GOP Off To The Races Early
The Republican Party and the political media world are already off to the 2016 horseraces. With endless fascination, the latest polling from Iowa and New Hampshire is examined under the microscopes of the pundits and sweeping pronouncements are made as to who the eventual frontrunners will be. Of course, it is way too early for any real analysis of the public's mood, but that doesn't stop the oddsmaking within the Beltway. After all, the Democratic nomination race is setting up to be a snoozer, so why not get started obsessing over the Republican race?
Instead of opining on what I think the chances of Scott Walker will be an entire year from now (as everyone else seems to be doing of late), I thought it would be timely to make a few "big picture" comments on the Republican race. Mostly because everyone seems to be actively forgetting quite a few basic rules of thumb, most of them learned the last time around.
The first and most important of these is that nothing much matters right now. People -- ordinary, non-obsessed, non-wonky Americans, in other words -- just aren't paying all that much attention to politics right now. And they're right. Why should they? We've got a whole year before things heat up, anything could happen in the political world in the meantime, and pretty much everything all the candidates do in February of 2015 will be long forgotten by the time the first ballot is cast. So take pretty much all the pundits' talk right now with several large grains of salt.
To prove the meaninglessness of all the frontrunner talk now all you have to do is take a look back to four years ago, as the 2012 Republican nomination campaign was in its infancy. Then, like now, there was no "anointed one" within the party, and the race was wide open. From the polling done back then, here were the four frontrunners in February, 2011: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Michele Bachmann. Of these four, only two would turn out to be serious contenders (Gingrich and Romney). All were polling below 20 percent. A similar field exists today, as no Republican candidate is currently polling over 20 percent. So to be a "frontrunner" right now really only means "has a few percentage points more than everyone else." Compare this to the Democratic race, where Hillary Clinton regularly polls above 60 percent among Democratic voters. No matter who is going to eventually wind up the Republican nominee, they've got a long way to go to get there.
The second big thing the pundits are ignoring (perhaps willfully, to provide exciting storylines later on) is that the field is nowhere near set yet. There are a whole lot of names of possible candidates who haven't announced yet who could still easily get in the race. This may even be true six or seven months from now. Nobody really has any idea who will eventually run, other than those who have made it obvious, and there could well be some surprises late in the game. This could include both serious and realistic candidates, and it could also include a few fringe "celebri-candidates" (Donald Trump, I am looking in your direction...). The race is so wide open that late entries will remain a real possibility at least throughout the summer, especially if the public sours on any of the frontrunners.
There will likely be a "media darling" candidate at some point, which could also be defined as "a Republican so moderate and serious-minded that everyone at all the inside-the-Beltway cocktail parties has decided that they would be the perfect candidate." This candidate will have glorious stories written about what a wonderful Republican president they would make, bringing American together again to get things done, but they will then go absolutely nowhere in the polls. Whoever this turns out to be, their numbers will struggle to crack five percent, no matter how adorable their family members are. The last time around, this slot was filled by Jon Huntsman. This time around, it remains open -- but at some point, Washington conventional wisdom will gel around some candidate or another, possibly a Midwestern governor or senator. Who will then go on to lose badly in the primaries.
If 2016 is anything like 2012 (and it is shaping up to be, from what I see), there will be one big-money candidate and a whole bunch of successive challengers. Mitt Romney was, obviously, this candidate the last time around and, just as obviously, Jeb Bush is going to be the big-donor favorite. This will lead the frustrated base voters (those more conservative than Bush) to coalesce around candidate after candidate who fits the "anti-Bush" category. People forget how many of these there were the last time around. In chronological order, the "anti-Romney" vote moved from Michele Bachmann to Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt Gingrich, before finally settling (very late in the game) on Rick Santorum. All of these (except Bachmann) led Romney in the polling at one point or another (I wrote an amusingly irreverent wrapup of this phenomenon, after it was clear to all that Romney was going to win). All of these candidates rode a wave of approval to the heights of frontrunner status, but then all of them crashed and burned in one fashion or another. Rick Perry had his "oops" moment. Herman Cain's behavior towards women was exposed. And so on.
