The Hillary Clinton thread

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:57 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Most votes wins. A vote assumed for Hillary taken from her and moved to Trump would be a 2-vote swing in Trump's favor. A vote taken from her and moved to a 3rd party results in a 1-vote swing to Trump's favor.

Ahhh, the hubris. They aren't Hillary's votes - they never were. Why not blame all the Hillary voters for not supporting Johnson?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:01 pm

That would be where the 'assumed' part comes in.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:05 pm

And I'm saying there is no "assumed". There is no moral jeopardy in voting for your desired candidate.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:07 pm

During any previous election cycle, I would have agreed with you in spirit.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:13 pm

If those third party voters would have otherwise not voted had their candidate not been running, sure, but if they would have voted for Clinton (or Trump) if their candidate weren't running I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption.

If the vote for Johnson (or Stein) actually made a difference I might not think so. But it makes absolutely no difference. Look, this is an election where you have two of the most disliked (by various parts of the electorate) candidates running ever, and the best third party candidates can do is ~10%. If they can't do well under the most ideal condition imaginable (short of one or more major party completely collapsing) then they have 0% probability of winning, and given that there's only one possible winner for this seat, than there's no gain at all.

Third party candidates need to focus on congress (and local elections), where they have a chance.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:18 pm

Third party candidates already win in Congress. We just need better third party candidates for presidential election.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:21 pm

stessier wrote: We just need better third party candidates for presidential election.

How do you feel about them being effectively blocked from the debates?

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:24 pm

Smoove_B wrote:
stessier wrote: We just need better third party candidates for presidential election.
How do you feel about them being effectively blocked from the debates?

Yeah, that really stinks. I hate the whole debate commission thing. I think a better rule is if you are on enough ballots to theoretically get an EC win, you should be in. Alternatively, anyone polling above 1%. Yeah, some of the people you'll end up with will have wacky ideas, but others will have ideas worth, you know, debating.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:29 pm

stessier wrote:Third party candidates already win in Congress. We just need better third party candidates for presidential election.

Yeah, one Senator and one delegate (not Representative) in the House. And both of them independents, not Libertarian or Green or Constitution or American Freedom or Communist or Prohibition or whathaveyou. I'm not impressed.

Again best opportunity theyve had in decades, and they're still doing pretty poorly. Focus on congress, rather than the ego-trip a Presidential run is.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:58 pm

Looks like Sanders agrees.

"I ran as a third-party candidate. I'm the longest-serving independent in the history of the United States Congress. I know more about third-party politics than anyone else in the Congress, okay? And if people want to run as third-party candidates, God bless them! Run for Congress. Run for governor. Run for state legislature. When we're talking about president of the United States, in my own personal view, this is not time for a protest vote. This is time to elect Hillary Clinton and then work after the election to mobilize millions of people to make sure she can be the most progressive president she can be."

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 5:42 pm

stessier wrote:And I'm saying there is no "assumed". There is no moral jeopardy in voting for your desired candidate.

I'm sure those lefties who voted for Nader were happy with their role in electing President Bush.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 5:55 pm

Defiant wrote:Looks like Sanders agrees.

"I ran as a third-party candidate. I'm the longest-serving independent in the history of the United States Congress. I know more about third-party politics than anyone else in the Congress, okay? And if people want to run as third-party candidates, God bless them! Run for Congress. Run for governor. Run for state legislature. When we're talking about president of the United States, in my own personal view, this is not time for a protest vote. This is time to elect Hillary Clinton and then work after the election to mobilize millions of people to make sure she can be the most progressive president she can be."

Yet another thing I disagree with Sanders on. *Yawn*

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:05 pm

gbasden wrote:
stessier wrote:And I'm saying there is no "assumed". There is no moral jeopardy in voting for your desired candidate.
I'm sure those lefties who voted for Nader were happy with their role in electing President Bush.

As happy as all those who didn't vote for Nader. Had the done that, Bush never would have been elected.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:32 pm

stessier wrote:
gbasden wrote:
stessier wrote:And I'm saying there is no "assumed". There is no moral jeopardy in voting for your desired candidate.
I'm sure those lefties who voted for Nader were happy with their role in electing President Bush.
As happy as all those who didn't vote for Nader. Had the done that, Bush never would have been elected.

*scratches head*. Took me a few seconds to understand what you were saying, but you're claiming that if everyone who was a leftist had voted for Nader he would have won? I'll admit, that's a new one for me.

Exit polls show that only about 20% of people described themselves as Liberals (something I figure is relatively close to "leftist"), with most describing themselves as moderates. Frankly, you would need a lot more than leftists for Nader to have one, and quite a few of the moderates who voted for Gore would have voted for Bush if Nader was the only other option.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:33 pm

Me, I am planning to vote unicorn, since if everyone changed the laws so that unicorns could be president, and made unicorns real, and all voted for a unicorn, then a unicorn would be president, so it is meaningful and prudent for me to vote for a unicorn.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 8:37 pm

El Guapo wrote:Me, I am planning to vote unicorn, since if everyone changed the laws so that unicorns could be president, and made unicorns real, and all voted for a unicorn, then a unicorn would be president, so it is meaningful and prudent for me to vote for a unicorn.

And yet, this was the closest we ever got...

gilraen · Post by **gilraen** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:43 pm

stessier wrote:There is no moral jeopardy in voting for your desired candidate.

So...all those millenials that will cast a "protest vote" for Johnson will sleep well at night knowing they helped elect Trump?

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:45 pm

gilraen wrote:
stessier wrote:There is no moral jeopardy in voting for your desired candidate.
So...all those millenials that will cast a "protest vote" for Johnson will sleep well at night knowing they helped elect Trump?

No, they're ok, because something that would never happen in a million years could have happened in a way to make their vote meaningful.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 11:15 pm

Democrats Should Panic … If The Polls Still Look Like This In A Week

Hillary Clinton’s lead in the polls has been declining for several weeks, and now we’re at the point where it’s not much of a lead at all. National polls show Clinton only 1 or 2 percentage points ahead of Donald Trump, on average. And the state polling situation isn’t really any better for her. On Thursday alone, polls were released showing Clinton behind in Ohio, Iowa and Colorado — and with narrow, 3-point leads in Michigan and Virginia, two states once thought to be relatively safe for her.

It’s also become clearer that Clinton’s “bad weekend” — which included describing half of Trump supporters as a “basket of deplorables” on Friday, and a health scare (followed by news that she had been diagnosed with pneumonia) on Sunday — has affected the polls. Prior to the weekend, Clinton’s decline had appeared to be leveling off, with the race settling into a Clinton lead of 3 or 4 percentage points. But over the past seven days, Clinton’s win probability has declined from 70 percent to 60 percent in our polls-only forecast and by a similar amount, from 68 percent to 59 percent, in our polls-plus forecast.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:34 am

Uh oh, the liberal media's MSNBC is starting to turn on the Golden Girl

http://www.yesimright.com/liberal-host- ... the-drain/

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:13 am

So... the big scoop is that openly conservative Joe Scarborough had conservative guests on his conservative show, and they all criticized Clinton?

I'll be on my fainting couch.

Default · Post by **Default** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:29 am

Holman wrote:So... the big scoop is that openly conservative Joe Scarborough had conservative guests on his conservative show, and they all criticized Clinton?

I'll be on my fainting couch.

"Whah, Holman! Y'all have a tetch of the vapors? Shall I fetch you a julep or two?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 12:02 pm

Default wrote:
Holman wrote:So... the big scoop is that openly conservative Joe Scarborough had conservative guests on his conservative show, and they all criticized Clinton?

I'll be on my fainting couch.
"Whah, Holman! Y'all have a tetch of the vapors? Shall I fetch you a julep or two?

Ah'll have a thurd! Ah huhd that that terrib'l Mistah Scarbo-ruh has been unkind a'gin!

gilraen · Post by **gilraen** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 1:15 pm

Holman wrote:So... the big scoop is that openly conservative Joe Scarborough had conservative guests on his conservative show, and they all criticized Clinton?

I'll be on my fainting couch.

it's actually not a conservative show, they have good discussions - I'm a liberal Democrat, and even I like it. Also, Scarborough is old-school Republican, he didn't support Clinton to begin with. Only a website with a sidebar "Is BlackLivesMatter a racist organization" would call him a "liberal host".

Default · Post by **Default** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:11 pm

Holman wrote:
Default wrote:
Holman wrote:So... the big scoop is that openly conservative Joe Scarborough had conservative guests on his conservative show, and they all criticized Clinton?

I'll be on my fainting couch.
"Whah, Holman! Y'all have a tetch of the vapors? Shall I fetch you a julep or two?
Ah'll have a thurd! Ah huhd that that terrib'l Mistah Scarbo-ruh has been unkind a'gin!

Whah, he certunleh is such an uncouth beast! Heyeh, let me freshen thet for y'all...

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:18 pm

em2nought wrote:Uh oh, the liberal media's MSNBC is starting to turn on the Golden Girl

Careful there. No need to drag those lovely ladies into this.

p.s. The site you linked to makes Fox News look...well...fair and balanced.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Sep 18, 2016 6:48 pm

Teen Titans Go! had an episode where Cyborg had Green Lantern's ring and summoned the Golden Girls with it. Bea Arthur kicked ass.

That is all.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Sun Sep 18, 2016 6:52 pm

hepcat wrote:
em2nought wrote:Uh oh, the liberal media's MSNBC is starting to turn on the Golden Girl
Careful there. No need to drag those lovely ladies into this.

p.s. The site you linked to makes Fox News look...well...fair and balanced.

Sorry, I know you're got a er, crush. lol

This next event those girls could have been spliced into because it's completely fake https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCP3HIhQgLI Watch the camera phones! Hentzau better get in here because we might have a real live Prisoner of Zenda event going on!

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:01 pm

Could we get a translator in here?

Anyway, I think it's telling that people who oppose Trump use easily verified facts to denounce the man, while Trumputin supporters rely on conspiracy theories.

Default · Post by **Default** » Sun Sep 18, 2016 10:58 pm

hepcat wrote:Could we get a translator in here?

Anyway, I think it's telling that people who oppose Trump use easily verified facts to denounce the man, while Trumputin supporters rely on conspiracy theories.

Why do you keep spilling the beans?

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:21 pm

hepcat wrote:Could we get a translator in here?

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 2:00 am

hepcat wrote:Could we get a translator in here?

Anyway, I think it's telling that people who oppose Trump use easily verified facts to denounce the man, while Trumputin supporters rely on conspiracy theories.

It's a question of head vs. heart. (Please refrain from making Hillary head quips.)

Trump supporters are on a crusade. Clinton's base just knows better.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:18 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBRKPoAPXEQ

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 2:30 pm

stessier wrote:Third party candidates already win in Congress. We just need better third party candidates for presidential election.

None of the existing third parties have ever elected a candidate to Congress.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 4:07 pm

Moliere wrote:hepcat will be happy that Hillary is shaming millennials who might vote outside the 2 party duopoly.

While still optimistic that the race will turn decisively back in Mrs. Clinton’s favor after the debates, leading Democrats have been alarmed by the drift of young voters toward the third-party candidates.

The principal “super PAC” supporting Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy, Priorities USA Action, has concluded from its polling and other research that the reluctance to embrace the Democratic nominee among those who intensely dislike Mr. Trump is not going away and must be confronted.

“We’ll be launching a multimillion-dollar digital campaign that talks about what’s at stake and how a vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for Donald Trump, who is against everything these voters stand for,” said Justin Barasky, a strategist for Priorities USA.

Celebrities are getting in on this.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:43 pm

The Progressive Case for Hillary Clinton Is Pretty Overwhelming

It's not an exhaustive list, and a handful of the reasons listed aren't particularly persuasive:

29. She is annoyed by airline bag fees.

74. She did not kill Vince Foster.

Wouldn't these apply to like 100% of the population, including Trump?

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:54 pm

Defiant wrote:The Progressive Case for Hillary Clinton Is Pretty Overwhelming

It's not an exhaustive list, and a handful of the reasons listed aren't particularly persuasive:

29. She is annoyed by airline bag fees.

74. She did not kill Vince Foster.
Wouldn't these apply to like 100% of the population, including Trump?

OTOH, she and Bill are 66% of everyone accused of killing Vince Foster. Their innocence is significant.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 9:06 pm

Defiant wrote:
29. She is annoyed by airline bag fees.
Wouldn't these apply to like 100% of the population, including Trump?

Actually, I don't think it would apply to Trump. He flies on his own plane, and since he usually heads home to sleep in his own bed most nights, he probably doesn't need to worry about his literal baggage any more than his metaphorical baggage.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 2:58 am

George H.W. Bush to vote for Hillary

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 5:21 am

Defiant wrote:George H.W. Bush to vote for Hillary

An ex CIA director should certainly know better than to share a secret with a democrat. I mean just look at the prime example who thinks "C" on a file folder stands for cookie.