Will Hilliary Clinton Be Elected President In 2016?

1. 70

   crazyhorsesghostposted 10 years ago

   Will Hilliary Clinton Be Elected President In 2016?
   
   Do you think Hilliary Clinton will be elected the first woman president in 2016. If not who do you think can beat her. Who will the Republicans run for president. How will they match up against Hilliary Clinton?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 83

   tehgybposted 10 years ago

   I hope not. Time and time again she's been caught lying. She's even downplayed the death of American citizens when she left them to die in Benghazi.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Kathleen Cochranposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Kind of like Reagan left almost 300 Marines to die in Beirut?  We elected him twice.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      At least Reagan acknowledge and apologized for sending us there in the first place. He admitted it was a mistake.
      
      And what do we get from Hillary?
      
      "What difference, at this point, does it make?!"
      
      It makes a LOT of difference.

      replyreport
   3. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The world and the Middle East were far more complicated in the 1980s with competing Soviet interests and a communist sympathetic/America antagonistic Democrat Congress. He didn't get his Ambassador killed-only Carter and Obama have done that.

      replyreport
   4. 78

      Kathleen Cochranposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      "What difference, at this point, does it make?!"  What she was asking was what difference did it make at this point whether or not it was called terrorism, not whether or not they died, which you know as well as I do.  More complicated in the 80s - ?

      replyreport
3. 93

   Hawaiian Scribeposted 10 years ago

   I voted for Hillary in 2008 when she ran against Obama.  Iʻd like to see a woman prez someday, but no longer think she would make a good president. She would only be a continuation of Obamaʻs failed policies. I donʻt know who the Republicans will choose to run in 2016, but the bigger question is: Who will the Democrat candidate be?  There donʻt seem to be many Democrat leaders worth looking at either.
   
   Regardless of political party, we need someone who is a strong leader, who doesnʻt use opinion polls to make decisions, who can portray strength in foreign policy without starting a war, believes America is #1 without needing to apologize for it, will expand legal immigration while condemning illegal immigration, and can get this damn economy working again for the middle class.
   
   And please, letʻs not elect someone who loves the sound of his/her own voice so much that he/she is behind a microphone on TV several times a day.  Tired of it.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Honestly, once Hillary announces she is running, any other Democrat candidate might as well just end their campaign. From that point her nomination will be a forgone conclusion.

      replyreport
   2. 93

      Hawaiian Scribeposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I completely agree Superkev.  But if she decides not to run, who do you think the Democrat candidate will be?  Joe Biden wonʻt win if he runs.

      replyreport
   3. 56

      retief2000posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Given the criteria you mention in your second paragraph, we can conclude that the next President cannot be a Democrat.

      replyreport
4. 84

   Alphadogg16posted 10 years ago

   I don't see why not, She's been caught lying just like every other President.  I seriously doubt she would be any worse than Bush, Obama or anyone else.

   replyreport
5. 78

   junksellerposted 10 years ago

   If she runs, yes.
   2012 should have been a learning lesson for the GOP, but apparently wasn't. Simply put they failed to craft an effective narrative to win over key constituents: minorities, women, young people, students, etc.The 2012 autopsy report, written by republican leadership says it best: "The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself. We have become expert in how to provide ideological reinforcement to like-minded people, but devastatingly we have lost the ability to be persuasive with, or welcoming to, those who do not agree with us on every issue."
   
   At the recent women's panel at CPAC, Kate Openshain, was making a similar argument about messaging. Specifically she said that women just don't think the GOP represents them and then she brought up gun control. Up to that point it was a fine argument, but then she mentioned how women don't want their daughters to be defenseless on college campuses and I did a facepalm. That is a narrowing of the issue that is only going to appeal to the women who are already on her side. Gun control is a women's issue because guns are soon to be the leading cause of death for our kids. Does she really think that wanting her princess safe at college is going to engage mothers who are losing their kids to gun violence?
   
   It goes on and on. They bring up a big picture issue but then narrow it down to a select group. They rightly worry about government tyranny, for example, yet instead of recognizing, and combating, systemic problems (to which they are partly responsible) they spend all day whacking their Obama piñata.
   
   They talk about freedom and liberty and pass laws allegedly to defend the rights of people they like (Christians) while simultaneously passing laws to prevent the free actions of people they don't like (homosexuals).
   
   It really can't be any clearer. If you speak to 40% of the country, you will never win a popularity contest. They don't seem to get it.
   
   As to Clinton specifically, I just don't see anyone outmatching her. The fact that people are still talking about Benghazi proves that her opponents really don't have anything of substance to say. And like her or not, I don't think anyone can say she doesn't know the game. Even without issues and partisanship, her campaign apparatus will be in place sooner, will most likely be better, and will be at least as well-funded as any opponent. Good luck against that. 
   
   Here is my prediction: no one who opposes same-sex marriage will ever be president.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      wmhoward4posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Hillary Clinton is a power-hungry Socialist who will be even more dictatorial than Obama. Remember, when her husband first went into the White House, one of the first things Hillary did was order copies of the FBI files on all her potential enemies.

      replyreport
6. 85

   M. T. Dremerposted 10 years ago

   It's hard to say. Early predictions for candidates (and thus the winner) are usually wildly off base. I believe Hilary was the expected candidate for 2008 and the republican candidate was Rudy Juliani (or possibly Jeb Bush). Either way, people love to speculate, but it rarely pans out.
   
   Having said that, if she did get the nomination, I would say she would have a decent chance of winning. The 'old rich white man' persona is decaying in the U.S. We've come to associate it with the people who tanked the economy and the people in congress who are refusing to fix it. So, just the fact that Hilary isn't an old rich white man is enough to give her an edge.

   replyreport
7. 78

   wba108@yahoo.composted 10 years ago

   I doubt Hilliary or any other Democrat will win the White House in 2016. Since WW2 only once has a political party held the White House for three consecutive terms.
   
   The economy has been sluggish and although the president remains personally popular his policies are not. Hilliary is going to be seen as connected to the Obama administration and this will hurt her.
   
   The Bengazi debacle will not go away and should damage her run for office.
   
   Her age may also count against her because she would be 69 upon entering her first term.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      And while the GOP is talking about fairytale scandals, the Democrats will be out collecting votes. A party may not have lost three times in a row, but then we never had such a clueless party before.

      replyreport