This could be the model for the 2016 race as well, although it's premature to predict that it will end up the same way (with the big-money candidate winning after fending off all challenges). Many candidates may have their moment in the sun as the anti-Bush candidate, before fading (either due to shooting themselves in the foot, or due to the base voters becoming enamored of a different anti-Bush who seems even more viable). Currently, the pundits are putting Scott Walker in this category due to one speech he gave, but you've got to keep in mind that this spotlight can quickly shift.
One thing worth mentioning that is being forgotten right now is the influence a single deep-pocket donor can have on the longevity of what would normally be considered a fringe candidacy. The best example of this in the 2012 cycle was Newt Gingrich, who had one billionaire who really believed in him, and thus Gingrich was able to hang on in the primary calendar a lot later than he would have otherwise. What with the new post-Citizens United world we live in, there may be a handful of these candidates this time around as well. Not every big-money guy in the Republican Party is a Bush fan, so look for some of them to just write a check for twenty or thirty million dollars to the anti-Bush candidate of their choosing. This can keep campaigns viable long past their normal shelf-life.
My final observation (really only a generalization at this early point) is that the Republican base is not always what the media simplistically portrays it as. Many think in very simplistic terms of the Republican base voters -- they want the reddest of red meat, they are the most rabidly right-wing, etc. -- but the reality is a lot more nuanced. Romney, after all, did win the 2012 nomination, not Ron Paul or Michele Bachmann. Now, this isn't saying the Tea Party is dead or anything. There are several hardliner factions within the Republican ranks, in fact. They do indeed have an oversized influence on the first state to caucus. But beyond Iowa, their influence isn't as widespread.
There are two things to consider, when attempting to gauge the Tea Party influence (or the evangelical Christian voter influence, or whatever). The first is that a majority of convention delegates actually come from blue states, even for Republicans. And blue-state Republicans are a lot more moderate and willing to accept compromise than, say, Iowa or South Carolina Republican primary voters. This has an outsized influence on the nominating process that few bother to ever note. Rather than polls from Iowa, the real determining factor might be Republican polls from Ohio or New York or California, to put this another way.
The second consideration is that there is one thing that unifies Republican voters more than any other issue -- they really, really want to win this one. Oh, sure, they badly wanted to win in 2008 and 2012 too (especially in 2012), but this time around the pressure is going to be overwhelming to find the candidate who is most electable in the general election. So while they will flirt with various anti-Bushes, what they're really looking for is the ultimate "anti-Hillary."
Republican voters know that they are in danger of only being competitive in midterm elections, for the foreseeable future. Republican candidates have lost the popular vote in five out of the last six presidential elections, after all. If that becomes "six out of the last seven," complete with three solid consecutive terms of Democrats, there's going to be a lot of disappointment to go around. Anyone who thinks Republicans hated Barack Obama like they've never hated any other president is probably not old enough to remember the years when Bill Clinton was in the White House. To have his wife win the Oval Office is a fate the Republican base desperately wants to avoid. My guess is that the Republican voters at large will be able to accept more than one perceived flaw in a candidate's ultra-conservative credentials if it means also accepting someone who is polling competitively with Hillary Clinton.
If Democrats win this election, it will be monumental in a number of ways. If Hillary Clinton is our next president, she will obviously be the first woman in the job. It will also be the first time the White House has stayed in Democratic hands for more than eight years since Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman's record. Clinton could, if elected, significantly shift the power balance in the Supreme Court for decades to come -- from a split of four liberals, four conservatives, and one swing vote to a solid liberal majority of 5-4 (or even 6-3).
Republican voters know all of this, intimately. If they've forgotten, they're going to be reminded of it from the campaign trail. While the pundits in Washington obsess over the latest gaffe or poll surge in the coming months, keep in mind that we're only getting started. This race is indeed a marathon, so feel free to discount the stories of how badly each candidate is now sprinting. The race has indeed begun, but all the horses aren't even on the track yet. There will be plenty of surprises and upsets to come, so don't take anything you hear now too seriously.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
OK, I am back.
First, thanks to all for the "get well" comments. I was too out of it to even post re-run columns last Thursday and Friday, so you can tell how down-for-the-count I was.
I feel much better now, and am about 90% recovered, which was good enough to ignore the fact that today is supposed to be a holiday, and get back to writing original columns. This one is a bit generic, I realize, but then hey, I'm easing back into things so you'll have to forgive me.
In any case, I'll try tonight to go back over comments for the past week or so, since I also fell down on those duties.
In any case, happy Presidents' Day everyone, and thanks again for the get-well wishes!
:-)
-CW
There will be plenty of surprises and upsets to come, so don't take anything you hear now too seriously.
Ha! That's actually quite hilarious.
The only thing that will surprise me is if someone emerges as a serious candidate - from either party - who actually has the necessary capacity for leadership and the prerequisite understanding of the issues to cleverly move the country forward.
Anything less than that will be business as usual.
Glad ta see ya back, CW.. And, judging from the quality of the commentary, your recent brush with the abyss hasn't hampered yer analytical ability. :D
Awesome commentary.. Can't find a fault with the analysis whatsoever..
Liz,
The only thing that will surprise me is if someone emerges as a serious candidate - from either party - who actually has the necessary capacity for leadership and the prerequisite understanding of the issues to cleverly move the country forward.
Amen to THAT!! :D
Michale
Personally, I am not actually worried about a Hillary Presidency...
I have made the prediction that she will likely not even run and I stand by that...
But if I am wrong (hay, it's been known to happen :D) and she actually does run, I doubt she will win.
She is simply too flawed of a candidate to be elected.. What we have seen about her to date would be NOTHING compared to what we will see about here if she were the Dem nominee..
I actually hope I am wrong and she DOES become the Dem nominee.. Because all of the dirt and dirty deeds that will be revealed will finally put a nail in the coffin of the era of the Clintonistas...
That would be worth the price of admission..
And if Clinton waits until July to announce (as has been reported) and she DOESN'T (or CAN'T) run... The Democrat Party will be at a HUGE disadvantage. An even bigger disadvantage than they would be if Clinton were the nominee..
No, the 2016 POTUS race is the GOP's to lose. For they GOP to lose, they would have to nominate a Charles Manson or a Ted Bundy...
Michale
Michael and I are in agreement about the merits of this particular column, which happens about as often as total lunar eclipses! Then he goes and spoils it with his "Hillary not running" prediction.
TS,
So, am I to conclude that you would like to see Hillary run and win the nomination? Do you think that prospect would help or hurt the Republican ticket?
I hope Michale's prediction comes true - for a number of reasons. Just for the sake of variety, I'd like to see a different slate of frontrunners on the Democratic side of things.
Then he goes and spoils it with his "Hillary not running" prediction.
Other than being "inevitable" (and I would agree that that IS enough) what's your thoughts on Hillary's reasons for running??
Further, what's your thoughts as a viable Dem nominee??
Liz,
I hope Michale's prediction comes true - for a number of reasons.
Other than that ferschegina RCP poll, I have a pretty good track record.. :D
Michale
I just read that Hillary met with Elizabeth Warren in December and has, per TPM, reached out to Warren several times. I'm glad. I think it's smart on several levels. I like Warren a lot but she says she isn't going to run and I think she's great right where she is. I think it's smart strategizing by Hillary to reach out to her and, even better would be her actually listening to Warren.
I think the problems we face will not be solved by "a savior" from either party. But the repubs are so unremittingly irresponsible and vicious they should be barred from power indefinitely. Whatever Hillary does or doesn't do, she will be massively better than any repub out there, period. The real work for change has to happen below Hillary to push her and those who will be around her to move in positive directions.
But the repubs are so unremittingly irresponsible and vicious they should be barred from power indefinitely.
And yet, with 6 years in power, Democrats have only helped the rich get richer, the poor get more dependent and enslaved and the middle class get poorer...
"When I'm in office it's going to be just like the 80's. The top 10% will get richer and the other 90% can emigrate to Mexico where they can get a better life."
-Senator McComb, TIME COP
Give these facts, I fail to understand how you can call the Republicans "unremittingly irresponsible and vicious"...
Such an accusation logically defies reality...
Michale
Michale:
Give these facts, I fail to understand how you can call the Republicans "unremittingly irresponsible and vicious"...
That is because you are a silly, silly man!
Hope you're well and all of that -- not gonna waste time arguing with you.
"they should be barred from power indefinitely."
. . . or at least until they've finished their time in the FEMA re-education camps.
That is because you are a silly, silly man!
A "silly man" who has the facts in hand.. :D
Hope you're well and all of that
I am... Hope you and yours are well as well.. :D
not gonna waste time arguing with you.
Party pooper... :D
Michale
I just don't get how ANYONE can think that Democrats are the good guys...
Oh sure, Dems know how to say the right words and push the right buttons..
But EVERY fact, every bit of reality shows beyond any doubt that Democrats care about themselves first, their Party second and every day Americans a distant DISTANT third...
Go ahead.. Give me any facts that prove that wrong..
Michale...
Cue LD's "LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!!" diatribes.. :D
Michale
But the repubs are so unremittingly irresponsible and vicious they should be barred from power indefinitely.
I am also constrained to point out that the American people, either by commission or omission, just put those "irresponsible and vicious" people overwhelmingly in power all across local, state and federal lines..
So, it seems to me that the facts clearly show that your opinion on Republicans is not what the vast majority of Americans think...
I'm just sayin'....
Michale
Michale [4] -
I'm surprised you don't think Clinton will run.
Now, I realize it's early and a lot of this is name recognition, but:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
Hillary seems to be up from 9 to 15+ points over any challenger the GOP puts up. So, if she does run, do you expect the GOP guy's numbers to improve, or Hillary's numbers to go down?
Heh.
Personally, at this point, I think the only thing that would stop Hillary from running would be some medical problem.
Paula [8] -
I also just read about the Warren-Clinton get-together. I also think it is promising news indeed. Hillary's got a pretty blank slate right now, when it comes to what exactly she'll be campaigning on, so getting input from Warren at this early stage could be very influential. Reports are that Clinton is already somewhat worried about appealing to the populists in her party, which also bodes well for her to seriously consider their policy proposals before unveiling her campaign.
Michale [13] -
Let's see, Democrats passed workman's comp, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and pretty much any labor law you choose to name. Republicans fought it all. So who is on the side of the regular guy and gal? Please give me one example of anything comparable that the GOP has enacted for the benefit of the regular guy. Just one.
-CW
CW,
I'm surprised you don't think Clinton will run.
She has WAY too much baggage...
The skeletons in her closet have skeletons in THEIR closets...
http://nypost.com/2015/02/14/bill-clintons-libido-threatens-to-derail-hillary-again/
And, if she fails this time, she is done.. Fini... Over... The end of the Clintonistas...
So, it seems to me, she would want to go out on a high note with soaring popularity..
Rather then a mean old hag who is twice the loser...
Personally, at this point, I think the only thing that would stop Hillary from running would be some medical problem.
She HAS medical problems.. That will likely be the factor she blames..
Let's see, Democrats passed workman's comp, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and pretty much any labor law you choose to name. Republicans fought it all.
And Republicans fought for civil rights and Democrats fought it all..
Ancient history..
The only thing that matters is the last 6 years...
What have Democrats done for us lately???
Not a damn thing but more debt, more heartache and a diminishing presence on the world stage...
Our enemies used to fear us..
Now, thanks to Democrats, they laugh at us...
That's Obama's legacy... Pure and simple..
Please give me one example of anything comparable that the GOP has enacted for the benefit of the regular guy. Just one.
The last election seems to indicate what Joe and Jane Sixpack think about the GOP...
In my book, that says it all...
Michale
The skeletons in her closet have skeletons in THEIR closets...
http://nypost.com/2015/02/14/bill-clintons-libido-threatens-to-derail-hillary-again/
And, if she fails this time, she is done.. Fini... Over... The end of the Clintonistas...
In anticipation of your response...
As far as the American people are concerned, Bill's skeletons are Hillary's skeletons...
Michale
The last election seems to indicate what Joe and Jane Sixpack think about the GOP...
I know ya'all get tired of hearing that...
But, in all the rantings and ravings against the GOP, it's one fact that ya'all simply can't explain..
It's the one fact that calls into question each and every argument ya'all make against the GOP...
Either by commission or omission, the American people have past judgement on Democrat governance..
And the American people clearly and unequivocally chose GOP governance..
"These are the facts. And they are undisputed"
-Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN
Michale
Liz (6)
I won't be wearing sackcloth and ashes if HC gets the nomination, and I can't imagine her choosing not to enter the race. She's an able politician, an able legislator (which is not the quite the same as the former), a key player in the Democratic Party Establishment, and acceptable to "The Base." Also acceptable to a significant block of the "One Percent" who don't believe the path to prosperity should shift all the wealth to the One Percent. Just a few generous donations from some of the latter "traitors to their class" will bankroll a strong early campaign effort.
