Fast forward to Iowa 2016! PPP already polling.

[MorningInAmerica]

Here's the problem with the 2016 Hilary Clinton candidacy: she is deeply unlikable in many circles. That, and it seemed like on the 08 trail, the more we saw of her, the less we like her.

What circles would those be? Among Iowa Democrats, opposition to her is practically non-existent:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_072312.pdf

And a recent Florida poll of likely voters shows her favorability with registered voters, Ds, Rs, and Is, is a strong 68/26%: http://www.suffolk.edu/images/content/FINAL_WED_FL_Marginals_May_9_2012.pdf

Only problem is, I think she's serious about being done with elected office. And even if she did run, a presidential campaign would wear those lofty numbers down. But make no mistake about it, if she somehow did choose to run, she'd be formidable not only against a President Romney, but possibly even in the event of a re-elected Obama.

[MorningInAmerica]

I always like reminding people of this, cause a surprising number don't realize it. But based on both Wikipedia and Dave Leip's numbers, Hillary Clinton actually BEAT Barack Obama in the '08 Democratic primary POPULAR VOTE. DNC rules dictate that of course, delegates, and not the actual number of votes a candidate receives, is what determines the winner of the primary. But still, it's not insignificant to note that Obama got the Democratic nomination while receiving LESS votes than his opponent.

[MorningInAmerica]

They were both on the ballot in Florida, so no need to take away that state.

[MorningInAmerica]

I always like reminding people of this, cause a surprising number don't realize it. But based on both Wikipedia and Dave Leip's numbers, Hillary Clinton actually BEAT Barack Obama in the '08 Democratic primary POPULAR VOTE. DNC rules dictate that of course, delegates, and not the actual number of votes a candidate receives, is what determines the winner of the primary. But still, it's not insignificant to note that Obama got the Democratic nomination while receiving LESS votes than his opponent.

Oh, I know. I got so much flack at my arts high school for hating Obama--and yes, I honestly just loathe him. Hillary was the right choice for the simple reason that Obama was never ready to be president.

But hackishness aside, my point is: People were not impressed with me when I brought up the fact that she actually won more votes. They all like to toot their horns about how Gore should've won in '00, but none of them are willing to accept the fact that, technically speaking, more Americans wanted Hillary to be the nominee than Obama.

If only the superdelegates had seen it that way.

I understand what you are saying. Hillary won the big states. But the Obama strategy was to get a lead in the delegates so that Hillary could not. In 2008, Hillary would win a state and get delegates, but Obama would also win delegates so his lead would stick. So if Hillary won delegates, Obama did too, and that negated any pick up in delegates that she won.

I definitely understand Obama's delegate strategy. Just pointing out that though he may have won the primary, he did not receive the most votes.

[MorningInAmerica]

It's because Republicans seem to like him too. That's an automatic disqualifier for many Democrats (see Hillary Clinton 2008).

[MorningInAmerica]

Liberals, Progressives, and my fellow Democrats need to get in line and stop foregoing winning for someone who will doom us like Elizabeth Warren and Russ Feingold. I love them both, but they won't win.

Seriously, why is Elizabeth Warren even being mentioned as a presidential candidate? She hasn't even won her own Senate race yet, and even if she does, why nominate someone whose elected experience includes 4 yrs in the Senate? We all know how that story turns out (thanks, Obama).