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.
Gr00vus said:
It's interesting not only for her awkward reactions, it's interesting because it keeps happening. You don't see this with Sanders, for instance. I wonder why that is....
Click to expand...
It's because young people are stupid and believe in lies without doing any of research, obviously. They should be pitied. I feel sorry for them, honestly. 

 
If this thread was indicative of the real world, Hillary would have about a 10% approval rating. And squistion and I would each be about 40% of that...

 
timschochet said:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/
Click to expand...
This the same 538 that was calling Wisconsin for Hillary with 70+% confidence about a week before the state voted? That poll showed Bernie making very slow, mostly insignificant gains...then just days before, BOOM, the expectations flipped. 

Currently Hillary is being predicted to win NY with 90% confidence. That's down three points from just a couple days ago. That's very slow, mostly insignificant progress. It's probably nothing. 

Hillary does have a big advantage though, especially thanks to nonsense like this.

 
Henry Ford said:
Sometimes I just bring up that graph at work and follow Clinton's path from Feb. 1 at 128% and watch it dwindle little by little to the 107% it is today.  
Click to expand...
OK, seriously, I know what you WANT to happen, but do you honestly believe she's going to lose? Because the way it's been explained on every news show I've watched, it seems almost impossible. Steve Kornicki on MSNBC this morning said it would be easier for Bernie to win the lottery. 

 
timschochet said:
If this thread was indicative of the real world, Hillary would have about a 10% approval rating. And squistion and I would each be about 40% of that...
Click to expand...
She has the 2nd highest unfavorable rating of any candidate in modern history. Trump is the highest. I tend to think that Hillary's and Jeb's presence were just gas to the flame of an electorate who were pretty sure with cause perhaps that their candidates were being chosen for them. Hillary would have been doing her country and party a service by not running.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I tend to think that Hillary's and Jeb's presence were just had to the flame of an electorate who were pretty sure with cause perhaps that their candidates were being chosen for them. Hillary would have been doing her country and party a service by not running.
Click to expand...
Nailed my sentiment precisely. Except the candidates were chosen, and she's not about to give up "her turn."

 
timschochet said:
OK, seriously, I know what you WANT to happen, but do you honestly believe she's going to lose? Because the way it's been explained on every news show I've watched, it seems almost impossible. Steve Kornicki on MSNBC this morning said it would be easier for Bernie to win the lottery. 
Click to expand...
I believe it depends on three remaining States.  If they turn the way the last several have, I believe we are looking at a convention decision, and whoever has the majority of delegates should get the nomination.

Whether the delegates will do what they have always done, and what DWS claimed they are supposed to do as recently as this week on the Daily Show remains to be seen 

It is virtually impossible that he will outright win the nomination going into the convention.  But it is nowhere near impossible that he has the majority of the pledged delegates.

PA, NY, CA.  That's where the majority will be decided.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
OK, seriously, I know what you WANT to happen, but do you honestly believe she's going to lose? Because the way it's been explained on every news show I've watched, it seems almost impossible. Steve Kornicki on MSNBC this morning said it would be easier for Bernie to win the lottery. 
Click to expand...
THE Steve Kornicki on MSNBC? Oh, well, in that case you've convinced me.

 
Henry Ford said:
I believe it depends on three remaining States.  If they turn the way the last several have, I believe we are looking at a convention decision, and whoever has the majority of delegates should get the nomination.

Whether the delegates will do what they have always done, and what DWS claimed they are supposed to do as recently as this week on the Daily Show remains to be seen 

It is virtually impossible that he will outright win the nomination going into the convention.  But it is nowhere near impossible that he has the majority of the pledged delegates.

PA, NY, CA.  That's where the majority will be decided.
Click to expand...
True or false: for him to win the majority of pledged delegates, doesn't he have to win all three of those states by pretty big numbers? 

 
timschochet said:
True or false: for him to win the majority of pledged delegates, doesn't he have to win all three of those states by pretty big numbers? 
Click to expand...
He's got to average winning at about a 57% clip. It's been explained to you around 1000 times or so now. Why do you keep asking the same ####### question over and over and over and over again?

 
timschochet said:
True or false: for him to win the majority of pledged delegates, doesn't he have to win all three of those states by pretty big numbers? 
Click to expand...
That's not a true false question.  My answer is "no, he doesn't" so... False?

It would be very helpful if he did, but it isn't necessary.

 
He's 85ish delegates behind the pace he needs right now with 19 States, Guam, and D.C. to go.  That pace assumes that he only wins those three States by a few delegates each. He can pick up the 85 in a number of ways.

 
Gr00vus said:
He's got to average winning at about a 57% clip. It's been explained to you around 1000 times or so now. Why do you keep asking the same ####### question over and over and over and over again?
Click to expand...
Because the way you explain it doesn't match the way they're explaining it on TV. 

Even so, if Bernie ends up with a plurality of pledged delegates I will be hard pressed to continue supporting Hillary Clinton. I don't want her to be the candidate based on super delegates. 

 
timschochet said:
Because the way you explain it doesn't match the way they're explaining it on TV. 

Even so, if Bernie ends up with a plurality of pledged delegates I will be hard pressed to continue supporting Hillary Clinton. I don't want her to be the candidate based on super delegates. 
Click to expand...
So you're only supporting her because other people do? Are you ####### kidding me?

 
timschochet said:
Because the way you explain it doesn't match the way they're explaining it on TV. 

Even so, if Bernie ends up with a plurality of pledged delegates I will be hard pressed to continue supporting Hillary Clinton. I don't want her to be the candidate based on super delegates. 
Click to expand...
It's a two person race.  How the hell does one end up with a plurality?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Thanks, I think that helps Bernie. The primaries aren't all at once. If Bernie wins NY, he could win PA and then he will have a serious running chance at at least half of  CA's delegates.
Click to expand...
As mentioned in the other thread, courtesy of @bananafish, if the poll he posted that had Latinos favoring Sanders at a 63% rate is accurate, CA could be a very bumpy ride for HRC. As of the 2014 census, around 38% of the CA population identifies as Latino. The trick there is, that demographic hasn't been very dependable in terms of voter turn out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gr00vus said:
So you're only supporting her because other people do? Are you ####### kidding me?
Click to expand...
No that's not what I mean. What I mean is that I don't like the Super Delegate system. I've written all along that whoever has the most pledged delegates is the one the Super Delegates should choose. Obviously I hope that Hillary. But if it isn't, and the Super Delegates choose her anyhow, giving her the nomination, I will be very uncomfortable with that. I won't believe it was stolen, because the rules are the rules, but I will be very uncomfortable. I believe the most votes should choose the winner. 

Also, sorry, by plurality I meant to write majority. 

 
timschochet said:
No that's not what I mean. What I mean is that I don't like the Super Delegate system. I've written all along that whoever has the most pledged delegates is the one the Super Delegates should choose. Obviously I hope that Hillary. But if it isn't, and the Super Delegates choose her anyhow, giving her the nomination, I will be very uncomfortable with that. I won't believe it was stolen, because the rules are the rules, but I will be very uncomfortable. I believe the most votes should choose the winner. 

Also, sorry, by plurality I meant to write majority. 
Click to expand...
What will be interesting is if the popular vote goes to one candidate and the delegate majority to the other.

 
squistion said:
:rolleyes:  That wasn't what he was saying.  Like myself, Tim does not want the super delegates to override the will of the voters.
Click to expand...
DWS's recent interview with Trevor Noah indicated that the superdelegates are expected to vote with the delegate majority.  I hope that ends up being the case, either way.

 
timschochet said:
Because the way you explain it doesn't match the way they're explaining it on TV. 

Even so, if Bernie ends up with a plurality of pledged delegates I will be hard pressed to continue supporting Hillary Clinton. I don't want her to be the candidate based on super delegates. 
Click to expand...
That's because on tv they always include superdelegates already purchased by Hillary.

 
Henry Ford said:
DWS's recent interview with Trevor Noah indicated that the superdelegates are expected to vote with the delegate majority.  I hope that ends up being the case, either way.
Click to expand...
That was what happened in 2008. Hillary was the establishment candidate and had a substantial edge is super delegates, but they went with Obama when it was clear he was the voter's clear choice.

 
Gr00vus said:
As mentioned in the other thread, courtesy of @bananafish, if the poll he posted that had Latinos favoring Sanders at a 63% rate is accurate, CA could be a very bumpy ride for HRC. As of the 2014 census, around 38% of the CA population identifies as Latino.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the LA Times doesn't think so:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-politics-trump-sanders-20160403-story.html

Among Latinos making less than $50,000, for example, Clinton won, 55% to 33%.

 
squistion said:
That was what happened in 2008. Hillary was the establishment candidate and had a substantial edge is super delegates, but they went with Obama when it was clear he was the voter's clear choice.
Click to expand...
My concern is that it shouldn't have to be as big as "clear choice." It should be the majority.  But we shall see.

 
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
258K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Back
Top