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.
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.
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.
No. This historical norm is for 2-term presidents to have losses in BOTH mid-terms.
The outliers are:
Kennedy 1962
Clinton 1998
Bush, Jr. 2002
That's pretty much it, out of 80 mid-term cycles since 1854.
The data is here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/elect...pared-to-presidential-terms-1855-present.html
Running SCARED???? ROTFLMFAO
Hillary Team Calls for Media Blackout of Anti-Clinton Books
Breitbart ^
Soon there will be three anti-Clinton books on the market, which is apparently enough to have gotten under the skin of Team Hillary. The First Family Detail by Ronald Kessler, set for release next month, will join Clinton, Inc. by the Weekly Standards Daniel Halper and Blood Feud by Ed Klein on bookshelves. Yesterday we reported that Clinton, Inc. has shot up the charts and now both Halper and Kleins books are outselling Hillary Clintons recent memoir Hard Choices. With Klein, Halper and Kessler, we now have a Hat Trick of despicable actors concocting trashy nonsense, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill...
Are you really saying they're attempting to keep these books from the public?
How would they accomplish this?
You and britebart are delusional.
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.
Hillary will receive the nomination.
She'll be as popular as the last box of pizza and a flat keg of Lite at an weekend frat party.
It's called diminishing returns: After two years of saturating message boards with irrelevant poll results, book releases, and appearances on daytime TV, Hillary will be her own cliche for a weary voting base.
on the right, a circus. On the left, Hillary Clinton being everything to all people.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 would love a Clinton/Rand Paul race. The debates would be so interesting and the campaign trail would be fun to follow.
I want this race.
You're probably trolling him. I've seen him stick to the numbers when it gave bad news to Democrats. Basically, you're hoping he's the kind of reality denial it's that you seem to be presenting yourself as. But when numbers in heavily polled races start showing a trend, it's usually a losing point of argument to fight against it. He's setting g up a baseline for his own polling aggregate, like Nate Silver did. The conservatives loved Silver in 2010 because his aggregates showed the GOP cruising to a crushing victory. Then, conservatives disliked Silver when his aggregates showed Romney losing, and the Democrats holding onto the Senate. If you don't understand polling aggregates, ask the statistics guy, and I'm sure he'd be very glad to educate you out of your apparent ignorance and attempt to strengthen your epistemic closure.
"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.
That's not really what "self-deportation" meant.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?
You're probably trolling him. I've seen him stick to the numbers when it gave bad news to Democrats. Basically, you're hoping he's the kind of reality denial it's that you seem to be presenting yourself as. But when numbers in heavily polled races start showing a trend, it's usually a losing point of argument to fight against it. He's setting g up a baseline for his own polling aggregate, like Nate Silver did. The conservatives loved Silver in 2010 because his aggregates showed the GOP cruising to a crushing victory. Then, conservatives disliked Silver when his aggregates showed Romney losing, and the Democrats holding onto the Senate. If you don't understand polling aggregates, ask the statistics guy, and I'm sure he'd be very glad to educate you out of your apparent ignorance and attempt to strengthen your epistemic closure.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.
You're probably trolling him. I've seen him stick to the numbers when it gave bad news to Democrats. Basically, you're hoping he's the kind of reality denial it's that you seem to be presenting yourself as. But when numbers in heavily polled races start showing a trend, it's usually a losing point of argument to fight against it. He's setting g up a baseline for his own polling aggregate, like Nate Silver did. The conservatives loved Silver in 2010 because his aggregates showed the GOP cruising to a crushing victory. Then, conservatives disliked Silver when his aggregates showed Romney losing, and the Democrats holding onto the Senate. If you don't understand polling aggregates, ask the statistics guy, and I'm sure he'd be very glad to educate you out of your apparent ignorance and attempt to strengthen your epistemic closure.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.
You're probably an idiot.
Stat is no Nate Silver, and I've yet to see "him stick to the numbers when it gave bad news to democrats."
But don't let that stop you to masturbating over his posts.
Iowa Dem's always like to upset the apple cart. Remember: 1988 Dukakis finished 3rd. 1992 had favorite son Tom Harkin winning and 2000 saw Al Gore face no challenge of significance from Bradley. 2004 big $$$ favorite Howard Dean collapsed and finished 3rd, and 2008 saw an unknown Barack Hussein Obama beating the odds on favorite Hillary Clinton. So Iowa Dem's like to sir the pot. Then Billary will have to take their political circus to New Hampshire where Indian Princess and fellow New Englander, Liz Warren will win. After that it will be off to South Carolina where Bill had a major dust up with S.C. Democratic Party. At this juncture the Billary train will be off its tracks. What about Nevada you say? Hillary had backing of big shot Dem's and did win there, but did not get support of organized labor as they threw in with Obama, so anything is possible. I look for her to stay away until super Tuesday and spend $$$ in those states instead taking the chance of a giant killer stopping her in the first couple of states.
You're probably trolling him. I've seen him stick to the numbers when it gave bad news to Democrats. Basically, you're hoping he's the kind of reality denial it's that you seem to be presenting yourself as. But when numbers in heavily polled races start showing a trend, it's usually a losing point of argument to fight against it. He's setting g up a baseline for his own polling aggregate, like Nate Silver did. The conservatives loved Silver in 2010 because his aggregates showed the GOP cruising to a crushing victory. Then, conservatives disliked Silver when his aggregates showed Romney losing, and the Democrats holding onto the Senate. If you don't understand polling aggregates, ask the statistics guy, and I'm sure he'd be very glad to educate you out of your apparent ignorance and attempt to strengthen your epistemic closure.
You're probably an idiot.
Stat is no Nate Silver, and I've yet to see "him stick to the numbers when it gave bad news to democrats."
But don't let that stop you to masturbating over his posts.
He knows me from a forum where I was for 3 years and also did the numbers there. His testimony is accurate. In case the polls show the winds turning against Hillary Clinton, I will report them, in exquiste detail, with exactly the same vigor as you have seen me report other polls.
Again, when it comes to the numbers themselves, I am brutally neutral.
You are just to blinded to see it. What a shame.
Try some of the demographic arguments or take some of the arguments about when and how badly China crashed. Short form:Iowa Dem's always like to upset the apple cart. Remember: 1988 Dukakis finished 3rd. 1992 had favorite son Tom Harkin winning and 2000 saw Al Gore face no challenge of significance from Bradley. 2004 big $$$ favorite Howard Dean collapsed and finished 3rd, and 2008 saw an unknown Barack Hussein Obama beating the odds on favorite Hillary Clinton. So Iowa Dem's like to sir the pot. Then Billary will have to take their political circus to New Hampshire where Indian Princess and fellow New Englander, Liz Warren will win. After that it will be off to South Carolina where Bill had a major dust up with S.C. Democratic Party. At this juncture the Billary train will be off its tracks. What about Nevada you say? Hillary had backing of big shot Dem's and did win there, but did not get support of organized labor as they threw in with Obama, so anything is possible. I look for her to stay away until super Tuesday and spend $$$ in those states instead taking the chance of a giant killer stopping her in the first couple of states.
Oh, my...
That's not really what "self-deportation" meant.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?
His own party would stop that from happening. Why? It means stiffer penalties on companies who hire undocumented immigrants. And the Chamber of Commerce won't stand for having cheap labor being thwarted from being exploited.That's not really what "self-deportation" meant.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?
No, that is exactly what it means.
Romney on immigration: I'm for "self-deportation" - CBS News
His own party would stop that from happening. Why? It means stiffer penalties on companies who hire undocumented immigrants. And the Chamber of Commerce won't stand for having cheap labor being thwarted from being exploited.That's not really what "self-deportation" meant.
No, that is exactly what it means.
Romney on immigration: I'm for "self-deportation" - CBS News
They really want a hard RWer this time around though.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.
They really want a hard RWer this time around though.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 suspect Rand has an up-hill battle ahead. And that's putting it mildly.
