Would a President Clinton return to the center?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Herdfan, Jul 4, 2016.

  1. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Apr 11, 2011
    There is no secret that in Presidential elections that candidates run to the left or right in the primaries and return to the center for the general. If you analyze Hillary's positions even just back to 2008 she has definitely moved left on many of them no doubt because of Bernie's success in energizing the youth and far left.

    So Clinton will have to return a bit to the center if she is going to have any chance in the general. But would she govern from the center. Bill did. When he lost the House in 1994 he couldn't move to the center fast enough and afterwards we had some pretty good years.

    Hillary has already talked about what she would do in her first 100 days and it certainly seems she will be moving to the right.

  2. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a


    Apr 20, 2009
    She is a centrist more than anything so it would be quite logical for her to govern from the middle. But the real answer to this is if she wants one term, or two. If she wants reelection, and the Bernie Sander's crowd to vote for her in four years, she will have to give a little. If she doesn't she won't.

    Ultimately which ever term she views as her final one, she will quite likely approach from a center point of view.
  3. Herdfan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Apr 11, 2011
    Bernie will be too old in 4 years and the establishment would not support a primary challenge, so I don't think she has to worry about that.

    But I think Presidents should get 1 6-year term so we don't have this nonsense.
  4. thewitt macrumors 68020


    Sep 13, 2011
    Hillary moving to the right?

    All I've heard her say is based squarely in progressive socialism. The only way she could be more to the left is to join the communist party.
  5. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a


    Apr 20, 2009
    You totally missed my point....I said the Bernie Sander's crowd. They are not too old, and will still be looking for those progressive policies four years from now. And it doesn't matter what the establishment wants. If she and they want all those Sander's supporters to come to the polls, they will have to give them good reasons. Turning your back on what they want, is not a good reason. It will not motivate them to do anything but give the middle finger and stay home.
  6. LizKat macrumors 68040


    Aug 5, 2004
    Catskill Mountains
    Surely you jest. Whatever Clinton has said past "I'm an incrementalist, I can make the changes that are feasible" are things that the Sanders campaign's surprising popularity has led her to say.

    There's campaign rhetoric and then there's governance. Clinton is definitely a centrist when it comes to walking the walk, and (one presumes by the snappy rate of Wall Street donations to Clinton's campaign compared to those made toward's Trump's effort), in 2016 she's also at least privately talking the talk of a centrist.

    C'mon man, Republicans of past high office are saying they may or will vote for Clinton. Hank Paulson?! Formerly of Goldman Sachs, formerly GWBush Secretary of the Treasury? The time ol' Hank votes for a near communist is never. But Hank Paulson is a cautious man. The day he'd vote for Trump is also never. Hence, Clinton's his pick.

    Also, and in public, Clinton has said she would operate as an incrementalist, meaning not radical departures from what has happened to governance in the past seven years under President Obama. From the yowling on the left, sometimes including me, I'd say that Mr. Obama has somewhat disappointed most progressives. I have on occasion accused Obama of being a corporatist. I suppose people on the right look at ACA and that blinds them to the other legislation that has acquired his signature. They should look again. We on the left have looked again. We gave him too much of a pass on other than ACA, and on ACA, in the first term and the Republicans blocked and tackled in the second.

    Anyway, Clinton in action is a centrist, drifting to the right. A lot of what she says is progressive and will get her some progressive votes, but those votes will not get those voters the picture she paints.

    Similarly, on the right side of things, what the GOP says to their base and what their base gets after elections are two different things. The legislation the GOP accomplishes is not as far to the right as the base desires.

    Ergo, gridlock and incremental changes in governance. And dissatisfaction afoot in the land, big time.

    Ergo, Sanders and Trump in the left and right wings this year.

    And ergo GOP establishment wringing its hands since it's apparently going to crown its right winger and so lose the general election handily to Clinton, even with people like me voting for Jill Stein and a bunch of other people in this forum voting for Gary Johnson.

    Bottom line, on the thread topic question: yes, Clinton would move to the right from where she has campaigned. It remains to be seen if the progressives in Congress will have the numbers to try to hold her feet to the fire. She's getting donations from Wall Street that are not necessarily indicative of an expectation she'll be kinder and gentler to the banks, since those donations are more about figuring Clinton's a known entity and Trump's a risky loose cannon. But I don't think the banks expect Clinton to advocate for reinstating Glass-Steagall, and I don't think she will disappoint them. On the Pacific trade issue, and on energy.... she'll be testing the wind every day.
  7. adroit macrumors 6502


    Sep 28, 2005
    Victoria, BC
    She'd have to swing pretty far to the left to be considered central.
  8. ScottishDuck macrumors 6502a


    Feb 17, 2010
    Argyll, Scotland
    She's right wing and she will always be right wing.
  9. thermodynamic Suspended


    May 3, 2009
    Depends on the issue, as I too am centrist (and, no, she is not a "war hawk" but won't cower to aggressors if that's what certain entities are believing), but on her voting record and what's on her candidacy website I agree with her on a number of issues.
  10. maxsix Suspended


    Jun 28, 2015
    Western Hemisphere
    It hardly matters, a pathological liar, she's the Matriarch of the Clinton Machine. Far too busy with self enrichment for her and Chelsea, this old lady has got the American public fooled. At least, enough of them to allow her to continue to the Coronation. They've bought into the lies, the deciept, the belief that it's a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. In turn she's free to assume the top job, continue the charade and laugh at who she's conned.
  11. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a


    Apr 20, 2009

    Huh. Interesting. You both cannot be correct in your assessments. :D
  12. impulse462 macrumors 68000


    Jun 3, 2009
    Dude, that's the one thing she is to the right on. Other social issues she's relatively left after changing, but that's ok. But anyone who votes for the president on only social issues is dumb.

    Military though...she's pretty hawkish.
  13. Technarchy macrumors 604


    May 21, 2012
    That's no exaggeration. Hillary is a straight up and down right wing corporatist though and through, with the occasional bone thrown (grudgingly) on the occasional social issue to keep the idiots placated.
  14. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Feb 14, 2004
    OBJECTIVE reality
    Will Hillary return to the center? Far as I'm concerned, she's always been center. All this talk of being a progressive was just so much pandering to the Bernie crowd, and the main reason I've grown to dislike her.

    One thing above: those who mock the idea of a right wing conspiracy are themselves victims of it. The rest of us know that Hillary didn't really murder Vince Foster and Bill didn't kill a couple of teenagers by pushing them in front of a moving train.
  15. StarShot macrumors 6502a


    Mar 31, 2014
    I have no idea as to whether Clinton would have moved to the center if she won. However, I think Bernie doomed her by running to the extreme left and might have won the nomination if Clinton hadn't matched him "free stuff for free stuff".

    That probably kept enough moderates from voting for her in the general and allowed Trump to squeak by in the Electorial College which I hope never changes. Otherwise, we might as well do away with national presidenal elections and let Los Angeles tell us who the next president is. Clinton's vote margin in Los Angeles was larger than her total national margin for you "popular vote" partisans. I don't think that would be a great idea and reason alone to elect enough Republicans to prevent a 2/3rd majority in Congress. Rule below...

    "The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures."

Share This Page