Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 02, 2016, 09:29:31 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 295
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If this were the Democratic field going into Early 4 on: November 29, 2016, 11:58:52 pm
Believe it or not, this scenario actually probably helps her keep some of her populist,"WCW" appeal, as no single candidate would have a monopoly on that demographic. She'd emerge from this primary in a much stronger position with a much stronger general election message than she did in reality.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What are the chances that Bernie Sanders runs in 2020? on: November 29, 2016, 11:27:58 pm
Way too high. 50-50, even if Warren is already in. You will see that this man is more power-hungry than Hillary ever was.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Stein Misses PA Recount Deadline, Says PA State Department. on: November 28, 2016, 08:38:35 pm
If there are large voter discrepancies found in Wisconsin and Michigan, then it won't matter. No one expected this to change the results.

Edit: Although I'd like a better source than the Washington Examiner please.

What are these large voter discrepancies that justify an expensive effort to determine whether Trump won a state by 27000 or 28000 votes?

Why should we care about semantics when Donald Trump never has? This is all about political theatre. The more we can delegitimize this monster, the better.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will Hillary run again? on: November 28, 2016, 08:26:26 pm
I don't know if she will have the stamina for it, even in the recent pictures that have surfaced of her she looks like she's 90 years old and add 4 years a what would certainly be a much more difficult primary for her. Even in the last campaign she had the incident where she collapsed, several public coughing fits, and cut down on her public appearances in the final months

Dude, this is so sexist. The woman has been hiking every day. She looks old because she is old. It's how she looked during the campaign but she knew she had to doll herself up to meet the patriarchal expectations (double standards!) of society.

"Stamina" is not an issue for Hillary Clinton. Roll Eyes
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Does Elizabeth Warren have any leadership skills outside Wall Street topic? on: November 28, 2016, 04:35:56 pm
I dispute the premise of this thread. Donald Trump has no leadership skills at all and is set to be sworn in as president.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which 2020 candidates do you ship? on: November 28, 2016, 04:33:46 pm
Hillary Clinton. <3
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which of the other 16 could have beaten Hilary? on: November 28, 2016, 04:32:06 pm
The only one who might have is Kasich.

But yeah. Sanders would've been toast against most of them except, like, Ben Carson.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Was Trump the most electable Republican? on: November 28, 2016, 04:28:29 pm
He was exactly what disaffected whites wanted. If Romney couldn't even make a dent in those Rust Belt states, I have a hard time seeing how weaklings like Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich could've. And if you don't make that dent, you don't break the "Blue Wall," which you need to do to win.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Did the Sanders challenge cause HRC to lose the general election? on: November 28, 2016, 03:08:37 am
Of course.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton Campaign Counsel: "We'll participate in recount" on: November 26, 2016, 04:26:04 pm
Yep. We honestly need to spend the next four years kicking and screaming. I'm not being sarcastic.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If the Democrats were to "double-down" on their urban, elitist image... on: November 26, 2016, 02:45:04 am
I don't really know how we proceed into the future when education makes someone a member of the dreaded "elite," yet it also makes them more likely to be correct.
12  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Did your family argue about the election? on: November 24, 2016, 07:44:02 pm
No because we're not stupid enough to discuss politics........Mrs. Grumps and I voted the same. support anyone other than Hillary Clinton.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Activists Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results on: November 24, 2016, 07:07:05 pm
I don't think there is any evidence of wrong-doing. At the same time, if folks are willing to self-finance a recount, why not? I double-check anything of importance in my own life. Republicans are free to re-count NH if they want. I think there is a difference between claiming the system is rigged  and just double checking. I fully expect nothing to come up.

I don't really care about the recount itself.  I'm concerned with the crap being spread about how the election results are "suspicious" and how it baselessly impacts people's confidence in votes being counted accurately and fairly.

I'm not concerned about any of that when the President-Elect is Donald Trump.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Can't imagine how this failed to resonate in the Rust Belt... on: November 22, 2016, 05:33:31 am
1) Did everyone of those people cry when Hillary lost?
2) Are they still crying?
3) Are they "afraid"
4) do they think they are entitled to other people caring about their feelings?  

answer:
yes, yes, yes (to the extent they understand what fear is), yes

And why shouldn't the answer be yes? Roll Eyes

Not so sure what's so off-putting about an inclusive, positive, and pluralistic message, but I guess it's threatening when others get to be seen as special snowflakes too.
The answer shouldn't be "yes" because these people have awfulized Trump.  They awfulize every Republican. 

It's off-putting because of the undertone of it all.  This wasn't an "inclusive" video; this was a collection of the enemies of Rust Belt Working Class America sending a message that Hillary and the "Stronger Together" crew were going to put them in their place and remake THEIR world in THEIR image.

I looked at that video.  These folks, quite frankly, project the image of the talkers and whiners of America.  I can't imagine any of these folks picking up a weapon and defending America if we were invaded, so the "This Is My Fight Song" lyric takes on a degree of ridiculousness, as it is being sung by cowards from the protection of their "safe zone".  The folks who sing about fighting, but who don't have 1/8th of the grit the working class they look down on, come off as quite incongruous.  Laughable, actually. 

Is it just an ad?  Yes, of course.  I don't vote on the basis of ads.  But ads do provide a "mind massage" to undecided voters.  This mind massage, in the minds of the voters Hillary Clinton needed, was the work of someone who needed his/her massage  therapy license suspended for corrective education.


