Originally Posted by MordecaiK

If it becomes a race between Trump and Cruz (who may well become running mates--Trump is definitely courting Cruz), the Koch Bros. may sit this one out (although I can see Adelson becoming enthusiastic about Cruz) but Wall Street will coalesce around Hillary, who as a liberal interventionist supports the kind of imperial foreign policy that they are comfortable with. Wall Street actually seems to be most comfortable with divided government. A New Democrat president promoting neo-imperialist foreign policy balancing out a Republican Congress. Wall Streeters have shown themselves from the last 8 years to be too brainwashed to think of doing anything other than what they have been doing until the FBI slaps the cuffs on them and reads them their rights. Think Enron. And Countrywide.

Clinton may be more interventionist that Obama and she may be less harsh (simplistic?) than Bernie with the financial sector, BUT that is in an entire different universe than where EVERY GOP clown car candidate resides (and yes, I know, Libertarians will bring up R. Paul's fortress America, but even they're not voting for him).

The election is a binary choice - a Dem who might be slightly less smart/adult than Obama versus an insane GOP clown.

Those who opt to stay home are just as much an insane GOP clown enabler as any t-bagger supporter.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

It’s official: You’re only a little angry.

According to an analysis of your responses, at least fifty of your fellow Americans are angier (sic) than you.

Well, then maybe you should consider taking a chill pill or smoking some weed?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It's all a matter of balance. The New Deal went too far in many respects, and needed correction. Income tax rates were obscenely, and counter-productively high. Bigger government is not the answer to anything. The answer is correct regulation (also not easy because many regulations harm small business, entrepreneurs and startups more than the big businesses they want to compete with) , and enforcement of those laws, along with immigration law. Smart, strategic regulation of the financial markets is particularly needed. "Too Big To Fail" obviously being the most common example of the problem.

A bigger government with more taxes and redistribution will just suffocate the economy more, as it did in the 1930s before all of the excess programs of the New Deal were terminated.

As evident by this chart -





- Bill Clinton was able to stop Ron Ray-gun's big run up of Big Government. GW Bush was unable to get another Ray-gun surge of Big Government going again before Obama came in and returned us to Small Government.

And where has all that growth been exactly? Here's a clue -



It's all them darn local firefighters, paramedics, police, teachers. We need to get back to the old days of filling our own potholes, dealing with street gangs, amputating our own legs, and certainly home schooling the young about creationism and other bible thumpin.

Like I said elsewhere, JPT, you really are clueless about the real world we live in. It's an amygdala thingee.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The tabloids had Elizabeth Taylor dying about thirty years before she did die. I am surprised that they don't still have stories about her imminent demise.

With the tabloids -- a broke clock is right half the time.

If the tabloids were correct about all of Jennifer Aniston's supposed pregnancies, then her fecundity would rival that of Michelle Duggar.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Well, then maybe you should consider taking a chill pill or smoking some weed?

It's interesting to note that the questions where I selected a barely angry answer were issues that tend to fire up the Left not the Right.

I've determined myself to be a political orphan. But in the general I'm increasingly likely to vote for the Democratic Presidential Candidate.

... by continuing a Dem in the WH post 2016 -

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016...ting-Democrats

Virginia to use new congressional map this year, benefitting Democrats

VA Redistricting: In yet another victory for Democrats, the federal court hearing a lawsuit challenging the state's congressional lines just ruled that elections this year must go forward under a new map proposed by a court-appointed expert, one that all but guarantees that GOP Rep. Randy Forbes' 4th District will turn solidly blue. Republicans had asked the court to delay implementation pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the judges declined to do so, saying that the defendants had "not made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits" when their appeal is heard.

Prof. Bernard Grofman, the court's expert, devised two maps, one known as Plan 6 and the other as Plan 16. The court opted for the latter, saying, among other things, that it made the fewest alterations to the existing map while still remedying its critical flaw—namely, that it packed too many black voters into the 3rd District (occupied by Democrat Bobby Scott), thus diminishing black voting strength in surrounding areas. Under the new lines, Scott's seat remains a Democratic stronghold, but Forbes will find himself in a district where Barack Obama won over 60 percent of the vote. He'll have virtually no chance of surviving there.

The GOP appeal could yet upend things, but it won't be heard until February or March, and a ruling wouldn't come until some time later. Given that Virginia's filing deadline is March 31 and its primary is June 14, the SCOTUS would probably be reluctant to send the entire state back to square one once Virginia's entire electoral apparatus is set in motion for 2016.

What the 2016 Election is really about is making the Roberts Court more Progressive - with the demise/retirement of some aging Scalia, Thomas or even Kennedy and a Dem Prez nominee of a Progressive.

And one of the huge, positive feedback benefits of that will be dismantling the GOP's rearguard effort to remain a national political power by gerrymandering the shit out of states. The gerrymandering is so grossly blatant that its nearly a given that any fair federal court will overturn them if given the opportunity - like in Virginia. It will inevitable happen in other states, but great where the process can be accelerated.

You go, Old Dominion! Show us the way once again!

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

I'm not 100% sold on any of the candidates, including Trump and Cruz, despite what some here would probably assume. But I think Trump is the most likely next president. His skills are formidable. He has practically defeated Hillary with a flick of his wrist before the general election has even started (even though those not paying attention may not realize it yet).

I don't "realize it" yet. Hillary is a pretty smart debator, and just bringing up her husband's past scandals is not likely to derail her. But I agree that Trump's skills are formidible. As you know, although most people here don't accept my crystal ball, I have already successfully predicted that Trump would not fade away as the pundits said. He does have a good shot at winning, according to my methods.

No election is a contest of ideal candidates, but rather a choice between the available alternatives. I don't 100% trust him or agree with him on every issue, but I think the only one who can stop Trump is Trump.

S&H factors into this as well. Trump is the only candidate that fits the description of a 4T. Certainly not Hillary or Jeb. I doubt they envisioned him when they dreamed up the "Gray Champion", but it may be what we end up with. The Blond/Orange Champion. LOL.

It may be true that the only one who can stop Trump is Trump. Rubio has a good shot though. I also predicted years ago here (not based on my crystal ball astrology method) that Hillary Clinton would be "the" grey champion (back then this S&H myth was largely accepted here). Now's she's in a position to be one, although not at the crisis climax, which will happen after 2024. I don't see why Hillary can't fit the role. She's smart and charismatic. But, she's vulnerable and may not win.

Goldwater had a horoscope that may have been better than Lyndon Johnson in 1964. But not only did the new moon method favor LBJ, Goldwater also had Mars rising in Scorpio, and he effectively "stopped himself" with his own behavior by labeling himself an "extremist." Trump has a similar problem with HIS Mars rising in Leo, enabling him to "stop himself" with his own arrogance and pride. Anybody whom I ask, who knows a little about astrology and about Trump, would be able to know before I tell him/her that Trump has Mars in Leo rising. I have tested this. It's as obvious as the sun in the sky in daytime. Just like his golden hair.

My new moon before election method predicts a Democrat will win the WH in 2016. It's a very reliable method. But so is my horoscope scoring method, and sometimes the two methods conflict. Other factors can come into play too. Unless Cruz is nominated, which I don't expect, the GOP candidate may have a stronger score (if Trump or Bush are nominated) or about an equal score (if it's Rubio) than the Democratic nominee, if it's Hillary. So, one method may work and the other may not, and it may not be easy to predict the winner this time. Last time in 2012, you remember, I predicted not only the winner, but every event during the entire election AND the exact final electoral vote count.

If Sanders is the nominee, he will win, because his horoscope score even beats Trump's, plus he has the new moon before election method on his side.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

Don't count on Hillary, if elected surviving her term. There have been plenty of reports of Hillary being in ill health, (mostly from the tabloids, but the tabloids are often right about this sort of thing). Things like strokes and more substantially, alcoholism (if elected, Hillary could be the most unstable and substance addicted President since JFK). Hillary's "victory dance" over Gaddafi's death illustrates her instability and we can expect the Republicans to play it back again and again in the general election if Hillary gets the nomination. (Or maybe earlier if Trump feels the need to bring that up early and risk overcooking his goose by boosting Sanders against Hillary).

My expectation is that she would survive her term just fine, and her health is fine according to what I know. She is certainly no addict. However, what COULD happen (and even seems likely if she wins) is that she will not run for a second term if elected. She could decide that she's too tired and/or unpopular. The Democrat is likely to win in 2020 anyway, according to my new moon before election method, as well as the demographic and electoral college trends as they exist today.

One of the most interesting things I saw in this campaign was last night's interview in which Trump talked about Cruz's citizenship. Trump was literally asking about Cruz's citizenship in what actually sounded like a constructive way, urging Cruz to seek some sort of declaratory judgement that he IS a "natural born citizen" rather than have the Democrats (read Hillary) bring it up in the General campaign if he is the nominee. Trump was displaying that a) he IS an adult and can deliver a nuanced answer to a question rather than just sound bites and b) that he "likes" Cruz with the subtext that he sees Cruz as a possible running mate, keeping what is an apparent majority coalition of Republican voters together that would be highly formidable against the Democrats. Trump was actually sounding like a potential President last night.

Others disagreed and reported the story as another Trump "birther" episode. His birther comments about Obama have seriously detracted from his being taken seriously. He has overcome this now, but mentioning his doubts about Cruz only brings up his birther nonsense about Obama again, and that makes people question his "adult" status and his fitness to be president. Hillary is not going to challenge Cruz on that score; she's too sensible to engage in that sort of baloney. It's fine and accurate that people here on this forum question the inevitability of Hillary, but neither should they underestimate her with made-up falsehoods and distortions.

I think that the only thing that could possibly stop Clinton would be the FBi nailing her on the classified emails.
-If the FBi passes on this, I expect Clinton to be the next President.

Originally Posted by radind

I think that the only thing that could possibly stop Clinton would be the FBi nailing her on the classified emails.
-If the FBi passes on this, I expect Clinton to be the next President.

I would have agreed with this entirely just a month ago, but the degree to which this is becoming theater makes prediction much less certain. Even Trump has real potential to make the leap from odd-ball primary candidate to electable in the general. I don't see Cruz making it though. He's just too abrasive.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

My expectation is that she would survive her term just fine, and her health is fine according to what I know. She is certainly no addict. However, what COULD happen (and even seems likely if she wins) is that she will not run for a second term if elected. She could decide that she's too tired and/or unpopular. The Democrat is likely to win in 2020 anyway, according to my new moon before election method, as well as the demographic and electoral college trends as they exist today.

What does the Castro twins' astro charts look like for 2020. One of those two are going to make TX, FL, NM, AZ, CO, and possible GA solidly Blue states - even JPT will then grasp its over for what passes as the Right these days. A 2-term HC will hold that off until 2024, but I'd be okay with it happening in 2020.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Others disagreed and reported the story as another Trump "birther" episode. His birther comments about Obama have seriously detracted from his being taken seriously. He has overcome this now, but mentioning his doubts about Cruz only brings up his birther nonsense about Obama again, and that makes people question his "adult" status and his fitness to be president. Hillary is not going to challenge Cruz on that score; she's too sensible to engage in that sort of baloney. It's fine and accurate that people here on this forum question the inevitability of Hillary, but neither should they underestimate her with made-up falsehoods and distortions.

I'm not so sure this is a nothingburger. We're talking about the reaction to this by t-baggers. Trump may just of killed off his only viable GOP challenger. This may make Rubio the Establishment guy going into NH, but if Trump can kill off Cruz this easily, Rubio will be more like that puzzlement one gets when they unknowingly hear a bug getting squished underfoot.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I would have agreed with this entirely just a month ago, but the degree to which this is becoming theater makes prediction much less certain. Even Trump has real potential to make the leap from odd-ball primary candidate to electable in the general. I don't see Cruz making it though. He's just too abrasive.

I agree on Cruz, but think Rubio would be a stronger candidate than Trump.

Originally Posted by Odin

To me it seems like over the course of the 2T there was a shift in opinion among the economic Powers That Be in which they stopped being worried about appeasing the working class with concessions to prevent a revolution, probably due to the decline of the Marxist Left because of the McCarthyist purges and due to Cold War propaganda making Americans immune to Marxist political activism.

I don't think the capitalist elite has feared a workers revolution since ca. 1920. After they had eliminated the risk of real revolution by deporting many of the revolutionary leaders and blocking the emigration of new ones in 1924, I think they felt safe and that the trend in the political economy supported this view. I believe they truly were surprised by the events after 1929 and (initially) welcomed FDR. They soon changed their tune and since 1933 they have feared political revolution (i.e. at the polling booth rather than the battlefield) and have sought to prevent that from happening again. I note that Bernie Sanders sounds VERY MUCH like a New Dealer, which is why I call him one, rather than the "democratic socialist" label that hides the reality. The elite has nothing to fear from a democratic Socialist, no socialist has ever had political traction in this country. But a New Dealer? This is a species to be feared.

The fact is, the New Deal was done, we KNOW it did not lead to disaster and so it's safe. What needs to be shown is whether there is support for a new New Deal. This is what Bernie is trying to show. He KNOWS he has zero chance of winning. He's 74 years old for fuck's sake. But what he CAN do is inject into Hillary Clinton's calculating brain that she WILL have support should she see the need to go full-bore New Deal on Republican asses. Otherwise she will abide by her husbands counsel and play it safe (that is small) like Obama felt he had to.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't "realize it" yet. Hillary is a pretty smart debator, and just bringing up her husband's past scandals is not likely to derail her. But I agree that Trump's skills are formidible. As you know, although most people here don't accept my crystal ball, I have already successfully predicted that Trump would not fade away as the pundits said. He does have a good shot at winning, according to my methods.



It may be true that the only one who can stop Trump is Trump. Rubio has a good shot though. I also predicted years ago here (not based on my crystal ball astrology method) that Hillary Clinton would be "the" grey champion (back then this S&H myth was largely accepted here). Now's she's in a position to be one, although not at the crisis climax, which will happen after 2024. I don't see why Hillary can't fit the role. She's smart and charismatic. But, she's vulnerable and may not win.

Goldwater had a horoscope that may have been better than Lyndon Johnson in 1964. But not only did the new moon method favor LBJ, Goldwater also had Mars rising in Scorpio, and he effectively "stopped himself" with his own behavior by labeling himself an "extremist." Trump has a similar problem with HIS Mars rising in Leo, enabling him to "stop himself" with his own arrogance and pride. Anybody whom I ask, who knows a little about astrology and about Trump, would be able to know before I tell him/her that Trump has Mars in Leo rising. I have tested this. It's as obvious as the sun in the sky in daytime. Just like his golden hair.

My new moon before election method predicts a Democrat will win the WH in 2016. It's a very reliable method. But so is my horoscope scoring method, and sometimes the two methods conflict. Other factors can come into play too. Unless Cruz is nominated, which I don't expect, the GOP candidate may have a stronger score (if Trump or Bush are nominated) or about an equal score (if it's Rubio) than the Democratic nominee, if it's Hillary. So, one method may work and the other may not, and it may not be easy to predict the winner this time. Last time in 2012, you remember, I predicted not only the winner, but every event during the entire election AND the exact final electoral vote count.

If Sanders is the nominee, he will win, because his horoscope score even beats Trump's, plus he has the new moon before election method on his side.

Trump talks a good game, and knows how to sell. He also knows how to bully. But beyond that, his skills probably suck.

Originally Posted by radind

I agree on Cruz, but think Rubio would be a stronger candidate than Trump.

I don't see him making it through the primaries, frankly. This seems to be the year of the outsider, and he may be swept aside before that sentiment has a chance to abate. If he survives, he still needs to be undamaged enough to get the nod. There are too many sharks in the tank to allow that.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I don't think the capitalist elite has feared a workers revolution since ca. 1920. After they had eliminated the risk of real revolution by deporting many of the revolutionary leaders and blocking the emigration of new ones in 1924, I think they felt safe and that the trend in the political economy supported this view. I believe they truly were surprised by the events after 1929 and (initially) welcomed FDR. They soon changed their tune and since 1933 they have feared political revolution (i.e. at the polling booth rather than the battlefield) and have sought to prevent that from happening again. I note that Bernie Sanders sounds VERY MUCH like a New Dealer, which is why I call him one, rather than the "democratic socialist" label that hides the reality. The elite has nothing to fear from a democratic Socialist, no socialist has ever had political traction in this country. But a New Dealer? This is a species to be feared.

The fact is, the New Deal was done, we KNOW it did not lead to disaster and so it's safe. What needs to be shown is whether there is support for a new New Deal. This is what Bernie is trying to show. He KNOWS he has zero chance of winning. He's 74 years old for fuck's sake. But what he CAN do is inject into Hillary Clinton's calculating brain that she WILL have support should she see the need to go full-bore New Deal on Republican asses. Otherwise she will abide by her husbands counsel and play it safe (that is small) like Obama felt he had to.

A nearly perfect summary of why I don't support Hillary. You seem neutral on how much impact Bernie Sanders campaign will have, and I can see that. I'm just not that neutral. She may be a strong person in her own right, but she's been through the Clinton Wars since the beginning in 1976 -- 40 years of fighting a rear guard action. It seems unlikely this won't weigh on her. It did on Bill.

As I see it: if she wins, she will start her Presidency with a lot more confidence in her ability than BHO had, but her tactics will be triangulate, find leverage, make a deal, rinse and repeat. Nothing big comes out of that.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

Trump talks a good game, and knows how to sell. He also knows how to bully. But beyond that, his skills probably suck.

I certainly wouldn't disagree. Maybe you need the ability to study and know issues, which Trump has proved seriously lacking in. However, remember the post about the smartest presidents; they weren't necessarily the most successful ones.

Andrew Jackson invented the kind of popular-vote politics we have today, and set the standard for the kind of politics and leadership that appeals to Americans. Since then there is a rather consistent set of characteristics, one that is replicated symbolically by the kinds of aspects that exist in the horoscopes of candidates that win, and those that lose. Like Jackson did, Trump has an excellent combination of winning vs. losing presidential-candidate aspects. He is, as he claims, a "winner" in this respect (but so is Bernie Sanders!).

I watched the PBS documentary on Jackson recently, narrated by Martin Sheen, who played a president on TV. "knows how to sell. He also knows how to bully" applied perfectly and completely to Andrew Jackson, and that about summed up his total skills. To get elected, and re-elected, in the USA, it's possible that those are the only two skills needed.

Originally Posted by playwrite

What does the Castro twins' astro charts look like for 2020. One of those two are going to make TX, FL, NM, AZ, CO, and possible GA solidly Blue states - even JPT will then grasp its over for what passes as the Right these days. A 2-term HC will hold that off until 2024, but I'd be okay with it happening in 2020.

The horoscope scores are what make the Castros non-viable. By nature they just won't appeal to Americans. Sorry, but that outlook is permanent; it doesn't change from year to year. Remember they have the worst score among the many dozens of recent or current possible and actual candidates I've looked at.

I'm not so sure this is a nothingburger. We're talking about the reaction to this by t-baggers. Trump may just of killed off his only viable GOP challenger. This may make Rubio the Establishment guy going into NH, but if Trump can kill off Cruz this easily, Rubio will be more like that puzzlement one gets when they unknowingly hear a bug getting squished underfoot.

It could be a point that the Teabaggers won't support someone with a birth question. I doubt it; I think they only care if it applies to Democrats. I suspect it has also been known for a while among many before Trump even brought it up. It didn't stop McCain from getting nominated either. However, Trump has a talent for highlighting issues, so we'll see if this issue does to Cruz what Carson's own book is doing to him.

Post imported from another thread:

A psychological explanation, page 90

Well, aren’t most people likely to trust someone who seems to agree with them? Probably, but people differ enormously in gullibility. (People showing few right-wing authoritarian tendencies) are downright suspicious of someone who agrees with them when they can see ulterior motives might be at work. They pay attention to the circumstances in which the other fellow is operating. But (people with strong tendencies toward authoritarianism) do not, when they like the message.

So suppose you are a completely unethical, dishonest, power-hungry, dirt-bag, scum-bucket politician who will say whatever he has to say to get elected. ... Whom are you going to try to lead, people with strong tendencies toward authoritarianism or people who have few authoritarian tendencies? Isn’t it obvious? The (gullible right-wing authoritarians) will open up their arms and wallets to you if you just sing their song, however poor your credibility. Those crabby non-authoritarian types, on the other hand, will eye you warily when your credibility is suspect because you sing their song?

So the scum-bucket politicians will usually head for the right-wing authoritarians, because the (right-wing authoritarians) hunger for social endorsement of their beliefs so much they’re apt to trust anyone who tells them they’re right. Heck, Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany running on a law-and-order platform just a few years after he tried to overthrow the government through an armed insurrection.

You sometimes hear that paranoia runs at a gallop in “right-wingers”. But maybe you can see how that’s an oversimplification. Authoritarian followers are highly suspicious of their many out-groups; but they are credulous to the point of self-delusion when it comes to their in-groups. So (in another experiment the author ran) subjects were told a Christian Crusade was coming to town led by a TV evangelist. The evangelist (the subjects were further told), knowing that people would give more money at the end of the evening if he gave them the kind of service they liked, asked around to see what that might be.

Finding out that folks in your city liked a “personal testimonial” crusade, he gave them one featuring his own emotional testimonial to Jesus’ saving grace. How sincere do you think he was? Most subjects had their doubts, given the circumstances. But (right-wing authoritarians) almost always trusted him.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer...oritarians.pdf

....My new commentary: the same people who claimed that Barack Obama is not a natural-born citizen have no problem with Ted Cruz having been born with much shakier citizenship. For a non-authoritarian, the federal law is good enough. I will not complain that Ted Cruz is not an American. My problem with him is that he is a crazy, authoritarian extremist. That would be good enough to reject him as a President of the United States.

With his multiple marriages Donald Trump hardly exemplifies a 'family values' lifestyle as does.... well, Barack Obama. But President Obama doesn't travel about excoriating people who might be vulnerable on such an issue.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

A nearly perfect summary of why I don't support Hillary.

I won't support her either. I present her campaign suits.

As I see it: if she wins, she will start her Presidency with a lot more confidence in her ability than BHO had, but her tactics will be triangulate, find leverage, make a deal, rinse and repeat. Nothing big comes out of that.

I foresee a lot of featherbedding from her friends.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Clinton may be more interventionist that Obama and she may be less harsh (simplistic?) than Bernie with the financial sector, BUT that is in an entire different universe than where EVERY GOP clown car candidate resides (and yes, I know, Libertarians will bring up R. Paul's fortress America, but even they're not voting for him).

The election is a binary choice - a Dem who might be slightly less smart/adult than Obama versus an insane GOP clown.

Those who opt to stay home are just as much an insane GOP clown enabler as any t-bagger supporter.

Trump may want a fortress America as much as Rand Paul does. And Hillary may be crazier than Trump. We are dealing with a shared delusion of American world leadership and invincibility that could back us into a shooting war. I look at Trump's bombast and then I look at Hillary's unguarded moment victory dance "We came. We Saw He died. Which is even more insane given that she was Secretary of State at the time and given not only Benghazi but that we have spec forces in Libya right now trying to keep ISIS from blowing up oil export facilities (and apparently not succeeding). Just because neo-conservatism and liberal interventionism is widely shared dosen't make it any less insane. Germany, France and Russia had a lot of delusions about each other 100 years ago and the result was millions of dead.

Originally Posted by playwrite

What does the Castro twins' astro charts look like for 2020. One of those two are going to make TX, FL, NM, AZ, CO, and possible GA solidly Blue states - even JPT will then grasp its over for what passes as the Right these days. A 2-term HC will hold that off until 2024, but I'd be okay with it happening in 2020.





I'm not so sure this is a nothingburger. We're talking about the reaction to this by t-baggers. Trump may just of killed off his only viable GOP challenger. This may make Rubio the Establishment guy going into NH, but if Trump can kill off Cruz this easily, Rubio will be more like that puzzlement one gets when they unknowingly hear a bug getting squished underfoot.

We have been waiting for Georgia, Texas and Arizona to flip Democratic for the last 12 years. I'll believe it when I see it. A Republican can win in Colorado, based on the results of it's 2012 Senate race--if that Republican is comfortable with not enforcing marijuana prohibition in states that legalise marijuana. Nevada and New Mexico have probably already flipped Democratic based on the last 2 election cycles. Florida and NC are still very tight swing states--which is why Republicans work so hard to suppress the youth and minority vote in those places. And Ohio, if close can win if there is Republican chicanery--unless the Ohio Republican Party is more comfortable with Hillary than with Trump. Which given Governor Kasich's dislike of Trump is a definite possibility.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Clinton may be more interventionist that Obama and she may be less harsh (simplistic?) than Bernie with the financial sector, BUT that is in an entire different universe than where EVERY GOP clown car candidate resides (and yes, I know, Libertarians will bring up R. Paul's fortress America, but even they're not voting for him).

The election is a binary choice - a Dem who might be slightly less smart/adult than Obama versus an insane GOP clown.


Those who opt to stay home are just as much an insane GOP clown enabler as any t-bagger supporter.

No, the Clintons are part of the same universe as the Republicans. They pulled the Democratic Party far to the Right during Bill's Administration. They (and yes, it was a co-presidency as Bill said it was) gave us SNAP in place of AFDC, the an immigration law that closed the door to legalisation to most of the people who came as undocumented workers, NAFTA, which forced 5 million Mexicans to come to the US by dumping subsidised corn on Mexico and finally, to prevent Bill from being convicted after being impeached, repeal of Glass-Steagall. And in foreign policy, interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia which seemed like a good idea at the time but planted the seeds for the poor relationship between the US and Russia today. And created a precedent for the occupation of Iraq and the intervention in Libya.
We would have been a better country, frankly, and the Democrats a more liberal party had we endured a Bush Sr. second term. Or preferably, ANY of the other Democratic candidates in 1992. The country could have done without the Clintons and maybe gotten Al Gore or Jerry Brown or even Ted Kennedy in 1996. A big part of the misery that poor people suffer today comes from policies signed by Bill Clinton. (Although yes, I realise that a lot of the impetus for these policies were generational, the result of Boomer sanctimoniousness, hypocrisy and authoritarianism on BOTH sides of the aisle--a product of the times).
Only Bernie Sanders might take the Democratic Party back to where it should be.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

It’s official: You’re only a little angry.

According to an analysis of your responses, at least fifty of your fellow Americans are angier (sic) than you.

According to an analysis of your responses, you’re angrier than at least fifty percent of your fellow Americans.

Hrrrmmmm. I need to walk a mile for a

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

We have been waiting for Georgia, Texas and Arizona to flip Democratic for the last 12 years. I'll believe it when I see it. A Republican can win in Colorado, based on the results of it's 2012 Senate race--if that Republican is comfortable with not enforcing marijuana prohibition in states that legalise marijuana. Nevada and New Mexico have probably already flipped Democratic based on the last 2 election cycles. Florida and NC are still very tight swing states--which is why Republicans work so hard to suppress the youth and minority vote in those places. And Ohio, if close can win if there is Republican chicanery--unless the Ohio Republican Party is more comfortable with Hillary than with Trump. Which given Governor Kasich's dislike of Trump is a definite possibility.

It's not going to be Trump, it will be Cruz or an establishment guy, and so you can count on voter suppression being fully engaged.