No change. Amazing.
The flat learning curve reared its ugly head again in President Obama’s post-shellacking press conference. I did not expect him to admit that the election results were a direct repudiation of his leadership, management and policies, because the man is a narcissist, and he can’t process such information. I expected him to spin the defeat as insignificant from a public will perspective, and he did, noting that only a third of the electorate bothered to vote. That is, of course, the 30% that has been paying attention.
But I was genuinely surprised that he still, still, after all this time, displayed a complete lack of comprehension of what Presidential leadership involves and has always involved since the beginning of the position two centuries ago. Persuasion. Compromise. Trading. Negotiation. Repeatedly, Obama kept saying that he was sure that he and Republicans would find “common ground.” When they did, he said, things would get done. He made it clear, however, that if he didn’t agree that a policy measure was in the best interests of the country or wouldn’t work, he would block it.
This is madness. It may sound reasonable to civicly ignorant casual observers of the government, as is most of the President’s supporters, but that characterization of how laws get made and a system of checks and balances works would produce a D in any political science course in any junior college in America. The President is obviously intelligent. I presume he’s read about the Presidency….I don’t know, maybe he hasn’t. Is it possible that he doesn’t know that every President made deals with hostile legislators that resulted in laws that President detested, in exchange for moving along policies that were worth the sacrifice? How can he not comprehend this, after six years? The man is President of the United States, and after six years, he still thinks the job is about giving orders and making decrees.
It is really shocking. Every experienced politician in D.C. of either party must have been gulping and thinking, “What’s the matter with this guy?” It’s a mystery. He’s incompetent and way, way over his head, yes, of course. But why doesn’t he learn? He wants to be successful: can’t he figure out how? Or is it really a matter of pathological incapacity?
After being stunned at this revelation—I really am slow sometimes—that Obama will never understand the skills and techniques his job demands, failing his nation, his party and himself as a result, I was bolstered by the reaction of MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, which as essentially the same as mine. Matthews has gone over to the dark side, but once he used his sharp political instincts and practical training at the knee of Tip O’Neill to enlighten the public. Now and then the old Matthews shines through the left-wing, race-baiting zealot he is paid to portray on TV (maybe Chris owes the Mob or something), and this was one of those times. Obama’s flat learning curve infuriated him.
“Dammit, you cannot run a government on common ground!” Matthews cried. “He misses the point of politics, which is to be a politician and to trade!”
Yup. After six years as President, he misses the point of politics.
Flat, flat, flat. You cannot get more incompetent than this.
Ethics Alarms 
He was selected to run in ’08, because the DNC knew he’d be a rock-star and a practically guaranteed shoe-in for the Presidency. He was selected FOR NO OTHER REASON than to get a Democrat in office. Same games the Democrat party played at it’s founding (when it’s sacred cow was the protection of Slavery, run a Southern pro-slavery candidate with a Northern running mate, win the Presidency, kick the substantive issue down the road). Just get someone in office, it doesn’t matter why or how. Just get someone in office, then we can do what we want with the power later.
Behold the results of that mentality.
Sometimes those nominations work out: Ike, Polk. Some would argue Kennedy. Most of the time—Harding, Hayes, Obama, Taft, Bush 1, Carter—they don’t.
Bush 1 was seen as a Rock Star?
Carter?
Sorry, I thought it was clear that I was using the last description only: “He was selected FOR NO OTHER REASON than to get a [Democrat/ Republican] in office.” I don’t acknowledge that Obama was a “rock star.” He was a black politician who had good classic oratory skills. Bill Clinton was closer to a rock star.
The trick is finding that common ground. As it stands today between the Right and Left, I don’t really think it exists to any degree worth mentioning. I’d offer the opinion that, in 1861, the North and South had far more in common in their outlooks than the contending political philosophies of today.
