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

[toxicmedia]

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

Gee as I recall Hillary was a shoe in back in 2008. A shoe in until her party decided to throw her under the bus for the half black guy.

Hillary isn't fit to be POTUS anymore than the boy king was.

Her handling of Benghazi showed the world just how unqualified that bitch is.

I do have a job she could probably handle though. It concerns the rear end of my horse. I'm sure she could shovel shit. She's been doing it for years.

At this same time in the Democratic Party primary race, in 2007, Hillary had a 37% share, Obama had 22%, and Edwards had 10 or so %.

Right now, Hillary has 62%, and no other Democratic challengers have even 10%.

Right now, in 2007, the last time no incumbents were in the Presidential race, Democrats at Republicans were only 2-5 points ahead or behind the likely other challengers...not 5-15, like the GOP candidates are with Hillary.

The only way the GOP can fight this exceptional situation, is to downplay it as normal

And it's far from that.

But, 2008 was supposed to be a coronation for Hillary too, remember? She had played the game for a very long time, had survived all the scandals, had been the supportive wife through all the infidelities, real or unreal, and had managed to keep her nose clean in the Senate. She had paid her dues. It was her turn. It was her time.

And yet an imminently mostly unknown, inexperienced, unqualified, and untested young upstart named Barack Hussein Obama took it all away.

I don't think Hillary has much in the way of grass roots support really. She is just the only Democrat running against a Democrat opposition that is more unattractive than she is.

So of course, being the only option, she is chosen as the Democrat that is running while the GOP is much more diluted. She may indeed pull it out if the GOP rips itself apart in the primaries again. But if they can avoid doing that this time, whoever emerges as the GOP choice will almost certainly start pulling numbers much better than the current field is able to do.

IMO, the way 2008 turned out had way more to do with Obama, than it did Hillary.

The idea of a President that wasn't an old white guy was irresistable to the Democratic base, and they turned out in greater numbers than they usually do. Democrats turning out to vote remains a problem for the GOP in every election.

Hillary's experience in 2008 was first lady, and senator.

Now, it's first lady, senator, and secretary of state. Lot's of low information voters will have that image in their heads of Hillary in the war room when Bin Laden was killed, plus all the instances of her meeting world leaders.

The growing diversity vote in the US will continue to want non old white guys, untill everyone has had their turn, and the diversity voters realize it doesn't matter what color or sex a president is.

Women are next.

Hillary will be the nominee, and ther GOP/Fox will control the messaging and will not allow GOP candidates to tear each other apart this time around. which will stifle publicity. Maybe they should tear each other apart.

The publicity has never been stifled. It has been front and center in all of the MSM. But most of the MSM will utilize the politics of personal destruction to discredit the GOP as they have done for decades now. The GOP candidates will get a lot more 'gotcha' questions, will be given less opportunity to express their message, and the negative coverage will be heavily weighted against them.

Sometimes the coverage will appear 'friendly' or 'favorable' and probably will be rated that way by those groups who track campaign coverage. But if you really pay attention to what is going on, no GOP candidate is going to have any opportunity to show his best side as the Democrats will be able to do.

If you look at media coverage prior to the conventions in 2012, Mitt Romney appeared to get more favorable coverage than Obama. He certainly fared better than any of his opponents. He was the media's choice of GOP candidates.

Once the nomination was a done deal though, all that changed. Now Obama got the most opportunity for 'good looking' photo ops, and Romney much less so.

The GOP's only hope in 2016 is to put up a candidate that the public can get excited about and make sure they don't shoot themselves in the foot with that candidate--again.

Perhaps you haven't heard.

Reince Preibus is not allowing primary debates unless they're moderated by Fox News.

Also, why are GOP candidates so much more vulnerable to "gotcha: questions than Democrats are? To someone like Sarah Palin, what her shoe size is, would be a gotcha question.

What you describe as negative coverage, is really negative reactions, from the 1/2 of Americans that Fox News will tell you either doesn't exist, or thinks something else. Romney's failures were Romney's failures. He didn't behave like a real person, and those 47% comments were an antithesis to Obama.

What does the GOP have to bash Hillary with, like the extensive arsenal the Romney campaign had to bash Obama? The economy? no Foreign Policy? no....and please be reasonable, and bear in mind what swing voters and non Fox watching voters will be swayed by. You have to believe what Fox says for it to matter

 

[Kosh]

Gee as I recall Hillary was a shoe in back in 2008. A shoe in until her party decided to throw her under the bus for the half black guy.

Hillary isn't fit to be POTUS anymore than the boy king was.

Her handling of Benghazi showed the world just how unqualified that bitch is.

I do have a job she could probably handle though. It concerns the rear end of my horse. I'm sure she could shovel shit. She's been doing it for years.

At this same time in the Democratic Party primary race, in 2007, Hillary had a 37% share, Obama had 22%, and Edwards had 10 or so %.

Right now, Hillary has 62%, and no other Democratic challengers have even 10%.

Right now, in 2007, the last time no incumbents were in the Presidential race, Democrats at Republicans were only 2-5 points ahead or behind the likely other challengers...not 5-15, like the GOP candidates are with Hillary.

The only way the GOP can fight this exceptional situation, is to downplay it as normal

And it's far from that.

But, 2008 was supposed to be a coronation for Hillary too, remember? She had played the game for a very long time, had survived all the scandals, had been the supportive wife through all the infidelities, real or unreal, and had managed to keep her nose clean in the Senate. She had paid her dues. It was her turn. It was her time.

And yet an imminently mostly unknown, inexperienced, unqualified, and untested young upstart named Barack Hussein Obama took it all away.

I don't think Hillary has much in the way of grass roots support really. She is just the only Democrat running against a Democrat opposition that is more unattractive than she is.

So of course, being the only option, she is chosen as the Democrat that is running while the GOP is much more diluted. She may indeed pull it out if the GOP rips itself apart in the primaries again. But if they can avoid doing that this time, whoever emerges as the GOP choice will almost certainly start pulling numbers much better than the current field is able to do.

IMO, the way 2008 turned out had way more to do with Obama, than it did Hillary.

The idea of a President that wasn't an old white guy was irresistable to the Democratic base, and they turned out in greater numbers than they usually do. Democrats turning out to vote remains a problem for the GOP in every election.

Hillary's experience in 2008 was first lady, and senator.

Now, it's first lady, senator, and secretary of state. Lot's of low information voters will have that image in their heads of Hillary in the war room when Bin Laden was killed, plus all the instances of her meeting world leaders.

The growing diversity vote in the US will continue to want non old white guys, untill everyone has had their turn, and the diversity voters realize it doesn't matter what color or sex a president is.

Women are next.

Hillary will be the nominee, and ther GOP/Fox will control the messaging and will not allow GOP candidates to tear each other apart this time around. which will stifle publicity. Maybe they should tear each other apart.

