Who do you really want to on top of the Democrat Ticket for President.

[imawhosure]

I really think it is going to depend if Jebster stays at the top of the pols for the repubs. Of the top tier republican candidates, this is the one Hilly can beat. Everyone knows the Trump is going to fall by the wayside, so you are looking at Walker, Cruz, Paul, Rubio, and Jebster. Unless hordes of illegal votes are cast, the only one Hilly is a slam dunk against is Jebster. 50/50 against Paul, and a highly probable loss against the rest.

Intresting post. I'm curious why you think Cruz, Paul and Rubio would have an edge on Ms. Clinton. All are one term Senators. She has more experience than that plus 8 as FLOTUS and 4 as SoS. As for Walker, he's probably too moderate for most in the GOP.

The REAL problem for the dems is the same as it is now for the repubs. To energize more votes, they have to go further left of where they are. Doing so will drive their voters in the middle to the repubs, along with the independents.

There is little evidence of the Democrats having to go further left; there is no "TEA Party" on the left that routinely torpedoes primary candidates for not being liberal enough. You have that on the right but on on the left.

But, the reason the dems have a harder time than the repubs is......................all Americans over 45 can remember what it was like moving further right, and everyone eligible to vote sees what happened when we moved further left by Obama, and the dems have to move further that way to energize the base.

Obama isn't all that liberal. Again, a moderate or center-left democrat won't be abandoned by the hard left the same way a center-right or moderate republican will be abandoned by the TEA party.

Looking at (and I suggest you do it yourself) the opinion pols on how Americans are seeing things from both parties and independents; what they do, and do not like. No matter how hard libs try to convince you about the electoral map, those on high in the democratic party know they are in trouble. For the 1st time in many a year, they know they need a moderate to steal the independent vote to win. So far, only 1 makes the grade, and that would be Webb.

Webb will get hundreds of votes nationwide. He simply isn't well known enough to matter nationally yet.

Now republicans, don't start telling me how bad Webb is. I bet you if I could magically turn the clock back 7 years and told you that the democrats were going to win the Presidency and gave you a choice between (knowing what you know today) Obama, Hilly, and Webb; you would vote overwhelmingly to put Webb in the Oval office. Don't get me wrong, I am not for the democrat. What I am saying is, that unless Jebster wins the repub nomination, Hilly is more in trouble than the lib screamers on here know! If I was you, I would sit back and smile from ear to ear every time a lib screamer says they are supporting Hilly!

Obama got superior numbers of women in swing states--often times losing the state but getting double digit support from women in that state; double digits more than Romney. Hillary will likely top those numbers.

Hillary can still lose the day. She has a likability problem. The good news for her is two fold. First, most of the GOP has a likability problems with independents. Secondly, Trump, Cruz, and Paul. Trump is the voice of the GOP base but not the establishment which understands the base is seen as grotesque by the rest of the nation. Cruz and Paul serve two purposes; they are constant reminders of the bad old days. The longer the 3 stay in the race, the more the legitmate candidates must address every koo-koo or cocoa puffs thing they say.

Well thought out post Candy, and I will try to give you the thought process,

1. The democrats have to go further left, just as the repubs must move right. In the instance for the dems, we see this with Mr Sanders support, and the far reaching support that Elizabeth Warren had until announcing she would not run. If we throw out the 2008 election and look at 2012, both Obama and Romney had less votes than Obama, Mcain had in 2008, even as eligible voters grew. That tells us that either dems thought Obama was either to far left, or not far left enough. We know for the republicans unless we want to stick our heads in the sand, they seen as Romney being to moderate. We can also gleen this from the pols on congress; repubs are vehemently irritated with the repubs they elected, because they didn't even try to stop Obama. And so, as thinking individuals, we know the republicans must move right if they want full support.

2. Your assertion that Obama is a moderate is interesting. He may very well be in your eyes, but anyone who uses tricks to circumvent congress making him/her the final determiner on almost everything most people would see as a radical. That doesn't mean his policies are far left, right, or center; it just means that everyone on the right, and most independents want more input from their elected representatives and not be governed by 1 person.

3. The question for the left is really a simple one............do they believe that they have overwhelming superiority to win whomever they put up? (within reason) Or, do they believe they have to have close to a 50-50 split in independents? I (and many others) believe that Mrs Clinton will NOT get the support from women that Obama has gotten. She will not get the turnout from African Americans that Obama got, and working private sector union members will also be a place she will lose votes.

4. I disagree with your assertion that the longer Trump stays in the race, the worse it is for the GOP; unless of course, he he were to win. You see, most Americans from both sides of the aisle are pissed about illegal immigration, and as long as he is in the race, that will stay on the front burner. When you have the American public to the tune of between 65 and 70% on the same page about doing, or stopping something, that is a very good subject to have in your repertoire. But, Trump brings it up with acidity in the solutions; which means that the other candidates who support it with more civility will be brought to the forefront. This means Cruz/Walker. And trust me when I tell everyone who does not know, Cruz will win every debate, including if he makes it to the general. If you can win arguments in front of the supreme court consistently, then you can win against a bunch of kiss booty politicians.

As far as Hillary winning the nomination, it is like Jebster winning the nomination in my book. Both of them will be hard to beat because of their warchests, but are the easiest to beat on substance. Neither of them can galvanize their bases, and neither of them will excite the independents. The republicans; no let me rephrase that, conservatives......are trying to put someone in place of Jebster to show distinct contrast. The dems so far appear to be all in on Hillary, and should the republicans succeed in ousting Jebster, the democrats will be more sorry to see him go then his supporters.

By the way, thanks for being civil. It is extremely pleasurable to discuss politics when someone actually tries to discuss differences while drawing reasonable conclusions. I always say, "we can agree to disagree," but that doesn't mean we should pour hate down on each other.

 

[candycorn]

Well thought out post Candy, and I will try to give you the thought process,

1. The democrats have to go further left, just as the repubs must move right. In the instance for the dems, we see this with Mr Sanders support, and the far reaching support that Elizabeth Warren had until announcing she would not run. If we throw out the 2008 election and look at 2012, both Obama and Romney had less votes than Obama, Mcain had in 2008, even as eligible voters grew. That tells us that either dems thought Obama was either to far left, or not far left enough. We know for the republicans unless we want to stick our heads in the sand, they seen as Romney being to moderate. We can also gleen this from the pols on congress; repubs are vehemently irritated with the repubs they elected, because they didn't even try to stop Obama. And so, as thinking individuals, we know the republicans must move right if they want full support.

Again, based on what objective criteria?

The hard left has consistently shown up for candidates in the General who were not hard left dating back to Bill Clinton The last time there was a noticeable split in the hard left was 2000. If you recall, Gore still got more popular votes than the Electoral college winner. Before that it was 1980--20 years and 5 elections earlier--and frankly, nothing was going to save Carter's bacon in '80.

As for the polls; they are pretty much the same as they were before the 2014 elections so you can't detect much difference in the feeling one way or another.

2. Your assertion that Obama is a moderate is interesting. He may very well be in your eyes, but anyone who uses tricks to circumvent congress making him/her the final determiner on almost everything most people would see as a radical. That doesn't mean his policies are far left, right, or center; it just means that everyone on the right, and most independents want more input from their elected representatives and not be governed by 1 person.

• How does Obama compare to other Presidents when it comes to Executive Orders?

Given the graphic above (from Fox News no less), Obama is not very radical at all.

3. I (and many others) believe that Mrs Clinton will NOT get the support from women that Obama has gotten.

Based on what? Clinton should do better than Obama in almost every category across the subset except black women.

She will not get the turnout from African Americans that Obama got,

That's true; nobody ever will again.

and working private sector union members will also be a place she will lose votes.

And they are going to vote for the vehemently anti-union GOP? Yeah...okay.

