Preparing for 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton embracing Obama

[NeverSure]

Moveon.org is pumping Elizabeth Warren. I don't care for Warren's politics, but she could trounce Hillary just on personality and lack of baggage.

The Republicans had better hope Warren doesn't run. Hillary, no problem. Lots of pundits in the media keep pumping Warren even though she's said she isn't running. The Media wants to dump Hillary because she's seen as a loser. LINK

[jamesjohnsonthird]

As soon as Warren announces and gets any traction, FOX and friends will began their fake scandal campaign. No?

[Publicus]

te is among the states named in the post and I've voted for a good number of Republicans for state office, but Republican for prez only once, which is a pattern among the voters of almost all of the states mentioned in the post.

As for Scott Walker out there in Wisconsin, the state has a long history of Republican governors, such as Tommy Thompson among others, yet Wisconsin votes the D for prez. The entire thesis of the post is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Nothing, not one single sylible in this post or previous post is based on fact. Just regurgitated liberal drivel which only confirms that you certainly spend a fair amount of cuddle time with your fellow lefties Rachael Maddow, Chris Mathews and other spin merchant Obama apologist from the media. You have failed to show any FACTUAL evidence to refute the voting trend from the last two election cycles. As I previously posted Obama walked into the White House with a stacked Congress. Obama and his cronies, (which includes Hillary), set a liberal agenda so far to the left the voters revolted resulting in the loss of both houses of congress in successive elections. The Democrat party lost a total of 85 seats between the House and the Senate in the course of 3 elections. Never has a President and his policies been trounced like that. That's a fact. Look it up, if you dare.

Your girl Hillary, tho she bailed, is still part of that historic loss. She knows it, the public knows it and the truth will bear that out in the next general election. Now go back, memorize some more liberal propaganda as it appears facts have escaped your sense of reality.

LUV Ya Hillary, run baby, run.

Just regurgitated liberal drivel which only confirms that you certainly spend a fair amount of cuddle time with your fellow lefties Rachael Maddow, Chris Mathews and other spin merchant Obama apologist from the media.

My post responded to your post and my post presented my own personal knowledge and experience since I voted for the first time, for Republicans mostly, in 1966 in a very good Republican party year in my native state which, as I'd pointed out, is one of the states your post identifies for your particular purposes.

Rachel Madow whom you mention was born in 1973 and another that you mention, Chris Mathews, was born in 1953 so he was 13 when I became eligible to vote.

I addressed the issues and presented the case that you are IMO wrong.....wrong and wrong. My post is light on rhetoric and strong on factual historical analysis. Your rejection of that is excessive and formulaic, heavy on rhetoric besides, i.e., empty of content and substance.

Get back to me if and when you want to have a serious and respectable discussion that would also be mutually respectful.

I posted facts. You presented nothing to refute those facts. You posted absolutely nothing that proved those facts as, in your words, wrong, wrong and wrong. Now you come back with an admission that personal knowledge and experience dating as far back as 1966 is your basis and assertion of your liberal opinion concerning the outcome of an election to be held in 2016. Good job

Your phony indignation duly noted....

By the way, please don't feel compelled to respond to any of my posts with your useless, outdated historical, (or maybe hysterical) analysis. Facts, just the facts!

Now back on topic and to the facts - Obama in 2012 won but with a very narrow margin. A swing of less than 3 points in the two-party vote would hand the White House to the Republicans, and a swing of that size ar far more the rule than the exception. In fact, looking at the two-party vote no non-imcumbent since U.S. Grant in 1868 has lost less than 3 points off the prior re-elected incumbent's showing. If Hill the "Shrill" wins the presidency in 2016, it will be a historically unprecedented event in more ways than just her gender.

The popular vote really isn't that important, (just as Al Gore). Elections are won in the state elections, (electoral college), where the 2012 gems had and ever so slight advantage. Obama in 2012 won two states, Florida and Ohio, by less than his margin in the popular vote and flipping those two states alone gets the GOP to 253 votes. Add Virginia, the only other state Obama won with less than 52 percent of the two-party vote, are still four electoral votes short, needing to flip one other battle ground state, Colorado, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire or Iowa, all states where Romney got less than 47 percent of the popular vote and less than 48 percent of the two-party vote. So if you simply slide the 2012 results by two points in the two-party vote, the Dems win again. On the other hand, if you add three points to the GOP share of the two-party vote suddenly the GOP has over 300 electoral votes.

The solid blue states won't likely change. The outcome of 2016 will lie with the battle ground states. It's in those states that Hillary is going to have to make the same compelling hope and change case that Obama pulled off twice. And that is what Hillary, Billy and the Liberals lining up behind Hillary are going to have to sell to the same voters who threw out 85 of their comrades nationwide during Obama's un-stewardship ....

Screenshot 2015-04-03 19.14.04.png

Liberals love to reward failure.

So run Hillary, run!!!

By the way, please don't feel compelled to respond to any of my posts with your useless, outdated historical, (or maybe hysterical) analysis. Facts, just the facts!

FACT: Responding to political drivel is always less than compelling. It does however provide the occasion to point out political drivel as in fact drivel.

