US Presidential Election XII

[BigMacPhisto]

Hillary Clinton Disliked By A Record Number Of Americans, Survey Finds

We really could have crushed the opposition with a real candidate, but America's older primary voters are risk averse to a fault and enjoy the comfort food of name recognition.

[mikal]

Originally Posted by bigmacphisto

hillary clinton disliked by a record number of americans, survey finds

we really could have crushed the opposition with a real candidate, but america's older primary voters are risk averse to a fault and enjoy the comfort food of name recognition.

suuupa paaaaaaaaakkkkghghhghgh

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Hillary Clinton Disliked By A Record Number Of Americans, Survey Finds



We really could have crushed the opposition with a real candidate, but America's older primary voters are risk averse to a fault and enjoy the comfort food of name recognition.

In the post fact world if you repeat something enough, it becomes true.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BigMacPhisto]

Sixteen minutes is pretty good, BVS, but is well below the high standards you've set for the Clinton Response Team. I expected five.

[DaveC]

"could have"?

the election's been over for a month. barring her plane crashing or something, the only question now is if she can get past 350 EV's.

[mikal]

CNN: Bernie Sanders has worse hair than Donald Trump

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by DaveC

"could have"?

the election's been over for a month. barring her plane crashing or something, the only question now is if she can get past 350 EV's.

The better the performance of the nominee, the better the results down ballot.

I'm in agreement with your post as far as the Presidential election is concerned, but it would have been nicer to win by, say, ten points instead of five and it would have helped turn over some close Senate and House races along with important state and local ballot measures, etc.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Sixteen minutes is pretty good, BVS, but is well below the high standards you've set for the Clinton Response Team. I expected five.

Sorry I had to wait till my laughing fit subsided so I could type.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

We really could have crushed the opposition with a real candidate

Yes, because Hillary is just barely surviving, what with her 75% to 91% chance of winning.

[mikal]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Yes, because Hillary is just barely surviving, what with her 75% to 91% chance of winning.

It would be at 175% if Sanders was the nominee!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

I'm in agreement with your post as far as the Presidential election is concerned, but it would have been nicer to win by, say, ten points instead of five and it would have helped turn over some close Senate and House races along with important state and local ballot measures, etc.

If you want to turn over Senate and House races, that takes organizational competence and power, and it takes a history of making and maintaining connections at those levels. On both counts, Hillary is far superior to Bernie.

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Sixteen minutes is pretty good, BVS, but is well below the high standards you've set for the Clinton Response Team. I expected five.

Hillarys Praetorian Guard



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Diemen

If you want to turn over Senate and House races, that takes organizational competence and power, and it takes a history of making and maintaining connections at those levels. On both counts, Hillary is far superior to Bernie.

The Clintons certainly have the connection$

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

The Clintons certainly have the connection$

There is a long history of politicians and Presidents who had active charity foundations while they were in office. Absolutely none of the foundations were as transparent as the Clinton Foundation with regards to donors, amounts, and organizational distribution of money. Perhaps it's a symptom of the instant-information age we live in, but none of the foundations received anywhere near the scrutiny (if any at all) of the Clinton Foundation, despite its transparency, and the transparency of 30+ years of the Clinton's tax records. If the claim is that the Clintons have gotten rich off their foundation, the facts simply don't back it up. If the claim is that the Clintons exchanged access and favors for donations, the link is murky (at best), despite the transparency involved in Foundation records.

Also, two things regarding the favors for donations thing - the claim is often made with a connotation that the Clintons personally benefitted from the donation, which again, is simply not backed up by the facts. And two, the claim (which again, has so far been unsubstantiated by the facts) is made as if in a vacuum from the entire history of politics, probably the most 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine' profession out there.

If stating these kinds of common sense facts and conclusions makes me a member of Oregeropa's illustrious Clinton Praetorian Guard, then I guess I should ask for the fancy helmet and lance now.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by mikal

It would be at 175% if Sanders was the nominee!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And we all would have gotten free college and cheeseburgers!

[DaveC]

i claim the name biggus dickus for my praetorian guard orientation nametag.

[Axver]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Yes, because Hillary is just barely surviving

She is, in fact, on life support right now. Her health is failing. RIP.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Diemen

There is a long history of politicians and Presidents who had active charity foundations while they were in office. Absolutely none of the foundations were as transparent as the Clinton Foundation with regards to donors, amounts, and organizational distribution of money. Perhaps it's a symptom of the instant-information age we live in, but none of the foundations received anywhere near the scrutiny (if any at all) of the Clinton Foundation, despite its transparency, and the transparency of 30+ years of the Clinton's tax records. If the claim is that the Clintons have gotten rich off their foundation, the facts simply don't back it up. If the claim is that the Clintons exchanged access and favors for donations, the link is murky (at best), despite the transparency involved in Foundation records.

Also, two things regarding the favors for donations thing - the claim is often made with a connotation that the Clintons personally benefitted from the donation, which again, is simply not backed up by the facts. And two, the claim (which again, has so far been unsubstantiated by the facts) is made as if in a vacuum from the entire history of politics, probably the most 'I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine' profession out there.

If stating these kinds of common sense facts and conclusions makes me a member of Oregeropa's illustrious Clinton Praetorian Guard, then I guess I should ask for the fancy helmet and lance now.

This post would be more believable if you had remembered to mention how she isn't a perfect candidate, that you have problems with her and her record, and that you do understand (and agree) that there's something unlikeable about her.

But since you didn't, I can only assume that you are a black woman in the South unfamiliar with any candidates not named Clinton, or a 62-year old lesbian in Delaware who deeply wants a female president. Therefore, I am going to dismiss all this information

[martha]

Originally Posted by Axver

She is, in fact, on life support right now. Her health is failing. RIP.

Someone better inject her with a flashlight!


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Headache in a Suitcase]

"I will now present a policy speech, in which I will not discuss any actual policy other than that Mexicans and Hillary are bad"