Hillary Clinton leads WaPo/ABC 2016 primary poll by … 61 points

posted at 8:01 am on January 30, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Gee, I wonder if she’s running? Let’s put this another way. If anyone had a 6:1 lead over the closest potential opponent in a future race (with a 61-point lead), and that closest opponent’s name was Joe Biden, who wouldn’t run?

Hillary Rodham Clinton holds a commanding 6 to 1 lead over other Democrats heading into the 2016 presidential campaign, while the Republican field is deeply divided with no clear front-runner, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Clinton trounces her potential primary rivals with 73 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, reinforcing a narrative of inevitability around her nomination if she runs. Vice President Biden is second with 12 percent, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) is third with 8 percent.

Although Clinton’s favorability rating has fallen since she stepped down as secretary of state a year ago, she has broad Democratic support across ideological, gender, ethnic and class lines. Her lead is the largest recorded in an early primary matchup in at least 30 years of Post-ABC polling.

Chris Cillizza emphasizes that point:

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 61-point edge over Joe Biden in new Washington Post-ABC News polling makes her the single biggest frontrunner for a Democratic presidential nomination in the history of the poll, an affirmation of the conventional wisdom that the nomination is hers for the taking.

Yes, well, Hillary fans shouldn’t pop the corks on the bubbly quite yet. First, we’ve seen this movie before, when Hillary had a commanding lead in December 2006 over a first-term Senator named Barack Obama, 39/17. Granted, that wasn’t a sixty-one point lead, but given Hillary’s high profile, her husband’s reputation within the Democratic party, and their superior organization, the 2008 nomination was hers for the taking, too — and yet she still blew it.

Besides, when one looks inside the numbers, the picture isn’t quite as rosy. She has a 58/38 approval rating overall, with 26% strongly unfavorable matched against 32% strongly favorable. The topline among independents is 53/42, but strongly unfavorable outweighs strongly favorable, 28% to 23%. And that’s after a year out of the spotlight, when approval numbers usually rebound, and without getting challenged publicly on Benghazi yet, as well as her mediocre record otherwise at State.

What happens when Hillary has to go on the road and start naming her accomplishments? Former Clinton adviser Lanny Davis couldn’t come up with any examples on the Hugh Hewitt show this week:

HH: All right, one question, you’ve got a minute. Summarize for me what she accomplished as Secretary of State.

LD: Well, the biggest thing of all is goodwill around the world, which is what secretaries of State do.

HH: Like in Syria…

LD: I don’t know what any secretary of State…

HH: …and Egypt and Libya?

LD: I don’t know, well, Libya and certainly the intervention in Libya and getting rid of Qaddafi, you would say that’s a pretty good achievement for the President. But these are presidential achievements with a partnership of the secretary of State. What do secretaries of State do? For example, she was very instrumental in the details of the Iranian sanctions program, which has produced, apparently, some results. I’m very skeptical about this deal in Iran on the nuclear weaponry. But the credit she deserves on this sanctions program, which literally was her program in the State Department to enforce, but in partnership with Barack Obama.

HH: So her achievement is that…

LD: But this doesn’t change the question about the secretary of State having achievement. This is a secretary of State is the most popular woman in the world and restored relations with everyone in the world.

HH: All right, Lanny, we’re out of time, but your achievement is one that’s been swept away by the President.

Er, yeah. American popularity abroad was just surging in those years, huh?

On the Republican side, the WaPo/ABC poll has Paul Ryan topping the field with 20% and Jeb Bush at 18%, in a poll with only one Republican governor mentioned — Chris Christie, who’s dropped to third. (Mike Huckabee isn’t mentioned, either.) That’s basically primary polling noise this far out.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

…The Media…doing its job!

KOOLAID2 on January 30, 2014 at 8:04 AM

On the Republican side, the WaPo/ABC poll has Paul Ryan topping the field with 20% and Jeb Bush at 18%, in a poll with only one Republican governor mentioned — Chris Christie, who’s dropped to third.

Just who in the hell are they polling on the “Republican side?” An illegal alien-loving bastard who just looted military pensions, the other Bush, and a fat bully who got caught doing a petty act of revenge. I wouldn’t vote for any of them.

Happy Nomad on January 30, 2014 at 8:06 AM

First Woman President
That’s all they are focused on..prop up incompeteng candidate part deux
From racist to sexist in…..5…..4…..3….

Ryan the next in line syndrome?

cmsinaz on January 30, 2014 at 8:07 AM

At the rate we are going there will be no USA in 2016.

celtic warrior on January 30, 2014 at 8:10 AM

Yepper KA2

cmsinaz on January 30, 2014 at 8:10 AM

At this point, what difference does it make?

Johnnyreb on January 30, 2014 at 8:11 AM

I wouldn’t vote for any of them.

Happy Nomad on January 30, 2014 at 8:06 AM

I’d give you even odds that none of them will actually be running in the 2016 cycle.

Ed Morrissey on January 30, 2014 at 8:12 AM

Really? A year before the Mid-terms and they are already polling for 2016??

I know these things get going earlier and earlier, but we have a pretty big election coming up before we even have to think about picking the next President.

Mord on January 30, 2014 at 8:13 AM

No surprise here. Honestly this says a lot more about the pathetic field of candidates the Dems have to choose from in 2016 than it does about Hillary’s credentials. Seriously, if she didn’t run, who else do they have? Bite Me? He’d lose to any Republican. Same for Cuomo, who was a longshot BEFORE he told half the country they were too extreme to live in New York. O’Malley? Please. The dude from Montana whose last name I won’t even attempt to spell? He’s nuttier than Howard Dean. And everyone in the House or Senate is senile and far too left to get elected(even with the help of the media).

Doughboy on January 30, 2014 at 8:14 AM

and getting rid of Qaddafi, you would say that’s a pretty good achievement for the President.

Ambassador Chris Stevens is unavailable for comment.

As bad as Qaddafi was, getting rid of him the way we did was worse.

rbj on January 30, 2014 at 8:14 AM

I’d give you even odds that none of them will actually be running in the 2016 cycle.

Ed Morrissey on January 30, 2014 at 8:12 AM

I wouldn’t take that bet no matter what odds you gave.

kcewa on January 30, 2014 at 8:14 AM

Hillary had a commanding lead in December 2006 over a first-term Senator named Barack Obama, 39/17. Granted, that wasn’t a sixty-one point lead, but given Hillary’s high profile, her husband’s reputation within the Democratic party, and their superior organization, the 2008 nomination was hers for the taking, too — and yet she still blew it.

True, but back then it was this much more important to get the first black president into office than it was to get the first womynz into the oval orifice.

Now that King Barack has been anointed for his two terms, we can safely put the first womynz prezzie into office … unless some up-and-coming Hispanic Democrat is waiting in the wings somewhere …

Mark Boabaca on January 30, 2014 at 8:19 AM

Call me extreme but I feel we are going to be hit larger than 9-11 and things will be put on hold.

docflash on January 30, 2014 at 8:21 AM

Killary doesn’t need to name any accomplishments because she’s the wife of the first black preznit and that will be enough for the left.

Sure she’s a carpet-bagging, hyperbolic, harpy who didn’t do jack squat while in office and who is going to pimp her name right to the nomination circle, but there isn’t a lefty in America who wouldn’t vote for her. Dances With Morons might give Killary a run early on, but for all intents the demorat race is already over.

Bishop on January 30, 2014 at 8:24 AM

I wouldn’t vote for any of them.

Happy Nomad on January 30, 2014 at 8:06 AM

Then you aren’t a Party man and should be ashamed of yourself.

Party First, homophobe.

Bishop on January 30, 2014 at 8:25 AM

: But this doesn’t change the question about the secretary of State having achievement. This is a secretary of State is the most popular woman in the world and restored relations with everyone in the world.

Seriously if that is all she’s got at this point, I don’t see her running, because Benghazi, the reset Button, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc. are going to come up during the campaign even if the MSM will try and make those topics off limits.

Johnnyreb on January 30, 2014 at 8:25 AM

Her most important qualification is that she racked up over a million miles in travel… And we thought that they lowered the bar for Obama…

mnjg on January 30, 2014 at 8:27 AM

I hope she nominates Ambassador Chris Stevens to head the State Department. Oh, wait, ……. scratch that.

RandallinHerndon on January 30, 2014 at 8:27 AM

Where have all the young men gone?

celtic warrior on January 30, 2014 at 8:31 AM

Cruz and Rand looked very presidential on Hannity.

John the Libertarian on January 30, 2014 at 8:31 AM

ARRRGH!

workingclass artist on January 30, 2014 at 8:32 AM

The Largest Example of BIAS, Political PROPOGANDA in this Nation’s HISTORY!

Every ounce of the Clinton Machine’s effort / influence-pressuring is being used to manipulate Americans into awarding Hillary Clinton the Presidency she believes she DESERVES, that this nation OWES her.

Not to be outdone by her husband in the ’1sts’ categoty, since Bill was the ’1st Black President’ ahe intends to be the 1st WOMAN President. If elected, I will go on record now as predicting she will do as much for women and their chance of becoming President in the future as Obama has dfor blacks and their chance of becoming President after his idsasterous 2 terms.

easyt65 on January 30, 2014 at 8:33 AM

Seriously if that is all she’s got at this point, I don’t see her running, because Benghazi, the reset Button, Iran, Syria, Libya, etc. are going to come up during the campaign even if the MSM will try and make those topics off limits.

Johnnyreb on January 30, 2014 at 8:25 AM

The media will attempt to bury those issues(or at least deflect blame, to Chris Stevens if necessary). Also, a big part of Hillary’s campaign aside from the “historic nature” of her candidacy will be nostalgia for the Clinton years. In fact, that’s probably what her entire hopes will be pinned on. It’s gonna be tough for the Dems to justify 4(or 8) more years in control of the White House after Obama’s done wrecking things and the country usually doesn’t give the same party 3 straight terms. Hillary will attempt to sucker enough people into believing that all we need to do is return the Clintons to the White House and that’ll magically restore things to the way they were 20 years ago.

Ironically, if Hillary were to win, she’ll ruin her husband’s legacy. The economy will continue to suck. She’ll have to deal with an entitlement crisis. Obamacare will still be wreaking havoc on everyone’s health care. And the world won’t be at peace the way it was in the 90′s. That nostalgia will evaporate quickly.

Doughboy on January 30, 2014 at 8:34 AM

That’s the WaPo and ABC trying desperately to keep the field clear for Hillary.

Steve Eggleston on January 30, 2014 at 8:36 AM

Unless there is a drastic change Hillary will be the next President. She has a lock on 43% of the vote and when the moderate women Repubs and Indies want to make history they will make it a landslide. Hillary will get nearl 70% of the woman vote for the same reasons Obamao got over 60% of the woman vote. We’re going to get another affirmative action President and there is pretty much nothing we can do about it. Like Drudge said on tweet “have an exit plan.” This is gonna get really bad before it eta better!

Doomsday on January 30, 2014 at 8:36 AM

Just who in the hell are they polling on the “Republican side?” An illegal alien-loving bastard who just looted military pensions, the other Bush, and a fat bully who got caught doing a petty act of revenge. I wouldn’t vote for any of them.

Happy Nomad on January 30, 2014 at 8:06 AM

They’re sharing potential PRL New Base material with PPP, which substitutes Mike Huckabee for Ryan.

Steve Eggleston on January 30, 2014 at 8:37 AM

C’mon Warren, take Hillary out! She’s the past.

libfreeordie on January 30, 2014 at 8:38 AM

The murdering b—h doesn’t know the difference between being shot at by a sniper and a 12 year old giving her flowers. She’ll probably cry again when the campaign gets too tough. She’s a vile liar and anyone who would support her is an enemy of America. She should be executed for treason.

Flange on January 30, 2014 at 8:38 AM

If the RNC runs any of those candidates, they may as well crown killary today. Paul Ryan turned out to be a real douche. I thought that he was trustworthy on the fiscal front, but he has shown he is Boehner/McConnell/McCain et al. only younger. The good thing is we found out who he really is early on.

JAGonzo on January 30, 2014 at 8:39 AM

Cruz/whomever he may pick 2016.

JAGonzo on January 30, 2014 at 8:41 AM

On the Republican side, the WaPo/ABC poll has Paul Ryan topping the field with 20% and Jeb Bush at 18%, in a poll with only one Republican governor mentioned — Chris Christie, who’s dropped to third.

Well let’s see… Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush both want amnesty so they’re out and Chris Christie wants to be Obama fuddly-wuddly teddy-bear so he’s obviously out as well. Gee, I hope the next Republican Primary poll has someone who is y’know, Republican.

Ukiah on January 30, 2014 at 8:41 AM

On the negative side – we all know what this wretch has done to the country and her people. Can anyone – ANYONE – give an example of anything positive this awful woman has contributed in the last 10 years? Anything???

HomeoftheBrave on January 30, 2014 at 8:43 AM

Foreign policy used to be a factor in presidential elections. My sense is that it mostly isn’t anymore. The people who would vote for Hillary are mostly thinking of their government benefits, their government jobs, their abortions, their gay marriages, and saving the planet from carbon-based fuels, not nuclear tyrants. Even if, God forbid, we experience another 9/11-type event, most people will just see it as a tragic event that just blew in like a hurricane. Foolish, of course, but I think that’s where the majority of voters are.

SacredFire on January 30, 2014 at 8:45 AM

“I laid the foundation for the 1st Liberal Progressive health care system, giving Obama a blueprin to follow for his own and making it easier to pass Obamacare! Vote Hillary 2016!”

“I helped Obama implement his ‘Low Profile’ Libyan Foreign Policy after we helped Al Qaeda – who is on the run – take over Libya, so I know how to organize, be diolomatic, and help developing new nations! Vote Hillary in 2016!”

