|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted.
It's not over, otherwise Hillary wouldn't be in Cali today lol. Do you have any idea what the voting age participation of black people has been so far? I remember when Hispanics were part of this firewall too... That's why Cali was a lock for her a while back, clearly a lot has changed on that front.
You call it "spending conservatively" I call it trying not to go broke while refilling her coffers with HVF funds passed through state parties.
As for support plummeting, that either happened for Hillary a long time ago or there is more to support than just fundraising numbers.
On May 25 2016 00:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:This election will be who votes for the 3rd party more that's why I said, and still predict, that Angela Grimes will be walking back her comments during the Kentucky Primary and criss crossing the country trying to drum up Sander supporters. As for DWS. if she's smart, she'll disappear and keep her mouth shut and stop giving interviews to the press. Show nested quote +The two candidates likely to square off in November's general election are both disliked or even hated by roughly six in 10 Americans, according to the results of the latest weekly NBC News/SurveyMonkey tracking poll out Tuesday.
Asked their feelings about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, just 17 percent said they admired the former secretary of state, while 10 percent said the same of the reality TV star-turned-presumptive Republican nominee. About one in four said they like Clinton or Trump but do not admire them. Another 37 percent and 39 percent said they dislike but do not hate Clinton and Trump, respectively, while 21 percent said they hate Clinton and 24 percent said they hate Trump.
The poll released Tuesday would not appear to be an outlier in that respect. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey released earlier this week found that both candidates are the least popular in the history of the poll. Clinton's favorability rating in that poll is a net -20 points (34 percent to 54 percent), while Trump's is even lower, at -29 points (29 percent to 58 percent). Those figures are actually improvements of four and 12 points, respectively, for both Clinton and Trump.
And in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll released Sunday, 57 percent each said they had an unfavorable opinion of Clinton and Trump. Of the 57 percent, 46 percent said they had a strongly unfavorable opinion of Clinton and 45 percent said the same of Trump. Source
As expected the polling was not a matter of who was polling but just the first to show the trend of Hillary losing support (as she has in every election she's ran in, never to regain it before votes are cast).
|
Then why was Pakistan harboring Bin Laden? Just curious
|
On May 25 2016 00:31 SolaR- wrote:
Then why was Pakistan harboring Bin Laden? Just curious
Thats an accusation. Not fact. I wouldnt put it past to monumental incompetence either. Its not exactly hard to hide in our part of the world. You can hide in plain site quite easily. And in all honesty I dont think we gave enough of a shit to look for him. Obama was the one who needed the re election.
His effective relevance was pretty much zero.Just like this recent guy that got killed, and the one before that, and the one before that. and the one before that. But thats besides the point.
I didnt say they werent trying to control them and allying with them. I am saying they are not doing it now, but now there are so many splinter groups no one knows who is who no more and it only takes half a dozen people to cause havoc.. IIRC Bin Laden got whacked years ago.
Dont get me wrong, its not like we wont play both sides if it serves our best interests. But I dont see why we should be at fault for doing so considering thats what everyone does. At the end of the day we are suffering more for a war that had nothing to do with us than everyone else combined.
|
On May 24 2016 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 14:54 NukeD wrote:On May 24 2016 12:27 Krikkitone wrote:On May 24 2016 12:00 SK.Testie wrote:
Is... is that a good thing overall? Well some of the current thinking is that certain, fast punishments deter crime more than uncertain large punishments. (Particularly for people on parole, 0.5% chance of 20 years is probably less of a deterent than 100% chance of a month) A civil case will be easier to convict you than a criminal case, and the process Could be quicker. Hopefully, a quicker, more certain, smaller punishment will still deter the problem (broken windows) without ruining someone's life enough that they turn to full time crime. This is what they teach us in lawschool. The rate of crime is much much more dependant on how likely you are to get caught for doing a crime than it is to the severity of the punishment. This is probably the best defense I've heard for why they drastically under-report unsolved murders/assaults. Not sure how many more examples of corporate media spreading propaganda Hillary supporters are going to need...
because a tweet from bernievolunteer is very trustworthy right?
|
On May 25 2016 00:38 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2016 14:54 NukeD wrote:On May 24 2016 12:27 Krikkitone wrote:On May 24 2016 12:00 SK.Testie wrote:
Is... is that a good thing overall? Well some of the current thinking is that certain, fast punishments deter crime more than uncertain large punishments. (Particularly for people on parole, 0.5% chance of 20 years is probably less of a deterent than 100% chance of a month) A civil case will be easier to convict you than a criminal case, and the process Could be quicker. Hopefully, a quicker, more certain, smaller punishment will still deter the problem (broken windows) without ruining someone's life enough that they turn to full time crime. This is what they teach us in lawschool. The rate of crime is much much more dependant on how likely you are to get caught for doing a crime than it is to the severity of the punishment. This is probably the best defense I've heard for why they drastically under-report unsolved murders/assaults. Not sure how many more examples of corporate media spreading propaganda Hillary supporters are going to need... because a tweet from bernievolunteer is very trustworthy right?
What are you going to believe, the beacon of honesty known as "the media", or your lyin' eyes?
|
On May 25 2016 00:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 00:38 hunts wrote:On May 24 2016 15:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2016 14:54 NukeD wrote:On May 24 2016 12:27 Krikkitone wrote:On May 24 2016 12:00 SK.Testie wrote:
Is... is that a good thing overall? Well some of the current thinking is that certain, fast punishments deter crime more than uncertain large punishments. (Particularly for people on parole, 0.5% chance of 20 years is probably less of a deterent than 100% chance of a month) A civil case will be easier to convict you than a criminal case, and the process Could be quicker. Hopefully, a quicker, more certain, smaller punishment will still deter the problem (broken windows) without ruining someone's life enough that they turn to full time crime. This is what they teach us in lawschool. The rate of crime is much much more dependant on how likely you are to get caught for doing a crime than it is to the severity of the punishment. This is probably the best defense I've heard for why they drastically under-report unsolved murders/assaults. Not sure how many more examples of corporate media spreading propaganda Hillary supporters are going to need... because a tweet from bernievolunteer is very trustworthy right? What are you going to believe, the beacon of honesty known as "the media", or your lyin' eyes?
Pretty sure I am not going to take anything from the social media service that boils down to “4chan with celebrities and marketing brands,” at face value. That is like citing a reddit posts as evidence.
|
On May 25 2016 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted. It's not over, otherwise Hillary wouldn't be in Cali today lol. Do you have any idea what the voting age participation of black people has been so far? I remember when Hispanics were part of this firewall too... That's why Cali was a lock for her a while back, clearly a lot has changed on that front.
Uh, no, not a lot has changed. 538 has her odds of winning California at 97%. She's polling around 15 points above Sanders on average. And even if she was to lose the state, it wouldn't matter much with regards to her overall lead in pledged delegates.
On May 25 2016 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
You call it "spending conservatively" I call it trying not to go broke while refilling her coffers with HVF funds passed through state parties.
Except she's not doing that.
On May 25 2016 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
As for support plummeting, that either happened for Hillary a long time ago or there is more to support than just fundraising numbers.
True, there are votes. Of which she has substantially more than Sanders.
Anyway, you didn't reply to my previous query -- do you want to bet on the result of Washington state in the GE?
|
On May 25 2016 00:33 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 00:31 SolaR- wrote:
Then why was Pakistan harboring Bin Laden? Just curious Thats an accusation. Not fact. I wouldnt put it past to monumental incompetence either. Its not exactly hard to hide in our part of the world. You can hide in plain site quite easily. And in all honesty I dont think we gave enough of a shit to look for him. Obama was the one who needed the re election. His effective relevance was pretty much zero.Just like this recent guy that got killed, and the one before that, and the one before that. and the one before that. But thats besides the point. I didnt say they werent trying to control them and allying with them. I am saying they are not doing it now, but now there are so many splinter groups no one knows who is who no more and it only takes half a dozen people to cause havoc.. IIRC Bin Laden got whacked years ago. Dont get me wrong, its not like we wont play both sides if it serves our best interests. But I dont see why we should be at fault for doing so considering thats what everyone does. At the end of the day we are suffering more for a war that had nothing to do with us than everyone else combined.
Thanks for your perspective on the situation there. I didn't know much about the whole bin laden capture situation. I just figured he must of had some political allies within Pakistan to be able to hide there all those years. But that was just blind skepticism on my part.
|
On May 25 2016 00:51 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted. It's not over, otherwise Hillary wouldn't be in Cali today lol. Do you have any idea what the voting age participation of black people has been so far? I remember when Hispanics were part of this firewall too... That's why Cali was a lock for her a while back, clearly a lot has changed on that front. Uh, no, not a lot has changed. 538 has her odds of winning California at 97%. She's polling around 15 points above Sanders on average. And even if she was to lose the state, it wouldn't matter much with regards to her overall lead in pledged delegates. Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
You call it "spending conservatively" I call it trying not to go broke while refilling her coffers with HVF funds passed through state parties. Except she's not doing that. Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
As for support plummeting, that either happened for Hillary a long time ago or there is more to support than just fundraising numbers. True, there are votes. Of which she has substantially more than Sanders. Anyway, you didn't reply to my previous query -- do you want to bet on the result of Washington state in the GE?
What's changed is Hillary supporters aren't mentioning her Hispanic firewall in CA anymore.
I love the hoop jumping to keep all the narratives alive. CA is supposed to be a lock and Hillary already focused on the general yet there she is in California campaigning. Hillary isn't funneling money back into her campaign because the 88% of her "down ticket" money is going back to the DNC (after being moved through states) who is supposed to be operating under the assumption that Hillary isn't the nominee yet, while Hillary and her supporters claim only idiots could think that.
Yeah, I'll take both bets, we can keep it tied to the general and you can still get out if she manages to win WA. The smarter bet for me would be to say she doesn't clear 50% but that's virtually a lock for me so I presume you wouldn't take it.
|
On May 25 2016 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 00:51 kwizach wrote:On May 25 2016 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted. It's not over, otherwise Hillary wouldn't be in Cali today lol. Do you have any idea what the voting age participation of black people has been so far? I remember when Hispanics were part of this firewall too... That's why Cali was a lock for her a while back, clearly a lot has changed on that front. Uh, no, not a lot has changed. 538 has her odds of winning California at 97%. She's polling around 15 points above Sanders on average. And even if she was to lose the state, it wouldn't matter much with regards to her overall lead in pledged delegates. On May 25 2016 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
You call it "spending conservatively" I call it trying not to go broke while refilling her coffers with HVF funds passed through state parties. Except she's not doing that. On May 25 2016 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
As for support plummeting, that either happened for Hillary a long time ago or there is more to support than just fundraising numbers. True, there are votes. Of which she has substantially more than Sanders. Anyway, you didn't reply to my previous query -- do you want to bet on the result of Washington state in the GE? What's changed is Hillary supporters aren't mentioning her Hispanic firewall in CA anymore.
I'm not sure of where you got the impression that Hillary supporters don't think she'll decisively beat Sanders among Hispanics.
On May 25 2016 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love the hoop jumping to keep all the narratives alive. CA is supposed to be a lock and Hillary already focused on the general yet there she is in California campaigning. Hillary isn't funneling money back into her campaign because the 88% of her "down ticket" money is going back to the DNC (after being moved through states) who is supposed to be operating under the assumption that Hillary isn't the nominee yet, while Hillary and her supporters claim only idiots could think that.
I'm glad you're agreeing with me that your initial claim was bogus, since the DNC is not Hillary's campaign, and since that money is going to the DNC to then be reallocated towards battleground states in the GE. The same happened in 2012, except it was called the "Obama Victory Fund" instead of the "Hillary Victory Fund".
On May 25 2016 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yeah, I'll take both bets, we can keep it tied to the general and you can still get out if she manages to win WA. The smarter bet for me would be to say she doesn't clear 50% but that's virtually a lock for me so I presume you wouldn't take it.
