primaries.
He'll play the ol 'Maverick' card like McCain.
McCain's card was a lot more convincing though.
I've noticed a few of the candidates like Paul himself and Jeb attacked Hillary straight away on foreign policy. Do they really think that's going to be an issue that decides the election? Especially Bush ffs.
She is going to get attacked a lot by the right over the next 18 months and probably continuing into her term if she wins. There's something about her that sets them off.
I'm just confused how they think it's going to help them win the election next year. I was having a look at the 2012 exit polls yesterday (nothing like spending a Sunday looking at exit polls...), it got at most ~5% as the most important issue in all the swing states. But then I suppose they're fighting primaries now and winning those is probably a case of proving who hates Hillary most.
Same policy as last time - they lack coherent ideas worthy of mass appeal, so instead they focus on bringing the opposition candidate's polling numbers down far enough that may allow one of their candidates to sneak a win.
he is digging his own grave. Nobody is ever going to vote for Rand Paul because of his new found foreign policy. People who have a problem with non-interventionism wouldnt vote for him anyway. He has the common too liberal/too conservative problems of all libertarians in the GOP. The moderate wing thinks that they are way too conservative on economic/financial issues and the conservative wing thinks that they are too liberal in social matters.
Rand Paul can twist and turn as much as he wants: He doesnt have a chance to become the POTUS candidate for the GOP. Still in contrast to guys like Cruz, he could have significant lasting influence on GOP policy. Americans like libertarian ideas and they are under-represent in government. He could have been their champion. Ron Paul was building on that, but he was too weird/idealistic. Rand Paul could have taken it to the next level by adding some pragmatism, but he chose the wrong strategy. He "sold-out" too early.
He should have run a fairly uncompromising but pragmatic libertarian campaign to push his ideas and to win over his fathers followers. That would have given him bargaining power in the GOP and it would have made him a very good VP candidate. Now he´ll end up with nothing, because he is alienating his base. His numbers in the primaries will be incredibly underwhelming.
Not a bad ad - a bit predictable perhaps in that the producers storyboarded it to almost mechanically include specific voting blocks.
Indeed - grumpyfaced white dude got about 6 seconds of airtime total.
She essentially has a monopoly on Democratic election strategists/media people, unlike in 2008 where Obama split the top talent with her, leaving her stuck with 1990s-era personnel like Mark Penn and Solis Doyle. She'll be a juggernaut straight through into the general once she gets going, imo - a bit like Chelsea this season with occasional bumps and ruts but never any real, sustained doubt that she'll do it, mainly because of the relative weaknesses of her opposition.
She essentially has a monopoly on Democratic election strategists/media people, unlike in 2008 where Obama split the top talent with her, leaving her stuck with 1990s-era personnel like Mark Penn and Solis Doyle. She'll be a juggernaut straight through into the general once she gets going, imo - a bit like Chelsea this season with occasional bumps and ruts but never any real, sustained doubt that she'll do it, mainly because of the relative weaknesses of her opposition.
How will Fiorina stop people from thinking she's a loathsome stooge long enough for her to win the VP nomination from the eventual repub nominee?
After Fiorina was obsessively criticising Hillary Clinton . . .
. . . duo of Mika Brzezinski and Steve Rattner to ask her Monday morning whether her own record would withstand such scrutiny.
“You have an amazing round of accomplishments in your life,” Brzezinski said, “but someone could say it like this you ran for Senate and lost. You worked for John McCain, you were moved off that campaign, and he lost. You had a tenure at Hewlett-Packard that a lot of people describe as extremely rocky, destroying jobs, and destroying the company’s reputation. Are you really the right person to be criticizing Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments or lack thereof?”
Fiorina accused Brzezinski of “reading Democratic talking points,” though Brzezinski responded that she was actually reading Fortune and New York Times. Rattner went so far as to remind Fiorina that she’d been fired from Hewlett-Packard after the company’s stock tanked following a merger.
. . . duo of Mika Brzezinski and Steve Rattner to ask her Monday morning whether her own record would withstand such scrutiny.
“You have an amazing round of accomplishments in your life,” Brzezinski said, “but someone could say it like this you ran for Senate and lost. You worked for John McCain, you were moved off that campaign, and he lost. You had a tenure at Hewlett-Packard that a lot of people describe as extremely rocky, destroying jobs, and destroying the company’s reputation. Are you really the right person to be criticizing Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments or lack thereof?”
Fiorina accused Brzezinski of “reading Democratic talking points,” though Brzezinski responded that she was actually reading Fortune and New York Times. Rattner went so far as to remind Fiorina that she’d been fired from Hewlett-Packard after the company’s stock tanked following a merger.
I've worked on a few political ads over the years and I can't stand them. They are designed specifically to do what you say, mechanically include specific blocks of voters for maximum appeal. They also say absolutely nothing other than boring cliches. It's like every producer uses the same template. Obviously that's what ads are for, but political ads really annoy me.
Thankfully I don't live in a swing state. Political ads are awful. No idea how they yield a single new vote.
Don't worry, they'll be back to saying their opponent eats children before long.
Sorry, only just got to this. Very interesting and clever way to overcome a glaring issue.
Clinton v Bush. Bank on it. The November 2016 election will come down to whether Bush can win Nevada, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina AND Florida. It's doable, but not an easy lift. Of those five states, Hillary's best shot is Virginia, whose suburbs around DC have turned sharply Dem in recent years are still growing.
But if somehow Bush stumbled the only plausible candidate who could feast on the carcass is Rubio.
But if somehow Bush stumbled the only plausible candidate who could feast on the carcass is Rubio.
Yep, this is the only plausible, likely scenario under which Bush or Rubio would win. Virginia and NC will be hard for the GOP to reclaim as the demographics have been moving to the Blue side in recent years.
who knows what she would have become without marrying Bill. Of course who knows what Bill would be without her.
Nothing to do with the election but not enough people talk about what a massive cnut Bill Clinton is.
Summed up perfectly.
Is Trump going to run? We need a nutty, bad hair, egotistical prick to make the GOP primary more exciting.
- Status