I greatly admire Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders for their principled politics, but they aren't nearly as electable.
“Gold was not sure of many things, but he was definite about one: for every successful person he knew, he could name at least two others of greater ability, better, and higher intelligence who, by comparison, had failed.”
? Joseph Heller, Good as Gold
The electoral fundamentals strongly favor the Democrats in the '16 presidential contest, just as they did in in '12 and '08, but it's still theirs to lose if they go crusading. Beyond the election, their is still the task of actually governing should the Dems win....
"Gold, I like you. You remind me a lot of this famous country singer from Texas I'm crazy about, a fellow calls himself Kinky Friedman, the Original Texas Jewboy. Kinky's smarter, but I like you more."
- also Joseph Heller, Good as Gold
How do I feel about Hillary?
"if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.”
? Douglas Adams, So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
M -
"The last election seems to indicate what Joe and Jane Sixpack think about the GOP."
and yet, we still bother to have elections.
I won't be wearing sackcloth and ashes if HC gets the nomination, and I can't imagine her choosing not to enter the race.
My point is, she might not be given a choice..
If Democrat PTB decide that Hillary would not be electable due to the the many many MANY Bubba scandals, plus Hillary's own penchant for doing "stupid shit".....
Well, "choice" might not be part of the equation..
But as I said, it's really a toss-up as to what makes the Dem Party's chances worse...
Hillary running...
or
Hillary not running...
Michale
M-22
Which is why we have a nomination process, which she could lose, but early forecasts say probably not.
It's worth remembering that Clinton sailed thru his scandals with 60% approval rating (see upper right of this very page). The Republicans crashed in '98.
It's worth remembering that Clinton sailed thru his scandals with 60% approval rating (see upper right of this very page).
Sailed thru THOSE scandals...
Now, there are a whole bunch of new ones..
Google Epstein Clinton...
Michale
M -24
I see, Bill's chances for getting the '16 nomination are going to be crushed if this tabloid stuff pans out as actual news.
Oh, wait, the 22nd amendment already did that.
26
M-24
So yer basically pinning all your hopes on the fact that Bill knows Epstein, probably has taken donations from Epstein, and Hillary is married to Bill. This may reverberate in Republican circles, but outside of that?????
Scoop of chocolate, scoop of Vanilla, etc.
So yer basically pinning all your hopes on the fact that Bill knows Epstein, probably has taken donations from Epstein, and Hillary is married to Bill. This may reverberate in Republican circles, but outside of that?????
Yea and if Jeb Bush's wife had such contacts with a known and convicted pedophile???
Would that "reverberate" in Democrat circles??
You and I both know it would..
Incessantly and constantly..
That's why such debates are impossible to win.. Because all I have to do is use the exact same circumstances with the other political Party and my point is proven beyond ANY doubt whatsoever...
Michale
I see, Bill's chances for getting the '16 nomination are going to be crushed if this tabloid stuff pans out as actual news.
Ask yourself..
Would it be "actual news" if it were a Republican instead of a Democrat???
Of course it would.. One only has to remember that Larry guy from Idaho to know that what I am saying is dead on ballz accurate...
Michale..
Which is why we have a nomination process, which she could lose, but early forecasts say probably not.
That's because the entirety of the Left, including everyone here in Wegantia think she is "inevitable"...
The Left wants to win and to hell with principles...
It's why we are stuck with a 2-Party system..
Michale
The Left wants to win and to hell with principles...
It's why we are stuck with a 2-Party system..
For the record, the Right isn't any better...
That's why being a political agnostic is so much fun.. :D
Michale
M-27
Of course it would reverberate. Would it stop Bush from running? No. There is plenty of precedent to back that conclusion up. Candidates have been known to return obviously unsavory contributions when the stank gets too obvious, but after that, they keep on running, and often winning.
You are two stepping away from your proposition that the Epstein incident will cause HC to drop out. Reverberation is not dropping out.
M -30
Stuck with a two party system. Another lunar eclipse!!! We agree. Ah, but not on causation. We are stuck with a two party system because our constitutional framework is basically winner take all, and a plurality can win.
Of course it would reverberate.
Common ground.. A wonderful thing..
Would it stop Bush from running? No.
Wanna bet???
A Presidential-Candidate Spouse... Tied to a convicted pedophile??
You bet Bush wouldn't run over that...
You are two stepping away from your proposition that the Epstein incident will cause HC to drop out. Reverberation is not dropping out.
Epstein is one of many Bubba/Libido issues....
Did you even read the article?? See the pics of Bubba with hookers???
How can you even THINK that having Bill Clinton in the White House won't cause concerns?
While it may not be enough to cause Hillary to forgo trying, it will DEFINITELY be enough to prevent her from winning...
Do you HONESTLY believe that the American People are ready for a First Slut (male version)??
Michale
M-33
Did you even read the article??
Which article are you talking about? You asked me to Google Epstein Clinton. That pulls up a few pages of "stuff." Mostly guilt by association irrespective of time lines. Clinton used the Epstein jet in 2002-3. Epstein's underage solicitation conviction dates to 2008. Unless Bill did something untoward on the airplane, all I can say is Damn you Mr. Clinton, why did you fail to accept a rich man's freebe and fail to vet him through your time machine?
Hillary is not Bill. His sexual proclivities are well known, she was still elected to the senate. The public, at least in NY state, would seem to accept the notion of "stand by your (horn dog) man."
"How can you even THINK that having Bill Clinton in the White House won't cause concerns?" What better place than the WH to keep him under surveillance. I would more concerned when he's out on the street, unsupervised. White House arrest if Hillary wins! :)
"While it may not be enough to cause Hillary to forgo trying, it will DEFINITELY be enough to prevent her from winning..."
More stepping away from your original thesis. Prevent her from winning? Maybe, but she seems pretty immune to to smear, Benghazi couldn't cut it, but it never hurts to try a different angle emphasizing salacious sex. Never overestimate the intelligence of the American Public, on any given election day.
Michale [17] -
Except for, you know, what the American people actually THINK of Hillary, versus all Republicans. Again:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
There's some facts for you, buddy!
:-)
[19] -
So does this mean, by extension, that if Hillary wins, then the American people demand the GOP sit down and shut up for 4 years? Just curious...
Heh.
TheStig [20] -
OK, I'm impressed anyone's read anything other than "Catch-22" by Heller. I did read the "sequel" he released a few years back, but wasn't that impressed...
-CW
TS,
Which article are you talking about? You asked me to Google Epstein Clinton. That pulls up a few pages of "stuff." Mostly guilt by association irrespective of time lines. Clinton used the Epstein jet in 2002-3. Epstein's underage solicitation conviction dates to 2008. Unless Bill did something untoward on the airplane, all I can say is Damn you Mr. Clinton, why did you fail to accept a rich man's freebe and fail to vet him through your time machine?
I am constantly impressed by the contortions that Left Wingers go thru to defend their chosen champions..
Facts don't matter.. It's all about the spin..
"My gods!!! Look what this guy did!! It's horrible!! Yea, it was years ago but stuff so bad like this just never.... What?? He's a Democrat?? .......
What a great guy!! This guy is perfect! What he did? Years ago!! Ancient history!!"
:D
Once again, the one question that ends the discussion..
Would you equivocate so much if we were talking about a Republican??
Of course you wouldn't... Ya would come down on them like a ton of bricks making MY exact same argument..
Which proves that what I am saying about Hill and Bill is dead on ballz accurate..
Because it's what ya'all would be saying if it was about Jeb and his spouse or Walker and his spouse, etc etc etc..
CW,
Except for, you know, what the American people actually THINK of Hillary, versus all Republicans. Again:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
There's some facts for you, buddy!
Are you actually quoting a POLL this far out??
And ya want to call it a fact!!??? :D
Let me ask you one question that settles the argument in the minds of Joe and Jane Sixpack..
If Bill Clinton is in the White House, would you want your daughter working as an intern there??
Michale
So does this mean, by extension, that if Hillary wins, then the American people demand the GOP sit down and shut up for 4 years? Just curious...
If Hillary wins and if the Democrats are given such majorities as the American people gave the GOP in the last midterm, then I will concede that the people have spoken and it's time for the GOP to get on board with the American people..
Now.....
Are you will to concede that about Democrats right now?? :D
That the people have spoken and that Democrats should get on board with the American people??
eh? :D
Michale