“Yes, In 2012 20 U.S. Embassies were attacked – 4 overrun/destroyed – on the Anniversary of 9/11/01…yes, no one knows to this day where I or Obama were while all of this was going on…yes, we ignored all the warnings, the two previous terrorist attacks, the CIA report we doctored 12 times before allowing to be sent out, and betrayed and abandoned Americans in Benghazi during the 12 hour attack resulting in the deaths of 4 Americans, to include the 1st U.S. Ambassador to die in 30 years…yes, I refuse to meet with the family members of these dead Americans and will not give them the answers they seek…and YES, I lied about it for months afterwards – to inlcude perpetrating PERJURY before Congress (not the 1st time I have done that)….WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? I will still make a better President than Obama! Vote for Hillary in 2016!”

“Disgraced Watergate Lawyer, naieve victimzed wife of a liar / career sexual harasser / cheater, insignificant Senator, failed Secretary of State…but what she has learned in all of those failures is going to make her a GREAT President! Hillary For President in 2016!

“America still has a ‘pulse’ because Obama didn’t finish the job…Together, we can do it! Hillary For President in 2016!”

easyt65 on January 30, 2014 at 8:46 AM

If she’s the best the dems have, with the class clown next followed by a faux Indian newly elected senator with college professor on her resume which should scare the cr#p out of everybody, then their closet is pretty empty. It’s early and I’m sure someone with some name recognition will step forward.
Won’t she be a little long in the tooth to run in ’16?

Kissmygrits on January 30, 2014 at 8:46 AM

do qualifications even matter for the job anymore?? in 2008 the only person running who had any remotely qualifications was Sarah Palin.

RonK on January 30, 2014 at 8:47 AM

Barring health issues and other such x factor elements, of course she is going to run, and of course it will be hers to lose, both the nomination and the general election.

Got complaints about Obama’s Presidency? Well, you should have voted for Hillary in 2008. First. Woman. President.

Even the overconfidence regarding her inevitability won’t be dogging her this time, given the burn in 2008.

Benghazi? The People don’t care. It’s all bread and circuses.

fadetogray on January 30, 2014 at 8:47 AM


easyt65 on January 30, 2014 at 8:46 AM

Yep, and those are the “positive” contributions.

HomeoftheBrave on January 30, 2014 at 8:49 AM

Unless there is a drastic change Hillary will be the next President. She has a lock on 43% of the vote and when the moderate women Repubs and Indies want to make history they will make it a landslide. Hillary will get nearl 70% of the woman vote for the same reasons Obamao got over 60% of the woman vote. We’re going to get another affirmative action President and there is pretty much nothing we can do about it. Like Drudge said on tweet “have an exit plan.” This is gonna get really bad before it eta better!

Doomsday on January 30, 2014 at 8:36 AM

I don’t know about 70% of the women vote. Married women are more prone to vote Republican, and I don’t think most of them will be swayed by Hillary’s historic candidacy. Not after what happened the last time this country put someone in the White House just because of what they looked like. Also, she could do very poorly with men. Find me any hetero dude who isn’t a card-carrying Communist who will tolerate that shrieking voice for 8 years.

Hillary’s got the Democrat nomination in the bag if she wants it since they have no one to challenge her. But I have a feeling the country will be in such dire straits in another 3 years that she’s gonna have a tough time distancing herself from the Obama disaster. She’ll play the 90′s nostalgia card, but if too many people are fed up with the economic stagnation, that may not be enough for her.

Doughboy on January 30, 2014 at 8:49 AM

On the negative side – we all know what this wretch has done to the country and her people. Can anyone – ANYONE – give an example of anything positive this awful woman has contributed in the last 10 years? Anything???

HomeoftheBrave on January 30, 2014 at 8:43 AM

Are you still naive enough to think executive experience and accomplishment matter after 2 terms of Obamao? Really?

Doomsday on January 30, 2014 at 8:51 AM

Doughboy on January 30, 2014 at 8:49 AM

Obamao did very poorly with men and he’s into his second term…

Doomsday on January 30, 2014 at 8:53 AM

Even if, God forbid, we experience another 9/11-type event, most people will just see it as a tragic event that just blew in like a hurricane. Foolish, of course, but I think that’s where the majority of voters are.

I think you’re right. Look at how they reacted to mass shootings a year ago as opposed to today. The country has almost been desensitized to them. That and the fact that they have nothing to do with the entitled gimme-class gettin’ their EBT cards.

RandallinHerndon on January 30, 2014 at 8:56 AM

I wouldn’t vote for any of them.

Happy Nomad on January 30, 2014 at 8:06 AM

I’d give you even odds that none of them will actually be running in the 2016 cycle.

