GOP -- empty rhetoric. Still the party of the super-rich.

The article to which I am providing a link states the case very well. Many Republicans talk as though they want to expand the party's base, and do more for common folks. However, their rhetoric is nothing but empty promises. And these Republicans are those who are relatively moderate! As this article articulates, their policies STILL favor the super-rich. Here's the link:

Those Republicans who are more conservative find these "moderate" proposals to be a form of surrender or even treason. To these "true believers" the road to electoral victory lies by shifting the focus from important economic policy positions to emotional issues, such as: religion, guns, immigration, and gay rights. At least these more conservative Republicans don't conjure up convoluted, confusing policies which feign to help common folks while really allowing the rich to get richer at the expense of common working folks and the overall American economy.

No votes yet

GOP tax proposals promote individual freedom, growth of wealth for all earners not just the top, and are a key factor in upward mobility.

However, the Dems top candidate is wealthy. Most of the money she got she didn't earn, instead comes from her husband's politics. Also they take foreign money, odd for a party that bitches about outside influence on campaigns.


Warren Buffet is one of the wealthiest people IN THE WORLD, but supports mostly Democratic candidates, and Democratic positions on important, economic issues.

GOP "solutions" are all more trickle-down economics which failed miserably under W. We don't need more of the same. That would just lead to another economic collapse, like the one in 2008-2009!

In other words, Mikey, you favor economic policies to help the super-rich the most and throw a fews crumbs to common folks. Typical GOP "solution."

I don't view economic freedom as "a few crumbs".

I view it as a way to escape poverty and the facts support me. You think the economy is thriving yet we stagnate between 1% loss and 2% growth. The affect of which is masses leaving the workplace and falling wages. Because of that the gap between the rich and the poor has gotten bigger at a faster rate unheard of post WWII.


America's Oligarch Problem: How the Super-Rich Threaten US Democracy
Fatal Developments

"Two fatal developments are converging during this election in the United States. The decoupling of the super-rich from the rest of society is an accelerating trend in recent years. And also the consequences of a series of rulings by the Supreme Court in 2010 that enable politicians and support groups to accept unlimited donations. This confluence of events is undermining the development of the world's proudest democracy.
The distribution of wealth in the United States is getting absurd, with the popular image of a widening gap between the rich and the poor already outmoded. The emerging chasm is so enormous it can be described as being no less than a gulf. The debate in Germany over the growing divide between the highest echelons of society and the lowest pales by comparison.
The idea that free markets will ultimately create the best possible living conditions is, of course, a wonderful one. But the reality in American looks like this: The yearly income of a typical middle-class family has fallen by almost $5,000 since 1999. If you factor in inflation, male workers last year earned on average $783 less than they did 42 years ago. For the country's richest, on the other hand, things are going swimmingly. The highest 0.1 percent possesses almost as much wealth as the lowest 90 percent taken together. The family of Sam Walton, founder of supermarket chain Walmart, has amassed over $149 billion in wealth. The family possesses as much as all of the lowest 42 percent of the country combined."

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Your use of statistics will be ignored by the "true believers," however. Extremists NEVER allow facts to get in the way of their ideology!

I do read and watch foreign media. I watch Canadian TVO 32 for a perspective that our country use to be forty years ago. I read Der Spiegel and watch, Oh my God! Al Jazeera America! I find today's American radio and television more for entertainment and ratings than being factual and informative.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

both Canadian news and BBC America. It's valuable to get a perspective that is from another nation's point of view.

Whatever source you site, facts are facts.

If only the facts supported his conclusions.


The problem with your link is the facts don't support it's conclusions.

It blames Supreme Court rulings on the gap and for increased money in political campaigns yet how did President Obama get reelected? If money meant as much as it did and if the GOP is so supportive of big money then logic would tell us they'd be the primary inheritor of that money and thus would own the Presidency. They do not.

If the GOP is the party bought by Wall St. then explain why the Obama Justice Dept has refused to indict anyone from Goldman Sachs for their hand in the 2008 collapse?

Why has the rich/poor gap increased the most under a Dem President and only slowed after the GOP gained control of Congress?

Why was Black-owned businesses at an All-time high under GOP policies? How are they doing under Dem policies?

So if you're are to put the blame solely on GOP policies then it should be easy to explain these questions.


Recession." The W policies, which hatched fully in 2008 and 2009, caused the economic collapse of The Great Recession," which hit hardest at small entrepreneurs and the working class of all racial backgrounds. Since so many minorities had started to benefit from the Clinton policies of the 1990s while W was POTUS, they were naturally hit hard when the inevitable economic collapse hit. DUH!

Timing is everything. For example, Ohio Governor Sick came into office because the Great Recession had hit Ohio so hard, and Governor Strickland got blamed for a situation that was mostly out of his control. Now, Governor Sick is running for POTUS under the guise that somehow his policies, not the economic improvements nationally, are responsible for Ohio doing better economically under his administration. Timing is everything.

Ha ha too funny.

You think it takes 8 years for a Presidents policies to have an affect. LOL that's a good one!


W was sworn in in January of 2001. He had a cooperative congress, which passed economic legislation which changed the course of the federal budget from one of surpluses to one of deficits. After 8 years of Bill Clinton's presidency, the federal government had been on its way to PAYING OFF THE ENTIRE FEDERAL DEBT within a generation! W's policies wrecked that!!
Then, 9/11 happened. W used this as an excuse to start not one, but TWO wars, starting in 2002 and 2003, simultaneously! W erroneously believed that the war in Iraq would be short and easy. W even gave his speech in front of the infamous, super-large banner ironically proclaiming "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED." He then erroneously believed that the U.S. could use revenues form Iraqi oil production to PAY BACK the entire cost of the war in Iraq, with our oil companies benefiting simultaneously. WHAT A CROCK!
And, to top it off, the removal of Sadam Hussein from power was done only to satisfy W's own ego. W was quoted as saying, "I'm gonna git the man who wanted to kill my daddy!"
Not only were no WMDs found in Iraq, after exhaustive searches by American forces; not only was there NOTHING connecting Sadam to 9/11; in fact, Osama Bin Laden and Sadam HATED each other! It was a senseless war which cost us thousands of young American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. We now know that we will never see a repayment of the money we spent in Iraq. And what can we say to the family and friends of those whose lives were lost there?
Add to this, the power vacuum created when Sadam was killed, which W's father warned in his book would create chaos in Iraq for an incalculable number of years! W stated that he never read his father's book and that he never consulted with his father about decisions dealing with Iraq. W was so consumed with being "his own man," that he failed to get advice from one of the most accomplished Americans in history, a former POTUS , who is his own father! Yes. W is directly responsible for the circumstances which created the perfect situation for the development of a group like ISIS!

So, about 4 years after all of W's poorly conceived decisions, the economy tanked. And it took about 3-4 years for Obama's policies to start to turn the economy around. Obama did this well enough to be re-elected in 2012. And, despite all of the GOP predictions of economic doom under Obama, the economy continues to improve.

In short, actions of a POTUS can have effects years after the actions are taken. But, the full economic effects of W's trickle-down economic policies, and the fighting of two wars, one of which was more costly in lives and money and totally unnecessary, were felt closer to 4 years than to 8! Other effects are still being felt! History will be the ultimate judge, but, IMHO, W will go down as one of the very worst presidents ever.

The problem with your conclusion is the federal debt didn't cause the collapse. And if you're concerned about the federal debt then you should be even more mad at the current President who has increased the debt even more.

The economy has not turned around. We are still stagnated. Like I said previously growth has remained between -1% and 2%, that is not the hallmark of a growing economy but a stagnated one.

The wars did not affect the economy. The best you have there is they increased the debt but entitlements (primarily Obamacare) take up more of the debt than the wars ever did. The only reason the debt increased slowed was because of sequestration, which the Dems proposed and then were angry when the GOP forced it. National Defense spending comes in at number 3 behind Obamacare and Social Security.

The most you can point to for the debt was the Bush tax cuts but those are expired and no one blames them for the '08 economy crash.

So either point to a policy or stop your false argument.


Fact! W's tax policies moved us from surpluses to deficits while giving the largest tax savings to the richest Americans.
Fact! W started two wars, one of which was totally unjustified, and, in fact, his father warned us about the consequences of starting that war.

Mikey, you can't even analyze properly your own information. From the link you post: "Other available reports also indicate that the national debt as a percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) was down only during the Clinton era (56.5% of GDP)." Thank you for proving my point!
Finally, you obviously lump Obamacare WITH Medicare AND Medicaid in your self-proclaimed "analysis." Here is a link to the real figures on the causes of the deficit:

And wasting precious resources on fighting wars in faraway lands while simultaneously cutting taxes the most for the wealthiest in our society -- indeed -- did have a deleterious effect upon our economy. Most economists call it, "The Great Recession!"
And, if you don't think that Obama has led us back from the worst economic situation since The Great Depression, look at the numbers sometime. We are not booming, but we are so much better now than we were 6 years ago! And this all happened despite the GOP predictions of another economic collapse.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Again I need to repeat myself. The Federal debt did not cause the collapse" So again I will ask to please point to GWB's policy that caused the collapse.

" Here is a link to the real figures on the causes of the deficit:" We were talking about the debt, not the deficit. They are two separate things. So your link doesn't prove my link wrong. I was completely right about what is causing the increased federal debt being Obama policies. And I will again reference my question in the first paragraph. Federal debt did not and has not caused the economic collapse.

The wars did not cause the collapse either. Bringing them up is irrelevant. If they did then please justify our foray into Libya? Every problem in Iraq is equally true in Libya, only difference is the Administration called Iraq a great achievement. And they've said they're winning against ISIS (guess what they're not).

NO ONE believes the wars or the debt caused the 2008 crisis. What caused the crisis was inflating the prices of assets because money was being lent to companies and individuals who could not meet the terms of the lending and lending was being done that was predatory. Likewise mortgage companies were counting the potential revenue from those loans as assets rather than counting the actual capital that had been made and thus they looked like the loans were worth more then they actually were.


passes legislation which supports giant corporations. Case closed!

The main point of this thread is that the GOP does EVERYTHING to help the richest in our society, and throws crumbs to the working classes. Then the GOP uses emotional issues to get the votes of working class voters.

Sorry, Mikey. Nothing you have posted proves otherwise.

What legislation? Please show me what legislation the GOP has passed since 2008 that has supported Giant Corporations? The best you have is the legislation passed immediately after the collapse but that was passed by a Dem controlled congress!

Still waiting for you to show me how the federal debt caused the crisis. Waiting... waiting....


the federal income taxes, which widened the deficit by cutting taxes the most for the super-rich, who are the least likely people to spend the extra money helping the U.S. economy. In addition, there was a law passed which gave international corporations U.S. federal tax incentives to close their production facilities in America and open them in foreign countries!

The deficit, in and of itself, was not a major cause of the economic collapse, but it was a contributing factor. Too much of the overage in spending over revenues was targeted to overseas operations and to the super-rich who invested heavily in overseas businesses. All of this was encouraged by W's administration. As I have repeatedly stated, the GOP governs primarily to help the super-rich. They throw crumbs to common folks, and appeal for their votes using emotional issues.

Remember, the war in Iraq was meant to be short and easy. Cheney the Coward spoke in terms of the small number of deaths from the FIRST Iraq war, and most in W's administration falsely assumed that the death toll in the second Iraq war would be about the same. In addition, W's administration thought that Iraqi oil would pay back the hundreds of billions of dollars we spent there. SURE!

BTW, Mikey -- Where is that economic collapse that virtually every Republican was predicting would happen if Obama were to be re-elected? Even with the "do-nothing" GOP Congress, the economy keeps improving. Hmmm...

support what you believe.

Here are some statistics for you. Keep in mind, the Democrats only had a majority in both the House and the Senate during the first two years of the Obama Administration.

Here are unemployment statistics. And before you use that vacuous "real unemployment" argument, remember that these statistics are gathered and reported the same way every month of every year. If current unemployment figures understate the "real" unemployment, the same is true EVERY month of the report.
As is clearly shown, the unemployment rate peaked in October of 2009, only 9 months after Obama took office, and when the Democrats had control of Congress. Since then, there has been a steady decline in the unemployment rate. The latest rate is 5.1% as of August of 2015! Once again, this is measuring unemployment the SAME WAY EVERY MONTH through the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
You may note that the unemployment rate was still near 8% in the Fall of 2012, when Obama was running for re-election. The voters gave him another term, even though EVERY REPUBLICAN was predicting that Obama's re-election would bring us economic ruin, and that unemployment would worsen if Obama received another term! Many stated that Obama's re-election would plunge us into another Great Recession! WRONG!!
As usual, the GOP was WRONG about the effects of Obama's policies, and WRONG about which party helps common folks the most economically. The scary thing is, what would have happened if Willard had won and re-instituted the W-type trickle-down economic policies which led us into The Great Recession?

First you say it takes 8 years for a President's policies to take affect, now you say it's an immediate affect? Which is it?

More people have left the workforce than they have since 1977. That is a fact. Because of that wages have lowered. That is a fact. These two are both a result of President Obama's policies. The economy is not growing at a pace fast enough for population growth or traditional inflation. That is a fact.

For all of your hot air you're spewing the fact is Obama's policies have helped the rich way more than GWB's. Want proof? The gap between rich and poor is at an all time high because of what I mentioned above.

If the economy were doing well you wouldn't have the Dem candidates discussing it as a concern as they are.


Mikeya, the article MrIndependent posted addresses your question as to how Obama got elected. Maybe you missed the part where it says:

“Ironically, supporters of the new rules are fond of pointing to Barack Obama's successful 2008 campaign. They argue the campaign showed that small donations can indeed make a candidate competitive and that it can work. But that was prior to the Citizens United ruling. In the end, Obama was also the beneficiary of the largesse of Wall Street's super-rich, and their calculating donations to the Democrats. In the wake of the banking crisis, Obama refused to subject Wall Street to tighter long-term regulations and also made key appointments in his administration to representatives of Goldman Sachs or Citigroup, the main culprits in the crisis.”

Saw that. Which is why I referenced his reelection only.


I see MikeyA's head is still like a big echo chamber.

I provide facts and links to what I claim. I do this because I can prove what I say. You don't and can't.


MikeyA would have been a perfect recruit for a low level clerk in National Socialist Party in 1936 Germany.

You provide SOME facts, and and whole lot of opinion based on distorted information about the people and situations you want to defame.

reach out to groups which typically support Democratic candidates. They are so insincere; they really don't know what to say or how to phrase it. In this statement, Kasich simply displays how uncomfortable he is addressing a constituency with which he has very little in common, and with whom he has very little contact. I'll let the article speak for itself:

In addition, Kasich speaks about how Latinos should vote Republican because they have such strong family ties. Has Kasich seen who leads the Republican field for the nomination for POTUS? The Donald is a person I label as being into "serial marriage." The Donald is not only on his third marriage, he has stated that his own daughter is so attractive he would date her, if she weren't his own daughter. That's Republican "family values" for you! Whose "family values?" The Borgias?

Leftists (i.e. emotional retards) would have you believe that guns and immigration are themselves "emotional issues". The majority of the nation knows differently. We're watching Europe get destroyed by a literal invasion of shitty tropical and sub-tropical peoples. A nation that doesn't defend its borders isn't a nation at all. It's time to build a strong southern border before shitty southern people conclude there's nothing to lose by streaming northward to receive generous benefits funded by beleaguered Whites.

And the guns thing is long discredited on the leftist side. Guns are a civil right. Period. If you don't support gun rights, you're anti-American since you've wiped your ass with our national constitution. It doesn't matter how many schools get shot up by lone gunmen... in fact, the real problem is that these schools are "gun free zones" which make them prime targets. We need to flush the demented Liberals out of those schools and specifically recognize that as public places, employees of the public schools can be armed at their choosing. With armed employees, anyone who barges into the school and starts some shit, will be gunned down in short order. There would never again be a school massacre. Ever.

Liberals are just a domestic enemy. They refuse to support the laws of the nation. Rounding them up and filling mass graves with their head-stomped bodies is pretty much the only rational means of "Liberal control" at this juncture. I'd skip the Zyklon-B phase of the purge since the thud of a baseball bat into a Liberal skull is exactly the medicine that's needed to fix the nation today.

the GOP has sucked in voters like you, and moved your focus away from issues which affect our economic future. I know that you claim to be a libertarian, but you have swallowed the GOP rhetoric hook, line, and sinker!
AND you, Chicken Little, articulate the xenophobia that has obsessed so many of the prospective GOP primary voters and caucus participants. Then you extend your hate-filled venom to good, patriotic Americans with whom you disagree politically.

Once again, the "EMPTY RHETORIC" to which I refer in the title of this thread is the phony "outreach" to minority voters by the GOP. It will never happen as long as large groups of American xenophobes force the GOP to retain, or even exacerbate, anti-immigrant policies. Meanwhile -- economically -- the GOP remains the party of the super-rich!

GZ let me summarize Dale's post for you below.

You're a poopy face. Nothing else of substance.


Yeah, I know. He got so threatened (i.e. his anus became inflamed) that he posted THREE times to my one posting.

Liberals are losing. They sense that quite strongly. They've lost a lot of middle America with their constantly screeching about racism and guns. Sadly this will pave the way to either one or the other of the following socio-economic disasters:

1. Socialist rule.

2. Fascist rule.

Ultimately both outcomes are sides of the same coin.

I'll let the reader's judge.

The readers will obviously conclude that anytime GZ and MikeyA post anything it is time for a Buffoon Alert.

emotional here! And angry! And bitter, too! WOW!!

this, but for someone like you, Chicken Little, this is a very different view of America. Jamie Dimon may be overly optimistic, but he does have both educational credentials and practical experience behind his opinions.
Here's the link to the article. Careful, Mr. Empty Glass, it way be too painful for you to read:

Here is a link to what Dr. Ben stated clearly just today!

Will this anti-Muslim statement hurt Dr. Ben in his pursuit of the GOP nomination? I doubt it! He is merely expressing the opinion so many of the active Republicans share with him. I am old enough to remember when my father went to a meeting of a group in 1960 where all there were told flat-out to not vote for John F. Kennedy because he was a Catholic! In 2012, I was told by one traditional Christian friend that he would never vote for Willard because he was a Mormon! Here's what the constitution says: " religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
While Dr. Ben stated that Islam is "antithetical" to the Constitution, without citing any specific examples, of course.

swear to uphold the constitution, Carson supporters believe that a Muslim POTUS would place Sharia Law ABOVE the constitution. Here's a link to an article in which Frank Gaffney, a former pentagon official in the Reagan Administration, and the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy states the belief that a Muslim POTUS would place Sharia Law above the constitution. Here's the link:
Once again, I heard the same type of ignorant, prejudicial arguments 55 years ago used against John F. Kennedy. People stated openly that electing JFK would "put the Pope in the Oval Office." Of course, that DID NOT happen!!
Then, it was anti-Catholic. Now, it's ant-Muslim. Bigoted people cloak their bigotry to obfuscate their true beliefs. Muslims are aware of which political party is filled with bigots, and which political party is open to all. And so are other minorities.

GOP=Empty rhetoric.
Outreach?? You're kidding, right?

leaders for NOT being "politically correct." Here's a link to a story about a young woman, born in India, who came to America as a 6 year old, and is not only a student at the University of Southern California, she was elected the Undergraduate Student Body President of that university! Here's a link to the article:

Really! How different is this from The Donald being applauded -- and rewarded in the polls -- for stating that Mexico is purposely sending to America their drug dealers and rapists? Too many people state how refreshing it is to have a leading political candidate NOT be "politically correct!" Dr. Ben's expressing his opinion that no Muslim should even be considered to be elected POTUS, is greeted by many as refreshingly articulating what they truly believe in their hearts.

Now, I have no idea if the young man who made the hateful comment to the USC Student Body President is a Republican or a Democrat. Statistically, most people his age don't even vote! Honestly, which current candidates would he and those who agree with him be more likely to favor? Candidates like The Donald, Dr. Ben, or Huckabee? Or candidates like Hillary, Bernie, or Joe?

It's morally and socio-economically correct to avoid importing poverty and anti-American ideologies (like Islam). To a degree, the rightwing is correct in denying entry to those sectors. A nation that doesn't secure its borders and which permits ideological undermining (largely permitting social degeneracy) is a nation that collapses.

Democrat whom Republicans have attracted -- Kim Davis!!

And Ms. Davis even uses the same language that was used by Southern Democrats over the past 50 years: "I've always been a Democrat, but the party left me." This sounds just like Strom Thurmond back in 1965! Among others, Republican POTUS candidates Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz fell over each other rushing to Kim Davis's side, when she was imprisoned for breaking the law and ignoring a specific judicial order!

And the Republican Party expects to get what per cent of the LGBT vote in 2016?
And the Republican Party expects to get what per cent of the Hispanic vote in 2016?
And the Republican Party expects to get what per cent of the Muslim vote in 2016?
And the Republican Party expects to get what per cent of other minority votes in 2016?
Some "outreach!"

Question: If the Republican Party is so lacking in representation in the US public, then why has it captured a supermajority of the House of Representatives, a majority of the Senate, and a supermajority (2/3rds) of the state legislatures and state governorships?

Since you can't answer that one honestly, we'll move on to say that Liberals via the Democratic Party well demonstrated that they're unable to govern. They rammed the Affordable Care Act down the American collective throat. They failed to prosecute even ONE of the vicious bankers who collapsed the US economy in 2008 when THREE major domestic industries crashed and burned (banking, housing, automotive). Their flagship politician, Barack Obama, turned out to be an even emptier suit than Bush, and the stern of the flagship, Hillary Clinton, is basically just a criminal in a pant suit. America has looked back to the Republicans for leadership, which after the Bush Years, says volumes about the failure of Liberalism.

No, not volumes, more like hypercubes. Three dimensions aren't enough to hold the data record of the failure of Liberalism.

irrational. But, for others who read here...
The Republican formula is not complicated at all. They obscure the real economic issues behind a cloud of "emotional" issues. They take advantage of lower voter turnouts in off-year elections which gives greater influence to money spent. In addition, they use gerrymandering to get an unfair representation in Congress compared to their actual votes totals. Then they top this off by passing unnecessary voter ID laws and limit voting days and hours of voting to exacerbate the lower voter turnouts which favor their candidates.
As examples of how skewed the voting is, although Republicans did win a clear majority of the votes for Congress in 2014 at 52%, they obtained about 57% of the seats in the House. It was even worse in 2012. Republican candidates received only 47.6% of the votes for Congress, and their Democratic opponents received 48.8%, a narrow, but clear plurality of the votes. Yet, Republicans obtained 53.8% of the seats in the U.S. House!

It's all really quite clever. I have never stated that Republican operatives were stupid. They are, indeed, very bright!

Bright Nazis.

genius." Intelligence is no guarantee that such a gifted individual will be a humanitarian.


GZ, Dale thinks you could be a genius!


evaluate GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass above was "irrational." His statements on this thread reinforce this evaluation of him.

I find it funny that you take umbrage with my interpretation of your post but you conveniently ignored ZC's description of GZ as a Nazi.

I would expect a man of the Jewish faith would be more offended at the comparison of someone having a valid political opinion in a public debate to a socialist ideology who was was to exterminate your religion since it diminishes the costs the Jewish faith has paid for those who used these same tactics to silence dissent.


totalitarianism, not genocide. I do find it fascinating that so many who are self-described conservatives, and even some who claim to be libertarians, so often rail against big government, but want big government to intervene over personal medical decisions between people, especially females, and their doctors; and also between two consenting adults and the definition of their relationship.

BTW -- I do resent those who make statements as though The Holocaust either never happened or was grossly overstated. ZC did neither of those things. So far, I have seen two different family trees showing some of my family members where every single family member, men, women, and children, who did not emigrate from Central or Eastern Europe before the Holocaust, died in a death camp. The Holocaust was very real, and was very wide-spread!

