Has Hillary disqualified herself?

Does it really matter? All that can be said no matter who gets elected is that deficits will increase, more entitlements will be passed, and the US will find new and inventive ways to interject itself in wars across the globe, all because they "care".

 

Hillary will wait until after the 2014 off year elections. The political winds are pointing to a conservative landslide for controlling both houses which I think would make it unlikely she would run. It will 4 years of dismantling what Obama has so dreadfully screwed up.

 

Those are the same winds that guaranteed Obama would go down in a landslide in 2012.

 

And why will she win? Why would anyone vote FOR her in the first place?

 

transvetite vs ted cruz?...tranny wins in a landslide...

 

Those aren't political winds, you had beans for lunch.
The fact is that the demographics will favor Democrats more in 2014 than it did in 2010, and more in 2016 than it did in 2012.
Now 2008 was a Democratic year, because we were coming off 8 years of the worst president in history (way down at the bottom anyway), the first president since Hoover to leave office with fewer private sector jobs in place than when he took office, and the economy was in free fall, and having started two wars of choice, and we were being humiliated in both of them.
That's a good year for Democrats, so good in fact, we picked up enough extra seats to finally pass Health Care, after 65 years of trying.
Now the extra stuff wears off, you don't have the Bush factor now, but you still have the underlying demographic trends, and you may scoff at them, but that's what got Obama a second term, and it's still moving, and it's still moving in favor of the party of the people.

Think of all the negative baggage Obama carried into 2012, no wonder some people didn't believe the polls, now Obama was no where near as bad as Bush, but the economy was tepid, the unemployment was stubborn, the situation was one in which the incumbent usually loses, but the demographics moved the goalposts, and the demographics are moving the goal posts for 2016, it should be even more favorable for the Democratic nominee.
I think the GOP picked up about as much as it can hope for in 2010, the senate could be a problem for the Democrats, but even if they lose the Senate, there won't be a veto proof majority in either house, so Obama care is on the books til 2017. By then, repealing ObamaCare will be impossible, it will need to be replaced, and that's if the GOP gets the White House and both houses of congress, something that has only happened once since the Great Depression.

Odds are, ObamaCare is here to stay, until it gets replaced by Medicare for all.

Texas is a majority minority state, the only majority minority state to vote for Romney.
If minority turnout can be raised to the levels it is in Florida, Texas is in the blue column, and if you add the Texas electoral votes to the electoral votes of the states that have voted Democratic in the last six presidential elections, you are at 270, the game is over.
Remember, Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections.
ObamaCare is here to stay.

 

as the republicans have been taken over by the crazies of the right they have no viable options to offer...Palin? Bachman? Santorum? canada-Cruz?...a collection of morons and crazies is the best reason of all to vote for clinton...any democrat candidate that still has a pulse will win vs any ********* the republicans pick...

 

That's a reason to vote against Republicans, I asked why would anyone vote FOR Hillary a person who has proven her incompetence with no record of any achievement or leadership. I'd vote for any of those you mentioned over her and have more confidence the person could accomplish something and not prove to be the failure Hillary has. And let's not forget the crazies that have taken over the Democrat party and elected Obama.

 

Palin's future, if any, is in the entertainment realm.

It is difficult to understand whether TPs actually suggesting her presidential candidacy bespeaks despair, desperation, resignation, or a pukish sense of humour.

I'm feeling especially generous, so I'll go with the latter.

She couldn't make it as a governor, fizzled as a vp candidate, and was dumped as a "media personality" by Fox.

Maybe her shtick will be doing Tina Fey impersonations.

I could see that.

 

Wry, Mr. Bumpo! Very wry!

 

Because it will be a choice between two people, Hillary and a complete moron.
And as bad as Hillary is, she isn't a complete moron.
And she does have a way of bringing that moronic oafishness out in Republicans.
They had her where they wanted her, on the stand, under oath, and when it was over, she looked like the next president of the United States and they looked like Moe, Larry and Curly.
Now, some people who are kind of like "special needs" when it comes to understanding politics, will ask "Why would anyone vote for her?",
But the real question is "Who could beat her?" and the answer is "No one in the Republican party"

 

Yes we all know that, but she would still make a better President than Hillary.

 

So again a vote against the other mystery candidate rather than a vote FOR Hillary. Proving my point.

 

That you don't understand the American political system?

I think you demonstrated that a long time ago...

 

ROFL, so you are left with trying to denigrate me now...............that the best you got?

Understand it fully more than you I can well imagine since you have in fact proven my point for me, no one can present reasons to vote FOR Hillary. All you have are assertions about mystery candidates that may run against her being the lessor choice. We have no idea who she will face so those assertions are entirely baseless.

So want to try again, give me the reasons to vote FOR her, not against these mystery candidates.

 

I didn't support the war in Iraq. Never did. Are you suggesting that there will be Presidential candidate/candidates that have never been wrong about anything in 2016?

 

An election is a choice between people, Hillary, if she is the Democratic nominee, will run against a Republican, and on nearly every issue, I prefer her position to that of just about any Republican, and certainly to the positions that someone has to pretend to support to get the GOP nomination.

So on abortion, Hillary is pro-choice, whatever clown gets the GOP nomination will have to pretend to be "Pro-Life".(Even if that clown promised his mother on her deathbed that he would never do anything to limit a woman's right to choose)
On health care, Hillary will be for strengthening and improving ObamaCare, whatever clown gets the GOP nomination will have to pretend to think ObamaCare must go (Even if that clown got the exact same bill passed when he was governor).
On the Budget, Hillary will favor raising taxes on the wealthy to balance the budget, whatever clown gets the GOP nomination will have to pretend that raising taxes on Job creators will destroy the economy.

 

She did, unequivocally and yes that war remains an issue and should be used as a measure of her judgement don't you think? Look at the critism the former President and Republicans still take from Democrats. And they will vote for someone who fully supported and pressed others to support what Bush did? The biggest issue of the Bush administration?

 

She has to get nominated first, why would you vote FOR her over OTHER DEMOCRATS? I know you agree with her on issues but there are LOTS of Democrats who agree with you on the issues. Why her the person over them.

Abortion won't be an issue and all the Democrat candidates are pro-abortion. So I have no idea what you think electing her will do for abortion.

We all know of her failure on the issue of healthcare, Hillarycare. Obamacare WILL have to be replace and her track record on the issue is failure.

Which as we know will not balance the budget as her husband found out and in fact will cost GDP growth and tax revenue. She proposes raising capital gains to the 28% her husband raised it to which only collect

Here, go see revenues collect versus the Gingrich/Kasich rates and the Bush43 rates and tell me why you would support that.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

And under those lower rates look at the economic activity, the revenues subject to capital gains which indicates growth, under the various rates, then look at the 52 months of full employment that occurred under the Bush43 rates and tell me why you would vote for her?

But thanks for an honest answer finally from someone.

 

I said if she's the nominee, I'll vote in the primary based on who's running and how they match up

Electing her over a Republican will insure that people who understand the constitution will be appointed to the Supreme Court, rather than right wing hacks like Scalia and Thomas.

She moved the ball on health care, without her efforts in 1990's, and the efforts of all the Democrats before her, and even Romney's efforts, we might not have ObamaCare right now. And I'm contrasting her policy positions vs the Likely GOP rival, who will likely still be blabbing the party line "Repeal ObamaCare" and have nothing to replace it but a two page document that calls on the magic of the market to fix everything and skips the details of how.

You are cherry picking numbers, and making stuff up.
The lowest unemployment rate during Bush43 was on the day he took office.
For all that Bush Boom, the economy was being stimulated by the enormous Bush deficits.
And don't ignore how Bush43 ended, with the economy in freefall, and a Second Great Depression beginning.

Since Reagan redid the tax structure, the share of wealth owned by the top 1% has been multiplied many times, the middle class has been almost stagnant.
We need a new tax structure that addresses this and moves wealth towards a more equal distribution, as was the case every year from 1930 to Reagan.

 

She's smart, tough and experienced.

Who's the alternative?

 

I noticed you left out integrity and taking responsibility in a leadership position?

 

I left out a lot of things. Whose the alternative?

 

Yes you did, I do care about integrity, responsibility and leadership.

 

She'll also be pushing 70 with past health issues. Shouldn't you be hanging your star on somebody who might be around long enough to accomplish something for you?

- - - Updated - - -

And tricky. Look how well she slithered outta the Benghazi thing.

Yeah, Hil's a real jewel for the Democrats.

Best they've got.

All they've got.