correction on the Las Vegas story:

a follow up to the buyout story I put up a page or so back:

By Tuesday night, Adelson's new management team had begun to take the reins, firing back in their own editorial, which ran on Wednesday's front page, that they would “publish a newspaper that is fair, unbiased and accurate.”

The editorial mentioned that Hengel had accepted a “voluntary buyout.” But in an interview Wednesday, Hengel said he first learned of his acceptance of the buyout when someone from the newspaper read the editorial to him over the telephone Tuesday night. At the same time, he received an email with a formal offer.

Adelson's representatives declined an interview request.

someone kindly explain just what the fuck is wrong with you young people today

Sort of misleading as far as scale goes. And to be honest, I don't think they're a major pollster.

it's because the 'democracy' that they've been exposed to functions like an oligarchy

The idea is for us to give shit to our more youthful, more autocratic colleagues

Iraqi forces have retaken most of Ramadi (with the help of the coalition from the air). This will cut off Fallujah from the rest of ISIS, which will further deplete ISIS'
hold on the region. This is after they previously lost several towns to the north. ISIS is faltering and flailing all over the place.

It will likely lead to ISIS lashing out in other manners.

drsmooth wrote:someone kindly explain just what the fuck is wrong with you young people today

They don't know enough about the alternatives.

I'm not sure why those people are anti-democracy in the US. I, for one, would be very interested to see what a US democracy would look like.

So what they want a monarchy?

A constitutional dictatorship could work well if you pick the right dictator

MoBettle wrote:So what they want a monarchy?

i sure do

"King Bucky"

has a nice ring to it dontchathink?

Assuming Clinton is the nominee, how do you think she'll do against the most likely Rep nominees? Here is the map with the most likely decided states colored the appropriate color. Doing this reveals a bit of a dem advantage, assuming all the states go as planned. Dems need 53 more electoral votes to clinch it. Of the toss up states, my guess is these go to the Reps:

Florida: (either Bush or Rubio would have home state advantage and Trump's crazy talk is like a beautiful melody to Floridians)
North Carolina: Don't think another dem can win there yet.
Ohio: Maybe the fracking stuff will push it the other way, but I doubt it, though this is more of a hunch.

And these go dem:

PA: Trending dem and went that way the last several elections
NH: Can't imagine them voting for Rubio, Bush, or Trump
WI: A bit of a wild card, but this is my guess based on recent elections and Walker's fall from grace.

That leaves NV, CO, IA, and VA to decide the election with the dems needing just 19 more to win it. My guess is Clinton will use her DC connections and recent trends to win VA, especially if Trump is the nominee. Rubio would have a shot. But overall, I think she would have an edge there. That means she would just need one more of NV, CO, or IA. Nevada is the most likely spot, I think, especially once this adelson stuff fully hits the fan. She also has a better than average shot in IA. I'm not sure about CO.

What do you guys think? I know it's way too early to do this, but my daughter is watching 101 Dalmatians and I don't feel like doing real work.

i've said whoever the democrat is wins. it's a matter of the down ballot races making their term easier or more difficult.

if trump is the nominee that is going to really hurt the republicans.


LIBERAL Vox disagrees and sees a potential GOP wave in 2016

Down goes Pataki. His zero percent will likely go to Gilmore.

There are several I think are critical when assessing the Presidential election.

1. I am increasingly thinking Cruz is going to be the nominee. Rubio it seems is simply slightly less repulsive than Bush among Rep primary voters. However, I think this crop of Rep. candidates is overall very weak, because none of them seem to be able to overtake a buffoon like Trump. Cruz is doing well in Iowa, and is likely to win there, but he's also likely to finish a distant fourth in New Hampshire. That shows me his ability to appeal to non-evangelicals is not strong. If Trump fades, or goes 3rd party, I don't see Cruz picking up many Trump supporters.

2. The economy matters, and that to me is the biggest danger for the Democrats. The US economy is relatively strong, and oil prices are likely to remain low throughout the summer. However, the global economy is quite weak these days, and looks unlikely to improve. Eventually, this may start to drag on the US economy. The question is how much, and how soon. If things start looking rough over the summer, then Hillary might struggle.

3. The current electoral college favors the Democrats. This is a change from 2000. That is, I think the Dem nominee can win with as little as 49% of the vote in a two way race, because the Republican candidate will end up with a bunch of wasted votes in places like Texas and Georgia while the Democrat wins by small margins in Florida and Ohio.

4. I think the Dems take the Senate back. Again, this will depend on how the fundamentals start looking over the summer. But if the Republican mentality is "burn it down" then that ultimately helps the Democrats.

I feel like it's usually just a few percentage points between the candidates. I know conventional wisdom says Trump has zero chance, but the anti-establishment sentiment is very real, and I wouldn't count him totally out (even though I always have). He's got one segment absolutely hooked and I can see him toning down the racist sounding stuff after the primaries. For low info voters and late undecideds, they won't have seen the crazy Trump very much. Many will be willing to overlook some of that earlier stuff because what he says resonates at times. Even I agree with him sometimes. He's going to appeal to a bigger group than I think people realize. And he hasn't even started to raise/spend money yet. I don't think he wins, but it shouldn't be seen as a slam dunk that he loses.

Monkeyboy wrote:I feel like it's usually just a few percentage points between the candidates. I know conventional wisdom says Trump has zero chance, but the anti-establishment sentiment is very real, and I wouldn't count him totally out (even though I always have). He's got one segment absolutely hooked and I can see him toning down the racist sounding stuff after the primaries. For low info voters and late undecideds, they won't have seen the crazy Trump very much. Many will be willing to overlook some of that earlier stuff because what he says resonates at times. Even I agree with him sometimes. He's going to appeal to a bigger group than I think people realize. And he hasn't even started to raise/spend money yet. I don't think he wins, but it shouldn't be seen as a slam dunk that he loses.

I agree with all of this. Trump is the epitome of H. L. Menken's quote: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

There would be just too much to run in ads even if he toned it down in the general (and I don't see him doing that). And honestly if the country has fallen that far to want to elect him then we deserve everything we get as a consequence

The longer he has success, the more real it gets... it's not like Hillary doesn't have things he can talk about either... he has to filter any and all anti-female remarks though... people are eating him up though