• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016 [W:72]

Re: Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016

You wish.
As empty as the Democratic basket has become, the fact is they represent more Americans than the Republicans do. You guys have let yourselves become the party of white men and their wives. The Dems could run Woody Harrelson and Oprah Winfrey, in any order, and the Repubs wouldn't have an answer.

You seem quite sure of that. But Obama received millions less votes the second time around. After three more years of his incompetence and lawlessness, if Woody and Oprah threw their hat in the ring they might do it with the GOP.
 
And here I thought repub's were having trouble with splits it their party....Demo's seem to be conflicted even within their own thoughts....

It's not clear if only Dems were polled, although I suspect it was not just Dems. If everyone was, then I'm not surprised. Cons certainly don't want her to get it. In any event, the article said this (and I'm surprised you didn't quote it):

But wait: Clinton also topped the poll as the one Democrats most want as their nominee.

Sizing up the contrary findings, Rasmussen said: "Hillary Clinton is the Democrat voters most want to see win her party's presidential nomination in 2016 — and least want to see win that nomination, too."
 
Re: Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016

Fundamental transformation? Well, let's see...how about healthcare for all Americans;

Not going to happen. The ACA won't cover ALL American's and even best estimates show you'll still have about 30 million uncovered. So, you missed the mark there.

Repeal of DADT. Rape is up in the Military, acts of violence against each other is up, but thank God the private can let his private life be known to everyone, as if they care.

Equal pay for Women? Hell, the WH doesn't even achieve that....Fail.

Dream kids? Stories are starting to emerge that they are not following even the parameters of their own law, and just blatantly allowing illegals to claim that status without checking too closely. Back door Amnesty, not a good policy, unless ofcourse you are looking for a way to do away with America as it has existed since its founding....

Overall, it is you progressives that should be the angriest with the One...He has failed at nearly every policy, and law he has touched...
 
It's not clear if only Dems were polled, although I suspect it was not just Dems. If everyone was, then I'm not surprised. Cons certainly don't want her to get it. In any event, the article said this (and I'm surprised you didn't quote it):

But wait: Clinton also topped the poll as the one Democrats most want as their nominee.

Sizing up the contrary findings, Rasmussen said: "Hillary Clinton is the Democrat voters most want to see win her party's presidential nomination in 2016 — and least want to see win that nomination, too."

Wait a minute, I don't recall anywhere in the rules that I must appease progressive democrats with how much of an article I must post so that you don't get your panties in a bunch over what we are discussing here. I have said throughout this thread that anyone with pulse knows that should Hillary run she will get the nomination, so instead of some feigned outrage that I didn't open with enough of the article for your liking is crap. The link is there, and you can clearly read, comprehension aside, I suggest you read the articles posted in OP's in their entirety then talk about them, not come in half cocked and shoot your mouth off as if I did something wrong, it makes you progressives look thin skinned, and foolish.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016

His reward for following orders.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016

Can you show me a single republican candidate with an over 2 to 1 split those who want to those who do not want to get nomination? I mean, the dishonesty in presentation here is overwhelming, but when you follow it up with that stupid a comment it is unreal...

The lead for them is Christie, with 15%. Second is Ryan with 13%, then Rubio 12%, and Bush 10%. So Republicans complaining that Clinton only has 63% is kind of silly.

Then again, those people rarely make any sense.


Democrats may very well just stay away this time, and let the adults handle things again.

Because Dubya was so grown up and did such a good job?

Anyway, I won't vote for Hillary, but her numbers are better than any Republican in the field. In polls against Christie, Rubio, Bush, Paul, Perry, Ryan or Cruz, Clinton beats them all.

I can't stand her. I think she's an excellent example of what's wrong with the DNC. She was with the GOP on invading Iraq, warrantless wiretaps, mass data harvesting, and I think she even voted for the Patriot Acts. Might as well re-elect Dubya. The only difference with her is that she also pushed really hard for a gun ban that was completely pointless. I wouldn't vote for her even if her opponent was that scumbag Romney. I won't vote for an Republican, no matter who it is, but I also won't vote for Hillary. It'll be a 3rd party for me.

That being the case, as things stand now, she would win easily if the election were today.
 
No. There was a definite Republican lean to their polls in 2012, but they were generally only a few points off.

It was also not bias by sample method that caused it.
 
Wait a minute, I don't recall anywhere in the rules that I must appease progressive democrats with how much of an article I must post so that you don't get your panties in a bunch over what we are discussing here. I have said throughout this thread that anyone with pulse knows that should Hillary run she will get the nomination, so instead of some feigned outrage that I didn't open with enough of the article for your liking is crap. The link is there, and you can clearly read, comprehension aside, I suggest you read the articles posted in OP's in their entirety then talk about them, not come in half cocked and shoot your mouth off as if I did something wrong, it makes you progressives look thin skinned, and foolish.

There is also nothing in the rules against exposing your dishonesty and feigned outrage when people make comparisons you made in the OP.
 
There is also nothing in the rules against exposing your dishonesty and feigned outrage when people make comparisons you made in the OP.
Hell, he didn't even read the article he posted in the OP which was exposed when he made the following comment to me:
I think Rassmussen came up with the same results, but they went further....Just because you don't like the outcome, you have to attack the source...Typical.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016

The euphoria and leg tingling Obama created among minorities, liberals, unions, and college kids will be very difficult for the Democrats to repeat.

Empty, novel attributes aside, there is no substance to Obama. None. They know that, at least enough of them.

Democrats may very well just stay away this time, and let the adults handle things again.

As a college kid myself, I never quite understood the euphoria some have for Obama. He's destroying their future far more swiftly then anyone else's, with unemployment being at record levels for recent college graduates and policies such as the PPACA will place a huge financial burden on them to pay for everyone else's health insurance at the same time as they can't find jobs. But college students are a pretentious lot, and it seems many of my fellow peers have swayed far-left because it feeds their self-importance rather then actually having any type of understanding of the world around them. They understand the world in terms of sound bite rhetoric, and no one is better at sound bite rhetoric then our current president.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016

They understand the world in terms of sound bite rhetoric, and no one is better at sound bite rhetoric then our current president.

I'd say you don't see the world much passed this 'sound bite rhetoric' either. I guess they don't teach you college kids about Ronald Reagan, patron saint of debt don't matter... He was the MASTER at sound bite rhetoric. I guess like most over educated, under experienced folks you live in the here now only, and have no sense of history.

Obama is a stuttering shadow of the great Communicator, Reagan could lift a nation or lie looking you straight in the eye in almost the same breath.

History is wasted on the young until they have some of their very own- but then they are no longer young.... :peace
 
And here I thought repub's were having trouble with splits it their party....Demo's seem to be conflicted even within their own thoughts....

Um, no. The poll is comparing to general voter sentiment to Democratic preferences. This is not evidence of any split within the party itself.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016

I'd say you don't see the world much passed this 'sound bite rhetoric' either. I guess they don't teach you college kids about Ronald Reagan, patron saint of debt don't matter... He was the MASTER at sound bite rhetoric. I guess like most over educated, under experienced folks you live in the here now only, and have no sense of history.

Obama is a stuttering shadow of the great Communicator, Reagan could lift a nation or lie looking you straight in the eye in almost the same breath.

History is wasted on the young until they have some of their very own- but then they are no longer young.... :peace

Over educated in what sense? Education isn't something that is just taught in a class room. I'd argue what you call over educated I call under experienced. Things take an entirely different form when you add some real substance to them.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016

I'd say you don't see the world much passed this 'sound bite rhetoric' either. I guess they don't teach you college kids about Ronald Reagan, patron saint of debt don't matter... He was the MASTER at sound bite rhetoric. I guess like most over educated, under experienced folks you live in the here now only, and have no sense of history.

Obama is a stuttering shadow of the great Communicator, Reagan could lift a nation or lie looking you straight in the eye in almost the same breath.

History is wasted on the young until they have some of their very own- but then they are no longer young.... :peace

About Reagan.... Debt doesn't matter when its less then 60% of GDP. It does matter when that number starts reaching 100% and over.
 
Re: Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016

About Reagan.... Debt doesn't matter when its less then 60% of GDP. It does matter when that number starts reaching 100% and over.

I agree that educations occur as much outside a university's campus as in it. Over educated is one of two things- far more qualified for a position than it requires or far more 'stuff' was poured into too small a vessel.

Take the ACA part of your post. If you had either an education or experience in this you'd know we are already paying for 'everyone'. Those who are uninsured boost the fees both hospitals and doctors charge to recoup that loss. WE PAY THAT. People who use the ER room for simple primary health care and skip out on the bill... WE PAY THAT. You personally may not be at the moment, another sign of a lack of experience, due to parents or something, perhaps you feel young, strong and invincible and don't think you need to worry about such things.

You might be both under-educated. Reagan didn't run on 60% is good, he ran on those bad ol' liberals spending our grandchildren's futures through ever increasing social programs. (He spent their future on unfunded government programs we still have not paid for) He ran on reducing the size of government but increased it in size and number manpower. He ran on reducing taxes but quietly increased taxes and fees through his two terms in office.

