Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (2 Viewers)

[cstu]

Interesting that hardline conservatives here such as tommyboy and GrandpaRox both asserted that Obama's immigration order tonight will cost Hillary the election. Personally, I believe that it will help sew it up.

Tim, you don't understand...white people in the south aren't going to vote for her now!

 

[Ookie Pringle]

how awkward will it be the first time Bill and Hillary walk into the oval office. If I were obama, i'd leave a box of cigars on the desk as a welcome gift.

why would it be awkward? They're all very close friends. Bill was crucial to securing Obama's re-election.

They are?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2665099/I-hate-man-lived-Feud-Clintons-Obamas-laid-bare-author-claims-Michelle-calls-Hillary-Hildabeest.html

 

[Ookie Pringle]

I do not think she will be the nominee.

I'm starting to hear things that make this seem more likely than previously thought.

A lot of people championing her, like Tim, are behind the times.

When did I champion her?

every chance you get!

 

[cstu]

I do not think she will be the nominee.

The Democrats need a win and will go with her as the safe option.

I don't think she fits either (winner or safe option).

Polls disagree.

I know. Today. We've been down this road with Hillary for about 6 Presidential election cycles now. She has the name recognition and therefore will be the front runner this early. I still stand by my statement though. (and before anyone asks, I don't do ibets or whatever the heck you people do to entertain yourselves.)

Clinton never had this kind of lead in the 2008 primary.

At this time in that election she had an 11 point lead over Obama.

I wouldn't take a bet even if you offered it because it would be stealing.

 

[squistion]

how awkward will it be the first time Bill and Hillary walk into the oval office. If I were obama, i'd leave a box of cigars on the desk as a welcome gift.

why would it be awkward? They're all very close friends. Bill was crucial to securing Obama's re-election.

They are?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2665099/I-hate-man-lived-Feud-Clintons-Obamas-laid-bare-author-claims-Michelle-calls-Hillary-Hildabeest.html

From the "article":

The simmering cauldron of hatred that exists between the Obamas and the Clintons threatens to explode in a volcanic eruption that could threaten all Democrat chances in 2016, says a sensational new book.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I do not think she will be the nominee.

The Democrats need a win and will go with her as the safe option.

I don't think she fits either (winner or safe option).

Polls disagree.

I know. Today. We've been down this road with Hillary for about 6 Presidential election cycles now. She has the name recognition and therefore will be the front runner this early. I still stand by my statement though. (and before anyone asks, I don't do ibets or whatever the heck you people do to entertain yourselves.)

Clinton never had this kind of lead in the 2008 primary.

At this time in that election she had an 11 point lead over Obama.

I wouldn't take a bet even if you offered it because it would be stealing.

Ok, thanks.

 

[timschochet]

In November of 2006, Hillary was the presumed front runner, but she had only a slight lead over John Edwards and a larger one over Obama, but nothing like the 50 point lead she has now. Also, liberal voters didn't like her because she voted for the Iraq war. Moderate Dems were weary of the Clintons.

Now that whole dynamic has changed. Hillary is seen as older and wiser. she has come to earn the respect and likability of most Democrats, including most liberals. I honestly believe that there will be no serious challengers to her nomination. There is, I think, a feeling among Democrats this time around not to rock the boat, not to screw with a good thing.

Now she could blow this all up by committing gaffes, by treating this too much as a coronation and acting arrogant . But I doubt she will.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I honestly believe that there will be no serious challengers to her nomination.

What constitutes a "serious challenger"? As posted above, it looks like Jim Webb wants to run. Former Senator and cabinet member, just like Hillary. And Martin O'Malley's going to run, the lame duck governor of Maryland. There will likely be others.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I honestly believe that there will be no serious challengers to her nomination.

What constitutes a "serious challenger"? As posted above, it looks like Jim Webb wants to run. Former Senator and cabinet member, just like Hillary. And Martin O'Malley's going to run, the lame duck governor of Maryland. There will likely be others.

To be conisdered a serious challenger, the person in question must have 7 threads started about their candidacy by tim.

 

[timschochet]

I honestly believe that there will be no serious challengers to her nomination.

