Hillary Clinton to Launch 2016 Campaign

[Dyakovo]

That sounds dangerously close to an admission of trolling.

No, just a sarcasm-filled expression of my lack of respect for anyone deeming my whole existence as bullshit.

Not your whole existence, just your account of a certain portion of it.

[Patridam]

No, just a sarcasm-filled expression of my lack of respect for anyone deeming my whole existence as bullshit.

Not your whole existence, just your account of a certain portion of it.

Well, I'm not going to lie about my life so just it becomes more believable for you. Taxes really aren't that complicated when you're poor, anyway.

[Ashmoria]

Not your whole existence, just your account of a certain portion of it.

Well, I'm not going to lie about my life so just it becomes more believable for you. Taxes really aren't that complicated when you're poor, anyway.

the local tax prep services had a big sign touting their great price for filling out 1040EZ for you--$50!!!

I ranted every time I went past it.

taxes can be a little more complicated when youre poor if you qualify for the earned income credit.

[Arlenton]

Just got back to NS so sorry if you all went over this already, the Hilldawg has announced a 50-state strategy similar to Obama's '08 campaign.

In my opinion this isn't the best idea for her. When Obama did it in 2008 the landscape was completely different. The 2008 campaign was basically about crushing the Republicans who were blamed for the wars and recession, plus Obama was outspending McCain by a pretty ridiculous margin. Given the situation it was reasonable for Obama to use his 50 state strategy (it was really 49 state because I don't think he attempted in Wyoming). It was successful for the most part because the Democrats gained some down ballot victories in red states, and helped Obama win North Carolina, Indiana, and that district in Nebraska, plus it made Missouri, Georgia, and Montana pretty close. In 2016 Obama's going to take plenty of blame for all the problems, regardless if they are really his fault or not. Sure it will be nothing like Bush in 2008 but there will be no incumbent Republican president to point at for all the problems, plus Clinton having been a part of the Obama administration will not help either. There will also be the generic "incumbent fatigue" against the Democrats, she wont be leading the sort of revolution for change thing Obama had going on in 2008. And there was no CU & provisions in 2008, she won't have that huge money advantage that Obama had in 2008. Given the fact that people and their corporations can donate as much as they want though PACs it is hypothetically possible for the Republican nominee to outspend Hillary by at least a few billion. The Kochs alone have already promised at least ~$900 million on the General election. A 50 state strategy might not be a great idea if you're being outspent, it would just unnecessarily overextend resources. It would be smarter to focus on Ohio rather than Missouri if this is the case. In 2012 Obama didn't repeat his 50(49) state strategy for a reason, he went on the defensive and played it smart then won. I think Clinton should do the same if she wants to win, she shouldn't go around trying to expand the map for no reason. I don't see her doing better than all the 2012 Obama states plus North Carolina. Indiana was a one time thing in 2008, Missouri and Montana are trending more Republican and If Obama couldn't win them in 2008 then it would be pretty hard for Clinton to win them, according to the Cook PVI Arizona is also trending more Republican and I'm not really sure why plus its more Republican than Missouri so that should be counted out as well, Georgia won't happen with black turnout nosediving, and Hillary is not going to win Arkansas, ask Bill. I guess Hillary could lend a hand in some competitive down ballot races in red states, but expanding the map anywhere that isn't North Carolina won't work, unless Ted Cruz is nominated or something. As for the GOP candidate, depending on the money situation, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are good targets to blanket in adds and campaign offices.

[New Hampshire Republic]

Bush v. Clinton?

Oh boyyyyyy...

[Blakk Metal]

Europe has gone on a vastly different path than America since 1776, particularly in its rapid slide towards socialism in the past 60 years.

Social Democracy took stronger hold in Europe in ways it never did in the U.S. but the politics in both Europe and the United States has taken a decidedly right-leaning bent since the implosion of the New Left.

That is so wrong in so many ways.

[Kelinfort]

America's roots are, at least to some extent, European.

Europe has gone on a vastly different path than America since 1776, particularly in its rapid slide towards socialism in the past 60 years.

Neoliberalism is socialism?

Milton Friedman was a red after all...

[Patridam]

Europe has gone on a vastly different path than America since 1776, particularly in its rapid slide towards socialism in the past 60 years.

Neoliberalism is socialism?

Milton Friedman was a red after all...

Do you mean modern Margaret Thatcher/Ronald Reagan sort of neoliberalism, or the older Depression-era-European-scholarship-neoliberalism as defined by something resembling a market economy but with strong state involvement/regulation of thereof? I mean the latter.

That sort of neoliberalism is indeed a slide towards socialism and a collectivist planned economy, coming from the previous interwar lassiez-faire capitalism economic polices. Such neoliberalism was part of the post-WWII European 'consensus'.

[Dyakovo]

Neoliberalism is socialism?

Milton Friedman was a red after all...

Do you mean modern Margaret Thatcher/Ronald Reagan sort of neoliberalism, or the older Depression-era-European-scholarship-neoliberalism as defined by something resembling a market economy but with strong state involvement/regulation of thereof? I mean the latter.

That sort of neoliberalism is indeed a slide towards socialism and a collectivist planned economy, coming from the previous interwar lassiez-faire capitalism economic polices. Such neoliberalism was part of the post-WWII European 'consensus'.

A planned economy (I'm assuming you're referring to central planning such as was done by the Soviet Union) is a feature of State Capitalism, not socialism. Also, the inter-war push towards laissez-faire capitalism was an economic disaster. You may have, at some point, heard of this thing called the Great Depression.

[Patridam]

Do you mean modern Margaret Thatcher/Ronald Reagan sort of neoliberalism, or the older Depression-era-European-scholarship-neoliberalism as defined by something resembling a market economy but with strong state involvement/regulation of thereof? I mean the latter.

That sort of neoliberalism is indeed a slide towards socialism and a collectivist planned economy, coming from the previous interwar lassiez-faire capitalism economic polices. Such neoliberalism was part of the post-WWII European 'consensus'.

A planned economy (I'm assuming you're referring to central planning such as was done by the Soviet Union) is a feature of State Capitalism, not socialism. Also, the inter-war push towards laissez-faire capitalism was an economic disaster. You may have, at some point, heard of this thing called the Great Depression.

All I was saying was that Europe is certainly a lot less lassiez faire than it was in, say, 1925, and that change started happening with the landslide victories of welfare-state governments post WWII.

Somewhat unrelated, but would you say your country on NS represents your views?

[Dyakovo]

A planned economy (I'm assuming you're referring to central planning such as was done by the Soviet Union) is a feature of State Capitalism, not socialism. Also, the inter-war push towards laissez-faire capitalism was an economic disaster. You may have, at some point, heard of this thing called the Great Depression.

All I was saying was that Europe is certainly a lot less lassiez faire than it was in, say, 1925, and that change started happening with the landslide victories of welfare-state governments post WWII.

Somewhat unrelated, but would you say your country on NS represents your views?

Not really. My NS nation is the result of me alternating between answering issues in line with my politics and answering them with the option that I find the most amusing.

[Gregoryisgodistan]

Bush v. Clinton?

Oh boyyyyyy...

I'm not voting for either of them. Gary Johnson 2016! Maybe he'll get 2 percent this time. That will put the Libertarian Party on track to win the 2208 Presidential election, by which point our ticket will probably consist of Gary Johnson's Head in a Jar with a literal Paulbot for his running mate.

[The United Republic of Prussia]

Well guys, she lost, HAHA

[Genivaria]

Well guys, she lost, HAHA

2 year old grave-dig.
SHAME!
SHAME!