Why Hillary Will Win (probably)

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Democrats are so defensive when it comes to Hillary because she is literally all they've got. You remove her from the equation and they have no bench.

Not really. Waiting in the wings are people who could beat any potential GOP nominee. It's possible. How probable we could not know this early in the season...unlike 2008 when we sane people were betting a wet noodle could win after Bush/Cheney melt down

A wet noodle did win....

and it was the popular will: change and hope.

Dante did NOT vote 4 Obama in 2008

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If Hillary wins it will be for only one reason:

Americans are STILL idiots.

No one cares what you think.

 

[Skylar]

The Democrats are so defensive when it comes to Hillary because she is literally all they've got. You remove her from the equation and they have no bench.

Pretty accurate. The Dems have done a fairly lousy job at AAA ball on the national level.

There is a general sense among many democrats that there needs to be a transition of power to a new generation. Your Pelosis, Boxers, Browns and Clintons have held on a tad too long.

I suspect after this elections, the democrats will make such a transition.

 

[Skylar]

If Hillary wins it will be for only one reason:

Americans are STILL idiots.

So if you can't convince the electorate, insult them.

Yup, that's a winning strategy.

 

[rightwinger]

Amazing.. the Dems run an unknown form Illinois, who's never really done anything... his whole plan is "Hope and Change"... and now they run a seventy year-old has-been firm the sixties who without "Clinton" at the end of her name, we wouldn't even know who she is.

And then they rant for hours about their "qualifications".

Hillary is more qualified than all the Republican candidates combined and Republicans run on a "Hillary is not qualified" platform

Bizzaro world

 

[PredFan]

Logo truth

 

[Skylar]

Amazing.. the Dems run an unknown form Illinois, who's never really done anything... his whole plan is "Hope and Change"... and now they run a seventy year-old has-been firm the sixties who without "Clinton" at the end of her name, we wouldn't even know who she is.

And then they rant for hours about their "qualifications".

Hillary is more qualified than all the Republican candidates combined and Republicans run on a "Hillary is not qualified" platform

Bizzaro world

The current crop of GOP candidates are the Senators. They've got dick in terms of qualifications compared to Hillary. The SoS experience trumps them all.

But when the governors take the field (read, Walker, Kasich and Bush), there will be credible qualification contenders.

 

[PredFan]

Amazing.. the Dems run an unknown form Illinois, who's never really done anything... his whole plan is "Hope and Change"... and now they run a seventy year-old has-been firm the sixties who without "Clinton" at the end of her name, we wouldn't even know who she is.

And then they rant for hours about their "qualifications".

Hillary is more qualified than all the Republican candidates combined and Republicans run on a "Hillary is not qualified" platform

Bizzaro world

The current crop of GOP candidates are the Senators. They've got dick in terms of qualifications compared to Hillary. The SoS experience trumps them all.

But when the governors take the field (read, Walker, Kasich and Bush), there will be credible qualification contenders.

They also don't have the scandals and corruption. Hillary has more of those than Bill has women on the side.

 

[Skylar]

Amazing.. the Dems run an unknown form Illinois, who's never really done anything... his whole plan is "Hope and Change"... and now they run a seventy year-old has-been firm the sixties who without "Clinton" at the end of her name, we wouldn't even know who she is.

And then they rant for hours about their "qualifications".

Hillary is more qualified than all the Republican candidates combined and Republicans run on a "Hillary is not qualified" platform

Bizzaro world

The current crop of GOP candidates are the Senators. They've got dick in terms of qualifications compared to Hillary. The SoS experience trumps them all.

But when the governors take the field (read, Walker, Kasich and Bush), there will be credible qualification contenders.

They also don't have the scandals and corruption. Hillary has more of those than Bill has women on the side.

The 'scandals' have run their course. Hillary's polling is still quite high. As for corruption, you'd have to do it by proxy. As direct attacks on Hillary on corruption issues are some weak tea.

And 'they' only dream of Hillary's name recognition and polling numbers.

 

[BluesLegend]

OP you underestimate the loud mouth looney left, they FORCED Hillary left in 2008 and they will do so again in 2016.

What positions do you believe she was forced to adopt in 2008?

Hillary positioned herself in the center, even right center on foreign policy and defense earlier in 2008. I recall being impressed with her actually and thought she had presidential acumen. Don't tell anyone but I thought Hillary would have made a good president in no small part because she could rely on Bill a former 2 term president for advice, that's a hell of an advantage.

Then the flaming liberal socialist puke liar rose in the polls forcing her to the left during the primary and the MSM threw her under the bus. The rest is history.

 

[Skylar]

OP you underestimate the loud mouth looney left, they FORCED Hillary left in 2008 and they will do so again in 2016.

What positions do you believe she was forced to adopt in 2008?

Hillary positioned herself in the center, even right center on foreign policy and defense earlier in 2008. I recall being impressed with her actually and thought she had presidential acumen. Don't tell anyone but I thought Hillary would have made a good president in no small part because she could rely on Bill a former 2 term president for advice, that's a hell of an advantage.

Then the flaming liberal socialist puke liar rose in the polls forcing her to the left during the primary and the MSM threw her under the bus. The rest is history.

And which positions do you believe she was forced to adopt in 2008? Healthcare reform? Middle class tax cuts? What specifically are you referring to.

 

[Liminal]

If the Democratic candidates have a televised debate, some nasty wounds are going to reopen.

Probably not. Hillary is ideologically lined up within a tolerable range with the money in her party. And within a similar range with the majority of the electorate. There's little chance of her being forced to take positions that will knock her out of either range.

If Elizabeth Warren were a candidate she'd kick the shit out of Hilary in a debate. As it is Jim Webb is going to flay her alive on foreign policy issues.

Nah, Warren is good. But Hillary is pretty good too. She'd hold her own. And its unlikely she'd be forced to take positions that were too left wing by Warren.

Speaking hypothetically, of course.

Since Warren isn't running the entire point is moot in practical terms.

We're still a long ways out from the election, a lot can happen.

Of course. Any discussion of any presicdential run is by its very nature enormously speculative. We're making educated guesses at best.

Hilary Clinton is the worst possible choice, she carries tons of her own baggage, and she can't de-link herself from unpopular Obama foreign policy decisions.

Her polling numbers say differently. There may be better choices, but there are also far, far worse. She's actually got a solid shot at winning. Undermining the 'worst possible choice' narrative.

Things will look much different in eighteen months. Speaking as a life long Democrat, I won't vote for her. I'm guessing I'm not the only Democrat who feels that way.

 

[Skylar]

Probably not. Hillary is ideologically lined up within a tolerable range with the money in her party. And within a similar range with the majority of the electorate. There's little chance of her being forced to take positions that will knock her out of either range.

If Elizabeth Warren were a candidate she'd kick the shit out of Hilary in a debate. As it is Jim Webb is going to flay her alive on foreign policy issues.

Nah, Warren is good. But Hillary is pretty good too. She'd hold her own. And its unlikely she'd be forced to take positions that were too left wing by Warren.

Speaking hypothetically, of course.

Since Warren isn't running the entire point is moot in practical terms.

We're still a long ways out from the election, a lot can happen.

Of course. Any discussion of any presicdential run is by its very nature enormously speculative. We're making educated guesses at best.

Hilary Clinton is the worst possible choice, she carries tons of her own baggage, and she can't de-link herself from unpopular Obama foreign policy decisions.

Her polling numbers say differently. There may be better choices, but there are also far, far worse. She's actually got a solid shot at winning. Undermining the 'worst possible choice' narrative.

Things will look much different in eighteen months. Speaking as a life long Democrat, I won't vote for her. I'm guessing I'm not the only Democrat who feels that way.

Things may look different. Unless they don't. As you said, its too early. But given her plusses, there are far worse candidates.

 

[Liminal]

If Elizabeth Warren were a candidate she'd kick the shit out of Hilary in a debate. As it is Jim Webb is going to flay her alive on foreign policy issues.

Nah, Warren is good. But Hillary is pretty good too. She'd hold her own. And its unlikely she'd be forced to take positions that were too left wing by Warren.

Speaking hypothetically, of course.

Since Warren isn't running the entire point is moot in practical terms.

We're still a long ways out from the election, a lot can happen.

Of course. Any discussion of any presicdential run is by its very nature enormously speculative. We're making educated guesses at best.

Hilary Clinton is the worst possible choice, she carries tons of her own baggage, and she can't de-link herself from unpopular Obama foreign policy decisions.

Her polling numbers say differently. There may be better choices, but there are also far, far worse. She's actually got a solid shot at winning. Undermining the 'worst possible choice' narrative.

Things will look much different in eighteen months. Speaking as a life long Democrat, I won't vote for her. I'm guessing I'm not the only Democrat who feels that way.

Things may look different. Unless they don't. As you said, its too early. But given her plusses, there are far worse candidates.

Hardly a ringing endorsement, but yes, I'm sure there are worse candidates, somewhere, who I guess will remain unnamed for now.

 

[g5000]

Hilary Clinton is the worst possible choice, she carries tons of her own baggage

And yet despite all the right wing's best efforts to date, she still polls far better than any Republican.

The GOP is all about lies, smears, and taunts nowadays. Doing the same old shit, expecting a different result.

Retards, hypocrites, liars, and psychopaths.

Here's a fresh idea: PUT SOME SOLUTIONS ON THE TABLE! LEAD! Stop taking all your cues from the other team.

 

[Skylar]

Nah, Warren is good. But Hillary is pretty good too. She'd hold her own. And its unlikely she'd be forced to take positions that were too left wing by Warren.

