Also I wanted to quote these separately.
*CLINTON REMARKS ARE PRO KEYSTONE AND PRO TRADE*
*Clinton: “So I Think That Keystone Is A Contentious Issue, And Of Course It Is Important On Both Sides Of The Border For Different And Sometimes Opposing Reasons…” *“So I think that Keystone is a contentious issue, and of course it is important on both sides of the border for different and sometimes opposing reasons, but that is not our relationship. And I think our relationship will get deeper and stronger and put us in a position to really be global leaders in energy and climate change if we worked more closely together. And that's what I would like to see us do.” [Remarks at tinePublic, 6/18/14] *Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. *“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28] *Hillary Clinton Said We Have To Have A Concerted Plan To Increase Trade; We Have To Resist Protectionism And Other Kinds Of Barriers To Trade. *“Secondly, I think we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade already under the current circumstances, you know, that Inter-American Development Bank figure is pretty surprising. There is so much more we can do, there is a lot of low hanging fruit but businesses on both sides have to make it a priority and it's not for governments to do but governments can either make it easy or make it hard and we have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade and I would like to see this get much more attention and be not just a policy for a year under president X or president Y but a consistent one.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 32]
A clearly progressive message, especially if "progressive" means neoliberal.
*CLINTON IS MORE FAVORABLE TO CANADIAN HEALTH CARE AND SINGLE PAYER*
*Clinton Said Single-Payer Health Care Systems “Can Get Costs Down,” And “Is As Good Or Better On Primary Care,” But “They Do Impose Things Like Waiting Times.” *“If you look at countries that are comparable, like Switzerland or Germany, for example, they have mixed systems. They don't have just a single-payer system, but they have very clear controls over budgeting and accountability. If you look at the single-payer systems, like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can get costs down because, you know, although their care, according to statistics, overall is as good or better on primary care, in particular, they do impose things like waiting times, you know. It takes longer to get like a hip replacement than it might take here.” [Hillary Clinton remarks to ECGR Grand Rapids, 6/17/13] *Clinton Cited President Johnson’s Success In Establishing Medicare And Medicaid And Said She Wanted To See The U.S. Have Universal Health Care Like In Canada.* “You know, on healthcare we are the prisoner of our past. The way we got to develop any kind of medical insurance program was during World War II when companies facing shortages of workers began to offer healthcare benefits as an inducement for employment. So from the early 1940s healthcare was seen as a privilege connected to employment. And after the war when soldiers came back and went back into the market there was a lot of competition, because the economy was so heated up. So that model continued. And then of course our large labor unions bargained for healthcare with the employers that their members worked for. So from the early 1940s until the early 1960s we did not have any Medicare, or our program for the poor called Medicaid until President Johnson was able to get both passed in 1965. So the employer model continued as the primary means by which working people got health insurance. People over 65 were eligible for Medicare. Medicaid, which was a partnership, a funding partnership between the federal government and state governments, provided some, but by no means all poor people with access to healthcare. So what we've been struggling with certainly Harry Truman, then Johnson was successful on Medicare and Medicaid, but didn't touch the employer based system, then actually Richard Nixon made a proposal that didn't go anywhere, but was quite far reaching. Then with my husband's administration we worked very hard to come up with a system, but we were very much constricted by the political realities that if you had your insurance from your employer you were reluctant to try anything else. And so we were trying to build a universal system around the employer-based system. And indeed now with President Obama's legislative success in getting the Affordable Care Act passed that is what we've done. We still have primarily an employer-based system, but we now have people able to get subsidized insurance. So we have health insurance companies playing a major role in the provision of healthcare, both to the employed whose employers provide health insurance, and to those who are working but on their own are not able to afford it and their employers either don't provide it, or don't provide it at an affordable price. We are still struggling. We've made a lot of progress. Ten million Americans now have insurance who didn't have it before the Affordable Care Act, and that is a great step forward. (Applause.) And what we're going to have to continue to do is monitor what the costs are and watch closely to see whether employers drop more people from insurance so that they go into what we call the health exchange system. So we're really just at the beginning. But we do have Medicare for people over 65. And you couldn't, I don't think, take it away if you tried, because people are very satisfied with it, but we also have a lot of political and financial resistance to expanding that system to more people. So we're in a learning period as we move forward with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. And I'm hoping that whatever the shortfalls or the glitches have been, which in a big piece of legislation you're going to have, those will be remedied and we can really take a hard look at what's succeeding, fix what isn't, and keep moving forward to get to affordable universal healthcare coverage like you have here in Canada. [Clinton Speech For tinePublic – Saskatoon, CA, 1/21/15]
Here's where she actually gets progressive. I could endorse most of what she says here. Unfortunately I doubt she would spend too much effort to fight against that "political and financial resistance to expanding that system to more people" once elected, since a lot of the people opposing those changes happen to be her funders.
