|
who cares about hillary clinton she's not even president
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:48 |
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:who cares about hillary clinton she's not even president yeah she's more than a president
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
"gently caress trying, but vote for us" - the democrats
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Someone asked about the problems with Al Franken and I'll say that the first thing that to mind is his positions on Telecom and net neutrality. It's not the only thing, but it's the first thing. Trump's gonna be old as gently caress too in 2020 and will probably go full Baron Harkonnen by then
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Someone asked about the problems with Al Franken and I'll say that the first thing that to mind is his positions on Telecom and net neutrality. It's not the only thing, but it's the first thing. pretty sure al franken is a huge net neutrality advocate? am i missing something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
trump ran off with an incredibly small margin of victory when you look at those crucial states at the very end that he took from the "firewall". he can't lose any voters for 2020, or the dems can't gain any voters for 2020 if the reason she lost is because she lost touch with your standard rust belt blue collar worker, then a focused campaign effort towards them should shore them up. they know that trump's an awful human being, but they vote for him in spite of it. they can be flipped, and just flipping those small numbers of voters will allow the dems to grab EC victory basically this assumes that trump will do nothing for the rust belt and that the dem candidate in 2020 decides to ignore it all over again
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:basically this assumes that trump will do nothing for the rust belt and that the dem candidate in 2020 decides to ignore it all over again They won't ignore it again, they'll ignore whatever the next thing is that they shouldn't have
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
i mean, i think there is a fairly important thing to note in 2020. https://twitter.com/tbonier/status/802138284914855936 the future battleground states are not PA, OH, and WI. these states have been drifting away from democrats for some time. maybe they will back us again next cycle, but we may be entering a new political realignment. as the midwest moves away, virginia becomes solidly blue (for the first time, it went more blue than the rest of the nation). nc, fl, ga, az, and tx have moved very significantly toward democrats. texas is a very interesting case because of its rapid growth - overall turnout (as a percentage) was actually down between 2012 and 2016, but there were 800k more raw votes. and the state as a whole moved 5 points toward democrats, becoming less republican than both ohio and iowa. if these trends continue, texas is a possible battleground in 2020 and a likely battleground in 2024. the future battleground map, i think:  so i think there will be a lot of talk about how democrats can reconnect with rust belt voters to win the white house, but there is a possibility that the biggest issue hillary faced was that she simply got caught in the middle of a realignment that nobody saw coming. and if that's the case, then we should basically be focusing on the midwest states we can win (wi, pa, mi), abandoning ohio and ia and doubling down on a rising electorate strategy. we might not be quite there yet in 2020, but we will have a decent idea if that's the case soon. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 05:39 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:trump ran off with an incredibly small margin of victory when you look at those crucial states at the very end that he took from the "firewall". he can't lose any voters for 2020, or the dems can't gain any voters for 2020 To date, there has been only one candidate to have ever won a second term after getting a first term only because of the popular vote clashing with the electoral vote. And if W. hadn't gotten an unprecedented and unreproducable boost because of the rally around the flag effect, there is no way he could have won in 2004. Trumps hope rests on aliens attacking us, and somehow being repelled by obnoxious racist morons with horrible fake tans and wigs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:so i think there will be a lot of talk about how democrats can reconnect with rust belt voters to win the white house, but there is a possibility that the biggest issue hillary faced was that she simply got caught in the middle of a realignment that nobody saw coming. and if that's the case, then we should basically be focusing on the midwest states we can win (wi, pa, mi), abandoning ohio and ia and doubling down on a rising electorate strategy. we might not be quite there yet in 2020, but we will have a decent idea if that's the case soon. The margins needed in the midwest are far thinner than the states you now label as battleground states. Like, it's entirely possible she would have won Wisconsin had she actually showed up during the general. The rust belt matters because it's basically an easy win if you give a poo poo about it. You should really compare this to where she went, for example Arizona was opened up in large part because she spent real time and money there. The issue is she didn't do a great job turning out the vote in states where those votes matter. Democrats win when there's a massive turnout and they fund downticket allies, and she did neither. The rustbelt is low hanging fruit. if you can't pick that, there's zero reason to assume VA will be solid blue. The map you show is pretty much the end of the Dem party if true. That map is full of nothing but easy paths to victory for republicans. The easier gamble is to get a million more votes in the rust belt and mid west. They're pretty easy to please and it doesn't rely on white people completely staying home in Texas or Arizona hispanics turning the entire state. The real years to compare would be 2008 and 2016, or 2008 and 1996. Incumbency changes the math drastically. Nothing makes you look more presidential than being president. Looking at raw percentages doesn't work well because the turnout was such poo poo this year in actual swing states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
it depends how the presidency will go. donald trump is polarizing enough that dems aren't going to go "oh he's presidential now" and flock to him in meaningful numbers, and the never trumpers won't flock to him if they feel that he is still the embodiment of everything they believe the republican party isn't
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Clinton was against single payer, like, ideologically, and pretending that she actually supported it is about as stupid as saying she supported legal weed or opposed the war in Iraq
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
I guess 1993 was just a clever ruse to throw people off her trail and cover up her real allegiances.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I guess 1993 was just a clever ruse to throw people off her trail and cover up her real allegiances. Oh no it was real enough then, over two decades ago. Are you suggesting that she hasn't revised any of her positions since the mid 1990's? Because that would really create some issues for her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
LGD posted:Oh no it was real enough then, over two decades ago. Are you suggesting that she hasn't revised any of her positions since the mid 1990's? Because that would really create some issues for her. Gee, whatever could have happened between her putting everything she had into a fight for Healthcare and the subsequent billion dollar blitz that utterly destroyed it, and the present day that might make her think it wouldn't work. I am just utterly puzzled what could have happened between one of the largest pushes in American healthcare history, and it's subsequent defeat, that could make a person think it's not going to work? It's like a group of people yelling coward at a figure who is dragging herself out of a minefield, because she refuses to go running back and in, and is daring to try and warn others not to. Fulchrum has issued a correction as of 07:23 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Gee, whatever could have happened between her putting everything she had into a fight for Healthcare and the subsequent billion dollar blitz that utterly destroyed it, and the present day that might make her think it wouldn't work. I am just utterly puzzled what could have happened between one of the largest pushes in American healthcare history, and it's subsequent defeat, that could make a person think it's not going to work? Note that this is an admission on your part that she was 100% not going to pursue healthcare reform in any meaningful way. And regardless of whether or not you think her lack of willingness to pursue it comes from cowardice stemming from shellacking she got in the early 1990's, lack of moral clarity stemming from being Senator D-Wall Street for 8 years, or simply poor political instincts in recognizing the ways 2016 differs from the early 1990s, the fact that she was unwilling to even attempt to advance the one issue she has real credibility on is not a ringing endorsement of her as a candidate. instincts on the issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I guess 1993 was just a clever ruse to throw people off her trail and cover up her real allegiances. She fought against single payer in 1993 In favor of something very like obamacare. Are you trying to rewrite history GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 07:49 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