So you see my young student you seem to be as defensive and forgetful of St. Ronald's two terms in office. You seem as enamored with south bite rhetoric as your fellow students...
 
Wait a minute, I don't recall anywhere in the rules that I must appease progressive democrats with how much of an article I must post so that you don't get your panties in a bunch over what we are discussing here. I have said throughout this thread that anyone with pulse knows that should Hillary run she will get the nomination, so instead of some feigned outrage that I didn't open with enough of the article for your liking is crap. The link is there, and you can clearly read, comprehension aside, I suggest you read the articles posted in OP's in their entirety then talk about them, not come in half cocked and shoot your mouth off as if I did something wrong, it makes you progressives look thin skinned, and foolish.

Are you serious? Half cocked? Outrage? LOL ... far from it grasshopper ... I just demonstrated how deceptive your post was .. the outrage is all yours and I can see why you're upset ... next time try being more honest ... or don't, and if I see it, I'll put you in your place once again ...:2wave:
 
No democrat has a ****ing realistic chance in 2016.... Of course democrats will find a away to win the election.

Not that it matters considering the RNC will nominate a tyrant to boot..

"Hope an change that YOU can believe in."
 
Seriously? You really think it was "not uncommon" for liberals to pine for Goldwater and Ike, and think of Nixon and bush* as decent and moderate?

You're kidding me, right? How forgetful do you people have to be? Goodness, the last big one was the revitalization of Nixon by liberals trying to get conservatives to accept the Affordable Care Act. At least I could discuss, at length, how conservatives have falsified their adoption of Bill and Hillary Clinton over the past few years. But of course, the two of you had no issues with my critique of that Republican myth making exercise, right?

In the mid-2000s, yes, people on the liberal to left side of the spectrum began to romanticize both Eisenhower and Goldwater (as well as fusionist conservatives like Buckley, Paul). That was because the principle opposition to liberals were the W. Bush conservatives. Once Bush was defeated, a new enemy sprung up in the form of the Tea Party, but still, vestiges of "true conservatism" promoted by liberals would continue to argue against the mainstream of the opposition party. It still remains a convenient tactic to take a hero to one conservative movement to critique the existing movement. Find something you like in the former hero, build that up to show that conservatives have either lost their way or had become uncivilized, and ignore much of the rest.

It all starts with phrases like "wouldn't recognize today's Republican party."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/opinion/31krugman.html

Daily Kos: That Liberal Scumbag - Barry Goldwater

Why Do GOP Bosses Fear Ron Paul? | The Nation

Ron Paul's Strange Bedfellows | The Nation

What Would Nixon Say to Today's Republican Party? - Molly Ball - The Atlantic

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/business/the-gops-journey-from-the-liberal-days-of-nixon.html?pagewanted=all

Rachel Maddow: In America Today, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower Would Be Bernie Sanders in the U.S. Senate | Alternet

Should You Still Despise George W. Bush?

Geoffrey Kabaservice: Why Won

Irving Kristol saved the right from intellectual bankruptcy in the '60s. Who will save it now? - Slate Magazine

Revolt of the Goldwater conservatives - Salon.com


Reagan, Goldwater Wouldn't Recognize the Republican Tea Party - Peter Fenn (usnews.com)
 
Last edited:
Everything that made this nation great is gone...

3....2...1... now let progressive talk **** and defend this POS economy and our tyrannical government

"racist past, old white men, capitalism"

What a ****ing platform to run on - not to mention what a great society we live in - a nation that judges on race, sexual orientation, sex, religion etc and not character - which ideas BTW dictate just about everything in our present "society" ...

Of course republicans want a priest for president and progressives want Lenin...

Of course these clowns will deny all of this and attempt to portray their authoritarian position as logical...
 
You're kidding me, right? How forgetful do you people have to be? Goodness, the last big one was the revitalization of Nixon by liberals trying to get conservatives to accept the Affordable Care Act. At least I could discuss, at length, how conservatives have falsified their adoption of Bill and Hillary Clinton over the past few years. But of course, the two of you had no issues with my critique of that Republican myth making exercise, right?

In the mid-2000s, yes, people on the liberal to left side of the spectrum began to romanticize both Eisenhower and Goldwater (as well as fusionist conservatives like Buckley, Paul). That was because the principle opposition to liberals were the W. Bush conservatives. Once Bush was defeated, a new enemy sprung up in the form of the Tea Party, but still, vestiges of "true conservatism" promoted by liberals would continue to argue against the mainstream of the opposition party. It still remains a convenient tactic to take a hero to one conservative movement to critique the existing movement. Find something you like in the former hero, build that up to show that conservatives have either lost their way or had become uncivilized, and ignore much of the rest.

It all starts with phrases like "wouldn't recognize today's Republican party."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/opinion/31krugman.html

Daily Kos: That Liberal Scumbag - Barry Goldwater

Why Do GOP Bosses Fear Ron Paul? | The Nation

Ron Paul's Strange Bedfellows | The Nation

What Would Nixon Say to Today's Republican Party? - Molly Ball - The Atlantic

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/business/the-gops-journey-from-the-liberal-days-of-nixon.html?pagewanted=all

Rachel Maddow: In America Today, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower Would Be Bernie Sanders in the U.S. Senate | Alternet

Should You Still Despise George W. Bush?

Geoffrey Kabaservice: Why Won

Irving Kristol saved the right from intellectual bankruptcy in the '60s. Who will save it now? - Slate Magazine

Revolt of the Goldwater conservatives - Salon.com


Reagan, Goldwater Wouldn't Recognize the Republican Tea Party - Peter Fenn (usnews.com)

Yeah like you're any better... The only thing that separates you from the progressives is the fact that you want your utopia enforced...

You're a progressive...
 
Yeah like you're any better... The only thing that separates you from the progressives is the fact that you want your utopia enforced...

You're a progressive...

Let's see how many progressives want to claim me.
 
Let's see how many progressives want to claim me.

Don't confuse your differences with your authoritarian ideals...

You're two peas in a pod but are incapable of seeing it... Neo-cons are Hitler and progressives are Stalin - get it yet?
 
Don't confuse your differences with your authoritarian ideals...

You're two peas in a pod but are incapable of seeing it... Neo-cons are Hitler and progressives are Stalin - get it yet?

And libertarians are Herbert Spencer or Francis Galton, right?

Yeah, I get it. This shouldn't be taken seriously at all.
 
Last edited:
Re: Hillary Clinton tops list of Dems voters don't want in 2016

Not going to happen. The ACA won't cover ALL American's and even best estimates show you'll still have about 30 million uncovered. So, you missed the mark there.

Repeal of DADT. Rape is up in the Military, acts of violence against each other is up, but thank God the private can let his private life be known to everyone, as if they care.

Equal pay for Women? Hell, the WH doesn't even achieve that....Fail.

Dream kids? Stories are starting to emerge that they are not following even the parameters of their own law, and just blatantly allowing illegals to claim that status without checking too closely. Back door Amnesty, not a good policy, unless ofcourse you are looking for a way to do away with America as it has existed since its founding....

Overall, it is you progressives that should be the angriest with the One...He has failed at nearly every policy, and law he has touched...[/QUOTE.



Very interesting observations, or should I say opinions. Do you have anything to back them up?
 
You're kidding me, right? How forgetful do you people have to be? Goodness, the last big one was the revitalization of Nixon by liberals trying to get conservatives to accept the Affordable Care Act. At least I could discuss, at length, how conservatives have falsified their adoption of Bill and Hillary Clinton over the past few years. But of course, the two of you had no issues with my critique of that Republican myth making exercise, right?

In the mid-2000s, yes, people on the liberal to left side of the spectrum began to romanticize both Eisenhower and Goldwater (as well as fusionist conservatives like Buckley, Paul). That was because the principle opposition to liberals were the W. Bush conservatives. Once Bush was defeated, a new enemy sprung up in the form of the Tea Party, but still, vestiges of "true conservatism" promoted by liberals would continue to argue against the mainstream of the opposition party. It still remains a convenient tactic to take a hero to one conservative movement to critique the existing movement. Find something you like in the former hero, build that up to show that conservatives have either lost their way or had become uncivilized, and ignore much of the rest.

It all starts with phrases like "wouldn't recognize today's Republican party."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/opinion/31krugman.html

From the links:
No, I haven’t lost my mind. Nixon was surely the worst person other than Dick Cheney ever to control the executive branch.


Daily Kos: That Liberal Scumbag - Barry Goldwater

The first sentence:
I have been a fan of Barry Goldwater ever since I became involved in politics in the mid-80's.

Written by the noted liberal "Six Degrees of Aaron" :roll:


Why Do GOP Bosses Fear Ron Paul? | The Nation

Ron Paul is not a progressive. He takes stands on abortion rights and a number of other issues that disqualify him from consideration by social moderates and liberals, and his stances on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and labor right (like those of the author of the Taft-Hartley Act) are anathema to economic justice advocates

Didn't see anything that suggested a pining for Goldwater or Ike, or suggested that Nixon or bush* were moderate

No point in wasting my time by going further. I'm disappointed. I don't remember you ever posting such delusional nonsense before.
 
Back
Top Bottom