While still hovering above the even mark at 52%, Hillary Clinton’s popularity is down from 70% in December of 2012. Since that time, she has been forced to deal with a number of embarrassing and politically difficult issues such as the Benghazi terrorist attack and other questionable foreign policy endeavors.

Report from Bloomberg:

Hillary Clinton’s popularity continues to slide as she takes on a more political posture and Republicans raise questions about the deadly 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Libya on her watch.

Fifty-two percent of Americans view the former secretary of state favorably, down from 56 percent in March and 70 percent in December 2012, according to the Bloomberg National Poll.

The decline means Clinton wouldn’t enter a possible 2016 race as a prohibitive favorite over key Republican rivals. While she still bests them in head-to-head matchups, she doesn’t have majority support against any of them.

The importance of these numbers is going to mean the most to potential Democratic rivals of Clinton in the 2016 primaries. If her polling drops to the point where other Democrats no longer view her as the “inevitable” nominee, it may sway a number of politicians to jump in as opposed to sitting 2016 on the sidelines. I’m thinking Andrew Cuomo, Martin O’Malley, and Elizabeth Warren for starters. Joe Biden is very likely running regardless of Clinton’s poll numbers.

92 COMMENTS

  1. Generally speaking, politicians become less and less popular as they come closer to being candidates.

    But I still think she’ll find a way to clutch defeat from the jaws of victory. She has a “tin ear.” Just like Romney.

    I still think JIM WEBB should be the Dem candidate. He’s tough. He’s no-nonsense. He’s from the south. He was Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy. He doesn’t take guff offa anybody. And he’s only two years older than Hillary. And as they say, “70 is the new 50.”

    A campaign with Rand vs. Webb would be something to see.

    • Goethe Behr — good points, except: A campaign with Rand vs. Webb would be something to see.

      Rand Paul vs Clinton-the-Hag will be it (A Constitutionalist debating AGAIN a liberal scumbag, and making her look like the human excrement that she is, AGAIN), that will be memorable for the ages!

      • p.s. — if anyone missed it:

        Rand Paul already made mincemeat of Hillary on her Benghazi killings role of the Four Americans, and called her UNFIT to hold ANY office…and forced her to agree to take the blame! WOW!

        He cornered her in a no-win situation — and made her look the incompetent fool that she is!

        That’s why the GOP MUST allow Rand Paul to be nominated — since he’s already got this anti-American scumbag’s NUMBER, and will AGAIN destroy Hillary in all debates!

        Attention: GOP/RNC — Real Americans have given you notice what we demand; Tea Party candidate Rand Paul for President, don’t fail us…or else…!

  2. Nate — “Hillary Clinton’s popularity down 18 points since 2012”

    “Fifty-two percent of Americans view the former secretary of state favorably, down from 56 percent in March and 70 percent in December 2012, according to the Bloomberg National Poll.”

    What hogwash!

    Quoting a source such as the freedom hater Michael Rubens Bloomber’s ultra liberal media (The former Mayor of NY, who went after Soft Drinks trying to ban the Big Gulp) and WHO wants to BAN ALL GUNS IN AMERICA, AND OUTDOES THE MSM IN PROPAGANDA AGAINST REAL AMERICANS…?!

    Wow, good one!

    How about getting independent polls from America’s Heartland — where the last bastion of Real Americans remain?!

    Montana, S.and N. Dakota, and so on, and so on — Hitlery Clinton, the killer-bitch-of-Benghazi, can barely scrape 9% approval rating —

    That makes for a 90+% drop for the killer-bitch-of-Benghazi, where Real Americans dwell!

    It’s good that we still have the Electoral College still intact — or Real Americans would have been wiped out by now by the majority of scum that’s polluting our Nation in the big cities and liberal states that own them!

  3. USA: 2 — Ghana: 1 — tremendous US World Cup opener win!

    ESPN showed Joe Biden in the stands watching the game, with the caption: “Joe Biden, US President”.

    Let’s hope ESPN has ESP…!

  4. Back on topic, this is a BS survey analysis. Of course she’s going to be less popular than she was in December of 2012. At that time, she was (a) the poor woman who just lost her bid for the presidency, (b) a loyal partisan who campaigned for the guy who beat her, (c) part of a very popular campaign, (d) a strong woman in politics, and (e) being considered or named as Sec of State. Of course, she is going to be a superstar then.

    Now, she’s just a politician, no longer the “new flavor of the month,” and she’s been beaten up by issues, instead of being a fresh new face.

    That’s her real problem: she’s not “new” anymore. How is she going to spark the imagination of the American people?

    • Goethe Behr — from your excellent post, “How is she going to spark the imagination of the American people?” is best.

      She has finally manged to spark it — they hate her guts, already!

      • Surf: The “sense of humor” post was supposed to be after you said I wasn’t thinking, because I made a joke out of your Biden post. Things fall in odd places sometimes.

  5. The right wingers are goners in 2016. Say hello to our first woman president. Right wing nuts, read and weep. hehe

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/10/democrats-strangehold-on-the-electoral-college-in-1-gif/?tid=pm_politics_pop

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/10/george-will/george-will-paints-dire-electoral-picture-gop-says/

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/23/coming-in-2016-another-filibuster-proof-democratic-majority-in-the-senate/

    We have the math and the changing demographics on our side. rand Paul is a radical right wing wacko. He has no chance of winning, but I will tell you one thing, if he runs against Hillary, he will lose badly.

    • LOL — left-wing nutter, are all liberals brain-dead like you, not to see the reality that your socialist dogma is dead, and it is your ilk that are on their way out…?!

      • Surf: The goal here is to explore ideas and to test validity of arguments.

        Even if you want to label people, and yourself, Tom’s post was not just a “liberal” rant. He provided links to analyses, including by George Will, who said, basically, the same concept that Mitt Romney mis-characterized as “bad” and “stupid” people. The fact is that a larger minority identifies as Democrats than Republicans, not just “losers” and “takers.”

        For almost exactly half of the 20th Century, Republican presidents were elected almost by accident, because the Democratic Party was identified as the “working man’s party,” and the Republican Party was thought of as the “owner-manager’s party.”

        IKE only won because he was such a war hero–and remember that Truman talked about making him his vice president in the 1948 election! And Nixon only won because people were frightened of the chaos of anti-war extremists. As the candidate of the “owner-manager” party, it seemed that Nixon could “manage” the country, and “bring us together again.”

        All that changed when Reagan’s plain talking attracted white working men. But now, the national Democratic Party has built a coalition of women, minorities, and the poor–and in a country in which most of the wealth is held by a teeny-tiny minority, that’s a danger to the GOP.

        That’s why the GOP freaked out after 2012, and that’s why there’s so much talk of “populism,” and THAT is the real hope of the Brat win–because people like him can help fashion a “common man” message.

        How can the GOP show itself as fighting for YOU, the way Teddy Roosevelt did?

        THAT is the gist of the arguments in the links Tom provided–and THAT is what we should be discussing, not superficial “labels.”

        • G Behr — only a socialist liberal nutcase calls “Rand Paul is a radical right wing wacko.”

          So I called Tom for what he /she is — left-wing nutter.

          And his poorly applied links (did you actually read all the Maybe’s, Slight Chance, Slim Possibilities contained in them)?

          Why attack me — I call them as I see them (no-one will change that). Respond to his post, instead.

          • Surf: The point is that I don’t see it as any more intelligent for you to call Tom a “socialist liberal nutcase” than it was for him to call Rand Paul ia “radical right wing wacko.” Neither forwards a discussion.

            And it is also pointless to argue whether someone is “right” without referring to the underlying facts.

            Tom provided several links of people stating facts and analysis–including George Will. Then Tom stated his opinion. Instead of pointing out why the FACTS are in error, or WHY his opinion is flawed, you went directly to name-calling.

            Tom’s articles were convincing. But there’s a long way to 2016. If the GOP can shake its “country club” image, they may be able to change the equation.

            Also, while the GOP is freaking out because Democrats have won FOUR of the last six presidential elections, it’s also true that the GOP won FIVE out of the most recent prior six. Things can change.

            • Goethe Behr — re your: “I don’t see it as any more intelligent for you to call Tom a “socialist liberal nutcase” than it was for him to call Rand Paul ia “radical right wing wacko.” Neither forwards a discussion.”

              1) I do not engage in “discussion” with those that show themselves unworthy of such. Liberal trash I expose for what they are — anti-American freedom-hating scumbags.

              2) Do not presume to question my methods whether they are intelligent or not — respond to the original poster instead with your views (not on mine second hand).

              3) Instead of responding to my response to this scumbag — why didn’t you respond to his original taunts: “Right wing nuts, read and weep. hehe….; rand Paul is a radical right wing wacko.”?!

              Goethe Behr — get your head straight, don’t want to break our Détente…do you?

            • Surf:

              (1) If you’re afraid to fashion a rational argument, then yeah, it’s better to just resort to name calling.

              (2) I just said you did not give an intelligent answer. Tom gave us blather, and you only responded to his blather. But the underlying facts are important, and that’s what the discussion should be about.

              (3) I DID respond to the important part of Tom’s post, which was that the electoral numbers favor Dems. AND I didn’t attack only you. I responded to both of you, noting that your response was as BAD as his. I didn’t say you were wrong and he was right in the name calling, did I?

              You are just way too thin-skinned. In a case where I slammed both of you, you only heard it as a slam against you. Lighten up.

              By the way, where’s Sam?

            • Surf:

              Pffft.

              Reminds me of the episode of South Park in which people laughed so hard milk came out of their nose–even though they were not drinking milk at the time. . .

    • …and, Rand Paul Shreds Hillary on Benghazi During Iowa Speech

      Watch and make this 4 minute video viral, too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrLhmputcK8

      One of the most powerful indictments against Hillary: “…it was inexcusable, it was dereliction of duty, and should preclude her from holding any other office…”

      Spot on Rand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Surf: I generally like Rand Paul, but that questioning of Hillary was pure demagoguery. He acts as if nothing was going on anywhere in the world, when at that particular moment, the ENTIRE Muslim world, from the west coast of Africa right up to China was pretty much on fire. And, of course, Libya was (and is) the LEAST of our concerns, out of all those countries.

      Also, the idea of cables being missed has been a joke since Bush missed the “Bin Laden dedicated to attack inside America” report. You simply can’t see everything and know what’s going to be important tomorrow. And I am SURE that ALL of the embassies and other outposts were begging for more protection then. Why focus on the one country that didn’t matter at the time?

      Then he goes on to complain about some irrelevant expenditures. Pulleeez.

      I still think the issue will be old news by 2016. Right now, we’re talking about the guy we caught. If he speaks, or if we catch more guys, THAT will be the topic of Benghazi discussion from here on out.

      Benghazi may be loudly screamed during the GOP primaries, but it will have no impact on the general election.

      • Goethe Behr — wrong.

        Benghazi was the hot spot for over six months — and the cries for help were ignored for six months until the prescribed tragedy finally occurred (a cynic would say it was done on purpose).

        Benghazi will be Hillary’s political ending moment of infamy — and will haunt her till the rest of her life.

          • Goethe Behr — I’ll bet you a beer Hillary won’t even be heard of come 2016.

            What office is Hillary holding now, and for the next two years…to qualify her to run on current political merit….?

            Book signings her fictions…LOL!

            • Surf: Actually *I* have been the one who has been saying that Hillary won’t be the nominee.

              Someone will come along to grab the public’s imagination I don’t know who. Their two best options–Brown and Webb–are older than she is.

        • can right wing wacko rand paul get even close to 270 electoral votes in 2016? heck no. Hillary Clinton will crush this little radical right wing pipsqueak rand paul.

  6. The right wingers are politicizing the deaths of 4 Americans. The right wingers are sick people. Hey right wingers, how come you don’t like to talk about the fact that george W Bush released one of the terrorists that was involved in the benghazi terrorist attack? 2016 can’t come soon enough. You right wing nuts are the minority fringe,

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/23/coming-in-2016-another-filibuster-proof-democratic-majority-in-the-senate/

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/10/democrats-strangehold-on-the-electoral-college-in-1-gif/?tid=pm_politics_pop

    http://therun2016.com/does-a-2016-dem-start-with-246-electoral-votes/

    • Tom: Don’t count yer chickens. . . .

      A lot can happen between now and 2016.

      The electoral.math is impressive, but Mr. O’s numbers are in the crapper. And 2014 could be a nightmare for your side. If Dems lose the Senate, the whole last two years will be wall-to-wall hearings.

  7. No one answered:

    What office is Hillary holding now, and for the next two years…to qualify her to run on current political merit….?

    (Book signings her fictions doesn’t qualify…LOL)

    • Surf: Nobody answered because it was a dumb question. Hillary has been a US Senator and Secretary of State. That’s plenty.

      Exactly what office did Ronald Reagan hold for more than SIX YEARS before winning the presidency in 1980??

      And, of course, there was Willard, whose only political office was the governorship of a tiny, liberal state, which he purchased, and then left more than FIVE YEARS before running in 2012.

      IKE never held any office before becoming president. So maybe that’s why nobody bothered to answer your question.

      • Goethe Behr — and what are her accomplishments (none as Senator; indirect killer of 4 Americans as Sec.State).

        And how dare you liken Ronald Reagan and Ike with the trash that is Romney and Hillary…?!

        What’s wrong with you?!

        • Surf: You just don’t understand what facts are.

          You raise this preposterous complaint that Hillary is not holding office for TWO years leading up to the election, as if that disqualified her. That was your point, and I pointed out that Reagan went SIX years, Romney went FIVE, and Ike went, like, FOREVER.

          I was not “comparing” any of these people. I was answering your silly pretense that it’s necessary to be holding office in order to run for office. I was comparing time, not people, silly.

          • Goethe Behr — you were comparing both.

            Nowday’s only an actual office holder can run successfully — and that was my telling point.

            Hillary holds no office — so has no chance to run successfully.

            Stop trying to obfuscate.the issue that she is AN UNEMPLOYED professional politician, that resigned in disgrace her office…LOL!

            • Dude: You really need to learn that there is a big difference between what you WANT to be true, and what is, actually, true.

              Where in the HELL did you get the silly claim that you have to hold an office to win an office?? I know you made it up, but why do you think anyone should value your wishful thinking?

              We JUST finished a campaign in which the GOP candidate had joked about being “unemployed” for over FIVE years, and yet, he only lost to a sitting president by a whisker.

              You are just so full of crapola most of the time.

            • Surf: And you STILL have not come up with a single fact to refute Tom’s claim that the GOP can’t overcome it’s electoral college deficit. Are you just ceding the point, or just too lazy to find a counter argument?

        • surfisher is delusional and living in an alternate reality.

          “After totaling the electoral votes in all the solid blue states, it becomes apparent that even a below average Democrat presidential candidate could begin the race with a whopping 246 advantage,” the author said. “No wonder President (Barack) Obama was so confident of victory in 2012 for he knew the game was practically over before it began.”

          University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato said the hurdle for Republicans doesn’t look any better if you count the underlying votes by citizens, not just the electoral results.

          “Democrats have also won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential contests,” Sabato said. “The demographic shifts heading to mid century are all pro-Democratic.”

          • Tom: I have slammed Surfisher repeatedly for “spamming” one reply in several places. Try replying to a poster’s unique message. It’s annoying to read the same post repeatedly.

  8. Goethe – you asked where I am – i’m not sure I can add anything intelligent to Surfisher and your back and forth. Plus “Tom” is what he is and his references are all from Liberal political reporters even if the past electoral votes are substantiated.

    The real facts are Democrats are running from Obama (‘cept Reid and Pelosi who seriously having dementia issues) like rats from a sinking boat tied at the pier. Nor is their a single Democrat that will admit they made a voting mistake and EVERY SINGLE ONE have voted party line since 2001, including agreeing that we should go to Iraq and take out Hussein. There is actual video of Reid / Ms. Clinton and other Dem’s saying Intelligence reports verify there are WMD there and Terrorists will be harbored there if we don’t go in. And it’s a known fact that Obama totally fk’d it up by not leaving 10K -> 30K troops there and securing a Forces Agreement with Iraq.

    Sure as God gave us little purple people eaters there will the start of a Caliphate established in Iraq before Ramadan. As far as Benghazi – not a single soul will answer the real question as to why we (State & CIA) were in Benghazi at that time unprotected, and if Die Hüdin wanted to establish a consulate . . . why leave it unprotected. “Fog of war” or religious video my ass.

    If the MSM gets off it’s ass and actually REPORTS all the things that Obama and the Administration was unaware of till it happened – ATF, NSA, IRS, VA + Benghazi and now ISIS. BHO and his are lying S.O.B.s., knew and orchestrated every single clusterfk. Obama said he would change America and he has! And all on purpose.

    Eventually, the mainstream America and even some Libs will figure it out, read the platforms of ALL the parties and will never vote Democrat again. We only get to lose this nation once – When the government is bigger than the population and the population is full of division and mostly broke the reign of 240 years will cease and we will look like west Euro and eventually have to learn Chinese to get along.

  9. Goethe (Surfisher) – I know you are not a fan of the Jews, however this gentleman, while conservative has some analytical points and politically writes for both a Lib paper and a conserve website: http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/krauthammer-hillary-achieved-nothing-secretary-state

    I don’t believe anyone but Die Hündin can get the Dem nod but she will have a ton to overcome especially if the MSM wakes up. And if we get both the senate and house and put multiple congressional bills on BHO’s desk, rather vetoed or passed the general American public will see how Congress CAN be effective.

    • Sam: I want to clarify this right away. Surfisher is the one who thinks there’s an international, Jewish banking conspiracy.

      I have Jewish friends, prefer Jewish entertainers, and feel that the Jewish influence on the world has been a LOT more positive than that of Christianity, Islam, or any other religion, with the possible exception of Hinduism.

      My beef with Israeli leaders is their tactic of encouraging chaos in the region to distract attention from their actions, such as the Draconian way they have their boot on the Palestinian people. But my greatest complaint is that they are so good at wagging the dog. Any US president who tries to assert The American right to determine our OWN foreign policy in that area VERY quickly retracts, “rephrases,” apologizes profusely, slinking away, wounded, wimpering, with America’s tail tucked between our legs.

      And many, if not most, American Jews likewise feel that militant Zionists have way too much control of U.S. foreign policy decisions.

    • Sam: Back on topic of this thread, I am still dubious that Hillary will get the nomination. Yes, she is married to the party’s only SuperStar, but he also makes her vulnerable. For instance, when Rove tried to insinuate that she was not healthy, other Democrats said that was ridiculous, not to mention despicable. But Bill volunteered the Hillary needed six months of occupational therapy after her hospitalization. With friends like that, who needs enemies? I think all her hopes will be unexpectedly dashed, as in 2008. I’d bet money on it. In fact, as we go along, we should put fake money where our mouths are.

      Call it “NATE COINS,” which we can wager, and keep track o “mark my words” statements.

    • Sam: thanks for addressing Tom’s point. Yes, it’s quite possible that if the GOP takes both houses that they MIGHT be able to do a lot, thereby flipping Tom’ forecast for 2016.

      But I doubt it. The senate is where bills go to die, because of the filibuster. More importantly, if the GOP “owns” the Congress for two years, they’ll also “own” everything that goes wrong, anywhere in the world.

      • Goethe – didn’t mean to fire your rocket and i can understand your discontent with Israel’s leader’s aggression. The whole deal is worthy of it’s own thread and is over 2700 years of angst for all concerned. I will leave it with my comment that Israel is surrounded by enemies, even inside it boundaries. the only “friend” in the world is the U.S.. Not surprisingly, if provoked, even slightly, they will scream like stuck pigs, attack aggressively, and want their own way.

        I also forgot to mention a couple of other woes of our POTUS – he is trying to misappropriate 1/6 of the nation’s economy with a super flawed Obamacare, and influx of illegal alien children since he put out the welcome mat. INS has had transportation ads for them posted since January. These and the previous I listed are all on the whole Democrats party who have been in lockstep and voting with BHO.

        As late as today; the Democrats Senate told Biden – “It’s Hillary’s turn”
        http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/joe-biden-senate-want-hillary-clinton-108040.html

        The MSM will support Hillary this time for the first woman POTUS as they did BHO for the 1st black (1/4) POTUS. They are Liberal by nature and will bias accordingly. The Liberal MSM has an order of magnitude over anything or anyone else in who is elected and who is not.

        If the self-absorbed masses keep their heads down, don’t look up and observe the direction of our country, validate the quality of the Administrations and vote in honorable and qualified people, we may even be in a bastardized form of Totalitarianism-Socialism worse than France or Britain before 2016.

        • Sam: Mostly agree that Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbors (not enemies–you have to “earn” enemies). But their relationship with us is still nauseating.

          There are bullies and there are punks. Israel is a punk, like the little kid who throws stones at bigger kids, and then calls in his big brother if they try to fight back. Meanwhile, the U.S. ends up being a bully to everyone else and a total submissive sissy to any Israeli PM. I am ashamed of us for that.

        • Sam: Back on topic, and to reply to your link, The Politico article is written by a kid who doesn’t get it.

          Two things. First, the GOP has always been the party of “we’ll give you the nomination because we owe it to you,” such as Nixon in 1968 and Dole in 2004. Also Rockefeller as Veep–it was just cuz they felt they owed him.

          This year, it’s the Dems who are doing it, feeling embarrassed and guilty about snubbing her in 2008. And, she is a woman, after all, and that’s the biggest constituency Dems have. THOSE are the two reasons why people are lining up to pat her on the back (before they stab her in the same location about 20 months from now).

          There is NO reason for any senators to come out for Biden or anyone else. No one else is “owed.” Heck, Biden got the number two job–he got his.

          But none of this changes my main bet–that either Hillary will totally screw up, or some fresh face will cause everyone to throw her overboard again. I’d bet NateCoins on that.

    • Sam: Reread your post. If the GOP takes the senate, how can bills be sent to the desk to be signed? And what bills don’t require a signature (or can avoid a veto)?

      As for the Bergdahl deal, I have never in my life seen a POW return home to such rancorous attack. Just a few weeks ago, the very SAME “pundits” were decrying that we had forgotten the poor man, and now that he’s finally home, they’re trying to paint him as Benedict Arnold and Tokyo Rose put together. It’s nauseating and despicable–and unAmerican–for petty political game. Putrid.

      • Goethe – my major was EE, not finance, but it was my understanding that for a bill, a simple majority from both chambers for the SAME bill sends it to POTUS for action. And POTUS sends his recommendation to the House to start the Budget process. If reported by the MSM accurately and with neutrality even the Low Info’s will begin to understand which party wants a big government bordering on totalitarianism and which parties want a free democratic republic – not really too hard to figure out – but when personally affected, really becomes easy.

        Bergdahl – know that this scenario was under non-disclosure until he was back in U.S. hands.95% of Congress and the public did not know the details. In 2009, thousands of military were sent looking for an AWOL private. The REMF’s and his Company knew he had folded up his uni’s. and left a note that the U.S. sucked and he was going to go forth (in civies) and talk to Taliban – but no one else knew this. The U.S. wanted him back asap before he let his alligator mouth divulge any info about us to the Taliban. {basically, end of story till . . .} In 2012 Slick started negotiations for his release (I assume for political election reasons), and Slick saw this as a downsizing Gitmo benefit. Alas, No agreement, but now it is established that the U.S. will in fact negotiate with terrorists and that Bergdahl will be considered a POW vice a hostage. Negotiations were restarted in Dec by the military but all the Haqqani wanted was $$ not necessarily return of hostages, but Slick turned this down – he said Bergdahl is a POW not a captured U.S. soldier and Gitmo detainees are also Pow’s. Slick specifically wanted to trade Whatever’s from Gitmo for Bergdahl.

        If giving $$ to the Haqqani was invalid the DOD was conceiving releasing Afghan Warlord(s) for Bergdahl and other civilians captured – BUT Slick was / is on his own political agenda and that is to shutdown Gitmo – Bergdahl is a political pawn who happened to have fecal matter all over him. It seems that most of what Slick does has fecal matter surrounding it and this is the leader of the Democrats party and every single Democrat has been in perfect lock step and vote, until recently. Die Hüdin is still a Democrat and she will have to take command of Slick’s control and make the party her own or even the 42% who are Democrats will begin wavering. Hopefully the Independents are starting to look up and “check it out”.

        Bergdahl negotiations: http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-weighed-other-options-to-free-bergdahl-1403226481
        http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/06/04/reports-wh-considered-paying-cash-ransom-for-bergdahl-last-year-n1847752

        • Sam: Regarding the congressional process, I’m still under the impression that only certain nominations are free from the filibuster, so the GOP would have to have 60 senators to send anything at all to the White House. The GOP could try to make headlines by trying to pass laws, but that hasn’t done Dems any good for the past four years.

          Regarding the article, it is, itself as much “hairsplitting,” as it complains about. Just NeoCon propaganda from the Rupert empire. One might say we have no “prisoners of war,” since we have had no “wars” since WWII (the big one).

          But while we talk about the silly idea that we declared war on terror, as well as poverty, cancer, and a few other things, you can’t declare war on an ethereal concept.

          But, the fact is that we DID have a “war” SPECIFICALLY against the TALIBAN in Aghanistan. It was the Taliban who were shielding al Qaeda, and we did not wage war on al Qaeda, we waged war on the Taliban, as the official government of Afghanistan, and as such, anyone they hold are “prisoners of war,” by definition.

          And we have been negotiating with terrorists for decades, so that argument is just silly on its face.

  10. sam is misinformed and ignorant. Harry Reid will be senate leader in 2017 and Hillary will be our first female president.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/01/23/coming-in-2016-another-filibuster-proof-democratic-majority-in-the-senate/

    “After totaling the electoral votes in all the solid blue states, it becomes apparent that even a below average Democrat presidential candidate could begin the race with a whopping 246 advantage,” the author said. “No wonder President (Barack) Obama was so confident of victory in 2012 for he knew the game was practically over before it began.”

    University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato said the hurdle for Republicans doesn’t look any better if you count the underlying votes by citizens, not just the electoral results.

    “Democrats have also won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential contests,” Sabato said. “The demographic shifts heading to mid century are all pro-Democratic.”

    • Dude: If you got nothin’ to say, just give your fingers a rest.

      Is anybody amused by this childish picture play by Surfisher?

      Anybody? Anybody? Anybody?

  11. “After totaling the electoral votes in all the solid blue states, it becomes apparent that even a below average Democrat presidential candidate could begin the race with a whopping 246 advantage,” the author said. “No wonder President (Barack) Obama was so confident of victory in 2012 for he knew the game was practically over before it began.”

    University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato said the hurdle for Republicans doesn’t look any better if you count the underlying votes by citizens, not just the electoral results.

    “Democrats have also won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential contests,” Sabato said. “The demographic shifts heading to mid century are all pro-Democratic.”

    How many American soldiers did Bush and Cheney’s lies get killed in iraq you ignorant POS? The GOP are goners in 2016 you conservatard.

    • Tom: While it’s true that Blue States have a lot of Electoral votes NOW, there is a movement, even in California, to break up the State’s Electoral vote, assigning commensurate with popular vote, requiring campaigning there to get even a majority of their Electoral votes. I think New York is also looking at it.

      Worse yet for Dems, there is also a move to assign Electors by State DISTRICTS, rather than one-man-one-vote. And with the gerrymandered districts, many “Blue States” have been red on the local and state level for some time. “Blue” Michigan has ONLY GOP state officers–governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, both houses,dog catchers, etc.

      Late this year, there will be a move to put Michigan in the GOP presidential column in 2016. It’s unpopular and unconstitutional, so they are going to wait for the lame duck session. Did you know that you can’t impeach anyone for what they do in a lame duck session?

      So don’t be so glib. The Dem national lead is fragile and is being undermined as you write.

      • Goethe Behr — just to let you know,
        “Tom” is a troll that posts under ‘tex-2″ and also “Jim” on other sites, which eventually ban this creature.

        No-one of merit responds to it there (see Doug Wead’s blog).

        • Sam: thanks.

          So now we have a left wing version of Surfisher?? If he’s posting with Doug Wead, how do we know “Tom” is not really Surfisher, since he has about six identities on here? Maybe he wanted to set up an identity as a foil? Most of his identities wear foil hats. Har.

          Oh we’ll, so, anyway, I like having a range of voices. Sometimes, on here, we have six posters saying the same thing.

          • Goethe Behr — LOL, try posting again when sober, or not stoned….

            Asking Sam…?, when responding to me…?! — just say No to Drugs…LOL!

      • Our national lead is not fragile. We have the math and we have the electoral votes on our side. The GOP are goners in 2016.

        • Tom: You’re not listening. The GOP is working to undermine the numbers. If the Michigan GOP gets away with changing how electors are picked, Michigan will be a solid Red state. And if it works, you can be sure many states will follow their lead.

  12. Let’s nail Hillary!

    A few nasties like her are controlling all Americans!

    Americans are finally waking up to this ugly fact.

    This awakening is unstoppable — it’s just a matter of time — how long it will take is questionable. What’s undisputed is that it WILL happen, and when it does, All GUILTY Liberal Socialist Scum and Neocons will get flushed into obscurity… or jail where most belong!

    That’s apodictic.

    • You mean the worthless GOP scum will be flushed into obscurity. 2016 will be a bloodbath for the right wing extremists. hahah

      After totaling the electoral votes in all the solid blue states, it becomes apparent that even a below average Democrat presidential candidate could begin the race with a whopping 246 advantage,” the author said. “No wonder President (Barack) Obama was so confident of victory in 2012 for he knew the game was practically over before it began.”

      University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato said the hurdle for Republicans doesn’t look any better if you count the underlying votes by citizens, not just the electoral results.

      “Democrats have also won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential contests,” Sabato said. “The demographic shifts heading to mid century are all pro-Democratic.”

      • Tom: You’re still overlooking two points:

        (1) There’s a move to end “winner-take-all,” even in California and New York, so the tally won’t hold up.

        (2) States such as Michigan will change to districts deciding electors, not voters. If that’s the case, such states will flip 180-degrees to being Red States.

        Yer being way too glib, dude.

Comments are closed.