Hillary's contenders for 2016

[Kosh]

This is fun. In order for you to exclaim that members of one of the two major political parties is fickle.....and have credibility.....the members of the other one need to be far less fickle. Otherwise...you are saying things that do not make sense.

As the GOP membership is far more fickle than that of the Democratic Party, your comment makes no sense. It is bullshit. It makes you feel good to say it....but it is bullshit.

Next meme..........

I admit that both parties are fickle (as a party, not necessarily the individuals). I'm glad it's fun for you that it makes no sense to you that I'm not a partisan hack.

Of course you are.

And the far left irony impaired posts continue..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressivism is just a politically correct way to spell fascism

 

[georgephillip]

Government, throughout all human history has seldom been a force for good, rather it has almost always been about lies, war, death, suffering, and injustice.

Government throughout history has existed to serve the interests of its richest citizens at the expense of the majority of its citizens; progressives argue the way to change that is build a wall of separation between the influence of private wealth and the state. War and private debt have been the chief culprits for the acquisition of the vast private fortunes that require the death, suffering, and injustice you mention; eliminating those vices requires implementing progressive political values, IMHO.

 

[gipper]

Government, throughout all human history has seldom been a force for good, rather it has almost always been about lies, war, death, suffering, and injustice.

Government throughout history has existed to serve the interests of its richest citizens at the expense of the majority of its citizens; progressives argue the way to change that is build a wall of separation between the influence of private wealth and the state. War and private debt have been the chief culprits for the acquisition of the vast private fortunes that require the death, suffering, and injustice you mention; eliminating those vices requires implementing progressive political values, IMHO.

Okay I can agree with that. However, who are these progressives you cite? The Ds claim to be progressive, but I am unaware any Ds advocating for or implementing the change you reference. In fact, Big Ears and most of his gang have made it quite clear. They have and will continue to serve the interests of the rich and famous. It is transparently self serving and yet, millions of Americans do not see it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

These are the two foreseeable matchups.

Bush vs Hillary (might as well stay home, both of them suck, vive la revolucion)

Paul vs Sanders.

Cruz (if deemed eligible) vs Warren.

The above three matchups are 50-50, there's no way of telling how they'd swing.

However, if we mix these candidates up:

Hillary > Cruz
Paul > Hillary
Cruz > Sanders
Sanders > Bush
Warren > Bush.

Paul vs Warren is also 50-50

Notice that neither Paul nor Warren would be curbstomped by the other candidates (of course this my opinion).

Bush > no one, but still 50-50 with Hillary.

So if Hillary is nominated, then we best nominate Paul.

This is based on my interactions with real people in my own community and non-MSM internet trends (except Bush vs Hillary, obviously only MSM sources endorse that one).

So, without knowing who the candidates will be, it appears that Democrats have a slight edge in taking the White House in 2016. Remember that 2014 was NOT an endorsement for establishment Republicans like Bush. And given Bush's "negative" name recognition, on top of being a Neocon (the last favored political division), it really does tilt the scales in favor of Democrats.

Personally I want Paul to be nominated, since I think he holds an edge over the Democrats based on their previous 6-8 year performance. He would also do himself a favor be immediately severing his developing tie with Mcconnel.

 

[The Rabbi]

These are the two foreseeable matchups.

Bush vs Hillary (might as well stay home, both of them suck, vive la revolucion)

Paul vs Sanders.

Cruz (if deemed eligible) vs Warren.

The above three matchups are 50-50, there's no way of telling how they'd swing.

However, if we mix these candidates up:

Hillary > Cruz
Paul > Hillary
Cruz > Sanders
Sanders > Bush
Warren > Bush.

Paul vs Warren is also 50-50

Notice that neither Paul nor Warren would be curbstomped by the other candidates (of course this my opinion).

Bush > no one, but still 50-50 with Hillary.

So if Hillary is nominated, then we best nominate Paul.

This is based on my interactions with real people in my own community and non-MSM internet trends (except Bush vs Hillary, obviously only MSM sources endorse that one).

So, without knowing who the candidates will be, it appears that Democrats have a slight edge in taking the White House in 2016.

Rand Paul will not be the nominee.
Your list also discounts Walker, Kasich, and other strong candidates.
The Dems have no one. The party has eaten its moderates and the hardcore left is in charge. And thsoe people just proved theycant get elected.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

These are the two foreseeable matchups.

Bush vs Hillary (might as well stay home, both of them suck, vive la revolucion)

Paul vs Sanders.

Cruz (if deemed eligible) vs Warren.

The above three matchups are 50-50, there's no way of telling how they'd swing.

However, if we mix these candidates up:

Hillary > Cruz
Paul > Hillary
Cruz > Sanders
Sanders > Bush
Warren > Bush.

Paul vs Warren is also 50-50

Notice that neither Paul nor Warren would be curbstomped by the other candidates (of course this my opinion).

Bush > no one, but still 50-50 with Hillary.

