On this happy note I head out for the day. /sarc
Ramesh has lost his once fine mind!
Can she win if she’s in prison?
Donald Trump understands Americas problems and he resonates with the blue collar workers. The others, not so much.
She won’t win the popular vote, but she will win the official vote tally in key states, late in the evenings.
It’s not who votes, it’s who counts the votes.
Millennials will elect her. I believe she is inevitable.
Weird that Republicans can win statewide governorships in OH, FL, WI, PA, MI, etc. Senators too. Then when it comes to presidential politics, it’s demographics that are trending against the GOP. I propose it is crappy candidates causing the problem. Why would Florida overwhelmingly elect Rubio and governor Scott twice (not as overwhelming on the reelection against Crist, but by a reasonable margin in a an all-in opponent), and not be able to win a presidential race? Scott is a terrible candidate with glaring weaknesses, but won. Yet Romney, Ryan got beat. Same in Ohio. Flawed candidates win statewide.
If we put someone in who can win voters over, we win. Enough about the deck stacked against us when it shows up no where else in statewide elections.
No. This is his “back door attack” on Trump. He’s trying to say Trump won’t move NY or PA or NJ or FL if he gets the nod. I’ll bet he believes Jebby could do it though!
Sad part is I have met so many woman who said they don’t trust her or like but will vote for her because she’s a women. I ask if they think that sexist and they answer “No, because we haven’t had a women president”. Blows my mind..
At best, there was a dead cat bounce. There's a federal government with $3 trillion in assets, a $19 trillion debt, at least $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and more than $750 trillion in derivatives liability exposure.
Then there are insolvent states like Illinois that pay their lottery winners with IOUs.
‘Mishandling of emails’??!!
Like it was accidental??!!
Oh, that’s rich!!!
The tenor of this article is that the electorate is hopelessly gimme-ist. That may be a fair assessment.
I think a lot of Hillary’s support is really people supporting Bill Clinton. In people’s minds, his presidency was one of good economy, no war, plenty of jobs.
I believe many think if Hillary is elected, they are really getting Bill. They don’t follow day to day political news or pay attention to the scandals, they just remember the “way things were.”
The Obamas will see to that.
Alternative theory...Ramesh’s contract at NR is up....so he’s trying to generate a lot more Tweets and emails to prove people read him..
hillary would have a rather serious problem if elected. that would be being alive on inauguration day
“But her bet is that the liberal coalition will show up and that swing voters who do not love her will nonetheless decide that they prefer her to a Republican party out of touch with most people’s concerns.”
“Republican party out of touch”
This article is a prime example as to why this author and National Review are completely out of touch. In fact, one may conclude that they have acrobatically positioned themselves in a strange anatomical contortion.
Why Benghazi Still Makes a Difference
Hillary Clinton may not see the point, but her Thursday testimony may tell us much about her ability to lead.
By John Bolton
Oct. 20, 2015 6:12 p.m. ET
351 COMMENTS
Only in Perry Mason stories does the real culprit break down in open court. After Hillary Clinton’s now-immortal Capitol Hill outburst about investigations into the deadly 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya—“What difference, at this point, does it make?”—the former secretary of state and Democratic candidate for president is unlikely to offer any such spontaneity when she testifies Thursday before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Nonetheless, the committee’s work is utterly serious, its preparations extensive (and extensively stonewalled by Mrs. Clinton’s team) and its mission vital to our fight against still-metastasizing Islamist terrorism. Much is at stake. The hearing’s focus must be on the key policy and leadership implications of the mistakes made before, during and after the murders of Amb. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on Sept. 11 three years ago.
Morning Editorial Report
Before the attack, there was ample warning that the U.S. consulate in Benghazi wasn’t secure, with terrorist threats in the area multiplying. Even the International Red Cross had pulled out of Benghazi. After a string of requests from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli for more security, in mid-August came a joint Embassy-CIA recommendation to move the State Department’s people into the CIA’s Benghazi compound. The State Department in Washington was invariably unresponsive, even though, as Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey later testified, the rising terrorist threat in Libya was well known.
Given her self-proclaimed central role in deposing dictator Moammar Gadhafi, why was Mrs. Clinton so detached from the deteriorating situation in Libya? She has so far dodged the issue, pawning off such “technical” matters on her subordinates. Working in the State Department in 1990 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, I saw firsthand how Secretary of State James Baker dived into every detail of safeguarding U.S. diplomats stranded in Kuwait City. If earlier secretaries of state have been perfectly prepared to get their fingernails dirty in operational details when those under their responsibility were threatened, why wasn’t Mrs. Clinton?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-benghazi-still-makes-a-difference-1445379145