What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (8 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
JuniorNB said:
Cruz is the polar opposite of Sanders. He's as far right as you can possibly go.  If the election turns out to be Hillary vs Cruz, then Sanders' supporters should turn out in droves to support Hillary. If they don't, and open the door for a Cruz presidency, then why were they even wasting their time on all of this?
Click to expand...
I "wasted my time" voting for Sanders because he's who I want to see as President.  I don't want to see either Hillary or Teddy in office.  Why would I vote for them?

 
Sinn Fein said:
Right - Obama won the minority and millennial vote by a substantial amount more than Clinton would - if she is the nominee.  Clinton's support among minority voters will not be enough to overcome the losses of Millennial voters.
Click to expand...
If there is a significant loss in millennials, Latinos will make up the difference. You continue to ignore this vital factor. 

 
timschochet said:
To be quite frank, there has sadly been a bunch of paternalistic racism all over the Bernie thread when they complain about blacks supporting Hillary Clinton. I don't know how many times somebody has written "Don't they know what's good for them?" Or something close to that effect. 
Click to expand...
This is not me.   I am not complaining about Blacks supporting Clinton.  If she uses those votes to build a winning coalition to get the nominee - then she has done her job.

But - that support is not strong enough to recreate the Obama coalition, and she is not doing enough to add other groups to that coalition.  She will end up with lower minority support than Obama, much lower millennial support, and a little bit higher female support - though that appears to break down heavily along age limits.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Right - Obama won the minority and millennial vote by a substantial amount more than Clinton would - if she is the nominee.  Clinton's support among minority voters will not be enough to overcome the losses of Millennial voters.
Click to expand...
Huh?

Romney won the white vote by 20 points and lost. I said this proves that the minority vote is very important, despite your claim that it is "not consequential." Not sure what age has to do with that.

 
The Commish said:
I "wasted my time" voting for Sanders because he's who I want to see as President.  I don't want to see either Hillary or Teddy in office.  Why would I vote for them?
Click to expand...
You can't vote for both of them. You should pick one, though, since you're standing there in the voting booth already. Which do you prefer? Maybe take a look down the ticket and decide which one would better support and work with the other candidates you prefer.

A vote does not imply 100% support for everything about that candidate.

 
timschochet said:
To be quite frank, there has sadly been a bunch of paternalistic racism all over the Bernie thread when they complain about blacks supporting Hillary Clinton. I don't know how many times somebody has written "Don't they know what's good for them?" Or something close to that effect. 
Click to expand...
:bs: They could be saying black people are voting because they feel "guilty" that they voted for the black man instead of her in 2008.

 
timschochet said:
If there is a significant loss in millennials, Latinos will make up the difference. You continue to ignore this vital factor. 
Click to expand...
Latinos went 67/31 in 2008 - Clinton will get many of the older latinos - but she is losing the millennials across all demographics.  I don't think those voters turn out for the GOP - i think they simply stay home.

Nevada may be the only state where this matters - and I don't have participation numbers between the GOP and Dem caucuses.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Huh?

Romney won the white vote by 20 points and lost. I said this proves that the minority vote is very important, despite your claim that it is "not consequential." Not sure what age has to do with that.
Click to expand...
I'll type this very slowly for you.

Obama won the minority vote by a greater number than Clinton will win - if she is the nominee.  Minorities are not turning out to the primaries in the same number as they did when Obama was running.  There is no reason to expect they will turn out in greater numbers in a general election for Clinton (or Sanders).  So, with fewer minority votes - the impact will not be consequential in this election.  The Dems are going to have to find more votes among the white middle class, who have been leaning towards the GOP.  Sanders is the only Dem candidate making any inroads to this group of voters from the Dem side.

 
pantagrapher said:
You can't vote for both of them. You should pick one, though, since you're standing there in the voting booth already. Which do you prefer? Maybe take a look down the ticket and decide which one would better support and work with the other candidates you prefer.

A vote does not imply 100% support for everything about that candidate.
Click to expand...
I don't subscribe to the "lesser of two evils" shtick.  I prefer neither and I won't try to convince myself otherwise based on whatever fear mongering one side throws out against the other.  The country is in a pretty bleak position if we're choosing between Hillary and Trump/Cruz.  It's always my opinion that we're worse off with Hillary vs Cruz than Hillary vs Trump, but here we are.  I also don't vote based on a single issue, or I could vote for Hillary.  I do prefer her vision for education and the welfare of our children.  Unfortunately, she falls flat on her face with just about everything else.

 
pantagrapher said:
The Commish said:
I "wasted my time" voting for Sanders because he's who I want to see as President.  I don't want to see either Hillary or Teddy in office.  Why would I vote for them?
Click to expand...
You can't vote for both of them. You should pick one, though, since you're standing there in the voting booth already. Which do you prefer? Maybe take a look down the ticket and decide which one would better support and work with the other candidates you prefer.

