Althouse: Oh, the debate was hot!

October 13, 2015

Oh, the debate was hot!

Headline/photo mismatch at the NYT:

83 comments:

cubanbob said...: She was out-lefting Sanders. So who is whose bitch?; 10/13/15, 10:49 PM
Achilles said...: Please make gun control a primary issue in this election.; 10/13/15, 10:52 PM
David Begley said...: Biden won.

He wasn't there.; 10/13/15, 10:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Hillary clearly won. She will be our next President. No one cares about the damn emails.; 10/13/15, 11:01 PM
Phil 314 said...: When I was a kid in the 60's a Democratic presidential candidate would never declare he was a "socialist" looking for a "revolution".; 10/13/15, 11:03 PM
rcocean said...: Interesting that Clinton states she "would go even further" than Obama in giving executive orders favoring illegal immigration.

Mitch McConnell, McCain, and all the Billionaire donors must be rooting for Hillary! Amnesty and Open borders without Congress even having to vote for it.

Cheap labor and nannies for everyone. Woo Hoo.; 10/13/15, 11:06 PM
Paul said...: So the other Dems didn't question Hillary's 3am Benghazi call. Didn't ask for her accompaniments. Didn't ask why she even possessed a private email server with state department emails.

Sounds like no one wanted to discuss anything relevant.; 10/13/15, 11:07 PM
garage mahal said...: Media is swooning over Hillary but I think real voters are Feeling the Bern. His secret is that he was the only person on that stage that wasn't full of shit. The post-debate conventional wisdom is just unbearable.; 10/13/15, 11:10 PM
Anonymous said...: The emails and Benghazi are not relevant issues for Democrat voters. The issues that are relevant to Democrats were discussed in detail. The Democratic debate was outstanding, no comparison to the Republican debate.; 10/13/15, 11:15 PM
The Bergall said...: Would have been great if they all wore pantsuits..............; 10/13/15, 11:22 PM
phantommut said...: New York Times spinning hard for Hillary! Who could have predicted that?; 10/13/15, 11:24 PM
Bay Area Guy said...: I like Webb, but boy was he full Beta tonight. And Lincoln Chaffee? He makes Justin Bieber look like Clint Eastwood.

In the context of 4 Beta males, Hillary looked quite strong.

I am beginning to acutely and actively despise the Democrat Party. It is a horrible organization.; 10/13/15, 11:30 PM
YoungHegelian said...: Isn't it really strange to see so many candidates (e.g. in this case, Webb, but there have been many on the Repub side) who you would think would make a much better showing just flame out at the podium?

Is it nerves? Is it just much more difficult to do than it looks? I suspect that advisers & consultants bind the candidate up with so many "Thou shalt nots..." that, in order to avoid an implosion on stage, they do the next worse thing -- they end up as boring as dishwater.; 10/13/15, 11:41 PM
Achilles said...: garage mahal said...
"Media is swooning over Hillary but I think real voters are Feeling the Bern. His secret is that he was the only person on that stage that wasn't full of shit. The post-debate conventional wisdom is just unbearable."

For once garage is right. Bernie understands what the real issue in this election is and he hammered it post debate. The core issue is the plutocracy. His solutions would fail but he spoke to the core concern at least.

Hillary will be the nominee because Bernie proved he wont do what he needs to to beat her tonight. But Hillary is the twisted evil beating heart of the plutocracy and Bernie is inadvertently focusing the election on the issue that will bring her down in the general.; 10/14/15, 12:15 AM
Achilles said...: EverlyBro said...
"The emails and Benghazi are not relevant issues for Democrat voters. The issues that are relevant to Democrats were discussed in detail."

This is why we can't have nice things. To say the issues were "discussed in detail" is weapons grade stupid. I am sure democrat voters felt like they were though. This is why Hillary, probably the most corrupt human being in history, is leading the polls.; 10/14/15, 12:18 AM
cubanbob said...: garage mahal said...

Media is swooning over Hillary but I think real voters are Feeling the Bern. His secret is that he was the only person on that stage that wasn't full of shit. The post-debate conventional wisdom is just unbearable.
10/13/15, 11:10 PM "

For a change you're lucid. Sanders already "won" by forcing Hilary! left, even more left than him on guns. Going forward in the primary campaign she has already taken Sander's positions, all thanks to Sander. Give The Bern credit, that's no mean feat.; 10/14/15, 12:20 AM
BN said...: "So who is whose bitch?"

Bill will be soon.; 10/14/15, 12:26 AM
BN said...: "So who is whose bitch?"

Famous Lenin quote: "who whom"; 10/14/15, 12:27 AM
cubanbob said...: EverlyBro said...

The emails and Benghazi are not relevant issues for Democrat voters. The issues that are relevant to Democrats were discussed in detail."

To real patriotic Americans those issues are very relevant. But then again we aren't talking about moochers and other assorted parasites and enemy supporters.

So tell us O Wise One in the next Republican Administration which of the following cabinet departments you would be fine with the secretary running it from his or her private email server:

1-Dept. of the Interior
2-Dept. of Commerce
3-Dept. of Justice
4-Dept. of the Treasury
5-Dept. of Defense
6-Dept. of State; 10/14/15, 12:28 AM
BN said...: None of them are "excellent" candidates (traditional meaning of "great speakers, great policies, electable, etc.").

Doesn't matter; we are not an "excellent" electorate.; 10/14/15, 12:30 AM
BN said...: Cuban Bob: "But then again we aren't talking about moochers and other assorted parasites and enemy supporters."

Me: "we are not an "excellent" electorate."

CB, said it better.; 10/14/15, 12:33 AM
cubanbob said...: Blogger BN said...

"So who is whose bitch?"

Bill will be soon.

10/14/15, 12:26 AM
Blogger BN said...

"So who is whose bitch?"

Famous Lenin quote: "who whom"

10/14/15, 12:27 AM"

Thanks for noticing. And I pity the Bill. Hillary/Sanders: Stalin/Trotsky.; 10/14/15, 12:33 AM
BN said...: I'm listening to Dr. John now: "I was in the right place, but..."; 10/14/15, 12:35 AM
BN said...: ...which fits right in with Trotsky allusion.; 10/14/15, 12:37 AM
BN said...: Anybody ever wonder if Trotsky would've been different from Stalin? I doubt it.; 10/14/15, 12:38 AM
BN said...: "A People's Tragedy":

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014024364X?keywords=peoples%20tragedy&qid=1444801172&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1; 10/14/15, 12:40 AM
BN said...: They say, "read it and weep."

I did.; 10/14/15, 12:43 AM
BN said...: With a name like Cuban Bob, you have wept too, I imagine.

I'm reading up on revolution, any recommendations for Cuba?; 10/14/15, 12:45 AM
BN said...: Clinton Wins!!!

Who'd a thunk it???; 10/14/15, 12:58 AM
holdfast said...: Hillary! will be the nominee. The 4 stooges aren't willing to take a single real shot at her. They are done.; 10/14/15, 12:59 AM
Achilles said...: The ball is now in Obama's court. If he does nothing Hillary is the nominee.

Somehow I don't think he will let it happen. Will he resort to indictment?; 10/14/15, 1:02 AM
cubanbob said...: BN said...

With a name like Cuban Bob, you have wept too, I imagine.

I'm reading up on revolution, any recommendations for Cuba?

10/14/15, 12:45 AM"

Hanging every member of the Communist Party would be a great starting point for Cuba.; 10/14/15, 1:04 AM
cubanbob said...: Achilles said...

The ball is now in Obama's court. If he does nothing Hillary is the nominee.

Somehow I don't think he will let it happen. Will he resort to indictment?

