She will be horrible. The GOP won't work with her. It will be 4 years of "Republicans are conspiring against me!!"
How do you figure? In head to head match ups Trump does the worst among Cruz, Rubio, Carson and even Bush vs. Clinton. Clinton beats Trump by 10 according to an NBC poll released on 13 Jan, that same poll shows Cruz only 3 points behind Clinton, Rubio is beating Clinton by 3, Carson is tied with Clinton and finally Clinton leads Bush by 2. Since December the polls have been fairly even with the above results with the numbers going up by a couple of points and then down by a couple. But what they all show is Trump does worst against Clinton than other Republican candidates. If I were a democrat, I would be hoping and praying that Trump wins the nomination.
Electoral polls, far from the elections, have generated big surprises when real elections came [in Italy and in many other democratic countries as well]. The main problem about electoral polls is that it's not that sure that who answers a poll will vote [or the other way round]. This "pollutes" a lot the statistical analysis of an electoral poll. So I base my opinion on my personal knowledge and experience of US environment. US electors are emotional [otherwise there is no reason why so many persons who were voting no more, in 2008 went and vote for Obama] and since we are going to see a change of a certain importance [from the first Afro-American President to ... what?], my educated guess is that this time polls will be particularly "not accurate". P.S. I would suggest to US parties and politicians not to waste all that money in polls this time ...
Saying that she has foreign policy "experience" doesn't seem to mean very much considering the state of US foreign policy. I'm unclear what, from her time as Secretary of State, she would count as a win. As an executive, she's a disaster. I remember one of the early Benghazi hearings when asked about ambassador Stevens emails, she said she couldn't possibly keep track of the thousands of emails she received. She clearly had no system or way to handle an office or handle an executive position. And of course, she will be corrupt. The Clinton Foundation will become a new branch of government so it will be pay to play. She's going to bring Tammany Hall to the White House. Even her lickspittle reporters will get sick of that as they get tired of defending her.
This poll, so far, shows a real cultural difference between continental Europe and US. Personally I tend to think that a malicious politicians like Hillary could be anyway a good President, but it seems that Americans are well more focused on substance than on form ... From this perspective, it's probable that Mrs Clinton will be a disaster: I had occasion to note, when she declared that she knows how to defeat the Islamic State, that while she was Secretary of State, the Islamic State was growing and she did a perfect nut to stop its growth ... So, I'm afraid Hillary can offer form, a great technical political preparation, but a not sufficient action capability. What about running an administration? She won't be allowed to keep her personal mails on a private server ...
It was brought up maybe four of five years ago that it seems Hillary Clinton has little knowledge of basic business administration and she appointed people with no knowledge of business administration to run her office when she was Secretary of State. And if the Middle East is any example of Hillary as Secretary of State, it's a big FAIL for both Hillary and Obama.
Nothing wrong with that as at times the polls can be really off. But a better indicator than the horse races which I cited is the favorable/unfavorable ratings among the candidates. That stat will tell you more or give you a better indication of the future than any horse race. People usually will not vote for a candidate they dislike or see in an unfavorable light. Trump has a huge problem here even among Republicans. Republicans give him an average of 30% unfavorable, Independents view him in the 60% range unfavorable and Democrats at 90%. The Democrats are no surprise, but Republicans and independents are. Regardless of who Trump runs against in November if he is the nominee, his high unfavorables especially among independents will not win him their vote. With a smaller base vote, Trump needs to win the independents with around 54-55% of them. He can't do that with independents viewing him in the 60% range unfavorably. Rubio, Carson are seen in a positive light by independents and Cruz is even with them, not a 30-60 favorable vs. unfavorable. Bush and Trump both have very high negatives among independents which make up 40-45% of the electorate. I haven't even gotten into the electoral college yet. Just looking more at the popular vote side of things.
Yes, this is more interesting and meaningful. At the end, it's an other evidence that the Republican Party has lost the contact with the electorate. If the supposed "front-runner" [Trump] doesn't meet enough the favor of some pivotal sectors of the electorate, we should wonder why the GOP is not able to offer something better. The problem now, is that Iowa is a too little and peculiar state to give global indication, so that the Republican best runners at not great distance [they are 3 now ...] indicate more confusion than a clear trend. We have to wait ...
A complete and total disaster. Just look at the lady when she talks and listen how she talks- A complete psychopath. A total slick. She would just continue on Obongo's road leading the country all the way to hell. She scares the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of me. Unfortunately my feeling has always been that she will win this.
Yes, we will have to wait. The thing is Trump has his supporters, Cruz his which adds up to around or abit over 50% of the Republican vote so far. Then you have Rubio, Christie, Kasich and Bush fighting for the 40% or so is the more moderate to establishment Republican vote. Carson is also still in the mix. As long a those 4 keep dividing up the moderate Republicans that leaves Trump in charge. The good news for one of these four is that Huckabee and Paul have dropped out. New Hampshire is Trump's to lose.
