Emails, Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, etc...Still No Republicans Coming Close to Beating Hillary

[Foxfyre]

Meanwhile, this from a state that supported Obama the last two presidentials:

Hillary Clinton trails three of her Republican challengers — former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) — in a new WMUR Granite State Poll from the University of New Hampshire.

Bush staged an 18-point turnaround since February. He now leads Clinton by a margin of 47 percent to 41 percent, after Clinton led in February by a margin of 51 percent to 39 percent.

Paul also turned around his fortunes from February, when he trailed by 10 percentage points, and now leads Clinton 47 percent to 43 percent.

Rubio leads Clinton by 5 percentage points, 47 percent to 42 percent, while Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ties her with 44 percent each.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) is the only candidate tested in the poll that loses to Clinton, but she only leads by one percentage point at 46 percent to 45 percent.

Poll Clinton trails Bush Paul and Rubio in NH TheHill

That poll is less than 500 people in NH, and........

Party Registration
Democrat 144 25%
Republican 170 30%

Party Indentification
Democrat 40%
Republican 43%

But don't let me interrupt your cherry picking. With this poll you'll have enough to make a pie.

Polls occasionally get results that don't reflect the averages. Pay attention to the averages

Hillary is in a world of doom. She is seen as sleazy, and she is.

I don't know if I would use that word to describe her, but even if true, it doesn't matter. Never underestimate how low some will set the bar for what they expect of their candidate just so long as that candidate has the right letter following his/her name.

You don't know if sleazy is the word to describe Hillary? If you had one word then, what would that be? Sorry, sleazy seems right to me.

If I had to choose a single critical word to describe Hillary I think it would be 'feckless'.

 

[toxicmedia]

Perhaps you haven't heard.

Reince Preibus is not allowing primary debates unless they're moderated by Fox News.

Also, why are GOP candidates so much more vulnerable to "gotcha: questions than Democrats are? To someone like Sarah Palin, what her shoe size is, would be a gotcha question.

What you describe as negative coverage, is really negative reactions, from the 1/2 of Americans that Fox News will tell you either doesn't exist, or thinks something else. Romney's failures were Romney's failures. He didn't behave like a real person, and those 47% comments were an antithesis to Obama.

What does the GOP have to bash Hillary with, like the extensive arsenal the Romney campaign had to bash Obama? The economy? no Foreign Policy? no....and please be reasonable, and bear in mind what swing voters and non Fox watching voters will be swayed by. You have to believe what Fox says for it to matter

See how the far left will run their narratives no matter how far from reality they are.

Wow....you're going to use the word "reality" huh?

You don't think there is only one...do you?

If you cannot spot sleaze at this point, you never will.

Mitt Romney was the last politician who I didn't think was sleezy, since Eisenhower.

All the rest, on both sides, sleeeeezy!

Mitt was not my first choice for the nomination, but I voted for him with a completely clear conscience. And I still feel genuine grief that he was not elected because I think we would all be so much better off and would be well on our way to full recovery by now if he had been elected. I had to hold my nose to vote for McCain.

There are a lot of professional politicians running this time and though some of them do offer some impressive skill sets, I have no illusion that they are not professional politicians. But there are a few who are much less so and time will tell if these are able to gain any traction.

I do not agree that we would all be so much better off and would be well on our way to full recovery if Mitt were elected. The notion that Obama could have caused a full economic recovery, if he'd only have done what Mitt would have done, is residual fantasy based on foundationless inspirational rhetoric from former Romney campaign talking points. I'm sure we'll see more of that from the coming GOP campaign.

I am a swing voter. You are not. Though I live in California, and my presidential vote is meaningless, if I lived in Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, or New Hampshire, my vote would determine elections. I am turned off by the kind of BS electioneering the GOP throws around with naïve utopian vision of Republicans saving the economy. If it were possible, the Bush admin wouldn't have ended in economic disaster, even though they didn't cause it

What would bring the GOP back to the white house, is if they ditched the causes of gay marriage and abortion, and picked up the torch for education, infrastructure as opposed to austerity, scientific advancement instead of text book revision to support creationism, and a rational assessment about whether the US should continue to be the world's military police.

I could not vote for McCain, because Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace ruined their careers by finding Sarah Palin. I just didn't vote that year.

The GOP needs to ditch the Palins, Bachmanns, Cruzes, Limbaughs, and Gohmerts. You'd be amazed at who comes back

 

[toxicmedia]

Wow....you're going to use the word "reality" huh?

You don't think there is only one...do you?

If you cannot spot sleaze at this point, you never will.

Mitt Romney was the last politician who I didn't think was sleezy, since Eisenhower.

All the rest, on both sides, sleeeeezy!

Yet you voted Obama and will vote Hilary thus contradicting any post you will make on this subject.

I didn't vote for Obama. And I've already said I'll vote for whatever GOP candidate runs as long as it's not Ted Cruz or Ben Carson

So you admit that you are voting for a sleaze ball no matter who you vote for?

So are you Einstein, so is everybody

 

[Foxfyre]

See how the far left will run their narratives no matter how far from reality they are.

Wow....you're going to use the word "reality" huh?

You don't think there is only one...do you?

If you cannot spot sleaze at this point, you never will.

Mitt Romney was the last politician who I didn't think was sleezy, since Eisenhower.

All the rest, on both sides, sleeeeezy!

Mitt was not my first choice for the nomination, but I voted for him with a completely clear conscience. And I still feel genuine grief that he was not elected because I think we would all be so much better off and would be well on our way to full recovery by now if he had been elected. I had to hold my nose to vote for McCain.

There are a lot of professional politicians running this time and though some of them do offer some impressive skill sets, I have no illusion that they are not professional politicians. But there are a few who are much less so and time will tell if these are able to gain any traction.

I do not agree that we would all be so much better off and would be well on our way to full recovery if Mitt were elected. The notion that Obama could have caused a full economic recovery, if he'd only have done what Mitt would have done, is residual fantasy based on foundationless inspirational rhetoric from former Romney campaign talking points. I'm sure we'll see more of that from the coming GOP campaign.

I am a swing voter. You are not. Though I live in California, and my presidential vote is meaningless, if I lived in Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, or New Hampshire, my vote would determine elections. I am turned off by the kind of BS electioneering the GOP throws around with naïve utopian vision of Republicans saving the economy. If it were possible, the Bush admin wouldn't have ended in economic disaster, even though they didn't cause it

What would bring the GOP back to the white house, is if they ditched the causes of gay marriage and abortion, and picked up the torch for education, infrastructure as opposed to austerity, scientific advancement instead of text book revision to support creationism, and a rational assessment about whether the US should continue to be the world's military police.

I could not vote for McCain, because Steve Schmidt and Nicole Wallace ruined their careers by finding Sarah Palin. I just didn't vote that year.

The GOP needs to ditch the Palins, Bachmanns, Cruzes, Limbaughs, and Gohmerts. You'd be amazed at who comes back

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that I guess.

 

[toxicmedia]

Meanwhile, this from a state that supported Obama the last two presidentials:

Hillary Clinton trails three of her Republican challengers — former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) — in a new WMUR Granite State Poll from the University of New Hampshire.

Bush staged an 18-point turnaround since February. He now leads Clinton by a margin of 47 percent to 41 percent, after Clinton led in February by a margin of 51 percent to 39 percent.

Paul also turned around his fortunes from February, when he trailed by 10 percentage points, and now leads Clinton 47 percent to 43 percent.

Rubio leads Clinton by 5 percentage points, 47 percent to 42 percent, while Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ties her with 44 percent each.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) is the only candidate tested in the poll that loses to Clinton, but she only leads by one percentage point at 46 percent to 45 percent.

Poll Clinton trails Bush Paul and Rubio in NH TheHill

That poll is less than 500 people in NH, and........

Party Registration
Democrat 144 25%
Republican 170 30%

Party Indentification
Democrat 40%
Republican 43%

But don't let me interrupt your cherry picking. With this poll you'll have enough to make a pie.

Polls occasionally get results that don't reflect the averages. Pay attention to the averages

Hillary is in a world of doom. She is seen as sleazy, and she is.

I don't know if I would use that word to describe her, but even if true, it doesn't matter. Never underestimate how low some will set the bar for what they expect of their candidate just so long as that candidate has the right letter following his/her name.

You don't know if sleazy is the word to describe Hillary? If you had one word then, what would that be? Sorry, sleazy seems right to me.

If I had to choose a single critical word to describe Hillary I think it would be 'feckless'.

Wow, I almost think the last thing Hillary is lacking would be initiative and strength of character.

Bill Clinton was the master at playing the role of a benign, yet very wise, bumpkin.

Hillary will assume a persona that flatters her target demographic, women. She'll come across as the take no prisoners protective Mother of the US. She'll try to make the GOP candidates look like remote and irrelevant absentee Fathers. The DNC will play up the impression that all the GOP has been doing for the last 8 years is whine like teenagers, and will have plenty of ammo for that.

To understand what a GOP candidate needs to do to win, you have to know you won't hear what that is from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh

 

[Foxfyre]

That poll is less than 500 people in NH, and........

Party Registration
Democrat 144 25%
Republican 170 30%

Party Indentification
Democrat 40%
Republican 43%

But don't let me interrupt your cherry picking. With this poll you'll have enough to make a pie.

Polls occasionally get results that don't reflect the averages. Pay attention to the averages

Hillary is in a world of doom. She is seen as sleazy, and she is.

