It looks as if Hillary Clinton, if she should be nominated, wins the Presidency against just about anyone by at least as much as Obama won in 2008. Chris Christie has lost much of his early credibility.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It looks as if Hillary Clinton, if she should be nominated, wins the Presidency against just about anyone by at least as much as Obama won in 2008. Chris Christie has lost much of his early credibility.

I would much rather have Chelsea. What year is she eligible to run?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Guess which one of these guys is happy about it -

Wow, maybe Cruz really is the reincarnation of McCarthy.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

I would much rather have Chelsea. What year is she eligible to run?

Chelsea Clinton was born in 1980 so she'll be 35 next year. However, she'll be busy with diaper duty soon.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It looks as if Hillary Clinton, if she should be nominated, wins the Presidency against just about anyone by at least as much as Obama won in 2008. Chris Christie has lost much of his early credibility.

And if you still think he has any credibility, he's got a bridge he will sell you...

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It looks as if Hillary Clinton, if she should be nominated, wins the Presidency against just about anyone by at least as much as Obama won in 2008. Chris Christie has lost much of his early credibility.

But Joe Manchin would win it by a much wider margin - and if he proves to have coattails, puts both houses of Congress in Democratic hands, including 60+ seats in the Senate. By contrast, Hillary would polarize the electorate enough to prevent the Dems from obtaining an obstruction-proof Congressional majority (218 seats in the House, 60 in the Senate).

Elizabeth Warren Resists Liberals' Call to Run in 2016

Friday, 23 May 2014 09:37 AM
By Melissa Clyne

As the din escalates calling for Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts to run for president in 2016, she holds firm that she has no intention of doing so.

A crowd at the liberal Campaign For America’s Future conference gave her a standing ovation Thursday, The Hill reports, as they chanted “Run, Elizabeth, Run!”

"I appreciate the thought," Warren said. "I am not running for president."

Despite her repeated insistence that she won’t be a candidate, Warren supporters aren’t giving up. She is viewed by many in the progressive wing of her party as an alternative to Hillary Clinton, and President Bill Clinton’s, economic policies concerning issues such as deregulation and the couple’s ties to Wall Street, according to The Hill.

While Hillary Clinton has not declared her intentions, it is widely believed she plans to seek the Democratic nomination.

“Your ideas and the ideas of Bernie Sanders continue to be brought to the American people and you should join together to run for the Democratic nomination,” retired IBM employee Ray Donaldson told her at The New Populism Conference on Capitol Hill, according to U.S. News & World Report.

The Elizabeth Warren for President 2016 Facebook page has more than 11,000 "likes" and is filled with photographs and articles linking to press reports about her as well as her official Facebook page, which has 896,756 likes.

Last fall, Warren, along with all of her female Democratic colleagues in the Senate, signed a letter of support for a Clinton White House bid, according to The Hill, though Warren, Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio have called for Democrats’ to move left.

"During the financial crisis, I would say the single issue we've pushed the hardest on was — in return for the tens of billions of dollars that was shoveled in for these biggest financial institutions — a little accountability," Warren told the crowd. "What we got — and I want to be clear and this was under both administrations — was nothing, nothing and nothing out of that."


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/warr...#ixzz32ZXNddD8

Originally Posted by B Butler

And if you still think he has any credibility, he's got a bridge he will sell you...

Well, may be a good deal, if I can deny Republicans the ability to cross it (you know, just for revenge for all the trouble they've caused these last 34 years....)

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Elizabeth Warren Resists Liberals' Call to Run in 2016

Friday, 23 May 2014 09:37 AM
By Melissa Clyne

As the din escalates calling for Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts to run for president in 2016, she holds firm that she has no intention of doing so.

Well, that's a bummer.

Despite her repeated insistence that she won’t be a candidate, Warren supporters aren’t giving up. She is viewed by many in the progressive wing of her party as an alternative to Hillary Clinton, and President Bill Clinton’s, economic policies concerning issues such as deregulation and the couple’s ties to Wall Street, according to The Hill.

Shillery is a no go.

Look at this:



A pic is worth a thousand words. Now, this is not ladylike nor does it show Presidential promise. Rather it conveys an aura of wickedness wending its way.

Video Required!




Uh yup, and what wonderful company she keeps





While Hillary Clinton has not declared her intentions, it is widely believed she plans to seek the Democratic nomination.
Hope the press corps has wide angle cameras. Shillary has lot's of Halloweeny associates




Campaign slogan Shillary 2016, Where's there's Shillary, you'll find Halloween.

Some more googies for the upcoming Halloweeny Hillary 2016 debacle.

Yes, and Hillary is a Scorpio too! Halloween's sign.

Is this a little preview of the Hillary administration?
http://youtu.be/DJAovQp7QY8?t=5m59s

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

But Joe Manchin would win it by a much wider margin - and if he proves to have coattails, puts both houses of Congress in Democratic hands, including 60+ seats in the Senate. By contrast, Hillary would polarize the electorate enough to prevent the Dems from obtaining an obstruction-proof Congressional majority (218 seats in the House, 60 in the Senate).

Joe Manchin actually has a good score on my presidential horoscope fitness system, 14-7. That's not as good as the majority of presidents, or of Jeb Bush either, but better than Hillary. I hear no talk of him running though, and he's one year older than Hillary.

Seriously, Hillary has become a lot less polarizing than she supposedly was during her husband's career. She is more swave and graceful in her public personality now. She is moderate and accomodating to establishment opinion, like Joe Manchin is. She did fine as Sec. of State, and when she ran last time, there were no such debilitating skeletons or scandals; nor did she appear to be witchy and cranky. She was just barely beat out by a more-charismatic candidate with better strategy. She has quite a bit of charm and charisma, and women would vote for her in droves. That said, she does have her harder-edge cranky side, she likes power, and the Republicans love to hate her. But that last point is true of any Democrat these days. I'm sure they would hate Manchin too; in fact, they hate any Democrat who is successful. Bill Clinton was very moderate, and carried the Flat58 region in his election victories; that did not stop the Republicans from hating him and keeping him embroiled in stupid scandals for 8 years.

If the economy worsens during her term, as appears likely, she could get blamed, and therefore decide she's too tired to run for re-election. I imagine she could have some coattails in 2016, but could suffer a reversal in 2018.

I have never been a fan of the Clintons, either in my past libertarian or present lefty phases. However, I've been able to come to peace that the Democratic Party is about as united as it's been in a long time (maybe ever?), and at this point you just have to get the candidate that can campaign the best against the GOP to make sure that they stay the hell out of the Oval Office. if Hillary's the best to do that, then so be it. It's not like we're not talking anyone like Joe Lieberman being a serious figure anymore.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, and Hillary is a Scorpio too! Halloween's sign.

Is this a little preview of the Hillary administration?
http://youtu.be/DJAovQp7QY8?t=5m59s

1. As per prior post, yeah I did woo-woo. Vandal's not gonna be happy with that "hit".
2. Monkey business. Hell, we already have that in DC Eric.
3. Vandal. Hmmmmm.... Lesseee, I'd hazard he'd be Virgo. Vandal the Virgo has a nice ring.

I wouldn't hazard a guess on Vandal, but Vandal the Virgo does have a nice ring.

George Clooney is talking about getting into politics. He is Joneser cusper born May 6, 1961. Obama is also a 1961 cohort. So according to the cosmic indicator system, is he the next Ronald Reagan, the liberal version we have long been looking for? Maybe for 2020 or 2024, if not 2016?

Well, he's no Ronald Reagan. But he is marginally fit, scoring 16-12. He has some key good aspects, but some bad ones that may be an obstacle. I guess it would depend on the competition, but Cory Booker has a much better score, 10-3.

Zero chance it's Hillary. She's just not generally liked by all but the Kool Aid kids. She's just a paper target. As long as she's running, nobody in the press will get anything on anyone else. The press would rather drudge up old dirt on Hillary than new dirt on anyone else, because Hillary sells. She's not a winner, she's a sales job. She's smart enough to know it, too. She's going to hang out in the limelight for the next 2 years, absorb all the flak to ensure that she can waltz someone right into the White House like she accidentally did in 2008.

The republicans were trying to do this with Chris Christie early on, but he got caught up in a real scandal so, whoops. Jeb Bush will probably be their next paper target. Either way, I'm counting on another B-list candidate making a power play. It's bottom of the barrel, so spit balling isn't necessarily a bad idea.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Zero chance it's Hillary. She's just not generally liked by all but the Kool Aid kids. She's just a paper target. As long as she's running, nobody in the press will get anything on anyone else. The press would rather drudge up old dirt on Hillary than new dirt on anyone else, because Hillary sells. She's not a winner, she's a sales job. She's smart enough to know it, too. She's going to hang out in the limelight for the next 2 years, absorb all the flak to ensure that she can waltz someone right into the White House like she accidentally did in 2008.

Zero chance, eh? That's making a prediction more confidently than I do! Not liked, but has enormous poll numbers in her favor. How do you figure that one? She waltzed someone into the White House? How do you figure that one? That's a neat one, Kepi! It seemed to me that she fought hard to the end. Obama just turned out to have a better strategy. She actually won the popular primary vote by a very small amount.

