Hillary is running. Can she win?

Of course she can win. This country if full of dumb-asses who will vote for her just because she is a woman. Even with all of the lies she has been caught in. Even with all of the scandals she has been caught in. Even with all of the mysterious deaths that are tied to her and Billy Bob. Woman, and their man bitches will vote for Killary for no other reason, than she could possibly be the first woman to run the country. Sadly as incompetent as she is. She could also be the last person to do that job. Hell that's only counting the living breathing legally registered voters. We have to factor in the dead people's vote, and the illegal immigrant vote, and of course the people that will vote multiple times in different precincts.

@br0kenrabbit: addicting info is known for biased inaccurate liberal bias. funny how it is the republicans who want to stop voter fraud by proving who you are via photo IDs, and the liberals like to act like it is stops legitimate voters. Sure wish it was required as I went in to vote one year, and someone already voted as me.:(

Cruz can win because he's not a weakling like most the others and he's Hispanic. Walker can win because his record is flat out better than Hilary's and he's got executive experience. Governors tend to do better than Senators in elections.

Bill is not an asset to Hilary. He is the same slime he's always been, he won't appeal to center-right independents and even alone Hilary won't. She's not the best candidate to be the next president and on that alone she would lose to Cruz or Walker.

This is what I'm saying man. Walker's biggest threat will be the Republicans opposing him in the primaries.

He can take the flak from the left, but can he from the right?

Republicans are gonna have trouble winning any election that they keep up their anti science rhetoric.

Bill Clinton was incredibly popular among Moderate Republicans, that's why he crushed in both his elections.

He's still one of the most popular US Politicians today.

Check your facts son

@JimB: "It won't be Bush"

Why not?

@foxhound_fox: "Idiots. Morons. Mentally vacuous ignoramuses that are only able to win the votes of the extremely religious and socially ignorant."

Isn't that all politicans?

@ianhh6: "It's barely recovering from the effects of the second..."

lol

The Republican Party will have to choose a candidate that is really good in order to beat Hilary. If they do wind up picking Jeb Bush then definitely Hilary si going to win.

Republican candidates tend to be ill informed and out of in touch. I'm not saying democrats are any different. But at least they have the sense to act they can relate to the average working Joe.

Republicans still haven't figured that out.

They have, it's why they have started trying to get the votes of gays and women lately. The problem is, the party has been pushing further and further right when society as a whole has been pushing further and further left. They can't accept the fact that society doesn't want their fascist policies anymore.

Also if it isn't Jeb Bush god knows who it'll be. Hillary will steam-roll over anybody else in the republican lineup.

I asked my wife if she'd vote for Hillary this time around, considering she was a big fan of Hillary back in 2008. She said no.

Against the clown car the republicans are likely to put against her I'd say odds are in her favor at this point but it's still too early to really say. It depends on who the big money supports, voting is a formality.

If she's only up against White men, then yes, she'll win for sure

@helwa1988: Democrats no longer care for the working person. They gave that up a long time ago. The Democrats that were for the working class are no longer in office, they have been replaces by far left leaning individuals. Just like the Democrats are for the blacks. The Blacks have been voting Democrat for over fifty years and their lives have not improved any if anything their lives have gotten worse.

will she have binders full of men?

The election is hers to lose. The GOP doesn't have anyone that could pose anything resembling a challenge.

This is what pretty much sums up why Hilary Clinton is the favorite. It's not so much she's the strongest candidate, it's that the Republican ones are just that weak.

The top choices the stumblebums have are Walker, Cruz, and maybe Donald Trump.

Trump has a chance as he's got the most hair of all the Repubs and he doesn't look like the Cheshire Cat when he smiles.

I hope she crushes the Republicans to the point that they have a watershed moment.. In which we see the tea partiers and crazies within the party ousted completely and we see some god damned rational thought take hold.. The entire Iranian situation really illustrates just how unhinged the Republican party has become in why they can't be trusted with anything anymore.

Why not have no Republican party? Just have one party. One ruling party can certainly be trusted with the keys to the city, no?

Every nation needs a liberal and conservative side to check each other from taking complete power just as every bird needs a left and a right wing to fly. Without each wing the bird dies.

Debating and scrutinizing a treaty with another country is the test which must be taken to determine is rationality. That's not "unhinged" thinking, it's common sense.

...... No where did I say that the Republican party shouldn't exist.. Obviously there should be a opposing party or multiple ones.. And I am sorry but what? We aren't talking about devils advocate.. We are literally talking about Republicans clamoring for WAR, a war of choice when the Iranians already on board of negotiating.. Meanwhile we are having popular Republicans like Bachman with doomsday tweets saying how the United States is going to get nuclear bombed by Iran.. That is just it, there is no opposing view point.. There is a crazy view point that goes against thousands of years of political and military thought.. If anything you should be in direct FAVOR of the Republican party going down in smoke and reemerging in which we can actually get real and rational thought to differ with the democrat party.. Clamoring for war as the first and only option is not rational, this shit isn't anything new, Sun Tzu wrote about the foolishness of such logic 2500 years ago. My point went completely over your head, the Republican party isn't keeping the Democrats honest.. They are a bunch of chimps flinging poop now.. Their view points are contradictory and exude fearmongering.. I would love to have more options in the voting booth.. But it isn't so much that the democrats are a better party as so much as the Republicans in charge are by and large bat shit crazy. And quite literally the an entire Iranian situation for my example was the "your hairs on fire" to illustrate the craziness of the party.

The Iran Deal and Its Consequences

Here is an opinion column which raises crucial points of concerns about the Iran nuclear deal.

To simply say that Republicans are just clamoring for war is so simplistic that it isn't worth taken seriously.

i think she has already won, no need for their to be an election.

But we should wait until the final deal is drafted to pass judgement and then decide whether or not to reject it.

Do you have another link to that? I'd like to read it but WSJ has a paywall.

I do not have a subscription, but yesterday I was able to access it. Give me sec.

Sometimes it opens for me and sometimes it doesn't. I will copy and past the whole column on a PM (since it is subscription base),

EDIT: Done.

Nice, thanks! Will read.

I was skimming through these posts, and read that as "blenders" instead of binders.

It gave me a strange image.

Freaking LOL

Ah, the Hilary Clinton vore erotic fiction I've always wanted to write.

@Master_Live: lol

@Serraph105: Reagan will always be bigger than life!

Huh? If you're whole argument is that Republicans are clamoring for war, what's your explanation for Obama sending troops and tanks to Eastern Europe the past year? It's most certainly not a peaceful move and every step taken towards Russia is a step closer to real nuclear war, even the Russians are saying it.

You say Republicans are clamoring for war with Iran when clearly Iran has been at war with the non-shia world for years. They clearly trained militants in Iraq to make bombs to blow up coalition forces, they clearly have been supporting the coup in Yemen, and they clearly want to enrich enough uranium for a stockpile to manufacture nuclear weapons or other WMD. Why is it that every nation in the Middle East besides Syria does not want Iran to be able to enrich Uranium?

Republicans clamoring for a supposed war with Iran is laughable because Iran's been at war with the US since they took hostages at the US embassy in 1979.

But to get back on topic, yeah, I would be in favor of the Republican party imploding into an actual opposition party because an actual opposition party would have impeached the Islamic sympathizer President 3 months ago. They didn't because they have no leaders which is why Hilary is a near shoe in.

Someone give me a pat on the back for getting this back on topic.

Simple answer is no. They just had a black president I highly doubt the amrican people are going to go the minority route right after they got one elected for two terms.

You truly do deserve a pat on the back for this one.

The fact that Jeb has "Bush" as his last name I'd say would already be a turn-off. If Jeb actually wins (Or I should probably say any Republican) I think all the smart voters with common sense in this country somehow mysteriously disappeared.

Bush really is a hard sell. The Republicans don't like him because he's a liberal, and few others like him because he's a Bush. He has a lot to overcome.

But he's got the establishment money and support locked down, and that goes a long way.

I hope not. I'd prefer a younger democrat to her.

Not sure if I'm a feminist, if it seems like I do show some feminism, I say I'm only slightly feminist, what do you think of that? :P

@mattbbpl: his trolling is on a complete next level, it's impressive

@sSubZerOo

Bingo, I agree, she will likely get my vote. I wanted her over Obama in the primary in 2008 anyways.

I hope not. Every candidate is borderline terrible.

Can she win, yes she can. Will she win... well she'll most likely win the primary, I don't see any serious Democratic opponents that have her level of name recognition or would be viable in a general election. I guess Biden has comparable name recognition, but he has an image problem: A lot of people see him as a gaffe-prone silly old man that says funny things (I'm not saying that view is accurate, but I think that's how he's generally seen).

As far as the General Election goes it will probably be a close-call but I think Hillary will get beat for a variety of factors: 1. A single political party rarely wins three presidential elections in a row, it happened in the 80s but that's because Reagan was exceptionally dominant (I mean he carried 49 states in 84) and Bush benefited from that in 88. 2. With Obama off the ballot black voter turn out will probably be lower, blacks are the most reliable voting group for the Democrats with Dems typically getting 85-90% of the black vote, but black turnout in 2008 and 2012 was abnormally high (and indeed in the last 10 presidential elections those years were the only times the Dems carried Virginia) 3. In 2014 Republicans won most of the high profile elections, with the exception of the Colorado Governor's race, Democrats will blame it on turnout, but in the Colorado and Iowa Senate races the Republican turnout advantage was much higher than in a typical mid-term election (I think in one state the Republican turnout was at a 30 year high and in the other the Democrat turnout was at its lowest point since 1996), which could indicate that many Democratic voters just aren't feeling their party. 4. Aside from the first woman thing, I don't think Hillary is very exciting. Obama had a big excitement/cool factor going for him, especially in 2008, I don't think Hillary has that. 5. Hillary was Secretary of State, and it seems that during her tenure the U.S. foreign policy has met more failure then success: the big picture seems to be of a weaker U.S. and more power for China, Russia and Islamic extremism. 6. Democrats didn't win 2012 by a big margin, if Republicans hold all the states they carried then and pickup Florida, Virginia and Ohio (which Obama carried by fairly small margins -especially Florida which he only won by 0.9%, so a 0.5% swing would mean the Republicans would win), they only need one more state to win and they have a shot at Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado and Nevada, and maybe even New Mexico (Bush came pretty close to carrying NM in 2004).

My prediction is that the Southwestern states will be the decisive factor in the election. Also Christie won't get the nomination and Democrats will not retake the Senate or the House (realistically the most likely way for Democrats to regain the House is for a Republican to become president).

But in 92 the Republicans had held the White House for 12 years, so the Democrats were the party of change. In 2016 the Democrats are the party in power. Plus Bill Clinton has been very successful partly because he was mostly liberal but he had some conservative aspects to him ("the era of big government is over") and he was able to carry a lot of Southern states in 92 and 96 that Dems have not carried since then. Hillary on the other hand probably has more of a liberal image that will impede her ability to win over conservatives and centrists, and she's not a Southern boy like "Bubba" so she can't carry many of the states that he did. Plus I think the Clinton influence has declined a bit, in 2014 the Democrats lost both the governorship and the senate race in Arkansas.

It seems like in 2016 Democrats are betting a lot on Hispanic and Millennial voters, but those two groups are probably the most likely groups to defect. Republicans do well among white voters (which is the most numerous group and has the highest turnout) and Democrats do exceedingly well among black voters, so it will probably come down to Hispanic and Asian voters.

@coasterguy65:

or we could vote for her because she's the best candidate ;)

I just realized something that kind of shook me: it may be the case that I genuinely want a republican to win not only for potential kicks, but for possible gains for the region which is what's so shocking about this; the Democrats insatiable fascination with anything anti-Arabism is astounding. First it was the fascist brotherhood and now its Iran. How is it possible that the Democratic party seems to have switched roles with the GOP as the party of instability and war-mongering? I'm genuinely asking as I've been contemplating this for a while now and I'm yet to arrive at any logical conclusions.

The fact any of you morons want her to win is more concerning.

If you ask me, it's about time that a female president took office in the USA. Make this one count.

Yes, she can win. However, I think the Republican Party will bloody her up so much that the Democrats will change their mind and slide Elizabeth Warren in a the last minute.

The republicans don't really appeal to a ton of people right now. They are also really disorganized and everything is against them this election. They haven't really proven they deserve to be in power again after all the stuff they did in the last 7 years or so. I rather Hilary win then some republican.I'm not a US citzen anyway.