-
Ever thought it'd be cool to have your art, writing, or challenge runs featured on PokéCommunity? Click here for info - we'd love to spotlight your work!
-
Our next favorite protagonist poll is for the Oblivia region, from Pokémon Ranger 3! This poll is only lasting 2 days, so don't forget to cast your vote for your favorite protagonist before it's over!
Hillary Clinton Announces 2016 Presidential Bid
- Thread starter Her
- Start date
Klippy
L E G E N D of
- 16,403
- Posts
- 19
- Years
- Disneyland
- Seen Dec 14, 2023
I think it's far too early to say it's one of the "least contested" races. We've only begun to see candidates trickling out, but I think with her announcement and a slew of Republican challengers as well, things are gonna start speeding up. Marco Rubio is announcing sometime this week, I believe. Things are barely getting started.
As for what challenges she'll face, she's got a few things that will be targeted by any challenger (Democrat or Republican) that she gets, so it'll be interesting to see what happens. I'm a Libertarian, but I think the Democratic Party would be better off finding someone else as their potential nominee. I have heard people say they'd rather have Warren. I think we'll see Joe Biden throw his hat into this, as well as maybe Harry Reid - though he is probably less likely.
As for what challenges she'll face, she's got a few things that will be targeted by any challenger (Democrat or Republican) that she gets, so it'll be interesting to see what happens. I'm a Libertarian, but I think the Democratic Party would be better off finding someone else as their potential nominee. I have heard people say they'd rather have Warren. I think we'll see Joe Biden throw his hat into this, as well as maybe Harry Reid - though he is probably less likely.
Last edited:
Lizardo
Public Enemy
- 290
- Posts
- 11
- Years
- Seen Aug 18, 2016
Republican Senator Marco Rubio has also spoken to donors about running for President, too, so that's another Republican in the race.
Also - any chance for a general Election 2016 thread? More candidates will start coming out sooner or later, and I imagine that it'll just clutter the subforum by having different threads for Clinton, Cruz, Bush, Walker, etc.
The one thing that could hurt Hillary in the long run is the fact that she's not that popular amongst the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, with her relationship to Wall Street, her support of domestic surveillance, and the fact that she's a bit of a hawk. I'll be upfront in saying that I really don't like Hillary and am thoroughly unenthused by the idea of her as the next President. But, as I also said in the Ted Cruz thread, I'd much rather see her in the White House than anyone in the GOP.
Also - any chance for a general Election 2016 thread? More candidates will start coming out sooner or later, and I imagine that it'll just clutter the subforum by having different threads for Clinton, Cruz, Bush, Walker, etc.
Maybe, but who else do you really see coming out of the Democratic Party to challenge her? Elizabeth Warren isn't running and I don't think anyone is really expecting O'Malley or Webb to beat Hillary. Clinton has the establishment support, as well as the support of moderate Democratic voters.
The one thing that could hurt Hillary in the long run is the fact that she's not that popular amongst the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, with her relationship to Wall Street, her support of domestic surveillance, and the fact that she's a bit of a hawk. I'll be upfront in saying that I really don't like Hillary and am thoroughly unenthused by the idea of her as the next President. But, as I also said in the Ted Cruz thread, I'd much rather see her in the White House than anyone in the GOP.
Ivysaur
Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
- 21,082
- Posts
- 18
- Years
- Age 34
- He/him
- Madrid, Europe
- Seen Nov 30, 2024
Having a Warren or a Biden would probably help throw the Democratic nomination into the left side, forcing Hillary to tone hown her hawkish tendencies. She is very likely to walk away with it, but how her plans end up sheping along the way depends a lot on the competition she gets.
On the other side, we already know the Republican contest will be a race to see how can get the most to the right without being entirely unelectable, so there is that.
On the other side, we already know the Republican contest will be a race to see how can get the most to the right without being entirely unelectable, so there is that.
- 2,138
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- The States
- Seen Nov 6, 2016
The annoying thing we continue to hear about Hillary is this idea that she is "hawkish" or "harsh". If she were male, no one would have an issue with her speaking/debate style. Then again, if she becomes "soft", then the public will perceive her as too delicate and unable to represent the country well. This false dichotomy has stifled female candidates in elections for as long as women have been involved in American Politics.
Given the polling statistics, Clinton destroys every potential Republican candidate, Democrats are generally settled on her the best choice in order for their party to maintain the presidential office in 2016.
Whereas Biden (who is far left, not to mention old and known for his unpredictability + gaffes) and Warren (who is perceived as too far left to win) are irrational choices that the party members will not support.
Essentially, Dems think that with Hillary they have the 2016 race in the bag, or at least a very high chance of winning...they aren't going to gamble. Hillary doesn't really need to posture herself to the left to win the primary (thus negatively impacting her general election run), rather, she will (and should) posture herself for the general election by casting a broader appeal.
Given the polling statistics, Clinton destroys every potential Republican candidate, Democrats are generally settled on her the best choice in order for their party to maintain the presidential office in 2016.
Whereas Biden (who is far left, not to mention old and known for his unpredictability + gaffes) and Warren (who is perceived as too far left to win) are irrational choices that the party members will not support.
Essentially, Dems think that with Hillary they have the 2016 race in the bag, or at least a very high chance of winning...they aren't going to gamble. Hillary doesn't really need to posture herself to the left to win the primary (thus negatively impacting her general election run), rather, she will (and should) posture herself for the general election by casting a broader appeal.
Lizardo
Public Enemy
- 290
- Posts
- 11
- Years
- Seen Aug 18, 2016
"Hawk" here meaning that she prefers a more confrontational, warlike geopolitical strategy. This is also a label that gets applies to Republican politicians who prefer a large standing military and are quicker to advocate for military actions and war in foreign policy. Hillary's foreign policy stance is pretty conservative, more direct and confrontational than Obama's. Her decision to support the Iraq War was (still could be) a big sore point with liberal voters for a while. Add to that her support for a national security state and the relationship with Wall Street, and I (as a liberal, myself) personally feel that Hillary Clinton is a really underwhelming candidate who I'm only voting for because I couldn't stomach the idea of any of the current Republicans winning office.
And I wouldn't dismiss the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, either. It was those voting groups that played a significant role in putting Obama over Hillary in 2008, Romney in 2012, and who form a pretty vital portion of the party. I worry that her middle-of-the-road stances on issues deemed important to the Left could create a situation where those groups don't come out to the polls in the same numbers that they did for Obama. Hillary may walk away with the nomination, but she could easily lose the general election if she doesn't bother to appeal to them. She has the advantage over the GOP now, but November 2016 is a long time away and a lot can change between now and then. Hillary Clinton was also the Democratic Party frontrunner in 2007, and we know how that ended.
And I wouldn't dismiss the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, either. It was those voting groups that played a significant role in putting Obama over Hillary in 2008, Romney in 2012, and who form a pretty vital portion of the party. I worry that her middle-of-the-road stances on issues deemed important to the Left could create a situation where those groups don't come out to the polls in the same numbers that they did for Obama. Hillary may walk away with the nomination, but she could easily lose the general election if she doesn't bother to appeal to them. She has the advantage over the GOP now, but November 2016 is a long time away and a lot can change between now and then. Hillary Clinton was also the Democratic Party frontrunner in 2007, and we know how that ended.
I'd bet more on Hillary getting the Democratic nomination than not. Warren's denied intent to run multiple times. Biden, as The Dark Avenger said, is "old + known for his unpredictability" has the experience, but he lacks the support that most Democrats have for Hillary. As a Marylander, I'd like to see O'Malley run, but he just isn't known enough.
Even though there's an apparent lack of serious challengers, that shouldn't discourage people from doing so. The Republicans have a couple candidates now, and will have more later. Their primary is going to sort of prepare them for the big race in '16, giving them practice debating and appearing nationally. If the Democrats don't do this, they'll be at a big disadvantage. Not to mention all the Republican ads attacking Clinton already since they know as well she's the most likely candidate.
Personally, I don't feel Clinton would make a bad president. To be quite frank, I think a more aggressive foreign policy stance than Obama's is necessary. That would also bolster support among conservatives, which *may* lead to slightly reduced bickering than usual. I also of course hate the idea of Cruz/Paul/etc. taking office. I doubt her (relatively) bad relationship with the very liberal portion of the Democrats will impact her much, it's not like they're going to vote for Cruz/Paul/etc. over her.
Also Lizardo, I like your quotes :)
Even though there's an apparent lack of serious challengers, that shouldn't discourage people from doing so. The Republicans have a couple candidates now, and will have more later. Their primary is going to sort of prepare them for the big race in '16, giving them practice debating and appearing nationally. If the Democrats don't do this, they'll be at a big disadvantage. Not to mention all the Republican ads attacking Clinton already since they know as well she's the most likely candidate.
Personally, I don't feel Clinton would make a bad president. To be quite frank, I think a more aggressive foreign policy stance than Obama's is necessary. That would also bolster support among conservatives, which *may* lead to slightly reduced bickering than usual. I also of course hate the idea of Cruz/Paul/etc. taking office. I doubt her (relatively) bad relationship with the very liberal portion of the Democrats will impact her much, it's not like they're going to vote for Cruz/Paul/etc. over her.
Also Lizardo, I like your quotes :)
- 2,138
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- The States
- Seen Nov 6, 2016
Oh, I wasn't aware of that usage of hawkish (I am seeing around now as a buzz word regarding Clinton after a quick google search of "hawkish" under "news").
Though, I can still see the magnification of aggression vs passivity carried over in the depiction of foreign policy behavior. Conservatives have critiqued Clinton as being too passive and too diplomatic (thus responsible for inaction leading to "Bengazi-gate", despite liberal claims she is too aggressive claiming support for Iraq and the multilateral Libyan Civil War involvement. Though, unlike Obama, she expressed that he was too hawkish with his stance on Pakistan, claiming that his promise to use military action if warranted by intelligence was highly inflammatory. Her response was that such a bold claim to unilateral force based purely on hypotheticals is a poor way to open dialogue...though it was easy for him to simply respond with the trump-card "you supported Iraq".
Thereafter, in 2011, he lauded the war and the benefits the US imparted upon Iraqi citizens as an accomplishment.
Essentially, it was easy to proclaim Obama as a passivist and Clinton as an aggressor during the election season, but afterward, all bets are off. Democrats generally supported or didn't really care about President Obama's usage of drones and authorization of militarized action in Libya (which both him and Clinton were involved). Though Hispanics weren't happy with his anti-immigration policy, the INS had record numbers of deportations during his first 4 years (until he passed pro-immigrant legislation after losing Hispanic voter support)
As voters, depending on the context, liberals and conservatives value different things (and groups within those labels value different things as well). Though democrats would support less aggressive foreign policy generally, this election, both voting decisions and participation of liberals will more likely be influenced by domestic issues (economic and social issues) whereas conservative leaners might be more attracted to Hillary's more moderate foreign policy, especially if moderates do not care about social issues.
I would actually largely blame Bill Clinton for the economic fallout of 2007, it was during his administration that banks and lenders were essentially given an enormous amount of freedom from restriction which led to the credit bubble burst. Though, Bush generally supported and agitated the terrible economic policy of the Clinton Administration. However, Hillary will use the short-lived economic surplus during her husband's administration to attract voters who are economically driven in their voting behavior.
Not sure if I will vote for her or not if she wins the nomination, but I think she's got a good shot in comparison to the other names the Dems have thrown around given her broad appeal and some distancing from Iraq which is now being remembered as less negative AND citizens are less influenced by Iraq in voting decisions. Essentially, being an establishment-insider, rich, and privileged candidate will not harm her as much this time around because of the economic and foreign policy shifts.
Though, I could be wrong, I just don't see why dems should risk her shot by investing in other candidates that are more risky. As you can tell, I am not the biggest fan of Clinton, but I am guessing she's the best choice Democrats have of winning...unless they commit self-sabotage by backing other candidates.
Though, I can still see the magnification of aggression vs passivity carried over in the depiction of foreign policy behavior. Conservatives have critiqued Clinton as being too passive and too diplomatic (thus responsible for inaction leading to "Bengazi-gate", despite liberal claims she is too aggressive claiming support for Iraq and the multilateral Libyan Civil War involvement. Though, unlike Obama, she expressed that he was too hawkish with his stance on Pakistan, claiming that his promise to use military action if warranted by intelligence was highly inflammatory. Her response was that such a bold claim to unilateral force based purely on hypotheticals is a poor way to open dialogue...though it was easy for him to simply respond with the trump-card "you supported Iraq".
Thereafter, in 2011, he lauded the war and the benefits the US imparted upon Iraqi citizens as an accomplishment.
Essentially, it was easy to proclaim Obama as a passivist and Clinton as an aggressor during the election season, but afterward, all bets are off. Democrats generally supported or didn't really care about President Obama's usage of drones and authorization of militarized action in Libya (which both him and Clinton were involved). Though Hispanics weren't happy with his anti-immigration policy, the INS had record numbers of deportations during his first 4 years (until he passed pro-immigrant legislation after losing Hispanic voter support)
As voters, depending on the context, liberals and conservatives value different things (and groups within those labels value different things as well). Though democrats would support less aggressive foreign policy generally, this election, both voting decisions and participation of liberals will more likely be influenced by domestic issues (economic and social issues) whereas conservative leaners might be more attracted to Hillary's more moderate foreign policy, especially if moderates do not care about social issues.
I would actually largely blame Bill Clinton for the economic fallout of 2007, it was during his administration that banks and lenders were essentially given an enormous amount of freedom from restriction which led to the credit bubble burst. Though, Bush generally supported and agitated the terrible economic policy of the Clinton Administration. However, Hillary will use the short-lived economic surplus during her husband's administration to attract voters who are economically driven in their voting behavior.
Not sure if I will vote for her or not if she wins the nomination, but I think she's got a good shot in comparison to the other names the Dems have thrown around given her broad appeal and some distancing from Iraq which is now being remembered as less negative AND citizens are less influenced by Iraq in voting decisions. Essentially, being an establishment-insider, rich, and privileged candidate will not harm her as much this time around because of the economic and foreign policy shifts.
Though, I could be wrong, I just don't see why dems should risk her shot by investing in other candidates that are more risky. As you can tell, I am not the biggest fan of Clinton, but I am guessing she's the best choice Democrats have of winning...unless they commit self-sabotage by backing other candidates.