You’re saying you do. All it takes is to nominate someone “likable” enough for you. :rolleyes: As if the Republican lie machine won’t fix that in a jiffy, no matter who it is. That being “likable” will make up for lack of an actual agenda that will address the needs of Trump voters, which you do not divide into economic and deplorable ones and cannot be given credit for.
I’m sorry, I can’t follow this post 
What do you mean by the second part starting with “which you”?
You do know both HRC & Rump had over 50% dislikes correct? Most candidates don’t do that poorly. It is not about me but the voters in general. Not sure why you keep make this personal but so be it.
The Democrats do much better when they run someone NOT from the Northeast. No Democrat from that region of the country has won the presidency since 1960 (JFK). I’m not saying it’s impossible for someone from there to win, but it seems like the odds are much better when they are from somewhere else in the country.
I tend to agree. It is especially hard for the Democrats or even Republicans to win with somebody from Massachusetts. I feel like a Midwestern Democrat would do them well.
We don’t have a whole lot of data points on viable black candidates from the Northeast, so there’s reason to believe that wouldn’t hurt Booker too much.
Is New Jersey really considered Northeast? I would have pegged it more as mid-Atlantic.
We’re North East but not New England. Partly as we’re basically a penisula hanging off of New York State.
Mid-Atlantic states are generally consider Penn, Delaware, Maryland and the Virginias. But West Virginia seems a little optional.
ETA: However, it appears wiki disagrees and puts NY & NJ as Mid-Atlantic or at least partially so. So this is open to debate apparently.
ETA[sup]2[/sup]: it gets worse, it looks like NJ is both Mid-Atlantic & North-East. List of regions of the United States - Wikipedia
The most asinine thing the Democrats could do right now would be to find a rising star worthy of the job and throw her/him to the wolves. It would be a double win for the conservatives-not only would they get to focus on just one candidate to fling shit at, they could use this time to divert attention from all the crap Trump is pulling.
I’d wager 90-95% of the Republicans who voted for him would’ve voted for kasich or Romney had they been the candidate instead of Trump.
I also agree a lot of Trumps base feel they are under attack. They feel their culture, nation and way of life is changing and Trump would take a stand.
However none of that changes the fact that Trump is dangerously mentally ill and lacks the intellect to be president. Nor does it affect his history of crime and ties to Russia.
The fact that people would elect a Treasonous, mentally unstable con man who works for Russia because he promised to mistreat minorities doesn’t make us look at Trump supporters positively.
If democrats elected an unqualified, seriously mentally ill criminal who worked for the Chinese government as president because he promised to take conservatives guns away I wouldn’t be surprised if Republicans lost respect for us too.
Agree with a lot of posts upthread, and wanted to add: one of the reasons the Access Hollywood tape failed to dent Trump’s support was because it was released too late. By the point it was released, there were only two candidates remaining who stood a realistic shot of winning the presidency: Hillary and Trump. The only alternative to a Trump presidency was…a Hillary presidency. Faced with that choice, there was almost nothing that could have dissuaded most Republican voters by that point, because there was no attractive non-Trump option.
To many Trump voters, it was like being given a choice between salmonella-tainted water, and cyanide. The Access Hollywood tape was like saying, “That salmonella-tainted water sitting before you also contains mercury and lead as well.” When the alternative was cyanide, most Trump voters would grimace at this additional bad news but choke it down nonetheless, on the premise that water, no matter how tainted, was still better than cyanide.
If released many months earlier during the primaries, it might have led many Trump voters to ditch him, since Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, etc. were all far more preferable to Hillary.
If someone says “The Northeast” they usually mean NY, NJ and CT (and maybe RI). The rest of the actual North East is usually called New England.
The Mid Atlantic starts with Delaware and works down.
Why did you chose to use the term “average mexican”? I prefer that you use the term “average Irishman”.
Based on individual nationalities, illegal aliens can get in line behind all of their fellow immigrants currently attempting to come to the U.S.A…
When I say “the northeast”, I’m thinking of New York + New England as a starter, and then I’d add in NJ and PA for good measure. I don’t see how NY could be considered “mid Atlantic” given that most of the state is north of the southern border of New England. But I can see where NJ could be a 'tweener, with Newark being lumped into The Northeast and Princeton with the mid Atlantic.
I would never think of the Northeast to be exclusively New England. That would be… redundant!! 
Why do you really dislike “illegal aliens”? What have they ever done to you? 
Your preferred list of what you find acceptable doesn’t come close to describing the plethora of aliens who are in the U.S. illegally.
-alien
noun
a person who lives in a country but is not a citizen (= member of a country with specific rights)
-illegal
adjective
-illegal immigrant/alien
An illegal immigrant/alien is a person who has entered a country without government permission.
-illegal alien
noun
someone who lives or works in another country when they do not have the legal right to do this
Are citizens that break laws grouped together and called “illegal citizens” or “illegals”?
Aren’t citizens who break laws usually called criminals? If you were to group criminals together in one place, you could call them prisoners.
I wouldn’t either. But I guess I tend to think of the Northeast as New England + New York.
The outrage about “Illegal Immigration” is really just racism restated because the only immigration they care about is Hispanic immigration.
Yes, it is a crime but it is a crime of paperwork like driving with an expired license. The vast majority if illegal immigrants are people who allowed their visa to expire. Just paperwork. And of course when the person is from Britain they don’t get so mad.
Now, now. They also worry about Islamic terrorists sneaking in.
And the vast majority of bank robbers are just people who withdrew more money than was in their account. Paperwork!
Also, your “vast majority” claim about illegal immigrants doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny anyway.