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.
Another thing to keep in mind is that campaigns do their own polling.  It's often true that campaigns know about trends before the public does.  Hillary's decisions about where to spend resources is likely informed by that internal polling.  

 
pantagrapher said:
You'd think the concern trolls who were handwringing about general election polls in May would be in here expressing their profound relief.
Click to expand...
I am relieved, actually.  Hillary is a terrible candidate and will be a poor president, but she's terrible and corrupt within the standard margin of error.  Trump is more like 3 or 4 standard deviations away from the mean.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I think an even better comparison is Bernie v. Hillary.  Bernie's events were drawing ten times as many people as Hillary's were, yet she ended up with substantially more votes.
Click to expand...
Yep, I agree. I think people got the really wrong impression from Obama's big crowds in 08. - He didn't win like that because of his big crowds and ability to draw, aside from key fundamentals like the stock market crash and Palin, the big factor was his campaign's incredible ground team and data analysis. Trump has neither the real life context or the data and ground teams, hell he eschews those things. He will be walloped like nobody's business. We're talking Alf Landon territory here.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I am relieved, actually.  Hillary is a terrible candidate and will be a poor president, but she's terrible and corrupt within the standard margin of error.  Trump is more like 3 or 4 standard deviations away from the mean.
Click to expand...
The devil we know vs the devil that could literally start a nuclear war over being insulted by a foreign leader

 
timschochet said:
Too much time left. It's great that Trump seems to be fading but there's too much time. 
Click to expand...
Time for what? Hillary has already withstood the email and corruption stuff. Easily too. Unless Julian Assange has a Hillary / Bin Laden sextape up his sleeve, this is over. Hillary is too smart and well prepared to just blow it, and Trump is too crazy and stupid to do anything other than just keep blowing it. The Republicans managing to get rid of Trump is the only real game changer that I can see as even remotely realistic, but then it won't be as big a deal if they manage to win either.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I am relieved, actually.  Hillary is a terrible candidate and will be a poor president, but she's terrible and corrupt within the standard margin of error.  Trump is more like 3 or 4 standard deviations away from the mean.
Click to expand...
I understand you're ideologically obligated to throw some anti-Hillary invective in there, but it's still good to have you on our side.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I am relieved, actually.  Hillary is a terrible candidate and will be a poor president, but she's terrible and corrupt within the standard margin of error.  Trump is more like 3 or 4 standard deviations away from the mean.
Click to expand...
I think a lot of conservatives who really dislike Hillary feel exactly this way. 

 
Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 41m41 minutes ago

Clinton's winning by around 8% today. But our models suspect that'll fade to more like 4-6% by Election Day.

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 39m39 minutes ago


But just for fun here's what an 8% Clinton lead looks like:

- Narrowly favored in GA, AZ

- UT, TX, SC competitive

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 37m37 minutes ago


Again, good chance this is a high-water mark for Clinton. Although Georgia's looking like a real problem for Trump.


 
squistion said:
Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 41m41 minutes ago

Clinton's winning by around 8% today. But our models suspect that'll fade to more like 4-6% by Election Day.

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 39m39 minutes ago


But just for fun here's what an 8% Clinton lead looks like:

- Narrowly favored in GA, AZ

- UT, TX, SC competitive

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 37m37 minutes ago


Again, good chance this is a high-water mark for Clinton. Although Georgia's looking like a real problem for Trump.
Click to expand...
Personally, I wonder how relevant the historical models that Silver uses are in this particular election. After all, they're based on normal political candidates, and on normal mistakes and miscalculations, like, say, Romney's 47 % gaffe. But Romney was a serious and competent guy who distanced himself and moved on immediately. What we are looking at now is a guy who literally makes a fool of himself every single time he opens his mouth. If Trump were capable of just being normal, then yeah, the effects of the last week or so would fade. But he's not -- he just keeps stepping in a new dog turd every single time he moves his foot. He can't help himself; this is just who he is. It's not going to change at this point, and he's clearly not going to let his campaign staff muzzle him either.

 
I think the Polls-Plus model is right to be skeptical of big leads in early August.  The same lead at Labor Day will move even the Polls-Plus model in a much more optimistic direction.  Once we start asking our data journalism to account for unique things that the data has never encountered before, it ceases to be data journalism. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I'm not a campaign strategist but it seems to me that it isn't a bad strategy for a better-financed candidate that is leading in the polls to try to expand the number of contested states.  If Hillary throws some money at Arizona and Georgia, that could force Trump to either spend money there too or to let her ads go unanswered.

I don't think Hillary wants to just win in a squeaker.  She wants to crush Trump, flip the Senate, pick up a bunch of House seats for Democrats, and claim to have a mandate for her policies.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's a smart strategy in the way that you lessen the tipping point impact of those states. The downside is not building a strong enough lead first where it counts.

The governing mandate discussion better wait until after Election Day. She needs to keep focused because her favorables don't warrant it yet. 

 
badmojo1006 said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
badmojo1006 said:
When some wanted to delay the raid on Bin Laden one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, Clinton replied "Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner"

Hillary take no prisoners
Click to expand...


WTF?

Who the hell was this?
Click to expand...
Micheal Morrell - Served as acting director of the CIA twice, served at the time Bin Laden was killed
Click to expand...
I think Saints is asking who wanted to delay the raid.  Morrell leaves "some" unnamed.  Gotta say, I agree with Saints on this one; it's actually a pretty strong accusation that someone wanted to delay the raid due to White House Correspondents Dinner scheduling.  He should name names.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
timschochet said:
Too much time left. It's great that Trump seems to be fading but there's too much time. 
Click to expand...
Time for what? Hillary has already withstood the email and corruption stuff. Easily too. Unless Julian Assange has a Hillary / Bin Laden sextape up his sleeve, this is over. Hillary is too smart and well prepared to just blow it, and Trump is too crazy and stupid to do anything other than just keep blowing it. The Republicans managing to get rid of Trump is the only real game changer that I can see as even remotely realistic, but then it won't be as big a deal if they manage to win either.
Click to expand...
I get the impression Tim isn't comfortable unless he's scared ####less about something.

 
badmojo1006 said:
Clinton sticks to debunked claim that the FBI said she was truthful

I really wish she would come up with a better answer. She is walking a fine line, but stop putting words in Comey's mouth
Click to expand...
Open question whether it's better that she is flat out lying to deceive or delusional.

However really she can't admit anything, it was technically a crime and even after someone is er 'cleared' by the police when they let them go if they realize they did something wrong they don't go around saying 'yeah I did it'. She ought to at least realize she just calls attention to herself when she has a pretty easy walk vs Trump right now. Overall it's dumb but she can't seem to stop.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Open question whether it's better that she is flat out lying to deceive or delusional.

However really she can't admit anything, it was technically a crime and even after someone is er 'cleared' by the police when they let them go if they realize they did something wrong they don't go around saying 'yeah I did it'. She ought to at least realize she just calls attention to herself when she has a pretty easy walk vs Trump right now. Overall it's dumb but she can't seem to stop.
Click to expand...
I think it would be better for her if she just said something like "I accept Director Comey's findings" and leave it at that. Don't draw more attention to it

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Open question whether it's better that she is flat out lying to deceive or delusional.

However really she can't admit anything, it was technically a crime and even after someone is er 'cleared' by the police when they let them go if they realize they did something wrong they don't go around saying 'yeah I did it'. She ought to at least realize she just calls attention to herself when she has a pretty easy walk vs Trump right now. Overall it's dumb but she can't seem to stop.
Click to expand...
Her honesty is the core issue a lot of people have with her.  That's where the spotlight focuses for a lot of people.  What she doesn't realize is this email thing is but one bulb making up the spotlight with many other bulbs.  She doesn't seem to understand there aren't many people on the fence when it comes to opinion of her.  This email thing is the least of her worries, yet she continues to whiff.  It's probably the easiest thing she's done wrong that she could admit to and move on from, yet she can't get out of her own way.

 
Take the Clintons out of the equation.  Is it possible that someone is murdering these people?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/breaking-lead-attorney-dnc-fraud-case-found-dead-1-week-serving-dnc-papers/

I realize and respect that many immediately dismiss it.  At the very least, however, this is indicative of a phenomenon.  Either these things are part of something, or there is in fact a delusional sense so disconnected from reality that it's unconscionable that it's even discussed, let alone shared.  Is there a grain of truth, or is it all complete bunk?  It cannot be both, and (at least for me with admitted bias), it feels like there's a grain of truth.  All of these people don't seem to me to be dying in isolated incidents.  

 
Mr. Ham said:
Take the Clintons out of the equation.  Is it possible that someone is murdering these people?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/breaking-lead-attorney-dnc-fraud-case-found-dead-1-week-serving-dnc-papers/

I realize and respect that many immediately dismiss it.  At the very least, however, this is indicative of a phenomenon.  Either these things are part of something, or there is in fact a delusional sense so disconnected from reality that it's unconscionable that it's even discussed, let alone shared.  Is there a grain of truth, or is it all complete bunk?  It cannot be both, and (at least for me with admitted bias), it feels like there's a grain of truth.  All of these people don't seem to me to be dying in isolated incidents.  
Click to expand...
You are nuts, let's leave it at that and move on.  I know you've read the snopes debunking on this issue so why you still play into it is kind of odd.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
WTF?

Who the hell was this?
Click to expand...
Hillary talked about that in "Hard Choices."  She implied she may have used a four letter word instead of "screw."  She didn't name names there either, but she said some people were concerned how it would look if Obama had to leave in the middle of the dinner.

 
dutch said:
You are nuts, let's leave it at that and move on.  I know you've read the snopes debunking on this issue so why you still play into it is kind of odd.
Click to expand...
The snopes article didn't debunk it.  It responded to the rumor by confirming the guy who served the DNC and Wasserman-Schultz had in fact been found dead.  

 
Last edited:
Mr. Ham said:
Take the Clintons out of the equation.  Is it possible that someone is murdering these people?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/breaking-lead-attorney-dnc-fraud-case-found-dead-1-week-serving-dnc-papers/

I realize and respect that many immediately dismiss it.  At the very least, however, this is indicative of a phenomenon.  Either these things are part of something, or there is in fact a delusional sense so disconnected from reality that it's unconscionable that it's even discussed, let alone shared.  Is there a grain of truth, or is it all complete bunk?  It cannot be both, and (at least for me with admitted bias), it feels like there's a grain of truth.  All of these people don't seem to me to be dying in isolated incidents.  
Click to expand...
Whoa...

 
dutch said:
You are nuts, let's leave it at that and move on.  I know you've read the snopes debunking on this issue so why you still play into it is kind of odd.
Click to expand...
I have been saying that for six months. Mr. Ham is not well, which should be apparent to anyone reading his recent posts.

 
The Commish said:
I get the impression Tim isn't comfortable unless he's scared ####less about something.
Click to expand...
I admit to being a little like that.

But look- if Nate Silver says Hillary now has an 80% chance of winning, that still means Trump has a 20% chance. And 20% is a lot. It's not zero. 

 
timschochet said:
Hillary is giving a press conference right now; pretty impressive. 
Click to expand...
I agree, her explanation of email "lies" to public was very good.  She accepted and reiterated responsibility for using a 2nd server, but also clearly stated why what she has said was and is true in a way that wasn't political dodging. 

 
So guy testifying in a week that dies in a weight lifting accident by dropping a barbell on his trachea...?
Click to expand...
He wasn't "testifying in a week". He was just going to meet with lawyers.

The meeting had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. The meeting was related to his own upcoming trial on corruption charges.

The corruption charges were related to taking bribes for a U.N. development project.

Hillary was not involved with that development.

Ham, I say this in all sincerity: please contact your doctor immediately.

 
squistion said:
I have been saying that for six months. Mr. Ham is not well, which should be apparent to anyone reading his recent posts.
Click to expand...
I just find it interesting that you won't even address the fact that a bunch of people are dying.  And in fairness I got a two week timeout for saying something pretty innocuous to you and no less pointed than a few of your comments to me lately.  

I would completely respect your debunking each case one-by-one and taking a statistical view of these deaths and their probability according to some mean, or even in deconstructing the associations as less pronounced than speculated upon in some of these articles.  

There are other recent deaths not discussed in that last article.  A prominent anti-Clinton researcher and a Kaine aide that reportedly worked alongside Seth Rich (analytics guy who purportedly investigated voter fraud and was murdered on the street, nothing taken) at the DNC and died just a few days ago at 47.  

You don't tend to see these clusters of dead critics, witnesses and staffers with inside knowledge in other pockets of politics...  Or in fact anywhere but dictatorships and organized crime.  At the very least, can you admit these deaths are an anomaly?  Or in your world is it just crazy because it's something that suggests something sordid about your side?  

I'd honestly appreciate a cogent argument about why you think it's nuts and suggests I'm unwell?  

 
Last edited:
Hate that I missed this news conference.  She went back on what she said (as reported in the CBS article this AM that's posted above)?

 
Mr. Ham said:
The discussion I raised is narrow, around the deaths in the last month or so.

https://youtu.be/xb_N02-vh8M
Click to expand...
It's the same approach listed in the article:

  • List every dead person with even the most tenuous of connections to your subject. It doesn't matter how these people died, or how tangential they were to your subject's life. The longer the list, the more impressive it looks and the less likely anyone is to challenge it. By the time readers get to the bottom of the list, they'll be too weary to wonder what could possibly be relevant about the death of people such as Bill Clinton's mother's chiropractor.
  • Play word games. Make sure every death is presented as "mysterious." All accidental deaths are to be labelled "suspicious," even though by definition accidents occur when something unexpected goes wrong. Every self-inflicted death discussed must include the phrase "ruled a suicide" to imply just the opposite. When an autopsy contradicts a "mysterious death" theory, dispute it; when none was performed because none was needed, claim that "no autopsy was allowed." Make liberal use of words such as 'allegedly' and 'supposedly' to dismiss facts you can't support or contradict with hard evidence.
  • Make sure every inconsistency or unexplained detail you can dredge up is offered as evidence of a conspiracy, no matter how insignificant or pointless it may be. If an obvious suicide is discovered wearing only one shoe, ignore the physical evidence of self-inflicted death and dwell on the missing shoe. You don't have to establish an alternate theory of the death; just keep harping that the missing shoe "can't be explained."
  • If the data doesn't fit your conclusion, ignore it. You don't have to explain why the people who claimed to have the most damaging goods on Clinton (e.g., Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky, Kenneth Starr), are still walking around unscathed while dozens of bit players have been bumped off. It's inconvenient for you, so don't mention it.
  • Most important, don't let facts and details stand in your way! If you can pass off a death by pneumonia as a "suicide," do it! If a cause of death contradicts your conspiracy theory, claim it was "never determined." If your chronology of events is impossible, who cares? It's not like anybody is going to check up on this stuff ...
Click to expand...

 
PlasmaDogPlasma said:
It's the same approach listed in the article:
Click to expand...
There was a guy who was set to testify in a week's time in a bribery case that links to the DNC and Clintons.  He died of an apparent weight lifting accident when a barbell crushed his trachea.  A staffer who handled voter analytics was gunned down at 4:19am and his wallet and expensive watch were on.  A former chairman of the DNC died the day before the Wikileaks story broke.  A young guy who served a lawsuit a month ago to the DNC died and was on the bathroom floor. All if these were at a critical juncture in the race, when it was narrowing.

Sure.  Could just be taking every death surrounding the DNC and Clintons and attaching it to a narrative.  The problem is the volume of these deaths lately.  

 
Last edited:
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
264K
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