Hillary won more votes for President

12425272930325

Comments

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    First off, it's from employees who are free to contribute to whomever they wish. Second, they contributed to Bernie although in smaller numbers. Third, what they have given Hillary is 2% of the industry's total contribution. Fourth unless you live in a teepee, you are part of the problem too.

    And last, I would have expected you to have renounced your 10C membership by now since EV is no better than Clooney. Your morals aren't relative, are they?
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    This is why the "email" issue matters...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/04/was-an-asian-government-reading-hillary-clintons-emails-in-february-2009/

    IF national security was compromised because of her want to skirt government transparency rules then she will be disqualified for the presidency and will likely be on her way to prison.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    Jason P said:

    I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.

    If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    mrussel1 said:

    Jason P said:

    I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.

    If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
    I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    Jason P said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Jason P said:

    I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.

    If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
    I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
    I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of Red baiting that would happen in the general election once the super pacs start turning their sites on him. There hasn't been one negative ad, to my knowledge, run against Sanders so far. In fact, if you go to Drudge, Red State, NRO, Breitbart, etc. there are tons of anti-Hillary ads and articles. Zero on Bernie.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    mrussel1 said:

    Jason P said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Jason P said:

    I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.

    If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
    I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
    I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of Red baiting that would happen in the general election once the super pacs start turning their sites on him. There hasn't been one negative ad, to my knowledge, run against Sanders so far. In fact, if you go to Drudge, Red State, NRO, Breitbart, etc. there are tons of anti-Hillary ads and articles. Zero on Bernie.
    Yeah, no way the GOP attacks him yet. They see him as the key to victory, where even Trump will come out on top. Getting rid of Clinton is key to the GOP.

    This would be the reaction of a GOP anti-Sanders strategist if he won the nomination ...

    image
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    mrussel1 said:

    Jason P said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Jason P said:

    I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.

    If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
    I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
    I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of Red baiting that would happen in the general election once the super pacs start turning their sites on him. There hasn't been one negative ad, to my knowledge, run against Sanders so far. In fact, if you go to Drudge, Red State, NRO, Breitbart, etc. there are tons of anti-Hillary ads and articles. Zero on Bernie.
    I think a lot of people overestimate the amount people care about Red baiting nowadays.
    I am 30, I have never met anyone my age of younger who bought into McCarthyism. We tend to think of people who use McCarthyisms as weirdo extremists.
    If you say commie, pinko, or you can't say socialist without a snarl, anybody under 35 is going to laugh at you like your the cover of a Donna Summers album.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    rgambs said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Jason P said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Jason P said:

    I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.

    If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
    I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
    I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of Red baiting that would happen in the general election once the super pacs start turning their sites on him. There hasn't been one negative ad, to my knowledge, run against Sanders so far. In fact, if you go to Drudge, Red State, NRO, Breitbart, etc. there are tons of anti-Hillary ads and articles. Zero on Bernie.
    I think a lot of people overestimate the amount people care about Red baiting nowadays.
    I am 30, I have never met anyone my age of younger who bought into McCarthyism. We tend to think of people who use McCarthyisms as weirdo extremists.
    If you say commie, pinko, or you can't say socialist without a snarl, anybody under 35 is going to laugh at you like your the cover of a Donna Summers album.
    You're right, but for everyone over 40 it was ingrained. And remember, the older you are, the more likely you are to vote. He will get clobbered with ads on the Sandanistas, compliments about Castro, his honeymoon to the Soviet Union, etc. Will it work for everyone? Of course not. Will it work on moderates or true swing voters? Maybe. But you can be sure it will happen.

    It is important to note that McCarythism was outcast as fringe in the 50's when his credibility was destroyed. But anti-Red stuff continued well into the 90's.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    Except it's not McCarthism. Sanders has called himself a socialist. He's not getting framed.
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    Hillary got a whopping 2,400 to come to her rally last night. While Bernie packs in tens of thousands.

    http://cbs6albany.com/news/local/hillary-clinton-to-visit-cohoes-for-campaign-event
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Posts: 20,275
    Jason P said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Jason P said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Jason P said:

    I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.

    If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
    I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
    I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of Red baiting that would happen in the general election once the super pacs start turning their sites on him. There hasn't been one negative ad, to my knowledge, run against Sanders so far. In fact, if you go to Drudge, Red State, NRO, Breitbart, etc. there are tons of anti-Hillary ads and articles. Zero on Bernie.
    Yeah, no way the GOP attacks him yet. They see him as the key to victory, where even Trump will come out on top. Getting rid of Clinton is key to the GOP.

