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

[protectionist]

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....

Of course we're in World War III, and it is a much more dangerous to us war than World War I or world War II ever was, due to the threat of nuclear annihilation, which did not face in those previous wars..

What I would do is deny every country that doesn't not have nuclear weapons the ability to have them. This means going to full scale war against ISIS, who is currently a top threat to acquire nuclear weapons, and EXTERMINATE them 100%. There would be no need for Gitmo, because I would order every ISIS fighter to be killed. As my ex-Battalion commander recently said (when asked if he would take ISIS or al Qaeda prisoners to criminal court) he said > "In the Army, we have a very specific way that we deal with out enemies. WE KILL THEM.

EXTERMINATE ISIS NOW US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

US Needs to Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS NOW. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Secondly, I would go into to Pakistan and seize the 100+ nuclear warheads they have, and remove them, and bring them back to the US to be secured in a safe place, far from the hands of nutjob, Pakistani jihadists.

The Pentagon s Secret Plans to Secure Pakistan s Nuclear Arsenal - NationalJournal.com

George Clooney on Obama and Pakistan - POLITICO.com

 

[protectionist]

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?

Who am I ? Your tutor ? Look it up.

 

[protectionist]

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.

YOur opposition to the word "queer" is clear indication that you are oblivious to this subject matter. As in your past posts, once again, you show that you don't know what you're talking about. The word "queer" has been accepted by homosexuals for decades. One of the top homosexual rights groups even has the word in the name of their organization > QUEER Nation. Queer Nation - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

TV shows about homosexuals have also used the word queer. Examples are:

1. Queer as Folk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_Nationen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_as_Folk_(2000_TV_series)'' and >>

2. Queer Eye AKA Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (Queer Eye - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

See ? I told you, you weren't ready for this forum. Better get back to that guitar. Lots more blues to learn, Do you know Crossoads by the Cream ? (Eric Clapton) or anything by Mississippi John Hurt ?

As for individual freedom, smart people know that Americans should not have the "freedom" to impose harm on other Americans. Lots of freedoms are restricted. Freedom to kill, rape, arson, burgarize, etc

 

[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.

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.

It wasn't MY theory. You're just not discerning enough to note that I was simply responding to (and using CandyCorn's figures of only 6 times since 1920 (a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss)

So if you proved a wrong, it was CandyCorn's. she the one who come up with the numbers, not me. I was just responding to that. So if there is any "Proved wrong" going on here, it is you, in your Post # 553. Try to be more accurate.

 

[candycorn]

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.

You do not seem to know what spin means. Spin is when something happens and you try cast a certain light on it. You're really not very bright.

. 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 ?

Ms Clinton served her nation with distinction as FLOTUS, as Senator from New York, and as Secretary of State. She'll make a good President.

As for Huma, I am constantly tickled by you guys who think all who have funny sounding names are Muslims and all belong to this secret organization.

 

[Antares]

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.

Elevated intelligence, that's a good one, no really it is.

 

[protectionist]

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.

You do not seem to know what spin means. Spin is when something happens and you try cast a certain light on it. You're really not very bright.

. 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 ?

Ms Clinton served her nation with distinction as FLOTUS, as Senator from New York, and as Secretary of State. She'll make a good President.

As for Huma, I am constantly tickled by you guys who think all who have funny sounding names are Muslims and all belong to this secret organization.

You are amazingly ignorant, and you have no idea how ignorant your are. (which is common among liberals whose liberal media routinely shields you from tons of information) Here's a rundown on Huma and her longtime Muslim Brotherhood involvement (bad guys bolded in red) >> No charge for the tutoring

A letter was sent to the State Department accusing Abedin's late father, mother and brother of being connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, is far from being "unsubstantiated", as some Islamapologist (if not Islamist) critics whined. Not only is it a solid fact that they are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, it's also a fact that Huma Abedin herself, is also connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.

She was an executive board member of George Washington University's (GWU) Muslim Students Association(MSA-the founding Muslim Brotherhood front group in America), heading the organization's “Social Committee.” A couple of the names that passed through that GWU-MSA were Anwar al-Awlaki, the al Qaeda advisor who mentored Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 US troops in Fort Hood, TX, and who himself was assassinated by US drones. Another was Mohamed Omeish, who headed the International Islamic Relief Organization, which has been tied to the funding of al Qaeda.

From 1996-2008, Abedin was employed by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) as the assistant editor of its in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). It is vital to note that IMMA's "Muslim Minority Affairs" agenda was, and remains to this day, a calculated foreign policy of the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs, designed, as journalist Andrew C. McCarthy (also the prosecutor of the1993 World Trade Center bombers/jihadists) explains, "to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West." The first seven of those years overlapped with the al Qaeda-affiliated Abdullah Omar Naseef's active presence at IMMA. Abedin's last six years at the Institute (2002-2008) were spent as a JMMA editorial board member; for one of those years, 2003, Naseef and Abedin served together on that board. When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State in 2009, Abedin became her deputy chief of staff. At approximately that same point in time, Abedin's name was removed from the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs' masthead.

Her family members' connections to the Muslim Brotherhood are just as factual. Her brother and sister still remain as editors of the JMMA. Her mother, Dr. Saleha Abedin , is an influential member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s division for women, the Muslim Sisterhood. She is also a zealous advocate of sharia law’s oppression of women, and a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief. The IICDR has been long banned in Israel for supporting Hamas. It is also part of the Union for Good, which is a formally designated international terrorist organization under federal law. The Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the chief sharia jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood. He is the world’s most influential Islamic cleric, and has issued fatwas endorsing suicide bombings against Israel and terrorist attacks against American forces in Iraq.

And with Huma by her side, Hillary's record as S of S has been as damaging to America, and atrocious as any S of S in American history. Since Abedin has held her deputy Chief of Staff position, an awful lot of pro-Muslim Brotherhood things have been happening at the State Dept. A Fulbright scholarship was awarded to Siham al-Qaradawi, the daughter of Sheikh Qaradawi, an Islamist scholar, and spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who's banned from the USA, UK, and France. While the sheikh’s daughter is said to be an exceptional chemist, the world is full of exceptional chemists. How is it that Qaradawi’s daughter gets the State Department prize?
And since Secretary Clinton’s tenure began, with Huma Abedin serving as a top adviser, the United States has aligned itself with the Muslim Brotherhood in myriad ways. To name just a few (the list is by no means exhaustive):
Our government

1- reversed the policy against formal contacts with the Brotherhood;

2- funded Hamas;

3- continued funding Egypt even after the Brotherhood won the elections;

4- dropped an investigation of Brotherhood organizations in the U.S. that were previously identified as co-conspirators in the case of the Holy Land Foundation financing Hamas;

5- hosted Brotherhood delegations in the United States;

6- issued a visa to a member of the Islamic Group (a designated terrorist organization) and hosted him in Washington because he is part of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary coalition in Egypt;

7- announced that Israel should go back to its indefensible 1967 borders;

8- excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from a counterterrorism forum in which the State Department sought to “partner” with Islamist governments that do not regard attacks on Israel as terrorism;

9- and pressured Egypt’s pro-American military government to surrender power to the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood parliament and president just elected by Egypt’s predominantly anti-American population.

Makes us wonder >>> Hypothetically, if Huma Abedin did have a bias in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, and if she were actually acting on that bias to try to tilt American policy in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, what exactly would the State Department be doing differently?

And Hillary's got distinction all right. What S of S has ever gotten him/herself in this much trouble by snubbing her nose up at the American people, maintaining a private email account with a mysterious server at her home, and then deleting emails AFTER having them be requested by a govt dept. And what S of S has ever cancelled away our right to know what's going on, other than this treacherous, selfish, arrogant piece of crap ?

 

[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.

It wasn't MY theory. You're just not discerning enough to note that I was simply responding to (and using CandyCorn's figures of only 6 times since 1920 (a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss)

So if you proved a wrong, it was CandyCorn's. she the one who come up with the numbers, not me. I was just responding to that. So if there is any "Proved wrong" going on here, it is you, in your Post # 553. Try to be more accurate.

If I post the phrase "my point" -- whose point am I talking about? Mine.
If YOU post the phrase "my point" -- whose point are you talking about? Candycorn's?

Well thanks for clearing that up.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Keep on spinning, if it somehow makes you feel better.

 

[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.

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.

It wasn't MY theory. You're just not discerning enough to note that I was simply responding to (and using CandyCorn's figures of only 6 times since 1920 (a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss)

So if you proved a wrong, it was CandyCorn's. she the one who come up with the numbers, not me. I was just responding to that. So if there is any "Proved wrong" going on here, it is you, in your Post # 553. Try to be more accurate.

If I post the phrase "my point" -- whose point am I talking about? Mine.
If YOU post the phrase "my point" -- whose point are you talking about? Candycorn's?

Well thanks for clearing that up.

Dude, I really don't care about whatever you're talking about. Now go read Post # 567, and learn about many of the things your liberal media has been hiding from you, over the past 20 years.

 

[Boss]

Ms Clinton served her nation with distinction as FLOTUS, as Senator from New York, and as Secretary of State. She'll make a good President.

She currently has a 26% favorability rating. When only 2.6 people out of 10 view you favorably, you aren't likely to win anything.

 

[Antares]

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.

You do not seem to know what spin means. Spin is when something happens and you try cast a certain light on it. You're really not very bright.

. 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 ?

Ms Clinton served her nation with distinction as FLOTUS, as Senator from New York, and as Secretary of State. She'll make a good President.

As for Huma, I am constantly tickled by you guys who think all who have funny sounding names are Muslims and all belong to this secret organization.

Well except she IS Muslim and her family has deep MB ties.

So much for your elevated intelligence.

 

[Pogo]

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.

It wasn't MY theory. You're just not discerning enough to note that I was simply responding to (and using CandyCorn's figures of only 6 times since 1920 (a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss)

So if you proved a wrong, it was CandyCorn's. she the one who come up with the numbers, not me. I was just responding to that. So if there is any "Proved wrong" going on here, it is you, in your Post # 553. Try to be more accurate.

If I post the phrase "my point" -- whose point am I talking about? Mine.
If YOU post the phrase "my point" -- whose point are you talking about? Candycorn's?

Well thanks for clearing that up.

Dude, I really don't care about whatever you're talking about. Now go read Post # 567, and learn about many of the things your liberal media has been hiding from you, over the past 20 years.

Sorry, number one I don't have a "liberal media"; I have a commercial media. And number two, no I'm not about to plough through all that drivel on shit I'm not interested in.

But if you have more theories based on vague impressions I might be available to take 'em for a spin.

 

[protectionist]

Ms Clinton served her nation with distinction as FLOTUS, as Senator from New York, and as Secretary of State. She'll make a good President.

She currently has a 26% favorability rating. When only 2.6 people out of 10 view you favorably, you aren't likely to win anything.

HA HA HA. A 26% favorability rating. Whew. That's terrible. 74% of the American wouldn't give her a favorable rating. And that's before all the truth comes out about her many email coveruppings, as her aides start getting put under the hot light.

 

[protectionist]

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.

You do not seem to know what spin means. Spin is when something happens and you try cast a certain light on it. You're really not very bright.

. 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 ?

Ms Clinton served her nation with distinction as FLOTUS, as Senator from New York, and as Secretary of State. She'll make a good President.

As for Huma, I am constantly tickled by you guys who think all who have funny sounding names are Muslims and all belong to this secret organization.

Well except she IS Muslim and her family has deep MB ties.

So much for your elevated intelligence.

She has no knowledge about Huma or anything about Islamization. Her liberal media stations don't report it. Hopefully, she read my Post # 567 and learned something.

 

[protectionist]

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.

It wasn't MY theory. You're just not discerning enough to note that I was simply responding to (and using CandyCorn's figures of only 6 times since 1920 (a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss)

So if you proved a wrong, it was CandyCorn's. she the one who come up with the numbers, not me. I was just responding to that. So if there is any "Proved wrong" going on here, it is you, in your Post # 553. Try to be more accurate.

If I post the phrase "my point" -- whose point am I talking about? Mine.
If YOU post the phrase "my point" -- whose point are you talking about? Candycorn's?

