Why do the Dems have only ONE candidate atm?

[The Rabbi]

Who besides Shrillary will be running? I thought this was a the Party of the "big tent"? Why are they running the same rehashed white, rich woman who has been in politics for 30 years? No new blood? No young blood? No fresh ideas? What gives? The cons have at least 10 serious candidates.

I hope that she gets challenged by Biden, Richardson, Webb, and Kaine if he ever had the gumption to run.

Not bucketlist candidates and they have more negatives than hillary

That's subject to one's opinion. I think that Bill Richardson is the best out of all of the above, especially since he can get a large majority of the Latino vote and other minorities as well. In my opinion, he would get more of those votes than Hillary.

Bill Richardson wa sa really good candidate with a huge resume in government. If the Dems had gone for him in 2008 and he had picked Phil Bredesen, then governor of TN, as VP, I would probably have voted for them over McCain/Palin.
But Richardson isnt radical enough for the Dems. So he's toast.

 

[william the wie]

Richardson is too white and male for the Ds that's why the Rs have two Hispanics running.

 

[Pheonixops]

Who besides Shrillary will be running? I thought this was a the Party of the "big tent"? Why are they running the same rehashed white, rich woman who has been in politics for 30 years? No new blood? No young blood? No fresh ideas? What gives? The cons have at least 10 serious candidates.

I hope that she gets challenged by Biden, Richardson, Webb, and Kaine if he ever had the gumption to run.

Not bucketlist candidates and they have more negatives than hillary

That's subject to one's opinion. I think that Bill Richardson is the best out of all of the above, especially since he can get a large majority of the Latino vote and other minorities as well. In my opinion, he would get more of those votes than Hillary.

Bill Richardson wa sa really good candidate with a huge resume in government. If the Dems had gone for him in 2008 and he had picked Phil Bredesen, then governor of TN, as VP, I would probably have voted for them over McCain/Palin.
But Richardson isnt radical enough for the Dems. So he's toast.

I really don't see what the allure is with Ms. Clinton even my wife (Democrat leanings) doesn't like her.

 

[Pheonixops]

Richardson is too white and male for the Ds that's why the Rs have two Hispanics running.

LOL, you MUST be joking!!!! Bill Richardson IS Hispanic, he got his surname from his Dad who is part Hispanic and part Anglo, Richardson's mother is also Hispanic.

 

[Pheonixops]

Richardson is too white and male for the Ds that's why the Rs have two Hispanics running.

Cruz and Rubio are primarily only good for the Cuban vote.............
Rubio may do better (with Hispanics) because he seems to want to work on a path to citizenship but that same desire may do him in with the grassroots republicans who control (vote) the primaries.

 

[william the wie]

Who besides Shrillary will be running? I thought this was a the Party of the "big tent"? Why are they running the same rehashed white, rich woman who has been in politics for 30 years? No new blood? No young blood? No fresh ideas? What gives? The cons have at least 10 serious candidates.

I hope that she gets challenged by Biden, Richardson, Webb, and Kaine if he ever had the gumption to run.

Not bucketlist candidates and they have more negatives than hillary

That's subject to one's opinion. I think that Bill Richardson is the best out of all of the above, especially since he can get a large majority of the Latino vote and other minorities as well. In my opinion, he would get more of those votes than Hillary.

Bill Richardson wa sa really good candidate with a huge resume in government. If the Dems had gone for him in 2008 and he had picked Phil Bredesen, then governor of TN, as VP, I would probably have voted for them over McCain/Palin.
But Richardson isnt radical enough for the Dems. So he's toast.

I really don't see what the allure is with Ms. Clinton even my wife (Democrat leanings) doesn't like her.

Name recognition. Obama redefining, by his actions, all non-blacks as whites doesn't help.

 

[Pheonixops]

I hope that she gets challenged by Biden, Richardson, Webb, and Kaine if he ever had the gumption to run.

Not bucketlist candidates and they have more negatives than hillary

That's subject to one's opinion. I think that Bill Richardson is the best out of all of the above, especially since he can get a large majority of the Latino vote and other minorities as well. In my opinion, he would get more of those votes than Hillary.

Bill Richardson wa sa really good candidate with a huge resume in government. If the Dems had gone for him in 2008 and he had picked Phil Bredesen, then governor of TN, as VP, I would probably have voted for them over McCain/Palin.
But Richardson isnt radical enough for the Dems. So he's toast.

I really don't see what the allure is with Ms. Clinton even my wife (Democrat leanings) doesn't like her.

Name recognition. Obama redefining, by his actions, all non-blacks as whites doesn't help.

Richardson has plenty of name recognition in the Democrat party. President Obama didn't "redefine" all non-blacks as whites, unless he called himself "white" because his mother is white.

 

[Scorpion]

Hillary, Biden or Kerry

Republicans are unable to beat any of them

All old.
Screw 'em all.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Democrats will have one candidate pulling all the funding. Hillary will face token competition who will drop out quickly

Meanwhile, Republicans will beat themselves up over the rightwing dollar fighting to see who is most Conservative

Bush will emerge bloodied and broke with a conservative albatross around his neck

Dems will have one candidate who goes into the general not vetted in the least. She will be susceptible to scandals and hostile press, because they arent giving her the pass they gave Obama.

Good god.....they are starting the "not vetted" crap

Hillary has been vetted non-stop for the last 23 years

Vetted, and found wanting in some very many ways. If justice were to be done, she'd have a rap sheet as long as she is tall. At the very least, she would have been fired for incompetence and malfeasance from every "job" she's held for at least those 23 years. The woman is an elitist criminal. But be assured, she's the only-run D candidate because they are sure that electing the first female president will work as well for their brain-dead, zombie-lemming base as putting the first "black" into office did.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Democrats annoint then put up a couple of show candidates to make it look respectable.

Republicans have candidates put out their ideas and positions they fight it out in public. Democrats hide from the public as much as possible. What's seen and known is tightly controlled by democrats.

The public is led along by the carefully placed democrat breadcrumbs and told it was their idea all along.

Republicans eat their own

Republicans are stupid

Not as dumb as the brain-dead shills who would vote for something as clearly incompetent as Obama, and now Hillie.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Who besides Shrillary will be running? I thought this was a the Party of the "big tent"? Why are they running the same rehashed white, rich woman who has been in politics for 30 years? No new blood? No young blood? No fresh ideas? What gives? The cons have at least 10 serious candidates.

I hope that she gets challenged by Biden, Richardson, Webb, and Kaine if he ever had the gumption to run.

Not bucketlist candidates and they have more negatives than hillary

Funny, Biden is probably the best job security Obama has.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Who besides Shrillary will be running? I thought this was a the Party of the "big tent"? Why are they running the same rehashed white, rich woman who has been in politics for 30 years? No new blood? No young blood? No fresh ideas? What gives? The cons have at least 10 serious candidates.

I hope that she gets challenged by Biden, Richardson, Webb, and Kaine if he ever had the gumption to run.

Not bucketlist candidates and they have more negatives than hillary

That's subject to one's opinion. I think that Bill Richardson is the best out of all of the above, especially since he can get a large majority of the Latino vote and other minorities as well. In my opinion, he would get more of those votes than Hillary.

Bill Richardson wa sa really good candidate with a huge resume in government. If the Dems had gone for him in 2008 and he had picked Phil Bredesen, then governor of TN, as VP, I would probably have voted for them over McCain/Palin.
But Richardson isnt radical enough for the Dems. So he's toast.

I really don't see what the allure is with Ms. Clinton even my wife (Democrat leanings) doesn't like her.

Oh, your wife is just being catty and jealous of Hillie's success and her hot catch of a husband...

 

[Pheonixops]

I hope that she gets challenged by Biden, Richardson, Webb, and Kaine if he ever had the gumption to run.

Not bucketlist candidates and they have more negatives than hillary

That's subject to one's opinion. I think that Bill Richardson is the best out of all of the above, especially since he can get a large majority of the Latino vote and other minorities as well. In my opinion, he would get more of those votes than Hillary.

Bill Richardson wa sa really good candidate with a huge resume in government. If the Dems had gone for him in 2008 and he had picked Phil Bredesen, then governor of TN, as VP, I would probably have voted for them over McCain/Palin.
But Richardson isnt radical enough for the Dems. So he's toast.

I really don't see what the allure is with Ms. Clinton even my wife (Democrat leanings) doesn't like her.

Oh, your wife is just being catty and jealous of Hillie's success and her hot catch of a husband...

LOL

 

[Disir]

Who besides Shrillary will be running? I thought this was a the Party of the "big tent"? Why are they running the same rehashed white, rich woman who has been in politics for 30 years? No new blood? No young blood? No fresh ideas? What gives? The cons have at least 10 serious candidates.

Unless Bernie Sanders runs as a Dem then she is all the Democrats have. This is what happens when you spend all of your time pointing to Bush and refusing to deal with actual policy. It's the same mistake that the Republicans make. They are so busy saying Obama that they didn't bother with policy. They don't have jack to run either. They know it.

 

[Billy000]

Yep, you're right. It's bad news for the democrats. Hillary is too big to fail. I'm freaked out at the prospect of a republican presidency. God help us all.

 

[Pheonixops]

Who besides Shrillary will be running? I thought this was a the Party of the "big tent"? Why are they running the same rehashed white, rich woman who has been in politics for 30 years? No new blood? No young blood? No fresh ideas? What gives? The cons have at least 10 serious candidates.

Unless Bernie Sanders runs as a Dem then she is all the Democrats have. This is what happens when you spend all of your time pointing to Bush and refusing to deal with actual policy. It's the same mistake that the Republicans make. They are so busy saying Obama that they didn't bother with policy. They don't have jack to run either. They know it.

Bernie Sanders' heart is in the right place, but he would possibly pull on three states. It's not about actual policy in my opinion, it's basically that the democratic power structure and some if not many "mainstream" Democrats think that it's Hillary's time to get the nomination. I think that is a grave mistake for them even though I did hear some electoral vote projection that has her winning.
I know that a fair amount of politicians are basically full of it but she just doesn't seem genuine in some way. I also feel like that she will have more of a mainstream republican type of foreign policy and that she will keep the status quo or add more restriction as far as civil liberties issues go. BUT, if it's Cruz, Rubio, Walker vs Hillary, I would vote for her. If it was Bush vs Hillary , I would toss a coin. Rand Paul needs to cement his views further during debates because right now I don't trust him. He cosponsored a Bill with Corey Booker regarding prison reform and I like that they both went across party lines to work for a common cause.

 

[rightwinger]

Hillary, Biden or Kerry

Republicans are unable to beat any of them

All old.
Screw 'em all.

All are much, much more qualified than any of the Republicans

 

[Disir]

Who besides Shrillary will be running? I thought this was a the Party of the "big tent"? Why are they running the same rehashed white, rich woman who has been in politics for 30 years? No new blood? No young blood? No fresh ideas? What gives? The cons have at least 10 serious candidates.

Unless Bernie Sanders runs as a Dem then she is all the Democrats have. This is what happens when you spend all of your time pointing to Bush and refusing to deal with actual policy. It's the same mistake that the Republicans make. They are so busy saying Obama that they didn't bother with policy. They don't have jack to run either. They know it.

Bernie Sanders' heart is in the right place, but he would possibly pull on three states. It's not about actual policy in my opinion, it's basically that the democratic power structure and some if not many "mainstream" Democrats think that it's Hillary's time to get the nomination. I think that is a grave mistake for them even though I did hear some electoral vote projection that has her winning.
I know that a fair amount of politicians are basically full of it but she just doesn't seem genuine in some way. I also feel like that she will have more of a mainstream republican type of foreign policy and that she will keep the status quo or add more restriction as far as civil liberties issues go. BUT, if it's Cruz, Rubio, Walker vs Hillary, I would vote for her. If it was Bush vs Hillary , I would toss a coin. Rand Paul needs to cement his views further during debates because right now I don't trust him. He cosponsored a Bill with Corey Booker regarding prison reform and I like that they both went across party lines to work for a common cause.

I disagree. Otherwise you wouldn't have either of those parties all of a sudden focusing on income inequality. They are aware that he is a threat. They simply want to appeal without making changes.

Hillary is Republican-light. She always has been. Foreign policy doesn't change.

Rand Paul's views are already well known. He has a history. He won't make it. Walker, Rubio and Cruz as well.

 

[rightwinger]

Democrats will have one candidate pulling all the funding. Hillary will face token competition who will drop out quickly

Meanwhile, Republicans will beat themselves up over the rightwing dollar fighting to see who is most Conservative

Bush will emerge bloodied and broke with a conservative albatross around his neck

Dems will have one candidate who goes into the general not vetted in the least. She will be susceptible to scandals and hostile press, because they arent giving her the pass they gave Obama.

Good god.....they are starting the "not vetted" crap

Hillary has been vetted non-stop for the last 23 years

Vetted, and found wanting in some very many ways. If justice were to be done, she'd have a rap sheet as long as she is tall. At the very least, she would have been fired for incompetence and malfeasance from every "job" she's held for at least those 23 years. The woman is an elitist criminal. But be assured, she's the only-run D candidate because they are sure that electing the first female president will work as well for their brain-dead, zombie-lemming base as putting the first "black" into office did.

Republicans have been trying to "arrest" Hillary for 25 years

Seems pretty pathetic after all this time

 

[Pheonixops]

Who besides Shrillary will be running? I thought this was a the Party of the "big tent"? Why are they running the same rehashed white, rich woman who has been in politics for 30 years? No new blood? No young blood? No fresh ideas? What gives? The cons have at least 10 serious candidates.

Unless Bernie Sanders runs as a Dem then she is all the Democrats have. This is what happens when you spend all of your time pointing to Bush and refusing to deal with actual policy. It's the same mistake that the Republicans make. They are so busy saying Obama that they didn't bother with policy. They don't have jack to run either. They know it.

Bernie Sanders' heart is in the right place, but he would possibly pull on three states. It's not about actual policy in my opinion, it's basically that the democratic power structure and some if not many "mainstream" Democrats think that it's Hillary's time to get the nomination. I think that is a grave mistake for them even though I did hear some electoral vote projection that has her winning.
I know that a fair amount of politicians are basically full of it but she just doesn't seem genuine in some way. I also feel like that she will have more of a mainstream republican type of foreign policy and that she will keep the status quo or add more restriction as far as civil liberties issues go. BUT, if it's Cruz, Rubio, Walker vs Hillary, I would vote for her. If it was Bush vs Hillary , I would toss a coin. Rand Paul needs to cement his views further during debates because right now I don't trust him. He cosponsored a Bill with Corey Booker regarding prison reform and I like that they both went across party lines to work for a common cause.

I disagree. Otherwise you wouldn't have either of those parties all of a sudden focusing on income inequality. They are aware that he is a threat. They simply want to appeal without making changes.

Hillary is Republican-light. She always has been. Foreign policy doesn't change.

Rand Paul's views are already well known. He has a history. He won't make it. Walker, Rubio and Cruz as well.

Where do we disagree?