To Gop and Dems...do you really think Hillary won't win in 2016?

Apparently they already have one, even though it's an independent.

 

Haha, this sure sounds familiar. Were you following politics back in 08?

Hillary is actually an incredibly weak candidate. She gets lots of support early on because of name recognition, memories the 90s (nearly everyone misses when a Clinton was in office), and the fact that she's the first woman to ever seriously contend for the Presidency... again. But then in 08 people saw her on stage and just how (*)(*)(*)(*) poor she was. She didn't deliver her rehearsed lines well, and couldn't manage to speak on the fly. And now she's got the baggage from her time in the State Department, and before anyone tries defending her, remember that Christie wasn't involved in his scandal (what was it, bridgegate?) but his political reputation and his candidacy tanked. People seem to forget that Sanders has always been taken about as seriously as Kucinich - he's getting this much support for 2 reasons, a)weak Dem field - people want an alternative to Hillary, and b) the Democrats have moved further to the left of center.


What I haven't even mentioned yet is the GOP nominee. The one with the best chance in the general is Rand Paul. He's pretty consistently polled the best against Hillary, and has even done well enough to beat her in stars that haven't gone red since Reagan. You'll hear a lot on the left brush him off and at the same time suggest that Sanders has a chance in hell at the general. Here's the thing - as far as Joe Public is concerned, Sanders is to the left of the Democratic field, Paul is to the left of the GOP field (therefore "center" or "moderate", relatively). He was for sentencing reform before the Democratic field talked about it, has gone against the GOP on security issues (NSA), is for reducing the military budget - he's a libertarian Republican, and the public is much more receptive to that set of ideas than it is to far left or right ideologues.

 

I heard that in 2008!

 

It's not the voters but the party that is scrambling because right now they are stuck with Hillary and she is going down the toilet with her scandals. A federal judge taking the highly unusual and forceful means of ordering HER to answer under threat of perjury whether ALL emails have been turned over as his court order commanded several months ago and if not to explain once again under threat of perjury why not. Now the FBI opening an investigation into the server and why SHE had classified information in an unsecured location against federal law, what got Petreous convicted of a crime.

 

Mark my words: Hillary Will be the Democrat that the GOP will be running against in November of 2016, nothing is going to change that. Sanders is trying give her a run but it is not going to happen. That means that the GOP needs to be very selective in who they run against her, someone with good ideas, can work with both Repubs and Dems, and has a good track record governing in public office (preferably a Governor). If the GOP can field a quality candidate Hillary will be history, many Dems and Indes do not like Hillary all that much and if they have a viable alternative the GOP could win the election and Hillary will be history, and isn't that the entire point; win the Whitehouse and make Hillary irrelevant.

 

She will have the female and latino vote. Just sayin.

 

You might want to check the polling data. Just sayin'.

 

LOL.... go Trump. Only the soulless will support the order (utopia) democrats promise. The problem with humanity is it is ripe with soul-filled people who will be repulsed by you and your people's means to bring about the greater good (utopia)

 

She will get plenty of support to make any opponent earn the win, and a I said if the GOP cannot field a good candidate she may very will walk away with and easy win. Should be interesting to watch it all play out over the next 15 months.

 

The soulless on full display is great for humanity. History will frown upon Gazi's and their efforts to command and control humanity.

 

Except for Trump I'd put any of them into a one on one debate with Hillary and place my bet in them. She is scared to death of debating candidates in her own party.

 

Well, one of them will get their chance and we shall see what goes down, the GOP better Trumpy is Not that guy, all Hillary would have to do is point at him and laugh for her to win in a landslide. Cruz is an angry little Tea Party boy that would kill any chances the GOP has. Now a few of the others could give her a good run for her money, Fiorina, Kasich and maybe Walker could definitely fit that bill. Not that it matters, Romney made a huge mistake running last time, if he ran this time he would be in the top five possible finalists, oh well mistakes can haunt you.

