In a system that has entered bi-stability, you won't see all that much difference because they're trying to appeal to a sufficient majority of the voters, which means they have to appeal to not just their base, but the average voter as well.

This is what happens when you have a 2-party system that is so ingrained that it's become impossible to change.

I think most people hold their noses and vote for the lesser of two evils. I know that's the feeling of most of the people I talk to.

I don't see that changing any time soon either in the US. There's no solution, since it has been a bi-stable system for too long. Current voters haven't lived with a serious 3rd party. No 3rd party has gotten even 20% in the last 100 years, so all they've done is split the vote.

What's sauce for the goose ...

Should be interesting to see the dance of trying to insist that Schweizer is credible with Clinton, but not with Bush (after all, what can Bush do to defend himself except attack Schweizer)?

I have the same problem with my WiFi at home when I try to launch the Pandora app. I'm not sure if it's the Pandora app or the iPhone 6 that causes the issue.

I don't think so. The polls don't ask if people were "willing to compromise on the issue of same-sex marriage." The times, they are a-changing.

The whole "same-sex couples are not good role models as parents" is pretty much dead, with 78% saying they're just as good.That's not a compromise position.

59% approving of same-sex marriage - approval is not a compromise position either.

All the support for Ms. Jenner is also not a "willingness to compromise on an issue." And it did pretty good in the ratings - 17 million is nothing to sniff at.

It's been predicted for a while that the Republicans needed to change their policies to attract more main-stream voters or become less relevant as time goes on, but they've failed to do that. They can't without reinvigorating the Tea Party movement, so they're kind of in a jam when it comes to sucking up to the average voter.

My smartphone fits in my pocket or purse a lot easier than my video camera.
My smartphone has GPS to help me when I get lost walking around downtown. It's hard to get back on track if you've taken a few wrong turns with just a sheet of directions. Ditto with shortcuts when I'm cycling.
You can't call 9-1-1 away from home if you don't have some sort of mobile phone - and obviously most car accidents, as well as a lot of other bad things, happen outside the home.
I can listen to the radio and my own music collection without having to drag around a separate device devoted to that - just headphones.
I don't need a watch with my smartphone. Or a calendar. Or a pen and paper for notes.
When someone sends me a text or an email, there's no "he said - she said" disputes over what was said. Try doing that with your home phone.
I don't have to drag a book along if I think I might have to wait a while somewhere.
When someone absolutely has to get hold of me no matter what, they can. Can't say that with a land line.

Example: A (rather old) neighbor had fallen and broken his hip in a nearby parking lot during a heavy snow storm. He lay there for 2 hours before someone who had decided to take the same shortcut to the store came across him. If he had replaced his land line with a cheaper mobile device, he could have phoned for help immediately. It's just luck that he didn't have to spend the night outside.

There are so many reasons to swap the land line for a smartphone - which explains why 40% of the population has one wireless phone service.

Doesn't invalidate my point that "rail car" is valid. I give you a -1 Pedantry fail.

You've proven that you can't write properly - so, what gives you the qualifications to judge potential hires? You don't have the chops to vet the quality of the documentation they generate, people will always wonder if they should follow what you wrote or what you meant, and your many misuses of words will be judged by others, both inside and outside the business, as an indicator of both lower intelligence and lower quality control.

That you can't see this shows that YOUR cognitive toolkit is too limited, and as such, it's defective. Which of course means that your "logic" isn't based on reality.

Again, see Dunning-Kruger, and maybe take a peak at the Peter Principle while you're at it.

Sadly, I think most voters are cynical enough to realize that it's common practice for politicians to throw dirt at opponents for the same sins they've been guilty of in the past. "It's nothing personal, just business."

The problem is, cynical voters don't vote. People are getting turned off by all the personal attacks and the drama surrounding them. Usually, both sides have this problem going into the primaries, with people in each party attacking other party members who are also running. That's not happening much with the dems, but with the republicans it's a real mess. If they attack each other they're just giving ammo to the dems, and if they attack the dems they're not giving people a positive reason to vote for a particular repub. candidate

The world has changed since republicans last held office

So the "christian right traditional family values, marriage is only between a man and a woman" stance is clearly out of step with today's society - but republican candidates can't really endorse these changes, because republicans, with the exception of the 18-33 age group, who are evenly split on the question, would go nuts. So what does that leave to republicans to get support outside the party? Not much, as we saw in Indiana.

I'm not jumping to conclusions, but the people who have been making the case for historical alien visitors claim that the written record specifies liquid mercury rotating at high speeds as part of their antigrav drives. The Mayan writings are the most-often cited.

So, the iceberg part is actually irrelevant. The ball could be anywhere.

I would say just look at the two sides. Both sides have the perception that Hillary will win the democratic nomination, even though she just announced. Can you think of any other time that someone who wasn't an incumbent president had a similar situation?

On the republican side, it's a real mess, with too many candidates vying for the same core group of voters. How do you distinguish yourself from the others if you all sound pretty much the same? Nobody stands out, though everyone is sure their candidate will win.

So, maybe it's time for a republican party candidate who doesn't appeal to the dwindling bible-base. Someone with name recognition. Someone who is definitely different. Nominating Ms. Jenner would certainly stir up the pot a bit, and engender some healthy debate. After all, if politics is such a circus, her experience with the Kardashians should count for something.

If only for the lulz ... because democrats would be reluctant to attack her and offend the LGBT and others, and republicans (and democrats) who are stuck in the 1900s would have their heads explode.

Am I a careful driver? Well, lets see ... over more than 3 decades of driving, including at least a decade as my job, I've never had an accident, so I'd say that yes, others could take a few safety tips.

My original point was this: "Someone seems to have forgotten that using a cell phone while driving is illegal." Even if you're using it as a GPS, unless it's mounted, it's illegal. And I haven't seen a single non-commercial vehicle with a phone mount. People just don't buy them. Those that do are "statistical noise." Ask the cops who give out the tickets. If, for example, you're using bluetooth but you pick up the phone to dial a number, you're dead.

Keep em coming... Whatever they are my friend.