I think it's more off-putting that you think being American is about picking up a gun and dismissing anyone-other-than-a-white-guy who has a concern about anything-other-than-economic injustice. But I guess muh Real America has spoken. Roll Eyes Pretty sad though that you read into this video some kind of threat against working-class whites. That, right there, is America's biggest problem. White people get threatened over absolutely nothing. "We have to be sensitive to people who are different? Hell naw!" But even then, that's not what this video is saying. It was just talking about incusion. And inclusion is inclusive. Of everyone. Period. If you felt that this video was about putting whites in their place, you were watching another video. Or you are tacitly admitting that these voters actually are not in favour of inclusion... and if that's the case, then sure it's threatening. But I don't see how we could say anything positive about a person's rejection of inclusion.

Also, Trump is awful. Did you watch this campaign? Are you seriously that dumb? "The awfulization of Donald Trump"? The man bragged about grabbing women by the pussy and wanted to institute a religious test for entering the country. Get real.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who is most responsible for Clinton's loss? on: November 22, 2016, 05:16:16 am
Well, since she wins without his unprecedented, uncalled-for, and obviously-political ninth-inning entrance, James Comey.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: In retrospect, was Tim Kaine a bust of a VP pick? on: November 22, 2016, 05:14:55 am
Yeah. I didn't want him to be chosen leading up to the pick, but I really think he kicked his debut speech out of the park. All downhill from there, and the debate was... not good.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Can't imagine how this failed to resonate in the Rust Belt... on: November 21, 2016, 02:54:50 am
1) Did everyone of those people cry when Hillary lost?
2) Are they still crying?
3) Are they "afraid"
4) do they think they are entitled to other people caring about their feelings?  

answer:
yes, yes, yes (to the extent they understand what fear is), yes

And why shouldn't the answer be yes? Roll Eyes

Not so sure what's so off-putting about an inclusive, positive, and pluralistic message, but I guess it's threatening when others get to be seen as special snowflakes too.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Was 2016 a realigning election? on: November 21, 2016, 02:50:26 am
I don't know that I really like this concept. Bill Clinton totally turned the map around in 1992, but the signs of what would come were decently clear if you looked at the 1988 results. And while things have changed a lot since 1992, I'd argue there actually hasn't been a massive realignment since then. A few things have changed and solidified (West Virginia, Missouri, and some of WJC's Southern states going going red; Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada going blue), but the general structure of things seems stable.

This election, though, could be our 1988. We have clear signs of where things could go in the future. And to be honest, people were already talking about this happening (Rust Belt red, Sunbelt and Southwest blue). So what happens in the next couples cycles will really determine whether the realignment happens. To keep it in perspective, Donald Trump won all of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania by basically 1.

So if Democrats can win back these places (which is definitely possible), they'll stave off realignment and potentially expand on the current structure of things with more support in the South/Southwest. If they can't, they will need the South/Southwest, and the country's structure of presidential political support will have truly realigned.



(^Far down the line, maybe.)

19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Based on IQ, have we moved from the dumbest president ever, to the smartest? on: November 21, 2016, 02:34:43 am
Oh goodness. Here I was thinking this might have been a funny article from 2008.

Alt-Right? More like Alt-Reality.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: We're winning in Florida. We're winning in Ohio. on: November 21, 2016, 02:32:29 am
He was right. Kudos. But to say it was mostly based on things other than gut, hope, and faith would be silly. There is a reason most people did not share Trump's prediction.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Monmouth: Clinton +11 in CO on: November 21, 2016, 01:58:12 am
^ Well, you were both correct in explaining what should have happened.

And to be frank, it's why I get a bit pissed off at the Monday morning quarterbacking. It was always reasonable to assume she was far ahead. It's what the data showed and what common sense dictated, at least up until Comey's October Surprise when things got hazy. So given all this, I don't think you can really blame them for not seeing the need to shake up their strategy. Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but... you don't have hindsight when you're in the thick of it, and most "evidence" suggested her strategy was getting the job done. Her enthusiasm registered as on par with Trump's, she was winning everywhere she needed and then some, and the senate definitely looked like it would flip.

It wasn't the case. Were she and her team expected to be magical?
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Hillary of 2008 vs. Trump on: November 21, 2016, 01:41:40 am
... 2008 Hillary would have lost the primary.

Against Sanders? I highly doubt so.

Nah, I agree with Kingpoleon. 2008 Hillary would have been competing in the "same lane" as Sanders. He'd beat her at that game.

In fact, one could almost argue that Sanders is the reason it was impossible for us to have 2008 Hillary in the general election.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: November 21, 2016, 01:23:31 am
Here's another picture of people preparing to tear each other's throats out on the 2020 Democratic primary debate stage in a few years:




I would enthusiastically vote for any of these 3 potential candidates. If I had to choose one though I'd probably pick Harris

All are absolute lightweights compared to Hillary Clinton, but I'd definitely support any of them over Donald Trump.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: So what's next for Hillary? on: November 18, 2016, 01:46:47 pm
There is nothing wrong with her f-cking health. This is a sexist claim that uses a woman's body to try and delegitimize her. Stop.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Could Uncle Joe Biden have beaten Trump? on: November 17, 2016, 03:40:50 am
In hindsight, I think he's maybe the only one who could have.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 295


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines