Political Predictions 2016

[Kurieuo]

I think Donald Trump is actually quite Centrist.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0nNeo2UwDQ

[edwardmurphy]

Trump defies most of those labels. He's all over the map, and he's taken both sides on pretty much every major issue.

Also, I only watched the beginning of that video, but the blonde guy's claim that Trump is doing great with minorities and women isn't supported by any polling data that I've ever seen. Last I looked he was hugely unpopular with Blacks, Latinos, and women. It's true that he's getting some traction with white male Democrats in places like the Rust Belt, though.

I've accepted that the ridiculous buffoon can win - just being a Republican will probably be enough to get him close to half the electorate, and Bill Clinton's idiotic decision to talk to the AG hurt his wife pretty badly. I still think he'd be an utter catastrophe as president.

[Kurieuo]

Yeah, I'm not sure of the percentages but that blonde guy actually has a far reaching influence in the LGBT community.

Although Ed, I think you've been more correct in the past saying Trump isn't really a Republican, no matter how tongue in cheek you were being. I'm not sure Trump is really Republican in anything but nominality for similar reasons you've previously suggested.

It seems to me, the guy would love to just break both wings off US politics, first the right and then the left, and shove them all up every politicians you-know-what. For that reason, many Republican politicians dislike him, find Trump extremely insulting. Although Trump polls well with Republican people who generally have chips on their shoulders, just like Trump.

Now with more and more support coming from a powerful LGBT community, add in the recent Hillary scandal where the FBI director laid out all the evidence that should have Hillary prosecuted while recommending no action be taken... the left wing is starting to break too, or will it more simply just drop off?

You know, we just had an election in Australia. Just came and went. Yours in the US drags on for ages, but is certainly much more interesting than ours here.

[edwardmurphy]

Yeah, I'm not sure of the percentages but that blonde guy actually has a far reaching influence in the LGBT community.

Although Ed, I think you've been more correct in the past saying Trump isn't really a Republican, no matter how tongue in cheek you were being. I'm not sure Trump is really Republican in anything but nominality for similar reasons you've previously suggested.

He's definitely not a Republican. He's socially a lot more liberal than the Republican base is comfortable with. He doesn't give a damn about major wedge issues like marriage equality, gay rights, and all the bathroom stuff. His trade policy is protectionist, which is the exact opposite of the Republican big business, free trade platform. His foreign policy (to the extent that he has one) is also a poor fit for the Republican platform. He's not the slightest bit religious, which is typically anathema to the Republican base. And it's literally true to say that he's taken both sides of pretty much every major issue. Unfortunately for the Republican leadership it doesn't seem like their base cares about the platform, either.

It seems to me, the guy would love to just break both wings off US politics, first the right and then the left, and shove them all up every politicians you-know-what. For that reason, many Republican politicians dislike him, find Trump extremely insulting. Although Trump polls well with Republican people who generally have chips on their shoulders, just like Trump.

You give him more credit than I do. I think he's a smart opportunist looking to ride a wave of populist anger to the White House. This is all about self-aggrandizement.

Now with more and more support coming from a powerful LGBT community, add in the recent Hillary scandal where the FBI director laid out all the evidence that should have Hillary prosecuted while recommending no action be taken... the left wing is starting to break too, or will it more simply just drop off?

I don't know that the LGBT community is powerful. They've managed to wrestle the moral high ground away from the religious right and they're getting their way on some stuff, but they're hardly the NRA or the AARP. If they were to defect en masse from the Democrats then maybe they could play kingmaker, but that seems unlikely to me.

I'll grant you that the last few weeks have been truly awful for Clinton. At this point I'm half expecting Sanders to be alive after the first ballot at the DNC. If he's not, though, I expect that most of his supporters will line up behind Clinton. They won't necessarily like it, but Trump is a tough pill to swallow and Clinton has nothing to lose by moving left to meet them. I don't think many liberal millennials are going to b able to get past his race baiting and misogyny, even if they're on board with his economic policy. Much will depend on how Sanders behaves in the coming months.

