The real issues going yet again unaddressed by the candidates.
They got the president. If Obama gets fully involved in the campaign - I think he will probably turn the tide himself. The message of hope is starting to re-resonate with a lot of people (kicked off by the hyper smart SotU this year) - and if he gets out fully on the trail - I don't think even a fully ready Rubio + RNC can stop him. But I don't know for sure how hardcore he will be campaigning. (He might have to, you know, do his job or something)
There's a reason Castro is being talked up as a potential VP pick (this is why I think going with Warren would be disastrous for Clinton)
But the GOP is gonna go "Hey, are any of those people in leadership? Got any governors? Anyone who has responsibility?" The part people aren't fully getting I think is this: you don't need to get the majority of latinos or blacks or asians to vote you. You're talking 10% (on an absolute scale, not relative) more on each one of those, and, bam, GOP win. If black voter turnout drops to non Obama levels? Even less.
I don't think Cruz can get that; I don't think any of the candidates besides Rubio (establishment backing, good looking, young, etc) and Trump (because I am never counting him out after watching the last few months) have a chance against Clinton. But people are really, really counting the GOP out, even though, by all historic measures, we're primed for a GOP president.
I only just figured this out, because it had me headscratching. I think.
Trump didn't do it, he and Cruz are basically the endgame of the Tea Party slamming into The Trinity over and over.
I always figured Perot being to the right of Bush took most of Bush's votes away.
Perot not dropping out claiming the Republicans were going to sabotage his daughters wedding on the eve of the Democratic convention is a top favorite political what if.
Perot wasn't to the "right" of Bush. Pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-universal health care, pro-publicly funded campaigns, pro-affirmative action.Huh.
That's kinda cool!
Yep, Perot drew equally from Bush and Clinton, or at least enough to not shift the Electoral College around.
if you believe the bullshit that minorities only vote based on skin color. They have shown frequently this isn't the case. If it were so easy just elect Carson and put Rubio VP. Easy win right?!
One of the weirdest things was that Nader drew 60% from Gore voters and 40% from Dubya voters... I have no idea why that distribution was so close. Nader's candidacy wouldn't have had any negative effect on the race... Except for the fact that Florida was 48.85 to 48.84
One of the weirdest things was that Nader drew 60% from Gore voters and 40% from Dubya voters... I have no idea why that distribution was so close. Nader's candidacy wouldn't have had any negative effect on the race... Except for the fact that Florida was 48.85 to 48.84
Honest question, is Hillary super religious? I guess I never see it get mentioned because it is much less important on the Dem side but am genuinely curious where she is on this.
There was a Times article on it. She attends a Bible study group, she was raised in a Methodist family, she quotes verses off the cuff. She's surprisingly religious. I think polling shows that most people think she's either not religious or not very.
Depends, do you want her to be?
Jebs failure here has me wondering if I should even be all that bothered by Citizens United lol. Most money spent overall and only gets 3% in Iowa.
Money has never won elections by itself. Ask Senator Huffington and Senator McMahon.
And on top of that, the Microsoft App was failing in some places! I know technology isn't perfect (especially working with it as a volunteer), but you would think by now these types of applications would be more reliable.
I agree there are likely diminishing returns, but it's still important to remember 91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins.