Your fired!!!

Trump campaign paid background actors to "show support" at announcement speech:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...-actors-803161

not really political, but one more reason why Rand Paul is one of the more interesting politicians:

http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/...at-Bat-690.jpg

http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporti...nd-paul-at-bat

Donald Trump, lordy lordy. He's not to popular up here near Aberdeen. Unless you play golf of course.

Well... no none of these will happen.

1. "GOP can successfully suppress the vote in swing states". That would be really tough to do as there are multiple sides monitoring elections looking out for this. The closest anyone has come in recent years is Florida choosing to purge their registrar records close to the election. Even then, any disenfranchised voter would be able to cast a provisional ballot and their vote would be counted after their registration status was reviewed.

As a result of the Florida incident, many states, including mine, have adopted laws requiring a minimum time between purging and elections.

Suppressing the vote at the polls is a rather hard thing to do because there are people like me there. I am a precinct chief and one of my duties is to make sure that the area around my polling location is free of interference. If I even think there is voter interference at my poll, I have phone numbers to call that will make several piles of crap hit several fans very quickly.

It is one thing for a political group to claim voter suppression, yet another to actually have it in significant numbers to effect an election.

2. "change those state electoral votes to not winner-take-all" First of all, that would have to get past each individual state's legislature. Even if one party controls all the houses, the opposing party will certainly protest and that means the State Supreme Court will get involved and there is no way that could happen before the next election.

Besides, if a party changes the law, it will apply the next election and that might not be in the original party's best interest. Not too many parties will risk that.

3. "gerrymander those electoral votes like they have w/many Congressional seats." Redistricting effects the number of representatives as well as the electors. Redistricting can only be done in response to the Census. This not being a Census year, the only way a state can be redistricted is if a claim can be made that there was a significant change in population and even then it would be a tough sell. Any such request will be challenged by the opposing party and delayed until after the election.

The major political parties are not interested in messing with the Electoral College system. While covered in warts, the Electoral College system is a known system and both major parties have invested a lot of money in the studying and modeling of the Electoral College. And just like redistricting, any changes to the Electoral College will apply in future elections when it may not be advantageous to the party requesting the change.

The major political parties like the Electoral College just the way it is because it favors the present two major party system that we have.

After reading the bit about Hillary Clinton, I have a question. Has she played the 'my husband was President' card at all?

I'm not so sure that would be in her best interests.

http://i.imgur.com/NKsjT6z.jpg

I think both of the top presidential candidates are distancing themselves from their presidential predecessors. Which is probably a wise move. :03:

So 'Isidewith' has updated for 2016:
http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

Unsurprisingly I got the Bernie Sanders option:

http://i.imgur.com/9hufeSd.jpg

Can't say I disagree with a guy that says:

http://i.imgur.com/cLGnScc.jpg

And

http://i.imgur.com/7FVdu3d.jpg

That being said, I think he needs to firm up his stance on firearms a bit, he's a bit unsure on where he's coming from on that one, however in a way I can understand that since I can see both sides of the Gun Control argument in America, even though I live in a nation with strict control laws.

Still, since old Bernie is standing as an Independent he has as much chance at being President as the Liberal Democrats have of being relevant in UK politics in the next decade. :03:

EDIT: Oh, wait, I see that he's going for the Democratic nomination. Well...that makes sense considering his political leaning but I'd wager that he won't be able to stand up to the financial campaign juggernaut that is the Clinton.

Not yet. I'm thinking she will state it is a package deal. Hillary and First Lady Bill.

To quote an amusing exchange on twitter:

"We Shall Overcomb" ~ Donald Trump

Nicely played! :up:

Bill would actually be FGOTUS

Doesn't really come off the tongue, though.

Me:

Sanders - 70%
Clinton - 68%
Christie - 53%

etc.