I don't have time to dig all the links/quotes at the moment, but you do realize that the above quote is 100% Hard Core neoliberalism? How do you think open trade and open borders works out for the vast majority of American workers?
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
Better than protectionism and warfare.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dinesh d'souza is an incredibly tainted source. Absolutely nothing written by him should be considered anything other than a lie. He's the boy who cried Scandal 18 millions times a day.
RE: Giuliani says all men brag about sexually assaulting women.
No, no we don't, never once.
Still, give the man props for bringing the extra large shovel to bury himself on the Sunday morning political circuit.
Finally, in summation.
Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.
Remember when all Trump's supporters kept saying they admired him because, "Trump just says what we're all thinking."? {makes Fort save to keep eyes from rolling spinning in their sockets}
I really hope Trump's stink is more difficult to remove than that of an undead skunk swarm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to take this moment to sincerely apologize to both skunks and the heartbeat-challenged community for my offensive and hurtful comparison.
I would like to take this moment to sincerely apologize to both skunks and the heartbeat-challenged community for my offensive and hurtful comparison....if they were offended.
Nope. I might be CE, but fake apologies are a bridge too far.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Better than protectionism and warfare.I don't have time to dig all the links/quotes at the moment, but you do realize that the above quote is 100% Hard Core neoliberalism? How do you think open trade and open borders works out for the vast majority of American workers?
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
Last week, I accompanied two Honduran refugees, two Central American solidarity activists and two other gringo supporters to the office of Representative Niki Tsongas to urge her to support the Berta Caceres bill put forward by Georgia's Hank Johnson. The bill, IIRC, calls for the U.S. government to suspend its millions in "security assistance" to Honduras until the latter can clean up its human rights nightmare.
I felt a little icky, because I was essentially lobbying Democrats, and that is not a very revolutionary socialist thing to do, but, anyway, the two refugees testified powerfully about life under the reign of terror there since Hillary, as Secretary of State, legitimized the coup against Manuel Zelaya. Really fun stuff. A 13-year-old getting killed and her arms chopped off by off-duty police officers for participating in a demonstration calling attention to lack of funding in her village's school was probably the high moment.
On the flip side, up until, what? March of this year?, she was in favor of deporting Honduran child refugees.
I guess it's nice to have dreams, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok. Now that you made your personal attack, can you dispute what he claims? Is what he's writing false or true?.
And then there's the issue of the Clinton's charity. I don't like it and from what I read what it's doing is far from what I'd call charitable work.Seriously? You're backing this up with Dinesh D'Souza?
And you pretend to have any credibility on what "progressive" means?
Well, Charity Watch rates it and A. Which seems unlikely if they're as bad as D'Souza says.
However, D'Souza himself made the bunch of lies Obama's America and then repeated the trick with the equally factual Hillary's America. Oh, and in 2014 was convicted of illegally making campaign contributions therough others (a felony). All in all, he's really not a credible source.
D'Souza is scum, no doubt about it, but criticism of the Clintons', and their Foundation's, role in Haiti can be found in a wide-ranging array of publications outside of The National Review from Rolling Stone to The Nation. I didn't bother reading the D'Souza piece, so I have no idea what claims he is floating. Thread participants seem to like Politico, so I'll link them:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, Sunday is my Monday, so I can't wait to get back to work and see what my lone Trump-supporting Teamster brother has to say about these last couple of days. Judging from his Facebook page, it's going to be a lot about Juanita Broaddrick.
Alas, we didn't get that far. I started, upon entering the office, by shouting "Grab 'em by the pussy!" but my union brothers and sisters were more interested in why I was wearing a blazer (it was raining and it was still in my car from my trip to Niki's). This was followed up by them asking me about the trans flag I have on my lapel, which quickly led to, once again, them re-telling the tale of how they thought I was gay (not the word they used) when I started working with them. The conversation was then entirely derailed when Puerto Rican Teamster and I got into an argument about which of the two of us was lazier. The whole crew weighed in and, I am happy to say, I was deemed "not the laziest."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Better than protectionism and warfare.I don't have time to dig all the links/quotes at the moment, but you do realize that the above quote is 100% Hard Core neoliberalism? How do you think open trade and open borders works out for the vast majority of American workers?
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”Last week, I accompanied two Honduran refugees, two Central American solidarity activists and two other gringo supporters to the office of Representative Niki Tsongas to urge her to support the Berta Caceres bill put forward by Georgia's Hank Johnson. The bill, IIRC, calls for the U.S. government to suspend its millions in "security assistance" to Honduras until the latter can clean up its human rights nightmare.
I felt a little icky, because I was essentially lobbying Democrats, and that is not a very revolutionary socialist thing to do, but, anyway, the two refugees testified powerfully about life under the reign of terror there since Hillary, as Secretary of State, legitimized the coup against Manuel Zelaya. Really fun stuff. A 13-year-old getting killed and her arms chopped off by off-duty police officers for participating in a demonstration calling attention to lack of funding in her village's school was probably the high moment.
On the flip side, up until, what? March of this year?, she was in favor of deporting Honduran child refugees.
I guess it's nice to have dreams, though.
I'll have to actually read over the text of the bill when I get a chance. I always take anything Hank "I'm worried about Guam capsizing" Johnson says with a grain of salt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of "men like Trump" tickled something in the deep memory section. This should shed some light on matters.
Still poking around to see if I can find what matches up with what memory is saying.
Edit: Interview with a 16 year undercover FBI agent who upset the white supremacist apple cart several times.
2nd edit: Found close to what memory stirred from July 2006.
In a nutshell, "men like Trump" have been and are infiltrating the armed services, law enforcement and who knows what else in pursuit of this hideous agenda for more than a decade.
What is really scary is that we're only hearing about the dumb ones.
Quickly thanking Rogar for all the Hillary quotes. They've convinced me that she'll make an excellent President and I hope the Dems win the Senate to support her efforts.
It's pretty clear that the Dems aren't going to win the Senate this year, and they'll probably have a major setback in 2018. Clinton hasn't been doing squat to help the downticket races, although quite frankly, as the most disliked nominee in her Party's history, I'm not sure she can.
I don't think Trump knows how to do intensive coaching. I mean, he started the night pretty mild, then basically just exploded into trying to blame Clinton for anything and everything that was wrong the entire rest of the night, without bothering to actually answer questions.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have time to dig all the links/quotes at the moment, but you do realize that the above quote is 100% Hard Core neoliberalism? How do you think open trade and open borders works out for the vast majority of American workers?
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
Since when is liberalism concerned with only American welfare? I have more than a few qualms with & criticisms of global capitalism, but that doesn't mean that there haven't been tremendous gains in human welfare. In China alone (East Asia was the focus of my history degree so I'm more familiar with that part of the globe than, say, Africa) more than 400 million people have been broken out of the millennia-old cycle of agrarian poverty sine the late 70's; disease is killing fewer and fewer people thanks to the efforts of hundreds of NGOs, global standard of living & life expectancy are rising, etc etc. That's not to say that there aren't a hell of a lot of problems with the way we do things currently, but international trade *by definition* affects (and benefits) more than just Americans.
Also, the "vast majority of American workers" aren't employed in mines or factories and haven't been for decades. Free trade doesn't obviate the service economy, and protectionism (the only way you could actually save those jobs being exported) would result in massive price increases for the same goods--and that extra cost hurts poor American consumers and makes exporting near-impossible. There are other solutions besides abandoning trade--one of my preferred policy answers is Basic Minimum Income.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty clear that the Dems aren't going to win the Senate this year, and they'll probably have a major setback in 2018. Clinton hasn't been doing squat to help the downticket races, although quite frankly, as the most disliked nominee in her Party's history, I'm not sure she can.
Couple of things.
1) Dems have a pretty good shot of winning the Senate; ticket-splitting is not something that voters really do anymore, so Republicans who dislike Trump but don't want to vote for Clinton might just stay home--which cascades defeat all the way down-ticket. You might also have a Trump-Establishment feud that carries on (many have just called for him to resign his candidacy, and Trump doesn't seem like the type to let that slide) and you get not only a depressed turnout but also anti-establishment Trump supporters who decide to "stick it to the RINOs". Either of these could cost R's the Senate, both together almost certainly would.
2) Clinton is doing what Clinton needs to do, which is focus on winning. Trump's reverse-coattails are a major issue this election and she knows it.
3) "Most disliked" amongst whom? Certainly not amongst Dems, the Obama Coalition likes her plenty and powered her to a comfortable win over Sanders in the primary. Trump's antics are excellent GOTV fodder, I predict stellar turnout amongst black and Latinx voters, who both poll as strong Clinton supporters. Clinton being unpopular OVERALL (i.e. include Republicans and just white males in general) is not much of a story with an electorate this polarized.
|
|
Oh yeah, and
4) 2018 speculation time! If Trump's followers settle on a stabbed-in-the-back narrative regarding the GOPe they might be too busy primarying one another and pointing fingers about whose fault Trump's loss was to properly capitalize on Dems' generally abysmal midterm turnout. In my most optimistic moments I imagine that Trump will be an effective millstone around conservative politicians' necks even two years from now! But probably not, 2018 is going to be one giant rearguard action for us Dems :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Paul Ryan tells Donald Trump "I ain't your b+@#@ anymore, I got my own s&@! I have to worry about"
Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.
Okay, I'm done now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.
It's pretty clear that the Dems aren't going to win the Senate this year, and they'll probably have a major setback in 2018. Clinton hasn't been doing squat to help the downticket races, although quite frankly, as the most disliked nominee in her Party's history, I'm not sure she can.Couple of things.
1) Dems have a pretty good shot of winning the Senate; ticket-splitting is not something that voters really do anymore, so Republicans who dislike Trump but don't want to vote for Clinton might just stay home--which cascades defeat all the way down-ticket. You might also have a Trump-Establishment feud that carries on (many have just called for him to resign his candidacy, and Trump doesn't seem like the type to let that slide) and you get not only a depressed turnout but also anti-establishment Trump supporters who decide to "stick it to the RINOs". Either of these could cost R's the Senate, both together almost certainly would.
2) Clinton is doing what Clinton needs to do, which is focus on winning. Trump's reverse-coattails are a major issue this election and she knows it.
3) "Most disliked" amongst whom? Certainly not amongst Dems, the Obama Coalition likes her plenty and powered her to a comfortable win over Sanders in the primary. Trump's antics are excellent GOTV fodder, I predict stellar turnout amongst black and Latinx voters, who both poll as strong Clinton supporters. Clinton being unpopular OVERALL (i.e. include Republicans and just white males in general) is not much of a story with an electorate this polarized.
1. New Jerseyans are infamous for ticket splitting. We're a pretty purple state. There are a lot of people who still buy the basic Republican party line and they'll be voting for their local Republicans even if they can't stomach pulling the lever for the Orangeutang himself.
2. Like I said, I don't think that Clinton can help the downticket much.
3) Most disliked among the general population, and she's among the lesat-liked and least trusted among her own Democratic supporters. Many of whom only voted for her in the primary because they thought she had the best chance of beating whoever the Republicans threw up. There's more than a few Democrats who buy into the Fox verb, and the bulk of the Sanders people hate her almost as much as the Fox crowd does. They may be voting for her, but it's with gritted teeth at best.
If Pence were leading the ticket from the get go, Clinton's chances would have been a lot slimmer.
|
|
Nah, Pence has more than enough baggage to peel of Republican women too. He's more polished, I'll give him that, but not more so than Romney. Again, the Dems have a winning coalition. Clinton polls poorly with white men but Dems don't need them to win. ALSO also, local Republicans aren't Congressional Republicans--don't y'all have Menendez AND Booker?
Also New Jersey makes up like 1.3% of EC votes and less than that of the popular vote IIRC so even if 100% of y'all split your tickets my point holds. Ticket splitting is statistically rare anymore.
Nah, Pence has more than enough baggage to peel of Republican women too. He's more polished, I'll give him that, but not more so than Romney. Again, the Dems have a winning coalition. Clinton polls poorly with white men but Dems don't need them to win. ALSO also, local Republicans aren't Congressional Republicans--don't y'all have Menendez AND Booker?
Also New Jersey makes up like 1.3% of EC votes and less than that of the popular vote IIRC so even if 100% of y'all split your tickets my point holds. Ticket splitting is statistically rare anymore.
Polls have indicated that traditional Republican voters who have said that they are voting for Clinton will vote Republican down ticket. A fair number of Democratic voters have also indicated they will vote Republican down ticket. It's worth noting that the Republicans have the lions share of Governors and state legislatures under their control. In NJ it's a bit mixed. we have a Republican governor, but the State Legislature is starting to tilt Democrat at the moment.
|
|
Republican control of statehouses is a product of the phenomenal drubbing Dems got in 2014 and 2010 (the latter of which in turn allowed the R's to gerrymander the living crap out of a ton of House districts). That does nothing to suggest that there's a tide of ticket-splitting inbound during a year when Republicans have run a historically awful Presidential candidate.
I just don't see where you're getting this idea that Republicans are a shoe-in to keep the Senate. Looks pretty bleak for them from where I'm sitting.
Edit: Oops, said "keep the House" but meant Senate. They'll almost definitely keep control of the House.
I just saw where Paul Ryan will no longer be defending Trump.
|
For the record, 538 has the Senate as a toss up. Predictwise has it around 60% democratic.
There have been reports that internal polling by both parties has shown a pronounced shift in down ballot results since the Trump tape landed on Friday. I read reports saying that Dems were now heavily favored to take the Senate and even the House might be in play.
None of that would be reflected in the kind of public polling sites like 538 and Predictwise use in their models yet. That said... Predictwise has subsequently shot up closer to 70% likelihood of Dems taking the Senate based on shifts in betting.
Of course, short term shifts like that can reverse themselves just as quickly. It remains to be seen whether Trump's 'Bill is a bigger pervert than me' defense will help or hurt him in the long run.
|
1. New Jerseyans are infamous for ticket splitting. We're a pretty purple state. There are a lot of people who still buy the basic Republican party line and they'll be voting for their local Republicans even if they can't stomach pulling the lever for the Orangeutang himself.It's pretty clear that the Dems aren't going to win the Senate this year, and they'll probably have a major setback in 2018. Clinton hasn't been doing squat to help the downticket races, although quite frankly, as the most disliked nominee in her Party's history, I'm not sure she can.Couple of things.
1) Dems have a pretty good shot of winning the Senate; ticket-splitting is not something that voters really do anymore, so Republicans who dislike Trump but don't want to vote for Clinton might just stay home--which cascades defeat all the way down-ticket. You might also have a Trump-Establishment feud that carries on (many have just called for him to resign his candidacy, and Trump doesn't seem like the type to let that slide) and you get not only a depressed turnout but also anti-establishment Trump supporters who decide to "stick it to the RINOs". Either of these could cost R's the Senate, both together almost certainly would.
I didn't think New Jersey had a Senate race this year.
For the record, 538 has the Senate as a toss up. Predictwise has it around 60% democratic.There have been reports that internal polling by both parties has shown a pronounced shift in down ballot results since the Trump tape landed on Friday. I read reports saying that Dems were now heavily favored to take the Senate and even the House might be in play.
None of that would be reflected in the kind of public polling sites like 538 and Predictwise use in their models yet. That said... Predictwise has subsequently shot up closer to 70% likelihood of Dems taking the Senate based on shifts in betting.
Of course, short term shifts like that can reverse themselves just as quickly. It remains to be seen whether Trump's 'Bill is a bigger pervert than me' defense will help or hurt him in the long run.
It's true. There is a prediction going around that if Clinton takes the general by 8 points then the house (gerrymandered as it is) will be a toss-up. Some polls released this morning show Clinton up by double digits.
Edit: Interview with a 16 year undercover FBI agent who upset the white supremacist apple cart several times.
That story about the FBI agent was great. I was just in awe of what geniuses the white supremacist movement had to throw at him.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trump spokeswoman claiming support for Trump
I'm getting the picture that the Republican party is split into two camps now: 1. Those that will vote Trump, but not for any other Republicans; and 2. Those that won't vote Trump, but will vote Republican down the ballot.
That's a picture of a party imploding.
Pence would do better against Hillary (most of his "problems" are the kind of stuff that republican leaning voters don't really care about). But Pence would never get the chance..."Generic Republican" fits Pence, but are also exactly the type of nominees who lost out in the primaries against Trump.
I'll be really really curious who wins the Republican primary in the next election.
I'd really like to see what polls you're referring to. I follow this stuff pretty closely and haven't seen anything suggesting "a fair number" of Dems will be voting Republican down-ticket but Clinton for Pres.
It was a poll on Huffington Post about 2 weeks ago.
I didn't think New Jersey had a Senate race this year.1. New Jerseyans are infamous for ticket splitting. We're a pretty purple state. There are a lot of people who still buy the basic Republican party line and they'll be voting for their local Republicans even if they can't stomach pulling the lever for the Orangeutang himself.It's pretty clear that the Dems aren't going to win the Senate this year, and they'll probably have a major setback in 2018. Clinton hasn't been doing squat to help the downticket races, although quite frankly, as the most disliked nominee in her Party's history, I'm not sure she can.Couple of things.
1) Dems have a pretty good shot of winning the Senate; ticket-splitting is not something that voters really do anymore, so Republicans who dislike Trump but don't want to vote for Clinton might just stay home--which cascades defeat all the way down-ticket. You might also have a Trump-Establishment feud that carries on (many have just called for him to resign his candidacy, and Trump doesn't seem like the type to let that slide) and you get not only a depressed turnout but also anti-establishment Trump supporters who decide to "stick it to the RINOs". Either of these could cost R's the Senate, both together almost certainly would.
We have local races for Assembly and such The big thing that Democrats are upset now is that Jersey City Mayor Fulop has pulled out of the race for governor... the big issue this year will be a ballot question to allow gambling outside of Atlantic City. Both sides have pretty well funded ad campaigns which makes me wonder who's funding the Anti-Gambling "Don't Trust Trenton" group.
I'd really like to see what polls you're referring to. I follow this stuff pretty closely and haven't seen anything suggesting "a fair number" of Dems will be voting Republican down-ticket but Clinton for Pres.It was a poll on Huffington Post about 2 weeks ago.
Current polls are not at all relevant for what is going on now. I am pretty sure I can make any conclusion I want on the election by picking the right week.
Current polls are not at all relevant for what is going on now. I am pretty sure I can make any conclusion I want on the election by picking the right week.I'd really like to see what polls you're referring to. I follow this stuff pretty closely and haven't seen anything suggesting "a fair number" of Dems will be voting Republican down-ticket but Clinton for Pres.It was a poll on Huffington Post about 2 weeks ago.
I think it's become abundantly clear that the bulk of voters have solidly made up their minds long ago. So old polls have some relevance.
I'm not sure that there is even any point to having any further debates. Unless the idea is to fish for more 30 second spots that can be used on attack ads.