If not Hillary, who?

[Dumb All Over]

They already voted.

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/13/13848794/kentucky-obamacare-trump
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...c064d32a4bf_story.html?utm_term=.06e318e59972
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...d56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.321282f3374b

If by linking these news stories you were trying to bolster your assertion that there were many uninsured people with pre-existing conditions, people who "couldn't buy any health insurance at any price", and are now complaining about their Obamacare premiums, you failed. Not once do any of those stories talk about any such person.

 

[Segnosaur]

After all, Trump lost the popular vote, and only won because of the allocation of electoral votes.

Which is exactly how presidents are elected in the United States.

Well duh... I'm not disputing that or stating any opinion on whether the electoral college is a good thing or bad thing.

My point was... the election was extremely close, and it would not have taken much of a change (few hundred thousand voters in a tiny handful of states) to also swing the electoral college ...

The voting margins were 13k votes in michigan, 27k votes in Wisconson, 68k votes in Pennsylvania... had even half of those voters switched their votes from Trump to Biden (and Biden didn't loose any other states) Trump would have lost and Biden would have won. And he might have gotten those votes simply by virtue of having a penis.

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-...14/the-10-closest-states-in-the-2016-election

So being tied to a president with an approval rating of 53-42% in favor would be an OK starting point.

How did that starting point work out for Hillary?

First of all, your claim was that the dislike of the Obama administration was 'palpable'. As I have illustrated, that is not necessarily the case.

Secondly, while there may be links between Obama and Hillary, Hillary had other issues (the email scandal, Benghazi) which would not have the same effect on Biden.

I'm not trying to say running on Obama's record would necessarily win an election for a potential Biden candidate; I'm saying tying him to Obama's record may not be as detrimental as you might think. It will play to the hardcore republicans, but that's about it.

 

[Dumb All Over]

The voting margins were 13k votes in michigan, 27k votes in Wisconson, 68k votes in Pennsylvania... had even half of those voters switched their votes from Trump to Biden (and Biden didn't loose any other states) Trump would have lost and Biden would have won. And he might have gotten those votes simply by virtue of having a penis.

On the other hand, it is just as plausible that Trump would have increased his votes in those states.

First of all, your claim was that the dislike of the Obama administration was 'palpable'. As I have illustrated, that is not necessarily the case.

Not necessarily the case if you place your entire faith in polls which, after this election, you do so at your peril.

Secondly, while there may be links between Obama and Hillary, Hillary had other issues (the email scandal, Benghazi) which would not have the same effect on Biden.

Correct. With Biden, there would have been an entirely different set of issues for Trump to wade into and utterly destroy.

I'm not trying to say running on Obama's record would necessarily win an election for a potential Biden candidate; I'm saying tying him to Obama's record may not be as detrimental as you might think.

Or it could have wound up being more detrimental, as I do think.

 

[bruto]

I can answer that question. Please refer to my previous posts in this thread.

I bow to your formidable wisdom. I'm sure that as the old folk song goes, if I were where I would be, I would be where I am not; here I am where I must be, so where I might be I cannot.

 

[Dumb All Over]

I bow to your formidable wisdom. I'm sure that as the old folk song goes, if I were where I would be, I would be where I am not; here I am where I must be, so where I might be I cannot.

 

[Segnosaur]

The voting margins were 13k votes in michigan, 27k votes in Wisconson, 68k votes in Pennsylvania... had even half of those voters switched their votes from Trump to Biden (and Biden didn't loose any other states) Trump would have lost and Biden would have won. And he might have gotten those votes simply by virtue of having a penis.

On the other hand, it is just as plausible that Trump would have increased his votes in those states.

While its possible, it may not be likely. For the reasons I have already explained. Biden having a penis for example.

First of all, your claim was that the dislike of the Obama administration was 'palpable'. As I have illustrated, that is not necessarily the case.

Not necessarily the case if you place your entire faith in polls which, after this election, you do so at your peril.

The final polls before the election had Hillary with a roughly 3-6% lead over trump (depending on the poll). The actual results had Hillary winning the popular vote by ~2%, so the polls were only off by 1-4%, well within the margin of error.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...-polls-clinton-lead-1478618744-htmlstory.html

Even if the polls for Obama's approval ratings are off by the same margin, he'd still have more people approving of the job that he's doing than disapproving.

Secondly, while there may be links between Obama and Hillary, Hillary had other issues (the email scandal, Benghazi) which would not have the same effect on Biden.

