is Hillary Clinton really a viable candidate?

When Obama addressed the convention I knew it was going to be hard to beat him. He could speak and he was young. Hillary is old fat and tired.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

When Obama addressed the convention I knew it was going to be hard to beat him. He could speak and he was young. Hillary is old fat and tired.

Doesn't matter. She's still going to dole out the welfare, that's all democrat voters care about.

eber322 wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

She is not Bill Clinton and even Bill never got more than 50 percent of the vote.

Neither did Obama, yet they both got two terms.

I hate to say it, but I think Jeb Bush might be their only chance. Why you ask? One simple reason, the Bush name has been on the presidential ticket, as either pres or vice, six times. And has been on the winning ticket five out of those six times. The odds favor another Bush win.

I will not vote for any Bush. And even if I did like Clinton's politics, I wouldn't vote for her either. This country is not supposed to be ruled by royal families.

Sure but if Bush is nominated, and you don't vote for him, then Clinton wins. That's the whole problem, democrats always vote for their guy, doesn't matter who it is. Republicans decide to stay home if they don't like their guy, thereby handing the win to the democrats. That's why we need a really good Rep candidate that will appeal to the masses of Rep voters and get them to vote. Unfortunately there isn't anybody like that. So half or more of the Rep voters will stay home and Hilliary wins. Same way Obama was reelected.

Even though I don't think Jeb Bush is a "really good" candidate, history shows Reps will vote for a Bush. That's why given the lack of anybody better, I think he has the best chance.

eber322 wrote:

Sure but if Bush is nominated, and you don't vote for him, then Clinton wins. That's the whole problem, democrats always vote for their guy, doesn't matter who it is. Republicans decide to stay home if they don't like their guy, thereby handing the win to the democrats. That's why we need a really good Rep candidate that will appeal to the masses of Rep voters and get them to vote. Unfortunately there isn't anybody like that. So half or more of the Rep voters will stay home and Hilliary wins. Same way Obama was reelected.

Even though I don't think Jeb Bush is a "really good" candidate, history shows Reps will vote for a Bush. That's why given the lack of anybody better, I think he has the best chance.

I can't address your situation, but my vote for the Presidency doesn't count. I'm in NY, a hopelessly blue state. And also a "winner take all" state as far as the electoral college system goes.
More than 4/5th's of the states population is in NY City & Albany, both of which are heavily Democrat. NYC is a typical large urban sewer, where most of the voters vote based upon who promises the most free stuff, and Albany is the state capitol, heavily Democratic because of all of the government jobs there.
The last time NY State's electoral votes went for a Republican was Reagan's second run, in 1984.
So, it really doesn't matter a hill of beans who I vote for, so I might as well NOT reward the Republicans for putting up a lousy candidate.

Annoyed wrote:

I can't address your situation, but my vote for the Presidency doesn't count. I'm in NY, a hopelessly blue state.

I hear you, my vote doesn't count either. I'm from Michigan and the Dem candidate has won this state in every election since Reagan. To many welfare recipients, cartoon characters, and dead people voting democrat down in Detroit. Detroit is a hole that sucks the marrow right out of this state.

But then again that proves the right candidate can get the win, Reagan won Michigan and New York. That means that there are enough conservative voters to get the win, they just need to be motivated/inspired enough to go vote. Unfortunately, without a 'Reagan' to many of them just sit on their arses and stay home on election day.

Annoyed wrote:

eber322 wrote:

Sure but if Bush is nominated, and you don't vote for him, then Clinton wins. That's the whole problem, democrats always vote for their guy, doesn't matter who it is. Republicans decide to stay home if they don't like their guy, thereby handing the win to the democrats. That's why we need a really good Rep candidate that will appeal to the masses of Rep voters and get them to vote. Unfortunately there isn't anybody like that. So half or more of the Rep voters will stay home and Hilliary wins. Same way Obama was reelected.

Even though I don't think Jeb Bush is a "really good" candidate, history shows Reps will vote for a Bush. That's why given the lack of anybody better, I think he has the best chance.

I can't address your situation, but my vote for the Presidency doesn't count. I'm in NY, a hopelessly blue state. And also a "winner take all" state as far as the electoral college system goes.
More than 4/5th's of the states population is in NY City & Albany, both of which are heavily Democrat. NYC is a typical large urban sewer, where most of the voters vote based upon who promises the most free stuff, and Albany is the state capitol, heavily Democratic because of all of the government jobs there.
The last time NY State's electoral votes went for a Republican was Reagan's second run, in 1984.
So, it really doesn't matter a hill of beans who I vote for, so I might as well NOT reward the Republicans for putting up a lousy candidate.

I bet if every person that thought if their vote don't count in New York would vote I bet it would be closer than you thought.

As far as the welfare stuff you can only do that for so long. I am encouraged by all the republican governors and republican state houses. I still stand by Scott Walker and Marco Rubio. I think they would destroy Hillary.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Annoyed wrote:

eber322 wrote:

Sure but if Bush is nominated, and you don't vote for him, then Clinton wins. That's the whole problem, democrats always vote for their guy, doesn't matter who it is. Republicans decide to stay home if they don't like their guy, thereby handing the win to the democrats. That's why we need a really good Rep candidate that will appeal to the masses of Rep voters and get them to vote. Unfortunately there isn't anybody like that. So half or more of the Rep voters will stay home and Hilliary wins. Same way Obama was reelected.

Even though I don't think Jeb Bush is a "really good" candidate, history shows Reps will vote for a Bush. That's why given the lack of anybody better, I think he has the best chance.

I can't address your situation, but my vote for the Presidency doesn't count. I'm in NY, a hopelessly blue state. And also a "winner take all" state as far as the electoral college system goes.
More than 4/5th's of the states population is in NY City & Albany, both of which are heavily Democrat. NYC is a typical large urban sewer, where most of the voters vote based upon who promises the most free stuff, and Albany is the state capitol, heavily Democratic because of all of the government jobs there.
The last time NY State's electoral votes went for a Republican was Reagan's second run, in 1984.
So, it really doesn't matter a hill of beans who I vote for, so I might as well NOT reward the Republicans for putting up a lousy candidate.

I bet if every person that thought if their vote don't count in New York would vote I bet it would be closer than you thought.

I'd take that bet if we could find a way to do it. I could use the easy money.
The upstate rural counties almost always go red, but downstate (4/5th's of the population) and the other 5 urban areas always go Democrat, for the reasons I gave above.

The political landscape has changed much since the days of Reagan. We have far more leeches who vote for whoever gives them the most stuff, and far more government deadwood that votes Democratic as well.

Regardless of opinions, she is running. If she wins the Democratic nomination, I do not see her losing the election.

She might be running either for president or from the law. It looks like this time they are getting closer and the main stream media is hammering her hard. I think because they want Warren they don't Hillary.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

She might be running either for president or from the law. It looks like this time they are getting closer and the main stream media is hammering her hard. I think because they want Warren they don't Hillary.

Again, she has done nothing illegal. At this point, it's simple political posturing.

Bandit wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

She might be running either for president or from the law. It looks like this time they are getting closer and the main stream media is hammering her hard. I think because they want Warren they don't Hillary.

Again, she has done nothing illegal. At this point, it's simple political posturing.

Actually they could get her for destroying evidence she also signed government forms to disclosing donors. Perjury on a government document is severe.