Election 2016

Hillary Clinton Will Win the Democratic Nomination But Is an Awful Candidiate

The former secretary of state, senator, and first lady is already running against Donald Trump. She might win, but the country will lose.

|

The most telling moment of last night's Democratic debate (full transcript here) came when the party's presumptive candidate, Hillary Clinton, ambled back on the stage late from a commercial break. The moderator had already started to ask Bernie Sanders a question when the crowd erupted in applause upon her entrance, drowning out the query. Clinton offered up a master class in sorry-not sorry, yet again stealing the spotlight even when it's trained on one of her rivals. Whether Clinton's tardiness was accidental or on purpose doesn't really matter. Either way, it was pure showmanship.

Clearly scheduled by the party establishment to minimize their impact, the function of these debates isn't to give Democratic primary voters (and non-Democrats interested in the country's future) a sense of the range and depth of different candidates's views and policies. The function is to provide Hillary Clinton the opportunity to workshop her candidacy, pretend to earn the nomination, reverse her high negative ratings, and finalize the exact compass points of her triangulation strategy in the general election.

Despite being in the national eye for nearly 25 years, Clinton has worked hard not just to "reintroduce" herself to voters via weird burrito runs at Chipotle, but to change and modify her positions to absorb the more popular aspects of Bernie Sanders' surprisingly strong progressive insurgency.

Hence, Clinton was staunchly against gay marriage until it became clear such a position was untenable in today's America, thus completing the one conversion even more obviously political than Barack Obama's switch in the heat of the 2012 election season. A one-time free trader whose president husband sealed the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, Clinton recently trashed the Trans-Pacific Partnership after having lobbied for its passage as secretary of state. It's odd as hell that it took her so long to come up with a position on the Keystone XL pipeline, isn't it? Only if you think she has an uncalculated bone in her body. Once upon a time (in 1996's It Takes a Village), Clinton supported charter schools and the concept of parental choice. Sensing the need to wrap up support from teachers unions, she singing a different tune these days.

Never slow to attack illegal immigrants (and even deny them driver's licenses) in the past, she now embraces full amnesty as the Republican Party has gone full into full-restrictionist mode. A strong supporter of TARP and bailing out Wall Street, she nows chants "Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes" when asked about letting banks fail. For the most part, she is trying to disown her record as a relentless military interventionist while fudging negligible differences with Obama's foreign policy.

Like both Presidents Bush and Obama, Clinton cannot imagine a world in which the United States is not a global policeman. "If the United States does not lead," she announced during a discussion about ISIS, Syria, and Iraq. "There is not another leader. There is a vacuum." Quick question, not just for Clinton but for virtually all the Republican candidates other than Rand Paul: Are the conflicts in the Middle East mostly attributable to a lack of American involvement in the region over the past 10, 20, and 30 years?

Up by between 20 and 30 percentage points in polls among Democrats, Clinton wisely spent most of her time not debating Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley but laying out broad differences between her and the Republican candidates. She also specifically and repeatedly attacked the current GOP frontrunner, Donald Trump. "From my perspective," she said in her opening statement, "we have to prevent the Republicans from rolling back the progress that we've made. They would repeal the Affordable Care Act, not improve it. They would give more tax breaks to the super-wealthy and corporations, not to the middle class. And they would, despite all their tough talk about terrorism, continue to let people who are on the no-fly list buy guns."

Some of those propositions are more popular than others (gun-control proposals made after mass shootings haven't been successful for a long time), but all speak directly to a Democratic base that has responded warmly to Sanders' populist positions. In going after Trump, Clinton is painting the entire Republican field with a broad brush and setting up the general election as a choice between retrogade reactionaries who divide and attack (them) and a moderate progressive with loads of experience (her). "Mr. Trump has a great capacity to use bluster and bigotry to inflame people and to make think there are easy answers to very complex questions," she said. She also said that she worries "greatly about the rhetoric coming from the Republicans, particularly Donald Trump."

Polls this early on are next to useless, but it's interesting that Trump is one of the few leading Republicans who polls poorly against Clinton in head-to-head matchups. Nobody understands that better than Clinton and if she can't run against Trump, she obviously wants to run against a Republican Party that voters think has been captured by him nonetheless.

Which still may not be enough to put Clinton over the top in a general election, even if she's running against an empty chair. Fully 60 percent of Americans agree that she is "not honest and trustworthy," and her flip flops over the past months toward Bernie Sanders aren't going to help her on that score.

Nor are gestures like her forced sign-off at last night's debate, when she closed her comments by saing, "May the force be with you." Coming from someone who seems to have absolutely no connection to American pop culture much less basic day-to-day reality (recall her statements about being "dead broke" when leaving the White House), that's like the worst grandma joke of all time.

From a libertarian perspective, Hillary Clinton is not simply a terrible candidate in this election cycle but in any election cycle. She presided over an unrelievedly awful set of foreign-policy fails and remains unbowed in her willingness to restrict the First Amendment when it comes to political and commercial speech. Her recent forays into triangulation notwithstanding, she also has a virtually unbroken record of backing large, powerful institutions on Wall Street over letting market forces determine winners and losers. She is no friend to civil liberties ranging from government surveillance and overreach in the service of the War on Terrorism, the War on Drugs, and more.

It appears all but certain that Election 2016 will offer voters major-party choices between bad and worse. Partisans will slug it over whose candidate is bad and whose is worse while the rest of us play different angles, such as which president might work better as a hedge against single-party control of Congress. In this sense, it's good that we don't have to bother watching the Democratic debates, since it's going to take a lot of effort to figure out which candidate will do less damage from the Oval Office.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

454 responses to “Hillary Clinton Will Win the Democratic Nomination But Is an Awful Candidiate

  1. Which still may not be enough to put Clinton over the top in a general election, even if she’s running against an empty chair.

    At this point, I can’t imagine the GOP putting up anyone who can beat her. No one really wants the crooked, wet-finger-in-the-air Clinton to be president, but without a palatable alternative she get’s it by default.

    1. If you don’t like her policies then you’re perpetuating the Republican War on Women.

      1. If you don’t like her policies then you’re perpetuating the Republican War on Women.

        I know this was meant as sarcasm

        but

        Hillary Clinton supports the War on Women who smoke Weed !

        1. She’s a war monger and a drug warrior. Perfect liberal candidate. The democrats are liberals, right? Someone told me that.

      2. If you don’t just love her then you are perpetuating the Republican War on Women.

    2. The best hope is for the GOP to retain “control” of Congress.

        1. Personally, I’m still hoping for my own island nation.

          1. I am thinking of somewhere off the coast of Colombia or perhaps Chile.

            http://www.privateislandsonline.com/

          2. The GOP are a horrible disaster. They abandoned all pretense of fiscal responsibility under Bush, and don’t show any signs of regaining it in spite of a few speeches against the deficit that they weren’t willing to back up with military spending cuts, they keep trying to start new wars and continue to support the ones they’ve already started, don’t believe in fair trials or due process or cops not shooting people, they like warrantless wiretapping and dislike free speech, they continue to oppose science with things like climate change denialism, they think establishing a religion is just fine (as long as it’s defined vaguely enough to not require them to actually follow any moral rules), and they’re just bloody dishonest. It’s not like the Democrats are much better, except for a few honest folks like Bernie who are too far left to be realistically electable,

            1. You sound like Hillary and Bernie stopped being honest when he started running for president. By the way, have you ever heard of Rand Paul?

              1. Rand Paul like all republicans can only do fantasy math, the only fiscal presidents in the last 50 years have been democrats.

    3. “At this point, I can’t imagine the GOP putting up anyone who can beat her.”

      I think the only GOP candidates she could beat are Bush and Trump.

      And I still don’t believe Trump will win the nomination.

      1. I agree. All the Republicans have to do is run someone who isn’t crazy and doesn’t remind the of Bush, and they’ll win in a walk.

        And yet the Stupid Party insists on cheerleading the one candidate who will literally scare people into voting for Hillary Clinton.

        1. I think Trump’s appeal is that he’s the anti-Obama. Everything Obama is, Trump isn’t. Everything Trump is, Obama isn’t.

          Meanwhile, Trump hasn’t had to spend his own money. Meanwhile, Trump has no grass roots organizational support.

          You can’t win the nomination without spending money. Trump isn’t getting donations from establishment Republicans, and imagining a flamboyant billionaire asking average working Americans for small donations is ridiculous. He’s managed not to spend his own money by the stupidest shit he can think of to keep his name in the headlines, but that won’t carry him past New Hampshire.

          He’d need grass roots supporters going door to door, etc. to win the nomination, too. He doesn’t have that–and he never will have that. You can buy that kind of thing through hiring local politicos that have built grass roots networks from the ground up. In the Democratic Party, those kinds of organizations come ready made in the form or unions, who do all that stuff. But in the Republican Party? You either need someone with genuine appeal at the grass roots (like Ron Paul or Ross Perot) or you have to shell out the cash.

          I have yet to see evidence that Trump is willing to spend his own money for this. As soon as he has to (ahead of Super Tuesday for sure), I think he’ll flinch.

          1. Yet Trump and Obama (and Hillary) share a single cause for their insane behavior: they are clinically-diagnosable as extreme cases of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This manifests in what appear to be different ways, but the cause is the same.

            BTW, these others also had NPD: Napoleon, Hitler, and Libya’s Gaddafi.

            Check the DSM IV definition of NPD–it describes each one of them to a “T”!

            1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).
            2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
            3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).
            4. Requires excessive admiration.
            5. Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.
            6. Is inter-personally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.
            7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.
            8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.
            9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

            Trump will be as dangerous as Hillary, as Reason and National Review have been warning.

            1. I can’t agree with that. Trump is not as bad as Hillary because no one is.

            2. Virtually all major politicians could be diagnosed with NPD, just as pretty much all successful actors and actresses can be diagnosed with a related personality disorder, “Borderline PD”. Both are part of the infamous “Cluster B” of personality disorders.

            3. I don’t like her, just because, but it doesn’t stop me from wondering if a man could more easily get away with the things she’s pilloried for.
              Like, I don’t get Benghazi, or saying she switched positions or the email thing. Seems weak.
              She is an insider, however, I get that…probably too close to corporations as well. And thr civil liberties thing. Not good, but things taken for granted otherwise in the political machine.
              So…man-like, but not. Playing the game by the rules, but with an extra invagination.
              That’s the part I don’t like…she’s got an extra invagination, so she reminds me of my mom.
              Gross.

              1. Men got pilloried for exactly what she did with the emails, so it’s clear she’s not getting a tougher time than men would.

            4. I don’t like her, just because, but it doesn’t stop me from wondering if a man could more easily get away with the things she’s pilloried for.
              Like, I don’t get Benghazi, or saying she switched positions or the email thing. Seems weak.
              She is an insider, however, I get that…probably too close to corporations as well. And thr civil liberties thing. Not good, but things taken for granted otherwise in the political machine.
              So…man-like, but not. Playing the game by the rules, but with an extra invagination.
              That’s the part I don’t like…she’s got an extra invagination, so she reminds me of my mom.
              Gross.

          2. Trump will have grass roots supporters going door to door. I know that because I know people who’ve been activists before who are gung ho for Trump now. They’ll organize independent local committees for Trump if they haven’t done so already. They’ve been waiting for such a candidate for several election cycles, hadn’t had one, & so have been uninvolved. It won’t take them long to get involved.

            1. One of them is somebody who recently moved out of NYC into the country, & has said for 15 yrs. that he’s wanted out of politics, didn’t even register to vote last time he moved locally. Shortly after he moved to the country, he encountered some people putting up signs campaigning for sheriff. This guy who wanted to retreat from politics got interested again instantly!

            2. I am with you, Robert. Trump says many things that many people seem to agree with, and he is not “one of them.” I have been saying this all along (tooting the old horn so to speak, as I am wont to do), but underestimating Trump and the people who don’t pay much attention to politics, but pay enough attention to know that Trump is kind of a dick, but kind of awesome too, is not wise. Whether his supporters actually go out to vote for him is a different matter, of course – we are a lazy people, people.

              1. we are a lazy people, people.

                Hey, speak for yourself, man. Because it’s going to take too much effort for me to speak for you.

                1. i see it more as conserving my energy and attention for things i actually have some amount of control over

      2. I don’t think she’s going to beat Trump. The polls show him within striking distance, and in a few of them he’s actually been ahead. Also he hasn’t even been running against her, he’s focused on his competitors in the primary. When he finally gets around to focusing on Clinton, I’d expect he’s going to be doing her some considerable damage.

        1. You’re delusional.
          Trump would be trounced in the general election. It would be a humiliating defeat, must worse than Carter’s defeat to Reagan in his landslide victory in 1980, and the Republicans might even lose the Senate.

          1. I think its too far out to call that. Hillary may have major legal problems. Trump may have a ton of dirt, too, but so far that doesn’t work against him.

            Trump is also very, very effective at tarring his opponent. Jeb Bush was eliminated by Trump with his “low energy” attacks, that I doubt any other candidate could have done that well.

            He’s very effective at planting that one simple phrase in the nation’s consciousness.

            “She’s a criminal. I don’t even know why she’s allowed to run.”

            Suddenly because he can have that quote promoted everywhere, people subconsciously agree and she’s tarred with that.

            Meanwhile, Donald can walk back anything he wants, policy-wise. He can add on some stuff for unions and still keep his base.

            He does much better with blacks, and they are the key voting bloc not Hispanics.

            Note: I am not for Trump. I dislike him greatly, but I think his chance for winning is closer than we think…until we see a complete failure at ground game or spending, or staff that actually shows up somewhere. I’m hoping this isn’t like Moneyball and we find out consultants and ground game are really BS.

          2. nope. Trump is GOP best candidate. Will be a big contrast with establishment neocon Hillary. People want change and an end to interventionist foreign policy

            1. Paul and Cruz are the best GOP candidates in that order. But I’d prefer anyone over Hillary. Is Satan running?

              1. I mean the best candidate to defeat Hillary. Paul has no chance at nomination. Trump Cruz ticket would be strong

                1. See, this is the la-la land that Trumps supporters live in.
                  “All my crazy relatives in GOP crazy land think Trump is awesome, therefore it’s obvious he will win the general election!”

                  You win the general election by running a moderate who can get swing voters. You don’t nominate a ticket of the two most extreme people in the field.

                  1. You win the general election by running a moderate who can get swing voters. You don’t nominate a ticket of the two most extreme people in the field.

                    This. You have to hold the faithful states and then convince enough dunderheads in the swing states to come out for you, or at least against the other guy. Hillary and Trump are the perfect anti-candidates for both parties, as lots of voters would turn out solely to ensure the other party’s monster doesn’t get elected.

                    Run someone who doesn’t inspire open contempt and hatred among normal people on the basis of her personality and you can get those characters to stay home on election day. We should develop a metric for gross inoffensiveness and dub it the Trudeau Factor.

                  2. Yo Hazel, been to NYC? Trumps name is on almost every corner. The working class like and respect him. I lay odds that he’ll beat that bitch Arkansas transplant where she bought her senate seat.

              2. “Paul and Cruz are the best GOP candidates in that order.”

                It truly saddens me that on a libertarian website, we don’t have more people shouting this.

            2. Trump doesn’t represent a change from interventionist foreign policy. He represents a petulant jingoism that plays well with certain low-information voters.

        2. I agree with Hazel.

          If Trump wins the nomination, not only will he lose, it’ll be the worst thing that’s happened to the Republican party in a long time.

          I’d like to see the poll showing that Trump is within striking distance of Hillary.

          Last poll I saw showed that a majority of registered Republicans view him unfavorably.

          What good does it do Trump to lead the pack with 35% support if more than 50% of registered Republicans view him unfavorably? Yeah, it’s a winner take all system, but if 50% of registered Republicans view him unfavorably, then don’t you think he’s doing even worse with swing voters?

          1. I can’t help but notice that the argument against the feasibility of Trump winning is he’s only showing 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% in the polls.

            1. Let’s make sure we understand which polls we’re talking about.

              There are the polls of registered Republicans to win the nomination.

              And there are the polls of registered voters to win the Presidency.

              As high as Trump’s numbers have climbed among registered Republicans, they have never surpassed his negative ratings–among registered Republicans.

              As I derived below, a rule of thumb given the latest numbers would suggest that 15% of Republicans would rather not vote than vote for Trump–even if he’s running against Hillary Clinton.

              It’s probably safe to assume that 1) The number of people who would rather not vote than vote for Trump is higher among swing voters and 2) That there are Democrats who normally wouldn’t bother to vote but will–just because they want to vote against Donald Trump.

              1. I’m talking about polls of The Donald vs. The Hillary.

            2. 40% of likely GOP voters, not of voters nationwide.

          2. If they’ve been polling “likely voters” on the basis of past voting, they’re missing the hordes who’ll turn out specifically to vote (& in some cases register to vote) for Trump. It also misses many who’ll turn out specifically to vote against Trump, but the fors’ll have a much bigger turnout than the againsts. There’ll be a big bump in turnout the way there was for Obama ’08. I’m seeing it with people who’ve been mostly apolitical but enthusiastic for Trump. You’ll also see it in the primaries in states where voters don’t have to enroll well in advance with a party.

            Trump wouldn’t’ve been among my preferences, but I think he’s a lot less bad than people here & elsewhere are making him out to be.

            1. Well, he certainly will not and cannot do the crazy shit he’s talked about, like banning all Muslims and building a giant wall. I don’t know why everyone gets all freaked out about that shit. What he’s doing is working, why would he stop? I’m sort of enjoying the entertainment of watching him make the left shit their pants and demanding apologies and he won’t, which makes them shit their pants even more. He’s trolling the hell out of them.

              In the general if he’s the nominee, he’ll tone it down a lot.

              1. In the general if he’s the nominee, he’ll tone it down a lot.

                He’s already starting to dial it back just a little.

              2. People said the same thing about Hitler. Of course he won’t do all that crazy shit he wrote about, about exterminating the Jews! Ridiculous!

                1. No they didnt. Learn your history. I’d start with Reason’s article from last week about that very topic.

                2. Ughhhh.

          3. If Trump wins the nomination, not only will he lose, it’ll be the worst thing that’s happened to the Republican party in a long time.

            I’m not so sure. I predict he would lose by a wide margin, which would hopefully snap GOP voters to their senses. It might also spur the establishment to start grooming someone who is acceptable to more than just themselves. But more importantly for the GOP, a Clinton White House will mean they will retain Congress for a couple more cycles.

            1. The damage to this country that Hillary could do in even one term makes the thought of her ever being president totally unacceptable for any reason.

            2. “I predict he would lose by a wide margin, which would hopefully snap GOP voters to their senses.”

              Watching the Republican Party line up behind Trump would cement the Republicans as the party of bigotry in the minds of younger swing voters for a generation.

              Much like Prop 187 turned California from a state that was up for grabs into a state that’s been Democratic for a generation, I don’t want to see that happen nationally.

              1. Younger swing voters? Hell, a significant portion of those who haven’t cemented the notion that Democrats don’t push racist policies will fall for Trump’s cult of personality. Presidential swing voters are generally low information voters as much as is either party’s reliable base.

            3. When has losing an election ever brought a party’s voters to their senses? It may cause the politicians to reconsider their positions, but the Republican pols are already doing the “sensible” thing on immigration.

          4. I don’t put too much into the polling data as accurate for the reason that polling data comes from phone calls. The people being polled are being put on the spot about Trump and even if they want to vote for Trump, they might not admit it because they don’t want to be viewed as racists. The same thing happened in California years ago when gay marriage was on the ballot. Polling data through surveys showed overwhelming support for gay marriage but it was soundly defeated at the ballot box. When the pundits wondered how the polling data could have been so wrong, they never considered that people who were against gay marriage didn’t say so for fear of being seen as homophobic so they said whatever they thought the pollster wanted to hear.

            The ballot box’s privacy permits people to vote what they believe without fear of judgment. I’m not saying that’s definitely the case, but could make a difference.

        3. Trump is toxic to the Republican party. Luckily, since I don’t really care about the success of the Republican party as is, I’m not too worked up about it. The only problem I do care about is the fact that non-Republicans see this shit, and equate “free market economics” with shit like Donald Trump and therefore run to the Democratic party and Bernie Sanders. That’s the shit that f***ing concerns me and makes me absolutely hate the Republican party.

          1. I don’t think so, because very few people even think about “free market economics”. However, Trump is toxic to the Republican party, in the sense that their leadership is likely to be taken over by Trump supporters the way they were by evangelicals 30-40 YA. No political tendency will be identified much w “free market economics”, or with any identifiable economics (or even w the subject of economics) for at least a while. In a way that’ll be good, in that people will come to think of economics as not being something politics has much to do w.

            1. You’re right about most people not thinking about “free market economics.” The bad thing, then, is that many people who are turned off by Trump will potentially see Democrats as more attractive, including economic policies and rhetoric that Democrats put out. So many people will be more warmer towards Clinton’s and Sander’s speeches since they are perceived to be more reasonable than Trump. That’s the harm as I see it.

              1. Well, no matter what, Trump has figured out how to win the GOP pre-election cycle. What makes anyone think this guy can’t shift gears and also figure out how to beat Hillary? He’s talking a lot of bullshit, but it’s working. I’m not taking him lightly anymore. I think at first this was just a publicity stunt, but then at some point he started realizing, ‘fuck, I could be president, and all I have to do is beat some old woman who no one likes and has so much baggage for me to pick on, she’s like a sitting duck to just start taking shots at’.

                1. That’s what I thought too. Know when part 2 of that came into play? When Bernie Sanders played nice w Clinton instead of attacking her in the debate. At that point I realized the Democrats, probably including Obama, really had Clinton wired for the nomination. Until then I really didn’t think she’d be the nominee. Once that happened, Trump realized what you wrote & could start taking his campaign seriously.

                  1. People accused me of being a conspiracy theorist because I was saying when Trump first announced, that this was a plot by the Clinton’s to screw up the GOP election chances. But I can’t figure out why anyone thinks that. It’s a known fact that Bill Clinton encouraged Trump to run as a Republican.

                    I think maybe Trump may have jumped in as a combination of that and just a publicity stunt. But then at some point, the guy is on top in the polls and has managed to stay there long term. So I’m thinking that at some point Trump, I mean he has a huge ego, might have started thinking ‘WTF? I could win! I could be the most powerful guy on the planet!’. At that point, things probably changed.

                    We’ll see. If Trump gets into the general and keeps saying really crazy and provocative shit and doesn’t attack Hillary in a serious way, then I’m going back to my ‘conspiracy theory’. If he tones it down, starts talking seriously about issues and also going after Hillary hard, then I think he’s serious.

                  2. Bernie is in on getting Hillary elected. From watching the debates and his speeches, I am absolutely convinced of this. He knows if he plays lap dog well enough he will have a spot in her cabinet/administration.

                    1. He knows if he plays lap dog well enough he will have a spot in her cabinet/administration.

                      If Bernie was that interested in a cabinet position he’d have ingratiated himself to the DNC power brokers a long time ago. He’s there to give the pretense that this isn’t a coronation for her; it’s been obvious for months that he’s too much of a pussy to call her out on all her dirty laundry and embarrass her on national television.

                    2. I dunno, I think Bernie truly believes that Millenials are A) very important to the political landscape going forward, and B) red as maraschino cherries and happy to suck down his warmed-over commie bullshit.

                      A) remains to be seen, while B) is a good bet.

                    3. block30, There was a picture of Bernie Sanders with his hands balled up in a pathetic mime of a boxing stance. I was showing it to my friends, because behind the ostensible old, “Don’t worry kids, I’m fighting for communism” message, there was an almost palpable wink that this really was like good old-fashioned boxing, “Don’t worry Democrats. I’ll throw this match.”

                      It was a great joke to me until I watched the Democrat debate later that night. Now I’m convinced he is very much aware that the fix is in.

      3. The only one she could beat is Bush.

        Trump wins over Clinton in a landslide.

        That all presumes that Obama won’t pull a dirty trick and indict her after the primaries are over so that he can anoint his own successor.

        1. indict her after the primaries

          *** gets more popcorn ***

        2. Trump wins over Clinton in a landslide.

          In what universe? He’ll lose black and hispanics, and pretty much every other minority completely.
          He’d have to pull in more of the white vote than any previous Republican candidate, over Hillary Clinton, which means white women, voting for Trump over Hillary.

          The demographics do not exist for Trump. He would LOSE in a landslide. Easily. It will be embarassing how badly he will lose.

          1. He’ll lose black and hispanics, and pretty much every other minority completely.

            Because every racist, like you, knows that the only issue the darkies care about is bringing in more of them.

            In the real world, Trump does better with Hispanics and Blacks than any other republican candidate.

            1. No, because I’m pretty sure blacks and Hispanics aren’t going to vote for a guy who hate immigrants, refers to mexicans as rapists, and has BlackLivesMatter supporters roughed up at his rallies.

              1. And I’m pretty sure you don’t bother to read the polls. He’s doing better with blacks and hispanics than any other Republican candidate.

                1. Got a link?

                2. Which polls?
                  Maybe the same ones you had that showed Romney winning in 2012.

                3. Here’s a Fox sponsored poll from two days ago.

                  It has Hillary beating Trump 49% to 38%

                  For the other leading Republicans?

                  Hillary 46% Carson 44%

                  Hillary 45% Cruz 45%

                  Hillary 43% Rubio 45%

                  http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..rism-isis/

                  1. The most important part of that poll is that Hillary is a known quantity and can’t break 49% of the vote. That’s before anyone is even campaigning against her.

                    As far as the predictive ability of polls in general, remember that poppa Bush was trailing Dukakis by 15 points in August 1988.

                    1. “The most important part of that poll is that Hillary is a known quantity and can’t break 49% of the vote.”

                      You don’t need more than 50% of the vote to win the White House. It’s winner take all. Numerous presidents have won the White House with less than 50% of the popular vote.

                      And even if you did think that was important for some reason, did you notice how far short of 50% Donald Trump is? 38% is hell of a lot farther away from 50% than Hillary’s 49%.

                      The important part is the gap between them. Hillary is trouncing Trump by 11 points. Yeah, in that situation, she’s taking New York, California, and Illinois. But she’s taking important swing states in that scenario like Ohio and Pennsylvania, too.

                      In 1984 when Reagan won every single state except for Mondale’s home state of Minnesota, Mondale got 40% of the vote. That’s HIGHER than Donald Trump is polling right now!

                    2. Go dig up a poll from Dec 1979 and see how well Reagan was polling.

                      He was still losing to Carter in polls a couple of weeks before the election.

                    3. If you want to believe something despite all of the evidence to the contrary, then it’s incumbent on you to go dig up the data.

                      Not me. (And people wonder why they call climate change skeptics “denialists”.)

                      And even if you did find that the statistics and polling were misleading in the past, you’d still have to explain why that means all the polls are wrong this time.

                    4. I remember Ronald Reagan. Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan.

                  2. Just go by those numbers?

                    Take the difference between the average of the Carson/Cruz/Rubio support (44.7%) and subtract the 38% that support Trump, and you get 6.7%.

                    divide that 6.7% by the Republican core support regardless of candidate (44.7%), and you might conclude that 15% of registered Republicans would rather not vote than vote for Donald Trump–even if he’s running against Hillary Clinton.

                    You could have Republican majorities in the House, the Senate, upwards of 31 state legislatures, and the White House, too, but noooOOOoooo. You had to run Donald Trump.

                    If the smartest Democrat strategists stayed up all night trying to think of a way to hurt the Republican Party, they could hardly have come up with anything better than Donald Trump.

                  3. And here’s an aggregation of polls over the last several months. As I stated earlier, the overall trend shows him competitive, and in a few polls he’s even shown a lead. And he hasn’t even focused his sights on Clinton yet. As you might recall, the targets he’s focused on so far withered on the vine pretty damn fast. He plays for keeps.

                    1. “As I stated earlier, the overall trend shows him competitive, and in a few polls he’s even shown a lead.”

                      Your link shows Hillary trouncing Trump in 30 of 33 polls going back to May, and the recent trend, according to the graph from your link, shows the Hillary and Trump’s support diverging with Hillary’s getting stronger and Trump’s getting weaker.

                      Has it occurred to you that the things that make Trump more popular with a plurality (minority) of registered Republicans is the same thing that makes him increasingly unpopular with everyone else–both inside and outside of the Republican Party?

                    2. “And here’s an aggregation of polls over the last several months. As I stated earlier, the overall trend shows him competitive”

                      You might want to get checked for color blindness. And retardness.

                    3. My god, he’s “comeptitive”! Well surely that means he’s going to beat Hillary in a landslide. I mean, really, everything always works out exactly like 1984.

              2. I’m pretty sure blacks and Hispanics aren’t going to vote for a guy who hate immigrants, refers to mexicans as rapists

                Well, you’re wrong. I know more than a few latin immigrants who love Trump. Go figure, but it’s true. Trump will get more Hispanic and black votes than Hillary. People do not like her and the more they see of her, the less they like her.

                And remember, people’s memories are about a minute long. If Trump gets the nomination, he’s going to suddenly look a lot less crazy, watch and see if it happens.

                1. This. Hillary is only popular among white feminists who can’t remember the Clinton years, a tiny subset of the population

            2. The Latino press leads every night with the Trump story.

              Hazel’s right.

              Some of you are delusional.

              1. Or some of you are.

                1. No, the GOP is even more delusional today than it was two weeks before the 2012 election, when they were all shouting “The polls are rigged! Romney is going to win!” In spite of all evidence to the contrary.

                  In reality, Nate Silver’s predictions were dead on.

          2. Hillary is not going to get the youth vote or the minority vote. There is no excitement for her, at all. The most reaction I see to Hillary by far is absolute hatred of her, even from the left.

            But she picks Bernie or Warren as VP and she’ll be a lot more competitive. That still will not get minority votes, but Bernie seems to be the new Ron Paul in terms of youth following.

            Thinking that progs alone can elect Hillary is like saying libertarians can win an election for the GOP. They’re like 10% of the population. Most people don’t care about politics, it’s more like a popularity contest.

            Also, keep this in mind. Obama was seen as a likable guy by most people in 2007. He also had a historical advantage that no one will ever be able to capture again, being the first black president. Hillary is widely reviled and hated and first woman president is not going to recapture the magic that Obama had, that ship has sailed.

            1. She is planning to choose Julian Castro for VP.

              1. I don’t even know who that is. I’ve heard of him. Is he a commie?

                1. Of course he’s a commie, but he’s the best kind of commie: Hispanic.

                  Democrats are full identity politics all the time, and so they need this guy no one has ever heard of to be the VP.

            2. Bernie seems to be the new Ron Paul in terms of youth following.

              The kids I know who are newly able to vote are mostly going for Bernie.

            3. Hillary is not going to get the youth vote or the minority vote.

              Yes, she will. Because they will turn out to vote AGAINST Trump.

              The one thing that could make youth and minorities turn out for Hillary is to run someone against her that they hate. That person is Donald Trump.

              They don’t call it the “Stupid Party” for nothing.

          3. He’ll “lose” blacks because Republicans overwhelmingly do, though he won’t (can’t, practically) do much worse w them than the usual. However, judging by the Hispanics I know, he’ll do better w them than Republicans usu. do.

            1. Yes, I can speak first hand about this. I know a lot of latin immigrants and several of them love Trump. I don’t know why. I tell them he’s awful, but they can’t wait to vote for him. And these are citizens, people who can and will vote. I’ve never once heard one of them say anything positive about Hillary.

              1. Makes sense, legal immigrants usually hate illegal immigration

                1. It makes even more sense when you realize that most hispanics are not 1st or 2nd generation immigrants at all.

                  Hell, a lot of them had ancestors here before this was part of the US.

                2. Here’s what I found and I think it’s on to something we’re missing: the difference between first and second generation Hispanics who have migrated to the US. Remember, Hispanics (broadly speaking) are conservative, overwhelmingly Catholic, and do not vote as lockstep as blacks. There’s also the “close the door behind me” factor.

                  People who come through a certain path, be it with work, education, or immigration, always – ALWAYS – get settled in and then think that the “next generation” coming through the same door they did aren’t as deserving. Mexicans and other latin american immigrants who have been here probably do not find those coming after to be nearly as worthy as they were. It wouldn’t surprise me if Trump pulls in big numbers of those people with his anti-immigration nonsense.

                  1. I didn’t even SF the link – I didn’t include it.
                    Here

                    1. Goddammit, why the fuck can’t Reason have a comments section that works for shit?

                      Try again

                    2. Fuck it. I give up. It’s on breitbart. By Neil Munro dtd 11 Nov 2015.

                  2. “his anti-immigration” nonsense like enforcing the law? I realize many people here are eager to see the dissolution of the nation-state, but without control over borders or a rule of law, there is no nation state. I don’t think it’s nonsense or anti-immigration to expect people to come into a country legally.

              2. A lot of those immigrants moved to get away from their own people, not chain migrate latino gangs and other human refuse to their new homes.

                1. Right? I don’t know why there’s this tendency to conflate legals with illegals, even Reason does that. They often have very different values and motives. It’s like equating a squatter with someone shopping for a condo

        3. I want a bet with you.

        4. If she hasn’t gotten the frog-march by now, it won’t happe. The Clinteflon remains intact.

      4. Trump would destroy her. Can you imagine her attacking grim with her fake, insincere crap in a debate? She’s terrible, not very good at all. I mean, sure she’s well known, but you know, she’s no Trump. And she came to him for money before, and Trump, well he knows how that game is played. So he beats her. And Trump knows women.

      5. The Hildebeast is the only candidate on either side that can make me vote Republican.

    4. There were many good reasons to prefer Candidate Obama to Candidate Hillary Clinton back in 2008, even though the President Obama who showed up to do the job didn’t live up to most of them. (Most of his failings counted as “doing the same things the Republicans would have done” or “chickening out when the Republicans bullied him”, neither of which are reasons to prefer a Republican instead, much less John McCain or Mitt Romney.)

      Since I live in California, assuming Hillary wins her nomination this round, my state’s going to vote solidly Democratic as usual, so I’ll be free to vote for whoever the Libertarians come up with this time, and won’t have to vote for her to prevent the wrong lizards\\\\\ Republicans from winning. (And if the Libertarians totally choke on their nomination, or can’t get ballot status, there’ll probably still be a Green or Peace&Freedom; candidate.) Hillary does keep giving me more reasons to support Bernie, in spite of all the reasons not to, but I’m not going to go register Democrat to do that.

  2. An awful CANDIDATE?!
    She’s a pathetic excuse for a human, for pete’s sake!

    1. then the perfect candidate?

      1. Well, now that you mention it, she IS sort of a Nixon, but without so much warmth.

        1. Or good looks, or charisma.

      2. And she has all of Obo’s honesty, but she’s missing his many years of experience.

    2. Liz “Dances With Lies” Warren would have been worse, but that’s about the weakest endorsement I can imagine.

  3. So let’s recap:

    1. All dem candidates want to extend spying on US citizens.
    2. All dem candidates want to extend bombing of the Middle East.
    3. All dem candidates want to further involve the government in forcing doctors to withhold pain meds.

    What a fine alternative to Republicans!

    1. But — they have better intentions in doing these things!

    2. Look OMWC some of those terminal cancer patients might get addicted to those narcotics so restricting their use by a government bureaucrat decree is for their own good.

      1. During the debate, I wanted to tweet that I fervently hoped that all of those candidates would die in a slow and painful manner, but I figured that would be worth a Secret Service visit.

        (NB to Preety-Bird: not by my hand, but by a wasting, incurable disease)

  4. I should add that I’m shocked and appalled that this was posted instead of yet another thread about Star Wars. Reason, you should be ashamed.

    1. Or TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP and TRUMP!

  5. Hey Reason, do you regret all those article basing Rand Paul yet?

    1. If only they could have written a couple positive ones. He could’ve been a contendah.

    2. Paul’s decline had nothing to do with Reason.

      1. Yes, that is a very silly idea. How many non libertarians even read this mag? Paul lost because there for a bunch of reasons, the fact that most people are unfortunately not libertarian being a main one.

        1. He didn’t do well because he wasn’t libertarian enough. He was too busy pandering to the SoCons. So why the hell did he ever think that SoCons would go for him when they had real SoCons to consider?

          SoCons think Paul is a liberal. Now libertarians think he’s just another Republican. You can’t actually expect more than a hand full of people to actually vet candidates and check voting records. The vast majority of people don’t do that. The number of people who actually do that are represented by the commentariat here + maybe 50 other people in the entire country. So about 100 people in the USA. The rest get their news from Fox or MSNBC or by their retarded friends and family who watch Fox or MSNBC. So they know nothing about candidates.

          1. Because Trump is a SoCon?

            No, Suell is right. Paul lost because Republicans are unfortunately not libertarians, especially on national security, foreign policy, drugs, the economy, AND gay marriage and abortion.

            1. Paul lost because he’s not a very good politician. He’s short, unattractive, has an annoying voice and doesn’t articulate his positions well.

              People are persuadable; Paul’s not a very good salesman.

              1. He’s actually too bright and articulate for your average person. They don’t understand him.

                I don’t know about unattractive, I’ve heard quite a few women say he’s good looking.

                Paul needed the Ron Paul youth movement and he lost it by acting like a SoCon. The SoCons already have their guy and it’s Cruz. Fortunately for all of us if Cruz could get the nom, he’s more libertarian than anyone else on the stage outside of Paul.

                1. He’s actually too bright and articulate for your average person.

                  No. This is what losers say when their guy isn’t loved by the masses.

                  Paul is no doubt a bright guy, but he’s a terribly retail politician. It’s a skill like any other; you have it naturally or you obtain it through practice.

                  1. So how’d he become a US sen.?

                    1. So how’d he become a US sen.?

                      He’s not a good national politician. He plays well in Kentucky.

              2. “People are persuadable; Paul’s not a very good salesman.”

                This is my view.

                it has absolutely nothing to do with his policy views, in reality. (or mostly nothing*)

                Its just that he’s not very good at “the flogging himself to rubes” stuff, which is what retail politics is about.

                *the one policy that this election has been defined by is “immigration”, broadly defined. The GOP side is universally steaming mad about non-citizens (moozies and mexicans) taken ar stuff and jobses and raping the women and dangering up the schools and etc etc.

                If he’d come out from the start moaning about the brown-menace like Trump, he’d be far better off today.

                that said = i don’t think he’s dead. No, i don’t think he’ll win the nom, but christ people here have been writing his eulogy since August. He will come in 2nd or 3rd in a few early primary states and people (and the media) will go, “Huh? never would have thought” and will say some nice things about him before he goes away.

            2. It’s not Trump who stole Rand’s show, it’s Rand who did that. Look how well Rand’s dad did in the early primaries, and it’s because he was talking like a real libertarian.

