Is the enthusiastic Republican turnout because their candidates are having lively (and sometimes absurd) debates with young, charismatic, high energy candidates? And is the low Democratic turnout because they are running two tired old career politicians who do nothing but spout socialistic talking points?
Republican turnout may be due to the high energy and sometimes embarrassing debates by the candidates. Lively discussion among what started as 17 candidates along with insults and childish arguments gets ratings, and certainly 17 candidates could be the reason for the high turnout? One thing is for sure, watching Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders debate each other is like watching paint dry while they try to out-due each other offering their voters an endless array of giveaways within a 'socialist utopia'.
Tuesday will tell us a lot and it will be interesting to see if the recent turmoil at Trump events will help or hurt him. What controversial Republican would schedule a rally at the left wing bastion University of Chicago? That is a recipe for trouble since there is not a Republican within miles of that campus and he still had 25,000 people that wanted to attend. The guy has the 'stones' to go into a venue like that and it was probably best to cancel it.
It certainly has been an interesting primary season. There is no question the Republicans are divided and some experts believe the establishment strategy at this point is to spread the vote and go to a 'contested' convention hoping they can nominate one of their own. That would be very interesting for most Americans who have never seen the political process at its extremes, but I doubt if it would work and it would probably insure a Democrat win in November.
On the Democratic side the system is rigged for Hillary - few debates, she gets most of the super delegates, and the Democratic 'establishment' will never let 'Crazy Bernie' carry their mantle, even if Hillary is indicted.
11 comments:
You are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist Chuck.....crossover Democrats to skew the electoral process.....truly. The amount of organization that would require boggles the mind, particularly since it would have to involve thousands of people across many States. And keeping it a secret under those conditions....impossible.
Trump may very well get the nod, I hope not. Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower and Abraham Lincoln will all turn over in their graves if that happens. Bernie may also make the grade....a lot of States left to vote, and the Super Delegate card is already played. An indictment is also still possible. The next couple of months will be interesting to say the least.
You didn't read the Blog carefully Nighthawk, I said "some have speculated". I don't believe the Democrats are that organized, or that smart for that matter. And bless your heart, I know how must dream of a Bernie presidency but your party has it wired for anyone but him.
I must disagree with Nighthawk’s thought that notable past presidents would turn over in their graves if Trump got the nod. History tells us that we have had some under qualified and incompetent presidents in the past. Take a look at BO (aka Barack Obama) who was elected twice in spite of the fact that everything he touched turned out to be disastrous in every respect for our nation. Trump is a true outsider who is telling the electorate that he will not put up with the liberal politically correct business as usual in our bloated government. Will the Republican establishment follow his plans…that remains to be seen, since they are currently trying their hardest to dump the Trump. If it comes down to a choice between Hillary or Trump in November, there is really only one choice.
Well Bob, yours is one of the prevailing opinions, and it certainly has value. If it comes down to a mesogynist, lying, abusive Buffoon; or a sociopathic, serial liar for President, it doesn't make much difference who sits in the WH. Nothing will get done for another four years either way. I may just sit this one out rather than attach my name to either one of them.
I disagree that Trump is an outsider. He played the game with donations to both sides when it was for his benefit. It's a sad day when our only choices are bad and worse.
Nice to hear from you again, hope you are doing well.
Wow my Blog is bringing together old friends...but I must agree with Bob. As I have said previously if the choice is "Hillary" or "No Hillary", there is only one choice. But no matter what, this great country will survive and if something isn't done about the massive national debt, the debt itself will start managing things.
For the record Chuck, I am an Independent, not a Democrat. I vote both sides of the ticket based on the Candidates running. I was a Republican, first very Conservative......voted Nixon (with all of his many flaws), and Reagan......change happened when the middle class began to disappear and so many people ended up on the side of the road asking for handouts. The system wasn't working.....it has only degraded since then. Hopefully, this great country, with all of its natural and people resources will right itself again.
I predict the general election is when the rubber meets the road, and you'll see that same "Obama" enthusiasm; not so much for the Democratic nominee as much as a fiercely anti-vote for Trump. As long as Hillary stays in her own lane (i.e., the center), she will be our next President.
Too bad of that happens. Maybe the Justice Department will do their job and give Congress grounds to impeach the day after she is elected, and before she has time to steal the silverware and antiques.
Jim I believe there will be as much fiercely 'anti-vote' enthusiasm against Hillary as there will be for Trump (if he is the nominee). And if Hillary's lane is the 'center' I must have driven off the freeway :-)
'Anonymous' I agree with you, the middle class has suffered. But I am sure that the majority of liberals will disagree with my solution to the problem. The country needs less government regulation, along with a smaller less expensive government,lower taxes, and some control over entitlements. I don't mean Medicare or Soc Security, but I believe there are so many productive citizens that are on government assistance, food stamps, disability, subsidized housing, etc., that it is a two edged sword - instead of receiving government payments these could be paying taxes. And of course we should take care of the very needy in our country. But I am sure many of these folks on the margin want to work! So probably the most important solution to the problem is an economy that creates good jobs. Some say that time has passed for all but the highly educated or skilled craftsman....I don't know the answer to that question. But to demonize the rich will never work...should a CEO earn $50 million a year, should an athlete earn $50 million a year, should an actor earn $50 million a year? Probably not, but how could you ever regulate the free market, and taxing them to death is not the answer, in fact the opposite is probably true.
Ya, I guess them spending on a Super Yacht, cocaine, hookers, or a new Lamborghini is better use of the money. I mean, really, does anyone really need $50 million dollars? I'm with Gates and Buffett, who build companies and donate money to improve the lives of others......and who have foundations to continue that work after they are gone. If I had it, I would be spreading it around where it did more good than in a bank. Money is not a goal in life, it's only green paper, and it's a byproduct of a life well managed. How you use it is who you really are. People like Larry Elliston only have my contempt, not admiration. In my humble opinion, speculation needs to stop, particularly in real estate and the stock market. A 90% tax on gains from assets held less than a year and not reinvested, tax declining by 10% for each year held until it meets the tax for regular income. Don't tell me that Capital would leave the country. Where would it go....China, Europe...those markets are inherently unstable or corrupt. It's also speculative investment. It doesn't create jobs, or actually make anything. Speculative investment just moves money around, to the smarter investor from the less intelligent....or less lucky.
Post a Comment