If the R was garnering 3 or 4 times the norm with blacks, it stands to reason he will outperform with Hispanics and other groups.
Chris Christie is impressive but his no fly zone is fkin scary. Not the thought of a no fly zone in general, as that could be debated, but his specific mention that he would shoot down Russian aircraft. That is sheer buffoonery.
Virtually everything she does is a fraud. She speaks "black" in front of an African American audience and now whips out the southern accent when she feels that will behoove her.
When she isnt breaking WH policy with her emails, she is lying about Benghazi.
When she isn't stealing silverware from the WH, she is claiming stolen valor.
When she isn't fucking up Hillarycare, she is hanging out and schmoozing with cop attacker Michael Brown's mother.
What a POS
A buffoon who has zero business even being considered for Commander-in-Chief. If this battle happens come November, I'm sure I won't be alone in not voting. Would be the first time I have failed to vote in a Presidential election. You see, the thing is, in order for it to be a Presidential election, one of the candidates HAS to be at least a little presidential.
.....The GOP establishment would probably prefer to lose the general election in 2016 than have Trump or Cruz as their flag bearer. I do however believe the GOP is heading towards a brokered convention, where either Romney or Paul Ryan will be chosen as the GOP nominee. At that point Trump may well decide to run as an independent taking 30-40% of the GOP base with him and another 10-15% of base support from Hilliary. Regardless of how it plays out on the Republican side, Hilliary will be declared the winner in November 2016.
When she isnt breaking WH policy with her emails, she is lying about Benghazi.
When she isn't stealing silverware from the WH, she is claiming stolen valor.
When she isn't fucking up Hillarycare, she is hanging out and schmoozing with cop attacker Michael Brown's mother.
What a POS.
Old vs new.
Photogenic vs. plain Jane.
So yesterday vs. Young and exuberant.
Fresh vs. stale.
History, youth, interpersonal skills, like-ability, trustworthyness, and looks would all favor Marco. His Hispanic roots would just be icing on the cake.
But you are correct re: a trump third party candidacy. That would give Hills the WH and one of many reasons why the Donald won't do it, imo.
Let's say Trump comes in as the clear winner, but not an outright majority with lets say 40% of the delegates with Cruz and Rubio with 20 something percent a piece and the rest of the delegates scattered amongst the also rans. Now lets say that HONDA is correct and the nod goes to a Romney or anyone else but Trump, clearly going against the voters wishes. In that case, I can almost guarantee you Trump would run as an independent and would do so knowing full well he would be handing victory to Hillary.
In this not that unlikely event, I might just vote for Trump in protest, knowing full well that I would in fact be voting for Hillary, or I might just vote for Hillary directly. It really wouldn't matter as the outcome would be the same. I think this is what Trump has always meant when he says as long as he is treated "fairly" If the party elite subverts the will of the voters, the GOP might very well lose in a landslide in the GE AND hand the Dems control of Congress to boot.
The party would be so fractured, with so much infighting, it would collapse on itself and wouldn't have the time to reunite to beat Hills, imo.
I think the powers that be should respect the will of the voters, unless of course there are two candidates with 30%+ each, in that case grab some popcorn.
Either way, if the GOP doesn't come together and unite behind a candidate, Hillary wins in a cakewalk. and maybe she does so anyhow, even if the GOP does unite behind one candidate.
Many primary seasons start this way though, predicting a brokered convention is a bit premature.
....in the 2000 NY Senate race:
Old vs new.
Photogenic vs. plain Jane.
So yesterday vs. Young and exuberant.
Fresh vs. stale.
History, youth, interpersonal skills, like-ability (sic), trustworthyness (sic), and looks should all have favored Rick.
How's your memory, Jack?
trustworthy? A republican? Trusted to what? Destroy the economy? Destroy the budgets of federal, state, and local bodies of government? I'll let you know when a republican comes along who's trustworthy, but that republican hasn't even been born yet so don't hold your breath.
Let’s see, the black vote for sure maybe not the 93% he got but certainly 80% plus; the Latino vote for Hillary could be historic if Trump is the nominee; the Muslim vote-um 99.9%; women voters –at least 60%; pro gun safety voters 90%; pro environment 80%; pro Obamacare 90%. Voters who care about experience go for Hillary- no one in the Repub field comes close to her in terms of public, private, executive, legislative experience.
The Jewish vote is interesting, Mr. O had a slight majority and Hillary knows Benji much better than the name dropping Carly Fiorina. But Benji is still pissed about the Iran agreement. So that one could be a toss up. Young uneducated white probably go Republican; old white guys go Republican; hard core NRA. Not sure about Wall Street- I say the Repubs get that vote but those hedge funds mangers do love that carried interest that Trump wants to tax.
The Republicans' attempt to fear monger and make it sound like ISIS is an existential threat to the US is already losing steam. Except for Lindsay Graham, the only thing they Republicans would do different is “bomb more” but as Ted Cruz showed when he did not know what “carpet bombing” means, the problem is viable targets, not a lack of resolve to bomb.
Let’s say Hillary in a landslide if Trump is the nominee; otherwise, probably a bigger majority than Mr. O got
I guess you conceded all of them as facts.
To your points, if the R takes 20% of the black vote, he will win.
The Jewish vote is only really important in Florida as NY is never in play. If Rubio is the nominee, Florida is off the board for the dems.
The real interesting factor is the Hispanic vote and that's why an all Hispanic R ticket would be very intriguing. The R's don't need to win the Hispanic vote, just come close.
A ticket of Rubio/Cruz or either one coupled with Susana Martinez would be a winner, imo.
the question you post in the caption rather than what you really meant. But you lost me- how to you figure that "if the Republicans take 20% of the black vote they will win? " Isn't the black vote what about 13% of the electorate at best?
How in the world could 20% of 13% tip the scales? Agree with you about the actual Jewish vote - but the fund raising you get from the Jewish vote is an entirely other matter. Sheldon alone is with millions.
You know who I might vote for among the Repubs? Chris Christie. The guy is the single most impressive Repub candidate except for his plan to shoot down Russian jets but that's just for show.
He has the best plan to reform social security, although he panders to the current voters with his 25 year phase in but what do you expect.
If the R was garnering 3 or 4 times the norm with blacks, it stands to reason he will outperform with Hispanics and other groups.
Chris Christie is impressive but his no fly zone is fkin scary. Not the thought of a no fly zone in general, as that could be debated, but his specific mention that he would shoot down Russian aircraft. That is sheer buffoonery.
Feel free to keep fooling yourself. You must think Black voters are stupid. You must think Hispanic voters are stupid. You think that if the Republicans share the stage with a Black "candidate" that it will bring Black votes to the GOP? You think that if you nominate a Hispanic that the Hispanic voters will turn out for said token?
That's laughable as a political policy. Did any of your token black candidates bring Black voters into the GOP? Nope. Have Republicans done ANYTHING to bring Hispanics into their party? Nope. Have the Republicans done anything to drive Black and Hispanic voters away from the gop? Yup. They do it every single day. Every single one of them does something every single day to drive Black and Hispanic voters away from the gop. And you think those voters will forget your hate and xenophobia just because you nominate a Cuban or parade a Black guy around on stage for a couple of months? You underestimate the resolve and intelligence of Black and Hispanic voters. It's voters like you who continually hand the Presidency to the Democrats. Token nominees, convention videos that show black children playing with Republican politicians.... You guys think this is some kind of stage show ala Ronald Reagan where all you have to do is pretend that you like minorities and suddenly they will forget your hard work that drove them OUT of your party. Thanks for handing the WH to Hillary Enjoy the next 8 years as your heads continue to explode. Enjoy!
voting for a Democrat for president! 
I was really hoping Jim Webb won the Dem nomination as I would have given him every chance in the world for my vote. He seems like an honorable, decent and well meaning guy which of course means he has no shot in our country. LOL
For me, it was Webb for the Democrats, and Kasich for the Republicans. I've never been very good at getting my choices past the primaries. And, I will admit, I stand corrected!
Hmmmmm...a third party with those two as running mates? They would garner a good amount of the vote I do believe.
but I'd view as a great alternatively.
a few tasty tidbits...
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton CNN/ORC Clinton 46, Cruz 48 Cruz +2
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 44, Cruz 44 Tie
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton CNN/ORC Rubio 49, Clinton 46 Rubio +3
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Rubio 43, Clinton 44 Clinton +1
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton CNN/ORC Clinton 49, Trump 47 Clinton +2
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Clinton 47, Trump 40 Clinton +7
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Sanders 51, Trump 38 Sanders +13
General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Sanders 43, Cruz 44 Cruz +1
General Election: Rubio vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Rubio 45, Sanders 42 Rubio +3
-----
I think the GOP field is defining itself. I think Chris Christie is looking more and more like an establishment possibility with the continuing decline in support for Jeb, who will eventually pass his delegates to either Christie or Rubio.
Carson is already irrelevant, and will soon be out of the race.
Kasich shot himself in the foot, but can look forward to a Cabinet appointment in 2016.
Fiorina is already at 1% and lost all her traction once people got a good look at her.
Rand Paul continues to speak to his 17 supporters in the crowd, and doesn't have anywhere near the gravitas of his father.
Trump Cruz Rubio Christie Jeb!(who really needs to bow out gracefully)
The alliances that will determine the eventual outcome have yet to be forged.
It is still HRC's election to lose, but as we have seen in the past, her Hubris could once again get in the way of her ambition to be POTUS.
As for the GOP - the polls indicate that EXCEPT for Donald Trump, the GOP is within the margin of error to defeat HRC in the general election.
With Trump as the nominee, the GOP doesn't stand a chance, and does worse against Bernie than against Hillary.
If Trump is REALLY all about defeating the Dems and making america great again, that will be the argument Reince Priebus presents to Trump. Be the Kingmaker, not the King.
Let The Games Begin in Earnest!!!
-- Modified on 12/24/2015 8:48:33 AM
"Fiorina is already at 1% and lost all her traction once people got a good look at her."
and here I was beginning to think I snuck that one past everybody
While there a few things I might trust Trump to take on and either succeed or not screw up, his personality disorders put the the rest of the Presidential responsibilities into dangerous hands.
On the Clinton side I can't think of one thing a President H. Clinton would decide to take on that I would like to see her succeed at, but there's so much she would almost certainly continue to screw up. While she's not as radical as is President Obama she has far more character flaws with dishonesty being at the top of the list. She was the evil component of the first Clinton Presidency.
I wouldn't put too much faith in today's polls matching the two. Trump's campaign against Clinton will be like no other we've seen for 50 years. There is no side of Trump that will resemble the good yet meek traits of Bob Dole, John McCain or Mitt Romney. This campaign will be like none of those. It will look more like an MMA cage match and as you point out, Clinton has a nearly endless supply of vulnerable weak spots at which to punch. Logic says it will backfire in the general election but logic has not yet applied to anything so far.
-- Modified on 12/24/2015 3:47:00 PM
white, blue collar man in the Republican party being generalized to the general election.
It looked like a beautiful place, and home prices are reasonable. High taxes, but high level of services also.
Just in case I need an escape plan, i.e. it comes down to Trump vs. Clinton.
Is a Republican actually calling SOMEBODY ELSE a pos? Sorry loser, your ideas, your thoughts, your goals, and your life are all utter failures. You have lost at politics and you have lost at life.
When she isnt breaking WH policy with her emails, she is lying about Benghazi.
When she isn't stealing silverware from the WH, she is claiming stolen valor.
