Why Hillary is inevitable in the primary (Effortpost inside)

[bedstuy]

Exactly.  As a fellow Hillary Clinton hack, I agree with your points.  But, you might be beating a dead horse.  Or, in the case of Wulfric or IndyRep, you're beating a stupid horse.

[bedstuy]

There's a big assumption Kalwejt and others are taking in that Hillary will continue to fall now that she's campaigning. It's more likely that this is her floor.

Hillary is not bad at this politics thing. She lost in Iowa but came back to win New Hampshire and came back and fought through all 50 states. She simply got out muscled by an Obama who was even better at it. If Obama hadn't existed, most likely scenario is that she would have mopped the floor with Edwards and Co then beat McCain by a similar margin in the general.

The idea that saying Hillary is vulnerable is "combating the hacks" is wrong. The idea that every stage of a Presidential election must be competitive is the hackish idea. Noting Hillary is a lock to be the Democratic nominee and likely the next President is the factual evidence. Anyone without any bias about this race, who opens up the polls and information about the 2016 race without prior judgement, would determine Hillary will win. Only people who have the agenda of looking for the conclusion that she will not win say otherwise.

No. The whole point is that nothing is set in stone. To say she'll "inevitably" fall now that she's campaigning is equally naive as to claim she's already "the nominee".

I'm the first to admit Hillary's heavily favored and I wouldn't gamble any money on the possibility of her losing the nomination. But a lot of people seems to forget there's always an unpredictable factor. And I"m amazed anyone familiar with the recent U.S. political history can discount it. It's still April 2015, people.

Here's the thing though, if Hillary Clinton loses the nomination, someone else would have to win.  I can imagine Hillary Clinton losing, but there are no other candidates on her level in 2016.

[bedstuy]

At least on my end the problem was never that Clinton could win but merely that she is a horrible person who should never ever get close to the Oval Office ever again.  I believe that is what a lot of us "anti-Hillary hacks" believe.

So yes, good job IceSpear.  You successfully rebutted "myths" that very few of us have actually made.

I wouldn't say it's "very few." They're definitely a minority, but there's quite a significant "Hillary not inevitable!!!!" segment here. Besides, this wasn't directed just at the Atlas Forum, it was also directed at the idiotic pundits that continue to make vapid claims like "well, she looks inevitable...but we said she was in 2007 too!1!!! HAR HAR HAR ROFLMAO"

Exactly.  As a fellow Hillary Clinton hack, I agree with your points.  But, you might be beating a dead horse.  Or, in the case of Wulfric or IndyRep, you're beating a stupid horse.

[bedstuy]

What race are these younger voters? Majority black and hispanic.

In PA, really?

Not in PA, but a significant amount and you'd have to go after them to win young voters.

Romney won young whites 18-29 by 7 points nationwide but lost 18-29 by 23 points. This magic bullet of finding more young white people to become Libertarians for Rand isn't going to happen. You need to add black and brown to the coalition and it's not going to happen in 2016.

Right.  Republicans only try to appeal to people who are culturally or politically conservative.  They've gotten so laser focus on that, a winning strategy once upon a time, that they never try to target anyone else.