You know, we just had an election in Australia. Just came and went. Yours in the US drags on for ages, but is certainly much more interesting than ours here.

I once read that "May you live in interesting times" is a curse in China. I'm beginning to see why. I envy you guys your sane election cycle. Ours is interminable.

[edwardmurphy]

I forgot imminent domain. That's another issue where Trump is on the opposite side of Republican ideology.

[RickD]

I forgot imminent domain. That's another issue where Trump is on the opposite side of Republican ideology.

Ed,

Maybe for those of us like myself who are ignorant Christians, could you please explain the difference between imminent domain, and eminent domain?

[B. W.]

Yes, and all related -ist's and -obe's. That's the beauty of being a leftist. Not only are you intellectually superior to all the knuckle draggers, you are morally superior, too. If stupid conservatives would only realize how evil they are and how just and righteous the leftists are, then the world would be such a better place!

You know what? [love you]. I'm sick of being labeled a leftist. It's insulting and dismissive. The implication is that everything that I say can be discounted because I'm a member of the category you stuck me in. That's BS.

Jac, last I looked you were a YEC. I happen to find that position laughably absurd, but you'll notice that I've never once discounted your arguments as "creatard" gibberish.

Rick, you deny climate change despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but I don't dismiss everything that you say because of it.

B.W., you're nuts, but I still read your posts, and as often as not I give detailed, thoughtful responses.

ACB, well, whatever.

The point here is that I respond to the ideas presented by individuals and even when I'm caustic and dismissive I do my damndest to enure that I'm also specific. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.

Nuts for what ? posting facts from the actual transcript of Coomey's own words spoken on nation TV?

Letting folks actual read and decide for themselves? You call that nuts?

Oh wait... decide for themselves is against your point of view...sorry I forgot

Next,

Again feigning a [Love You] and calling us nuts and other names proves that such [love you] is feigned.

Hypothetically, suppose HRC was a Republican say instead is George Bush and the same scenario played out, Ed, would would be so dismissive?

I would not be and others here would not be so dismissive either, guilty is guilty...
-
-
-

[edwardmurphy]

I forgot imminent domain. That's another issue where Trump is on the opposite side of Republican ideology.

Ed,

Maybe for those of us like myself who are ignorant Christians, could you please explain the difference between imminent domain, and eminent domain?

Until the baby starts sleeping again they're the same thing.

Nuts for what ? posting facts from the actual transcript of Coomey's own words spoken on nation TV?

Letting folks actual read and decide for themselves? You call that nuts?

No. I was speaking more generally.

Oh wait... decide for themselves is against your point of view...sorry I forgot

You know better than that.

Next,

Again feigning a [Love You] and calling us nuts and other names proves that such [love you] is feigned.

I don't think "feigning" means what you think it does. Or maybe it does, and you didn't realize that the web site's filter replaced my actual comment with [love you]. I'm a bit confused.

Hypothetically, suppose HRC was a Republican say instead is George Bush and the same scenario played out, Ed, would would be so dismissive?

I'd try not to be. Obviously we all have our biases, and I'd really hate to see the orangutan get to select 2-3 Supreme Court nominees, but I do my best to be as objective as possible.

That said, it's hard to listen to anything coming from the Republicans these days. There have just been too many fake scandals, too much petty obstructionism, and too much manufactured outrage. It started the day Obama was elected, it hasn't stopped since, and I'm sick of it.

I would not be and others here would not be so dismissive either, guilty is guilty...

Would you? It's easy enough to put the shoe on the other foot. The Iran-Contra deal was blatantly illegal and Reagan clearly knew all about it. Go ahead and call him a criminal.

