HuskerNation1

Here's an even more important question. Why do you insist on bringing the level of quality conversation in any thread in P&R down such a drastic amount? Give me a break...if you look through this entire thread, you will see sarcasm and funny remarks throughout, whether its about Hillary, Trump, or now even "feeling the johnson." If you don't have a sense of humor you might not want to view these threads.

Interesting find. In looking at all the bullets, I think it could apply to our current POTUS as well as the 2 major party candidates running right now. That's a matter of opinion ... Well I think everything on huserboard is a matter of opinion, whether its this politics forum or the main football room. I'm just saying as I read through the list of bullets, many apply to Obama, Hillary, and Trump.

Interesting find. In looking at all the bullets, I think it could apply to our current POTUS as well as the 2 major party candidates running right now.

So here's a very important question for all of you. Did Bill really fall asleep during Hillary's speech, or was he just thinking about that dress Katy Perry was wearing a few minutes earlier. Thoughts? http://ntknetwork.com/bill-clinton-falls-asleep-during-hillary-clintons-convention-speech/ I know some will say I have a biased view, but as I was commenting on last night during the speech, I don't think Hillary did what she needed to with her speech and came across as angry and a bit condescending. Obama's former chief of staff stated it wasn't a great speech from HIllary as well. Perhaps she should be thankful that not as many people watched her speech as they did Trumps the Thursday night before. http://deadline.com/2016/07/donald-trump-speech-ratings-beat-hillary-clinton-rnc-dnc-1201795035/

So both conventions are officially over, and after some new polling out today, the RCP average is as follows: Trump: 44.3 Clinton: 44.3 That is crazy. Now, I expect Hillary's numbers in some other polls to go up and her to pull ahead in a 1/1 matchup. However, in the 4-way race including Johnson and Stein, Trump is up almost a point which indicates that the 3rd party candidates continue to pull more from Hillary. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

It wouldn't surprise me. We have seen huge swings in the recent elections and each polling group will alter their sample to reflect who they they will be showing up this fall. For instance, the general party Identification is something like 36% Dems, 33% Republicans, and 30% Independents. Now these numbers will flucutate slightly, but I have seen some polls out that use a final sample of 45% Dems, 32% Republicans, and only 22% Independents. In those cases, the numbers for Trump and Johnson are lower, while they are higher for HIllary. Every time I see a poll I try to see their methodology but most of the polling firms are not real up front on how they weighted their sample to reflect the final results. Actually, as of 2014, it was 30% Dems, 26% Repubs, and 43% independent. According to Gallop. Good catch...i was looking at the wrong poll. These gallup numbers, if accurate, are further proof that many of the polls being released now showing the sample of 40% Dems, 32 or 33% Republicans, and only 27% Independents are not reflecting the correct sample groups.

His testimony was similar to Patricia Smiths at the RNC who spoke about her son being killed in the Benghazi attack, and Hillary dismissing that event by blaming a video and stating "what difference does it make."

Well outside of the 2012 election, Rasmussen has been viewed as one of the most accurate pollsters, including the past 2 midterms and in 2004 and 2008. My point earlier is that pollsters rated by Nate Silver that did well in 2012 may not be the same pollsters that do well in 2016 as this is such an unusual election, and its much more difficult to do polling now. And to confuse matters more, the state polling is all over the board as well. We have some Pennsylvania polls showing HIllary up by 9, while others have Trump up by a few. I guess the real poll will be on election day. The data in the aforementioned link is historical data, based on Presidential outcomes of past elections. Historically, the Rasmussen poll hasn't been all that accurate in comparison. Why that's the case is anyone's guess according to that table. Perhaps Rasmussen sucked in its early stages, but has since been refined resulting in more accurate decisions. My point is is that table gives us some perspective on how we should treat/interpret a right-leaning poll that says Trump up 3 or a left-leaning poll that says Hillary up 5. There is, however, some intrigue, when one of the more right-biased polls has the Democratic candidate up one. Good points. My gut feeling this year is that polling results will be more confusing than ever. Case in point...both the LA Times and Ipsos received an A- grade per Silver, yet these polls are 11 points off as if yesterday and covered a similar time frame. Ipsos had Hillary up 4 and the LA Times had Trump up 7.

I wouldn't get overly excited. Most military generals in recent years are not happy with the Obama/Clinton foreign policy approach against ISIS and in general, as well as their strong opposition to the Iran deal that Hillary came out in support of. Additionally, Panetta, Gates, and Hagel who all worked for the Obama administration also have gone on record stating the Obama/Hillary approach to foreign policy is bad for America. Here are just a few of those who have expressed their dissatisfaction. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/3/obama-military-strategy-blasted-by-robert-gates-le/ http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-army-general-exposes-barack-obama-in-a-big-way-after-resigning/ http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/top-american-generals-stand-united-bold-public-stance-barack-obama/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/15/obama-ignored-generals-pleas-to-keep-american-forc/ http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/obama-vs-the-generals-099379 http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/08/28/former-generals-line-up-against-obamas-iran-deal-n2044995 Oh bnl, you are so predictable with the republican defense and multiple link posts. By the way your attempting to defend a position that I didn't question by the way. They may not have liked the past regimes choices and direction militarily, the point of this man's speech, if you listened to it was that no matter his belief in Hilary being or not being the ideal candidate choice, Trump is a danger to this country. Home and abroad and there is absolutely NO WAY Trump should represent the country. And he's not the only one: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2016/07/25/marine-gen-john-allen-has-endorsed-hillary-clinton-president-heres-why-matters/87539996/ And the biggest impact, the open letter from the GOP Defense National Security Leaders - signed by 121 well respected thought leaders. We the undersigned, members of the Republican national security community, represent a broad spectrum of opinion on Americas role in the world and what is necessary to keep us safe and prosperous. We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq war and intervention in Syria. But we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. Recognizing as we do, the conditions in American politics that have contributed to his popularity, we nonetheless are obligated to state our core objections clearly: His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle. He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence. His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world. His embrace of the expansive use of torture is inexcusable. His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combating Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims. Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor. Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II. His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the worlds greatest democracy. He is fundamentally dishonest. Evidence of this includes his attempts to deny positions he has unquestionably taken in the past, including on the 2003 Iraq war and the 2011 Libyan conflict. We accept that views evolve over time, but this is simply misrepresentation. His equation of business acumen with foreign policy experience is false. Not all lethal conflicts can be resolved as a real estate deal might, and there is no recourse to bankruptcy court in international affairs. Mr. Trumps own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world. Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States. Therefore, as committed and loyal Republicans, we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head. We commit ourselves to working energetically to prevent the election of someone so utterly unfitted to the office. Well you are trying to suggest that Military leaders are horrified of a Trump Presidency and my counterpoint is that there are far more military leaders AND secretaries of defense who are terrified of a Hillary Presidency. The difference in the 2 arguments is that we have actual results from the Obama Clinton approach to foreign policy and we are seeing it play out in Paris, Nice, Brussels, Normandy, Orlando, Turkey, and more.

For the record Hillary was tweeting throughout the RNC as well, but thats just on par for all the double speak we heard last night.

WHAT A FAKE Now now...take it easy on Chelsea. She did a really nice job just as Ivanka did the week before. I didn't watch either of them. I was playing Skyrim. Ok. Chelsea to me (a Conservative) did the best job of any DNC prime-tiem speaker as she spoke from the heart and was very genuine.

So I am really interested to hear what truly Independent voters on here are thinking of Hillary's speech. To me the one thing she needed to do herself was to humanize herself and come across as more genuine and authentic. I think for 3 or 4 minutes she did so when she spoke of her mom and parents, and her tone changed for the better. As I listen to the rest of the speech, what I hear is just another typical politician promising a bunch of stuff that does not align with her track record (such as opposing TPP, Wall Street, and Citizens United). I think it would have done her more good to explain how/why she's changed her stance on these key issues rather than just claiming she's now against TPP and Wall Street. My guess is she will get a slight bounce out of this, and we will end up with a 1 or 2 point race on average in a couple weeks.

WHAT A FAKE Now now...take it easy on Chelsea. She did a really nice job just as Ivanka did the week before.

Glad you agree...I think her problem is that the way she is speaking sounds condescending...like she is talking slowly to annunciate so we can understand her. I'm sure her speech writers have tried to help her, but I think that is part of the issue. Bill and Obama are extremely gifted speakers and it comes much more naturally for them.

Where did Chelsea inherit her authenticity genes from? She was great and to me gave the best speech of the entire DNC (with Michelle in 2nd). Halfway through Hillary's speech, I'm not sure she is helping herself very much. She is shouty and sounds angry, and simply does not come across as authentic. It will be interesting to see how truly Independent Voters are viewing her relative to Trump's speech from a week ago.

Short version: A 19 year old who was 12 when Obama was elected discovers the President isn't all powerful. Slightly longer version-This 12 year old fell for the false promise of hope and change of which Obama failed to deliver.

Here's a very well written article regarding the perspective of a young American regarding the Hope and Change Obama promised in 2008. It's not a bitter partisan article but a nice read on why so many millennials and younger Americans are disillusioned with politics. http://theweek.com/articles/629891/im-19yearold-democrat-heres-how-lost-faith-obama

If you are looking for a pro-tax candidate, it looks like Hillary should be your choice. http://www.atr.org/full-list-hillary-s-planned-tax-hikes

Well said, and I completely agree that today's Democratic party has gone way too far to the left. As for Bloomberg, he's too much of an elitist for me, wanting the government to dictate what to drink, what to drive, etc.. He's probably a good candidate for a large city like New York but I don't believe his approach carries over well to the nation.

I wouldn't get overly excited. Most military generals in recent years are not happy with the Obama/Clinton foreign policy approach against ISIS and in general, as well as their strong opposition to the Iran deal that Hillary came out in support of. Additionally, Panetta, Gates, and Hagel who all worked for the Obama administration also have gone on record stating the Obama/Hillary approach to foreign policy is bad for America. Here are just a few of those who have expressed their dissatisfaction. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/3/obama-military-strategy-blasted-by-robert-gates-le/ http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-army-general-exposes-barack-obama-in-a-big-way-after-resigning/ http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/top-american-generals-stand-united-bold-public-stance-barack-obama/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/15/obama-ignored-generals-pleas-to-keep-american-forc/ http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/obama-vs-the-generals-099379 http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/08/28/former-generals-line-up-against-obamas-iran-deal-n2044995

Well outside of the 2012 election, Rasmussen has been viewed as one of the most accurate pollsters, including the past 2 midterms and in 2004 and 2008. My point earlier is that pollsters rated by Nate Silver that did well in 2012 may not be the same pollsters that do well in 2016 as this is such an unusual election, and its much more difficult to do polling now. And to confuse matters more, the state polling is all over the board as well. We have some Pennsylvania polls showing HIllary up by 9, while others have Trump up by a few. I guess the real poll will be on election day.

It wouldn't surprise me. We have seen huge swings in the recent elections and each polling group will alter their sample to reflect who they they will be showing up this fall. For instance, the general party Identification is something like 36% Dems, 33% Republicans, and 30% Independents. Now these numbers will flucutate slightly, but I have seen some polls out that use a final sample of 45% Dems, 32% Republicans, and only 22% Independents. In those cases, the numbers for Trump and Johnson are lower, while they are higher for HIllary. Every time I see a poll I try to see their methodology but most of the polling firms are not real up front on how they weighted their sample to reflect the final results.

A couple of funny cartoon links to share: http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gmc14334120160727094600.jpg http://www.theospark.net/2016/07/cartoon-round-up_28.html

Umm...Barack has never taken the high road against Republicans and has called them terrorists before. The only thing he is passionate about anymore is bashing Republicans so I 100% disagree that he has taken the high road, but will agree that Michelle has overall. He was openly courting Republicans last night. Talking about the military. Talking about "real America". Talking about Reagan and how his values no longer apply to the party. True statement. Hmm...how do Reagan's values no longer apply to the Republican party? All parties evolve, and the Democratic party today is nothing like that of JFK's Democratic party. Both parties have moved to the left and right. As for Obama talking about the military and the real america, that is a joke. He is extremely out of touch and not well liked by the military or veterans in general. Ummm.....you answered your own question. Not really...I was asking YOU for specifics on how things are completely different. From what I can tell, the GOP still seeks lower taxes and less government as Reagan did, as well as a strong military and aggressive approach to foreign policy. True......and they think their path to that is through anger, bigotry, racism, and creating this view that the other side is evil and unAmerican. That isn't how Reagan ran campaigns or how he ran the government. He reached across the isle to work with Tip O'nell instead of pumping out constant hatred and propaganda painting them as the enemy. Reagan would be appalled at Conservatives now days. He worked hard to push his agenda but in a way that unified people. There isn't one damn thing unifying about the Republican party right now unless you are an angry old white man who claims to be Christian. THAT is not the Reagan Republican party. You are a riot sometimes. It's true their is dissent in the GOP today, but I think even less unity in the Democratic party. And I am not sure Reagan would have been able to be as unifying if he were running in 2016 with the rise of the Internet, cable news, social media, etc.. People now have more outlets to share their political views than just casting a ballot every other November. Reagan didn't have to deal with that. The propaganda machine you saw against Bush 43 in 2006 was just a glimpse of how the Dems would have gone after Reagan in the 1980s if they had the same tools at their disposal. I think Reagan was an awesome POTUS, but both parties seem to be stuck on this notion that we have to repeat his time as POTUS, and that is just not reality given the changing political climate I referenced above. The same qualities you reference about Reagan reaching across to Tip is the same reason I hold Bill Clinton in much higher regard than Obama. Obama has done nothing to try to meet the GOP in the middle despite claims from some on here that it was solely because the Congress was unwilling to work with him. That's a big reason you are seeing the anger in the GOP today as we have a POTUS that only thinks of himself and how things benefit him politically, rather than focusing on what is best for the country. As for the GOP coalition, I would say it includes the following: Whites like you mentioned, both men and women Christians/Evangelicals Pro-business voters that believe in capitalism Those favoring less government Military personnel Veterans Law enforcement Jews (on the rise in their move to the GOP) As for the GOP being racist, why are you making such claims. Why is it that every time a criticism of the Republican party comes up your immediate response is...."But the Democrats are so bad....bla bla bla". I agree the Democrats suck. But, I (and many other former Republican voters) find that they can no longer vote Republican due to what they have become. Fix that and rule the world. Don't fix that and allow the Dems to run all over you. As for why I believe this? Look at what they do and say along with the absolute total crap Republicans put out on social media as propaganda. It baffles me that a sane person can look at this crap and say...."hey....I want to be a part of this group". And as I stated earlier, there are many common components of Conservatism that still stand today (remain Reagan's 3 stools of Conservatism). I agree that the tone and partisanship has changed since the 1980s, but as I pointed out, I don't think Reagan would have fared as well in today's high-tech hyper-partisan environment. It is what it is, and I don't see that changing for a long time. Reagan would never have dreamed there would be a time where so many Democrats and left-leaning groups would be supporting a group like Black Lives Matters that have called for the killing of cops at some of their rallies. So I think your attempt to always compare the GOP from the 80s to today is not a fair comparison, just as it wouldn't be to compare the Dems from the 1960s to today. We live in a different world. As for calling the GOP racists, again, send me a list of Republican elected officials that are actively making racist statements today? Don't believe that for a bit. Reagan took over an era that was very very similar to this with partisan politics. We were in the midst of the Carter era and it was total crap. Republicans had absolutely NO desire to work with or do anything with the Dems. However, Reagan came along and instilled a proud and calming feeling in not just the Republicans but in the entire country. That is why he won by such huge margins especially in his second term. Fast forward to now, instead of that, we have an egotistical 2 year old FANNING the flames of hatred. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Things are much worse and more divided now than in 1980. I think Reagan is awesome and always will, but I don't think he would have won 49 states in this day and age. Blue states have gotten more blue, and red states have gotten more red.

Umm...Barack has never taken the high road against Republicans and has called them terrorists before. The only thing he is passionate about anymore is bashing Republicans so I 100% disagree that he has taken the high road, but will agree that Michelle has overall. He was openly courting Republicans last night. Talking about the military. Talking about "real America". Talking about Reagan and how his values no longer apply to the party. True statement. Hmm...how do Reagan's values no longer apply to the Republican party? All parties evolve, and the Democratic party today is nothing like that of JFK's Democratic party. Both parties have moved to the left and right. As for Obama talking about the military and the real america, that is a joke. He is extremely out of touch and not well liked by the military or veterans in general. Ummm.....you answered your own question. Not really...I was asking YOU for specifics on how things are completely different. From what I can tell, the GOP still seeks lower taxes and less government as Reagan did, as well as a strong military and aggressive approach to foreign policy. True......and they think their path to that is through anger, bigotry, racism, and creating this view that the other side is evil and unAmerican. That isn't how Reagan ran campaigns or how he ran the government. He reached across the isle to work with Tip O'nell instead of pumping out constant hatred and propaganda painting them as the enemy. Reagan would be appalled at Conservatives now days. He worked hard to push his agenda but in a way that unified people. There isn't one damn thing unifying about the Republican party right now unless you are an angry old white man who claims to be Christian. THAT is not the Reagan Republican party. You are a riot sometimes. It's true their is dissent in the GOP today, but I think even less unity in the Democratic party. And I am not sure Reagan would have been able to be as unifying if he were running in 2016 with the rise of the Internet, cable news, social media, etc.. People now have more outlets to share their political views than just casting a ballot every other November. Reagan didn't have to deal with that. The propaganda machine you saw against Bush 43 in 2006 was just a glimpse of how the Dems would have gone after Reagan in the 1980s if they had the same tools at their disposal. I think Reagan was an awesome POTUS, but both parties seem to be stuck on this notion that we have to repeat his time as POTUS, and that is just not reality given the changing political climate I referenced above. The same qualities you reference about Reagan reaching across to Tip is the same reason I hold Bill Clinton in much higher regard than Obama. Obama has done nothing to try to meet the GOP in the middle despite claims from some on here that it was solely because the Congress was unwilling to work with him. That's a big reason you are seeing the anger in the GOP today as we have a POTUS that only thinks of himself and how things benefit him politically, rather than focusing on what is best for the country. As for the GOP coalition, I would say it includes the following: Whites like you mentioned, both men and women Christians/Evangelicals Pro-business voters that believe in capitalism Those favoring less government Military personnel Veterans Law enforcement Jews (on the rise in their move to the GOP) As for the GOP being racist, why are you making such claims. Why is it that every time a criticism of the Republican party comes up your immediate response is...."But the Democrats are so bad....bla bla bla". I agree the Democrats suck. But, I (and many other former Republican voters) find that they can no longer vote Republican due to what they have become. Fix that and rule the world. Don't fix that and allow the Dems to run all over you. As for why I believe this? Look at what they do and say along with the absolute total crap Republicans put out on social media as propaganda. It baffles me that a sane person can look at this crap and say...."hey....I want to be a part of this group". And as I stated earlier, there are many common components of Conservatism that still stand today (remain Reagan's 3 stools of Conservatism). I agree that the tone and partisanship has changed since the 1980s, but as I pointed out, I don't think Reagan would have fared as well in today's high-tech hyper-partisan environment. It is what it is, and I don't see that changing for a long time. Reagan would never have dreamed there would be a time where so many Democrats and left-leaning groups would be supporting a group like Black Lives Matters that have called for the killing of cops at some of their rallies. So I think your attempt to always compare the GOP from the 80s to today is not a fair comparison, just as it wouldn't be to compare the Dems from the 1960s to today. We live in a different world. As for calling the GOP racists, again, send me a list of Republican elected officials that are actively making racist statements today?