![]() |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Steve_
(Post 11968881)
No, John Wayne was far more direct about it: https://pages.shanti.virginia.edu/Wi...ayboy_Int2.pdf
For example, page 7. "I believe in white supremacy". Or page 3. As for Reagan, he basically said whatever Nancy told him to say. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11968805)
Obama is so very close to having carte blanche to go after Trump. That is one happy POTUS.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Interesting analysis on the 'swing state' situation for 2016:
The 11 states that will determine the 2016 election - POLITICO Leslie, you have always been informative on the swing state topic; do you think the article is on the money? I'm going to save it and revisit it after the election! |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 11968912)
Can you elaborate? Sorry, I'm not getting the gist of this one ...
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11969137)
Obama has always had to hold himself back when it comes to Trump. All of that birther nonsense (which went on for YEARS) was classic Donald Trump. He tried to elevate himself, and was somewhat successful, through racial dog whistles and identity politics, all on Obama's dime. Other than Obama's liquidation of Trump at the White House Press Core Dinner and a few jabs now and then, Obama has been careful when dealing with Trump. This because Obama always had too much at stake but now he has literally nothing to lose by going after Trump whole hog. Obama has just been waiting for the Democratic primary to finish before giving his endorsement and going into campaign (read that as 'attack') mode. Bernie will be making some decisions shortly and as soon as all of that is settled, Obama will be off the chain and he's so much better at this than Bernie, Hillary, and even Donald Trump for that matter.
|
Re: 2016 Election
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11969137)
Obama has always had to hold himself back when it comes to Trump. All of that birther nonsense (which went on for YEARS) was classic Donald Trump. He tried to elevate himself, and was somewhat successful, through racial dog whistles and identity politics, all on Obama's dime. Other than Obama's liquidation of Trump at the White House Press Core Dinner and a few jabs now and then, Obama has been careful when dealing with Trump. This because Obama always had too much at stake but now he has literally nothing to lose by going after Trump whole hog. Obama has just been waiting for the Democratic primary to finish before giving his endorsement and going into campaign (read that as 'attack') mode. Bernie will be making some decisions shortly and as soon as all of that is settled, Obama will be off the chain and he's so much better at this than Bernie, Hillary, and even Donald Trump for that matter.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by themadpooper
(Post 11969225)
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by themadpooper
(Post 11969225)
So I think we can say ... drum roll please ... you and I can almost say we agree on something! For the record, the states are: NV, CO, WI, MI, PA (Leans dem) FL, NH, VA, NC, OH, IA (toss up) (+GA on your map, leans Rep). ETA: FL has the most electoral votes: 29. Then PA (20), OH (18), MI (16), GA (16), NC (15), VA (13), WI (10), CO (9), NV (6), IA (6), NH (4) So that's a lot of votes in the 'leans dem' blue collar / rust belt states that Trump is considered to be able to get. |
Re: 2016 Election
Bernie Sanders: “I look forward to meeting with her [Clinton] in the very near future to see how we can work together to defeat Donald Trumpâ€
Now it's just the horse trading and whatever else to get as many Sanders supporters on board the Clintonmobile (Hillterskelter? I dunno.. ) |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11969137)
Obama has always had to hold himself back when it comes to Trump. All of that birther nonsense (which went on for YEARS) was classic Donald Trump. He tried to elevate himself, and was somewhat successful, through racial dog whistles and identity politics, all on Obama's dime. Other than Obama's liquidation of Trump at the White House Press Core Dinner and a few jabs now and then, Obama has been careful when dealing with Trump. This because Obama always had too much at stake but now he has literally nothing to lose by going after Trump whole hog. Obama has just been waiting for the Democratic primary to finish before giving his endorsement and going into campaign (read that as 'attack') mode. Bernie will be making some decisions shortly and as soon as all of that is settled, Obama will be off the chain and he's so much better at this than Bernie, Hillary, and even Donald Trump for that matter.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Does Donald Trump have any political principles? (yes the question is rhetorical)
Donald Trump once backed urgent climate action. Wait, what? | Grist |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11881365)
Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia. Those are (probably) the swing states. Maybe North Carolina? Don't quote me on that and somebody may have a different list. After Super Tuesday we'll have a better bead on turnout and the candidate's differing popularity in those states.
I don't see Cruz being able to take any of those states. I can see Trump taking Florida, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and possibly some others. Rubio is still an unknown in my mind but I think he could do well in Florida and Nevada. It's difficult to speculate at this early date, specially when we don't know the VP picks yet. So much can still happen.
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 11968915)
Interesting analysis on the 'swing state' situation for 2016:
The 11 states that will determine the 2016 election - POLITICO Leslie, you have always been informative on the swing state topic; do you think the article is on the money? I'm going to save it and revisit it after the election! Okay, so I found my quote from February, see above. I wanted to see how closely I was aligned with the article. It looks like exactly the same list except they added NC as a definite and I had it as a maybe. I think, at least in a normal election, NC would be more likely to go Red. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 11969344)
Okay, so I found my quote from February, see above. I wanted to see how closely I was aligned with the article. It looks like exactly the same list except they also added NC which I think, at least in a normal election, would be more likely to go Red.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11969353)
North Carolina certainly seems more stridently red now than in '08 (the transgender bathroom nonsense etc), so I'd be surprised if it were in play in '16.
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 12:27 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.