Hillary Clinton to Launch 2016 Campaign

[Occupied Deutschland]

It's not. It's merely granted a (miniscully slight) advantage to compensate for it already being so much less important so that it's interests will have some relevance on the national stage.

Essentially the same reason we have two houses of Congress. Wyoming isn't 'more' important than NY, CA, or TX in presidential elections. That's absurd to even claim (as evidenced by the fact that NY, CA, and TX, have a fuck-ton more sway in the E.C. than Wyoming), it's essentially granted a handicap because it is part of the country just as NY, CA, and TX are. Which is wholly fair, since NY, CA, and TX are still significantly more important to winning the presidency than Wyoming.

It doesn't matter by state. It matters by person. And the fact is, a person from Wyoming is significantly more important to winning the election than a person from California.

Except it does matter by state.
Because the E.C. is counted, say it with me, BY STATE.

They aren't more important. That's why candidates STILL spend more time campaigning in more populous states, speaking to and talking with and kissing the babies of people there. All the 'advantage' of including senatorial representation in the formula does is provide incentive to at least make some minor effort of dealing with their issues and such because they aren't entirely worthless. As they would be under a majority-rule system.

The majority-rule system that Mrs. Clinton supports.

[Atlanticatia]

Here's one of my predictions for Hillary's running mate:

Julian Castro - Latino, young, in Obama's cabinet for housing and urban development. Hillary recently gave a speech about urban development an inequality so that could play into her campaign and perhaps also be a way to better connect with millennial and Latino voters.

[The United Territories of Providence]

I know you fucking pro-electoral college people have seen the CGP-Grey video...but I'll leave it anyway.

And no, the electoral college NO LONGER serves a purpose. No you can't just win with California and New York. No you can't win by only campaigning in big cities. And if you believe that a new system threatens democracy, what was 2000? Certainly not a glorious victory for our Republic or the American People....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

[MERIZoC]

Oh yes, I forgot how the vote of someone in Idaho should be worth several times that of my own.

You gain an advantage in the House of Reps. to account for population and incentivize a representative branch.
Smaller states gain an advantage in the Presidency to account for their status as part of the nation and to incentivize an Executive branch that has some stake in accounting for multiple places interests.
It's quite sensible. Majority rule is fucking stupid for a state-based administration across such a broad and diverse geographic and political landscape as the US is.

Yes, such a diverse political landscape we have. It's almost as if you're just pulling shit out of your ass because you don't have a real argument. But you wouldn't do that, of course.

[MERIZoC]

Here's one of my predictions for Hillary's running mate:

Julian Castro - Latino, young, in Obama's cabinet for housing and urban development. Hillary recently gave a speech about urban development an inequality so that could play into her campaign and perhaps also be a way to better connect with millennial and Latino voters.

Bill Clinton - experienced, close to Hillary. Has shown interest for executive job in the past. Knows his way around the White House.

[Atlanticatia]

Here's one of my predictions for Hillary's running mate:

Julian Castro - Latino, young, in Obama's cabinet for housing and urban development. Hillary recently gave a speech about urban development an inequality so that could play into her campaign and perhaps also be a way to better connect with millennial and Latino voters.

Bill Clinton - experienced, close to Hillary. Has shown interest for executive job in the past. Knows his way around the White House.

...what if it was Hillary and Bill vs. Jeb and George. I'd probably just stay home.

[MERIZoC]

Bill Clinton - experienced, close to Hillary. Has shown interest for executive job in the past. Knows his way around the White House.

...what if it was Hillary and Bill vs. Jeb and George. I'd probably just stay home.

I'd stay home for that. Glued the fuck to my TV.

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

...what if it was Hillary and Bill vs. Jeb and George. I'd probably just stay home.

I'd stay home for that. Glued the fuck to my TV.

It'd be an interesting challenge to the 22d Amendment, that's for sure.

[Atlanticatia]

...what if it was Hillary and Bill vs. Jeb and George. I'd probably just stay home.

I'd stay home for that. Glued the fuck to my TV.

I'd want to see a George vs. Bill election debate.

"Rarely is the question asked, is this being broadcasted on the internets? Hopefully our children is learning from this."

[Occupied Deutschland]

You gain an advantage in the House of Reps. to account for population and incentivize a representative branch.
Smaller states gain an advantage in the Presidency to account for their status as part of the nation and to incentivize an Executive branch that has some stake in accounting for multiple places interests.
It's quite sensible. Majority rule is fucking stupid for a state-based administration across such a broad and diverse geographic and political landscape as the US is.

Yes, such a diverse political landscape we have. It's almost as if you're just pulling shit out of your ass because you don't have a real argument. But you wouldn't do that, of course.

...
You think the political opinions of people in Wyoming are the same as those in California?
You think they hold the same concerns? The same problems? With the same potential solutions?
Fuck, simple geographic differences (of which, you'll note, was also included in there but that you omitted because...fuck if I know) change all those things significantly. And Wyoming's geography is a fuck-ton different from California's.

So yes, it is a diverse political landscape. As determined, in part, by diverse geography alone. 'Flyover' country has different political priorities and concerns than the coasts due to, if nothing else, the effects of that geography (one will take note the presence of 'if nothing else' here and realize this means there are also other things at work here of which geography is just one).

In any case, Mrs. Clinton's casual disregard for NSA wiretapping procedures and other Patriot Act provisions is the more concerning issue here than her rhetoric against the E.C.

[Atlanticatia]

Yes, such a diverse political landscape we have. It's almost as if you're just pulling shit out of your ass because you don't have a real argument. But you wouldn't do that, of course.

...
You think the political opinions of people in Wyoming are the same as those in California?
You think they hold the same concerns? The same problems? With the same potential solutions?
Fuck, simple geographic differences (of which, you'll note, was also included in there but that you omitted because...fuck if I know) change all those things significantly. And Wyoming's geography is a fuck-ton different from California's.

So yes, it is a diverse political landscape. As determined, in part, by diverse geography alone. 'Flyover' country has different political priorities and concerns than the coasts due to, if nothing else, the effects of that geography (one will take note the presence of 'if nothing else' here and realize this means there are also other things at work here of which geography is just one).

In any case, Mrs. Clinton's casual disregard for NSA wiretapping procedures and other Patriot Act provisions is the more concerning issue here than her rhetoric against the E.C.

The priorities of states like New York are more important than the priorities of Wyoming because they are the priorities of ~20 million people, not 500,000. It's simple math. That is not to say Wyoming is unimportant, but it's not fair that a tiny state can affect politics so much more than a state like California where 12% of the US population lives.

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

...
You think the political opinions of people in Wyoming are the same as those in California?
You think they hold the same concerns? The same problems? With the same potential solutions?
Fuck, simple geographic differences (of which, you'll note, was also included in there but that you omitted because...fuck if I know) change all those things significantly. And Wyoming's geography is a fuck-ton different from California's.

So yes, it is a diverse political landscape. As determined, in part, by diverse geography alone. 'Flyover' country has different political priorities and concerns than the coasts due to, if nothing else, the effects of that geography (one will take note the presence of 'if nothing else' here and realize this means there are also other things at work here of which geography is just one).

In any case, Mrs. Clinton's casual disregard for NSA wiretapping procedures and other Patriot Act provisions is the more concerning issue here than her rhetoric against the E.C.

The priorities of states like New York are more important than the priorities of Wyoming because they are the priorities of ~20 million people, not 500,000. It's simple math. That is not to say Wyoming is unimportant, but it's not fair that a tiny state can affect politics so much more than a state like California where 12% of the US population lives.

Without Wyoming, the US is much, much less. Without people living in Wyoming, it's just wasted land. We supplement the people's voice from Wyoming in an effort to promote their living there.

[Occupied Deutschland]

...
You think the political opinions of people in Wyoming are the same as those in California?
You think they hold the same concerns? The same problems? With the same potential solutions?
Fuck, simple geographic differences (of which, you'll note, was also included in there but that you omitted because...fuck if I know) change all those things significantly. And Wyoming's geography is a fuck-ton different from California's.

So yes, it is a diverse political landscape. As determined, in part, by diverse geography alone. 'Flyover' country has different political priorities and concerns than the coasts due to, if nothing else, the effects of that geography (one will take note the presence of 'if nothing else' here and realize this means there are also other things at work here of which geography is just one).

In any case, Mrs. Clinton's casual disregard for NSA wiretapping procedures and other Patriot Act provisions is the more concerning issue here than her rhetoric against the E.C.

The priorities of states like New York are more important than the priorities of Wyoming...

No, they aren't.
Because New York isn't Wyoming, and the primary voting demographic of New York (urban dwellers) concerns are quite far removed from the primary voting demographic of Wyoming (rural farmers/ranchers/miners/etc.). This means dramatically differing priorities, with little overlap and a good deal of active contradiction.

But, as I said, Clinton's rhetoric on this point is less of a concern than her support for 'bombing brown people' and intruding on American's civil rights via her support of things like the PATRIOT act and it's wiretapping provisions.

[Pineville Community]

I really liked her announcement video.

[MERIZoC]

Yes, such a diverse political landscape we have. It's almost as if you're just pulling shit out of your ass because you don't have a real argument. But you wouldn't do that, of course.

...
You think the political opinions of people in Wyoming are the same as those in California?
You think they hold the same concerns? The same problems? With the same potential solutions?
Fuck, simple geographic differences (of which, you'll note, was also included in there but that you omitted because...fuck if I know) change all those things significantly. And Wyoming's geography is a fuck-ton different from California's.

So yes, it is a diverse political landscape. As determined, in part, by diverse geography alone. 'Flyover' country has different political priorities and concerns than the coasts due to, if nothing else, the effects of that geography (one will take note the presence of 'if nothing else' here and realize this means there are also other things at work here of which geography is just one).

In any case, Mrs. Clinton's casual disregard for NSA wiretapping procedures and other Patriot Act provisions is the more concerning issue here than her rhetoric against the E.C.

Of course they have different concerns. That doesn't mean their votes get to count for more. I omitted geography because it's irrelevant.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I really liked her announcement video.

It was a clever piece of work. Not having her show up until 90 seconds into the video makes it more about the message of the campaign than about her, which immediately addresses one of her major issues from 2008, and does so quite effectively. Also, by mixing in her candidacy with the plans that various likeable middle-class Americans have for the upcoming year. she associates herself with them and their goals, which will (as I've seen pointed out elsewhere) make it very difficult for the GOP to attack her on Monday without coming across like they're attacking those nice middle class folks. Her campaign learned some hard lessons from the last presidential run, and they've taken a couple of pages from the Obama playbook while still maintaining their own identity.

It's a smart first move. We'll see how the rest plays out. My advice would be to play it straight, act puzzled at any attacks while ensuring that she has a team dedicated solely to answering said attacks thoroughly, effectively, and immediately with facts and data. Other than that, let the GOP continue to stumble all over itself in a rush to form a circular firing squad. The more they feel forced to attack her, the less time they'll spend discussing issues that people care about.

[Atlanticatia]

I really liked her announcement video.

It was a clever piece of work. Not having her show up until 90 seconds into the video makes it more about the message of the campaign than about her, which immediately addresses one of her major issues from 2008, and does so quite effectively. Also, by mixing in her candidacy with the plans that various likeable middle-class Americans have for the upcoming year. she associates herself with them and their goals, which will (as I've seen pointed out elsewhere) make it very difficult for the GOP to attack her on Monday without coming across like they're attacking those nice middle class folks. Her campaign learned some hard lessons from the last presidential run, and they've taken a couple of pages from the Obama playbook while still maintaining their own identity.

It's a smart first move. We'll see how the rest plays out. My advice would be to play it straight, act puzzled at any attacks while ensuring that she has a team dedicated solely to answering said attacks thoroughly, effectively, and immediately with facts and data. Other than that, let the GOP continue to stumble all over itself in a rush to form a circular firing squad. The more they feel forced to attack her, the less time they'll spend discussing issues that people care about.

Agreed. I also like that it showed a very diverse, inclusive view of America: people of differing ethnicities, cultures, ages, sexualities, social classes, etc were all represented.

[Genivaria]

So you're voting Republican I take it?

Yet to see a Democrat or a Republican candidate that I can support without hating myself.

Well if you're a liberal you have Hilary, or a Republican.
Ideological purity is destroying the Republican party, let's not make the same mistake.

[Genivaria]

It was a clever piece of work. Not having her show up until 90 seconds into the video makes it more about the message of the campaign than about her, which immediately addresses one of her major issues from 2008, and does so quite effectively. Also, by mixing in her candidacy with the plans that various likeable middle-class Americans have for the upcoming year. she associates herself with them and their goals, which will (as I've seen pointed out elsewhere) make it very difficult for the GOP to attack her on Monday without coming across like they're attacking those nice middle class folks. Her campaign learned some hard lessons from the last presidential run, and they've taken a couple of pages from the Obama playbook while still maintaining their own identity.

It's a smart first move. We'll see how the rest plays out. My advice would be to play it straight, act puzzled at any attacks while ensuring that she has a team dedicated solely to answering said attacks thoroughly, effectively, and immediately with facts and data. Other than that, let the GOP continue to stumble all over itself in a rush to form a circular firing squad. The more they feel forced to attack her, the less time they'll spend discussing issues that people care about.

Agreed. I also like that it showed a very diverse, inclusive view of America: people of differing ethnicities, cultures, ages, sexualities, social classes, etc were all represented.

Atheists clearly weren't, I am offended by the utter lack of Baby Burgers or Virgin Sacrifices.
Discrimination!

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It was a clever piece of work. Not having her show up until 90 seconds into the video makes it more about the message of the campaign than about her, which immediately addresses one of her major issues from 2008, and does so quite effectively. Also, by mixing in her candidacy with the plans that various likeable middle-class Americans have for the upcoming year. she associates herself with them and their goals, which will (as I've seen pointed out elsewhere) make it very difficult for the GOP to attack her on Monday without coming across like they're attacking those nice middle class folks. Her campaign learned some hard lessons from the last presidential run, and they've taken a couple of pages from the Obama playbook while still maintaining their own identity.

It's a smart first move. We'll see how the rest plays out. My advice would be to play it straight, act puzzled at any attacks while ensuring that she has a team dedicated solely to answering said attacks thoroughly, effectively, and immediately with facts and data. Other than that, let the GOP continue to stumble all over itself in a rush to form a circular firing squad. The more they feel forced to attack her, the less time they'll spend discussing issues that people care about.

Agreed. I also like that it showed a very diverse, inclusive view of America: people of differing ethnicities, cultures, ages, sexualities, social classes, etc were all represented.

Agreed. One thing that much of the GOP isn't getting is that most people nowadays (including a number of conservatives and conservative-leaning independents) have LGBT friends, neighbors, co-workers, and relatives who they're totally comfortable with, and would like to see happy.

[The United Territories of Providence]

I'd stay home for that. Glued the fuck to my TV.

I'd want to see a George vs. Bill election debate.

"Rarely is the question asked, is this being broadcasted on the internets? Hopefully our children is learning from this."

BUSH: You mis-underestimated me. We know what a Clinton presidency looks like. There's a saying in Texas, maybe it's in Tennessee too but...Blow me once...shame on you....blow me twi- you can't get blown again! If the goal of the DNC was to run a candidate who can't help put food on American families. A candidate who will support trade, where more and more of our imports come from foreign countries. Well Jose...Mission accomplished.

CLINTON: Listen, Hillary is a very capable leader. That is what I was told to say in marriage counseling, and that's what I'm sticking with. You see, there's a pragmatic approach you've got to take to certain sensitive issues. She may have said "what difference does it make", but that all changes on what your definition of "it" is. In conclusion, she may have penetrated Libya but we did not have relations with that Nation. We might have supplied unconventional weapons like gas to Syrian rebels, but I assure you....the civilians did not inhale.

God Bless Democracy.

[Atlanticatia]

Agreed. I also like that it showed a very diverse, inclusive view of America: people of differing ethnicities, cultures, ages, sexualities, social classes, etc were all represented.

Agreed. One thing that much of the GOP isn't getting is that most people nowadays (including a number of conservatives and conservative-leaning independents) have LGBT friends, neighbors, co-workers, and relatives who they're totally comfortable with, and would like to see happy.

I think that Democrats will be able to play on that in the election. The GOP is looking like the party of old white men - as Hillary's video showed, the Democrats are the place for ethnic minorities, millennials, women - hell, a woman President, LGBT people, immigrants, etc. And there are many people who have friends that fall into those groups who would like to see that included in society, acknowledged as important by the President of the United States, etc. The Democrats are the party of modern, diverse, and inclusive America.

[MERIZoC]

I'd want to see a George vs. Bill election debate.

"Rarely is the question asked, is this being broadcasted on the internets? Hopefully our children is learning from this."

BUSH: You mis-underestimated me. We know what a Clinton presidency looks like. There's a saying in Texas, maybe it's in Tennessee too but...Blow me once...shame on you....blow me twi- you can't get blown again! If the goal of the DNC was to run a candidate who can't help put food on American families. A candidate who will support trade, where more and more of our imports come from foreign countries. Well Jose...Mission accomplished.

CLINTON: Listen, Hillary is a very capable leader. That is what I was told to say in marriage counseling, and that's what I'm sticking with. You see, there's a pragmatic approach you've got to take to certain sensitive issues. She may have said "what difference does it make", but that all changes on what your definition of "it" is. In conclusion, she may have penetrated Libya but we did not have relations with that Nation. We might have supplied unconventional weapons like gas to Syrian rebels, but I assure you....the civilians did not inhale.

God Bless Democracy.

Fucking AQ'd.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Agreed. One thing that much of the GOP isn't getting is that most people nowadays (including a number of conservatives and conservative-leaning independents) have LGBT friends, neighbors, co-workers, and relatives who they're totally comfortable with, and would like to see happy.

I think that Democrats will be able to play on that in the election. The GOP is looking like the party of old white men - as Hillary's video showed, the Democrats are the place for ethnic minorities, millennials, women - hell, a woman President, LGBT people, immigrants, etc. And there are many people who have friends that fall into those groups who would like to see that included in society, acknowledged as important by the President of the United States, etc. The Democrats are the party of modern, diverse, and inclusive America.

Indeed. The GOP seems to be thinking "Well, openly gay people make up such a small percentage of the population that it's pointless to try to pander to them" when it's not LGBT people who they have to worry about: It's the straight friends of LGBT people, their loving parents, brothers, sisters, cousins, and children, the employers who value their hard work and want them to stay happy, the neighbors who appreciate the fact that Bob and Frank can always be counted on to bring a hot dish to the potluck, the fans of LGBT entertainers who won't stand to see their idols treated as second-class citizens, the co-worker who works at the next desk over and enjoys rehashing last night's Game Of Thrones episode with that nice woman with the well-concealed Adam's apple.

This is a huge problem for the GOP, and right now they're in a state of total denial about it.

[Genivaria]

I think that Democrats will be able to play on that in the election. The GOP is looking like the party of old white men - as Hillary's video showed, the Democrats are the place for ethnic minorities, millennials, women - hell, a woman President, LGBT people, immigrants, etc. And there are many people who have friends that fall into those groups who would like to see that included in society, acknowledged as important by the President of the United States, etc. The Democrats are the party of modern, diverse, and inclusive America.

Indeed. The GOP seems to be thinking "Well, openly gay people make up such a small percentage of the population that it's pointless to try to pander to them" when it's not LGBT people who they have to worry about: It's the straight friends of LGBT people, their loving parents, brothers, sisters, cousins, and children, the employers who value their hard work and want them to stay happy, the neighbors who appreciate the fact that Bob and Frank can always be counted on to bring a hot dish to the potluck, the fans of LGBT entertainers who won't stand to see their idols treated as second-class citizens, the co-worker who works at the next desk over and enjoys rehashing last night's Game Of Thrones episode with that nice woman with the well-concealed Adam's apple.

This is a huge problem for the GOP, and right now they're in a state of total denial about it.

And until they accept that reality and adapt to it they're going to find themselves locked out of the white house, because they can't suppress or gerrymander a national vote.