Gun to your head: Do you think Hillary Clinton will run for POTUS in 2016 ?

[Joe Biden 2020]

I said no in back in 2012.

I say yes today.

I agree with this mostly.  I thought no until as late as March 2014, but then seeing everything she is doing and everything she is saying, I believe she will run.  That said, I still would not be surprised if she ends up not running.

I am still not sold on her chances if she does run.  I do not think she is a shoo-in for either the nomination and certainly not the general.  The Republicans have a good crop of names being mentioned it sounds like and there are still several other good, if not better, Democrats being talked about.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I said no in back in 2012.

I say yes today.

I agree with this mostly.  I thought no until as late as March 2014, but then seeing everything she is doing and everything she is saying, I believe she will run.  That said, I still would not be surprised if she ends up not running.

I am still not sold on her chances if she does run.  I do not think she is a shoo-in for either the nomination and certainly not the general.  The Republicans have a good crop of names being mentioned it sounds like and there are still several other good, if not better, Democrats being talked about.

Do you seriously consider the names Bush and Paul "good"?

The name "Bush" is nowhere near as toxic as it was several years ago.  This is because the Obama administration has been such a disaster that the Bush name has been redeemed in a sense.  To be true, the name "Obama" is worse than the name "Bush" right now.  (I voted for Obama twice, and even I think he's been a disaster especially in the second term).

The name "Paul" hasn't had a chance to be tarnished, really.  Ron Paul was a good congressman from Texas and provided a lot of good ideas on the campaign trail.  Rand Paul is doing several good things for the people of Kentucky.  I don't think he'd be that good of a president, but he would be better than the catastrophe we have in the White House now.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Can you explain what exactly has been disasterous about Obama's presidency? I'm not exactly a fan, but I recognize he's the best we're going to get out of an American President.

I think his foreign policy has been terrible.  You don't announce to the world when you're going to bring troops home from Afghanistan, you just do it as secretively as you can, even if your own citizens don't know.  The terrorists can now just wait us out and then set up shop and wreak havoc.  That almost happened in Iraq.  IIRC, when we pulled out of Iraq there was a brief uptick in violence.  I pray the same thing does not happen in Afghanistan.  Second, I still believe there was a cover up over the Benghazi incident that will hurt Hillary Clinton if she were to run.  It may not be as bad now that it was almost two years ago, but it will still come into play.  He also allowed the IRS to unfairly target conservative groups because of their ideology.  He put on a show and acted all mad when he "found out", but he didn't do enough to stop that before it happened.  It also feels like our Christian liberties are crumbling and we're having bites of our liberties taken out little by little.  This country is not as free as it was 10-20 years ago.  Christians aren't as welcomed and encouraged to speak their mind as they used to be.  In fact, anymore, it seems Christians are told to keep their mouths shut and allow the immorality to continue.  We're still nowhere near the persecution level of other countries, but it is still alarming.  Obama hasn't done near enough to free Christian Pastor Saeed who is being held in Iran in captivity just for being a Christian.  He also hasn't done enough to free that Christian wife and now mother in the Sudan who has been sentenced to death just for marrying a Christian husband.  There are reports she will be freed, but he needs to be working tirelessly and feverishly until her and her husband are freed and safely on American or American-friendly soil.  I agree with his decision not to notify Congress about the former POW, Berdahl's, trade off, because he would have been killed if it were to be made public.  I don't like that he had to release 5 of the most notorious terrorists to do so, but he had to bring our soldier home whether or not he is a traitor to his unit.  Obama's been a disaster, but there are a couple redeeming qualities about his administration.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I said no in back in 2012.

I say yes today.

I agree with this mostly.  I thought no until as late as March 2014, but then seeing everything she is doing and everything she is saying, I believe she will run.  That said, I still would not be surprised if she ends up not running.

I am still not sold on her chances if she does run.  I do not think she is a shoo-in for either the nomination and certainly not the general.  The Republicans have a good crop of names being mentioned it sounds like and there are still several other good, if not better, Democrats being talked about.

Do you seriously consider the names Bush and Paul "good"?

The name "Bush" is nowhere near as toxic as it was several years ago.  This is because the Obama administration has been such a disaster that the Bush name has been redeemed in a sense.  To be true, the name "Obama" is worse than the name "Bush" right now.  (I voted for Obama twice, and even I think he's been a disaster especially in the second term).

The name "Paul" hasn't had a chance to be tarnished, really.  Ron Paul was a good congressman from Texas and provided a lot of good ideas on the campaign trail.  Rand Paul is doing several good things for the people of Kentucky.  I don't think he'd be that good of a president, but he would be better than the catastrophe we have in the White House now.

Even if this is the case, do you really think the name Bush holds more weight than Clinton?

Not necessarily more weight, but not any less weight.  I think Jeb Bush has as good of a chance as Hillary Clinton.  His name won't be a hindrance, or not as big of a hindrance as a few of the things plaguing Hillary.  Hillary's health is a big one, because remember, she recently suffered a concussion and she is aging and showing her age.  Also, one thing that I think could very easily keep Hillary from even running is her new grandbaby.  When Chelsea gives birth, Hillary may, wisely, decide that Chelsea and the baby need her more than her country needs her.  Hillary's first priority should be to her family.  I don't think even her most adamant supporters could blame her if she decides to be a grandmother rather than the President of the United States.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I said no in back in 2012.

I say yes today.

I agree with this mostly.  I thought no until as late as March 2014, but then seeing everything she is doing and everything she is saying, I believe she will run.  That said, I still would not be surprised if she ends up not running.

I am still not sold on her chances if she does run.  I do not think she is a shoo-in for either the nomination and certainly not the general.  The Republicans have a good crop of names being mentioned it sounds like and there are still several other good, if not better, Democrats being talked about.

Do you seriously consider the names Bush and Paul "good"?

The name "Bush" is nowhere near as toxic as it was several years ago.  This is because the Obama administration has been such a disaster that the Bush name has been redeemed in a sense.  To be true, the name "Obama" is worse than the name "Bush" right now.  (I voted for Obama twice, and even I think he's been a disaster especially in the second term).

The name "Paul" hasn't had a chance to be tarnished, really.  Ron Paul was a good congressman from Texas and provided a lot of good ideas on the campaign trail.  Rand Paul is doing several good things for the people of Kentucky.  I don't think he'd be that good of a president, but he would be better than the catastrophe we have in the White House now.

Even if this is the case, do you really think the name Bush holds more weight than Clinton?

Not necessarily more weight, but not any less weight.  I think Jeb Bush has as good of a chance as Hillary Clinton.  His name won't be a hindrance, or not as big of a hindrance as a few of the things plaguing Hillary.  Hillary's health is a big one, because remember, she recently suffered a concussion and she is aging and showing her age.  Also, one thing that I think could very easily keep Hillary from even running is her new grandbaby.  When Chelsea gives birth, Hillary may, wisely, decide that Chelsea and the baby need her more than her country needs her.  Hillary's first priority should be to her family.  I don't think even her most adamant supporters could blame her if she decides to be a grandmother rather than the President of the United States.

I respectfully disagree. I think if you polled people on which Presidency they remember more fondly, Clinton would defeat Bush soundly. I realize Jeb is not George and Hillary is not Bill, but I can't agree that the Bush name holds the same weight as the Clinton name.

I agree that Clinton is largely perceived to have had a better presidency than Bush.  Even I think that. Both men are very popular and have their own individual strengths and weaknesses, so I don't think the weight of the name is affected too much by the fondness of the administration.  Clinton and Bush have been two of the four most popular names in political chit-chat for the past 35 years with Obama and Reagan being the others.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I said no in back in 2012.

I say yes today.

I agree with this mostly.  I thought no until as late as March 2014, but then seeing everything she is doing and everything she is saying, I believe she will run.  That said, I still would not be surprised if she ends up not running.

I am still not sold on her chances if she does run.  I do not think she is a shoo-in for either the nomination and certainly not the general.  The Republicans have a good crop of names being mentioned it sounds like and there are still several other good, if not better, Democrats being talked about.

Do you seriously consider the names Bush and Paul "good"?

The name "Bush" is nowhere near as toxic as it was several years ago.  This is because the Obama administration has been such a disaster that the Bush name has been redeemed in a sense.  To be true, the name "Obama" is worse than the name "Bush" right now.  (I voted for Obama twice, and even I think he's been a disaster especially in the second term).

I think your perspective may be a tad skewed due to the fact that you're from Oklahoma, the most anti-Obama state in the country, and supported Bush.

I am from Oklahoma, but I am a Democrat from Oklahoma and while I supported Bush in 2000 against Gore when I was a Republican, I voted for John Kerry in 2004 and then supported the Democrats in the 2006 mid terms and voted for Obama three times in the 2008 primary and general and 2012 general.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I said no in back in 2012.

I say yes today.

I agree with this mostly.  I thought no until as late as March 2014, but then seeing everything she is doing and everything she is saying, I believe she will run.  That said, I still would not be surprised if she ends up not running.

I am still not sold on her chances if she does run.  I do not think she is a shoo-in for either the nomination and certainly not the general.  The Republicans have a good crop of names being mentioned it sounds like and there are still several other good, if not better, Democrats being talked about.

Do you seriously consider the names Bush and Paul "good"?

The name "Bush" is nowhere near as toxic as it was several years ago.  This is because the Obama administration has been such a disaster that the Bush name has been redeemed in a sense.  To be true, the name "Obama" is worse than the name "Bush" right now.  (I voted for Obama twice, and even I think he's been a disaster especially in the second term).

I think your perspective may be a tad skewed due to the fact that you're from Oklahoma, the most anti-Obama state in the country, and supported Bush.

Polls agree with the guy from Oklahoma.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/262706/speedreads-obama-is-less-competent-than-george-bush-say-a-plurality-of-americans

http://www.inquisitr.com/1037005/george-w-bush-popularity-beats-obamas-approval-rating-in-2013/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/06/12/george-w-bush-gallup-poll-approval-ratings/2414365/

The final link is a favorability poll, not an approval poll. It's a lot easier to see a former president favorably when they've been out of office for 5-6 years. The only poll that directly asked this question was the FOX News poll, which isn't exactly an objective source.

I'll go with the hard data: Obama won twice, by much bigger margins than Bush did. His approval has also never gone anywhere near as low as Bush's, who was in the 20s toward the end of his presidency. Maybe Obama will end up sinking that low too, but I doubt it.

So, if polls favor Democrats (Hillary Clinton) they're the law of the land, but if the polls favor the Republicans they are to be ignored?  Gotcha..

[Joe Biden 2020]

I said no in back in 2012.

I say yes today.

I agree with this mostly.  I thought no until as late as March 2014, but then seeing everything she is doing and everything she is saying, I believe she will run.  That said, I still would not be surprised if she ends up not running.

I am still not sold on her chances if she does run.  I do not think she is a shoo-in for either the nomination and certainly not the general.  The Republicans have a good crop of names being mentioned it sounds like and there are still several other good, if not better, Democrats being talked about.

Do you seriously consider the names Bush and Paul "good"?

The name "Bush" is nowhere near as toxic as it was several years ago.  This is because the Obama administration has been such a disaster that the Bush name has been redeemed in a sense.  To be true, the name "Obama" is worse than the name "Bush" right now.  (I voted for Obama twice, and even I think he's been a disaster especially in the second term).

I think your perspective may be a tad skewed due to the fact that you're from Oklahoma, the most anti-Obama state in the country, and supported Bush.

Polls agree with the guy from Oklahoma.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/262706/speedreads-obama-is-less-competent-than-george-bush-say-a-plurality-of-americans

http://www.inquisitr.com/1037005/george-w-bush-popularity-beats-obamas-approval-rating-in-2013/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/06/12/george-w-bush-gallup-poll-approval-ratings/2414365/

The final link is a favorability poll, not an approval poll. It's a lot easier to see a former president favorably when they've been out of office for 5-6 years. The only poll that directly asked this question was the FOX News poll, which isn't exactly an objective source.

I'll go with the hard data: Obama won twice, by much bigger margins than Bush did. His approval has also never gone anywhere near as low as Bush's, who was in the 20s toward the end of his presidency. Maybe Obama will end up sinking that low too, but I doubt it.

So, if polls favor Democrats (Hillary Clinton) they're the law of the land, but if the polls favor the Republicans they are to be ignored?  Gotcha..

Because clearly a single FOX News poll (not the plural "polls") is equivalent to hundreds of Democratic, Republican, and non partisan pollsters in the past year that have shown Hillary Clinton with enormous leads.

Like I said, Bush was clearly seen as worse by the American public based on actual election results and the aggregated data of hundreds of approval polls. You have a single FOX poll.

Again, typical double standards.