Gun to your head: Do you think Hillary Clinton will run for POTUS in 2016 ?

[dmmidmi]

For people who say they don't think Hillary will run...

Do you believe this? Or, is this just a different way of saying you hope she doesn't run?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Nope.

[IceSpear]

I said no in back in 2012.

I say yes today.

I agree with this mostly.  I thought no until as late as March 2014, but then seeing everything she is doing and everything she is saying, I believe she will run.  That said, I still would not be surprised if she ends up not running.

I am still not sold on her chances if she does run.  I do not think she is a shoo-in for either the nomination and certainly not the general.  The Republicans have a good crop of names being mentioned it sounds like and there are still several other good, if not better, Democrats being talked about.

Do you seriously consider the names Bush and Paul "good"?

The name "Bush" is nowhere near as toxic as it was several years ago.  This is because the Obama administration has been such a disaster that the Bush name has been redeemed in a sense.  To be true, the name "Obama" is worse than the name "Bush" right now.  (I voted for Obama twice, and even I think he's been a disaster especially in the second term).

I think your perspective may be a tad skewed due to the fact that you're from Oklahoma, the most anti-Obama state in the country, and supported Bush.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I said no in back in 2012.

I say yes today.

I agree with this mostly.  I thought no until as late as March 2014, but then seeing everything she is doing and everything she is saying, I believe she will run.  That said, I still would not be surprised if she ends up not running.

I am still not sold on her chances if she does run.  I do not think she is a shoo-in for either the nomination and certainly not the general.  The Republicans have a good crop of names being mentioned it sounds like and there are still several other good, if not better, Democrats being talked about.

Do you seriously consider the names Bush and Paul "good"?

The name "Bush" is nowhere near as toxic as it was several years ago.  This is because the Obama administration has been such a disaster that the Bush name has been redeemed in a sense.  To be true, the name "Obama" is worse than the name "Bush" right now.  (I voted for Obama twice, and even I think he's been a disaster especially in the second term).

I think your perspective may be a tad skewed due to the fact that you're from Oklahoma, the most anti-Obama state in the country, and supported Bush.

I am from Oklahoma, but I am a Democrat from Oklahoma and while I supported Bush in 2000 against Gore when I was a Republican, I voted for John Kerry in 2004 and then supported the Democrats in the 2006 mid terms and voted for Obama three times in the 2008 primary and general and 2012 general.

[IceSpear]

I said no in back in 2012.

I say yes today.

I agree with this mostly.  I thought no until as late as March 2014, but then seeing everything she is doing and everything she is saying, I believe she will run.  That said, I still would not be surprised if she ends up not running.

I am still not sold on her chances if she does run.  I do not think she is a shoo-in for either the nomination and certainly not the general.  The Republicans have a good crop of names being mentioned it sounds like and there are still several other good, if not better, Democrats being talked about.

Do you seriously consider the names Bush and Paul "good"?

The name "Bush" is nowhere near as toxic as it was several years ago.  This is because the Obama administration has been such a disaster that the Bush name has been redeemed in a sense.  To be true, the name "Obama" is worse than the name "Bush" right now.  (I voted for Obama twice, and even I think he's been a disaster especially in the second term).

I think your perspective may be a tad skewed due to the fact that you're from Oklahoma, the most anti-Obama state in the country, and supported Bush.

I am from Oklahoma, but I am a Democrat from Oklahoma and while I supported Bush in 2000 against Gore when I was a Republican, I voted for John Kerry in 2004 and then supported the Democrats in the 2006 mid terms and voted for Obama three times in the 2008 primary and general and 2012 general.

Well, Bush was probably still seen more favorably than Obama in Oklahoma even during the height of Obama's popularity and the nadir of Bush's.

[Franzl]

Can you explain what exactly has been disasterous about Obama's presidency? I'm not exactly a fan, but I recognize he's the best we're going to get out of an American President.

I think his foreign policy has been terrible.  You don't announce to the world when you're going to bring troops home from Afghanistan, you just do it as secretively as you can, even if your own citizens don't know.  The terrorists can now just wait us out and then set up shop and wreak havoc.  That almost happened in Iraq.  IIRC, when we pulled out of Iraq there was a brief uptick in violence.  I pray the same thing does not happen in Afghanistan.  Second, I still believe there was a cover up over the Benghazi incident that will hurt Hillary Clinton if she were to run.  It may not be as bad now that it was almost two years ago, but it will still come into play.  He also allowed the IRS to unfairly target conservative groups because of their ideology.  He put on a show and acted all mad when he "found out", but he didn't do enough to stop that before it happened.  It also feels like our Christian liberties are crumbling and we're having bites of our liberties taken out little by little.  This country is not as free as it was 10-20 years ago.  Christians aren't as welcomed and encouraged to speak their mind as they used to be.  In fact, anymore, it seems Christians are told to keep their mouths shut and allow the immorality to continue.  We're still nowhere near the persecution level of other countries, but it is still alarming.  Obama hasn't done near enough to free Christian Pastor Saeed who is being held in Iran in captivity just for being a Christian.  He also hasn't done enough to free that Christian wife and now mother in the Sudan who has been sentenced to death just for marrying a Christian husband.  There are reports she will be freed, but he needs to be working tirelessly and feverishly until her and her husband are freed and safely on American or American-friendly soil.  I agree with his decision not to notify Congress about the former POW, Berdahl's, trade off, because he would have been killed if it were to be made public.  I don't like that he had to release 5 of the most notorious terrorists to do so, but he had to bring our soldier home whether or not he is a traitor to his unit.  Obama's been a disaster, but there are a couple redeeming qualities about his administration.

Silly me, I thought you might even provide some actual issues instead of whatever crackpot theories the American right-wing has come up with. Because there is enough for which Obama could legitimately be criticized. But why worry about such trivialities when one can discuss the outrageous persecution of Christians in the United States?

[TDAS04]

Gun to my head?  Yes.
No gun to my head?  90% chance she'll run.

[Mister Mets]

I said no in back in 2012.

I say yes today.

I agree with this mostly.  I thought no until as late as March 2014, but then seeing everything she is doing and everything she is saying, I believe she will run.  That said, I still would not be surprised if she ends up not running.

I am still not sold on her chances if she does run.  I do not think she is a shoo-in for either the nomination and certainly not the general.  The Republicans have a good crop of names being mentioned it sounds like and there are still several other good, if not better, Democrats being talked about.

Do you seriously consider the names Bush and Paul "good"?

The name "Bush" is nowhere near as toxic as it was several years ago.  This is because the Obama administration has been such a disaster that the Bush name has been redeemed in a sense.  To be true, the name "Obama" is worse than the name "Bush" right now.  (I voted for Obama twice, and even I think he's been a disaster especially in the second term).

I think your perspective may be a tad skewed due to the fact that you're from Oklahoma, the most anti-Obama state in the country, and supported Bush.

Polls agree with the guy from Oklahoma.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/262706/speedreads-obama-is-less-competent-than-george-bush-say-a-plurality-of-americans

http://www.inquisitr.com/1037005/george-w-bush-popularity-beats-obamas-approval-rating-in-2013/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/06/12/george-w-bush-gallup-poll-approval-ratings/2414365/

[IceSpear]

I said no in back in 2012.

I say yes today.

I agree with this mostly.  I thought no until as late as March 2014, but then seeing everything she is doing and everything she is saying, I believe she will run.  That said, I still would not be surprised if she ends up not running.

I am still not sold on her chances if she does run.  I do not think she is a shoo-in for either the nomination and certainly not the general.  The Republicans have a good crop of names being mentioned it sounds like and there are still several other good, if not better, Democrats being talked about.

Do you seriously consider the names Bush and Paul "good"?

The name "Bush" is nowhere near as toxic as it was several years ago.  This is because the Obama administration has been such a disaster that the Bush name has been redeemed in a sense.  To be true, the name "Obama" is worse than the name "Bush" right now.  (I voted for Obama twice, and even I think he's been a disaster especially in the second term).

I think your perspective may be a tad skewed due to the fact that you're from Oklahoma, the most anti-Obama state in the country, and supported Bush.

Polls agree with the guy from Oklahoma.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/262706/speedreads-obama-is-less-competent-than-george-bush-say-a-plurality-of-americans

http://www.inquisitr.com/1037005/george-w-bush-popularity-beats-obamas-approval-rating-in-2013/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/06/12/george-w-bush-gallup-poll-approval-ratings/2414365/

The final link is a favorability poll, not an approval poll. It's a lot easier to see a former president favorably when they've been out of office for 5-6 years. The only poll that directly asked this question was the FOX News poll, which isn't exactly an objective source.

I'll go with the hard data: Obama won twice, by much bigger margins than Bush did. His approval has also never gone anywhere near as low as Bush's, who was in the 20s toward the end of his presidency. Maybe Obama will end up sinking that low too, but I doubt it.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I said no in back in 2012.

I say yes today.

I agree with this mostly.  I thought no until as late as March 2014, but then seeing everything she is doing and everything she is saying, I believe she will run.  That said, I still would not be surprised if she ends up not running.

I am still not sold on her chances if she does run.  I do not think she is a shoo-in for either the nomination and certainly not the general.  The Republicans have a good crop of names being mentioned it sounds like and there are still several other good, if not better, Democrats being talked about.

Do you seriously consider the names Bush and Paul "good"?

The name "Bush" is nowhere near as toxic as it was several years ago.  This is because the Obama administration has been such a disaster that the Bush name has been redeemed in a sense.  To be true, the name "Obama" is worse than the name "Bush" right now.  (I voted for Obama twice, and even I think he's been a disaster especially in the second term).

I think your perspective may be a tad skewed due to the fact that you're from Oklahoma, the most anti-Obama state in the country, and supported Bush.

Polls agree with the guy from Oklahoma.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/262706/speedreads-obama-is-less-competent-than-george-bush-say-a-plurality-of-americans

http://www.inquisitr.com/1037005/george-w-bush-popularity-beats-obamas-approval-rating-in-2013/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/06/12/george-w-bush-gallup-poll-approval-ratings/2414365/

The final link is a favorability poll, not an approval poll. It's a lot easier to see a former president favorably when they've been out of office for 5-6 years. The only poll that directly asked this question was the FOX News poll, which isn't exactly an objective source.

I'll go with the hard data: Obama won twice, by much bigger margins than Bush did. His approval has also never gone anywhere near as low as Bush's, who was in the 20s toward the end of his presidency. Maybe Obama will end up sinking that low too, but I doubt it.

So, if polls favor Democrats (Hillary Clinton) they're the law of the land, but if the polls favor the Republicans they are to be ignored?  Gotcha..

[IceSpear]

I said no in back in 2012.

I say yes today.

I agree with this mostly.  I thought no until as late as March 2014, but then seeing everything she is doing and everything she is saying, I believe she will run.  That said, I still would not be surprised if she ends up not running.

I am still not sold on her chances if she does run.  I do not think she is a shoo-in for either the nomination and certainly not the general.  The Republicans have a good crop of names being mentioned it sounds like and there are still several other good, if not better, Democrats being talked about.

Do you seriously consider the names Bush and Paul "good"?

The name "Bush" is nowhere near as toxic as it was several years ago.  This is because the Obama administration has been such a disaster that the Bush name has been redeemed in a sense.  To be true, the name "Obama" is worse than the name "Bush" right now.  (I voted for Obama twice, and even I think he's been a disaster especially in the second term).

I think your perspective may be a tad skewed due to the fact that you're from Oklahoma, the most anti-Obama state in the country, and supported Bush.

Polls agree with the guy from Oklahoma.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/262706/speedreads-obama-is-less-competent-than-george-bush-say-a-plurality-of-americans

http://www.inquisitr.com/1037005/george-w-bush-popularity-beats-obamas-approval-rating-in-2013/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/06/12/george-w-bush-gallup-poll-approval-ratings/2414365/

The final link is a favorability poll, not an approval poll. It's a lot easier to see a former president favorably when they've been out of office for 5-6 years. The only poll that directly asked this question was the FOX News poll, which isn't exactly an objective source.

I'll go with the hard data: Obama won twice, by much bigger margins than Bush did. His approval has also never gone anywhere near as low as Bush's, who was in the 20s toward the end of his presidency. Maybe Obama will end up sinking that low too, but I doubt it.

So, if polls favor Democrats (Hillary Clinton) they're the law of the land, but if the polls favor the Republicans they are to be ignored?  Gotcha..

Because clearly a single FOX News poll (not the plural "polls") is equivalent to hundreds of Democratic, Republican, and non partisan pollsters in the past year that have shown Hillary Clinton with enormous leads.

Like I said, Bush was clearly seen as worse by the American public based on actual election results and the aggregated data of hundreds of approval polls. You have a single FOX poll.

[Joe Biden 2020]

I said no in back in 2012.

I say yes today.

I agree with this mostly.  I thought no until as late as March 2014, but then seeing everything she is doing and everything she is saying, I believe she will run.  That said, I still would not be surprised if she ends up not running.

I am still not sold on her chances if she does run.  I do not think she is a shoo-in for either the nomination and certainly not the general.  The Republicans have a good crop of names being mentioned it sounds like and there are still several other good, if not better, Democrats being talked about.

Do you seriously consider the names Bush and Paul "good"?

The name "Bush" is nowhere near as toxic as it was several years ago.  This is because the Obama administration has been such a disaster that the Bush name has been redeemed in a sense.  To be true, the name "Obama" is worse than the name "Bush" right now.  (I voted for Obama twice, and even I think he's been a disaster especially in the second term).

I think your perspective may be a tad skewed due to the fact that you're from Oklahoma, the most anti-Obama state in the country, and supported Bush.

Polls agree with the guy from Oklahoma.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/262706/speedreads-obama-is-less-competent-than-george-bush-say-a-plurality-of-americans

http://www.inquisitr.com/1037005/george-w-bush-popularity-beats-obamas-approval-rating-in-2013/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/06/12/george-w-bush-gallup-poll-approval-ratings/2414365/

The final link is a favorability poll, not an approval poll. It's a lot easier to see a former president favorably when they've been out of office for 5-6 years. The only poll that directly asked this question was the FOX News poll, which isn't exactly an objective source.

I'll go with the hard data: Obama won twice, by much bigger margins than Bush did. His approval has also never gone anywhere near as low as Bush's, who was in the 20s toward the end of his presidency. Maybe Obama will end up sinking that low too, but I doubt it.

So, if polls favor Democrats (Hillary Clinton) they're the law of the land, but if the polls favor the Republicans they are to be ignored?  Gotcha..

Because clearly a single FOX News poll (not the plural "polls") is equivalent to hundreds of Democratic, Republican, and non partisan pollsters in the past year that have shown Hillary Clinton with enormous leads.

Like I said, Bush was clearly seen as worse by the American public based on actual election results and the aggregated data of hundreds of approval polls. You have a single FOX poll.

Again, typical double standards.

[IceSpear]

I said no in back in 2012.

I say yes today.

I agree with this mostly.  I thought no until as late as March 2014, but then seeing everything she is doing and everything she is saying, I believe she will run.  That said, I still would not be surprised if she ends up not running.

I am still not sold on her chances if she does run.  I do not think she is a shoo-in for either the nomination and certainly not the general.  The Republicans have a good crop of names being mentioned it sounds like and there are still several other good, if not better, Democrats being talked about.

Do you seriously consider the names Bush and Paul "good"?

The name "Bush" is nowhere near as toxic as it was several years ago.  This is because the Obama administration has been such a disaster that the Bush name has been redeemed in a sense.  To be true, the name "Obama" is worse than the name "Bush" right now.  (I voted for Obama twice, and even I think he's been a disaster especially in the second term).

I think your perspective may be a tad skewed due to the fact that you're from Oklahoma, the most anti-Obama state in the country, and supported Bush.

Polls agree with the guy from Oklahoma.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/262706/speedreads-obama-is-less-competent-than-george-bush-say-a-plurality-of-americans

http://www.inquisitr.com/1037005/george-w-bush-popularity-beats-obamas-approval-rating-in-2013/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/06/12/george-w-bush-gallup-poll-approval-ratings/2414365/

The final link is a favorability poll, not an approval poll. It's a lot easier to see a former president favorably when they've been out of office for 5-6 years. The only poll that directly asked this question was the FOX News poll, which isn't exactly an objective source.

I'll go with the hard data: Obama won twice, by much bigger margins than Bush did. His approval has also never gone anywhere near as low as Bush's, who was in the 20s toward the end of his presidency. Maybe Obama will end up sinking that low too, but I doubt it.

So, if polls favor Democrats (Hillary Clinton) they're the law of the land, but if the polls favor the Republicans they are to be ignored?  Gotcha..

Because clearly a single FOX News poll (not the plural "polls") is equivalent to hundreds of Democratic, Republican, and non partisan pollsters in the past year that have shown Hillary Clinton with enormous leads.

Like I said, Bush was clearly seen as worse by the American public based on actual election results and the aggregated data of hundreds of approval polls. You have a single FOX poll.

Again, typical double standards.

Apparently you see no middle ground between accepting every individual poll as gospel (which would be impossible anyway when they show conflicting information) and completely rejecting all polls. Is this all or nothing mindset the thing that makes Oklahoma Republicans so right wing?

I'll make it simple for you. Right now, there are two polls on Obama's approval rating. Rasmussen shows Obama with a 52-46 (+6) approval rating. FOX shows him with a 40-54 approval rating (-14). Even accounting for margin of error, both of them can't possibly be right.

A single poll is evidence of nothing, especially when it is conducted by a non objective source. If a poll is corroborated by other evidence (as the polls regarding Hillary Clinton are, by literally hundreds of sources) then you can make a case with it.

[H. Ross Peron]

Its about as certain as things that have yet to happen are.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If gun control was passed under Hilary, no person would be forced to give election predictions under such duress.

[Bull Moose Base]

Can you explain what exactly has been disasterous about Obama's presidency? I'm not exactly a fan, but I recognize he's the best we're going to get out of an American President.

I think his foreign policy has been terrible.  You don't announce to the world when you're going to bring troops home from Afghanistan, you just do it as secretively as you can, even if your own citizens don't know.  The terrorists can now just wait us out and then set up shop and wreak havoc.  That almost happened in Iraq.  IIRC, when we pulled out of Iraq there was a brief uptick in violence.  I pray the same thing does not happen in Afghanistan. 

You think Obama's ending the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars is so unpopular that it's helping redeem Bush's reputation?

It also feels like our Christian liberties are crumbling and we're having bites of our liberties taken out little by little.  This country is not as free as it was 10-20 years ago.  Christians aren't as welcomed and encouraged to speak their mind as they used to be.  In fact, anymore, it seems Christians are told to keep their mouths shut and allow the immorality to continue. 

Who tells Christians to keep their mouths shut? Whoever they are, maybe America would be more free if people weren't allowed to tell Christians to keep their mouths shut.

Second, I still believe there was a cover up over the Benghazi incident that will hurt Hillary Clinton if she were to run.  It may not be as bad now that it was almost two years ago, but it will still come into play.  He also allowed the IRS to unfairly target conservative groups because of their ideology.  He put on a show and acted all mad when he "found out", but he didn't do enough to stop that before it happened. 

Sounds like you didn't follow that IRS story too closely, but isn't Christie one of your top choices for president?

[Ogre Mage]

Yes.  Both she and the Democratic Party are acting like she is preparing to run.  The latest evidence -- NPR notes that the release of Hard Choices looks like a Hillary campaign-in-waiting. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/05/28/316682926/hard-sell-for-hard-choices-says-hillarys-running-in-2016

[JerryArkansas]

She is running right now.  She has the ground work set out, she is doing the interviews, she is running.  She could stop, but she knows it, the nomination, and the general* is hers.





*I am assuming Ted Cruz gets the nomination.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I find very amusing all this hyperventilating about Hillary Clinton's health.
Especially when it's coming from people who supported John McCain.