[abelcainsbrother]

Ed. just seems to be against putting America first,he seems to have a problem with it. The truth Is that whether you like Trump or not he has been speaking out about how lousy our politicians are for 40 years. And the American people can see that politicians in both parties have not put America first. Conservatives have been angry at the Republican party for years because they are wimps politically and lose to the Democrats on every issue. Conservatives expect our elected Republicans to do everything politically to defeat the Democrats and to fight tooth and nail against liberalism and yet they have not done it. So Trump is a no-brainer to those on the right fed up with the Republican party.

The one thing that attracted me to Trump is he is a brawler politically,he is not a wimp like ed is used to. ed is used to wimpy Republicans like Bush who never defends himself or his policies and just let's the Democrats wage political war against him,without fighting back.Trump won't be like that,he will fight politically which is what we've wanted. Just because Trump is a fighter politically ed thinks he's a fascist,but if Trump actually fighting politically for the issues he ran on makes him a fascist? Then I like it. It is time for liberals to start losing politically and they will if Trump gets his way. So much of what liberals have built up over the years will be tore down.

America will prosper economically just by getting our trade deficits under control. And we can have much lower taxes just from putting America first when it comes to trade.The burdon can be more on our trading partners than the American people to bring in money,this is how it was done before we had an income tax.. America has the economic advantage over any other country on earth,we just have not been using it.

Reagan used tariffs to save Harley Davidson motorcycles from Japanese motorcycles and it worked,so this idea we can't do it,or it won't work is not true,it does work and has been done before and it can be done again.

[edwardmurphy]

Ed. just seems to be against putting America first,he seems to have a problem with it. The truth Is that whether you like Trump or not he has been speaking out about how lousy our politicians are for 40 years. And the American people can see that politicians in both parties have not put America first.

For 40 years? So whether things are going well or poorly Trump has been spouting off about how everyone else is dumb? Boom or bust, war or peace, no matter what? And you think that makes him credible? Whatever.

Anyway, you're wrong about this "America first" nonsense. Trump's plan to put America first involves backing out of alliances, starting trade wars, and generally destabilizing the world. That's not beneficial to the United States or anyone else. He'd be putting us first by screwing the whole world, which seems great until you remember that we're in the world, too.

Conservatives have been angry at the Republican party for years because they are wimps politically and lose to the Democrats on every issue. Conservatives expect our elected Republicans to do everything politically to defeat the Democrats and to fight tooth and nail against liberalism and yet they have not done it. So Trump is a no-brainer to those on the right fed up with the Republican party.

First off, you keep saying that but you never provide a single scrap of evidence to back it up. Nothing. Ever. I guess that makes sense, since Trump doesn't either, and you're just the parrot on his shoulder. Still, you could at least try.

Second, no, it's not the Republicans' job to fight tooth and nail against liberalism. The Republicans' job is to work with the Democrats to negotiate the best compromises possible for the greater good of our nation. You personally may hate (what you call) liberalism (but is really just a BS straw man), but more than half the people in this country are liberals or moderates and expecting that the conservative minority will always get it's way is silly and childish. Grow up, ACB.

The one thing that attracted me to Trump is he is a brawler politically,he is not a wimp like ed is used to. ed is used to wimpy Republicans like Bush who never defends himself or his policies and just let's the Democrats wage political war against him,without fighting back.Trump won't be like that,he will fight politically which is what we've wanted. Just because Trump is a fighter politically ed thinks he's a fascist,but if Trump actually fighting politically for the issues he ran on makes him a fascist? Then I like it. It is time for liberals to start losing politically and they will if Trump gets his way. So much of what liberals have built up over the years will be tore down.

Trump is a lying blowhard who blurts out whatever stupid thing pops into his head, and is then too arrogant and proud to ever retract it, regardless of how stupid, dangerous, or damaging to his ambitions it might be. I realize that for some people that makes him a breath of fresh air, but those people tend to have a pretty tenuous grasp on reality.

I have never said that he's a fascist. What I've said is that he's using the same kinds of divisive, populist campaign strategies that have been used by fascists in the past. Trump's method of whipping up support is reckless and dangerous. That's why the KKK and other white supremacist groups love him so much. He spews hate. He finds the angriest voice in the room and he amplifies it.

Trump is scary. He's used his newfound political clout to try and intimidate the judge in his Trump U case. That's alarming. The other day a woman at a rally asked him if he supported firing Muslim TSA and INS employees and replacing them with veterans. His response was that he'd look into it. Think about that. A supporter proposed firing US citizens from their jobs for being the wrong religion and he said it was worth considering. Again, that's alarming. Just yesterday he apparently told Congressional Republicans that he'd be the best Constitutional President ever, and then added that he'd defend Article XII. There is no Article XII. That's Trump for you. He brags about his immense knowledge, then immediately demonstrates that he doesn't actually have any.

America will prosper economically just by getting our trade deficits under control. And we can have much lower taxes just from putting America first when it comes to trade.The burdon can be more on our trading partners than the American people to bring in money,this is how it was done before we had an income tax.. America has the economic advantage over any other country on earth,we just have not been using it.

America is already prospering economically. The problem is that 90% of us are missing out on the new wealth. Lowering our corporate taxes isn't going to bring those lost jobs back. The world is more complicated than that.

Reagan used tariffs to save Harley Davidson motorcycles from Japanese motorcycles and it worked...

I wasn't aware of this claim, so I did some research. It turns out that the actual claim - that tariffs saved Harley Davidson - falls somewhere between extremely exaggerated and false, and the implied claim - that Ronald the Great was actually a bit of a protectionist - is also mostly false.

Harley was in trouble because their labor costs were high, their management was poor, and 50% of their bikes were shipped with defective parts, but they were still the only American motorcycle company left and the name still carried mystique. Their wounds were mostly self-inflicted, they really didn't deserve a bail out, and the Reagan administration didn't think it was good economic policy to give them one, but Reagan was also worried that if he said no and they went under he'd [have a beer] a lot of blue-collar voters. He was also concerned that a few protectionists in Congress would use the death of Harley as an opportunity to rewrite the international trade statutes to scale down the president's powers and make it easier for them to implement protectionist measures.

So he said yes to a tariff on bikes with 700 cc+ engines, but he also gave European bike makers an exemption. The only people who really got hit by the tariff were the Japanese bike manufacturers (and the 3,000 Americans working in Japanese motorcycle retail, distribution, and after-market jobs in the States). The Japanese companies with plants in the US just increased production here and evaded the tariff that way. Those that didn't responded by designing bikes with 699 cc engines for the next production year. Harley Davidson sales only went up by 6% due to the 45% tariffs on Japanese bikes.

The biggest reason that HD is still here is that they fixed the things that were wrong with their company. They basically copied everything the Japanese were doing, which resulted in a better margins on a better product. Reagan's tariff gave them enough breathing room to save themselves, but it did so by raising prices for American consumers who had no interest in ever owning a Harley and just wanted Japanese bikes.

To quote the Cato Institute's assessment:

Once again, President Reagan chose to sacrifice free trade and economic prosperity to short-term political goals. Consumers may well view the higher price of motorcycles as just another form of public financing of presidential campaigns; this version is available to incumbents only.

And no, there is absolutely nothing liberal about the Cato Institute.

so this idea we can't do it,or it won't work is not true,it does work and has been done before and it can be done again.

Sure, Trump could impose tariffs on foreign goods (thereby significantly raising the costs for American consumers), fine the hell out of Apple for using Chinese companies to make their products (thereby causing Apple to pack up and move the rest of their business abroad, too), and start a trade war (thereby causing them to impose tariffs on our stuff, too). I don't question whether he could or even would.

What I disagree with is that he should.

[abelcainsbrother]

Ed. just seems to be against putting America first,he seems to have a problem with it. The truth Is that whether you like Trump or not he has been speaking out about how lousy our politicians are for 40 years. And the American people can see that politicians in both parties have not put America first.

For 40 years? So whether things are going well or poorly Trump has been spouting off about how everyone else is dumb? Boom or bust, war or peace, no matter what? And you think that makes him credible? Whatever.

Anyway, you're wrong about this "America first" nonsense. Trump's plan to put America first involves backing out of alliances, starting trade wars, and generally destabilizing the world. That's not beneficial to the United States or anyone else. He'd be putting us first by screwing the whole world, which seems great until you remember that we're in the world, too.

Conservatives have been angry at the Republican party for years because they are wimps politically and lose to the Democrats on every issue. Conservatives expect our elected Republicans to do everything politically to defeat the Democrats and to fight tooth and nail against liberalism and yet they have not done it. So Trump is a no-brainer to those on the right fed up with the Republican party.

First off, you keep saying that but you never provide a single scrap of evidence to back it up. Nothing. Ever. I guess that makes sense, since Trump doesn't either, and you're just the parrot on his shoulder. Still, you could at least try.

Second, no, it's not the Republicans' job to fight tooth and nail against liberalism. The Republicans' job is to work with the Democrats to negotiate the best compromises possible for the greater good of our nation. You personally may hate (what you call) liberalism (but is really just a BS straw man), but more than half the people in this country are liberals or moderates and expecting that the conservative minority will always get it's way is silly and childish. Grow up, ACB.

The one thing that attracted me to Trump is he is a brawler politically,he is not a wimp like ed is used to. ed is used to wimpy Republicans like Bush who never defends himself or his policies and just let's the Democrats wage political war against him,without fighting back.Trump won't be like that,he will fight politically which is what we've wanted. Just because Trump is a fighter politically ed thinks he's a fascist,but if Trump actually fighting politically for the issues he ran on makes him a fascist? Then I like it. It is time for liberals to start losing politically and they will if Trump gets his way. So much of what liberals have built up over the years will be tore down.

Trump is a lying blowhard who blurts out whatever stupid thing pops into his head, and is then too arrogant and proud to ever retract it, regardless of how stupid, dangerous, or damaging to his ambitions it might be. I realize that for some people that makes him a breath of fresh air, but those people tend to have a pretty tenuous grasp on reality.

I have never said that he's a fascist. What I've said is that he's using the same kinds of divisive, populist campaign strategies that have been used by fascists in the past. Trump's method of whipping up support is reckless and dangerous. That's why the KKK and other white supremacist groups love him so much. He spews hate. He finds the angriest voice in the room and he amplifies it.

Trump is scary. He's used his newfound political clout to try and intimidate the judge in his Trump U case. That's alarming. The other day a woman at a rally asked him if he supported firing Muslim TSA and INS employees and replacing them with veterans. His response was that he'd look into it. Think about that. A supporter proposed firing US citizens from their jobs for being the wrong religion and he said it was worth considering. Again, that's alarming. Just yesterday he apparently told Congressional Republicans that he'd be the best Constitutional President ever, and then added that he'd defend Article XII. There is no Article XII. That's Trump for you. He brags about his immense knowledge, then immediately demonstrates that he doesn't actually have any.

America will prosper economically just by getting our trade deficits under control. And we can have much lower taxes just from putting America first when it comes to trade.The burdon can be more on our trading partners than the American people to bring in money,this is how it was done before we had an income tax.. America has the economic advantage over any other country on earth,we just have not been using it.

America is already prospering economically. The problem is that 90% of us are missing out on the new wealth. Lowering our corporate taxes isn't going to bring those lost jobs back. The world is more complicated than that.

Reagan used tariffs to save Harley Davidson motorcycles from Japanese motorcycles and it worked...

I wasn't aware of this claim, so I did some research. It turns out that the actual claim - that tariffs saved Harley Davidson - falls somewhere between extremely exaggerated and false, and the implied claim - that Ronald the Great was actually a bit of a protectionist - is also mostly false.

Harley was in trouble because their labor costs were high, their management was poor, and 50% of their bikes were shipped with defective parts, but they were still the only American motorcycle company left and the name still carried mystique. Their wounds were mostly self-inflicted, they really didn't deserve a bail out, and the Reagan administration didn't think it was good economic policy to give them one, but Reagan was also worried that if he said no and they went under he'd [have a beer] a lot of blue-collar voters. He was also concerned that a few protectionists in Congress would use the death of Harley as an opportunity to rewrite the international trade statutes to scale down the president's powers and make it easier for them to implement protectionist measures.

So he said yes to a tariff on bikes with 700 cc+ engines, but he also gave European bike makers an exemption. The only people who really got hit by the tariff were the Japanese bike manufacturers (and the 3,000 Americans working in Japanese motorcycle retail, distribution, and after-market jobs in the States). The Japanese companies with plants in the US just increased production here and evaded the tariff that way. Those that didn't responded by designing bikes with 699 cc engines for the next production year. Harley Davidson sales only went up by 6% due to the 45% tariffs on Japanese bikes.

The biggest reason that HD is still here is that they fixed the things that were wrong with their company. They basically copied everything the Japanese were doing, which resulted in a better margins on a better product. Reagan's tariff gave them enough breathing room to save themselves, but it did so by raising prices for American consumers who had no interest in ever owning a Harley and just wanted Japanese bikes.

To quote the Cato Institute's assessment:

Once again, President Reagan chose to sacrifice free trade and economic prosperity to short-term political goals. Consumers may well view the higher price of motorcycles as just another form of public financing of presidential campaigns; this version is available to incumbents only.

And no, there is absolutely nothing liberal about the Cato Institute.

so this idea we can't do it,or it won't work is not true,it does work and has been done before and it can be done again.

Sure, Trump could impose tariffs on foreign goods (thereby significantly raising the costs for American consumers), fine the hell out of Apple for using Chinese companies to make their products (thereby causing Apple to pack up and move the rest of their business abroad, too), and start a trade war (thereby causing them to impose tariffs on our stuff, too). I don't question whether he could or even would.

What I disagree with is that he should.

Ed,stop wanting to put other countries first like you are. Anything the other countries tried it would hurt them more than the US. It is not about trade wars,it is about respect and fair trade wihich we do not have because of golobalism. I don't care what globalists think,it is their problem they caused. China needs America more than America needs them and it is not fair to the US for them to get the better deal they are getting,while running 500 billion dollar trade deficits. China needs America,it would doom China if something happened to America.So this idea of war,is silly and is just nonsense. Right now America cannot even compete with China the way things are rigged. Sure China doesn't want it to stop because they have the better deal and are using America to make billions of dollars at the expense of America. Why are you more concerned for other countries taking advantage of America? I think this is your biggest issue with Trump. You don't mind other countries getting the better deal.You are more concerned for them.

[edwardmurphy]

Here's an article about how you're wrong. It was written by Ben Shapiro. Conservative enough for you?

[abelcainsbrother]

Here's an article about how you're wrong. It was written by Ben Shapiro. Conservative enough for you?

Thanks for the link but first I must explain why I don't trust Mark Levin and those in the NeverTrump.movements. You see,I paid close attention to the primaries and Mark Levin let me down big time with his unfair attacks against Trump. Both he and Glenn Beck,let me down bigtime because they supported Ted Cruz and I had no problem with that at all. But what stuck out to me were the over the top lies both of them told to try to smear Trump so that people would vote for Cruz.

I mean even Limbaugh preferred Cruz over Trump,but the difference was Rush was fair to Trump,even when he preferred Cruz. Mark Levin and Glrenn Beck were not fair at all. Instead they used liberal media lies and smear tactics against Trump in their support for Cruz. They became the very people that both of them have spoke out against liberal biased smear attacks that were over the top lies,so much so that I could no longer listen to them. I had no problem with them preferring Cruz over Trump but they were using lies and slander against Trump. So I don't trust them like I once did.

You may choose to believe them as it seems to back up your point. But one of the problems with Levin on fair trade and tariffs,as well as even Buchanon and Hahn who support Trump. They all only focused on tariffs and did not consider all of Trump's economic plan. Trump's plan is not just about tariffs like they make it seem,it is more than that and all together is a solid economic plan that was endorsed by Larry Kudlow. So make sure you understand all of what Trump wants to do and not just one aspect of it,because I don't think you're seeing the whole picture. If it was just about tariffs then they might have a point but it is not.I have touched on it before with you before somewhere on here and I didn't even focus on tariffs like they did because Just by lowering America's corporate tax rate below China's is much more important than tariffs,but also tax cuts also,especially for small businesses,plus tariffs also,plus using America's advantage when negotiating - approaching it from a business perspective instead of a politician perspective. It is not just one thing,but all of it together.

[Jac3510]

So some more predictions -- some low hanging fruit, I think. Theresa May will be the next PM of England, which is ironically good for Brexit folk. She campaigned for stay, but she's also committed to executing the vote to leave. She'll be perceived as having a good, steady hand in all of this, and it will assuage some of the fears in the financial world.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/an ... story.html

So that one was easy. Surprising that she is going to step into power so quickly, but I think that just bodes better for Britain and for Europe generally. So we'll see if this . . .

The result will be a much more stable Brexit than its critics predicted, and while this goes well beyond 2016, it will actually fuel the leave campaigns in other countries, most notably France. So watch for stories to pop up now and again about a Frexit. Merkel will focus on biding her time and not doing anything dramatic to try to temper those ideas and preserve the EU, with the problem being an increasing focus on a Germany-lead EU. All of Europe will be somewhat skittish about that, and the French won't be particularly fond of that idea anyway.

. . . turns out to be true.

Still thinking Pence and Gingrich (yuck) are most likely picks. Pence even more now because of Ryan and Cruz' announcements that they will be speaking at the convention. I'm interpreting that as some conciliation on Trump's part. And Pence is much more acceptable to all than Gingrinch. Of course, Trump is predictably unpredictable, so still waiting for a shocker. I don't envy Clinton's veepstakes at all. Castro's too inexperienced (and turns out he doesn't speak Spanish!), although he is a raising star. Sherrod Brown is still the best overall pick for her, but the loss of the senate seat would be terrible for the Democrat party. Warren is beloved, but two women probably overplays that hand. Tom Perez is a sleeper candidate and would really be a sleeper . . . safe, sure. But man . . . boring as it comes.

Also, my comments on ISIS morphing back into a more traditional terrorist organization and focusing on those tactics instead of controlling land looks to be checking out:

https://fabiusmaximus.com/2016/07/10/st ... cks-98187/
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/163322
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mi ... story.html

Although for a somewhat different perspective:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -kerrys-c/

Lastly, there's a belief in White America, particularly in conservative White America (call it flyover country or Bubbaville or redneck town or whatever you like) that BLM is directly responsible for the shootings in Dallas and for the increase in hostility against the police more generally. Network news won't cover that except via oblique condemnations of the idea (rightly or wrongly). Thing is--again right or wrong doesn't matter here, just dealing with the facts--that plays really well for Trump. Normally, this far out, I wouldn't see how it would affect the election, but just like the Tea Party proved to last a few years and affect a few elections, BLM has shown genuine staying power. I don't see how it goes away before November. And while it's always been viewed negatively by a majority of Americans (I think 6 in 10 oppose the movement by the last poll I saw), recent events are only going to cement those views and give them extra motivation in the mind of potential voters. This election really is Trump's to lose. Not that he can't. He's so very unscripted, and his brand of politics (more like traditional corporate marketing) is completely untested. Clinton's tried and true methods could still pull it out. But I continue to maintain that Trump has the edge.

[Jac3510]

Ah, and looks like the Pence announcement will be coming tomorrow night.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... gn-indiana