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

bush started a war with lying to everybody, not obama.  obama is more for dronekilling than for boots on the ground, not alot better but a bit.  and clinton isnt like bush, she has other moneylines than the bushes, and an fullblown war isnt in the agenda for those shareholders.
i would like to see brown getting the ticket, but sanders/gore would be fine too.

but wanting s winning over c doesnt mean that those people wouldnt vote for c if the alternative to c is assjuice, or vaginalultrasound, or some other lunatic.

there is just bush or mitt as an option to have atleast a chance vs clinton. somebody like cruz cant win outside of the deep red states.

and rand paul will never happen. like ron paul never happened they are to far away from the republican moneybase.