Your generals will not back an actual tyrant.
While still claiming the possibility for error, Nate Silver says it is pretty much decided now. We are just about through all of this mess.
See, I'm not so sure. I mean, if it were other people it wouldn't be this big a shit-show, sure, but looking at all the candidates who ran this year it was a sort of ugly pig contest. Where I do agree though is this is our fault.
I think Clinton v Cruz would have been very different, and much more difficult for Clinton.
I'm not sure about the Clinton Vs. Cruz scenario. People rallied around Trump because they were tired of the weak, do nothing mainstream Republican scene and that's exactly the kind of guy Ted Cruz is. Kasich vs Clinton probably would have been a closer race, as he'd mostly stayed out of the limelight, didn't do anything embarrassing, and would have almost certainly pulled in the key swing-state of Ohio.
Any Republican but Trump would be stiff competition for Hillary . . . right up until they chose Sarah Palin as running mate.
That's not the perception at all. Ted Cruz has the reputation of fighting his own party for their own lack of spine as much as the democrats. His filibusters and government shutdowns have actually boosted his cred among redstaters greatly.
Are we talking about the Ted Cruz that stumped for Trump after Donald directly insulted his family?
I don't disagree it would be much closer. I just don't think either party had a serious candidate other than Hillary (sorry guys, I like Bernie too, but he's too far left for a race at the highest office). This election cycle has been very sad, and I'm terrified at what we have to look forward to 4 years from now. I don't think it will get better, but worse.
Which never would have come about if Donald had not been the nominee, though. Prior to that, Cruz had a reputation as a maverick republican that the republican voters wished all republicans were more like.
Hillary isn't a "serious candidate" either. Her entire political career was based on her husband's coattails and payoffs from the DNC for not divorcing Bill, and then later because they bumped her for Obama. There has not been a more trumped-up (no pun intended) elected official in my lifetime than Hillary Clinton.
Did they, though? If they did, why did they vote for the psychopathic cheetoh instead of him? There's also Cruz having negative charisma - look at how frequently he was described as 'creepy'.
Because Donald Trump is even more grenade-ey. Cruz might shut the government down, but Trump would burn it to the ground... and that has its own appeal to many people.
I don't like her, but can't deny she is a skilled politician. I'm surprised to see you dismiss her so easily.
Really?
If the Democrats take the Senate, Bernie gets the big chair on the Senate Budget Committee, as well as the big chair for Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging. He's going to do fine.
Kind of? I mean, Gasbandit isn't typically one to ignore the skills someone possesses just because he doesn't like them (not that I'm saying that is what is happening here). I guess I didn't expect that sort of response.
She's adept at political maneuvering (lying, covering her ass, peddling influence), but not at being electable. The only reason she became a senator for New York (a curious thing for a long time resident of Arkansas) was because the DNC put her on the ballot (as payoff, as I said earlier) against a no-name republican brought in to try to fill Guiliani's shoes when he bailed. And what was NY going to do, vote republican? Well, even then, a lot of them actually did - she only won 55-43 against Lazio. 43% of New Yorkers actually voted republican. It was a 12% margin, whereas Gore won NY with a 25% margin over Bush on the Presidential ticket - which means even a surprising number of Gore voters were voting against Hillary.
Incumbency is usually enough to keep anybody in office who wants to stay.
We weren't happy about her presence at first because people didn't feel she represented the state of New York. I don't remember the re-election period, but I remember the sentiment upon her initial election was extremely reluctant.[DOUBLEPOST=1477001689,1477001359][/DOUBLEPOST]
I grew up in the red zone and know these people. They like to pretend they live in Texas, and by that I mean the TV stereotypical version of Texas.
My family lives in Western NY, and my aunts practically worship Trump. -_-
Yeah, there was the whole carpetbagger thing in her first campaign. By the time she ran for re-election, people had warmed considerably to her, as her 67-31 victory indicates.
I'm still glad they settled the question for me. There was never any doubt that the Punnett square would have "white male" at the top and "black female" at the bottom, but there was always doubt how voters would rank "white female" v. "black male" and we actually had a situation come up where we got our answer.
I imagine the red states would erupt into fire over that one.
It would definitely show our system to be more incestuous/dynastic than even any currently existing monarchy.
