Why no Talk about Hillary Clinton

[Blade Wolf]

She's called Shillary for a reason.

[Bullettime]

Probably because she's not really entertaining or anything different. Sanders breaching socialism and Trump/the GOP making idiots of themselves have been more conversation worthy.

Clinton is your prototypical politician. She's pretty much the status quo personified. There's not a whole lot to really discuss about her. We pretty much know what she'll do, what she won't do, where her loyalties lie, etc. It's just a matter of time before she's elected.

[Cthulhu 2020]

There are threads every day about how Hillary is going to be indicted "tomorrow".

[Deleted]

There are threads every day about how Hillary is going to be indicted "tomorrow".

Tomorrow never dies.

[derpkitteh]

Stuff like this validates the superdelegate system.

People like you are why it exists.

I just want you to keep that in mind.

But that said unless you live in a swing state, it doesn't matter. And even them, swing counties, even swing neighborhoods matter. Voting habits analytical resolution has gone way up since 2000.

it can exist all it likes, but the numbers seem to be in trump's favor. even a hillary shill on cnn was talking about how in ohio, that she's seen a lot of democrats and independents registering to vote republican. only trump brings out that kind of thing.

so, if you people want hillary, you deserve trump.

[Independent voter]

It's going to be Hillary versus Trump. Ask yourself if you want to be a Democrat or a Republican?

[Skroe]

it can exist all it likes, but the numbers seem to be in trump's favor. even a hillary shill on cnn was talking about how in ohio, that she's seen a lot of democrats and independents registering to vote republican. only trump brings out that kind of thing.

so, if you people want hillary, you deserve trump.

The map is very simple. A lot simplier than you think
http://www.270towin.com/

Hillary starts with a 217 electoral vote advantage (270 to win) to Trumps 191.

Virginia and Pennsylvannia have gone solidly democratic as populations have moved around. Since 2006, if not reliably blue, they're certainly Blue enough to give them to her hypothetically.

This takes Hillary to 250: http://www.270towin.com/maps/5VAw0

Now let's say she wins Florida.
279. Hillary wins. http://www.270towin.com/maps/avke9

Now let's say she loses Florida and wins Ohio and North Carolina, both of which trend Democratic recently.

283. An even bigger victory. http://www.270towin.com/maps/M2Nro

The point is, Hillary has MANY Avenues to win. In fact, it it isn't a Hillary thing. It's a Democratic thing. Any Democrat running for President would have a favorable map. And you forget. Many centrists / independent / Republicans distugsted by Trump like myself, will be voting for her as well. Trump does not have uniform claim over the independent vote. Far from it, national polls show Hillary beating Trump by 9-13 points as of last week: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5491.html


I realize you're a Sanders supporter, and from policy to votes, I realize Math is an unfortunate, pesky detail. But I'd pay attention, because even with your scorched Earth tactic, the math defeats you.

[Deleted]

Don't worry, it's not as bad as /r/politics. That place has turned into a depressing Sanders circle jerk.

[Hey There Guys its Metro]

Because this is a forum about video games.
Go to a forum about politics and you'll see millions of words a minute on Hillary, way before it was about election stuff as well.

[Gray_Matter]

what i mean is, the news media plays delegate differences differently depending on the candidate. donald trump's ahead by this much? they play it like his competitors are right on his ass. bernie's behind this much? they play it like he's 100% screwed and has no chance.

i realize bernie's chances are slim to none, which is why i;m certain i'll likely be voting for trump just to punish everyone else. but watching the media's bullshit is delicious.

The same way that Iowa was a statistical tie when Clinton won but Michigan was a great victory when Bernie won? The press will spin thing the way that suit them. They want the Bernie run to continue because it makes for great press. Mathematically, he has a huge hurdle to climb.

[derpkitteh]

The map is very simple. A lot simplier than you think
http://www.270towin.com/

Hillary starts with a 217 electoral vote advantage (270 to win) to Trumps 191.

Virginia and Pennsylvannia have gone solidly democratic as populations have moved around. Since 2006, if not reliably blue, they're certainly Blue enough to give them to her hypothetically.

This takes Hillary to 250: http://www.270towin.com/maps/5VAw0

Now let's say she wins Florida.
279. Hillary wins. http://www.270towin.com/maps/avke9

Now let's say she loses Florida and wins Ohio and North Carolina, both of which trend Democratic recently.

283. An even bigger victory. http://www.270towin.com/maps/M2Nro

The point is, Hillary has MANY Avenues to win. In fact, it it isn't a Hillary thing. It's a Democratic thing. Any Democrat running for President would have a favorable map. And you forget. Many centrists / independent / Republicans distugsted by Trump like myself, will be voting for her as well. Trump does not have uniform claim over the independent vote. Far from it, national polls show Hillary beating Trump by 9-13 points as of last week: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5491.html


I realize you're a Sanders supporter, and from policy to votes, I realize Math is an unfortunate, pesky detail. But I'd pay attention, because even with your scorched Earth tactic, the math defeats you.

voter turnout's still shit for democrats, which means i'd likely be screwed even if bernie gets the nomination.

so, whether we like it or not, trump's probably inevitable. if it's bernie he beats, i'll be sad. if it's hillary, not so much. but i do know i am a vindictive and spiteful person, who would even see the guy that's worse than trump beat hillary, ted cruz, just to punish people who vote for hillary. he'd really shit on everything the left believes in and likely dump the country into the shitter and flush it with some liquid plumber that makes sure it goes all the way down.

[Grapemask]

I realize you're a Sanders supporter, and from policy to votes, I realize Math is an unfortunate, pesky detail. But I'd pay attention, because even with your scorched Earth tactic, the math defeats you.

I think I read your posts now just to see how you slip in your bitter anger towards Bernie Sanders and your insulting remarks towards anyone who doesn't share your views.

[Mormolyce]

Because the internet is only interested in Trump and Bernie. Remember that the internet is not representative of reality.

[PC2]

people will sink back to the reality of middle and abandon the lofty goals of the far left or right.

I could see that. I could also see various events from BLM going crazy to a terrorist attack playing into Hillary's weaknesses. Especially when Democrats are so dishonest and even superstitious regarding sensitive subjects, such as radical Islamic terrorism.

[Skroe]

voter turnout's still shit for democrats, which means i'd likely be screwed even if bernie gets the nomination. .

Nonsense. Primary turnout in no way predicts general election turn out.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-bl...-voter-turnout

This is what cable news pundits want you to think: Thanks to surging voter turnout in Republican primaries—and lagging Democratic turnout—the GOP is expanding their base to historic levels, which will propel their party to winning the White House.

Unfortunately, the need for speed and campaign spin hides the truth that is publicly available in voter turnout data. Our data driven research finds that Democrats should be confident in their November coalition and Republicans shouldn’t be measuring the West Wing drapes anytime soon.

There actually is no historic correlation between primary turnout and general election turnout. None. The highest turnout in a Democratic primary—before the outlier of 2008—was in 1988. Gov. Michael Dukakis got killed in November. Democratic primary turnout was actually lower in 1992—two million fewer Democrats voted in the primaries that year. The drop in turnout didn’t stop Bill Clinton from winning the general election convincingly.
Turnout data also shows Americans don't vote in primaries because they're excited about November. They vote in primaries when the outcome of the party nomination is in doubt. The outcome of this primary hasn't been in doubt for most Democratic primary voters despite a hard-fought race. That’s a statement that may strike people who read campaign news every day as odd, especially given the fundraising success of the Sanders campaign. Democrats have seen Hillary Clinton as our party’s likely 2016 nominee for years and her strength is beginning to catch up to this underlying reality. Turnout is lower because there has been less suspense about the outcome.

Higher Republican primary turnout is also no reason to think the GOP is growing their base. In zero states has the number of primary votes even come close to the number of Republican general election votes. Primary electorates and general electorates are just very different animals.

Look at the data from New Hampshire and Virginia. In New Hampshire, the state with the highest turnout percentage so far, there were 284,120 votes in the GOP primary, but Mitt Romney received 329,918 votes in 2012. In Virginia, just over a million votes were cast in their Super Tuesday primary, but Mitt Romney won more than 1.8 million votes in the state in 2012. Again: there is no data correlation.

Fear—far more than enthusiasm—is a huge motivating factor in many Republican voters’ minds. In a Clarity Campaign Labs satisfaction index created out of publicly available exit polls, barely 50 percent of GOP voters said they would be satisfied with the three leading candidates getting the nomination - 53 percent Rubio, 51 percent Cruz, 48 percent Trump.

Democrats on the other hand would strongly back the nominee: 78 percent would be satisfied with Secretary Hillary Clinton and 63 percent would back Sen. Bernie Sanders no matter their first choice. Smart policy and a will to win the White House drives Democrats to the polls. Gains in Republican primary turnout come from a party running scared.

In the general election, we are confident Democrats will embrace the nominee enthusiastically, while Republicans could be fractured by a Trump candidacy.

The balancing act between enthusiasm and fear will transfer more to independent voters that sat out the primary season. These important voters who don't follow every twist and turn of the campaign cycle aren't paying attention yet, but when they do they'll find a GOP nominee that rightly scares them to the polls.

Hagner is a partner at Clarity Campaigns Lab, a firm that provides advanced modeling and analytic services to progressive organizations.

so, whether we like it or not, trump's probably inevitable. if it's bernie he beats, i'll be sad. if it's hillary, not so much. but i do know i am a vindictive and spiteful person, who would even see the guy that's worse than trump beat hillary, ted cruz, just to punish people who vote for hillary. he'd really shit on everything the left believes in and likely dump the country into the shitter and flush it with some liquid plumber that makes sure it goes all the way down.

That's very mature of you...

[Gray_Matter]

When Hillary runs out of southern states she is in trouble. She has only won in states where the democrats have no chance of winning the state in the general elections.

Take a look at the chart from FiveThirtyEight.com. Michigan was right on track with what Bernie needed to do to win the nomination. The only problem is that only applies if he was on track for the nomination. Because he was behind, he needed to exceed that by a substantial margin.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ets/democrats/

This chart is based on demographics, assuming that Clinton and Bernie were polling equally nationally.

[Shadowferal]

It's going to be Hillary versus Trump. Ask yourself if you want to be a Democrat or a Republican?

It'll play out as "Establishment vs. Anti-Establishment."

[Skroe]

It'll play out as "Establishment vs. Anti-Establishment."

Yeah the establishment has done a terrible job... building the world's economic and military superpower with among it's highest standards of living and sub 5% unemployment. Fact is, the vast bulk of the American electorate, over a hundred million people, IS Establishment.

I just came back from an actual third world country. It really strikes home how whiny and dramatic Americans are about this election in general.

I suppose that is what keeps us sharp in the end as a country.

[Shadowferal]

Yeah the establishment has done a terrible job... building the world's economic and military superpower with among it's highest standards of living and sub 5% unemployment. Fact is, the vast bulk of the American electorate, over a hundred million people, IS Establishment.

I just came back from an actual third world country. It really strikes home how whiny and dramatic Americans are about this election in general.

I suppose that is what keeps us sharp in the end as a country.

Well, now don't you just sound like a right-winger....
But then that is the choice we have when it comes down to Republican vs. Republican-Lite.

[Skroe]

Well, now don't you just sound like a right-winger....
But then that is the choice we have when it comes down to Republican vs. Republican-Lite.

I am on the right though. I'm a centrist-Republican. I'm voting for Hillary Clinton BECAUSE she is Republican-lite.

Donald Trump is a racist, fascist, thuggish war crime-encouraging demagogue.
Ted Cruz is an egomaniac who has taken the country to the brink of default and has nothing but terrible ideas for this country.
Marco Rubio is far right, not center-right, and is a product of the extremist Tea Party.

All three are unacceptable, extremist choices.

My party has been hijacked by extremists who aren't conservatives, are anti-intellectual, and promote war crimes and enable racism. I'm fine with any one of them being the nominee so they can lose badly and we can see a post-election purge.

But in the mean time the United States has so much going for it right now, what we need is steady hand. Clinton is the obvious choice. The republicans are on the extremist righ. Sanders is a radical leftist whose revolution talk is sickening.

As I wrote, this is the easiest election for me in years. I really wrestled with Romney and McCain, because Romney was a good governor for my state and I respect McCain and distrusted Obama. I ended up voting for Obama in both cases, for very specific reasons (Romney pretended he was a radical Republican, the Republican house voting against the bipartisan Bush/Democratic bailout plan in 2008 on small government principles, causing a wall street to panic and affecting my parent's retirements). It's the easiest election for me since John Kerry - who've I've detested since 2002 - ran for President and I voted for Bush.

Of course I'm going to vote for the status quo. I LIKE the status quo. I think Trump exposes the ugly underside of America that is always there. But I think Sanders and his supporters are dead wrong about their prescriptions to our problems.