Hillary vs __________(insert name here) 2016: Hillary Loses badly (1 Viewer)

[squistion]

It's not the GOP that's going to beat her, if anything it's going to be her age. She's going to be 68 when election time rolls around. Way too old. Plus, she isn't EVER going to see the turnout Obama did in 2008 (heck, even Obama didn't in 2012) or 2012. I just think people are tired of the Clintons. She represents the "boomers" - is America really going to go back to that after Obama, who represents a younger generation? I don't think so. Look for a younger Democrat to emerge and take the nom for the left.

I'm not going to bet any money on that, though. Just my opinion.

That is for certain, as few else would make that bet either.

And, as pointed out earlier, she is 4 months younger than Mitt Romney. If Romney had won in 2012, none of his supporters would have any issue with his age in 2016 or the fact that he is older than Hillary. The right has never had a problem with the age of their candidates, so I really doubt they will get much traction pointing to Hillary and saying "Don't vote for he because she is too old!"

 

[Fennis]

It's not the GOP that's going to beat her, if anything it's going to be her age. She's going to be 68 when election time rolls around. Way too old. Plus, she isn't EVER going to see the turnout Obama did in 2008 (heck, even Obama didn't in 2012) or 2012. I just think people are tired of the Clintons. She represents the "boomers" - is America really going to go back to that after Obama, who represents a younger generation? I don't think so. Look for a younger Democrat to emerge and take the nom for the left.

I'm not going to bet any money on that, though. Just my opinion.

That is for certain, as few else would make that bet either.

And, as pointed out earlier, she is 4 months younger than Mitt Romney. If Romney had won in 2012, none of his supporters would have any issue with his age in 2016 or the fact that he is older than Hillary. The right has never had a problem with the age of their candidates, so I really doubt they will get much traction pointing to Hillary and saying "Don't vote for he because she is too old!"

everyone is a hypocrite including every democrat who said McCain was too old

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What is Hillary's home "favorite son" state now, Ark, Ill, NY or DC?

 

[Fennis]

What is Hillary's home "favorite son" state now, Ark, Ill, NY or DC?

if she was smart she would move to Ohio

 

[Slapdash]

Yes, wife of one ex-president is as ground breaking as the son of another.

 

[timschochet]

tommyboy reminds me of my father in law. My father in law is honestly shocked that ANYONE could ever vote Democrat. He simply cannot understand it. He always assumes that Republicans will win every race in a landslide because "people will come to their senses."

 

[MaxThreshold]

It's not the GOP that's going to beat her, if anything it's going to be her age. She's going to be 68 when election time rolls around. Way too old. Plus, she isn't EVER going to see the turnout Obama did in 2008 (heck, even Obama didn't in 2012) or 2012. I just think people are tired of the Clintons. She represents the "boomers" - is America really going to go back to that after Obama, who represents a younger generation? I don't think so. Look for a younger Democrat to emerge and take the nom for the left.

I'm not going to bet any money on that, though. Just my opinion.

That is for certain, as few else would make that bet either.

And, as pointed out earlier, she is 4 months younger than Mitt Romney. If Romney had won in 2012, none of his supporters would have any issue with his age in 2016 or the fact that he is older than Hillary. The right has never had a problem with the age of their candidates, so I really doubt they will get much traction pointing to Hillary and saying "Don't vote for he because she is too old!"

Oh, I don't think anyone is going to campaign on that, but i think people will be thinking it.

 

[MaxThreshold]

tommyboy reminds me of my father in law. My father in law is honestly shocked that ANYONE could ever vote Democrat. He simply cannot understand it. He always assumes that Republicans will win every race in a landslide because "people will come to their senses."

Well...it's obvious they haven't if Obama got elected twice.

 

[cstu]

It's not the GOP that's going to beat her, if anything it's going to be her age. She's going to be 68 when election time rolls around. Way too old. Plus, she isn't EVER going to see the turnout Obama did in 2008 (heck, even Obama didn't in 2012) or 2012. I just think people are tired of the Clintons. She represents the "boomers" - is America really going to go back to that after Obama, who represents a younger generation? I don't think so. Look for a younger Democrat to emerge and take the nom for the left.

I'm not going to bet any money on that, though. Just my opinion.

That is for certain, as few else would make that bet either.

