Opinion of Hillary Clinton

[Donerail]

Democrats can - and should - do better.

[Donerail]

Democrats can - and should - do better.

Do you think Charlie Crist is a better Democrat than Hillary?

False equivalence. Do I think Democrats can nominate a better candidate than Crist for Governor of Florida in 2014? No, but that speaks more to the weakness of the FL Dem bench and potential candidates (Buckhorn, Dyer, Iorio, Nelson, Sink, Smith) declining than anything else. Do I think they can nominate a better candidate than Clinton for President in 2016? Absolutely - Schweitzer, Sanders, Dean, and Warner all immediately come to mind. On top of that, Crist is running against Scott, who's been awful. I'm not convinced the GOP will put up someone in 2016 who's awful (Huntsman, Portman and Brown are all possible candidates who aren't awful).

[Donerail]

You seriously think Nelson and Sink are worse Dems than Crist, who was a Republican until 2010 (and would still be one had he not gotten teabagged)? And yes, you're supporting Crist because he can beat the awful Scott.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not saying Nelson and Sink are worse Dems than Crist. It's saying that they're not running for Governor so Crist is the best remaining option.

Just like Hillary can beat whatever horrible Republican they put up. All of those other Dems (except Warner) you listed would lose in a landslide, so how exactly are they better candidates?

The important difference is that I'm not willing to condemn the entire GOP 2016 field. It's still a few years out, and it's far too soon to be making assumptions about candidate strength or the relative horribleness of the GOP's nominee.

[Donerail]

For Hillary herself, I have no doubt that she could easily beat anyone in the primary, and even then, she's bound to get a small primary because she can rally the base and we'll likely see a unified Democratic Party behind Hillary in 2016 with most potential candidates endorsing Hillary from the start if she gets in. Schweitzer has shown signs of wanting to run against Hillary, but he's so unappealing and has such low name recognition that he wouldn't be a threat.

With more than two years until the presidential election, Hillary Rodham Clinton remains the front-runner for the Democratic nomination amidst a field of relatively well-established political figures. Her lead includes a better than two-to-one margin over her closest competitor among Democratic registered voters (39% to 15%), according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

There are sufficient numbers of men and women to conclude that Democratic women are more likely than men to back Clinton for the nomination. Apart from this gender gap, Gallup finds no significant demographic patterns in support for Clinton among Democrats. She is the preferred candidate of all major age, educational, income, and regional subgroups. She also leads among Democrats of differing political orientations, including self-described liberals, moderates, and conservatives.

Support for Clinton gives her a substantial lead in the Democratic presidential contest, especially when compared with past primary seasons leading up to the elections of 2004, 1992, 1976, 1972, and 1960. In each of these cases, the Democratic field was wide open with no candidate supported by more than one-third of Democratic voters, and two or more candidates closely competing for the top spot.

-- Gallup, Feb. 2006.

[Donerail]

There's a difference between 70 and 39.

Is that a good difference? Wasn't 'Clinton fatigue' one of the many reasons discussed for the failure of her 2008 campaign? It'd make sense that, with a larger apparatus than in 2008 and more media attention, that that fatigue could be even more amplified come 2016.

The important difference is that I'm not willing to condemn the entire GOP 2016 field. It's still a few years out, and it's far too soon to be making assumptions about candidate strength or the relative horribleness of the GOP's nominee.

Well, I'd bet my life that none of the 3 you listed will be the nominee. And since Christie was likely the furthest left of the likely contenders, the eventual nominee will almost certainly be to his right.

Rand Paul, then, or Daniels, or Thune, or Bush. Not an ideal list of choices, but not 'horrible' either.

[Donerail]

There's a difference between 70 and 39.

Is that a good difference? Wasn't 'Clinton fatigue' one of the many reasons discussed for the failure of her 2008 campaign? It'd make sense that, with a larger apparatus than in 2008 and more media attention, that that fatigue could be even more amplified come 2016.

The important difference is that I'm not willing to condemn the entire GOP 2016 field. It's still a few years out, and it's far too soon to be making assumptions about candidate strength or the relative horribleness of the GOP's nominee.

Well, I'd bet my life that none of the 3 you listed will be the nominee. And since Christie was likely the furthest left of the likely contenders, the eventual nominee will almost certainly be to his right.

Rand Paul, then, or Daniels, or Thune, or Bush. Not an ideal list of choices, but not 'horrible' either.

In 2008 Obama just had to convince people who had reservations about Hillary and weren't supporting her. In 2016, whoever will need to take away over 20%+ of the support Clinton already has. Quite a big difference, especially for a candidate like Schweitzer or O'Malley who won't have anywhere near the star power or appeal that Obama did.

You'd support Rand Paul over Hillary?

How solid is Hillary's support, though? Are they supporting her because the genuinely like her and agree with her over the other options? Or is it because they view her as the most electable Democrat, or she's just the only name they recognize? We have a good few years for star power and appeal to fluctuate.

Yes, of course. One of the few Republicans I like (the others - Daniels, Bush, Thune - were just 'not-horrible' names) against one of the few Dems I dislike. I'd certainly vote Paul over Hillary if they were the only two options on the ballot.

[Donerail]

How solid is Hillary's support, though? Are they supporting her because the genuinely like her and agree with her over the other options? Or is it because they view her as the most electable Democrat, or she's just the only name they recognize? We have a good few years for star power and appeal to fluctuate.

Yes, of course. One of the few Republicans I like (the others - Daniels, Bush, Thune - were just 'not-horrible' names) against one of the few Dems I dislike. I'd certainly vote Paul over Hillary if they were the only two options on the ballot.

Well, considering more people want a CONSERVATIVE alternative to Hillary rather than a liberal one, I'd say she's in pretty good shape for the primary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That doesn't answer the 'why' question.