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 (6 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
How many other moderate Republicans will follow the lead of Christine Todd Whitman? Unlikely most of those who reject Trump will vote for Hillary, but so long as they refuse to vote for him it's the same thing. 

Of course there will also be some progressives who refuse to vote for Hillary, but not nearly so many IMO. 
I think all those moderate Republicans who voted in the last presidential election will go to the polls and vote again, and only a few establishment conservatives will vote Hillary over Trump.  Almost all will vote Trump.

I also think that all the 4 millon conservatives who sat out the last presidential election will go to the polls this time and cast their protest vote against the GOP establishment and vote for Trump.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How many other moderate Republicans will follow the lead of Christine Todd Whitman? Unlikely most of those who reject Trump will vote for Hillary, but so long as they refuse to vote for him it's the same thing. 

Of course there will also be some progressives who refuse to vote for Hillary, but not nearly so many IMO. 
I think it all depends on how Trump pivots for the general election.  As the rise of Bernie Sanders has shown, there is a strong populist movement on both the right and the left.  Can Donald frame a populist message that resonates with more than just the GOP folks currently voting for him?  It seems at the last debate he already started to do so when he talked about healthcare and Planned Parenthood.  In many ways, Trump has so much more freedom than any other GOP candidate in recent history to adopt positions that are not aligned with the GOP establishment.  Trump can go after Hillary's ties to Wall Street in a way other GOP candidates would be fearful of doing.  I would think he has to tone down his act but still be very aggressive in his attacks...is he capable of doing so?  Does he even want to move away from what has contributed to his success to date?  Not sure but it does seem like he has been underestimated this entire time.  

Now, if Trump is able to fashion a revised message for the general election that is toned down and plays to populist sentiments beyond just those in the GOP than I think the moderates in the Republican party come around to him.  Probably unlikely but seems like an unlikely election season.

 
Trump over Hillary if Dems are dumb enough to put a criminal up over Sanders.  Call it a vote for trump or against Hillary doesn't matter to me but I don't want Clinton in the Oval Office. 
Trump has no chance....its not zero, but it's very small. There are going to be so many conservatives staying home/voting some 3rd party.  I'm talking key states here too like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan.  It doesn't matter how enthused the South is...they always go Republican so extra voters matter not.  I think it would literally take some strange event where Hillary is forced out of the race too close to November for the Dems to get a replacement rolling.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it all depends on how Trump pivots for the general election.  As the rise of Bernie Sanders has shown, there is a strong populist movement on both the right and the left.  Can Donald frame a populist message that resonates with more than just the GOP folks currently voting for him?  It seems at the last debate he already started to do so when he talked about healthcare and Planned Parenthood.  In many ways, Trump has so much more freedom than any other GOP candidate in recent history to adopt positions that are not aligned with the GOP establishment.  Trump can go after Hillary's ties to Wall Street in a way other GOP candidates would be fearful of doing.  I would think he has to tone down his act but still be very aggressive in his attacks...is he capable of doing so?  Does he even want to move away from what has contributed to his success to date?  Not sure but it does seem like he has been underestimated this entire time.  

Now, if Trump is able to fashion a revised message for the general election that is toned down and plays to populist sentiments beyond just those in the GOP than I think the moderates in the Republican party come around to him.  Probably unlikely but seems like an unlikely election season.
To combat this Hillary needs Bernie- not just at the convention but on the campaign trail. Would it help if she promised to make Bernie an important part of her administration? Secretary of the Treasury? 

 
Trump has no chance....its not zero, but it's very small. There are going to be so many conservatives staying home/voting some 3rd party.  I'm talking key states here too like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan.  It doesn't matter how enthused the South is...they always go Republican so extra voters matter not.  I think it would literally take some strange event where Hillary is forced out of the race too close to November for the Dems to get a replacement rolling.  
I'm not so sure.  Trump seems to fit the prototypical GOP candidate mold that does well in November.  Someone that isn't taken seriously that is embraced as "being one of us" by the masses.  (I'm OK being proven wrong on this.)

 
I'm not so sure.  Trump seems to fit the prototypical GOP candidate mold that does well in November.  Someone that isn't taken seriously that is embraced as "being one of us" by the masses.  (I'm OK being proven wrong on this.)
He's going to have a harder time when someone actually continually attacks him through surrogates.  His other problem is he'll lose Hispanics even worse than Romney did and make no inroads with AAs.  There's a very limited viable path if you lose those two groups 80/20 or more.  Even if he could sweep the south (which means flipping VA and FL) and flip IA, he still needs to flip NV and CO or OH.  I'm not sure that's doable with where he stands now.

To put this CNN poll in some perspective, this is about what Obama was beating Romney during the primaries in 2012.  Romney was really never able to recover. 

 
Who has more to hide? The answer to this question will be the loser of the election.
No political figure has been subject to greater scrutiny of all their affairs over the last 30 years than Hillary has. Everything is already out there. They haven't even started to scratch the surface with Trump. Once people start taking a really close look at his background, it can only hurt him among independent and undecided voters.

 
538's final "polls +" forecast for each state now shows OK a tossup and Clinton 90%+ to win every other primary state.  Could be a clean sweep outside the caucus states.

 
The email thing doesn't stick because most people can imagine their own mother screwing up a server set up.

 
He's going to have a harder time when someone actually continually attacks him through surrogates.  His other problem is he'll lose Hispanics even worse than Romney did and make no inroads with AAs.  There's a very limited viable path if you lose those two groups 80/20 or more.  Even if he could sweep the south (which means flipping VA and FL) and flip IA, he still needs to flip NV and CO or OH.  I'm not sure that's doable with where he stands now.

To put this CNN poll in some perspective, this is about what Obama was beating Romney during the primaries in 2012.  Romney was really never able to recover. 
The AA vote is irrelevant.  

The Hispanic vote is obviously relevant, but moreso because it's in play and is growing than immediate impact.  Hispanics don't actually vote in very large numbers.

 
The email thing doesn't stick because most people can imagine their own mother screwing up a server set up.
It can be simple and complicated. It's simple in the respect that it's against the rules or law to have classified communications in an unauthorized location. It's simple that people lose their jobs and titles over that and in that people go to jail for it. It's complicated in that the rules of classifications are based on a list of obscure codes and designations.

Tim earlier mentioned that Trump proclaimed that he will be pushing the email story. I don't have any faith he can explain it if called upon, and I don't have any faith he believes in public transparency or has any understanding of how protecting national secrets works.

- The email format has nothing to do with it, this has always been the case. If you're an employee at State you can't walk out of State with marked or unmarked classified paper documents, throw them in your car, take them home, bring them inside, and put them in an unlocked file cabinet, since maybe the Civil War at least if anyone responsible found out that would get you canned and depending on the type of info, maybe jailed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The AA vote is irrelevant.  

The Hispanic vote is obviously relevant, but moreso because it's in play and is growing than immediate impact.  Hispanics don't actually vote in very large numbers.
Glad to know you don't think 10% of the electorate really matters.  Newsflash is you lose the AA vote 90-10 and the Hispanic vote 80-20, Trump would basically need to win the white vote 70-30 (Romney won it 59-39 for some comparison).  Good luck with that.   

 
Glad to know you don't think 10% of the electorate really matters.  Newsflash is you lose the AA vote 90-10 and the Hispanic vote 80-20, Trump would basically need to win the white vote 70-30 (Romney won it 59-39 for some comparison).  Good luck with that.   
I wouldn't count on Obama level AA turnout

 
I wouldn't count on Obama level AA turnout
So it goes back to the pre-Obama levels of 11-12%...Trump would still need 68-32 for the white vote (this all assumes the Latino vote stays depressed).  Pissing off 25% of the electorate isn't smart general election politics.

 
A little history now:

Hillary Clinton is on her way to being the first female nominee of a major political party in the United States. Given that, like most countries, half of our population are women, it's been an awful long time coming. Here are a list of elected and appointed women heads of state around the world, going back to 1940:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_and_appointed_female_heads_of_state

Yet somehow we've never had one. 

The first woman who ran for President was Victoria Woodhull of the Equal Rights Party in 1872, long before women had the right to vote. Her VP candidate was Frederick Douglass, the great former slave and abolitionist. Here are a list of all the female candidates for President in our history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates

No woman has really come close to being a nominee other than Hillary Clinton in 2008. The only other woman I can think of who ever led polling for even a short time was Michelle Bachmann; in August of 2011 she was the leading GOP candidate, at least in Iowa. 

As everyone should know, we have had two major female Vice-Presidential candidates: Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and Sarah Palin in 2008. We have had 44 female senators in our history; the first was Rebecca Felton who served 1 day in 1922. The first elected female Senator was Hattie Caraway.. There are currently 20 female Senators. We've had 37 female governors; we currently have 6. The first was Carolyn Shelton of Oregon who was acting governor for 1 weekend in 1909.

Though if elected Hillary Clinton will be our first official woman President, many historians believe that Edith Bolling Galt Wilson, Woodrow Wilson's second wife and first lady, was the de facto head of state of this country during the last year of Wilson's presidency when he suffered a massive stroke. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
With regard to my point about Michelle Bachmann, I should add that in the spring of 2011, Sarah Palin also led polling among Republican presidential candidates. But since she ultimately chose not to run, I don't think it counts. 

 
This should amuse some people here: I was just reading the bio page of Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for President in 1872:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Woodhull#Presidential_candidate

Turns out she was arrested 2 days before the election for publishing an obscene newspaper (she was arguing for free love), and was in jail when the vote took place! 

So you see, Clinton haters: even if Hillary DOES get indicted before the election, she will still be part of a long tradition of women who came before her.  :thumbup:

 
It's hard to care about emails when the Rs elect a guy like Trump to represent them. Since it's all a joke, why take anything seriously now? 

 
The email thing doesn't stick because most people can imagine their own mother screwing up a server set up.
Most people also realize that if they were to set up their own server and email and send and receive official communications through it on behalf of their employer they would be fired once outed on the spot. And we're not even talking potentially classified national security documents here. Extremely poor judgment at the very least and illustrative of a level of paranoia that belongs no where near the Oval Office.

Sucks that Trump might force me to vote for her. Not that it matters because these morons in Arizona will salivate all over Donald's schwetty orange balls.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Race baiting 101: Strike when emotions are at their peak for maximum impact and memory.  It's a fallacy to think she is really concerned about justice or the truth.

And just imagine if the colors were reversed here and it was Trump who blindly believed the white group.  How would that have worked out for him?  How would the press have handled it?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
49 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Why is Hillary such a racist?  :lmao:

Good for the kid. Hillary doesnt know what to do when her pat responses arent bought. Look back at my record is the response for people she assumes dont really know her record. If you do, you know shes done nothing for african americans. Younger people i think realize that, older african americans are still wooed by the Clinton name.

 
Race-baiting? You mean like the time Hillary said "I would love to be a well-educated black, because I believe they do have an actual advantage"?

Oh wait, that wasn't Hillary.

Race baiting 101: Strike when emotions are at their peak for maximum impact and memory. It's a fallacy to think she is really concerned about justice or the truth.
 
Race baiting 101: Strike when emotions are at their peak for maximum impact and memory.  It's a fallacy to think she is really concerned about justice or the truth.

And just imagine if the colors were reversed here and it was Trump who blindly believed the white group.  How would that have worked out for him?  How would the press have handled it?
Do you mean like when Trump spent $85,000 on full page newspaper ads directed against five black teenagers who turned out to be wrongfully convicted of a rape of a white jogger in central park in 1989?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-central-park-five_us_56c78713e4b041136f16fd4e

Donald Trump Has Been Self-Funding His Bigotry Parade Since At Least 1989



He spent $85,000 on fear-stoking ads against the Central Park Five: "BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!”


Rapists. Thugs. Killers. Wild criminals. Muggers. Murderers. Crazed misfits.

No, these aren’t words from Donald Trump’s campaign speeches about Mexicans. They’re Trump's tough talk from the late 1980s, directed at the wrongly convicted teenagers who became known as the Central Park Five -- and any criminal then roaming New York City streets.

Trump spent more than $85,000 on four full-page ads in newspapers -- including The New York Times and the Daily News -- on May 1, 1989. The ads were published just weeks after 28-year-old Trisha Melli was beaten and raped while jogging in Central Park -- an attack that riveted the city's attention.

Police -- and Trump -- zeroed in on the five teens.

“BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!” Trump's ads declared in bold letters.

Trump appealed to then-Mayor Ed Koch for a city without “the constant chant of ‘police brutality.’” He wanted death for anyone who looked, acted or sounded like the Central Park Five.

“They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes,” he wrote. “I want to hate these murderers and I always will … I no longer want to understand their anger. I want them to be afraid.”

Even then, Trump was known as an instigator who had the power to influence residents of a city reeling from rampant poverty, crime and drug use. The Guardian this week published a report on his campaign at the time to bring back the death penalty in New York so the Central Park Five could be executed.

The teens were convicted, based on flimsy evidence and confessions they said were coerced. The convictions were vacated years later when the real rapist admitted attacking the jogger and his DNA was matched to the crime. The city paid millions to the teens to settle their lawsuits. 

Trump, however, has continued to call large swaths of innocent people killers, rapists and criminals. [...]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Race baiting 101: Strike when emotions are at their peak for maximum impact and memory.  It's a fallacy to think she is really concerned about justice or the truth.

And just imagine if the colors were reversed here and it was Trump who blindly believed the white group.  How would that have worked out for him?  How would the press have handled it?
So, here's Hillary's quote from the article posted:

Hillary Clinton tweeted about it, writing: "There's no excuse for racism and violence on a college campus."
I'm having trouble finding the race baiting in that one.

 
Good attempt at spin, but I wasn't making your point. Hillary's rather generic tweet about racism and violence is not in the same league as Trumps full page newspapers ads attacking the black teens:
She talked about it at her campaign speeches while also talking about Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Walter Scott.  How would you feel if you were one of the innocent white men who were wrongfully accused?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
suggested? no...you're flat out saying it with this comparison nonsense between these two boobs.
I am not the one that brought up or made the comparison between Hillary and Trump.

I was specifically responding to Higgs post asking what the press reaction would be if Trump publically came out against alleged black violence against someone white and turned out to be wrong. The Central Park Five case (which obviously was forgotten by him and his ilk) came to mind so I provide a link.

 
She talked about it at her campaign speeches while also talking about Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Walter Scott.  How would you feel if you were one of the innocent white men who were wrongfully accused?
Walter Scott was shot in the back five times while running away after a routine traffic stop for a broken taillight (with the incident captured on video). The police officer who did it was indicted by a grand jury for murder and is awaiting trail. Innocent white man who was wrongfully accused?  :lol:

 
Walter Scott was shot in the back five times while running away after a routine traffic stop for a broken taillight (with the incident captured on video). The police officer who did it was indicted by a grand jury for murder and is awaiting trail. Innocent white man who was wrongfully accused?  :lol:
:doh:   I meant white men as in the guys on the bus. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
2 hours ago, Higgs said:

Why is Hillary such a racist?  :lmao:

Lots of people would naturally struggle when confronted with somebody who is obviously hostile, but Hillary struggles more than most.  The combination of "Well why don't you run for something then?" and her trademark cackle at the end makes for either really painful or really hilarious viewing depending on your perspective.

 
Lots of people would naturally struggle when confronted with somebody who is obviously hostile, but Hillary struggles more than most.  The combination of "Well why don't you run for something then?" and her trademark cackle at the end makes for either really painful or really hilarious viewing depending on your perspective.
And then she'll give you that phony smile while she's fantasizing about cutting your heart out with a knife.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top