Can't Count On GOP Lunatics Losing. Look At ALL The Looney Tunes Voted In Since 2010.

[TheMastersNemesis]

Just because the GOP has a bunch of clowns, psychopaths, crazies and what have you running for president in 2016 you cannot count on them losing. It is a bit worrying with all the money that will be behind the GOP nominee. And the GOP is still working on rigging the vote and suppressing the vote as well.

And with the media playing corrupt referee along the way anything is possible. They will act like a bought off referee and do all the can to keep the race close. And the radical Christian churches will play their role as well. We know that they will do all the can to coordinate the church vote even though it is not legal.

Remember we ended up with Bush for 8 years. I never thought so many of these crazy GOP governors would last. Only one went down and some of the worst GOP governors survived. Too many other loonies to name if you start counting state legislators.

I would like to believe someone like Hillary would be an easy win. The problem is that Hillary is about the only candidate that can compete with all the money being thrown about.

[bluestateguy]

1. This woman here:

Yeah, her:

She's allowed to vote.

[elleng]

2. Right. Not only do 'they' have the Looney Tunes,'

they have the crooks who steal elections! Repug states been screwing with elections/registrations/voting rights etc for HOW many years???

[sadoldgirl]

3. No matter how you slice it,

Candidates like Walker or Bush are not lunatics to most
voters. They will have the money and the megaphone of
the media.

You think of the WH, I think about the Congress. If the
Senate stays in the Repugs territory and the House
does too, then no Hillary, Warren or any new "savior
of our party" will make any difference.

Remember: The President proposes, the Congress
disposes. The important factor of money will then
be on their side again.

[jeff47]

4. It's not all about money. It's all about turnout.

Money can get you turnout when your ideas suck. When your ideas do not suck, money is far less critical.

CA would have a Republican governor and a Republican senator if money was all that counted.

2008 Clinton's ideas leaned towards sucking. We'll see what 2016 Clinton brings.

[House of Roberts]

5. George Will today on FNS:

The question for Mr. Cruz or anyone seeking the Republican nomination is this — given that 18 states and the District of Columbia with 242 electoral votes voted Democratic in six consecutive elections and if the Democratic nominee holds that base, he or she will spend the fall looking for 28 electoral votes and will find them. Given that, they have to ask the question, what red — what blue state are you going to flip specifically? Can Ted Cruz campaign effectively in one of those 18 states? Pennsylvania — how is he going to do piling up big majorities to carry the state in the suburban counties, Bucks, Montgomery, around Philadelphia? I’m skeptical.

Chris Ladd of The Chron gave the Dems a lock on 257 votes, back in November.

2010 was an aberration. Plus, it allowed the Rs to control redistricting in some states. Many more R senators will be trying to hold seats in states Obama carried in 2012. The House can only be taken by a wave election, but you can't gerrymander state lines.

[Thinkingabout]

6. Unfortunately Texas elected Cruz, did nit hear a lot of his crazy but as soon as

I saw references to the crazy Arapio I knew to run away. I had already planned to vote for the Democrat. Also, Texas also elected Louie Gohmert, it happens. Crazy is what some people likes. And besides this some vote against their best interest. We will have to run a hard grass roots race, never take a day out to look back.

[world wide wally]

7. What we don't need is excuses, finger pointing, claims of cheating or so on and so forth.

What we do need is for all those "good people" that keep getting screwed by letting Tea baggers determine every election to get off their asses and VOTE!

Did you catch that, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, Florida and so on a so forth?

[calimary]

8. THIS^^^^^^