|
zeal posted:Hillary Clinton can't even out-fundraise an old Vermont socialist. about that: quote:Bernie Sanders would beat Donald Trump 51-38 in a general-election match-up, according to the latest poll from Quinnipiac University. Or — to put it in the course vernacular that Trump introduced to America this week — the billionaire would get "schlonged" by the democratic socialist. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/poll-against-bernie-sanders-donald-trump-would-get-schlonged-20151223
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
oops! wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
NotWearingPants posted:about that: If Hillary somehow won she would most definitely be a one term president. Too many people across the isle can't stand her.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Immortan posted:If Hillary somehow won she would most definitely be a one term president. Too many people across the isle can't stand her. I think there's a significant bloc of voters that would go: Bernie > Trump > HIllary, Bernie having the advantage of not being a completely contemptible human being. Like if Trump were to ever run against a decent human being, he'd have a shot of losing an election. But he's the least contemptible republican candidate - like, Ted Cruz and Rubio are seriously vile human beings. I generally would vote Democrat, and would vote Obama/Kerry/Dukakis/Carter/Bill Clinton over Trump. But Hillary Clinton has zero redeeming qualities and is full of poo poo, and people have long memories and really hate her. I think if it were Bernie versus Trump, Trump would lose decisively. However, if it's Trump versus Hillary, we're hosed anyway, so we might as well throw a middle finger to both parties for putting us in a situation where neither side could nominate a non-contemptible human being. I think it's probable that Trump with get the republican nomination. I think it's probable that Hillary Clinton will get the democratic nomination. I think in that race, Trump would win. Ban me if it doesn't happen 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:
gently caress yeah America
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Tump/Nugent 2016
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Trump/Stern 2016
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Trump/Kanye 2016 gotta get ready for 2024
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
probably Hilary or maybe somehow trump. mostly guessing Hilary though
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
All I'm saying is think of the cost savings to the tax payer by having a vp that can play at the inauguration and other White House functions
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
NotWearingPants posted:That wasn't the only bad news for Trump, and by extension the GOP, to come out of the national poll: 61 percent of Americans say the Republican frontrunner "does not share their values," 58 percent believe he "is not honest and trustworthy,"and 57 percent say he "does not care about their needs and problems."
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
Bruegels Fuckbooks posted:Hillary Clinton has zero redeeming qualities and is full of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Can you be more specific? You might be right, but the thing is I just ignore any criticism of Hillary because the RWM firehose of bullshit makes it impossible to separate the signal from the noise. I know that means I'll miss out on legit complaints, but quite frankly anyone the right hates that much can't be all bad, in my book. The right hates her because she's better at sucking up to Congress's Wall Street overlords than any other Democrat, which makes her legitimately dangerous, politically speaking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
She would probably lose to w if he could run tho.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
The right hates Hillary because she's the wife of one of the most successful and loved democrat presidents and she has a better chance of winning than any of their candidates
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Can you be more specific? You might be right, but the thing is I just ignore any criticism of Hillary because the RWM firehose of bullshit makes it impossible to separate the signal from the noise. I know that means I'll miss out on legit complaints, but quite frankly anyone the right hates that much can't be all bad, in my book. Aside from Obamacare  is no different than Jeb!
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:The right hates her because she's better at sucking up to Congress's Wall Street overlords than any other Democrat, which makes her legitimately dangerous, politically speaking. see this reads to me like 'obama sucks up to his muslim overlords better than any other Democrat' As far as I know, she's always wanted to raise taxes and she's always been in support of dodd frank, only criticizing it in the past for hurting small banks. Is it just that she's taken a ton of money from them, or are there policy positions she supports that don't go far enough?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
thethreeman posted:see this reads to me like 'obama sucks up to his muslim overlords better than any other Democrat' http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/18/opinions/louis-hillary-clinton-wall-st-/
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Can Hillary bravely follow Obama's sterling effort and lead us through another 8 years of maintaining the status quo? I guess we'll find out! Eight more years of this and mobs will be hurling bricks at the White House.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
thanks, this is in line with what I thought. it's more 'follow the money' than anything she's said or her policy positions
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
zimboe posted:Eight more years of this and mobs will be hurling bricks at the White House. Yes 8 more years of economic improvement, increasing job stability and job growth, no wars and low gas prices will definitely cause the mob to take up the pitchforks
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
walmart and mcdonalds made millions of jobs things are looking up! also thank u obamaopec for low oil prices. the no war thing is nice tho ill give you that... Sancho has issued a correction as of 14:24 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Gibberish posted:Yes 8 more years of economic improvement, increasing job stability and job growth, no wars and low gas prices will definitely cause the mob to take up the pitchforks when did america stop being at war
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
zeal posted:when did america stop being at war We've more or less reverted to the low-level, ongoing violence that is inherent to a post-WW2 imperial United States. Bombing a few countries and having a small amount of ground troops in hot spots is as peaceful as it gets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
hillary clinton is my #1 bet for becoming president in 2017 i think if she had to drop out for whatever reason, the democrats would probably hold a gun to joe biden's corvette before getting behind sanders
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
zeal posted:when did america stop being at war By your implied definition and according to the Google. About 7% of our existence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Gibberish posted:Yes 8 more years of economic improvement, increasing job stability and job growth fuckin lol, you can't be serious unless by "economic improvement" you mean skyrocketing income inequality and im not sure how you think people have more job stability today than they had in the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:i think obama'll probably be president for almost the next 400 days then prob hillary
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
I like the repeated message from Republicans that Hillary Clinton would be a third term for Obama because Obama was a pretty good president and while he can't have a third term, it makes it sound like Hillary is a good choice. I prefer and will vote for Sanders, but as I previously stated Hillary has this in the bag.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
NotWearingPants posted:about that: Coarse, goddammit. quote:coarse Ugh god gently caress Rolling Stone and their editors and well every other news organization in 2015. Burn it all down. Unfortunately that won't happen and Hillary will win and we will get 4+ more years of lovely standard quo slow spiraling death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:fuckin lol, you can't be serious Compared to 8 years ago aka 2008-2009? yes I sure loving does lol if you don't think so too here's a tip: getting a paycheck from burger king is literally more stable than not getting a paycheck and not getting all those slick 10 nuggets for $1.30 deals Gibberish has issued a correction as of 00:24 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
I'm starting to think Sanders has a real shot. The future is unwritten and all that, but if Bernie takes Iowa and NH then it's pretty much a Sandstorm from there on out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:fuckin lol, you can't be serious Yeah growing income inequality is a problem that started on Jan 20th 2009. And that big recession(that I'm sure is Obummer's fault too) had no impact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:I'm starting to think Sanders has a real shot. The future is unwritten and all that, but if Bernie takes Iowa and NH then it's pretty much a Sandstorm from there on out. This is naive on multiple levels. Not that I don't want sanders to win, but Iowa is basically the free square in bingo. It doesn't matter at all who wins there, beyond the idea that it proves you have a ground game. New Hampshire is similar in that winning it shows you are a real candidate with real support. But imo even if Bernie wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, all that will demonstrate is that Hillary was more cocky then she is letting on. South Carolina is the first state that "matters" for the DNC. Now if sanders wins those three convincingly, the Clinton will shot bricks and probably start screeching about emails and data-breeches etc, but I doubt she'll lose iowa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Hillary's going to win unless she has a scandal that's worse than all her existing scandals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Hillary's going to win unless she has a scandal that's worse than all her existing scandals. Too bad that unless she has that scandal in the next 30 days, we are going to be voting for the lesser of two evils.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Atoramos posted:I like the repeated message from Republicans that Hillary Clinton would be a third term for Obama because Obama was a pretty good president and while he can't have a third term, it makes it sound like Hillary is a good choice. I prefer and will vote for Sanders, but as I previously stated Hillary has this in the bag. Same. Hell, I'm even volunteering for the Sanders campaign, and I still expect Hillary to win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
66% hillary 12% jeb 9% bernie 7% trump 4% rubio 2% christie that's what my gut says right now. i had in n out earlier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
cams posted:66.6% hillary my gut says your gut is entertaining but unreliable
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
Zas posted:my gut says your gut is entertaining but unreliable anywho, i think there is a 12% chance you can literally buy an election. tbh i wanted to put trump at 0% because i don't think he could beat any democrat in the general, but he gets 7% on the possibility that he gets the nomination and then hillary gets caught pegging an intern who accuses her of assault or something
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 09:41
|
|