Hillary overwhelming 2016 favorite in new poll, Jeb tied for first in Republican one.-F.D. poll

[graham4anything]

Hillary 63
Joe 12
Cuomo 3


http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/hillary/
HILLARY CLINTON LEADS 2016 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFULS; REPUBLICANS WITHOUT A CLEAR FRONTRUNNER
Hillary Clinton tops the list of favored potential candidates for the 2016 Democratic nomination, while Republicans are decidedly more mixed over who should be their standard-bearer when the White House becomes vacant. A new national poll of registered voters from Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind finds that 63 percent of self-identified Democrats and those who lean Democratic support the former Secretary of State , with her potential rivals trailing her significantly. Twelve percent favor current Vice President Joe Biden, and three percent support New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

As for the current crop of frequently mentioned Republican possibilities, Republicans split their loyalties about evenly among Florida Senator Mario Rubio (18%), former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (16%), and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (14%). Another nine percent endorse former US Senator Rick Santorum, and a fifth each prefer someone else (21%) or are unsure (21%).

[Arctic Dave]

1. Gore was leading in his polls also.

Now she can be the first for second place like Gore.

DLCers are going to lose the presidency again. Oh well, it's what the party wants, not the people.

[graham4anything]

2. I am a Democratic voter 100% of the time, and I want Hillary. I am the people

what the people don't want is some fringe.

BTW-your analogy makes zero cents as Gore easily became the nominee, therefore you are saying Hillary.

Of course any silly inane protest votes like Nader got won't matter this time.
Why?
Because Ralphie insured no one will ever waste a vote like they did in 2000.

And it takes a Clinton to defeat a Bush.

While I take life one day at a time, and don't rush it, as life is short and each minute is one to savor,
come Labor Day 2016, everyone here will be for Hillary when she becomes the nominee.

[Arctic Dave]

3. DLCers will ensure they lose again to any putz the GOP throws out there.

Like last time.

Obama is ensuring that the base will be more disgusted with the party and will look to greener pastures.

Hello Jeb.

Thanks, Hillary and Obama.

[graham4anything]

4. There are not enough voters in the nation to deny all of President Obama & 2 President Clinton

Hillary will also get 80% of the women nationwide, along with 100% of the black vote, and 90% of the Hispanic vote, and 85% of the Jewish vote and 90% of the Gay vote.

Only that tiny sliver of democraphics won't vote.

It will be the biggest landslide since 2012, 2008 and 1964.

[Arctic Dave]

8. Sad to say it will never happen. Since you are living in pony land

I would like to ask, what color is yours?

Hillary will go down in flames as bad, or worse, as Gore did.


Thanks DLCers for screwing the nation again.

[okieinpain]

101. we need to save your post

somewhere so we can go back and look at it in 2016.

[leftynyc]

115. Are you forgetting

that Gore won the popular vote and lost because of the electoral college and the supreme court. Hardly going down in flames. But please proceed, I am finding your fantasy very amusing.

[brooklynite]

118. Hillary is popular; Gore was not

Competitive, yes. Not as popular as Hillary is.

[Kahuna]

63. Yep! What you said...

[NCTraveler]

100. I think that is a fair statement.

Obama has done many things to knock down the enthusiasm of many dems. We still support him, but the excitement is not there. I can't imagine what will happen if we then end up with Hillary out of the primary's. They are really about the same on all positions. I do think Hillary and team would negotiate better, as she understands the pure hatred of repubs better than Obama. But she would still be negotiating for the same positions.

This is still too early. We well see someone we weren't even thinking about step up in the next year. The one bonus of the longer primary season, it gives a new face time to actually make ground.

[Whisp]

10. you should really read about her and Honduras.

She supported a coup against a democratically elected leader. Lanny Davis was her stooge there.
Really bad shit that never really hit the news. Union leaders dead, all that stuff we heard so much about during the Reagan years in that part of the world.

This is a clip of someone daring to ask her about a conflict of interest in regards to her husband and the Colombian Trade deal around the time of the primaries.

Surely this is not the best the dem party has to offer.

[graham4anything]

33. conspiracy theories. Same old same old.

[Whisp]

55. it's AP news. I can give you links but

calling people Alex Jones is hip these days, isn't it?

o well, there is still time for truths.

[sabrina 1]

86. conspiracy theory accusation with no substance when faced with facts. Same old same old.

Hillary will never get my support nor any other Democrat I know.

We will be working on Congress and supporting any actual Progressive Democrat in the presidential primaries.

Hillary was involved in the coup in Hondurus and in the phony Libyan PNAC backed invasion of another sovereign, oil producing country.

Dream on. This is 2014 and people are a lot older and wiser than they were during the Bush years.

[graham4anything]

94. Hillary is the single most qualified candidate before being President since LBJ.

Actually, this is 2013 now.
And you know what, FDR would have probably had the same crap against him today that
Hillary and President Obama have had.

And of course, Lincoln had alot of conspiracy theories against him too.

And I suppose the people who say dynasty, dynasty would have not been voting for any of the 3 Kennedy brothers let alone the populist liberal Jerry Brown, whose dad ran before him.

Face it, all of Hillary's so called dirt is well known and discarded like the trash it was.
Billions were wasted on a witchhunt over sex. (Yet the same people whine that today Elliott Spitzer and Anthony Weiner should be allowed back...how hypocritical.)
And just like President Obama had some idiot do a trash movie against him, just read two trash movies against hillary are coming(how original, yawn.) No one gave a spit then, many times more now won't give a spit. Because people are tired of the hate.

the six degrees of separation (like those that put down the esteemed Zig B. who was with Jimmy Carter, another true visionary and great person)

it all grows tiring.

Again, don't vote for Hillary? Then it's a vote for Sarah or Sanitorium or Hucklebee or Roger Ailes or Jeb or Rubio or Christie or Rudy or perhaps the single worst idea ever-Rand Paul who like his dad is 100% a BFF with the John Birch Society and David Duke.

And guess what, Hillary needs ZERO of those votes to get to 270 and far, far above it.

Here's a fact- 90% of the core Barack Obama voters think he is the best(myself included).
Add the people who wanted Hillary in 2008 and in 2016, and that is far more than 90% of the Democratic voters.

the others of course can whine til the cows come home, it makes no difference.

When the dust clears after 2016, it will be a major reallignment and in the years to come,
legislature will pass 80 to 20, and each year more and more extremists will be voted out.

And the most important, the US Supreme Court will change from 4 to 5 to 5 to 4 to 6 to 3 to 7 to 2 etc.

And the court some day will finally get a suitable replacement for Justice Thurgood Marshall.
Who shall be Barack Obama.

BTW-who would have voted for in 1952? Adlai or Eisenhower. I for one and millions like me
DID NOT LIKE Ike. Why anyone here seems to idolize him, I for one have no idea.

The 1950s were NOT ideal for probably 82% of today's democratic base.
It was NOT Happy Days back then socially.

and President Obama ran to unite the people. And it takes a long time.
While the media promotes the 50-50, it doesn't exist. Just to the media and extremists on both sides, who deathly fear anything but a 50-50, because it is their cottage industry and they make billions off of it.(Just ask multimillionaires Nader and the Paul family and all those alt-media people like Greenwald and Geraldo Rivera. Any of the lesser paid ones would instantly grab a job at Fox if they offered big bucks(Like Kucinich so eagerly did, along with teaming with Ron Paul on a lobby group think tank). $$$ for whine, their motto, pour me another glass of whine.

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. It actually took a Clinton AND a Perot to beat a Bush.

Or do your blinders keep you from remembering that little fact?

[Robbins]

46. Look

I agree If Hillary runs as I expect her to she will win nomination.She will run as a Obama Democrat and likely keep the huge black,Hispanic,and Asian voters that got Obama In with young white voters.Some white women who listened to BS about Obama would likely come home to Hillary.

Forget about Rubio.The nomination will come between Jeb Bush,Christie(after he wins reelection In a landslide he will start setting up his 2016 run) and Santorum.

If you think Obama Is too centist with how he treats corporations and his cuts in SS and medicare In budget that will never get
voted on then Hillary Is particully a right wing leaning dem compared to Obama.Obama Is the more liberal of the 2 of them.

If dems want the 2016 nominee to be left of Obama that's not Hillary.

[graham4anything]

53. Democratic voters want Hillary. President Obama fans want Hillary. That is 90=% of party.

more than enough to get way past 270 electoral votes in the general.

Depending on his ego, Christie could be vp with Jeb but not higher.
But he won't bring in any state so its a wasted run.
I could more easily see CC being the democratic vp than the republican one(neither will happen).

Elizabeth Warren should remain in senate, as the senate needs a major voice from the left.

[Robbins]

57. 2016

Hillary could get a 2008 style victory.Maybe she gets Missouri and West Virginia instead of Indiana and NC.

Jeb Bush,Christie,and santorum could all lose hoem states against her.I don't dispute she would be very strong 2016 candiate.

If republicans are stupid enough to kill Immigration reform they could give even higher percent of hispanic vote to democrats.

Paul couldn't get to Hillary on libya.She would make mincemeat out of Jeb In debate.

I am warning people that If they think Obama Is too centrist Hillary would not be to his left.She Is more centist than he Is.

[loyalsister]

117. I have talked to the strongest feminist democrats in MO

They don't want her to run. Why- because they are both her age and have served in the General Assembly. They know that physical and mental vulnerabilities set in by the time a person is 65. Enough that it discouraged them from continuing a stressful but much less demanding job than POTUS.
To those who consider it ageist, the point is more of a give her a break!

[hrmjustin]

78. Hillary is beloved in much of the party.

I am sorry but she will kick any of these creatures the republicans put up against her.
I proudly voted for her for senate twice and for president in the primary.

[Arctic Dave]

87. Doesn't matter what chunk of the party thinks.

Will she play in Peoria? The answer is no.


Plus, she is just another DLCer that is driving the party off the cliff by being too right wing.

[hrmjustin]

109. Well we just disagree on that.

[Renew Deal]

126. Bill Bradley didn't win a single state

[etherealtruth]

5. 2016 is a very long way off (in politics)

I like Hillary Clinton ... but any predictions this far out might as well come from a crystal ball

[BlueJazz]

6. Mario Rubio, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum ???? Good Grief Repulicans, Is this the best you...

..can come up with?? One is Stupid...One is a Crook and the last one is Stupid and crooked.

Son-of-a-bitch people...Don't you have someone sane and smart, like say, Eisenhower ??

[graham4anything]

9. Eisenhower was the prototype that Reagan later imitated. Smart? LOL. He was a warmonger.

and he started Vietnam actually. (let alone the stuff about the POWs after the war ended.)

Stupid actually was the Dems and others that did not vote for Adali Stevenson in 1952 and let Eisenhower in office, and stupid was the dems that did not vote for Jimmy Carter and voted for Ronald Reagan in 2000.

[H2O Man]

12. Interesting.

I don't think that Ike and the Gipper inhabited the same zone of the republican party. I would agree, though, that those who promoted Reagan used his reel life to imitate the real life of warriors.

Truman was actually the first US President to invest the country in Vietnam. His policies of "supporting" the French in post-WW2 Vietnam was in opposition to FDR's position. Ike certainly did increase the US investment.

[BlueJazz]

18. Oh...I agree with everything you say. I still say that someone like Ike would be far preferable...

(for the Republicans) than the current crop of "Ugly bags of mostly water"

I was just making fun of their horrible choices.

[H2O Man]

7. Mighty early yet.

There as, as of course you know, a very good chance that things will change in the upcoming years before the primaries.

Yesterday, a friend and I were discussing the possibility that Andrew Cuomo is open to running as the VP candidate. Not likely if Clinton wins the nomination, which in and of itself is a good reason to support her.

And while on one hand, I'd like to see Jeb as the republican candidate, I am of the opinion that he is as dangerous, if not moreso, than W. More, in certain circumstances, he might actually win, as opposed to W's being "given" the stolen 2000 goods.

[frazzled]

11. What could possibly happen in 3 1/2 years?

Good heavens, can we please stop discussing the next presidential election when the current administration is only 3 months into its term?

[graham4anything]

13. We need all of President Obama's and Hillary Clinton's fans (about 95% of dem party)to vote 2014

As anyone can tell one, having the Players known ahead, makes for a happy electorate
and we can take back the house.

From what I can gather only those that don't like Hillary or President Obama don't want to see this happen.

Because we need to have this happen to continue Barack Obama's agenda for at least 8 if not 16 or 24 or 32 or more years after his 2 terms are up

and I believe Hillary will nominate President Obama to the job he was born to have, that of US Supreme Court Justice in 2018.

besides, Hillary will win 450plus electoral votes including all the blue states President Obama won, and Texas and Georgia and SC and Kentucky and Arkansas among others.

You see, President Obama is doing something no one else in modern times did-that is to extend his legacy ongoing after 8 years.It is historic.

[djean111]

34. "Fans". Justin Bieber has fans.

A politician has supporters. "Fans", though, might explain some things, like how Obama supporters defend him no matter what he does, much like "Beliebers".
Kind of off-putting and squicky to me. Lack of critical thinking or sense of right and wrong, somehow, to me.
Those percentages are more La-La Land than anything progressives can be sneered at for.

[graham4anything]

35. Taylor Swift, democratic voter, could do very well to harness her fans to support democratic party

Roger Waters has fans too, while he is a megamillionaire who funny enough rails about money while raking it in.

[djean111]

36. I hereby crown you Emperor of non sequiturs.

Or Archenemy of Logic. Or something along those lines. Bravo!

[graham4anything]

37. Another adhominem.

[HiPointDem]

14. how long has the country been ruled by bushes or clintons? no more.

[graham4anything]

15. That is unfair to women to say Hillary can't be President just because her husband was.

and it seems it could also be considered sexist.

[leftstreet]

19. It's not sexist

Nice try

It's about not continuing the Bush/Clinton dynasty - male or female



But you probably know that

[graham4anything]

20. Didn't you like Jerry Brown?

[leftstreet]

22. So you're saying you'd support Sarah Palin?

[graham4anything]

25. Why? I only vote for democratic candidates for president 100% of the time.

Why would I vote for Sarah?

[leftstreet]

28. Isn't that unfair to women?

What if the only woman running was a Republican? Wouldn't it be sexist not to vote for her?

[graham4anything]

29. I only vote for Democratic candidates. I am not one who voted for Ralph Nader & Republicans

You made a comment about dynasties.
Jerry Brown, in case you don't know, is the son of someone who ran for President and was also Gov. of California.

Of course, if you don't like dynasties, one can't like any of the 3 Kennedy kids, as their father wanted to be President

One couldn't vote for FDR as Teddy was President

one couldn't vote for John Quincy Adams either.

Show me where the requirement in the constitution is that a woman who's husband was President cannot be President?

But come Labor Day 2016, anyone here will be for Hillary when she is the nominee.

[Bucky]

105. I could never vote for Jerry Brown

after Linda Ronstadt won that Grammy.

[TheKentuckian]

24. What is unfair to women and everyone else is ramrodding another corporatist stooge through

based on a vagina and brand recognition.

[Whisp]

61. it is not sexist, that is ridiculous.

it's her character and the decisions she has made that make her lacking, not her gender. I expect this will be the meme tho, when and if she does run (which she won't because she has run out of bridges to burn).

[Evergreen Emerald]

103. Her character? You have been brainwashed by

the lies drilled into our heads by the RW media machine since Bill C. was running for President.

What the hell are you talking about character?

She has nothing lacking in her character or her decisions as a leader and a feminist.

Open your eyes.

[Whisp]

110. she talks about human rights a lot

but the Honduras would have a different view of that. And if she wants to take credit for all the 'good' things of her husband's administration she has to then take responsibility for the bad as well and can't just cherry pick what suits her best - for the thousands of Iraqi women and children killed with the sanctions during his admin. Let's talk about the human rights of the many dead there under his hand.

Open your google.

[Evergreen Emerald]

120. so....the sequister is Michelle's fault?

Seriously. Honduras? Seriously Seth.

You are re-writing history. Before Obama ran for President, he stated that he would have voted to allow Bush to go to war. As did many senators that are touted here as great--who are not held to the same standard as you hold Ms. Clinton.

[Whisp]

121. Very seriously Honduras.

Am I surprised not many seem to know about this? Not at all. The Clinton's have this special force field shield from the media - I couldn't imagine Rachel or anyone on MSNBC actually bringing this up because it would not look good for her. And making a Clinton look good is what it's all about. But perhaps I missed a report on the Honduras from MSNBC (or anywhere), if there is one I would very much like to see a link.

And try as you might, the fact that Obama thought and still thinks Iraq was a 'dumb war' - try all you can to go in the wayback machine and assign deeds to him he never did. Sorry, weak sauce is weak sauce. The Iraq war vote for the wrong side is just one of Hillary's failings in judgement. She buried and burned her bridges by her desperate attempts during the primaries - saving Ireland, Tuzla ( o my sweet baby jeebus wtf), McCain is better than Obama, Shame on You! Shame on You!, the Muslim meme was started by the Clinton camp, ugh - how utterly shameful. There are loads of examples of her ineptitude to head her own campaign. But of course Obama was the mean sexist when he used the words 'disingenuous and likeable enough' - holy cow the din and howl from those tiny innocuous words when she went overboard and absolutely demented what with she said and did.

Michelle isn't running for office and if she were I think she would honest.

[Renew Deal]

128. I don't think that's what's being said.

[reformist2]

16. I'm getting sick of it too. It's also embarrassing.

[hay rick]

48. Is Obama a Bush or a Clinton?

Flip a coin, either answer is correct.

[Renew Deal]

127. What if the choice is Bush's and Clintons?

[1-Old-Man]

17. Nothing quite like dynastic procession

[graham4anything]

21. Did you or do you like Jerry brown?

[graham4anything]

23. Do you like Jerry brown or JFK?

[hedgehog]

26. Which is probably the best indication yet that neither one will be a candidate in 2016!

[lpbk2713]

27. Rubio & Bush !? ... They're just too good to us.

They must have some real high hopes that their attempts at stealing this election will be successful.

[Capt. Obvious]

30. It's going to be Clinton vs Guillianni

bank on it!

[Douglas Carpenter]

38. Guillianni is pro-choice and is against opposing marriage equality. That makes it impossible

for him to win the Republican nomination at least for the foreseeable future

[davidpdx]

65. I think you missed his "obvious" snark

That is what people were saying about the 2000 Senate race in NY. It didn't end up happening.

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. ah... sarcasm is sometimes wasted on me

[LiberalAndProud]

96. Déjà vu -- and again about the 2008 Presidential race.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/15/presidential.poll/
Poll: Clinton vs. Giuliani in 2008

(CNN) -- If the results of a recent poll pan out, voters will see two big names from New York on the ballot in November 2008.

