HuskerNation1

Trump's RNC bump didn't start until after the RNC convention. If Hillary gets one it probably won't show up until after the DNC convention. Well and it depends on the poll. Rasmussens poll just out now shows no bump for Trump at all in the past week. I've never seen more variance among major polling groups in any election cycle. Correction...Rasmussens poll I just referenced was not a full week rolling average but was done Tuesdsay and Wednesday of this week so it would incorporate the DNC convention. The LA Times is a 7 day rolling average with a huge sample of likely voters. So a few weeks ago it looked like the Rasmussen and Reuters poll were outliers with Rasmussen showing Trump up by 5 to 7 points, and Reuters showing Hillary up by 15. Now Rasmussen has Hillary up by 1 today, and Reuters shows a 17 point swing for Trump, and he's up by 2 on Hillary. http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/28/poll-trump-gains-17-point-swing-two-weeks-clinton/

Wow, this just keeps getting better at the DNC. Not only are they offering money to fill seats at the arena tonight, they are also showing their complete hypocrisy by stripping delegate credentials from those who are Bernie delegates. The Dems always claim to be the "open-minded" party yet continue to show that they are only open when someone agrees completely with their viewpoint. http://www.theamericanmirror.com/bernie-delegate-dnc-credentials-stripped-held-unauthorized-sign/

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.

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.

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.First of all what is your source for POTUS calling Republicans terrorists? Seems like something I would remeber. Second why the hell would you take the high road when they made it abundantly clear they would not work with him on any issue during his term and followed through? http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/250542-obama-doubles-down-on-comparing-gop-to-iranian-hardliners First off, as we've debated before, it takes two sides to not work together, and I personally hold my POTUS more responsible for setting a tone of partnership. Like I said, he always seeks to attack the GOP moreso that he will ISIS or actual enemies of the US.

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.

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.

It looks like the DNC has put an ad on Craigslist and is paying $50 for seat fillers at the convention in order to convey a fake sense of unity within the party. http://www.infowars.com/bernie-delegate-dnc-is-replacing-sanders-supporters-with-paid-seat-fillers-to-create-fake-unity/ If that is for several hours at the convention, are they even paying minimum wage?

Trump's RNC bump didn't start until after the RNC convention. If Hillary gets one it probably won't show up until after the DNC convention. Well and it depends on the poll. Rasmussens poll just out now shows no bump for Trump at all in the past week. I've never seen more variance among major polling groups in any election cycle. Correction...Rasmussens poll I just referenced was not a full week rolling average but was done Tuesdsay and Wednesday of this week so it would incorporate the DNC convention. The LA Times is a 7 day rolling average with a huge sample of likely voters.

Well he realizes that if Trump somehow wins that will be Obamas legacy.

And, you have a problem with this? Your party just spent a week doing nothing but bashing and being as negative on everything than I have ever seen at a political convention.......and you then have a problem when another party has some speakers who talk bad about your candidate? No I dont have a problem with the Dems bashing Trump, but the message of unity and positivity from Michelles speech on the first night set a tone that was not followed in any speech after hers. It kind of makes her words seem fake in hindsight.

Trump's RNC bump didn't start until after the RNC convention. If Hillary gets one it probably won't show up until after the DNC convention. Well and it depends on the poll. Rasmussens poll just out now shows no bump for Trump at all in the past week. I've never seen more variance among major polling groups in any election cycle.

I am certain Hillary will get a rebound bounce, but I am perplexed why she hasnt stopped Trumps growing numbers in the LA Times daily tracking poll yet. This poll is in a seven day rolling average, and Trumps numbers have gone up during the first 3 days of the DNC, not down. I would have expected the numbers to have gone down by now. I do think you will see them shrink by tomorrow but we shall see. http://www.latimes.com/politics/

And another article citing how Hillarys team fell for the trap. http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/27/donald-trump-just-got-hillary-clinton-to-admit-her-e-mails-are-a-national-security-issue/

So BNL- I'm assuming seeing the pattern and volume of your posts that your are a lifelong Dem? Guessing you have a Hillary bumpersticker on the car? Yes, my bumper stickers reads "Please elect crooked Hillary"

I'm wondering what happened to the opening night prime time kickoff when Michelle Obama talked about staying positive, and "when they go low we go high." Since that time, I have heard Warren, Bill, Obama, Biden, Kaine, etc... all spend countless minutes of their speech making fun of Trump and Republicans in general. So far Michelle has had the best speech of the convention...if only her initial words were actually followed through by the subsequent speakers.