Obama in 2012 won but with a very narrow margin

FACT: Barack Obama won. Prez Obama is the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to win election then re-election with 51% or more of the popular vote each time. Nixon couldn't do it, neither could Reagan, Clinton nor shrub Bush do it. Moreover, given real on the ground demographics and voting trends, no Republican from now forward will have better than an obscure opportunity to do it, because an R for prez would need to get himself elected to begin with. The probabilities of a Republican getting elected president in 2016 are slim and none, and Slim just left town.

2016 US Presidential Election -

58th President of the USA

Hillary Clinton is the favorite to win the 2016 US Presidential Election, with Jeb Bush sitting second on that list.

Clinton is the 13/10 favorite on the odds to become the 58th President of the United States as of March 2015, with Bush at 4/1.

Scott Walker at 10/1, Marco Rubio at 12/1, Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul at 14/1, New Jersey governor Chris Christie at 16/1, and Ted Cruz back at 33/1.

The post ridiculously attacks my historical analysis (from the LBJ presidency forward) by leaping back to cite the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant (1869-77).

So if you simply slide the 2012 results by two points in the two-party vote

If pigs could fly.

On the other hand, if you add three points to the GOP share of the two-party vote suddenly the GOP has over 300 electoral votes.

On the other hand even a Republican has five fingers. One can use either hand to suddenly slap a pretender political analyst to reality. Reality in win-lose politics says woulda, shoulda, coulda, if, and, but, amount to a meaningless and insignificant pile of speculative dung, and is always a waste of everyone's time.

Anyone with actual political campaign experience would know this 100% already. A blowhard would not know it, or anything about it.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Publicus

[Publicus]

The WaPo/ABC News poll published two daze [for Republicans] ago, shows why no Democrat is going to make a move against Hillary Rodham Clinton at this time or foreseeably into the future.

Clinton's approvals and matchup versus R opponents would need to not only slip significantly for another D to dare to enter, HRC's numbers would need to plummet either precipitiously as in suddenly, or profoundly as in over an extended period of time.

For better or for worse for Republicans, Jeb Bush is the gold standard against which HRC is measured. JBush may or may not falter. Unless or until he does falter or begin to fade among R voters especially, his partisan base, HRC's candidacy will be measured against his.

With these kind of numbers, no D will enter the race. Sen Warren has made clear she is not running. Take that to mean no, as in n-o. Not now, not unless the matchup of HRC versus JEB (John Ellis Bush) completely reverse. Until then, the desperate Rs who are frantically searching, poking, wishing, need to suck on a popsickle to keep them occupied.

If the 2016 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were (Hillary Clinton, the Democrat) and (Jeb Bush, the Republican), for whom would you vote?

Clinton 54%

Bush 40

Other Candidate -

Neither (vol) 2

Would not vote (vol) 2

No opinion 2

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/04/02/National-Politics/Polling/release_393.xml

Note that in these surveys, one percentage point equals approximately 1.3 million voters, based on the total number who voted in 2012.

JEB needs ten percentage points to get to 50%. That is approximately 11.3 million voters to convince to radically change their vote as the matchup presently stands, and has stood since JEB entered the race,

Willard Mitt Romney (name on his birth certificate!) got 58 million votes (47%), Barack Obama got just of 66.8m (51%).

In 2008, McCain got 59.9m, or 45.9%, while Barack Obama got 69.4m, or 62.9%.

Good luck with that youse guyz out there.

RUN HILLARY RUN

Edited April 4, 2015 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Change a typo in the above post by me:

Change Barack Obama got 69.4m, or 62.9%......to Barack Obama got 69.4m, or 52.9%

[Publicus]

Well it's been all over the MSM the past 24 hours that HRC will formally announce on Sunday. Counterfeit Bill just last week laid out how it's HRC's campaign and that he'll be pretty much out of view.

The WaPo poll I cited above makes it clear just about everyone has made up his mind which I would add means HRC is the Democratic party's Reagan, i.e., everyone divided over lovin' him or hating him and more loved him cause he won twice.

All the same, all hands to battle stations to stand by while the Republican party fleet bombards itself to the deep six.

Again.

[jamesjohnsonthird]

It's Official. Hillary is running.

Hold onto your hats. Roger Ailes climbed to the top of his biggest transmitter, veins popping out of his head, ripped open his shirt & announced he is going to DEFCON 1 folks!

Edited April 10, 2015 by jamesjohnsonthird

[Jingthing]

It's Official. Hillary is running.

Hold onto your hats. Roger Ailes climbed to the top of his biggest transmitter, veins popping out of his head, ripped open his shirt & announced he is going to DEFCON 1 folks!

It's official? WOW!

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Ulysses G.]

Roger Ailes make lots of money no matter who wins. He is probably in a good mood.

[Publicus]

Propitious in history, it is.

Hillary Rodham Clinton gets to run for president at the height of the Republican Party Regressive Period.

Republicans have won two of the past six elections of a president. R's have won but one of the past six presidential elections if one counts the Bush Bros & Family chad count in Florida in 2000, which led to a narrow GW Bush win in 2004.

The Democratic party nominee for prez has won the national popular vote in five of the past six elections of the president, to include the 2000 chad year tallying.

Propitious indeed.

The Republican Party Regressive Era.