Hillary for President?

I still think it will be Portman.

It is interesting how the red convention is being held in Ohio, Portman's state - plus he re-gained his seat back in the mid-terms. I think the red party aren't going to stay on the right and move over to the left and the powers-that-be think Portman is the best man to do it. He recently came out in support of gay marriage - after his son came out as gay - apparently. The president won't be Paul - but not sure - because one he wasn't re-elected in Kentucky however is a "junior senator" and two his father who is also a politician used to complain about the media ignoring him so why won't they ignore the son too?

The United States is a mafia state anyway. The mafia aren't going to put up a nomination who is going to campaign against them or get in to office then turn around and destroy them - same goes for the Zionist Occupied Government too which in one of my theories is just a front for the mafia to try and shift the blame away from them on to Jews. But most of us don't really know what is really going on and we have to speculate. I don't think Paul would have an anti-organised crime policy like an anti-terror policy of Bush and Obama because to tell you the truth I think Paul is just another mafia man like a lot of the other American politicians

I think Italian and Sicilian organised crime is deeply rooted in the United States government establishment they need to be fought to return government to the politicians and the people I think if it weren't for the Tony's, don's and godfather's we would be in a situation now in 2015 where the United States government wouldn't have to be fighting Islamic terrorism. So they have to go and just be put in jail where they belong, then the U.S. military leave the Middle East, then raise the idea of dis-banding the state of Israel and put it to a vote - I think that is the best course of action to make this world a better place.

So I think it will be Portman, there is a high likelihood, he will go public sooner or later and say he has changed his mind, he is the mafia's number one on the right wing.

 

The idea of using crayons seems to have been done before.

 

Yes, I never claimed they were evidencing originality.

 

FedEx me that powerful pot you're smoking, bro.

 

In the end, it won't matter who gets the nomination for the GOP. They aren't winning the white house.

 

And here it is for you

Dive: Just 37 percent approve of Obama in week marked by Paris MIA

President Obama’s public approval rating has dropped to just 37 percent, with 55 percent disapproving of his job performance, according to the first Reuters/Ipsos political tracking poll of the year.

The poll clashes with Gallup, which last had Obama at a 46 percent approval rate. During the period, the president was hit for not sending an important member of his team to the protests in Paris over recent al Qaeda terrorist killings.

Worse, with the GOP in charge of Congress, more say that the Republicans “have better plans on the economy, taxes and foreign policy than do Democrats,” said the newly released poll.............

The poll was conducted Jan. 10-14 and included 634 Democrats, 646 Republicans and 230 independents.

Overall, 56 percent said that the nation is on the “wrong track,” while 26 percent said the nation is on the right track.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/d...a-in-week-marked-by-paris-mia/article/2558727

I did.
But here again, January 2007 Gallop

2007 Jan 5-7
Approve 37

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/Presidential-Approval-Ratings-George-Bush.aspx

January 19, 2007: FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll (conducted January 16-17): Bush's approval rating is 38%,
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration_approval_ratings

Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
Who else do the Democrat presently have to choose from?

Obfuscation noted, they have settled because they have no other choices at this point. That could well come back to bite them as she is a lousy candidate with little in the way of a record to present as reason to elect her.

Maybe I usually get one or two calls per cycle. But the fact remains the Republicans have a large stable of possible candidates and I look forward to a vibrant and interesting campaign among them as opposed to the Democrats ordaining of all people Hillary Clinton who couldn't even beat an unknown junior first term Senator.

Who uses his middle name Mitt, why do you not use the name he chooses and by which he is known? Be less confusing.


Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
The question is WHY Hillary for president.

Obfuscation noted again, and you actually are betting on her winning?'

Don't worry your obfuscation is typical about her and just proves the point of how weak a candidate she will be once again.

Diversion, we are discussing Hillary and the reasons to elect HER not them.

And why would Hillary get that vote from you, what has she done or accomplished or demonstrated that would lead you to believe she is the best person to do that and where is it you think she would and is capable of leading us?

And again why would the American people do that? Why would they give her their vote?

 

Bush's approval level was in the 30% and his disapproval in the high 50s or low 60% at this stage of his tenure in a dozen different polls, yet you cannot honestly admit that Obama's numbers are clearly superior in every poll. (Even Ipsos had Bush at 32% approval/65% disapproval for 1/8-10/2007.)

Sampling a number of polls is far more likely to produce an accurate result than is cherry-picking just the one you like.

And again I am not authorized by the American people to speak for them, despite your apparent notion to the contrary.

As the conservative Washington Times, no supporter of Mrs Clinton, acknowledged last month:

 

Again, have you noticed how so many of the Rightwingers say

"Hillary can NEVER win....any Republican could beat her in 2016 easily".....


yet they all LEAP on any glimmer of hope that Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders will jump in and challenge Hillary for the Nomination???

 

If Hillary is the best the democrats got, and the GOP has not anyone able to beat her, you folks are in for some harsh times.

 

I'm tempted to vote for her just to watch some of the reactions here.

 

I cited his a Obama's both @ 37 January of their 7th year. And match's have little meaning at this time, most have never heard of most of the Republican prospects and Hillary has not competition on her side, sad for the Democrats they have no worthy candidates to consider while the Republicans and independents can pick from and certainly not at this point commit to anyone.

And your obfuscations noted. But then again just proving the point many of us are making, no one can talk her up and give reasons to support here other than their belief she can merely win. What a lame reason to have to vote for someone.

 

Really? Because I haven't.

Although I HAVE stated I wish Joe Biden would challenge Hill. Come on - Don't YOU want to hear what new gems Biden will come up with? I know I do!

Run Joe, run!

 

Because most GOP candidates are socially conservative, and that is not a viable choice in a presidential election year.

 

I am not interested in promoting Clinton. If I were, I suspect that I would be wasting my time attempting to convince you that she is the best choice. I just recognize the likelihood that she will be elected the next President of the United States by the American people who make such judgements.

Media entertainers have been training their fans to constantly repeat that, "Hillary is not qualified!" - as they had done with the two-term incumbent when he ran with 9 years as a State Senator and 4 as a US Senator on his resumé. They pretend to ignore her experience as the nation's Secretary of State 2009-2013, a US Senator 2001-2009, both with high job approval numbers. Previously, she had been a popular First Lady of the United States, actively involved in governance in an unelected capacity 1993-2001, and First Lady of Arkansas 1983-1992.

"Most of the Republican prospects" are not Republican prospects, then.

While it is true that Willard Mitt Romney's only experience in office was a skimpy single term as a governor that will be nine years in the past on inauguration day, 2016, and John Ellis Bush's having served in a political office is of comparable vintage, one strongly suspects that most of the American electorate have heard of them - as is the case with the current governor of New Jersey. It is true that they are all White guys, and there were 42 White guys in a row, but that precedent has now been broken.

Prospective voters clearly regard Clinton as better-qualified to be their president than any of them whenever they are polled: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh16gen.htm

If you wish to make a case for someone else being better qualified, nothing prevents you from trying to do so.

 

Thanks for proving the point again, the reason to vote Hillary is not to vote for her but to vote against a Republican. Not a very sound position to be running on when you can't give valid reasons to vote for her.

And BTW on the list of most important reasons people for their vote the social issues, code word for abortion, are at or near the bottom.

CBS News Poll. July 18-22, 2013. N=1,036 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.


"Which ONE of the following do you think is the most important thing for Congress to concentrate on right now: the economy, the federal budget deficit, illegal immigration, health care, education, the environment, abortion, or something else?"


%

The economy

40

The federal budget deficit

16

Health care

15

Education

12

Illegal immigration

8

The environment

3

Abortion

2

Something else

3

Unsure/No answer

2

National Public Radio poll conducted by Democracy Corps (D) and Resurgent Republic (R). Oct. 23-25, 2012. N=1,000 likely voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.


"Which of the following types of issues are most likely to affect your vote for president and Congress this year: economic issues like jobs and unemployment; fiscal issues like taxes, spending, deficits, and debt; social issues like abortion and gay marriage; or national security issues like terrorism, Afghanistan, and Libya?" Options rotated


%

Economic issues

57

Fiscal issues

16

Social issues

14

National security issues

8

None/Other/Unsure

5

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 8-12, 2012. N=1,170 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.


"What is the most important issue to you in deciding how you will vote for president this year?" Open-ended


%

Economy and jobs

37

Health care

11

Budget deficit/National debt

4

The President/Barack Obama

4

Education

3

Taxes/IRS

3

Abortion

2

Medicare/Medicaid

2

Women's issues

2

Misc. social issues

2

Other

20

Unsure/No answer

10

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 12-17, 2012. N=1,154 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.


"In deciding who you would like to see elected president this year, which one of the following issues will be most important to you: abortion, or the federal budget deficit, or the economy, or health care, or illegal immigration, or something else?" Options rotated


%

Economy

56

Federal budget deficit

15

Health care

14

Illegal immigration

5

Abortion

3

Something else

6

Unsure/No answer

1

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

So try again, WHY should Hillary be elected?

 

Not being a Hillary fan in general, I am stuck on who to vote for, but she seems to have enough support to win. Republicans have too many candidates, none of which could get a majority.

 

Then why are you here in this thread discussing exactly that.

Did you have some point to make?

I haven't asked you to, why do you assume I did. This is about why THOSE WHO WILL VOTED will voted for, why do they choose her.

And the question is why? Why will the people that choose her do so. If you don't want to discuss that then move on to something you DO want to discuss. I really have no interest in just reading why you don't want to discuss it.

ROFL there are LOTS of people who have served in the Senate a LOT longer than she did that I would NEVER consider for President. Just having been elected Senator in a carpetbagged election with no qualification and in fact a record of failure trying to inact government policy or heading up a government program does not add to her qualification to be President in fact takes away from it. Remember she was one of the more vocal and unequivocal proponents of the war in Iraq. You would say to me Bush should not have been reelected because of Iraq I am sure, I believe you have even said some kind of charges should have been filed but I stand to be corrected I may have you confused. So if the left has so much animosity for Bush why not for Hillary? And back to the Senate, I bet you can't tell me the three most important things she did in the Senate were.

I think it is her supporters who ignore he unimpressive term as Secretary of State and failure to accomplish any major goals and in fact our foreign policy and influence going down the toilet. Even she cannot a single major accomplishment.

Yes and that is all she ever has, approval numbers, no accomplishments, no great achievements, certainly not the most likable person, so again the question why. Are they just misinformed about her
Ahh actually she was not that well liked in Arkansas and when given the job of reform and improving the education system, like healthcare, she fell on her face. Her husband made the fool of her and then her corrupt business dealings. Of course you don't hear those things on the MSM.

So I guess the answer is why Hillary? Out of ignorance perhaps?

When I said "most have never heard of them" I meant most as in the entire country not just the Republican party. They are prospects and some good ones, this is just the beginning the intial vetting then they will become known

Yeah that's a pretty good record, far better than Obama's in 2008, and far better than Hillary's. More successful than both, proved he could work with an opposition legislature and get things done. And then of course his stellar business record in which we know Hillary's shady business dealings.

Tell me do you have some obessions or do you get some perverse kick out of not referencing people by the names they go by? It is some kind of marginalization or denigrating you think you are engaging it?

I think it is just silly and sophomoric and would think you would be above that.

?? what does their race have to do with anything? You do know there is a black guy running too or are you segregating him out?

Then how come her most ARDENT supporters many who are right here can't tell us why? They can't tell us why she is more qualified only that she has lots of approval. Can't names her achievements or successes that make for the "better qualified", can't say why she is better qualified than any of the Republicans other than she has lots of approval.

See above. But what you are admitting is that you can't do the same with Hillary other than she served in two capacities, showed up every day and traveled around the world with Chelsea on taxpayer money, and she has high approval.

 

Yes but of course she has not competition right now. It's the primaries that have any importance right now, THEN the general which we are a LONG ways away. I really hope Webb comes up in the polls I could even vote for him.

There is nothing wrong with having a big stable at this point, they will start to be culled rather quickly as they see the cost benefit numbers don't add up. Some are just there to get their names out for a future run.

The Democrats have too FEW candidates and not much coming up. That the presumptive nominee is ONLY there because she has high approval may not stand up well the closer we get to the election and people start thinking more about could this person really be a good president and protect our country and deal with our enemies on the world stage. We've already seen who weak SecState Hillary was.

 

This thread is captioned, "Hillary for President?"

I have expressed my expectation that, yes, Hillary will probably be the next president.

Beyond directly addressing the proposition in the thread's title, no.

I don't know. You didn't explain why you are looking to me for information that is so readlily available.

If I can penetrate your conflation of tenses to discern your meaning, I recommend that you consult with the majority of those polled who indicate that they would vote for her in preference to the various alternatives offered.

Isn't it obvious? The electorate assesses her experience, her qualifications, her values, her abilities, and whatever other factors enter into their choosing a leader, and prefer her to all potential alternatives in those respects.

Of course. Just as there are lots of governors who have served for far longer and far more recently than Jeb or Willard who are not regarded as potential national leaders, either.

Her voting to surrender to Bush the decision to attack Iraq cost her the 2008 nomination. Apparently, it is no longer the barrier to nomination it was back then. Had she won the 2008 nomination, it is very likely that she would now be two years from completing her second term as president.

You are confused.

Hillary never launched a bloody, multi-trillion dollar nation-building fiasco predicated upon what were subsequently exposed as false premises. That she fell for the hype promoting it does not accrue to her benefit, by any means.

Nor did she serve two terms as president that left the nation into a state of economic collapse.

Take your pick. The bills she sponsored or co-sponsored are too numerous to be all listed here. You can review them all at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=300022 if you are really interested, and assign your own subjective degrees of relative importance.

If, instead, you would care to present the record of a Romney, another Bush, or anyone else you fancy, please do so. An election is a choice made by the American people, and both sides attempt to burnish their respective candidate's images whilst demeaning the other's.


.

 

^^^Bottom line! Conservatives are going to have to accept that America is moving left on social issues. We all saw Romney running full speed toward the center after calling himself a "severe conservative" prior to getting the nomination. The right forced Romney so far right, he couldn't run fast enough back to the center to win the general election. It really seems they'll do the same again in 2016. Not sure they can beat Hillary regardless what they do though.

 

I know. It's early. I am not a patient person. Unfortunately, I am unaffiliated in a closed primary state. More waiting, with the candidate dictated for me. I hate that. Haven't done much research on Webb. I'll check him out.

 

I have to admit I love to check this thread just to watch the Conservatives implode over Hillary.

And just to give voice to the obvious, there are very few candidates in the history of US politics have an agenda better explored, vetted, and understood than Hillary Clinton's. It is a known, safe, and by all polling data winning platform that no Republican candidate has come close to matching. There is no higher priority to the Democratic party than retaining the White House in 2016 and by any measure Hillary is their best candidate to accomplish that goal.

 

You might begin here and here.

 

The right wing media slime machine has been churning out its malignities with wild abandon as they target their inexperienced, Vince-Foster-killing, security-lax, brain-damaged, decrepit, callous and calculating bête noire and the subservient cant-followers that parrot the bushwa stridently and hysterically.

It didn't seem to work very well with their foreign-born, Islamist-sympathizing, teleprompter-addicted, 60s radical-colluding, madrasa-indoctrinated, America-hating African witch doctor.

Maybe, they should, instead, try to find a viable alternative candidate to support and promote.

Is that really so hard?