Democrats don't have aNY popular 2016 presidential candidates

[Vigilante]

Oh LOOK.... the TOP TWO DemocRAT contenders!

 

[rightwinger]

GOP will float a Jeb type clone/stooge and jack off the base again.

Jeb is the only Republican who can prevent a Democratc landslide in 2016

 

[Sarah G]

Hilary is done and won't run. She's a cancer and Obama has screwed her chances by having her on his staff. Too much ammo for gop way too much.

Who else do they have? Run Kerry again who lost to George W bush, lol. He has no chance. Biden? He will pull a Gingrich and fuck up with his words and be proven to be psychotic.

Either way you look at it they don't have good candidates and Obama is screwing them worse every day they are in office.

A candidate list of gingrich, kasich, paul, bush, Christie, Rubio would over shadow them all.

2016 is over before it began. Thank you Obama for doing something right!

I bet Gingrich will pull a Gingrich!

And we got 3-4 other likable accomplished candidates. All that the dems have is a guy who just has to smile and you know he's ripping you off in biden. Lol. My point - I don't care.

Newt is in no way likeable.

Neither is Christie or Paul.

Christie's bridge scandal will come back to haunt him. I think he is probably out of the running. I want Rand Paul to run, I want to see him debate Hillary. They're both decent.

 

[Delldude]

Lizzie is loved by Obama's lefto base while Hillary isn't left enough for them. Question for GOP is how big is the O/Liz base?

 

[Sarah G]

GOP will float a Jeb type clone/stooge and jack off the base again.

Which Jeb like clone?

 

[squeeze berry]

Zander....the multimillionaire who cannot afford health insurance....wants to see a rough and tumble primary on the Democratic side very badly. He thinks that Warren is like a Perry or a Santorum or a Bachmann or a Cain or a Gingrich or a Huckabee. He prays that people supporting Warren will run around wearing Chavez t-shirts and frighten stupid people into voting for whoever the GOP nominates.

Wishful thinking is all it is.

I don't have to "wish" for anything. Hillary will be challenged and it will be by bat shit crazy leftists like Sanders and Warren. It will be very entertaining watching the pantsuit move left, right, and center- all on the same issue!! Too bad she isn't as good a liar as her sleazebag husband. ....her schtick is already old, and it hasn't even started yet.

Here's a wise adage that is quite appropriate here : Nobody votes for a proven loser when they have an alternative, even if the alternative is a wingnut. Hillary is a loser who couldn't close the deal with her own party in 2008. She's gotten older and more tired since....not a winning combination.




PS- I can easily afford Health insurance. I CHOOSE not to pay for a lousy product. I'll pay the tax.

Is that like the fake southern accent that W had even though his parents and brother Jeb had no accent?

Did he pick up that southern accent at Yale?

there is no way you can fake being an idiot and a liar

Yes We know you've learned that by now.

thanks for the compliment

 

[Delldude]

Anyone that fits the Jeb-Mitt-Maverick suite......

 

[lutraphile]

Clinton is hugely popular. I don't know why really, but she is. Even the liberal base loves her, which is odd given her very moderate positions on many issues. She leads every GOP candidate by double digits. Having said that, she's a horrible speaker and pretty out of touch. She also has a Romneyesque reputation as a flip-flopper that will be brought up I am sure. She'll fall off a bit at least.

Warren is popular with the base, same with Sanders. But how well they will translate to a general election is debatable. The media loves Warren in particular, likely because she'd have the same potential to be the first female President. Both are more inspiring speakers than Clinton, and have very clean reputations that Clinton does not. They start from behind, but Warren in particular has a chance and a firebrand like Sanders could conceivably vault himself into the competition, especially if Warren does not run.

Biden's popularity isn't great. He has a (largely exaggerated) reputation as a gaffe machine and is quite old for a Presidential contender. That aside, he's the frontrunner if Clinton bombs or doesn't run. He's probably the best debater in politics, period. He connects to voters well. His biggest issue is the lack of serious press coverage- he's getting much less than Warren despite them being dead even in most polls.

 

[Sarah G]

Clinton is hugely popular. I don't know why really, but she is. Even the liberal base loves her, which is odd given her very moderate positions on many issues. She leads every GOP candidate by double digits. Having said that, she's a horrible speaker and pretty out of touch. She also has a Romneyesque reputation as a flip-flopper that will be brought up I am sure. She'll fall off a bit at least.

Warren is popular with the base, same with Sanders. But how well they will translate to a general election is debatable. The media loves Warren in particular, likely because she'd have the same potential to be the first female President. Both are more inspiring speakers than Clinton, and have very clean reputations that Clinton does not. They start from behind, but Warren in particular has a chance and a firebrand like Sanders could conceivably vault himself into the competition, especially if Warren does not run.

Biden's popularity isn't great. He has a (largely exaggerated) reputation as a gaffe machine and is quite old for a Presidential contender. That aside, he's the frontrunner if Clinton bombs or doesn't run. He's probably the best debater in politics, period. He connects to voters well. His biggest issue is the lack of serious press coverage- he's getting much less than Warren despite them being dead even in most polls.

Clinton is up this time and she will take the presidency in 2016. Guaranteed.

 

[Zander]

Clinton is hugely popular. I don't know why really, but she is. Even the liberal base loves her, which is odd given her very moderate positions on many issues. She leads every GOP candidate by double digits. Having said that, she's a horrible speaker and pretty out of touch. She also has a Romneyesque reputation as a flip-flopper that will be brought up I am sure. She'll fall off a bit at least.

Warren is popular with the base, same with Sanders. But how well they will translate to a general election is debatable. The media loves Warren in particular, likely because she'd have the same potential to be the first female President. Both are more inspiring speakers than Clinton, and have very clean reputations that Clinton does not. They start from behind, but Warren in particular has a chance and a firebrand like Sanders could conceivably vault himself into the competition, especially if Warren does not run.

Biden's popularity isn't great. He has a (largely exaggerated) reputation as a gaffe machine and is quite old for a Presidential contender. That aside, he's the frontrunner if Clinton bombs or doesn't run. He's probably the best debater in politics, period. He connects to voters well. His biggest issue is the lack of serious press coverage- he's getting much less than Warren despite them being dead even in most polls.

Clinton is up this time and she will take the presidency in 2016. Guaranteed.

Bookmarked!!

Good luck!!

And HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

 

[william the wie]

In the majority of states a viable Democratic party does not exist and the problem has gotten worse for decades. Take FL and TX double victories for Scott and Perry two governors who would have been a cakewalk for even a minimally competent opposition. Take Palin she too won two elections. Winning landslides in a few states while losing small elsewhere, the Gore model, increasingly does not work.

 

[Sarah G]

Clinton is hugely popular. I don't know why really, but she is. Even the liberal base loves her, which is odd given her very moderate positions on many issues. She leads every GOP candidate by double digits. Having said that, she's a horrible speaker and pretty out of touch. She also has a Romneyesque reputation as a flip-flopper that will be brought up I am sure. She'll fall off a bit at least.

Warren is popular with the base, same with Sanders. But how well they will translate to a general election is debatable. The media loves Warren in particular, likely because she'd have the same potential to be the first female President. Both are more inspiring speakers than Clinton, and have very clean reputations that Clinton does not. They start from behind, but Warren in particular has a chance and a firebrand like Sanders could conceivably vault himself into the competition, especially if Warren does not run.

Biden's popularity isn't great. He has a (largely exaggerated) reputation as a gaffe machine and is quite old for a Presidential contender. That aside, he's the frontrunner if Clinton bombs or doesn't run. He's probably the best debater in politics, period. He connects to voters well. His biggest issue is the lack of serious press coverage- he's getting much less than Warren despite them being dead even in most polls.

Clinton is up this time and she will take the presidency in 2016. Guaranteed.

Bookmarked!!

Good luck!!

And HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

Happy New Year, Zander.

 

[Nyvin]

In the majority of states a viable Democratic party does not exist and the problem has gotten worse for decades. Take FL and TX double victories for Scott and Perry two governors who would have been a cakewalk for even a minimally competent opposition. Take Palin she too won two elections. Winning landslides in a few states while losing small elsewhere, the Gore model, increasingly does not work.

Palin did not win two elections....she won one in 2006 and then resigned halfway through her first term in July of 2009.

Statewide both Florida and Texas are quite rightwing states, they have not elected a Democratic Governor since the 90's. Not to mention the fact that the sixth year of a president's term is historically a bad time for his party in congress and state elections. In 2007 it was the Democrats that held a majority of the state legislatures and close to a majority of governor houses.

 

[Zander]

In the majority of states a viable Democratic party does not exist and the problem has gotten worse for decades. Take FL and TX double victories for Scott and Perry two governors who would have been a cakewalk for even a minimally competent opposition. Take Palin she too won two elections. Winning landslides in a few states while losing small elsewhere, the Gore model, increasingly does not work.

Palin did not win two elections....she won one in 2006 and then resigned halfway through her first term in July of 2009.

Statewide both Florida and Texas are quite rightwing states, they have not elected a Democratic Governor since the 90's. Not to mention the fact that the sixth year of a president's term is historically a bad time for his party in congress and state elections. In 2007 it was the Democrats that held a majority of the state legislatures and close to a majority of governor houses.

You're both wrong.

Sarah Palin has won Four elections for public office. First she was elected to the Wasilla City Council. Then she was elected Mayor of Wasilla twice. Finally she was elected governor of Alaska.

 

[Nyvin]

In the majority of states a viable Democratic party does not exist and the problem has gotten worse for decades. Take FL and TX double victories for Scott and Perry two governors who would have been a cakewalk for even a minimally competent opposition. Take Palin she too won two elections. Winning landslides in a few states while losing small elsewhere, the Gore model, increasingly does not work.

Palin did not win two elections....she won one in 2006 and then resigned halfway through her first term in July of 2009.

Statewide both Florida and Texas are quite rightwing states, they have not elected a Democratic Governor since the 90's. Not to mention the fact that the sixth year of a president's term is historically a bad time for his party in congress and state elections. In 2007 it was the Democrats that held a majority of the state legislatures and close to a majority of governor houses.

You're both wrong.

Sarah Palin has won Four elections for public office. First she was elected to the Wasilla City Council. Then she was elected Mayor of Wasilla twice. Finally she was elected governor of Alaska.

I REALLY doubt being elected to small local positions is relevant to what was being talked about in regards to "Democrats having viable state parties" in reference to willi's post.

 

[Delldude]

Clinton is hugely popular. I don't know why really, but she is. Even the liberal base loves her, which is odd given her very moderate positions on many issues. She leads every GOP candidate by double digits. Having said that, she's a horrible speaker and pretty out of touch. She also has a Romneyesque reputation as a flip-flopper that will be brought up I am sure. She'll fall off a bit at least.

Warren is popular with the base, same with Sanders. But how well they will translate to a general election is debatable. The media loves Warren in particular, likely because she'd have the same potential to be the first female President. Both are more inspiring speakers than Clinton, and have very clean reputations that Clinton does not. They start from behind, but Warren in particular has a chance and a firebrand like Sanders could conceivably vault himself into the competition, especially if Warren does not run.

Biden's popularity isn't great. He has a (largely exaggerated) reputation as a gaffe machine and is quite old for a Presidential contender. That aside, he's the frontrunner if Clinton bombs or doesn't run. He's probably the best debater in politics, period. He connects to voters well. His biggest issue is the lack of serious press coverage- he's getting much less than Warren despite them being dead even in most polls.

Clinton is up this time and she will take the presidency in 2016. Guaranteed.

She won't see the nomination if the left base has anything to do with it. She was heir apparent in '08 don't forget.

 

[JoeB131]

She won't see the nomination if the left base has anything to do with it. She was heir apparent in '08 don't forget.

In 2008, she was facing tougher opponents.

Also, she was in major oppossition to the party base in 2008 on their most important issue. She voted for hte War in Iraq when the base of her party hated, hated, hated that war.

 

[rightwinger]

In the majority of states a viable Democratic party does not exist and the problem has gotten worse for decades. Take FL and TX double victories for Scott and Perry two governors who would have been a cakewalk for even a minimally competent opposition. Take Palin she too won two elections. Winning landslides in a few states while losing small elsewhere, the Gore model, increasingly does not work.

Palin did not win two elections....she won one in 2006 and then resigned halfway through her first term in July of 2009.

Statewide both Florida and Texas are quite rightwing states, they have not elected a Democratic Governor since the 90's. Not to mention the fact that the sixth year of a president's term is historically a bad time for his party in congress and state elections. In 2007 it was the Democrats that held a majority of the state legislatures and close to a majority of governor houses.

You're both wrong.

Sarah Palin has won Four elections for public office. First she was elected to the Wasilla City Council. Then she was elected Mayor of Wasilla twice. Finally she was elected governor of Alaska.

You forgot the two times she was elected PTA President

 

[Delldude]

She won't see the nomination if the left base has anything to do with it. She was heir apparent in '08 don't forget.

In 2008, she was facing tougher opponents.

Also, she was in major oppossition to the party base in 2008 on their most important issue. She voted for hte War in Iraq when the base of her party hated, hated, hated that war.

She wasn't left enough then is why she got tossed....just like the pundits are saying now.

 

[JoeB131]

She won't see the nomination if the left base has anything to do with it. She was heir apparent in '08 don't forget.

In 2008, she was facing tougher opponents.

Also, she was in major oppossition to the party base in 2008 on their most important issue. She voted for hte War in Iraq when the base of her party hated, hated, hated that war.

She wasn't left enough then is why she got tossed....just like the pundits are saying now.

Hmmm, no, Cleetus, you obviously have reading comprehension problems, but you think that racist websites are valid sources of news.