The 2016 Presidential Election: Dare I Say it is in the Bag For Hillary Clinton?

  • 10/19/16 - UPDATED ODDS ON WINNING (Table 16)


Hillary Clinton - 340 electoral votes and Donald Trump - 195 ( # of State Polls - 51; ONLY 270 NEEDED TO WIN)

In terms of "Safe States", Clinton is only 21 electoral votes away from being our next President. Earlier she was only 15 points shy but Trump's recent bump in the polls cut significantly into those States where she had a 5 point lead (no candidate has won the Presidency after being 5 or more points down at this stage of the race)..

On the other hand, the number enough "Safe States" in Trump's pocket still leaves him 102 electoral votes away from victory.

The polls after the first debate should determine if Trump can close the gap even further. Michigan, New Hampshire, and Virginia currently has Clinton ahead by 6 points.

Slam Dunk States For Hillary (based on polling data)

DELAWARE (17 Pt Lead)
HAWAII (30 Pt Lead)
ILLINOIS (17 Pt Lead)
MAINE-State (5 Pt Lead)
MAINE CO2 (9 Pt Lead)
MARYLAND (34 Pt Lead)
MICHIGAN (6 Pt Lead)
NEW JERSEY (9 Pt Lead)
NEW MEXICO (9 Pt Lead)
NEW YORK (18 Pt Lead)
OREGON (8 Pt Lead)
VERMONT (22 Pt Lead)
VIRGINIA (8 Pt Lead)
TABLE 1 - States Where Clinton Has a 7 Or More Point Lead (See More Complete Table Below)

States Trump Should Not Lose (based on polls)

ALABAMA (11 Pt Lead)
ALASKA (5 Pt Lead)
ARKANSAS (20 Pt Lead)
GEORGIA (6 Pt Lead)
IDAHO (21 Pt Lead)
INDIANA (7 Pt Lead)
KANSAS (11 Pt Lead)
KENTUCKY (13 Pt Lead)
LOUISIANA (13 Pt Lead)
MISSOURI (8 Pt Lead)
MONTANA (13 Pt Lead)
NEBRASKA (20 Pt Lead)
OKLAHOMA (24 Pt Lead)
TENNESSEE (14 Pt Lead)
TEXAS (9 Pt Lead)
UTAH (11 Pt Lead)
WYOMING (38 Pt Lead)

This Is What's Left To Split Up

FLORIDA (2.4 Pt Clinton Lead)
IOWA (2.9 Pt TRUMP Lead)
OHIO (4 Pt Clinton Lead)
TABLE 3 - Remaining Electoral Votes In Play

How Many Paths to Victory Does Hillary Have and How Many Does Trump Have?

USING THE INFORMATION IN THE TABLE 3, ONE NOW COUNT the number of ways each candidate can win.

HILLARY CLINTON (numbers in parentheses are state standings)

Paths 1 - 7: FL (-0.1) - and only 1 of these AZ (-2.5); GA (-3.4); MN (+5); MO (-6)[ NC (+1.4); OH (+4); SC (-3)

Paths 8 - 17: OH (+4) - GA (-3.4) and only 1 of the remaining 10 states

Paths 18 - 23:OH (+4) - NC (1.4) and only 1 of these states AZ (-2.5); IA (-0.5); MN (+5); MO (-6); OR (+6); RI (+3); SC (+9)

Paths 24 - 24: OH (+4) - AZ (-2.5) and only 1 of these states MN (+5); MO (-6)

Paths 25: OH (+4) - MN (+5); MO (-6)

Path 26: OH (+4) - MN (+5) - SC (-3)

Path 27: OH (+4) - MO (-6) - SC (-3)

Path 27 - 30: OH (+4) - MN (+5) - OR (+6) - and any one of AK (-5); IA (-0.5); NV (+3); RI (+4)

Path 31 - 32: OH (+4) - MN (+5) - IA (-.0.5) - and any one of NV (+3); RI (+4)

Path 33: OH (+4) - MN (+5) - NV (+3) - RI (+4)

Path 34 - 37: OH (+4) - MO (-6) - OR (+6) - and any one of AK (-5); IA (-0.5); NV (+3); RI (+4)

Path 38 - 39: OH (+4) - MO (-6) - IA (-.0.5) - and any one of NV (+3); RI (+4)

Path 40: OH (+4) - MO (-6) - NV (+3) - RI (+4)

Path 41: OH (+4) - OR (+6) - IA (-0.5) - NV (+3)

Path 42: OH (+4) - OR (+6) - NV (-0.5) - AK (-5) - RI (+4)

Path 43: OH (+4) - OR (+6) - IA (-0.5) - AK (-5) - RI (+4)

Path 44: OH (+4) - IA (-0.5) - NV (+3) - AK(-5) - RI (+4)

Path 45 - 51: GA (-3.4) - NC (+1.4) and any one of these states AZ (-2.5); MN (+5); MO (-6); IA (-0.5); NV (+3); OR (+6); SC (-3)

Path 52: GA (-3.4) - NC (+1.4) - AK (-5) - RI (+3)

Path 53: GA (-3.4) - AZ (-2.5) - MN (+5)

Path 54: GA (-3.4) - AZ (-2.5) - MO (-6)

Path 55 - 59: GA (-3.4) - AZ (-2.5) - SC (-3) and any one of these states AK (-5); IA (-0.5); NV(+3); OR (+6); RI (+3)

OK, this is getting ridiculous. I will guess there will be 75+ possible paths; let's move on to Donald Trump


Path 1 - 3: FL (+0.1) - OH (-4) - GA (3.4) - NC (-1.4) - AZ (2.5) - MN (-5) - MO (6) - SC (3) - OR (-6) - IA (0.5) and any one of these states NV (-3); AZ (2.5); RI (-3)

AND ... that is it - Sorry Donald

The Changing Electoral Map

ONE THING IS FOR SURE, DONALD TRUMP IS TURNING POLITICS ON ITS HEAD. And this includes the Electoral Map. What use to be Red, may vote Blue. What use to be Purple will vote Blue. Some Blue States may end up being shaky.

Consider this:

  • Colorado, a Purple State, is solidly with Clinton
  • Virginia, a Purple State, is solidly with Clinton
  • Arizona, a solidly Red State, is now undecided
  • Georgia, a solidly Red State, is now undecided
  • Florida, a Purple State, is leaning toward Clinton
  • North Carolina, a Red turned Purple State, is leaning toward Clinton

Only time will tell if Trump makes a come back, but the current odds for him winning are 21%.

AND THE WINNER WILL BE ...most likely be CLINTON !

CLINTON (Clinton - 42% v Trump - 40%)
9 (34% - 45%)
3 (44% - 49%)
11 (38% - 40%)
6 (33% - 53%)
55 (51% - 32%)
9 (42% - 40%)
7 (48% - 38%)
3 (48% - 31%)
29 (46% - 43%)
16 (41% - 46%)
4 (58% - 28%)
6 (39% - 42%)
4 (23% - 44%)
20 (49% - 33%)
11 (39% - 46%)
6 (34% - 45%)
8 (36% - 49%)
8 (35% - 48%)
11 (54% - 31%)
10 (60% - 26%)
4 (42% - 37%)
16 (45% - 35%)
10 (44% - 40%)
10 (39% - 47%)
6 (39% - 52%)
3 (38% - 51%)
15 (45% - 42%)
3 (32% - 60%)
5 (33% - 53%)
4 (42% - 38%)
14 (48% - 39%)
5 (40% -32%)
6 (43% - 42%)
29 (51% - 33%)
18 (44% - 40%)
7 (32% - 56%)
7 (45% - 36%)
20 (48% - 40%)
4 (47% - 37%)
9 (39% - 47%)
3 (37% 51%)
11 (36% - 50%)
38 (36% - 45%)
6 (26% - 37%)
11 (45% - 37%)
3 (43% - 21%)
12 (45% - 33%)
10 (45% - 39%)
5 (31% - 56%)
3 (27% - 65%)
538 (270 to win)
340 (over by 70)
195 (short 75)
EV from Polls over 5%
TABLE 10 - PREDICTED OUTCOME - FROM THE 34 STATES WHICH HAVE HAD POLLS IN 2016 (the bolded States are locks (10% or over) for that candidate)


  • Oct 14, 2016 - The early Oct release of Donald Trump making sexually crass remarks that borders on, if not crosses over, the line of admitting to sexual assault on a crowded media bus; tied with his debate #2 denial that he has ever done what he said he has done; tied with 9 women so far coming forward to refute his denial has crushed his campaign.
  • Sept 27, 2016 - In August, Clinton's lead increased significantly; only to give it all up with a bad September. How, the vast majority of pundits on the Right and the Left say she killed Trump in the first debate yesterday.
  • Aug 9, 2016 - The debates are over and so are the conventions; the convention bounces have subsided; so where does that leave the race? Clinton pulling steadily head in national polls and leading in State polls.
  • Mar 10, 2016 - A FIRST! The GOP had a civil debate. This was such a rare occurrence that the civility itself was the news and not the substance of the debate.
  • Mar 7, 2016 - Michigan is Tomorrow. So far, generally speaking, Hillary has won the broader primary states and Bernie the more narrow caucus states with large white populations. Hillary has won IA, MA, NV, then the Southern tier VA, TN, SC, GA, AL, AR, LA, and TX. Bernie, on the other hand took, as expected, VT, NH, ME as well as MI, CO, OK, NE, and KS. THE GOP is much more diverse with Ted Cruz performing better than expected and Donald Trump doing worse. BTW, only Rubio and Kasich are left to round out the GOP field. To date, Trump has won - VT, NH, MA, VA, KY, TN, SC, GA, AL, AR, LA. Cruz has taken - ME, TX, AK, OK, KS, IA. Rubio, trailing far behind has tucked away MI and PR; Rubio is behind in FL. Kasich has had a couple of close seconds, but no cigar.
  • Feb 9, 2016 - New Hampshire is next in with Trump easily, as predicted, beating the rest of the field. The surprise of the night was Gov. Kasich coming in a solid 2nd, beating the polls (although they showed him catching up). 4th place Bush survives to fight another day by tying Rubio's disappointing 3rd place finish. Clinton, as expected, not only lost the contest, buy she was not able to improve on the commanding lead Sanders had. If she had been able to do that, Clinton could have salvaged her pride (I still think the final outcome will be a solid Hillary win.)
  • Feb 1, 2016 - First IOWA Votes In: Cruz surprises Trump by winning as does Rubio by virtually tying Trump for 2nd and 3rd. While Clinton probably had a technical win it was Sanders who won the night by essentially coming in a dead-heat with Clinton.
  • Jan 28, 2016 - The Republicans held their last debate before the Iowa caucuses. Donald Trump got pissy and boycotted the debate - boy what a pleasure to watch; they even talked about the issues a little - Winners: Rubio, Paul
  • Dec 16, 2015 - The fourth Republican debate was held this evening; CNN did a great job with this one; moderator Wolf Blitzer (whom I met personally many years ago) kept everybody but Sen Ted Cruz in line. Winners: Trump, but less than before; Rubio; Cruz; Bush, finally; and, imo, Fiorino - Losers: Carson
  • Nov 17, 2015 - Gov. Jindal drops out of the race for the GOP nomination
  • Nov 14, 2015 - The Democratic debate held my attention, barely. Again, the moderators did a credible job of keeping Sanders, Clinton, and O'Malley on track. Even better, they talked about the issues and their solutions.
  • Nov 11, 2015 - This Republican debate was a yawner; no new news. The moderators, for a change, took themselves out of the equation, although I saw the Wall Street Journal moderator get frustrated a couple of times with the candidates non-answers.
  • Nov 2, 2015 - Larry Lessig, the one issue (campaign finance reform) Democratic contender, drops out of the race
  • Oct 28, 2015 - DISASTER! CNBC set Debate moderation by newscasters back to Fox News standards ... or worse by its snarky, insulting style of questioning. Not since the "gotcha questions" from the initial Fox News debate have the moderators been so clearly after the money rather than the issues.
  • Oct 23, 2015 - Senator Lincoln Chafee (D) gives up the ghost today
  • Oct 21, 2015 - Vice President Joe Biden (D) decides not to run for the Democratic presidential nomination
  • Oct 20, 2015 - There are three casualties to the 2016 presidential nomination season; Gov Rick Perry (R), Gov Scott Walker (R), and now Sen Jim Webb (D).
  • Oct 13, 2015 - For a political wonk, the Democratic debate tonight was heads-and-shoulders better than any debate I have seen in the last 40 years! See below for a few comments.
  • Sep 25, 2015 - Is Donald Trump (R?) starting on his slow slide to oblivion? His numbers have started declining
  • Sep 21, 2015 - In a not unsurprising development, Republican Gov Scott Walker concedes defeat and quits the race
  • Sep 20, 2015 - The steady downhill slide of Hillary Clinton seems to have come to a halt. The latest CNN national pool shows her increasing her lead over Bernie Sanders and VP Joe Biden is catching up to Bernie; and he isn't even running. As Sanders peeked?
  • The Sep 16, 2015 debates looked much like the 1st with the exceptions that Carly Fiorina was added to Team 2 and Jim Gilmore was not invited
  • The Aug 6, 2015 debate schedule: Bolded is who I thought did the best; underlined did the worst*
  • --- Team 1: Bobby Jindal; Carly Fiorina; George Pataki; Jim Gilmore; Lindsey Graham, Rick Perry; Rick Santorum - 5 PM EST on Fox
  • --- Team 2: Ben Carson; Chris Christie; Donald Trump; Jeb Bush; John Kasich; Marco Rubio; Mike Huckabee; Rand Paul; Scott Walker; Senator Ted Cruz - 9 PM on Fox
  • * - from an unbiased view; a biased view would have a few more names underlined, but I actually liked what I heard from Fiorina and Kasich (which probably means they will lose)


Politically Speaking, Do You Find Yourself Agreeing More With ...

  • The Left?
  • The Right?
  • One or the Other, Depending On The Issue?
  • Something Else?
See results without voting


Are You

  • Female?
  • Male?
See results without voting

The Disappointing 2nd Republican Debate on 9/16/15

WELL, HALF WAS DISAPPOINTING - I RATHER THOUGHT that the 6 PM debate was by-far the better of the two. In fact, in my opinion, it takes the place of what I said was the best debate in years about the 1st debate in the 1st Republican debate in August; last nights debate between Jindal, Pataki, Graham, and Santorum took the prize. It did have the benefit of only 4 people on stage, but it had the best moderators and the more issue oriented questions of the two debates.

Where CNN's format was what helped the so-called "JV" debate, the candidates themselves put the icing on the cake by mainly sticking to the issues and actually answering some of the questions asked. Not so the "varsity-turned-ad hominem" 2nd debate. In that debate, the CNN moderators went out of their way to get candidates to attack each other rather than talk about the issues; and most, but not all of the 11 people on stage took the bait.

I think the winners of the 1st debate were George Pataki and Lindsey Graham (who I expect to do much better in the SC polls now). Not losers were Rick Santorum and Bobby Jindal. On the substance. All were issue oriented, accept when the CNN moderators tried to egg them into attacking each other, but it was Pataki and Graham who were the most pragmatic about what can be accomplished as President while Santorum and especially Jindal offered unrealistic, and in the case of Jindal, some times laughable proposals. Bottom line, the 1st debate of the night was well worth watching and should have been longer.

As to the 2nd debate, the main act as it were. Well, can you spell circus - it looks like CNN can because that is what they turned this debate into; I finally had to turn it off. From the get-go Hewitt began pitting one candidate against the other. Now this wouldn't have been so bad if he did it in such a way as to illicit responses about the issues. But no, it was more fun to get the candidates to attack each other personally (although Trump needed no help). Every once in a while candidates like John Kasich and Chris Christie tried to break through and talk about issues; but they were quickly pushed into the background. Carly Fiorina, when offered the chance, also stuck mainly to the issues.

But, once again, Trump led the way, to cover for his lack of knowledge about the issues, started by throwing gratuitous insults around like they were confetti. While the others held there own and returned effective fire, the clown of the circus was still Donald Trump. Nevertheless, this disappointing sideshow did produce a few standouts.

I think Carly Fiorina stood out the most, helped by being the only female of the bunch. But, it was mainly what she said (of which I mostly disagree, but that is not important here) that should start increasing her poll numbers again ... they had been flagging. John Kasich started the night trying to interject substance when he broke in and reminded the moderators the candidates were there to talk about issues, not each other. Besides Kasich and Fiorina, others who I think did better than last time were Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Chris Christi. The rest did OK although Ben Carson seemed very weak (unless he picked up after I quick watching).

Out of the whole debate, I think the top five were, in order, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich.

How Did My Esoteric Do in 2012?

PRETTY GOOD ACTUALLY. I WAS PREDICTING AN OBAMA RE-WIN by July 2016 (and was pretty sure of it by Apr 2014); and by about the margin he did win by. (I won't talk about the abysmal job I did for the 2014-Midterms, however.) The reason, I think, that I ended up being a contrarian to the pundits is that I analyzed state-level voting rather than the national polls. When you added up the likely electoral votes, President Obama was never in trouble.


THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINING ... up until tonight's first Democratic debate. By comparison, it was a sleeping pill. Why, because they actually talked about real issues and not each other ... AMAZING. Even the moderators stuck to the issues and not personalities; it was a pleasure watching it and I know the viewer come away with a much clearer idea of the Democratic candidates positions on the important issues of the day. This is a major departure from the two Conservative debates.

Winners and Losers? Winners were Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, AND Martin O'Malley. Sadly, Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee 1) were basically ignored by the moderators and 2) were distinctly unimpressive when they did have a chance to speak. I suspect these two men may be the next casualties of this nomination cycle.

Hillary Clinton: She made short shrift, with the help of a couple of other candidates, to the email crises. She was very articulate and had opinions on a variety of policies.

Bernie Sanders: Also very articulate but his scope was much more limited when compared to Clinton or O'Malley. You could easily tell how his socialist views colors his politics, BUT he did not come across as a socialist.

Martin O'Malley: He came prepared for bear and he got what he came for .. relevancy! Like the rest he talked about issues, and not the others. He did a great job of trying to define himself as being different from Clinton. But, like Sanders and unlike Clinton, he became repetitive on many of his talking points.

In my opinion Hillary Clinton came out on top while Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley tied for second. Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee tied for 6th (yes, I know there were only five on the stage, but they were that bad!)

The Final Two Democratic Presidential Candidates

Click thumbnail to view full-size

Who Will Win the Democratic Nomination?

TO START THIS 19 MONTH LONG HUB, IT WOULD BE, AGAIN, INTERESTING to know who you think will win each Party's presidential nomination. Let's start with the Democrats, it is easier. From where I sit, it's going to be Hillary Clinton; I just don't see another Obama on the horizon. (Then again, I didn't see one in 2008, either)

So, below is a poll with the list of Democratic candidates thought to be interested in the nomination, at the moment. I have been running this survey since the 2014 mid-term elections and it has 31 responses for the Democrats. I will keep that list and add any other names which might be of interest.

Presidential Nomination Run Announcements

  1. Hillary Clinton announced on Sunday, April 12, 2015
  2. Bernie Sanders announced on April 26, 2015
  3. Martin O'Malley, former MD Governor - May 30, 2015 - Feb 1, 2016
  4. Lincoln Chafee, former Senator from RI - Jun 3, 2015 - Oct 23, 2015
  5. Jim Webb, former VA Governor - Jul 3, 2015 - Oct 20, 2015
  6. Larry Lessig, law professor - Sep 6, 2015 - Nov 2, 2015

Last Republican Republican Standing !

Click thumbnail to view full-size

Who Will Win the Republican Nomination? - The Answer is DONALD TRUMP

LIKE IN 2012, THE REPUBLICAN FIELD IS WIDE OPEN WITH NO front-runners. In my opinion, Jeb Bush is the only Republican in the following list that has a chance of beating Hillary Clinton. But, for the same reason, President Obama handily won both his elections, the Republicans will probably not pick a moderate Republican, which even given the conservative credentials Bush has, I think he qualifies for.

If he does win, it will be because, like Mitt Romney, he ran far to the Right in order to win the nomination. And if that happens, I don't think any Republican will be able to beat Clinton.

Presidential Nomination Run Announcements

  1. Ted Cruz - Senator from TX - March 23, 2015 - May 3, 20106
  2. Rand Paul - Senator from KY - March 31, 2015 - Feb 3, 2016
  3. Marco Rubio - Senator from FL - April 13, 2015 - March 15, 2016
  4. Dr. Ben Carson, Neurosurgeon - May 4, 2015 - Mar 2, 2016
  5. Caroline Fiorina, Business Woman - May 4, 2015 - Feb 10, 2016
  6. Mike Huckabee, former AR Governor, - May 5, 2015 - Feb 1, 2016
  7. Rick Santorum, former Senator from PA - May 27, 2015 - Feb 3, 2016
  8. George Pataki, former NY Governor - May 28, 2015 - Dec 29, 2015
  9. Lindsey Graham, Senator from SC - June 1, 2015 - Dec 21, 2015
  10. Rick Perry, former TX Governor - June 4, 2015 - Sept 11, 2015
  11. Jeb Bush, former FL Governor - June 15, 2015 - Feb 20, 2016
  12. Donald Trump, Business Man - June 16, 2015
  13. Bobby Jindal, LA Governor - Jun 24, 2015 - Nov 17, 2015
  14. Chris Christie, NJ Governor - Jun 30, 2015 - Feb 10, 2016
  15. Scott Walker, WI Governor - Jul 13, 2015 - Sep 21, 2015
  16. John Kasich, OH Governor - Jul 21, 2015 - May 4, 2016
  17. Jim Gilmore, former VA Governor - Jul 30, 2015 - Feb 11, 2016


  • Gov. Rick Perry (R) - Quit Sep 11, 2015
  • Gov. Scott Walker (R) - Quit Sep 21, 2015
  • Gov. Jim Webb (D) - Quit Oct 20, 2015
  • Sen. Lincoln Chafee (D) - Quit Oct 23, 2015
  • Prof. Larry Lessig (D) - Quit Nov 2, 2015
  • Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) - Quit Nov 17, 2015
  • Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) - Quit Dec 21, 2015
  • Gov. George Pataki (R) - Quit Dec 29, 2015
  • Gov. Huckabee (R) - Quit Feb 1, 2016
  • Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) - Quit Feb 1, 2016
  • Sen. Rand Paul (R) - Quit Feb 1, 2016
  • Sen. Rick Santorum (R) - Quit Feb 3, 2016
  • Gov. Chris Christi (R) - Quit Feb 10, 2016
  • Carly Fiorina (R) - Quit Feb 10, 2016
  • Gov. Jim Gilmore (R) - Quit Feb 11, 2016
  • Gov. Jeb Bush (R) - Quit Feb 20, 2016
  • Dr Ben Carson (R) - Quit Mar 2, 2016
  • Sen Marco Rubio (R) - Quit Mar 15, 2016
  • Sen Ted Cruz (R) - Quit May 3, 2016
  • Gov John Kasich (R) - Quit May 4, 2016


BELOW ARE THE MOST RECENT INCARNATIONS OF DONALD TRUMP's position on various issues. I say "most recent" because many have changed drastically over the years. Most of what can be said about his positions must be derived from his infamous quotes as, at this point in time, Trump has made very few policy statements.

ABORTION: This is one which has come 180 degrees since 1999, but nevertheless is not as restrictive as some of his opponents.

  1. 1999 - Favors the right to choose
  2. 2015 - Opposes right to choose except for rape, incest, or mother's health

CIVIL RIGHTS: His most controversial statements are in this arena

  1. 1999 - Tolerate diversity, prosecute hate crimes
  2. 2011 - No gay marriage, no same-sex marriage benefits
  3. 2015 - Let the states decide on gay marriage
  4. Seems to have little tolerance for minorities
  5. Dismissive and patronizing of women

CRIMINAL JUSTICE: Trump seems to be consistent on this issue

  1. Approves of capital punishment because it deters crime
  2. Thinks violent TV and video games lead kids astray
  3. Make judges accountable for their sentences
  4. Wants strong anti-crime policies

EDUCATION: Trump seems to be consistent on this issue as well

  1. Common Core is a disaster
  2. Wants to severely reduce, but not eliminate, the Department of Education
  3. Favors school choice

DRUGS: The Donald as a libertarian streak here.

  1. Legalize all drugs and tax them in order to fund drug education
  2. Claims he doesn't drink (alcohol or coffee), smoke, or use drugs

ENERGY: Takes the generally conservative line and has been consistent over time

  1. Climate change is a hoax.
  2. No Cap-and-Tax: oil is this country's lifeblood


  1. Opposes Iran nuclear deal
  2. More sanctions on Iran and more support for Israel
  3. China is the enemy and is very critical of US soft-ball approach
  4. 2000 - Support Russia, but with strings attached
  5. We are losing to Mexico, Japan, and China on trade - very critical on US ability to negotiate
  6. Opposes longstanding assumption underlying U.S. foreign policy; which is supporting allies financially, diplomatically and militarily will promote a global system of free trade, democracy, and stability.
  7. Use economic warfare to halt China's territorial moves in the South China Sea
  8. Would consider letting South Korea and Japan acquire their own atomic arsenal.
  9. Would boycott Saudi Arabian oil if the kingdom doesn't send ground troops to fight ISIS
  10. Thinks NATO (and similar alliances) is an anachronism.
  11. Would renegotiate bedrock free trade deals.


  1. Cut taxes on wealthy to 25% - Pense wants flat tax
  2. Increase spending to Rebuild American infrastructure
  3. Impose 35% tariff on Mexican goods
  4. Impose 20% on all imported goods
  5. 0% tax on corporations would be a good thing; but is wanting a 15% rate
  6. 2008 - Embrace globalization and international markets
  7. 2000 - Predicted the Great Recession of 2008
  8. 1999 - President should be nation's trade representative
  9. 1999 - A 14.35%, one time tax on wealth would eliminate the national debt
  10. 1987 - Opposes rent controls
  11. Repeal "Carried Interest" IRS tax loophole for hedge fund managers


  1. TRUMP does not want to change them where PENCE would like to Privatize it.


HILLARY CLINTON HAS STARTED STATING HER POSITION on a variety of issues; while, at the same time fending off a scandal or two such as e-mail. Many positions are standard fare for a moderate-progressive Democrat, but some are new on the scene.


HIGHER EDUCATION: In a nod to the fact that the cost and poor-state of American education is hurting our competitiveness and national security, Clinton wants to institute a sea change in funding higher education. The plan has several parts, depending on the learning institution:

  1. Provide federal incentive grants to states to guarantee students will not have to take out a loan to afford tuition at four-year public colleges and universities (that, folks, is not tuition-free, as some say she is advocating). To qualify, students will have to work 10 hours a week where those those earnings, plus a "realistic" contribution from their families, will cover their tuition bill
  2. Tuition at community colleges will be free to students or their families.
  3. Broader use of Pell Grants
  4. Cut interest rates on student loans with an "income-based" repayment option
  5. COST: An average of $35 billion per year which will be paid for by limiting tax benefits for high-income Americans.


  1. Increase the capital gains tax rate on the wealthy if they sell investments within less than six years of purchasing them. Close "loopholes and expenditures for the most fortunate."
  2. Create a $1,500 tax credit for businesses that hire apprentices. Protect workers' collective bargaining rights.
  3. Provide a tax credit to employers contributing to workers' profit-sharing plan.


  1. Invest in $275 billion in infrastructure and scientific research.
  2. Create a national infrastructure bank, initially funded by Congress, that would make loans for projects like improving highways, bridges and broadband service. The loans would be matched by private sector investments or local governments.
  3. Raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour and support states and localities to increase their rate even higher.


  1. Supports paid family leave and sick leave.
  2. Expand childcare access to help working parents, especially women. This could double growth.


  1. Lower out-of-pocket costs by allowing families to see the doctor three times a year without having to meet their deductible first.
  2. Create a $5,000 tax credit for families with high medical expenses.
  3. Lower drug costs by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies.

How Is President Obama Doing?

CONVENTIONAL WISDOM SAYS THAT THE BETTER A PRESIDENT IS DOING right before an election, the better the chance the candidate from his or her Party has of getting to the Oval Office. Let's consider the following indicators.

Overall National Job Approval: President Obama has had upside down approval ratings throughout most of his eight years in office. When Obama was inaugurated January 2009, his "job approval" was 65% favorable and 20% unfavorable; and then GOP propaganda against him began. It had the desired effect and by the end of Apr 2009 his job approval rating now equaled his unfavorable rating. Obama's ratings kept reversing periodically until May 2013 when it went negative and stayed there until Mar 2016; almost three years in length.

But, from then on until Sep 7, 2016 President Obama's has remained positive and is approving, currently standing at 50% For and 46% Against.

National Favorability Rating: President Obama's Favorability rating hit its peak in Feb 2009 at 68% Favorable and 21% Unfavorable. This rating also followed the same up and down movements until Nov 2015 when it stood at 47% to 47% and began to steadily improve.

President Obama's Favorability rating stands, on Sep 7, 2016, at 52% Approve and 44% Disapprove.

Health Care Approval Rating: This was what President Obama wanted to be the big achievement of his presidency; for various reasons, from self-inflicted wounds to one of the most well-funded, sustained propaganda campaigns to stop Obamacare from being a success - it hasn't worked out that way. After starting out with a 48% - 18% Approval rating, it quickly reversed course and fell to a low of 38% - 54% Unfavorable by Dec 2013. (It must be noted that about 1/2 of that 54% disapproval are liberals who think Obamacare didn't go far enough. Since then, while total opposed still exceeds total approve. the gap has closed significantly.

As of Sep 7, 2015, rating is 45% Approve and 49% Disapprove; quite a comeback given the headwinds Obamacare faces.

Economic Job Approval: Of the group, this is probably the most important since it combines how people feel about the President, but how well he has handled the economy. President Obama has been battling a heavy propaganda campaign, a completely dysfunctional Congress, and the slow recovery that would be expected under those conditions. As might be expected, Obama's approval rating in this category sunk to a low, only exceeded by President Bush; by Sept 2011, 34% Approve and 60% Disapprove. It took Obama until Mar 2015 to get into striking distance with a 45% to 49% negative rating. Obama finally goes positive in Jun 2016,

By Sep 7, 2016, Obama's economic approval rating improved to 48% Approve and 45% Disapprove.

President Obama's Approval among Independents: I would think this is as important as the Economic Job Approval rating because it is the Independents who will determine the winner. Since Independents historically lean to the Right in America, it is very important to be popular in the group. Obama spent most of his first term with about an 11-point negative gap. That quickly deteriorated to a 28-point negative gap by Nov 2013. This terrible position has slowly improved until today.

On Sep 7, 2016, President Obama has narrowed the gap to 5-points, 44% to 49%. This is all the more surprising in that most who identify as Independents actually lean to the Right.

In summary, it definitely is looking up for Hillary Clinton AND the Democrats in general, simply based on how well President Obama is doing, especially compared to his history of poor ratings.

Other Interesting Indicators

Other interesting indicators are (7/20/16):

  • Favorability Ratings:
  • -- Democrats: 45% - 46% (Undecided - 9%) - Bad News for Republicans
  • -- Republicans: 33% - 57% (Undecided - 10%) - More Bad News for Republicans
  • -- Trump: 34% - 61% (Undecided - 5%)
  • -- Clinton: 39% - 56% (Undecided - 7%)

It seems the only candidate, or Party, which the public likes is Senator Bernie Sanders, a feeling which I agree with, although I a Hillary fan. Further, and more important, Trump has a much worse unfavorable rating than Clinton, and worse for both, most everybody has made up their mind (once an personal opinion forms, it is hard to change and when it changes, it does so slowly).


  • Favorability Ratings (17Oct 2016):
  • -- Democrats: 43% - 47% (Undecided - 10%) - steady
  • -- Republicans: 29% - 58% (Undecided - 13%) - worse
  • -- Trump: 33% - 63% (Undecided - 4%) - worse
  • -- Clinton: 43% - 53% (Undecided - 4%) - much better
  • -- Obama Job Approval: Independents Nov 2015 36% -57%; Oct 7, 2016 44% - 51% - steady
  • -- Obama Overall Favorable Rating: 53% Approve - 41% Disapprove - better
  • NEW - 2016 Generic Congressional Vote: Ds Up by 5 points (RealClearPolitics) - Rs lost their advantage in Oct 2015 and have been steadily losing ground since then.

Of note is that the trend is disliking Trump more and not disliking Clinton any less with the caveat that these numbers are pretty solid in that most people have seemed to have made up their minds. Also trending against the Republicans is the Democratic Party getting less disliked while the GOP is getting more disliked; that may have a decided impact on the control of the House..

All-in-all, this is good news for the Democrats.

Watching the Polls

THE SERIES OF CHARTS TO FOLLOW are composites of information drawn from the Huffington Post Pollster and Real Clear Politics. For now, only two genre of polls will be considered, Obama's Job Approval ratings (including Obamacare) and Match-up polls between theoretical Democratic and Republican nominees. The latter set are included for obvious reasons while Obama's ratings provide an indication of the strength or weakness of the Democratic brand at the Presidential level; the assumption being that the more popular Obama is, especially against the hurricane force headwinds created by the opposition, the more chance the Democratic nominee will have of winning.

The charts present an exponential smoothing technique of 65% for the most recent months data and 35% for all of the rest. This method is used to give more weight to current thinking and less weight to historical data. As we get into 2016, the weighting will change to 75%/25% given people are more attuned to what is happening as the election gets nearer.

2016 Presidential Primary Exit Polls

FROM SURVEYING THE VARIOUS EXIT POLL THROUGH THE MARCH 8 primaries, a few demographics emerged that were common across the states. Assuming the Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are their respective Party's nominees, these trends are to Trump's disadvantage.

Women: If any one thing that will sink Donald Trump, it is the female vote; even more than the minority vote, I suspect.

  • In her battles with Bernie Sanders, women consistently supported Clinton over Sanders, the opposite was true for men, but not to the same degree.
  • Women, however, far outnumbered men in the Democratic primaries.
  • Overall Trump did terrible with Republican women; with a couple of exceptions, they heavily favored the other candidates
  • The killer for Trump in this category is that in the Democratic primaries, women far outnumbered the men in voting. On the other hand, in the GOP it was the men who slightly outnumbered the women.
  • Bottom line is if this trend holds, Clinton will pick up many more women's votes than Trump
  • - Point Clinton

Education: There were distinct differences here as well.

  • Clinton's general strength was with people who had no college degree or had post-graduate ones.
  • Bernie, however, had a solid lock on voters with some college or bachelor degrees
  • Trump's strong suit are voters with high school degrees or less. As you move up the education spectrum, Trump supporters decline.
  • Interestingly, Clinton challenges Trump somewhat for those who have a high school degree or less while dominating with those who have more education
  • Bad news for Trump is that the top three educational levels generally have a higher turn-out than those with the least education
  • - Point Clinton

Income: Once again, there are some differences

  • Clinton does well with the lowest income earners as well as the top earners, Bernie has the middle ground
  • Trump does slightly better with those making less than $50k
  • Those earning more than $50K vote much more frequently than those that don't
  • Push

Race: Along with women, minorities will make the difference, depending on whether they vote or not. Clinton has a massive advantage over Trump when it comes to minorities while whites strongly favor Trump, but they are declining in magnitude - Point: Clinton

Age: Again, the trends are distinct. The older population will vote for Clinton, the younger group should favor Trump. In Clinton's favor is the older you are, the more likely it is you will vote. Point: Clinton

The one certainty from the exit polls are:

  • If you are white, male, chances are you will vote for Trump
  • If you are minority, female, chances are even higher you will vote for Clinton
  • If you are a female, you are more likely to vote, and vote for Clinton

Let alone the deficit that Trump has with the initial electoral count, he also has a major uphill battle to win the popular vote.


