2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-23-2016, 07:40 PM   #121
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 12:22 AM
Hey Shooter, Want to go to Sizzler ?
__________________

__________________
Oregoropa is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 08:04 PM   #122
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: southwest USA
Posts: 3,302
Local Time: 05:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
Hey Shooter, Want to go to Sizzler ?


9th green at 9 O' clock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________

__________________
bobsaget77 is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 08:10 PM   #123
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 12:22 AM
Well, the big news over the last couple days is that Clinton thinks Sanders should run for as long as possible and is totally open to listening to him and agreeing to concessions when he feels the time is right to have a meeting. Meanwhile, a report from insiders doing negotiations between Sanders and the Democrats suggests that he wants changes to how the primaries are run, a $15 minimum wage and support for Palestine.

The latter is rather interesting as his support of Israel was seen as his Achilles heal months back for those on the far left, yet he passionately argued for a more evenhanded approach to the Israel situation in that one debate despite there not being much upside and Clinton trying to use it against him, probably the most disgusting attack she's made on him in my opinion - as if it's somehow unreasonable to stop the genocide going on over there and our country's near complete support of that lunatic state.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 08:15 PM   #124
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Hillary doesn't really excite many in her party, she'll be the practical vote, but she does excite the right.
Yes, because the "practical vote" is to choose someone who currently has unfavorability ratings as high as Trump in the latest polls compared to the one person out of the 23 that ran from the two major parties to actually have a positive rating with the American people, draws in millions of Independents into the fold, raises far more money, has no real personal or shady political baggage, secures the support of the young voters that can be members of the party for another six decades before they die, and handily out-duels Trump in general election polls by a wider margin - giving you not only a better chance of winning the Presidency but performing better in down ballot races.

And the upside to Clinton is that Fox News commentators won't be able to point and yell "Socialist!"...even though they still might for her given that they already did the same to Obama. What a positive!

Honestly, I don't even get the logic to why anybody thinks Sanders would perform worse. Democratic party voters are going to vote for the Democratic nominee and Sanders also brings in millions of independents (as without those millions just in the primaries, he'd have been an afterthought rather than a contender). Democrats plus those independents = more votes. Clinton will get fewer of those independents, so fewer votes.

The only way you could possibly think Clinton fares better is if you think the Socialist label would somehow cripple his chances even though it's 2016 and they already used that tactic against Obama to no avail. As an excellent article in Rolling Stone pointed out, modern elections are just based on a bullshit referendum of the white man feeling that they've been left behind, depending entirely on turnout. There's no more "middle" or large swathe of undecided. Just partisan voters on both sides and the rest of the country that feels left out but has leanings one way or another. If Sanders can draw millions upon millions of non-Democrats into the primaries alone, who is to say he can't draw millions and millions more in a general election with far more people voting? To me, it really would be a frickin' landslide for Sanders just as these polls keep reiterating over and over.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 08:21 PM   #125
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: southwest USA
Posts: 3,302
Local Time: 05:22 AM
2016 US Presidential Election Thread IX

I'll be honest, I've been totally out of the loop these last few weeks. Been trying to avoid politics for a while besides casual checking here and there. Can Sanders mathematically win the nomination? Or does Hillary essentially have it locked up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
bobsaget77 is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 08:26 PM   #126
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsaget77 View Post
I'll be honest, I've been totally out of the loop these last few weeks. Been trying to avoid politics for a while besides casual checking here and there. Can Sanders mathematically win the nomination? Or does Hillary essentially have it locked up?
New York state was the end of the line for Sanders. The loss there proved he wouldn't do all that well in the rest of the North Eastern states and therefore would only lose more ground to Clinton. That was the turning point from slim chance to no chance and Sanders' own campaign started laying people off not long after.

Even barely winning New York wouldn't have been enough as it would mean there would still have been a ton of pressure for a big win in California and that he wouldn't really knock it out of the park in the rest of those North Eastern states.

The rest of this race is for him to earn more delegates and have more power to affect the platform at the convention (and have a really good argument to be the nominee if Clinton were to croak or some major scandal to emerge).
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 08:28 PM   #127
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 11:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
Yes, because the "practical vote" is to choose someone who currently has unfavorability ratings as high as Trump in the latest polls compared to the one person out of the 23 that ran from the two major parties to actually have a positive rating with the American people, draws in millions of Independents into the fold, raises far more money, has no real personal or shady political baggage, secures the support of the young voters that can be members of the party for another six decades before they die, and handily out-duels Trump in general election polls by a wider margin - giving you not only a better chance of winning the Presidency but performing better in down ballot races.

And the upside to Clinton is that Fox News commentators won't be able to point and yell "Socialist!"...even though they still might for her given that they already did the same to Obama. What a positive!

That's how unelectable or shitty the other two remaining candidates are.

You can lean on your polls all you want, but they don't mean shit right now. Sanders hasn't even had a sneeze of an attack yet, there hasn't even been a lukewarm ember placed under his feet, your reliance on polls is pure bs right now.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 08:33 PM   #128
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: southwest USA
Posts: 3,302
Local Time: 05:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
New York state was the end of the line for Sanders. The loss there proved he wouldn't do all that well in the rest of the North Eastern states and therefore would only lose more ground to Clinton. That was the turning point from slim chance to no chance and Sanders' own campaign started laying people off not long after.

