Honest question here... Is anyone actually a Hillary supporter here? I see Cruz, trump and Sanders posts and threads but not Hillary. Which to me is good, I'm not for her in the least bit. My genuine interest in starting this thread is out of curiosity as to what her appeal is? Clutchfans brethren, biased and unbiased: What's her appeal? And does she have a legit shot at being president in 2016?
I think she has the best shot to be the president currently. I am a Sanders fan. Her appeal I'm not sure, I guess it's a mixture of her being a familiar name, being the 1st women president and the Democratic "safe bet" is what I think many view her as. I don't think many of her supporters are aware of how much she has flip flopped on so many of her leading political views for this election, or maybe they just don't care idk.
Her appeal is that nothing changes and that's pretty good for some people who don't want craziness of what trump, cruz proposes on the right and the stuff Sanders proposes on the left. not everyone likes a "revolution"
She's a woman and that obviously brings a different perspective which is a big deal to some but she's also been in the game a long time so she understands the issues and brings a lot of battle scars and experience to the table. She's the name a lot of people know with positions that they know, allegedly. Like GM but with multiple faux scandals.
I think a more compelling question is why everyone has gone sour on experienced governors from large states, or moderate senators with long tenures. Hillary's appeal is getting very close to that of Ike's in '52, Nixon's in '68 or Reagan's in '80, in that crap seems so out of control on the other side or in the country as a whole that conventionalism and conformity are appealing options.
She is not entirely insane which, given the Republican alternative, is quite compelling. And as I answered your same question in the Bernie thread, this election is about appointing Supreme Court justices and maintaining the ability to veto legislation from a Republican Congress. If she is the Democratic nominee there is really no other choice unless you want to regress to fewer eligible voters, a non-functioning governmental system with increasing deficits, greater income disparity and more hostile international relationships.
pretty sure Deckard is actually a hellary supporter. normally i would hate him for it but he's just too good a guy for anyone to hate :grin:
Sad to say, OP, I get closer and closer to being a Hillary supporter actually. Pragmatic democratic leanings are to my liking in general. She has warts, but a lot of those warts come from her enemies rubbing frog juice on her for the last 30 years now. It has been non-stop attack mode for the right on her ever since she "didn't want to bake cookies" as first lady. Most everyone I know in New York thought she was a great senator for their state (city folk and upstate folk alike, but then, I know mainly democrats). She's not "likable" as a human being. She's hardened, with sharp edges. She's wily and doesn't trust many people, meaning she's hard to trust. I think a lot of people react to that. And she's made deep connections to some iffy parts of the American money pool. Yes. I think most people who've wanted to get things done in American politics over an entire career will sadly be likewise. (I like that Sanders is truly more "clean" on that front, even though we have to admit he really hasn't gotten much done; there's not a lot to show for his last 30 years other than some inspiring youtube clips and righteous speeches, IMHO.) In the end, she strikes me increasingly, of all the candidates, as someone who could be presidential and actually handle the job. Her mastery of policy (yes, even changing some positions over the course of her career, or even the last few years) is really 2nd to none in this race. She would have nailed, with detail, each question Sanders punted in that interview. Also, I don't buy the FOX narrative, at all, that she was a crappy Secretary of State. I think it's a crucial time for our POTUS to be deeply familiar with the world. The other candidates are simply terrifying in their international naiveté, IMHO. Each one in his own way, but yikes. We have "glowing sand" guy who makes the military role their eyes and make public statements about his idiocy. We have another guy who is already freaking our allies out around the world with his bluster and deeply offending, for no good reason, our nearest neighbor. Then we have another guy who has just not really cared about the rest of the world for most of his career, tends to oversimplify complexity confronting him, and had some truly questionable associations in Latin America in his younger days. And yeah, someone said she represents "business as usual," and given some of the proposed changes from the right (regressive social policies, bad economic ideas that have failed repeatedly in the past), I'll emphasize the positives that we currently have, and could go with that option. I also like thinking of the moderates she would put on the SCOTUS, for example. The other candidates would put extremists (from either side) on the court, it seems to me. I know I just got trolled, but whatever. Thought I'd provide an honest answer to the OP. Cheers. I was going to vote Sanders in the Cali primary coming up here, but yeah, now I'm not so sure. I wish he could emphasize some things dear to me (like campaign finance reform) and still have some realistic answers to important policy questions. Sigh. I won't be voting for anyone this year with a joyful heart, that is for damned sure.
Who would have thought 8 years ago that, out of 4 legit candidates, Hillary freakin' Clinton would be the "safe" choice?
She is a woman, married to former president Bill Clinton. I don't know anyone that likes her. That said, most people I hang with are Republicans (but a few are Dems). The one Dem at my office (a 30 year-old female) likes Bernie and has zero positive vibes for Hillary.
No top candidates on democrat side want to run against her and the republicans, I am not even sure what to say about that party, it have turned from a mainstream party into a fringe nut party.
<blockquote class="imgur-embed-pub" lang="en" data-id="St0sroo"><a href="//imgur.com/St0sroo">When asked if she wiped her server.</a></blockquote><script async src="//s.imgur.com/min/embed.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
capability wise, she has extensive experience and knowledge being the only one of the 4 top candiates who have been in the federal executive branch of govt (Sanders only has city executive branch) and like Sanders and Cruz she has been a US senator.
Her appeal is: - Having the chops to withstand and even rebuke Republican attack machine bafoonery that will inevitably come after the Democratic President full-bore - Having been through enough public scrutiny to be assumed palatable in the GE (although I argue this is a moot point since she keeps managing to create new problems for herself) - Her appeal is also heightened by the lunacy of the Republican field, as the thought of Cruz/Trump in the White House is enough to scare many ardent liberals to the middle - Being a woman (as sexist as it sounds/is)
It's interesting to me that the last question is "does she have a legit shot at being president in 2016?" No, she does not. She is the favorite for becoming President-Elect in November and then becoming President in 2017 though. No Republican in this race has a realistic shot at either an electoral college or popular vote victory, and that's a point to which the vast majority of well-educated Republicans I know have resigned themselves.
I'm not a Hillary supporter, and even if she's the Democratic nominee I'll probably vote for a third party candidate. The only way I wouldn't would if somehow California was in danger of going to the GOP nominee, which is highly unlikely. That being said, I can kind of see why some people would support her. She has a lot of bad, but I won't get into that for this thread. 1. She has faced unrelenting mostly bogus persecution from political opponents. She was falsely accused of the Vince Foster death. She was hated for trying to provide healthcare for everyone when she was first lady. She was falsely accused of all kinds of BS over Benghazi which was nothing. She is unfairly lambasted for her husband's failings in their marriage. She's been lambasted because of her "cankles" and other physical appearance issues. Some of that especially the last two only happens because she's a woman. So because of her gender. Males don't face the same criticism for physical appearance, or when their partner cheats on them. So she's overcome a lot of unfair BS. I lived in NY when she was Senator, and when she first was going to run to represent NY, I thought it was total BS. But she actually did a really good job. She proved she was competent, and could do the job well. She was also competent as Sec. of State. She accomplished all of these things, with plenty of people obsessed over stopping her. She achieved her accomplishments while overcoming much greater hurdles than many others. So for that reason I can understand why some folks would support her. Like I said, I have a huge list of reasons why I won't support her, but that's another topic.
She has always been the safe choice. Suckers fell for Obama's hope and change. Obama. Hillary. Cruz. It will be all the same. The only difference is will be which side is whining about social issues.
While she's clearly a diminished candidate from 8 years ago, I'm surprised to hear this. Did you feel the same way in 2008?
