ForumGarden

Madame President? John McCain says Hillary Clinton would win the White House if the 2016 election were held today | Mail Online

I think so.

What do Americans think ?

I'd vote for her.

oscar;1448737 wrote: Madame President? John McCain says Hillary Clinton would win the White House if the 2016 election were held today | Mail Online

I think so.

What do Americans think ?


Snooz;1448738 wrote: I'd vote for her.


I think that would depend upon who was running against her. I can't say I particularly like her.

I remember her speech at the DNC, and how condescending she sounded. That still grates.

I have been waiting for the republicans to come to their senses for several decades, now.

This next election, maybe they will finally pull their collective head out.

Hope springs eternal.

Snooz;1448738 wrote: I'd vote for her. Have to say, she's looking fantastic these days since her Illness.

I think she'd be the perfect candidate.

It would be great fun watching all those middle eastern countries having to deal with a female head of state in their main ally. I don't think thatcher or angela merkel were or are important enough to cause an issue. golda meiir gave them a good hand bagging but she was not an ally.

gmc;1448779 wrote: It would be great fun watching all those middle eastern countries having to deal with a female head of state in their main ally. I don't think thatcher or angela merkel were or are important enough to cause an issue. golda meiir gave them a good hand bagging but she was not an ally.


How very, very, very dare you.

oscar;1448793 wrote: How very, very, very dare you.


You may resent it nut you can't deny it can you

gmc;1448798 wrote: You may resent it nut you can't deny it can you


Freudian slip or typo ?

oscar;1448813 wrote: Freudian slip or typo ?


Typo the b and n are next to each other on the keyboard. Believe me if I was going to call anyone a nutter it would be obvious what I meant.

LarsMac;1448741 wrote: I think that would depend upon who was running against her. I can't say I particularly like her.

I remember her speech at the DNC, and how condescending she sounded. That still grates.

I have been waiting for the republicans to come to their senses for several decades, now.

This next election, maybe they will finally pull their collective head out.

Hope springs eternal.


Well, considering that Ted Cruz seems to have a strong following, I wouldn't considering voting Republican with him in the running. I'm not crazy about the other Tea Party bigshots either.

Snooz;1448834 wrote: Well, considering that Ted Cruz seems to have a strong following, I wouldn't considering voting Republican with him in the running. I'm not crazy about the other Tea Party bigshots either.


Well, yeah, I could definitely see myself voting for Hilary if Cruz or the like were the other choice.

I really think that the whole party primary system needs to be re-designed to make it easier for the People to decide on who will represent the parties in the elections.

It seems that the guys that actually make sense are eliminated by March or April and it's a downhill slide into November.

LarsMac;1448741 wrote: I think that would depend upon who was running against her. I can't say I particularly like her.

I remember her speech at the DNC, and how condescending she sounded. That still grates.

I have been waiting for the republicans to come to their senses for several decades, now.

This next election, maybe they will finally pull their collective head out.

Hope springs eternal.


Who runs against her - would who runs with her make any difference?

Bryn Mawr;1448868 wrote: Who runs against her - would who runs with her make any difference?


I am not a fan of Hilary, but if the choice is Hilary or, say, Michelle Bachman, or Sarah, well, I would have to go with Hilary.

LarsMac;1448870 wrote: I am not a fan of Hilary, but if the choice is Hilary or, say, Michelle Bachman, or Sarah, well, I would have to go with Hilary.


This is who she would be running against again, would her choice of running mate make much of a difference? If she chose a complete loon would you vote against for fear that the running mate might become President?

She wouldn't choose a loon, complete or not. She is brilliant & knows what to do. I was not happy when Obama was chosen over Hilary.

Sarah Palin was already laughed out of the game, as was Michelle Bachmann, who lost the primaries big-time in '12. Michelle recently said we are still not ready for a woman president. No, we're not ready for Her.

Bryn Mawr;1448868 wrote: Who runs against her - would who runs with her make any difference?


