Who would Hillary not want to face?

[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.

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

All I know is that Republican turnout in 2012 was below expectations and some commentators are saying that it was because evangelicals did not turn out in their normal numbers. Others have claimed that Romney simply didn't have the appeal to blue collar Republicans. I don't know the answer. Maybe, if you examined the results very carefully you could figure it out but a lot of blue collar Republicans are also Christian evangelicals. Some Evangelicals regard the Mormon Church as something little less that Satanism. I have no idea why.

My essential point was this. Romney lost because Republicans didn't turn out as they were expected to, and that is the primary reason why Romney lost. So Democrats should hardly feel that the next race is going to be a walk in the park.

But the establishment didn't want Romney. He was their fall-back candidate. They wanted Pawlenty. Then they wanted Huntsman. Then they wanted Mitch Daniels, but he wouldn't run. They wanted Ryan, but he wouldn't run either. So they had to settle for Romney because they didn't want Santorum on Ron Paul and all the others had dropped out early.

My personal preference would be for Rand Paul, but I have to be careful in trying to separate that from my analysis of the actual prospects. But as I try to put aside my biases I still come up with the conclusion that he would be their best candidate. Recent polls show him leading Hillary in New Hampshire and Colorado. These are purple states and he's winning there despite her huge advantage in name recognition which will disappear by the time the election comes around. He also has much more appeal to younger voters than any other Republican candidate and young voters are the largest swing bloc. His position on civil liberties appeals to young people but also to many liberals. Likewise, his foreign policy views appeal to liberals. Do I expect a lot of liberals to vote for Paul? No. But a percent or two can make the difference in the general election.

But while I think Paul has the best chance in the general election, I wouldn't classify him as the front-runner for the nomination. A lot of candidates have much better fund-raising sources than Paul so I don't know if he will be able to remain competitive at that level, but he might. He's been much more aggressive at seeking big-money support than his father was.

Now, I've answered your question. When are you going to answer mine?

 

[arkirk]

Before we discuss the likelihood of Hillary winning, should we not understand what her policies are and what her track record is? Is she a tool of the military industrial complex? Has she been involved in investment scandals? What does she think about NSA spying on you or others? What is her position on the wealth that was lost by the middle and underclass in the housing meltdown. Who does she actually deal with and represent? Have any of us here asked any of these questions and come up with any answers? Hillary Clinton has been a trusted member of Obama's chauvinistic regime in Washington and should be banned from politics.

It was obvious to all but the terribly informed Midwest that the Republicans have nothing to offer society. It is perhaps less obvious that Hillary has nothing to offer but more of the same with very little sugar coating. Sure. she may win and we will remain in this same downward spiral we are already experiencing...decreasing human rights, decreasing standard of living, decreasing lifespans.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Before we discuss the likelihood of Hillary winning, should we not understand what her policies are and what her track record is?

No. Those aren't overly related to her likelihood of winning.

 

[aeebee50]

Dr. Ben Carson would be my choice. I like his ethics and program to get the U.S. out of debt.

 

[boneyard bill]

Dr. Ben Carson would be my choice. I like his ethics and program to get the U.S. out of debt.

So that's one for Rand Paul, one for Jeb Bush with Carson as VP, and one for Carson alone. Looks like Carson may be the front runner here by a hair.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Poor BB, still not understanding the Electoral College. Wisconsin? Seriously? I remember how Michigan and Minnesota and Wisconsin were allegedly battlegrounds in '12. They weren't remotely close. The victor there was known when they closed the polls.

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

Their name isn't known yet, as in their hat hasn't been thrown into the ring. No one out there is set up to defeat *insert Democrat name here* in the General Election. The Republicans have only won the popular vote once since 1992. And they have only won the electoral vote twice, by sharp margins. The truth is, based on how far right the party has gone, it is very hard for Republicans to win the White House these days. Point in fact, McCain would have won in '00 (by a good margin) but was crushed in '08 (granted, W had a hand in both of those not happening).

In order for a Republican to defeat a Democrat, they have to win ALL of the battleground states, not Colorado or maybe Virginia. They need to win Virginia, Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, Colorado, North Carolina, Iowa. That Virginia and North Carolina are battleground states is devastating news for the Republicans. They have to fight in states they used to call their own, which puts into danger the other battlegrounds, all of which they can't afford to lose a single one.