What constitutes a "serious challenger"? As posted above, it looks like Jim Webb wants to run. Former Senator and cabinet member, just like Hillary. And Martin O'Malley's going to run, the lame duck governor of Maryland. There will likely be others.

Theyre running for VP.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I honestly believe that there will be no serious challengers to her nomination.

What constitutes a "serious challenger"? As posted above, it looks like Jim Webb wants to run. Former Senator and cabinet member, just like Hillary. And Martin O'Malley's going to run, the lame duck governor of Maryland. There will likely be others.

They're running for VP.

How will we know a serious candidate if we see one?

 

[Sweet J]

I honestly believe that there will be no serious challengers to her nomination.

What constitutes a "serious challenger"? As posted above, it looks like Jim Webb wants to run. Former Senator and cabinet member, just like Hillary. And Martin O'Malley's going to run, the lame duck governor of Maryland. There will likely be others.

They're running for VP.

How will we know a serious candidate if we see one?

Win a primary in ANY state, including their own?

 

[timschochet]

I honestly believe that there will be no serious challengers to her nomination.

What constitutes a "serious challenger"? As posted above, it looks like Jim Webb wants to run. Former Senator and cabinet member, just like Hillary. And Martin O'Malley's going to run, the lame duck governor of Maryland. There will likely be others.

They're running for VP.

How will we know a serious candidate if we see one?

you won't see one. Other than Hillary that is.

 

[Todd Andrews]

O'MALLEY / WEBB 2016

I would be very happy with Webb/O'Malley 2016

 

[Todd Andrews]

Looks like Jim Webb is going to run. I could see him getting some traction as the anti-Hillary candidate.

I sure hope so.

 

[Trey]

You people desperately looking for an alternative.. Jim Webb will be out spent by 20:1 if not more. Simply doesn't have the donors or the charisma.

I think people underestimate what an incredible candidate Barak Obama was at the time. Caught lighting in a bottle.

An old white guy simply cannot overcome the Clinton advantage for the upcoming D primary.

But please proceed fantasizing. Hey.. Maybe the governor of MD whose hand picked replacement went down in flames will beat her.

Get real.

 

[Todd Andrews]

You people desperately looking for an alternative.. Jim Webb will be out spent by 20:1 if not more. Simply doesn't have the donors or the charisma.

I think people underestimate what an incredible candidate Barak Obama was at the time. Caught lighting in a bottle.

An old white guy simply cannot overcome the Clinton advantage for the upcoming D primary.

But please proceed fantasizing. Hey.. Maybe the governor of MD whose hand picked replacement went down in flames will beat her.

Get real.

Hillary is definitely the front runner, but that doesnt mean we have to like it. O'Malley could never beat her, but I think Webb might have a shot if a lot of things line up right. He is not the usual politician.

 

[skol asylum]

You people desperately looking for an alternative.. Jim Webb will be out spent by 20:1 if not more. Simply doesn't have the donors or the charisma.

I think people underestimate what an incredible candidate Barak Obama was at the time. Caught lighting in a bottle.

An old white guy simply cannot overcome the Clinton advantage for the upcoming D primary.

But please proceed fantasizing. Hey.. Maybe the governor of MD whose hand picked replacement went down in flames will beat her.

Get real.

Hillary was the presumptive nominee last time around too. It's hard to win when you are not likable.

 

[squistion]

You people desperately looking for an alternative.. Jim Webb will be out spent by 20:1 if not more. Simply doesn't have the donors or the charisma.

I think people underestimate what an incredible candidate Barak Obama was at the time. Caught lighting in a bottle.

An old white guy simply cannot overcome the Clinton advantage for the upcoming D primary.

But please proceed fantasizing. Hey.. Maybe the governor of MD whose hand picked replacement went down in flames will beat her.

Get real.

Hillary was the presumptive nominee last time around too. It's hard to win when you are not likable.

That may have been the case in 2008 but in 2014 that doesn't seem to be true. The below is from a Politico article from March of this year, but I would imagine the numbers for Hillary are still about the same.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/poll-hillary-clinton-2016-104253.html

Poll: Hillary Clinton indeed ‘likable enough’

A majority of Americans say former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not “hard to like” in a new poll, a reversal from her likability going into the 2008 presidential race.

