Oh please go on; if it's anything like the first part I'm sure it'll be hysterical.



Bold: I guess that would depend on how you measure success. She wasn't born into the money he was and they took much different career paths. There's no comparison when it comes to their records in government though: she was successful and he was dreadful. Hurricane Katrina's the only thing that kept Mitt's record in Massachusetts from getting the kind of scrutiny it should have.

RE the Republicans: what could bump Cruz's floor above Trump's is the fact that he's remarkably polished. Trump could lose the election in one day in a way I don't think Cruz is capable of. Cruz has also spent a lot of time/money getting his team to replicate the 2008 Obama model so he could build a ground game that could compete, while Trump spent 6 months pissing into the wind. They're pretty much equally viable though: if they don't run in an insanely-favorable environment then they're getting shit on.



Sorry, but you being too disconnected from reality or uninformed to understand the subject matter doesn't really have any bearing on the content of my post(s). In this particular case, I was hoping to hear more about how New Mexico is a battleground state.

I address you because I can get you to say dumb things. It's only a matter of time before I get another howler in the "South Carolina doesn't matter for the Democrats, cuz conservative!!!!11one" mold. That's why I address you: you're a reliable source of ignorance-themed entertainment.

Ah, so my inclusion of a historically battleground state in my assessment negates the otherwise searing truth of my statement? Go fuck yourself, blowhard.

I know this is probably poor trolling, but he agreed with you that Trump has no chance just not that New Mexico is battleground.

The entire tone of his post was as adversarial as possible. He can go suck a dick.

Wah I don't like his tone. Need to retreat to your safe space?

It's not about not liking his tone, he used the tone to pass off his entire post as refuting what I wrote, when he did nothing of the sort. If I were retreating, I wouldn't be posting now, would I?

Whoosh

Whatever.

Well for starters, it's not historically a battleground state. It was only briefly competitive, essentially for two elections, and it hasn't been since because it shifted so rapidly from a Republican stronghold in the 70s and 80s to a solidly Democratic state today. It wasn't seriously contested in either 2008 or 2012 and it had already started its trend by being more-Democratic in 2004 than the nation as a whole. It simply shifted too much, too quickly for the Republicans to compete in it anymore. They know population growth and demographic change have pushed it completely away from them.

It won't be a battleground state this year either, no matter who the Republicans nominate. It's simple math: the raw votes haven't been there for over a decade. It'd take the type of anomaly mentioned earlier to push the state back towards competitiveness. You can't have a battleground state if the two parties aren't in it battling.



It isn't poor trolling -- he's just a moron.

Solid Democrat for 2 cycles vs less-than-10% margin of victories for many previous cycles, but not historically a battleground state. Like I said: go fuck yourself, blowhard.