IF Hillary wins the presidency, this country will be ruled by two families for over a quarter century. Are we a democracy or an oligarchy? The dominance of the two families in U.S. presidential politics is unprecedented. Already, for 116 million Americans, there has never been a time when there wasn't a Bush or Clinton in the White House, either as president or vice president. The closest comparisons are the father-son presidencies of John Adams and John Quincy Adams, whose single terms were separated by 24 years, and the presidencies of fifth cousins Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt, whose collective 20 years as president were separated by a quarter-century. if Hillary Clinton were to be elected and re-elected, the nation could go 28 years in a row with the same two families governing the country. Add the elder Bush's terms as vice president, and that would be 36 years straight with a Bush or Clinton in the White House. what next? This Guy in 2016?
It will be difficult to spin away years of bad management, corruption, and incompetence under Republican rule. Once fooled... It will take years to spin that away effectively. In terms of demographics, the election favors Democrats.
On the Michigan primaries, per WSJonline: "Mrs. Clinton carried voters without a college education by a wide margin (60% to 36%), and college graduates by a razor-thin one (47% to 46%). The less educated voters were, the more likely they were to go for Mrs. Clinton."
They aren't spinning it away necessarily. Many of them are openly admitting that the recent leaders have failed. The main difference used to be that DEMs were large government and GOP was small government. Rather than telling people to work and save for their retirement, a democrat brought social security into existence. And then another democrat added medicare and medicaid to it. This created a mechanism whereby people felt comfortable in the idea that the g-ment would care for them in retirement. This system is arguably the biggest problem that we currently have in this country. It is based entirely on the g-ment's ability to tax working americans. Republicans refuse to raise taxes to support it, so we go into debt. In more recent years, the younger generation developed an entitlement complex, wanting in one year what it took their parents 10-20 years to get. They now walk around with their hand out, looking mainly for the government to fill. If they get too much house and risk financial ruin, not to worry, the g-ment will save them. At the same time, extremely rapid advancement in healthcare and accompanying legislature made third party payment commonplace and laws would require mass amounts of money to be spent to prolong life for very short periods of time. This took normal medical care away from the poor who couldn't afford the premiums of this third-party. Now to compensate for that democrats are going to create a g-ment supervised health care system? The difference between the two parties now is that DEMs want to tax and spend, while repubs want to borrow and spend. It's hard to say which is worse, but the fact still remains that it is g-ment programs that got us into most of this mess in the first place. The government's only job really is the protection of property rights, both from foreign assault and domestic assault. Oddly, spending on national defense is the biggest gripe of the democrats. Taxing me to death to pay for social programs, or simply to give some of my wealth to the poor doesn't seem wrong at all to the DEMs. Nevermind the fact that I work hard for everything I have and already give more than 10% to charity every year. I guess to get to the point; entitlement mentality got us into this mess, and the currently expanding entitlement mentality is going to compound the mess until either the system collapses, or the people simply revolt against oppressive taxes. Either way, the true republican party returns after the mess. Which do you prefer?
Exactly. CNN changed the numbers on the quoted website, so Romney actually has more delegates than the rest altogether!!! Romney 52 Hackabee 22 McCain 15 Thompson 6 Paul 2 Giuliani 1 Hunter 1 That is not a 4 ways tie, although the media would like us to believe it. It is similar on the other side, Clinton has almost TWICE as many delegates as Obama, that is not exactly a tie, but a very decent lead. So unless something big happens, like Bloomberg entering or 2 smaller guys making a deal, I don't see how my 2 predicted winners would lose the first place....
Looks like Romney is picking up more than half of the Nevadan delegates, around 20 and the rest is divided among the rest. SC will be probably equally divided among 2-3 candidates, thus nobody is going to get a huge advantage, and we could say Giuliani's plan on concentrating only on 1 state has backfired..... On the other side Hillary increased her advantage, winning 53-43% compared to Obama...
Because there are too many variations, and also I want to see whom you bet on. See, if it is a poll, everyone can claim they predicted the winner. Now you have to make a stand and claim who you think is going to finish as the party's candidate and who is going to win. So? Latest won delegates numbers after SC: Romney: 72 McCain: 38 Huckabee: 29 Thompson: 8 Paul: 6 Giuliani: 2 On the other side: Hillary: 210 Obama: 123 Edwards: 52 Giuliani's plan is to take whole FL with its winner-takes-all system and 57 delegates. NY and NJ have the same system, so this is a big bet on Rudy's behalf and as the others catching up in FL according to the latest polls, it might backfire....