Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 20, 2014, 01:41:09 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 420
126  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: NY GOP Chairman Predicts De Blasio in 2016 on: November 23, 2014, 10:13:38 am
Even big-city mayors who have become Governors or Senators don't win primaries.

Does anyone question that George Voinovich would have been the most qualified person to be President of the United States?
127  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How will Hillary play in MI? on: November 23, 2014, 10:10:07 am
If she loses in Michigan, a Republican has already won the presidency.

Yes. In such a case she has likely won DC, Maryland, Delaware, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Mexico,  California, New York, New Jersey, and the New England states other than New Hampshire, and maybe Illinois -- 134 or 154 electoral votes.
128  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Incoming Nevada Speaker is a real piece of work on: November 21, 2014, 05:40:48 am
I have no problem with people defending the military heritage of the Confederacy. The Confederate armed forces were on the whole the most gentlemanly enemies that the US ever faced in wartime. There were some blatant exceptions, and they paid for their crimes.

If someone wants to honor Confederate war dead as ancestors or near-ancestors, then so be it.

The political heritage of the Confederacy is a different matter. The Confederacy may have dressed its defense of slavery in noble-sounding words, but noble-sounding words cannot hide that after the Emancipation Proclamation, the Confederacy was fighting only for slavery. It was not fighting for ownership of land.

In view of the way in which the Union dealt with slavery in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- buying the freedom of slaves -- I am increasingly convinced that Abraham Lincoln was intent on imitating the British way of emancipating slaves, a way that proved much more practical than the Civil War.



 
129  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: NBC Poll: '2016 Field Is Crowded -- and Mostly Unpopular' on: November 21, 2014, 12:06:28 am
It looks much like a quarterback controversy in football -- the team is not going to win many games. Likewise a relief ace controversy for a baseball team.
130  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Could Wyoming go Democrat in 2016? on: November 21, 2014, 12:03:00 am
Re: Could Wyoming go Democrat in 2016?

Not in 2016.

But...


Imagine a Democratic presidential winner re-elected with carriage of 49 states.

The holdout would be Utah.

So it is…possible.

Long as that re-elected Democratic president wins about a 25-point margin in the U.S. Popular Vote (which, with 130 million votes cast, would be winning the U.S. Popular Vote by about 32.5 million raw votes).

By the way: Which Republican would help make this "possible"?

David DuKKKe.
131  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama to announce executive order on immigration on: November 20, 2014, 11:18:58 pm
Obama made an excellent speech, and it's great he's signing this executive order.  The US should live up to its reputation as the "land of the free", and NOT deport decent people who were brought here as small children.
So, should we not imprison murderors because they have small children? We don't have to deport children born here, but the parents should be deported.

Criminal aliens will be on the fast track -- to deportation (barring that they serve prison time for due convictions should they be convicted). Persons caught illegally entering the country or overstaying their visas will of course be deported.

Did anyone catch the fact that families are to be kept together? What can the American-born US citizen kids of illegal aliens do without their parents?  They would be illegal aliens in the countries to which their parents are deported.

The President has put humanitarian concerns over the sort of revenge  that some on the Right want. Face it -- Ronald Reagan and George H W Bush facilitated the immigration of Cubans and southeast Asians whom most people expected to be reliable voters for the Republican Party indefinitely. Such was humane in its time; so it is with President Obama.

Sure, it has consequences. It can only hurt Republicans in 2016 -- tough luck. If it was right when Reagan was President, then so it is with Obama.
132  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Kansas SoS: Obama's exec. order could lead to ethnic cleansing of whites on: November 20, 2014, 09:46:27 pm
Must be part of the GOP rebranding.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kris-kobach-obama-ethnic-cleansing

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R) on Sunday warned that President Obama's executive actions and general "lawlessness" on immigration could lead to "ethnic cleansing."

Kobach, a vocal advocate of the anti-immigrant movement, claimed during his radio talk show that there was a strategy to replace American voters with Hispanic ones who favored socialism.