There was no reference to totalitarianism. So you're deflecting criticism of you with an ends justify the means argument that is just not there.

ZC was trying to diminsh GZs comment with giving valid criticism by grossly understating the political objectives of the Nazi's. In no way is GZs criticism of the Democratic Party any where on par with what the Nazi's did. Apparently you agree since you take issue with my comments but reply to him favorably.


leapt to that conclusion! You are entitled to your opinion. I have a different opinion.

There are many elements of the basic Republican platform which are totalitarian toward personal and individual behavior. I have referred to them before. Yet, while they keep kicking various groups in the face, Republicans (including you) STILL wonder why they get such low percentages of votes from women and nearly every minority.
Once again, Mikey: you vote for Republicans because their basic stands on issues align with yours. Most minorities and women vote mostly Democratic because their basic stands on issues align with theirs.
You may vote for whomever you want. They may vote for whomever they want, too!

Any reference to Nazi's is a reference to the Holocaust. That's just a fact. They are invariably linked.

The GOP is against publicly funding abortions. If you want one, pay for it yourself. That's not totalitarian.


We should not have laws which common folks must follow, but which wealthy people can flaunt. I am old enough to remember when abortions were illegal in America. Wealthy women (and girls) paid a doctor whom they could trust to do a "D&C." Or, wealthy women (and girls) traveled to a country where abortions were legal. Those options were unavailable to common folks. If you and most Republican politicians have their way, wealthy people will have another advantage over common folks.

But, let's exacerbate this situation using the oft-stated political positions of the GOP. Since such a large number of abortions today are performed for poorer women (and girls), and most GOP politicians ALSO oppose spending tax dollars on welfare to help the families of these millions of unwanted children who would then be born instead of aborted, common folks suffer even more! Hmmm...
Just as the title of this thread states, the GOP is still the party of the super-rich!

And Mikey, you keep making the Holocaust tie-in, not ZC!

My reference to the Nazis is about their superiority attitude they exhibited. I will admit to this also. The Nazis were responsible for the premeditated murder of 6 million Jews. They also are responsible for orchestrating the events that led to the deaths of 50 million people during WWII. No matter what anybody says the proof is there. MikeyA, wake up, the truth is everywhere.

Exactly, a comment that diminishes the impacts of the Nazis. Nothing anyone says or does on this board in any way can be equated to the German National Socialist Party and it's actions.


In my opinion there are several posters comments that sounds like Nazi ideology.


I do see any anti-semitism.

I don't see any push for central government control.


That's because you can't understand simple facts. The truth is all around you, MikeyA.

Nazis. ZC hasn't. He is not a Holocaust denier.

Of course I am the only one speaking. I'm not a partisan. You are.

I never said he was a denier. He's diminishing their affect, not denying it.


Planned Parenthood does not need federal money to provide abortions. That shreds your whole argument.


That's the law. The federal money goes to such things as nutrition programs, family planning, prenatal and postnatal health, etc. That's exactly and precisely why opposing federal funds for Planned Parenthood is opposing money used to help women and families. Wealthy women do not need these services...duh!

Once again, the GOP wants more women to vote for them, but their policies hurt women who are not wealthy. And then they wonder why they have trouble getting women to vote for them. Remember, according to Gallup, Obama received 12% more votes from women than did Willard, and 14% more votes than did McCain. And the last time I checked, Obama was a man, NOT a woman. One does not have to be a woman to win the women's vote.
BTW -- at least in 2012, the unmarried to married gap was even greater. Obama won 67% of the unmarried women's vote and 56% of the vote among unmarried men!

GOP policies -- the super-rich win again!

There are already programs in place that the federal government provides money for that provide those other services. Most times better than Planned Parenthood.

So... there's no reason for Planned Parenthood to receive federal funding.


MikeyA -- At least I admit that I am partisan!

I understand that MikeyA might be the Executive Director of the BOA Party.

GZ is anything but a Nazi.

The Nazis, like all Socialists, are about control. GZ defers to freedom to a tremendous degree.

Your similarity does not hold.


Gerrymandering does not account for Senate seats and governorships. Of which the GOP has a strong lock on both.

You don't win a majority of these and state legislatures by gerrymandering.

What actually occurred was not due to the GOPs efforts but the Dems. The Dems put so many resources into Obama's reelection and into toying with GOO primaries that they neglected recruitment and funding of down ticket races. Whereas the GOP never forgot about their "farm team".

That is why the GOP now has so many young candidates running for President with no lack of candidates in lower races. Whereas the Dems have 1 candidate under the age of 60 and that guy has little chance. The Dem nominees are a whose who of Dem politics for the last 30 years and the GOP has the bulk of their candidates weren't even known 10 years ago.


As I stated, Mikey, you only like statistics which reinforce your opinions. You just cannot admit that the GOP is skewing elections.
Why do you think so many GOP-controlled states want to do away with winner-take-all in the statewide electoral vote for POTUS and divide the electors by U.S. House districts? The districts are gerrymandered to favor ALL GOP candidates who are chosen by district outcomes. DUH!

As I clearly stated, I have never said that the GOP leaders are stupid. They are very bright. They want every advantage in order to win even if they really lose. Just look at the 2000 POTUS election as an example!

As far as the ages of the prospective candidates are concerned, I'll paraphrase what Ronald Reagan said in 1980: I pledge to not take advantage of my opponent's relative youth and inexperience during this campaign.

The only age qualifier in the U.S. Constitution is a MINIMUM age. There are NO MAXIMUM age qualifiers for ANY federal candidates. Strom Thurmond served until he was 100 years old because the majority of the voters in South Carolina kept re-electing him every 6 years as one of their two U.S. Senators. If they had a problem with his age, they had alternative candidates for whom to vote. I do NOT believe in ANY artificial age limits or term limits of any type on elected officials. Such limits limit our choices as voters. I want the maximum number of people voting to choose the candidates they want to hold elective office. I trust the people to make good judgments.

majority among women in both 2008 and 2012. So...what are the Republicans doing to reach out to women voters in 2016? Let's see. The Republican POTUS candidates want to limit women's reproductive rights. Most favor putting more American soldiers into Iraq and Syria. One just threatened to kill the leader of Iran. And one called a woman Republican POTUS candidate ugly and ridiculed a supermodel for, in his skewed opinion, no longer being a "10," as if his opinion in such a matter is important, and/or looks, which are subjective to begin with, mean anything at all in selecting a POTUS!! (BTW -- Has he taken a REALLY good look in a mirror lately?) Here's a link to the information:

And Republican politicians claim they have no idea why they cannot attract a higher percentage of the women's vote. Are they really that clueless?

boycotted Pope Francis's speech. As it states in the article to which I've linked, the Pope is pro-women! (We know how most Republican leaders view women.) Read for yourself:

BTW -- There are some Catholic women who want Pope Francis to do even more to advance the status of women in the Catholic Church. They have a good chance of getting more action from this Pope!

If what you said is true why then is the Dem frontrunner, a woman, losing her edge amongst women?

Truth is the GOP does quite well with married women. These are women with families who make big family decisions.


stats which support your positions. The Gallup information ways it all.

One does NOT have to be a woman to get the women's vote.
One does NOT have to be Hispanic to get the Hispanic vote.
One does NOT have to be a member of the LGBT community to get the LGBT vote.
One does NOT have to be African-American to get the African-American vote.
One does NOT have to be a Muslim to get the Muslim vote.

If you wonder why more of these groups and others do not vote Republican, it's because of the stand of Republican politicians on the issues which affect these groups. You can't keep kicking people in the face, and say, "Vote for me." Mikey, if you can vote Republican because of your convictions on issues, why can't the members of these different groups vote Democratic based upon their convictions?

I can answer for MikeyA. Only his opinion or position matters.

The fact is Hilary is not getting women at Obama like approval numbers. That means two things.

First she then MUST win other groups at a higher percentage.

Two, they will be less enthusiastic and thus a smaller votes share. That puts pressure on other groups to come out in higher numbers.

Result Hilary needs to find away to out perform Obama's GOTV. Opinion: I don't think she can. Do you?


get the lion's share of the women's vote because the GOP will drive the majority of women away from their own nominee.
Remember, it is still early in the POTUS electoral season. The election does not take place for over 13 moths! And who says that Hillary will be the Democratic candidate for POTUS anyway?
The GOP can't continue to kick so many different groups of voters in the face and expect to get their votes!

"no matter who the Dems nominate, they will.. get the lion's share of the women's vote"

I'm not disputing that. Please look at what I said. According to current polling trends it looks like Hilary, the likely nominee, will not win women and minorities at the same rate as President Obama. That means to win she needs them to be a higher vote share.

If the top 3: Biden, Sanders, or Clinton win the nomination I stand by my assertion for Clinton. Both Sanders and Biden will not win both women and minorities at Obama-like numbers thus needing a higher vote share.

Even Dem strategists agree with me on this. They see the Obama coalition as a difficult one for those three to hold together. The only potential candidate I could see holding it is Warren but she has repeatedly said she won't run. Even if she runs I think she gains on women but slips on minorities.

The GOP has made significant gains on women, specifically married women. The polls show this. Also, if Cruz or Rubio win the nomination I think they will be able to shift the hispanic vote share back to GWB numbers. That will specifically put Nevada, Florida and Colorado into the likely-red column. Again, this is just pure math, statistics, and shifting demographics.


the leading GOP candidates keep kicking women and minorities in the teeth, and STILL expect them to vote for the GOP in higher percentages than they have in recent elections. The longer the campaign goes on, the more the GOP candidates fall over themselves to appeal to the radical right, and the more they alienate women and minorities. We'll see what happens.

Dale look at those polls you keep posting. In them there are internal numbers. Hilary is losing independents and married women. All the polls are showing that. The married women portion holds for all the Dem candidates.

So since married women make up a subset of women then.... If we agree Obama won women 56-44 and since then the GOP gained support of a subset in that of married women then it's likely Hilary would win women 51-49, yes the Dems still win women but now they need more women to vote by at least 5% (likely more) or make up for it through another group (best bet would be Hispanics since there's little room to grow with Blacks).

With Independents it's harder because they break down into really smaller subsets than married or single and their drop is across the board of demographics not one subset.


And you know what happens when one assumes.

Assuming is MikeyA's SOP.

The only assumptions are current polling trends hold and past voting patterns remain the same.

I fully admit that and even say things could change. However because it's based on things we have seen and things we are seeing it's realistic because of reality.


most (NOT ALL) women and minorities; the more likely the GOP drives more and more women and minority voters into the Democratic camp. That's where your assumptions fall apart, Mikey!

When you ASSUME...

GOP -- Still using emotional issues to turn common folks away from the real economic issues which affect their daily lives.
GOP -- Still empty rhetoric; still the party of the super-rich!

It's not that the GOP will lose women it's that the Dems have no room for growth.

The Dems have a powerful share of women and minorities. So they can only hope to increase their vote share. Example, Blacks. Obama won them by 89%. So Hilary has little room for growth. Plus the 11% of Blacks who didn't vote for Obama do you think Hilary can suddenly put them in the D column? Please. So they must increase vote share to grow. The problem is polls are showing Hilary underperforming Obama by both women and minority's. Since these are not swing voters they must now work just as hard to increase vote share to keep the same number of votes.


MikeyA, tell us your are not a math wiz.

First of all, the percentage of women won by Obama in 2012 was 55%. In addition, women made up 54% of the electorate. Both of these numbers can, and probably will, increase because all of the major GOP candidates insist upon taking political positions which are considered by most women to be against their best interests.
Secondly, although it is unlikely that any Democratic candidate can achieve as high a percentage of the African-American vote as Obama did; however, as long as the major GOP candidates keep stating so vehemently their opposition to any and all government programs which favor minorities and equal opportunity, they make the road to victory much easier for whichever Democrat receives the nomination for POTUS.
Third, the largest growing segment of our population, and the largest growing segment of the electorate, is Hispanics. Most of the major GOP candidates are vigorously stating positions which are considered by most Hispanics to be anti-Hispanic.
Finally, do not discount the effect of the xenophobic, anti-immigrant positions taken by nearly every major GOP candidate for POTUS for 2016 upon Muslim-Americans. In states like Michigan, they make up a significant percentage of the voters. And, those I know of in Toledo are quite successful entrepreneurs, who will contribute most of their money to Democrats in 2016, not Republicans.

In short, as I stated Mikey, the longer the campaign goes on and the more the GOP bashes women and minorities, the greater the chances are that ANY Democrat will defeat ANY Republican for POTUS in 2016. More and more Americans are coming to the understanding that when the GOP asks them for their votes, it is merely empty rhetoric, and the GOP is still the party of the super-rich!

Look at the polls you keep posting and tagging me. None of the Dems have Obama-like numbers with both women and minorities. If the current polling trend holds Dems need a bigger vote share.


women and minority voters for the Democrats. As time goes on, the GOP will push more and more women and minorities away.

America today -- income inequality. In the article to which I will provide a link here, Icahn points out to those who believe that government should do nothing to address the issue of income inequality, "...the sad fact is that government has actually passed many laws that have brought about 'income inequality.'"

Icahn -- from a position of being one of the wealthiest and most successful business people in American history, and in world history, articulates what I have stated many times. The current government, rather than encouraging technological innovation and modernization, has passed laws which have, instead, further enriched the richest in our society at the expense of common folks. As our infrastructure ages, including our manufacturing infrastructure, CEOs rake in the money, with no conscience at all. CEOs of our giant international corporations are the least patriotic Americans there are. They pray only to the false idol of the goddess of money. But, they often fly American flags in front of their corporate headquarters. And guess how almost all of them vote, and to which political party almost all of them more heavily contribute? Do they know something that too many common folks don't know? The are rich, after all. And, as it says in the song from Fiddler on the Roof, If I Were a Rich Man, "And it won't make one bit of difference if I answer right or wrong. When you're rich they think you really know."

Here's the link:

Most GOP politicians keep attracting voters by diverting attention to emotional issues which do nothing to improve the lives of common folks. They are slick!

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

interview with Icahn on CNBC while I was working out this afternoon. He is pessimistic for the short term, but optimistic for the long term regarding investments in well-researched common stocks. I have yet to hear a credible financial investor state that one can put a poster on the wall containing the names of all of the stocks traded on the S & P, throw a few darts, and successfully invest in those businesses.
I call Wall Street investing legalized, organized gambling. The current situation in China, where the government is fully complicit with Chinese companies purposely lying when reporting their finances, is the latest example. We need only look back at the financial debacle in the United States in 2008. Because our government removed many regulations and most government oversight, and because giant accounting/auditing firms were fully complicit with lies perpetrated in the form of financial reports by supposedly solid giant corporations, millions of Americans were hurt or even destroyed financially.
See? Legalized, organized gambling!

about their positions on issues. Mikey states that the services provided by Planned Parenthood with federal funds -- and remember, those federal funds may not BY LAW be used for abortions -- are provided through other agencies which also use federal funds. The GOP just doesn't get it. Planned Parenthood is very well known for providing these services. Most women know where local Planned Parenthood agencies are located in their local communities. These women want to know that their local Planned Parenthood facility will be there if and when they need it. No GOP leader can guarantee that Planned Parenthood would not have to close at least some of its facilities if Planned Parenthood lost federal funding.
In short, most women -- especially those of modest income -- perceive the GOP actions against Planned Parenthood to be part of the general and consistent pattern of a GOP which simply does not serve the best interests of most women. But Mikey, and GOP leaders, just can't understand why most American female voters give a majority of their votes to whichever Democrat runs for POTUS. The GOP is simply incredulous over this voting pattern. Rich women don't NEED Planned Parenthood. GOP=Empty Rhetoric, Still the Party of the Super-Rich.

Attention MikeyA, the Super Rich do not give out gratuities for those who protect THEIR MONEY..

