DescentBB

Rasmuessen did a poll for most influential person of 2013. Results are surprising and notice Hillary is no where on the list. Wonder if that is good or bad for the 2016 elections. Also note that Ted Cruz is the 3rd most influential. Wonder if he can carry the pizzaz on into 2016:

1* Whom do you consider the most influential person in 2013?

23% Pope Francis
21% Barack Obama
11% Ted Cruz
8% Edward Snowden
4% Vladimir Putin
3% John Boehner
3% Chris Christie
2% Miley Cyrus
2% Kate Middleton
1% Angela Merkel
1% Malala Yousafzai
1% Kathleen Sebelius
0% Bashar Assad
0% Kanye West
0% Lebron James
0% George Zimmerman
12% Some other person
9% Not sure

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... 11_12_2013

A list of 'most influential' that has Miley Cyrus in the top ten is probably one Hillary would pay to be left off of

or Edward Snowden, Will. Good to hear the tune of Woodchip whistling in the dark this early before Hillary's election in 2016.

seriously, Woody, why do you bother? That list was of INFLUENTIAL people. Would Barack Obama have made the list in 2005? I suspect not. Hillary didn't make the list this year because she was retired most of the year. She will make the list soon enough, for your tastes, I suspect. Wanna buy a hoodie, Woodie?
https://www.readyforhillary.com/store/i ... =e121513_a

I'm confident she's in there somewhere.

callmeslick wrote:or Edward Snowden, Will. Good to hear the tune of Woodchip whistling in the dark this early before Hillary's election in 2016.

Typical the glass is half full response. Me, I wouldn't mind being on the number 3 spot right behind the Pope and the President of the United States. Hopefully Hillary's face lift will not go awry and she loses a few pounds before she makes her play.

Damn you have a lot of hate in you woodchip. Why even waste the effort with that last sentence?

Nothing like throwing some misogyny into the mix, right?

Did I say something incorrect? Or are you both butt hurt because I told you what your heroine of 2016 is undergoing as I type?

woodchip wrote:Did I say something incorrect? Or are you both butt hurt because I told you what your heroine of 2016 is undergoing as I type?

proof, please? This should be good.


edit, no I'll go one better: you are blatantly lying through your teeth, once again, to make a bogus political point. There is no proof, there never was even a suggestion, you simply made it up. Nice. And, you'd like us to take your political opinion seriously? Why?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Did I say something incorrect? Or are you both butt hurt because I told you what your heroine of 2016 is undergoing as I type?

proof, please? This should be good.


edit, no I'll go one better: you are blatantly lying through your teeth, once again, to make a bogus political point. There is no proof, there never was even a suggestion, you simply made it up. Nice. And, you'd like us to take your political opinion seriously? Why?

And you don't have a clue that she hasn't. Did you defend Herr Clinton in the same manner when he was accused of giving interns the pork sandwich? Until of course the blue dress came forth.

hell, anyone who knew Bill Clinton wasn't the least surprised, and don't look to me as a defender of his personal life. He was a smart man, in regards to public policy, and took his role as policy leader very seriously. Now, seeing as how Hillary was in public in November for the Veterans Day ceremonies, and was at the Mandela Memorial service, she sure seems busy. And, remember your claim: she is AT THIS MOMENT having a facelift and the rest(your words--'as I type'). So, sorry, keep whistling, and watch her sail to victory.

woodchip wrote:Did I say something incorrect? Or are you both butt hurt because I told you what your heroine of 2016 is undergoing as I type?

I don't even particularly like Hillary as an individual, but either way you're just full of bull★■◆● like usual, so I guess I'll go do something more constructive like stare at a blank wall.

Actually, she got the facelift last year in December IIRC.

She might be getting another one...but I haven't heard anything about it.

Spidey wrote:Actually, she got the facelift last year in December IIRC.

rumor has it....and, all the rumor links go back to Fox News. Hmmmmm.

She might be getting another one...but I haven't heard anything about it.

and, why would you? Seriously, what does it have to do with governance ability?

I suppose it could be a rumor, personally I could care less…women get facelifts all of the time.

Not like it’s a crime or something.

JFTR tho…it would take a lot more than a facelift to improve that frumpy looking hag's image.

(yes, I dislike her very much)

definitely, I will say this much: If it's Christie v. Clinton in 2016, no one will call it a beauty contest.

Not if "Bridgegate" burns Christie. NJ politics are just as nasty as Chicago politics. And I still think it's going to be Paul Ryan vs. Hillary Clinton.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/20 ... versy.html

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/20 ... cart_river

callmeslick wrote:definitely, I will say this much: If it's Christie v. Clinton in 2016, no one will call it a beauty contest.

We have a winner here.

tunnelcat wrote:Not if "Bridgegate" burns Christie. NJ politics are just as nasty as Chicago politics. And I still think it's going to be Paul Ryan vs. Hillary Clinton.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/20 ... versy.html

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/20 ... cart_river

I made passing mention of this on this board a few days ago....and, only passing mention as, in the overall traditional scope of Jersey politics, this is pretty small time. Where it MAY hurt Christie is in the depiction of him as a petty bully, and that gets back to the GOP nomination process allowing a lot of time for Hillary's troops to paint the GOP candidates with a broad brush, and lots of paint.

Won’t Hillary have to do the primary thing if Biden doesn’t run?

Or, do you think it’ll be a cake walk like the last one…

I suspect there are other Dems who will run for POTUS besides Biden.

And what the GOP has to say about Hillary is nothing compared to what the DNC will say about her. Just look at the last time she ran.

Christie has to get through Iowa first, didn't one of the crazies (Santorum or Huckabee) win that once? So yeah, good luck fat man.

Spidey wrote:Won’t Hillary have to do the primary thing if Biden doesn’t run?

Or, do you think it’ll be a cake walk like the last one…

she will have to do the primary thing,no matter what, but without serious competition, it becomes a financed(Primary donors)campaign tour of the nation, in which she can deliver a consistent message and pound home a negative image of her GOP opposition, all well before the GOP even selects a candidate, and thus gets a campaign in gear. This is a TREMENDOUS advantage.....it essentially killed off Romney's campaign before he began.

woodchip wrote:I suspect there are other Dems who will run for POTUS besides Biden.

I haven't heard of one serious player, with any money backing. Some folks tried to float the name of the woman Senator from Massachusetts(Warren), but she quashed that notion already.

CobGobbler wrote:Christie has to get through Iowa first, didn't one of the crazies (Santorum or Huckabee) win that once? So yeah, good luck fat man.

right now, in Iowa, he is 5th out of 11 potential candidates. Worse, he has by far the highest(32%) negatives among Iowa Republicans. I'd be shocked if he wins, or even gets a top 3 in Iowa.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Won’t Hillary have to do the primary thing if Biden doesn’t run?

Or, do you think it’ll be a cake walk like the last one…

she will have to do the primary thing,no matter what, but without serious competition,

they said the same thing last time. then Obama emerged as the candidate.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Won’t Hillary have to do the primary thing if Biden doesn’t run?

Or, do you think it’ll be a cake walk like the last one…

she will have to do the primary thing,no matter what, but without serious competition,

they said the same thing last time. then Obama emerged as the candidate.

no one who understood politics, or the players on either side, DIDN'T view Obama as a serious candidate. It took until March 2008 for him to convince some people that he could(and would) beat Hillary, but a lot of us knew that reality by July 2007, or before. I am presuming, CUDA, that you were referring to Hillary's last run for President, not the 2012 primary process, which, I strongly suspect, will be far more analogous to 2016, unless something dramatic happens between now and late 2015(which could EASILY happen).

callmeslick wrote: no one who understood politics, or the players on either side, DIDN'T view Obama as a serious candidate.

Too bad he isn't a serious president.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I suspect there are other Dems who will run for POTUS besides Biden.

I haven't heard of one serious player, with any money backing. Some folks tried to float the name of the woman Senator from Massachusetts(Warren), but she quashed that notion already.

I hear Gov Brown of CA is being urged to run. Nothing about if he is seriously considering it.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I suspect there are other Dems who will run for POTUS besides Biden.

I haven't heard of one serious player, with any money backing. Some folks tried to float the name of the woman Senator from Massachusetts(Warren), but she quashed that notion already.

I hear Gov Brown of CA is being urged to run. Nothing about if he is seriously considering it.

Hell, a lot of people get urged to run by small groups. Serious players have to back the campaign.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:I suspect there are other Dems who will run for POTUS besides Biden.

I haven't heard of one serious player, with any money backing. Some folks tried to float the name of the woman Senator from Massachusetts(Warren), but she quashed that notion already.

I hear Gov Brown of CA is being urged to run. Nothing about if he is seriously considering it.

Hell, a lot of people get urged to run by small groups. Serious players have to back the campaign.

Ummm...yes Mr Obvious, In Browns case it was making the news, so maybe a bit more than small groups. I suspect Gov. Brown would get serious backing if he commits and tired out looking Hillary stumbles somewhere down the line. After all she has more baggage than what appears under her eyes.

Woodchip, the same 'buzz' in the media accompanied Warren(actually, far more). Now, do I think Brown might make a REALLY viable Veep candidate on a Hillary ticket? Yup, he has the workmanlike wonk appeal, has better cache in the West,and would be as good a balance as one could find. His backers aren't the same as the Clintonista regulars, which would help, too(and negate someone like Richardson, IMHO). Too early, really, for any of this sort of speculation, save for the pure entertainment value.


oh, and the proper title is Captain Obvious

Hillary / Trigg Palin 2016??

well, Cob, that would be a longshot.

I think Hillary will definitely get a shot this next go around.

hmmmmm
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.1537418

Fox News' parent corporation.....

callmeslick wrote:hmmmmm
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.1537418

Fox News' parent corporation.....

Ought to spark interesting discussions in liberal circles.

flip wrote:I think Hillary will definitely get a shot this next go around.

Not another Clinton. We already had BJB.