So do most of us, but since the allegations here and about Ohio in 2004 didn’t happen, it isn’t really relevant.
Regards,
Shodan
I understand that denial is the first stage you must go through, and wish you well on your path to acceptance.
I think the argument is that the GOP’s 1984 and 1988 wins were downstream consequences of the 1980 win: Reagan wouldn’t have been presiding over ‘Morning in America’ (would you like an Egg McMuffin with that? ;)) in 1984 if he hadn’t won in 1980. And of course GHW Bush wouldn’t have been running for President as the Veep of a successful President apart from the 1980 win.
I don’t agree with the argument, for multiple reasons, but I think that’s the argument. My counterargument would be that the GOP’s 1984 and 1988 victories demonstrated a robustness to the GOP’s popularity that showed that, however it happened, 1980 wasn’t just a fluke. The way to bet, IMHO, is that even if Carter had brought back the hostages in October 1980, and had won the 1980 election as a result, Mondale would likely still have lost in 1984.
Sports programs at universities are what drive alumni funding. Close the programs and the millions of dollars that previously went to the sports programs will dry up. There is no gain for the education portion of universities; it is a potential loss.
Here’s what really matters…
Cash-rich Clinton towers over the GOP field
He was the most bombastic, certainly. But he doesn’t do nuance.
If you think that’s a negative, blame Anderson Cooper.
I could see him as Clinton’s SecDef.
It’s a target more than a goal. It won’t be fully achieved, but the lower you aim, the lower you hit.
He seemed like a decent, competent guy, a strong comparison to the Republican field.
That’s why he’s there, along with covering Clinton’s left flank.
The Promulgating Ignorance board is two doors down on the left.
It’s a very strange headline, because the article itself makes clear that both Clinton and Sanders tower over the GOP field with respect to fundraising, and Clinton’s really not doing any better than Sanders once you dig into the details.
Clinton’s cash-on-hand advantage over Sanders is 33M to 27M, and she raised 28M to his 26M in the third quarter.
But the kicker is that she raised most of her money in Q3 through people giving the maximum $2700 contribution at one of her many fundraisers. Bernie’s pulling almost all of his money in via small contributions - mostly under $200. He can come back to these people again and again and again, as long as they feel he’s got a chance. So in terms of money, Bernie’s in at least as good a position as Hillary.
I’ve asked for years to see a good nuts-and-bolts argument for the notion that Ohio was stolen in 2004. And the best I’ve ever gotten is the occasional link to a piece with a few suggestive facts, but hardly enough to convince me that shenanigans tipped the balance in that state in 2004. It’s always a few facts and a lot of hand-waving.
I’d like to believe it, but it’s been eleven years now, and I’m still waiting on something that would remotely qualify as proof.
I agree. The best I’ve seen is something like “shenanigans occurred”, but that doesn’t mean that it was enough to tip the state. I think Kerry just didn’t run a good enough campaign.
New poll out (not an online one): Democrats Name Clinton The Debate Winner In HuffPost/YouGov Poll | HuffPost Latest News.
55% of registered Democrats said that Clinton “won” the debate. 22% said Sanders.
I’ll do some research and present this as a GD thread sometime. It may take a month or two to complete so don’t hold your breath.
“I represented Wall Street when I was a senator from New York…” (emphasis added)
“[in 2007]…I went to Wall Street and said, ‘Cut it out.’”
- Hillary Rodham Clinton, 13th October, 2015
A most curious Freudian slip. As supposed to representing the people at large, we are outright with our payed for representation of the rich.
While I agree that Sanders’ idea of free healthcare, free public college education, payed maternity leave etc. are pretty radical for US politics, what is more important is to stop enabling millionaires and billionaires to have a disgustingly disproportionate sway on governmental policy compared to working middle class (or lower) people. If you think this is important, Sanders looks like a good choice.
I’ve spoken to some high up Wall Street executives, and they understand that Clinton has to say things during the campaign in order to be elected. Once President, she will be likely the most friendly toward Wall Street of any of the legitimate candidates for either party. There’s a reason she gets significant monetary support from Wall Street this election and last.
For the record, I think most of the candidates are doing things similar to this.
This is kind of where I am. I think Clinton would be a capable President. She’s incredibly dishonest and untrustworthy though. Further, I think the Clintons will use the position to further enrich themselves, and I just can’t stand the idea that the spouse (or sibling or any close relative) of a former President would be elected; it seems so banana-republicish.
I admire Sanders and his style, but I think he would be an utter fiasco as a President. I would personally prefer one of O’Malley, Webb, Kasich, or Rubio to win the election. None align very well with my positions, but I consider them all to be capable, reasonable, and ethical people that would certainly do a decent job.
I’ve been hanging around this zoo for sixteen years, so no hurry - if it takes you longer than that, I reckon I’ll still be here. 
Depends. If Ms Clinton is lying to you, and telling you that she is more conservative than she really is, and deep down she plans to consolidate and advance the progressive gains made under Obama…I would be moved to a firmly disapproving “tsk! tsk!”. And then, most likely, I’d get over it. Take a while, of course, my ethical standards for politicians being so strict, and all.
But that’s not my problem with her. I worry that she’s lying to me, and that simply won’t do.
I have publicly despised the menshevik, three-legged dead Blue Dog, “business-friendly” Republican Lite turn of the Clintonista movement. Fuck that shit! Even as I have to admit that in the ruthless world of 90’s politics, it might have been the smart move,* realpolitik* wise. My question would be how much of that was Horndog Bill, and how much Hillary?
Back when it was her and Obama, and I had grave doubt as to whether Obama could do it, I was steeling myself for the prospect of voting for her. So I’ll do it if I have to. Get stinking drunk the day after, but I’d do it.
Just don’t get drunk on Election Day, else you might be voting for The Donald.
Sounds not too unlike the break out of how many state they prefer one or the other otherwise in current polling methodologies … so hard to know what is just “my team looks good.”
I wonder what “won” even really means in this context.
Each candidate needed to accomplish certain things.
Clinton needed to appear presidential and, well, real … authentic. Certainly not enough on the latter to move those who already have a solid assessment on that off their perception, but those whose minds are not already made up she did well on both counts I think. She needed to put out that she cares about progressive issues but that she is no Don Quixote (and get the viewers to conclude that Sanders is). And she needed to declare how she was going to place herself relative to Obama and the third term charge: placing her chip in the “damn straight continue building on what he has done and go beyond” rather than distancing herself.
Sanders needed to connect with a wider base (including minority voters and less far left voters) and make the case to those who are skeptical that he could be a viable general election candidate and an effective president. Actually I came away more willing to accept that case after than before but not sure I am too reflective of the general perception. Still I personally think he did what he needed to do. Some in other states will IMHO now be more willing to consider him as actually viable if he has a NH win and a close race in Iowa.
It will actually be interesting to follow the favorable/unfavorable/don’t know numbers over the next weeks. I suspect Clinton will shift some unfavorables back to favorables again and Sanders will get shift some don’t knows into favorables (and to a much lesser degree so will O’Malley). Chaffee and Webb will both shift some don’t knows into unfavorable. But actual voting choices I don’t think will be impacted much.
My son, the Err Apparent, is readily available to help guide me through the perils of age and decrepitude. Once I figure out how to use this damned phone he got me, I should be OK.
They say the eyes are the second thing to go.