For Democratic voters

Assuming they both run, whod do you favor in the 2016 race?

If forced to pick between the two, Clinton without any hesitation. While either would make me consider a Republican candidate, Warren would force me to to vote for an establishment republican.

You left out Mickey Mouse.



I vote Mickey Mouse.

The democrat bench looks a lot stronger to me for which they get credit. John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Antonio Villaraigosa, Rahm Emanuel, Deval Patrick, Andrew Cuomo, John de Jongh, Tom Harkin, Patrick Leahy, Bill Nelsen, Julian Castro, Howard Dean. All of these guys look pretty impressive and I've never heard any of them recite Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss from the floor of the United States Senate. Some people act like Hillary is the Democrat's only hope. I agree the nomination is hers if she wants it but I think the GOP's chances of winning the White House in 2016 would still be pretty grim even without her.

Navy Pride said:

Assuming they both run, whod do you favor in the 2016 race?

Click to expand...

Between the two, Elizabeth Warren. Why? Because we need someone who has shown enough intestinal fortitude to directly take on Wall Street. Hillary hasn't...and it's been a long time since anyone on the Republican side could do so without being rhetorically tarred and feathered by the Republican base.

But if Warren lost the primary race, then I'd dust out my old Hillary campaign signs that I still have downstairs, and I'd still happily vote for her.

Smeagol said:

The democrat bench looks a lot stronger to me for which they get credit. John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Antonio Villaraigosa, Rahm Emanuel, Deval Patrick, Andrew Cuomo, John de Jongh, Tom Harkin, Patrick Leahy, Bill Nelsen, Julian Castro, Howard Dean. All of these guys look pretty impressive and I've never heard any of them recite Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss from the floor of the United States Senate. Some people act like Hillary is the Democrat's only hope. I agree the nomination is hers if she wants it but I think the GOP's chances of winning the White House in 2016 would still be pretty grim even without her.

Click to expand...

It is my opinion that Hillary may be the easiest nominee to beat and I use the term easiest very loosely here as I also think any democratic nominee in 2016 will be the favorite. Now those known to be interested in the nomination are Clinton, Biden, Warren, Cuomo, O'Malley and Schweitzer. But Hillary has plenty of baggage and the independent voter only gives here a 41% favorable rating with a 48% unfavorable. Hillary is so well known I doubt if those numbers change much.

Contrast Hillary's number with Warrens among independents, 21% favorable 13% unfavorable. But with 64% either undecided or haven't ever heard of her, Warren could improve immensely or she could tank. There is a ton of unknowns about Warren whereas much not is unknown about Clinton.

10, 9, 8, 7, Waiting for the follow up post of NP to fantasize about Hillary Clinton's ankles

Navy Pride said:

You mean the woman with the 2 ft ankles?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

For some reason some men get as excited about Hillary's ankles as a group of gay blind nudists at a wiener roast.

Warren, no questions asked. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances.

Perotista said:

It is my opinion that Hillary may be the easiest nominee to beat and I use the term easiest very loosely here as I also think any democratic nominee in 2016 will be the favorite. Now those known to be interested in the nomination are Clinton, Biden, Warren, Cuomo, O'Malley and Schweitzer. But Hillary has plenty of baggage and the independent voter only gives here a 41% favorable rating with a 48% unfavorable. Hillary is so well known I doubt if those numbers change much.

Contrast Hillary's number with Warrens among independents, 21% favorable 13% unfavorable. But with 64% either undecided or haven't ever heard of her, Warren could improve immensely or she could tank. There is a ton of unknowns about Warren whereas much not is unknown about Clinton.

Click to expand...

'Scuse me? You think Hillary's the easiest Dem nominee to beat? Do you live in Colorado or Washington? 'Cause you're smoking some really good stuff....

Glen Contrarian said:

'Scuse me? You think Hillary's the easiest Dem nominee to beat? Do you live in Colorado or Washington? 'Cause you're smoking some really good stuff....

Click to expand...

A good chunk of her own party doesn't like her. She has extremely heavy baggage whereas Warren is the Democratic sweetheart. I see a Hillary Clinton nomination, if she can manage to get it, driving rifts in the party between the Country Club Dems and the so-called "Anti-Corporatists."

