Preparing for 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton embracing Obama

[snarky66]

I knew barry was pretty great. But I never knew he saved the world. Next he should save the whales. After out of office he can save the galaxy. Worst president in US history by far.

Edited April 2, 2015 by snarky66

[NeverSure]

Yes of course. The last time a Republican was president, 30% of the population died of starvation. (Yawn.)

Uh, the national debt will have about doubled from about 10 tril to about $20 tril while Obama's been in office. Yeah, it was only about $10 tril when Obama took office. Now, you can blame that on past presidents if you wish, but after 8 years I hope Obama will be understood to be responsible for his own presidency.

Yawn.

Correction.

Obama not only inherited 10 trillion debt but also the interest on that too.

Let's allocate about 16 trillion to Bush. Ok

Then Obama had to save the world form economic calamity and wind down those stupid wars bush got us into.

Almost all of the debt is owned by the previous administration.

Thankfully the US economy is booming, the economic crisis averted, housing and jobs have recovered, deficit going down at record rates, wars over.

The republicans better not mention the economy in the next election. Are you better off than you were 6 years ago? 5555

Al they have are fake scandals and a fake news channel.

You forgot to tell me how during the last Republican president, 30% of the population starved to death.

Interest rates have been at historic lows and sometimes negative.

Obama is responsible for his own administration.

[gudtymchuk]

That's in the unlikely event that Hillary is not under indictment by the time the primaries start. To say that she is crooked is a wild understatement. I liked the guy that called her Hill the shrill. Purrrrrfect.

Not likely Mssss. Clinton will be indicted before the next general election as that would require the action of slimy Liberal Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder in a skirt. But going down in flames after a long, shrill and agonizing campaign and watching here fellow liberals squirm in agony almost as satisfying.

[JakeSully]

What else do you call cutting food stamps/ medicaid/ medicare on the poor and asking them to pay 35% income tax as a fair tax on everyone while deregulating the big banks and giving tax loopholes to the rich and corporations?

What will be the long term impact of this and privatizing social security?

Obama is responsible for his own actions?? well did he start the war in iraq? No and if he wants to, Sarah Palin and Tom Cotton say that's waving a white flag of surrender. Wars cost money. Maybe you should tell your GOP candidates then before they go acting like the worlds police since you want to pay your fair share of taxes.

P.S. I think this discussion is pointless since you're just going to rant regardless. I'm happy that Obama is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I'm proud I voted for him TWICE because I got a lot of things I wanted under Obama I never did under Bush.

Edited April 2, 2015 by JakeSully

[NeverSure]

There have been several such cases recently, one involving Karl Rogue Rove who refused to testify before a House committee and got off the hook because then Speaker Pelosi decided not to send the Sergeant and his posse to the White House to apprehend him for disposition to the Capitol Building dungeon.

I deleted most of your trivia.

You mistake the separation of powers of the executive branch with a private citizen. You mention Carl Rove but brush over the fact that the House didn't find contempt and there was nothing to pursue.

Congress can file a complaint with the Attorney General of DC, not Holder and that person must pursue it. A grand jury decides.

You are great at copy/pasting. Just try to make it relevant and material.

[jamesjohnsonthird]

Yes of course. The last time a Republican was president, 30% of the population died of starvation. (Yawn.)

Uh, the national debt will have about doubled from about 10 tril to about $20 tril while Obama's been in office. Yeah, it was only about $10 tril when Obama took office. Now, you can blame that on past presidents if you wish, but after 8 years I hope Obama will be understood to be responsible for his own presidency.

Yawn.

Correction.

Obama not only inherited 10 trillion debt but also the interest on that too.

Let's allocate about 16 trillion to Bush. Ok

Then Obama had to save the world form economic calamity and wind down those stupid wars bush got us into.

Almost all of the debt is owned by the previous administration.

Thankfully the US economy is booming, the economic crisis averted, housing and jobs have recovered, deficit going down at record rates, wars over.

The republicans better not mention the economy in the next election. Are you better off than you were 6 years ago? 5555

Al they have are fake scandals and a fake news channel.

You forgot to tell me how during the last Republican president, 30% of the population starved to death.

Interest rates have been at historic lows and sometimes negative.

Obama is responsible for his own administration.

Starving? I didn't mention that but suppose it's true. 30% seems high though.

People were SUFFERING,... that was a fact. Remember 2008?

800,000 job losses a month! when Bush left, people being evicted from their homes by the millions, fighting unethical wars and getting maimed or killed. Stock market and retirement accounts getting crushed by 60%. Retirees were jumping off roofs!

I guess you could say people were starving. Yes. Starving / suffering and committing suicide.

I think Obama can take responsibility for his administration as you suggested...

for ending 2 wars, killing Bin Laden, reversing worldwide economic collapse/depression, save the housing crisis, saved jobs, slashed unemployment 50%, tripled the retirement accounts, reduced dependence on foreign oil, forced 7 million deadbeats into purchasing health insurance, reducing the deficit at record rates, got the Iranians to stop the nuke program, spanked Putin, lowered gasoline prices, promoted the environment, lowered crime.

Thats a pretty good record from a supposed American hating, socialist, communist, Muslim, illegal alien running the white house. eh?

Edited April 2, 2015 by jamesjohnsonthird

[JakeSully]

People were SUFFERING,... that was a fact. Remember 2008?

800,000 job losses a month! when Bush left, people being evicted from their homes by the millions, fighting unethical wars and getting maimed or killed. Stock market and retirement accounts getting crushed by 60%. Retirees were jumping off roofs!

I guess you could say people were starving. Yes. Starving / suffering and committing suicide.

