Opinion of Hillary Clinton

[IceSpear]

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).

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. 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?

Also, you're really wearing rose tinted glasses if you think it's even remotely possible that Huntsman (couldn't even break 1% in 2012), Portman (disowned by GOP for SSM support, has shown no indications of wanting to run) or Brown (LOL) will win the GOP nomination.

[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.

[MATTROSE94]

FF overall. Hillary Clinton will make a pretty good President if she is elected in 2016.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Race-baiters tend to be HPs.

Oh yes, this too. Lief's love of her is odd given her vile campaign against Obama.

[Lief 🗽]

That happened six years ago? If Obama can get over it, so can the rest of us.

[windjammer]

So democrats who dislike Clinton: true leftist or gun nuts. Wow thank you! Now I like her more!

[LeBron]

FF.  Hopefully the next POTUS.

This. I'm really hoping that with Christie done for and Jerry Brown out, she gets in because otherwise we could end up being stuck with Schweitzer. The hate on her for "just being another Clinton or Bush" or "she voted for the war!" gets really annoying because ever since Bill, Hillary has established herself as a phenomenal national politician ever since and has evolved on a lot of issues and would be nothing like her husband was in the Oval Office. #ReadyforHillary

Was Jerry Brown ever going to run for President in 2016 considering he'd be 78?

Likely not, but this was considered to be his absolutely last chance at the Presidency if he wanted one last chance at it (and break the Reagan record in the process) and his expected "Brownslide" this year (as EG calls it) could have boosted him big time in media coverage of someone who would have had the potential to finish his career off greatly. The same thing applies to Cuomo who will also win in a landslide this year, but Cuomo at least still might run.

Also, while Warren, Brown, Booker, Patrick etc. are already announcing their intentions not to run for the Presidency, there are things that could happen down the road that would make them, Brown specifically, want to run. While Brown has already made-up with the Clinton's from the 1992 debate incident, I'm sure he would still love to pull a primary win off of a Clinton in his lifetime. I don't think he'll reconsider a run nor do I want him to, but before declining, beyond the other Presidential hopefuls like Biden and O'Malley, the California Governor may have been the most plausible challenge Hillary.

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.

[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.

[RogueBeaver]

There's a difference between 70 and 39.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

HP. Will be horrified if she becomes the 45th POTUS.

[IceSpear]

There's a difference between 70 and 39.

*applause*

The media narrative of "Hillary can be toppled like she was in 2008!" that is being adopted by the wishful thinkers is so lame. There's a big difference between polling in the 30s/40s and the 60s/70s...

[IceSpear]

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.

[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.

[IceSpear]

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?

[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.

[RosettaStoned]

 The next Stalin.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

That happened six years ago? If Obama can get over it, so can the rest of us.

She literally invented birtherism, though.

[Sopranos Republican]

Sociopathic nutjob. Hopefully she never comes close to the Oval Office.

[Beet]

Awesome woman, radical at heart, champion of the true working class American, the white working class, black working class, Hispanic working class, the invisible Americans of all stripes... champion of children's rights, intelligent and pragmatic, understands the game of politics and how it is played. Need I say more?

[Beet]

Also I support video games and marijuana as much as anybody, but if Ron Paul's policies had been in place in 2008-09, there quite possibly would be no 2016 election.

[Mechaman]

Also I support video games and marijuana as much as anybody, but if Ron Paul's policies had been in place in 2008-09, there quite possibly would be no 2016 election.

Sorry bro, too high right now.

What'd you say?

[TNF]

Also I support video games and marijuana as much as anybody, but if Ron Paul's policies had been in place in 2008-09, there quite possibly would be no 2016 election.

>implying a hypothetical President Ron Paul would ever be able to get his policies enacted beyond the ones he could gain broad support for, like restoring civil liberties/ending pointless overseas conflicts

[IceSpear]

Also I support video games and marijuana as much as anybody, but if Ron Paul's policies had been in place in 2008-09, there quite possibly would be no 2016 election.

>implying a hypothetical President Ron Paul would ever be able to get his policies enacted beyond the ones he could gain broad support for, like restoring civil liberties/ending pointless overseas conflicts

>implying there's Congressional support for either of those things

[Sol]

I have some major issues with her use of racial dogwhistles in the Democratic Primary back in '08. HP.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

HP as a person, I think.