texas-senator-ted-cruz-announce-presidential-run-report

[Boss]

That makes a degree of sense. But diga me this -- if Romney's no Conservative, and Conservative is what you want -- then why do you say he would have made a much better POTUS?

Well because I believe, while not conservatively ideal, Romney would have maintained some semblance of representative republican democracy as opposed to totalitarian socialist tyranny. SCOTUS justices would have been different, economic policies would have been different, and there would have been a competent administration in charge.

 

[protectionist]

6 times since 1920 ? Well, there have been 24 midterm elections since then. So if it happened in 6 of them, that leaves 18 (3 times as many) when it did not happen.

But that's not as bad as you supporting the worst disgrace of a public official and a human being, ever to be a Sect of State and possible US President candidate. Maybe you're a member of the Muslim Brotherhood ? Just wondering.

Don't know where you're getting "six"

I already have looked it up, years ago when this has come up before on other message boards, and I already knew it's not "six times since 1920" but three times since the Civil War. And that those years would be 1934, 1998 and 2002 --- which is exactly what your link confirms.

.... Wacko.

So that confirms my point even more. That very rarely has there been a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss. And where I got the number 6 was from CandyCorn's post, which you seem to be lost on this.

That part is true....very rarely does a single party hold the Oval for more than 12 years.
It really looks good for Hillary though.

When the Presidency is being judged by 3-5% difference....statistics matter:

This is why it is so crucial to have Ted Cruz and Rand Paul in the race. He/They is/are good for about 1/2 million votes for the other side.

Give liberally to TedCruz.org!!!

Spin it however you like. With sprinkles on top. Add some strawberries. Or, in your case, blueberries.

Spin? Sorry, I was giving statistics--facts if you will. Obama is much more popular than Bush at this point in their 2nd terms....as part of his administration, the "baggage" that would have been there for HRC is lessened as a result; the same way it was quite heavy for Senator McCain.

When you talk about the future, and claim to know what's going to happen, that's called SPIN. Get it ?

I gave my reasons and they are indisputable. You gave nothing but hot air.

No, they are very disputable. They're borderline lies, actually. But I see absolutely no reason to sit here and argue something so totally irrelevant. If you want to believe Reagan was a liberal, that's your problem not mine. If you convince other idiots to believe that, more power to you and the idiots. You didn't convince me of anything except that you are an idiot at best and at worst, a dishonest player.

Looks like maybe YOU are telling the lies right here.

1. Are you saying Reagan didn't give amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens ?

2. Are you saying he didn't oppose the Briggs initiative ?

We could start with just those 2. Note: a yes answer to either, makes you the laughingstock of this forum (if you aren't already) Or maybe you could just pack it in, and admit you're too much of a dumbass to be in this forum.

Regan's Amnesty ; He agreed to a one-time amnesty in a bipartisan gesture to a Democrat congress in order to resolve our illegal immigration problem. The amnesty was granted and the rest of the legislation was simply ignored and not enforced. When it came time for future congresses to appropriate the funding for more border security and such, they balked.

Briggs Initiative: Was a 1978 Proposition in California that would have BANNED GAYS from teaching in public schools. Reagan was opposed... is there something fucking wrong with a conservative being opposed to a ban on people based on perceived sexuality? Sorry... I never got that memo!

Neither of these prove Reagan was a Liberal. They do prove that Conservatism is not ideologically driven like Liberalism.

BOTH of them show Reagan's liberalism, and this post shows you to be a BA artist, and not a very good one. Oh, so Reagan's amnesty was a "one-time" amnesty, huh ? HA HA HA! Well, lucky for us. He gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens, you dolt! Which quickly grew to millions more as the original ones had babies. Pheeeeww! (high-pitched whistle) Somebody please help this guy.

And on the Briggs Initiative >> YEAH, there's something (a whole lot) wrong with opposing a ban on queers teaching in public schools. So NOW you got the memo.

Something tells me this forum isn't your forte. Maybe fishing, blues guitar, or baton twirling would fit you better.

Pragmatism is not Liberalism.

Glad you're on record with your bigoted and backward view of banning homosexuals from teaching but that is not a conservative position now or ever. And by the way, your punk ass isn't in charge of the Conservative memos. Best I can tell, you're a loser who isn't in charge of anything.

You and little Sister Fluke are just two more pinheads blowing your fuses over Cruz and it's hilarious as hell to me! This is what I want from you for the entire campaign! I want you to demonstrate your bigoted views toward gay people! I want you calling Cruz things like "wetback" and making fun of his Latino heritage! While you and little sister sex pants are trashing the man personally, he will be schooling America on conservative principles and how to resolve the problems facing real Americans.

And for your information, I am fine with this forum. It is indeed my forte to mop the floor with ignorant little half-wits like you and I've been doing it for nearly 20 years. I am also an exceptional fisherman, I play a wicked blues guitar and I can even teach you how to twirl a baton if that's what you really want to know.

Pragmatism is not Liberalism.

Glad you're on record with your bigoted and backward view of banning homosexuals from teaching but that is not a conservative position now or ever. And by the way, your punk ass isn't in charge of the Conservative memos. Best I can tell, you're a loser who isn't in charge of anything.

You and little Sister Fluke are just two more pinheads blowing your fuses over Cruz and it's hilarious as hell to me! This is what I want from you for the entire campaign! I want you to demonstrate your bigoted views toward gay people! I want you calling Cruz things like "wetback" and making fun of his Latino heritage! While you and little sister sex pants are trashing the man personally, he will be schooling America on conservative principles and how to resolve the problems facing real Americans.

And for your information, I am fine with this forum. It is indeed my forte to mop the floor with ignorant little half-wits like you and I've been doing it for nearly 20 years. I am also an exceptional fisherman, I play a wicked blues guitar and I can even teach you how to twirl a baton if that's what you really want to know.

1. I'm also Latino, speak Spanish fluently, and I don't make fun of any race.

2. That you call me "bigoted" shows you have no idea what that word means, or any conception of why the people of California supported the Briggs Initiative to keep queers out of schools.

3. I'm an Army veteran and, in person, mouthoffs who call me a punk, get a steel-tipped combat boot right straight up their ass. You don't - you're just on the other side of a computer, brave boy.

4. I'm a supporter of Ted Cruz.

5. I would easily outplay you on the blues guitar, as well as a lot of good southern music on the harmonica, mandolin, and fiddle (including all the tunes "Fiddler played on the TV show "Roots").

6. Any time you want some lessons on how to fill up a cooler full of fish, let me know. I don't fish any more, but I haven't forgotten anything.

7. About the only thing I could see you mopping up a floor with, would be a floor.

 

[protectionist]

The November election was what we call a "mid-term". Whichever party has the White House loses seats in the mid-term. It's happened with every POTUS as long as there have been these two parties. You could look it up.

It doesn't happen like this. This was a landslide.

HA HA. Anyone can look back in history, and find something that fits your design. One could also find some that don't. The November election was a rejection of Democrat idiocy regarding race relations, national security, immigration, etc. YOU are who is being ignorant.

It has happened something like six times through our history since we devolved into the two-party system circa 1920.

Here is an article that explains it in terms easy enough for even someone like you to understand it....

Six-Year Itch Plagues Presidents in Midterms - NationalJournal.com

I doubt you'll read it since it's late and you have nobody there to help you with the big words.

But lets take a look at what you're saying...2014 was a rejection....when Hillary wins in 2016; what will that tell you? That the GOP was rejected? If not, please explain how it could be anything else.

6 times since 1920 ? Well, there have been 24 midterm elections since then. So if it happened in 6 of them, that leaves 18 (3 times as many) when it did not happen.

But that's not as bad as you supporting the worst disgrace of a public official and a human being, ever to be a Sect of State and possible US President candidate. Maybe you're a member of the Muslim Brotherhood ? Just wondering.

Don't know where you're getting "six"

I already have looked it up, years ago when this has come up before on other message boards, and I already knew it's not "six times since 1920" but three times since the Civil War. And that those years would be 1934, 1998 and 2002 --- which is exactly what your link confirms.

.... Wacko.

So that confirms my point even more. That very rarely has there been a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss. And where I got the number 6 was from CandyCorn's post, which you seem to be lost on this.

You're changing your basis; it's not what you said before. But it's an interesting metric as well, so let's work it out.
Before 1870 midterm elections were all over the calendar, and the R party only came into being in 1854, so beginning with 1870:

1870 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats but win 1872 POTUS. Theory holds.
1874 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1876, but Ds win popular vote. Asterisk.
1878 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1880 POTUS (by < 10,000 votes). Theory holds.
1882 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1884. Theory fails.
1886 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1888 but win popular vote. Asterisk.
1890 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1892. Theory fails. (third party (Weaver), no effect)
1894 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1896. Theory holds.
1898 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1900. Theory holds.
1902 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1904. Theory holds.
1906 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1908. Theory holds.
1910 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1912. Theory fails. (third party (TR), no effect)
1914 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1916. Theory holds.
1918 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1920. Theory fails.
1922 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1924. Theory holds. (Third party (LaFollette), no effect)
1926 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1928. Theory holds.
1930 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1932. Theory fails.
1934 - (D POTUS): Ds WIN seats, win 1936. Theory fails.
1938 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1940. Theory holds.
1942 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1944. Theory holds.
1946 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1948. Theory holds (Significant Third party (Thurmond) cost Ds)
1950 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1952. Theory fails.
1954 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1956. Theory holds.
1958 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1960 (by 120,000 votes). Theory fails. (Significant Third party (Byrd) cost Ds)
1962 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1964. Theory holds.
1966 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1968 -- fails, but significant Third party (Wallace) cost Ds in close results: asterisk.
1970 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1972. Theory holds.
1974 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1976. Theory fails.
1978 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1980. Theory fails. (Third party (Anderson) had no effect)
1982 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1984. Theory holds.
1986 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1988. Theory holds.
1990 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1992. Theory fails. (3rd party (Perot), no effect)
1994 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1996. Theory holds. (Significant 3rd party (Perot), no effect)
1998 - (D POTUS): Ds WIN seats, lose 2000 (?) but Ds win popular vote. Asterisk ........ (3rd party (Nader) no effect)
2002 - (R POTUS): Rs WIN seats, win 2004. Theory fails.
2006 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 2008. Theory fails.
2010 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 2012. Theory holds.

I make it 19 times "theory holds", 13 times "theory fails", plus four "asterisks". Even if you give all four asterisks to the "hold" column you've got 23-13. Go the other way, 19-17. I don't think you have a "very rarely" pattern there, or a pattern at all.

I haven't changed anything at all, and I wasn't even talking to you. I was talking to CandyCorn. And who said anything about a pattern. Are you mixing me up with someone else ? In any case, I don't care what has happened in the past, or how many times it did. What matters now is that Democrats are going insane and looking like complete idiots on military matters and foreign policy, neither of which has ever been their forte, and Americans see it clearly. We're in a World War III against the international jihad, at a time when nuclear weapon destruction of America isn't such a remote possibility. Democrats need to to get the hell out of the way right now, and stop weakening us with immigration, divisive racial scams, and being incredibly stupid regarding our enemies (ex Gitmo releases, Gitmo shutdown, military cutbacks, awful Iran negotiating, etc)

 

[protectionist]

it was done last November, and the left has been making things worse for itself since then (Ferguson, Iran, ISIS, immigration, cop-hating, etc)

What was done in November does not correlate to a Presidential election and winning electoral votes

No ? Why not ?

Because Republicans took back seats in Red States in the Senate and won seats filibustered to favor Republicans in the House

In the General Election, the entire state will vote and whoever wins gets all electoral votes

Red States will still be red and blue states will still be blue, but there are more electoral votes in the blue states

EARTH TO RW: The "Blue" states are already purple. (red violet)

They haven't been in the last six election cycles

It is the purple states that have been showing themselves blue

Not in the last election.

 

[protectionist]

It doesn't happen like this. This was a landslide.

It has happened something like six times through our history since we devolved into the two-party system circa 1920.

Here is an article that explains it in terms easy enough for even someone like you to understand it....

Six-Year Itch Plagues Presidents in Midterms - NationalJournal.com

I doubt you'll read it since it's late and you have nobody there to help you with the big words.

But lets take a look at what you're saying...2014 was a rejection....when Hillary wins in 2016; what will that tell you? That the GOP was rejected? If not, please explain how it could be anything else.

6 times since 1920 ? Well, there have been 24 midterm elections since then. So if it happened in 6 of them, that leaves 18 (3 times as many) when it did not happen.

But that's not as bad as you supporting the worst disgrace of a public official and a human being, ever to be a Sect of State and possible US President candidate. Maybe you're a member of the Muslim Brotherhood ? Just wondering.

Don't know where you're getting "six"

I already have looked it up, years ago when this has come up before on other message boards, and I already knew it's not "six times since 1920" but three times since the Civil War. And that those years would be 1934, 1998 and 2002 --- which is exactly what your link confirms.

.... Wacko.

So that confirms my point even more. That very rarely has there been a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss. And where I got the number 6 was from CandyCorn's post, which you seem to be lost on this.

You're changing your basis; it's not what you said before. But it's an interesting metric as well, so let's work it out.
Before 1870 midterm elections were all over the calendar, and the R party only came into being in 1854, so beginning with 1870:

1870 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats but win 1872 POTUS. Theory holds.
1874 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1876, but Ds win popular vote. Asterisk.
1878 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1880 POTUS (by < 10,000 votes). Theory holds.
1882 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1884. Theory fails.
1886 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1888 but win popular vote. Asterisk.
1890 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1892. Theory fails. (third party (Weaver), no effect)
1894 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1896. Theory holds.
1898 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1900. Theory holds.
1902 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1904. Theory holds.
1906 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1908. Theory holds.
1910 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1912. Theory fails. (third party (TR), no effect)
1914 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1916. Theory holds.
1918 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1920. Theory fails.
1922 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1924. Theory holds. (Third party (LaFollette), no effect)
1926 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1928. Theory holds.
1930 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1932. Theory fails.
1934 - (D POTUS): Ds WIN seats, win 1936. Theory fails.
1938 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1940. Theory holds.
1942 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1944. Theory holds.
1946 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1948. Theory holds (Significant Third party (Thurmond) cost Ds)
1950 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1952. Theory fails.
1954 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1956. Theory holds.
1958 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1960 (by 120,000 votes). Theory fails. (Significant Third party (Byrd) cost Ds)
1962 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1964. Theory holds.
1966 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1968 -- fails, but significant Third party (Wallace) cost Ds in close results: asterisk.
1970 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1972. Theory holds.
1974 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1976. Theory fails.
1978 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1980. Theory fails. (Third party (Anderson) had no effect)
1982 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1984. Theory holds.
1986 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1988. Theory holds.
1990 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1992. Theory fails. (3rd party (Perot), no effect)
1994 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1996. Theory holds. (Significant 3rd party (Perot), no effect)
1998 - (D POTUS): Ds WIN seats, lose 2000 (?) but Ds win popular vote. Asterisk ........ (3rd party (Nader) no effect)
2002 - (R POTUS): Rs WIN seats, win 2004. Theory fails.
2006 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 2008. Theory fails.
2010 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 2012. Theory holds.

