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.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,552 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6039
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobNJ1960
W/O effort in Mn, Trump came incredibly close.
HH has been dead a while now.
Thats just not true. Trump visited Minnesota 8 times if im not mistaken, He even went there the last month of the election, where as CLinton only went there 1 time during the entire process.
Its more accurate to say Clinton with no effort still won the state than it is to say Trump almost won it with none.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251
Thats just not true. Trump visited Minnesota 8 times if im not mistaken, He even went there the last month of the election, where as CLinton only went there 1 time during the entire process.
Its more accurate to say Clinton with no effort still won the state than it is to say Trump almost won it with none.
Remember, according to the left they only lost because of Russia. So if there is no "Russia interference" next time they can nominate anyone and won't have anything to worry about
My thinking is that Russia only had an impact because Clinton was a hugely unpopular and compromised candidate. A better D would not have had such a thin margin of error. And a better R would not have been as enticing of a mark as Trump.
To be honest I would love nothing more than the Clintons to fade into the sunset save for one or two issues they might advocate for effectively. If you look at Jimmy Carter- his work with affordable housing and fair elections outpaced what he accomplished in the White House. And the Bushes both returned to private life. For some reason the Clintons seem to see no reason to live beyond pursuit of the presidency.
Next time I think it will come down to Trump and anti-Trump as it usually does for a second term. This last election was interesting in a non-incumbent (Trump) had the benefit of running against someone associated with the last 6 terms (Clinton scandals, Bushes wars, Obama's cabinet.)
Thats just not true. Trump visited Minnesota 8 times if im not mistaken, He even went there the last month of the election, where as CLinton only went there 1 time during the entire process. Its more accurate to say Clinton with no effort still won the state than it is to say Trump almost won it with none.
Incorrect. Trump already said he didn't focus on MN. And this wasn't the point anyway.
The point is that MN & NH is in play for the Republicans. Bigly.
Yeah, the funny thing is that rabid Trump supporters have somehow convinced themselves that Trump swept into office on some gigantic wave of a win in the election. They don't seem able to grasp the reality that he made it in by the margin of about 80,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. It was not a gigantic national mandate for him; it was a barely got by win over a very unpopular opponent.
He only needed to win the Red States plus Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. He won those three by hundreds of thousands of votes. His second easist path to 270 was winning Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. He won Iowa by massive amounts of votes and lost the other two states by a few thousand votes.
Him winning the election by 80,000 votes in 3 states is just some stupid DNC talking point. He didnt need Wisconsin or Michigan.
He'll lose them by even more next time. You guys don't get it. He is losing support every day he governs, not gaining it
Not really. He actually has higher approval ratings then when he won the election. Plus the Democrats arent a major party anymore. They have completely collapsed. Even if they would somehow get their affairs in order and then scrounge up enough money to actually run a candidate who are they going to run? No one they have now is better then Hillary Clinton.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by nsgjdennis
Not really. He actually has higher approval ratings then when he won the election. Plus the Democrats arent a major party anymore. They have completely collapsed. Even if they would somehow get their affairs in order and then scrounge up enough money to actually run a candidate who are they going to run? No one they have now is better then Hillary Clinton.
Half of what you said about the Democratic Party is opinion.
And honestly, I think Andrew Cuomo would have a shot nationally (laugh if you want, I stand behind this statement)
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.
