I gave up my last shreds of respect for Graham when I heard him slip in a “you’ve got some 'splaining to do” reference in the Sotomayor hearings. She’s a candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States in an official Senate hearing and he’s doing racist shtick. Stay classy, shitbird.
Setting the bar pretty low aren’t you?
And, I disagree anyway. He’s a nut.
Pols are an elite by definition, regardless of their social background or educational credentials or anything else.
We are talking about Randy, here, he is not Ron, not by a long shot. He is becoming establishment and starting to lose his glibertarian cred. We shall see if he can talk a good game, but that temper thing is probably going to trip him up.
Bobby Jindal claims he’s unpopular in his red home state because of his Republican agenda. If even his Republican constituents don’t like it, why does he think the whole country will?
Cbristie hits a new polling low in Joisey: Christie sinks to new low in New Jersey poll - POLITICO
Are the Kochs and Adelson going to work out their differences and pick the nominee before a wasteful primary season, or is it going to be Jeb vs. Walker to the end?
:eek: Image! In head! Brain bleach!
umm, wait a sec while I rephrase …
Did we get the chart at the bottom of this page (from last week), which shows the only Republican in positive approval territory as being Ben Carson?
Actually, Rand Paul is too:
http://pollingreport.com/p.htm#Rand
But Rubio and Walker are in break even territory, with a whole bunch of voters undecided. So unlike Clinton, all the candidates other than Jeb have a chance to make a good impression.
And notice this poll on Clinton:
http://pollingreport.com/hrc.htm
Only 35% of voters will probably or definitely vote for her. Another 25% MIGHT vote for her. Sounds to me like those 25% are up for grabs.
Or a bad one. Which is more likely?
Not really. There are psychological studies that show people who admit they’re leaning one way, or seriously considering one side, have actually already subconsciously decided and will act that way when it’s time. Certainly there will be a turnout issue, since there always is, but wouldn’t you rather have a strategy that depends on showing why people should support your nominee than one based on hoping the other nominee screws up worse?
Given the sheer number of them, I’m sure one of them will do well.
That’s why we have so many contenders. All of them think they have a vision that the people will like. Clinton is going to play it ultra safe and cautious. The Republicans are eager to tell people what their ideas are, while Clinton is eager to keep her ideas to herself and avoid meeting actual people who might ask her questions.
Welcome to the reality-based community.
Repeal and replace!
That’s all she’s *been *doing!
Amazing. Just … amazing.
You have too many words there. I mean, just for the sake of accuracy.
It’s just a valid as “The Affordable Care Act must be modified! In ways I won’t specify.”
Your reference being to … what?
You’ve got to go back to 1988 to find a Presidential election where the Dem lost by more than 2.5% of the vote. And even that 2.5% loss was by a pretty mediocre Dem candidate against an incumbent Republican President.
That’s probably a pretty solid floor for the worst that a Dem candidate can do in a Presidential election these days. And Obama’s 7% margin of victory in 2008 is probably a pretty solid ceiling, unless you guys manage to nominate Ben Carson, in which case all bets are off. 