Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hillary Clinton 2016: What does your gut tell you?

I just contributed to the Ready for Hillary PAC, which is "unaffiliated" with any prospective Clinton campaign.

I was an enthusiastic Obama supporter in 2008 and I think she would be an incredible president. I'm hoping she will get in the race but I am not at all certain that she will.

Do you think Hillary Clinton will run in 2016?

by Anonymousreply 12001/12/2015

I think with my brains and not my "gut," OP.

You want to go the George W. Bush route on being a "decider," that's your problem.

In the meantime, I don't want a Republican receiving the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

by Anonymousreply 209/05/2013

Oh sure, R3, every other Democrat will lie down as you wish.

by Anonymousreply 409/05/2013

Does the frontrunner at this point ever win?

by Anonymousreply 509/05/2013

Of course she'll run and what's more, she'll win.

I adore her, always have, if for no other reason than her ability to handle the insane clown posse that has been the Republican attack machine for more than 20 years. She's a moderate Democrat because she's a moderate Democrat. She NEVER gave in to them and, even as recently as that Benghazi farce, she has always faced them down and kicked them right in the teeth. She, like her husband, just keeps beating them at their own game.

I can't wait for her to blow her opponent to smithereens. Whomever the Republican Tea Party nominates, he is no match for former two-term First Lady of the United States, former two-term United States Senator from New York and former Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

by Anonymousreply 709/05/2013

Hillary in 2008, 2012...and finally in 2016!!

by Anonymousreply 809/06/2013

Oh, please, no. I'm sick to death of the Clintons. Can't we come up with some other Democrat, please?

by Anonymousreply 909/06/2013

r9 - NO!

by Anonymousreply 1009/06/2013

R9, only one Clinton has ever been President. 2 Bushes have already done so, with a 3rd wanting to try.

So I don't see why Hillary (who is really a Rodham & not a Clinton) shouldn't be allowed to do so.

by Anonymousreply 1109/06/2013

She'll run. She'll win. The end.

by Anonymousreply 1209/06/2013

But does her pussy stink?

by Anonymousreply 1309/06/2013

AMEN r12!

by Anonymousreply 1409/06/2013

Hard to imagine her not running and winning.

She has the full support of corporate America. Including their money. (Twenty years of being in corporate America's pocket might finally pay off)

Bill is shilling for Obama - so I assume that means they have already cut a deal with Obama. Biden must be out of the picture.

The Republicans are likely to destroy each other during the primary.

by Anonymousreply 1509/06/2013

The only cure for Potomac fever is embalming fluid. She'll run. She'll win unless Obama is very unpopular in the fall of '16.

by Anonymousreply 1609/06/2013

There's a long time between now and then.

by Anonymousreply 1709/06/2013

Yes but I don't know if she will win.

by Anonymousreply 1809/06/2013

I pretty much agree with r16: I'd love for her to run, but my gut tells me she won't.

But no matter what, she'll make the Democrats who threw her under the bus in 2008 crawl on their bellies to beg her to run.

by Anonymousreply 1909/06/2013

"I think Obama has done incredible things, and as a former supporter of Hillary, I'm glad he got into the White House first."

I'm not.

by Anonymousreply 2109/06/2013

Obama has been a bigger supporter of the military-industrial complex than any President in history.

That's my biggest disappointment with him.

by Anonymousreply 2209/06/2013

I think she's too conservative, so I'm meh about her, but I sure agree with r20 as far as that goes.

by Anonymousreply 2309/06/2013

She won't run. She'll pull a Palin and keep the interest up as long as possible. My gut, and only my gut, is telling me she has health problems.

by Anonymousreply 2509/06/2013

All the indications so far demonstrate that she is running.

by Anonymousreply 2609/06/2013

I was a big Hillary supporter in 2008 as I thought Obama was too right wing and could not be believed. I still like her a lot.

But I think a vote for the Dems much less the unspeakable Republicans is.a waste. If one wants change building a third alternative is better than settling for the lesser evil.

What do they say is the definition of madness? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome?

