Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 05, 2016, 03:05:12 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 92
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump vs Clinton on: Today at 01:32:18 am
Clinton will win the popular vote by 6-10%.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton and the White Vote on: Today at 01:13:04 am
I think Trump will get around 56-57% of the white vote -- worse than Romney.  Any gains with blue collar whites will be at least partially offset by the fact that college educated voters of all races can't stand Trump, plus I think Clinton will do better with white women than the typical Democratic nominee.

As for nonwhite voters, LOL at Trump.  Polls suggest his ratings with these groups are at abysmal levels worse than even the typical GOP nominee.  It would not surprise me to see him have the worst performance with nonwhite voters in the modern history of presidential politics.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The one thing that scares about Hillary's chances on: Today at 12:56:59 am
How can Trump be charismatic when he has the highest unfavorable rating of any major party nominee in contemporary history?

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who will be Trump's running mate? on: May 04, 2016, 07:49:28 pm
A fool.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: They actually did it, the absolute madmen. on: May 04, 2016, 02:12:58 am
Shameful. 
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Fiorina collapses in front of Cruz and he doesn't even blink on: May 02, 2016, 01:05:24 am
Fiorina did a Bob Dole 1996.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIatQSImzU0
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Hillary's VP list comes down to these five, which one should she choose? on: April 30, 2016, 02:02:51 pm
Brown, Heinrich and Warren are all bad choices because a Republican Governor would appoint their successor.  We cannot afford to be giving U.S. Senate seats away, especially with the Supreme Court at stake.  I don't know how much weight Clinton puts on this but given her pragmatic nature I would guess it is considerable.  I say this as someone who likes all three senators just on their own merits.

To grossly simplify, Tim Kaine vs. Julian Castro boils down to a question of play it safe vs. take a chance.  If Clinton feels good about her electoral position then Kaine is the "safe" choice.  If she feels the need for a game changer then Castro is the best option.

Clinton has shown herself to be a cautious politician, so if it is not clear whether or not she needs a game changer, I think she will select the safe option, Kaine.



8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Jimmy Dore: Hillary Presidency worse for progressives & America than Trump on: April 30, 2016, 02:29:48 am
2018 and 2020 will determine redistricting for the next decade. That will got a lot worse under a Hillary Presidency.

Right, because having the Supreme Court stay in the hands of Republicans who will keep f**king up the Voting Rights Act is totally what the country needs.
A probable Republican Supreme Court Justice is a small price to pay for a president not beholden to lobbyists and corporations, as Hillary would be. Besides, it's not like Trump could pick anyone much more conservative than that filth Merrick Garland.

This is a very ignorant statement.  First of all, there are currently four conservative (Roberts, Alito, Thomas and usually Kennedy) and four liberal (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor) Justices so whoever replaces Scalia will tip the balance of power on the Supreme Court, effectively giving one side or the other a 5-4 ideological majority.  That is absolutely not a "small price."  In fact it is arguably the most important thing at stake in this election.  You do remember Justices serve for life, correct?

Are you aware that Donald Trump has suggested William Pryor and Diane Sykes as Supreme Court nominees?  I am not a fan of Garland but he would be far, far, better than those two from a progressive perspective.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/19/3750758/what-if-donald-trump-wins-inside-his-plans-for-the-supreme-court/
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump doubles down on "woman card" charge on Morning Joe on: April 28, 2016, 09:33:12 pm
What exactly is this woman card that Trump spoke of?  He makes it sound like a big advantage.

Presidents of the United States
Men: 44
Women: 0

2016 Congress
Men: 80%
Women: 20%

2016 Governors
Men: 44
Women: 6

CEOs of S&P 500 companies
Men: 96%
Women: 4%

Political Experience
Hillary Clinton:  2-term U.S. Senator, U.S. Secretary of State
Donald Trump:  nothing
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump doubles down on "woman card" charge on Morning Joe on: April 27, 2016, 09:56:52 pm
Not defending Trump at all, but I have to admit that I usually turn down the volume on Hillary speeches because it literally hurts my ears...  It's not a woman thing.  It's a Hillary thing.

Agreed. Hillary can be a bit shrill.

Just in case anyone needs a reminder of Trump's 70% disapproval rating with women.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190403/seven-women-unfavorable-opinion-trump.aspx

Yeah, but lest you get too overjoyed, remember that a good many people have trouble with the frontrunners in both parties...

One poll cherry picked by you doesn't tell us anything.  Let's take a look at the Trump-Clinton head-to-head polling aggregates, which has her leading by an average of 46%-38%.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump doubles down on "woman card" charge on Morning Joe on: April 27, 2016, 09:33:25 pm
Just in case anyone needs a reminder of Trump's 70% disapproval rating with women.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190403/seven-women-unfavorable-opinion-trump.aspx
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Barbara Boxer takes Fiorina to the woodshed on Twitter on: April 27, 2016, 07:55:32 pm
Barbara Boxer's ad against Fiorina in 2010 was one of my favorites of the cycle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2lDIHyqo7Q
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump doubles down on "woman card" charge on Morning Joe on: April 27, 2016, 07:47:04 pm
A picture is worth a thousand words.

https://vine.co/v/iPBwwEuPIU5
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Would Bernie supporters still be as terrible if it was Warren vs Sanders? on: April 26, 2016, 02:32:13 am
Seems that we're on the same team at the moment:  I agree with your comments about experience.  Obviously many voters are willing to overlook Clinton's blind ambition, especially loyal Democrats who can discount me in November. 

As opposed to every other presidential candidate who ran because they just loved their country so much.
Roll Eyes

Strange how male presidential candidates are NOT described as having "blind ambition." 
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Would Bernie supporters still be as terrible if it was Warren vs Sanders? on: April 26, 2016, 02:17:03 am
If you haven't noticed, I didn't pay much attention to the 2008 election at all, so I'm unaware of how competitive Democratic primaries usually play out. Clinton has so many weaknesses that I have to wonder if the hate of her is unique, or if it would generally be applied in similar fashion to the opposition candidate(s) no matter what.

Brutal primaries happen more often than not.  Consider --

1980 -- Horrible, nasty, vicious primary between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy which ended in a contested convention.  The Carter Campaign kept trying to make thinly veiled references to Chappaquiddick.   It ended with Carter winning but unsuccessfully trying to chase Ted Kennedy around the convention stage for a handshake (lol).  We all know how the general election turned out.

1984 -- Another very long and hotly contested primary between Walter Mondale and Gary Hart. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2007/09/remember_1984.html

1992 -- Bitter personal feud between Jerry Brown and Bill Clinton which ended with Brown refusing to endorse the Democratic nominee.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5kUITklALQ

2004 -- "Independent" groups associated with Dick Gephardt ran negative ads against front-runner Howard Dean with Osama Bin Laden imagery in them.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/12/17/anti-dean-ad-is-criticized/3f44dd20-18ec-4ded-9daa-1d30e8b1e75b/

2008 -- Hillary vs. Obama debate -- "Corporate Board of Wal-Mart" vs. "slum landlord business in Chicago."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD9F1t9GQzA

16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Would Bernie supporters still be as terrible if it was Warren vs Sanders? on: April 25, 2016, 02:12:11 am
In a Warren vs. Sanders race, the majority of establishment support would likely move towards Warren and as a result she would immediately be tagged as corrupt by the Sandernistas crowd.  Warren doesn't have the decades of political battles scars and baggage that Clinton does so it is true there would be less in her past to attack.  But in some ways it would actually be more vicious because Warren and Sanders are quite close on the issues, so the differences would most likely be about leadership style and personality.  That kind of debate can get REALLY nasty.  And of course she would be subject to the sexist attacks that Clinton endured.

Because she is new to politics, Warren would be open to charges about her readiness for the presidency in a way Clinton isn't.  Sanders' "unqualified" charge flopped against Clinton badly because her political experience has been so longstanding and high-profile in the national consciousness, but that isn't true with Warren.  The "not ready for prime time" attack might work against Warren and it could potentially be even more damaging against a younger woman like Kirsten Gillibrand.  Various research has suggested that female candidates for high political office have a higher bar to clear in terms of public perception of their readiness.  For all her other problems, Clinton is unique in that she is virtually immune to this attack.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Would Sherrod Brown be a good VP choice for Hillary? on: April 24, 2016, 02:47:59 pm
What I've been saying for a long time. This could be a reach to the Sanders supporters, the one choice that could work other than Warren, he's in a key swing state, but Kasich is governor... I doubt Clinton cares about losing one senate seat, though. Ohio is tossup in Clinton vs Trump, with Brown it's likely D.

I actually think Clinton cares very much about losing a Senate seat, especially in a swing-state like Ohio and with a Supreme Court vacancy looming.  And if Brown is tapped Democrats lose the seat.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders campaign brings up Monica Lewinsky in attack on Clinton on: April 24, 2016, 02:32:39 pm
One annoying thing about Trump winning the nom will be that we'll have to re-litigate this tedious bullsh**t from 20 years ago

This is a broader point that many people are missing, yes. While it's idiotic for this to come up during the primary, it's not actually going to do any real damage to her that wouldn't be done otherwise. It's going to be everywhere in the general, and it's going to be there whether Trump is the nominee or not (do people think non-Trump candidates won't drag all of it up?).

Yup. Hillary should really figure out how to address this head on, 'cuz despite what she'd like to see happen, this is not going to go away.

Either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is going to be the Republican nominee so if the Right Wing wants to bring up Monica Lewinsky, let them.  There is personal material in Cruz and especially Trump's life which can be examined also.  Should be fun, since the GOP is the party of "moral values."  (LOL)
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders campaign brings up Monica Lewinsky in attack on Clinton on: April 24, 2016, 06:24:25 am
Desperation is setting in for the Sanders campaign and it is beyond embarrassing that Monica Lewinsky was raised as an issue during a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY.  This is the sort of hit one would expect from the right-wing attack machine, the fact it came from a primary opponent's campaign is shameful, especially one promising to run a "positive campaign."

Trotting out the surrogates to perform smears like this is typical politician stuff.  And that is what Sanders is now -- a typical politician.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Have any democrats gotten more conservative due to the sanders campaign? on: April 22, 2016, 12:48:56 am
No.  The Sanders insurgency is something I have seen before, although the socialism part is new.  Jerry Brown (1992) , Bill Bradley (2000), Howard Dean (2004), etc. all had a political base similar to Sanders with similar rhetoric.  Though I was too young to remember it, I've read similar things about Gary Hart's campaign in 1984. 
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Reaction to a Trump nomination from the governments of USís Western allies on: April 22, 2016, 12:19:21 am
If Trump gets the nomination I assume many of these foreign leaders will be trying to figure out how to subtly boost their former colleague, Secretary Clinton, without being too blatant about it.  Most do not want to be seen as meddlers the way Nentanyahu was during 2012.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why doesn't Hillary just support single-payer and tuition-free college? on: April 20, 2016, 09:34:07 pm
Perhaps because a majority of her supporters and Bernie Sanders supporters are not willing to pay the full costs to fund these programs.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/4/14/11421744/bernie-sanders-tax-revolution

People want government services but they don't want to pay for them.  As a government worker I have watched this hypocritical cognitive dissonance for many years.

23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Sanders nuclear option: How would it play out? on: April 20, 2016, 09:20:05 pm
The superdelegates are going to defect from the clear pledged delegate winner (probably by 200+ delegates) and popular vote winner?  That is absurd on its face.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: kasich wishes lgbt+ people would "just get over" discrimination on: April 18, 2016, 11:34:24 pm
So is Kasich the candidate that Log Cabin Republicans are going to get behind?  Are we going to hear more talking points that we gay Democrats are about nothing but identity politics, our party isn't any better for gays (LOL), you're going to change the Republican Party from within.  Yeah, how's that working for you?  If Ted Cruz gets the nomination it will be funny seeing the utter $h**hole you will be in.

The gay Republicans are very solidly behind Trump and have been for quite some time. We will not back down. #LGBTrump #MakeAmericaFabulousAgain

An article I read in Time suggested that the Log Cabins Republicans prefer Kasich.  But of course they are the establishment -- the grassroots may feel differently.

Quote
Angelo said that Log Cabin members havenít coalesced behind one candidate, although most interviewed for this article felt that Ohio Governor John Kasich is the best remaining candidate for the LGBT community.
http://time.com/4270540/lgbt-republicans-gay-trump-transgender/
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: kasich wishes lgbt+ people would "just get over" discrimination on: April 18, 2016, 10:23:11 pm
So is Kasich the candidate that Log Cabin Republicans are going to get behind?  Are we going to hear more talking points that we gay Democrats are about nothing but identity politics, our party isn't any better for gays (LOL), you're going to change the Republican Party from within.  Yeah, how's that working for you?  If Ted Cruz gets the nomination it will be funny seeing the utter $h**hole you will be in.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 92


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines