The polls are starting to look like this may be a landslide. If so Clinton will have a mandate to: appoint the most liberal supreme court justices reform tax policy so the rich pay more reform healthcare into a single payer model and lots more
She won't be able to do 2 of these 3 things without Congress, and it's doubtful Democrats will take enough of Congress to give her what she wants. Hopefully her Presidency will be neutered right out of the gate with another broken Congress.
I wouldn't go quite that far. I wouldn't count on any major changes to tax or healthcare policy, since the Dems will have a razor thin margin in the Senate. Without 60 Dem votes in the Senate, the GOP will continue their tactics of obstruction. As far as the SCOTUS, she will probably be able to get a left-leaning justice on the court--but, I wouldn't count on someone to the left of Ginsburg.
The thing is, Clinton acclaimed that Garland was a qualified and acceptable pick. If that's the case, how will that look when she appoints someone else? It'd be a disservice to Garland who waited for a confirmation vote and it'd be a disservice to the President she's held to such high and lofty praise. At least, she needs to push Garland for a period of time and then select a new appointee so as not to look totally biased.
There is a good possibility that HIllary will win big...but even if that happens, I am sure the GOP will retain enough power in congress to blunt many of the initiatives she might consider. I doubt she will take a hard left approach to governing...mostly because I see that tactic as a losing one. I think she will lead from a position more akin to what served Bill Clinton so well during his administration. In the meantime, the adage "Don't count your chicken until they are hatched" is something all of us favoring Hillary ought to keep foremost in our minds. It ain't over 'til its over. And the far right is going to throw everything they have at Hillary if she wins. My guess is that they will continue the carnage Trump has started for them.
Mandate doesnt matter. Once SCOTUS goes globalist everything else is easy. just a munch of propaganda and fake polling thrown out to push whatever need sold. She actually doesnt even have to do anything. The path we are on now is unsustainable as is. Hillary will just be place in position to hurry it along before the populace has a chance to unite. This is why the worse things get under corrupt regimes.... the faster it needs to happen. Think of it as a shock and awe on a societal level. They cannot allow enough time to transpire for the populace to stop hating each other and begin to develop respect for their fellow citizens. A simple example of this is protestors being paid to incite civil unrest among different races of people....ie black, white, hispanic....southerners, northerners, city, country.... men, women, gender neutral etc. etc. Division among the populace must be retained at all costs.
A mandate? I bet she hasnt had a man date in years I venture this election will have the lowest participation rate in recent history. Both candidates suck.
They said the same thing when he announced he was running for President. Very few leftists expected him to win the nomination. One even bet (and welched) that if Jeb Bush didn't win the nomination, he'd leave the site permanently. I don't think Trump is going to win, for a variety of reasons, but I suspect he will do better than people like you would think, just like he has done throughout this whole process.
PredictWise says 88% chance if HRC elected. It was 65% before the first debate. 538 says if the election was today, HRC would get 338 electoral votes.
To your first post. Having the most liberal supreme court justices will lose the moderate dems, moderates, and indy's. If you go too extreme on either side nowadays, you lose support. We're moving to a more moderate society thanks to the last three or four elections.
She's not planning on doing either of those things. She wants to cut corporate tax rates even more. Here's her mandate in the real world: http://www.politicalforum.com/elections-campaigns/479099-hillary-clinton-ceo-empire.html
More RW trolls with Clinton Derangement Syndrome bumping year old threads to throw shade at their much-feared nemesis ("The Big Bad Left"). The Ignore List is a beautiful thing. Any threads from 2012 that need bumping? Nothing personal, just a simple inquiry. To whoever the culprits are: Carry on and happy trolling.
Must make it harder to deny enthuisticly supporting her. Glad you found time to respond to me Sure, I bet you all were saying the ice caps would be gone by now, or a Katrina hurricane every year. The internet makes it hard to revise history. Me!!! I'm the culprit. I hella knew it too. This is a political forum meant to debate ideas. If you just want to circle jerk with fellow collectivist, the Huffington post is down the hall. Here, "credibility" matters. Why would you take someone who is constantly wrong, serious? I'm doing the noobs a favor. It would be a shame if any thought a propaganda parrot was someone to liston too.
I have necro'd threads before. It wasn't until someone necro'd a stupid thread I started that I realized it's not worth the trouble. Everyone is going to be wrong at some point. If we all necro'd each other's threads we'll find wrong **** everywhere.
So the past doesn't matter? Credibility is worthless? We on the right care about truth. If I was wrong, I hope I hear about it. It will build me up. Make me rethink my ideas. If I was like no the ice caps are totally going to be gone in 2017, back in 2012, and in 2017 they were magically still here, I would look like an idiot and I would hope nobody would take me seriously. Then I would rethink my premise on how I arrived at my ideas. I would re evaluate my philosophy.