Who will be the next president of the United States?

Just a fun thread for predicting the next president, using the most popular politicians at this moment.

I hate to say it, but I think Hillary will be the next president.

 

Hillary was destined to be the President in 2008 too.

However unless rich conservatives end up buying the New York Times, NBC. CBS, and ABC between now and 2016, then the next President will be a Democrat.

 

I don't think the next president was on that list.
OK, Hillary is the front runner, and the GOP is probably out of consideration, but a lot can happen, and I can see the desire to put a woman in the White House, but Hillary may pull up lame, and leave the track open for an Elizabeth Warren or a Kirsten Gillibrand.
Or the party may feel the GOP has done a good enough job of alienating women that we can pander instead to the Hispanics.
A Castro brother on the ticket could energize the hispanic vote enough to make Texas a blue state, and force the GOP back to the drawing board for real.

 

The next president of the United States will be whomever Obama endorses.

If Obama does not endorse Hillary, he will endorse a black person -- most likely Newark Mayor Cory Booker who is of Puerto Rican ancestry and speaks native Spanish.

 

Christie or Hillary from that list would be my best guess. I am hoping some billionaire like a Ross Perot that can fund his own campaign comes out of no where and gets independents excited... And 2016 is a lifetime away.

 

It's obviously much too soon to even guess.

Democrats may bank on Hillary for the same reason they liked Obama - she'd be another "first." Now that we've had brown skin in the oval office, it's time for a vagina. Or so the party might reason that lives by pandering to chosen demographic groups. Most women, even many Republican women, would probably vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. So would the illiberal "liberals," who don't know what an American is but who can distinguish the voting patterns of middle-aged black Lesbians from those of young Asian accountants. I know people who are still proud of having voted for the First African-American President despite his ruinous failures and more ruinous successes. All of those are eager for Hillary in '16.

So long as there are Republican plain talkers, who are vigorous and unapologetic spokesmen for conservative ideas, Republicans have a good chance. Polls consistently show that voters who say they like Democrats, when asked about specific policy issues, often prefer conservative policies, even though they mistakenly attribute those policies to Obama and Democrats!

A Republican who made it plain what he stood for, and what the Democrat stood for, would likely win. He would be helped by Democrats who believe their own party's campaign flapdoodle - the "war on women," the "1%," "comprehensive immigration reform," etc. A Republican who described his beliefs in clear simple language would be a surprise that might win.

The great threat to Republicans is not Democrats but their own party's "moderate" wing. These are the dunces who believe the "friendly" advice of Democrats that the way to win elections is to adopt Democrat policies. Should they take that advice, they would lose their own base, while winning over few Democrats; they'd be committing partisan suicide. But Karl Rove and the Bushies are pushing this idiocy. The result was Romney's nomination and failed campaign. It was so frustrating to hear Romney maligned not for any of his actual beliefs but for the imaginings of the Obama campaign, and to hear him say so little of what the people needed and wanted to hear.

Republicans need a passionate plain-talker who speaks from conviction, not from focus-group reports. I like Christie. The Democratic machine has already begun attacking him for being fat. Apparently, bias against women (Hillary) is an abomination, while bias against the over-weight is just a matter of sensible hygiene. Right. That, and appeals to prejudice can tip election results.

 

If she runs, she'll win.

You can borrow money from the Mafia to bet on it, it's that much of a sure thing.

 

Sad but true.

 

Hillary won't make it past the primaries. The Benghazi thing is going to pretty much end it for her especially after the CNN piece which flat out said that they had warning and yet did nothing. Also, it was pointed out earlier that Hillary was supposed to be the anointed one last time around as well.

Its most likely going to be a Republican as there is no good news for Democrats down the road regarding the economy and once all the new Obamacare regulations kick in that will seal the deal for anyone who supported it. The list of exemptions and wavers continues to grow daily and the more people want out the more of a burden is put on the Feds to make up for the lost revenue.

I just hope that the Republicans get something other than the Barnum Brothers Circus this time around. The only guy I really liked was the Godfather's pizza guy until he turned into a serial molester.

I like both Rubio and Ryan but I also like Jindal although he has shown to be unreliable on the public stage. Smart guy but really sucks at giving speeches and that is essential for any candidate. I would also like to see my Governor Walker make a run for it even though he stands a snowballs chance in hell. At least he can set himself up for a 2020 run.

 

At present, Hillary Clinton is the odds-on favourite as a moderate Democrat with, by far, the most impressive resumé of the usual suspects.

"Willard Mitt Romney" should really be a choice for the wishful-thinking folks (emphasis on the "wishful") whose prejudice overcame the preponderance of objective indicators when they irrationally predicted his victory in 2012. Driven by emotion over reason, they should be given the opportunity to stand by their man as well as stand their shaky ground and go with Mr Individual Mandate once again.

Of course, demographic changes indicate that the GOP will find it extremely difficult to regain sufficient public support with the American people to be viable until they overcome their diminishing appeal to voters.

Attempting to divert attention from their own abundant deficiencies by scandal-mongering has won them little affection. Their scheme to expose the President as a foreign-born madrasa-brain-washed-Muslim-indoctrinated-by-a-Christian-minister witch-doctor socialist/marxist/communist Manchurian-candidate who has presided over record US corporate profits, unprecedented CEO salaries, and a record high Dow Jones, needed a bit of work just to quell the deafening laughter it evoked. Darryll "Treading-on-thin" Issa perpetuates the farce.

Will it be as much fun when they try to pull that same pathetic, poo-poo flinging shtick on Hilary Clinton?

"You go to war with the swift boat manure barge you have, not the ship of state you may want or wish you had at a later time."

 

I would disagree with that. For as many scandals as Hillary as had, they've all eventually petered out due to lack of media interest in following up, and if it's not already clear to you now that the media isn't interested in Benghazi, wait until 2016. Until then, I'll be waiting for the media to shake off it's drowsiness and get back to investigating Health-care-gate, Filegate, Cattle Futures-gate, Travel-gate, Whitewater, and the billing records scandal.

I don't think Obamacare or the economy will make a difference in the election. The majority of the country has pretty consistently opposed Obamacare, and it didn't stop them from pulling the lever for Obama. As far as the economy goes, if Obama can win re-election with the economy as bad as it is, then I think the old dead-girl/live-boy rules just don't apply to him.

 

Obama barely one. He received 8 million fewer votes than in 2008 and he won by a smaller percentage. The only reason that the Republicans lost the election is because no one turned out to vote for Romney who was an extremely weak candidate. Romney actually managed to get fewer votes than McCain did when McCain was slaughtered after the 08 crash.

The difference is that more and more people are saying that the state department dropped the ball and people died because of it. They have her "who cares" response which I guarantee the Republicans will run every chance they get or if not them possibly even her primary competitors.

 

she's not old enough to run yet, but unless i get some "wow" out of a canidate that is, i'm writing in Kate Upton.

 

if she runs, she'll fall and break a hip. the odds of getting 3 Repubs in a row that will run a mr. nice guy campagin are about nil. she will get hammered on everything in her life from her days at the Rose Law firm and not being able to find the records that were in the room next to where she slept for a year to Benghazi.

 

men used to believe women wouldn't be good in any source of power because they would 'let their emotions decide their actions', but i believe that most women are prepared for something like this. i just hope us ladies have our day soon. and if not somebody who at least can do a good job which won't hopefully be santorum. ive been reading alot about him and he seems like the kind of guy who wouldnt mind living back in the 1800's.

 

The truth is that everyone's decisions are ruled by emotion - the source of untold pain and loss in human life. To make a decision, you first need to weigh the desirability of different outcomes, an emotional process. It's the comparative value of outcomes, plus the feasibility of different courses of action, that decides what rational people do. The most difficult choices are between desirable outcomes that are hard to achieve and less desirable outcomes that are easy to achieve. Irrational people act from impulse and habit, with insufficient attention to their circumstances.

Men and women sometimes have different emotions about things, in part because their situations and experiences differ and in part because of the essential differences between the sexes. Both are trying to do the best for themselves as they see it.

By now, many women around the world have demonstrated their aptitude for leadership in government and business. But none of this makes Hillary Clinton a good choice for President. She exemplifies all that's unlikable in a politician and a liberal. We can only hope that fresh female faces appear. I'd have cheerfully voted for Condoleeza Rice, had she run. I remember Jeanne Kirkpatrick fondly. It's sad that, having used one "novelty candidate" to win the Presidency, Democrats can only think of doing the same in 2016.