Asked whether the phrase applies to Clinton, 57 percent of those surveyed said “hard to like” does not describe her, compared with 36 percent who said it did, according to a Pew Research/USA Today poll out Tuesday.

 

[urbanhack]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/224875-warren-handily-beats-clinton-in-poll-of-liberal-groups-members

 

[MaxThreshold]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/224875-warren-handily-beats-clinton-in-poll-of-liberal-groups-members

Cool. Hillary is unlikable and only a contender because she's married to Bill, and Warren is an extreme, far-left nut job. The chances for the GOP are getting better every day.

 

[jonessed]

I have a feeling this thread is going to prove a useful time capsule for when we all ask, 'what went wrong'?

Tim picked her. If TGunz picks her now she's ####ed.

 

[cstu]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/224875-warren-handily-beats-clinton-in-poll-of-liberal-groups-members

Cool. Hillary is unlikable and only a contender because she's married to Bill, and Warren is an extreme, far-left nut job. The chances for the GOP are getting better every day.

DFA's liberal policies have led them to oppose established Democrats whose policies contradict their own.

 

[cstu]

You people desperately looking for an alternative.. Jim Webb will be out spent by 20:1 if not more. Simply doesn't have the donors or the charisma.

I think people underestimate what an incredible candidate Barak Obama was at the time. Caught lighting in a bottle.

An old white guy simply cannot overcome the Clinton advantage for the upcoming D primary.

But please proceed fantasizing. Hey.. Maybe the governor of MD whose hand picked replacement went down in flames will beat her.

Get real.

Hillary was the presumptive nominee last time around too. It's hard to win when you are not likable.

There is no one even close to the candidate Obama was. There were people like myself who wanted him to be President after the 2004 Convention speech. Warren, bless her heart, is never going to send thrills up anyone's legs.

 

[Riversco]

Only thing that can stop her is her age and it is a serious problem. She'll be 69 upon taking office. At her age it is certainly possible for her to come down with a serious illness or her health may simply enter a major general decline. The democratic party needs to give Hillary a serious challenger in the primaries, just to be ready to step in as the front runner in case this happens. The campaign may even be too much at her advanced age.

Her running mate would also have to be someone very accomplished, someone people would take seriously as president.

 

[squistion]

Only thing that can stop her is her age and it is a serious problem. She'll be 69 upon taking office. At her age it is certainly possible for her to come down with a serious illness or her health may simply enter a major general decline. The democratic party needs to give Hillary a serious challenger in the primaries, just to be ready to step in as the front runner in case this happens. The campaign may even be too much at her advanced age.

Her running mate would also have to be someone very accomplished, someone people would take seriously as president.

Romney is four months older than Hillary. If he had won in 2012 and was now running for reelection no one on the right would say that he is too old and that the campaign would be too much for his advanced age. But if it is Hillary, a different standard applies.

 

[cstu]

Only thing that can stop her is her age and it is a serious problem. She'll be 69 upon taking office. At her age it is certainly possible for her to come down with a serious illness or her health may simply enter a major general decline. The democratic party needs to give Hillary a serious challenger in the primaries, just to be ready to step in as the front runner in case this happens. The campaign may even be too much at her advanced age.

Her running mate would also have to be someone very accomplished, someone people would take seriously as president.

https://www.google.com/search?q=average+age+of+death+women&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

 

[Eminence]

It's OK everyone, I figured somebody was going to try something like this.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=705480&page=1

 

[Widbil83]

Only thing that can stop her is her age and it is a serious problem. She'll be 69 upon taking office. At her age it is certainly possible for her to come down with a serious illness or her health may simply enter a major general decline. The democratic party needs to give Hillary a serious challenger in the primaries, just to be ready to step in as the front runner in case this happens. The campaign may even be too much at her advanced age.

Her running mate would also have to be someone very accomplished, someone people would take seriously as president.

Romney is four months older than Hillary. If he had won in 2012 and was now running for reelection no one on the right would say that he is too old and that the campaign would be too much for his advanced age. But if it is Hillary, a different standard applies.

Hillary looks really old these days, like McCain 2008 old. Believe it or not Liz Warren is only a year and some change younger than Hillary but she looks about 25 years younger. Nobody will bring up her age though because she doesn't look it. Same with Romney. So like the other poster mentioned obviously this may be a concern for some people.

 

[Riversco]

Only thing that can stop her is her age and it is a serious problem. She'll be 69 upon taking office. At her age it is certainly possible for her to come down with a serious illness or her health may simply enter a major general decline. The democratic party needs to give Hillary a serious challenger in the primaries, just to be ready to step in as the front runner in case this happens. The campaign may even be too much at her advanced age.

Her running mate would also have to be someone very accomplished, someone people would take seriously as president.

https://www.google.com/search?q=average+age+of+death+women&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

Expecting to live to 86 does not equate to being able to function as president the entire time. Ronald Reagan lived until 93, but some say he started showing signs of Alzheimer's in his second term when he was in his early 70s. People can enter a major general decline in health long before death.

 

[Riversco]

Only thing that can stop her is her age and it is a serious problem. She'll be 69 upon taking office. At her age it is certainly possible for her to come down with a serious illness or her health may simply enter a major general decline. The democratic party needs to give Hillary a serious challenger in the primaries, just to be ready to step in as the front runner in case this happens. The campaign may even be too much at her advanced age.

Her running mate would also have to be someone very accomplished, someone people would take seriously as president.

Romney is four months older than Hillary. If he had won in 2012 and was now running for reelection no one on the right would say that he is too old and that the campaign would be too much for his advanced age. But if it is Hillary, a different standard applies.

I think 65 is different than 69. And I think a lot of people would question if he was too old if he were running for re-election, but he did have a young Paul Ryan as vice president.

 

[Riversco]

I can't believe the future of the democratic party is 67 year old Hillary Clinton and 65 year old Elizabeth Warren, and the only person with any tangible amount of name recognition looking to run is 72 year old Joe Biden.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Only thing that can stop her is her age and it is a serious problem. She'll be 69 upon taking office. At her age it is certainly possible for her to come down with a serious illness or her health may simply enter a major general decline. The democratic party needs to give Hillary a serious challenger in the primaries, just to be ready to step in as the front runner in case this happens. The campaign may even be too much at her advanced age.

Her running mate would also have to be someone very accomplished, someone people would take seriously as president.

Reagan was almost 70 when he took office. No one on the right seemed to mind. GHWB was close to 65; Eisenhower was 62. 69 in 2014 is not particularly old for a woman.

 

[Aerial Assault]

It's OK everyone, I figured somebody was going to try something like this.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=705480&page=1

:unsubscribe:

 

[Riversco]

Only thing that can stop her is her age and it is a serious problem. She'll be 69 upon taking office. At her age it is certainly possible for her to come down with a serious illness or her health may simply enter a major general decline. The democratic party needs to give Hillary a serious challenger in the primaries, just to be ready to step in as the front runner in case this happens. The campaign may even be too much at her advanced age.

Her running mate would also have to be someone very accomplished, someone people would take seriously as president.

Reagan was almost 70 when he took office. No one on the right seemed to mind. GHWB was close to 65; Eisenhower was 62. 69 in 2014 is not particularly old for a woman.

I don't know why you bring up Reagan as a point when some have said he showed signs of Alzheimers in his second term. It seems Reagan is a case against electing older people. Maybe he should have just served one term.

 

[FlapJacks]

You people desperately looking for an alternative.. Jim Webb will be out spent by 20:1 if not more. Simply doesn't have the donors or the charisma.

I think people underestimate what an incredible candidate Barak Obama was at the time. Caught lighting in a bottle.

An old white guy simply cannot overcome the Clinton advantage for the upcoming D primary.

But please proceed fantasizing. Hey.. Maybe the governor of MD whose hand picked replacement went down in flames will beat her.

Get real.

Hillary was the presumptive nominee last time around too. It's hard to win when you are not likable.

There is no one even close to the candidate Obama was. There were people like myself who wanted him to be President after the 2004 Convention speech. Warren, bless her heart, is never going to send thrills up anyone's legs.

The thing is that after eight/sixteen years of this mess, people are looking for something different. After eight years of Clinton and his slick talk and extreme parsing for ,meaning, people looked on W as the not-so-slick straight shooter....

I think people will be looking more for a real person and not some cartoon. I think people like Webb and Kasich may fit that bill.

I also think Hillary is pretty average in terms of intelligence and is not good at thinking on her feet, She also doesn't have charm or a record of any tangible accomplishments.

 

[squistion]

Only thing that can stop her is her age and it is a serious problem. She'll be 69 upon taking office. At her age it is certainly possible for her to come down with a serious illness or her health may simply enter a major general decline. The democratic party needs to give Hillary a serious challenger in the primaries, just to be ready to step in as the front runner in case this happens. The campaign may even be too much at her advanced age.

Her running mate would also have to be someone very accomplished, someone people would take seriously as president.

Romney is four months older than Hillary. If he had won in 2012 and was now running for reelection no one on the right would say that he is too old and that the campaign would be too much for his advanced age. But if it is Hillary, a different standard applies.

I think 65 is different than 69. And I think a lot of people would question if he was too old if he were running for re-election, but he did have a young Paul Ryan as vice president.

No and the proof in this forum is that you can't show me one post in the run up to the 2012 election from a Romney supporter (or even a critic) that said he would have been too old to run for reelection in 2016 or that because of his age, he should just be a one term president. There wasn't a peep out of anyone in the FFA about his age and there wouldn't be now if Romney had won.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A Hillary Clinton candidacy looks like a sure thing, with marquee Democratic donors and activists mobilizing for her entrance into the 2016 race. But some of her closest confidants aren't sure she should run. Aaron Zitner reports on Lunch Break. Photo: Getty Images.

A Hillary Clinton presidential candidacy looks like a sure thing, with marquee Democratic donors and activists mobilizing for what they see as her inevitable entrance into the 2016 race.

Yet some of Mrs. Clinton's closest confidants and allies aren't sold on the idea that she should run. Their cautions add an unpredictable element as Mrs. Clinton weighs whether to seek the presidency again, a decision she says she plans to make later this year.

One of Mrs. Clinton's top advisers and former aides, Cheryl Mills, believes she should stay out of the contest and has told her as much, according to people familiar with her views. But Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) says she encourages Mrs. Clinton to run every chance she gets.

Others close to Mrs. Clinton worry that another campaign would test her stamina as she moves into her late 60s and would revive scandals from Bill Clinton's White House that could prove personally painful.

Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a longtime friend of the Clintons who has made films for their past campaigns, said she thinks Mrs. Clinton would like to run, and that she would like to see her friend do what makes her happiest.

She added: "I'm not in the political camp; I'm in the friends camp. And the friends camp definitely has concerns about her running.''

The cautions show a gulf between friends and aides attuned to the personal toll of presidential campaigns and the much larger circle of activists and admirers who are cheering for her to run without hesitation.

It's not clear how much weight Mrs. Clinton is giving to the warnings. Many in Mrs. Clinton's camp said she is determined to run despite the costs, lured by the chance to make history as the nation's first woman president, among other reasons.

As Mrs. Clinton travels the world giving speeches, she often makes overtures to young people, minorities and other groups that were building blocks of recent winning Democratic electoral coalitions. She also keeps a schedule that routinely puts her in contact with the Democratic fundraisers and establishment figures who would form the spine of a future presidential campaign. Several groups are organizing and raising money for a potential campaign.

In the hierarchy of Mrs. Clinton's charitable and political activities, there are tiers of advisers, friends and supporters. At the highest point is Ms. Mills, who represented Mr. Clinton in his Senate impeachment trial and was Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department, as well as counsel to her 2008 presidential campaign.

Ms. Mills has told at least three people that she doesn't believe Mrs. Clinton should run, questioning why she should do so when she has freedom to pursue projects of her choosing, people familiar with the matter said.

Ms. Mills wouldn't comment on the matter, and Mrs. Clinton's office declined to comment.

Mike McCurry, a press secretary in the Clinton White House, said that "a lot of people in the Clinton diaspora have exactly that same ambivalence at the moment"—that a campaign would be grueling and force Mrs. Clinton to suspend work on issues that are important to her, such as women's empowerment and childhood development.

Such a commitment, Mr. McCurry said, would mean giving up "two and a half years of your life when you're moving on up into your 60s, so that you can crawl around coffee shops in Iowa and New Hampshire. I joke with people that I'm the last man in Washington" who would be willing to bet that she won't run.

Mrs. Clinton will be 69 years old on Election Day—only eight months younger than Ronald Reagan in 1980. He was the oldest president to assume office.

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, who served with Mrs. Clinton in the Senate, said that while she would enter the race in a strong position, "there's a fatigue and a physical demand that she has to consider. She's much older than she was 20 years ago, when her husband first started, so there are a lot of personal considerations to take into account."

It was unclear whether friends cautioning Mrs. Clinton about a campaign have lingering concerns from her 2012 health scare. Mrs. Clinton was hospitalized that December after doctors discovered a blood clot in her head. Doctors treating her said it had caused no stroke or neurological damage.

As Mrs. Clinton considers whether to run, people close to her are weighing in. John Podesta, a White House chief of staff to her husband and now a senior aide to President Barack Obama, has said he wants to begin a set of regular conversations among her top aides, aimed at thinking through a possible run, a person familiar with the matter said. Mr. Podesta wouldn't comment on the matter.

With polls showing Mrs. Clinton running ahead of the most plausible GOP candidates, many prominent Democrats believe the race would be impossible for her to resist.

Douglas Band, a former Clinton White House aide who helped set up Mr. Clinton's post-presidential career, said that as "someone who has worked with the Clintons for nearly two decades, I hope for the sake of the country and the future of our democracy that she makes the decision to run."

A warier view comes from Clinton supporters who foresee a grueling campaign that holds no guarantees of success. Mrs. Clinton would likely face questions about a range of matters from her time in public life, among them questions about her personal finances raised during her husband's first term and about the terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, while she was secretary of state.

Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.), a possible GOP candidate in 2016, has called attention in recent months to Mr. Clinton's scandal with White House intern Monica Lewinsky in the 1990s, previewing a possible Republican line of attack.

Some Democrats worry more about how those issues would weigh on the party than on Mrs. Clinton personally, especially at a time when voters seem eager to give new people a chance in office and the Republican field is likely to include fresh faces.

Brian Schweitzer, a former Montana governor who is considering a bid for the Democratic nomination, also said that the idea of choosing presidents from a small number of "elite families'' had "become repugnant to a lot of Americans.''

At the same time, some Democrats fear the party would be left ill-prepared for the 2016 election should Mrs. Clinton bow out, as her potential candidacy has made it hard for other Democrats to draw the money and staff needed to gain a foothold in the race.

Ed Rendell, a former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania who would likely play a role in a future Clinton campaign, said: "I'm not certain she's going to run. I'm not certain she wants to go through all the aggravation, all the stress, all the muck."

Friends of Mrs. Clinton say they are reminded of the dilemma she faced in 2000, as she was leaving the White House. Many were against the idea of her running for the Senate from New York, telling her that she should focus on resting and strengthening her marriage, one person who was part of the conversations recalled. Mrs. Clinton disregarded the advice and went on to win the seat.

Some expect her to do the same thing this time around: hear the advice but make her own call.

Stan Greenberg, a former campaign adviser to Mr. Clinton, said: "There might be reasons she chooses not to run—health and other personal reasons—but given everything about the trajectory of her life and her family, she'll run."

http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303287804579447503174026472?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303287804579447503174026472.html

Hillary Clinton's Circle Isn't Sure She Should Run for President in 2016

 

[rct]

Josh Dorner ‏@JoshDorner · 18m18 minutes ago

Favorability ratings in the latest NBC/WSJ poll:

Hillary +8

Romney -13

Jeb -13

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/nbc-wsj-poll-no-bump-romney-jeb-bush-after-16-n289056

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Only thing that can stop her is her age and it is a serious problem. She'll be 69 upon taking office. At her age it is certainly possible for her to come down with a serious illness or her health may simply enter a major general decline. The democratic party needs to give Hillary a serious challenger in the primaries, just to be ready to step in as the front runner in case this happens. The campaign may even be too much at her advanced age.

Her running mate would also have to be someone very accomplished, someone people would take seriously as president.

Romney is four months older than Hillary. If he had won in 2012 and was now running for reelection no one on the right would say that he is too old and that the campaign would be too much for his advanced age. But if it is Hillary, a different standard applies.

I think 65 is different than 69. And I think a lot of people would question if he was too old if he were running for re-election, but he did have a young Paul Ryan as vice president.

No and the proof in this forum is that you can't show me one post in the run up to the 2012 election from a Romney supporter (or even a critic) that said he would have been too old to run for reelection in 2016 or that because of his age, he should just be a one term president. There wasn't a peep out of anyone in the FFA about his age and there wouldn't be now if Romney had won.

Romney looks 50 and Hillary looks 80

Hth

 

[squistion]

Only thing that can stop her is her age and it is a serious problem. She'll be 69 upon taking office. At her age it is certainly possible for her to come down with a serious illness or her health may simply enter a major general decline. The democratic party needs to give Hillary a serious challenger in the primaries, just to be ready to step in as the front runner in case this happens. The campaign may even be too much at her advanced age.

Her running mate would also have to be someone very accomplished, someone people would take seriously as president.

Romney is four months older than Hillary. If he had won in 2012 and was now running for reelection no one on the right would say that he is too old and that the campaign would be too much for his advanced age. But if it is Hillary, a different standard applies.

I think 65 is different than 69. And I think a lot of people would question if he was too old if he were running for re-election, but he did have a young Paul Ryan as vice president.

No and the proof in this forum is that you can't show me one post in the run up to the 2012 election from a Romney supporter (or even a critic) that said he would have been too old to run for reelection in 2016 or that because of his age, he should just be a one term president. There wasn't a peep out of anyone in the FFA about his age and there wouldn't be now if Romney had won.

Romney looks 50 and Hillary looks 80

Hth

Not true IMO and doesn't alter the fact that for people who can count, he is still four months older than she is.

 

[Eminence]

I'm willing to take any Democrat but Hillary. But knowing the direction of this country, she might as well be in office already.

 

[Trey]

Clinton approaches the nominating season in a dominant position, leading Bush by 54 percent to 41 percent among registered voters and Romney by 55 percent to 40 percent.

Beyond Bush and Romney the two Republicans who have made the firmest moves toward a 2016 run Clinton holds equally large leads over other potential Republican hopefuls. She tops Rand Paul and Chris Christie by 13 percentage points each, and leads Mike Huckabee by 17 points.

It's early, but it's a problem for the GOP. Hillary is about as well known as someone could be and it will be hard to change minds about her.

Incredibly strong position for Clinton. Putting together an outstanding campaign staff as well. So far so good!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Can Hillary Clinton Manage a Presidential Campaign?“Find me one persuadable voter who agrees with HRC on the issues but will vote against her because she has a non-archival-compliant email system,” argues Democratic strategist Paul Begala, “and I’ll kiss your ### in Macy’s window and say it smells like roses.” Political scientist Brendan Nyhan likewise suggests the story about Hillary Clinton’s noncompliant email is extremely unlikely to influence her election outcomes.

It is certainly true that Clinton’s email practices do not amount to any kind of disqualifying scandal. It’s a violation of administration policy, not the law, and it’s not unique. It is also likely true that nobody will remember or care a year and a half from now; if the economy keeps creating a quarter million jobs a month between now and then, Clinton could probably win even if she turns out to have hosted her emails on a North Korean server. But all this misses the flashing red lights set off by this story.

The most alarming direct outcome is the possibility that demands by Congress and the media for her private email pry open some new, more serious motivations. The Clinton impeachment ultimately grew out of a spiraling investigation that began by poking into Whitewater, which turned out to be a non-scandal. The Clinton email disclosures grew out of the investigation of Benghazi, which was also a non-scandal that likewise survives only in conservative fever dreams. Investigations that pry into internal correspondence, even those based on a groundless suspicion, can eventually yield, or create, meta-scandals of their own.

The larger problem for Clinton, though, is not the likelihood that her emails will turn up incriminating evidence. It is what this episode reveals about her political judgment and managerial acumen. Last year, Maggie Haberman and Glenn Thrush wrote a deeply reported and highly revealing account of Clinton’s deep terror of the news media. Their fear of hostile news media, borne out of genuinely traumatic '90s-era experiences in which right-wing pseudo-media drove the mainstream news agenda, left the Clintons paralyzed by suspicion of the press. They are reflexively insular. Their suspicion creates problems where none need exist.

This revives the larger question of whether Clinton is capable of managing a competent campaign (and thus, in turn, a competent administration). Her previous campaign went down to defeat, under much less favorable circumstances than today (she faced a stronger challenger in Barack Obama than she could ever face this time, the Iraq War gave her a major liability, and her polling leads were smaller). That said, her campaign was run dismally, as Josh Green’s postmortem account (published in the heat of the 2008 general election, when most public attention was focused on Obama versus McCain) alarmingly revealed:

The anger and toxic obsessions overwhelmed even the most reserved Beltway wise men. Surprisingly, Clinton herself, when pressed, was her own shrewdest strategist, a role that had never been her strong suit in the White House. But her advisers couldn’t execute strategy; they routinely attacked and undermined each other, and Clinton never forced a resolution. Major decisions would be put off for weeks until suddenly she would erupt, driving her staff to panic and misfire.
Nor did the shock of defeat pry Clinton away from her dysfunctional tendencies. After her appointment as secretary of State, she sought to hire Sidney Blumenthal, one of the longtime loyalists who fed her most paranoid and self-destructive tendencies. The Obama administration blocked this appointment. Clinton went on getting advice from him anyway.

In the interim, of course, both Clintons have managed parallel private careers as private speakers and managers of a sprawling charitable foundation. Both these endeavors appear to have been badly managed and shot through with questionable ethical practices. Attempts to clean up the Clinton Foundation have mostly failed.

And then, just this last August, reports Edward-Isaac Dovere, Clinton’s aides discovered her failure to comply with administration email policy. They decided not to do anything about it.

Now, it is possible that the new Clinton campaign (and prospective administration) will function at a higher level. Clinton has brought on well-regarded Democratic advisers like John Podesta and Jennifer Palmieri, who have built successful reputations for the Democratic Party rather than attaching themselves completely to the Clintons. It is plausible that they can impose some order and rationality onto the Clinton operation. The dangerous scenario is that they will not; that the Clintons will continue to retreat into their insular and dysfunctional shell, surrounded by often-feuding and ineffective personal loyalists. Or, worse, that even competent advisers won’t be able to spare the Clintons from chronic bad judgment.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/03/can-hillary-clinton-manage-a-campaign.html

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I don't understand how her aides discovered this in August 2015. Wouldn't they have been receiving emails when she was Secretary of State?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

SNL pretty much telegraphs what everyone think of Hillary anyway...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PstHaZccmOk

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't understand how her aides discovered this in August 2015. Wouldn't they have been receiving emails when she was Secretary of State?

I think what they found out is that others had found out, so the shark move was they could have preempted this whole thing by the shrewd political move of releasing the news early, acknowledging it and getting out ahead of of it.

Instead they waited for it to fester and for the GOP to figure it out and make hay of it. Supposedly State sensing that Hillary wasn't going to do anything about it finally leaked the news to the NYT so that the GOP would not get the upper hand.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-emails-delays-115824.html

 

[skol asylum]

August 2015? New Hillary claim: Not only can I dodge sniper fire, but i can time travel.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

August 2015? New Hillary claim: Not only can I dodge sniper fire, but i can time travel.

Whoops. Still don't understand how this remained secret for so long. She was literally revealing her secret to every single person she emailed.

 

[Apple Jack]

I don't understand how her aides discovered this in August 2015. Wouldn't they have been receiving emails when she was Secretary of State?

I think what they found out is that others had found out, so the shark move was they could have preempted this whole thing by the shrewd political move of releasing the news early, acknowledging it and getting out ahead of of it.

Instead they waited for it to fester and for the GOP to figure it out and make hay of it. Supposedly State sensing that Hillary wasn't going to do anything about it finally leaked the news to the NYT so that the GOP would not get the upper hand.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-emails-delays-115824.html

Um...this is the definition of "early." If the GOP is in any way responsible for fostering this news becoming a story, they are even more inept than I thought. This is the kind of the thing you drop on her in the general campaign, not before primary campaigns have even started. It's the political equivalent of the Jason Biggs/hot chick in bed scene in American Pie.