Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Travis]

Oh, and Rasmussen had Romney up by 1 before the election, which wasn't exactly a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment.

Fox had it tied.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Even if you give Fox and Rasummessen a 4 point "right wing" hedge, they still show the race as within the margin of error between Clinton and Trump.

WHY is Clinton not cleaning Trump's clock? Because she's a horrible candidate.

No, she's been the victim of a very long smear campaign. I'd love to see just how well any candidate would be doing if congress had investigated them countless times for no reason except to try and sully their name. I wonder how they would be doing if they had an ongoing completely stupid and pointless politically motivated FBI investigation that will ultimately go nowhere but still gets trotted out.

Even right here in this thread we have posters claiming "she admitted to astroturfing" in spite of no evidence for it in the exact same way that Truthers again and again insisted that Silverstein admitted to pulling WTC7.

She gets called "crooked" for no reason. A "liar" for no reason. She's branded as "corrupt" for no reason.

You keep calling someone that for long enough and you'll get the gullible to go along with it.

 

[sunmaster14]

Just to reiterate, Wareyin claimed that "the FBI has admitted no evidence of criminal wrongdoings [by Hillary]." When asked for evidence, he offers a news article which claims, according to unnamed US officials, that so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law.



It's the critical reasoning equivalent of the well-known theorem from math: 2+2=5.

 

[Fudbucker]

No, she's been the victim of a very long smear campaign. I'd love to see just how well any candidate would be doing if congress had investigated them countless times for no reason except to try and sully their name. I wonder how they would be doing if they had an ongoing completely stupid and pointless politically motivated FBI investigation that will ultimately go nowhere but still gets trotted out.

Even right here in this thread we have posters claiming "she admitted to astroturfing" in spite of no evidence for it in the exact same way that Truthers again and again insisted that Silverstein admitted to pulling WTC7.

She gets called "crooked" for no reason. A "liar" for no reason. She's branded as "corrupt" for no reason.

You keep calling someone that for long enough and you'll get the gullible to go along with it.

Do you really believe this? Do you not remember the sniper fire claim? Dead broke after leaving the White House? Being named after Edmund Hillary? Trying to join the Marines?

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

... an ongoing completely stupid and pointless politically motivated FBI investigation that will ultimately go nowhere but still gets trotted out.

Stupid, pointless, and politically motivated? An FBI investigation? Where are you getting this from? I'm sorry, but this is not your normal, run-of-the-mill, partisan apologetics. You're into deep, deep denial here. As Donald Trump would so aptly say: Sad!

 

[wareyin]

Just to reiterate, Wareyin claimed that "the FBI has admitted no evidence of criminal wrongdoings [by Hillary]." When asked for evidence, he offers a news article which claims, according to unnamed US officials, that so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law.



It's the critical reasoning equivalent of the well-known theorem from math: 2+2=5.

Yeah, just because FBI sources state they haven't found evidence, that's not the same as admitting no evidence found.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yeah, just because FBI sources state they haven't found evidence, that's not the same as admitting no evidence found.

It wouldn't be even if they had stated that, which they haven't. In fact, all it takes is modestly careful reading to see that the anonymous sources don't even claim that no evidence of criminal wrongdoing has been found.

 

[wareyin]

It wouldn't be even if they had stated that, which they haven't. In fact, all it takes is modestly careful reading to see that the anonymous sources don't even claim that no evidence of criminal wrongdoing has been found.

By modestly careful, you mean heavily biased?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just to reiterate, Wareyin claimed that "the FBI has admitted no evidence of criminal wrongdoings [by Hillary]." When asked for evidence, he offers a news article which claims, according to unnamed US officials, that so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law.....

I've been following these "unnamed sources" and pretty much the only leaks supposedly finding an impending indictment have been reported by right wing sites like Fox News. Whereas, no evidence is leaked by official sources to CNN. So is CNN a Hillary shill? We know Fox News is capable of very biased reporting. But I wasn't aware CNN was in Clinton's camp.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Why do I hold Clinton accountable for the fact May's almost over and her opponent can still win?

Gee, I don't know.

Why do you keep lying about this? That it is "still possible to win" is purely a function of the Democratic system, California being in June for the first time in the Democratic Primary history , and only two opponents.

With 715 unpledged delegates and a remaining 781 pledged delegates to still be determined, a candidate would only need to have acquired just 26.1% of the previous pledged delegates to still have a "mathematical chance of winning."

Your claim that it is all because Clinton is a terrible candidate has been repeatedly debunked and you continue to lie about it.

 

[uke2se]

The difference is that Hillary started the race as the anointed nominee-in-waiting, with the almost universal support of the entire Democratic establishment, including the DNC, big donors and the media and, of course, almost all of the superdelegates. When Sanders started, he was largely treated as a comedy sideshow, particularly by the media. Yet Sanders beat Hillary in 21 states, and lost by fractions of a percent in others. It's as if Sanders started behind the starting line, and Hillary started six steps from the finish line, and yet somehow they ran almost neck and neck. Hillary will be the nominee, and she'll probably beat Trump. But for many people she inspires resignation, not enthusiasm.http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0

Ok. So just like every election then.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I read yesterday that "by the numbers" at this same point in '08, Hillary's supporters were averring to never vote for Obama. Can't remember the figure but it was ten or fifteen points higher than the current Sanders' devotees currently making the same claim. And we all know how that turned out. Over 80% of Hillary's supporters voted for Obama.

All is not lost.

 

[WildCat]

No, she's been the victim of a very long smear campaign.

That's what happens when your political career spanning decades is marked my lies and corruption and smearing women who have been sexually assaulted.

 

[WildCat]

July is gong to be interesting. First the GOP will have their convention where they coalesce around Trump. Then the Dems will have theirs which will feature Bernie supporters rioting in the streets and inside the Dem convention.

Guess who gets the convention bump?

 

[Stacko]

I read yesterday that "by the numbers" at this same point in '08, Hillary's supporters were averring to never vote for Obama. Can't remember the figure but it was ten or fifteen points higher than the current Sanders' devotees currently making the same claim. And we all know how that turned out. Over 80% of Hillary's supporters voted for Obama.

All is not lost.

It was:

May 2008, NYT/CBS poll: 60% of Clinton backers say they'd vote Obama
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbsnyt-national-poll-hillary-clintons-lead-over-donald-trump-narrows/

May 2016, NYT/CBS poll: 72% of Sanders backers say they'd vote Clinton
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/MAY08A-Politics.pdf

The 2008 polling numbers are prior to McCain making the worst gaffe in recent election history by selecting Sarah Palin as his VP pick.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It was:

The 2008 polling numbers are prior to McCain making the worst gaffe in recent election history by selecting Sarah Palin as his VP pick.

McCain and Trump are not comparable. That Trump has the following he has suggests more than a few people aren't thinking. But everyone else is. You will have a lot of Republicans who ignore the risks of a Trump POTUS, rationalizing it's really about the SCOTUS or that the Congress can keep him in check. But I can't see more than 50% of the voting electorate thinking Trump can actually do the job. That would not have been a question people asked about McCain.

 

[Fudbucker]

Why do you keep lying about this? That it is "still possible to win" is purely a function of the Democratic system, California being in June for the first time in the Democratic Primary history , and only two opponents.

With 715 unpledged delegates and a remaining 781 pledged delegates to still be determined, a candidate would only need to have acquired just 26.1% of the previous pledged delegates to still have a "mathematical chance of winning."

Your claim that it is all because Clinton is a terrible candidate has been repeatedly debunked and you continue to lie about it.

Oh, it has?

Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points — resulting in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-points-new-nbc-n577726

And now ABC/WaPo has Trump up by 2.


So in the last four recent polls, Trump is winning in 3 of them and within the margin of error in the other. Clinton just got out-fundraised by the old socialist.

But she's not a terrible candidate. Right. That's just me lying.

The Dems might actually lose this thing. Unbelievable.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Interesting eyewitness account from the Nevada Convention describing the tricks the party establishment played to serve Hitlery.

[...] Nevada has a strange three-tier system—Hillary had won a majority at the February caucus, but more Bernie delegates showed up at the county caucus, negating Hillary’s win, so the race for delegates at the state convention promised to be a tight one. I looked forward to seeing the process in action; I never expected that process would become so chaotic and surreal, although I had become used to surreal of late. [...]

It wasn’t long before things took a turn. At 9:30, a full half hour before registration closed, Lange read the results of ballots that had been passed out to early arriving conventioneers regarding temporary rules for the convention, rules which would discount the results of the county convention (the second tier of the caucus process, where Bernie had won more delegates), rules which would require that all votes at the convention be decided by voice alone, and which ruled that the decision of the chairperson would be final. These temporary rules had passed with flying colors, which did not sit well with the Bernie delegates, many of whom had not been given ballots. Suddenly half the people of the room were on their feet, shouting “No!!!!” [...]

When I read news stories about what happened that day, I don’t recognize much of what is being reported—while there was plenty of chaos, I witnessed no violence (nor did my husband or anyone else I knew at the convention). Bernie supporters were not trying to change the rules, as some journalists reported: they were justifiably outraged when the chairperson changed the rules without a majority vote, and then more outraged when, later, after a motion for a delegate recount, she shut the whole convention down with a pound of the gavel and threatened arrest to anyone who stayed in the room. [...]

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh, it has?

Hillary Clinton's advantage over Donald Trump has narrowed to just three points — resulting in a dead-heat general-election contest with more than five months to go until November, according to a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/clinton-s-lead-over-trump-shrinks-3-points-new-nbc-n577726

And now ABC/WaPo has Trump up by 2.


So in the last four recent polls, Trump is winning in 3 of them and within the margin of error in the other. Clinton just got out-fundraised by the old socialist.

But she's not a terrible candidate. Right. That's just me lying.

The Dems might actually lose this thing. Unbelievable.

Are you ever going to stop using non-predictive polls (the news media uses to create stories on slow news days) to make your arguments?

 

[WildCat]

Are you ever going to stop using non-predictive polls (the news media uses to create stories on slow news days) to make your arguments?

Whereas you rely on Hillary's push polls? The Dems push polls?

And I'll point out that the polls have consistently overestimated Hillary's numbers and underestimated Trump's numbers.

 

[Fudbucker]

Are you ever going to stop using non-predictive polls (the news media uses to create stories on slow news days) to make your arguments?

Are you ever going to stop shilling for Clinton? No? Then people will continue to not take you seriously. Unlike you, I back up my claims with evidence. Here's some:

Polls in May, 2012 showed Obama with a 2 point lead. Obama ended up winning by 3 points.

In June, 2008, NBC had Obama up by 6, ABC had him up by 4, Fox had Obama ahead by 4, and Rasmussen had Obama up by 5. Obama won by 7.

So the same four polling outfits that in the last week have Trump winning/within the margin of error, were all accurate to within 3 points in June 2008, AND the RCP average in May 2012 was accurate to within 1 point. The RCP average this May has Trump ahead of Clinton.

And in 2008 and 2012, the GOP nominees weren't mentally ill women-hating bullies.

This is horrible news for Clinton.