Hillary 60-40; "landslide" is considered 66-34
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
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.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
What has Hillary done that benefited the American Citizens?
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
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"?
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
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.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Here is what Ted Cruz has done for the benefit of the citizens of Texas:
There are numerous articles that show what has been done. I chose this one in honor of Mr. Norman.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
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.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
And according to the current definition of natural born citizen, Cruz meets that requirement/definition.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Forget what he said earlier, and should this come to pass; best accept/rejoice that Hillary will be the 45th President of the United States:
A third party Trump candidacy will siphon more votes from any Republican than Hillary.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
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
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
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.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Really anyone, want this guy to be your President?
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.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
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.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
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".
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
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.
Posted by Vincent206 (Member # 15447) on :
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.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
That Hillary has a base is just plain frightening.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Some pundit I heard somewhere put it best:
If Trump is nominated, even if by a third party, may as well gift wrap the Presidency and put it under Hillary's Christmas tree"
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
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?
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
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.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
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.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
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).
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
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.
Most reliable prediction: It is gonna be an interesting year.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
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.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
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".
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Mr. Norman has Fortune Magazine in his corner. They are predicting Rubio as the GOP nominee, with Nikki Haley as his running mate.
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.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
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."
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Was Ted Cruz campaigning at the SPUD today?
Some NBC News footage that was datelined St. Paul and aired this evening sure looked familiar.
@10:56 Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
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.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Or good for a certain avowed Socialist who promises to be the bankers' worst nightmare.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Prediction for tonight:
Hillary will "squeak it out" and The Donald will have a bit more of a "comfort zone".
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Hillary cheated to eek out her "win" and Trump would have been in third place if the caucus was held on Tuesday.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
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.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
We agree!!!! (about Trump)
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
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?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
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.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
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.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
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).
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
BWAHAahAHAHAHhahahHahahahahah
Good one Jerome!!! Do you write for the Onion?
That was some funny satire!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
With Hillary getting trounced in New Hampshire (and her dead heat in Iowa), there is not going to be a "Coronation" this August.
She may yet get the nomination, but she will be wounded. Some Dem such as Joe may well come to Philly as a dark horse, even if that kind of stuff is not supposed to happen since the primary system has come into place.
I think my 7R 5D 1I presidential voting record shows I'm an independent. With a wounded Hillary, I just might have to start thinking what Republican just might best reflect my views in what, let's face it at age 74, could be my last presidential vote.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Admitted, obamacare may kill us all with their death panel mandate, but there are a huge number of people living into their late 80's and early 90's, Mr Norman. You could easily have 3 more elections in you...
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Yeah. There's even a 74 year old guy who is running for the job! If HE'S not worried, you shouldn't be!
Posted by Vincent206 (Member # 15447) on :
Check out the Facebook primary. The results are based on "likes" posted on Facebook which obviously surveys only a portion of the electorate. The leaders in my state (WA) are Sanders and Carson--wouldn't that be an interesting election.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
In your map, Clinton has no green showing on the map.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
And Texas is all in for Cruz. We know him and respect him. He does what he says he will do, unlike most politicians.
Posted by Vincent206 (Member # 15447) on :
Mike, I think that most Dems, particularly the younger ones, regard Hillary like the GOP regards Jeb. "Feeling the Bern" is quite the trending topic these days.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Vincent, do you hold that Jeb being associated with the 34th rated president (Wiki; rate the presidents) carries same weight as Hillary being associated with the 20th? Or how about The Bern associated in style and ideologies with the 17th?
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Mr. Norman, can you provide a link to those ratings? I can't seem to put in the right search word for that.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Nicholson, your wish is thy command Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Okay, now which list are you referring to where (I assume) Bill Clinton is rated 20th and (I assume) GWBush id 34th?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
The "aggregate", or extreme right column.
Here is a perfected link to the referenced material.
Posted by ghCBNS (Member # 3093) on :
A web site was created by a local radio host... kinda ‘tongue in cheek’ about American refugees but it has really taken off:
Cape Breton Island (the location that is trying to woo refugees from a Trump presidency in the above links), is also the current home of David Gunn, former Amtrak CEO. For those of us on this forum, there would be the added attraction of maybe running into him at a bar and foaming.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
None of this new - at least to me!
I can recall a Fifth Grade teacher (a Dem who could have "lived with" Ike) back in '52, who simply stated that "if Taft is nominated and wins (general election), I'm going traveling".
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
It could be worse. He could have raped a woman and seduced a young girl in a closet of his office. Or he could have been a member of a Chicago gay bath house, instead of having some marginally questionable American Express charges.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
It could be worse. He could have raped a woman and seduced a young girl in a closet of his office. Or he could have been a member of a Chicago gay bath house, instead of having some marginally questionable American Express charges.
I'm certainly not going to defend Willie Boy/ I think the so - called "Feminists" who defended him based on his support of abortion rights are the worst kind of hypocrites. But at least Democrats don't make sexuality a campaign theme, like certain Reepublicans like Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig, David Vitter,Mark Sanford, etc. Not sure who you're referring to in the other example.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Possibly, I will hold different thoughts after Super Tuesday, but I think - and never dreamed this would be the case - that the Republican party had best move to Kubler-Ross Phase 5 and accept that Donald Trump will be their nominee.
Of course, this is hardly the first time a major party has nominated a sure loser; Goldwater '64, McGovern '72, Dole '96, but in an "open election" I'm at a loss to have any come to mind.
Otherwise at Cleveland, just may as well Gift Wrap the Presidency and FedEx it off to Hillary.
Finally, while this couple of married professionals are portrayed as having a strong marriage, I wonder the effect The Donald could have on some that fall in the "otherwise" category:
If the Hinman marriage is to survive the 2016 presidential election unscathed, certain rules must be observed.
When Donald Trump appears on the evening news, either Jeannine or Jon Hinman must leave the room, or they can flip to the National Geographic channel. If Mr. Trump comes up at a party, the Hinmans migrate to different conversational groups, his pro and hers anti.
Above all, there shall be no Trump in the bedroom. “From bedtime on, we don’t talk politics,” says Ms. Hinman.
What love and hard work have built over the course of the Hinmans’ 34-year marriage, Mr. Trump has managed to dent in an eight-month campaign for the presidency.
“It’s making it a testy time,” says Ms. Hinman, a 56-year-old attorney. “I know we’ll weather this storm, but there are moments when I think, ‘I have no idea who you are.’ ”
There’s something about Mr. Trump that makes it hard for people who love him, and people who hate him, to love each other.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Like you, Mr. Norman, I have assumed a Trump nomination would lead to a Goldwater - esque burial of the Republican Party. But now I'm not so sure. Both parties have their reliable regions that guarantee a solid base of electoral votes (the South, Southwest, Rocky Mountain States, and Farm Belt for the GOP, and the Pacific Coast, Northeast, and Rust Belt for the Dems). After that, it's a matter of picking up enough swing states to put one over the top. But what if a candidate comes along who can pick off some of those reliable states? Trump has a path to victory if he can pick off some of those "Rust Belt" states that lost their industrial jobs to Mexico and China, and they remember it was the policies of the husband of the likely Democratic nominee that caused the condition. Certainly the Trump ads will remind them. Throw in any possible FBI action, and Trump is the next President. And then God help us, everyone!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Lest we forget Mr. Nicholson, the DOJ/FBI works for the President - and the incumbent is supporting Hillary. That be the case even if there is no Big Love between one another.
To what extent she was embittered when Obama neutralized her with the SecState appointment and consequently precluded any thought of her running against him during '12, we know not. But any contentions of such evaporated when Bill won Obama his second term with his masterful soliloquy at the Convention.
Love her or not, Obama, who has had a slight rise in popularity of late, as well as Michelle (maybe even the girls), will be on the Hillary trail come Labor Day.
All told, Obama owns the DOJ, but "the Hillbillies" own Obama.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
You are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Hillary does not have the charisma to motivate people to vote for her. You will have the walking dead voting for her, but no normal democrat will go out of their way to show up at the voting booth for Hillary.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: You are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Hillary does not have the charisma to motivate people to vote for her. You will have the walking dead voting for her, but no normal democrat will go out of their way to show up at the voting booth for Hillary.
Oh, we will. Trump has the charisma to get us to go out and vote AGAINST him, especially knowing the Supreme Court is in play.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
South Carolina returns look like someone's campaign has "crashed and bERned"
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Lest we forget Mr. Nicholson, the DOJ/FBI works for the President - and the incumbent is supporting Hillary. That be the case even if there is no Big Love between one another.
. . . .
All told, Obama owns the DOJ, but "the Hillbillies" own Obama.
Which means we have gotten exactly what we are supposed to not have in this country: A legal system run as puppets of political hacks, not a legal system invested in separating right and wrong above all else, regardless. In other words, we now have a legal system that is truly "third world" That is for sale.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
South Carolina was educational. The democrats turned out 367,000 voters. The Republicans turned out 735,000 voters. This should hold through the November election.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Stand by for a Third Party candidacy this year - and I don't mean "Greenies" and other assorted special interests.
I think such would likely be at The Donald's expense, and assuring that Chief Justice Roberts will say a phrase never before heard in US history:
"Congratulations, Madam President".
Posted by Vincent206 (Member # 15447) on :
I don't think that a Bloomberg candidacy would guarantee a win for Clinton. Obama has benefitted from the GOP's fervent desire to use the past 2 presidential elections as a culture war battleground rather than an economic policy battleground. There a plenty of fiscally conservative but socially progressive independent voters who have defaulted to the Democrats because of the social policies promoted by the last 2 GOP presidential candidates. Bloomberg would bring a very pro-business platform to the election debate without any desire to fight rear-guard wars on health care, abortion or marriage equality.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
I do not believe the American people are dumb enough to elect Hillary.
If I am wrong, we will resurrect the Republic of Texas and let the leftoids have what is left of the failed Union.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Wasn't this all over and done during 1846 after about ten years?
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Maybe so, Mr. Norman, but there are noises from quite a few about why don't you idiot Southerners just leave the Union. All we can say is, we tried that once and their was furious objections. If you regret that, please let us know and we will happily go away.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike Smith: South Carolina was educational. The democrats turned out 367,000 voters. The Republicans turned out 735,000 voters. This should hold through the November election.
Democrats aren't looking to take South Carolina; it hasn't voted Democratic since Jimmy Carter carried every Southern State (except Virginia) in 1976. The purpose of its primary is to see how popular a candidate is with black voters, who are a vital factor in that party. Clinton's margin there, if it holds up on Super Tuesday, will make her the all but certain nominee.
Now, as for turnout, I'm expecting Virginia's to be rather low because there are a suprising number of people here who don't know that VZ is a Super Tuesday State this year.If the black turnout is low, Sanders ha a chance hereAlso Minnesota, Co;orado, Massachusetts, and Vermont.
As for the Republicans, I expest Trump will run the table tomorrow. I don't see anyone stopping him.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Maybe so, Mr. Norman, but there are noises from quite a few about why don't you idiot Southerners just leave the Union. All we can say is, we tried that once and their was furious objections. If you regret that, please let us know and we will happily go away.
There is a growing movement to let the South (especially Texas) to do exactly that. With slavery off the table, either nation would have people who actually want to be there Iposted years ago a plan outlining how it could be done peacefully, and at least one of the Smith Brothers liked it. It would certainly be better than havind a disgruntled minority in either party parylizing the Government because they don't get their way.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jerome Nicholson:
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Maybe so, Mr. Norman, but there are noises from quite a few about why don't you idiot Southerners just leave the Union.
There is a growing movement to let the South (especially Texas) to do exactly that.
Well Messrs. Harris and Nicholson, I guess Amtrak had best pad the Sunset's schedule a bit more for border inspections at Beaumont and El Paso.
But hey, aren't there enough Glock carrying folk wearing Green already on the scene in El Paso at train time?
Meanwhile, back on our topic around here, Today could wrap it up for both parties, even if Bernie "gets lucky" in some of the Libby states voting today and Ted gets same in "the Second Republic" (we're sounding a bit French aren't we? But the First Republic was 1846 vintage). The "winner take all" states voting later this month will simply be icing on the cake.
While on Election night come November the victor is expected to be magnanimous to the vanquished, somewhere in Hillary's circle, a loud chorus of "you're fired" will be heard.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
It will not wrap up today, but it will be done by March 15.
And Texas would not secede from the USA, it would resign our membership in this failed Union.
With 80 million+ guns and somewhere over 7 billion rounds of ammo, I'm thinking DC would just let us go, and let us have the military assets already in our State.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
As I write this (TV is off), looks like Ted has some kind of long shot stopping The Donald. Likely Rubio will hang on until the "winner take all" March 15 Florida primary simply for pride.
The coverage I was watching on MSNBC simply did not mention Carson or Kasich one way or the other, but it's clearly time for both to "pack up".
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Last I saw, Kasich was slightly ahead in Vermont, with Trump in third. And Rubio was ahead in Minnesota.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Rubio won Minnesota. Finally a win for him.
Posted by Vincent206 (Member # 15447) on :
So, who is The Donald going to choose as his running mate? Will it be some old, white guy from the "republican establishment"? Probably not. If this nomination process has shown anything about the GOP, it's that the "GOP establishment" is actually pretty powerless outside of the US Senate.
How about giving Sarah Palin another chance? Trump's pretty weak in the mountain and western states; Palin is pretty popular out here and she's a woman (another demographic where Trump hasn't been terribly popular).
As I was scrolling through one of those on-line "List of Famous People Who Support Trump" sites I saw one name that I think would make a very interesting VP choice: Mark Cuban. I don't know if Cuban could be persuaded to run and if he would accept the 2nd slot, but I think it would be one of the best choices Trump could make for his running mate.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Trump and Palin? OH, HELL YEAHHH!!!!! I LOVE IT!!!!
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Trump and Palin would still beat Hillary. Do not forget, she was beaten by an inexperienced nobody from the south side of Chicago 8 years ago.
It will not be Trump and Palin. We shall see where the contests are after the March 15 winner take all primaries.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
A lot of "interesting stuff" - including that Cruz could beat Hillary - within these Real Clear polls:
Of course, never forget the lame one that candidates with no chance have often refrained. "The only poll that counts is on November..(2-8)".
But I should be the first to acknowledge that if Cruz "gets lucky" in some of the delegate-rich "winner take all" states, he could still get it. I'm sure that is what Mr. Smith (and likely "Smith the Other", who hasn't been around these parts since last October) is betting on.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
As things settle down, I think Trump will be done. I would suspect that most of the votes in the various primaries that are split among Cruz, Rubio, et al will go to whoever is the final alternative to Trump, as I think most of the voters going to any of those other than Trump are of the "anybody but Trump" mindset. In other words, in none of these primaries did Trump have a majority. In all it was a plurality only. I don't see his percentage improving.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Tuesday March 8 will prove interesting - and has again showed how fallable the almighty pollsters can be.
The pollsters all predicted that Michigan was Hillary's to lose, but she did just that. Is there some undercurrent in both parties that they are going to nominate a maverick, or was this a bump in the road?
True, Bernie's victory was hardly decisive and Michigan awards delegates proportionally, so likely Bernie ended up with maybe five more delegates than expected.
But what if the pollsters are equally wrong about Florida, Missouri, and Ohio next week where they all have Hillary with commanding leads. We're talking Winner Take All. All told, it's not over yet for the Democrats. Hillary could just be in real trouble yet.
Now on the Republican side, if Rubio cannot take his home state, it is time to go home now. He is young and has higher political ambitions which would be harmed if he were deemed a loser.
Kasich; "play for pride" in Ohio and go back to your day job, where it appears the voters like you.
Donald and Ted; looks like you will be both going to Cleveland and "the floor".
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Hillary was too clever by half. She accused Bernie of voting against the auto bailout when he didn't; he opposed the bank bailout that it was attached to. And people in Michigan remember that it was Bill Clinton who pushed through NAFTA and other trade deals that devastated the Industrial Midwest. The Rust Belt may prove to be Hillary's Achilles Heel, in the General Election as well as the Primaries. Even though she is not responsible for her husband's actions, she did not oppose them at the time. Then she implied she was always agains them when she wasn't. And the more people see through her, the more they will vote for Bernie.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jerome Nicholson: Even though she is not responsible for her husband's actions, she did not oppose them at the time. Then she implied she was always against them when she wasn't. And the more people see through her, the more they will vote for Bernie.
And the more people remember that she was the brains and action of that couple such that much of what went on, other that skirt chasing, in Bill's terms was actually Hillary. It is not actually a joke to say that "Hillary should be disqualified because she has already held the office 8 years."
Now for the other side, even though Trump seems to be able to pull off a plurality he usually does not manage a majority in the states where he comes out on top. Since, to me at least it seems that for many people, the better you know him the less you like him, we can only hope that the shine wears off before he gets the nomination. Sleazy as this guy is, some serious digging for dirt should be able to find enough to sink him.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
quote: Since, to me at least it seems that for many people, the better you know him the less you like him, we can only hope that the shine wears off before he gets the nomination. Sleazy as this guy is, some serious digging for dirt should be able to find enough to sink him. [/QB]
Problem with that tactic is the same can be said about Rodolfo Eduardo Cruz, the likely sole opponent to Trump's march to the nomination. The media hasn't highlighted his bad features because Trump sucks up all the oxygen. But there are reasons why the guy has no friends. No one who knows him likes him.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Ted Cruz has a LOT of friends; very few of them are in our media. You really should do your own research about Ted Cruz, instead of relying on the Establishment that desperately wants to retain their power in DC.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Smith: [QB] Ted Cruz has a LOT of friends;"
Just none in the Senate where he works! Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Ted Cruz has a number of friends in the Senate. Our clueless media ignore them, due to that fact being counter to their liberal agenda mantra. They erroneously believe that no endorsements = no friends. That is your typical liberal fantasy.
I'm still alive!!! I'd like to chime in on this, but right now I am super stretched for time. I'll read through all of these hopefully this weekend, and then jump in. I'm known to have an opinion or two. Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Very pleased Andy, that first you are alive and well, and you want to come and join this fray.
Even if Open Discussion moderated by "no one", we are proving to be a bit more civil than are The Donald's rallies of late.
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Those Secret Service guys sure moved in fast earlier this afternoon. I was very happy to see that they were on their "A" game and were in tip-top training mode. I was really impressed with them.
More tomorrow. I am so exhausted that I can actually hear my bed calling me. "Smitty..........SMITTY!!!!!.........Come to bed..........".
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Could Tuesday be the beginning of the end for The Donald?
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Could Tuesday be the beginning of the end for The Donald?
We can only hope.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Unlikely. Trump has hit a nerve with the American people, thanks to the lying GOPe and the extreme leftists. Our Nation is out of control, very bloated, and is non-responsive to We, the People. We need a 20% decrease in social spending, and we will not get it with the current crop of congress critters.