Even barely winning New York wouldn't have been enough as it would mean there would still have been a ton of pressure for a big win in California and that he wouldn't really knock it out of the park in the rest of those North Eastern states.

The rest of this race is for him to earn more delegates and have more power to affect the platform at the convention (and have a really good argument to be the nominee if Clinton were to croak or some major scandal to emerge).


Thanks.
New York was when I stopped following the DEM nomination and assumed Hillary had it locked up. Still just a matter of time I guess....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
bobsaget77 is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 08:34 PM   #129
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 12:22 AM
I'm sorry, but I don't see the kid-glove approach actually existing from Clinton. Yes, she's not going to try to be too hard on Sanders because she wants those votes (particularly the Independents that aren't locks to vote for a D in November), but given the tactics she used against Obama last time, there's no way her and her team wouldn't have gone full throttle with personal and sharp political attacks if they really had anything on the guy. It's not like she was going to avoid doing that and risk losing the primary. He's clean and the best political attack she's been able to lob is over the tricky situation involving the ability to sue gun store owners and manufacturers.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 08:39 PM   #130
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
I'm sorry, but I don't see the kid-glove approach actually existing from Clinton. Yes, she's not going to try to be too hard on Sanders because she wants those votes (particularly the Independents that aren't locks to vote for a D in November), but given the tactics she used against Obama last time, there's no way her and her team wouldn't have gone full throttle with personal and sharp political attacks if they really had anything on the guy. It's not like she was going to avoid doing that and risk losing the primary. He's clean and the best political attack she's been able to lob is over the tricky situation involving the ability to sue gun store owners and manufacturers.



I don't think it's so much that Sanders has skeletons in his closet and more that the issues that make him near and dear to the Dem base would, under scrutiny, make him unpopular to the general electorate.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 05-23-2016, 09:07 PM   #131
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
The gender issue makes me question whether or not Clinton is so gung ho about the military because she feels that anything else will make her look weak because she's a woman. But that doesn't make me feel any better about her foreign policy, just sadder about sexism and the state of things.
Maybe, but even if you think she is overcompensating and that thought may be rooted in structural sexism, that's not really related to whether she is a likeable individual.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 09:19 PM   #132
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 11:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
I'm sorry, but I don't see the kid-glove approach actually existing from Clinton. Yes, she's not going to try to be too hard on Sanders because she wants those votes (particularly the Independents that aren't locks to vote for a D in November), but given the tactics she used against Obama last time, there's no way her and her team wouldn't have gone full throttle with personal and sharp political attacks if they really had anything on the guy. It's not like she was going to avoid doing that and risk losing the primary. He's clean and the best political attack she's been able to lob is over the tricky situation involving the ability to sue gun store owners and manufacturers.

Who said anything about personal attacks? Although I'm glad you believe he's clean.

But his lack of specifics and plan would be easy to wipe the floor with him, but she's not who you have to worry about, the right would have had a field day with him. You're convinced everyone would be enamored by his messiahship and just fall to their knees and watch America change overnight, but reality says otherwise. And there's no poll needed to understand that.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 09:41 PM   #133
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,357
Local Time: 12:22 AM
2012's polling from May really stood up. I wonder if President Romney will win reelection.


Mason-Dixon5/10 - 5/141000 LV3.04447Romney +3

CBS News/NY Times**5/11 - 5/13562 RV4.04346Romney +3

WashTimes/JZ Analytics*5/11 - 5/12800 LV3.54344Romney +1

Gallup5/3 - 5/93000 RV2.04447Romney +3
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 09:50 PM   #134
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,357
Local Time: 12:22 AM
From early May 2008... good thing for President John McCain that the Dems went with Obama instead of Clinton. Clinton was so much further ahead of McCain than Obama. We should have known better and ignored the will of the Democratic voters and selected the candidate who polled better against the Republican candidate.




AP says its latest survey shows that as of now, Clinton has a 50%-41% advantage over McCain. That's a wider lead than she had the last time AP-Ipsos did such a survey. Three weeks ago, she led 48%-45%, according to Pollster.com's archive of recent polls.

Meanwhile, AP says Obama has a 46%-44% advantage over McCain -- vs. their 45%-45% tie three weeks ago.

The wire service hasn't yet released details on the size of its survey or the margins of error.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 05-23-2016, 10:10 PM   #135
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 12:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Who said anything about personal attacks? Although I'm glad you believe he's clean.

But his lack of specifics and plan would be easy to wipe the floor with him, but she's not who you have to worry about, the right would have had a field day with him. You're convinced everyone would be enamored by his messiahship and just fall to their knees and watch America change overnight, but reality says otherwise. And there's no poll needed to understand that.
Anyway, you slice it, it's just an opinion. You have no evidence that you are correct either.

But if all we have to go on our the polls, that's at least something in favor of my opinion compared to nothing in favor of yours.
__________________

__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com