    This would be the reaction of a GOP anti-Sanders strategist if he won the nomination ...

    image
    Polling shows a massive dem victory whether it's Sanders or Clinton.
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
    The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675

    Jason P said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Jason P said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Jason P said:

    I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.

    If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
    I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
    I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of Red baiting that would happen in the general election once the super pacs start turning their sites on him. There hasn't been one negative ad, to my knowledge, run against Sanders so far. In fact, if you go to Drudge, Red State, NRO, Breitbart, etc. there are tons of anti-Hillary ads and articles. Zero on Bernie.
    Yeah, no way the GOP attacks him yet. They see him as the key to victory, where even Trump will come out on top. Getting rid of Clinton is key to the GOP.

    This would be the reaction of a GOP anti-Sanders strategist if he won the nomination ...

    image
    Polling shows a massive dem victory whether it's Sanders or Clinton.
    My point is that the Sanders numbers will tighten up since he hasn't been defined yet. Remember that turnout for the primaries has been quite small. I think between the two parties, it's 28% on average (17% (R), 11% (D)) For the general it should be between 55-63% of EVs. Most normal people just aren't paying that close of attention yet.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138

    Jason P said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Jason P said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Jason P said:

    I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.

    If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
    I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
    I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of Red baiting that would happen in the general election once the super pacs start turning their sites on him. There hasn't been one negative ad, to my knowledge, run against Sanders so far. In fact, if you go to Drudge, Red State, NRO, Breitbart, etc. there are tons of anti-Hillary ads and articles. Zero on Bernie.
    Yeah, no way the GOP attacks him yet. They see him as the key to victory, where even Trump will come out on top. Getting rid of Clinton is key to the GOP.

    This would be the reaction of a GOP anti-Sanders strategist if he won the nomination ...

    image
    Polling shows a massive dem victory whether it's Sanders or Clinton.
    Election is many months away and the attacks on Sanders have yet to begin.
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    • Here is Hillary Clinton explicitly saying she is against a $15 federal minimum wage just a few months ago: http://ow.ly/2bwTw5

    • Here is HRC yesterday celebrating with Gov. Cuomo New York's $15 victory (with strings & betrayals attached): http://ow.ly/2bwTw6

    New York knows who our real champion has been, and New York will let Hillary know on April 19th.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    Free said:

    • Here is Hillary Clinton explicitly saying she is against a $15 federal minimum wage just a few months ago: http://ow.ly/2bwTw5

    • Here is HRC yesterday celebrating with Gov. Cuomo New York's $15 victory (with strings & betrayals attached): http://ow.ly/2bwTw6

    New York knows who our real champion has been, and New York will let Hillary know on April 19th.

    Use your brain for just a minute. She supports a $12 Federal (read NATIONWIDE where costs of living are DIFFERENT) and for states to raise the number to what is a fair wage for their state. Just can't go below $12. If you asked her if she supported CA raising their number to 15 or Seattle, I'm fairly sure she would say 'of course'. She's also in favor of Iowa, AR, KY, TN and states that have lower costs of living not be burdened with a wage that will cost jobs. Sorry that nuance and context is part of the real world, but it is. Obama supports $10 last time I checked.
  • rssesqrssesq Posts: 3,299
    thumped again.
    Thanks lil Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for riggin this thing.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    rssesq said:

    thumped again.
    Thanks lil Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for riggin this thing.

    You mean Sanders campaign manager Ted Devine, who is the one who created the superdelegate system in 1980 to prevent another George McGovern. Knowledge is power.
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Posts: 10,769
    mrussel1 said:

    rssesq said:

    thumped again.
    Thanks lil Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for riggin this thing.

    You mean Sanders campaign manager Ted Devine, who is the one who created the superdelegate system in 1980 to prevent another George McGovern. Knowledge is power.
    Just to be clear....

    Jeff Weaver is the campaign manager for the Sanders campaign.

    Tad Devine is senior campaign strategist. And every presidential campaign he has worked on has lost!
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675

    mrussel1 said:

    rssesq said:

    thumped again.
    Thanks lil Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for riggin this thing.

    You mean Sanders campaign manager Ted Devine, who is the one who created the superdelegate system in 1980 to prevent another George McGovern. Knowledge is power.
    Just to be clear....

    Jeff Weaver is the campaign manager for the Sanders campaign.

    Tad Devine is senior campaign strategist. And every presidential campaign he has worked on has lost!
    You are right on both counts. Or to be more accurate, he's lost every NATIONAL campaign in the US. When he represented scumbags like Yanukoyvch in the Ukraine, that went better.
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    edited April 2016
    ‘Young Turks’ Reveals How DNC and 33 States Used Loopholes to Funnel Millions Into ‘Hillary Fund’


    http://m.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/young_turks_reveals_how_dnc_and_33_states_used_loopholes_hillary_20160406

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwDJmCD6iDA
    Post edited by Free on
  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    image
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Posts: 20,275
    Jason P said:

    Jason P said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Jason P said:

    mrussel1 said:

    Jason P said:

    I'm not sure the democratic base is in much better shape then the republican base after seeing some of the comments. Trump or Cruz might actually win this thing.

    If both bases are fractured, it still favors the Democrats for two reasons 1. Trump's high (er than Clinton) negatives, particularly with women and 2. natural electoral advantages that Democrats have right now. I never say something can't happen, or the fundamentals can't change, but I still think the D is in a much better spot.
    I'm pretty sure Clinton would win but Sanders ... not so much. There are not enough college students and hippies spread about the middle states to make that happen
    I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of Red baiting that would happen in the general election once the super pacs start turning their sites on him. There hasn't been one negative ad, to my knowledge, run against Sanders so far. In fact, if you go to Drudge, Red State, NRO, Breitbart, etc. there are tons of anti-Hillary ads and articles. Zero on Bernie.
    Yeah, no way the GOP attacks him yet. They see him as the key to victory, where even Trump will come out on top. Getting rid of Clinton is key to the GOP.

    This would be the reaction of a GOP anti-Sanders strategist if he won the nomination ...

    image
    Polling shows a massive dem victory whether it's Sanders or Clinton.
    Election is many months away and the attacks on Sanders have yet to begin.
    LOL for what? The "socialist" attacks?

    You're forgetting that if Sanders is nominated he'll also be in the spotlight to challenge those claims.
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
    The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
  • joseph33joseph33 Posts: 1,247
    Is this country not tired by now of Bush's and Clinton's in the oval office?
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    edited April 2016
    BS44325 said:
    Can you summarize for me, how this will leave a mark? I read it and all I see is that the Podesta group worked for the Russian Sberbank (largest bank in Russia) as a lobbyist, who are connected to the Panama Papers. And the CEO of Podesta is brother to John Podesta, who worked for Bill Clinton and Obama. That's it? Did I miss something else when I read it?

    It's no different than tying Devine to Putin through Yakunoyvch.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    Let's take a different angle. You remember the GM ignition switch scandal, right? 124 deaths were linked to it. Pretty bad. Way worse than this. Now is every employee of GM a piece of shit because of that? What about all the companies that do business with GM (their dealers, the truck drivers, their outside counsel, their lobbyists, their supply chain who provide windows, radios (Bose, for example), etc. Are they all directly implicated?
  • BS44325BS44325 Posts: 6,124
    mrussel1 said:

    BS44325 said:
    Can you summarize for me, how this will leave a mark? I read it and all I see is that the Podesta group worked for the Russian Sberbank (largest bank in Russia) as a lobbyist, who are connected to the Panama Papers. And the CEO of Podesta is brother to John Podesta, who worked for Bill Clinton and Obama. That's it? Did I miss something else when I read it?

    It's no different than tying Devine to Putin through Yakunoyvch.
    To quote the article:

    "It should be noted that Tony Podesta is a big-money bundler for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign while his brother John is the chairman of that campaign, the chief architect of her plans to take the White House this November."

    All of this while she was serving as Secretary of State. Now does this prove anything nefarious? No but between this and the money Hillary and Bill have been receiving through the Clinton Global Intitative there are serious questions as to whether US policy decisions have been and/or will be made secondary to the needs and wants of big money special interests that Hillary and her people are deeply in bed with. This whole thing reeks.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 29,675
    So two people from the Clinton/Obama admins started a lobbying firm sometime between 2009 and 2012 (her time as Secy of state). Explain to me precisely how this lobbying firm played into specific State department decisions. Please be precise. The whole accusation is guilt by association.
    And then explain to me precisely what the Clinton Foundation has done wrong. And don't say 'refile tax returns' as if that's criminal and companies don't re-state or refile every all the time.
This discussion has been closed.