AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Pssh...Does JFK get re-elected if Texas never happens?
What about a third term for Lincoln?!?!
Pssh...Does JFK get re-elected if Texas never happens?
What about a third term for Lincoln?!?!
FDR is truly the greatest US President. I don't care what anyone says.
:bow:
They sure don't make Republicans like they used toI'm an Ike fan. Apparently so was my mom, too. She was telling me how she used to wear an "I like Ike" button to school back then.
They sure don't make Republicans like they used to
What if FDR never got old and died?
He might still be President today!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gahL5j4ackThey certainly don't. Not until I start my rise to political dominance next local election cycle, that is!
Pssh...Does JFK get re-elected if Texas never happens?
I've wondered that myself so many times. Humphrey came so close in the popular vote despite the disaster in Chicago that year, and after losing so much time trying to reunite the separate wings of the party. I think RFK would've had it since those two problems would've been diminished if he had continued winning the primaries and was perceived to have won the nomination fairly, more or less.I'd be more interested in a scenario where RFK didn't die in 1968. He would have likely won the nomination, but there's no guarantee he would win the presidency.
Trolling on TV . . . two trolls in one video.
First Whoopie trolls Ann Romney then Lawrence O'Donnell trolls Tagg.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/ns/msnbc-the_last_word/#49472310
And I thought I've been getting a little testy at times.
This is true, but it can be reversed too. 92-2012
6 presidential elections (5 have already happened)
Democrats won the popular vote in 4 of the 5 (and the GOP one (Bush over Kerry) wouldn't have happened with an Al Gore victory)
Landslides in 96 and 2008. If Obama wins this, its the Dems winning the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections.
Winning two Presidential terms is the holy grail for any one man, but one party winning 3 times in a row is so much more difficult.
information!
O'Donnell's reputation precedes him -- and I am a fan; but I don't know how I feel about such a criticism. You may have read it, but Hitchens once commented on the validity of using military service (or lack thereof) as a metric for gauging foreign policy. In short, he didn't like it. One should feel strongly about a war (so much so that one would send his children) but I don't think that means because one did not fight in a war, being "Hawkish" or calling for war is inappropriate at face-value. Is there is sound criticism here? Yes. Do I think the life-choices of 6 adult men were all coincidental? No. I do believe they avoided it. But I'd much rather focus on the absurdity and fear-mongering associated with Iran -- rather than Mitt himself. I'm not sure why I feel this way as I am usually a lot more vicious in my critiques than most pundits. Though if Mitt were president and did declare war (at this point who declares wars anymore) I would have every expectation for him to send some of his sons. Maybe that's no different and I am just spewing drivel.Lawrence O'Donnell is not a big fan of Mitt Romney.
I love the way Lawrence goes into the Southie accent. It is very good.
Trolling on TV . . . two trolls in one video.
First Whoopie trolls Ann Romney then Lawrence O'Donnell trolls Tagg.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/ns/msnbc-the_last_word/#49472310
And I thought I've been getting a little testy at times.
Romney: President Obama and I are each very lucky to have one person who's always in our corner, someone that we can lean on, and someone that's a comforting presence without whom we wouldn't be able to go on another day. I have my beautiful wife, Ann, hes got Bill Clinton.
I worried come election day. can some grimey shit actually happen? "TAGG ROMNEY INVESTED IN OHIO ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES" http://t.co/jVKfx6ix
Damn. Very funny. joke.exePosted?
Mitt and Bams had dinner.
Gotta admit this was kind of funny
Ha it's fine, nice writeup. I really enjoyed reading it. I get what you're saying, historically. I think the days when one party can win a realigning election and prove dominant for 40 years is over though. Since the end of World War II, one party winning 3 times in a row has only happened once, in 1988. We've become polarized, a nation of 45/45 and the remaining slice goes to independents. McKinley's Progressive era or Roosevelt's New Deal Coalition for example convinced such a dominant majority of Americans to their side that only Theodore Roosevelt splitting the Republican vote or General Eisenhower's popularity could temporarily allow the other party to win. One party just can't command such a dominant realignment anymore.Sorry for the random history lesson from a random lurker. Kind of got carried away.
RAND won't update. It is mocking me. I don't like being mocked.
Where do they post?
https://mmicdata.rand.org/alp/index.php?page=election
Updates at 1am PST. Except apparently tonight. Because it is staring at my soul mocking it.
it moved up tremendously today, so maybe some great day for obama worked its way out or something. it's where it was on october 12, now.
if it stays where it is, then a 3 point spread seems more in line with what the other polls have been saying. +6 for obama was a definite outlier, like gallup's +7 for romney.
Trolling on TV . . . two trolls in one video.
First Whoopie trolls Ann Romney then Lawrence O'Donnell trolls Tagg.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755883/ns/msnbc-the_last_word/#49472310
And I thought I've been getting a little testy at times.
applause.gifif there's movement in the poll, and it matches the others, i think it's safe to call this a trend. /unskew
applause.gif
This is the first time I've really understood how RAND works. Many thanks.
Now if I would just get my Intrade funded...
Posted?
Mitt and Bams had dinner.
Gotta admit this was kind of funny
hahaha, so so sadRepublicans and conservative press are attacking the President over Libya again. This time over his use of the phrase "not optimal" on the Daily Show, even though he was just using Jon's words to answer his question.
They're just throwing shit at the wall at this point.
Republicans and conservative press are attacking the President over Libya again. This time over his use of the phrase "not optimal" on the Daily Show, even though he was just using Jon's words to answer his question.
They're just throwing shit at the wall at this point.
They've already suffered two strikes when politicizing Libya. Do they not see a pattern?