(06-17-2016 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  Latest Reuters poll.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/20...h_2016.pdf

Clinton 41, Trump 32, Neither or other 15, Will not vote 4, don't know 7.

When they mention the Libertarians and Greens its

Clinton 39, Trump 29, Johnson 6, Stein 4, Neither or other 8, Will not vote 4, don't know 9

Clinton gets fewer Republicans than Trump gets Democrats 6% vs. 8%, but gets 75% of Democrats while Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%).

Johnson takes more from Trump, but Stein takes more from Clinton.

"Will not vote" should not be included in the numbers. Eventually, they will start screening for likely voters and we'll have a better sense of it. The big stat is "Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%)". Trump will have to close that gap if he is going to compete. He probably needs to convince Cruz or Rubio to run with him. He did a lot of damage with their supporters during the primary campaign that he has to heal. #NeverTrump wasn't enough to stop him in the primary, but it looks like it will cost him the general if he doesn't get them onboard.

(06-17-2016 11:00 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  Latest Reuters poll.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/20...h_2016.pdf

Clinton 41, Trump 32, Neither or other 15, Will not vote 4, don't know 7.

When they mention the Libertarians and Greens its

Clinton 39, Trump 29, Johnson 6, Stein 4, Neither or other 8, Will not vote 4, don't know 9

Clinton gets fewer Republicans than Trump gets Democrats 6% vs. 8%, but gets 75% of Democrats while Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%).

Johnson takes more from Trump, but Stein takes more from Clinton.

"Will not vote" should not be included in the numbers. Eventually, they will start screening for likely voters and we'll have a better sense of it. The big stat is "Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%)". Trump will have to close that gap if he is going to compete. He probably needs to convince Cruz or Rubio to run with him. He did a lot of damage with their supporters during the primary campaign that he has to heal. #NeverTrump wasn't enough to stop him in the primary, but it looks like it will cost him the general if he doesn't get them onboard.

According to that poll. 78% of independents believe we are on the wrong track. Goodbye Hillary.

(06-17-2016 11:20 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 11:00 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  Latest Reuters poll.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/20...h_2016.pdf

Clinton 41, Trump 32, Neither or other 15, Will not vote 4, don't know 7.

When they mention the Libertarians and Greens its

Clinton 39, Trump 29, Johnson 6, Stein 4, Neither or other 8, Will not vote 4, don't know 9

Clinton gets fewer Republicans than Trump gets Democrats 6% vs. 8%, but gets 75% of Democrats while Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%).

Johnson takes more from Trump, but Stein takes more from Clinton.

"Will not vote" should not be included in the numbers. Eventually, they will start screening for likely voters and we'll have a better sense of it. The big stat is "Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%)". Trump will have to close that gap if he is going to compete. He probably needs to convince Cruz or Rubio to run with him. He did a lot of damage with their supporters during the primary campaign that he has to heal. #NeverTrump wasn't enough to stop him in the primary, but it looks like it will cost him the general if he doesn't get them onboard.

According to that poll. 78% of independents believe we are on the wrong track. Goodbye Hillary.

The number was similar throughout 2012 (but magically dipped in November), yet Obama was reelected.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...html#polls

(06-17-2016 11:20 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 11:00 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  Latest Reuters poll.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/20...h_2016.pdf

Clinton 41, Trump 32, Neither or other 15, Will not vote 4, don't know 7.

When they mention the Libertarians and Greens its

Clinton 39, Trump 29, Johnson 6, Stein 4, Neither or other 8, Will not vote 4, don't know 9

Clinton gets fewer Republicans than Trump gets Democrats 6% vs. 8%, but gets 75% of Democrats while Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%).

Johnson takes more from Trump, but Stein takes more from Clinton.

"Will not vote" should not be included in the numbers. Eventually, they will start screening for likely voters and we'll have a better sense of it. The big stat is "Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%)". Trump will have to close that gap if he is going to compete. He probably needs to convince Cruz or Rubio to run with him. He did a lot of damage with their supporters during the primary campaign that he has to heal. #NeverTrump wasn't enough to stop him in the primary, but it looks like it will cost him the general if he doesn't get them onboard.

According to that poll. 78% of independents believe we are on the wrong track. Goodbye Hillary.

Possible reflective of the dissatisfaction with congress more so than the President?

(06-17-2016 11:47 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 11:20 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 11:00 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  Latest Reuters poll.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/20...h_2016.pdf

Clinton 41, Trump 32, Neither or other 15, Will not vote 4, don't know 7.

When they mention the Libertarians and Greens its

Clinton 39, Trump 29, Johnson 6, Stein 4, Neither or other 8, Will not vote 4, don't know 9

Clinton gets fewer Republicans than Trump gets Democrats 6% vs. 8%, but gets 75% of Democrats while Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%).

Johnson takes more from Trump, but Stein takes more from Clinton.

"Will not vote" should not be included in the numbers. Eventually, they will start screening for likely voters and we'll have a better sense of it. The big stat is "Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%)". Trump will have to close that gap if he is going to compete. He probably needs to convince Cruz or Rubio to run with him. He did a lot of damage with their supporters during the primary campaign that he has to heal. #NeverTrump wasn't enough to stop him in the primary, but it looks like it will cost him the general if he doesn't get them onboard.

According to that poll. 78% of independents believe we are on the wrong track. Goodbye Hillary.

Possible reflective of the dissatisfaction with congress more so than the President?

That could be a theory, except congress keeps getting reelected as well.

(06-17-2016 11:38 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 11:20 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 11:00 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  Latest Reuters poll.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/20...h_2016.pdf

Clinton 41, Trump 32, Neither or other 15, Will not vote 4, don't know 7.

When they mention the Libertarians and Greens its

Clinton 39, Trump 29, Johnson 6, Stein 4, Neither or other 8, Will not vote 4, don't know 9

Clinton gets fewer Republicans than Trump gets Democrats 6% vs. 8%, but gets 75% of Democrats while Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%).

Johnson takes more from Trump, but Stein takes more from Clinton.

"Will not vote" should not be included in the numbers. Eventually, they will start screening for likely voters and we'll have a better sense of it. The big stat is "Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%)". Trump will have to close that gap if he is going to compete. He probably needs to convince Cruz or Rubio to run with him. He did a lot of damage with their supporters during the primary campaign that he has to heal. #NeverTrump wasn't enough to stop him in the primary, but it looks like it will cost him the general if he doesn't get them onboard.

According to that poll. 78% of independents believe we are on the wrong track. Goodbye Hillary.

The number was similar throughout 2012 (but magically dipped in November), yet Obama was reelected.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...html#polls

The blacks arent going to come out in force and vote for Hillary like they did Obama. Notice how they didnt get out to vote when he wasnt on the ballot the past 8 years.

Also, unlike 4 years ago, ISIS and terror attacks can easily be this cycles October surprise.

(06-17-2016 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  Latest Reuters poll.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/20...h_2016.pdf

Clinton 41, Trump 32, Neither or other 15, Will not vote 4, don't know 7.

When they mention the Libertarians and Greens its

Clinton 39, Trump 29, Johnson 6, Stein 4, Neither or other 8, Will not vote 4, don't know 9

Clinton gets fewer Republicans than Trump gets Democrats 6% vs. 8%, but gets 75% of Democrats while Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%).

Johnson takes more from Trump, but Stein takes more from Clinton.

FL
PPP (D) 6/2-6/5 40 © 41 (T)

NH
Franklin Pierce/Boston Herald 5/25-5/28 44 © 44 (T)

NC
PPP (D) 5/20-5/22 41 © 43 (T)

OH
Quinnipiac 4/27-5/8 39 © 43 (T)

PA
PPP (D) 6/5-6/7 41 © 40 (T)

VA
PPP (D) 6/13-6/15 42 © 39 (T)

IA
PPP (D) 6/9-6/10 44 © 41 (T)

if it's a blowout nationally then it's a blowout locally ...
why aren't reuter's lopsided numbers redounding to the latest battleground polls ...

GIGO (GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT)

(06-17-2016 08:08 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  The plan should involve:
1. Capping liability to keep malpractice insurance costs at bay.
2. Streamlining the R&D process so that successful drugs, medical equipment, and procedures can be taken directly to the patients so that years of R&D money aren't wasted before patients can benefit. All that R&D money for test after test and federal approval gates eventually has to be recovered.
3. Allow doctors to perform and patients to sign waivers for experimental treatments that results in no liability if the procedure, drug, or treatment fails. Right now regular doctors cannot try something that has not been approved by the government and the medical establishment even if the patient is willing to take the risk.
4. Give doctors access to tests that are available to the research community. For instance, if a patient is going through depression, doctors cannot test for things like seratonin and dopamine, even though the technology is available for the research community. The only thing they can do is play whak-a-mole with SSRIs and other drugs.
5. The one thing that has been proposed... allowing insurance to cross state lines... needs to happen.

Agree to all of the above. I wasn't getting into as much detail in my overview, but would include provisions for all the above.

As far as crossing state lines, that is an inherent part of the German Bismarck approach (not as big in France, because the provinces don't have the same role as the German states). To facilitate interstate purchases, the Germans came up with something called exchanges. That was the purpose of the exchanges in the German system, to give someone living in Bavaria a convenient way to buy as Schleswig-Holstein insurance policy. Heritage brought the concept over as the vehicle to facilitate interstate purchases here. Obamacare kept the name, but not the idea, because it doesn't include interstate purchases. So when democrats say they incorporated the republican idea of exchanges into Obamacare, they are outright lying. They bastardized the word exchange without incorporating the idea of exchanges.

(06-17-2016 11:47 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 11:20 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 11:00 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  Latest Reuters poll.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/20...h_2016.pdf

Clinton 41, Trump 32, Neither or other 15, Will not vote 4, don't know 7.

When they mention the Libertarians and Greens its

Clinton 39, Trump 29, Johnson 6, Stein 4, Neither or other 8, Will not vote 4, don't know 9

Clinton gets fewer Republicans than Trump gets Democrats 6% vs. 8%, but gets 75% of Democrats while Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%).

Johnson takes more from Trump, but Stein takes more from Clinton.

"Will not vote" should not be included in the numbers. Eventually, they will start screening for likely voters and we'll have a better sense of it. The big stat is "Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%)". Trump will have to close that gap if he is going to compete. He probably needs to convince Cruz or Rubio to run with him. He did a lot of damage with their supporters during the primary campaign that he has to heal. #NeverTrump wasn't enough to stop him in the primary, but it looks like it will cost him the general if he doesn't get them onboard.

According to that poll. 78% of independents believe we are on the wrong track. Goodbye Hillary.

Possible reflective of the dissatisfaction with congress more so than the President?

More of the "your guy is bad, not mine." Obama's ratings are about breakeven. Yet the country is overwhelmingly viewed as on the wrong track. People rate Congress badly but almost all like their own congressman.

(06-17-2016 12:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 08:08 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  The plan should involve:
1. Capping liability to keep malpractice insurance costs at bay.
2. Streamlining the R&D process so that successful drugs, medical equipment, and procedures can be taken directly to the patients so that years of R&D money aren't wasted before patients can benefit. All that R&D money for test after test and federal approval gates eventually has to be recovered.
3. Allow doctors to perform and patients to sign waivers for experimental treatments that results in no liability if the procedure, drug, or treatment fails. Right now regular doctors cannot try something that has not been approved by the government and the medical establishment even if the patient is willing to take the risk.
4. Give doctors access to tests that are available to the research community. For instance, if a patient is going through depression, doctors cannot test for things like seratonin and dopamine, even though the technology is available for the research community. The only thing they can do is play whak-a-mole with SSRIs and other drugs.
5. The one thing that has been proposed... allowing insurance to cross state lines... needs to happen.

Agree to all of the above. I wasn't getting into as much detail in my overview, but would include provisions for all the above.

As far as crossing state lines, that is an inherent part of the German Bismarck approach (not as big in France, because the provinces don't have the same role as the German states). To facilitate interstate purchases, the Germans came up with something called exchanges. That was the purpose of the exchanges in the German system, to give someone living in Bavaria a convenient way to buy as Schleswig-Holstein insurance policy. Heritage brought the concept over as the vehicle to facilitate interstate purchases here. Obamacare kept the name, but not the idea, because it doesn't include interstate purchases. So when democrats say they incorporated the republican idea of exchanges into Obamacare, they are outright lying. They bastardized the word exchange without incorporating the idea of exchanges.

Just crossing state lines will be impactful in the short-run in dropping insurance rates a few percent, but won't address the rising costs of medical practice. I am not all that familiar with or criticizing Bismark, but we need to reduce the cost of medical practice, not just shuffle around where the money comes from. Insurance companies, while they can cause problems at the micro level, are not the problem at the macro level. Doctors aren't the problem, they are hamstrung. Drug companies and medical equipment and supply companies aren't the problem. They have to cover their R&D costs in order to innovate and that has to be done between the time the product is taken to the market and the time the patent expires. The problem is costs, bottom line. I know you are a fan of Bismark, and as I said, I don't know enough about it to determine if it really addresses the root problem. We could go to single payer, which would probably help some families, but ultimately it is being paid for and we aren't going to like how the government keeps the costs in check. It won't be as a result of easing regulations and streamlining processes.

(06-17-2016 01:15 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Just crossing state lines will be impactful in the short-run in dropping insurance rates a few percent, but won't address the rising costs of medical practice. I am not all that familiar with or criticizing Bismark, but we need to reduce the cost of medical practice, not just shuffle around where the money comes from. Insurance companies, while they can cause problems at the micro level, are not the problem at the macro level. Doctors aren't the problem, they are hamstrung. Drug companies and medical equipment and supply companies aren't the problem. They have to cover their R&D costs in order to innovate and that has to be done between the time the product is taken to the market and the time the patent expires. The problem is costs, bottom line. I know you are a fan of Bismark, and as I said, I don't know enough about it to determine if it really addresses the root problem. We could go to single payer, which would probably help some families, but ultimately it is being paid for and we aren't going to like how the government keeps the costs in check. It won't be as a result of easing regulations and streamlining processes.

The easiest way to think of Bismarck is a combination system. You have a "free" system that works somewhat like single-payer/single-provider (with one big difference that I'll get to below), and a "pay" system that works pretty much like our old system. You basically milk the "free" system for all the simple stuff--tetanus shots, amoxycillin prescriptions, setting your broken finger--and move over to the "pay" system whenever the free system sticks you in a queue. The big difference between Bismarck and single-payer/single-provider is that government's role is very limited. The "free" system is basically a bad HMO that private insurance companies provide for a fixed premium paid by government. Government says, "Here's $2700 per capita for next year, design a plan and sign up as many as you can get." Insurance companies don't make anything on the "free" plans, but they compete like hell for them, because 1) they get the cash flow from collecting premiums, and 2) they get a mailing list to sell supplemental policies, which is where they make their money. In the German system, the "free" policies are basically sold by non-profit companies set up by the individual states (that's why they needed the exchanges), who also sell the upgrades. BTW, the way they remain non-profit is by bonusing out their profits at the end of the year. Sound like anybody we know?

From an individual's standpoint, you can buy a replacement policy that bypasses the "free" side altogether (the most expensive one, with the $2700 applied as a voucher to reduce your cost), or you can buy a supplemental policy were you go to the "free" system for the basics and gatekeeping and move to the "pay" system when the "free" system queues you up, or the cheapest policy where you stay on the "free" system and the policy pays your copays. Without supplemental insurance, you can always go to the "pay" system on your own nickel. They don't have a lot of high-deductible policies, but I would think that coupled with more robust HSAs would be one feature that we would want to incorporate here. Generally, with private policies there is a cap, set at the level where government does take over funding your health care.

What I would expect to see here would be insurance companies doing all they could to come up with low-cost delivery vehicles for the "free" services, so they could make their "free" policies more attractive and generate "pay" policy sales off their mailing lists. I'd expect to see more docs-in-the-box storefronts, with insurance companies backing them. I'd expect to see more and more services performed by more and more NPs/PAs, which would probably be the best way to lower costs. I'd expect to see much more done to promote preventive care, including price breaks for good actors. Basically, I think Bismarck lets the free market do what it does best--compete and innovate--while providing a safety net for everyone.

(06-17-2016 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  Latest Reuters poll.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/20...h_2016.pdf

Clinton 41, Trump 32, Neither or other 15, Will not vote 4, don't know 7.

When they mention the Libertarians and Greens its

Clinton 39, Trump 29, Johnson 6, Stein 4, Neither or other 8, Will not vote 4, don't know 9

Clinton gets fewer Republicans than Trump gets Democrats 6% vs. 8%, but gets 75% of Democrats while Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%).

Johnson takes more from Trump, but Stein takes more from Clinton.

With regard to the Reuters/Ipsos poll in question (6/10/16), you can drill into the detailed polling data. Of the 1,276 respondents, 628 (49.2%) were Democrats, just 498 (39.0%) were Republicans, and 112 (8.8%) were independents, and the remaining 38 (3.0%) were members of another party.

A 10.2% margin of Democrats over Republicans? And anyone seriously thinks this poll is representative of the American public's true voting intentions?

Ridiculous.

Gallup has reliable long-term historical data on party affiliations, and as of the latest data in late May, the split is 28% to 27% for Democrats over Republicans. That would be a 1% advantage to the Democrats, not 10.2% as the Reuters/Ipsos poll has in its makeup.
-- americanthinker.com

AMERICAN DREAM

(06-17-2016 02:04 PM)green Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  Latest Reuters poll.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/20...h_2016.pdf

Clinton 41, Trump 32, Neither or other 15, Will not vote 4, don't know 7.

When they mention the Libertarians and Greens its

Clinton 39, Trump 29, Johnson 6, Stein 4, Neither or other 8, Will not vote 4, don't know 9

Clinton gets fewer Republicans than Trump gets Democrats 6% vs. 8%, but gets 75% of Democrats while Trump gets 68% of Republicans with many more Republicans in the "don't know" category (2% vs. 8%).

Johnson takes more from Trump, but Stein takes more from Clinton.

With regard to the Reuters/Ipsos poll in question (6/10/16), you can drill into the detailed polling data. Of the 1,276 respondents, 628 (49.2%) were Democrats, just 498 (39.0%) were Republicans, and 112 (8.8%) were independents, and the remaining 38 (3.0%) were members of another party.

A 10.2% margin of Democrats over Republicans? And anyone seriously thinks this poll is representative of the American public's true voting intentions?

Ridiculous.

Gallup has reliable long-term historical data on party affiliations, and as of the latest data in late May, the split is 28% to 27% for Democrats over Republicans. That would be a 1% advantage to the Democrats, not 10.2% as the Reuters/Ipsos poll has in its makeup.
-- americanthinker.com

AMERICAN DREAM

I'm no expert on polling but don't they make adjustments based on the makeup of the respondents?

(06-17-2016 02:14 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I'm no expert on polling but don't they make adjustments based on the makeup of the respondents?

suppose the shoe were on the other foot ...
oversampling republicans by 10% ...
and nobody said a word ...

MAKE OF IT WHAT YOU WILL

(06-17-2016 02:14 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I'm no expert on polling but don't they make adjustments based on the makeup of the respondents?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/ga...ers-214493

Gallup has been the country's gold standard for horse-race election polling ever since its legendary founder, George Gallup, predicted Franklin Roosevelt's landslide reelection in 1936.

But after a bruising 2012 cycle, in which its polls were farther off than most of its competitors, Gallup told POLITICO it isn't planning any polls for the presidential primary horse race this cycle.
-- politico

even the experts don't know what to make of it ...
as an aside ...
I called gallup during the contested 2000 election when their spring polls consistently showed bush up by an absurd 20 points and asked ...
are you only polling alabama ...
my advice ...

IT'S MORE THAN A FEELING

(06-17-2016 07:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I know I sound like a broken record, but republicans are in this mess because they've been pretty much devoid of ideas for perhaps two decades at this point. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Newt put together a pretty good set of ideas with his contract, which led to landslide victory in 1994, after which republicans promptly forgot what the contract was about in their haste to pursue Monicagate. Shrub ran on two pretty good ideas in 2000--cut the size of the federal government, and get us out of the nation-building business--and then promptly did the most humongous 180 in history on both issues.

Republicans are not going to win a personality contest with democrats on the national level. The MSM will see to that. If they're going to win, they have to make it about issues. And they can't lead those issues with abortion and gay marriage, because there are too many places where they can't win on either.

So what can they do? Come up with some ideas for a change.

Obamacare sucks. But just being against it is not good enough. "Repeal Obamacare," may be enough for the hard-core base, but the rest of the people want to know, "Repeal Obamacare and replace it with what? And how does that affect me?" Come up with something better and get behind it. That's not hard. Bismarck is clearly better. All they would have to do is take the French law and hire a translator.

Balance the budget. Don't grandstand over a constitutional amendment that will probably never happen. Actually balance the f-ing budget. Yes it requires some tough choices. Yes it requires giving in on some issues. That's why it's important to have a balanced budget, so that some thought about choices and alternatives have to go into the process, instead of just voting yes because they are going to name a bridge after me. That's what the public elects politicians to do.

Tax and welfare reform. Europe provides a more comprehensive welfare safety net than we do, at the same time that it offers a better tax deal to entrepreneurs and investors. They do it with lower and flatter income tax rate structures, elimination of almost all deduction/exclusion loopholes, and a consumption tax. That's what both Bowles-Simpson (except for the consumption tax) and Domenici-Rivlin (including the consumption tax, to reduce the deficit even further) recommended.

Broken record again. First day after retaking the house in 2011, republicans should have passed French Bismarck health care and either Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin or some combination of the best of both (they are remarkably similar, indicating that when bipartisan groups look constructively at things, the answers are pretty obvious).

Follow that up with welfare reform along the lines of Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund, with the current hodgepodge of focused and means-tested programs turned over to the states (if they want to fund them with the money that Bismarck saves them on Medicaid). Legalize or decriminalize marijuana and consider other drugs, and use the resources saved from that to go after gangs in a big way to reduce the homicide rate. Build a stronger military for less money by getting more bang for the buck--convert a number of active duty slots to reserves, reform procurement along the lines of a high/low mix instead of building nothing but unproved state of the art stuff, cut the bureaucracy down to no bigger than what it took to win WWII, get rid of at least half the high-priced consultants, and instead of spending 9% on combat, 14% on combat support, and 77% on BS, get things down to at least the OECD average (which is bad enough) of 14% on combat, 23% on combat support, and 63% on BS. Never fight a war that we don't intend to win. Treat our friends better than we treat our enemies.

Then let the democrats try to explain how their ideas are better.

I doubt that I would ever vote for democrats. My vote is there for republicans to get, but they have to come with some ideas worth supporting in order to get it.

As long as they don't come up with ideas on the issues, republicans are subject to Donald Trumps. Just as democrats are subject to Hillary Clintons. Not good.

You've made it crystal clear on the day Rand Paul dropped out you were voting for Johnson/Weld. So why you wrote this novel, without the two tenets Trump stands for (immigration and the economy), is beyond me.

(06-17-2016 09:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 06:54 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 09:25 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 09:22 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-16-2016 03:38 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  I am so frustrated by the amnesia of conservatives/republicans.

The dem's throw the exact same, almost word for word mud at Trump as they did at Romney.

The two men cannot be more different in their looks, manner of speech and level of behavior. Yet the same old trash is slung.

It does not matter who the republicans nominate.

I only hope people will see that the dem's that cry wolf is just that.

At least Trump slap's back.

Trump is rudderless. He isn't a Republican or a conservative. He is a groundless opportunist. I can't believe that some Republicans / conservatives are so fooled by him.

Well conservatives/republicans/righties....

What option do they have?

An old...?

Trump just turned 70. If elected, he will be the oldest ever elected as president of the US.

#fail

Still a hypocrite I see when it comes to you pulling a "FIFY". You still have yet to explain why you can do it, but nobody else can.

(06-17-2016 09:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Trump just turned 70. If elected, he will be the oldest ever elected as president of the US.

#fail

https://thehornnews.com/the-hillary-heal...ing-about/

68 years
October 26, 1947

Clinton has a history of potentially serious blood clots — and is currently taking one of the most unpredictable prescription drugs on the market today.

Health questions have swirled around Clinton since a December 2012 fall that caused a concussion and led to a subsequent diagnosis of a blood clot near her brain. Clinton was knocked so hard she was seeing double for months – and had to wear glasses with special lines in them just so she could see straight.
-- thehornnews.com

and if ms. clinton is elected she'll be the second oldest ...

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

(06-17-2016 02:35 PM)green Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 02:14 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I'm no expert on polling but don't they make adjustments based on the makeup of the respondents?

suppose the shoe were on the other foot ...
oversampling republicans by 10% ...
and nobody said a word ...

MAKE OF IT WHAT YOU WILL

I don't really follow your response. I was asking a question about polling. Don't they factor in differences between the make up of their sample and the make up of voters as a whole? If there is an oversampling of one or the other don't they adjust the percentages? If they don't then an oversampling would result in an inaccurate outcome. If they do then an oversampling shouldn't matter.

(06-17-2016 04:00 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 02:35 PM)green Wrote:  

(06-17-2016 02:14 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I'm no expert on polling but don't they make adjustments based on the makeup of the respondents?

suppose the shoe were on the other foot ...
oversampling republicans by 10% ...
and nobody said a word ...

MAKE OF IT WHAT YOU WILL

I don't really follow your response. I was asking a question about polling. Don't they factor in differences between the make up of their sample and the make up of voters as a whole? If there is an oversampling of one or the other don't they adjust the percentages? If they don't then an oversampling would result in an inaccurate outcome. If they do then an oversampling shouldn't matter.

why not randomly sample the electorate as currently constituted ...

SPARE ME THE DETAILS