Glen Contrarian said:

'Scuse me? You think Hillary's the easiest Dem nominee to beat? Do you live in Colorado or Washington? 'Cause you're smoking some really good stuff....

Click to expand...

Each has their own opinion. When I look at the favorable/unfavorable ratings of each candidate among independents, Hillary is the only one with an unfavorable rating in the high 40's. Also I said I used the term easiest in a very loosely manner and that any Democratic nominee would be the favorite. Hillary will probably lose the independent vote if her favorables/unfavorables remain constant with what they are today. But she can afford to lose the independent vote as long as it isn't by a whole bunch. The bigger Democratic base allows her to do so. Using Gallup's June 8th figures the Democrat Party makes up 28% of the electorate whereas the Republicans have only 24%. So if those figures were to remain constant which they will not, they are dynamic, Hillary would have 4 points to play with.

This is not going into the electoral college which is a whole another ball of wax.

Perotista said:

Each has their own opinion. When I look at the favorable/unfavorable ratings of each candidate among independents, Hillary is the only one with an unfavorable rating in the high 40's. Also I said I used the term easiest in a very loosely manner and that any Democratic nominee would be the favorite. Hillary will probably lose the independent vote if her favorables/unfavorables remain constant with what they are today. But she can afford to lose the independent vote as long as it isn't by a whole bunch. The bigger Democratic base allows her to do so. Using Gallup's June 8th figures the Democrat Party makes up 28% of the electorate whereas the Republicans have only 24%. So if those figures were to remain constant which they will not, they are dynamic, Hillary would have 4 points to play with.

This is not going into the electoral college which is a whole another ball of wax.

Click to expand...

I think Clinton would do better in exciting the base and getting out the vote kinda issues, which where the key areas that Obama used to win the last two elections. Her name recognition also makes it virtually impossible for other candidates to define her, which is a strong positive(democrats where able to define Romney before the convention as some one out of touch with the middle class, which was pretty important). I would suspect that in the general, only Warren has a realistic chance of outperforming her among democrats. However, it is too far out to say any of that with any real confidence.

Navy Pride said:

Assuming they both run, whod do you favor in the 2016 race?

Click to expand...

Why does your poll lack an "Other" option?

Clinton by a little, in that she is more moderate economically(leading to more likelihood of negotiated compromises to get things done) and has more foreign policy experience. However, I think fairly highly of both.

of the 2, I think Warren is the better candidate.... but that's based only off of her positions. ( Hillary is worlds ahead of her as far as being a political operator)

she's basically an unknown at this point, but what we do know about her doesn't lend itself to her being very good at the chief executive job.

we've already elected too many people who act as a President of their base... maybe it's time to elect someone that can be everyone's President.. or at least someone who will not ignore the concerns of the other half of the country that didn't vote for them.
Warren , so far, is too combative towards everyone who doesn't believe as she does.... she's far too divisive for my tatse.

Navy Pride said:

Assuming they both run, whod do you favor in the 2016 race?

Click to expand...

anonymous polls suck

I can't vote but if I could I would say Warren..........People have Clinton fatigue and she has way to much baggage.

TurtleDude said:

anonymous polls suck

Click to expand...

I apologize Turtle, I haven't posted a poll in awhile and I forgot to make it public.

Redress said:

Why does your poll lack an "Other" option?

Clinton by a little, in that she is more moderate economically(leading to more likelihood of negotiated compromises to get things done) and has more foreign policy experience. However, I think fairly highly of both.

Click to expand...

Because for once in your life I want you lefties to make a decision

Redress said:

I think Clinton would do better in exciting the base and getting out the vote kinda issues, which where the key areas that Obama used to win the last two elections. Her name recognition also makes it virtually impossible for other candidates to define her, which is a strong positive(democrats where able to define Romney before the convention as some one out of touch with the middle class, which was pretty important). I would suspect that in the general, only Warren has a realistic chance of outperforming her among democrats. However, it is too far out to say any of that with any real confidence.

Click to expand...

In presidential years the Democrats have always or at least it seems to me had a better get out the vote campaign. In 2008 the American people were fed up with Republican rule, I think it didn’t matter who the nominees were, the Democrats were going to win, Obama received 53% of the vote to 46% for McCain. Ironically Obama also won 53% of the independent vote which made up 38% of the electorate back then. In 2012 Obama won with 51% to Romney’s 47% with independents splitting 50-50 between the two. President Obama won because of the Democrats larger base.

I agree, Hillary is already defined. She is a well-known commodity. But she is not tracking all that well with independents as I have stated in another post 41% to 47% in the negative as far as favorable/unfavorable goes. But neither are any of the mentioned Republicans to date either. But most of them are in the 20’s and 30’s and can either increase their favorable by a lot as too can their negatives be increased a lot. It is a two edged sword.

But I think at times we tend to place too much emphasis on the popular vote, it is the electoral college that counts. For a Republican to win in 2016 it is a must to win all the states Romney carried plus Florida, Virginia and Ohio and that still doesn’t put the Republican over the top. Whomever runs will also have to wine one of the remaining swing states, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada. Iowa has only went once in the last 7 presidential election to a Republican candidate, New Hampshire only once in the last six leaving Nevada which went to the GOP in 2 of the last 6 Presidential races. Not good odds to say the least.

Navy Pride said:

Because for once in your life I want you lefties to make a decision

Click to expand...

The decision that will be made by democrats will be amongst a field of candidates, not just 2.

Perotista said:

In presidential years the Democrats have always or at least it seems to me had a better get out the vote campaign. In 2008 the American people were fed up with Republican rule, I think it didn’t matter who the nominees were, the Democrats were going to win, Obama received 53% of the vote to 46% for McCain. Ironically Obama also won 53% of the independent vote which made up 38% of the electorate back then. In 2012 Obama won with 51% to Romney’s 47% with independents splitting 50-50 between the two. President Obama won because of the Democrats larger base.

Click to expand...

Do some reading on the Obama campaign "machine". He innovated in a number of ways, and his get out the vote works where effective like nothing seen before. Better and best are two different things, and gaining any edge, even a small one can matter(ask Bush).

I agree, Hillary is already defined. She is a well-known commodity. But she is not tracking all that well with independents as I have stated in another post 41% to 47% in the negative as far as favorable/unfavorable goes. But neither are any of the mentioned Republicans to date either. But most of them are in the 20’s and 30’s and can either increase their favorable by a lot as too can their negatives be increased a lot. It is a two edged sword.

Click to expand...

I expect to see those numbers change somewhat as we get into early 2016. When there are more clear cut people to compare against, I think that is when those numbers will firm up.

But I think at times we tend to place too much emphasis on the popular vote, it is the electoral college that counts. For a Republican to win in 2016 it is a must to win all the states Romney carried plus Florida, Virginia and Ohio and that still doesn’t put the Republican over the top. Whomever runs will also have to wine one of the remaining swing states, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada. Iowa has only went once in the last 7 presidential election to a Republican candidate, New Hampshire only once in the last six leaving Nevada which went to the GOP in 2 of the last 6 Presidential races. Not good odds to say the least.

Click to expand...

2016 is an uphill battle for republicans. Demographics works against them. They have to define who they are going forward. They have to find a way, or at least a candidate, who can appeal to those groups republican typically lose. They do not have to win those groups, but they need more of them. And they need to do those things in the states you mention. It is certainly doable, but I would not bet money them being successful.

Always a pleasure to chat with you. You do good post.

Navy Pride said:

Because for once in your life I want you lefties to make a decision

Click to expand...

It's July 2014! I have been so busy Christmas shopping I haven't even got a chance to watch any of the presidential debates.

Navy Pride said:

Because for once in your life I want you lefties to make a decision

Click to expand...

"For once in your life"? What the hell does this even mean?

My personal politics are much more in line with Warren. Hilary is waaaaay too moderate for me. However, I choose Hilary because Hilary will win in a landslide, Warren would be a battle.

Kobie said:

Warren, no questions asked. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances.

Click to expand...

Mark the time Kobie, we agree on something that has to be a DP first.