Those names are Democrat Hillary Clinton, the state's junior U.S. senator, and Republican Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City.

[rurallib]

32. Personally, i'd like to see Elizabeth Warren

She seems one of the very few in the whole country who seems to understand what Wall Street and the banksters have done to the country. She has also shown that unlike many others, she will stand up to them. A rare breed indeed.
My personal opinion is that the money and the power it accrues is far and away the most urgent problem we have.

But given that like Howard Dean or John Edwards, Warren will be neutered somehow by the money.

Which reminds me of what Thom Hartmann always says "Since 1972, the Republicans have always picked the Democratic nominee."

And so I expect it will be Hillary. Hopefully she learned a hell of a lot from her bumbles of 2007 & 2008. And she will look like a saviour next to the clown the repugs will nominate. So I will vote and probably work for her.

[Zorra]

84. You, me, and about half of DU would like to see Elizabeth Warren. nt

[Arcanetrance]

39. Wow I knew who posted this before opening

Alot of people don't want a corporate stooge put forth as the democratic candidate. It's time for a real liberal.

[graham4anything]

40. like who?

[Arcanetrance]

45. Personally I can think of three candidates

Alan Grayson is one I really like yes I know how he made his fortune. Elizabeth warren is another I think her message would resonate with voters if they'd open their ears. Another one I admittedly don't know much about a friend was talking about her the other day is Sheila Jackson Lee again I don't know as much about her I have a friend from Houston who speaks highly of her.

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. You can't be serious. This party will neither nominate, nor vote for a House member for POTUS.

Try again.

[Arcanetrance]

54. why try again

Last edited Tue Apr 30, 2013, 08:38 PM - Edit history (1)

The best person should be nominated plain and simple. What part of the legislative branch that individual comes from isn't relevant. Furthermore if that person goes through the primaries and wins the nomination rightfully that's without the DNC would have to make their nominee if not the world will see where their loyalty is. But to follow your logic if Hillary was from the house instead of the senate in 2008 she wouldn't have been a serious contender.

[RudynJack]

62. Because it doesn't work that way.

The odds of a House member getting the nominational are infinitesimal. Very few have the name recognition and fundraising ability to run. Those who do are seen as grandstanders.

[Arcanetrance]

64. Of course you're grandstanding I mean anyone who runs is.

Your saying to the country I should be elected to lead you. If Grayson for example were to decide to run and he won the necessary amount of primaries there would be no choice but to nominate him. Otherwise the party would have turned its back in public on the people. Also remember since it seems everyone thinks hillary is the logical choice she had name recognition in 08 as well and there were people already penning her acceptance speech.

[RudynJack]

69. But he wouldn't win the necessary number of primaries.

That's my point. What do you suppose his national name recognition is? 10% at the most, I'd venture.

I understand liking the guy, but proposing that everyone who talks a good game can win the presidency is wishful thinking. He has a light history in the House, does not hold a leadership position, etc. He's run four local elections, and lost two of them.

Maybe some day in the future, but I just can't imagine him securing the nomination anytime soon.

[Bluenorthwest]

73. What do you think Obama's national name recognition was in 2005? That stuff is like cookies

if we don't have enough, I can whip some up in a few minutes. By the time we elect the next President, dozens of people will be household names in many fields that few or no one has heard of today.

[RudynJack]

74. Actually

Probably pretty good. He gave the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, and was talked about widely as an "up-and-comer" in the party and had been elected Senator from a big state by 2005.

[Tarheel_Dem]

92. That's it exactly. Any potential national candidate needs to show he/she can win.....

statewide. Winning a single district, out of 435 is like winning a seat in the state house. Obama came to national prominence in '04, and then went on to win statewide in IL. No modern day House member is going to win the nomination of either major party, just ask Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul x 3, Dennis Kucinich x 2, etc. They're not taken seriously by anyone with money and/or a brain.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. Obama is one of just 3 sitting Senators to be elected President, first since JFK. Not great odds.

And yet everyone in the Senate runs. Lincoln came from the House. Every politician is a grandstander and is seen as such by the electorate.

[RudynJack]

72. True

And Garfield is the only sitting house member to be elected President. Even worse odds.

[Tarheel_Dem]

83. As a former first lady, HRC would never have run for a House seat. Get real.

And, just so you know, there won't be a repeat of the '08 primaries. There's not another Democrat in the country with the name recognition of HRC, or the charisma of a Bill Clinton or Barack Obama who can take on a strong republican challenger. Not one!

[Tarheel_Dem]

88. Oh yeah, I'm a "blind supporter/worshipper" of Hillary. Google me.

Then you can apologize.


Later!

[Arcanetrance]

89. I will apologize without the use of Google first

Naked calling is a ridiculous thing I came online after dealing with something in real life and typed while being angry. So I do apologize

[Tarheel_Dem]

90. No Harm. No Foul.

[RudynJack]

93. And I love

being told that it's being a "blind supporter" if you like Hillary.

