Polls show divided America with Democrats viewed more favorably after convention

[boomerangutang]

      Trump backs Obama policy on Ukraine.  As soon as Trump realizes that, he will ease closer to what his fellow Republicans are recommending (more saber rattling).  But maybe not.  Trump slips and slides all over the map.  It's a combination of his ill-informed self ("I'm my own best advisor") him not acknowledging what foreign policy experts and military top brass are advising.  It's ok to be a flip flopper when deciding what color hair to have on a particular day, but it's a bit more important when outlining policy which could profoundly affect Ukrainians, eastern Europeans, western Europeans, Russians, and the world in general.   Trumps idiocy (and chumminess with Putin) could also affect Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, and other former states of USSR.

 

       Thankfully, Trump's moronic statements don't affect Finn/Russian relations because the Russkies already know how tough Finlanders are - when the Russkies got their butts kicked by them in mid-20th century.

[Boon Mee]

11 hours ago, thaihome said:

 

 

 Aren't you proud of yourself for hoping the US presidential election may decided by Putin's minions and their illegal intrusion to a private email system. This must be the "republican values" one hears so much about

TH 

 

 

Sorry to break your bubble there - too much MSM News, eh?  

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/25/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-no-proof-russian-intelligence-responsible-for-dnc-hack.html

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

Unfortunately, we can't write off the GOP.  It's the party of big money and big money plays the long game.  They use their control of a majority of the state houses to gerrymander congressional districts to give them a lock on the House which this election is not going to change.  They deliberately set about to create right-wing talk radio a generation ago to shape anti-government sentiment.  The next Trump might be smarter.

 

From a conservative Republican media personality many people of all views give attention to...

 

Peggy Noonan: “From what I’ve seen there has been zero reflection on the part of Republican leaders on how much the base’s views differ from theirs and what to do about it. The GOP is not at all refiguring its stands.

 

“That’s where the future of the GOP will be fought, and found: on whether Trumpism can be defeated along with Mr. Trump.”

 

The points of the post are well taken and we recognise you could have said more (I certainly would have said more -- and I will  ) .

 

Yes, while the Republican party has all but self-destructed as a viable national institution, i.e., in contesting the office of Potus, it remains alive and malicious at the state, county, local level. Somewhat fortunately however, its state and local appeal remains regional, i.e., most states of the Old Confederacy, the central plains states of the old wild west notoriety, and most Rocky Mountain states. The northern half of the country out to and including the Great Lakes states quit on the R party due to Reagan's political legacy, and the R party long ago lost most of the coastal states from New Jersey to California -- to include increasingly, Florida.

 

None of Its 16 most prominent governors, senators and other high profile figures were politically marketable to the party -- Trump was their guy all the way. There is indeed no one in the R party who is capable of expressing the political-cultural grievances of the fringe noids of the lunar right in respectable terms at the national level. The reason is obvious, meaning it is impossible to present the views of the lunatic right in any terms that are respectable. The general electorate is centrist moderate and reasonable in choosing its Potus (often betrayed but never knowingly choosing a known  psychopath).  

 

Republicans will continue to be elected at the state and local level until the Democratic party becomes a state and local party too. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did excellent jobs choosing Democratic National Committee chairpersons who built a strong national party. However, the D national and state committees have neglected building the D party at the state, county and local level. This is its next and pressing task.

 

Letting Sen. Sanders choose the new party chairperson might be the kind of thing the party needs in this respect and at this time. Meanwhile, if Trump as the nominee and leader of the R party thinks he'd be able to choose the next party chairman, win or lose as is the custom, there will be more blood on the floor over there in the Republican National Committee.

[lannarebirth]

12 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

From a conservative Republican media personality many people of all views give attention to...

 

Peggy Noonan: “From what I’ve seen there has been zero reflection on the part of Republican leaders on how much the base’s views differ from theirs and what to do about it. The GOP is not at all refiguring its stands.

 

“That’s where the future of the GOP will be fought, and found: on whether Trumpism can be defeated along with Mr. Trump.”

 

The points of the post are well taken and we recognise you could have said more (I certainly would have said more -- and I will  ) .

 

Yes, while the Republican party has all but self-destructed as a viable national institution, i.e., in contesting the office of Potus, it remains alive and malicious at the state, county, local level. Somewhat fortunately however, its state and local appeal remains regional, i.e., most states of the Old Confederacy, the central plains states of the old wild west notoriety, and most Rocky Mountain states. The northern half of the country out to and including the Great Lakes states quit on the R party due to Reagan's political legacy, and the R party long ago lost most of the coastal states from New Jersey to California -- to include increasingly, Florida.

 

None of Its 16 most prominent governors, senators and other high profile figures were politically marketable to the party -- Trump was their guy all the way. There is indeed no one in the R party who is capable of expressing the political-cultural grievances of the fringe noids of the lunar right in respectable terms at the national level. The reason is obvious, meaning it is impossible to present the views of the lunatic right in any terms that are respectable. The general electorate is centrist moderate and reasonable in choosing its Potus (often betrayed but never knowingly choosing a known  psychopath).  

 

Republicans will continue to be elected at the state and local level until the Democratic party becomes a state and local party too. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did excellent jobs choosing Democratic National Committee chairpersons who built a strong national party. However, the D national and state committees have neglected building the D party at the state, county and local level. This is its next and pressing task.

 

Letting Sen. Sanders choose the new party chairperson might be the kind of thing the party needs in this respect and at this time. Meanwhile, if Trump as the nominee and leader of the R party thinks he'd be able to choose the next party chairman, win or lose as is the custom, there will be more blood on the floor over there in the Republican National Committee.

 

Whatever one thinks of conservatives, Trump, Republicans, etc; you've got to admit Peggy Noonan is a great writer.

 

http://www.peggynoonan.com/trump-and-the-rise-of-the-unprotected/

[Publicus]

10 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Whatever one thinks of conservatives, Trump, Republicans, etc; you've got to admit Peggy Noonan is a great writer.

 

http://www.peggynoonan.com/trump-and-the-rise-of-the-unprotected/

 

Ronnie Reagan delivered her lines superbly while she was his speechwriter. (Of course after Reagan finished intoning her lines he had no idea of what he'd said.)

 

Maybe after the Republican party completes its self-destruction in November Ms. Noonan can move to Hollywood West as a script writer, or instead write some good political scripts for HBO originals, or even for House of Cards and other Netflix goodies.

