Mitt Romney sparks new 2016 competition among GOP establishment

[Publicus]

That would be the Democratic party field of candidates so let's get back to the thread to focus on Willard Mitt Romney and the R party field of dreamers.

To take just a moment, however, Bernie Sanders will not get anywhere remotely close to being the D party nominee and if the people on the right around here want to hear a self-declared socialist they'd need to listen to Sanders and then listen to Prez Obama to see the difference.

The public opinion survey polling is highly informative but so are the ratings of each candidate's possibilities and probabilities by the global investor class. Some of the latest data are...

Bush 5-2

Rand Paul 8-1

Romney 11-1

Rubio 12-1

Chris Christie 14-1

I'll stop in the interests of mercy toward the unfortunate who are in this instance the over privileged. Things might be looking up for Willard however because until he'd spoken up last week Mitt was at 12-1. Until Bush announced his intention to run Rubio had been at 6-1.

We'll see what the R party primary voters have to say, but not for a good while yet.

[NeverSure]

That would be the Democratic party field of candidates so let's get back to the thread to focus on Willard Mitt Romney and the R party field of dreamers.

To take just a moment, however, Bernie Sanders will not get anywhere remotely close to being the D party nominee and if the people on the right around here want to hear a self-declared socialist they'd need to listen to Sanders and then listen to Prez Obama to see the difference.

The public opinion survey polling is highly informative but so are the ratings of each candidate's possibilities and probabilities by the global investor class. Some of the latest data are...

Bush 5-2

Rand Paul 8-1

Romney 11-1

Rubio 12-1

Chris Christie 14-1

I'll stop in the interests of mercy toward the unfortunate who are in this instance the over privileged. Things might be looking up for Willard however because until he'd spoken up last week Mitt was at 12-1. Until Bush announced his intention to run Rubio had been at 6-1.

We'll see what the R party primary voters have to say, but not for a good while yet.

Why do you keep looking at polls this early? Eight years ago Hillary was the clear winner for the Dems but then she got trounced.

Your list (and the pollsters' list) all look like losers to me. But then pollsters wouldn't get paid if they didn't do polls this early.

Then you have the MSM who is forever trying to pump someone up. That would be their favorite of course. If it's a Republican it's a liberal Republican and if it's a Democrat we already know it's a liberal.

The liberal MSM is going to try to pump up Romney because he's a loser, and because if he did win, he's a liberal. I don't know if they remember that Hillary is a loser but if they remember they'll support someone else and make that someone else get all of the attention.

There's a long time left to go.

[Publicus]

Well, I'm a liberal democrat and I realize Hillary Clinton, if nominated, is certainly beatable. My heart (and head) says she should have been elected instead of Obama but that didn't happen of course. So now pushing on eight years later yes she is old and it shows, and unfair as that is, that's a bigger problem as far as public perception for a woman than a man. Though it didn't help McCain either. So yes it's definitely "her turn" in fact well overdue for "her turn" but I do think if there was someone of great substance who could beat her in the primary, that would be fine. But who exactly? I don't have a name. As you might expect I like Elizabeth Warren but she REALLY can't win the general. So WHO?

BTW -- yes I do think Hillary IS running.

Duh.

Double Duh.

Hillary was pushed by the MSM as the anointed and was presumed to be winning the Democratic nomination the last time we were in this position until an unknown named Obama came out of nowhere and knocked her off. That should be very telling as to how deep her support actually is.

Romney knocked off all of the establishment Republicans to win the nomination.

Hillary and Romney are historical losers. Why should we think one of them will win? Personally, I'm tired of both of those losers.

Point is, it's too early to call it. I still suspect that at least the Republican nominee is going to come out of nowhere as Romney and Obama did. It's possible that the Dem will too.

Agreed it's much too early and soon in a winding process to call anything.

However, we do know the R party big money and clout is with Jeb Bush, and the D party big money and heft is holding for Hillary.

National Republicans know they have to act on immigration and Jeb Bush is their guy to do it. The R party establishment knows that If the R party does not overcome the immigration idiocy of the Republicans in Congress the past several years which is ongoing to the present, it will lose the race for prez in 2016 and it will lose it decisively, by upwards of 8 million votes or more...losing by 10 million votes is realistic.

Former SecState Clinton has the Hispanic, HUD Secretary Julian Castro on her short list of who she'd choose as her vp mate.

In 2012 Hillary got derailed by Barack Obama who was a senator and already in the race, and who had the luxury of not having to vote on the Iraq war resolution while saying he would have voted against it. Hillary got boxed in by that and because her campaign organization had infighting and turnovers that caused important delegates in important states to go unattended and thus for Obama. None of any of this will recur.

Willard is so...so.......yesterday.

[bendejo]

Hillary's biggest asset is Bill. Even O'Reilly says that. I find her detestable, If she got the nomination in 2008 I would have favored McCain. If she gets elected the worst thing that could happen is if Bill dies while she's in office (don't cry for her, Argentina Christina).

If Sanders decided to run, he would first sign up with the Dems. He'd be the nearest thing the Dems would have to a Ron Paul. He'd never make it past Super Tuesday, if that far, and that's no great insight, but hey, he could win New Hampshire! He would be the one to run interference -- when the right starts tossing the socialist/commie condemnations toward the other candidates Bernie will step forward with "No, that is not socialism. I know that because I am a socialist." It would be the first time a major party candidate would openly admit to being so left.

I like Warren, but she's not presidential material, and I mean that as a compliment. I don't think she'll run. I hope not.

Who else do the Dems have? Cory Booker? Deval Patrick?

Scott Walker, the flagship success of the Koch Brothers. Union-buster who does his benefactors proud. How can anyone who has ever punched a timeclock vote for this stooge? Another of the bloodless young Republicans along with Ryan, Rubio and Cruz.

Rand Paul is going to self-destruct.

It looks like a lock for Jeb. This is Rove's GOP, and he was W's Pygmalion, so that's a hell of an 'in.' If Papa dies in 2016 (when the actual primaries take place) he could be carried as a sympathy vote.

Glad to hear Mitt is back. A few days ago I read his new platform would be poverty. This is something I'd expect from The Onion.

Yesterday I read his new platform would be foreign policy. You can't say the man lacks entertainment value. His wife truly believes her husband is the only person who can save the doomed nation.

[NeverSure]

To me it's the same ole same ole tired people desperately wanting to be POTUS. I don't know what drives them. Some of them are very wealthy including Hillary and Romney.

I've heard Donald Trump's name mentioned but I don't know if he'll decide to run. He's very good in front of a camera. I think he's an R. I don't know what his policies would be but I heard him give an excellent speech about how China is ripping off the US in the area of trade.

Who knows.

[CMNightRider]

Don't understand really why the republicans even bother to nominate a candidate, as they don't have a chance against the democrats this election anyway.

"You don't understand why the republicans even bother to nominate a candidate?" Well gee, why would one want a continuation of Obama's looney liberal policies? What I can't understand, is why America has such a low voter turnout. I think it should be mandatory for every adult in America to vote, and once you die, you should no longer be allowed to vote.

Hopefully, there will never be another person as unqualified, along with a concealed past as Obama has, to ever darken Americas political scene again. How can the American public not question or be concerned about Obama's past? I can understand why liberals may tend to over look this guys past but not normal adults.

[Loptr]

All of the American oligarchs have skeletons ratting around in their closets... With Mitt, some cursory research indicates that he has been compromised due to his Cuban mistress, blood diamonds and ties to the drug trade... What self-respecting oligarch would not profit from such activities... Same as the Clintons and Bush families... Don't believe me, look it up...

[inbangkok]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I like Romney better than anyone else running so far and I am sure he would have been a much better President than Obama, but the liberal media did such a smear job on him last time, that I don't know if he has a chance. What a shame that there is so much dishonesty in political campaigns.

Right, it is the "Liberal Media" that caused him to lose....twice! Nothing to do with the fact he acts like an Oligarch and wold run the government as such and luckily people were smart enough to see that.

That is why he was voted worst President since WWII by the American people.

More than half the American people cannot even name the three branches of government among other things. What the "American people" think on things like this often tend to be futile. You claim, "What a shame that there is so much dishonesty in political campaigns." You should feel the same about the way the media often reports on the president. Especially such esteemed sources as Fox.

And no, I am not some die hard Obama supporter......just smart enough to see through the fog and nonsense.

[inbangkok]

To me it's the same ole same ole tired people desperately wanting to be POTUS. I don't know what drives them. Some of them are very wealthy including Hillary and Romney.

I've heard Donald Trump's name mentioned but I don't know if he'll decide to run. He's very good in front of a camera. I think he's an R. I don't know what his policies would be but I heard him give an excellent speech about how China is ripping off the US in the area of trade.

Who knows.

I know that dumb ass Trump will never stand a chance at sitting in the oval office. They guy is a carton character and nothing more.

