Quote (Pollster @ 10 Jan 2017 18:14)
I really would hope it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that a Republican incumbent president is the greatest possible gift that I can be given professionally, especially when that person is Donald Trump. This is not 3-dimensional chess.
What's the joke? They won't close the thread unless I randomly go on some spree where I flame you into oblivion (probably on the basis that you have an embarrassingly-low level of comprehension for the subject matter you comment on here every day), unless I have some kind of personal feud with one of them individually, or unless someone posts a banned image or link.
There's never going to be a time when discussion of the 2016 GE is taboo here. Whenever there's an update of the 2016 campaign that (should) inform analysis of that campaign, rather than driving another thread about a different subject off-topic I'm probably going to update this one. If you don't like it, you know where to go cry.
yeah have fun playing all-out defense in 2018. what now all of sudden you the 2000 ravens?
speaking of 3-d chess look at this foresight:
Quote (Pollster @ 18 Jul 2015 12:23)
Clinton would win in an electoral landslide. I know people like to have fun discussing fringe candidates but anyone who would attempt to argue otherwise is clearly clueless regarding national and state politics. Clinton would receive at least 347 EVs, and could theoretically push into the 370s-380s if she was fortunate enough to have 6-8 months of campaigning against Trump as the Republican standard-bearer.
The amusing thing is that Trump's electoral viability is little different than most of the other Republicans running. Bush, Walker, Rubio, and Kasich are all capable of forcing a tight election and even winning in certain environments but most of the other primary candidates would fare as poorly as Trump would.
obligatory: thanks for the fucking laugh