Rove: Let's face it, GOP Nominee might need to be somebody other than Trump OR Cruz-

STDs can be pretty nasty. I'm not sure everyone would agree that a lifetime of Valtrex, or Interferon really outweighs the benefits of not getting married before having sex.

 

Rove would be happy if the Repubs nominated a pro-amnesty Democrat who was in favor of Obama appointing a liberal judge to the Supreme Court.............

 

Clinton vs. Trump

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Kasich vs. Clinton

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html

 

Kasich is a better selection from the GOP herd, of course. But, he's faced essentially zero opposition attention from either party on ANY issue.

 

Kasich is someone independents can support and his favorable/unfavorable rating is at a plus 25 whereas Trump's is a negative 35. But you are correct, the fact he doesn't have a snowball chance in Hades of winning the nomination has kept a lot of scrutiny away from him. There is also around 25% of the public who has not heard enough about him to form an opinion either favorable or unfavorable.

 

But, of course, National polls are meaningless at this point.

Once the nominees are chosen, and head-to-head matchups (in swing states) start crystallizing (usually around mid-October), I might start paying attention to polls.

Right now they are nothing more than a speculative snapshot.

 

Getting married is no assurance for not getting an STD - lots of people have found that it is a combination of marriage AND fidelity that diminishes your chances of an STD

 

Which ones? Be specific, please. And offer proof other than the imaginary snippets floating around in liberal heads via fools like Chrissy Matthews, Georgie Stephanopoulos, Whoopie Goldberg, etc etc etc.

 

Sleeping with only one person who never slept with anyone else pretty much eliminates STDs. Yes, being sleazy hurts your chances for a lot of things especially staying married.

 

More of those who are college educated are getting married. That is, those with less education are less likely to marry with "no high school" on the bottom and "4 year degree or more" most likely.

Also, education correlates with marriages lasting.

See Pew Research


- just one more positive from education!

 

Oh BS, Gorn & the rest of you lib's are supporting her, you're just to embarrassed to admit it.

 

She's head and shoulders above every other candidate, plus she's the middle of the road candidate.

She has FAR more foreign policy experience - a critical area right now.

She is the reasoned hawk.


While I lean toward Sanders, nobody can possibly be embarrassed about supporting Clinton.

 

I wouldn't say they are meaningless, they let you know where things stand right now, today. Also ignoring the horse race numbers and going inside the polls, they can let you know how voters feel about certain candidates, how the demographics breakdown, etc. They can verify trends, both positive and negative.

Obtaining trends, whether a candidate is going up or down is an important indication. Knowing how voters feel about a candidate, whether they like him or not, are willing to vote for him or not are all important factors. Folks usually will not vote for someone they dislike.

But yes, polls are but a tool. One should never put their complete trust in them or put trust in just one or two of them. But when poll after poll, 20 or 30 of them for 4 month show approximately the same, there are some indicators I doubt will change much.

 

???Wait a minute....If you believe she's "head & shoulders above EVERY OTHER candidate" why are leaning toward an "other candidate", Sanders???

 

As do you.
At least you can now admit that and maybe you can see just how far off you are on this.
You do see how stupid your assertion is, don't you?

AID's is a direct result of ronnie raygun, that has to be true using your logic.
Prove that wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

ALL caused by the republicans and the conservatives.
Proven fact.

 

I'll take this as you have no data. No statistics whatsoever that back you baseless assertions.

 

I have the very same data that you have.
It proves ronald reagan caused AID's.
It's a proven fact as much as your data proves your assertions.

 

LOL....Reagan "caused" AIDS. He certainly got around, didn't he.

 

Good point - I certainly didn't do a good job of that post.

Hill's experience and the fact that she is moderate (while others are not) are serious attributes. She's the one who could step in on day one.

Overall, I'd say she is the most qualified candidate. But, I "caucused" for Sanders, because I'm concerned that Hill is too oriented to using our military.

 

That's exactly why they're going to confirm him. After the GOP convention, it will happen so quick you're head will spin!

 

Ok, but why is Hill's experience a serious attribute? I mean, she was SoS, right? So, what did she "accomplish" specifically? She was the wife of a women abuser who's been implicated as anything but someone who defends abused women. She was remiss in setting up a private, off the radar, form of communication as SoS! And really, a "moderate"?
Now Sanders, I get you folks supporting him, he's a socialist. Nothing moderate about him.

 

You're just trying to be insulting, and that reflects pretty badly on you.

Past secretaries of state have all done what she did - it was standard practice way back, and was exacerbated by the continued government habit of declaring everything secret.

And, YES, Hill is THE middle of the road candidate.

Both Trump and Cruz are locked so far right that there is no possibility of anyone being MORE right. But, with Hill, there is plenty of room for a viable candidate on her left.


Yes, Sanders has some ideas that are more extreme, but they aren't going to happen. It's like Cruz saying he's going to throw out the IRS. No, Cruz is not going to throw out the IRS. In fact, he isn't going to change our tax system in any fundamental way.

 

THE GREAT CHALKENING: America Awakens!

[video=youtube;24e_aF9CKVQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24e_aF9CKVQ&feature=youtu.be[/video]

 

No (*)(*)(*)(*)!ng way Hildebeast is "middle". She is so far Left that Stalin would be proud.

 

Okay, so what major politician, in your view, is a "Centrist"?