- If Hillary Clinton starts with those 242 electoral votes, she only needs 28 more to win. As it happens, Florida has 29 electoral votes, so she could win there, lose every other swing state, and still win. Or she could take Virginia (13 EVs) and North Carolina (15 EVs) and lose all the others. Or she could take Ohio (18), New Hampshire (4), and Iowa (6) and lose all the others. Or...well, you get the idea. There are a whole variety of ways Clinton could win, while Trump has to run the table.
That isn't to say that the national result doesn't matter; it's only been in the rarest of circumstances (like 2000) that the total vote and the electoral vote pointed in opposite directions. But by now few people are saying that Donald Trump has such fantastic appeal to working class white men that he can steal states in the Midwest, or tap some heretofore unnoticed vein of votes. And you can forget about the momentary disgruntlement from supporters of Bernie Sanders playing a major role; in November, Clinton will retain the votes of nearly all Democrats. Barack Obama got the votes of 92 percent of Democrats in 2012, and she'll be in the same neighborhood.
I think that Trump could be in for a Mondale sized ass whipping. Clinton leads by this much, and the Clinton-media-machine hasn't even been primed yet, let alone warmed up. I think her best strategy is to not engage with him at all. He's at his best when he's getting personal. She will lose a battle of the insults. As difficult as it will be, she should just ignore all the mud slung her way. Democratic super PACs can handle all the relevant mud slinging back the other direction. I'll bet there are some real gems in that archival, never-made-it-to-air reality stuff that Trump's been a part of since the 80s. I'll bet we're talking racism, sexism, narcissism, the whole nine yards. If you thought "47%" was bad, this is going to explode some heads. I think by the time Clinton's camp has had all the way until November to chew him up and spit him out, he might be looking at like Kansas, Wyoming and Alaska, and not much else. That all depends on the extent to which all the non-white eligible voters register and show in the south. He might even drop out of the race by October.
Bottom link below: You again: "The “woman’s card” merchandise and related fund-raising messages have brought in over $2.4 million dollars in donations, some from people who had never given to Clinton before." I will reiterate - Hilary Clinton nearly passed Obamacare in 1993 - despite being the first lady, not the president, and despite the fact that Rush Limbaugh was proclaiming on broadcast television that the Clintons had Vince Foster murdered to hide their secret Arkansas drug-running runways. Hilary Clinton is William Munny and Donald Trump sure as fuck ain't Li'l Bill.I think that Trump could be in for a Mondale sized ass whipping.
Republicans have voted for the presidential candidate who was perceived to be more electable in every primary campaign since 1988. They have won only three times, with two men named Bush, winning the popular vote in that span only twice. Just one of those wins could be fairly characterized as a landslide — and that was against Michael Dukakis.
She will lose a battle of the insults. As difficult as it will be, she should just ignore all the mud slung her way.
This isn't really a good comparison to make. Obama was the Sanders of the last election, he just wasn't as extreme and his sandersism was mostly created by inexperience. People aren't happy they voted "Sanders" in the form of Obama and got "Clinton" instead last election, and they aren't going to be happy about it this year either.Barack Obama got the votes of 92 percent of Democrats in 2012, and she'll be in the same neighborhood.
This is a very accurate critique. Even though I voted Obama, I now wish that Clinton would have won the previous election, because (although we wouldn't have my man, Sanders running) Obama would be available to run during this election and I think he would have made a much greater difference running AFTER Hillary, instead of before. Clinton was already pretty close to being a burnt out shill in the previous election, and now she perfectly embodies that, but I think she essentially would have done the same things in office that Obama did do during this administration, and then Obama would have the chance to come in and be a liberal superhero and champion a lot of the things that Sanders has latched onto. But that's alternate history.
The only thing that would not work in Clinton's favor is the down ticket elections. A Sander's candidacy will drive turnout which helps the Democrats more than the Republicans. Our shitshow of a Governor was elected with a 22% turnout last year. I'd love to see what a Sanders' machine, on the news every night, would do to get people to vote. Hell, she might even win Kentucky, after all they love the Clinton's out here.
Scrub that fader, mutherfucker. it'll make ya feel good.
What makes me feel good is how sudden the shift was, and I can tell you exactly WHY that shift happened. Somewhere around the time I left California in 2003 Gay marriage was a joke to trigger a laugh track on a sitcom. Then, I started seeing stories everywhere. Gay couple together for 50 years can't say goodbye at a hospital. Gay couple have to spend $2500 on power of attorney that comes with a marriage certificate. Sally Ride's partner can't get access to her pension. Gay couple together 20 years has issues with childcare. Gay couple together 10 years.... 40 years... These articles started all the sudden, like they were part of a campaign. It started after Massachusetts legalized civil unions and spread from there, I think. Best I can find with my googling was this talk about changing the laws at the state and court level. There were commercials here in Kentucky in 2004 talking about why gays want to get married, and every commercial was a couple that had been together dozens of years. But as I have said before here an elsewhere, the gay marriage fight should get a huge slice of the credit for saving traditional marriages. Before this fight a marriage was a wedding and the bigger the better. Then the inevitable divorce when the bills all came do. Britney Spears was married 50 hours, yet a couple together 50 years were treated like shit by end of life caregivers in Georgia. That reality star had a $10 million wedding and divorced in less than four months, yet people committed to each other for decades can't get survivor benefits. Marriage is no longer as focused on the wedding and more on the benefits you get as far as next-of-kin, taxes, survivor benefits etc. gays made marriage more serious than it was in the 2000's. This is what won the war for gay marriage, and I really wish I knew if it was a concerted campaign or just something that dozens of people all had the same idea at once. Same thing now is going on with the stupid drug war. Some kid smoking dope after school has his life ground into shit while a guy who drives drunk is not treated nearly as bad. People are now seeing the stories of what the war on drugs is doing not just to the people who use drugs, but the people who live in the targeted communities. You said weed will be legal in five years, and I am all on board with that, if it takes that long with all the ballot initiatives in 2016. Same thing. It hits that certain level of "This is bullshit" in a population then you get that slider where we went from 2004's ballot initiatives to ten years later on the far right gives a damn. Moral arc of the universe, indeed.
I can point to exactly where it started. Here's the thing: Prior to 2004, gays just didn't get married. They didn't try to get married. Nobody was going to issue them a marriage license (although I attended a gay wedding in Santa Fe, NM in 1984, nobody expected it to be recognized by anyone). Then the mayor of San Francisco, in an obvious move to pander to his constituency and thumb his nose at the Republican Party, issued marriage licenses in direct opposition to the state legislature. Which gave Turdblossom'n'co the opportunity to get the bigots out to vote for Bush so that OH BOY we could put those liberals in their place! But then all these upright christians, who didn't actually care about it all that much, discovered that it wasn't hard to have a conversation with someone who at least had a gay relative and didn't see what all the fuss was about. And then all these laws got passed basically saying "fuck gay marriage" and emboldened by San Francisco, the gay rights crew set about making those upright christians, who didn't actually care about it all that much, embarrassed by their actions. Because really? I mean, Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter. It's not like middle America is devoid of homosexuals. And most people aren't motivated by hatred. So when it came down to it, they were willing to not hate. And here we are.
I disagree. I'm one of the many who are fully expecting a recession, but I also see every example that the United States is in the best position of any major economy. Asia and Europe are going to be hit far worse and sometimes losing the least counts as winning.
http://www.pravdareport.com/society/stories/12-02-2016/133329-kissinger_putin-0/ -I'm fully aware of how ludicrous that all looks.
I know you deleted your other comment, but I did see it cause I get email notifications, which includes the original text when you respond. So, even with that in conjunction with what you stated above, I don't quite understand you overarching logic. Is there some way you can concisely summarize what you think is going to happen to the global economy, why, and what exactly that has to do with monarchism? While I appreciate sources, simply linking articles doesn't really congeal your analysis, so maybe those together will make more sense.
'cuz apparently The Week just had a thermonuclear Trumpgasm, here's a roundup of other fun reading from this morning: Ted Cruz elbowed his wife three times in the head Clinton leads trump by double digits nationally "Former Republican presidents and presidential nominees for Clinton" Why Donald Trump will doom the Republican senate majority (this bit's great: "Republican Mark Kirk can hide from the Republican presidential convention but he can't hide from his pledge to put loyalty to the Republican Party first and back Donald Trump when he is the GOP nominee," said Duckworth's campaign manager, managing to insert the words "Republican" or "GOP" four times in a single sentence.) The fantasy of a Trump landslide And, almost wistful, Why don't GOP voters care about electability anymore?
This election feels like it has been going on for years. The next couple of months will be another couple of years.