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.
And what expertise would an economist have in electoral matters? Is he an electoral economist?
The fact that he labels himself a supply-side economist gave away why he would say that.
The majority control of Congress has made it an actual goal to simply oppose Obama. They say it all the time.
Will Trump write mean tweets about the members of congress as a negotiation tactic?
Obama doesn't compromise - he set his agenda in cement and has given the "R" part of congress no hope. It's like Obama doesn't want to speak with that part of congress unless he get all/most of what he wants - that's NOT compromising but instead DIVIDING which he's done well with our country as well.
Mr. Trump is a deal maker now and will be if he becomes POTUS WITH congress in face to face talks/discussions and such.
Obama doesn't compromise - he set his agenda in cement and has given the "R" part of congress no hope. It's like Obama doesn't want to speak with that part of congress unless he get all/most of what he wants - that's NOT compromising but instead DIVIDING which he's done well with our country as well.
Mr. Trump is a deal maker now and will be if he becomes POTUS WITH congress in face to face talks/discussions and such.
It depends on your perspective. From Democrat's side, Republicans are blocking everything without compromise. For example, Obamacare - it is typical to continuously fix and improve a major legislation like ACA but the GOP was not going to let that happen . . . . they'd rather disingenuously vote to repeal it as a whole over 50 times. They know Obama would veto that stupidity . . . it's all just kabuki theatre.
Another example are the government shutdowns and debt ceiling. All sorts of meaningless grandstanding, like the infamous Green Hams and Eggs fake filibuster. At the last possible second, Boehner had to repeatedly ignore the Hastert rule (you guys should really change that rule name lol) to pass legislation with Democrats help.
When the parties actually pass something, there is always compromise even in today's environment.
You have to remember that in a private business owned by a person, he only has to consider about maximizing profits. It's easy to make deals in that environment In a government setting, you have to consider all constituents who would be affected, and more importantly, to do public good at the end of the day. Two totally different things.
I simply don't believe the theory being put forth that just because Obama running against the idiot Romney won a state, that automatically means that Hillary Clinton will win that state too.
Because for that to be true, it would mean that voters always vote the party and not the candidate. While some portion foolishly do this, it's clear that a majority of the electorate is breaking away from this mindset and especially this cycle. They are looking at the candidates and voting for the one that appeals to them instead of voting for someone because they are a Republican or Democrat.
First, that proposition is not what I was suggesting.
Second, what I was suggesting is that capturing 47 states is a rather high bar to achieve.
Third, there doesn't seem to be any groundswell that would suggest that the GOP is capturing majority votes in 47 states. In fact, due to changing demographics, the GOP is losing favor. A president can be elected with a dozen or so population high states, most of which are in the north, west or east. This gives the Democrats a natural advantage. This isn't to say that a Republican can't win there -- they have on occasion but it is a high bar to climb to suggest before a single primary vote is cast that Trump or another GOP candidate is going to get 47 states.
I hope that you aren't premature in other areas of your life.
Obama doesn't compromise - he set his agenda in cement and has given the "R" part of congress no hope. It's like Obama doesn't want to speak with that part of congress unless he get all/most of what he wants - that's NOT compromising but instead DIVIDING which he's done well with our country as well.
Mr. Trump is a deal maker now and will be if he becomes POTUS WITH congress in face to face talks/discussions and such.
Oh really? Perhaps you remember this statement:
Quote:
Boehner: I got '98 percent' of what I wanted in debt deal
"When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy," Boehner said in an interview with CBS News on Monday evening.
Then, from the other side we have this:
Quote:
Tea Party Senate Candidate Says Compromise Means Democrats Agree With Republicans
Indiana Tea Party candidate who defeated long-time Republican Senator Richard Lugar on Tuesday night has his own definition of the word [compromise]. In Richard Mourdock’s small mind, compromise is when Democrats agree with everything Republicans want.
I'm not going to take the time to research the particulars at that time with this.
But maybe it's because Obama wanted it as well. (shrug, I DON'T know what went on)
TRANSLATION: 'You completely undercut my narrative but I don't want to say I was plain wrong. So, I'll just say I don't have time and just shrug.'
The fact is, Obama compromised plenty during his first term and got nothing for it. He even compromised on the stimulus, making a large part tax-cuts, and didn't get a single GOP vote anyway.
TRANSLATION: 'You completely undercut my narrative but I don't want to say I was plain wrong. So, I'll just say I don't have time and just shrug.'
The fact is, Obama compromised plenty during his first term and got nothing for it. He even compromised on the stimulus, making a large part tax-cuts, and didn't get a single GOP vote anyway.
Till I have all the facts from within on this I would be wrong to judge one way or another - simple really.
When Obama does good I'll give him credit if not the opposite - I am quite fair although potentially you may not think so.
The GOP is going to win 47 of 50 states in 2016???
The same GOP that has lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 Presidential elections.
The same GOP that in their only popular vote win in the last 6 elections won 50.73% of the vote for a whopping margin of 2.47% nationally and actually won the election in the electoral college by virtue of carrying Ohio by 2.01% and about 118,000 votes.
The GOP that remains overly dependent on the segment of the electorate that is shrinking the fastest; non-college whites, which have shrunk from 2/3rds of the vote in 1980 to 1/3rd in 2016.
That GOP?
The odds are only slightly better than buying a winning ticket today for tomorrow night's Powerball.
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.
GOP may win 47 states in general election.
