Hillary Clinton

It's too late for anyone to jump in, even someone with name recognition like Gore has. Even if every other Democrat bowed out of the race, endorsed Gore, donated their campaign funds to him, and gave him their staff members, donor lists, and organizations, he would still lose to Hillary.

Let's face it, Hillary is going to be the next US President. The only drama at this point is who her Vice President will be, since Congress will be controlled by the Democrats, and almost certainly by a wider margin in the Senate. I can't see it being someone with future presidential or senatorial ambitions of his own, so I think that rules out Obama. Anyone who expects her to govern like a European social democrat is probably going to be disappointed.

If Gore gets in, Hillary will lose for sure. Hillary is not a shoe in and Obama has a real chance. Hillary has huge electability problems and Bush/Clinton fatigue is starting to sink in to the American public.

If Hillary is nominated, her running mate will be Wes Clark. Clark was assured that role when he was sent into the last election to take out Howard Dean which he did quite well with the "leak" that Dean had supposedly asked him to be the VP candidate. Bill Richardson is a close second should Clark turn it down, but I don't see that happening.

I think that Clark is a plausible candidate, but not Richardson. Although there is nothing in it for him as Vice President, but Evan Bayh might well be the best fit for Hillary, especially since his presence on the ticket would probably switch Indiana to the Democrats.

The only states the Republicans can probably count on are the old Confederacy, the Great Plains states, Oklahoma, Kansas, Indiana (without Bayh on the ticket), Idaho, Wyoming, Utah and Alaska. They have a shot at Montana, Colorado, Arizona, Missouri, and Kentucky, but right now I think those states will fall to the Democrats this time. If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, he loses in a landslide. Thompson is probably the best candidate, but I think Romney would make the best president out of the Republicans. No matter who the nominee is, it is difficult to see any of them defeating Hillary.

I seem to remember a time, long long ago, where it was fairly easy to define the parties: Democrats=bigger govt Republicans=smaller govt.
Now I don't think that either party fits my politics- formerly Republican. Maybe the Libertarians... I definitely wouldn't vote for Hillary, though.

I believe the government of America was at it's smallest during the Clinton era.. the difference between Democrat's and Republicans doesn't seem to be so big anyway.. they are all bought by the companies that finance their campaigns.. it's just the Republicans are brash about it..

That about sums it up for me.

Senator Clinton was my Senator for quite a while why I still maintained NY residence. Not a big fan, as she clearly gains greatly from lobbying groups, and is a blow with the prevailing winds kind of politician. That said, I voted for her over her Repub opponent. Unless Obama makes it through the primaries, I suspect that is what I will be doing again, as any of the Repub candidates are not in any way acceptable to me. I do like the fact that Bill would certainly be a big influence in the White House, and the man does have loads of experience and a lot of finesse and clout. I do believe Sen. Clinton actually has the best interests of our country at heart, but plays the game the only way anyone can win it, with the system as dysfunctional as citizens have allowed it to be.

OK, honestly after what we've been through for the past 8 years I'd trust a wild african antelope to run our country!

Anything would HAVE to be an improvement!

Christopher Hitchens...a Trotskyist who writes for Vanity Fair? And an atheist Brit to boot? He is an ass.

You want predictions:

1. Algore will not run. He is a loser.
2. Hillary will win the Democratic nomination - but lose the election. She is a loser.
3. The US will have another Republican president.

The question is which Republican will we have to suffer with?

Yup, BB, old Al Gore is a loser, all right. He's won an Oscar this year and he's got a best-selling book, which might also get him a Nobel Peace Prize.

He also won the 2000 election..

too bad Bill Bradley doesn't want to get back in the race. sigh.

I'll try to find a table on government spending as a percentage of GDP to answer that, although it is indisputable that it did decline during Clinton's presidency, in part because of the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War and a strong private economy in the late 1990s. Keep in mind that all spending bills originate in the House of Representatives, which was controlled by the Republicans (as was the Senate) for the final six of Clinton's eight years as President. Both houses have to approve spending bills, so Republicans deserve credit as well.

I absolutely agree with you that both parties are captive to some pretty odious special interests, but those are not solely comprised of private companies.


Hucho, Gore did not win the 2000 election because he did not win a plurality or majority of the electoral vote. Studies have been done on the vote in Florida, and Gore did not win. End of story. Of course, if he had won his home state of Tennessee, we would never have heard anything about Florida. Gore blew the 2000 election by campaigning as if he were William Jennings Bryan in 1900 (Bryan lost three presidential elections). According to the US constitution, the winner of a US presidential election is determined by the electoral college, not the popular vote. Just curious, but do you also pitch fits over the fact that the CDU/CSU won more votes than the SPD in 1969, 1976, and 1980, yet were kept out of power after those elections?

Just read the following editorial on Hillary's frontrunner status and the 2008 election:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/opinion/...&ei=5087%0A

Thought others might be interested in the editorial since it is very relevant to this thread.

Obviously a child of propaganda. This is so not the truth it isn't even funny. Tell me kitty, when did the Repugs ever reduce the size of government? It is not a hard question and you can google it.


Dude, Gore won. That is all there is too it. Count all of Florida and Gore won. He won the popular vote and Bush was installed against our will. Fucking Rethugs threw out States Rights and went for the install the bastard kill. We allowed it to happen and look what the fuck we got. Don't believe it, then fucking look at the studies without some political motivation.

eurovol, how many times do you have to be proven wrong on this? As for the popular vote, read the constutution. If you don't like what it says about the electoral college deciding a presidential election, start a movement to amend the constitution. As for political motivation, I am a supporter of no political party and have no love for either Democrats or Republicans.

EDIT: for those not familiar with the following study of the Florida vote in 2000:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...floridamain.htm

If eurovol has anything empirical to back him up, let's hear it.

EDIT: as for reducing the size of government, it is impossible to do it if you don't control the chamber that originates spending bills and the chambers that must pass all budget legislation. The Democrats controlled the House of Representatives from 1933-1947, 1949-1953, and 1955-1995, and then again from this year. The Democrats controlled the Senate from 1933-1947, 1949-1953, 1955-1981, 1987-1995, 2001-2003, and again from the beginning of this year. That's 58 years out of 74 since 1933 for the House, and 53 1/2 years out of 74 since 1933 for the Senate. That's a whole lot of budgets passed by Democratic majorities since budgets cannot be passed by Executive Order. The blame is bipartisan, expecially if no one has used filibusters to stop passage of a budget.

Here is some US budget data going back to 1962
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.xls
There is a lot more out there, obviously, but at first glance it looks to me like any blame or credit should be bipartisan.

Philosophically speaking, Rebublicans have traditionally wanted fewer big govt solutions to social problems; while the Dem's have tended to think that they govt knows best. As demonstrated by the current administration, this isn't really the case anymore. But I appreciate the usual condescending in your response to my post, Eurovol. Perhaps one of the stereotypical attitudes that will keep me from EVER being a Democrat.

kitty-kat, I'm afraid the Democrats don't have a lock on condescension.

I think you're right that ideologically and traditionally, the Democrats tend towards more taxation to pay for more government programs, while the Republicans favor less taxation and fewer government programs. That hasn't been holding true as of late, though.

Some TTers may have heard of prediction markets and their use in predicting the results of elections:
http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/

Just another way to analyze the campaigns.

Who matches your positions best.

Its fun to see how some people think they fit their "candidate" well when in fact that actually don't and oft times don't even fit their chosen party.

And a second if you don't like the first.

After I took the first test and saw the results, I started to frantically look for my thermometer, convinced that I had contracted some weird jungle fever that was making me completely delusional!? The second one balanced things out a little. There is some logic to this as I am closer to someone like Kucinich or Edwards when it comes to "social" issues and very right-wing when it comes to foreign policy.

EDIT: Actually, right-wing wouldn't really be accurate either as everyone, including the most conservative candidates, are avoiding taking a clearly hawkish position on foreign policy.

Kucinich 30
Edwards 29
Giuliani 28

Giuliani 36
McCain 25
Edwards 24

Good link you posted, eurovol.

Thanks.
A lot of people live in stereotypes and really don't understand what they believe without having an unbiased presentation.

I turn up Kucinich in first place in both polls, but second is either Gravel or Obama depending on the test questions. To me, Gravel is this years Perot. Makes a lot of sense, but you wouldn't want to put him in charge. I would love to put Kucinich in charge, but unfortunately I don't see him getting elected. I don't even see him getting a significant post in a possible Clinton administration and that tells me a lot about how I feel about Clinton. On the other hand, I do see him getting exposure in a possible Obama administration and that tells me who I should support to the hilt!

*These views are mine and are not the positions of any official Democratic organization whom I may represent in other capacities.

Jules, I will make a Progressive out of you yet. Just drop that might is right attitude and lets talk!

JW, I suspect the following might also possibly be a problem for eurovol's proselytizing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism..._and_monopolies
Some progressives believed that privately owned companies could never be made to serve the public interest. Therefore, the federal government should acquire ownership of large corporations and operate them for the public interest.
Some progressives argued that in a modern economy, large corporations and even monopolies were both inevitable and desirable.

eurovol, what are your thoughts on this topic?

I think Hillary Clinton has declared "Mission Accomplished" too soon.

Loser

Christian

I think she's supposed to be a Methodist...

I really like that answer!

No matter who wins, we lose. I always believed in doing things within the system. Now that I'm too old to do anything about it, I have realized the system sucks!

Well, I have always said that it is always a WOMAN that has to clean up a MAN's mess.

(Honestly, I don't think anyone could be as bad as that inbred, cowpie munchin' hick that is in the saddle now. He thinks that life is one big game of Cowboys and Indians!)

I'd bang her.

Wait... wrong thread...

I'd vote for her

Well I certainly do, and you and some of the other twits on here are perfect examples

The only good republican, is a dead one!

but puleeze, don't call me a democrat, or a liberal. Puleeze call me an old Berkeley Commie!

The electoral college is a dinosaur. It was started, so the rich land owners could make their votes count, when the majority of the population were were the poor, in places like Boston and New York. I will admit, that unfortunately if it were done away with---we would probably be stuck with Bush as dictator for life! Or perhaps worse, Giuliani for life. Poplular opinion, does not always bode well for everyone. Unfortunately the majority of America is composed of ignorant boobs who believe anything that they are told on Fox TV.

FYI, because of the 22nd Amendment, Bush cannot serve a third term in office. So no worries there.

As for the Electoral College, you might want to bone up on its history a bit, especially if you think it had anything to do with "rich landowners making their votes count"- in the early days of the US, only landowners could vote in the first place.

http://www.electoralcollegehistory.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

I'm going to agree with Conquistador here. The EC’s existence was more due to (from my understanding)

1) difficulty of communication at the time

2) inability for a politician to communicate directly with voters (so instead, you elect someone you trust to vote for your group)

3) a desire to balance out power so the US isn’t entirely run by a couple of cities

I wouldn't vote for Billery. Not because I despise her (it) with every fiber of my being, even though I do. No, that's not the reason.

I don't want to see the taxpayers suffer the ginormous increase in Secret Service that will be required to protect her (it). Not only the increase in Secret Service Agents, but the number of doubles (loo-a-likes) that this country will go through (until someone finally gets the real one) will cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. On top of that, the US really shouldn't have to go through the whole ordeal. It's not a question of if it will happen, it's a question of when it will happen. Save the country the headache.

Actually, the biggest reason was to stop some clown from winning the popular vote by promising them everything plus snake oils. That is why EC voters are not bound, but only pledged to vote for the "winner(s)". It was demanded by the wealthy landowners in sparsely populated states along the same lines as having two Senators was.

If I was an American voter, which I'm not, I would anyway have great difficulty in casting a vote for any candidate, for fear it would be taken as as an unspoken acceptance, endorsement even, of a rotten political system. More to the point - and back to the beginning - while I'm not American, I certainly think I should have a vote there. US politicians have, since the day they abandoned the Monroe Doctrine, always assumed they have the right to determine policy worldwide. When will I be offered a Chad ?

Can you tell us exactly when the US, in your opinion, "abandoned the Monroe Doctrine"?

Now we have a UK citizen living in Germany stating he should have the right to vote in the US.

Nice tits

Hillary and Barack: What Doesn't Kill Him Makes us Gayer

That was as funny as an accident with a nail gun.

surely even with the Florida and Michigan votes counted she'd still be behind? Including both would give her 193 to Obama's 72. Added to the present tally, that would give Obama 2034 to Clinton's 1972. The threshhold would be higher at 2209 with these states added though, so with only 66 delegates available from Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana even if Obama won them all outright he would still need a majority of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates coming out in his favour.

She is hoping that the Florida and Michigan recount would put her ahead in the overall popular vote so she could make that pitch to the superdelegates and make them come over to the dark side.. er estrogen ridden side..

Florida and Michigan would definitely put her ahead in the popular vote. Naturally now that the popular vote doesn't favor Obama anymore, as was the case a few months ago, it has become a non-issue.