I think Obama can take responsibility for his administration as you suggested...

for ending 2 wars, killing Bin Laden, reversing worldwide economic collapse/depression, save the housing crisis, saved jobs, slashed unemployment 50%, tripled the retirement accounts, reduced dependence on foreign oil, forced 7 million deadbeats into purchasing health insurance, reducing the deficit at record rates, got the Iranians to stop the nuke program, spanked Putin, lowered gasoline prices, promoted the environment, lowered crime.

Thats a pretty good record from a supposed American hating, socialist, communist, Muslim, illegal alien running the white house. eh?

The funny thing is if they undo everything Obama has done, the people it will hurt the most are the people who vote for the GOP.. look at Kentucky.. what is the white population % there and how many are on food stamps/ obamacare? But no Obama is a terrorist muslim communist dictator who will nuke them. This is just pure kool-aid hate and nothing else.

You can't reason with them, they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Like I said before.. what is the GOP's answer on..

Healthcare? None.. let the poor die

Social Security? None.. people should save up or die

Food stamps? Let the poor starve

Education? No standardized tests.. God created Earth and Adam and Eve. If anyone's not Adam and Eve Kill them.

Gay Rights? Read above

Human Rights? What human rights? Anyone not white GTFO out of my country and go back where you came from.

Equal Pay for Women? Women can suffer

Abortion from Rape? The woman can suffer

Deficit? blah blah blah, but when a gop'er is in office (reagan, bush, bush) we need deficits

Defense? We need more wars to create jobs

Taking care of our Vets? Uhh VA is not worth giving a penny out of a dollar. Let them die from their PTSD

Telling people the truth? We had faulty intel from the CIA

Bin Ladin? somewhere in a cave in tora bora still.. along with Obama's kenyan birth certificate and bengazi's emails

Edited April 2, 2015 by JakeSully

[Publicus]

There have been several such cases recently, one involving Karl Rogue Rove who refused to testify before a House committee and got off the hook because then Speaker Pelosi decided not to send the Sergeant and his posse to the White House to apprehend him for disposition to the Capitol Building dungeon.

I deleted most of your trivia.

You mistake the separation of powers of the executive branch with a private citizen. You mention Carl Rove but brush over the fact that the House didn't find contempt and there was nothing to pursue.

Congress can file a complaint with the Attorney General of DC, not Holder and that person must pursue it. A grand jury decides.

You are great at copy/pasting. Just try to make it relevant and material.

What you call a mistake is in fact your error, because people talking about Congress indicting anyone do not know enough to correct themselves. That is an error, in contrast to a mistake. A mistake is something one can self-correct. When one is in error, one cannot self-correct. You need to and must be corrected by others. That is because you are in error.

I said the Congress can arrest HRC. That is what I said, period. Oh, I also said I'd want to see that.

DoJ decides whether to indict on a referral of a contempt of the congress citation. It's not automatic. Nothing in the Constitution or in the United States Code of Laws says the Attorney General must indict on a contempt of the congress citation.

I'd pointed out DoJ just this week announced no further action against the IRS supervisor Lois Lerner. Ms Lerner had been cited in a House contempt of the congress maximus resolution. The resolution was referred to DoJ for further action. No further action is the DoJ unilateral decision. This is the DoJ prerogative.

The DoJ announcement of its decision made this week, incidentally, is good timing due to the points concerning indictment the lunar right are raising right now about HRC. Only DoJ can indict. HRC will not be indicted, as at least one orbital hard core right poster on your side has indeed also pointed out.

The few who continue to believe otherwise have now been corrected. The posts about indictment are flippant and inane nonsense that are completely and entirely out of contact with the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The claims are based in and from the lunar soil.

[sdanielmcev]

The Attorneys General of Washington D.C. prosecutes what? I know pubicus tells lots a lies, but that one is a whopper!

[NeverSure]

The Attorneys General of Washington D.C. prosecutes what? I know pubicus tells lots a lies, but that one is a whopper!

Publicus mistakenly believes that in the case of a private citizen, the DOJ would handle it.

The truth is that contempt of Congress is a federal crime under the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. The US Attorney for DC would be required to handle a charge brought by Congress, and bring it in Federal Court for DC like any other federal crime.

Publicus appears to believe that the separation of powers would apply here but that's true only if the charged is an employee of the Executive Branch. Clinton is a civilian regarding the withholding and destruction of emails. She would be charged in a regular DC Federal Court just like any other citizen who committed a federal crime in the jurisdiction of DC.

"Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_congress

Note: "Appearing" can mean a lot of things including sending items lawfully requested.

Edited April 3, 2015 by NeverSure

[NeverSure]

It might be worth noting that Nixon wasn't impeached for the Watergate break in. He was impeached for his actions (and lack of them) before Congress during the investigation. Hillary Clinton and Publicus might take note of that since Publicus, her attorney, believes that nothing serious has been done to anyone for actions before Congress. It could be a fatal mistake to believe that Congress can't drop the hammer.

"On this day in 1974, the House of Representatives charges President Richard M. Nixon with the first of three articles of impeachment for obstruction of justice after he refused to release White House tape recordings that contained crucial information regarding the Watergate scandal." LINK

[Publicus]

The Attorneys General of Washington D.C. prosecutes what? I know pubicus tells lots a lies, but that one is a whopper!

Publicus mistakenly believes that in the case of a private citizen, the DOJ would handle it.

The truth is that contempt of Congress is a federal crime under the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. The US Attorney for DC would be required to handle a charge brought by Congress, and bring it in Federal Court for DC like any other federal crime.

Publicus appears to believe that the separation of powers would apply here but that's true only if the charged is an employee of the Executive Branch. Clinton is a civilian regarding the withholding and destruction of emails. She would be charged in a regular DC Federal Court just like any other citizen.

"Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_congress

The US Attorney for DC would be required to handle a charge brought by Congress, and bring it in Federal Court for DC like any other federal crime.

The United States Attorney works for the United States Department of Justice.

The Attorney General of the United States is the boss of the DoJ and all United States Attorneys, each and every one of 'em assigned to work with each United States District Court. all 94 of 'em, US Attorneys.

Prosecution is not required, not mandated, not compulsory.....prosecutorial discretion and all of that.

Prosecutorial discretion was just used this week in the Lois Lerner contempt of congress case case the DoJ has now put on the shelf forever. That one went to the US Attorney for DC, yes. Then it went up the line to his boss, the Attorney General.

DoJ is not pursuing the Lerner contempt citation because it does not have to pursue it, and because it has decided the case is a worthless waste of time and taxpayer money, not to mention the lady's reputation.

You're on a wild goose chase dude.

Give it up.

[jamesjohnsonthird]

Desperate conservatives. What a bunch of Bozos.

There only hope at winning the presidency now is having Hillary arrested on some trumped up charge?

What's going on here? Are they attempting to mimic the Thai system?

[Publicus]

The Attorneys General of Washington D.C. prosecutes what? I know pubicus tells lots a lies, but that one is a whopper!

Publicus mistakenly believes that in the case of a private citizen, the DOJ would handle it.

The truth is that contempt of Congress is a federal crime under the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. The US Attorney for DC would be required to handle a charge brought by Congress, and bring it in Federal Court for DC like any other federal crime.

Publicus appears to believe that the separation of powers would apply here but that's true only if the charged is an employee of the Executive Branch. Clinton is a civilian regarding the withholding and destruction of emails. She would be charged in a regular DC Federal Court just like any other citizen who committed a federal crime in the jurisdiction of DC.

"Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_congress

Note: "Appearing" can mean a lot of things including sending items lawfully requested.

Impeachment is off the table because HRC does not hold federal office, but since you're not going to stop I'd have to say to keep trying.

Now, back to the post above.....

Alas, it has been quite some time since a house of Congress sent its sergeant-at-arms trolling the streets of Washington for wrongdoers. Under current federal law, it's a criminal offense to refuse to appear before Congress when summoned or to commit perjury before a congressional committee. Such offenders are supposed to be prosecuted by U.S. attorneys. But that's exactly the problem with regard to the DoJ-related subpoenas—the people getting the subpoenas and the people enforcing them all work for the same boss.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2007/04/house_arrest.html

They work for the Attorney General.

The AG works for the president.

Case closed.

[chuckd]

NS:

What they seem to be saying is that unless Obama signs off on it, the Attorney General will take no action.

They bring charges against those that oppose them and let slide those that don't.

That's the way Chicago politics work.

[Publicus]

NS:

What they seem to be saying is that unless Obama signs off on it, the Attorney General will take no action.

They bring charges against those that oppose them and let slide those that don't.

That's the way Chicago politics work.

Prosecutoral discretion.

It works both ways.

Which why it works.

Bush did it with Condoleezza Rice who declined to appear to testify to the Congress, as did Karl Rogue Rove avoid testifying before congress without consequence, as did Bush White House Counsel Harriet Miers who also became a SCOTUS unsuccessful nominee, and a few others in the Bush-Cheney lineup of the usual suspects.

Read all about it....

http://www.slate.com...use_arrest.html

[jamesjohnsonthird]

NS:

What they seem to be saying is that unless Obama signs off on it, the Attorney General will take no action.

They bring charges against those that oppose them and let slide those that don't.

That's the way Chicago politics work.

So now he is a Chicago Gangster too?

Whoa! Lets update the list.

Our is president a liberal, socialist, communist, muslim, america hating, border jumping, illegal alien, gay, terrorist, racist, thief, traitor, mafia guy from Chicago.

Edited April 3, 2015 by jamesjohnsonthird

[NeverSure]

The US Attorney for DC would be required to handle a charge brought by Congress, and bring it in Federal Court for DC like any other federal crime.

The United States Attorney works for the United States Department of Justice.

The Attorney General of the United States is the boss of the DoJ and all United States Attorneys, each and every one of 'em assigned to work with each United States District Court. all 94 of 'em, US Attorneys.

Prosecution is not required, not mandated, not compulsory.....prosecutorial discretion and all of that.

Prosecutorial discretion was just used this week in the Lois Lerner contempt of congress case case the DoJ has now put on the shelf forever. That one went to the US Attorney for DC, yes. Then it went up the line to his boss, the Attorney General.

DoJ is not pursuing the Lerner contempt citation because it does not have to pursue it, and because it has decided the case is a worthless waste of time and taxpayer money, not to mention the lady's reputation.

You're on a wild goose chase dude.

Give it up.

You are so happily, droningly wrong.

Lerner's case wasn't "prosecutorial discretion." It was decided that she has a right to remain silent. The debate was on points of law.

Congress claimed she was required to testify but she claimed the 5th. Her right to the fifth was upheld by the DoJ and no one would think that was biased now, would he? Congress made a good argument that she had waived her right to the fifth but the DoJ protected their own gal.

NOW you seem to think that Obama and his minions would protect Hillary too.

I'm going to take your advice and give it up because nothing gets through to you even as I correct you.

Cheers

[Publicus]

The US Attorney for DC would be required to handle a charge brought by Congress, and bring it in Federal Court for DC like any other federal crime.

The United States Attorney works for the United States Department of Justice.

The Attorney General of the United States is the boss of the DoJ and all United States Attorneys, each and every one of 'em assigned to work with each United States District Court. all 94 of 'em, US Attorneys.

Prosecution is not required, not mandated, not compulsory.....prosecutorial discretion and all of that.

Prosecutorial discretion was just used this week in the Lois Lerner contempt of congress case case the DoJ has now put on the shelf forever. That one went to the US Attorney for DC, yes. Then it went up the line to his boss, the Attorney General.

DoJ is not pursuing the Lerner contempt citation because it does not have to pursue it, and because it has decided the case is a worthless waste of time and taxpayer money, not to mention the lady's reputation.

You're on a wild goose chase dude.

Give it up.

You are so happily, droningly wrong.

Lerner's case wasn't "prosecutorial discretion." It was decided that she has a right to remain silent. The debate was on points of law.

Congress claimed she was required to testify but she claimed the 5th. Her right to the fifth was upheld by the DoJ and no one would think that was biased now, would he? Congress made a good argument that she had waived her right to the fifth but the DoJ protected their own gal.

NOW you seem to think that Obama and his minions would protect Hillary too.

I'm going to take your advice and give it up because nothing gets through to you even as I correct you.

Cheers

There will be no indictment of HRC by the congress because the congress has no authority to indict.

No Justice Department indictment of HRC either due to prosecutoral discretion or for other reasons, such as invoking the Fifth Amendment to refuse to answer questions is inviolate, sacred, absolute, as we see yet again in the current instance of Lois Lerner, who is now as free as a bird.

There's also lotsa precedent to not appear before a committee of the Congress Maximus and have no legal consequence visited upon you. Do take note of the point.

[snarky66]

A lot of people lose sight of the fact that Hillary Clinton was working for us. We paid her salary. She is accountable to us. Stuff like the homebrew server is just so outrageous. It is an insult to the people who paid her salary. She broke many laws. hopefully someday she'll be held to account. Then she deliberately destroyed evidence after receiving a subpoena. But this is the culture of arrogance for anyone connected to this White House. Haughty contemptuous better than anyone else. Smarter than anyone else. The thuggish administration.

[Publicus]

The far right is returning to the old lines because the new fabrications of more spicy and a hotter political spam are already going cold and collapsing like a cheap souffle.

[gudtymchuk]

Nice cut and past publicus.... You learn that in an O'Zombie conference?

All your empirical data aside facts paint a clearer picture. Three decidedly Democratic states—namely Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland elected Republican governors. Republicans gubernatorial candidates won in other blue states, like Michigan and Wisconsin. And Republicans came close to winning in Connecticut, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Seven states that haven’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate in at least twenty-six years (Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Wisconsin) will have Republican governors. New Mexico, a Blue Hispanic state elected a Conservative Republican (former Democrat) female, Suzana Martinez in 2010. Some have tagged her as a possible VP nominee.

These seven states have had elected Republican US senators serve a combined 64 years in office since 1995, or just 22 percent of the time for all 14 US Senate seats. Thirty-eight of those years can be attributed to William Cohen, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe of Maine. Republican US senators have only been in office less than 17 percent of the time in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wisconsin. New Jersey and Maryland haven’t had an elected Republican senator since 1979 and 1987, respectively. These states certainly are a dark shade of blue. Yet they’ve had Republican governors for 44 percent of the time. If you don’t include Maryland, it’s half the time.

Again, not speculative haphazard circumstances but a trend. You can cut-n-paste op-ed spin from your favorite left wing mags and blogs, and speculate to your hearts content but that doesn't change the political environment your girl is jumping into.

Oh Hillary, run baby, run!!

Nice cut and past publicus.... You learn that in an O'Zombie conference?

Swing and a miss, strike threee....now grab some bench.

And Republicans came close to winning.....

Close only counts in hand grenades and horse shoes, and the discussion is zero-sum, win-lose elections and the R's are down for the count.

The Republican governors in the post, and the Republican senators also, are not Ted Cruz Republicans, nor are they Mike Huckabee Republicans....nor are they Mitch Daniels Republicans....among the long list of dinosaurs currently before the public for all to see. The traditional and conventional Eastern Republicans named in the post have their legacy carried forward by Staten Island Borough of NYC Republican Congressman Peter King, who had this to say......

GOP Rep. Peter King dismisses Ted Cruz as 'carnival barker'

Rep. Peter King called Sen. Ted Cruz a "big mouth" who "basically led the Republican Party over the cliff" and dismissed Sen. Rand Paul as an "isolationist" on Monday as he said their party should ignore those two candidates for its 2016 presidential nomination.

King's sharpest comments were directed at Cruz.

"To me, he's a guy with a big mouth and no results," the New York Republican told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview on "The Situation Room."

"We have very, very complex issues facing the country today, and he goes out of his way to oversimplify," King said of Cruz. "Ted Cruz may be an intelligent person, but he doesn't carry out an intelligent debate. He oversimplifies, he exaggerates ... he doesn't provide leadership and he has no real experience."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/politics/peter-king-ted-cruz-carnival/

Almost all of the Republicans named in the post are this kind of Republican.

Olympia Snowe of Maine, for instance, left the Senate after she was manhandled by all other Republicans because of her vote in Committee for Obamacare. A moderate and calm voice and vote in the Senate, Snowe was so abused and 'punished' by her colleagues/thugs that she announced she would not seek a fourth term which had been assured. The direct consequence was the election as her successor of the Independent former governor, Angus King, who caucuses and votes with the Democrats and stayed with the Ds even after last November's election. We don't call 'em 'Mainiacs' up there for nuthin

There are people who need to learn who it is they are referring to when they start naming Republican names, their records in government, their reputations. There's not a Rick Santorum in the bunch, nothing like a Santorum or anywhere near a Santorum, or a Cruz, a Paul, or in this day and age, a Jeb Bush who was for the new Indiana law before he wuz against it.

My native state is among the states named in the post and I've voted for a good number of Republicans for state office, but Republican for prez only once, which is a pattern among the voters of almost all of the states mentioned in the post.

As for Scott Walker out there in Wisconsin, the state has a long history of Republican governors, such as Tommy Thompson among others, yet Wisconsin votes the D for prez. The entire thesis of the post is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Nothing, not one single sylible in this post or previous post is based on fact. Just regurgitated liberal drivel which only confirms that you certainly spend a fair amount of cuddle time with your fellow lefties Rachael Maddow, Chris Mathews and other spin merchant Obama apologist from the media. You have failed to show any FACTUAL evidence to refute the voting trend from the last two election cycles. As I previously posted Obama walked into the White House with a stacked Congress. Obama and his cronies, (which includes Hillary), set a liberal agenda so far to the left the voters revolted resulting in the loss of both houses of congress in successive elections. The Democrat party lost a total of 85 seats between the House and the Senate in the course of 3 elections. Never has a President and his policies been trounced like that. That's a fact. Look it up, if you dare.

Your girl Hillary, tho she bailed, is still part of that historic loss. She knows it, the public knows it and the truth will bear that out in the next general election. Now go back, memorize some more liberal propaganda as it appears facts have escaped your sense of reality.

LUV Ya Hillary, run baby, run.

[Jingthing]

Enough with the Run Baby Run schtick.

You think that sounds scary or something?

[brling]

Nice cut and past publicus.... You learn that in an O'Zombie conference?

All your empirical data aside facts paint a clearer picture. Three decidedly Democratic states—namely Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland elected Republican governors. Republicans gubernatorial candidates won in other blue states, like Michigan and Wisconsin. And Republicans came close to winning in Connecticut, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Seven states that haven’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate in at least twenty-six years (Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Wisconsin) will have Republican governors. New Mexico, a Blue Hispanic state elected a Conservative Republican (former Democrat) female, Suzana Martinez in 2010. Some have tagged her as a possible VP nominee.

These seven states have had elected Republican US senators serve a combined 64 years in office since 1995, or just 22 percent of the time for all 14 US Senate seats. Thirty-eight of those years can be attributed to William Cohen, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe of Maine. Republican US senators have only been in office less than 17 percent of the time in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wisconsin. New Jersey and Maryland haven’t had an elected Republican senator since 1979 and 1987, respectively. These states certainly are a dark shade of blue. Yet they’ve had Republican governors for 44 percent of the time. If you don’t include Maryland, it’s half the time.

Again, not speculative haphazard circumstances but a trend. You can cut-n-paste op-ed spin from your favorite left wing mags and blogs, and speculate to your hearts content but that doesn't change the political environment your girl is jumping into.

Oh Hillary, run baby, run!!

Nice cut and past publicus.... You learn that in an O'Zombie conference?

Swing and a miss, strike threee....now grab some bench.

And Republicans came close to winning.....

Close only counts in hand grenades and horse shoes, and the discussion is zero-sum, win-lose elections and the R's are down for the count.

The Republican governors in the post, and the Republican senators also, are not Ted Cruz Republicans, nor are they Mike Huckabee Republicans....nor are they Mitch Daniels Republicans....among the long list of dinosaurs currently before the public for all to see. The traditional and conventional Eastern Republicans named in the post have their legacy carried forward by Staten Island Borough of NYC Republican Congressman Peter King, who had this to say......

GOP Rep. Peter King dismisses Ted Cruz as 'carnival barker'

Rep. Peter King called Sen. Ted Cruz a "big mouth" who "basically led the Republican Party over the cliff" and dismissed Sen. Rand Paul as an "isolationist" on Monday as he said their party should ignore those two candidates for its 2016 presidential nomination.

King's sharpest comments were directed at Cruz.

"To me, he's a guy with a big mouth and no results," the New York Republican told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview on "The Situation Room."

"We have very, very complex issues facing the country today, and he goes out of his way to oversimplify," King said of Cruz. "Ted Cruz may be an intelligent person, but he doesn't carry out an intelligent debate. He oversimplifies, he exaggerates ... he doesn't provide leadership and he has no real experience."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/politics/peter-king-ted-cruz-carnival/

Almost all of the Republicans named in the post are this kind of Republican.

Olympia Snowe of Maine, for instance, left the Senate after she was manhandled by all other Republicans because of her vote in Committee for Obamacare. A moderate and calm voice and vote in the Senate, Snowe was so abused and 'punished' by her colleagues/thugs that she announced she would not seek a fourth term which had been assured. The direct consequence was the election as her successor of the Independent former governor, Angus King, who caucuses and votes with the Democrats and stayed with the Ds even after last November's election. We don't call 'em 'Mainiacs' up there for nuthin

There are people who need to learn who it is they are referring to when they start naming Republican names, their records in government, their reputations. There's not a Rick Santorum in the bunch, nothing like a Santorum or anywhere near a Santorum, or a Cruz, a Paul, or in this day and age, a Jeb Bush who was for the new Indiana law before he wuz against it.

My native state is among the states named in the post and I've voted for a good number of Republicans for state office, but Republican for prez only once, which is a pattern among the voters of almost all of the states mentioned in the post.

As for Scott Walker out there in Wisconsin, the state has a long history of Republican governors, such as Tommy Thompson among others, yet Wisconsin votes the D for prez. The entire thesis of the post is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Nothing, not one single sylible in this post or previous post is based on fact. Just regurgitated liberal drivel which only confirms that you certainly spend a fair amount of cuddle time with your fellow lefties Rachael Maddow, Chris Mathews and other spin merchant Obama apologist from the media. You have failed to show any FACTUAL evidence to refute the voting trend from the last two election cycles. As I previously posted Obama walked into the White House with a stacked Congress. Obama and his cronies, (which includes Hillary), set a liberal agenda so far to the left the voters revolted resulting in the loss of both houses of congress in successive elections. The Democrat party lost a total of 85 seats between the House and the Senate in the course of 3 elections. Never has a President and his policies been trounced like that. That's a fact. Look it up, if you dare.

Your girl Hillary, tho she bailed, is still part of that historic loss. She knows it, the public knows it and the truth will bear that out in the next general election. Now go back, memorize some more liberal propaganda as it appears facts have escaped your sense of reality.

LUV Ya Hillary, run baby, run.

Correct, and the last time the Dems. had so few seats was 1928. Well done Barry.

[gudtymchuk]

Enough with the Run Baby Run schtick.

You think that sounds scary or something?

Hey troll, don't like troll, move on.....

Yo Hillary, run baby, run!!!

[NeverSure]

Enough with the Run Baby Run schtick.

I agree. She should go back to where she came from.

[Publicus]

Nice cut and past publicus.... You learn that in an O'Zombie conference?

All your empirical data aside facts paint a clearer picture. Three decidedly Democratic states—namely Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland elected Republican governors. Republicans gubernatorial candidates won in other blue states, like Michigan and Wisconsin. And Republicans came close to winning in Connecticut, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Seven states that haven’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate in at least twenty-six years (Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Wisconsin) will have Republican governors. New Mexico, a Blue Hispanic state elected a Conservative Republican (former Democrat) female, Suzana Martinez in 2010. Some have tagged her as a possible VP nominee.

These seven states have had elected Republican US senators serve a combined 64 years in office since 1995, or just 22 percent of the time for all 14 US Senate seats. Thirty-eight of those years can be attributed to William Cohen, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe of Maine. Republican US senators have only been in office less than 17 percent of the time in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wisconsin. New Jersey and Maryland haven’t had an elected Republican senator since 1979 and 1987, respectively. These states certainly are a dark shade of blue. Yet they’ve had Republican governors for 44 percent of the time. If you don’t include Maryland, it’s half the time.

Again, not speculative haphazard circumstances but a trend. You can cut-n-paste op-ed spin from your favorite left wing mags and blogs, and speculate to your hearts content but that doesn't change the political environment your girl is jumping into.

Oh Hillary, run baby, run!!

Nice cut and past publicus.... You learn that in an O'Zombie conference?

Swing and a miss, strike threee....now grab some bench.

And Republicans came close to winning.....

Close only counts in hand grenades and horse shoes, and the discussion is zero-sum, win-lose elections and the R's are down for the count.

The Republican governors in the post, and the Republican senators also, are not Ted Cruz Republicans, nor are they Mike Huckabee Republicans....nor are they Mitch Daniels Republicans....among the long list of dinosaurs currently before the public for all to see. The traditional and conventional Eastern Republicans named in the post have their legacy carried forward by Staten Island Borough of NYC Republican Congressman Peter King, who had this to say......

GOP Rep. Peter King dismisses Ted Cruz as 'carnival barker'

Rep. Peter King called Sen. Ted Cruz a "big mouth" who "basically led the Republican Party over the cliff" and dismissed Sen. Rand Paul as an "isolationist" on Monday as he said their party should ignore those two candidates for its 2016 presidential nomination.

King's sharpest comments were directed at Cruz.

"To me, he's a guy with a big mouth and no results," the New York Republican told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview on "The Situation Room."

"We have very, very complex issues facing the country today, and he goes out of his way to oversimplify," King said of Cruz. "Ted Cruz may be an intelligent person, but he doesn't carry out an intelligent debate. He oversimplifies, he exaggerates ... he doesn't provide leadership and he has no real experience."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/politics/peter-king-ted-cruz-carnival/

Almost all of the Republicans named in the post are this kind of Republican.

Olympia Snowe of Maine, for instance, left the Senate after she was manhandled by all other Republicans because of her vote in Committee for Obamacare. A moderate and calm voice and vote in the Senate, Snowe was so abused and 'punished' by her colleagues/thugs that she announced she would not seek a fourth term which had been assured. The direct consequence was the election as her successor of the Independent former governor, Angus King, who caucuses and votes with the Democrats and stayed with the Ds even after last November's election. We don't call 'em 'Mainiacs' up there for nuthin

There are people who need to learn who it is they are referring to when they start naming Republican names, their records in government, their reputations. There's not a Rick Santorum in the bunch, nothing like a Santorum or anywhere near a Santorum, or a Cruz, a Paul, or in this day and age, a Jeb Bush who was for the new Indiana law before he wuz against it.

My native state is among the states named in the post and I've voted for a good number of Republicans for state office, but Republican for prez only once, which is a pattern among the voters of almost all of the states mentioned in the post.

As for Scott Walker out there in Wisconsin, the state has a long history of Republican governors, such as Tommy Thompson among others, yet Wisconsin votes the D for prez. The entire thesis of the post is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Nothing, not one single sylible in this post or previous post is based on fact. Just regurgitated liberal drivel which only confirms that you certainly spend a fair amount of cuddle time with your fellow lefties Rachael Maddow, Chris Mathews and other spin merchant Obama apologist from the media. You have failed to show any FACTUAL evidence to refute the voting trend from the last two election cycles. As I previously posted Obama walked into the White House with a stacked Congress. Obama and his cronies, (which includes Hillary), set a liberal agenda so far to the left the voters revolted resulting in the loss of both houses of congress in successive elections. The Democrat party lost a total of 85 seats between the House and the Senate in the course of 3 elections. Never has a President and his policies been trounced like that. That's a fact. Look it up, if you dare.

Your girl Hillary, tho she bailed, is still part of that historic loss. She knows it, the public knows it and the truth will bear that out in the next general election. Now go back, memorize some more liberal propaganda as it appears facts have escaped your sense of reality.

LUV Ya Hillary, run baby, run.

Just regurgitated liberal drivel which only confirms that you certainly spend a fair amount of cuddle time with your fellow lefties Rachael Maddow, Chris Mathews and other spin merchant Obama apologist from the media.

My post responded to your post and my post presented my own personal knowledge and experience since I voted for the first time, for Republicans mostly, in 1966 in a very good Republican party year in my native state which, as I'd pointed out, is one of the states your post identifies for your particular purposes.

Rachel Madow whom you mention was born in 1973 and another that you mention, Chris Mathews, was born in 1953 so he was 13 when I became eligible to vote.

I addressed the issues and presented the case that you are IMO wrong.....wrong and wrong. My post is light on rhetoric and strong on factual historical analysis. Your rejection of that is excessive and formulaic, heavy on rhetoric besides, i.e., empty of content and substance.

Get back to me if and when you want to have a serious and respectable discussion that would also be mutually respectful.

[gudtymchuk]

te is among the states named in the post and I've voted for a good number of Republicans for state office, but Republican for prez only once, which is a pattern among the voters of almost all of the states mentioned in the post.

As for Scott Walker out there in Wisconsin, the state has a long history of Republican governors, such as Tommy Thompson among others, yet Wisconsin votes the D for prez. The entire thesis of the post is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Nothing, not one single sylible in this post or previous post is based on fact. Just regurgitated liberal drivel which only confirms that you certainly spend a fair amount of cuddle time with your fellow lefties Rachael Maddow, Chris Mathews and other spin merchant Obama apologist from the media. You have failed to show any FACTUAL evidence to refute the voting trend from the last two election cycles. As I previously posted Obama walked into the White House with a stacked Congress. Obama and his cronies, (which includes Hillary), set a liberal agenda so far to the left the voters revolted resulting in the loss of both houses of congress in successive elections. The Democrat party lost a total of 85 seats between the House and the Senate in the course of 3 elections. Never has a President and his policies been trounced like that. That's a fact. Look it up, if you dare.

Your girl Hillary, tho she bailed, is still part of that historic loss. She knows it, the public knows it and the truth will bear that out in the next general election. Now go back, memorize some more liberal propaganda as it appears facts have escaped your sense of reality.

LUV Ya Hillary, run baby, run.

Just regurgitated liberal drivel which only confirms that you certainly spend a fair amount of cuddle time with your fellow lefties Rachael Maddow, Chris Mathews and other spin merchant Obama apologist from the media.

My post responded to your post and my post presented my own personal knowledge and experience since I voted for the first time, for Republicans mostly, in 1966 in a very good Republican party year in my native state which, as I'd pointed out, is one of the states your post identifies for your particular purposes.

Rachel Madow whom you mention was born in 1973 and another that you mention, Chris Mathews, was born in 1953 so he was 13 when I became eligible to vote.

I addressed the issues and presented the case that you are IMO wrong.....wrong and wrong. My post is light on rhetoric and strong on factual historical analysis. Your rejection of that is excessive and formulaic, heavy on rhetoric besides, i.e., empty of content and substance.

Get back to me if and when you want to have a serious and respectable discussion that would also be mutually respectful.

I posted facts. You presented nothing to refute those facts. You posted absolutely nothing that proved those facts as, in your words, wrong, wrong and wrong. Now you come back with an admission that personal knowledge and experience dating as far back as 1966 is your basis and assertion of your liberal opinion concerning the outcome of an election to be held in 2016. Good job

Your phony indignation duly noted....

By the way, please don't feel compelled to respond to any of my posts with your useless, outdated historical, (or maybe hysterical) analysis. Facts, just the facts!

Now back on topic and to the facts - Obama in 2012 won but with a very narrow margin. A swing of less than 3 points in the two-party vote would hand the White House to the Republicans, and a swing of that size ar far more the rule than the exception. In fact, looking at the two-party vote no non-imcumbent since U.S. Grant in 1868 has lost less than 3 points off the prior re-elected incumbent's showing. If Hill the "Shrill" wins the presidency in 2016, it will be a historically unprecedented event in more ways than just her gender.

The popular vote really isn't that important, (just as Al Gore). Elections are won in the state elections, (electoral college), where the 2012 gems had and ever so slight advantage. Obama in 2012 won two states, Florida and Ohio, by less than his margin in the popular vote and flipping those two states alone gets the GOP to 253 votes. Add Virginia, the only other state Obama won with less than 52 percent of the two-party vote, are still four electoral votes short, needing to flip one other battle ground state, Colorado, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire or Iowa, all states where Romney got less than 47 percent of the popular vote and less than 48 percent of the two-party vote. So if you simply slide the 2012 results by two points in the two-party vote, the Dems win again. On the other hand, if you add three points to the GOP share of the two-party vote suddenly the GOP has over 300 electoral votes.

The solid blue states won't likely change. The outcome of 2016 will lie with the battle ground states. It's in those states that Hillary is going to have to make the same compelling hope and change case that Obama pulled off twice. And that is what Hillary, Billy and the Liberals lining up behind Hillary are going to have to sell to the same voters who threw out 85 of their comrades nationwide during Obama's un-stewardship ....

Liberals love to reward failure.

So run Hillary, run!!!

[snarky66]

I knew Diane had an obnoxious accent. I just assumed she was born & raised in Wisconsin. Turns out she was born & raised in the epicenter of corruption; Chicago Illinois. And that is where she should go back to.

[sdanielmcev]

Nice cut and past publicus.... You learn that in an O'Zombie conference?

All your empirical data aside facts paint a clearer picture. Three decidedly Democratic statesnamely Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland elected Republican governors. Republicans gubernatorial candidates won in other blue states, like Michigan and Wisconsin. And Republicans came close to winning in Connecticut, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Seven states that havent voted for a Republican presidential candidate in at least twenty-six years (Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Wisconsin) will have Republican governors. New Mexico, a Blue Hispanic state elected a Conservative Republican (former Democrat) female, Suzana Martinez in 2010. Some have tagged her as a possible VP nominee.

These seven states have had elected Republican US senators serve a combined 64 years in office since 1995, or just 22 percent of the time for all 14 US Senate seats. Thirty-eight of those years can be attributed to William Cohen, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe of Maine. Republican US senators have only been in office less than 17 percent of the time in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wisconsin. New Jersey and Maryland havent had an elected Republican senator since 1979 and 1987, respectively. These states certainly are a dark shade of blue. Yet theyve had Republican governors for 44 percent of the time. If you dont include Maryland, its half the time.

Again, not speculative haphazard circumstances but a trend. You can cut-n-paste op-ed spin from your favorite left wing mags and blogs, and speculate to your hearts content but that doesn't change the political environment your girl is jumping into.

Oh Hillary, run baby, run!!

Nice cut and past publicus.... You learn that in an O'Zombie conference?

Swing and a miss, strike threee....now grab some bench.

And Republicans came close to winning.....

Close only counts in hand grenades and horse shoes, and the discussion is zero-sum, win-lose elections and the R's are down for the count.

The Republican governors in the post, and the Republican senators also, are not Ted Cruz Republicans, nor are they Mike Huckabee Republicans....nor are they Mitch Daniels Republicans....among the long list of dinosaurs currently before the public for all to see. The traditional and conventional Eastern Republicans named in the post have their legacy carried forward by Staten Island Borough of NYC Republican Congressman Peter King, who had this to say......

GOP Rep. Peter King dismisses Ted Cruz as 'carnival barker'

Rep. Peter King called Sen. Ted Cruz a "big mouth" who "basically led the Republican Party over the cliff" and dismissed Sen. Rand Paul as an "isolationist" on Monday as he said their party should ignore those two candidates for its 2016 presidential nomination.

King's sharpest comments were directed at Cruz.

"To me, he's a guy with a big mouth and no results," the New York Republican told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an interview on "The Situation Room."

"We have very, very complex issues facing the country today, and he goes out of his way to oversimplify," King said of Cruz. "Ted Cruz may be an intelligent person, but he doesn't carry out an intelligent debate. He oversimplifies, he exaggerates ... he doesn't provide leadership and he has no real experience."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/23/politics/peter-king-ted-cruz-carnival/

Almost all of the Republicans named in the post are this kind of Republican.

Olympia Snowe of Maine, for instance, left the Senate after she was manhandled by all other Republicans because of her vote in Committee for Obamacare. A moderate and calm voice and vote in the Senate, Snowe was so abused and 'punished' by her colleagues/thugs that she announced she would not seek a fourth term which had been assured. The direct consequence was the election as her successor of the Independent former governor, Angus King, who caucuses and votes with the Democrats and stayed with the Ds even after last November's election. We don't call 'em 'Mainiacs' up there for nuthin

There are people who need to learn who it is they are referring to when they start naming Republican names, their records in government, their reputations. There's not a Rick Santorum in the bunch, nothing like a Santorum or anywhere near a Santorum, or a Cruz, a Paul, or in this day and age, a Jeb Bush who was for the new Indiana law before he wuz against it.

My native state is among the states named in the post and I've voted for a good number of Republicans for state office, but Republican for prez only once, which is a pattern among the voters of almost all of the states mentioned in the post.

As for Scott Walker out there in Wisconsin, the state has a long history of Republican governors, such as Tommy Thompson among others, yet Wisconsin votes the D for prez. The entire thesis of the post is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Nothing, not one single sylible in this post or previous post is based on fact. Just regurgitated liberal drivel which only confirms that you certainly spend a fair amount of cuddle time with your fellow lefties Rachael Maddow, Chris Mathews and other spin merchant Obama apologist from the media. You have failed to show any FACTUAL evidence to refute the voting trend from the last two election cycles. As I previously posted Obama walked into the White House with a stacked Congress. Obama and his cronies, (which includes Hillary), set a liberal agenda so far to the left the voters revolted resulting in the loss of both houses of congress in successive elections. The Democrat party lost a total of 85 seats between the House and the Senate in the course of 3 elections. Never has a President and his policies been trounced like that. That's a fact. Look it up, if you dare.

Your girl Hillary, tho she bailed, is still part of that historic loss. She knows it, the public knows it and the truth will bear that out in the next general election. Now go back, memorize some more liberal propaganda as it appears facts have escaped your sense of reality.

LUV Ya Hillary, run baby, run.

Just regurgitated liberal drivel which only confirms that you certainly spend a fair amount of cuddle time with your fellow lefties Rachael Maddow, Chris Mathews and other spin merchant Obama apologist from the media.

My post responded to your post and my post presented my own personal knowledge and experience since I voted for the first time, for Republicans mostly, in 1966 in a very good Republican party year in my native state which, as I'd pointed out, is one of the states your post identifies for your particular purposes.

Rachel Madow whom you mention was born in 1973 and another that you mention, Chris Mathews, was born in 1953 so he was 13 when I became eligible to vote.

I addressed the issues and presented the case that you are IMO wrong.....wrong and wrong. My post is light on rhetoric and strong on factual historical analysis. Your rejection of that is excessive and formulaic, heavy on rhetoric besides, i.e., empty of content and substance.

Get back to me if and when you want to have a serious and respectable discussion that would also be mutually respectful.

'Light on rhetoric and strong on historical analysis.' Your posts are heavy on rhetoric, twisted facts and many insults. That's why I got ignored. Kept calling you out on it. Hilary doesn't need friends like you. Your moniker says it all. Closed minded.