Hillary on 2016: "I am thinking about it."

[ScienceRocks]

Why nominate someone that is hated by half of the country? How is this good...

 

[The Rabbi]

Why nominate someone that is hated by half of the country? How is this good...

But she's i favor of education, infrastructure and science!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Scared? No, I'm ecstatic. I really hope she runs. Because the GOP is going t beat her up every single day of the week, twice on Sundays.
Hillary is the ultimate Dem candidate: totally failed at every endevor but has star power anyway. She is also saddled with more baggage than almost anyone else on the horizon. She has a 30 year career of lying, dishonesty, back stabbing and crooked dealing.
So yes, please let it be Hill.

Yes, please let it be Hill, then she wins with at least 57% of the NPV.

Proceed, Rightie, proceed!

She couldn't beat an unknown one term senator in 2007. What makes you think she'll even win the nomination?

And Ronald Reagan was unable to win the nomination in 1976, despite being the favorite going into 1976 against incumbent and -non elected- Gerald Ford. And looky, looky, four years later, he was your party's nominee. So, history from your own party disproves your point, and quite handily at that. Having lost a bid for the nomination doesn't preclude one from winning it later. As a matter of fact, Romney lost the nomination in 2008 and got it in 2012. And McCain lost the nomination in 2000 and then got it in 2008. And Bush Sr. lost the nomination in 1980 and got it in 1988. Oh, the list is pretty long...

Weak sauce, weak, weak, weak.

Plus, there is practically a draft movement for her right now, and of the 140+ polls and over 450+ matchups already, Hillary is mopping the floor with her prospective GOP opponents. LOL. So, yes, let it be Hill, Rabbi, let it be Hill.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, please let it be Hill, then she wins with at least 57% of the NPV.

Proceed, Rightie, proceed!

She couldn't beat an unknown one term senator in 2007. What makes you think she'll even win the nomination?

And Ronald Reagan was unable to win the nomination in 1976, despite being the favorite going into 1976 against incumbent and -non elected- Gerald Ford. And looky, looky, four years later, he was your party's nominee. So, history from your own party disproves your point, and quite handily at that. Having lost a bid for the nomination doesn't preclude one from winning it later. As a matter of fact, Romney lost the nomination in 2008 and got it in 2012. And McCain lost the nomination in 2000 and then got it in 2008. And Bush Sr. lost the nomination in 1980 and got it in 1988. Oh, the list is pretty long...

Weak sauce, weak, weak, weak.

Plus, there is practically a draft movement for her right now, and of the 140+ polls and over 450+ matchups already, Hillary is mopping the floor with her prospective GOP opponents. LOL. So, yes, let it be Hill, Rabbi, let it be Hill.

Those are hardly comparable. Reagan lost to a sitting president. ALl the others similarly explained.
Face it, Hillary does best when she isn't running. When she runs, she sucks. A third rate Negro with no accomplishments beat her. That will happen again this time.

 

[Statistikhengst]

She couldn't beat an unknown one term senator in 2007. What makes you think she'll even win the nomination?

And Ronald Reagan was unable to win the nomination in 1976, despite being the favorite going into 1976 against incumbent and -non elected- Gerald Ford. And looky, looky, four years later, he was your party's nominee. So, history from your own party disproves your point, and quite handily at that. Having lost a bid for the nomination doesn't preclude one from winning it later. As a matter of fact, Romney lost the nomination in 2008 and got it in 2012. And McCain lost the nomination in 2000 and then got it in 2008. And Bush Sr. lost the nomination in 1980 and got it in 1988. Oh, the list is pretty long...

Weak sauce, weak, weak, weak.

Plus, there is practically a draft movement for her right now, and of the 140+ polls and over 450+ matchups already, Hillary is mopping the floor with her prospective GOP opponents. LOL. So, yes, let it be Hill, Rabbi, let it be Hill.

Those are hardly comparable. Reagan lost to a sitting president. ALl the others similarly explained.
Face it, Hillary does best when she isn't running. When she runs, she sucks. A third rate Negro with no accomplishments beat her. That will happen again this time.

For posterity.

 

[rightwinger]

She couldn't beat an unknown one term senator in 2007. What makes you think she'll even win the nomination?

And Ronald Reagan was unable to win the nomination in 1976, despite being the favorite going into 1976 against incumbent and -non elected- Gerald Ford. And looky, looky, four years later, he was your party's nominee. So, history from your own party disproves your point, and quite handily at that. Having lost a bid for the nomination doesn't preclude one from winning it later. As a matter of fact, Romney lost the nomination in 2008 and got it in 2012. And McCain lost the nomination in 2000 and then got it in 2008. And Bush Sr. lost the nomination in 1980 and got it in 1988. Oh, the list is pretty long...

Weak sauce, weak, weak, weak.

Plus, there is practically a draft movement for her right now, and of the 140+ polls and over 450+ matchups already, Hillary is mopping the floor with her prospective GOP opponents. LOL. So, yes, let it be Hill, Rabbi, let it be Hill.

Those are hardly comparable. Reagan lost to a sitting president. ALl the others similarly explained.
Face it, Hillary does best when she isn't running. When she runs, she sucks. A third rate Negro with no accomplishments beat her. That will happen again this time.

That "third rate negro" beat the best available Republican candidate by a 2:1 margin

 

[The Rabbi]

And Ronald Reagan was unable to win the nomination in 1976, despite being the favorite going into 1976 against incumbent and -non elected- Gerald Ford. And looky, looky, four years later, he was your party's nominee. So, history from your own party disproves your point, and quite handily at that. Having lost a bid for the nomination doesn't preclude one from winning it later. As a matter of fact, Romney lost the nomination in 2008 and got it in 2012. And McCain lost the nomination in 2000 and then got it in 2008. And Bush Sr. lost the nomination in 1980 and got it in 1988. Oh, the list is pretty long...

Weak sauce, weak, weak, weak.

Plus, there is practically a draft movement for her right now, and of the 140+ polls and over 450+ matchups already, Hillary is mopping the floor with her prospective GOP opponents. LOL. So, yes, let it be Hill, Rabbi, let it be Hill.

Those are hardly comparable. Reagan lost to a sitting president. ALl the others similarly explained.
Face it, Hillary does best when she isn't running. When she runs, she sucks. A third rate Negro with no accomplishments beat her. That will happen again this time.

That "third rate negro" beat the best available Republican candidate by a 2:1 margin

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Popular vote: Obama 65.9M Romney 60.9M
Electoral vote: Obama 332 Romney 206.

Only in Nutsucker's world is that a 2:1 margin.

 

[rightwinger]

Those are hardly comparable. Reagan lost to a sitting president. ALl the others similarly explained.
Face it, Hillary does best when she isn't running. When she runs, she sucks. A third rate Negro with no accomplishments beat her. That will happen again this time.

That "third rate negro" beat the best available Republican candidate by a 2:1 margin

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Popular vote: Obama 65.9M Romney 60.9M
Electoral vote: Obama 332 Romney 206.

Only in Nutsucker's world is that a 2:1 margin.

Have you been following your own posts?

We were talking about Hillary and your taunting that she lost to a "third rate negro"..... that was 2008

Go back and try again

 

[The Rabbi]

That "third rate negro" beat the best available Republican candidate by a 2:1 margin

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Popular vote: Obama 65.9M Romney 60.9M
Electoral vote: Obama 332 Romney 206.

Only in Nutsucker's world is that a 2:1 margin.

Have you been following your own posts?

We were talking about Hillary and your taunting that she lost to a "third rate negro"..... that was 2008

Go back and try again

My comment stands.
She still lost. She will lose again this time. Hillary is the worst candidate the Dems can field. She always polls the highest negative ratings. She is also shrewish, angry, and deceitful. She reminds every man of his ex wife. Even media rah-rah will not overcome that. In the face of upbeat fresh Republicans, like Cruz, she has no chance.

 

[Stephanie]

poor Hillary, she got kicked around by that man Obama, she got kicked around by her own base and kicked her to curb for that man, Obama...and now they are out there making her out to be the champion for them and the Democrat party....you all would vote for a goat if it had D next to it's just so you can WIN, but hey it's for the party, screw the country and what's best for it

Hi, I'm Billy of the Democrat party and running for President
Please vote for me just because I that D next to my name