54% Think Democrats Should Run A Fresh Face in 2016

[Freewill]

Amazing in what this means. 47 percent of the population will follow the democrat party lead no matter what, that is a given, usually. Which means that if this poll is correct 22 percent of the 47 percent want a new face, which is really a large number for the party of dedicated followers.

54 Think Democrats Should Run A Fresh Face in 2016 - Rasmussen Reports

Most voters think the Democratic Party should look for a presidential newcomer in 2016, and over half of Democrats don't disagree.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of Likely U.S. Voters believe Democrats should look for a fresh face to run for president in 2016 rather than promote a candidate who has already run in the past. Only 22% think Democrats should go with a candidate from the past. Just as many (23%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

 

[deltex1]

They can't find a fresh face, so they are stuck with a fat ass,

 

[Moonglow]

They can't find a fresh face, so they are stuck with a fat ass,

Lose the weight...

 

[zeke]

Democrats need to recruit Gov. Kasich.

I won't vote for a Hillary or a Bush. So it's looking like I may not vote this time around. Good god have we sunk so low that either one of them is really the best we've got? We are in trouble if that's the case.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Amazing in what this means. 47 percent of the population will follow the democrat party lead no matter what, that is a given, usually. Which means that if this poll is correct 22 percent of the 47 percent want a new face, which is really a large number for the party of dedicated followers.

54 Think Democrats Should Run A Fresh Face in 2016 - Rasmussen Reports

Most voters think the Democratic Party should look for a presidential newcomer in 2016, and over half of Democrats don't disagree.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of Likely U.S. Voters believe Democrats should look for a fresh face to run for president in 2016 rather than promote a candidate who has already run in the past. Only 22% think Democrats should go with a candidate from the past. Just as many (23%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Haven't seen anyone from either party I support as President. Love another Bush senior from the intelligence community but none seem interested.

 

[MisterBeale]

Amazing in what this means. 47 percent of the population will follow the democrat party lead no matter what, that is a given, usually. Which means that if this poll is correct 22 percent of the 47 percent want a new face, which is really a large number for the party of dedicated followers.

54 Think Democrats Should Run A Fresh Face in 2016 - Rasmussen Reports

Most voters think the Democratic Party should look for a presidential newcomer in 2016, and over half of Democrats don't disagree.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of Likely U.S. Voters believe Democrats should look for a fresh face to run for president in 2016 rather than promote a candidate who has already run in the past. Only 22% think Democrats should go with a candidate from the past. Just as many (23%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

I'm sure the same could be said of the Republicans with similar numbers.

Americans are sick of the Global elites picking their candidates. They don't vote because they know we don't have a democracy, we have an oligarchy.

We have corporate representatives that will take us to war for imperialism and corporate greed. These shills don't reform Wallstreet, and they don't give a shit about the common folk. It's all a sham. They'll let in illegals to drive down wages. These shills of the establishment will take away freedoms and impose a police state and consider the population as a threat to their ever tightening iron grip on their flow of information and power. It's corrupt to the core.

Look at the freshman Senator that was corrupt and spent tax payer money on personal items. The press crucified him, and it looks like he is going to be prosecuted. Now I ask you, is his crime REALLY more egregious and harmful to the running of the country than the nefarious deeds and the bullshit Hillary has been pulling? Seriously?

Yes, I'm pissed about both. But this dufus Senator just suffered from a lack of intelligence and not having the right friends and too little political Capital. Hillary is obviously hiding things, not just from the administration and the government, but from the public as well. She works for the Global elites, foreign powers, and her corporate masters.

​

It's really not hard to imagine what was in those emails she didn't want the President or the public to see.

 

[MisterBeale]

The first time I tried to post that video, it wouldn't work. I had to find a mirror. I wonder why. hmmmmm. . . .

​

 

[Freewill]

The first time I tried to post that video, it wouldn't work. I had to find a mirror. I wonder why. hmmmmm. . . .

​

I think it is false to say that corporations buy elections because of poor voter turnout. They buy elections by buying off those who vote. Wouldn't really matter if 100 percent voted the outcome would be the same, in my opinion.

What we really need is an informed voter. One who sees the corruption and sees the destruction and votes accordingly. If we had such a thing then the political map would be changed. Obama should never have won a second term with the economy and country in the shape it was/is in. that would mean holding those in power to a standard. Clinton getting off for lying under oath lowered the bar for lying, it damaged the country, yet his popularity never suffered. WHY? Why do voters not give a crap about what their candidates do?

What we have is exactly what Romney said, 47 percent is going to vote one way no matter what, and that works both ways. In my neck of the woods a Republican has a snow balls chance in hell of winning. How many states is the next governor selected in the democrat primaries? Or mayor or other level of government? I would say that the same holds for Republican mayors and governors.

Where the true buying of influence occurs is AFTER the election or during with campaign donations. In other words there is no real way to buy votes but their are real ways to buy influence.

 

[protectionist]

It's really not hard to imagine what was in those emails she didn't want the President or the public to see.​

If I had my way, I'd send Jack Bauer in there to interrogate them, and we'd find out in no time.
​

 

[MisterBeale]

The first time I tried to post that video, it wouldn't work. I had to find a mirror. I wonder why. hmmmmm. . . .

​

I think it is false to say that corporations buy elections because of poor voter turnout. They buy elections by buying off those who vote. Wouldn't really matter if 100 percent voted the outcome would be the same, in my opinion.

What we really need is an informed voter. One who sees the corruption and sees the destruction and votes accordingly. If we had such a thing then the political map would be changed. Obama should never have won a second term with the economy and country in the shape it was/is in. that would mean holding those in power to a standard. Clinton getting off for lying under oath lowered the bar for lying, it damaged the country, yet his popularity never suffered. WHY? Why do voters not give a crap about what their candidates do?

What we have is exactly what Romney said, 47 percent is going to vote one way no matter what, and that works both ways. In my neck of the woods a Republican has a snow balls chance in hell of winning. How many states is the next governor selected in the democrat primaries? Or mayor or other level of government? I would say that the same holds for Republican mayors and governors.

Where the true buying of influence occurs is AFTER the election or during with campaign donations. In other words there is no real way to buy votes but their are real ways to buy influence.

If all that candidates are chosen for you, you have no choice. It doesn't matter. The candidate on the "left" and the "right" all represent the same interests.

If you are REALLY informed, you know this.

The reason Romney was chosen was to make sure Obama would win. He never had a chance. You think that statement and that "leak" was an accident? lol

Don't worry though, a Republican will win next time around. The CFR controlled media is making sure of that, they are laying the ground work even as we speak.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Fresh. Face.

(snickers)

 

[Stephanie]

Instead they are looking at two old fogies, Clinton and Sanders

you have to laugh at them. Remember they said Reagan was too old...

 

[Freewill]

The first time I tried to post that video, it wouldn't work. I had to find a mirror. I wonder why. hmmmmm. . . .

​

I think it is false to say that corporations buy elections because of poor voter turnout. They buy elections by buying off those who vote. Wouldn't really matter if 100 percent voted the outcome would be the same, in my opinion.

What we really need is an informed voter. One who sees the corruption and sees the destruction and votes accordingly. If we had such a thing then the political map would be changed. Obama should never have won a second term with the economy and country in the shape it was/is in. that would mean holding those in power to a standard. Clinton getting off for lying under oath lowered the bar for lying, it damaged the country, yet his popularity never suffered. WHY? Why do voters not give a crap about what their candidates do?

What we have is exactly what Romney said, 47 percent is going to vote one way no matter what, and that works both ways. In my neck of the woods a Republican has a snow balls chance in hell of winning. How many states is the next governor selected in the democrat primaries? Or mayor or other level of government? I would say that the same holds for Republican mayors and governors.

Where the true buying of influence occurs is AFTER the election or during with campaign donations. In other words there is no real way to buy votes but their are real ways to buy influence.

If all that candidates are chosen for you, you have no choice. It doesn't matter. The candidate on the "left" and the "right" all represent the same interests.

If you are REALLY informed, you know this.

The reason Romney was chosen was to make sure Obama would win. He never had a chance. You think that statement and that "leak" was an accident? lol

Don't worry though, a Republican will win next time around. The CFR controlled media is making sure of that, they are laying the ground work even as we speak.

if what you say is true then what makes you think that everyone voting would make much of a difference? Sounds to me like the candidates need changed not the voters. That is pretty much what I have been saying, if we elect a corrupt politician we should vote them out. Obama should never have won his second term but I am not sure if more voting would have made a difference.

 

[protectionist]

So today, another 142 (at last count) people perished from the ISIS killers. 351 more seriously wounded. The more I hear about this, the more I think a war veteran general could run in 2016, and win. I think it is just this kind of thing that created the Republican landslide of November 2014. Jack Keane are you listening ? McCrystal ? Patreus ?