Skip to comments.A Republican's Nightmare? Really? Remember 2008? Everyone thought Hillary was inevitable then.
Posted on 05/10/2014 10:11:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
As the 2014 mid-term elections move inexorably closer, political pundits are burning up their word processors.
They are trying to explain how (a) the political parties will fare in the battle for control of Congress and (b) who will be running for the Presidency in 2016 and (c) of those candidates, who will succeed?
Sadly each of them is also working with certain underlying assumptions that they take as if they were part of the words given to Moses, to be relayed to the people below. One of these assumptions revolves around the candidate that the Democrats will offer in 2016, that the pundits think is (a) inevitable and (b) essentially unbeatable. The candidate? Why Hillary Rodham Clinton, of course.
Should Hillary choose to run, the assumption that her election is inevitable is pretty safe, or at least as safe as any political prediction can be. Remember though, in 2008 every political pundit thought Hillarys nomination was inevitable, too. Oops. But for the sake of argument, lets work from the basis that she actually becomes the Democrat nominee. Then one must look at why Hillary (or any other Democrat) should be considered unbeatable.
Reason #1: She will be running against Republicans
While I abhor the ideas fostered by Democrats and their Progressive puppeteers, I will admit that I admire and envy the Democrats control of their members. Their party control is total, and unwavering. No matter how idiotic their proposals, every Democrat, from Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, down to the elected dog-catcher in East Podunk, Iowa all sing out of the same hymnbook and always sing in harmony. And they never vary from that same song, no matter how ridiculous
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Maybe someone will emerge on the HOR Banaghazi panel who is smart, articulate, quick thinking and understands the law and foreign affairs.
I thought the grandchild would be her excuse but now I think she's gonna get sick a couple times.
Well, back then we were worried about Porky Pig and got Godzilla instead. Not the greatest trade-off. Hopefully this time, whoever beats her will be smart enough to take down this $4 trillion government and replace it with freedom and the free market economy.
Problem the rats will have is differentiating Obama’s failures with what Hillary can bring to the table. She offers nothing that could change America.
It is only more of the same, except instead of Republicans being racists, they will now be sexists.
Sexism will BE the New Racism come 2016!!
I don’t think she gets nominated. Too much baggage. She will be as old as Reagan when he was elected, and on her the years wear harder. Look for some other woman to be the nominee. Like Fauxcahantas, the Left which rules the Rats right now would love her.
hillary’s “Stolen Valor” re Bosnia.
This is NOT 2008. Our has changed radically since then.
Our has changed radically since then.
Our “what?” has changed radically? Our culture? Yes. Our demographics? Yes. Our values? Yes. Just wondering what word you left out.
The Clintons have never been very ‘popular’ with the Dem-elites.
Considering how the MSM had Ms Inevitable on her way to her coronation in 2008, it was rather surprising that a young upstart who only had a short stint in the state legislature and 2 years in the US Senate managed to derail her trek.
No doubt there are plenty who would vote for ABC* in 2016 Dem primaries, too.
* Anyone But Clinton
Across the aisle, the GOP will find similar problems, especially if/when they nominate a elite. They didn’t learn anything from 1996 or 2008 or 2012.
Many on the Right have an ABB** situation and a bunch of retreads from 2008/2012 hinting they they will try again.
** Anyone But Bush
Clintons and Bushes are cut from the same cloth.
It’s been said here that Gowdy supports the invasion of the US.
The problem we have now is that no one had the instincts to rise up quickly and command issues such as Bundy (federal over-reach), the kidnapping of school girls in Nigeria (the effects of supporting terrorists), the burning of churches and Syria and Egypt (we're supporting the wrong side). Those were opportunities lost to define the issues.
Well we may need to deal with his attributes one chunk at a time.
Take the benficial and innoculate ourselves against the worst.
He did say something about "compassion for the politically oppressed". Uh....didn't the Tsarnov brothers who blew up the Boston marathon get here because they were "politically oppressed"? With all of the terrorists on the loose all over the globe (thanks, Obama), it's a real bad idea to let anyone in the US because of oppression; we just don't know what skills and passions they bring with them. What's to stop the animosities from spilling over into the US?
I will grant you that Gowdy has thought about the issue. Maybe he'll be the guy to emerge. I sure hope somebody does.
I don’t want a woman or hispanic, it looks like pandering.
“looks like pandering” to whom? I don’t know how old you are but have you lived your entire life worried about what people think rather than doing what’s right? If so, you must be most miserable. To hell with what it “looks like”.
I want a proven constitutional conservative who can win by articulating our world vision, but one that does not involve being the Klingons of the Earth. Ted Cruz is obvious, except he hasn't shown any signs of restraint from the war-mongering. Besides that, he was slow to the cause of state's rights in the Bundy situation.
Be smart. After eight years of Obama, people want a more normal president. Someone who has lived his values and has long established respect. No more on-the-job training. Maybe Jeff Sessions or Jim DeMint could fit that bill?
I’m with you: a more normal president. Mike Pence is a good strong conservative, & now has executive experience under his belt as a governor. Maybe have a woman VP with him. As for Ted Cruz, I want him selected for the Supreme Court at the next opening. Give the ‘wise latina’ a chronic case of nausea.
But isn’t “what it looks like” the reason you are pushing for a Hispanic or a woman? Kinda looks that way to me....
Jeff Sessions.... Jim DeMint.... There you go. Keep nominating old, white men and a Republican will not see the inside of the White House for another decade at least. I like Jim DeMint, but I feel like he abandoned us by quitting the Senate. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee could have used his help. And, heading up the Heritage Foundation sure as heck hasn’t helped us win any elections.
That’s why I said who the hell cares “what it looks like”? I’m pushing for a Conservative candidate who can win. WASP (White, Anglo Saxon Protestant) men are no longer the majority in this nation. Women and minorities are the majority. I teach high school in a city of 115,000 residents. 62% of the students are Black, 20 percent of the students are Hispanic, 13 percent white and the rest are “Other”. Now, go figure. If we ever want to regain the White House, we need a Susana Martinez on the Ticket; Female and Hispanic and most of all CONSERVATIVE.
I’d be surprised if anyone who doesn’t 100% support ending the invasion of the US and sending home invaders could win.
Your kidding right? Ever heard of a guy named Barack Hussein Obama? I think you meant to say that you’d be surprised if anyone who DOES support ending the invasion and sending the invaders home could win. You and I are for that, but we are the minority.
A 'pub will never make up for the conservative votes they'll lose by pandering. A good candidate will make it very clear that these rules HELP Hispanics who are citizens. That's what will win Hispanic votes.