Hillary Clinton leads GOP presidential candidates, poll says

A new Time magazine poll shows Clinton easily defeating the major Republican candidates, were she somehow to become the 2012 Democratic nominee for president.

Clinton leads Mitt Romney, 55% to 38%; Rick Perry, 58% to 32%; and Herman Cain, 56% to 34%, among likely voters in a general election.

(Time magazine notes, "The same poll found that President Obama would edge Romney by just 46% to 43%, Perry by 50% to 38% and Cain by 49% to 37% among likely voters." Clinton's leads are bigger.)

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... oll-says/1

Obama re-elected in 2012, Hillary elected in 2016?

A conservative's worst nightmare.

Hillary has already said she won't run in 2016. Then again, you can never trust a Clinton to tell the truth.
I do believe no matter who the Republicans pick it will be a tight race.

You mean like Perry telling Texas voters he wouldn't run for president but he did anyway?

Conservation Voice wrote: You mean like Perry telling Texas voters he wouldn't run for president but he did anyway?

rofllol Some would say Perry really isn't running for President, at least not doing it correctly. 4% recently in the Nevada Straw Poll.

I said Hillary would be a lock and a much better pres a long time ago, but Dems are too stupid or stubborn to admit they picked THE MOST UNQUALIFIED out of the bunch. Sometimes more debating and a fair press are a good thing (but a fair press is now impossible).

Maybe Hillary should run as the centrist non-partisan independent who could unite the nation?
Bill knew how to trianglulate.

CynicalBill wrote: I said Hillary would be a lock and a much better pres a long time ago, but Dems are too stupid or stubborn to admit they picked THE MOST UNQUALIFIED out of the bunch. Sometimes more debating and a fair press are a good thing (but a fair press is now impossible).

Why do I think if the Dems had picked Hillary and she were president right now you'd be screaming about her and how she needs to be replaced? Oh, because I'm cynical, too!

Conservation Voice wrote:

CynicalBill wrote: I said Hillary would be a lock and a much better pres a long time ago, but Dems are too stupid or stubborn to admit they picked THE MOST UNQUALIFIED out of the bunch. Sometimes more debating and a fair press are a good thing (but a fair press is now impossible).

Why do I think if the Dems had picked Hillary and she were president right now you'd be screaming about her and how she needs to be replaced? Oh, because I'm cynical, too!

I believe Hillary would have at least tried to tackle the biggest problem first...the economy, instead of trying to ram down a ridiculous and unread health care bill she already failed at once before. No, I would still disagree with 90% of her ideology, but there is no way she would spend most of her time campaigning like the thin skinned fool in office now.

You mean the "thin skinned fool in office" now who got Health Care Reform passed when Hillary and Bill couldn't?

You mean the guy who passed it off to Nancy and Harry behind closed doors so that he wouldn't have to be blamed for the garbage buried deep inside? And please show me another president who has complained more about being scutinized than Obama.