The Coronation of Hillary Clinton: sexyhilldog69@aol.comghazi - Page 2 - Politics and Economics

that's what im saying. bush, no, walker, no, a libertarian, god no. they can't win.

well... unless they kick millions of 'double voters' off the rolls(which is a complete scam to disenfranchise minority types).

that kind of **** is their only hope. also if they can spend billion and billions on 30 second attack ads (which are actually intended to get squares to say, "**** it, they're all crooks. i'm not voting").

so it just depends. i shouldn't say they can't win.

02-04-2015 , 12:15 AM

#28

vixticator

clutch

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 117,339

I wish intrade still existed. Is there a similar site? What happened? I think the Republican nominee is a slight favorite in the current climate. We just had an election. It was not close.

02-04-2015 , 12:30 AM

#29

greatwhite

self-banned

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 1,506

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoundingTheUnder

no question about that, that's why the elites pray it's warren. it's arguably the only way they/republicans can win.

i disagree majorly on the independents. independents aren't super motivated by partisan issues like abortion/gays/give the rich everything/etc. (you'd imagine). her populist/middle class stances should play big with them. i'd argue the shear fact they identify as independents would signal some dissatisfaction with the mainstream of both parties who have long neglected working people. these people (independents) seem like the ideal voter for the populist crusader that is warren.

people think warren is knowledgeable, down to earth, a fighter, someone who's on their side, someone they want to come over for dinner (that's my opinion and 12 others in an article i linked somewhere, many of whom were independents).

that's powerful stuff. that's the stuff great leaders are made of. now we just got to get her in the game.

also not sure what you mean by come off? hillary comes off a entrenched politician, protecting the status quo. is that what independents are looking for?

The elites would be very happy with Hillary. They'd much rather buy off both Hillary and Bush then deal with somebody like Warren. They wouldn't want a free market guy like Rand Paul either, because they want a corporatist in the White House to bail them out.

02-04-2015 , 12:32 AM

#30

PoundingTheUnder

banned

Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 1,738

vixtic,

lowest voter turnout ever bro (since ww2 anyway). now is that a result of joe/jane square turning on the football game and every commercial is an attack ad? is that a trend we can expect to continue? not sure.

02-04-2015 , 12:35 AM

#31

PoundingTheUnder

banned

Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 1,738

Quote:

Originally Posted by greatwhite

no doubt. if hillary is the nominee, they elites can't lose.

02-04-2015 , 12:44 AM

#32

vixticator

clutch

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 117,339

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoundingTheUnder

I know the difference between the turnouts for midterms v generals. Republican gains were greater than expected. Attack ads will never go anywhere, they are the most effective kind.

02-04-2015 , 12:47 AM

#33

PoundingTheUnder

banned

Join Date: Jan 2015 Posts: 1,738

at reducing turnout which is the only way republicans can win. this wasn't your standard midterm turnout.

02-04-2015 , 02:38 AM

#34

Melkerson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 11,065

Quote:

Originally Posted by vixticator

I wish intrade still existed. Is there a similar site? What happened? I think the Republican nominee is a slight favorite in the current climate. We just had an election. It was not close.

Yeah, me t0o. Not having intrade available is pretty sad. It makes election time so much more fun and there are always piles of free money to be had.

Best alternative I'm aware of is ipredict which is based in New Zealand. The problem is that the cap on deposits is really low ($2500 per 6 months; $10 K max) the last time I checked. But I guess it's something.

02-04-2015 , 09:53 AM

#35

stealinpotatoes

banned

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 574

The US needs a party like Syriza. The Democrats are woeful.

02-04-2015 , 10:24 AM

#36

RowCoach

banned

Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 1,751

Ipredict only lets you withdraw as a wire to an american account one time. And it has to be all of it. So once the 2016 election is over, I'm done with them.

02-04-2015 , 11:09 AM

#37

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,199

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoundingTheUnder

at reducing turnout which is the only way republicans can win. this wasn't your standard midterm turnout.

You know what could seriously reduce turnout from the left? A lackluster candidate nobody really wants like Clinton up against a reasonably charismatic, somewhat centrist non-insane guy with off the charts name recognition like Bush. Clinton v. Bush is the worst possible scenario for the Dem's in 2016.

Throw in a 3rd party candidate like Bloomberg who would probably split the left as much as the right and there simply aren't enough Dem votes left to prevent Bush 3.0.

02-04-2015 , 12:06 PM

#38

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

Quote:

Originally Posted by vixticator

Well, that's a silly thing to say. Republican candidate can certainly defeat Clinton.

(Am I reading your post correctly? I can't tell.)

Can certainly, or certainly could? Very different claims.

I think it's plenty possible Hillary could go under Bush if you run it enough times, but she is a very comfortable fave at this point and the primary process is guaranteed to harm her opponent more than her.

Have any dems even announced an exploratory committee? I don't think a literal coronation is good for her, the party or democracy in general but it seems pretty clear where this is going right now and there is a reason why. Her polling numbers are just purely fearsome at this point.

02-04-2015 , 12:35 PM

#39

BadBoyBenny

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 7,799

Clinton / Bush may not be a slam dunk but LOL at thinking that's the worst case scenario for the dems

02-04-2015 , 01:02 PM

#40

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,199

What would be a worse matchup among plausible candidates?

02-04-2015 , 01:23 PM

#41

seattlelou

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 31,584

Quote:

Originally Posted by zikzak

What would be a worse matchup among plausible candidates?

Anybody other than Hillary would be worse IMO. Not sure if that is plausible.

02-04-2015 , 01:32 PM

#42

BadBoyBenny

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 7,799

Anyone else who has been listed in the Dem field against Bush would be worse

02-04-2015 , 01:36 PM

#43

Anacardo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 20,543

The most ape****, perceived-savior vs perceived-savior, get-your-popcorn battle feasible would be Liz Warren vs Rand Paul.

02-04-2015 , 02:39 PM

#44

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

No worse candidate than Hillary will win the dem nom. Therefore given this assumption she is the fall back, and if we assume Bush is the best shot for republicans, that combo is the worst case scenario by definition.

02-04-2015 , 03:26 PM

#45

seattlelou

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 31,584

It's possible that the Democratic Party nominates someone to the left of Hillary that is a weaker general candidate. Not likely but possible.

02-04-2015 , 03:47 PM

#46

rjoefish

Got Out the Vote

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 31,086

Well, considering she's gonna be the most far left candidate to ever run* I'm not seeing that happen.

*=she's definitely gonna get called that at some point.

02-04-2015 , 04:01 PM

#47

seattlelou

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 31,584

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjoefish

Well, considering she's gonna be the most far left candidate to ever run* I'm not seeing that happen.

*=she's definitely gonna get called that at some point.

She will probably get called a fascist ITT too.