Speaking hypothetically, of course.

Since Warren isn't running the entire point is moot in practical terms.

We're still a long ways out from the election, a lot can happen.

Of course. Any discussion of any presicdential run is by its very nature enormously speculative. We're making educated guesses at best.

Hilary Clinton is the worst possible choice, she carries tons of her own baggage, and she can't de-link herself from unpopular Obama foreign policy decisions.

Her polling numbers say differently. There may be better choices, but there are also far, far worse. She's actually got a solid shot at winning. Undermining the 'worst possible choice' narrative.

Things will look much different in eighteen months. Speaking as a life long Democrat, I won't vote for her. I'm guessing I'm not the only Democrat who feels that way.

Things may look different. Unless they don't. As you said, its too early. But given her plusses, there are far worse candidates.

Hardly a ringing endorsement, but yes, I'm sure there are worse candidates, somewhere, who I guess will remain unnamed for now.

I don't need to prove her the best candidate to refute your claim. Only demonstrate she's not the worst.

'Worst possible candidate' is some pretty low hanging fruit to dispel.

 

[Liminal]

We're still a long ways out from the election, a lot can happen.

Of course. Any discussion of any presicdential run is by its very nature enormously speculative. We're making educated guesses at best.

Hilary Clinton is the worst possible choice, she carries tons of her own baggage, and she can't de-link herself from unpopular Obama foreign policy decisions.

Her polling numbers say differently. There may be better choices, but there are also far, far worse. She's actually got a solid shot at winning. Undermining the 'worst possible choice' narrative.

Things will look much different in eighteen months. Speaking as a life long Democrat, I won't vote for her. I'm guessing I'm not the only Democrat who feels that way.

Things may look different. Unless they don't. As you said, its too early. But given her plusses, there are far worse candidates.

Hardly a ringing endorsement, but yes, I'm sure there are worse candidates, somewhere, who I guess will remain unnamed for now.

I don't need to prove her the best candidate to refute your claim. Only demonstrate she's not the worst.

'Worst possible candidate' is some pretty low hanging fruit to dispel.

Please do then, feel free to shoot for the lowest expectations possible.

 

[Skylar]

Of course. Any discussion of any presicdential run is by its very nature enormously speculative. We're making educated guesses at best.

Her polling numbers say differently. There may be better choices, but there are also far, far worse. She's actually got a solid shot at winning. Undermining the 'worst possible choice' narrative.

Things will look much different in eighteen months. Speaking as a life long Democrat, I won't vote for her. I'm guessing I'm not the only Democrat who feels that way.

Things may look different. Unless they don't. As you said, its too early. But given her plusses, there are far worse candidates.

Hardly a ringing endorsement, but yes, I'm sure there are worse candidates, somewhere, who I guess will remain unnamed for now.

I don't need to prove her the best candidate to refute your claim. Only demonstrate she's not the worst.

'Worst possible candidate' is some pretty low hanging fruit to dispel.

Please do then, feel free to shoot for the lowest expectations possible.

I already have. And you've already admitted it: "I'm sure there are worse candidates, somewhere, who I guess will remain unnamed for now."

Anyone with a lower polling number than Hillary, lower name recognition, and smaller war chest would be a worse candidate than she is.

 

[Liminal]

Hilary Clinton is the worst possible choice, she carries tons of her own baggage

And yet despite all the right wing's best efforts to date, she still polls far better than any Republican.

The GOP is all about lies, smears, and taunts nowadays. Doing the same old shit, expecting a different result.

Retards, hypocrites, liars, and psychopaths.

Here's a fresh idea: PUT SOME SOLUTIONS ON THE TABLE! LEAD! Stop taking all your cues from the other team.

The campaign hasn't even begun, I predict her own party will make her look like shit. They'll want to gain some distance and plausible deniability when the big defeat comes in 2016.

 

[Liminal]

Things will look much different in eighteen months. Speaking as a life long Democrat, I won't vote for her. I'm guessing I'm not the only Democrat who feels that way.

Things may look different. Unless they don't. As you said, its too early. But given her plusses, there are far worse candidates.

Hardly a ringing endorsement, but yes, I'm sure there are worse candidates, somewhere, who I guess will remain unnamed for now.

I don't need to prove her the best candidate to refute your claim. Only demonstrate she's not the worst.

'Worst possible candidate' is some pretty low hanging fruit to dispel.

Please do then, feel free to shoot for the lowest expectations possible.

I already have. And you've already admitted it: "I'm sure there are worse candidates, somewhere, who I guess will remain unnamed for now."

Anyone with a lower polling number than Hillary, lower name recognition, and smaller war chest would be a worse candidate than she is.

Maybe you could cling to even more slender threads of logic and superficial semantics, but I doubt it.