"The long term strategy of, first of all, replacing American voters with illegal aliens, recently legalized, who then become U.S. citizens," Kobach said. "There is still a decided bias in favor of bigger government not smaller government. So maybe this strategy of replacing American voters with newly legalized aliens, if you look at it through an ethnic lens, ... you've got a locked in vote for socialism."

Koback also responded to a caller who was concerned about ethnic cleansing, which the caller claimed was a threat from immigrant and Hispanic rights groups.

"What happens, if you know your history, when one culture or one race or one religion overwhelms another culture or race?" the caller asked. "When one race or culture overwhelms another culture, they run them out or they kill them."

Kobach then responded with his take.

"What protects us in America from any kind of ethnic cleansing is the rule of law, of course," Kobach said. "And the rule of law used to be unassailable, used to be taken for granted in America. And now, of course, we have a President who disregards the law when it suits his interests. And, so, you know, while I normally would answer that by saying, 'Steve, of course we have the rule of law, that could never happen in America,' I wonder what could happen. I still don't think it’s going to happen in America, but I have to admit, that things are, things are strange and they're happening."

Where does one start on these lunatics?

1. Did the large Irish Catholic immigration to the US in the middle of the 19th century lead to ethnic cleansing? Hardly. Old Yankee towns in New England became Irish and Catholic -- but the old Yankee population was already leaving them for richer farmland in upstate New York, Michigan, and Wisconsin. What remained was the mercantile families who by all accounts prospered.

2. The white Anglo population is not replacing itself with childbirth. (Neither are blacks, but that is another story).  European immigration to the US has become practically in equilibrium with emigration. White people who don't want to raise children whose best prospects in life are to be unskilled laborers, retail clerks, or domestic servants effectively create openings for those who consider such not so bad if it is in America.

3. The Hispanic immigrants, legal or illegal, have not come here to change the American political system. They do not seek to aid any 'return' of any part of America to any Hispanophone country. They want good lives here. The only way in which such happens, or any Hispanic effort to secede from the United States is if the United States gets a racist regime hostile to Hispanics (in which other ethnic and religious groups such as Asian-Americans, Jews, and Muslims might seek to participate in the same secessionist movement).  

4. The pattern of American interaction with immigrant groups has usually been quick linguistic assimilation with introduction of cultural traits of the immigrants. Italian, Chinese, and Mexican cuisine are not going away. Love Broadway theater? It's really Yiddish theater -- it simply started using English instead of Yiddish because it got an ever-larger audience of people who used English instead of Yiddish.

5. Enmity between Anglo and Hispanic populations has never been significant. Even in the formation of the Republic of Texas, Anglo and Hispanic Texans both sought independence from the dictatorial rule of Santa Ana. Intermarriage between Anglos and Hispanics is so commonplace that it rarely bears noting.

6. Ethnic cleansing? That is for Nazis.

7. Part of the "Rule of Law" is to live and let live.          
133  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: GOP Rep: Obama may face jail time if he issues imigration exec. order on: November 20, 2014, 07:01:13 pm
Did he ever complain about misconduct that Dubya performed?

He wasn't in congress when Dubya was President. Next question.

Dubya is still free. He could still complain. There's no statute of limitations for war crimes.
134  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws on: November 20, 2014, 06:59:22 pm
The defense of anti-SSM laws in Michigan is so inept that it begs a smack-down in the US Supreme Court.
135  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: GOP Rep: Obama may face jail time if he issues imigration exec. order on: November 20, 2014, 06:56:16 pm
Did he ever complain about misconduct that Dubya performed?
136  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Incoming Nevada Speaker is a real piece of work on: November 20, 2014, 04:04:32 pm
Easy dump, 2016. Democrats take over the State House, Hillary Clinton wins Nevada by a landslide, Harry Reid or his chosen successor successor gets elected to the Senate.

137  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Wisconsin voters and Walker's presidential prospects on: November 20, 2014, 09:30:24 am
(post deleted due to repetition)
138  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Wisconsin voters and Walker's presidential prospects on: November 20, 2014, 09:07:58 am
The question is whether Walker would do things to deliver the electoral votes of Wisconsin through some legislative chicanery. Here is his optimum:

Base the electoral vote on a winner-take-all basis on Congressional districts, so that if the Republican wins five districts by 51-49 margins and loses three by  70-30 margins, Wisconsin could go nearly 55-45 for the Democrat and still give ten electoral votes to the Republican.

It's not fair. It's just what the Governor's string-pullers want. Whether the US Supreme Court would stand for something that so distorts the popular vote is in doubt.

Now that you mention this, let's do it in Michigan! Wink


(Sorry. I missed the joke. Did I lose my sense of humor on November 5?
139  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which state is more likely to vote for Hillary? Kentucky or Indiana? on: November 20, 2014, 09:04:32 am
Indiana. The state voted for Obama in 2008 and voted in a Democratic Senator in 2012. Democrats of course have more and bigger areas in which they can amass votes -- the northern tier of counties from St. Joseph westward, Indianapolis, Bloomington, Lafayette, and maybe Fort Wayne. Indiana is culturally more like Ohio; Kentucky is ... insult excised to protect the innocent.

Kentucky has Louisville, Lexington, and forget it.   
140  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Wisconsin voters and Walker's presidential prospects on: November 20, 2014, 08:55:22 am
The question is whether Walker would do things to deliver the electoral votes of Wisconsin through some legislative chicanery. Here is his optimum:

Base the electoral vote on a winner-take-all basis on Congressional districts, so that if the Republican wins five districts by 51-49 margins and loses three by  70-30 margins, Wisconsin could go nearly 55-45 for the Democrat and still give ten electoral votes to the Republican.

It's not fair. It's just what the Governor's string-pullers want. Whether the US Supreme Court would stand for something that so distorts the popular vote is in doubt.
141  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Montana voters voted to keep same-day registration on: November 20, 2014, 08:48:16 am
Didn't see a thread on this ballot measure, but it's important.

This is now the 2nd time voters rejected Republican efforts to limit voting.

MT voters rejected the measure by a huge 57-43 margin in a heavily GOP climate & state.

Previously, Maine-voters rejected ending same-day registration after Republicans wanted to restrict voting.

Thoughts ?

People are unwilling to have their voting rights curtailed for partisan reasons.
142  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws on: November 20, 2014, 08:46:58 am
Quote
CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) — A judge has issued the first same-sex marriage licenses in South Carolina, ahead of a planned move by the state's attorney general to block such unions. Early Wednesday, the office of Probate Judge Irvin Condon in Charleston said that he had issued six licenses to same-sex couples.

The judge's attorney, John Nichols, says the way was cleared for issuing the licenses by a decision in a case in Columbia. On Tuesday, the judge in that case ruled that South Carolina must recognize the marriage of a same-sex couple performed in Washington, D.C.

Last month, the South Carolina Supreme Court told probate judges not to issue any marriage licenses until there was a decision in that case. Nichols says Tuesday's ruling was that decision, so Condon is issuing licenses.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/19/same-sex-marriage-south-carolina_n_6185180.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices

The stay expires anyway.

Recent YouGov map with appropriate modifications as of 9AM EST, 20 November 2014:



White -- SSM equality by law.
Yellow -- toss-up

 

States in white (and DC) already have legalized same-sex marriages. Other states are coded by district in those in which SSM was not permanently legalized as of 2 PM EST on 12 November 2014:







Status of SSM in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Marianas not shown.

5th circuit
6th circuit*
8th circuit
11th circuit

*Next appeal, US Supreme court.

Colors for districts have no other political significance.

DC and all states within the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th appellate districts have legalized SSM.


Here are the numbers:

Compiled results are listed below. The headers for each column are: State/ Support Legalising Gay Marriage/ Oppose Legalising Gay Marriage/ Net Support.

MA    71    19    +52
VT    71    20    +51
RI    68    20    +48
NH    63    24    +39
CT    61    26    +35
NY    61    27    +34
HI    59    26    +33
CA    58    31    +27
ME    63    37    +26
NM    57    32    +25
WA    57    32    +25
NV    55    31    +24
DE    54    31    +23
NJ    54    32    +22
OR    56    35    +21
IA    53    33    +20
IL    53    33    +20
CO    54    35    +19
MN    52    34    +18
AK    50    36    +14
WI    51    37    +14
MD    48    36    +12
PA    49    38    +11

ND    48    39    +9
MI    47    39    +8
AZ    47    40    +7
VA    47    40    +7

FL    46    40    +6
OH    45    40    +5
MT    45    41    +4
KS    44    41    +3

SD    43    43    0
IN    43    45    -2
NC    42    46    -4
MO    41    47    -6

NE    40    46    -6
LA    39    46    -7
WV    39    48    -9
GA    37    47    -10
SC    37    47    -10
KY    38    50    -12
TX    37    50    -13
OK    37    51    -14
WY    33    50    -17
ID    33    51    -18

AR    32    54    -22
UT    34    56    -22
MS    29    56    -27
TN    29    58    -29
AL    28    60    -32

US    48    39    +9









143  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Polls on Same-Sex Marriage State Laws on: November 19, 2014, 10:09:31 pm
What is it with Montana?

OVER. Billings Gazette:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/federal-judge-rules-montana-s-anti-gay-marriage-amendment-unconstitutional/article_585e4df1-6c99-57ee-a72b-1d975a245975.html

Quote
HELENA — A federal judge in Montana on Wednesday overturned the state's gay marriage ban.

U.S. District Judge Brian Morris ruled that Montana's constitutional amendment limiting marriage to between a man and a woman violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

"This Court recognizes that not everyone will celebrate this outcome," Morris wrote. "This decision overturns a Montana Constitutional amendment approved by the voters of Montana. Yet the United States Constitution exists to protect disfavored minorities from the will of the majority."

Montana Attorney General Tim Fox said Thursday afternoon that he will appeal the ruling. Fox, a Republican, said he has the duty to defend the ban until "no appeal can made in a court of law."

Morris also noted Montana no longer can deprive plaintiffs and other same-sex couples of the chance to marry their loves. He said his ruling was effective immediately.

Recent YouGov map with appropriate modifications as of 11PM EST, 19 November 2014:



White -- SSM equality by law.
Yellow -- toss-up

 

States in white (and DC) already have legalized same-sex marriages. Other states are coded by district in those in which SSM was not permanently legalized as of 2 PM EST on 12 November 2014:







Status of SSM in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, or the Northern Marianas not shown.

4th circuit*
5th circuit
6th circuit*
8th circuit
11th circuit

*Next appeal, US Supreme court.

Colors have no political significance.

DC and all states within the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, and 10th appellate districts have legalized SSM.


Here are the numbers:

Compiled results are listed below. The headers for each column are: State/ Support Legalising Gay Marriage/ Oppose Legalising Gay Marriage/ Net Support.

MA    71    19    +52
VT    71    20    +51
RI    68    20    +48
NH    63    24    +39
CT    61    26    +35
NY    61    27    +34
HI    59    26    +33
CA    58    31    +27
ME    63    37    +26
NM    57    32    +25
WA    57    32    +25
NV    55    31    +24
DE    54    31    +23
NJ    54    32    +22
OR    56    35    +21
IA    53    33    +20
IL    53    33    +20
CO    54    35    +19
MN    52    34    +18
AK    50    36    +14
WI    51    37    +14
MD    48    36    +12
PA    49    38    +11

ND    48    39    +9
MI    47    39    +8
AZ    47    40    +7
VA    47    40    +7

FL    46    40    +6
OH    45    40    +5
MT    45    41    +4
KS    44    41    +3

SD    43    43    0
IN    43    45    -2
NC    42    46    -4
MO    41    47    -6

NE    40    46    -6
LA    39    46    -7
WV    39    48    -9
GA    37    47    -10
SC    37    47    -10
KY    38    50    -12
TX    37    50    -13
OK    37    51    -14
WY    33    50    -17
ID    33    51    -18

AR    32    54    -22
UT    34    56    -22
MS    29    56    -27
TN    29    58    -29
AL    28    60    -32

US    48    39    +9








144  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: History shows Hillary unlikely to win on: November 19, 2014, 08:45:05 pm

(Modified to fit 2016):

Never-Wrong Pundit Pick(ed) Obama to Win in 2012

fromhttp://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/08/30/never-wrong-pundit-picks-obama-to-win-in-2012



“Even if I am being conservative, I don’t see how Obama can lose,” says Lichtman, the brains behind The Keys to the White House.

Lichtman’s prediction helps to explain a quirk in some polling that finds that while Americans disapprove of the president, they still think he will win re-election. ...


Lichtman developed his 13 Keys in 1981. They test the performance of the party that holds the presidency. If six or more of the 13 keys go against the party in power, then the opposing party wins.“The keys have figured into popular politics a bit,” Lichtman says. “They’ve never missed. They’ve been right seven elections in a row. A number that goes way beyond statistical significance in a record no other system even comes close to.”

Lichtman’s earned quite the reputation. In 1992, it seemed likely former President George H.W. Bush would be re-elected, having reached historic highs in popularity after he launched a war that pushed Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. But Lichtman thought otherwise and that factored into former Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton’s decision to challenge Bush.“I got a call from this woman with a thick southern drawl. It was Clinton’s special assistant. She wanted to know if it was true that a Democrat could win. I assured her it was and I sent Clinton a copy of my book and a memo and the rest is history.” [See photos of the Obamas behind the scenes.]

In 2005, Lichtman also hit a home run when he said that the political stage was looking so bad for Republicans that Democrats could pick a name out of the phone book and win in 2008, the year a little known first-term senator became the first African-American to win the presidency.

Below are each of the keys and how it falls for Obama Hillary Clinton.

Party mandate:
After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections.

Definite failure for any Democrat.


Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Says Lichtman on Obama’s unchallenged status, “I never thought there would be any serious contest against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary.” Obama (Clinton probably) wins this key.


Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.

Definitely not.

Third Party: There is no significant third party challenge. Obama wins this point. If there will be a significant Third Party it will be a challenge to the GOP.


Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. Here Lichtman declares an “undecided.”

So would I.


Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

Too early to tell.

Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. “There have been major policy changes in this administration. We’ve seen the biggest stimulus in history and an complete overhaul of the healthcare system so I gave him policy change,” says the scholar.

Not likely.

Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. Says Lichtman, “There wasn’t any social unrest when I made my predictions for 2012 and there still isn’t.”

Not happening, so a plus.

Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. “This administration has been squeaky clean. There’s nothing on scandal,” says Lichtman. Another Obama win.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any major failure that resembles something like the Bay of Pigs and don’t foresee anything.” Obama (Clinton likely) wins again.

Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. “Since Osama bin Laden was found and killed, I think Obama has achieved military success.” Obama wins his eighth key.

Obama has time to make this happen this time. If he must cut a deal with Iran to smash ISIS, then he will. Just not yet.

Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. Explains Lichtman, “I did not give President Obama the incumbent charisma key. I counted it against him. He’s really led from behind. He didn’t really take the lead in the healthcare debate, he didn’t use his speaking ability to move the American people during the recession. He’s lost his ability to connect since the 2008 election.” Obama loses this key. [See political cartoons about President Obama.]

Hillary Clinton seems to have charisma.

Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. Says Lichtman, “We haven’t seen any candidate in the GOP who meets this criteria and probably won’t.” Obama wins, bringing his total to nine keys, three more than needed to win reelection.

No Republican offers charisma, and no Republican is a national hero.

Six positives; seven wins.
145  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: History shows Hillary unlikely to win on: November 19, 2014, 08:28:02 pm
The White House is a metronome in one very important way.

Since the 1928 election, the following trend has been consistent.

Parties peak, and slowly lose power until the other party takes over, and peaks and slowly loses power.

Even when one party won many elections in a row, it followed this pattern.

So Truman in 1948 won less votes then FDR in 1944, who won less votes than he did in 1940, who won less votes in 1936. Papa Bush got less votes in 1988 than Reagan did in 1984.

There can always be an exception, but it seems to be a mistake to assume that an exception is the likeliest outcome.

One pattern was that incumbents either add to their popular and electoral vote totals or lose altogether. President Obama did neither in 2012.

I got caught by one of the 'rules' that I discovered: I found a hole in the electoral results of elections from 1900 to 2008 in which the winner of the Presidential election got either more than 65% (McKinley)  of the electoral vote or less than 57% even if the mean was almost in the middle. I figured that the nominees projecting to win 40% of the electoral vote would either take desperate efforts to win and likely fail even to hold onto some of what he had (think of McCain in 2008) or make the vote much closer (the Ford charge in 1976).  Someone projecting to win 30% or so of the electoral vote was going to have a lackluster campaign; someone close was not going to gamble big on high-risk plays.

The 2012 Presidential election fit very well into the 'void' that proved non-existent. Had Romney won Florida, ny theory would have held.    
146  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016: Democrats start with at least 207 EV's, Republicans with 164 on: November 19, 2014, 12:47:48 am
By figuring that Republicans really have no chance of winning either Michigan or Pennsylvania in a close election but have a chance in Nevada, and calling NE-02 a toss-up )it voted for a Democrat for the US Congress) I get this result:

 Democrats    237    33    --    99 Winning Combinations »
Republicans    163    107    --    56 Winning Combinations »
Ties         23 Tie Combinations »

That's advantage Democrats and a big one. It shows that the Electoral College is skewed in Democratic favor.

Here's my take. Michigan isn't going R, and neither is Pennsylvania. But Scott Walker is catapulted to a front-runner for President, which makes a huge difference in Wisconsin. Joni Ernst, who may be one of the most reactionary Senators, got elected in Iowa, so if she can win so can a Republican nominee for President. Minnesota of course was the 49th or worst state for a Republican nominee in the two 49-state blowouts, which are long ago but was about the 20th best state for Obama twice, which suggests more its inelasticity than anything else.   




Maine is much more homogeneous in its voting than is Nebraska, so it is far more likely that Nebraska gives up an electoral vote to the Democrat than does Maine give one to the Republican.

Here's a reasonable scenario in which NE-02 decides who is the next President:



I have Colorado and Nevada voting in opposite directions, which is unlikely, and I see New Hampshire voting as it has not voted since 2000... but the Walker Machine has not delivered Wisconsin. Iowa going for the Republican but not Greater Omaha?



147  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Florida on: November 18, 2014, 11:10:24 pm
Democrats lose if the race going into September 2016 is close because of the sure barrage of right-wing agitprop from the Koch fronts. But if Republicans expose the right-wing agenda at its rawest, they lose big.

Who well can the Koch family keep the Republicans from outrageous statements that offend moderate sensibilities?
148  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper. on: November 18, 2014, 11:06:29 pm
Nobody runs for VP.
149  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Wisconsin Megathread: 2014 Aftermath and 2016 Senate Speculation on: November 18, 2014, 11:04:44 pm
He shoots up to the top tier of potential GOP nominees. The people who most matter in GOP politics, the Koch family, have likely found him 'their finest pupil'.
150  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Will Democrats ever regain a majority of governorships again? on: November 18, 2014, 10:47:34 pm
If the Koch syndicate gets its way, American elections will be as meaningless as elections in China.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 420


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines