Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

You are probably going to have to keep posting TTT on this thread.  It appears that your credibility with most of the board participants has diminished to the point that I am the only one still willing to play your game.  If Christie chooses to run in 2016, the system will decide whether or not he is best qualified as opposed to your personal evaluation.

Posted
As opposed to the great teabagger intellectuals here like Smitty.

LOL

Have fun losing in 2016 suckers. Try not to blame rigged polls this time



You are probably going to have to keep posting TTT on this thread. It appears that your credibility with most of the board participants has diminished to the point that I am the only one still willing to play your game. If Christie chooses to run in 2016, the system will decide whether or not he is best qualified as opposed to your personal evaluation.

Posted

Hey, Enlightened, you forgot to add BOOM!  ROASTED!  to you last post.  You are slipping.

 

Would you remind repeating what you said the other day in one of our other conversations where you stated that you believe the economy would be better off with lower taxes, fewer regulations, and no Obamacare?

Posted

I would much prefer you to have said a repeal rather than a repeat.  We cant handle the first obamacare, let alone a repeat.  But I am glad to see you back in form on the BOOM ROASTED thing.  Just wondering if you would like to compare recovery notes on this recovery vs the one that occurred shortly after Bush inherited the Clinton recession/dot com bubble bursting?

Posted

I think if he resists the urge to jump in the sack with the radical right (as did the past two nominees), he will be a formidable candidate who could win the election.  As I have said before though, the problem is these guys get wrapped up in winning the primary and it's hard to do without that support (can't win the game if you aren't ultimately in it).  Time will tell if he gets "teabagged," as it were.

 

Now some on this board will tell you that the Presidency was lost the last two times because the GOP did not put a truly conservative candidate in the race.  To those I would say, you're right!  Please nominate Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.  Plus, you will assuredly get that Hispanic vote, you know....

Posted

I think if he resists the urge to jump in the sack with the radical right (as did the past two nominees), he will be a formidable candidate who could win the election.  As I have said before though, the problem is these guys get wrapped up in winning the primary and it's hard to do without that support (can't win the game if you aren't ultimately in it).  Time will tell if he gets "teabagged," as it were.

 

Now some on this board will tell you that the Presidency was lost the last two times because the GOP did not put a truly conservative candidate in the race.  To those I would say, you're right!  Please nominate Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.  Plus, you will assuredly get that Hispanic vote, you know....

 

Actually race does matter but not like you are portraying it. In 2008 13% of the vote came from African Americans. Obviously most supported Obama. Going back to Jimmy Carter in 1976 (as far back as I could find stats), they usually voted in the total vote at 8%-10%. That means that Obama go an additional 3% of his votes (5% more than Clinton) from African Americans to support a black president. 

 

The questions seems to me will be whether that same enthusiasm will remain to vote for a white person as it was with Obama. Even going to the most recent election in 2008 where Obama got 51% of the popular vote, can the next candidate for the Dems take a 3-5% hit and still win? 

 

We can somewhat toss all the Tea Party, conservative enough and other stuff aside if Hillary or whoever can't keep up that 13% show up at the polls. 

Posted

Actually race does matter but not like you are portraying it. In 2008 13% of the vote came from African Americans. Obviously most supported Obama. Going back to Jimmy Carter in 1976 (as far back as I could find stats), they usually voted in the total vote at 8%-10%. That means that Obama go an additional 3% of his votes (5% more than Clinton) from African Americans to support a black president.

The questions seems to me will be whether that same enthusiasm will remain to vote for a white person as it was with Obama. Even going to the most recent election in 2008 where Obama got 51% of the popular vote, can the next candidate for the Dems take a 3-5% hit and still win?

We can somewhat toss all the Tea Party, conservative enough and other stuff aside if Hillary or whoever can't keep up that 13% show up at the polls.


And there would likely be a spike in women voting (some who might not otherwise vote) due to a strong female candidate. Yada yada yada. The next election will be decided the way they all are. Not by race or gender - by who gets the most indie votes.
Posted

Not sure how Hillary will do. But if Bill could run again, the final numbers would look like Reagan vs. Mondale.

 

 

I don't think Clinton would do quite as bad as Mondale but I agree it won't be pretty. 

Posted
Clinton showed a willingness to work with both sides of the aisle. We need bipartisanship from whoever ends up in office if things are ever going to improve. Both sides think they're right on every issue, but to fairly represent the vastly different groups in our country compromise is needed.
Posted

Clinton showed a willingness to work with both sides of the aisle. We need bipartisanship from whoever ends up in office if things are ever going to improve. Both sides think they're right on every issue, but to fairly represent the vastly different groups in our country compromise is needed.

True!  But it does take TWO sides to compromise. 

Posted

Not sure how Hillary will do. But if Bill could run again, the final numbers would look like Reagan vs. Mondale.

It's amazing how time has a way of erasing/changing history.  There's not much difference between bil'sl and obama's philosophy.  Remember, after 40 years, the Republicans won control of the House after two years of the clinton fiasco.  But, to his credit, and to save his Presidency, he worked with the Republicans.  Meaning he HAD to move to the right.  And guess what -- it saved his Presidency.  Imagine that!  But, obama just doesn't have it in him to do what bill did.  That's the Chicago thugocracy coming out in him!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    46,282
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Unknown472929300
    Newest Member
    Unknown472929300
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...