I could resurrect the joke involving flat and the President’s color, but I don’t think that would help much. Being substantive instead, I believe that, same as Wilson, who we discussed in an earlier thread, Obama has reached the stage where isolation (WW lost Congress also) and peevishness bump up against each other to produce a kind of governmental sclerosis, where nothing gets done, Congress doesn’t offer olive branches because they know they are wasting their time, and the president sinks into a sour, sulky malaise in which he has to face the fact that he has very few friends left and also very little time left in this case. WW wound up having little time left only because his health gave out on him, or he might have become the first president to try to go for term #3. Obama can do one of two things, accept that he is no longer really all that relevant and try to smooth the way for Hilary in the hopes that she can pick up the policies and run with them, or ignore a Congress that won’t work with him, start issuing orders, and risk a messy political fight that might end, not in an impeachment, if the GOP is wise, but in a fight in the courts similar to Truman’s fight with the unions, in which the SCOTUS drew some pretty clear lines as to how far the President’s power extended. It would be ironic if the Democratic party, which decried Bush’s imperialism, produced the president that finally tipped the scales into being too imperial to be constitutional.
What also the Democratic party generally might want to keep an eye out for is the emergence of “sleeper” candidates here, notably John Kasich of Ohio. They are totally on guard against some candidates, but someone like him, who has the likeability factor on his side, might well be able to beat a polarizing figure like Hilary, who would at least give as good as she got, maybe more facing the pitiless Scott Walker or the brawler Chris Christie, but is lacking in likeability. It all depends on how the next two years shake out. If Obama pulls back, Hilary will have a better chance. If he brawls with Congress, I think Hilary is going to have a tougher time, because the American people are already tired of Obama’s policies after six years, they will be that much more tired of them after an amped-up two more, and there’s no way she can come off as anything more than four more years of bullying and scolding progressivism.
Will someone other than me take note of the fact that if the next two years are anything like the continuing clusterfuck of the last two—and they will be worse, just as 2014 has been worse than 2012—no Democrat will be able to win in 2016, just as the GOP was doomed after Nixon, Hoover and Bush. It is amazing to me that Democrats still believe so firmly in group identification politics that they believe women, minorities, Hispanics, labor, the young, etc will vote Democratic no matter how inept, corrupt and dishonest their leaders are. As this election showed with women finally holding their noses at the “war on women” nonsense, Democrats are not as stupid as their party seems to think.
I don’t see the political climate as decidedly unfavorable to a Democrat presidential candidate…
The voting populace may be sickened by the colossal failure of Democrat leadership and ideology, but they still artificially hate hate hate (thank you Media & Education) what Republicans stand for. This mid term was less a bolstering of the Right and more a repudiation of the Left.
No, come 2016, the Dems will have canvassed the crowd and learned what buzzwords resonate, then repackage their worn out failed ideas into something glossy and new and the Media will again vilify all things conservative.
As long as a Republican is running against the Media, it will take a HUMONGOUSLY flawed Democrat to lose it. Remember, the Republican line up isn’t stellar enough to survive the Media barrage it will sustain (and you thought the last 6 years was bad). They would be stellar enough, if we’d give them a fair shake like in the old civil days…but they aren’t strellar enough (read Christ-like) to survive.
That being said: If Hillary doesn’t run, we’ll see no rockstar candidates (as much as the MSM will try to create one out of the Dem’s leading contender). This will be a good thing.
If I had to put a single word on that speech, I would choose “arrogance”. If I was allowed to pair it with another, I would choose “incompetent arrogance”. “Arrogance” because he seemed to be refuting Pelosi’s “Elections have consequences” by saying either that elections are immaterial (or, at least, this one was) or that he doesn’t care about the consequences. I probably do not have to explain why I added “incompetent” to that but, in combination, these words describe a man who has no idea what the job entails, what it’s powers are nor what it’s limitations are. They further describe a man who has no wish to find out, but is content to enjoy the perks of the job, without actually doing it. What is more frightening, he appears to have no idea, no concept, of the duties and obligations of the three branches of the government, preferring instead to believe that he has been elected King. My belief is that it outside of the purview of the President to pronounce SCOTUS wrong, nor to chastise the various Justices at a meeting of both Houses in order to deliver a State Of The Union address.
