Who would Hillary not want to face?

[boneyard bill]

Imagine that you're Hillary Clinton's campaign manager for the 2016 presidential election. Which candidate on the Republican side would you least want Hillary to have to face? Put another way, which of the potential Republican candidates do you think has the best chance of defeating Hillary?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

None of them. Just spend the general election campaign playing clips of what they said during the GOP primaries.

 

[Celldweller]

Maybe the threat of a Bush dynasty should Jeb run...throw in Ben Carson as his VP running mate. I speculate it would at be a closer race than most.

 

[SimpleDon]

Imagine that you're Hillary Clinton's campaign manager for the 2016 presidential election. Which candidate on the Republican side would you least want Hillary to have to face? Put another way, which of the potential Republican candidates do you think has the best chance of defeating Hillary?

I don't think that it would matter too much. If I was Hillary my biggest fear would be having to face Elizabeth Warren in the primaries and being pulled too far to the left.

 

[Ford]

Clinton's biggest problem will not be the Republican candidate. Nobody in the shallow GOP bench has anything approaching her name recognition, experience, or political machine. Yet the troglodytes on the right will vote for whatever candidate manages to fill that position.

As such, her challenge will be voter turnout. She needs to get independent voters and those Democrats who think a Clinton win is a foregone conclusion to nevertheless drag themselves down to the local VFW hall or school gymnasium and punch a few more chads than the Republicans.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Imagine that you're Hillary Clinton's campaign manager for the 2016 presidential election. Which candidate on the Republican side would you least want Hillary to have to face? Put another way, which of the potential Republican candidates do you think has the best chance of defeating Hillary?

I don't think that it would matter too much. If I was Hillary my biggest fear would be having to face Elizabeth Warren in the primaries and being pulled too far to the left.

Kind of this. If I were in her shoes, I'd most hate Democrats being able to reject her again. In 2008 it was demonstrated that when given a choice between another politician and Dick Cheney in a dress, they can reject Dick Cheney in a dress.

 

[J842P]

Maybe the threat of a Bush dynasty should Jeb run...throw in Ben Carson as his VP running mate. I speculate it would at be a closer race than most.

A Clinton vs. Bush race would be a horrible abomination. Indeed, despite admiring Hillary Clinton, I wouldn't like to see her as President out of principle.

- - - Updated - - -

Imagine that you're Hillary Clinton's campaign manager for the 2016 presidential election. Which candidate on the Republican side would you least want Hillary to have to face? Put another way, which of the potential Republican candidates do you think has the best chance of defeating Hillary?

I don't think that it would matter too much. If I was Hillary my biggest fear would be having to face Elizabeth Warren in the primaries and being pulled too far to the left.

Kind of this. If I were in her shoes, I'd most hate Democrats being able to reject her again. In 2008 it was demonstrated that when given a choice between another politician and Dick Cheney in a dress, they can reject Dick Cheney in a dress.

Yeah, not to mention she has neo-con tendencies.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Imagine that you're Hillary Clinton's campaign manager for the 2016 presidential election. Which candidate on the Republican side would you least want Hillary to have to face? Put another way, which of the potential Republican candidates do you think has the best chance of defeating Hillary?

I don't think that it would matter too much. If I was Hillary my biggest fear would be having to face Elizabeth Warren in the primaries and being pulled too far to the left.

^ This

 

[arkirk]

Imagine that you're Hillary Clinton's campaign manager for the 2016 presidential election. Which candidate on the Republican side would you least want Hillary to have to face? Put another way, which of the potential Republican candidates do you think has the best chance of defeating Hillary?

I don't think that it would matter too much. If I was Hillary my biggest fear would be having to face Elizabeth Warren in the primaries and being pulled too far to the left.

^ This

What kind of language is that...."pulled too far to the left"? We have a completely paralyzed government and Hillary has been a party to building that paralysis. I agree that Hillary's biggest fear is a strong challenger from the left. MAY THAT CHALLENGER WIN! Our government is nearly moribund when it comes to measuring is performance against what our Constitution calls for: "to promote the general welfare" in case we forget why we have a government at all.

