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.
I think at the very least it will force Trump and/or the Republicans to spend resources to defend SC. Which of course means fewer resources for the GOP to contest swing states like Ohio and Florida.
The point is, some very red states appear to at the very least be in play this time around. When was the last time you could say that about South Carolina and Utah? Will they go blue this election? Odds are against it, but even so, the amazing thing is that the possibility is there.
As you guys have been telling us for months now, this election is like none that have come before. A Democrat being competitive in South Carolina two months before the election would seem to bear that out.
lol....hillary is for abortions on demand, pro gay marriage and limiting the 2nd amendment.....just on those 3 things she has NO shot in Utah and South Carolina......they know what is at stake with the Supreme Court and Hillary has no shot.
Really, "Maddox", well, that certainly makes it so!
Let's go over this yet another time: CNN is owned by Time Warner who has contributed $722,000+ to Hillary's campaign, so they want to do everything they can to get a payback on that. CNN thinks that if they make it look like Hillary has support, people will want to follow them. Obviously, anyone that follows them and votes based on what they direct them to do shouldn't be out alone in the public because they are the brain dead. Makes sense that Hillary's followers would be brain dead, "birds of a feather flock together".
It's not like she's going to need SC to have an electoral college landslide, it's just the absurdity that South Carolina could even be considered in play.
Nearly as absurd that any human with a pulse could consider Hillary Clinton a good human being, let alone an honest person, or someone trust worthy enough to elect to the office of President of the United States. It truly is sad that the best we can nominate is Trump and Hillary.
Some off the wall pollster that was commissioned...wait for it
by the South Carolina Democratic Party!
Normally I would be cautious about an internal poll, but every poll has SC close, so it's likely true. The South Carolina GOP didn't counter with an internal poll of their own either. Which they always do if their information contradicts the other parties.
Her only goal is to turn the White House green, she and Elizabeth Warren have nerve calling Trump greedy. Speaking of which, where did little old Lizzie disappear to? Probably got tired of being associated with an untrustworthy and bought off politician, kind of goes against her whole persona that she is trying to cultivate.
Her only goal is to turn the White House green, she and Elizabeth Warren have nerve calling Trump greedy. Speaking of which, where did little old Lizzie disappear to? Probably got tired of being associated with an untrustworthy and bought off politician, kind of goes against her whole persona that she is trying to cultivate.
Clinton's not the one treating a presidential campaign as a profit making venture. That would be the candidate who has funneled millions to his own friends and family.
Clinton's not the one treating a presidential campaign as a profit making venture. That would be the candidate who has funneled millions to his own friends and family.
No, she just treated her time as Secretary of State as a cash making scheme.
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.