So if Hillary is nominated, then we best nominate Paul.

This is based on my interactions with real people in my own community and non-MSM internet trends (except Bush vs Hillary, obviously only MSM sources endorse that one).

So, without knowing who the candidates will be, it appears that Democrats have a slight edge in taking the White House in 2016.

Rand Paul will not be the nominee.
Your list also discounts Walker, Kasich, and other strong candidates.
The Dems have no one. The party has eaten its moderates and the hardcore left is in charge. And thsoe people just proved theycant get elected.

Walker is an extremely risky matchup against Warren, he'll either win in a landslide, or lose in a landslide. Barely anyone knows who Kasich is, and Rand Paul has a lot of popularity and name recognition, without having to rely on his father's legacy anymore. Rand Paul is a superstar, because he is exactly who he appears to be, even if everyone disagrees on various different stances with him.

And don't underestimate the allure of inspirational socialists like Warren to the masses. Look at the minimum wage votes in red states during 2014. All Warren (politically) needs to do is call Obamacare a "corporate mess and insurance company hojacking of the health care system" (which it is), and say "I'm going to repeal Obamacare and implement Single Payer/National Health Insurance" and you have a very Power (and dangerous to America!) candidate.

I know you're mcuh older and more experienced than me, certainly you wouldn't be so folly as to write off the socialists, especially when they're now going to reveal themselves openly, like Lawrence O'Donnel? Certainly you've noticed the campaign being launched to disassociate socialism from communism? AntiParty ever so cleverly made a thread on that today (because he's a Marxist political hack, masquerading as non-politically-affiliated member of USMB).

Think of Obamacare as the sacrificial head of the Hydra:

It was meant to be cut off, so the socialist "alternative" replacement could be ushered in. Obamacare is the "crisis" intentionally created by both Neocons and Progressives (Oromneycare) and Single Payer will be the "solution." Neocons are in fact socialists, ones that like to use government welfare to bail out big banks (which is fascism). They are National Socialists to be exact. There is no "left vs right" in America on the establishment level, it's Fascist Left vs Communist Left.

Ron Paul is the true small government "right."

 

[georgephillip]

Okay I can agree with that. However, who are these progressives you cite?

I don't really see any with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, and I don't see a Socialist winning the White House; although, Bernie has moved from mayor, to the House (I think) to the Senate as a socialist, and his approval ratings have always been relatively high.

We are in complete agreement on Barry; he took office with the potential to prosecute the Wall Street and governmental fraud that brought on the Great Recession and has done nothing but cover for the rich ever since.

Democrats AND Republicans depend on the same 1% of voters to fund their campaigns and retirements, and they don't bite the hands that feed them.

 

[Vigilante]

Okay I can agree with that. However, who are these progressives you cite?

I don't really see any with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, and I don't see a Socialist winning the White House; although, Bernie has moved from mayor, to the House (I think) to the Senate as a socialist, and his approval ratings have always been relatively high.

We are in complete agreement on Barry; he took office with the potential to prosecute the Wall Street and governmental fraud that brought on the Great Recession and has done nothing but cover for the rich ever since.

Democrats AND Republicans depend on the same 1% of voters to fund their campaigns and retirements, and they don't bite the hands that feed them.

Sanders is from Vermont, and like the LIKE MINDED in the NORTHWEST, such as Oregon, these people have had there brain FROZEN and have nothing to do with the rest of the country! He's a bigger SOCIALIST than Obloa, or her Thighness, The Hildebeasty!

 

[The Rabbi]

These are the two foreseeable matchups.

Bush vs Hillary (might as well stay home, both of them suck, vive la revolucion)

Paul vs Sanders.

Cruz (if deemed eligible) vs Warren.

The above three matchups are 50-50, there's no way of telling how they'd swing.

However, if we mix these candidates up:

Hillary > Cruz
Paul > Hillary
Cruz > Sanders
Sanders > Bush
Warren > Bush.

Paul vs Warren is also 50-50

Notice that neither Paul nor Warren would be curbstomped by the other candidates (of course this my opinion).

Bush > no one, but still 50-50 with Hillary.

So if Hillary is nominated, then we best nominate Paul.

This is based on my interactions with real people in my own community and non-MSM internet trends (except Bush vs Hillary, obviously only MSM sources endorse that one).

So, without knowing who the candidates will be, it appears that Democrats have a slight edge in taking the White House in 2016.

Rand Paul will not be the nominee.
Your list also discounts Walker, Kasich, and other strong candidates.
The Dems have no one. The party has eaten its moderates and the hardcore left is in charge. And thsoe people just proved theycant get elected.

Walker is an extremely risky matchup against Warren, he'll either win in a landslide, or lose in a landslide. Barely anyone knows who Kasich is, and Rand Paul has a lot of popularity and name recognition, without having to rely on his father's legacy anymore. Rand Paul is a superstar, because he is exactly who he appears to be, even if everyone disagrees on various different stances with him.