A vote does not imply 100% support for everything about that candidate.
Click to expand...
The old "voting third party is throwing your vote away" argument?  Love this schtick.

 
Mr. Ham said:
But... Obama just said "no one is above the law."  :eyeroll:

it is interesting how in silly season these stories ebb and flow in terms of spin, and tend to fan the news cycle.  Current trend is to protect and defend, and don't think favors won't be pulled with press.  There there will be more leaks on the other side.

All meaningless.  In the end, there's the truth and the fact the FBI does appear to have autonomy to pursue it.  Which once again, given facts Saints laid out, does not bode well for Hillary.  
Click to expand...


Yeah, well barring what you mentioned - in particular any additional data being discovered between the server, other sources or Lazar - between Obama yesterday and Politico (lo & behold all ready with an article...) the next day, I think it's becoming increasingly apparent that a non-indictment is being signaled out.

We will await the final word on what the FBI recommended, if we ever find out.

There are several reports (fig leafs, or whatever) which Hillaryites will refer to when it happens.

- This Politico report.

- Obama's interview with Fox: not intentional and gosh the definition of "is classified"

- The report about Pagliano's security logs showing 'no hack'.

- 'Overclassification' claims.

- The claim about 'interagency dispute' - even though the security review ended in January.

This will give Hillary and the cultish all they need to believe. That of course does not help ordinary servicemen, military, diplomatic personnel, intelligence workers and others who face losing their job, career or prosecution for just this kind of thing and less all the time. I am sure Hillary will continue to fire them and prosecute them as president.

Cstu may have been right when he said this was decided by the WH back in September/October when Biden did not get in.

eta - I don't think she is out of the woods yet, but if Hillary is indeed interviewed by the FBI I will take that as a very nice small victory for accountability, along with the public knowledge that she was indeed the subject and purpose of their criminal investigation.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
Latinos went 67/31 in 2008 - Clinton will get many of the older latinos - but she is losing the millennials across all demographics.  I don't think those voters turn out for the GOP - i think they simply stay home.

Nevada may be the only state where this matters - and I don't have participation numbers between the GOP and Dem caucuses.
Click to expand...
I'm more concerned with the raw numbers than the dynamics involved with millenials/Latino crossover or population density in States.

There are 27 million eligible Latino voters.  There are 81 million eligible Millenials.  Latinos cannot replace millenial losses.  Very little can.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I'll type this very slowly for you.

Obama won the minority vote by a greater number than Clinton will win - if she is the nominee.  Minorities are not turning out to the primaries in the same number as they did when Obama was running.  There is no reason to expect they will turn out in greater numbers in a general election for Clinton (or Sanders).  So, with fewer minority votes - the impact will not be consequential in this election.  The Dems are going to have to find more votes among the white middle class, who have been leaning towards the GOP.  Sanders is the only Dem candidate making any inroads to this group of voters from the Dem side.
Click to expand...
Sure there is. They comprise a larger percentage of the population than they did four years ago, and the Dem will likely be running against a general election opponent with draconian attitudes on a number of issues of importance to minorities. This has been documented over and over and over in the last few months. And in any event your argument is one-sided; it pretends that any loss among minorities is the same, ignoring the fact that Sanders would lose a lot more relative to Obama than Clinton would, and thus have a lot more ground to make up among white voters.

Also, there are polls showing Clinton running ahead of Cruz and Trump.  If what you were saying were true that wouldn't be the case. Maybe what you're saying favors Sanders a little bit, and that's why he's running better in those head-to-heads than Clinton. But if so, why not just say that instead of meodramatic nonsense like Clinton is "unelectable" that tends to obscure the rest of your argument.

 
Minorities, and Dems in general, are turning out in lower numbers in the primaries than in the 2008 primaries.  There is nothing to suggest the general election will be any different.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Latinos went 67/31 in 2008 - Clinton will get many of the older latinos - but she is losing the millennials across all demographics.  I don't think those voters turn out for the GOP - i think they simply stay home.

Nevada may be the only state where this matters - and I don't have participation numbers between the GOP and Dem caucuses.
Click to expand...
If his millennial supporters stay home in November, it will confirm that their revolution was just a fashion statement.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Minorities, and Dems in general, are turning out in lower numbers in the primaries than in the 2008 primaries.  There is nothing to suggest the general election will be any different.
Click to expand...
Really?  Nothing?  Not even, say, a potential general election opponent who says Mexicans are rapists, and wants to deport all the illegal immigrants, and wants to screen people at the border by religion, and retweets/garners massive support from white supremacists, and cheers on supporters while they beat up black protesters?  Or what about a potential general election opponent who also wants to deport all the illegal immigrants, whose dad is part of his campaign and is an avowed racist, who embraces "stand your ground" laws and once took part in a huge campaign to suppress the minority vote in Texas and defends voter ID laws nationally?

Nothing like that? Sounds crazy, I know, but I think we should allow for the slight possibility that something like this might happen.

 
The Commish said:
I don't subscribe to the "lesser of two evils" shtick.  I prefer neither and I won't try to convince myself otherwise based on whatever fear mongering one side throws out against the other.  The country is in a pretty bleak position if we're choosing between Hillary and Trump/Cruz.  It's always my opinion that we're worse off with Hillary vs Cruz than Hillary vs Trump, but here we are.  I also don't vote based on a single issue, or I could vote for Hillary.  I do prefer her vision for education and the welfare of our children.  Unfortunately, she falls flat on her face with just about everything else.
Click to expand...
I didn't fear monger. I simply suggested you think about your down ticket votes to guide your presidential vote. It seems silly to me that someone would vote for a bunch of democrats and then have no preference on president.

 
pantagrapher said:
I didn't fear monger. I simply suggested you think about your down ticket votes to guide your presidential vote. It seems silly to me that someone would vote for a bunch of democrats and then have no preference on president.
Click to expand...
That would be strange.  I've never voted for a federal democrat or a republican until this year's primary.  I have voted for a few on a local level when it made sense to do so. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
Sure there is. They comprise a larger percentage of the population than they did four years ago, and the Dem will likely be running against a general election opponent with draconian attitudes on a number of issues of importance to minorities. This has been documented over and over and over in the last few months. And in any event your argument is one-sided; it pretends that any loss among minorities is the same, ignoring the fact that Sanders would lose a lot more relative to Obama than Clinton would, and thus have a lot more ground to make up among white voters.

Also, there are polls showing Clinton running ahead of Cruz and Trump.  If what you were saying were true that wouldn't be the case. Maybe what you're saying favors Sanders a little bit, and that's why he's running better in those head-to-heads than Clinton. But if so, why not just say that instead of meodramatic nonsense like Clinton is "unelectable" that tends to obscure the rest of your argument.
Click to expand...


Sanders will lose a bigger percentage of minority voters - this is a certainty.  But, he is making up for those losses by gaining Millennial support, and also by adding white middle/working class voters to the coalition.  Clinton is not doing anything to expand the coalition - she is losing millennials badly, and she is not expanding the Dem base.   She is not showing any signs of adding supporters - she is doing everything she can just to hold on to what she has.  That won't be enough in a general election - even against Trump (or Cruz).

 
The Commish said:
I "wasted my time" voting for Sanders because he's who I want to see as President.  I don't want to see either Hillary or Teddy in office.  Why would I vote for them?
Click to expand...
Because, if those two win their party's nominations, one of them is going to be the next President. Not voting at all is a vote for Cruz, the anti-Sanders.

 
JuniorNB said:
Because, if those two win their party's nominations, one of them is going to be the next President. Not voting at all is a vote for Cruz, the anti-Sanders.
Click to expand...
not voting at all is not voting at all :shrug:

But if you insist on going down that route a pretty good argument can be made for the same applying to Hillary.  She's the anti-Sanders on every single issue important to him and his supporters.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Sanders will lose a bigger percentage of minority voters - this is a certainty.  But, he is making up for those losses by gaining Millennial support, and also by adding white middle/working class voters to the coalition.  Clinton is not doing anything to expand the coalition - she is losing millennials badly, and she is not expanding the Dem base.   She is not showing any signs of adding supporters - she is doing everything she can just to hold on to what she has.  That won't be enough in a general election - even against Trump (or Cruz).
Click to expand...
If only there were some other demographic group you hadn't mentioned to whom Clinton might have a particular appeal. Perhaps one that has already been trending towards the Democrats, one that the GOP frontrunners are sure to turn off thanks to their histories and mannerisms and their preferences for regressive social policies. Why, imagine if this demographic group was so large that it actually constituted the majority of the electorate and an even larger majority of voters in recent years.

Surely such a thing is a pipe dream, though. No magical demographic group like this exists.

Look, I'm having fun with your little shtick here, but ultimately it doesn't matter what evidence anyone says in response to your posts. You're gonna keep writing up your unsupported opinions as facts and just changing the subject whenever I ask for evidence, or present the volumes of it to the contrary. So keep on keeping on, I guess :shrug:

 
TobiasFunke said:
Really?  Nothing?  Not even, say, a potential general election opponent who says Mexicans are rapists, and wants to deport all the illegal immigrants, and wants to screen people at the border by religion, and retweets/garners massive support from white supremacists, and cheers on supporters while they beat up black protesters?  Or what about a potential general election opponent who also wants to deport all the illegal immigrants, whose dad is part of his campaign and is an avowed racist, who embraces "stand your ground" laws and once took part in a huge campaign to suppress the minority vote in Texas and defends voter ID laws nationally?

Nothing like that? Sounds crazy, I know, but I think we should allow for the slight possibility that something like this might happen.
Click to expand...
The fact is, 40% of Latino voters say that border security is either equally important as or more important than citizenship pathways when asked about immigration reform.  About half say they'd vote for a candidate who doesn't agree with them on immigration.  And Latinos are acutely aware that the current President - and Clinton is running on extending the Obama Presidency - is on track to deport more immigrants than all Presidents from the inception of this country to 2000 combined. Half of Latinos reported knowing someone who has been deported or detained for citizenship status issues in the previous year by October, 2014.

It may seem crazy to us white folk, but immigration issues are not going to win Clinton this presidency.

 
pantagrapher said:
This is crazy talk. 
Click to expand...
Environment

- Keystone

- Fracking

Wall Street

- stricter regulation

- too big to fail

Political Contributions

- PAC v. no PAC

Foreign Policy 

- Interventionist v. Isolationist

Health Care

- Single Payer

Income Wealth Inequality

$15 minimum wage v. $12 Minimum Wage

legalize Marijuana 

the list goes on...

 
pantagrapher said:
There are two voters. One reliably comes out to vote for the party's nominee. The other has never voted for the party's nominee. Tell me again how much they need you.
Click to expand...
North Carolina has fifteen representatives in Congress - 13 in the House, 2 in the Senate.  Three Democrats in the House, none in the Senate.

I'd say it would be a good idea to court independent voters. 

 
JuniorNB said:
Cruz is the polar opposite of Sanders. He's as far right as you can possibly go.  If the election turns out to be Hillary vs Cruz, then Sanders' supporters should turn out in droves to support Hillary. If they don't, and open the door for a Cruz presidency, then why were they even wasting their time on all of this?
Click to expand...
Most people are not right or left ideologues and do not view candidates in such black and white terms.  Many issues are not even that clear on what the left and right positions are.  Free Trade, Immigration, and many other issues there are many different perspectives and are comples issues which most people just don't support or oppose.  

 
jon_mx said:
Most people are not right or left ideologues and do not view candidates in such black and white terms.  Many issues are not even that clear on what the left and right positions are.  Free Trade, Immigration, and many other issues there are many different perspectives and are comples issues which most people just don't support or oppose.  
Click to expand...
With many politicians, you're correct. But with Cruz, he's about as far right as you can be.

 
timschochet said:
Basically, what Politico found out is that it's almost the exact opposite of what Mr. Ham, among others, has been asserting in this thread: the FBI won't indict in these cases unless you can show it was done deliberately. Big surprise! 
Click to expand...
Basically, I'll just go with what a former United States Attoney General thinks the standard is...  Which is the opposite of the opposite of what I said, actually.  What, I just worked it out -- and that's they same as what I said.  Not the opposite.  In fact into the opposite.  Of that.

thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/275870-former-ag-on-clinton-emails-gross-negligence-is-not-a

 
Last edited:
cap'n grunge said:
Her wardrobe keeps getting worse and worse. Cue the sexist comments.
Click to expand...
I dont find the comments about her wardrobe to be sexist. I think comments about her looks and weight to be that way, but her outfits are just plain weird sometimes. If a male politician wore a yellow suit or weird baggy pants or any other number of things we would comment on it too. Obama got made fun of for wearing mom jeans iirc.  

They pretty much wear suits. Blue, black, grey suits. If Hillary didnt wear mustard colored nehru jackets we wouldnt make fun of her mustard colored nehru jackets. 

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
257K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Back
Top