sort by best latest
Junk, Hilary Clinton 40 years as Secy of State? HER achievements were the question, not Mitt Romney's achievements. What 'issues' does MR have as governor?
None of those things will keep him from getting elected. Reagan and both Bushes got elected president having the same stances. No matter who wins an election 49% of the voters will be unhappy. If people like and believe you they'll vote for you..
The "ill-informed" people who saw Obama as some sort of messiah and have now jumped ship are mythical voters. They don't exist and are a perfect example of the GOP's blinders, which makes them winning almost an impossibility. They just don't get it.
"ill-informed...messiah... have now jumped ship... mythical voters." How can people be mythical? I know them, They breathe, and said they 'goofed.' They were 2008 BO supporters, who weren't supporters in 2012. How can these people be mythical?
There may be handfuls, not masses, but the bigger myth element is the notion that they jumped the ship rather then they threw him overboard. Dissatisfaction with Obama in no way means satisfaction with the GOP.
I agree that dissatisfaction isn't satisfaction. But it is reason to hide from all association w/ BO and he happens to represent a necessary association.
teamrn--Dr. Carson seems to be saintly in his history and hopefully he will have an impact. How about Perry and Carson. Carson is a must, but lacks dynamics.
Truth be told every candidate has "my-man-walks' on-water-and-can't-do-any-wrong" supporters". In fact some people strictly vote according to political party. Ben Carson lacks the "it factor". One must have charisma/energy to get elected today.
Dashing, I agree, but BO seems to have more than his share. They are blind; even to fact that when others are jumping a sinking ship, they grab the slotted spoon to bail the sinking ship. They will NEVER admit they might have goofed, might be wrong.
teamrn , Those people still see BO as "the lessor of two evils". While they may not be happy with what they got they don't believe the other candidate/party would have done better to address (their) interests. Both the exec/congress have to work.
Dashing, those people will be unhappy with anything BUT BO. There are times when survival of the country is best put above their interests and when they put aside their personal 'gimmes,' they will realize that what they have is worth working towards
teamrn, It's not just BO. These people will be voting for Hilary or whomever is the Democrat candidate! The Democrats have positioned themselves in their minds as being "the champions" of women, the poor, minorities, the sick, and the elderly.
Dems have positioned IN THER MINDS, that they're the champions.... Key words: "iIN THEIR MINDS..." Dems and Repubs are humans: Do humans disregard humanity?
teamrn, I personally believe (both parties) want safe neighborhoods, jobs, prosperity, and good education for their children. The disagreement is in how to achieve it. My point is people vote according to who is more in line with their approach.
Dashing, my point is the same (diff strokes for diff folks...). But individuals should EDUCATE themselves and arm themselves with FACTS before they vote. "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people " Jefferson
dashing--Not at all an unreasonable scenario. I, think it speaks poorly of the American people however. How would you define, the extreme right' and is it that they want?
In today's political climate extreme in both parties is anyone who is not willing to "compromise" in order get the nation past it's big problems. Anyone who does compromise is viewed as traitor. "Party loyalty" is more important than the nation.
dashing--If I hold to a particular view, the Constitution, and you hold a world view minus the Constitution; what is there to compromise? That a women is pregnant, is abortion a compromise?
Not all Americans have a love affair with Bill Clinton's morals, though I agree,; he'll feed her advice and we won't know WHO is running. We've got Branjolina, why not Bilary? Not just any woman, but a GOOD woman and it is not Hilary. Liddy. Dole.
cjhunsinger, No one wins or loses an election based upon being pro-life or pro-choice. However if one states they want to cut social security benefits, or not raise the minimum wage these are "pocketbook issues". People may just dislike candidates
""Party loyalty" is more important than the nation." You speak in such a way as "I HAVE THE TRUTH" and anyone who doesn't share your view is wrong. Also, there are time that the nation is more important than a party and this is one of those times.
teamrn, I don't have the answers! I'm just giving my opinion of what I have observed like everyone else does on HP. I believe the nation is always more important than the party! It's people within these parties that place loyalty above all else.
I'm not a huge believer in strategy/geography as the only reason you get elected. Clinton may have the geography, but she has no accomplishments and record to run on. Good-sounding promises got America nothing; now, they want A RECORD of achievement.
Lawyer, First lady, Senator, Secretary of State for 40 years. Like her or not, that is a solid resume. As to record of achievement, Romney has some issues with his governor experience. Someone like Kasich or Walker works better in that regard, IMO.
Americans have seen charismatic; it gets us CAMELOT, BUT it also gave us WHAT WE'VE GOT. Who's rule is "it takes charisma?" What Ben Carson lacks in charisma, he makes up for in honesty, ideals, morals things that stand the test of time.
2016 will be interesting for a couple of reasons. If the stock market continues to break records, housing prices rebound, interest rates remain low then the economy won't be the issue like it was in 2008. Rarely has one party held office 3 terms
dashing--Stocks are up because the Fed is pumping $70 billion a month into it-Obamas buddies. We are $18 trillion in debt. 110 million people on welfare. 47 million in poverty and on food stamps, The standard of living&has diminished .
dashing, "Rarely has one party held office 3 terms" I don't often make political predictions, but I don't foresee that happening. I don't foresee a blowout, but they won't hold executive, or legislative majority. Lame duck party comes to mind.
Parties don't hold power for that long because the losing party generally learns from their mistakes. That isn't the case with the current GOP.
cjhunsinger, The average voter isn't going to care why their 401k is doing well. Most of those people on food stamps/welfare do not see the Republican party as the answer. George HW Bush was the last one party 3 term president. It's a rarity!
401 K: Did I mention something about that?"Most of those people on food stamps/welfare do not see the Republican party as the answer." Now the see that Dem party doesn't deliver, either. G. H.W Bush was the last 3 term POTUS? Facts? He served 1 term.
G.H.W. Bush was the last president to serve a third term by the same party in a row, Reagan serving the first two, is what I think was meant.
junkseller you are corrrect! That is what I was I was referring to (one party) being in office for 3 terms. I had to cut it short in order to include the other part of my statement. People often want to give the other party a try after 8 years.
love--Your accusations are meaningless, but since you stated them--show the evidence. Also show proof of the Bibi accusations and if you can't your argument is a puff of bad air.
Dear Love. Read a little. There are laws and Mitt Romney, like Debbie Wasserman Schultz is well w/in the law in taking advantage of tax loopholes. Is she a corporate criminal, too?
And your point is? Since you avoid paying taxes yourself look in the mirror. HELLO? What we've come to is letting low information voters elect idiots like Obama as the chief executive officer of this nation when he can't run aa lemonade stand.