Are we Americans ready for a large landslide in 2016?

[Toro]

Clinton ain't winning 400 EVs.

Not.

Gonna.

Happen.

If Republicans run anyone but Bush......Hillary takes 400

Care to make a wager on this? Sigs for a month?

 

[chikenwing]

It's kinda funny,falling back on the same old info,while beating about how the demographics are changing,this will be an interesting election.

 

[Freewill]

Interesting to note. WJ Clinton never won the majority of the NPV. Most presidents win the second term with a higher NPV, not Obama.

And I didn't see these stats in your commentary, not sure why.

List of United States presidential elections by popular vote margin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mac1958]

Clinton ain't winning 400 EVs. Not. Gonna. Happen.

If Republicans run anyone but Bush......Hillary takes 400

Care to make a wager on this? Sigs for a month?

Yeah! And here we go with the bets!

This is gonna be great fun.
.

 

[Edgetho]

I was actually thinking of giving this thread the title "Is this the 2nd Gilded Age?"....

I want to make a historical point.

Here are the presidential cycles since 1856 (inclusion of the GOP in national elections and the electoral college) where the winner of the NPV won with over +10% (landslide margin):

1860, 1864, 1872, 1904, 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, (1940), 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, (1980), 1984.

I bolded 1872 and 1904 because in-between, there were 7 presidential cycles in a row where the national margin was well under +10:

1872: Grant +11.80%
------------------------------------------------------
1876: Tilden +3.00% (Hayes won in the EC by 1 elector, 185/184)
1880: Garfield +0.10% (narrowest NPV win in our history)
1884: Cleveland +0.57% (looks a lot like Gore, 2000)
1888: Cleveland +0.83% (Harrison won in the EC, 233/168)
1892: Cleveland +3.01%
1896: McKinley +4.31%
1900: McKinley +6.16%
------------------------------------------------------
1904: T. Roosevelt +18.82%

Fast forward to 1984. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan easily won re-election with an impressive landslide +18.22%. Since 1988, there have now been 7 cycles in a row where the winning margin, like 1876-1900, was under +10%, and mostly well under +10:

1984: Reagan +18.22%
-----------------------------------------------------
1988: Bush 41 +7.73%
1992: Clinton +5.56%
1996: Clinton +8.52%
2000: Gore +0.52% (Bush won in the EC by 5 electors, 271/266, 2nd narrowest EC win ever)
2004: Bush 43 +2.46%
2008: Obama +7.26%
2012: Obama +3.86%
----------------------------------------------------
2016: ????

When you scratch under the surface, there are more similarities than we may realize between the so-called "Gilded age" in US electoral politics (1876-1900) and the time frame from 1988-2012:

-in both periods, there was at least one electoral backfire, where one nominee won in the NPV but lost in the EC. In the Gilded Age, it happened in both 1876 and 1888. In the currect age, it happened in 2000.

-each of those periods saw one of two closest EC wins ever, in 1876 and in 2000. And in both of those cases, it was also a so-called electoral backfire.

-in the Gilded age, the margins were from +0.1% up to about +6%, a spread of almost 6 points. From 1988 through 2012, the margins were from +0.5% to about +8.50%, a spread of 8 points.

-in both periods, 2 nominees won in the NPV at least twice: Cleveland and McKinley in the Gilded Age, and Clinton and Obama in the current age.

-in both periods, there was one "dynasty win", where a relative of a former President won election: Harrison in 1888 and Bush 43 in 2000/2004.

In other words, both periods have demonstrated a time of very polarized politics.

In 1904, Roosevelt broke the narrow-margin trend and won with almost +19. It was an absolute blowout in 1904, one of the most unsung massive landslides in our history.

So, regardless of which way 2016 goes, I suspect that 2016 will indeed be a +10 or more landslide in the NPV. If that doesn't happen, then a new statistical record would be set and we would have, for the first time ever, 8 presidential cycles in a row with an NPV margin under +10.

Looking from 1940 onwards, we saw, generally, a big landslide every 8 to 12 years.

In 2016, it will be 32 years since the last real NPV landslide win. I would say that it is about time.

And to be honest, I personally think that a massive landslide now and then, regardless who wins, is good for us, because it means an undeniable mandate for the person who wins. I also personally think that it will be the Democrat, but that's beyond the point. Were the Republican to win with a resounding landslide in 2016, I still think it would be good for us, for at least the one reason I just listed.

Discuss. Did you know about this historical fact concerning our elections? Do you think a landslide is on the way?

Please try to discuss like an adult...

Numerology is almost as stupid as the idiots that believe in it

 

[Wildman]

this is funnieer than all comedians put together, a libercommie typing;
Are we Americans ready for a large landslide in 2016?

Trump's election will go down in history as America's greatest landslide victory.

 

[Maxx]

Clinton ain't winning 400 EVs.

Not.

Gonna.

Happen.

If Republicans run anyone but Bush......Hillary takes 400

If the GOP settles for another spineless status quo like Bush or Christie, they will face even more voter apathy than they did in 2008.

Bush is toast. There is a huge pool of rank and file Republicans who are fed up with emasculated RINOs who don't dare speak out about the real issues and there are plenty of independent minded voters who have had enough of the race baiting and liberal foolishness.
Bush looks like a deer in the headlights, absolutely helpless and startled by the current backlash.

I think the Democrats need to start worrying about their own presidential line up that consists of a pants suit wearing closet lesbian who has serious credibility issues, an old white haired self proclaimed socialist, and possibly a buffoonish VP who sounds like the town drunk every time he appears in public.

 

[Misty]

They need to be correlated to incidents of mumps among tribes of New Guinea.

Yes we will have a landslide. President Ted Cruz's victory of socialist Bernie Sanders will be remembered among the most lopsided in history.

So, yes, you too are too stupid to actually know how to read and OP and discern some.

Do you dispute even one bit of the data?

I remember liberals crowing like this over John Kerry Can you imagine, John Kerry? Lololol. And Hillary or sanders are even more of an embarrassment.

 

[Edgetho]

Clinton ain't winning 400 EVs.

Not.

Gonna.

Happen.

If Republicans run anyone but Bush......Hillary takes 400

If the GOP settles for another spineless status quo like Bush or Christie, they will face even more voter apathy than they did in 2008.

Bush is toast. There is a huge pool of rank and file Republicans who are fed up with emasculated RINOs who don't dare speak out about the real issues and there are plenty of independent minded voters who have had enough of the race baiting and liberal foolishness.
Bush looks like a deer in the headlights, absolutely helpless and startled by the current backlash.

I think the Democrats need to start worrying about their own presidential line up that consists of a pants suit wearing closet lesbian who has serious credibility issues, an old white haired self proclaimed socialist, and possibly a buffoonish VP who sounds like the town drunk every time he appears in public.

dimocrap scum elected a demagogue and now that it looks like Republicans are about to elect one, they're ready to shit their pants.

the Lying Cocksucker In Chief is a piece of fucking racist shit. Period.

Trump may be, too but I don't think so. And even if he is -- So what? Fuck you, dimocrap scum.

Why is it okay for dimocrap scum to nominate and vote for a demagogue but not for us?

You started it, now you gotta watch and see what it feels like to see the other side of the coin.

Suck on it, dimocrap scum.

BTW, the real RINO's are the people that cry like little bitches and stay home when they can't get their way; when they can't get their 'President Jesus' on the ticket.

Fuck you.

I vote Republican. Straight ticket. Every time. I don't stay home and pout like a pre-menstrual 13 year old girl. If trump makes the ticket, he's got my vote.

Period.

Who's the real RINO?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Are we talking trump over sanders.....or sanders over trump? I'm seeing more and more that aren't happy with the status quo ie dem and repub, riding each other side saddle election after election. The clinton/bush era needs to be flushed into the deepest sewer and then sealed forever.

Exactly.... really? 2016 and we're stuck with Bush or Clinton?

 

[oreo]

I was actually thinking of giving this thread the title "Is this the 2nd Gilded Age?"....

I want to make a historical point.

Here are the presidential cycles since 1856 (inclusion of the GOP in national elections and the electoral college) where the winner of the NPV won with over +10% (landslide margin):

1860, 1864, 1872, 1904, 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, (1940), 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, (1980), 1984.

I bolded 1872 and 1904 because in-between, there were 7 presidential cycles in a row where the national margin was well under +10:

1872: Grant +11.80%
------------------------------------------------------
1876: Tilden +3.00% (Hayes won in the EC by 1 elector, 185/184)
1880: Garfield +0.10% (narrowest NPV win in our history)
1884: Cleveland +0.57% (looks a lot like Gore, 2000)
1888: Cleveland +0.83% (Harrison won in the EC, 233/168)
1892: Cleveland +3.01%
1896: McKinley +4.31%
1900: McKinley +6.16%
------------------------------------------------------
1904: T. Roosevelt +18.82%

Fast forward to 1984. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan easily won re-election with an impressive landslide +18.22%. Since 1988, there have now been 7 cycles in a row where the winning margin, like 1876-1900, was under +10%, and mostly well under +10:

1984: Reagan +18.22%
-----------------------------------------------------
1988: Bush 41 +7.73%
1992: Clinton +5.56%
1996: Clinton +8.52%
2000: Gore +0.52% (Bush won in the EC by 5 electors, 271/266, 2nd narrowest EC win ever)
2004: Bush 43 +2.46%
2008: Obama +7.26%
2012: Obama +3.86%
----------------------------------------------------
2016: ????

When you scratch under the surface, there are more similarities than we may realize between the so-called "Gilded age" in US electoral politics (1876-1900) and the time frame from 1988-2012:

-in both periods, there was at least one electoral backfire, where one nominee won in the NPV but lost in the EC. In the Gilded Age, it happened in both 1876 and 1888. In the currect age, it happened in 2000.

-each of those periods saw one of two closest EC wins ever, in 1876 and in 2000. And in both of those cases, it was also a so-called electoral backfire.

-in the Gilded age, the margins were from +0.1% up to about +6%, a spread of almost 6 points. From 1988 through 2012, the margins were from +0.5% to about +8.50%, a spread of 8 points.

-in both periods, 2 nominees won in the NPV at least twice: Cleveland and McKinley in the Gilded Age, and Clinton and Obama in the current age.

-in both periods, there was one "dynasty win", where a relative of a former President won election: Harrison in 1888 and Bush 43 in 2000/2004.

In other words, both periods have demonstrated a time of very polarized politics.

In 1904, Roosevelt broke the narrow-margin trend and won with almost +19. It was an absolute blowout in 1904, one of the most unsung massive landslides in our history.

So, regardless of which way 2016 goes, I suspect that 2016 will indeed be a +10 or more landslide in the NPV. If that doesn't happen, then a new statistical record would be set and we would have, for the first time ever, 8 presidential cycles in a row with an NPV margin under +10.

Looking from 1940 onwards, we saw, generally, a big landslide every 8 to 12 years.

In 2016, it will be 32 years since the last real NPV landslide win. I would say that it is about time.

And to be honest, I personally think that a massive landslide now and then, regardless who wins, is good for us, because it means an undeniable mandate for the person who wins. I also personally think that it will be the Democrat, but that's beyond the point. Were the Republican to win with a resounding landslide in 2016, I still think it would be good for us, for at least the one reason I just listed.

Discuss. Did you know about this historical fact concerning our elections? Do you think a landslide is on the way?

Please try to discuss like an adult...

The ONLY candidate in this race that is capable of pulling off a LANDSLIDE like we witnessed with Ronald Reagan 1st term a 47 state landslide, and then 2nd term a 49 state LANDSLIDE is CARLY FIORINA.

No other candidate either on the Republican or Democrat side are capable of doing it.

Reagan V Carter--1980

 

[Nyvin]

I was actually thinking of giving this thread the title "Is this the 2nd Gilded Age?"....

I want to make a historical point.

Here are the presidential cycles since 1856 (inclusion of the GOP in national elections and the electoral college) where the winner of the NPV won with over +10% (landslide margin):

1860, 1864, 1872, 1904, 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, (1940), 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, (1980), 1984.

I bolded 1872 and 1904 because in-between, there were 7 presidential cycles in a row where the national margin was well under +10:

1872: Grant +11.80%
------------------------------------------------------
1876: Tilden +3.00% (Hayes won in the EC by 1 elector, 185/184)
1880: Garfield +0.10% (narrowest NPV win in our history)
1884: Cleveland +0.57% (looks a lot like Gore, 2000)
1888: Cleveland +0.83% (Harrison won in the EC, 233/168)
1892: Cleveland +3.01%
1896: McKinley +4.31%
1900: McKinley +6.16%
------------------------------------------------------
1904: T. Roosevelt +18.82%

Fast forward to 1984. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan easily won re-election with an impressive landslide +18.22%. Since 1988, there have now been 7 cycles in a row where the winning margin, like 1876-1900, was under +10%, and mostly well under +10:

1984: Reagan +18.22%
-----------------------------------------------------
1988: Bush 41 +7.73%
1992: Clinton +5.56%
1996: Clinton +8.52%
2000: Gore +0.52% (Bush won in the EC by 5 electors, 271/266, 2nd narrowest EC win ever)
2004: Bush 43 +2.46%
2008: Obama +7.26%
2012: Obama +3.86%
----------------------------------------------------
2016: ????

