Posted on 01/17/2016 11:34:46 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Democrats can't hold the White House forever. Losing in 2016 might make more strategic sense than losing in 2020.
Nobody is acknowledging it yet, but in all likelihood the next president, be it a Republican or a Democrat, will have just four years to get as much done as possible before passing the torch to the challenger in 2020. Republicans have little hope of a two-term presidency (let alone winning in 2016) due to changing demographics, and a narrative shift that favors acceptance and diversity over traditional values, and Southern dominance. There is a realignment occurring in the United States the likes of which we have not seen since the Solid South became solid red.
Democrats, however, should be concerned for a different reason. The last consecutive two-term presidents from the same party were James Madison and James Monroe, who were both Democratic-Republicans. That transition occurred before the formation of our modern two-party system....
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
Where’s the barf alert?
Right here: “Salon”
Lol!
Yup, I automatically reach for the wastebasket when I see “Salon” in a post :-)
Long time no 3d printer posts :’(
It’s actually humorous as the author doesn’t take into account the Muslims they’ve invited in here are going to kill them.
I was looking at 3D printer articles about an hour ago but didn’t see anything that really said “post me” I’m afraid. There was one about 3D printer robots that fix potholes or some such.
It will be a relief when all the politicking is over and we can get back to fun stuff like 3D printing and such :-)
Realignment? Yeah, but that's because most of us down here are re-checking the sights on our weapons.
Molon Labe, Darlin'.
WTF is it with you nonspecific mf’s, talkin’ to men like they are girls/
I am a Texas woman. I call everyone “Darlin’”.
Darlin’ is not gender-specific where I live. It’s a cultural thang.
No, it ain’t.
Darlin’, Sugar, and Honey...all part of a female Texan’s vocabulary. I agree, it’s not gender specific :)
Better squeeze it in; the politicking never ends...
“Darlin’, Sugar, and Honey...all part of a female Texan’s vocabulary. I agree, it’s not gender specific :)”
Right you are. It is NOT gender specific.
Here too in SW PA. The next”civil” war won’t be between states, it will be between country and city.
Heh heh. So why does Trump's call for banning mohammedans from entry into the US, and building a wall on the Mexican border have the dems and gop-e peeing their pants?
Sounds like the author is already rationalizing a 2016 loss.
Going back to the original thrust of the article, it pretty much looks like the blush is off the rose in regards to Herself, The investigation into the criminal enterprises that Herself has gone so far beyond Benghazi, that perhaps Colorado Supermax may be one of the few appropriate places to have Herself serve out the multiple lifetime sentences so richly earned. Even the most rabid of defenders are losing their enthusiasm for Herself, in light of these most recent revelations.
For despising Nixon so heartily, Herself is certainly trying to emulate the 37th President in every way she can, exceeding the very worst by sometimes a wide margin.
Nixon had some honor. He resigned.
Herself has no concept of that degree of honor.
Now we have a guy telling us who will win in 2020. Geeesh. ONe thing we’ve all learned this time around, and that is that the so called pundits don’t know diddly.
Well, you’re in California, no?
Clinton's problems start with image. More Americans mistrust her than trust her. This may be due to her various "scandals,""Scandals" belongs in scare quotes since accepting money from foreign governments while "serving" as Secretary of State ain't no big thing. Not if you launder it through fabulous "honoraria" for hubby's speeches and "charitable donations" to a foundation of which you are a principal and which - it it did do good, would reflect well on you thanks to foreign government largess . . .</sarcasm>
- Article 1 Section 9:
- No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state
Accepting money from foreign governments is presumptively corrupt unless specifically authorized by Congress
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.