Jump to content
270soft Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Yes-But we work directly with the council,Which I was told is the only difference.
  3. Is a "controller" the same thing as a "comptroller"? I've never heard of a city "controller" before.
  4. I am running for my cities controller (Unopposed) After within the last year starting my home counties young democrats,and becoming a Democrat committeman, I am running for my city's controller https://www.facebook.com/Candidate-Dakota-Mikita-211544606277797/ Please like the page for more popularity (I am running a write-in,unopposed as far as I know)
  5. Another simple one, basically to get back into things
  6. Today
  7. @Reagan04 this is correct
  8. I'm assuming he meant William Henry Harrison (not Benjamin) and Garfield because they didn't serve long enough. Same with Truman. Edit: Actually, if it was done in 1948 then Truman had served long enough. They probably just didn't want to include a current President.
  9. That's kind of random but ok. Did they have something against post-reconstruction Republicans?
  10. In 1948 there were fewer presidents. This is when they had lower numbers. The 1948 ranking (the first ever) did not have Harrison, Garfield, or Truman.) Thus, 29 = 44 in today's ranking.
  11. That was Stealers Wheel and it is from the 70's
  12. "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you," -The Steve Miller Band, "Stuck in the Middle." Given that song is from the '60's, it's downright prophetic.
  13. How Buchanan and especially Johnson's peak ranges are as high as they are is proof we live in a clown world 🤡🤡
  14. One reason I think Warren might do well, regardless of who holds Congress, is that I think she's more policy-driven than she is ideological. Her, "I have a plan" attitude would probably be adaptive to whatever situation arises. I think moderates and conservatives probably underestimate her.
  15. Yesterday
  16. Imagine what Perot would have had to deal with if he had pulled a victory in 1992 or 1996...
  17. I think a lot of what will contribute to which candidate can be considered "great" will depend on what kind of Congress they have to work with throughout their administration, whether it is friendly or hostile. Washington, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt and FDR had congressional majorities throughout their entire presidencies. Recently, Reagan, Clinton, W. Bush and Obama were all more ambitious when their own party controlled one or both houses of Congress.
  18. Reminds me of Rudy Giuliani's strategy in 2008 - to avoid competing in every state until Florida, where he was ahead in the polls. He didn't finish ahead in the polls, that's for sure. I think he got 1 delegate at the convention. It's always risky putting one's stock in polls from later primary states. These polls often shift after the first few contests, especially Iowa and New Hampshire, depending on who is perceived as the front-runner(s). Dean was ahead in New Hampshire in 2003, until Kerry won Iowa. Hillary was ahead in South Carolina in 2007, until Obama won Iowa. I agree this looks bad for Biden, if true. Bernie is done - people aren't going to vote for a guy pushing 80 who had a heart attack when the campaign was just getting started, and he wasn't doing that great to begin with. Warren seems to be the one with the momentum.
  19. Here's a ranking of the US presidents by their range in rankings from 1948-present. Some of the low scores for older below average or bad presidents is because there were fewer presidents to rank in the past. Trump has only been in two expert polls, so his range is also his only expert rankings: Lincoln, 1-3 FDR, 1-3 Washington, 1-4 Jefferson, 2-7 Th. Roosevelt, 2-7 Truman, 5-9 *Would have been a failed president if in the 1948 poll had he been included. He was very unpopular then.* Wilson, 4-11 *Losing favorability in the 21st century* Eisenhower, 5-21 *Was unfavorable in the early 1960s* JFK, 6-18 *Experts have a hard time distinguishing the myth from his accomplishments* Jackson, 6-19 *Losing favorability in the 21st century* Monroe, 7-18 *Losing favorability in the 21st century* Obama, 8-18 *Will be interesting where he ends up once we get a good president again* Madison, 6-20 *The conflict is whether or not the War of 1812 was avoidable or not* Polk, 8-20 *Losing favorability in the 21st century* LBJ, 10-18 *Depends on whether or not his domestic achievements are more lasting than the Vietnam fiasco* Clinton, 8-24 *Improved once Bush II collapsed the economy,* Reagan, 6-26 *The Republican version of LBJ. He just goes up and down depending on what part of the presidency experts focus on* J Adams, 9-19 *The Rev War Hero Adams might influence some of these favorable ratings* Cleveland, 8-24 *Losing favorability in the 21st century* McKinley, 11-21 *Losing favorability in the 21st century* JQ Adams, 11-25 *Gaining favorability, but like JFK, didn't really do a lot* Taft, 16-25 *Gaining favorability* Hayes, 13-33 *Losing favorability in the 21st century* GHW Bush, 17-31 Van Buren, 15-34 Arthur, 17-35 Carter, 18-34 *Favorable ratings probably have more to do with post-presidency image* B Harrison, 19-35 Ford, 22-32 Grant, 21-38 *Has greatly gain favorability in the 21st century* Coolidge, 23-36 *Often scores well with Libertarians, but ranks very poorly among everyone else* Nixon, 23-36 Taylor, 24-35 Garfield, 25-34 GW Bush, 19-39 *He's improving in Trump-era polls* Hoover, 19-38 Fillmore, 24-38 WH Harrison, 26-42 Tyler, 22-39 Pierce, 27-41 Harding, 29-42 *Routine presidential scandals and corruptions are helping Harding in more recent polls* A Johnson, 19-44 Buchanan, 26-43 Trump, 42-44 *Some of this is likely emotional. There's no way he can be worse than Buchanan, yet."
  20. I believe Elizabeth Warren could be an excellent President if she could win -- but while I do believe she is most likely to win the nomination, I do have concerns about whether she can scare "I don't love Trump, BUT..." voters into voting against her. I believe Pete Buttigieg could be an excellent President AND is most likely to win the general election, though winning the nomination will be an uphill battle.
  21. "Unique," as a quality, is not always, or even usually, a good thing. In Trump's case though, I think "aberration" is a more apt word.
  22. 1. Just Trump (the only unique candidate) and Buttigieg (who could seriously bridge division and partisanship more than anyone else) 2. 32nd or worse
  23. Idc about the stunts I just like her because she's HOT
  24. I can find a lower VP rep when i get home.
  25. I agree about 2016 and that's more or less how I felt at that time, though at the time I voted Johnson and wanted Trump over Clinton but felt defeated either way. It was the first election I was able to vote in, and I was soooooo excited during the primaries, but every candidate I liked bowed out before my state voted, so I didn't even vote in the primary because my excitement had entirely been deflated. Clinton was going to be the nominee, and barring the Republicans doing something outrageous Trump was going to be the nominee. I felt so let down, when Pence gave his speech at the convention I remember tweeting that he should have been the nominee not Trump. I didn't even like Pence but he was just more stereotypical Republican and maybe had some morals, imo, compared to Trump and Clinton. Sad reflection.
  26. But some are more blatant than others. Trump and Clinton were both so blatantly monstrous, immoral, horrid, and lying monsters - in different ways - that was I saying on this forum here, in 2016, the election was already bust by the time the nominations were made, and it didn't matter which of the two won - the American people would lose, and it was the worst two major party candidates in the same elections since 1852. But some politicians actually make a sincere act at benevolence, transparency, and responsibility, at least, and that shows, if nothing else, they take their position seriously and not for granted.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...