              I know that the GOP establishment is about as libertarian as the Dem establishment. But there’s enough libertarian leaning voters registered as Republican to get Rand more than 3% of the vote. But he lost those people because he’s actually been acting like just another Republican for the most part. Rand spent months before these debates trying to look like a SoCon and just another Republican. Well it worked, just not in the way he thought it would work.

              1. If he had been a solid libertarian candidate he would’ve improved to about 5-7%.

                1. He might have even broke into double digits. I don’t even know what Paul is doing and apparently neither does he.

                2. “If he had been a solid libertarian candidate he would’ve improved to about 5-7%.”

                  If he had combined solid libertarianism with some vague “Border protectionism” and robust anti-ISISness (which for some would ‘cancel out’ the libertarianism…) I think he’d vy for the #2 spot.

                  1. He would be Cruz if he did that.

              2. Paul’s negatives are quite high with Republican voters and that is mainly because of his libertarianish stances on war and national security. Republican voters like war. They think Edward Snowden is a traitor.

                1. I do think that there is a large percentage of people (maybe majority) who really don’t care about the issues at all. If there was someone with strongish libertarian views who had George Clooney looks, a ton of energy and some serious public speaking skills they could easily pull the nomination. It’s mostly about optics, looking and sounding “Presidential”.

                2. Republican voters – like all voters – believe all kinds of nonsense. Those views can be shifted by talented politicians. Both Reagan and Clinton pursued policies their bases didn’t favor prior to getting elected – they triangulated and moved their own parties.

                  Paul is a decent guy but he hasn’t got the skill base to do that.

                3. Maybe they are not persuaded that leaving people alone really works. Obama’s foreign policy has been a little taste of what that can bring, though he tries to have it both ways.

                  Paul was doing much better before ISIS. Let’d face it, ISIS does draw one’s attention.

                  Snowden is a traitor, but also a hero.

                4. That’s the feedback I get from them re Paul too: he’s not warry enough. Also not enough “pro-Israel”, or even that he’s “anti-Israel”.

                5. HazelMeade, “They[GOP voters] think Edward Snowden is a traitor.” That doesn’t seem quite right to me, so I did a quick search: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar…..tical-mass

                  “That skepticism was even more evident in the political affiliation breakdown, with 58 percent of Republicans said the government would use the information for any purpose it chooses, compared to 32 percent of Democrats.”

                  Granted, this particular poll doesn’t say anything about Snowden per se, but I remain doubtful about your assertion.

          2. Paul is a weak campaigner – he could have plucked a page from Bernie’s book here in Iowa and done quite well. There was almost no effort to capture the youth movement; Bernie practically took-up residence in Ames/Iowa City.

            1. There was almost no effort to capture the youth movement

              Yes, and Rand’s father had that all wrapped up and under the tree for Rand. All he had to do was pick it up. But noooo, he had to go after SoCon voters that are not available for a libertarian, period. They think Paul’s a liberal. So he left the present under the tree and went chasing shadows.

              1. “Rand’s father had that all wrapped up and under the tree for Rand. ”

                No he didn’t. That was cult, and a lot of its members were toxic people who Rand is better off without.

              2. His father lost pretty easily. Hardly a blueprint for anyone to follow.

          3. Rand failed to gain traction for a variety of reasons. He’s not a particularly savvy or charismatic politician, so he can’t win support through a cult of personality. I honestly think a fair number of his policy positions (criminal justice reform, privacy and civil liberties, skepticism of interventionism, real spending reductions, minority outreach) could win support in a general election, but they don’t play well with primary-voter Republicans, and since he doesn’t have charisma he doesn’t create a constituency that will turn out in the primaries. He also has come on the scene at the wrong time. The rise of ISIS really does scare people, so right from the start his positions on foreign adventurism and civil liberties are going to hurt him with people scared of terrorists. To counter that he has come down harder on immigration and refugees, which doesn’t distinguish him from other Republican candidates (and so has no real net value) but does alienate him from the people who might get behind him on criminal justice reform.

            Two years ago Paul would have been in much better position. He’d still have trouble exciting people but he might have been able to overcome that by playing to his policy strengths in the right way.

        2. I think he didn’t get the traction his father did because his father had the unique position of being a conservative anti-Iraq War candidate at a time when opposition to the Iraq War was strong–certainly increasing among marginal Republicans. Hell, the reason Obama beat Hillary for the nomination was becasue he was seen as being anti-Iraq War at the time, too, and she had a history of criticizing Bush, effectively, for not being insufficiently neocon.

          Ron Paul was also seen as being anti-TARP in the wake of the financial crisis, which was unusual for a Republican at the time.

          Events simply haven’t played to Rand Paul’s strenghts this cycle. And if he doesn’t win this time, it doesn’t mean he’s through. Other former Presidents didn’t win the nomination the first time they ran, and some of the most influential Presidential candidates in American politics (see Barry Goldwater) never made it to the White House.

          Meanwhile, libertarianism isn’t about seizing the levers of power and forcing libertarianism on everyone through the coercive power of government anyway. To whatever extent Rand Paul gets people to think about issues from a libertarian perspective, he is successful. Nice to see you’re paying attention to him.

          And if Rand manages to sponsor bills in Congress to defend our Second Amendment rights or fight for our Fourth Amendment rights against the NSA, then that’s just icing on the cake.

          1. I’m perfectly fine with Rand staying in congress and in fact I believe it’s preferable. I don’t see how any libertarian would think it’s not preferable unless they want to see every single thing that happens in the country blamed on libertarians for 4 years in a row.

            1. If there was a chance to actually spearhead meaningful libertarian reforms then I don’t see how a libertarian could not want someone that leans libertarian in the White House. The President remains the single most influential person in American politics, maybe America at large.

              Even if there wasn’t much of a chance, having a libertarian in such a high-profile position would provide visibility to the movement that is badly needed. Most people have no idea what libertarianism actually is. Would the media blame that person for things that go wrong? Sure. No different than they blame Republicans (and a portion of the right-wing media blames Democrats). That hasn’t seemed to hurt either of the major parties.

              But I think this sort of gets confuses cause and effect. A libertarian can only get elected to the White House in response to a strong libertarian movement in the country at large. That’s what really needed.

          2. Other former Presidents didn’t win the nomination the first time they ran.

            See Hillary Clinton.

          3. “Hell, the reason Obama beat Hillary for the nomination was becasue he was seen as being anti-Iraq War at the time, too, and she”

            The reason Obama won was because he is black.

        3. “How many non libertarians even read this mag”

          According to some, non-libertarians are the ONLY readers of this mag

      2. Paul’s decline has more to do with him being kind of a shrimpy, twerp and not anything resembling the alpha types that people, especially republicans, want to lead than anything else. He’s insecure as well, which is also a bad look. He is perfect for the senate. Bad for your kickball team.

      3. My decline has everything to do with reason!

      4. But Reason did nothing to help him. The libertarian publication doing nothing to help the only libertarian mainstream candidate.

        1. Suicidy, For obvious reasons I don’t think Reason moved the needle much, but I too was perplexed with Reason.com’s editorial position of Rand Paul. I’ve seen more favorable coverage of the guy out of outlets like fox news.

  6. In this sense, it’s good that we don’t have to bother watching the Democratic debates, since it’s going to take a lot of effort to figure out which candidate will do less damage from the Oval Office.

    Or, you could use your outlet to start a national campaign to write in “None Of The Above”.

    1. We desperately need the Monty Brewster law in all elections in this country. If “none of the above” wins then there is another election and in that one none of the losers can run.

      1. Can’t we make it so that none of these losers can run in the first election?

    2. I wish there was a way to nullify an election like nullifying a jury; I probably won’t vote. If the US is going full dip-shit, I’d rather have Hillary win and let the Dems self immolate.

  7. I recently got a new job and gave my 2 weeks, so I dropped my go along to get along attitude at work and got into it with a couple of Hillary supporters. She has experience! I tried to get someone to name one positive thing she’s done with all this experience and the only thing I got was that she was really running things when Bill was Prez and things were great then.
    “So you’re voting for Trump” and “But Bush” was the theme for most of the responses.

    1. You aren’t giving her enough credit for destabilizing Libya and helping to form the completely incoherent policy in regards to Syria.

    2. She improved relations with Russia though.

  8. Hillary 2016, Making America Grate again.

  9. REAZON RUNZ MOAR NEGATIVE STORIEZ ABOUT REPUBLIKINZ THAN TEH DEMOCRATZ CUZ NICK’S TEH PROGGY!- Teh Yokelz

    1. I saw someone comment a few days ago that the recent disagreements have shown who the progs are. *sigh

  10. So Hillary is basically the Democrat’s version of Donald Trump? This isn’t going to go well at all, is it.

    1. Much as it seems almost impossible to imagine someone making Trump look statesmanlike, by George, she’s done it!

      1. Or Trump makes her look statemanlike….

        1. HazelMeade, Precisely. I like Trump, but Hilary, like her or hate her, at least has the ability to project a transparent facade of statesmanlikeshipness.

    2. Um, no. Sadly, the D’s do not have their version of Trump. The closest I could come is if Roseann Barr ran for president. SHE might be the Democratic version of Trump.

  11. ” “If the United States does not lead,” she announced during a discussion about ISIS, Syria, and Iraq. “There is not another leader. There is a vacuum.” ”

    I saw this part of the show, and she received loud cheers when she said this. I thought I was watching the Republican show for a minute.
    Speaking of trained seals, she used that thing where her voice rises at the end of her statement, which is the real reason for the cheers. I think if she used this technique, they would all cheer if she said “And let us all be clear… when I am President of the United States…..all of those MUSLIMS WILL BE ROUNDED UP, AND SHOT IN THEIR FUCKING HEADS!!!!!!!”

    Roooooooooooaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. She actually said that ISIS is using Trump for a recruiting tool. She’s dumber than shit, there’s no other way to put it.

      1. She’s more liar than idiot.

        Her supporters on the other hand, are pure idiots.

      2. One of the few things she said that’s correct.

          1. But it feelzzz true to the Cosmos.

          2. Even if she wan’t lying, it’s what she was implying that’s so awful. If we dare offend ISIS, they win. Next comes an outright attack on the first amendment.

            1. Even if she wan’t lying, it’s what she was implying that’s so awful. If we dare offend ISIS, they win.

              She wasn’t referring to offending ISIS, she was referring to offending/discriminating against innocent Muslims.

              1. ISIS has been slaughtering innocent Muslims along with non-Muslims for months. Their recruiting is a lot more sophisticated than Hillary gives them credit for and they certainly haven’t needed Trump before now to boost their numbers.

                1. Wait until Hillary is president and gets to decide which of the good terrorists to hand out nukes to.

                2. Isis killing Muslims doesn’t turn them away in Franciscos head, but Trump not giving them visas makes them go crazy like animals.

          3. No evidence for Hillary Clinton’s claim that ISIS is using videos of Donald Trump as recruiting tool

            First, she was obviously generalizing and not referring to any specific instance.

            Second, “No evidence for” doesn’t mean it’s not happening, won’t happen or can’t happen.

            Finally…

            You actually believe that disparaging an entire religion based upon the actions of a tiny minority within that religion isn’t going to drive innocent Muslims to side with the group that’s not ostracizing them? On which planet do you live?

            1. There’s this thing called ‘burden of proof’. Guess who carries it?

              1. And there is also this thing called foreseeable outcomes…

                1. Which is trumped by burden of proof. Gosh I wonder if a new reader could tell which of us is a scientist?

                  1. Well, Mr scientist…

                    I propose you eat a container of rat poison, I’m sure nothing bad will happen to you (my hypothesis).

                    We’ll observe your reaction to stimuli in a controlled environment (as per the scientific method) and see if it supports my hypothesis or not.

                    You game?

            2. I don’t think anything Trump says makes a goddamn bit of difference to people joining ISIS. It’s not like anyone who wasn’t already going to join is going to be pushed over the edge by some person who is either unknown to them or so,e obscure public figure. When does that ever happen?

        1. Right. The people who kill non-muslims don’t get why muslims would be banned when they themselves “ban” all kinds of people.

          Sure, maybe they can use to attract people who are already looking for any excuse to join ISIS.

          They could also just point to a ham sandwich, if they wanted.

          1. Yeah, I work with some Muslims and I don’t see them suddenly dropping their careers and running off to jihad over something Trump says. Anyone who would do that would probably eventually do it anyway.

            We’re killing innocent Muslims with drones, blowing up their homes, their community, their families and we want to worry about what some blowhard is saying?

            You want to stop creating jihadists? STOP FUCKING KILLING THEIR FAMILIES!

            1. You want to stop creating jihadists? STOP FUCKING KILLING THEIR FAMILIES!

              Has literally nothing to do with why they’re jihadists.

              1. Picture some Middle East resident who generally doesn’t give a shit about politics but just wants to get a job and raise a family in peace. If said resident comes home one day and finds his home destroyed and his family dead thanks to some sloppy shooting by an American drone, you don’t think he might be unhappy about this and develop some strongly anti-American opinions?

                Sure, it’s not the only reason that people turn to violent Jihad, but you don’t think that having one’s family members killed by a certain country might make someone eager for revenge?

                1. Yes, it could do that, but since we have seen wars actually end in history, it doesn’t always do that.

                  Or will France and ISIS be locked in a forever war now that they have attacked each other?

                  I’m pretty sure one side will win, or it will somehow peter out.

                2. You’re right. We should cease any military operation ever because there might possibly be some collateral damage alomg the line. Which is clearly what drives enemy recruitment.

                  Do you really believe retarded shit like that?

              2. Has literally nothing to do with why they’re jihadists.

                And, if you believe this, you’re a complete moron.

            2. It’s funny how they think Muslims are like wild animals. Christians are killed all over the place in the world but they do t believe they will go crazy and kill us.

              There’s also the evidence that blowback doesn’t really show up elsewhere. Like for instance, every war in US history. Yet no blowback from Germany, Korea, Italy, Japan, Vietnam, England, the southern US, the Phillipines, etc.

      3. Nah. She knows her base will eat whatever shit she tosses at them.

        No one in the press is going to call her on it.

        1. It’s true. Once, when I pinned my Clinton worshipping proggy aunt down on Clinton’s rampant mysoginy, and questioned her unwavering support for such an anti feminist politician, she admitted she didn’t really care about anything he did. All she cared about was all the things he did for ‘the cause’. It’s principals over principles for these people. I doubt she gives a shit if Hillary is guilty of espionage laws. She would like to see her elected at all costs.

    2. The real reason Hillary took extra long coming back from break was she had to get rid of the giant warboner poking out from her suit.

      1. You mean her Chairman Mao pantsuit?

        1. A red star pin would’ve worked well on it, judging from the Dem voters slow embrace of socialism.

          1. Slow embrace? They’re practically running over each other to see who can get the farthest left.

            1. I think it’s funny how a few years ago, Democrat voters would call you a nutcase conspiracy theorist if you implied in any way that their platform has similarities with socialism. Now there’s a prominent contender for their party’s nomination who openly calls himself a socialist, and more Dem voters are willing to openly admit their affinity for that horrid system.

              1. I hear a lot of college kids spouting pro socialist bullshit first hand. Ignorant little shits that they are.

      2. I thought it was the Chipotle

  12. I don’t know how Hillary is ever president. Even the progtards hate her guts. Go read some of the comments of leftist sites, they hate her as much as the commentariat here do.

    1. Name recognition.

      1. I’ve never seen the amount of hate for a candidate coming from both the left and right as there is for that woman.

        1. They’ll still vote for her when push comes to shove. The only redeeming thing about Trump possibly being her opponent is that he just might say something outrageous enough during the debates to give her another stroke.

          1. Red Rocks Rockin, “he just might say something outrageous enough during the debates to give her another stroke.” I don’t see how this would affect Hillary’s very high likelihood of winning.

    2. And very one of them will vote for her. If they bother to vote. They don’t resist groupthink very well.

  13. Nick, try to use more humor in your headlines.

  14. I watched for about a half hour last night (all I could take). I will say this. When comparing the professionalism of both the Rs in their last debate and the Ds in this, the Ds make the Rs look like a bunch of screaming baboons.

    I credit Trump with about 80% of that, but his competitors certainly rise (meaning fall) to the occasion. The Ds are fielding the most hated woman in the country. An ugly, lying, conniving criminal. A person directly responsible for the pile of shit, that is the ME. A woman whose party has ruled over a dismal economy for 8 years.

    …and the Rs are going to lose because their voters support a bumbling idiot who has no business being on the stage. The Stupid Party is a name well earned.

    What a perfect commentary on our current state of governance. Embrace the fall, folks, cuz the sudden onset of Gs at the bottom is gonna suck.

      1. You’d think the idiocy coming from both Teams would drive the average American to another option…

        But that presupposes the ability to reason.

        We are simply fucked.

        1. It would be pretty funny to see Bernie run as an independent. That would probably doom Hillary. But he’d probably have an unfortunate accident after the first couple primaries.

        2. It probably would, if they actually had another option. But realistically, the state ideology is globalism, and libertarians are pushing it as hard as the rest of the establishment. You see what happens when an actual alternative to that materializes like a Trump or a Le Pen. The establishment, even the so-called “alternative” parties, will collude to lock them out. Realistically, the average American is demanding another option. In this case, that option is represented by Trump, with the libertarians colluding enthusiastically with the rest of the establishment trying to shut him down.

          If you really want to know how much of an “alternative” the libertarians actually are, just watch who they line up with when an actual alternative to the state ideology puts in an appearance.

          1. Shutting down the borders and implementing religious tests are alternatives to state ideology? How so? At least you have the courage as a racist and nativist to say out loud what many of these “libertarians” are thinking to themselves, I’ll give you that.

            1. Libertarians will tell you what they’re thinking straight to your face, comrade. Trust me on that one, we’ll say what we think and don’t give a fuck what you think about it. Shutup, dummy.

              1. You mean how Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are alternatives for libertarians? I’d say we’ve got a problem with diminished expectations.

                1. Who the fuck said anything about Rubio? Rubio IS the GOP establishment. Reading comprehension issues?

                  Ted Cruz’s voting record is pretty damn good as looked at by a libertarian.

            2. Oh, hey. It’s been a while.

              How you doing, racist? Not being a prig, are we?

              1. Oh hi Brian. You on the Marco Rubio bandwagon now or will it be in two months? Just curious.

                1. I’m trying to figure out the candidate who’s not overly racist, but throws in just enough racism to posture as “above PC” about it.

                  I think it’s Trump. Have you come to the same conclusion?

                  1. Really, I think I need your advice on this one. After all, you’re the master of cool racism.

                    1. I’d go with bernie sanders then. He says that bringing in unskilled migrants from Mexico is likely to depress the wages of the unskilled workers already here. Ergo, he’s racist nativist.

                    2. If only his targets were Asians, he could redeem himself. Too bad.

                      Do you have a newsletter or something describing cool racism? I’m finding the concept confusing, but I really want to embrace it.

                    3. Are you Sooey Park’s sock puppet? I’m really sorry for microaggressing against you– really. Can you find it in your heart to forgive me?

                    4. Forgive you for what?

                      Racism is totally hip and cool and anti-PC and all.

                      Unless we’re talking about the racism we hate and despise in republicans. Then it’s vile and bad.

                      But I like you: you’re a hip cool racist. Not like those vile republican racists.

                    5. Uh huh. Can we get back to the question at hand? Which person should I vote for as a libertarian? Rubio or Cruz?

                    6. I was replying more based on what’s down thread, where you go off explaining yourself again.

                      Are you off limits now?

                      That’s OK. Some people love living in glass houses and throwing stones.

                      Right, racist?

                    7. You don’t think there are people who talk about limited government who really mean that they don’t want money going to Black people who don’t want to work? Sorry, I find that terribly naive.

                    8. Yes, warn us all about the secret racism, while you show us all the cool racism.

                      How sensitive and sophisticated.

                    9. You do know that when some people talk about limited government they are actually talking about giving money to Black women with lots of kids. I’d take that as self-evident, but you’d be surprised at how upset that makes people on a libertarian comment board.

                      Cool racism? Is that like when you think Dave Chapelle and Mel Brooks are funny?

                    10. Perhaps they don’t like being accused of racism when they think they aren’t.

                      What sticks in the mud. It’s stupid, really.

                      But, at least they’re not fantasizing about not being racist while they actually say vile racist things, when it suits them.

                      That would be even more stupid and pathetic, right, vile racist?

                    11. It’s not a global accusation is it, racist?

                      Only a moron would think that when I say *some* people are motivated by racism to oppose government programs that it really means that I think *all* people are motivated by racism to oppose government programs and that it should be taken as a personal slight. Isn’t that right, moron racist?

                    12. I get it: it makes a good guilt by association argument.

                      It’s like saying that some people are socialists because they’re lazy bums who think it’s unfair someone has more than they do. Surely, not global accusation. So it’s an awesome point to bring up. Nothing wrong with that at all.

                      Still, guilt by association is less than actually being a vile racist. Sorry.

                    13. Racist, saying that all socialists are motivated by personal envy is just as dumb as saying that everyone that opposes Welfare is racist. Ok, racist?

                      So, can we move on? Rubio or Cruz?

                    14. Which one is the better racist? After all, I wouldn’t want to be the prig that suggest we go with no racism.

                      Right, racist?

                    15. I think they are both absolute cunts, racist, so I can’t decide.

                    16. Just so you know: it’s ok. It’s probably how you were raised.

                      Since you’re a vile racist, I assume you grew up in the south, right?

                      Don’t worry: it gets a lot of kids from the south. They can’t really help it: it’s a culture of racism. They deserve pity.

                      I mean, you.

                    17. Racist,

                      You’ve managed to falsely accuse someone of racism, engaged in elitist snobbery and now resorted to provincialism. You really are a snide type of swine, racist.

                    18. So, which southern state are you from?

                    19. And, you expect me to believe you’re not racist, after the vile racist things you’ve said?

                      How naive do you want me to be?

                      So, is it Georgia? Mississippi? Alabama?8

                    20. “So, is it Georgia? Mississippi? Alabama?8”

                      C’mon, you know all the sophisticated racists live in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

                    21. It’s telling that Amsoc spends his timing attempting to guess the secondary motivations of others while showing himself to be petty, vindictive, childish and burning with a pathetic hatred of his fellow man. He’s also both denied mass murders and made violent threats against Christians. It’s almost like Amsoc’s secondary motivation is the horrific massacre of people he doesn’t like.

                    22. He should get together with Tony who admits that he hates poor people and wants the president of the USA to kill libertarians with laser guided missiles.

                    23. “It’s telling that Amsoc spends his timing attempting to guess the secondary motivations of others while showing himself to be petty, vindictive, childish and burning with a pathetic hatred of his fellow man. ”

                      Boy, the things people say about you when you call Marco Rubio a cunt.

                    24. “Boy the things people say about you when you spend years on a website revealing what an utter scumbag you are.”

                    25. Why should he answer you? You never answer any questions. Like whether or not you paid your mortgage finally.

          2. Whiny fascist is whiny.

          3. Well, when the alternative is nationalism, count me out. It’s very clear why libertarians don’t jump on the Trump wagon.

            To me, Rand and even Cruz to some degree are alternatives. Trump, no so much. He’ll just be another establishment guy engaging in massive cronyism if he gets elected. The only thing to hope for is that he’ll be good for the economy and not violate too many more civil rights, what little are left to violate.

            1. Suit yourself. But that is effectively the primary political divide of the day, globalism vs. nationalism. Socialism vs. capitalism is yesterday’s news.

              1. Civil liberties and free markets are pretty much THE issues for every libertarian. I want trade with other countries and freedom of travel. I’m pretty middle ground on immigration as far as libertarians go.

              2. NRX,

                How do you feel about tax rates on rich people and gun possession? As long as you’re on the right side of these two tantamount issues, I’d say you can be friends with the commentariat. A nationalist, racist and xenophobe who favors low rates of taxation on equity traders and the personal unrestricted access to a bazooka? Eh, not perfect, but we’re a big tent movement. I hate nationalists, racists, fundamentalists, drug warriors, militarists, right-wing assholes, pro-life busybodies, and homophobes but I can’t go to the Libertarian Party convention because I think equity trades should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.

                If you end up going, can you drop me a line and let me know how the fascist/libertarian alliance is going. Here’s my email… Gtsf20@hushmail.com. Thanks, man.

                1. If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s racism, amirite?

                2. “I hate nationalists, racists, fundamentalists, drug warriors, militarists, right-wing assholes, pro-life busybodies, and homophobes but I can’t go to the Libertarian Party convention because I think equity trades should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.”

                  Yeah, I get it: you’re a democrat, who would vote libertarian, except that libertarians aren’t democrats. And you’d vote for democrats, but hey triangulate for republican leaning independents too much.

                  In other words, an American socialist, and a libertarian socialist.

                  That’s pretty much it, right, racist?

                  1. No, I’m saying that I’m going to vote for bernie sanders, who isn’t a Democrat, racist.

                    1. He’s doing a great job fooling people in the democratic primary.

                      Hey: I think I’ve seen that trick before.

                      Can’t fool me, Bernie Sanders!

              3. “Globalism” is a meaningless buzzword. Means what you want when you want. The Trumpistas seem unhappy when people or things cross borders and ‘globalism’ is their label for when that happens.

                1. First sensible thing you’ve said all day. Congratulations, weedhopper. Now if you can get your temper tantrums under control, you might be ok someday.

          4. Libertarianso colluding against trump by not voting for him?

          5. You see what happens when an actual alternative to that materializes like a Trump

            HAHAHAHAHA!

            Trump is an alternative…. Good one.

            Trump is a caricature of the Republican party. Republican “ideology” less any couth.

        3. There are so many built-in disadvantages to being a third part candidate that you really can’t blame it all on idiocy.

          What’s more, just because a fair number of people oppose the two major parties doesn’t mean that they agree on what the alternative should be.

          1. There’s 2 main camps of views on the alternative, the libertarians and the proggies.

            I for one am waiting for the progs total take over of the Dems and the libertarians total take over of the GOP so we can get down to the final war between good and evil, to be fought on the plains of the national mall.

            The progs are so far ahead of us at this point though. So far ahead that the party establishment are basically pretending to carry their agenda, until they get elected.

            1. “the libertarians total take over of the GOP”

              I WAS optimistic about this happening in due time until the ‘fiscally liberal socially fascist’ anti-libertarian alliance revealed itself in supporting Trump. Time will tell their true strength.

    1. “the Ds make the Rs look like a bunch of screaming baboons.”

      That is because the R side has some idiots who believe they are actually running for the office instead of participating in election theater.

      1. Waaa. Teh media is liberal…

        No shit.

        That doesn’t excuse Trump’s behavior or the idiocy of 30+ percent of Team Red for supporting him.

        1. Do you even read the comments you reply to anymore? Or do you just use the board for your pants shitting over Trump?

      2. N the plus side, I just saw a news alert that says Lindsay Graham is suspending his campaign. So that’s one less rotten turd nugget clogging up the works.

    2. Some of the Republicans are trying to win. The Dem shows are a coronation. You call that professionalism? It’s masturbation for the Dem faithful.

  15. Clinton, Inc. is the better Cloward-Piven destruction candidate. If she get elected, her and her cronies will do their best to embezzle as much as they can. Trump will at least be entertaining.

    1. I’d like to ask Trump “When you are president will you still personally get on twitter and tweet shit?”

      1. I’LL BE THE MOST AND THE BEST TWEETING PRESIDENT SINCE EVER, LIKE YOU WOULDNT BELIEVE

        1. I’ll have a yuuuuuuggge pen!

        2. Watching the butt-hurt of a run-of-the-mill Republican like yourself over Trump is what makes my day a little brighter. Cruz 2016! Because, because He’s libertarian-leaning.

          1. Cruz is pretty libertarian leaning on some issues. Look at his voting record. You’re saying things that you don’t know anything about.

            Rand is the best candidate for libertarians. Cruz is 2nd, even though a fairly distant 2nd. You probably know nothing about any of the GOP candidates. I bet you think Rubio is a Tea Party anti-establishment guy. Let me guess, you heard it on Fox?

            1. “You’re saying things that you don’t know anything about.”

              Which largely defines AmSoc, and probably most of his life.

  16. “surprisingly strong progressive insurgency.”

    You know, I always wrote off my own cynicism on the fact that I live in the bluest of the blue enclaves sporting actual real communists in local government, but I gotta say, using that as my metric, sanders’ insurgency hardly feels surprising.

  17. “Nor are gestures like her forced sign-off at last night’s debate, when she closed her comments by saing, “May the force be with you.” Coming from someone who seems to have absolutely no connection to American pop culture much less basic day-to-day reality (recall her statements about being “dead broke” when leaving the White House), that’s like the worst grandma joke of all time.”

    Clinton is a terrible candidate, but it’s this kind of carping from an aging right-wing hipster (she’s not up on her pop culture!) that makes me still want to pull the lever for her.

    1. “that makes me still want to pull the lever for her.”

      I doubt that’s the reason you want to pull the lever for her.

      1. Let’s have a $5-per-ticket lottery to see who gets to pull the lever for Hillary, we’ll be able to pay off the national debt. (Pull the lever, throw the switch, push the button – as long as it’s an execution I don’t care whether it’s hanging, electric chair, or gas chamber.)

        1. Dare I mention a certain mulching type device?

      2. It will be an involuntary reaction. Like when I scratch my fluffy little cat’s back and she involuntarily licks at her own chest fur. She HAS to. As voting for Cankles will be for AmSoc and the rest of the soulless progtards.

    2. Be honest, you would vote for her no matter what. You don’t need to bother coming up with a bullshit justification other than “she’s a pinko piece of shit”.

      1. As a pinko piece of shit myself, I’m insulted to be lumped in with Hillary Clinton, who would have done better if she listened to other pinko pieces of shit who told her going into Iraq was a bad idea.

        1. As a pinko piece of shit myself,

          Truer words were never spoken.

    3. No, you’re going to blindly vote for her because that’s what lefty sheep do. Goosestep to that voting booth, comrade.

      1. I’m not going to vote for her. Besides voting out of spike, she is manifestly better from a Left-libertarian standpoint than any other Republican. That said, she’s not good enough and If the choice is Clinton vs. any Republican I’ll stay home.

        1. she is manifestly better from a Left-libertarian standpoint than any other Republican.

          So left libertarians want a corrupt war mongering corporate crony for president? There’s not much libertarian in those left libertarians. They sound more like fascist to me.

          1. Because the left has never been about being libertarian. Any libertarian issue like gay rights has always been a loss leader to get people in the door to sell them on a massive statist anti-freedom program.

    4. american socialist|12.20.15 @ 11:59AM|#
      “Clinton is a terrible candidate, but it’s this kind of carping from an aging right-wing hipster (she’s not up on her pop culture!) that makes me still want to pull the lever for her.”

      A lying, thugish piece of shit, just like you! No wonder she’s got your vote.

  18. Not being republicans seems to be the only thing the Dems have. I just saw snippets of the debate and all of them were Dems going after Rs. Every issue they have is fake. Inequality, global warming, war on women, gun control blah blah blah; every bit manufactured out of thin air.

    1. For god’s sake why can’t we close the gun show loophole, cause everyone knows that terrorists get their assault rifles and pipe bombs legally at gun shows.

    2. For god’s sake why can’t we close the gun show loophole, cause everyone knows that terrorists get their assault rifles and pipe bombs legally at gun shows.

  19. This post makes up for in part Nick’s awful ‘Baby Boomers are Sith Lords’ post. That was just embarrassing.

    1. Collectivizing was he? We don’t take kindly to no collectivizing round these here parts.

    2. Yeah, that was bad. It wasn’t all the anti-war protestors who turned into Obama’s war supporters – that iconic photograph of the Baby Boomers who got shot at Kent State always neglects the fact that it was Baby Boomers at the other end of the gun, too.

      1. Most people I know my age, I guess I fall into the very bottom of age group to qualify as boomer if you leave out that other group, I forget the name, that I would fall into, are either Republican or Democrat and they vote accordingly. They know nothing of the candidates outside of which team they’re on. But I do know a couple of libertarians my age. Well, I’m one of those, so I guess I should say I know one libertarian my age. Starting a political conversation with most people I know is like talking about colors with someone who’s been blind their entire life.

      2. Given how those hippies turned out, the real crime at Kent State was that they didn’t shoot enough of them.

  20. One good effect that Hillary would have as POTUS is more GOP gains in every level of government, every 2 years for as long as she’s around.

    1. If gop government somehow led to more libertarian policies, I’d say that would be good. But…

      1. There is always the chance that we pick up more libertarians in congress to go along with our tokens Paul, Massie, and Amash. Maybe it would start making a difference if we could get into double digits.

      2. And there’s Ryan on one of the talk shows this morning smugly patting himself on the back over what a fine job he did getting that bipartisan abortion bill pushed through because, by god, he gets things done. Why, even Obama and Schumer and Pelosi all thought it was a wonderful bill! A GOP bill the Dems love – how more bipartisan can you get?

    2. What difference does it make if the GOP gains offices? They advance the D agenda as much as the Ds do.

      1. Because hiding among the GOP candidates could be a few libertarians.

      2. No they wouldn’t. The GOP sucks but the total Dem control of Congress and exec was worse. Dem dominated states are the worst.

    3. More GOP candidates in SCOTUS?

      Clinton will appoint progressives.

      She will do nothing else, but that alone is enough.

      Goodbye 2nd amendment, and maybe parts of the 1st.

      I will vote Trump before her, because I know Trump can’t do half of what he says, and he might have some small positive effects.

      1. This is pretty much exactly what I think. With Trump, I think there’s a 50/50 chance you get something good. With Hillary there is 100% chance that every single thing she does it the worst case scenario 100% of the time. The thought of that woman being president creeps me out worse that almost anything I can think of.

      2. “that alone is enough”

        This will in fact be made as an open pitch during the general election.

        That, “This election is about the Supreme Court”.

        there are a lot of people who think “Do Something” makes more sense than a constitution.

        1. We are one or two justices away from losing the first two amendments.

      3. ” I know Trump can’t do half of what he says”

        Where the fuck does this certainty come from? Fantasy. Victorious Trump would as a president have a lot of power to bend the GOP to his will and they happen to dominate the Congress. You and Hyperion are delusional.

        1. Some more wisdom from Kid Canuck. You’re going to get labeled as Tulpa if you keep it up. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

          1. Labelled as Tulpa for what, pointing out your bullshit? Oh the horror. You can take your lame threats and shove them up your ass alongside your head.

        2. Obama didn’t do half of what he promised and he had a super majority. This is normal.

          GOP will lose the Senate in 2016. Dems in the Senate will just filibuster.

          Things like free trade deals are actual signed treaties and thus law. Can’t just “re-negotiate” them that easily.

          Not saying I will enjoy seeming him try this stuff, though. I would like to see how he shakes up the VA, for example.

          He might also be a disaster on foreign policy, but he sometimes sounds a bit isolationist.

          Frankly, the one thing he could probably accomplish is to build his wall. That seems like a minor worry to me.

      4. It will just speed up the coming civil war.

  21. Ok, so 1/3 down the comments.

    Let me remind y’all of something. The political class doesnt care all that much who wins as long as it is a member of the establishment. That means Clinton, Bush, or Rubio. Both sides are determined that the non-establishment figures who aren’t on board with their agenda (protecting the political class and cronies) will not get the office.

    1. Clinton, Bush, and Rubio are most definitely the establishment guys. It annoys the hell out of me when the Fox talking heads keep calling Rubio a Tea Party guy and anti-establishment. You can’t get anymore establishment than Rubio.

      It’s apparent that Rand is out, so if Cruz doesn’t get the nomination, I’m voting 3rd party again. Is that one guy running again who I voted for last time? What was his name?

      1. Rubio has one plus. He’s the guy who inserted the no bailout line in the budget to prevent Obamacare from endlessly bailing out insurers on the exchange.

        1. Well, I guess that makes me .0001% of being convinced to vote for him. He’s pretty awful. Guy is being groomed by the establishment as their guy. The Bush 3 didn’t work out.

          1. More and more Rubio feels like Jeb if he regenerated into a new body.

        2. That…is pretty awesome.

    2. !This!

      The Republican Party is dead. If Trump represents anything, it is the gulf between the GOP elite vs. the rest of people who call themselves Republican.

      1. So the GOP elite counts as a majority of Republicans?

    3. “The political class” is a vague generality that acts as a fall guy to take blame for the real culprit for America’s problems: its electorate. It is the fault of The People.

  22. The latest Iowa polls show white, working-class people moving towards Trump.

    So in summary:

    Obama drew record numbers of blacks and young people to the polls. These two demographic groups are not going to show up in record numbers again in 2016.

    Hillary is despised by almost as many women as support her.

    Hillary is despised by many, many leftists who think Sanders speaks with the voice of God.

    Hillary is losing the white, blue-collar vote to Trump of all people

    Hillary cannot carry the 2016 election without dramatic reversals in these trends.

    1. I am optimistic given the relatively low number of “Hillary” signs – even in liberal areas (e.g. my city/neighborhood). Iowa had more Ready for Hillary billboards/bumper stickers two years ago.

      1. All of the ‘I’m ready for Hillary’ bumper stickers have mysteriously diappeared from Priuses in my hood. And trust me, it wasn’t because the Republicans in the hood were stealing them, since there’s not any Republicans around here. I’m the closest thing to that and I’m not a Republican. So I’m going to say this is bad news for Hillary, the Cankles mojo has been lost. In fact, I haven’t seen even one of them around Baltimore, anywhere for a long time.

    2. Here’s how she wins. She either takes Bernie or Warren as VP candidate.

      If she does that, Trump will have to tag Caitlyn Jenner, it’s the only way.

      1. She might pick Julian Castro.

      2. What names will Trump be throwing out there as possible running mates? Hell, he’s as apt as Hillary to take Warren or Bernie. Or Michelle Obama.

        1. Well, seriously, he can’t take any of those because they’re democrats and he’d lose his GOP voter base if he did it, he’s not that stupid.

          I can see him picking Rubio or Carson to get some minority on the ticket.

          1. I don’t know. Someone who put together a fusion ticket might shatter both bases in favor of something bigger. And it’d be a hoot to even see on the ballot.

      3. If he does that, I hope he also puts out a single of where my country gone?

    3. “Hillary is despised by many, many leftists who think Sanders speaks with the voice of God.”

      Presuming sanders doesn’t win the nomination, they’ll get behind hillary good and hard.

      1. Oh and Sanders is not going to win. It’s hers.

  23. Unfortunately, what we’ve lost in American politics is either sides candidate being willing or able to pull large number of votes from the other team. What I mean by this, that a good candidate on the Republican side or the Democratic side for that matter, would appeal to a large number of disaffected voters on the opposite side of the aisle. It appears, that no one tries to do that any more. The last time I remember this happening in significant numbers was Reagan pulling in Democrats during the 1980 election.

    I understand that this is the primary and the whole point is to capture as many voters on your team as possible so I don’t really have an answer for that. But it seems that both sides end up with the most awful candidates before the main election even starts.

    1. Hillary could lose union voters who are still angry about NAFTA.

      1. And the union voters who are not in favor of the brown hordes taking over the nation.

        1. No, they will be bussed to the polls and told who to vote for by their union bosses.

    2. My money says Trump pulls a fair number of the so-called “Reagan Democrats”.

  24. Out here on the edge of the Pacific all the Prii come standard with a “Bernie 2016” affixed. Surprisingly few Hillary ones. I imagine they will all get in line though once the “nomination” is given to her.

    1. Here in the middle of the Pacific I have seen zero Hillary bumper stickers/yard signs etc. Sanders crap is everywhere with “Feel the Bern” as the 2nd most popular behind your generic Sanders 2016. (Hawaii is ultra-violet blue with the only red centered on the military bases.) I avoid talking politics with the neighbors but there is no love voiced for Hillary but multiple Sanders T-shirts.

      1. I am considered reactionary by one neighbor who has no idea of my politics because I flew the “Bennington Flag” on the 4th of July.

        1. Ha! Maybe you could throw up a Porcupine Flag next year to really confuse them.

  25. “Polls this early on are next to useless, but”….

    hey, its a living

  26. Funny they all wsnt to get past the Bernie DNC database breech quickly. I don’t think Clinton wants to have a conversation about data security.

  27. OT: Apparently the fight for freedom has just begun in Venezuela.

    “There is sense that a new birth of freedom, not to mention hopefully more competent economic management, is blowing across South America.”

    Does it smell like a fish farm?

    I know what this smells like: “I swear that while I am alive, and under no circumstances would I surrender our revolution. Let’s be prepared for blood and massacre, and to defend our homeland and to win no matter how, and no matter at what cost.”

    “Our hate will be implacable, and those who do not conspire against tyranny and in favor of our independence, will be considered enemies, and traitors to the homeland, and executed, even if they are indifferent.”

    “”Were we to lose, which I find unimaginable, I will govern with the people in a civilian-military alliance.”

    should the opposition win the election, he was “militarily prepared” to respond, and that he would send his “millions” of supporters “to the streets”, pointedly saying “and the streets are very dangerous, OK?”

    That is Maduro threatening the voters of Venezuela prior to his crushing defeat in parliamentary elections. He doesnt have anything left to bribe them with so all he has left is threats.

    You know who else would talk like that if he thought he could get away with it?

    1. Obama’s buddies to the south are falling like dominoes. I think he had an emergency meeting with comrade Castro to discuss a counter plan. Dilma’s going to get impeached in Brasil and her labor party are now polling at about 10%. She won the election by a very small percentage over a pro-business guy who entered the race in the last minute. If he would have got in any sooner or the election would have been even a few weeks later, she would have lost. As it is, her and a bunch of her comrades are going to go down over the Petrobras scandal and some other dirty dealings she had her hands in.

    2. He doesnt have anything left to bribe them with so all he has left is threats.

      This happens every time socialists run out of other peoples’ money.

    3. I really am looking forward to Maduro getting the Ceausescu treatment. Unfortunately, Chavez’ daughter will probably escape with her father’s loot.

      -jcr

  28. You guys are crazy. The only reason Venezuela is in a recession is low oil prices.

    1. Caused exclusively by evil capitalist in the evil empire, Murika. Especially the Koch brothers. Killing socialist utopia in Venezuela and mother Gaia all at the same time. How evil can these capitalist pigs get?

      1. Socialism is a fragile system. All you have to do is take away the people’s toilet paper…..

  29. “Quick question, not just for Clinton but for virtually all the Republican candidates other than Rand Paul: Are the conflicts in the Middle East mostly attributable to a lack of American involvement in the region over the past 10, 20, and 30 years?”

    Not just Rand Paul. Trump has been very forceful in criticizing regime change in Iraq, Libya and Syria. And people are actually listening to him unlike Paul who gets ignored. Trump made this point today on ABC This Week.

    1. Well, at least Trump is right on something even if it’s by accident. People keep saying he’s worse than Hillary and I don’t get it. I don’t see Trump going after the 2nd amendment either, like Hillary will even harder than Obama did.

    2. No. The conflicts in the middle east directly attributable to gross mismanagement of American involvement in the last 6 years. Taking a bad situation that was slowly drifting towards a better one and turning it into a complete shitshow is how history will view this.

      1. No, Ken is right about this: America is a side-show to turmoil that springs from tectonic shifts in yonder lands.

      2. Before six years ago it was peaceful!

  30. Also, voting for a third party candidate is un-American.

    1. Looks like I’m going to be given the chance to be un-American once again.

  31. Somebody, on some show (it was a woman, I remember that much) this morning, declaimed “Hillary connects with people.” I nearly choked on my oatmeal.

    Hillary has almost as much genuine human empathy and compassion as a drill press.

  32. Honest question: Who are Trump’s “advisers”?

    I see a real potential for Candidate Trump, having gotten an invigorating whiff of the Oval Office, accumulating a host of establishmentarian Wise Men who will assist him in amalgamating the twin pillars of idiocy of Trumpism and the Conventional Wisdom. into an apocalyptic witches’ brew which will be used to create a veneer of electability sufficient to bring about the End Times.

    TRUMP ’16: THE PRESIDENT AMERICA DESERVES!

  33. It’s pretty funny to watch the slippery allegiances of libertarians. Six months ago, it was all Rand Paul or nothing. Now, we’re all starting to entertain “carpet bomb” Ted and Rubio.

    Trump next? I like him better than any of the other Republicans– other than Golden Boy, of course.

    1. Who here is saying anything about supporting Rubio? Posts or shutup.

      1. don’t bother. its stupid and lonely and thinks spitting randomly will get itself attention.

      2. You did… Quick question: Drugs or dementia?

        “Well, when the alternative is nationalism, count me out. It’s very clear why libertarians don’t jump on the Trump wagon.

        To me, Rand and even Cruz to some degree are alternatives. Trump, no so much. He’ll just be another establishment guy engaging in massive cronyism if he gets elected. The only thing to hope for is that he’ll be good for the economy and not violate too many more civil rights, what little are left to violate.”

        1. Where is Rubio in that quote?

          1. Oops, sorry. Geesch.

            “Rubio has one plus. He’s the guy who inserted the no bailout line in the budget to prevent Obamacare from endlessly bailing out insurers on the exchange.”

            1. That was different poster, and it was a good point, which is one more good point than you have ever made.

              1. I didn’t say it was you. I’m just saying there seems to be a libertarian movement away from Paul and towards… well, basically anyone nominated by Republicans.

                1. Yeah but you’re a moron.

                2. I’m just saying there seems to be a libertarian movement away from Paul and towards… well, basically anyone nominated by Republicans.

                  Well, you’re full of shit as always.

            2. That’s a hell of long ways from anyone saying they support Rubio.

              1. Can we bookmark this particular article and see how many “libertarians” are making the argument that We should vote for Rubio over Clinton in the general election? I doubt he’ll get the nod though as the person you cite as a libertarian “alternative” is too busy attacking Rubio’s immigration policy as too open to infiltration by Mexican ISIS members.

                1. You can bookmark whatever you like. The first time you see someone here actually say something instead of you making it up, just post the link to prove your point. Otherwise, shutup.

        2. Are you fucking retarded? I want you to point out where in that post that Rubio is even mentioned? I’m waiting.

  34. I guess we just have to hope that karma catches up with her and she dies of rectal cancer a week after she’s sworn in. Unfortunately, that will leave us with a Democrat version of Jerry Ford in the big chair.

    -jcr

  35. Reasons why Hillary (probably) won’t win:

    Very rarely does a political party keep the White House for 12 years. I see little enthusiasm amongst moderates/independents for four more years like the last eight.

    Hillary has more baggage than a 747. Just wait for the attack ads starring Bill’s rape victims, or the woman whose rapist Hillary got off by sliming the (underage) victim in court. Hillary is on tape laughing about it, and the woman is still around and ticked off.

    Hillary is often terrible at campaigning, and her health is so questionable some people think she might not even survive to the election, much less serve a term.

    Reasons why Trump might well win:

    Huge anger at the R and D establishments.

    I’m positive his support is significantly understated in polls. People are wary of admitting they like him.

    He’s getting more black and Hispanic support than most Rs.

    He really is a “Master Persuader” as Scott Adams says. He’s been constantly underestimated and dismissed. I think all he needs to do is tone things down a bit, act more presidential, and by the time most people are paying attention to the election (in 6+ months), he won’t seem nearly as “inconceivable” as many think.

    1. Reason that Hillary might win that trumps all the reasons: Trump gets the R nom. Trump gets BTFO in h2h with Hlllary. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional, end of story.

      “I’m positive his support is significantly understated in polls. People are wary of admitting they like him.”

      And yet Cruz is way ahead in Iowa. I’m pretty sure his obnoxious asshole supporters are the first and loudest to respond to polls, so his numbers are if anything inflated. He’s also hated by his own party.

      1. Cruz is not way ahead in Iowa. He’s barely ahead in the polls. And Trump is WAY ahead of him or anyone else in NH. That’s not a good sign for anyone who is not Trump. Trump pulls a close 2nd in Iowa and blows out NH, he’s in a very good position at that point.

        I wish you were right and Trump loses, but I’m being realistic not idealistic.

        1. You’re wrong Cruz is about 10 points ahead in Iowa last I heard (which was about a week ago).

          1. 9 points on RCP. And Trump is up 18 in NH and 15 in SC.

            1. 9 points is a little above margin of error. 15 and 18 are almost looking like a blowout. It wouldn’t be surprising for Cruz to win Iowa. Remember this state goes heavily for SoCons. And they think Ted is a SoCon because he talks religion. So no surprise there. But that won’t do him any good in most of the other primaries.

              1. What kind of MoE is that? Craziness

                I believe that as the other primaries approach, Trump’s numbers will drop and somebody else will take the lead which I think is what happened in Iowa. People will also be dropping out their supporters will be there for the taking by someone not named Trump.

                1. Well, people keep predicting Trump’s doom and I’m not seeing it happen. We’ll see.

                  I hope Cruz takes out Trump and then Rand climbs into Trumps position. But realistically, that looks very improbable. If anyone else besides Rand or Cruz gets the nomination, at that point, I stop caring about it and wait to see if anyone runs 3rd party that is worth voting for. And I’m not even sure about voting for Cruz, that’s a maybe wait and see.

                2. Iowa is not a good bellwether, though.

    2. I think you’re generally right about Hillary not-winning. the numbers just don’t add up.

      she has an uphill battle to fight and needs to overcome a wide range of problems, including =

      – the “party switch” trend, where voters are generally unlikely to approve another Dem after 8 years of an ‘extreme’ one.
      – the “current sitting president-approval-rating” trend, where if the current president’s rating is trending down, it bodes extremely poorly for his party
      – the lack of “new car smell” issue, where there’s absolutely nothing fresh about her. she’s effectively the antithesis of “hope and change”. Her sales pitch (at best) is “more of the same” and “fear of the other”. She’s old, she’s a re-run, and no one trusts her – even her own party, really. All she’s got is her gender and even in that regard she’s not exactly the ideal representative of womanhood-in-power.

      That said, i think you’re wrong that Trump’s support is ‘understated’.

      My view on that is less ‘scientific’, and more just knowing that polling is mostly bullshit *until very specific moments where people have to make choices*. Stated preferences and observed behaviors are often entirely contradictory. Also, GOP primary voters are not the same as the general pop by a long shot.

      Does that mean he’s never going to win? no idea. I think he’ll come in 2nd in the IA/NH primaries, win SC, then slide into a trailing position from which he never leaves, but that’s just my gut.

      1. Hillary is also going all-out on gun control and the entire LGBTQWERTYUIOP agenda, which are not mass-appeal issues, to say the least.

  36. Hillary has more baggage than a 747. Just wait for the attack ads starring Bill’s rape victims, or the woman whose rapist Hillary got off by sliming the (underage) victim in court. Hillary is on tape laughing about it, and the woman is still around and ticked off.

    Doubt Hillary is worried about these people, they’ll find a way to disappear or have a mysterious accident if they try anything during the general, and the MSM will not cover it.

    1. Ha, well, maybe, but there’s enough info floating around already that anyone could grab the clips and quotes and make a web ad that would get picked up by anti-Hillary media. Due to Citizens United there will be countless amateur/unauthorized ads on all sides in 2016. It’ll be a gigantic social media brawl. Facebook will become unbearable.

  37. The people up above who think that Trump stands any chance against Hillary, that there is this voter equivalent of dark matter that is going to vote Trump, are absolutely laughably deluded. She’d kill him. Whatever force of racists and blue collar losers Trump could arouse would be overwhelmed by the Millennial tsunami that would show up to bury him. Whatever my generation’s faults, they are not big on scapegoating minorities. Goldwater and his supporters also thought there was a bunch of hidden voters that would propel them into power. They were wrong. The Trump candidacy would so toxify the GOP’s label wrt Millenials there would be no hope of getting back. Worse, Trumpistas might take control of the GOP even if they lost. May as well start a new Trump-supporter free party. Oh and there’s also the issue of Trump being hated by a large section of his party.

    1. If I was forced to vote for either Trump or Clinton, I’d choose Clinton. Her ideology may be horrible, but she’s not completely batshit crazy/incompetent.

      1. Trump has demonstrated a lot more competence in his life than Hillary ever has.

        1. HAHAHAHA! He’s been bankrupt four fucking times.

      2. Her ideology may be horrible, but she’s not completely batshit crazy/incompetent.

        Citation motherfucking needed.

        1. She’s an establishment stooge. At least we can count on four more years of the same corrupt bullshit we’ve got now, and she would face a hostile Congress. Trump would be an epic disaster, worse than bush, on every level.

          1. Trump would be more into nation-building in the Middle East? More of a warmonger than Hillary? More corrupt than Hillary? Appoint even further leftist judges to the courts? Push the complete LGBTQWERTYUIOP agenda harder? More gun control? Increase the Dept. of Ed. OCR nonsense? I’m not exactly a Trump fan, but there are many ways in which Hillary would be worse than Trump.

          2. Hillary will make several appointments to SCOTUS. That should give you major pause.

            And, frankly, GOP house will cooperate far more with Hillary than Obama, because Hillary will make pork-tatstic deals.

            Trump would also face problems in Congress. Name your issue, and there will be people fighting Trump: take trade. Soybean farmers are not going to want a trade war with China.

            Also, I think the Dems will re-take the Senate anyways.

            Still, Trump could cause major damage, too. Srsly horrible choices.

    2. Obama had a “Millennial tsunami” and I just don’t see them all swarming the polls to vote against Trump. Even many Millennials aren’t happy with mass immigration. Just ask some Silicon Valley types fired and required to train their H1b replacements.

      Trump also has a lot of support outside the GOP: blacks, independents, blue-collar Dems.

  38. Oh and the folks ie Hyperion that think that Rand should have campaigned like his dad are also delusional and do not understand what is happening and happened. Ron had a glorified cult of personality, anti-war fervor, and a campaign that was essentially The Paul Family Employment Generator. He never stood a chance of winning. Rand has accomplished than his Dad ever did or could. He’s losing because he is or at least has been pretty bad at retail politics and the circumstances have been real ugly. I called it: Amash should have run!

    1. Amash is not well enough known. Even Amash knows that. And I’m right about Rand. If Rand would have done what I said he should do, and not what I said on here many times that he should not do, that is pandering to SoCons, he would have done better, maybe a lot better, but certainly better. Rand is not liked by conservatives, they think he’s a liberal. How do I know this? By talking to many of them in person. If Rand makes himself just another GOP candidate, he’s lost any advantage.

      You think everyone should run on the Cytotoxic platform, I get that. Let’s open the borders and bomb the fuck out of everyone. That’s a terrible platform and would get little support. It’s like crossing Lindsey Graham with an anarchist.

      1. Politics is all about pandering and you don’t win the GOP without pandering to SoCons get over it. Rand is bad at pandering. His retail politics performance is weak.

        “You think everyone should run on the Cytotoxic platform, I get that. Let’s open the borders and bomb the fuck out of everyone. That’s a terrible platform and would get little support. It’s like crossing Lindsey Graham with an anarchist.”

        You should lay off the dipshittery and engage people instead of strawmen.

        1. Well, I’m engaging you and I know who I’m engaging from your many posts. So no strawman needed here.

          1. ” I know who I’m engaging from your many posts.”

            You clearly fucking don’t if you conflate me with Lindsey. Stop being a twat. People like you are why libertarians are not at the adults table in foreign policy discussion. You have repeatedly demonstrated ignorance and sloppy non-thinking in this regard.

            1. You talk exactly like Lindsey on foreign policy.

              1. Wait… I’ve got it! Shikha Graham! Or would you prefer Lindsey Dalmia?

            2. Nothing says ‘foreign policy adults table’ like screaming ‘PEACENAZI’ at everyone who disagrees with you while masturbating to a picture of yourself.

              You’re not even at the kid’s table, you’re locked in the basement with the flipper baby.

      2. I think Rand’s biggest problem is that ISIS arrived on the scene.

        Also, for all our desire for a less warlike president, the enemy gets a vote.

        A few more attacks on the homeland, and even a pacifist president may have to carpet bomb.

        Support for ground troops!!!! is now at 60%.

        1. I will say this, Rand’s fight against NSA spying was also a “political loser” after ISIS, except we have all seen how incompetent the government is, so its come back to being a winner.

  39. “Are the conflicts in the Middle East mostly attributable to a lack of American involvement in the region over the past 10, 20, and 30 years?”

    oh Nick you’re so vacuous and wantonly ignorant that I think you might be capable of negative insight. The columns adjacent to yours are probably having their insight and intelligence sucked away by your shitty nonsense.

  40. Partisans will slug it over whose candidate is bad and whose is worse while the rest of us play different angles, such as which president might work better as a hedge against single-party control of Congress.

    Obama has proved that divided government is no hedge against a president hell-bent on enacting destructive policies. Even if the GOP holds the senate (which is doubtful).

    1. Can you imagine what Hillary would do after seeing what Obama has gotten away with? There is no low that Hillary will not go to, no shit no matter how fantastically corrupt and underhanded that she will not try. The thought of her getting in the WH should really scare the hell out of everyone. And commander in chief? God help us all.

      1. No kidding.

        On a related note, some Facebook friends who are pretty much yellow dog Democrats are expressing either grave doubts about Hillary, or are claiming that they simply won’t vote if she’s the nominee.

  41. Has Clinton gave any indication who her VP choice would be?

    Cause, I’m just saying, theoretical VP candidate, she’s 68 with existing health issues, and you are one step away from the most powerful position on the planet…might be time to crack out The Prince for tips.

    1. Someone said Julian Castro.

      1. I predict it will the VP choice will be Squaw and they will pull out all the War on Women and War on Working Class bullshit you could possibly imagine. If the GOP taps Trump it will be an absolute landslide for the Dems.

        1. I see zero possibility for a D landslide under any circumstances.

        2. If the GOP taps Trump it will be an absolute landslide for the Dems.

          You’re vastly underestimating how much people hate Hillary. Trump is a reality-tv star who knows how to play up his appeal as a heel and an outsider to the sorts of people who are either going to vote on election night or watch rasslin. He’s a Schumer-level clown, but better to be a clown in politics than a serial killer.

          Hillary has none of Trump’s theatrical appeal and has been openly evil for decades to the extent that even your typical American voter has noticed. Disaffected non-voters will turn out in absolute hordes to vote against her just to say they did no matter who the GOP candidate is.

          1. Disaffected non-voters will also vote for Trump as a way of giving Washington the finger.

        3. Identity politics suggests she must have a black or Hispanic.

          Thus, Julian Castro, because the Dems don’t have many actual elected Hispanics.

          If she chooses a black, that means she’s really worried about the black vote.

          If she runs against Trump, she can get turnout up among her base, but has to keep black voters, as they may be attracted to Trump.

  42. reverse her high negative ratings

    That’s sort of the catch, isn’t it?

    Since the widespread adoption of cable news and the Internet, white voters in the US and Canada have demonstrated a great fondness for empty-suit, who-me? candidates regardless of their qualifications for office or performance in that role. The era of expected competence is over; the US president is now a PR man expected to make the late-night rounds and sell himself to Americans whose voting habits are driven by tribalism and impressions of character.

    Would anyone hire Clinton to represent their firm as a spokesperson? Would anyone cast a vote for her on the basis of perceived character? When you watch her chatting with Jimmy Fallon, does she strike you as the sort of person who’s going to attract enthusiasm from the standard Obama voter? The likely GOP candidates won’t have Obama’s slick appeal–Rubio is awkward and boyish, and Cruz is too capable a brawler to hide behind empty slogans and fawning press like BHO did–but Hillary can’t hide behind Obama’s skirts for the next eleven months, and when she shares a stage with Cruz (or, God help us all, Trump), she’s going to lose her cool and get her ass kicked.

    And ignoring all her scandals and pitiful record in gov, Hillary is grating. When the campaign heats up and she’s forced to engage the public for hours a day, will Clinton become more or less likable in the eyes of swing-state voters?

    1. And she’ll do that with questionable health and stamina. The main problem Trump or Cruz would have would be how to defeat her without looking like meanies.

  43. I have yet to meet a Hillary voter, and yet she has all the clout, all the applause and press. Bernie is practically stumping for her. She is unapologetic for her dubious record. Almost nobody trusts her. I feel like I’m watching a female mafia king pin strut around unscathed and totally self confident that the world is her own little play thing.

    1. There is an “emperor has no clothes” feeling about her candidacy.

  44. Clinton represents the worst of both major parties.

  45. Hillary Clinton Will Win the Democratic Nomination But Is an Awful Candidiate

    I am pretty sure the latter must follow the former.

  46. As a true objectivist, not a subjective libertarian objectivist, Clinton may be an awful candidate, but so are all the rest. All of them operate in a two-party system that serves itself first, its financiers second and the Will of the American people is literally nowhere to be seen as a factor that influences policy. Research published in 2014 made that crystal clear: “In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule?at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover ? even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.” http://www.newyorker.com/news/…..-oligarchy

    The question is who is worst. By comparison with the current republican crop, Clinton seems to be a cut above. At least she doesn’t talk sheer blithering nonsense like carpet bombing ISIS goons scattered and hidden among women and children, imposing religious litmus tests for immigrants or punching Putin in the nose.

    1. Oh, the will of the American people is definitely served. Most candidates from both parties wait to see which way the wind is blowing, then back that issue with strong public statements. Don’t pretend that the majority of Americans don’t want a strong police state at home and abroad, and a lot of free stuff for themselves.

  47. I used to think libertarians actually had brains and some common sense. The bulk of these comments prove you people are really no different than Republicans and Democrats — dumber than pig shit.

    1. Do tell Mr. Baker, please tell us who you are voting for and why, so we can all be so enlightened. And why would you read the “bulk” if the comments are dumb?

  48. The headline read: Hillary Clinton Will Win the Democratic Nomination But Is an Awful Candidiate
    The former secretary of state, senator, and first lady is already running against Donald Trump. She might win, but the country will lose.

    Might I add that the country will not only loose, it will lose badly.

  49. The Shrew is compelled to lie,the Donald may make her apologize for the first time -EVER!

  50. There’s always the LP. Anyone know a good former governor with a record of accomplishment in and out of office?

  51. This is one of the best articles I have read about Hillary run for the Whitehouse

  52. I distinctly remember some at the media chortling at the very idea of Arnold winning in California. But it happened. Voters are attracted by a certain level of star power and charisma, and that’s what the GOP has lacked for so long. ALL of their “electable” candidates are whitebread and have a personality of a potato.

    Trump’s greatest asset (and flaw) is speaking his mind without ANY restraint. I’m honestly surprised that his advisers allow him to say the things that he says. His brash proposals on FP and immigration have a certain amount of appeal to folks outside of the zealous left, where public opinion is souring a bit on Islam and its old world view. At least a plurality oppose admitting refugees and support temp Muslim travel ban. That reflects a growing a “libertarian” attitude on how to handle the ME crisis, which involves leaving that place alone. No playing policeman AND orphanage.

    As of now, I’m with people who says Trump will lose big in the general election. But if we’re hit by a Paris level attack on our soil, things might change. Personally, I think there are enough people in the middle who are waiting for the opportunity say “We told you so” and vigorously support policies that are denounced as unkosher by the ruling class. It won’t be enough to win presidential elections, it’ll matter somewhere else.

  53. I feel like any article about Hillary’s shortcomings should note the most egregious and verifiable thing on her record, that being the Clinton Foundation (or whatever they’re calling it now). A black-book “charity” that, last she released the figures some years ago, was operating in the 15% efficiency range. A “charity” that handled hundreds of millions of dollars from conflicting foreign interests she didn’t bother to report, as she promised she would, while serving as Secretary of State. Conflicts of interest surrounding that uranium investment group where Russia won control of over half our supply and won huge rights overseas, such that they can exercise direct influence in those energy markets and weaken the US position…hundreds of $millions exchanged hands because, what, some Russian uranium concern thinks that piece of shit “charity” does so much good in the world? Like it’s NOT some gigantic money-laundering and bribery machine? Hell, they put a cool half $mil in Bill’s pocket directly just a month prior to the sale, his biggest fee for a single speaking event, ever.

    I don’t believe either Clinton to be other than a prison-worthy thief and an influence peddler. Thanks to Trump, the loudest one with the least to say, I believe she has to be taken seriously as a candidate.

  54. Hillary accuses trump.of being in recruitment videos…he very well may be…but most certainly SHE is, her husband is, all our leadership have been. If they are using trump, they most certainly have used her policies and words for their gain also.

    But again, Hillary, it doesn’t matter what is in a video. Her idea that we shouldn’t speak ill of them because it makes them mad….what!? No. Dont chastise those who say things against or to inflame them, we should make fun of them MORE. We get to say and think whatever we want.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.