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?
