0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Kat Kid on January 01, 2016, 08:08:24 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 01, 2016, 07:49:15 PMWhy Trump - and I think to maybe an even greater extent, Cruz - can probably beat Hillary: they'll bring a ton of angry folks to the polls who either don't usually vote or have voted Democrat in the past. If Hillary loses even a couple rust belt states like PA, OH, and MI, she's toast. Cruz might be better situated than Trump to both bring these folks into the fold and hold onto the "establishment" vote. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/upshot/donald-trumps-strongest-supporters-a-certain-kind-of-democrat.htmlThat is a lot of hopeful thinking. We don't even know yet if Trump can turn out primary voters. The demographics for anyone in the Republican field beating Hillary are redic bad.Let's say Hillary loses mean -15 is there any doubt that she outperforms any Republican candidate in the field by at least 15-20 points? This election is not interesting in the least.http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/gender-gap-2012-vote-largest-gallup-history.aspxRubio and Cruz are both polling ahead of clinton, which is saying something at this juncture
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 01, 2016, 07:49:15 PMWhy Trump - and I think to maybe an even greater extent, Cruz - can probably beat Hillary: they'll bring a ton of angry folks to the polls who either don't usually vote or have voted Democrat in the past. If Hillary loses even a couple rust belt states like PA, OH, and MI, she's toast. Cruz might be better situated than Trump to both bring these folks into the fold and hold onto the "establishment" vote. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/upshot/donald-trumps-strongest-supporters-a-certain-kind-of-democrat.htmlThat is a lot of hopeful thinking. We don't even know yet if Trump can turn out primary voters. The demographics for anyone in the Republican field beating Hillary are redic bad.Let's say Hillary loses mean -15 is there any doubt that she outperforms any Republican candidate in the field by at least 15-20 points? This election is not interesting in the least.http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/gender-gap-2012-vote-largest-gallup-history.aspx
Why Trump - and I think to maybe an even greater extent, Cruz - can probably beat Hillary: they'll bring a ton of angry folks to the polls who either don't usually vote or have voted Democrat in the past. If Hillary loses even a couple rust belt states like PA, OH, and MI, she's toast. Cruz might be better situated than Trump to both bring these folks into the fold and hold onto the "establishment" vote. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/upshot/donald-trumps-strongest-supporters-a-certain-kind-of-democrat.html
Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 03, 2016, 07:41:11 AMQuote from: Kat Kid on January 01, 2016, 08:08:24 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 01, 2016, 07:49:15 PMWhy Trump - and I think to maybe an even greater extent, Cruz - can probably beat Hillary: they'll bring a ton of angry folks to the polls who either don't usually vote or have voted Democrat in the past. If Hillary loses even a couple rust belt states like PA, OH, and MI, she's toast. Cruz might be better situated than Trump to both bring these folks into the fold and hold onto the "establishment" vote. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/upshot/donald-trumps-strongest-supporters-a-certain-kind-of-democrat.htmlThat is a lot of hopeful thinking. We don't even know yet if Trump can turn out primary voters. The demographics for anyone in the Republican field beating Hillary are redic bad.Let's say Hillary loses mean -15 is there any doubt that she outperforms any Republican candidate in the field by at least 15-20 points? This election is not interesting in the least.http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/gender-gap-2012-vote-largest-gallup-history.aspxRubio and Cruz are both polling ahead of clinton, which is saying something at this junctureUh nope, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
Ha ha, Sanders is polling better than Clinton.
Quote from: MakeItRain on January 03, 2016, 01:23:19 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 03, 2016, 07:41:11 AMQuote from: Kat Kid on January 01, 2016, 08:08:24 PMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 01, 2016, 07:49:15 PMWhy Trump - and I think to maybe an even greater extent, Cruz - can probably beat Hillary: they'll bring a ton of angry folks to the polls who either don't usually vote or have voted Democrat in the past. If Hillary loses even a couple rust belt states like PA, OH, and MI, she's toast. Cruz might be better situated than Trump to both bring these folks into the fold and hold onto the "establishment" vote. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/upshot/donald-trumps-strongest-supporters-a-certain-kind-of-democrat.htmlThat is a lot of hopeful thinking. We don't even know yet if Trump can turn out primary voters. The demographics for anyone in the Republican field beating Hillary are redic bad.Let's say Hillary loses mean -15 is there any doubt that she outperforms any Republican candidate in the field by at least 15-20 points? This election is not interesting in the least.http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/gender-gap-2012-vote-largest-gallup-history.aspxRubio and Cruz are both polling ahead of clinton, which is saying something at this junctureUh nope, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.htmlLol, did you look at that right? Both are polling ahead
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning. They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.
I see Clinton tied or losing to candidates despite having way way way more name recognition at this point.
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 04, 2016, 09:39:06 AMI see Clinton tied or losing to candidates despite having way way way more name recognition at this point.So. Is this american idol? The person with the greatest name recognition is winning the republican polls but losing to both democrat candidates. Who cares?
Quote from: MakeItRain on January 04, 2016, 11:33:46 AMQuote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 04, 2016, 09:39:06 AMI see Clinton tied or losing to candidates despite having way way way more name recognition at this point.So. Is this american idol? The person with the greatest name recognition is winning the republican polls but losing to both democrat candidates. Who cares?Yes, Obama won the "cool" vote in 2012. Had nothing to do with his record.
This is why Cruz (or Trump, but please don't let it be Trump) can win rust belt states against Clinton. There is a bipartisan desire among the electorate for stronger border enforcement. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/ted-cruz-immigration-border-ad-business-suits/He's absolutely right.
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 05, 2016, 01:40:18 PMThis is why Cruz (or Trump, but please don't let it be Trump) can win rust belt states against Clinton. There is a bipartisan desire among the electorate for stronger border enforcement. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/ted-cruz-immigration-border-ad-business-suits/He's absolutely right.That's cute but it won't play in the rust belt. How many presidential elections do republicans have to get run in before they understand these social issues are killing them? You think Joe in Toledo gives two shits about the Rio Grande? The ones that do are already republican voters anyway. Your people need to find new voters in those states and using illegal aliens as a scare tactic isn't going to do it if the democrats can convince voters that republican policy is pushing American jobs the other way over the border. Your party can't agree on immigration reform, maybe he should take a rough ridin' hint and leave it alone for now, he's vulnerable there anyway.
Also Hillary is a pathalogical liar and that won't go over well with blue collar people who actually have values as Republicans continue/increase their efforts in making sure everyone is aware of how much she will look you in the eye and blatantly lie.
War mongering pathological liars are okay in politics . . . as long as they're Democrats.
KU is right on par with Notre Dame ... when it comes to adding additional conference revenue
Beer pro tip: never drink anything other than BL, coors, pbr, maybe a few others that I'm forgetting
Quote from: sonofdaxjones on January 05, 2016, 03:46:57 PMWar mongering pathological liars are okay in politics . . . as long as they're Democrats.yeah, we should get back to small government Reaganism where we only destabilized countries and propped up dictators in our hemisphere!
Quote from: ednksu on January 05, 2016, 04:12:25 PMQuote from: sonofdaxjones on January 05, 2016, 03:46:57 PMWar mongering pathological liars are okay in politics . . . as long as they're Democrats.yeah, we should get back to small government Reaganism where we only destabilized countries and propped up dictators in our hemisphere!Has the Obama (particularly Hillary) Administration been involved in propping up Theological Dictatorships and meddling in Central American and South American politics? But I digress.I don't recall saying what Reagan et. al did was good, but thanks for the reaching back into the dusty chapters of the Capt. Obvious playbook Whack-A-Doodle.
Quote from: sonofdaxjones on January 05, 2016, 04:17:01 PMQuote from: ednksu on January 05, 2016, 04:12:25 PMQuote from: sonofdaxjones on January 05, 2016, 03:46:57 PMWar mongering pathological liars are okay in politics . . . as long as they're Democrats.yeah, we should get back to small government Reaganism where we only destabilized countries and propped up dictators in our hemisphere!Has the Obama (particularly Hillary) Administration been involved in propping up Theological Dictatorships and meddling in Central American and South American politics? But I digress.I don't recall saying what Reagan et. al did was good, but thanks for the reaching back into the dusty chapters of the Capt. Obvious playbook Whack-A-Doodle.Isn't the Gipper the standard bearer for Republicans or did you miss the last *all* debates?