Hilary Clinton has historic lead over Joe Biden for WH election 2016.

http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-frontrunner-150024708.html

She still hasn't announced whether she's running for president in 2016, but Hillary Clinton is already the biggest front-runner ever for the Democratic presidential nomination, the Washington Post reports.

According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, Clinton leads Vice President Joe Biden by 61 percentage points — the largest margin in the history of the poll.

The former first lady is tops among all possible candidates for the Democratic Party with 73 percent of those polled saying they'd vote for her. Biden, at 12 percent, is a distant second, while Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who some believe could challenge Clinton in a primary, gets 8 percent of the vote.

"For any politician looking to take a flyer on challenging Clinton in the 2016 Democratic primary," the Post writes, "these numbers will have a chilling effect on those ambitions."

Among possible Republican candidates, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan (20 percent) leads by just 2 percentage points over former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (18 percent) for the 2016 nomination. Scandal-plagued New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who was once tabbed as a front-runner by some observers, sits in third place at 13 percent.

Historically, though, a big preprimary lead doesn't necessarily mean a candidate is a lock for the nomination, much less the White House.

In December 2006, Clinton led then-Sen. Barack Obama by 22 percentage points (39 to 17) among potential 2008 Democratic contenders. John Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential candidate, was third (12 percent) in that poll, while former Vice President Al Gore (10 percent) was fourth.

In 1999, Gore himself enjoyed a 37-point lead over former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley for the Democratic nomination ahead of the 2000 presidential race.

Still, the Post notes, Clinton "is a much larger favorite to be the nominee at this point in the 2016 process than she was at this same time (or ever) in the 2008 contest. And, while the hypothetical 2008 matchup showed three candidates — Obama, Edwards and Gore — with real followings immune from Clinton's frontrunner status, there is no one out there in 2016 that can make the same claim."

The poll, in part, shows why oddsmakers think a Clinton nomination is practically inevitable.

According to Oddschecker.com, a British website that tracks online bookmakers, Clinton is nearly a prohibitive favorite, with the odds of her gaining the Democratic nomination at 4 to 5.

2016 Democratic presidential primary poll

• Hillary Clinton 73%
• Joe Biden 12%
• Elizabeth Warren 8%
• Other 1%
• None of these 2%
• Would not vote 4%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can not say that I am too shocked, but it still is slightly surprising. Now the question is does she enjoy this lead because people just love a Clinton or does it reflect more poorly on the Obama white house? Maybe many democrats who had voted for the shiny new guy are having buyers remorse and now Biden is going to pay for it. What do you think?

 

Funny that Joe wouldnt be the front runner. To not endorse him looks like even they are admitting failure on the current Administration, and trying to distance themselves.

Hillary is a great soundbyte, but we've had 8 years of feel good motivation and need some actual substance this time around. Gender isn't anything of substance, which is all she brings.

 

Biden's confidence always keeps me wondering if he knows something that we don't. The WH can keep a lot of secrets about Hillary and the Obama administration but presumably not from old JB the veep.

 

could just be delusional arrogance.

 

You have to ask yourself though, if the left wants Obama's third term, why would they pick Hillary over Biden? And will Obama endorse anyone himself?

 

wow..dumb and dumber..nice choice

 

While Hillary seems indestructible, Warren is my favorite right now because her platform seems more apparent.

She wants to put Glass-Steagall back in place and keep Big Business honest. That's all I need to know.

 

Absolutely it's a classic case of over-the-top buyer's remorse for having -- twice -- put Obama into the Oval Office; but there is also the fact that on a subconscious basis the old rah-rah-rah Hillary Clinton stuff of late 2007 to early 2008, from just BEFORE the MSM decided to switch from pushing her to pushing candidate Obama, is still floating around the average DEM voter's mindset.

So when the MSM not so subtly began promoting Hillary again while she was still Secretary Of State the old programming began kicking in again among that segment of voters. The prep work for this has been many, many years in the making, including the long term project of rehabilitating Bill Clinton's image to the point that it really can be argued, had he not added his restored image as a former president to the generally sad sack campaign efforts of Barack Obama's 2012 bid, Obama just might not be president today.

But mostly it's a massive case of buyer's remorse among the Democrats who were convinced to vote for Barack Obama instead of for Hillary Clinton back in 2008. But even that breaks down into two segments inside the Democratic Party. Remember that half of the Party's voters REALLY wanted Hillary instead of the political rock star fad candidate Barack Obama since they bothered to look into his background and were far from impressed.

They in turn are subdivided into voters like me (Party Unity My A*ss!) PUMA voters who absolutely KNEW based on his background that Obama would be an utter disaster as president (and we were correct) and voters who just thought that an experienced U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton trained to be an effective president from day one by Bill Clinton himself would make a far better president than would a first term U.S. senator with ZERO meaningful national level experience.

Then we have the people who wanted anyone BUT another Clinton in the Oval Office . . . the Obama supporters. Some of them naively thought that a man with zero meaningful national level experience not only would be better than an experienced -- knows where ALL of the political levers are on BOTH the Left and the Right and knows how to pull them -- Hillary Clinton that somehow he would just magically pick up the massively complex and incredibly demanding duties and responsibilities of the presidency while learning HOW to be president on the fly. I am crediting them with naivety instead of accusing them of outright stupidity . . . but it was NOT brilliant thinking on their part.

Then we have the average Obama poster . . . the increasingly bitter dead-ender type who will go to their graves KNOWING that Obama really was the Political Messiah but that a nation of racists screwed him over.

So . . . it's that last rather significant portion of DEM Party voters who are the most interesting in this equation; because secretly most of them hate Hillary Clinton simply because she makes Obama look bad and makes them look like utter morons for ever having voted for him. They are quite likely to become the unspoken (by the MSM) PUMAs of 2016 who will NOT vote for Hillary even if she does run and does win the nomination.

 

So democrats want to offer more of the same but with an inferior candidate? Obama already beat those losers, and their only other chance is to toss Obama under the bus. Obama doesn't seem like the type that would put up with that, his propensity for tossing people under the bus to save himself would indicate he'd run them both over if they turned on him...

 

Honest Injun?



Elizabeth Warren and the word "honest" should not be used in the same paragraph.

 

Who cares, one is just a fool and the other one has the blood of four Americans on her hands.

 

only a simple minded idiot would vote for warren

 

Hillary is smart, but terribly dishonest.

Biden is dumber than a box of rocks, so doesn't know whether what he says is true or not.

 

More Hillary background.

http://patdollard.com/2013/05/flash...avior-conspiracy-to-violate-the-constitution/

 

Although it's good for the Rs, it's sad the Ds can't find a better candidate than either Clinton or Biden!

 

It is unfortunate that neither the Rs or the Ds can find a candidate that inspires much confidence.

 

The Rs have several that fits the bill, but your point is well taken.

 

Biden doesn't really have the fire in the belly. VPs who were not front-running candidates in their own right rarely make a good potus.

Hillary is a larger than life character with obvious intelligence, maturity and ambition. People know her. From Watergate to Benghazi, she has a record far more varied and complex than anyone else on the national scene at the moment.
She would be very compassionate on issues of children, women, the elderly and very pragmatic and establishment-oriented toward government and business.
That is the nature of life in America today.
We have to balance the needs of government and business with the needs of the weak and down and outs, who are also an integral part of society.
The cons are only interested in half of the national equation.
Hillary gets both halves.

And in the reality show mentality that permeates America today, the novelty of a woman president is going to have a strong allure among the simple-minded, and this would benefit a Hillary candidacy.

I trust Hillary to do two things as potus- really care for people who need help, and defend the vital interests of the country with tough but pragmatic actions. I know that I won't like her corporate policies, and I don't know if she's honestly committed on environmental issues, but so far, she is a better potus candidate than anyone else on the national scene.

 

That seems true. She let 15 people die, 4 of which were Americans, and no democrats give a (*)(*)(*)(*).

- - - Updated - - -

Mines better !!!

 

ROLF! Double Win!

 

Yeah, cause Romney was just a genius decision. LOL

 

Sure, you'd think so; but bear in mind that the same blackmail that worked to make both Clintons grit their teeth and BEG PUMAs to vote for Barack Obama after 'their' defeat in 2008 applies to Obama just as effectively. In the case of the Clintons, the DEM leadership told them. "You want Hillary's campaign debt's eliminated? You endorse the winning pissant, Obama. You want to continue having special doors open to your investment projects? You endorse the winning pinhead, Obama." So they did what they had to do. Obama will as well.

He will grit his teeth and take whatever campaign shots are coming his way in 2016 from BOTH Hillary and Bill (should she run) IF he wants special doors open to him as a retired president . . . which he very definitely will want. There are lots and lots of leavers, and the DEM leadership -- who are beyond being merely disgusted with Barack -- will use them in order to make him play political election year ball.

 

Romney is a brilliant guy who has been a success at everything he has done, and this country would be much better off with him in the White House than the current crackhead in chief.

The only drawback Romney had is he is a horrible politician. What this country needs if fewer career politicians but, unfortunately, the electorate just keeps bringing 'em back.

 

Romney ran a poor campaign, and he was certainly not my first choice.

 

Joe would be rather old to run.

I'd prefer Warren, although she probably wouldn't win.