When you scratch under the surface, there are more similarities than we may realize between the so-called "Gilded age" in US electoral politics (1876-1900) and the time frame from 1988-2012:

-in both periods, there was at least one electoral backfire, where one nominee won in the NPV but lost in the EC. In the Gilded Age, it happened in both 1876 and 1888. In the currect age, it happened in 2000.

-each of those periods saw one of two closest EC wins ever, in 1876 and in 2000. And in both of those cases, it was also a so-called electoral backfire.

-in the Gilded age, the margins were from +0.1% up to about +6%, a spread of almost 6 points. From 1988 through 2012, the margins were from +0.5% to about +8.50%, a spread of 8 points.

-in both periods, 2 nominees won in the NPV at least twice: Cleveland and McKinley in the Gilded Age, and Clinton and Obama in the current age.

-in both periods, there was one "dynasty win", where a relative of a former President won election: Harrison in 1888 and Bush 43 in 2000/2004.

In other words, both periods have demonstrated a time of very polarized politics.

In 1904, Roosevelt broke the narrow-margin trend and won with almost +19. It was an absolute blowout in 1904, one of the most unsung massive landslides in our history.

So, regardless of which way 2016 goes, I suspect that 2016 will indeed be a +10 or more landslide in the NPV. If that doesn't happen, then a new statistical record would be set and we would have, for the first time ever, 8 presidential cycles in a row with an NPV margin under +10.

Looking from 1940 onwards, we saw, generally, a big landslide every 8 to 12 years.

In 2016, it will be 32 years since the last real NPV landslide win. I would say that it is about time.

And to be honest, I personally think that a massive landslide now and then, regardless who wins, is good for us, because it means an undeniable mandate for the person who wins. I also personally think that it will be the Democrat, but that's beyond the point. Were the Republican to win with a resounding landslide in 2016, I still think it would be good for us, for at least the one reason I just listed.

Discuss. Did you know about this historical fact concerning our elections? Do you think a landslide is on the way?

Please try to discuss like an adult...

The ONLY candidate in this race that is capable of pulling off a LANDSLIDE like we witnessed with Ronald Reagan 1st term a 47 state landslide, and then 2nd term a 49 state LANDSLIDE is CARLY FIORINA.

No other candidate either on the Republican or Democrat side are capable of doing it.

Reagan V Carter--1980

Lol, funny.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I was actually thinking of giving this thread the title "Is this the 2nd Gilded Age?"....

I want to make a historical point.

Here are the presidential cycles since 1856 (inclusion of the GOP in national elections and the electoral college) where the winner of the NPV won with over +10% (landslide margin):

1860, 1864, 1872, 1904, 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, (1940), 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, (1980), 1984.

I bolded 1872 and 1904 because in-between, there were 7 presidential cycles in a row where the national margin was well under +10:

1872: Grant +11.80%
------------------------------------------------------
1876: Tilden +3.00% (Hayes won in the EC by 1 elector, 185/184)
1880: Garfield +0.10% (narrowest NPV win in our history)
1884: Cleveland +0.57% (looks a lot like Gore, 2000)
1888: Cleveland +0.83% (Harrison won in the EC, 233/168)
1892: Cleveland +3.01%
1896: McKinley +4.31%
1900: McKinley +6.16%
------------------------------------------------------
1904: T. Roosevelt +18.82%

Fast forward to 1984. In 1984, President Ronald Reagan easily won re-election with an impressive landslide +18.22%. Since 1988, there have now been 7 cycles in a row where the winning margin, like 1876-1900, was under +10%, and mostly well under +10:

1984: Reagan +18.22%
-----------------------------------------------------
1988: Bush 41 +7.73%
1992: Clinton +5.56%
1996: Clinton +8.52%
2000: Gore +0.52% (Bush won in the EC by 5 electors, 271/266, 2nd narrowest EC win ever)
2004: Bush 43 +2.46%
2008: Obama +7.26%
2012: Obama +3.86%
----------------------------------------------------
2016: ????

