For nearly a quarter of a century we did not have a presidential son in the WH. Statistically, we are due for a change, bad news for Hillary
Posted on | April 13, 2015 | No Comments
For nearly a quarter of a century we did not have a presidential son in the WH. Statistically, we are due for a change, bad news for Hillary
By Dr. Orly Taitz, ESq
Here is an interesting statistical observation: for nearly a quarter f a century there were no presidential sons in the WH, only presidential daughters. Bill Clinton 1992-2000 has a daughter and a grand-daughter, Bush 43 2000-2008 has two daughters, a grand daughter and a second grand daughter on the way. Obama has 2 daughters. So, for 24 years, nearly a quarter of a century till 2016 election WH would have no presidential sons. Statistically, we are due for a change, so it is bad news for Hillary and good news for Scott Walker, who is a father of 2 sons and who is currently leading for GOP nomination according to FOX news poll on the right and PPP poll on the left. Of course, I am not making a conclusion, just a statistical observation.
Further, statistically, the parties typically change after 8 years in power. Bush 41 after Reagan was an exception from the rule rather than a rule. On this basis we are due for a change, good news for Scott Walker.
Further, most Americans are saying that they don’t want dynasties. This is bad news for both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, good news for Scott Walker.
Additionally, Americans are struggling to answer a question: if Hillary, as a Secretary of State, was a failure and could not protect our ambassadors, how can she protect the whole nation?
Comments
Leave a Reply