She supposedly just rented out 2 floors of office space in NYC - only reason she'd do that is for a presidential campaign headquarters.

Supposed to be a nice place too, $100 grand a month or something I think I read.

She is literally out because she is not officially in.

It's in Brooklin Heights, that's suppose to be a nice area. Yeah she will announce and she will get the democrat party behind her in her bid.

I just don't want to see a gop president in there with a gop congress. We need balance. Having a democrat president will give that balance if that democrat president works with the GOP congress, unlike that asshole in office now!

what's the difference. either way, hillary won't become president. the legacy of BO, the history of the position not being held by either party for more than 2 terms, the email scandal, the foreign government campaign contributions scandal, the fact that the reason people that do want her president is simply because she's female, all just off the top of my head, there are other reasons as well.

that's why i claim she is out of the race.

What about Reagan, then Bush, we had 2 years of democrats, then the GOP took control of congress, then it was Bush again 2 years later.

Go to opensecrets.org and see the kind of money that the democrats bring in, Many of the idiots on this forum are blaming the Koch Brothers, they are nothing compared to what the Democrat machine is bringing in from Unions. Put that together with the Republicans being so split up with no clear leadership as of yet. I think Hillary is a shoe in. I'm doing work for a Super Pac and I see the money, it's scary big!

since 1950 something, neither party has held the WH for longer than 2 terms. there is no reason to think that record will be broken in 2016.

each candidate will have to raise ~$1 billion to run. whoever they are. i actually don't think that is going to be a problem for either party.

Reagan held for 2 terms, then Bush for one, that's 3 terms total.

Politics has changed a lot in just the last couple decades, we use to have moderates on both sides, we don't have them anymore, which sucks.

Yes, I think both sides will raise one hell of a lot of money, neither side will suffer from lose of revenue. I do believe the Democrats are better at raising money right now, but that changes.

i didn't recollect the fact properly, here's an article that outlines where i am coming from-

History Is Not On The Democrat's Side In 2016

While it's a good read and I agree under normal circumstances that it would probably be true, but if Hillary gets the party Vote, it will mark something that has never happened, the Wife of a Popular Ex President running for President.

that combo could go either way. i wonder what % of voters will vote against her because she is a female and a clinton. more than those who would vote for her simply because of that perhaps.

The Clinton name has been pretty stain resistant over the years and democrats will elect the first woman, not Republicans.

I hope you aren't trying to suggest there are no democratic chauvanists.

LOL!! How can you keep making definitive statements that are so flagrantly wrong? Then you get hurt and angry when people helpfully point out that you're basing your personal assumptions on incorrect information. Luckily this one was so blatant that you had to climb down right away without the usual string of garbled invective.

If you're going to make these statements as if you had any knowledge or expertise whatsoever, then attack people who comment on or debate your statements, at least have the decency to develop an elementary grasp of the facts.

Humorously, you may indeed be correct, but at this point that can safely be chalked up to pure chance, not any grasp of the political arena.

can you read a thread? or are you just still butthurt over my lolling at your substantiate comment?

Combined with the fact that i haven't attacked 1 fucking person in here who has posted their view, including you.

i mean really, it's all right here in the thread. again, where the fuck did i attack you or anyone in this fucking thread for posting an opinion?

and you think a prediction like this would be based on expertise? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh name 1 fucking expert who is right fucking now predicting the outcome of the 2016 race. you fucking can't, so don't try that bullshit you know what expertise is shit in my thread.

jtfc.

quote where the fuck i attacked anyone in this thread for voicing their opinion on the topic and i'll stand corrected. or where i got hurt and angry when "people helpfully point out".

jtfc, it's people like you that get confused when someone like me says fuck on a message board called gofuckyourself


it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

i fucking know i may be correct. that's why i started the fucking thread.

but what i know even better is just how fucking stupid it is to claim political expertise while hanging out on gofuckyourself.

This thread is great. Thanks for the laughs. I can only hope that shady witch has no chance. How about someone who isn't a lying scumbag. I would vote for Bernie Sanders or Ben Carson. Gary Johnson is OK but too unknown. Fuck it, my 1st choice is Jesse Ventura!

someone who gets it. :thumbsup

hmmm....

a hunnerd empty mail servers....

.

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2...st_is_dead.jpg

Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead ....

getting closer
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/hillary-c...144310936.html

LOL!!!:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

again, i admitted that i shot from the hip with my recollection of the historical fact and i cleared it up when it was brought to my attention. the most important thing was history is against hillary and that was my point. the details were a recollection of something i previously learned.

what's obvious is your butthurt lingers because on one hand you're whining i can't admit an error and ger hurt and angry, yet when i do admit an error, you say i admitted it too quickly.

fyi, that's 3rd grade level playground logic

why don't or can't you realize i made a prediction, have the nutsack enough to substantiate it with a confidently worded thread topic and then gofuckyourself? you're making yourself look like you think gfy is your real world. :1orglaugh

another reason i can add to my confident prediction hillary is a non-contender in 2016-

she lost to BO.

and a lot of that was due to enthusiastic black voters voting for BO, even so, Romney garnered a shit ton of the popular vote.

Hey, while we're adding to the stack of predictions:

"So rand is out of the 2016 President race"

rand paul is out of the race. throwing your hat in the ring doesn't = being in the race. it only means you threw your hat in a ring.

experts know this.

so why do you have a picture of Marilyn Monroe in your avatar? jk! I know it is a picture of Bilbo Baggins senior

oh, look who got my point, Bill Clinton. While I may have incorrectly recollected the specifics, my point is more than valid.





"It's hard for any party to hang on to the White House for 12 years, and it's a long road," Bill Clinton said in an interview with Town & Country magazine. "A thousand things could happen."

Since 1948 — the year Harry Truman won a fifth straight election for the Democrats, following Franklin D. Roosevelt's four wins — a political party has won three straight elections only once.

It happened in 1988, the year the Republican nominee, Vice President George H.W. Bush, won the right to replace Ronald Reagan.

Otherwise, a string of candidates have found it impossible to do what Clinton may try to do — succeed a president from the political party that has held the White House for eight years.

Republican nominee Richard Nixon couldn't do it in 1960, after President Dwight Eisenhower's two terms. Democratic nominee (and Vice President) Hubert Humphrey couldn't do it in 1968, after eight years of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

In 2000, Democratic Vice President Al Gore lost his bid to succeed Bill Clinton after two terms. In 2008, Republican John McCain lost a presidential election after eight years of George W. Bush.

The main reason: Eight years is a long time to build up a presidential record, one that to be defended by fellow party members.

The longer the presidency, "the more there is for opponents to criticize," said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Princeton University. "The more there is for voters to be unhappy about."

Voters seemed more willing to stick with incumbent parties back in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Starting in 1896, three Republicans — William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft — won four straight presidential elections. Democrat Woodrow Wilson ended that string of GOP dominance by winning the election of 1912, a race that included both Taft and the by-then independent Roosevelt.

Americans went back with the Republicans after eight years of Wilson. The Roaring Twenties saw three more consecutive GOP wins: Warren Harding in 1920, Calvin Coolidge in 1924 and Herbert Hoover in 1928.


Hillary Clinton's test: A third straight Democratic term

Stop fooling yourself. Hillary will win.

History is against Hilary, but things have changed a lot in the last 30+ years. I don't ever remember our country as divided along political lines as it is now (at least in my lifetime). I think the next election will likely be close and it will be similar to the last four elections. It will come down to who can win the majority of the 8-10 battleground states.

To me the winner of those battleground states will be the person who can get their base to turn out for them, connect with the young voters in those states and appeal to minorities. Republicans struggle with young voters and minorities, but their base hates Obama and they hate the Clintons so they will likely turn out. Will that be enough? I'm not sure.

One thing is for sure. Hillary is clearly not as strong as she was just 3-4 months ago. I still don't see a democrat out there who can take her down (but then again nobody saw Obama coming). The biggest question is who the republicans will end up nominating. They too don't have anyone on the horizon that doesn't come with a lot of baggage.

I agree. The hardline Democrats and the hardline Republicans are as psycho polarized as I think I've ever seen.

Yet the parties are nearly identical in actual policy -- war, torture, health insurance industry corporate welfare, etc.

He defeated her in a grueling Democratic nomination battle. Then she pursued his agenda across the world as secretary of state. Now, the delicate relationship between Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama is about to get even more complicated.

..nearly six in 10 Americans said they wanted someone who would change most of Mr. Obama?s policies, according to a CNN poll released last month.

Mrs. Clinton will also be trying to defy political history: Only once since the establishment of the two-term limit in 1951 has a candidate won an election to succeed a president from the same party ? and it was the first President George Bush, whose predecessor, Ronald Reagan, remained popular at the time and was beloved by Republicans.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/us...bama.html?_r=0

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

told ya hillary was out of the race- before trump even entered.

Do you think it's strange that after you started posting again, Matt-adx and boozer both also showed out of the blue again.. Neither had posted in quite some time.. It's also strange we picked up a new 2017 nick that can't stay out of the politics posts xJim something or another.. all of course are very much pro Trump Hillary haters..

Yet again this morning Trump mentioned Hillary and her missing emails.

Hillary won.

You are obsessed with me. What's your address I will send you a signed picture buddy. Go look at my post history you Mong I have been posting nearly daily for well over 8 months and been quite active for the last 3 years.

You need a break

you're still just as wrong about everything as you were when i used to hang out here pointing out how wrong you are about everything.

You could not find a single post of mine that is pro-trump and that's because there isn't any.

in fact, every trump post i've made is very much anti-trump. I don't expect you to embrace that fact though.

#shitinabag