Well thanks for clearing that up.

Dude, I really don't care about whatever you're talking about. Now go read Post # 567, and learn about many of the things your liberal media has been hiding from you, over the past 20 years.

Sorry, number one I don't have a "liberal media"; I have a commercial media. And number two, no I'm not about to plough through all that drivel on shit I'm not interested in.

But if you have more theories based on vague impressions I might be available to take 'em for a spin.

I didn't have any 'theory". CandyCorn mentioned numbers, and I commented on them. How many times do you have to be told that ? Enough already. This forum is for debate of really important problems, not quibbling over nothing. Read post # 567 and lets talk about THAT.

 

[Pogo]

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?

What's that ^^ then?

Proved wrong, that's what.

It wasn't MY theory. You're just not discerning enough to note that I was simply responding to (and using CandyCorn's figures of only 6 times since 1920 (a party's big win in a midterm election followed by a loss)

So if you proved a wrong, it was CandyCorn's. she the one who come up with the numbers, not me. I was just responding to that. So if there is any "Proved wrong" going on here, it is you, in your Post # 553. Try to be more accurate.

If I post the phrase "my point" -- whose point am I talking about? Mine.
If YOU post the phrase "my point" -- whose point are you talking about? Candycorn's?

Well thanks for clearing that up.

Dude, I really don't care about whatever you're talking about. Now go read Post # 567, and learn about many of the things your liberal media has been hiding from you, over the past 20 years.

Sorry, number one I don't have a "liberal media"; I have a commercial media. And number two, no I'm not about to plough through all that drivel on shit I'm not interested in.

But if you have more theories based on vague impressions I might be available to take 'em for a spin.

I didn't have any 'theory". CandyCorn mentioned numbers, and I commented on them. How many times do you have to be told that ? Enough already. This forum is for debate of really important problems, not quibbling over nothing. Read post # 567 and lets talk about THAT.

I'm not interested in post 567.

I was interested in your theory (and it was YOUR theory, that's what the first-person possessive pronoun MEANS), and so I researched and tested it, in the thread in real time. And it turns out your theory didn't hold up. And when I say "theory" I'm being charitable; you presented it as a "point", i.e. a given. Turns out it isn't a given. Not even a pattern.

But that's done. Get OVER it already.

 

[candycorn]

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.

You do not seem to know what spin means. Spin is when something happens and you try cast a certain light on it. You're really not very bright.

. 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 ?

Ms Clinton served her nation with distinction as FLOTUS, as Senator from New York, and as Secretary of State. She'll make a good President.

As for Huma, I am constantly tickled by you guys who think all who have funny sounding names are Muslims and all belong to this secret organization.

You are amazingly ignorant, and you have no idea how ignorant your are. (which is common among liberals whose liberal media routinely shields you from tons of information) Here's a rundown on Huma and her longtime Muslim Brotherhood involvement (bad guys bolded in red) >> No charge for the tutoring

A letter was sent to the State Department accusing Abedin's late father, mother and brother of being connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, is far from being "unsubstantiated", as some Islamapologist (if not Islamist) critics whined. Not only is it a solid fact that they are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, it's also a fact that Huma Abedin herself, is also connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.

She was an executive board member of George Washington University's (GWU) Muslim Students Association(MSA-the founding Muslim Brotherhood front group in America), heading the organization's “Social Committee.” A couple of the names that passed through that GWU-MSA were Anwar al-Awlaki, the al Qaeda advisor who mentored Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 US troops in Fort Hood, TX, and who himself was assassinated by US drones. Another was Mohamed Omeish, who headed the International Islamic Relief Organization, which has been tied to the funding of al Qaeda.

From 1996-2008, Abedin was employed by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) as the assistant editor of its in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). It is vital to note that IMMA's "Muslim Minority Affairs" agenda was, and remains to this day, a calculated foreign policy of the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs, designed, as journalist Andrew C. McCarthy (also the prosecutor of the1993 World Trade Center bombers/jihadists) explains, "to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West." The first seven of those years overlapped with the al Qaeda-affiliated Abdullah Omar Naseef's active presence at IMMA. Abedin's last six years at the Institute (2002-2008) were spent as a JMMA editorial board member; for one of those years, 2003, Naseef and Abedin served together on that board. When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State in 2009, Abedin became her deputy chief of staff. At approximately that same point in time, Abedin's name was removed from the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs' masthead.

Her family members' connections to the Muslim Brotherhood are just as factual. Her brother and sister still remain as editors of the JMMA. Her mother, Dr. Saleha Abedin , is an influential member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s division for women, the Muslim Sisterhood. She is also a zealous advocate of sharia law’s oppression of women, and a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief. The IICDR has been long banned in Israel for supporting Hamas. It is also part of the Union for Good, which is a formally designated international terrorist organization under federal law. The Union for Good is led by Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the chief sharia jurist of the Muslim Brotherhood. He is the world’s most influential Islamic cleric, and has issued fatwas endorsing suicide bombings against Israel and terrorist attacks against American forces in Iraq.

And with Huma by her side, Hillary's record as S of S has been as damaging to America, and atrocious as any S of S in American history. Since Abedin has held her deputy Chief of Staff position, an awful lot of pro-Muslim Brotherhood things have been happening at the State Dept. A Fulbright scholarship was awarded to Siham al-Qaradawi, the daughter of Sheikh Qaradawi, an Islamist scholar, and spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who's banned from the USA, UK, and France. While the sheikh’s daughter is said to be an exceptional chemist, the world is full of exceptional chemists. How is it that Qaradawi’s daughter gets the State Department prize?
And since Secretary Clinton’s tenure began, with Huma Abedin serving as a top adviser, the United States has aligned itself with the Muslim Brotherhood in myriad ways. To name just a few (the list is by no means exhaustive):
Our government

1- reversed the policy against formal contacts with the Brotherhood;

2- funded Hamas;

3- continued funding Egypt even after the Brotherhood won the elections;

4- dropped an investigation of Brotherhood organizations in the U.S. that were previously identified as co-conspirators in the case of the Holy Land Foundation financing Hamas;

5- hosted Brotherhood delegations in the United States;

6- issued a visa to a member of the Islamic Group (a designated terrorist organization) and hosted him in Washington because he is part of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary coalition in Egypt;

7- announced that Israel should go back to its indefensible 1967 borders;

8- excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from a counterterrorism forum in which the State Department sought to “partner” with Islamist governments that do not regard attacks on Israel as terrorism;

9- and pressured Egypt’s pro-American military government to surrender power to the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood parliament and president just elected by Egypt’s predominantly anti-American population.

Makes us wonder >>> Hypothetically, if Huma Abedin did have a bias in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, and if she were actually acting on that bias to try to tilt American policy in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, what exactly would the State Department be doing differently?

And Hillary's got distinction all right. What S of S has ever gotten him/herself in this much trouble by snubbing her nose up at the American people, maintaining a private email account with a mysterious server at her home, and then deleting emails AFTER having them be requested by a govt dept. And what S of S has ever cancelled away our right to know what's going on, other than this treacherous, selfish, arrogant piece of crap ?

Nobody cares.

Gee, she should have zero chance at being President if any of that were true....too bad she is out polling your guys so badly....
Maybe you should hold more hearings into Ben-Gotcha and demand her birth certificate...that worked so well in the past.

PS: It's not a crime to be Muslim in this nation although the voices of intolerance and hatred (of which yours is a refrain) would wish otherwise.

 

[candycorn]

Ms Clinton served her nation with distinction as FLOTUS, as Senator from New York, and as Secretary of State. She'll make a good President.

She currently has a 26% favorability rating. When only 2.6 people out of 10 view you favorably, you aren't likely to win anything.

Source?

 

[Boss]

Ms Clinton served her nation with distinction as FLOTUS, as Senator from New York, and as Secretary of State. She'll make a good President.

She currently has a 26% favorability rating. When only 2.6 people out of 10 view you favorably, you aren't likely to win anything.

Source?

LOL... You're BELOVED CBS!

CBS Poll Hillary Clinton s Favorability Plummets to 26 after Email Scandal Washington Free Beacon