Why Hillary Will Win (probably)

[Papageorgio]

If you understood American politics, you would also understand that minorities, especially blacks who vote overwhelmingly Dem, are certainly not going to turn out for in great numbers for Sanders or whoever else wins the nomination. The independent and swing voters are obviously disenchanted with Obama and Washington insiders.

You see, guy, this is where you are just exposing your ignorance. There was not a huge jump in the minority percentage of hte vote because of Obama, there was a moderate jump because demagraphics are changing. Blacks were 11% of the electorate in 2004, when Kerry got 89% of their vote. THey were 13% of the electorate when Obama got 96% of their vote. IN raw numbers, that's really not a big jump.

the real problem is, as stupid as you are living in some socialist shithole in Europe, is that minorities know their political power now. So unless the next GOP candidate finds a way to appeal to them, Hillary will win as easily as Obama did. Probably easier, given the current bunch of GOP clowns are giving Romney a new dignity.

That's why many back in 2001 knew this bill would wind up in the Supreme Court and open Pandora's box. You and you stupid lies.

NObody in 2001 thought the Supreme Court would be dumb enough to vote in favor of political corruption. That took Bush appointing two truly stupid creatures to SCOTUS.

BS, there were many that knew that the Supreme Court would be involved because of free speech issues. It was pretty common knowledge back then.

 

[JoeB131]

BS, there were many that knew that the Supreme Court would be involved because of free speech issues. It was pretty common knowledge back then.

Guy, it's not a free speech issue. The transfer of wealth isn't speech. The fact is, CU didn't just overturn Mc_F, it overturned a lot of the sensible reforms that were put into place after Watergate when Nixon was handing out breifcases full of money.

The point was, if McF had been heard when Renquist and O'Connor were still on the bench, it would have been upheld. Why? Because they upheld most of the challenges to previous complaints about campaign laws.

It's only when Bush appointed those two knuckleheads, Alito and Roberts, did you have this bizarro court that rules that Karl Rove is a social welfare agency.

 

[Papageorgio]

BS, there were many that knew that the Supreme Court would be involved because of free speech issues. It was pretty common knowledge back then.

Guy, it's not a free speech issue. The transfer of wealth isn't speech. The fact is, CU didn't just overturn Mc_F, it overturned a lot of the sensible reforms that were put into place after Watergate when Nixon was handing out breifcases full of money.

The point was, if McF had been heard when Renquist and O'Connor were still on the bench, it would have been upheld. Why? Because they upheld most of the challenges to previous complaints about campaign laws.

It's only when Bush appointed those two knuckleheads, Alito and Roberts, did you have this bizarro court that rules that Karl Rove is a social welfare agency.

I'm not arguing with you, you have selected memory anyway. I remember discussing this issue on another board and I also heard news story after news story talking how it would have a huge ripple effect and would wind up in the Supreme Court over several issues.

 

[Meathead]

If you understood American politics, you would also understand that minorities, especially blacks who vote overwhelmingly Dem, are certainly not going to turn out for in great numbers for Sanders or whoever else wins the nomination. The independent and swing voters are obviously disenchanted with Obama and Washington insiders.

You see, guy, this is where you are just exposing your ignorance. There was not a huge jump in the minority percentage of hte vote because of Obama, there was a moderate jump because demagraphics are changing. Blacks were 11% of the electorate in 2004, when Kerry got 89% of their vote. THey were 13% of the electorate when Obama got 96% of their vote. IN raw numbers, that's really not a big jump.

the real problem is, as stupid as you are living in some socialist shithole in Europe, is that minorities know their political power now. So unless the next GOP candidate finds a way to appeal to them, Hillary will win as easily as Obama did. Probably easier, given the current bunch of GOP clowns are giving Romney a new dignity.

Assuming your figures are right, and that's a pretty big step considering the bizarre things you come up with, 96% of 13% translates to a hell of a lot more votes than 89% of 11%, and certainly more than enough to swing swing states.

Joey, have you ever considered what an embarrassment you are to you family and friends, if you had any? Hell, you even give Chicago a bad name, and that's no small feat.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not arguing with you, you have selected memory anyway. I remember discussing this issue on another board and I also heard news story after news story talking how it would have a huge ripple effect and would wind up in the Supreme Court over several issues.

Your concession of the point is duly noted.

Point is, this isn't a first amendment issue. It's a transfer of wealth issue. Not to worry, when Scalia takes that well-deserved dirt nap and Hillary appoints his replacement, we will fix this and other problems.

 

[JoeB131]

Assuming your figures are right, and that's a pretty big step considering the bizarre things you come up with, 96% of 13% translates to a hell of a lot more votes than 89% of 11%, and certainly more than enough to swing swing states.

Except it's not really that many votes, not really in swing states.

The fact is, the democratic candidate starts out with 242 Electoral votes if you count states th ey have won in the last six elections. It goes up to 257 if you count states they've won 5 out of six times.

So the GOP has to play a pretty much perfect game in order to win. They have to win every other state still in play. The Democrats only have to pick up one or two.

Now, here is where the real problem comes in. Blacks are pretty much a lost cause for the Republicans. Where they are really in trouble is with Hispanics. Bush was able to win 44% of Hispanics in 2004. It was probably just enough to win Florida and Ohio.

Romney won 29% of the Hispanic vote with idiotic statements about "Self-deportation".

What do you think is going to happen with Trump calling them rapists and criminals?

 

[NoNukes]

One smart thing the GOP did was limit the number of debates. On the surface, at least, this was smart because it gives the whackjob candidacies of Cruz and Paul less official forums to announce their positions. Contrary to the belief that the Parties pick the candidtes; they actually have very little authority over them let alone control what they say. The flip side is that the urge to make a "big splash" may be too great for either of them to understand. Those who are looking to put their marker down somewhere between the hard right and the moderate right are probably the most dangerous.

Every karem to or pander toward the hard right forces the eventual nominee to move in that direction. This will, of course, hamstring him in the general election when the enevitable move back to the center has to be made.

The reason Hillary will win is because no such force sits to her left which would force her to react in such an irrational manner. Also, if such a force were to materialize, there would still be no need for Clinton to make the move; the voters on the hard left will be there for her in November. If we learned anything from 2012 it is that the hard right will abandon a GOP candidate that is seen as not willing to carry their water and message.

Obama fatigue and the ocassional flub (if they are ocassional) and tactical mis-step of the Clinton campaign will play a role as well but there shouldn't be enough of them to swing the election.

She isn't a shoo-in for the Presidency; there is still a long way to go. But it would be hard to imagine a better set-up for Secretary Clinton than what has happened in the last few weeks with Cruz, Paul and Rubio entering the race

Were you asleep during the midterms?

We're you asleep during the previous midterms and then the 2012 election?

 

[MisterBeale]

One smart thing the GOP did was limit the number of debates. On the surface, at least, this was smart because it gives the whackjob candidacies of Cruz and Paul less official forums to announce their positions. Contrary to the belief that the Parties pick the candidtes; they actually have very little authority over them let alone control what they say. The flip side is that the urge to make a "big splash" may be too great for either of them to understand. Those who are looking to put their marker down somewhere between the hard right and the moderate right are probably the most dangerous.

Every karem to or pander toward the hard right forces the eventual nominee to move in that direction. This will, of course, hamstring him in the general election when the enevitable move back to the center has to be made.

The reason Hillary will win is because no such force sits to her left which would force her to react in such an irrational manner. Also, if such a force were to materialize, there would still be no need for Clinton to make the move; the voters on the hard left will be there for her in November. If we learned anything from 2012 it is that the hard right will abandon a GOP candidate that is seen as not willing to carry their water and message.

Obama fatigue and the ocassional flub (if they are ocassional) and tactical mis-step of the Clinton campaign will play a role as well but there shouldn't be enough of them to swing the election.

She isn't a shoo-in for the Presidency; there is still a long way to go. But it would be hard to imagine a better set-up for Secretary Clinton than what has happened in the last few weeks with Cruz, Paul and Rubio entering the race

Were you asleep during the midterms?

We're you asleep during the previous midterms and then the 2012 election?

When the elites start running anti-Hillary propaganda on the channel that caters to their base? You know it is all over except for listening for the chubby lady singing. Get used to saying, "President Bush," for another eight years.

Why Hillary Clinton May Not Have The Female Vote Locked Up
Why Hillary Clinton May Not Have The Female Vote Locked Up
When Clinton ran in 2008, she downplayed the potential historical significance of her candidacy. She aimed to exude strength, to prove her commander-in-chief credentials. This time around, her stump speeches include frequent references to being a grandmother, and she has made so-called women's issues centerpieces of her campaign.


"Republicans often say I'm playing the gender card. Well, if supporting women's health and women's rights is playing the gender card, deal me in because that is exactly where I want to be," she said recently.


Most of the women I interviewed at campaign events said they were judging Clinton on the merits, her ideas, and in some cases her baggage.


Cassidy Davis, a high school senior who drove an hour to see Bernie Sanders speak in Virginia, said she doesn't "appreciate the dishonesty as far as the emails go" when it comes to Clinton. "I understand she had the right to delete them. But ... I'm not going to Hillary. I'm not feeling it.

 

[JoeB131]

When the elites start running anti-Hillary propaganda on the channel that caters to their base? You know it is all over except for listening for the chubby lady singing. Get used to saying, "President Bush," for another eight years.

I don't think the country is stupid enough to put a third Bush in the White House given what a disaster the first two were. I think he will be the nominee, because the pretenders have sucked all the air out of the room for legit contenders before they implode.

Here's why Hillary will probably win.

1) Demographics. - There aren't enough angry old white guys to win.

2) Greater enthusiasm- Hillary still enjoys the support of 40% of the Democratic base. Bush can't break into double digits with his base.

3) Electoral college- As stated above, the "Blue Wall" starts the democrat at about 257 Electoral votes. all she has to do is win one more state-

4) Women really will be a factor. - Women put Obama over the top in 2008, they will come out in greater numbers for Hillary.

5) Bush is really an awful candidate. Remember when people said Jeb was the "Smart" Bush brother? Nobody says that anymore.

 

[MisterBeale]

When the elites start running anti-Hillary propaganda on the channel that caters to their base? You know it is all over except for listening for the chubby lady singing. Get used to saying, "President Bush," for another eight years.

I don't think the country is stupid enough to put a third Bush in the White House given what a disaster the first two were. I think he will be the nominee, because the pretenders have sucked all the air out of the room for legit contenders before they implode.

Here's why Hillary will probably win.

1) Demographics. - There aren't enough angry old white guys to win.

2) Greater enthusiasm- Hillary still enjoys the support of 40% of the Democratic base. Bush can't break into double digits with his base.

3) Electoral college- As stated above, the "Blue Wall" starts the democrat at about 257 Electoral votes. all she has to do is win one more state-

4) Women really will be a factor. - Women put Obama over the top in 2008, they will come out in greater numbers for Hillary.

5) Bush is really an awful candidate. Remember when people said Jeb was the "Smart" Bush brother? Nobody says that anymore.

Ah.. . . But the thing you forgot to factor in, is the media.

Most Americans didn't think much of the gay agenda until the MSM and Hollywood blitzed them with propaganda, then their opinions changed.

Once social media and the idiot box tells them what to do, they will do it. The electorate doesn't have a mind of their own. The media will tear down Hillary and build up Bush. If that doesn't work, they will rig the election. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Remember, the second Bush was never legitimately elected either.

 

[Papageorgio]

I'm not arguing with you, you have selected memory anyway. I remember discussing this issue on another board and I also heard news story after news story talking how it would have a huge ripple effect and would wind up in the Supreme Court over several issues.

Your concession of the point is duly noted.

Point is, this isn't a first amendment issue. It's a transfer of wealth issue. Not to worry, when Scalia takes that well-deserved dirt nap and Hillary appoints his replacement, we will fix this and other problems.

You are wrong and your lies won't change the facts of history. It was a first amendment issue, sorry you are dead wrong once again.


From the ACLU:

Letter to the Senate in Opposition to the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001

This was BEFORE the law passed Congress.

 

[JoeB131]

Ah.. . . But the thing you forgot to factor in, is the media.

Most Americans didn't think much of the gay agenda until the MSM and Hollywood blitzed them with propaganda, then their opinions changed.

Once social media and the idiot box tells them what to do, they will do it. The electorate doesn't have a mind of their own. The media will tear down Hillary and build up Bush. If that doesn't work, they will rig the election. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Remember, the second Bush was never legitimately elected either.

Guy, a whole lot of problems with your argument.

FIrst, the media did not fool anyone. The real problem is that we had a long national conversation, and just discovered that the anti-gay argument consists of "I think it's icky". Which isn't an argument, no matter how much you want it to be.

As far as the media building up Bush and tearing down Hillary, the thing is, most of the media agrees more with Hillary than Bush.

 

[JoeB131]

You are wrong and your lies won't change the facts of history. It was a first amendment issue, sorry you are dead wrong once again.


From the ACLU:

Letter to the Senate in Opposition to the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001

This was BEFORE the law passed Congress.

The ACLU is wrong on a lot of stuff. They are wrong here.

This isn't about free speech. Nothing is keeping the Koch Brothers from saying whatever they want.

It's a question of whether they can legally fund candidates and issue groups without that being considered what it is, bribery.

 

[Papageorgio]

You are wrong and your lies won't change the facts of history. It was a first amendment issue, sorry you are dead wrong once again.


From the ACLU:

Letter to the Senate in Opposition to the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001

This was BEFORE the law passed Congress.

The ACLU is wrong on a lot of stuff. They are wrong here.

This isn't about free speech. Nothing is keeping the Koch Brothers from saying whatever they want.

It's a question of whether they can legally fund candidates and issue groups without that being considered what it is, bribery.

It is what they predicted and it came to pass. The bill should have been better written and Congress should have listened to the legal experts. They aren't wrong neither were many legal strategist. And to be quite frank, I'll take their opinion over your worthless opinion any day.

 

[JoeB131]

It is what they predicted and it came to pass. The bill should have been better written and Congress should have listened to the legal experts. They aren't wrong neither were many legal strategist. And to be quite frank, I'll take their opinion over your worthless opinion any day.

Uh, no, guy, j ust because some corporate whores on the Supreme Court sold out our democracy does not make it right.

I'm not even sure why you are defending this? Do you like taking it up the ass from a Koch Brother? Is this like a secret fantasy of yours?

 

[Papageorgio]

It is what they predicted and it came to pass. The bill should have been better written and Congress should have listened to the legal experts. They aren't wrong neither were many legal strategist. And to be quite frank, I'll take their opinion over your worthless opinion any day.

Uh, no, guy, j ust because some corporate whores on the Supreme Court sold out our democracy does not make it right.

I'm not even sure why you are defending this? Do you like taking it up the ass from a Koch Brother? Is this like a secret fantasy of yours?

I'm not defending, it was bad legislation from the get go and that led to the Citizen United issue. That is why I would never vote for McCain, he screwed us all over and you are stupid enough to think is a good guy. He led us down this wrong path.

 

[sealybobo]

If Rubio, Paul, or Walker win the nomination I just have a hard time seeing a shrill, old woman like Hillary defeating a young energetic candidate, but anything is possible. This is a country, after all, that elected Obama and Bush twice, so the stupid is strong with Americans.

Yea it should have been gore twice then Obama twice.

 

[MisterBeale]

Ah.. . . But the thing you forgot to factor in, is the media.

Most Americans didn't think much of the gay agenda until the MSM and Hollywood blitzed them with propaganda, then their opinions changed.

Once social media and the idiot box tells them what to do, they will do it. The electorate doesn't have a mind of their own. The media will tear down Hillary and build up Bush. If that doesn't work, they will rig the election. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Remember, the second Bush was never legitimately elected either.

Guy, a whole lot of problems with your argument.

FIrst, the media did not fool anyone. The real problem is that we had a long national conversation, and just discovered that the anti-gay argument consists of "I think it's icky". Which isn't an argument, no matter how much you want it to be.

As far as the media building up Bush and tearing down Hillary, the thing is, most of the media agrees more with Hillary than Bush.

Wow, you just don't pay attention or critically analyze the movies and television shows that are released, do you? You just sit back and passively soak up that propaganda. (I remember how you said you voted for this candidate, and then that candidate, etc. and got burned. You are SO easy to fool.) You just don't know how to analyze what you see and hear, no critical thinking skills or skepticism at all of your entertainment. EVERYTHING you watch has an agenda.

What Americans view on their TV, and see in the Theater becomes reality. The popular media normalized said lifestyle. There was no, "conversation," only indoctrination.

The same will be true with the new coming era.

If it really were true what you say about the media and Hillary, then they wouldn't be giving her so much negative attention right now. The media CHOOSES to cover this email scandal heavily. Why? Because there is an agenda here. If it fizzles, then they will turn and focus more on this Benghazi scandal some more or remind voters of all the other scandals. It all has to do with the media. Don't be daft. The elites will decide who the voters vote for.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not defending, it was bad legislation from the get go and that led to the Citizen United issue. That is why I would never vote for McCain, he screwed us all over and you are stupid enough to think is a good guy. He led us down this wrong path.

No, guy, SCOTUS screwed us over. They'd have screwed us over if Mc-Feingold was there or not. The law was a pretty good one.

I'm sorry you don't get that. Or that you think it is oh, so fine the rich are buying our government.

 

[JoeB131]

Wow, you just don't pay attention or critically analyze the movies and television shows that are released, do you? You just sit back and passively soak up that propaganda. (I remember how you said you voted for this candidate, and then that candidate, etc. and got burned. You are SO easy to fool.) You just don't know how to analyze what you see and hear, no critical thinking skills or skepticism at all of your entertainment. EVERYTHING you watch has an agenda.

What Americans view on their TV, and see in the Theater becomes reality. The popular media normalized said lifestyle. There was no, "conversation," only indoctrination.

The same will be true with the new coming era.

If it really were true what you say about the media and Hillary, then they wouldn't be giving her so much negative attention right now. The media CHOOSES to cover this email scandal heavily. Why? Because there is an agenda here. If it fizzles, then they will turn and focus more on this Benghazi scandal some more or remind voters of all the other scandals. It all has to do with the media. Don't be daft. The elites will decide who the voters vote for.

Guy does your doctor know you are off your medication?

The reason the media is covering this fake scandal is because that is what people are talking about.

I mean, there's really no point in talking to you if you are this far gone in your paranoia.