View Poll Results: What will the electoral vote count look like?

Voters
106. You may not vote on this poll
  • Clinton Landslide: 350+ EVs

    6 5.66%
  • Clinton strong win: 325-350 EVs

    25 23.58%
  • Clinton solid win: 300-324 EVs

    53 50.00%
  • Clinton close win: 280-299 EVs

    14 13.21%
  • Clinton barely wins: 270-279 EVs

    4 3.77%
  • Tie: 269-269 EVs (also vote here if neither candidate get to 270)

    1 0.94%
  • Trump barely wins: 270-279 EVs

    1 0.94%
  • Trump close win: 280-299 EVs

    2 1.89%
  • Trump solid win: 300-324 EVs

    0 0%
  • Trump strong win: 325+ EVs

    0 0%
Page 4 of 825 FirstFirst ... 234561454104504 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 16488
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Corey View Post
    Secretary Clinton should hope that someone in the Democratic Party steps up to challenge her. It is not a positive to go unchallenged until the general election.
    So, first of all, the notion that she will go completely unchallenged is crazy. Someone is going to run against her -- probably multiple someones. Even if they don't think they can win, they will want to raise their profile for future political power and a potential run down the road. This is not a sitting president kind of situation, she'll have a challenger.

    That said, there have been essentially unchallenged nominees in the past. George W Bush in 2000 was the choice of the party leadership and, aside from a little stumble in New Hampshire to McCain, he essentially had the GOP nomination wrapped up by the end of February. The fact that he was largely unchallenged didn't seem to hurt him at all in the general election.

    That same year, sitting VP Al Gore (is a sitting VP all that different from a past Secy of State/First Lady who is as well known as any VP?) won every single race for the Dems against Bill Bradley. I suppose one could argue that Gore didn't run all that great a campaign, but if it were not for some bad luck (not gonna debate the reasons behind the Fla recount, but any race that close has a strong luck factor to it) he would have sat in the Oval Office for 4 (or 8) years.

    Anyway, my point is that being challenged in the nominating process is not some essential process to being successful in the general. My point is also that no one goes totally unchallenged in the primaries. Someone will step up, probably multiple someones. I expect at least 4 of the following to be on the ballot in Iowa:

    Hillary, Sen. Jim Webb, Gov. Martin O'Malley, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen Tim Kaine or Sen. Mark Warner (those Virginia guys), Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Gov. Ed Rendell, Secy. Katherine Sebelius, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, or Sen. Claire McCaskill.

    -Jason "Hillary won't be any more unopposed than Jeb will be... I actually think multiple opponents is good for the front-runner versus having just 1 or 2 rivals around whom all the opposition can coalesce" Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    So, first of all, the notion that she will go completely unchallenged is crazy. Someone is going to run against her -- probably multiple someones. Even if they don't think they can win, they will want to raise their profile for future political power and a potential run down the road. This is not a sitting president kind of situation, she'll have a challenger.

    That said, there have been essentially unchallenged nominees in the past. George W Bush in 2000 was the choice of the party leadership and, aside from a little stumble in New Hampshire to McCain, he essentially had the GOP nomination wrapped up by the end of February. The fact that he was largely unchallenged didn't seem to hurt him at all in the general election.

    That same year, sitting VP Al Gore (is a sitting VP all that different from a past Secy of State/First Lady who is as well known as any VP?) won every single race for the Dems against Bill Bradley. I suppose one could argue that Gore didn't run all that great a campaign, but if it were not for some bad luck (not gonna debate the reasons behind the Fla recount, but any race that close has a strong luck factor to it) he would have sat in the Oval Office for 4 (or 8) years.

    Anyway, my point is that being challenged in the nominating process is not some essential process to being successful in the general. My point is also that no one goes totally unchallenged in the primaries. Someone will step up, probably multiple someones. I expect at least 4 of the following to be on the ballot in Iowa:

    Hillary, Sen. Jim Webb, Gov. Martin O'Malley, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen Tim Kaine or Sen. Mark Warner (those Virginia guys), Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Gov. Ed Rendell, Secy. Katherine Sebelius, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, or Sen. Claire McCaskill.

    -Jason "Hillary won't be any more unopposed than Jeb will be... I actually think multiple opponents is good for the front-runner versus having just 1 or 2 rivals around whom all the opposition can coalesce" Evans
    I am assuming that Hillary has been courting and gathering all the large donors she can get on the Dem side. I agree she will likely not go unchallenged, but if anyone is going to put up a real fight they are on the clock. Absent some big and deep pockets behind you, it will be hard to put up any sort of serious opposition. The Iowa Caucus is now less than eleven months away, with New Hampshire shortly thereafter (Jan. 18 and 26, respectively). By this time next year, nine caucuses/primaries will be over (at least presently scheduled; many dates are tentative and a number of states have not even set tentative dates yet).

    That's a lot of infrastructure to get in place, and a lot of advertising markets to fill.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The City of Brotherly Love except when it's cold.
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    So, first of all, the notion that she will go completely unchallenged is crazy. Someone is going to run against her -- probably multiple someones. Even if they don't think they can win, they will want to raise their profile for future political power and a potential run down the road. This is not a sitting president kind of situation, she'll have a challenger.

    That said, there have been essentially unchallenged nominees in the past. George W Bush in 2000 was the choice of the party leadership and, aside from a little stumble in New Hampshire to McCain, he essentially had the GOP nomination wrapped up by the end of February. The fact that he was largely unchallenged didn't seem to hurt him at all in the general election.

    That same year, sitting VP Al Gore (is a sitting VP all that different from a past Secy of State/First Lady who is as well known as any VP?) won every single race for the Dems against Bill Bradley. I suppose one could argue that Gore didn't run all that great a campaign, but if it were not for some bad luck (not gonna debate the reasons behind the Fla recount, but any race that close has a strong luck factor to it) he would have sat in the Oval Office for 4 (or 8) years.

    Anyway, my point is that being challenged in the nominating process is not some essential process to being successful in the general. My point is also that no one goes totally unchallenged in the primaries. Someone will step up, probably multiple someones. I expect at least 4 of the following to be on the ballot in Iowa:

    Hillary, Sen. Jim Webb, Gov. Martin O'Malley, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen Tim Kaine or Sen. Mark Warner (those Virginia guys), Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Gov. Ed Rendell, Secy. Katherine Sebelius, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, or Sen. Claire McCaskill.

    -Jason "Hillary won't be any more unopposed than Jeb will be... I actually think multiple opponents is good for the front-runner versus having just 1 or 2 rivals around whom all the opposition can coalesce" Evans
    Fast Eddie is not running, not now, not ever notwithstanding what he said recently. Others such as Emmanuel, McCaskill, and Sebelius, who is absolutely toxic, are contingent on Hillary. Frankly, I wish Hillary wouldn't run for a variety of reasons not the least of which is it will cost me an expensive steak dinner at Bern's, and I think the democratic race would be much more interesting without her. Unfortunately for my wallet, every day that passes makes a Hillary run more likely.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by 77devil View Post
    Fast Eddie is not running, not now, not ever notwithstanding what he said recently. Others such as Emmanuel, McCaskill, and Sebelius, who is absolutely toxic, are contingent on Hillary. Frankly, I wish Hillary wouldn't run for a variety of reasons not the least of which is it will cost me an expensive steak dinner at Bern's, and I think the democratic race would be much more interesting without her. Unfortunately for my wallet, every day that passes makes a Hillary run more likely.
    You might as well put the money aside now. Hillary's is running, barring a sudden, stunning revelation that she's actually a giant interstellar cockroach wearing a Hillary suit. And, even then, she might run, and might win.

    When I look at Jason's list of others who might be on the Dem primary ballot, I think two things: (1) Hillary's a lock to be the Dem nominee...none of those candidates any more inspiring than the limp group that ran against Romney for the Repub nom in 2012; and (2) the Dem's need to start grooming some candidates for 2016 in case Hillary loses the presidential race.
    Brian Zoubek on what was going through his mind walking to the free throw line with 3.6 seconds remaining in the 2010 National Championship game and Duke up by 1: "Fifty percent [of me is] thinking, This is what I've been dreaming of doing my entire life. Fifty percent I'm crapping my pants."

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The City of Brotherly Love except when it's cold.
    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    You might as well put the money aside now. Hillary's is running, barring a sudden, stunning revelation that she's actually a giant interstellar cockroach wearing a Hillary suit. And, even then, she might run, and might win.

    When I look at Jason's list of others who might be on the Dem primary ballot, I think two things: (1) Hillary's a lock to be the Dem nominee...none of those candidates any more inspiring than the limp group that ran against Romney for the Repub nom in 2012; and (2) the Dem's need to start grooming some candidates for 2016 in case Hillary loses the presidential race.
    I'm holding on to the slimmest of hopes. When I made the bet I reasoned that Clinton fatigue in the country, age, new grandchild, poorly received book and tour, the prospect of re-litigating Benghazi over and over, and President Obama's unpopularity was enough to reduce the probability of running to below 50%. Seemed logical at the time, but it's entirely possible I was under the influence.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    -Jason "Hillary won't be any more unopposed than Jeb will be...
    No way. A bunch of Republican heavyweights - Jeb, Huckabee, Christie, Palin - sat out last time because they knew Obama would win (my interpretation, of course). I imagine they'll all jump in this time. Who are the Democrat equivalents? As far as I can tell, the only one anyone seems to be excited about is Warren, but she's the rough equivalent of Ron Paul - someone who's role is to influence the dialogue in the party, and she does it well, but isn't really nationally electable. Of course Hillary won't be literally unchallenged, but she'll have a much easier time than whoever the republican nominee is (my pick is still Rubio).

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Wander View Post
    Of course Hillary won't be literally unchallenged, but she'll have a much easier time than whoever the republican nominee is (my pick is still Rubio).
    I 100% concur with the above statement. In fact, that is what I was attempting to say. She will have a challenger(s). However, I still think she will win the nomination and it may not be all that close. I suspect someone will figure out how to woo Iowa or NH voters enough to make it mildly interesting for a month, but by mid-Feb I suspect Hillary will be the clear nominee.

    I also agree that the GOP side will take a good bit longer to figure out... and I'd give Jeb no more than maybe a 50% chance of taking the nomination.

    -Jason "I think the GOP is sick of nominating 'electable' guys who don't get elected. A true conservative rival will rise up to really give Jeb problems" Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post

    I also agree that the GOP side will take a good bit longer to figure out... and I'd give Jeb no more than maybe a 50% chance of taking the nomination.

    -Jason "I think the GOP is sick of nominating 'electable' guys who don't get elected. A true conservative rival will rise up to really give Jeb problems" Evans

    Another issue that Jeb will face is that a Jeb vs. Hillary general election basically asks the country, "Which past presidency would you most like to restore, Clinton's or GWB's?" And that's not a contest that the GOP wins.

    This is a theme that's already emerging among some conservative/GOP opinion-makers and "thought leaders" as a reason not to nominate Jeb, but to pick some new blood.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    Another issue that Jeb will face is that a Jeb vs. Hillary general election basically asks the country, "Which past presidency would you most like to restore, Clinton's or GWB's?" And that's not a contest that the GOP wins.

    This is a theme that's already emerging among some conservative/GOP opinion-makers and "thought leaders" as a reason not to nominate Jeb, but to pick some new blood.
    Electoral Familiarity Fatigue.

    I'm sick of both, and it has nothing to do with either of their politics. If the best we can do is to keep recycling a few select families, we're in deep doo doo.

    And I think that fatigue is probably felt by a large portion of the potential electorate.

    One, or both, of them may be the best qualified person that can be put forward. I frankly don't care. For the love of all that is Holy, please get some new blood.

    Thanking you in advance, signed, America.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post

    Electoral Familiarity Fatigue.

    I'm sick of both, and it has nothing to do with either of their politics. If the best we can do is to keep recycling a few select families, we're in deep doo doo.

    And I think that fatigue is probably felt by a large portion of the potential electorate.

    One, or both, of them may be the best qualified person that can be put forward. I frankly don't care. For the love of all that is Holy, please get some new blood.

    Thanking you in advance, signed, America.

    All true, but if that's the general election, then I think Hillary has a built-in advantage. She can run towards her last name with little concern, while Jeb has to run away from his. Jeb absolutely could still win, but I think it would be more of an uphill climb for him.
    "I swear Roy must redeem extra timeouts at McDonald's the day after the game for free hamburgers." --Posted on InsideCarolina, 2/18/2015

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    All true, but if that's the general election, then I think Hillary has a built-in advantage. She can run towards her last name with little concern, while Jeb has to run away from his. Jeb absolutely could still win, but I think it would be more of an uphill climb for him.
    It'll be an interesting argument. Agreed that Jeb has to distance himself from his brother (not so much his father, who has become generally well perceived). Jeb has already tried explicitly to do that. IM(h)O, I don't think he'll be able to, and I think it'll be a negative for him. On the other hand, Jeb has a positive record as governor to run on, in which he governed on fiscal conservative principles, but worked in a bipartisan manner as well.

    Hillary is the exact opposite. She has a positive last name, given her husband's enduring popularity and generally positive tenure as president, but her personal record is where she has to find explanation and distance. She did very little of note as a Senator, and her tenure as Secretary of State ties her to Obama's weakest area, in terms of public opinion. I'm aware the question of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy of their time together is probably enough to launch a PPB discussion that could close the thread, so I'll stick to the point that polling shows a reasonably high disapproval rating in this area. Clinton will need to distance herself from the negatives while trying to still emphasize her experience as being a positive that Jeb Bush, as a state governor, does not have.

    The Republicans will try to tie Hillary to Obama and the increasing chaos in Libya, Iraq, and Syria, and Iran's movement toward being a nuclear power; while Democrats will try to tie Jeb to George W. I agree that Hillary has an advantage in the argument. It's an easier soundbyte to argue we don't need another Bush than it is to argue that Hillary was an ineffective Sec'y of State.
    Brian Zoubek on what was going through his mind walking to the free throw line with 3.6 seconds remaining in the 2010 National Championship game and Duke up by 1: "Fifty percent [of me is] thinking, This is what I've been dreaming of doing my entire life. Fifty percent I'm crapping my pants."

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    It'll be an interesting argument. Agreed that Jeb has to distance himself from his brother (not so much his father, who has become generally well perceived). Jeb has already tried explicitly to do that. IM(h)O, I don't think he'll be able to, and I think it'll be a negative for him. On the other hand, Jeb has a positive record as governor to run on, in which he governed on fiscal conservative principles, but worked in a bipartisan manner as well.

    Hillary is the exact opposite. She has a positive last name, given her husband's enduring popularity and generally positive tenure as president, but her personal record is where she has to find explanation and distance. She did very little of note as a Senator, and her tenure as Secretary of State ties her to Obama's weakest area, in terms of public opinion. I'm aware the question of the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy of their time together is probably enough to launch a PPB discussion that could close the thread, so I'll stick to the point that polling shows a reasonably high disapproval rating in this area. Clinton will need to distance herself from the negatives while trying to still emphasize her experience as being a positive that Jeb Bush, as a state governor, does not have.

    The Republicans will try to tie Hillary to Obama and the increasing chaos in Libya, Iraq, and Syria, and Iran's movement toward being a nuclear power; while Democrats will try to tie Jeb to George W. I agree that Hillary has an advantage in the argument. It's an easier soundbyte to argue we don't need another Bush than it is to argue that Hillary was an ineffective Sec'y of State.