When you scratch under the surface, there are more similarities than we may realize between the so-called "Gilded age" in US electoral politics (1876-1900) and the time frame from 1988-2012:

-in both periods, there was at least one electoral backfire, where one nominee won in the NPV but lost in the EC. In the Gilded Age, it happened in both 1876 and 1888. In the currect age, it happened in 2000.

-each of those periods saw one of two closest EC wins ever, in 1876 and in 2000. And in both of those cases, it was also a so-called electoral backfire.

-in the Gilded age, the margins were from +0.1% up to about +6%, a spread of almost 6 points. From 1988 through 2012, the margins were from +0.5% to about +8.50%, a spread of 8 points.

-in both periods, 2 nominees won in the NPV at least twice: Cleveland and McKinley in the Gilded Age, and Clinton and Obama in the current age.

-in both periods, there was one "dynasty win", where a relative of a former President won election: Harrison in 1888 and Bush 43 in 2000/2004.

In other words, both periods have demonstrated a time of very polarized politics.

In 1904, Roosevelt broke the narrow-margin trend and won with almost +19. It was an absolute blowout in 1904, one of the most unsung massive landslides in our history.

So, regardless of which way 2016 goes, I suspect that 2016 will indeed be a +10 or more landslide in the NPV. If that doesn't happen, then a new statistical record would be set and we would have, for the first time ever, 8 presidential cycles in a row with an NPV margin under +10.

Looking from 1940 onwards, we saw, generally, a big landslide every 8 to 12 years.

In 2016, it will be 32 years since the last real NPV landslide win. I would say that it is about time.

And to be honest, I personally think that a massive landslide now and then, regardless who wins, is good for us, because it means an undeniable mandate for the person who wins. I also personally think that it will be the Democrat, but that's beyond the point. Were the Republican to win with a resounding landslide in 2016, I still think it would be good for us, for at least the one reason I just listed.

Discuss. Did you know about this historical fact concerning our elections? Do you think a landslide is on the way?

Please try to discuss like an adult...

The ONLY candidate in this race that is capable of pulling off a LANDSLIDE like we witnessed with Ronald Reagan 1st term a 47 state landslide, and then 2nd term a 49 state LANDSLIDE is CARLY FIORINA.

No other candidate either on the Republican or Democrat side are capable of doing it.

Reagan V Carter--1980

Cruella Fiorina could not even win enough votes in her home state to become a senator.

 

[Toro]

Clinton ain't winning 400 EVs. Not. Gonna. Happen.

If Republicans run anyone but Bush......Hillary takes 400

Care to make a wager on this? Sigs for a month?

Yeah! And here we go with the bets!

This is gonna be great fun.
.

Put them here!

The Repository of All 2016 Election Wagers | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[The Rabbi]

They need to be correlated to incidents of mumps among tribes of New Guinea.

Yes we will have a landslide. President Ted Cruz's victory of socialist Bernie Sanders will be remembered among the most lopsided in history.

So, yes, you too are too stupid to actually know how to read and OP and discern some.

Do you dispute even one bit of the data?

I dispute its relevance to anything. Do you dispute that mumps incidence among New Guinea islanders will be a major consideration in the final EV tally?

Elections statistics - which also show trends over time and are also yet another indicator of the consistency of human behavior, have nothing to do with mumps in New Guinea.

I am sorry if you are just too stupid to realize this.

Maybe you can make some more cool, yet very false, Greece predictions. That seems to be more up your alley.

No they do not show trends over time. They show what happened at one time. But that is not germane to this time. It is equally valid to say incidents of mumps are predictors of the future.
Correlation is not causality. I am sorry if your are too poorly educated to understand this.

No. You are wrong. Electoral results also show some recognizable patterns in electoral behavior, irregardless of candidates and issues. You just have to be smart enough to be able to read numbers and be willing to learn some. Sorry, looks like you are out of luck. Tsk, tsk.

LOL! Yeah tell us.
There are recognizable patterns in everything. They have zero predictive power.
What is certain is voters are preparing to punish the Democrats for the worst growth in any recovery post WW2, for their racially divisive rhetoric, for their war on religion, and for the most feckless foreign policy in ages.
Dems have lost 9000 seats nationwide since 2009. THAT is a trend you should look at.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hillary inaugurated and sentenced on the same day?

no. but whatever.

clinton derangement syndrome is almost as amusing as obama derangement syndrome. *shrug*

Let's see, your last favorite was revealed as a pervert who tweeted his meat. I think that says lots about your political and character judgment.

 

[Edgetho]

Hillary inaugurated and sentenced on the same day?

no. but whatever.

clinton derangement syndrome is almost as amusing as obama derangement syndrome. *shrug*

Let's see, your last favorite was revealed as a pervert who tweeted his meat. I think that says lots about your political and character judgment.

Think of me what you will -- I don't care. But the truth is very simple -- dimocrap scum know EXACTLY who and what the pieces of fucking shit are that they're voting for...... They just don't care....

Anybody remember Hitlery's past foibles like --

Whitewater? A shady real estate deal that bilked thousands of people out of millions of dollars, many, if not most, of them retired and past the age of being able to earn their money back? Remember that?

Or how about the Vince Foster mystery? Remember how he was tied to the Travelgate and the Whitewtaer scandals? Then, for no apparent reason decides to off himself?

How about Filegate? The Clintons were caught with HUNDREDS of secret FBI Files on their political enemies. Richard Nixon was impeached for having One (1)

How about the Cattle Futures Miracle? Remember that one? They want us to believe that the walking ad for FDS invested $1,000 in Cattle Futures and miraculously turned it into $100,000 in less than 30 days..... Something not even the most astute futures trader has ever done.... But hey, she's a Clinton so.....

Then there's Benghazi, the Drug Trafficker they invited to the White House after he made a HUGE donation, the Rich pardon, Norman Yung Yuen Hsu, the Clinton Foundation, Travelgate, the White House Furniture they stole and shipped to their personal home, etc, etc, etc....

Here it is people. Face up to it.

dimocraps are scum. ALL of them. Only a scumbag of the highest order would vote for a PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT like Hitlery Clinton.

I know it hurts but you just have to face it -- Nearly half our Country is scum.

Do you have the balls to admit it?

 

[Statistikhengst]

So, yes, you too are too stupid to actually know how to read and OP and discern some.

Do you dispute even one bit of the data?

I dispute its relevance to anything. Do you dispute that mumps incidence among New Guinea islanders will be a major consideration in the final EV tally?

Elections statistics - which also show trends over time and are also yet another indicator of the consistency of human behavior, have nothing to do with mumps in New Guinea.

I am sorry if you are just too stupid to realize this.

Maybe you can make some more cool, yet very false, Greece predictions. That seems to be more up your alley.

No they do not show trends over time. They show what happened at one time. But that is not germane to this time. It is equally valid to say incidents of mumps are predictors of the future.
Correlation is not causality. I am sorry if your are too poorly educated to understand this.

No. You are wrong. Electoral results also show some recognizable patterns in electoral behavior, irregardless of candidates and issues. You just have to be smart enough to be able to read numbers and be willing to learn some. Sorry, looks like you are out of luck. Tsk, tsk.

LOL! Yeah tell us.
There are recognizable patterns in everything. They have zero predictive power.
What is certain is voters are preparing to punish the Democrats for the worst growth in any recovery post WW2, for their racially divisive rhetoric, for their war on religion, and for the most feckless foreign policy in ages.
Dems have lost 9000 seats nationwide since 2009. THAT is a trend you should look at.

It's fun to watch when you get all angry and puffed up and still cannot concentrate on the actual content of the OP, because in that moment, you encapsulate all that is wrong with butthurt Righties without having to write all too many words. So, uhm, thanks.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hillary inaugurated and sentenced on the same day?

no. but whatever.

clinton derangement syndrome is almost as amusing as obama derangement syndrome. *shrug*

Let's see, your last favorite was revealed as a pervert who tweeted his meat. I think that says lots about your political and character judgment.

Are you talking about jillian personally, or are you just being an insufferable dick like you always are?

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[NLT]

Simply put, this is going to be like 1988. It's the Democrats' to lose. That's why I wish the Dems would dump Hillary and go with a safer candidate.

That's not what scat says

Scat says-" And when Hillary wins on election night 2016 with 57% of the NPV and sails over 400 EV, I will just laugh at you".