Correct. With Biden, there would have been an entirely different set of issues for Trump to wade into and utterly destroy.

And what exactly would those issues be that Trump could use to destroy Biden?

Remember... Trump is like Forrest Gump: incompetent, but he falls into success by accident. He benefited from the fact that the Republicans had been demonizing Hillary for years. No such demonization of Biden has taken place yet.

Plus Biden has a penis. That will sway at least a few male voters there.

I'm not trying to say running on Obama's record would necessarily win an election for a potential Biden candidate; I'm saying tying him to Obama's record may not be as detrimental as you might think.

Or it could have wound up being more detrimental, as I do think.

And your proof of that is what?

At least I've posted opinion polls showing Obama's approval rating. What have you posted to show hatred for him is widespread and "Palpable"?

 

[logger]

I'd have gone for just about anyone over Trump, being a dyed-in-the-hide blue dog Democrat, and I do not despise Hillary. But I kind of liked Bernie, and I'd have enjoyed seeing him go up against Trump.

Would Bernie be considered a blue dog dem?

 

[Donal]

Keep in mind that while Hillary was sitting out and waiting "her turn" to be president, she:
- Spend years as Secretary of State, which would improve her abilities to handle foreign policy
- Assisted in running a charity which, despite Republican attacks, was actually pretty successful and was viewed by many with pretty high regard

Personally, I would much rather see a president who builds up their skills as much as possible while "waiting" than an unqualified orangutan who has no skills and sort of just 'falls' into the position, like Forest Gump the Shrimp-boat captain.

I'm not saying she was a bad candidate. She probably would have won even in a more open field with proportional coverage. But the appearance of 2016 being her victory lap really soured a lot of people. But maybe if there was a better push for someone like O'Malley and she had a real 3 or 4 dog race, she would have been seen as having to fight for it one more time. And maybe that would have driven her to do actual leg work in the rust belt states (Sanders did win Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin which should have tipped her team off to something).

And while it is unfair to hold it against her, you can't ignore 30 years of GOP attacks. They knew that was going to wear people down going in. the perception of her being handed the party's nomination didn't help.

Trump didn't win because he inspired more voters. Hillary lost because fewer people were inspired to come out. OH, WI, MI, IA, and NC all had significantly lower percentage of turnout since 2012. That is 5 states that went from Obama to Trump. 65 electoral votes.

 

[logger]

I'm not saying she was a bad candidate. She probably would have won even in a more open field with proportional coverage. But the appearance of 2016 being her victory lap really soured a lot of people. But maybe if there was a better push for someone like O'Malley and she had a real 3 or 4 dog race, she would have been seen as having to fight for it one more time. And maybe that would have driven her to do actual leg work in the rust belt states (Sanders did win Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin which should have tipped her team off to something).

And while it is unfair to hold it against her, you can't ignore 30 years of GOP attacks. They knew that was going to wear people down going in. the perception of her being handed the party's nomination didn't help.

Trump didn't win because he inspired more voters. Hillary lost because fewer people were inspired to come out. OH, WI, MI, IA, and NC all had significantly lower percentage of turnout since 2012. That is 5 states that went from Obama to Trump. 75 electoral votes.

Interesting about Trump, is that why he was holding those rally's with thousands on hand and hillary had hundreds?

Hillary lost because people had thirty years of her and her husbands corruption.

 

[Donal]

he claimed thousands. For some odd reason, his campaign banned the camera crews at the events from panning out and seeing the whole venue. And besides, who cares? those may have just been folks who vote Republican every time anyway. He still lost the popular vote. The turnout was still bellow 2012.

the GOP wins by preventing people from voting. That is why they need Jim Crow laws.

 

[Bob001]

Would Bernie be considered a blue dog dem?

Certainly not a "blue dog." But I continue to contend that Sanders was a mainstream Democrat in the Hubert Humphrey tradition. What were Sanders' main issues? Universal health insurance, free or affordable college, financial regulation. Richard Nixon supported a universal health care plan in 1973. State colleges were originally created to make higher education available to everyone, and as recently as the '80s most were cheap and some (like the California system) were basically free. And the financial industry was pretty tightly regulated from FDR-era through the overturn of Glass-Steagall in 1999. If Sanders is a "socialist," it's only a measure of how far off center America has turned since Reagan.

 

[Bob001]

Keep in mind that while Hillary was sitting out and waiting "her turn" to be president, she:
- Spend years as Secretary of State, which would improve her abilities to handle foreign policy
- Assisted in running a charity which, despite Republican attacks, was actually pretty successful and was viewed by many with pretty high regard
....

