Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sounds like you're under the impression that political parties can heal or harm the economy.I lean right and I am voting for a Republican, but objectively speaking I can see how it is not a Democratic year.
First even Republican years the electoral colleges are so skewed against them it is criminal. A Republican must be perfect to win. With the economy looking up I can see how a Republican can get a clean sweep. Whether it is Sanders or Clinton, the Dems will win.
They will also get a 50-50 split in the senate. Dems always turnout in Presidential elections: Il, NH, PA and WI should go blue.
The Republicans should retain the house but their lead will get cut into.
It won't be a great 2016!
The economy is "looking up?" What country are you living in? Who in this economy, other then a 1 percenter like Mrs. Clinton is doing well? If there is any reason to get rid of the democrats, as was done the last two mid-terms it is the economy and debt.
So NOT true.
The economy will not get better because we elect Democrats or Republicans.
Economies get better when people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, The Koch Brothers, and Sam Walton create new apps, and companies.
In 2007, Economists predicted job growth would start back up again after 2016.
One of the parties will just takes credit for it
Party can and does effect the economy.
Many businesses hold off on expansion or investing when you have a dem in office due to their anti business policies.I have an investment opportunity for you, in Nigeria, and some great waterfront property for you to look atSounds like you're under the impression that political parties can heal or harm the economy.I lean right and I am voting for a Republican, but objectively speaking I can see how it is not a Democratic year.
First even Republican years the electoral colleges are so skewed against them it is criminal. A Republican must be perfect to win. With the economy looking up I can see how a Republican can get a clean sweep. Whether it is Sanders or Clinton, the Dems will win.
They will also get a 50-50 split in the senate. Dems always turnout in Presidential elections: Il, NH, PA and WI should go blue.
The Republicans should retain the house but their lead will get cut into.
It won't be a great 2016!
The economy is "looking up?" What country are you living in? Who in this economy, other then a 1 percenter like Mrs. Clinton is doing well? If there is any reason to get rid of the democrats, as was done the last two mid-terms it is the economy and debt.
So NOT true.
The economy will not get better because we elect Democrats or Republicans.
Economies get better when people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, The Koch Brothers, and Sam Walton create new apps, and companies.
In 2007, Economists predicted job growth would start back up again after 2016.
One of the parties will just takes credit for it
Party can and does effect the economy.
Many businesses hold off on expansion or investing when you have a dem in office due to their anti business policies.
I lean right and I am voting for a Republican, but objectively speaking I can see how it is not a Democratic year.
First even Republican years the electoral colleges are so skewed against them it is criminal. A Republican must be perfect to win. With the economy looking up I can see how a Republican can get a clean sweep. Whether it is Sanders or Clinton, the Dems will win.
They will also get a 50-50 split in the senate. Dems always turnout in Presidential elections: Il, NH, PA and WI should go blue.
The Republicans should retain the house but their lead will get cut into.
It won't be a great 2016!
The economy is "looking up?" What country are you living in? Who in this economy, other then a 1 percenter like Mrs. Clinton is doing well? If there is any reason to get rid of the democrats, as was done the last two mid-terms it is the economy and debt.
I just poined out that Wyoming's electoral representation per capita is close to thee times that of California. Far from saying they were underrepresented, I was saying they are overrepresented.
The faux unemployment rate is down to what they call full employment, the new job numbers are high each month, gas prices are low, the stock market is doing well etc.I lean right and I am voting for a Republican, but objectively speaking I can see how it is not a Democratic year.
First even Republican years the electoral colleges are so skewed against them it is criminal. A Republican must be perfect to win. With the economy looking up I can see how a Republican can get a clean sweep. Whether it is Sanders or Clinton, the Dems will win.
They will also get a 50-50 split in the senate. Dems always turnout in Presidential elections: Il, NH, PA and WI should go blue.
The Republicans should retain the house but their lead will get cut into.
It won't be a great 2016!
The economy is "looking up?" What country are you living in? Who in this economy, other then a 1 percenter like Mrs. Clinton is doing well? If there is any reason to get rid of the democrats, as was done the last two mid-terms it is the economy and debt.
Yeah, but if Nutty Old Uncle Bernie wins it's gonna be fun to watch!
I contend that with the electoral colleges skewed they way they are a Republican must be perfect. I mean, controversy aside, Bush barely pulled out his 2 wins. The view of the economy makes perfection very difficultSounds like you're under the impression that political parties can heal or harm the economy.I lean right and I am voting for a Republican, but objectively speaking I can see how it is not a Democratic year.
First even Republican years the electoral colleges are so skewed against them it is criminal. A Republican must be perfect to win. With the economy looking up I can see how a Republican can get a clean sweep. Whether it is Sanders or Clinton, the Dems will win.
They will also get a 50-50 split in the senate. Dems always turnout in Presidential elections: Il, NH, PA and WI should go blue.
The Republicans should retain the house but their lead will get cut into.
It won't be a great 2016!
The economy is "looking up?" What country are you living in? Who in this economy, other then a 1 percenter like Mrs. Clinton is doing well? If there is any reason to get rid of the democrats, as was done the last two mid-terms it is the economy and debt.
So NOT true.
The economy will not get better because we elect Democrats or Republicans.
Economies get better when people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, The Koch Brothers, and Sam Walton create new apps, and companies.
In 2007, Economists predicted job growth would start back up again after 2016.
One of the parties will just takes credit for it
I do agree that just voting in a party doesn't make a difference. After all they are both different sides of the same coin. But the OP contended that the economy was something that the democrats could run on, they should be running from it.
Lol more like 4. IL is your only sure fire victory. NH, WI and PA will be tough ones.Regardless of who wins the presidency, 28 of the Senate seats are defended by GOP. Of the 19 seats that can be contested. 18 belong to the GOP. The stats look like the Dems will win at least 11, giving the party a solid majority.
California went 60-40 Obama to Romney. Romney got millions of votes, but the way the electoral college is rigged Obama gets 100% of EC.First even Republican years the electoral colleges are so skewed against them it is criminal.!
Well, let's see here. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes for 560,000 people and always votes republican.
California has 55 electoral votes for 38,800,000 people and usually votes democrat..
Can't you do the math? I sure can.
You have it so completely backwards here, it isn't even funny.
Sorry, my bad, I agree.What Wyoming might lack in electoral representation, they more than make up for in terms of influence in the Senate.First even Republican years the electoral colleges are so skewed against them it is criminal.!
Well, let's see here. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes for 560,000 people and always votes republican.
California has 55 electoral votes for 38,800,000 people and usually votes democrat..
Can't you do the math? I sure can.
You have it so completely backwards here, it isn't even funny.
600,000 Wyomians have the same influence as 33 million Californians when it comes to the legislation passed through the senate
It doesn't appear that you got my point.
I just poined out that Wyoming's electoral representation per capita is close to thee times that of California. Far from saying they were underrepresented, I was saying they are overrepresented.
I contend that with the electoral colleges skewed they way they are a Republican must be perfect. I mean, controversy aside, Bush barely pulled out his 2 wins. The view of the economy makes perfection very difficultSounds like you're under the impression that political parties can heal or harm the economy.I lean right and I am voting for a Republican, but objectively speaking I can see how it is not a Democratic year.
First even Republican years the electoral colleges are so skewed against them it is criminal. A Republican must be perfect to win. With the economy looking up I can see how a Republican can get a clean sweep. Whether it is Sanders or Clinton, the Dems will win.
They will also get a 50-50 split in the senate. Dems always turnout in Presidential elections: Il, NH, PA and WI should go blue.
The Republicans should retain the house but their lead will get cut into.
It won't be a great 2016!
The economy is "looking up?" What country are you living in? Who in this economy, other then a 1 percenter like Mrs. Clinton is doing well? If there is any reason to get rid of the democrats, as was done the last two mid-terms it is the economy and debt.
So NOT true.
The economy will not get better because we elect Democrats or Republicans.
Economies get better when people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, The Koch Brothers, and Sam Walton create new apps, and companies.
In 2007, Economists predicted job growth would start back up again after 2016.
One of the parties will just takes credit for it
I do agree that just voting in a party doesn't make a difference. After all they are both different sides of the same coin. But the OP contended that the economy was something that the democrats could run on, they should be running from it.
Check the reports and the polls. It will be a solid majority for the Dems.Lol more like 4. IL is your only sure fire victory. NH, WI and PA will be tough ones.Regardless of who wins the presidency, 28 of the Senate seats are defended by GOP. Of the 19 seats that can be contested. 18 belong to the GOP. The stats look like the Dems will win at least 11, giving the party a solid majority.
Yeah, but if Nutty Old Uncle Bernie wins it's gonna be fun to watch!
California went 60-40 Obama to Romney. Romney got millions of votes, but the way the electoral college is rigged Obama gets 100% of EC.First even Republican years the electoral colleges are so skewed against them it is criminal.!
Well, let's see here. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes for 560,000 people and always votes republican.
California has 55 electoral votes for 38,800,000 people and usually votes democrat..
Can't you do the math? I sure can.
You have it so completely backwards here, it isn't even funny.
Very true, but many there are many more so called blue states that sway this way. For every TX there is a NY, NJ, IL, PACalifornia went 60-40 Obama to Romney. Romney got millions of votes, but the way the electoral college is rigged Obama gets 100% of EC.First even Republican years the electoral colleges are so skewed against them it is criminal.!
Well, let's see here. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes for 560,000 people and always votes republican.
California has 55 electoral votes for 38,800,000 people and usually votes democrat..
Can't you do the math? I sure can.
You have it so completely backwards here, it isn't even funny.
and Texas went 41% for Obama and 57 % for Romney with Romney getting the electoral votes..
It gets worse with each passing day. Now Hillary's emails exposed the names of secret CIA operatives: She is toast.
More Bad News For Hillary: 'Top Secret' Emails May Have Contained The Names Of CIA Operatives | The Sean Hannity Show
Right, but don't forget Reagan was from California.I contend that with the electoral colleges skewed they way they are a Republican must be perfect. I mean, controversy aside, Bush barely pulled out his 2 wins. The view of the economy makes perfection very difficultSounds like you're under the impression that political parties can heal or harm the economy.I lean right and I am voting for a Republican, but objectively speaking I can see how it is not a Democratic year.
First even Republican years the electoral colleges are so skewed against them it is criminal. A Republican must be perfect to win. With the economy looking up I can see how a Republican can get a clean sweep. Whether it is Sanders or Clinton, the Dems will win.
They will also get a 50-50 split in the senate. Dems always turnout in Presidential elections: Il, NH, PA and WI should go blue.
The Republicans should retain the house but their lead will get cut into.
It won't be a great 2016!
The economy is "looking up?" What country are you living in? Who in this economy, other then a 1 percenter like Mrs. Clinton is doing well? If there is any reason to get rid of the democrats, as was done the last two mid-terms it is the economy and debt.
So NOT true.
The economy will not get better because we elect Democrats or Republicans.
Economies get better when people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, The Koch Brothers, and Sam Walton create new apps, and companies.
In 2007, Economists predicted job growth would start back up again after 2016.
One of the parties will just takes credit for it
I do agree that just voting in a party doesn't make a difference. After all they are both different sides of the same coin. But the OP contended that the economy was something that the democrats could run on, they should be running from it.
You, Romney and I agree. The democrats start out with a huge lead. 47 percent or more, in the popular vote. As for perfection in the electorial college, here is a map that is pretty damn close to perfection, it can and has been done.
Right, but don't forget Reagan was from California.I contend that with the electoral colleges skewed they way they are a Republican must be perfect. I mean, controversy aside, Bush barely pulled out his 2 wins. The view of the economy makes perfection very difficultSounds like you're under the impression that political parties can heal or harm the economy.The economy is "looking up?" What country are you living in? Who in this economy, other then a 1 percenter like Mrs. Clinton is doing well? If there is any reason to get rid of the democrats, as was done the last two mid-terms it is the economy and debt.
So NOT true.
The economy will not get better because we elect Democrats or Republicans.
Economies get better when people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, The Koch Brothers, and Sam Walton create new apps, and companies.
In 2007, Economists predicted job growth would start back up again after 2016.
One of the parties will just takes credit for it
I do agree that just voting in a party doesn't make a difference. After all they are both different sides of the same coin. But the OP contended that the economy was something that the democrats could run on, they should be running from it.
You, Romney and I agree. The democrats start out with a huge lead. 47 percent or more, in the popular vote. As for perfection in the electorial college, here is a map that is pretty damn close to perfection, it can and has been done.
