Recent Feed Comments
Recent Splice Original Comments
Recent Multimedia Comments
  • Go to comment.
    Nov 24, 2014, 12:26PM
    Russ, thank you for the much needed break. I shall resume my Quixote like quest against the circular non-logic of Noah after the holiday. With much gratitude and amusement, Texan
  • Go to comment.
    Nov 24, 2014, 11:52AM
    Noah, I don't give a shit if Hillary's the nominee. If the GOP nominates a rational candidate, it'll be a 50-50 election. What you can't get through your skull is that it's too early to assume HRC is the candidate. Why is that so hard to understand?
    Responses to this comment
  • Go to comment.
    Nov 24, 2014, 11:34AM
    Al Gore was a dominant candidate...and he won the nomination without all that much trouble. I would have preferred Bill Bradley, and he did better than I expect Hillary's challengers to do, but he was never all that close to winning.// You're not saying anything new either. What evidence do you have that any of the challengers named have any particular chance to beat Clinton? What actual polling evidence, or signals from party actors, can you point to to suggest that she's vulnerable? There's nothing there, except that you don't like her and want there to be more of a story. Again, she could get sick, and that would matter, but short of that, it's pretty clear she's going to win.//Things are very different on the Republican side, of course. I don't really have any idea who's going to get the nomination there, because there are a number of strong candidates and no one has shown signs of consolidating party support. Whoever wins, though, will have a perfectly good chance of beating Clinton — who will in turn have a perfectly good chance of winning herself.
  • Go to comment.
    Nov 24, 2014, 12:31AM
    You said nothing new. You've resigned yourself to Clinton's nomination, and that's it. And Al Gore in 2000 wasn't a dominant candidate? Point is, again, for whatever reason, you're calling this way too early. 2015 isn't the primary year: a lot can, and probably will, happen.
  • Go to comment.
    Nov 23, 2014, 10:43PM
    I'm skeptical of that version of Clinton's success...but anyway, Clinton is I think at the moment the single most dominant party candidate in recorded history, if you exclude sitting presidents. Denying that is just wishful thinking. Warren and Webb are simply not credible challengers, and it's hard to think of anyone who would be. Does that mean she'll necessarily win? No; she could have a serious health scare or (much, much less likely) some sort of catastrophic scandal in her past could make party actors abandon her. Right now, though, she is massively popular with both Democrats and Democratic interest groups, including the folks who control all the money. That's just the way it is. I'd rather Warren won too, but I don't see any reason to fool myself into thinking that that's anything but an extremely remote possibility.
    Responses to this comment
  • Go to comment.
    Nov 21, 2014, 10:55PM
    I've met many people all around the world because of social media. It has expanded my horizon & through it, I've learned of different cultures, lifestyles and been introduced to some really good and decent people. I only wish I had more time to engage in it. It is the one media source that is used in a way that suits your own needs. Thanks for the interesting read.
  • Go to comment.
    Nov 21, 2014, 07:55PM
    I'd rather see Elizabeth Warren eat her for lunch.
  • Go to comment.
    Nov 21, 2014, 02:10PM
    Noah, the real silliness is that you've already anointed HRC as the nominee, well over a year before the primaries begin. In '91, GHW Bush had a 91% approval rating; that's why no "big" Dem like Cuomo ran, and let Bill Clinton sneak in. As for the midterms, yes, Walker won in WI, so now he'll be a candidate. But also, Kasich won by 31 points in Ohio (polls wrong again) and he's in. And 2015 promises to be a tumultuous political year, as Obama's immigration speech showed last night. If you go by polls right after the midterms, I assume you thought Hillary had the '08 nomination locked up at this time in '06.
  • Go to comment.
    Nov 21, 2014, 11:52AM
    I think you're kidding yourself Russ. Favorability is a rating of whether people *who have heard of you* like you. Being unknown is another matter (though also a problem for Webb.) But...the idea that the midterms shook up the 2016 race is silliness; the race is pretty much exactly where it was before, except that now we know Scott Walker is a viable candidate. And the 2016 race has absolutely started in earnest. Hillary is shoring up her position as the front runner as we speak, and has been doing so roughly since 2012. Webb's best, and perhaps only, chance at the moment is if Hillary has some sort of serious health problem. Otherwise, he doesn't have a much better chance of being the Democratic nominee than I do.
  • Go to comment.
    Nov 21, 2014, 11:23AM
    You have done it again! Very good article and I completely agree. My experiences are similar to yours. There are good people out there in cyberland. But also vain, egocentrists who have just been given a platform. Oh for that mute and delete button in real life!
  • Go to comment.
    Nov 20, 2014, 03:05PM
    I'd vote for an Uber driver over Clinton (unless she ran against Cruz), but that's neither here nor there. Of course Webb doesn't have a high favorability rating: he's not well-known. I don't particularly care for the self-righteous Webb either, but my point is that the 2016 race hasn't started in earnest. And the midterms scrambled the playing field. Whether that's to the advantage of the GOP or Democrats, we don't know yet.
  • Go to comment.
    Nov 20, 2014, 10:34AM
    Hillary is a HAWK. She'll have trouble with her base when people start paying attention to the 2016 election. Until then, polls are merely a name recognition meter.