Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The current field of republicans are dismal.
If they want the Tea party monkey off their backs, they'd let Rand Paul run.
That would be the second Goldwater moment.
I love how guys come up with this crap.
Dems have a SINGLE candidate, and rapidly as time goes forward she is doing worse and worse in polling across the board.
You big hope is that Hillary pulls the female vote, that is because she happens to have a vagina... Basically, you hope people vote for someone like them, like racists and bigots. That's your game plan. You better hope the GOP does not get a female lead that is credible or a VP female that is credible.
Rand might be the main on the Rep ticket, and a life long politician with no accomplishments like Clinton will have a very hard time beating a highly educated doctor. I get the far left progressives like yourself switched to hating doctors and loving sell out politicians who made all their money due to politics, but realistically it won't take much *many* people, to swing the election in Rand's favor.
So keep on bullshitting yourself that you have some great field of ONE candidate, who is quickly becoming very unlikable no matter how poor they tell people they were.
Maybe we'll she Clinton talk like a *black* again, or maybe she will turn on a form of female dialect when speaking to rooms full of feminists voting for a vagina but have no clue what the policies are.... Oddly so far Hillary has not even taken one single position on policy, a Progressives wet dream!!! You find out after you elect her, or pass it...
Well, that's interesting, because the polling data from all over the place does not show Hillary Clinton doing worse. As a matter of fact, it shows her generally doing better and putting states into play that have not been in play since 92 and 96.
Now, just to be real blunt: your reference to her vagina is the very reason why the Right is killing itself in the female vote. And women realize this about Righties like you.
So, good job at backing up the arguments against your own party!
"Non-Partisan"
Bravo, for "Really Trying"
And what do you mean by that? If you want on the mention list, just let me know. There are Conservatives on the list, just as there are Liberals and some Centrists.
Your point? Or are you just trolling cuz that turns you on?
My point is not too complex for you to grasp:
You are duplicitous.
There are few members that do not share your own partisan democratic POV on the list where you claim to be "really trying" to form anything more than a cheerleading squad to support the scant evidence presented as your subjective analysis of poll data.
Certainly, I cannot be the first to have noticed this. Interestingly, although it is so clearly part of your character for many, duplicity seems to be a trait you claim eschew. Wouldn't it be simpler to just embrace it as much as Rasmussen has embraced his bias?
Perhaps self-denial is easier.
I love how guys come up with this crap.
Dems have a SINGLE candidate, and rapidly as time goes forward she is doing worse and worse in polling across the board.
You big hope is that Hillary pulls the female vote, that is because she happens to have a vagina... Basically, you hope people vote for someone like them, like racists and bigots. That's your game plan. You better hope the GOP does not get a female lead that is credible or a VP female that is credible.
Rand might be the main on the Rep ticket, and a life long politician with no accomplishments like Clinton will have a very hard time beating a highly educated doctor. I get the far left progressives like yourself switched to hating doctors and loving sell out politicians who made all their money due to politics, but realistically it won't take much *many* people, to swing the election in Rand's favor.
So keep on bullshitting yourself that you have some great field of ONE candidate, who is quickly becoming very unlikable no matter how poor they tell people they were.
Maybe we'll she Clinton talk like a *black* again, or maybe she will turn on a form of female dialect when speaking to rooms full of feminists voting for a vagina but have no clue what the policies are.... Oddly so far Hillary has not even taken one single position on policy, a Progressives wet dream!!! You find out after you elect her, or pass it...
Well, that's interesting, because the polling data from all over the place does not show Hillary Clinton doing worse. As a matter of fact, it shows her generally doing better and putting states into play that have not been in play since 92 and 96.
Now, just to be real blunt: your reference to her vagina is the very reason why the Right is killing itself in the female vote. And women realize this about Righties like you.
So, good job at backing up the arguments against your own party!
The very factual mention that Hillary Clinton has a vagina would be interpreted as some sort of insult for females again illustrate s an amazing predisposition for duplicity. Would males be offended if anyone noted a candidate had a penis?
Your reaction almost makes one wonder if you realize females have vaginas?
Just like the last general election, the GOP has no one who can win.
Rand Paul is positioning himself as the tea Party moderate who could appeal to the establishment. He is going to be hammered for that in the primaries so I am giving about a 50-50 chance of becoming the GOP candidate for 2016.
I suspect you're right but can he win?
Not much in the way of qualifications and a lot of baggage. Teebaggers have getting voted out and hopefully that will continue. And, just came across this -
Ted Cruz Is Beating Rand Paul in the Tea Party Primary - Molly Ball - The Atlantic
MANCHESTER, N.H.Rand Paul has been methodically planning his run for president. Now Ted Cruz could come along and spoil the whole thing.
Both senators have a path to the Republican nomination that rests on the support of the Tea Party. And when forced to choose, that segment appears to prefer Cruz, whose speech to an activists' gathering here over the weekend was the more enthusiastically received of the two.
Saturday's Freedom Summit, billed as an early audition for potential 2016 candidates, provided a rare opportunity for right-wing activists to directly compare the Texan and the Kentuckian. The senators spoke practically back to back, and the crowd clearly loved them both. But Cruz's theatrical delivery wowed them more than Paul's comparatively cerebral appeal, and his rhetorical focus on conservative red meat found more favor than Paul's detours into libertarian concerns.
"I like Rand Paul, I agree with a lot of what he says, but as far as charismatic leadership, I've got to go with Ted Cruz," Robin Parkhurst, a state-government worker from Newbury, New Hampshire, said after hearing both men speak at the event. "Ted Cruz has the ability to deliver a message that resonates with people."
Or, put another way, never underestimate the stupidity of a very vocal minority who love the prospect of a fascist president owned and operated by the Koch's.
Rand Paul is positioning himself as the tea Party moderate who could appeal to the establishment. He is going to be hammered for that in the primaries so I am giving about a 50-50 chance of becoming the GOP candidate for 2016.
I suspect you're right but can he win?
Not much in the way of qualifications and a lot of baggage. Teebaggers have getting voted out and hopefully that will continue. And, just came across this -
Ted Cruz Is Beating Rand Paul in the Tea Party Primary - Molly Ball - The Atlantic
MANCHESTER, N.H.Rand Paul has been methodically planning his run for president. Now Ted Cruz could come along and spoil the whole thing.
Both senators have a path to the Republican nomination that rests on the support of the Tea Party. And when forced to choose, that segment appears to prefer Cruz, whose speech to an activists' gathering here over the weekend was the more enthusiastically received of the two.
Saturday's Freedom Summit, billed as an early audition for potential 2016 candidates, provided a rare opportunity for right-wing activists to directly compare the Texan and the Kentuckian. The senators spoke practically back to back, and the crowd clearly loved them both. But Cruz's theatrical delivery wowed them more than Paul's comparatively cerebral appeal, and his rhetorical focus on conservative red meat found more favor than Paul's detours into libertarian concerns.
"I like Rand Paul, I agree with a lot of what he says, but as far as charismatic leadership, I've got to go with Ted Cruz," Robin Parkhurst, a state-government worker from Newbury, New Hampshire, said after hearing both men speak at the event. "Ted Cruz has the ability to deliver a message that resonates with people."
Or, put another way, never underestimate the stupidity of a very vocal minority who love the prospect of a fascist president owned and operated by the Koch's.
I agree with that assessment. Rand Paul's "moderation" is a liability in the primaries against the likes of Ted Cruz.
I suspect you're right but can he win?
Not much in the way of qualifications and a lot of baggage. Teebaggers have getting voted out and hopefully that will continue. And, just came across this -
Ted Cruz Is Beating Rand Paul in the Tea Party Primary - Molly Ball - The Atlantic
Or, put another way, never underestimate the stupidity of a very vocal minority who love the prospect of a fascist president owned and operated by the Koch's.
I agree with that assessment. Rand Paul's "moderation" is a liability in the primaries against the likes of Ted Cruz.
As I said of Mitt Romney for months on end in 2011 and 2012: all the batshit crazy things he said to throw red-meat to the Conservatives in his party were the things that were his poison pill in the General Election against President Obama in November of 2012.
Now, whether that paradigm will change in 2016 remains to be seen.
I agree with that assessment. Rand Paul's "moderation" is a liability in the primaries against the likes of Ted Cruz.
As I said of Mitt Romney for months on end in 2011 and 2012: all the batshit crazy things he said to throw red-meat to the Conservatives in his party were the things that were his poison pill in the General Election against President Obama in November of 2012.
Now, whether that paradigm will change in 2016 remains to be seen.
How will Hillary will be immune from the same problem with the far left wingnut fringe?
Can you provide a few examples of "the batshit crazy things" Romney said.
As I said of Mitt Romney for months on end in 2011 and 2012: all the batshit crazy things he said to throw red-meat to the Conservatives in his party were the things that were his poison pill in the General Election against President Obama in November of 2012.
Now, whether that paradigm will change in 2016 remains to be seen.
How will Hillary will be immune from the same problem with the far left wingnut fringe?
Can you provide a few examples of "the batshit crazy things" Romney said.
Well, we could start with "self-deportation" of Latinos.....
And what do you mean by that? If you want on the mention list, just let me know. There are Conservatives on the list, just as there are Liberals and some Centrists.
Your point? Or are you just trolling cuz that turns you on?
My point is not too complex for you to grasp:
You are duplicitous.
There are few members that do not share your own partisan democratic POV on the list where you claim to be "really trying" to form anything more than a cheerleading squad to support the scant evidence presented as your subjective analysis of poll data.
Certainly, I cannot be the first to have noticed this. Interestingly, although it is so clearly part of your character for many, duplicity seems to be a trait you claim eschew. Wouldn't it be simpler to just embrace it as much as Rasmussen has embraced his bias?
Perhaps self-denial is easier.
Well, I suppose when you have nothing in the hand, the only think left for you to do is to attack the person instead of the ideas.
I am anything but duplicitous. But you are free to your opinion, it's a free country.
Just as I am free to have the opinion that you are a nasty fucking troll with not enough grey cells in your brain to be able to understand a poll, much less the 1,800 polls I analyzed in 2008 and the 1,900 polls I analyzed in 2012. So, enjoy your opinion.
You are also welcome to be on that mention list, if you like. Like I said, it's supposed to be a non-partisan list.
I suspect you're right but can he win?
Not much in the way of qualifications and a lot of baggage. Teebaggers have getting voted out and hopefully that will continue. And, just came across this -
Ted Cruz Is Beating Rand Paul in the Tea Party Primary - Molly Ball - The Atlantic
Or, put another way, never underestimate the stupidity of a very vocal minority who love the prospect of a fascist president owned and operated by the Koch's.
I agree with that assessment. Rand Paul's "moderation" is a liability in the primaries against the likes of Ted Cruz.
As I said of Mitt Romney for months on end in 2011 and 2012: all the batshit crazy things he said to throw red-meat to the Conservatives in his party were the things that were his poison pill in the General Election against President Obama in November of 2012.
Now, whether that paradigm will change in 2016 remains to be seen.
Well, that's interesting, because the polling data from all over the place does not show Hillary Clinton doing worse. As a matter of fact, it shows her generally doing better and putting states into play that have not been in play since 92 and 96.
Now, just to be real blunt: your reference to her vagina is the very reason why the Right is killing itself in the female vote. And women realize this about Righties like you.
So, good job at backing up the arguments against your own party!
The very factual mention that Hillary Clinton has a vagina would be interpreted as some sort of insult for females again illustrate s an amazing predisposition for duplicity. Would males be offended if anyone noted a candidate had a penis?
Your reaction almost makes one wonder if you realize females have vaginas?
It's context. It's the way he mentioned it. But I understand that for Right-Wing drones like you, that's probably pretty damned hard to understand that context plays a role in most things in life. Alone the fact that he felt the need to mention her genitalia should tell you something right there. But I bet you won't get it.
Actually, what you just said about my reaction, I could also ask about you.
How will Hillary will be immune from the same problem with the far left wingnut fringe?
Can you provide a few examples of "the batshit crazy things" Romney said.
Well, we could start with "self-deportation" of Latinos.....
If we cracked down on employers and made it costly for them to hire illegals ( major fines, penalties, even jail time) - they'd go home. They are here for jobs- so they can send money home. No jobs= no money....What is crazy about that?
The very factual mention that Hillary Clinton has a vagina would be interpreted as some sort of insult for females again illustrate s an amazing predisposition for duplicity. Would males be offended if anyone noted a candidate had a penis?
Your reaction almost makes one wonder if you realize females have vaginas?
It's context. It's the way he mentioned it. But I understand that for Right-Wing drones like you, that's probably pretty damned hard to understand that context plays a role in most things in life. Alone the fact that he felt the need to mention her genitalia should tell you something right there. But I bet you won't get it.
Actually, what you just said about my reaction, I could also ask about you.
Weave and Dodge.
Would males be offended if anyone noted a candidtae had a penis?
No.
Then why would females be insulted if anyone noted a candidate had a vagina?
They wouldn't, outside of your hyper-partisan imagination.
first, there's nothing moderate about the establishment wing of the wing nuts.The fight on the right has been brewing for about 3 decades now. It began when the religious right came up with the "Moral Majority" and that morphed into the "Term Limiters" who turned into the "Crotch Watchers". They assumed that they had "won" when they put "their man in the WH" only that turned out to be nothing but pandering window dressing. They changed their name to "Main Street America" for W's 2nd term and were falling apart in 2007. But Ron Paul managed to coalesce the libertarians into the original Tea Party and Sarah Palin energized the "Birthers".
Then we had the 2008 economic collapse and the hijacking of the Tea Party to generate support for the anti-ACA crusade. The 2010 elections were a huge boost to the extreme right because there was considerable justifiable anger over the state of the job market. This was exploited and finally resulted in a sizable number of extremist candidates winning seats in both the House and the Senate.
2012 turned out to be a setback because the gains that the extreme right expected to make never materialized. Quite the opposite and that is why we are now approaching the semi finals for the fight on the right. 2014 is the last real chance for what is now the Tea Party to prove that it can win elections for the GOP. If they take a majority in the Senate then they will be able to dictate who will be the candidate in 2016. But if they fail then the establishment GOP will try to retake control and run a moderate candidate instead.
The fight on the right will occur when the establishment tries to reassert control over the Republican Party. The establishment knows that there is a demographic shift and that an "all-white" electorate is no longer a viable power base. The need to appeal to a broader base means embracing the things that have meaning for those parts of the electorate.
So we are at the turning point heading into November. It will be the gauge for the relative strength of each side. This election will hinge on the Senate races and while it is true that the Dems will probably lose seats the question that needs to be answered is how many?
In 2012 it was the extreme right that cost the GOP Senate seats that they could have won with establishment candidates. 2014 is shaping up to be a similar showdown. If the Dems hold 50 seats after the election the Tea Party will probably take the blame in my opinion. If the Dems are reduced to 49 or less the Tea Party will claim a victory and demand that they get to pick the 2016 candidate.
Going to be an interesting election to watch in my opinion.
And George W. Bush in 2002, I believe. Of course, that was while he was ginning up a war based in lies...Is it the fight on the right that does them in for a generation? Or the demographics change? Or will it be a combination of both? I'm leaning towards the guess of both.
Look... their economics on the whole of the right is an abject failure, and is being pulled into different directions of failure between the Austrian School weenies, Neoclassical dummies and (funniest of all) the Ayn Rand acolytes. Their hatred towards people of color and immigrants is repulsive to people of color and immigrants. And their base is dying off from old age.
The fight on the right has been brewing for about 3 decades now. It began when the religious right came up with the "Moral Majority" and that morphed into the "Term Limiters" who turned into the "Crotch Watchers". They assumed that they had "won" when they put "their man in the WH" only that turned out to be nothing but pandering window dressing. They changed their name to "Main Street America" for W's 2nd term and were falling apart in 2007. But Ron Paul managed to coalesce the libertarians into the original Tea Party and Sarah Palin energized the "Birthers".
Then we had the 2008 economic collapse and the hijacking of the Tea Party to generate support for the anti-ACA crusade. The 2010 elections were a huge boost to the extreme right because there was considerable justifiable anger over the state of the job market. This was exploited and finally resulted in a sizable number of extremist candidates winning seats in both the House and the Senate.
2012 turned out to be a setback because the gains that the extreme right expected to make never materialized. Quite the opposite and that is why we are now approaching the semi finals for the fight on the right. 2014 is the last real chance for what is now the Tea Party to prove that it can win elections for the GOP. If they take a majority in the Senate then they will be able to dictate who will be the candidate in 2016. But if they fail then the establishment GOP will try to retake control and run a moderate candidate instead.
The fight on the right will occur when the establishment tries to reassert control over the Republican Party. The establishment knows that there is a demographic shift and that an "all-white" electorate is no longer a viable power base. The need to appeal to a broader base means embracing the things that have meaning for those parts of the electorate.
So we are at the turning point heading into November. It will be the gauge for the relative strength of each side. This election will hinge on the Senate races and while it is true that the Dems will probably lose seats the question that needs to be answered is how many?
In 2012 it was the extreme right that cost the GOP Senate seats that they could have won with establishment candidates. 2014 is shaping up to be a similar showdown. If the Dems hold 50 seats after the election the Tea Party will probably take the blame in my opinion. If the Dems are reduced to 49 or less the Tea Party will claim a victory and demand that they get to pick the 2016 candidate.
Going to be an interesting election to watch in my opinion.
Interesting analysis and lots of food for thought.
Also interesting to note that had it not been the Tea Party and anger over the job market and the ACA, it would have been something else, for historically, the opposition party has massive massive inroads in virtually every single mid-term election since the inclusion of the GOP on the national ballot, in 1854. This has been especially applicable to a 2nd term president, the notable exception over the last more than 100 years being Bill Clinton and the 1998 mid-terms.
Interesting analysis and lots of food for thought.
Also interesting to note that had it not been the Tea Party and anger over the job market and the ACA, it would have been something else, for historically, the opposition party has massive massive inroads in virtually every single mid-term election since the inclusion of the GOP on the national ballot, in 1854. This has been especially applicable to a 2nd term president, the notable exception over the last more than 100 years being Bill Clinton and the 1998 mid-terms.
And George W. Bush in 2002, I believe. Of course, that was while he was ginning up a war based in lies...
Interesting analysis and lots of food for thought.
Also interesting to note that had it not been the Tea Party and anger over the job market and the ACA, it would have been something else, for historically, the opposition party has massive massive inroads in virtually every single mid-term election since the inclusion of the GOP on the national ballot, in 1854. This has been especially applicable to a 2nd term president, the notable exception over the last more than 100 years being Bill Clinton and the 1998 mid-terms.
And George W. Bush in 2002, I believe. Of course, that was while he was ginning up a war based in lies...
Bush wasn't a second term president in 2002. The historical norm is for presidents to have 1 major loss in congress during one of their midterms. For Bush it was 2006, for Clinton it was 1994, Truman was 1946 (big one!), for Obama it's almost certainly going to be 2010. Reagan is an odd ball since he had big loses in the House in 82, but also had big loses in the Senate in 86.
What year is it? Oh, 2014. Hillary has name recognition in polls? Wheres the story with that? She will fall on her ass in 2016 (causing tremors as far away as China) and not even get the Dem's nomination.
What year is it? Oh, 2014. Hillary has name recognition in polls? Wheres the story with that? She will fall on her ass in 2016 (causing tremors as far away as China) and not even get the Dem's nomination.
