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.
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.
Why are the Democrats just rolling over to give Hillary the nomination like it's "just her turn" or something stupid???
Why arent some very qualified Democrats not running against her?? Governors....Senators? It's like they are in a spell over there!
Benghazi.........Emails.........Lies on top of lies going into this thing, and they dont have anyone better suited to run this country????
Is Liz Warren the ONLY friggin name they keep coming up with?? Are White males scared to run now in the Democrat party??
I just remember a time when the field was full of candidates who thought they come do the job! This is beyond weird to me.....
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".
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.
The best candidates aren't running, the people who would do the best job as POTUS are smart enough to not want the job.
The email thing will blow over. Many Republicans are trying to figure out why they are investigating Benghazi again. A friend of mine is a staunch Repub and thinks the first Republican committee that found nothing wrong spent enough money. I personally don't like Hillary, but what Republican will be better? Most Republicans seem to be hoping that a white Knight will come along. I'm afraid this will be like the last election, with no good candidate. Many people, if they have to choose between Hillary or one of the leading Repubs, will either vote for her or stay home. I might just stay home myself.
I still don't think Hillary will get the nomination. She is a horrible campaigner. It will just take one candidate with a bit of charisma just like 2008.
I still don't think Hillary will get the nomination. She is a horrible campaigner. It will just take one candidate with a bit of charisma just like 2008.
Until I see someone better, I already know that I'm voting for her. I've already filled out the ballot.
Again....put up someone better and I'll reconsider. And I'm pretty sure that unless you dig up Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, or allow Bill Clinton to run again, no reconsidering will be needed.
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.