And, as pointed out earlier, she is 4 months younger than Mitt Romney. If Romney had won in 2012, none of his supporters would have any issue with his age in 2016 or the fact that he is older than Hillary. The right has never had a problem with the age of their candidates, so I really doubt they will get much traction pointing to Hillary and saying "Don't vote for he because she is too old!"

everyone is a hypocrite including every democrat who said McCain was too old

McCain did look like he was going to die any minute though.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

It's not the GOP that's going to beat her, if anything it's going to be her age. She's going to be 68 when election time rolls around. Way too old. Plus, she isn't EVER going to see the turnout Obama did in 2008 (heck, even Obama didn't in 2012) or 2012. I just think people are tired of the Clintons. She represents the "boomers" - is America really going to go back to that after Obama, who represents a younger generation? I don't think so. Look for a younger Democrat to emerge and take the nom for the left.

I'm not going to bet any money on that, though. Just my opinion.

That is for certain, as few else would make that bet either.

And, as pointed out earlier, she is 4 months younger than Mitt Romney. If Romney had won in 2012, none of his supporters would have any issue with his age in 2016 or the fact that he is older than Hillary. The right has never had a problem with the age of their candidates, so I really doubt they will get much traction pointing to Hillary and saying "Don't vote for he because she is too old!"

everyone is a hypocrite including every democrat who said McCain was too old

McCain did look like he was going to die any minute though.

McCain was 72...and a hard 72 at that.

 

[timschochet]

It's not the GOP that's going to beat her, if anything it's going to be her age. She's going to be 68 when election time rolls around. Way too old. Plus, she isn't EVER going to see the turnout Obama did in 2008 (heck, even Obama didn't in 2012) or 2012. I just think people are tired of the Clintons. She represents the "boomers" - is America really going to go back to that after Obama, who represents a younger generation? I don't think so. Look for a younger Democrat to emerge and take the nom for the left.

I'm not going to bet any money on that, though. Just my opinion.

That is for certain, as few else would make that bet either.

And, as pointed out earlier, she is 4 months younger than Mitt Romney. If Romney had won in 2012, none of his supporters would have any issue with his age in 2016 or the fact that he is older than Hillary. The right has never had a problem with the age of their candidates, so I really doubt they will get much traction pointing to Hillary and saying "Don't vote for he because she is too old!"

everyone is a hypocrite including every democrat who said McCain was too old

McCain did look like he was going to die any minute though.

McCain was 72...and a hard 72 at that.

It's all relative though. The guy had to have amazing energy. For 5-6 months, he had to campaign around 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, giving speeches and shaking hands over and over again, always being on. I'm 30 years younger than McCain and I couldn't do that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And JMac still is going strong.

 

[skol asylum]

http://jon2016.com/

Republicans would never be smart enough to make him their guy unfortunately.

 

[fatness]

http://jon2016.com/

Republicans would never be smart enough to make him their guy unfortunately.

They'll probably do something more like this: http://jon2016.com

 

[skol asylum]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7TBuDHdqo

Seriously, this guy is pretty darn smart.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

I believe in legalizing pot, but given all the problems that face this nation, I would NEVER form my vote based on this issue as a priority. Is there anyone here who would?

Considering the sheer volume of people who are arrested or killed as a direct result of the war on drugs, I absolutely would. (In fact, I have done so in past elections.) I honestly can't understand how anyone could be pro-legalization but consider it a less important issue than something like gay marriage or the top marginal tax rate.

Well as much as I believe in the right of gays to marry each other, that wouldn't be decisive for me either. Nor would taxes OR spending, both of which are, in the big picture, irrelevant. My biggest issues are immigration and energy.

U.S. policy on recreational drug use may have nearly as far reaching effects as U.S. energy policy. You want to reduce violent crime in the U.S.? Killing the black market for recreational drugs would go a long way towards that. Also consider the impact on overcrowded prisons, government spending on enforcement, potential tax revenues to be gained, health problems, international relations, etc. It's kind of a big deal.

Now marijuana is just one recreational drug, but at least it'd be a start.

Cartels traffic quite a bit of marijuana as well as coke.

 

[Good Posting Judge]

http://jon2016.com/

Republicans would never be smart enough to make him their guy unfortunately.

Hasn't Limbaugh been throwing Christie under the bus? It does seem like anyone to the left of Romney would get squashed. Probably the benefit of the Dems.

 

[cstu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7TBuDHdqo

Seriously, this guy is pretty darn smart.

Too bad the GOP doesn't even put him on their list of 32 candidates - which includes Sarah Palin.

 

[Fennis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7TBuDHdqo

Seriously, this guy is pretty darn smart.

