Hillary is still way ahead in the Democratic race
For all her political wounds, Hillary Clinton is still miles ahead in the race for the Democratic nomination. I’ve never felt her standing to be seriously threatened by anything.
Quite literally, anything. Although Clinton is very different in personality from Barack Obama (or at least, presentation of personality, which is mostly what the public sees), she excites/inspires the same sort of devotion in many of her supporters, to wit: she could eat a puppy raw on the steps of the White House, and they would call her a gourmet.
Why? Why is this? Many people would answer that liberal and leftist Democrats are so eager to see the first female president (who of course must be a Democratic in order to be counted as a female) that they are willing to ignore all of Clinton’s negatives. That’s certainly a huge part of it; huge. But I think there some other factors that are not insignificant, either.
Fame. Hillary Clinton has been a public figure—and a major one at that—for nearly a quarter of a century. Her name recognition is through the roof.
And for most if not all of those years she has been hyped as many things, but the main one is “smart.” Actually, “brilliant.” Like Obama. We don’t have to consider whether she (or he) is actually all that head-and-shoulders-above-the-rest smart. What matters is that it is what we’ve been told for umpteen million years, and a great many Democrats believe it’s absolutely true.
Hillary was always adept at political coverup and evasion. But she used to think a number of things before she watched Obama’s presidency. She used to think she had to present herself as somewhat of a centrist in order to keep the American people in her corner. No more. She used to think she had to answer at least some questions in order to keep the press at bay. No more. She used to think a certain modicum of traditional foreign policy hawkishness was in order. No more.
Also, for many Democrats Clinton’s very name conjures up a happy time for them, the Clinton years. The Lewinsky scandal meant nothing to them except as a demonstration of how mean and underhanded Republicans can be in their attempts to “get” a sitting Democratic president, and Hillary’s election would be a wonderful FU to the nasty old GOP.
Last but far from least, Democrats have got nobody else—and they know it.
Clinton gets strong support from women (51 percent) and older voters (48 percent). Clinton’s lead is narrower with men (39 percent), and she and Sanders run about even among Democratic primary voters under age 50.
so basically the women want a dictatorship
the few who dont, dont count…
[do the math]
Among Democratic voters not backing Clinton, 34 percent say honesty is the quality that is most important to them, while just eight percent say experience is important.
Majorities of Democratic voters see Clinton, Sanders and Biden as honest and trustworthy, although Biden does the best on this quality, with 85 percent.
note that when we talk about women and politics we are dominated by women tha care for their kids so much they would rather kill them than let them live and be adopted… or with the father…
so whatever you use to think of their desires for the future, do not forget that they are willing to do that to their kids when men generally are not, and they are afraid of the freedom of going it alone.
but what makes them think that an exterminated group that no longer has the numbers the left needs will have much of a say in the near future given birth rates is beyond me.
non-Hispanic whites are experiencing negative population growth, seeing 61,841 more deaths than births between 2013 and 2014.
With the nation as a whole barreling toward a minority-majority future, there are already states where racial and ethnic minorities actually make up the majority. Specifically there are four states and the District of Columbia: Hawaii (77.0 percent), the District of Columbia (64.2 percent), California (61.5 percent), New Mexico (61.1 percent) and Texas (56.5 percent).
more than 11 percent of the nation’s 3,142 counties, or 364, were already majority-minority. This year, the Census noted that five became majority minority between 2013-2014, specifically: Russell, Alabama, Newton, Georgia, Eddy, New Mexico, Brazoria, Texas, and Suffolk city, Virginia.
what if those people decide to tax whites or get reparations, or seek restitution from those dingbat women of feminism AND all the others?
dont think so?
Are Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Reparations Due?
yesterday: Farrakhan announced his desire for reparations for blacks…
New “White Privilege Tax” for all White People Supported by Minorities in Shocking Racism Experiment
https://www.google.com/search?q=more+minority+births+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=vote+for+a+tax+on+white+people
its going to be so much fun watching them and their quisical faces when this becomes something that cant be hid any more…
there was this one too
http://www.progressivestoday.com/watch-hillary-clinton-supporters-endorse-a-special-tax-on-white-people-video/
[notice his shirt is hillary 2016]
Watch Hillary Clinton Supporters Endorse A SPECIAL TAX ON WHITE PEOPLE (VIDEO)
A political humorist named Mark Dice took a camera to the streets of San Diego and decided to interview Hillary Clinton supporters, acting as if he was one of them.
He told them that Clinton planned on instituting a “white privilege” tax.
In other words, she planned on taking money from each and every Caucasian and distributing it among the other races.
Guess what? They not only bought it, they agreed with it.
Not surprising. Democrats (leftists) simply ignore reality, just like they did when they voted for Obama. Obama was the one they had been waiting for, he was the smartest guy around and was going to heal the earth, slow the rise of the oceans, cause all the other countries to love us. There was no evidence he could do any of those things but that didn’t matter.
One might say less “ignore” than create a contrary, but that thought evinces evidence regarding the slippage inhering in the loose, relatively modern term ‘reality’, as if that too were something, let alone to say everything.
I don’t think it has anything to do with devotion to Hillary. It’s the new reality of the Democratic Party where one can never been seen to not support the party line; which now happens to be to support Hillary. Since the Iraq war, the Dems/Leftists have become even more strident in their marching in lockstep…NEVER show any dissent. They view it as a true virtue. I have leftist high school classmates on facebook laughing at the “disunity of the GOP, where it reality it represents pure democracy which they claim they always want (ref: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425380/speaker-fight-democracy). In reality they want totalitarianism with no dissent.
I do have to give the discipline displayed credit; they couldn’t have accomplished so much without it.
I am still of the opinion that bho does not want hrc to be the nominee, and will sink her through investigations. However, that may not be necessary. IA and NH, followed by SC could take all the wind out of her sagging sails. And, I do not see her as a savy politician able to reach the 11/16 finish line with a victory. Bho will not rally the black vote for her and I doubt she inspires a large percentage of ‘independents’ to flock to the polls.
Neo…
The Democrat party could nominated a Yellow Dog and that pup would pull 48% of the popular vote — living, dead and alien — even before it began begging.
O’Malley could immediately supplant HRC at the head of the ticket.
The Long March trampling the Constitution would tread forward.
blert:
Agreed, but in the post I’m not talking about the general election at all. I’m talking only about the Democratic nomination race.
Neo:
“for many Democrats Clinton’s very name conjures up a happy time for them, the Clinton years.”
physicsguy:
“Since the Iraq war, the Dems/Leftists have become even more strident in their marching in lockstep…NEVER show any dissent.”
That combination makes it jarring for Democrats, particularly pro-Clinton Democrats, to be confronted with the law and policy, fact basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
President Bush’s case against Saddam was inherited from President Clinton’s case against Saddam, and Bush’s enforcement procedure with Operation Iraqi Freedom carried forward Clinton’s enforcement procedure with Operation Desert Fox.
Eric, 5:27 pm — “President Bush’s case against Saddam [Hussein; when did we-all agree to be on a first-name basis?] was inherited from President Clinton’s case against Saddam [Hussein], and Bush’s enforcement procedure with Operation Iraqi Freedom carried forward Clinton’s enforcement procedure with Operation Desert Fox.
But as we all “know”, Clinton was good, whereas Bush was eeeeeeevil. Period. Settled science. End of controversy.
97% agree. The hockey stick never dies.
I don’t pretend to be an expert on Democrat thinking, but my gut tells me that Hillary is wildly unpopular with a huge portion of the party. If she wins the nomination, millions of Democrats will sit out the election.
Two Democrat operatives overheard on the subject of electing Hillary Clinton —
von F.: What a filthy job!
I: Could be worse.
von F.: How?
I: Could be raining.
[thunder]
Matt_SE: I think you are correct. And not only is she unpopular with (or at least uninspiring to) many Democrats, she is much less attractive to nearly everyone (independents, leftists, and some Republicans and libertarians) than Obama was in 2008. That makes 2016 a huge opportunity for Republicans, though of course they can always blow it.
I know some male Democrats who absolutely despise her, and I think there are probably many more.
Just a corollary to what Physicsguy mentioned; I’ve alluded to this before. A hypothetical: suppose that tomorrow Obama announced he was canceling the 2016 Election by executive order. Either he would stay in power indefinitely or he would voluntarily cede the Presidency to the anointed Hillary (or Biden, etc) on 1/20/2017. Furthermore, he suspends the 114th Congress immediately. For the remainder of his term, laws will come about through executive order.
To be clear: Obama has not declared martial law, utilized the military or threatened anyone who dissents. Nope. He just announced the above is happening and that’s that.
Yes, there would be an uproar. Immediate calls for impeachment throughout the right of the spectrum. My question is: what of liberals? I’m not thinking of the fire breathing Alinskyite academics/journalists/activist – organizer types (who would cheer him on gleefully). I’m thinking of our ordinary “good German” liberal (“moderate”, ever so moderate!) neighbors and colleagues. How many would raise a fuss, would be shocked, scared and outraged? How many would simply shrug secure in the knowledge that the ends justify the means?
This question has occupied my mind multiple times. The conclusion I typically come to is almost too painful to acknowledge.
Ackler Says:
October 13th, 2015 at 12:21 am
Just a corollary to what Physicsguy mentioned; I’ve alluded to this before. A hypothetical: suppose that tomorrow Obama announced he was canceling the 2016 Election by executive order. Either he would stay in power indefinitely or he would voluntarily cede the Presidency to the anointed Hillary (or Biden, etc) on 1/20/2017. Furthermore, he suspends the 114th Congress immediately. For the remainder of his term, laws will come about through executive order.
&&&&
Don’t even mute it.
Knock it off with the paranoia…
Or are you concern trolling — testing the reaction of the public ?
Such a post has absolutely no upside — and would give most the impression that you are floating a trial balloon.
The real world answer is that there would be an uproar, and no small amount of blood letting, usually termed a civil war.
Ask Assad how that plays out.
And, the presidency is not the only office that’s standing for election.
Good grief.
Of course, such a proclamation would put the death mark on everyone that stood with the despot.
You might examine the dire example of “Los Pepes.”
Or the undoing of many another tyrant. ( c.f. Rome )
The President would lose all Constitutional legitimacy.
No-one would answer his phone or read his missives.
He’d be lucky if he could even make it out of the country.
Just ask the Shah of Iran… that fellow barely made it.
He found out, like Macbeth, how fast the plunge must be when your legitimacy is lost.
Kadaffy ended up depending on imported mercenaries. Every Arab in Libya had abandoned him — to include his own family !
0bama dares not make such an outlandish proclamation.
Indeed, one might even expect that he would be labeled medically incompetent to serve: tyrannically insane !
That wouldn’t even require an act of Congress.
The next thing he’d know, Biden would be president !
Even Biden could be tossed — it’s not as if he’s not an alcoholic, just like HRC.
Then the nation would be left with the House of Representatives voting on who would serve out the very short remainder of his term.
They’d probably vote in a good ol’ boy, very much in the mold of Gerald Ford.
Such an interim president would hold the fort merely until the nation voted in a safe and sane successor.
Tyrant, gone !
People might want to check who Valerie Jarret is meeting with. That might be the next Dem contender or setup.
In reality they want totalitarianism with no dissent.
I do have to give the discipline displayed credit; they couldn’t have accomplished so much without it.
You should check out the history of Islam for another religion/death cult with a disliking of dissent. They’ll cut your head off for that.
Islam has been taking sex slaves for a lot longer than the Left has, however. Although even the Democrats are older than the Leftist alliance, in purely slave taking.