Forum Thread

Hillary Clinton versus Chris Christie in 2016?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 19 1 2 Next
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Reference: Public Policy Polling, January 10, 2013: Clinton could be hard to beat if she runs in 2016

    "Raleigh, N.C. – If Hillary Clinton decides to run for President in 2016, PPP’s latest poll finds that she would be extremely difficult to beat in the Democratic primary and in the general election. Clinton’s favorability among Democratic primary voters is +64, and she would clear the primary field easily with 57% support in a nine-way match-up against other potential contenders.

    "If Clinton opted not to run, Joe Biden would be next in line with 73/22 favorability and 16% support to be the Democratic candidate for President in 2016.

    "Chris Christie would be Clinton’s most threatening opponent in a general election. He trails her by only two points (42/44) in a head-to-head contest, and his overall favorability (+28) is higher than Clinton’s (+15). But she would trounce Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan by double-digit margins. Christie is more competitive against Clinton primarily because he is ahead of her by 18 points (47/29) among independents."


    Republicans fear Hillary Clinton more than any other candidate. They have already started to smear, ridicule and demean her in 2013 with lies and misinformation. Fox News is leading the way with such crap as "Benghazi flu."

    I'll look forward to her testimony on the Benghazi attack.
  • Center Left Democrat
    Democrat
    Flagstaff, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt:


    I agree with you that Chris Christie will be the strongest Republican candidate in 2016. If nothing else, his picture on the January 21,2013 edition of Time magazine should scare off most of the competition. Who in the world would want to compete with THIS guy?

    http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20130121,00.html

    Hillary and Biden would be good candidates for the Democrats, but I'm a little concerned about their ages. Biden would be 74 in 2016, and Hillary would be 69. Unless conditions in our country really fall apart in the next four years, however, I think that either candidate would prevail in 2016 over Christie.

    However, there IS a scenario in which Christie could win:

    1) If Christie was able to dramatically reduce the influence of the Tea Party extremists, and push the Republicans to a more centrist position on most issues (similar to what Clinton did in 1992), he'd have a better chance

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats

    2) Voter dissatisfaction with both Biden and Hillary (for whatever reason) could lead to the rise of a "dark horse" Democratic candidate. Clinton was one of EIGHT Democratic contenders in 1992, and he won the Presidency with 43% of the vote. Even in 1996, he won with less than 50% of the popular vote.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    However I'm just wondering "health" may become an issue : Christy's way too fat and gets a heart attack, Clinton had already a blood clog, so you don't know what else she may get etc. Biden looks healthy, but is a bit sleepy, how come? etc.
    So I wonder if the "field" will still look like that ? This ex-Florida guy Mario (something) would be a disaster for the Rebup's; he never did do anything at all here in FL, except collecting his money!!
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Arizona and Dutch --

    Yes on both of your comments. I am 66 and age does matter. I don't have near the energy that I did 10 years ago to sustain an active schedule. Hillary Clinton has looked tired after her four years of a very heavy travel schedule...112 countries visited...401 travel days...957,000 miles. In my view her job physically is even tougher than the job of the President because of all the travel.

    However, as Secretary of State, travel is just part of the job...it's also "boning up" on the political, cultural, financial and trade activities and issues of every country visited, not to mention remembering and correctly pronouncing the names of all the countries leaders and their cabinets...while also being in the media spotlight at dinners and events, continually with a camera and microphone in her face. In some ways it's a thankless job because here in the States she doesn't seem to get recognition for all the hard effort unless something screws up. She could have success in 111 countries, but the media (especially Fox News) will lambast her for anything that doesn't go as well in the 112th. Essentially she has been on an America Goodwill mission for four years, and I have to give her a grade of "outstanding," perhaps one of our best Secretaries of State ever.

    The Republicans and Fox News are now trying to tarnish her reputation with the Benghazi attack, but beyond that I notice that the right wing media has been targeting her for some time...Rush Limbaugh especially. They know that she is the front runner now for 2016 and are engaging in the same kind of tactics that they used to tarnish Barack Obama...innuendos, falsehoods, and lies repeated again and again. Limbaugh goes well beyond politics...his criticism includes sexism and outright rudeness...stupid jokes all at her expense.

    I don't know if Ms Clinton will run in 2016. I hope she does and I'll give her my support. Despite her age, she is smart and if she surrounds herself with good people as President, it can take a lot of the physical strain off of her. Reagan seemed to get by by delegating almost everything.

    Chris Christie is another matter. I agree with you Dutch. We should be more concerned about his health. He is way overweight, but his temperament is also one that is more prone to heart attacks. The combination doesn't bode well for his longevity.

    Anyway, I know this is all speculation....2016 is a long ways a way, but not for the Republican smear machine. It's going full throttle right now and we need to counter that with some positives on Ms Clinton and not just focus on the Fox News generated talking points.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    2016 is a long ways away, an eternity in politics. Lets give some perspective: in January 2005 how many people had heard of Obama? Outside of Illinois, almost no one so we really have no idea of who will be running in 2016.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    "schmidt " as always you see things clear and objective, I like that. What you say about Clinton is absolutely right. The "Benghazi thing" is totally ridiculous as I mentioned in several of my "threads" My point of view is still that the ambassador himself was at fault; he assumed that people down there liked him; a huge mistake. I've been there because they had some of our planes, I made sure before I left my ass was covered. Sure they were awful nice to me, because I could help them to keep these things flying, but of course was aware of other things etc. leaving the hotel or taking a walk. This guy never should have gone there without any preparation especially knowing what was going on there. So the whole "political carbage" used to undermine Clinton or others is hogwash. The ambassador himself made a huge mistake in trusting the nodding and smiles. One word is being naive. Therefore I do not see this at all related to the performance of Clinton, she is doing a great job considering the circumstances.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Hillary can say "Bill will be the best first lady ever." People will laugh then agree with her.
  • Democrat
    Lawrence, MA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Does anyone else feel depressed by the idea that the choice of someone to make life and death decisions for 300 million of us may boil down to these two system tinkerers ?
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Leftofcenter Wrote: Does anyone else feel depressed by the idea that the choice of someone to make life and death decisions for 300 million of us may boil down to these two system tinkerers ?
    Dutch can speak more about this from a European perspective, but I'll comment from my own observations. I really don't know how much difference it makes in the end. Countries with multiple parties sometimes end up having to form a coalition in able to govern, and those coalitions can fall apart just as quickly.

    In the USA we have two major parties, but within those parties are various factions or voting groups. The most prominent is the Tea Party within the Republican Party, but there are also other groups like the Club for Growth...and also the Evangelicals who are driving much of the legislation on defunding Planned Parenthood. John Boehner's job in teying to achieve a consensus amongst these groups with widely varying agendas is difficult, perhaps not unlike David Cameron in the UK trying to appease the two main parties in the coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Well maybe that's not a good comparison.

    My view is that if people are united for the good of their country, any system can work. When one group tends to veer away from that objective (e.g. Tea Party) for their own selfish needs, then things can become ungovernable. It will be another tough four years for Obama unless he can form a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans to get some more sanity back into our system.
  • Democrat
    Lawrence, MA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:
    Leftofcenter Wrote: Does anyone else feel depressed by the idea that the choice of someone to make life and death decisions for 300 million of us may boil down to these two system tinkerers ?
    Dutch can speak more about this from a European perspective, but I'll comment from my own observations. I really don't know how much difference it makes in the end. Countries with multiple parties sometimes end up having to form a coalition in able to govern, and those coalitions can fall apart just as quickly.

    In the USA we have two major parties, but within those parties are various factions or voting groups. The most prominent is the Tea Party within the Republican Party, but there are also other groups like the Club for Growth...and also the Evangelicals who are driving much of the legislation on defunding Planned Parenthood. John Boehner's job in teying to achieve a consensus amongst these groups with widely varying agendas is difficult, perhaps not unlike David Cameron in the UK trying to appease the two main parties in the coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Well maybe that's not a good comparison.

    My view is that if people are united for the good of their country, any system can work. When one group tends to veer away from that objective (e.g. Tea Party) for their own selfish needs, then things can become ungovernable. It will be another tough four years for Obama unless he can form a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans to get some more sanity back into our system.

    Schmidt, Let me offer amother way of looking at this. A history of third parties, especially in Europe, shows that it is not necessary for them to come to power in order to have a beneficial effect on the nation. Third parties often raise issues that the major praties avoid thus forcing those parties to deal with them......The sociialist programs put through during the Roosevelt adminstration of the 30's was coopted from the Socialist Party and given to us in a watered down version......During the recent presidential campaign we heard almost nothing, or very little about the insanity of our military budget even though that issue is the 4 hundred pound gorilla in our crumbling economy. We also heard very little about the ecology or about the attempts of American corporations to torpedo any anti pollution measures that are proposed. A strong Third Party repesenting the majority could raise these and other ignored issues forcing the media and the mainstream parties to deal with them.
  • Democrat
    Meridian, MS
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    How about this for a "killer" 2016 ticket: Hillary AND Joe Biden against all comers, let them decide whose name is first on the ticket. I dare say they can't be beat.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:
    Leftofcenter Wrote: Does anyone else feel depressed by the idea that the choice of someone to make life and death decisions for 300 million of us may boil down to these two system tinkerers ?
    Dutch can speak more about this from a European perspective, but I'll comment from my own observations. I really don't know how much difference it makes in the end. Countries with multiple parties sometimes end up having to form a coalition in able to govern, and those coalitions can fall apart just as quickly.

    In the USA we have two major parties, but within those parties are various factions or voting groups. The most prominent is the Tea Party within the Republican Party, but there are also other groups like the Club for Growth...and also the Evangelicals who are driving much of the legislation on defunding Planned Parenthood. John Boehner's job in teying to achieve a consensus amongst these groups with widely varying agendas is difficult, perhaps not unlike David Cameron in the UK trying to appease the two main parties in the coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Well maybe that's not a good comparison.

    My view is that if people are united for the good of their country, any system can work. When one group tends to veer away from that objective (e.g. Tea Party) for their own selfish needs, then things can become ungovernable. It will be another tough four years for Obama unless he can form a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans to get some more sanity back into our system.
    I don't know if I would agree that the Tea Party is the most prominent of the groups within our Congress, especially within the Senate. When you look at the numbers, there were only 60 Republicans that actually joined the "Tea Party Caucus" in the 112th Congress. Of those 60, only 46 of them were re-elected. The true irony is that the Congressional Progressive Caucus actually has MORE members than the Tea Party does. There are currently 70 declared progressives in the house and one in the Senate. This just goes to show you the power that Fox News and these other media outlets have.

    You hit it right on the head with your viewpoint that if people are united for the good of their country that any system can work. When you look at the long arc of history, what is going on currently is not entirely uncommon. The Republicans have a lot of soul searching to do. If they decide that they want to pick a fight for the next two years and take our economy over the edge, it will be to their peril.

    My viewpoint is from a different prospective. Instead of different caucuses, I tend to look at geography. Just look at the breakdown of the "Fiscal Cliff" votes. Northeast Republicans are terrified of the way that their party is going. It was all in good fun from 2010-2012 because they wanted to unseat President Obama, but they weren't successful. Now these Northeast Republicans might be taking a second look at the way they are voting. Do they want to associate themselves with the far right, southern Republicans? Southern Republicans have a far different viewpoint of geo-politics and national affairs than their Northeast counterparts do. If President Obama can insert a wedge between these two wings of the Republicans, he will be able to divide and conquer the House Republicans. Some people may think that is wishful thinking on my part, but I am a perpetual optimist.
  • Democrat
    Lawrence, MA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    NO NO NO NO NO. If people can just get together "for the good of their country any system" can work ? Not necessarily and not very often. People have to be politically educated, not propagandized. They can't be miseducated and filled with a lot of patriotic nonsense in order for them to be led into capitalist wars. A viable nation needs an educated citizenry. Adolph Hitler did not seize power in Germany. He was elected by folks who thought he could make the system work. Did he fool them ? He wouldn't have if they had bothered to read the book he wrote before the election..... A drastic example surely, but there are others. Remember Richard Nixon who told us he had a plan to end the Vietnam War, but couldn't tell uis what it was because he didn't want to tip off the enemy ? I'll bet there are still a half dozen people in the US who remember what that plan was. All these agents of inequity running around in Washington do not have the interests of the "American people " at heart. Many of them are working to support Vampires at the expense of the majority. If you think those people can be softened up with a little good will and "bi-partisanship " you're whistling past the cemetery. It would be nice to think that if we all could just vget together and agree to be reasonable.....the whole system would suddenly smooth out. Wake Up ! Wake Up !
    It's not the British who are coming this time. It's the corporations.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I'm kind of late to the party; but like to start what "schmidt" wrote. Sure he is right that also with a third or 10th party in the government the same things happen as here. The major difference as "left" indicated "lobby" is not involved there. However what a "third" party as "schmidt" correctly said may have an idea which the other two parties are not aware of. The thing happening here is that the "polarization" has gone too far and extreem. In such case a "third" party will have no effect and the "polarized" parties will only listen to themselves. This system here is totally poluted by the lobby industry, so in fact a government is just like "left" says only a represntation of the lobby and its industry organisations behind it; common people who do not have an affiliation to the indudtry are left standing without representation. Sorry to say that such "culture" either has to change or gets into a "rut" without light on the end of the tunnel. I saw Obama's press conference; sorry to say I was not impressed at all, kind of played chicken on all subjects; did not even dare to mention cuts on the defense spending. Again I'm shaking my old head.
    Washington is preparing for the inauguration,cost as published $50 million; if he had a backbone, he should have said this is my second term so do only the official office swearing in, forget the rest, we have to show the people that the situation is serious so I give the right example.
    No I'm affaid of what I see and read between the lines is that the "polarization" is here to stay and the Repubs will stick to their "guns"
    I guess it is time to put some "testerone" in Obama's drink; sorry he needs a strong boost from something.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I guess I wrote it wrong I guess it is "testosterone?" I never studied these words.
    However I certainly would like that Obama shows more guts than what was said in the news conference.