Why Hillary's Not Predestined for President

While it seems I’m opposing the thought of many others, it’s not that I don’t think Hillary Clinton can win, I just don’t think she’ll come up with more than 50% and win. And I wonder how others are believing she’s a guarantee. There’s a reason why Hillary’s name is at the top of the board and it’s because of the left of center journalists, media, fuel the bias in crowds which is obviously deceiving.

So while others explain why Hillary is a shoo-in and will win presidency, I’ll tell you why I think she won’t.

For starters, her youth has escaped her (how is that for P.C.?). She lost to Obama in 2008 and if she's elected, she'll be nearly 69 when she moves into the White House. It doesn't matter if it's fair to argue her age is a hindrance, it's a fact of the matter. When she's going up against a younger and energetic opponent, it's going to be a factor.

The "Democratic Majority" is smoke and mirrors because these coalitions are not permanent, and while the Democratic Party has built alliance with minorities, college students, and employed single women and moms, nothing lasts forever. For example, the Latin vote would likely sway toward Gov. Jeb Bush if he were the primary. You think the 2014 elections were a fluke? Let's be real about this "Democratic Majority." Again, the sources of these polls and information are mostly from liberal-journalists, professors, and media.

Clinton will likely rock the women vote, but so did Obama. It's even questionable that she'll do better than Obama's number with women because she doesn't have the same rapport and affability he does. You also have to remember her husband's infidelity in the White House and how other women can perceive the "sweeping under the rug" as weakness. It's the same factor as her age. It may be nothing, but when it comes down to it, it's still a factor. And since we're on the topic of voting demographics, it's highly doubtful that Hillary will have the numbers for black votes as Obama did. These are demographics and voting numbers she needs to be a shoo-in, and it's definitely not a guarantee.

Hillary has A LOT of baggage. Not just from these most recent years like her current email scandal, and running for president after saying "What difference does it make?" in regards to the Benghazi attacks, but her history in politics is long and her baggage is heavy. It's all going to come back and haunt her, that's inevitable.

Obama's approval ratings are not going to make it easy for her either, unless that changes in the next year and a half. When approval ratings are low voters usually want a change.

In general, Hillary's just not an optimal candidate. We've seen her here before and she's never won a big yet, aside from in New York where the blue blood runs deep. When Obama first ran for president, he was one charismatic S.O.B, and people listened. Hillary doesn't have that same warm and inspiring voice. Kind of like Mitt Romney.

For all of the people who think Hillary's election is guaranteed may be really surprised. Coming up with more than 50% is going to prove difficult.

Posted by bigtex at May 5, 2015 7:33 PM
Comments
Comment #391676

Age is a factor for Hillary. If she stays healthy she will do just fine. There is no reason to suspect she will not stay healthy. With that age comes experience no other candidate in the field can match. It’s not media bias or whatever. She has experience as a lawyer, First Lady for AK, for the country, Senator, and Secretary of State. Her husband ran a successful presidency and is well liked by voters- much better than Bush #43.

Coalitions are not permanent, of course. But there is every reason to believe the coalition that brought Obama into the White House with over 50% of the vote- twice- will not be there for Hillary too; in fact, it will be even stronger. Given what has transpired over the past few years, women, the young, blacks, Hispanics, the LGBT community, and other minorities such as Asians will likely vote in the same numbers for Hillary as they did for Obama. Remember, Hillary ran for the nomination in 2008 and she did very well. Just not quite good enough. And this time Obama will be pulling for her!

Obama’s approval ratings are better than Congressional Democrats, and Obama’s and Congressional Democrats approval ratings are higher than Republicans. It requires ignoring a whole lot of polls to believe there is a wind at the back of a GOP nominee.

There’s really only one hope for the GOP, and that was identified in the 2012 election post-mortem by the RNC. The GOP must crack the coalition, and the only way to do that is through Latinas. That will be extraordinarily difficult for the GOP, given their past stands on immigration.

Jeb Bush is the only one who stands a chance of doing that, but I doubt he will make it out of the primaries. He has the money. That counts for a lot! But in a comparison of Bush v Clinton, it will be virtually impossible to convince people they were better off under Bush. Too many people have too many bad memories of 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, Terry Schiavo, and the economic crash, and that is why Bush #43 left office with the lowest approval ratings in history.

Posted by: phx8 at April 23, 2015 9:52 PM
Comment #391779

bigtex,

I’m with you. I don’t think Clinton will win. The same issues that caused her to lose the ‘08 election to Obama will manifest again. However, if someone else (*cough* Martin O’Malley *cough*) wins the democratic nomination, I don’t think anyone on the GOP stands a chance of winning.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 24, 2015 10:04 AM
Comment #391804

WP,
I’d like to see O’Malley do well. His politics are more in line with my own, but at this point, most people- including me- do not know much about him. He will have one huge advantage, in that it looks like he will be the only viable alternative to Hillary.

Still, Hillary has the resume, the basic competence, a better organization, and the money. O’Malley might be running for VP. Mayor Castro in San Antonio will also have a shot at VP.

Two major issues caused Hillary to lose in 2008: 1) She voted for the Iraq War and she wanted to keep troops in Iraq. She has consistently been more hawkish than a lot of Democrats, and 2) her campaign organization was not very good. Of course, you could argue that it was good enough, and they went with the conventional approach to winning primaries. It was just that Obama was a superb organizer and motivator and strategist, and the better organizer won. His campaign took an unconventional approach.

Hillary might have taken things for granted. I am sure she will not make the same mistake twice, and the odds of another extraordinary politician like Obama showing up at negligible.

Posted by: phx8 at April 24, 2015 11:59 AM
Comment #391808

Hillary Clinton could be our next president. I don’t think this posting does much to dispel that notion, the key word being “could”.

I like how media/pundits are referring to her “baggage”. I am already getting tired of hearing about it. This connotation in regards to describing her seems to me to be a bit sexist. I don’t recall any presidential candidates that have been referred to in this method to the degree that she has been. I haven’t yet in my 50+ years of observation of political campaigns seen the reference quite as much as I have directed towards Hillary but maybe that is because there hasn’t been a candidate like her in that time frame. I don’t believe that there has ever been a candidate that hasn’t brought “baggage” to a campaign.

As far as age is concerned I’ll quote a hero of the right who said “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience”. Ronald Reagan said this at age 73 so unless we’re going sexist again, I don’t see any problem with her being 69 if she becomes President.

I hate to dispel Warren and this posting author’s predictions but I can’t see anyway she will lose the Democratic nomination unless she really gets in the way of her own ambition. With that said I hope to see a contested primary and not a coronation. I don’t see any primary participant that is really challenging her positions yet but that is why I have great anticipation for the primary process for both parties.

Posted by: Speak4all at April 24, 2015 12:21 PM
Comment #391829

Sorry Tex, but I disagree.

As long as Hillary spouts the 1% BS, is pro-abortion, now supports gay-marriage, pretends that she supports the redistribution of wealth and doesn’t believe America is exceptional, she will get the votes of liberals and the uninformed.

Her age, hypocrisy, ‘scandals’ and lack of integrity mean nothing.

Posted by: kctim at April 24, 2015 2:23 PM
Comment #391889
Still, Hillary has the resume, the basic competence, a better organization, and the money. O’Malley might be running for VP. Mayor Castro in San Antonio will also have a shot at VP.

Two major issues caused Hillary to lose in 2008: 1) She voted for the Iraq War and she wanted to keep troops in Iraq. She has consistently been more hawkish than a lot of Democrats, and 2) her campaign organization was not very good. Of course, you could argue that it was good enough, and they went with the conventional approach to winning primaries. It was just that Obama was a superb organizer and motivator and strategist, and the better organizer won. His campaign took an unconventional approach.

My observation is that these things are only superficial reasons for the failure of Hillary in ‘08. The underlying issue is her arrogance. In particular, the Clintons don’t believe they need to follow the same rules as everyone else. The reason the ‘08 campaign organization was mediocre is because Clinton didn’t think she needed a good organization to win, she thought she was special. This has manifest itself again with the recent miniature scandals. Contributions to the Clinton Foundation, conducting government business on private email servers and even patently false claims of poverty are all quite benign on their own. However, as a trend they add up to something significant in my mind. It would be possible to be more forgiving if she were an up and coming young pol, but that isn’t who she is. If she wants to be the 2nd oldest person to be elected President, she better start acting like she is 69 rather than 39.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 24, 2015 9:23 PM
Comment #392070

Right on Warren. There is much more to be disclosed regarding Hillary Clinton that isn’t going to be flattering. We already know of all the “good” things about her.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 25, 2015 3:25 PM
Comment #406682

The future is hard to predict , hoping the future will be better for America

Posted by: Tham at August 7, 2016 9:31 AM
Comment #409454

If i summrize the whole article then in the article you told Hillary not deserve for the President of America. I don’t know your points or logics meet the facts or not. Here i must say that if we follow your logic then Trump is also not deserve for it.

Posted by: bestessay uk at November 4, 2016 6:25 AM
Post a comment