No candidate paid for by corporations will ever answer to the public but only to those who paid for their campaigns.

by Anonymousreply 2709/07/2013

That's what I say r27, it's only going to keep getting worse. Hopefully I can maintain a reasonable standard of living until I finally get to drop dead.

by Anonymousreply 2809/07/2013

You know what is killing the D's right now? And why the R's could win?

by Anonymousreply 2909/07/2013

I want Hillary to run and win!

However, how do you think Hillary would do against Chris Christie, who seems right now as her most formidable opponent?

by Anonymousreply 3009/07/2013

Hillary is not going to be the nominee because like all the other times someone else will come along(Al Gore,John Kerry,Barrack Obama,ect.) the Democrat party will go with the other person once again.

by Anonymousreply 3109/07/2013

Under the scenario you describe, R31, Joe Biden is the presumptive nominee and Hillary Clinton *is* the "someone else".

by Anonymousreply 3209/07/2013

yes r32 every time Hillary has been talked about being the nominee the democrat party in the end chooses another candidate over her.

by Anonymousreply 3309/07/2013

[quote] yes [R32] every time Hillary has been talked about being the nominee the democrat party in the end chooses another candidate over her

She has run for office three times.

Only once has she not been selected by the Democratic Party.

by Anonymousreply 3409/07/2013

"Democrat" party r31?

by Anonymousreply 3509/07/2013

No r35 is right, the Repugs decided to stop saying Democratic party because "democratic" is a positive word and gives the party a positive impression. Democrat has "rat" at the end so it's far preferable to them. And yes it is a dead give away that someone is a Repug if they say "Democrat party."

by Anonymousreply 3909/07/2013

Hillary only seriously thought about running for President once. Running earlier than she did would have been too soon. So 2008 was the only run so far.

As for Biden, he would be the oldest nominee in history, I think, so isn't that unrealistic?

by Anonymousreply 4009/07/2013

I'm afraid she might be a little too old.

by Anonymousreply 4109/07/2013

If Hillary is old, then Joe Biden is ancient.

by Anonymousreply 4209/07/2013

I think Hillary will make a valiant effort, then hand it off to someone she feels can deal with it. 70 will be just a bit too old for the job.

by Anonymousreply 4309/07/2013

How come Reagan was allowed to do it, R43?

by Anonymousreply 4409/07/2013

my gut tells me she is a lesbian.

by Anonymousreply 4509/07/2013

She'll run and win.

BYW, Obama is brilliant in diverting attention away from the ACA implementation 10-1-2013 and the debt ceiling teabag government strangulation by Republicans by dangling the bright shiny object of military action.

Three weeks from now people in R states, who opted not, will understand how the Rs have screwed them.

It will be beautiful.

Oh, yeah, Hilary 2016.

by Anonymousreply 4609/07/2013

What if something happens to Bill? He's had twelve or thirteen heart surgeries, and he's not getting younger.

Would she keep running if she was widowed during the process? Would that look to cold to the American people?

by Anonymousreply 4709/07/2013

What-if is just as futile as shudda, woudda, coudda in retrospect.

Play the cards in your hand r47.

Hillary 2016!

by Anonymousreply 4809/07/2013

I encourage everyone to read Ron Brownstein's epic piece, "Why Republicans Can't Win With Whites Alone," in this week's National Journal. It's fascinating.

"This much is undisputed: In 2012, President Obama lost white voters by a larger margin than any winning presidential candidate in U.S. history. In his reelection, Obama lost ground from 2008 with almost every conceivable segment of the white electorate. With several key groups of whites, he recorded the weakest national performance for any Democratic nominee since the Republican landslides of the 1980s.

In 2012, Obama won a smaller share of white Catholics than any Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1980; lost groups ranging from white seniors to white women to white married and blue-collar men by the widest margin of any Democrat since Ronald Reagan routed Walter Mondale in 1984; and even lost among Democratic-leaning college-educated women by the widest margin since Michael Dukakis in 1988, according to the latest National Journal analysis of the trends that shape the allegiances of American voters.

And yet, behind rousing support from minorities everywhere, and often much more competitive showings among whites in both Democratic-leaning and battleground states, Obama not only won reelection but won fairly comfortably."

Hillary will do significantly better among white voters than Obama did, especially among blue-collar whites in the industrial swing states. She'll also do better with married white women, who did not vote for Obama. This is going to be very important because I suspect the black, and even the youth vote, will drop-off some in 2016. Hillary will need Obama to energize the black vote.

I also think Hillary will make inroads among senior white voters by emphasizing Republican plans to change Medicare and Social Security. Older whites weren't even open to hear the arguments in 2012 because their racist dislike of Obama was too strong.

The million$$ question is what are Latino voters going to do? We'll have to wait and see how immigration reform plays out. And can Republicans pick off enough of them with Rubio or Susana Martinez on the ticket to win?

by Anonymousreply 4909/07/2013

Nobody wants a president with cankles.

by Anonymousreply 5009/07/2013

[quote] Hillary will do significantly better among white voters than Obama did, especially among blue-collar whites in the industrial swing states. She'll also do better with married white women, who did not vote for Obama. This is going to be very important because I suspect the black, and even the youth vote, will drop-off some in 2016. Hillary will need Obama to energize the black vote.

I also think Hillary will make inroads among senior white voters by emphasizing Republican plans to change Medicare and Social Security. Older whites weren't even open to hear the arguments in 2012 because their racist dislike of Obama was too strong.

Why?

Don't get me wrong. I agree with the basic premise that Republicans can't win relying on the white vote.

A shred of data to support your conclusions about Clinton and white voters?

How about the idea that older voters were too racist to listen to Obama? The tipping point on age in 2012 was 40. Under 40 Obama gets a majority. Over 40 Romney. It seems unwise to attribute that tipping point to age.

by Anonymousreply 5109/07/2013

Society does not like old women.

by Anonymousreply 5209/07/2013

Sorry - 2nd paragraph is a quote from R49.

Last sentence should be "It seems unwise to attribute that tipping point to racism."

by Anonymousreply 5309/07/2013

R53, Why do you think older people voted for McCain and Romney in droves?

You obviously haven't been around many older people if you don't think they are far more racist than younger people.

by Anonymousreply 5409/07/2013

Hilary is even *more* popular among Latinos than the President.

Latinos love Bill...and, by extension, Hill.

Hell, even a Fox news poll found Hilary cleaning Republican clocks if the election were held now

[quote] According to Fox News Latino, a recent poll of likely Latino voters were asked to select which candidate they liked best from a hypothetical group of 2016 presidential choices. Clinton, who received solid Latino support when she ran for the Democratic nominee in the 2008 primary election, was viewed favorably by 73 percent of those surveyed, and unfavorably by 17 percent.

by Anonymousreply 5609/07/2013

R54 - As I awkwardly pointed out - the tipping point for change in voting for Obama vs. Romney was 40.

I don't think you can attribute that entirely to racism.

Your basing a conclusion on a simple set of data collected through exit polling.

I just don't think there is enough information to draw conclusions beyond more people over 40 voted for Romney.

[quote] You obviously haven't been around many older people if you don't think they are far more racist than younger people.

Obviously not all older people are white. I doubt you have any data to claim "older people" are far more racist than younger people. Especially when we define older as 40 and over.

Of course race was a factor in the election. The entire birth certificate debacle was based in racism.

But sweeping generalities about large demographic groups accomplishes nothing. As a matter of fact it feels very similar to racism to me.

by Anonymousreply 5709/07/2013

I thought about that R29.

It's part of why I'm not happy with our current president.

by Anonymousreply 5809/07/2013

r50, T Roosevelt had cankles...

by Anonymousreply 5909/07/2013

[quote]I don't think you can attribute that entirely to racism.

You're extremely naive and probably live in NYC or LA.

by Anonymousreply 6009/07/2013

I was vote 222!

by Anonymousreply 6109/07/2013

Se will be a very recent 69 when she wins and not turn 70 until October 2017.

All the people rounding her up to 70 are detractors

by Anonymousreply 6209/07/2013

There is rarely ever just one reason for anything, R60, in politics or otherwise. R57 is hardly "naive" for recognizing the complexity of all politics. And you don't have to live in New York or LA to understand that.

by Anonymousreply 6309/07/2013

Chris Christie would be a formidable competitor. He and Hillary appeal to the same blue-collar voter. I can see Christie getting a lot of those votes in PA, OH, WI, MI, VA. You pair him with a Rubio or Martinez, and he could definitely win.

Hillary may have to run with one of the Castro brothers to energize the Latino vote. Probably Joaquin Castro, since he at least has Washington experience. She'd be criticized for picking such an inexperienced running mate for sure, but she might not have a choice. Democrats need to start building up Joaquin as a leader in case Hillary needs him.

by Anonymousreply 6409/07/2013

Again, she's the prefect candidate until she's a candidate. As soon as she's out front she's a dreadful bore. Seemingly lacking strong convictions on anything. You ask about her accomplishments and you get she was a First Lady, a Senator, and an SOS. Then you ask what were her actual accomplishments while holding these posts. Crickets. Chirping.

by Anonymousreply 6509/07/2013

R63, then why do you think older whites voted for Romney by such a big majority over Obama? Even though Romney's running mate was Paul Ryan, who wants to completely change Medicare and cut SS? Give me one other reason besides racism?

by Anonymousreply 6609/07/2013

"All the people rounding her up to 70 are detractors"

I think they're 20-somethings who think anyone over 45 is on death's door.

R65, you are nuts.

by Anonymousreply 6709/07/2013

R65, Hillary tried to pass the ACA long before Obama. In fact, he wouldn't have been able to get it passed if Hillary hadn't done the work she did back in the 1990s.

She actually has stronger viewpoints on just about every issue than Obama does.

by Anonymousreply 6809/07/2013

So a failed try is her big accomplishment? I know she's the most traveled SOS but what did she do when she got where she was going? She's like one of those busy, busy, busy cubefraus at work who never seem to get anything done.

by Anonymousreply 6909/07/2013

R65/69 shows his stripes!

I can't wait to hear your evaluation of precious Obama before being elected.

by Anonymousreply 7009/07/2013

[quote]Chris Christie would be a formidable competitor.

Yeah, if it was a hot dog eating contest!

by Anonymousreply 7109/07/2013

Well, the US electorate is not exactly known for its intelligence, is it, R66? See: the 2000 and 2004 elections. A mere four years after the financial crisis and the backlash against bankers, they were ready and willing to put a one-percenter in the White House.

Millions of voters are fickle, spoiled, impatient, easily disappointed, intellectually lazy, have unrealistic expectations, vote against their own interests, clamor for "change" after four years... And many of those older whites did vote for Obama in 2008 (he still won about 38% of the vote among that demographic.) Like I said, it's too simplistic to state that all those millions of voters were motivated only by racism, though you're no doubt the type who sees it everywhere.

by Anonymousreply 7209/07/2013

But of course R70 still can't answer my question. What the fuck has she done when given the opportunity to do so? I could be wrong. I might have missed her great onslaught of important legislative accomplishments as senator. What are my stripes? I lose track. Am I racist or sexist or what? Color me.

by Anonymousreply 7309/07/2013

[quote]Hillary was going to run in 2000 and 2004

No, she wasn't.

[quote]and democrat circles and donates [sic] there was talk of running Hillary up

Yes, there was talk but we decided it was too soon. And we don't call it "democrat circles".

[quote] but they eventually went with other people,

Almost a correct statement but you overestimate the seriousness of the talk about her for 2004. They talked about it more on Faux Noise than in the Democratic Party.

[quote]and after 2004 Hillary was thought to be a lock for 2008

Um... yes, eventually Hillary became a lock for 2008.

[quote]but Barrack Obama's speech at the 2004 democrat convention began swaying supporters and donors away from her.

No, his campaign for president in 2008 did that. Also, dear, using the "Barrack" spelling and "democrat convention" in the same sentence is a dead giveaway that your nose is firmly planted in Sean Hannity's anus.

[quote]Go jump in a lake Ron Paul@[R35]

R35 was absolutely right about you, you ignorant cunt. Now fuck on off back to freeperland where you belong.t

by Anonymousreply 7409/07/2013

[quote]Like I said, it's too simplistic to state that all those millions of voters were motivated only by racism, though you're no doubt the type who sees it everywhere.

No, I don't see racism everywhere. But you still haven't explained why Obama got less white votes than any candidate in history.

by Anonymousreply 7509/07/2013

It boils down to her health at the time. She'll be around 70.

by Anonymousreply 7609/07/2013

Why did he get more black votes than any candidate in history?

by Anonymousreply 7709/07/2013

Women are healthier than men, so I don't think age will be an issue. I wanted Obama over Hillary and I got what I wanted. I think Hillary is even sharper than Obama and as the Presidency being her swan song in politics, I believe she will stick to her convictions much more than Obama did. That is of course, if Obama has convictions at all.

by Anonymousreply 7809/07/2013

R77, why did he receive more Asian and Hispanic votes than any other candidate in history? We can play that game all day long. The point is why is that people who would normally vote for the Democrat suddenly chose not to?

by Anonymousreply 7909/07/2013

[quote]Chris Christie would be a formidable competitor.

He's polling behind Hillary in every poll I see.

And how do we know he can win the Republican nomination? They consider him too Liberal.

And isn't he too fat to be a President? We haven't had a fatso for President since Taft over 100 years ago.

by Anonymousreply 8009/08/2013

This is why I became an Independent because of the republican war hawks(always pushing for a war in the middle east) and the democratic drones(not capable of on original thought unless programed into them).

The republican and democratic should both be dissolved for the things they have done to this country.

by Anonymousreply 8109/08/2013

I understand where you're coming from, R81. It's not always great having to choose between the Republicans and Democrats. The former is vile and the latter is not great.

by Anonymousreply 8209/08/2013

To quote Hillary, "IT DOESN'T MATTER!"

by Anonymousreply 8309/08/2013

If it's a hard choice you're likely a racist/bigoted/misogynist...

by Anonymousreply 8409/08/2013

r84=seething with anger

by Anonymousreply 8509/08/2013

Projecting I see.

by Anonymousreply 8609/08/2013

R84 = Bush 2.0.

The Dems have no backbone. Sick and tired of my choices being far right or center right. I voted for Hillary as my Senator, but she's a neo con. No thanks.

by Anonymousreply 8709/08/2013

I know it's hard being called out for what you are ( racist, bigoted, misogynist) but just breathe slowly and count to 10. It will be OK.

by Anonymousreply 8809/08/2013

Hillary is not a neo-con. But of course she will bow to the military, as had Obama. He may even be worse in that respect.

by Anonymousreply 8909/08/2013

RACISM! RACISM!!

by Anonymousreply 9009/08/2013

She IS a neo con. Go watch her during the debates in '08. The garbage she was spewing was to the right of Bush.

by Anonymousreply 9109/08/2013

Wrong, R83. It was "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"

by Anonymousreply 9209/08/2013

R91, Obama is the biggest supporter of the military-industrial complex of any Democratic President.

by Anonymousreply 9309/08/2013

I don't care if she's running or not..........she won't get my vote. Her recent statements about curtailing the right of free speech in Amercia and her consideration of legislation that would disallow opinions that religious groups might find insensitive or "offensive" have given me real suspicions regarding her ability or willingness to defend and uphold our Constitution.

by Anonymousreply 9409/08/2013

Anyone who thinks it's a hard choice between the Repugs and the Democrats is a disturbed person and probably missing the Bill O'Reilly show.

by Anonymousreply 9509/08/2013

Until Hilary comes along, R93. She'll do everything to show her dick is even longer and swings farther than Obama's.

Can't stand what has become of the Dems.

by Anonymousreply 9609/08/2013

I guess I can be racist if she's using her faux ghetto speak when I decide not to vote for her.

by Anonymousreply 9709/08/2013

Hillary has to be tough on the military talk, as does any woman running for President. Otherwise she will be portrayed as 'weak' and not up to the job of a man.

When Obama and Hillary were both running in 2008, polls showed there was actually more prejudice against women than black men on the Commander in Chief question. A lot of people felt a woman couldn't be the head of the military.

Women have to be strong on that issue otherwise they won't survive in the world of politics and the media will portray them as girls who are afraid to be in a man's world of life and death military decisions.

by Anonymousreply 9809/08/2013

[quote]When Obama and Hillary were both running in 2008, polls showed there was actually more prejudice against women than black men on the Commander in Chief question. A lot of people felt a woman couldn't be the head of the military.

That's the brilliance of Obama's decision to go to Congress over Syria. It's now crystal-clear that the U.S. is no longer a war-loving country. The people have spoken loud and clear: no more wars. Even Republicans in Congress are going on record as doves. This is a major shift in America's position on defense.

This major development is going to help Hillary.

by Anonymousreply 9909/08/2013

I wonder how the health care debacle will play for Hillary.

If Hillary can convince people she knows how to fix it, it would allow her to distinguish herself from Obama and give people reason to keep going. If not...

by Anonymousreply 10012/20/2013

If only Elizabeth Warren had a chance...

by Anonymousreply 10112/20/2013

None of them are good. Republicans are repulsive. If it comes to it, I will vote for whomever the Democrats run, even believing none of them are good.

by Anonymousreply 10212/20/2013

If she runs she will likely lose, depending on whom the Republicans nominate. If she wins, she'll be no better and probably worse than Obama. If she loses we are in for a shitstorm that could prostate this country or wake it up. True, the Republican talent pool is thin. The worst case scenario for gays is Romney runs again, they have nobody who can beat him, and then he defeats Hillary in the general.

by Anonymousreply 10312/20/2013

We would be safer with Pat Robertson himself as president than with Mitt Romney.

by Anonymousreply 10412/20/2013

Elizabeth Warren is NOT running so lose that fantasy.

by Anonymousreply 10512/20/2013

What the country desperately needs is a true progressive. HRC IS NOT THAT PERSON.

by Anonymousreply 10612/20/2013

R103, Romney will not run again, and he would be in his 70's.

And no, Elizabeth Warren will not be running. I like her and supported her in MA last year, but she just got elected to the Senate a year ago for goodness sakes. Why do people think she can build a power base nationally so quickly? She is not that well-known outside the state yet.

by Anonymousreply 10712/20/2013

Hilary Cuntin is such a quasi-right wing idiot. She was embarrassed by Obama's win last time and I hope that someone else wins the nomination because she has too many right wing tendencies. Yeah Elizabeth Warren was defending(when she practiced law) one of the big corporations for faulty breast implants. She's no prize either.

by Anonymousreply 10812/20/2013

R106, a "true progressive" will not be elected. Anyone claiming to be will turn into the same old moderate once in office.

by Anonymousreply 10912/20/2013

Nonsense R109, the country has moved dramatically to the left in recent years. It's not the same place it was in 2008.

by Anonymousreply 11012/20/2013

My gut tells me that she is delaying any formal decision while she attempts to tease out the traitors. These were the people who implied support and could have told her in 2007 they would not support her but waiting until she stuck her neck out and then doublecrossed her for a newbie. These include some of the people now involved with Third Way.

by Anonymousreply 11112/20/2013

It does not matter much, R29, its pretty much just one political party.

by Anonymousreply 11212/20/2013

[quote]the country has moved dramatically to the left in recent years.

Are you kidding me? Other than some increased support for gay marriage, nothing else has changed. Most people are still against gun control, against socialized medicine, in favor of the death penalty and pro-war.

by Anonymousreply 11312/21/2013

Liar R113. Most people have always favored gun control, socialized medicine, and disdained foreign adventurism. The death penalty is the only example you give that is true.

by Anonymousreply 11412/21/2013

Indeed we are talking overwhelming majorities, not just large ones.

by Anonymousreply 11512/21/2013

I would like to see Hillary run and win, that said she and Christy are both fierce politicians and they have a lot of dirt in their past.

Biden would crash and burn, he's just too outspoken and naturally spontaneous to be curbed.

If she does a term then I hope someone younger yet equally capable is ready to step forward for her second term.

by Anonymousreply 11612/21/2013

Biden is also too old. He would be the oldest nominee in history.

As for Christie, he has to get through the primaries, and make sure to keep his weight down.

by Anonymousreply 11712/21/2013

Wendy Clark, Marketing Exec for Coke, just took a LOA (thru 3/31) for a project she's passionate about--rumor is she will be advising Hillary.

by Anonymousreply 11801/12/2015

My gut tells me that if H Clinton runs opposite J Bush in 2016 then only a true moron could claim there was any difference between Rethuglicans and Demoncraps.

by Anonymousreply 11901/12/2015

She's already going down in popularity & seems to have a history of somehow losing things.

by Anonymousreply 12001/12/2015
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.