So if Hillary declines who will it be ?

The stark difference is Clinton's having lead the polls of prospective Democratic nominees with 33% support in 2006; in 2014, she leads with 73% support.

She is eight years further away from her unfortunate vote to allow the Bush to be the decider in his multi-trillion dollar Iraq fiasco that gave Obama his advantage. She'll very likely exceed Obama's margin of victory amongst women. He had a 14-point edge among female voters over McCain in 2008, despite some females' resentment of his having taken the nomination away from Hillary. In 2012, he carried women by 12%, and the Democratic preference amongst women can be expected to increase if she is the 2014 nominee. You can add Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and younger Americans to her demographic advantage, of course.

So far, Republicans seem to be putting far more effort into sputtering about Hillary Clinton than in finding a viable alternative that they could unite behind.

Democrats are enjoying that spectacle, of course, but if Clinton decides she's not interested, it would get very interesting.

 

The intellectual insecurity of some Repubs is comical. The Bush may have been their idea of a mental giant, but nominating the one dude in the nation who had promoted and enacted individually-mandated universal health care when your principle opposition issue was to individually-mandated universal heath care was not exactly an instance of the Party's reputed collective acumen - that amidst the empirical reality of the least-educated states gravitating to the "red" camp whilst the top achievers are all "blue" - according the the Wall Street Journal and FoxBusiness.

It's hardly surprising that they are so touching when it comes to cerebral eminence. Then there are also all those smarty-pants scientists that get them all wee wee'd up, of course.

 

Let's see now. In 2008 the Mainstream Media was promoting Hillary and so her numbers were high, and then the MSM began promoting Barack instead WHILE simultaneously implying that the Clintons were possibly closet racists and implying that anyone still supporting Hillary at the two-thirds point of the primaries was secretly a racist and so her numbers began -- um -- s-i-n-k-i-n-g.

But as Secretary of State her numbers rose again as Barack Obama's began sinking once people realized that despite MSM intimations to the contrary, he was NO Political Messiah. So now all these scandals have erupted involving the Obama administration and many of them implicate Barack himself and so as his numbers have taken a nose dive the MSM has once again essentially begun campaigning for Hillary Clinton and as a result her numbers -- gasp! -- have c-l-i-m-b-e-d. I-It's like some sort of magic with no possible explanation for these results. Yes, no explanation whatsoever says the (collective) MSM smugly while buffing its nails.

Sheesh!

 

which tells me that if she does not run you guys are fractured, or if I were crude another F word comes to mind, but whatever if you want to have orgasms over polls 2 years out by all means enjoy yourself./ Oh and I would not be too worried about her declining, her lust for power will assure she will. One day the idiots learn that all politicians are the same once you scrape the veneer off and it does not matter if they have a D, R, or I behind their names

 

Your paranoia about a vast "MSM" conspiracy that controls America and your divining it's inexplicable preferences are amusing.

It that why no one can access Fox, The Weekly Standard, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, Briebart, The Blaze, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Michael Reagan, Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, G Gordon Liddy, Hugh Hewitt, Dana Loesch, Kevin Jackson, Dennis Prager, Monica Crowley, Brit Hume, Sarah Palin, Byron York, Elizabeth Hasslebeck, Charles Krauthammer, Mike Huckabee, Michael Medved, David Frum, Joe Scarborough, and all those right wing blogs?

Damned MSM!

- - - Updated - - -

Not "you guys", but the Democratic party, certainly. They'd be scrambling like the GOP.

 

Pssst . . . most people still get their political news from ABC, CBS, and NBC . . . which have all become political arms of the Democratic Party. Pop! And another political bubble has burst.

 

I wonder if the internet with it's news and social medias will affect 2016 more than expected. Will the MSM's role in deciding the presidency be diminished?

 

righties have taken to repeating this meme over and over again.... that the major networks are "political arms" of the democratic party.... and they say it as if it is fact, and not just spin. I guess if you repeat a lie over and over again, pretty soon, folks will start believing it's true.

 

Well yes and then again no. It will definitely affect the youth vote that now wishes it could have Barack Obama recalled (there was a Harvard poll out to that effect last year) because they live on the internet and breathe via social media. So their learned and hard earned disdain for Barack Obama will be transferred to Hillary Clinton simply because the Right is going to present ALL of her warts to the reading public. That plus they will realize that in just the same way the bulk of the MSM -- twice -- promoted Barack Obama as the only intelligent choice for the voting public they will see in the MSM's over the top promotions for Hillary precisely more of the same sort of politically biased cheerleading efforts. So that will make a difference and one that's almost exclusively going to be due to rightwing access to the Internet. In other respects, however, it's still going to matter who the bulk of the MSM supports in regards to people without the capacity to think for themselves or to detect when they are being openly conned.

