Is Hillary the Democratic version of Mitt Romney?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:16:17 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Is Hillary the Democratic version of Mitt Romney?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Is Hillary the Democratic version of Mitt Romney?  (Read 3419 times)
Col. Roosevelt
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 252
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 05, 2015, 10:04:57 PM »
« edited: October 05, 2015, 10:07:29 PM by Col. Roosevelt »

As a Democrat who honestly feels Biden is our only hope, I see her as such.

Both aren't very exciting candidates, both are/were greatly disliked by their parties base, both lack any genuine charisma or charm; both exude(d) a sense of entitlement to the Presidency; Both seem(ed) insincere and false; Both IMO would lead to low turn out on election day - I think many people who now support Bernie would just sit home on election day if Hillary was the nominee, while the GOP voters would come out in droves out of pure Clinton hatred - Both are seen as devious and scandal ridden (Remember Romney's tax issues during the 2012 race?)

Mind you - I love Bill Clinton. I wish he could run for a third term. But Hillary is the epitome of a corrupt, cynical, phony politician and just a genuinely unlikable person.
Logged
Abraham Reagan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 404
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 2.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2015, 10:11:16 PM »
« Edited: October 05, 2015, 10:13:59 PM by Abraham Reagan »

As a Democrat who honestly feels Biden is our only hope, I see her as such.

Both aren't very exciting candidates, both are/were greatly disliked by their parties base, both lack any genuine charisma or charm; both exude(d) a sense of entitlement to the Presidency; Both seem(ed) insincere and false; Both IMO would lead to low turn out on election day - I think many people who now support Bernie would just sit home on election day if Hillary was the nominee, while the GOP voters would come out in droves out of pure Clinton hatred - Both are seen as devious and scandal ridden (Remember Romney's tax issues during the 2012 race?)



I feel they are both similar in that they have a hard time letting their true selves be seen by supporters due to  campaign advisers cropping them to try to be the perfect candidate. Also like Mitt Romney, I feel a level of sympathy for Clinton, given that she is being trashed on a very personal and often inappropriate level.

Also, as the forums official Mitt Romney apologist, those tax issues in 2012 really had nothing to do with Mitt, but rather people not understanding the nature of capital gains taxes.

Logged
Donald Trump 2016 !
captainkangaroo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2015, 10:12:31 PM »

Yes. Democrats would be much better off nominating Biden and possibly Sanders over her. I've never met a Clinton or Jeb supporter in real life. These two perfectly encompass the voter mentality of "I'll vote for them because they'll ultimately be the lesser of two evils in the GE against the opposition Party."

Elizabeth Warren should have ran.  
Logged
ObamaThirdTerm
Rookie
**
Posts: 48


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2015, 10:21:24 PM »

Biden makes a great candidate when he's not on the campaign trail running his mouth.
Logged
Col. Roosevelt
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 252
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2015, 10:23:48 PM »

Biden makes a great candidate when he's not on the campaign trail running his mouth.

Biden would be the Harry Truman of our time.
Logged
Donald Trump 2016 !
captainkangaroo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 835


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2015, 10:26:35 PM »

Biden makes a great candidate when he's not on the campaign trail running his mouth.

Being a gaffe prone big mouth wouldn't necessarily hurt his numbers. It might even help him.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2015, 10:31:58 PM »

As a Democrat who honestly feels Biden is our only hope, I see her as such.

Both aren't very exciting candidates, both are/were greatly disliked by their parties base, both lack any genuine charisma or charm; both exude(d) a sense of entitlement to the Presidency; Both seem(ed) insincere and false; Both IMO would lead to low turn out on election day - I think many people who now support Bernie would just sit home on election day if Hillary was the nominee, while the GOP voters would come out in droves out of pure Clinton hatred - Both are seen as devious and scandal ridden (Remember Romney's tax issues during the 2012 race?)



I feel they are both similar in that they have a hard time letting their true selves be seen by supporters due to  campaign advisers cropping them to try to be the perfect candidate. Also like Mitt Romney, I feel a level of sympathy for Clinton, given that she is being trashed on a very personal and often inappropriate level.

Also, as the forums official Mitt Romney apologist, those tax issues in 2012 really had nothing to do with Mitt, but rather people not understanding the nature of capital gains taxes.



Oh, please. Do I need to remind you that Romney had offshore accounts in the Swiss and Cayman Islands for the sole purpose of lowering his overall tax rate? Do I need to remind you that Romney said he wouldn't be qualified to be president if he paid more taxes than were legally due, but then voluntarily refused to take half of his charitable deductions to artificially inflate his tax rate to make it "look better" to americans? The tax issue was bigger than the public not understanding how capital gains work.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2015, 10:36:53 PM »

She certainly doesn't have her husband's charisma that he used to mask his lousy politics.
Logged
Abraham Reagan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 404
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 2.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2015, 10:44:35 PM »

As a Democrat who honestly feels Biden is our only hope, I see her as such.

Both aren't very exciting candidates, both are/were greatly disliked by their parties base, both lack any genuine charisma or charm; both exude(d) a sense of entitlement to the Presidency; Both seem(ed) insincere and false; Both IMO would lead to low turn out on election day - I think many people who now support Bernie would just sit home on election day if Hillary was the nominee, while the GOP voters would come out in droves out of pure Clinton hatred - Both are seen as devious and scandal ridden (Remember Romney's tax issues during the 2012 race?)



I feel they are both similar in that they have a hard time letting their true selves be seen by supporters due to  campaign advisers cropping them to try to be the perfect candidate. Also like Mitt Romney, I feel a level of sympathy for Clinton, given that she is being trashed on a very personal and often inappropriate level.

Also, as the forums official Mitt Romney apologist, those tax issues in 2012 really had nothing to do with Mitt, but rather people not understanding the nature of capital gains taxes.



Oh, please. Do I need to remind you that Romney had offshore accounts in the Swiss and Cayman Islands for the sole purpose of lowering his overall tax rate? Do I need to remind you that Romney said he wouldn't be qualified to be president if he paid more taxes than were legally due, but then voluntarily refused to take half of his charitable deductions to artificially inflate his tax rate to make it "look better" to americans? The tax issue was bigger than the public not understanding how capital gains work.

I agree that the Swiss/Cayman bank accounts were an issue (even though they shouldn't be), but I remember the 14% rate he paid on his capital gains having been the bigger issue, with people not understanding that a large portion of that money was already taken out at the corporate level, in actuality adding up to an over 40% rate. Also, the deduction refusal aspect lies directly to the heart of what I was saying about advisers giving their candidates advice on how to be the perfect candidate, but in actuality hurting the candidate's credibility.

Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2015, 10:50:23 PM »

As a Democrat who honestly feels Biden is our only hope, I see her as such.

Both aren't very exciting candidates, both are/were greatly disliked by their parties base, both lack any genuine charisma or charm; both exude(d) a sense of entitlement to the Presidency; Both seem(ed) insincere and false; Both IMO would lead to low turn out on election day - I think many people who now support Bernie would just sit home on election day if Hillary was the nominee, while the GOP voters would come out in droves out of pure Clinton hatred - Both are seen as devious and scandal ridden (Remember Romney's tax issues during the 2012 race?)



I feel they are both similar in that they have a hard time letting their true selves be seen by supporters due to  campaign advisers cropping them to try to be the perfect candidate. Also like Mitt Romney, I feel a level of sympathy for Clinton, given that she is being trashed on a very personal and often inappropriate level.

Also, as the forums official Mitt Romney apologist, those tax issues in 2012 really had nothing to do with Mitt, but rather people not understanding the nature of capital gains taxes.



Oh, please. Do I need to remind you that Romney had offshore accounts in the Swiss and Cayman Islands for the sole purpose of lowering his overall tax rate? Do I need to remind you that Romney said he wouldn't be qualified to be president if he paid more taxes than were legally due, but then voluntarily refused to take half of his charitable deductions to artificially inflate his tax rate to make it "look better" to americans? The tax issue was bigger than the public not understanding how capital gains work.

I agree that the Swiss/Cayman bank accounts were an issue (even though they shouldn't be), but I remember the 14% rate he paid on his capital gains having been the bigger issue, with people not understanding that a large portion of that money was already taken out at the corporate level, in actuality adding up to an over 40% rate. Also, the deduction refusal aspect lies directly to the heart of what I was saying about advisers giving their candidates advice on how to be the perfect candidate, but in actuality hurting the candidate's credibility.



The 14% number was his overall income tax rate.
Logged
Abraham Reagan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 404
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 2.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2015, 10:59:49 PM »

As a Democrat who honestly feels Biden is our only hope, I see her as such.

Both aren't very exciting candidates, both are/were greatly disliked by their parties base, both lack any genuine charisma or charm; both exude(d) a sense of entitlement to the Presidency; Both seem(ed) insincere and false; Both IMO would lead to low turn out on election day - I think many people who now support Bernie would just sit home on election day if Hillary was the nominee, while the GOP voters would come out in droves out of pure Clinton hatred - Both are seen as devious and scandal ridden (Remember Romney's tax issues during the 2012 race?)



I feel they are both similar in that they have a hard time letting their true selves be seen by supporters due to  campaign advisers cropping them to try to be the perfect candidate. Also like Mitt Romney, I feel a level of sympathy for Clinton, given that she is being trashed on a very personal and often inappropriate level.

Also, as the forums official Mitt Romney apologist, those tax issues in 2012 really had nothing to do with Mitt, but rather people not understanding the nature of capital gains taxes.



Oh, please. Do I need to remind you that Romney had offshore accounts in the Swiss and Cayman Islands for the sole purpose of lowering his overall tax rate? Do I need to remind you that Romney said he wouldn't be qualified to be president if he paid more taxes than were legally due, but then voluntarily refused to take half of his charitable deductions to artificially inflate his tax rate to make it "look better" to americans? The tax issue was bigger than the public not understanding how capital gains work.

I agree that the Swiss/Cayman bank accounts were an issue (even though they shouldn't be), but I remember the 14% rate he paid on his capital gains having been the bigger issue, with people not understanding that a large portion of that money was already taken out at the corporate level, in actuality adding up to an over 40% rate. Also, the deduction refusal aspect lies directly to the heart of what I was saying about advisers giving their candidates advice on how to be the perfect candidate, but in actuality hurting the candidate's credibility.



The 14% number was his overall income tax rate.

Quote from the Washington Post :
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


So yes you're right that the 14% rate was his overall income rate, but he made ALL of his income from capital gains. Again, in actually paying around a 40% rate.

Sorry to Col. Roosevelt for taking up so much space for an off topic debate.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2015, 11:10:00 PM »

No.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2015, 11:16:07 PM »

Why don't you utilize the avatar feature if you're a Democrat?
Logged
ObamaThirdTerm
Rookie
**
Posts: 48


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 05, 2015, 11:34:54 PM »

Biden makes a great candidate when he's not on the campaign trail running his mouth.

Biden would be the Harry Truman of our time.

That would be unfortunate. The only reason to support Biden would be if he was essentially serving Obama's third term.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 05, 2015, 11:47:21 PM »

Trying to speak without sounding partisan, one thing that makes me feel alot better as a Republican this election is that Hillary Clinton, who is still the most likely nominee, has realized that the electorate than elected her husband in 1992 and 1996 is essentially the Mitt Romney electorate. They're gone for the Democrats.

Bill Clinton won Kentucky. Hillary won't. Bill Clinton won Arkansas. Bernie Sanders won't. Bill Clinton won Montana. Joe Biden won't. The Democratic Party has become associated with urban, black, liberal politics. If anything, Republicans have a real shot, especially with a Rubio or a Kasich or a Christie nomination, to swing many, many blue collar voters.

When you add on Obama fatigue, a drip-drop economy and job numbers, and the likelihood that she will be facing a Republican who will be younger than she is, that does not equal a mandate.

If the Democrats do win the White House again, it'll be by the skin of their teeth, and they will go into 2018 looking at possibly some of the worst midterm losses ever, followed by an incumbent Democratic President vying for a fourth straight Democratic term with a nominee who will be 72, 77 or 79 years old.

We've seen what happens to the Democrats when they don't have their turnout. Even when Obama campaigns, without his name on the ballot, the voters just don't turn out. Does anyone really believe that 18-21 year old black voters are going to wait in droves for ten hours for Joe Biden? Bernie Sanders? Even Hillary Clinton?

Maybe I'm wrong. But just putting those thoughts out there.
 
Logged
ObamaThirdTerm
Rookie
**
Posts: 48


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 05, 2015, 11:57:40 PM »

The Democratic Party has become associated with urban, black, liberal politics.
 

Don't think your awful wall of text will hide this line.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,714


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2015, 12:02:16 AM »

The Democratic Party has become associated with urban, black, liberal politics.
 

Don't think your awful wall of text will hide this line.

I see you've just met Naso.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2015, 12:07:25 AM »
« Edited: October 06, 2015, 12:08:56 AM by Reaganfan »

The Democratic Party has become associated with urban, black, liberal politics.
 

Don't think your awful wall of text will hide this line.

Why should we hide that? Nothing negative was stated. But clearly the coal miners of West Virginia who were persuaded by Clinton 1996 are not the same electorate that Democrats have to win today. They're gone for Democrats.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/democrats_can_t_win_white_working_class_voters_the_party_is_too_closely.html

"Working-class whites didn’t leave the Democratic Party over insufficiently populist policy and rhetoric. The liberal economic reforms of 1960s—and Medicare in particular—paid benefits to white working-class families throughout the 1970s and ’80s, even as the group moved to a decisive break with the Democrats. No, the proximate cause of the break was the Democratic Party’s close identification with black Americans, who—after the riots of the late ’60s and ’70s—became identified with urban disorder and welfare."
Logged
ObamaThirdTerm
Rookie
**
Posts: 48


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 06, 2015, 12:09:06 AM »

The Democratic Party has become associated with urban, black, liberal politics.
 

Don't think your awful wall of text will hide this line.

Why should we hide that? Nothing negative was stated. But clearly the coal miners of West Virginia who were persuaded by Clinton 1996 are not the same electorate that Democrats have to win today. They're gone for Democrats.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/democrats_can_t_win_white_working_class_voters_the_party_is_too_closely.html



Is posting a concern trolling Slate article supposed to be ironic?
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 06, 2015, 12:11:37 AM »

The Democratic Party has become associated with urban, black, liberal politics.
 

Don't think your awful wall of text will hide this line.

Why should we hide that? Nothing negative was stated. But clearly the coal miners of West Virginia who were persuaded by Clinton 1996 are not the same electorate that Democrats have to win today. They're gone for Democrats.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/democrats_can_t_win_white_working_class_voters_the_party_is_too_closely.html



Is posting a concern trolling Slate article supposed to be ironic?

Look, I'm stating facts. You know if only white people voted, Obama still would have won the election in 2008. But in 2012, he would have lost it in a landslide. That should tell you that liberal policies alienate white, working class voters the Democrats should and always have been able to count on.
Logged
ObamaThirdTerm
Rookie
**
Posts: 48


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 06, 2015, 12:14:15 AM »

There's nothing that makes white working class voters more important than any other voter. Obama won in 2012 without them. We will do it again.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 06, 2015, 12:17:47 AM »

There's nothing that makes white working class voters more important than any other voter. Obama won in 2012 without them. We will do it again.

So you are going for the Karl Rove 50+1 strategy?
Logged
ObamaThirdTerm
Rookie
**
Posts: 48


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2015, 12:24:38 AM »

There's nothing that makes white working class voters more important than any other voter. Obama won in 2012 without them. We will do it again.

So you are going for the Karl Rove 50+1 strategy?

No I'm gonig for the Obama 270+ strategy.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 06, 2015, 12:26:28 AM »

There's nothing that makes white working class voters more important than any other voter. Obama won in 2012 without them. We will do it again.

So you are going for the Karl Rove 50+1 strategy?

No I'm gonig for the Obama 270+ strategy.

Logged
pikachu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,179
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 06, 2015, 01:36:41 AM »

The Democratic Party has become associated with urban, black, liberal politics.
 

Don't think your awful wall of text will hide this line.

Why should we hide that? Nothing negative was stated. But clearly the coal miners of West Virginia who were persuaded by Clinton 1996 are not the same electorate that Democrats have to win today. They're gone for Democrats.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/democrats_can_t_win_white_working_class_voters_the_party_is_too_closely.html

"Working-class whites didn’t leave the Democratic Party over insufficiently populist policy and rhetoric. The liberal economic reforms of 1960s—and Medicare in particular—paid benefits to white working-class families throughout the 1970s and ’80s, even as the group moved to a decisive break with the Democrats. No, the proximate cause of the break was the Democratic Party’s close identification with black Americans, who—after the riots of the late ’60s and ’70s—became identified with urban disorder and welfare."


But wouldn't the converse of Republicans not attracting minority working-class voters also true? And shouldn't that concern any Republican, especially considering they lost the last two elections because of that?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 13 queries.