Who will be the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Nominee?

Frankly, I haven't read the different policies that these candidates support (they haven't put much out there, if anything anyway) so I just go with what I remember from different policies each have supported in the past.

• I would like Hillary if she were, you know, her more moderate husband. I think she is just too gun-ho and will continue the string of foreign policy blunders that have besieged the US since GWB. She voted for the Iraq War and, as Secretary of State, was a main proponent of intervention in Libya (look at that mess now) plus the failed "reset" with Russia.

I think she might be more acceptable than President Obama on some economic issues but that isn't saying much.

While others might downplay it, I think the whole hidden server fiasco raises ethical and trust questions about her character

The best or more positive thing about a Hillary Clinton Presidency? That she has a vagina.

• I like Bernie Sanders character. He seems authentic and honest, he isn't shy about stating what he believes and doesn't feel the need to raise his finger to air to see which way the wind blows that day [looking at you Hillary]. He certainly is refreshing in the same way Ron Paul was the last Presidential cycle.

The problem is that he is a socialist. Or "social democrat" in the European style [his own description]. Would like for him to get the nomination just to bitch slap those who really think a socialist could win on the 2016 United States and see how he gets crushed in a landslide along with all those naive liberals souls.

• O'Malley is known colloquially for taxing rain water which cost his handpicked successor the governorship of deep sea blue Maryland for his party.
• Jim Webb was against the Iraq War. Jim Webb was against intervention in Libya. Jim Webb is "pro guns". Jim Webb served as Navy Secretary in the Reagan Administration. Jim Webb (god bless his soul) is a stiff, wooden, dull guy that the first time you listen to him will make wonder how this man has ever won an election. The ultimate substance, no flash candidate.
• Lincoln Chafee? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TLDR:

Who do I think will win?: Hillary Clinton.

Who do I want [I use "want" very loosely] to win?: Jim Webb?

It'll probably be Hillary. And if that's the case, then I hope that the Republican side has a strong enough candidate to contend with, and ultimately, beat her for president.

Clinton will get it for sure. I don't know enough about each of the candidates to say I want one to win over the other. Maybe Colonel Sanders.

I think Bernie Sanders has a real shot. He's the only real progressive in the entire line-up and people are starting to see how false Hillary is.

Clinton will get the nomination and then the general election. Anything else is fantasy as of now.

Bernie Sanders>Rand Paul and Ron Paul. X3

Like everyone said, it's going to be Clinton this time around. I guess everyone wants to see President Women is my best guess.

I definitely think Hillary will win the primary. Her approval ratings are so far above any of her opponents on the Democrat side.

I have been impressed with Bernie a few times in the past,and it would be interesting to see a candidate with views that are fairly different from the mainstream, but I don't think he could win the general election.

I want either Bernie Sanders or Jim Webb. Both candidates have substance and have viewpoints that I agree with.

Hillary Clinton, however, will win the nomination.

@Serraph105: I think Bernie has a real shot of getting the blue collar vote, anywhere in the country. If he plays it smart and keeps blaming the rich for screwing America over, and if he gets somebody from the South as his running mate, I could see him winning.

That;s assuming he wins the nomination which I think he has a good shot at doing. He's building huge momentum, and come the debates, he'll mop the floor with Hilary. He doesn't have much of a record to defend against, while Hilary can be attacked on her entire political career. Looking at polls this earlier is also pointless, Hilary Clinton is obviously going to do better at this stage in national "approval" polls- she is one of the most famous women in American history.

Come the debates, we shall see.

I'm conflicted in that I like Bernie Sanders sooooo much better than Hillary but I also want Democrats to win the WH in 2015 and Hillary realistically has a better chance at making that happen.

She will get the nomination but you're being overconfident about her chances of winning the general. Someone like Jeb Bush could easily give her a run for her money.

Bush needs to appeal to the reich wing nut jobs to even get nominated. By that time his chances of winning over independents will have gone to 0. Hillary won't have a hard time repeating what Obama did in 2012 since the electoral map is squarely in her favour. She's guaranteed at least 120 votes right out the gate just for being a Democrat and can win without even having to win many swing states, while her Republican opponent has to take more than the majority of the swing states to even stand a chance. There's also the bit about the appeal of voting in the first female president that will drive a lot of people to her + her appeal to the female population in general.

http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#.VZwMHEaPPIU

"Independents. In his Nov. 26 analysis, Bolger noted: “Romney won Independents by five points. That’s better than George W. Bush in 2004 by six net points. … Romney was the first national candidate in exit polling history to decisively win Independents and lose the election.”"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/11/romney_exit_polls_he_won_independents_white_women_and_middle_income_voters.html

INFOGRAPHIC: Obama Lost Independent Vote In Almost Every Swing State

Romney Won Independents in Key States. It Wasn’t Enough.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see Jeb tacking anymore to the right than Romney did. "Independents" aren't all it's cracked up to be.

@Master_Live said:

@Aljosa23 said:

Bush needs to appeal to the reich wing nut jobs to even get nominated. By that time his chances of winning over independents will have gone to 0.Hillary won't have a hard time repeating what Obama did in 2012 since the electoral map is squarely in her favour. She's guaranteed at least 120 votes right out the gate just for being a Democrat and can win without even having to win many swing states, while her Republican opponent has to take more than the majority of the swing states to even stand a chance. There's also the bit about the appeal of voting in the first female president that will drive a lot of people to her + her appeal to the female population in general.

http://elections.nbcnews.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#.VZwMHEaPPIU

"Independents. In his Nov. 26 analysis, Bolger noted: “Romney won Independents by five points. That’s better than George W. Bush in 2004 by six net points. … Romney was the first national candidate in exit polling history to decisively win Independents and lose the election.”"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/11/romney_exit_polls_he_won_independents_white_women_and_middle_income_voters.html

INFOGRAPHIC: Obama Lost Independent Vote In Almost Every Swing State

Romney Won Independents in Key States. It Wasn’t Enough.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see Jeb tacking anymore to the right than Romney did. "Independents" aren't all it's cracked up to be.

Interesting. Wouldn't that be a statistical anomaly or an exception to the rule? That one blurb said he's the first to win independents then lose the election.

Could be, the Republicans just need more voters. Part of their base is simply literally dying off. But also part of the problem Romney had was getting out the base, conservatives never really warmed up to him or trusted him. No matter what he did he could never convinced them because they thought Romney didn't mean it (I mostly agree with them).

The Grand Old Party, the party of Lincoln will either "grow the tent" or go the way of the dinosaurs (Whigs!).

I like Bernie, but I really wish that he were running as an independent, rather than as a Democrat.

Once he becomes beholden to the Democratic Party's diktats, he'll cease to be the Bernie we knew.

@Stesilaus said:

@airshocker said:

I think Bernie Sanders has a real shot. He's the only real progressive in the entire line-up and people are starting to see how false Hillary is.

I like Bernie, but I really wish that he were running as an independent, rather than as a Democrat.

Once he becomes beholden to the Democratic Party's diktats, he'll cease to be the Bernie we knew.

It's just a shame that none of the candidates can hold a candle to the great Russian leader, Putin.

Aside from Hillary I don't know much about these people, and I don't think the American populace as a whole does either. Sanders might give Hillary some competition aside from that it seems like the rest won't matter much.

Sanders has a bit of a hipster appeal and is popular among the more hard left base of the party, but he probably wouldn't do well in a general election.

Hillary has the name recognition.

Maybe Chafee will try to say that he is better than Hillary since he openly supported "Marriage equality" before it became the party line, so he can be a bit avant garde and "forward thinking" but he was governor of Rhode Island which is fairly small, so if he goes against a Florida or Texas governor it will look bad for him.

Webb is Virginian so he's a Southerner, so maybe he can try to say he understands both North and South. O'Malley, I don't know what I can say he has going for him

Anyways my picks:

1. Most likely to win Nomination: Hillary. Sanders in 2nd place.

2. Who I most want to win strategically: Chafee or O'Malley, they seem the easiest to beat.

3. Who I probably like the best: maybe Webb? He's probably the most centrist.

Dems will have a hard time in 2016 for a variety of reasons (though Repubs have to be careful not to be seen as either soft on immigration or overly hostile to immigrants)

1. The trend - usually one party does not win three pres. races in a row.

2. 2012 - it was closer than it looks. If Reps hold the states they won then, they only need to pick up OH, FL, VA, and one more state (and CO, NH, NV, and Iowa are all vulnerable)

3. Black turnout will probably be lower with Obama not running.

4. National Security - Republicans have regained their traditional polling advantage on this category, Dems led in that category in 2008 and 2012.

5. Democrats might move too far to the left

I don't think it looks "bad" if you pit a governor from a small state to one from a big state. It is more about good administration and results. But yeah, if the results are similar I might give the tiebreaker to the governor from the larger state.

I don't know the polls or statistics but from what I've seen, there's greater support for gay marriage and even pot legalization among young Republicans so the party will survive but as a more socially liberal GOP. Basically, libertarians.

The only thing I haven't seen change is religion and abortion.

@deeliman said:

@Stesilaus said:

@airshocker said:

I think Bernie Sanders has a real shot. He's the only real progressive in the entire line-up and people are starting to see how false Hillary is.

I like Bernie, but I really wish that he were running as an independent, rather than as a Democrat.

Once he becomes beholden to the Democratic Party's diktats, he'll cease to be the Bernie we knew.

It's just a shame that none of the candidates can hold a candle to the great Russian leader, Putin.

This is undeniably true.

It's sad that American voters are so much less fortunate than their Russian counterparts and must be content with scrapings from the bottom of the political barrel. :-(

I don't think he has a prayer. People may like him. They may like his policies. Heck, they may even love his hair style.

But they're going to take one look at the second word in the political label he gave himself and he will turn off 51% (at least) of the voters.

Clinton the overwhelming favorite and Bernie Sanders with a respectable 22% of the votes. But if Clinton is perceived as getting a coronation that might hurt with charges of "entitlement" which was one of the many line of attacks the Obama campaign used against her in '08.

This is quite true. Never underestimate the stupid half of the country. It's beyond all reason, but Jeb could actually win.

Hillary Clinton will win, I like Sanders message, but if he wins we will be stuck with a Republican president.

The first primary doesn't take place for a very long time and furthermore, her approval numbers seem to be dropping. Whether one is a D or R, I don't know how anyone could vote for her based on her past. Her family has scandal written all over it and she was an extremely neutered SoS. Have you ever heard the saying: It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

I'm extremely hopeful for Sanders. He is authentic and has stuck to his guns for years. I know what he stands for. I can easily list his policies. Clinton... I have no idea what she supposedly stands for. She is merely riding the political wave, avoiding the tough questions.

Clinton will, Clinton should.

it's clinton's nomination to lose

Aside that I don't really like Sanders, nominating him seems like a good way to get another Bush presidency (or worse, give someone like Scott Walker a real chance if he were the nominee).