 

Even she wouldn't ever try to put sense to the political-cultural demands of the parawhingenoid right lunatics who are engineering the Great Republican Train Wreck of 2016. Reconstructing the Republican party as we'd known it is beyond any single person or committee.

 

She needs to post a lookout cause they're coming after her too.

 

[Pinot]

Trump went off on Japan yesterday. Damn those Japs!  

 

The thing about Trump is, he's so damn entertaining. The man cannot control himself. He cannot hold back even when it is in his interest to do so and that's hilarious to me. Shooting himself in the foot on a daily basis. 

 

But the Trumpeteers love it, can't get enough of it. That's why he gets the crowds. 

 

It's the hate and fear that brings the Trump crowds. A hate for anything Democratic that poisons their brains. Hatred got HRC where she is today. Their hatred for the name Clinton is so psychotic that they would sacrifice anything and anyone to bring Hillary down. It's right out of Orwell. You don't have to even read 1984 anymore. You can watch it live. 

 

It's so entertaining but also sad. There are so many disturbed wingnuts out there. And they got guns!

 

Simpsons new whack at Trump

 

Edited August 7, 2016 by Pinot

[CaptHaddock]

34 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

From a conservative Republican media personality many people of all views give attention to...

 

Peggy Noonan: “From what I’ve seen there has been zero reflection on the part of Republican leaders on how much the base’s views differ from theirs and what to do about it. The GOP is not at all refiguring its stands.

 

“That’s where the future of the GOP will be fought, and found: on whether Trumpism can be defeated along with Mr. Trump.”

 

The points of the post are well taken and we recognise you could have said more (I certainly would have said more -- and I will  ) .

 

Yes, while the Republican party has all but self-destructed as a viable national institution, i.e., in contesting the office of Potus, it remains alive and malicious at the state, county, local level. Somewhat fortunately however, its state and local appeal remains regional, i.e., most states of the Old Confederacy, the central plains states of the old wild west notoriety, and most Rocky Mountain states. The northern half of the country out to and including the Great Lakes states quit on the R party due to Reagan's political legacy, and the R party long ago lost most of the coastal states from New Jersey to California -- to include increasingly, Florida.

 

None of Its 16 most prominent governors, senators and other high profile figures were politically marketable to the party -- Trump was their guy all the way. There is indeed no one in the R party who is capable of expressing the political-cultural grievances of the fringe noids of the lunar right in respectable terms at the national level. The reason is obvious, meaning it is impossible to present the views of the lunatic right in any terms that are respectable. The general electorate is centrist moderate and reasonable in choosing its Potus (often betrayed but never knowingly choosing a known  psychopath).  

 

Republicans will continue to be elected at the state and local level until the Democratic party becomes a state and local party too. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did excellent jobs choosing Democratic National Committee chairpersons who built a strong national party. However, the D national and state committees have neglected building the D party at the state, county and local level. This is its next and pressing task.

 

Letting Sen. Sanders choose the new party chairperson might be the kind of thing the party needs in this respect and at this time. Meanwhile, if Trump as the nominee and leader of the R party thinks he'd be able to choose the next party chairman, win or lose as is the custom, there will be more blood on the floor over there in the Republican National Committee.

 

 You have an optimism that I do not share.  The Republicans have reshaped America very much for the worse beginning with Reagan's double-sided revolution: cut taxes on the rich and suppress unions and wages.  The cumulative effect thirty-five years later is the current, extraordinary level of inequality in the US which is the cause of the present extreme political polarisation which is unparalleled in our lifetimes.   The Republicans achieved this by running candidates who could persuade a majority to vote against their own interests.  They hit the jackpot with Eisenhower and Reagan whom they could sell to the public on the basis of their supposed personalities.  They did pretty well with Bush II, especially after the Reichstag fire the 9/11 events.  But it's hard to come up with a superstar salesman good enough to dupe the populace each four years.  Romney was a washout, as was McCain.  The main problem with Trump is not his flagrant psychopathy, offensive as it is, but his tax policy which would continue to enrich the rich at the expense of everyone else, very much including the working class voters duped into thinking Trump is somehow one of them.

 

The Republican party is a truly national party that is completely committed to a single policy, reducing taxes on the rich which means reducing government.  All the 17 wannabe candidates on the Republican side proposed the same tax policy which is the same as Paul Ryan's.  The Democrat Party, by contrast, is a merely collection of local political fiefdoms not committed to any single overriding policy goals.  (How many Democrat politicians are even pro-union these days?  None of them, except Bernie, mention legislation supporting the right to organize.)  While there is much talk of conflict within the GOP this year, it's only about personality and style.  The dog whistle became a bullhorn, but the racist tune has been there since Nixon's Southern Strategy.  The role of money in politics increased following the Watergate reforms (the PACs appeared) and has increased since then, e.g. the Citizen's United decision.  (I ignore foreign policy differences between the parties, because there is essentially only one American foreign policy and, anyway, voters don't care much about foreign policy.)

 

Because the Republicans are unified where it counts, i.e. class warfare, they can play the long game: winning elections in state legislatures, appointing young conservatives judges to the judiciary when they can, establishing long-term propaganda campaigns like the one against inheritance taxes, building up talk radio as a tool to turn the working class against the government, establishing the Fox News network as a dedicated right-wing platform, and so on.  The Democrats haven't even attempted anything like this, nor will they, for the reasons I have mentioned.

 

That doesn't mean that the Dems have to roll over for the Republican juggernaut.  Long-term demographics are on their side.  But the Republicans have not self-destructed.  The Kochs are about to spend $750 million on keeping the Senate, an unprecedented sum.  They may not succeed, but in two years the shoe could easily be on the other foot again when a majority of Senators up for re-election in an off-year will be Dems, not Repubs.  Big money will never give up.

[Publicus]

2 hours ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

 You have an optimism that I do not share.  The Republicans have reshaped America very much for the worse beginning with Reagan's double-sided revolution: cut taxes on the rich and suppress unions and wages.  The cumulative effect thirty-five years later is the current, extraordinary level of inequality in the US which is the cause of the present extreme political polarisation which is unparalleled in our lifetimes.   The Republicans achieved this by running candidates who could persuade a majority to vote against their own interests.  They hit the jackpot with Eisenhower and Reagan whom they could sell to the public on the basis of their supposed personalities.  They did pretty well with Bush II, especially after the Reichstag fire the 9/11 events.  But it's hard to come up with a superstar salesman good enough to dupe the populace each four years.  Romney was a washout, as was McCain.  The main problem with Trump is not his flagrant psychopathy, offensive as it is, but his tax policy which would continue to enrich the rich at the expense of everyone else, very much including the working class voters duped into thinking Trump is somehow one of them.

 

The Republican party is a truly national party that is completely committed to a single policy, reducing taxes on the rich which means reducing government.  All the 17 wannabe candidates on the Republican side proposed the same tax policy which is the same as Paul Ryan's.  The Democrat Party, by contrast, is a merely collection of local political fiefdoms not committed to any single overriding policy goals.  (How many Democrat politicians are even pro-union these days?  None of them, except Bernie, mention legislation supporting the right to organize.)  While there is much talk of conflict within the GOP this year, it's only about personality and style.  The dog whistle became a bullhorn, but the racist tune has been there since Nixon's Southern Strategy.  The role of money in politics increased following the Watergate reforms (the PACs appeared) and has increased since then, e.g. the Citizen's United decision.  (I ignore foreign policy differences between the parties, because there is essentially only one American foreign policy and, anyway, voters don't care much about foreign policy.)

 

Because the Republicans are unified where it counts, i.e. class warfare, they can play the long game: winning elections in state legislatures, appointing young conservatives judges to the judiciary when they can, establishing long-term propaganda campaigns like the one against inheritance taxes, building up talk radio as a tool to turn the working class against the government, establishing the Fox News network as a dedicated right-wing platform, and so on.  The Democrats haven't even attempted anything like this, nor will they, for the reasons I have mentioned.

 

That doesn't mean that the Dems have to roll over for the Republican juggernaut.  Long-term demographics are on their side.  But the Republicans have not self-destructed.  The Kochs are about to spend $750 million on keeping the Senate, an unprecedented sum.  They may not succeed, but in two years the shoe could easily be on the other foot again when a majority of Senators up for re-election in an off-year will be Dems, not Repubs.  Big money will never give up.

 

The election of Barack Obama in 2008 signaled that US politics have established a new demographic paradigm.

 

That is to say, Republicans can spend all the money they want, and promote any candidate they can find or scare up to run for Potus, but the middle class in the cities, suburbs, the exburbs, remain solidly in the Democratic party. 

 

As we witnessed in 2008 and in 2012, no amount of Republican or rightwingnut money can convince the great number of white and professional middle class Democrats to vote Republican for Potus. Neither will big R money buy minorities, from blacks to Hispanics to Asians to include gay/transgender, atheists/agnostics, and the significant number of Americans who respect science etc. We all know the Republican party is controlled and directed by the filthy rich, white, male, whackjob extremist racist and religious crackpot right. The number of Americans who like the fact are dwindling or have gone incognito (to present themselves on forums as independents).   

 

The right will continue to have regional successes the Democratic party does not have any control over, e.g., Texas will continue to elect rightwhingenoids to Washington and to Austin. So will Alabama continue to vote in these ways, as will states such as West Virginia, South Dakota, Idaho etc.

 

However, in 1960 and in 1976 there were 20 states that were what we recognise as 'swing' states or as 'battleground' states. As of 2012 that number had been reduced to four: Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida. However, in the present 2016 election cycle, it appears reasonable to say Virginia will vote D for Potus, which will mean three consecutive times of VA voting for the same party for Potus -- history shows when a state does this, it has in fact signed up with the party's Potus nominee for the indeterminate future. Florida is headed in the same direction in that, if it votes D this year, it will also be three straight D for Potus votes by FL. 

 

Ohio will continue to be very close, but for specific reasons in this election cycle. Gov. John Kasich is deeply committed to reelecting first-term R Senator Bob Portman who is up this year. The polling has found the contest between Portman and former Governor Ted Strickland to be unstable, as each of 'em takes his turn being up or being down, or flat out exactly tied, but never up or down by much for either. Kasich won his reelection with 64% of the vote and it's his Ohio Republican party that is working hard for Portman -- but not for Trump. We'll see how that goes in each respect. (Portman reelected, Trump trashed.)

 

As to the smaller Electoral College states that used to be 'swing' states, such as Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire, one or more of 'em can sometimes hang in the balance as presently occurring in respect of Iowa , but hey, Iowa actually voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988 and has hardly looked back since. (It is perhaps inevitable Trump will stumble in to a win in some blue state somewhere on the map, but if he might do that, it would be of no significance electorally or of any consequence politically.) 

 

As to the Senate, we know the lightly populated (politically and culturally conservative) states have the advantage of numbers. The R for Potus for instance almost always wins more states than the D does, but the D has won the national popular vote in five of the past six Potus elections. There are a lot of conservative small states to send two senators each, such as Wyoming (Dick Cheney's state that first elected him to the US House), Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas etc etc. Given they are joined with more populous states of the Old Confederacy that send two Republicans to the Senate, such as S Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama etc etc it gets tough. The Senate majority will almost surely continue to swing back and forth for some elections to come. That's just the fact of it.

 

If D's don't elect state legislator majorities to many more state capitols to counter US House district gerrymandering, it's going to be a standoff until they do. Several states have appointed commissions of supposedly neutral and all concerned parties to do the redistricting, which generally has worked well. However, maybe it's worked too well as neither party likes it cause neither can stack the deck in its favor. 

 

It looks like it is going to be a divided government for a while yet with a D Potus dominating the scene while R's in Congress continue to whinge, cuss, obstruct. To change the majorities in the Senate or the House the D's need to do a lot of work at the state level. OH and PA for instance are not one-sided Republican states, yet because of partisan gerrymandering their representatives elected to the US House are lopsidedly Republican in number, like 16 R's and 3 D's and whatnot.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Publicus
Typo

[lifeincnx]

5 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Sorry to break your bubble there - too much MSM News, eh?  

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/25/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-no-proof-russian-intelligence-responsible-for-dnc-hack.html

Due to his myopia, and as usual, Boon Mee (formerly Cruz Lek) misses the largest elephant in the room trumpeting at him. Team Trump made sure the new Republican platform didn't call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces. This anti-Democratic, pro-Russia stance flies in the face of almost every Republican, Democrat, and foreign policy leader in Washington. Remember, Trump has been actively dismissive of calls for supporting the Ukraine government as it fights an ongoing Russian-led intervention. Trump’s lousy-at-it campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, has been a lobbyist or the Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych for more than a decade. Add in Trump's anti-NATO rhetoric and you have the leading un-American, anti-Democratic candidate. Heck, even Harvard's Republican Club won't endorse this idiot - the first time they have done so since 1888; their un-endorsement was both scathing and thoughtful.