As she learned in '08, it's never a done deal. Of course she could lose.

gmc;1448779 wrote: It would be great fun watching all those middle eastern countries having to deal with a female head of state in their main ally. I don't think thatcher or angela merkel were or are important enough to cause an issue. golda meiir gave them a good hand bagging but she was not an ally.


I Know! It will be fantastic! Of course, they have already dealt with her as Secretary of State.

I'm not ready to jump on any bandwagon just yet.

along-for-the-ride;1448904 wrote: I'm not ready to jump on any bandwagon just yet.


Neither is Hilary. Last time she was rushed into it since Obama declared so early. She is someone who, even when I disagree with her, at least I understand her motives.

Bryn Mawr;1448879 wrote: This is who she would be running against again, would her choice of running mate make much of a difference? If she chose a complete loon would you vote against for fear that the running mate might become President?


Well, I dunno. I mean, I was prepared to vote for McCain in 2008, until he came up with the Lovely Gov from Alaska to be his running mate.

I was prepared to vote for Kerry in 2004, until he announced Edwards as his running mate.

So, I guess the answer is 'yes'

I believe the choice of running mate is a telling point in the character of the candidate.

It will be very interesting to see if she chooses to run and who else decides to run. I wish there was a way to hold a presidential election in the US without all of the attack ads, mud slinging, and negative crap, but I don't see how. I wouldn't hold it against her if she decided to skip all of that nonsense.

Wandrin;1448914 wrote: It will be very interesting to see if she chooses to run and who else decides to run. I wish there was a way to hold a presidential election in the US without all of the attack ads, mud slinging, and negative crap, but I don't see how. I wouldn't hold it against her if she decided to skip all of that nonsense.


Over here a negative, let's slag off the other candidates, campaign is seen as an admission that you've nothing to offer yourself and goes against a candidate.

On the other hand, candidates think nothing of a good bit of character assassination if they can leak a juicy tit-bit to the gutter press without being seen to do so - sadly, it often works.

I can remember, during the Clinton administration, walking through the business district of Park Ridge, Illinois, which just happens to be Hillary's home town (I lived in nearby Niles), and seeing "Help Wanted" signs in store window after store window. I wonder how many there are today, and I wonder especially how many there were during the most recent Republican administration.

I backed Hillary in 2008 but was satisfied with Obama. His second term has been rocky and may become rockier.

Meanwhile, the Tea Baggers are just CHOMPING AT THE BIT to nominate some NUT CASE like Rand Paul, who will carry about as many states as Goldwater (6).

Hillary, the country is all yours. Go for it!

Although I agree with you about Rand Paul, I can also see his appeal to many people. Hope I'm wrong. I also backed Hillary in '08. I wish all these years Obama had not been so conciliatory. I don't see him as weak, & hate that is ascribed to him, but I wish he had taken the elephants by their tusks (this seems to fit better than 'bull by the horns!')

AnneBoleyn;1450319 wrote: Although I agree with you about Rand Paul, I can also see his appeal to many people. Hope I'm wrong. I also backed Hillary in '08. I wish all these years Obama had not been so conciliatory. I don't see him as weak, & hate that is ascribed to him, but I wish he had taken the elephants by their tusks (this seems to fit better than 'bull by the horns!')Anne, Americans as a whole simply don't like extremists. That is why Goldwater, who was a really nice guy in private (i.e. non-political) life, lost so badly to LBJ.

Rand Paul certainly appeals to many people, so do others of his stripe, but there has never been a president whom I would regard as an extremist and our next president will not be the first, so that excludes Rand and a lot of his fellow teadrinkers.

There may well be Republicans who could beat Hillary, but in order for that to happen, the GOP is going to have to take itself back from the louts who seem to have commandeered it.

I've only voted for three Republicans in my life (and I'm 73), two of which ran for the lofty office of county clerk (as I recall, they both won).

Hillary will run on the promise of returning the US to the prosperity of the first two Clinton terms, and she will be VERY hard to beat.