Ed Morrissey on January 30, 2014 at 8:12 AM

And a very Safe bet you would be making Ed.

ToddPA on January 30, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Obamao did very poorly with men and he’s into his second term…

Doomsday on January 30, 2014 at 8:53 AM

That’s due to a few factors. First, he turned out the black vote in huge numbers. Hillary will have a tough time duplicating that. She’ll win 90% of their votes, but not in the volume that Obama did. Second, Obama did extremely well with single women. Hillary theoretically will do likewise, but that’s why I qualified that by saying another 3 years of Democrat control of the White House could depress those numbers. Single women(especially minorities) are doing horribly under Obama. At some point, even their loyalty to the Dems will be tested. And third, the GOP didn’t get their own base to turn out thanks to them nominating Romney. If they can avoid shoving another “moderate” Republican down the base’s throat in 2016, that could mean millions of additional voters showing up at the polls for them. Big if though.

Doughboy on January 30, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Hillary! The philandering Presidents poor, poor wife? That Hillary? The one who tried to get government healthcare passed years ago? The one who thought the death of four Americans while in a war torn country didn’t matter?

I hope she wins the dem nomination and the GOP better be ruthless.

Vince on January 30, 2014 at 8:59 AM

C’mon Warren, take Hillary out! She’s the past.

libfreeordie on January 30, 2014 at 8:38 AM

Hillary makes Rand Paul look progressive, LOL. Nothing says “FORWARD!” like a neoliberal warmonger whose claim to fame is her husband’s last name.

Punchenko on January 30, 2014 at 8:59 AM

C’mon Warren, take Hillary out! She’s the past.

libfreeordie on January 30, 2014 at 8:38 AM

Killary Clinton: 66 years old.

Dances With Morons: 64 years old.

A great appeal to white voters over 50 I suppose, but nothing for younger folks.

libfreeordie on January 29, 2014 at 8:06 AM

Yep, nothing like a couple of 60′ish white women to really bring in that colored youth vote.

Bishop on January 30, 2014 at 9:01 AM

I’d much rather have Elizabeth Warren or Bill de Blasio on the ballot than another Clinton, Bush, or Kennedy.

Punchenko on January 30, 2014 at 9:02 AM

C’mon Warren, take Hillary out! She’s the past.

libfreeordie on January 30, 2014 at 8:38 AM

oooh boy!

The Tomahawk is out!!

me scalp’em Pale face Whitey gal with Horny Hubby!

ToddPA on January 30, 2014 at 9:02 AM

I hope she wins the dem nomination and the GOP better be ruthless.

Vince on January 30, 2014 at 8:59 AM

This GOP? Ruthless against the Democrats?

If we could somehow get the GOPe to think Hillary was secretly a Tea Partier ….

fadetogray on January 30, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Yep, nothing like a couple of 60′ish white women to really bring in that colored youth vote.

Bishop on January 30, 2014 at 9:01 AM

Oh, what if John Kerry throws his top hat into the ring!

If Cory Booker were smart, he would come out of the closet now and challenge Hillary for the nomination.

Punchenko on January 30, 2014 at 9:05 AM

I’d give you even odds that none of them will actually be running in the 2016 cycle.

Ed Morrissey on January 30, 2014 at 8:12 AM

So, in other words, an example of the left trying to pick the GOP candidate they most want to run against. I’m sick and tired of the discussion about who is going to win in 2016- Clinton or Christie as if those are the only two options.

Happy Nomad on January 30, 2014 at 9:15 AM

If Cory Booker were smart, he would come out of the closet now and challenge Hillary for the nomination.

Punchenko on January 30, 2014 at 9:05 AM

A newly minted black Senator with no discernible leadership skills or experience. What could possibly go wrong?

Happy Nomad on January 30, 2014 at 9:16 AM

Oh, what if John Kerry throws his top hat into the ring!

Punchenko on January 30, 2014 at 9:05 AM

I’m sure it would come out years later that it was someone else’s hat.

Flange on January 30, 2014 at 9:17 AM

I hope she wins the dem nomination and the GOP better be ruthless.

Vince on January 30, 2014 at 8:59 AM

I hope they are.
Trouble is, the Democrats will give lots of friendly advice to This GOP.
And the GOP will take it.

TimBuk3 on January 30, 2014 at 9:19 AM

More direct Lanny Davis:

“She’s got a ‘D’ after her name! She’s not one of you radical, racist, right-wing Republicans! That’s her accomplishment! Plus, Vagina! BOO-YAAAAH!”

dkmonroe on January 30, 2014 at 9:20 AM

Call me extreme but I feel we are going to be hit larger than 9-11 and things will be put on hold.

docflash on January 30, 2014 at 8:21 AM

I always find it interesting to note that a presidential election was held in the North in the middle of the American Civil War. There are those in positions of power who would insist in suspending elections for lesser “emergencies”.

DaveDief on January 30, 2014 at 9:26 AM

The media got dogeater in 2x.

They’re likely to get Shrillary in next.

shinty on January 30, 2014 at 9:29 AM

I’d give you even odds that none of them will actually be running in the 2016 cycle.

Ed Morrissey on January 30, 2014 at 8:12 AM

Ok, I know it’s about a century out in political terms but take a shot. Who do you think/hope will be the candidates in 2016. I won’t hold you to it or fling it in your face later either since anything can happen in that length of time. What’s your dream lineup? I’m hoping for Palin/Cruz vs Biden/Jackson Lee (Sheila). Hey I can dream.

Oldnuke on January 30, 2014 at 9:34 AM

The media got dogeater in 2x.

They’re likely to get Shrillary in next.

shinty on January 30, 2014 at 9:29 AM

Shrill’s got a much longer and visible track record than the limp wristed weasel obozo. Makes the propaganda team’s job more difficult.

Flange on January 30, 2014 at 9:34 AM

What if Christie switches parties and challenges Hillary in the primaries?

Oldnuke on January 30, 2014 at 9:36 AM

I always find it interesting to note that a presidential election was held in the North in the middle of the American Civil War. There are those in positions of power who would insist in suspending elections for lesser “emergencies”.

DaveDief on January 30, 2014 at 9:26 AM

Elections were held in the middle of WWII as well.

Happy Nomad on January 30, 2014 at 9:37 AM

Elections were held in the middle of WWII as well.

Happy Nomad on January 30, 2014 at 9:37 AM

Yeah, but Tojo wasn’t one of the candidates.

Oldnuke on January 30, 2014 at 9:40 AM

If anyone had a 6:1 lead over the closest potential opponent in a future race (with a 61-point lead), and that closest opponent’s name was Joe Biden, who wouldn’t run?

I dunno… someone who will be 69 years old…?

JohnGalt23 on January 30, 2014 at 9:53 AM

Elections were held in the middle of WWII as well.

Happy Nomad on January 30, 2014 at 9:37 AM

When it comes to excuses for suspending elections there is a huge difference between being engaged in a war with an enemy overseas and our bloodiest war being fought on our own soil against each other.

That was a great thing that we had that election in 1864. It established the benchmark. There is no excuse for ever suspending the election for Commander in Chief.

fadetogray on January 30, 2014 at 9:54 AM

I dunno… someone who will be 69 years old…?

JohnGalt23 on January 30, 2014 at 9:53 AM

Ageist! Sexist! Racist!

fadetogray on January 30, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Ageist! Sexist! Racist!

fadetogray on January 30, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Yeah… don’t care.

MoQ rules went out the window with the senior pedo from Nevada accusing Mitt Romney of being a tax cheat.

It’s time to play dirty…

JohnGalt23 on January 30, 2014 at 10:05 AM

Ageist! Sexist! Racist!

fadetogray on January 30, 2014 at 9:59 AM

Looked at seriously, though, she will be nearly 9 months younger than Reagan was when he took office.

I’m all for playing dirty. I just don’t think it will fly, at all. It’s more likely to backfire as swing voter women will feel attacked every time Hillary’s age is brought up.

fadetogray on January 30, 2014 at 10:08 AM

I think it’s a plus for the Reps that all the Dems really have is Hillary. Easier to take down, when you know whom their candidate will be years ahead of time. Don’t meed to waste a lotta time and money on their Peanut Gallery of wannabee candidates.

whatcat on January 30, 2014 at 10:16 AM

C’mon Warren, take Hillary out! She’s the past.

libfreeordie on January 30, 2014 at 8:38 AM

I like the cut if your jib, sir,

Lanceman on January 30, 2014 at 10:29 AM

C’mon Warren, take Hillary out! She’s the past.

libfreeordie on January 30, 2014 at 8:38 AM

Your non-expertise at Math is duly noted.

Warren is only a year and a half younger than Hillary.

Congratulations! Your Democrats are forever officially the Party of Old White Women!

OWW+

Del Dolemonte on January 30, 2014 at 10:34 AM

Remember “Swillary“?

I tried to link to the Telegraph story linked in this article, asking “Is Hillary an Embarassment?” and my computer got attacked. Sheesh.

Fallon on January 30, 2014 at 10:43 AM

…an affirmation of the conventional wisdom that the nomination is hers for the taking.

Hmmmm……….someone should remind Chris that ‘was the conventional wisdom’ back in 2008.

