Trump vs clinton

[Cheesehead]

Barring a miracle, this is what America has to look forward to for 2016. I am sure the comedians and late night hosts are loving it.

God help us.

[Xville]

How are normal, well-educated people going to make a vote between these two? This is what our country has become? It's really sad. The alternate universe in Back to the Future 2 where BIF controls everything is about to occur.

[CSS85]

How are normal, well-educated people going to make a vote between these two? This is what our country has become? It's really sad. The alternate universe in Back to the Future 2 where BIF controls everything is about to occur.

Or the alternate universe in It's A Wonderful Life where Bedford Falls turns into Pottersville. I can't decide if Trump or Clinton more closely resembles Potter.

[boozehound]

Ugh.

The Republican party needs to get their collective shit together. This election totally got away from them, and now (in my opinion) we will be left without a viable conservative candidate. Ted Cruz getting the nomination wouldn't have been any better, either. I think Hillary is a very beatable Democratic candidate, and they screwed the pooch by getting boxed in to nominating Trump. I'm not sure that Jeb Bush would have won the election, but I think he might do better in a general election than Trump.

It will be interesting to see if Reince Priebus survives this. I would expect to see him get canned after Trump loses by double digits to Hillary in the general election.

[NY44]

I think this nomination is a history changer. Hilary is bad, but there still will be a huge exodus of moderate republicans to the democratic party. Maybe a Progressive/Socialist Party will come from this.

[GoMuskies]

I think this nomination is a history changer. Hilary is bad, but there still will be a huge exodus of moderate republicans to the democratic party. Maybe a Progressive/Socialist Party will come from this.

That's an interesting notion, because the moderate Republicans are going to switch right back if the Democrats become the party of Bernie (and his ilk). But if that wing becomes its own Progressive/Socialist Party, the Democratic Party could remain a pretty safe place for moderate Pubs.

[NY44]

That's an interesting notion, because the moderate Republicans are going to switch right back if the Democrats become the party of Bernie (and his ilk). But if that wing becomes its own Progressive/Socialist Party, the Democratic Party could remain a pretty safe place for moderate Pubs.

Agreed. If Bernie broke off it would be interesting. I think he would obviously take a lot of votes from Hilary, but he would also take a fair share from Trump. Plus it would make sense, Bernie is as democratic and Donald is republican. A 3 party system sounds really nice after this mess. Probably a pipe dream though.

[X-band '01]

Ugh.

The Republican party needs to get their collective shit together. This election totally got away from them, and now (in my opinion) we will be left without a viable conservative candidate. Ted Cruz getting the nomination wouldn't have been any better, either. I think Hillary is a very beatable Democratic candidate, and they screwed the pooch by getting boxed in to nominating Trump. I'm not sure that Jeb Bush would have won the election, but I think he might do better in a general election than Trump.

It will be interesting to see if Reince Priebus survives this. I would expect to see him get canned after Trump loses by double digits to Hillary in the general election.

Another domino effect will be that the Democrats have a much better shot at regaining the Senate. They'll also chip away at the GOP majority in the House, but I don't think it's going to completely dissipate in November.

[LA Muskie]

If Bernie splinters, Trump wins. For that reason alone, I don't want the split. Not now. I just hope Bernie and the Dems are smart enough to realize that.

[LA Muskie]

Another domino effect will be that the Democrats have a much better shot at regaining the Senate. They'll also chip away at the GOP majority in the House, but I don't think it's going to completely dissipate in November.
This is probably the much bigger (and far less covered) story. The Dems will probably take the Senate. And while they probably can't take the House (mostly because they figured this out too late and are running weak candidates in what now could have been contested districts), they will make major dent into their deficit (probably well into the double digits).

[ArizonaXUGrad]

We are closer to a Tea Party third party than a Progressive third party. Really besides Sanders and Warren, there just aren't that many progressives out there. There are several Tea Party people out there in Washington and more so at the state level. What the progressives have are youth, old man Sanders got youth excited and flowing to the poles.

[LA Muskie]

We are closer to a Tea Party third party than a Progressive third party. Really besides Sanders and Warren, there just aren't that many progressives out there. There are several Tea Party people out there in Washington and more so at the state level. What the progressives have are youth, old man Sanders got youth excited and flowing to the poles.
There are more progressives than you realize. They just get drowned out by the noise from the extremes--especially during primary season, which presents a horribly warped view of national opinion. I think the Tea Party is effectively dead after these elections, assuming they proceed as anticipated. The last several years have been an unmitigated failure for the Tea Party (thankfully). And given the nature of their "mandate," their outlandish campaign promises, and their immature approach to governing, they could least afford such horrible results.

[NY44]

We are closer to a Tea Party third party than a Progressive third party. Really besides Sanders and Warren, there just aren't that many progressives out there. There are several Tea Party people out there in Washington and more so at the state level. What the progressives have are youth, old man Sanders got youth excited and flowing to the poles.

I disagree. Trump really might not get a single moderate Democrat. At this point, I think it's a safe bet that the majority of moderates are going to Clinton. The Tea Party group would stick with Trump. The Progressives/Socialists would be less likely support a Hilary campaign that's pandering to moderate Republicans.

I don't see the need for a party further right. To me, the Tea Party is better represented by Trump in the general than they've ever been before.

[boozehound]

There are more progressives than you realize. They just get drowned out by the noise from the extremes--especially during primary season, which presents a horribly warped view of national opinion. I think the Tea Party is effectively dead after these elections, assuming they proceed as anticipated. The last several years have been an unmitigated failure for the Tea Party (thankfully). And given the nature of their "mandate" and their outlandish campaign promises, they could least afford such horrible results.

This is an interesting statement RE: The Tea Party, but I think there is a good bit of truth to it. The Tea Party initially appeared to invigorate Republicans, however after some early victories in the House, it hasn't translated to much good. I also think it may have cost Mitt Romney the last election due to his (1) having to tack too far to the right in the primaries to actually win the nomination, and (2) having to spend too much money on the Republican primary, which forced him to have to go out and fund raise more than he would have liked to during the campaigning for the general election.

The other problem with Tea Party politics is that it generally doesn't work when executed. See Kansas for an example of what happens when a state is run by the Tea Party.

[X-band '01]

This is probably the much bigger (and far less covered) story. The Dems will probably take the Senate. And while they probably can't take the House (mostly because they figured this out too late and are running weak candidates in what now could have been contested districts), they will make major dent into their deficit (probably well into the double digits).

And that's to say nothing of a Supreme Court vacancy that's likely to be filled by Hillary Clinton once she takes office. Instead of taking their medicine and confirming Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, there's now a better shot that Scalia's seat will probably be filled by a more liberal-leaning judge in 2017.

[LA Muskie]

And that's to say nothing of a Supreme Court vacancy that's likely to be filled by Hillary Clinton once she takes office. Instead of taking their medicine and confirming Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, there's now a better shot that Scalia's seat will probably be filled by a more liberal-leaning judge in 2017.
Almost certainly this is true. The Republicans played right into the Dems hand on this one. Merrick was a sacrificial lamb. But I'm pretty sure he knew that going in.

