Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus had hoped for a very
different kind of 2016 election cycle.

He sat down yesterday with the conservative Washington Examiner, and
looked ahead to next fall.

…�I think that we have become, unfortunately, a midterm party that
doesn’t lose and a presidential party that’s had a really hard time
winning,� Priebus said. “We’re seeing more and more that if you don’t
hold the White House, it’s very difficult to govern in this country –
especially in Washington D.C.�

“So I think that – I do think that we’re cooked as a party for
quite a while as a party if we don’t win in 2016. So I do think that
it’s going to be hard to dig out of something like that,� Priebus told
the Examiner.

= = =

Cooked as a party...that'll be good for America and average Americans.

Keyser Söze wrote:
Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus had hoped for a very
different kind of 2016 election cycle.

He sat down yesterday with the conservative Washington Examiner, and
looked ahead to next fall.

…�I think that we have become, unfortunately, a midterm party that
doesn’t lose and a presidential party that’s had a really hard time
winning,� Priebus said. “We’re seeing more and more that if you don’t
hold the White House, it’s very difficult to govern in this country –
especially in Washington D.C.�

“So I think that – I do think that we’re cooked as a party for
quite a while as a party if we don’t win in 2016. So I do think that
it’s going to be hard to dig out of something like that,� Priebus told
the Examiner.

= = =

Cooked as a party...that'll be good for America and average Americans.


Never good for America or the people for a one party system.

On 10/16/2015 11:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus had hoped for a very
different kind of 2016 election cycle.

He sat down yesterday with the conservative Washington Examiner, and
looked ahead to next fall.

…�I think that we have become, unfortunately, a midterm party that
doesn’t lose and a presidential party that’s had a really hard time
winning,� Priebus said. “We’re seeing more and more that if you don’t
hold the White House, it’s very difficult to govern in this country –
especially in Washington D.C.�

“So I think that – I do think that we’re cooked as a party for
quite a while as a party if we don’t win in 2016. So I do think that
it’s going to be hard to dig out of something like that,� Priebus told
the Examiner.

= = =

Cooked as a party...that'll be good for America and average Americans.


Reuters just announced the results of a computer generated prediction
for the 2016 Presidential election. It predicts a Republican will be
moving into the White House in 2017.

The prediction is full of flaws though. It's based primarily on
historical data of things like how many times a two term party has
successfully retained the presidency and other factors not really
germane to this election cycle. The way things are going, the
Republicans will be responsible for a major aberration of historical
data by handing the White House to another Democrat after eight years
and possibly control of Congress.

On 10/16/15 11:33 AM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus had hoped for a very
different kind of 2016 election cycle.

He sat down yesterday with the conservative Washington Examiner, and
looked ahead to next fall.

…�I think that we have become, unfortunately, a midterm party that
doesn’t lose and a presidential party that’s had a really hard time
winning,� Priebus said. “We’re seeing more and more that if you don’t
hold the White House, it’s very difficult to govern in this country –
especially in Washington D.C.�

“So I think that – I do think that we’re cooked as a party for
quite a while as a party if we don’t win in 2016. So I do think that
it’s going to be hard to dig out of something like that,� Priebus told
the Examiner.

= = =

Cooked as a party...that'll be good for America and average Americans.


Never good for America or the people for a one party system.


Oh, I'm not advocating a one party system.

Perhaps a three party system...

The mainstream Democratic Party

A reborn mainstream Republican Party

A Tea Party/Abolitionist/Hate Party, concentrated mainly in the most
"Dixie" of the southern states

On 10/16/15 11:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/16/2015 11:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus had hoped for a very
different kind of 2016 election cycle.

He sat down yesterday with the conservative Washington Examiner, and
looked ahead to next fall.

…�I think that we have become, unfortunately, a midterm party that
doesn’t lose and a presidential party that’s had a really hard time
winning,� Priebus said. “We’re seeing more and more that if you don’t
hold the White House, it’s very difficult to govern in this country –
especially in Washington D.C.�

“So I think that – I do think that we’re cooked as a party for
quite a while as a party if we don’t win in 2016. So I do think that
it’s going to be hard to dig out of something like that,� Priebus told
the Examiner.

= = =

Cooked as a party...that'll be good for America and average Americans.


Reuters just announced the results of a computer generated prediction
for the 2016 Presidential election. It predicts a Republican will be
moving into the White House in 2017.

The prediction is full of flaws though. It's based primarily on
historical data of things like how many times a two term party has
successfully retained the presidency and other factors not really
germane to this election cycle. The way things are going, the
Republicans will be responsible for a major aberration of historical
data by handing the White House to another Democrat after eight years
and possibly control of Congress.


The White House and the Senate are possibilities for the Dems. I don't
see the Repubs losing the House, what with all the gerrymandering
they've done over the years.

I'm at a loss trying to guess who the 2016 GOP POTUS candidate might be.
If Trump doesn't do himself in, I can't see any of the others who are
running knocking him off. I think Jeb has cooked his own goose. Rubio?
Pretty slim pickings there.

I don't see Sanders getting the nomination, but he and his campaign are
performing a great service for this country in many ways.

On 10/16/2015 12:03 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 10/16/15 11:48 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/16/2015 11:22 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus had hoped for a very
different kind of 2016 election cycle.

He sat down yesterday with the conservative Washington Examiner, and
looked ahead to next fall.

…�I think that we have become, unfortunately, a midterm party that
doesn’t lose and a presidential party that’s had a really hard time
winning,� Priebus said. “We’re seeing more and more that if you don’t
hold the White House, it’s very difficult to govern in this country –
especially in Washington D.C.�

“So I think that – I do think that we’re cooked as a party for
quite a while as a party if we don’t win in 2016. So I do think that
it’s going to be hard to dig out of something like that,� Priebus told
the Examiner.

= = =

Cooked as a party...that'll be good for America and average Americans.


Reuters just announced the results of a computer generated prediction
for the 2016 Presidential election. It predicts a Republican will be
moving into the White House in 2017.

The prediction is full of flaws though. It's based primarily on
historical data of things like how many times a two term party has
successfully retained the presidency and other factors not really
germane to this election cycle. The way things are going, the
Republicans will be responsible for a major aberration of historical
data by handing the White House to another Democrat after eight years
and possibly control of Congress.


The White House and the Senate are possibilities for the Dems. I don't
see the Repubs losing the House, what with all the gerrymandering
they've done over the years.

I'm at a loss trying to guess who the 2016 GOP POTUS candidate might be.
If Trump doesn't do himself in, I can't see any of the others who are
running knocking him off. I think Jeb has cooked his own goose. Rubio?
Pretty slim pickings there.

I don't see Sanders getting the nomination, but he and his campaign are
performing a great service for this country in many ways.


I like Bernie although I could never vote for him. He's honest, sincere
and passionate in his beliefs. You can't be faulted for that.

I caught the replays of his appearance on the Ellen DeGeneres where she
asked him if he was ever in handcuffs. He has a genuine sense of humor.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:40:13 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/16/2015 12:03 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:

I don't see Sanders getting the nomination, but he and his campaign are
performing a great service for this country in many ways.


I like Bernie although I could never vote for him. He's honest, sincere
and passionate in his beliefs. You can't be faulted for that.

I caught the replays of his appearance on the Ellen DeGeneres where she
asked him if he was ever in handcuffs. He has a genuine sense of humor.


He wouldn't take the bait and admit the possibility that they were
furr lined handcuffs.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:06:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



The main reason Libertarians get nowhere is that they are recognized as
just another offshoot of the GOPers, but with even less social
conscience and sense of social responsibility, and total naivety on
foreign policy.

That is simply demonstrating your prejudice or perhaps ignorance of
what it means to be Libertarian.
They take, what I think, is the best parts of both parties.

Have you ever taken the quiz at LP.ORG?

And they haven't been helped by Libertarian elected
officials such as Ron and Rand Paul, who many middle of the road
Americans think are nuts and also just a tad too far over on the side of
racists.

The Pauls are not really Libertarians since they want the government
to control the woman's right to choose, among other things.

Did Browne even get 1% of the total vote in his two presidential campaigns?


Yes in 96. When you consider that his ad budget was basically zero and
he did not get much "free" advertising like Trump gets, it was as well
as could be expected. There was also the Perot factor, siphoning off
3d party people.

On 10/16/15 4:27 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:06:13 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



The main reason Libertarians get nowhere is that they are recognized as
just another offshoot of the GOPers, but with even less social
conscience and sense of social responsibility, and total naivety on
foreign policy.

That is simply demonstrating your prejudice or perhaps ignorance of
what it means to be Libertarian.
They take, what I think, is the best parts of both parties.

Have you ever taken the quiz at LP.ORG?

And they haven't been helped by Libertarian elected
officials such as Ron and Rand Paul, who many middle of the road
Americans think are nuts and also just a tad too far over on the side of
racists.

The Pauls are not really Libertarians since they want the government
to control the woman's right to choose, among other things.

Did Browne even get 1% of the total vote in his two presidential campaigns?


Yes in 96. When you consider that his ad budget was basically zero and
he did not get much "free" advertising like Trump gets, it was as well
as could be expected. There was also the Perot factor, siphoning off
3d party people.


I've seen piles of "libertarian" literature. We live in a country and
society where there is a tremendous amount of interdependence among
disparate kinds of organizations and individuals. Libertarianism seems
more suited for a 17th or 18th Century lifestyle out there on the
prairie where your nearest neighbor or local government is a three days'
journey away.

Yes, I've seen and taken that simple-minded little quiz. It accurately
reflects what I am saying...

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
What drugs? Marijuana? Sure. Crack? No. Heroin? No.

End government barriers to international free trade.
Uh-huh. Sure. Anything goes. No thanks.

Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.
Oh, please. Too many workers today barely make enough to eat. Without
social security, they'd starve at retirement age. But of course that's
ok, right?

Replace government welfare with private charity.
Hah. Private charity doesn't raise enough $$$ to fill the gaps, and too
much of it has religious restrictions and connections.

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.
Right, because libertarianism at its base level is...I've got mine, ****
you.

Mostly silliness.

And there's a lot more to libertarianism than what's in that little quiz.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:41:45 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


Yes, I've seen and taken that simple-minded little quiz. It accurately
reflects what I am saying...

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs.
What drugs? Marijuana? Sure. Crack? No. Heroin? No.

Why? Because the drug war is working so well?

End government barriers to international free trade.
Uh-huh. Sure. Anything goes. No thanks.

How is protectionism working for you?

Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.


Oh, please. Too many workers today barely make enough to eat. Without
social security, they'd starve at retirement age. But of course that's
ok, right?

Economics and demographics will make that question moot soon.
SS is already broke and it is just redistributing our kid's tax money
($150 million a year) right now. That number is going to go up
exponentially in the next decade.
This is a Poinzi and the natural result is occurring as we speak. They
ran out of people at the bottom of the pyramid while those at the top
are not going away..


Replace government welfare with private charity.

Hah. Private charity doesn't raise enough $$$ to fill the gaps, and too
much of it has religious restrictions and connections.

I might agree with you but government charity should be a lot more
focused on people who really need it, not the rich and lazy.
(there is a lot of nm90ney to be made in brokering government charity)


Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.
Right, because libertarianism at its base level is...I've got mine, ****
you.

You don't m9ond cutting the spending at DOD?

Mostly silliness.

And there's a lot more to libertarianism than what's in that little quiz.