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

[IceSpear]

Yes, thankfully.

[IceSpear]

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.

[IceSpear]

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.

Well, Bush was probably still seen more favorably than Obama in Oklahoma even during the height of Obama's popularity and the nadir of Bush's.

[IceSpear]

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.

[IceSpear]

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.

[IceSpear]

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.

Apparently you see no middle ground between accepting every individual poll as gospel (which would be impossible anyway when they show conflicting information) and completely rejecting all polls. Is this all or nothing mindset the thing that makes Oklahoma Republicans so right wing?

I'll make it simple for you. Right now, there are two polls on Obama's approval rating. Rasmussen shows Obama with a 52-46 (+6) approval rating. FOX shows him with a 40-54 approval rating (-14). Even accounting for margin of error, both of them can't possibly be right.

A single poll is evidence of nothing, especially when it is conducted by a non objective source. If a poll is corroborated by other evidence (as the polls regarding Hillary Clinton are, by literally hundreds of sources) then you can make a case with it.