Even with all the baggage she carries, we all know it is almost a certainty that Mrs. Clinton will be the Democratic candidate.

Now there are 15 GOP candidates. Let's have some serious discussion on who would be electable over Hillary. It will have to be someone who can get a lot of the youth vote, a good percentage of the black and other minority vote, and almost all the women votes.

Walker is out, Cruz is out, Rubio?, Bush with the Bush name baggage?, Santourom- not for women. Trump - not electable.

I say Bush has the best chance.

I sure there will be more democraps crawl out from under rocks to challenge toxic Hillary for the nomination. I sure there ringer in the making some where.

It might a surprise to some that Carly Fiorina is playing well with young voters.
Politics is a strange animal and highly susceptible to even the most benign news.

Other Democratic candidates are running because the DNC doesn't want to put all their eggs in one basket.

While it is inconceivable for me to believe that people would vote for Clinton because she has done little to qualify and much damage while Secretary and we haven't even gotten to talk about her moral character. Haven't said that thee are simply too many lazy voters who cannot get beyond name recognition

Bush seems to be the favorite on the Republican side but in my mind he is too much a moderate. He could get a lot of the Hispanic vote.

Still too early in my mind to call a leading candidate


Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

I sure there will be more democraps crawl out from under rocks to challenge toxic Hillary for the nomination. I sure there ringer in the making some where.

A troll makes his appearance.

I still do not understand why so many democrats so readily pronounce that Clinton is "most likely" their candidate.

Forget party, how can she be an acceptable let alone most likely candidate given all the issues including poor performance as secretary of state.

It certainly cannot be she is viewed as the only candidate that can carry the "young" vote...because she isn't. Or that she is the only candidate that can carry the female vote....because she is not.

So why do the democrats, at least at this point, so readily accept a person of tarnished character, that did a very poor job of secretary of state and whose honesty is openly suspect.

I object to requests asking to comparisons of republican candidates who can beat the spoiled merchandise of the democratic choosing....for now.

Try and remember she was the fair haired candidate in 2008 and was beat out by a relatively unknown, inexperienced and unqualified dark horse!

Originally Posted by Guest

I still do not understand why so many democrats so readily pronounce that Clinton is "most likely" their candidate.

Forget party, how can she be an acceptable let alone most likely candidate given all the issues including poor performance as secretary of state.

It certainly cannot be she is viewed as the only candidate that can carry the "young" vote...because she isn't. Or that she is the only candidate that can carry the female vote....because she is not.
So why do the democrats, at least at this point, so readily accept a person of tarnished character, that did a very poor job of secretary of state and whose honesty is openly suspect.

I object to requests asking to comparisons of republican candidates who can beat the spoiled merchandise of the democratic choosing....for now.

Try and remember she was the fair haired candidate in 2008 and was beat out by a relatively unknown, inexperienced and unqualified dark horse!

Nice job of deflecting the question but let's get back to the question.

Which of the 15 GOP candidates has the very best chance of winning over Mrs. Clinton?

Originally Posted by Guest

Nice job of deflecting the question but let's get back to the question.

Which of the 15 GOP candidates has the very best chance of winning over Mrs. Clinton?

I believe the poster was suggesting that ANY or ALL can beat her, and not deflecting at all.

Originally Posted by Guest

Nice job of deflecting the question but let's get back to the question.

Which of the 15 GOP candidates has the very best chance of winning over Mrs. Clinton?

Mathmatically no GOP candidate that suggests making the tough decisions that have to be made can win. The country is well beyond that tipping point. Can Bush out promise Hilary is the only relevant question. Remember what wins elections in the USA now and it is not "What can I do for my country".

Even though I am a registered Democrat, I vote the person, not the party. I only vote for Governors who have been successful at turning their state around to the positive side. That rules out Hillary for me. Unless we get a Democratic Governor to run, I will vote Republican next time.

Originally Posted by Guest

Nice job of deflecting the question but let's get back to the question.

Which of the 15 GOP candidates has the very best chance of winning over Mrs. Clinton?

I believe the poster was asking the more relevant question - why are the democrats so willing to put blinders on to accept only one candidate....and so soon in the process? It seems many of us on the other side of the aisle are willing to wait out the process, keep our eyes and ears open, and educate ourselves before making such an important decision. The Clinton supporters make this out to be some kind of child's game where the only purpose is to win at any cost. When so much in our country, and in the world for that matter, is at stake, I don't care to look at it as a game. It's not about winning or losing, it's about making an intelligent decision based on the facts gathered before casting one's vote.

Originally Posted by Guest

Even though I am a registered Democrat, I vote the person, not the party. I only vote for Governors who have been successful at turning their state around to the positive side. That rules out Hillary for me. Unless we get a Democratic Governor to run, I will vote Republican next time.

I appreciate your reply and I should have referred in my previous post not "why are the democrats so willing to put blinders on...." but "why are liberals.....". I apologize for that. As a Republican, I agree with your thinking about voting the person, not the party. I know many Democrats who feel as you do. I hope for the sake of your party and the country, that one of the Democratic governors as you describe does step out. Those in your party deserve a better choice of candidates. Heck, I might even take a look at a candidate like that! Actually, that is what I have been trying to say all along - wouldn't it be great to have 2 upstanding, proven leaders with integrity from which to choose - one from each party? With the moral degeneration of politics as a whole over the last few decades, it almost seems too much to ask.

Originally Posted by Guest

A troll makes his appearance.

O I'm sorry did I offend the blind indoctrinated liberal sheep. Baa

Originally Posted by Guest

Even though I am a registered Democrat, I vote the person, not the party. I only vote for Governors who have been successful at turning their state around to the positive side. That rules out Hillary for me. Unless we get a Democratic Governor to run, I will vote Republican next time.

Can you name one democrat governor that actually turned a state around?

Maybe just maybe, Democrat governors didn't have to turn their states around like Republican governors did. What does turning your state mean cutting every program that help the poor, and lower middle class?

I am an independent. However, the Republicans have gone so far to the right that a moderate can't even consider voting for them. How can that be good for the Republican party?

I am not fond of Hillary. If a Republican governor that accepted Medicaid funds under the Affordable Care Act gets the nomination, I will vote for him. You know that governor has the best interest of his citizens in mind; rather than what his party thinks.

You want to talk about lazy people try people that only listen to Fox News. Those people aren't looking for both sides of an argument. They are looking for what passes for news that confirms their warped view of the government as it exists today. Someone is going to have to turn this road to nowhere around. That means talking to the other party. You know the good old days of Reagan, and O'Neil.

Originally Posted by Guest

Maybe just maybe, Democrat governors didn't have to turn their states around like Republican governors did. What does turning your state mean cutting every program that help the poor, and lower middle class?

I am an independent. However, the Republicans have gone so far to the right that a moderate can't even consider voting for them. How can that be good for the Republican party?

I am not fond of Hillary. If a Republican governor that accepted Medicaid funds under the Affordable Care Act gets the nomination, I will vote for him. You know that governor has the best interest of his citizens in mind; rather than what his party thinks.

You want to talk about lazy people try people that only listen to Fox News. Those people aren't looking for both sides of an argument. They are looking for what passes for news that confirms their warped view of the government as it exists today. Someone is going to have to turn this road to nowhere around. That means talking to the other party. You know the good old days of Reagan, and O'Neil.

You lost me, and I am sure others, when you mention Fox news. THAT is a dead giveaway as to how you work. You have seriously been indoctrinated and are unable to discuss facts because as all of those who seem to mention that, you have no idea of what is happening and have been told that going after a network is how to do it. No network changes the news...it is not hidden. Using a network to make your point is a bit desperate and obvious.

Not a defense of Fox by any means but what ever you think a news network has to do with ANYTHING is beyond me.

Secondly, if you have children or grandchildren, I suggest you do some investigation on where the Affordable Care Act is going to take our states and the federal budget in the future....I am sure you are aware it has not all kicked in as of yet.

Too late to repeal but it needs some serious work to save future disaster.

If you do not have children or grandchildren and do not care, sorry.

It has been said, and proven and not on Fox news, that the Democratic party is going so far left and then accusing the Republicans of going right. YES..the distance between them is greater but only one party is moving.

I suggest strongly that you read about your candidates..the two major ones and their radical backgrounds and their sharp turn left. Might help you a bit.

Sanders is so very very far left, he does not even call himself a democrat because they are not liberal enough and as far left as Clinton WAS, she is running left after him. You need to change those glasses