Sigh.
I will take note of that belief, but I can’t take notice of it as a fact, Jack, partly for the simple reason that 2 years is a lifetime in politics, and I am not comfortable making a prediction on this particular contest that far out. I assume you mean doomed after Bush II, right, since his popularity declined sharply after 2004? I hesitate to say I agree with you wrt Bush I, who probably could have won in 1992 if he had bothered to actually try to win.
I think, although I could be wrong, with regard to 2016 that the Democrats are counting on a combination of Hilary’s star power, residual anger at the GOP for Bush II, and some combination of identity politics to carry the day. I believe in their hearts of hearts they believe that, just like all the black people turned out in huge numbers and church buses, young and old, to elect the first black president and convince the Civil Rights generation it wasn’t all in vain, all the women, from the just-legal to the little old ladies living with 12 cats, will turn out so that they can see the first female president. That is flawed, since although Democrats’ numbers are off the charts with young single women they were terrible this time around with married and older women, and the up and coming generation is probably not going to be as excited about four more years of the Democrats as the last one was about hope and change. Plus, as you pointed out, “war on women” has shot its bolt.
I still think Hilary is going to be tough to beat, because of star power, but, in her absence, or if she starts to falter before, the Dems are in trouble. There are now four powerful governors who could become President on the GOP side, maybe four more possibilities outside that pool. The Democratic bench is Hilary and… not much else, and she may be justifiably wounded if still more about Benghazi and her less-than-wonderful performance at State comes to light. If Obama is smart, he will back off these last two years and try to clear a path for her, possibly try to dig up more dirt on Christie, Jindal, Kasich, and Walker to make them look bad in 2016.
1. She’s already faltering. She’s done nothing BUT falter.
2. Hillary’s not black, and she’s not that popular with women.
3. I have it on credible authority that she’s gay. I think she is checking to see how that will affect things.
4. I’d call the certainly of worse to come a fact. Yes, its speculative in the sense that it is the future. But if a house is falling apart, it’s a fact that it will keep falling apart.
5. Hillary couldn’t beat an inexperienced challenger when she ran the first time, when she looked about 20 years younger, didn’t have the fiasco of her State Dept. tenure, a crappy Democratic Administration, Monica resurfacing, her speaker fee whoring and unapologetic soaking of colleges, and obvious declining metal acuity, to be blunt. I still don’t think she’ll run, and if she does, she’ll lose.
Which might beg the question: If not her… who? I don’t disagree. I think Hillary is unelectable. But the Democratic bench is so very, very shallow right now.
Humble, Dennis Kasinich has been trying to get into the White House for decades. I suspect he will try again and as Jack mentioned, he may sneak in. You and I both know Joe Biden will try it. Wasserman-Schulz may even give it a go, since she is (or claims to be) female. The basic problem that Democrats will have in 2016, if Hillary is out, is going to be name-recognition, but two years is enough to get your name out there.
You’ve gotta be kidding. Kucinich? 1) He’s a Hobbit. 2) His positions are insane. 3) Nobody takes him seriously. It literally can not happen. I’m trying to think of an equally unelectable Republican.
I would say Abraham Lincoln… But even at this point he may be better option.
Without question, Abe has a better chance of being nominated and elected in 2016 than Kucinich.
Believe it or not, I actually agree about Dennis. But think about it…the Democrats GLEEFULLY nominated and selected Wendy Davis to run for Governor in Texas. And I will not stipulate that our Democrats are goofier than anybody else’s Democrats.
I’m pretty sure they regret THAT gambit.
Great, now I’m wondering what I would do if forced to choose between Wendy and Dennis…
You could join me in blowing my brains out. That’s the only possible response to such a choice.
Alan West, maybe? I agree with you, BTW, on Kucinich, on all points but 1, that’s unfair to hobbits.
Good comp. Where has Alan Keyes been these days?
Also possible, Ron or Rand Paul? Either or both.
As democrats? Tee hee hee.
Oh, no. Jack said he was looking for Republicans. To be honest, these two clowns are libertarians, not Republicans, but every time they run for something, they run under the Republican label.
Not true, Ron ran for the Libertarian Party. And where Ron was attempting to educate voters, Rand is trying to actually get elected. I don’t know what they’ve said to get the kind of derision people throw their way. “Clowns” for instance. I also don’t see how fiscal libertarian policies differ wildly from fiscal conservative policies. Can you explain that to me?
Clowns is unfair. I think delusional is accurate in some aspects of their philosophies (which differ). Arguing that UD should have stayed out of WWII, as Ron has, claiming that the government was wrong to kill Jim Crow in 1965 as Rand has, and advocating the legalization of all recreational drugs, as both have, are each signature significance for me regardless of what other sense either may make in other areas. And Ron’s excuses for his racist publications is too Obama/Holder like to be borne: “I didn’t know what people were writing in a newsletter bearing my name.” IF not true, a lie and smoking gun racism. If true, a confession of idiocy.
I am not a Paul family fan.
Well, to be fair, you’ve stated you’re confused by the derision poked at them. Then you asked to explain the difference between libertarian fiscal ideas and conservative fiscal ideas. I’m not sure the explanation is related to the confusion…
Johnny Johnson can believe that 100+100 = 200, Fred Fredderson can also believe 100 + 100 = 200, but if Johnny Johnson says something dunderheaded like “Cats taste like the number blue”, that doesn’t mean someone can’t call him a clown, while still acknowledging the belief that 100+100=200 is still a rational belief.
The problem with “Libertarian” and “Conservative” vs “Liberal” or “Statist” or whatever other label, is that several decades ago, Leftist political philosophers got tired of being lumped into the same general category as Communists and other Totalitarians, you see it wasn’t good for their brand. So along came an inventive little Leftist who decided it was better to describe political philosophies, not on a one dimensional continuum, but in a 2 dimensional field. To an extent he’s right, but only so much as claiming that political philosophy can’t be described in 1 dimension*.
Barring all the flaws with his system — such as the European “Right” bears scant little similarity to the American “Right” etc — we’ll only consider American politics. In his system, a square is balanced on one corner, like a diamond, the “Right” is on the Right, the “Left” is on the “Left”, Libertarians occupy the “Bottom” and Collectivists/Authoritarians/Statist/Totalitarians occupy the “Top”. Supposedly, in his system, the more “social and personal” control you like and wish to mandate, the more Up to the Right you go, until you are an absolute conservative; the more “economic and fiscal” control you like and wish to mandate, the more Up to the Left you go until you an absolute liberal… Moderates tend to go up equally left and right and land in the middle. Communists / Nazis / etc, like to go control both sides, ending up at the VERY tip top of the diagram.
Now, this chart really, really ended up appealing to Libertarians, because it allows them to market to both sides saying “Hey, look at us, we believe in more freedom than either of yall”. Which is true, but deceiving, because it’s a little bit different in America. You see, we were already founded as a culture on having next to unabashed economic liberty – falling on the Right side of any diagram by nature. Simultaneously, although the Founding documents clearly allowed for a HUGE margin of personal and social behavior, individuals, by upbringing, self-imposed a severe conservatism independent of government mandate.
The interesting effect of this, in my opinion (which I consider solid since I’ve seen its effects) is that, whereas the Libertarians seek to appeal to both Leftists and Rightists to gain converts, they tend to have much much much more success with Right wingers because, even though personally-privately-conservative, they will tend to look past that and accept the allowing of others to be less socially conservative, while still desiring a clear economic liberty. Whereas, appealing to Leftists, who by their nature have adopted a naturally counter-American stance, tend to believe in their old-world economic views with Religious fervor. They generally are less likely to let go of those views, which is necessary for them to slide towards Libertarianism.
I think that is why you tend to find Libertarians, where they exist, identify or caucus with Republicans, because in terms of originalism…both Libertarians and Republicans can more readily identify with the Founding philosophies than can Democrats or other Leftists.
* I think it would take many more than 2 dimensions to adequately describe political philosophies as the “social control” vs “economic control” factors are grossly inadequate, and I feel were mainly cherry picked to help Leftists distance themselves from Collectivists & Totalitarians.
World’s Smallest Political Quiz
Here’s an example so you can visualize what I’ve discussed.
I would more accurately title it any of the following:
“World’s Most Inadequate Political Quiz”
“World’s Dumbest Political Quiz”
“World’s Most Manipulatively Written Political Quiz With the Intent to Convince Everyone They are Closet Libertarians”
I’m sorry, I realize re-reading my comment that I didn’t write what I really meant to. I self identify as libertarian, and I’ve seen the diagrams you described, I was asking regarding Ron and Rand Pail specifically. I was also trying to separate general mockery aimed at them from the idea that they weren’t really Republicans.
No biggie. I tend to identify as Libertarian, with a noticeable tilt to the Right. For Libertarians who rabidly insist that Isolationism is an undisputed pillar of Libertarianism, they’ll say I am wildly tilted Right. But since I haven’t seen a slam-dunk argument for Isolationism as an undisputed pillar, I think it’s fair to consider me still Libertarian. Then the pro-Abortion Libertarians have yet to advance a slam-dunk argument that that stance is required of Libertarians also, so to them I’m hard-Right. To me, they aren’t being very Libertarian…
Ron ran in the Republican primaries and participated in the Republican primary debates, along with half of the Republican Party. Even though he self-identifies as a libertarian, I would think this would qualify him as “running” as a Republican. I withdraw “clowns”. Clowns are meant to be funny. These two guys are scary serious.
Of course, with Joe, the problem is what his name is recognized for.
I think Hillary is unelectable. But the Democratic bench is so very, very shallow right now.
**************
I thought Obama was unelectable the second time around and look what happened.
I’m still reeling from the evidence that there are so many STUCK ON STUPID Americans.
@3, first of all, EeEEEEEW! Now then, where did you hear that Hilary is bi? If so, no wonder Bill’s eyes and other parts wander. That said, Jim McGreevey took a major hit on coming out as gay and having deceived two wives, it forced his resignation. I don’t see how her being bi behind Bill’s back helps her.
Can’t tell you the source, except that it is someone who worked closely with the Clintons in Arkansas and followed them to DC.
(Throws up)
Chelsea?
(Throws up)
************
I know, just picturing Hillary and Bill is bad enough.
Now we have to wonder if the shenanigans with Monica involved more than one Clinton.
“Will someone other than me take note of the fact that if the next two years are anything like the continuing clusterfuck of the last two—and they will be worse, just as 2014 has been worse than 2012—no Democrat will be able to win in 2016, just as the GOP was doomed after Nixon, Hoover and Bush.”
No. It ain’t gonna go like that. Republicans will be “whupped” in 2016, like they were in 2006 and 2008. They don’t know what to do with their power, once they have it. They campaign like they were born with loaded, hair-trigger guns sticking into the tops of their feet. They have the party discipline of a herd of scalded cats. “Going rogue” is normal for Republicans. The power of mass ignorance (and ethics poverty) will be served (that is, exploited) like never before over the next couple of years by numerous cultural institutions – the “usual suspects” who I need not specify. The Democrat Party has plenty of targets to aim at now; they could shotgun “RACISM!” and “SEXISM!” and “HOMOPHOBIA!” and “INCOME INEQUALITY!” in “sawed-off” and practically random fashion now, and guarantee themselves infliction of sufficient casualties to win many routs (and a majority in Congress, and the White House) in 2016.
I think you are wrong. This was all true for the past two years, too: look what happened. Elections are always about the lesser of two untrustworthy boobs, and when people are throttled daily by the President’s incompetence, it doesn’t matter how loathsome his opposition is.
Pssst, your optimism is showing.
Did anyone else notice the look on what’s-her-face’s face when Matthews actually says “Dammit, you cannot run a government on common ground!” I’ve never seen a more comical jaw drop ever. “You can’t say that on MSNBC! RACIST!”
Of course, Obama knows impeachment will destroy the Republican’s on 2016 so get ready for Ovama push and push the limits even to egregious violations of laws and flat out not enforcing or enacting laws passed in the next two years.
Yes I know he already does it. But just wait. I wouldn’t put it past him to outright say “go ahead, override my veto, I just won’t enforce the law, what you gonna do? Impeach me?”
My guess is his final two years will look like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum at the controls of a wrecking ball…
It’ll be a miracle if the presidency has any dignity left in the office. (Which is fine by Dems, they don’t mind when authority positions are easily denigrated)
So here, and in your earlier comment of today here, you ARE essentially agreeing with what I said still earlier (12:30 pm), to which Jack said, “I think you are wrong.” My post-election mantra: “Things are only going to get worse.” If enough media backed a congressional push to impeach Obama (which of course will never happen), we’d see Jokin’ Joe sitting in the Oval Office in less than a year. Oh, there’ll be another crisis, and it’ll be all the Republicans’ fault for making it happen (or for making it worse, or for not doing enough to fix it – I’m thinking some kind of collapse in the “higher education” sector, maybe another Wall Street meltdown, maybe even some more terrorist attacks and school shootings), and Barack the Anointed and Blameless One, and the party who promotes him, will prosper again, until the electoral whip-saw snaps back again nationwide in heavy favor of the Democrat Party in 2016.
Or more Fergusons. Riots. City streets full of danger, destruction, and angry people. A kind of pre-voting with exploited people’s emotions.
Never underestimate the Democrat Party’s ability to rig elections.
I think Jack DOES agree that it will get worse… he even said, a house falling apart keeps falling apart. I think yall just disagree what form that “getting worse” will take.
To recap, the exchange is…
Me: “Will someone other than me take note of the fact that if the next two years are anything like the continuing clusterfuck of the last two—and they will be worse, just as 2014 has been worse than 2012—no Democrat will be able to win in 2016, just as the GOP was doomed after Nixon, Hoover and Bush.”
LM: No. It ain’t gonna go like that.
I said he’s wrong. In fact he, is spectacularly wrong. In 2012 I predicted that the public would not re-elect Obama because Americans are sickened and terrified by weak Presidents. I was right—where I erred was concluding that the public had figured out that Obama was weak, and I erred because it had been obvious to me since 2009. Now they know, and he isn’t getting stronger. Weak Presidents—Carter, Bush I, Ford, Obama—can only win if there is atrocious opposition, and that is also true for whoever tries to succeed them in their own party.
Lucky thinks of “worse,” apparently, as “worse conduct by Obama.” By worse I mean, as i correctly predicted as early as 2011, objective disasters and undeniable scandals. We have just seen the tip of the iceberg…so much corruption and incompetence and bad management, festering. There will be race riots that Obama will handle weakly. There will be international defeats and marching despots, the Obama will be directly accountable for. There will the exposure of Obamacare as the mismanaged mess it is, and possibly another recession. There will be scandals involving crony capitalism, and direct links from the IRS scandal to the White House. Agencies we hadn’t heard about will be shown to be wasting money and politicized. Or the equivalents of any of these. Then there will be the crises that Obama sits on, or dithers over, or botches. Oh, it will be ugly, and all the spin in the world won’t be able to see what the public now knows.
That NY Post photo wasn’t inaccurate, it was just uncivil. The Emperor has no clothes.
These things will undoubtedly happen, but by then there will be a new administration and they will be blamed. There’s a “Republican” congress now so they can be blamed as well. It will be like a six year hole where no one was responsible for anything bad except George Bush and the new guys. History should have a field day with it.
Jack,
I appreciate your analysis, but I still disagree that the public’s knowledge that Obama is “weak” will be decisive against Democrat Party candidates – because you can’t fix stupid, and there really, truly are THAT many stupid voters (behaving stupidly, that is, out of ignorance or gullibility or bigotry or some mix of all of those) who will forever think the Democrat Party is the only party that can govern well and beneficially for the greater good of all. In 2016, those stupid voters will turn out in their own “wave” to inflict huge losses on Republicans and provide huge and numerous, majority-restoring victories for Democrats. I stand by my projection, as much as I dread it.
What I mean by “worse” is all of what you mentioned yesterday at 5:44 pm, and more, in addition to “worse conduct by Obama.” Who can stop him?
He’s done. He has no power. The knee-jerk types didn’t care enough to vote to save his bacon, or don’t comprehend the office. A President without public support or Congress can’t do anything. He’s going to dare the Congress to impeach him, get a rebuke from the Courts instead, worsen race relations, and disgrace himself, and the Party. Democrats will be whip-sawed: they can’t run from Obama without ticking off the one big group that would vote for Democrats if they nominated Pee Wee Herman, and if they embrace his legacy—no respect abroad, stagnant economy, division, racism, weakness, civil liberties hypocrisy—intelligent Democrats become independents. When the young get disillusioned, they stay away for years and years–and by the time they come back, they may not be so liberal any more.
If Obama were not black, he would risk impeachment and conviction. It’s grim, for him and us, because the nation needs a real leader now, and one isn’t in sight.
I just now re-read the comments, then did the obligatory “Control-F” search, just to be sure, and could not believe what I did NOT see: Mention of one particular name. How could we all fail not to talk about this person? How could we all neglect the fact that so many recent Democrat presidential nominees have been political stars in…this one state? (No, not California.)
Hillary has been yacked about to the point of concluding she is unelectable. UNTHINKABLE! (to me, for now) But, just in case thinkability happens…
What about Liz?
That should have been, “How could we all fail to talk about this person?”
Liz Warren? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Here is a pretty thorough listing of the factors that work or will work against Hillary, and pretty much covers my analysis as well. It soft pedals the biggest one: she’s awful—dishonest, corrupt, ruthless, and fools fewer and fewer the longer she hangs around. http://freebeacon.com/columns/the-biggest-loser/
Another good read regarding Hillary.
http://www.gormogons.com/index.php/2014/11/read/
It is kind of shocking that a lame and dislikable retread like Hillary is the best the Democrats have—and they make fun of the GOP field. My theory: the party is now afraid to run a candidate who doesn’t have victimized group and target of prejudice Teflon.
Just as Obama has skated on charges of racism against anyone who criticized him, so anyone going after Hillary can be accused of warring against women. This is the inevitable result of building a whole party on group identification.
By the way, Maher actually said that the #1 reason for the Democratic loss was angry bigots coming out to diss a black President. How can anybody think this guy is smart? It amazes me.
Best line from the Gormogon’s article:
“Unfortunately, all we need is a Republican candidate who won’t offensively yelp “woo woo woo woo woo” and repeatedly slap his mouth with his palm every time she says something. That’s the kind of self-destruction Republicans excel at, and the Czar promises nothing.”
Maher can say what he wants…we’ve been assured by Democrats that this election WASN’T about Obama…
“…Maher actually said that the #1 reason for the Democratic loss was angry bigots coming out to diss a black President.”
I understand that in truth, the percentages of 2014 election turnout reflected relatively heavy turnout by white males. That, combined with relatively low turnout by the typical groups who vote for Democrat candidates, largely explains the Republican gains. I read further that relatively high turnout by white voters and particularly older white males, despite white voters becoming an increasingly smaller fraction of the electorate, make the white vote increasingly, not decreasingly decisive in each election cycle. So maybe Maher is not far off the mark, if at all.