Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In CO, she is statistically tied (only up by 2) with Rand Paul and Governor Walker. Bush is a quite well-known figure, sure, but are Paul and Walker? To people who don't focus on politics, I'd doubt it, even though Ron is Rand's father and Walker put the unions in their place.
I know some of you guys will say "Ha! Ha! Your candidates are losing just like we knew!" But I keep hearing Hillary will win in a landslide and there are no buts about it. These results would seem to be a bit of a red flag for the Democrats, even if they're not very good for the GOP on their face, especially given that most of our potential candidates don't have the same name recognition that she does. And she still might not run...
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 02-18-2015 at 06:30 PM..
Pretty thin reed -- one poll, lots of undecideds, and Clinton leading more or less across the board. Name recognition may play a role, but the nice thing about 'Bush v. Clinton' is it's basically synonymous with 'generic Republican vs. generic Democrat'.
Not one of VA, IA or CO are considered part of the blue wall. Adding in VA to the states that make up the blue wall gives the Democrats the election. The GOP has almost no margin for error when it comes to presidential elections.
Not one of VA, IA or CO are considered part of the blue wall. Adding in VA to the states that make up the blue wall gives the Democrats the election. The GOP has almost no margin for error when it comes to presidential elections.
Many Democrats on here say the Blue Wall most certainly does include these three states.
Many Democrats on here say the Blue Wall most certainly does include these three states.
They would be considered purple states with VA being the newcomer to the group. The blue wall isn't a guaranteed win, it just makes things much easier for the Dems.
"Many Democrats on here say the Blue Wall most certainly does include these three states."
Based on two election cycles? No. The Blue Wall is the 242 electoral votes the Democratic Party has held for the past 23 years. It might make sense to add New Mexico (or Nevada) to that total -- the GOP has almost no chance of carrying the state -- but if you toss in Virginia and Colorado, you've basically conceded the election.
I don't know why we even discuss presidential politics. According to the DNC's sock puppets, every presidential election from now until the end of time will be won by the Democrats, no matter who runs or how badly the party brand is damaged.
I honestly believe the DNC pays multiple people to astroturf sites like this. There are people who post the same nonsense over and over hundreds of times in order to make Democratic victory look inevitable.
Nothing in politics is guaranteed, and the DNCs sock puppets should know better.
Based on two election cycles? No. The Blue Wall is the 242 electoral votes the Democratic Party has held for the past 23 years. It might make sense to add New Mexico (or Nevada) to that total -- the GOP has almost no chance of carrying the state -- but if you toss in Virginia and Colorado, you've basically conceded the election.
I agree with you. And, yes, I know which party has won which states each election for at least 3-4 decades. With that being said, there are many Democratic posters on the forum who allege that, entirely based on the 2008 and 2012 elections, states like VA, CO, IA, NH, etc. are "Blue Wall" states that the Republicans have no chance in. They think the election is completely unimportant because the winner is pre-determined with 100% certainty (even if Hillary chooses not to run).
Republicans haven't a chance in hell of winning the Electoral College, unless they gerrymander, suppress the vote, rig the election...which I understand they are hard at work trying to do.
These polls predicted that Romney would win, while Pubs everywhere danced in the streets, until REALITY hit them on election night, and the annihilation swept the Democrat to a big win.
Not a Republican alive who can beat Hillary Clinton if she runs...and don't you forget it either.
Republicans haven't a chance in hell of winning the Electoral College, unless they gerrymander, suppress the vote, rig the election...which I understand they are hard at work trying to do.
These polls predicted that Romney would win, while Pubs everywhere danced in the streets, until REALITY hit them on election night, and the annihilation swept the Democrat to a big win.
Not a Republican alive who can beat Hillary Clinton if she runs...and don't you forget it either.
Few polls predicted Romney would win. In so far as gerrymandering, how would it help win the Electoral College? That's about as absurd as your assertion that gerrymandering gave the GOP the Senate. The only way it would help would be if the Republicans changed their states to the Nebraska/Maine model.
"Don't you forget it"...trying to put me in my place I see.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nonsense