Edited January 18, 2015 by inbangkok

[CMNightRider]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I like Romney better than anyone else running so far and I am sure he would have been a much better President than Obama, but the liberal media did such a smear job on him last time, that I don't know if he has a chance. What a shame that there is so much dishonesty in political campaigns.

Right, it is the "Liberal Media" that caused him to lose....twice! Nothing to do with the fact he acts like an Oligarch and wold run the government as such and luckily people were smart enough to see that.

That is why he was voted worst President since WWII by the American people.

More than half the American people cannot even name the three branches of government among other things. What the "American people" think on things like this often tend to be futile. You claim, "What a shame that there is so much dishonesty in political campaigns." You should feel the same about the way the media often reports on the president. Especially such esteemed sources as Fox.

And no, I am not some die hard Obama supporter......just smart enough to see through the fog and nonsense.

If you are "smart enough to see through the fog and nonsense," then you would be able to appreciate Fox News. Fox News exposes liberals when they stray too far to the left.

[inbangkok]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I like Romney better than anyone else running so far and I am sure he would have been a much better President than Obama, but the liberal media did such a smear job on him last time, that I don't know if he has a chance. What a shame that there is so much dishonesty in political campaigns.

Right, it is the "Liberal Media" that caused him to lose....twice! Nothing to do with the fact he acts like an Oligarch and wold run the government as such and luckily people were smart enough to see that.

That is why he was voted worst President since WWII by the American people.

More than half the American people cannot even name the three branches of government among other things. What the "American people" think on things like this often tend to be futile. You claim, "What a shame that there is so much dishonesty in political campaigns." You should feel the same about the way the media often reports on the president. Especially such esteemed sources as Fox.

And no, I am not some die hard Obama supporter......just smart enough to see through the fog and nonsense.

If you are "smart enough to see through the fog and nonsense," then you would be able to appreciate Fox News. Fox News exposes liberals when they stray too far to the left.

I am smart enough not to appreciate Fox, MSNBC or CNN. There is almost no intellectual value or real knowledge to be gained from any of these 24 hour news stations. If you truly believe Fox is some ultimate purveyor of truth regrading "liberals" or the "left" or whatever.......there is honestly not much I can really say to that except that it is unfortunate.

[chuckd]

<snip>

I am smart enough not to appreciate Fox, MSNBC or CNN. There is almost no intellectual value or real knowledge to be gained from any of these 24 hour news stations. If you truly believe Fox is some ultimate purveyor of truth regrading "liberals" or the "left" or whatever.......there is honestly not much I can really say to that except that it is unfortunate.

If you don't mind my asking, who is your preferred source of political knowledge?

I'm always looking for sources that provide both sides of an argument so would appreciate your input.

[chuckd]

Duplicate post

Edited January 18, 2015 by chuckd

[kingalfred]

We all look forward to the "seven dwarfs" line up for tv debates circa 2011 and who says the President "voted" the worst since WW2? The same poster who was absolutely convinced Romney was going to win in 2012. The only "vote" President Obama has stood in he's won. Oh and hows the economy doing UG?Despite the loons in house attempts to shut down government.

Edited January 18, 2015 by kingalfred

[inbangkok]

<snip>

I am smart enough not to appreciate Fox, MSNBC or CNN. There is almost no intellectual value or real knowledge to be gained from any of these 24 hour news stations. If you truly believe Fox is some ultimate purveyor of truth regrading "liberals" or the "left" or whatever.......there is honestly not much I can really say to that except that it is unfortunate.

If you don't mind my asking, who is your preferred source of political knowledge?

I'm always looking for sources that provide both sides of an argument so would appreciate your input.

I actually don't have any preferred ones. Having a "Preferred" news source is part of the problem as you can see from our friend above who apparently thinks Fox is of some undeniable value. I have about 50 sites bookmarked from think tanks, to mainstream news outlets, to smaller independent news outlets, to "new media", and I am always interested in reading what "real" journalists have to say. I also pay to acess certain sites like Foreign Policy which is mostly work by academics and often scholars across the board. People in the field and people who truly research the material (not political pundits who simply give opinions) are always important as well. And of course, read lots of books as well. I also read journals from the American Political Science Association and International Security. Watching cable news is not really of any value anymore. People who honestly think that watching Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity acting like an ass for an hour, or Al Sharpton or Don Lemon is somehow making them smarter and more politically knowledgeable is simply lost.