    The ironic thing is that Hillary's public polling approval numbers for her job as Secretary of State were pretty good (often in the 60s) during most of her actual tenure as Secretary of State. They took a small hit after Benghazi, but then stabilized and pretty much stayed that way until she left the office. Most of the increased scrutiny and criticism of President Obama's foreign policy has resulted from things that happened after Hillary left -- the Ukraine situation, the rise of ISIS, etc. The GOP obviously will try to conflate everything and hang all of the Obama foreign policy (or at least the parts of it that are perceived as "bad") around Hillary's neck, but she was generally well-regarded as Secretary of State while she was actually in office, even by many Republicans.
    "I swear Roy must redeem extra timeouts at McDonald's the day after the game for free hamburgers." --Posted on InsideCarolina, 2/18/2015

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    The ironic thing is that Hillary's public polling approval numbers for her job as Secretary of State were pretty good (often in the 60s) during most of her actual tenure as Secretary of State. They took a small hit after Benghazi, but then stabilized and pretty much stayed that way until she left the office. Most of the increased scrutiny and criticism of President Obama's foreign policy has resulted from things that happened after Hillary left -- the Ukraine situation, the rise of ISIS, etc. The GOP obviously will try to conflate everything and hang all of the Obama foreign policy (or at least the parts of it that are perceived as "bad") around Hillary's neck, but she was generally well-regarded as Secretary of State while she was actually in office, even by many Republicans.
    I wouldn't call it conflating, but I agree that the GOP will undoubtedly try to hang foreign policy problems around Hillary's neck.

    Still, it would be an oversimplification of the issues to suggest, for example, that ISIS was a problem that did not exist until Hillary was done at Foggy Bottom. The current state of the Middle East is obviously a decades-old problem with roots that stretch back across several administrations. Democrats can argue about the current day impacts of Bush policies with some validity, so obviously effects of the policies and actions of the first 4 years of the Obama administration (when Hillary was SOS), can be examined with respect to the Middle East in 2015. It's not an area that Hillary's going to want to focus on, but that region of the world is such a longstanding and complicated mess, it's going to be difficult for the Republicans to effectively argue that Hillary is significantly culpable for the current state of affairs over there.

    But hey, why would the press even think about these kinds of complicated questions when they can randomly ask Scott Walker if he thinks Obama is a Christian, and then, when he reasonably makes a reply to the effect: "I don't know, I've never talked to the man about his religious views, why don't you guys ask about something relevant", blast the headline: "Gov. Scott Walker: 'I don't know' whether Obama is a Christian" Dog whistle! Strong job, Post.

    Can't wait for the follow ups:

    "Hey, Governor Walker, do you think Obama thinks the Founding Fathers were racist scumbags?"
    "I have no idea, I've never talked to him about his thoughts on the Founding Fathers."
    Headline: "Governor Walker says Obama may think Founding Fathers were racist scumbags.'"

    "Hey, Governor Walker, do you think Joe Biden enjoys groping women?"
    "I have no idea."
    Headline: "Governor Walker says Joe Biden may enjoy groping women.'"

    "Hey, Governor Walker, do you think Hillary and Bill are in love with each other?"
    "I have no idea. Guys, this is getting pretty ridiculous."
    Headline: "Governor walker says Clinton marriage may be a sham."
    Last edited by davekay1971; 02-22-2015 at 10:10 AM.
    Brian Zoubek on what was going through his mind walking to the free throw line with 3.6 seconds remaining in the 2010 National Championship game and Duke up by 1: "Fifty percent [of me is] thinking, This is what I've been dreaming of doing my entire life. Fifty percent I'm crapping my pants."

  14. #74
    I have a question about honorifics.

    I know that its general form to address or refer to a politician (or military person) by the highest rank that person achieves in his career -- even after retirement. This we have a bunch of Colonel Rupperts and Governor Bushs, etc. Eisenhower was General Eisenhower when he was at Columbia, and President Eisenhower in his retirement. Sarah Palin will forever be Governor Palin, unless she is miraculously elected something else.

    Jeb Bush is clearly Governor Bush at the moment.

