Although a Dem, I'm not sure I could get behind Hillary, and there may be many Dems who feel that way. I admire the woman's abilities and intellect and tenacity, but I wasn't a fan of the way Bill used to triangulate Republican positions to stay popular. I want a dyed-in-the-wool lib to counterbalance the extreme wealth-siphoning going on at the top of our system (not a Bill Clinton). And, of course, Hillary is a Likud-enabler. I can't abide that. If Hillary is the Dem nominee (and it already appears she will be) my vote might depend entirely on who the Reps nominate.
Way too early to tell, I believe foreign policy is going to be a massive game changer in the next four years. I could get behind Hillary if someone like Perry or Bachmoron ran against her. But Johnson, Christie or even Rand Paul I think would beat her. Even what I just said is too early to tell though.
My list of possible candidates: Democrats: Andrew Cuomo (New York Gov.) Martin O’Malley (Maryland Gov.) Mike Beebe (Arkansas Gov.) Julian Castro (San Antonia Mayor) John Hickenlooper (Colorado Gov.) Deval Patrick (Massachusetts Gov.) Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida Congresswoman) Hillary Clinton (NY Senator, SecState) Joe Biden (DE Senator, VP) Rahm Emanuel (Chicago Mayor) Antonio Villaraigosa (Los Angeles Mayor) Cory Booker (Newark Mayor) Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts Senator) Bernie Sanders (Vermont Senator) Republicans: Sam Brownback (Kansas Gov.) Ken Cuccinelli (Virginia AG) Sam Graves (Missouri Congressman) Bill Haslam (Tennessee Gov.) Susana Martinez (New Mexico Gov.) Sarah Palin (Alaska Gov.) Rick Santorum (Pennsylvania Senator) Rick Perry (Texas Gov.) Jeb Bush (Florida Gov.) Bobby Jindal (Louisiana Gov.) Brian Sandoval (Nevada Gov.) Ted Cruz (Texas Senator) Rand Paul (Kentucky Senator) Chris Christie (New Jersey Gov.) Paul Ryan (Wisconsin Congressman) Marco Rubio (Florida Senator) On the Democratic side, I'm most interested in Cuomo, O'Malley and Patrick. I don't think Hillary will run; I think she'll be too old; she's too centrist for the Democratic Party, she supported the Iraq War, she'll be 69 in 2016. I think she's done with national office. On the Republican side, I like Rubio, Christie and Martinez, though I don't think Susana Martinez will run as much as I'd like her too. Also worth keeping an eye on are Rand Paul, to see if he wants to take up his father's mantle, and Ken Cuccinelli, particularly if he wins the governorship of Virginia this year.
Hillary will not be the dem nominee in 2016. she is too old and has way too much baggage. her political career is over. Now maybe she can finally come out of the closet and admit to being a lesbian.
Hillary is tired and old and seems spent. Not to mention she is not in the best of health and that's not likely to change. But more importantly, she's got too many mistakes and bad decisions on her record that she's never explained. Of course, many Democrats don't care about that when it's a Democrat, but I think some will.....and certainly Independents would. Here's a list of them....although I know it's not complete: 1) She gave a big speech on the Senate Floor about the evils of Saddam Hussein, told of how she not only went to the Bush administration briefings on the subject, but that she consulted with her hustand and his former administration officials before making her decision to vote in FAVOR of going in to Iraq. However, within two years, like many of the other Democrats, she jumped ship when the going got tough and tried to pretend she not part of the initial decision. 2) She blamed her husband's infidelity on a "vast right-wing conspiracy" and she went on national tv to make that claim. Her husband let her do it.....and she has NEVER apologized for blaming it on Republicans. 3) Unanswered questions about Benghazi and what happened there. She apparently is part of the cover-up.
JP5 you are not a doctor. Hillary Clinton merely had a syncopal episode. The same as GW Bush when he was in office. The difference is Hillary fainted because she was dehydrated and Bush fainted because he ate a peanut. [video=youtube;XnOnDatqENo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnOnDatqENo[/video]
I can't imagine voting for Hilary but the GOP has got to get their act togeather before I vote that way. They may figure that they have four years to do it but I don't think independents are going to go GOP at the last minute. Things might have turned out different today if the GOP were a little more in sync.
Republicans literally have no chance in 2016. It would take a depression to give them a 50/50 chance. They no longer hold favorable demographics and that is not changing in their favor anytime soon. Of course they could always come to the middle/left on alot of things.
The pro-massacre party has no chance in 2016. The Dems could run Keith Ellison, a muslim, and beat any of the goons from the pro-massacre party.
I have seen and heard more and more people talking about Uncle Joe running. Would Dems be happy with this? That would be an automatic R or no vote for me if he is the D nominee.
If she runs,she will be the Dem nominee and there is a deep field of Dem Hispanic males to choose from as a VP nominee. BHO got 55% of the women vote. Imagine HRC getting 60% of the women voters. Imagine how many first-time women voters there would be. Romney won whites 60-39 and only got 47% of the popular vote. HRC would cut into the GOP white vote at least 5-6 points. HRC would do as well among blacks as BHO did. With Chelsea campaigning for her,HRC would do as well with the youth vote as BHO did. With a Hispanic(not Cuban either) VP nominee,HRC would get 60+% of the Hispanic vote,even if Rubio is the GOP nominee. It would be a wipeout.
Rubios is being tossed the way of Christie for his "amensty" postion. It's going to be the same thing we saw last election another Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich, and Cain debacle. The GOP could win with a Buddy Roemer, Gary Johnson campaign but that would require them to ditch their principles and sell their souls to the GOP corruption machine. They wouldnt possibly run them any other way.
The media will prevent any Republican from winning the presidency from here on out unless the media and the left are overcome by events beyond their control. It will take foreign powers to break the hold of the left on the executive branch of the federal govt. This is one of the reasons conservatives should welcome the expansion of Chinese power worldwide.
Republicans already tried being the "me-too-but-not-as-much" party. It resulted in a fairly steady run as the minority party.
If the people of this country are stupid enough to elect the big brown chunk of (*)(*)(*)(*) twice, they are stupid enough to elect Hillary.
I think taking a more liberal/moderate stance on social issues and not being such rabid warhawks would be a good move for them. I think they could do that and still maintain their conservative identity. I think they should go back to being the party of small government as to have a more direct contrast with the Democrats.
I, together with President Obama, like the Indian woman. http://2016.democratic-candidates.org/Harris/
