Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 24, 2014, 04:28:11 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 415
126  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: What's your favorite type of eschatology? on: October 29, 2014, 12:23:05 am
Looking for a Millennium as a solution to all worldly problems is a cop-out.
127  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Is Homosexuality a sin? on: October 29, 2014, 12:21:12 am
This may not seem fair to you, but the point of a religion is often that one must give up pleasurable things in this life to inherit a reward in the next one.  Just as the prohibition of homosexual sex exists, there would also be a prohibition against extramarital sex for heterosexual people. 

So it goes like this;

HETEROSEXUAL? Sex bad. Unless married.
HOMOSEXUAL? All sex bad. All intimacy bad. All romance bad.

What a cruel god this is. To f-ck up and f-ck with ten percent of his creation. And then to give free rein to the remaining ninety percent to f-ck with them as well.

Your going to have to take your complaints up with the big man upstairs.

If one accepts that God created the Universe, then one must also ascribe to Him  the inability of some people to conform to alleged Biblical prohibitions of homosexuality.
128  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Pope Francis accepts evolution and Big Bang theory, says God isn't a magician on: October 29, 2014, 12:14:41 am
Do you know what would make a big improvement in the American South?

Conversion to Catholicism.
129  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: RNC Chair: Hillary Clinton not really good at politics on: October 29, 2014, 12:13:06 am
Would any high-level Republican say anything good about a living Democratic politician?
130  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: AP-GfK polls Americans' belief in the paranormal on: October 29, 2014, 12:11:54 am
Damn! Are we $crewed as a nation or people!
131  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: District Judge Upholds Puerto Rico gay marriage ban on: October 27, 2014, 03:16:44 pm
When will the federal government respect the will of the states and the people regarding this issue regardless of laws allowing it or banning it?  All the bans recently overturned (this includes California, Indiana, Utah etc ). What I'm saying is if a state bans it don't interfere. If a state allows it don't interfere. 

If a state wished to ban people practicing Christianity. Do you think that should be allowed and that federal government and the judiciary should not interfere?

Mr. JCL needs a real world example.  I would be willing to bet that a majority of Oklahomans would be for a ban on Islam.  Would the will of the people be in effect there? 

The First Amendment is clear and absolute on the right to practice an unpopular religion. The State that can ban Islam can in turn outlaw Judaism, then in turn...

132  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Steve King: "I donít expect to meet [gays] should I make it to heaven." on: October 27, 2014, 03:11:56 pm
Marriage equality affects everyone. The United States hasn't been living up to the Equal Protection Clause of the  Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. So, it may not personally interest you; but, then again, the LGBT community isn't interesting in waiting for you to become possibly supportive. So, giving LGBT persons their due equal rights for legal marriage, as experienced by heterosexual persons, is the solution to that particular issue. Other "current problems" are just more topics. This one does not take a back seat, at this time in our history, because you emotionally want to deflect its importance by telling us that you have more pressing concerns. That's not how this country, or any other country, operates. The issues come up, maybe they even get solved, whenever they do.

If you're using Equal Protection to have a pointless argument about the correct definition of marriage, you're wasting our time. If you compare the legal privileges of a married individual to those of an unmarried individual, you will find evidence of inequality, regardless of sexual orientation. The socioeconomic discrimination between married and unmarried individuals is the source of our problems.

For many decades, the government has been content to ignore Equal Protection as it pertains to marriage, but as women have entered the workforce, inequality has become more acute. We are actively subsidizing a lifestyle decision, which carries inherent socioeconomic benefits to the individuals who partake.

The SSM debate is just the canary in the coal mine.

Human rights are not counter to each other. They do not imply an exclusive choice as it is for middle-income budgets with respect to buying a Ford or Chevrolet automobile. One might be able to buy one, but buying one precludes buying the other. There is no limiting budget for human rights. The civil rights struggle for Southern blacks was not contrary to the right to union representation, to environmental protection, to the rights of the handicapped, or to women's rights.  If it is simply a matter of a right offending a special interest or a personal sensibility with no other merit, then tough.

Personal license may be a different matter, as when "gun rights" imply a severe compromise of the assumption that we have a right to safety from gun violence.

 
133  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Steve King: "I donít expect to meet [gays] should I make it to heaven." on: October 26, 2014, 07:40:32 pm
Imagine a culture where children are often betrothed, and they are married by the time they reach sexual maturity, and society expects them to use their sexuality, in a manner that is exclusively useful to their spouse, and indirectly beneficial for society as a whole. Do you think there is any room for homosexual behavior? Do you think the people who created this system are inherently bigoted?

Bigoted, no. Backward, definitely. That was the norm until early-modern times, and it served to promote conformity within the community, preserve the identity of religious minorities,  and solidify the rigid class structure. It is now backward in the sense that writing with a quill pen is backward.

As for homosexual behavior -- it was typically done on the sly. Can you imagine what a miserable marriage that would have been? What for? Tradition? What was a delight for many was drudgery for the homosexual.

Sure, tradition was everything.  But we don't let tradition dictate our lives, do we, today?

Quote
The world is full of people who lack understanding. The Judeo-Christian world refuses to acknowledge their departure from the Old Testament system of betrothal and teen marriage, which is the genesis of most anti-homosexual cultural rules. The anti-theist movement is largely unsympathetic to the plight of ancient people, who were merely trying to reproduce and survive. They suppose, instead, malice aforethought, as if ancient people could have foreseen modern existential crises.

We are no longer responsible to those ancient people. We can neither harm them nor do good. Marriage between people fourteen years old, once something 'natural', is now unconscionable.  We have enough people as it is, and we have no need for a population explosion.  As for the 'wisdom' of ancient peasants -- they accepted much that we now find abominable, like slavery and a death penalty that encompassed such offenses a witchcraft.

I suggest that you ask the experts on what the Old Testament says. The real experts. The Jews. They do not kill witches. They do not kill children for talking back. They do not tolerate slavery. On the whole they get good results for their lives.  

Quote
Society is also largely ignorant of sexual practices of ancient people, who were not necessarily opposed to behaviors like incest, bestiality, adultery, rape, polygamy, sexual slavery, prostitution, sex with minors/children, etc.

Except for adultery, all of those are abominable and often illegal today on the grounds that such are cruel, exploitative, or destructive. You contradict yourself by on the one hand admiring the ancients for their sexual wisdom and on the other hand excoriating their sexual depravity. Some of the behavior of ancient Hebrew kings is now unthinkable -- like having harems. I respect the Old Testament for showing the consequences (tragedy for the victims and at times self-destruction of the perpetrators)... and those are valid warnings to us today. I have never had any use for sex with children, but the secular explanation from Sigmund Freud -- that children find sex unwelcome and painful -- is good enough for me. The repugnance that most of us have against rape is now that is violates the right a female who does not or cannot consent (a feminist approach) -- in contrast to the violation of a man's possession of sexual rights to a wife. The feminist approach is a stronger judgment against rape.

As for adultery -- it hurts children by gutting their certainty about the trustworthiness of their parents. Adultery depends upon lies and deceit that hurt children.        

Quote
The triumph of Judeo-Christian sexual propriety is not problematic in the grand scheme, and pretending otherwise is a pointless waste of time. The people who drifted away from a strict interpretation of anti-homosexuality scripture did not do so under duress, and it is as silly to think that change-averse religious doctrines will evolve under duress as it is ridiculous/immoral to imagine that religious pressure can change someone's sexual orientation.

Even if one thinks homosexuality something less than ideal, one cannot see it evil in the sense that murder, robbery, rape, perversion of justice, the making of fraudulent oaths, denying rest to employees, and abandonment of the elderly are gross affronts against the morality that underpins a wholesome society. Know well: no part of the Bible says anything that specifically prohibits the use or dealing in narcotics... or driving drunk. So far as I can tell, homosexuality is an indelible part of the character of people. At least it is not sociopathy or even narcissism.

Did you see the video to which I linked? I saw no Christian morality in the foul-mouthed, violent brute who attacked an alleged gay. I am sure that if you are a Christian that you would never testify to the 'wrongness' of homosexuality with a kick to the groin. Taking down the violent brute who had shown a willingness to inflict severe and pointless pain looks like Christian behavior. Violent hatred against homosexuals does not match the command of Jesus to love thy neighbor as if oneself.
134  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Steve King: "I donít expect to meet [gays] should I make it to heaven." on: October 26, 2014, 04:23:21 pm
In case anyone wonders why I am for gay and lesbian rights, the creep depicted in the video makes my point. A warning: the perpetrator uses some dreadful language and, worse, a kick to the groin.   

Law and order is the first of all human rights, without which the others are cant. The perp made the mistake of showing off his infantile morality at DFW Airport, a place teeming with police. Cops win, gay-basher likely gets a stiff prison term instead of a stiff drink.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/24/1339028/-Watch-good-Samaritans-tackle-violent-gay-basher-at-Dallas-airport#comments

The dregs of our society are irrelevant, not stars to determine political orientation. If you focus on the exceptional occurrences, you'll never see the real problems.

The government pits the traditional heterosexual marriage demographics against the single alternative-relationship or homosexual demographics. Gays are just the single people who are tired of being discriminated against. The rest of the single world has been taught that there is something wrong with them, and they generally accept the socio-economic punishment handed down by the government.

Gay rights and SSM are the most small-minded solutions I can possibly imagine to our current problems.

"Dregs" draw plenty of attention from local DAs in criminal prosecutions. People have been executed in Texas for gay-bashing that results in murder.

The problem is that the perpetrator thought his victim "gay" -- it is that he believed it acceptable to attack a gay man. The homophobic smears and hostile profanity alone would have been "disorderly conduct".

I have been threatened with gay-bashing. Sure, I could explain how I know that I am not gay, but I doubt that that would convince an angry bigot. All in all, formal acceptance of gay rights makes anti-homosexual crime less likely. 

... There is now no convincing argument that same-sex marriage threatens "traditional marriage". If anything it expands "traditional marriage". Some people just can't relate sexually to the other gender but can to their own. I don't have to understand homosexuality -- but I understand homophobia all too well and find it appalling.
135  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What are Hillary Clinton's weaknesses? on: October 26, 2014, 09:13:05 am
Potentially age and health.
136  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What are Hillary Clinton's strengths? on: October 26, 2014, 09:11:36 am
She has huge experience in public life. She has as intimate knowledge of the Executive Branch as anyone could have without being President. She follows a President who did not get a chance to achieve everything that he wanted to achieve but whose agenda remains popular. (Obama gets low marks now for failing to convince Republicans to support him on legislation; Republicans were going to give him nothing).

She has Senate and Cabinet experience and was effective at both. She is now much more qualified to be President than Barack Obama was in 2008.

She has learned from her defeat in the primaries from the slickest campaigner that there ever was. She already has the Obama campaign apparatus on her side.     
137  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary Clinton strikes populist tone, bashes Scott Walker on: October 26, 2014, 09:00:14 am
Ahh, yes, the great Clinton record of being foes of big banks by deregulating them with Glass-Steagall, which caused the Great Recession.

Also:

 "For goodness' sake, you can't be a lawyer if you don't represent banks." - Hillary Clinton

I hope no one is dumb enough to believe she'll actually go after the banks.

Silly me, I must have forgotten when Hillary Clinton voted to repeal Glass-Steagall.

Her husband signed it into law. Now, she's welcome to break with her husband's right-wing record and support reinstating it, but I don't see that happening.

So what? Hillary is her own person. It's getting kind of old hearing the Hillary haters talk about Hillary as an extension of Bill, it reeks of sexism.

By the way, GrammĖLeachĖBliley passed the Senate 90-8 and the House 362-57. It's also incredibly simplistic to say that it was the only thing that caused the financial meltdown.

Indeed it was the shyster financing -- liar loans, fraudulent rating of mortgage-backed 'securities', reckless lending on unearned equity in the wake of a speculative boom -- and gross underinvestment in productive industry because the crooked lending drove out other finance. The real estate boom of the Double-Zero decade devoured capital, and when the enthusiasm waned there was no basis for prosperity.