Some of us actually follow politics, and are not idiots. We just disagree with some people.

I believe Clinton has a much better chance at the nomination than Alan Grayson. We'll have to wait and see.

[Arcanetrance]

111. As I did with the other poster I do apologize for name calling

I let my anger at things in the real world get to me while typing that. While we all have different views of the best candidate we all want the same thing which is to move the country in the right direction. Do I personally think hillary is right no but if she won I would vote for her.

[bike man]

41. "The Distinquished Gentleman" (Eddie Murphy movie) said it quite well "Vote for the name you

know."

This in part is how so many members of Congress stay there for entire careers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. 3rd Way Manny will be pleased.

[graham4anything]

43. Yes, he also wants a woman President (though his choice voted for Reagan in 1980).

[Douglas Carpenter]

47. so what? nobody cares what she believed back in 1980. Hillary however was part of an administration

that carried out more of Reagan's policies than Reagan could have ever dreamed of carrying out. Does she still support the dismantling of the New Deal and the Great Society? Or was that only her husband's ideas, but not hers? I don't know.

[graham4anything]

52. I voted for Jimmy Carter. All democratic voters in 1980 should have

to whine about what happened because of Reagan when one votes for Reagan is misguided to say the least.

But I would vote for her, but she won't run against Hillary as she is part of Team Obama.

At least you admit LBJ was the best.

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. Sen. Warren used to lean Republican but changed her mind. I think that is a good thing

I have always had a great deal of affection for LBJ - he was the last progressive Democratic President. He was the last truly pro poor-peoples president. Over all one could arguably say he was the most progressive president in American history. I recall the BBC correspondent the late Charles Wheeler asking Lady Bird in an interview if her husband Lyndon was a socialist. She broke out laughing and said, "well we didn't call it that. But in heart he certainly was." Nonetheless he can be faulted for blundering into Vietnam -But even that was far more the consequences of misguided cold war assumptions than the actions of any individual. I cannot think of anyone who might have been President during that period of time - who would not have made the same catastrophic mistake,

[Robbins]

58. Well

If liberals would have voted for Gore In 2000 Instead of nader like I did we would not have gotten Bush JR.

[graham4anything]

95. Damn right. I voted for Gore. Nader and NH's 4 electoral votes cost the election

Florida would not have mattered had NH gone for Gore instead of Nader, who should have ran for senate or the house and actually achieved something instead of being intellectually lazy

[Bucky]

106. Manny? Manny who?

I don't trust people with sexist names.

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. Hillary is at this time unqestionably the front runner for both the nomination and the Presidency

itself. But a lot can happen between now and then:

1. She might for her own reasons decide not to run.

2. AS she is aging there are of course always the possibility of health or personal issues which could come up before 2016.

3. Though she is undoubtedly in the lead for the Democratic nomination now - but a currently lesser known candidate could develop a following over night once the primary season starts rolling.

4. There is always a possibility of some real or cooked up scandal or unfortunate slip of the tongue compromising any candidate

5. She could win the nomination fair and square but lose the general election. Although demographics certainly favor the Democrats and most likely will continue to favor them for some time - A weak economy, rumors of scandal , a sense of malaise or just boredom can cause the Republicans to win. If they have the right candidate that simply catches on and gets favorable press - they could certainly have an excellent shot at it.

Nothing is certain in politics or in life

[Tarheel_Dem]

51. "Nothing is certain in politics or in life". What is certain is that if HRC runs, she wins.

The math works in her favor. She only has to hold Obama's coalition, which she will. And she'll get those white women in Southern states who couldn't bring themselves to pull the lever for a black man. Bank on it! Blowout!!!!!

[Robbins]

59. I agree

She'll hold the Obama coatlition.Pro marrage equality,and inclusive while whoever wins GOP node will be anti marrage equality and
uninclusive.That gets the younger voters.

White woman who don't get brainwashed by Fox but couldn't bring themselves to vote for the black guy will likely come home.

[Tarheel_Dem]

79. Exactly. And as someone mentioned upthread, HRC puts more than a couple....

of southern states in play, and I wouldn't be surprised if NC came back to Dem column with her at the top of the ticket. So that no one misunderstands, Hillary was not my choice in '08, but she's done much to redeem herself for me, personally. I just hope that if she truly wants to win next time, she dump everyone connected to her previous campaign, or at least keep them off the teevee.

[RILib]

50. Hillary, the war chick

Good, I've been missing us starting another war.

[Purveyor]

77. Hell, we'll be in a couple of them by 2016 from what is sounds. What we'll need is someone

to salvage what is left of financially bankrupt US of A...

[DonCoquixote]

60. as much as I hate president Jeb

and being from Florida, I KNOW why he would be a bad president, the DLC either needs to change it's stripes or get out of the way. There is a Spanish saying that translate to "if I am going to be F---ed, I at least better get kissed." I understand change takes time, but I am tried of both Hillary and Obama seeking to give back 1.5 squares for every two steps forward we get.

[Recovered Repug]

66. Hillary was the favorite in 2005.

How'd that work out for her?

[graham4anything]

98. It worked out fine, as she will be serving 8 years as President and

and she won't have to put up with all the sheet President Obama did.

A comparison would be Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson. The two best of all time pitched at the same time in the same league. Only one could be the Cy Young Award winner at a time.
I would not call either a loser

Hillary didn't lose. Barack Obama got more delegates.

And unlike Bill Bradley in 2000 and Russ Feingold and others who whined and left the arena,

Hillary not only stayed, she teamed up for America with the President and became the single most qualified person to run for President since LBJ (who was perhaps the greatest Senator ever before he became VP and President).

BTW-Hillary would have cremed McCain in 2008 had she been the nominee and President Obama the VP choice.
HOWEVER- it is so much better that it occured this way, because president Obama got all the sheet and has accomplished so much, and he is still young enough to be nominated for the Supreme Court and to watch all their accomplishments become law forever.

and the one and only thing Hillary did not have in 2008 was President Obama's core voters (like me). Now Hillary has a good 99% of them who will vote for her and remember- most were Bill Clinton fans, so the five most popular democratic people are/will be working for the same goal
That is Barack and Michelle, Bill and Hillary and Joe Biden. Not to mention Caroline Kennedy and John Kerry
and so many others

In fact, sometimes I now think Barack Obama from day one saw and planned it to work out this way.

What other person in history of US would have picked Hillary for SOS?
That move alone, that piece of genius move, showed how working together all things are possible, whereas in the past, apart, fracture, nothing happened.

SImply the best.

[SammyWinstonJack]

67. ...

[jazzimov]

71. We need to focus on 2014. THEN we can talk about 2016.

We need Congress - there's no doubt about that. The Republicans are in disarray, so NOW is the time to strike! Forget about 2016 - we need to GOTV in 2014!

2016 means nothing unless we can do something significant in 2014!

[Beacool]

75. These articles always bring the predictable response.

This place feels just like the Freepers.

I have no idea whether Hillary will run or not, but I really hope that she does. Not only because I think that she would be a good president, but also to watch heads explode on the Right and the Left.

Carry on..........

[Tarheel_Dem]

81. Oh, the delicious irony.

[sabrina 1]

99. What a sad reason to vote for someone 'to see heads explode on the right and left'. But

it does underline the danger expressed by the Founding Fathers to a country by partisan politics.

Choosing a presidential candidate should be about the country, not to see the heads of political opponents explode. That right there is part of the problem this country has. Wrong reasons for voting.

Btw, if your political opponents whose heads you want to see explode are both 'Left' and 'Right', where do you stand on the political spectrum? I am proudly 'Left' so you know.

[Beacool]

119. Middle, I don't like the extremes.

Too much fanaticism and calls for political "purity".

I do happen to think that she would be good for the country. The fact that the thought of her running irritates some people, is just the icing on the cake.

[sabrina 1]

122. Warmongers are bad for the country.. THAT is fanaticism. Voting to irritate people, is definitely

fringe. Few people vote for that reason. That is really strange, definitely fringe, on the far right though is where I mostly encountered people who, like, had so much disdain for the 'left' or what they perceive to the be the 'left', that their main reason for voting is to 'irritate the left'. Never before met any Democrat who displayed that kind of shallowiness. Can you explain why you care so much about such a trivial matter? It always fascinated me with the far right but they could never explain it.

Middle is the Third Party that has attached itself to the Democratic Party and needs to be detached so they can return to their own party, or FORM their own for which no one would vote. Which is why they have attached themselves to this party. 'Former' Republicans, Reagan Democrats/Republicans etc. They have a party, let them return to it so we can get on with the business of THIS country, NOT Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and everywhere else the war mongers plan to go.

I support only candidates who are actual Democrats. I do not support right leaning warmongers. When it comes to slaughtering innocent people for profit, there is no question about how wrong that is. To oppose war mongering is what all decent people do.

I am always interested in people who have so much disdain for the 'Left', like Limbaugh et al. The reason for that is, they fear decent people because they are not and it pricks their consciences, or at least shows them how lacking they are in that department and they resent sincere people for their own short comings.

Thanks for the info, I appreciate it more than you know.

[Beacool]

123. The Left is a minority in the party.

Most Democrats consider themselves to be moderate.

You vote for your candidate of preference and I will vote for mine. Live and let live.

I think that Hillary would be a fantastic president and I will support her in whatever decision she makes about 2016. It's as simple as that.