I don't know if I would use that word to describe her, but even if true, it doesn't matter. Never underestimate how low some will set the bar for what they expect of their candidate just so long as that candidate has the right letter following his/her name.

You don't know if sleazy is the word to describe Hillary? If you had one word then, what would that be? Sorry, sleazy seems right to me.

If I had to choose a single critical word to describe Hillary I think it would be 'feckless'.

Wow, I almost think the last thing Hillary is lacking would be initiative and strength of character.

Bill Clinton was the master at playing the role of a benign, yet very wise, bumpkin.

Hillary will assume a persona that flatters her target demographic, women. She'll come across as the take no prisoners protective Mother of the US. She'll try to make the GOP candidates look like remote and irrelevant absentee Fathers. The DNC will play up the impression that all the GOP has been doing for the last 8 years is whine like teenagers, and will have plenty of ammo for that.

To understand what a GOP candidate needs to do to win, you have to know you won't hear what that is from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh

Hillary cannot point to a single significant accomplishment as a lawyer, as First Lady of Arkansas or the USA, as a U.S. Senator, as Secretary of State. Her one claim to fame was putting together a Clinton administration healthcare overhaul that so frightened even the Democrats that none would vote for it and it cost them their majority in the Senate and House in the very next election.

Her stated convictions on just about any subject you want to bring up are as changing as the weather. Even some of her most ardent supporters admit her rare public speaking engagements are delivered pedantic style and without enthusiasm and any passon shown seems forced and without any real conviction behind it. What significant skill set can she demonstrate? What bright ideas has she come up with to capture the enthusiasm and lift the spirits of the people?

Feckless. That's it.

But you are right that her base won't care about any of that. She'll say all the right things to whatever group she is talking to and those groups already set the bar so low for what they expect of elected leaders that none of it will matter to them. She has the right letter after her name and that's all that matters.

 

[Votto]

Am I President yet?

​

 

[toxicmedia]

Hillary is in a world of doom. She is seen as sleazy, and she is.

I don't know if I would use that word to describe her, but even if true, it doesn't matter. Never underestimate how low some will set the bar for what they expect of their candidate just so long as that candidate has the right letter following his/her name.

You don't know if sleazy is the word to describe Hillary? If you had one word then, what would that be? Sorry, sleazy seems right to me.

If I had to choose a single critical word to describe Hillary I think it would be 'feckless'.

Wow, I almost think the last thing Hillary is lacking would be initiative and strength of character.

Bill Clinton was the master at playing the role of a benign, yet very wise, bumpkin.

Hillary will assume a persona that flatters her target demographic, women. She'll come across as the take no prisoners protective Mother of the US. She'll try to make the GOP candidates look like remote and irrelevant absentee Fathers. The DNC will play up the impression that all the GOP has been doing for the last 8 years is whine like teenagers, and will have plenty of ammo for that.

To understand what a GOP candidate needs to do to win, you have to know you won't hear what that is from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh

Hillary cannot point to a single significant accomplishment as a lawyer, as First Lady of Arkansas or the USA, as a U.S. Senator, as Secretary of State. Her one claim to fame was putting together a Clinton administration healthcare overhaul that so frightened even the Democrats that none would vote for it and it cost them their majority in the Senate and House in the very next election.

Her stated convictions on just about any subject you want to bring up are as changing as the weather. Even some of her most ardent supporters admit her rare public speaking engagements are delivered pedantic style and without enthusiasm and any passon shown seems forced and without any real conviction behind it. What significant skill set can she demonstrate? What bright ideas has she come up with to capture the enthusiasm and lift the spirits of the people?

Feckless. That's it.

But you are right that her base won't care about any of that. She'll say all the right things to whatever group she is talking to and those groups already set the bar so low for what they expect of elected leaders that none of it will matter to them. She has the right letter after her name and that's all that matters.

It doesn't matter what you, and other righties who share your conviction think about Hillary.

In order to beat Hillary's name recognition, and resume, a GOP candidate will have to articulate bright ideas to capture the enthusiasm and lift the spirits of the people who would otherwise vote for Hillary.

I am a prime example of those people, not all of them, but one of them, except for that part where I'll vote Republican because the GOP needs their feet held to the fire.

None of the GOP candidates appeal to swing voters, according to the majority of polls we're seeing.

What could they possibly come up with, that they're not doing now?

PS, "feckless" means lacking character and initiative. So Hillary can't be feckless and evil at the same time

 

[oreo]

With the current field Republicans have right now it's a real circus. It's certainly doesn't help with Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee in this race. Ted Cruz is out there trying to get the extreme religious right in his corner over the incident in Induana over pizza denial at gay weddings-LOL

So he's adopted a divide and separate campaign to lose in 2016. Both are capable of offending millions of people and turning them off to the Republican Party. And as we've witnessed they can do irrefutable damage to other candidates. In essence hopefully they drop out asap.

If other religious bigots would stop sending them money, they would. If not you can expect a Hillary Clinton win in 2016.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know if I would use that word to describe her, but even if true, it doesn't matter. Never underestimate how low some will set the bar for what they expect of their candidate just so long as that candidate has the right letter following his/her name.

You don't know if sleazy is the word to describe Hillary? If you had one word then, what would that be? Sorry, sleazy seems right to me.

If I had to choose a single critical word to describe Hillary I think it would be 'feckless'.

Wow, I almost think the last thing Hillary is lacking would be initiative and strength of character.

Bill Clinton was the master at playing the role of a benign, yet very wise, bumpkin.

Hillary will assume a persona that flatters her target demographic, women. She'll come across as the take no prisoners protective Mother of the US. She'll try to make the GOP candidates look like remote and irrelevant absentee Fathers. The DNC will play up the impression that all the GOP has been doing for the last 8 years is whine like teenagers, and will have plenty of ammo for that.

To understand what a GOP candidate needs to do to win, you have to know you won't hear what that is from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh

Hillary cannot point to a single significant accomplishment as a lawyer, as First Lady of Arkansas or the USA, as a U.S. Senator, as Secretary of State. Her one claim to fame was putting together a Clinton administration healthcare overhaul that so frightened even the Democrats that none would vote for it and it cost them their majority in the Senate and House in the very next election.

Her stated convictions on just about any subject you want to bring up are as changing as the weather. Even some of her most ardent supporters admit her rare public speaking engagements are delivered pedantic style and without enthusiasm and any passon shown seems forced and without any real conviction behind it. What significant skill set can she demonstrate? What bright ideas has she come up with to capture the enthusiasm and lift the spirits of the people?

Feckless. That's it.

But you are right that her base won't care about any of that. She'll say all the right things to whatever group she is talking to and those groups already set the bar so low for what they expect of elected leaders that none of it will matter to them. She has the right letter after her name and that's all that matters.

It doesn't matter what you, and other righties who share your conviction think about Hillary.

In order to beat Hillary's name recognition, and resume, a GOP candidate will have to articulate bright ideas to capture the enthusiasm and lift the spirits of the people who would otherwise vote for Hillary.

I am a prime example of those people, not all of them, but one of them, except for that part where I'll vote Republican because the GOP needs their feet held to the fire.

None of the GOP candidates appeal to swing voters, according to the majority of polls we're seeing.

What could they possibly come up with, that they're not doing now?

PS, "feckless" means lacking character and initiative. So Hillary can't be feckless and evil at the same time

I reserve evil for very special cases. I have never referred to Hillary as evil. I have never seen her as evil. But yes, one who is 'feckless' demonstrates less than exemplary character, as well as being incompetent, irresponsible, lazy, indifferent--"what difference at this point in time does it make?"

We don't know yet whether any of the GOP hopefuls will appeal to a broad base. For sure Hillary doesn't appear to have much appeal. All she really has going for her is name recognition and a D after her name. We'll find out soon enough if that is enough.

 

[toxicmedia]

You don't know if sleazy is the word to describe Hillary? If you had one word then, what would that be? Sorry, sleazy seems right to me.

If I had to choose a single critical word to describe Hillary I think it would be 'feckless'.

Wow, I almost think the last thing Hillary is lacking would be initiative and strength of character.

Bill Clinton was the master at playing the role of a benign, yet very wise, bumpkin.

Hillary will assume a persona that flatters her target demographic, women. She'll come across as the take no prisoners protective Mother of the US. She'll try to make the GOP candidates look like remote and irrelevant absentee Fathers. The DNC will play up the impression that all the GOP has been doing for the last 8 years is whine like teenagers, and will have plenty of ammo for that.

To understand what a GOP candidate needs to do to win, you have to know you won't hear what that is from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh

Hillary cannot point to a single significant accomplishment as a lawyer, as First Lady of Arkansas or the USA, as a U.S. Senator, as Secretary of State. Her one claim to fame was putting together a Clinton administration healthcare overhaul that so frightened even the Democrats that none would vote for it and it cost them their majority in the Senate and House in the very next election.

Her stated convictions on just about any subject you want to bring up are as changing as the weather. Even some of her most ardent supporters admit her rare public speaking engagements are delivered pedantic style and without enthusiasm and any passon shown seems forced and without any real conviction behind it. What significant skill set can she demonstrate? What bright ideas has she come up with to capture the enthusiasm and lift the spirits of the people?

Feckless. That's it.

But you are right that her base won't care about any of that. She'll say all the right things to whatever group she is talking to and those groups already set the bar so low for what they expect of elected leaders that none of it will matter to them. She has the right letter after her name and that's all that matters.

It doesn't matter what you, and other righties who share your conviction think about Hillary.

In order to beat Hillary's name recognition, and resume, a GOP candidate will have to articulate bright ideas to capture the enthusiasm and lift the spirits of the people who would otherwise vote for Hillary.

I am a prime example of those people, not all of them, but one of them, except for that part where I'll vote Republican because the GOP needs their feet held to the fire.

None of the GOP candidates appeal to swing voters, according to the majority of polls we're seeing.

What could they possibly come up with, that they're not doing now?

PS, "feckless" means lacking character and initiative. So Hillary can't be feckless and evil at the same time

I reserve evil for very special cases. I have never referred to Hillary as evil. I have never seen her as evil. But yes, one who is 'feckless' demonstrates less than exemplary character, as well as being incompetent, irresponsible, lazy, indifferent--"what difference at this point in time does it make?"

We don't know yet whether any of the GOP hopefuls will appeal to a broad base. For sure Hillary doesn't appear to have much appeal. All she really has going for her is name recognition and a D after her name. We'll find out soon enough if that is enough.

Right now it is enough.

It's up to the GOP to come up with something more substantial

 

[toxicmedia]

Okay, let's review, and bear in mind, coincidentally, this poll backs up my opinion about which candidates will bring swingers, and anti Fox News Republicans (me) back into the fold.

Stay away from evangelicals and Tea Partiers like Cruz, Carson, Palin, Bachman, etc

General Election: Bush vs. Clinton
RCP Average 3/1 - 4/30 -- -- Clinton +8.4

General Election: Walker vs. Clinton
RCP Average 3/1 - 4/30 -- -- Clinton +9.3

General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton
RCP Average 3/1 - 4/30 -- -- Clinton +7.2

General Election: Paul vs. Clinton
RCP Average 3/1 - 4/30 -- -- Clinton +7.7

General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton
RCP Average 3/1 - 4/30 -- -- Clinton +11.7

General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton
RCP Average 3/1 - 4/30 -- -- Clinton +11.0

General Election: Christie vs. Clinton
RCP Average 3/1 - 4/30 -- -- Clinton +11.0

General Election: Carson vs. Clinton
RCP Average 3/1 - 4/30 -- -- Clinton +13.3

 

[Foxfyre]

If I had to choose a single critical word to describe Hillary I think it would be 'feckless'.

Wow, I almost think the last thing Hillary is lacking would be initiative and strength of character.

Bill Clinton was the master at playing the role of a benign, yet very wise, bumpkin.

Hillary will assume a persona that flatters her target demographic, women. She'll come across as the take no prisoners protective Mother of the US. She'll try to make the GOP candidates look like remote and irrelevant absentee Fathers. The DNC will play up the impression that all the GOP has been doing for the last 8 years is whine like teenagers, and will have plenty of ammo for that.

To understand what a GOP candidate needs to do to win, you have to know you won't hear what that is from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh

Hillary cannot point to a single significant accomplishment as a lawyer, as First Lady of Arkansas or the USA, as a U.S. Senator, as Secretary of State. Her one claim to fame was putting together a Clinton administration healthcare overhaul that so frightened even the Democrats that none would vote for it and it cost them their majority in the Senate and House in the very next election.

Her stated convictions on just about any subject you want to bring up are as changing as the weather. Even some of her most ardent supporters admit her rare public speaking engagements are delivered pedantic style and without enthusiasm and any passon shown seems forced and without any real conviction behind it. What significant skill set can she demonstrate? What bright ideas has she come up with to capture the enthusiasm and lift the spirits of the people?

Feckless. That's it.

But you are right that her base won't care about any of that. She'll say all the right things to whatever group she is talking to and those groups already set the bar so low for what they expect of elected leaders that none of it will matter to them. She has the right letter after her name and that's all that matters.

It doesn't matter what you, and other righties who share your conviction think about Hillary.

In order to beat Hillary's name recognition, and resume, a GOP candidate will have to articulate bright ideas to capture the enthusiasm and lift the spirits of the people who would otherwise vote for Hillary.

I am a prime example of those people, not all of them, but one of them, except for that part where I'll vote Republican because the GOP needs their feet held to the fire.

None of the GOP candidates appeal to swing voters, according to the majority of polls we're seeing.

What could they possibly come up with, that they're not doing now?

PS, "feckless" means lacking character and initiative. So Hillary can't be feckless and evil at the same time

I reserve evil for very special cases. I have never referred to Hillary as evil. I have never seen her as evil. But yes, one who is 'feckless' demonstrates less than exemplary character, as well as being incompetent, irresponsible, lazy, indifferent--"what difference at this point in time does it make?"

We don't know yet whether any of the GOP hopefuls will appeal to a broad base. For sure Hillary doesn't appear to have much appeal. All she really has going for her is name recognition and a D after her name. We'll find out soon enough if that is enough.

Right now it is enough.

It's up to the GOP to come up with something more substantial

Right now is almost 18 months before the election. The statistics mean almost nothing. Eighteen months before the 2008 election, Obama was not well positioned to win anything. In May 2007, Giuliani was the obvious front runner to win the GOP nomination.

In October 2007:

". . .Gallup’s 2007 national presidential polling strongly points to Clinton winning the 2008 Democratic nomination. Barring something unusual or otherwise unexpected, she is well positioned for the 2008 Democratic primaries. Obama has not been an insignificant rival: he came within single digits of tying Clinton for the lead at two points this spring. But he has recently lost ground and is now in the weakest position relative to Clinton that he has been in all year. . .
Gallup Election Review October 2007​

This far out, polling is just interesting and provides fodder for pundits and message boards, but it doesn't mean a whole lot relative to who gets the nomination or who will win the election.

 

[toxicmedia]

Wow, I almost think the last thing Hillary is lacking would be initiative and strength of character.

Bill Clinton was the master at playing the role of a benign, yet very wise, bumpkin.

Hillary will assume a persona that flatters her target demographic, women. She'll come across as the take no prisoners protective Mother of the US. She'll try to make the GOP candidates look like remote and irrelevant absentee Fathers. The DNC will play up the impression that all the GOP has been doing for the last 8 years is whine like teenagers, and will have plenty of ammo for that.

To understand what a GOP candidate needs to do to win, you have to know you won't hear what that is from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh

Hillary cannot point to a single significant accomplishment as a lawyer, as First Lady of Arkansas or the USA, as a U.S. Senator, as Secretary of State. Her one claim to fame was putting together a Clinton administration healthcare overhaul that so frightened even the Democrats that none would vote for it and it cost them their majority in the Senate and House in the very next election.

Her stated convictions on just about any subject you want to bring up are as changing as the weather. Even some of her most ardent supporters admit her rare public speaking engagements are delivered pedantic style and without enthusiasm and any passon shown seems forced and without any real conviction behind it. What significant skill set can she demonstrate? What bright ideas has she come up with to capture the enthusiasm and lift the spirits of the people?

Feckless. That's it.

But you are right that her base won't care about any of that. She'll say all the right things to whatever group she is talking to and those groups already set the bar so low for what they expect of elected leaders that none of it will matter to them. She has the right letter after her name and that's all that matters.

It doesn't matter what you, and other righties who share your conviction think about Hillary.

In order to beat Hillary's name recognition, and resume, a GOP candidate will have to articulate bright ideas to capture the enthusiasm and lift the spirits of the people who would otherwise vote for Hillary.

I am a prime example of those people, not all of them, but one of them, except for that part where I'll vote Republican because the GOP needs their feet held to the fire.

None of the GOP candidates appeal to swing voters, according to the majority of polls we're seeing.

What could they possibly come up with, that they're not doing now?

PS, "feckless" means lacking character and initiative. So Hillary can't be feckless and evil at the same time

I reserve evil for very special cases. I have never referred to Hillary as evil. I have never seen her as evil. But yes, one who is 'feckless' demonstrates less than exemplary character, as well as being incompetent, irresponsible, lazy, indifferent--"what difference at this point in time does it make?"

We don't know yet whether any of the GOP hopefuls will appeal to a broad base. For sure Hillary doesn't appear to have much appeal. All she really has going for her is name recognition and a D after her name. We'll find out soon enough if that is enough.

Right now it is enough.

It's up to the GOP to come up with something more substantial

Right now is almost 18 months before the election. The statistics mean almost nothing. Eighteen months before the 2008 election, Obama was not well positioned to win anything. In May 2007, Giuliani was the obvious front runner to win the GOP nomination.

In October 2007:

". . .Gallup’s 2007 national presidential polling strongly points to Clinton winning the 2008 Democratic nomination. Barring something unusual or otherwise unexpected, she is well positioned for the 2008 Democratic primaries. Obama has not been an insignificant rival: he came within single digits of tying Clinton for the lead at two points this spring. But he has recently lost ground and is now in the weakest position relative to Clinton that he has been in all year. . .
Gallup Election Review October 2007​

This far out, polling is just interesting and provides fodder for pundits and message boards, but it doesn't mean a whole lot relative to who gets the nomination or who will win the election.

You're just regurgitating GOP talking points

 

[Foxfyre]

Hillary cannot point to a single significant accomplishment as a lawyer, as First Lady of Arkansas or the USA, as a U.S. Senator, as Secretary of State. Her one claim to fame was putting together a Clinton administration healthcare overhaul that so frightened even the Democrats that none would vote for it and it cost them their majority in the Senate and House in the very next election.

Her stated convictions on just about any subject you want to bring up are as changing as the weather. Even some of her most ardent supporters admit her rare public speaking engagements are delivered pedantic style and without enthusiasm and any passon shown seems forced and without any real conviction behind it. What significant skill set can she demonstrate? What bright ideas has she come up with to capture the enthusiasm and lift the spirits of the people?

Feckless. That's it.

But you are right that her base won't care about any of that. She'll say all the right things to whatever group she is talking to and those groups already set the bar so low for what they expect of elected leaders that none of it will matter to them. She has the right letter after her name and that's all that matters.

It doesn't matter what you, and other righties who share your conviction think about Hillary.

In order to beat Hillary's name recognition, and resume, a GOP candidate will have to articulate bright ideas to capture the enthusiasm and lift the spirits of the people who would otherwise vote for Hillary.

I am a prime example of those people, not all of them, but one of them, except for that part where I'll vote Republican because the GOP needs their feet held to the fire.

None of the GOP candidates appeal to swing voters, according to the majority of polls we're seeing.

What could they possibly come up with, that they're not doing now?

PS, "feckless" means lacking character and initiative. So Hillary can't be feckless and evil at the same time

I reserve evil for very special cases. I have never referred to Hillary as evil. I have never seen her as evil. But yes, one who is 'feckless' demonstrates less than exemplary character, as well as being incompetent, irresponsible, lazy, indifferent--"what difference at this point in time does it make?"

We don't know yet whether any of the GOP hopefuls will appeal to a broad base. For sure Hillary doesn't appear to have much appeal. All she really has going for her is name recognition and a D after her name. We'll find out soon enough if that is enough.

Right now it is enough.

It's up to the GOP to come up with something more substantial

Right now is almost 18 months before the election. The statistics mean almost nothing. Eighteen months before the 2008 election, Obama was not well positioned to win anything. In May 2007, Giuliani was the obvious front runner to win the GOP nomination.

In October 2007:

". . .Gallup’s 2007 national presidential polling strongly points to Clinton winning the 2008 Democratic nomination. Barring something unusual or otherwise unexpected, she is well positioned for the 2008 Democratic primaries. Obama has not been an insignificant rival: he came within single digits of tying Clinton for the lead at two points this spring. But he has recently lost ground and is now in the weakest position relative to Clinton that he has been in all year. . .
Gallup Election Review October 2007​

This far out, polling is just interesting and provides fodder for pundits and message boards, but it doesn't mean a whole lot relative to who gets the nomination or who will win the election.

You're just regurgitating GOP talking points

So that's all you've got for rebuttal? Yay, I win! Do have a nice day.

 

[toxicmedia]

It doesn't matter what you, and other righties who share your conviction think about Hillary.

In order to beat Hillary's name recognition, and resume, a GOP candidate will have to articulate bright ideas to capture the enthusiasm and lift the spirits of the people who would otherwise vote for Hillary.

I am a prime example of those people, not all of them, but one of them, except for that part where I'll vote Republican because the GOP needs their feet held to the fire.

None of the GOP candidates appeal to swing voters, according to the majority of polls we're seeing.

What could they possibly come up with, that they're not doing now?

PS, "feckless" means lacking character and initiative. So Hillary can't be feckless and evil at the same time

I reserve evil for very special cases. I have never referred to Hillary as evil. I have never seen her as evil. But yes, one who is 'feckless' demonstrates less than exemplary character, as well as being incompetent, irresponsible, lazy, indifferent--"what difference at this point in time does it make?"

We don't know yet whether any of the GOP hopefuls will appeal to a broad base. For sure Hillary doesn't appear to have much appeal. All she really has going for her is name recognition and a D after her name. We'll find out soon enough if that is enough.

Right now it is enough.

It's up to the GOP to come up with something more substantial

Right now is almost 18 months before the election. The statistics mean almost nothing. Eighteen months before the 2008 election, Obama was not well positioned to win anything. In May 2007, Giuliani was the obvious front runner to win the GOP nomination.

In October 2007:

". . .Gallup’s 2007 national presidential polling strongly points to Clinton winning the 2008 Democratic nomination. Barring something unusual or otherwise unexpected, she is well positioned for the 2008 Democratic primaries. Obama has not been an insignificant rival: he came within single digits of tying Clinton for the lead at two points this spring. But he has recently lost ground and is now in the weakest position relative to Clinton that he has been in all year. . .
Gallup Election Review October 2007​

This far out, polling is just interesting and provides fodder for pundits and message boards, but it doesn't mean a whole lot relative to who gets the nomination or who will win the election.

You're just regurgitating GOP talking points

So that's all you've got for rebuttal? Yay, I win! Do have a nice day.

It wasn't a rebuttal, it was an observation.

I watched the Sunday talk shows, and though your last response was from Saturday, I found the righty pundits saying what you seem to be saying, and the lefty pundits saying what I have been saying.

Which is freightening to me, as it should be to you.

My user name is toxicmedia, and anytime I find myself in agreement with 24 hour news pundits, and strategists, I figure I'd better do a little more research and dig deeper.

If having zero originality is a win for you...then yes, you won.

Intellectually, I'm not happy with either of us right now.

 

[Foxfyre]

I reserve evil for very special cases. I have never referred to Hillary as evil. I have never seen her as evil. But yes, one who is 'feckless' demonstrates less than exemplary character, as well as being incompetent, irresponsible, lazy, indifferent--"what difference at this point in time does it make?"

We don't know yet whether any of the GOP hopefuls will appeal to a broad base. For sure Hillary doesn't appear to have much appeal. All she really has going for her is name recognition and a D after her name. We'll find out soon enough if that is enough.

Right now it is enough.

It's up to the GOP to come up with something more substantial

Right now is almost 18 months before the election. The statistics mean almost nothing. Eighteen months before the 2008 election, Obama was not well positioned to win anything. In May 2007, Giuliani was the obvious front runner to win the GOP nomination.

In October 2007:

". . .Gallup’s 2007 national presidential polling strongly points to Clinton winning the 2008 Democratic nomination. Barring something unusual or otherwise unexpected, she is well positioned for the 2008 Democratic primaries. Obama has not been an insignificant rival: he came within single digits of tying Clinton for the lead at two points this spring. But he has recently lost ground and is now in the weakest position relative to Clinton that he has been in all year. . .
Gallup Election Review October 2007​

This far out, polling is just interesting and provides fodder for pundits and message boards, but it doesn't mean a whole lot relative to who gets the nomination or who will win the election.

You're just regurgitating GOP talking points

So that's all you've got for rebuttal? Yay, I win! Do have a nice day.

It wasn't a rebuttal, it was an observation.

I watched the Sunday talk shows, and though your last response was from Saturday, I found the righty pundits saying what you seem to be saying, and the lefty pundits saying what I have been saying.

Which is freightening to me, as it should be to you.

My user name is toxicmedia, and anytime I find myself in agreement with 24 hour news pundits, and strategists, I figure I'd better do a little more research and dig deeper.

If having zero originality is a win for you...then yes, you won.

Intellectually, I'm not happy with either of us right now.

My user name is not toxic anything, but I have been a member of the professional media--radio, television, and press--and on some irregular occasions still am. So I do have some objective insight and don't look to anybody other than me for my opinions regardless of what you think or what passes for 'intellectual' or 'credible' for you. And while I have no objection to making you happy, that is not my purpose here.

 

[toxicmedia]

Right now it is enough.

It's up to the GOP to come up with something more substantial

Right now is almost 18 months before the election. The statistics mean almost nothing. Eighteen months before the 2008 election, Obama was not well positioned to win anything. In May 2007, Giuliani was the obvious front runner to win the GOP nomination.

In October 2007:

". . .Gallup’s 2007 national presidential polling strongly points to Clinton winning the 2008 Democratic nomination. Barring something unusual or otherwise unexpected, she is well positioned for the 2008 Democratic primaries. Obama has not been an insignificant rival: he came within single digits of tying Clinton for the lead at two points this spring. But he has recently lost ground and is now in the weakest position relative to Clinton that he has been in all year. . .
Gallup Election Review October 2007​

This far out, polling is just interesting and provides fodder for pundits and message boards, but it doesn't mean a whole lot relative to who gets the nomination or who will win the election.

You're just regurgitating GOP talking points

So that's all you've got for rebuttal? Yay, I win! Do have a nice day.

It wasn't a rebuttal, it was an observation.

I watched the Sunday talk shows, and though your last response was from Saturday, I found the righty pundits saying what you seem to be saying, and the lefty pundits saying what I have been saying.

Which is freightening to me, as it should be to you.

My user name is toxicmedia, and anytime I find myself in agreement with 24 hour news pundits, and strategists, I figure I'd better do a little more research and dig deeper.

If having zero originality is a win for you...then yes, you won.

Intellectually, I'm not happy with either of us right now.

My user name is not toxic anything, but I have been a member of the professional media--radio, television, and press--and on some irregular occasions still am. So I do have some objective insight and don't look to anybody other than me for my opinions regardless of what you think or what passes for 'intellectual' or 'credible' for you. And while I have no objection to making you happy, that is not my purpose here.

For that you'll get a.......

"I know you are, but what am I?"