Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
You know, sometimes I have the distinct impression that you don't like her, Saints.
Sure, but Hillary really is different in her ability to tell people two completely different and mutually exclusive things on two different days. Even most politicians generally have a limit for how far they can push this sort of thing without getting overloaded by cognitive dissonance.
Shes either a terrible politician or a brilliant one. I would go with the former, yet if she wins we may look back at her career and this election cycle of 2016, like no other, and marvel at how she pulled it off.
The campaign is going exactly the way we said it would even in the face of "this time's going to be different". It's exactly going the way she wants it to go. This is what she knows. This isn't her "trying to give it away". That's an excuse which ignores the reality of who she is. No one is forcing her to go this path. This is her best shot at winning. Might be time to sit down and think about what all these realities mean. There's still time Tim...perhaps your initial thoughts about her last election cycle are more true and based in reality than her book (which seems to be the single source that helped you make that 180 degree turn on her).
And what really seems to hurt her is the stark contrast in how she is versus Bernie. When he was confronted with the Democratic Socialist question he owned it and explained why it wasn't a bad thing. Hillary would have tried to distance herself and attack the other side if the same type of question had been given to her.
Commish, it wasn't her book, but Game Change, not written by her. But even if I come to despise Hillary Clinton, I can't see myself walking away from supporting her since she represents the center and I don't want to upend the status quo. If there was another viable centrist choice out there I might reconsider but so far there isn't one.
I could have sworn that you said your opinion of her changed when you read her book...apologies.
To me, it's very similar to the people who think Trump is "conservative". The big difference here is Trump is a relatively new entity so I can see how someone might be bamboozled by him with his dog and pony show. With Hillary, to believe she's a "centerist" or "unifier of the middle" is to ignore a very long political career.
Who are you, Yeats?
Yes. Reagan and Jerry Brown both did it. Both times it backfired and didn't work in their favor.ETA Google shows it was tried three times:
Hillary Clinton is not under FBI investigation. You've allowed the noise level of this manufactured scandal to elevate it's standing in your own mind.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/jeb-bush/heres-whats-wrong-jeb-bush-saying-hillary-clinton-/
I agree with everything Krugman says here. But if I'm supposed to read it as an argument to vote Hillary over Bernie I don't see it.
What happens if they tie in Iowa? She have a shot then?
If they tie in Iowa then Hillary has no shot in NH. That's obvious which is why I didn't mention it.
Hillary has no chance in New Hampshire.
All of these factors existed in 2008, if not more so. So what happened?
Given what's going on in the Republican primary, I'm doubtful that a lot of right-leaning people will forgo voting there to vote for Sanders. The whole "vote in either primary" thing does make things somewhat unpredictable, though.
I've deleted it, too snarky I agree, the point was that Krugman saw "good" in Trump's past economic proposals and everything he says about Hillary now could just as well as have applied to Trump then.
Not really seeing the connection but OK.
To me she's a dishonest Mitt Romney
Probably the most famous and one of the most well decorated economists on Earth? Yeah, why read his stuff.
so nothing here? we can all agree to stop this incredibly stupid shtick? Makes "exactly the same" shtick look like a stroke of brilliance.
And I should probably clarify this. I am willing to bet the link you provided us has nothing to do with economics rather a political commentary of some sort. His economics are fine....nothing earth shattering. He's a complete trainwrek when he's talking about things outside his "expertise". It's sort of like trying to rely on Richard Dawkins to learn about some world religion.
Weirdly enough Hillary's campaign had just thrown out internal polling confirming she was ahead.She had a 20 point lead two weeks ago!
Nevada’s largest labor organization, the powerful Culinary Union, will not offer an endorsement before the state’s Democratic caucuses next month, a reversal from 2008, when a bitter fight emerged over its backing.Weirdly enough Hillary's campaign had just thrown out internal polling confirming she was ahead.
LV/NV is definitely union territory too.
An 0-3 start heading into SC is a definite possibility.
