Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for her. She's more conservative than I am but I know very well that all I have to do is listen to the Republican candidate speak and I will run to vote for her.
Democrats would be well-served to listen to the Republican primaries. That will tell you everything you need to know about what Republicans stand for. Then smile when you think of how crazy it will make them to have Hillary for president. Bonus: Bill Clinton is smart - they both are.
I wouldn't mind having someone challenge her just so we have a backup plan but a solid portion of the country will vote for any Democratic candidate after they hear the Republican candidate.
I can't think of anyone at the moment. I don't think many saw Obama getting the nomination in March 2006 either.
Yup, I'm in the same boat as many others here. The Republican candidates are horrific, No one on the Democratic side impresses me, but like whogo I hope for someone out of nowhere.
It very likely I will vote for a third party this year. I recommend people on both sides that we should look at some of the third parties. Especially if you aren't in a swing state. I mean lets be honest, the reason given for not voting third party is that you are "throwing your vote away"....in a non-swing state that doesn't matter at all, and if enough people do it we could have a chance at having a viable third party someday.
First: It isn't rational to expect Democrats to care about the self-deceptions right-wingers have swallowed. Second: It is coincidental that the two best candidates, Clinton and Warren, are women. Third: Clinton's biggest strength is that she's a centrist even if right wingers are too blinded by hatred to see it. That means she's going to gain more support from moderates than Warren - or practically any other notable Democrat with significant national recognition - would.
I don't think it's anything you listed, though they are valid points.
I think it is more of a question of Hillary being all the Democrats have. Liz Warren is not ready for prime time, and honestly, you'd be hard-pressed to name any other viable D's.
Hillary is an old, old horse. She likely would have been a better candidate for the Dems in 2008, but instead they opted to get "first black" instead of "first woman" elected. Yes, sadly, the Dems do seem to think there's something historic electing a "first", even if they do turn out to be a "worst".
But she's NOT..... that's the point!
Dems have Senators and Governors ......even former Govs like Evan Bayh who appeals to some Republicans..... But it's like they are in this "must not oppose Hillary" spell.
With Hillary you get her world savvy plus the world savvy of Bill as well.
So many repugs say that they are crooks. They aren't they are just very smart people. Who do you want dealing with all these crooked world leaders. Milktoast republicans or world smart Clintons.
Dems have Senators and Governors ......even former Govs like Evan Bayh who appeals to some Republicans..... But it's like they are in this "must not oppose Hillary" spell.
Why do you care? If Hillary is so beatable, then just worry about which Republican you plan to support. While I like the idea of a backup, there is value in not wasting a bunch of Democratic dollars and negative press coverage on an ugly Democratic primary.
The 2012 Republican primary was nasty.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.