Hillary is running. Can she win?

Depends on how many dead people the democrats can get to vote.

Voter fraud is largely a Republican party issue.

Yes.

Depends on who she's running from.

Something tells me the independents won't favor her as they did Obama. Baggage goes hand-in-hand with a Clinton and if the Republicans are not afraid to dish out the mud, it could be extremely hazardous to her campaign.

I'm a bit of a pessimist when it comes to the people that I actually support in politics, and my predictions on election outcomes are usually wrong. That being my prediction this go around is that Hillary won't win as the public (despite an economic turnaround) are going to be weary enough from the recession that they will believe it's time to give someone else from a different party a shot at the White House.

I guess I'll just have to wait and see if I'm right.

She could. Plus a lot of people wanna see the first Vagina President of the US elected.

Clinton Begins The 2016 Campaign, And It’s A Toss-up

So here is another thing I have been thinking about a lot, if Hillary (or another democrat really, but lets be honest it's Hillary or nobody) does win will she have any chance at a second term or will she treat her first term like it's the last?

At the moment I think it boils down to the question of, "Who's going to beat her?"

Looking at the current candidates and likely candidates, I'm not seeing too much a threat. Bush is probably the biggest threat, but as he has at least the same level of baggage as Clinton he at best matches her in a head to head matchup from my viewpoint.

Of course, this is all stated with loads of time left in the campaigns, so anything can happen.

Why would there be no chance of a second term? I'm not really following your logic.

I'll just be happy that whoever manages to be President, isn't suffering from paranoia, trigger happy tendencies and will nuke the hell out of the rest of us cause "only then can America be free!"

Well generally a single party doesn't get to occupy the White House for more than two terms much less three, or at least not for a few decades now.

US Presidential Elections when there was an open seat. (Since 1952, the first US presidential election since the passing of the 22nd Amendment):

I don't think those trends are all that telling based on the numbers alone, frankly. Looking at the guts of the candidates' campaigns (and why they were successful/unsuccessful) is a better study, I think. Also looking at things like demographic shifts and election turnout patterns are better for trends. And perhaps the most important indicator is the economy and general sentiment at the time of the election.

There are just a lot of factors going into second term possibilities, and I think recent party trends are among the least of those factors.

She got the statistics against her... I hope she wins though.

I don't know who is going to win. What I do know is the same old candidate from either party won't fix anything.

Feminists are going to get insufferable if that happens.

What do you want to see fixed? What's on your priority list?

I predict anti-feminists will be worse honestly.

@mattbbpl: I'd like to see our civil liberties taken seriously. I'd like to see government reformed and put back into the hands of people as opposed to corporations and career politicians.

I honestly believe the only person that is capable of trying to do any of those things is Rand Paul.

We're going to get the same shit from both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Just like Obama hasn't accomplished everything he has wanted to, and really hasn't changed much, the same will be said for the mainstream candidates of the Republican and Democratic party.

Not sure if Clinton can win and become the first female president, but so far it looks to be a repeat of a Clinton vs Bush. this time against jeb bush because who else is a serious candidate? i cant see anyone else even have a slim chance of beating Hillary on the republican side.

Prepare your *grabs popcorn* gifs people.

Well, people thought the same thing about Democrats in 92' against Bush Sr. and he had the advantage of the Presidency.

If mainstream candidates like Jeb and Hillary would be the "same shit" and the supposedly "change" President Obama couldn't change much what makes you think that Rand Paul would be any different? Just asking.

Granted I'm not going to be ecstatic about another Bush vs Clinton, she'll prob win. The GOP's only chance is to put Bush against her. The rest are a laughing stock. Cruz is nuts, Walker is a shill, and Rand is a fake libertarian. Their primaries will push them all way to far to the right trying to pander to the religious loonies.

I guess I was looking for more concrete examples/proposals.

Regardless, yes, the political process is a long game. It's a matter of changing hearts and minds (of the public) and then battling in the legislature to make grounds in those areas.

I don't really see your love for Rand Paul, though. Even if you're a Libertarian, he's been pushing for more mainstream policies lately. As a non-Libertarian, his stances on the Federal Reserve are enough to turn me away. Frankly, if he wants to be president he'll have to abandon those views (or pledge not to act on them) - there's no way he'll get the donors necessary for a general election run with those as part of his platform.

Don't quote "same shit" as if it's somehow in doubt.

I've lived through George W. Bush and now Obama and they're hardly different.

Who knows if he will actually get anything done. He certainly wouldn't be able to do anything if he isn't given the chance/

True that.

• For killing babies? No.
• Pro gay marriage? No.
• Marihuana Legalization? No.

3 strikes he is out.

He is good on NSA surveillance (wants to curtail it), sentencing "reform" and term limits.

We all did this dance eight years ago. I'm not really in a dancing mood this time around.

I don't love Rand Paul. I think some of his stances are stupid. I like my freedom, though. I like my government having a leash on itself. I like all of my rights. Those will constantly be assaulted with somebody like Hillary or Jeb Bush in office.

With that being said the first two (abortion and gay marriage) aren't really up to him and those issues will likely remain relatively static if he were to become the President (maybe he would try to get a 20-week abortion ban through but would likely go nowhere).

And he could "evolve" on marihuana decriminalization/legalization.

They did but in 92 it was Clinton and he is like Obama a guy with so much charisma and abilities to speak to the people that a dry sock like Bush Sr. just wasn't able to get across as anything as that.

*shrug* It's difficult for me to really see your viewpoint without actually laying out tangibles such as which freedoms are under attack and which ones you think Paul will preserved, what specifics reforms (or at least types of reforms, perhaps) you'd like to see, or what you think putting government in the hands of people (vs. politicians and corporations) would look like or what form it would take.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rand-paul-is-losing-his-fathers-base/

Paul is a fraud, bro. He would be exactly the same as any other generic GOP candidate.

Anyway, I reckon Hillary will become president. The electoral map heavily favours the Democrats and she won't have trouble repeating what Obama did in 2012 unless something drastic happens like a total economic collapse or a massive scandal.

He wouldn't. His stance against the NSA and sentencing "reform" makes him not "exactly the same as any other generic GOP candidate".

I think she's got a better chance than anyone. Bill will stump for her and he's still very popular. Obama will stump for her because the alternative is a republican who would jeopardize what he sees as the high-points of his legacy (economic recovery, healthcare reform, normalization of relations with Cuba, potential Iran nuclear deal, gay marriage). I doubt any republican besides Bush can put up a fight in the general, and Bush will get beat up in the primary although he'll have tons and tons of money.

I really wish Elizabeth Warren would run but she won't. I like her more than Hillary.

You know who is a dry sock too? Hillary Clinton. Have you ever seen her campaign? She is a cringe worthy bad retail politician.

lol sure he is. Is that why his voting record is exactly the same as other Republicans? Rand Paul is a fraud just like his dad. Once the primary gets closer his true feelings will come out - the plebeians who vote in the primaries don't care about NSA spying and see no issue with sentencing as it is. If he sticks to his public statements he will lose, if he adheres to the peanut gallery and goes right, he will have betrayed his supporters.

That's not really fair, Aljosa. It's true that Rand is moderating his stances in the campaign, but the biggest reason his voting record is more conservative than his rhetoric indicates is much more simple:

The "pet projects" he endorses rarely come up for a vote in the legislature. Legislation must be crafted (which could be done by Rand himself), moved through committee, and then brought to the floor (this is the hitch, as party leaders are generally loathe to bring up legislation that a significant portion of their party doesn't support). If it's not brought to the floor, then it can't be voted on, and it isn't reflected in his voting record.

Of course, he'd have the same difficulty as president.

I can't really disagree that Hillary is far from Bill Clinton, but if you look at the republican lineup. Most are so dumb and unable to come across as anything else than idiots , not to mention that most tend to sabotage themselves by doing stupid things again and again.

So even if Hillary is a dry sock, there just isn't anyone who can run against her and actually come across to most people imo.

Do you think there are freedoms that aren't under attack? Because I'm not sure what listing specifics will really do at this point, other than starting a discussion that doesn't need to be had because it has been done to death.

The government needs to be reformed. I already mentioned one specific reform: Term limits for all federally elected offices. That would help put government back into the hands of people. We can also make campaign finances completely transparent.

Hillary isn't going to do any of that. Neither will Jeb. Which leads me to support someone who might.

I know all of that but Congress still votes on a lot of bills each session. If Paul is even MORE to the right than his opponents (judging by that FiveThirtyEight chart) how can we say he's not the same as the others? Those small pet projects are cool and all but every politician has them. His stance on an issue that no one (unfortunately) cares about is an exception rather than the rule, to me.

Well, I think the "freedoms under attack" argument is overused to the point that it's meaningless without specifics. It's used by nearly everyone for nearly everything.

I agree that the government needs to be reformed (and I bet that you could get somewhere around 80% of people to agree with certain proposals). Term limits seems to have moderate appeal. I don't, personally, think it would make a great difference, but I don't think it would particularly hurt either. Why do you think Paul would push for making campaign finances completely transparent? I realize he's been moving more mainstream lately, but that's pretty antithetical to typical Libertarian viewpoints.

I do, FWIW, agree that neither Clinton nor Jeb will push for term limits or transparent campaign finances. I don't think Rand will either, but such is life, I guess.

Are you blind? How exactly is his voting record exactly the same as other Republicans? Don't you know how to read a graph?

Every politician as pet projects, but not like Paul's. Most politicians have pet projects that they can work with committees on, whip up party support for, and eventually try to bring to the floor (or package as amendments into other bills).

A lot of Paul's "pet projects" are things like "give Congress influence over the Federal Reserve", cut the defense budget by 20% (not anymore, of course), end aid to Israel and other foreign nations, etc. These are things that the majority in his party would not be caught dead supporting.

@Master_Live: You're right, he isn't the same - he's much worse.

I'm not actually convinced he believes in that stuff, though. That's what it essentially comes down to. I think he's a fraud and uses those positions to try and build some credibility with Libertarians.

If Jeb Bush runs we'll see... He has a famous name and god knows in the USA that's more important than anything you can say during the three debates... Still, I suspect Hillary won't have much issue destroying anybody placed infront of her.

Against the likes of filth like Ted Cruz? Easily.

@Aljosa23: I'm not convinced either. He's certainly abandoned some of those stances when it's been convenient to do so. Those are the source of the gap between his statements and his voting record in your graph, though, so I just pointed it out due to it's relevance.

@ianhh6:

Is the world ready for another Bush?