By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 02 July 2015
Edit Thread
generic-user-1 said:
sc94597 said:
gergroy said:

Personally, I think the republicans probably have some more interesting personalities, but that is probably obvious since there are three times as many candidates... However, that primary is going to be very bloody, whoever gets the nomination is going to be very weak by then and all Clinton will have to do is just point the general electorate to all the blood and the election is hers. I'm guessing democrats retain the white house.

Democrats have the advantage but if the right candidate were chosen on the Republican side they could position Clinton as more of the same - a war hawk and dynasty - who will do what Bushes, Obama and (Bill) Clinton have been doing for decades.  In the states that matter (swing states) this could make for an interesting general election. But that is only if the Republicans choose a candidate who isn't a Clinton clone. 

the none clinton clones on the right are all without a chance in the swingstates and even in some red states.

It's quite obvious that you view things with regards to the right-left paradigm and you are what I'd call an axis voter. It is clear to anybody that Clinton is even more of a warhawk than Obama, and much more like Bush Jr. than half of the other candidates. Most informed democrats don't even like Hillary. They want Bernie Sanders to win. 

It is (has been for a while) also obvious that the Republican party is (has been) in the midst of a ideological civil war, and there is a lot of diversity in ideas among the various candidates because of this: most notably the Moderate/Conservative divide, but also the candidates have a variance of social views, and ideas about the scope and role of government in both international and domestic affairs. 

Also, I recommend you look at polls. Swing-states are called swing-states for a reason.