Texas for Hillary

[JakeStarkey]

Nope.

Hillary won't win Texas.

Last words of the desperate

because paying people to start fights a your opponent's rallies isn't desperate.
we're cool as cucumbers, you guys hate that.

cool as cucumbers? look at your wilder idiots just here on the Boad.

 

[rightwinger]

WHOOP there she goes

Texas goes into the Tossup states

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House

Trump only with 126 EVs.
Hillary 262

 

[Toro]

Trump winning Texas by 1% is Trump winning!

 

[rightwinger]

Trump winning Texas by 1% is Trump winning!

That's why they call them toss ups
A state that was 16 percent for Romney is slipping out of Trumps hands with two weeks to go

Utah is next

 

[Meathead]

WHOOP there she goes

Texas goes into the Tossup states

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House

Trump only with 126 EVs.
Hillary 262

When you put places like Texas swing, small wonder.

 

[rightwinger]

WHOOP there she goes

Texas goes into the Tossup states

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House

Trump only with 126 EVs.
Hillary 262

When you put places like Texas swing, small wonder.

It's not me

It's all the recent polls conducted by Texans

 

[Meathead]

WHOOP there she goes

Texas goes into the Tossup states

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House

Trump only with 126 EVs.
Hillary 262

When you put places like Texas swing, small wonder.

It's not me

It's all the recent polls conducted by Texans

Don't be silly. Texas is not going for the Beast.

 

[rightwinger]

Texas has moved from Solid Trump to leans Trump and is now in the Tossup column with two weeks to go

Can Trump stop the bleeding?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, Clinton isn’t going to win Texas, Arizona, or Utah, for that matter – but that Trump must defend these otherwise reliably red states is indicative of the fact that Trump has no EC path to victory.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have no problem with illegals getting driver's licenses, but I also think a very reasonable, sane free Voter ID card program and product make sense.

Correct.

One is not ‘illegal’ until such time as he has been found guilty in a court of law of having entered the country absent authorization.

That one is undocumented doesn’t mean he’s ‘illegal,’ as he might be an eligible refugee or asylee.

Until such time as an undocumented immigrant’s status is determined, he is presumed innocent of entering the country absent authorization, and is entitled to apply for and receive a driver’s license if otherwise eligible.

To refuse to allow an undocumented immigrant to apply for a driver’s license would violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.

As for voter identification, any program should accept a comprehensive range of documents, such as a utility bill, student ID, or paycheck stub.

 

[JakeStarkey]

WHOOP there she goes

Texas goes into the Tossup states

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Election Maps - Battle for White House

Trump only with 126 EVs.
Hillary 262

Polling Data
Poll Date Sample MoE Trump (R) McMullin (I) Clinton (D) Johnson (L) Stein (G) Spread
RCP Average 10/10 - 10/19 -- -- 30.7 25.2 25.2 7.5 0.8 Trump +5.5
UtahPolicy/Dan Jones 10/12 - 10/18 818 LV 4.0 30 29 25 5 1 Trump +1
Emerson 10/17 - 10/19 600 LV 3.9 27 31 24 5 0 McMullin +4
Heat Street/Rasmussen 10/14 - 10/16 750 LV 4.0 30 29 28 5 1 Trump +1
CBS News/YouGov 10/12 - 10/14 951 LV 5.7 37 20 20 7 1 Trump +17
Monmouth 10/10 - 10/12 403 LV 4.9 34 20 28 9 1 Trump +6
Y2 Analytics 10/10 - 10/11 500 LV 4.4 26 22 26 14 1 Tie

 

[JakeStarkey]

Utah and Texas are in toss up about Trump.

 

[rightwinger]

Again, Clinton isn’t going to win Texas, Arizona, or Utah, for that matter – but that Trump must defend these otherwise reliably red states is indicative of the fact that Trump has no EC path to victory.

Right now it is looking like Utah will protest vote for third party McMillen
Arizona is now leaning Hillary slightly

Texas is at 3-4%. Probably too much ground for Hillary to make up in two weeks but I would be concerned about Trumps ability to get out the vote in Texas. This could be the ultimate revenge of Ted Cruz if he lets Trump lose Texas.....I told you so

 

[JakeStarkey]

If Texas goes blue, Cruz will not be nominated in 2020.

 

[rightwinger]

If Texas goes blue, Cruz will not be nominated in 2020.

