Thanks .
90 Miles From Tyranny : Hillary Monopoly -- The Game
Posted on 04/06/2016 6:34:38 AM PDT by KeyLargo
The Odds Rise of a Democratic Victory
William A. Galston
While all eyes have been turned toward the dramatic nominating contests in both political parties, the fundamentals that will shape the general-election contest have been shifting toward the Democrats.
Candidates seeking to succeed a two-term incumbent of their own party face an uphill battle. All other things being equal, political scientists find, such candidates can expect to fall short of the incumbents’ re-election vote share by at least 4 percentage points. Applied to the 2012 results, this metric would yield a 47% share for this year’s Democratic nominee.
On the other hand, demographic trends favor the Democrats. As the nonwhite share of the electorate increases, Democrats can expect their baseline to shift upward by 1 or even 2 percentage points in each four-year cycle—a significant gain, but not enough to counter the third-term disadvantage.
It is at this point that factors specific to 2016 come into play. To begin, the American people’s assessment of Barack Obama’s performance as president has been rising steadily. From a low of 43% approval as recently as December, it has increased to an average of 49% today. After nearly three years in which his net standing (approval minus disapproval) was negative, it now stands in positive territory.
This makes a big difference: According to Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz, the incumbent president’s job approval has more impact on the vote share of his party’s nominee than does any other variable. If Mr. Obama’s average approval were to rise by an additional point to 50%, Mr. Abramowitz calculates, the Democratic nominee could expect to win a narrow victory in the popular vote—again, with all else equal.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
I didn't add a 'Barf Alert', but Wall Street does not want either Cruz or Trump and many in the GOPE are ready to vote Hillary unless they nominate a GOP approved candidate at the Convention.
If Obama’s approval ratings actually did go UP after that nauseating little performance in Cuba, then the country really IS over.
It would be a "Socialist" victory. The Democrat Party has little correlation with anything "democratic".
Has anyone noticed that recently, news articles are calling the “Democrat” party, or “Democrat” politicians, the “Democratic” party, or a “Democratic” candidate? About six months ago, I noticed this shift. In the past it was always the Democrat party or Democrat candidate...
uh, the economy isn’t improving.
We will look back on this election with bitter regret.
More proof that the WSJ is out of touch with what is really going on down here were the rubber meets the road. They really do need to try to get out of their offices a little more often. You can’t figure it out by sitting on your ass drinking your Starbucks and reading liberal newspapers.
“uh, the economy isn’t improving.”
Yes, we all know that.
But that would take the GOPE admitting that they are responsible for much of that by giving Obama all that he has wanted. Instead the GOPE really wants their guy Kasich to be their approved candidate.
The MSM is pushing for Kasich along with the GOPE. And we know that Kasich would lose to Clinton, which is why MSM wants him too.
Hillary Clinton would beat Trump, Cruz but would lose to Kasich
Rebecca Shabad CBS News March 24, 2016
Hillary Clinton would defeat Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in general election match-ups, but would lose to John Kasich, according to a Monmouth University survey released Thursday.
The poll found Clinton would beat Trump by 10 percentage points, 48 to 38 percent, though the race between them would be closer in swing states. The Democratic frontrunner only holds a 5-percentage-point edge in states where the margin of victory in 2012 was less than 7 percentage points.
Clinton would also beat Cruz by 5 percentage points, 45 to 40 percent. Kasich, on the other hand, would defeat Clinton by 6 percentage points, 45 to 39 percent.
A CBS News/New York Times poll released this week also found that Clinton holds a 10-point advantage over Trump in a general election matchup, with a 3-point lead in a head-to-head with Cruz. Kasich, that poll found, would beat her by four points.
Sincerely I am asking you to explain what is going on politically down “where the rubber meets the road”.
That was my favorite expression in the Army meaning being where the mission gets done or fails to get done, with no excuses.
Because otherwise the Bitch waddles into the WH in 2017 and we are over as a nation.
The last 2 quarters we’ve seen sub 1% economic growth and the economy is “improving”?
Actually, Wall Street would be fine with Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton Wants You to Believe She’s Tough on Wall Street. She’s Not.
Clinton’s ties to the financial industry were a central theme in her debate with Bernie Sanders.
By Elizabeth Bruenig
February 4, 2016
https://newrepublic.com/article/129247/hillary-clinton-wants-believe-shes-tough-wall-street-shes-not
Clinton Foundation Discloses $40 Million in Wall Street Donations
The odds rise of a Socialist/Marxist victory.
There...corrected it.
They did.
“The odds rise of a Socialist/Marxist victory.”
Yep.
Here is just a little sample of 2016 Democrat voters salivating over Hillary:
Monday, Apr 4, 2016 01:26 PM CST
I’m done with Bernie Sanders: Why this democratic socialist is voting for Hillary Clinton
Bernie’s not a more progressive choice, just a different one. The more I compare the two, the less I feel the Bern
Chris Sosa
I’ve been a personal fan of Senator Bernie Sanders since my political awakening in college. I was raised in an evangelical Republican household and fed a diet of capitalist ideology for as long as I could remember. I began shifting toward the Democratic Party in my early teens but still got nervous when I heard the word “socialism.” It wasn’t a reasoned response, just a knee-jerk reaction. In truth, I was scared that I might be a socialist. If anyone found out, I’d never be taken seriously again.
A few years later, I was living in a Northeastern University campus apartment in Boston. I had cable for the first time in my life. I was watching a late-night talk show. This brash, quirky senator with a thick Brooklyn accent explained that, not only was he an elected official with no party affiliation, he’s a democratic socialist!
I listened to him outline the most basic explanation of democratic socialism and realized I couldn’t run from it any longer. I was clearly a democratic socialist and always had been. My allegiance isn’t to an unrestrained free market, but a deeply-held position that everyone is entitled to a roof over their heads, food to eat, a solid education and good medical care as a moral right. If we cannot be guaranteed basic dignity under the law, what’s the point of the whole enterprise?
Sen. Sanders agreed with me, and he wasn’t afraid to say so loudly I wanted him to be president and feared America would never accept a guy like him. Fast-forward to 2016, and I found myself dead wrong. The American public revolted against the establishment wings of both parties. The United States was now captivated by this plucky socialist, almost as captivated as they’d become with an orange-haired demagogue who had a bizarre fixation on Mexican rapists.
It was Bernie’s time to shine. But I wasn’t feeling the Bern anymore.
I respect your “barf alert”, but the Wall Street Journal has been one of the steadiest, strongest supporters of conservatism going back to the days of Taft, Goldwater and Reagan.
“I respect your “barf alert”, but the Wall Street Journal has been one of the steadiest, strongest supporters of conservatism going back to the days of Taft, Goldwater and Reagan.”
Really?
The WSJ newspaper is what it is under Murdoch.
“Wall Street” as it is referred to itself, I’m sure that you know is actually the business of making money, (not a newspaper), and the financial services play both sides, covering their bases and will work with Hillary to continue making money which is what investors want.
Rupert Murdoch’s Open Borders Wall Street Journal Warns: ‘Bad Sign’ Trump Is Following Jeff Sessions’ Lead
by Julia Hahn
28 Jan 2016
Washington D.C.3,843
Today the editors of Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal slammed GOP frontrunner Donald Trump for his opposition to the publication’s long-standing support for open border trade and immigration policies.
The Wall Street Journal, like Murdoch, is decidedly open borders. In 1984, the WSJ editorial board wrote, “If Washington still wants to ‘do something’ about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders.”
Breitbart News has previously exposed how Murdoch is the co-chair of what is arguably one of the most powerful open borders immigration lobbying firms in the country, the Partnership For A New American Economy. Similarly, Murdoch has joined executives at Goldmann Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup in urging Congress to fast-track President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
78%
described as the “second pillar” of a President Rubio’s three-pillared foreign policy platform.
“Republicans should look closely before they leap,” the Journal warns voters. The Journal points specifically to Mr. Trump’s recent hiring of Stephen Miller, the brain trust of populist thought leader Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
80%
.
The editors write, “A bad sign is that Mr. Trump has hired as his campaign policy adviser Stephen Miller, who worked for Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), the most antitrade, anti-immigration Senator.”
More from today’s WSJ anti-Trump and pro GOPE editors:
Trump, We Knew Ye
The Donald was never serious about the presidency in the Hillary sense.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-we-knew-ye-1459900017
Wisconsin Trump Stop
Badger State Republicans vote for Ted Cruz and make a contested convention more likely.
The best outcome for Republicans now is that no one gets 1,237 before the convention, leaving it to the delegates to choose a nominee who looks like he might actually be able to win the election.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/wisconsin-trump-stop-1459910587
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.
