Place Your Midterm Election Bets.

Well at least Kim is still with Obama !

I actually have never said anything to the tune of "Support" for clinton. The only thing ive really said towards her is that her candidacy has been a conservative conspiracy theory so far. Has she still not announced her candidacy yet? Or did i miss that?

Im not really a leftist either, im somewhat center left.

But let me tell you, in the end if it becomes Hillary Clinton or "Bobby" Jindal, *** Jindal.

But Jindal running is as much of a conspiracy theory as Hillary. Though with the idiots painting the BP Oil spill as "Obama didnt let me do stuff" (Granted,The state governor doesnt NEED federal permission to deploy environmental counter measures. Specially when that governor likes to give the illusion of "I do what i want, *** Obama") Jindal may have a leg to stand on because people are *** idiots. That, and Jindal personally sabotaging our medical and educational budget so that it seems "Obamacare" and Common Core destroyed both sectors( When, by the way, we have NEITHER OF THEM).

What other candidates would YOU have that are so perfect? Ron Paul? Rick Perry (Again)? Some backwoods no name nobodies heard about that cant get his platform straight? Yea.

And even when your star child endorsed candidates cant even make it to a runoff in a red state, how do you think you'll fair with presidential endorsed candidates? If you cant put one and one together, im talking about Sarah Palin endorsing Maness here. Loses to Cassidy, who spent MILLIONS on just attack ads against both his opposing candidates.

I'm tired of the 2016 election coverage already...only two more years to go !

Yeah, 2016 has me a tad worried. Presidential candidates have been so bad in the past couple decades that at this rate I'd be happy to vote for a competent candidate regardless of party. Unfortunately, with Hillary being the Democrat frontrunner and a big question mark looming over the Republican side, I'm afraid it'll turn into another round of voting for the lesser of two evils.

shouldn't it be that way anyway?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/here-s-what-a-republican-takeover-looks-likes-20141105

Sickening how red Michigan is, yet the Detroit area still decides who our senator will be. Even more sickening that other states are exactly the same way (although I'm not as fluent politically in them). It all comes back to low information voters of the big city's who only care about handouts and other gayness. Democrat's are a plague upon the United states.

Well, yeah. But in theory having a competent candidate from both parties should be the norm and not the exception. I shouldn't have to vote for someone who doesn't share my political views just because I think they'll screw up the country less in the long run.

i don't think it can be the norm actually. If we had a competent population then we would stop supporting dems and reps politicians and put ppl in office that might actually give a damn about the country. - If politicians were competent in there ability to help the country then they wouldnt be politicians by today's terms.

But i get what your saying'

A lot of state maps are like that and yet the democrat wins.

Virginia was a perfect example.

Highly populated and coastal areas wind up being blue.

If you can't figure out why major cities are blue and why the outermost suburban districts and country regions are red then god help you.

That setup works to both parties' advantage depending on the situation. For example, Republicans get 14 Senate seats for the price of 2 when you compare Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, and South Dakota vs. Oregon. If you ignored gerrymandering, large areas of low population could lean one way, while multiples of their population in a concentrated area like Detroit lean the other. It's deceptive to use a map showing one city being liberal with the entire nearly uninhabited rest of the state being conservative as some kind of injustice, MOST of the people live in the city.

That's easy to figure out. Cities are full of people who demand to live a life of services that they don't pay for. So they all get together and vote to tax the rest of the state's people so they pay for them.

The people in the rural areas are independent and do without but pay for it for the people in the cities. Case in point is public transportation. riding that subway in Boston costs way more than the 3 bucks (or whatever) an individual ride costs. It is subsidized by people who rarely ever get to use it.

Now most people take issue with charity, especially when they're perfectly capable paying their own way. Not liberals though, their over inflated sense of entitlement makes them immune from any guilt whatsoever in asking for the handout. It's pretty much a mental illness.

If you care... search Hilary Clinton in these forums and you may notice nobody cared about her HERE at least not OUT LOUD before your underwhelming claim that two people cared, one of them (you) in 2008... FIVE YEARS BEFORE YOU STARTED POSTING HERE.

So the vote tally so far for hillary is

You - from six years ago
Foneyware - possibly stemming from Stockholm syndrome... and
Bacon- Implicated as her supporter second hand with no citation

I'm a hipster Democrat I voted for Hillary before she ran for office !

I voted for her when she was president of the young republicans at Wellesley.

It could be that it's harder to convince yourself that welfare recipients are eating lobster and that minorities don't have different experiences when hundreds of them live nearby and you see them daily. Try doing a little introspection, you're pathetic.

Case settled, everyone loves Hillary.

except all the voters of the candidates she campaigned for.

Ummm yea that is what I said..... Thanks for showing your intelligence.

Someone let Vic play with the crayons again.

No, you said people in the city are dumb and take handouts, if there weren't more people in the city than the country, what you describe would be mathematically impossible. You know math, the thing with numbers and sometimes letters...

Look Zerowone in his natural environment.

Exactly what do you think I am describing?

People who don't vote most every opportunity are low information voters. They only pay attention every 4 years, when there's enough money in the election cycle to grab their attention. I mean how much can you really know when you can only be bothered to pay attention for a few weeks every 4 years?

You can know enough to vote democrat, that's how much.

Infrequent voters tend to vote on social policies like women's rights, democrats fit their views at least in rhetoric. Being informed doesn't make you vote Republican. Are you that full of yourself?

No, no. Being full of yourself makes you vote Democrat. Pay attention.

Being informed apparently makes you hate Obama's guts.

Mental illness is trying to validate your Boston public transportation argument. Boston is 2/3rds the total population of Massachusetts. Greater Boston's population actually exceeds the state population. So its an interesting argument that 1/3 is paying more than the 2/3s since there are higher taxes in the city.

And there it is. You are 100% right about the infrequent voters. What you fail to understand is they vote in droves for the democrats that promise them the world but Never keep those promise's. Case in point.



The really sad part is, it works every damn time!

You said they vote for the party that's gives them welfare. Don't mince words, you know what you meant.

I've said clearly many times that party is irrelevant. Neither party is fiscally responsible, neither actually does anything for their base. The only things that they do are get re-elected and cater to their campaign supporters. I'm for removing political party from ballots. If you want to talk about being informed, I'd like to see how many people vote for the "wrong" guy when they don't have a cheat-sheet of what partisan line to roll down.