TRUMP(244) vs Hillary(217) Electoral votes situation in Dec,2015

Hillary's husband did blatantly lie about his infidelity back in the 1990s, that's true.

Still, that and the unconfirmed, lurid tales some enjoy will not be a determinant in the 2016 election.

He won't be on the ballot.

 

You see, We are substantially entered the electoral campaign, so read my posts using that filter ... in a different context I could even say that Mrs Clinton did a good job at State Department ...

This said, US electorate is traditional. Statistics say that US voters are ready for a "jump in the dark" only in exceptional circumstances. I cannot say if the circumstances are suitable to persuade the majority of US electors to think that "a woman can do it".

Personally I think that Hillary was a best choice already when he run against Obama [I've got no problem in saying the Mrs Clinton would have been a better President than Obama], but now? Which are the Democrat alternatives? [Usually the Democrat Party doesn't make the "best horse" run for the Presidency, because of reasons which would deserve an essay of political science].

 

That's true. Several of them have been working that one lately.

 

Obama has a pen and a phone.

Obama has been pretty busy emptying our prisons lately.

 

None of this will matter to the people who don't spend their days listening to right wing talk radio. It didn't matter in the 1990's and it won't matter in 2016. It's instructive to look at what happened to Jennifer Flowers after the impeachment failed as a way of testing the principles of her promoters. They dropped her like a hot rock, and she spent years working off legal bills that she has run up.

You can prattle on about how Bill Clinton lied and victimized these people that the GOP was paying and promoting to build a scandal, but it won't matter.

Bill Clinton's poll numbers went UP during the impeachment witchunt, and the public handed the GOP a significant mid term election defeat just before the Senate trial started.

 

It wont surprise most .

 

If dems actually got that they would not be trying to take Trump down. Admit it they are scared.

 

Funny! We just enjoy seeing the adulation that the tea party and the White supremacist groups give to this clown!

But the democrats are a lot less worried about Trump than the GOP establishment is!

So. . .let's just keep enjoying the circus!

 

It's true, the Dems are running scared of Trump or they wouldn't be trying to take him down.

 

Rabid anti-Clinton Republicans may have a difficult time running against a guy about whom the American public is thoroughly familiar with both his achievements as President and depraved personal behavour in the 1990s and has assigned an approval rating of 66%.

Crying, "Liar! Liar!" will have to be the strategy. The vendettas promoted by the right wing media and orchestrated by congressional Republicans have largely fizzled.

Of course, as a novelty, they could try finding a viable opponent, unite behind him, and say nice things about him. That media celebrity seems hellbent on demeaning them all.

Hillary Clinton has no criminal offenses on her record, not a one. Bill Clinton perjured himself, and still was assigned that 66% public approval afterwards.

Sliming folks isn't going to work this time.

 

*Yawning* Yeah, the email investigations.... They are being so heavily discussed after 4 months of ongoing discussion..... They have not been discussed, but for sh*ts and giggles, let's discuss something that has died. Come on, your side is so desperate for Hilary to lose you will bring up investigations about emails and when was the last time you sent an email that was somewhat controversial. It is like you want to see this b*tch go down and yet, she still leads the polls.

 

Those early poll numbers will change six months from now. I'm sure Hillary will continue to gain a bigger lead over Trump in a few months.

 

"Going negative" does not inevitably produce results, nor is it ever sufficient of itself.

Surprise swiftboating can work, obviously, but they'll need a smear campaign less tired than their "She killed Vince Foster!", "She was personally responsible for the Benghazi tragedy!", or "She's not tech savvy about email servers!" vendettas.

Based upon their current, comprehensive, objective assessment, the oddsmakers have Clinton defeating anchor baby* Rubio in the general election. That could change, of course, but hyper-partisan wishful thinking isn't going to make it change.

* As is well-documented, Marco Rubio was born in Florida in 1971, long before his parents became naturalized Americans in 1975. They had come to the US in 1956, not having "fled Castro's Cuba" as he had falsely claimed since Castro didn't come to power until 1959.​

 

Just wait!

They'll persist in delving into her communications until they expose her having once committed an egregious transgression
of internet etiquette in having emailed Trump's little soulmate Putin in ALL CAPS after he invaded Ukraine!

 

Trump is scaring the GOP establishment a lot more than the Democrats!

The Democrats would LOVE to see either Hillary or Sanders debate Trump!

Trump would then look to any intelligent person as the complete empty suit (and fat head) he is!

 

You may believe all that but, reagrdless of what portion of it may be true, if any, the GOP still needs to find and promote a viable alternative.

BS. I don't know what your acquaintance's political agenda may be, or if he told you what you wanted to hear, but I'll trust the primary sources that were there - his crew. One of them, a Republican, James Rassmann, who Kerry pulled back into the boat after he was knocked overboard following an explosion, "said he has never had any question that Kerry deserved the Purple Heart."

In addition, the Navy Inspector General completed a review of Kerry's combat medals and found them to have been properly awarded.

There were Vietnam veterans who deeply resented Kerry's exposing the truth about the war.

Republican hit man Corsi is a lowlife whose propaganda smear campaign was financed by Sam Fox, a billionaire and hard core right winger.

Here are a couple. It's still early, but I prefer experts without partisan agenda to compute such probabilities.

http://predictwise.com/

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=791149

 

OK....I think you've just broken down why Hillary will not be indicted. Petraeus, or General Betray-us, as he was known to the Democrats, represented a threat. Hillary is an heir. If Biden had jumped into the race then I might have agreed with you that a Hillary indictment is a real possibility, but I think Biden didn't jump into the race because he knew there was never going to be an indictment.

 

Although I congratulate you on stringing together an impressive list of conservative "media" and to be honest, many of these blogs I've not heard of, I think you are trying to compare the coverage of a couple of blogs and pundits with the combined power of this fully operational Death St....I mean the main stream media. In terms of coverage, I don't think the Instapundit blog or all blogs put together has the coverage of NBC, CBS, and ABC, not to mention cable, and not too mention virtually every major newspaper in the country. Yes, the Wall Street Journal has a conservative editorial page, but national conservative coverage is a drop in the ocean of consistently liberal coverage that the average voter is going to be exposed to. You can add a thousand more blogs to your list and that won't change.

 

Uh...that was my point.

 

That's possible.....but the flip side is. He sits out and waits. Its not only if she gets indicted. Any of her Aides is counted in that aspect. Also we already have a Judge that has stated Hillary.....an employee broke government policy. Which the left has done a good job marring over that fact. But it doesn't change the Judge's words down on the Court Record.

The other problem they face is, if they lose the Election. Then they can and will be prosecuted with a New AG, which I am sure Hillary would get a plea deal like Petraeus. While letting her pals take the fall for her.

 

Paranoia over the "main stream media" boogie man confronts the reality of both a free market and free speech as corporations, as is their goal, vie to maximize audiences and profits. There is no room in their capitalist endeavour for indulging in partisan agendas - a violation of their responsibilities to their investors. Competition allows the best to thrive and the worst to fail under that hallmark of conservative economics. If the aforesaid right-wing media cartel were to more successfully fulfill the demands of the American people for credible reportage, it would displace the established popular preference and become "main stream."

That is not to say that smaller operations cannot aim their product at niche markets, and seek to establish a loyal, stable following rather than aspiring to volume, of course. That's a viable corporate strategy as well.