Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your entire theory is banking on the idea that Hillary Clinton would view a divided government (Dem Senate/GOP House) as an acceptable risk.
However, you have not explained why you think she would view this as an acceptable risk considering the failed Presidency of Barack Obama under the same divided government. Hillary Clinton is an opportunist. Her bets are always hedged. She does nothing without a calculating the risk vs. benefit.
If you are so strong in your belief of the above, you should have no problem spelling this out for us, instead of deflecting, right?
I'm not the one clueless enough to think that anyone driven enough to campaign for two years to be President would just throw away the chance if they can't have a friendly Senate. The second house is largely irrelevant - it's the first house (ie, the House in this case) that is relevant to the opposition, so your entire fixation on the Senate itself makes no sense.
You just make absolutely no sense on so many levels.
Keep clicking those ruby heels together and whispering, "She won't run! She won't run!".
Your prediction makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
If the GOP managed to take six or seven Senate seats, they would have 51 or 52 Senators.
However, were Clinton to win the Presidency in 2016, the Democrats would easily retake the Senate in 2016.
Senate elections during Presidential years do not happen in a vacuum - you need only look back to our last Presidential election to understand that. Despite the fact that the Senate field easily favored the GOP (the Democratic caucus had to defend 23 seats, compared to only 10 for the Republican caucus), even a modest 4% victory by President Obama enabled the Democrats to not only hold their own but to pick up two additional seats. Unfortunately, people who are bound and determined to learn nothing from history usually learn precisely that - nothing.
Now, fast forward to 2016. The Democrats are defending a mere 10 seats, the Republicans 24. Eight of those Democratic seats are in the bright blue states of CA, CT, HI, OR, WA, MA, MD, VT, with the other two in blue CO and NV. Meanwhile, the GOP has to defend seats in states the Democrats regularly win, such as IL, WI, IA, NH, PA, and have been winning lately (FL, OH) and that are trending blue (NC). Barring some very unusual event (ie, Clinton losing the popular vote a la Bush in 2000 but still squeaking out an electoral college win), a Clinton victory would flip a net of several Senate seats. That is simply almost certainly what would happen in conjunction with a Clinton win, given the strong tilt of the Senate field towards the Democrats.
I won't even bother addressing your delusional thesis that if it seemed likely Clinton (or any Presidential aspirant, for that matter) would have a Senate controlled by the other party, she'd just decide she doesn't want to be President.
What you're doing here is wishful thinking. You believe that Clinton, if she runs, is a strong favorite to win. You don't want that to happen, so you're flailing about to come up with some reason she doesn't run. While she might not run - I'd put in at about 80%/20% right now, given the indicators - the reason you put forth is laughable. Anyone even remotely familiar with American electoral politics can see how nonsensical it is.
You missed the point entirely. This is not about Christie per se. The point being that an "electable Republican" can beat Clinton with the Independent vote.
Is there any particular reason you purposefully glossed over this?
Could it be intellectual dishonesty on your part? Feel free to clarify.
I'm not the one clueless enough to think that anyone driven enough to campaign for two years to be President would just throw away the chance if they can't have a friendly Senate. The second house is largely irrelevant - it's the first house (ie, the House in this case) that is relevant to the opposition, so your entire fixation on the Senate itself makes no sense.
You just make absolutely no sense on so many levels.
Keep clicking those ruby heels together and whispering, "She won't run! She won't run!".
Good luck with that!
And thanks for the laughs...
Yet another deflection, and no attempt whatsoever to address the point. When you've got the courage to address the point, let me know. We'll discuss.
We know you won't come back now that you're backed into a corner with nothing to add.
Recent polling shows that independents choose Christie over Clinton by substantial margins. The idea being that an electable Republican can beat Clinton with the Independent vote.
One teensy problem with this. Christie isn't running.
This is not about Christie. The point is that an electable Republican can in fact beat Clinton in the Independent vote arena. Independents have shown that they are willing to lean towards the right with the right candidate. That's undisputable.
Yet another deflection, and no attempt whatsoever to address the point. When you've got the courage to address the point, let me know. We'll discuss.
What point?
You're the one advancing the moronic notion that a Presidential aspirant doesn't really wanna be President without a friendly Senate. Make that case.
Did Clinton pack it in, knowing he'd never have a friendly house of Congress in his second term? Of course not. Did Nixon? Of course not. Did GHW Bush not run, knowing the lay of the land was that he wouldn't have a friendly Congress? No. Did Obama not run in 2012 when it looked like the GOP had a good chance to take the Senate (early in the race, before the Republicans shot themselves in the foot over and over)?
Like I said, you're determined to learn nothing from history. Mission accomplished.
Now, you tell me why Clinton will suddenly diverge from the historical pattern. Well?
PS - I love using the search function to enjoy all your posts from 2012 gloating about the impending Romney victory. You haven't yet figured out that you haven't a political clue. Will you? Rhetorical question - you won't. You'll just keep doubling down and confusing what you want to happen with what is likely to happen (along with posting old polls and falsely calling them 'recent').
You're the one advancing the moronic notion that a Presidential aspirant doesn't really wanna be President without a friendly Senate. Make that case.
Did Clinton pack it in, knowing he'd never have a friendly house of Congress in his second term? Of course not. Did Nixon? Of course not. Did GHW Bush not run, knowing the lay of the land was that he wouldn't have a friendly Congress? No. Did Obama not run in 2012 when it looked like the GOP had a good chance to take the Senate (early in the race, before the Republicans shot themselves in the foot over and over)?
Like I said, you're determined to learn nothing from history. Mission accomplished.
Now, you tell me why Clinton will suddenly diverge from the historical pattern. Well?
PS - I love using the search function to enjoy all your posts from 2012 gloating about the impending Romney victory. You haven't yet figured out that you haven't a political clue. Will you? Rhetorical question - you won't. You'll just keep doubling down and confusing what you want to happen with what is likely to happen (along with posting old polls and falsely calling them 'recent').
This is about Hillary Clinton, the opportunist, which is exactly what she is. For some reason, you're not able to comprehend that the conversation is about what she will view as an acceptable risk to her legacy as the first female President. The composition of Congress is a factor in that risk calculation.
The fact that you're not able to keep up with the point of the conversation is just embarrassing. Or you're just intellectually dishonest. Or just plain ignorant. Which one is it?
The composition of Congress is a factor in that risk calculation.
No, it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
The fact that you're not able to keep up with the point of the conversation is just embarrassing. Or you're just intellectually dishonest. Or just plain ignorant. Which one is it?
There's another option. He just disagrees with your asinine theory. Admit that you are hoping Hillary doesn't run.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
