Is Hillary Clinton the only Democrat who can beat a Republican in the upcoming presidential election?
Actually short of someone like Warren getting the nod I think any Democrat could beat the Republican nominee at this point. This view of mine is rooted in the belief that the Republican nomination process itself is profoundly flawed, not in any partisan beliefs I have. Its a system problem.The Democratic nomination process has proven far more resilient when faced with increasing amounts of money and influence peddling. Fringe candidates are treated as such and have a very hard time breaking out. Further without party endorsed events its very hard to get your message out in a meaningful way.On the Republican side truly flawed candidates can reach a much wider stage delaying the unifying of the party around a single candidate. Some of this is on the party with timing of primaries and debates. On the other hand with powerful groups that exist outside of the party structure it is much easier to run an outside campaign within the GOP. Such robust groups like for example the NRA and CPAC are both a blessing and a curse in this respect. This should be a purely good thing, but because of the large amounts of money out there every dark horse can afford to go down swinging just to make a point. This leaves the eventual nominee battered and weakened for a largely unscathed Democratic opponent in the general election. Some changes have been made by the GOP which I do think will help the numbers problem with some purple States, but I don't think it will be enough. Romney moved the needle back in the right direction after the blood letting that was 2008. At the same time in 2016 the GOP has to keep all the Romney States and add 64 more electoral votes. The GOP will need to convert more than Colorado to accomplish that.
Can republicans win the 2016 Presidential election by nominating a relatively young moderate republican (centrist) instead of Donald Trump?
Not a chance. You must remember the nation nominated Trump because they are fed up with centrist moderate Republicans.Not all republicans are wealthy business owners, most are just average people who live in rural areas. They don't want sane or gentle illegal immigration policies, they are worried about illegals filling what is left of the factory jobs in the U.S.As for trade, most average people, or should I say Republican base voters, despise Free Trade and can still recall who Ross Perot criticized it and referred to a giant sucking sound of jobs being lost.The most important reason why a moderate Republican will lose in a huge way this November is the position the GOP has taken towards Social security and Medicare. Both of these programs are well liked, are vital to seniors existence and like the late Dwight Eisenhower said, the party that seeks to cut Social Security will become extinct in short order. Moderate Republicans are on the endangered species list and many want Trump to fire them all and replace them with populists who support universal health care, SS and Medicare.
If the Republicans nominate Trump, the Democrats Clinton and Bloomberg runs as an independent, who would likely win and why?
Bloomberg would win quite handily since Hillary is in the process of going down hard because of the email business and the Clinton Foundation (Benghazi, whitewater, and a thousand other matters of corruption and lies just make her look bad....the other stuff lands her in serious legal trouble). If the Dems don't consider chances that Hillary will be impeached and surrounded in controversy as soon as she takes office the Dems will pay dearly for many election cycles. The "other" billionaire from New York can look and sound presidential in a way Trump simply can't. Bloomberg is more experienced and has the temperament whereas Trump doesn't Hillary might look presidential to some but most don't think they can trust her.. Bloomberg will just seem experienced, trustworthy, and presidential juxtaposed with Hillary. So Bloomberg wins....unless......It's a very crazy world and bizarre election cycle so nothing can surprise. Trumpets sounding : Now there are whisperings of a Trump-Sanders ticket !
If Donald Trump had not gotten the Republican nomination, who else could have defeated Hillary Clinton?
I think HRC was an historically weak candidate. (I actually think Trump is one of the few who’s worse, but that's not the question.)In American history it's rare for the same party to get three terms, for starters.I think the Democrats misjudged the Obama phenomena, which agrees with how I see him: I am quite Libertarian, mistrustful of top-down, authoritarian solutions to problems. So I very much politically disagree with him. But I find him a likable, fine, honorable man. My beefs with him are purely, fair and square, political disagreement in the great American tradition. In all his time in office, under all the scrutiny of a hostile Congress, not a whiff of scandal or dishonor has been found.The Clintons, on the other hand, have their own verb: “clintonian,” for a reason. Members of my family are lifelong Democrats, and even they have had a belly full of Clintonian legal greys.Then there is experience: you can't run on experience if your experience is making a gigantic human rights catastrophe. By this I mean, of course, American policy in the Middle East. Not only did HRC vote to invade Iraq, a colossal unforced error, she repeated the same mistake in Libya, with the same result. Our war in Libya was just as stupid, and also based on faulty intelligence. At least W is home painting cat portraits, with HRC we stood to get more of the same. Furthermore, I lay a lot of the Syrian debacle at her feet: we should have learned the last two go arounds that our approaches to he Arab world are not successful, but she ran out ahead of Obama in saying American policy was that Assad had to go. With the result that Assad concentrated his attacks on our allies, such as they were at the time, while allowing Jihadis to fester, knowing full well we would never be ISIS’s Air Force. Assad completely outmanuevered us, and I think HRC bears much of the blame.I think Bush would have cleaned her clock, I think Rand Paul would have whipped her, I think Rubio might have beat her. I think Ted Cruz is the anti-Christ. (Would not have beat her, would have disappeared off the debate lectern in a puff of smoke with the fluttering of bat wings)
Could Hillary Clinton beat President Trump in 2020?
Oh, that would be a sweet dream coming true for Trump and the Republicans if Hillary once again got the Democratic nomination.Could she win? Not a chance.She already lost once because she was a terrible candidate, Americans didn't trust her or like her, and her entire campaign platform was “it's my turn” and “Donald Trump is awful”.Nothing she has done since would help her at all. She went on a seemingly never-ending book tour blaming everyone in the world for her loss, except the one person who should have taken responsibility - herself.Trump would have a field day using all the information that has come out about Fusion GPS and her role in the dossier, not to mention the complete mishandling by the FBI of the email investigation.No, although it would be a dream come true for her to be the one running against Trump in 2020, even the Democrats aren't dumb enough to nominate her again. And there is no way she could win if they did.Thanks for the A2A, Jared.
POLL: Have you already decided to vote for Hillary Clinton for President 2016?
No but I have decided to vote for whoever runs against her.
Does Hilary have such an obnoxious and hate-able personality, that Bush jr's kid brother might actually beat her in a general election?
If Republicans nominate Jebb Bush it is game over. I do not want to live in a country under the cronyism of Bush or Clinton. Republicans should do everything in their power to make sure he does not win the nomination. This will be the scariest election to date....you would think people would do a little research in today world... - On Tuesday September 10, Jeb Bush, chairman of the board for the National Constitution Center and former governor of Florida, presented former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Democrat) with the group’s annual Liberty Medal. It is hard to understand why Gov. Bush would want to bolster Secretary Clinton’s credentials in such a way. Her actual lifetime accomplishments are so razor thin that an award celebrating her lifetime accomplishments presented by a likely Republican presidential candidate will drastically help her in this regard. This decision becomes even more questionable on Bush’s part when considering the timing. The day after the ceremony, 9/11/13, was the first anniversary of the attack on America’s consulate in Benghazi
Could Rand Paul win against Hillary if he were the GOP nominee right now?
With Hillary Clinton’s lifetime of cheat, lies and deceit most any American should beat Hillary. Rand Paul, Dr Ben Carson or Mike Hickabee are class acts but you know how our crazy media controls the masses. Now look at how the big dominate news networks have supported Clinton? It is no suprise Sanders supporters got screwed by the DNC with saying that I don't trust them. With Hillary's background I don't trust her also. Trump is a very strong independent who joined the GOP now the nominee is slowly exposing Hillary and her democratic policies of high taxes, high spending & high debt her ideas is a death march for America.Yes Rand Bernie Ben & Donald should beat her on her own record alone.
Would Mitt Romney win the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton?
I’d give him a 45% chance of winning at the outset of the race.Given what he’s learned, he’d probably campaign better than he did in 2012. But I think he’d ultimately lose for three reasons: First, because the economy is in a much better shape than it was in 2012, and even then he was beaten decisively by President Obama; second, because of Hillary’s strong support amongst women, Latinos, and blacks; third, because of America’s changing demographics; and fourth, because Hillary’s team could follow the same playbook that Obama’s team did in 2012 to beat him. It wouldn’t be too hard.What factors would work in his favor? First, he’d follow the GOP’s famous post-mortem report on how to win again. He’d do a bit better amongst blacks and Latinos because he’s following the report and doing what he can to recruit them into the GOP fold, even though bringing Latinos and blacks into the Republican Party of 2016 is largely a Sisyphean endeavor. Whites, both college-educated and non-college-educated, would probably continue to drift towards the Republicans. Also, given that Clinton would essentially be running as Obama’s third term and as the “incumbent,” any economic downturn or foreign policy fiasco would work in Romney’s favor.Using FiveThirtyEight’s awesome “Swing the Election” tool, which lets you manipulate turnout and vote percentage to see who would win in 2016, we can see how Romney would do. This would be my prediction of a Romney vs. Clinton matchup. Of course, this is ignoring any new gaffes on his part, etc. It shows him doing much better than he did in 2012 but still coming up short (but just barely), and winning the popular vote. Here’s a 270ToWin representation of my prediction; it shows him losing to Clinton, 275–263.A lot of this depends on VP picks, however. I see a few plausible choices for Romney: Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Rob Portman, and Scott Walker would all be good choices, and given the closeness of the Romney/Clinton matchup at the outset, a choice of any of them could conceivably give him the Presidency.
What are Hillary Clinton's chances of winning the Democratic nomination for president?
Very good. She's justifiably held up as the favourite. She's leading in the polls but almost as importantly she's a massive leader in the endorsements. Every day new Democrats are lining up to endorse her for office and her nearest rivals are so far behind they're not even in the picture. A lot of people consider the endorsements to be even more important than the popular polling at this stage. When the true vote comes around, voters tend to fall in line with their elected officials and endorsements mean a huge amount. The 2016 Endorsement PrimaryClinton's other main strength is that she's done this before. She's run in a primary and she knows how it works. Her experience is going to mean a huge amount when it comes to the actual voting and the connections and networking she's done before will really come into their own. She's also been in the spotlight for decades now and all available dirt that could be dug up on her has already been dug up and didn't turn into any mud that stuck. While there are many who are trying to make a big deal out of the email "scandal" the general consensus among legal experts appears to be that the incident will never amount to anything. And it's not going to drag her down at all, especially a year from now when the public is sick of hearing about it.There really isn't anyone who can hope to catch her. The only two rivals she has are Biden and Sanders who are both held back by their age. If either of them wins the election they will be the oldest first term President in the nations history. Biden will be 73 and Sanders 74. If they hope to be two term presidents then Biden will be in charge at the age of 81 and Sanders will be 83. Their age will discourage a lot of voters.