Tom Tancredo
October 9th, 2007 |He’s basically saying that if you don’t agree with him he will cede your land to Mexico if he becomes President. I don’t see this being a big hit politically.
I know, I know, why do I write about someone polling so low? Because he’s hilarious. Really, every GOP candidate is hilarious.
Fred is half awake. Rudy is a psychopath. Romney will say anything. McCain is desperately looking for traction.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not too stoked that Hillary is the presumptive nominee. But if she brings back the good times of the 1990’s then I won’t have much to complain about.
32 Responses to “Tom Tancredo”
why do you call her the “presumptive” candidate?
But if she brings back the good times of the 1990’s then I won’t have much to complain about.
Like the Communications Act of 1996? Or her failure in garnering support for universal health care?
Yep. Good times.
don’t forget about the wasted opportunities because of soap opera hour at the WH.
The punishment the nuts delivered was not impechment, it was administration paralysis. Big fucking lost opportunities while we all debated whether it was any of our business.
Yes, all good times.
why do you call her the “presumptive” candidate?
1) She’s got the money, she’s got the polling, she’s got the momentum.
2) Nader has not yet declared.
1) polling and momentum are the same thing, you can’t call them two things
2) she doesn’t have the momentum: see chart
3) at the end of Quarter 2, her net cash on hand was 42 million, Obama’s was 35 million. With the Q3 coming in at close (22 for Clinton, 19 for Obama) This is way more than enough for them both to fight through Super Tuesday - neither will run out of cash.
4) look closely at the chart, i think polls are BS (especially national polls for primary), but if you think polls tell the truth, look real close at that one and tell me what you see.
5) Rove and the GOB echo chamber are making her the “presumptive” favorite, don’t fall prey to them.
Chart info:
* Data from daily rasmussen numbers
* thine line, 7 day moving average
* thick line, 21 day moving average of the 7 day moving average. (this is the trend line)
I think Tuffy forgot Nafta, welfare “reform,” the “defense” of marriage act, don’t ask don’t tell, the capital gains tax cut so many people assumed Dubya came up with but actually Clinton initially signed, the asset bubble that made every feel like they were rolling in prosperity but later proved to be bullshit, and the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act that Dubya and the Republicans would go on to cite in order to get more than willing Democratic representatives to vote for this war so many of them now claim to be against.
Oh, and some blow-jobs from a pretty cute if a bit on the heavy side intern.
Yup, those Clinton years were just dandy. Best Republican President since Eisenhower.
GOB = Grand ‘ol ButtFucks
You fucking people.
I’m talking about MY good times, not yours.
Homme, it appears that Obama and Clinton’s numbers are moving the same direction. Both are taking from Edwards, maybe Obama is taking more. But if Clinton holds at 40 Obama needs to take all of Edwards to get close. Maybe it will happen, especially since Oprah declared for Obama.
I’m headed into a roundtable discussion at work with Senator Coleman in about an hour. Seriously.
Smithers, anything you want me to ask him?
Don’t worry Mike Hunt. Soon Hillary will be in charge and Dominator will be paying for all our healthcare.
Obama spent $2 mil for TV in Iowa, Hillary spent $4 mil for TV in Iowa, Edwards spent $0 mil for TV in Iowa, but Edwards remains neck-in-neck. He has not lost ground, even though they threw $6 mil in TV ads out there. Too early to predict presumptive candidates.
Smithers, anything you want me to ask him?
When are we going to close Gitmo?
Too early to predict presumptive candidates.
I agree, I wish it were otherwise. It’s going to be Hillary. If I’m wrong I’ll eat your pumpkin loaf.
The 90s also gave rise to the SUV craze, Matchbox 20, and Creed, but we can’t dwell on everything that was bad about the decade.
They only started with a Bush in the White House and a war in Iraq, but then it got better. This decade is defined by those very same things.
Personally, I’d like to go back to 90s prosperity, 80s music, and ahead to 2050’s balmy new climate for Minnesota.
I’m talking about MY good times, not yours.
You’re sounding more and more conservative every day, Smithers….
Look at the trend lines, the correlation between obama and edwards is -0.89 (-1 would be a perfect inverse correlation i.e., they are trading votes back and forth)
Look at klintun, she has a -0.61 correlation with edwards, not very correlated at all, they are not trading too many votes.
These three are taking up 78% of the votes. that leaves 22% on the table, and the final still. When candidates start to drop out, their votes are going somewhere. Unless I-accuse-old-iowan-voters-of-a-conspiricy destroys the competition in iowa, i’m thinking she aint getting the majority of those votes.
Once people, who are mesmorised by the Rovian powers (like smithers), get shaken by the early primary results which indicate big mamma aint winnin by a landslide, defection will be rampant.
If I’m wrong, I’ve still got Nader for write-in, and canada aint too far away (and they got decent schools).
BTW: if we are laying siege to tehran next summer (not probably, but possible), i’m giving a 70% chance that bush (the big Dick) will make a play at holding power for a little while longer.
Other countries really are starting to sound pretty good. I’m not looking forward to the day when our government finds itself in a credit crunch and can’t pay for the basics tomorrow with the war machine we’re running on borrowed money today.
Interesting discussion. Unfortunately, I believe a nomination of Hillary is a vote for any Republican candidate, she’s got to much baggage. I’m hoping for an Obama/Edwards ticket.
Smithers, anything you want me to ask him?
Did that hurt, when I punched you in the groin a second ago?
I believe a nomination of Hillary is a vote for any Republican candidate, she’s got to much baggage.
Clinton (D) 43%, Giuliani (R) 42%
Clinton (D) 44%, Thompson (R) 41%
Clinton (D) 43%, McCain (R) 40%
Clinton (D) 45%, Romney (R) 35%
Too much baggage, maybe. Can you tell me that anyone of these guys has less baggage?
Giuliani is going to get the nod and he ain’t going to win so it’s all elementary anyway.
All I got out of the 90s was a broken heart and a drinking problem.
–b2b,
Ask Norm if he remembers me from the bathroom in Williams Arena at the Wellstone Memorial. (For as much as it sounds like a joke, we did come across each other there in the bathroom, and he did try to shake my hand…which, I think, is the better joke.)
On the baggage front… the hate machine hasn’t been fully released yet. Imagine what the radio/tv pundits on the right will sound like with a Clinton as a candidate. The smear campaign will be one of the worst in history. Migh back fire if they go to far, but I doubt it.
NAFTA… was a Republican initiative under Bush Sr. Bill stole it though so I don’t expect americans to remember that. Wellfare reform (blame Wisconsin under a Repulican gov.) again stolen, as well as DOMA and other initiatives. Bill C’s mistake was taking them and making them his. If the Dems were savy (cough) they could get out of being blamed for them (most passed, iirc, when congress switched to being a Republican majority.) But sadly they aren’t that good.
Your guys memories of the 1990’s amuse me. I remember in 1994 America was so happy with Clinton that they bought into “The Contract with America” and Newt Gingrich and his republican buddies took over the house. Then we had the internet boom, Greenspan had his finger on interest rates, companies were pouring tons of money into IT for the new economy and Y2K. Thankfully Clinton spent most of his time covering his ass, and the Republicans spent all their time trying to bring him down, so they couldn’t fuck things up as much as when one party controls the executive and legislative branch (see 2000-2006). Then the decade turned and the party came crashing down on a buffoon who was no way prepared for it. You think a Clinton is going to come into power and the 90’s are going to magically re-appear? Nice….
i would like my fitness from the 90s, can klinton bring that back?
It really baffles me as to how any woman could vote for Hillary. With Bill not being able to keep “little Bill” in his pants and all.
What’s Bill’s problem have to do with women voting for Hillary?
If the 2000s were good for me personally, does that mean I need to vote for Rudy/Mitt/Fred next year?!
Bill IS Hillary’s problem. She might be seen as weak for not ditching his cheating ass.
Among women? I doubt it. I think women can relate to having to put up with a worthless piece of crap.
“I think women can relate to having to put up with a worthless piece of crap.”
hmmm, Especially Mrs. Smithers?
You know it!