Nations become poor -- not rich -- by importing their luxuries.   
138  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Does Hillary do worse or better than Obama with Hispanics ? on: October 26, 2014, 08:52:47 am
About the same, unless the Republican nominee does something to tick off Cuban-Americans in Florida or Mexican-Americans in Texas -- which probably means that the Republican nominee is going to lose lots of other voters. 
139  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Electoral College problems for Republicans on: October 26, 2014, 08:49:40 am
@pbrower: Minnesota, the last non-Democratic vote there was against McGovern
States change.

We have other threads about whether Hillary Clinton can plausibly win states Obama lost by more than eight points in a good year for Democrats. It seems reasonable to suggest that Republicans have a shot at winning a state Romney lost by eight points in a bad year for that party.

States change, but Minnesota in 2016?

Romney lost by 8 when he lost by 4 nationally. McCain lost there by 11 when he lost by 7 nationally.  Bush lost by 4 when he won by 2 nationally.

There's no trend in favor of the GOP. The only thing they've done recently is knock out their Republican Governor and Senator.

Minnesota is one of the least "swingy" states in America.  Should Hillary Clinton win 57-43 (a blowout characteristic of Eisenhower in 1956, which is the strongest imaginable win for a Democratic nominee), she might win Minnesota 55-45 and we would see Minnesota at R+2.

Minnesota is going to go 55-45 for a very strong Democrat who can safely take Minnesota for granted and 50.5-49.5 for a Democrat who loses 60-40 (in which case it is D+11). Maybe if Hillary Clinton declines to run the nominee will be Amy Klobuchar, and the Favorite Son effect takes hold, but that is not a legitimate swing effect.
140  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Steve King: "I donít expect to meet [gays] should I make it to heaven." on: October 26, 2014, 06:56:33 am
In case anyone wonders why I am for gay and lesbian rights, the creep depicted in the video makes my point. A warning: the perpetrator uses some dreadful language and, worse, a kick to the groin.   

Law and order is the first of all human rights, without which the others are cant. The perp made the mistake of showing off his infantile morality at DFW Airport, a place teeming with police. Cops win, gay-basher likely gets a stiff prison term instead of a stiff drink.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/24/1339028/-Watch-good-Samaritans-tackle-violent-gay-basher-at-Dallas-airport#comments
141  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Steve King: "I donít expect to meet [gays] should I make it to heaven." on: October 25, 2014, 07:10:56 pm
Homosexuals, like all people, are certainly capable of going to Heaven if they repent and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior.

Unrepentant sinners don't go to Heaven; and thus, an unrepentant homosexual will indeed go to Hell, just like how an unrepentant adulterer or unrepentant fornicator (to name two examples) will go to Hell.


I have used the threat of Hell. On a Nazi. I also told him that he wouldn't like Heaven anyway -- too many Jews for his liking.

By the way -- what is so damnable about homosexuality itself?
142  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Alabama treats inmates like Victorian debtors at best, stray animals at worst on: October 25, 2014, 08:10:08 am
This is sickening.. What kind of monsters do things like that?

The American prison system practices amoralist treatment of inmates? No way.

Firstly, amoralist isn't a word, and secondly, even if it were it doesn't refer to what I think you are referring to. Secondly, who are you to judge what is immoral and what isn't. You are merely an individual and from what I can gather not exactly a hugely wealthy or powerful one either. I also recall that you are not religious, thus meaning that you have no Church, no God and no book to back up whatever definition of morality that you are peddling. You are also criticising the morality of the state, yet, again, you have no comparable source of weight to back up your claims to know what it is to be moral.

So, what would you do? The state has to signal its disapproval of the actions of criminals (in a way that is easy for everybody to understand), thus, naturally, prisons must be unpleasant places to be. Far from being a violation or dereliction of duty, these prisons are in fact performing to a tee the role that prisons should perform; that is, to be hard, nasty places of punishment and suffering for the inmates.

Although I wouldn't, myself, go in for withholding medical care from inmates, that is only because I am of the view that they should be farmed out to do hard labour for free, and, you know, crippled criminals aren't likely to perform such tasks particularly well. Nonetheless, I see nothing particularly immoral here, in fact, in my own flawed, worthless individual perspective, I see this treatment as being perfectly morally justifiable.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Well I've gleaned that the man is basically a Nazi, so I'm going to guess "everything".

Before we go any further down this line of, um... attack, let me just put forward a couple of point. I am not anti-Semitic. I am not anti-Slavic. I do not believe that the British people need 'living space'. I'm not very keen on the idea of placing one semi-competent man at the pinnacle of a vast, complex state, with pretty much absolute power. I do not believe that the disabled should be killed. I'm not amenable to the idea that women are basically baby factories. I also do not believe that there is such thing as a 'master race'.

Now that's out of the way, please inform me as to why I'm 'basically a Nazi'. Or we could just forget the whole thing Smiley .

You need not be a Nazi to stand for evil.

Brutal treatment of non-violent offenders is inexcusable. Non-violent offenders must be rehabilitated -- not convinced that our social order treats life as a triviality compared to a piece of recorded music. If we must coddle offenders to correct them -- maybe we undo the harm that people who should have coddled kids but instead neglected or abused them did. Part of the rehabilitation is learning the relative value of humanity and material objects. Prisons must be deterrents to criminal behavior, even if the deterrent is 'only' regimentation, dislocation, and deprivation.

Economic exploitation is itself brutality, and it ordinarily requires brutal methods of enforcement -- especially if people have nominal freedom. The farm-out system did nothing to improve the offender, and may have exposed the offender to abuse that the State was obliged to excuse and enforce.   

 
143  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: October 25, 2014, 07:49:01 am
YouGov polled all 50 states:



The national rating was 40% approve, 57% disapprove.

That looks like 2016 at 41-58 or something..

It is pretty cool that the Democrats could lose a 1984-esque landslide these days and still win 100 electoral votes.
Indeed.

Incumbents usually gain about 6% in vote share from their early approval ratings if they run for re-election. They usually campaign to get re-elected unless they are have approval ratings well below 40%.

He'd still lose 47-53 or something.

I can see that happening to Hillary in 2016 if things remain about the same as they do today.

Shed probably get 45 or 46 in Colorado,New Hampshire, Nevada and Iowa, like 42 to 45 in states like Arkansas, Missouri and W Virginia. Shed get like 47 in N Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Ohio and barely lose Virginia, Pennsylvania and Minnesota. Shed pull off NM and MI though. Thatd put her between McCain and Romney.

Inapplicable. Not the same person and certainly not the same agenda. Polls have shown her likely to do about as well at the least as Barack Obama did against McCain in 2008 -- against everyone.

President Obama will not be campaigning for a third term. He will keep his distance as he did in Senate campaigns in 2012 and this year. 
144  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Electoral College problems for Republicans on: October 25, 2014, 07:43:18 am
I agree.

Is Bush more electable than Christie?
With a sensible platform (minimum wage rise, expanded Medicaid, comprehensive immigration reform) could he win back Latinos and carry all required states (FL, CO and VA). OH would be the most problematic of the must win swing states.
I am assuming he can win Georgia and North Carolina, in spite of the current polls.


The problem is that Jeb would still need to separate himself from his brother. He would need to denounce the bad choices of Dubya that led to the economic meltdown that looked eerily like the prelude to the Great Depression. 
145  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Huckabee the favorite to win the Adelson primary? on: October 24, 2014, 06:23:15 pm
Mike Huckabee would have difficulty winning outside the Deep and Mountain South against Hillary Clinton except for the safest-R states. He would lose Florida and Virginia, likely North Carolina and Georgia. He'd struggle to win Missouri.

Hillary Clinton at the least wins every state that Barack Obama won in 2008 and Arizona. 

 
146  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Advanced mapmaking for your timeline! on: October 24, 2014, 06:12:04 pm
Got a way to add Puerto Rico as a state? Cuba as a non-voting territory?
147  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Alternate US States on: October 24, 2014, 06:08:14 pm
Michigan would be more interesting if it were shorn of Wayne, Washtenaw, Oakland, Macomb, and (for contiguity to Erie, to which it belongs) Lenawee and Monroe Counties.

I'd be tempted to graft South Bend and Milwaukee into "Chicagoland".
148  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Obama 2.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: October 24, 2014, 05:52:21 pm
YouGov polled all 50 states:



The national rating was 40% approve, 57% disapprove.

That looks like 2016 at 41-58 or something..

It is pretty cool that the Democrats could lose a 1984-esque landslide these days and still win 100 electoral votes.
Indeed.

Incumbents usually gain about 6% in vote share from their early approval ratings if they run for re-election. They usually campaign to get re-elected unless they are have approval ratings well below 40%.

He'd still lose 47-53 or something.
149  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Electoral College problems for Republicans on: October 23, 2014, 01:30:36 pm
Here's the problem for the Republican Party:




The states and districts in deep red have given a majority of the popular vote to the Democrat in every Presidential election beginning in 2000 and a plurality in all Presidential elections from 1992 on. That's 232 electoral votes out of contest barring an unusually-weak Democratic nominee, which means that the Democrats have nearly 86% of the electoral votes that they need without really trying.   That is very charitable; that suggests that Wisconsin is available (and it will be if Scott Walker is re-elected. If the Koch brothers tell him to rig the Presidential election, then he just might do it). That's what I think of Scott Walker, and your opinion may differ. These states have comparatively few members of arch-conservative religious groups -- Mormons, Lutherans, or Christian Protestant fundamentalists.


OK -- what of the other side? I can put the states that have not voted for any Democrat since 1980 (as that involves two Reagan landslides), and have gone twice by at least 10% against Barack Obama in deep blue -- and that leaves only 86 sure electoral votes for a Republican no matter who the Democrat is. That is a tough standard, but I need a parallel.  

Those in medium red have voted for a Republican Presidential nominee at most once (Wisconsin never!) beginning in 1992.  That is 25 electoral votes. These states  are tough wins for Republicans in Presidential elections, and if the Republican picks off any of them he has likely won.  For another parallel I put those states that Republicans have gotten in all elections since 1980 and have gone to the Republican by less than 10% in 2008. That comprises three states and a measly 14 electoral votes (the two Dakotas and South Carolina).

257-100. Ouch. The Republicans have a lock on only 19% of the electoral votes against any Democratic nominee beginning with Bill Clinton. The Republicans cannot beat a "new Bill Clinton" if there is one. Democrats have nearly 48% of the electoral votes that they need with a "new Al Gore".

Areas in pale blue are those states and NE-02 that Democrats have won at most once beginning in 1992 and the one that Clinton won twice but Obama barely missed in 2008 (Missouri). Such accounts for 51 electoral votes on the fringe of a real contest in 2016. Surprisingly, not one of those states except for Georgia or North Carolina could itself win the election for a Democratic nominee. But if the Democrat wins North Carolina or Missouri he is also winning Virginia; if he wins Georgia he has won Virginia and Florida; if he wins Arizona or Montana he has also won Colorado and Nevada; if he wins Indiana he has also won Ohio -- and the Presidency.

(OK -- Bill Clinton won five states in both 1992 and 1996 that Obama lost by huge margins twice. It could be that Barack Obama is the worst possible match for those states since George McGovern. 38 electoral votes, same as Texas. If a Democrat picks these up we have a landslide on our hands. But that is boring). Barring that a populist swing occurs in 2016, those should be considered safe Republican.

The rest are states that Republican nominees cannot afford to lose. One of Florida, Ohio, or Virginia (white) or the pair of  Colorado and Nevada (which are politically if not culturally and demographically similar) wins it.    


 

150  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Electoral College problems for Republicans on: October 22, 2014, 11:13:51 pm
To win, Republicans must win back the sorts of people who believe in thrift, investment, enterprise, and rational thought -- essentially the sorts who would have voted for Eisenhower in the 1950s. They have no use for attempts to impose fundamentalist Christianity in the schools or regulate sexuality.

If Republicans ignore such people, then Democrats will pick them up.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 415


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines