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.
This e-mail scandal has just reinforced my belief that the pent-up hostilities between the mainstream-left Clinton wing and the far-left Obama/Warren wing of the Democratic Party represent a ticking time bomb waiting to happen (most likely to go off if Hillary becomes president). The fact of the matter is that the far-left is simply not enthused about a Hillary presidency, no matter how hard the spin has been in the past. The "true progressives," however, realize that their party is so devoid of electable candidates that they are currently willing to hold their noses and give Hillary a coronation in their nominating contest. They probably should ask themselves if winning the 2016 election with Clinton is worth it. While they will enjoy some short-term gloating about an "Obama third-term" and the supposed permanence of the blue wall, the intra-partisan divisions that will occur once Clinton becomes president could very well lead to GOP presidential dominance for a generation. I honestly think that it would be better for the Democrats to lose in 2016, because at least their formidable blue wall will continue to hold in future elections should that happen.
And Webb and O'Malley refused to criticize her over e-mailgate. They must be running for VP.
Democrats, the party of two rich old white ladies possibly running for President.
I voted for her over Obama in the primaries and i thought she'd easily win it. I'm not even sure if i was enthusiastic at the time, but i felt like she had the goods.
That said, if she's the nominee, i'll vote for her over any Republican.
Ron Paul had the Independents and the military vote. A vote Mr. "I'm a Progressive Republican" Romney didn't get.
Yet Romney got 2 million less votes than Bush. Also, if Paul had such strong support, why didn't he win the primaries? Seems like he didn't have the same voter support you claim he had.
Where does that number come from? Are you telling me all 10 million of those Tea Party people didn't vote in the last two election, and 8 million of them stayed home in 2004? If that is the case, then that doesn't sound like a reliable bunch of voters.
Where does that number come from? Are you telling me all 10 million of those Tea Party people didn't vote in the last two election, and 8 million of them stayed home in 2004? If that is the case, then that doesn't sound like a reliable bunch of voters.
What is the voting population in the USA(those eligible to vote.) How many people voted in the election.
Do the subtraction and you have the grassroots, that you have to get to the polls. Only Grassroots(Tea Party, Acorn)
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.