Too bad the GOP doesn't even put him on their list of 32 candidates - which includes Sarah Palin.

and one term congressman, Allen West.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The right has never had a problem with the age of their candidates, so I really doubt they will get much traction pointing to Hillary and saying "Don't vote for he because she is too old!"

Especially since St. Ronnie was eight months older than Hillary relative to election day of their first terms.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yes and the left painted Reagan as a doddering old fool. McCain btw wasn't even supposed to be alive by now.

 

[timschochet]

So I was reading an article by Michael Tomasky this morning, and he explained some facts which suggest that, once again, tommyboy is horribly wrong here, and that it is almost impossible that ANY Democrat will "lose badly" in 2016, or any time in the foreseeable future:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/21/how-bad-does-the-gop-need-chris-christie-really-bad.html

Here's a summary:

1. You need 270 electoral votes to win. There are 206 electoral votes firmly in the red (Republican) camp, and 257 electoral votes firmly in the blue (Democratic) camp. None of this looks to be changing in the near future, but if any DO change, it will much more likely be from red to blue (due to growing Latino populations in Arizona and Texas) than from blue to red.

2. There are only 5 "purple", or swing states left: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada. Obama won all 5 of these, twice, so perhaps we shouldn't even call them swing states anymore. In any event, all the Democratic candidate has to do is win 13 electoral votes from these states, while the Republican has to win 64.

Conclusion: the Republican path to victory continues to narrow. Of course a Republican can be elected in 2016, but only in a very tight election. The Democrat, however, can win in a landslide. These are the facts that tommyboy and others like him refuse to acknowledge.

 

[humpback]

@ Tim taking this seriously.

 

[James Daulton]

I think the only way she loses is if she gets tied to this healthcare fiasco. Maybe the nation just boots out anyone who voted for it, but I doubt it. Bill campaigning for her will be huge.

 

[humpback]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7TBuDHdqo

Seriously, this guy is pretty darn smart.

Too bad the GOP doesn't even put him on their list of 32 candidates - which includes Sarah Palin.

and one term congressman, Allen West.

Why would they put him on there? He pretty much broke away from the party.

 

[timschochet]

@ Tim taking this seriously.

l don't take tommyboy seriously. But I take the national electoral demise of the Republican party VERY seriously. In terms of national politics, we're increasingly becoming a one party state. The Dems have won the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 elections. I don't like it.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

@ Tim taking this seriously.

l don't take tommyboy seriously. But I take the national electoral demise of the Republican party VERY seriously. In terms of national politics, we're increasingly becoming a one party state. The Dems have won the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 elections. I don't like it.

It does seem like you do take him seriously considering how often you mention him and referencing his predictions about elections.

 

[Statorama]

So I was reading an article by Michael Tomasky this morning, and he explained some facts which suggest that, once again, tommyboy is horribly wrong here, and that it is almost impossible that ANY Democrat will "lose badly" in 2016, or any time in the foreseeable future:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/21/how-bad-does-the-gop-need-chris-christie-really-bad.html

Here's a summary:

1. You need 270 electoral votes to win. There are 206 electoral votes firmly in the red (Republican) camp, and 257 electoral votes firmly in the blue (Democratic) camp. None of this looks to be changing in the near future, but if any DO change, it will much more likely be from red to blue (due to growing Latino populations in Arizona and Texas) than from blue to red.

2. There are only 5 "purple", or swing states left: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada. Obama won all 5 of these, twice, so perhaps we shouldn't even call them swing states anymore. In any event, all the Democratic candidate has to do is win 13 electoral votes from these states, while the Republican has to win 64.

Conclusion: the Republican path to victory continues to narrow. Of course a Republican can be elected in 2016, but only in a very tight election. The Democrat, however, can win in a landslide. These are the facts that tommyboy and others like him refuse to acknowledge.

I hate to go all elephant in the room here, but it's likely that blacks and young voters go back to pre-Obama levels of election participation without a "cool" candidate to vote for.

2016 may seem like it's right around the corner, but it's actually a LONG way away. A lot can happen between now and then. President Booker? Ugh.

It's strange that the DNC hasn't been molding a strong black female candidate during Obama's presidency. That's your landslide.

 

[timschochet]

So I was reading an article by Michael Tomasky this morning, and he explained some facts which suggest that, once again, tommyboy is horribly wrong here, and that it is almost impossible that ANY Democrat will "lose badly" in 2016, or any time in the foreseeable future:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/21/how-bad-does-the-gop-need-chris-christie-really-bad.html

Here's a summary:

1. You need 270 electoral votes to win. There are 206 electoral votes firmly in the red (Republican) camp, and 257 electoral votes firmly in the blue (Democratic) camp. None of this looks to be changing in the near future, but if any DO change, it will much more likely be from red to blue (due to growing Latino populations in Arizona and Texas) than from blue to red.