4. I disagree with your assertion that the longer Trump stays in the race, the worse it is for the GOP; unless of course, he he were to win. You see, most Americans from both sides of the aisle are pissed about illegal immigration, and as long as he is in the race, that will stay on the front burner. When you have the American public to the tune of between 65 and 70% on the same page about doing, or stopping something, that is a very good subject to have in your repertoire.

It rates 3% in terms of importance:

It would rank higher today because you have the stimulus of Trump altering the polling. It won't be a factor in 2016.

But, Trump brings it up with acidity in the solutions; which means that the other candidates who support it with more civility will be brought to the forefront. This means Cruz/Walker. And trust me when I tell everyone who does not know, Cruz will win every debate, including if he makes it to the general. If you can win arguments in front of the supreme court consistently, then you can win against a bunch of kiss booty politicians.

You're confusing having strong legal ground to defend with winning a political debate. Much like stating; "If you can grow tomatoes in Florida, you an do so on Pluto." The difference in atmosphere is about the same.

As far as Hillary winning the nomination, it is like Jebster winning the nomination in my book. Both of them will be hard to beat because of their warchests, but are the easiest to beat on substance.

Oh yeah, Americans only vote for substance.

Neither of them can galvanize their bases, and neither of them will excite the independents.

That much is true about Bush. Whomever the Dems nominate will have the base.

The republicans; no let me rephrase that, conservatives......are trying to put someone in place of Jebster to show distinct contrast. The dems so far appear to be all in on Hillary, and should the republicans succeed in ousting Jebster, the democrats will be more sorry to see him go then his supporters.

Hillary has a far better resume simply by bullet point than Cruz, Ryan, or Rubio. Just putting the documents side-by-side is all the proof one needs. Again, Americans just love comparing resumes so anything can happen. But she also wins in terms of maturity, gravitas, and frankly experience. Obama was a category killer as far as electing people direct from Congress to become President (the last was what...LBJ?) Not saying it can't happen but would you really feel comfortable with Marco Rubio as President? In my mind, I see those signs at Disney World stating that you have to be taller than this line to ride the ride and Rubio isn't.

As for the governors and former governors, Hillary does less well against some but they have their own sets of problems.

*Walker will probably win you Wisconsin but you don't need just Wisconsin....you need Florida and Ohio and some other states like WI. He loses you votes in Ohio where unions still matter and Florida where a lot of union pensioners have retired. I think (just me) that he also makes Arizona an interesting place come November 2016.

*Christie is good for about 2/3 of the nation. He's funny, comes across as someone who can work with others and "tells it like it is" whatever that means. His biggest problem is that he won't win Iowa and he won't even show up in South Carolina. Which means he has to win New Hampshire by a couple of touchdowns to keep the money coming in and to keep the spotlight which is just as good (free media). The biggest plus is that Super Tuesday comes really early this time around (3/1/16). He should do decently enough in his backyard to stay afloat if he's able to stay solvent. The problem is that Texas has it's election on the same day and it's likely Cruz will have a good day on 3/1 and Christie's "backyard" includes VT, MA, and VA on Super Tuesday....not exactly the delegate count he needs.

*Perry. Not a factor.

*Jindal. Not a factor

*Huckabee. Not a factor but to say that if he manages to pull off an upset, the entire model becomes tenuous because that would mean that the Christian Conservatives have spoken. When that happens, you get settled in for a long fight because these people do not just go away until the convention.

Have I left anyone out?

By the way, thanks for being civil. It is extremely pleasurable to discuss politics when someone actually tries to discuss differences while drawing reasonable conclusions. I always say, "we can agree to disagree," but that doesn't mean we should pour hate down on each other.

We can disagree without being disagreeable. Thanks.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[HenryBHough]

I was thinking Ho Chi Minh might be a good Democrat standard bearer.

But then he's dead. Not that it, or the whole where-he-was-born question might disqualify him from voting....but the dead part does seem to preclude much of a convention keynote address....

 

[P F Tinmore]

Then there is Bernie.