Trump Generally High, Unfavorables; Carson-Fiorina Generally Unknown Highs(?)

[mascale]

Secretary Clinton has a career of unprecedented progress. Not many spouse-people in all of history had access to an independent Presidential-level email server, while serving as cabinet member: In fact, as Secretary of State. The original attempt at a national health plan created unfavorable ratings. The new Clinton unfavorable ratings are mostly focused, mostly on a non-issue. Having access to the differently secured server, could it be used or not(?). The email record was on government recipient servers. Officers of the Court have reviewed the entire matter.

After a summer of actual Republican National campaigning, comparing, Front-Runner Trump has a generally high unfavorable rating, nationally, improving only about 10% all year long. So it is noted at ABC-Washington Post. The Negative is at 60% and not improving.

Favorable ratings of Carson, Fiorina and Trump - The Washington Post

Then, after a summer of campaigning, because of Trump there are two Republicans also with a leading edge, at about 30% negatives. It is still the Trump Party, however. Another 30% have no opinion of the other two at all.

Note that it can be said that there is no National Republican Party at all. The Speaker Apparent of the U. S. House comes from California, where that is commonly noted to be the case. There is virtually no Republican Party in California--Except for him. At the Presidential level, there are three outsiders now in charge, mostly owing every bit of recognition they have to just the one of them. Effectively, they can run on no record, at all.

End of opposition to the Democrats. The Republicans can't stand their own people, either. Others. . . .have to. . .run for elective office. . . .for them(?).

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Wings of Soaring Eagle: Not given credit when gunshot is heard in the background!)

 

[candycorn]

more good news for Hillary.

 

[Stephanie]

underrepresented progress. in what? oh wait that wasn't it. lol

yeah she's unprecedented in
lying
corruption
cover ups
riding into office off her President hubby's coattails
covering up for his ADULTERY
I'm sure I missed a few
my gawd

 

[mascale]

Comparing and Contrasting as is customary, the Democratic presidential front-runners have careers in the United States Senate. One is a Vice President. One is a former Secretary of State, and with access to a Presidential-level email server, to boot. The Republicans are mainly in the process of getting all their elected leaders. . . .well. . .you know. . ..Fired!

One other person with access to the Presidential-level email server calls the front-runner Trump, fact-free. The actual strategy of the Republicans, so far, is to avoid any pretense of governing policy--or ability(?). Instead of that, they are first running personas instead(?), and getting rid of any that anyone has ever heard of(?). Trump should be followed, probably more womanly(?), or however that is said(?)! Would you vote for any of these faces for President, if one of them even managed to be nominated(?).

If so, why?

The Concept of "Cover-Up" originates with Republicans in office. As currently applied, anyone might notice that "Cover-Up" even applies to mentioning their policy agenda, unless there are doctored videotapes. It is not clear what any of them would do. . .having no experience having done much of anything. I myself have an old friend who is a self-made billionaire, for example. My understanding of billionaires is that they have no need of a White House, just to do Golf. What you do, for that, is to go out and buy a golf course!

Sometimes, a billionaire can, in fact, make sense!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Grand Old Party maybe gaining concept of their other qualification for Leader in Washington: Maybe the concept of the oversized asshole(?)!