Why are so many Hillary supporters

[Belsnickel]

(10-11-2016, 08:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It really doesn't matter if he's only needs 1 if the cards fall right. 

The link below is possible (McMullin takes UT, Johnson takes NM):

http://www.270towin.com/

WTS, I think Hills and the RNC are in cahoots or at a minimum what to preserve the 2-party system so much that they are willing to hand the White House to the Dems. If it went to congress I think Hills would get it. A little firepower behind Johnson or McMullin could cloud the waters.

We'll never ditch the two-party system with our present government set up (executive divorced from legislature) and with first past the post voting. Third party/independent candidates will continue to be election spoilers and not gain any real traction until we change these things. I would love to see it happen, but the reform that will happen after this if that the RNC will move to a more top-heavy nomination process (see the DNC superdelegates) to keep this from happening again.

It really is sad how much they will fight to keep that system. With trust in government continuing to fall it will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years. The next administration could spark revolution or right the ship. I don't have much hope for the latter.

[*wildcats forever*]

(10-11-2016, 08:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We'll never ditch the two-party system with our present government set up (executive divorced from legislature) and with first past the post voting. Third party/independent candidates will continue to be election spoilers and not gain any real traction until we change these things. I would love to see it happen, but the reform that will happen after this if that the RNC will move to a more top-heavy nomination process (see the DNC superdelegates) to keep this from happening again.  

It really is sad how much they will fight to keep that system. With trust in government continuing to fall it will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years. The next administration could spark revolution or right the ship. I don't have much hope for the latter.

If the next admin is Clinton, then I think it will be clever enough to create an illusion of righting the ship. Which will possibly be exposed before her first term is up, then we can brace ourselves for some sort of revolution. And that won't likely be pretty.

[Rotobeast]

(10-11-2016, 08:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It really doesn't matter if he's only needs 1 if the cards fall right. 

The link below is possible (McMullin takes UT, Johnson takes NM):

http://www.270towin.com/

WTS, I think Hills and the RNC are in cahoots or at a minimum what to preserve the 2-party system so much that they are willing to hand the White House to the Dems. If it went to congress I think Hills would get it. A little firepower behind Johnson or McMullin could cloud the waters.

I agree on both points.
I was just thinking that he's REALLY going to need to be bolstered in the next few weeks to have a shot at being third.
If Trump totally steps down, I doubt anyone has time enough to beat Hilldog, unless Wikileaks follows through with really good stuff.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2016, 09:34 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I agree on both points.
I was just thinking that he's REALLY going to need to be bolstered in the next few weeks to have a shot at being third.
If Trump totally steps down, I doubt anyone has time enough to beat Hilldog, unless Wikileaks follows through with really good stuff.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Understand that it is not popular vote. Johnson could get 20 times the vote of Mc and still get fewer electoral votes. Trump stepping down would kill Mc

[Rotobeast]

(10-11-2016, 09:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Understand that it is not popular vote. Johnson could get 20 times the vote of Mc and still get fewer electoral votes. Trump stepping down would kill Mc

Yessiree... totally understand.
At this point Johnson and McCullen have the same strategy.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[samhain]

(10-11-2016, 12:22 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Why are so many Hillary supporters hoping Trump drops out? If Hillary is forced to run against an actual "normal" candidate, she will lose in a landslide. Her only hope to become president, IMO, is if Trump stays in. It's no slam dunk even now (which says more about Hillary's unelectability) but it's far easier than going against someone who isn't an bloviating, narcissistic blowhard.

Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk

Hell, I don't want him to drop out.  Matter of fact, I read an article on Huffpo on Saturday, i.e. the day after the hot mic tape was released that insinuated that the Clinton campaign didn't want him to drop out.  Apparently her attorneys were checking to make sure there was no way the Republican Party could forcibly remove him from the ticket.  People act like Trump's this great weapon to finally git er'.  That shit is downright hilarious.  He's the absolute best gift she possibly could have gotten.  There literally could not possibly have been a bigger tomato can standing on a hill for her to kick.

[fredtoast]

(10-11-2016, 12:22 PM)PhilHos Wrote:  If Hillary is forced to run against an actual "normal" candidate, she will lose in a landslide. Her only hope to become president, IMO, is if Trump stays in.

Wrong.  Hillary beats anyone the Republicans could run against her.

Discriminating against homosexuals is a minority position.

Taking away a woman's right to make decisions about her own body is a minority position.

Sending more US troops to die in another un-winnable war in the middle east is a minority position.

Obama's policies have garnered him a 55% approval rating.

[Dill]

(10-11-2016, 02:02 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I don't understand it, either. What are the chances the RNC is able to find a nominee more unlikeable than Hillary two times in a row?

Cruz or Pence? 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-13-2016, 05:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wrong.  Hillary beats anyone the Republicans could run against her.

Discriminating against homosexuals is a minority position.

Taking away a woman's right to make decisions about her own body is a minority position.

Sending more US troops to die in another un-winnable war in the middle east is a minority position.

Obama's policies have garnered him a 55% approval rating.

Pretty sure polling (as unreliable as that can be) showed that Kasich would have destroyed Hillary. He was moderate enough that some Democrats (who hate Hillary) would have voted for him, and conservative enough that enough Republicans would vote for him.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/poll-john-kasich-vs-hillary-clinton-221192

He just wasn't extreme enough of a Republican to get the nomination, I guess.

I voted for him in the primaries. Not an idea candidate, but he did a good enough job here, and I sure as hell like him more than any of the other major party candidates this election.

Probably why there was rumors that Trump offered the VP to him. Thankfully he declined, otherwise he'd be stuck having to defend him in front of the country, which would probably make me not want to vote for him anymore. Lol

[Dill]

(10-11-2016, 12:22 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Why are so many Hillary supporters hoping Trump drops out? If Hillary is forced to run against an actual "normal" candidate, she will lose in a landslide. Her only hope to become president, IMO, is if Trump stays in. It's no slam dunk even now (which says more about Hillary's unelectability) but it's far easier than going against someone who isn't an bloviating, narcissistic blowhard.

Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk

If memory serves me correctly, Democrats hoped Trump would win the Republican primary all along. If some want him to drop out now, it is only because that might create greater disarray in the Republican party as they scramble for replacement.

I agree Clinton might have lost if running against someone like Romney, who could debate well and wouldn't burn down the store if elected.

But a "normal" candidate is clearly not what the Republican electorate wanted. They were explicitly warned that nominating Trump would be a gift to the Democrats--and then chose him in a landslide.  And now, as he divides the party on the way to a loss of Goldwater proportions, they blame the media and the Clinton machine and "the Republican Establishment," utterly denying any role Trump's own unbalanced and un-presidential behavior might play in his plummeting poll numbers.

And if Trump had not won this year, then likely Cruz would have--also no slam dunk for the Republicans.

[fredtoast]

(10-13-2016, 05:37 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Pretty sure polling (as unreliable as that can be) showed that Kasich would have destroyed Hillary. He was moderate enough that some Democrats (who hate Hillary) would have voted for him, and conservative enough that enough Republicans would vote for him.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/poll-john-kasich-vs-hillary-clinton-221192

He just wasn't extreme enough of a Republican to get the nomination, I guess.

I voted for him in the primaries. Not an idea candidate, but he did a good enough job here, and I sure as hell like him more than any of the other major party candidates this election.

Probably why there was rumors that Trump offered the VP to him. Thankfully he declined, otherwise he'd be stuck having to defend him in front of the country, which would probably make me not want to vote for him anymore. Lol

Last year before the primaries began I predicted that Kasich would be the best nominee for the Republicans.  At one point he held a small advantage over Hillary in the polls.  The one you link shows a 3 point lead.

But this is still nothing close to Phils version of reality where any other Republican would win in a landslide over Hillary.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-13-2016, 07:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Last year before the primaries began I predicted that Kasich would be the best nominee for the Republicans.  At one point he held a small advantage over Hillary in the polls.  The one you link shows a 3 point lead.

But this is still nothing close to Phils version of reality where any other Republican would win in a landslide over Hillary.

No, I don't think *any* other would win in a landslide, but lets just imagine that Kasich has a 3 point lead and Trump got knocked out the primary quickly.

Without Trump to draw all the attention, and Kasich having no (or relatively no) controversy, how much would that 3 point lead have opened up by once the DNC leaks happened, and the collasping in public happened, etc.

Just simply by being uncontroversial, I think Hillary would have taken a bigger hit in comparison. Like now, she had the whole saying "I have a public stance and a private stance" while talking to big bankers. That would have crushed her if there wasn't someone with a recording about how you need to "grab them by the *****" right at the same time.

It's not hard to imagine simply by not being Trump, and letting Hillary's controversies and scandals pop up while being just normal, a different Republican candidate would have a pretty big lead.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2016, 07:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Last year before the primaries began I predicted that Kasich would be the best nominee for the Republicans.  At one point he held a small advantage over Hillary in the polls.  The one you link shows a 3 point lead.

But this is still nothing close to Phils version of reality where any other Republican would win in a landslide over Hillary.

Mental note to self: Fred can't handle sarcasm nor hyperbole

The fact remains Fred, almost as many people hate Hillary that hate Trump. It's just that more people think Trump is worse.

You put a "normal" (read: uncontroversial) candidate against either Trump or Hillary and that candidate wins.

Maybe not at this point, but certainly at the time either secured they're nominations.

Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk

[fredtoast]

(10-13-2016, 08:02 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: No, I don't think *any* other would win in a landslide, but lets just imagine that Kasich has a 3 point lead and Trump got knocked out the primary quickly.

Without Trump to draw all the attention, and Kasich having no (or relatively no) controversy, how much would that 3 point lead have opened up by once the DNC leaks happened, and the collasping in public happened, etc.

Just simply by being uncontroversial, I think Hillary would have taken a bigger hit in comparison. Like now, she had the whole saying "I have a public stance and a private stance" while talking to big bankers. That would have crushed her if there wasn't someone with a recording about how you need to "grab them by the *****" right at the same time.

It's not hard to imagine simply by not being Trump, and letting Hillary's controversies and scandals pop up while being just normal, a different Republican candidate would have a pretty big lead.

The fact is that while the Republicans are claiming Obama's policies were all total and complete failures he now has a 55% approval rating.

A lot more people have insurance under the ACA.  US soldiers are not dying in an unwinnable war in the middle east.  The stock market is at an all time high.  Home prices have rebounded.  Unemployment is down.

And the republicans are also in the minority on social issues like gay marriage and abortion.

Most of the "evil conspiracies" that republican claim Hillary has been involved with have no facts to back them up.  She did use a private server, but the republicans have no "victims" or real damages to show as the result of that.  So most people are not really that upset about it. 

[*Nately120*]

(10-11-2016, 09:34 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I agree on both points.
I was just thinking that he's REALLY going to need to be bolstered in the next few weeks to have a shot at being third.
If Trump totally steps down, I doubt anyone has time enough to beat Hilldog, unless Wikileaks follows through with really good stuff.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Hmm, if Trump steps down and everything the right wing dreams and prays Hillary did is true do you think Gary Johnson wins?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-13-2016, 09:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The fact is that while the Republicans are claiming Obama's policies were all total and complete failures he now has a 55% approval rating.

1. A lot more people have insurance under the ACA.  2. US soldiers are not dying in an unwinnable war in the middle east.  The stock market is at an all time high.  Home prices have rebounded.  3. Unemployment is down.

And the 4. republicans are also in the minority on social issues like gay marriage and abortion.

Most of the "evil conspiracies" that republican claim Hillary has been involved with have no facts to back them up.  She did use a private server, but the republicans have no "victims" or real damages to show as the result of that.  So most people are not really that upset about it. 

1. And a lot more people are now unable to afford their previous healthcare because their premiums and deductables skyrocketed. I don't personally know anyone who is better off due to the ACA. Only people who are now paying more money for equal/less service. Now they're going to raise the penalty, so there goes more people's money. Knew someone who had a small business selling medical instruments to hospitals who went out of business because ACA added the medical device tax and he went out of business. My Uncle's pension dropped his healthcare because it became too expensive after the ACA. It helped some people, and hurt the shit out of a LOT more.

2. The US just sent MORE troops to Iraq. Even once they start pulling troops from Afghanistan, they're still leaving 8,600 there. Not to mention the numerous new places the US has started fighting in under Obama. (Syria, Yemen, etc) How'd it go getting Guantanamo Bay closed? Also now relations between the US and the rest of the world they currently aren't at war with seems to be rather shit.

3. Their unemployment numbers are hardcore faked. That 4.5% or whatever that was floating around doesn't include people who are working part-time with college degrees, people with college degrees who can't find jobs in their field, people who are working jobs they are vastly overqualified for, people who's unemployment benefits have run out, people who have just quit trying to find a job. Sure it's better than it was, but that's not terribly hard.

4. Not a Republican personally, but most Republicans I know don't care about either of those terribly much. That's more of a hardliner vocal minority. Do have a couple very religious friends who are staunchly against abortion, but fine with gay marriage.


Just sad when the system is made in such a way that 55% success is considered a success. (Not that I have ever once in my life been polled for elections or approval rating.)

[Rotobeast]

(10-13-2016, 10:15 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Hmm, if Trump steps down and everything the right wing dreams and prays Hillary did is true do you think Gary Johnson wins?

Well...... yeah !

[Rotobeast]

fredtoast

Wrong.  Hillary beats anyone the Republicans could run against her.

(damn quote function is goofing up on my new laptop, again...derp)







http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/10/democrats-were-worried-about-rand-pauls

[fredtoast]

(10-13-2016, 10:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 1. And a lot more people are now unable to afford their previous healthcare because their premiums and deductables skyrocketed. I don't personally know anyone who is better off due to the ACA. Only people who are now paying more money for equal/less service. Now they're going to raise the penalty, so there goes more people's money. Knew someone who had a small business selling medical instruments to hospitals who went out of business because ACA added the medical device tax and he went out of business. My Uncle's pension dropped his healthcare because it became too expensive after the ACA. It helped some people, and hurt the shit out of a LOT more.

Your friend is lying when he blames the medical device tax for going out of business.  The tax applied to every vendor equally and the sale of medical devices did not decline.

Healthcare and insurance costs were skyrocketing before the ACA.  The ACA did not fix that problem, but it did not crerate it either.

I am not a huge fan of the ACA, but more people benefited from the ACA than were hurt.

(10-13-2016, 10:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 2. The US just sent MORE troops to Iraq. Even once they start pulling troops from Afghanistan, they're still leaving 8,600 there. Not to mention the numerous new places the US has started fighting in under Obama. (Syria, Yemen, etc) How'd it go getting Guantanamo Bay closed? Also now relations between the US and the rest of the world they currently aren't at war with seems to be rather shit. 

Still better off than under the last Republican President, and Hillary is the one who wants to keep our troops out of another unwinnable quagmire while the Republicans are eager to start getting them killed again.

(10-13-2016, 10:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 3. Their unemployment numbers are hardcore faked. That 4.5% or whatever that was floating around doesn't include people who are working part-time with college degrees, people with college degrees who can't find jobs in their field, people who are working jobs they are vastly overqualified for, people who's unemployment benefits have run out, people who have just quit trying to find a job. Sure it's better than it was, but that's not terribly hard.

Nothing fake about them.  Using the exact same measure as ever.  What they call the "official" unemployment rate is "U-3" and it has dropped 41 percent since Obama took office  (from 8.3 in Feb '09 to 4.9 in Sept. '16).  The unemployment rate that includes "discouraged workers", "marginally attached workers", and people employed part time for purely economic reasons is "U-6" is much higher (currently 9.7) but it has dropped almost as much as U-3 since Obama took office (36 percent).  Things are getting better.  jobs are being created.  A higher percentage of people are working.

(10-13-2016, 10:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 4. Not a Republican personally, but most Republicans I know don't care about either of those terribly much. That's more of a hardliner vocal minority. Do have a couple very religious friends who are staunchly against abortion, but fine with gay marriage.

Apparently you don't know a lot of Republicans because these are huge issues with Republican presidential candidates.  Heads are exploding all over the country over who gets to use the bathroom.  North Carolina is losing millions in business in order to fight this battle.  That is more than just a "vocal minonrity".

[GMDino]

(10-11-2016, 12:28 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Mainly because the fact i wouldnt have to see or hear him again. But also because he is a tremendous embarassment to my country. By him dropping out we could just play it off like oh jk jk he wasnt super close to being the leader of the free world we were just playing.

This.

I'd happily vote for a Republican.  I've been waiting for a decent one since 1996...