mugrim posted:The margins needed in the midwest are far thinner than the states you now label as battleground states. Like, it's entirely possible she would have won Wisconsin had she actually showed up during the general. The rust belt matters because it's basically an easy win if you give a poo poo about it. well hillary deployed the entire kitchen sink into pennsylvania, and she lost it. i have no idea what more she could do there to make up that 1% because she funneled every dime and surrogate/principal visit into it that she could. it's arguable that she could do more in wisconsin and michigan, sure. but without PA she still doesn't get to 270 electoral votes. that said - the greater concern is not that pa, wi, and mi were lost. it's the general trend of the midwest toward republicans. in 2016 it was a tiny change, but who is to say it is not significantly tougher for democrats in 2020? if we are seeing realignment, then those votes may go against us by default. quote:You should really compare this to where she went, for example Arizona was opened up in large part because she spent real time and money there. she did what, like 1 principal visit to az and invested a relatively small amount of money in mid-october? let's not pretend like that's going to move a state 5 points. it's just not that easy. quote:The issue is she didn't do a great job turning out the vote in states where those votes matter. Democrats win when there's a massive turnout and they fund downticket allies, and she did neither. The rustbelt is low hanging fruit. if you can't pick that, there's zero reason to assume VA will be solid blue. well first, let's go ahead and dispatch "when they fund downticket allies." the downticket received an avalanche of money this year. PA and NH saw extraordinary spending in particular. there was no shortage of downticket money, and infamously (for some) obama 2012 basically did nothing to help downticket democrats at all because they were 100% focused on obama. so i don't think your assertion is true. anyway, as far as turning out votes: turnout in PA appears to have exceed 2008. ohio was down modestly from 2012. wisconsin was down about 4%. michigan was up slightly. while some of these may be part of the reason why clinton lost, it isn't the entire story. trump flipped a lot of voters. and more importantly, this may not be a one-time thing. we have seen a general trend in 3 of those 4 states during midterms toward republicans. it's possible that we are simply seeing a realignment of white, non-college working class voters toward the republican party. is that destiny? no - but it's a trend that may be difficult to reverse, and when it comes to finding the easiest path to 270 electoral votes, it's worth keeping in mind. wi, mi, and pa were 1% races in 2016. they may be worse for democrats in 2020 or 2024. we won't really know for sure until 2019 or so. anyway, i want to say: the canard that democrats win when turnout is high is false. it's always been the siren song of confirmation bias - the voters really do agree with us, if only they would vote! some states do have more turnout targets and those states are disproportionately affected by lower overall turnout, but in general turnout being high has been no guarantee of democratic success. in fact, democrats have won repeatedly in both low and high turnout environments. quote:The map you show is pretty much the end of the Dem party if true. That map is full of nothing but easy paths to victory for republicans. not really. as wayne gretzky would say, you must look to where the puck is going, not where it is. nc and az are obvious 2020 targets. their demos have been shifting rapidly toward democrats. they are already on the precipice, and this is convenient as they can replace ohio and iowa on our electoral map. ga would remain a stretch target as its blueification is slower, but by 2028 it should be a solid battleground. all of this, by the way, points to a difficult electoral map for 2020 - if realignment is happening, 2020 may not see enough demographic shift to overcome trump's advantage in the midwest. the 2020 democrat will need to win all 2016 states + NC and FL in order to offset the loss of PA, WI, and MI. that is a very narrow map! quote:The easier gamble is to get a million more votes in the rust belt and mid west. They're pretty easy to please and it doesn't rely on white people completely staying home in Texas or Arizona hispanics turning the entire state. well white voters didn't stay home in texas - they voted at about the same rate as latinos did, and hispanics are going to do to arizona what they've already done to new mexico. that's just what is happening from a demographic standpoint. as long as dems maintain a stranglehold on the latino vote, those states are going to keep trending blue. quote:The real years to compare would be 2008 and 2016, or 2008 and 1996. Incumbency changes the math drastically. Nothing makes you look more presidential than being president. incumbency may change the math, or trump may he a historically unpopular president. we'll find out, i guess! if he's a popular incumbent, i don't think pa, wi, mi, oh, and ia are coming back. if he's unpopular, the democrat may still win but those states will likely still underperform relative to the national election. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 08:05 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
LGD posted:Note that this is an admission on your part that she was 100% not going to pursue healthcare reform in any meaningful way. Note that this is an admission by you that you would never accept anything she did as meaningful, since you were setting that as the one thing that was a provable failure. And that it is cowardice to learn a lesson. I guess that by your logic, she needs to run against Trump in 2020, because to not continue a fight despite already losing it before, is a sign of poor instincts or some poo poo. Or is it different because one of those lessons is something you desperately don't want to be true, and so will pretend, despite all evidence to the contrary, that NOW is the time when it would succeed! GlyphGryph posted:She fought against single payer in 1993 No, she fought for an overhaul of the medical insurance system, that the Heritage foundation proposed an alternative to. That alternative was similar to Obamacare. And she never fought against a single payer system, because there never was a proposed single payer system by anyone to fight against. People on the left undermined the system because it was not single payer, but no-one ever proposed a credible and workable single payer alternative to what she was attempting to do at the time. Senators had tried it in the past, and guess what? All attempts at a single payer system failed. I know you think "Hillary is an evil witch who secretly hates all the left and wants to hurt them for her own eeeeevil pleasures" is an actual history book, but it turns the real world doesn't work like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
Haha you bullshitter you are walking it back but in the stupidest possible way, do you even listen to yourself? I accept you admission that you were lying though
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
there's good reason to think hillary was, at least at one point, privately sympathetic to single payer. but she was never an out-and-out advocate for it and regardless it's a pointless argument. single payer is almost certainly dead for the next couple of decades, and likely for most of our lifetime. even if, against all odds, it managed to pass congress and then was signed by the president, it would be killed by a right-wing scotus. and hillary clinton's political career is over. so it's a bit of a pointless argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Haha you bullshitter you are walking it back but in the stupidest possible way, do you even listen to yourself? Okay then. The single best chance to radically improve the US healthcare system and bring it in line with the rest of the world was sabotaged from the left by progressives who felt it wasn't pure enough, without providing any credible alternative. Due to this, we were subsequently stuck with the Republican alternative to what Hillary wanted, and even that we'll likely lose. I assume "progressives hosed this up for everyone" was your point to bringing up that her system was attacked from the left?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
i forgot that the hrc campaign went all in on PA and also lost there. not effective? too late? it worked but the hole was too deep to begin with? idk
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:i forgot that the hrc campaign went all in on PA and also lost there. not effective? too late? it worked but the hole was too deep to begin with? idk hard to say once you enter the world of the theoretical, but it very well could have been poor messaging. or maybe it was just a bad candidate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
This is just sad at this point. You are the one who claimed she advocated for single payer in 1993, something that is not true. All I did was call you on your bullshit and you respond with... whatever this garbage is. I am not interested in your stupid non sequiter fight, I just want you to stop making things up
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:This is just sad at this point. You are the one who claimed she advocated for single payer in 1993, something that is not true. All I did was call you on your bullshit and you respond with... whatever this garbage is. Bullshit. You claimed that she attacked single payer and that her plan was identical to Obamacare. Both of which are objectively false. quote:I am not interested in your stupid non sequiter fight, I just want you to stop making things up Then why did you start? Or is it that you really do believe you are above adhering to rules you set for other people?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
Did she advocate for single payer in 1993 or not?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Did she advocate for single payer in 1993 or not? Yes. She supported Mcdermott's proposed ends as well as saying that states should be given the option to create a single payer system and allowing a vote on the single payer system nationally as a part of the bill to see if there was the support within the house for a single payer system in a vacuum without any possible form of even perceived opposition by the Clinton alternative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
"Yes, except the opposite." You are a joke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:well hillary deployed the entire kitchen sink into pennsylvania, and she lost it. i have no idea what more she could do there to make up that 1% because she funneled every dime and surrogate/principal visit into it that she could. it's arguable that she could do more in wisconsin and michigan, sure. but without PA she still doesn't get to 270 electoral votes. that said - the greater concern is not that pa, wi, and mi were lost. it's the general trend of the midwest toward republicans. in 2016 it was a tiny change, but who is to say it is not significantly tougher for democrats in 2020? if we are seeing realignment, then those votes may go against us by default. Trump spent most of his time and money on the midwest and rustbelt, and instead of just sending surrogates he was constantly there. That makes volunteer recruitment way easier, which makes getting a small edge much easier if your opposition doesn't show up. Clinton herself went to Hamilton during the election three times more than she went to Michigan in the general. Sorry, she's a really lovely candidate and I think trying to track election trends in an election with two of the worst politicians ever seems futile. quote:she did what, like 1 principal visit to az and invested a relatively small amount of money in mid-october? let's not pretend like that's going to move a state 5 points. it's just not that easy. She showed up when most democrats don't, I honestly think it makes more of a difference than you do. I do not think it was the entire 5% though. I know the theme this election was "Rally's don't matter", and for the primary sure they don't, but in 2008 and 2012 over 2/3rds of our volunteers came from visits where Obama actually showed up. It's dumb, but people physically seeing a person will be motivated and give you dozens of hours of free labor, and physically drive people to calls and check that everyone actually went. quote:anyway, as far as turning out votes: turnout in PA appears to have exceed 2008. ohio was down modestly from 2012. wisconsin was down about 4%. michigan was up slightly. while some of these may be part of the reason why clinton lost, it isn't the entire story. trump flipped a lot of voters. and more importantly, this may not be a one-time thing. we have seen a general trend in 3 of those 4 states during midterms toward republicans. it's possible that we are simply seeing a realignment of white, non-college working class voters toward the republican party. is that destiny? no - but it's a trend that may be difficult to reverse, and when it comes to finding the easiest path to 270 electoral votes, it's worth keeping in mind. wi, mi, and pa were 1% races in 2016. they may be worse for democrats in 2020 or 2024. we won't really know for sure until 2019 or so. We've had a 13% increase in eligible voters since 2008, and a 6% or so increase from 2012. Exceeding turnout by less than those margins is a loss, and a significant one considering all the advantages we have since then. quote:anyway, i want to say: the canard that democrats win when turnout is high is false. it's always been the siren song of confirmation bias - the voters really do agree with us, if only they would vote! some states do have more turnout targets and those states are disproportionately affected by lower overall turnout, but in general turnout being high has been no guarantee of democratic success. in fact, democrats have won repeatedly in both low and high turnout environments. Let me rephrase, democrats don't win when voter turnout is low, and it was exceptionally low this year in terms of how many people were eligible to vote. quote:well white voters didn't stay home in texas - they voted at about the same rate as latinos did, and hispanics are going to do to arizona what they've already done to new mexico. that's just what is happening from a demographic standpoint. as long as dems maintain a stranglehold on the latino vote, those states are going to keep trending blue. It's both white people not voting as often as they normally do when an election is contested and latino outreach in Texas being huge this year. The Texas democrat machine was on full blast getting every person who was hispanic to vote. However, from what I've seen there's two main issues. 1) This could be a trump exclusive bump, and 2) many hispanic people still voted for Trump. Remember, he got more Hispanic votes than Romney. Hispanic people are not black, they don't vote in nearly the margins people think they vote in for one party. I live in a super democrat heavy area of texas and like half the republican party here is hispanic. You're also talking about swinging the state in 2020 by roughly a million votes. That's loving huge. Any machine that's intense enough to turn Texas full on blue and convert/create 1m votes in the state is going to be one that wins the midwest handedly. Hell, they're finding tons of unions in the midwest had people vote republican, not because they think of themselves as that way but because Clinton was such a huge free trade advocate and many of them are pissed about the Dems and the PPACA. quote:incumbency may change the math, or trump may he a historically unpopular president. we'll find out, i guess! if he's a popular incumbent, i don't think pa, wi, mi, oh, and ia are coming back. if he's unpopular, the democrat may still win but those states will likely still underperform relative to the national election. I think a moderately popular democrat who's not afraid to poo poo on trade deals/wall street or vouch for a minimum wage of 15 bucks will have 2020 numbers that look far more normal. mugrim has issued a correction as of 15:08 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
"Single payer will never, ever happen" is not the type of statement I'd hear and then expect that person to believe in or make significant improvements to our health care system
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:"Single payer will never, ever happen" is not the type of statement I'd hear and then expect that person to believe in or make significant improvements to our health care system Don't you get it? Listen, this is real politics okay. You can't just say "I'm for a 15 dollar minimum wage", or "I support single payer healthcare and it's one of my priorities". You say the opposite hoping to get a voting block with built in organizers in exchange for changing your views on those beliefs, and once that happens then you're finally free to be an unawful human being. That's what real leadership is. It's knowing that you should see Hamilton during your campaign 3 times more than you saw Wisconsin and Michigan in the general combined. It's having the strength to tell one of your lobbyists to greet the crowds who donated untold time and sweat waiting on you all night that everything will be fine on live TV, and then have paid staff shoe them offsite rather than address your people who have been standing out in the freezing wind all night that their efforts were not in vein. Do you know how much courage it takes a real leader to stay in their hotel room and say "gently caress it, I'm calling it a night", something no one has ever done in the modern era after a concession? That's real strength my friend, that's real leadership, that's realpolitik
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:i forgot that the hrc campaign went all in on PA and also lost there. not effective? too late? it worked but the hole was too deep to begin with? idk This state is dumb, by all logic it should be bluer than ever. In 2010 republicans won the senate by a razor thin margin in a huge wave year, and the republican governor candidate was far more well known than the democrat, ok fine. In 2012 Obama won here easily, in 2014 we kicked out our unpopular republican governor in a republican wave year by 9 points. PA was the only statewide race that flipped from red to blue. In 2015, an off-year, the 3 democrats for supreme court all won statewide by 10 points or more. Then 2016, Trump wins. I can only point to Hillary Clinton being a lovely candidate as the reason, and Katie McGinty (aka Hillary Jr.) didn't help. Bernie might have won PA, Joe Biden a Scranton native would have done better than Obama.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
The Nastier Nate posted:This state is dumb, by all logic it should be bluer than ever. In 2010 republicans won the senate by a razor thin margin in a huge wave year, and the republican governor candidate was far more well known than the democrat, ok fine. It's almost like she walked right into the middle of coal country and told them all explicitly she'd make sure they're all unemplyed on their home turf or something without really proposing any real big social programs or anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
mugrim posted:It's almost like she walked right into the middle of coal country and told them all explicitly she'd make sure they're all unemplyed on their home turf or something without really proposing any real big social programs or anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:pretty sure al franken is a huge net neutrality advocate? am i missing something? Support and opposition to SOPA/PIPA did not break down on traditional party lines if you look at the list.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:that keeps getting lost down the bad dem memory hole it's roughly the 90th time i've seen that fact this month and they still wonder why she lost It's not surprising. Clinton and her people thought she literally just had to showup (and somehow hosed that up). The Dems should have it beaten over their head that Clinton watched Hamilton 3 times during the election, and visited Michigan and Wisconsin an average of .5 times each during the general. Or that maybe the next person who runs doesn't get tons of paychecks from Wall Street for 'speaking gigs', and also doesn't rake public universities over the coals to pay her quarter million dollar speaking fee, and then go on TV and complain that college is too expensive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
my name is fulchrum and i'm here to say i'm a very bad poster, in every single way
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:i mean, i think there is a fairly important thing to note in 2020. GA will be a swing state likely to go GOP. Unless the DNC there gets a combination of serious talent and financial support, it'll take more then four years ro make it a true battlefield imo. Disclaimer: my observations are based on growing up on the coast and word from people who live in the piedmont/pine barrens, ATL I have no idea about aside from them being dumb enough to build an aquarium in the middle of a drought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:48 |
|
|
mugrim posted:It's not surprising. Clinton and her people thought she literally just had to showup (and somehow hosed that up). In Clinton's defense, universities are money pit black holes who do dumb poo poo like pay for this. Your average university's spending priorities usually goes: 1. Sports 2. Generating prestige 3. More buildings 4. Securing research grants 5. Literally everything else 6. Educating students If they hadn't got Clinton for $250,000 they would have paid some other rich rear end in a top hat just as much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 17:03
|
|