GarandFan on January 30, 2014 at 10:53 AM

Clinton trounces her potential primary rivals with 73 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, reinforcing a narrative of inevitability around her nomination if she runs.

Hmmm.

Hillary Clinton.

Inevitability.

Seems I recall that these two things were associated with each other once before. How’d that work out anyway?

Bitter Clinger on January 30, 2014 at 10:56 AM

“I’m white! I’m entitled! Dey’s a black man stealin’ my show!”

Lanceman on January 30, 2014 at 11:11 AM

This GOP? Ruthless against the Democrats?

If we could somehow get the GOPe to think Hillary was secretly a Tea Partier ….

fadetogray on January 30, 2014 at 9:04 AM

Well I for one will be ruthless with my Senator, Roy Blunt. If Hillary runs, I am holding his feet to the fire.

Vince on January 30, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Hugh Hewitt: All right, one question, you’ve got a minute. Summarize for me what she accomplished as Secretary of State.
.
Lanny Davis: Well, the biggest thing of all is goodwill around the world, which is what secretaries of State do.

.
That’s as far as I needed to go, to begin LMAO.

But it continues . . . . . . .
.

Hugh Hewitt: Like in Syria…?
.
Lanny Davis: I don’t know what any secretary of State…
.
Hugh Hewitt: …and Egypt and Libya ?

.
Thank you, Mr Hewitt.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2014 at 11:13 AM

I’m hoping for Palin/Cruz vs Biden/Jackson Lee (Sheila). Hey I can dream.

Oldnuke on January 30, 2014 at 9:34 AM

That Jackson Lee woman must be racist./

Vince on January 30, 2014 at 11:13 AM

I’d give you even odds that none of them will actually be running in the 2016 cycle.
Ed Morrissey on January 30, 2014 at 8:12 AM

Which other governors do you think they should have polled? Pro-illegal alien amnesty and establishment darling Scott Walker is just a dull version of Pawlenty and is about as exciting to listen to as watching paint dry.

Pro-amnesty Walker should stay in Wisconsin, where he has been a good governor. I would much rather support someone like Ted Cruz in the Republican presidential primary.

bluegill on January 30, 2014 at 11:28 AM

I wouldn’t vote for any of them.

Happy Nomad on January 30, 2014 at 8:06 AM
.

I’d give you even odds that none of them will actually be running in the 2016 cycle.

Ed Morrissey on January 30, 2014 at 8:12 AM

.
I wouldn’t take that bet no matter what odds you gave.

kcewa on January 30, 2014 at 8:14 AM
.

And a very Safe bet you would be making Ed.

ToddPA on January 30, 2014 at 8:59 AM

.
So, in other words, an example of the left trying to pick the GOP candidate they most want to run against. I’m sick and tired of the discussion about who is going to win in 2016- Clinton or Christie as if those are the only two options.

Happy Nomad on January 30, 2014 at 9:15 AM
.

Ok, I know it’s about a century out in political terms but take a shot. Who do you think/hope will be the candidates in 2016. I won’t hold you to it or fling it in your face later either since anything can happen in that length of time. What’s your dream lineup? I’m hoping for Palin/Cruz vs Biden/Jackson Lee (Sheila). Hey I can dream.

Oldnuke on January 30, 2014 at 9:34 AM

.
Uhhh . . . hmmm . . . . . . . . ALL OF THE ABOVE.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2014 at 11:31 AM

For the thousandth time, it will just be a rerun of 2008.

The establishment will attempt to crown Clinton (as they already are), and the left wing crazy that run the Democrats will come at Clinton with their own younger hip anything-but-a-white-guy candidate. Again.

The media will swoon. Again.

Moesart on January 30, 2014 at 11:34 AM

How does this happen? How does someone who has accomplished nothing, was involved in the whitewater land fraud deal & caught in insider trading be the overwhelming leader for the DemocRats?

RdLake on January 30, 2014 at 11:38 AM

I still can’t get that picture of her twerking like Miley Cirus in Africa with those other women.

If elected as first woman president, the first thing she will do is go to Taiwan and have sex change done.

Every ad for her election should be followed by a picture of the bloody handprints on the wall of the Benghazi embassy.

elm on January 30, 2014 at 11:38 AM

I still can’t get that picture of her twerking like Miley Cirus in Africa with those other women out of my memory.

If elected as first woman president, the first thing she will do is go to Taiwan and have sex change done.

Every ad for her election should be followed by a picture of the bloody handprints on the wall of the Benghazi embassy.

elm on January 30, 2014 at 11:42 AM

I’d give you even odds that none of them will actually be running in the 2016 cycle.

