Who would Hillary not want to face?

[boneyard bill]

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.

So that gives us two votes for Jeb and one each for Rand and Carson (or two for Rand if I count myself).

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Recent polls show the leading GOP candidates are Paul, Huckabee and Bush. About tied. With Ryan behind them. None exactly beating Clinton. None of them are nation rallying candidates ala Reagan. Clinton on the other hand, if she runs may well energize women voters, such as Obama energized black voter turnout. None of the GOP candidates are capable of doing that, none are exactly seen as women friendly. The gender gap is just tremendous. The only thing that saves the GOP here is the fact the young women don't make it to the polls. But with a real chance to make a woman president, that could change. I don't see any GOP candidate that can be said to be a true champion of women. The recent war on women stunts of the GOP may have soured many women on the GOP so if Clinton can play that card, its hard to see how the GOP candidates can get beyond that.2016 will be very interesting.

 

[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.

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.

That is true. Being a viable candidate relies on him winning re-election first. Personally, I can't wait for a candidate like Kasich, the fake bipartisan, to start saying that both parties need to work together.

I think his platform will center around leasing the Interstate system to some foreign company and using that money to fund tax cuts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'll stick with what I say, the person that could give the Dems a run for their money doesn't have their hat in the race yet. Paul, Ryan, Jindal, Perry, Bush, Cruz, Plumber are all not viable either as primary and/or general election candidates.

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.

I like how you just think Clinton is a weak candidate. This from the Ron Paul could be a Kingmaker guy. She is hardly weak. She is politically ruthless and very cunning.

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.

Well he did join in with the Medicaid expansion, though didn't do the Health Care market thing. So he is only half a communist. He is also fake bipartisan, so he can pretend that he wants to work with "both sides of the aisle" and get the moderates to fall for it.

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.

I think he fits the mold nicely. But it is one thing to be a General Election candidate and a Primary candidate. Of course, Romney proved it isn't completely impossible to entirely undo everything you say in the primary to look more moderate in the General Election.

 

[Underseer]

Who would Hillary not want to face?

An actual liberal.

 

[Tristan Scott]

I agree with Jimmy, I don't think the candidate has surfaced yet. The problem the GOP faces regardless of who their candidate is will be the fact that none of the nut cases like Paul have a chance of getting any more than the fringe tea party nut jobs to vote for them. If a moderate or even a sensible conservative (if there are any more) gets close they will have to pander to the looneys to get the nomination, and will have to continue to pander to them through the election. The Republican party is screwed in national politics because of the tea party and the neo-cons. The only reason they carry the house is because of the steady balkanization of the US, and of course gerrymandering over the past 30 years.

 

[boneyard bill]

Recent polls show the leading GOP candidates are Paul, Huckabee and Bush. About tied. With Ryan behind them. None exactly beating Clinton. None of them are nation rallying candidates ala Reagan. Clinton on the other hand, if she runs may well energize women voters, such as Obama energized black voter turnout. None of the GOP candidates are capable of doing that, none are exactly seen as women friendly. The gender gap is just tremendous. The only thing that saves the GOP here is the fact the young women don't make it to the polls. But with a real chance to make a woman president, that could change. I don't see any GOP candidate that can be said to be a true champion of women. The recent war on women stunts of the GOP may have soured many women on the GOP so if Clinton can play that card, its hard to see how the GOP candidates can get beyond that.2016 will be very interesting.

I've already noted that polls in New Hampshire and Colorado, two purple states, show Rand Paul leading Hillary even now. She has enormously greater name recognition so I don't think that is a good sign for Hillary at all because advantage will disappear by Nov. of 2016. I haven't seen any national match-ups of Hillary against Republicans except for Jeb Bush whom she beats.

Forget any rallying of the women's votes. Married women vote majority Republican. The Dems advantage is economic not sexual. They get the welfare mothers and single moms. I haven't seen a breakdown on young women but I suspect its like the young vote generally which was very pro-Obama but don't expect that to carry over to Hillary. Obama's popularity with young voters is tanking. 80% of current grads haven't been able to find a job.

 

[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.

That is true. Being a viable candidate relies on him winning re-election first. Personally, I can't wait for a candidate like Kasich, the fake bipartisan, to start saying that both parties need to work together.

I think his platform will center around leasing the Interstate system to some foreign company and using that money to fund tax cuts.

I'm not a big Kasich fan. He's too close to too many neocons for my taste. But I'd be willing to give him a look if he says the right things. He certainly won't be running on the issues you propose. If he gets behind some serious spending cuts then he might get my attention.

 

[boneyard bill]

I'll stick with what I say, the person that could give the Dems a run for their money doesn't have their hat in the race yet. Paul, Ryan, Jindal, Perry, Bush, Cruz, Plumber are all not viable either as primary and/or general election candidates.
I like how you just think Clinton is a weak candidate. This from the Ron Paul could be a Kingmaker guy. She is hardly weak. She is politically ruthless and very cunning.

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.

Well he did join in with the Medicaid expansion, though didn't do the Health Care market thing. So he is only half a communist. He is also fake bipartisan, so he can pretend that he wants to work with "both sides of the aisle" and get the moderates to fall for it.

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.

I think he fits the mold nicely. But it is one thing to be a General Election candidate and a Primary candidate. Of course, Romney proved it isn't completely impossible to entirely undo everything you say in the primary to look more moderate in the General Election.

I agree that she's ruthless and cunning, but she's not the only ruthless and cunning dog in the fight although Christie may take a fall before he gets into it. Still, anyone who can win the GOP nod probably as the smarts to keep up with Hillary. I think she's a weak candidate because she's not very likeable. Bill was likeable even if you disagreed with him. Everything she's involved with turned to shit (Hillarycare, Benghazi). Meanwhile, she's also going to have shit economy to explain.

 

[boneyard bill]

I agree with Jimmy, I don't think the candidate has surfaced yet. The problem the GOP faces regardless of who their candidate is will be the fact that none of the nut cases like Paul have a chance of getting any more than the fringe tea party nut jobs to vote for them. If a moderate or even a sensible conservative (if there are any more) gets close they will have to pander to the looneys to get the nomination, and will have to continue to pander to them through the election. The Republican party is screwed in national politics because of the tea party and the neo-cons. The only reason they carry the house is because of the steady balkanization of the US, and of course gerrymandering over the past 30 years.

Come November, you may have to explain how they managed to win the Senate since they can't gerrymander it. Democrat candidates have to pander to their left just as Republicans have to pander to their right so they have the same problem in the general election that Republicans have. How is a populist like Schweitzer going to fly with his opposition to gun control and environmentalism? He's dead in the water for the Dem nomination because of those two issues even if Hillary doesn't run.

Since I expect the economy to tank before the 2016 election, I think there will be a bit more room for fringe candidates. When times are bad the mainstream loses credibility and the fringe options become more appealing. That won't save Schweitzer but it could help Paul and maybe even Ted Cruz.

 

[Tristan Scott]

If the dems lose the senate in November, it will have more to do with the Balkanization that I referred to. They may lose some of the blue dogs that usually vote with the republicans anyway. (Hillary, or whoever wins the nomination should pick Castro as a running mate-this would, IMO assure them of winning the election in '16.)

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree that she's ruthless and cunning, but she's not the only ruthless and cunning dog in the fight although Christie may take a fall before he gets into it. Still, anyone who can win the GOP nod probably as the smarts to keep up with Hillary. I think she's a weak candidate because she's not very likeable.

You are mistaking the human being Hillary Clinton with the fictional monster Hillary Clinton that the right-wing has been tilting at since '91.

Bill was likeable even if you disagreed with him. Everything she's involved with turned to shit (Hillarycare, Benghazi).

Been over 20 years since Clinton went into the national spotlight and you bring up an attempt at national health care and Benghazi to prove she is a failure. That is all you have? The first was a political miscalculation which wasn't helped much by a rather hateful Republican minority. The other a tragedy that has been spun on its head for political gain by the Republicans.

Meanwhile, she's also going to have shit economy to explain.

Why? She was Secretary of State, not of the Treasury. And you are always whining about the economy.

 

[funinspace]

I have no idea who could get thru the GOP primary gauntlet, and still be a reasonable candidate for the middle/independent voters. Romney bought his way thru a bunch of weak competitors. I think many of the Repugs have reached a wrong conclusion about the 2012 race. I think that many of them think they need to fight harder to get a purer candidate, and will fight harder for that in 2016. Add the gay marriage issue, and mix some salt into the wound.

As more and more states legalize (by either court or legislation) gay marriage in 2014 and 2016, it will be hard for the Repug candidates not to feel compelled to dwell on spewing out anti-gay garbage. I suspect that by the 2016 election more people will be discussing the idea that the Federal govt. needs to make gay marriage rights a national mandate. Younger people see this issue much as people now see racial discrimination, and I think more and more of them will get to the point of being unwilling to vote for anyone that is anything less than at least neutral on gay marriage rights. This describes my 22 year old son to the tee. And more older people will be dead in the next 2 years.

So, unless the economy starts obviously sagging by early summer 2016, I see the odds of almost any Dum candidate, upsetting the atypical electorate choosing the other party for president after an 8 year run (aka something like the 1988 race). The current economic muddling slowly forward should be sufficient for the Dums to defend themselves on the political front. And Obamacare won’t be bad enough to roil the independents in 2016. Afghanistan will still be winding down, but even with 10k troops still there, it will be even more off the radar.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You are mistaking the human being Hillary Clinton with the fictional monster Hillary Clinton that the right-wing has been tilting at since '91.

In 2008, I got to hear Democrats say "I used to think that what the Republicans said about her was just hateful fear mongering, but seeing the way she's been attacking Obama right now I'm beginning to see it too."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I have no idea who could get thru the GOP primary gauntlet, and still be a reasonable candidate for the middle/independent voters. Romney bought his way thru a bunch of weak competitors. I think many of the Repugs have reached a wrong conclusion about the 2012 race. I think that many of them think they need to fight harder to get a purer candidate, and will fight harder for that in 2016. Add the gay marriage issue, and mix some salt into the wound.

I think that this is going to turn out to be one of the most accurate statements around about the next GOP primary. The voters were told that they needed to set aside their convictions, hold their noses and vote for a moderate candidate whom they didn't really like or trust because that was what was needed to win the general election. Then they still lost. Badly. Next time around, they're going to be told the exact same thing for the exact same reasons. There's going to be a lot more "Fuck you"s going around and that's going to strengthen the more extreme candidates and force any moderates to run harder to the right and that will either cripple them in the general election or end the Party up with an extreme right wing candidate who's unelectable.

As more and more states legalize (by either court or legislation) gay marriage in 2014 and 2016, it will be hard for the Repug candidates not to feel compelled to dwell on spewing out anti-gay garbage. I suspect that by the 2016 election more people will be discussing the idea that the Federal govt. needs to make gay marriage rights a national mandate. Younger people see this issue much as people now see racial discrimination, and I think more and more of them will get to the point of being unwilling to vote for anyone that is anything less than at least neutral on gay marriage rights. This describes my 22 year old son to the tee. And more older people will be dead in the next 2 years.

I remember when Obama came out in support of gay marriage, there wasn't (IIRC) a single elected Republican who criticized him for it on the basis that gay marriage was wrong. They all just said that he was just doing it to be popular. I think they realize that the issue is a non-starter and it doesn't have anywhere near the same kind of play that it did even a decade ago when they could make a central part of a strategy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are mistaking the human being Hillary Clinton with the fictional monster Hillary Clinton that the right-wing has been tilting at since '91.

In 2008, I got to hear Democrats say "I used to think that what the Republicans said about her was just hateful fear mongering, but seeing the way she's been attacking Obama right now I'm beginning to see it too."

*pat on the back*

Sure you did.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You are mistaking the human being Hillary Clinton with the fictional monster Hillary Clinton that the right-wing has been tilting at since '91.

In 2008, I got to hear Democrats say "I used to think that what the Republicans said about her was just hateful fear mongering, but seeing the way she's been attacking Obama right now I'm beginning to see it too."

*pat on the back*

Sure you did.

I guess we know who you supported in that primary.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are mistaking the human being Hillary Clinton with the fictional monster Hillary Clinton that the right-wing has been tilting at since '91.

In 2008, I got to hear Democrats say "I used to think that what the Republicans said about her was just hateful fear mongering, but seeing the way she's been attacking Obama right now I'm beginning to see it too."

*pat on the back*

Sure you did.

I guess we know who you supported in that primary.

I wasn't much of a supporter for either, you can look back in the archive if you really want to. I thought Obama was too new and didn't have enough political power to back his Presidency. I thought Clinton would be 1) risky in the sense of right-wing outrage against her and 2) dueling monarchy issues with HW Bush / Clinton / W Bush / Clinton.

 

[funinspace]

As more and more states legalize (by either court or legislation) gay marriage in 2014 and 2016, it will be hard for the Repug candidates not to feel compelled to dwell on spewing out anti-gay garbage. I suspect that by the 2016 election more people will be discussing the idea that the Federal govt. needs to make gay marriage rights a national mandate. Younger people see this issue much as people now see racial discrimination, and I think more and more of them will get to the point of being unwilling to vote for anyone that is anything less than at least neutral on gay marriage rights. This describes my 22 year old son to the tee. And more older people will be dead in the next 2 years.

I remember when Obama came out in support of gay marriage, there wasn't (IIRC) a single elected Republican who criticized him for it on the basis that gay marriage was wrong. They all just said that he was just doing it to be popular. I think they realize that the issue is a non-starter and it doesn't have anywhere near the same kind of play that it did even a decade ago when they could make a central part of a strategy.

Yep, it not only doesn’t have the same effect, the effect has generally completely inverted except in the reddest states. Below are 4 states where it looks like the issue won’t be pushed to the background in 2014, keeping the pressure on the Repugs to keep up the vitriol. Which will frustrate the national Repugs, as they want the subject to go away.

From: http://ballotpedia.org/Potential_2014_ballot_measures
Legalize on 2014 ballot: Ohio, Michigan

Renewed ban on 2014 ballot: Ill (constitutional), NJ

 

[Derec]

You are mistaking the human being Hillary Clinton with the fictional monster Hillary Clinton that the right-wing has been tilting at since '91.

I think even her supporters acknowledge that she is not very likable.

Been over 20 years since Clinton went into the national spotlight and you bring up an attempt at national health care and Benghazi to prove she is a failure. That is all you have?

Could be because she hasn't really done that much. What major legislation has she sponsored while in Senate? What were her major accomplishments during her tenure as SecState (and mileage covered does not count as an accomplishment in its own right)

Why? She was Secretary of State, not of the Treasury. And you are always whining about the economy.

It's her party and she was even part of the administration. Obviously any shit is going to stick to her as well, as would any gold. Fortunes of a same party candidate are closely linked to popularity and performance of the administration they want to follow.