Democratic wannabes can’t catch Hillary Clinton.
In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton holds a nearly 50-point lead over Vice President Joe Biden, her closest competitor in the field, 62% to 15%. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren rounds out the top three on the Democratic side with 10%. No other potential candidate tops 5%. [CNN]
WHY IT is so confounding to many in the media, but also a tiny click inside the Democratic party, that Hillary Clinton has no challengers is very simple. No one in American politics has ever considered what it would mean to have a competent, world-renowned woman running for president who is the first female contender to have commander in chief chops.
The perfect storm of the 21st century is the coming candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom the American people have not only decided deserves a shot at the title, but a CNN/ORC poll revealed that 57% of Americans would be proud to call her Madam President.
The Democratic nomination fight is over before it begins for good reasons.
In 2016 Democrats will have Hillary Clinton trumpeting the best of what the party has achieved, while Republicans brawl over the Bush legacy that left President Obama in a position to rescue the American economy or navigate the Second Great Depression.
There’s a reason Republicans have already begun a scorched earth campaign against Clinton, and it goes beyond Hillary to the very irrelevancy of the GOP in the face of a national election in 2016 they know they could lose big.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t have a Democratic challenger, not because the party is weak, but because she’s as formidable a potential presidential candidate as we’ve from either party seen since Ronald Reagan, a man who wouldn’t claim the GOP today and couldn’t get the nomination, either. Nuclear zero in the age of Tehran Tom Cotton? Unthinkable.
In the traditional John F. Kennedy, Hillary Clinton will build on what’s come before her, something Republicans can’t do.
When I refer to Clinton as superwoman who comes to the supermarket, I mean that her conversation with America will take this woman of enormous achievement into the supermarket of the American heartland for a national discussion about how we can create an economy that brings higher wages, higher incomes, a higher standard of living and a rising tide that lifts all boats and leaves no American behind.
The Bill Clinton presidency, which embodied Democratic economics, is fondly remembered because he created a surge of prosperity, optimism and jobs, and a belief that government can work — even as Republicans tried to impeach him while he doggedly continued his good works in office.
By contrast, the last Republican presidency, which embodied Republican economics, sank America into the most punishing recession and devastating financial crash since the Great Depression, which brought the most massive bailout in human history.
In her conversation with America, Hillary Clinton will build on the launching pad of her legacy. And Republicans will disown the bottomless pit of theirs.
Hillary’s unopposed by any viable candidate, because Democrats know what she represents and it’s something we’ve never seen before in U.S. history.
That doesn’t mean the road to the White House will be easy or pretty.
Yep, for all the screaming the numbers haven’t moved. The GOP is stuck. They keep playing to the far right and they can’t seem to move away from it. Hillary is a known commodity. The GOP screeching only makes them look like a bunch of petulant children demanding their candy. I have a feeling the more they keep up what they are doing the bigger smackdown they are going to get in 2016.
Reince Priebus has been offering foreshadowing.
With Halperin & Heilemann last week on “With All Due Respect,” he was outrageous, using the “c” word “criminal” in conversation about Clinton.
So it’s going to be full on sexism and desperate flop sweat from the GOP. These are the same people who said she killed Vince Foster. You know the old saying about a cornered rat and taht’s the way they are behaving.
Scorched earth does not begin to cover the Republican reaction, unless you begin with them setting their own hair on fire.
They’re likely planning a wider assault using the “Netanyahu template”!
Because that is such a great idea long term. Why burn your bridges when you can napalm those suckers flat? Israel is going to pay dearly for Netanyahu’s desperate short term politicking. Killing off the Two state solution was great domestic politics, for Bibi in the short term. Long term, it hurt Israeli democracy, it hurt Israel’ s standing in the world, It hurt Israel’s standing in the US, It divided Jewish opinion worldwide. I gave aide and comfort to Israel’s bitterest enemies. And if the Republicans think this is a great template, man they are going to be really… Read more »
Yep, very true. I said the same thing earlier today. If that’s the sole thing the GOP has to offer then the voters are going to give them legendary smack down. I have to believe the GOP is full of slow learners.
Yes, and that means that we all must get to work and at least turn the Senate back around. Here is MIssouri it will not be easy at all. Roy Blunt is entrenched but we have a great Democratic candidate who is a sleeper at this point but I think and hope will be a big surprise to people who think it will be a walk for Blunt.
Turnout in 2016 could do that, because the numbers could be big.
I’m eagerly waiting for HRC to come out swinging. There are so many real issues to debate–women’s issues, the proposed GOP budget that would cut Medicare, gut Medicaid and a host of other supplemental programs while beefing up military expenditures, climate change and renewal energy investments, infrastructure, education etc.
There will be a clear, stark contrast between parties and eventual candidates. But yes, it will no doubt be a slug fest.
Watch Twitter.
HRC has gone partisan lately & its wonderful to watch.
Everyone reading here should be on Twitter!
I know that everyone here has a friend or relative on Facebook who post the usual Republican drivel / talking points. And each and every time there is a disconnect, a “are you serious?” moment. This time we have something that will Impeach Obama or Ben Carson is a genius, or Defund and Repeal Obamacare, etc, etc, etc, the bile, desperation, and flop sweat just radiate from the posts. And I always do wonder how it is possible to live in world so confined by hate and fear. What is it about people with permanent tans that sets you off?… Read more »
Since the email brouhaha HRC began building out her press team.
The latest hire is a good signal & symbol.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/03/17/clinton-team-picks-justice-spokesman-brian-fallon-as-lead-press-secretary/
I would have more of a critique of that if she was actually a delcared candidate.
Aw, come on. She’s declared in all but announcement.
Maybe I should say announced then.
Just playin’ with you.
Comparing Hillary to Saint Ronny of Raygun is a bit of stretch. I do not see her as transformative a person in some fields as Regan was. She is a continuation of Obama in many ways. Regan was a clean break in many regards. People knew what they were voting for and against. They were voting against Jimmy Carter’s feckless handeling of the Iranians and the economy. They were voting against Carter’s dour conservative with a small “c’ vision. They were voting against Carter’s prim, proper, dull, charisma-free personality. They were eating up “Morning In America.” They were loving the… Read more »
Oh, thank you for taking the Ronald Reagan bait. Do you mean “transformative” Reagan who invited the religious right into the party, which haunts them today? Or the “transformative” Reagan who suggested no nukes to the former Soviet Union? Or the “transformative” Reagan who cut taxes, then turned around to institute that largest tax increases in U.S. history, until William Jefferson Clinton? …or maybe the “transformative” Reagan that made people cross their own ideological line to vote for someone they believe has the power to make America “great again”? …because some in the Republican party hate Pres. Obama, wrongly I… Read more »
The Real Clear Politics average has her down to single digits against many GOP candidates. The margin will slim to within margin of error, at least, when the next round of poll results are released. I wonder if any third party is going to get into the mix?
Seriously?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
…but thanks for playing.
I respect the voters who are independents, but with the system we have in place they hold no power whatsoever.
Do Republicans even read their own links? She’s anywhere from 11 points to 16 points over Republicans.
Try looking here
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
2016 Presidential Race
Baa waa so in other words the GOP strategy has been a major fail and just drove her numbers UP!! This is what I predicted. Everytime the GOP doubles down on crazy Clinton Numbers go up.
If her numbers are up, how do you explain her shrinking lead?
mjsmith – HRC’s up on all the candidates, by 8, 9, even 11 points (Huckabee) on that link.
A “shrinking” lead is inevitable, it always happens to any leading candidate.
BUT COME ON, even paying attention to the polling now is silly. You’re the one who brought it up, so I played this game, but it’s a dumb game this far out. Can we at least be grown ups about this aspect?
A newer poll finds Dems not happy with Clinton’s email press conference. You think that will last? Strike that, you probably do.
Mrs Clinton is truly a giant among dwarfs.
The horse race polls will be more relevant once the Republican field narrows. Without the reference of say Biden vs. Christie or Warren vs. Paul, there is no way to truly judge the polls. Given how wrong the expectations were for Mr. Netanyahu’s race were, I would be more circumspect especially given the poll results showing a close race which turned out to be incorrect.
How do polls in Israel relate to the US? They don’t. This reminds me of all the Romney was going to win conservatives when the polls were showing the opposite. Israel has a parlimentary system not an electoral college like we do. So that’s really a silly comparison.
Wrong is wrong regardless of the system. You should know, “perfect storm against Bibi”. Is it because Israel has a parliamentary system that you were wrong? Would you have been right if it was an electoral college system? Perhaps it was the misunderstanding that it was an election about “bread and butter” issues rather than security issues without comprehending that without security bread and butter issues don’t matter.
You’re barking up the wrong tree. I never said it was a perfect storm against Bibi. I had a wait and see attitude. And yes, apparently you don’t know how parliamentary elections work. Bibi’s party won the most seats but it still wasn’t enough and he is going to have for form a “colalitition” government. Also his party is not the mess the GOP is here in the US. Polling parliamentary elections is lot more tricky. Can you imagine polling the US if we had 10 viable parties running for President here?
No, you never said it, you wrote it, March 17th.
Daniel Levy, a Middle East expert whom I know and is well respected, wrote: “…What has emerged in the course of the campaign is threatening to become a perfect storm that could leave Israel’s second-longest serving Prime Minister out in the cold. While Netanyahu still remains favourite to be best positioned to form a coalition, momentum is with the “anyone but Bibi” camp. …” What pushed Netanyahu across the finish line was his racist, fearmongering & demogoguery. Now, he still won 30 seats to ZU’s 24, but everyone knows how he did it and it was ugly. To pretend it… Read more »
” To pretend it was anything other is disingenuous & ridiculous.”
Basically you just described 98% of the concern trolls postings here.
_SOMEBODY_ needs to declare for the Democrat Party. Who’s first? (Come on Hilary!) Somebody is even suggesting Al Gore! (Oh My Goodness! Released that second chakra yet, Al? Did anyone do it Voluntarily for you? His ex-wife dumped him soon after he wanted rent-a-chakra).
Well, Gore would have the advantage of being the First Divorced President, regardless of genitalia or race. Not to mention paranoid-schizophrenia for wanting to destroy those who disagree with him (I-mean-climate-deniers-and-people-who-don’t-see-the inevitability-of-disaster-in-ten-years-unless-we-institute-massive-taxes-on-carbon-emissions-in-the-US-and-Europe…)
I don’t think we have to worry about Al Gore in 2016. Next!
No, he wouldn’t be the first divorced president. He would be the first divorced and single. Ronald Reagan was divorced.
Advantage Gore!
Oh, how I love me some Al Gore!
…but as a 2016 candidate he’s not remotely prepared for what the media is like today.
But it would be wonderful if he’d challenge Hillary. Talk about exciting!!!
Clinton/Gore 2016!!!!!!
It worked GREAT the first eight years…how about we go for sixteen!!
It is rather shrewd for Mrs. Clinton to wait to declare as long as possible. It is shrewd because without declaring she doesn’t have to pay her 200 advisers to tell her what her position is on any pre-declaration issues.
You don’t know anything about her then if you’re making that kind of statement. Your statement is more applicable to Jeb Bush who is twisting himself into a pretzel trying to explain how he’s not his brother and he is his father but he’s not but he has all the same advisors as his brothers.
This is what I was alluding to, from the frothing right wing attack dogs at the NY Times:
“With advice from more than 200 policy experts, Hillary Rodham Clinton is trying to answer what has emerged as a central question of her early presidential campaign strategy: how to address the anger about income inequality without overly vilifying the wealthy.”
You should probably read a little more broadly. Just for reference, the fact that Mr. Bush sucks too is not a good counter argument.
Those are not campaign advisers. Those are policy experts and the more you talk to better. Would you rather have someone like Jebya who only talks to two people on foreign policy and those same two have proven themselves to be incompetent? You’re twisting things but that is what conservatives do. I guess it’s better to talk to one idiot than 100 smart people.
And reading one book on a subject would give you all the knowledge you need to know right? Reading more than one book would just lead to a confused mind. LOL. You guys are a piece of work dripping flop sweat. I’ve never seen anything like it in my life.
So the fact that she is smart enough to seek opinions from experts is a pejorative to you? Interesting.