2. There are only 5 "purple", or swing states left: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada. Obama won all 5 of these, twice, so perhaps we shouldn't even call them swing states anymore. In any event, all the Democratic candidate has to do is win 13 electoral votes from these states, while the Republican has to win 64.

Conclusion: the Republican path to victory continues to narrow. Of course a Republican can be elected in 2016, but only in a very tight election. The Democrat, however, can win in a landslide. These are the facts that tommyboy and others like him refuse to acknowledge.

I hate to go all elephant in the room here, but it's likely that blacks and young voters go back to pre-Obama levels of election participation without a "cool" candidate to vote for.

2016 may seem like it's right around the corner, but it's actually a LONG way away. A lot can happen between now and then. President Booker? Ugh.

It's strange that the DNC hasn't been molding a strong black female candidate during Obama's presidency. That's your landslide.

Even if that happens, it will have no effect on the numbers I just posted, since they've been true for the last several elections now.

 

[humpback]

@ Tim taking this seriously.

l don't take tommyboy seriously. But I take the national electoral demise of the Republican party VERY seriously. In terms of national politics, we're increasingly becoming a one party state. The Dems have won the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 elections. I don't like it.

Sure seems that you do. In any event, I realize all of those things, but what can you do about it? The demographics are clearly in the Dems favor and only becoming more so- probably the best you can hope for is that their nominees are relatively moderate and can fend off the loonies in their party.

 

[timschochet]

@ Tim taking this seriously.

l don't take tommyboy seriously. But I take the national electoral demise of the Republican party VERY seriously. In terms of national politics, we're increasingly becoming a one party state. The Dems have won the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 elections. I don't like it.

It does seem like you do take him seriously considering how often you mention him and referencing his predictions about elections.

I think tommyboy is shtick part of the time. But there's a lot of people out there who are always confident that the Republicans are going to win. I mentioned my father-in-law earlier. There were millions of conservatives who were shocked that Obama defeated Romney, because they had been watching Fox News and "experts" like Karl Rove and **** Morris had been assuring them for weeks that Romney would win easily. I have no doubt the same thing will happen next time around- Fox tells these people what they want to hear, rather than the truth.

 

[humpback]

I think tommyboy is shtick part of the time. But there's a lot of people out there who are always confident that the Republicans are going to win. I mentioned my father-in-law earlier. There were millions of conservatives who were shocked that Obama defeated Romney, because they had been watching Fox News and "experts" like Karl Rove and **** Morris had been assuring them for weeks that Romney would win easily. I have no doubt the same thing will happen next time around- Fox tells these people what they want to hear, rather than the truth.

Why does this matter to you?

 

[timschochet]

@ Tim taking this seriously.

l don't take tommyboy seriously. But I take the national electoral demise of the Republican party VERY seriously. In terms of national politics, we're increasingly becoming a one party state. The Dems have won the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 elections. I don't like it.

Sure seems that you do. In any event, I realize all of those things, but what can you do about it? The demographics are clearly in the Dems favor and only becoming more so- probably the best you can hope for is that their nominees are relatively moderate and can fend off the loonies in their party.

What can be done about is this: the moderate and establishment members of the Republican party need to take a stand against the Tea Party and extreme conservatism. Even if it breaks up the GOP, that's what needs to be done. Only when the GOP has returned to it's mid 20th century roots as a rational, moderate alternative to Democratic liberalism will it have a real chance to win national elections again on a regular basis.

 

[timschochet]

I think tommyboy is shtick part of the time. But there's a lot of people out there who are always confident that the Republicans are going to win. I mentioned my father-in-law earlier. There were millions of conservatives who were shocked that Obama defeated Romney, because they had been watching Fox News and "experts" like Karl Rove and **** Morris had been assuring them for weeks that Romney would win easily. I have no doubt the same thing will happen next time around- Fox tells these people what they want to hear, rather than the truth.

Why does this matter to you?

Because it's destroying the Republican party.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

@ Tim taking this seriously.

l don't take tommyboy seriously. But I take the national electoral demise of the Republican party VERY seriously. In terms of national politics, we're increasingly becoming a one party state. The Dems have won the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 elections. I don't like it.

It does seem like you do take him seriously considering how often you mention him and referencing his predictions about elections.

I think tommyboy is shtick part of the time. But there's a lot of people out there who are always confident that the Republicans are going to win. I mentioned my father-in-law earlier. There were millions of conservatives who were shocked that Obama defeated Romney, because they had been watching Fox News and "experts" like Karl Rove and **** Morris had been assuring them for weeks that Romney would win easily. I have no doubt the same thing will happen next time around- Fox tells these people what they want to hear, rather than the truth.

And if the Republicans turned out to vote in 2012 like they did in 2008 they would have been right.

 

[humpback]

@ Tim taking this seriously.

l don't take tommyboy seriously. But I take the national electoral demise of the Republican party VERY seriously. In terms of national politics, we're increasingly becoming a one party state. The Dems have won the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 elections. I don't like it.

Sure seems that you do. In any event, I realize all of those things, but what can you do about it? The demographics are clearly in the Dems favor and only becoming more so- probably the best you can hope for is that their nominees are relatively moderate and can fend off the loonies in their party.

What can be done about is this: the moderate and establishment members of the Republican party need to take a stand against the Tea Party and extreme conservatism. Even if it breaks up the GOP, that's what needs to be done. Only when the GOP has returned to it's mid 20th century roots as a rational, moderate alternative to Democratic liberalism will it have a real chance to win national elections again on a regular basis.

There it is again- Tea Party Tourettes! The numbers don't lie, the best chance the GOP has to win national elections again on a regular basis is for the country to return to the demographics/mindsets of the mid 20th century. Ain't happening.

 

[humpback]

I think tommyboy is shtick part of the time. But there's a lot of people out there who are always confident that the Republicans are going to win. I mentioned my father-in-law earlier. There were millions of conservatives who were shocked that Obama defeated Romney, because they had been watching Fox News and "experts" like Karl Rove and **** Morris had been assuring them for weeks that Romney would win easily. I have no doubt the same thing will happen next time around- Fox tells these people what they want to hear, rather than the truth.

Why does this matter to you?

Because it's destroying the Republican party.

People like Tommyboy being overconfident and blowing his money on stupid bets is destroying the Republican party?

 

[fatness]

And if the Republicans turned out to vote in 2012 like they did in 2008 they would have been right.

Yeah, if they won they wouldn't have lost.

 

[Rove!]

I think tommyboy is shtick part of the time. But there's a lot of people out there who are always confident that the Republicans are going to win. I mentioned my father-in-law earlier. There were millions of conservatives who were shocked that Obama defeated Romney, because they had been watching Fox News and "experts" like Karl Rove and **** Morris had been assuring them for weeks that Romney would win easily. I have no doubt the same thing will happen next time around- Fox tells these people what they want to hear, rather than the truth.

Why does this matter to you?

Because it's destroying the Republican party.

GOP is dead, Tim

the financial collapse in 2008 was the end. If not for gerrymandering, the dems would have the House too. It doesn't matter how crappy things get, the pols no longer answer to anyone but themselves and $$$

 

[Statorama]

So I was reading an article by Michael Tomasky this morning, and he explained some facts which suggest that, once again, tommyboy is horribly wrong here, and that it is almost impossible that ANY Democrat will "lose badly" in 2016, or any time in the foreseeable future:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/21/how-bad-does-the-gop-need-chris-christie-really-bad.html

Here's a summary:

1. You need 270 electoral votes to win. There are 206 electoral votes firmly in the red (Republican) camp, and 257 electoral votes firmly in the blue (Democratic) camp. None of this looks to be changing in the near future, but if any DO change, it will much more likely be from red to blue (due to growing Latino populations in Arizona and Texas) than from blue to red.

2. There are only 5 "purple", or swing states left: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada. Obama won all 5 of these, twice, so perhaps we shouldn't even call them swing states anymore. In any event, all the Democratic candidate has to do is win 13 electoral votes from these states, while the Republican has to win 64.

Conclusion: the Republican path to victory continues to narrow. Of course a Republican can be elected in 2016, but only in a very tight election. The Democrat, however, can win in a landslide. These are the facts that tommyboy and others like him refuse to acknowledge.

I hate to go all elephant in the room here, but it's likely that blacks and young voters go back to pre-Obama levels of election participation without a "cool" candidate to vote for.

2016 may seem like it's right around the corner, but it's actually a LONG way away. A lot can happen between now and then. President Booker? Ugh.

It's strange that the DNC hasn't been molding a strong black female candidate during Obama's presidency. That's your landslide.