[Anthony5]

Hillary's biggest asset is Bill. Even O'Reilly says that. I find her detestable, If she got the nomination in 2008 I would have favored McCain. If she gets elected the worst thing that could happen is if Bill dies while she's in office (don't cry for her, Argentina Christina).

If Sanders decided to run, he would first sign up with the Dems. He'd be the nearest thing the Dems would have to a Ron Paul. He'd never make it past Super Tuesday, if that far, and that's no great insight, but hey, he could win New Hampshire! He would be the one to run interference -- when the right starts tossing the socialist/commie condemnations toward the other candidates Bernie will step forward with "No, that is not socialism. I know that because I am a socialist." It would be the first time a major party candidate would openly admit to being so left.

I like Warren, but she's not presidential material, and I mean that as a compliment. I don't think she'll run. I hope not.

Who else do the Dems have? Cory Booker? Deval Patrick?

Scott Walker, the flagship success of the Koch Brothers. Union-buster who does his benefactors proud. How can anyone who has ever punched a timeclock vote for this stooge? Another of the bloodless young Republicans along with Ryan, Rubio and Cruz.

Rand Paul is going to self-destruct.

It looks like a lock for Jeb. This is Rove's GOP, and he was W's Pygmalion, so that's a hell of an 'in.' If Papa dies in 2016 (when the actual primaries take place) he could be carried as a sympathy vote.

Glad to hear Mitt is back. A few days ago I read his new platform would be poverty. This is something I'd expect from The Onion.

Yesterday I read his new platform would be foreign policy. You can't say the man lacks entertainment value. His wife truly believes her husband is the only person who can save the doomed nation.

Glad to hear Mitt is back. A few days ago I read his new platform would be poverty.

The republicans are pretty well known for that subject, looking at how they promoted poverty in their last tenure.

[Publicus]

Don't understand really why the republicans even bother to nominate a candidate, as they don't have a chance against the democrats this election anyway.

"You don't understand why the republicans even bother to nominate a candidate?" Well gee, why would one want a continuation of Obama's looney liberal policies? What I can't understand, is why America has such a low voter turnout. I think it should be mandatory for every adult in America to vote, and once you die, you should no longer be allowed to vote.

Hopefully, there will never be another person as unqualified, along with a concealed past as Obama has, to ever darken Americas political scene again. How can the American public not question or be concerned about Obama's past? I can understand why liberals may tend to over look this guys past but not normal adults.

Political spam.

Tell us about "Obama's past."

Tell us...........

[pitrevie]

Don't understand really why the republicans even bother to nominate a candidate, as they don't have a chance against the democrats this election anyway.

"You don't understand why the republicans even bother to nominate a candidate?" Well gee, why would one want a continuation of Obama's looney liberal policies? What I can't understand, is why America has such a low voter turnout. I think it should be mandatory for every adult in America to vote, and once you die, you should no longer be allowed to vote.

Hopefully, there will never be another person as unqualified, along with a concealed past as Obama has, to ever darken Americas political scene again. How can the American public not question or be concerned about Obama's past? I can understand why liberals may tend to over look this guys past but not normal adults.

Political spam.

Tell us about "Obama's past."

Tell us...........

He is a Muslim, fascist, communist who was born in Kenya and has no birth certificate apart from the fake one issued in Hawaii and he spent $250 million dollars a day on his official visit to India. Every mass shooting in the USA is a plot by Obama to take the guns away. Also he has no intention of allowing an election in 2016 but intends to stay on as president. If you want proof, that is easy just listen to Alex Jones, Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh and don't forget Benghazi. Now where are those pills?

[Chicog]

To me it's the same ole same ole tired people desperately wanting to be POTUS. I don't know what drives them. Some of them are very wealthy including Hillary and Romney.

I've heard Donald Trump's name mentioned but I don't know if he'll decide to run. He's very good in front of a camera. I think he's an R. I don't know what his policies would be but I heard him give an excellent speech about how China is ripping off the US in the area of trade.

Who knows.

Trump? He'd be ripped to pieces in no time, you must be joking.

[chuckd]

Romney reentering the race for president emphasizes the fact the Republican party has too many candidates.

The R party has more candidates than is good or practical as was obvious in 2012 when nine of 'em chewed each other up while one after the other rose to the top only to crash back down again. Romney ended up crawling out from the political scrum too tattered and torn to win.

The Democratic party bench is nowhere near as deep as the R party bench which as noted is a scruffle of wannabes and warmed up leftovers.

Entering the final and championship round in September 2016 the D party has the long ball cleanup hitter, former SecState Hillary Clinton, while the R party has the washouts, the rookies, the wannabes..

With the game on the line in November next year I want my cleanup hitter coming to bat with the bases full rather than have a wannabe who has to be pointed in the right direction and whose father is sitting in the owner's box.

"With the game on the line in November next year I want my cleanup hitter coming to bat with the bases full rather than have a wannabe who has to be pointed in the right direction and whose father is sitting in the owner's box."

Is this the same clean up hitter that didn't show up at home plate when the bases in Benghazi were loaded with Islamic terrorists?

Her batting average with the bases loaded is 0-1.

[Jingthing]

The 20 - 25 percent of American Fox News zombies that have "Benghazi" on the brain are never going to vote for ANY democrat! As I said, right now. Hillary Clinton is the democrats best shot in 2016. It's not like a challenge isn't possible or even welcome, but if there is one, it's going to have to be one with a reasonable chance of winning the presidency in 2016. So ... WHO?

Edited January 18, 2015 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

Sorry, JT, but if you think Benghazi isn't going to cause her problems, I'm afraid you will be sadly mistaken.

Only the MSM and some liberals believe it is over. Many others do not...including moi.

She has lots of baggage going back to her college days when she was tutored by Saul Alinsky.

Edit in: I have said hundreds of times before, I do not get Fox News and haven't for going on seven years.

Edited January 18, 2015 by chuckd

[Jingthing]

All she needs is one more electoral vote than her opponent. Believe me, the majority of Americans are not and never will have Benghazi on the brain syndrome.

[Chicog]

Sorry, JT, but if you think Benghazi isn't going to cause her problems, I'm afraid you will be sadly mistaken.

Only the MSM and some liberals believe it is over. Many others do not...including moi.

She has lots of baggage going back to her college days when she was tutored by Saul Alinsky.

Edit in: I have said hundreds of times before, I do not get Fox News and haven't for going on seven years.

I think anyone outside Fox is bored titless with the Benghazi nonsense by now. All it is doing is preaching to the converted.

I did watch the gritted teeth apology for their Birmingham baloney this morning, oh dear that was fun to watch 555

[samran]

Don't understand really why the republicans even bother to nominate a candidate, as they don't have a chance against the democrats this election anyway.

"You don't understand why the republicans even bother to nominate a candidate?" Well gee, why would one want a continuation of Obama's looney liberal policies? What I can't understand, is why America has such a low voter turnout. I think it should be mandatory for every adult in America to vote, and once you die, you should no longer be allowed to vote.

Hopefully, there will never be another person as unqualified, along with a concealed past as Obama has, to ever darken Americas political scene again. How can the American public not question or be concerned about Obama's past? I can understand why liberals may tend to over look this guys past but not normal adults.

First thing you've written that I've ever come close to agreeing with you on.

Careful of what you wish for however. We australians have compulsory voting and what happens is that cantidates are generally forced to quite centralist positions as a result. Upside is there is a lot more focus on the 'swinging voter' as opposed to bringing out 'the base'.

In the case of the GOP, the base will get drowned out by the need to pander to more centralist forces and that is way to the left of what you blokes generally want.

Edited January 18, 2015 by samran

[Publicus]

Sorry, JT, but if you think Benghazi isn't going to cause her problems, I'm afraid you will be sadly mistaken.

Only the MSM and some liberals believe it is over. Many others do not...including moi.

She has lots of baggage going back to her college days when she was tutored by Saul Alinsky.

Edit in: I have said hundreds of times before, I do not get Fox News and haven't for going on seven years.

As we see with R party Rep Scalise, who is 3rd ranking Republican leader in the House and his KKK 2004 connections in his home state of Louisiana, and the Saul Alinsky stuff and the Rev Wright crap about Barack Obama, this mud slinging doesn't resonate with the voters.

The overdone hyper partisan far right running in all directions does not resonate with the general electorate, it is the glory of the extreme far right fringe of US politics only to do.

We've been hearing every day for six years Barack Obama is a Muslim, Barack Obama is a socialist, Barack Obama is a gay Muslim intent on destroying America, that Obama secretly supports terrorism, wants illegal immigrants to overrun the US, that he hates white law enforcement officers, Barack Obama is a racist......and now the extreme lunatic right is trying to put nonexistent dark things in Barack Obama's past. This campaign of extreme partisan politics is transparent and hurts only the Republican party.

The Republican party needs to address the concerns of the American people concerning the economy, equity in the society on social issues, national security, the environment, climate change, infrastructure renewal, immigration reform, science and education, the growing income gap and so much more.

Instead Republicans are trying to manufacture negatives about Prez Obama that cover the waterfront, from repealing Obamacare and shutting down the government to the IRS nonsense to Benghazi, Valerie Jarrett and a whole lot more.

The R party needs to face the reality that in presidential elections since 1992, when the voter participation rate was 59% or higher, the Democrat won three times to include Barack Obama twice. Voter turnout for Hillary Clinton in November 2016 will be at least 59%, and it very very probably will be greater than that. The R candidate in 2016 will positively have to get better than Mitt Romney's 47% of the vote to defeat Hillary Clinton, and the R in 2016 will need to do much much better than Sen John McCain's 44% of the popular vote in 2008.

No Republican has won more than 300 electoral college votes since 1986 but since then the Democrat for prez has won greater than 300 EC votes four times. G.W. Bush won 60.9 million popular votes in being reelected in 2004 but in 2012 Mitt Romney got 60.5 million popular votes and he lost...Romney lost big time. Bush in 2004 and Romney in 2012 are the only two Republicans to get 60 million popular votes. Hillary Clinton will get 65 million for sure, perhaps equal to Barack Obama's 69.5 million in 2008.

The more the Republican party listens to the far right, the more often and the worse it loses.

So the Bubbas here, back home and everywhere need to keep hammering away thx.

[up-country_sinclair]

Sorry, JT, but if you think Benghazi isn't going to cause her problems, I'm afraid you will be sadly mistaken.

Only the MSM and some liberals believe it is over. Many others do not...including moi.

Good grief. Still with Benghazi? How many congressional investigations will it take for hyper-partisans to let this go? How many have their been? And what came from it? I'm sure some think that "the next investigation" will finally get to "the truth". But "the truth" is that the extreme right nutjobs are destroying the GOP's 2016 chances from within.

If the lunatic fringe attempts to keep this on the front burner they're definitely going to sway some voters. The only problem is that it's going to sway them FROM the GOP.

Republicans need to stay away from abortion, gay marriage, Benghazi, Keystone, and immigration. Instead, they should focus on tax reform, infrastructure projects (no, not Keystone) and free trade agreements, just like the US Chamber of Commerce recommends. All of these are worthwhile and "do-able", and they would put more money in American's pockets and further rebuild the economy.

If GOP leadership follows the lunatic fringe on divisive social issues (and pointless/hopeless cases) it is only going to result in a democrat in the White House in 2016 and possibly back in control of the senate.

On another thread a card carrying member of the lunatic fringe admitted that the immigration bill had no chance of passing, but that it "would make a statement". The only statement it makes is that the GOP is going to mount an embarrassing retreat just weeks after taking control of both houses of congress. The American people are interested in results, not statements. Now is the time for the GOP to prove it can govern, and I'm really starting to worry about whether or not it can because it can't seem to keep the nutjobs in line.

[Chicog]

Sorry, JT, but if you think Benghazi isn't going to cause her problems, I'm afraid you will be sadly mistaken.

Only the MSM and some liberals believe it is over. Many others do not...including moi.

She has lots of baggage going back to her college days when she was tutored by Saul Alinsky.

Edit in: I have said hundreds of times before, I do not get Fox News and haven't for going on seven years.

I think anyone outside Fox is bored titless with the Benghazi nonsense by now. All it is doing is preaching to the converted.

I did watch the gritted teeth apology for their Birmingham baloney this morning, oh dear that was fun to watch 555

Damn, I didn't realise they'd done another stoopid story on the French as well.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7553975/fox-no-go-zones

[chuckd]

Why don't we just hand Obama's crown to Hillary and be done with it?

Frankly I think that's the only way she will get it.

I ask again...what if Hillary decides NOT to run, for any number of viable reasons?

What are the Democrats going to do? Who will they run?

You rabid Hillary fans simply chose to ignore the data taken by all those surveys about who is your choice. After Hillary you don't have one.

How many times do you think you will hear, between now and the election...""When we left the White House, we were dead broke" ?

And..."I remember landing under sniper fire."

Or, my personal favorite..."At this point, what difference does it make."

You're pinning all your hopes on a 69 year old woman with a very checkered past and nobody else to back her up. Good luck with your dreams of further conquest.

Maybe Bernie will be the choice after all.

Bernie Sanders and Mitt Romney in a debate? Riveting TV!

[Prbkk]

The GOP keeps throwing up names to the right of Strom Thurmond and will lose again. If they can't present a genuine middle-of-the-road candidate then Hilary has it in the bag