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

[Anonymous]

I agree OP. Any Dem with any amount of spotlight treats the HRC nomination as an obvious inevitability. Even if it is, it's such obvious brown-nosing (I'll never get a spot in the Cabinet if I don't sing her praises!) it's kind of nauseating. Keith Ellison, who seems fairly self-sufficient, pulled that crap on This Week yesterday. Lame.

[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.

There aren't any moderate Republicans running.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you male?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you male?

What does that have to do with anything?

[Anonymous]

11:03 again - the person who posted the current polling data - writing in response to the people who responded to say those polls don't tell the full story, might not be accurate, don't show state-level data, etc. I totally agree with many of your points. We're 15 months out from the election, so the polling data is hazy at best, and the situation will surely evolve significantly between now and Nov 2016.

However, the polling certainly supports my key point, which is that the anyone suggesting the Democrats need to dump Hillary Clinton because Bernie Sanders is on a roll, is just plain ignoring the data. And anyone who claims that Clinton lacks support among Democrats is also ignoring the data.

No matter how you want to squint at the polling data, no matter how you want to talk about the margin of error counts, no matter how you want to cherry-pick state level data or focus on "unfavorable ratings," Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner of the election at this time. Pretending that's not the case is just an exercise in wishful thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:11:03 again - the person who posted the current polling data - writing in response to the people who responded to say those polls don't tell the full story, might not be accurate, don't show state-level data, etc. I totally agree with many of your points. We're 15 months out from the election, so the polling data is hazy at best, and the situation will surely evolve significantly between now and Nov 2016.

However, the polling certainly supports my key point, which is that the anyone suggesting the Democrats need to dump Hillary Clinton because Bernie Sanders is on a roll, is just plain ignoring the data. And anyone who claims that Clinton lacks support among Democrats is also ignoring the data.

No matter how you want to squint at the polling data, no matter how you want to talk about the margin of error counts, no matter how you want to cherry-pick state level data or focus on "unfavorable ratings," Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner of the election at this time. Pretending that's not the case is just an exercise in wishful thinking.

Agreed!

But do you agree that there are Democrats who will not vote for her but would likely vote for another nominee? Do you agree that many moderates and independents question her honesty and would therefore likely not vote for her in the general? Do you agree that she comes with a lot of baggage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner of the election at this time. Pretending that's not the case is just an exercise in wishful thinking.

Agreed! But do you agree that there are Democrats who will not vote for her but would likely vote for another nominee? Do you agree that many moderates and independents question her honesty and would therefore likely not vote for her in the general? Do you agree that she comes with a lot of baggage?

Sure, I'll agree there are likely some Democrats, some moderates, and some independents out there who dislike her and won't ever vote for her, no matter what sack of corn the Republicans run against her. I haven't seen anything indicating whether that "some" is a significant number of people. It's sort of like how there are "some" people who said they'd leave the Unite States rather than live under the oppressive yoke of a Bush presidency (or an Obama presidency, albeit with different complaints).

I'll also agree Clinton comes with some baggage. I would say though that a lot of that baggage seems most pronounced among hard-right Conservatives who dislike Bill Clinton, disliked the thought in 1992-96 that Hillary might have overhauled the healthcare system, dislike Barack Obama, and dislike the whole idea of a woman as President. It's hard for me to know how much their views really affect the 2016 election. I also think a lot of Clinton's supposed baggage is driven by hyperventilating from the media and her detractors.

As far as I can tell, she's smart and she did a fine job as Senator and Secretary of State. I've read several interviews with Republicans who agree she did a good job in those roles. Ultimately, I think she'd make a fine President. FWIW, I think Jeb Bush would make a fine President as well, although I have less confidence in him than I do in Clinton. IMHO, all of the other current candidates on both the Democrat and Republican side would be poor choices (Walker, Rubio, O'Malley) or unmitigated disasters (all the rest) for President.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There aren't any moderate Republicans running.

Pataki

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you male?

What does that have to do with anything?

Tell me whether you are and then I'll tell you why I asked.

[Anonymous]

12:33 again. Speaking further of baggage, I'd say every candidate carries some baggage to this process. Jeb Bush carries lots of baggage because of his obvious association with George W Bush and the many problems of that Presidency. Ironically though, if it weren't for the Bush name, Jeb probably wouldn't even be in the top 15 Republican candidates in this race. If he were "Jeb Smith," he'd just be some random governor from Florida who last held office eight years ago -- zero chance at getting the nomination. The only reason he's gotten this far is is last name. I'm not saying that to suggest he'd unqualified, but just that all candidates are mixed bags.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner of the election at this time. Pretending that's not the case is just an exercise in wishful thinking.

Agreed! But do you agree that there are Democrats who will not vote for her but would likely vote for another nominee? Do you agree that many moderates and independents question her honesty and would therefore likely not vote for her in the general? Do you agree that she comes with a lot of baggage?

Sure, I'll agree there are likely some Democrats, some moderates, and some independents out there who dislike her and won't ever vote for her, no matter what sack of corn the Republicans run against her. I haven't seen anything indicating whether that "some" is a significant number of people. It's sort of like how there are "some" people who said they'd leave the Unite States rather than live under the oppressive yoke of a Bush presidency (or an Obama presidency, albeit with different complaints).

I'll also agree Clinton comes with some baggage. I would say though that a lot of that baggage seems most pronounced among hard-right Conservatives who dislike Bill Clinton, disliked the thought in 1992-96 that Hillary might have overhauled the healthcare system, dislike Barack Obama, and dislike the whole idea of a woman as President. It's hard for me to know how much their views really affect the 2016 election. I also think a lot of Clinton's supposed baggage is driven by hyperventilating from the media and her detractors.

As far as I can tell, she's smart and she did a fine job as Senator and Secretary of State. I've read several interviews with Republicans who agree she did a good job in those roles. Ultimately, I think she'd make a fine President. FWIW, I think Jeb Bush would make a fine President as well, although I have less confidence in him than I do in Clinton. IMHO, all of the other current candidates on both the Democrat and Republican side would be poor choices (Walker, Rubio, O'Malley) or unmitigated disasters (all the rest) for President.

Thanks for a cogent response without the name calling!

It is early days yet so much could change with regard to the electorate as a whole. Here is an interesting article that attempts to analyze her negatives by different political leanings.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/26/why-is-hillary-clinton-viewed-so-unfavorably-in-early-primary-states/

I think her biggest problem is that she is perceived as not being honest and perception can outweigh reality. For my part, I don't believe much of what she says and she comes across as disingenuous. I think she is very intelligent but unlike her husband she comes across as being unable to relate to the average person. I watched her interview a couple of weeks ago on CNN and she came across as totally scripted in her responses. Quite honestly, I have no idea on where she really stands on various issues - what she says may or may not have anything to do with her core beliefs.

I think she was excellent as a senator ...... her record as SoS was mixed. She totally messed up healthcare reform when she was put in charge of it in BC's first term. BTW, I have worked in healthcare on the policy/administrative side for decades and we knew that her approach in trying to pass healthcare legislation would blow up in her face.

When she is not running for office, she comes across as more genuine. My first preference would have been for someone like Elizabeth Warren but that is not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner of the election at this time. Pretending that's not the case is just an exercise in wishful thinking.

Agreed! But do you agree that there are Democrats who will not vote for her but would likely vote for another nominee? Do you agree that many moderates and independents question her honesty and would therefore likely not vote for her in the general? Do you agree that she comes with a lot of baggage?

Sure, I'll agree there are likely some Democrats, some moderates, and some independents out there who dislike her and won't ever vote for her, no matter what sack of corn the Republicans run against her. I haven't seen anything indicating whether that "some" is a significant number of people. It's sort of like how there are "some" people who said they'd leave the Unite States rather than live under the oppressive yoke of a Bush presidency (or an Obama presidency, albeit with different complaints).

I'll also agree Clinton comes with some baggage. I would say though that a lot of that baggage seems most pronounced among hard-right Conservatives who dislike Bill Clinton, disliked the thought in 1992-96 that Hillary might have overhauled the healthcare system, dislike Barack Obama, and dislike the whole idea of a woman as President. It's hard for me to know how much their views really affect the 2016 election. I also think a lot of Clinton's supposed baggage is driven by hyperventilating from the media and her detractors.

As far as I can tell, she's smart and she did a fine job as Senator and Secretary of State. I've read several interviews with Republicans who agree she did a good job in those roles. Ultimately, I think she'd make a fine President. FWIW, I think Jeb Bush would make a fine President as well, although I have less confidence in him than I do in Clinton. IMHO, all of the other current candidates on both the Democrat and Republican side would be poor choices (Walker, Rubio, O'Malley) or unmitigated disasters (all the rest) for President.

Thanks for a cogent response without the name calling!

It is early days yet so much could change with regard to the electorate as a whole. Here is an interesting article that attempts to analyze her negatives by different political leanings.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/26/why-is-hillary-clinton-viewed-so-unfavorably-in-early-primary-states/

I think her biggest problem is that she is perceived as not being honest and perception can outweigh reality. For my part, I don't believe much of what she says and she comes across as disingenuous. I think she is very intelligent but unlike her husband she comes across as being unable to relate to the average person. I watched her interview a couple of weeks ago on CNN and she came across as totally scripted in her responses. Quite honestly, I have no idea on where she really stands on various issues - what she says may or may not have anything to do with her core beliefs.

I think she was excellent as a senator ...... her record as SoS was mixed. She totally messed up healthcare reform when she was put in charge of it in BC's first term. BTW, I have worked in healthcare on the policy/administrative side for decades and we knew that her approach in trying to pass healthcare legislation would blow up in her face.

When she is not running for office, she comes across as more genuine. My first preference would have been for someone like Elizabeth Warren but that is not going to happen.

It's not hard to figure out her positions -- look at Bill's 8 years in office and her time as Senator. She is a moderate democrat. Based on her senate tenure, I would say she learned a lesson from the health care fiasco early in the Clinton administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There aren't any moderate Republicans running.

Pataki

No shit, I had no idea he was even running. Lol!

My DH has been looking for a moderate Republican to vote for since he was legally able to vote (1998). The first couple times he wrote in cartoon characters. Then he moved to VA, and has sucked it up and voted Dem since. Not a Hillary fan, but the thought of a Republican president plus Republican controlled Congress scares even him. Part of it is purely out of self interest, he's a Fed employee.

[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.

I'm sorry, but I don't get this at all. Are there Republican positions you actually agree with or is it purely because you personally don't like HRC? Which Republican candidates do you actually like and why?

[Anonymous]

This is the real HRC:

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/27/hillary_has_her_hands_out_democracy_for_oligarchs_and_bernie_sanders_radical_campaign_finance_pledge/