I still don't see Clinton as the nominee. Jeb Bush may be the bigger threat, but it'd be hard for Jeb to rile up the browncoat base. Also, I think he may suffer from the same distaste that some would have for Clinton, ie being part of royal families. What is next Chelsea running in '24? Jenna Bush in '28?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Fascinating and unknowable.
1) Look how volatile and fickle the electorate is -- how Bush I's popularity melted away so fast in '91-'92...how Howard Dean's whoop or scream or holler killed him off (I still don't understand that.)
2) Hillary will be 69 in Nov. 2016, right? I'm not convinced she'll run for that reason alone. It takes an enormous amount of will and energy to campaign and govern.
3) Jeb has formidable skills as a faux-populist orator. So does our dickish governor and ex-Fox News tool, John Kasich. A Jeb/Hillary contest would be extremely strange, a massive deja vu experience. H would have the advantage that her past era is more fun to relive than Bush II's era (and Jeb makes outrageous justifications for the misdeeds of older bro.)
4) If Hillary does run, she will be more forthright than Obama at attacking the GOP at its theoretical core, the way they do to Dems, and boy, that's a case that needs to be made, repeatedly and forthrightly. The Fox News version of reality needs to be exposed over & over and their myths poked at until they implode. Hillary seems to have an innate talent for this.
5) On the superficialities of delivery and folksiness and "gravitas" (what a shallow cliché that is, but it decides so much), H comes off as brittle and phony, especially when she guffaws. (I gotta say, it's not just a surface judgment of her, as she has a been overly cautious and unwilling to take a stand until the polls show her how to move. Witness her early takes on marriage equality, the war in Iraq, the supposedly outrageous "Petraeus don't betray us" flap.) Our governor Kasich is a major dick who has shown over and over that his sympathies are with the affluent and against labor, teachers, any kind of safety net; yet he knows how to pose as a plain-spoken man of the people and he has a topnotch response team.
6) With the House the way it is, a Hillary presidency would be another 4 or 8 years of miserable stalemate. Just imagine her picking replacements for Scalia or Thomas!!!! Which brings me back to the need to highlight, continually and with chapter and verse, where the Republican delusions come from and what they lead to. And how absolutist and anti-democracy they've become.
7) And we could all be missing entirely different nominees who will emerge like Obama did in '07.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

John Kasich could, in theory, be a threat. He seems to walk an odd line that appears to be bipartisan, but isn't anything close to being bipartisan. Governor of a battleground state, that will likely win re-election. He can boast of great economic accomplishments that people in general won't understand were based on one-time only windfall policies. Never hear about him, though, for Presidential run talks. But he seems to fall into the proper mold of relatively unknown known person, with a "decent" record. Ohio's unemployment rate has dropped... but that of course was Kasich's doing and Obama had nothing to do with it.

 

[arkirk]

Before we discuss the likelihood of Hillary winning, should we not understand what her policies are and what her track record is?

No. Those aren't overly related to her likelihood of winning.

Her policies are in the end, the only reason she is seeking office. Democracy has no usefulness as a social institution if our votes do not represent OUR POLICY CHOICES. What I am saying is that the entire notion of elections means nothing at all if there is no linkage of policy to elections. Without this linkage, our election process is simply a vaporous exchange or personal slurs with large dollops of money slathered on them. That is what we have today...a regular circus of absurdity. Sinclair Lewis wrote a book in the early 20th century about it..."It Can't Happen Here" in which the liberal candidate won the presidency and everybody breathed a sigh of relief, and then this new "liberal" president instituted martial law and the breathing got suddenly a lot more labored.

Our government is reduced to a massive Kabuki theater every few years and our public is treated to the spectacle of assholes calling each other assholes in a most objectionable manner and distracting us all from the actual meaning of what these candidates would actually do when they get into office. In Clinton's case, she is clearly a warmonger and a corporatist. It is a big mistake to delink elections from policies from consideration at election time. It is not something that the average man on the street would want...if he just knew.

Our elections are just the 1% choosing who they will have representing THEM in government. You may think it doesn't matter. Even when policy seems to be being discussed, candidates use carefully engineered obfuscatory language to hide their actual intentions and shield themselves from any obligation to the voter. There should be some way to require answers to serious policy matters of candidates BEFORE WE VOTE ON THESE CLOWNS.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Before we discuss the likelihood of Hillary winning, should we not understand what her policies are and what her track record is?

No. Those aren't overly related to her likelihood of winning.

Her policies are in the end, the only reason she is seeking office. Democracy has no usefulness as a social institution if our votes do not represent OUR POLICY CHOICES. What I am saying is that the entire notion of elections means nothing at all if there is no linkage of policy to elections. Without this linkage, our election process is simply a vaporous exchange or personal slurs with large dollops of money slathered on them. That is what we have today...a regular circus of absurdity. Sinclair Lewis wrote a book in the early 20th century about it..."It Can't Happen Here" in which the liberal candidate won the presidency and everybody breathed a sigh of relief, and then this new "liberal" president instituted martial law and the breathing got suddenly a lot more labored.

Our government is reduced to a massive Kabuki theater every few years and our public is treated to the spectacle of assholes calling each other assholes in a most objectionable manner and distracting us all from the actual meaning of what these candidates would actually do when they get into office. In Clinton's case, she is clearly a warmonger and a corporatist. It is a big mistake to delink elections from policies from consideration at election time. It is not something that the average man on the street would want...if he just knew.

Our elections are just the 1% choosing who they will have representing THEM in government. You may think it doesn't matter. Even when policy seems to be being discussed, candidates use carefully engineered obfuscatory language to hide their actual intentions and shield themselves from any obligation to the voter. There should be some way to require answers to serious policy matters of candidates BEFORE WE VOTE ON THESE CLOWNS.

I don't disagree with anything you said and yet still stand behind my statement.

 

[pegasus8]

Unfortunately Arkirk you are 100%, IMO, right on the money$$$! And it is all about the $$$$!

Before we discuss the likelihood of Hillary winning, should we not understand what her policies are and what her track record is?

No. Those aren't overly related to her likelihood of winning.

Her policies are in the end, the only reason she is seeking office. Democracy has no usefulness as a social institution if our votes do not represent OUR POLICY CHOICES. What I am saying is that the entire notion of elections means nothing at all if there is no linkage of policy to elections. Without this linkage, our election process is simply a vaporous exchange or personal slurs with large dollops of money slathered on them. That is what we have today...a regular circus of absurdity. Sinclair Lewis wrote a book in the early 20th century about it..."It Can't Happen Here" in which the liberal candidate won the presidency and everybody breathed a sigh of relief, and then this new "liberal" president instituted martial law and the breathing got suddenly a lot more labored.

Our government is reduced to a massive Kabuki theater every few years and our public is treated to the spectacle of assholes calling each other assholes in a most objectionable manner and distracting us all from the actual meaning of what these candidates would actually do when they get into office. In Clinton's case, she is clearly a warmonger and a corporatist. It is a big mistake to delink elections from policies from consideration at election time. It is not something that the average man on the street would want...if he just knew.

Our elections are just the 1% choosing who they will have representing THEM in government. You may think it doesn't matter. Even when policy seems to be being discussed, candidates use carefully engineered obfuscatory language to hide their actual intentions and shield themselves from any obligation to the voter. There should be some way to require answers to serious policy matters of candidates BEFORE WE VOTE ON THESE CLOWNS.

Thank you Arkirk for calling it how it is and how not it is in the real world. I grew up in a hard core stanch conservative business family. It was Nixon, Ford,Reagan, Bush 1&2 and now always Fox News. It saddens me that the once proud party of Lincoln and Goldwater has been hijacked by big money and Wall St. who seem to have this innate ability to get all the right wing base to vote for stuff that screws them over. The Koch Bros may be greedy and anti-middle class but in the long run they will get everything that their money is buying today. Noting like getting most of what you want for your ROI! They are not stupid as they are hedging their bets over the long haul. Yet you are correct in that to get into the White House you must have the blessing of the "controlling interest." Hence that is how O got in with the whole house of cards collapsing in 2007-2008. The Wall St guys and Lobbyist play these surreal musical chair game like nothing happened in 2007. After the Bush 2 disaster the powers that be knew that the working class slobs, like you and I, were tired with all the wars and economic collapse of the C student coke head. Yet I have never seen the blatant hatred and revulsion to any president in my life time directed towards this administration before. The right lead by Fox News has spent most of their time and energy throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks; hence the era of the "Scandals." I did not know how America really works till I went back to school and got my second degree. It opened my eyes to how the system, closed corporate consumer based, works.

Most people do not realize that Bill Clinton is a neo-liberal, aka a corporatist, as you correctly mentioned above. His dealings with the IMF, the WTO, at el, through the "Washington Consensus," are disgraceful. I did a paper on his dealings with the United Fruit Co. vs some small Caribbean islands having the rights to sell bananas to Europe. The guy is all about the money$$$. And we both know that Hillary is extremely power hungry, heartless and cold blooded. Ah but she did not travel all over the fregin globe as head of state for nothing. IMO for Hillary to be president and garner the respect from the leaders of foreign powers she would necessarily have to have international credentials. And getting respect before made her look clumsy and amateurish especially with her stupid Balkan debacle.

Is not it surreal that some of us Democrats actually must hold our collective noses and vote for the B****otch? I know that the power brokers will not let Elizabeth Warren run in the primary against her. And why is this? IMO it is because there is no one on the right that can defeat Hillary in 2016 and , gag!, 2020. Why pit Warren against your 1st string blue shirt in a scrimmage when you can use her latter?

Thanks again. It will be interesting who Hillary's VP running mate will be.

Peace

Pegasus

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I know some people get all excited over Warren, but the reality is that Congress has a play in this as well. You don't become a nation with a liberal government if you elect a liberal as President. You also need liberals in the House and Senate, something that doesn't really exist. The Republicans have done a brilliant job demonizing liberal/progressive causes.

 

[pegasus8]

Has anyone voted for Sarah Palin yet? The Clinton machine would not want her to run with all her legions of Zombies

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?

Again BoneyardBill I vote for none of them, the GOP 2016 presidential contenders. And why have I said this three, 3, time on this thread?
Because Hillary is polling on the Democratic side with about what 60-67% depending on who and what poll you're looking at. The front runner so far and polling the strongest, according to all the different polls, is Huckabee at 11-18% followed by Paul and Bush at 7-14% and Cruz and Carson at 7-9%. And there is no way in Hell that Huckabee is going to give up his Mike Huckabee Money Making Machine $$$ reg TM., for anyone. Who can put together a republican 2016 campaign to catch up with Hillary's 60 plus % ? I do not see it happening.

Now if tubby Chris Christie did not "shoot his wad" so soon and piss off a bunch of people in New Jersey and New York then I would say that yes it would Christie. We must remember that Mitt was told , by the GOP and his campaign gurus, that Christie would be his best choice as VP. And from how I understand it is that Mitt actually thought that Christie was a little to big for his britches. Well actually he did not want a fatty next to him. They might make his special Mormon underwear wad up and stuff. I actually still think that Mitt honestly believed everyone telling him that he had the White House locked up. And can one imagine that Mitt is polling in first place for the GOP ticket in places like New Hampshire?

Who would Hillary not want to face? If I had to choose there is only one person one force in the universe that could actually defeat the B***otch. And this would be another B***otch. You know Sarah Palin . All the other old tired retreads do not add up to a hill of beans. The young dudes like Rubio and Lying Ryan would not even stand a chance against the Clinton campaign machine. And Cruz is so despised by his own party that he is a joke.

Ah but see Sarah as dumb as an act as she puts on her handlers know that she is worth a whole lot more money to herself and them to not run. That CU** even got a $100,000 grand speaking fee, which they tried to hide by the way, for her stupid Sh** speech at my alma mater CSUS! I hate her even more than that dike Hillary. But Sarah and her slutty daughters know that there is money to be made from the functionally illiterate masses . You know like Momma Grifter like daughter grifter I always like to say.


Peace and I would be interested in seeing the GOP backing Paul Rand in 2016. But then how would you get all the women , people of color, the gays and pretty much everyone who does not have a truck with a NRA sticker, Confederate flag on it or one that says " God bless our country," that is made in China to vote for you?

Pegasus

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You know that you can just say cunt and bitch, right? You don't need to hide the words.

 

[Terrell]

I know some people get all excited over Warren, but the reality is that Congress has a play in this as well. You don't become a nation with a liberal government if you elect a liberal as President. You also need liberals in the House and Senate, something that doesn't really exist. The Republicans have done a brilliant job demonizing liberal/progressive causes.

Very important point.

Right now I would think that Jeb would be the biggest threat, and may be more formidable than he appears. I don't know that he'll win Ohio but his odds of getting Florida are pretty good. As to those who mention Elizabeth Warren, she's already said that she's not running. She could change her mind, but so far I see no reason to believe otherwise.

I think this far out, polls aren't all that reliable, let's see what Nate Silver has to say when early voting starts.

 

[boneyard bill]

Poor BB, still not understanding the Electoral College. Wisconsin? Seriously? I remember how Michigan and Minnesota and Wisconsin were allegedly battlegrounds in '12. They weren't remotely close. The victor there was known when they closed the polls.

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

Their name isn't known yet, as in their hat hasn't been thrown into the ring. No one out there is set up to defeat *insert Democrat name here* in the General Election. The Republicans have only won the popular vote once since 1992. And they have only won the electoral vote twice, by sharp margins. The truth is, based on how far right the party has gone, it is very hard for Republicans to win the White House these days. Point in fact, McCain would have won in '00 (by a good margin) but was crushed in '08 (granted, W had a hand in both of those not happening).

In order for a Republican to defeat a Democrat, they have to win ALL of the battleground states, not Colorado or maybe Virginia. They need to win Virginia, Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, Colorado, North Carolina, Iowa. That Virginia and North Carolina are battleground states is devastating news for the Republicans. They have to fight in states they used to call their own, which puts into danger the other battlegrounds, all of which they can't afford to lose a single one.

I still don't see Clinton as the nominee. Jeb Bush may be the bigger threat, but it'd be hard for Jeb to rile up the browncoat base. Also, I think he may suffer from the same distaste that some would have for Clinton, ie being part of royal families. What is next Chelsea running in '24? Jenna Bush in '28?

Republicans and Democrats have traded the White House every eight years since WW II except twice. Jimmy Carter only served one term and Bush succeeded Reagan to give the GOP three in a row. Carter lost because of a lousy economy. So did McCain. In fact, McCain was actually leading Obama until the bank meltdown. If the economy doesn't improve, and it is showing no signs of it, Democrats should expect to be in serious trouble.

Poor turnout by Republicans hurt Romney yet he still finished only 4 pts behind Obama, and that's before Obamacare and when the economy was in a recovery, albeit a very weak one. Experts call the states when the right precincts have reported, it has little to do with the final margin of victory. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota are in play for Republicans in 2016 as are Virginia and North Carolina.

 

[boneyard bill]

Fascinating and unknowable.
1) Look how volatile and fickle the electorate is -- how Bush I's popularity melted away so fast in '91-'92...how Howard Dean's whoop or scream or holler killed him off (I still don't understand that.)
2) Hillary will be 69 in Nov. 2016, right? I'm not convinced she'll run for that reason alone. It takes an enormous amount of will and energy to campaign and govern.
3) Jeb has formidable skills as a faux-populist orator. So does our dickish governor and ex-Fox News tool, John Kasich. A Jeb/Hillary contest would be extremely strange, a massive deja vu experience. H would have the advantage that her past era is more fun to relive than Bush II's era (and Jeb makes outrageous justifications for the misdeeds of older bro.)
4) If Hillary does run, she will be more forthright than Obama at attacking the GOP at its theoretical core, the way they do to Dems, and boy, that's a case that needs to be made, repeatedly and forthrightly. The Fox News version of reality needs to be exposed over & over and their myths poked at until they implode. Hillary seems to have an innate talent for this.
5) On the superficialities of delivery and folksiness and "gravitas" (what a shallow cliché that is, but it decides so much), H comes off as brittle and phony, especially when she guffaws. (I gotta say, it's not just a surface judgment of her, as she has a been overly cautious and unwilling to take a stand until the polls show her how to move. Witness her early takes on marriage equality, the war in Iraq, the supposedly outrageous "Petraeus don't betray us" flap.) Our governor Kasich is a major dick who has shown over and over that his sympathies are with the affluent and against labor, teachers, any kind of safety net; yet he knows how to pose as a plain-spoken man of the people and he has a topnotch response team.
6) With the House the way it is, a Hillary presidency would be another 4 or 8 years of miserable stalemate. Just imagine her picking replacements for Scalia or Thomas!!!! Which brings me back to the need to highlight, continually and with chapter and verse, where the Republican delusions come from and what they lead to. And how absolutist and anti-democracy they've become.
7) And we could all be missing entirely different nominees who will emerge like Obama did in '07.