The last 7 years have unmasked the republicans. There is not a dime's worth of difference between Reid and McConnell or Pelosi and Boehner or Ryan. When all the GOPe signed off on the omnibus bill that fully funded Planned Parenthood and gave them a 5% increase for this year, and also fully funded obama's Syrian muslim refugee program, while ignoring his refusal to allow Syrian christian refugees to come here 2-3 years ago, normal people were finished with the lies emanating out of DC.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Time to read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and see the parallels.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Time to read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and see the parallels.
TRUE!
This is why I am trying to convince our State legislature to start planning the resurrection of the Republic of Texas, so we can resign our membership in this failed Union.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr.Smith, EXTREME!!!!!
You are as much an American as am I. Through our votes we will try and mold our Republic to the best we can with our (sometimes I'd guess divergent) respective views.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Mr Norman, REALISTIC.
The Union of these United States has failed. In 8 short years we have doubled our debt ($10 trillion to $20 trillion). We have allowed the two worst Justices ever to serve on our Supreme Court to be placed on that Court (Sotomeyer and Kagan). We have elected a nobody that hates the USA, with no executive experience, that clearly stated he wanted to fundamentally change the USA, and did. Our citizens are burdened with an ungodly amount of federal regulations and hoops we must jump through on a daily basis. We have 94 million people that are out of work and quit looking, while pretending we have a 5% unemployment rate. We have 46 million people on food stamps. We have clueless people that are destroying our coal industry and the good paying jobs that come with that industry. We are the victims of a huge scam, designed to take our money and our freedoms (what little we have left) away from us to combat a mythical global warming problem.
And you "think" we have the slightest chance of righting this sinking ship?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Smith, I'll go along with you regarding the coal industry; lest we forget who hauls the stuff away from Ol' Man River.
Otherwise, "agree to disagree".
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
So John Kasich just won Ohio, making a brokered GOP convention more likely. Question is, how will Trump's fans take it if their guy isn't the nominee? And who will the GOP bigshots anoint?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
First, allow me to concede that "I was wrong" when I opened this topic.
Now with that having been said, I believe it's all over. While "the Hillbillies", co-presidency, Bill's third and maybe even fourth term, whatever, was "not too much in doubt", whoever dreamed it would be The Donald on the Republican side.
Bern, I'll gladly note you are a sincere and decent man, but alas, my felt tipped pen just somehow hit a different square yesterday.
Kasich? well, he's Ohio's Favorite Son. He's got a day job and the folks who hired him seem to think he's pretty good at it.
Ted? well I guess Mr. Smith can place his name in nomination for President of the Second Republic of Texas (or maybe Texhoma). Mr. Harris will be granted a visa to come and second him.
At least for me, there won't be too much "head scratching" on November 8.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Hillary will not win in November. obama beat her in 2008, and an ancient old socialistic fool gave her a run for her money, this time. Donald Duck could beat her in November.
I'd be surprised if she managed to get 50 million people to vote for her in the general election.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
If she manages to cheat her way into the White House, bet the farm that Texas will become the Republic of Texas.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Just heard an interesting quote on NBC's "Today";
"The Republican Establishment is waking up this morning realizing they must be in (Kubler-Ross Phase 5); Acceptance."
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
And WHY should there be "acceptance" other than that a network TV says it?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
As we go into a week with one crucial Republican primary in Wisconsin, this could be the "beginning of the end" of The Donald.
While not formally a "winner take all" state, it could potentially be. First, Wisconsin has fifteen "at large" pledged delegates that are awarded "winner take all". Additionally, there are eight Congressional Districts that are each assigned three pledged delegates. Within each District, it's "winner take all". Finally, there are three "at large" unpledged delegates. In each case, unpledged means they are free to vote as they please throughout the balloting.
All told, if Sen. Cruz manages a "winner take all", The Donald would be hard pressed to land his "Billboard 757" at CLE with a majority of pledged delegates (plurality yes, but a majority is needed).
Over on the Dem side of things, even if Sen. Sanders manages a "winner take all" (same rules outlined above apply here as well), and "embarrasses" Sec. Clinton in proportional New York two weeks after Wisconsin, she still could arrive at PHL (aboard an Amtrak Special??????) with a needed majority.
So even if not Super Tuesdays, it will be a late night tuned to CNN around my barn.
Finally off topic even at Open Discussion, I'd guess there are aircraft hulls on sites such as Photoshop. I wonder if anyone has yet worked up a 747-200 in TRUMP livery?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Republican strategist and Wall Street Journal columnist Karl Rove has a most interesting and informative column, especially with regards to the allocation of Republican delegates through the remaining primaries. Regardless of your party affiliation, worth your time, as for once in his life (considering his '08 election return antics aired live on Fox News) , Mr. Rove appears quite objective:
Credit Mr. Trump for candor. But these are shortsighted words from a petty man consumed by resentment and bitterness who finds satisfaction in sowing, rather than in healing, divisions. They showcase a man who does not understand what it takes to unite his party and win a general election. They explain, in large measure, why he lost in Wisconsin and, with his defeat, perhaps his chance to win the convention on the first ballot and therefore the nomination.
My personal take at this moment; "beginning of the end". According to "Real Clear", as of March 31, the only Republican who has a chance of defeating Hillary, is Gov. John Kasich. If the delegates wish to nominate someone who has a chance, and that is why I presume they come together rather than to keep the makers of balloons and funny looking hats in the chips (oh and those are in Terminal Tower), better get on the Kasich bandwagon.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Kasich? Somehow I have trouble seeing him with the nomination unless Trump, Cruz, and Rubio all either self-destruct or mortally wound each other (which could happen). In fact, it is looking more like Cruz is likely to have it as Trump's high sleaze component becomes more obvious.
I think one of Trump's main problems with himself is that he has always surrounded himself with "yes men" so he really does not know either how to react to or how to tolerate someone that disagrees with him and is neither afraid to say so nor within Trump's power to squash.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
It is astounding that a Wall Street Journal columnist, William Galston, as good as conceded that Hillary will be the 45th POTUS:
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, and there is nothing that Sen. Bernie Sanders can do about it......Hillary Clinton has the qualities of a first-rate prime minister. At a time when the American people are yearning for an end to political dysfunction and a return to government that works effectively on their behalf, what she offers will probably be enough to prevail in November.
It just seems that Republicans, their powers that be notwithstanding, are in self destruct mode. All the leadership need do is look at Real Clear Politics and see that so far as this polling site is concerned, the only Republicans that could defeat Hillary are Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI1) and Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) - one has stated "not interested" and the other "in the cellar" with the delegate race.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From a Hooter parking lot near Nashville (pulled off to change to ET and check emails and this site)
After NY, it's all over volks, Trump will have the majority - no floor fight which I don't think there has been since 1952 Ike v. Taft. Hillary no question now if there ever was.
Hillary will be the 45th POTUS.
Now back to the road; Atlanta or bust!
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: From a Hooter peaking lot near Nashville (pulled of to change to ET and check emails and this site)
After NY, it's all over volks, Trump will have the majority - no floor fight which I don't think there has been since 1952 Ike v. Taft. Hillary no question now if there ever was.
Hillary will be the 45th POTUS.
Now back to the road; Atlanta or bust!
Love that: Hooter's peaking lot.
As to Donald vs Hillary: I don't know which scares me more. You have lying sleaze vs lying sleaze. Hillary is probably worse as she knows how to manipulate the government. Donald will probably end up like the spoiled kid impotently throwing screaming fits in his corner of the room.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From Woodstock GA;:Dirty Lex is becoming Red Lex again
No question whatever Mr. Harris, Olivia Pope will have more business arising from Clinton 45 than she ever did from the Obama administration.
You got to admit it, even though it appears your political persuasions are elsewhere, Obama has had a mighty scandal free administration.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: You got to admit it, even though it appears your political persuasions are elsewhere, Obama has had a mighty scandal free a initiation.
And Mussolini made the trains run on time in Italy.
It is many other things about the man that I find disturbing. I will quit there.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From Crowne Plaza Ravinia Atlanta
Peggy Noonan has an excellent column appearing in Today's Journal:
Fair Use
Have you had your 2016 Moment? I think you probably have, or will.
The Moment is that sliver of time in which you fully realize something epochal is happening in politics, that there has never been a presidential year like 2016, and suddenly you are aware of it in a new, true and personal way. It tends to involve a poignant sense of dislocation, a knowledge that our politics have changed and won’t be going back.
We’ve had a lot to absorb—the breaking of a party, the rise of an outlandish outsider; a lurch to the left in the other party, the popular rise of a socialist. Alongside that, the enduring power of a candidate even her most ardent supporters accept as corrupt. Add the lowering of standards, the feeling of no options, the coarsening, and all the new estrangements.
It really seems as if none of the "Fighting Five" really respect the office they seek, with the nastiest campaign I can recall.
I think it all started with Obama's first State of the Union where a Member of Congress had the audacity to yell "liar" at our President. It has simply carried through to the Debates which once were a Meet the Press format where disagreement was noted with respect and civility. With the Jerry Springer format with the partisan shouting and booing, they have ceased to be a venue through which the candidates can express views on.the issues.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Maybe, but in the 19th century, particularly in the first half, they had duels, so maybe impolite arguments are better than stepping off 20 paces and shooting, or going at it with swords, although from what I have read, that stuff seemed to have been handled with politeness.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Any enactments of the Burr/Hamilton duel I've seen (I haven't seen the current musical), depicted civility and respect, although hardly agreement on the policies that prompted the affair.
Allow me to note the disclaimer that in-laws (my Father's second wife - after my Mother deceased) were direct descendants of Alex, but being that as it may, I do believe that establishing the Central Bank was foremost in our achieving the Manifest Destiny envisioned by the Fathers. That it was abolished during the Jackson administration (I think) served questionable interests. We can be thankful it was reestablished during the Wilson administration; how much worse would have been the Great Depression, or even the Great Recession, without such.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
The John and Ted "alliance" appears to have been "DOA". Bernie has said there will be a "reassessment" of the campaign after the results of this "Second Super Tuesday" are in.
Even before the votes are counted in PA and neighboring states, Hillary and The Donald will pivot to the General. Real Clear says at this time that Chief Justice Roberts will say a phrase never before heard in US History: "Congratulations, Madam President".
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I don't know which of these two (Donald or Hillary) scares me more.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, likely our political views differ, but read The Times Editorial that simply states The Donald is unfit to be President. Hillary may be corrupt and has bungling, e.g. Bengazi, isues, but she is unquestionably the most qualified candidate out there.
She gets my vote where it counts - November.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Could it be?
Hillary's running mate - Michelle!
Malia has been accepted at Harvard, but is deferring matriculation until '17 (expect anything different?). The Obamas have stated they want to remain in Wash until Sasha graduates from High School (whoops, the Quaker school she goes to).
Malia is certainly in a position to "hit the trail" this Fall; Sasha on weekends.
Could this be the beginning of an all-girl dynasty to top all dynasties: Hillary '16, Michelle '24. Chelsea '32, Malia '40 (no, I won't go as far as Sasha '48)?
Thoughts Mr. Harris; anyone?
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Hillary and following dynasty: If this comes to pass, not sure we will have a country long enough for the scenario to be completed.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
First, just like DPM stated during the autumn of '67 when he knew it was over for what was left of the Great Trains, I too must note "Excuse the First Person".
Indiana apparently awards Republican delegates on a winner take all basis; the Democrats proportionally. This winner take all rule gave 'em all to The Donald.
Ted Cruz accepted what "winnable Moderates" such as Paul Ryan accepted from the start and checked out. Why Kasich (winnable says Real Clear, but, addendum, is now out) still hangs on escapes me, but I guess there is still some "jingle in the till". That soon will be gone - and so will he.
I can't believe how the Europeans I met last August and who wanted to talk politics, all said "how could a man so hopelessly unqualified and such a jerk even run?", and I confidently replied, "It's not whether but when; meantime he is using his own money; let him build ratings for his TV shows".
I wouldn't know what to say if I ever saw those people again.
Now on the Demies, if Hillary cannot build excitement in her campaign, she could be in trouble come November, and what if Bernie decides to do something stupid like a third party run?
In that immediate case, we know who will raise his right come January 20.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
As I said earlier, I don't know which of these two (Hillary or Donald if anybody is wondering) scares me more. I think Hillary because she has the political ability and knowledge to make things happen her way. Agree totally, if Bernie goes for third party, almost surely the next guy in the office will be Donald. For those of us that remember that far back, I am sure that J. Edgar Hoover managed to stay director of the FBI until he was ready to give it up was because he knew where all the skeletons in closets were for all those in power. That's Hillary. Donald does not have that. He also does not appear to know how to deal with opposition by someone he can't squelch. Therefore, I suspect he will end up being the most impotent man to ever hold the office, with the possible exception of Andrew Johnson. To say that Donald has delusions of grandeur is probably an understatement. He managed to hold onto his wealth while bankrupting businesses. Can he do that with the government? He may try and even succeed, but if he does he will end up surprised to find that when you bankrupt the entity that gives your money value, that his money becomes wallpaper. On the other hand if does manage to figure out how to make things happen in government I am also certain that it will go to his head, and we could end up with a parallel to pre-WW2 Germany. As said before, never forget that Hitler first came into power by being elected. Might add he got elected because he convinced the majority of the population that political business as usual was a bad thing and he was the solution. Considering the amount of power that had been given to the national government willingly or by court decisions over the last 80 plus years it will not take much for a man (or woman) in the White House to essentially render powerless any opposition.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
More thoughts on "Bernie the Kingmaker" as the impact of such starts to set in. What will he "extract" from Hillary, to NOT run third party, and what will he extract from The Donald TO run?
Somebody please tell me I'm mistaken with this line of thought, but it seems to me that Bernie Sanders holds the power to select the 45th POTUS.
Wall Street, and for that matter anyone's portfolio, "better watch out".
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Somebody please tell me I'm mistaken with this line of thought, but it seems to me that Bernie Sanders holds the power to select the 45th POTUS.
Agree totally. However, nut sure that Donald with his arrogance recognizes that fact, so he could easily be blindsided by Hillary on this point.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
It appears that the Evangelical community will have no candidate to turn to in the expected Trump-Hillary showdown:
This community has consistently supported Republican candidates ever since Bush 41 during 1992 made abortion into a political issue.
I'm at a loss to know how any devout voter could support Trump, but The Hill reports that in three swing states - Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, if the election were today, "too close to call". All told, you don't lose all three and expect to file the Change of Address notice to 1600.
I can recall in grade school during the 1952 primaries (they had 'em back then, but hardly as binding as today), this teacher simply said "if Taft wins, I'm going traveling".
Could the "Expat" community, i.e. Americans living abroad, soon see a swelling of the ranks?
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Could the "Expat" community soon see a swelling of the ranks?
For a moment I thought you meant the incoming crowd but then realized you're more likely talking about an exodus from the US. Nevertheless, in regards to the former, I doubt you'd find many of my co-expats (aka immigrants to the US) voting for the Trump. "Dangerous fool" is probably the most polite expression I can repeat here.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geoff Mayo:I doubt you'd find many of my co-expats (aka immigrants to the US) voting for the Trump. "Dangerous fool" is probably the most polite expression I can repeat here. [/QB]
Agreed. But, but, what do you call Hillary? I am probably more at loss for appropriated descriptive words when it comes to her, but dangerous is definitely part of them.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
I don't really have an opinion about her, nor have I heard any strong opinions either way from friends. It's all about Trump.
Tell me one thing though: if Cruz and Kasich dropped out last week, how comes they still got X% of the vote in more recent voting? And is this why Trump is not guaranteed to be the nominee, just the most likely (even though he's the one and only candidate)?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Bernie, it's time to check out.
The Times' Gail Collins has now said just that, and I hold same opinion.
Even if he still has $$$$$, those can go to having Democrats controlling all apparatus of government. But now, Hillary must spend just to fend him off.
By this time during '08, Hillary knew she lost - and got behind Obama. For that, as well as that she would not run against him in '12, she was rewarded with the SecState appointment.
I think with the support Bernie has, he will get a high level reward in a Clinton administration, and with the same Quid Pro Quo - don't run against me in '20.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I'm becoming very fearful that Donald J Trump will be the 45th POTUS.
How voters can turn their backs away from a woman who has every Head of State on her speed-dial and has been on the World Stage for some 25 years, simply escapes me. She will have as her coach, a president that brought prosperity that we have not seen since he left office - and who successfully lead an armed conflict in which there was not one US casualty.
But I'm fearful it's gonna happen.
Both Trump and "never give up" Bernie have risen in the polls - all too many are saying Hillary-Trump is either "too close to call", within "margin of error", or Trump will win. Trump-Bernie polls all show Bernie would win.
But the fact is evident that Hillary is a poor campaigner. She simply "can't fire 'em up" the way Obama could, and both Bernie and The Donald can. Even Bill, to whom Obama "owes him" for the second term, seems to have "lost his touch.
Why electing a president, where we should be looking, for one having the best command of the domestic and foreign issues confronting us, comes down to the one with superior campaigning skills rather than governing, simply escapes me.
But it appears that is where we are heading when a man, whom The New York Times has declared unfit to hold the office, now looks like he could well win it.
God help us.
Posted by Vincent206 (Member # 15447) on :
I see the Libertarians have announced their ticket for the 2016 election: former GOP governors William Weld (MA) and Gary Johnson (NM). I don't think that ticket has WHITE HOUSE written on the destination line, but it could provide a viable alternative for the faction of GOP voters that can't vote for Trump.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
It seems the most popular notion of this election cycle is that those with no experience in government are most qualified to run it.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: How voters can turn their backs away from a woman who has every Head of State on her speed-dial and has been on the World Stage for some 25 years, simply escapes me. She will have as her coach, a president that brought prosperity that we have not seen since he left office - and who successfully lead an armed conflict in which there was not one US casualty.
Hillary's performance on the world stage has a lot to do with why I tend to fear her in the office even more than I fear Trump in the office. As to Bill bringing prosperity? Nope. It happened for numerous reasons none of which involved acts of Bill.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I'm still concerned, this Wall Street Journal columnist notwithstanding, that 'We the People" are going to choose a "whatever adjective/expletive you choose" to lead our nation.
Memo to poll-obsessed Democrats: Don’t freak out. Hillary Clinton remains a strong favorite to defeat Donald Trump in November. Mr. Trump’s poll numbers rose after he secured his party’s nomination, and hers will when she does. Mrs. Clinton enjoys structural advantages in demography, party registration and the Electoral College. And reading beyond the headline numbers of recent surveys, it isn’t hard to find evidence of the strengths on which she can build a successful election campaign.
As recently as six months ago, it seemed likely that President Obama’s low job-approval rating would be a drag on Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. But that number has risen substantially in recent months and now stands at 51% according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News and ABC/Washington Post surveys. And as of last month, fully 50% of Americans approved of Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy—up eight points since spring 2014. If the president maintains these numbers through the fall, his impact will be, if anything, modestly positive for Mrs. Clinton.
Like her or not, and she "ain't Bill out on the trail", 25 years of being on the world stage is simply too much to risk casting aside.
Yes, we have enjoyed a virtually scandal free Obama administration; and I'm sure if Hillary wins, Olivia Pope (TV show "Scandal") will have more business (never mind what she would have with the other guy), but her "dirty laundry" has been scrutinized by the public for now 25 years.
I hope "We the People" will choose to stick with what we know and not with what we don't.
disclaimer: author's Presidential voting record: 7R, 5D, 1I (last will never happen again; my vote is too precious to be thrown away).
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
My one hope with a president Hillary is that she will not have a majority in either house of congress, even including the Quisling Republicans as hers.
I have about come to the conclusion that a president Donald scares me more than a president Hillary.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, it would appear that you would be looking for 4 to 8 more years of anarchy.
Now unlike Obama, Hillary has not campaigned on any sweeping domestic agenda. Trump's is so far fetched with "build the wall" and "keep 'em out" and ignorance of a requirement for enacted legislation that he has nothing beyond "Make America Great Again", whatever that means.
All I can go on is Hillary's 25 years of being on the world stage. Obama 2008-10 was guided by advisors saying "we have the votes; it's now or never, Mr. President", as they moved forth Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and a host of other initiatives designed to have the Conservative opposition go GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
Little did those advisors know or care that when they no longer had the votes, there would be anarchy.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Anarchy beats a government with a hypercontrol mindset.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
The Associated Press reports that Trump has his "magic 1237", after some uncommitted super delegates have pledged to support him:
Donald Trump on Thursday reached the number of delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination for president, according to an updated Associated Press count.
It takes 1,237 delegates to win the Republican nomination for president. Mr. Trump has reached 1,238, the AP calculated. With 303 delegates at stake in five state primaries on June 7, Mr. Trump will easily pad his total, avoiding a contested convention in Cleveland in July.
Mr. Trump was put over the top in the Associated Press delegate count by a small number of the party’s unbound delegates who told the AP they would support him at the convention. Among them is Oklahoma GOP chairwoman Pam Pollard.
This is truly one of the most astonishing political events of my lifetime. So many were saying, myself included, "it's not whether but simply when and how" he would self-destruct.
Simply because I commend him for constructing a message that appealed to enough voters to put him there hardly means I'm about to "commend him" UNOWARE on November 8.
Lest we forget, Hitler attained power by being duly elected Chancellor of Germany.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
A "Most Interesting" column, appearing yesterday in the Journal:
There is now more than a theoretical chance that Hillary Clinton may not be the Democratic nominee for president.
How could that happen, given that her nomination has been considered a sure thing by virtually everyone in the media and in the party itself? Consider the possibilities.
The inevitability behind Mrs. Clinton’s nomination will be in large measure eviscerated if she loses the June 7 California primary to Bernie Sanders. That could well happen.
A recent PPIC poll shows Mrs. Clinton with a 2% lead over Mr. Sanders, and a Fox News survey found the same result. Even a narrow win would give him 250 pledged delegates or more—a significant boost. California is clearly trending to Mr. Sanders, and the experience in recent open primaries has been that the Vermont senator tends to underperform in pre-election surveys and over-perform on primary and caucus days, thanks to the participation of new registrants and young voters.
A theory is that Obama is committed to support Hillary - after all, Bill got him his second term with his performance at the '12 Convention. But if Hillary withdrew, Obama would be free to support who he wished - and that could easily be "Amtrak Joe".
If Bernie could put Trump away, Joe would likely have no problem.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: But if Hillary withdrew, Obama would be free to support who he wished - and that could easily be "Amtrak Joe".
If Bernie could put Trump away, Joe would likely have no problem.
Don't know about that. To most people Joe Biden is Joe who. He has probably been one of the most invisible vise presidents in the the last century.
I think a Biden Democratic candidate would virtually hand the office to Trump.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Things appear to be looking up for Hillary. Real Clear Politics is now showing a 3.8 spread in favor of Hillary. The last poll they report favorable to The Donald, was ABC News taken during May. Since then, all Hillary, likely recognizing she did better than expected in California.
Now post-Orlando, it will be interesting to see what effect, if any, the tragedy will have on the polls.
Polls, of course, are very "fluid", and candidates, especially those far behind, have a way of saying "the only poll that counts is on November 8". But the immediate link is to a page that is contemporaneously updated.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ocala Mike at another topic: Quote of the day from FBI Director James Comey - "Only facts matter."
I'm uncomfortable about the fact that HRC E-MAILED state secrets; on the other hand, I'm downright terrified knowing that the presumptive Republican nominee would probably be TWEETING them out right and left.
Mike, if we did it, we'd be court martialled.
But in view of that the FBI is within the Justice Department, and reports to the President, "notta gonna happen".
Congress can yell all they want about the need for a Special Prosecutor, but 469 of 'em have "Job 1" at hand - getting re-elected.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: [QUOTE]But in view of that the FBI is within the Justice Department, and reports to the President, "notta gonna happen".
This is the normal in third world dictatorships, but SHOULD NOT be happening in the USofA. It is simply saying that thanks to political connections Hillary is above the law.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, no question whatever Olivia Pope and her real life colleagues will have more business from a Clinton White House than they have had during the quite scandal free Obama administration.
Now regarding the mishandling of classified information within Hillary's State Department, if you, me, Ocala Mike, Mr. Pullman, and the others around here of whom I have no knowledge, done same in uniform, we'd be court martialled, I can't excuse such actions, but on November 8, I have to consider the alternative.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
First, let it be noted that the link to Real Clear within post 148 is not frozen. As RCP updates their information, so is the linked material.
It appears that the Justice Department's decision to close the email matter has cost Hillary about three points, but she remains ahead. However, there is one poll, Rasmussen, that is predicting a reasonably decisive Trump victory.
On the other hand, there is a poll, Reuters, predicting a Clinton "landslide".
But such is the world of polling; lest we forget, "the only poll that counts is taken on November 8".
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Whoever would have dreamed a year ago that what happened at 710P ET in a city by a lake would have happened.
Not saying if it were a good moment, but it definitely was a moment in history.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Warning: the video attached is VILE; consider yourself warned. I have difficulty accepting that The New York Times could produce this material, let alone circulate it at their website:
New York Times reporters have spent over a year covering Donald J. Trumps rallies, witnessing so many provocations and heated confrontations at them that the cumulative effect can be numbing: A sharp sting that quickly dulls from repetition.
But what struck us was the frequency with which some Trump supporters use coarse, vitriolic, even violent language in the epithets they shout and chant, the signs they carry, the T-shirts they wear a pattern not seen in connection with any other recent political candidate, in any party
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From Crowne Plaza Piitter Salzburg--
Real Clear is reporting that their polling shows that Hillary, in addition to her six point popular vote advantage has a 273 Electoral advantage, which if it holds, she's got it.
The Austrians I have met are just astounded how a major party ever nominated someone so unfit to be a President.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
History is almost repeating itself for me. I came to Singapore for a brief stint working right after Bill got caught as the ruler of the most powerful country but was a man who did not know how to keep his pants zipped. The taxi from the airport when finding out I was American said,"your president" and near ran off the road laughing. My feeling is that if there is anything a president of the US should inspire in people in other countries it should NOT be laughter because of his personal behavior.
Now, here I am in Singapore for two weeks and the first order of discussion with the locals in the office is the two dolts we have running for president. How could we in our huge country not be able to find hundreds if not thousands of people far more qualified? No one can understand it, including me.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Forgot to add: In Singapore the law says you do not make disparaging remarks about the people in power. That is slander. Had to explain that such is not the case in the US.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From Crowne Plaza Piitter Salzburg
Austrians, such as a Starbucks "Barista" and an Usher at the Fespialhaus who wanted to talk politics hold that we can't believe Americans could elect someone like Trump to be the leader of the free world. The idea that Trump would abandon the US's implied role as defender of Europe "scary". "Could Trump really let Putn walk in as did Hitler and take us over?" Said this lovely young girl, studying music at the Mozarteum, to me. I showed her the Real Clear site and explained how 270 Electoral Votes is magic. At the moment I showed how Hillary has 272 firm or strongly leaning, which meant if the Election were today, Hillary's got it.
I said to her that my Mother's family (FDR New Deal haters) moved to Saint Wolfgang (near Salzburg) along about 1932 and came back to the US when Hitler walked in. I said if Trump wins, I'm not above emigrating "for the duration - and I just love it here in Austria".
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: The idea that Trump would abandon the US's implied role as defender of Europe "scary". "Could Trump really let Putn walk in as did Hitler and take us over?" Said this lovely young girl, studying music at the Mozarteum, to me.
I cannot think of one good reason why we should defend Europe. There appreciation of how much we put into it last time is not exactly obvious. If memory serves me, the French, for example still owe repayment of loans from as far back as WW1. We, and the world, would have been far better of if the effort had been put into defending China against Mao and Stalin.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
At this time, I have resigned myself to that Donald J Trump will be the next President of the United States.
Mr. Trump has taken his candidacy to the point that he knocked off 16 other candidates with more affinity to the Republican Party than he has ever claimed to have. Had the Democrats not had a strong candidate, he could just as easily "pounced" on the Democrats for his base.
All too many global political axioms have been upset; whoever dreamed that the United Kingdom would choose by popular vote to leave the European Union. Whoever dreamed that, like Trump, Bernie Sanders would be a viable candidate. Whoever dreamed that Austria, a country with a standing army of about 20,000 and 50 combat aircraft could be on the world political stage by electing a right wing head of state?
And "back in the States", Hillary has been caught in a lie regarding her health. Likely it's nothing, but try telling that to the opposition.
All told, I fear (and I think I just shared who I favor) the tide has turned, and we are on our way to dismissing the most qualified and experienced first term candidate we have had in quite a while.
Finally, there have been only two exceptions (Bush 41 and Carter serving one term) since the presidency became term limited, as the power has shifted every eight years. That would suggest we the people are ready for another shift.
But somehow the Republic will survive.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Don't give up hope. While I'll admit this election won't be the Democratic landslide I'd hoped for, I'm still looking for a narrow win for Hillary Clinton. The Electoral College map is still in her favor. If she can hold on to Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Virginia, and pick up Florida or North Carolina, she should have more than the 270 Electoral votes needed. If she can come clean on her health and promise to stop being so evasive, that should put heat on Trump to be more open about his health, tax returns, etc. Which he probably won't. If the non - white minorities are fired up enough, they can make a big difference in the swing states. And that announcement last Friday at Trump's new hotel in D.C. has hopefully got the media to stop treating Trump with kid gloves and to hammer him hard on important issues. I find it appalling that Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who hasn't a prayer of winning, was asked a more substantive foreign policy question than either of the two major party nominees! Of course that's a lot of if's, but there's always hope!
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I would say that I am more nearly resigned that Hillary will be the next president. Not that I am a fan of Trump. Don't know when we have ever has such a pick the lesser of two evils situation.
Hillary is a crook, one of the worst power grabbers in history and that is about the best I can say. Trump is not a whole lot better, but he will be less able to manipulate congress and the courts than Clinton is.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Following up upon Mr. Harris' immediate, I cannot recall which TV talking head owns this observation. But the comment has been made to the effect of, out of 320 million people, all we could come up with are these two?
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
As one observer said, this choice is like having to go from New York to California, and your only choices are: a 1947 Oldsmobile with no air conditioning, and a Lear Jet with a pilot on PCP and no landing gear. My choice is the Oldsmobile. While it may be uncomfortable, at least it has some chance of completing the trip.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
David Brooks' column appearing in Today's Times is indeed provocative. I've read it twice in case I find to have missed a pertinent thought:
Tyler Cowen recently gathered some of the more interesting theories on his blog Marginal Revolution: America is not ready for a woman president. The Democrats have a lot of policy proposals, but the Republicans are running on big ideas. A more diverse country is a more fractious and polarized country, and over the past few weeks white Republicans have been coming home to their candidate.
I see some truth in those theories, especially the last one. But my single explanation would be this: Clintonworld is a semi-closed system that operates according to its own calendar. Donald Trump is egregious, but at least hes living in the 21st century, as was Bernie Sanders. Clintonworld operates according to its own time-space continuum that is slightly akilter from our own.
In the 21st century, politics operates around a different axis. Its not left/right, big government/small government. Its openness and dynamism versus closedness and security. Its between those who see opportunity and excitement in the emerging globalized, multiethnic meritocracy against those who see their lives and communities threatened by it.
While Brooks holds that Hillary will "eek it out", it appears to me this is a case of the politics of 24 years ago meets the politics of today.
Case in point: 24 years ago, presidential debates were aired by outlets such as PBS and CSPAN with audiences sitting in rapt attention such as at a symphony concert. Today, commercial networks and audiences acting as they would at a sporting event.
Addendum:
Here is an essay that will appear in tomorrow's Journal, which holds to my immediate thought:
The first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is only days away. What can we hope for? A revealing gaffe, a zinger that hits home, a flash of true spontaneity or a glimpse of the real character of the candidatesthese seem to be the most anyone is hoping for, and more than we are likely to get.
Debates, at their very best, are the diamonds of democratic politicscrystal clear in argument, sparkling with wit, free from the discolorations of petty self-interest and shaped to focus light on the great issues of the day. But diamonds are rare, and no one is expecting a jewel on Monday night. The problem isnt only that our candidates are lackluster, tempting as that explanation may be. Nor does the fault lie mainly in the quality of the questions or the skill of the moderator. The forum itself is flawed. How many ways are there to say, Vote for me? That line will always be more advertisement than argument.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
The main advantage the Democratic party has is a sufficiently brainwashed proportion of the electorate that would vote for whoever the democratic candidate is even if it were the donkey. As to watching the political debates, not sure I am going to bother, either. It is not as if we have two intelligent individuals dealing with issues on which both have well thought out positions reasonably supported by facts. That has been gone for a long time. What we have is two masters of prevarication having at each other. Why bother watching? These candidates give us a situation that is much similar to that when Bill was caught with his pants open quite a few years ago. At that time my job had me going to Singapore for a few weeks. As in the taxi going from airport, the driver asked what nationality I was. When I said, American, his response was "Your president" followed by laughter. That is what we don't want any more of, particularly after the last 8 years.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
An informative article appears at the Real Clear Politics site, from which David Brooks linked in my immediate, drew his "50 points" reference. Regardless of whose square your felt tipped pen touches 44 days from now, this article outlines why there is not a 50 point, or thereabouts, spread.
Fair Use:
Dear Hillary: Here's Why You Aren't 50 Points Ahead
Wednesday, in a videotaped message to a labor group in Las Vegas, an exasperated-sounding Hillary Clinton closed her remarks by saying, So having said all that, why arent I 50 points ahead, you might ask?
Its a question Democrats all over the country are asking as the 2016 race heads into the final stretch with their candidate clinging to a small lead over a bombastic billionaire and reality television star. Clinton and her supporters are legitimately bewildered as to why this race is so close.
But its not really a mystery. The reasons are plentiful and have been on display throughout the course of the campaign.
I can only reiterate my earlier thought; politics of 24 years ago, meet the politics of today.
Another journalistic development is that The Times in the Sunday print edition, will come out for Hillary. This is of course expected as I cannot recall when they last came out for a Republican nominee. But what is unexpected is their timing. Gray Lady usually endorses on the Sunday prior to Election Day week, or 10 days prior. Is Lady's Editorial Board worried? I fear they are:
In any normal election year, wed compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate our choice, Hillary Clinton has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)
But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton supporters. Were aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs. Clinton because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent and a political system that seems broken.
Running down the other guy wont suffice to make that argument. The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isnt Donald Trump.
The best case is, instead, about the challenges this country faces, and Mrs. Clintons capacity to rise to them.
When The Journal surely endorses Donald Trump, will they be so eloquent? Time will tell.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I give the Battle of Hofstra to Hillary.
Her command of the facts and issues was simply superior to the other guy. You don't have to love her; but she will do the job.
Others will have a different take which it's my obligation to respect. But this is mine as set forth.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
"You don't have to love her, but she will do the job". That sums it up perfectly! It should be her campaign motto.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jerome Nicholson: "You don't have to love her, but she will do the job". That sums it up perfectly! It should be her campaign motto.
And quite a few people are scared of what sort of job she will do.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
In all likelihood, this is the first and last time I will "stick up" for The Donald:
Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810-11 (2d Cir. 1934)
Appellate Judge Learned Hand: 2d Cir
Obviously Trump was doing business using pass through entities such as Partnerships, S-Corporations, and LLC's (in jurisdictions where such were recognized at that time), the losses that incurred were deductible from his Gross Income otherwise reportable on his Individual Return. A Net Operating Loss may first be carried back for three years resulting in a refund of taxes previously paid then be carried forward to offset future income until the earlier of used up or fifteen years (those numbers have changed over the years but the concept remains in place today).
So have we "crooked Donald" on this matter? No; but what we do have is an ostensible businessman who is guided more by greed and ego than on the expectation of a favorable return on investment largely made with "Opium" - OPM - other people's money.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Now that it looks like the tide has turned in Hillary's favor with the polls summarized at Real Clear giving her a 6.7 point lead, and the Electoral polls showing she only needs 14 votes from the battlegrounds, there is a concern that I heard expressed at the coffee house this morning.
Hillary supporters may simply decide "she's got it" and not show up TO VOTE!!!!.
For someone like myself and I'm sure many others around here hold that to vote is not simply a right, but it is a DUTY. Unfortunately that view is not universal.
I suppose one here in "solid Hillary" Illinois, what's the diff? But what if a voter in Pennsylvania or "dead heat" Ohio held same? I think all of us here remember the 2K "Gorebushoff" resulting in some say, a "selected" president rather than an elected.
Moral: get out and vote for the candidates of your choice.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
This afternoon, I'm going to do something for the first time in this life - vote early.
For a Chicago Symphony concert being performed at Wheaton College this evening, I'll be in Wheaton, the Dupage County Seat, anyway. I'd like to get out there before sundown so that I can scout out the parking at the venue. Then, since my mind is made up on all candidates and referenda issues, I may as well "get it over" in what the weather forecaster I believe the most around here says will be a "September in Late October day". So, I drive over to county farm where the County offices are located (on what was once a farm where the "bad boys" worked off their steam and other vengeances).
While voting was always a very neighborly ritual around here, the School District has kicked the Election Commission out owing to security concerns (hey I pay for these fortresses, don't I get to see what my taxbucks bought?). As a result, about four precincts have been combined into one, and no assurance the Judges are my neighbors anymore.
So I guess I'll find out this afternoon how this modern way to vote will play out. Obviously, Vladimir and his houseguest Eddie have assured the ultimate step of voting on-line will never occur at least in any time I have left around these parts.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
A comment I heard recently is that "how, out of the estimated 152 million people who are eligible to be President (age, "natural born", residency), did we ever end up with these two?".
I realize some will hold that is reason to "sleep in" and show up late for work (and the boss can't say booey), but I hold to vote is a DUTY. and with so many alternatives available - early voting, vote by mail - excuses are hard to come by. I voted early this year and at the polling place I went to, the process is "smooth as silk". Further, I have complete confidence my ballot will be safeguarded and counted.
So, even if "both of 'em turn you off", pick the lesser of the major party evils, and do your duty.
Just my thoughts.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I know The Times reports that Hillary has an 87% chance of victory, but I'm still very concerned. Even if she wins, you can be sure that the disgruntled Trumps will be set to obstruct her legislative agenda in any way possible. We could be looking at a Watergate, where the scandal was "on the hush" until after the Election, all over again where this time the inferences, and maybe even the facts, were known prior to Election Day.
Likewise, should the Trumps win, the Dems will be looking to block and discredit any legislative agenda set forth.
Either way , it "ain't a gonna be pretty"; volks.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Mr. Norman: there are a lot of anti-Hillary people that are anything but pro-Donald. Despite that, they will be loaded and raring to go to work against Hillary's agenda simply because they think it is bad for the US.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Pat Buchanan, I always enjoyed your "passably fair and balanced" commentary on McLaughlin Group, but since that show closed, is this the kind of journalism you have sunk to?
Posted by Vincent206 (Member # 15447) on :
If Hillary wins the election I think it's very likely that a GOP controlled House would hold impeachment hearings sooner than later. But if the Senate is held by the Dems, what's the point?
Far more intriguing would be a victory by Trump. I don't think the Dems would have much trouble presenting a list of impeachable offenses against President Trump. But I'm wondering if the far-right and evangelical members of the House would support articles of impeachment against Trump knowing that Mike Pence is much more aligned with their agendas and philosophies than Trump is. Then, would the Democratic majority in the Senate be willing to replace Trump with Pence?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Vincent, it is indeed ominous to hold that as soon as Hillary, should she win and as soon as the ostensible "unification luncheon" with Congress is over, that the machinery to impeach with the (unattainable) goal of removing her from office will start.
But I won't rule it out.
Trump however, is a different case. He has never held public office before, so it will be difficult to find "high crimes and misdemeanors" on him.
But as the famous line of script from the movie "Casablanca" goes, Louie says to the Nazi prelate "Rick has done nothing wrong" whereby the prelate responds "Find something", and the Democrats start digging for that unpaid parking ticket.
Are "We the People" as divided as we have ever been? After all, our divisions once resulted in a civil war when an industrial economy confronted an agrarian. I'd like to think "we're not there yet".
There is an opinion piece in yesterday's Journal that I think is open sourced at this time and is enlightened reading:
..Weve been divided in much, much worse fashion before, like 1861 when we were actually killing each other.......Americans elected the greatest president, Lincoln, four years after the worst, Buchanan, so theres some hope that 2020 will redeem 2016, whoever wins on Tuesday. But whatever the future holds, perhaps the past could help beleaguered voters make sense of the choice between the two most unpopular candidates since the advent of modern polling.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
OK Volks; I think---
---that Obama will pardon Hillary, win or lose, of any and all crimes that may have been committed while holding public office. The country would be the loser if Congress was tied up witch hunting.
---that Obama will commute, but not pardon, Rob Blagovietch to "time served". The fourteen year sentence was simply too harsh.
---that, if Hillary wins, the Senate in the post-Election Lame Duck session, will be very quick to confirm Judge Garland to the SCOTUS. They'd sooner take chances with the Moderate Obama needed to appoint if there was to be a prayer of confirmation, than whatever "Elizabeth Warren" Hillary would appoint with a Senate in which she had the 51 votes.
Posted by mr williams (Member # 1928) on :
I know this will vary from state to state, and even county to county, but what are your usual voting hours on election day?
Here in the UK the polling booths are open nationwide from 7.00am to 10.00pm but looking at the timeline for tonight it seems that some of your states close their doors as early as 7pm?
Posted by Vincent206 (Member # 15447) on :
Washington State is a vote-by-mail state and the ballots have to be postmarked by Nov. 8 or dropped off at a ballot drop box by 8pm on election day.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
OH MY GOD
I was having "bad feelings" as early as 601PM CT when the early States went "big" for The Donald. By 9P, I knew "this looks bad" and went to bed with the radio on. At about 3A CT, I heard some reference to "President-Elect Trump", and then awakening to this day that the most stunning political upset in modern times, maybe even all times, has occurred.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
here is the popular vote this morning about 10:30am, google says with 90% reporting: Trump 59,265,360 47.505% Clinton 59,458,295 47.660% Johnson 4,032,116 3.232% Stein 1,203,578 0.965% Other 796,844 0.639% Total 124,756,193 100.000% This return also shows the reason behind the Electoral College system. Without it being able to pull of a good majority in a couple of populous areas, you can thumb your nose at the rest of the country. That is without near unanimity in the District of Columbia and an overwhelming majority in California, Clinton would not come near a majority of the popular vote, actually plurality as neither has a majority.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
With regards to Mr. Harris' immediate posting, as noted through this topic, I supported Hillary, but I am really as independent voter as there can be. My Presidential voting record to date is 7R 6D and 1I:
'64 Johnson (D) '68 Humphrey (D) '72 Nixon (R) '76 Ford (R) '80 Anderson (I) '84 Reagan (R) '88 Bush 41(R) '92 Bush 41(R) '96 W Clinton (D) '2K Gore (D) '04 Kerry (D) '08 McCain (R) '12 Romney (R) '16 H Clinton (D)
OK someone is going to say that I'm not too good picking winners, as I haven't done so since '96. For picking a first term winner, it's back to '88.
But of one thing I'm certain; it is time to scrap the Electoral College and start electing the President by popular vote. Now that it appears Hillary will win the popular vote, and Gore did win it during 2K, I think it is time to allow all voters, regardless of where they reside, to have their vote count equally - just as it is for any other Federal office. No more feelings for residents of "solid Red or Blue" states that their Presidential vote doesn't count.
True, the Electoral over Popular has gone against my preferences twice, but it could just as easily go against "the other guys" in '24. It will take a Constitutional Amendment, but there is no time like the present to get the ball rolling.
Thoughts, anyone?
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Mr. Gilbert, my hat's off to you (if I wore one). You called back in September. I was still confident last night when my sister called at 9PM , angry because she thought Trump had won. I reassured her, saying it would be decuded with Florida and North Carolina, if Hillary's "Blue Wall" held. She went to bed at 12 (or so I thought), and I stayed up till 2 ET, after those two states had called. Nevada went for Hillary, so there was still a way for her to win. I woke up at 5AM and went to my smartphone. OMFG> Somewhere in there in the Afterlife, there is a redneck Texan going, "HAW! HAW! Told ja so!" Get in line NOW for those Marks of the Beast before it gets too long!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Actual e-spondence with two of my friends (both happily married women) in which "only the needle has been changed to protect the record":
1) I'm with all of you. This is FRIGHTENING!!!
2) I had to go to bed early too. Couldnt bear to watch. Egads! I was hoping I had just had a bad nightmare. I woke to messages from around the world with invitations to move. Feeling very bummed right now. Scout and I are going to take an extra long walk this morning!
On Nov 8, 2016, at 8:58 PM, gbnorman@comcast.net wrote:
I'm going to bed.
This is not how things were supposed to go. The distinct possibility of President Trump is just too much for me to take.
But I'm blessed to have you both in friendship - and should such come to pass, President Trump can't take that away from me.
GBN Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Actually, there are a lot of people that are greatly relieved to see Clinton not get it. In fact there are many, and I am one of them, that are absolutely mystified by what is so attractive about her being president.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
More e-spondence from my earlier email (admittedly between Hillary supporters) and in this case happily married woman in the Social Services field:
I've felt intense sorrow and worry today. I have to remember that she won the popular vote, so the majority of Americans truly want to be inclusive, to offer kindness and to care for one another.
Let's not lose hope. Let us look out for those around us who may fall victim to those who were incited to violence from all the hateful rhetoric.
Much love
Now an additional word from me: "Mr. Trump, I am an American, and you are my President. Godspeed".
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
A very insightful column appeared Yesterday in The Times:
Mr. Trump ostensibly ran as a Republican, but he was effectively a third-party candidate who happened to campaign under the banner of one of the two major parties. Casting himself as an outsider, he not only savaged leaders in both parties but he made a mockery of nearly all the pieties of the American political system
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: I've felt intense sorrow and worry today. I have to remember that she won the popular vote, so the majority of Americans truly want to be inclusive, to offer kindness and to care for one another.
Sorry, but it was not a majority, it was a plurality. The numbers found on line as of now (12:00 noon,Friday): 60,071,650 = 47.40% - Trump 60,467,245 = 47.72% - Clinton 4,123,062 = 3.25% - Johnson 1,237,116 = 0.98% - Stein 820,690 = 0.65% - others So, now what? Give it to the plurality, or have a runoff?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From reviewing Real Clear Politics through the Election cycle, there was one poll, sponsored by the Los Angeles Times and University of Southern California, that consistently reported Trump was going to win. I guess you could say "the little Red boat in the big Blue sea".
Linked below is an NPR interview with the Poll's Director that I found interesting, and possibly others will too:
Mr. Trump ostensibly ran as a Republican, but he was effectively a third-party candidate who happened to campaign under the banner of one of the two major parties. Casting himself as an outsider, he not only savaged leaders in both parties but he made a mockery of nearly all the pieties of the American political system
Michael Moore also deserves kudos for correctly predicting the election outcome:http://globalnews.ca/news/3026451/michael-moore-heres-why-donald-trump-will-win-the-election/
Whate he said afterward is also compelling:http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/michael-moore-joins-wide-ranging-election-talk-806604867876 Yes, Mr. Moderator, I know the links are too long, but I don't know where to cut them off. I think I'll be visiting Washington this weekend. With my age and health issues, I may not live long enough to see a decent person again occupy the White House!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Here are links to the material immediately noted by Mr. Nicholson:
Being 75 myself and that Presidents, save three exceptions since term limits were imposed under the 22nd Amendment during 1951, serve the two terms allowed, I too am confronted with The Donald being my last President as well.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Admittedly, I havent too many memories of 1948 Dewey v. Truman. I was seven and in a family where you were taught not to use dirty words - one of which was Democrat.
I remember being put to bed and my Mother saying "we will have President Dewey tomorrow". Nevermind that HST is considered the 6th best President to date.
Imagine waking up "the morning after".
Here is the famous photo of how sixty eight years ago, "they got it wrong". At least this time through, there is not quite the same evidential matter.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
There's a month to go; here's "a few" from some of my "Lefty" friends:
1) The Donald will not serve out even one term; "he's had his fun" and he can say "I won". Leave that gritty stuff of presiding over the Government, and with a Congress that could prove to be "not exactly a rubber stamp", to others.
2) Ivanka will assume many of the duties of the First Lady. She is just as good looking as Meliana, knows more about "how the game is played", and is ambitious enough to want to "play the Washington Game".
3) "There's something wrong" with Baron. It looks like a high-Asperberger degree of autism. Who knows how much he was "Medded up" for his stage appearance, but he did not look very comfortable (and large crowds and noise make "Aspbies" very uncomfortable). It is also why Meliana wants to stay in New York with him.
4) Now "last but not least"; there was a reputable polling outfit that CNN hired to do "voter exit profiles". This outfit concluded that Trump "had it" in enough "battlegrounds" to give it to him. CNN said "thank you very much" (I'd like to think paid the bill) and otherwise buried the outfit's results. So they ended up like every other news organization "calling it wrong".
I think this Election is the second-most, 9/11 being first, "news story" of this "adolescent" century.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
With a little under a month to go, I will say I have a far better impression of the Donald than I did on election night. The biggest, his proposed cabinet picks: People with real experience in the real world, not a bunch of political hacks. Also, these being people that honestly have the best interests of the USA in mind, not currying political favors or shaking in their boot about what is "politically correct" and what the rest of the world might think.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
While it is very safe to say that this Election will be "dissected" in every conceivable way, PBS aired a "Frontline" regarding the Election earlier this week.
Their report implies that within the Clinton campaign, they "knew she was in trouble" - the last minute Comey accusation/withdrawal notwithstanding. The last minute Obama "full court press" in Pennsylvania was indicative of that. Would have more time in both Michigan and Wisconsin made a difference? That will have to be deferred until more scholars research the matter, but for now this Frontline "airbrushing" will have to suffice.
But all told, Hillary's campaign will prove to be a big boondoggle - and they had the world thinking that it was a well oiled machine. They probably spent more $$$ for each meaningless popular vote and definitely more for each electoral vote than any inflation adjusted in history. Nevermind the results.
PBS is very selective with their On-Demand offerings; they like to sell videos of their material and O-D is I think controlled by the local outlets and the cable providers. But if you can find it, watch it.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Given the performance of Trump his first few days in office, I suspect that a lot of the third party voters that resulted in Clinton having her "majority" (can people say plurality?) would have voted for Trump instead. It could also be that some of the Clinton voters would have been Trump voters, as she was downright repulsive to many people.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From Holiday Inn Express Boca Raton (it's a perfectly good property, Smitty)--
If the bookies at Ladbrokes are to be believed, President Pence will take that ride from 1600 to UNOWARE Jan 20, 2021. However, they are not betting too much that Michelle will be in the MRAP disguised as a Caddy Limo - AKA "The Beast" - with him:
In short, the authors contend that Hillary had lost, long, LONG, before any of the bombshells, such as Comey, Bill's "meet up" with Loretta, and even the paid speeches to the Wall Street gang.
The only problem is that no one, including those paid the big $$$ who were supposed to know, knew.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Here you have it in a nutshell.
quote:the more closely people look at her, the less inclined they will be to elect her president
As to this statement in the article:
quote:Spread a tiny proportion of her huge margins in California and New York across the Rust Belt, and shes the president today.
Preventing this sort of stuff from happening, that is a couple of highly populated areas from being able to overwhelm the rest of the country, is why we have the Electoral College system.
I would also question that this supposition is even a true statement. Despite all the noise about it, Clinton did not have a majority, but only a plurality. In order to achieve a majority, she would have had to come out the majority in a runoff. Of that I have my doubts, because I suspect that a large part of the "third party" votes were really "none of the above" votes from people that did not like either one, but many of which I would suspect were more repulsed by Clinton than by Trump.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Allow me to concur with Mr. Harris' statement:
Trump + Johnson + Stein.+ Yogi Bear and whoever else > Hillary.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
During the campaign, I thanked God that Hillar was running against Trump because I felt any other Republican would have given her a shellacking. How bad was she that the election was even close? Her supporters keep saying that she really won because she got 3M more popular votes that Trump. That, plus $2, won't gt her a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Just ask President Al Gore. Months before the Comey Letter, she was in trouble in PA and MI. Voter suppression was going on in WI, but her team chose to ignore it, and not set foot in that state. She told the coal mines in western PA she would put them and thei employers out of business. She told the steel and auto workers of MI and A she would put Bill Clinton, who sent their jobs to Mexico and China, in charge of rebuilding the economy. Addd to that she basically had no real message other than she was a woman.And she lost among white women. Who loses among their own demographic? And it was her turn. Her suporters said she was the most qualified ever". Of ccorse, the modern meaning of "ever" is "since I was aware". The most qualified "ever" was James Buchahan,and see how he turned out. He was succeeded by Abraham Lincoln, who was one of the least qualified, and turned out the greatest. In recent times, Nixon was more qualified than Kennedy; Bush Senior ore qualified than Clinton, and McCain more qualified that Obama. But they all lost to men who articulated a vision of where they wanted to take the conutry. That's what a leader does.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Nicholson, you raise many a point that the book I noted (and have now completed) does. Perhaps she was flawed and those around her were not prepared to accept that. The result being the most unqualified candidate is now at 1600.
But you indeed have a point regarding James Buchanan, and likely that band of clowns immediately preceeding him that could have with leadership, averted the Civil War.
Finally, what if the Demmies had ended up nominating "Amtrak Joe", or even God forbid, Bernie? During '16 there was so much worldwide sentiment to "throw the bums out" that resulted in first Brexit, then Trump. But We the World seem to be already "centristing" ourselves. Towards that end, I cite Macron in France and Van der Bellen in Austria.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
If any Democrat had been elected, (s)he would have faced a still homebound Republican Congress which might even have the audacity to not approve a 9th SCJustice.Though I suppose Biden might have been more skillful than Obama at getting things through Congress. Perhaps it is better that the GOP runs wild so the American people finally see what life under them is like.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris:
quote:Spread a tiny proportion of her huge margins in California and New York across the Rust Belt, and shes the president today.
Preventing this sort of stuff from happening, that is a couple of highly populated areas from being able to overwhelm the rest of the country, is why we have the Electoral College system.
Mr. Harris, I do respect your views. While it appears you now reside in a "burb of Memphis", I'd place bets that you have resided in a rural area at one time or the other. In the interest of full disclosure, I have always resided in the "burbs"; be it New York, Phila, DC, or Chicago. Of the last three, I could have resided wherever I chose; but I chose burbs over the city itself.
My question is, considering we both reside in "safe" states, albeit different parties, is why should our votes count less in a Presidential race than those cast in a "battleground" state. Somehow I think you hold same view as do I; voting is not just a right, but it is also a duty. We both wore the uniform; it was our duty. But was our service worth any less than anyone else's?
While if either proportional Electors or the popular vote prevailed, someone wearing a pant suit rather than trousers would be sitting in the Oval Office, I still hold that proportional Electors would serve best the people at large. How we would ever get there blows my imagination.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Completely discarding the Electoral College would result in Presidents being elected by winning only a half dozen states. Not much better than what we have now. Proportional allocation of electoral votes is the way to go. - based on percentage, not Congressional districts, because they will be gerrymandered like the House of Representatives.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Nicholson, do I hear you and how regarding gerrymandering.
Here is how my Congressional District looked before the most recent redistricting during 2013. I was always happy to vote for the long standing Moderate Republican . Now, here is how things look after the "pols" got done with their "magic show".
The result; my new Representative takes his party line straight out of the Mike Pence, Sean Hannity playbook. Wonder why I voted Demmy (even though she hadn't a chance) last time around?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)