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 (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Henry Ford said:
So, now that the candidates have been chosen and they have their VPs, can we talk about polling numbers?  Or should we wait until election day?
Click to expand...
Serious answer, for apples to apples, let the data variability from the conventions shake out, so say 1 week or so after both conventions end. Get the data point movement associated with those overwith, and then track from that point on. Donald should wipe the slate clean and start looking then, not before. Consider it 50/50 everywhere until mid-August, and just go for it until then.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
HC: "How's our team behind?!? Why are we losing games? We look awesome on paper, our schedule is super easy. We should be on our way to 15-1."

OC: "Do you think you may have started the wrong quarterback? I mean he's got a lot of starts under his belt but he does have this reputation for throwing more picks than TDs, blowing leads, making dumb decisions....we could have started the journeyman from Vermont, we could have brought in free agents..."

Hc: "Naaaaahhhhh...."
Click to expand...
Who is the head coach in this analogy? 

 
TobiasFunke said:
They're always informative and worth discussing.  I'm not sure what you mean by "reasonably valid," though.  If you're asking when polling averages would be more useful in terms of predicting the outcome, I'd say they will be much more valuable in two weeks (after any post-convention bump Clinton gets has dissipated) than they have been at any point to date.  From there they'll get a little more predictive and useful as we go.

That doesn't mean the current polls are useless, though. IMO they show two important things: (1) the race actually was tightening prior to the RNC, that wasn't just a temporary post-Comey statement downgrade for Clinton; and more importantly (2) the idea that the chaos of the first three days of the RNC would hurt Trump was wrong so far, he basically held serve and got the bounce you'd expect from a convention. Now it's up to Clinton and the DNC to do the same. I guess the good news for them is that if the RNC is any indication they can #### it up quite a bit and still get the job done with a couple good speeches. 
Click to expand...
That's all I'm looking for, here. 

I've been saying for months that Trump is gaining serious ground Clinton in a way he never really was on Bernie.  That Clinton was going to have a very tough fight on her hands for the Presidency.  That Trump can beat Clinton.  And I have been repeatedly told that the polls that back my position up are meaningless.  Just waiting for reality to sink in.

 
Morning Joe it was said Trump is leading by 37 points with uneducated white voters, I assume that means no college degree. 

Trump +37 HS equiv or less among Caucasians...I'm more interested in what it means. 

 
Henry Ford said:
That's all I'm looking for, here. 

I've been saying for months that Trump is gaining serious ground Clinton in a way he never really was on Bernie.  That Clinton was going to have a very tough fight on her hands for the Presidency.  That Trump can beat Clinton.  And I have been repeatedly told that the polls that back my position up are meaningless.  Just waiting for reality to sink in.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of this, and I think this reality has sunk in for most people at this point.  I think Clinton will have a slight lead again next week, and I'd still favor her to win based on how I think Trump will perform in the debates and the ground game in the fall. But he's got a real chance to win, and that should scare everyone.

Only thing I disagree with is the Sanders comparison.  Sanders is the only serious presidential candidate I can remember that was never truly subjected to negative campaigning, because Clinton initially didn't consider him a threat and then later had to worry about courting him and his supporters. 

I'm sure the polls would show Sanders up a bunch on Trump right now, but I'm also sure they'd paint a much different picture if he and the RNC had spent the last few months dragging him through the mud on his socialism and the VA scandal and whatever other lies and half-truths they could peddle. Not to mention all the moderate left-leaning female voters who were bitter about Obama in 2008 who would be apoplectic if Sanders had gotten the nomination in 2016. I think he'd still be outperforming Clinton, but I'm not convinced it would be by a huge margin.

 
Henry Ford said:
That's all I'm looking for, here. 

I've been saying for months that Trump is gaining serious ground Clinton in a way he never really was on Bernie.  That Clinton was going to have a very tough fight on her hands for the Presidency.  That Trump can beat Clinton.  And I have been repeatedly told that the polls that back my position up are meaningless.  Just waiting for reality to sink in.
Click to expand...
He's way ahead in certain demographics, and in certain states. Particularly. the white male demo is still huge in this country, and that's a group that has a lot of beef with the way they feel in society today. Trump is reaching that demo. They will bring their wives along at the poll. If he even makes a dent into higher educated demos, he could definitely win.

 
timschochet said:
I guess there's no point in responding to Cobalt anymore now that he's put me on ignore. I did try to reach out to him last week but oh well. 

I reject the claim that I'm intellectually dishonest. I reject the claim that I believe the end justifies the means. Both of these claims carry with them an assumption of Hillary Clinton's guilt which I have never accepted. 
Click to expand...
Well you are about the only one.  Even her voters know she is filthy.  I am voting Libertarian for the first time as I just can`t vote for Clinton or Trump. 

 
How is the wall working out in Philly?  Keeping people out, I hope?  

Ironic how some democrats complain about treatment of protesters at the RNC, but then they go ahead an erect a wall to keep them out of the DNC.  

 
Gustavo Fring said:
How is the wall working out in Philly?  Keeping people out, I hope?  

Ironic how some democrats complain about treatment of protesters at the RNC, but then they go ahead an erect a wall to keep them out of the DNC.  
Click to expand...
What is really weird is that the DEMs got Mexico to pay for the wall around the convention.

 
Gustavo Fring said:
How is the wall working out in Philly?  Keeping people out, I hope?  

Ironic how some democrats complain about treatment of protesters at the RNC, but then they go ahead an erect a wall to keep them out of the DNC.  
Click to expand...
That can't be right.  That party is about building bridges, not walls.  

 
Gustavo Fring said:
How is the wall working out in Philly?  Keeping people out, I hope?  

Ironic how some democrats complain about treatment of protesters at the RNC, but then they go ahead an erect a wall to keep them out of the DNC.  
Click to expand...
1. To the extent anyone complained about treatment of protesters at the RNC (I heard next to nothing) it definitely wasn't coming from the same people who "erected a wall to keep them out of the DNC."

2.  Even if they had it would be hypocrisy, not irony.

Other than that, nailed it!

 
timschochet said:
I guess there's no point in responding to Cobalt anymore now that he's put me on ignore. I did try to reach out to him last week but oh well. 

I reject the claim that I'm intellectually dishonest. I reject the claim that I believe the end justifies the means. Both of these claims carry with them an assumption of Hillary Clinton's guilt which I have never accepted. 
Click to expand...
So you just "reject" any idea with which you don't agree or which doesn't serve your narrative. Tell us something we didn't know Tim.

 
timschochet said:
I guess there's no point in responding to Cobalt anymore now that he's put me on ignore. I did try to reach out to him last week but oh well. 

I reject the claim that I'm intellectually dishonest. I reject the claim that I believe the end justifies the means. Both of these claims carry with them an assumption of Hillary Clinton's guilt which I have never accepted. 
Click to expand...
What do you define as "guilt".

Hillary isn't guilty of criminal activity. But she's guilty of a lot of things a lot of people feel is crappy. You don't have to be a convicted criminal to be a bad person. 

 
cobalt_27 said:
I agree with TF on this.  I'd even go so far as to say that within a week of the Convention closing is still premature, as they'd probably reflect an artificial bump in her favor.  I think once we get past the first week of August to establish a good baseline.  
Click to expand...
Pollster types on the TV say it takes about 2 weeks for the convention effects to settle in and numbers to get pretty solid.  And the national polls don't mean a lot - just have to pay attention to FL, CO, MI, OH, PA, and perhaps another couple rust belt states.

 
timschochet said:
Rich Conway said:
Your "end justifies the means" worldview is present in every political discussion, no matter the topic, not just the Clinton ones.  Obamacare and immigration are two easy ones, neither of which has anything to do with Clinton.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that's so in either case, but this is not the correct thread to discuss it. 
Click to expand...
Yet you've argued it in this very thread several times.  What a joke.

