Leslie

So, just like the polling is saying Trump is in second place because (1) there's fifty twelve million republicans in the race and (2) he's got name recognition.

Who's to say that the only reason Hillary is so far out in front isn't because there's so little competition and nothing to do with how fired up people are about her?

Michael

I'm surprised that in 2012, Bernie was only ranked as the 32nd most liberal senator and Jim Webb was ranked 42nd according to the National Journal.

How Liberal Is Your Senator? — 2012 Vote Ratings - NationalJournal.com

And more surprisingly, the "American Conservative Union" ranks Bernie about the same with Warren more conservative.

The American Conservative Union Federal Legislative Ratings

zargof

Right. Around this time in the 2008 election cycle Hillary had a similar lead to the black guy and John Edwards' hair. Then it all went tits up when the debates started.

RoadWarriorFromLP

Trump's popularity within the GOP is a reflection of his Tea Party bona fides. But that wing of the party is only a minority of the total electorate and he would alienate swing voters, so he's a bad choice for the Republicans.

Hillary Clinton could actually win if the GOP fails to produce a charismatic opponent. So far, so good for the Democrats.

Giantaxe

Not really. She lost in the end, but it was a relatively close battle in terms of delegate count. It's certainly true though that she was the clear favourite before Iowa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillar..._and_primaries

I agonized over whether to vote for Clinton or Obama in the '08 primary. In the end I voted for Obama (he lost California as it turns out). In retrospect, I think Clinton as president now and Obama running in '16 (or '12!) would have been preferable.

I'll vote for Clinton if she is the nominee. She was a competent senator for NY and an excellent secretary of state, despite all the right-wing squealing about Benghazi!! etc.

zargof

Which part of my statement don't you agree with? It may have been close but she still lost after having a large lead in the polls.

Anyway, back then I preferred Clinton to Obama as I felt he was all hype and no substance, whereas Clinton would be able to get things done.

RoadWarriorFromLP

She could have lost the election in 2008. She has a better shot now with the swing voters -- she has made some progress in improving her likeability -- and I suspect that a Bernie Sanders faux-campaign will ultimately bring progressive votes to her when he and others like him start to campaign for her.

Giantaxe

I wouldn't call her campaign as having gone "tits up". She had one miserable debate performance, but then was excellent in the next. She won New Hampshire. There were several points in the campaign where she looked as though she could pull it off. The final delegate count was relatively close. Really, the tide only turned against her when Edwards pulled out of the race and endorsed Obama.

For me, a campaign going "tits up" would be something along the line of Perry's '12 run.

zargof

I guess we have different interpretations of "tits up" then. Considering Clinton went from inevitable to loser, I would class that as "tits up".

Giantaxe

I don't think she was "invitable" in '08 in the way she is being considered now. Leaving aside Obama, John Edwards had significant support. According to this "Towards the end of 2007, polls indicated Edwards as either tied for 1st or 2nd place".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E...pinion_polling

Really, it's Edwards' campaign that went "tits up" in '08, given his miserable performance in New Hampshire and several other states, plus his relatively early withdrawal.

Michael

I disagree. When Hillary presented her health care reform which took over 6 months to prepare in the 1990s, Ted Kennedy didn't even look at it and threw it in the garbage can.

Although the processes for Obamacare and the stimulus package were ugly, they were both passed into law. With all 60 democratic senators needed to pass both, one misstep or perceived interference by the White House could have killed both. There are very big egos in congress.

Also the guns were loaded and she was on the republican firing line when they thought Hillary would win the nomination so I doubt there would have been much difference but just a different target.

Leslie

Depends on what the meaning of the word 'tits up' is ....

zargof

If you look at the actual poll numbers, then at no point was John Edwards the front-runner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ial_candidates

Plus the press at the time saw Clinton as inevitable:

How Hillary Clinton turned an air of certainty into a losing run | US news | The Guardian

"It barely seems credible now but there was a time when it seemed the Democratic nomination was Hillary Clinton's for the taking. The air of certainty in January 2007 was convincing when Clinton declared from a sofa at her Washington home: "I'm in and I'm in to win.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/us...anted=all&_r=0

"Like Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama is also poised to make history. If successful in the primaries, he would be the first African-American to win the Democratic nomination. He is her only real rival at this point in drawing huge crowds of voters at political stops and in driving the 2008 political discussion in the media."

Anyway, I'm not sure where this is all going. It seems pointless arguing semantics over something that has little relevance now.

Leslie

Sometimes past is prologue.

It's either this or we can discuss how Donald Trump's mouth and anus are completely indiscernible from each other.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dona...dLjj86cOoYE%3D

Some of these pictures are of his mouth and some are of his anus. I bet none of you can tell the difference.

zargof

Healthcare is one thing, and it's a big issue I grant you, but it was done with zero Republican support. There has not been much else achieved during Obama's time in office, thanks mainly to Republican intransigence.

Whether or not Hillary Clinton could do better remains to be seen, we'll know more if she becomes President. But it's certainly true that Bill Clinton was able to make things happen even with a hostile Congress.