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 (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hate to burst some of your bubbles, but if Hillary wins easily (as it now looks likely) nobody's going to look back on this election and say she really struggled. The history books will say this:

Hillary announced her candidacy in early 2015, after which she was the overwhelming favorite all throughout the election cycle. She faced surprising competition from her left flank in Bernie Sanders but easily overcame it to secure the nomination. Then in the general election she faced an unusual outsider in Donald Trump, but apart from a short period in late August his populist campaign never really challenged her, and she was elected decisively.

 
timschochet said:
Hate to burst some of your bubbles, but if Hillary wins easily (as it now looks likely) nobody's going to look back on this election and say she really struggled. The history books will say this:

Hillary announced her candidacy in early 2015, after which she was the overwhelming favorite all throughout the election cycle. She faced surprising competition from her left flank in Bernie Sanders but easily overcame it to secure the nomination. Then in the general election she faced an unusual outsider in Donald Trump, but apart from a short period in late August his populist campaign never really challenged her, and she was elected decisively.
Click to expand...


timschochet said:
I'm starting this because we've been having so many discussions about this woman in other threads that really should be more focused on our current President (like the Gruber thread).

Several news sources this morning, including the New York Times, are reporting that sources within the Democratic Party have confirmed that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be announcing her run for the Presidency this coming February.
Click to expand...
- Well before January 2015 Hillary was already known to be running for president. At which point - at Hillary's behest - the Foundation approached the King of Morocco about a $12 million donation.

I really don't know why she struggled against an orange tomato can with a raging narcissism problem and zero political experience. Weird, it's like people were hesitant or something?

 
You can argue that she's incredibly qualified.  Reasonable people might disagree on just how qualified she is to be POTUS.

You can argue that she'll make a good President.  Reasonable people might disagree on just how effective she'll be.

You can argue that she's not especially corrupt (as compared to generic politicians).  Reasonable people might disagree on just how corrupt she is.

But don't argue that she's a good "candidate".  She's a terrible "candidate".  She can't get out of her own way when campaigning.  She stumbles and makes unforced errors at every conceivable opportunity.  Her disdain for average Americans shows through constantly.  Even timschochet has admitted multiple times that she's a terrible campaigner.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
You can argue that she's incredibly qualified.  Reasonable people might disagree on just how qualified she is to be POTUS.

You can argue that she'll make a good President.  Reasonable people might disagree on just how effective she'll be.

But don't argue that she's a good "candidate".  She's a terrible "candidate".  She can't get out of her own way when campaigning.  She stumbles and makes unforced errors at every conceivable opportunity.  Her disdain for average Americans shows through constantly.  Even timschochet has admitted multiple times that she's a terrible campaigner.
Click to expand...
I have. And yet...

Except for a very close race against one of the most remarkable politicians we have ever encountered (Barack Obama), she has won every campaign she has ever engaged in, and not one of these contests has even been that difficult for her. So her record belies this.

 
timschochet said:
I have. And yet...

Except for a very close race against one of the most remarkable politicians we have ever encountered (Barack Obama), she has won every campaign she has ever engaged in, and not one of these contests has even been that difficult for her. So her record belies this.
Click to expand...
Come on dude. Her crowning achievement is beating Trump. I would agree that a decent chunk of what makes her a bad candidate is the result of two decades plus of mostly unfair and ridiculous mudslinging from the right, but she absolutely is mistrusted and disliked, and that makes her weak. And some of the baggage is certainly legit as well.

 
timschochet said:
I have. And yet...

Except for a very close race against one of the most remarkable politicians we have ever encountered (Barack Obama), she has won every campaign she has ever engaged in, and not one of these contests has even been that difficult for her. So her record belies this.
Click to expand...


All this does is confirm that the US public is either uninformed or morons.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
timschochet said:
And you're doing it again. You just wrote "She has taken cash." But she didn't. The Foundation took cash. Her husband took cash for speaking fees. There is no conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
Now:

Baloney Sandwich said:
"This was HRC's idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request. The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting. It will break a lot of china to back out now when we had so many opportunities to do it in the past few months. She created this mess and she knows it."
Click to expand...
- Huma Abedin.
Click to expand...
Instant disqualification, no if's, and's, or but's.  Bring on Tim Kaine.

 
Rich Conway said:
You can argue that she's incredibly qualified.  Reasonable people might disagree on just how qualified she is to be POTUS.

You can argue that she'll make a good President.  Reasonable people might disagree on just how effective she'll be.

You can argue that she's not especially corrupt (as compared to generic politicians).  Reasonable people might disagree on just how corrupt she is.

But don't argue that she's a good "candidate".  She's a terrible "candidate".  She can't get out of her own way when campaigning.  She stumbles and makes unforced errors at every conceivable opportunity.  Her disdain for average Americans shows through constantly.  Even timschochet has admitted multiple times that she's a terrible campaigner.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that per se.  She's relatively bad at speaking at rallies, but she does have a ton of other strengths as a campaigner including:

  • knowing the issues
  • staying on message
  • debating 
  • fundraising
  • learning from mistakes 
  • knowing when to apologize and flip-flop 
She obviously botched the e-mail scandal, but everything else in her control (ie wikileaks hacking isn't) this election has been fairly well done.

 
The ballot needs a third option in addition to Clinton and trump. One called Clinton by Default. That would get more votes than an outright Clinton support vote. 

 
Sammy3469 said:
I don't know about that per se.  She's relatively bad at speaking at rallies, but she does have a ton of other strengths as a campaigner including:

  • knowing the issues the public wants to hear and the issues her donors want
  • staying on message about the children
  • changing the subject in a debate
  • pay to play fundraising
  • learning to delete and destroy mistakes 
  • knowing when to partially apologize and flip-flop 
She obviously botched the e-mail scandal, but everything else in her control (ie wikileaks hacking isn't) this election has been fairly well done.
Click to expand...
Edited for accuracy.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I know this will be a popular narrative assuming she wins, but it's not quite true.  She began pulling away after the first debate, when she played him like a fiddle.

Here's the 538 forecast, you can check their probabilities based on polling on a day by day basis under "how the forecast has changed.  The first debate is marked on the graph. The tape was released October 7- by then she was already within about 5% of where she currently stands.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure this isn't all that high of a bar either.  She began pulling away.  This is true.  Then the gap closed again.  This is also true.  Then Trump did Trump and the rest is history.  Of course this isn't to take anything away from her, but as Tim correctly predicted, this election is all about Trump.  I mocked him for saying it initially, but he was 100% correct.  Who knows how the history books will recall it.  I don't really care honestly.  We all know what's gone down this cycle.  We can either accept it or create a separate narrative.

Reading IK's post in the context of all his posts on this topic, I think it's pretty clear he's not saying that Trump pantsing himself over and over is THE reason Hillary's winning.  It seems like he's saying it's what finally pushed her over the top after going back and forth for a while.  People will be left to their own devices to determine what exactly it meant that these two were so close at any point.

 
timschochet said:
I have. And yet...

Except for a very close race against one of the most remarkable politicians we have ever encountered (Barack Obama), she has won every campaign she has ever engaged in, and not one of these contests has even been that difficult for her. So her record belies this.
Click to expand...
Of course, Obama and Sanders are the only legitimate opponents she's ever had.  Lazio?  Trump?  It's like being impressed that the Steelers can beat a division 1-AA team.  And Sanders had massive built-in disadvantages.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
Of course, Obama and Sanders are the only legitimate opponents she's ever had.  Lazio?  Trump?  And Sanders had massive built-in disadvantages.
Click to expand...
Lazio at least polled legitimately when he entered the race.  It wasn't until she beat him in a debate that she stretched out a lead.

 
Sammy3469 said:
Lazio at least polled legitimately when he entered the race.  It wasn't until she beat him in a debate that she stretched out a lead.
Click to expand...
It was New York, where Democrats have a huge advantage. Lazio was nothing special. Hell, he was a last minute "substitute" when Guliani bailed.

 
Rich Conway said:
It was New York, where Democrats have a huge advantage. Lazio was nothing special. Hell, he was a last minute "substitute" when Guliani bailed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but she was also seen as a reverse carpetbagger who helicoptered in for an easy Senate win.  Did she have an advantage, sure, but she still had to make the sale.  

 
The Commish said:
I'm pretty sure this isn't all that high of a bar either.  She began pulling away.  This is true.  Then the gap closed again.  This is also true.  Then Trump did Trump and the rest is history.  Of course this isn't to take anything away from her, but as Tim correctly predicted, this election is all about Trump.  I mocked him for saying it initially, but he was 100% correct.  Who knows how the history books will recall it.  I don't really care honestly.  We all know what's gone down this cycle.  We can either accept it or create a separate narrative.

Reading IK's post in the context of all his posts on this topic, I think it's pretty clear he's not saying that Trump pantsing himself over and over is THE reason Hillary's winning.  It seems like he's saying it's what finally pushed her over the top after going back and forth for a while.  People will be left to their own devices to determine what exactly it meant that these two were so close at any point.
Click to expand...
It meant they started running to the other side when they got a wif of her stench.... but then eventually realized trump reeks even worse. 

 
Sammy3469 said:
Yeah, but she was also seen as a reverse carpetbagger who helicoptered in for an easy Senate win.  Did she have an advantage, sure, but she still had to make the sale.  
Click to expand...
And many resent her for it, to this day.

Would still vote for her a million times over Trump though.  Unfortunately, I can only get up to about 8 or 9 before it gets suspicious.  

:coffee:   I kid, I kid.   Because I'm using those 8 or 9 votes for the Lib ticket.

 
Just one on facebook another post, this time from a high school friend, a woman, who is going on one of them busses I talked about. Get out the vote in Ohio.   While her data may not be quite as good as Obama, I've never seen a ground game like this... fwiw, these are all upper middle class (or higher) white chicks, but they are passionate about this candidate unlike I've seen before.

 
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
I will concede from this that we probably have a much different definition of the word enjoy.
Click to expand...
Enjoyance is what you do when you have to put up with something really difficult for a long period of time.  Relentless.  Unyielding.  Like a long distance enjoyance race.

 
Last edited:
@urbanhack

Hey you...what gives? Really, you're calling card is calling people Kentucky Trailer Trash? I thought you were far above that my friend. I'm sorry you feel that kind of abuse is within bounds and fair game? Have I ever called you any names when we disagree big time on a lot of issues? Can you give the same courtesy to others? I sure wouldn't expect you to call me that same thing and truth is I doubt you would but I would like to see some folks have enough self assurance that they needn't stoop to the name calling, very unbecoming.

You might not like many of the Trumpers and I understand but it's not an excuse to become the very thing you seem to be against. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
NCCommish said:
Such a good candidate she couldnt put away a lunatic. She is the least liked Democrat to run for president and her voters are not very enthusiastic.
Click to expand...
Let's be fair.  She was able to put away the lunatic when he started bragging about sexually assaulting women.  We should all marvel at the political skill needed to capitalize on a tiny liability like that.
Click to expand...
Well actually...


Donald Trump didn't just destroy himself. Hillary Clinton destroyed him.


Updated by Ezra Klein Oct 19, 2016, 11:58p
:

:

It is easy, now, to assume her victory was assured, to read Trump’s collapse as inevitable. But remember that he triumphed over a talented, 17-person Republican field in debate after debate to win the primary — one-on-one contests are unique, it’s true, but there was no particular reason to think Trump couldn’t use his bullying, blustering showmanship to take over the stage and expose Clinton as inauthentic and out of touch. The reason he didn’t is because she never let him.

We aren’t used to this kind of victory. We aren’t used to candidates winning not so much because of how they performed but because of how they pushed their opponent into performing. But the fact that we aren’t used to this kind of victory doesn’t make it any less impressive. Hillary Clinton has humbled Donald Trump, and she did it her way.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Well actually...


Donald Trump didn't just destroy himself. Hillary Clinton destroyed him.


Updated by Ezra Klein Oct 19, 2016, 11:58p
:

:

It is easy, now, to assume her victory was assured, to read Trump’s collapse as inevitable. But remember that he triumphed over a talented, 17-person Republican field in debate after debate to win the primary — one-on-one contests are unique, it’s true, but there was no particular reason to think Trump couldn’t use his bullying, blustering showmanship to take over the stage and expose Clinton as inauthentic and out of touch. The reason he didn’t is because she never let him.

We aren’t used to this kind of victory. We aren’t used to candidates winning not so much because of how they performed but because of how they pushed their opponent into performing. But the fact that we aren’t used to this kind of victory doesn’t make it any less impressive. Hillary Clinton has humbled Donald Trump, and she did it her way.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is stupid.  Trump has been terrible from the get-go and has gotten only more terrible as we've gotten deeper into the campaign.  If Ezra Klein didn't see a Trump collapse as at least a little bit inevitable, he should resign from political punditry and take up quilting or something.

Edit: You can go back through this thread and find that a lot of us, me included, thought that Hillary's victory was in fact more or less assured when Trump locked up the nomination.  This isn't an issue of hindsight being 20-20.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Keep the faith!
Click to expand...
Seriously. Pretty much everyone pointed out that the debate style.that got Trump through the primaries would never work one on one.

 I still believe if the GOP had a lick of sense and ran someone like Kasich who is smart and sane Hillary would be losing. She got just what they hoped for and desperately needed. Bernie would be up by double digits and this would have been over a long time ago. But then people actually like and trust him.

 
Arizona is turning for Hillary now.  Its too early to guess a electoral count but 351 electoral votes for Clinton is within range.

 
Politician Spock said:
May I say that I have not thoroughly enjoyed serving with humans political parties? I find their illogic and foolish emotions a constant irritant.
Click to expand...
Fits

The classic Hollywood example of rationality is the Vulcans from Star Trek. They are depicted as an ultra-rational race that has eschewed all emotion from their lives.

But is this truly rational? What is rationality?

A “Straw Vulcan”—an idea originally defined on TV Tropes—is a straw man used to show that emotion is better than logic. Traditionally, you have your ‘rational’ character who thinks perfectly ‘logically’, but then ends up running into trouble, having problems, or failing to achieve what they were trying to achieve.

These characters have a sort of fake rationality. They don’t fail because rationality failed, but because they aren’t actually being rational. Straw Vulcan rationality is not the same thing as actual rationality.

"

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Fits

The classic Hollywood example of rationality is the Vulcans from Star Trek. They are depicted as an ultra-rational race that has eschewed all emotion from their lives.

But is this truly rational? What is rationality?

A “Straw Vulcan”—an idea originally defined on TV Tropes—is a straw man used to show that emotion is better than logic. Traditionally, you have your ‘rational’ character who thinks perfectly ‘logically’, but then ends up running into trouble, having problems, or failing to achieve what they were trying to achieve.

These characters have a sort of fake rationality. They don’t fail because rationality failed, but because they aren’t actually being rational. Straw Vulcan rationality is not the same thing as actual rationality.

"
Click to expand...
Whodidwhatinthewherenow?

 
NCCommish said:
Seriously. Pretty much everyone pointed out that the debate style.that got Trump through the primaries would never work one on one.

 I still believe if the GOP had a lick of sense and ran someone like Kasich who is smart and sane Hillary would be losing. She got just what they hoped for and desperately needed. Bernie would be up by double digits and this would have been over a long time ago. But then people actually like and trust him.
Click to expand...
Seriously, this is faith based.  It is not grounded in reality.     There is not much difference between "Hillary is only winning because her opponent must be weak" than "Trump is only behind because the contest is rigged".   But of course everyone else is delusional.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Seriously, this is faith based.  It is not grounded in reality.     There is not much difference between "Hillary is only winning because her opponent must be weak" than "Trump is only behind because the contest is rigged".   But of course everyone else is delusional.
Click to expand...
Her opponent is weak. His campaign is pretty much incompetent. It's like running against a mentally challenged toddler. Seriously.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Seriously, this is faith based.  It is not grounded in reality.     There is not much difference between "Hillary is only winning because her opponent must be weak" than "Trump is only behind because the contest is rigged".   But of course everyone else is delusional.
Click to expand...
It's not faith-based.  Candidates with as low of favorability ratings as Hillary has simply don't win general elections.  Unless, of course, they get matched against the most vile human being on planet earth who, incidentally, has even worse ratings that only recently started cratering even more, coinciding with sexual assault comments and allegations.  To think Hillary is moving traffic here is what's faith-based and treading on delusional.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It must be nice to be consistently confident all the way through. I certainly wasn't. I'm not 100% confident even now (though lets say I'm about 95% sure, which is pretty good.)

But back in late August and early September I really thought Trump had a decent shot to win this thing. That's when 538 had him had him at 49%, and he was gaining each day. A lot of experts at the time were predicting a Trump victory, particularly after Hillary collapsed on September 11. I hoped that Trump would destroy himself in the debates. But I didn't know. I don't think anyone knew, despite how much they pretend to now.

Hillary laid a trap during the first debate. Trump fell for it. His 3 am tweeting about Alicia Machado began his sinking in the polls. You can minimize her role in this if you like and argue that his defeat was inevitable all along, and perhaps its true. But I don't know. And I'm glad Hillary laid that trap for him and I give her credit for it. As Rich Conway noted, I've been very critical of her campaigning skills. But maybe she's a lot better than anyone thought.

 
timschochet said:
It must be nice to be consistently confident all the way through. I certainly wasn't. I'm not 100% confident even now (though lets say I'm about 95% sure, which is pretty good.)

But back in late August and early September I really thought Trump had a decent shot to win this thing. That's when 538 had him had him at 49%, and he was gaining each day. A lot of experts at the time were predicting a Trump victory, particularly after Hillary collapsed on September 11. I hoped that Trump would destroy himself in the debates. But I didn't know. I don't think anyone knew, despite how much they pretend to now.

Hillary laid a trap during the first debate. Trump fell for it. His 3 am tweeting about Alicia Machado began his sinking in the polls. You can minimize her role in this if you like and argue that his defeat was inevitable all along, and perhaps its true. But I don't know. And I'm glad Hillary laid that trap for him and I give her credit for it. As Rich Conway noted, I've been very critical of her campaigning skills. But maybe she's a lot better than anyone thought.
Click to expand...
You're not going to stop until you think you've convinced everyone here she's good.  

 
NCCommish said:
Seriously. Pretty much everyone pointed out that the debate style.that got Trump through the primaries would never work one on one.

 I still believe if the GOP had a lick of sense and ran someone like Kasich who is smart and sane Hillary would be losing. She got just what they hoped for and desperately needed. Bernie would be up by double digits and this would have been over a long time ago. But then people actually like and trust him.
Click to expand...
The posts that make me the most frustrated and grumbly and downright irritable are the proposterous notion that a GOP candidate in single digits would be thumping HRC...you talk about a wet dream, hard to find a better example IMHO...and I only caption this because I respect NCC and he can defend himself if he truly feels it, certainly nothing personal. 

I can handle those who say anyone but Trump, no problem...but please you are lying to yourself and others if you think any of the 16 panzie ### ######s that Trump tore in two would be able to actually defeat HRC, just fairy tales. None of the Trumpers would vote for those candidates. Be honest, HRC is more conservative than liberal and you found a soft spot to land. 

It's just such a lie and one of the biggest because it's a simple taste great less filling debates but if you were to open that discussion up to objective people I doubt many would be John Kasich lovers...it's a farce. He lost and it wasn't close, deal with it and stop these shenanigans. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramblin Wreck said:
You're not going to stop until you think you've convinced everyone here she's good.  
Click to expand...
But not you, right? :)

Ramblin Wreck, that was not an argument post. I was offering some honest thoughts on this election. My views on it, and on Hillary Clinton, have changed (and perhaps will change again.) You're welcome to take issue with what I wrote, and we can have a discussion if you'd like.

 
timschochet said:
As Rich Conway noted, I've been very critical of her campaigning skills. But maybe she's a lot better than anyone thought.
Click to expand...
How is that risky strategic decision of hooking her wagon to Obama looking right now?

Oh, sure it was inevitable back then that Obama's polling numbers were going through the roof and that the economy wasn't going to collapse.

 
I have a question for conservatives who agree with Donald Trump about illegal immigration (you needn't agree with his specifics on the issue, but let's say you agree with his views in general):

Suppose Hillary as promised pushes an immigration reform bill, with a path to citizenship for illegals, during her first 100 days. Suppose further that the Republican establishment leaders in Congress led by Paul Ryan, seeking to end Latino opposition to the GOP, go along with it, and the bill is passed by a bipartisan group: all Democrats and the Republican leadership. Illegal immigrants are given legal recognition and a form of eventual amnesty.

What happens next? Does the Republican base swallow it? Will they try to "priimary" every Republican that voted for it, and will they be successful? Will the Tea Party Republicans split off from the GOP and form their own party? I'm curious what your thoughts are because I think this confrontation is very possible.

 
NCCommish said:
Such a good candidate she couldnt put away a lunatic. She is the least liked Democrat to run for president and her voters are not very enthusiastic.
Click to expand...
LOL.  She's winning a landslide when just months ago you were saying that Dems needed Bernie b/c Trump could beat her.

Why not just be honest and admit that 40% of the country would vote for Earl Bradley if he claimed to be an evangelical who hates brown people.

 
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
262K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top