Ja ponimaju, but that is not the point. The point is that repugs have not done well in the last seven presidential elections. This normally does not translate into an electoral college win, vy soglasny?
2016 R Why stop at the last 7 Brandon? I stopped at those with which I had
2012 D personal experience. D-7 R- 10. за ваше здоровье.
2008 D
2004 R
2000 R
1996 D
1992 D
1988 R
1984 R
1980 R
1976 D
1972 R
1968 R
1964 D
1960 D
1956 R
1952 R
To answer your question, I would stop at the past seven because the extreme degeneration of the repug party is a recent development. It is no longer the party that existed during the time of Eisenhower (and Khrushchev).
Brandon,
Once again, Obtuse: slow to understand.
You do realize that you said the extreme degeneration of the "repug" party started with the Clinton election, 1992, your comment means that the election of Clinton began the degeneration. I agree with you.
Nyet, nyet. My exact words were that "the extreme degeneration of the repug party is a recent development." You may not have received much training in idiomatic English, but "repug" refers to republican. This should have been obvious from context. Finally, correlation is not causation, although the Clinton presidency did seem to profoundly unhinge the repugs.
Brandon,
You should read what you post:
"To answer your question, I would stop at the past seven because the extreme degeneration of the repug party is a recent development. It is no longer the party that existed during the time of Eisenhower (and Khrushchev)." English being your primary language, you should know that "recent development" modifies "stop at the past seven".
By the way, are you enjoying your Taco Bell entrees?