Skip to main content

View Diary: Hillary 2016 Continued LOL (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I understand your points but..... (0+ / 0-)

    I'd like to win the next election and the subsequent re-election by more than 3%.  That would give us the mandate we need to move the country back to the center.
    Clinton and Reagan were able to move on legislation in part because they won re-election by a huge margin.  

    Right now the Republicans dont feel there is a mandate because they still control the house by a wide margin, only lost the popular vote by 3%, and control the majority of governorships throughout the country.

    Plus Republicans have had big victories against the left in Wisconsin, NJ, and Mich with collective bargaining.

    Sorry but we need a candiate who can win back some southern and white mid-western voters to give us a larger win next time.

    The F-in Republicans had huge wins with Regan, Nixon, and Eisenhower.  We have never had a double digit win!  if we did we could get anything done!  We should promote a candiate who can win 55% of the popular vote. To me its an attractive swing candidate like Webb.

    For those who think he's too conservative. He is on some issues like women in the military.  But big picture he gets it.  He's for a pragmatic foreign policy where we don't send soliders to die in pointless wars because he's been there.  Wish I could say the same for Hillary.  Hes for raising taxes on the wealthy like cap gains, which would be more effective and raise more money than income taxes IMO.  Just look at Romney's return for example. Raising the income tax rate will do nothing to raise revenue from guys like him.  Raising the cap gains rate and capping deductions will.  He's also for women's rights (Roe v Wade).  Hes for expansion of healthcare coverage.  He would stand for basically 90% of what we want.

    •  Correction (0+ / 0-)

      We haven't had a double digit win since FDR.  Long time.

      •  LBJ had a double-digit win---rather important (0+ / 0-)

        to the overall point I was making.

        As far as the size of the win, that's honestly irrelevant. All that matters is the coattails---Nixon's and Reagan's wins never flipped both houses, so they were empty calories. Obama's win didn't either, but it doesn't take a large one to flip control of the chambers anyway. Power flows through Congress, not margins of Presidential victories. Furthermore, given the racial animus in some sections of white voters---something that no longer needs to be ignored, since we no longer need them to win--the opportunity cost of gaining them back makes the endeavor pointless.

        What I'm really getting at here is that running somebody like O'Malley or Clinton isn't going to get some of those voters back, because they didn't really ditch Democrats for the superficial reasons you may think. If you seriously pursue such voting blocs, you'll find that they want more than a candidate with the right skin tone. Believe me when I say this. They pay attention to the color of the policies, so to speak, and arguing otherwise is as stupid as when Republicans claim blacks vote for Obama because he's black. African Americans shifted from Republican to Democratic during the New Deal, but was it because FDR was a brotha'? Whites shfited Republican during the Great Society and civil rights breakthroughs, but was it because LBJ and HHH were too dark?

        I mean, what we're talking about at this point with this maker/taker bullshit would be surrendering key liberal principles just to make our electoral college/popular vote schlong look as big as Reagan's. What the hell for? It may have been justified by the demographic math a couple of decades ago, but not now. We've made a political breakthrough of an epochal scale that cuts right to the core of a regional/racial animus that has existed since Reconstruction. Not exploiting the advantage because some voters in the Midwest got their fee fees hurt and reduced our margins is myopic and inane. We're in the driver's seat now, and it's time to throw it in D and punch the gas.

        Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism.

        by Zutroy on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 05:07:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  So we get a few more white male votes (0+ / 0-)

      while we lose the votes of women and nonwhites who don't bother to show up to vote for the candidate we have running on the Democratic ticket who clearly has no appreciation of issues of concern to women or nonwhite voters.

      No thanks.

    •  Good grief (0+ / 0-)

      You're saying that someone who supports Roe vs. Wade is automatically pro-women's rights? That we should be content because a random dude agrees that we are human beings and should be able to exercise a modicum of bodily autonomy? That we should settle for overprivileged politicians who don't know or care about the myriad other problems institunionalized misogyny has done to women and to the nation in general? Or are you one of those who think abortion is the only issue out there for women because absolute gender equality has already been achieved or something? Yes, it wasn't the main point of your post but gender inequality should not just be brushed aside like it's a one-issue problem.

      Women's rights should concern everyone and the hurdles to be overcome are still enormous. The rights women are fighting for are social issues but they are also absolutely vital economic issues. It's the epitome of irony that Americans call their country enlightened, civilized, a model for the world - or ever better, "the free world" or "the greatest nation in the history of the world" - when it refuses to grant 51% of its citizens many, many basic human rights.

      THIS is what our next candidate should aware of as well. But that Webb guy seems more preoccupied with horny (read: slutty slut) women distracting all those selfless, great, heroic soldiers from performing their duty. The fact that many of these selfless heroes are women has probably escaped him - ditto with the fact that the rates of rape and continual sexual assault (perpetrated by men, of course) are sky-high in the US military and that female soldiers who are victim of rape routinely get told just to "get over it" because none of those rapists will ever get so much as a reprimand, let alone face any sort of criminal prosecution.

      But if you tell Webb that I'm sure he'll twist that into another "argument" for not letting women join the forces: "These women wouldn't have been raped if they hadn't invaded the traditionally male territory of war because everybody knows guys can't keep it in their pants when they come across a lot of seductive women - you know, human nature! - so let the boys do their jobs with as few distractions as possible. Women are not fit for battle anyway. So this is really a win-win for men and women!"

      Is that what you want the next Democratic President to be like?

    •  republicans don't recognize the legitimacy of dems (0+ / 0-)

      no matter what their election margins are. obama could have won all 50 states, and the GOP would consider him illegitimate. obama's reelection was by a big margin, and it's still growing as we count.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site