 

Hillary has not been successful as an executive or leader in any capacity.
Similar to Obama I have to acknowledge she is not stupid, just duplicitous.
Remember when Bill appointed her to chair a health care reform committee. Who attended.
No health care workers. Only Health Insurance companies were invited. And what did we get?
Less bang for our health care dollar as HillaryCare increased administrative costs and cream skimming with such concepts as, "managed care" and "health care networks". The quality of health care delivery plummeted to care patterned like a technocrats & Health Insurance company's dreams and not patient needs.

More recently we have Hillary's incompetence as Secretary of State. Not just Benghazi. Where are the achievements?
The in between time is not better.

Hillary's candidacy will doom the Democratic wing of the RepubloCratic party to a loss because -
1) Too many detest her so she is not electable.
2) A doomed run as a candidate would absorb too much party energy and create fissures among usual party voters. Such splits are easier for the GOP wing of the RepubloCratic party to overcome because they are a smaller tent. Remember, it did cost Gerald Ford re-election, or election because of the bad feelings with Reagan fans of a stolen nomination. Hillary will likewise doom the Democrats in 2016.


Moi


Ref.: Health Care Comments Qualification
I am a retired M.D. and witnessed the effect of HillaryCare on my ability to treat patients.
Suddenly, I was not in the "network" of patients who had choice, just only within their network.
Network membership was geographically controlled to avoid too much overlap.
And every two bit insurance company had their own formulary of approved Rx medicines.
And asking permission from what kind of qualified person to Rx an ultrasound study and that takes doctor time.
And even if NOT approved, the liability for not preforming the ultrasound rests with the M.D.
who should have encouraged the patient sufficiently to pay cash.
Similar to ObamaCare, HillaryCare was a for profit, private Health Insurance companies dream.
This is not National Health Care, it is a Health Care Mandate most akin to Corporate Socialism.
Socialism for the Corporations, rugged Individualism for flesh and blood people.
HillaryCare, like ObamaCare is most pleasing to the private health insurance companies and hurt people.

 

Hillary was largely assumed to be the next President between 2005 up until half way through 2008. Not worth speculating about it this early on, way to many variables both foreign and domestic are involved. But, if I were too take a guess to entertain the poll question, I'd go with Hillary.

 

Ted Cruz.




Hahahahahahahahahaha!

Just kidding.

Hillary.

 

It looks as if the angry white guys will waste everyone's time b!tching about Hillary Clinton instead of seeking, unifying behind, and building up a viable alternative if it were possible to find one.

Unless they focus, they'll just offer yet another hapless Willard whom the President easily routed, 332-206 despite tough economic times.

 

Oh I am sure she will too. She is going to offer up as many freebies to here constituents as possible. That coupled with this amnesty for illegal crossers of our border, will add many to the freebie free for all. Its all over for "Make your own way" in the USA.

 

The gender and/or race card can be drawn again, because in politics and media (in movies, tv series and tv programs) more about gender and race over the last four decades, in this time increasing. If you look at that, it could be Hillary (the switch from black male to white female), or, because of years of Ron Paul promotion and the rapid growth of the TP and the propaganda, it could be his son Rand. It also depends which person will get the most financial support. And the rethoric, a soft speaking presidential candidate or one with raised emotion in voice, and the slandering of a candidate will all influence the outcome.

 

That old canard, the "freebie" ploy, is one the angry white guys' radio overlords have been pushing for some time, and they seem to swallow it.

Of course, a political party's disposition to promote how it will benefit voters by serving their interests more than the opposition has been a constant since the US first held elections; it's a mainstay of the democratic system.

Nothing new or novel, it has always applied equally to all parties.

Call for more Pentagon spending and a fleet of border drones, and you've got Haliburton and the entire military/industrial cartel expecting you to lay some walking-around money on them.

 

Who will be the next president of the United States?

Putin, who was actually born in Lynchbummers, Georgia. He is what the right-wing weirdoes need and deserve.

 

Sure there is serving voter interests by doing stuff like reducing the taxes they pay or fixing bridges and improving roads and then there is giving away free phones and paying for part of ones car purchase. These are two entirely different sort of things. Many people now expect these sort of freebies and they are freebies in the most obnoxious sort of Marxist way. I understand this is the sort of country you wish it to be and you are in favor of it but when it all breaks down because of it all and we end up like Greece with burning tires in the streets nobody is getting free phones or free daycare services or any of a thousand "take it from those that have and give it to those that need" FREEBIES,