Hillary Clinton 2016 - Eeeks!

LOL. Its comedy watching you answer your own question and then argue against the answer you yourself have been forced to provide. More entertaining than a cripple fight.

Everyone else is aware of your non-fact? How long have you felt that you speak for everyone else? Still waiting on those links. Still waiting for you to digest and comprehend the commonly understood definition of "dirt".

I have the capacity to waste your time for you? Sign me up for another 10 years!

Then do it! LOL

Wow. Lets revisit your claim. You said, and I quote: " Less anyone forget, Obama won 2012 in a landslide. He became the firstincumbent since Roosevelt to secure more than 50 percent of the popular votes as he swept eight of the nine swing states".

Its a pretty breath taking quote. Something no incumbent has done since FDR? Really? It would be a lot more impressive if George W. Bush hadn't done it just 11 years ago. Seriously. It would have been a HELL OF A LOT more impressive if Reagan hadn't got 58% of the popular vote in 1984, winning the popular vote in 49 states. It would have been MUCH more impressive if Eisenhower hadn't done it in 1956 with 57% of the popular vote and 41 states. Just because the Democrats are so despised in the Oval office as to not be able to pull it off since FDR really doesn't tell us much, does it, other than the fact Americans generally hate the Democratic party brand and Democratic presidential leadership.

I do appreciate the correction though. It really does put a punctuation on the quality of the argument you are bringing to the table here.

Anyway, all of this US presidential electoral history does drive home one important fact. Losing as an incumbent is rare, unless there is a third party candidate. Winning as a candidate from the previous incumbents party is even more rare, regardless of what party you hail from. It takes an exceptionally popular incumbent, or an exceptionally popular candidate. With Hillary and Obama, you have neither.

 

As entertaining as this debate is, I would like to add some firewood to the flame:

1) US is not the only country in the world and you are not two spheric horses in vacuum (ideal objects that do not interact with any other objects)
2) Americans have to realize nobody outside of the US gives a single f1ck on what Romney or Obama said. Like, really.
3) US have to deal with three major crisises worldwide though:
a) China gets 80% of its electrical power from 50-years-old coal-fed Soviet power plants and around 60% of its factories are located in the northern part of the country. Air pollution there is so dense that air in Beijing is brown, usual weather is smog, people have to wear respirators and brown dust covers everything. Equipment is old and crashes oftenly, so it has to be replaced soon. China will have to destroy 90% of its facilities and revuild them to use shale gas or LNG as a fuel, which will bring its economy to a stall. Combined with the fact that Australia, Southern Africa and Russia get a huge cut of their income selling coal to China - this will result in a huge economical crisis in Asia in the next 4-7 years.
b) ISIL terrorists spread like cancer and while EU and US sign resolutions and gather for consultations, terrorists destroy 3,000-years-old statues in museums, slaughter people and cut off heads of American journalists. The only solution to terrorist threat is the same that works for cancer - chemotherapy, killing each and every of the infected sells. However, while world leaders are too afraid to kill 140 000 of armed jihadists, they kill people daily and grow in numbers. Muslims in EU raise heads and start calling for Islamic republics in Europe. European tolerance may lead to ultimate failure of European civilization - and its politicians struggle with each other insteadd of answering the outer threats.
c) Russian diktator Putin continues his bravado with nuclear missiles and lies about abscence of Russian troops in Ukraine. If this crisis is not solved efficiently - EU will simply fall and Scotland demands referendum on quitting EU already.

Without strong and wholehearted US president to lead the world's most influential power and economy through these three crisises - we may as well be doomed. Your squarrels will mean little if Russian nukes hit.

Therefore, candidates should not be reviewed according to their actions on domestic affairs, but according to their actions on international arena. Hillary demanded to give Javelins to the Ukrainian army, because US signed the Budapest memorandum of 1994 and promised to protect Ukraine from any threat. Therefore, if Russia invades Ukraine, US will have to retalliate and Democrats will lose not because of dirt on Hillary or any other candidate, but because Democrats shown themselves as cowards. That is why Hillary demands to give these Javelins to Ukraine to protect it.

The question is - why does Obama hesitate? Obama chews his balls and refuses to sign the Support Ukraine Act - he wants to remain a president of peace till the end of his term.

When considering your next president you should not analyse 150 years-old trends. You should consider pressing matters at hand and what do candidates say - and do - about these matters. Lesbian and gay rights are not pressing. ISIL terrorists, China ecological catastrophe and Russian-Ukrainian war - are pressing.

 

@HostZealot: Can't disagree with a word you wrote, though I would say that trying to apply logic to the way American people vote is a mistake. We often tend to humanize the voting population, treating it as an individual that makes logic based decisions, but I see no evidence of that. While I may individually consider every single one of your points to be valid, looking at 250 years of electoral history leads me to far more favor the "whose turn is it" logic of the voting population, playing second fiddle only to the "can I vote for the incumbent" rule.

Its sad. I would have far preferred voters kicked Obama to the curb like they did Carter, but people weren't sitting in lines for hours to fill their cars up with gas like they did under Carter.

I fear that you,I, and anyone else can debate for hours the merit of one candidate vs another, but generally speaking, you can predict to a VERY high degree of accuracy the outcome of any presidential election by following these simple rules:
Is the incumbent running?
Is there a third party candidate running?

if yes, the non-incumbent (not third party) will win.
if no, the incumbent will win, unless the incumbent's popularity is under 35% (Carter's was at 28%)​

If there is no incumbent running, you can count on the candidate who isn't from the incumbent's party from winning, with rare exceptions, the conditions of which I have yet to establish with consistency, though in the case of H.W. Bush, he followed a president who had just carried 49 states in his reelection bid.

I fear there is little more to it than that. These trends have proven to be accurate throughout our electoral history, through wave after wave of immigration, from divisive issue to divisive issue. These trends have even superseded dramatic modifications to our voting process, which means they will likely supercede future modifications to our voting process, so long as we stick with one person, one non-transferable vote. (The City of Los Angeles is considering paying people to vote).

 

Actually a solution is much more simple - restrict people on retirement to vote, be elected or run any office. You have 45 years of your life to make 11 important decisions and your retirement will entirely rely on the choices you made. You believed to a populist who promised to raise minimal wage (without actually checking if the worker deserves it by their skills or dedication)? face the results of all commodities\services becoming more expensive and your wallet becoming thinner.

You believed that gay marriage is no harm? Face the country in 40 years, controlled by strong armed groups of emigrants, whose culture prohibits gay marriages. You thought spending $1, 000, 000 a year on anti-missile defence is a waste of money? How does that nuclear ash taste on your lips, honey?

I am no racist and I cannot predict future, but year after year I see how retired people who do not earn money any more dictate their will through elections. Populists, who promise splendid results fast win their hearts (because they want good things now, while they are still alive). And middle class suffers more and more, losing their tough-earned money to pay for idiotic dreams of those, who will not pay for realisation of their ideas.

However, this would deny the basic principles of democracy and bla bla bla. That is why economy is stalling and world is in flawed circle of permanent crisis - new faces, new promises, same corruption and procrastination, growing inner and outer debt and inevitable crisis with millions left to starve.

 

Oh my goodness. It's like arguing with a 5-year-old.

You started by saying

Then you doubled down.

The fact that you asked such a question, and even brought the subject up is laughable enough, but after I gave you ten links that even teenagers would know, you conceded the point.

But in your very next quote, you are asking for the links again? You couldn't make this up!
Oh, I've dealt with a lot of morons online before, but no one has ever come close to your level of dishonesty and ignorance.

This is true. So were you lying when you said the below, or just ignorant? Nevermind. I know your shiftiness by now. You're just going to lie again.

I'm bored. It's okay to be a conservative right wing. It is however, not okay to lie, fudge facts and make things up as you go along.

 

Equatorial, I was alerted that you quoted my post but I see no quote. Did you remove it?

 

In Equatorial's last post, he apparently realized that he should stop lying, fudging facts and making things up as he goes along. I'm sure that's why he stopped posting in here, even deleting his response back to you. I think he's finally seen the error of his ways.