Hypothetical Walker vs Clinton

[Archbob]

So lets say these two are the nominees for their respective parties in 2016 in a fight for the president. The fate of the world hinges on who will win.

In one corner you have the wiley and crafty Hillary Clinton and former first lady and former secretary of state who can melt opponents with a stare and who is so old that she was there when the British surrendered at Yorktown and thus has the Wisdom of the ages. And she's also got that sly old Fox, the mighty Bill Clinton in her corner as well.

In the other corner you have the mighty Scott Walker. The scourage of Unions, champion of the Fat Cats, a terror to the working glass, and a destroyer of worlds.

When these two square off in a political deathmatch, who would win?

 

[Perfection]

Nobody

 

[gay_Aleks]

Is suicide an alternative option?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Clinton of course. Walker will have to give up because of bleeding eardrums.

 

[dutchfire]

At least I know who will lose. The American public.

 

[Harv]

Nobody

This.

At least I know who will lose. The American public.

And this.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Too many variables. The Republican brain trust would look at Scott Walker as an opportunity; another governor in need of 'bolstering' since he has no foreign policy record. If he let's them bolster him with the same GWBush retreads that the GOP pushed onto Romney he would meet the same fate. If Walker could get the nomination while forcing a change in foreign policy direction on the leadership of the GOP to something less obviously failed (two things that are mutually exclusive) he might have a chance.

I think the Republicans can't win with a governor. They need a candidate who can believably separate themselves on foreign policy. That has to be someone with their own foreign policy chops who hasn't been affiliated with Rumsfeld-Cheney doctrines. I don't know if that candidate exists, but it isn't Scott Walker.

 

[Kyriakos]

Hilary is horrible even by 21st century political lack of standards.

Don't know who this Walker guy is. What happened to the other 20 or so main republican candidates?

 

[Archbob]

I think Domestic policy will be far more important than foreign policy in 2016.

Also you know people don't vote based on policies otherwise they wouldn't have voted republican candidates in this mid-term while voting mainly for democratic policies like increase in minimum wage.

 

[Ajidica]

Hillary would win.
Few can withstand the power of her fully armed and operation DEATH STARE!

 

[Antilogic]

Sweet, matchup threads. I got a few ideas for 'em.

This.

And this.

Seconded. Maybe.

Too many variables. The Republican brain trust would look at Scott Walker as an opportunity; another governor in need of 'bolstering' since he has no foreign policy record. If he let's them bolster him with the same GWBush retreads that the GOP pushed onto Romney he would meet the same fate. If Walker could get the nomination while forcing a change in foreign policy direction on the leadership of the GOP to something less obviously failed (two things that are mutually exclusive) he might have a chance.

I think the Republicans can't win with a governor. They need a candidate who can believably separate themselves on foreign policy. That has to be someone with their own foreign policy chops who hasn't been affiliated with Rumsfeld-Cheney doctrines. I don't know if that candidate exists, but it isn't Scott Walker.

I heavily suspect a governor would either bring on an established team of foreign policy advisers to cover himself with the base (over the last year, there have been a few articles floating around talking about Christie and Walker meeting with Bush administration officials to bone up on the subject), or would select an appropriate VP candidate to cover that weakness (like the Obama-Biden or Bush-Cheney examples). I doubt a governor will be the candidate who seriously changes the party's foreign policy track.

Paul could be the candidate who seriously mixes up GOP foreign policy for 2016, despite not getting his LBJ law.

I think Domestic policy will be far more important than foreign policy in 2016.

I don't think I want to hazard a prediction on this yet. The Democratic primary could have a 2008 feel to it that would carry over into the regular campaign.

 

[Saigon]

Hillary would win.
Few can withstand the power of her fully armed and operation DEATH STARE!

Our boys in Benghazi realized that firsthand. /bait

Joking aside, I don't really know enough about Walker to come to a decision about him.

 

[JollyRoger]

McCain with a walker would have a better shot than Scott Walker.

 

[Hygro]

Clinton would be the best candidate to have to push a progressive agenda on social issues while continuing to grow the intelligence state.

I actually don't think Warren is much better.

 

[Kyriakos]

Not seeing anything 'progressive' in Hilary. She barely seems to be 'human' either...

 

[JollyRoger]

Perhaps she can star in a second rate horror story.

 

[Hygro]

Not seeing anything 'progressive' in Hilary. She barely seems to be 'human' either...

In all fairness you consistently disengage your critical thinking brain in favor of your gut brain when it comes to Clinton.

 

[Antilogic]

Clinton would be the best candidate to have to push a progressive agenda on social issues while continuing to grow the intelligence state.

I actually don't think Warren is much better.

I had to do a double-take to make sure I read that correctly. I think I know what you mean.

Warren has the chance to shape good legislation on economic issues for over a decade in the Senate, or she can be a political punching bag for 4 or 8 years. I hope she stays put.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I heavily suspect a governor would either bring on an established team of foreign policy advisers to cover himself with the base (over the last year, there have been a few articles floating around talking about Christie and Walker meeting with Bush administration officials to bone up on the subject), or would select an appropriate VP candidate to cover that weakness (like the Obama-Biden or Bush-Cheney examples). I doubt a governor will be the candidate who seriously changes the party's foreign policy track.

That's exactly what I meant. You just used the more flattering phrase 'established team of foreign policy advisers' where I said GWBush retreads. If those advisers aren't the neo-con hacks that Romney took on maybe Governor Candidate could win, but they aren't going to get nominated. But if they take on those neo-con hacks to get the nomination they won't get elected. There is no advisory team that is acceptable to both the GOP leadership and humanity.

 

[Antilogic]

That's exactly what I meant. You just used the more flattering phrase 'established team of foreign policy advisers' where I said GWBush retreads. If those advisers aren't the neo-con hacks that Romney took on maybe Governor Candidate could win, but they aren't going to get nominated. But if they take on those neo-con hacks to get the nomination they won't get elected. There is no advisory team that is acceptable to both the GOP leadership and humanity.

Yeah, I should have edited that better to make it clear I was agreeing. If we get another establishment GOP candidate, we can bet the establishment team of FP advisers will be with them. Even the radicals like Cruz would likely be in the neocon camp for foreign policy.