Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 19 issues

2016

Gingrich: If Hillary Runs in 2016, Republicans Will Lose

Do you agree?

Next>

by Mary Noble

Senior Editor t +

Image: Politix

During his usual round of Sunday Morning talk shows Gingrich dropped a bombshell. If Hillary runs, "the Republican party is incapable of competing," he announced on NBC's Meet The Press.

"She's very formidable as a person," he lamented. "Trying to win [against] that will be truly the Super Bowl."

On top of her stellar personal qualities, Gingrich notes her status as one half of Billary: "She's married to the most popular Democrat in the country; they both think [it] would be good for her to be president. It makes it virtually impossible to stop her for the nomination."

Gingrich often sets his rhetorical dial to 11, but in this case he may not be exaggerating. 57% of Americans said they'd support Clinton for president in 2016, according to a recent WaPo poll. If Hillary won on that scale it would be a historic victory on a par with Reagan's second-term blowout.

Newt's comments rather beg the question of what Republicans can do about the Hillary phenomenon. Perhaps we can look forward to some dramatic Clinton sabotage attempts once she steps down as Sec. of State.

Via Mediaite and WaPo.
Like this article? B Vote Up
?

How can the GOP best compete with Hillary in 2016?

View results

132 Comments (view in Forum)

  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    Don't you think it's a bit early to know what the results will be if she runs four years from now? Remember, 5 years back conventional thinking was she was gonna win the dem primary...
  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    How can the GOP best compete with Hillary in 2016? Run a true principled conservative. It is the only way. If we run someone who is just a Democrat-lite then people will not see a difference worth attracting them to a different party.

    Conservatives have solutions. Honestly we do, if anyone would ever listen. We just believe it is up to each individual to seize control and responsibility for their own lot in life. We feel it is too much to ask to burden society with each and every need of each and every citizen. We feel society works best with the most people contributing to it, as opposed to when the most people are demanding gifts.

    I will be chastised by many and told I don't know what I'm talking about and that I'm always wrong and that I add nothing to this board. Those that level those charges at me offer no solutions. Instead of them attacking me, I ask what are your solutions? How is it better for society to make society responsible for everyone's happiness instead of expecting an individual to be responsible for their own happiness.

    Clinton can be beaten if we run a true conservative that shows America a path to freedom and prosperity that they can control individually and that no man can take from them. I pray we do nominate and run just such a candidate.
  • woodtick57
    !
    the problem being that the GOP couldn't tell a true conservative from a corncob. look at the last pick of nominee wannabees. the GOP just does not understand what being a conservative means anymore. being radical right is, by definition, not conservative.
  • woodtick57
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix

    Fiscal responsibility. Realizing that not all gov't is bad and that it takes an intelligent look at the use of our collective monies and energies to get a good ROI on them.
  • MBernard
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix I don't know what a conservative is or what it means, but if conservatism was what the GOP had at the 2012 primaries, that's something people should run away from. These guys, in my opinion, are nuts. They have personalities that are strange and they say strange things. Romney? Santorum? Gingrich? Bachman? Perry? And the rest of them. They all need a mental overhaul. And they need to go to school and take a class on how to be normal.
  • woodtick57
    !
    @MBernard No, not by any definition could they have been called conservatives. Romney is fairly conservative, as was Huntsman and to an extent, Pawlenty. The other whackjobs were just that, batspit crazy.

  • Load more replies >

  • CATTLEPROD
    !
    Hillary should win in '16 if she runs. We have lost the country. Kruchscevs dream has been realized. The communists infiltrated the schools in particular and pumped out a few generations of good little socialists who now vote. After obamacare gets everyone by the b**ls and government is deciding for you how many extra value meals per month you are allowed to have, seeing as the cost to the system you are with your cheeseburger veins, then you'll see, then maybe you'll vote republican, but it will be too late, comrade.
  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    I haven't given up hope on the American people just yet. We have a couple more opportunities to turn this thing around in 2014 and 2016. Most states have Republican governors and state legislatures. Also, the majority in the U.S. House are Republicans. All may not be lost just yet. However, we don't have much time and can't afford to waste votes.
  • CATTLEPROD
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix I would love to share your optimism, but govt. always expands its programs, and the wothless lazy set for life types who occupy those positions (Beauracrats) have a union. The only thing I could see with the american people finally waking up would be a gutting of social programs like pulling a band aid off. But the socialist (democratic) party is paying thier voters to make more of themselves at a faster rate than republicans who have to pay for thier offspring. Of course, thats the future dem voters who were lucky enough not to have been tossed into a trash can.
  • woodtick57
    !
    if our country is done it is because. So many people don't know what a communist or a socialist is and can't responsibly do their civic duty of being informed on the issues.
  • CATTLEPROD
    !
    @woodtick57 If socialism is not having my money taken from me, filtered through layers of government workers until it gets to the non-producer I would like to know what it is. What have you been indoctrinated to beleive comrade?
  • woodtick57
    !
    @CATTLEPROD

    that would not be socialism, it would be the blend of capitalism and socialism we have in the US. There has never been a truly capitalistic country.(Well, the first iteration of the US was pretty close and it failed miserably and had to be replaced with our Constitution.

  • Load more replies >

  • PNWest
    !
    That was the most beautiful sentiment I've seen expressed in a long, long time. You are a truly sensitive poetic soul kirbstomp1. I salute you.
  • ACTSmom
    !
    Hillary should have been the nominee in 2008 instead of Obama, but...if she chooses to run in 2016, she'll still have all the Democrats and a lot of the Independents. Don't think the Republicans have anyone who can compete with her. Actually, the republicans need to start grooming several for the potential job of President, but I'm thinking by 2016, we'll be socialist and a conservative, capitalist won't have a chance anyway. The majority will like the idea.
  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    I would agree with you, it appears that the majority prefers socialism. However, unions are bankrupting this country. Socialism is an unsustainable concept. I say we still need to groom a true conservative to run in 2016 and we have a great shot at winning. After the economy is still in the tank from 8 years of obama, people will realize that giving the Democrats more time is not the solution.
  • PNWest
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix ".... the economy is still in the tank from .... obama" - HAHAHAHAHA Good one! DJIA when GW Bush was installed: 1/20/01 10,587.59, DJIA when Obama was inagurated: 1/20/09 7,949.09, DJIA as of COB Friday: 13,155.13.
    Hopefully you guys will run Santorum. Santorum is truly representative of the modern republican party.
  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    @PNWest - Why is unemployment so high? G.W. had us at 4%, obama has us at 7.7%(if you believe the numbers weren't fudged). Explain to us the difference there.
  • PNWest
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix When GW Bush left office unemployment was 7.8%, it is currently 7.7%. For the last 4 years the GOP has made it the party's #1 priority to see to it that Obama would be a one term president. They failed in that but have done everything in their power to obstruct the president at the expense of the American public. Even with this obstruction the unemployment rate is lower now than it was when Obama took office.

  • Load more replies >

  • cwi530
    !
    2012? Well she didn't so what does that mean? Politix needs a proofreader? There's plenty of college grads looking for work. And they've already been indoctrinated in liberalism so they're ready to work :)

    Seriously, everything will be very different after four more years of Obama. With a predicted debt of $25 trillion and real unemployment at over 20% it's hard to say what will happen.

    If the "news"media and Democrat love fest sours they could be in for a world of hurt. Can you say third party.
  • LoveHasNo82
    !
    I think that should Hillary run in 2016 there is no way that the Republican party is going to be able to win that race. They would have to really come outside of the little box they have in closed themselves into. I think something that is going to come back to bite the Republican party is going to be the comments that were made after the 2010 elections. The fact that you had a party that come out and said the main goal was to make sure that Obama was a one term President is something that I think is going to come back to haunt them in the 2014 election cycle. If Hillary were to run she would have 2 of the most popular Democratic Presidents at her side. If she were to win by as much as they say she would if the election were held today. It would be a really bad thing for the Republican party they would have to come out and make an effort to invite more people into the party. I think they are making some changes that may help. The fact that they are trying to reach out to the LGBT Americans is a huge step. If you look at the numbers from election night this part of the electorate make up about 5 percent of the population. I know that sounds like a small number but they went for the President 76 percent to 23 percent for Romney/Ryan. This is something that I think as well as most people whom have studied in this field could have been a game changer for the out come of this election. I think they they are going to have to be more open to the idea of women because they tend to out number me. They also tend to show up at the polls. This party has alot on the line I think they have seen after this election they are going to have to pander to other people other than White men. I don't think there are to many people whom have studied in this field that would disagree with anytime if much of what I have said. I think they they need to come together to work to move America forward. I think that if they can't well maybe they shouldn't get paid. I mean really whom do you know how can go to work and not do a job that you were hired for and still have a job?
  • crusader
    !
    Either this is an old story or they need to proofread their bylines. AS the 2012 race is over, I know inside the text of the article said 2016 but the byline says if she runs in 2012..
  • Jean
    !
    it will take a conservative like Rick Santorum coupled with a VP like Allen West to bring out the Republican base that stayed home during the last election. I cannot believe that poll on Hillary with what happened in Benghazi. If the American people are that stupid on that topic they will get what they deserve.
  • Jean
    !
    @woodtick57 God's will be done. He may want to let the left ruin this country and stand back and watch....and then say I allowed you to have what you wanted just as I have in the past when you wanted "kings".
  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    @Jean - Some people just don't understand that a large part of our fiscal crisis has to do with our social problems. When a child is raised by a baby momma and a welfare check, that child is likely to grow up to be a burden on society. A child raised by a loving mother and father is likely to grow up to be independent and productive and an asset to society. The left tries to drown out any message of personal responsibility and leading a clean and straight life. Go to school, go to church, work hard, get married before having children, etc, etc. These are simple principles that don't hurt anyone and would help to lower government dependency and therefore lower our national debt. So sad that a message like this is labeled as loony.

    Jean, don't let the left censor you. Continue to speak the truth, while we still can.
  • woodtick57
    !
    @Jean

    Mythical creations have no influence o the real world. Hence the absolute lack of even a shred of evidence that even suggests there ever was a god, gods. Or goddesses.
  • woodtick57
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix

    Yet religion has absolutely nothing to do with any of the moral problems we have in our country. Religion has nothing to do with morals at all, except producing some of the worst moral guides ever, like the bible...

  • Load more replies >

  • NO-BAMA
    !
    Nothing but a continuation of the liberal agenda of "redistribution" of "other peoples" wealth and destruction of the constitution. The jealous and contemptuous of the successful will love to have "hilarious" and "slick willy" in the white house. What freebies will she offer for votes? Will we see full amnesty and completely open boarders while the legal American citizen pays more of their earned money for them to be here?
  • twinertia
    !
    She'll pull closer to sixty-four (64%) percent, once all the moderates and independents check their wind gauges. Of course, she'll be no closer to spackling the dam than Mr. Obama was.
  • PNWest
    !
    I'm glad to see the numerous conservative posters here that are acknowledging the inevitability of a GOP loss in 2016. Facing a small truth is the first step to recovery. Next up will be admitting that Obama was born in the USA. Then that GW Bush was responsible for cratering the economy and starting 2 unnecessary wars. After that we'll work on understanding that like Bush Sr. said trickle down economics is nothing but Voodoo Economics designed to cut taxes for those who don't need it. Pretty soon you'll be inhabiting the real world like the rest of us.
  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    I disagree with everything you said. The GOP lost only because we ran a Democrat-lite candidate. Had we picked a true principled conservative we would have easily gotten 60% of the vote. You better hope that Christie or someone like him gets the Republican nomination 2016 or it's lights out for your party.
  • PNWest
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix "Had we picked a true principled conservative" - Sorry Neo, I don't think Satan is a natural born citizen. I'm glad to see you are already rationalizing Christie's loss in 2016. That's a step forward :)
  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    @PNWest - I'm not rationalizing Christie's loss, I don't even think he'll run. I think we'll get our heads together and nominate someone who is truly conservative and can convey to the American public how self accountability is an asset not a curse.
  • woodtick57
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix

    Hardly a democrat lite. Romney was the most conservative candidate after huntsman left the race. The others were so far right as to not be conservative any more.
  • woodtick57
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix

    But the GOP keeps rejecting real conservatives. The only reason Romney was able to beat back all the far right whackjobs was his 8 years of compaigning and billions of dollars.

  • Load more replies >

  • DARSB
    !
    A Hillary run makes for a pretty little conundrum for the GOP establishment. On the one hand, they have lengthy oppo research files on the SoS - she's been in public life since the 1970's after all. On the other hand, I can't think of a better way to revive the "Republican war on women" meme than a series of SuperPAC attack ads on a senior woman.
  • Malitia_Man
    !
    The only way the the Neo-con Republicans will win is if they run a liberty minded libertarian who is a lot like Ron Paul, but a lot younger and wittier!!! Someone who can connect with the young vote, like Ron Paul, but be able to convince them to vote! He/she will have to attack Hillary on her communistic personality and be able to make liberty a more likable concept, other than the "post liberty" socialistic Nazi Nanny-state paradigm that Hillary will most likely be running on!!!

    It will be tough, but liberty will prevail! That's if we aren't in martial law by the time of the next election!
  • woodtick57
    !
    Ron Paul dd not lose because he was old and not witty, he got no support from sane people as his platfrm proposals were proven to not work before he was even born. Most people know that nad that is why he is going nowhere.
  • Vance1
    !
    We borrow 42 cents of every dollar Washington spends today

    Our Children and Grand children surely wont have the same America that we all had

    What a shame!!!
  • David944
    !
    I saw Chuck Schumer on tv today. The democrats are not going to tell any voter, no we can’t afford it. If the Republicans concentrate on maintaining the integrity of the constitution and let obama have his way. Let obama and the dems make the tough decisions if they can there is a chance people will see socialism for what it is.
  • R Load more comments...