I make it 19 times "theory holds", 13 times "theory fails", plus four "asterisks". Even if you give all four asterisks to the "hold" column you've got 23-13. Go the other way, 19-17. I don't think you have a "very rarely" pattern there, or a pattern at all.

Well, I was speaking of the strict two-party system. Your list is much more complete. Nicely done.

Nicely done, but essentially irrelevant.

 

[protectionist]

6 times since 1920 ? Well, there have been 24 midterm elections since then. So if it happened in 6 of them, that leaves 18 (3 times as many) when it did not happen.

But that's not as bad as you supporting the worst disgrace of a public official and a human being, ever to be a Sect of State and possible US President candidate. Maybe you're a member of the Muslim Brotherhood ? Just wondering.

Don't know where you're getting "six"

I already have looked it up, years ago when this has come up before on other message boards, and I already knew it's not "six times since 1920" but three times since the Civil War. And that those years would be 1934, 1998 and 2002 --- which is exactly what your link confirms.

.... Wacko.

So that confirms my point even more. That very rarely has there been a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss. And where I got the number 6 was from CandyCorn's post, which you seem to be lost on this.

You're changing your basis; it's not what you said before. But it's an interesting metric as well, so let's work it out.
Before 1870 midterm elections were all over the calendar, and the R party only came into being in 1854, so beginning with 1870:

1870 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats but win 1872 POTUS. Theory holds.
1874 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1876, but Ds win popular vote. Asterisk.
1878 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1880 POTUS (by < 10,000 votes). Theory holds.
1882 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1884. Theory fails.
1886 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1888 but win popular vote. Asterisk.
1890 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1892. Theory fails. (third party (Weaver), no effect)
1894 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1896. Theory holds.
1898 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1900. Theory holds.
1902 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1904. Theory holds.
1906 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1908. Theory holds.
1910 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1912. Theory fails. (third party (TR), no effect)
1914 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1916. Theory holds.
1918 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1920. Theory fails.
1922 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1924. Theory holds. (Third party (LaFollette), no effect)
1926 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1928. Theory holds.
1930 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1932. Theory fails.
1934 - (D POTUS): Ds WIN seats, win 1936. Theory fails.
1938 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1940. Theory holds.
1942 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1944. Theory holds.
1946 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1948. Theory holds (Significant Third party (Thurmond) cost Ds)
1950 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1952. Theory fails.
1954 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1956. Theory holds.
1958 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1960 (by 120,000 votes). Theory fails. (Significant Third party (Byrd) cost Ds)
1962 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1964. Theory holds.
1966 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1968 -- fails, but significant Third party (Wallace) cost Ds in close results: asterisk.
1970 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1972. Theory holds.
1974 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1976. Theory fails.
1978 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1980. Theory fails. (Third party (Anderson) had no effect)
1982 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1984. Theory holds.
1986 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1988. Theory holds.
1990 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1992. Theory fails. (3rd party (Perot), no effect)
1994 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1996. Theory holds. (Significant 3rd party (Perot), no effect)
1998 - (D POTUS): Ds WIN seats, lose 2000 (?) but Ds win popular vote. Asterisk ........ (3rd party (Nader) no effect)
2002 - (R POTUS): Rs WIN seats, win 2004. Theory fails.
2006 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 2008. Theory fails.
2010 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 2012. Theory holds.

I make it 19 times "theory holds", 13 times "theory fails", plus four "asterisks". Even if you give all four asterisks to the "hold" column you've got 23-13. Go the other way, 19-17. I don't think you have a "very rarely" pattern there, or a pattern at all.

Well, I was speaking of the strict two-party system. Your list is much more complete. Nicely done.

I thought that was Projectionist's point. But thanks, it was fun.

I don't see the pattern he imagined at all, but what I do see is a history (140 years) of complete domination by R and D. And any time somebody tries to challenge with a 3rd party (a) they're drowned out by the R/D machine, and (b) they usually did so because they came from either the R or the D camp and were unsatisfied with where it was going, so it became in effect an alternate-R or alternate-D.

When you have two parties that become the two-headed combined institution of everything political -- as if R or D is all there can possibly be -- it's inevitable that the two heads of the institution will cooperate to keep it that way, one foiling off the other, and merge into a single lumbering wart on the political landscape, ensuring that meaningful evolution never happens.

Since it doesn't really matter what pattern you're imagining that I imagined, we need not go there. The rest of your post is a drawing of America over the past 100 years. >> a single lumbering wart on the political landscape.

 

[candycorn]

Don't know where you're getting "six"

I already have looked it up, years ago when this has come up before on other message boards, and I already knew it's not "six times since 1920" but three times since the Civil War. And that those years would be 1934, 1998 and 2002 --- which is exactly what your link confirms.

.... Wacko.

So that confirms my point even more. That very rarely has there been a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss. And where I got the number 6 was from CandyCorn's post, which you seem to be lost on this.

That part is true....very rarely does a single party hold the Oval for more than 12 years.
It really looks good for Hillary though.

When the Presidency is being judged by 3-5% difference....statistics matter:

This is why it is so crucial to have Ted Cruz and Rand Paul in the race. He/They is/are good for about 1/2 million votes for the other side.

Give liberally to TedCruz.org!!!

Spin it however you like. With sprinkles on top. Add some strawberries. Or, in your case, blueberries.

Spin? Sorry, I was giving statistics--facts if you will. Obama is much more popular than Bush at this point in their 2nd terms....as part of his administration, the "baggage" that would have been there for HRC is lessened as a result; the same way it was quite heavy for Senator McCain.

When you talk about the future, and claim to know what's going to happen, that's called SPIN. Get it ?

No...that is called a prediction. Feel free to look it up using a dictionary if you would like.

As for my track record, it's pretty good. I missed the 2012 election by one state (Colorado)
Electoral Vote Predictions Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

In late 2013, I said this:
"The Republicans SHOULD do very well in 2014..."

But more importantly, here is what I said in 8/13....3 years before the 2016 election when asked to handicap the field:

Santorum; Won 11 states in both the north and the south. He has a good organization in Iowa and New Hampshire...

Chris Christie; Probably the best candidate but has huge problems with the calendar. He won't win in Iowa, New Hampshire will be too close to make any victory of his count for much. South Carolina comes next and he may as well not even campaign down there. Then comes Florida where he is likely to run into Rubio, Jeb Bush or both. He won't win vs a "favorite son" vote. So he lost (at least) 3 of the first 4 contests, will have no momentum, little money, and, more importantly, no media attention.

Jeb Bush;

Watch for Bush...
Good in All Time Zones-Check
Heavyweight Credentials-Check
Money-Check
Name Recognition-Check
Wants the job....wants the job....wants the job???? Dunno.

Scott Walker;
Dark Horse but will likely be angling for a VP nomination. Swing state will help the top of the ticket. He will likely get into it and he just may become a consensus candidate.

And it is shaping up exactly that way despite this announcement by Senator Cruz.

I expect 2016 to come down to Hillary vs whomever you guys limp back to the barn with and Hillary to win.

 

[candycorn]

6 times since 1920 ? Well, there have been 24 midterm elections since then. So if it happened in 6 of them, that leaves 18 (3 times as many) when it did not happen.

But that's not as bad as you supporting the worst disgrace of a public official and a human being, ever to be a Sect of State and possible US President candidate. Maybe you're a member of the Muslim Brotherhood ? Just wondering.

Don't know where you're getting "six"

I already have looked it up, years ago when this has come up before on other message boards, and I already knew it's not "six times since 1920" but three times since the Civil War. And that those years would be 1934, 1998 and 2002 --- which is exactly what your link confirms.

.... Wacko.

So that confirms my point even more. That very rarely has there been a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss. And where I got the number 6 was from CandyCorn's post, which you seem to be lost on this.

You're changing your basis; it's not what you said before. But it's an interesting metric as well, so let's work it out.
Before 1870 midterm elections were all over the calendar, and the R party only came into being in 1854, so beginning with 1870:

1870 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats but win 1872 POTUS. Theory holds.
1874 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1876, but Ds win popular vote. Asterisk.
1878 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1880 POTUS (by < 10,000 votes). Theory holds.
1882 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1884. Theory fails.
1886 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1888 but win popular vote. Asterisk.
1890 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1892. Theory fails. (third party (Weaver), no effect)
1894 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1896. Theory holds.
1898 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1900. Theory holds.
1902 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1904. Theory holds.
1906 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1908. Theory holds.
1910 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1912. Theory fails. (third party (TR), no effect)
1914 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1916. Theory holds.
1918 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1920. Theory fails.
1922 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1924. Theory holds. (Third party (LaFollette), no effect)
1926 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1928. Theory holds.
1930 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1932. Theory fails.
1934 - (D POTUS): Ds WIN seats, win 1936. Theory fails.
1938 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1940. Theory holds.
1942 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1944. Theory holds.
1946 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1948. Theory holds (Significant Third party (Thurmond) cost Ds)
1950 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1952. Theory fails.
1954 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1956. Theory holds.
1958 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1960 (by 120,000 votes). Theory fails. (Significant Third party (Byrd) cost Ds)
1962 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1964. Theory holds.
1966 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1968 -- fails, but significant Third party (Wallace) cost Ds in close results: asterisk.
1970 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1972. Theory holds.
1974 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1976. Theory fails.
1978 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1980. Theory fails. (Third party (Anderson) had no effect)
1982 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1984. Theory holds.
1986 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1988. Theory holds.
1990 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1992. Theory fails. (3rd party (Perot), no effect)
1994 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1996. Theory holds. (Significant 3rd party (Perot), no effect)
1998 - (D POTUS): Ds WIN seats, lose 2000 (?) but Ds win popular vote. Asterisk ........ (3rd party (Nader) no effect)
2002 - (R POTUS): Rs WIN seats, win 2004. Theory fails.
2006 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 2008. Theory fails.
2010 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 2012. Theory holds.

I make it 19 times "theory holds", 13 times "theory fails", plus four "asterisks". Even if you give all four asterisks to the "hold" column you've got 23-13. Go the other way, 19-17. I don't think you have a "very rarely" pattern there, or a pattern at all.

Well, I was speaking of the strict two-party system. Your list is much more complete. Nicely done.

Nicely done, but essentially irrelevant.

I suppose time will tell...

 

[candycorn]

I haven't changed anything at all, and I wasn't even talking to you. I was talking to CandyCorn. And who said anything about a pattern. Are you mixing me up with someone else ? In any case, I don't care what has happened in the past, or how many times it did.

There is a very useful quote about those failing to learn from history.

What matters now is that Democrats are going insane and looking like complete idiots on military matters and foreign policy, neither of which has ever been their forte, and Americans see it clearly. We're in a World War III against the international jihad, at a time when nuclear weapon destruction of America isn't such a remote possibility.

In terms of the world spending on defense, the US spends about $0.50 of every dollar spent worldwide. This for a military that rarely gets used and for good reason.

We are not in World War III....far from it.

Democrats need to to get the hell out of the way right now, and stop weakening us with immigration, divisive racial scams, and being incredibly stupid regarding our enemies (ex Gitmo releases, Gitmo shutdown, military cutbacks, awful Iran negotiating, etc)

I doubt they are going to take your advice....

But just for shits and giggles, what should we be doing that would change the situation on the ground in this World War III. Please be specific and tell us what you'd do....

 

[rightwinger]

What was done in November does not correlate to a Presidential election and winning electoral votes

No ? Why not ?

Because Republicans took back seats in Red States in the Senate and won seats filibustered to favor Republicans in the House

In the General Election, the entire state will vote and whoever wins gets all electoral votes

Red States will still be red and blue states will still be blue, but there are more electoral votes in the blue states

EARTH TO RW: The "Blue" states are already purple. (red violet)

They haven't been in the last six election cycles

It is the purple states that have been showing themselves blue

Not in the last election.

Which blue state Senate seats did Republicans take?

 

[Boss]

2. That you call me "bigoted" shows you have no idea what that word means, or any conception of why the people of California supported the Briggs Initiative to keep queers out of schools.

Your use of the word "queer" is clear indication of your bigotry.

The people of California DID NOT support the initiative, it FAILED to pass.. 59% to 41%, if I am not mistaken.

I am proud that Reagan was opposed to it. I would have also been opposed, as would anyone who believes in individual freedom.

 

[Boss]

And it is shaping up exactly that way despite this announcement by Senator Cruz.

LMFAO... So far, there has only been ONE person to announce they are running, and that's the ONE person you failed to even mention.... YET, it's all shaping up exactly how you predicted?

Do these idiots have a high opinion of themselves or what?

 

[Pogo]

So that confirms my point even more. That very rarely has there been a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss. And where I got the number 6 was from CandyCorn's post, which you seem to be lost on this.

You're changing your basis; it's not what you said before. But it's an interesting metric as well, so let's work it out.

Before 1870 midterm elections were all over the calendar, and the R party only came into being in 1854, so beginning with 1870:

1870 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats but win 1872 POTUS. Theory holds.
1874 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1876, but Ds win popular vote. Asterisk.
1878 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1880 POTUS (by < 10,000 votes). Theory holds.
1882 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1884. Theory fails.
1886 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1888 but win popular vote. Asterisk.
1890 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1892. Theory fails. (third party (Weaver), no effect)
1894 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1896. Theory holds.
1898 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1900. Theory holds.
1902 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1904. Theory holds.
1906 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1908. Theory holds.
1910 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1912. Theory fails. (third party (TR), no effect)
1914 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1916. Theory holds.
1918 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1920. Theory fails.
1922 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1924. Theory holds. (Third party (LaFollette), no effect)
1926 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1928. Theory holds.
1930 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1932. Theory fails.
1934 - (D POTUS): Ds WIN seats, win 1936. Theory fails.
1938 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1940. Theory holds.
1942 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1944. Theory holds.
1946 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1948. Theory holds (Significant Third party (Thurmond) cost Ds)
1950 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1952. Theory fails.
1954 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1956. Theory holds.
1958 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1960 (by 120,000 votes). Theory fails. (Significant Third party (Byrd) cost Ds)
1962 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1964. Theory holds.
1966 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1968 -- fails, but significant Third party (Wallace) cost Ds in close results: asterisk.
1970 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1972. Theory holds.
1974 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1976. Theory fails.
1978 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, lose 1980. Theory fails. (Third party (Anderson) had no effect)
1982 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1984. Theory holds.
1986 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, win 1988. Theory holds.
1990 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 1992. Theory fails. (3rd party (Perot), no effect)
1994 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 1996. Theory holds. (Significant 3rd party (Perot), no effect)
1998 - (D POTUS): Ds WIN seats, lose 2000 (?) but Ds win popular vote. Asterisk ........ (3rd party (Nader) no effect)
2002 - (R POTUS): Rs WIN seats, win 2004. Theory fails.
2006 - (R POTUS): Rs lose seats, lose 2008. Theory fails.
2010 - (D POTUS): Ds lose seats, win 2012. Theory holds.

I make it 19 times "theory holds", 13 times "theory fails", plus four "asterisks". Even if you give all four asterisks to the "hold" column you've got 23-13. Go the other way, 19-17. I don't think you have a "very rarely" pattern there, or a pattern at all.

I haven't changed anything at all, and I wasn't even talking to you. I was talking to CandyCorn. And who said anything about a pattern. Are you mixing me up with someone else ? In any case, I don't care what has happened in the past, or how many times it did. What matters now is that Democrats are going insane and looking like complete idiots on military matters and foreign policy, neither of which has ever been their forte, and Americans see it clearly. We're in a World War III against the international jihad, at a time when nuclear weapon destruction of America isn't such a remote possibility. Democrats need to to get the hell out of the way right now, and stop weakening us with immigration, divisive racial scams, and being incredibly stupid regarding our enemies (ex Gitmo releases, Gitmo shutdown, military cutbacks, awful Iran negotiating, etc)

So you see your theory doesn't work and your reaction is to deny you ever put it out there?
In spite of its sitting right above?

So that confirms my point even more. That very rarely has there been a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss.

What's that ^^ then?

Proved wrong, that's what.

 

[Pogo]

That makes a degree of sense. But diga me this -- if Romney's no Conservative, and Conservative is what you want -- then why do you say he would have made a much better POTUS?

Well because I believe, while not conservatively ideal, Romney would have maintained some semblance of representative republican democracy as opposed to totalitarian socialist tyranny. SCOTUS justices would have been different, economic policies would have been different, and there would have been a competent administration in charge.

Do you believe "totalitarian socialist tyranny" -- whatever we may mean by that -- was invented by O'bama in 2009 then?
Because that's going to lead to a lot of questions...

And btw what SCOTUS justices have changed in the last two years?

And by the other way, economic policies -- what about them gas prices?

 

[Boss]

That makes a degree of sense. But diga me this -- if Romney's no Conservative, and Conservative is what you want -- then why do you say he would have made a much better POTUS?

Well because I believe, while not conservatively ideal, Romney would have maintained some semblance of representative republican democracy as opposed to totalitarian socialist tyranny. SCOTUS justices would have been different, economic policies would have been different, and there would have been a competent administration in charge.

Do you believe "totalitarian socialist tyranny" -- whatever we may mean by that -- was invented by O'bama in 2009 then?
Because that's going to lead to a lot of questions...

And btw what SCOTUS justices have changed in the last two years?

And by the other way, economic policies -- what about them gas prices?

I believe when a president declares he intends to ignore Congress and use his pen and phone to implement his own agenda, he has crossed the boundaries of our governmental structure and into totalitarian dictatorship. This is where Obama is comfortable, this is who he can talk to and relate to, it's who his parents and mentors were... totalitarian socialists. Liberal democrats are fine with tyranny, as long as their tyrants are in charge.

Obama has nominated Sotomayor and Kagan, both far-left ideologues. I seriously doubt Romney or McCain would have ever nominated people like that. All over America, there are district federal judges being appointed by Obama every day... do you believe they are the same types of people as Romney or McCain would have picked?

What about them gas prices? Haven't we spent the better part of the last 7 years defending Obama for the high prices of gas? Explaining how presidents don't control the price of gas? Wow... so suddenly all that goes out the window and Obama is great cuz he gives us cheaper gas?

Let's be clear, people.... Conservatism is not for stupid people. You first have to possess some degree of intelligence as a person. Abject morons just can't be Conservatives because they can't think rationally or objectively.

 

[candycorn]

And it is shaping up exactly that way despite this announcement by Senator Cruz.

LMFAO... So far, there has only been ONE person to announce they are running, and that's the ONE person you failed to even mention.... YET, it's all shaping up exactly how you predicted?

Do these idiots have a high opinion of themselves or what?

Well, those of us with elevated intelligence and political experience are able to see the moves before they are made. Cruz isn't mentioned because he isn't relevant to the endgame. He is good for the Democrats so the longer he pretends to be in it...the better.

 

[candycorn]

That makes a degree of sense. But diga me this -- if Romney's no Conservative, and Conservative is what you want -- then why do you say he would have made a much better POTUS?

Well because I believe, while not conservatively ideal, Romney would have maintained some semblance of representative republican democracy as opposed to totalitarian socialist tyranny. SCOTUS justices would have been different, economic policies would have been different, and there would have been a competent administration in charge.

Do you believe "totalitarian socialist tyranny" -- whatever we may mean by that -- was invented by O'bama in 2009 then?
Because that's going to lead to a lot of questions...

And btw what SCOTUS justices have changed in the last two years?

And by the other way, economic policies -- what about them gas prices?

I believe when a president declares he intends to ignore Congress and use his pen and phone to implement his own agenda, he has crossed the boundaries of our governmental structure and into totalitarian dictatorship. This is where Obama is comfortable, this is who he can talk to and relate to, it's who his parents and mentors were... totalitarian socialists. Liberal democrats are fine with tyranny, as long as their tyrants are in charge.

Obama has nominated Sotomayor and Kagan, both far-left ideologues. I seriously doubt Romney or McCain would have ever nominated people like that. All over America, there are district federal judges being appointed by Obama every day... do you believe they are the same types of people as Romney or McCain would have picked?

What about them gas prices? Haven't we spent the better part of the last 7 years defending Obama for the high prices of gas? Explaining how presidents don't control the price of gas? Wow... so suddenly all that goes out the window and Obama is great cuz he gives us cheaper gas?

Let's be clear, people.... Conservatism is not for stupid people. You first have to possess some degree of intelligence as a person. Abject morons just can't be Conservatives because they can't think rationally or objectively.

Conservatism....

You have to believe in angels and that the earth is 2,015 years old. Or do you believe neither?

 

[Boss]

And it is shaping up exactly that way despite this announcement by Senator Cruz.

LMFAO... So far, there has only been ONE person to announce they are running, and that's the ONE person you failed to even mention.... YET, it's all shaping up exactly how you predicted?

Do these idiots have a high opinion of themselves or what?

Well, those of us with elevated intelligence and political experience are able to see the moves before they are made. Cruz isn't mentioned because he isn't relevant to the endgame. He is good for the Democrats so the longer he pretends to be in it...the better.

Hilarious spin!

You made a prediction in 2013 about who would seek the GOP nomination in 2016.
Your prediction did not include the only person who has declared candidacy so far.
Yet.... things are shaping us just as you predicted!

Why? Because you are so smart you can see into the future and by god you are fucking brilliant! LMFAOOOOooooooo!

 

[candycorn]

And it is shaping up exactly that way despite this announcement by Senator Cruz.

LMFAO... So far, there has only been ONE person to announce they are running, and that's the ONE person you failed to even mention.... YET, it's all shaping up exactly how you predicted?

Do these idiots have a high opinion of themselves or what?

Well, those of us with elevated intelligence and political experience are able to see the moves before they are made. Cruz isn't mentioned because he isn't relevant to the endgame. He is good for the Democrats so the longer he pretends to be in it...the better.

Hilarious spin!

You made a prediction in 2013 about who would seek the GOP nomination in 2016.
Your prediction did not include the only person who has declared candidacy so far.
Yet.... things are shaping us just as you predicted!

Why? Because you are so smart you can see into the future and by god you are fucking brilliant! LMFAOOOOooooooo!

For you I guess it's a case of live and learn....

Or, if history is any indication...live and learn nothing.
Can Sarah Palin Win ...You betchya US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Don't worry, you can always change your username to avoid the upcoming embarrassment (again, perhaps)?

 

[protectionist]

So that confirms my point even more. That very rarely has there been a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss. And where I got the number 6 was from CandyCorn's post, which you seem to be lost on this.

That part is true....very rarely does a single party hold the Oval for more than 12 years.
It really looks good for Hillary though.

When the Presidency is being judged by 3-5% difference....statistics matter:

This is why it is so crucial to have Ted Cruz and Rand Paul in the race. He/They is/are good for about 1/2 million votes for the other side.

Give liberally to TedCruz.org!!!

Spin it however you like. With sprinkles on top. Add some strawberries. Or, in your case, blueberries.

Spin? Sorry, I was giving statistics--facts if you will. Obama is much more popular than Bush at this point in their 2nd terms....as part of his administration, the "baggage" that would have been there for HRC is lessened as a result; the same way it was quite heavy for Senator McCain.

When you talk about the future, and claim to know what's going to happen, that's called SPIN. Get it ?

No...that is called a prediction. Feel free to look it up using a dictionary if you would like.

As for my track record, it's pretty good. I missed the 2012 election by one state (Colorado)
Electoral Vote Predictions Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

In late 2013, I said this:
"The Republicans SHOULD do very well in 2014..."

But more importantly, here is what I said in 8/13....3 years before the 2016 election when asked to handicap the field:

Santorum; Won 11 states in both the north and the south. He has a good organization in Iowa and New Hampshire...

Chris Christie; Probably the best candidate but has huge problems with the calendar. He won't win in Iowa, New Hampshire will be too close to make any victory of his count for much. South Carolina comes next and he may as well not even campaign down there. Then comes Florida where he is likely to run into Rubio, Jeb Bush or both. He won't win vs a "favorite son" vote. So he lost (at least) 3 of the first 4 contests, will have no momentum, little money, and, more importantly, no media attention.

Jeb Bush;

Watch for Bush...
Good in All Time Zones-Check
Heavyweight Credentials-Check
Money-Check
Name Recognition-Check
Wants the job....wants the job....wants the job???? Dunno.

Scott Walker;
Dark Horse but will likely be angling for a VP nomination. Swing state will help the top of the ticket. He will likely get into it and he just may become a consensus candidate.

And it is shaping up exactly that way despite this announcement by Senator Cruz.

I expect 2016 to come down to Hillary vs whomever you guys limp back to the barn with and Hillary to win.

In your case, your "prediction" is SPIN. And you ought to be ashamed of yourself for promoting a worthless, piece of trash like Hillary Clinton, for anything other than a federal prison cell where she belongs for violating federal concealment law, in addition to other laws which will probably all come out in the wash when when her Muslim Briotherhood aide, Huma Abedin starts getting interrogated, along with other aides. She ought to be in the trash bin of American history, just for even associating with a Muslim Brotherhod operative, let alone having one as her deputy Chief of Staff in the State dept.

I don't expect a liberal to even know about Abedin's background since liberals confine themselves to liberal media which is strictly censored from reporting information regarding Islamization, and you all don't know how much you don't know. What else is new ?