If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sun Sentinel)   According to preliminary polling data, Hillary Clinton has already won one state in the 2016 presidential election   (sun-sentinel.com) divider line 140
    More: Florida, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Republicans, Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, swing states, audio books, Senator Ted Cruz, Sunshine State, secretary of states  
•       •       •

2209 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Feb 2014 at 10:33 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-09 10:33:12 AM  
It's hers to lose.  She'd be POTUS now if the dark horse (no pun intended) Obama hadn't come from out of nowhere.  The ONLY thing I would be concerned with is her age, but she would APPEAR to have her cognitive faculties in good shape.  It's time for a woman, let's get that barrier torn down soon.  Might just be her.
 
2014-02-09 10:37:00 AM  
She'll ride to the White House on the backs of millions of, "I'm no Hillary fan, but..."
 
2014-02-09 10:37:46 AM  
It's not even 2015 yet, assholes. SHUT UP!!!11!
 
2014-02-09 10:41:03 AM  

b0rg9: She'll ride to the White House on the backs of millions of, "I'm no Hillary fan, but..."


You're probably right. I'm fond of saying that if she runs, I won't vote, but, you know what? I'm no Hillary fan, but...
 
2014-02-09 10:42:23 AM  
I'm no Hillary fan but at least she doesn't think the earth is 6000 years old and thinks that hurricanes are responses to homoghey
 
2014-02-09 10:44:13 AM  
Didn't Jon Stewart do a segment mocking precisely this type of "crystal ball" polling?
 
2014-02-09 10:47:02 AM  
How will Florida screw up this time?
 
2014-02-09 10:47:06 AM  
If the election were held tomorrow she'd win, in large part because the GOP has nothing to run against her at this point.

Whether she'll be in the same position in two years will depend on A: whether there's a repeat of Obama rising up in the Democratic Party by that point B: whether any of the shiat Fox flings at her between now and then manages to stick and C: whether the GOP pulls a repeat of last election and still has no one to run against her a few months before the election.

Honest opinion? Winning the midterm elections this year might hurt the GOP's presidential chances more than losing them. They get control of both the House and Senate this year? The disaster that is the US Congress of the last four years turns into an even bigger trainwreck than it has been and everyone gets a taste of Republican rule for two years before the election. Meanwhile, the Tea Party claims victory and pulls the party even harder to the right because "that's what works!" (Ignoring that they'd already have more control of Congress than they do now if they hadn't primaried so many conservative shoe-ins in the first place).

If they lose out, people have two years to forget what a train wreck giving them more power is and at least a few more people are going to wake up to the fact that primarying all of their moderates is not actually working that well and give the GOP at least a slight chance of nominating a presidential candidate who won't get laughed out of a general election.
 
2014-02-09 10:50:36 AM  
Former Florida Governor, Jeb Bush, might have a chance.

Scalia and Thomas are crossing their fingers a GOP savior allows them to retire in three years.
 
2014-02-09 10:50:37 AM  

nekom: It's hers to lose.  She'd be POTUS now if the dark horse (no pun intended) Obama hadn't come from out of nowhere.  The ONLY thing I would be concerned with is her age, but she would APPEAR to have her cognitive faculties in good shape.  It's time for a woman, let's get that barrier torn down soon.  Might just be her.


You forgot benghazi.

Game, set, match.
 
2014-02-09 10:50:44 AM  
Another promising democratic president with rational political beliefs that will be rendered ineffective because of a gerrymandered congress that is continually reelected in spite of a 9% approval rating. I can't wait.
 
2014-02-09 10:53:37 AM  

Delta1212: If the election were held tomorrow she'd win, in large part because the GOP has nothing to run against her at this point.

Whether she'll be in the same position in two years will depend on A: whether there's a repeat of Obama rising up in the Democratic Party by that point B: whether any of the shiat Fox flings at her between now and then manages to stick and C: whether the GOP pulls a repeat of last election and still has no one to run against her a few months before the election.

Honest opinion? Winning the midterm elections this year might hurt the GOP's presidential chances more than losing them. They get control of both the House and Senate this year? The disaster that is the US Congress of the last four years turns into an even bigger trainwreck than it has been and everyone gets a taste of Republican rule for two years before the election. Meanwhile, the Tea Party claims victory and pulls the party even harder to the right because "that's what works!" (Ignoring that they'd already have more control of Congress than they do now if they hadn't primaried so many conservative shoe-ins in the first place).

If they lose out, people have two years to forget what a train wreck giving them more power is and at least a few more people are going to wake up to the fact that primarying all of their moderates is not actually working that well and give the GOP at least a slight chance of nominating a presidential candidate who won't get laughed out of a general election.


Another thing that swings in Clinton's favor is that she left the Department of State on a mostly positive note with the negative being the stain of Benghazi. How much of a negative that is now in the public eye since the GOP overplayed their hand, who knows.
 
2014-02-09 10:56:37 AM  
This woman has so many skeletons in her closet and not one has any effect on her.
 
2014-02-09 10:56:44 AM  

nekom: She'd be POTUS now if the dark horse (no pun intended) Obama hadn't come from out of nowhere.


Though I think she's in a better position now that in 2007/2008, I still think there's a specter of supposed inevitably that may work against her again in 2016. I think there's more people open to the idea of a Hillary presidency, but I can think of few that are really excited about the option.

I'd vote for her, but I think I'd like some more options on the table. Thankfully, it's still early.
 
2014-02-09 11:03:42 AM  

Summoner101: Delta1212: If the election were held tomorrow she'd win, in large part because the GOP has nothing to run against her at this point.

Whether she'll be in the same position in two years will depend on A: whether there's a repeat of Obama rising up in the Democratic Party by that point B: whether any of the shiat Fox flings at her between now and then manages to stick and C: whether the GOP pulls a repeat of last election and still has no one to run against her a few months before the election.

Honest opinion? Winning the midterm elections this year might hurt the GOP's presidential chances more than losing them. They get control of both the House and Senate this year? The disaster that is the US Congress of the last four years turns into an even bigger trainwreck than it has been and everyone gets a taste of Republican rule for two years before the election. Meanwhile, the Tea Party claims victory and pulls the party even harder to the right because "that's what works!" (Ignoring that they'd already have more control of Congress than they do now if they hadn't primaried so many conservative shoe-ins in the first place).

If they lose out, people have two years to forget what a train wreck giving them more power is and at least a few more people are going to wake up to the fact that primarying all of their moderates is not actually working that well and give the GOP at least a slight chance of nominating a presidential candidate who won't get laughed out of a general election.

Another thing that swings in Clinton's favor is that she left the Department of State on a mostly positive note with the negative being the stain of Benghazi. How much of a negative that is now in the public eye since the GOP overplayed their hand, who knows.


Funny part, Hillary tried to take the heat off Obama but they kept hitting him so hard with it that I think it actually deflected some of the attention away from her.

The GOP/Fox reflex of "attack the President with whatever comes to hand" kicked in so fast that I think it took them too long to realize they needed to shift gears and were using it against the wrong person. By the time they did, it was already an "Obama" fake scandal instead of a "Hilary" fake scandal.
 
2014-02-09 11:05:21 AM  
More options would be nice.  Hillary is overhyped.
 
2014-02-09 11:07:02 AM  

nekom: She'd be POTUS now if the dark horse (no pun intended) Obama hadn't come from out of nowhere.


dark horse my ass. she's not president now because not enough people wanted her. and that will be true in 2016 too. she may get the nomination but if the republicans don't run cruz she won't win.

whitewater, improprieties at the rose law firm, vince foster the way she handled hillarycare is what will do her in. the imperial first lady isn't an image you want in a president. at least i don't. she personifies the worse of the nanny state "we know what's good for you" segment of the democratic party.
 
2014-02-09 11:09:16 AM  

RaisingKane: More options would be nice.  Hillary is overhyped.


How so?

Also, 90% of the media attention on hillary since she lost the election appears, to me anyways, to have been initiated by the right wing media.

Frankly if they think she is that bad, she is probably going to do well as POTUS.
 
2014-02-09 11:12:16 AM  
Everyone always forgets the time she killed Ben Ghazi while whitewater rafting.
 
2014-02-09 11:14:10 AM  

SphericalTime: How will Florida screw up this time?


We aren't allowed to tell you yet.
According to the minutes of the last meeting, the current plan is a two-pronged approach that requires delicate timing. The first step is to remain quiet, allowing the other states and the press room enough to speculate on what Florida will do.
We may, or may not, put into effect any suggestions offered by various news outlets and chat boards.

I recommended we might pull a "gotcha" by holding the election a day early for the surprise! element but was shouted down by an attendee who really preferred a more retro approach, arguing that holding up the results for weeks in the past was far more effective in cementing our reputation as "honestly willing and yet unable to hold an election without including elements of national angst."

There is some small concern that the members of the tee-shirt/bumpersticker sub-committee consists almost exclusively by graffiti artists with a budget allowing for only crayons but, apparently, they've agreed that national confusion over batik would be a great way to kick off our efforts.
 
2014-02-09 11:17:03 AM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: b0rg9: She'll ride to the White House on the backs of millions of, "I'm no Hillary fan, but..."

You're probably right. I'm fond of saying that if she runs, I won't vote, but, you know what? I'm no Hillary fan, but...


This.

/but don't you owe something to the Clinton's, Duke?
 
2014-02-09 11:19:35 AM  
Is she our Mitt?
 
2014-02-09 11:21:36 AM  
I'll say this: There is no more "downside" to her popularity ratio. It's not like there's any real amount of likely 2016 voters who haven't heard of her, and she's been flamed by Republicans for so long that she's like ceramic fired in a kiln.

I'd vote for her, but don't want to. Nothing really against her, I just don't want a return of the gang that ran Washington in the 1990's. But then, I felt that way in 2008, and some of that gang kinda did return anyway, even though the "not-Clinton Democrat" won...

Going back even further on what-might-have-beens, someone recently reminded me that we nearly elected Tipper Gore and Lieberman in 2000. George W Bush was definitely worse, but what a shiatshow that election was...
 
2014-02-09 11:21:51 AM  

Curious: nekom: She'd be POTUS now if the dark horse (no pun intended) Obama hadn't come from out of nowhere.

dark horse my ass. she's not president now because not enough people wanted her. and that will be true in 2016 too. she may get the nomination but if the republicans don't run cruz she won't win.

whitewater, improprieties at the rose law firm, vince foster the way she handled hillarycare is what will do her in. the imperial first lady isn't an image you want in a president. at least i don't. she personifies the worse of the nanny state "we know what's good for you" segment of the democratic party.


I must disagree with part of your premise (last paragraph)
There are a lot of new voters who don't recall (and don't care) about rose, foster, hillarycare - all they've seen is an endless war and the current GOP efforts to - whatever it is they think they are doing. The GOP still needs to field a viable candidate in order for her to lose (assuming she runs).

Those that do remember are old enough to take the approach of "yeah, that is history and not what needs to be addressed now"
 
2014-02-09 11:21:55 AM  

nekom: It's hers to lose.  She'd be POTUS now if the dark horse (no pun intended) Obama hadn't come from out of nowhere.  The ONLY thing I would be concerned with is her age, but she would APPEAR to have her cognitive faculties in good shape.  It's time for a woman, let's get that barrier torn down soon.  Might just be her.


He didn't come out of nowhere. He did his research and figured out that contrary to what the pundits were saying, ACTUAL Libruls on the ground were very, very uncomfortable with Hillary because of her connections to NAFTA and the war.

Her continued hawkish positions as SecState didn't do much to ease the discomfort, either.
 
2014-02-09 11:22:00 AM  

Curious: nekom: she personifies the worse of the nanny state "we know what's good for you" segment of the democratic party.


Guns: we know it is good to background check gun purchasers.
Poors: we know it is good to feed them.
Unemployment: the insurance is already paid for by employers, so we know it is good to provide that lifeline.
Healthcare: dying in the streets sucks, so we know it is good for you to have coverage.
Education: we know Jesus didn't dance on the backs of dinosaurs.
Taxes: we know it is good to invest in infrastructure, R&D, space, education, and we know that the middle class can't afford to do it on their own.
Gays: we know it is good for all people to be treated as equals (including everybody who is non-white and non-male).

The republican nanny state is an entirely different type of nanny state altogether.
 
2014-02-09 11:24:40 AM  

Smackledorfer: RaisingKane: More options would be nice.  Hillary is overhyped.

How so?

Also, 90% of the media attention on hillary since she lost the election appears, to me anyways, to have been initiated by the right wing media.

Frankly if they think she is that bad, she is probably going to do well as POTUS.


1. She is a corporate shill.
2. She only became Senator by being married to Bill and then buying a residence in NY.
3. She is going to be pretty old when 2016 comes around

how about Warren instead?
 
2014-02-09 11:24:46 AM  

Delta1212: Summoner101: Delta1212: If the election were held tomorrow she'd win, in large part because the GOP has nothing to run against her at this point.

Whether she'll be in the same position in two years will depend on A: whether there's a repeat of Obama rising up in the Democratic Party by that point B: whether any of the shiat Fox flings at her between now and then manages to stick and C: whether the GOP pulls a repeat of last election and still has no one to run against her a few months before the election.

Honest opinion? Winning the midterm elections this year might hurt the GOP's presidential chances more than losing them. They get control of both the House and Senate this year? The disaster that is the US Congress of the last four years turns into an even bigger trainwreck than it has been and everyone gets a taste of Republican rule for two years before the election. Meanwhile, the Tea Party claims victory and pulls the party even harder to the right because "that's what works!" (Ignoring that they'd already have more control of Congress than they do now if they hadn't primaried so many conservative shoe-ins in the first place).

If they lose out, people have two years to forget what a train wreck giving them more power is and at least a few more people are going to wake up to the fact that primarying all of their moderates is not actually working that well and give the GOP at least a slight chance of nominating a presidential candidate who won't get laughed out of a general election.

Another thing that swings in Clinton's favor is that she left the Department of State on a mostly positive note with the negative being the stain of Benghazi. How much of a negative that is now in the public eye since the GOP overplayed their hand, who knows.

Funny part, Hillary tried to take the heat off Obama but they kept hitting him so hard with it that I think it actually deflected some of the attention away from her.

The GOP/Fox reflex of "attack the President with whatev ...


This is a good point.  Benghazi was supposed to torpedo Clinton, with secondary to damage Obama, but now I'm not sure anybody but the True Believers can tell you what the whole issue in Libya was, and then GOP overreach made it a primarily Obama thing, which he can weather without a problem.  Then Lara Logan and 60 Minutes spectacularly flunked out any future news features on the issue (and ravaged Logan's reputation) that I doubt anybody's doing a major story on it, even if there was one.  In two yeas I can't say it will mean much against Clinton.
 
2014-02-09 11:27:23 AM  

powhound: Curious: nekom: she personifies the worse of the nanny state "we know what's good for you" segment of the democratic party.

Guns: we know it is good to background check gun purchasers.
Poors: we know it is good to feed them.
Unemployment: the insurance is already paid for by employers, so we know it is good to provide that lifeline.
Healthcare: dying in the streets sucks, so we know it is good for you to have coverage.
Education: we know Jesus didn't dance on the backs of dinosaurs.
Taxes: we know it is good to invest in infrastructure, R&D, space, education, and we know that the middle class can't afford to do it on their own.
Gays: we know it is good for all people to be treated as equals (including everybody who is non-white and non-male).

The republican nanny state is an entirely different type of nanny state altogether.


Before I accuse Curious of being a sexist old man yelling at clouds, I'd like to give him the opportunity to explain what makes Hillary so much more nanny-state than anyone else.
 
2014-02-09 11:28:16 AM  

Smackledorfer: powhound: Curious: nekom: she personifies the worse of the nanny state "we know what's good for you" segment of the democratic party.

Guns: we know it is good to background check gun purchasers.
Poors: we know it is good to feed them.
Unemployment: the insurance is already paid for by employers, so we know it is good to provide that lifeline.
Healthcare: dying in the streets sucks, so we know it is good for you to have coverage.
Education: we know Jesus didn't dance on the backs of dinosaurs.
Taxes: we know it is good to invest in infrastructure, R&D, space, education, and we know that the middle class can't afford to do it on their own.
Gays: we know it is good for all people to be treated as equals (including everybody who is non-white and non-male).

The republican nanny state is an entirely different type of nanny state altogether.

Before I accuse Curious of being a sexist old man yelling at clouds, I'd like to give him the opportunity to explain what makes Hillary so much more nanny-state than anyone else.


Because Blow Job! DUH!!!!!!
 
2014-02-09 11:29:55 AM  
Remember that Obama will likely put his full weight behind any eventual Democratic nominee.  Barring any hugely unforeseen event, I think he'll leave office pretty popular, and certainly his star power will dwarf anybody on the GOP side.  Hilary's star power dwarfs anyone on that side by herself.

Her problems, for me as a voter, is that she's a Boomer - I think categorically we need to move on - and, reflected, her age.  That she's corporate and all that, well, it comes with the territory.

But...  come the summer of 2016 we will have Barack Obama and Bill Clinton stumping on the campaign trail alongside Hilary Clinton.  Meanwhile, the GOP will be even further in disarray.
 
2014-02-09 11:30:17 AM  

machoprogrammer: 2. She only became Senator by being married to Bill and then buying a residence in NY.


Thought I feel kind of dirty white knight Hillary Clinton, but she's a fairly successful person without Bill though I'm sure he helped her ticket.  Not to mention she's not the first politician to move to the district she's contesting.  This isn't like Bush the Lesser, Hillary has credentials.
 
2014-02-09 11:31:28 AM  
CORONATION!
 
2014-02-09 11:36:05 AM  

machoprogrammer: how about Warren instead?


She is right where we need her.  The Presidency would pull her to the center.  Where she is, she is one of the few people pulling the party to the Left.
 
2014-02-09 11:36:19 AM  

nekom: It's time for a woman, let's get that barrier torn down soon.


So which will you be supporting, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann?
 
2014-02-09 11:40:36 AM  

EngineerAU: nekom: It's time for a woman, let's get that barrier torn down soon.

So which will you be supporting, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann?


t/y - I needed that laugh
by all means, lets continue the republican's point that government is bad by electing the least intelligent of the pool.....
 
2014-02-09 11:41:30 AM  

BalugaJoe: This woman has so many skeletons in her closet and not one has any effect on her.


Probably because they've been yanked out of that closet and put on display for the past two decades.
 
2014-02-09 11:42:32 AM  

EngineerAU: nekom: It's time for a woman, let's get that barrier torn down soon.

So which will you be supporting, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann?


atlantablackstar.com

...a pro-choice Republican?
 
2014-02-09 11:44:38 AM  
Curious:

 vince foster


Really?
 
2014-02-09 11:45:14 AM  

parasol: difference of opinion


you may well be right. my intense dislike of all things clinton colors my opinion. hell she had to dodge those bullets once so you know she's tough.

in all seriousness obama didn't beat her anymore than she beat herself. and that could happen again.
 
2014-02-09 11:47:19 AM  

StopLurkListen: EngineerAU: nekom: It's time for a woman, let's get that barrier torn down soon.

So which will you be supporting, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann?

[atlantablackstar.com image 310x420]

...a pro-choice Republican?


Now THAT would be an interesting way of testing how much President Obama's opposition is attributable to racism.
 
2014-02-09 11:48:01 AM  
Hillary killed Vince Foster is still a thing?
 
2014-02-09 11:50:02 AM  

b0rg9: She'll ride to the White House on the backs of millions of, "I'm no Hillary fan, but..."


I don't know if she'll get to the White House, but don't underestimate her actual popularity. She's beloved by a large segment of the American public.
 
2014-02-09 11:51:49 AM  

BalugaJoe: This woman has so many skeletons in her closet and not one has any effect on her.


Care to elaborate? Name 5 skeletons that may be in her closet.
 
2014-02-09 11:54:05 AM  

EngineerAU: nekom: It's time for a woman, let's get that barrier torn down soon.

So which will you be supporting, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann?


Neither, of course.  I meant a competent woman.  Can't actually think of anyone in the GOP that springs to mind.  Hillary is NOT my ideal candidate, but I'd almost certainly vote for her over anyone the GOP can bring to the table.  The first black President, whether you agree with his politics or not, is at least competent and I sincerely hope the first female will be as well.
 
2014-02-09 11:54:39 AM  

EngineerAU: nekom: It's time for a woman, let's get that barrier torn down soon.

So which will you be supporting, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann?


images.politico.com
South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley
Pros: Guns, God, South Carolina.
Cons: Competing for Tea Partiers' votes with the name "Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley"

upload.wikimedia.org
New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez
Pros: Latina
Cons: She doesn't look Latina. No one's heard of her. She doesn't want to run.


chronicle.com
Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin
Pros: Female. Republican. With a pulse.
Cons: Who?
 
2014-02-09 11:54:44 AM  
Someone had to do it.
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-09 11:55:36 AM  

Curious: parasol: difference of opinion

you may well be right. my intense dislike of all things clinton colors my opinion. hell she had to dodge those bullets once so you know she's tough.

in all seriousness obama didn't beat her anymore than she beat herself. and that could happen again.


time will tell

i can argue the merits of their respective campaigns, her likability, etc - the minutia that political junkies examine. i suspect that, for a large swath of the voting populace, she will be the more acceptable candidate - not due to gender, or familiarity, or history - but because the GOP/Tea Party (as of now) seem incapable of supporting a common agenda much less finding an agreeable candidate.

fwiw? i don't think she'd make as bad a president as some others we've had, given the job
 
2014-02-09 11:56:44 AM  

Name_Omitted: machoprogrammer: how about Warren instead?

She is right where we need her.  The Presidency would pull her to the center.  Where she is, she is one of the few people pulling the party to the Left.



This right here.

Where's the biggest problem right now?  Aside from the corporate SCOTUS it's this horrible Congress.  Warren needs to be in the trenches fighting the fight and not dealing with 1,000 other international problems and b.s. obligations while trying to coax someone else to reform Congress by proxy.

Plus Warren has said "no" already.  I don't see her stepping on Hillary's toes or making a move until she's exhausted her options as a legislator.
 
2014-02-09 11:56:46 AM  
In 2007 John Edwards came to Berkeley to rally voters. Hundreds showed up and were inspired or whatever.

In 2007, with little advanced notice, Barack 0bama came to Oakland to rally and inspire voters. 15000+ people showed up.

In 2007, Hillary Clinton went to some rich donor's Pacific Heights mansion to have a fundraiser. No one knows how many people showed up, or how much money she raised. But I would guess all of the people there were going to vote for her anyway.

And Hillary still can't figure out why or how she lost the California primary.

/Wake up and announce you are giving the finger to Iowa and New Hamster. That alone should get you votes in the other 48 states.
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report