dems are really stupid to pick Hilary.

Yes, it is. I wouldn't even want to guess who might end up on the top.

Your vote doesn't matter. You're in the reddest of the red. The ONLY state that went 100% red in 2008. Yeah for Oklahoma!

 

Haha, we've been 100% red in the last THREE cycles. The last Democrat to win a single county in Oklahoma was Al Gore! I wish Oklahoma would wake up and stop doing that. In 2008, I would have said Hillary could take a county or two in Oklahoma, but I'm not sure she could in 2016.

 

The standards written by Alabama and Texas pre-Common core were hardly different from standards in every other state. Thank you for showing your ignorance again.

 

Yet homeschoolers from Texas can get into Ivy League schools, despite the fact that almost no states have any standards for homeschoolers. Students have a way to show that they have mastered material--it's part of the reason that the SAT/ACT exist--so that students from around the country (with different state curricula) could be compared.

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000002/00000234.asp

 

Federal regulations changed in the summer of 2008 (several months before Hillary became SOS)--she was required to follow different standards than the previous SOS's. She disregarded federal regulations purposely, and the only reason to do that is because she wanted to be able to conceal her lack of ethics.

 

been laughing my ass off all week watching her rollout. What a f'ing disaster from the typos's on the web page to the sunglasses and no tip in Chipolte to the staged public appearance in that coffee shop. They had f'ing years to plan this thing and the train is jumping off the track before it ever leaves the station. I have see first time state candidates using their Uncle Ralph as a campaign manager look more professional than she did this week. Told ya so libs! LOL

 

Private email usage was not against the rules , the 2008 change did not ban personal email usage, sure many in Congress also use private email....

 

Seriously? That's the best you can come up with?

Don't forget the old pathetic hag parking her campaign van in a handicap parking space.

 

yeah forgot that one, chuckle.

While some will say none of these things or even all of them combined might not really mean much what it does do is show a woman who has no campaign trail skills whatsoever. This is even worse than 2007

 

Just as a number of voters voted for Obama because it was "cool" to vote for a black man, many will vote for Hillary because the think it "cool" to vote for a woman.

"Misogynist" will replace "racist" for those who disagree.

 

Maybe. Women as a whole aren't as pliable and low information as blacks. Blacks fell in line with the mantra of "first black president". Women won't fall in line for Hillary like blacks did for 0bama. It will be difficult to call a strong woman a misogynist. And the strong ones are the ones who will NOT vote for her. The shrill, shrieking feminists will fall in line; the ones with true character and strength will not.

 

Agree that women as a whole are not as pliable. But blacks alone didn't elect Obama, women tend to vote Democratic more than men, and the young tend to go for the "cool" candidate. Their is an element that would consider the first woman President just too cool.

 

Try this on for size:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ink_democrats_should_run_a_fresh_face_in_2016

 

You think so? 'merica votes for fresh faces? 'merica votes for the people they know. People who pretend best to care about what matters to them. It doesn't matter that the game is fixed.
Bush and Walker (Who isn't running, Yet.) are leading in the polls. A Bush, and a guy who went after the unions, are the favorites to go up against someone as well known as Hillary.
Hillary is leading her party by more then double anyone else. Her voters don't care about the specifics of her presidency. All they know is they want to vote for her, and she is prepared to spend $2.5 billion so they come out and do it.
Republicans worst mistake would be underestimating her.

 

That's what the Democrats did back in 2008, someone with no luggage because he had no verifiable history or was it that the MSM gave the community organizer a complete pass ???

Well anyways they ran a new face and how did that work out for America ?

For the first time in thirty four years Jimmy Carter can be seen with a grin on his face and Richard Nixon no longer looks like a crook.

 

first thing you have to do is get the voters off the couch and down to the voting booth, Hillary just does not have that get them off the couch factor. Iowa is a good indicator. When you have to tie a pork chop around a kids neck to get the dog to play with her you might just have a problem

 

Clinton remains the odds-on favourite, even beating Walker in his home state.

 

Do these polls get delivered by a bunny that lays them in an egg or by a fat bearded guy in a red suit? Seriously, I give the Easter Bunny better odds than polls these days.

an example:


Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch has a slight edge over former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford in a potential special congressional election, according to a new poll Tuesday.
Busch, the sister of Comedy Central host Stephen Colbert and an administrator at Clemson University, leads Sanford 47 percent to 45 percent - a gap that is within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points, according to the Public Policy Polling survey.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...busch-south-carolina-89329.html#ixzz3XbOiqV8j


the reality:

Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, a Republican, won a special U.S. House of Representatives election Tuesday, besting Democratic challenger Elizabeth Colbert Busch. With 87% of results in, Sanford led by 54% to 45%, prompting several news organizations to call the race for Sanford, who overcame an ethics scandal to return to elected office.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sanford-beats-colbert-busch-in-us-house-election-2013-05-07