    But I noticed earlier in this thread, when Hilary was referred to as Secretary Clinton. Okay, she was secretary of state ... but she was also an elected Senator. Does SoS outrank a Senator? And if it were a choice between Governor and Senator, which would apply?

    Not important ... just curious.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by Olympic Fan View Post
    I have a question about honorifics.

    I know that its general form to address or refer to a politician (or military person) by the highest rank that person achieves in his career -- even after retirement. This we have a bunch of Colonel Rupperts and Governor Bushs, etc. Eisenhower was General Eisenhower when he was at Columbia, and President Eisenhower in his retirement. Sarah Palin will forever be Governor Palin, unless she is miraculously elected something else.

    Jeb Bush is clearly Governor Bush at the moment.

    But I noticed earlier in this thread, when Hilary was referred to as Secretary Clinton. Okay, she was secretary of state ... but she was also an elected Senator. Does SoS outrank a Senator? And if it were a choice between Governor and Senator, which would apply?

    Not important ... just curious.
    Great question, not sure. Sec.State is fourth in the line of presidential succession (behind VP, Speaker of House, Pres. Pro Tempore of Senate) so you could look at it that way.

    William Taft was President and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, riddle me that one.
    1991 -- 1992 -- 2001 -- 2010 -- 2015

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area
    50 governors. 100 senators. I'd go with Gov...

    -jk

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    The Secretator?
    Sounds like something coming out of Idaho.
       

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, DC area
    Quote Originally Posted by PSurprise View Post
    The Secretator?
    Sounds like something coming out of Idaho.
    Or the next Ahnold movie...

    -jk

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by davekay1971 View Post
    I wouldn't call it conflating, but I agree that the GOP will undoubtedly try to hang foreign policy problems around Hillary's neck.
    I hate to sound overly simplistic, but I think the simple truth is that Americans just don't care much at all about foreign policy. I mean, aside from those few moments in history where we were attacked (war or terrorism), has there ever been a foreign policy issue that actually moved the needle in a presidential contest?

    If the GOP tries to make this election be about Hillary's foreign policy mistakes, they probably cede the actual talking points of the race to whatever the Democrats are pushing (likely, "the Clinton and Obama economies were waaaaay better than the Bush economy").

    -Jason "I'm not including oil prices and their reliance on peace in the Middle East as a foreign policy issue because that's all about the American wallet" Evans
    I don't know what you are doing right now, but if you aren't listening to the DBR Podcast, you're doing it wrong.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The City of Brotherly Love except when it's cold.
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    I hate to sound overly simplistic, but I think the simple truth is that Americans just don't care much at all about foreign policy. I mean, aside from those few moments in history where we were attacked (war or terrorism), has there ever been a foreign policy issue that actually moved the needle in a presidential contest?
    1968, 2004

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    If the GOP tries to make this election be about Hillary's foreign policy mistakes, they probably cede the actual talking points of the race to whatever the Democrats are pushing (likely, "the Clinton and Obama economies were waaaaay better than the Bush economy").

    -Jason "I'm not including oil prices and their reliance on peace in the Middle East as a foreign policy issue because that's all about the American wallet" Evans
    There are a lot of bad things that can happen internationally between now and the election that could focus the electorate more on foreign affairs. But the issue won't be Hillary's foreign policy mistakes per se, it will be the derivative of protecting the homeland.

    Since she had nothing to with the Clinton or Obama economy, she'll need a narrative that is more nuanced than I'll do what Bill and Barrack did.

Similar Threads

  1. 2016 Football Recruiting
    By Bob Green in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 770
    Last Post: 01-05-2016, 10:32 AM
  2. Euro 2016
    By gumbomoop in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-19-2014, 06:45 AM
  3. K to Rio in 2016
    By Tripping William in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-27-2013, 05:32 PM
  4. IL Loves the Class of 2016
    By burnspbesq in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-18-2012, 06:16 PM
  5. Presidential Inauguration
    By such in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 11:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •