• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
As usual, this sort of post (above) looks pretty ridiculous when viewed in context of actual facts.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live...-primary-exit-poll-analysis/story?id=37241467
Blacks accounted for 61 percent of South Carolina Democratic primary voters in ABC News exit poll results, breaking the state’s record, 55 percent in 2008. And Clinton won 86 percent of their votes, a crushing score. Indeed she did significantly better with blacks in South Carolina than Barack Obama in 2008.

I guess someone forgot to tell all those voters about the firewall, racism, etc.

Is she done yet ?
 
Last edited:
I think realistically Hillary has an outstanding chance to be elected President. As the South Carolina poll indicates, she has very good support among African Americans. She does well with women. She does well with Hispanics. She does well among Asian voters. I think in an election where she's pitted against a conservative Republican she'll do well with younger voters. The only group she would probably have problems with would be white male voters over the age of 30. (Which is, ironically, what we're also seeing here on the forum.)

The reality is, it's okay if the Republican candidate wins among white male voters over the age of thirty, that demographic is not a majority of the electorate. A candidate like Obama consistently lost among white male voters over the age of thirty and yet was elected President twice. Sorry guys. ;)
 
But it is your assertion, it is you that has to support it.

I just did!

Because seceding from the union was a bad idea.

In fact the worst decision the people of that State ever made, with voting for Hillary number 2.

If you want to say that voting for Hillary was the worst decision, you'll have to convince me.
 
I think realistically Hillary has an outstanding chance to be elected President. As the South Carolina poll indicates, she has very good support among African Americans. She does well with women. She does well with Hispanics. She does well among Asian voters. I think in an election where she's pitted against a conservative Republican she'll do well with younger voters. The only group she would probably have problems with would be white male voters over the age of 30. (Which is, ironically, what we're also seeing here on the forum.)

The reality is, it's okay if the Republican candidate wins among white male voters over the age of thirty, that demographic is not a majority of the electorate. A candidate like Obama consistently lost among white male voters over the age of thirty and yet was elected President twice. Sorry guys. ;)

Yeah, at this point I would probably give Hillary a 75% chance, Sanders a 10% chance, and some republican a 15% chance. It's very hard to predict how Sanders would do in the general, however. There is a lot of smearing waiting to happen, and hard to tell how it would stick or what the media narrative would be.
 
As usual, this sort of post (above) looks pretty ridiculous when viewed in context of actual facts.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live...-primary-exit-poll-analysis/story?id=37241467
Blacks accounted for 61 percent of South Carolina Democratic primary voters in ABC News exit poll results, breaking the state’s record, 55 percent in 2008. And Clinton won 86 percent of their votes, a crushing score. Indeed she did significantly better with blacks in South Carolina than Barack Obama in 2008.

I guess someone forgot to tell all those voters about the firewall, racism, etc.

Is she done yet ?

The majority of the electorate is usually the group most shocked by the consequences of their votes, in historic retrospect.
 
If it's true that the majority of the electorate are usually the group most disappointed by the consequences of their votes -- is that based on anything? -- than white male voters over the age of thirty (maybe I should say forty?) have nothing to worry about. They are probably not going to decide who our next President will be.

It'll probably be women plus minorities who decide the election.
 
If it's true that the majority of the electorate are usually the group most disappointed by the consequences of their votes -- is that based on anything? -- than white male voters over the age of thirty (maybe I should say forty?) have nothing to worry about. They are probably not going to decide who our next President will be.

It'll probably be women plus minorities who decide the election.

I agree, attorney general Lynch is a woman and her and Obama are minorities.

Very astute analysis. (The FBI has lots of white males over 30, but it probably won't be their call at the end)
 
I agree, attorney general Lynch is a woman and her and Obama are minorities. Very astute analysis. (The FBI has lots of white males over 30, but it probably won't be their call at the end)


What you seem to be implying is, in your heart of hearts, if Hillary gets the nomination she is almost certain to be elected.

Very astute analysis. ;)
 
What you seem to be implying is, in your heart of hearts, if Hillary gets the nomination she is almost certain to be elected.

Very astute analysis. ;)

Aye, there is the rub, nightmare scenario: Hillary gets arrested AFTER the convention.
 
Urging Democrats to vote for Sanders in the primaries, that's pretty much off the table? Now the idea is let Clinton get nominated and then place her under arrest? Many countries operate that way, none of them are democracies, but maybe democracy is overrated?
 
Urging Democrats to vote for Sanders in the primaries, that's pretty much off the table? Now the idea is let Clinton get nominated and then place her under arrest? Many countries operate that way, none of them are democracies, but maybe democracy is overrated?

Fortunately, in this Country, getting elected does not render one immune from Criminal Charges.

I think you are thinking of Royal Prerogative. We fought a war about that about 230 years ago. I get that dynasties' like the Clintons might think they are immune, but hopefully they will get a rude awakening.
 
I just did!



In fact the worst decision the people of that State ever made, with voting for Hillary number 2.

If you want to say that voting for Hillary was the worst decision, you'll have to convince me.

Your assertion was not about the decision in 1861 it was about the decision in 2016.
 
If it's true that the majority of the electorate are usually the group most disappointed by the consequences of their votes -- is that based on anything? -- than white male voters over the age of thirty (maybe I should say forty?) have nothing to worry about. They are probably not going to decide who our next President will be.

It'll probably be women plus minorities who decide the election.

...no matter how their votes (for, or against) actually decide that election.

Then they will probably be the ones most disappointed by the consequences of their choices

Primary S. Carolina turnout voters supporting Clinton (according to exit polls I've seen) were establishment Democratic primary voters (people who have voted in previous Democratic primaries) who made up their mind who to vote 2+ months ago. This was expected. The extremely low voter turnout which skewed the primary composition so that these voters were as large a percentage of the primary electorate in S.C. as they turned out to be, was not expected until much more recently (the last week).

Unfortunately this well may further suppress turnout on Super Tuesday and complicate the Sanders campaign going forward within the Democratic primary. This fits with many projections for the entire Democratic party if Clinton is the party's prohibitive nominee as it begins to move into the general election considerations.
 
Democratic National Committee Vice Chair Tulsi Gabbard resigned from her post on Sunday to endorse Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, following months of rising tensions within the group.

"I think it’s most important for us, as we look at our choices as to who our next commander in chief will be, is to recognize the necessity to have a commander in chief who has foresight, who exercises good judgment," Gabbard, a U.S. representative for Hawaii, said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-sanders-gabbard-idUSMTZSAPEC2S9JDNKG

I wonder when the folks on the Committee that are in the tank for Hillary will resign...

Bwhahahaha! Just joshing, they get their ethics from Hillary!
 
I'm glad you posted this misrepresentation. It succinctly captures your relentlessly dishonest posting style.

16.5, I gave you the chance to double check. At this point all I can say is you're a flat out liar.

And here's what I actually posted:

Not to imply this is anything special. You've proven yourself to be relentlessly dishonest across the board.

Oh dear! Why do you disrespect black people? </16.5 mode>

:rolleyes:
 
Democratic National Committee Vice Chair Tulsi Gabbard resigned from her post on Sunday to endorse Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, following months of rising tensions within the group.
Good. Hillary will be the nominee. Anyone in the DNC who isn't on board with that needs to go.

"I think it’s most important for us, as we look at our choices as to who our next commander in chief will be, is to recognize the necessity to have a commander in chief who has foresight, who exercises good judgment," Gabbard, a U.S. representative for Hawaii, said
Choosing Bernie over Hillary is not good judgement. Does she want Trump to win?

folks on the Committee... in the tank for Hillary
They better be!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom