Emails, Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, etc...Still No Republicans Coming Close to Beating Hillary

[Siete]

the RW dupes tried to destroy Obama with their bs, didn't work.

greener Clinton pastures to fertilize with their bs ... Benghazi makes the grass grow.

keep it up bs'rs, your ass is grass and HC is the lawn mower..

 

[Foxfyre]

Anyone with R in front their name is toxic to left loons such as yourself, no point in trying to explain that to you

So you can't name any either.....figures.

Like I said, it wouldn't matter to you what I said. Ignorant sheep such as yourself are predictable

Again....you can't name a "good candidate" the GOP has. It's okay, Foxfyre couldn't do it either.

Again, it wouldn't matter to you, loon. Look cupcake, anyone using that whore Fluke's pic for an avatar isn't too bright. A sad fact but none the less a fact.

Foxfyre another conservative using a "whore" word. This is why the nation is getting more and more liberal...to avoid having to identify yourself with people like you two...

Meanwhile...still waiting for the names of the "good candidates" the GOP has.

Sorry but I didn't use such a word. Nice try though.

 

[Londoner]

Republicans have two problems.

1. After 30+ years in the New Deal wilderness, they needed to create an electoral coalition broad enough to flip the South and heartland. So they created a populism in the 70s around religion, race, patriotism, and Revanchism (which convinces paranoid and angry people that their country has been stolen by a liberal conspiracy). This coalition is largely under-educated and gets the bulk of their information from radio and TV (rather than universities or even books). This coalition votes in the primaries and forces otherwise good candidates to seem like idiots. Indeed, both McCain and Romney had broad appeal, but their performance in the primaries turned off too many general election voters.

2. Bush 43 controlled congress for 6 years, yet he doubled Clinton's debt. He and the Republican controlled congress promised responsible spending but ended up making Carter and Clinton look like Milton Friedman. Now nobody is fooled by the Republican Party. They are big spenders, and they have contempt for the Constitution (see the Patriot Act. These people have used the war on terror to construct a surveillance state that places more power in the hands of Washington bureaucrats than anything ever dreamed by LBJ).

After 8 years of Obama, the GOP should be able to destroy Clinton in this election - but they can't do it if their candidate hops out of the talk radio clown car with the same old bullshit about small government. The party can't be taken seriously. The undecided centrist voter won't be fooled.

 

[Jarhead]

She's lost six points since March....sinking faster than a submarine with a screen door

How is she sinking?

She remains, through the worst Fox and the GOP has to dish out, still 5-15 points ahead of all Republican challengers.

The difference between Hillary and other potential Democrats now, is very different than Hillary VS other potential Democratic nominees in 2008. There is no Obama, with the potential to promote the concept of "hope and change". Elizabeth Warren does not represent anything new that Hillary couldn't bring to the office.

I'm surprised anyone would be arguing against the numbers. It's like you guys are seeing the "Hillary +10" or "Hillary +7".....in January 2015, and still in May 2015.....but you're just not seeing them or something.

Kind of odd.

Not really odd. Hillary has had the greatest name recognition for years. All the average Joe, non political, middle America people heard about Cruz was "green eggs and ham". All they heard about Walker was his recall election. All they heard about Huckabee was his Evangelical approach. All they heard about Carson was....well....pretty much nothing.

And they are just noticing that cool sounding kid by the name of Rubio.

At this stage you can not look at "head to head".....I mean, heck.....most people struggle between Kerry and Biden when asked who the VP is. Most people only know a few names in Politics after the President.

At this stage, you need to look at Hillary's favorability, likability, and trustworthiness rankings to determine where she stands.

And those numbers are sinking.

What about the favorability, likability, and trustworthiness rankings of the GOP challengers?

Honestly...what you're saying Democrats should be concerned about, sounds just like what Fox News and the GOP wishes Democrats were concerned about.

Right now, Clinton is sitting back biding their time, waiting to unleash the same teams that got Bill elected in 1990, when they need to. Right now they don't

huh?

You said something was odd......so.,.........

I simply explained to you why Clinton head to head rankings are not really moving much whereas her likability and trustworthiness rankings are dipping.

I did not say anything as to what democrats should be concerned about.

Likewise, I did not see any reason to address the GOP challengers and what they lack for you did not say that was odd.

If you prefer just orating and not having a conversation....just say so and I will gladly sit back and let you run the show.

By the way......my premise? Is the exact reason as to why you found something as odd...that is not odd at all.

What I found odd was "why anyone would be arguing against the numbers" that clearly show Hillary polling better than all Republican challengers for the whole year so far.

Threads have topics, and Hillary's numbers, compared to the GOP field, is the topic.

But I'm a reasonable man, and I hate when people try and stifle discussion on other threads because something they don't want to consider is "off topic"

So!...in the interest of conversation...let me try an initiate some, with a question.

Barring some new legitimate scandal, that gains traction with the 95% of Americans who don't watch Fox News, what could happen that would eliminate that 10+ point lead Hillary has over the GOP challengers?

As I remember, the debates do have the potential to swing votes 5% + or -

And why hasn't Karl Rove been busting out his 1980's white board on these polls?

I explained why.

You opted to ignore the explanation.

I'm OK with that....but the more you ask questions and ignore the answers....well....the less answers you will have for your questions.

But that aside...it is not odd. It is to be expected at this stage of the game. Name recognition will always win in a head to head early on. It is what it is....but it is by no means odd.

 

[Jarhead]

Anyone with R in front their name is toxic to left loons such as yourself, no point in trying to explain that to you

So you can't name any either.....figures.

Like I said, it wouldn't matter to you what I said. Ignorant sheep such as yourself are predictable

Again....you can't name a "good candidate" the GOP has. It's okay, Foxfyre couldn't do it either.

Again, it wouldn't matter to you, loon. Look cupcake, anyone using that whore Fluke's pic for an avatar isn't too bright. A sad fact but none the less a fact.

Foxfyre another conservative using a "whore" word. This is why the nation is getting more and more liberal...to avoid having to identify yourself with people like you two...

Meanwhile...still waiting for the names of the "good candidates" the GOP has.

to you, no one will be a good GOP candidate. I can give you a name and you will spin the truth of the candidates motivations and intentions. It is what you do on this board. Most of your posts play on spin and rhetoric.

But right now, there are 3 solid, good GOP candidates.

And there are two democratic candidates.

One is an admitted socialist who I don't think will get the votes.

And the other is a candidate who was given a golden opportunity to show us her leadership skills.

And what does she do?

She wrongfully blamed an American who was exercising his right to free speech for the attack on a US consulate. I mean...really? That showed good leadership? She had a choice, at that point of time, to blame no one, blame a planned terrorist attack, or blame an American exercising one of our sacred rights that is one of the reasons hard core Muslims hate us....and she chose "blame one of the things they hate about us"....

A true leader would have bent over backwards to not blame an American exercising his right to free speech. She JUMPED on the opportunity.

Some leader.

 

[Jarhead]

Wasn't this the scene in 2007 in Clinton v Obama?

No...In March of 2007...

In the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 37 percent of registered Democrats said they would vote for Clinton as the Democratic 2008 nominee, while 22 percent named Obama. Fourteen percent went with Gore, and 12 percent backed Edwards

Dems favor Hillary Clinton for 2008 poll shows - CNN.com

RW's want HC to sink because they can't find a candidate worth mentioning much less beating her.

The numbers from the polls Fox News will not cover, do not support the notion that Hillary's approval is sinking

that statement is based on a lie.

Fox News covers all reputable polls.

 

[whitehall]

Hillary is afraid of the media even though they are mostly in support f her campaign. What does that tell you about her thin hold on reality? Anybody can beat Hillary. The important election is the republican primaries.

 

[Anathema]

Then your entire life will boil down to one spot on the news, and everyone who knew you remembering the day you finally lost it. Sad.

I have no interest in being remembered or anything of that sort. I'd rather live a 100 second life properly than a 100 year life wrongly.

 

[toxicmedia]

How is she sinking?

She remains, through the worst Fox and the GOP has to dish out, still 5-15 points ahead of all Republican challengers.