[sabrina 1]

125. The Left is a majority in the country. Thanks for bringing right wing 'trash the left' talking point

to DU. In every poll, 'left' policies, FDR policies beat 'center/right/left and Republican policies every time.

You have been fooled by the old 'party' politics game played mostly by a very small, tiny in fact, section of the population, the money party. But the people overwhelmingly support 'Left' policies and that is a fact.

I don't really need your permission to 'vote for my candidate' but thanks for the advice anyhow. I used to be such a partisan but I realized like millions of others, that our party has been infiltrated by the Third Way so I was being partisan to people who do not represent Democratic Values. Now that I am better informed, all my efforts will go to restoring Democratic principles as stated in their platform, to this party. I don't support Republicans, or even Republicans lite. They are bad for this country even when they slap a 'D' after their names. Anyone can do that. I know what a Democrat is and am no longer puzzled by the anti-Democratic values expressed and pushed by the Third Way infiltration of the Democratic Party.

[Beacool]

129. When polls are conducted, most people consider themselves to be moderate.

I've seen plenty of internal polls. Again, vote for anyone you want. I like Hillary, you don't.

So what? It's a big party.

[sabrina 1]

130. I met Hillary and liked her very much, then. She changed. I don't dislike politicians, they are not

our friends, I either like or dislike their actions when in office. That is all. To get emotionally involved with a politician is very immature imo. I used to do that, but I grew up over the past decade or so.

Now I watch what they do. It is possible to like someone but not agree with them. The very fact that for you it is a matter of liking a politician on a personal level, that is that black and white, 'I like her you don't' makes me smile actually. I remember and it wasn't long ago, when it was that way for me also. I liked Clinton, they didn't. I learned much later that had I been paying more attention to what he was doing, signing an end to Glass Steagal eg, media conglomeration, Welfare 'Reform' etc. I might still have 'liked him' but I most definitely would not have defended him on those policies. But I was naive then.

I met her as I said and found her to be very normal, nice, friendly and gracious. But since then her positions on policies, especially Foreign Policy make it impossible for me, a Democrat, to support her for the WH.

[Purveyor]

76. Who the hell else do we have that can challenge the 'chosen'? Seriously. eom

[Baitball Blogger]

80. Too soon to call.

[Buzz Clik]

82. And we're ... what? ... 110 days after Obama's inauguration?

Please post new poll numbers every day for the next three and half years. Please?

[XVI_Eyes]

91. Nothin against Hillary

but this whole political dynasty thing is kind of creepy. Be it Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, whatever. If she's the best for the job, she should get it, but in general it seems like nobility is creeping back.

Two of those families churned out some great leaders, but it's the overall pattern that seems a little too old school. It's unfortunate that a government for the people and of the people is in reality only for some people and of some people.

Sucks its starting up here in canada too. An average citizen simply cannot realistically run even if they wanted to.

[Rowdyboy]

97. She's a solid bet if she wants it....hopefully she wants it

If not, its a crapshoot we are likely to lose when Adelson, the Kochs etc start throwing money around.

A hundred million here, a hundred million there-it all adds up eventually.

[stevenleser]

113. This is a great point. Until we can do something about Citizens United, we need to somehow hold the

White House and as much of congress and the senate as possible. That isn't going to be easy.

We need every possible advantage to do it, and Hillary's popularity and name recognition are both huge advantages.

[RedstDem]

102. we're probably better off with jeb as president

At least we'll be able to see the evil coming at us, with enough time to put up a fight, instead of being stabbed in the back.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

107. Um, no.

Signed, a Floridian.

[Bucky]

108. You forgot to use the "I didn't think this one through" tag on you post.

[RedstDem]

112. yuk yuk yuk

Yeah, I'm talking crazy, but the one good thing of a rightwinger is the organized opposition to their agenda, the bad thing with DLC leadership, is there's not that power organized opposition brings. They kinda catch us with our pants down if you know what I mean.
See Obama/SS cuts etc.

[graham4anything]

116. Of course, many want to see Jeb as president. They are the majority of the anti-Obama crew

Probably 15-18 of the 20% against the 80

[In_The_Wind]

104. I'll do everything I can to help elect Hillary!

[hughee99]

114. Good for her. That's even better than she was polling in 2005.

IIRC, she was around 53%... of course, that was among all voters, not just Dem voters.

[Apophis]

124. We can do so much better than Hillary.

She's a warhawk, part of the status quo.

I want someone way left of her.

[graham4anything]

131. you want someone way left? One can travel so way left, that they bump into way right

thanks but no thanks to Ron or Rand Paul or the libertarians or tea parties who occupy that same space when they go way right.

a circle traveled round from each direction leads smack dab to the 20%

I'll take the 80%.

[Apophis]

132. ...

[graham4anything]

133. you gotta admit, the 80-20 is the best thing I have thought of in months.