>Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s disappearance from the debate stage last month left people speculating that the former First Lady took a long bathroom break, but now a law-enforcement source with inside connections is alleging that Clinton was missing from the stage due to health issues stemming from a previous brain injury.
>These long-lasting symptoms stemming from a concussion and blood clot, according to a neurologist, suggest Clinton is suffering from post-concussion syndrome, which can severely impact her cognitive abilities.
>Cardillo, who previously worked as an officer who provided VIP security details for the NYPD, told Breitbart News that he knows of two additional sources who have commented about Clinton’s health problems, which have even impacted her ability to walk to her car after delivering a speech.
>“A number of New York Democrats, very prominent, well-known, wealthy New York Democrats, told me last year that Hillary had very significant health issues and that they were surprised that she was running in view of her health problems and her lack of stamina,” Stone told Breitbart News.
She's in front of bright lights all the time when talking and never shows any discomfort. If she has post-concussion syndrome she's hiding it extremely well.
Realistically, she should be getting visibly uncomfortable, dizzy, and irate during all of her speeches if this was true.
This article made me lol. They're obv trying to pull some shit, but it happens all the time on both sides. I wouldn't be surprised if she questioned the birthplace of Cruz and Trump in the same breath.. I'm sure shes trying to figure out somehow to faux disqualify Trump to put him on defence.
Good thing Breitbart is financed by the same conservative billionaire who is funding Ted Cruz's campaign.
Andrew is rolling around in his grave with what Breitbart has turned into. They actually had the gall to email me advertisements. When you have to flag a source as spam, that's when you know it really has gone downhill.
There is a difference between Time Warner, a publicly traded corporation, giving a token politcal donation to a candidate vs. a billionaire financing most of one particular candidate's campaign.
>Democrat frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s disappearance from the debate stage last month left people speculating that the former First Lady took a long bathroom break
we already know what she was doing though, she was getting schlonged
So one publication who's owner supports Ted Cruz heavily is different from another publication that supports Hillary Clinton heavily.
Wanna try and show your work here, or is everyone just supposed to swallow this pill of "b-but it's different!".
If you have no standards then just come out and say it.
Nonono, you've got it wrong. One publication (CNN, not really a publication but whatever) gave a token political donation, and One publication (Breitbart) is owned by the same person that is financing Ted Cruz's SuperPAC.
Comparing the two is an apples and oranges comparison.
Breitbart's business model hinges on your being outraged. If there isn't anything outrageous enough to talk about then they make shit up. They take the same news that appears in the AP feed, mix in their opinions, and rewrite it to make it more outrageous for adsense money (especially the headline), sometimes months after the fact.
That's when they aren't namedropping 4chan in their articles or spamming their videos and twitter posts here for extra views.
The only real journalism they do is tabloid muckraking when twitter a0ttentionwhores like Milo or Ben Shapiro stumble into the latest similar-to-gamergate online sensation that they can appropriate from some Anon's pastebin for their clickbait articles.
What is there to like?
Par for the course considering Fox News gave Romney a million dollars last time.
That doesn't even compare to the $33 Million Mercer has given Ted Cruz.
Try harder next time in your apples and oranges comparisons.
You're acting like half a million dollars is like, 20 bucks here, and the original topic was CONFLICT OF INTEREST, not how much money was spent, so if you're going to cry and moan about CONFLICT OF INTEREST on one side, then it applies to the other when under the same conditions, unless you're going to tell someone that half a million bucks isn't really a big deal and please stop talking about it because it makes me feel uncomfortable since I can't apply it selectively.
>Conflict of interest only applies when I say it does :^)
Wicked cool argument there brah
>Conflict of interest only applies when I say it does :^)
On one side you have relatively small corporate contributions to a certain candidate among similar contributions to many candidates.
On the other side you have a billionaire hedge fund manager who happens to own a large conservative clickbait site providing the majority of the funding for one particular GOP candidate's SuperPAC, totaling many tens of millions more in donations than the first.
You can conflate things and be purposely obtuse all you like, but is there really anything you don't understand about the difference between the two?
Time Warner and Time Warner Cable are publicly owned corporations. The shareholders own it.
Breitbart is privately owned, funded mostly by Robert Mercer.
Here is a right wing hack source you will no doubt actually approve of that will confirm exactly what I'm saying about Breitbart:
>relatively small corporate contributions
Oh so half a million dollars is just a small token of political appreciation and that money donated by a company that owns a large chunk of major media presence just will magically not use that influence to protect their investment because you said so, right?
It's different. It's not the same. Why are you even talking about this non-issue when Cruz and Breitbart are the bad guys! I mean come on, it's current year, and to imply that Hillary and CNN are acting inappropriately by donating and accepting donations from one another is just outrageous and like, I just can't even, you sexist racist bigot homophone.
Some shitty little clickbait rag on the internet who's owner backs Cruz means more than CNN, one of the major media authorities in the country, because they're EVIL. GOD DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND????
>major media presence
It would take a years worth of viewers on all cableTV channels combined to get the adsense impressions that Breitbart gets in a month off of drudgereport, but nice damage control.
Go ahead and keep thinking the dinosaur media's token contribution is the same as Breitbart's owner funding the vast majority of Ted Cruz's SuperPAC if you want though. It's fun to watch.
You're fucking retarded dude.
CNN and the rest of the media dinosaurs' days are numbered, but if you're going to pretend like they aren't one of the corner stones of the American media then, like most of your ilk, double standards are your only standard.
All you've done is twist this left and right to keep from addressing the original position of conflict of interest in the media, so if you can't back and apply up that painfully simple and base standard equally, then you're just another moron on the internet to lump into the pile, complete with an undeserved sense of smugness to go along with your lack of any critical thought
But okay, so let's go on your logic that Breitbart is now one of the credible media giants in the US, and all the >Breitbart whiners ITT are now completely invalid since suddenly they eclipse CNN or any traditional media in importance to the political landscape, which means even more of nothing since even Breitbart has had relatively little coverage of Cruz, favoring instead Donald Trump, while CNN routinely covers Hillary Clinton, even hosting debates she stars in, which now gives Breitbart even more credibility as they're steered clearer of their obvious conflict of interest than CNN.
Congrats man, you're a fucking idiot.
Lame. Watching /pol/ slowly adopt the same sense of humor as freerepublic is both funny and depressing.
But the ramifications of this, if it were theoretically true, would be crazy. What would happen if Hillary were to suddenly drop out?
The democratic establishment has already put every single chip behind her and it's too late in the process for someone new, so they'd have to support Bernie. And suddenly, instead of the republican nomination being a contest of who gets beat by Hillary, the person with the nod would basically have the election in the bag. Bernie's an athiest, for christ's sake.
All three of the top repubs (Rubio, Cruz, Trump) all lean very far to the right, so would Hillary dropping out mean someone like Christie or Bush would suddenly surge?
>All three of the top repubs (Rubio, Cruz, Trump) all lean very far to the right
Trump is the most moderate person in the field, as he adopts positions from both parties, more largely based in the former moderate protectionist policies of the Democrats, so if anything he's just a nationalist protectionist, and not any sort of left/right spectrum.
Or is far-right codeword for "person I don't like"? I don't think that term even has any meaning anymore anyway, as it's been used and abused so wildly that it has relevance only to people who've been trained to react to it, especially since Cruz is a constitutional conservative, so to be calling him far right in particular is to declare all our founding documents as "far right".
Also, if Hillary dropped dead politically, it would be either Sanders or Biden.
Sanders would get drubbed, but he would block Trump from remaking the Republican party, maybe, as he'll take the Dems that Trump is currently winning over, and Biden would do the same, only he'd be much tougher to beat, if it's even possible to nominate him without the primary process, and if the Dems were to do that they could very well lose a huge chunk of the base as they'd effectively steal the nomination from Sanders who would be earning it by default.
I also don't think Donald Trump can lose at this point, so to suggest Jeb, who everyone hates, or the fat sack Christie as any sort of alternative is misguided. Sorry, but if Christie was serious about winning he would have dropped some weight, and elections heavily weight appearance, which Trump would crucify him over. Potentially Hillary's demise would reinforce Trump even more, as he is the current front runner, and the notion of "not being able to beat Hillary" is now off the table, meaning he would win for sure, and people are likely to back who they see as the inevitable winner, on top of his already huge diehard support base.
It's okay when CNN does it.
It's okay when everyone I like does it.
It's not okay when someone I don't like does it though, because of these specific examples and positions that make no sense or that I don't apply fairly to anyone else, and if you call me out on it I'll just insult you because I have the mind of a child.
Time Warner donating 500k to Hillary is canceled out by NewsCorp donating $1 million to the GOP, and has nothing to do with Mercer owning Breitbart and their biases, nor does any of that have to do with Breitbart's low rate sensationalist yellow journalism or the quality of their click bait business model. Your point is invalid, but that's okay, i don't hold it against you.
Furthermore, from the /pol/ perspective, Mercer's association with Goldman Sachs and Ted Cruz's wife being VP of Southwestern Regional Operations for them is very interesting.
Remember that the FEC admitted they don't have anyone policing what happens on campaigns.
>Trump is the most moderate person in the field, as he adopts positions from both parties, more largely based in the former moderate protectionist policies of the Democrats, so if anything he's just a nationalist protectionist, and not any sort of left/right spectrum.
You're right in that Trump is actually pretty moderate as far as the candidates go, but I feel like there's no way he has enough crossover appeal to actually win the election, and in some issues (immigration) he leans to the far-right of the aisle. But yeah, my bad on mislabeling Trump.
>Or is far-right codeword for "person I don't like"?
...oh come on, let's not play the I'm being persecuted game. Cruz and Rubio are further to the right than even Reagan (https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/enten-datalab-cruz-1.png)
>I don't think that term even has any meaning anymore anyway, as it's been used and abused so wildly that it has relevance only to people who've been trained to react to it, especially since Cruz is a constitutional conservative, so to be calling him far right in particular is to declare all our founding documents as "far right".
I'm not aware of anything in the constitution concerning abortion, global warming, or healthcare.
Not to mention that, like all great documents, the Constitution is open to multiple interpretations. For example, some interpret the second amendment to only guarantee militia the right to arms, not regular citizens (http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment). So being a "constitutional conservative" doesn't really mean much.
I also can't see a universe where Trump gets elected. When has a president this divisive ever been elected, much less nominated? I can't see ISIS hysteria alone carry Trump to the Oval Office.
>some interpret the second amendment to only guarantee militia the right to arms, not regular citizens
The people that think this are blind or retarded, especially given the fact that militias are made up of "the people", with the 2nd part of the 2A expressly granting, in no uncertain terms, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Now, the reasoning for this is stated first, because the founders made clear that the reasoning for arms ownership is to form militias when necessary, but the existence of a militia is not required in order to keep arms, hence the right of "the people", which encompasses any and all American citizens, the ability to own and operate arms with no government entity telling you that you can't.
To interpret it otherwise is to do so in willful ignorance of not only the English language, but the history of these United States, especially the history of the time it was written in, where we won wars thanks to private arms ownership, where individual citizens wielded the most powerful weapons of war at the time, so the founders made sure to guarantee that right forever, which, of course, is no longer guaranteed thanks to government overreach by playing on people's fears.
Oh, and since the constitution says nothing about abortion, global warming, or healthcare, then that means those issues are granted to the states, not the federal government, as per the 10th amendment, which enumerates any powers not SPECIFICALLY granted within the constitution to the states themselves to do with as they please. Anything other is illegal and unconstitutional, which is basically half our federal government at this point.
Oh, and anti-immigration is actually a leftist issue, as the Democrats used to be heavily against immigration, as it lowers domestic wages, while the right would be in favor of free movement of peoples.
And right vs left is really meaningless when said candidates follow the words of the constitution.
Also, trump wins this election because not only is Hillary bleeding the traditional voting base of the Democrats in huge, and growing, numbers to none other than Donald Trump, but I fail to identify a single existing Democrat voting coalition that will back her in the general, aside from hardcore Democrats that will vote for a bag of dirt with a D next to their name. Not only will she not mobilize the youth vote this time, but she won't mobilize the minority vote either, sticking her with maybe hysterical single women, who by the way are liking her less and less as the days pass.
Hillary is entering 2016 and the general election with the following hilariously crippling problems that will devastate her chances by a lot:
>Obama's approval rating
>The mounting evidence of extensive wrong-doing at her time in the state department
>the ongoing investigation by the FBI, which now has overwhelming evidence against her and will likely move to indict
>Bill Clinton's various sexual assaults that she personally helped cover up
>Bill Clinton's relationship with billionaire pedophile who's island stocked with underaged prostitutes he frequented
>The gun control executive order disaster, which she backs and then some, which the majority of Americans actually don't fucking like
>Her backing/creation of the TPP
>Her crippling brain injury that put her out of commission for half a year that she covered up
>The ongoing health problems resulting from that brain problem
>The potential for all of the victims of the Clintons over the years being brought out on stage by Trump
>Trump's willingness to say what others won't and bring up every single issue from the entirety of the 40 years of Clinton scandals
So yeah, Hillary cannot in any reality beat Donald Trump because she's the worst candidate for President since I don't even know.
Double also, I'm reading that article in the New Yorker, and it is the biggest pile of shit I've seen all day.
>Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.
>For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. My brain cannot understand this, because to interpret this way is a complete and total farce, when the amendment is a sentence long and so easily read that a child could comprehend it.
Trying to cast the extremely clear, especially given the intent gleaned from every single thing the founders did and said, intent of the amendment as anything but guaranteeing the people, aka you and me, the right to own a gun, is so outrageous that it makes me mad just to think about it.
To actually suggest that the founders intended for people to only own arms if they belonged to a militia, and not the actual arms themselves ALLOWING them to form a militia, is the backbone of not just the 2A, but this entire country, then they should be considered traitors to the homeland, and run out of town on a rail, preferably to Canada. Like, I really don't get this, not only is it in plain English, but the constitution is a document of negative law, where it restricts the government, not empowers it.
>The constitution is a living document.
Awesome, so go amend it. Until then, all that stuff is illegal and can be smashed by a ruling of the supreme court gleaned from 5 minutes of reading the document they're sworn to upload, at least if it was still impartial in any sense of the word.
Also, general election polls are about as meaningful as a 4chan post prior to the nominees being chosen. If you actually take them seriously prior to July/August/September, then you're being willfully ignorant of anything resembling historical data as to the fact, because they amount to literally nothing but a political pissing contest prior to then.
>On Nov. 8, 2016, Clinton will start — start — with a minimum 247 of the 270 electoral votes she needs to win. If you give her Colorado and Virginia — which many political strategists would, given the Hispanic population in one and the rising influence of the northern-centered population in the other — she'll start with 269. That means Clinton doesn't need Ohio or Florida. She just needs one small state like Iowa, Nevada or New Hampshire to put her over the edge. And because she's got a boatload of money and no viable primary challenger, she'll have plenty of time and resources to lock up at least one of those states.
>Actually proud of Clinton being with the statistical margin of error tie with Trump in a poll that means actually nothing
If you're going to base this election under the assumption that the electorate is not going to change enormously then I have a bridge to sell you.
Unless you can cobble together an original thought as to why Hillary will maintain anything beyond hardcore Democrats, aka morons, while all evidence is drifting away from that conclusion more and more every single day, then don't bother linking to a group of desperate political hacks that have literally literally been wrong about every single thing regarding Donald Trump and this election every step of the way.
If you think that any state beyond maybe California is safe this election, then you're in for a real devastating landslide of a defeat this time around.
I would even go as far as saying that NY will go red this time around, because our friend Donald Trump is not only a native, but will also have no issues bringing up JFK Jr.'s convenient death just prior to Hillary running for the NY state senate. I'm sure that, in addition to her mountain of scandals, will go over super well with New Yorkers to poison the already toxic Hillary pot.
So, please do try and refute or present even anecdotal evidence as to why Hillary won't be thoroughly schlonged once again with all the brutality that only Donald Trump can lay at her feet.
>If you're going to base this election under the assumption that the electorate is not going to change enormously then I have a bridge to sell you.
This is the only part of your post that is relevant, because it's going to change exactly the opposite way you're describing. For the same reasons that nobody could predict that Obama would be elected in 2008, the demographic shift is clearly going the opposite way from the hard right turn the primary has taken the GOP. That doesn't even get into Trump probably getting shafted at the convention by Reince Priebus ala Ron Paul in 2012 and having to run as an independent.
So are you telling me that won't work?
Seriously tell me right now that Donald "Ban all the Muslims" Trump won't take a serious run at NY by casually bringing up the suspicious coincidence that JFK Jr., beloved by all, just happened to die at sea with no body or black box or rescue attempt made for 16 hours right before he was going to challenge Hillary to the NY state senate seat, and more likely than not win.
That huge seed of doubt, on top of everything else she's done, will just be ignored by the electorate that already doesn't like or trust her, right?
Nobody else but Trump would even consider this, but Trump will actually do it, that's why he will ruin Hillary with an overwhelming landslide, because he'll dump every ounce of mud on her head that exists on planet Earth.
Like I said, whatever people's concept of "hard right", is, is hilarious wrong and stupid, because almost everything on the table as far as the Republicans go are either plainly stated in the constitution, or actually moderate positions that Trump takes.
So if you think that Hillary is going to be the 2016 Obama, or that anyone in the country even thinks positively of the current job Obama as done, then you're just seriously deluded.
Hillary is an albatross weighed down by anchors and surrounded by a giant castle made of albatross anchors. She's so deeply distrusted and embroiled in scandal that I doubt she'll even get 40% of the vote, if she isn't arrested before then.
Also, the GOP has hilariously enough rigged the primaries to favor the front runner on the delusion they could force YEB on us, so on that fact alone Trump has an enormous advantage that nobody wants to talk about, instead pretending that the tens of thousands of people that stand in the cold for 16 hours to see him speak don't exist.
>Like I said, whatever people's concept of "hard right", is, is hilarious wrong and stupid
It sound more like you're so far to the right that you think Trump is running as some kind of centrist.
You never would have voted for a liberal like Ronald Reagan.
i looked up the hillary jfk jr connection and this is the top result in favor of it
if this is the supposed story behind it, then trump might have problems convincing NY that 'the jews did it', but hey this might just be a lone crazy. let's see the second guy.
ahh, this one doesn't even concern hillary. you know, there doesn't seem to be ANY evidence supporting this.
Donald Trump's positions are the ones that the Democrats themselves abandoned a generation ago. Traditionally, the Dems had the platform of anti-immigration and protectionism, because they were the party of the working class, and they fought for working class rights, and since immigration and free trade eviscerate working class wages and jobs, those positions have always been very popular.
Donald Trump lumbered by, saw that the Dems didn't give a shit about those platforms anymore, and took them for himself, making him the new party of the working class, and with it absorbed the gigantic voting bloc of working class voters, ones that would either not vote or vote Democrat, so to suggest that he isn't at the minimum, some sort of centrist, if you even have to play the imaginary right vs left card, then I don't know what you're thinking, honestly.
>hurr durr sounds like you're right wing
I don't really ascribe to the totally retarded political yard stick of black and white, so no, I'm not right wing, I just care about not seeing this country turned into a toilet while the blood of the people who settled, conquered, and died for this place is cast off in favor off importing truckloads of cheap labor and socialist voters to further dilute what built America in the first place.
So yeah, fuck immigrants, fuck free trade, and fuck globalization. I guess that makes me a far right winger today, and a Democrat yesterday.
>I guess that makes me a far right winger today, and a Democrat yesterday.
It does, not just a "right winger" either but a fringe right wing extremist. Just judging, just letting you know...
It's just an example, you dunce, you don't have to look too far into it.
Also, you don't need evidence, you just need doubt.
All Trump has to do is suggest it, and then suddenly the headlines all contain the words "JFK Jr" "Untimely Death", and "Clinton", which is not good news if your name happens to land in that title.
The media can twist itself into knots trying to disprove it, but that will just give it even more attention, and the voters will decide, wow kind of like how his entire campaign has operated to date? Surely he won't keep it up into the general, because then he'll have to play nice, right?
That's incredibly retarded of you to even suggest that protectionist policies that have been a part of America up until the current generation are suddenly a part of the spooky scary "FAR RIGHT WING EXTREMEISTS".
You have to be a major idiot to think that protecting the economic future of American citizens is an extreme anything, and not just common sense, but there's Hillary supporters afoot, so I guess we already have the answer to that one.
Any of you anti-nationalist keks should start planning an extended stay with Canada in the near future, where the future of you and your children will continue to be happily sold off to the Chinese, Indians, and whatever Muslims can be scraped out of the gutter.
She is an old,ugly hag ,career politician who has done nothing.
Involved in all sorts of suspicious shit,deaths and personal failures.
The only reason you know of her is because she was married to the ex-president Clinton.
Even if you're a democrat,thinking of voting her means you bought in the "iron lady" bullshit image the Democrats and Mass Media try to build around her.
Sanders,who is an honest to G-d communist lunatic is better than a menopausal,hypocrite,inept career politician ,and this says a lot.
This is even more stupid because globalization is easily dealt with via protectionist policies that were in place for the vast majority of this country's history, and if you're smug enough and ignorant of the nature of life's struggle then you can call every single living organism on this planet an immigrant, as things constantly move and seek out living space and resources, so to imply that the people that built and died for this land just need to roll over and die to allow anyone and everyone in their borders, is pretty goddamn gay, and flies in the face of literally literally any successful nation in the history of human civilization, opting instead to handwave away any concerns via some form of "COME ON IT'S 2015".
Also, we don't have a free market anymore, and haven't had one since 1913, so to tell you I would have to hop into a time machine. Also also, I have no idea what you're even trying to get at, and I assume neither do you, unless you're assuming that our disastrously nefarious banking/currency system, 169 THOUSAND pages of regulations, endless taxpayer funded bailouts of failed institutions, and monstrous tax code are in any way shape or form the signs of a true free market economy.
>he thinks 20% of dems are really going to defect
Jesus Christ you idiots are gullible clickbait readers, you do realize that USNews and World Report is like the conservative version of Newsweek, right? Most of you faggots think Breitbart is legitimate journalism so probably not.
You're in for a rude awakening if you can't seriously visualize the horrendously crippling weaknesses of the Clintons contrasted with the unyielding strength of Donald Trump, who's all too eager to tell everyone what a terrible pair the Clintons are, and how they've been lying, cheating, and abusing their way into power for 4 decades.
But I guess the gigantic voting bloc of blue collar workers that actually get Democrats elected who are falling lock-step behind Trump will just change their minds and vote Clinton, right?
Acceptance is just a few steps away, anonymous, please get some help.
>Trump is the messiah himself
Good thing Daddy Reince isn't going to let Trump make it past the convention so I will look forward to seeing you call Ted Cruz the new messiah after that happens.
The GOP primaries are heavily rigged in favor of the front runner now thanks to rule changes made in 2014.
The GOP created the mechanism that is weeks away from securing the nomination for Trump because they were stupid enough to think they could pass off Yeb as the nominee.
Honestly I think Trump could just run off with the entire GOP.
He teased out the GOP into wanting him. The GOP wasn't sure what to do when Trump arrived on the scene they thought he was to loud and too unfiltered. They wanted to condemn him, to look good and get a few liberal approval vote for the effort.
At first he said he might run independent. (which honestly I'd rather him do), But I think he has a strategy here.
By waiting and then agreeing to be Republican he's effectively neutered the other Republicans. He made them look defeated by at first outright telling them to eat a dick and then made them realize they needed him.
The GOP probably thought they could trap him into the party then get him to lose steam, but he has brutalized the other GOP candidates so mercilessly that each one is afraid to become the next Jeb.
Say what you want, but I believe Trump is a master manipulator. He's playing people like fiddles. He's the type of person that knows how to find the one thing someone is insecure about or that will just 'stick' to them and then just decimate them.
That's why Hillary is putting of going at him head on. Her handlers know he's baiting her into a misstep and shes prone to fuck up and just say "9/11!".
People are lining up at 4AM in below freezing temperatures in the thousands just to hear him speak 14 hours later.
Nobody else has this, and nobody else will.
Whatever you think of Trump, his base is very real, very dedicated, and very large.
Your map doesn't reflect an actual future scenario, it reflects a a likely hood of supporting Trump given that other GOPs are still on the table.
Last polls I check had a Hillary vs Trump Scenario at about 46 for Hill-dog and 42 for Trump. Hillary has been bleeding votes while Trump has be slowly gaining.
If you been paying attention this is basically a two way tug of war for so scraps of Bernie and some more moderate GOPs.
A lot of Republican voters, Ted, Carson, and Jeb will default to Trump.
The same can't be said for the Democrats non-Hillary nominees. Most of them are literally whos. Bernie is the only household name. Like Trump she'll get all the hardores not matter what, but the main piece of meat on the table is Bernie and his college kiddies.
The DNC needs to find out a way to keep Bernie voters from being so disenfranchised that they don't vote at all. That's her only secure route to win. Hillary may be able to take him as a VP, which given how apologetic Bernie is to Hillary could be on the table. However if when Bernie drops out, Hillary doesn't manage to keep those college boys interested, Trump could scoop off enough to win before they fall it to non-participation. This would make it anyone's game.
>What would happen if Hillary were to suddenly drop out?
If she knows she is in bad health, she'll nominate someone far worse than her, but politically advantageous to her goals, so that when she kicks it, they take her place.
Mark my words, Hillary is just a delivery system for the actual president.
I drove 10 hours and 200$ to see Trump in Nashville. When I got there 2 hours before the event there was already a line and the building and outside was completely filed with supporters (and there were no protesters mind you). It's over, Jeb
"We the people"
The only ones who are going to support her at this rate are hysterical single women, 19 IQ subhumans, and the criminally misinformed, which are likely all one and the same.
>The only ones who are going to support her at this rate are hysterical single women, 19 IQ subhumans, and the criminally misinformed, which are likely all one and the same.
So, you mean NASCAR dads and PTA moms that live in 'The Heartland'?