Hillary 60-40; "landslide" is considered 66-34
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hillary? Maybe. In my opinion the only way Hillary could win in Nov is that there is a large contingent of people that would pull the "D" lever if the candidate was the donkey, and with Hillary that is getting really close to it. It would help her if there is a really weak candidate on the R side and is already helping in that it seems that the potential R candidates are continuing to try to knock each other off in the run up to the election.
My crystal ball is still cloudy as to who will actually get it on either side. Hillary does seem likely in that the Clintons are masters at political manipulation and probably have dirt on everybody that would be likely to cross them. Actually, I have always felt that she was the brains and drive of that couple, and that the joke that "Hillary can't run for the office. She has already held it for 8 years." had a lot of truth in it.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What has Hillary done that benefited the American Citizens?
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: What has Hillary done that benefited the American Citizens?
I could ask that same question of any of the Republicans. The more important question is: "Who would be best able to handle the job of President"?
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ted Cruz, but his best possible job is Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Trump is the next best possibility. He is used to herding cats with all of the Trump Towers he has built. The number of people/bureaucrats that had to salute off on his plans are immeasurable.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
There are numerous articles that show what has been done. I chose this one in honor of Mr. Norman.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: Ted Cruz, but his best possible job is Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Trump is the next best possibility. He is used to herding cats with all of the Trump Towers he has built. The number of people/bureaucrats that had to salute off on his plans are immeasurable.
I would certainly want someone who has SOME knowledge of how things are done in Washington, and SOME experience in how to get legislation passed. For example, if I had a brain tumor, I would want someone like Ben Carson to operate because he has knowledge and experience at it. I wouldn't want someone who never picked up a scalpel and wouldn't know a cerebellum from a frontal lobe. Conversely, I wouldn't want someone like him, who knows nothing about foreign policy according to his own advisor, to be in the White House. Trump certainly has experience running thingsm but he is so used to having things his own way that I don't know how he will react when his bills are killed. He can't fire Congress or the Superme Court. Cruz shouldn't even be running for POTUS. The fact that he was born in Canada should disqualify him right off the bat. Puls, he made a joke about Joe Biden on the same day Biden buried his son. A President shou;d have some diplomatic skills, even if he doesn't agree with or even like his opponent. Someone who hasn't the basic human decency to refrain from criticizing someone who is going through great tragedy is not fit for the Office of President.
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
And according to the current definition of natural born citizen, Cruz meets that requirement/definition.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
A third party Trump candidacy will siphon more votes from any Republican than Hillary.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding Mr. Nicholson's immediate, if the Founding Fathers weren't so loathsome of Alexander Hamilton, all this "birthing" stuff would have never seen the ink that wrote it into the Constitution.
I find it hard to accept that Alex, the smartest one of the bunch, is now to get painted off the $10. He set forth the need for a central bank - even if it was repealed during the years of our mediocre leaders post-Madison Pre-Lincoln. Sure glad we had one for the last Recession.
Disclaimer: author has relatives by marriage who are direct descendants of AH
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Regarding Mr. Nicholson's immediate, if the Founding Fathers weren't so loathsome of Alexander Hamilton, all this "birthing" stuff would have never seen the ink that wrote it into the Constitution.
I find it hard to accept that Alex, the smartest one of the bunch, is now to get painted off the $10. He set forth the need for a central bank - even if it was repealed during the years of our mediocre leaders post-Madison Pre-Lincoln. Sure glad we had one for the Last Recession.
Disclaimer: author has relatives by marriage who are direct descendants of AH
There was a movement to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 and replace him with a woman or a black person. It was decided that Harriet Tubman would be a twofer. But then it was discovered that the $10 is next in line to be revamped. Maybe Hamilton can grace the new $20.
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
You’re evaluating candidates for an open job in your company, and you come across one who makes a big impression.
He’s clearly brilliant — maybe smarter than any of the others. He’s a whirlwind of energy. And man oh man can he give a presentation. On any subject, he’s informed, inflamed, precise.
But then you talk with people who’ve worked with him at various stages of his career. They dislike him.
No, scratch that.
They loathe him.
They grant him all of the virtues that you’ve observed, but tell you that he’s the antithesis of a team player. His thirst for the spotlight is unquenchable. His arrogance is unalloyed. He actually takes pride in being abrasive, as if a person’s tally of detractors measures his fearlessness, not his obnoxiousness.
Do you hire this applicant?
No way.
And that’s why voters should be wary — very wary — of Ted Cruz.
Hasn't the Conservative rallying cry against Obama been that during the first two years, when he "had the votes", that there was no willingness to compromise with the minority. "It's our way; see what you can do about it".
If this Times columnist is to be believed, compromise is not in Ted's vocabulary.
Oh well, nominate him and Hillary will do a little whuppin'; landslide in the least - maybe even Nixon-McGovern.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Mr. Norman, I read the New York Times only when there is nothing else available and my habit of reading is so unsatiated that I feel approach of withdrawal, so what they say about Ted Cruz or anything else I have trouble taking too seriously. I would find the things said there more appropriately applied to Donald Trump. However if there is any candidate on either side that approaches activating my gag reflex it is Hillary. If combined with Kerry that would be enough. We have had 8 years of a president that seems to have gotten in primarily because he has identified himself as black and that does not seem to have worked out so good, and now it looks like we are going to have a candidate whose main claim to fame is that she deserves the job because she is a she. Maybe I am alone in this, but I regard her as a person that is so sleazy that she could go into a phone booth and sneak out by a side door.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will make a prediction. If either Trump or Cruz is the republican nominee, this will be a historic election, probably topping the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan. I will predict that 9 million of the 89 million eligible voters that stayed home in 2008 and 2012 will vote this time. Hillary may not get above 30% of the vote.
Every time I have asked what Hillary has done for our Nation, I NEVER get an answer. I always get "well, what has XYZ done?". She has no base and she will never motivate people to vote for her. She is a very mean and nasty person. Both Trump and Cruz will use her uselessness and nasty personality to their advantage. Her nickname during this election will be "Bill Clinton's doormat".
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Great Pond, a petition on the UK Government's petition website has garnered 374,000 signatures to ban Trump from the UK. It's nearly quadruple the figure required to be considered for a debate in Parliament - and media reports and interviews suggest it's being very strongly considered by MPs. Hardly an auspicious start for a wannabe president to be among the likes of this lot.
Remarkable business man but a country's president? Mr. Nicholson put it succinctly.
Like many elections around the world, I suspect it's just "the best of the worst" to choose from.
[Edit] 438,868 just 12 hours later. I think this petition is one of the biggest in terms of signatories.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the 2o12 presidential vote, there were only 4 states where the Obama/Romney vote totals were within 5% of each other (FL, VA, NC, OH). Even if Romney had won the electoral votes of FL, VA and OH (+60 electoral votes), he still would have lost the election (272-266). At this point, I don't see a theoretical Trump/Cruz ticket being able to flip enough states to beat a theoretical Clinton/O'Malley ticket. But we're a long way from November.
quote:Every time I have asked what Hillary has done for our Nation, I NEVER get an answer. I always get "well, what has XYZ done?". She has no base and she will never motivate people to vote for her.
Hillary does have a base and it comprises 50% of the electorate. She won't get 100% of the vote from that base, but she does have a strong and motivated base.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am having trouble seeing how Trump has a base either. I can't think of anything he has done for anybody except Trump. If anything he is a caricature of the untrustworthy big businessman.
He has a big mouth and he is not afraid to use it. Other than that what are his positive attributes?
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not true Vincent. You did not factor in all 207 million eligible voters. I seriously doubt she can get 50 million of them to vote for her.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
George: He is employing a huge number of people, he has created more jobs than all of the executive branch democrats, combined, and he knows how to get things done/built. No one handed him that 10 billion dollars; he earned it.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Mr. Smith, you just might get your wish. Carson is "making like the Titanic", no moderate Republican of the Bush, Christie, Kasich varietal (even if Chris is back at the grownups table) has gained any real traction.
The Donald, even if he lands in Cleveland (anybody think he will take the Lake Shore for his grand entrance?) with more delegates than others WILL NOT get the nomination (likely brokered by the Elders much as was Eisenhower over Taft '52); however I think he too will be another Titanic before then. It will be "sport" to watch how and when he sinks.
The nomination of Marco or Ted will signify that the Republican party has become one comprising Evangelicals and radicals. The coalition of conservative business leaders that put both Ike and Ronnie in that big White "mixed use" structure will have been dismembered.
Oh and as an aside, the "Hillbillies" may as well start ringing up Allied, Mayflower, or United.
Finally, just in case someone is interested, my lifetime voting record is 7R, 5D, and 1I (the last never again; my vote is too precious to squander it).
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
With the recent talk of a possible "brokered convention", I gotta throw this in just to add to the uncertainty of the speculation. One of the most reliable predictors of election outcomes in recent years has been Nate Silver's fivethirtyeight.com, that uses data analysis of weighted polls and past predictors.
This early in the process, one of the better predictors of success has historically been been the "Invisible Primary" of endorsements. Obama in 2008 was an exception. If it were true this year, Bush, Rubio and Christie are the front runners. "The Donald", understandably, has none because he has no history of party alliances as a non-office-holder.
posted
There is a reason why our media, the progressives, and the establishment republicans are in a full-court press to denigrate Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. They are the only two candidates for President that are stating they will reduce the size of our extremely bloated and ridiculously over-regulated federal government.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While the TV ratings for the RNC could take a positive bump, just as they have since the Debates' organizers have allowed partisanship from the audience, a brokered convention would represent a return to the "old days of the smoke filled room" for selecting a ticket. Only likely positive; no smoke in the room.
The primary system, which was gestating during 1952 (as I recall, Taft had more delegates than Ike, but the elders knew they had better chance to win with Ike, so they "did what they had to do in the room" and gave Ike the nomination), was intended to give party members a good say as to who their candidates will be, just as the voters have the final say in whom is elected.
The party members who vote for a particular candidate in a primary must recognize if such candidate is electable. To vote for a candidate who is not, is simply throwing their vote to the wind and will be a return to now "the smoke free room".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the primaries will be over by March 15th and any candidate who can stay strong until then will have considerable control over the nominating process. I could see a scenario, however, where a candidate (likely Trump) might control a strong plurality of the delegates in March; but by the July convention, that candidate might be considered unelectable. There would then be some heavy-handed arm twisting by the GOP establishment to nominate a more electable candidate and prevent a 3rd party move. But I can't imagine Trump negotiating his way off the ticket without leaving behind some scorched earth.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vincent206: But I can't imagine Trump negotiating his way off the ticket without leaving behind some scorched earth.
Yea and verily! The only person I see Trump doing anything to benefit is Trump. Much as many of us may disagree with Obama's ideology, at least he has one. All I see in Trump is one who has spent his life enriching himself by screwing over everybody around him. I think if he gets in we would be like a Cuban guy I worked with quite a few years ago. He was a teenager when Castro came in. He said many people that were not enthused about Castro went along with him on the basis of "We can't do worse than Batista." Then they found out they could. Recall that Cuba is an island, and at that time there were a large number of fishermen so fish as a source of food was plentiful and cheap. After the Castro takeover most of them and everyone else with access to a seaworthy boat left. As the shortage of fish and other seafood took hold one of the jokes, spoken very carefully, was, "After 5 years of Communist government in the Sahara, they would have to import sand."
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm starting to have some reservations about my earlier prediction of Hillary 60 Marco 40.
I think we are heading into a recession; we haven't had one since '08. While I doubt if it will be as severe as was '08 simply because the banking system today is relatively sound, the party in power always suffers if there is an election year recession.
All I know is morning of Sep 15, 2008, as the magnitude of what occurred overnight (costing me about $100K - including a default on a $20K Lehman Brothers' Note) came forth, the first thing I thought was that Barack Obama will be the 44th POTUS.
This could be bad for Hillary - and the social agenda that has been put in place over the past eight years.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or good for a certain avowed Socialist who promises to be the bankers' worst nightmare.
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Hillary will "squeak it out" and The Donald will have a bit more of a "comfort zone".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hillary cheated to eek out her "win" and Trump would have been in third place if the caucus was held on Tuesday.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When an election is as razor thin as between Hillary and The Bern, anything could upset the final vote, and in no way could it be one candidate engaging in a willful attempt to "steal it" from another.
But do give Bernie credit, after thinking about "asking" for, as distinct from "demanding", a recount, he accepted the result and moved on.
The Donald, after a one day respite, with his "passably magnanimous" concession, is now back to being The Donald again with his demanding of a 'revote" and showing what most anybody knew would be the case - a sore loser.
Somehow for The Donald, I think the beginning of the end is at hand.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what they say about a broken clock. Trump says that Cruz told people that Ben Carson had dropped out of the race when he really went home to Florida "for a change of clothes". First off; Who does that? And did Cruz pay Carson off to do it, or is Carson really that goofy? Well, Ok, he is. But did Cruz have anything to do with it?
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think, Mr. Smith, the Dems must start thinking that there is not going to be a Coronation of Hillary, as The Bern is proving adept at grass roots fund raising. While the Iowa "dead heat in '16" beats "third in '08", it appears that "Bill's magic" - that magic that won Obama his second term, is gone. In her own right, she is no better a retail campaigner than was Romney. Obama owes her, as Bill, once again, gave him his second term. That he might well prefer someone else (think Joe) matters not. Even if Obama's popularity rating exceeds his job approval (common as a second term winds down), he still has a "day job", which will limit how much he can hit the trail in behalf of Hillary.
But what if Hillary falters or gets the "nom" wounded (I doubt if the "Dem elders" will let The Bern have the nomination any more than will Republican counterparts allow The Donald or Ted)? What if the Republicans unify behind Rubio (and Trump wises up by not attempting a Third Party bid)? It could well be "all bets off" on my opening of this topic.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The democrats are in horrible shape this year. They are running an ancient socialist that has been in Congress since 1981 and has accomplished nothing versus a woman that has the distinction of being Bill's doormat, and never doing anything that has helped the American people.
I believe my prediction will be exceeded in November.
Posts: 1418 | From: Houston, Republic of Texas | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Smith, do you really think the Republicans are in better shape? Their lineup is full of obstructionists who offer nothing but varying degrees of hate toward anyone different from the members of the "Republican Base" of toothless, home - schooled, inbred, knuckle - dragging, mouth - breathing Neanderthals who used to be the Democratic Base of Dixiecrats and left the party over Civil Rights. Now they've kicked out of the GOP most of the moderates in their party, and will have a hard time getting any kind of a majority vote.The only thing they have over the Dems is they are relatively younger (except Trump).
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