Even if that happens, it will have no effect on the numbers I just posted, since they've been true for the last several elections now.

Did you miss those "Dubya" years? Obama's numbers were down in his second election as well. There won't be a Preezy of the United Steezy at the top of the Dem ticket in 2016, which will make a huge difference.

It's all about the ground game. Bush and Obama both had solid grassroots campaigns supporting them. It's not puzzling how Bush was able to so easily connect with the ground troops while Romney wasn't. Romney did a poor job of presenting himself as a viable alternative to the status quo. He never presented why things were going to be better for "you" directly if you elected him. Heck, he even refused to bad mouth Obamacare since he was essentially it's Godfather. Romney was a really nice guy and would have made a heck of a President, but he wasn't cut out for the cutthroat national political campaign. Pity.

There's a bit of an identity crisis on the right, which certainly helps the left. You have a lot of crabs in the bucket scratching and clawing to present themselves as the viable alternative. But how so? Now that the majority of the electorate doesn't really care how high their taxes go on a federal level (because the majority of people pay little or no tax), it takes a big chapter out of the Republican playbook. The people that Republicans appeal to most (small government, low taxes) are growing smaller in number each year. The "gimmie mine" and "sure, I don't mind helping, take my money" crowds are big and vocal. So where are the new votes for Republicans coming from? Hispanics, maybe, if they play their cards right. If Cruz and Rubio are serious about running, they should have a speaking engagement with Hispanic groups penciled into their calendars every single day until the election. Republicans have nominated centrist candidates the last two elections, so I don't know if they'll stomach a third (and a likely third loss). They need to nominate someone that can connect with the voters on a personal level the way Bush and Obama did. Chris Christie? Rand Paul? I think both can make that connection. Jindal and Scott Walker are both great governors, but I just don't sense broad, national appeal there. Of course the retreads are always around to force the real candidates to scoot right (Santorum, Cain, Huckabee), which paints the nominated candidate with a "hard right" brush. Rinse and repeat.

I like that the RNC is FINALLY attempting to develop strong minority candidates (Mia Love is awesome), but they are being nowhere near aggressive enough.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The GOP took a big hit in the financial crisis and with Iraq. Truth is people don't pay much attention until there's a crisis - generally they just keep moseying along ruminating. It's like a big momentum machine. I do think it's slowing finally for the Demos. Obama was the first president in modern history, and maybe ever, to get reelected losing actual votes and electoral votes. Every other time that has happened the president running for reelection has lost.

Generally it's still a very conservative country, the problem is the GOP runs guys like McCain and Romney that no one can relate to. In the end people vote for who they like the most.

Gore, Dukakis, Fritz Mondale, Kerry, all were boring, bleckh and blah. The GOP got lucky running against these tomato cans.

Reagan, Obama, Clinton, were/are fun, relatable guys (just get past the policy and scandals folks, think of it more like setting your FF lineup at 5 minutes before gametime Sunday, I bet you've made a lot of mistakes that way, with a lot of irrational thinking involved; well that's how a lot of people vote sadly enough, gut impulse with a healthy dose of self-justifying rationalization mixed in).

ETA: The problem is you don't get those candidates unless you actually get them from the middle class where people can relate to the candidate. Say what you want about Obama, but the guy went to a mixed prep school and was raised by a small business owner and a mom who worked as a VP at a bank. Like George Bush he had a period of kicking it around with the pot crowd and had a bit of fun. Relatable people and background there. Romney is a very nice, brilliant guy. Romney's dad was mega-wealthy individual who ran a car company and ran for president himself. But I never got the sense Romney went off-road or ever had the common touch.

 

[Statorama]

The GOP took a big hit in the financial crisis and with Iraq. Truth is people don't pay much attention until there's a crisis - generally they just keep moseying along ruminating. It's like a big momentum machine. I do think it's slowing finally for the Demos. Obama was the first president in modern history, and maybe ever, to get reelected losing actual votes and electoral votes. Every other time that has happened the president running for reelection has lost.

Generally it's still a very conservative country, the problem is the GOP runs guys like McCain and Romney that no one can relate to. In the end people vote for who they like the most.

Gore, Dukakis, Fritz Mondale, Kerry, all were boring, bleckh and blah. The GOP got lucky running against these tomato cans.

Reagan, Obama, Clinton, were/are fun, relatable guys (just get past the policy and scandals folks, think of it more like setting your FF lineup at 5 minutes before gametime Sunday, I bet you've made a lot of mistakes that way, with a lot of irrational thinking involved; well that's how a lot of people vote sadly enough, gut impulse with a healthy dose of self-justifying rationalization mixed in).

It's the old "vote for the guy you'd like to have a beer with" mantra. I disagree with Obama on just about everything, but I bet that guy is fun to play a round of golf with. Same thing with Clinton. Can you picture a night on the town with that guy? Forget about it. On the other end, who the heck wants to hang with John Kerry or Mitt Romney?

"Boy, I sure hope Mitt shows up for my Superbowl Party! That guy is a riot" ~ said no one, ever

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The GOP took a big hit in the financial crisis and with Iraq. Truth is people don't pay much attention until there's a crisis - generally they just keep moseying along ruminating. It's like a big momentum machine. I do think it's slowing finally for the Demos. Obama was the first president in modern history, and maybe ever, to get reelected losing actual votes and electoral votes. Every other time that has happened the president running for reelection has lost.

Generally it's still a very conservative country, the problem is the GOP runs guys like McCain and Romney that no one can relate to. In the end people vote for who they like the most.

Gore, Dukakis, Fritz Mondale, Kerry, all were boring, bleckh and blah. The GOP got lucky running against these tomato cans.

Reagan, Obama, Clinton, were/are fun, relatable guys (just get past the policy and scandals folks, think of it more like setting your FF lineup at 5 minutes before gametime Sunday, I bet you've made a lot of mistakes that way, with a lot of irrational thinking involved; well that's how a lot of people vote sadly enough, gut impulse with a healthy dose of self-justifying rationalization mixed in).

It's the old "vote for the guy you'd like to have a beer with" mantra. I disagree with Obama on just about everything, but I bet that guy is fun to play a round of golf with. Same thing with Clinton. Can you picture a night on the town with that guy? Forget about it. On the other end, who the heck wants to hang with John Kerry or Mitt Romney?

"Boy, I sure hope Mitt shows up for my Superbowl Party! That guy is a riot" ~ said no one, ever

Right, thank you, exactly.

 

[Fennis]

The GOP took a big hit in the financial crisis and with Iraq. Truth is people don't pay much attention until there's a crisis - generally they just keep moseying along ruminating. It's like a big momentum machine. I do think it's slowing finally for the Demos. Obama was the first president in modern history, and maybe ever, to get reelected losing actual votes and electoral votes. Every other time that has happened the president running for reelection has lost.

Generally it's still a very conservative country, the problem is the GOP runs guys like McCain and Romney that no one can relate to. In the end people vote for who they like the most.

Gore, Dukakis, Fritz Mondale, Kerry, all were boring, bleckh and blah. The GOP got lucky running against these tomato cans.

Reagan, Obama, Clinton, were/are fun, relatable guys (just get past the policy and scandals folks, think of it more like setting your FF lineup at 5 minutes before gametime Sunday, I bet you've made a lot of mistakes that way, with a lot of irrational thinking involved; well that's how a lot of people vote sadly enough, gut impulse with a healthy dose of self-justifying rationalization mixed in).

The problem is you don't get those candidates unless you actually get them from the middle class where people can relate to the candidate. Say what you want about Obama, but the guy went to a mixed prep school and was raised by a small business owner and a mom who worked as a VP at a bank. Like George Bush he had a period of kicking it around with the pot crowd and had a bit of fun. Relatable people and background there. Romney is a very nice, brilliant guy. Romney's dad was mega-wealthy individual who ran a car company and ran for president himself. But I never got the sense Romney went off-road or ever had the common touch.

FDR was the last one to do this.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The GOP took a big hit in the financial crisis and with Iraq. Truth is people don't pay much attention until there's a crisis - generally they just keep moseying along ruminating. It's like a big momentum machine. I do think it's slowing finally for the Demos. Obama was the first president in modern history, and maybe ever, to get reelected losing actual votes and electoral votes. Every other time that has happened the president running for reelection has lost.

Generally it's still a very conservative country, the problem is the GOP runs guys like McCain and Romney that no one can relate to. In the end people vote for who they like the most.

Gore, Dukakis, Fritz Mondale, Kerry, all were boring, bleckh and blah. The GOP got lucky running against these tomato cans.

Reagan, Obama, Clinton, were/are fun, relatable guys (just get past the policy and scandals folks, think of it more like setting your FF lineup at 5 minutes before gametime Sunday, I bet you've made a lot of mistakes that way, with a lot of irrational thinking involved; well that's how a lot of people vote sadly enough, gut impulse with a healthy dose of self-justifying rationalization mixed in).

The problem is you don't get those candidates unless you actually get them from the middle class where people can relate to the candidate. Say what you want about Obama, but the guy went to a mixed prep school and was raised by a small business owner and a mom who worked as a VP at a bank. Like George Bush he had a period of kicking it around with the pot crowd and had a bit of fun. Relatable people and background there. Romney is a very nice, brilliant guy. Romney's dad was mega-wealthy individual who ran a car company and ran for president himself. But I never got the sense Romney went off-road or ever had the common touch.

FDR was the last one to do this.

Ok, thanks, I did not actually look it up or fact check, this was something I heard om CNN a while back I think and it stuck with me.

 

[Fennis]

The GOP took a big hit in the financial crisis and with Iraq. Truth is people don't pay much attention until there's a crisis - generally they just keep moseying along ruminating. It's like a big momentum machine. I do think it's slowing finally for the Demos. Obama was the first president in modern history, and maybe ever, to get reelected losing actual votes and electoral votes. Every other time that has happened the president running for reelection has lost.

Generally it's still a very conservative country, the problem is the GOP runs guys like McCain and Romney that no one can relate to. In the end people vote for who they like the most.

Gore, Dukakis, Fritz Mondale, Kerry, all were boring, bleckh and blah. The GOP got lucky running against these tomato cans.

Reagan, Obama, Clinton, were/are fun, relatable guys (just get past the policy and scandals folks, think of it more like setting your FF lineup at 5 minutes before gametime Sunday, I bet you've made a lot of mistakes that way, with a lot of irrational thinking involved; well that's how a lot of people vote sadly enough, gut impulse with a healthy dose of self-justifying rationalization mixed in).

It's the old "vote for the guy you'd like to have a beer with" mantra. I disagree with Obama on just about everything, but I bet that guy is fun to play a round of golf with. Same thing with Clinton. Can you picture a night on the town with that guy? Forget about it. On the other end, who the heck wants to hang with John Kerry or Mitt Romney?

"Boy, I sure hope Mitt shows up for my Superbowl Party! That guy is a riot" ~ said no one, ever

Right, thank you, exactly.

By many accounts, Obama is pretty boring and uncomfortable one on one. He isn't a people person like Clinton, Bush, or Reagan.

 

[Fennis]

The GOP took a big hit in the financial crisis and with Iraq. Truth is people don't pay much attention until there's a crisis - generally they just keep moseying along ruminating. It's like a big momentum machine. I do think it's slowing finally for the Demos. Obama was the first president in modern history, and maybe ever, to get reelected losing actual votes and electoral votes. Every other time that has happened the president running for reelection has lost.

Generally it's still a very conservative country, the problem is the GOP runs guys like McCain and Romney that no one can relate to. In the end people vote for who they like the most.

Gore, Dukakis, Fritz Mondale, Kerry, all were boring, bleckh and blah. The GOP got lucky running against these tomato cans.

Reagan, Obama, Clinton, were/are fun, relatable guys (just get past the policy and scandals folks, think of it more like setting your FF lineup at 5 minutes before gametime Sunday, I bet you've made a lot of mistakes that way, with a lot of irrational thinking involved; well that's how a lot of people vote sadly enough, gut impulse with a healthy dose of self-justifying rationalization mixed in).

The problem is you don't get those candidates unless you actually get them from the middle class where people can relate to the candidate. Say what you want about Obama, but the guy went to a mixed prep school and was raised by a small business owner and a mom who worked as a VP at a bank. Like George Bush he had a period of kicking it around with the pot crowd and had a bit of fun. Relatable people and background there. Romney is a very nice, brilliant guy. Romney's dad was mega-wealthy individual who ran a car company and ran for president himself. But I never got the sense Romney went off-road or ever had the common touch.

FDR was the last one to do this.

Ok, thanks, I did not actually look it up or fact check, this was something I heard om CNN a while back I think and it stuck with me.

Wikipedia

 

[BeTheMatch]

If Hillary selects that Latino mayor of San Antonio (Julian Castro) as her running mate, they win by double digits.

 

[Rove!]

If Hillary selects that Latino mayor of San Antonio (Julian Castro) as her running mate, they win by double digits.

she could probably select a houseplant as her running mate...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If Hillary selects that Latino mayor of San Antonio (Julian Castro) as her running mate, they win by double digits.

she could probably select a houseplant as her running mate...

You mean Gore again?

Nahhh....