Let's talk about 2020

[IceSpear]

50-state landslide as Hillary Clinton puts a stake in the heart of the Republican Party, solves the recession and all future recessions, and literally ushers in the era of world peace.

Yes I'm sure that Hoover, I mean Hillary, will solve all of our problems and bring unlimited prosperity.

You guys are really trying to compare Hillary and Hoover now? Lol

I can smell the desperation. It's only a matter of time before we get "Hillary = Hitler!" comparisons.

As for the topic at hand: it really depends on how the GOP deals with their loss in 2016. For example, in 2012 we heard all about how they needed an "autopsy", to reach out to minorities, and to moderate their positions to better fit the electorate. However, after a few months, this all went into the trashcan in favor of pandering to Tea Partiers and hoping for "missing whites" to put them over the top. If they follow a similar pattern after 2016, the Democrat, whether it be Hillary running for re-election or someone else, will be a huge favorite. Every day demographics are getting less favorable for the GOP, and I think by 2020 we will be at critical mass for their ultimatum: change or die.

On the other hand, if they DO get out of radical right wing fantasy land and marginalize the Tea Partiers, they'd be in good shape simply because of Democratic fatigue.

[IceSpear]

50-state landslide as Hillary Clinton puts a stake in the heart of the Republican Party, solves the recession and all future recessions, and literally ushers in the era of world peace.

Yes I'm sure that Hoover, I mean Hillary, will solve all of our problems and bring unlimited prosperity.

You guys are really trying to compare Hillary and Hoover now? Lol

I can smell the desperation. It's only a matter of time before we get "Hillary = Hitler!" comparisons.

As for the topic at hand: it really depends on how the GOP deals with their loss in 2016. For example, in 2012 we heard all about how they needed an "autopsy", to reach out to minorities, and to moderate their positions to better fit the electorate. However, after a few months, this all went into the trashcan in favor of pandering to Tea Partiers and hoping for "missing whites" to put them over the top. If they follow a similar pattern after 2016, the Democrat, whether it be Hillary running for re-election or someone else, will be a huge favorite. Every day demographics are getting less favorable for the GOP, and I think by 2020 we will be at critical mass for their ultimatum: change or die.

On the other hand, if they DO get out of radical right wing fantasy land and marginalize the Tea Partiers, they'd be in good shape simply because of Democratic fatigue.

The comparisons are natural.

Hoover was considered a super invincible giant of a man who could lead the nation to prosperity and that there would be a chicken in every pot.  We all know the story behind that.

I will not be a seer or a prophet here, but I must urge caution at least to forum Democrats who are convinced that Queen Hillary will be an automatic super FF who will bring a reign of a thousand years to the Democratic Party.  Chances are, she probably wouldn't usher in a New Great Depression, but people probably thought the same of Hoover at the time.

The point is, the voters should be asking serious questions about Hillary not only as a candidate, but as a possible future President.  Every candidate running deserves a degree of skepticism and review and we shouldn't foist a candidate upon the nation who might possibly have a very dangerous mentality on how to run things just based off of what the general public populace thinks without challenge or inquiry.

But of course, a dumbfuck like yourself wouldn't understand such concepts.

I'm pretty sure the dumb one is the person who is drawing overly broad comparisons between people from the current day and people from a century ago and acting as if they're equivalent. You realize it's ridiculously easy to apply the same "Hillary = Hoover!" comparison to pretty much EVERY presidential candidate, right? In fact, your entire basis for comparing them fits the Republican idolization of Reagan much more than it fits the Democratic Party's attitude toward Hillary.

[IceSpear]

50-state landslide as Hillary Clinton puts a stake in the heart of the Republican Party, solves the recession and all future recessions, and literally ushers in the era of world peace.

Yes I'm sure that Hoover, I mean Hillary, will solve all of our problems and bring unlimited prosperity.

You guys are really trying to compare Hillary and Hoover now? Lol

I can smell the desperation. It's only a matter of time before we get "Hillary = Hitler!" comparisons.

As for the topic at hand: it really depends on how the GOP deals with their loss in 2016. For example, in 2012 we heard all about how they needed an "autopsy", to reach out to minorities, and to moderate their positions to better fit the electorate. However, after a few months, this all went into the trashcan in favor of pandering to Tea Partiers and hoping for "missing whites" to put them over the top. If they follow a similar pattern after 2016, the Democrat, whether it be Hillary running for re-election or someone else, will be a huge favorite. Every day demographics are getting less favorable for the GOP, and I think by 2020 we will be at critical mass for their ultimatum: change or die.

On the other hand, if they DO get out of radical right wing fantasy land and marginalize the Tea Partiers, they'd be in good shape simply because of Democratic fatigue.

The comparisons are natural.

Hoover was considered a super invincible giant of a man who could lead the nation to prosperity and that there would be a chicken in every pot.  We all know the story behind that.

