I’ll give you the map right now. If you nominate someone other than Bush, I may need to go back and add some blue.
Which was what you were wishing there was a poll to show. 
Kasich… you might need to swing one from blue to red in that case. 
There are enough states that CAN go red to give the GOP 321 electoral votes. They’d need to win by 10 in the popular vote to pull that off, but it’s not impossible.
Show us your map, I’d like to see it.
How do I do it? The http address stayed the same when I changed it to my map.
I gave the GOP NC, VA, NH, IA, CO, OH, FL, PA, and WI. Do I think they will win all those states? But all of those have historically been within reach.
What’s not exciting about potentially electing a female president?
Except of course that there is basically no chance America would let that happen.
It would be wonderful to have a female President. It does not follow that we should elect just any female. And secondly, why would you want the first female President to be someone whose only shot at the office came through the success of her husband?
There are many reasons to support HIllary Clinton, especially if the opposition is a Republican. Being a woman isn’t one of them. Despite her claims, electing her would not break the glass ceiling, It would only crack it pretty good. We’d still have zero female Presidents who got there on their own merits.
If you hit the share map button it will generate a URL somewhere in the middle of the screen which you can copy and paste.
I can see NC and VA, not the others.
That’s fine, but they are possible. There are more than 5 states up for grabs. You’re right about 5 states if we assume a 1 or 2 point race. But if one candidate leads by 3 or more in the popular vote then there won’t be any electoral college problems. And at 5 points or more, a lot of “unwinnable” states get winnable. Such as NC and IN in 2008. For Republicans, those states are PA and NH.
If Clinton was to maintain the 6 point lead she has on some of the GOP candidates she’d win at least a couple of surprising states.
She isn’t just any female. She does have experience and she isn’t just being slapped on the ticket for being pretty and willing to let someone else work her strings (I’m looking at you, Sarah Palin). I think she is competent and capable.
I don’t “want” the first female President to be there for any particular reason, but I DO want her to be there. If her husband having been President has given her a better chance of being elected than some other woman, so be it. We’re in no position to spit in the face of this opportunity and think that if we just wait around a couple more centuries a woman will be elected for a “better” reason. Women’s merits are routinely ignored and belittled and no women have been elected ever on their merits or anyone else’s.
Electing her won’t break the glass ceiling and maybe won’t even crack it, but it will be a powerful message to America’s girls and that is worth a lot.
A lot of presidents get to be president because of reasons having nothing to do with merit. You don’t have to go very far back to find a Republican president that fits this description.
I’m not sure why you think that, right now i’d give Hillary about a 98% chance of winning. The only reason its not 100 is because… I don’t know, she might die or something?
Um, okay, who else could he be?
Bill got there in no small part on *her *merits, you should recognize. That’s the case for many men who have achieved high office.
No way, practically everyone hates her… People look for excuses to hate her, in fact.
She is shrill, bossy, old-looking, a bitch, only where she is because of Bill, manipulative, etc., that is to say, female, and there is no greater offense.
Plus, her campaign really does not have its shit together. It took forever for her to get any merch and she sends multiple e-pleas for cash daily. The other day, I even got a call from a blocked number from her people. Even I am almost starting not to like her after that!
And yet her chances of winning are at least 98%, just as DigitalC said. (I think 98% is low, to be honest.)
What a weird world we live in.
I thought an Op Ed by Dana Milbank in today’s paper made some interesting observations. Suggested Clinton would be better off if she had a viable candidate because, lacking that, she has “reverted to her instincts for secrecy and a distrust for the media that borders on paranoia. And the media, in the absence of the back-and-forth of a competitive primary, have take on the role of opposition.”
I’m not offering this up as unquestionable TRUTH, just observing that portions of it make sense to me in terms of what I’m seeing/thinking.
That strikes me as a BS post hoc explanation for why the media is so hostile to Clinton. I don’t think it has anything to do with the presence or absence of serious opposition, since it was exactly the same in 2008. (And I say that as an Obama supporter in 2008.)
There are lots of reasons for that hostility, and one of them may well be how Clinton treats the press. But I don’t believe for one second that the media coverage would be different if people thought Sanders could win it.
Well, I hope she wins, but the election is not today and there is plenty of time for something to mess that up. I could even see her getting shot, as much as she is despised by certain factions.
You are probly right. And she sure hasn’t conducted herself in a way to foster a lovefest. But to some extent, I do think the media feeds off of controversy. And if there isn’t a competition creating controversy, I don’t put it past the media to create it itself.
Naturally a member of the media would characterize media distrust as “paranoid,” not warranted and reasonable. The media is not an unbiased source of information, as it depends on attention for its very existence and will invent controversy if none exists. The fact that they “have taken on the role of opposition” proves that no degree of trust would be appropriate.
It’s like they’ve admitted that they “had” to make up lies because no one would trust them with the truth.