I am curious as to those who have been posting all the reasons that Hillary Clinton should be our next President and saying how she will be...how they feel as times wears down.....this is from USA TODAY...

"There is no Biden Foundation hoovering up billions of dollars from dubious sources. There is no spouse looming ominously in the background and raising questions about who the real president will be: Dr. Jill Biden is blessedly free of political ambitions. Above all, there is a feeling that the vice president, for all his sometimes over-the-top bonhomie, is a serious guy who has the knack of cutting deals, knows Capitol Hill like the back of his hand, feels comfortable in the company of foreign leaders, and for all of his gaffes and blunders — such as cribbing lines from a speech by British politician Neil Kinnock in 1987 — is mostly a straight shooter.

It may just be boredom among Democrats who are less than enthralled by all the attention being lavished on Donald Trump, or discomfort with a Democratic contest whose outcome seems in the bag for Hillary Clinton, or even the unease that the party faithful feel about dynastic politics — something they share with Republicans who also feel squeamish about the prospect of leaders with roman numerals after their names. The explanation could be the simple concern that some Democrats have about the other shoe that they fear will drop about private servers or classified emails, the Clinton foundation, or even Benghazi. Whatever it is, interest is heating up about one of the most familiar and appealing faces in American politics, Vice President Biden."

Run, Biden, run! Column

With some of the plaudits and adoring posts on here supporting Hillary Clinton, how does this make you all feel ?

There are "plaudits and adoring posts" on here supporting Hillary? Go figure.

It is so very funny to see the anti-Democratic sites - especially Fox- trying so very hard to dig up any dirt at all to discredit Sec. Clinton. The Koch Bros. have dedicated up tp a billion dollars to keep her off the ballot - because they know she will WIN.

Yap all you want but realize at the end of the lengthy process, Hillary Clinton will be our next President!

If you disagree, please post the demographics that show a Republican will win.

Originally Posted by Guest

It is so very funny to see the anti-Democratic sites - especially Fox- trying so very hard to dig up any dirt at all to discredit Sec. Clinton. The Koch Bros. have dedicated up tp a billion dollars to keep her off the ballot - because they know she will WIN.

Yap all you want but realize at the end of the lengthy process, Hillary Clinton will be our next President!

If you disagree, please post the demographics that show a Republican will win.

First digging up anything on Hillary Clinton is not a difficult task, and you mention Fox but seems to be that the bastion of left wing news, New York Times is sort of leading the pack at this point, but you cannot see that I suppose.

Seondly to answer your specific question and all of this is subject to the election BEING A YEAR and half away....

Much lower voter turnout than in 2008 and 2012
Much lower black voter turnout than in 2008 and 2012.
Much higher conservative voter turnout

President Obama won by 4 percentage points in 2012. 2 percent loss or 2% gain means a tie.

Seems simple...hope that answers your question

OH....and by the way.....read the Democratic blogs. They doubt in Hillary Clinton.....they are pushing more candidates in....

Originally Posted by Guest

First digging up anything on Hillary Clinton is not a difficult task, and you mention Fox but seems to be that the bastion of left wing news, New York Times is sort of leading the pack at this point, but you cannot see that I suppose.

Seondly to answer your specific question and all of this is subject to the election BEING A YEAR and half away....

Much lower voter turnout than in 2008 and 2012
Much lower black voter turnout than in 2008 and 2012.
Much higher conservative voter turnout

President Obama won by 4 percentage points in 2012. 2 percent loss or 2% gain means a tie.

Seems simple...hope that answers your question

OH....and by the way.....read the Democratic blogs. They doubt in Hillary Clinton.....they are pushing more candidates in....

Doncha just love when facts come back and hit ya between the eyes.....good job!

Originally Posted by Guest

Doncha just love when facts come back and hit ya between the eyes.....good job!

Exactly, from the same people that told us that Mitt Romney would win in a landslide, Sarah Palin was qualified to be president, and the Iraq war was a good idea. Pardon our skepticism.

I have learned all I want to know about Hillary from Google. Try it sometime.

Originally Posted by Guest

Doncha just love when facts come back and hit ya between the eyes.....good job!

It is interesting that that particular poster mentioned both Fox news and the Koch brothers.

I suspect this is a real hard core liberal, almost socialist person who would never vote anything but democratic. I also assume you absolutely believes all she is told.

Both parties stretch the truth. Hopefully most do some reading and see through the crap. This poster must have been an accolyte of Harry Reid. He made a career of talking about the Koch Brothers.

Ok...now as far as Fox is concerned....do not see that much bashing of Hillary Clinton on Fox at all. As mentioned, most of the Hillary bashing is from her own party or traditional liberal media sites. I think the Fox news stuff is something that the strict party line people have a need to mention as it will cure all ills.

On the Koch brothers. Oh boy they sure do donate a lot of money to conservative candidates. Most of the money they give is to lobbying groups and individual candidates.

Let us always reflect on George Soros and his infamous Open Society Institute. That institute is all his money. Funds from Open Society financed all the protests in Ferguson...yep, they were financed like a professional athlete. He funds American Immigration Council which advocates expanded rights and amnesty for illegal aliens residing in the U.S.

This is a good one....he finances American Family Voices. This group creates and coordinates media campaigns charging Republicans with wrongdoing.

I would mention Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now which he financed voter mobilization drives on behalf of leftist Democrats. Now when I say LEFT, I mean left. But, it has so much corruption, I am not sure it even exists any longer.

There are 100's and 100's of these groups which Soros finances along with his individual donations and he is in the millions with Hillary Clinton so far this election season.

I do not mean that he and the Democrats are the only money grabbers, because the Republicans do the same.

Problem is that Reid and Obama have made the Koch brothers and Fox such a household name they want you to hate, that you hear less about the other side.

They both do it and mentioned either Fox or Koch means to me, perhaps wrongly, but it means you do not think..you simply mouth what you have been told.

Originally Posted by Guest

Doncha just love when facts come back and hit ya between the eyes.....good job!

Pres. Obama got 330 electoral votes to The Loser getting 206 electotal votes.

Pres. Obama received 51.1 percent of popular vote compared to The Loser at 47.2 percent.

How are those for facts?

Originally Posted by Guest

Exactly, from the same people that told us that Mitt Romney would win in a landslide, Sarah Palin was qualified to be president, and the Iraq war was a good idea. Pardon our skepticism.

You are pardoned as you weigh through HISTORY.

We are discussing the current election cycle, and surely you do not need any assistance from the other side.

I happen to think the election will be too close to call at this point, no matter the candidates, but if the left continues to challenge the right on this forum about all the polls and stuff, well...you gotta live with it.

I think Palin has had her day to be ridiculed. Romney was right in everything he said but failed to win, and BOTH PARTIES thought Iraq was a good idea...

BUT AGAIN....you are talking history and if that is what you want to discuss, perhaps you should start a new thread !

Originally Posted by Guest

Pres. Obama got 330 electoral votes to The Loser getting 206 electotal votes.

Pres. Obama received 51.1 percent of popular vote compared to The Loser at 47.2 percent.

How are those for facts?

WOW....IMPRESSIVE ......great facts....what is the point. IT was a close election with only a difference of less than 4 percent which means the black turnout better her great and also the total turnout and over 90% of a great black voter turnout would help because without it, that margin is zero.

And you know, you show such ignorance with the loser term. I never referred to Hillary Clinton in a bad way and certainly not President Obama, but then again, you have to be an adult to understand respect.

Originally Posted by Guest

Pres. Obama got 330 electoral votes to The Loser getting 206 electotal votes.

Pres. Obama received 51.1 percent of popular vote compared to The Loser at 47.2 percent.

How are those for facts?

Originally Posted by Guest

WOW....IMPRESSIVE ......great facts....what is the point. IT was a close election with only a difference of less than 4 percent which means the black turnout better her great and also the total turnout and over 90% of a great black voter turnout would help because without it, that margin is zero.

And you know, you show such ignorance with the loser term. I never referred to Hillary Clinton in a bad way and certainly not President Obama, but then again, you have to be an adult to understand respect.

Only in the alternate universe is 206 to 330 a close election. Of course, Romney did better than McCain who only go 185 against Obama.

Originally Posted by Guest

Only in the alternate universe is 206 to 330 a close election. Of course, Romney did better than McCain who only go 185 against Obama.

Ok...whatever you say. I prefer current events and not history and note no comments on any discussion of the total demographics and how they may shift.

What impression should we take from an election held almost 4 years ago ?

Oh and an election with many "dissolving" factors.......

Originally Posted by Guest

Ok...whatever you say. I prefer current events and not history and note no comments on any discussion of the total demographics and how they may shift.

What impression should we take from an election held almost 4 years ago ?

Oh and an election with many "dissolving" factors.......

Your blathering reply was as unintelligible as Debbie Wasserman's reply.

Originally Posted by Guest

Your blathering reply was as unintelligible as Debbie Wasserman's reply.

Fair enough.

Dissolving factors.....race factor gone

I also am trying to be sarcastic..not well....but everyone seems to agree, the election is over a year away and we do not even know who the candidates are, so is not any conversation like this a bit silly.