Love Her Or Hate Her, Hillary Has A Major Problem -- And So Do Lots Of Others

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,736
287
54
May 27th is the only day that matters. That's when Santorum announces. Only God knows what he'll announce, of course...
I laughed out loud at this.

I suspect with so many better-known names in the race that he won't run, particularly since he's now been out of office for nearly a decade and the voters retired him rather than him quitting.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,831
6,312
187
Greenbow, Alabama
I believe, and this totally my opinion, Bush, Paul or Rubio are the only Republican candidates that have a chance against her and that is slim at best.
 

Al A Bama

Hall of Fame
Jun 24, 2011
6,658
934
132
Hillary Clinton has a major problem. Her credibility is being impugned by not just the Fox network (expected), but the Washington Post and the NYT.

Her problem is that, while the Fox folks have always hated her, the Post and the NYT have ignored and/or made excuses for her for nearly 25 years.

Now, they're all investigating, the laundry list of documented corruption is getting longer than Pinochio's nose, and her side is deafeningly mute. They've impeached the character and integrity of the accusers, but have contested not one whit of the substance of the accusations.

So why is that a problem for others?

As for the Democrats, they've invested so much credibility in Hillary that any alternative looks like what it would be...a desperate search for anyone or thing other than Hillary. Who's the alternative? Elizabeth Warren? Imagine her facing off against Vladimir Putin, then dig your bomb shelter and save the last bullet for yourself.

As for the Republicans, it's trailing Hillary in spite of all this. In order to capitalize, you have to offer an alternative, and it's hard to say who that might be. I once thought it would be Paul Walker. I'm now thinking Rubio. But I'm not sure his playing both sides of several fences (immigration, abortion) can hold up.

Point being, if the Republicans can't beat a documented corrupt narcissist who has big questions around competency, what does that say about them?

It's hard not to think the apocalypse is upon us.
Deflect, lie, deceive and remain silent until most idiots in America forget or never knew at all. That's their calling card. People do have a tendency to have very very short memories. My memory is a lengthy one.

Most young Americans are uneducated. They are more concerned with the latest rock stars or movie stars or drugs or certain beverages or SEX. Ask them about the history of our country or anything about current political events or who's in office and they could not tell you. They don't have a clue and that is sad, so sad especially because people have shed their crimson blood defending the freedoms that we have.

I don't think FOXNews hates Hillary, they just try to hold her, et al accountable for their actions.

I thought the purpose of the news media: print/TV was to hold public officials accountable, but all other media sources seem to be brown nosers. You play with stink and you are going to get some on you, maybe lots of it.

Her credibility? What credibility? I don't trust anyone in that household. Seems they are all POWER Hungry!

We need media to hold ALL public officials accountable, no matter what party they represent. That really no longer exists in our country. If a Republican had done what she's done: her e-mail situation, etc. they would be burned at the stake.

If the Progressive media is trying to bring her down, they need to do a much, much better job. They're just going through the motions for a while. I'm sure they could easily fall in love with Senator Elizabeth Warren because she's supposedly farther to the left than Hillary. I don't think either one gives a rats behind about our country, they just want personal POWER!

I'd rather have the apocalypse upon us than to have her as the President of the country that I dearly love.

If it's not upon us, then I'd like to see some honesty and integrity in our public officials. We don't need CHARACTERS, we need people who possess CHARACTER!
 

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator
Staff member
Nov 8, 2004
9,626
13,045
237
Tuscaloosa
That is a problem, because the Republicans haven't really focused their attention on her yet. It's been mainly the press (I can't believe I just wrote those words).

Thing is, the Republicans have a 20-year history of circling up to form a firing squad.

Hillary is trying to give this thing away. We'll see if the Republicans take advantage of that, or once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,831
6,312
187
Greenbow, Alabama
Therein lies the problem. The Republicans haven't focused their attention on her because they have and will continue fighting each other to select a candidate until convention time next summer. Hillary can spend the next year campaigning and attacking the Republicans because she doesn't have to worry about any real challenge within her party. It won't take long before the media turns on the 10-12 Republican prospects and takes the pressure off Clinton.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,736
287
54
Therein lies the problem. The Republicans haven't focused their attention on her because they have and will continue fighting each other to select a candidate until convention time next summer. Hillary can spend the next year campaigning and attacking the Republicans because she doesn't have to worry about any real challenge within her party. It won't take long before the media turns on the 10-12 Republican prospects and takes the pressure off Clinton.
Unfortunately, this is spot-on accurate. If you'll look over the post-1968 period (well, starting that year actually), if one candidate has no competitive primary and the other does then ALMOST ALWAYS the one who had no primary wins the election. This is because the competitive primary usually leaves the survivor bruised and bloodied and exposed.

1972 - Nixon no primary, McGovern not nominated until Convention
1976 - Carter had primaries but not overly competitive after March, Ford nominated at Convention
1980 - competitive primaries on both sides, GOP settled earlier
1984 - Reagan no primary, Mondale nominated at Convention
1988 - Bush had relatively uncompetitive primary, Dukakis didn't clinch until June 7th with CA and NJ
1992 - Bush had uncompetitive primary (but bloodied by Buchanan), Clinton had slightly more competitive one
1996 - Clinton no primary, Dole a long primary season
2000 - Neither primary overly competitive after New Hampshire
2004 - Bush no primary, Kerry a hard grind at first and then cruised
2008 - both had bruising primary fights
2012 - Obama no primary, Romney the last man standing

The only real "exception to the rule" was Clinton in 1992, and he no doubt benefited from Buchanan exposing that Bush was not overly popular among the Republican base. (He also benefited from some of the most shameless media bias I've ever seen in my life but let's not take away the fact Clinton was probably the best CANDIDATE as far as looking like a guy running for President and knowing what to do - and Bush Sr, while in my view a pretty decent President and guy, was a terrible candidate).

This is part of why Hillary has a solid advantage. And while Obama is certainly too far left for my mind, I've never despised him (he's an empty suit but a likable one). I absolutely loathe Hillary and make no bones about it.
 

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator
Staff member
Nov 8, 2004
9,626
13,045
237
Tuscaloosa
Unfortunately, this is spot-on accurate. If you'll look over the post-1968 period (well, starting that year actually), if one candidate has no competitive primary and the other does then ALMOST ALWAYS the one who had no primary wins the election. This is because the competitive primary usually leaves the survivor bruised and bloodied and exposed.

1972 - Nixon no primary, McGovern not nominated until Convention
1976 - Carter had primaries but not overly competitive after March, Ford nominated at Convention
1980 - competitive primaries on both sides, GOP settled earlier
1984 - Reagan no primary, Mondale nominated at Convention
1988 - Bush had relatively uncompetitive primary, Dukakis didn't clinch until June 7th with CA and NJ
1992 - Bush had uncompetitive primary (but bloodied by Buchanan), Clinton had slightly more competitive one
1996 - Clinton no primary, Dole a long primary season
2000 - Neither primary overly competitive after New Hampshire
2004 - Bush no primary, Kerry a hard grind at first and then cruised
2008 - both had bruising primary fights
2012 - Obama no primary, Romney the last man standing

The only real "exception to the rule" was Clinton in 1992, and he no doubt benefited from Buchanan exposing that Bush was not overly popular among the Republican base. (He also benefited from some of the most shameless media bias I've ever seen in my life but let's not take away the fact Clinton was probably the best CANDIDATE as far as looking like a guy running for President and knowing what to do - and Bush Sr, while in my view a pretty decent President and guy, was a terrible candidate).

This is part of why Hillary has a solid advantage. And while Obama is certainly too far left for my mind, I've never despised him (he's an empty suit but a likable one). I absolutely loathe Hillary and make no bones about it.
I agree that Clinton was the exception. Disagree on the reason. Bush I wins in a runaway if Perot doesn't insist on tilting at windmills. Perot cost Bush a lot; Clinton almost nothing.

Even with the Perot sideshow, Clinton still got only 43% of the vote.

No win over Bush in '92, no Hillary today. Ross Perot got way more influence over a generation than he ever thought he would. Just not the right-tilting kind he expected.
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,831
6,312
187
Greenbow, Alabama
I don't think there is any question that Perot led to 41's re-election loss. You can count on the Republicans efforts to reclaim the WH to be derailed by Tea Partyers.
 

DzynKingRTR

TideFans Legend
Dec 17, 2003
42,411
29,733
287
Vinings, ga., usa
I don't think there is any question that Perot led to 41's re-election loss. You can count on the Republicans efforts to reclaim the WH to be derailed by Tea Partyers.
Perot definitely cost Bust the 92 election. Nader probably cost Gore the 200 election as well. The Tea Party just needs to go away, they are causing more harm than good. I am starting to think they are manufactured by the Dems.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.