- Thread starter
- #5,941
dash
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy bacon
Trump used "In the Air Tonight" at his rally in Pennsylvania earlier today.
Well, if they told me he was drowning, I would not lend a hand.Trump used "In the Air Tonight" at his rally in Pennsylvania earlier today.
To recap his song choices:
Fortunate Son - About richs kid dodging the draft, and poor ones who object not being able to
YMCA - A song about a place to go find young gay lovers
In the air tonight - A song about waiting your whole life to seek revenge
Wonder when he just goes with:Well, if they told me he was drowning, I would not lend a hand.
To recap his song choices:
Fortunate Son - About richs kid dodging the draft, and poor ones who object not being able to
YMCA - A song about a place to go find young gay lovers
In the air tonight - A song about waiting your whole life to seek revenge
That's considered pretty doubtful actually. HW Bush was very much a cold-war Republican where his entire platform was based on the strong military-industrial response that ramped up under Reagan. That's what propelled him to a landslide victory in 1988. But then the Soviet Union collapses a year into his first term (I'm using the Berlin Wall as the symbolic starting point, knowing full well the ball was already rolling before that).And if Ross Perot stayed home GHWB would’ve been a two term president, Gore never would’ve been a VP and probably never would’ve come close to the presidency. It’s pointless to go backwards and vilify anybody for running for President. You guys are where you are.
I always see this argument about Gore and the environment but did he really make much of a thing about climate change prior to leaving government?
And even on him being President on 9/11, he ran on using the surplus to increase the military budget and selected Joe Lieberman as VP, a guy who was already pretty hawkish as it was and was the biggest proponent of creating the DHS. We may have avoided Iraq but that isn’t certain. Gore benefitted very highly from the “what if” scenario given how poor a job his conquerer did.
Of the 12 states that Clinton won By fewer than 5% over Bush Perot had over 20% of the popular vote in 6 of them; only one of those states wasn’t a Republican stronghold before that election and that’s Ohio.That's considered pretty doubtful actually. HW Bush was very much a cold-war Republican where his entire platform was based on the strong military-industrial response that ramped up under Reagan. That's what propelled him to a landslide victory in 1988. But then the Soviet Union collapses a year into his first term (I'm using the Berlin Wall as the symbolic starting point, knowing full well the ball was already rolling before that).
On top of that, the economy collapses for various reasons (end of Cold War, savings and loans, and the Persian Gulf War) and Bush breaks his most visible promise ("read my lips, no new taxes") so he was already extremely vulnerable. He also had to fend off a surprisingly strong challenge from Pat Buchanan (side note: fuck Pat Buchanan).
Perot meanwhile polled surprisingly well among both Republicans and blue collar Dems (the so called Regan Dems who tended to favor social liberalism but economic conservatism) because of his stances on taxes, NAFTA (agreed in principle but not yet signed by that point), and made in America positions, so it's widely considered that his voter share was more-or-less the same from both HW and Clinton.
The idea that Bush would have won without Perot's involvement was largely created after the election by the Bush team to explain how an incumbent got beaten so badly.Of the 12 states that Clinton won By fewer than 5% over Bush Perot had over 20% of the popular vote in 6 of them; only one of those states wasn’t a Republican stronghold before that election and that’s Ohio.
Meanwhile of the 6 states Bush won by fewer than 5% over Clinton only Florida wasn’t a typical Republican stronghold.
I think the fact Clinton took so many GOP states by so little while Bush struggled to keep some others, all in places Perot did well, tells me he had a stronger impact on Bush’s defeat than he gets credit for.
I concede he needed a lot to go his way to win but remove Perot from the equation entirely and I think he had a better shot than he wound up having. The taxes and the recession issues very well may have been insurmountable.The idea that Bush would have won without Perot's involvement was largely created after the election by the Bush team to explain how an incumbent got beaten so badly.
It would have been closer, for sure, but Clinton won (electorally at least) in a landslide. Even if you take out all of the states Bush probably would have won without Perot in it and all of the states Bush could have won (call them the leans R states), he still loses.
Rand Paul = POS
Not sure about that. Mitch McConnell has gotten what he wanted out of the court jester, so they can get away with cutting him loose now. Trump is generally unpopular so Mitch, Lindsey, Mitt and Cruzer can all now pretend they always were against him. He basically said as much today (paraphrasing) about how the next election will undo a lot of the shit the Republican Congress has done (or not done) so he was giddy about this because they can't undo it. We can't undo it. It's a giant "fuck you" to the American People.It's official. Trump will be president again.
*IF* Trump manages to also win Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Minnesota, Nevada AND Florida. He loses two of those and PA doesn't really matter.Still, all it's going to take is a legal challenge over the PA vote that will get upheld by the current SCOTUS makeup, and the 270 threshold will go the other way.
Trump campaign tapes voters at drop boxes, threatens lawsuit
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The Trump campaign has been videotaping people as they deposit ballots in drop boxes in Philadelphia in what it says is an attempt to catch violations, surveillance that the...apnews.com