2016 Likely Candidates for POTUS?

[Up All Night]

Gov. Mike Huckabee . . .

In your Heart  . . .  You Know He's Right 

[136 or 142]

In your guts, you know he's nuts.

[FightTheFuture]

Please. HRC makes Brian Williams look like Honest Abe on sodium pentothal. The woman is incapable of telling the truth. She`s actually become a parody of her SNL parody.

[136 or 142]

I believe you're confusing HRC with George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan.  Pathological liars all.

[Juan]

Leave HRC alone.  She flew home coach and carried her own bags, for goodness sake.

[aldousburbank]

A nicely worded critique of the Hillary. Perceptive, entertaining, and accurate IMO.

Why Hillary Can't Be in the Moment
By Deborah C. Tyler

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/why_hillary_cant_be_in_the_moment.html

[136 or 142]

A nicely worded critique of the Hillary. Perceptive, entertaining, and accurate IMO.

Why Hillary Can't Be in the Moment
By Deborah C. Tyler

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/04/why_hillary_cant_be_in_the_moment.html

That you find that article 'perceptive' says more about your "intelligence" than it says about the article.

[aldousburbank]

That you find that article 'perceptive' says more about your "intelligence" than it says about the article.

And your quip says more about your need to get laid than your ability to do so.

[136 or 142]

And your quip says more about your need to get laid than your ability to do so.

Snappy comeback.

[aldousburbank]

Snappy comeback.

I consider myself pretty talented when it comes to being stupid.

[136 or 142]

I consider myself pretty talented when it comes to being stupid.

Very clever! Maybe you have some redeeming qualities after all.

[Quick Karl]

I wish this guy was still alive...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BYVv4LY_KQ&feature=player_embedded

[Up All Night]

Leave HRC alone.  She flew home coach and carried her own bags, for goodness sake.

Great, -- When are you going to re-make this video???


"Leave Hillary Alone"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

[Up All Night]

You can watch individual videos of the GOP hopefuls in New Hampshire April 17-18, 2015 here:

http://www.c-span.org/search/?searchtype=Videos&query=hampshire

[VtaGeezer]

HRC is the liberal's Bob Dole, without the wit. As when she ran for NY Senator, no one except the people who write the huge checks want her as the nominee.  I don't know why the Repubs are pissing away free media time by attacking her; she's history and is showing daily why.

[Juan]

This is true, too.

[VtaGeezer]

This is true, too.

Not that that the GOP can't once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Up All Night]

Not that that the GOP can't once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

They are getting Better at it... 

[136 or 142]

HRC is the liberal's Bob Dole, without the wit. As when she ran for NY Senator, no one except the people who write the huge checks want her as the nominee.  I don't know why the Repubs are pissing away free media time by attacking her; she's history and is showing daily why.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I'm not aware of anything beyond your obvious personal dislike of her that supports anything you say.
1.She was reelected Senator in New York in 2006 with 67% of the vote and faced only a fringe Democratic Primary opponent in 2000.
2.She leads all Republican challengers in the national polls by at least 6% (and this has been fairly consistent for the last 6 months or so.)
3.80-85% of Democrats say they would be happy to very happy with her as the Presidential nominee.

[136 or 142]

New CNN/ORC National Poll: Clinton leads Republicans by 14-24 points


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/04/20/cnnorc2016poll04202015.pdf

Clinton 56%
Bush 39%

Clinton 58%
Christie 39%

Clinton 55%
Rubio 41%

Clinton 58%
Huckabee 37%

Clinton 58%
Paul 39%

Clinton 60%
Carson 36%

Clinton 59%
Walker 37%

Clinton 60%
Cruz 36%

Could be an outlier, or it could be a 'post announcement surge'.  Such a surge is consistent from what we saw from Scott Walker and Ted Cruz, although for them it was only in Republican Primaries.  Of course, as HRC is a far more known commodity than they are, such a surge would be a bit more unusual.  For instance, I don't believe Jeb Bush received a post announcement surge.

[Up All Night]

She leads all Republican challengers in the national polls by at least 6% (and this has been fairly consistent for the last 6 months or so.)
3.80-85% of Democrats say they would be happy to very happy with her as the Presidential nominee.

Loved those professional polls before the mid-terms in 2014 !! 

[136 or 142]

Loved those professional polls before the mid-terms in 2014 !! 

The midterm polls did tend to show a bias to the Democrats (as the 2012 polls tended to show a bias to the Republicans) but in both cases they were nearly all by no more than 3%.

[VtaGeezer]

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I'm not aware of anything beyond your obvious personal dislike of her that supports anything you say.
1.She was reelected Senator in New York in 2006 with 67% of the vote and faced only a fringe Democratic Primary opponent in 2000.
2.She leads all Republican challengers in the national polls by at least 6% (and this has been fairly consistent for the last 6 months or so.)
3.80-85% of Democrats say they would be happy to very happy with her as the Presidential nominee.

Yes, its opinion, but based on consensus of acquaintances and, IMO, pretty indicative of where libs are with HRC.  Formal polls are pretty meaningless right now; the campaigns use them because they can't afford not to. Media has to use them or they'd have nothing to report.  (BTW, my son is in the business.) For nat'l poll Dems, who on earth else will they say they support?  All interested are lower tier no-names nationally.  HRC was gifted with the Senate seat in 00 and 06 for the simple reason of Bill's influence gained through his Goldman handler, Robt Rubin; no one with any reputation or experience DARED oppose her.   Same thing is happening this time, Clinton Inc. has already backed down any other Dems with a resume, and most also know its virtually impossible for the incumbent WH party to keep it past two terms so why burn your bridges with lousy odds.

[136 or 142]

Yes, its opinion, but based on consensus of acquaintances and, IMO, pretty indicative of where libs are with HRC.  Formal polls are pretty meaningless right now; the campaigns use them because they can't afford not to. Media has to use them or they'd have nothing to report.  (BTW, my son is in the business.) For nat'l poll Dems, who on earth else will they say they support?  All interested are lower tier no-names nationally.  HRC was gifted with the Senate seat in 00 and 06 for the simple reason of Bill's influence gained through his Goldman handler, Robt Rubin; no one with any reputation or experience DARED oppose her.   Same thing is happening this time, Clinton Inc. has already backed down any other Dems with a resume, and most also know its virtually impossible for the incumbent WH party to keep it past two terms so why burn your bridges with lousy odds.

"Consensus of acquaintances" is, of course, anecdotal, likely wouldn't be more than 100 people and would probably be mostly confined to one city/region. It would hardly be indicitive of the national mood.  It's also possible that you have chased away any pro HRC friends you have, though, obviously I don't know that. It's certainly more than likely that any pro HRC friends you have likely wouldn't want to bring up the issue with you, and, potentially to avoid conflict, they might just nod in agreement with you.

HRC had the backing of virtually all the Democratic leaders in the U.S Senate in 2000 for the simple reason that, other than Nita Lowey, no Democrat in the Congressional delegation was seen as a plausible Senator and she was the highest profile Democrat in an expected race against the then popular Rudy Giuliani.

As I said earlier she was reelected with 67% of the vote in 2006 against a semi credible challenger, the mayor of Yonkers, and, I believe won every county.

I believe I've also addressed the difficulty of a party winning a third term Presidency.  While there is some validity to it, it is also clearly overstated.

1960: Nixon may have actually beaten Kennedy and, at a minimum, it was extremely close.

1968: Humphrey likely would have won had the campaign gone on for one more week and certainly would have won easily had a peace agreement with Vietnam been reached (which may have been scuttled by Nixon.)

1976: Gerald Ford would have won easily had he not pardoned Nixon, and still nearly won in the end.  Of course, he was the incumbent President, so this is a somewhat different situation.

1988: H W Bush did win.

2000: Al Gore probably did win and would have become President had the Supreme Court not selected Dumbya.

2008: The only clear loss in the entire sample.

More importantly, over the last 25 years or so, the nation has become increasingly partisan, so there are likely significantly less swing voters out there who switch from party to party (the swings seem to largely take place now between the Presidential years and the midterm years based on voter turnout.)  By my conservative estimate the Democrats (HRC) starts out with a 182-107 electoral college advantage.

Republican states: 1.Alabama, 9 EV, 2.Alaska, 3.Idaho, 4, 4.Kansas, 6, 5.Missisippi: 6.Nebraska,5, 7.Oklahoma,7, 8.South Carolina, 9, 9.Tennessee, 11, 10.Texas,38, 11.Utah, 6, 12.Wyoming, 3 

Democratic states: 1.California, 55, 2.Connecticut, 7, 3.Delaware, 3, 4.Hawaii, 4, 5.Illinois, 20, 6.Maryland, 10, 7.Massachusetts, 11, 8.New Jersey, 14, 9.New York, 29, 10.Oregon, 7, 11.Rhode Island, 4, 12.Vermont, 3, 13.Washington, 12, District of Columbia, 3

[136 or 142]

This is what a perceptive column looks like:


From Stu Rothenberg, Roll Call
The first time I met Ted Cruz, he argued with me. The second time I met Ted Cruz, he argued with me. It wasn’t personal, of course. Ted Cruz simply loves to argue.

Those two incidents told me a lot about Cruz. The first time was at an event in Florida in February 2012, months before he won the Texas GOP Senate nomination. I had never met him, but he wandered up to me and started complaining about my assessment of the Republican primary in the Lone Star State.

I told him to come to my office for an interview and to discuss the race, and he did a few weeks later.

I had no idea if the tea party favorite would win the GOP nomination, but I knew I wanted to learn about his views, his upbringing, his education and professional background. He wouldn’t have any of that. He was there to prosecute his case, insisting he would defeat the early favorite in the race, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. And he did.

There is no self-doubt in the junior senator from Texas, who has an impressive résumé and has already entered the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

Cruz has an undergraduate degree from Princeton and a law degree from Harvard. He clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, served in the President George W. Bush Justice Department and as solicitor general of Texas, all before the 2012 victory when he knocked off the state’s sitting lieutenant governor in the Republican primary.

The Texan is one of the more combative and confrontational conservatives in the race for his party’s nomination. That has made him a favorite on the right and a punching bag to liberals and many in the national media.

Unlike some other hopefuls in the contest, Cruz regards caution and compromise as a violation of principle. He has encouraged House Republicans to take on their more pragmatic legislative leaders, earning him a reputation as one of the leaders of the GOP’s tea party wing.

Cruz’s positions on hot-button issues â€" from immigration and Common Core to taxes, spending, abortion and national defense â€" resonate well with the Republican base, but it is his take-no-prisoners style and willingness to combat Democrats and the entire liberal establishment that make him such a favorite among those conservatives who are watching government get bigger.

The freshman senator is one of a handful of Republican presidential hopefuls â€" along with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Ben Carson â€" competing for evangelical and tea party conservatives in the Iowa caucuses. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is also a significant problem for Cruz, since Paul has considerable appeal among anti-establishment conservatives.

The importance of the many evangelical conservatives in Iowa, the first test in the nominating process, should not be underestimated.

The 2012 Iowa entrance poll conducted by Edison Research for multiple media clients showed 57 percent of caucus attendees called themselves “born again” or evangelical Christians, and just shy of two-thirds (64 percent) of respondents said they supported the tea party.

New Hampshire GOP primary voters (a group that includes a large number of independents) aren’t nearly as religious or conservative as Iowans who will go to the caucuses, but South Carolina Republican primary voters are. In 2012, 65 percent of those who voted in the Palmetto State Republican primary self-identified as born again or evangelical Christians and 64 percent said they supported the tea party.

Obviously, if a single Republican hopeful can emerge as the consensus candidate of the evangelical and tea party faction, that candidate would be a factor well into the nominating process.

The recent national debate over religious freedom and gay rights is likely to elevate cultural issues for evangelical social conservatives, giving Cruz and his competitors another talking point to woo caucus-goers and boost evangelical participation.

But while Cruz is likely to engender passion among his supporters, he is regarded by many others in his party as unappealing and, even worse, unacceptable. To his critics, he is a self-promoting snake oil salesman, an unflattering comparison that suggests he is both untrustworthy and unscrupulous.

They find his language too inflammatory and confrontational, and many regard him as a disastrous general election nominee who would not only lose the presidential election but damage the party’s prospects down-ballot.

The kind of Republicans who supported Mitt Romney and John McCain in the past will never embrace Cruz, of course. But it isn’t clear that the Texas senator can attract much more than the hardcore tea party and movement conservative crowd, which, while an important segment of the GOP, isn’t large enough to select the party’s presidential nominee.

So while Cruz is an interesting candidate and certainly could play a role in the unfolding GOP race, he probably needs to broaden his message and change his style to win his party’s nomination. And given what I know of the Texas senator, that’s not happening.

[VtaGeezer]

This is what a perceptive column looks like:

Few people paying any attention need to have Cruz so superficially explained to them.  It's disappointing that Roll Call thinks a piece announcing that the sky is blue is of value.

[FightTheFuture]

The members of the GOP that are not very cozy with the Ted Cruz camp, represent the milquetoast RINO faction of the Republican Party. The Mitch McConnell's, and John McCain's and Lindsay Grahams and John Boehners that sit silently as Obama wipes his ass with the United States Constitution. It's high time they, and Karl Rove, and the rest of the Bush era consultants and paymasters, step aside.

[Gd5150]

[attachment=1][/attachment]

[136 or 142]

Bobby Jindal has formed an exploratory committee and Carly Fiorina will announce her run on May 4.

[b_dubb]

Carly drove HP into the ground.  What a fucking idiot narcissist.  And Jindal is a clueless fuck.