Are there any stats out with Warren or Sanders in the same age group? I looked but could not find any.

But it shouldn't be surprising to anyone without an axe to grind.

According to Allan Lichtman our side(Democratic party) is 5 keys down one more key falling we are DONE!!! with the WH in 2016

I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

'cause this is gonna piss off all the right people.



Sid

a few Republican hopefuls are curled up in the fetal position.

As does FAUX.

thats from page 16

so that means anyone who thinks they have a chance to be president should get into this race.

HRC is going to have A LOT of company...

The more in the clown car the merrier!

to a prohibitive advantage with real candidates when HRC represents the Democrats.

nt

If Hillary wins, 90% of Americans (maybe even 95%) will probably continue to lose ground economically, but it just won't be on the fast train that the Republicans would put us on.

With that said, it seems that TPTB have smartly decided to pass all of the REALLY BIG legislation that dramatically alters the way things work in this country on a bipartisan basis (over the past decade or two). Get enough conservative Democrats on board to vote yes for really bad legislation so that most people simply say "They're all the same" and have no idea how to turn shit around.

complete control...can you ducking imagine?

Have a vigorous and respectful nomination process, but ducking better support anyone with such overwhelming numbers...the ducking media will do all it can to close the horse race, their election ad windfall depends on it....it would be foolish not to try to keep it close.

As foolish as recklessly handicapping a champion versus the stable of GOP nags.

The presidency is the only thing standing between us and the apocalypse.

The fury of the mass media against her and her huge lead after she announces will be mind numbing.

It's hers to lose.

I rather watch the Republicants engage in a fight to the finish.

... and a large amount of people favoring eating a garter snake... So, if we have those poll results why doesn't everyone find garter snakes to eat for their meals instead of what they eat now.

The polls show nothing but how bad people feel that Republicans are as choices for the presidency. Just because Clinton as a known figure has larger numbers doesn't mean that she's the only one that can win this. And it shouldn't be only a question on "whether she can win", but WHAT SHE WILL DO FOR US!

The Gallup polls showed her heavily ahead of Obama even only a year out rather than two years out from the election. Polls really mean nothing at this point except a means that the corporate media are using to try and narrow the field down to those that the PTB can control and support.

to boost their preferred candidate, but if they prefer Clinton over any one emerging out of the clown train GOP nomination, and they may, would you resist that also?

I would take an aspirin and smile. Preventing fascism in America is the number one goal now, Warren for 2022 would be all right then, there are dues to be paid, Warren will be a marvellous ally in the Senste for Hillary.

I love Warren to death, slightly flawed (not here) that she is on some issues, it is just not her time.

I don't think that the nation can afford to wait more than another election cycle to fix all of the problems that corporate ownership of our government have caused of the past 30 years, and certainly we can't wait very long to something to lead the world in fighting climate change. Sorry, but Hillary represents the elements that have failed us both as Republicans and Democrats over the last 30 years that needs to change.

who is the clear front runner and almost presumptive President....have you check out the crowd in the other room in control of the other 2 branches of government?

Things will change all righty if they have all 3... That is job number 1 now.

Sure, have a throaty nomination process, push the Warren afenda, I agree with it entirely, but please do not lose site of the real prize in 2016. Lots more elections after that, you know.

Obama paved the road, he is a transitional leader, one more 8 year term and we our change can keep happening.

I give credit where credit is due, Obama has very much started the change.

Patience.

And the TPP may need more work, but hardly fascist.

The TPP basically does far more to get rid of our sovereignty to corporations who can basically shut down what our governments as representatives of we the people put together as laws. It will in fact codify the pay to play corruption that already exists far too much in our government. That in my book is a definition of fascism as Mussolini would have loved it to fit how he defined it.

Any global agreements we should do should be about protecting consumers, laborers, and the environment globally. Instead just about all of the trade agreements we have been getting involved with do exactly the opposite of this by paving the way to the race to the bottom in all of these areas so that the rich and corporations can make more money off everyone's backs. We do NOT need it and I don't see how the TPP is at all useful. Start over with something completely different if we have any trade agreements at all.

The real prize in 2016 is retaking the government for the people then, NOT just "winning". If we have more corporate Democrats win again then only to have everyone get disaffected even moreso because of the corporate appeasing agenda so that we lose heavily in the midterms again, then we again will be doomed, perhaps the human species itself, since nothing will get done about climate change in a timely fashion either.

Those that were lost in the 2010 and 2014 elections in congressional races were mostly DINOs, since those that were motivated to vote would choose the real thing rather than a fake Republican if they only had a choice between two Republicans. We need to work with more progressive candidates in those areas, that don't push heavily on social divisive issues, but on the issues that everyone cares about that are financial in nature but those that the 1% doesn't want us to deal with that have been screwing us for decades. That won't be just "far left" appealing, but appealing to everyone that isn't rich and has beens suffering recently (a LOT of us!).

