Toughest Opponent for the GOP in Nov 2016

[rbt48]

I'm only listing Clinton and Biden as choices because as I see things right now, they are the two Democrats with a realistic shot at the nomination.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Biden has a better chance than Sanders? Really?

[YaBoyNY]

Biden for certain.

[Mister Mets]

Assuming the shoe doesn't drop, Hillary.

The idea of the first female President is rather powerful, and Biden is a gaffe-prone old guy who has been in Washington a very long time.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Wow... there's an adorable alternative reality in this place.

Hillary and easily.

[Crumpets]

Wow... there's an adorable alternative reality in this place.

Hillary and easily.

This. Biden is a fun guy, but Hillary is miles more electable. Just look at the statewide polling page on Wikipedia and see how Biden is doing where he has been polled - and there's no way that's a name-recognition issue.

[dudeabides]

Despite the fact that Clinton has a ton of scandals, doesn't connect with ordinary people well, was a completely incompetent Secretary of State, doesn't understand the economy and foreign policy, and should be frowned upon by feminists for having an arrangement with a man who cheated on her countless times, I still have to go with Hillary because she gets a pass from the media, always. Additionally, the fact that she is a woman helps her tremendously. Now, should Bush or Rubio run on the GOP side, she would be badly hurt with several demographics that helped Obama. Additionally, she isn't always the most disciplined on the campaign trail.  

Joe Biden does have appeal to ordinary folks, he doesn't have much baggage, and before he became a shill for one of history's worst Presidents, he was a respected U.S. Senator. But the man is completely undisciplined - even more so than Hillary Clinton.

Should the Republicans nominate either Bush or Rubio, Biden is in huge trouble. Not only would he lose Obama supporters to either one of them, he might start losing female voters to one of them, especially Bush.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Despite the fact that Clinton has a ton of scandals, doesn't connect with ordinary people well, was a completely incompetent Secretary of State, doesn't understand the economy and foreign policy, and should be frowned upon by feminists for having an arrangement with a man who cheated on her countless times, I still have to go with Hillary because she gets a pass from the media, always. Additionally, the fact that she is a woman helps her tremendously. Now, should Bush or Rubio run on the GOP side, she would be badly hurt with several demographics that helped Obama. Additionally, she isn't always the most disciplined on the campaign trail. 

Joe Biden does have appeal to ordinary folks, he doesn't have much baggage, and before he became a shill for one of history's worst Presidents, he was a respected U.S. Senator. But the man is completely undisciplined - even more so than Hillary Clinton.

Should the Republicans nominate either Bush or Rubio, Biden is in huge trouble. Not only would he lose Obama supporters to either one of them, he might start losing female voters to one of them, especially Bush.

You continue to spout ridiculous nonsense. Hillary has never gotten a pass from the media. I mean, she should have been a virtual lock for the nomination (and probably still is), but the media wanted a competitive race and made it so. I know Hillary has problems and Sanders has tapped into a solid chunk of dissatisfied Dems, but you can't tell me she's gotten a pass from the media. They want to knock her down and make this thing close. Will it change in the general? Probably, especially when the "rah-rah female president" stuff intensifies, but right now she's not doing great in the press.

As for the toughest opponent, I go back and forth on Biden and Clinton. Clinton has a way better campaign apparatus and could be sensationalized as a star candidate. That would be hard to beat. But at the same time, it's becoming apparent that she does not know how to talk to real people, is not running a transparent campaign, and is not being spontaneous or candid about anything. That's bad.

Biden, on the other hand, is like her opposite: He can excite with populism and speak with average people in a meaningful way. But his candidacy would not be exciting and he is perhaps too undisciplined to be a super-strong choice.

I like both, though. It's an interesting dilemma for the party if he runs and Hillary continues to appear weaker than expected. Taking a gamble on Biden might be worth it.

[Kingpoleon]

Joe Biden/Martin O'Malley is a lot harder to topple than Hillary Clinton/Julian Castro.

[dudeabides]

Despite the fact that Clinton has a ton of scandals, doesn't connect with ordinary people well, was a completely incompetent Secretary of State, doesn't understand the economy and foreign policy, and should be frowned upon by feminists for having an arrangement with a man who cheated on her countless times, I still have to go with Hillary because she gets a pass from the media, always. Additionally, the fact that she is a woman helps her tremendously. Now, should Bush or Rubio run on the GOP side, she would be badly hurt with several demographics that helped Obama. Additionally, she isn't always the most disciplined on the campaign trail. 

Joe Biden does have appeal to ordinary folks, he doesn't have much baggage, and before he became a shill for one of history's worst Presidents, he was a respected U.S. Senator. But the man is completely undisciplined - even more so than Hillary Clinton.

Should the Republicans nominate either Bush or Rubio, Biden is in huge trouble. Not only would he lose Obama supporters to either one of them, he might start losing female voters to one of them, especially Bush.

You continue to spout ridiculous nonsense. Hillary has never gotten a pass from the media. I mean, she should have been a virtual lock for the nomination (and probably still is), but the media wanted a competitive race and made it so. I know Hillary has problems and Sanders has tapped into a solid chunk of dissatisfied Dems, but you can't tell me she's gotten a pass from the media. They want to knock her down and make this thing close. Will it change in the general? Probably, especially when the "rah-rah female president" stuff intensifies, but right now she's not doing great in the press.

As for the toughest opponent, I go back and forth on Biden and Clinton. Clinton has a way better campaign apparatus and could be sensationalized as a star candidate. That would be hard to beat. But at the same time, it's becoming apparent that she does not know how to talk to real people, is not running a transparent campaign, and is not being spontaneous or candid about anything. That's bad.

Biden, on the other hand, is like her opposite: He can excite with populism and speak with average people in a meaningful way. But his candidacy would not be exciting and he is perhaps too undisciplined to be a super-strong choice.

I like both, though. It's an interesting dilemma for the party if he runs and Hillary continues to appear weaker than expected. Taking a gamble on Biden might be worth it.

I'm sorry if you don't like the fact that Hillary Clinton has been surrounded by scandal for decades. The reason Bernie Sanders is doing so well is because he is honest about who he is and the Democratic party base wants a socialist President. Hillary is basically a socialist, but she tries to hide it although she isn't doing a very good job of it in this campaign. Sanders tells people who he is and frankly, I think he is a lot smarter than Hillary.

You and I agree in that Hillary is out of touch and not transparent. I also completely agree with you on Biden.

My hope is that Jeb Bush or whoever the GOP nominates does not make this election about a referendum on Obama. It has to be about a referendum on Washington. Now, it just so happens that in order to have economic growth, we have to reverse virtually all of Obama's policies, but the President is more popular than those policies, so I hope it's about Washington D.C. No one likes Washington D.C. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are long time Washington operatives, especially Biden. They have zero executive experience.

Making it a referendum on Washington hurts Biden because he's been in Washington for four decades. Hillary was there for 8 years essentially, I wouldn't call being Secretary of State a job for a D.C. insider necessarily.

[eric82oslo]

Biden has a better chance than Sanders? Really?

Definitely not. Biden has exactly 0% chance of winning, if I'm really kind I might agree with 0.1% chance. Sanders on the other hand has a 20% chance of winning.

[rbt48]

I created this poll to see what others thought.  For myself, I view Clinton as fatally flawed.  I think she would be the weaker candidate for what I view to be solid, rationale reasons.  Hence, I'm probably wrong.

Rationale:  as Sec of State she sent/received ALL her e-mail on a private dot-com account.  She claims that none of it was classified.  None!  Really!!  Secretary of State for four years and not a single classified e-mail?

Obviously there had to be many classified e-mails.  I am a Dept of the Air Force employee and every few years I get briefed that if I improperly handle classified info I am subject to a hefty fine and maybe five years in jail. 

The reality that she most assuredly broke the law multiple times will be driven home repeatedly.  It will be like Romney's 47% remark but with the security of our nation at stake.

I almost think the 17 Republicans should lay off her for now and let her get the nomination and then let loose with all her faults in the general election campaign.

Biden has his weaknesses and his more senior age as well.  But he was an effective senator for 36 years and perhaps a more popular VP than Obama has been as President.  He will also have sympathy votes on his side due to the tragedies in his life.

If Hillary continues to make mistakes, her support and popularity will continue to diminish.  The Democratic establishment would shift to Biden over Sanders in a heartbeat as the candidate who could win compared to an unelectable Sanders.

[The Free North]

The one that is not soulless hack.

[Bigby]

Hillary is less gaffe-prone, so I say her.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

The one that is not soulless hack.

So you're saying they have an equal chance? I'd probably defer to Clinton due to her being less gaffe prone.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Biden by far.

[exopolitician]

Probably Clinton