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

[sealybobo]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed ***** 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 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.

I don't know about 'all white'. But 87% of Romney voters were white.

Either economics trumps faith in the GOP or christians dont understand that the founder of the Mormon faith said god told him all their churches were/are corrupt and lost the authority from god and to start a new church. It was Jesus who told Joseph smith this hense the Jesus Christ of latter day saints. Later as in after 1800. No other connection to their church other than saying their churches are corrupt because Jesus told Joseph smith.

 

[Care4all]

Actually, Dems have a number of great potential candidates, but there is no sense in them running at this point, because Hillary is going to win the nomination. If she had chosen not to run, Dems would have several strong candidates.

Democrats are interchangeable, so from a policy standpoint it makes no difference who runs. But from a strategy standpoint, isn't it a bit risky to put all your eggs in one basket this far from the election? Particularly someone with the arrogance and trail of corruption as a Clinton?

Considering that Democrats are black, brown, white, rich, poor, gay, straight, religious, atheists, educated and uneducated, to say they are all the same is retarded beyond belief.

Republicans are 90% white and those whites come in two flavors, middle class to poor who vote white no matter what and rich and greedy rich who vote money first and white second no matter what.

Who has diversity is clear.

Currently, your field has 2 white senior citizens, one male, one female, and a younger white male.

The pub field has 2 Hispanics, one woman, and a variety of white males, none of whom are near the age of applying for Social Security.

Yes, "who has diversity" is VERY clear.

The Democrats will run the first female for President in history. Republicans will run another white male

There is your diversity

you are really trying, I will give you that. But your reality is that HRC is a very flawed candidate and a more flawed person. She and bubba are what america hates about the political class who think they rule by some kind of divine right.

Why in the world would any sane person think that about the Clintons? Bill came from a rock bottom place and got where he got in life through hard work and his brains, NOT THROUGH family inheritance LIKE President Bush 1 and 2, and you voted for Bush 2 twice...?

So it truly, sounds like you are barking up the wrong tree....

 

[Kondor3]

It doesn't matter....

The GOP has a stable of potentials, the Dems have one old mare...

 

[JoshuaZ]

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?

Have....have you checked those numbers lately? Clinton beats Bush by 6 to 11 points. Over and over. Virtually single poll for the last month has the same range....save one.

Fox News has Bush by 1. I can seen why you referred to it as 'one major poll', but didn't describe it.

I'm not sure what your point is. Fox News is a reliable pollster with only a slight right-ward bias. Their polling is much more respected than their news is. Frankly, if the race occurred tomorrow, Hillary would win. But it doesn't. You can if you want answer the question though: what probability do you assign to the Democrats winning the Presidency? (If it helps my own estimate is 55%).

I think you know exactly what my point is. You didn't accidentally refer to it as 'one major poll'. Your omission of the source of the poll was quite intentional. Fox Polls skew to the right.

Take....gay marriage. Everyone from Gallup to PPP to ABC and CNN puts gay marriage support in a clear majority. Only Fox shows it opposition leading. Take the 2012 election. Most polls had Obama leading. Fox consistently showed a Romney victory or a tie.

It wasn't a Romney Victory. It wasn't a tie. It wasn't even close, with Romney losing by 5 million popular votes and 125 electoral votes. Fox skews to the right. For crying out loud, Fox polling still refuses to call cell phones when polling.

And with poll after poll putting Hillary as high as 20 points above Bush (most showing 6 to 10 points), do you honestly expect us to believe that its random coincidence that you picked the ONE poll that gave Bush a 1% edge as the poll you'll cite?

You're cherry picking. That's also my point.

An

Fox skews right yes. As does Gallup and Rasmussen. Note that Gallup also showed that Romney was up a point over Obama. See here. Nate Silver's analysis showed that Fox is of about average in terms of reliability of major pollsters and a slight rightward slant.

Sometimes. Gallup also had Obama up by 2 only a month before the election. Fox was always Romney for the last 2 months of the election. And Nate Silver gives Fox a C+.

Yes, Gallup bounced around surprisingly much, and there was something strange going on there. As for Fox getting a C+, yes, which as I said is about average for the major pollsters in his system.

And Nate would also tell you that its statistically unlikely for most of the polls to break in the same direction if actual public support were moving in the opposite direction. And Hillary is polling ahead of Bush with almost perfect consistency. You picked the one poll that gave Bush a 1 point lead. And ignored the multiple polls that put Hillary at between 6 and 20 points above Bush.

Nate Silver is completely correct here (as usual), although I'd note here that the number of head-to-head polls here has been relatively small- at this point there have only been four major pollsters in the last few weeks doing national head-to-head. And yes, I picked the 1 point with a 1 point lead, because the point in question is that she's not so far ahead that a reasonable pollster can't still have her behind somewhere.

That's cherry picking. Where you pick the data that matches what you want to believe and ignore the rest. That has notoriously poor record of accuracy. Its a fallacy of logic for a reason.

Bwah? You seem to be highly confused here since this would suggest that I somehow want to believe that the Republic would win. If the Republicans don't put Pataki or Kasich in the nomination (spoiler alert: they won't!) I'm going to vote for the Democrat, and even if Kasich or Pataki is there, I'm still pretty likely to vote for the Democrat. This isn't wishful thinking: I'd be happier if she had *more* of a lead. The point given is that she has a lead that isn't that large. (Which also is unfortunate in that I've bet multiple people here that she's going to win. So we'll see how that goes.)

Now, in fairness, Nate would also tell you its way to early to tell if Hillary is actually going to win. As the factors that will effect her election haven't happened yet. We don't know what the economic conditions are going be before the election, we don't know who the republican nominee is going to be, we don't know what Obama's popularity will be as he leaves office. These issues probably won't start coming into focus until early next year.

Essentially in agreement. Although note that there's an argument that Nate Silver is actually slightly underconfident in how much can be predicted by polls, and this is connected to his slightly lower Brier score compared to say Wang. See here.

 

[JoshuaZ]

It doesn't matter....

The GOP has a stable of potentials, the Dems have one old mare...

How does repeating the claim in the title text advance the discussion at all?

 

[sealybobo]

...Bernie sanders will debate her and they will remind america why to vote left...

Bernie is there for window dressing and his just-uncovered 'women fantasize about being gang-raped' remarks may deny him even that role in the coming days.

...Dont forget when the economy was taking a dump on bush in 2007 you said bush was good vote McCain...

Nope. I was stupid enough to vote for Obama. Twice. We've had enough socialism and autocracy for a while.

...Now the economy is back and doing fine you want to say something? Who takes you seriously?

Eight years of namby-pamby limp-wristed touchy-feely types is quite enough, thank you.

Time for the other guys to get another turn at-bat.

How soon the sheep forget 2000 to 2006 when tom delay "convicted" Dennis hastert "indicted" and bush the war criminal bankrupted this nation and you want to try it again? That's all they had to do to get back power was obstruct from 2006 to now and you want to reward them more? Ha!

This ain't a midterm where sheep dont show up. You guys only win midterms. We need hillarys veto pen on boehner and Mitch McConnell and we can't have another right wing on the supreme court.

 

[JoshuaZ]

Its very amusing to watch the dims twist and turn trying to justify running the old, tired, lying, corrupt, failed ***** 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 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.

 

[Kondor3]

It doesn't matter....

The GOP has a stable of potentials, the Dems have one old mare...

How does repeating the claim in the title text advance the discussion at all?

It was served-up as an offset to the hype about economics, in a preceding remark. Unfortunately, I waited too long to place it directly behind its intended companion (#521) without quoting it.

And, the simplistic recapitulation of the headline was intended to silently illustrate that - juicy rationalizations aside - America has grown tired of Democratic Party autocrats and power-brokers annointing our Princes for us.

I failed.

However, I'm pretty sure that the sun will still come up in the morning.

 

[Kondor3]

...Bernie sanders will debate her and they will remind america why to vote left...

Bernie is there for window dressing and his just-uncovered 'women fantasize about being gang-raped' remarks may deny him even that role in the coming days.

...Dont forget when the economy was taking a dump on bush in 2007 you said bush was good vote McCain...

Nope. I was stupid enough to vote for Obama. Twice. We've had enough socialism and autocracy for a while.

...Now the economy is back and doing fine you want to say something? Who takes you seriously?

Eight years of namby-pamby limp-wristed touchy-feely types is quite enough, thank you.

Time for the other guys to get another turn at-bat.

How soon the sheep forget 2000 to 2006 when tom delay "convicted" Dennis hastert "indicted" and bush the war criminal bankrupted this nation and you want to try it again? That's all they had to do to get back power was obstruct from 2006 to now and you want to reward them more? Ha!

This ain't a midterm where sheep dont show up. You guys only win midterms. We need hillarys veto pen on boehner and Mitch McConnell and we can't have another right wing on the supreme court.

America has had enough of you jokers thinking you can continue to spend other people's money indefinitely.

Fun-Time's over, kiddies.

 

[JoshuaZ]

It doesn't matter....

The GOP has a stable of potentials, the Dems have one old mare...

How does repeating the claim in the title text advance the discussion at all?

It was served-up as an offset to the hype about economics, in a preceding remark. Unfortunately, I waited too long to place it directly behind its intended companion (#521) without quoting it.

And, the simplistic recapitulation of the headline was intended to silently illustrate that - juicy rationalizations aside - America has grown tired of Democratic Party autocrats and power-brokers annointing our Princes for us.

I failed.

However, I'm pretty sure that the sun will still come up in the morning.

What probability do you assign that the next elected President will be a Republican?

 

[Kondor3]

It doesn't matter....

The GOP has a stable of potentials, the Dems have one old mare...

How does repeating the claim in the title text advance the discussion at all?

It was served-up as an offset to the hype about economics, in a preceding remark. Unfortunately, I waited too long to place it directly behind its intended companion (#521) without quoting it.

And, the simplistic recapitulation of the headline was intended to silently illustrate that - juicy rationalizations aside - America has grown tired of Democratic Party autocrats and power-brokers annointing our Princes for us.

I failed.

However, I'm pretty sure that the sun will still come up in the morning.

What probability do you assign that the next elected President will be a Republican?

Realistically?

One in three.

Sad.

But still substantive, nevertheless.

The Pubs need to press 'Reset' on half a dozen policies and start to shake Big Business off their backs.

Trouble is, they're almost as stupid as the Dems, and (1) can't see the need and (2) haven't a clue as to how to set about doing it.

The biggest thing they have going for them right now is Hillary.

Nobody wants to see a third or fourth Obama Term - with chintz curtains.

 

[sealybobo]

...Bernie sanders will debate her and they will remind america why to vote left...

Bernie is there for window dressing and his just-uncovered 'women fantasize about being gang-raped' remarks may deny him even that role in the coming days.

...Dont forget when the economy was taking a dump on bush in 2007 you said bush was good vote McCain...

Nope. I was stupid enough to vote for Obama. Twice. We've had enough socialism and autocracy for a while.

...Now the economy is back and doing fine you want to say something? Who takes you seriously?

Eight years of namby-pamby limp-wristed touchy-feely types is quite enough, thank you.

Time for the other guys to get another turn at-bat.

How soon the sheep forget 2000 to 2006 when tom delay "convicted" Dennis hastert "indicted" and bush the war criminal bankrupted this nation and you want to try it again? That's all they had to do to get back power was obstruct from 2006 to now and you want to reward them more? Ha!

This ain't a midterm where sheep dont show up. You guys only win midterms. We need hillarys veto pen on boehner and Mitch McConnell and we can't have another right wing on the supreme court.

America has had enough of you jokers thinking you can continue to spend other people's money indefinitely.

Fun-Time's over, kiddies.

You in your 20s?

 

[sealybobo]

It doesn't matter....

The GOP has a stable of potentials, the Dems have one old mare...

How does repeating the claim in the title text advance the discussion at all?

It was served-up as an offset to the hype about economics, in a preceding remark. Unfortunately, I waited too long to place it directly behind its intended companion (#521) without quoting it.

And, the simplistic recapitulation of the headline was intended to silently illustrate that - juicy rationalizations aside - America has grown tired of Democratic Party autocrats and power-brokers annointing our Princes for us.

I failed.

However, I'm pretty sure that the sun will still come up in the morning.

What probability do you assign that the next elected President will be a Republican?

Women will show up like blacks to vote for the first woman president. Even your wives are voting for hillary. You better run a hispanic.

 

[kaz]

Democrats are interchangeable, so from a policy standpoint it makes no difference who runs. But from a strategy standpoint, isn't it a bit risky to put all your eggs in one basket this far from the election? Particularly someone with the arrogance and trail of corruption as a Clinton?

Considering that Democrats are black, brown, white, rich, poor, gay, straight, religious, atheists, educated and uneducated, to say they are all the same is retarded beyond belief.

Republicans are 90% white and those whites come in two flavors, middle class to poor who vote white no matter what and rich and greedy rich who vote money first and white second no matter what.

Who has diversity is clear.

Currently, your field has 2 white senior citizens, one male, one female, and a younger white male.

The pub field has 2 Hispanics, one woman, and a variety of white males, none of whom are near the age of applying for Social Security.

Yes, "who has diversity" is VERY clear.

The Democrats will run the first female for President in history. Republicans will run another white male

There is your diversity

you are really trying, I will give you that. But your reality is that HRC is a very flawed candidate and a more flawed person. She and bubba are what america hates about the political class who think they rule by some kind of divine right.

Why in the world would any sane person think that about the Clintons? Bill came from a rock bottom place and got where he got in life through hard work and his brains, NOT THROUGH family inheritance LIKE President Bush 1 and 2, and you voted for Bush 2 twice...?

So it truly, sounds like you are barking up the wrong tree....

He did, but the Democrats insistence on holding him accountable for nothing changed that

 

[Auld Phart]

The stable of 'potential' winners. :0)

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

 

[Auld Phart]

It doesn't matter....

The GOP has a stable of potentials, the Dems have one old mare...

How does repeating the claim in the title text advance the discussion at all?

It was served-up as an offset to the hype about economics, in a preceding remark. Unfortunately, I waited too long to place it directly behind its intended companion (#521) without quoting it.

And, the simplistic recapitulation of the headline was intended to silently illustrate that - juicy rationalizations aside - America has grown tired of Democratic Party autocrats and power-brokers annointing our Princes for us.

I failed.

However, I'm pretty sure that the sun will still come up in the morning.

What probability do you assign that the next elected President will be a Republican?

Women will show up like blacks to vote for the first woman president. Even your wives are voting for hillary. You better run a hispanic.

My wife would have no problem voting for a woman, but she wouldn't vote for Hillary if you paid her.

 

[Flash]

[

You're simply projecting your personal beliefs onto 'moon bats'. And Hillary leads in virtually every poll. With Republicans having failed to convince the electorate to back them in 5 of the last 6 elections.

Remember, just because everyone in the right wing echo chamber agrees with you doesn't mean that your claims have the slightest connection to reality.

There was a focus group of people that said they were going to vote for Hillary a few weeks ago. They were asked to name one accomplishment of her. Not one person could name one accomplishment.

The ***** has several things going against her.

The first is that she has absolutely no record of ever accomplishing anything. She did not earn her Senate seat in New York. It was handed to her on a silver platter. She wasn't even from the state. She didn't do anything of note as a Senator.

She got her fat ass beat by Obama in the Moon Bat Primaries in 2008. The majority of Moon Bats didn't even want her.

She was a disaster as Secretary of State. Her reset button shit with Russia was an embarrassment to this country and she well earned her nickname of "The ***** of Benghazi" after lying to the people and mismanaging the crisis that resulted in a slain ambassador and three other Americans.

Then there is the revelations that she covered up her competencies and corruption as Secretary of State by illegally deleting what should have been State Department records. At a minimum she should be charged with possession of classified material in a non secured environment. The same charge as David Petraeus was convicted of.

On top of that is the tremendous evidence that she used her position in government to get rich off of foreign countries and corporations and that is going to be a big hurdle for her to jump over.

The American people in polls know that she is dishonest. As long as there is not a single identified Republican opponent the Democrat front runner will always do better in polls against several Republican opponents. That will change when the field gets narrowed down.

The Moon Bats are going to be in serious trouble in 2016. They will have to answer for Obama's terrible domestic and foreign record and the lies that he told while in office. There will be a big hit to the pocketbook of many Americans next year because of Obamacare. Then you have the corruption and incompetence of The Hildabeast. Sanders is a joke and nobody has ever heard of this Martin O'Malley character.

As Johnathan Gruber told us there are stupid Americans so The Hildabeast will get some votes but she will never be President.

 

[JoshuaZ]

[

You're simply projecting your personal beliefs onto 'moon bats'. And Hillary leads in virtually every poll. With Republicans having failed to convince the electorate to back them in 5 of the last 6 elections.

Remember, just because everyone in the right wing echo chamber agrees with you doesn't mean that your claims have the slightest connection to reality.

There was a focus group of people that said they were going to vote for Hillary a few weeks ago. They were asked to name one accomplishment of her. Not one person could name one accomplishment.

The ***** has several things going against her.

The first is that she has absolutely no record of ever accomplishing anything. She did not earn her Senate seat in New York. It was handed to her on a silver platter. She wasn't even from the state. She didn't do anything of note as a Senator.

She got her fat ass beat by Obama in the Moon Bat Primaries in 2008. The majority of Moon Bats didn't even want her.

She was a disaster as Secretary of State. Her reset button shit with Russia was an embarrassment to this country and she well earned her nickname of "The ***** of Benghazi" after lying to the people and mismanaging the crisis that resulted in a slain ambassador and three other Americans.

Then there is the revelations that she covered up her competencies and corruption as Secretary of State by illegally deleting what should have been State Department records. At a minimum she should be charged with possession of classified material in a non secured environment. The same charge as David Petraeus was convicted of.

On top of that is the tremendous evidence that she used her position in government to get rich off of foreign countries and corporations and that is going to be a big hurdle for her to jump over.

The American people in polls know that she is dishonest. As long as there is not a single identified Republican opponent the Democrat front runner will always do better in polls against several Republican opponents. That will change when the field gets narrowed down.

The Moon Bats are going to be in serious trouble in 2016. They will have to answer for Obama's terrible domestic and foreign record and the lies that he told while in office. There will be a big hit to the pocketbook of many Americans next year because of Obamacare. Then you have the corruption and incompetence of The Hildabeast. Sanders is a joke and nobody has ever heard of this Martin O'Malley character.

As Johnathan Gruber told us there are stupid Americans so The Hildabeast will get some votes but she will never be President.

Never sounds like very strong language. Question: suppose someone offered to make a bet with you conditional on Hillary winning the nomination where you paid $30 if Hillary ends up as President and you got paid $10 if she isn't elected, would you take it?

 

[Flash]

[


Does this mean you expect the Republicans to gain in the House and Senate in addition to winning the Presidency?

Unless there is some disaster I don't think there is anyway in hell the Moon Bats will take over the House.

There is a slight possibility the Moon Bats could tie or win the Senate simply because in 2016 there are many more Republicans that will have to defend their seat than Moon Bats. Statistics is their only hope.

The Hildabeast is self destructing and she will be ripped apart in the campaign because of her record of incompetency and corruption. If the Republicans fail to emphasize her massive failures then they don't deserve to win.

Sanders is a joke and O'Malley doesn't have the name recognition. Besides, O'Malley or any of the Moon Bats will have to run against Obama's dismal record and that is going to be a tough row to hoe.

 

[Flash]

[

Never sounds like very strong language. Question: suppose someone offered to make a bet with you conditional on Hillary winning the nomination where you paid $30 if Hillary ends up as President and you got paid $10 if she isn't elected, would you take it?

Only a fool would ever bet on politics.

The Clintons are despicable shitheads but they are crafty politicians and as Johnathan Gruber did tell us that there are many stupid Americans.

If you think the Hildabeast can pull it off then God bless you. I don't think so. If I am wrong then it is because this country is really screwed up a lot more than I can imagine.