# Hillary is STOMPING Christie, Jeb Bush and Walker in NJ



## Statistikhengst (Feb 18, 2015)

This is actually very important news:

TIME FOR A WOMAN IN THE OVAL OFFICE NEW JERSEYANS AGREE COUNTRY IS READY Center for Public Interest Polling

Rutgers/Eagleton poll, released February 17, 2015
694 RV, MoE= +/-4.1

_(parentheses = former Rutgers values, from 22.12.2014)_

*Clinton 58 (49)* / Christie 35 (39), margin = *Clinton +23 (+10)*
_margin shift from last Rutgers/Eagleton: *Clinton +13*_

*Clinton 58 (53)* / Christie 32 (37), margin = *Clinton +26 (+16)*
_margin shift from last Rutgers/Eagleton: *Clinton +10*_

*Clinton 60 * / Walker 29 , margin = *Clinton +31 *
_No previous poll for comparison purposes; this is the first 2016 Clinton/Walker matchup for any pollster thus far in this state._

So, Hillary's margins range from +23 to +31. That is *blowout-landslide territory*. It is also confirmation that Chris Christie (R-NJ) is falling all over the place.

You might want to go to the Rutgers link to see for yourself how she is doing in the female vote in that state.... pretty astonishing stuff.

To date, there have now been 14 polls of the Garden State, since 20.02.2013, almost exactly two years ago.  There have been 33 matchups, of which Hillary has won 32 and Christie won 1, in December of 2013, after his November landslide re-election.

Now, most people will assume that New Jersey is part of the so-called "blue wall", a relatively new name associated with the 17 states plus DC that have gone blue in all six of the last six presidential cycles and are currently worth 242 EV. I mentioned that wall here, but simply called it "Electoral Columns":

What *IS* news are the margins that we are seeing in this poll.

Here's a look at the last SEVEN presidential elections in New Jersey:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/compare.php?year=2012&fips=34&f=1&off=0&elect=0&type=state

1988: *Bush 41 +13.64%*
1992: *Clinton, Bill +2.67%*
1996: *Clinton, Bill +17.86%*
2000: *Gore +15.86%*
2004: *Kerry +6.68%*
2008: *Obama +15.53%*
2012: *Obama +17.74%*

New Jersey is one of only six states in the Union where Pres. Obama's electoral statistic _improved_ in 2012 over 2008. The other five states are: New York, Maryland, Alaska (yes, Alaska), Mississippi and Louisiana.

What can we say with 100% surety from these electoral statistics?

We can say that the New Jersey electorate, between 1988, an election where George H. W. Bush (41) won nationally by *+7.73%*, and 2012, where President Barack Obama won nationally by *+3.86%*, the Garden State's electorate has shifted *+31.38%* toward TEAM BLUE. We can also see that in 6 of those 7 cycles, the state awarded the winner a win with a margin _better_ than that candidate's national statistic, the exception being the three-man race in 1992. 

We also see that in the only cycle where the Republican won nationally in *both* the NPV and the EC but still lost New Jersey, he only lost it by single digits: 2004, Bush vs. Kerry.

We see that in 1992, New Jersey was a true battleground state. It went down to the wire between Bill Clinton and Bush 41, and at the end of the day, Ross Perot took *15.61%* of the vote.  This is not the first time that New Jersey had been a decisive battleground state: in 1976, it was a similar situation, but then Pres. Gerald R. Ford barely retained the state for TEAM RED, by *+2.16%*, and in 1968, Nixon barely picked up the state for the GOP, by *+2.13%*. In 1960, this state also went down to the wire: Kennedy carried it by only *+0.80%*. It's a state that FDR won by just *+3.6%* or less for three of his four elections and the ONLY time in our history where this state has gone for a Democrat by more than +20 was in 1964, with LBJ (*+31.75%*). 

Now, look at Hillary's margins again: between *+23 *and *+31*.  Remember this electoral history.

In other words, in the NE, the two lowest pieces of hanging fruit that represent even a chance for the GOP to make inroads into that part of the country are: New Hampshire and New Jersey. Geographers are unsure whether Pennyslvania is part of the NE, part of the Acela states, or purely a rust belt state and therefore actually more part of the Mid-West. So, I'm leaving Pennsylvania out of this for now.

What we are seeing is the principal of "a rising tide lifts all boats".

So, it is pretty much expected that Hillary will carry New Jersey, but if these numbers hold, that can only indicate a very large national margin for her as well.

And Jeb Bush, brother of George W. Bush, Jr. and son of George W. Bush, Sr, is losing here by 26 points.

How accurate is Rutgers/Eagleton?

Well:

Google Sheets - create and edit spreadsheets online for free.

The final Rutgers/Eagleton poll from 2012 (which was not in my final average, but in the final polling comparisons to actual results), predicted *Obama +17*. Obama won by *+17.74*, so actually, the poll was off to the *RIGHT* by a little less than 1 point, which is pretty damned good.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facit: these kind of margins are in line with what we are seeing all over the country.

Even in Iowa, a REPUBLICAN pollster, Gravis, is showing Hillary pulling away from the GOP field.

Now, this is just one poll, many more are sure to follow, and this all can change, but the numbers look exceedingly good for Hillary. She is polling here far better than Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry or Barack Obama ever did.


Oh, and some factoids:  George W. Bush, Jr, and Abraham Lincoln are the only Republicans in our history to have lost New Jersey _twice_.

Three other Republican Presidents won NJ the first time but lost it the second time:

Taft, won in 190*8*, lost in 191*2*
Hoover, won in 192*8*, lost in 193*2*
Bush 41, won in 198*8*, lost in 199*2*.

BTW, all three of those Republicans LOST their re-elections.

Only one Republican has ever picked up NJ in his re-election campaign after having lost it the first time around:

Grant, lost in 186*8*, won in 187*2*.

Anyone see a date-pattern, there?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 18, 2015)

Thanks Stat!


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 18, 2015)

again, at this point, it's name recognition, not so much popularity. 

Hillary is going to have to get out in front of voters again at some point, and then we are going to have to ask ourselves, "Do we want to listen to that screeching voice for the next four to eight years?"


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Feb 18, 2015)

Hillary is overly corporate having said that I say ABAR...anyone but a Republican.....


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 18, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Hillary is overly corporate having said that I say ABAR...anyone but a Republican.....



Here's the thing.  If you have the GOP nominating Scott Walker, you'd probably have a Republican with more blue collar street Cred than the Democrat.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Feb 18, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Hillary is overly corporate having said that I say ABAR...anyone but a Republican.....
> ...


He is a Koch bro prostitute....


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 18, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



Maybe. 

He's also a guy who has a pretty good record of getting things done.  

This election is going to be decided by the 10% in the middle who don't vote for party, but vote for who they think can get things done.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 18, 2015)

North Jersey is where the Democrats live and North Jersey always carries the state in Senate and Presidential races

Governors can go either way


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Feb 18, 2015)

Tweet of the Day 

.GovChristie said NH gov is using her office"as a way to try to increase her own visibility and run for the next job." He really said that
— @MattFriedmanSL


----------



## NLT (Feb 18, 2015)

Hilliary is toast when all the details of pedo bill come out about his orgy island affairs with underage women.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Feb 18, 2015)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/opinion/gov-scott-walkers-drafting-error.html?_r=1
*Gov. Walker’s ‘Drafting Error’ *

*It was not enough for Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin suddenly to propose a destructive 13 percent cut in state support for the University of Wisconsin’s widely respected system. His biennial budget plan, released Tuesday, reached gratuitously into the university’s hallowed 111-year-old mission statement to delete a bedrock principle: “Basic to every purpose of the system is the search for truth.”

The budget — patently tailored for the governor’s conservative campaign for the Republican presidential nomination — inserted language that the university should be more narrowly concerned with meeting “the state’s work force needs.”

Brazenly deleted as well from the mission statement, which is nationally appreciated in education circles as the Wisconsin Idea, were the far from controversial goals “to educate people and improve the human condition” and “serve and stimulate society.” It was as if a trade school agenda were substituted for the idea of a university.
*


----------



## MisterBeale (Feb 18, 2015)

NLT said:


> Hilliary is toast when all the details of pedo bill come out about his orgy island affairs with underage women.



When it comes to the Presidential Race?  The American People are toast.  No matter WHO the elites run for the office, we have no real choice.  All candidates will be PRO WWIII, PRO TPP and TTIP, and for collapsing the dollar and for ushering in a global currency.  They'll definitely be for Agenda 21, "sustainable growth" and global warming protocols.

Chances are, just like immediately before the last changing of the guard, we will have another economic crises, either a bond bubble, or student loan bubble, and the dollar will collapse.  This will cause bank BAIL INS.  Emptying out of peoples savings, mutual funds, etc.

It won't matter who wins in the end.  Because either way, the person occupying that office will do what they are told by the folks on Wall Street, the military industrial complex, and the western banking cabal elites.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 18, 2015)

rightwinger said:


> North Jersey is where the Democrats live and North Jersey always carries the state in Senate and Presidential races
> 
> Governors can go either way


Always as of 1992, not before. And as I wrote in the OP, it's the eye popping margins that make the Rutgers stand out.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## martybegan (Feb 18, 2015)

Three things.

1. Its February 2015 for fucks sake.
2. The thundering herd of potential Republican Candidates dilutes all of their numbers.
3. Its Feburary 2015 for fucks sake.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 18, 2015)

NLT said:


> Hilliary is toast when all the details of pedo bill come out about his orgy island affairs with underage women.



You mean the accusations that have already been discredited about Dershowitz and Prince Andrew?


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 18, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Brazenly deleted as well from the mission statement, which is nationally appreciated in education circles as the Wisconsin Idea, were the far from controversial goals “to educate people and improve the human condition” and “serve and stimulate society.” It was as if a trade school agenda were substituted for the idea of a university.



Again, not seeing that as a bad thing.  This insanity that we tell kids to chuck over $40,000 for a degree in Art History and then tell them to go out into the job market and do you want fries with that.... 

Restructuring the university to benefit Wisconsin's economy.  What a concept!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 18, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Three things.
> 
> 1. Its February 2015 for fucks sake.
> 2. The thundering herd of potential Republican Candidates dilutes all of their numbers.
> 3. Its Feburary 2015 for fucks sake.


You are right. It's February 2015 and for two years solid now, Hillary has been leading all the way. It's called a data-baseline, which will be useful for both her supporters and her detractors. Think about it.

For three solid years, all of 2010, 2011 and 2012, Obama was consistently ahead in Ohio by +3 to +4 in aggregate. On election night, he won Ohio by +3. The data-baseline was correct.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## martybegan (Feb 18, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Three things.
> ...



In Ohio.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 18, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Brazenly deleted as well from the mission statement, which is nationally appreciated in education circles as the Wisconsin Idea, were the far from controversial goals “to educate people and improve the human condition” and “serve and stimulate society.” It was as if a trade school agenda were substituted for the idea of a university.
> ...



We need Art History majors. The problem is we don't need that many, certainly not as many that are graduating.


----------



## Esmeralda (Feb 18, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Hillary is overly corporate having said that I say ABAR...anyone but a Republican.....
> ...


A man who does not believe in evolution and who kowtows to the right wing extremists?  I don't care how blue collar he is, he is not likely to be president with those qualities.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 18, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


You are missing the point.

Oh and btw she is so far ahead in Ohio - and has consistently been so also over the last two years - that, if those numbers hold, Ohio would not even be a battleground in 2016.

I see that discernment is not really your thing. I am shocked, just shocked. ...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 18, 2015)

Its early yet but there's little doubt that Hillary can and would beat Christie, Walker or any other other 1% shills.


----------



## Esmeralda (Feb 18, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


Who are you speaking to?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 18, 2015)

Esmeralda said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


To Martybegan. I was responding to his posting.


Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 18, 2015)

NLT said:


> Hilliary is toast when all the details of pedo bill come out about his orgy island affairs with underage women.




I see you've been reading The National Enquirer.


----------



## Esmeralda (Feb 18, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


Oh.  I have him on ignore and can't see his  posts.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 18, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



never got the whole ignore thing unless a person is actively harrassing you.

If you can't stand opposing positions, why come on this boards in the first place?


----------



## martybegan (Feb 18, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



no, i get the point, what you ignore is right now only name recognition matters, and the degree of recognition. and using a mid-term trend from a standing president vs an open campaign cycle is pretty much worthless.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 18, 2015)

I don't know why a Democratic leading in New Jersey would surprise anybody.  It doesn't matter anyway, being that the election is over a year and half away and we don't even know who the nominees will be.


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 18, 2015)

New Jersey? LOL. Tony Soprano would win the presidential nod, pulease. Anyway it isn't election time yet and the middle roaders only got fed dirt from one pile so far.


----------



## Esmeralda (Feb 18, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...


It's not a matter of opposing positions, it's a matter of the tone in which those opinions are expressed. That's something you wouldn't understand.   The fact that you say it only has to do with opposing opinions clearly makes the point you don't know  how to think, and I find that kind of thing very tiresome. Posters who don't get that are too annoying to want to deal with.  You are not going to understand that either.  Anyway, don't post anything to me and don't expect a response if you do: you'll be back on ignore as soon as I read a few posts here.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 18, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Hillary is overly corporate having said that I say ABAR...anyone but a Republican.....
> ...



Are you serious?  He's the one that is set on destroying unions.......a moderate Democrat is way better than a right-wing extremist any day.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 18, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> > Hilliary is toast when all the details of pedo bill come out about his orgy island affairs with underage women.
> ...



Can he read?


----------



## Mertex (Feb 18, 2015)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I don't know why a Democratic leading in New Jersey would surprise anybody.



Yeah, it is more surprising that Christie, a Republican has been able to be governor there.....but I think most Dems have seen what he is really like....his bubble has been ruptured.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 18, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> New Jersey? LOL.* Tony Soprano would win the presidential nod*, pulease. Anyway it isn't election time yet and the middle roaders only got fed dirt from one pile so far.



And he would do a better job, even dead.......than any of the Republicans that are planning to run.......


----------



## Iceweasel (Feb 18, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > New Jersey? LOL.* Tony Soprano would win the presidential nod*, pulease. Anyway it isn't election time yet and the middle roaders only got fed dirt from one pile so far.
> ...


Hitting the catnip a bit early this morning aren't ya?


----------



## Mertex (Feb 18, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Catnip?  Does that do it for you?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 18, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...


Uh, I don't have you on ignore...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 18, 2015)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> I don't know why a Democratic leading in New Jersey would surprise anybody.  It doesn't matter anyway, being that the election is over a year and half away and we don't even know who the nominees will be.


You didn't read the entire OP, now did you. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 18, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...




It is the poster in questions right to not debate those unworthy of their time. Some people just have other things to do. Get over it.

For example, if I allow myself 30 minutes of play time on this forum per day, I do not want to wast my time reading comments from posters who use the phrase "far left drone" over and over. I simply don't have time for it.


----------



## Esmeralda (Feb 18, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 18, 2015)

Is Chrispie Cream still under investigation?  I haven't had time to keep up with it lately.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 18, 2015)

Esmeralda said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



I will post whatever I fucking want to. So go back to your echo chamber and hear only what you want to hear.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 18, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



So again, you want either an echo chamber, or docile wimpy opponents you think you can lord over.

got it.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 18, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



I know you don't. Was figuring it would piggy back to wimpmarelda.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 18, 2015)

Mertex said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



Public sector unions, something progressive hero FDR thought was a bad idea as well.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 18, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




I guess we see why you're on ignore.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 18, 2015)

WAIT!!!!

Does this mean that has been a.......


_*HILLARY SIGHTING??????*_


----------



## martybegan (Feb 18, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...



If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 18, 2015)

I dunno, can we maybe actually stick to the topic of the OP?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## martybegan (Feb 18, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> I dunno, can we maybe actually stick to the topic of the OP?
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk



NEVER!


----------



## Mertex (Feb 18, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...





martybegan said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



FDR was not against Labor unions.  Scott Walker was....obviously you don't know the difference

"It is now beyond partisan controversy that it is a fundamental individual right of a worker to associate himself with other workers and to bargain collectively with his employer." FDR --Address at San Diego Exposition, October 2, 1935
FDR s Championing of Labor Unions Key to Prosperous Post-War Economy Next New Deal

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s victory in a recall election Tuesday amounted to a significant defeat for the nation’s labor unions, which had mounted one of their most aggressive grass-roots campaigns ever to defeat the Republican.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker s victory deals blow to unions - The Washington Post


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 18, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > I dunno, can we maybe actually stick to the topic of the OP?
> ...




Too bland. Needs color.

Now, back to the OP:

the reason why the data is so interesting is not that Hillary is winning in NJ. We expect that to happen. It's the massive margins, uncharacteristic of this state, that make it worth looking at.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 18, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> I dunno, can we maybe actually stick to the topic of the OP?
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk




Sorry about that, Stat.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 18, 2015)

It's 2007 all over again


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 18, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...




My prediction is that Hillary will win.  She's not my first choice, but better than any NeoCon I've seen so far.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 18, 2015)

Mertex said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



FDR loved private unions. Public sector? not so much.

Did FDR oppose collective bargaining for government workers PolitiFact Wisconsin



> Walker said FDR "felt there wasn’t a need in the public sector to have collective bargaining because the government is the people."
> 
> The governor relies -- to good effect -- on Roosevelt’s 1937 letter, which, along with other primary evidence, lays out in striking language FDR’s deep reservations about the need for and wisdom of public-sector bargaining.
> 
> ...



Show me one private union Walker has gone after. The reason the private unions are also against walker is they think the public unions are their only strength left, and if those go, the private unions would be in trouble too.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 18, 2015)

The way the GOP has gone against women, it's no wonder that Hillary tops them all.  Republicans need to realize that women vote.........in numbers.......


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's 2007 all over again




Though that is an argument you could make, it is very doubtful.

You only need to look at the GOP 1976 and 1980 to know that that is very, very unlikely.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 18, 2015)

Mertex said:


> The way the GOP has gone against women, it's no wonder that Hillary tops them all.  Republicans need to realize that women vote.........in numbers.......



That "war on women" thing went sooo fucking well for you in 2014....

The woman vote at worst skews 60-40. Are we at "war" with the 40% floor that votes republican as well?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 18, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > I dunno, can we maybe actually stick to the topic of the OP?
> ...




Time to whip you with a wet noodle!!








Sticking to the principle of the OP: the idea is that *"a rising tide lifts all boats"*. If Hillary is between +23 and +31 in New Jersey, traditionally (meaning, the last 24 years) a D +15 state, this automatically means that states with a history of higher margins (DC, VT, MA, RI, DE, CT, NY, MD) are pretty much guaranteed to be massive Hillary wins.

What WOULD be interesting right now would be to see a fresh poll from Maine because, like New Jersey, Maine is also traditionally a D +15 state.

In 2008, when it was clear that Obama was heading for a sizeable win, polling in ND and SD was showing both states in single digits (the Dakotas are traditionally R +25 or more states) confirmed that the R margins were quite depressed, usually a sign of the losing side. And on election night, 2008, McCain won both Dakotas by about +8 points instead of the usual +25.

In 1984, as it was clear that Ronald Reagan was sailing to a possible 50 state sweep of our Union, polling in Massachusetts, a traditionally very Democratic state, showing him either behind of ahead by only 1 point was some of the best proof of all that he was likely going to sweep the nation.

So, margin-patterns in states that are considered "safe" are just as instructive to study as the battleground states.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 18, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > The way the GOP has gone against women, it's no wonder that Hillary tops them all.  Republicans need to realize that women vote.........in numbers.......
> ...




That would be +20 for the Democratic candidate. No Republican can win the White House and lose the *female* vote by 20 points, especially considering that a Republican cannot expect more than 10% of the Black vote, if at all, 30% of the Asian vote, 20% of the American Indian vote, and if things continue, 20% of the Latino vote.

Right now, Clinton is winning in the women's vote in most state polls and in most matchups by circa +25, sometimes as high as +32.

It's simple arithmetic.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 18, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



That would work except for the electoral college. You guys keep forgetting about that one.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 18, 2015)

Mertex said:


> The way the GOP has gone against women, it's no wonder that Hillary tops them all.  Republicans need to realize that women vote.........in numbers.......



GOP needs improve their outreach to women by keeping 16 year old women as sex slaves.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Feb 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > The way the GOP has gone against women, it's no wonder that Hillary tops them all.  Republicans need to realize that women vote.........in numbers.......
> ...




Maybe they should try the factual information instead of tabloid approach. Just saying...


----------



## Esmeralda (Feb 18, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 18, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




Oh, no, I haven't forgotten that. Right now, according to polling, Hillary is STARTING at 311 EV. STARTING.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 18, 2015)

Day is rapidly fading and still no reports of any Hillary sightings.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 18, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> Day is rapidly fading and still no reports of any Hillary sightings.




I know that with your mental illness, it may be very, very hard for you to concentrate on anything, what with your brains firmly up your loose ass, so, to help you, here is the OP title AGAIN:

*Hillary is STOMPING Christie, Jeb Bush and Walker in NJ*

It's about specific polling values in NJ, not about whether you sighted Hillary Clinton.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 18, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



In February 2015. That's like going 4-0 in pre-season football a season earlier.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 18, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Well, ok. And when in one year, just as one year ago, the same data is coming in showing the GOP getting a pasting from Hillary all over the place, I will remind you of this thread.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Feb 18, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



NJ elected Krispie Kreme as a backlash against the Goldman-Sachs mogul with the broken leg. It is also one of the most informed electorates in the nation IMO. His re-election was a combination of Hurricane Sandy and political election gerrymandering by excluding Cory Booker from November at the expense of NJ taxpayers. 

His Bridgegate albatross has exposed him as being, at best, a very poor judge of character to have surrounded himself with a gang of criminals. 

So his lousy polling makes him unlikely to attract GOP establishment funding for 2016 since it doesn't look like he can carry his own home state. At this point he is toast IMO.

Hilary's numbers in NJ might foretell a sweep but they give hope to other Dem candidates. I would love to see how Warren matches up in NJ.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 18, 2015)

Carla_Danger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



I'm sure Hillary's primary opponents will do their own fact finding


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Feb 18, 2015)

Even at their  favorite table Hillary can beat their best.....


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 18, 2015)

Esmeralda said:


> A man who does not believe in evolution and who kowtows to the right wing extremists? I don't care how blue collar he is, he is not likely to be president with those qualities.



Evolution is not a winning issue when 42% of the population thinks that it happened just the way the Bible says it did.


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 18, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Are you serious? He's the one that is set on destroying unions.......a moderate Democrat is way better than a right-wing extremist any day.



Here's the problem with that.  MOst of us don't have State union jobs where you can retire at 50, and get six figure pension, all of which are paid for by joe citizen, and it's damned near impossible to fire you unless you show up drunk to work.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 18, 2015)

Sun's gone down and Hillary is sundowning in some secret place.....where nobody seems to be able to find her.

Remember Vince Foster's car?

If you can find it, check the trunk......


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 19, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > A man who does not believe in evolution and who kowtows to the right wing extremists? I don't care how blue collar he is, he is not likely to be president with those qualities.
> ...




Yes, that is a wee bit scary, now isn't it.

But with things like economy, military, civil rights, health care.... on the front burner, I am just not so sure how much traction the Evo-birthers are going to get....


----------



## Esmeralda (Feb 19, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > A man who does not believe in evolution and who kowtows to the right wing extremists? I don't care how blue collar he is, he is not likely to be president with those qualities.
> ...


42% of Americans do not believe in evolution?  It's amazing the US is not already a 3rd world country.

This is what I found about this. It is  mainly Republicans who do not believe in evolution:

"Some 54 percent of Republicans and 64 percent of Democrats said they believed in evolution in 2009. That ten-point gap more than doubled in the latest survey, which found that only *43 percent* of Republicans believe in evolution while *67 percent* of Democrats said humans have evolved over time.Jan 1, 2014"
*A third of Americans don't believe in evolution - Phys.org*
phys.org/news/2014-01-*americans*-*dont*-*evolution*.html


----------



## JoeB131 (Feb 19, 2015)

Esmeralda said:


> 42% of Americans do not believe in evolution? It's amazing the US is not already a 3rd world country.
> 
> This is what I found about this. It is mainly Republicans who do not believe in evolution:
> 
> ...



I think the problem is, the concept of evolution is too much for a lot of people to take in.  If we evolved, then there isn't a God, there isn't a happy place you go after you die, all your dead loved ones are really gone for good and you will never see them again. 

Much nicer to think that there's a magic pixie in the sky who loves you and all this pain and misery we all go through is for a reason.  

So again, it you want to go after Walker, who I think would be the most formidable GOP candidate, this is not the issue to do it on. Neither is the fact that he didn't get a college degree when 68% of Americans don't have one.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 19, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



I'm sure of it. I'll be ready for all of your side's complaints of cheating when Hillary loses.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 19, 2015)

Derideo_Te said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



LOL. "Bridgegate" in Jersey politics is business as usual. If NJ has one of the most informed electorates, why do they go negative right off the bat? Have you ever SEEN NJ political ads? They don't run on position, they run on smear. 

States elect Republican governors because they realize Democrats have spent all of the money in the piggy bank, and unlike the country as a whole, people who get soaked to cover the costs CAN MOVE AWAY. Connecticut is going through that right now.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 19, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Isn't that what you all were saying about Romney in 2012.....right up to, no wait, right after Obama was declared winner?  Just sayin............


----------



## Mertex (Feb 19, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Sure they will........they'll go to Rush Limbaugh for support.......


----------



## martybegan (Feb 19, 2015)

Mertex said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



I thought Romney had a chance, but I knew beating an incumbent is difficult. Bill Clinton only did it because of the Perot effect. 

Try and find any accusations of Cheating I posted on this forum in 2012.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 19, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I said "you all" - not saying you specifically...........but, the point I was trying to make is that Hillary isn't going to lose.....the polls showed Obama was going to win and "you all" were so sure that Romney was  going to win...that's what I was referring to.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 19, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




Election Night 2016: Hillary with 57% of the NPV (when the final canvasses are in), and over 400 EV.

Good luck with that one, li'l slugger!


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 19, 2015)

As long as she stays silent and in hiding she's a shoein


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 19, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



No. This is false, very false.

CNN/ORC and a number of different pollsters still ran two-man matchups all the way up to election night 1992. Their final poll showed Clinton +6 over Bush 41 and Perot, but their 2-man poll showed him at +10, 55-45. The Perot effect would have actually helped Clinton had it vanished, which we clearly see from the 1996 race.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 19, 2015)

Mertex said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



That was leading up to the election, when it as a one on one fight. 

But keep shoring yourself up with early 2015 polls, I guess the ass kickings "you all" took in 2014 still sting.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 19, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



So Perot did not cost Bush a single state? Again you ignore the electoral college.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 19, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



So i guess you know who is going to win the superbowl in January of 2017, because that is basically what you are trying to do with the 2016 election.

But if you have to tell yourself "unbeatable Hillary" Stories so you can sleep at night, go ahead.


----------



## fmdog44 (Feb 19, 2015)

What month/ year is it? The real tragedy facing America is while the Republicans struggle to find a front runner the Democrats can't come up with anyone better than an old woman whose time has long passed. America is shriveling as evidence by it lack of leaders. No. 2016 is a long way away and our current "leader" continues to embarrass the free people of the world.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 19, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




And again, you miss the point. Without Perot, Clinton would also have sailed over 400 EV, quite easily.  No candidate has ever won a circa +10 or more race in the last 80+ and not come in at about 400 EV or more.

Reagan 1984, 1980
Nixon 1972
LBJ 1964
Eisenhower 1956, 1952
FDR 1940, 1936, 1932
Hoover 1928

And then there's Bush 41 1988 and FDR 1944, where both won by around +7.5% in the NPV and still came over 400 EV.

Pay attention.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 19, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




You seem angry.  I am just reporting the numbers, and btw, I have only written about a hundred times thus far in USMB: "if these numbers hold..."

That's enough of a disclaimer. Pay attention.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 19, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Again, you are using national numbers, not state level numbers.

Are you saying Perot did not cost Bush a single state?


----------



## martybegan (Feb 19, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



You are not just "reporting the numbers."  You are drawing conclusions from them which agree with your political views.

Stop with this "I'm above it all because, numbers" bullshit. Its about as sad as JakeFarkey claiming he is a Republican.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 19, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



If the polling showed it at +6 for Clinton nationally in a three-way but at +10 in a two-way, that can only mean that Clinton would have done better in the respective states where it was relatively close.  For instance, Clinton barely lost Florida in 1992. Without Perot, he probably would have won both that state and North Carolina.  Also, polling in Indiana was the closest for a Democrat there since 1948 (excepting LBJs out and out win in 1964), so in a two man race, Clinton could easily have won the Hoosier state, 16 years before Obama did in a two man race in 2008.  His numbers were also high enough in Georgia that I believe he would have kept the state in a two man race. Clinton very narrowly won the Peach state in 1992.

Montana, on the other hand, could indeed have swung for Bush in 1992 in a two man race.


So, after losing about 40 more EV, Bush could have picked up 3.  What a deal!


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 19, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I am all about the numbers. You are the one getting mad, not I.

I bet you have never really read my analyses from stem to stern. Were you to do that, you would realize that I truly am a numbers man, whether you like to admit it or not.

Pay attention.

And have a great day.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 19, 2015)

mudwhistle said:


> As long as she stays silent and in hiding she's a shoein



Yeah, I know exactly what you mean.....the Republican candidates will open their mouths and remove all doubt.....can hardly wait...


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 19, 2015)

Yup, Hillary is great. Long as she doesn't open her mouth or voice her opinion she's perfect. Everybody else need not run because the media has already anointed her the winner. As long as she doesn't have to stand up for an extended period or participate in a debate, she wins, because the average American is so stupid that name recognition matters more than experience or competence.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 19, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



You keep using national numbers and ignoring state numbers. You also ignore that most Perot voters would probably either stay home or voted more in favor of Bush than Clinton. 

You also ignore the fact that without Perot from the start the entire dynamics of the campaign would have changed. 

Lets look at Michigan as an example with 18 electoral votes.

Michigan 
Clinton 1,871,182 43.77 18 
Bush    1,554,940 36.38 
Perot: 824,813 19.30

One has to assume various ways Perot voters would vote if Perot was not in the race. Stay home, vote Bush, Vote Clinton. Considering the margin of winning for Clinton was just over 316k, The Perot effect is noticeable in the raw numbers.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 19, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



You pretend to be a numbers person, but your ability to use statistics is not connected to your ability to learn from them. You splat some numbers around and come to the same conclusion you have already made in your mind. The fact that you are giddy over Early 2015 numbers for a 2016 election is proof of that. 

You are a hack with a penchant for mangling statistics, nothing more.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 19, 2015)

Tell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?

When did you last see a Democrat consistently polling 10 points ahead of almost all GOP comers in Ohio? In Pennsylvania? When is the last time you saw a Democrat pulling even in Georgia, Lousiana and Arkansas?

There is a data-pattern going on here than cannot be denied.

No one is inevitable. Hillary can indeed lose. But that's not what the numbers are saying now and that's not what they have been saying for 2 years straight.

And in one year from now, when Hillary is still stomping the GOP, I am going to remind you of this thread.

It's simple math.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 19, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Tell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
> 
> When did you last see a Democrat consistently polling 10 points ahead of almost all GOP comers in Ohio? In Pennsylvania? When is the last time you saw a Democrat pulling even in Georgia, Lousiana and Arkansas?
> 
> ...



promises, promises


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 19, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



And you keep deliberately ignoring that polling quite clearly indicated that had Perot lef the race (again) right before election day, Clinton would have done BETTER, not worse.

I will also remind that when Perot dropped out of the race for a while, Clinton sprang back up to +10, just like the 2-way hypothetical polling was still showing on election eve.

Furthermore, your assumption that Perot voters would have stayed home is just that: an assumption.

Not only that, there is no reason to religitate something that has already happened.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 19, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Tell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
> 
> When did you last see a Democrat consistently polling 10 points ahead of almost all GOP comers in Ohio? In Pennsylvania? When is the last time you saw a Democrat pulling even in Georgia, Lousiana and Arkansas?
> 
> ...



No its statistics based on polling, which is not Math. Statistics based on polling are not facts, they are trends and insinuations.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 19, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



This isn't litigating, this is people making the hard statement that Perot had not impact on Clinton winning, which is false. You have to use theoretical models like "Perot leaves on the last day" and ignore the state level numbers showing the margin of Clinton or Bushes win in a State were mostly within the number of Perot votes.

Is the Cult of Clinton so great with you people that you can't admit he got help winning his election from a 3rd party candidate?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 19, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
> ...





martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
> ...



Oh, polling values are definitely statistical fact, which is definitely math. And they can definitely show trends. I have no idea what you mean by "insinuations" in this context.

If you think that the GOP people are not looking at the aggregates just as closely as I do, then you are fooling yourself. Why in the world do you think that President Bush (43) tried to make a play for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and Hawaii in 2004? Why, because the polling aggregates told him that those states could maybe be ripe for the picking.

And in 2008, McCain gave up on Michigan, just as Romney did in 2012, when the aggregates were consistently pointing to an Obama landslide no matter what..  Likewise, Obama thought to make a hard play for Georgia in 2008, but the closest he could some in aggregate, consistently, was 5 points, which is not enough. So, he gave up on Georgia.

Based on polling aggregates, both political teams make informed decisions. You do realize this, right?


----------



## martybegan (Feb 19, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Yes, they make decisions based on them, but again on trends and perceived outcomes. but you can't go around saying that Perot having an impact on the outcome of the 1992 election is a hard 100% "False" due to polling data and statistics. 

The facts of an election without Perot, be it from the start or a withdrawal before the election cannot be determined because it DID NOT HAPPEN. The best you can do is assume based on the available data, and again, just spouting numbers does not allow ANYONE to say something is concretely "FALSE"

You have statistical evidence that Perot probably did not cause Bush to lose, you do not have that evidence as a "fact"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 19, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



You realize the Progressive base considers Hillary to be a hard right wing Conservative who committed the mortal sin of voting for Bush's Illegal War for Oil and has been a No Show at Liz Warren's Daily 2 Minute Hate on "the Rich" right?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 19, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




That's the point you are still missing, because you want to miss the point. If national polling were showing Clinton doing considerable better in margin WITHOUT Perot in the race, then that can only mean that at the state level, he would have to be doing considerably better as well.

But, just to humour you, let's take *your* Michigan data as an example. Clinton won by +316,242 votes. As you indicated, Perot got 824,813 votes in Michigan in 1992.

But assuming you really meant it when you said that Perot voters would have stayed home in 1992, then it would not matter, that would have meant that 824,000+ voters would simply not have showed up and Clinton would still have won the Wolverine State by 315,000+ votes. But let's assume that at least 80% of Perot voters had indeed stayed in the game in a hypothetical Perot drop out.

That would be 659,851 votes.

Now, in order to get enough Perot votes to Bush to erase that 316,242 Clinton lead, Bush would have needed to get about 490,000 of those 659,851 votes (74.6%) in order to get to a +320,000 margin over Clinton in those votes alone, those erasing the historically recorded +316,000 vote Clinton lead:

659,851 Perot votes (80% of the total Perot vote in MI in 1992)

Bush: 490,000
Clinton: 169,851
margin (in the Perot vote hypothetically split this way between Bush and Clinton):  Bush +320,149

Add that to the historical totals and Bush would have won Michigan by about 4,000 votes, which would have surely triggered a recount at least.

 But the Perot voters tended to say in polling they were more 1/2 1/2 were it a two-man race, so there is no way that Bush would have gotten 75% of the Perot vote, had he dropped out of the race,, to begin with. And I am speaking very specifically about the Michigan race that you mentioned.

No candidate has ever won in the NPV by +10, but lost in the EC. You do realize this, right?

It has nothing to do with your butthurt and inappropriate comments about "cult of Clinton". It has to do with math. And state for state, I can show you how it is very unlikely, outside of Montana, that Bush would have won a state that he lost in the historically recorded 3-way match from 1992.


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 19, 2015)

Now somebody explain why a former First Lady who claimed to have come under sniper fire when she obviously didn't is a more qualified candidate than 3 governors??? Why not run Brian Williams as her VP?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 19, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Alright, I can buy that. There is statistical evidence that Perot in or out of the race would not have changed the outcome.  BTW, your statement "because it DID NOT HAPPEN" is what I could have been saying to you all the time here. You are the one who started with the hypotheticals, not I.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 19, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Perhaps. But you can be guaranteed that they will vote for her.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 19, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



Again, its all conjecture you are trying to masquerade as fact. 

And fuck you for calling my comments "inappropriate"


----------



## martybegan (Feb 19, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...



You are the one that said Perot impacting the results was "False" not me. Again you run to numbers and try to make conjecture into fact.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 19, 2015)

mudwhistle said:


> Yup, Hillary is great. Long as she doesn't open her mouth or voice her opinion she's perfect. Everybody else need not run because the media has already anointed her the winner. As long as she doesn't have to stand up for an extended period or participate in a debate, she wins, because the average American is so stupid that name recognition matters more than experience or competence.



Sounds to me you're really butt hurt about this.  It isn't the media that puts Hillary at the top....it's the people, so it could be there are not enough people with the wrong ideas about how this country should be run to get one of the clowns elected.


----------



## mudwhistle (Feb 19, 2015)

Mertex said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, Hillary is great. Long as she doesn't open her mouth or voice her opinion she's perfect. Everybody else need not run because the media has already anointed her the winner. As long as she doesn't have to stand up for an extended period or participate in a debate, she wins, because the average American is so stupid that name recognition matters more than experience or competence.
> ...



So what has Hillary done to be so highly regarded?

Everything she touches turns to shit. Benghazi, Columbian hookers, the Russian Reset? It's not enough to park your fat-ass in a position of leadership, but it's what you got done that matters. Traveling and shopping isn't a qualification for president. Her only real quality that seems to matter is she's a woman. Nothing else matters to you folks. She has to be the first woman president. You did that with Obama and look at the mess he's caused.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 19, 2015)

OK, it's kinda early in the day in some time zones.....

But has ANYBODY seen Hillary today?

Anybody?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 19, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me, martybegan - when did you last see a Democrat win New Jersey by over 23 points?
> ...





martybegan said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




Little grumpy today, what?

Actually, I took time to really work out exactly the scenario YOU mentioned and then you write something like that. What a shame for you.


----------



## martybegan (Feb 19, 2015)

Mertex said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, Hillary is great. Long as she doesn't open her mouth or voice her opinion she's perfect. Everybody else need not run because the media has already anointed her the winner. As long as she doesn't have to stand up for an extended period or participate in a debate, she wins, because the average American is so stupid that name recognition matters more than experience or competence.
> ...



No, its the media and other fellow cheer-leaders such as yourself. 

I find it sad you assholes are going snarky more than 20 months before the actual election. The only buffoonery is on your end.


----------



## JoeMoma (Feb 19, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> OK, it's kinda early in the day in some time zones.....
> 
> But has ANYBODY seen Hillary today?
> 
> Anybody?


I would bet $0.75 that Bill hasn't seen her today.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 19, 2015)

JoeMoma said:


> I would bet $0.75 that Bill hasn't seen her today.



Slick can legitimately be called many things but, trust me, he's not dumb enough to willingly risk being turned to stone.....


----------



## 1stRambo (Feb 19, 2015)

Have you heard the latest? Hillary is excepting foreign Government money to the Clinton Foundation?


----------



## JoeMoma (Feb 19, 2015)

1stRambo said:


> Have you heard the latest? Hillary is excepting foreign Government money to the Clinton Foundation?


But all of that money is going to charity!


----------



## 1stRambo (Feb 19, 2015)

You don`t know your own Party? CHEAT!


----------



## Esmeralda (Feb 21, 2015)

1stRambo said:


> Have you heard the latest? Hillary is excepting foreign Government money to the Clinton Foundation?


Excepting?  How do you except money?


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 21, 2015)

And a Happy Saturday to all of those liberals among us who have had a personal Hillary sighting today!

Oh, wait, none have??????


----------



## Vigilante (Feb 21, 2015)

Out of sight...out of mind!


----------



## Nyvin (Feb 21, 2015)

Is Hillary not being public the latest Republican noise machine scandal?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 21, 2015)

Nyvin said:


> Is Hillary not being public the latest Republican noise machine scandal?




Yes, I think that is the newest meme.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 21, 2015)

And the sun sets gently behind the sanitorium; another day passes into history with no Hillary sighting. 

Not even a rumor of one.

Are we confronted with the possibility of a tired old body waiting for the final quietude?  A staff of animatronics wizards impatiently standing by, feet tapping?  Nervously watching the minutes ebb away before The Grand Democrat Party convention by which time their work MUST be done?

Fortunately science hasn't gotten that far so there IS hope for America!

But wait, maybe Apple's Project TITAN isn't about an electric mini-van at all!


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Feb 21, 2015)

statistikmange seems pleasantly 'shocked' that a liberal Democrap is doing well in a deep blue state.

Film at 11.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 22, 2015)

IlarMeilyr said:


> statistikmange seems pleasantly 'shocked' that a liberal Democrap is doing well in a deep blue state.
> 
> Film at 11.


So, you didn't read the details of the OP. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Vigilante (Feb 22, 2015)




----------



## Agit8r (Feb 22, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Hillary is overly corporate having said that I say ABAR...anyone but a Republican.....
> ...



What? He's a career politician who went on an actual witch hunt. Is that all it takes these days?


----------



## Agit8r (Feb 22, 2015)

Vigilante said:


>



Maybe she isn't over the 2008 primaries...


----------



## Vigilante (Feb 22, 2015)

Agit8r said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



The way the old drunk drinks, I'm sure your right, being beat by a jug eared, black, communist takes many years to get over, if at all!


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Feb 22, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > statistikmange seems pleasantly 'shocked' that a liberal Democrap is doing well in a deep blue state.
> ...




I rarely read an entire wall of words such as you posted.  But I did note that you seemed pleased that Shrillary is doing well in NJ against Republicans.

Which is just downright funny.

YAY!  The NY football Giants are doing well in the kiddie's sandlot touch football league!


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 22, 2015)

Sunday and all is right with the world.

Brighter still because not even  a cloud of the alleged Hillary has yet darkened the sky.

Say, how long do those treatment programs last???


----------



## Mertex (Feb 24, 2015)

martybegan said:


> I find it sad you assholes are going snarky more than 20 months before the actual election. The only buffoonery is on your end.



Oooh.......your butt hurt really shows when you call names...........but, your clowns decided to come out early, so we're giving them the recognition they deserve....you should thank us.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 24, 2015)

Esmeralda said:


> 1stRambo said:
> 
> 
> > Have you heard the latest? Hillary is excepting foreign Government money to the Clinton Foundation?
> ...



Bwhahaha....nice catch......they're the ones who want English to be the only language spoken in the US and they don't even know how to speak it.


----------



## Mertex (Feb 24, 2015)

Nyvin said:


> Is Hillary not being public the latest Republican noise machine scandal?



That's all they've got?  Sad............


----------



## Mertex (Feb 24, 2015)

Well, Jeb Bush didn't impress anyone with his Foreign Policy speech...........and he's supposed to be the top contender?  Hffffttttt!

Must be terribly disappointing for the right-whingers......



Bush’s speech, which he gave Wednesday in Chicago, consisted of empty platitudes doled out in tight rations. Anyone who expected more from perhaps the leading establishment contender for the Republican presidential nomination had to be disappointed.

Set aside, for the moment, the fact that Bush’s rushed, fumbling delivery would have made even the grandest ideas sound small. Look past the fact that he proved his father’s and brother’s equal in creatively mangling the English language – saying, for example, that immigration should be a “catalytic converter” for economic growth.

ROBINSON Jeb s speech falls flat


----------



## Esmeralda (Feb 24, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > 1stRambo said:
> ...


And they think liberal arts studies are a joke, unnecessary and unimportant. Language studies are in the liberal arts curriculum, not science and technology.  Liberal arts.  Such idiots.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 24, 2015)

Well, the 'Conservatives' do not like science studies, either. In fact, they don't like anything but bone ignorance.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 24, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, the 'Conservatives' do not like science studies, either. In fact, they don't like anything but bone ignorance.



Consensus is not science


----------



## martybegan (Feb 24, 2015)

Mertex said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > I find it sad you assholes are going snarky more than 20 months before the actual election. The only buffoonery is on your end.
> ...



The sad thing is you don't even realize you are being snarky condescending douchebags.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 24, 2015)

Another day and no Hillary sightings!

Are liberals completely devoid of imagination?


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 24, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> Another day and no Hillary sightings!
> 
> Are liberals completely devoid of imagination?


This is important to you, eh?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 24, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> This is important to you, eh?



Very important.

Y'see, I'm not a pseudo-Jewish liberal with no regard at all for the *well-being* of America's Alzheimer's sufferers.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Feb 24, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > This is important to you, eh?
> ...


You think that Hillary is a pseudo-Jewish Liberal? ? Hmmmmm. ...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 24, 2015)

Poor Statist's mirror has failed him/her/it again!

Meanwhile the sun is well over the yardarm and still no sign of Hillary.  Maybe somebody oughta check the trunk of the limo Slick used last?


----------



## Nyvin (Feb 24, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> Poor Statist's mirror has failed him/her/it again!
> 
> Meanwhile the sun is well over the yardarm and still no sign of Hillary.  Maybe somebody oughta check the trunk of the limo Slick used last?



Hillary Clinton delivers gentle scold on equality in Silicon Valley speech - LA Times


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 25, 2015)

The surgery apparently went very well!

Too bad they forgot to fix the saggy neck.

That's always a dead giveaway.

But, given that she and Slick were so dead broke and that Obamacare doesn't cover plastic work, I guess that's all she could afford.


----------



## Vermonter (Feb 26, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> The surgery apparently went very well!
> 
> Too bad they forgot to fix the saggy neck.
> 
> ...


Didn't fix her fat ankles either.


----------



## Nyvin (Feb 26, 2015)

Vermonter said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > The surgery apparently went very well!
> ...



I didn't see many comments about McCain's swollen left cheek or bald head in 2008...wonder what's the difference between the two....hmm


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 26, 2015)

Nyvin said:


> I didn't see many comments about McCain's swollen left cheek or bald head in 2008...wonder what's the difference between the two....hmm



Could it be that you believe McCain is a candidate this time around?

Hell of a long nap boi, this is 2015!


----------



## Circe (Mar 2, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> The surgery apparently went very well!
> 
> Too bad they forgot to fix the saggy neck.
> 
> That's always a dead giveaway.



Hillary does take a great facelift. Her last one looked really good. I assume the temporary absence is about recovery time. No problem with that.


----------



## Neotrotsky (Mar 9, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> This is actually very important news:
> 
> TIME FOR A WOMAN IN THE OVAL OFFICE NEW JERSEYANS AGREE COUNTRY IS READY Center for Public Interest Polling




Comrade,
what a great setback to our progressive dreams when Papa Obama steps down-*We must get Hillary in office!!* While a third term would be great, it is time for another under qualified/over-rated person to be elected because they belong to the right group.

The sooner the better...So to help start off this campaign, I am suggesting the following poster in the tradition that helped to get Papa Obama elected







We must elect her for just being a woman, if nothing else -


----------



## Statistikhengst (Mar 10, 2015)

Neotrotsky said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > This is actually very important news:
> ...




Well, I'm not sure if they gave you the red pills or the pink pills or the green pills at the Sunny Dales Sanitarium this morning, but this thread is about statistical data. I think you made a wrong turn at the Kindergarden section. Here, let me point you to the right forum:

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Darn those pink pills, they make Righties all groggy!

There you go, l'il slugger. Have fun!


----------



## Neotrotsky (Mar 10, 2015)

Interesting,  while I agree that electing someone just because she is a women is a great progressive goal,
I do feel we are being biased against the trans-gender and not including them in our goals for the presidency. No doubt a micro aggression on our progressive part. 

Perhaps, from your own obvious experience with make-up, you could provide us some more useless
useful stats on that element   

Then again, with Hillary


----------



## Statistikhengst (Mar 10, 2015)

Neotrotsky said:


> Interesting,  while I agree that electing someone just because she is a women is a great progressive goal,
> I do feel we are being biased against the trans-gender and not including them in our goals for the presidency. No doubt a micro aggression on our progressive part.
> 
> Perhaps, from your own obvious experience with make-up, you could provide us some more useless
> ...


What exactly do you mean by make-up? 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Conservative65 (Mar 10, 2015)

Interesting how what's between your legs gets your more support from Liberals than what's between your ears.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 10, 2015)

Hillary stomping the truth in all 57 states!!

Emails? What emails??