10/14/15, 1:02 AM"

No. But a lot of small but continuous leaks will occur. Maybe she will get the hint and have health issues and leave the stage. Indicting Hillary is out of the question since whatever she gets charged with will point back at Obama. Hillary isn't one to take one for the team. Obama's problem is he can't openly dump her, can't indict her and right now the Democrats don't know who will be the likely Republican will be so they can't find the right white knight for the rescue to replace Hillary.; 10/14/15, 1:12 AM
Achilles said...: "No. But a lot of small but continuous leaks will occur. "

This is scorched earth. She would be the nominee and even more unelectable than she is now. Less than 30% of the electorate thinks she is honest. That is insurmountable. I don't think he will allow that.; 10/14/15, 1:29 AM
retired said...: What a bunch of old dogs, rolling over so Clinton could scatch their wrinkled tummies. Even Sanders showed no sack.
Some one must have gotten to these worn out mutts before, likely a vet with a scalpel.
Ann, you'll be able to vote for your twin, barring indictment.

It will be different when she has to debate a human in the general.; 10/14/15, 1:58 AM
retired said...: If His Poutiness had wanted her out he would have started tonight with Slow Joe. That mixed breed could have at least bitten her.; 10/14/15, 2:01 AM
holdfast said...: I was going to say that Martin O'Malley is the only Dem candidate no eligible for old age Social Security, but it turns out that Lincoln Chafee is only 62, he just looks old.

So the average age of the Dem candidates is merely 64 years old, though if Slow Joe gets in, it will go up to 66.

I love the party of youth.; 10/14/15, 2:21 AM
Anonymous said...: If Clinton is up against Trump or the idiot savant she'll win in a landslide.; 10/14/15, 2:29 AM
Qwinn said...: There isn't a candidate in existence that Hillary would win in a landslide against. Carrot Top would probably give her a run for her money. I desperately hope she wins the primary.; 10/14/15, 3:48 AM
traditionalguy said...: Col. Sanders now offers us original Socialism with seven secret Red spices or extra crispy that Berns up the middle class. Clinton just wants her and Bill's gravy train to ride on forever.; 10/14/15, 4:17 AM
jeff said...: To sum up: nothing is ever our fault and if it wasn't for them dam Republicans we could have all this free stuff. This will sell well with the children. I think Ben Franklin is credited with saying, When the people find they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.; 10/14/15, 4:59 AM
Wince said...: Hillary has one of those Kate McKinnon faces in that picture.; 10/14/15, 5:07 AM
PB said...: It appears Bernie admitted to perjury with regard to his conscientious objectors status. You must be against all war, not just the current war, and swear to this under penalty of law.; 10/14/15, 5:41 AM
Bob Ellison said...: I had planned to watch the debate, but as luck would have it, I had a 3-hour class in pistol use during that time slot.; 10/14/15, 5:42 AM
Brando said...: I'm glad I missed it--from the news today it sounds like Hillary won it by taking shots at Sanders for (gasp!) being too pro-gun, and no one took any shots at Hillary. Any thoughts that the Dems wouldn't turn this into a coronation were ill-founded. The wagons circle around the queen, who has decided that half the country can go to hell and she only needs the other half. We're going to miss the amicable, civil Obama years when this lady becomes president.

Of course, the GOP could learn a few lessons from the Dems--they don't need to coronate anyone, but it would be a refreshing change if they refrained from smearing each other long enough to remember that there is a general election after all of this and making the party a little less noxious to the average voter would be helpful. Also, debates with more than ten people on the stage mean no one gets to really introduce themselves to the party and the public, but instead they have to jockey for quippy sound bites.

We may be in for a depressing four years.; 10/14/15, 5:54 AM
Annie said...: Holdfast, the 4 stooges have gotten their marching orders. That, or they are well aware that clinton has enough dirt on them and knows how to bury the bodies.; 10/14/15, 6:07 AM
Todd Roberson said...: Put some fangs and a cape on Lincoln Chafee and you've got dead ringer for Count Chockula.

Maybe Boo-Berry would be a suitable running mate (especially if he's from Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida); 10/14/15, 6:27 AM
Brando said...: "There isn't a candidate in existence that Hillary would win in a landslide against. Carrot Top would probably give her a run for her money. I desperately hope she wins the primary."

I don't--in many ways she's far more dangerous than any of her "rivals" (if you could call them that--apparently none of them dare challenge her in any way). It's about more than just politics and policy--this is a genuinely corrupt individual, with only an extreme level of incompetence to match her corruption. Her insiders are truly noxious people. She promises a level of divisiveness and vindictiveness that will far surpass the Bush and Obama years.

And as poor a politician as she is, the Democrats have several advantages in this presidential race. The economy is in recovery. As much of a mess as we have in foreign policy, we don't have Americans coming home in body bags every week. There are vast numbers of people who will simply never consider the GOP, and a large group of swing voters who the GOP seems to be excellent at alienating every cycle--adding up to an electoral advantage for the Dems (they start with nearly 250 electoral votes in the bag, meaning they only need a few swing states to clinch it). And remember, voters don't have to like her--they just have to despise her less than the GOP candidate who is almost certainly going to emerge hobbled from the GOP primaries, because if there's one thing the GOP does not do well it's taking one for the team to help their candidate win the White House.

Consider that as much as no one trusts Hillary, as lousy as the last few months have been for her, she polls remarkably strong against most of the GOP candidates. It'd be foolish to dismiss the threat she poses.; 10/14/15, 6:29 AM
Rusty said...: Blogger Bay Area Guy said...
I like Webb, but boy was he full Beta tonight. And Lincoln Chaffee? He makes Justin Bieber look like Clint Eastwood.

In the context of 4 Beta males, Hillary looked quite strong.

I am beginning to acutely and actively despise the Democrat Party. It is a horrible organization.

Hillary is the anointed one. Everyone else was there to make her look presidential.; 10/14/15, 6:54 AM
Michael K said...: "Hillary! will be the nominee. The 4 stooges aren't willing to take a single real shot at her. They are done."

I agree. I watched about 4 minutes last night and I could see that the audience was all for her. That's the Democrat primary voter.

The 30% who don't think she is lying were all there last night.; 10/14/15, 6:56 AM
rhhardin said...: I wonder when the first faked orgasm was.

Shakespeare has it in Cleopatra.; 10/14/15, 6:56 AM
damikesc said...: The emails and Benghazi are not relevant issues for Democrat voters.

Dem voters have, literally, no issues voting for felons. We're aware.; 10/14/15, 7:04 AM
Robert Cook said...: "When I was a kid in the 60's a Democratic presidential candidate would never declare he was a 'socialist' looking for a 'revolution'."

Did Sanders claim that? If so, it's hooey. He votes with the Dems on most issues, so his self-serving claims aside, he's more or less an establishment Democrat.; 10/14/15, 7:09 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Dem voters have, literally, no issues voting for felons. We're aware."

Are Republican voters any different?; 10/14/15, 7:12 AM
Robert Cook said...: "And as poor a politician as she is, the Democrats have several advantages in this presidential race. The economy is in recovery."

Is it?

Only if you believe the government's statistics.; 10/14/15, 7:16 AM
Robert Cook said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/14/15, 7:21 AM
Robert Cook said...: "New York Times spinning hard for Hillary! Who could have predicted that?"

Why not? She's as fully an establishment loyalist as Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and the NY Times is as fully an establishment newspaper as any that exist.

The bankers and Wall Street overlords know she will safeguard their wealth, power, and prerogatives. That she seems more of a grownup than any of the Republican aspirants may guarantee that she will be the owners' choice!; 10/14/15, 7:22 AM
Sydney said...: That snippet about the emails was the only part of the debate I heard, this morning on NPR. It really burns me. Are you aware that the government has set steep penalties for every physician in this country who mishandles electronic information about patients? Penalties that range from millions in dollars in fines to time in prison. And that mishandling can be something as simple as texting a patient, or putting up your schedule on an unsecure server, or communicating with other doctors via traditional email about specific patients, or failing to keep your electronic medical record server locked up and secure. And yet this woman is getting away with putting state secrets on an unsecure computer server. She and Bernie might be sick of hearing about it, but to me it puts her in a class with Nixon. Politicians are NOT above the law, people!!!; 10/14/15, 7:36 AM
Etienne said...: Did anyone wear a Bow Tie? I noticed Mrs. Clinton didn't wear a tie. Such a renegade...; 10/14/15, 7:39 AM
Brando said...: "Is it?

Only if you believe the government's statistics."

Gaming the statistics or not, we're not (currently, anyway) in a 2008-like situation. The GOP can't get much mileage on a "the economy is in free fall! Time to change horses!" argument, unless we dip back into recession before the election.

The "official" unemployment numbers are in the 5% range, but even if that's gamed a bit we're probably not looking at more than a point or two above that, and Obama was re-elected with worse numbers. Bottom line--the GOP can make the point that the economy is worse than the official numbers show, and labor force participation is poor, but it's not going to resonate the way it did for the Dems in 2008. They'll need to do better than that.; 10/14/15, 7:40 AM
Brando said...: "That snippet about the emails was the only part of the debate I heard, this morning on NPR. It really burns me."

It's infuriating. Basically the Dems--all of them, apparently--are taking a "nothing to see here" approach to something quite serious, and for what? Partisan gain. The statesmanship of the 1974 GOP that was able to tell Nixon "enough" is simply not there for today's Dems. This is banana republic crap.

The GOP needs to get the message out, pronto, that while the Dems may be "sick of hearing about" the e-mails, we're still talking about a cabinet secretary deciding for no good reason to take national security risks and break the law doing so--and that lesser officials have been prosecuted for this. Instead, they're likely to make a muck of the next Benghazi hearing (and feed the theme that it's just a partisan witch hunt, nothing to see here) and hand the election to this crook.; 10/14/15, 7:44 AM
Brando said...: "The 30% who don't think she is lying were all there last night."

At this point it's safe to say that whatever they tell pollsters, it's not that they don't believe she's lying--it's that they simply don't care. They see Hillary as the last best hope of stopping the evil GOP and you could show them video proof of her strangling babies and it will make no difference.

We are becoming a banana republic.; 10/14/15, 7:47 AM
Phil 314 said...: GM said "I think real voters are Feeling the Bern."

Ironic since a large chunk of Bernie's core constituents, college age, don't vote.; 10/14/15, 7:53 AM
Unknown said...: If Hillary is the Dem nominee for President, I think it will be interesting to see if Obama voters are Democrat voters. My guess is that the turn out will not be the same on the Democrat side.; 10/14/15, 8:06 AM
Brando said...: "If Hillary is the Dem nominee for President, I think it will be interesting to see if Obama voters are Democrat voters. My guess is that the turn out will not be the same on the Democrat side."

It'll mostly depend on who the GOP nominates and how that side of the campaign goes. A lot of Dems won't vote FOR Hillary, but may vote AGAINST the GOP.; 10/14/15, 8:10 AM
CStanley said...: If Hillary is the Dem nominee for President, I think it will be interesting to see if Obama voters are Democrat voters. My guess is that the turn out will not be the same on the Democrat side.

10/14/15, 8:06 AM

It's clearly a concern of Hillary and all of the other Dem candidates too, which is why they're shamelessly pandering to college kids with promises of free tuition, legalized pot, and $15 minimum wage.; 10/14/15, 8:15 AM
Brando said...: "It's clearly a concern of Hillary and all of the other Dem candidates too, which is why they're shamelessly pandering to college kids with promises of free tuition, legalized pot, and $15 minimum wage."

Don't forget the Black Lives Matter pandering, promises to automatically turn all illegal immigrants into full citizens, and complete disavowal of Bill Clinton's record. They are going for a strict 50% plus one strategy, and making no pretense of caring about the other half of the country.

If she wins, this country will be as ungovernable as ever. At least the chaos in Congress might prevent her from doing too much damage.; 10/14/15, 8:38 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Brando is correct. Hillary lied about Benghazi, and only a Congressional committee convened for other purposes revealed that she is a lying, self-serving idiot on digital security. Nixon got served by his own party for less.; 10/14/15, 8:45 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Mitt Romney said 47% will never vote GOP. That number may soon be 50.1%. That's what banked Obama and may soon bank Hillary in office.

The USA has not had a disconnection between government and the electorate since FDR. We don't remember what it was like; most of us were not alive then.

Get ready.; 10/14/15, 8:53 AM
damikesc said...: Are Republican voters any different?

I'd argue undeniably yes.

They turned on Bush because he spent too much money.
They turned on Nixon because he was sleazy.

Neither did ANYTHING approaching what Hillary did. If ANY Republican running for office was nailed for doing so, they'd be out of office.

Hell, Republicans have gone to jail for measures less than what Hillary has done.

At this point it's safe to say that whatever they tell pollsters, it's not that they don't believe she's lying--it's that they simply don't care. They see Hillary as the last best hope of stopping the evil GOP and you could show them video proof of her strangling babies and it will make no difference.

Sad but true. Hell, some Progressive pundits APPLAUD her willingness to violate the law to get what she wants done. Who can actually CHAMPION somebody actively violating the law as a good thing?

GOP should do the same. Campaign on a demand to expel all illegals. Have every single Republican run state do a THOROUGH investigation of voter rolls and demand evidence of citizenship or residency to add people's names back on the rolls. If they win, declassify EVERYTHING from Obama. Every single document --- declassify and release publicly.; 10/14/15, 9:06 AM
damikesc said...: Don't forget the Black Lives Matter pandering, promises to automatically turn all illegal immigrants into full citizens, and complete disavowal of Bill Clinton's record. They are going for a strict 50% plus one strategy, and making no pretense of caring about the other half of the country.

That's a reason I want Trump to win. He's going to want to win the general, period, and will ask the "rude" questions.

"Your entire claim to office is that your husband was popular. So, what policies of his do you support? Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Repealing Glass-Steagal? Gutting accounting oversight?"

"Republicans had no problems prosecuting the executives of Enron and other entities that committed massive fraud. Democrats seem unwilling to hold any bank executive or employee responsible for the massive banking collapse we had to bail out. Why?"

"Is there any legitimate reason why you would conduct official business on a privately-owned server? Why would we expect you, if elected, to act ANY differently?"

"Can you tell us, definitively, that nobody ever hacked your server in spite of the amazing lack of security? If you are so lazy about securing Sec of State business, how can anybody trust you with the Presidency?"

"Gov McConnell of Virginia has been imprisoned for influence-peddling. Can you explain the difference between what you did as Sec of State and what he did as Governor, except that you got a lot more money for your family?"

"So, you policies led to the formation of ISIS. Do you have any second thoughts on your entire foreign policy for the 4 years you were Sec of State?"; 10/14/15, 9:11 AM
damikesc said...: I find it hilarious that she wants Snowden to suffer consequences for his handling of classified info. He did less than she did.; 10/14/15, 9:42 AM
Robert Cook said...: "They turned on Bush because he spent too much money.
"They turned on Nixon because he was sleazy."

The Republicans never turned on Bush or Nixon.; 10/14/15, 10:30 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Neither did ANYTHING approaching what Hillary did."

What did Hillary do that is significantly worse than what Nixon did? (Nixon deserved to be thrown out of office, and even to be criminally charged, which he would have been had he not resigned. And, Bush, of course, committed a war crime by invading a non-threatening nation and overthrowing their government. Hillary voted for this, so she is culpable for these war crimes.)

I'm no fan of Hillary at all, but what, I ask again, has she done that was worse than Nixon? If she wins office, I will not be surprised if she is easily as bad as Nixon or Bush, or worse...but we're not there yet.; 10/14/15, 10:37 AM
damikesc said...: She repeatedly mishandled classified info, leaving it readily available for hackers. Many times over. She lied, repeatedly, about her actions. She thoroughly violated federal records keeping laws. She passed classified info to people not remotely qualified to handle it. She engaged in rather impressive influence peddling (amazing how many governments got sweet deals when they hired her husband as a speaker); 10/14/15, 11:40 AM
damikesc said...: Cook, why do you think Nixon resigned? Because Republicans told him they'd support impeachment and removal. Why do you think Bush had approval in the 20s? Because Republican voters abandoned him.; 10/14/15, 11:41 AM
Brando said...: "That's a reason I want Trump to win. He's going to want to win the general, period, and will ask the "rude" questions."

I disagree with you about Trump, but agree that the GOP nominee needs to be aggressive with these challenges. Bernie Sanders learned last night that being nice and trying to defend Hillary (as he did on the e-mail question) doesn't stop her from taking cheap shots at him re: guns.

When you are killing a snake, make sure you do it totally--otherwise you get bit. GOP (and the country) needs a fighter, and a smart one who knows how to do this.; 10/14/15, 12:00 PM
Brando said...: "The Republicans never turned on Bush or Nixon."

They most certainly turned on both of them, for different reasons. Nixon knew it was over when a delegation of Republicans (including Sen. Goldwater) came to the White House to tell him they weren't going to oppose impeachment. Also, Howard Baker (ranking member of the committee investigating Watergate) was a model of nonpartisanship, as to people like him it was far more important to put the country ahead of party. Nixon had no choice but to resign not because of the Dems, but because of his own party. (His final approval ratings went below 30%--you don't hit that level unless significant parts of your own party give up on you).

Bush saw a similar dropoff in support, as Republicans soured on him for immigration reform, overspending and his support of bailouts when the financial crisis happened.

It appears Republicans have a limit. Democrats apparently do not. They will sooner have a corrupt, incompetent corporate lickspittle like Hillary in office than run the risk of a "gasp!" Republican taking over.; 10/14/15, 12:05 PM
damikesc said...: I disagree with you about Trump, but agree that the GOP nominee needs to be aggressive with these challenges. Bernie Sanders learned last night that being nice and trying to defend Hillary (as he did on the e-mail question) doesn't stop her from taking cheap shots at him re: guns.

Since she advocated this, I'd love somebody to ask her what punishment should Edward Snowden receive for his actions and why she shouldn't receive that punishment as well. She gave classified info out to people not qualified for it as well.; 10/14/15, 12:18 PM
Brando said...: "Since she advocated this, I'd love somebody to ask her what punishment should Edward Snowden receive for his actions and why she shouldn't receive that punishment as well. She gave classified info out to people not qualified for it as well."

That's where a real debate and not this Potemkin kabuki dance would be helpful. I can't entirely blame the moderators, as a weasel like Hillary will spin and just revert to her talking points even if they tried to press the issue, but the fact that her opponents just laid down their swords is a sign of pure cravenness.

Another question she cannot answer is the simplest one: "why did you have to conduct business on a separate, private server?" She has still provided no plausible explanation. Each answer she gave so far was proven complete crap--"didn't want to have to use two devices" (not even believable for a luddite because whoever she asked to set up the server could have explained that she didn't need a separate server to use a single device); "thought it would be MORE secure than the State e-mail system" (again, doesn't explain why she never asked anyone if this was true); "I didn't want to do personal e-mails about my beast-daughter's wedding and yoga routines on a government server" (hey, you might have heard about this thing called g-mail?).; 10/14/15, 1:01 PM
Drago said...: Robert Cook: "The Republicans never turned on Bush or Nixon."

Yes, it's quite possible this degree of ignorance is not being feigned.; 10/14/15, 2:14 PM
Drago said...: Robert Cook: "What did Hillary do that is significantly worse than what Nixon did?"

Define "significantly" in this context.; 10/14/15, 2:16 PM
Achilles said...: Robert Cook said...
"They turned on Bush because he spent too much money.
"They turned on Nixon because he was sleazy."

"The Republicans never turned on Bush or Nixon."

You are Consistently historically illiterate. You have to be though to support statism.; 10/14/15, 4:39 PM