Fucking Keynesian! Should be shot like the rest of em

I think she runs a larger risk of being a one-term president and not winning reelection than perhaps the average incumbent.

I still think her odds of winning this election are quite good, and her odds of winning reelection would also be more than 50% because historically speaking, incumbents have had the advantage, but perhaps that advantage will be lower than average. It's also worth noting that Democrats have better General Election/National politics appeal right now, so she also has that going for her. Hispanics and Blacks are solidly in the Dems' favor.

But her favorability ratings are awful. Historically bad for a major party nominee, only bested (worsted) by Donald Trump, in modern times at least (1972 to present). So even if she wins this election, she will have a lot of work to do in order for the public to like her or trust her, and that's not just among Republicans but also with Liberal Democrats. She's no Obama.

I also think that she is going to be surrounded by a lot of controversy during her presidency. She has a lot of political baggage, and also Republicans will do their best to stir up new scandals. So some if it is self-inflicted and some of it is just nonsense by Republicans, but it will be there.

A lot of Americans are really unhappy with these two choices for president, so the next opportunity for someone else might be really tempting. If the GOP had nominated someone like Kasich this cycle, he would have had a really decent shot at beating Hilldawg. If someone like Kasich or Ryan is the 2020 GOP nominee, I think they would have a greater than average chance (historically speaking) of beating the incumbent, but probably still lower than 50%. I'd say about 40%.

But really, that's just guesswork. It mostly depends on how her 4 years as President go.

Republicans have to do a lot more than "get it together" to win a national election.

Meh. The electorate has a pretty short memory, honestly. Give it four years of increasingly loud screams from all manner of media that Hillary is the devil and never did nothin good for nobody and there's definitely a chance.

Of course, my dream is still that the Libertarians become a thing, but I'm pretty sure it remains just that.

I's wager she'd face better odds of losing a primary challenge than from Team Elephant. Demographics are making the existing GOP entirely uncompetitive in the electoral college.

I've already answered this; it's not that it has no effect, but the competition helps to create an equilibrium. $200 from an administrative assistant would be the same whether the assistant works in the financial services industry or whether he/she works in hotels. Some electeds are better at fundraising from different industries because they're based in different states; North Dakota and Texas have energy, California has technology, New York and New Jersey has financial services. Too often people misunderstand who the donations are coming from anyway and they lump everybody together, especially people in the financial services industry. We can't just ban people from making political donations.



Short answer: they'll be fine; we're right in the middle of the "two electorates" pattern so the low turnout of the 2018 midterm will help them, and their nominee in 2020 can't possibly be worse than their 2016 nominee.

Long answer: so much of it depends on this year, and since it isn't over we have to wait. One of the problems they've had is that they never actually learn the real lesson of each cycle. I think they'll start learning this year no matter how it goes, but if they make the same mistake it could hurt them. The Democrats are working very hard to try to build a blue wave right now because they know it'll be harder to turn out voters in 2018. That Senate map consists overwhelmingly of red states. The Democrats are expanding into so many Republican House seats this year and can't get money and staff into them fast enough because they know that if Trump falls apart they could blow the GOP right off the field.

Wall street, banks, and corporations donating to both sides doesn't create an equilibrium. It's hedging their bets.

When Goldman Sachs gives money to both Hillary and Jeb Bush, for instance, they are essentially betting on one of those two winning the presidency so that either way, they can get whatever it is that they want.

I agree that we can't just ban people from making political donations, but overturning Citizens United would be a good thing. You agree with that, but then go on to say that political donations don't affect politicians' behaviors presumably because that would implicate HRC.

I didn't say that it didn't affect their behavior, I said that the mere fact that they were receiving donations was not enough to cause an elected to deviate from a widely-shared, long-held platform. The two obvious reasons being: 1) they're sharing that position with many other electeds who they work closely with on many things, and 2) they've held that position over a long period of time. The donation is not going to determine how the elected votes or how they do this or when they do that.

The equilibrium is created by all different employees of all different companies of all different industries donating at the same time. It's not as if political donations are only made by one industry, or only one industry at a time, or that one industry is so powerful that their money just outweighs all the money that other candidates could receive from other sources. If one corporation chooses to donate money to two candidates or two parties that are diametrically opposed to one another to try to demonstrates bipartisanship or nonpartisanship then that just further dilutes the influence it has, because those two sums of money will be pitted against one another.

People will start to warm up to HRC after she curbstomps Trump in a few debates. He isn't going to be able to do the palsy-twitch and make a bunch of rednecks laugh, this is a national audience and smart people will be watching Donald this time.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jul 21 2016 05:26pm

Ok jay what % do you give Trump. 0% not being acceptable as an answer. He has a chance however slim it is.