It’s just trial & error. They endorsed HRC & it backfired. Nominee will need a real consensus platform & VP this time. (HRC’s VP? Something-something virginia senator...)
It’s just trial & error. They endorsed HRC & it backfired. Nominee will need a real consensus platform & VP this time. (HRC’s VP? Something-something virginia senator...)
Yeah, about that... wrote:
Try to impeach this wrote:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1178989254309011456?s=20Try to impeach this!!!
Democrats are disgusting pieces of trash!!!
If you were intentionally trying to be funny, kudos. This is subtle and hilarious stuff!
But otherwise:
-
-
THAT'S A MAP OF HOW COUNTIES VOTED IN *1972*, WHEN RICHARD NIXON WON 49 OUT OF 50 STATES.
-
HE WAS AN EX-PRESIDENT 21 MONTHS LATER.
-
DO YOU REALLY SEE THAT AS A MODEL TO FOLLOW?
No, that was the 2016 election. Trump's map was correct; he handily carried the tumbleweed vote. The Land Doesn't Vote argument is the one to use, not lies about which map is for which election.
Fun fact: Nixon actually won Cook County in 1972. McGovern was truly a bad candidate even if he was a more honorable man.
Dems do not need any real consensus. They will vote for anyone who is not a Republican all they way down the ballot.
zephito wrote:
Yeah, about that... wrote:
If you were intentionally trying to be funny, kudos. This is subtle and hilarious stuff!
But otherwise:
-
-
THAT'S A MAP OF HOW COUNTIES VOTED IN *1972*, WHEN RICHARD NIXON WON 49 OUT OF 50 STATES.
-
HE WAS AN EX-PRESIDENT 21 MONTHS LATER.
-
DO YOU REALLY SEE THAT AS A MODEL TO FOLLOW?
No, that was the 2016 election. Trump's map was correct; he handily carried the tumbleweed vote. The Land Doesn't Vote argument is the one to use, not lies about which map is for which election.
Fun fact: Nixon actually won Cook County in 1972. McGovern was truly a bad candidate even if he was a more honorable man.
People vote. Dirt does not.
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2016/11/01/election-map-forms/738e8fe0f4e6d89ec6cb63555d3deb92e772f916/circles.pngreel concensus wrote:
Dems do not need any real consensus. They will vote for anyone who is not a Republican all they way down the ballot.
While I agree there will be a very strong anybody but Trump vote from the Democrats side no matter who the candidate is, the question will be do enough Democrats vote to win the election for their side. Without Bernie, I'm not sure that happens and a good deal of Bernie supporters may just sit it out (again?). In addition, the Democrats will need to get at least a majority of the independents on their side to win in my opinion.
Nixon also benefitted from the rather fortuitous shooting of the racist (sound familiar?) George Wallace, a third-party conservative.
Density wrote:
zephito wrote:
No, that was the 2016 election. Trump's map was correct; he handily carried the tumbleweed vote. The Land Doesn't Vote argument is the one to use, not lies about which map is for which election.
Fun fact: Nixon actually won Cook County in 1972. McGovern was truly a bad candidate even if he was a more honorable man.
People vote. Dirt does not.
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2016/11/01/election-map-forms/738e8fe0f4e6d89ec6cb63555d3deb92e772f916/circles.png
Yes, I agree! That is the argument to use!
The Fokus wrote:
reel concensus wrote:
Dems do not need any real consensus. They will vote for anyone who is not a Republican all they way down the ballot.
While I agree there will be a very strong anybody but Trump vote from the Democrats side no matter who the candidate is, the question will be do enough Democrats vote to win the election for their side. Without Bernie, I'm not sure that happens and a good deal of Bernie supporters may just sit it out (again?). In addition, the Democrats will need to get at least a majority of the independents on their side to win in my opinion.
Sanders will have no impact in 2020 unless he is the candidate. He will sit 2020 out. So will Jill Stein. They will call on their voters to get out and ensure a Republican does not win in 2020.
You can keep on hoping that Trump will win because Dems/Independents will stay home. But that will not happen. Go out and talk to some people from both sides and you will learn. Dems/Independents: thrown them out. Republicans who are not Trumpers: There is no one to vote for.
Nixon also ran against a nobody Dem VP candidate (sound familiar?) after the first one was revealed to have had mental-illness treatment.
I have changed my opinion on something.
IF the Republicans drop Trump SOON and put in either Nikki Haley or Mitt Romney as a candidate, they MIGHT be able to win in 2020.
I would give Romney a better chance of winning over Nikki Haley as she has some baggage from having worked on Trump's team.
I still think it's an uphill battle for ANY Republican to win in 2020, but I do now believe it is possible if it's not Trump. Trump will not win if he's able to run.
Flagpole wrote:
I have changed my opinion on something.
IF the Republicans drop Trump SOON and put in either Nikki Haley or Mitt Romney as a candidate, they MIGHT be able to win in 2020.
I would give Romney a better chance of winning over Nikki Haley as she has some baggage from having worked on Trump's team.
I still think it's an uphill battle for ANY Republican to win in 2020, but I do now believe it is possible if it's not Trump. Trump will not win if he's able to run.
Eh I don't think so.
remember 90% of Republicans approve of trump.
I think that of those 90% a sizable number - the deplorables - would be so utterly furious at the R party for losing Trump that they would sit out the election or vote 3rd party.
It's a mistake to think that the R party is looking for an option. They LOVE trump. he is who they are. Period. Any other R would be distasteful and a betrayal to their pure love for Spanks.
What's your reasoning tho?
Flagpole wrote:
I have changed my opinion on something.
IF the Republicans drop Trump SOON and put in either Nikki Haley or Mitt Romney as a candidate, they MIGHT be able to win in 2020.
I would give Romney a better chance of winning over Nikki Haley as she has some baggage from having worked on Trump's team.
I still think it's an uphill battle for ANY Republican to win in 2020, but I do now believe it is possible if it's not Trump. Trump will not win if he's able to run.
And this is why I think Nancy is playing it just right. Romney and Haley don't jump in the race unless Tiny is out of office.
Impeachment proceedings drag on to the end of the year.
Whatever happens in the senate is going to be insanely contentious. I still think Mitch will slow-walk the whole thing, table the motion, and leave it up to the voters. He certainly doesn't want his senators to take a vote on it.
So you may be right, but your "IF the Republicans drop Trump SOON" is a big "IF". I just don't see it happening.
This is he 1972 electoral map.
The winner was run out of office 2 years later.
However, I'm not sure how much power Mitch has in this.
Justice Roberts will preside over the trial. I don't know enough about the mechanics and about Roberts' role vs. Mitch's role.
Will Mitch be able to control things enough to keep his senators from voting on the matter?
Fat hurts wrote:
However, I'm not sure how much power Mitch has in this.
Justice Roberts will preside over the trial. I don't know enough about the mechanics and about Roberts' role vs. Mitch's role.
Will Mitch be able to control things enough to keep his senators from voting on the matter?
Moscow Mitch McCONnell will use delaying tactics to drag out the trial as long as possible; that being letting the voters decide to remove Trump. But, McCONnell seems to waffling on the extent of damage Trump has done to the GOP. He may throw Trump under the bus. . . . Justice Roberts has control over the trial, and it is likely he will not let McConnell drag the trial out. . . . . I am convinced McConnell with throw Trump under the bus ASAP, and work as hard a possible to protect Pence; because President Nancy would lead him to quit the Senate in disgust.
Calyope wrote:
Calyope wrote:
Rigged, looks like you've been challenged to show some shred of dignity. Care to answer the call? Can you admit to getting that wrong without mentioning anyone else? You are still a wanker. The only question is if you can be a smaller wanker. You've been challenged, mate.
Silence from Rigged. Guess he can't admit to having made a mistake. He shan't recover from this. Wanker.
I can't be certain if this You Tube is legit but seems to support what she is purported to have said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgqsPR68fGcMcConnell may wait until after the GOP primaries and then remove Trump.
If he does it before the primaries, a lot of incumbents may get primaried out.
So, pretend he backs Trump. Make it through the primaries. Then dump Trump.
Flagpole wrote:
I have changed my opinion on something.
IF the Republicans drop Trump SOON and put in either Nikki Haley or Mitt Romney as a candidate, they MIGHT be able to win in 2020.
I would give Romney a better chance of winning over Nikki Haley as she has some baggage from having worked on Trump's team.
I still think it's an uphill battle for ANY Republican to win in 2020, but I do now believe it is possible if it's not Trump. Trump will not win if he's able to run.
I saw this too on tv Flagpole where a couple of times Democrats suggested the same thing. So you resorted to something you see on TV and presenting it as your own idea? Sheesh. Plus, people are only suggesting this now because they are worried Trump is not going anywhere and they are hoping to convince him to resign and have a more moderate replace him.
If Donald Trump, according to most here and in the House, unequivocally committed an impeachable offense and is such a rogue president threatening the national security of the country, why do the Democrats in the House not have more a sense of urgency? Supposedly, they have the votes to the impeach but the House has not even brought the measure to a House vote in order to begin a formal impeachment proceeding. Instead we have an impeachment "inquiry." What the hell does that mean? They have already had 6 House Committees poring over everything Trump. Is this just a stalling measure by Pelosi? Oh, and one more thing, the House is on a two-week recess. Oh, the sense of urgency!
Sally Vix wrote:
If Donald Trump, according to most here and in the House, unequivocally committed an impeachable offense and is such a rogue president threatening the national security of the country, why do the Democrats in the House not have more a sense of urgency? Supposedly, they have the votes to the impeach but the House has not even brought the measure to a House vote in order to begin a formal impeachment proceeding. Instead we have an impeachment "inquiry." What the hell does that mean? They have already had 6 House Committees poring over everything Trump. Is this just a stalling measure by Pelosi? Oh, and one more thing, the House is on a two-week recess. Oh, the sense of urgency!
Perhaps in your country procedure and rule of law aren't a thing, but that's what we're trying to protect in the U.S.