 
Sand said:
Pollster types on the TV say it takes about 2 weeks for the convention effects to settle in and numbers to get pretty solid.  And the national polls don't mean a lot - just have to pay attention to FL, CO, MI, OH, PA, and perhaps another couple rust belt states.
Click to expand...
Might as well put my flag in the ground on this one now: I just went through the 270towin.com "toss up" map and assigned all those states to one of the candidates with a lean towards Trump based on current polling.  I gave Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Colorado to Clinton based on their demographics and history, and the rest (NH, OH, NC, FL, IA, NV) I gave to Trump.  The result was a tie. 

Does this result seem like a real possibility to anyone else?  Clinton has a clear edge in those four states IMO, and the rest could easily break for Trump if Clinton doesn't get back to her steady 4-5 point lead after the conventions.

That would be total chaos in a normal year- I can't even imagine it with a Trump presidency on the line.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
I agree with most of this, and I think this reality has sunk in for most people at this point.  I think Clinton will have a slight lead again next week, and I'd still favor her to win based on how I think Trump will perform in the debates and the ground game in the fall. But he's got a real chance to win, and that should scare everyone.

Only thing I disagree with is the Sanders comparison.  Sanders is the only serious presidential candidate I can remember that was never truly subjected to negative campaigning, because Clinton initially didn't consider him a threat and then later had to worry about courting him and his supporters. 

I'm sure the polls would show Sanders up a bunch on Trump right now, but I'm also sure they'd paint a much different picture if he and the RNC had spent the last few months dragging him through the mud on his socialism and the VA scandal and whatever other lies and half-truths they could peddle. Not to mention all the moderate left-leaning female voters who were bitter about Obama in 2008 who would be apoplectic if Sanders had gotten the nomination in 2016. I think he'd still be outperforming Clinton, but I'm not convinced it would be by a huge margin.
Click to expand...
Okay.

 
Pollster types on the TV say it takes about 2 weeks for the convention effects to settle in and numbers to get pretty solid. And the national polls don't mean a lot - just have to pay attention to FL, CO, MI, OH, PA, and perhaps another couple rust belt states.
Click to expand...
None of the swing states have had a poll since the Republican convention ended, so we really don't know yet if Trump's bounce will have a real effect on his chances.

 
Politician Spock said:
What do you define as "guilt".

Hillary isn't guilty of criminal activity. But she's guilty of a lot of things a lot of people feel is crappy. You don't have to be a convicted criminal to be a bad person. 
Click to expand...
That's true. 

I have been quite critical of Hillary in this thread. I believe that she has done and said certain things that could make a reasonable person decide not to vote for her. But- I don't believe she is guilty of anything that would disqualify her from the Presidency as some have claimed. 

Personally I am supporting Hillary Clinton first to defeat Donald Trump, and second because I find her moderate pro-business type of Democrat to be appealing. 

 
Henry Ford said:
Okay.
Click to expand...
Did you read through those examples of negative campaigning?  O'Malley PAC ads?  One aimed at him and Clinton for appearing on SNL? GOP ads that target him by comparing him to Clinton?  Mike Huckabee singing an Adele parody aimed at him?  If all the "negative campaigning" listed there happened to Clinton or Trump or any other recent nominee in a single week they'd probably consider it a pretty low-impact week.

You and I both know what I meant by "truly subjected to negative campaigning."  Relatively speaking, it's been a total love-in. Some of that is because he's a likable guy and there's less material to work with, I suppose, but I can come up with several hits on him we never saw without doing any opposition research.

 
This convention will be interesting...I never thought a "smooth and unified" convention would help Trump...he is seen as an outsider and the fact a few feathers were ruffled was probably good for him...many voting for him like that he is upsetting the status quo...Hillary on the other-hand needs a smooth convention...she was handpicked by the party and this should be a home-game for her...there is nothing about a funky convention that helps her...the fact that the issue popping up right now involves both a rigged system and emails could not be worst news for her...that falls right into her weak spot and they are areas that don't help her at all if they are being discussed...

 
Slapdash said:
Yet you've argued it in this very thread several times.  What a joke.
Click to expand...
That's true, I have. Because people keep bringing it up and I've chosen to defend myself. Then when I do I get accused of trying to make the discussion all about me. So it's a no win situation. Better simply for me to ignore it and move on. 

 
timschochet said:
Rich Conway said:
Your "end justifies the means" worldview is present in every political discussion, no matter the topic, not just the Clinton ones.  Obamacare and immigration are two easy ones, neither of which has anything to do with Clinton.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that's so in either case, but this is not the correct thread to discuss it. 
Click to expand...
What sort of impression do you believe you leave when you say things along the lines of "it doesn't matter what she does, I am voting for her because TRUMP!" ?  Because to the average person that is the epitome of "end justifies the means"...HTH.

 
timschochet said:
That's true, I have. Because people keep bringing it up and I've chosen to defend myself. Then when I do I get accused of trying to make the discussion all about me. So it's a no win situation. Better simply for me to ignore it and move on. 
Click to expand...
Fair enough man.  I just mentally consider this "Tim's Thread About Hillary" anyways...so it is all included :)  

 
Pew Research has been polling on the 2016 campaign for months, allowing it to track attitudes among voters over time. Nearly half of the Democratic electorate, 44 percent, changed their preference over the course of the three surveys Pew conducted. About 3 in 10 supported Clinton, wire-to-wire; about 20 percent, Sanders.

Pew asked those consistent Sanders supporters who they support in the general election. Ninety percent said they back Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Did you read through those examples of negative campaigning?  O'Malley PAC ads?  One aimed at him and Clinton for appearing on SNL? GOP ads that target him by comparing him to Clinton?  Mike Huckabee singing an Adele parody aimed at him?  If all the "negative campaigning" listed there happened to Clinton or Trump or any other recent nominee in a single week they'd probably consider it a pretty low-impact week.

You and I both know what I meant by "truly subjected to negative campaigning."  Relatively speaking, it's been a total love-in. Some of that is because he's a likable guy and there's less material to work with, I suppose, but I can come up with several hits on him we never saw without doing any opposition research.
Click to expand...
Did you?  I notice that you didn't mention any of the gun control issues, which were a primary source of the attacks on Sanders during the primary.  The one titled "Bernie Sanders' Sandy Hook Shame" for instance. Or Correct the Record's "Bernie Sanders and the Gun Lobby." 

One of the reasons the heavier negative campaigning doesn't happen against Sanders is what you noted above - he's a likable guy.  Every time he's come up against negative ads in his career, he's demolished the attacker as a result.  Even when Clinton or her supporters did it this time, it usually gave him a bump.

But yes, I agree that there were no significant attacks on him as a socialist.  

 
I'm going to say some people `round here are more than a little surprised at the continuing impact of the DNC hack and the emails imbroglios. Heck I'm a little surprised myself.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I'm going to say some people `round here are more than a little surprised at the continuing impact of the DNC hack and the emails imbroglios. Heck I'm a little surprised myself.
Click to expand...
Sure but it's only been a couple of days. DWS has resigned and won't be speaking at the convention. Tonight we get Bernie, Liz Warren and Michelle Obama. My hunch is that we won't be talking about this tomorrow. 

 
timschochet said:
Sure but it's only been a couple of days. DWS has resigned and won't be speaking at the convention. Tonight we get Bernie, Liz Warren and Michelle Obama. My hunch is that we won't be talking about this tomorrow. 
Click to expand...
Most people aren't going to watch tonight, let alone the rest of the week... unless it's turned into Dancing With the Stars. 

 
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
252K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top