92% Up
8% Down
0% Steady
65% Way Up
3% Up*
1% Steady
1% Steady
99% Same
67% Down
95% Same
22% Down
84% Up
5% Down
2% Steady
1% Steady
45% Up
55% Down
8% Same
91% Down
80% Up
20% Down
19% Up
81% Down
96% Up
4% Down
90% Up
10% Down
93% Down
7% Up
55% Up
45% Down
73% Up
27% Down
48% Up
52% Down
50% Up
50% Down
7% Steady
93% Down (Keep)
63% Way Up (Keep)
37% Way Down
40% Up
60% Down (Keep)
98% Same (Gain)
2% Same (Loss)
23% Up
77% Down (Keep)
97% Same (Gain)
3% Same (Loss)
98% Up (Keep)
2% Down
2% Down
98% Up (Keep)
1% Steady
99% Steady (Keep)

© 2015 My Esoteric

More by this Author


JayeWisdom profile image

JayeWisdom 19 months ago from Deep South, USA

You must have copied and pasted the question for the Republican section of the poll because it too says "Democratic." (Just a little typo, but a big difference!

Question: Why didn't you include Elizabeth Warren in the list of potential Democratic candidates? Even though Warren gives the impression she doesn't plan to run for president in 2016, recent polls in key states showed her ahead of Hillary Clinton. She has a huge base of supporters, and I think she'd make a superb president. I sincerely hope she can be convinced to throw her hat in the ring.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for catching that, Jaye, yes it was a copy and paste, but I guess changing it went no further than thinking about it.

I left Warren, and some others that were on the previous list, off this list because of her oft repeated desire not to run. (I probably should have left Colin Powell of the Republican list for the same reason, but he is my personal favorite.)

While not the reason I left her off, and I do like most of the things Warren stands for, she is a bit too far Left, in my view, to be a slam dunk winner over the Republican field (save for Jeb, I think he would beat her). Her nomination would put many on the other side in play. Would she make a good VP, maybe, but America is barely ready for a female president, let alone a duo; and I think it essential for America to have a female president, especially one as talented as Hillary is.

Obama paved the way for racial minorities, Hillary needs to pave the way for female majorities. (It is ironic that the same hate machine which plagued Obama won't have to miss a beat when they turn their malignant attention to Hillary.)

Larry Rankin profile image

Larry Rankin 19 months ago from Oklahoma

Great overview.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 19 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author


nicomp profile image

nicomp 12 months ago from Ohio, USA

Cruz simply does not photograph well, does he?

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 12 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

LOL, no he doesn't.

I do have to hand it to CNBC in corralling a bunch of cats and getting them to talk about issues and offer solutions, such as they were.

Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 8 months ago from Florida

Excellent effort, and considerable amount of information. However, I think you greatly under-estimate or just can't quantify the anti-establishment feel to this election, and the shift in voter interests from topics that had been a staple in recent years (IE - abortion) to the more basic Job, economy, education issues that are driving the voters.

The reality is Obama is/was far more popular than Hillary, and he barely defeated Romney. Four years down the road, and things really haven't improved any, Obamacare is costing most people more not less, people have lose their insurance because of it... wages have declined... good paying jobs are scarce in most regions of the country.

Hillary is the least likely candidate to win, regardless of who opposes her, that fact will become apparent as time goes on.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 8 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Again, thanks for reading and commenting Ken.

I am not sure of your estimate of how well Romney did given he only received 38% of the electoral vote, that is not close in my book. Nor is being number 24 out of 47 elections where the difference in popular vote was measured (he was 19th over McCain). No, I think PBO did just fine.

When you say ACA is costing more not less; "not more" relative to what? That is a meaningless slogan used by the Right since there is no estimated comparative measure if ACA had not been implemented. I am surprised the Right hasn't made hay out of the fact the uninsured who are now insured are paying orders of magnitude more (of course everyone else is paying less because these people are not getting free emergency room care and are becoming healthier as well because of preventative care they can now obtain).

You are right, wages did decline ... under Bush, now they are headed back up. Why are good paying jobs scare, because those that own corporate America keep all of the money and didn't have to pay higher wages thanks to the Bush years leaving 20 people for every job available. PBO fixed that.

You are right as well in that Obama was and is more popular than Hillary ... and Sanders, Trump, Cruz, Carson and Rubio. You are correct also, relative to the Republicans regarding anti-establishment feeling. That also translates, on the Democratic side, to the young women and men, the same ones who led Obama to victory, and far-Left progressives.

But keep in mind the demographics between Ds and Rs in presidential politics. The Rs main (almost only) constituency are older and middle-aged white men, older white women, and Cuban Americans. Fortunately for the Rs, it is just this cohort that comes out to vote in large numbers.

Unfortunately, again in presidential elections, that is not enough to overcome the advantage the Ds have in all minorities (except Cuban Americans) as well as the young and middle aged white men (not from the South and West) and women. About 25 states go Red and the other 25 Blue. Even so, the advantage goes to the Ds because most of the 25 Blue states have large electoral college numbers compared to the Rs 25.

That is why I am pretty certain the Ds will win the WH this time and far into the future.

Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 6 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

I applaud your efforts compiling this magnificent mountain of information. Phenomenal.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you, Sgt Prepper, I appreciate it. I am what you call a political junky.

Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 6 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

My, I used to be a political junky for about three decades as a GOP Ward Party Committeeman, elected City Constable and a candidate for State Assembly, School Board & Alderman. In 2009 I came to the realization BOTH the Democrats & the Republicans are reading from the exact same script for the New World Order. We are very unlikely to stop them. It is just like TV-wrestling as they already know who will play the villain and who will win the bout/election.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You were definitely in the middle of it for sure. I do have to disagree with you on the Boss type party machinery. While there is no doubt parties would like to return to the good old days, there are many roadblocks in their way today, especially at the presidential level.

Obama is proof of it on the Democratic side and Trump/Cruz on the GOP side. In both cases, the party elite don't want any of them but they got Obama and they are going to get either Trump or Cruz.

Same, same, to some extent, for down ballot as well.

Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 6 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

What is so absolutely crazy is Bernie Sanders gave up his dual-citizenship w/Israel to run for President and be able to say "I am not a dual-citizen with Israel." I have located two pre-2014 magazine articles listing American politicians who have Israeli dual-citizenship and sanders is listed in both of them along with Joe Lieberman, Michael Bloomberg, Rahm Emanuel, Al Franken, Barney Frank, Barbara Boxer & Diane Feinstein. Should Ted Cruz become our president he will be the first U.S. President born since the ratification of our Constitution "In the Year of Our Lord" 1787 who openly admits he was born in another country to a father who was a foreigner. Talk about audacity Cruz hasn't even attempted to lie about his birthplace and citizenship issues. Perhaps Donald Trump can prompt HIM to produce a forged long-form Birth Certificate?

I have pretty much given up on politics and am keeping busy sounding the alarm that Kenyan-born Obama is the Antichrist & Jesuit Pope Francis is the False Prophet.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I am not sure what your hang-up is with dual citizenship, millions of Americans have it, a lot don't even know they are duel citizens. From where I stand, I don't care for I can't see where it makes any difference.

BTW, being a dual citizen does not necessarily mean that you were actually born outside of America.

Turns out, btw, the list you refer to is bogus and has been floating around the internet for a decade. Also, Sanders never was an Israel citizen. Being born there of American citizens does not confer citizenship in Israel, as it turns out.

Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 6 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

As for Israeli dual-citizenship it is called "The Law of Return" and allows Jews, like Sanders, to vote in Israel and live there. A "natural born" U.S. citizen is born on U.S. soil to parents who were BOTH Americans at the time.

FYI - Pope Francis was born to 100% Italian parents who were both Italian citizens when he was born in Argentina. His DNA is pure Italian.

nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 months ago from Ohio, USA

Pepper, take a chill pill. The citizenship of parents has nothing to do with the DNA of the child. Good grief. How does one judge "100 % Italian "? Is there an exam?

Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 6 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

Like most popes this child-trafficking Luciferian Jesuit is Italian and NOT of some native South American ancestry. He almostly certainly has mafioso and/or Cosa Nostra ties.

FYI - the grade school BHO attended as little Moslem Barry Soetoro in Indonesia was coincidently(?) called Saint Francis and was founded by the evil Jesuits. They have their own pope called "The Black Pope" and consider him their General. Their founder, Ignatius of Loyola, was the model for Dumas' character the Count of Monte Cristo. Which also mirrored Lucifer.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 6 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You sure have it in for religion, don't you, lol.

Also, the Law of Return must be applied for and Sanders never has.

Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 6 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

#1-How would anybody know if Sanders applied.

#2-Why did at least two different magazines report Sanders was a dual-citizen pre-2014 and not be charged with libel?

#3-Yes I definitely do have it in for "religion" but advocate faith in God through His only begotten-son Jesus.

#4-Many of us recognize the evil-forces which have infiltrated our public schools, universities, mass-media and congress.

#5-The New World Order is now almost complete and will culminate with the Mark of the Beast.

nicomp profile image

nicomp 6 months ago from Ohio, USA

@Prepper, The New Aluminum Foil hats are here for Spring. Keep those pesky thought-control waves from controlling your thoughts. The Government is watching! And the Pope. And Bruce Jenner. And sometimes Donald Trump when he isn't too busy running his puppet regime in The Falklands.

Sgt Prepper profile image

Sgt Prepper 6 months ago from Elkhorn, WI

nic, I am just the messenger here. You don't have to bite my head off. I am trying to help you people pull your heads out of the sand and open your eyes to what is happening. Kenyan-born Obama IS The Antichrist & Jesuit Pope Francis is his False Prophet. I can't help it God sent me on this mission to sound the alarm. Get ready physically and spiritually!

Ephesians 6:12

bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 5 months ago from Orange County California

While Mr. Esoteric might have done well in 2012, the country continued its decline. Not only in the running of the government, but the minorities running the government. The US has been emasculated, and impotent at home and in the world. The radicals, and the abnormal are gaining on becoming the new normal, at the expense of losing the country we used to call the United States. Today it a a Nation divided on politics, immigration, gender, color and none of it makes the US united. When you put xxxx in front of American, you take American out of the US. You have Illegal Immigrants flying the flag of their country in the middle of Los Angeles, and burning our flag. We are taking care of over 10% of the people of Mexico in the US. We are opening the US to unvetted foreigners, that want the US to be their surrogate home, and don't want to adapt to being an American.

The list goes on, but you went deaf three words into my comment.

Your opinions are frightening, disturbing, and unAmerican.

Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 5 months ago from Florida

As you can see, my initial post to this Hub was spot on (the first part of it), and I can see in your reply (My Esoteric) that you feel confident in the 'official' information about wages going up, unemployment going down, etc. and that will lead to a favorable outcome for Hillary come November.

And I would agree with you, if those 'official' numbers where close to reality, but they are not. We have a 100 million households without one member holding a fulltime (living wage) job. Wages have not increased relative to the value of the dollar and what it can buy, and the rise in taxes and cost of living. These are the truths that no matter how much the media or Washington puts spin on it, people are living with every day.

Trump will win the Nomination, and the Presidency, because he is the candidate tapping into this, and into the fear people have about the direction things have been going.

Whether you agree or disagree with Obama's favorable outlook on Islam and how he's worked to incorporate it into our country, whether you agree or not with his allowing the southern border to be open to anyone crossing it... the fact is he has done these things, and so much more, will have an impact not just on our society, but our economy.

Trump, for whatever flaws you attribute to him, is a clear opposite of Obama, Trump is an America first type of guy, a Nationalist not Globalist, an International businessman and a billionaire who can't be bought off like all current politicians who are owned by their backers... and who do not represent the people, but rather the ones putting millions into their bank accounts.

More and more Americans are waking up to the reality, for 25 years now it hasn't mattered who was in the White House or who ran the Senate... they keep passing one anti-American law and trade agreement after another... jobs are fleeing to other countries, wages are going down, and taxes are going up.

People are voting against those things more than they are voting for Trump, Trump is merely giving voice to their frustrations, concerns, and he is a true outsider... he made his millions, billions actually, outside of Washington, rather than through it.

nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 months ago from Ohio, USA

"People are voting against those things more than they are voting for Trump, "

Spot on. Trump is a buffoon but he's their buffoon. Good grief, anyone over 40 should know the sleazy history of The House of Clinton because they lived through it. Anyone over 18 who doesn't spend 12 hours a day playing Call of Duty should be well aware that Hillary is under investigation by the FBI.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for the post nicomp, but actually, HRC is NOT under investigation by the FBI and never has been; that is an extremist myth. What in fact is being investigated is IF her computer EVER contained material that was classified at the time it was on the computer while in her possession.

That is a far cry from investigating whether HRC broke the law by having the computer in the first place or by intentionally storing classified material on her server.

As to the "House of Clinton" snark, personally I begin my indignation once a politician "Exceeds the norm" among all politicians regarding sleaziness and IMO the House of Clinton doesn't even come close.

The House of Clinton is no different than the House of Bush or the House of Reagan.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Brad, so long as there are people who continue to claim "All men are created equal" was a mistake, then we will continue to be a divided country because there are many more people who believe and will fight for the FULL meaning that Jefferson had in mind when he wrote those words.

The fact that you used the word "abnormal" to refer to a class of human beings firmly puts you in the camp that needs to be defeated.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you as well for your comment, Ken.

As soon as you put "We have a 100 million households without one member holding a fulltime (living wage) job" in relative terms (percentages) and then compare the result to history, then I can take your "evidence" as reliable. BTW, full time does not equate to living wage. In this country, it takes 1.5 to 2 full time jobs to earn a living wage for about 50% of Americans.

As to "official numbers", what do you have that is comparable and more accurate?

Trump is a Trump-first kind of guy and is stepping all over America to reach his megalomaniacal goals. It is sad you can't see that. It is also sad that you think bullying the world into submission is the only way to achieve foreign policy objects that further America's interests. As Bush found, the world pushed back hard against his needlessly aggressive actions and, as a consequence, diminished America in world influence; a state of affairs that, along with a devastated economy, Obama had to repair.

You are so right, Obama (and HRC), thank God, is the opposite of Trump. Do you really want Trump to make America his 4th bankrupt notch on his belt?

nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 months ago from Ohio, USA

" HRC is NOT under investigation by the FBI and never has been; that is an extremist myth."




As Daniel Moynihan, one of your patron saints I suspect, once said "you are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts."

I assume this mythical investigation in which everyone believes but you is simply a Vast Right Wing conspiracy, yes?

Help me understand: the FBI is investigating Hillary's computer (and her phone and her other phone) but not Hillary? Ergo, the FBI investigated Lee Oswald's rifle but not Lee Oswald, right?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Show me the proof that HRC herself is under investigation, and not the opinion of Right-wing media. Here are the actual facts:

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Ken, here is why Trump can't win in November.

1. Most women won't vote for Trump: 73% of all women voters view him Negatively; 34% of Rebulican female voters view him Negatively

2. Most blacks won't vote for Trump, no proof needed

3. Most Hispanics won't vote for Trump, no proof needed

4. 31% of women and 21% of whites (registered voters) will be Very Upset if Trump wins

5. While 9% of women and 10% of whites will be Very Upset if Clinton wins

6. 21% of those under 55 and 22% of those 55 and older will be Very Upset if Trump wins.

7. While 14% of those under 55 and 5% of those 55 and over will be Very Upset if Clinton wins.

8. 21% of Republicans score high on the RWA survey suggesting they are easily swayed by authority figures, especially if one is a high scoring Social Dominator like Trump is; that is where most of his support lies. The remaining 79% of Republicans and 96% of Democrats who score low on the RWA survey tend to think for themselves; those are generally your Sanders (in case of Ds) and Clinton (Ds, Rs, and Is) supporters.

Trump may not lose by a landslide, too many deep Red states for that, but his loss is going to be Uuge.

Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 5 months ago from Florida

@ esoteric

I have no faith in these percentages people find, be they from a Pollster or a Propaganda machine like Fox or the NYTimes.

What I do have SOME faith in, is vote counts. For instance how many people voted for Trump in Florida VS for Hillary, in the Primaries.

Then I take into account Trump was running against Rubio (FL his home state), and Cruz, and that Florida has a very long absentee voter allowance which meant votes had been cast weeks in advance for people who had still been running, like Bush.

And yet, the votes for Trump were equal to the votes for Hillary, who was running against only Bernie.

Another factor about Florida is that Independents are not allowed to vote in the primary elections, however there is clear evidence from other states where they are, that a clear majority of Independents are voting in direct opposition of the 'establishment' and 'Washington elite'... and if there is any politician that is a poster child for the Washington establishment AKA Washington elite, it's Hillary.

When I do a similar break down of trends of voting in Ohio and PA, there is even more evidence that Trump will do better than Hillary, than in Florida.

So it is very likely that Trump could win Ohio, Florida, and PA. These are the states that typically decide who becomes President, and right now they are already leaning towards Trump, and don't need much more to occur in his favor to go in that direction.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Be that as it may, since working with the kind of data you have no faith in was my career for 25 years; I have a good sense of how to understand what it says and what it means.

That said, I don't totally rely on those kinds statistics and demographics. I try to keep in mind the psychology of the American voter; and that is what is going to kill Trump in the end.

How many blacks are in Florida, how many Hispanics? How many other minorities which generally vote Democratic?

- I'll tell you, 40% and Trump is likely to pick up only 10% of those votes. - Trump might get 35% of the female vote (if he doesn't piss them off more than he has already), which is 51% of the population and votes at higher rates than men.

- Trump has done something that no other GOP candidate in history has done - drive up Hispanic registration and consequently voter turn-out. In the past, the GOP could count on not that many Hispanics voting; Trump changed that dynamic

- Trump's vocal hatred of Hispanics may have even put solid GOP states like Texas an Arizona into play.

- The high black population in the Southern states is also problematic for Trump in that he does not have a lock on the white vote, especially former Cruz supporters who just might sit things out.

- To win PA, he has to neutralize Clinton in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. While the state as a whole has only 20% minority, Philadelphia is 68% and Pittsburgh is 34% and weighted toward women

- Likewise, OH is only 19% minority, but Cleveland is 69% with lots of extra females, Cincinnati has 50% minorities and biased toward female; and finally Columbus, it is 41%

Plus PA, OH, and FL went for Obama ... twice! Hillary is white and a female. The tea leaves tell me Trump is going to go down hard. (BTW, don't pay real attention to polls until August unless you know how to parse them.)

Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 5 months ago from Florida

@ My Esoteric

Well I think your are pinning hopes that a majority of women and Hispanics will vote against him, that's what the media says, but I'm not so sure its that severe... if their only alternate option is Hillary I don't believe they will be inspired.

If it was Trump vs Obama, that is a different thing entirely, but that is not the case.

Look, I'm not all that convinced about how it will pan out, but I think Hillary is a much weaker candidate now than she was in 2008. In 2008 she would have beat McCain, now, after her stint as Secretary of State, and after 8 years of Obama and twenty years of lowering wages and increased unemployment (and if you don't believe that go watch the movie 'Inequality for All'... which best sums up our current economic situation and why we are in it.) I don't think Hillary has a real shot to beat anyone, for anything... as seen by how many support Bernie, despite all the effort the Party has put in to selling Clinton to them.

One of the things I have mentioned consistently, but not consistently enough, is how the biggest problem we face is NOT liberal or conservative, not Democrat or Republican, it is the corruption in Washington. It is the establishment. It is the fact that our politicians no longer serve America's best interests or the people of America.

The Politicians serve the corporations, Wall St., and the billionaires that push them to pass more laws that strip away our freedoms, our rights, they are complicit in the causes of divisiveness and struggle in our society today.

When we point fingers and blame one another, when we hold to some 'liberal' ideal or feel that any Republican seen is an enemy, when we blame a race or a religion for our woes, we are playing into their hands... we are not focusing on the true cause of our Nation's ills, a corrupt and condescending group of elites that control Congress and the halls of the White House.

bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 5 months ago from Orange County California


I agree with you. Also, we have only 1 Congress and when they lose by not solving a problem, or creating more of a problem, we all lose. It doesn't matter which party team failed us and congress, we lose. The search for the guilty doesn't turn a loss into a victory.

Too many people treat their political party as if it were their local sports team. It is isn't, and congressional gridlock is not a sport, it is a failure of the federal government. And only the voters can change it by not electing the politicians that are the ring leaders of the gridlock.

Neither party has shown they have the solutions, but both parties have contributed to the problems. It is verified, in US history. The 1950s were the peak for the US, it has been downhill since then.

nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 months ago from Ohio, USA

"The 1950s were the peak for the US, it has been downhill since then."

Yes, I really enjoyed my smartphone, Internet, and fuel-injected car in 1959. The heart transplants were soooooooo much better.

Although, it is true that LBJ had not yet foisted The Great Society on us, so we had that going for us.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Nicomp, there is no question there has been major technological advances, but I agree with Brad that "quality of life" has been in decline; although I would move date to the early 1980s when the tide turned against equal rights, and the massive tax changes kicked off the acceleration of income equality. The income and wealth inequality has grown to the disparity that existed prior to 1929 when you had a clear delineation between the aristocracy and the paupers.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Brad, as we have discussed in other places, it absolutely does make a difference which Party is in power. Even IF the GOP hadn't pledged to effective not govern when PBO was elected in 2009 and had actually worked with the Democrats (who "did not" promise America they wouldn't govern) and found compromise solutions to a whole host of issues; there are severe ideological differences between how each Party approaches its solution; this is the way it was before Newt Gingrich.

With his election and rise of the far Right, compromise became more and more difficult, until it ended almost entirely with the election of Obama. The only reason there was legislation in 2009 and 2010 is because of the Ds super majority. You may not agree with what passed, especially since the GOP refused to add their thoughts and help shape the final result, but A LOT got done in those two years.

Because the far Right (not the far Left) kept their promise not to legislate, unless that legislation carried a lot of anti-social riders, effectively nothing got done since 2011. And that is the difference between the Right and the Left today.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Tell me Ken, after all of the derogatory things Trump has (and will) say about women and Hispanics (fortunately not very much about blacks), why would any rational woman or Hispanic ever consider voting for him ... it's like voting for your enemy to win. There is simply no common sense that supports your hope they won't. In fact, in terms of women, their view of him has deteriorated significantly since December.

When you said " I don't think Hillary has a real shot to beat anyone, for anything... as seen by how many support Bernie, ", my eyebrows shot up. Are we watching the same primary? To date, HRC has accumulated at least 2.4 million more votes than Sander ( and 283 more "pledged" delegates than Sanders

I won't say Clinton has more votes than Trump, even though the GOP has had a larger turnout, because it is a false comparison, given the number of GOP challengers. I can say that almost 5 million more people didn't vote for Trump than did. Granted some of those votes who went to other candidates would have gone to Trump, e.g. Carson's, most would not have, e.g. Bush, Cruz, and a lot of Rubio voters wouldn't have. What I am saying is if the GOP race had been a two or three person race; chances are high that Trump would be in second or third.

That does not bode well for Trump in the General because there are a bunch of pissed off GOPers who will either not vote for him, which is bad enough, but some will actually vote for Hillary, i.e., the #NeverTrump crowd.

As to income and wealth inequality, I will watch the Rieche movie, but this is one subject I have studied and written about extensively since I began Hubpages.

nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 months ago from Ohio, USA

"Because the far Right (not the far Left) kept their promise not to legislate"

Absolutely correct. The Left must legislate because government must continue to grow. People are a problem and more laws must be added to control them. On the other hand, The Right sees people as an asset. The Right understands that liberty and self-determination trump oppressive government.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

If that were true, then the logical conclusion is there should be no government at all and let the people fight it out, survival of the fittest kind of thing?

nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 months ago from Ohio, USA

Indeed that is what The Left would consider a logical conclusion. The Right, on the other hand, understands that the government exists to preserve opportunity for self-determination and to preserve liberty.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

What the Left understands is what the framers of the Constitution understood the purpose of the federal government to be:

"establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

Those are NOT narrowly defined propositions.

nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 months ago from Ohio, USA

More proof that The Left does not understand liberty. The powers of the Federal Government are narrowly and specifically defined in the US Constitution. The concepts you listed are to be promoted by that government within the framework of those narrow and well-defined powers.

What The Left essentially misunderstands is that equal opportunity is not the same as equal outcome. The former can be provided, the latter cannot.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

There is that "small segment" of the far, far Left that actually thinks equal opportunity equates to equal outcome.

Most of us in the center and center Left believe that equal opportunity means exactly that "equal opportunity". The difference between the Right and Left is the Left believes the government has a responsibility that ALL people have a shot at "equal opportunity"; the Right does not.

If two runners are at the starting line, one with a ball and chain on his ankle that 1) he didn't put there and 2) it is not in his power to remove before the start of the race; the Left thinks the government has a duty to remove the ball and chain; the Right simple says that's life, live with it and tell the guy he has the power to be Superman and melt the chain off. If he isn't Superman, they tell him it is fault that he is not.

The Right wrongly believes that each human being has 100% control over their own lives and that no one else has the ability to get in their way (like a whole community not hiring blacks because they are black)

Another example the Right lifts is nose at is the FACT that conservative States made sure through law and outright coercion that the black community, as a group, remained without the remotest possibility of achieving equal rights or equal opportunity. This was out in the open (and they were proud of it) since the 1700s until it went underground with the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act in 1964 and 1965. Conservatives didn't think these laws were needed because the blacks, contrary to reality, weren't systematically oppressed.

Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 5 months ago from Florida

@ Esoteric

I would say that is correct, the Right does not believe in 'compensating' for whatever inequality certain people in government feels exists. That IS NOT the job of the government.

The government is supposed to exist for the betterment of America and all Americans.... the Left (and many of the Right for that matter) no longer support that concept, they are too busy trying to build a fairer more equal world at the expense of America's best interests... under the misguided belief that nations like China and Iran will play nice.

Others believe only in what the Corporations or Wall St. sharks tell them to believe, based on the size of their 'donations'... and others follow beliefs bent on religious dogma first and foremost, that is becoming more and more noticeable with Islam so that now it is no longer quite hidden from view like it has been in years past.

Your error Esoteric is you try to quantify the Left or Right into simplified beliefs and goals, what I have been saying is the majority on BOTH sides of the isle are totally corrupt, and are selling out America's best interests to the highest bidder.

Past that, there are clear signs that the Corporations and Wall St. are pushing for a more globalized outlook, that is how they make more money for themselves, that is how they get richer, while Americans get poorer.

Only Trump has truly stepped up to the mike and pointed out SOME of this to America... he has pointed out the horrid trade agreements that favor the corporations at American worker's expense... he has pointed out the bogus environmental/EPA laws that strangle our greatest resource (cheap power) and cause even more difficulty for companies here in America to compete with those abroad... he points out that millions of illegal immigrants come here to work and drive down wages and jobs available, and worse, under Obama's administration they have been added to the welfare roles, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions to be added to our National Debt.

The problems that face us are not anywhere near as simple as Trump calling a woman a 'bimbo' I could care less if he calls all women 'bimbos' if he can get into Washington and do HALF of what he has stated he would do, that would be better than anything we have seen done in 25 years in Washington... I could care less who's feelings he hurt, so long as the interests of America were better served.

nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 months ago from Ohio, USA

"There is that "small segment" of the far, far Left that actually thinks equal opportunity equates to equal outcome."

Sure. And that small segment has co-opted every public and private college, save two. That small segment financed Bernie Sanders' campaign for the Democrat nomination and that small segment shows up in droves at his rallies.

"Another example the Right lifts is nose at is the FACT that conservative States made sure through law and outright coercion that the black community, as a group, remained without the remotest possibility of achieving equal rights or equal opportunity. "

You confuse Republicans with conservatives. A common mistake that is sadly perpetuated by The Left and many media outlets.

nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 months ago from Ohio, USA

@Ken Burgess :

"I would say that is correct, the Right does not believe in 'compensating' for whatever inequality certain people in government feels exists. That IS NOT the job of the government."

I couldn't say it better. We have devolved to believing that government can solve all problems. We do not have a Human Right to not be offended.

bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 5 months ago from Orange County California


Excellent comment

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author


If you have read the Federalist Papers, you will see that the Framers did not have "narrowly and specifically defined in the US Constitution" or "narrow and well-defined powers." While men like Hamilton and Madison will argue forcefully that what they intended was a "limited" government; but their words tell me that does NOT equate to "narrow and well-defined"; not by a long-shot.

They, especially Hamilton in a paragraph I will quote in another hub, freely acknowledge that they cannot see what will be needed in the future; they were very cognizant that the world changes in time and wrote a constitution such that it could change with it.

They often referred to the State Legislatures as "incompetent" in many regards during their Convention deliberations, and it was the duty of the federal government to fill in the void. In fact, it was seriously considered by James Madison that the Federal Legislature should have "veto" power (his words, not mine) over ANY law a State might pass if it is found in contradiction to the needs of the federal government. Obviously, Madison was not successful in his pursuit.

So no, the Framers didn't mean for the Constitution "narrow and well-defined"; only limited.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Where did I ever say anything about " the Right does not believe in 'compensating' for ... , Ken, please point it out. What I DID say was that it was government's responsibility to ensure everybody has a shot at "equal opportunity"; that they have a duty to remove artificially barriers to both "equal rights" and "equal opportunity" ... that is FAR, FAR removed from so-called "compensation" isn't it.

When you say "... they are too busy trying to build a fairer more equal world at the expense of America's best interests ... " do you mean it is NOT in the interest, even the national interest, of America for the world to be "fairer more equal"?? The corollary of what you assert is that it IS in the best interest of America for the world is NOT "fairer more equal"? That is a very interesting position to take, even for someone on the far right in America.

When you say I "try to quantify the Left or Right into simplified beliefs and goals"; I don't, there is nothing simple about the philosophies of conservatism and liberalism. In both cases the core beliefs of each is not understandable to the other unless an individual really tries.

A great example of this is your comment about "fairer more equal". It makes perfect sense to you, but how you can be against fairness and equality is beyond my comprehension. But in reading Russell Kirk, I can see why equality, the kind mentioned by Jefferson, doesn't work in the kind of society you think works best.

I don't buy into the hyperbole that "... majority on BOTH sides of the aisle are totally corrupt, and are selling out America's best interests to the highest bidder." The existence to the Tea Party caucus in the House is proof you are wrong in that assertion. I don't deny that Dark and Light money has huge influence on legislation; but keep in mind most politicians are predisposed to favor that legislation in the first place. Also, the dynamics of Party politics probably has as much influence on what is done; consider the agreement between GOP Party leaders to stop Obama from doing his job and bringing Congress to a standstill; corporate bosses weren't part of that meeting.

The fact that Trump is proud and vocal of being a misogynist tells me he doesn't have clue about what America and is unfit to lead this country. If he is elected, he will probably lead America into his fifth bankruptcy.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

"You confuse Republicans with conservatives." is a very curious thing to say because virtually every member that is left in the GOP call themselves conservative today. It didn't use to be that way until the conservatives kicked people like me out of the GOP; all that is left are conservatives, including the conservative Democrats which switched Parties to be with like-minded individuals.

Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 5 months ago from Florida

@Esoteric.... I love that point I see the anti-Trump crowd clinging to... the bankruptcy thing... the man has probably invested himself into over a thousand businesses in his lifetime, I can't imagine the scope of that, or the experience that has given him to work off of.

Really I have run a couple programs that had budgets in the millions, and I handled a few employees that answered directly to me, I've handled a couple of businesses and it was all I could handle.

Trump has had a few businesses go bad... that would be a BIG deal if he only had a few businesses rather than a few HUNDRED businesses.

This guy took a moderate family business in NY, and turned it into a worldwide recognized conglomeration ... not one person in 10 million could do that, that is how unique what he has done with his life is.

Neither Obama nor Clinton nor anyone else in politics could do it... cause if they had the mettle and ability to do so, they would have. Politics is for people who know how to BS really well and who don't want to work for a living.

nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 months ago from Ohio, USA

"... they were very cognizant that the world changes in time and wrote a constitution such that it could change with it."

Absolutely. And they provided multiple ways for that change to take place. Sadly, presidents such as BHO bypass those pathways in favor of so-called "Executive actions"

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Executive orders, which have been used more by other Presidents than by PBO btw, are part and parcel of our form of government.

As to business acumen Ken, be careful of mixing "investing in" and "running a" business. While there is no doubt that he has done well and several things right, the myth of his business prowess is just that, a myth.

What Trump is most noted for, his casinos, all flopped which ended up in 4 bankruptcies hurting rich and poor alike.

The Washington Post lays it out nicely in

His biggest success appears to be his entertainment reality shows.

nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 months ago from Ohio, USA

"Executive orders, which have been used more by other Presidents than by PBO btw, are part and parcel of our form of government."

Irrelevant to the argument, but OK.

"What Trump is most noted for, his casinos, all flopped which ended up in 4 bankruptcies hurting rich and poor alike."

Incorrect, but OK. Trump is much better known for his network TV shows, his books, and his branded products in department stores.

"His biggest success appears to be his entertainment reality shows."

If that was his biggest success, wouldn't that, by definition, be what he is best know for?"

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Not necessarily, but to tell you the truth, I didn't know his main source of income was reality shows. I knew he was the face of The Apprentice, but the thing that most people know about him, that he talks about, as well as others talk about is his real estate deals ... you know The Art of the Deal? And in that arena, he is only marginally successful.

BTW, why would you even want a businessman, successful or not, as POTUS? That is by definition a disaster in the making; as much as a disaster if he tried his hand at neurosurgery.

Whether you like it or not, politics is a profession and you need professionals to make it work right. That is part of what is wrong in Congress now, you have a bunch of neophytes who don't have a clue as to what they are doing nor how to do it. John Boehner was brought down to his knees as a result of their incompetence, and it would appear Paul Ryan is being neutralized as well.

BTW - based on the 13 polls RealClearPolitics has published to date; the count is Clinton - 146 and Trump - 30. There are no big states in that group and is a mixture of all sorts of states; from Oregon, to Arizona, to Florida, to New Hampshire, to Wisconsin. There were eight more states scattered throughout the area those states encompass. Trump is ahead only in CO, IN, and MO.

nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 months ago from Ohio, USA

"BTW, why would you even want a businessman, successful or not, as POTUS? That is by definition a disaster in the making; as much as a disaster if he tried his hand at neurosurgery."

Well, ummm... why would you want a Community Organizer as President?

nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 months ago from Ohio, USA

"Whether you like it or not, politics is a profession and you need professionals to make it work right."

Can't find that in the Federalist Papers. ;)

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Why would you look there? It is a simple fact of life. But since you oppose the idea, then you would agree that Trump could make neurosurgery great again by becoming a practicing doctor.

And what political office has Trump EVER held? I really shouldn't have to tell you this, but community organizing is politics, that is the point isn't it. Plus he spent time in the IL legislature as well as the U.S. Senate.

nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 months ago from Ohio, USA

Aha! When the Federalist Papers don't support your argument you discount them. I think the founders were clear that politician was expected to be a part-time and temporary position.

Obama spent time in the US Senate? He quit during his first term after serving 768 days. I guess that's "spending time." He also quit his seat in the Illinois Senate.

Ken Burgess profile image

Ken Burgess 5 months ago from Florida

The interesting thing is that Washington has basically been taken over by Corporations, Wall st. and foreign Nations (Saudi, China)... the dismantling of America from its industrial might, to its world leading education systems, to its military might is nearly complete...

To go with that is the eradication, slowly but surely, of the 'middle class'... or I should say well off working class.

The working class which is undermined by the politicians every step of the way... illegal immigrants take jobs for 9 dollars an hour that used to pay 20 two decades ago... and automation and robots take away even more.

Its a joke to say you need a politician to do a politicians job well.. all you need is no morals and the ability to lie and you can be a success. Comparing them to Neural surgeons is a sign of being completely out of touch with reality... romantizing what really is corrupt people doing hurtful things.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I don't compare neurosurgeons to politicians, except in one regard ... which I thought was glaringly obvious to the discerning reader (a little Madison snark) and that is they are both professions which a novice WILL fail at if not trained in the art.

And trying to learn how to run the country with on-the-job-training is 1) the height of hubris and 2) the height of stupidity.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article