You will not stop this decay by silencing voices like those of Warren, Grayson, and others who are not radical leftists, but people who can help us get on track toward the types of reform our country sorely needs. If you want a democracy you cannot subordinate it to corrupt people with bags full of money and greedy corporate lobbyists. Our government may be opaque but its effects on our population are everywhere evident. Every political person who comes forward with constructive criticism is met with the same bullshit party line about being "too far to the left." The system is broken and players like Hillary, had a big part in making it broken. I personally want to see her crash and burn.....politically. The only reason she is not the worst possible next president is because the republicans have people like Bush and Cruz to offer up.

I frankly do not see much hope for our country, assaulted as it is by plutocrats,

 

[Blahface]

I think Rand Paul would have a very good chance of beating Hilary. Hilary is an establishment candidate and Paul can undercut her support from the younger, anti-war, anti military industrial complex demographics.

 

[Keith&Co.]

, which of the potential Republican candidates do you think has the best chance of defeating Hillary?

one with his lips sewn shut...

Maybe.

 

[pegasus8]

The only chance the GOP has if Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman run with Ben Stein as the VP for 2016!

Well maybe Michelle will consider running again after she gets through with the little FBI investigation about that money thingy. And we all know that the "Queen of Duh" is always running for the GOP ticket towards the White House. If you do not believe me just send some money$$ to Sarah Pac and you can get a really cool sticker to put on your truck or SUV.

Gee what if Hillary's handlers, managers, were to say that whoever the GOP puts up as their 2016 presidential candidate it does not matter? Chris Christie got caught being him. Rand Paul has a lot of juice and $$$ yet is despised by a lot of the GOP establishment and extreme right wing. Paul Ryan aka "Lying Ryan," is any candidate's dream as an opponent. Ted Cruz the Canadian Anchor Baby is an asshole who is hated by his own party's establishment, plus his dad is crazy. Marc Rubio is being crafted for a GOP run for the future shot at the White House; he's got the Florida vote. And poor Jeb with that last name. It looks like Jeb would actually be a decent candidate to run against that B***otch in 2016 if he would change his last name.

Heh at least we do not have to go through the GOP primaries like they did in 2012. Sheez what a circus. It was like the Key Stone Cops meets the Flintstones on some cheap acid. And the long shot for the GOP has to be Rick "N**** Head," Perry. Well that is if he can remember more then three things at a time!

News flash! In the Alternative Universe, reg TM, of Fox News, Charles Krauthammer says that Hillary, " poses no significant threat to republicans in the general election," and that," Republicans have a really good shot at the White House!" Wow it is almost like deja' vu all over again when
Dick Morris told America that it will be " Mitt in a landslide," in 2012! See it is fun for the whole family. As long as it is the GOP's family.

We return you to reality and the "real world." The Neo-Cons have given that B****otch a one way ticket to the White House. They can not even admit it in this world. And a lot of us Democrats and Progressives can not stand the Clintons and especially Hillary. But if you think that the Right hates a black man in their White House just wait till Hillary sets up shop there! They have already started a couple of years ago. And to think that the GOP is not a forward thinking kind of wild and crazy guys, aka old angry white dudes.

See this is the old BoneyardBill I remember from the old FRDB Board' simple, pragmatic and to the point.

Peace

Pegasus

 

[boneyard bill]

Clinton's biggest problem will not be the Republican candidate. Nobody in the shallow GOP bench has anything approaching her name recognition, experience, or political machine. Yet the troglodytes on the right will vote for whatever candidate manages to fill that position.

As such, her challenge will be voter turnout. She needs to get independent voters and those Democrats who think a Clinton win is a foregone conclusion to nevertheless drag themselves down to the local VFW hall or school gymnasium and punch a few more chads than the Republicans.

I don't think name recognition will be a big problem for the Republican nominee. It gives her a big edge in the Democratic primaries, but I don't see it being a big problem for the general election. Was Obama better known than McCain going into the 2008 elections? I don't think so.

As for experience, she has one term in the Senate and a very controversial stint as Secretary of State. Not exactly an awesome resume. And as for machine, the GOP has every bit as good a political machine as the Democrats which I think you acknowledge indirectly by pointing out that her big problem will be turn-out. And yet, in 2012 it was turn-out that hurt the Republicans. Lots of born-against just weren't in to voting for a Mormon. I don't think 2016 is going to be a slam-dunk for Hillary or any other Democrat, but at this point, the likely GOP nominee is very much up in the air moreso than at any time that I can remember. Republicans don't have a habit of nominating dark horses and yet at this point, everyone seems like a dark horse.

 

[boneyard bill]

I guess the results so far aren't terribly far from what I expected. Most people seem to think that Hillary will have no problem with the GOP, and the really important question is whether or not a credible challenger to Hillary can emerge in the Democratic primaries. But, of course, that isn't the question I asked.

So far out of a page and a half of posts we have one vote for Jeb Bush and one vote for Rand Paul. But why can't some of you take off your partisan blinders for a moment and actually look at what Hillary will have to face or even imagine yourself to be Elizabeth Warren's or Bernie Sanders campaign manager who has already won the nomination. I your guy or gal gets the nod, who would you least want them to face? It's not a question of whom you want. I'm well aware that most of you want the leftward-most plausible candidate. But who among the GOP would you most fear?

Which Republican do you think would give your candidate the hardest time in trying bring together a majority of votes? Remember, Obama mostly won ONLY because many evangelical Christians refused to vote for Romney. So a Democrat majority can hardly be taken for granted.

 

[Derec]

Clinton's biggest problem will not be the Republican candidate. Nobody in the shallow GOP bench has anything approaching her name recognition, experience, or political machine.

Dream on. Name recognition plays the biggest role in early polls but its advantage wanes as the election day approaches and the coverage increases.
Experience? Mostly the 16 years as "First Lady". After that she was a carpetbagging senator running in a safe state and after that SecState which hasn't been a stepping-stone to the presidency since James Buchanan.

Her age and health will be fair game. There have only been 3 presidents elected to their first term at 65 or older and only one in the 20th century, Ronald Reagan, and she is definitely no Reagan. Not in terms of experience (2 term California governor) or likability.

Yet the troglodytes on the right will vote for whatever candidate manages to fill that position.

Such disparaging of the political opponent is not exactly mature. But if that's what you like (see below).

As such, her challenge will be voter turnout. She needs to get independent voters and those Democrats who think a Clinton win is a foregone conclusion to nevertheless drag themselves down to the local VFW hall or school gymnasium and punch a few more chads than the Republicans.

While I still think she will not run if she runs her win is not a "foregone conclusion". She acted like it was her turn in 2008 as well to her detriment.
But if she runs and gets the nomination she needs to look out for the Naderite spoiler. Also idiots that can't punch the right candidate and end up voting for Pat Buchanan. Democrats really need to start asking themselves, why does their electorate tend to be a) less inclined to get out to vote b) more suspeptible to vote for quixotic, spoiler 3rd party candidates like Nader c) more likely to simply screw up and vote for the wrong candidate? and d) so lazy they can't be bothered to go to their local DMV office and get an id.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But why can't some of you take off your partisan blinders for a moment and actually look at what Hillary will have to face or even imagine yourself to be Elizabeth Warren's or Bernie Sanders campaign manager who has already won the nomination.

Dude, the last person the GOP fielded was Romney. Exactly why would we have to be non-partisan to think that the GOP will continue to self-destruct rather than change for the better?

 

[boneyard bill]

Let me narrow the focus a bit more. We know that Ohio and Florida are likely to be the key swing states in a close election. Other smaller states could also be important such as Virginia and North Carolina, Colorado, Wisconsin, New Mexico, New Hampshire and perhaps Missouri.

So who do you think would give Hillary or your preferred Democrat candidate the most difficult time in those swing states?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Clinton's biggest problem will not be the Republican candidate. Nobody in the shallow GOP bench has anything approaching her name recognition, experience, or political machine. Yet the troglodytes on the right will vote for whatever candidate manages to fill that position.

Each major party has a solid lock on 30% of the voting public. 60% of the total vote is already decided, with the remaining 40% either mostly one party or in the small group of true swing voters. That means that there are 30% of voters would vote for a dead cat if that was the Republican nominee, and 30% of voters who would vote for that same dead cat if it was the Democrat nominee (about Alvin Greene's turnout).

You chose to phrase that as "the troglodytes on the right will vote for whatever candidate". Interesting choice of words.

 

[pegasus8]

Dude I answered your question on this thread. I said no one. Hillary can beat all of them today in the polls.

Clinton's biggest problem will not be the Republican candidate. Nobody in the shallow GOP bench has anything approaching her name recognition, experience, or political machine. Yet the troglodytes on the right will vote for whatever candidate manages to fill that position.

As such, her challenge will be voter turnout. She needs to get independent voters and those Democrats who think a Clinton win is a foregone conclusion to nevertheless drag themselves down to the local VFW hall or school gymnasium and punch a few more chads than the Republicans.

I don't think name recognition will be a big problem for the Republican nominee. It gives her a big edge in the Democratic primaries, but I don't see it being a big problem for the general election. Was Obama better known than McCain going into the 2008 elections? I don't think so.

As for experience, she has one term in the Senate and a very controversial stint as Secretary of State. Not exactly an awesome resume. And as for machine, the GOP has every bit as good a political machine as the Democrats which I think you acknowledge indirectly by pointing out that her big problem will be turn-out. And yet, in 2012 it was turn-out that hurt the Republicans. Lots of born-against just weren't in to voting for a Mormon. I don't think 2016 is going to be a slam-dunk for Hillary or any other Democrat, but at this point, the likely GOP nominee is very much up in the air moreso than at any time that I can remember. Republicans don't have a habit of nominating dark horses and yet at this point, everyone seems like a dark horse.

Let me get this straight BB. You are saying with a straight face that Mitt lost because he was a Mormon? Are you being serious or is this more irony? Dude Mitt lost because the GOP ran a crappy campaign. Everyone on the right kept telling him and convincing him that he had the White House in the bag. Do you think that all the people voting for O had anything to do with him winning? You know like all the women, people of color, young people, etc, who won the popular vote did not have something to do with the turnout? Even with all the slick tricky Rickey dirty tricks like long voting lines, no early voting, etc the people still came out by the butt load to vote for the first black president. Yet some how it was because the Christians did not want to vote for a Mormon?

Actually Mitt should have won easily. He had a shitty conceited campaign IMO that deceived him, the party and America. Even up to the last minute the GOP guru Karl Rove called Ohio for Mitt and the election. Why would the GOP pick Mitt as a known Mormon if they thought that is would alienate the Christian voting bloc? It doe snot make sense. He we go back to that logic thing dude.

Oh and I did answer your question from the thread. Who would be the biggest threat with her managers not wanting to face in 2016? Dude I told you " NO ONE!!" There is absolutely no one in the GOP pack. They are saving sweet cakes Rubio for later. So BB who do you think is worthy as a shot to defeat Hillary. And like I said I do not see anyone. I keep hearing this weird sound that the B***octh does not have a good chance in the 2016 election either in the Democratic primary or the general election. But see back here on Earth she will be the Democratic candidate for 2016 with nary anyone Paul, Ryan or Bush being a threat. And none of these gentlemen can beat Hillary in the general election even if they won the GOP Keystone Cop primary. IMO the people both left and right are getting tired of the republican's being the party of no and running with all these manufactured scandals. This Congress is probably the worst one in history with the worst recorded favor polls of all time. And some people think that the republicans are going to give Hillary a run for her money? Are you serious or just being silly again? Mitt should have won hands down but he lost and the GOP is still in some kind of Kafka like bizarre denial.

I though that you were doing good there for a while. Dude I can not stand Hillary but the GOP has squat. Well unless you want to weigh in and give your expert analysis of who will be on the GOP 2016 ticket. Please do not feel shy or coy now. You can stick a fork in Fatso he is done. And I am not not talking about Rush.

Peace

Pegasus

 

[Celldweller]

Scott Walker?