Try to spin that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html

Edited August 7, 2016 by lifeincnx

[thaihome]

8 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Sorry to break your bubble there - too much MSM News, eh?  

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/25/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-no-proof-russian-intelligence-responsible-for-dnc-hack.html

 

One of leading cyber security company is the source for the Russians connection.

 

CrowdStrike stands fully by its analysis and findings identifying two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network in May 2016. On June 15, 2016 a blog post to a WordPress site authored by an individual using the moniker Guccifer 2.0 claiming credit for breaching the Democratic National Committee. This blog post presents documents alleged to have originated from the DNC.

Whether or not this posting is part of a Russian Intelligence disinformation campaign, we are exploring the documents’ authenticity and origin. Regardless, these claims do nothing to lessen our findings relating to the Russian government’s involvement, portions of which we have documented for the public and the greater security community.

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

The US intelligence groups agree the Russians are the likely sponsor. Assange is certainly not going to identify them as the source.  Where else is he going to if he can ever get out of the Ecuador embassy in London?  

Just more of your cheery picking of facts to support your opinions and ignoring those that don't. 

You also did not address my point of hoping the Presidential election is decided by the releases from illegal hacks, choosing to focus on the your disagreement on the sponsor of the hacks and not the illegal hacks themselves.  Only a right wingnut conspiracy maniac would hope the US presidential election would be impacted by the contents of  private emails. 

TH 

 

 

 

[CaptHaddock]

4 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

The election of Barack Obama in 2008 signaled that US politics have established a new demographic paradigm.

 

That is to say, Republicans can spend all the money they want, and promote any candidate they can find or scare up to run for Potus, but the middle class in the cities, suburbs, the exburbs, remain solidly in the Democratic party. 

 

As we witnessed in 2008 and in 2012, no amount of Republican or rightwingnut money can convince the great number of white and professional middle class Democrats to vote Republican for Potus. Neither will big R money buy minorities, from blacks to Hispanics to Asians to include gay/transgender, atheists/agnostics, and the significant number of Americans who respect science etc. We all know the Republican party is controlled and directed by the filthy rich, white, male, whackjob extremist racist and religious crackpot right. The number of Americans who like the fact are dwindling or have gone incognito (to present themselves on forums as independents).   

 

The right will continue to have regional successes the Democratic party does not have any control over, e.g., Texas will continue to elect rightwhingenoids to Washington and to Austin. So will Alabama continue to vote in these ways, as will states such as West Virginia, South Dakota, Idaho etc.

 

However, in 1960 and in 1976 there were 20 states that were what we recognise as 'swing' states or as 'battleground' states. As of 2012 that number had been reduced to four: Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida. However, in the present 2016 election cycle, it appears reasonable to say Virginia will vote D for Potus, which will mean three consecutive times of VA voting for the same party for Potus -- history shows when a state does this, it has in fact signed up with the party's Potus nominee for the indeterminate future. Florida is headed in the same direction in that, if it votes D this year, it will also be three straight D for Potus votes by FL. 

 

Ohio will continue to be very close, but for specific reasons in this election cycle. Gov. John Kasich is deeply committed to reelecting first-term R Senator Bob Portman who is up this year. The polling has found the contest between Portman and former Governor Ted Strickland to be unstable, as each of 'em takes his turn being up or being down, or flat out exactly tied, but never up or down by much for either. Kasich won his reelection with 64% of the vote and it's his Ohio Republican party that is working hard for Portman -- but not for Trump. We'll see how that goes in each respect. (Portman reelected, Trump trashed.)

 

As to the smaller Electoral College states that used to be 'swing' states, such as Nevada, Iowa, New Hampshire, one or more of 'em can sometimes hang in the balance as presently occurring in respect of Iowa , but hey, Iowa actually voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988 and has hardly looked back since. (It is perhaps inevitable Trump will stumble in to a win in some blue state somewhere on the map, but if he might do that, it would be of no significance electorally or of any consequence politically.) 

 

As to the Senate, we know the lightly populated (politically and culturally conservative) states have the advantage of numbers. The R for Potus for instance almost always wins more states than the D does, but the D has won the national popular vote in five of the past six Potus elections. There are a lot of conservative small states to send two senators each, such as Wyoming (Dick Cheney's state that first elected him to the US House), Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas etc etc. Given they are joined with more populous states of the Old Confederacy that send two Republicans to the Senate, such as S Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama etc etc it gets tough. The Senate majority will almost surely continue to swing back and forth for some elections to come. That's just the fact of it.

 

If D's don't elect state legislator majorities to many more state capitols to counter US House district gerrymandering, it's going to be a standoff until they do. Several states have appointed commissions of supposedly neutral and all concerned parties to do the redistricting, which generally has worked well. However, maybe it's worked too well as neither party likes it cause neither can stack the deck in its favor. 

 

It looks like it is going to be a divided government for a while yet with a D Potus dominating the scene while R's in Congress continue to whinge, cuss, obstruct. To change the majorities in the Senate or the House the D's need to do a lot of work at the state level. OH and PA for instance are not one-sided Republican states, yet because of partisan gerrymandering their representatives elected to the US House are lopsidedly Republican in number, like 16 R's and 3 D's and whatnot.

 

So, I take your point that you now agree with me that the Republican Party has by no means self-destructed and they will continue to dominate national politics at levels other than the White House.  This paradigm dates from Reagan and has persisted since then because its foundation, the support of the billionaire class, has not wavered.

 

The Dems are not going to beat the Republicans at their own game of strategic action from local levels up to the national level, because, as I pointed out, they are not a unified party in the same way that the Republicans are nor do they have a comparable billionaire donor class of their own whose bidding they are bound to do.  Their only winning strategy is to push through programs that improve the lives of vast swathes of the electorate such as free university education, extending Social Security into a full national pension system, supporting "pre-distribution" wage gains through aggressive minimum wage standards and to re-establish unions as the support of the middle-class, to lower the age for participation in Medicare from 65 to 55 as a step toward a single-party payer, and other similar social democrat programs.  This is what the Republicans fear most because it undermines the distrust of the government by making the voters' lives better in a concrete way.  They know that removing successful social programs like Social Security is all but impossible.

 

But the Dems did not accomplish as much as they could have in the first two years of Obama's presidency while they still controlled the Congress, because they were not aggressive enough.  For reasons which completely escape me they continue to bind the Senate voluntarily to a super-majority rule which they could overturn on day one of a Senate in which they hold the majority.  The requirement of a super-majority is a prescription for stagnation.  If they control only the Senate and not the House, it will be hard for them to accomplish major reforms, but they can at least construct a liberal Court for the next generation.

 

However, I don't think the Dems will pursue such a program aggressively since they didn't last time.  A divided government is not neutral between the left and right, but is inherently conservative.

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

As far as Obama's first two years get a clue. A lot of democrats are center right and need to compete in conservative localities. Obama just barely passed Obamacare which was basically a republican idea to begin with. He could have never passed a real universal program even with the democratic majorities.

Also he entered office inheriting a historically severe financial crisis. History will recognize that was his top priority and he handled it well.

[ilostmypassword]

8 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Whatever one thinks of conservatives, Trump, Republicans, etc; you've got to admit Peggy Noonan is a great writer.

 

http://www.peggynoonan.com/trump-and-the-rise-of-the-unprotected/

But she's not much of a thinker.  This blog for the Wall Street Journal was written just before the 2012 election:

http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2012/11/05/monday-morning/

[Publicus]

52 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

So, I take your point that you now agree with me that the Republican Party has by no means self-destructed and they will continue to dominate national politics at levels other than the White House.  This paradigm dates from Reagan and has persisted since then because its foundation, the support of the billionaire class, has not wavered.

 

The Dems are not going to beat the Republicans at their own game of strategic action from local levels up to the national level, because, as I pointed out, they are not a unified party in the same way that the Republicans are nor do they have a comparable billionaire donor class of their own whose bidding they are bound to do.  Their only winning strategy is to push through programs that improve the lives of vast swathes of the electorate such as free university education, extending Social Security into a full national pension system, supporting "pre-distribution" wage gains through aggressive minimum wage standards and to re-establish unions as the support of the middle-class, to lower the age for participation in Medicare from 65 to 55 as a step toward a single-party payer, and other similar social democrat programs.  This is what the Republicans fear most because it undermines the distrust of the government by making the voters' lives better in a concrete way.  They know that removing successful social programs like Social Security is all but impossible.

 

But the Dems did not accomplish as much as they could have in the first two years of Obama's presidency while they still controlled the Congress, because they were not aggressive enough.  For reasons which completely escape me they continue to bind the Senate voluntarily to a super-majority rule which they could overturn on day one of a Senate in which they hold the majority.  The requirement of a super-majority is a prescription for stagnation.  If they control only the Senate and not the House, it will be hard for them to accomplish major reforms, but they can at least construct a liberal Court for the next generation.

 

However, I don't think the Dems will pursue such a program aggressively since they didn't last time.  A divided government is not neutral between the left and right, but is inherently conservative.

 

 

 

 

 

So, I take your point that you now agree with me that the Republican Party has by no means self-destructed and they will continue to dominate national politics at levels other than the White House.

 

There's no 'now' of anything in the statement as you and I agree with only some semantic variation. Republicans dominating national politics at levels other than the White House, in comparison to my statement of a state level of dominance -- but a regionally restricted one -- and Republicans self destructing in contests for Potus are a matter of phrasing. I added the regional factor, that's all.  

 

Barack Obama in 2008 and again in 2012 raised one billion dollars in each campaign. No reason Democrats running for Potus can't do that every time. The catch for the D's is that they need to build at the state level in their own blue states or in purple states. That's where the US House races get redistricted, as in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where neither state is dominated by one party, yet gerrymandering by the state legislature and governor have severely skewed the number of US House members for the Republican party only.

 

It takes money too of course, but it takes an organisation from the state capital through the counties to the municipalities into each ward, parish or voting district/constituency.  Sen Sanders is an Independent in the Senate but based on his national campaign he's the guy the D party should turn to to put an ace team on the case of building from the ground up, as it were. In both bucks and in bodies to do the work and to get out the vote locally on up to the state house.

 

In the Democratic party the parts are greater than the whole. (He who misses the fact misses everything about an election of Potus.) There are dozens and dozens of constituencies and groups, and they are well and highly organised, motivated, purposeful, funded. Get 'em to work at the state and local level and to get out voters in off year elections. It is how to elect a House majority and to help toward a majority in the Senate too.

 

Funding sources of the Democratic party do not publicise themselves and it is in fact easy for D party bucks bundlers and donors to remain under the public radar, especially in contrast to the Republican money bundlers. Democrats are the mainstream middle class so they don't have burning issues and donors that attract attention, such as to officially declare the USA a Christian country, or to build a wall, or to ban all persons of a particular specified religion and a rash of other crackpot stuff. Democratic party money people are not the pararightwingnoids the Republican money people and party members are, so the D donors don't get much attention, while the R big bucks ghouls do little to hide themselves from the public glare, as hide they should given their malicious agendas. 

 

The Democratic party has money too y'know. Or maybe you don't know...

 

There's a lot of money in USA no matter which political group you're in. Give us a winner and the money flows. Put a loser out there like Trump and the money freezes right up. 

[Jingthing]

Another patriotic and rational republican (it happens) sees the light about the clown trump:

Quote

Reagan Republican: Trump is the emperor with no clothes

Trump falls short in terms of the character and behavior needed to perform as president. This defect is crippling and ensures he would fail in office. Trump is a bigot, a bully, and devoid of grace or magnanimity. His thin-skinned belligerence toward every challenge, rebuke, or criticism would promise the nation a series of a high-voltage quarrels. His casual dishonesty, his policy laziness, and his lack of self-awareness would mean four years of a careening pin-ball journey that would ricochet from missteps to crisis to misunderstandings to clarifications to retractions.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/07/opinions/reagan-republican-trump-no-clothes-lavin/index.html

[Johnniey]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

As far as Obama's first two years get a clue. A lot of democrats are center right and need to compete in conservative localities. Obama just barely passed Obamacare which was basically a republican idea to begin with. He could have never passed a real universal program even with the democratic majorities.

 

Also he entered office inheriting a historically severe financial crisis. History will recognize that was his top priority and he handled it well.

 

Believe that and you'll believe anything.

[boomerangutang]

The Republican Party is being increasingly seen as a bereft group of stuck-in-the-muds.

Fox News is slipping into black mud also.  Each day, more people are seeing how Fox, far from being the 'Family Values' channel, was actually run by old men who were date-raping younger women.  Roger Ailes is destroying Fox similar to how Trump is destroying the Republican Party.  The more Americans become aware of the core values and inner workings of Fox and the GOP, the more they'll come around to reason.   I say that hopefully and with full awareness that there will continue to be a hard core of rednecks who won't want to change the channel no matter how decrepit their gurus (Ailes, Trump, Palin, Murdoch, Newt, ad nauseum) are proven to be. 

 

Note:  Palin wasn't even invited to show her pretty face at the Rep Convention, let alone speak. 

[linksman00]

19 hours ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

Unfortunately, we can't write off the GOP.  It's the party of big money and big money plays the long game.  They use their control of a majority of the state houses to gerrymander congressional districts to give them a lock on the House which this election is not going to change.  They deliberately set about to create right-wing talk radio a generation ago to shape anti-government sentiment.  The next Trump might be smarter.

 Capt,     Conservative talk radio has been around for quite some time and the reason that it and Fox cable news has such a large audience is because so many Americans got fed up with the left leaning mainstream media in the States. I might also add that every time the left wingers try and copy their right of center brethren with liberal talk radio and MSNBC type shows, it fails miserably because most liberals are watching the mainstream liberal media outlets already.  You might want to rethink your premise of the Republican party being the party of big money after you look at the actual numbers, like the fact that Obama and Hillary out raise their Republican counterparts by a 2:1 margin on Wall Street, the trail lawyer lobby, trade unions, television/movie/music industry lobby ect. ect. , then of course there is George Soros , Warren Buffett and the Saban group just to name a few. As far as gerrymandering districts goes, Lord knows the Democrats have never done any of that, right?   You are correct about one thing there cappy, the Republicans will keep the House of Reps and the Senate again this time around, but the gerrymandering of a few House districts won't be the reason, the reason that the Republicans will retain control of Congress is because nearly 70% of Americans do not trust Hillary Clinton 

[linksman00]

On 8/6/2016 at 2:36 AM, CaptHaddock said:

 

Turnout is probably more important than the independents' votes.  The Dems win presidential elections because they outnumber the Repubs and they show up.  But they don't do so well in mid-term elections, because they stay home.  But the right-wing doesn't.  That plus gerrymandering is what turned the House red.

 

So, it's good news that HRC is doing well both in national polls, which don't matter, and in state polls which do.  However, the news from the Senate races is not so encouraging.  I see some poll aggregators put it now at 49 D to 51 R or 50 to 50.  Assuming Kaine becomes the President of the Senate, 50 to 50 is enough, but 49 isn't.  In additional to the polling numbers, there is the ominous news that the Koch brothers, with their $750 million warchest and election staff of 1200, are devoting all their resources to the Senate and House races and won't give Trump a nickel.  That is a huge amount of money to dump into the Senate campaigns, probably unprecedented.  Plus we don't know how much of what the RNC has been raising will go to Trump and how much to the Senate.  So, it's worrisome.

 

If HRC wins the White House, but the Repubs retain the Senate we will have our first constitutional crisis immediately after Jan. 20 when President Hillary submits her first nomination for the vacant Supreme Court seat and Mitch McConnell refuses to hold hearings on the nominee indefinitely.  If the Republican Senate blocks filling the vacancy then perhaps the next vacancy to arise will restore a right-wing majority on a seven-member Court.  McConnell will have no reason not to take such a step since if the Republicans do retain the Senate it means the voters will not have punished them for refusing to consider Obama's nominee. 

Capt,   Once again lets look at the facts, over the past 12 presidential elections the Democrats have been able to win only 5 times, and of those 5 times, one was Jimmy Carter running against Nixon pardoner and all around blockhead Gerald Ford ( given Americas hangover from the Nixon years, Vietnam War, doubledigit inflation and once again Gerald Ford being an uncarismatic blockhead, perhaps even some off the charts leftwinger like McGovern could even have beaten Ford), the second was Bill Clinton being gifted the Presidency outright by Ross Perot (Perot garnering nearly 19% of the vote, the vast majority of which would have gone for Bush and an easy win for the R's), the third being Bill Clinton once again being gifted the Presidency by Ross Perot (although this time Perot got a little more than 8% of the vote, and Clinton had help from a booming economy-thanks to the Gingrich (Kasich) revolution and the contract with America) and the fourth and fifth wins were Obama where the Dems really did use technology coupled with good old fashion big city machine politics to produce an incredible get out the vote job, and this was helped by the fact that many Republicans stayed at home given the lack of enthusiasm for both McCain and Romney.  This time around the Republicans have an even more pathetic nominee, however the Dems are not far behind with a equally despicable candidate of their own who is distrusted by nearly 70% of the American people.  I feel the only way to get to a brighter future for the U.S. is if both of the current candidates were to step down or be put down and that is a sad thought indeed, or perhaps it is time for the U.S.A. to get their comeuppance, I guess we will all find out one way or another in a few short months.

[Ulysses G.]

6 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

 

Fox News is slipping into black mud also.  Each day, more people are seeing how Fox, far from being the 'Family Values' channel, was actually run by old men who were date-raping younger women.  

 

Most of your posts are full of dishonesty spin and distortions, but this is a blatant lie. Roger Ailes has been accused of sexual harassment. That is not even close to rape. 

[linksman00]

6 hours ago, Johnniey said:

Believe that and you'll believe anything.

The naivety with which so many liberals seem to buy the hype and tripe of the leftwing  blogdom as fact is truly remarkable

[boomerangutang]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Most of your posts are full of dishonesty spin and distortions, but this is a blatant lie. Roger Ailes has been accused of sexual harassment. That is not even close to rape. 

 

Coercion for sex is rape.  Suppose you had a pretty 21 yr old daughter who just landed a plum job earning a half million dollars a year.  I was her boss thrice her age.  I make it repeatedly clear to her, on several private occasions, that she must have sex with me in order to maintain her job. That's akin to rape.  Additionally, I make it clear that she must have sex with buddies of mine when I direct her to.  Also, I make it crystal clear that if she doesn't have sex with me, I will ruin her chances of getting employed in her profession.  That's same as rape.  

Notably, it's similar to how Trump does business.  Putting aside the sexual charges for a moment (and there are many of those attributed to Trump), he has threatened and carried out many threats to 'ruin peoples' careers' who crossed him.  .....and that's from the person who claims he'll be 'THE BEST JOBS PRESIDENT IN HISTORY'  That's like Hitler declaring he'll be the champion of equal rights for gays, gypsies and Jews.

 

Get apprised of Aisles' and Trump's sordid mega-manipulative history for the past 35 years, and it might open your eyes (unless you choose to go through life with eyes shut).  Also, get a clue about what attractive young women have to put up with in the corporate world.  Ask your sisters/mother/daughters.  They might offer some insight.

[Ulysses G.]

More dishonest spin. Rape is sex by force. No one has accused Ailes of that and he has not even been convicted of sexual hurrasment.

[CaptHaddock]

8 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

Coercion for sex is rape.  Suppose you had a pretty 21 yr old daughter who just landed a plum job earning a half million dollars a year.  I was her boss thrice her age.  I make it repeatedly clear to her, on several private occasions, that she must have sex with me in order to maintain her job. That's akin to rape.  Additionally, I make it clear that she must have sex with buddies of mine when I direct her to.  Also, I make it crystal clear that if she doesn't have sex with me, I will ruin her chances of getting employed in her profession.  That's same as rape.  

Notably, it's similar to how Trump does business.  Putting aside the sexual charges for a moment (and there are many of those attributed to Trump), he has threatened and carried out many threats to 'ruin peoples' careers' who crossed him.  .....and that's from the person who claims he'll be 'THE BEST JOBS PRESIDENT IN HISTORY'  That's like Hitler declaring he'll be the champion of equal rights for gays, gypsies and Jews.

 

Get apprised of Aisles' and Trump's sordid mega-manipulative history for the past 35 years, and it might open your eyes (unless you choose to go through life with eyes shut).  Also, get a clue about what attractive young women have to put up with in the corporate world.  Ask your sisters/mother/daughters.  They might offer some insight.

 

I don't agree with this.  All sexual offenses are reprehensible, but they are not all the same as rape. 

 

When Trump claims he'll be the best jobs president in history, he isn't being like Hitler.  He's being like the show-off kid in your third-grade class who would say anything to be the center of attention.

[CaptHaddock]

3 hours ago, linksman00 said:

Capt,   Once again lets look at the facts, over the past 12 presidential elections the Democrats have been able to win only 5 times, and of those 5 times, one was Jimmy Carter running against Nixon pardoner and all around blockhead Gerald Ford ( given Americas hangover from the Nixon years, Vietnam War, doubledigit inflation and once again Gerald Ford being an uncarismatic blockhead, perhaps even some off the charts leftwinger like McGovern could even have beaten Ford), the second was Bill Clinton being gifted the Presidency outright by Ross Perot (Perot garnering nearly 19% of the vote, the vast majority of which would have gone for Bush and an easy win for the R's), the third being Bill Clinton once again being gifted the Presidency by Ross Perot (although this time Perot got a little more than 8% of the vote, and Clinton had help from a booming economy-thanks to the Gingrich (Kasich) revolution and the contract with America) and the fourth and fifth wins were Obama where the Dems really did use technology coupled with good old fashion big city machine politics to produce an incredible get out the vote job, and this was helped by the fact that many Republicans stayed at home given the lack of enthusiasm for both McCain and Romney.  This time around the Republicans have an even more pathetic nominee, however the Dems are not far behind with a equally despicable candidate of their own who is distrusted by nearly 70% of the American people.  I feel the only way to get to a brighter future for the U.S. is if both of the current candidates were to step down or be put down and that is a sad thought indeed, or perhaps it is time for the U.S.A. to get their comeuppance, I guess we will all find out one way or another in a few short months.

 

Thanks for the dump of current right-wing radio agitprop.  It's always entertaining to see how the world looks in the fun-house mirror of talk radio.  Every one of your points is either wrong or distorted beyond recognition, but I am not looking for a second career in correcting the misconceptions of right-wingers.  Yes, Perot did give the 1992 election to Clinton, but you omit that Nader did the same for Bush, well, with a little help from a corrupt Supreme Court.  So the 2000 election was clearly stolen and would have been a Dem win. 

 

I can never quite understand the gusto with which you right-wingers hate HRC.  The fact that the accusations against both of the Clintons are so trivial leads some of us to suspect that the largely Christian right-wing loves to hate.  The best you can come up with is a real estate deal that didn't make them rich or her email server?  That compares with starting not one, but two illegitimate wars based on lies and wasting trillions of dollars, by the way enriching pet companies like Halliburton?  As for lying, sure HRC tells the occasional fib to enhance the resume like most politicians, but it beggars belief that you right-wing types fail to notice that she does not approach the lying level of a Bush, much less a Trump. 

 

I have some reservations about HRC as I do about Obama since neither one is nearly left enough for me, but that pales beside my horror at the damage that the Republican policies since Reagan have done and continue to do to American life.

[CaptHaddock]

57 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

More dishonest spin. Rape is sex by force. No one has accused Ailes of that and he has not even been convicted of sexual hurrasment.

 

True.  Let's reserve the "rape" word for those who have been credibly accused of actual rape, like Bill Cosby and, well, Donald Trump, for example.

[boomerangutang]

55 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

More dishonest spin. Rape is sex by force. No one has accused Ailes of that and he has not even been convicted of sexual hurrasment.

 

You initially responded to my post which mentioned 'date-rape' which you changed to the word 'rape.'  There is a bit of difference between date-rape and rape.  Perhaps there should be a third category: 'coerced rape' to describe the common practice (by Ailes and Trump and countless other execs) of forced sex upon people using other means of persuasion, other than physical strong-arming.  Aisles has not yet been convicted of sexual crimes, agreed.  Yet the plethora of accusations spilling forth are not coming from thin air.  Murdoch and his two sons certainly had to have heard of the sick atmosphere at Fox for the past decades.  If not, they had to have been completely out of touch with their businesses.  If so, then the Murdochs were complicit in the crimes.  

[linksman00]

28 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

Thanks for the dump of current right-wing radio agitprop.  It's always entertaining to see how the world looks in the fun-house mirror of talk radio.  Every one of your points is either wrong or distorted beyond recognition, but I am not looking for a second career in correcting the misconceptions of right-wingers.  Yes, Perot did give the 1992 election to Clinton, but you omit that Nader did the same for Bush, well, with a little help from a corrupt Supreme Court.  So the 2000 election was clearly stolen and would have been a Dem win. 

 

I can never quite understand the gusto with which you right-wingers hate HRC.  The fact that the accusations against both of the Clintons are so trivial leads some of us to suspect that the largely Christian right-wing loves to hate.  The best you can come up with is a real estate deal that didn't make them rich or her email server?  That compares with starting not one, but two illegitimate wars based on lies and wasting trillions of dollars, by the way enriching pet companies like Halliburton?  As for lying, sure HRC tells the occasional fib to enhance the resume like most politicians, but it beggars belief that you right-wing types fail to notice that she does not approach the lying level of a Bush, much less a Trump. 

 

I have some reservations about HRC as I do about Obama since neither one is nearly left enough for me, but that pales beside my horror at the damage that the Republican policies since Reagan have done and continue to do to American life.

Sorry to make your blood pressure rise there cappy,  just take a deep breath and relax  my friend  You are correct about the 2000 election, even though Nader only got a little over 2% of the overall vote it was crucial in the  Florida outcome, and Gore would have likely won, which might have been a good thing? BTW I do not listen to right wing radio so save your pathetic left wing diatribe for someone else on that count  My post contained only facts my friend,  and facts that can be easily researched.  I have equal distaste for both Trump and Clinton  and if either of them wind up in the White House then the U.S. is in real trouble.  I hope that Assange has what I think he has On Clinton,  and if Trump keeps on alienating people enough then there will likely  be a L.H.O. out there somewhere that will come forward and earn a place in history.  In any event 2016 will be a sad year for the U.S. A. no matter how this plays out 

[Pinot]

5 hours ago, linksman00 said:

Capt,   Once again lets look at the facts, over the past 12 presidential elections the Democrats have been able to win only 5 times, and of those 5 times, one was Jimmy Carter running against Nixon pardoner and all around blockhead Gerald Ford ( given Americas hangover from the Nixon years, Vietnam War, doubledigit inflation and once again Gerald Ford being an uncarismatic blockhead, perhaps even some off the charts leftwinger like McGovern could even have beaten Ford), the second was Bill Clinton being gifted the Presidency outright by Ross Perot (Perot garnering nearly 19% of the vote, the vast majority of which would have gone for Bush and an easy win for the R's), the third being Bill Clinton once again being gifted the Presidency by Ross Perot (although this time Perot got a little more than 8% of the vote, and Clinton had help from a booming economy-thanks to the Gingrich (Kasich) revolution and the contract with America) and the fourth and fifth wins were Obama where the Dems really did use technology coupled with good old fashion big city machine politics to produce an incredible get out the vote job, and this was helped by the fact that many Republicans stayed at home given the lack of enthusiasm for both McCain and Romney.  This time around the Republicans have an even more pathetic nominee, however the Dems are not far behind with a equally despicable candidate of their own who is distrusted by nearly 70% of the American people.  I feel the only way to get to a brighter future for the U.S. is if both of the current candidates were to step down or be put down and that is a sad thought indeed, or perhaps it is time for the U.S.A. to get their comeuppance, I guess we will all find out one way or another in a few short months.

 

"The Dems are not far behind with a equally despicable candidate of their own who is distrusted by nearly 70% of the American people."  ???

 

Both candidates should be put down? America should get their comeuppence?  

 

 

19 minutes ago, linksman00 said:

Sorry to make your blood pressure rise there cappy,  just take a deep breath and relax  my friend  You are correct about the 2000 election, even though Nader only got a little over 2% of the overall vote it was crucial in the  Florida outcome, and Gore would have likely won, which might have been a good thing? BTW I do not listen to right wing radio so save your pathetic left wing diatribe for someone else on that count  My post contained only facts my friend,  and facts that can be easily researched.  I have equal distaste for both Trump and Clinton  and if either of them wind up in the White House then the U.S. is in real trouble.  I hope that Assange has what I think he has On Clinton,  and if Trump keeps on alienating people enough then there will likely  be a L.H.O. out there somewhere that will come forward and earn a place in history.  In any event 2016 will be a sad year for the U.S. A. no matter how this plays out 

 

An L.H.O.?  You're advocating assassination? Everything is terrible and we deserve the anarchy. 

 

I think the world agrees Trump in the White house would be a disaster but Hillary will be fine. Your lumping HRC in with Trump as the disenfranchised, the world is effed, we're all going to die, braindead wingnuts often do.  

 

This is a typical wingnut position. It's the end of the world as we know it. They hate Hillary with a passion, but realize that Trump is pathetic. 

 

This WILL play out just fine. Trump is such a terrible candidate he should bring about majorities in Congress for the Democrats and a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court is guaranteed at this point. That's a fact, Jack. 

 

HRC will make a great President. "Madam President," cappy. Get use to it. 

 

"My post contained only facts my friend, and facts that can be easily researched."   okey dokey smokey. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

41 minutes ago, linksman00 said:

Sorry to make your blood pressure rise there cappy,  just take a deep breath and relax  my friend  You are correct about the 2000 election, even though Nader only got a little over 2% of the overall vote it was crucial in the  Florida outcome, and Gore would have likely won, which might have been a good thing? BTW I do not listen to right wing radio so save your pathetic left wing diatribe for someone else on that count  My post contained only facts my friend,  and facts that can be easily researched.  I have equal distaste for both Trump and Clinton  and if either of them wind up in the White House then the U.S. is in real trouble.  I hope that Assange has what I think he has On Clinton,  and if Trump keeps on alienating people enough then there will likely  be a L.H.O. out there somewhere that will come forward and earn a place in history.  In any event 2016 will be a sad year for the U.S. A. no matter how this plays out 

"My post contained only facts my friend,  and facts that can be easily researched."

Well, then, if it was so easy, why didn't you do the research. I am specifically referring to this:

" the second was Bill Clinton being gifted the Presidency outright by Ross Perot (Perot garnering nearly 19% of the vote, the vast majority of which would have gone for Bush and an easy win for the R's),"

 Virtually everyone who's done the research on this knows that Bush would have lost in any case. Here's one source but there are lots of others:

 http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm

In addition to which, you failed to note that the last time a Republican got the majority of total votes cast was in the 2004 election. And in that one, Bush was aided by the fading but still potent afterglow of 9/11 and the Iraq war.  Demographics show that it's the Republicans who are slowing fading as a viable alternative to the Democrats in Presidential elections.