old socialist is still in the race
Both McCain and Romney were forced to go right in the primaries to get the nomination and it cost them the general (picking Palin didn’t help McCain either).
Bernie supporters and other dems who dislike HRC should take a serious look at the Green Party nominee, Dr. Jill Stein. I think they’ll like what they hear.
25% of the article was just bits posted by the FOP (which is a special interest group which repubs hate, unless they happen to be for them like the police) and then a charming not entirely related bit by their legal expert who is extremely partisan to say the least.
Wiki page on the legal expert who couldnt get a nomination on the FEC due to his past extremely partisan tenure at the Justice department.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Spakovsky
The entire article is worded in a way that is deliberately one sided and the fact that you posted “news” from a think tank is laughable enough.
“It is hard to ignore that her first job after law school was as a law clerk to notoriously liberal Judge Diana Gribbon Motz, President Clinton’s first appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.”
Really? Such a dramatic statement I feel like im reading some little girls diary. The person clerked for a liberal! By golly! Boogyman politics at its finest. A few facts mixed in a with a slew of pandering & fear mongering.
This is the problem with the primaries. Both sides pander to the base and whoever stays closest to center has the advantage in the general. Clearly the dems are winning that this year. The tea party movement cost the repubs in the past by pulling too far right of where the country is at, although certainly the left can pull too far left and bernie winning may have been a sign of that
It’s an opinion piece. No pretense otherwise. Maybe Yayyywork should be allowed to sensor all material available. The post was simply offering an example of a recently confirmed appointment. Draw your own conclusions. More bias in your post than the article. You sound like you’re whining because rhetoric exists that you don’t agree with. Get over it.
Trump attacking HRC right now. It’s so easy. Hard to believe she is a finalist for POTUS.
Youre clearly a fan of rhetoric over facts. Sources of information matter. I am not trying to censor all material, merely question why one would post a garbage article. Based on every other non-political hack job article I have read where they actually provide basic information on her, she was a federal public defender (which would explain why the police dont care much for her)
^Are you in love with her?
In McCain’s case, there was no way a Republican was winning in 2008 in the midst of the greatest recession in 80 years. The final nail in the coffin was when Lehman went under in mid September.
^ Agree that timing was unfortunate for McCain, but there is no excuse for Romney. A Tickle Me Elmo doll could have beaten Obama in 2012.
I think Mitt would have had a legit shot in 08. if i recall correctly, there was still a lot of uncertainty as to the cause and depth of the recession, mostly there was just a lot of fear. Romney could have wiped the floor w/ obama debating how to handle the economy. McCain could only muster “the economy is fundamentally sound” and that ignorance is part of the reason he had no chance.
Probably didn’t help that Romney wears magical underwear.
Not really sure how parties go about picking the timing of candidates because it always seems off. If Kerry ran for the dems in 00 or 08 he could have very well won. Its an uphill battle to beat an incumbent and statistically doesnt happen too often. Even with how weak Obama was in 12 he still pulled off a win, people generally dont like to change. Same reason bush won in 04 when he had no reason winning realistically, but he was the incumbent.
Bush won in 2004 because the economy was strong and we were in a war people believed in at the time.
Romney had no chance in '12 or in '08. In '08 no R was going to win, and in '12 he was again highly unlikely due to the fact that incumbents usually win. O’s reelection was basically guaranteed in May 1, 2011.
Right now would have been a great time except for the fact that his party has moved on from him. When HRC runs for reelection again R’s will face the problem of an incumbent.
great argument lol
“‘12 he was again highly unlikely due to the fact that incumbents usually win”
Some studies claim it was the passing of the prescription drug benefit, passed but didn’t go into effect until second term, that got him over the hump. Apparently, without the pandering to the seniors, he would have lost.
^ Pandering to seniors never hurts, but Bush increased his vote total in 2004 by 11.6 million. That didn’t come from just seniors. In comparision, Obama lost 3.6 million votes the second time around.
Although history has proven them wrong, people liked where the country was going in 2004. President Obama’s vote total dropping in 2012 suggests to me that people weren’t so thrilled with him, but Romney’s move to the right in the primaries alienated moderate voters who likely would have turned out for him in the general but decided to just stay home instead. If there is one thing that Trump is 100% correct about, it’s that Romney missed layup in 2012.
he still won by less than Obama beat Romney, its tough to take down incumbents. That guys predictor that got posted here a while back that has done a solid backtested job of predicting races is basically just an oscillator between the 2 parties every 8 years with some additional data put in