You could be right, Archers, but I'd say that lock is overstating it. The fact is that she's still (just) odds against on the exchange, and you'd still imo be brave to back her. My take back in August was, roughly, that Obama has been an undistinguished president, and that any Democrat able to carry the vote after eight years of largely flatline economy, and in the face of a general rightward shift, would have to have outstanding personal characteristics. Don't see those in Hillary - in fact, rather the opposite; she carries a lot of historic anti-Clinton baggage, and I still think that great swathes of Middle America can't contemplate the idea of a woman in the White House. The original theory that any young(ish), energetic, well-presented and strongly-financed Republican would very probably win still holds water, though it's difficult to see one among the current crop of hopefuls. I'll just repeat that we're all just guessing at the moment, and it will probably be about next August before there are any signals clear enough to justify a bet (which is all I'm concerned with). Meantime, best guess is that events in the next few months will produce more negatives than positives for Obama and for the Democrats generally.
With GHWB being what 92 and in ill health now, Jeb Bush seems to be struggling without his father there to pull the strings of the powerful shadowy elite like he did for GWB.
I'm sure there are great swathes of middle America that can't contemplate a woman in the White House. They would probably be the same people who couldn't contemplate a black man in the White House. There's an equally significant demographic in the USA - a black and Hispanic population that probably can't contemplate voting for the candidate of a party whose rhetoric on the subject of immigration is pretty blatantly racist. The GoP seems to me to be in existential crisis; in order to address the extremist, tea party element of it's own base, the inflamatory rhetoric of Trump, Huckerbee and even Carson, is alienating a huge chunk of the wider electorate. The Republicans are becoming a toxic brand.
There probably are plenty of women that cannot think of a woman being Commander-in-Chief (and certainly a lot of men), but just like Labour are currently unelectable in the UK it seems that the Republicans are unelectable in America. The main problems for Mrs Clinton may be winning the Democrat nomination, escaping from the legacy of having been the First Lady to ‘im indoors; and the skeletons in the closet from when she was Obama’s Secretary of State. What she needs to do is tone down the “working class” rhetoric that alienates middle America voters.
Is Rubio really the way forward for the Republicans? I quit because I'm not a quitter? 40-1 Ben Carson? 12-1 Carson GOP Candidate?
Republicans should win this, but what a disorganised, different, and weird bunch they have on offer? They will quite regularly continue to shoot themselves in their respective feet. If a Democrat gets in, won't be because of his or her's pre-election brilliance, no way.
I think Hillary is finally starting to shine. Following a strong performance in the recent Democrat candidates debate, she bossed the Benghazi hearing, turning what was considered to be a minefield for her into a graveyard for the right wing conspiracy theorists desperate to discredit the current administration. Her association with Obama is looking more of an asset than a liability at the moment, and it can only benefit Hillary to run on the record of the incumbent Democrat. It's been said that, following the primaries, Republicans fall in line while Democrats fall in love. With no sign of the former happening, there'ssstill a chance the USA can fall in love with a Clinton for a second time.
What's gone wrong with Jeb's campaign Archer? I know that the cash is drying up, but why? You'd think the name would be worth gold.
All rather baffling mate; im not sure whether the Bush name is an asset, but family connections certainly should be. It's no surprise to see him polling low at this point as he's finding it hard to make himself heard above the noise currently being generated by the rabble rousing candidates. There's plenty of time for that to change, but not if the money dries up. Maybe the big party donors have decided Bush can't win, & even that the name is a liability. Americans spent over a decade watching their boys come home in bodybags, & for what? The British Labour party has reaped a whirlwind because of Tony Blairs support for GW Bush's war in Iraq, now maybe something similar is happening in the USA. The first Iraq war was short and sweet, and convinced America they could police the world. Iraq 2 proved they couldn't. Now the right is enamoured of a candidate who wants to build a giant wall to keep the world out. In the meantime, Bin Laden was caught on a Democrat president's watch. Not that foreign policy is necessarily much of a factor in US elections. But it is a Commander in Chief they electorate will eventually be asked to choose. In that context, the name Bush doesn't look too appealing. Maybe.
Jeb Bush helped his brother get the job when he was Governor of Florida, but he has no siblings in positions of authority to give him a hand. It is hard to see US foreign policy being a factor in the election – remember “it’s the economy stupid” is the mantra – as they do appear to have become much more isolationist during the Obama Presidency.
My knowledge of US politics stems purely from obsessive watching of The West Wing, so I might be talking utter rubbish! As far as Trump goes, if he wins the Republican nomination (and I'm not convinced even Republicans are THAT stupid) then the election is sewn up for the Democrats. Trump has alienated women and Latinos (among many, many others) - two of the most influential voter groups in the USA - and he cannot win without them. If he doesn't win the nomination and, as threatened, runs as a third party candidate then once again the country will go with the Democrats as he will split the Republican vote. I know Hillary is not popular among many Americans after her stint as SOS, but it may just be that she's the lesser of two evils for a lot of people. Of course this assumes she wins the Democratic nomination. All that being said, it just goes to show that American politics vastly favours the rich candidates. At least over here it doesn't cost you tens of millions to get elected as Leader of your party and once elected you have the funding of the party behind you. Under the American system you have to personally finance your nomination campaign, or at least find yourself wealthy donors who you end up beholden to, and then quite often pump your own money into your Presidential campaign.
F..k me just discovered this latest 'Trumpism'. A recent tweet from 'The Donald' unbelievably states: "My grandparents didn't come to America all the way from Germany to see it get taken over by immigrants. Not on my watch." Does this man not realise the nonsense that escapes from his gob or he produces on social media!!
Problem is Bayern you do not know what he has actually said until you see him say it. Trump has many quotes attributed to him lately by the mainstream media and he did not actually say the printed quote. Ahmedinjhad or however you spell it the leader of Iran a few years back was constantly quoted as saying he would like "Israel wiped off the map" and he never ever said those words. I have noticed a lotof this happening with Trump. Obvious the tweets are different all together if he is tweeting them directly.
Looks like this sixty one year old fool has been duped by a dodgy Twitter account. My inexperience of such underhand behaviour is no excuse for wishful thinking that 'constructed' quotes from the 'dolt across the waves' may be true. I have a lot to learn about social media! Ho-hum. Possibly should stick to the 'cuddies'.
I went to see Roddy Frame in conceret last night. He said one of his songs was written when he was in love with a Swedish Muslim girl. He said "I won't go into any details but I guarantee Donald Trump would let her in"
It is getting around to pantomime season and it would appear that the two dames are going to be Donald J Trump and Sheikh Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. The Saudi Sheikh criticises Trump’s call to ban Muslims from America as being “disgrace to America”. This does seem to be a bit rich from a man whose country has only just allowed women a very limited say in its less than democratic process, although they will presumably have to walk to the polls and they are not allowed to canvas votes from the male half of the population. A strange brand of hypocrisy from an Arab who is considered moderate, Westernised and a supporter of women’s rights. Why does he not have a few words with his uncle, the ruler? For Trump to retort that the Sheikh is “dopey” beggars the question about which of the seven dwarfs best represents his loony right opinions.