----------



## haissem123 (Mar 10, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> again, at this point, it's name recognition, not so much popularity.
> 
> Hillary is going to have to get out in front of voters again at some point, and then we are going to have to ask ourselves, "Do we want to listen to that screeching voice for the next four to eight years?"


this is classic video thanks. I think it's time to look for a new unknown name. Maybe somebody that doesn't know how d.c. works. It's time to throw out anybody in d.c. starting with everybody new. then we can stop the way d.c. doesn't work


----------



## haissem123 (Mar 10, 2015)

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Hillary is overly corporate having said that I say ABAR...anyone but a Republican.....
> ...


is walker blue collar? doesn't seem it to me.


----------



## WelfareQueen (Mar 10, 2015)

Hillary.....   The old bag is done.  Fucking polls from New Jersey???


----------



## haissem123 (Mar 10, 2015)

lol. great picks. love em. the trash one is good too.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Mar 10, 2015)

*Poll: Scott Walker Approval Dips In Wisconsin*


----------



## WelfareQueen (Mar 10, 2015)

Polls are great!    Oopsie.....maybe not.  


Key quote from the NY Times:  "*The general election is a different story. Mrs. Clinton would not cruise to victory, and, yes, she could easily lose. The polls now show her favorability rating beneath 50 percent. *"


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/u...le-in-2016-than-you-think.html?abt=0002&abg=1


----------



## WelfareQueen (Mar 10, 2015)

Oopsie....another poll....from Nate Silver no less.  The Hildabeast's current favorability among Independents.   43%   Yikes!!!   


Sad.  

Is Hillary Clinton Qualified to Be President A New Poll is Easy to Misread FiveThirtyEight


----------



## WelfareQueen (Mar 10, 2015)

Wonder where the Hillary supporters are?  They all seemed to disappear.  Sad.


----------



## DarkFury (Mar 10, 2015)

WelfareQueen said:


> Wonder where the Hillary supporters are?  They all seemed to disappear.  Sad.


*My guess is that it's getting crowded under that rock.*


----------



## Mertex (Mar 11, 2015)

Neotrotsky said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > This is actually very important news:
> ...



How about for being smarter than any of the 18 clowns in the GOP mini-van....we don't need a dictator like you have in your country........who kills anyone that opposes him...


----------



## haissem123 (Mar 11, 2015)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Poll: Scott Walker Approval Dips In Wisconsin*


don't tell me those hicks are learning his tricks? took them long enough


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Mar 11, 2015)

haissem123 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > *Poll: Scott Walker Approval Dips In Wisconsin*
> ...


Cheese overload.....its all gouda...


----------



## UnAmericanYOU (Mar 11, 2015)

From the above link:


> Just before Walker's re-election in 2014, 49 percent of Wisconsinites approved of the Wisconsin governor while 47 percent said they disapproved, according to Democratic-leaning PPP. The latest finding from the pollster found Walker's approval has dropped, with 43 percent of Wisconsinites saying they approve of the job he's doing while 52 percent said they disapprove. Another 4 percent said they were unsure.



That doesn't really matter because now they are stuck with him for four more years but winning re-elections with those numbers is something I'm not used to at all. Anything under 55% approval for an incumbent used to be fatal.


----------



## Vigilante (Mar 11, 2015)

*Former Navy SEAL Goes Off on Hillary Clinton*

Tea Party ^
In a scathing new video, NRA News contributor and former Navy SEAL Dom Raso labels former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a “liar who thinks she can use the heroism of out nation’s armed forces to promote herself as the next commander-in-chief.” Raso’s blistering commentary stems from a major false claim made by Clinton in 2008 when she recalled coming under “sniper fire” during a trip to Bosnia.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Mar 12, 2015)

I think Christie will end up faring best even if Hillary is stomping them all quite thoroughly.

He has the most padding.


----------



## haissem123 (Mar 12, 2015)

UnAmericanYOU said:


> From the above link:
> 
> 
> > Just before Walker's re-election in 2014, 49 percent of Wisconsinites approved of the Wisconsin governor while 47 percent said they disapproved, according to Democratic-leaning PPP. The latest finding from the pollster found Walker's approval has dropped, with 43 percent of Wisconsinites saying they approve of the job he's doing while 52 percent said they disapprove. Another 4 percent said they were unsure.
> ...


the powers that be our masters split us down the middle and now we can't move but hop up and down in place. dah


----------



## The2ndAmendment (Mar 14, 2015)

Um, you mean Hillary wins against three liberals RINOS?

Of course. If you're gonna vote for a liberal, might as well vote for a real one.


----------



## Neotrotsky (Mar 14, 2015)

she is a real something
but liberal is not one of them


----------



## JoeMoma (Mar 14, 2015)

Mertex said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> > Statistikhengst said:
> ...


Not smart enough to use a dot gov email.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 14, 2015)

JoeMoma said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Neotrotsky said:
> ...



Oh, I wouldn't say that.....she never got hacked...... dot gov did.....Collin Powell's e-mail got hacked...that's how we found out he was having an affair.........

U.S. Military and Government Computers Hacked by Teenager by The Internet Patrol - The Internet Patrol


----------



## JoeMoma (Mar 14, 2015)

Mertex said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


Of course you would not say that.........  You will defend her no matter what!


----------



## Mertex (Mar 14, 2015)

JoeMoma said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



Well, show me where she ever got hacked?  Turns out her e-mail was safer in her private server......much to conservative chagrin.


----------



## JoeMoma (Mar 14, 2015)

Mertex said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


Also safer from subpoenas from congressional committees.  Perhaps all goverment employees should ignore record retention procedures and set up their own private emails for conducting goverment business.  Do you really want to keep going down this road?


----------



## Mertex (Mar 14, 2015)

JoeMoma said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



Well, a lot of them do, already.  Like Collin Powell....where was your outrage then?  Also Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, not to mention Mitt Romney......where was the outrage there?


----------



## JoeMoma (Mar 14, 2015)

Mertex said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


Hillary was outraged for me.  Not that your list equates to what Hillary did in that Hillary didnt use an official dot gov email at all.



It's not smart for her to bitch about secret emails and then do it 100 times worst herself.

p.s.  Thanks for proving that you will defend hillary no matter what!


----------



## Neotrotsky (Mar 14, 2015)

Democrats have stopped being a political party 
they have devolved into a cult worship of their political leaders 

such things are never good for the body politic


----------



## Mertex (Mar 14, 2015)

JoeMoma said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



And thanks for deflecting when I mention the clowns in the Republican party that are doing the same thing.  And, FYI, since you seem to not know much, her e-mail wasn't secret.  And, she hasn't shredded anything, like your hero Col North did.

She didn't break any rules....and your little scandal isn't going to amount to a hill of beans, and that's making your butt hurt..........awwwww, poor widdle you.


----------



## JoeMoma (Mar 14, 2015)

Neotrotsky said:


> Democrats have stopped being a political party
> they have devolved into a cult worship of their political leaders
> 
> such things are never good for the body politic


The democrates seem to have put all their eggs in the Hillary basket.  They may be wise to start looking for another basket.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 14, 2015)

Neotrotsky said:


> Democrats have stopped being a political party
> they have devolved into a cult worship of their political leaders
> 
> such things are never good for the body politic




Yeah....Democrats are the ones that are in the news almost every day for doing something stupid.....like writing a letter to a foreign country (an enemy, at that) and telling that country they don't support their own president.....brilliant......  Ooops, as one of the Republican clown candidates says, those weren't the democrats......


----------



## JoeMoma (Mar 14, 2015)

Mertex said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


I'm the one deflecting.... Oh My!  Did the state department not send out a memo stating that all employees were to use dot gov accounts for all official business during Hillary's tenure.


----------



## Neotrotsky (Mar 14, 2015)

sad to see the Democrats devolving, right in front of us


----------



## Vigilante (Mar 14, 2015)




----------



## Mertex (Mar 14, 2015)

JoeMoma said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



Well, you don't give an explanation as to why Collin Powell was okay to do it, or Jeb Bush or Scott Walker.....and many others.....why is Hillary's so much more important?  Because Republicans are so scared of her?  Yepp.....that must be it.  When you all can give an explanation why it was okay then and not with Hillary you may be taken seriously.

During the Bush administration, 88 White House staffers had e-mail addresses from the Republican National Committee. According to a report by the House Committee on Oversight in 2007, back when Democrat Henry Waxman was chair, *much of this e-mail traffic was destroyed by the RNC*, making it hard for investigators and historians to know what happened in the White House. Something similar occurred when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts and used a Hotmail account.
There s a Reason Politicians Use Private E-Mail for Official Business - Businessweek


----------



## Vigilante (Mar 14, 2015)




----------



## Mertex (Mar 14, 2015)




----------



## JoeMoma (Mar 14, 2015)

Mertex said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


It seems to me that you are the one deflecting here.  That being said, it was wrong for these people to conduct goverment business on non-government emails.  However, it would also have been illegal for them to conduct political campaigns from their goverment emails.  So it is often necessary for politicians to have email accounts for conducting non-governmental business such as fund raising.  

Bottom line, it's because of these issues that happened before Hillary was head of the state department that she should have known better.

Also, hillary may be in trouble for not turning over the emails for nearly two years after stepping down as sec. of state.  The email are the government's records, not hers.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 14, 2015)

JoeMoma said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



No, I'm not deflecting.  Hillary has already stated that if she had to do it over, she would have used a .gov account.  The chances that it would have gotten hacked would have been greater had she used a government account.  It's water under the bridge, and the only reason Republican/conservatives are whining about it is because they want to create a scandal to diminish her chances of becoming our next President.  They'll have try and come up with something more credible.....because the Republican's own dirty laundry of the same offenses isn't helping them mount a serious issue.

And, I know the Republican party will continue to try and make it seem more important than it is, but then, they tried that with Benghazi and it went nowhere.


----------



## JoeMoma (Mar 14, 2015)

Mertex said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


You think Hillary would even know if her email acount had been hacked, or that she would let anyone know if she knew? Give me a break!


----------



## Mertex (Mar 14, 2015)

JoeMoma said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



Are you serious?  Hackers let everyone know when they hack someone's e-mail.....it wouldn't be coming from her and even though you may not be that astute, there are some in your party that would be looking for such a thing.....especially they way you all are so scared of her.


----------



## JoeMoma (Mar 14, 2015)

Mertex said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


Are you really serious?  It's true that hackers SOMETIMES let everyone know if they have hacked someone's email.  However, if Russia or China hacked her email, they would not advertise it to us.  They would want to gather as much intelligence from the hacked email as possible without anyone finding out,  Hell, Russia might even be responsible for the misspelling of the famous Reset button.  They may have altered her email to make her look bad.


----------



## westwall (Mar 14, 2015)

Mertex said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...










Tell that to the British when they hacked into the Enigma code.  Truly, Mertex...think about who, and what, would be doing that.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Mar 14, 2015)

Westwall, welcome back!!  Did you bring me a baguette? And are you going to behave yourself?


----------



## Mertex (Mar 14, 2015)

westwall said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



You really think that if someone hacked into Hillary's e-mail they wouldn't have made it known?  Certainly if it had been classified information we would have known in some other form....otherwise you wouldn't know about the British hacking into the Enigma code.


----------



## Vigilante (Mar 14, 2015)




----------



## westwall (Mar 14, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Westwall, welcome back!!  Did you bring me a baguette? And are you going to behave yourself?









Take your pick!  And hell no, I NEVER behave myself.  That's way too boring!


----------



## westwall (Mar 14, 2015)

Mertex said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...










There's no way in hell a foreign government (that would be a spy network to you) would let it be known that they were reading Hillary's email.  That is the kind of intel that people die for.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 14, 2015)

westwall said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



But, the thing is, her server was never hacked.....so there is no need to worry about it now.  And, if some foreign government had gleaned anything that would have put the country in jeopardy, I'm sure we would have known about it by now.....especially with conservatives digging into anything they can to find something!


----------



## HenryBHough (Mar 14, 2015)

And you know when somebody's hacked into your computer and read everything on it because they..........left a trail of bread crumbs????


----------



## JoeMoma (Mar 14, 2015)

Mertex said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


And how do you know it was never hacked?  Want to go around this circle again?


----------



## westwall (Mar 14, 2015)

Mertex said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...






 If it were hacked she would never admit it in a million years.  If it wasn't hacked, it won't matter.  Either way, all we can do is hope that it wasn't because there is no way we will ever know.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 14, 2015)




----------



## Mertex (Mar 14, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> And you know when somebody's hacked into your computer and read everything on it because they..........left a trail of bread crumbs????




Apparently they leave some kind of trail.........how do you think it was found out that Target, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook got hacked?  Duh!


----------



## westwall (Mar 14, 2015)

Mertex said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > And you know when somebody's hacked into your computer and read everything on it because they..........left a trail of bread crumbs????
> ...








Not the good ones.  When the really good ones do it no one finds out till they look at their bank statement and say "holy shit!  When did we buy THAT house!"


----------



## HenryBHough (Mar 14, 2015)

Hacked and read leaves no trail.

Hacked to perform mischief leaves a trail - though often not noticeable until the shit hits the fan.


----------



## MisterBeale (Mar 23, 2015)

If Americans were smart, they would never vote for the politician that is responsible for the aid never reaching Haiti, and the corruption that resulted because of it.  She is fucking evil and corrupt.

*Hillary: The New York Times Will Never Tell Us This*
*First appeared: Hillary The New York Times Will Never Tell Us This New Eastern Outlook*

*Hillary and ‘Sweet Mickey’ Martelly*


Presumptive US Democratic Presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Clinton Foundation has activities in Haiti with Carlos Slim, Mexican giga-billionaire and reputed business associate of leading Mexican drug cartel figures, who sits on the Executive Board of Washington’s Pentagon and CIA-linked RAND Corporation and who owns a major stake in the New York Times. Hillary’s kid brother, Tony Rodham, wins the sweetheart gold mine concession in Haiti with a company that barely exists. It all begins to stink like the cesspool outside the factory pig farm manure dump of Smithfield Foods in Mexico.


Leading Haitian lawyer and a genuine human rights activist, Ezili Dantò, charges that UN Envoy to Haiti, Bill Clinton as head of the Haitian relief fund was responsible for some $6 billion of international relief aid received. “Less than 1% of this amount made it to the Haitian government. Bill Clinton had total control of the balance.” She adds, “Hillary and Bill Clinton ‘opened Haiti’ as their private asset to liquidate. They used the resources of the World Bank, the State Department, USAID, the UN, the Private Military Security Contractors, the US military, and the Fed’s passport and visa issuance capabilities. They got kickbacks called ‘donations’ from anyone who wished to buy from them a piece of Haiti lands, oil, iridium, uranium or gold. The Clintons have used governmental power to conduct their private business and called it ‘helping poor Haitians.’”

Dantò adds that Bill Clinton made no attempt to conceal his Haiti aid corruption. Neither did US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “They pushed their own Haiti staff members into nominal positions of power to rubber stamp their edicts. Haiti Prime Minister Gary Conille, who succeeded Jean Max Bellerive, worked as chief of staff for Bill Clinton and as a UN development expert.


“Cheryl Mills, another Clinton staffer named in the Clinton “email-gate” scandal and who today is on the board of the Clinton Foundation, also served as the United States’ representative on the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC).


Dantò elaborated further that, “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Cheryl Mills, her chief of staff at the State Department, brought intense US pressure to bear on the Haitian government and Electoral Council to advance Martelly, who finished third, to the first place in the runoff, insuring his election as President in March, 2011. Hillary Clinton revoked the visas of several Haitian officials she felt were not complying, prematurely announced the election dispute was over, threatened to cut off aid if the doctored elections and OAS ruling to advance Martelly to the second rounds were not accepted by Haiti. The US even threatened to forcibly remove Haiti president Preval if he didn’t comply and put Martelly in the elections.”


Martelly, known in Haiti by his musician name, Michel ‘Sweet Micky’ Martelly, backed the CIA-created right-wing paramilitary Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti and proposed to re-instate the Armed Forces of Haiti, which were disbanded by former Haitian President Aristide in 1995 because they were the terror arm of deposed dictator ‘Baby Doc’ Duvalier. The CIA ousted the popular Haitian nationalist, democratically-elected Aristide, and forced him into South African exile. According to Ezili Dantò, Hillary and Bill Clinton engineered the Presidency of Martelly, a cocaine-loving rock keyboard musician, to cover up their corruption.
First appeared: Hillary The New York Times Will Never Tell Us This New Eastern Outlook


----------

