HuskerNation1

Well I think that applies to Obama, Trump and Hillary. After the MN and LA shootings Hillary immediately spoke about whites not understanding black lives...and after the Oregon shooting last year Obama went on a rant 3 hours after the shooting took place about gun control...this was before all the facts were known about the killer, and also before family members even knew if their loved ones were killed. So i agree in principle but its innaccurate to claim only Trump does this. My point about yesterday is that Hillary does not need to wait 10 hours to issue a show of sympathy, and there is a point where waiting too long such as with the Benghazi security request signals dereliction of her core duty as sos.

If you are so distraught about someone lying why aren't you focusing on Trump instead?Trump has his own issues but is a saint compared to Hillary when it comes to honesty. Sometimes hes a little too honest and needs to put a muzzle on his mouth. Meanwhile Hillary seeks to get input fr a focus group before responding to such tragedies as we saw yesterday. She took over 10 hours to issue a response which caused social media to blow up at her for being so unresponsive. Its probably because after the last time she spoke without getting counsel she made the error of blaming whites for not understanding.The only truth I've heard trump speak is that his daughter is good looking, and that was kind of disturbing. Is it so bad if a candidate analyzes public sentiment and thinks before they speak? Isn't it their job to understand public sentiment and cater to it? I have no issue with analyzing a situation, but with a tragedy like yesterday all she had to do is say the nation mourns and she supports law enforcement...thats it. She can then follow up in later days for a policy approach. While Trump sometimes needs to shut his mouth for a bit, Hillary is a bit too slow and cautious, whether its how she handled yesterdays events, or how she went a year without responding to ambassador Stevens request for more security in Benghazi. I see both styles where I work...some want to get folks moving to achieve results and move too fast, while others are disengaged or suffer from analysis paralysis.

How is securing our border racial and class warfare...please explain.

If you are so distraught about someone lying why aren't you focusing on Trump instead? Trump has his own issues but is a saint compared to Hillary when it comes to honesty. Sometimes hes a little too honest and needs to put a muzzle on his mouth. Meanwhile Hillary seeks to get input fr a focus group before responding to such tragedies as we saw yesterday. She took over 10 hours to issue a response which caused social media to blow up at her for being so unresponsive. Its probably because after the last time she spoke without getting counsel she made the error of blaming whites for not understanding.

Both she and Obama use racial and class warfare to gain politicially. After the shooting from the prior week she went off on how white people arent doing enough to empathize with blacks. Obama took the lead on dividing this country along racial lines, and she is running to continue his divisive ways

Here are some great videos of Hillary...I wonder if she will be continuing to show that she is a pathological liar when she speaks at the Democratic convention. Seriously, how can anyone believe one word that comes out of this woman's mouth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftx7soJIaKg I know Hillary needs to get out the black vote like Obama was able to do, so I wonder if she will be bringing Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and others to join a chorus of BLM protesters on stage. That would be fitting.

I think the polling in 2016 will go down as being the most inconsistent in a long time. Each polling outfit is using completely different methodologies. This NBC Marist poll is including 8% more Democrats in it's final results. You really have to sift through the methodology to see how the final results are determined. The Reuters poll is even worse and is including 14% more Dems, and indicating that there are only around 15% of voters who deem themselves Independent. http://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/16495NBCWSJJuly2016Poll9am.pdf

Here's the issue with BLM. Unlike the civil rights movement in the 60s where the wonderful MLK Jr was the clear and visible leader pushing for change and peace at the same time, there is not that same figure aligned to BLM today. MLK would have immediately and forcefully condemned the hateful rhetoric that has occurred at many BLM protests seeking they wanted dead cops. Those like Obama and Sharpton that claim they want to be champions for blacks need to use their megaphone to forcefully condemn those advocating violence...and not do it after the fact like we've seen in Dallas and now Baton Rouge. As this article points out with multiple cases, Obama has always taken the side that a white police officer or official is committing the wrongdoing against a black individual, and he passionately speaks about this or has his justice department (formerly under Holder and now under give Hillary a free pass Lynch) go after such situations which they know will encourage the sort of riots and violence we are seeing all over. Now are there a few bad cops out there, sure, and they should be dealt with, but to always take the side assuming the cop is at fault, or the black individual that was killed was sweet and innocent (as was done with Michael Brown) is ludicrous. Both Sharpton and Obama's administration encourage the rioting we saw in Ferguson after the verdict was delivered, and then they acted shocked as the town of Ferguson was set ablaze. http://spectator.org/the-road-to-dallas/

Haha...I agree. Also, if you would have told me that BLM and other hate groups can openly protest that they want dead cops, I would have never guessed major party leaders in the Democratic party would still be supporting this group. Obama has intentionally helped stoke the racial fire as he feels division in the country can help him politically, and unfortunately he has been successful in doing so over the past 7 years. http://spectator.org/the-road-to-dallas/ http://columbiadailyherald.com/opinion/columns/obama-divider-chief-remarks-stoke-racial-divide http://watchdog.org/270168/dallas-sheriff-clarke-says-obama-spurring-racial-divide-america/ http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/10/judge-jeanine-pirro-dallas-shooting-reflection-racial-divide-created-obama

I don't think being a moderate is a bad thing, but it won't go over well with the Democratic party which has moved so far left they would consider someone like Kaine a Republican. He won't please the Bernie and Warren ends of the party. As for BLM, let's hope they don't bring up that group, but something tells me they will at the DNC. As for college education, I had a lot of loans too, and college is definitely an investment. I'm not sure if Trump will adopt Rubio's detailed plans for higher education, but the notion of free education is ridiculous, and Hillary now seems to support that idiotic idea.

Speaking of gymnastics, Kaine is more on the moderate end and won't appeal to the crazy left that the Democratic party has become. Hillary has already started to push for free education, and I'm sure she will come up with more giveaways to try to gain votes. I'm sure the Dems will find somewhere in their platform to prop up the divisive Black Lives Matter movement as well. We shall see.

I'm not sure I've seen a thread regarding the 2016 Senate races, but like the Presidency, it appears the Senate is completely up for grabs, while the GOP is likely to retain the House. Given the likelihood of several Supreme Court picks, the outcome of the Senate races is more important than usual, and this year the GOP has many more seats to defend. Here is a nice site where you can make predictions on each race to see what that does to the balance of power. http://www.270towin.com/2016-senate-election/ Without the tossups, the Dems have 45 seats and the GOP has 44, with eleven considered tossups. Here is how I see some states playing out: 1. Dems will pick up Wisconsin and IL to get to 47 2. GOP will pick up Nevada and retain Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Florida so they are at 48. 3. It really comes down to Missouri, Indiana (where Evan Bayh just got into the race), Ohio, North Carolina, and New Hampshire. Ohio, North Carolina, and New Hampshire are also going to be key swing states in the Presidential election, so my gut tells me that the Senate will fall to the party who wins that Presidential contest. We could very easily end up with a 50/50 Senate.

Also hearing that Trump will pick Pence. Pence is really the perfect choice (after Kasich or Rubio). He's a bright guy, statesman-like, has good congressional and executive experience to complement Trump as an outsider, is from the midwest where the election will be decided, and is a true conservative which will help unite the party I believe.

It's not a shock. Rasmussen has consistently had Trump up when every other poll had Clinton up. I'll take it by itself as seriously as I take the Clinton +11 poll. Rasmussen does not use oversample republicans by 13 points and undersample independents by 20 points. They were off in 2012 but have been reliable in other elections. They actually made the right senate race calls in 2014 but had smaller margins than the GOP candidates won by which means they probably overcorrected for not getting the 2012 race correct. Also Rasmussen and USA today/Suffolk focus on likely voters where most others use just registered voters. Can someone tell me how a "likely voter" is determined by pollsters? Just google how to determine who a likely voter is and you will get some good info. From what I have seen, the pollster will ask several questions in the poll, including "how likely are you to vote in the upcoming election" and if the respondent says definitely or most likely they are deemed a likely voter. Those that say maybe or not sure are not considered likely voters. You can also ask if they voted in the last Presidential election. Definitely room for error, but according to a 2010 huff post article which found that between 1/3 and 1/2 of registered voters didnt actually vote.

It's not a shock. Rasmussen has consistently had Trump up when every other poll had Clinton up. I'll take it by itself as seriously as I take the Clinton +11 poll. Rasmussen does not use oversample republicans by 13 points and undersample independents by 20 points. They were off in 2012 but have been reliable in other elections. They actually made the right senate race calls in 2014 but had smaller margins than the GOP candidates won by which means they probably overcorrected for not getting the 2012 race correct. Also Rasmussen and USA today/Suffolk focus on likely voters where most others use just registered voters.

Yes and they are tied according to NY Times poll. If u average the 4 most recent polls all after the July 5 Comey speech Trump is winning overall. Also for those that cite the Reuters poll, its a complete outlier that is trying to skew the reality on the ground. Its using 50% democrats, 37% Republicans, and only 13% Independents. I know dems may have a slight advantage on Party ID but it sure isn't by 13 points. I also know there are far more independents than just 13% of electorate.

If you are nitpicking at his response to Ginsburg that shows he is coming along. For the left leaning Washington Post to call out Ginsburg for openly airing her political views as a sitting justice demonstrates who is really out of line on this topic. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/12/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-has-crossed-way-way-over-the-line/

I was just looking at that. She'll need to do something to not be defined by the e-mail stuff. Heres her challenge. Both Trump and Hillary have character flaws, but Hillarys challenge is much greater. Trumps problem is that his ego is too high and he has not appeared Presidential which have given voters concerns. So his challenge is to stop the outlandish comments and convince enough voters that he passes the "presidential" test. Hillarys main liability is that voters dont trust her and havent for a long time. Trust is not something that is easily correctable, especially in a small window of a few months. Her best hope is to go negative on Trump and hope he returns to the out of control candidate we saw in the primary season. However, he has greatly improved on the stump and in interviews Ive seen thr past few weeks and needs to be giving his new campaign advisor a huge raise.

Whoa..new polling out this morning confirms a Trump surge in key swing states. Its the second poll in as many days showing him with the lead in Florida. He and Hillary are tied in Ohio, and Trump has a 2 point lead in Pennsylvania. When Johnson and Stein are added in his lead jumps to 6 points in PA http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html

Fallout from getting off without charges? As opposed to her being charged and then surging in the polls? Nothing has realistically changed because everyone knew charges weren't coming. I honestly think voters will become more engaged to vote against her if they feel the "system" is rigged and let her off the hook, where an everyday American would not have received such special treatment. Just as Trump had a bad couple weeks in early June, Hillary has had a bad couple weeks recently. The latest Rasmussen poll shows Trump and Hillary now tied regarding the question on who is most qualified to be POTUS. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/voters_question_clinton_s_qualifications_now_rate_trump_equal The swing states continue to remain tight. http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/12/polling-in-the-key-battleground-states-show-a-tight-election/

Well it looks like the fallout from Hillary getting off without charges for for her lies and deceptions is beginning to show up in the polls. Hillary's lead in one national poll where she was up big a couple weeks ago is down to 3 points, and Trump has now taken a 2 point lead in Iowa and a 5-point lead in Florida. http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/NBC-Poll-Clinton-Lead/2016/07/12/id/738198/ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html As I've said many times before, these polls will bounce back and forth until labor day where I suspect you will see more consistent polling with smaller swings.

Well for you and LOMS, you guys may have a point. Obama does a lot of talking on topics, but has few results to show for it. In this video from 2013 he talks a lot about the challenges of income inequality, but maybe you are right that he talked about it without wanting to fix it. http://www.wsj.com/video/obama-income-inequality-threatens-the-american-dream/D49E9D4D-C565-4CFA-94DD-F8EF4479A925.html As for blaming Congress, all Presidents deal with a difficult opposition, and good leaders find a way to bring folks together. That is where his ineptitude in leadership 101 comes into play. Also, did he not have a fully Democratic Congress in his first 2 years in office when he could have address this topic (along with gun control). If he was able to get Harry Reid to change the Senate rules to push through Obamacare, what would have stopped him from putting in those policies he felt confident would help income inequality. Had he done that we would be seeing an improvement by the end of his administration.

Very true...and there can be a good stock market despite average Americans struggling to make ends meet or find a job which is the situation we are in now. Wages continue to remain low, and income inequality has skyrocketed the past 7 years. Plus, there is a lot of foreign investment into our stock markets which fuel their rise but does not equate to a robust US economy from a GDP and employment perspective. Care to provide evidence and define "skyrocket" instead of just saying things? The rate of the increase in income inequality has not increased under Obama. Income inequality has increased for decades. He didn't fix it but it certainly isn't a "past 7 years" phenomenon nor has it "skyrocketed" in that time period unless you're redefining the word. Well let's just say it's grown faster under Obama than Clinton or Bush. If you want to argue semantics, be my guest, but for someone who campaigned on everyone getting there fair share and who seeks to level the playing field, the results have been the opposite of what he has sought. http://ijr.com/2014/01/110968-can-guess-president-worst-record-income-inequality2/ It isn't semantics when you're using words that are completely wrong. "Soaring" and "Skyrocket" are absolutely wrong for this. How can you possibly see this as skyrocketing?? Also, same stat, more years overall and more years for Obama: Well for someone that claimed they were going to fix income inequality, to have the highest growth of inequality in 2 decades is saying a lot. Plus, as I stated, wages for american families have gone down, so much so that politico (which typically leans to the left) discussed this as an achilles for Obama's claims about having a great recovery. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/democrats-wage-problem-labor-215854 http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/03/age-of-obama-low-income-workers-see-greatest-decline-in-wages/

Very true...and there can be a good stock market despite average Americans struggling to make ends meet or find a job which is the situation we are in now. Wages continue to remain low, and income inequality has skyrocketed the past 7 years. Plus, there is a lot of foreign investment into our stock markets which fuel their rise but does not equate to a robust US economy from a GDP and employment perspective. Care to provide evidence and define "skyrocket" instead of just saying things? The rate of the increase in income inequality has not increased under Obama. Income inequality has increased for decades. He didn't fix it but it certainly isn't a "past 7 years" phenomenon nor has it "skyrocketed" in that time period unless you're redefining the word. Well let's just say it's grown faster under Obama than Clinton or Bush. If you want to argue semantics, be my guest, but for someone who campaigned on everyone getting there fair share and who seeks to level the playing field, the results have been the opposite of what he has sought. http://ijr.com/2014/01/110968-can-guess-president-worst-record-income-inequality2/

Well for starters, if Hillary failed at running one department of the government (the state department) why in heck does she deserve a promotion. She botched Benghazi then lied to the families and the American people about what really happened. ISIS has grown and thrived under her watch, and is now a major threat at home and abroad. As Carly Fiorina put it, activities are not results, and just because she has been living off our tax dollars for a salary does not mean she is qualified to lead the executive branch. We have seen the incompetence of having Obama in the White House who had zero executive experience prior to becoming the POTUS. Now I don't love Trump but he has way more executive experience than Obama and Hillary combined.