Ed Morrissey on January 30, 2014 at 8:12 AM

ooooh ooooh! Maybe we’ll get Huckabee, Santorum, and Fred(!)

RushBaby on January 30, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Looking on the bright side, it seems the Democrats’ second-strongest candidate is Joe Biden!

PersonFromPorlock on January 30, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Looked at seriously, though, she will be nearly 9 months younger than Reagan was when he took office.

I’m all for playing dirty. I just don’t think it will fly, at all. It’s more likely to backfire as swing voter women will feel attacked every time Hillary’s age is brought up.

fadetogray on January 30, 2014 at 10:08 AM

Time is kinder to men than it is to women.

That’s why he is “Father Time”…

JohnGalt23 on January 30, 2014 at 11:57 AM

Poll: Sarah Palin Has Highest Favorability Rating Among GOP Primary Voters

OmahaConservative on January 30, 2014 at 11:49 AM

Why wouldn’t she be? She hasn’t been a candidate in a long time. Actually running for something and against other Republicans would mean her favorability among Republicans would take a hit. Also, saying you view someone favorably is different than saying you would vote for them. I would say to a pollster that I view her favorably, but I would much prefer to vote for someone like Ted Cruz.

bluegill on January 30, 2014 at 11:57 AM

ooooh ooooh! Maybe we’ll get Huckabee, Santorum, and Fred(!)

RushBaby on January 30, 2014 at 11:45 AM

.
I don’t know that he’s going to run this time, but I’d get behind Rick “the sweater vest” in a flash, if he does.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Hmmm….What could be driving these polls?

Bmore on January 30, 2014 at 12:06 PM

. . . . . saying you view someone favorably is different than saying you would vote for them.
I would say to a pollster that I view her favorably, but I would much prefer to vote for someone like Ted Cruz.

bluegill on January 30, 2014 at 11:57 AM

.
That’s an excellent point . . . . . conclusion : … don’t trust these early polls.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2014 at 12:11 PM

I hope she nominates Ambassador Chris Stevens to head the State Department. Oh, wait, ……. scratch that.

RandallinHerndon on January 30, 2014 at 8:27 AM

I’ve been saying it for awhile now …

Hillary Clinton/Christopher Stevens 2016!

ShainS on January 30, 2014 at 12:12 PM

So the low info, free stuff demanding people have their champion. Let her run. If this country elects her then we will know for sure that there are just too many of these people to survive for long as a non-third world free country.

Chessplayer on January 30, 2014 at 12:17 PM

I hope she nominates Ambassador Chris Stevens to head the State Department. Oh, wait, ……. scratch that.

RandallinHerndon on January 30, 2014 at 8:27 AM

.
I’ve been saying it for awhile now …

Hillary Clinton/Christopher Stevens 2016!

ShainS on January 30, 2014 at 12:12 PM

.
Sounds good to me. Get those bumper stickers made up, pronto.

listens2glenn on January 30, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Poll: Sarah Palin Has Highest Favorability Rating Among GOP Primary Voters

OmahaConservative on January 30, 2014 at 11:49 AM

Breitbart had that yesterday. I wonder if HA will put it in a thread.

On Killary,

By 2016, what difference does it make? If the republicans aren’t a true opposition party in 2016 then we shouldn’t waste the time on a presidential election. Just give the crown to clinton.

She is a horrible candidate with a long, filthy past -A dozen swift boats filled with scandals but the GOP in its present form wouldn’t touch them. It will be like rev wright all over again, where Mcain instructed his people not to make an issue of it. Or Romney, after crowley lied for Obama, Mitt never mentioned Benghazi again, even though 100% of the country saw Rice blame the video.There was Obama on letterman blaming the video, yet romney wouldn’t touch it because … candy crowley. Hillary has many candy crowleys so …

BoxHead1 on January 30, 2014 at 12:27 PM

By 2016, what difference does will it make?

BoxHead1 on January 30, 2014 at 12:36 PM

I hope Hillary does run and that lead overs her opponents endures.

Hillary is the Democrats most electorally vulnerable candidate. Not only is she a person of very little skill and leadership qualities, but what she has accomplished is reprehensible.

Most Americans will see her as a symbol of all that is wrong with Washington.

Marcus Traianus on January 30, 2014 at 12:38 PM

I would love to see Palin run against Hillary though Palin probably wouldn’t want to entire media complex and the DNC ripping her for two years.

After all that has happened in the past six years, and what we’re dealing with now, I can’t comprehend how another progressive could be leading in early polling. Apparently, women still don’t care about the damage that the progressives have done to the country and to them particularly. Maybe a few million more of them will lose their health care over the next few years and maybe a light bulb will go off in their heads.

cajunpatriot on January 30, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2