And the Russians…don't forget the Russians. So you think Biden chose not to run because he thought Hillary would make a better POTUS than him? That, of course, is absurd. He didn't run because he knew there was going to be a voter backlash because of the failures of the Obama Administration (of which he was a large part). And now he is figuring there will be a similar backlash against the Trump hot mess of a Presidency.
Obama won a majority of the vote and nobody ran up more debt than him, so you're kind of glossing over that to make a point your premise doesn't support.
You think that explains the low turnout among republicans in California?
All it does is slow down the societal decline. The idea that leftist control will produce a better national outcome is belied by the rate of decline and decay in every major city that has been under the control of the Democrats for the past several decades.
He also won the EC...there goes your favorite argument.
Which do you think there is more of in California - non-voting Republicans or non-voting Democrats?
No that kind of was my point - Obama won the EC and still borrowed and spent us into oblivion.
And "W"s deficits? Primarily the result of his ability to crash the economy? Reagan/Bush's deficits? You're logic is laughable.
Exactly why we should go to the popular vote....
I think it was more that the top ranks of the democratic party leaned on Biden to not run...or it simply could have been family and the death of his son.
He inherited a huge structural deficit which he cut by 2/3.
As well as every major city that had been under the control of the Republicans. As well as the countryside. It’s almost as if capitalism were the problem.
I think the fact that Obama hasn't endorsed Joe this go round tells us all we need to know about why he didn't run in 2016. An incumbent VP running without the endorsement of the POTUS is the kiss of death. He's hoping it won't be so glaringly obvious this time around.
Name them!
After Republicans took control of Congress.
Um, not really. Unless your idea of "fairness" is to allow the people who have destroyed the coastal population centers to ruin the 95% of the nation's land mass that they do not already control, so the rest of us can share in their misery. Look, if there was an ounce of benefit in this proposal for the Republicans, some of them would be endorsing it. The fact that none are tells us all we need to know about the "middle" view behind the effort to do away with the EC. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the impetus for this movement - the mass exodus of people from the Democrat controlled cities and states. The left understands full well that the mask is coming off of the fiscal decline their policy agenda produces, and getting control over the entire country by federalizing their socialist agenda is the only way to keep the Ponzi scheme afloat for another couple of generations.
That's why Democrats are relying so heavily on identity politics and race whoring, they are trying to talk about anything BUT the economy
What do you think full control by the democrats is going to produce? The United States of Chicago - that's what!
I've spent a lot of time working in Europe. Everyone there pays high taxes. They view it as everyone pays, everyone gets the massive socialist infrastructure. Sure, there are whacked out leftists, like the Democrats, but they are a minority over there. The Democrats are a particularly hard core virulent strain of Marxists who are in it far more for class warfare and destroying the rich than the typical Europeans are. That's why we are headed to be Chicago or Venezuela. Hate sells, and it's that Democrats are offering