17 MILLION Democrats voted for Clinton in 2008, when they had the opportunity to vote for Barack Obama (or, for that matter, Dennis Kucinich). Show us any evidence that your personal displeasure is reflective of what voters in the real world think.

Whether or not Clinton won or not, she attracted nearly half of the Democratic electorate for the entire Primary period, while running against arguably one of the most dynamic candidates we've seen in a half century. Not exactly a choice among unpleasant alternatives. For 2016, Warren could potentially be a competitive alternative IF SHE WANTED TO RUN (but she doesn't). Sanders is a nice guy, but he's a guy who wins elections with 250,000 votes in a largely safe State. Given a choice between the two, Clinton will win easily.

She's been pushed by the media now just like she was then that accounts for her higher numbers then and now. Why did Obama go from about half of her support to having more support than her later? HUH?

She is saying "she isn't running" NOT that she WON'T run in 2016! She's using her words carefully. She's not going to fall in to the trap that the corporate media and other corporate 1% servants are trying to trap her in. Sorry, but just because she hasn't announced yet, does NOT MEAN A DAMN THING yet that we should just dismiss her at this point.

If Warren were to run, I predict that Sanders would pull out to not split the vote. Sanders has some issues that Warren doesn't have even if he has a large support and could grow that support I think as he speaks more directly to Americans around the country (which he is doing now). He still has to resolve how he'd become a Democrat to be a part of the nomination process in an effective way, and he wouldn't be able to have the identity politics distractions that plagued the 2008 election ( so and so is anti-woman or anti-minority ), which Clinton won't be able to have work for her with Warren against her. They would need to focus on issues, and when America hears the stances on things like TPP, etc. that Clinton and Warren has, a SIZABLE majority will discover that Warren is the candidate they want then and not just because either of them is a woman.

... if so many here go to so many great lengths to dismiss her if she really isn't that strong a candidate.

The more different people spend so much time trying to say "she's not that powerful" and "she's not running", the more it has those of us feel she should run feel like it is important for us to push the movement more too to get a real FDR style candidate like her nominated.

So, thanks for helping us feel happy, even if that's not your intent!

That's how I roll, I see the big picture.

They are not going to like what they see.

Could be a great election for the dems. A great election for all of us.

... what?

There isn't a single one of those I would vote. Guess a bunch of us will be voting NONE OF THE ABOVE.

She is our best candidate.

Penguins be pretty nastay:

Scott walker and ted cruz should be included.They are both possable nominees of republican party especilly Walker.

Unlike some others opposed to Hillary i will say she could actully win but what would happen with her in white house.Even if dems have a good year in senate in 2016 republicans will control the house till at least 2022 and there is clinton history of triangulation.

She is more pro wall street than Obama and to right of obama on endless war in middle east

Polls this far out mean nothing as walter mondale and senate dems can tell you.

At this time in 1998 W had double diget lead on Gore yet Gore won popular vote and Jeb had to steal Florida for W to get into
white house.

If Dem > HRC can't Dem beat a Republican who is going to get crushed by HRC? Or is this like college football, where transitivity does not apply: Team A beat Team B, Team B beat Team C, therefore Team A is better Team C (false)

I just don't understand why Hillary supporters are afraid of a challenge from a progressive candidate.

This is good news for all true Democrats.

Nominate her and watch her demonstrate this talent in action.

Don't listen to me. I've only ever been right every single time, about every single race in US history that I've been old enough to vote for.

she'd do overall? Historically older folks are the ones who actually vote.

I would love to watch a Willard v. Jebby v. AynRand Paul primary. Christie would be a special bonus prize.

Let's run down the issues shall we?

Position on NSA surveillance. Hillary in favor of it. Rand against it. Most 18-29 year olds against it.

Legalization of Marijuana. Well shit. We'll get the young people anyway right?

Police abuses and militarization of police? Let me get back to you, I'm trying to find someone who is favor of it.

Um. I'm sure we're on the right side of an issue. We'll get to it.

This is name recognition at this point. It shows how weak we are going into the election cycle. It shows how strong the Republicans will be, especially Rand Paul when you factor in the popularity of a lot of his positions.

Military deployments? People are about sick of those, but we're in favor of them, or something.

When the issues start coming to light, Hillary will suffer. If the Democratic Party puts a solid liberal up, the nomination process is going to be a big fight, like in 2008, remember that? Then you have to factor in those who won't vote for HIllary since we had a Clinton in the White House twenty years ago.

But it's issues mostly, and the Democratic Party is on the wrong side of too many populist issues. So polling at this point is name recognition, and we're not doing as well as you would think considering that Hillary is a Former First Lady. Former Senator. Former Secretary of State, and has been talked about as the presumptive nominee for the last year and probable next President as she barely breaks 50% and can't get above 55%.

Run Hillary, she's inevitable. But that makes Rand Paul more inevitable than she is IMO.