I hate to disagree with Zip, but I don't think she's electable.
That may change if the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot with the '14 mid term congressional election, or worse, they get a supermajority and waste it like the Dems did in '10.
But, as long as O'Bozo keeps his hand on the economy and it remains where it's at and has been, I don't think the Dems could run Bill Clinton (Currently polling as the most popular Democrat) again and win.
And if the Republicans get smart, provide some answers to the problems the country faces, and then act on them between '14 and '16, they can almost run a Ham Sandwich and get it elected.
Another reason the Dems probably won't be successful in '16 is Hillary (at this time) is their "ONLY" candidate or at least the only one they're touting. Hillary has three closets and they're all full of skeletons. As the wife of Bill, the President, there was "Hillarycare' and then "Billarycare" (The impeachment trials). Then her stint in the Senate where she was far less than remarkable. Finally, as her rewarded position as O'Bozo's Secretary of State. A total washout with Benghazi as her leaving legacy.
Then the fact that Hillary is a stone Socialist and has said as much in many of her speeches when she was running against O'Bozo, and there you have it. I'd love to see her and Palin on the same stage and debate the country's problems. "GIRL FIGHT!" And Hillary would leave with her wide ass in tatters!
Of course, there's the caveat that the Republicans will (or could) run somebody who has all the charisma of Mitt Romney or John McCain, which makes getting elected for dog catcher a challenge. And they could do just that. They've been terrifically successful at it up to this point!
As for the coming question . . Of course a Ham Sandwich is/was better than either McCain or Romney!
I don't don't think the old line politicians are going to be very popular in the next two elections. The voters may not be getting smarter but even the dumbest are beginning to recognize deep bullsh*t when they hear it or see it! . . .
On Soros' and Bloomberg. In Colorado we have another Amendment coming up in the election, concerning changing the state income tax into a progressive system, in order to add a tax for (Here it comes) "Education". People with incomes above $75k will receive increases in their state income taxes and there's two more increases above that set amount. It also skirts the TABOR laws as it enables the legislators to change those rates as they see fit.
The reason I bring that up, is that this will be the second issue that Bloomberg and the Democrats have thrown large amounts of money at and in the first instance (The recalls) they were unsuccessful. To date, on Amendment 66 (the one cited above) there has been over $10 million put up by the unions, the Democrats and Mr. Bloomberg. Those donations were not for the better education of Colorado Students, but for the ability to skirt other Colorado Constitutional issues regarding income taxes on the individual. Literally, it is another attempt to "Tax the Rich" and then make everyone "Rich" by legislative decree.
I might add, the selling point is that Colorado is at the bottom of the results list when graduating students or in counting the drop outs. Throwing money at the system will not solve the problems that either Colorado or the other 24 states that share those bottom rungs face on educating their kids. It's the way the teaching system works, not the money spent on it . .
Let me add this. Currently, in Colorado, a full ONE THIRD of the tax money spent by the State every year goes towards "EDUCATION", and we get the dismal results we continue to get. More money isn't going to make Colorado smarter, just "Broker" . . .