• 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 for Veep?

smartcooky said:
I presume that is what you really meant, right?
Click to expand...

Yeah it is!

Not even a Freudian slip, just a plain old typo. Trump is the moron - Bloomberg is smart.

While I dislike him, he has one huge thing in his favour - he understands data and the absolute necessity to use it c. 2020. Part of that will be knowing for certain Hillary would be a very large anchor, regardless of how he feels about her.
 
I keep reading this as it's passed around. It feels plausible and I fear it to be based in truth. I hate Bloomberg so much, so I really hope she isn't her pick. Because if it's true, that's the D ticket. Uck.
 
MoeFaux said:
I keep reading this as it's passed around. It feels plausible and I fear it to be based in truth. I hate Bloomberg so much, so I really hope she isn't her pick. Because if it's true, that's the D ticket. Uck.
Click to expand...

If you like Clinton, just consider her a shining jewel embedded in the Bloomberg turd. A ticket made palatable!

Just kidding, of course. My view is that a VP pick will never attract a vote but it may repel a vote.
 
Bob001 said:
Might have more weight if the story didn't come from the Drudge Report. It wouldn't surprise me if Clinton or her minions planted it.
Click to expand...

More likely just some rumor he heard from nowhere important. She keeps telling people "I'm out, I'm running my charity now.", and they keep saying "She's going to appear like Candyman or Beetlejuice, OH NOOOO!!!", and the far left starts screaming about how she needs to go away, blah blah blah. we've seen this, what, onbce a month or two, for the past year? And throw in the occasional "Chelsea will run!!!" rumor, even though she's also shown no interest at all.

Nobody's asking anyone this early. They *should* have short lists for people to research. Consider Clinton rumors to be crap.
 
Mumbles said:
More likely just some rumor he heard from nowhere important. She keeps telling people "I'm out, I'm running my charity now.", and they keep saying "She's going to appear like Candyman or Beetlejuice, OH NOOOO!!!", and the far left starts screaming about how she needs to go away, blah blah blah. we've seen this, what, onbce a month or two, for the past year? And throw in the occasional "Chelsea will run!!!" rumor, even though she's also shown no interest at all.

Nobody's asking anyone this early. They *should* have short lists for people to research. Consider Clinton rumors to be crap.
Click to expand...

100%. This Clinton VP crap is nothing more than the right wing rumour factory waving around the boogeyman in an early attempt to scare off swing voters.
 
TragicMonkey said:
If you like Clinton, just consider her a shining jewel embedded in the Bloomberg turd. A ticket made palatable!

Just kidding, of course. My view is that a VP pick will never attract a vote but it may repel a vote.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that, for the most part. However, I think Sarah Palin may have been the exception. She was wildly popular among Republicans and I think for some of the same reasons Trump is popular. She was very outspoken, often said outrageous things, and was more a 'personality' than anything.
 
Stacyhs said:
My view is that a VP pick will never attract a vote but it may repel a vote.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with that, for the most part. However, I think Sarah Palin may have been the exception. She was wildly popular among Republicans and I think for some of the same reasons Trump is popular. She was very outspoken, often said outrageous things, and was more a 'personality' than anything.
Click to expand...
She may have been popular among republicans, but most of them were probably going to vote for McCain anyways.

On the other hand, some of the things she did may have hurt the campaign.

From: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379410000442?via=ihub
...we estimate the “Palin effect,” based on individual-level changes in favorability towards the vice-presidential nominee, and conclude that her campaign performance cost McCain just under 2% of the final vote share.

(Note that there are different opinions regarding her impact on the election... the above reference suggested she caused the McCain campaign some harm, but others show a more neutral effect.)
 
TragicMonkey said:
If you like Clinton, just consider her a shining jewel embedded in the Bloomberg turd. A ticket made palatable!

Just kidding, of course. My view is that a VP pick will never attract a vote but it may repel a vote.
Click to expand...

I just want her to go away. At this point, I consider her a turd too. I don't think for a second she could get more votes on her own than she did last time. But I do think somehow these two together would be some sick powerhouse. Ugh. Here's a fun thought experiment: Them on a ticket, or Biden?


Sigh.
 
Mumbles said:
More likely just some rumor he heard from nowhere important. She keeps telling people "I'm out, I'm running my charity now.", and they keep saying "She's going to appear like Candyman or Beetlejuice, OH NOOOO!!!", and the far left starts screaming about how she needs to go away, blah blah blah. we've seen this, what, onbce a month or two, for the past year? And throw in the occasional "Chelsea will run!!!" rumor, even though she's also shown no interest at all.

Nobody's asking anyone this early. They *should* have short lists for people to research. Consider Clinton rumors to be crap.
Click to expand...

This seems to be the source as far as I can tell.. note the number of "coulds" and mights"...
 
PhantomWolf said:
This seems to be the source as far as I can tell.. note the number of "coulds" and mights"...
Click to expand...

From the link:

A number of people in politics, the media and elsewhere are openly speculating that if Democrats wind up with a “brokered convention,” with no strong or viable nominee evident, Hillary Clinton might enter the arena as the “savior” who could unite the delegates and go on to defeat President Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

See below:

The Atheist said:
Alt-right CT to try stopping Bloomberg, who even someone as dense as Trump must see as a prime threat.
Click to expand...

Rinse & repeat.
 
Just for fun, I will point out that the bookies currently have Hillary at an average of about 5.7% to win the presidential nomination, slightly higher than Klobuchar (5.0%) and Warren (2.0%).
 
Segnosaur said:
She may have been popular among republicans, but most of them were probably going to vote for McCain anyways.

On the other hand, some of the things she did may have hurt the campaign.

From: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379410000442?via=ihub
...we estimate the “Palin effect,” based on individual-level changes in favorability towards the vice-presidential nominee, and conclude that her campaign performance cost McCain just under 2% of the final vote share.

(Note that there are different opinions regarding her impact on the election... the above reference suggested she caused the McCain campaign some harm, but others show a more neutral effect.)
Click to expand...

While this showed she had a positive impact:

It's been debated for five years, and the conventional wisdom has generally concluded that Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, hurt Sen. John McCain's chances to beat then-Sen. Barack Obama for the presidency with her outsized and controversial personality.

But now a comprehensive new analysis of the so-called “Palin Effect” finds that in the final analysis, the former Alaska governor helped McCain by attracting more voters to the ticket, crushing a mainstream media view.

What’s more, while she attracted wider press attention than most prior veep candidates, her actual impact for a No. 2 was about average.

“Palin had a positive effect on McCain,” according to the new Palin analysis in the authoritative Political Research Quarterly.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ped-john-mccain-in-2008-has-2016-support-base

But, of course, you are right in that there are certainly conflicting thoughts on Palin's influence, both positive and negative. Frankly, I'm just glad she went away. I hope Trump joins her soon.
 
Brainster said:
Just for fun, I will point out that the bookies currently have Hillary at an average of about 5.7% to win the presidential nomination, slightly higher than Klobuchar (5.0%) and Warren (2.0%).
Click to expand...

HDS

I keep seeing certain right wing people insist that there's a secret DNC plot make Hillary the nominee somehow, even though it's already too late to mount a serious campaign, or maybe slip her in through the backdoor somehow via the Veep slot. It won't happen.
 
Brainster said:
Just for fun, I will point out that the bookies currently have Hillary at an average of about 5.7% to win the presidential nomination, slightly higher than Klobuchar (5.0%) and Warren (2.0%).
Click to expand...

Which I guess points out that there are a number of "mug punters" out there willing to believe right wing conspiracies - after all the odds merely reflect where the money is being bet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom