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

Hey, it worked in 2008.

 

Ha. My point though is that the gop isn't producing winnable folks. It really isn't even a fair election. The people have no choice but to vote democrat.

 

Taking away all political leanings and assessing this notion from a purely logical standpoint, it is obvious that you are lacking any semblance of objectivity on this issue. The Republicans won in a big way in 2014, so it is not credible to dismiss their ideology as unwinnable. You are talking about 17 different people, where one will emerge as the flag bearer for that ideology. If you were talking about 1 or 2 specific candidates you might be able to point to various reasons and halfway credibly say that neither of them can win. You cannot credibly look at a field of 17 different candidates representing the ideology that had such sweeping victories in 2014, and summarily dismiss all of them as unwinnable. Your declaration speaks more to your political bias than it does to any form of objective reality.

 

can you run for president from jail?
now seriously you must think her email problem is over with that it has run its coarse and there is nothing more there
you must not have gotten the memo that we have a federal judge a Clinton appointed judge at that having to threaten contempt of court if Clinton, her aids and state department don't start playing ball stop dragging their feet and start producing what the judge has ordered them to produce.
that same judge has ordered Clinton and her aids to start answering questions under the threat of perjury if they aren't truthful
its not over with by far and it is going to do nothing but get worse 2/3 of the public already don't trust her

 

Ok. Who out of the gop wins then?

 

Who I think will emerge doesn't matter. What matters is that there are 17 candidates vying to be the flag bearer for an ideology that just produced sweeping victories in 2014. One of them will gain significant momentum and represent that same ideology that just won big in 2014. You cannot look at 17 different candidates for that obviously viable ideology and declare NONE of them can win. If it were one or two candidates you could halfway credibly point to various reasons and argue they cannot win, but to do so with 17 is nothing more than blind partisanship on your part. While I am assuming that none of them could win your vote, I am also guessing that no one representing Republicans could EVER win your vote. As such, you aren't exactly the target audience.

It would be FAR easier to argue that Hillary cannot win for various reasons, versus arguing that 17 different people cannot win.

 

It's pretty much a lock. And I'm not celebrating that. It's sad really. Our country deserves better.

 

You cannot credibly declare something is a "lock" without accompanying that with a credible reason WHY it is a lock. You cannot credibly look at 17 different candidates, one of which will emerge as the flag bearer for an ideology that just had sweeping victories in 2014, and summarily declare that NONE of them can win. If you were talking about one or two people, you might be able to look at one or both of them and argue that for this or that reason, that person cannot win. For example, Republicans could make an argument that because of her huge negative rating, Hillary cannot win. Of course Democrats could make a counter argument, but looking at one person you could semi credibly make the argument in either direction. You could do the same looking at one or a few different republican candidates. You cannot however, credibly do the same with 17 different people. Doing so amounts to nothing more than partisan bluster.

 

Wrong. But think what you want. They all are lame ducks.

 

The sum total of your rebuttal to what I have said in this entire conversation is to say "it's a lock","wrong", and "they are all lame ducks". While you must somehow think those three statements form the basis of a strong argument, you will have to forgive me if I see them as a weak attempt to defend the indefensible. I'm also pretty sure you don't know the meaning of the expression "lame duck".

 

That's one of the many reasons that I don't think any Republican can win against any Democrat in 2016. No matter who the nominee is, Florida has gone from Red to Purple to Blue in just the past dozen years. Right now tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans are pouring into Central Florida because of the Puerto Rican financial crisis. Who will have their vote in 2016? I think we already know the answer.

 

Thanks for participating in my thread. But please keep it respectful and no personal attacks. Besides that feel free to continue.

 

I am happy to participate in this thread. I have kept it "respectful", and at no point have I made a personal attack. Besides that unfounded implication, feel free to continue.

 

Yeah I think that is essentially correct. Trump has had a big impact not because the base is evaluating him like they would any other candidate and think, "He might be a good President." They are mad at the Republican establishment. I don't know when the party base has been so estranged from the party establishment. Trump is the middle finger to that establishment.

 

And now they have a Trump vs Fox thing going on. It's quite ridiculous. We all deserve better.

 

Gore HAD name recognition but he is way past his sell by date...

 

Don't bet on it...she is, after all, both a Clinton and a Democrat....They don't need no stinkin laws..

 

2008 was a freak year...No one knew what they were getting in Obama....In this election we know exactly what we would get with Hillary and it horrifies a lot of folk

 

The only potential threat is Joe Biden, and I don't think he's going to run.

The large audience that Donald Trump served up to the GOP debate last Thursday does present the possibility that people may pay more attention to a Republican opponant.

However 90% of that audience that tuned in were not Fox viewers, and many if not most will be turned off by Fox's rabid right wing tone over time. All the more so, if the GOP continues to have its tail wagged by rabid right wing candidates like Ted Cruz.

 

Big Jewish vote in Florida and that is no longer a lock for the dems, what with the ObamaBomb deal on the record.

 

Something Fox viewers and GOP don't seem to understand. Folks aren't fooled by this.

 

You could be right.

 

They'll just re-brand him as global warming buttermilk.

 

Well we're a half a year away from the first primary vote so in the meantime I'm enjoying the show!

 

Oh, I think they both understand it by now.

It's keeping Rience Priebus up at night. Trump is widely beleived to be detrimental to the GOP brand.

Not that Roger Ailes cares about the GOP brand.

He's made a fortune pandering to the AM talk radio crowd by promoting crackpots like Trump. And he just laughed all the way to the bank with the biggest audience he ever had (nearly 10 times his ususal viewership).

And he got to promote his number one news model, Meghyn Kelly, whom most of the audience knew little about. (of course he made sure she made an impression in her post debate interviews in a skirt so short that you could practically see her bottom!

Of course the show was a game show in everything but name, and full of gotcha gossip column type questions. Its what Fox does well.

- - - Updated - - -

We all may deserve better, but 27 million people opted to settle for less. Roger Ailes counted on that too.