And don't underestimate the allure of inspirational socialists like Warren to the masses. Look at the minimum wage votes in red states during 2014. All Warren (politically) needs to do is call Obamacare a "corporate mess and insurance company hojacking of the health care system" (which it is), and say "I'm going to repeal Obamacare and implement Single Payer/National Health Insurance" and you have a very Power (and dangerous to America!) candidate.

I know you're mcuh older and more experienced than me, certainly you wouldn't be so folly as to write off the socialists, especially when they're now going to reveal themselves openly, like Lawrence O'Donnel? Certainly you've noticed the campaign being launched to disassociate socialism from communism? AntiParty ever so cleverly made a thread on that today (because he's a Marxist political hack, masquerading as non-politically-affiliated member of USMB).

Think of Obamacare as the sacrificial head of the Hydra:

It was meant to be cut off, so the socialist "alternative" replacement could be ushered in. Obamacare is the "crisis" intentionally created by both Neocons and Progressives (Oromneycare) and Single Payer will be the "solution." Neocons are in fact socialists, ones that like to use government welfare to bail out big banks (which is fascism). They are National Socialists to be exact. There is no "left vs right" in America on the establishment level, it's Fascist Left vs Communist Left.

Ron Paul is the true small government "right."

Rand Paul will not be the nominee. Period. Enough conservatives hate him to insure that.

 

[georgephillip]

Sanders is from Vermont, and like the LIKE MINDED in the NORTHWEST, such as Oregon, these people have had there brain FROZEN and have nothing to do with the rest of the country! He's a bigger SOCIALIST than Obloa, or her Thighness, The Hildebeasty!

"Bernie Sanders vs. the billionaires"
Bernie Sanders vs. the billionaires Why Vermont s socialist senator may run for president - Vox
"Even as a student at the University of Chicago in the 1960s, influenced by the hours he (Sanders) spent in the library stacks reading famous philosophers, he became frustrated with his fellow student activists, who were more interested in race or imperialism than the class struggle. They couldn't see that everything they protested, he later said, was rooted in 'an economic system in which the rich controls, to a large degree, the political and economic life of the country.'"

 

[Lithdq]

Is Sarah Palin going to be a contender?

 

[Vigilante]

Is Sarah Palin going to be a contender?

And take a PAY CUT...it's below her pay grade!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sanders is from Vermont, and like the LIKE MINDED in the NORTHWEST, such as Oregon, these people have had there brain FROZEN and have nothing to do with the rest of the country! He's a bigger SOCIALIST than Obloa, or her Thighness, The Hildebeasty!

"Bernie Sanders vs. the billionaires"
Bernie Sanders vs. the billionaires Why Vermont s socialist senator may run for president - Vox
"Even as a student at the University of Chicago in the 1960s, influenced by the hours he (Sanders) spent in the library stacks reading famous philosophers, he became frustrated with his fellow student activists, who were more interested in race or imperialism than the class struggle. They couldn't see that everything they protested, he later said, was rooted in 'an economic system in which the rich controls, to a large degree, the political and economic life of the country.'"

Yes!! Sander/Warren 2016, because America has to end sometine

 

[Redfish]

I sincerely hope the dems are foolish enough to run hillary because its her turn.

she is old, ugly, angry, tired, sick and has never accomplished anything. But please run her, dems. She will guarantee GOP control of congress and the whitehouse.

 

[georgephillip]

Yes!! Sander/Warren 2016, because America has to end sometine

Too late

 

[Vigilante]

Perhaps we will be lucky enough for the 2 digit crowd to nominate Tonto here....

 

[georgephillip]

she is old, ugly, angry, tired, sick and has never accomplished anything. But please run her, dems. She will guarantee GOP control of congress and the whitehouse.

She is everything you say and much, much worse.
Now, which one of your right-wing bitches will survive your tea-bagger primaries with enough credibility to beat her in November 2016?

 

[Redfish]

she is old, ugly, angry, tired, sick and has never accomplished anything. But please run her, dems. She will guarantee GOP control of congress and the whitehouse.

She is everything you say and much, much worse.
Now, which one of your right-wing bitches will survive your tea-bagger primaries with enough credibility to beat her in November 2016?

who ever gets the GOP nomination will beat her. Could be any one of several.

But, I do not believe that the DNC is dumb enough to run her. If they do, she will be their Dole and McCain in a pantsuit.

 

[Vigilante]

she is old, ugly, angry, tired, sick and has never accomplished anything. But please run her, dems. She will guarantee GOP control of congress and the whitehouse.

She is everything you say and much, much worse.
Now, which one of your right-wing bitches will survive your tea-bagger primaries with enough credibility to beat her in November 2016?

Hard question since there are SO MANY good candidates on our side, and you scum have what...the Hildebeast, Fauxohontis, and the fat, stupid, Vt. Socialist... Oh, mustn't forget the "World's Dumbest Politician" Joe Biden! .....Oh the hilarity!!!