 

Cruz would trounces her as he proved last night. He would be on point while she, the angry little leftist girl, would just dance and try to point fingers.

 

Sad how some of you look at personalities and temperament, rather than issues and the answers given to how each would handle these specific situations.

Cruz did a very good job last night. Was articulate and to the point on what he would do in each instance.

But I wouldn't expect anything less from LIV's who look at it the way you do.

You're right about one thing.....Cruz won't get the bid, but it's a shame more don't look at his platform. He did as good as anybody last night. IMO.

 

I seriously doubt he will ever get the opportunity to try and hence one can speculate all they wish.

 

First, full disclosure: I am a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. So others may wish to take my comments with a grain of salt.

Nonetheless--and I am speaking now as a neutral analyst, rather than as a partisan--I have my doubts about Hillary Clinton's winning the general election in 2016. That is because it is quite rare for the same party to win the White House in three consecutive elections. (I was born in 1948; and it has happened only once within my lifetime: In 1980, 1984, and 1988, when the GOP won three in a row.) Typically, the American electorate gets tired of the party in power--either party--and wishes to "throw the bums out" after just two terms in office.

The counter-argument--and it should not be dismissed lightly--is that the electorate is changing; and the Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections.

This argument is more persuasive if Hillary Clinton (the presumptive Democratic nominee in 2016) keeps together the Obama coalition of young people, minorities, and unmarried women.

 

You attack me for saying what you finally got around to admitting yourself, proving it is not I that has an issue to deal with. His past actions and words will keep him from ever winning the Whitehouse, is what it is.

 

Kasich is a way better choice than Bush and probably the only one that can knock establishment Bush out of the race.

 

Rather thin-skinned? You attacked Cruz for being "an angry little man". I don't see him that way. I see him as one who is willing to speak the truth, stand for what he believes in, and is as close to being a true conservative as anybody on that panel. All one had to do was listen to his answers. You obviously didn't listen, nor were you willing or able to process those answers because all you offered was that he is "an angry little man".

To his past actions.....I applaud him. We should shut this f'ing federal government down. We would survive and be better off for it. Significant change needs to occur sooner than later, rather than all this tippy toe-ing around. Yeah I know.....credit ratings and pain. We'll experience much more pain later if we keep kicking the can down the road.

As to him getting the nod or winning the White House.....I'm a realist. I know this country is over-burdened with LIV's. They look at how Cruz presents himself rather than his positions on things. Meanwhile, they vote in (twice) a community activist who has no clue about anything, simply because he is an eloquent speaker. That's a sad commentary in and of itself.

As to my supposedly attacking you.....if you don't want to be referred to as an LIV, try speaking to why you disagree with any of Cruz's positions, rather than simply referring to him as "an angry little man".

 

The way she is going, she will have no problem being the president of her cell block.

 

I see you can not discuss topics without making it personal, until you can do not waste your time with more of the same. Real Simple, and obviously too hard for some to manage. Good Day.

 

Wishful thinking, been happening for over six years, so far it is only a fantasy and looks to remain that way. Maybe your time would be better spent picking out an acceptable alternative to Hillary from among the current batch.

 

He's one of my top picks but he's got to up his game a little.

- - - Updated - - -

I wouldn't seriously doubt any of them at this point.

 

By the time the various investigations into Hillary's corruption are finished and by the time the other Dem Party wannabe presidential hopefuls are done raking her over the political coals her image will be so trashed that whatever GOPer is left standing at the end of the GOP primaries will easily defeat her; plus the general mood of the nation is turning against liberalism again. It will be a classic Change Election in which the voters decide to give the other party a shot at running the Executive Branch.

 

Yep, I doubt she will ever see a jail cell, but it might get to the point where she needs to resign from the race. The FBI probe has turned into a criminal investigation.

On the Democrat side, I like Webb. On the Republican side, I like Fiorina.