I never suggested they did. The only one who has made any suggestion of a sort or that someone would believe that is you.


for the 2016 campaign so far. Is anyone really surprised to learn that nearly half of all the money raised by all of the candidates of both political parties is coming from a tiny percentage (about the top 0.1%) of super-rich families? And are we surprised to learn that the overwhelming number of these super-rich families (by a ratio of about 7-1) are donating to the Republican candidates?
Here's a link to the story:

But, that's OK, Mikey. You and the other partisan Republican dupes can continue to parrot the empty Republican rhetoric and their appeals to emotional issues. Parrot their lies about how much they care about women and minorities in this country, while the Republican policies undermine women and minorities every day.

"He who pays the piper plays the tune." Despite their empty rhetoric, today's Republican Party remains the party of the super-rich. It is NOT the party of Lincoln, nor the party of Eisenhower! It has transformed into the bigoted, divisive party of Willard and The Donald now.

OK Dale I'll bite.

So there's more money going to the GOP from these 200 uber-rich families. So, which candidate is the benefit to that? Oh wait. That money is being spread over the 9 candidates who are polling over 2% and the 6 candidates under %2. So it's not really an annointing. The fact is competitive races draw in more money. That's a fact. Whereas on the Dem side even though it's considerably less money it benefits considerably less people so it's less diluted.

If you're so concerned about money influencing politics why aren't you publicly calling for Clinton to be prosecuted for her conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation and her work in the State Dept?

Who benefitted more from "black money" in 2012 and 2008? (Hint: it wasn't McCain or Romney)

If money was the sole determiner of elections why is 1) Trump not pulling away from the GOP field? 2) Why didn't uber-rich Romney win in '12?

Please explain these questions that go against your theory.


that each candidate attracts money equally, which is a ludicrous assumption. In addition, you assume that, because The Donald is the richest candidate, he spends the most money. That is not necessarily true either. Next, one cannot even rationally compare the amounts spent by candidates in 2012 to the amounts that will be spent in this POTUS election. Already, there is a fivefold increase in the amount of "dark money" spent so far in this election cycle compared to the amount spent in 2012 up to this point:
Even so, the Adelsons alone gave $30 million to Willard's campaign in 2012! That's more than the top dozen or so largest contributors to Obama's campaign combined!
Finally, Bernie has denounced accepting money from "super-pacs," but received record contributions this past quarter. That's because Bernie gets most of his money from SMALL contributors. Hmmm...

Every statistic points to the same thing. Republicans loudly state empty rhetoric about attracting more votes from women and minorities, but promote policies which hurt those same folks. They use emotional issues to attract the votes of other common folks, but remain the party of the super-rich!

It does not disprove my analysis.

Trump has spent very little money and he leads the pack.

Of course there's an increase in dark money. As I pointed out the GOP is very competitive right now. That will fuel more money. And again, it's not benefiting the front-runner.

Your wrong on Bernie. The biggest funders of his campaign is black money union PACs. And this is in what's viewed as a non-competitive primary. And yes, Clinton dwarfs Bernie in this regard.

Plus on both sides the ones who have seen their campaigns get the most dark money (Clinton and Bush) are also seeing their poll numbers struggle.


get equal amounts of money.
And, thank you for proving my point that the candidate who spends the most often does not get the most support. Money only helps get a message out.
The more the GOP uses the hundreds of millions it will receive to keep articulating anti-women and anti-minority messages, the lower the percentage their candidates will receive from these groups. As I have stated, you can't keep kicking people in the face, and expect them to respond positively when you ask for their votes.

AND, nothing you state negates the basic premise of this thread: GOP -- empty rhetoric. Still the party of the super-rich!

Actually you've proven my point that money does not determine winners the quality of the message does.

And again, polls are showing that married women are fleeing the Democrat Party and moving to the GOP. Disagree? Show a current poll that shows the opposite. But if this trend occurs the Dems will need to make up for it by minorities grabbing a larger portion of the vote share.


The only point that has been proven is that a person with a brain the size of an amoeba can occasionally come up with an acorn.

Ssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhh. The grown ups are having a conversation.

Go back to writing your stories.


candidates articulate their anti-women positions, the less support they'll get from female voters. As the campaign goes on, whichever Democrat gets the nomination for POTUS may well get a higher percentage of the women's vote than did Obama. GOP candidates will push women voters away in droves!
You can't kick people in the face over and over again, and expect them to vote for you!

So explain why the current polls show the Dems not winning women at the same level as Obama. And why are married women turning decisively away from the Dems as the polls you keep posting to me show?


these are early polls. Secondly, these polls focus only upon "likely primary voters." These do not include the independents, who now make up over half of the voters in General Elections.

And, you totally ignore the fact that almost every GOP candidate openly and vigorously states policy positions which are anti-women. The longer the campaign goes on; the longer whichever GOP candidate emerges as the nominee continues to pound away at these issues; the less likely any GOP candidate will win even as high a percentage of the women's vote as Willard did in 2012!
GOP positions on issues tend to appeal to wealthy, non-minority women (and men) who are the most likely to declare themselves to be primary voters, especially in GOP primaries. GOP positions on the real issues of the day do little or nothing for common folks of any gender! The GOP uses emotional issues to attract the votes of common folks. And they are quite good at doing that!

However, as I keep stating: You cannot keep kicking people in the face, and expect to get their votes just because you say you want their votes! BTW -- Almost half of all American women are unmarried!

Sorry but Dems are losing ground with women across all political ideologies. Again it's because they are losing married women. Yet you can't explain why. You "explanation" is they eventually. Well here's some info for you Dale, if you can't explain Why they are leaving now then the chances of you solving why are greatly diminished.

Now Dems held a clear majority of married women back in May and it has continually and steadily declined as the race ramped up. Yet your theory is as it ramps up more they will return to the seems. Here's a hint, married women don't care as much about abortion as single women. And they are more supportive of gun rights. If the Dems lose married women they will not match Obamas numbers with women.


And...There are several other women's issues. For example, most of the programs provided by Planned Parenthood are for helping poorer working women and those in poverty with such issues as: helping to enroll people in Obamacare insurance programs; Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women and Children (WIC); assistance to victims of domestic violence; etc. BTW -- I obtained this information from the Conservative Review. It was pointing out all of the things that Planned Parenthood does with federal dollars as a way of arguing that Planned Parenthood SHOULD BE cut off from federal funding.

This information reinforces my point. Wealthier women are extremely unlikely to need such services. You conveniently ignore the fact that these polls are conducted by interviewing likely primary voters, who are, overall, wealthier than the AVERAGE voter in a General Election.
I do agree that wealthy, married women are more likely to vote for the Republican POTUS candidate -- DUH! You merely reinforce the point of this entire thread: GOP -- Empty Rhetoric. Still the Party of the Super-Rich.

We all know, if MikeyA says his delusional brain fart is true, it must be true.

Nope. When polling places do a primary poll they generally poll both sides. The polls you quote me have the results posted. Look at the Dem side. You are seeing #s of women dip. The only one who meets Obama-like numbers is Warren who is not running. Say all you want about Planned Parenthood but married women don't use PP. for them it's a non sequitur.


ON AVERAGE THAN ARE GENERAL ELECTION VOTERS! That goes for BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES. And, these polls do NOT include independent voters...DUH! Do I really have to spell everything out for you?

AND...less affluent married women DO USE the services of Planned Parenthood I listed above. Do you really think that married women do not need help with spousal abuse?Or nutritional advice for themselves and their babies? What world do you live in, Mikey?

He may live in the Orion Nebula.

OMG look at the data! They don't screen likely primary voters in head to head match ups. At this point most aren't even doing likely voter screens. Those are numbers of all voters.

And if married women are using PP services soooooo much then why despite the GOP funding are majority of married women turning to the GOP nominees? You act like you're arguing with me. You're arguing with polling data I'm just asking you to explain why the data is as it is despite your assertions.


so far is taken with likely Primary voters. Why would a polling agency waste their time and resources polling others when we are still over a year away from the POTUS General Election, Mikey?
Just because you say something is so, does not make it so.
And, nothing you state negates the basics of what I have on this thread. The GOP caters to emotional issues to divert attention from the way recent GOP POTUSes have led to huge deficits and the Great Recession.

I'll remind those with short memories. In 2012, GOP candidates predicted that a re-election of Obama would lead to:
1. another Great Recession
2. gun confiscations
3. a dysfunctional medical care system
4. more terror attacks like those of 9/11 on U.S. soil
5. increases in crime rates
I could go on. None of these things have happened.
GOP=Empty rhetoric. Still the party of the super-rich!

We must remember, many people do not understand that polling organizations base their data from information that supports the candidates they want to support. These organizations lie all the time. Remember there are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics.

Typical tactic. I don't like what they say so I'm going to attack them.

You DO realize these polls are scientific right?


Almost all of the polls you've posted the polling firms release the raw data. Your"likely voter" screen is taking registered voters and separating them by party identity.

That is actually partly why I've said to you multiple times that nation-wide polls matter little in a primary. Each state has different rules and in an open primary voters can vote on the other parties ballot or the both parties.

Yes it does negate what you said. If the GOP wins married women the Dems will only win women by a small margin, they will need single women and minorities to come out and voter in stronger numbers or they need to make up the difference where there is little room for growth.


The people who actually run this country already know who the next POTUS will be. We just have to participate in the election process to feel as though we elected her.

wanted Obama? I don't think so!

Your kind of thinking holds down voter participation. Lower voter participation makes it easier for the moneyed interests to influence elections because they target registered, probable voters. You may prefer to surrender to the giant corporations and their sycophants, but I do not. Admittedly, it is easier to be on the outside, not governing, and taking potshots at those who hold elective office than it is to govern effectively. But, if we surrender to the moneyed interests, who will stand up for common folks?

money alone does not win elections. It does help to get your message out; however, that does not guarantee that the majority of voters will like your message!

I can answer this one. Most of the time the voters are too smart to fall for the same old B.S. the Republicans shovel.

consequences. What percent of American Muslim voters are going to support a GOP candidate who bashes them, and goes up in the polls of likely GOP voters?
You can't keep kicking people in the face and expecting to get their votes upon request.
Here's a link to an article about the alienation of Muslims from the GOP:

The texts of every major religion are interpreted differently by different people. The vast majority of American Muslims interpret their religious texts, which include both the Old and New Testaments of The Bible by the way, in positive, peaceful ways, NOT as the extremists do! The American Muslims I know personally are proud of being Americans, and proud of the American tradition of pluralism. They resent the demeaning statements made by leading GOP politicians. How likely are American Muslims to support GOP candidates with their time and money? How likely are they to support GOP candidates with their votes in the November, 2016, election?

reveal some things he did when he was a wrestling coach many years before. According to the article, the longest-serving Republican Speaker of the House in history, Mr. Hastert, will plead "guilty" in court on October 28th. Here's a link to the article:

Now, why is this something that would be appropriate for this thread? As so often is true, the GOP regularly and fallaciously claims the so-called "high road" on moral issues. The GOP implies that only heathen liberals are sexual predators and violate commonly held rules of proper sexual conduct.
And let's add to this false morality the second out-of-wedlock pregnancy for Bristol Palin. Not only has Ms. Palin been an advocate of abstinence as the best method of birth control, she tries to turn a negative into a positive by proudly proclaiming her pregnancies in the context of flaunting how moral she is -- in her own eyes -- for not having abortions!

As I have stated many times, the GOP uses emotional issues to attract votes from common folks, while the GOP caters legislatively to the richest among us. Worse yet, many GOP leaders are themselves guilty of immoral acts. Hypocrisy rules the GOP!!

doesn't get it. Margaret Sanger may be a villain to most conservatives, but she is revered by innumerable American women, especially those who are likely to use the resources available at Planned Parenthood clinics. You can't keep kicking people in the face, and then act flabbergasted when large percentages won't vote for your candidates. The GOP leadership just won't quit publicly attacking people and clinics which help so many women.

The longer the campaign goes on; the more the GOP keeps appealing to its base; the more they turn off independent women and minority voters.

Here's the link to the article:

That must send chills up and down the spines of the conservatives who post here. And the new Prime Minister of Canada is Justin Trudeau, the son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau!
BTW -- The polls UNDERESTIMATED the percentage of the vote for the Liberal Party by a significant amount. And the Liberals had been in THIRD place in the Canadian Parliament since the last elections. AND, only two months ago, the polls showed a very close 3-way election among the 3 major parties in Canada! Watch those polls! Basically, the longer the campaign went on, the more Canadians rejected the conservative positions on major issues. Could the same happen in the U.S.? Only time will tell. As I keep stating, you can't keep kicking people in the teeth and expecting them to vote for you.

Now, Canada is not the United States. But Canada has had a conservative government for about 10 years now, and it would seem that a clear majority of Canadian voters were fed up with conservative politics and conservative programs, even though Canada's economy is not in crisis under conservative leadership.

thread. What could epitomize what the title expresses better than for the Republican Party to nominate for POTUS a billiionaire whose rhetoric has propelled him into the lead for the Republican nomination for POTUS in 2016. The Donald even bashes a Republican war hero and former POTUS nominee, John McCain. He even blames the last Republican POTUS, W, for creating policies which allowed the 9/11 attacks. And, the results in the polls have The Donald still in the lead among Republicans? Who wudda thunk it? This seems to prove that likely Republican voters and attendees at nominating caucuses are comfortable with nominating a billionaire who has no experience in government at any level, and avoided, albeit legally, military service. WOW!

The Donald is using emotional issues and outrageous statements to keep the spotlight on himself, and garner support. Wouldn't anointing Dr. Ben as his VPOTUS fit perfectly into this pattern of behavior?
GOP -- Empty Rhetoric. Still the Party of the Super-Rich!
And with a super-rich POTUS nominee? We'll see!

Here's the latest poll in Iowa:
BTW -- According to the poll, Dr. Ben has a commanding lead among Iowans who call themselves "evangelical Christians." The percentages are Dr. Ben 36%; The Donald 17%. I've been stating consistently -- right here on Swamp Bubbles -- that Dr. Ben would be a real force in this process. And one major reason why I've felt this way is because of Dr. Ben's support among activists on the religious right, which would give Dr. Ben support in EVERY state of the union. In addition, I have also pointed out that, at least so far, Dr. Ben has VERY low negatives in EVERY poll! We can now add to this, Dr. Ben's enormously successful fund raising efforts, which give him staying power that other candidates will not have.
Don't knock the doc!

Here it is:

Yes. It is still VERY early, I know, but...
Don't knock the doc!

And how many of them are Republican voters? The percent in the nation is 13.2%. The percent of Hispanics in Iowa is 5.6%. The percent in the nation is 17.4%. The percent of whites. non-Hispanics, in Iowa is 87.1%. In the nation as a whole, its 62.1%. In short, Dr. Ben is currently winning in one of the whitest states in America!
Here's a link to the stats:
Don't knock the doc!

Carson's chances have rose considerably with taking the lead in Iowa. It seems he's found a way to resonate with evangelicals and that's is important in Iowa since the last 3 winners (not seeking reelection) were the more evangelical of the candidates: Santorum, Huckabee, GWB.

Carson's challenge will be to get this momentum to translate into other early states.

The problem is there aren't many evangelicals in New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada. So he needs to keep his message wide enough to gain crossover support from other groups. Now if he begins to poll over 30% then I believe that is possible.

My opinion on this is it's just a case of the GOP voters shopping around. Leading at this point in 2011 was Herman Cain who inherited the lead off of Rick Perry. The eventual nominee, Mitt Romney, remained in 2nd the whole time. In 2007 the leads were Guilliani and Thompson. So good luck to Mr. Carson to make this lead last 3 months and not be an early peak.


what you're talking about here, while your earlier "analysis" falls apart completely. Remember, all I've ever said about Dr. Ben is that he's a real player in the process. And I have pointed out the obvious, that Dr. Ben has a strong following among evangelical Protestants in EVERY state, and that he now has a LOT of money to stay in the race for an indefinite period of time..
Your "analysis" here is fatally flawed, Mikey. First of all, evangelical Protestants outnumber mainline Protestants nationwide almost 2-1. Additionally, Florida is really two states in one. The northern part of Florida is much like other southern states and has a great many evangelicals, and most of them are Republicans, and many of them are activists in the Republican Party, and very likely voters in a Republican POTUS primary! Oh wait! I am just so stupid sometimes! Florida also has two "native sons" running right now. Focusing on Florida would make Dr. Ben seem less popular since he is sure to run behind at least two other Republicans right now, or at least until John (his real name) drops out.
And, why, Mikey, did you leave out the primary in South Carolina in your self-styled "analysis?" Remind me, Mr. self-proclaimed electoral expert, when is the South Carolina primary? Isn't it BEFORE the primaries in Nevada or Florida? As a matter of fact, doesn't the Florida POTUS primary actually come AFTER all of these: Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, which ALL have large numbers of evangelicals in their electorates, along with many other states as well? Couldn't wins in most of these early voting southern states give Dr. Ben the so-called "momentum" you find to be so important to winning the Republican POTUS nomination?
Don't knock the doc!!

I have to admit, Mikey. You do argue like a typical Republican politician. State inaccurate information as if it is fact. Do so, even when you're proved wrong. Keep stating the incorrect "facts" over and over again, until more and more people believe that it is true. Mikey, you definitely have a future in politics after your military service. You cozy up to the giant corporations so that you can get their money for your future campaigns, and you speak double-speak so that you can emit tons of empty rhetoric to get support from common folks. WOW! You'll be a one heck of a candidate! Loads of empty rhetoric, and positions which favor the super-rich. That's a modern Republican, all right!

My analysis holds. Take a look. I always said "if current polling trends continue". Edit: I also said aggregate polling, Carson does not yet have the aggregate lead.

Current polling in SC has Trump beating Carson. I purposefully left SC out because of this. I'm waiting for more polls of SC to see if the evangelicals there have shifted as well. Everything on the other states still hold which is why I addressed them.

It doesn't matter what the ratio of protestants is nationally. They don't hold considerable sway in NH, NV, and FL. If you'd like me to list the past winners of those primaries and where the "evangelical" candidate finished I'll be happy to provide it but I can tell you they didn't win.

In Florida in 2012 the evangelical candidate placed 3rd with 13%, in 2008 the evangelical placed 3rd with 20%. Evangelicals are not enough to bring a candidate over the line on their own in Florida. Your analysis of Florida is wrong for primaries because there are still evangelical Democrats in the panhandle. They do not vote for republicans because it's a closed primary state. Your analysis would be true of a general election where they can and routinely cross party lines.

You quote the southern states. These are represented in Super Tuesday. Most elections are wrapped up before Super Tuesday. The reason they won't give Carson momentum is because if Carson wins IA and SC and is clearly the evangelical choice then he SHOULD win those. That doesn't equate to momentum because to win the nomination you need to win over those who normally shouldn't vote for you. See Huckabee's campaign in '08.


that I thought that Dr.Ben would win the nomination. Your self-proclaimed, so-called "analysis" seems aimed at discrediting Dr. Ben as a winner of the Republican nomination for POTUS. I have only stated, over and over again I might add, that Dr. Ben would be a player in the process. THAT he is, whether you like it or not, Mikey!

In all seriousness, the one Republican POTUS candidate who has risen to the level of a possible winner of the Republican nomination to me, is Marco Rubio. He was spoken of as a strong candidate for POTUS from the time he was first elected to statewide office in a critical, very large state. He performed remarkably well when attacked by an ill-prepared John (his real name) at the recent CNBC Republican debate, and should soon supplant John as the most palatable choice of the "establishment" Republicans.
If I had to bet right now, my money would be on Marco. He has a GREAT family story, as the son of Cuban immigrants. (I wonder how long it will be before The Donald starts questioning Marco's citizenship. Was he born in Cuba, after all?) And, of all the "tax reforms" that the Republicans are floating right now, Marco's seems to be the least objectionable as far as its treatment of the working poor. Analyses by those who know a lot more than I do, still show that the biggest winners, even in the Rubio plan, are the super-rich. But that is what is expected when we have a Republican tax plan.
There's still a LONG way to go, but Marco's looking good to me!

To me the Republican's at the debate acted like a bunch of clowns at a clown fest.

On 7-30 you posted in the Swamp that, writing of "The Donald," " he is drawing support from the lower ends of the ticket. From people like Christie, Carson, and Cruz."
Also from this same post, you state, "One person who I think will shine in the debate is Chris Christie." We have yet to see Christie's star rise, despite his attacking style in the Republican debates so far. Christie is just unlikeable, and has a LOT of political baggage which the right-wingers, who tend to vote in high percentages in Republican primaries and at Republican caucuses, can't stand. Christie touts the fact that he has worked successfully with a Democratically-controlled state legislature in New Jersey. This goes over great in a general election, but not so in Republican primaries. Remember, to the "true believers" compromise is equated to surrender. Just look at their reaction to the latest budget deal!

But, back to Dr. Ben. On 8-11, you posted this, "I don't believe Carson will be in the top 3 for the nomination nor will he be asked to be a VP." Hmmm...

Finally, here's something I posted in the Swamp on 8-10, "Remember, I never stated that Dr. Ben would win the Republican nomination for POTUS in 2016. I only stated that he would be a factor in the process, and may well end up as the VPOTUS nominee. If he continues to stay up in the polls..."
Mikey, don't knock the doc!

Remember, MikeyA thinks the world id flat.

You are a liar.

Show me where I indicated I believed that? I routinely discuss my beliefs so if you're not lying it should be true then shouldn't it.


South Carolina has no credibility. They are too busy throwing school girls across the room.

Congress. I have openly stated that I am a partisan Democrat. However, I respect those who have differing views, and I am willing to accept compromises to move the nation forward. Too many politicians of both major political parties have become more and more alienated from each other on issues. That is because, while the general population decries the inability of Congress to govern, and of Congress and the POTUS to govern cleanly together, instead of encouraging compromise, movements have arisen in both parties that are pulling elected officials further apart, toward the extremes.
Here are examples from both parties in the current races for the nominations for POTUS. The only alternative to Hillary among Democrats seems to be Bernie Sanders. Bernie is further to the left of Hillary. I love many things that Bernie says, but too many of his proposals are anathema to mainstream Americans, not to mention conservatives. In the Republican Party, the main alternative movement is from the Tea Party-types. They are both more conservative than most mainstream Americans, and they equate compromise to surrender. As a recent example, just look at the difference between Willard as the Governor of Massachusetts and Willard as the Republican nominee for POTUS in 2012! He was obviously pulled far to the right in order to appeal to what has become the base of the Republican Party in the 21st Century in order to get the Republican nomination for POTUS. Once he took those positions in the primaries in 2012, he was uncomfortable moving toward the center on issues because he did not want to alienate the Tea Party-types, and have them boycott the General Election, nor did he want to be accused of saying things just to cater to moderate voters once his nomination was secured.

Government governs best when it governs from somewhere near the political center. We now have a dysfunctional governing mechanism. Could it be that compromise is not surrender, but is, indeed, the essence good governance?
For what it's worth, here's a link to an article about the first floor speech of a freshman Republican Senator, Ben Sasse, of Nebraska. Once again, I'm not just making this stuff up. The extreme partisanship in government makes productive work among government officials difficult, if not impossible.

Well the same thing that happened to Mitt is happening to Hilary. Not on every issue yet but on some key ones.

You're seeing Hilary move to the left on guns when in '08 she was the pro-gun candidate. This is significant because gun control has been a consistently losing issue for Dems and we saw that again in Virginia this week where gun control advocates heavily invested into races where they say no gain. Important because guns do not rank in the top 5 of issues Dem voters deem important according to recent polls.

I agree partisanship is a large problem that needs to be rejected but to do that we must reject demagoguery. You see demagoguery on this website daily and on one side it goes largely unchecked.


disagree about which group of extremists go "largely unchecked" on this site, however.

I just looked up who will be included in the next Republican Debate. It made me wonder how a political party could have so many disturbed members. Then I pinched myself and remembered the NAZIS were like that along with the mindless drones who thought these people were going to share the power and wealth.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.