The publicity has never been stifled. It has been front and center in all of the MSM. But most of the MSM will utilize the politics of personal destruction to discredit the GOP as they have done for decades now. The GOP candidates will get a lot more 'gotcha' questions, will be given less opportunity to express their message, and the negative coverage will be heavily weighted against them.

Sometimes the coverage will appear 'friendly' or 'favorable' and probably will be rated that way by those groups who track campaign coverage. But if you really pay attention to what is going on, no GOP candidate is going to have any opportunity to show his best side as the Democrats will be able to do.

If you look at media coverage prior to the conventions in 2012, Mitt Romney appeared to get more favorable coverage than Obama. He certainly fared better than any of his opponents. He was the media's choice of GOP candidates.

Once the nomination was a done deal though, all that changed. Now Obama got the most opportunity for 'good looking' photo ops, and Romney much less so.

The GOP's only hope in 2016 is to put up a candidate that the public can get excited about and make sure they don't shoot themselves in the foot with that candidate--again.

Perhaps you haven't heard.

Reince Preibus is not allowing primary debates unless they're moderated by Fox News.

Also, why are GOP candidates so much more vulnerable to "gotcha: questions than Democrats are? To someone like Sarah Palin, what her shoe size is, would be a gotcha question.

What you describe as negative coverage, is really negative reactions, from the 1/2 of Americans that Fox News will tell you either doesn't exist, or thinks something else. Romney's failures were Romney's failures. He didn't behave like a real person, and those 47% comments were an antithesis to Obama.

What does the GOP have to bash Hillary with, like the extensive arsenal the Romney campaign had to bash Obama? The economy? no Foreign Policy? no....and please be reasonable, and bear in mind what swing voters and non Fox watching voters will be swayed by. You have to believe what Fox says for it to matter

See how the far left will run their narratives no matter how far from reality they are.

 

[Meathead]

Meanwhile, this from a state that supported Obama the last two presidentials:

Hillary Clinton trails three of her Republican challengers — former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) — in a new WMUR Granite State Poll from the University of New Hampshire.

Bush staged an 18-point turnaround since February. He now leads Clinton by a margin of 47 percent to 41 percent, after Clinton led in February by a margin of 51 percent to 39 percent.

Paul also turned around his fortunes from February, when he trailed by 10 percentage points, and now leads Clinton 47 percent to 43 percent.

Rubio leads Clinton by 5 percentage points, 47 percent to 42 percent, while Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ties her with 44 percent each.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) is the only candidate tested in the poll that loses to Clinton, but she only leads by one percentage point at 46 percent to 45 percent.

Poll Clinton trails Bush Paul and Rubio in NH TheHill

That poll is less than 500 people in NH, and........

Party Registration
Democrat 144 25%
Republican 170 30%

Party Indentification
Democrat 40%
Republican 43%

But don't let me interrupt your cherry picking. With this poll you'll have enough to make a pie.

Polls occasionally get results that don't reflect the averages. Pay attention to the averages

Hillary is in a world of doom. She is seen as sleazy, and she is.

I don't know if I would use that word to describe her, but even if true, it doesn't matter. Never underestimate how low some will set the bar for what they expect of their candidate just so long as that candidate has the right letter following his/her name.

You don't know if sleazy is the word to describe Hillary? If you had one word then, what would that be? Sorry, sleazy seems right to me.

 

[toxicmedia]

Meanwhile, this from a state that supported Obama the last two presidentials:

Hillary Clinton trails three of her Republican challengers — former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) — in a new WMUR Granite State Poll from the University of New Hampshire.

Bush staged an 18-point turnaround since February. He now leads Clinton by a margin of 47 percent to 41 percent, after Clinton led in February by a margin of 51 percent to 39 percent.

Paul also turned around his fortunes from February, when he trailed by 10 percentage points, and now leads Clinton 47 percent to 43 percent.

Rubio leads Clinton by 5 percentage points, 47 percent to 42 percent, while Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ties her with 44 percent each.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) is the only candidate tested in the poll that loses to Clinton, but she only leads by one percentage point at 46 percent to 45 percent.

Poll Clinton trails Bush Paul and Rubio in NH TheHill

That poll is less than 500 people in NH, and........

Party Registration
Democrat 144 25%
Republican 170 30%

Party Indentification
Democrat 40%
Republican 43%

But don't let me interrupt your cherry picking. With this poll you'll have enough to make a pie.

Polls occasionally get results that don't reflect the averages. Pay attention to the averages

Hillary is in a world of doom. She is seen as sleazy, and she is.

I don't know if I would use that word to describe her, but even if true, it doesn't matter. Never underestimate how low some will set the bar for what they expect of their candidate just so long as that candidate has the right letter following his/her name.

Republicans seem to want very much NOT to consider the possibility that the majority of Americans understand the Tea Party/Evangelical/Militia components of the GOP's platform, and simply reject it.

 

[toxicmedia]

At this same time in the Democratic Party primary race, in 2007, Hillary had a 37% share, Obama had 22%, and Edwards had 10 or so %.

Right now, Hillary has 62%, and no other Democratic challengers have even 10%.

Right now, in 2007, the last time no incumbents were in the Presidential race, Democrats at Republicans were only 2-5 points ahead or behind the likely other challengers...not 5-15, like the GOP candidates are with Hillary.

The only way the GOP can fight this exceptional situation, is to downplay it as normal

And it's far from that.

But, 2008 was supposed to be a coronation for Hillary too, remember? She had played the game for a very long time, had survived all the scandals, had been the supportive wife through all the infidelities, real or unreal, and had managed to keep her nose clean in the Senate. She had paid her dues. It was her turn. It was her time.

And yet an imminently mostly unknown, inexperienced, unqualified, and untested young upstart named Barack Hussein Obama took it all away.

I don't think Hillary has much in the way of grass roots support really. She is just the only Democrat running against a Democrat opposition that is more unattractive than she is.

So of course, being the only option, she is chosen as the Democrat that is running while the GOP is much more diluted. She may indeed pull it out if the GOP rips itself apart in the primaries again. But if they can avoid doing that this time, whoever emerges as the GOP choice will almost certainly start pulling numbers much better than the current field is able to do.

IMO, the way 2008 turned out had way more to do with Obama, than it did Hillary.

The idea of a President that wasn't an old white guy was irresistable to the Democratic base, and they turned out in greater numbers than they usually do. Democrats turning out to vote remains a problem for the GOP in every election.

Hillary's experience in 2008 was first lady, and senator.

Now, it's first lady, senator, and secretary of state. Lot's of low information voters will have that image in their heads of Hillary in the war room when Bin Laden was killed, plus all the instances of her meeting world leaders.

The growing diversity vote in the US will continue to want non old white guys, untill everyone has had their turn, and the diversity voters realize it doesn't matter what color or sex a president is.

Women are next.

Hillary will be the nominee, and ther GOP/Fox will control the messaging and will not allow GOP candidates to tear each other apart this time around. which will stifle publicity. Maybe they should tear each other apart.

The publicity has never been stifled. It has been front and center in all of the MSM. But most of the MSM will utilize the politics of personal destruction to discredit the GOP as they have done for decades now. The GOP candidates will get a lot more 'gotcha' questions, will be given less opportunity to express their message, and the negative coverage will be heavily weighted against them.

Sometimes the coverage will appear 'friendly' or 'favorable' and probably will be rated that way by those groups who track campaign coverage. But if you really pay attention to what is going on, no GOP candidate is going to have any opportunity to show his best side as the Democrats will be able to do.

If you look at media coverage prior to the conventions in 2012, Mitt Romney appeared to get more favorable coverage than Obama. He certainly fared better than any of his opponents. He was the media's choice of GOP candidates.

Once the nomination was a done deal though, all that changed. Now Obama got the most opportunity for 'good looking' photo ops, and Romney much less so.

The GOP's only hope in 2016 is to put up a candidate that the public can get excited about and make sure they don't shoot themselves in the foot with that candidate--again.

Perhaps you haven't heard.

Reince Preibus is not allowing primary debates unless they're moderated by Fox News.

Also, why are GOP candidates so much more vulnerable to "gotcha: questions than Democrats are? To someone like Sarah Palin, what her shoe size is, would be a gotcha question.

What you describe as negative coverage, is really negative reactions, from the 1/2 of Americans that Fox News will tell you either doesn't exist, or thinks something else. Romney's failures were Romney's failures. He didn't behave like a real person, and those 47% comments were an antithesis to Obama.

What does the GOP have to bash Hillary with, like the extensive arsenal the Romney campaign had to bash Obama? The economy? no Foreign Policy? no....and please be reasonable, and bear in mind what swing voters and non Fox watching voters will be swayed by. You have to believe what Fox says for it to matter

See how the far left will run their narratives no matter how far from reality they are.

Wow....you're going to use the word "reality" huh?

You don't think there is only one...do you?

 

[toxicmedia]

Meanwhile, this from a state that supported Obama the last two presidentials:

Hillary Clinton trails three of her Republican challengers — former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) — in a new WMUR Granite State Poll from the University of New Hampshire.

Bush staged an 18-point turnaround since February. He now leads Clinton by a margin of 47 percent to 41 percent, after Clinton led in February by a margin of 51 percent to 39 percent.

Paul also turned around his fortunes from February, when he trailed by 10 percentage points, and now leads Clinton 47 percent to 43 percent.

Rubio leads Clinton by 5 percentage points, 47 percent to 42 percent, while Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ties her with 44 percent each.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) is the only candidate tested in the poll that loses to Clinton, but she only leads by one percentage point at 46 percent to 45 percent.

Poll Clinton trails Bush Paul and Rubio in NH TheHill

That poll is less than 500 people in NH, and........

Party Registration
Democrat 144 25%
Republican 170 30%

Party Indentification
Democrat 40%
Republican 43%

But don't let me interrupt your cherry picking. With this poll you'll have enough to make a pie.

Polls occasionally get results that don't reflect the averages. Pay attention to the averages

Hillary is in a world of doom. She is seen as sleazy, and she is.

I don't know if I would use that word to describe her, but even if true, it doesn't matter. Never underestimate how low some will set the bar for what they expect of their candidate just so long as that candidate has the right letter following his/her name.

You don't know if sleazy is the word to describe Hillary? If you had one word then, what would that be? Sorry, sleazy seems right to me.

How about four words and a number?

Hillary will win in 2016

 

[Kosh]

But, 2008 was supposed to be a coronation for Hillary too, remember? She had played the game for a very long time, had survived all the scandals, had been the supportive wife through all the infidelities, real or unreal, and had managed to keep her nose clean in the Senate. She had paid her dues. It was her turn. It was her time.

And yet an imminently mostly unknown, inexperienced, unqualified, and untested young upstart named Barack Hussein Obama took it all away.

I don't think Hillary has much in the way of grass roots support really. She is just the only Democrat running against a Democrat opposition that is more unattractive than she is.

So of course, being the only option, she is chosen as the Democrat that is running while the GOP is much more diluted. She may indeed pull it out if the GOP rips itself apart in the primaries again. But if they can avoid doing that this time, whoever emerges as the GOP choice will almost certainly start pulling numbers much better than the current field is able to do.

IMO, the way 2008 turned out had way more to do with Obama, than it did Hillary.

The idea of a President that wasn't an old white guy was irresistable to the Democratic base, and they turned out in greater numbers than they usually do. Democrats turning out to vote remains a problem for the GOP in every election.

Hillary's experience in 2008 was first lady, and senator.

Now, it's first lady, senator, and secretary of state. Lot's of low information voters will have that image in their heads of Hillary in the war room when Bin Laden was killed, plus all the instances of her meeting world leaders.

The growing diversity vote in the US will continue to want non old white guys, untill everyone has had their turn, and the diversity voters realize it doesn't matter what color or sex a president is.

Women are next.

Hillary will be the nominee, and ther GOP/Fox will control the messaging and will not allow GOP candidates to tear each other apart this time around. which will stifle publicity. Maybe they should tear each other apart.

The publicity has never been stifled. It has been front and center in all of the MSM. But most of the MSM will utilize the politics of personal destruction to discredit the GOP as they have done for decades now. The GOP candidates will get a lot more 'gotcha' questions, will be given less opportunity to express their message, and the negative coverage will be heavily weighted against them.

Sometimes the coverage will appear 'friendly' or 'favorable' and probably will be rated that way by those groups who track campaign coverage. But if you really pay attention to what is going on, no GOP candidate is going to have any opportunity to show his best side as the Democrats will be able to do.

If you look at media coverage prior to the conventions in 2012, Mitt Romney appeared to get more favorable coverage than Obama. He certainly fared better than any of his opponents. He was the media's choice of GOP candidates.

Once the nomination was a done deal though, all that changed. Now Obama got the most opportunity for 'good looking' photo ops, and Romney much less so.

The GOP's only hope in 2016 is to put up a candidate that the public can get excited about and make sure they don't shoot themselves in the foot with that candidate--again.

Perhaps you haven't heard.

Reince Preibus is not allowing primary debates unless they're moderated by Fox News.

Also, why are GOP candidates so much more vulnerable to "gotcha: questions than Democrats are? To someone like Sarah Palin, what her shoe size is, would be a gotcha question.

What you describe as negative coverage, is really negative reactions, from the 1/2 of Americans that Fox News will tell you either doesn't exist, or thinks something else. Romney's failures were Romney's failures. He didn't behave like a real person, and those 47% comments were an antithesis to Obama.

What does the GOP have to bash Hillary with, like the extensive arsenal the Romney campaign had to bash Obama? The economy? no Foreign Policy? no....and please be reasonable, and bear in mind what swing voters and non Fox watching voters will be swayed by. You have to believe what Fox says for it to matter

See how the far left will run their narratives no matter how far from reality they are.

Wow....you're going to use the word "reality" huh?

You don't think there is only one...do you?

Once again the far left drones prove they do not operate in "reality"..

They only operate on the far left religious dogma..

 

[Meathead]

But, 2008 was supposed to be a coronation for Hillary too, remember? She had played the game for a very long time, had survived all the scandals, had been the supportive wife through all the infidelities, real or unreal, and had managed to keep her nose clean in the Senate. She had paid her dues. It was her turn. It was her time.

And yet an imminently mostly unknown, inexperienced, unqualified, and untested young upstart named Barack Hussein Obama took it all away.

I don't think Hillary has much in the way of grass roots support really. She is just the only Democrat running against a Democrat opposition that is more unattractive than she is.

So of course, being the only option, she is chosen as the Democrat that is running while the GOP is much more diluted. She may indeed pull it out if the GOP rips itself apart in the primaries again. But if they can avoid doing that this time, whoever emerges as the GOP choice will almost certainly start pulling numbers much better than the current field is able to do.

IMO, the way 2008 turned out had way more to do with Obama, than it did Hillary.

The idea of a President that wasn't an old white guy was irresistable to the Democratic base, and they turned out in greater numbers than they usually do. Democrats turning out to vote remains a problem for the GOP in every election.

Hillary's experience in 2008 was first lady, and senator.

Now, it's first lady, senator, and secretary of state. Lot's of low information voters will have that image in their heads of Hillary in the war room when Bin Laden was killed, plus all the instances of her meeting world leaders.

The growing diversity vote in the US will continue to want non old white guys, untill everyone has had their turn, and the diversity voters realize it doesn't matter what color or sex a president is.

Women are next.

Hillary will be the nominee, and ther GOP/Fox will control the messaging and will not allow GOP candidates to tear each other apart this time around. which will stifle publicity. Maybe they should tear each other apart.

The publicity has never been stifled. It has been front and center in all of the MSM. But most of the MSM will utilize the politics of personal destruction to discredit the GOP as they have done for decades now. The GOP candidates will get a lot more 'gotcha' questions, will be given less opportunity to express their message, and the negative coverage will be heavily weighted against them.

Sometimes the coverage will appear 'friendly' or 'favorable' and probably will be rated that way by those groups who track campaign coverage. But if you really pay attention to what is going on, no GOP candidate is going to have any opportunity to show his best side as the Democrats will be able to do.

If you look at media coverage prior to the conventions in 2012, Mitt Romney appeared to get more favorable coverage than Obama. He certainly fared better than any of his opponents. He was the media's choice of GOP candidates.

Once the nomination was a done deal though, all that changed. Now Obama got the most opportunity for 'good looking' photo ops, and Romney much less so.

The GOP's only hope in 2016 is to put up a candidate that the public can get excited about and make sure they don't shoot themselves in the foot with that candidate--again.

Perhaps you haven't heard.

Reince Preibus is not allowing primary debates unless they're moderated by Fox News.

Also, why are GOP candidates so much more vulnerable to "gotcha: questions than Democrats are? To someone like Sarah Palin, what her shoe size is, would be a gotcha question.

What you describe as negative coverage, is really negative reactions, from the 1/2 of Americans that Fox News will tell you either doesn't exist, or thinks something else. Romney's failures were Romney's failures. He didn't behave like a real person, and those 47% comments were an antithesis to Obama.

What does the GOP have to bash Hillary with, like the extensive arsenal the Romney campaign had to bash Obama? The economy? no Foreign Policy? no....and please be reasonable, and bear in mind what swing voters and non Fox watching voters will be swayed by. You have to believe what Fox says for it to matter

See how the far left will run their narratives no matter how far from reality they are.

Wow....you're going to use the word "reality" huh?

You don't think there is only one...do you?

If you cannot spot sleaze at this point, you never will.

 

[Kosh]

Meanwhile, this from a state that supported Obama the last two presidentials:

Hillary Clinton trails three of her Republican challengers — former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) — in a new WMUR Granite State Poll from the University of New Hampshire.

Bush staged an 18-point turnaround since February. He now leads Clinton by a margin of 47 percent to 41 percent, after Clinton led in February by a margin of 51 percent to 39 percent.

Paul also turned around his fortunes from February, when he trailed by 10 percentage points, and now leads Clinton 47 percent to 43 percent.

Rubio leads Clinton by 5 percentage points, 47 percent to 42 percent, while Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ties her with 44 percent each.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) is the only candidate tested in the poll that loses to Clinton, but she only leads by one percentage point at 46 percent to 45 percent.

Poll Clinton trails Bush Paul and Rubio in NH TheHill

That poll is less than 500 people in NH, and........

Party Registration
Democrat 144 25%
Republican 170 30%

Party Indentification
Democrat 40%
Republican 43%

But don't let me interrupt your cherry picking. With this poll you'll have enough to make a pie.

Polls occasionally get results that don't reflect the averages. Pay attention to the averages

Hillary is in a world of doom. She is seen as sleazy, and she is.

I don't know if I would use that word to describe her, but even if true, it doesn't matter. Never underestimate how low some will set the bar for what they expect of their candidate just so long as that candidate has the right letter following his/her name.

You don't know if sleazy is the word to describe Hillary? If you had one word then, what would that be? Sorry, sleazy seems right to me.

How about four words and a number?

Hillary will win in 2016

It is so cute to watch the far left believe that they actually get choices in their primaries..

 

[Foxfyre]

Gee as I recall Hillary was a shoe in back in 2008. A shoe in until her party decided to throw her under the bus for the half black guy.

Hillary isn't fit to be POTUS anymore than the boy king was.

Her handling of Benghazi showed the world just how unqualified that bitch is.

I do have a job she could probably handle though. It concerns the rear end of my horse. I'm sure she could shovel shit. She's been doing it for years.

At this same time in the Democratic Party primary race, in 2007, Hillary had a 37% share, Obama had 22%, and Edwards had 10 or so %.

Right now, Hillary has 62%, and no other Democratic challengers have even 10%.

Right now, in 2007, the last time no incumbents were in the Presidential race, Democrats at Republicans were only 2-5 points ahead or behind the likely other challengers...not 5-15, like the GOP candidates are with Hillary.

The only way the GOP can fight this exceptional situation, is to downplay it as normal

And it's far from that.

But, 2008 was supposed to be a coronation for Hillary too, remember? She had played the game for a very long time, had survived all the scandals, had been the supportive wife through all the infidelities, real or unreal, and had managed to keep her nose clean in the Senate. She had paid her dues. It was her turn. It was her time.

And yet an imminently mostly unknown, inexperienced, unqualified, and untested young upstart named Barack Hussein Obama took it all away.

I don't think Hillary has much in the way of grass roots support really. She is just the only Democrat running against a Democrat opposition that is more unattractive than she is.

So of course, being the only option, she is chosen as the Democrat that is running while the GOP is much more diluted. She may indeed pull it out if the GOP rips itself apart in the primaries again. But if they can avoid doing that this time, whoever emerges as the GOP choice will almost certainly start pulling numbers much better than the current field is able to do.

IMO, the way 2008 turned out had way more to do with Obama, than it did Hillary.

The idea of a President that wasn't an old white guy was irresistable to the Democratic base, and they turned out in greater numbers than they usually do. Democrats turning out to vote remains a problem for the GOP in every election.

Hillary's experience in 2008 was first lady, and senator.

Now, it's first lady, senator, and secretary of state. Lot's of low information voters will have that image in their heads of Hillary in the war room when Bin Laden was killed, plus all the instances of her meeting world leaders.

The growing diversity vote in the US will continue to want non old white guys, untill everyone has had their turn, and the diversity voters realize it doesn't matter what color or sex a president is.

Women are next.

Hillary will be the nominee, and ther GOP/Fox will control the messaging and will not allow GOP candidates to tear each other apart this time around. which will stifle publicity. Maybe they should tear each other apart.

The publicity has never been stifled. It has been front and center in all of the MSM. But most of the MSM will utilize the politics of personal destruction to discredit the GOP as they have done for decades now. The GOP candidates will get a lot more 'gotcha' questions, will be given less opportunity to express their message, and the negative coverage will be heavily weighted against them.

Sometimes the coverage will appear 'friendly' or 'favorable' and probably will be rated that way by those groups who track campaign coverage. But if you really pay attention to what is going on, no GOP candidate is going to have any opportunity to show his best side as the Democrats will be able to do.

If you look at media coverage prior to the conventions in 2012, Mitt Romney appeared to get more favorable coverage than Obama. He certainly fared better than any of his opponents. He was the media's choice of GOP candidates.

Once the nomination was a done deal though, all that changed. Now Obama got the most opportunity for 'good looking' photo ops, and Romney much less so.

The GOP's only hope in 2016 is to put up a candidate that the public can get excited about and make sure they don't shoot themselves in the foot with that candidate--again.

Perhaps you haven't heard.

Reince Preibus is not allowing primary debates unless they're moderated by Fox News.

Also, why are GOP candidates so much more vulnerable to "gotcha: questions than Democrats are? To someone like Sarah Palin, what her shoe size is, would be a gotcha question.

What you describe as negative coverage, is really negative reactions, from the 1/2 of Americans that Fox News will tell you either doesn't exist, or thinks something else. Romney's failures were Romney's failures. He didn't behave like a real person, and those 47% comments were an antithesis to Obama.

What does the GOP have to bash Hillary with, like the extensive arsenal the Romney campaign had to bash Obama? The economy? no Foreign Policy? no....and please be reasonable, and bear in mind what swing voters and non Fox watching voters will be swayed by. You have to believe what Fox says for it to matter

Well the GOP would be brilliant if they did allow Fox News to run all their debates, because at least they might get a reasonably honest debate. But do you really believe anybody is swayed by the debates that are not debates at all but just group Q & A sessions? I know I have never made my selection based on the debates. I don't know anybody who has made their choice based on the debates.

The GOP is not more susceptible to gotcha questions than anybody else. They just are targeted with gotcha questions more than anybody else.

I hope with all my heart that the GOP hopefuls do not try to win this election by bashing Hillary or Obama because I think that is a royal turn off to many people. People are weary of hearing nothing but nasty criticism. I hope they will try to win this election by persuading people that they have their head on straight and have the right values and priorities. And I hope they are courteous and non combative with each other.

They need to make their pitch with humor, good nature, memorable lines that lend themselves to good soundbites, be honest, pertinent, persuasive, and likable--none of which Hillary has ever been able to pull off effectively.

 

[toxicmedia]

IMO, the way 2008 turned out had way more to do with Obama, than it did Hillary.

The idea of a President that wasn't an old white guy was irresistable to the Democratic base, and they turned out in greater numbers than they usually do. Democrats turning out to vote remains a problem for the GOP in every election.

Hillary's experience in 2008 was first lady, and senator.

Now, it's first lady, senator, and secretary of state. Lot's of low information voters will have that image in their heads of Hillary in the war room when Bin Laden was killed, plus all the instances of her meeting world leaders.

The growing diversity vote in the US will continue to want non old white guys, untill everyone has had their turn, and the diversity voters realize it doesn't matter what color or sex a president is.

Women are next.

Hillary will be the nominee, and ther GOP/Fox will control the messaging and will not allow GOP candidates to tear each other apart this time around. which will stifle publicity. Maybe they should tear each other apart.

The publicity has never been stifled. It has been front and center in all of the MSM. But most of the MSM will utilize the politics of personal destruction to discredit the GOP as they have done for decades now. The GOP candidates will get a lot more 'gotcha' questions, will be given less opportunity to express their message, and the negative coverage will be heavily weighted against them.

Sometimes the coverage will appear 'friendly' or 'favorable' and probably will be rated that way by those groups who track campaign coverage. But if you really pay attention to what is going on, no GOP candidate is going to have any opportunity to show his best side as the Democrats will be able to do.

If you look at media coverage prior to the conventions in 2012, Mitt Romney appeared to get more favorable coverage than Obama. He certainly fared better than any of his opponents. He was the media's choice of GOP candidates.

Once the nomination was a done deal though, all that changed. Now Obama got the most opportunity for 'good looking' photo ops, and Romney much less so.

The GOP's only hope in 2016 is to put up a candidate that the public can get excited about and make sure they don't shoot themselves in the foot with that candidate--again.

Perhaps you haven't heard.

Reince Preibus is not allowing primary debates unless they're moderated by Fox News.

Also, why are GOP candidates so much more vulnerable to "gotcha: questions than Democrats are? To someone like Sarah Palin, what her shoe size is, would be a gotcha question.

What you describe as negative coverage, is really negative reactions, from the 1/2 of Americans that Fox News will tell you either doesn't exist, or thinks something else. Romney's failures were Romney's failures. He didn't behave like a real person, and those 47% comments were an antithesis to Obama.

What does the GOP have to bash Hillary with, like the extensive arsenal the Romney campaign had to bash Obama? The economy? no Foreign Policy? no....and please be reasonable, and bear in mind what swing voters and non Fox watching voters will be swayed by. You have to believe what Fox says for it to matter

See how the far left will run their narratives no matter how far from reality they are.

Wow....you're going to use the word "reality" huh?

You don't think there is only one...do you?

If you cannot spot sleaze at this point, you never will.

Mitt Romney was the last politician who I didn't think was sleezy, since Eisenhower.

All the rest, on both sides, sleeeeezy!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Meanwhile, this from a state that supported Obama the last two presidentials:

Hillary Clinton trails three of her Republican challengers — former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) — in a new WMUR Granite State Poll from the University of New Hampshire.

Bush staged an 18-point turnaround since February. He now leads Clinton by a margin of 47 percent to 41 percent, after Clinton led in February by a margin of 51 percent to 39 percent.

Paul also turned around his fortunes from February, when he trailed by 10 percentage points, and now leads Clinton 47 percent to 43 percent.

Rubio leads Clinton by 5 percentage points, 47 percent to 42 percent, while Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ties her with 44 percent each.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) is the only candidate tested in the poll that loses to Clinton, but she only leads by one percentage point at 46 percent to 45 percent.

Poll Clinton trails Bush Paul and Rubio in NH TheHill

That poll is less than 500 people in NH, and........

Party Registration
Democrat 144 25%
Republican 170 30%

Party Indentification
Democrat 40%
Republican 43%

But don't let me interrupt your cherry picking. With this poll you'll have enough to make a pie.

Polls occasionally get results that don't reflect the averages. Pay attention to the averages

Hillary is in a world of doom. She is seen as sleazy, and she is.

I don't know if I would use that word to describe her, but even if true, it doesn't matter. Never underestimate how low some will set the bar for what they expect of their candidate just so long as that candidate has the right letter following his/her name.

Republicans seem to want very much NOT to consider the possibility that the majority of Americans understand the Tea Party/Evangelical/Militia components of the GOP's platform, and simply reject it.

Riiiight. That's explains the 10 and 14 shellacking

 

[Kosh]

The publicity has never been stifled. It has been front and center in all of the MSM. But most of the MSM will utilize the politics of personal destruction to discredit the GOP as they have done for decades now. The GOP candidates will get a lot more 'gotcha' questions, will be given less opportunity to express their message, and the negative coverage will be heavily weighted against them.

Sometimes the coverage will appear 'friendly' or 'favorable' and probably will be rated that way by those groups who track campaign coverage. But if you really pay attention to what is going on, no GOP candidate is going to have any opportunity to show his best side as the Democrats will be able to do.

If you look at media coverage prior to the conventions in 2012, Mitt Romney appeared to get more favorable coverage than Obama. He certainly fared better than any of his opponents. He was the media's choice of GOP candidates.

Once the nomination was a done deal though, all that changed. Now Obama got the most opportunity for 'good looking' photo ops, and Romney much less so.

The GOP's only hope in 2016 is to put up a candidate that the public can get excited about and make sure they don't shoot themselves in the foot with that candidate--again.

Perhaps you haven't heard.

Reince Preibus is not allowing primary debates unless they're moderated by Fox News.

Also, why are GOP candidates so much more vulnerable to "gotcha: questions than Democrats are? To someone like Sarah Palin, what her shoe size is, would be a gotcha question.

What you describe as negative coverage, is really negative reactions, from the 1/2 of Americans that Fox News will tell you either doesn't exist, or thinks something else. Romney's failures were Romney's failures. He didn't behave like a real person, and those 47% comments were an antithesis to Obama.

What does the GOP have to bash Hillary with, like the extensive arsenal the Romney campaign had to bash Obama? The economy? no Foreign Policy? no....and please be reasonable, and bear in mind what swing voters and non Fox watching voters will be swayed by. You have to believe what Fox says for it to matter

See how the far left will run their narratives no matter how far from reality they are.

Wow....you're going to use the word "reality" huh?

You don't think there is only one...do you?

If you cannot spot sleaze at this point, you never will.

Mitt Romney was the last politician who I didn't think was sleezy, since Eisenhower.

All the rest, on both sides, sleeeeezy!

Yet you voted Obama and will vote Hilary thus contradicting any post you will make on this subject.

 

[Foxfyre]

The publicity has never been stifled. It has been front and center in all of the MSM. But most of the MSM will utilize the politics of personal destruction to discredit the GOP as they have done for decades now. The GOP candidates will get a lot more 'gotcha' questions, will be given less opportunity to express their message, and the negative coverage will be heavily weighted against them.

Sometimes the coverage will appear 'friendly' or 'favorable' and probably will be rated that way by those groups who track campaign coverage. But if you really pay attention to what is going on, no GOP candidate is going to have any opportunity to show his best side as the Democrats will be able to do.

If you look at media coverage prior to the conventions in 2012, Mitt Romney appeared to get more favorable coverage than Obama. He certainly fared better than any of his opponents. He was the media's choice of GOP candidates.

Once the nomination was a done deal though, all that changed. Now Obama got the most opportunity for 'good looking' photo ops, and Romney much less so.

The GOP's only hope in 2016 is to put up a candidate that the public can get excited about and make sure they don't shoot themselves in the foot with that candidate--again.

Perhaps you haven't heard.

Reince Preibus is not allowing primary debates unless they're moderated by Fox News.

Also, why are GOP candidates so much more vulnerable to "gotcha: questions than Democrats are? To someone like Sarah Palin, what her shoe size is, would be a gotcha question.

What you describe as negative coverage, is really negative reactions, from the 1/2 of Americans that Fox News will tell you either doesn't exist, or thinks something else. Romney's failures were Romney's failures. He didn't behave like a real person, and those 47% comments were an antithesis to Obama.

What does the GOP have to bash Hillary with, like the extensive arsenal the Romney campaign had to bash Obama? The economy? no Foreign Policy? no....and please be reasonable, and bear in mind what swing voters and non Fox watching voters will be swayed by. You have to believe what Fox says for it to matter

See how the far left will run their narratives no matter how far from reality they are.

Wow....you're going to use the word "reality" huh?

You don't think there is only one...do you?

If you cannot spot sleaze at this point, you never will.

Mitt Romney was the last politician who I didn't think was sleezy, since Eisenhower.

All the rest, on both sides, sleeeeezy!

Mitt was not my first choice for the nomination, but I voted for him with a completely clear conscience. And I still feel genuine grief that he was not elected because I think we would all be so much better off and would be well on our way to full recovery by now if he had been elected. I had to hold my nose to vote for McCain.

There are a lot of professional politicians running this time and though some of them do offer some impressive skill sets, I have no illusion that they are not professional politicians. But there are a few who are much less so and time will tell if these are able to gain any traction.

 

[toxicmedia]

At this same time in the Democratic Party primary race, in 2007, Hillary had a 37% share, Obama had 22%, and Edwards had 10 or so %.

Right now, Hillary has 62%, and no other Democratic challengers have even 10%.

Right now, in 2007, the last time no incumbents were in the Presidential race, Democrats at Republicans were only 2-5 points ahead or behind the likely other challengers...not 5-15, like the GOP candidates are with Hillary.

The only way the GOP can fight this exceptional situation, is to downplay it as normal

And it's far from that.

But, 2008 was supposed to be a coronation for Hillary too, remember? She had played the game for a very long time, had survived all the scandals, had been the supportive wife through all the infidelities, real or unreal, and had managed to keep her nose clean in the Senate. She had paid her dues. It was her turn. It was her time.

And yet an imminently mostly unknown, inexperienced, unqualified, and untested young upstart named Barack Hussein Obama took it all away.

I don't think Hillary has much in the way of grass roots support really. She is just the only Democrat running against a Democrat opposition that is more unattractive than she is.

So of course, being the only option, she is chosen as the Democrat that is running while the GOP is much more diluted. She may indeed pull it out if the GOP rips itself apart in the primaries again. But if they can avoid doing that this time, whoever emerges as the GOP choice will almost certainly start pulling numbers much better than the current field is able to do.

IMO, the way 2008 turned out had way more to do with Obama, than it did Hillary.

The idea of a President that wasn't an old white guy was irresistable to the Democratic base, and they turned out in greater numbers than they usually do. Democrats turning out to vote remains a problem for the GOP in every election.

Hillary's experience in 2008 was first lady, and senator.

Now, it's first lady, senator, and secretary of state. Lot's of low information voters will have that image in their heads of Hillary in the war room when Bin Laden was killed, plus all the instances of her meeting world leaders.

The growing diversity vote in the US will continue to want non old white guys, untill everyone has had their turn, and the diversity voters realize it doesn't matter what color or sex a president is.

Women are next.

Hillary will be the nominee, and ther GOP/Fox will control the messaging and will not allow GOP candidates to tear each other apart this time around. which will stifle publicity. Maybe they should tear each other apart.

The publicity has never been stifled. It has been front and center in all of the MSM. But most of the MSM will utilize the politics of personal destruction to discredit the GOP as they have done for decades now. The GOP candidates will get a lot more 'gotcha' questions, will be given less opportunity to express their message, and the negative coverage will be heavily weighted against them.

Sometimes the coverage will appear 'friendly' or 'favorable' and probably will be rated that way by those groups who track campaign coverage. But if you really pay attention to what is going on, no GOP candidate is going to have any opportunity to show his best side as the Democrats will be able to do.

If you look at media coverage prior to the conventions in 2012, Mitt Romney appeared to get more favorable coverage than Obama. He certainly fared better than any of his opponents. He was the media's choice of GOP candidates.

Once the nomination was a done deal though, all that changed. Now Obama got the most opportunity for 'good looking' photo ops, and Romney much less so.

The GOP's only hope in 2016 is to put up a candidate that the public can get excited about and make sure they don't shoot themselves in the foot with that candidate--again.

Perhaps you haven't heard.

Reince Preibus is not allowing primary debates unless they're moderated by Fox News.

Also, why are GOP candidates so much more vulnerable to "gotcha: questions than Democrats are? To someone like Sarah Palin, what her shoe size is, would be a gotcha question.

What you describe as negative coverage, is really negative reactions, from the 1/2 of Americans that Fox News will tell you either doesn't exist, or thinks something else. Romney's failures were Romney's failures. He didn't behave like a real person, and those 47% comments were an antithesis to Obama.

What does the GOP have to bash Hillary with, like the extensive arsenal the Romney campaign had to bash Obama? The economy? no Foreign Policy? no....and please be reasonable, and bear in mind what swing voters and non Fox watching voters will be swayed by. You have to believe what Fox says for it to matter

Well the GOP would be brilliant if they did allow Fox News to run all their debates, because at least they might get a reasonably honest debate. But do you really believe anybody is swayed by the debates that are not debates at all but just group Q & A sessions? I know I have never made my selection based on the debates. I don't know anybody who has made their choice based on the debates.

The GOP is not more susceptible to gotcha questions than anybody else. They just are targeted with gotcha questions more than anybody else.

I hope with all my heart that the GOP hopefuls do not try to win this election by bashing Hillary or Obama because I think that is a royal turn off to many people. People are weary of hearing nothing but nasty criticism. I hope they will try to win this election by persuading people that they have their head on straight and have the right values and priorities. And I hope they are courteous and non combative with each other.

They need to make their pitch with humor, good nature, memorable lines that lend themselves to good soundbites, be honest, pertinent, persuasive, and likable--none of which Hillary has ever been able to pull off effectively.

I do not like those Q&A/Town Hall/Internet-Audience debtaes either. But as far as people making decisions based on debates, I think it was the highest ever from the 3 Romney/Obama debates. And I agree that Republican candidates need friendlier ground to make their cases. The questions they get aren't the problem, it's the deferential reactions from the moderators, and worse yet, when someone like Candy Crowly openly supports Obama.

The key for the GOP candidate will be blowing off the Tea Party evangelicals, and appealing to women.

To me, it's that simple.

Rand Paul, jeb Bush, and Scott Walker won't appeal to women. Marco Rubio will

 

[Foxfyre]

But, 2008 was supposed to be a coronation for Hillary too, remember? She had played the game for a very long time, had survived all the scandals, had been the supportive wife through all the infidelities, real or unreal, and had managed to keep her nose clean in the Senate. She had paid her dues. It was her turn. It was her time.

And yet an imminently mostly unknown, inexperienced, unqualified, and untested young upstart named Barack Hussein Obama took it all away.

I don't think Hillary has much in the way of grass roots support really. She is just the only Democrat running against a Democrat opposition that is more unattractive than she is.

So of course, being the only option, she is chosen as the Democrat that is running while the GOP is much more diluted. She may indeed pull it out if the GOP rips itself apart in the primaries again. But if they can avoid doing that this time, whoever emerges as the GOP choice will almost certainly start pulling numbers much better than the current field is able to do.

IMO, the way 2008 turned out had way more to do with Obama, than it did Hillary.

The idea of a President that wasn't an old white guy was irresistable to the Democratic base, and they turned out in greater numbers than they usually do. Democrats turning out to vote remains a problem for the GOP in every election.

Hillary's experience in 2008 was first lady, and senator.

Now, it's first lady, senator, and secretary of state. Lot's of low information voters will have that image in their heads of Hillary in the war room when Bin Laden was killed, plus all the instances of her meeting world leaders.

The growing diversity vote in the US will continue to want non old white guys, untill everyone has had their turn, and the diversity voters realize it doesn't matter what color or sex a president is.

Women are next.

Hillary will be the nominee, and ther GOP/Fox will control the messaging and will not allow GOP candidates to tear each other apart this time around. which will stifle publicity. Maybe they should tear each other apart.

The publicity has never been stifled. It has been front and center in all of the MSM. But most of the MSM will utilize the politics of personal destruction to discredit the GOP as they have done for decades now. The GOP candidates will get a lot more 'gotcha' questions, will be given less opportunity to express their message, and the negative coverage will be heavily weighted against them.

Sometimes the coverage will appear 'friendly' or 'favorable' and probably will be rated that way by those groups who track campaign coverage. But if you really pay attention to what is going on, no GOP candidate is going to have any opportunity to show his best side as the Democrats will be able to do.

If you look at media coverage prior to the conventions in 2012, Mitt Romney appeared to get more favorable coverage than Obama. He certainly fared better than any of his opponents. He was the media's choice of GOP candidates.

Once the nomination was a done deal though, all that changed. Now Obama got the most opportunity for 'good looking' photo ops, and Romney much less so.

The GOP's only hope in 2016 is to put up a candidate that the public can get excited about and make sure they don't shoot themselves in the foot with that candidate--again.

Perhaps you haven't heard.

Reince Preibus is not allowing primary debates unless they're moderated by Fox News.

Also, why are GOP candidates so much more vulnerable to "gotcha: questions than Democrats are? To someone like Sarah Palin, what her shoe size is, would be a gotcha question.

What you describe as negative coverage, is really negative reactions, from the 1/2 of Americans that Fox News will tell you either doesn't exist, or thinks something else. Romney's failures were Romney's failures. He didn't behave like a real person, and those 47% comments were an antithesis to Obama.

What does the GOP have to bash Hillary with, like the extensive arsenal the Romney campaign had to bash Obama? The economy? no Foreign Policy? no....and please be reasonable, and bear in mind what swing voters and non Fox watching voters will be swayed by. You have to believe what Fox says for it to matter

Well the GOP would be brilliant if they did allow Fox News to run all their debates, because at least they might get a reasonably honest debate. But do you really believe anybody is swayed by the debates that are not debates at all but just group Q & A sessions? I know I have never made my selection based on the debates. I don't know anybody who has made their choice based on the debates.

The GOP is not more susceptible to gotcha questions than anybody else. They just are targeted with gotcha questions more than anybody else.

I hope with all my heart that the GOP hopefuls do not try to win this election by bashing Hillary or Obama because I think that is a royal turn off to many people. People are weary of hearing nothing but nasty criticism. I hope they will try to win this election by persuading people that they have their head on straight and have the right values and priorities. And I hope they are courteous and non combative with each other.

They need to make their pitch with humor, good nature, memorable lines that lend themselves to good soundbites, be honest, pertinent, persuasive, and likable--none of which Hillary has ever been able to pull off effectively.

I do not like those Q&A/Town Hall/Internet-Audience debtaes either. But as far as people making decisions based on debates, I think it was the highest ever from the 3 Romney/Obama debates. And I agree that Republican candidates need friendlier ground to make their cases. The questions they get aren't the problem, it's the deferential reactions from the moderators, and worse yet, when someone like Candy Crowly openly supports Obama.

The key for the GOP candidate will be blowing off the Tea Party evangelicals, and appealing to women.

To me, it's that simple.

Rand Paul, jeb Bush, and Scott Walker won't appeal to women. Marco Rubio will

I want the GOP to appeal to intelligent people of all stripes and genders instead of catering to this group or that group. If they make a sufficiently good case for their core beliefs and values, they will. If they dance around issues and instead go the politically correct direction, they'll appear as much empty suits as they have in the past.

The worst thing they can do is blow off the Tea Party. It is absolutely the best chance they have to put good people in office and get this country back on track. The left wing talking heads and media, the assault from the Obama administration, and profoundly unethical attacks on the Tea Party movement have taken their toll. But again that is because it is so difficult to articulate a message in this 30-second sound bite, abbreviated tweets, and short attention span world.

We need an informed and educated electorate again, but those who wanted American dumbed down and submissive to big government seem to be winning.

 

[Old Rocks]

Adult beverages already today?...it's early

Nope. The last drink I had was on July 5th, 2014 (my wedding day).

I hope you're not threatening armed rebellion, because that's a childish reaction to losing an election. If you're capable of that, you should be behind bars or in the looney bin right now.

Not threatening.... promising. It's not a reaction to an election(s). It's a reaction to an un-American (in our mind) philosophy called Liberalism pervading this nation. We (and I) are more than capable of that.

The south tried that in 1860, and it wouldn't work if you tried it today. You'd just get yourself killed.

Better DEAD than RED and that seems to be the only choice in this country at this point in time.

Silly old fart, all you will do is sit there, reloading useless ammo and having obscene daydreams about blowing your fellow humans apart. You will do exactly nothing, the same as you have done all the prior years. And when you are pushing up daisies, whomever is taking care of your affairs will look at the ammo and guns and wonder what the hell kind of fetish you had.

 

[toxicmedia]

Perhaps you haven't heard.

Reince Preibus is not allowing primary debates unless they're moderated by Fox News.

Also, why are GOP candidates so much more vulnerable to "gotcha: questions than Democrats are? To someone like Sarah Palin, what her shoe size is, would be a gotcha question.

What you describe as negative coverage, is really negative reactions, from the 1/2 of Americans that Fox News will tell you either doesn't exist, or thinks something else. Romney's failures were Romney's failures. He didn't behave like a real person, and those 47% comments were an antithesis to Obama.

What does the GOP have to bash Hillary with, like the extensive arsenal the Romney campaign had to bash Obama? The economy? no Foreign Policy? no....and please be reasonable, and bear in mind what swing voters and non Fox watching voters will be swayed by. You have to believe what Fox says for it to matter

See how the far left will run their narratives no matter how far from reality they are.

Wow....you're going to use the word "reality" huh?

You don't think there is only one...do you?

If you cannot spot sleaze at this point, you never will.

Mitt Romney was the last politician who I didn't think was sleezy, since Eisenhower.

All the rest, on both sides, sleeeeezy!

Yet you voted Obama and will vote Hilary thus contradicting any post you will make on this subject.

I didn't vote for Obama. And I've already said I'll vote for whatever GOP candidate runs as long as it's not Ted Cruz or Ben Carson

 

[Kosh]

See how the far left will run their narratives no matter how far from reality they are.

Wow....you're going to use the word "reality" huh?

You don't think there is only one...do you?

If you cannot spot sleaze at this point, you never will.

Mitt Romney was the last politician who I didn't think was sleezy, since Eisenhower.

All the rest, on both sides, sleeeeezy!

Yet you voted Obama and will vote Hilary thus contradicting any post you will make on this subject.

I didn't vote for Obama. And I've already said I'll vote for whatever GOP candidate runs as long as it's not Ted Cruz or Ben Carson

So you admit that you are voting for a sleaze ball no matter who you vote for?

 

[Freewill]

I find her popularity not surprising. 47 percent are going to vote for Mrs. Clinton no matter what. So her leading the polls with so many opposition candidates is not surprising. Pretty impressive how the left marches in unison. Then the left has the balls to say that the right is not diverse, shear idiocy.

Two faced, old, no real accomplishments, a tour of SOS which resulted in a world on fire and yet the left supports the 1 percenter, go figure.

Change of Heart? Hillary Clinton courting potential super PAC donors at California meetings