 

The fellow who crafted that now famous smoking gun e-mail for the Obama people is the BROTHER of the fellow who runs CBS' News Division and the fellow who specifically runs their political division also works for a very liberal e-zine called Slate and at that hyper-degree of leftwing partisanship, CBS STILL has not quite as of yet sunk into such depths of leftwing partisanship that they have created something as grotesque leftwing partisan as MSNBC. That jewel of a hyper-partisan leftwing 'news' outlet was created by -- ahem! -- NBC.

So what was that you were nattering on about regarding the NON partisan nature of the three traditional broadcast networks? You see I could not hear you over the noise of the forking obvious truth.

 

Those networks do, indeed, appeal to most Americans. Of course, such corporate entities' interest is in profit, and that means attracting the mainstream audience, even if that means getting some fringe elements in a dither.

It's incredibly naïve paranoia that fancies business executives perverting their product by indulging in some ideological whim that would wreak havoc with their bottom line. But, that's paranoia for you. Meanwhile, the ideological fringe constitute a niche target audience for those who slant their reportage to satisfy those biases, so everyone is accounted for. If anyone wishes to dismiss responsible reportage, they can always find some source that will accommodate them - with "birther" fantasies, or even an imminent Romney Landslide!, for that matter.

Were competent journalistic sources to pander so shamelessly, their audiences would rapidly dwindle.

 

"Blah, blah, blah . . . these are not the 'droids you are searching for . . . blah, blah, blah." Unfortunately for the Left, which is getting a great deal of mileage from the MSM's overwhelming loyalty to the Democratic Party, enough 'independently verifiable facts' are available now of -- say -- the brother of an Administration lie-monger running CBS' news division WHILE CBS' Political News Director also works for an uber-liberal political e-zine. Oh and then there is the fact that NBC created and then maintained at a financial loss MSNBC.

 

You can strain to formulate a coherent defence to your heart's content, if you wish, pretending that mainstream Americans are the dupes of mainstream media's vast and nefarious conspiracy, but the reality is that most are wary of most institutions, whether private capitalistic enterprise such as NBC, CBS, and ABC, or public ones such as Congress.

Liberals will find bias in one direction, rightists in another. Centrists recognize that both occur. Paranoids imagine that there is some huge, manipulative, not-so-kindly old Geppetto pulling everyones' strings but their own.

There is no reasoning with such folks.

 

this is getting way off topic but then I guess it has pretty much been determined that Hillary will run and on the small chance she doesn't the Dems have not got anyone worth a crap to nominate

On the derail you can just follow the money. NBC and MSNBC are owned by GE. GE's Jeffrey Immelt is Obama's butt buddy and raking in money in hand over fist by pushing the wind power scam onto taxpayers. In reality both political parties being ran by billionaires whose only interest is making more money. Political discussion these days can be summed up by my billionaires are better than your billionaires. Then the partisans just side with whichever political party they think will benefit their personal agenda

 

the fact that a particlar network may have a liberal (or conservative) slant does not mean that they are the "political arms" of a political party's national committee. That is, and has always been, incorrect.

 

I suppose, but I am not totally content with that. I think Hillary would be a step backward and would be hugely boring. I'll still be voting for the woman when the time comes.

 

Careful now, you are arguing with a guy who thinks "white Hispanic" was specifically invented to describe George Zimmerman.

- - - Updated - - -

Honestly, the GOP's potential presidential candidates are such a joke, that the Dems could run a dog turd and win.

 

That's like saying that rape is actually just rough sex . . . but that still does not really doesn't make it so.

 

Trying to save face after your stupidity was called out, eh?

 

Pardon? Confusing me with yourself again?

 

no. calling a network the "political arm" of the DNC is simply hyperbolic partisan spin. Denying that fact just makes you look ridiculous.

 

You write that while in total denial of reality . . . but I don't mind, because I enjoy a good laugh.

 

I deny nothing. I am fully aware that some networks have a slant to their news coverage. I simply deny that there is any direct linkage between the DNC (or the RNC) and any network. You got somebody's brother who works for a network and that, in your pea brain somehow equates to the network being the political arm of the DNC? You're a freakin' drama queen.

 

There may or may not be any linkage, but these media outlets are beyond AWFUL for political information. MSNBC, Fox, etc fail to heed Sir Kennedy's words to "inform and encourage the American people." If we're going to have political outlets to disseminate information, the least it could do is assure the political competency of the citizens.

I read articles, etc independently of political bias and thus allows me to get a firm and better understanding of the facts.

 

there are way more liberals on MSNBC than there are conservatives. there are way more conservatives on FOX than there are liberals. CNN spends all their time on airline crashes and ferry singings and we, the viewer, have to sort through the mess to find news and not opinion. I do it. I do it like you... I read many different sources of news and I do NOT watch any network news offerings - cable or broadcast.