I'm pretty dissapointed in D's not challenging HRC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, there are many of us who want HRC and would vote for her regardless of whomever else was running.

And there are quite a few Democrats and independents who would not vote for her ..... who voted for Obama and Bill Clinton.

This. Didn't vote for her last time, and I won't this time.

Another Dem who absolutely will not vote for her. If she is nominated, I will vote against her which unfortunately means voting Republican.

Enjoy the new SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, there are many of us who want HRC and would vote for her regardless of whomever else was running.

And there are quite a few Democrats and independents who would not vote for her ..... who voted for Obama and Bill Clinton.

This. Didn't vote for her last time, and I won't this time.

Another Dem who absolutely will not vote for her. If she is nominated, I will vote against her which unfortunately means voting Republican.

The you are truly an idiot. No other word for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, there are many of us who want HRC and would vote for her regardless of whomever else was running.

And there are quite a few Democrats and independents who would not vote for her ..... who voted for Obama and Bill Clinton.

This. Didn't vote for her last time, and I won't this time.

Another Dem who absolutely will not vote for her. If she is nominated, I will vote against her which unfortunately means voting Republican.

The you are truly an idiot. No other word for it.

You are probably the poster who keeps posting this.

Hint: you will not persuade anyone to vote for HRC or anyone else by calling them an idiot. And if you think your approach works then you are clueless.

[Anonymous]

If the general election comes down to Hillary Clinton vs any Republican, you may feel like you are choosing the lesser of two evils in voting for Clinton - but as another PP pointed out, lets remember that the "greater of two evils" did in 2000. Allowed 9/11, started two wars - one completely unnecessary and immoral, collapsed the economy, and changed the face of the Supreme Court and got us Citizens United.

You would truly be a fool to vote for any Republican or throw away your vote on a third party candidate.

[Anonymous]

If I had to choose between a dishonest Democrat (HRC) and a moderate Republican who has a measure of integrity, I'd vote for the latter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the general election comes down to Hillary Clinton vs any Republican, you may feel like you are choosing the lesser of two evils in voting for Clinton - but as another PP pointed out, lets remember that the "greater of two evils" did in 2000. Allowed 9/11, started two wars - one completely unnecessary and immoral, collapsed the economy, and changed the face of the Supreme Court and got us Citizens United.

You would truly be a fool to vote for any Republican or throw away your vote on a third party candidate.

Instead of castigating those who would vote for a Republican or vote for a third party candidate because they will not vote for HC, you and others who feel this way should really focus on providing Democrats with a more palatable alternative. There are enough people who just don't like HC and rather than ramming her down their throats, provide a viable alternative. I will vote for Bernie Sanders in the primaries and do my part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the general election comes down to Hillary Clinton vs any Republican, you may feel like you are choosing the lesser of two evils in voting for Clinton - but as another PP pointed out, lets remember that the "greater of two evils" did in 2000. Allowed 9/11, started two wars - one completely unnecessary and immoral, collapsed the economy, and changed the face of the Supreme Court and got us Citizens United.

You would truly be a fool to vote for any Republican or throw away your vote on a third party candidate.

But look how many "foolish" voters there were in 2000. (sorry to the Nader voter/poster for calling you foolish!) All you heard during that election was how there was no difference between the two parties, and look how that turned out.

You are assuming that somehow the electorate will have learned some great lesson, but (PP notwithstanding) I disagree. A lot of voters have a pretty poor understanding of the various powers and limitations of different parts of the government, so they don't do a spectacular job of holding politicians appropriately accountable. Plus a significant segment of Obama's winning coalition-- essential to a Democratic victory-- were not even eligible to vote yet.

[Anonymous]

BIDEN 2016!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I had to choose between a dishonest Democrat (HRC) and a moderate Republican who has a measure of integrity, I'd vote for the latter.

The Republican Party is going to make very, very sure that you don't have a choice like that.

[Anonymous]

I'm not really a fan, but HRC is head and shoulders above the pack of evil clowns currently vying for the GOP nomination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, it is the independents and moderates in a handful of swing states who decide elections. And HRC's numbers in those states are not favorable at this time, 15+ months before the election.

A couple posters (or maybe just one very active person) are pitching this storyline about Hillary Clinton's favorable ratings, claiming she will lose to some other Democrat candidate or to a Republican nominee. I personally suspect you're a Conservative hoping to sway Democrats to pick a different nominee, because you fear she will mop the floor with any Republican candidate currently running. But in any event, you're simply wrong on the numbers. Here's a actual summary of current polling data:

Hillary Clinton is leading Bernie Sanders by 40 percentage points across six different polls. 58% of Democrat voters would choose Clinton as the nominee, and only 18% would choose Sanders. Clinton leads Sanders by 28% in Iowa, 15% in NH, and 42% in SC. Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democrat nominee. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

Hillary Clinton leads every potential Republican nominee by big margins in national polling across registered voters, including Fox's own polling. A 5% win is an absolute landslide victory, because as you correctly note it's the independents and moderates in swing states who decide elections. Those independents and moderates prefer Clinton over any of the Republican candidates.
Clinton vs. Trump? Clinton wins by 16%
Clinton vs. Christie? Clinton wins by 11%
Clinton vs. Ted Cruz? Clinton wins by 9%
Clinton vs. Walker? Clinton wins by 9%
Clinton vs. Rubio? Clinton wins by 8%
Clinton vs. Chris Christie? Clinton wins by 7%
Clinton vs. Bush? Clinton wins by 5%
Clinton vs. Rand Paul? Clinton wins by 4%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

[Anonymous]

The head to head polling match ups against Republicans are pretty useless at this point, no? This early in the race, a lot of the polling support is just name recognition, which is meaningless on Election Day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, there are many of us who want HRC and would vote for her regardless of whomever else was running.

And there are quite a few Democrats and independents who would not vote for her ..... who voted for Obama and Bill Clinton.

This. Didn't vote for her last time, and I won't this time.

Another Dem who absolutely will not vote for her. If she is nominated, I will vote against her which unfortunately means voting Republican.

The you are truly an idiot. No other word for it.

You are probably the poster who keeps posting this.

Hint: you will not persuade anyone to vote for HRC or anyone else by calling them an idiot. And if you think your approach works then you are clueless.

They don't care if it works...they only care about their own opinion and find great satisfaction in calling people names. Small minded? Insecure? Perhaps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it is the independents and moderates in a handful of swing states who decide elections. And HRC's numbers in those states are not favorable at this time, 15+ months before the election.

A couple posters (or maybe just one very active person) are pitching this storyline about Hillary Clinton's favorable ratings, claiming she will lose to some other Democrat candidate or to a Republican nominee. I personally suspect you're a Conservative hoping to sway Democrats to pick a different nominee, because you fear she will mop the floor with any Republican candidate currently running. But in any event, you're simply wrong on the numbers. Here's a actual summary of current polling data:

Hillary Clinton is leading Bernie Sanders by 40 percentage points across six different polls. 58% of Democrat voters would choose Clinton as the nominee, and only 18% would choose Sanders. Clinton leads Sanders by 28% in Iowa, 15% in NH, and 42% in SC. Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democrat nominee. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

Hillary Clinton leads every potential Republican nominee by big margins in national polling across registered voters, including Fox's own polling. A 5% win is an absolute landslide victory, because as you correctly note it's the independents and moderates in swing states who decide elections. Those independents and moderates prefer Clinton over any of the Republican candidates.
Clinton vs. Trump? Clinton wins by 16%
Clinton vs. Christie? Clinton wins by 11%
Clinton vs. Ted Cruz? Clinton wins by 9%
Clinton vs. Walker? Clinton wins by 9%
Clinton vs. Rubio? Clinton wins by 8%
Clinton vs. Chris Christie? Clinton wins by 7%
Clinton vs. Bush? Clinton wins by 5%
Clinton vs. Rand Paul? Clinton wins by 4%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

So...HRC is only ahead of Bush and Paul by just over the margin of error for polls? And doesn't lead weaker candidates like Christie and Rubio by that much. For someone that has been deemed a candidate for 9 years and running solid for the past 2 that doesn't seem like much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it is the independents and moderates in a handful of swing states who decide elections. And HRC's numbers in those states are not favorable at this time, 15+ months before the election.

A couple posters (or maybe just one very active person) are pitching this storyline about Hillary Clinton's favorable ratings, claiming she will lose to some other Democrat candidate or to a Republican nominee. I personally suspect you're a Conservative hoping to sway Democrats to pick a different nominee, because you fear she will mop the floor with any Republican candidate currently running. But in any event, you're simply wrong on the numbers. Here's a actual summary of current polling data:

Hillary Clinton is leading Bernie Sanders by 40 percentage points across six different polls. 58% of Democrat voters would choose Clinton as the nominee, and only 18% would choose Sanders. Clinton leads Sanders by 28% in Iowa, 15% in NH, and 42% in SC. Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democrat nominee. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

Hillary Clinton leads every potential Republican nominee by big margins in national polling across registered voters, including Fox's own polling. A 5% win is an absolute landslide victory, because as you correctly note it's the independents and moderates in swing states who decide elections. Those independents and moderates prefer Clinton over any of the Republican candidates.
Clinton vs. Trump? Clinton wins by 16%
Clinton vs. Christie? Clinton wins by 11%
Clinton vs. Ted Cruz? Clinton wins by 9%
Clinton vs. Walker? Clinton wins by 9%
Clinton vs. Rubio? Clinton wins by 8%
Clinton vs. Chris Christie? Clinton wins by 7%
Clinton vs. Bush? Clinton wins by 5%
Clinton vs. Rand Paul? Clinton wins by 4%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

Not the PP, to whom you responded but your lengthy response missed the one key thing in his/her post. The presidential election will be decided in a few swing states - how the rest of the country votes is almost irrelevant, in that it is just about a foregone conclusion.

And, although it is early days, in three swing states Clinton is upside down against several viable Republican candidates.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2261

I have voted for Obama, Kerry, Gore and Bill Clinton so I am a fairly reliable Democratic vote but I would absolutely not vote for HRC. Whether I'd vote for a Republican would depend on who they nominate. There are others who feel the way I do and so rather than attack us for our views (referring to the PP who keeps calling us idiots, etc) it would make a lot more sense for the Democrats to nominate someone who does not come with HRC's negatives.