Dems to lose Senate.

maineman said:
woulda coulda shoulda.... who gives a fuck what democratic women did or did not do six years ago?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's an unreasonable question to ask that if (Democratic) women are dying (figuratively) to vote for a woman President and they had a chance with the same woman in 2008 and didn't will they be as excited as you say in 2016.
 
Ghost of Grind said:
she's a woman.
Click to expand...
..nor is she an anti-intellectual reactionary bigot.

The real issue if she is nominated is can the GOP vet a candidate through the primary process in a manner that he/she doesn't go so far to the right that it would alienate the middle as they did in 2008 and 2012.

I haven't seen any strong indicators yet that the GOP has given up it's grasp on the Southern Strategy and any candidate the GOP nominates who runs in the GOP primaries based on the Southern strategy is unelectable at the national level.
 
Even if the GOP takes the Senate, it will be hard to hold it in 2016

http://hotair.com/headlines/archive...he-senate-it-will-be-hard-to-hold-it-in-2016/


gop-tax-bracket-cartoon.png

A GOP senate and house, can cause a lot of damage in two year!

Lets hope they will not have a 60 vote majority in the senate and Obama uses the veto!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I have mixed feelings about Hilliary being nominated. Her centrist politics appeal to me and she has all the requesite experience. However, do we really need the political inbreeding?

On the other hand if she's nominated the comedy from the reaction of the GOP knuckle dragger faction would be priceless.:)
Click to expand...

Although I would hate to see her elected if she is than my attitude will be the same as when The Obama was elected: The country needs to be destroyed before it can be reborn.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well no shit Captain Obvious. You just described 99.999% of all politicians who have ever lived! LOL
Click to expand...

i actually disagree with this. Yeah that's the common sterotype but I think just looking at the republican party you can see that they don't budge very much regardless which way the political wind blows, sometimes to their own detriment. In fact I just saw some analysis of this the other day (which I may go search for after this post) that showed republicans are far far farrr more likely to not deviate in more liberal states vs. liberals will deviate from their parties platform in many conservative areas.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
How is she not qualified? She has, at this stage of her career, a stronger curriculum vitae than all three of her predecessors in the Presidency. Including her own husband when he ran in 92.
Click to expand...

why are you fucking asking me this as if I write for gallup? That's what gallup polled. take it up with the american people.
 
Ghost of Grind said:
In fact I just saw some analysis of this the other day (which I may go search for after this post) that showed republicans are far far farrr more likely to not deviate in more liberal states vs. liberals will deviate from their parties platform in many conservative areas.
Click to expand...

i'm never gonna find this :/

basically it was a scatter plot of liberal vs. conservative deviation in swing states and areas that traditionally vote more liberal/conservative vs. the individual.

Democrats in conservative areas would budge in swing states would capitulate about 7.9% of the time if memory serves me correctly, and republicans would compromise about 3.8% of the time in more liberal voting areas. This may also have to do with having certain districts locked up, I don't know, but the take away from the data was that liberals are "more moderate" and "more willing to compromise"

Although this is to be expected when your political philosophy is wanting to drag people in a certain direction. You move an inch. Then you move another inch. Etc. Any compromise is a success for liberals.

But the overarching point I am making is: no, not all politicians just vote based on which way the wind is blowing.
 
maineman said:
it could have happened in '08 if Barack Obama had had a vagina and not a penis.

the point is: women in America have NEVER had the opportunity to vote for a woman for president. They've had 24 trips to the voting booth and, if Hillary is nominated by the democrats, this will be the FIRST time they could actually vote for one of their own as the candidate of a major political party regardless of her abilities or lack there of.
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
Mott the Hoople said:
How is she not qualified? She has, at this stage of her career, a stronger curriculum vitae than all three of her predecessors in the Presidency. Including her own husband when he ran in 92.
Click to expand...
If the only reason people have to vote for her is a lack of a Y chromosome what does that say about her dirth of accomplishment ? Of course americans elected a guy with nothing more to hang his hat in than melanin so what does that say about the electorate ? At least Bubba and W were govenors, requires some executive doings. BO had nada (and it shows). So people now know why experience matters.
 
Hill did fall on her sword for the whole bengazi bullshit. whether she was at fault or not that's how a lot of americans probably perceive that.
 
as much as assholes like Nova and his brethren would love to keep Benghazi in the public eye.... it will be very old news come 2016 campaign season.... it will be seasoned, experienced Hillary against some GOP yahoo who will have had to go hard right and suck a mile of tea party cock to get the nomination and will be unable to shake the etch-a-sketch and hop back towards the middle where all those housewives will be chomping at the bit to vote for a fellow vagina owner for president. It's a done deal as far as I can tell.... as long as she decides to do it.
 
i mostly agree with you maineman, I dont think benghazi will be relevant at all. she's def the clear favorite to win
 
I'd like to thank Mott for setting the record straight about Obama's genitalia. I actually was unsure which parts he has...
 
Jarod said:
Secretary Clinton will get a smaller percentage of women votes than Obama got in black votes, but the excitement factor of being a part of the history of electing the first women President will be huge, it will be one of the best motivators to get out the vote, and we all know that if you can excite your electorate, you are more likely to win... If you can get your people excited about voting, and keep their people bored... you win.
Click to expand...

I don't know.....you got everyone excited about voting for the first black president in 08......and we ALL lost.....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I have mixed feelings about Hilliary being nominated. Her centrist politics appeal to me and she has all the requesite experience. However, do we really need the political inbreeding?

On the other hand if she's nominated the comedy from the reaction of the GOP knuckle dragger faction would be priceless.:)
Click to expand...

Hillaries experience amounts to being the wife of a President, a short stint as a Senator and a very short stint as a failure as a Sec State.

But seeing that the Democratic Presidential experience bar has become pretty much meaningless after Obamas election; experience is no longer a concern for the party. It's all about appearances and emotional appeal. Forget that it's the biggest CEO job in the world and requires vast experience and maturity to master.

The new dumbed down low information voters demand empty suits and dishonest partisan pandering and by golly that is what the Democratic party is going to give them!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top