fish82;1775976 wrote:Rubio/Kasich would win pretty comfortably.

Lol. Yeah in the 90's. Classic republican ignoring how much the voter base has changed.

Spock;1775935 wrote:THe FBI will put an end to her

LOL. You have that much faith in the powers that be?

Spock;1775947 wrote: its enough to not let her win the general election.

Are you familiar with the majority asshats that are the American people?

ernest_t_bass;1776001 wrote:Are you familiar with the majority asshats that are the American people?

yep 47% would vote for her is she murdered someone

Spock;1776005 wrote:yep 47% would vote for her is she murdered someone

You literally just regurgitate talking points, don't you?

like_that;1775992 wrote:Do you not remember 2008?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1775998 wrote:Lol. Yeah in the 90's. Classic republican ignoring how much the voter base has changed.

The pubs are winning this year, Sport.

Sorry if that makes you mad.

fish82;1776038 wrote:The pubs are winning this year, Sport.

Sorry if that makes you mad.

Do you really think so? I have 0% confidence it won't be Hillary

fish82;1776038 wrote:The pubs are winning this year, Sport.

Sorry if that makes you mad.

Math?
Tell me the states from 2012 that flip from Blue to Red.

HitsRus;1775979 wrote:I like Kasich for his reasonable levelheadedness and capabilities. He'd make a good VP....

Both Kasich and Christie have handily won 2nd terms in states held by the democrats in the last 2 presidential elections. I realize everyone is pissed at the establishment including myself. I don't think either of these candidates should be relegated to footnotes. Neither are my ideal pick but I'd take either of them over the current front runner.

HitsRus;1775979 wrote:But I agree with Iclfan in that I don't know if he sells with the rest of the country. I think Haley is bring floated for VP for a reason.... A Rubio/ Haley ticket neutralizes any suggestion that the GOP is only a party of Old white men, making the Dems have to run on issues alone.

Its a sad state in our politics when ones race and genitalia are neutralizing factors over substance and ideology. I care more about what is between a candidates ears than their legs. I know you do as well and are just stating your opinion given the unfortunate political reality.

Also I am not a fan of familial political dynasties. One would think throwing off the king would have made this anathema to the American electorate. It was not long before you had the Adams. Since 1980 I think only in 2012 did we not have a Bush or Clinton somewhere in the presidential mix (primaries included).

I was born in 1972. The first presidential election I was eligible to vote in was between a Bush and a Clinton. Nearly a quarter century later the possibility of that same choice of names exists though at this point not likely. In my opinion the sooner we put these political dynasties behind us the better we will be.

FatHobbit;1776061 wrote:Do you really think so? I have 0% confidence it won't be Hillary

I have 100% confidence that it won't be Hillary. Bernie would have about a 33% chance.

ptown_trojans_1;1776109 wrote:Math?
Tell me the states from 2012 that flip from Blue to Red.

Enough of them.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1775998 wrote:Lol. Yeah in the 90's. Classic republican ignoring how much the voter base has changed.

A hispanic and a guy that could carry Ohio. Not sure how that would be dumb. Pretty dumb you fail to realize that, not to mention Kasich is a RINO and that would run well with the independents. I am also not surprised that you of all people are all about basing votes on demographics. Zwick the SJW strikes again.

HitsRus;1776031 wrote:I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

You mentioned having a female running mate would show that the GOP isn't the old white male party and it would take that argument away from the dems. That might be true, but in 2008 the GOP pretty much tried the same shit, and it blew up in their face with Palin (even though McCain was going to lose regardless).

FatHobbit;1776061 wrote:Do you really think so? I have 0% confidence it won't be Hillary

This, unfortunately. The **** finds a way to weasel out of everything it seems.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1776018 wrote:You literally just regurgitate talking points, don't you?

You do realize that the number has been vetted and has been proven true? It's not a talking point if its fact

The dem debate was utterly horrible and actually downright scary.

^^^^


....their children's children.....Feel the Bern.
The only thing missing is a shoe.

HitsRus;1776314 wrote:^^^^


....their children's children.....Feel the Bern.
The only thing missing is a shoe.

This "quote" gets rolled out whenever right wingers want to mock democratic politicians. Good luck finding any evidence of its accuracy. Typical scare tactic. It's no different than pulling the Hitler card when referring to Republican nut jobs like Cruz and Trump.

like_that;1776157 wrote:A hispanic and a guy that could carry Ohio. Not sure how that would be dumb. Pretty dumb you fail to realize that, not to mention Kasich is a RINO and that would run well with the independents. I am also not surprised that you of all people are all about basing votes on demographics. Zwick the SJW strikes again.

a hispanic against amnesty.. that means he doesn't get hispanic votes.. use your head man.

and you don't think demographics matter? lololololol

Spock;1776253 wrote:You do realize that the number has been vetted and has been proven true? It's not a talking point if its fact

the number has been vetted huh?

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1776340 wrote:a hispanic against amnesty.. that means he doesn't get hispanic votes.. use your head man.

and you don't think demographics matter? lololololol

I didn't say they don't matter, I am saying you would base your vote on it, because you're a SJW. Reading is hard.

like_that;1776355 wrote:I didn't say they don't matter, I am saying you would base your vote on it, because you're a SJW. Reading is hard.

Reading must be hard... since the whole point of "in the 90's" was pointing out the demographics have changed, hence the voting base.

Hispanics will probably vote for Rubio even if he's against amnesty. That's how dumb voters can be, they vote for the color of their skin or ethnic background instead of their policies. Same reason why Obama won.

SportsAndLady;1776359 wrote:Hispanics will probably vote for Rubio even if he's against amnesty. That's how dumb voters can be, they vote for the color of their skin or ethnic background instead of their policies. Same reason why Obama won.

Not a chance in hell... they're, oddly enough, firmly in Hillary's corner. Same as black voters, which makes nooooooooooooooooooooooooo sense whatsoever.

SportsAndLady;1776359 wrote:Hispanics will probably vote for Rubio even if he's against amnesty. That's how dumb voters can be, they vote for the color of their skin or ethnic background instead of their policies. Same reason why Obama won.

Which is what I am saying zwick would do, but apparently that's gone over his head. I will let him pretend he is smarter than everyone else though.

like_that;1776361 wrote:Which is what I am saying zwick would do, but apparently that's gone over his head. I will let him pretend he is smarter than everyone else though.

like_that logic. zwick votes for Obama because he's black. Zwick votes for Sanders because he's white.
skin color confirmed!

What you're painstakingly missing is demographics has nothing to do with voting skin color, but party lines.