I think the crazies are still ruling the Republican Party

Cruz is next in line

 

[JakeStarkey]

If Texas goes blue, Cruz will not be nominated in 2020.

I think the crazies are still ruling the Republican Party

Cruz is next in line

Yes, he will fight like crazy, but . . .

 

[rightwinger]

Can Trump hold Texas?

If he does, he will have to put some effort into it. With a lead that has dropped from over 8% down to 3% can Trump stop the bleeding?

Which Republican in Texas will be willing to stand up and push the voters to get out for Trump?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Can Trump hold Texas?

If he does, he will have to put some effort into it. With a lead that has dropped from over 8% down to 3% can Trump stop the bleeding?

Which Republican in Texas will be willing to stand up and push the voters to get out for Trump?

If Trump's defeat threatens the GOP state house, damn straight the will pull out all the stops and cry and scream and lie and bribe and stuff the ballot box. They did all of that in the last decade to get control of the state, and by heavens we worked very hard to do it.

 

[BlindBoo]

OK ...now you are talking

Carter was only in office for four years and inflation went through the roof under Gerry Ford. Remember Ford's "Whip Inflation Now" buttons?
The economy was out of control and there was little Carter could do. Where Carter went wrong was he tried to balance the budget while the economy was tanking. If he had done like Reagan did and tripled the debt to shore up the economy, he would have looked like a hero

Reagan helped the economy by lowering taxes. Tax cuts are like the Sun to Democrats. They feel money belongs to the government and that government knows better how to invest (SPEND) it. When people have more money THEY spend it in the economy......which means massive growth. Democrats don't like growth. Growth means jobs and Democrats know job growth means less dependency on government.

You leave off half the equation

Lower taxes and more government spending (by any equation, this means debt). Reagan ramped up military spending while he cut government revenue. Pouring borrowed money into the economy made Reagan look like a genius. But we paid a price for decades later

Borrowing?

Don't you mean deficit spending?

Okay, every time a Democrat gets in office, they gut the Department of Defense. Then a Republican gets in office and they spend billions rebuilding it. Most of what Reagan spent wouldn't have been necessary if it hadn't been for the negligence of Jimmy Carter.

Winding down the Vietnam era spending did not gut the DoD. The military Carter inherited was woefully unprepared to handed a rapidly developing hot spot. There was no rapid deployment force.

Are you a complete idiot? The US military, even under the most incompetent president, was and is heads above any comers. There is seriously nothing you can do to contest that fact.

With the new Carter Administration elected, the new President signed Presidential Review Memorandum (PRM) 10, which undertook a evaluation of US strategy. In response to the recommendations, the President signed Presidential Directive (PD) 18 on August 24th 1977. One of the main proposals laid the basis for the rapid deployment force - and in 1978, two Army divisions (82nd and 101st) and one Marine division were earmarked for such duties. There were however no substantial funds allocated and it remained a paper exercise. There were four basic reasons why the move to a Rapid Deployment Force was so slow in the 1970's. Firstly the US foreign and defence policies featured retrenchment not intervention. Secondly, the Administration had Europe as it's focus with conventional force policy. Thirdly, there were many objections from the Congress and the Media and fourthly, the Services were just not enthusiastic about another limited contingency organisation. However, in 1979 three events were to occur that galvanised the Administration and finally ended the post-Vietnam malaise. The first was the failure to ratify the SALT 2 treaty whose debate "revealed to both the Congress and the American public the degree to which US military power had been permitted to deteriorate in the face of an unstinting and comprehensive Soviet build-up". [note 3] The second event was the overthrow of the Shah in Iran by anti-Western Islamic fundamentalists. Not only did this remove a major ally in the area, but showed how vulnerable Western oil was to political instability. The taking hostage of US diplomatic personnel also highlighted the US inability to act. The third and perhaps most important event was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 All this prompted a reappraisal of official policy with the result the Carter doctrine was announced in the President's State of the Union Address on January 20th 1980, where he announced that any attempt by a foreign power to gain control of the Persian Gulf and surrounding area would be regarded as an attack on the vital interests of the USA, and be stopped by all means necessary including the use of military force. This was the first formal commitment of US military power to the region.

Rapid Deployment Force, United States (Peter Antill)

 

[rightwinger]

What is even freakier than Texas becoming a swing state is that Alaska (yes Sarah Palin country) is now a swing state

Romney won Alaska by 14%

Trump is only +3 in Alaska

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - Alaska: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein