|
Business Gorillas posted:Lol imagine Hillary against a candidate that actually was able to do things like not piss off 70% of the electorate and splinter the Republican party Such a candidate could not win the GOP primary, apparently
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:Honestly? I'm not sure if Hillary beats McCain. Or Romney. Trump is the only candidate Hillary could beat and Hillary is the only candidate Trump could beat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
They've kinda unsplintered, that's sort of the entire problem at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Or Romney. Clinton consistently sees marked increases in her popularity when she's actually holding office. in a theoretical universe where she had 4 years she'd have a pretty reasonable chance of taking on Romney. Getting to that point is iffier though at loving least we wouldn't be hearing the words "email" or "benghazi"
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Sure, but I don't think in that hypothetical he does. He picked Palin to try to offset the "first black president" thing with some token diversity on his end. If we extrapolate the hypothetical, he picks a black man instead, maybe Colin Powell? Colin "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Powell? That Colin Powell?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
lozzle posted:Colin "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Powell? That Colin Powell? Sarah "Bridge to Nowhere" Palin? That Sarah Palin?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
lozzle posted:Colin "Weapons of Mass Destruction" Powell? That Colin Powell? I'm sure his inevitable email scandal, since he directly admitted to attempting to skirt FOIA laws and did basically what Hillary did but much worse, would be a huge roadblock for any campaign he was a part of haha lol as if
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Clinton consistently sees marked increases in her popularity when she's actually holding office. in a theoretical universe where she had 4 years she'd have a pretty reasonable chance of taking on Romney. Getting to that point is iffier though at loving least we wouldn't be hearing the words "email" or "benghazi" lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
If Clinton had run and won in 2008, the timeline doesn't have EMAILS! or BENGHAZI!, but the GOP would've just found something else.greatn posted:If Hillary was the nominee, I'll just pick a name out of a hat and say Joe Lieberman is McCain running mate. Lieberman was McCain's favourite, and that would've been an interesting run. If only because then you'd get the trivia of "Which politician was the running mate on the losing presidential tickets of two different major parties?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Clinton consistently sees marked increases in her popularity when she's actually holding office. in a theoretical universe where she had 4 years she'd have a pretty reasonable chance of taking on Romney. Getting to that point is iffier though at loving least we wouldn't be hearing the words "email" or "benghazi" Another good reason to have not nominated her.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Another good reason to have not nominated her. What?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Sarah "Bridge to Nowhere" Palin? That Sarah Palin? Well they still picked her anyways so I get the feeling they didn't vet her too hard (or spend an hour in the same room as her). But my point was more that Colin Powell was politically radioactive. He'd have a better chance with a no-name like Michael Steele or Herman Caine if he really wanted a black running mate. lozzle fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Sep 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
My mom (in Florida) reassured me that she's voting for Hillary Clinton, as is my dad and the rest of our large family. They're all normally republicans so that's nice to hear. Dad sure had me concerned with his nihilist jokes about voting for Trump. Dadjokes, eh?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:What? You basically said she's a bad candidate. I agree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
God I wish that stage had collapsed with Trump on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You basically said she's a bad candidate. I agree. ... No I didn't? I literally can't figure out how you took it from that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:... No I didn't? I literally can't figure out how you took it from that. please ignore the rantings of a Bernie or Buster
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Only just. Yeah but only daytraders and the Federal reserve gave a poo poo about some random investment house loving up and declaring bankruptcy. It'll be a bit before people start to realize just how hosed we are. The meltdown was already in progress, but nobody really knew about it. Relevant personal anecdote: By this point the hedgefund backing our company had seen it coming and broke their contract with us, clawing back their loan (and every other outstanding loan they had) to try to de-leverage. Fuckers killed us to save their own skin. Good times!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
lozzle posted:But my point was more that Colin Powell was politically radioactive.He'd have a better chance with a no-name like Michael Steele or Herman Caine if he really wanted a black running mate. Fair enough. It's all just navel gazing hypotheticals anyway, I was just having fun with it. Just fun slinging the ball, if you will. Oh man, McCain/Caine. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Another good reason to have not nominated her. Oh for fucks sake give it up already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Couldn't be Caine. He got to be the very best, he won't play second fiddle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Hillary's a mess!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
If the democrats had a better candidate their membership would presumably have voted for that candidate in the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Also it's Cain, no e
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
nm
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Clinton in 2008 would unironically have been in a stronger position than she is now. She would have had fewer 'big' scandals hanging over her and most of them would be tedious legacy stuff. The Iraq War vote would have been a more significant and pressing issue but not really a choice-between kind of situation. There would be no email scandal and no Benghazi. She'd also be a full 8 years younger which is a fair amount in political years. The younger generation would be people more likely to remember the Clintons fondly instead of growing up in the Bush and Obama years. Of course in a theoretical 2008 where Clinton won we'd probably see see a Burnout-style thing from Obama voters, not in the least because Obama was a much stronger motivating figure than Sanders in a lot of ways, which could be a significant weakness. But the idea that 2008 Clinton would be identical to 2016 Clinton feels a bit unlikely. (This also ignores that her campaign in general was just much shittier than Obama's was.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:Oh for fucks sake give it up already. I don't even know how that is even arguable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't even know how that is even arguable. I voted for Sanders and I'm tired of this stupid argument. I wanted Sanders to win but Sanders had a lot of flaws. He's 5 years older than Trump let alone Clinton and he looks it. He's a self-described socialist and he isn't exactly a fantastic orator himself. He's also never been heavily pressed and we have little idea how he'd handle scandals either real or manufactured, especially with Trump on the line saying whatever he want. He is also Jewish and you and I both know that shouldn't be a thing but it goddamn well would be especially with neo-Nazis being galvanized by Trump. Bernie Sanders did not manage to defeat Hillary Clinton in the primary. You can argue that it was 'unfair' that he lost but that doesn't change the fact he did. By all objective measures he was the worst candidate because he lost. Even if you argue he lost unfairly it means he was poor enough at political gamesmanship he couldn't beat the people on his own side, let alone a Republican base perfectly eager to poo poo all over him 24/7.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Of course in a theoretical 2008 where Clinton won we'd probably see see a Burnout-style thing from Obama voters, not in the least because Obama was a much stronger motivating figure than Sanders in a lot of ways, which could be a significant weakness. But the idea that 2008 Clinton would be identical to 2016 Clinton feels a bit unlikely. (This also ignores that her campaign in general was just much shittier than Obama's was.) That's why you make Obama VP! What could possibly go wrong running a woman and a black man at the same time?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Hahaha, it's funny as hell to see how the butthurt press throw temper tantrums when they get played like the dumbasses they are:quote:The press pool for Donald Trump made the unprecedented collective decision to refuse to air footage of a tour of Trump’s new hotel, even erasing the tape to ensure it never became public.  I can't believe Mr. Trump would do this to us we're the press I'm so shocked and suprised
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Bernie Sanders did not manage to defeat Hillary Clinton in the primary. You can argue that it was 'unfair' that he lost but that doesn't change the fact he did. By all objective measures he was the worst candidate because he lost. Even if you argue he lost unfairly it means he was poor enough at political gamesmanship he couldn't beat the people on his own side, let alone a Republican base perfectly eager to poo poo all over him 24/7. Well, not the worst candidate. Remember Chafee and Webb ran.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I voted for Sanders and I'm tired of this stupid argument. It wasn't unfair that he lost. He lost fair and square. It was still the wrong decision by the voters and the party just as the lack of any other viable candidates running was a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It wasn't unfair that he lost. He lost fair and square. It was still the wrong decision by the voters and the party just as the lack of any other viable candidates running was a mistake. okay, and? this is just the rhetorical equivalent of a Not My President shirt
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It wasn't unfair that he lost. He lost fair and square. It was still the wrong decision by the voters and the party just as the lack of any other viable candidates running was a mistake. What makes you think Sanders would fare any better against Trump when the democrat party members preferred Clinton to Sanders?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Harrow posted:Well, not the worst candidate. Remember Chafee and Webb ran. Yeah, that was typo, I meant "worse." The Worst is absolutely not Sanders. mcmagic posted:It wasn't unfair that he lost. He lost fair and square. It was still the wrong decision by the voters and the party just as the lack of any other viable candidates running wasn't a mistake. So basically you're blaming the voters because Sanders couldn't do a good enough job to appeal to them? That sounds like a failure of Sanders as a candidate to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It wasn't unfair that he lost. He lost fair and square. It was still the wrong decision by the voters and the party just as the lack of any other viable candidates running was a mistake. no they are the ones that are wrong
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Oh and Trump today got endorsed by the nation's biggest police union. Shocking!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Bernie also lost in a close race. Sure the DNC had its share of fuckery (lol tho welcome to all elections ever) but Bernie also had his share of flaws and Clinton has more relevant experience. He did well, but she was better. She would have won without the DNC. That's that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:
It definitely was. But the voters were also wrong. Andrast posted:What makes you think Sanders would fare any better against Trump when the democrat party members preferred Clinton to Sanders? Because he was doing better against Trump in every poll and he doesn't have Clinton's negatives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
The downward trend on 538s trackers for Hillary is showing significant signs of slowing down, and we're farther away from last week's polls. It doesn't look like it's going to cross over into "Trump wins >50%" unless something causes further downward pressure. It's almost like "momentum" isn't really a thing in elections mcmagic posted:Because he was doing better against Trump in every poll and he doesn't have Clinton's negatives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:20
|
|
