but, but, but, Zwick laughed at me!

Belly35;1743561 wrote:Hereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Joe

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4388105431001/clinton-camp-fears-biden-inching-closer-to-white-house-run/?intcmp=hpvid1&playlist_id=2114913880001#sp=show-clips

Republican dream

BoatShoes;1742938 wrote:He would probably have an easier time than last time.
I would much rather go to battle with Barry O than Hillary.

He gets trounced .......http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-no-mr.-president-you-would-not-win-a-third-term/article/2569345

QuakerOats;1743612 wrote:He gets trounced .......http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-no-mr.-president-you-would-not-win-a-third-term/article/2569345

Asking someone, "Would you vote for Obama for a third term?" is not an accurate assessment. If they asked Americans if they would vote for Obama or Donald Trump, the Obama numbers would certainly go up.

Is it really the 'democrat' nominee for president, or the socialist nominee?

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz still can't explain the difference between a Democrat and a socialist.
The party boss struggled earlier last week when asked to explain the distinction by MSNBC's Chris Matthews. She was given a mulligan on the question Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," but once again chose not to answer directly.


Asked by host Chuck Todd what the difference between a Democrat and a socialist is, Wasserman Schultz tried to turn the discussion to Republicans -- and Donald Trump.
"It's always fun to be interviewed by Chris Matthews, and I know that he enjoys that banter," she said. "The important distinction that I think we're going to be discussing, I'm confident we'll be discussing in this campaign, is the difference between Democrats and Republicans."
She went on to say that Republicans stand for "extremism" and that's why "Donald Trump is their front-runner."
Wasserman Schultz was pressed on the Democrat/socialist distinction since Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, is running for the Democratic presidential nomination and drawing large crowds in the process.


Incredible.

QuakerOats;1743612 wrote:He gets trounced .......http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-no-mr.-president-you-would-not-win-a-third-term/article/2569345

Yeah, that polling agency was so right in the 2012 election.....Obama would stand a good chance in 2016 based on the electoral map.

National polls are irrelevant when talking about Presidential elections. What matters are the polls in swing states.
As in 2012, the 2016 election will come down to Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and North Carolina.

QuakerOats;1744040 wrote:Is it really the 'democrat' nominee for president, or the socialist nominee?

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz still can't explain the difference between a Democrat and a socialist.
The party boss struggled earlier last week when asked to explain the distinction by MSNBC's Chris Matthews. She was given a mulligan on the question Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," but once again chose not to answer directly.


Asked by host Chuck Todd what the difference between a Democrat and a socialist is, Wasserman Schultz tried to turn the discussion to Republicans -- and Donald Trump.
"It's always fun to be interviewed by Chris Matthews, and I know that he enjoys that banter," she said. "The important distinction that I think we're going to be discussing, I'm confident we'll be discussing in this campaign, is the difference between Democrats and Republicans."
She went on to say that Republicans stand for "extremism" and that's why "Donald Trump is their front-runner."
Wasserman Schultz was pressed on the Democrat/socialist distinction since Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, is running for the Democratic presidential nomination and drawing large crowds in the process.


Incredible.

She is just awful. A political tool. No substance at all.



As to the question at hand. Hillary is the odds on favorite and I'll stick with chalk.

I said this before in another thread, but I'll say it again, here. Please... no more Clintons. No more Bush's. Just... no.

If we're going to just regurgitate names over and over again, let us find a Bourbon who can fill the role >.>

CenterBHSFan;1744056 wrote:I said this before in another thread, but I'll say it again, here. Please... no more Clintons. No more Bush's. Just... no.

If we're going to just regurgitate names over and over again, let us find a Bourbon who can fill the role >.>

The way things have been trending, maybe you'll get that wish.

If there is one thing Obama is good at it was/is campaigning and winning elections. Top that with how dumb our voters are and he would definitely have a great shot at winning a third term.

HitsRus;1743565 wrote:but, but, but, Zwick laughed at me!

And for good reason. You're delusional.

Is it really the 'democrat' nominee for president, or the socialist nominee?

I would not consider Clinton nor Biden "socialists".... Incidentally more noise about Biden getting in.....might be the choice of the WH.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-01/biden-may-be-taking-new-look-at-possible-presidential-run-nyt

Bernie Sanders is for the democrats is like Donald Trump for the 'pubs.....people want a fresh face. The thought of another Clinton or Bush in the White House is unsettling, and people on both sides of the aisle are exploring elsewhere. When push comes to shove they'll move to the center, and the answer for the Dems (with Obama pushing for him) will be Joe Biden.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1744067 wrote:And for good reason. You're delusional.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-01/biden-may-be-taking-new-look-at-possible-presidential-run-nyt

It doesn't matter if he's contemplating a run or not. Belly has a better chance of winning the nomination than him.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1744072 wrote:It doesn't matter if he's contemplating a run or not. Belly has a better chance of winning the nomination than him.

because I'm smarter, good looking, swagger and unforgettable

Biden has nicer teeth.

HitsRus;1744084 wrote:Biden has nicer teeth.

Ok .... he smiles better

CenterBHSFan;1744056 wrote:I said this before in another thread, but I'll say it again, here. Please... no more Clintons. No more Bush's. Just... no.

If we're going to just regurgitate names over and over again, let us find a Bourbon who can fill the role >.>

What about Michelle Obama? It wouldn't surprise me at all if she threw her name in the ring.

Biden has just announced he is entering

^^^called it 3 weeks ago( and was laughed at.)

HitsRus;1743018 wrote:^^^Biden...book it.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1743034 wrote:^^^ lol ... book it

HitsRus;1743565 wrote:but, but, but, Zwick laughed at me!

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1744067 wrote:And for good reason. You're delusional.

HitsRus;1745975 wrote:^^^called it 3 weeks ago( and was laughed at.)

Just to recap.

LOL Zwick.

I actually I stand corrected. I see nothing about him running.

To be honest, I see no official announcement... I'm out of the country and was going off steubiggred's post. The calls and speculation for him entering are increasing as Hilary continues to get beat up in the polls, and he's waiting in the wings if the Dems need a mainstream candidate.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/biden-strategy-for-white-house-run-taking-shape-121377.html

Bernie walking off the stage the other day will sink him. He looked weak.

HC is toxic.

Spock;1746075 wrote:Bernie walking off the stage the other day will sink him. He looked weak.

HC is toxic.

"Will sink him/her"

You've said that about every god damn candidate so far. You have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

To be honest, I see no official announcement... I'm out of the country and was going off steubiggred's post. The calls and speculation for him entering are increasing as Hilary continues to get beat up in the polls, and he's waiting in the wings if the Dems need a mainstream candidate.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/biden-strategy-for-white-house-run-taking-shape-121377.html