Will women support Hillary for President this time around?

I have been asking my friends and family that voted for Obama in 2008 this question. Some responded they would never vote for her because she supported Bill even after his infidelity and they believe it was only for political reasons. These women believe she has no clue what women go through when divorcing their spouses for similar reasons. And, she doesn't represent or care about women, only her politics. Then there were many others democrats, republicans that believe she blew it when she was Secretary of State, adding that when she campaigned against Obama she believed he would not make a good President, yet when offered to serve as Secretary of State, apparently was of a different mindset, likely only to help her own political position in the Democratic Party. I also talked with many Republicans. I would say the majority of people/voters are sick and tired of both Parties. Have no faith in either. Therefore, as I have believed for the past 10 years, we need to elect a moderate President, hopefully one leaning to the Libertarian side of politics. We have lost our "say" and impact in Government. It no longer matters who we elect as now we see the President can do what he wants without input from the Congress we elect. He did it 2010 when he pushed the Democratic majority to pass the PPACA that Pelosi verified they didn't read and would need to be passed before they knew what was in it. Only ignorant voters would accept such a travesty. Then even after the President publicly said on many occasions that the individual mandate was not a tax; our Supreme Court decided it was. Again the President and the Dems got a pass from the mainstream media. Now the Supreme Court is once again going to decide they know better what the Legislature meant regarding the subsidies individuals qualify for. Enough, I hate this Government and their politics and their blatant lies. Next election it would be best for this Country to elect a Moderate Candidate or a Libertarian. We have not faired well with the extreme left or right.

 

I do not consider shared genitals to be of importance when deciding who I am going to vote for.

 

Good for you and I also will not. But my post simply points out where the women I know stand on the subject of Hillary for President.

 

A lot of women voted for a leftist who had never actually done anything simply because he was a Democrat and claimed to be black. I suppose those same women could vote for Sen. Clinton for similar reasons.

 

All other pertinent factors aside, White guys will, in large numbers, vote for a White guy, and women, regardless of race, will be similarly disposed to vote for a woman without regard to how White guys instruct them to vote.

The fact that this woman is closely associated with a very successful President that completed his two terms with a 66% approval rating accrues to her benefit - especially if her opponent is the brother of one who has been in campaign quarantine since he absconded with 33% approval. Nostalgia? Maybe. But, of course, Republicans still seem in a tizzy over which White guy to nominate, and the extent to which the Republican-run Congress is paralyzed by their internal strife does not accrue to the benefit of any nominee sporting that party label.

As a moderate, Hillary Clinton can expect her opponent to espouse moderate policies as well, the preliminary, obligatory dissent from the far left on the Democratic side and from the far right in the GOP being effectively vanquished by the duopoly's pragmatic establishment bosses who understand that moderates win national elections.

If the Republican entertainment industry once again persists in braying the same sort of mindless negativity - strident birtherism, baseless ravings about islamism, communism, etc., in an jihad to devolve the United States into their ideologically-ravaged Kansas, they will reap similar results despite their fantasies about another Romney Landslide! that had them so giddily delusional last time.

Hillary Clinton would most likely be finishing her second term in office in January, 2017 if it had not been for her hapless vote surrendering to Dubya the power to launch his trillion-dollar, falsely-pretexted nation building fiasco in Iraq. Barack Obama successfully clobbered her with it in 2008, but whether it would work again, Randy Paul seems the only Republican with a remote shot at the nomination who would revive the issue. (Carrot Top Adelson would blackball any candidate who does not kowtow to Likud, and Paul tops that hit list.)

Ultimately, in speculating about voter preference of a demographic nature, the voter's pertinent question arises, "What else do you have to offer?" and the GOP's best shot is a blank.

Until they lock and load, Hillary confronts no challengers.

.

 

The real question should be will blacks and the youth come out for Hillary. After the disaster of the midterms it is pretty clear the the womens issue fell flat. Texas governor and Colorado senate are ample proof of that. As a friend's wife is fond of saying " I want to see a woman in the White House, just not that woman"

 

That is completely false that he did "whatever" he wanted in that instance. That was solely on the Dem congress for that. They could have easily voted it down and it would have been DOA regardless of what Obama wanted.

They did? I'm pretty sure they got lambasted by EVERY conservative talk show, news show there was on that one.

And that was done all by the GOPs hero Roberts, well until he did that one at least.

Its very simple what the GOP could do to win the next presidential election. Stop pandering to social conservatives. The country as a whole is not socially conservative. It turns people off. Stop talking about abortion, gay marriage, birth control and all the other BS they focus on and instead focus ONLY on the economy and foreign issues. instead of trying to insult 47% of the populace out of the gate.

I was absolutely astonished how the GOP threw away the last election in 2012. They managed to snatch defeat from victory.

 

It looks as if Americans are, at this stage, more disposed to support a Hillary Clinton presidency that any suggested alternatives.

Those who transfer their hysteria from the twice-elected first non-White guy president to the next likely non-White guy president need to seriously consider settling on their White guy opponent who matches up favourably against her.

She's not invincible - but only if a more attractive alternative is offered to the electorate.

 

I had followed Nate Silver's excellent analysis throughout the race, so realized that Willard never had a chance - and was astounded at their Romney Landslide! delusion on the very eve of the election.

Libertarians, a potential ideological constituency for the GOP, must be disgusted by the Evangatollah faction's jihad to insert the State into the bedroom and the womb. Those fanatics perverted Ron Paul's TPs with their theocratic extremism.

Given the changing demographics, pandering to geezers is not a savvy strategy for the GOP.

 

Women and adolescents, of all ages, tend to vote for those who promise to take care of them financially.

 

better question is can Hillary excite anyone enough to go cast a ballot. If this election boils down to Hillary and Bush I predict a record low turnout because most of us won't give a s*** to bother choosing between the two old business as usual washington insiders enough to bother going to the polls. Option 1 Wallstreet wins Option 2 Wallstreet wins

 

lib-progs will find many reasons to vote for someone, none of which have anything to do with real qualifications.

 

Any woman who votes for Hillary primarily because she is a women is a weak, simple minded codependent imbecile. The fact is that she allowed her husband to basically walk all over her and embarrass her publicly and like the dutiful apron wearing housewife from the 50s she stood by him and even actively defended him. That is NOT the reaction a strong independent woman would have. She literally made the calculation at some point that she couldn't get to be President on her own, she needed Bill to set up the stage for her. That kind of weak willed, dependent woman is the last person I want in charge of the country.

 

Women (especially leftist women) will vote for Hillary because of her sex.

 

Hillary's moderate days are far over. She's a right-centric militaristic hawk who's trying to appeal to the left-of-center voters who lost her the nomination the last time around. She's 8 years older, with a miserable tenure at Secretary of State to boot. Is it possible that enough Party Partisans could push her into the nomination and the WH? Possibly. Does that make her a good choice? Hell no.

Unfortunately, there aren't any good choices. There's no "Reagans" or "JFK's" here, only crap and muddled crap.

 

No use pining for that mythical version of Reagan or the unfulfilled promise of a JFK.

With the obscenely wealthy few now licensed to call the shots, it'll either be Clinton or the elite's choice of whichever subservient establishment White guy best advances their acquisitive agenda and they decide to bankroll.

If whoever he is can pull it off, they win big; if not, they win.

 

`
While Hillary still enjoys the support of the hard core Democrats, her support among the liberals, progressives and women, is waning. I'm not voting for her at any rate.

 

I see that happening as well. Hillary's been around so long, there's a perception that she has actually accomplished something when in fact the only thing she's done is marry Bill, get elected senator and appointed SoS. In those positions she's done nothing. But the vast majority isn't paying attention to her scandals. She'll play the vagina card. Obama may be able to sabotage her though. I don't think it'll be as easy as some think. She really looks old and tired.

 

According to Reuters Democrat support for Hillary has dropped 15% since February

Support for Clinton's candidacy has dropped about 15 percentage points since mid-February among Democrats, with as few as 45 percent saying they would support her in the last week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll. Support from Democrats likely to vote in the party nominating contests has dropped only slightly less, to a low in the mid-50s over the same period.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/19/us-usa-clinton-poll-idUSKBN0MF0DV20150319


also 46% thought she should hand over the server to a independent third party for review. Hang in there democratic operatives, it is only going to get worse because over on Politico today there is a piece about Hillary and Chen Guangcheng's recollections of his treatment by the State Department. Looks like Hillary had another "dodging sniper bullets" moment in her book

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...e-case-of-chen-guangcheng-116244.html?hp=t2_r

 

With only 23% approving of the way the Republican leaders in Congress are handling their job, and 74% now disapproving, it's easy to understand why the presumptive Democratic nominee easily leads all proposed opponents who sport the odious label.

................

Looks like yet another "Romney Landslide!" in the offing, by jiminy!

​

.

"It's not easy being red!"...........​

 

I look at Politico several times a day. Not too long ago Maggie Haberman or another Politico writer would have a pro Clinton piece almost every morning, just fluff stuff but it would always be a very positive article alluding to her inevitability. Recently in the last 2 - 3 weeks now instead I am seeing hit pieces on there every day. Whoever the powers that be at Politico has got a thing out for for her and I don't mean a good thing.
example

The Case for Covering Biden - He’s closer to being president than Hillary is.

 

What more could Hillary ask of Congress?

​

.

"It's not easy being red!"​

Underscoring the "Scarlet Letter" burden of the "R" brand, the dysfunctional duo of the Turtle and Bibi's Toady continue to exhibit all the leadership prowess of a callow young Moses, wandering aimless in a desert of ineptitude, fraught by an increasingly peevish band of malcontents.

Any Repubs aspiring to be the '16 Romney now brownnosing the party's fat cats for their financial favours may want to seriously consider changing that designation befouling their names:

VOTE​

.

​

.

IN '16!​

 

Vote for Prince in 2016? I didn't know he was running.

- - - Updated - - -

The liberal proggers want Elizabeth Warren to run so they have pushed the media to bash Hillary. That would be great because Warren doesn't have a chance.

 

Don't rule him out. The GOP is still desperately seeking for its '16 model Willard.

 

She doesn't need support, she has Republicans

They're going to field candidates who want to kill all the blacks and/or starve all the elderly. Oh hell, they'll do both, and most of them are already running on just that platform. Do you really think that liberals, progressives, women and blacks are going to vote for someone who wants to cut off Social Security and Welfare, end Affirmative Action and make the minimum wage 25 cents an hour over someone who, at least, doesn't come right out and SAY she thinks they're all scum?