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.
polled positively vs negatively seems to mean nothing more than beating her by 1 to 4% vs losing to her by 1 to 8%
There are only 2 candidates that consistently polled above Clinton. That was Rubio and Kasich.
A recent SurveyMonkey poll showed Ryan beating her by two points, and Romney tied with her. A consistent theme has shown was any competent Republican who wasn't far right was polling at least neck and neck with her.
I would say the flipside to your statement is that there were only two candidates consistently losing to her, Trump and Cruz.
Hillary will win, but she will be a one-term President, if she even finishes out her term without impeachment or resigning.
Realistically, this election does NOT favor the GOP not matter what way you slice it. Obama's Presidency is coming to a close with healthy approval rating, peace, economic expansion, and without scandal. Given those circumstances, the party in power usually always remains in power.
Hillary was the worst choice to carry on Obama's legacy though, and I blame the media for coronating her as inevitable for years. I don't believe the American people wanted Hillary, but the media forced her down our throats. I would have been excited to vote for Bernie or Biden or Elizabeth Warren to carry on the great legacy of the last eight years, but not Hillary.
Great legacy of the last 8 years? LOL
You do realize Obama has the 2nd lowest average approval rating of any President over the last 60 years?
As for staying in power... Only once in the last 60 years has a 2 term party stayed in power... (Reagan 80 84 Bush 88)
In every other election... (1952, 1960, 1968, 1976, 1992, 2000, 2008) the other party won.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntwrkguy1
Exactly. The litmus test for this statement is the Bernie Sanders campaign. A 74 year-old Jewish socialist -- the literal Triple Crown for unelectable since this country was formed -- nearly ran Hillary down, and won far more states than anyone ever imagined he would. If it weren't for the shenanigans pulled by DWS and the DNC, Sanders may have won.
Imagine that -- a 74 year-old nobody who trailed in the polls by 50 points a year ago was almost the house that landed on the witch.
Last edited by ChloeC; 07-08-2016 at 04:55 PM..
Reason: ...added quote
As for staying in power... Only once in the last 60 years has a 2 term party stayed in power... (Reagan 80 84 Bush 88)
In every other election... (1952, 1960, 1968, 1976, 1992, 2000, 2008) the other party won.
1952 doesn't really count being that the FDR machine had been in place at that point for 22 years. This country was ready for and needed a change. Plus, we had an unpopular war (Korea) and recession in the early fifties.
You have to look at why second term parties lost the White House each time in the past 60 years.
1952 - Korea and recession
1968 - Vietnam and cultural backlash against the civil rights movement
1976 - The Nixon Watergate scandal
1992 - The first Bush recession
2000 - The Lewinsky scandal
2008 - Iraq and the Great Recession
All of these instances of party swap came during a time of war, recession, scandal, or a combination of all three. The only one that did not was 1960, and that was one of the closest elections in American history.
Today's environment is closest to 1988. We have a popular President who is unplagued by scandal. We are not at war or in recession. In these kinds of circumstances, Americans usually do not switch parties.
1952 doesn't really count being that the FDR machine had been in place at that point for 22 years. This country was ready for and needed a change. Plus, we had an unpopular war (Korea) and recession in the early fifties.
You have to look at why second term parties lost the White House each time in the past 60 years.
1952 - Korea and recession
1968 - Vietnam and cultural backlash against the civil rights movement
1976 - The Nixon Watergate scandal
1992 - The first Bush recession
2000 - The Lewinsky scandal
2008 - Iraq and the Great Recession
All of these instances of party swap came during a time of war, recession, scandal, or a combination of all three. The only one that did not was 1960, and that was one of the closest elections in American history.
Today's environment is closest to 1988. We have a popular President who is unplagued by scandal. We are not at war or in recession. In these kinds of circumstances, Americans usually do not switch parties.
Why do you keep saying we are not at war? Do you watch the news at all?
Why do you keep saying we are not at war? Do you watch the news at all?
Well, we're not really at complete peace, but we're not really in large-scale war anymore either.
In 2008 - the last full year Bush was President, there were 314 US deaths in Iraq and 155 in Afghanistan - for a total of 469.
Last year there were 6 in Iraq and 22 in Afghanistan - for a total of 28. Of those 6 deaths in Iraq, exactly 2 were in combat while 4 were non-combat related (ie vehicle accident).
Those are very low numbers for "war" - so while we're not exactly at "peace" I'm not sure you can really call it "war" either. Suicide is now the leading cause of death of U.S. service members - which serves as a reminder that while combat may be now wound down to very low levels, it's affects linger in those who've faced it.
1952 doesn't really count being that the FDR machine had been in place at that point for 22 years. This country was ready for and needed a change. Plus, we had an unpopular war (Korea) and recession in the early fifties.
You have to look at why second term parties lost the White House each time in the past 60 years.
1952 - Korea and recession
1968 - Vietnam and cultural backlash against the civil rights movement
1976 - The Nixon Watergate scandal
1992 - The first Bush recession
2000 - The Lewinsky scandal
2008 - Iraq and the Great Recession
All of these instances of party swap came during a time of war, recession, scandal, or a combination of all three. The only one that did not was 1960, and that was one of the closest elections in American history.
Today's environment is closest to 1988. We have a popular President who is unplagued by scandal. We are not at war or in recession. In these kinds of circumstances, Americans usually do not switch parties.
... and based on that... If the American people elect the corruption known as Hillary Clinton I'll wager she's a 1 term wonder like Bush 41. After 4 years of Obama lite the people will be ready for change in 2020.
Call Obama popular if you want... as I've already posted his approval rating average is above only Jimmy Carter since 1937.
Yes, they have blown it thanks to the ignorance and racism of their constituency. This coming lose should give conservative's pause to take a good look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves who and what they really are.
They are terribly ignorant of politics and the real issues facing humanity. They have been living in nothing short of LaLa Land and causing others to suffer because of it.
Case in point as to the extent of their ignorance of politics: They don't even realize how badly Trump is going to lose but continue to believe he can just "magically" win after alienating African Americans, Mexican Americans, People with Disabilities, Women, etc....
And on the other side, they continue to believe the 40 year Right Wing swindle that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other d-bags have pushed about the Clinton's and liberals being "Enemy Number 1".
Last edited by Shankapotomus; 07-09-2016 at 03:54 AM..
A recent SurveyMonkey poll showed Ryan beating her by two points, and Romney tied with her. A consistent theme has shown was any competent Republican who wasn't far right was polling at least neck and neck with her.
I would say the flipside to your statement is that there were only two candidates consistently losing to her, Trump and Cruz.
That's the fallacy in your argument; that a nominee can get through the primary process with the current makeup of the Republican base without being a far right nut job, pretending to be ( like "severe conservative" Mitt Romney) or hooking up with a nut case to placate the crazies (McCain/Palin). Any of those variations are poison in a general election. There's too many tin foil hat wearers in the GOP not to fatally flaw the selection of a nominee, but not nearly enough to elect a President in November.
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.