The republicans were trying to do this with Chris Christie early on, but he got caught up in a real scandal so, whoops. Jeb Bush will probably be their next paper target. Either way, I'm counting on another B-list candidate making a power play. It's bottom of the barrel, so spit balling isn't necessarily a bad idea.

If Jeb runs, he'll get it. It's in the stars. Otherwise, look for Rubio, Ryan or Paul, in that order of likelihood.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Zero chance, eh? That's making a prediction more confidently than I do! Not liked, but has enormous poll numbers in her favor. How do you figure that one? She waltzed someone into the White House? How do you figure that one? That's a neat one, Kepi! It seemed to me that she fought hard to the end. Obama just turned out to have a better strategy. She actually won the popular primary vote by a very small amount.

If Jeb runs, he'll get it. It's in the stars. Otherwise, look for Rubio, Ryan or Paul, in that order of likelihood.

Results matter, Eric. Hillary van campaign her heart out, but at the end of the day she knows she can't take the battle ground states. In 2008 the public was begging to go Democrat just to wash the tarnished image of the GOP off the map. The Democrats have spent the past 6 years proving they're just the other side of the same crap penny. I severely doubt they'll spend the next 2 years changing their methods.

Basically, 2008 was the year where Hillary has a chance. She knows she doesn't now. Plus let's not forget that there's a difference between 68 and 60. You can elect a person at 60 and expect them to make it to 68 reasonably well without a life altering illness like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or death. 68? It starts getting dicy. The republicans are already trying to chip away at that weakness.

In a world of this complexion, Hillary knows she's going to lose, so she's serving the party the best way she can, just being a target, absorbing all the hits so someone else doesn't. My guess is she'll drop out of the primary right before the end, because I don't think she actually wants it anymore.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Results matter, Eric. Hillary van campaign her heart out, but at the end of the day she knows she can't take the battle ground states. In 2008 the public was begging to go Democrat just to wash the tarnished image of the GOP off the map. The Democrats have spent the past 6 years proving they're just the other side of the same crap penny. I severely doubt they'll spend the next 2 years changing their methods.

Results matter? She won a number of those states in the primary with Obama; in fact, most of them. Obama won by winning a bunch of smaller states through clever use of the Democratic Party's delegate arithmetic. Hillary won the big battleground states, but only by a proportional amount according to the actual vote margin. Barack won some small states that were winner take all.

Your contentions about Democrats is another issue entirely. Of course, everyone knows already that the situation is not as black and white as you say; Democrats accomplished some things during their short window of opportunity, and Obama's foreign policy is by no means identical to Dubya's. Everyone knows that too.

The electoral vote map will be interesting to look at. Would Hillary carry all the states Obama did? Or any others Obama didn't? Hillary would do better in some of the border states like West Virginia and Kentucky that her husband carried, and a black man can't. But I don't think she would actually win them. But I don't see any state that Obama carried in 2012 that Hillary can't, except Florida. So, it would be closer in the EC, but Hillary would win, and win the popular vote handily. Jeb Bush might overturn this expectation, though.

Basically, 2008 was the year where Hillary has a chance. She knows she doesn't now. Plus let's not forget that there's a difference between 68 and 60. You can elect a person at 60 and expect them to make it to 68 reasonably well without a life altering illness like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or death. 68? It starts getting dicy. The republicans are already trying to chip away at that weakness.

In a world of this complexion, Hillary knows she's going to lose, so she's serving the party the best way she can, just being a target, absorbing all the hits so someone else doesn't. My guess is she'll drop out of the primary right before the end, because I don't think she actually wants it anymore.

Your are a better prophet than I, then! And I'm a good one. Noone can "absorb" hits from Republicans; the latter are ruthless and would "hit" anybody. My prediction now, subject to change, is that she will run, and win, but not run for re-election. The Democrats look to win in 2016, according to my indications, although Jeb Bush would have a chance. Republicans have a tough time now demographically; they may be permanently out of the White House, and soon out of existence altogether. Which would figure given their policies. They are completely tarnished now because of their behavior as rulers of the House; they are long out of date, and the Democrats are not. The only way they keep anything now is through gerrymandering. They can't gerrymander the presidential election, although I'm sure they will cheat any way they can through stopping people from voting.

68 is younger than Ronald Reagan was. And he survived two terms. Peoples' life spans are steadily increasing, and women live longer than men. Those are two facts to keep in mind.

At this point, the Dems can lose Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada and still win. They have a huge structural advantage in the electoral college, and a solid one in the popular vote as well. The Republicans are going to need another blowout in the white vote, and a sizable chunk of at least the Hispanic vote to win, and it's still dicey. Is it possible? Sure, but I don't think it's all that likely, and I don't think Hillary is the one to lose the Dems the white union vote just yet. God help us, a BushvsClinton election is a real possibility.



If it does happen, and there is no insurrection, I really am going to have to hold you to your word and have you admit you know nothing of politics, Kepi.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Zero chance it's Hillary. She's just not generally liked by all but the Kool Aid kids.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Not liked, but has enormous poll numbers in her favor. How do you figure that one?

Interesting contrast -- the Millennial poster doesn't know anyone who likes Hillary Clinton while the Boomer does know a ton. Where you sit is where you stand.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

At this point, the Dems can lose Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada and still win. They have a huge structural advantage in the electoral college, and a solid one in the popular vote as well. The Republicans are going to need another blowout in the white vote, and a sizable chunk of at least the Hispanic vote to win, and it's still dicey. Is it possible? Sure, but I don't think it's all that likely, and I don't think Hillary is the one to lose the Dems the white union vote just yet. God help us, a BushvsClinton election is a real possibility.



If it does happen, and there is no insurrection, I really am going to have to hold you to your word and have you admit you know nothing of politics, Kepi.

If a blood in the water candidate ever takes the presidency, I'll concede I know nothing about politics.

Originally Posted by Kepi

If a blood in the water candidate ever takes the presidency, I'll concede I know nothing about politics.

Don't be so quick to assume anything. After 1992 I thought that the American public was too smart to seriously consider electing another president Bush. And now there's talk about King Wintergreen the third.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Don't be so quick to assume anything. After 1992 I thought that the American public was too smart to seriously consider electing another president Bush. And now there's talk about King Wintergreen the third.

I remember the 2000 primary. The thing is, look at the people Bush was running against. Now, consider... John McCain lost in 2000 and lost the 2008 election. Mitt Romney lost the 2008 primary then lost the 2012 election. Once there's blood in the water, it's like saying "yeah, this guy isn't as good as the last, but whatever, it's cool, yeah?" It's not something you can build a whole lot of energy around. It's rare you see a blood in the water candidate make it into the election, it's pretty much impossible to get them elected. The republicans have tried twice to do that, and they only choose to do it in years when the winds weren't in their favor.

Meanwhile there's Hillary as a person. The last time she went in, she went millions into debt to lose. That's not just bad planning that'd be a talking point I'd use against her in the next election were I running. The fact that it only took her 5 years to pay off a multi million dollar non-collateralized debt would be my next talking point, as it would show she was vastly out of touch with the needs of the average American. Not only do I think that she didn't have the will to run a campaign that hard again, but I also think she's very smart and she knows full well that losing that one time opens her up to all sorts of weaknesses she just can't defend against. She's a smart lady. She's party loyal. And I think she took the Secretary of state position because she saw the writing on the wall, and knows her website of opportunity has passed.

Originally Posted by Kepi

I remember the 2000 primary. The thing is, look at the people Bush was running against. Now, consider... John McCain lost in 2000 and lost the 2008 election. Mitt Romney lost the 2008 primary then lost the 2012 election. Once there's blood in the water, it's like saying "yeah, this guy isn't as good as the last, but whatever, it's cool, yeah?" It's not something you can build a whole lot of energy around. It's rare you see a blood in the water candidate make it into the election, it's pretty much impossible to get them elected. The republicans have tried twice to do that, and they only choose to do it in years when the winds weren't in their favor.

These losses in 2008 and 2012 were inevitable; Obama was the stronger candidate according to the cosmic indications; and better yet for you guys, according to the demographic indications too. McCain and Romney didn't lose because they had run and lost the primaries before, and you certainly can't apply that logic to such a Democratic candidate.

Meanwhile there's Hillary as a person. The last time she went in, she went millions into debt to lose. That's not just bad planning that'd be a talking point I'd use against her in the next election were I running. The fact that it only took her 5 years to pay off a multi million dollar non-collateralized debt would be my next talking point, as it would show she was vastly out of touch with the needs of the average American. Not only do I think that she didn't have the will to run a campaign that hard again, but I also think she's very smart and she knows full well that losing that one time opens her up to all sorts of weaknesses she just can't defend against. She's a smart lady. She's party loyal. And I think she took the Secretary of state position because she saw the writing on the wall, and knows her website of opportunity has passed.

Paying off a campaign debt makes her out of touch with the needs of Americans. I don't follow that one. She may not have to run as hard in a primary as she did in 2008, at least, since there's no-one to challenge her, but don't assume she can't run hard against Republicans. Why would you assume this? She took the Sec of State position because her time has passed; not because it would be a stepping stone to the White House? Again, I don't think your conclusion holds.