PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on November 23, 2017, 08:07:31 AM
-
Unless things change within the GOP, I don't think Trump will be the next President. Either he won't run again, or a GOP challenger will step up. And I don't count the Dems out yet either. People are stupid and have short memories.
I predict Trump will withdraw and Pence will run and win. And I think he will choose a female running mate.
As for the Dem's, unless Hillary buys the Democratic nomination again (which I can't believe will happen), there will probably be a "clown car" full of Democratic candidates worse than the GOP field of 2015/16. I suspect they will run Biden.
-
Hitting the eggnog early today?
-
Hitting the eggnog early today?
Close.
Mimosas
-
Close.
Mimosas
I'm standing by to put the turkey on the grill, but it looks like Hurricane Irma outside. Radar has us in the red zone and the wind seems to be making the lights flicker.
-
Unless things change within the GOP, I don't think Trump will be the next President. Either he won't run again, or a GOP challenger will step up. And I don't count the Dems out yet either. People are stupid and have short memories.
I predict Trump will withdraw and Pence will run and win. And I think he will choose a female running mate.
As for the Dem's, unless Hillary buys the Democratic nomination again (which I can't believe will happen), there will probably be a "clown car" full of Democratic candidates worse than the GOP field of 2015/16. I suspect they will run Biden.
At this point I would have to agree with you. But it's way too early and I would bet that we haven't met the next candidates or the next president yet.
-
A lot can happen in the next 12 months so saying this or that, or who will run is just a wild guessing game at this point.
But what we do know:
Biden will be 78 years old by the next election. I seriously doubt the dems want a person this old running. And Joe Biden will just be another 4 years of an Obama type presidency. As more and more people are realizing BHO was a failed presidency. And don't forget all of the "Pervy Joe" photos and videos of Biden running his hands all over various women.
Hillary: She is desperately trying to salvage her name and attempting to find an excuse, any excuse of why she lost an election so horribly. If she could just blame something or someone and get the chance just once more. However more mainstream dems are realizing just how badly she has fucked up their brand by hijacking it. And she has enough baggage to fill a freight train, so don't look for a "Hillary 2020" campaign, it's not going to happen.
The coastal progressive liberals have the same old tired politicians and are offering nothing new to the American people, instead their only message is "Resist". With the exception of the Alt Left Progressives, the mainstream dems in the flyover country are not going to put any of these whackos in charge.
The Republicans: They have fucked up any chance of putting an establishment type Republican in the WH anywhere in the near future, which is a good thing. They have demonstrated that their clientele are the donor class and lobbyist and they are only interested in promoting what is good for them.
The next twelve months will be interesting. Watch the mid terms closely and I personally believe many establishment types will be finding themselves out of office. If this holds true, then we can expect either Trump will easily go for reelection or yet another populist outsider will take the helm.
-
You do not understand how much Hillary feels that she is entitled to be President.
-
If Hillary becomes a felon between now and then, can she still be a president?
-
That's not to happen either, at least while Sessions is AG.
-
Pence. Trump will not run again.
-
Pence. Trump will not run again.
Trump will run again. He's already filed the paperwork.
-
Then he will withdraw. Trump will not run in 2020.
Gar-on-tea
-
Then he will withdraw. Trump will not run in 2020.
Gar-on-tea
And we were told there was no way he could win, that he would drop out after being nominated, that he would drop out if it looked like he was going to lose, he was only running to get Hillary elected, yada, yada, yada.
-
If Hillary becomes a felon between now and then, can she still be a president?
I'm not sure, but I don't think that would matter. Aren't the only requirements age and natural born citizenship?
Article Two, Section 1 of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as President of the United States:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.[1]
The Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution also sets constraints on who may be elected to the Presidency:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.[2]
-
Then he will withdraw. Trump will not run in 2020.
Gar-on-tea
Honestly, during the campaign, I thought at the unlikely event that he would get elected, he would be one and done.
Since then, I've seen him as someone who wants to accomplish things, and get the job done. I don't think he feels he can get things done in the next three years, so he's going to run for a second term. And I'd vote for him.
-
I'm not sure, but I don't think that would matter. Aren't the only requirements age and natural born citizenship?
You are correct. Disqualifying people on the basis of having committed a felony would constitute a hostile and oppressive work environment.
-
Then he will withdraw. Trump will not run in 2020.
Gar-on-tea
Just curious, why do you think this?
-
Just curious, why do you think this?
Because it’s the wet dream the progressives and the MSM want everyone to believe.
-
Just curious, why do you think this?
Trump is a strategic thinker. He sees big themes, and is somewhat bereft of tactical thought. He set his mind to running, and winning the office, and he's accomplished that. Now - he's very frustrated(no wall yet, no ACA reversal, no end to sanctuary cities, etc). If I may be so bold, he's gone beyond president, and it now gives him time to look at the big picture, and that includes keeping the presidency in the hands of the Rs. Since the MSM has never written a good word about him, this has poisoned much of the electorate and set them at odds about re-election. Pence is keeping his skirts clean. You almost never see Trump and Pence together. This is a strategic plan. About Feb or March of 1919 Trump will announce that he is not seeking re-election. Who knows what excuse will be given, but you will the see the emergence of Pence and the 'great unifier' of the GOP who will rally around Pence. All the people on the right who have not embraced, or endorsed Trump(to their detriment), will elevate Pence to the holy grail of the GOP/RNC. Pence will get all the support of the right that Trump never received.
As long as he's not damaged by the Trump admin, and doesn't make a huge gaff, he'll be the next president. The left has no one on the horizon that is worth talking about. Schumer is a lock for the nomination, and he's got so much dirty laundry I can't imagine Trump not going after him with both guns blazing. If you want to see some nasty, mean-spirited campaigning, just wait until Trump is unleashed against Schumer.
-
Trump is a strategic thinker. He sees big themes, and is somewhat bereft of tactical thought. He set his mind to running, and winning the office, and he's accomplished that. Now - he's very frustrated(no wall yet, no ACA reversal, no end to sanctuary cities, etc). If I may be so bold, he's gone beyond president, and it now gives him time to look at the big picture, and that includes keeping the presidency in the hands of the Rs. Since the MSM has never written a good word about him, this has poisoned much of the electorate and set them at odds about re-election. Pence is keeping his skirts clean. You almost never see Trump and Pence together. This is a strategic plan. About Feb or March of 1919 Trump will announce that he is not seeking re-election. Who knows what excuse will be given, but you will the see the emergence of Pence and the 'great unifier' of the GOP who will rally around Pence. All the people on the right who have not embraced, or endorsed Trump(to their detriment), will elevate Pence to the holy grail of the GOP/RNC. Pence will get all the support of the right that Trump never received.
As long as he's not damaged by the Trump admin, and doesn't make a huge gaff, he'll be the next president. The left has no one on the horizon that is worth talking about. Schumer is a lock for the nomination, and he's got so much dirty laundry I can't imagine Trump not going after him with both guns blazing. If you want to see some nasty, mean-spirited campaigning, just wait until Trump is unleashed against Schumer.
That Thanksgiving weekend must really be good for you! I see you’ve done away with the egg nog and gone straight bourbon.
-
Trump is a strategic thinker. He sees big themes, and is somewhat bereft of tactical thought. He set his mind to running, and winning the office, and he's accomplished that. Now - he's very frustrated(no wall yet, no ACA reversal, no end to sanctuary cities, etc). If I may be so bold, he's gone beyond president, and it now gives him time to look at the big picture, and that includes keeping the presidency in the hands of the Rs. Since the MSM has never written a good word about him, this has poisoned much of the electorate and set them at odds about re-election. Pence is keeping his skirts clean. You almost never see Trump and Pence together. This is a strategic plan. About Feb or March of 1919 Trump will announce that he is not seeking re-election. Who knows what excuse will be given, but you will the see the emergence of Pence and the 'great unifier' of the GOP who will rally around Pence. All the people on the right who have not embraced, or endorsed Trump(to their detriment), will elevate Pence to the holy grail of the GOP/RNC. Pence will get all the support of the right that Trump never received.
As long as he's not damaged by the Trump admin, and doesn't make a huge gaff, he'll be the next president. The left has no one on the horizon that is worth talking about. Schumer is a lock for the nomination, and he's got so much dirty laundry I can't imagine Trump not going after him with both guns blazing. If you want to see some nasty, mean-spirited campaigning, just wait until Trump is unleashed against Schumer.
It will be interesting to see if you turn out to be right.
-
It's not just my prediction, I hope I'm right. I doubt the electorate would be inclined to vote for Trump after the four year wave of negativity tossed at him. I also suspect that the chilly relationship between Trump and the RNC will affect his decision. Pretty much everyone in the beltway hates him(from both parties), and running as an outsider has it's benevolent fantasy, but really - if he ran as an indy all he would do is badly split the conservative vote and give the election to the Dems. Trump is too smart for that.
-
It's not just my prediction, I hope I'm right. I doubt the electorate would be inclined to vote for Trump after the four year wave of negativity tossed at him. I also suspect that the chilly relationship between Trump and the RNC will affect his decision. Pretty much everyone in the beltway hates him(from both parties), and running as an outsider has it's benevolent fantasy, but really - if he ran as an indy all he would do is badly split the conservative vote and give the election to the Dems. Trump is too smart for that.
How would your scenario above be any different than the 2016 election? I see virtually no one who voted for Trump, even grudgingly, abandoning him in favor of a fictitious GOP opponent or any democrat candidate.
-
How would your scenario above be any different than the 2016 election? I see virtually no one who voted for Trump, even grudgingly, abandoning him in favor of a fictitious GOP opponent or any democrat candidate.
Well for one thing, part of the reason Trump won is that so many Democrats stayed home. But they hate Trump so much they will all be out voting for anyone with a D beside their name next time.
And if the R's don't get tax reform passed, after fucking up Obamacare repeal, then all Rs will be in trouble. Including Trump. Especially if the economic boost we have seen because of the hope for tax reform comes crashing down.
If Trump doesn't accomplish something worthwhile, besides appointing a few good judges, he will be in deep doo doo.
-
How would your scenario above be any different than the 2016 election? I see virtually no one who voted for Trump, even grudgingly, abandoning him in favor of a fictitious GOP opponent or any democrat candidate.
His scenario is extremely flawed because he's leaving out several key elements, much the same as the MSM.
The extreme negativity that the MSM is pushing is not actually hurting Trump, it's actually hurting the MSM as it finally shows their true agenda. And as the average American, those left in the fly over country see this it only emboldens them more to support Trump.
Same with the Alt Left Radical Progressives, as they go further and further off the deep end in feeble attempts to smear Trump they are only exposing themselves.
And the establishment republicans? After watching their self centered lame attempts to govern and run congress, why would the majority of conservative voters want to see the republican party attempt to nominate yet another establishment republican? The election of 2016 should tell anyone all they need to know about how people feel about establishment politics. And the result of 2020 is not going to be "Oh crap!, let's get Jeb to run!" or "Geez, maybe we can get Mitt?"
If the republican party tries to get an establishment type nominated to push out Trump it will blow up in their face.
Lots can happen in the next 12 months and many dynamics can change, but I seriously doubt that Americans are going to start embracing the establishment again.
-
Well for one thing, part of the reason Trump won is that so many Democrats stayed home. But they hate Trump so much they will all be out voting for anyone with a D beside their name next time.
And if the R's don't get tax reform passed, after fucking up Obamacare repeal, then all Rs will be in trouble. Including Trump. Especially if the economic boost we have seen because of the hope for tax reform comes crashing down.
If Trump doesn't accomplish something worthwhile, besides appointing a few good judges, he will be in deep doo doo.
And this is how Ryan and McConnell see a glimmer of hope in getting rid of Trump, by totally fucking up everything and ceding control of congress back to the progressives.
-
And this is how Ryan and McConnell see a glimmer of hope in getting rid of Trump, by totally fucking up everything and ceding control of congress back to the progressives.
Trump inside the beltway is like the third rail. Anyone seen giving aid and comfort to the 'enemy' will be resoundingly punished come election day. At least this is conformist D and R thinking. the entire establishment has no interest in working with Trump. He's really going to have to do it on his own. Just today the latest broadside, now a fed dept is using fed tax money to sue in fed court, the fed temp administrator of a fed agency. Can this get anymore insane? It's judge shopping at its most blatant. Find a liberal judge, bring an action(which has no basis in law), get a hearing, and let the activist liberal judge make a ruling. Which will then be appealed(costing more tax money) to the SCOTUS where sanity will prevail, after several years of wrangling. And it will all be blamed on Trump, even though he will be proven correct - just like the visa blacklist deal.
The MSM knows they can sway the stupid electorate. And, coupled with the idea that all Trump voters are mouth-breathing apes, they see themselves as shaping the new 'democracy'. If anyone thinks it's not working, look at the presidents approval rating. He hasn't had a serious gaff like BO since the election, but you would think by watching CNN that those questioning his sanity are maybe right.
Try checking out a blog from outside the US. Consensus(of the great unwashed who only get CNN) from non-US places is that Trump is a deranged buffoon. The peer pressure to support him is far too great for most lemmings. His election win in 2016 was a very thin margin where he lost the popular vote against a much-hated and little-respected woman, who was facing multiple investigations during most of the campaign.
If the Dems put up someone who is moderately clean, has limited baggage, and is spineless enough to be led by the nose, they have a good chance against any of the Reps, and a very good chance against Trump. His baggage now exceeds his accomplishments to most in the US.
-
The MSM knows they can sway the stupid electorate. And, coupled with the idea that all Trump voters are mouth-breathing apes, they see themselves as shaping the new 'democracy'. If anyone thinks it's not working, look at the presidents approval rating. He hasn't had a serious gaff like BO since the election, but you would think by watching CNN that those questioning his sanity are maybe right.
You mean like all those polls that showed Hillary was headed for a landslide? See, that's the problem, polling organizations have no clout or respect anymore, most people are laughing at any poll put out by the MSM. And the MSM has an agenda which they don't even try to hide, so of course they are going to put out tainted polls to slam Trump.
Huge credibility gap now, and people are paying attention.
Try checking out a blog from outside the US. Consensus(of the great unwashed who only get CNN) from non-US places is that Trump is a deranged buffoon. The peer pressure to support him is far too great for most lemmings. His election win in 2016 was a very thin margin where he lost the popular vote against a much-hated and little-respected woman, who was facing multiple investigations during most of the campaign.
I generally don't follow blogs especially from deranged progressives. My friends that live in various parts of the world are giving me a different perspective than what you are getting.
In fact Trump's trip to Asia was a great success. The MSM didn't report that because they don't want any information out that makes him look good. But the news from the region (reliable, not deranged progressive) was very favorable towards Trump.
If the Dems put up someone who is moderately clean, has limited baggage, and is spineless enough to be led by the nose, they have a good chance against any of the Reps, and a very good chance against Trump. His baggage now exceeds his accomplishments to most in the US.
The dems can't unload the alt left progressives that have hijacked the party. And they can't unload the Clintons either. As long as those two elements exist with the DNC they will continue to run coastal Alt Left progressives which means they don't have a prayer. The mainstream democrats in the flyover country don't have a say in the party any longer.
The lesson from 2016 is people in the flyover country are fed up with the establishment in both parties.
-
He's really going to have to do it on his own.
You mean like with a pen and a phone? Isn't that what the right (justifiably) railed against Obama for?
The MSM knows they can sway the stupid electorate. And, coupled with the idea that all Trump voters are mouth-breathing apes...
It's comments like this that got Trump elected to begin with.
He hasn't had a serious gaff like BO since the election, but you would think by watching CNN that those questioning his sanity are maybe right.
Which tweet should I refer you to?
His election win in 2016 was a very thin margin where he lost the popular vote against a much-hated and little-respected woman, who was facing multiple investigations during most of the campaign.
The popular vote isn't what determines who becomes president. Didn't you just call the electorate stupid?
If the Dems put up someone who is moderately clean, has limited baggage, and is spineless enough to be led by the nose, they have a good chance against any of the Reps, and a very good chance against Trump. His baggage now exceeds his accomplishments to most in the US.
There's a little truth in this. The amount of Democrats that stayed home this past election is (one) cause as to why Trump was elected. If they nominate someone who is moderate, articulate and isn't hated, the Democrats have a chance at winning back the White House in 2020. But that's a long ways off and a lot can happen between now and then. I've said it before, but every time Trump does something that would normally damage him, the left finds a way to do something even worse ("hold my beer" is appropriate here).
-
I've staked out my position, and given my brief. We'll see what happens. I don't mind being wrong if Trump wins and is re-elected. Given the past 10 months in congress, I have a concern that their failure will be heaped on Trump in spades. All the while congress will continue to both suck, and blow. There are a lot of concerns over term limits for congress, but now I've come around to the idea that all fed offices should have term limits. And particularly the administrative positions.
-
I'm thinking the only way the Dems can win in 2020 is if they learned the lesson in the blue wall states. The jobs issue was huge in turning those Dems to Trump. We're not talking hard core progressive liberals, but traditional working man Democrats. Trump emphasized bringing back jobs while Hillary vowed to destroy coal and whined about women's rights. If the Democrats as a whole are not in complete denial as Hillary herself, and look honestly at why they lost, they will fix that huge error on their part (taking the Blue Wall states for granted). If they do that, the Rs are in big trouble.
-
I'm thinking the only way the Dems can win in 2020 is if they learned the lesson in the blue wall states. The jobs issue was huge in turning those Dems to Trump. We're not talking hard core progressive liberals, but traditional working man Democrats. Trump emphasized bringing back jobs while Hillary vowed to destroy coal and whined about women's rights. If the Democrats as a whole are not in complete denial as Hillary herself, and look honestly at why they lost, they will fix that huge error on their part (taking the Blue Wall states for granted). If they do that, the Rs are in big trouble.
Good points.
But right now the DNC is being run by the Alt Left Radical Progressives in conjunction with the Clintons. That alone means they will not give a flip about mainstream democrats and continue their march ahead.
If the mainstream democrats take their party back, move people in from the rust belt and blue wall states and start talking jobs and the economy they do indeed stand a chance of mounting a comeback. But right now the DNC's rising star for 2020 is Terry McAuliffe, former Governor of Virginia. He's a coastal progressive and a Clinton confidant, best of both worlds.
-
I tend to agree that the far left has taken most of the control of the DNC and will not be swayed. They are going to force the progressive platform, and damn the torpedos, full speed ahead. No one like Carter would even exist in today's democratic party. Trump only enraged them further, and sadly with the votes they got with such a flawed candidate are the motivation for them to find the correct Bernie Sanders socialist to put up against a Trump candidate. It won't be Sanders, but it will smell, and look a lot like him. The power of taking OPM is very, very strong with those who produce or contribute nothing to the US economy, and they are becoming a national voting block. A few more poor immigrants, and they will be too large to defeat. When that happens(it may happen in 2020 or 24), I'm getting out of investment, and going all cash/gold/liquid assets.
-
No one like Carter would even exist in today's democratic party.
Carter? Kennedy would be considered a right winger by the current DNC.
-
The problem as I see it is political gerrymandering. It's not new, it's been going on for decades and it disenfranchises the bulk of the people in the middle. This is why so many say their voice doesn't matter and why the distribution of voting is bimodal.
When one side is pretty much assured of winning the election, then the real decision occurs in the primary where Democrats win by being far left and Republicans win by being far right. The result is two sides playing tug of war over the government and our laws so they can "win". For an example, consider a left/right scaled that goes from 0/100. If a district is balanced, then the person who wins should be near 50 on that scale and represent a large number of people. But with gerrymandering, Democrat districts elect someone who is at 25 and Republican districts elect someone who is at 75. Result - tug of war and the fight to win becomes a fight to control redistricting.
Courts have ruled in the past that political gerrymandering is legal. Regardless, it is bad.
-
The problem as I see it is political gerrymandering. It's not new, it's been going on for decades and it disenfranchises the bulk of the people in the middle. This is why so many say their voice doesn't matter and why the distribution of voting is bimodal.
When one side is pretty much assured of winning the election, then the real decision occurs in the primary where Democrats win by being far left and Republicans win by being far right. The result is two sides playing tug of war over the government and our laws so they can "win". For an example, consider a left/right scaled that goes from 0/100. If a district is balanced, then the person who wins should be near 50 on that scale and represent a large number of people. But with gerrymandering, Democrat districts elect someone who is at 25 and Republican districts elect someone who is at 75. Result - tug of war and the fight to win becomes a fight to control redistricting.
Courts have ruled in the past that political gerrymandering is legal. Regardless, it is bad.
Is it incumbent upon the party of the state legislature that is in office every Census year to make every legislative district “competitive” for the next decade? That seems to be what you are arguing. If so, that’s simply gerrymandering of a different stripe.
That would require a congressional district made up of mostly inner city Milwaukee to reach way out into some suburban areas in order to have the balance you seek. That seems even more ridiculous.
-
Is it incumbent upon the party of the state legislature that is in office every Census year to make every legislative district “competitive” for the next decade? That seems to be what you are arguing. If so, that’s simply gerrymandering of a different stripe.
That would require a congressional district made up of mostly inner city Milwaukee to reach way out into some suburban areas in order to have the balance you seek. That seems even more ridiculous.
Are you afraid to win on your merits?
Yes, I do advocate balancing every district, even if that means mixing inner city with country. That happens today! To be absolutely clear - I advocate that every district should be 50/50 +/-.5 politically except the last one. Obviously you cannot predict the future, so it will get out of balance and then get re-balanced after the next census. District lines should follow pre-defined geopolitical boundaries such as county lines, major roads and rivers. They should never be drawn as a political advantage for one party or the other.
Realistically I think there is zero chance of either side being willing to do this because they are cowards. They would rather have the grand battle every 10 years on who gets to draw the districts.
The alternative is far worse.
-
I advocate that every district should be 50/50 +/-.5 politically except the last one.
I don't understand that. I also don't understand the current gerrymandering system.
I think each district should be cut up in a geometric grid. Perhaps the grid squares could be adjusted to try to make each grid square similar in population. It get's complicated, but I think it should be done mathematically rather than politically.
-
Are you afraid to win on your merits?
Yes, I do advocate balancing every district, even if that means mixing inner city with country. That happens today! To be absolutely clear - I advocate that every district should be 50/50 +/-.5 politically except the last one. Obviously you cannot predict the future, so it will get out of balance and then get re-balanced after the next census. District lines should follow pre-defined geopolitical boundaries such as county lines, major roads and rivers. They should never be drawn as a political advantage for one party or the other.
Realistically I think there is zero chance of either side being willing to do this because they are cowards. They would rather have the grand battle every 10 years on who gets to draw the districts.
The alternative is far worse.
Well, good luck with that. I can’t wait to see your district map of Chicago, or of New York City.
I thought the job of a house member is to represent his constituents. When you span distinct geographical boundaries, the outliers will get no representation. I live in the most red county in Wisconsin, represented by Jim Sensenbrenner in the 5th CD. Do you think I would get fair representation from Gwen Moore whose 4th CD includes almost all of inter city Milwaukee, because your boundaries seem “fair” in your eyes?
I would be fine with using pre-existing political subdivision boundaries as a start. However, in your “fair” system that would very likely be impossible.
-
Are you afraid to win on your merits?
Yes, I do advocate balancing every district, even if that means mixing inner city with country. That happens today! To be absolutely clear - I advocate that every district should be 50/50 +/-.5 politically except the last one. Obviously you cannot predict the future, so it will get out of balance and then get re-balanced after the next census. District lines should follow pre-defined geopolitical boundaries such as county lines, major roads and rivers. They should never be drawn as a political advantage for one party or the other.
Realistically I think there is zero chance of either side being willing to do this because they are cowards. They would rather have the grand battle every 10 years on who gets to draw the districts.
The alternative is far worse.
The most representative apportionment is NOT 50/50 or any sort of "mixed" districts!
Representative in this case meaning "The number of districts that are won by side X is directly proportional to the votes cast for X across all districts."
The most representative case occurs when all like-minded voters are gathered into their own districts. (Case 1 in the graphic.)
The least representative case occurs when voters are gathered into districts such that the proportion of voters in each district matches the proportion across all districts. (Case 2 in the graphic.)
I have seen claims that one side or the other strives for case 3 shown in the graphic. However, a careful view shows the cleaved districts in case 3 to have uneasy majorities for red in all its districts while blue has 2 very safe ones. But the natural desire for "safe" districts by parties would tend toward a situation approximating case 1. As soon as the red side in case 3 tries to carve out 1 "safe" district the game is up - their best bet long term is to strive for case 1.
So - if you ever see anyone claim that "unrepresentative" Gerrymandering happens when district lines are drawn to put all like-voters together you'll know from the graphic that that results in the MOST representative result, not the least.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/03/gerry.png&w=480)
-
Are you afraid to win on your merits?
Yes, I do advocate balancing every district, even if that means mixing inner city with country. That happens today! To be absolutely clear - I advocate that every district should be 50/50 +/-.5 politically except the last one. Obviously you cannot predict the future, so it will get out of balance and then get re-balanced after the next census. District lines should follow pre-defined geopolitical boundaries such as county lines, major roads and rivers. They should never be drawn as a political advantage for one party or the other.
Realistically I think there is zero chance of either side being willing to do this because they are cowards. They would rather have the grand battle every 10 years on who gets to draw the districts.
The alternative is far worse.
There are laws that may prevent that. I once took the state map of Georgia showing the counties and the population of the state and just started in the upper left corner and started assigning counties to districts until I filled the district and then started the next district. Not sure what I did with it.
-
Liawatha, Fauxchahontas will NOT be President. That's all I can say right now.
-
Liawatha, Fauxchahontas will NOT be President. That's all I can say right now.
Matt Lauer has just been fired for "inappropriate sexual behavior". If this keeps up, no MAN will be elected. So then the question becomes, which woman will be the next President?
Man, I'm glad I have never become famous. And I bet a lot of young men are starting to wish for perpetual anonymity too.
-
Hillary?
:)
-
Hillary?
:)
She’s desperately trying. But her and Bill are toast. For the DNC to ever allow her on the premises again would be political malpractice.
And the truth: Had she and Debbie Wasserman Schultz not have rigged the primaries, Bernie would have been the nominee. And many democrats will never forget, or forgive that.
-
She’s desperately trying. But her and Bill are toast. For the DNC to ever allow her on the premises again would be political malpractice.
And the truth: Had she and Debbie Wasserman Schultz not have rigged the primaries, Bernie would have been the nominee. And many democrats will never forget, or forgive that.
I don’t know about that. Hillary appeared at a theater in Milwaukee a couple of weeks ago at$200/ticket, and it was alleged to be a full theater. I doubt that. But she’s still out trying to make her case, I.e. “I guess I should have come to Wisconsin last year. Haha.” Gag me.
I don’t see them going away to enjoy their hundreds of millions. She is so power hungry it’s really concerning.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
Hillary?
:)
That bridge has burned, collapsed, and floated down the Mighty MS.
-
I don’t know about that. Hillary appeared at a theater in Milwaukee a couple of weeks ago at$200/ticket, and it was alleged to be a full theater. I doubt that. But she’s still out trying to make her case, I.e. “I guess I should have come to Wisconsin last year. Haha.” Gag me.
I don’t see them going away to enjoy their hundreds of millions. She is so power hungry it’s really concerning.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
No doubt she still has her sycophants and those so blind they can’t see through her criminality and compulsive lying. And she is power crazy, no doubt.
But lots of dems got butt hurt (rightfully so) because of her rigging the primary. That won’t happen again.
And with Hillary, a year out from one of the worst defeats in presidential history, is still out there trying to find an excuse, any excuse it wasn’t her fault. She’s only digging the grave deeper.
-
If she runs again, it won't be as a Dem. They want nothing to do with her anymore, and even Bill can't sweet talk them through it again.
-
If she runs again, it won't be as a Dem. They want nothing to do with her anymore, and even Bill can't sweet talk them through it again.
Remember the "Bull Moose" party?
Perhaps she will run for the "Bull Dyke" party.
-
Remember the "Bull Moose" party?
Perhaps she will run for the "Bull Dyke" party.
LOL! Yeah her an Elizabeth Warren in the same ticket!
-
Here ya go, a coastal progressive and a Clinton sycophant.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/362460-mcauliffe-seriously-considering-2020-run
-
The painful truth that Hilary must face is that the new generation of progressive, liberal, snowflakes, have no connection to her ugly, old, corrupt, regime. She is literally their grandparents age and the gap will grow more obvious Long before 2020.
-
Here ya go, yet another Alt Left Coastal Progressive:
https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-12-01/kamala-harris-navigates-the-2020-presidential-landscape
-
Pence. Trump will not run again.
Then he will withdraw. Trump will not run in 2020.
Gar-on-tea
Guess that guarantee just ran out.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/02/27/breaking-trump-is-running-in-2020-n2454974
There were some who doubted President Donald J. Trump would not seek re-election. Well, those rumors can be put to rest, as it seems the president is very much geared towards seeking a second term. On Drudge, the sirens were ringing, with the announcement that Brad Parscale, the digital director for the 2016 campaign, will take the reins as manager of the 2020 effort.
-
Where should I send the refund check? 8)
Trump is a strategic player. I'm not convinced yet that this is a sincere effort. However, I'm willing to entertain that Trump being who he is sees his destiny as going the distance. I'll fall on the sword in March 2019 which is when the fun will start in earnest. His enemies would be enticed knowing he were a lame duck after only 13 months in office.
-
For those pathetic whiners, desperately hoping Donald Trump doesn't run again, because he will garner a huge (YUGGEEE) number of new votes due to the economy, you need to look for a better candidate than Kamela Harris. Other than the lunatic fringe, which has become the mainstream democrat party, she has none fo the attraction that the piece of shit, Barrack had
-
What I want is the most viable candidate for the RNC to run in 2020. Given the overwhelming negative press, and the really bad results(on paper) of this investigation into the campaign, I don't think Trump will be the best contender in 2020. The libs have a lock on the media, and that's not going to change. 4 years of negativity will not make up for a very good economy. Just too much baggage. However, if he's the nominee, which is likely I'll support him fully.
-
I honestly think that the insanely dishonest press has shot their wad as far as reaching the middle.
The far left would believe that Donal Trump was a Martian from Antarctica who wants to eat their brains as long as they could get a link from Salon, or HuffPo to tell them what to think.
The problem the left has is that people see through them more and more and when they demand that people 'respect' their positions on things, you get such push back that the left wing press goes into insane territory flailing about because th epublic called them out as the lying bastards they are.
The Mueller coup is going to run aground and then people are going to see what a witch hunt it was from jump, and the asshole press are going to get that blame, too.
I loved it when students came forward and outed CNN for scripting their so called town hall. Pretty soon Rachel Mad-Cow and many other delusional leftist media mouths will be just another scorch mark caused by the demonic left on America's back end.
-
Can't disagree with most of that. The other issue I think the left will face is more fundamental. The 'we hate Trump' platform is going to be worn to a thread by early 2020. If the economy keeps on, and we don't get our military asses in a nasty crack, hating Trump is going to be worn out shoe.
I'm not much worried about the GOP or RNC backing. By 2020, they are going to be balls-out Trump supporters(barring disaster). If the left gets their head out of their collective ass and finds a middle road lib, it could be interesting. This still presumes Trump is the nominee.
-
What I want is the most viable candidate for the RNC to run in 2020. Given the overwhelming negative press, and the really bad results(on paper) of this investigation into the campaign, I don't think Trump will be the best contender in 2020. The libs have a lock on the media, and that's not going to change. 4 years of negativity will not make up for a very good economy. Just too much baggage. However, if he's the nominee, which is likely I'll support him fully.
What are the really bad results of the investigation? From what I have seen, they have turned up nothing implicating Trump. They have turned up more against Bernie Sanders than Trump, but you don't hear much about that for some reason.
-
What are the really bad results of the investigation? From what I have seen, they have turned up nothing implicating Trump. They have turned up more against Bernie Sanders than Trump, but you don't hear much about that for some reason.
It's image damaging. Nothing about Trump the candidate, but lot of grist for the dem campaign mill. Two 'top Trump advisers' gone to jail, others indicted or maybe convicted. None of it has any direct bearing on the pres, but it shows bad judgment. A few months ago there was a candidate for a judge position who couldn't answer the most basic bar exam questions. All this ancillary stuff will play into the campaign.
-
What I want is the most viable candidate for the RNC to run in 2020. Given the overwhelming negative press, and the really bad results(on paper) of this investigation into the campaign, I don't think Trump will be the best contender in 2020. The libs have a lock on the media, and that's not going to change. 4 years of negativity will not make up for a very good economy. Just too much baggage. However, if he's the nominee, which is likely I'll support him fully.
A year ago I would have agreed with you. However, his diarrhea of the Tweet notwithstanding, Trump is so dynamic and...different that I think he can win again. Certainly there isn’t a single potential GOP contender in the wings that I can think of that won’t come off as a milquetoast swamp dwelling career politician.
-
A year ago I would have agreed with you. However, his diarrhea of the Tweet notwithstanding, Trump is so dynamic and...different that I think he can win again. Certainly there isn’t a single potential GOP contender in the wings that I can think of that won’t come off as a milquetoast swamp dwelling career politician.
Jeb! 2020!
::)
-
Jeb! 2020!
::)
God help us all...
-
The economic news today, coupled with the news that Trump has already achieved over 68% of his promised agenda (for those progressive whiners who are too stupid to know how to check this out, you can look this up on the front page of Drudge today). That will hurt the lefty mantra about Trump destroying America.
For those who simply exist to hate Trump and the rest of us by extension, you have found your home in the new psychotic, democrat party. Enjoy your psychotropic meds.
-
God help us all...
(https://media.giphy.com/media/l0NwPo3VHujpJDI4w/giphy.gif)
-
Newsweak is reporting this;
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-approval-rating-just-passed-230047719.html
Rather startling I would say. Both that in spite of the lame stream media(like Newsweak), and the fact that it was reported in Newsweak - it would appear that the smear campaign against Trump is rapidly losing steam in the greater part of the nation.
I'm not one to gush on an opinion poll, but anything which doesn't describe Trump as a puppet, cheeto, nazi, bone spur, lunatic is all good. Maybe he's gaining steam in the nation just by Trump being Trump? Trump 2020 may just be a reality. It appears that crow may be on my menu sometime late next year.