I'd go so far as to say the system was broke when they took over and will be broke when Hillary leaves 9 years from now. The problems are way too big.
There is no Clinton, just a shill for the NSA, CIA and military industry so extreme she not only has and does support EVERY war and attack of any kind, but now openly wants to go to war with Russia directly in Syria for the goal of the USA taking over Syria. If you really, really, really like constant warfare everywhere, vote for Clinton.
She'll be a disaster. We need Cruz in, who will persuade his Christian followers to lay down their lives to defend Israel from the Iranian terrorists.
President Hillary Clinton could be so Caligula [in this case not Machiavellian] to prefer Teheran to Tel Aviv ... this is a concrete geopolitical risk.
I cannot deny the system was messed up. But this current administration had the chance to start correcting things. That did not happen and in fact I feel the world is much less safe. This whole business with the Russians never had to happen and the way we are approaching it is irresponsible. The Iraq stuff was in motion before they ever got a chance to touch things. The areas where I believe America has failed on are Syria, the Ukraine, and the Refugee problems. In Syria we should have secured the Iraq border and contained Assad and allowed them to settle their own internal problems. We had no business getting involved in a local civil war unless we planned on actually stopping it with the full might of our military. Half measures lead to things like Vietnam. The Ukraine was another internal issue but here it involved the Russians early on. We knew we would not go to war over the Ukraine (thank God) as such we should have strengthened our allies in the region that are a part of NATO and left the Ukraine to the Russians. Finally the refugee situation has been a massive failure of the entire world. We have the ability as a planet to care and resettle these people if we had the political will. The USA should have been at the forefront of leading the world in helping refugees of all conflicts. Not just Syria but all of them across the globe. We should be guiding the United Nations and leading the world in resettlement, integration, and care for these people. Now this is not all about altruistic motives. Refugees are prime recruiting tools for terrorists, insurgents, and criminals. When people lose hope and give into despair they turn to less savory means of empowerment. It is best for the world as a whole to situate these people in a humane and kind way in order to avoid long lasting issues for the world. Unfortunately this administration led by President Obama and advised by Secretary Clinton chose a different path. A path Secretary Clinton has vowed to continue. Now there is no way she can fix everything during her terms. But she has vowed not to even begin to fix the problems, she has stated she will continue the path the current administration has been on. But that path leads us to another hundred years of conflict, terrorism, and war. Big problems require leadership and the willingness to change the course that we have gotten on. It also means being willing to start fixing a problem now, knowing that your successors will have to finish it and reap the rewards. Mrs Clinton is not the answer to the USA's and the world's problems she lacks vision, accountability, and ethics. Without those she cannot lead, she can only administer and we need a leader not an administrator.
The Democrat Party rewards its voters with a shovel. They move mountains of Welfare goodies with it. Obama would simply pass the shovel on to Hillary, who would continue to dole out the welfare goodie to all the lazy, useless bastards who have discovered that they don't have to do anything to get subsistence-level welfare for the rest of their (*)(*)(*)(*)ed-up lives. When Obama stumbled through the Oath of Office in January 2009, the nation was $10.6 Trillion Dollars in debt. When we're finally rid of him, the national debt will be almost exactly DOUBLE that amount (this afternoon it is over $19 Trillion Dollars and skyrocketing....). And this is exactly what will continue to happen under the third in a series of three idiots in the White House -- Bush, Obama, Hillary Clinton. . "Just remember to vote for me, you miserable bastards, or you won't get your welfare and Obamacare subsidies!"
At this point, I would say that the users of PoliticalForum are not really optimistic [to say the least] about Hillary Clinton as potential next POTUS. In your opinion, which could be the main reason of this "preventive failure"?
US public debt is in orbit [and soon beyond the orbit!]. About this you're right. You know I'm a political opponent of this administration, so I'm the last one to be credible when I accuse Obama to have exceeded in deficit spending policies with his notorious "stimulus". But even leaving a part my political orientation ... I cannot avoid to underline that US, under Obama, have made the same series of economical politics mistakes which Italy has done in the last decades. So don't be surprised if US will look too much Italian in some years [about public debt, unemployment, giant public administration, bribery, incapability to act in foreign policy ...].
"Politics" in general is often described as "the art of what is possible," and of course that means compromises all over the place I think that Hillary would be okay ...
Not exactly, politics is "the art of what you present as possible to the electorate". Also the impossible is possible in electoral campaign ... and in this Hillary Clinton can be even better ...
Wow. I'm shocked I'm in the upper half. Perhaps I'm just more skeptical as to the ability of a President to really much things up. She'd be somewhat effective as a President, even if advocating policies I hate.
You know, I've heard that. Not sure it's true, but I have heard that. For my share of the public debt, it seems I own quite a bit.
