Magox

Have you not seen how thin-skinned he is? Can you imagine him losing and how he'd react? Here is another tidbit from him crying foul. So it's "unfair" that the interviewer reads to him the results of the poll, which is that there are many more people who see him as the clown he is than people who like him? What is he trying to leverage here? CNN better stop or else...... Could you imagine him in a campaign being ripped over and over by either the Democratic or Republican nominee about all the wacky things he has said or the liberal positions that he has had (like support for higher taxes and single payer). The guy isn't tough enough to withstand the withering criticism that presidential candidates have to endure. Oh, and btw, if he were to run as a third candidate, not only would Hillary be the next president, but the GOP would lose every single swing district house race and senate seat. The house and Senate would both flip to the Democrats simply because there are enough knuckle draggers who would buy into his snakeoil to take away votes from the GOP. Let's see what happens.

Na, he's just a thin-skinned wuss that believes he is being treated unfairly. Congrats for being yet another fool who bought his snakeoil.

Waaaa! If they aren't "fair" I'll take my ball and go home. Since when is politics ever "fair"? For being such a straight talking tough guy, he sure can be a lil pu$$y.

Of course that wouldn't happen, having said that he does support a 90% top tax rate on the wealthy, single payer healthcare and free education for everyone. Growth would go way down, companies would move their businesses somewhere else, tax revenues would go down and the federal budget would explode. Of course, he wouldn't be able to get any of this passed through congress, but assuming they were all Californian's, his agenda would put the country in shambles in short order.

It use to be the conservatives that fall in line, now-a-days it's the opposite.

With people feeling comfortable in the confines of their echo chamber du jour, we have a hyper polarized political environment where the extreme's of each party dominate the debates within their own parties. Sure, the more moderate tempered candidates are the ones that are usually nominated but none the less, each party is moving further and further away from the middle.

Remember how Elizabeth Warren decried the trade deal because of it's secretive behind close door nature of the details, I wonder if she will be equally consistent with her criticisms of the secrecy of these dealings?

Aside from Hillaries vulnerabilities and there are many, the best thing that could have happened for GOP candidates is the fact that despite all the media attention in how far the Repubs have moved to the right over the past few years, the Democrats have moved just as much to the left. In order to have a similar coalition of voters as Obama had, she's going to have to prove and run she is just as if not more to the left as Obama is and Bernie Sanders is going to make sure she does that. That's a big net plus for the GOP.

I like Kasich. Out of all the candidates, he has the most impressive track record. His record in congress being the point man to crafting a budget that was involved in four straight balanced budgets. His executive experience record as governor in the important state of Ohio is also impressive. Having said that, his positions will be an anathema to the right wing base. He supports common core, he expanded Medicaid which somehow will be interpreted as him being an Obamacare lover, he supports comprehensive immigration reform and he is bringing back "compassionate conservatism" as a campaign theme. I'm not overly ideological, what matters to me more than anything is command in policy and track record. Ideally, Jeb, Kasich and then Walker fit that bill more than any of the other candidates, even though Rubio's knowledge on policy is impressive. Walker has a good track record but I do think he is behind vs. these other candidates in understanding policy. But, he's appealing because he along with Rubio even though I'd give the edge to Walker can meld and rev up both the establishment and right wing base to turn out for the elections more so than the rest. However, Rubio would get considerably more Latino voters than Walker and probably would do better with female and younger voters. These two certainly would get higher Republican turnout than Romney. Not so sure Kasich and Jeb could do much better among GOP voters than Romney. They will say a couple things, that A) other national polls show her leading and B) that it's natural once you become the front runner that people begin to view you more with suspicion. Then she'll go on to do a few more staged townhalls and play the gender card.

I was trying to make heads or tails of what you were saying, I suspected that's what you were trying to say but wasn't sure if it was some sort of hybrid version of TYTT's inane reasoning to why he votes against his best interests or what.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you misspoke, right? That you actually vote FOR the lesser of two evils.

Yes, it's early and head to head polling match ups don't carry all that much weight this early on, even though I do believe they are a snapshot in time. Having said that, take a look. Hillaries Unfavorability ratings are through the roof, not to mention that she is getting trounced by the three candidates in three very important states, who I happen to believe are in the best position to beat her in the general elections. Her unfavorability rating's are almost as bad as Trump's. Wow! Yes, it's early but look how much the people who were polled don't trust her. That should be sounding the alarms in the Hillary camp.

I have a sneaking suspicion she will do well in the debate stage from the second tier candidates and there will be some candidates that will drop off the first tier. So I do think there will be an opening for her toat least have her voice heard in a more meaningful way.

I don't believe that to be the case, but I'm sure GG will communicate his view on this. My view is what are we going to do with all these undocumented immigrants that are already here? And what can we do to limit the inflows of illegal immigration moving forward? It's complex, but the idea of rounding them all up and sending them home is not a plausible solution for a whole host of reasons. But on the other hand, you don't want to send the message that if you come here illegally that you will be rewarded with citizenship. Some of the ideas that are being floated out there of having them pay hefty fines and then having to wait in line for 10 years before they can even apply for citizenship, all while now becoming tax paying residents that are NOT eligible for most of the bennies that citizens can relceive seems fair to me.

Who said that? I certainly didn't.

It's not me, it's all those studies that you neglect to delve into.

Rob, Trump said Most Mexicans (illegal immigrants) are rapists and drug dealers. And that he "supposes" "some are good people". No offense, but you'd have to be brain dead as you put to see that statement not only had NO BASIS in fact, but is tremendously And unequivocally offensive with any reasonable thinking person. He's not stupid, Rob he knows that there are a lot of nativists out their yearning to buy his snakeskin oil. That was a calculated statement by a showman to rile up a subsect of the GOP voters. Rob, are you telling me you bought some of that snakeoil?

Ok, you haven't clicked on the links. I think that's obvious. Tomorrow when I can copy and paste the portions that you aren't seeing, I will post them.

Maybe a few republicans would have voted for it, and you gotta assume with a democratic president that they would have won even more senate and house seats. So, it's definitely possible. You gotta take into account that the left is veering further and further to the left. Even though Hillary isn't a true progressives progressive, she is running further to the left than even Obama. The days of Clintons centrist triangulation are over, Rob. We are now dealing with a whole new beast. The left feel empowered, they are cheering on a socialist. Think about that for a second. The socialist is starting to enter into the mainstream Which means that democratic presidents are EXPECTED to pull the country further to the left. That's what the left will demand out of them. Look at their policy positions, they are radically different than those from the GOP. I disagree. It would be refreshing to see someone stand up for what they believe in, but when someone is purposely lying to rile up a certain segment of the population while succeeding to offend an entire race and then stand by his lies. Sorry, there is nothing refreshing about that at all.

Yeah, it's so refreshing seeing a guy lie and offend the entire Latino community, just so that he can garner votes amongst the nativist community, it's so refreshing to see a guy denigrate a war hero, it's so refreshing to proudly proclaim to be a birther kook, it's so refreshing in all his egomaniacal might to boldly proclaim how he would be the greatest job creator God ever created without giving a single hint in how he'd do that, it's so refreshing to see a guy running to be the president of the greatest nation in the world get involved in these sophomoric fights with members of our political community and then proceed to give out their private phone number out of spite. Yeah, he's dreamy.

You've always voted against the lesser of two evils? Interesting theory, even though there really isn't much to back this up other than just that, it's a theory. Even if you were to take what you say at face value, that doesn't take into account the executive orders, the people they appoint into their posts that actually dictate policy and the Supreme Court appointments.

No, actually some of the studies delve into illegal, first generation and second generation immigrants. I did take the time to read the highlights of the studies, Including the link you provided which as I stated earlier even the author admits that he was mixing and matching the stats he provided to come to his conclusion. In other words, it was pure crap. You didn't even bother to look into the studies. Since you were either too lazy or not interested in reading something that didn't fit your view point, here. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/02/surprise-donald-trump-is-wrong-about-immigrants-and-crime/ Very simple to read with sources provided. Your intuition regarding who commits more crimes is explained why people have the views that they have.

What are you talking about? There are multiple studies that are cited in the articles, all you have to do is click on the links and read the methodology. The article you posted from the American Thinker basically cites an interpretation that he even admits is like comparing apples to oranges. IRob, just about every major study comes to a completely different conclusion than the author of the article you linked interpretation of the data he read. Sorry Rob, but the link you posted is some bull **** interpretation

Interesting how people look at certain data points and come to different conclusions. Virtually everything I have read states otherwise. I'd copy and paste excerpts but I'm on my iPad. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-mythical-connection-between-immigrants-and-crime-1436916798 http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2012/06/public-study-illegal-immigrants-commit-less-crime-than-americans/ http://reason.com/archives/2014/09/07/criminal-immigrants http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irb_june2010.pdf

Walker has lots of upside, he is possibly in the best position to fire up both the base and the establishment wings of the party. Now we will see what kind of campaign he runs.