The GOP has a stable of potential winners, the Dems have one old mare

[Obiwan]

diversity in the gop? that's like looking for a particular marsh mellow in a marsh mellow factory!

Let's look at that.

Rubio - Hispanic
Cruz - Hispanic
Carson - Black
Jindal - Indian
Fiorina - Female

Sanders - old white guy
O'Malley - old white guy
Hillary - old white guy

Tell us again which party is a bag of stale marshmallows?

GOP are bag of dicks. Just like bush. Want another recession? Vote GOP.

Bill Clinton accepts responsibility for the recession.

Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, opposed regulation of derivatives as they came to the fore in the 1990s, and Clinton agreed. "They argued that nobody's going to buy these derivatives, we'll do it without transparency, they'll get the information they need," he recalled. "And it turned out to be just wrong; it just wasn't true." He said others share blame, including credit-rating agencies that underestimated the risk. But he accepts responsibility as well. "I very much wish now that I had demanded that we put derivatives under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission and that transparency rules had been observed and that we had done that. That I think is a legitimate criticism of what we didn't do." He added: "If you ask me to write the indictment, I'd say: 'I wish Bill Clinton had said more about derivatives. The Republicans probably would have stopped him from doing it, but at least he should have sounded the alarm bell.' "

Clinton concludes by asserting that he never would have let the housing bubble grow as big as it did (Baker: "never mind the high-technology bubble that burst on his watch") and would have stepped in to prevent the market free-fall that ensued. Even with these self-justifying caveats, though, Clinton has gone much, much further than Robert Rubin in accepting responsibility for helping to create the United States' worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Remind me: Which one is the politician?

 

[Billy000]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed bitch HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

Lol none of them are front runners. Most of them are fringe. Hillary still has a commanding lead.

 

[hangover]

How are all those con clowns going to answer to being Hastert supporters? Kinda like taking pics with Huggars.

Birds of a feather.

 

[Flash]

How are all those con clowns going to answer to being Hastert supporters? Kinda like taking pics with Huggars.

Birds of a feather.

Haskert is not running for President and if he did I wouldn't vote for him anyway.

However, none of Hastert's shenanigans excuses any of the corruption of Hillary Clinton.

The "Tommy also did it" defense may have worked on the playground back in the 3rd grade but doesn't hack it in the real world.

The Moon Bats have no excuse with the bitch because everybody knows ahead of time that she is corrupt. Also incompetent. Trying to deflect onto somebody that most people don't give a shit about one way or another is only cowardice on the part of the Moon Bats.

 

[hangover]

How are all those con clowns going to answer to being Hastert supporters? Kinda like taking pics with Huggars.

Birds of a feather.

Haskert is not running for President and if he did I wouldn't vote for him anyway.

However, none of Hastert's shenanigans excuses any of the corruption of Hillary Clinton.

The "Tommy also did it" defense may have worked on the playground back in the 3rd grade but doesn't hack it in the real world.

The Moon Bats have no excuse with the bitch because everybody knows ahead of time that she is corrupt. Also incompetent. Trying to deflect onto somebody that most people don't give a shit about one way or another is only cowardice on the part of the Moon Bats.

The cons have been claiming to be the party of superior morality. The GOP clowns are going to have a tough time trying to debate that now, huh.

 

[Auld Phart]

How are all those con clowns going to answer to being Hastert supporters? Kinda like taking pics with Huggars.

Birds of a feather.

Haskert is not running for President and if he did I wouldn't vote for him anyway.

However, none of Hastert's shenanigans excuses any of the corruption of Hillary Clinton.

The "Tommy also did it" defense may have worked on the playground back in the 3rd grade but doesn't hack it in the real world.

The Moon Bats have no excuse with the bitch because everybody knows ahead of time that she is corrupt. Also incompetent. Trying to deflect onto somebody that most people don't give a shit about one way or another is only cowardice on the part of the Moon Bats.

The cons have been claiming to be the party of superior morality. The GOP clowns are going to have a tough time trying to debate that now, huh.

If Hillary is your nominee, it won't be tough at all.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed bitch HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

:0) Talk about amusing .. there isn't one single republican who can win an national office .. not ONE.

In case you haven't noticed, republicans don't have enough white voters to win the presidency.

How sad. :0)

Data suggests that the Republicans have a substantially better chance than you seem to be estimating. Note for example that if you look at the actual national poll numbers you'll see that one major poll has put Clinton a point behind Jeb in a general election, and others have put her only a hair ahead of Rubio in multiple swing-state polls. But it sounds like from this comment and others you've made that you assign a very high probability to the Democrats winning the Presidency. What chance do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency?

I can see how a 1% chance is better than noNe AT ALL.

Does this mean you estimate around a 1% chance of the Republicans winning?

 

[JoshuaZ]

:0) Talk about amusing .. there isn't one single republican who can win an national office .. not ONE.

In case you haven't noticed, republicans don't have enough white voters to win the presidency.

How sad. :0)

Data suggests that the Republicans have a substantially better chance than you seem to be estimating. Note for example that if you look at the actual national poll numbers you'll see that one major poll has put Clinton a point behind Jeb in a general election, and others have put her only a hair ahead of Rubio in multiple swing-state polls. But it sounds like from this comment and others you've made that you assign a very high probability to the Democrats winning the Presidency. What chance do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency?

I appreciate your sane response .. although I disagree with it. First, it isn't just my estimation of the boxed position that republicans have put themselves in. The ever-shrinking republican base is no secret to anyone who has been paying attention. I'm sure republicans don't want to admit or talk about it, but them not talking about it changes nothing. It is essentially an all-white party in a land of rapidly changing demographics that does not favor the right.

.. and given that approximately 42% of the white vote goes to democrats .. it doesn't take rocket science to see the box that republicans have not only put themselves in .. but continue to dig the hole even deeper.

If you want to talk about the facts .. I'm good with that.

This shows a general trend that's a serious problem for the Republicans. It doesn't show a specific problem in any specific election. (I assign a 55% chance that the Democrats will win this election.) But this does show that the hole is getting worse. If there's not some sort of substantial change in trends it is very hard to see how the Republicans would have any chance at winning 2020 or 2024.

I agree with that brother.

your assumption that all minorities will vote dem is based on ignorance, not reality. The minorities that you so covet are mostly fed up with being lied to by dems and treated like slaves.

But you are free to believe whatever bullshit makes you feel good. The truth is the obama, clinton, reid, and pelosi have destroyed the party of Kennedy and Truman for the next 20 or 30 years.

You libs had your chance and you blew it on the black guy.

Are you asserting that say at least the next four Presidential elections will all no go for the Democrats? I ask because that's 16 years by itself, and already well below 20-30 years?

 

[JoshuaZ]

If Hillary is your nominee, it won't be tough at all.

Conditional on Hillary being the nominee, what chance do you estimate that Hillary will lose the general?

 

[Auld Phart]

If Hillary is your nominee, it won't be tough at all.

Conditional on Hillary being the nominee, what chance do you estimate that Hillary will lose the general?

Too far out to make a call, too many In the GOP field to weed out.

 

[daws101]

The stable of 'potential' winners. :0)

Other than Carly, is there one that HASN'T won?
Senate seat, governors chair, etc?

You make my point. The Republican Party has been reduced to a regional party. Ben Carson hasn't won anywhere either .. but where have the others won .. where have almost all republican president wannabe 'winners' come from? Answer: the same regions .. basically the south .. AND, here is the further rub on that. The south is rapidly changing demographics and many southern states .. strongholds of republicanism .. will soon become minority-majority states .. and minorities don't think like republicans, nor will they ever.

and they are STILL potential winners, and most have won at some time in the past.

at least as much as Hillary has ever won, some definitely more.

Yep, they are all potential winners.

Constituent: I wouldn't vote for you if you were the last person in the world.
Candidate X: So you're saying I have a chance?

a majority of americans do not think HRC is trustworthy. She is candidate X in your silly what-if.

bullshit! why is you cons make grandiose false declarative statements when your idea of a majority is not even close to the real thing.?

 

[daws101]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed bitch HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

:0) Talk about amusing .. there isn't one single republican who can win an national office .. not ONE.

In case you haven't noticed, republicans don't have enough white voters to win the presidency.

How sad. :0)

Data suggests that the Republicans have a substantially better chance than you seem to be estimating. Note for example that if you look at the actual national poll numbers you'll see that one major poll has put Clinton a point behind Jeb in a general election, and others have put her only a hair ahead of Rubio in multiple swing-state polls. But it sounds like from this comment and others you've made that you assign a very high probability to the Democrats winning the Presidency. What chance do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency?

I can see how a 1% chance is better than noNe AT ALL.

Does this mean you estimate around a 1% chance of the Republicans winning?

I was being kind .

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Vote for Hillary, 2016" -- Wilbur

 

[JoshuaZ]

[


Sure. But I hope you won't begrudge me an attempt to improve the signal to noise ratio by helping determine what people actually believe and when they are just cheerleading/BSing.

I presented a case that the Moon Bats are in trouble. If you disagree or don't accept my points then fine. Clinton and the Democrats have a lot of baggage to overcome.

Why should others listen to your claims when you clearly don't believe them yourself?

I believe that Clinton is corrupt and incompetent and she is going to have a hellva of a time convincing a majority of Americans that she can be a good president.

I believe that Obama's dismal economic and foreign policy record is going to be a big burden for anybody running as a Democrat.

I believe that the cost increase due to Obamacare that is coming down the pike is going to piss off a lot of Americans before the election next year.

Could any of us be wrong in our prediction?. Of course. None of us have a crystal ball.

Are my observations valid for the political climate today? Absolutely!

Do the Moon Bats want to believe that they can win? Yea, but it is not based upon anything other than their convoluted idea that Moon Bat policies are good for this country and anybody that doesn't understand that is obviously an idiot.

Of course anyone can be wrong with their predictions. That's why good predictions should have probabilities associated to them. In your particular case, your predictions correspond to a low probability of Hillary winning the election and a Dem winning the election more generally. Apparently though you aren't actually willing to back those up at all, which strongly suggests you don't really believe it.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Does this mean you estimate around a 1% chance of the Republicans winning?

I was being kind .

Ok. So some probability under 1%. Question then, would you be willing to make a bet where if the Democrats win the election you get $5 and if not, you pay $50? That's a 1-10 ratio which is already much better than the 1-100.

 

[JoshuaZ]

If Hillary is your nominee, it won't be tough at all.

Conditional on Hillary being the nominee, what chance do you estimate that Hillary will lose the general?

Too far out to make a call, too many In the GOP field to weed out.

So how can you then conclude that it won't be tough at all if Hillary wins?

I understand that could change specific to the candidate, so maybe instead give an upper bound on the probability. Given the current crop of Republican candidates, what is the lowest probability you'd assign for any candidate beating Hillary?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Other than Carly, is there one that HASN'T won?
Senate seat, governors chair, etc?

You make my point. The Republican Party has been reduced to a regional party. Ben Carson hasn't won anywhere either .. but where have the others won .. where have almost all republican president wannabe 'winners' come from? Answer: the same regions .. basically the south .. AND, here is the further rub on that. The south is rapidly changing demographics and many southern states .. strongholds of republicanism .. will soon become minority-majority states .. and minorities don't think like republicans, nor will they ever.

and they are STILL potential winners, and most have won at some time in the past.

at least as much as Hillary has ever won, some definitely more.

Yep, they are all potential winners.

Constituent: I wouldn't vote for you if you were the last person in the world.
Candidate X: So you're saying I have a chance?

a majority of americans do not think HRC is trustworthy. She is candidate X in your silly what-if.

bullshit! why is you cons make grandiose false declarative statements when your idea of a majority is not even close to the real thing.?

Yet you're too dumb to refute what's been said with evidence of your own. :0)

The Republican Party is a regional party that has no chance at winning the WH in 2016. Virtually non-existent in the Northeast.

Now, are you just going to sit there and whine about it, or do you have evidence that refutes it?.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed bitch HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

:0) Talk about amusing .. there isn't one single republican who can win an national office .. not ONE.

In case you haven't noticed, republicans don't have enough white voters to win the presidency.

How sad. :0)

Data suggests that the Republicans have a substantially better chance than you seem to be estimating. Note for example that if you look at the actual national poll numbers you'll see that one major poll has put Clinton a point behind Jeb in a general election, and others have put her only a hair ahead of Rubio in multiple swing-state polls. But it sounds like from this comment and others you've made that you assign a very high probability to the Democrats winning the Presidency. What chance do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency?

I can see how a 1% chance is better than noNe AT ALL.

Does this mean you estimate around a 1% chance of the Republicans winning?

That sounds about right.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed bitch HRC. But she is all they have, they have no one else. Its hilarious.

:0) Talk about amusing .. there isn't one single republican who can win an national office .. not ONE.

In case you haven't noticed, republicans don't have enough white voters to win the presidency.

How sad. :0)

Data suggests that the Republicans have a substantially better chance than you seem to be estimating. Note for example that if you look at the actual national poll numbers you'll see that one major poll has put Clinton a point behind Jeb in a general election, and others have put her only a hair ahead of Rubio in multiple swing-state polls. But it sounds like from this comment and others you've made that you assign a very high probability to the Democrats winning the Presidency. What chance do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency?

I can see how a 1% chance is better than noNe AT ALL.

Does this mean you estimate around a 1% chance of the Republicans winning?

That sounds about right.

Interesting. Question then: suppose someone offered to make a bet with you where you got paid $10 if the next President is a Democrat and you paid them $35 if the next President is a Republican, would you take it?

 

[Redfish]

Data suggests that the Republicans have a substantially better chance than you seem to be estimating. Note for example that if you look at the actual national poll numbers you'll see that one major poll has put Clinton a point behind Jeb in a general election, and others have put her only a hair ahead of Rubio in multiple swing-state polls. But it sounds like from this comment and others you've made that you assign a very high probability to the Democrats winning the Presidency. What chance do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency?

I appreciate your sane response .. although I disagree with it. First, it isn't just my estimation of the boxed position that republicans have put themselves in. The ever-shrinking republican base is no secret to anyone who has been paying attention. I'm sure republicans don't want to admit or talk about it, but them not talking about it changes nothing. It is essentially an all-white party in a land of rapidly changing demographics that does not favor the right.

.. and given that approximately 42% of the white vote goes to democrats .. it doesn't take rocket science to see the box that republicans have not only put themselves in .. but continue to dig the hole even deeper.

If you want to talk about the facts .. I'm good with that.

This shows a general trend that's a serious problem for the Republicans. It doesn't show a specific problem in any specific election. (I assign a 55% chance that the Democrats will win this election.) But this does show that the hole is getting worse. If there's not some sort of substantial change in trends it is very hard to see how the Republicans would have any chance at winning 2020 or 2024.

I agree with that brother.

your assumption that all minorities will vote dem is based on ignorance, not reality. The minorities that you so covet are mostly fed up with being lied to by dems and treated like slaves.

But you are free to believe whatever bullshit makes you feel good. The truth is the obama, clinton, reid, and pelosi have destroyed the party of Kennedy and Truman for the next 20 or 30 years.

You libs had your chance and you blew it on the black guy.

Are you asserting that say at least the next four Presidential elections will all no go for the Democrats? I ask because that's 16 years by itself, and already well below 20-30 years?

I think there is a good possibility that no dem will be president in the next 4 elections, yes thats what I am saying.

Who do you have in the wings waiting for HRC to keel over? No one. All you have is old tired white people, and you claim to be the party of diversity, thats bullshit,.