Salon Surrender: 'She CAN'T Win!"

[NLT]

she can and she will...

 

[Valerie]

wanna bet?

 

[irosie91]

she can and she will...

giggle not------it is possible

 

[S.J.]

"You do get simple math, right. You have to get 3 million people who voted for Obama in 2012 to vote for your guy in 2016." -- JoeB

Except YOU forget that when narcissist Obama made the 2014 elections all about HIMSELF - HIS agendas, HIS ideology, HIS rules/regs/policies - the DNC had lower turnouts than they had in decades and the Liberals lost in an historic, record-setting ASS-KICKING.

Democrats don't want a 3rd Obama Term with Hillary as the President. Again, she only won the '64+yo' demographic in NH.... YOU do the simple math....try winning the lection with ONLY the '64+yo' demographic voting for you.

You know what Easy, Joe wants to believe that Hillary is going to have the Democratic turnout Obama did. NOT!

And then he again uses faulty logic, and thinks that the GOP vote will not be stronger.

It is the faulty logic of the left, that the voting strength has been at 100%, (or they seem to never take that into account to confuse the issue) and that now we have to swing 3 million votes. No we don't!!!!!!!

It is THEIR job to get all those voters out for Hillary to stay even, and as we can see, there is NO ENTHUSIASM for a Hillary Presidency.

On the other hand, we have had a massive INCREASE in voters and registrations, for the GOP primary. Tremendous enthusiasm.

So they can paint the picture all they want; and of course they will, but nobody in politics who knows anything is thinking Hillary is in good shape if she makes the general.

Can things turn around? Of course they can. To say they can't would be an out and out lie.......almost as big a lie as pretending that we have to steal 3 million votes to win, lol.

The gop has enthusiasm, but the polls also show gop voters have little enthusiasm for each other's candidates.

But after the primaries they will rally behind the nominee (unless there is a brokered convention).

I seriously doubt that. Trump is divisive.

But Hillary is hated by everybody across party lines.

 

[Valerie]

c'mon someone make a bet with me, i've been itching for a reason to walk away...

where's the welcher when you need him..

 

[imawhosure]

"You do get simple math, right. You have to get 3 million people who voted for Obama in 2012 to vote for your guy in 2016." -- JoeB

Except YOU forget that when narcissist Obama made the 2014 elections all about HIMSELF - HIS agendas, HIS ideology, HIS rules/regs/policies - the DNC had lower turnouts than they had in decades and the Liberals lost in an historic, record-setting ASS-KICKING.

Democrats don't want a 3rd Obama Term with Hillary as the President. Again, she only won the '64+yo' demographic in NH.... YOU do the simple math....try winning the lection with ONLY the '64+yo' demographic voting for you.

You know what Easy, Joe wants to believe that Hillary is going to have the Democratic turnout Obama did. NOT!

And then he again uses faulty logic, and thinks that the GOP vote will not be stronger.

It is the faulty logic of the left, that the voting strength has been at 100%, (or they seem to never take that into account to confuse the issue) and that now we have to swing 3 million votes. No we don't!!!!!!!

It is THEIR job to get all those voters out for Hillary to stay even, and as we can see, there is NO ENTHUSIASM for a Hillary Presidency.

On the other hand, we have had a massive INCREASE in voters and registrations, for the GOP primary. Tremendous enthusiasm.

So they can paint the picture all they want; and of course they will, but nobody in politics who knows anything is thinking Hillary is in good shape if she makes the general.

Can things turn around? Of course they can. To say they can't would be an out and out lie.......almost as big a lie as pretending that we have to steal 3 million votes to win, lol.

The gop has enthusiasm, but the polls also show gop voters have little enthusiasm for each other's candidates.

But after the primaries they will rally behind the nominee (unless there is a brokered convention).

I seriously doubt that. Trump is divisive.

But Hillary is hated by everybody across party lines.

And you know what SJ, foreign policy is supposed to be her strong suit, will be turned into her worst nightmare.

1. The B.

2. The Russian reset.

3. The Libya screw up.

4. Her mishandling of e-mails.

5. And of course, the ducking bullets

6. Her phony movie........amongst others.

It is going to be.............so she has the knowledge? Look at what she did with it! What is she going to say, "Obama told me to do it this way?" Oh yeah, and you want a 3rd term of Obama!

I know they are going to spin, and spin, and spin, but I just can't see an avenue for her strength, to actually become a strength.

 

[paulitician]

Well then they're flucked. Republicans will defeat Sanders easily. It would likely be a Landslide.

 

[easyt65]

Hillary's own staff described her as 'often confused' and 'technology challenged'.

Her best defense to the e-mail scandal is to legitimately claim that she was unable to tell the difference between UN-classified information and information SO Classified that it would cause extreme harm to the US or released / stolen.

The only example of her ability to lead is her time as Secretary of State, during which (according to her) her staff abandoned an Ambassador to die (did not pull him out, rejected his pleas for additional security - 600+ times, and pulled 14 members of his security team AFTER 2 terrorist attacks on his compound) AND they stripped the classified headings off of classified documents, e-mailing them and faxing them to her and others....

In essence, in order toi save her ass, she has / had to prove she is incompetent and unable to manage her own STAFF, let alone the entire State Department....and thus is no where near capable of running the entire COUNTRY!

 

[S.J.]

Hillary's own staff described her as 'often confused' and 'technology challenged'.

Her best defense to the e-mail scandal is to legitimately claim that she was unable to tell the difference between UN-classified information and information SO Classified that it would cause extreme harm to the US or released / stolen.

The only example of her ability to lead is her time as Secretary of State, during which (according to her) her staff abandoned an Ambassador to die (did not pull him out, rejected his pleas for additional security - 600+ times, and pulled 14 members of his security team AFTER 2 terrorist attacks on his compound) AND they stripped the classified headings off of classified documents, e-mailing them and faxing them to her and others....

In essence, in order toi save her ass, she has / had to prove she is incompetent and unable to manage her own STAFF, let alone the entire State Department....and thus is no where near capable of running the entire COUNTRY!

Yet the super delegates will hand her the nomination.

 

[BlindBoo]

"Bernie Sanders, unlike Clinton, defeats Donald Trump in a landslide of “epic proportions” in a general election and is the antithesis of a Republican."

Holy shite, I missed the general election?! Oh yeah, hasn't happened yet, but nice dream.

The quote was from your article.

 

[imawhosure]

Hillary's own staff described her as 'often confused' and 'technology challenged'.

Her best defense to the e-mail scandal is to legitimately claim that she was unable to tell the difference between UN-classified information and information SO Classified that it would cause extreme harm to the US or released / stolen.

The only example of her ability to lead is her time as Secretary of State, during which (according to her) her staff abandoned an Ambassador to die (did not pull him out, rejected his pleas for additional security - 600+ times, and pulled 14 members of his security team AFTER 2 terrorist attacks on his compound) AND they stripped the classified headings off of classified documents, e-mailing them and faxing them to her and others....

In essence, in order toi save her ass, she has / had to prove she is incompetent and unable to manage her own STAFF, let alone the entire State Department....and thus is no where near capable of running the entire COUNTRY!

Hillary's own staff described her as 'often confused' and 'technology challenged'.

Her best defense to the e-mail scandal is to legitimately claim that she was unable to tell the difference between UN-classified information and information SO Classified that it would cause extreme harm to the US or released / stolen.

The only example of her ability to lead is her time as Secretary of State, during which (according to her) her staff abandoned an Ambassador to die (did not pull him out, rejected his pleas for additional security - 600+ times, and pulled 14 members of his security team AFTER 2 terrorist attacks on his compound) AND they stripped the classified headings off of classified documents, e-mailing them and faxing them to her and others....

In essence, in order toi save her ass, she has / had to prove she is incompetent and unable to manage her own STAFF, let alone the entire State Department....and thus is no where near capable of running the entire COUNTRY!

Yet the super delegates will hand her the nomination.

Here is the thing................if the GOP could convince their voters and independents to vote for Trump if he won the nomination, then he by faaaaaaaaar would be the best candidate. Why? Because he steals by a huge margin, the most Democratic voters, and it is already a known quantity as of this post, that Democratic votes at the polls are going to drop..........some experts say significantly..........some experts predict precipitously IF Hillary or Bernie are the nominees. And so, you are instantly adding by subtraction.

Now, the Democrats on this board are either not aware of this, or if they are, will never admit it to you.

So can the GOP or Trump himself, convince voters who would normally vote the GOP way that are threatening to not show if it is Trump, that he is mainstream enough for them to come out and vote instead of staying home making it a landslide?

That is the multi TRILLION dollar question, because you see, it is highly likely if we put up Rubio, he is going to hose the Democrats big time. And when I say big time, I mean REALLY BIG TIME! But then, have we accomplished anything, and if so, how much?

If the only thing we want is to win and deny the Crats the White House, put up Rubio and book the party. But, if you are willing to work a lot harder to actually get somewhere, put up Trump or Cruz, take a little longer odds on winning the White House, and hose the Democrats for a very, very, very long time if you pull it off.

 

[JoeB131]

Here's the thing. The microcosm you live in is not a scientific sample of the electorate.

Except you guys really haven't shown any polling that indicates otherwise.

Here's the thing, a guy who voted begrudgingly for McCain in 2008 but enthusiastically for Trump in 2016 STILL ONLY HAS ONE VOTE. And if he doesn't live in a swing state, it probably doesn't matter that much.

I know you guys have a problem with math. But I haven't seen ONE person on this board say "I voted for Obama in 2012, but I'm voting for Trump this time."

Not one.

But I've seen a couple people here who I know were Romney Supporters in 2012 say they won't vote for Cruz or Trump.

 

[JoeB131]

Except YOU forget that when narcissist Obama made the 2014 elections all about HIMSELF - HIS agendas, HIS ideology, HIS rules/regs/policies - the DNC had lower turnouts than they had in decades and the Liberals lost in an historic, record-setting ASS-KICKING.

No, i don't consider a midterm where only some places were contested and had the lowest voter turn out since WWII to be indicative of much of anything, really. The thing was, EVERYONE had lower voter turnouts. Not one of your Senate Candidates who won got more votes than Mitt Romney did two years earlier.

The thing is, you have a lot of cases of the out of the White House Party making gains in the previous midterms and NOT taking White House. To wit 2012, 1996, 1988, 1984, 1974...

Democrats don't want a 3rd Obama Term with Hillary as the President. Again, she only won the '64+yo' demographic in NH.... YOU do the simple math....try winning the lection with ONLY the '64+yo' demographic voting for you.

Again, you put too much stock in New Hampshire. I think you need to ask President Pat Buchanan how much a New Hampshire victory is actually worth. Just because Pat Buchanan won in 1996 didn't mean the country was about to turn into a bunch of Nazis.

Fact is, New Hampshire hasn't picked a winner since - wait for it - 1988. Once you factor out incumbents, the guys who won new Hampshire either lost their nominations (Tsongas, Buchanan, McCain in 2000, Hillary in 2008) or their elections (Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney)

Meanwhile, the last three guys to win- Obama, Bush-43* and Clinton, all lost New Hampshire and their whacky, "Please kiss my ass at a pancake breakfast" ritual.

*- Okay, Bush 43 STOLE the 2000 election, but that still counts as a win.

 

[JoeB131]

You know what Easy, Joe wants to believe that Hillary is going to have the Democratic turnout Obama did. NOT!

And then he again uses faulty logic, and thinks that the GOP vote will not be stronger.

It's hardly faulty logic, guy. You guys have gotten the same number of votes for the last three elections, about 60-62 million. While that got you over in 2004 (barely) because there wasn't much enthusiasm for Kerry, it didn't help against Obama at all. While Hillary might not inspire the same level of enthusiasm Obama did, she will generate far more than Kerry, a guy who couldn't take a stand against a war most of his base hated.

It is THEIR job to get all those voters out for Hillary to stay even, and as we can see, there is NO ENTHUSIASM for a Hillary Presidency.

On the other hand, we have had a massive INCREASE in voters and registrations, for the GOP primary. Tremendous enthusiasm.

Not really, guy. There's no indication that there's been any kind of increase in GOP registrations. It just means more people are participating in the primaries now that you have candidates that aren't quite as horrible as the ones you had in 2012.

So they can paint the picture all they want; and of course they will, but nobody in politics who knows anything is thinking Hillary is in good shape if she makes the general.

Can things turn around? Of course they can. To say they can't would be an out and out lie.......almost as big a lie as pretending that we have to steal 3 million votes to win, lol.

who said "Steal"? I said, get 3 million to change their minds.

Now, yeah, if they stay home, that hurts, too. But you'd need FIVE million to stay home to get things even.

And again, that assumes people who voted for Romney - who was after all, a moderate Republican - are going to vote for a nut like Cruz or Trump.

 

[imawhosure]

Except YOU forget that when narcissist Obama made the 2014 elections all about HIMSELF - HIS agendas, HIS ideology, HIS rules/regs/policies - the DNC had lower turnouts than they had in decades and the Liberals lost in an historic, record-setting ASS-KICKING.

No, i don't consider a midterm where only some places were contested and had the lowest voter turn out since WWII to be indicative of much of anything, really. The thing was, EVERYONE had lower voter turnouts. Not one of your Senate Candidates who won got more votes than Mitt Romney did two years earlier.

The thing is, you have a lot of cases of the out of the White House Party making gains in the previous midterms and NOT taking White House. To wit 2012, 1996, 1988, 1984, 1974...

Democrats don't want a 3rd Obama Term with Hillary as the President. Again, she only won the '64+yo' demographic in NH.... YOU do the simple math....try winning the lection with ONLY the '64+yo' demographic voting for you.

Again, you put too much stock in New Hampshire. I think you need to ask President Pat Buchanan how much a New Hampshire victory is actually worth. Just because Pat Buchanan won in 1996 didn't mean the country was about to turn into a bunch of Nazis.

Fact is, New Hampshire hasn't picked a winner since - wait for it - 1988. Once you factor out incumbents, the guys who won new Hampshire either lost their nominations (Tsongas, Buchanan, McCain in 2000, Hillary in 2008) or their elections (Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney)

Meanwhile, the last three guys to win- Obama, Bush-43* and Clinton, all lost New Hampshire and their whacky, "Please kiss my ass at a pancake breakfast" ritual.

*- Okay, Bush 43 STOLE the 2000 election, but that still counts as a win.

Come on Joe, you are using a red herring for sure, and you are better than that. Correlation is not causation! FOR EXAMPLE..........I walk every day, and I am not broke.........therefore, if I walk every day, I will never be broke.

As far as your example of what people say on voting, it would be perfect if you had a set number of votes cast to base your equation on, but you don't, and you know that too. If you had a fixed number of 100, each side with 50-50, and switched 3 votes, NOW you have a case. But what if 3 votes switch side, but instead of one side starting with 50, they only started with 40 because some of their voters stayed home? And what if instead of 100 voters, you now have 115 because more from the other side came out?

Your theory does not work in the realm of math to draw a decisive conclusion proving your formula, but you already knew that.

 

[JoeB131]

Well then they're flucked. Republicans will defeat Sanders easily. It would likely be a Landslide.

What do you base that on? RCP polling shows Sanders beating either Trump or Cruz.

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Presidential Race

Also, if it DOES turn into a Trump vs. Sanders race, expect Mike Bloomberg to jump in.

 

[imawhosure]

You know what Easy, Joe wants to believe that Hillary is going to have the Democratic turnout Obama did. NOT!

And then he again uses faulty logic, and thinks that the GOP vote will not be stronger.

It's hardly faulty logic, guy. You guys have gotten the same number of votes for the last three elections, about 60-62 million. While that got you over in 2004 (barely) because there wasn't much enthusiasm for Kerry, it didn't help against Obama at all. While Hillary might not inspire the same level of enthusiasm Obama did, she will generate far more than Kerry, a guy who couldn't take a stand against a war most of his base hated.

It is THEIR job to get all those voters out for Hillary to stay even, and as we can see, there is NO ENTHUSIASM for a Hillary Presidency.

On the other hand, we have had a massive INCREASE in voters and registrations, for the GOP primary. Tremendous enthusiasm.

Not really, guy. There's no indication that there's been any kind of increase in GOP registrations. It just means more people are participating in the primaries now that you have candidates that aren't quite as horrible as the ones you had in 2012.

So they can paint the picture all they want; and of course they will, but nobody in politics who knows anything is thinking Hillary is in good shape if she makes the general.

Can things turn around? Of course they can. To say they can't would be an out and out lie.......almost as big a lie as pretending that we have to steal 3 million votes to win, lol.

who said "Steal"? I said, get 3 million to change their minds.

Now, yeah, if they stay home, that hurts, too. But you'd need FIVE million to stay home to get things even.

And again, that assumes people who voted for Romney - who was after all, a moderate Republican - are going to vote for a nut like Cruz or Trump.

Then you certainly aren't paying as much attention as you claim, that is obvious. The GOP and Sanders are signing up voters like crazy. You should check it out, you may very well be surprised.

 

[JoeB131]

Come on Joe, you are using a red herring for sure, and you are better than that. Correlation is not causation! FOR EXAMPLE..........I walk every day, and I am not broke.........therefore, if I walk every day, I will never be broke.

As far as your example of what people say on voting, it would be perfect if you had a set number of votes cast to base your equation on, but you don't, and you know that too. If you had a fixed number of 100, each side with 50-50, and switched 3 votes, NOW you have a case. But what if 3 votes switch side, but instead of one side starting with 50, they only started with 40 because some of their voters stayed home? And what if instead of 100 voters, you now have 115 because more from the other side came out?

Your theory does not work in the realm of math to draw a decisive conclusion proving your formula, but you already knew that.

Except there's nothing to indicate that your guys will get more votes.

Now, Trump does scare me in that regard because you have a lot of idiots in this country who can't name their Senator but do watch Reality TV. But I'd like to think that we have more taste than to elect a Reality TV Rodeo clown who runs a fake game show.

An America that would elect Donald Trump isn't an America I recognize anymore.

 

[JoeB131]

Then you certainly aren't paying as much attention as you claim, that is obvious. The GOP and Sanders are signing up voters like crazy. You should check it out, you may very well be surprised.

Meh, probably not so much. I still don't think EITHER of those guys will be the nominee, but if they are, then expect Mike Bloomberg to jump in as the "Sane" candidate.

 

[imawhosure]

Well then they're flucked. Republicans will defeat Sanders easily. It would likely be a Landslide.

What do you base that on? RCP polling shows Sanders beating either Trump or Cruz.

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Presidential Race

Also, if it DOES turn into a Trump vs. Sanders race, expect Mike Bloomberg to jump in.

Is that the basis for your thought process? Then I suppose Carter beat Reagan since he was consistently up in the polls by 10, 6 weeks out. (or was it up by 6, 10 weeks out? 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other) I find using a poll this far out beneath you Joe; you know better, but hey......if that's your story, stick to it by all means.