What are Hillary Clinton's strengths? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 09, 2024, 01:10:28 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  What are Hillary Clinton's strengths? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What are Hillary Clinton's strengths?  (Read 1416 times)
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,544
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26

« on: November 02, 2014, 04:22:09 PM »

Basically what Nixon had going for him in 1968.  She's the pragmatic moderate, the elder statesman, the one with seasoned leadership, people having buyers' remorse over Obama, disaffection with both major parties, far and away she's the most qualified candidate on both sides of the aisle, and she's far more seasoned and confident than she was 8 years ago.  She's not the same person that came in third in Iowa almost 7 years ago, just as Nixon wasn't the same guy that got caught on tv sweating like a fiend in the debates with JFK.  Most importantly, they're clearing the field for her in her own party, and there's no significant opposition candidate from the other party.  The only potential Republican candidate with her degree of experience would be Jon Huntsman, and there's almost no way he can win the GOP nomination in 2016.  Even one of the popular governors like Kasich or Martinez doesn't have the foreign policy credentials to challenge her; Huntsman is the only one who can even compare as having both executive and foreign policy experience.

I like a lot of potential candidates in both parties including Clinton but I feel like there's something almost inevitable about her winning, and unless you have some sort of unforseen October Surprise in the weeks before election day, she'll be elected the next president by a comfortable margin.  Warren is the only one who'd even have a shot at stealing the nomination from her, but she's said over and over she doesn't want to run.  Sure you'll have Sanders and probably O'Malley and Schweitzer as "also-rans" but they're just looking for cabinet positions, or in Sanders' case to move her to the left in the primary (after which she'll pivot to the center again for the general)
Logged
Jerseyrules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,544
United States


Political Matrix
E: 10.00, S: -4.26

« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2014, 06:39:42 PM »

Basically what Nixon had going for him in 1968.  She's the pragmatic moderate, the elder statesman, the one with seasoned leadership, people having buyers' remorse over Obama, disaffection with both major parties, far and away she's the most qualified candidate on both sides of the aisle, and she's far more seasoned and confident than she was 8 years ago.  She's not the same person that came in third in Iowa almost 7 years ago, just as Nixon wasn't the same guy that got caught on tv sweating like a fiend in the debates with JFK.  Most importantly, they're clearing the field for her in her own party, and there's no significant opposition candidate from the other party.  The only potential Republican candidate with her degree of experience would be Jon Huntsman, and there's almost no way he can win the GOP nomination in 2016.  Even one of the popular governors like Kasich or Martinez doesn't have the foreign policy credentials to challenge her; Huntsman is the only one who can even compare as having both executive and foreign policy experience.

I like a lot of potential candidates in both parties including Clinton but I feel like there's something almost inevitable about her winning, and unless you have some sort of unforseen October Surprise in the weeks before election day, she'll be elected the next president by a comfortable margin.  Warren is the only one who'd even have a shot at stealing the nomination from her, but she's said over and over she doesn't want to run.  Sure you'll have Sanders and probably O'Malley and Schweitzer as "also-rans" but they're just looking for cabinet positions, or in Sanders' case to move her to the left in the primary (after which she'll pivot to the center again for the general)
There are two problems with the Nixon comparison.

Hubert Humphrey was probably more qualified than Nixon. He had four years as Vice President, sixteen years in the Senate (four as Majority Whip), and executive experience as a former Mayor of Minneapolis.

Nixon was also in the out party.

I get what you're saying but they're still pretty similar; perhaps 1972 Nixon is a better comparison.  Hillary's going to run her campaign not as " Hillary Clinton the Democrat" but as "Hillary."  And in American politics, appearance is reality; Nixon appeared more poised, more confident, and more statesman-like than Humphrey, as Humphrey was not in a position to really be able to go out and have his own opinions; not serving in the administration anymore, Hillary's almost certainly going to have more freedom to campaign on whatever she wants to, and may even throw Obama under the bus from time to time if she has to.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 13 queries.