In other news, it looks like Bernie is once again leaving the Democratic Party and classifying himself as an Independent. He ran as a Democratic socialist for POTUS but I'm sure the fact that the Democratic party completely screwed him over makes him want to run as far away as possible from the word "Democrat." http://heatst.com/politics/bernie-sanders-leaves-the-democratic-party/

I've been traveling all day and have not had a chance to post, but it's comical looking at some of the posts on here about Trump's Russian remarks in his ONE-HOUR press conference. First off, when was the last time Hillary gave a lengthy press conference. Trump timed this press conference to steal some of the thunder from the DNC, and the media is besides itself with his request of the Russians to find Hillary's 33,000 deleted emails. For those that think Trump is a dumb guy, he's a master at manipulating the media. I spent the entire GOP primary process opposed to his antics and approach and by the end realized he's campaigning in a totally different way than any of us are accustomed to. Moreover, its puts the email scandal back in the news, and as Charles Krauthammer and others have pointed out, the Dems fell right into his trap: (Note-Krauthammer is not a huge Trump fan and never has been) Instead of talking about Bill's speech last night, we are all now talking about Wikileaks and tying it to Hillary's email scandal. If Russia actually had such emails, it would be damaging for Hillary in potentially two ways: 1. It would require that all the emails were about wedding planning and completely unimportant information. 2. It would show that Hillary did compromise our country's best interests by allowing hackers into her private email server.

I agree..you know hes a phony yet many still fall for it. Had he stuck to policy it would not have been as bad, but talking about a love story between two people married for political power didnt even pass the sniff test with Rachel Maddow. Juanita Broderick and his other victims will be making their stories more known in the coming months if the Clintons are going to claim they are champions of women.

For starters, in 2008, the breakdown of superdelegates between Obama and Hillary was nearly even when the first couple states voted, so it wasn't as if one candidate had an insurmountable lead from the get go. Second, this whole notion that any candidate can start with a commanding delegate lead before one ballot has been cast does not seem very democratic (small D). Obama also was not up against a DNC that was solely in the tank for Hillary in 2008, AND Obama was a media darling which did more to help him than anything. Bernie was a nice story for the media but not a darling like Obama was in 2008 being the first black to have a good chance at a major party nomination...somehow being the first socialist doesn't seem as appealing to even the far left media. Could Bernie have done more along the way...perhaps, but it still doesn't negate the fact that the Democratic primaries were rigged against him. I do wish that Trump was not the Republican nominee, but I also have to respect Priebus and the RNC for keeping it a fair process and having the candidate that received more votes than any other in GOP history become the nominee (and without superdelegates). The success of Trump and Bernie highlights the desire in this country to have someone speak out against the establishment, and with Trump being a true outsider, he is going to have a good chance of winning in November with an electorate that despises Washington career politicians.

Wow, nice try at spinning this as not being a huge deal. That seems to be the common response for anything that Hillary or the DNC is doing wrong..."well, they all do it" seems to be the canned response. There is no way of knowing how different the Democratic primaries would have turned out had Hillary not been pushed by the DNC from the get go. Despite being behind nearly 600 delegates (via Superdelegates) before the first state even voted, Bernie was very close up until the end. This will make a huge impact this fall as Bernie received close to half of all votes in the Democratic primaries. While a good number of his supporters will end up supporting Hillary, a good number will not and will either vote for Trump, Johnson, Stein, or stay home. The larger that group that chooses to not support Hillary, the bigger impact it will have in November. And let's not forget one key factor in this rigged DNC mess...DWS spearheaded all of this and left her post, BUT the HIllary campaign immediately moved to hire her and put her in a key role for the fall campaign. How is her presence as part of HIllary's campaign going to make many Bernie Sanders want to rush to join Team Hillary. As of yesterday, I think I saw that 5% of those Bernie voters will vote for Trump. The diehards can do what they will. Bernie won 13 million some votes in the primary. Winning a general generally portends 60 or 70 million. If you add ALL of his voters to her 16 million votes, she's not even halfway there. She's not winning this election on the backs of Sanders voters anyway you slice it. The election is won elsewhere. I don't get the optics of appointing DWS to an honorary (likely cushy do-nothing) position. But I doubt it's a key position. They can't be politically dumb enough to give her any kind of public visibility after all of this. But I stand by my assertion. I feel awful for Bernie about all of this. It's wrong and it stinks. I can't stand DWS. But he ran the weaker campaign and he lost, accordingly. And no, I still don't think this drastically changes anything come November. Hmm, I guess I would not discount the impact of Bernie supporters choose other options besides joining Team Hillary. In a typical election 60 to 70 million votes would win the Presidency. IN 2016, with 2 outside parties already getting a combined 12-15% of the vote (Johnson and Stein), the winner of this election may not get to 60 million votes, and the difference between the Hillary and Trump could be less than 5 million votes. If that is the case, Bernie's 13 million votes could play a role. I personally do not think he ran the weaker campaign. He was up against a juggneraut operation that had the backing of all the establishment and the DNC and came extremely close to winning. Had he started out with a 600 superdelegate lead before the first state voted, how do you think the narrative throughout the entire campaign would have differed?

Wow, nice try at spinning this as not being a huge deal. That seems to be the common response for anything that Hillary or the DNC is doing wrong..."well, they all do it" seems to be the canned response. There is no way of knowing how different the Democratic primaries would have turned out had Hillary not been pushed by the DNC from the get go. Despite being behind nearly 600 delegates (via Superdelegates) before the first state even voted, Bernie was very close up until the end. This will make a huge impact this fall as Bernie received close to half of all votes in the Democratic primaries. While a good number of his supporters will end up supporting Hillary, a good number will not and will either vote for Trump, Johnson, Stein, or stay home. The larger that group that chooses to not support Hillary, the bigger impact it will have in November. And let's not forget one key factor in this rigged DNC mess...DWS spearheaded all of this and left her post, BUT the HIllary campaign immediately moved to hire her and put her in a key role for the fall campaign. How is her presence as part of HIllary's campaign going to make many Bernie Sanders want to rush to join Team Hillary.

Let's not equate these mothers coming on stage and pleading for less death and more togetherness with pushing a "cops are bad" narrative. Why not bring out several members of law enforcement at the same time?

Wasn't the Democrats goal of this week at the DNC to convey UNITY? It looks like Bernie's delegates have staged a walk out of the convention. I wonder if they will walk out in the middle of Kaine's speech tomorrow night. There is anything but unity right now among the Dems. I look for Jill Stein's numbers to possibly double as she's been around 3 or 4% in most polls to date. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/26/demexit-sanders-delegates-walk-convention-protest/

Perhaps Bill Clinton will change things tonight, but it appears that the Democratic party has lost touch with reality. Last week Obama gave a speech that stated that there is not that much violence or terrorism going on in the world right now, and what was stated at the RNC doesn't jive with the American people. Then yesterday in the first day of the DNC, there were 61 speeches, and not a single speech mentioned the words ISIS once. How does that happen? And now tonight the Dems are making a big push for Black Lives Matter including bringing Michael Brown's mom on stage...her son was shown to have been taking aggressive actions toward law enforcement, yet the Dems continue to push the narrative that the cops are bad. I am sure there are better examples of where it was 100% certain the cop was in the wrong, yet they are bringing up this toxic Ferguson racial incident to help get their black voters energized. I really don't know what the Democratic party stands for anymore.