The other side of that is that the issues that were used most harshly against her, fairly or unfairly, were the result of her time as SecState: the emails, the foundation "pay-for-play" allegations, and Benghazi. She could have run as a popular three-term Senator if she had stayed where she was.

 

[logger]

he claimed thousands. For some odd reason, his campaign banned the camera crews at the events from panning out and seeing the whole venue. And besides, who cares? those may have just been folks who vote Republican every time anyway. He still lost the popular vote. The turnout was still bellow 2012.

the GOP wins by preventing people from voting. That is why they need Jim Crow laws.

I'm praying your side continues to think this way. If requiring dems to put fourth an ID to vote causes them not to vote, your side is in more trouble than I thought.

Maybe we have them bring a "paid" power bill too.

 

[Segnosaur]

Interesting about Trump, is that why he was holding those rally's with thousands on hand and hillary had hundreds?

The size of the rallies is not necessarily indicative of a candidate's support.

Some candidates may prefer smaller or larger venues compared to their rivals. Some may be popular but just not good at the theatrics needed for large-scale gatherings.

Hillary lost because people had thirty years of her and her husbands corruption. republicans falsely accusing her and her husband of corruption

Fixed it for you.

 

[Segnosaur]

Keep in mind that while Hillary was sitting out and waiting "her turn" to be president, she:
- Spend years as Secretary of State, which would improve her abilities to handle foreign policy
- Assisted in running a charity which, despite Republican attacks, was actually pretty successful and was viewed by many with pretty high regard

The other side of that is that the issues that were used most harshly against her, fairly or unfairly, were the result of her time as SecState: the emails, the foundation "pay-for-play" allegations, and Benghazi.

I know.... I was talking more about her building the skills needed to be an effective president, rather than her overall electability

 

[logger]

The size of the rallies is not necessarily indicative of a candidate's support.

Some candidates may prefer smaller or larger venues compared to their rivals. Some may be popular but just not good at the theatrics needed for large-scale gatherings.

You can't even admit he had excitement behind his rally's and campaign in general? Anyone looking at this logically would have to agree hillary had less excitement?
Was it because she's such a bore, or was it her character?

Fixed it for you.

Fixing it doesn't mean it's reality.

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm praying your side continues to think this way. If requiring dems to put fourth an ID to vote causes them not to vote, your side is in more trouble than I thought.

All depends on what is considered acceptable ID.

For example, driver's licenses and passports both require either time or money to obtain, and not everyone serves in the military. If you are a poor person on a limited income, you may find that the time and/or money needed to obtain the relevant ID may be a significant hardship, whereas a wealthy voter living in the suburbs probably already has at least one of those forms of ID since they need it for there regular day-to-day lives.

 

[Donal]

I'm praying your side continues to think this way.

My "side" is the United States of America and her people. If you see me as the opposition, what is your side?

If requiring dems to put fourth an ID to vote causes them not to vote, your side is in more trouble than I thought.

Maybe we have them bring a "paid" power bill too.

Not "dems" just poors and blacks. I notice you are enthusiastic about Jim Crow laws. Whats funny is more and more people in the third world countries known as red states are falling into the categories that get blocked by those laws. As the population gets younger and those urban centers grow, where do you think that is going to leave the GOP? Do you think your anti-American agenda will really survive another generation?

 

[Segnosaur]

You can't even admit he had excitement behind his rally's and campaign in general? Anyone looking at this logically would have to agree hillary had less excitement?
Was it because she's such a bore, or was it her character?

I think its because she relied on putting forward realistic and coherent policies that would most likely work and improve the quality of life for Americans, which admittedly would make for a boring rally. On the other hand, the orangutan known as Trump likes to spew nonsense, which is certainly great for getting crowds riled up, but is far less useful in conveying useful information to voters.

Fixing it doesn't mean it's reality.

No, but in this case it is reality.

 

[logger]

My "side" is the United States of America and her people. If you see me as the opposition, what is your side?

Right vs left possibly?

Not "dems" just poors and blacks. I notice you are enthusiastic about Jim Crow laws. Whats funny is more and more people in the third world countries known as red states are falling into the categories that get blocked by those laws. As the population gets younger and those urban centers grow, where do you think that is going to leave the GOP? Do you think your anti-American agenda will really survive another generation?

Interesting how you think Jim Crow laws involve an ID, seems I've been under the direst of Jim Crow for some time.