That's the hopeful view I expressed a while ago.

It's up to the Republicans to find a way to get a grip though.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/pag...l-3-2016/2008/

High error margin on this poll, but it's a very important one. Maryland:

Trump 41
Kasich 31
Cruz 22

Maryland is a very big deal because Nate Cohn's demographics-based model, which is very bearish on Trump the rest of the way and has him finishing at 1118, has him losing PA, IN and MD by < 3 points each. If Cruz is down 10 in PA and 20 in MD right now, a)I'm right about Trump virtually locking up 1200 and b)he's on pace to lose IN which puts Trump on pace for almost exactly 1237.

Nate's model also has Trump winning CA by 1 point but also has him winning almost exactly 120 delegates out of the state anyway. I've got Trump getting 120 while winning CA by 8. One of us is right.

Haven't posted here in a week but thought this merited mentioning/laughing at:

https://politicalwire.com/2016/04/07...endorses-cruz/

#GOP2016: By Process of Elimination, This Guy I Guess?

Re same party, if you are gonna go all politifact and talk technically only, then yes literally they are different parties.

But often the campaign contributions towards both sides come from the same sources. This isn't a conspiracy we're only talking about public info from govt. These contributions to the parties or campaigns represent outside interests, therefore the parties have common interests. A much bigger intersection than most think. Social wedge issues are the bait.

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using 2+2 Forums

What a waste of coffee...

If Hillary had been president in 2002/3 there would never have been reworked CIA reports that would have "led" to the conclusion that Iraq was building WMD's.

Hillary never had a hard on for Iraq wars. Thats strictly neo-con and Bushes territory.

She voted to authorize, yes, which was a complete mistake/disaster/attempt to position herself politically for 2008. But part of that vote was the inability to vet the leadup evidence as a Senator. Given that the Arms Inspector in Iraq pleaded with the US to give him 3-6 more months to debunk the WMD theory and the fact that Iraq was completely neutered, there was no real reason to initiate that 2nd Iraq war. Unless you wanted to do it to begin with regardless of WMD evidence.

In my lifetime there has never been a bigger difference between the parties and what they stand for. And I am 60 years old.

There was a time when there were overwhelming majorities of both parties that signed on to the voting rights act to enable the most basic of constitutional rights to be carried out. In opposition to a scattered resistance on the state level throughout the country. Now, the House could very well block any attempts to re-authorize it because it might mean losing power. Jim Sensibrenner a Wisconsin Republican House member wrote a moving piece in the NY Times OP-Ed in which he said he'd rather be out of a job rather than restrict voter's rights. But he is probably in a vast minority of republican legislators.

With Republican denial of basic science in order to promote idealogical positions, it is laughable to equate Hillary or any democrat to any of the republican Presidential aspirants. Yes many of them know and actually believe in the science. But they are so beholden to their special interest money and power that they won't talk straight on the subject or lead.

Similarly for tax cuts and no tax increase pledges. The republican party is willing to tie one hand behind its back with regards to revenues and balancing budgets in order to maintain huge tax breaks for the wealthiest americans. This is clearly in opposition to their rank and file members, a majority of whom want to tax the rich more not less.

I am personally not a big fan of Hillary Clinton (just like I was not a fan of Bill Clinton when he ran in the 1992 primary). But I will enthusiastically support her because the opposition in November will be delusional, whoever they are.

Yep. It was all over the place. "Mitt Romney lost because he's not conservative enough." For some reason Romney's lack of conservative cred inexplicably led the majority to vote for the even-less-conservative guy

As someone that watches TYT daily, they certainly don't say HRC=GWB.

That's something an anarchist or a communist would say. It would take someone at the very end of the spectrum to say that those 2 are equal.

Perfect.

you realize that all their vidoes cite other sources yeah? so you want me to go watch the video again, then find links to all articles and then articulate 5-20 minutes of commentary on each issue? and this is all because of your prejudice against Youtube?

like, if Cenk was still on MSNBC then it would be all good because that is the MSM but if he is on Youtube then it is crackpot/Info Wars territory? It is only real news if it is being produced by a billion dollar corporation?

A recent TYT video on a Washington Post article that calls Bernie a liar for saying that Clinton is taking millions from oil and gas because the money is going to a Clinton Super Pac and that has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. I know that a big part of this politics forum is regurgitating **** and pretending like you thought it up but why is that better then me just telling you to watch Cenk talk for 20 minutes about it? Because Comcast doesn't sign his paycheck anymore?

Well, Bernie is certainly different from Hillary, but that doesn't make her Dubya.

Obviously it was hyperbole but the guy was claiming that the racist GOP was "dying"... and not going to exist anymore like we are entering a golden era of progressiveness when we are getting a Democrat candidate who is:

1. for tax cuts on the rich
2. whose husband paved the way for wall street deregulation
3. whose husband paved the way for mass incarceration of black men
4. who supports keystone pipeline
5. who takes millions from oil and gas industry
(which makes the "I AM SERIOUZ ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING" stuff iffy)
6. Was against gay marriage until 2013
7. voted for the war in iraq
8. takes tens of millions from wall street
9. wanted to be more hawkish in the middle east under Obama
10. she was for the TPP
11. she is for death penalty
12. is the top donor for arms dealers.
13. clinton foundation has received tens of millions from dictatorships like saudi arabia who she helped sell weapons to as secretary of state.

etc

I think it's right to look at big contributors to see where Hillary and the GOP overlap. There is a lot of overlap, especially from wall street, but there are differences.

Thankfully, Hillary isn't well supported by the fossil fuel industry. There are those max donations from lobbyists, but that only means so much. They *could* just be Democrats and it's not *that* much money. Ted Cruz has gotten like $25M directly from FF industry into PACs.

This

Hillary will at least acknowledge global warming is real.

She has gotten $4.5m from lobbyists.

But look at this CNN interview, Bernie you took $50,000 from oil and gas workers in $20 increments, how is that any different than Hillary's $4.5m from lobbyists? Aren't you a lying Jew socialist and why haven't you dropped out yet?

"Finally some reliable honest trustworthy media commentary" --Vixticator.

A Galston piece in yesterday's WSJ Editorials pointed out that President Obama's approval rating rising from 43% to 49% since December is bad news for Republican chances this Fall. He attributes the approval rise mostly to the improving job market. I think it might also have something to do with how he looks in comparison to the candidates running for President, especially Trump and Cruz.

I feel such a relief listening to Obama saying things that basically make sense after so much blather from Trump and Cruz. I dread the thought of four years of Trump's spastic ejaculations or Cruz's condescending droning sermons.

I suspect Obama's approval rating has also been helped by the right wing propaganda organs of Fox News, WSJ Editorials, and talk radio being distracted from the incessant booming drumbeat of Obama bashing they've been blaring the past seven years, turning their attention more recently to the Trump Reality Show.

PairTheBoard

My Mom (moderate Republican old) has said she wishes Obama could run again. She doesn't like everything he's done in office, but considers him preferable to basically everyone still running in either party except maybe Kasich.


Her opinion of Obama has definitely improved over the last year as she's seen more of Cruz and TRUMP.

Bernie explained it well. I think qualitatively there are three different levels of corruption here.

1. Bernie - Not corrupt

2. Hillary - lobbyists hope and expect to get a hearing and they expect that having made that $2700 donation will effect who they get to talk to in the administration.

3. Ted Cruz - the FF industry knows they will get what they want and pumps money in hoping it'll help him win.

Possibly that's overly fair to Hillary though. Things like "clean coal" and cap and trade rules are very easy for the FF industry to game and for Democrats to sell as being pro-environment policy. The FF industry may well expect policy favors from all the establishment candidates.

I've spent a decent amount of time with my Mom and extended family recently. I get the vibe that they feel the same, although not enough to admit it. They definitely hate Trump (except for maybe one aunt).

My die-hard liberal Dad on the other hand, is 100% convinced the apocalypse is nigh.

My parents support Trump pretty hardcore. It's caused a few heated discussions since I can't help but constantly poke at them for it.

Nice clip. The hurting middle class has a message to politicians and its not pretty. Kudos to her.

If Young Turks are saying Hilary supports the same policies as W they are crackpots.

This is just false. Oil interests giving like 80% to GOP and 20% to dems does not mean "lol, parties are the same." Also, in truth corporate donations are a small part of the process. Much more important is the funding of outside groups like heritage action, ALEC, interest groups (many of which on the GOP are astroturf), etc. The Koch brothers organization, I believe has 5x more staffers (about 1k) than the Republican National committee. This is where the magic happens--they add money to committed activists and the activists, from weekly Washington meetings to white papers, to talk radio, steer the conversation, agenda, and battles in low turnout elections. This is where the GOP runs over the dems. The problem is that while they have many committed supporters, they are not supported by the majority and their "wins" inevitably produce backlashes by the majority, making things like a Bernie Sandars a realistic possibility. As in so many things, they focus on winning the battles, and doing so steadily loses the war.

It funny seeing people, here and everywhere else, try to make sense of the world when they have limited information and no desire to acquire more. I mean they are not wrong about everything, just most of the important stuff, and their lack of knowledge feeds conspiracy theories rather than realistic proposals for reform.

Trump in February:

Anyway, Trump was just endorsed by Rudy "9/11" Giuliani.

feels like you're going to going to be the last one aboard the Titanic -- assuring the people boarding the lifeboats that they're overreacting