I know this is all unknowable. This entire thread is really little more than a parlor game and most of the people posting here now may change their minds in six months or so.

I see Hillary as a weak candidate, and I think you have given many reasons here for that to be the case. Her high name recognition may very well cinch the nomination for her, but it won't help her much in the general election. That really puts the Dems in a kind of bind. Republicans merely have to put up a candidate who is more likeable than she is, but that wouldn't include the likes of Jeb Bush or Chris Christie.

John Kasich is a smart guy and likeable but also a throwback to the Clinton years, and he ran before and didn't do very well. Haven't seen any pictures of him lately, but he used to look like a little boy, and for that reason I think many voters did take him that seriously. He was also overshadowed by Newt. But with a Governorship as a base, he's in a much stronger position than as a Congressman, and I assume he looks more mature now. He could be a dark horse for the nomination.

 

[boneyard bill]

John Kasich could, in theory, be a threat. He seems to walk an odd line that appears to be bipartisan, but isn't anything close to being bipartisan. Governor of a battleground state, that will likely win re-election. He can boast of great economic accomplishments that people in general won't understand were based on one-time only windfall policies. Never hear about him, though, for Presidential run talks. But he seems to fall into the proper mold of relatively unknown known person, with a "decent" record. Ohio's unemployment rate has dropped... but that of course was Kasich's doing and Obama had nothing to do with it.

It isn't in his interest to sound like a presidential candidate while he's running for re-election, but from what I hear he's got a decent lead. After the election, if he should put out some feelers, he might get included in the polling and we'll get a better idea of where he stands. He only needs 3% to put him even with Santorum.

 

[boneyard bill]

Before we discuss the likelihood of Hillary winning, should we not understand what her policies are and what her track record is?

No. Those aren't overly related to her likelihood of winning.

Her policies are in the end, the only reason she is seeking office. Democracy has no usefulness as a social institution if our votes do not represent OUR POLICY CHOICES. What I am saying is that the entire notion of elections means nothing at all if there is no linkage of policy to elections. Without this linkage, our election process is simply a vaporous exchange or personal slurs with large dollops of money slathered on them. That is what we have today...a regular circus of absurdity. Sinclair Lewis wrote a book in the early 20th century about it..."It Can't Happen Here" in which the liberal candidate won the presidency and everybody breathed a sigh of relief, and then this new "liberal" president instituted martial law and the breathing got suddenly a lot more labored.

Our government is reduced to a massive Kabuki theater every few years and our public is treated to the spectacle of assholes calling each other assholes in a most objectionable manner and distracting us all from the actual meaning of what these candidates would actually do when they get into office. In Clinton's case, she is clearly a warmonger and a corporatist. It is a big mistake to delink elections from policies from consideration at election time. It is not something that the average man on the street would want...if he just knew.

Our elections are just the 1% choosing who they will have representing THEM in government. You may think it doesn't matter. Even when policy seems to be being discussed, candidates use carefully engineered obfuscatory language to hide their actual intentions and shield themselves from any obligation to the voter. There should be some way to require answers to serious policy matters of candidates BEFORE WE VOTE ON THESE CLOWNS.

I agree, there is little correspondence between what candidates say and what they do when they get in office. I was seriously considering voting for Obama until he said he would get out of Iraq "in 16 months." That added qualifier made me very nervous. Then when he changed it to "all combat troops" I knew he was lying through his teeth. He couldn't even get through the campaign without backing off of his position. The continuity of our foreign policy from Clinton to Bush to Obama is remarkable. It's like we never needed to bother voting.

The biggest difference on domestic policy probably comes from Clinton but only after Republicans won Congress and forced fiscal restraint upon him. But when Bush got elected, that same Congress spent like drunken sailors. Then you have one more big move with Obamacare. But what a disaster it has been. Rube Goldberg could not have come up with a more complicated contraption. It is neither liberal nor conservative but some kind of mishmash that only satisfies special interests and doesn't even do that very well.

 

[boneyard bill]

Before we discuss the likelihood of Hillary winning, should we not understand what her policies are and what her track record is?

No. Those aren't overly related to her likelihood of winning.

Her policies are in the end, the only reason she is seeking office. Democracy has no usefulness as a social institution if our votes do not represent OUR POLICY CHOICES. What I am saying is that the entire notion of elections means nothing at all if there is no linkage of policy to elections. Without this linkage, our election process is simply a vaporous exchange or personal slurs with large dollops of money slathered on them. That is what we have today...a regular circus of absurdity. Sinclair Lewis wrote a book in the early 20th century about it..."It Can't Happen Here" in which the liberal candidate won the presidency and everybody breathed a sigh of relief, and then this new "liberal" president instituted martial law and the breathing got suddenly a lot more labored.

Our government is reduced to a massive Kabuki theater every few years and our public is treated to the spectacle of assholes calling each other assholes in a most objectionable manner and distracting us all from the actual meaning of what these candidates would actually do when they get into office. In Clinton's case, she is clearly a warmonger and a corporatist. It is a big mistake to delink elections from policies from consideration at election time. It is not something that the average man on the street would want...if he just knew.

Our elections are just the 1% choosing who they will have representing THEM in government. You may think it doesn't matter. Even when policy seems to be being discussed, candidates use carefully engineered obfuscatory language to hide their actual intentions and shield themselves from any obligation to the voter. There should be some way to require answers to serious policy matters of candidates BEFORE WE VOTE ON THESE CLOWNS.

Thank you Arkirk for calling it how it is and how not it is in the real world. I grew up in a hard core stanch conservative business family. It was Nixon, Ford,Reagan, Bush 1&2 and now always Fox News. It saddens me that the once proud party of Lincoln and Goldwater has been hijacked by big money and Wall St. who seem to have this innate ability to get all the right wing base to vote for stuff that screws them over. The Koch Bros may be greedy and anti-middle class but in the long run they will get everything that their money is buying today. Noting like getting most of what you want for your ROI! They are not stupid as they are hedging their bets over the long haul. Yet you are correct in that to get into the White House you must have the blessing of the "controlling interest." Hence that is how O got in with the whole house of cards collapsing in 2007-2008. The Wall St guys and Lobbyist play these surreal musical chair game like nothing happened in 2007. After the Bush 2 disaster the powers that be knew that the working class slobs, like you and I, were tired with all the wars and economic collapse of the C student coke head. Yet I have never seen the blatant hatred and revulsion to any president in my life time directed towards this administration before. The right lead by Fox News has spent most of their time and energy throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks; hence the era of the "Scandals." I did not know how America really works till I went back to school and got my second degree. It opened my eyes to how the system, closed corporate consumer based, works.

Most people do not realize that Bill Clinton is a neo-liberal, aka a corporatist, as you correctly mentioned above. His dealings with the IMF, the WTO, at el, through the "Washington Consensus," are disgraceful. I did a paper on his dealings with the United Fruit Co. vs some small Caribbean islands having the rights to sell bananas to Europe. The guy is all about the money$$$. And we both know that Hillary is extremely power hungry, heartless and cold blooded. Ah but she did not travel all over the fregin globe as head of state for nothing. IMO for Hillary to be president and garner the respect from the leaders of foreign powers she would necessarily have to have international credentials. And getting respect before made her look clumsy and amateurish especially with her stupid Balkan debacle.

Is not it surreal that some of us Democrats actually must hold our collective noses and vote for the B****otch? I know that the power brokers will not let Elizabeth Warren run in the primary against her. And why is this? IMO it is because there is no one on the right that can defeat Hillary in 2016 and , gag!, 2020. Why pit Warren against your 1st string blue shirt in a scrimmage when you can use her latter?

Thanks again. It will be interesting who Hillary's VP running mate will be.

Peace

Pegasus

I don't understand why you spend so much time attacking Republicans for favoring the rich since Obama has even out-done Bill Clinton in forking over money to the wealthy. And yes, I wouldn't expect Hillary Clinton to be any better. But as for Elizabeth Warren, you "progressive" choice, she supported the bank bail-out like all those other sleazy politicians.