[xubrew]

If Bernie splinters, Trump wins. For that reason alone, I don't want the split. Not now. I just hope Bernie and the Dems are smart enough to realize that.

You are correct. You are also hoping for quite a lot.

[CSS85]

This is an interesting statement RE: The Tea Party, but I think there is a good bit of truth to it. The Tea Party initially appeared to invigorate Republicans, however after some early victories in the House, it hasn't translated to much good. I also think it may have cost Mitt Romney the last election due to his (1) having to tack too far to the right in the primaries to actually win the nomination, and (2) having to spend too much money on the Republican primary, which forced him to have to go out and fund raise more than he would have liked to during the campaigning for the general election.

The other problem with Tea Party politics is that it generally doesn't work when executed. See Kansas for an example of what happens when a state is run by the Tea Party.

Easy there, that's like pointing to Detroit, Baltimore or Chicago and saying "look what happens when Democrats run things for decades". I guess you could make a statement like that if in fact there was any coherent philosophy under the "party" uniform, but the real problem is - there isn't. There is no coherent political philosophy within the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, and not much more in the Libertarian Party. The Tea Party was not a "party" it was a series of platitudes, and the people who claimed to be under that banner were only interested in being "disrupters" against anything that already existed, and using tactics that had zero capability to affect any actual policies. In fact, I don't see any structured ideology anywhere, even within any supposed subgroups, like progressive, conservative, moderate, socialist, fascist. There are just a bunch of positions that bear few logical connections and frequently contradict each other.

I also believe that the muck and dreck associated with both candidates will be breathtaking when it's surfaced during the actual campaign. Sadly, we have seen NONE of it yet, and it is impossible to predict how that will affect the "average" voter because we don't know what it is...

I think Trump will run as a guy who isn't really in any party, but a man of the people who happened to win the Republican nomination. Most of his economic positions are New Deal type progressive - trade restrictions, wage and price controls, etc. and his anti-immigration rhetoric could be copied and pasted from the New Deal. Let's not forget that FDR allowed entire shiploads of Jews to be sent back to Germany rather than try to expand the immigration quotas. How will two progressives fair against each other is anybody's guess.

[MADXSTER]

IMO there will be a low voting turn out from moderates on both sides. I don't think moderate Reps will switch over to Clinton or moderate Dems will switch over to Clinton.

If there is to be a 3rd party, it should be called...The Normal Party. Where they nominate a normal person for President.

[X-band '01]

If there is to be a 3rd party, it should be called...The Normal Party. Where they nominate a normal person for President.

Rachel Phelps will never allow that to happen.

[bobbiemcgee]

Lyin' Ted could run as an Independent, crushing Trump's hopes as well and handing the election to Hillary. He probably hates Trump more than Hillary at this point.

[xu82]

Is this the most depressing thread ever?

[paulxu]

Lyin' Ted could run as an Independent, crushing Trump's hopes as well and handing the election to Hillary. He probably hates Trump more than Hillary at this point.

Bernie could do the same to Hillary.
This is one strange election cycle.

[GoMuskies]

Is this the most depressing thread ever?

This doesn't come close to the level of depression I get from the Mack at Elder thread.

[xu82]

This doesn't come close to the level of depression I get from the Mack at Elder thread.

Did Mack take the HC job there???

[MADXSTER]

This doesn't come close to the level of depression I get from the Mack at Elder thread.

I wonder where the candidates went to High School. Oops

[GoMuskies]

New York Military Academy and Maine South High School

[waggy]

I'll vote for neither. But I will vote, and it'll be for whatever no-name I've never heard of that makes the ticket.

Or I'll write in Exaggerator.

[kyxu]

This political thread has nothing but reasonable discourse between posters, and zero personal attacks. Makes me a tad uncomfortable.

[NY44]

Bernie could do the same to Hillary.
This is one strange election cycle.

I'm still unsure if people like Bernie because they are legitimately socialist, or if he's a lot more civil and less tainted than Clinton.

I always come back to Biden. The GOP threw the best they had to offer, plus the kitchen sink, at Trump. Outside of Paul Ryan, I can't think of a Republican nominee who would have had a shot. The Dems didn't. Biden should have run. Looking back, I really think he could have waltzed through Bernie and Clinton. He's got the resume without the scandals. He had that plagiarism scandal, but no one remembers that.

[muskiefan82]

He had that plagiarism scandal, but no one remembers that.

Hillary would remember and it would come out. You also seem to remember.

I am saddened that in a country with many amazing people who could be THE candidate, no one with the actual ability to do the job well wants any part of it. The Office of the President of the United States is no longer viewed as powerful, prestigious, or lucrative. It's a crap job where all the blame is placed at your feet when Congress is mostly to blame AND the pay sucks too. Any decent CEO makes 5 or more times what POTUS makes with less of a headache and a decent parachute when it goes south.

I would love someone who had loads of cash to spend on a campaign find someone reasonably intelligent, with a solid background and experience outside of politics, with Midwestern values and ethics, to support and have that person stand up and say to all of us, " I am not famous, well-known, rich, or political, but this is my country and I can't sit idly by while this farce continues. I want to be the President to try and fix this. I'm not naïve. I know I have to make deals if I become President to get things done and I want everyone to know that I will make deals, but the things that are agreed upon in that deal will be public. There will be no secrets. If I have to agree to give Senator X this concession to get Bill Y through the Senate, then I will, but the world will know what was done. I will call things as I see them. Out loud. For all to hear. When Congress takes from one citizen to give to another, it is stealing unless the voters have agreed that the government provision is necessary for ALL. Things like the military, Social Security, etc. need funding and that funding provides services for ALL. Too many programs take from citizens to give to a few citizens. This is neither fair nor, in my opinion, legal. These programs need to go away as GOVERNMENT run programs. We are dying as a nation. We spend more than we have. VISA, MasterCard, and I guarantee your bank won't let you do it, but somehow our country can and everything is fine. This is not a road to prosperity that we are on. It's a highway and it isn't going to a nice place. I can't say I can fix everything and I might not be able to fix anything, but I will try and if I can't, I promise to tell you who, what, when, where, why, and how any issues were stopped, delayed, or changed. I will drop names and call people out for what they do or don't do. The days of hiding behind an office and taking no blame for what happens need to end. Hopefully, I can make that happen if nothing else. Everyone needs to know what is really happening in Washington so they can make decisions when voting for their representatives and senators. I will tell you what I learn and hear from them. Are they trying to stonewall something? Are they supporting something that they said they did not support when running for office? There is no actual transparency now. We hear what they provide to us, but that needs to end. You need, you deserve, the truth about how things are happening in Washington. I will do my best to provide that. If you are looking at the candidates and find yourself trying to figure out which one is the lesser of two or more evils, then write my name in. Even at my worst, I am better than any of the party nominees because I actually care about the USA and right now, the USA is in trouble."

I wonder how many write in votes someone could actually get if this happened.

*The opinions and statements in the above paragraph do not necessarily represent those of people who would disagree with some or all of the statements or of those who need safe spaces within which they can cry or protest the opinions of others.

[NY44]

Any decent CEO makes 34.5 times what POTUS makes with less of a headache and a decent parachute when it goes south.

Fixed that for you. Just to further your point. The average CEO makes $13,800,000/year and POTUS makes $400,000/year.

[GoMuskies]

The average CEO makes $13,800,000/year

Well this isn't true. This has to be from a small subset of CEOs. Fortune 500 CEOs?

[xeus]

Fixed that for you. Just to further your point. The average CEO makes $13,800,000/year and POTUS makes $400,000/year.

That statistic is based only on the 500 S&P CEOs. When you look at Bureau of Labor estimates that include all 238,940 CEOs in America, the mean annual salary is $185,850.

[xubrew]

Fixed that for you. Just to further your point. The average CEO makes $13,800,000/year and POTUS makes $400,000/year.

I did not make the right career decisions. I should've been a CEO.

[NY44]

That statistic is based only on the 500 S&P CEOs. When you look at Bureau of Labor estimates that include all 238,940 CEOs in America, the mean annual salary is $185,850.


Well this isn't true. This has to be from a small subset of CEOs. Fortune 500 CEOs?

I mean, yeah, technically speaking you're correct. We're making a comparison to The President though, so I think it's safe to narrow the field down to the top 500... You guys wouldn't happen to be lawyers, would you?

Let me pull this apart a little more. Take Walmart for example. They employ 1,400,000 people. Their CEO earned a cool $20,000,000 in 2015. The federal government employs well over 2,500,000 people and Obama makes about $500,000 if you add in the perks. There is no comparison in terms of compensation, even from that managerial perspective alone.

[GoMuskies]

There is no comparison in terms of compensation, even from that managerial perspective alone.


Take a look at Bill Clinton's bank account. The compensation is pretty similar. The President's comp is simply deferred a few years while he (or she!) is in office.

[NY44]

Take a look at Bill Clinton's bank account. The compensation is pretty similar. The President's comp is simply deferred a few years while he (or she!) is in office.

Very true. They have a lot of money, but it's by no means similar to what a successful CEO makes. I took a look through and the numbers I found were about $80M for Bill and $30M for Hilary. That Walmart CEO has been on the job for just about 2 years. He earned that $20M and has $65M in deferred income. So he has caught up to Bill Clinton, who was the most important man on planet Earth for 8 years, in only 2 years.

Mark Zuckerberg created a website and is worth 35 billion. Jeff Bezos 46 billion. I know the office of the President comes with a lot of intangible benefits and should be about a lot more than money, but the pay to power/influence ratio is staggeringly off.

[GoMuskies]

Zuck and Bezos don't get their wealth from salary/income, though. It's from ownership, which is a completely different concept. Hard to give the Pres equity participation in the US of A.

[NY44]

Zuck and Bezos don't get their wealth from salary/income, though. It's from ownership, which is a completely different concept. Hard to give the Pres equity participation in the US of A.

It might not be worth much anyway haha.

I think muskiefan82's main point is about the attractiveness of the office. If you are one of the ultra-elite minds you can build a company and make gobs of money or become President, get paid many times less, and be hated by most of the world. (CEOs qualify for the last condition)

[bjf123]

This political thread has nothing but reasonable discourse between posters, and zero personal attacks. Makes me a tad uncomfortable.

Give it time.

[RoseyMuskie]

This political thread has nothing but reasonable discourse between posters, and zero personal attacks. Makes me a tad uncomfortable.

Sat around a table of eight at the bar the other evening. Republicans and Dems alike. The topic of the election came up, and everyone was in agreement. Truly is odd.

[sirthought]

Also, many of those CEOs are good at what they do because of a particular product. You change up the mix– throw in some foreign policy and some economic backlash– all of a sudden they don't look so good.

It takes a particular kind of crazy to want that job. But I think Clinton is ready to take the sacrifice. She certainly doesn't need it for her legacy.

[GoMuskies]

She certainly doesn't need it for her legacy.

Umm, what?!? I think that's exactly why she wants/needs it. And LOL at the suggestion this job would be a "sacrifice" for Clinton.

[sirthought]

You nuts? It would be a sacrifice for anyone.

And she may want it, but doesn't need it for her legacy. The woman has accomplished much in her lifetime.

[XU-PA]

Is this the most depressing thread ever?

I'll make it worse, what if Trump won?

[XUOWNSUC]

You nuts? It would be a sacrifice for anyone.

And she may want it, but doesn't need it for her legacy. The woman has accomplished much in her lifetime.

What has she "accomplished"?

[NY44]

What has she "accomplished"?

At this point, she definitely needs it for her legacy. If she were to lose this election all people would remember of her are emails, Benghazi, and Trump. Win and she'd be the first woman President, pretty big difference.

Suggesting she hasn't accomplished anything is a bit strong, don't you think? She could very well be the most successful woman politician in American history already.

[GoMuskies]

If she loses this election, Clinton is a historical footnote at best. She won't have accomplished "nothing", but any legacy will be the legacy of a two-time loser.

And no, it will not be a sacrifice for Clinton. I'm pretty sure this is the only thing she's wanted her whole life.

[Strange Brew]

what if Trump won?

The horror! Clutches pearls, passes out.

[JTG]

If she loses this election, Clinton is a historical footnote at best. She won't have accomplished "nothing", but any legacy will be the legacy of a two-time loser.

And no, it will not be a sacrifice for Clinton. I'm pretty sure this is the only thing she's wanted her whole life.

Agree, she is only in it for Hillary. Any Blacks or Latinos who think she is going to do anything for them are crazy. She is probably more connected to Wall St. than Trump.
The reason Bernie and Trump have proved so popular is because both of them are thinking outside the box.

[Cheesehead]

I chuckled when I heard Jimmy Fallon talk about the election: "we have oh no vs. I guess so."

It will be interesting. I need to find one of those yard signs that reads, "2016: they all suck!"

[MauriceX]

In a race where many are not impressed with the two major party candidates, the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson has been getting some good press. It'll be interesting to see if this turns into a 3 party (or if Bernie/Cruz split, possibly 4 or 5 party) race. It seems like everyone is saying they will vote for a third party even though their vote won't matter. Maybe this is the year that all those "don't matter" votes add up to something.

[X-band '01]

Won't happen as you outlined it unless one of the established 3rd parties takes on a candidate like Cruz or Sanders. Deadlines are starting to pass for 3rd party candidates to apply to be on the ballot. Cruz won't do it because he can't beat Trump in red states OR Hillary in blue states. Sanders won't do it because the Democrats would never allow the golden goose to be split 2 ways (thanks to both delegates and superdelegates).

What WOULD be interesting is if 3 candidates ran in the general election and the winner gets the plurality (not majority) of electoral votes. If that happens, then the House of Representatives gets to vote from the top 3 candidates for President (with each state delegation getting one vote) and the Senate votes for Vice President (with each senator getting 1 vote).

[Cheesehead]

"What WOULD be interesting is if 3 candidates ran in the general election and the winner gets the plurality (not majority) of electoral votes. If that happens, then the House of Representatives gets to vote from the top 3 candidates for President (with each state delegation getting one vote) and the Senate votes for Vice President (with each senator getting 1 vote)."

Yes, 1000 times, yes. This would be something.

[JTG]

"What WOULD be interesting is if 3 candidates ran in the general election and the winner gets the plurality (not majority) of electoral votes. If that happens, then the House of Representatives gets to vote from the top 3 candidates for President (with each state delegation getting one vote) and the Senate votes for Vice President (with each senator getting 1 vote)."

Yes, 1000 times, yes. This would be something.

Really?

The Congress are the clowns who have had us in gridlock for the last 8 years. You want them to pick the next President. I don't have a solution, but the best thing that could happen is probably most of Congress being unemployed come the morning of Nov. 9.

[bobbiemcgee]

"On a personal level, Trump is a boor, a bully, a carnival barker and an embarrassment. Politically, by intent or instinct, he is a neo-fascist — a nativist, an ultranationalist, a racist, a misogynist, an anti-intellectual, a demagogue and a palingenetic (sorry) authoritarian to whom clings the odor of the political violence he encourages.
He appeals to our fears, preys on our anxieties and exploits our ignorance. A worse candidate to sit in the Oval Office for the next four years cannot be imagined.
And he is our responsibility. We spawned Donald Trump; now we must stop him. We must deny him the presidency by not voting in the presidential election at all or voting for Hillary Clinton if conscience permits."

---Mac Stipanovich, a Republican Lobbyist and Vietnam Vet doesn't seem excited about the new standard bearer.

He says it took Stalin 30 years and a huge army to remove 6 million people from Russia, so he's not optimistic about the Donald's plan.

[Frambo]

"On a personal level, Trump is a boor, a bully, a carnival barker and an embarrassment. Politically, by intent or instinct, he is a neo-fascist — a nativist, an ultranationalist, a racist, a misogynist, an anti-intellectual, a demagogue and a palingenetic (sorry) authoritarian to whom clings the odor of the political violence he encourages.
He appeals to our fears, preys on our anxieties and exploits our ignorance. A worse candidate to sit in the Oval Office for the next four years cannot be imagined.
And he is our responsibility. We spawned Donald Trump; now we must stop him. We must deny him the presidency by not voting in the presidential election at all or voting for Hillary Clinton if conscience permits."

---Mac Stipanovich, a Republican Lobbyist and Vietnam Vet doesn't seem excited about the new standard bearer.

He says it took Stalin 30 years and a huge army to remove 6 million people from Russia, so he's not optimistic about the Donald's plan.

Stipanovich (lobbyist) and other insiders are the real problem. I'm not a crazy pro-Trump voter.....but I will vote for him against Clinton. A guy like Mac, who is supposedly a republican, telling others to not vote or vote for Hillary tells me all I need to know about him....must be an insider who stands to lose some clout if Trump wins.

[xu82]

So, do we wonder why the really bright, effective people don't want to swim in this cesspool?

I don't disrespect ALL politicians, but.....

[waggy]

I think the cesspool is their creation.

[LA Muskie]

Stipanovich (lobbyist) and other insiders are the real problem. I'm not a crazy pro-Trump voter.....but I will vote for him against Clinton. A guy like Mac, who is supposedly a republican, telling others to not vote or vote for Hillary tells me all I need to know about him....must be an insider who stands to lose some clout if Trump wins.

I don't think it's a ludicrous position at all. The Republicans didn't have a single viable candidate who caught any traction whatsoever. They need a complete purge. And the best way to force that is for Trump to lose in horrendous fashion. At least that could (potentially) contain this debacle to a single election cycle.

[xu82]

I don't think it's a ludicrous position at all. The Republicans didn't have a single viable candidate who caught any traction whatsoever. They need a complete purge. And the best way to force that is for Trump to lose in horrendous fashion. At least that could (potentially) contain this debacle to a single election cycle.

I wonder if they actually wish there was a better opponent than Hillary?

Is Kasich qualified but can't sell himself (aka out-shout the other 16 candidates in a debate), or was he just fortunate in Ohio? Some combination thereof?

[Snipe]

Also, many of those CEOs are good at what they do because of a particular product. You change up the mix– throw in some foreign policy and some economic backlash– all of a sudden they don't look so good.

It takes a particular kind of crazy to want that job. But I think Clinton is ready to take the sacrifice. She certainly doesn't need it for her legacy.

What a bold woman and tremendous public servant. She certainly doesn't need it for her legacy.

[Snipe]

You nuts? It would be a sacrifice for anyone.

And she may want it, but doesn't need it for her legacy. The woman has accomplished much in her lifetime.

You go girl!

[Snipe]

At this point, she definitely needs it for her legacy. If she were to lose this election all people would remember of her are emails, Benghazi, and Trump. Win and she'd be the first woman President, pretty big difference.

Suggesting she hasn't accomplished anything is a bit strong, don't you think? She could very well be the most successful woman politician in American history already.

The question seems to answer itself. I like the way you put it there.

[Snipe]

Agree, she is only in it for Hillary. Any Blacks or Latinos who think she is going to do anything for them are crazy. She is probably more connected to Wall St. than Trump.
The reason Bernie and Trump have proved so popular is because both of them are thinking outside the box.

Don't discount the Blacks and Latinos. She cares about her own people, Whites as much as she cares about Blacks and Latinos. That is what makes her great. She doesn't discriminate. And if she cares that much about her own people, you know she really cares about the Hispanics. I bet she lives in a highly Hispanic neighborhood sometime whenever.

[Strange Brew]

It might not be worth much anyway haha.

I think muskiefan82's main point is about the attractiveness of the office. If you are one of the ultra-elite minds you can build a company and make gobs of money or become President, get paid many times less, and be hated by most of the world. (CEOs qualify for the last condition)

How about being a Wharton school grad who's made gobs of money and is tired of watching his country lose?

[Snipe]

In a race where many are not impressed with the two major party candidates, the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson has been getting some good press. It'll be interesting to see if this turns into a 3 party (or if Bernie/Cruz split, possibly 4 or 5 party) race. It seems like everyone is saying they will vote for a third party even though their vote won't matter. Maybe this is the year that all those "don't matter" votes add up to something.

No

[xu82]

Obviously, no one will will ever again run for President of the United States for the money. So, I'm open to accepting the salary on their behalf.

[Snipe]

Won't happen as you outlined it unless one of the established 3rd parties takes on a candidate like Cruz or Sanders. Deadlines are starting to pass for 3rd party candidates to apply to be on the ballot. Cruz won't do it because he can't beat Trump in red states OR Hillary in blue states. Sanders won't do it because the Democrats would never allow the golden goose to be split 2 ways (thanks to both delegates and superdelegates).

What WOULD be interesting is if 3 candidates ran in the general election and the winner gets the plurality (not majority) of electoral votes. If that happens, then the House of Representatives gets to vote from the top 3 candidates for President (with each state delegation getting one vote) and the Senate votes for Vice President (with each senator getting 1 vote).

I think last time that happened Abe Lincoln won the election with less than 40% of the popular vote. Then he started a war that killed more Americans than every other war that we have been in combined. That worked out well. We still argue about it today. Every other nation that had slaves just got rid of them. Nobody else had a war, or a Civil War, or whatever. They just got rid of them. Had we still been an English Colony, we would have gotten rid of slavery much sooner than that.

It makes me wonder if the Revolutionary War was a good thing. Was it really? If we didn't do that, we wouldn't have slavery or a Civil War. And what is the downside? We would have been a bigger Canada? Is that the horrible fate? I think I could do without all the wars. Revolutionary, Civil, Spanish American, WWI, and WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and all the drone bombings inbetween. Seriously, had we not fought any of these I could argue we would be much better off. I can't see how any of them were a good thing. Just a bunch of spent resources and useless killing.

Abe Lincoln was an asshole that started a huge killing field to "save" the union, and in doing so killed more Americans than every other war America has fought combined. He did it with less than 40% of the popular vote.

And Abe Lincoln was a racist that thought Black People were subhuman.

[Snipe]

There are more progressives than you realize. They just get drowned out by the noise from the extremes--especially during primary season, which presents a horribly warped view of national opinion. I think the Tea Party is effectively dead after these elections, assuming they proceed as anticipated. The last several years have been an unmitigated failure for the Tea Party (thankfully). And given the nature of their "mandate," their outlandish campaign promises, and their immature approach to governing, they could least afford such horrible results.

Donald Trump just won the Republican nomination with a record number of votes. No Republican nominee has ever had as many votes.


I think the Tea Party is effectively dead after these elections, assuming they proceed as anticipated. The last several years have been an unmitigated failure for the Tea Party (thankfully).

The Tea Party hasn't been in effect for all that long, and it looks like they just hijacked the nomination process and nominated their candidate. The Republican elites hated Trump, and spent more than 100 million collectively to defeat him if you count all the candidates.

The Tea Party isn't really a party, I don't have to explain that to you. They aren't one being and they do not have one coherent message. But to act like the last few years is an unmitigated failure is off the mark. The Tea Party was born Yesterday. They won huge majorities in Congressional elections.

Obama had a huge win in the Presidential election, and he had a majority in both houses of Congress. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid helped Obamacare and all the stimulus legislation come to fore. They did whatever they wanted, and they have the legislation to prove it. Interestingly enough, they did nothing on Immigration.

They had all the power, yet they did nothing for our Hispanic brothers and sisters in arms!

My theory is, had they moved on immigration it would have been a done deal. Unpopular? Sure, but a done deal none the less. I believe they kept it alive and on the docket so they could hold it as a cudgel to bang about the head and neck of racist Republicans in future elections. Every new Hispanic is pretty much an instant Democrat. Nobody denies that. But why? Because Republicans are racist! And what better way to show that to our new found friends than not solving the immigration problem but showing them how racist Republicans are for opposing a solution that Democrats could have easily imposed when they had the Executive office and both branches of Congress.

So Democrats didn't solve it, they went about importing more immigrants. More, more, more is the mantra. You can never have enough Democrats, and it just proves to racist White people that they are a dying breed.

They ran news articles in Latin America that Obama will take your children if you send them to the United States. I am not kidding. They actually put that in print. In response to that, Latin Americans started sending tens of thousands of Children to the United States border. It still continues to this day, though it is no longer in the news. Children crossing the border have hit new records. It was not a one off event.

To his credit. Barry Obama said he never said those things about taking all those kids. And to prove it, once all those kids showed up at the border, he took every single one of them and placed them all around America to spread the third world burden on every local school and welfare budget. It was the right thing to do. Then we also started flying people in from Latin America for family reunification because the journey was deemed to dangerous. We did that, we paid the airfare. And how could you not? After all, we have plenty of money. Ask the black people without drinking water in Flint. Plenty of money to go round for airfare & bilingual education as long as you are not black and in Flint.

It has worked out as a dream.

Yeah the Tea Party is an unmitigated disaster, and you guys are running things so well.

If I was going to show a high water mark for the Tea Party, I think I would have to say it is right fucking now. You libtards had all the power and did what? So if we now elect Hillary she will do what? What didn't get done when you already had all the fucking power? You got your whole agenda though, and people aren't feeling the love. Nobody seems to be happy, much less your core base of angry Blacks and Hispanics.

A political model based on angry minority grievances seems to be our future. It seemed like a solid bet for a term or two, but I am not sure riling up the identity politics is the best bet for a long term future. The politics of Trevon Martin and Michael Brown are not lasting, and even at best are fleeting and then destructive. When the Justice Department investigated they eventually concluded that Michael Brown's shooting was justified, and a court of law and witness testimony (as well as physical injuries) showed that Trevon Martin was killed in self defense. And for the record George Zimmerman wasn't even a white guy. He was Hispanic, and we shouldn't have to take your flotsam.

Baltimore Burned and BLACK LIVES MATTER! Black on Black killings rose almost 20% in some major cities. So all the organizing helped in slaughtering your own constituency of angry Black voters. And that is your political model. That is your get out the vote machine.

Your party is despicable.

In contrast, I am a great racist because I would like to have a border for my own country and my own people (racist!), and I would like to finally start enforcing current immigration laws that have been on the books for decades. I would like to put America and my fellow Americans first. What a racist. That is a radical agenda.

You either have a country or you don't. I want a Wall, and I want the law. And I would like Mexico to pay for it. And they will.

Democrats will win in the long term because importing a new people is a winning strategy. With every day they get a tighter and tighter grip and Republicans are a thing of the past. I just wish they weren't so disingenuous to talk about the disparity of wealth as being a problem. What sane person would import 50 million low skilled Latin Americans and then wonder why working class Americans have a tough time getting a competitive wage? How can working class Black Americans compete against low skill, low wage third world labor? What has destroyed the Black community more than massive low skill immigration since the 1960s? It is an honest question. Is any other factor more salient than that?

Your best jobs program of all time would be building that Wall, and enforcing the law. The "Jobs that Americans won't do" were all actually done by Americans back in the day, and many of them done by Black Americans.

It is high time we put some adults in charge. The rest of you can go to a safe space where you can discuss transgender rights to your hearts content, but you are not of a party of serious people with solutions to the problems we have. We need an adult in charge.

[NY44]

How about being a Wharton school grad who's made gobs of money and is tired of watching his country lose?

I knew there had to be at least one among us.

[Muskie in dayton]

Donald Trump just won the Republican nomination with a record number of votes. No Republican nominee has ever had as many votes.



The Tea Party hasn't been in effect for all that long, and it looks like they just hijacked the nomination process and nominated their candidate. The Republican elites hated Trump, and spent more than 100 million collectively to defeat him if you count all the candidates.

The Tea Party isn't really a party, I don't have to explain that to you. They aren't one being and they do not have one coherent message. But to act like the last few years is an unmitigated failure is off the mark. The Tea Party was born Yesterday. They won huge majorities in Congressional elections.

Obama had a huge win in the Presidential election, and he had a majority in both houses of Congress. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid helped Obamacare and all the stimulus legislation come to fore. They did whatever they wanted, and they have the legislation to prove it. Interestingly enough, they did nothing on Immigration.

They had all the power, yet they did nothing for our Hispanic brothers and sisters in arms!

My theory is, had they moved on immigration it would have been a done deal. Unpopular? Sure, but a done deal none the less. I believe they kept it alive and on the docket so they could hold it as a cudgel to bang about the head and neck of racist Republicans in future elections. Every new Hispanic is pretty much an instant Democrat. Nobody denies that. But why? Because Republicans are racist! And what better way to show that to our new found friends than not solving the immigration problem but showing them how racist Republicans are for opposing a solution that Democrats could have easily imposed when they had the Executive office and both branches of Congress.

So Democrats didn't solve it, they went about importing more immigrants. More, more, more is the mantra. You can never have enough Democrats, and it just proves to racist White people that they are a dying breed.

They ran news articles in Latin America that Obama will take your children if you send them to the United States. I am not kidding. They actually put that in print. In response to that, Latin Americans started sending tens of thousands of Children to the United States border. It still continues to this day, though it is no longer in the news. Children crossing the border have hit new records. It was not a one off event.

To his credit. Barry Obama said he never said those things about taking all those kids. And to prove it, once all those kids showed up at the border, he took every single one of them and placed them all around America to spread the third world burden on every local school and welfare budget. It was the right thing to do. Then we also started flying people in from Latin America for family reunification because the journey was deemed to dangerous. We did that, we paid the airfare. And how could you not? After all, we have plenty of money. Ask the black people without drinking water in Flint. Plenty of money to go round for airfare & bilingual education as long as you are not black and in Flint.

It has worked out as a dream.

Yeah the Tea Party is an unmitigated disaster, and you guys are running things so well.

If I was going to show a high water mark for the Tea Party, I think I would have to say it is right fucking now. You libtards had all the power and did what? So if we now elect Hillary she will do what? What didn't get done when you already had all the fucking power? You got your whole agenda though, and people aren't feeling the love. Nobody seems to be happy, much less your core base of angry Blacks and Hispanics.

A political model based on angry minority grievances seems to be our future. It seemed like a solid bet for a term or two, but I am not sure riling up the identity politics is the best bet for a long term future. The politics of Trevon Martin and Michael Brown are not lasting, and even at best are fleeting and then destructive. When the Justice Department investigated they eventually concluded that Michael Brown's shooting was justified, and a court of law and witness testimony (as well as physical injuries) showed that Trevon Martin was killed in self defense. And for the record George Zimmerman wasn't even a white guy. He was Hispanic, and we shouldn't have to take your flotsam.

Baltimore Burned and BLACK LIVES MATTER! Black on Black killings rose almost 20% in some major cities. So all the organizing helped in slaughtering your own constituency of angry Black voters. And that is your political model. That is your get out the vote machine.

Your party is despicable.

In contrast, I am a great racist because I would like to have a border for my own country and my own people (racist!), and I would like to finally start enforcing current immigration laws that have been on the books for decades. I would like to put America and my fellow Americans first. What a racist. That is a radical agenda.

You either have a country or you don't. I want a Wall, and I want the law. And I would like Mexico to pay for it. And they will.

Democrats will win in the long term because importing a new people is a winning strategy. With every day they get a tighter and tighter grip and Republicans are a thing of the past. I just wish they weren't so disingenuous to talk about the disparity of wealth as being a problem. What sane person would import 50 million low skilled Latin Americans and then wonder why working class Americans have a tough time getting a competitive wage? How can working class Black Americans compete against low skill, low wage third world labor? What has destroyed the Black community more than massive low skill immigration since the 1960s? It is an honest question. Is any other factor more salient than that?

Your best jobs program of all time would be building that Wall, and enforcing the law. The "Jobs that Americans won't do" were all actually done by Americans back in the day, and many of them done by Black Americans.

It is high time we put some adults in charge. The rest of you can go to a safe space where you can discuss transgender rights to your hearts content, but you are not of a party of serious people with solutions to the problems we have. We need an adult in charge.

Bob Huggins has no integrity.

[Frambo]

I don't think it's a ludicrous position at all. The Republicans didn't have a single viable candidate who caught any traction whatsoever. They need a complete purge. And the best way to force that is for Trump to lose in horrendous fashion. At least that could (potentially) contain this debacle to a single election cycle.

and Hillary's a viable candidate?????? We know her track record and scandal laden history. I'd rather have an unknown (Trump) for 4 years than a dirty, corrupt politician with Slick Willie turned loose in the White House. If Trump fails and the Republican party sinks...so be it! We desperately need a party for the middle 70% of the people that will vote for the good of the country and not for single issues.

[X-band '01]

I think last time that happened Abe Lincoln won the election with less than 40% of the popular vote. Then he started a war that killed more Americans than every other war that we have been in combined. That worked out well. We still argue about it today. Every other nation that had slaves just got rid of them. Nobody else had a war, or a Civil War, or whatever. They just got rid of them. Had we still been an English Colony, we would have gotten rid of slavery much sooner than that.


The magic word I used was a plurality of electoral votes, not popular votes. Lincoln was able to get a 50% majority of electoral votes in 1860 after the Democrats split; there was also a fourth party that was established simply to preserve the Union. Just the North and West was enough for Lincoln.

In reality, 1824 was the only time that an election went to the House because Andrew Jackson won a plurality of both the popular and electoral votes over John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay. This was the year of the "corrupt bargain" where Adams was able to convince the Clay bloc to vote for him in the House and in turn name Clay as Secretary of State in his cabinet. Needless to say, Adams was a one-term President and Jackson beat him for President in a 1-on-1 election in 1828.

Al Gore and Samuel Tilden are other candidates who also won pluralities in the popular vote but not the electoral vote. However, George W. Bush never gave Ralph Nader the Clay treatment for helping him win in Florida in 2000 (and nearly helped him win Oregon and Wisconsin; those are solid blue states in the last 6 presidential cycles that could have flipped as well).

[LA Muskie]

and Hillary's a viable candidate?????? We know her track record and scandal laden history. I'd rather have an unknown (Trump) for 4 years than a dirty, corrupt politician with Slick Willie turned loose in the White House. If Trump fails and the Republican party sinks...so be it! We desperately need a party for the middle 70% of the people that will vote for the good of the country and not for single issues.

Does she have some skeletons? Yes. But fine me someone who doesn't--it certainly isn't Trump. (Seriously. Find someone who doesn't. I beg you. We all beg you!!!). Would Hillary have been my first choice? No. Absolutely not.

But let's not pretend she's not viable. Hillary has been involved in governing for the greater part of 40 years, and has herself been an elected or confirmed official for the last 15. She's been a First Lady, a Senator, and the Secretary of State. During which her "track record" is overall positive.

[NY44]

We desperately need a party for the middle 70% of the people that will vote for the good of the country and not for single issues.

If Trump represents the middle 70% of people then I must exclusively know people in the other 30%.

[XUFan09]

If Trump represents the middle 70% of people then I must exclusively know people in the other 30%.
Yeah, I found that comment laughable.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

I knew there had to be at least one among us.

Sorry to ruin the pity party.

[Strange Brew]

If Trump represents the middle 70% of people then I must exclusively know people in the other 30%.

"I can't believe Nixon won. I don't know anyone who voted for him".

[bobbiemcgee]

This political thread has nothing but reasonable discourse between posters, and zero personal attacks. Makes me a tad uncomfortable.


Give it time.

My faith in this board restored!

[LA Muskie]

"I can't believe Nixon won. I don't know anyone who voted for him".

That is my biggest fear. The "secret" factor. There is a not-insignificant--and possibly quite significant--segment of the voting population who will vote for Trump but who would never admit to voting for Trump. I don't envy the pollsters.

[LA Muskie]

My faith in this board restored!

Have here been personal attacks? I don't recall any. (Although I do have some of the historically worst offenders on ignore...)

[NY44]

"I can't believe Nixon won. I don't know anyone who voted for him".

Trump could very well win. You invoking Richard Nixon as a testament to this possibility makes me dread it though.

[Strange Brew]

Trump could very well win. You invoking Richard Nixon as a testament to this possibility makes me dread it though.

Not a Nixon fan.

Google the quote. I'm not sure you understand the point.

I'm curious if you feel you live in a rather special world for context.

[NY44]

Not a Nixon fan.

Google the quote. I'm not sure you understand the point.

I'm curious if you feel you live in a rather special world for context.

‘I Don’t Know Anybody Who Supports Him’
Trump and social-acceptability bias. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/i-dont-know-anybody-who-supports-him-1453836070)

Are you talking about this?

It seems about right. I know people who have mentioned they would think about it. They definitely have a bit of a hard time defending him.

EDIT: Nixon was also a very good President. People only remember the bad stuff though.

[Frambo]

During which her "track record" is overall positive.

First Lady???? wasn't she put in charge of a health care reboot that went nowhere?
Senator???? Elected on Bill's name in a new state of residence. Wonder of she gets elected in Arkansas? Anything of note done besides voting for the Iraq war that shouldn't have been started?
Sec of State???? Failure with Russian reset. Failed with Iraq troop withdrawal. Failed in Libya and failed Ambassador Stevens. Funneled resources for bombs into Russian hands. These are just the things that pop into my mind quickly.

Saying her track record is overall positive is like saying that Dick Campbell was great since he went 12-14 in 1972 with the Muskies.

[Frambo]

If Trump represents the middle 70% of people then I must exclusively know people in the other 30%.

Didn't say it needed to be led by Trump....although IF he gets elected, it might be interesting to see how he performs...maybe he is the guy!

I just know that the far left 15% and far right 15% are in control now and we need a 3rd option to represent the rest of us.

[NY44]

Didn't say it needed to be led by Trump....although IF he gets elected, it might be interesting to see how he performs...maybe he is the guy!

I just know that the far left 15% and far right 15% are in control now and we need a 3rd option to represent the rest of us.

I agree that the far left and right are responsible for the DC gridlock, but then why go for someone so polarizing? If you think a democratic Congress is going to work with Trump any better than a republican Congress has worked with Obama then I have a bridge to sell you.

We're in an endless cycle of polarization.

[Strange Brew]

‘I Don’t Know Anybody Who Supports Him’
Trump and social-acceptability bias. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/i-dont-know-anybody-who-supports-him-1453836070)

Are you talking about this?

It seems about right. I know people who have mentioned they would think about it. They definitely have a bit of a hard time defending him.

EDIT: Nixon was also a very good President. People only remember the bad stuff though.

Nope. Not what I was referencing.

[Strange Brew]

I agree that the far left and right are responsible for the DC gridlock, but then why go for someone so polarizing? If you think a democratic Congress is going to work with Trump any better than a republican Congress has worked with Obama then I have a bridge to sell you.

We're in an endless cycle of polarization.

Are you insinuating Trump is far right?

[bobbiemcgee]

Nixon was also a very good President. People only remember the bad stuff though.

Man, I don't know where you were in the late 60's, but Nixon was a terrible President and had to resign in disgrace. Said he'd get us out of Vietnam and then escalated the war. Spent the rest of his administration lying about Watergate hundreds of times even tho they caught him on an audio tape. Hired a VP who was a crook. Both should have gone to jail for a long time. You must have a really low bar.

[X-man]

Man, I don't know where you were in the late 60's, but Nixon was a terrible President and had to resign in disgrace. Said he'd get us out of Vietnam and then escalated the war. Spent the rest of his administration lying about Watergate hundreds of times even tho they caught him on an audio tape. Hired a VP who was a crook. Both should have gone to jail for a long time. You must have a really low bar.

Nixon is actually an interesting case of extreme contradictions. His good instincts were always at war with his insecurities. I certainly was in the camp that hated his guts while he was in office, particularly because of his paranoid treatment of anyone opposed to him or the Vietnam War. I actually attended the Senate Select Committee under Sam Ervin (the so-called Watergate Committee) for an entire summer because I happened to be living in DC that summer doing work at the Library of Congress on my doctoral dissertation. But after Ehrlichman's first day of testimony, I stopped because the circus got too crazy. After earning my degree, I went back to DC for work and my office was only a short walk from Judge Sirica's courtroom. So I got a first-hand look at the cast of characters all over again when they were in court (seeing John Mitchell being led into court in handcuffs was a hoot). Fascinating time to be in DC, that's for sure. Perhaps we are headed for another singular time period there.

[LA Muskie]

Nope. Not what I was referencing.

You're referencing the Pauline Kael quote, I presume?

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-civilization/the-actual-pauline-kael-quote%e2%80%94not-as-bad-and-worse/

[Strange Brew]

You're referencing the Pauline Kael quote, I presume?

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-civilization/the-actual-pauline-kael-quote%e2%80%94not-as-bad-and-worse/

Yep.

[vee4xu]

Good gawd almighty. What the hell's happened to our country???

[NY44]

Are you insinuating Trump is far right?

I don't think you could give Trump a political label. Half of his platform is not conservative at all, the other changes with the wind. Irregardless, the only people that hate him more than the republicans are the democrats and no one is going to work with him.

[Strange Brew]

I don't think you could give Trump a political label. Half of his platform is not conservative at all, the other changes with the wind. Irregardless, the only people that hate him more than the republicans are the democrats and no one is going to work with him.

Doesn't matter, he'll have a pen and a phone...

[slysyl]

Yea trump go get i'm.

[NY44]

Doesn't matter, he'll have a pen and a phone...

I wish you the best of luck.

[Strange Brew]

I wish you the best of luck.

Thanks and good luck to you with that commie/progressive party thing you're hoping to see flourish.

[NY44]

Thanks and good luck to you with that commie/progressive party thing you're hoping to see flourish.

Hahah you've labeled me wrong. I absolutely loathe Bernie and his movement. I'd prefer Trump to be honest.

I was a Kasich supporter.

[muskienick]

Are you insinuating Trump is far right?

Trump doesn't know what Trump is politically. If he were actually able to maintain a "take" on something consistently, it might be easier to determine his political category. However, after all the stupid remarks that he has made and then him having the realization that he has to back-track on them, it makes the process of pigeon-holing Trump's political bent all the more difficult.

I'm just going to go with "Idiot" insofar as that seems to be a good description of many of today's politicians.

[X-man]

Hahah you've labeled me wrong. I absolutely loathe Bernie and his movement. I'd prefer Trump to be honest.

I was a Kasich supporter.

Brew thinks that everyone who doesn't agree with him is a Commie, or worse. Sad.

[Strange Brew]

I think this nomination is a history changer. Hilary is bad, but there still will be a huge exodus of moderate republicans to the democratic party. Maybe a Progressive/Socialist Party will come from this.

Apologies NY, I inferred (incorrectly) from this post and you're complaint about CEO pay (a leftist talking point) that you would be in support of a Progressive (Commie)/Socialist party.

Kasich is a nice guy and decent governor but he's another Romney/McCain who would be slaughtered by Hillary.

Im not a huge fan of Trump but I'm interested to see a Republican candidate fight dirty for once.

[Strange Brew]

Brew thinks that everyone who doesn't agree with him is a Commie, or worse. Sad.

I don't think you're a commie. A little closed-minded and illogical maybe but not a commie.

[NY44]

Apologies NY, I inferred (incorrectly) from this post and you're complaint about CEO pay (a leftist talking point) that you would be in support of a Progressive (Commie)/Socialist party.

Kasich is a nice guy and decent governor but he's another Romney/McCain who would be slaughtered by Hillary.

Im not a huge fan of Trump but I'm interested to see a Republican candidate fight dirty for once.

Makes sense. I made the argument about CEO pay under the lens of why a brilliant/successful person would choose to become a politician rather than an executive. The other, just an observation.

If nothing else, it will be interesting. Kasich definitely fit that mold, but if there's ever been a year for a Romney/McCain type to get into the WH, it's this year. Obama was a once in a lifetime candidate. He revolutionized campaigning. Now, for the first time in 3 cycles, the GOP is going up against a highly questionable and controversial democratic candidate and they put up Trump. He is probably the most questionable and controversial candidate in American history.

[SemajParlor]

Thanks and good luck to you with that commie/progressive party thing you're hoping to see flourish.

If there's one thing about American History we should know is that being progressive never works.

[SemajParlor]

I have found myself not caring in the slightest about this entire race. Presidential nominees are fantastic at making us feel like we have a say in any substantial change.

[X-man]

Apologies NY, I inferred (incorrectly) from this post and you're complaint about CEO pay (a leftist talking point) that you would be in support of a Progressive (Commie)/Socialist party.

Kasich is a nice guy and decent governor but he's another Romney/McCain who would be slaughtered by Hillary.

Im not a huge fan of Trump but I'm interested to see a Republican candidate fight dirty for once.

Huh? Talk about closed-minded and illogical!

[NY44]

Huh? Talk about closed-minded and illogical!

I'll just leave this here: The Trashing of John McCain (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2004/11/mccain200411)

[Strange Brew]

I'll just leave this here: The Trashing of John McCain (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2004/11/mccain200411)

Phew, long read but interesting. Push polling that no one can directly tie to the Bush campaign? So brutal and dirty. If he couldn't counter that nothingburger it's no wonder Obama smoked him. Face it, McCain was/is a weak candidate whose only appeal (to Dems and The Media, sorry for being redundant) was as a maverick who reached out to the opposition.

It's not like W had a judge release sealed divorce records. (See Obama's Senate campaign)

[NY44]

Phew, long read but interesting. Push polling that no one can directly tie to the Bush campaign? So brutal and dirty. If he couldn't counter that nothingburger it's no wonder Obama smoked him. Face it, McCain was/is a weak candidate whose only appeal (to Dems and The Media, sorry for being redundant) was as a maverick who reached out to the opposition.

It's not like W had a judge release sealed divorce records. (See Obama's Senate campaign)

Hahah a very predictable response. No one said Democrats have never used dirty tactics. You implying that Republicans don't ever fight dirty is stupid. I wish I had a more eloquent word to describe it, but it's just plain stupid.

[Strange Brew]

Hahah a very predictable response. No one said Democrats have never used dirty tactics. You implying that Republicans don't ever fight dirty is stupid. I wish I had a more eloquent word to describe it, but it's just plain stupid.

Your article is not exactly a shining example of Rs fighting dirty. Sometimes they do, Willie Horton comes to mind except Al Gore brought up the release program in the primaries so it's hard to really give the Rs credit for that. Could you provide an example of McCain or Romney fighting dirty?

[Strange Brew]

If there's one thing about American History we should know is that being progressive never works.

Curious as to your definition of progressive?

[NY44]

Your article is not exactly a shining example of Rs fighting dirty. Sometimes they do, Willie Horton comes to mind except Al Gore brought up the release program in the primaries so it's hard to really give the Rs credit for that. Could you provide an example of McCain or Romney fighting dirty?

Seriously? Richard Nixon doesn't come to mind?

[Strange Brew]

[URL="http://www.wsj.com/articles/i-dont-know-anybody-who-supports-him-1453836070"]
EDIT: Nixon was also a very good President. People only remember the bad stuff though.

Jeez, make up your mind. Yes, Nixon slung the poo and you having to go back half a century to find an R that fought dirty kind of proves my point. Let me rephrase: It's nice to see an R fight dirty in my lifetime.

[Strange Brew]

Back to this thread. I'm curious to see if the dem/progressive machine will revive a variation of this gem for 2016?

2061

[NY44]

Jeez, make up your mind. Yes, Nixon slung the poo and you having to go back half a century to find an R that fought dirty kind of proves my point. Let me rephrase: It's nice to see an R fight dirty in my lifetime.

You are obviously unable to separate arguments and topics. Clearly, the "bad stuff" I mentioned is Watergate.

Basically every campaign gets dirty or negative, for both the Dems and the GOP. I can keep digging up examples, but clearly all you're ever going to respond with is some iteration of "Well, that's different."

[Strange Brew]

You are obviously unable to separate arguments and topics. Clearly, the "bad stuff" I mentioned is Watergate.

Basically every campaign gets dirty or negative, for both the Dems and the GOP. I can keep digging up examples, but clearly all you're ever going to respond with is some iteration of "Well, that's different."

I was giving you a hard time on the Nixon comments. In recent elections Rs have run candidates who have pulled punches and my point is that's it's nice to see an R who's willing to punch back hard (even though I'd prefer someone other than Trump doing the punching).