Opinion of Hillary Clinton

[IceSpear]

FF, of course.

[IceSpear]

Democrats can - and should - do better.

Do you think Charlie Crist is a better Democrat than Hillary?

[IceSpear]

Democrats can - and should - do better.

Do you think Charlie Crist is a better Democrat than Hillary?

False equivalence. Do I think Democrats can nominate a better candidate than Crist for Governor of Florida in 2014? No, but that speaks more to the weakness of the FL Dem bench and potential candidates (Buckhorn, Dyer, Iorio, Nelson, Sink, Smith) declining than anything else. Do I think they can nominate a better candidate than Clinton for President in 2016? Absolutely - Schweitzer, Sanders, Dean, and Warner all immediately come to mind. On top of that, Crist is running against Scott, who's been awful. I'm not convinced the GOP will put up someone in 2016 who's awful (Huntsman, Portman and Brown are all possible candidates who aren't awful).

You seriously think Nelson and Sink are worse Dems than Crist, who was a Republican until 2010 (and would still be one had he not gotten teabagged)? And yes, you're supporting Crist because he can beat the awful Scott. Just like Hillary can beat whatever horrible Republican they put up. All of those other Dems (except Warner) you listed would lose in a landslide, so how exactly are they better candidates?

Also, you're really wearing rose tinted glasses if you think it's even remotely possible that Huntsman (couldn't even break 1% in 2012), Portman (disowned by GOP for SSM support, has shown no indications of wanting to run) or Brown (LOL) will win the GOP nomination.

[IceSpear]

There's a difference between 70 and 39.

*applause*

The media narrative of "Hillary can be toppled like she was in 2008!" that is being adopted by the wishful thinkers is so lame. There's a big difference between polling in the 30s/40s and the 60s/70s...

[IceSpear]

The important difference is that I'm not willing to condemn the entire GOP 2016 field. It's still a few years out, and it's far too soon to be making assumptions about candidate strength or the relative horribleness of the GOP's nominee.

Well, I'd bet my life that none of the 3 you listed will be the nominee. And since Christie was likely the furthest left of the likely contenders, the eventual nominee will almost certainly be to his right.

[IceSpear]

There's a difference between 70 and 39.

Is that a good difference? Wasn't 'Clinton fatigue' one of the many reasons discussed for the failure of her 2008 campaign? It'd make sense that, with a larger apparatus than in 2008 and more media attention, that that fatigue could be even more amplified come 2016.

The important difference is that I'm not willing to condemn the entire GOP 2016 field. It's still a few years out, and it's far too soon to be making assumptions about candidate strength or the relative horribleness of the GOP's nominee.

Well, I'd bet my life that none of the 3 you listed will be the nominee. And since Christie was likely the furthest left of the likely contenders, the eventual nominee will almost certainly be to his right.

Rand Paul, then, or Daniels, or Thune, or Bush. Not an ideal list of choices, but not 'horrible' either.

In 2008 Obama just had to convince people who had reservations about Hillary and weren't supporting her. In 2016, whoever will need to take away over 20%+ of the support Clinton already has. Quite a big difference, especially for a candidate like Schweitzer or O'Malley who won't have anywhere near the star power or appeal that Obama did.

You'd support Rand Paul over Hillary?

[IceSpear]

Also I support video games and marijuana as much as anybody, but if Ron Paul's policies had been in place in 2008-09, there quite possibly would be no 2016 election.

>implying a hypothetical President Ron Paul would ever be able to get his policies enacted beyond the ones he could gain broad support for, like restoring civil liberties/ending pointless overseas conflicts

>implying there's Congressional support for either of those things

[IceSpear]

Awesome woman, radical at heart, champion of the true working class American, the white working class, black working class, Hispanic working class, the invisible Americans of all stripes... champion of children's rights, intelligent and pragmatic, understands the game of politics and how it is played. Need I say more?

I ask again, Beet.  Are you really supporting Schweitzer in 2016?

I'm still holding out hope that this post was sarcastic.

Considering that only 5% of Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of Hillary, I think it's the "she's an evil sociopath!" posts that are more likely to be joking...

[IceSpear]

I don't see how the magazine cover is sexist. I also don't see how calling her "Hillary" is sexist. It's the same reason people call Jeb Bush "Jeb".

[IceSpear]

There's a difference between 70 and 39.

Is that a good difference? Wasn't 'Clinton fatigue' one of the many reasons discussed for the failure of her 2008 campaign? It'd make sense that, with a larger apparatus than in 2008 and more media attention, that that fatigue could be even more amplified come 2016.

The important difference is that I'm not willing to condemn the entire GOP 2016 field. It's still a few years out, and it's far too soon to be making assumptions about candidate strength or the relative horribleness of the GOP's nominee.

Well, I'd bet my life that none of the 3 you listed will be the nominee. And since Christie was likely the furthest left of the likely contenders, the eventual nominee will almost certainly be to his right.

Rand Paul, then, or Daniels, or Thune, or Bush. Not an ideal list of choices, but not 'horrible' either.

In 2008 Obama just had to convince people who had reservations about Hillary and weren't supporting her. In 2016, whoever will need to take away over 20%+ of the support Clinton already has. Quite a big difference, especially for a candidate like Schweitzer or O'Malley who won't have anywhere near the star power or appeal that Obama did.

You'd support Rand Paul over Hillary?

How solid is Hillary's support, though? Are they supporting her because the genuinely like her and agree with her over the other options? Or is it because they view her as the most electable Democrat, or she's just the only name they recognize? We have a good few years for star power and appeal to fluctuate.

Yes, of course. One of the few Republicans I like (the others - Daniels, Bush, Thune - were just 'not-horrible' names) against one of the few Dems I dislike. I'd certainly vote Paul over Hillary if they were the only two options on the ballot.

Well, considering more people want a CONSERVATIVE alternative to Hillary rather than a liberal one, I'd say she's in pretty good shape for the primary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.