The difference between Hillary and other potential Democrats now, is very different than Hillary VS other potential Democratic nominees in 2008. There is no Obama, with the potential to promote the concept of "hope and change". Elizabeth Warren does not represent anything new that Hillary couldn't bring to the office.

I'm surprised anyone would be arguing against the numbers. It's like you guys are seeing the "Hillary +10" or "Hillary +7".....in January 2015, and still in May 2015.....but you're just not seeing them or something.

Kind of odd.

Not really odd. Hillary has had the greatest name recognition for years. All the average Joe, non political, middle America people heard about Cruz was "green eggs and ham". All they heard about Walker was his recall election. All they heard about Huckabee was his Evangelical approach. All they heard about Carson was....well....pretty much nothing.

And they are just noticing that cool sounding kid by the name of Rubio.

At this stage you can not look at "head to head".....I mean, heck.....most people struggle between Kerry and Biden when asked who the VP is. Most people only know a few names in Politics after the President.

At this stage, you need to look at Hillary's favorability, likability, and trustworthiness rankings to determine where she stands.

And those numbers are sinking.

What about the favorability, likability, and trustworthiness rankings of the GOP challengers?

Honestly...what you're saying Democrats should be concerned about, sounds just like what Fox News and the GOP wishes Democrats were concerned about.

Right now, Clinton is sitting back biding their time, waiting to unleash the same teams that got Bill elected in 1990, when they need to. Right now they don't

huh?

You said something was odd......so.,.........

I simply explained to you why Clinton head to head rankings are not really moving much whereas her likability and trustworthiness rankings are dipping.

I did not say anything as to what democrats should be concerned about.

Likewise, I did not see any reason to address the GOP challengers and what they lack for you did not say that was odd.

If you prefer just orating and not having a conversation....just say so and I will gladly sit back and let you run the show.

By the way......my premise? Is the exact reason as to why you found something as odd...that is not odd at all.

What I found odd was "why anyone would be arguing against the numbers" that clearly show Hillary polling better than all Republican challengers for the whole year so far.

Threads have topics, and Hillary's numbers, compared to the GOP field, is the topic.

But I'm a reasonable man, and I hate when people try and stifle discussion on other threads because something they don't want to consider is "off topic"

So!...in the interest of conversation...let me try an initiate some, with a question.

Barring some new legitimate scandal, that gains traction with the 95% of Americans who don't watch Fox News, what could happen that would eliminate that 10+ point lead Hillary has over the GOP challengers?

As I remember, the debates do have the potential to swing votes 5% + or -

And why hasn't Karl Rove been busting out his 1980's white board on these polls?

I explained why.

You opted to ignore the explanation.

I'm OK with that....but the more you ask questions and ignore the answers....well....the less answers you will have for your questions.

But that aside...it is not odd. It is to be expected at this stage of the game. Name recognition will always win in a head to head early on. It is what it is....but it is by no means odd.

I can see I wasn't clear enough about exactly how I disagree with your "explanation" My bad, let's try tis on.

Hillary's favorability, likability, and trustworthiness rankings do not determine where she stands. Nobody trusts, likes, or looks favorably on anybody running for President.

What the GOP must come up with, are visuals. Potential swing voters will need a visual rattling around inside their heads by November 2016, that makes them feel better about a GOP candidate than they felt about Bill and Hillary in the 90's.

I wonder if you're over thinking this?

The numbers are simple, and less emotional. Hillary continues to be way ahead, and expecting the inevitable tightening of the race to change that might be asking too much this time around

 

[toxicmedia]

Wasn't this the scene in 2007 in Clinton v Obama?

No...In March of 2007...

In the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 37 percent of registered Democrats said they would vote for Clinton as the Democratic 2008 nominee, while 22 percent named Obama. Fourteen percent went with Gore, and 12 percent backed Edwards

Dems favor Hillary Clinton for 2008 poll shows - CNN.com

RW's want HC to sink because they can't find a candidate worth mentioning much less beating her.

The numbers from the polls Fox News will not cover, do not support the notion that Hillary's approval is sinking

that statement is based on a lie.

Fox News covers all reputable polls.

By reputable polls, you must mean Republimussen Reports, and any other poll when the results look good for the GOP, right?

 

[toxicmedia]

Hillary is afraid of the media even though they are mostly in support f her campaign. What does that tell you about her thin hold on reality? Anybody can beat Hillary. The important election is the republican primaries.

Hillary isn't afraid of the media, she just doesn't need them at this point.

Is there anybody who is unclear about what her platform will be?...nobody.

Fox News is just butt-hurt because she ignores them, and the mainstream media is busy bashing GOP candidates.

Hillary's strategists are advising her to stay away from Fox News, because they're smart, not scared.

Democrats appearing on Fox News only happens when the strategists are scared.

 

[toxicmedia]

So you can't name any either.....figures.

Like I said, it wouldn't matter to you what I said. Ignorant sheep such as yourself are predictable

Again....you can't name a "good candidate" the GOP has. It's okay, Foxfyre couldn't do it either.

Again, it wouldn't matter to you, loon. Look cupcake, anyone using that whore Fluke's pic for an avatar isn't too bright. A sad fact but none the less a fact.

Foxfyre another conservative using a "whore" word. This is why the nation is getting more and more liberal...to avoid having to identify yourself with people like you two...

Meanwhile...still waiting for the names of the "good candidates" the GOP has.

to you, no one will be a good GOP candidate. I can give you a name and you will spin the truth of the candidates motivations and intentions. It is what you do on this board. Most of your posts play on spin and rhetoric.

But right now, there are 3 solid, good GOP candidates.

And there are two democratic candidates.

One is an admitted socialist who I don't think will get the votes.

And the other is a candidate who was given a golden opportunity to show us her leadership skills.

And what does she do?

She wrongfully blamed an American who was exercising his right to free speech for the attack on a US consulate. I mean...really? That showed good leadership? She had a choice, at that point of time, to blame no one, blame a planned terrorist attack, or blame an American exercising one of our sacred rights that is one of the reasons hard core Muslims hate us....and she chose "blame one of the things they hate about us"....

A true leader would have bent over backwards to not blame an American exercising his right to free speech. She JUMPED on the opportunity.

Some leader.

You're wrong.

I would vote for any of the following Republicans over Hillary if they were nominated.

Rand Paul
Chris Christie
Marco Rubio
Jeb Bush
Tim Pawlenty...still
Scott Walker

 

[sealybobo]

With the GOP likely nominations coming out, like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, and Marco Rubio...and Fox News focusing on Hillary scandals 24/7...none of the GOP nominees are getting closer to Hillary.

I planned to vote Republican in 2016, no matter who they nominate (except Ted Cruz or Ben Carson) because I want to see the Republicans get an unopposed shot at governing.

I hope the GOP has more tricks up their sleeves, or we're going to see 2016-2020 full of vetos by the President, and more dysfunction in Washington

2016 Presidential Race
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 49 43 Clinton +6
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 45 41 Clinton +4
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 46 39 Clinton +7
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 56 39 Clinton +17
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 40 Clinton +6
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 53 41 Clinton +12
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 514 RV 4.3 49 42 Clinton +7
All General Election: Bush vs. Clinton Polling Data

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 50 40 Clinton +10
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 46 40 Clinton +6
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 46 41 Clinton +5
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 59 37 Clinton +22
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 42 Clinton +4
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 54 40 Clinton +14
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 522 RV 4.3 48 44 Clinton +4
All General Election: Walker vs. Clinton Polling Data

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 49 43 Clinton +6
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 46 42 Clinton +4
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 45 43 Clinton +2
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 55 41 Clinton +14
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 43 Clinton +3
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 54 39 Clinton +15
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 522 RV 4.3 49 42 Clinton +7
All General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton Polling Data

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 4/26 - 4/30 RV -- 47 44 Clinton +3
FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 46 43 Clinton +3
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 46 42 Clinton +4
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 58 39 Clinton +19
Rasmussen Reports 4/9 - 4/12 1000 LV 3.0 47 37 Clinton +10
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 42 Clinton +4
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 514 RV 4.3 51 40 Clinton +11
All General Election: Paul vs. Clinton Polling Data

FOX News 4/19 - 4/21 1012 RV 3.0 47 42 Clinton +5
Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 48 41 Clinton +7
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 60 36 Clinton +24
Rasmussen Reports 4/9 - 4/12 1000 LV 3.0 47 38 Clinton +9
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 49 43 Clinton +6
ABC News/Wash Post 3/26 - 3/29 RV 4.0 56 39 Clinton +17
McClatchy/Marist 3/1 - 3/4 514 RV 4.3 53 39 Clinton +14
All General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton Polling Data

Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 47 42 Clinton +5
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 58 37 Clinton +21
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 48 41 Clinton +7
All General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton Polling Data

Quinnipiac 4/16 - 4/21 1353 RV 2.7 45 40 Clinton +5
CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 58 39 Clinton +19
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 46 37 Clinton +9
All General Election: Christie vs. Clinton Polling Data

CNN/Opinion Research 4/16 - 4/19 1018 A 3.0 60 36 Clinton +24
PPP (D) 3/26 - 3/31 989 RV 3.1 47 42 Clinton +5
Rasmussen Reports 2/28 - 3/1 1000 LV 3.0 47 36 Clinton +11

Werent you alive 2000-2006 they controlled all three "almost" the entire time and that caused the great recession. You want to try that again?

Need me to remind you the GOP was/is so bad the american people elected a black rather than them.

Women want to see the first woman president.

 

[Wildman]

Red flags will soon be in play...

are you referring to Hitlery's favorite RED flag
>>>>---------------->

 

[blackhawk]

If this were May of 2016 I would say you have point while there is no question the media will go easier on Hillary than they will any Republlican she has never had a great realtionship with the press and they don't have the undying love for her they have for Obama. One last point Hillary is not going to able to stay in her bunker forever and avoid questions about the e-mails and the Clinton Foundation donations and as she has shown in the past with her book tour limited response to the e-mails and her rollout she can struggle in settings that she and her campigan can't control.

 

[Londoner]

The reason Republicans can't win the presidency is because winning the presidency requires support from more than just primary voters. The Republican Party needs to attract undecided centrists who don't watch FOX News.

Meaning: the Republican Machine needs to do more than manufacture scandals on Benghazi, emails and the Clinton Foundation. The Republican Party need to give America a positive vision, but the incentive system they've created for news organizations that manufacture scandals has taken over the party.

The best economy & most sustained job growth in the last quarter century was during Clinton's presidency (which deeply supported many of Reagan's economic reforms). Clinton made bigger cuts to welfare than Reagan, and left Bush with a surplus. And his chief economic advisor, Richard Rubin, was a free marketeer who sided with Wall Street and corporate America over labor unions. But the Republican Machine didn't report these facts to its primary voters, preferring instead to harp on Monica Lewinsky.

Don't get me wrong. The GOP needs to fire up the base. And it has done a good job using terrorism and gay marriage to scare people into the voting booth . . . but it needs more substance to win a general election.

Say what you want about Obama, but at least he tried to break up a dysfunctional health care monopoly and expand coverage. I don't agree with the final result, but at least he addressed a problem that was bankrupting the middle class. At least more struggling American families have health coverage. I actually voted for Bush 41 many moons ago, and I think Perot had better ideas than Clinton. But the Republican Party lost its mind in the 90s and started only appealing to the worst in people. This made it easy for me to ignore their candidates.

 

[candycorn]

So you can't name any either.....figures.

Like I said, it wouldn't matter to you what I said. Ignorant sheep such as yourself are predictable

Again....you can't name a "good candidate" the GOP has. It's okay, Foxfyre couldn't do it either.

Again, it wouldn't matter to you, loon. Look cupcake, anyone using that whore Fluke's pic for an avatar isn't too bright. A sad fact but none the less a fact.

Foxfyre another conservative using a "whore" word. This is why the nation is getting more and more liberal...to avoid having to identify yourself with people like you two...

Meanwhile...still waiting for the names of the "good candidates" the GOP has.

to you, no one will be a good GOP candidate. I can give you a name and you will spin the truth of the candidates motivations and intentions. It is what you do on this board. Most of your posts play on spin and rhetoric.

But right now, there are 3 solid, good GOP candidates.

And there are two democratic candidates.

One is an admitted socialist who I don't think will get the votes.

And the other is a candidate who was given a golden opportunity to show us her leadership skills.

And what does she do?

She wrongfully blamed an American who was exercising his right to free speech for the attack on a US consulate. I mean...really? That showed good leadership? She had a choice, at that point of time, to blame no one, blame a planned terrorist attack, or blame an American exercising one of our sacred rights that is one of the reasons hard core Muslims hate us....and she chose "blame one of the things they hate about us"....

A true leader would have bent over backwards to not blame an American exercising his right to free speech. She JUMPED on the opportunity.

Some leader.

So you can't name the good candidates either? Hillary may have an easier time than I thought next November.

 

[Gracie]

She could turn into another Hitler and STILL be voted for.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Like I said, it wouldn't matter to you what I said. Ignorant sheep such as yourself are predictable

Again....you can't name a "good candidate" the GOP has. It's okay, Foxfyre couldn't do it either.

Again, it wouldn't matter to you, loon. Look cupcake, anyone using that whore Fluke's pic for an avatar isn't too bright. A sad fact but none the less a fact.

Foxfyre another conservative using a "whore" word. This is why the nation is getting more and more liberal...to avoid having to identify yourself with people like you two...

Meanwhile...still waiting for the names of the "good candidates" the GOP has.

to you, no one will be a good GOP candidate. I can give you a name and you will spin the truth of the candidates motivations and intentions. It is what you do on this board. Most of your posts play on spin and rhetoric.

But right now, there are 3 solid, good GOP candidates.

And there are two democratic candidates.

One is an admitted socialist who I don't think will get the votes.

And the other is a candidate who was given a golden opportunity to show us her leadership skills.

And what does she do?

She wrongfully blamed an American who was exercising his right to free speech for the attack on a US consulate. I mean...really? That showed good leadership? She had a choice, at that point of time, to blame no one, blame a planned terrorist attack, or blame an American exercising one of our sacred rights that is one of the reasons hard core Muslims hate us....and she chose "blame one of the things they hate about us"....

A true leader would have bent over backwards to not blame an American exercising his right to free speech. She JUMPED on the opportunity.

Some leader.

So you can't name the good candidates either? Hillary may have an easier time than I thought next November.

You've been downgraded.....

 

[candycorn]

Again....you can't name a "good candidate" the GOP has. It's okay, Foxfyre couldn't do it either.

Again, it wouldn't matter to you, loon. Look cupcake, anyone using that whore Fluke's pic for an avatar isn't too bright. A sad fact but none the less a fact.

Foxfyre another conservative using a "whore" word. This is why the nation is getting more and more liberal...to avoid having to identify yourself with people like you two...

Meanwhile...still waiting for the names of the "good candidates" the GOP has.

to you, no one will be a good GOP candidate. I can give you a name and you will spin the truth of the candidates motivations and intentions. It is what you do on this board. Most of your posts play on spin and rhetoric.

But right now, there are 3 solid, good GOP candidates.

And there are two democratic candidates.

One is an admitted socialist who I don't think will get the votes.

And the other is a candidate who was given a golden opportunity to show us her leadership skills.

And what does she do?

She wrongfully blamed an American who was exercising his right to free speech for the attack on a US consulate. I mean...really? That showed good leadership? She had a choice, at that point of time, to blame no one, blame a planned terrorist attack, or blame an American exercising one of our sacred rights that is one of the reasons hard core Muslims hate us....and she chose "blame one of the things they hate about us"....

A true leader would have bent over backwards to not blame an American exercising his right to free speech. She JUMPED on the opportunity.

Some leader.

So you can't name the good candidates either? Hillary may have an easier time than I thought next November.

You've been downgraded.....

You ask for the names of these "good candidates" the GOP has....nobody can name any.

Very telling just how weak a field they have.