I sadly have to say I am a 100 percent fever caused by Hilary fatigue and want Jim Webb and Martin O Malley as candidates despite the odds to defeat Hilary and capture the nomination and win the presidency. We cannot ignore the fact that a book just came out titled Clinton Cash about this possible Clinton financial scandal and I am not jumping to that conclusion yet that is accurate but the fact that the book is out and she is avoiding the questions on it makes matter so much worse. The possibilities she can win could drop 50/50 if people believe it and it will take a extreme far right candidate for Hilary to win. And if Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker or John Kasich get the nomination it increases her chances of losing i think. So for that reason I am ambiguously and confidently pitching a Jim Webb Martin O Malley administration. I heard O Malley plays guitar so i hope he plays a anti hilary song at every event and heck i would pay him money to do. How about this" "It is time to take America people. We don't need more Bush, We don't need more Clinton. This things of the past are over and it is time for something better something new. So vote for Webb and O Malley in 2016!" Well I am no song writer but hey it is a start lol
Well, even if a Democrat wins (which I doubt), they will be stuck with a Republican controlled congress. Thus, resulting in nothing getting done for another 4 years. So far, I'm not pleased with any of the candidates for 2016. O'Malley seems okay, but I doubt he can defeat Clinton. It will be the first year that I'm able to vote, but I don't think I would have anyone good to vote for. :/ I feel like Democrats will have to prepare for a loss in 2016 because Clinton doesn't stand a chance. Songs, books, it doesn't matter anymore. Propaganda won't help the Democrats.
I think your being way too negative about the democrats prospects. The democrats are in a better position to take back the senate and to gain some seats in the house. They only need t win four to five seats to gain a majority. Not that impossible with republicans in typically blue states. If a far right obstructionist like Huckabee, Cruz, Paul or Jindal win the nomination i think Hillary has a 75 percent of winning. I strongly suggest you vote cause not voting causes tremendous problems for this country like electing the wrong candidate and low voter turn outs cause crazies to get elected. Please don't obstruct the political process I beg of you. Also the last election had the lowest turn out since 1942 which resulted in a republican congress. Low voter turn out equals bad new for democrats.
Voting for Jim Webb because Hillary's not liberal enough is like voting for Ted Cruz because Rand Paul's too conservative.
A huge O'Malley supporter here! And I have actually seen him play guitar, when he was mayor. But it's his record as Governor that impressed me, and his understanding of problems such as falling wages, the working poor, the out-right poor, and rising inequality that impress me more than the others.
Looks like Bernie Sanders might run after all? If not my vote is going for Hilary no way do I want my vote wasted and no way would I want Rand or Cruz to win.
That is great to hear! ---------- Post added 26th Apr 2015 at 06:20 AM ---------- Rand Paul, Cruz, Huckabee, or Jindal or even Rick Perry are all too extreme to win no matter who the candidates are. Believe if it is Jim Webb, Martin O Malley or Bernie Sanders which can happen because they thought Hillary was unbeatable in 2008 and look what happened. We got Barack instead.
Honestly, I think he needs to wait four years and run against that clown Larry Hogan. To quote Barack Obama at the White House Correspondent Dinner, "So Hillary went unrecognized at a Chipotle restaurant. Not as bad as Martin O'Malley who went unrecognized at a Martin O'Malley campaign event." Jim Webb is further to the right than Hillary Clinton. He is not one that even barely exemplifies Democratic values, not to mention neither of them have any name recognition outside their home states. This is precisely why I say that the polls aren't lying. Hillary Clinton will more than likely be the Democratic nominee, and whether or not we win this election depends on whether or not the liberal wing of the Democratic Party gets over this hissy fit about Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. The last time our party got that bitterly divided, we lost. And the last time we nominated a far-left candidate that satisfied the base like Elizabeth Warren would, we got killed.
A few problems here 1. You really don't think that over the course of a primary, that someone could gain name recognition? It's not like candidates don't get a ton of news coverage 2. Since when is it a "hissy fit" to want to vote for someone who represents your values rather than just someone any person who happens to be a democrat. 3. Just because some democrats are not voting for her in the primaries doesn't mean they won't vote for her in the general election 4 A liberal running opposed to Clinton certainly won't cause the kind of party divide that happened in 1968. Even so, in 1968 all of the different Democratic Party factions still voted for Humphrey except the racist southerners 5 The party could've ran the most moderate candidate there was in 1972 and we still would've lost. Nixon was a very popular president and the economy was booming
The point I'm making is that when you've got a clear frontrunner who's blowing all your Republican opponents out of the water, at that point, the platform doesn't matter. What the Democratic base doesn't realize is that winning is everything, and from my personal standpoint, I really don't care who the nominee is, as long as that person gives us the best shot at winning. Now I've been saying that the party needs to clear the field for Hillary because when you have a primary challenge to a frontrunner, support for the frontrunner erodes, the party becomes more fractured, which makes it difficult to win the general election regardless of who wins the primary. The goal here should be party unification, not division. The longer a party controls the White House, the more the party's base of support becomes a house of cards. United we win, divided we lose.
I agree to a certain extent and there is no doubt Hilary would make a good president but what about these emerging scandals particularly the "Clinton Cash" book coming out. It could be a big problem for Hillary especially with independents. Jim Webb and O Malley don't have big scandals so my point being they might be a stronger candidate in the long run. But on the other hand a lot politicians have skeletons in their closet whether we like it or not and I am sure there are plenty scandals we can pick out for every politician. My question is too what makes Hillary so unbeatable or untouchable. Because I honestly don't see it in her. I see a candidate who became known because of her husband and not because of having her own success. Martin O Malley and Jim Webb don't come from a political family they created their own success and in no offense to Hillary it was probably easier for her to get her start in politics cause of her husband. Same as Jeb Bush. We don't need family dynasties in politics and when I hear Bush/Clinton I hear old news and want something new and fresh. So with that said and despite the possible risk of losing the election I rather keep my options open and support a lll of Clinton's challengers. Another problem is Hillary is not addressing the alleged scandals properly and that might hurt her too. Everything is pretty much up in the air for 2016 a lll I am saying.
I completely agree having saw the interview this morning he is full of bs however he does not seem biased cause he is doing a book on Bush cash too and he did an interview for fox and abc. I don't if he was biased he would do an interview on abc but in spite of that he has no sufficient evidence to get Clinton in trouble.
If you worry about that, worry about the war crimes she was complicit in instead. The whole US governancy is illegitimate. Balance. Superfluous. There's a reason why America's poor often don't vote, they know the state doesn't care.
Well to be fair many democrats and republicans made that brutal mistake to declare war for false reasons and they received the wrong intelligence from the the administration and it is Bush and Cheney that should be tried for war crimes not Hillary. They misled, they lied and they should be tried. There are many instances where not voting can cause disastrous candidates to be elected and i think because of that voting should be mandatory. If you do not vote you have no right to complain about anti gay candidates getting elected and so on and that is why voting should be mandated thing. In all fairness there is congress and if you do not have a cooperative congress you cannot get big things done without both parties approval. Yeah you can say politicians don't keep their promises but it is at the fault of the majority if decent things don't get accomplished. A president can also sign executive orders but that doesn't go far enough. You cannot place blame on broken promises when you have to realize it takes a majority vote to get anything passed and and not voting causes a corrupt majority in congress and also a bad president in the white house. This was the lowest voter turn out election since 1942 and chaos happened and a republican majority was sadly produced. If you take offense I apologize i get too passionate when it comes to politics and government.
Well, you are very much more balanced than me, so you don't have to apologize if I don't. You misunderstand me, however, I want them out. Gone. I'm sorry, but I don't agree with one thing you say. "You cannot place blame on broken promises". Fair enough. What I can do is to shed light on a broken system. I think that Western liberal democracy is the best system humanity has ever seen. But it's still failing, hard. It is speechless before climate change. The economic crisis shows few signs of subsiding. Indeed, many economists have argued that it is accelerating. "Voting mandatory". Yes, it shall be mandatory to walk, disillusioned, into a room and put a slip of paper into a box. Then everything will be better, because then every transgression against human rights the state commits against the people, they were elected to do it anyway, so it's not a problem. Right? I have every right to say f*ck you to every government which suppress its' people or other peoples, even if that's by oppressing LGBT+ people, retracting public privileges for people on benefits (like Michigan (I think it was) just tried to do), or kill 'terrorist' children and families with flying robots. I don't need that right from you, if I may, or anyone else, it is mine to claim.