When she isn't fucking up Hillarycare, she is hanging out and schmoozing with cop attacker Michael Brown's mother.
What a POS.
Why HRC is condemned for Benghazi and no one says a thing about the 13 Embassy's attacked during the Bush admin.. what's the difference?.. It's a risk that we run in some locales.. Also the request for additional Embassy funding for security was rejected when it came to a vote.. The entire Benghazi thing has been revealed as a political scheme against Hilliary anyway.. FWIW I knew Chris Stevens.. He was the cousin of a friend of mine.. The reality of the attack was terrible.. but to dump the entire thing on HRC is simply politics.. not reality..
Just to help you a bit by quoting a couple of examples from your link.
"Still, these experts also said there are valid reasons to treat Benghazi differently from the earlier attacks.
'Is Benghazi different? Absolutely,' said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an adjunct assistant professor in Georgetown University’s security studies program.
One reason, he said, is that an American ambassador died in the attack, which hadn’t happened since the 1970s. Another relevant question, Gartenstein-Ross said, 'is whether what happened was put to the American people in an honest manner, not just with respect to the administration, but also with respect to the intelligence community.' "
I haven't seen any account where GWB attempted to discount or lie about these previous attacks which is what BHO and HRC did, presumably because they happened just 2 months prior to the election and the truth contradicted the standing narrative of the administration. One can even find Democrat operatives admitting so and then exclaiming "so what" this is just politics. For me the lack of a better prepared defense is tertiary and somewhat understandable given what they were attempting to accomplish that day (actually, Stevens had no reasonable business even being there). Secondary is the severe lack of response during the 13 hour attack. Primary offense is the cover up.
So it is typical lefty bullshit.
So the lefties distort and twist the truth, and if that fails they just toss the truth in the garbage and make up stuff.
Thank you
is NOT untrue. I wouldn't even characterize it as a distortion. But it IS a diversion from the things that were important about Benghazi so it does twist the whole truth surrounding Benghazi by ignoring very important factors while attempting to create an equivalency that just does not exist.
The culprit behind the coverup was not Hillary. It came directly from the White House and the ridiculous story about the video was thrown at America on the Sunday morning TV talk show circuit by Susan Rice at the direct order of our Commander-in-Chief in order to keep his re-election from being temporarily derailed or damaged. Hillary was simply following her boss's orders.
Still, though, she is fully to blame for her direct and outright lies to the faces of the grieving parents who were awaiting the coffins with their loved ones' remains. That despicable action by her will never be forgotten and will never allow her to receive my vote, even if she is paired up against the windbag real estate mogul from New York who is clearly the worst candidate to ever lead a national poll for President.
who have claimed that Hillary in private attributed the Benghazi attacks to the video. There is no third party witness to any of these statements.
Hillary a couple of weeks ago flatly said “no” when asked by George Stepanopolous on ABC if she had told the family members the video caused the attack. She also said under oath in her testimony that her statements about the video did not ascribe a motive to every attacker.
You are also discounting the possibility that family members simply misunderstood her. She stated in her public comments at the ceremony that protests at our embassies were caused by the film, without distinguishing that Benghazi was NOT an embassy, or that she was not referring to Benghazi. Very confusing and this was enough to fool the Board righties until I pointed out the distinction to them last month. When she allegedly told the grieving family member “we are going to have the filmmaker arrested, ” she could very well have been referring to the embassy protests, not Benghazi.
No doubt Hillary did a dismal and confusing job in her public statements. But she did not lie in any PUBLIC statement on this. Whether she actually lied about this to the family members IN PRIVATE depends on who you believe
She told this fabricated story right to the faces of the grieving family members. And all four sets of family members have independently stated that this happened. Could they have lied? Of course they could. But why would they? Why fabricate a story such as this one when their concern is dealing with their own grief?
You've done a lot of dancing around here Marikod in order to defend your former Secretary of State. Usually, when a story demands this much work and explaining to attempt to dismiss, it is because the story is true.
Do all the dancing around you want, Clinton lied to grieving families. In my book, no one who acts that way deserves my vote for Commander-in-Chief. Obviously you feel differently. As do millions of others. Yes, I'm convinced that she will be elected, barring a health issue or some other unforeseen matter. But she won't be elected with my help.
I said you have chosen “to believe the family members who have claimed that Hillary IN PRIVATE attributed the Benghazi attacks to the video.” So I am lost as why you caption your post with this assertion.
But you miss the point as to “why would they lie” which is what my post is about. I have not said that the family members “lied.” I think the most likely explanation is they misunderstood the distinction between the video causing protests at the embassies (which she did say), and whether the video causing the violence at Benghazi which was not an embassy (which Hillary says she did not say). Her poorly crafted public statements on that have caused many in the media to conclude she lied in the public statements. Why would you think she was any more articulate in private?
It is certainly your right to believe the family members were sharp enough (unlike our righty posters) to keep the two separate but, as I said, you are simply choosing to believe they understood her correctly in private, and to disbelieve testimony Hillary gave under oath and in direct response to the question on the TV interview.
George Stephanopoulos because those two have such a long lasting adversarial relationship. LOL.
you expect the family members to be understanding the tiniest of distinctions between embassies and other U.S. posts in the Middle East???
Hell, I guess you figure that they all "boned up" on America's Mideast policies and the status of all the U.S.-owned buildings in Libya prior to coming to meet the caskets.
Let's face the facts. Hillary was in the tough position of having to play along with the lie of her boss, the U.S. President/Commander-in-Chief. She screwed up and failed to think about who she was talking to (the families of the deceased) and when she was talking to them. She had trouble keeping her lies straight. She should have learned from her husband who has likely kept many lies straight when attempting to defend his fidelity to her during their many years of marriage.
She screwed up. She got caught, but it doesn't really matter much because she has legions of believers like you that will put up with anything just to see her break the glass ceiling and win the Presidency.
For her, it's all's well that ends well. Too bad it can't be the same for the families of the Benghazi victims
You have almost got it, Mr. Pot. She most likely told them the same thing she said in her public statement-and they misunderstood.
"I join all Americans in saying that we are truly sorry for your loss and very proud of the service of your son."
The fact that she is now trying to talk back her comments to the families and explain them only means one thing to me: She screwed up, got caught in a lie and is desperately trying to wiggle her way out of it so it doesn't follow her all the way through next November.
We'll never really know the truth. But, Hillary has much more of her own ass to cover (figuratively speaking, so I don't get labeled a sexist) so I tend to believe that she is the one not being truthful in the matter.
Lies of omission don't count in your book.
You are actually right on the facts. She most likely did fail to disclose to the families that the film had nothing to do with the attack.
Good job Jack.
Her lawyerly parsing of words satisfies you and others like you while accomplishing the desired illusion for the low information followers. For the rest of us that care about reality, well she couldn't give two shits about us
A shill who chooses to believe the word of his matron over the corroborated ones of the families, where only in his world multiple families stating the same thing does not amount to corroboration. Who chooses to not take into account his matron's lifelong history of lying for personal and political gain. Who chooses to do nothing more than parse words rather than analyze a multitude of other facts available.
...they mean something. The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies is a conservative think tank. They shill for conservative causes like WKs and manginas shill for hookers on TER.
You omitted the most important part of his CV: He's a "geshmat meshuggeneh."
I simply referred the poster to his own link, which he had not read fully. Your doubted source was good enough for the "fact checker". Are you now calling into question the credentials of "fact checkers"?
According to this Bloomberg report, he's now eyeing an Independent run.
Webb has more honor and character than HRC could ever imagine or read in a book, never mind actually possess.
What does it say about Clinton and the DNC that they think allowing her to speak or answer questions in an uncontrolled or widely publicized setting actually REDUCES her chances for success?