How the Clintons’ candidates did (not well)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2014 12:36 PM GMT
    The attempt to build a Clinton political dynasty is fascinating...

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/2014-elections-clinton-candidates-112559.html

    But not even the Clinton’s political star power could spare Democrats from Tuesday’s bloodbath. Just 17 candidates backed by either Clinton won, compared to 31 who lost. One race will go into a December runoff, and 9 races had yet to be called as of early Wednesday.

    While Republicans, including potential 2016 rival Rand Paul, tried to cast the results as a referendum on the Clintons, the former first couple can’t defy political gravity. No one expected all — or even most — of their endorsed candidates to win in such a bad year for Democrats. It’s a safe bet that the Clintons went in knowing many of them would fall short.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2014 12:41 PM GMT
    "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic, we should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!"----Hillary Clinton

    Of course, that was when her party wasn't in power.

    Let's see how well she holds to this running in 2016.
    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2014 2:55 PM GMT
    StudlyScrewRite said"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic, we should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!"----Hillary Clinton

    Of course, that was when her party wasn't in power.

    Let's see how well she holds to this running in 2016.
    icon_lol.gif


    I suspect she loathes Obama... That said, I think she also has to be hoping that her health stays good (she's no spring chicken and she has been rumored to have health issues), and that Republicans will be perceived to be "obstructionist" to the point they'll vote in another Democrat to the White House out of sympathy...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2014 4:01 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWhoever the Democrats nominate will be the next President. It's just how the demographics + electoral college is set up.


    That would be sad..... though... I suspect that Obamacare will be a significant issue that grows in coming years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 05, 2014 9:11 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWhoever the Democrats nominate will be the next President. It's just how the demographics + electoral college is set up.


    I understand your logic but it's way premature to reach that conclusion.

    Studies show younger voters can be moved to consider a Republican candidate; in fact, Rand Paul is counting on that.

    Depending on who the GOP nominates (e.g., Jeb Bush), Latino voters too may take a longer look. Remember that GWB did relatively well with this demographic.

    Then there are the independents and so-called Reagan Democrats. It's pretty clear that if an election were held today, Republicans would do quite well with these groups.

    As for women, if Hillary is indeed the nominee, expect the GOP to counter with someone on its ticket with strong appeal to them as well. (Heck, even if she's NOT the nominee, this will happen.)

    Finally, the fact that Democrats lost governors in some key states (e.g.FL, IL) while Republicans held on to some "purples" (e.g., WI) means those states are not shoo-ins for Democrats.

    The next election will have much less to do with how traditional constituencies line up vis a vis the issues ... and much more to do with governing experience ... ability to work "across the aisle" ... authentic persona that cuts against the grain of the typical politician ... and a fresh approach to issues that gives us all a sense of purpose and calling, rather than the cliched raise-the-minimum-wage and cut-taxes.

    P.S. In the interest of fair disclosure, I'm an independent voter, neither Democrat or Republican. Both parties have done their fair share to get us where we are today.

  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Nov 06, 2014 1:59 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidWhoever the Democrats nominate will be the next President. It's just how the demographics + electoral college is set up.
    Not necessarily. The country was supposed to swing more to the democrats in these mid term elections and the total opposite has happened. We have already had a democrat as US President for the past eight years so it should be the republicans turn to occupy the White House after 2016. However, it is going to depend on who the candidates are and how they stand on vital issues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 06, 2014 2:25 AM GMT
    Presidential politics and campaigning for Congressional candidates who're running away from a sitting POTUS are two entirely different things.

    The Clinton's campaigned for Grimes in KY (and she might've done worse had they not). But Hillary will overwhelmingly win the Democratic primary here in 2016. If you're thinking the Clintons wouldn't do just as well with the general electorate in this state you'd be very wrong, but I did hear one of the hack GOP local spokesmen try to float that on TV the other night. Everyone on the set laughed.

    Not sure where you got this idea that the Democrats were supposed to pick up seats in a year 6 mid-term but there is zero historical basis for saying that and it's absurd on the face of it.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14395

    Nov 06, 2014 3:52 AM GMT
    nicenmanly saidPresidential politics and campaigning for Congressional candidates who're running away from a sitting POTUS are two entirely different things.

    The Clinton's campaigned for Grimes in KY (and she might've done worse had they not). But Hillary will overwhelmingly win the Democratic primary here in 2016. If you're thinking the Clintons wouldn't do just as well with the general electorate in this state you'd be very wrong, but I did hear one of the hack GOP local spokesmen try to float that on TV the other night. Everyone on the set laughed.

    Not sure where you got this idea that the Democrats were supposed to pick up seats in a year 6 mid-term but there is zero historical basis for saying that and it's absurd on the face of it.
    You keep dreaming about Hillary Clinton winning Kentucky in 2016. That in itself is not only absurd it is totally unrealistic giving that state's conservative and religious demographics.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3287

    Nov 06, 2014 5:47 AM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    nicenmanly saidPresidential politics and campaigning for Congressional candidates who're running away from a sitting POTUS are two entirely different things.

    The Clinton's campaigned for Grimes in KY (and she might've done worse had they not). But Hillary will overwhelmingly win the Democratic primary here in 2016. If you're thinking the Clintons wouldn't do just as well with the general electorate in this state you'd be very wrong, but I did hear one of the hack GOP local spokesmen try to float that on TV the other night. Everyone on the set laughed.

    Not sure where you got this idea that the Democrats were supposed to pick up seats in a year 6 mid-term but there is zero historical basis for saying that and it's absurd on the face of it.
    You keep dreaming about Hillary Clinton winning Kentucky in 2016. That in itself is not only absurd it is totally unrealistic giving that state's conservative and religious demographics.


    But if you look back to the Clinton years were things so bad? No

    You need an executive to run the country.

    Slogans and ideas are pretty useless when nuanced problems come along.