Can you Democrats please stop panicking?

[Dr. Arch]

Democrats, you have much to panic about.

Hillary is untrustworthy.  Some would say she is a crook, but I shall be polite.

Hillary has enriched herself by taking millions in ill gotten gains from her friends on Wall Street.

Hillary does not have the stamina to do the job.  Some would say she is frail and sickness prone, but I shall be polite.

Hillary is consumed by ambition and would step on anybody and would stop at nothing to achieve it.

Hillary has a voter enthusiasm problem.  The Obama coalition is not moving to her like they were to Obama.

The Democrats have occupied the White House for eight years.  Voters generally prefer a change to the other party after two terms of the same party.

The trend, for the time being, is moving toward Trump.  If the trend continues, and the public is aware that it is happening, they will tend to go with the perceived winner rather than the perceived loser.  Psychology plays an important role in modern politics.

The Hillary campaign is not going as planned.  In spite of spending millions, with the Republicans spending a fraction on advertising as the Democrats have been doing, the race is close.

In the final analysis, the people's desire for change may just become so insurmountable that a huge advertising budget and a good ground game, may simply just not be enough.  

Can someone document when Lincoln Republican snapped? I remember his posts being reasonable and well-thought out, and now they've become incoherent and are quite different in tone and voice, especially in the last week and a half or so.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

Republicans, you have much to panic about.

Donald is untrustworthy.  Some would say he is a crook, but I shall be polite.

Donald has enriched himself by taking millions in ill gotten gains from his friends on Wall Street.

Donald does not have the stability to do the job.  Some would say he is incoherent and tantrum prone, but I shall be polite.

Donald is consumed by ambition and would step on anybody and would stop at nothing to achieve it.

Donald has a voter outreach problem.  The Republican establishment is not moving to him like they were to Romney.

The Republicans have occupied the House for six years.  Voters generally prefer a change to the other party after three terms of mindless obstructionism.

The trend, for the time being, is moving toward Clinton. If the trend continues, and the public is aware that it is happening, they will tend to go with the perceived winner rather than the perceived loser.  Psychology plays an important role in modern politics.

The Donald campaign is not going as planned.  In spite of spending so much time attempting to gaffe-proof Trump, he continues to say incredibly stupid and harmful things.

In the final analysis, the people's desire for a competent leader may just become so insurmountable that huge media attention and bombastic rhetoric may simply just not be enough.  

fixed

[Virginiá]

The Democrats have occupied the White House for eight years.  Voters generally prefer a change to the other party after two terms of the same party.

I won't really dig into this list, especially the 'untrustworthy' bit, something no Republican/Trump supporter really has any standing to talk about given their own nominee, who is a serial liar and who consistently lies way more than Hillary, or any nominees from recent political history.

But this 2-term fatigue myth needs to be killed with fire already. I'll just include a recent post of mine:

That's not really true. America actually has a history of choosing the same party, it's just that since presidents serve 4 year terms, there haven't really been that many chances. There is a small penalty due to the grievances the public can build up towards the party in power over 2 years, but if the incumbent is even relatively popular, it's perfectly possible.

1860 - 1932 saw 56 years of Republican control with long stretches of uninterrupted Republican control 1860 - 1884, 24 years straight with the exception of Johnson, who only took over after the election / 1896 - 1912, 16 years straight / 1920 - 1932, 12 years straight again.

1932 - 1952, 20 straight years of Democrats (FDR, Truman)

1968 - 1992, Republicans control White House for 20 of 24 years, with Carter just barely winning his 1 term. If Nixon had not been, well, Nixon, it could very well have been 24 years straight.

2000 Gore won the popular vote and Bush barely won the EC, so you could almost consider this a 3rd term in the sense that it was perfectly possible and Democrats did win the popular vote.

1960 Another very close election that could have easily turned into a 3rd Republican term.


Point is, America doesn't really have a problem with 12+ years of the same party controlling the White House.

[Lincoln Republican]

Democrats, you have much to panic about.

Hillary is untrustworthy.  Some would say she is a crook, but I shall be polite.

Hillary has enriched herself by taking millions in ill gotten gains from her friends on Wall Street.

Hillary does not have the stamina to do the job.  Some would say she is frail and sickness prone, but I shall be polite.

Hillary is consumed by ambition and would step on anybody and would stop at nothing to achieve it.

Hillary has a voter enthusiasm problem.  The Obama coalition is not moving to her like they were to Obama.

The Democrats have occupied the White House for eight years.  Voters generally prefer a change to the other party after two terms of the same party.

The trend, for the time being, is moving toward Trump.  If the trend continues, and the public is aware that it is happening, they will tend to go with the perceived winner rather than the perceived loser.  Psychology plays an important role in modern politics.

The Hillary campaign is not going as planned.  In spite of spending millions, with the Republicans spending a fraction on advertising as the Democrats have been doing, the race is close.

In the final analysis, the people's desire for change may just become so insurmountable that a huge advertising budget and a good ground game, may simply just not be enough.  

Can someone document when Lincoln Republican snapped? I remember his posts being reasonable and well-thought out, and now they've become incoherent and are quite different in tone and voice, especially in the last week and a half or so.

So I see, your panic attack has now turned into a personal attack.  Nice move.

[Dr. Arch]

Democrats, you have much to panic about.

Hillary is untrustworthy.  Some would say she is a crook, but I shall be polite.

Hillary has enriched herself by taking millions in ill gotten gains from her friends on Wall Street.

Hillary does not have the stamina to do the job.  Some would say she is frail and sickness prone, but I shall be polite.

Hillary is consumed by ambition and would step on anybody and would stop at nothing to achieve it.

Hillary has a voter enthusiasm problem.  The Obama coalition is not moving to her like they were to Obama.

The Democrats have occupied the White House for eight years.  Voters generally prefer a change to the other party after two terms of the same party.

The trend, for the time being, is moving toward Trump.  If the trend continues, and the public is aware that it is happening, they will tend to go with the perceived winner rather than the perceived loser.  Psychology plays an important role in modern politics.

The Hillary campaign is not going as planned.  In spite of spending millions, with the Republicans spending a fraction on advertising as the Democrats have been doing, the race is close.

In the final analysis, the people's desire for change may just become so insurmountable that a huge advertising budget and a good ground game, may simply just not be enough.  

Can someone document when Lincoln Republican snapped? I remember his posts being reasonable and well-thought out, and now they've become incoherent and are quite different in tone and voice, especially in the last week and a half or so.

So I see, your panic attack has now turned into a personal attack.  Nice move.

If you look at my posting history, you'll notice I haven't been panicking. It is an honest question/observation. The tone of your posts has changed dramatically, whether you acknowledge it or not.

[Hermit For Peace]

Democrats, you have much to panic about....

So do the Republicans. Both candidates are unpopular, Trump being MORE unpopular than Hillary, and more mentally unstable and divisive. Even members of his own party are denouncing him and distancing themselves from him. While all the big wigs in Hillary's party are behind her.

Trump people have NO room to talk, AT ALL.

[Mr. Smith]

Democrats, you have much to panic about....

So do the Republicans. Both candidates are unpopular, Trump being MORE unpopular than Hillary, and more mentally unstable and divisive. Even members of his own party are denouncing him and distancing themselves from him. While all the big wigs in Hillary's party are behind her.

Trump people have NO room to talk, AT ALL.

John Anderson, Nixon, Mathias...denounced Reagan.

Lots of Lindsay Republicans denounced Nixon's Southern Strategy, meanwhile Humphrey had the big-wigs.

Look what happened.

[Hermit For Peace]

Democrats, you have much to panic about....

So do the Republicans. Both candidates are unpopular, Trump being MORE unpopular than Hillary, and more mentally unstable and divisive. Even members of his own party are denouncing him and distancing themselves from him. While all the big wigs in Hillary's party are behind her.

Trump people have NO room to talk, AT ALL.

John Anderson, Nixon, Mathias...denounced Reagan.

Lots of Lindsay Republicans denounced Nixon's Southern Strategy, meanwhile Humphrey had the big-wigs.

Look what happened.

I see little if any comparison to the Trump situation.

[Lincoln Republican]

Democrats, you have much to panic about....

So do the Republicans. Both candidates are unpopular, Trump being MORE unpopular than Hillary, and more mentally unstable and divisive. Even members of his own party are denouncing him and distancing themselves from him. While all the big wigs in Hillary's party are behind her.

Trump people have NO room to talk, AT ALL.

John Anderson, Nixon, Mathias...denounced Reagan.

Lots of Lindsay Republicans denounced Nixon's Southern Strategy, meanwhile Humphrey had the big-wigs.

Look what happened.

I see little if any comparison to the Trump situation.

Then you're not looking very hard.

[Lincoln Republican]

Democrats, you have much to panic about.

Hillary is untrustworthy.  Some would say she is a crook, but I shall be polite.

Hillary has enriched herself by taking millions in ill gotten gains from her friends on Wall Street.

Hillary does not have the stamina to do the job.  Some would say she is frail and sickness prone, but I shall be polite.

Hillary is consumed by ambition and would step on anybody and would stop at nothing to achieve it.

Hillary has a voter enthusiasm problem.  The Obama coalition is not moving to her like they were to Obama.

The Democrats have occupied the White House for eight years.  Voters generally prefer a change to the other party after two terms of the same party.

The trend, for the time being, is moving toward Trump.  If the trend continues, and the public is aware that it is happening, they will tend to go with the perceived winner rather than the perceived loser.  Psychology plays an important role in modern politics.

The Hillary campaign is not going as planned.  In spite of spending millions, with the Republicans spending a fraction on advertising as the Democrats have been doing, the race is close.

In the final analysis, the people's desire for change may just become so insurmountable that a huge advertising budget and a good ground game, may simply just not be enough.  

Can someone document when Lincoln Republican snapped? I remember his posts being reasonable and well-thought out, and now they've become incoherent and are quite different in tone and voice, especially in the last week and a half or so.

So I see, your panic attack has now turned into a personal attack.  Nice move.

If you look at my posting history, you'll notice I haven't been panicking. It is an honest question/observation. The tone of your posts has changed dramatically, whether you acknowledge it or not.

OK, if you say you have not been having any panic attacks, then I take you at your word, as I am confident you are a person of honor.

However, the personal attack you made on me still stands.

[Devout Centrist]

Democrats, you have much to panic about.

Hillary is untrustworthy.  Some would say she is a crook, but I shall be polite.

Hillary has enriched herself by taking millions in ill gotten gains from her friends on Wall Street.

Hillary does not have the stamina to do the job.  Some would say she is frail and sickness prone, but I shall be polite.

Hillary is consumed by ambition and would step on anybody and would stop at nothing to achieve it.

Hillary has a voter enthusiasm problem.  The Obama coalition is not moving to her like they were to Obama.

The Democrats have occupied the White House for eight years.  Voters generally prefer a change to the other party after two terms of the same party.

The trend, for the time being, is moving toward Trump.  If the trend continues, and the public is aware that it is happening, they will tend to go with the perceived winner rather than the perceived loser.  Psychology plays an important role in modern politics.

The Hillary campaign is not going as planned.  In spite of spending millions, with the Republicans spending a fraction on advertising as the Democrats have been doing, the race is close.

In the final analysis, the people's desire for change may just become so insurmountable that a huge advertising budget and a good ground game, may simply just not be enough.  

You complain about a personal attack, but half of this is baseless personal attack.

[Lincoln Republican]

Democrats, you have much to panic about....

So do the Republicans. Both candidates are unpopular, Trump being MORE unpopular than Hillary, and more mentally unstable and divisive. Even members of his own party are denouncing him and distancing themselves from him. While all the big wigs in Hillary's party are behind her.

Trump people have NO room to talk, AT ALL.

You know, you make an excellent point.  I have never said that I am supporting Donald Trump.  I believe the choice this election is the worst two candidates the major parties have ever offered for the same election.

In fact, if you check my posting history, you will see many, many posts denouncing Trump vociferously.

Neither Donald nor Hillary deserve to become President of the United States as far as I am concerned.

[Lincoln Republican]

Democrats, you have much to panic about.

Hillary is untrustworthy.  Some would say she is a crook, but I shall be polite.

Hillary has enriched herself by taking millions in ill gotten gains from her friends on Wall Street.

Hillary does not have the stamina to do the job.  Some would say she is frail and sickness prone, but I shall be polite.

Hillary is consumed by ambition and would step on anybody and would stop at nothing to achieve it.

Hillary has a voter enthusiasm problem.  The Obama coalition is not moving to her like they were to Obama.

The Democrats have occupied the White House for eight years.  Voters generally prefer a change to the other party after two terms of the same party.

The trend, for the time being, is moving toward Trump.  If the trend continues, and the public is aware that it is happening, they will tend to go with the perceived winner rather than the perceived loser.  Psychology plays an important role in modern politics.

The Hillary campaign is not going as planned.  In spite of spending millions, with the Republicans spending a fraction on advertising as the Democrats have been doing, the race is close.

In the final analysis, the people's desire for change may just become so insurmountable that a huge advertising budget and a good ground game, may simply just not be enough.  

You complain about a personal attack, but half of this is baseless personal attack.

Give me one example from the above post where I have made a personal attack against another poster on this forum.

Attacking a candidate is not a personal attack against a poster on this forum.  And that is what can get you demerit points or banned, is making personal attacks against another poster on this forum.

This forum is full of attacks against candidates running for office. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Democrats, you have much to panic about.

Hillary is untrustworthy.  Some would say she is a crook, but I shall be polite.

Hillary has enriched herself by taking millions in ill gotten gains from her friends on Wall Street.

Hillary does not have the stamina to do the job.  Some would say she is frail and sickness prone, but I shall be polite.

Hillary is consumed by ambition and would step on anybody and would stop at nothing to achieve it.

Hillary has a voter enthusiasm problem.  The Obama coalition is not moving to her like they were to Obama.

The Democrats have occupied the White House for eight years.  Voters generally prefer a change to the other party after two terms of the same party.

The trend, for the time being, is moving toward Trump.  If the trend continues, and the public is aware that it is happening, they will tend to go with the perceived winner rather than the perceived loser.  Psychology plays an important role in modern politics.

The Hillary campaign is not going as planned.  In spite of spending millions, with the Republicans spending a fraction on advertising as the Democrats have been doing, the race is close.

In the final analysis, the people's desire for change may just become so insurmountable that a huge advertising budget and a good ground game, may simply just not be enough.  

You complain about a personal attack, but half of this is baseless personal attack.

Give me one example from the above post where I have made a personal attack against another poster on this forum.

Attacking a candidate is not a personal attack against a poster on this forum.  And that is what can get you demerit points or banned, is making personal attacks against another poster on this forum.

This forum is full of attacks against candidates running for office. 

There are some things in here that are deliberate misrepresentations, as well as outright lies.

You are better than this.

[Lincoln Republican]

Democrats, you have much to panic about.

Hillary is untrustworthy.  Some would say she is a crook, but I shall be polite.

She lied to the American public about her e-mails.

Hillary has enriched herself by taking millions in ill gotten gains from her friends on Wall Street.

She has been paid 250,000 per speech to speak to the Fat Cats and 21st Century Robber Barons who were bailed out with billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars

Hillary does not have the stamina to do the job.  Some would say she is frail and sickness prone, but I shall be polite.

She lied about the state of her health and the fact she had pneumonia.

Hillary is consumed by ambition and would step on anybody and would stop at nothing to achieve it.

This is self explanatory to anyone who knows anything about her history.

Hillary has a voter enthusiasm problem.  The Obama coalition is not moving to her like they were to Obama.

By this time the Democrats had hoped to have the election well in hand, not an almost even race.

The Democrats have occupied the White House for eight years.  Voters generally prefer a change to the other party after two terms of the same party.

The last time one party won three terms straight was 1988, 28 years and 7 elections ago.

The trend, for the time being, is moving toward Trump.  If the trend continues, and the public is aware that it is happening, they will tend to go with the perceived winner rather than the perceived loser.  Psychology plays an important role in modern politics.

Trump is doing better at this time than Democrats had thought or wished he was doing.

The Hillary campaign is not going as planned.  In spite of spending millions, with the Republicans spending a fraction on advertising as the Democrats have been doing, the race is close.

Self explanatory.

In the final analysis, the people's desire for change may just become so insurmountable that a huge advertising budget and a good ground game, may simply just not be enough.  

This is conjecture and is a possible outcome of the campaign.

You complain about a personal attack, but half of this is baseless personal attack.

Give me one example from the above post where I have made a personal attack against another poster on this forum.

Attacking a candidate is not a personal attack against a poster on this forum.  And that is what can get you demerit points or banned, is making personal attacks against another poster on this forum.

This forum is full of attacks against candidates running for office. 

There are some things in here that are deliberate misrepresentations, as well as outright lies.

You are better than this.

My reasoning as stated above.

If you wish to toss around personal insults and accusations to me, go ahead if it makes you feel better.

[ag]

My reasoning as stated above.

If you wish to toss around personal insults and accusations to me, go ahead if it makes you feel better.

There is nobody here insulting you more than you yourself. You used to be taken seriously. I doubt you are even taking yourself seriously anymore.

Ah, and, BTW, please, do report me. This "magnanimity" business is tiring.

[ag]

This is what our "Lincoln Republican" thought just a few years back.

A ticket composed of Trump and Winfrey would, to put it politely, be a joke, and would not be taken seriously by the electorate. 
I don't care how many day time viewers Oprah has, or how many night time viewers Donald has, or how much
money they have between them, although they could certainly run a flashy campaign with it.  The rough and tumble
of the campaign would reveal how ill prepared either of these individuals would be to lead the country, or to assume
the leadership of the free world, or to lead the war against terrorism. 

Donald should stick to firing people on reality TV, and Oprah should stick to "healing people's souls."  The percentage of
votes received by this politically inept and ill conceived ticket would be negligible.

Would he himself back then take anybody posting what he is posting now as anything other than a joke?

[Dr. Arch]

This is what our "Lincoln Republican" thought just a few years back.

A ticket composed of Trump and Winfrey would, to put it politely, be a joke, and would not be taken seriously by the electorate. 
I don't care how many day time viewers Oprah has, or how many night time viewers Donald has, or how much
money they have between them, although they could certainly run a flashy campaign with it.  The rough and tumble
of the campaign would reveal how ill prepared either of these individuals would be to lead the country, or to assume
the leadership of the free world, or to lead the war against terrorism. 

Donald should stick to firing people on reality TV, and Oprah should stick to "healing people's souls."  The percentage of
votes received by this politically inept and ill conceived ticket would be negligible.

Would he himself back then take anybody posting what he is posting now as anything other than a joke?

↑ This is exactly what I was referring to. They don't even seem like the same person.

[ag]

This is what our "Lincoln Republican" thought just a few years back.

A ticket composed of Trump and Winfrey would, to put it politely, be a joke, and would not be taken seriously by the electorate. 
I don't care how many day time viewers Oprah has, or how many night time viewers Donald has, or how much
money they have between them, although they could certainly run a flashy campaign with it.  The rough and tumble
of the campaign would reveal how ill prepared either of these individuals would be to lead the country, or to assume
the leadership of the free world, or to lead the war against terrorism. 

Donald should stick to firing people on reality TV, and Oprah should stick to "healing people's souls."  The percentage of
votes received by this politically inept and ill conceived ticket would be negligible.

Would he himself back then take anybody posting what he is posting now as anything other than a joke?

↑ This is exactly what I was referring to. They don't even seem like the same person.

He is now going to go back to the archives and scrub them clean. Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.

[Lincoln Republican]

This is what our "Lincoln Republican" thought just a few years back.

A ticket composed of Trump and Winfrey would, to put it politely, be a joke, and would not be taken seriously by the electorate. 
I don't care how many day time viewers Oprah has, or how many night time viewers Donald has, or how much
money they have between them, although they could certainly run a flashy campaign with it.  The rough and tumble
of the campaign would reveal how ill prepared either of these individuals would be to lead the country, or to assume
the leadership of the free world, or to lead the war against terrorism. 

Donald should stick to firing people on reality TV, and Oprah should stick to "healing people's souls."  The percentage of
votes received by this politically inept and ill conceived ticket would be negligible.

Would he himself back then take anybody posting what he is posting now as anything other than a joke?

Well, I must say that I am extremely flattered that you think my posting history is of such Atlas historical value that you took the trouble to go back 11 years to 2005 to quote me.

Thank you very much.  Thank you very much indeed.

My dear fellow, I would not dream of deleting anything of such historic value and importance to this forum.     

[Mr. Smith]

This is what our "Lincoln Republican" thought just a few years back.

A ticket composed of Trump and Winfrey would, to put it politely, be a joke, and would not be taken seriously by the electorate. 
I don't care how many day time viewers Oprah has, or how many night time viewers Donald has, or how much
money they have between them, although they could certainly run a flashy campaign with it.  The rough and tumble
of the campaign would reveal how ill prepared either of these individuals would be to lead the country, or to assume
the leadership of the free world, or to lead the war against terrorism. 

Donald should stick to firing people on reality TV, and Oprah should stick to "healing people's souls."  The percentage of
votes received by this politically inept and ill conceived ticket would be negligible.

Would he himself back then take anybody posting what he is posting now as anything other than a joke?

↑ This is exactly what I was referring to. They don't even seem like the same person.

He is now going to go back to the archives and scrub them clean. Eastasia has always been at war with Oceania.

That's what everyone thought back then, at the beginning of the great polarization, when only John Stewart taking on Crossfire for lighting fires with gas a thing. No Social Networking of any kind, no Obstruction and Peddling to turn a vulnerable segment so-far against the leadership as to consider them Anti-Christs.

Even with all those huge changes,  trump shouldn't have had a chance...but then the rest of the field turned out to be duds with boring talking points.

Next thing you, trump with all those flaws still wins, and narrows.

So of course him then would disbelieve him now, this election is just that unreal. Anyone with their head on right regardless of partisan or ideological standing would be like that.

[ag]

This is what our "Lincoln Republican" thought just a few years back.

A ticket composed of Trump and Winfrey would, to put it politely, be a joke, and would not be taken seriously by the electorate. 
I don't care how many day time viewers Oprah has, or how many night time viewers Donald has, or how much
money they have between them, although they could certainly run a flashy campaign with it.  The rough and tumble
of the campaign would reveal how ill prepared either of these individuals would be to lead the country, or to assume
the leadership of the free world, or to lead the war against terrorism. 

Donald should stick to firing people on reality TV, and Oprah should stick to "healing people's souls."  The percentage of
votes received by this politically inept and ill conceived ticket would be negligible.

Would he himself back then take anybody posting what he is posting now as anything other than a joke?

Well, I must say that I am extremely flattered that you think my posting history is of such Atlas historical value that you took the trouble to go back 11 years to 2005 to quote me.

Thank you very much.  Thank you very much indeed.

My dear fellow, I would not dream of deleting anything of such historic value and importance to this forum.     

"Long memory is worse than syphilis", as an old Russian song goes (yes, there is, indeed, such a Russian song). And I do have long memory.

[Seriously?]

I think you should pay no attention to the OP and continue to panic, red avatars. Those of us aboard the Trump train were told time and time and time again that we've reached a peak, only to climb to higher heights.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Or be happy and come aboard the Trump train.

It's time to Make America Great Again.

P.S. You can keep George H.W. Bush and his "read my lips, no new taxes."

[Bojack Horseman]

To continue the football analogy, Hillary was ahead 42-7 at halftime. Now she's only ahead 42-29, with the pneumonia thing counting as a touchdown and a two-point conversion. I think we can count the racially insensitive "Blacks are worse than ever" and "other people's money" comments as a safety, so the score now stands at Hillary 44 Trump 29. Hillary is getting the ball back with the debate on Monday, so it's her chance to get downfield and score a touchdown.

[ag]

Panicking is healthy here. It is the manifestation of a self-preservation instinct.