It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clinton leading all Republicans by double digits

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Just beyond my imagination that this is possible:

www.washingtonpost.com... 90-11e4-9f89-561284a573f8_story.html

Clinton approaches the nominating season in a dominant position, leading Bush by 54 percent to 41 percent among registered voters and Romney by 55 percent to 40 percent.


Clinton leads in new 2016 poll
Beyond Bush and Romney — the two Republicans who have made the firmest moves toward a 2016 run — Clinton holds equally large leads over other potential Republican hopefuls. She tops Rand Paul and Chris Christie by 13 percentage points each, and leads Mike Huckabee by 17 points.

Clinton’s husband, former president Bill Clinton, appears to create little drag on her potential.

Among all voting-age adults, more than 6 in 10 say the fact that Bill Clinton served as president has no bearing on whether they would support Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. And among those who say her spouse’s presidency will matter, 23 percent say it will make them more likely to support her, while 14 percent say less likely.




posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I don't see a Republican taking the White House again in my lifetime.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
I don't see a Republican taking the White House again in my lifetime.


I don't know what idiot would support a single member of either of these bs parties.

They both take from the poor and give to the rich.

One by taxing regular folks to pay welfare so they can eat while working full time at slave wages.

The other by making it impossible to tax the rich and super wealthy corporations....GE anyone?



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
I don't see a Republican taking the White House again in my lifetime.


Are you in your 80's? Lol



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Oops double post....
edit on 22-1-2015 by Hoosierdaddy71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

originally posted by: muse7
I don't see a Republican taking the White House again in my lifetime.


Are you in your 80's? Lol


I'm 23 years old



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 10:48 PM
link   
As a voting democrat, all I can say is, why don't republicans know as much about their own party as they do the democrat party?

Is it because we all know what to expect from democrats? Democrats are in on the money game too, but they come up with ideas like family maternity leave, free community college, healthcare for all.....



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

originally posted by: muse7
I don't see a Republican taking the White House again in my lifetime.


Are you in your 80's? Lol


I'm 23 years old


Would you vote for Clinton?



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
I don't see a Republican taking the White House again in my lifetime.


Then how do you explain the House, a Senate land sides ?

Back to back presidential victories are rare.

Last one was Reagan/ Bush to Bush/ Quayle.

As my pappy use to say don't count your chickens before their all hatched.
edit on 22-1-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71

originally posted by: muse7
I don't see a Republican taking the White House again in my lifetime.


Are you in your 80's? Lol



I'm 23 years old

I've been face palming over your post for about a year and a half now.
Now it all makes sense.
In 10 years you are gonna look back on all this and feel silly.
But it's ok. We were all 23 once.




posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: muse7
I don't see a Republican taking the White House again in my lifetime.


Then how do you explain the House, a Senate land sides ?

Back to back presidential victories are rare.

Last one was Reagan/ Bush to Bush/ Quayle.

As my pappy use to say don't count your chickens before their all hatched.


Why do you people continue to bring this up as if it was some great victory?

2/3 of Americans have shown they would rather not vote than vote republican.

I am sure when it comes to the presidency..those same 2/3 would turn out n vote dem.
edit on 22-1-2015 by Onslaught2996 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   
If we end up with a Republican president, we're probably going to have more terrorist attacks in the months leading up to the election. A frightened population votes Republican because of their longstanding support for a strong military.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I would vote for Obama again before I would Clinton. There is precious little on this planet that I view as potentially more disastrous than her becoming President.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I think Hillary Clinton is the most qualified person in America to be president.

Think about that. I am not saying she's the best person or that I agree with her positions.

Hillary has ALWAYS been politics. It's been her whole life and focus (unlike some who jumped on the stage and went Rah! Rah!).

She is married to a 2 term president. And unlike other wallflower wives --- did not relegate herself to the background. She was involved. And later Secretary of State.

There is no one else that even comes close to her experience and knowledge. She's also extremely intelligent --- whether haters want to admit it or not.


edit on 23-1-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
She and I are both 67 . I wonder about her health



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggerdog
She and I are both 67 . I wonder about her health


Eisenhower was 62.

Reagan was 70.
edit on 23-1-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggerdog
She and I are both 67 . I wonder about her health


Did anyone ever consider Reagan's health when getting elected at 69?? There have been other Presidents in their 60's who got elected too, what about them???

Especially since Women have a longer Life Expectancy.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Paving the way for Chelsea.

Clinton will most likely be the next potus.

I am wondering who her vice will be.

(Biden for job security)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   
As usual, all the potential candidates look awful, but Hillary is more well known, and considering that campaign spending seems to matter more (basically just making people more aware of a particular candidate) than substance, I'm not surprised.

She automatically gets the female vote, automatically gets the Democrats, she gets the black vote, she gets the hispanic vote, gets all the votes from people that are now disenfranchised with Republicans, gets all the votes from people that liked her husband... She's a part of the old boys network and will get all the backing she needs. In a country where elections are bought, she has the backers to finance her eventual presidency.

I'm almost certain she can win. I'm not happy about it, but I am willing to bet it's almost a guarantee.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   
I know Regan was 69 . I just wonder about her health ,, I'm not cutting her down , It's an honest question . reply to: mOjOm




top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join