I will not be a seer or a prophet here, but I must urge caution at least to forum Democrats who are convinced that Queen Hillary will be an automatic super FF who will bring a reign of a thousand years to the Democratic Party.  Chances are, she probably wouldn't usher in a New Great Depression, but people probably thought the same of Hoover at the time.

The point is, the voters should be asking serious questions about Hillary not only as a candidate, but as a possible future President.  Every candidate running deserves a degree of skepticism and review and we shouldn't foist a candidate upon the nation who might possibly have a very dangerous mentality on how to run things just based off of what the general public populace thinks without challenge or inquiry.

But of course, a dumbfuck like yourself wouldn't understand such concepts.

I'm pretty sure the dumb one is the person who is drawing overly broad comparisons between people from the current day and people from a century ago and acting as if they're equivalent. You realize it's ridiculously easy to apply the same "Hillary = Hoover!" comparison to pretty much EVERY presidential candidate, right? In fact, your entire basis for comparing them fits the Republican idolization of Reagan much more than it fits the Democratic Party's attitude toward Hillary.

Seriously? "Hillary=Hoover", then nuanced with a very logical explanation, is dumb, but the assertion that the party that governed America for 90 of the last 150 years is on the verge of extinction in the next decade isn't?

It isn't a logical explanation when it can be applied to virtually any presidential nominee that had any hype whatsoever. Also, I didn't actually mean the GOP would go extinct immediately if they didn't change, just that they'd slowly wither further and further.

[IceSpear]

1968 and 1976 were very close despite anti-incumbent years.

Reagan was fairly, but not "massively" popular during the 1988 election year.

 2000 was pretty pro-incumbent, but ended up being ridiculously close. I wonder if Gore were a little more exciting, would he have had a mildly comfortable victory?

Yes, Gore in 2000 is the most obvious case of a candidate underperforming the fundamentals.  1976 being close was consistent with the economy of the time, but when you add in Watergate, I agree it's surprising Carter didn't do better and that should have been a warning sign for him.  1968 is a case of a very good economy with an incredibly unpopular war at the same time, so I guess they basically cancelled out.  It also wasn't nearly as close in the electoral college.  It also looks like Obama underperformed the fundamentals in 2008 on the surface, but that might just be both parties now having higher floors.

Some people would say Obama overperformed in 2008 because of the economic meltdown. My guess is that he would've won anyway, but I think the huge economic downturn made certain states closer, plus wins in Florida, North Carolina and Indiana.

He certainly overperformed a no financial crisis scenario, but based on history, the incumbent party should be near 40% of the PV with the economy that bad.  Instead, McCain got over 45%.  So the operative question is more why Obama didn't win 40 states in 2008.

I think the answer to that is pretty obvious.

[IceSpear]

Chances are, she probably wouldn't usher in a New Great Depression, but people probably thought the same of Hoover at the time.

Your scare mongering is laughable and has no place in serious political discussion.

Logic is not a requirement for anti-Hillary circlejerks.

[IceSpear]

Chances are, she probably wouldn't usher in a New Great Depression, but people probably thought the same of Hoover at the time.

Your scare mongering is laughable and has no place in serious political discussion.

Logic is not a requirement for anti-Hillary circlejerks.

I'm surprised you even recognize logic, judging by your own equally egregious (and less entertaining/flamboyant) posts about Hillary. I mean, for God sakes, your whole existence on this forum is defending Hillary to the death. If you’re that confident of victory in 2016, why do you even bother with the idiots like me?

Please give some examples of these supposed egregious posts I make about Hillary. I eagerly await your silence.

Sounds like you're just upset I interrupt the right-wing/True Leftist circlejerk about how Hillary is Satan incarnate. Cry me a river.

[IceSpear]

Jeb will be too old in 2024.

Jeb will be out of office for eighteen years in 2024, unless he is elected to the Senate in 2018, but will be 71. Hillary Clinton will be 69 in 2016. I don’t see how you think Hillary isn’t too old, but it didn’t seem to be a problem for you. This was your response to the questions of Hillary being too old.

Even though 2 years isn't very much difference, there's somewhat of a psychological difference between "in their 60s" and "in their 70s". Besides, Jeb wouldn't have the luxury of being the near unanimous choice of his party, so age would be more of a factor than it is now for Hillary.

I'm more worried about Christie's obesity.

That was obviously a joke. I'm well aware Christie has lost a lot of weight.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even ignoring his overly broad comparison, that again, can be applied to any president that had any hype about them, his post also contained excessive hyperbole. For instance, nobody thinks "Queen Hillary will be an automatic super FF who will bring a reign of a thousand years to the Democratic Party".
   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's quite a big difference between polling in the 30s as opposed to polling in the 60s/70s.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've said the GOP is likely doomed in 2016, not forever. And I don't even watch MSNBC, so...