I'm not sure of what you mean by "keeping it tied to the general". Here's what I offered in my previous post:
"Why don't we change our general election bet from a sig bet to a "can't post on TL.net for six months after the election" bet, and make our sig bet about the result of Washington state instead? And let's make it six months while we're active (that is to say, it can't overlap with the period during which we wouldn't be allowed to post) of the signature you suggested: "I have no idea what I'm talking about, if you want useful information, you should stick to reading _____'s posts."?"
|
GH will keep making unfounded accusations about money laundering, etc, etc.
Anyways, I've finally decided what I want from that bet way back (you were so confident that Sanders would close the gap after Washington remember?). The topics are LGBT rights, financial industry reform/ regulation, trade and healthcare. Legislation, advocacy, current and former positions (spoiler alert: pretty much consistent). Have fun.
|
On May 25 2016 01:29 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 00:51 kwizach wrote:On May 25 2016 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted. It's not over, otherwise Hillary wouldn't be in Cali today lol. Do you have any idea what the voting age participation of black people has been so far? I remember when Hispanics were part of this firewall too... That's why Cali was a lock for her a while back, clearly a lot has changed on that front. Uh, no, not a lot has changed. 538 has her odds of winning California at 97%. She's polling around 15 points above Sanders on average. And even if she was to lose the state, it wouldn't matter much with regards to her overall lead in pledged delegates. On May 25 2016 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
You call it "spending conservatively" I call it trying not to go broke while refilling her coffers with HVF funds passed through state parties. Except she's not doing that. On May 25 2016 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
As for support plummeting, that either happened for Hillary a long time ago or there is more to support than just fundraising numbers. True, there are votes. Of which she has substantially more than Sanders. Anyway, you didn't reply to my previous query -- do you want to bet on the result of Washington state in the GE? What's changed is Hillary supporters aren't mentioning her Hispanic firewall in CA anymore. I'm not sure of where you got the impression that Hillary supporters don't think she'll decisively beat Sanders among Hispanics. Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love the hoop jumping to keep all the narratives alive. CA is supposed to be a lock and Hillary already focused on the general yet there she is in California campaigning. Hillary isn't funneling money back into her campaign because the 88% of her "down ticket" money is going back to the DNC (after being moved through states) who is supposed to be operating under the assumption that Hillary isn't the nominee yet, while Hillary and her supporters claim only idiots could think that. I'm glad you're agreeing with me that your initial claim was bogus, since the DNC is not Hillary's campaign, and since that money is going to the DNC to then be reallocated towards battleground states in the GE. The same happened in 2012, except it was called the "Obama Victory Fund" instead of the "Hillary Victory Fund". Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yeah, I'll take both bets, we can keep it tied to the general and you can still get out if she manages to win WA. The smarter bet for me would be to say she doesn't clear 50% but that's virtually a lock for me so I presume you wouldn't take it. I'm not sure of what you mean by "keeping it tied to the general". Here's what I offered in my previous post: "Why don't we change our general election bet from a sig bet to a "can't post on TL.net for six months after the election" bet, and make our sig bet about the result of Washington state instead? And let's make it six months of the signature you suggested while we're active (that is to say, it can't overlap with the period during which we wouldn't be allowed to post): "I have no idea what I'm talking about, if you want useful information, you should stick to reading _____'s posts."?"
No the HVF money is still going into her campaign (which is often lumped with her "down ticket" fundraising when convenient) which is where most of the money they raise (thorough the big donor events) goes. I can't take the faux ignorance seriously any longer on how the DNC is going to spend it's money and who's hands are holding the purse strings
You seem to think that Obama's fundraising wasn't problematic in 08/12, I remember distinctly making basically the same argument when he started raising more money off of Wall street. Some of us have learned our lesson about thinking a candidate won't act favorably toward big donors if they promise not to during the campaign (Obama had a crap ton more credibility too).
As for the bet that's not what I read at all? But hell, why not. Terrible odds and a terrible bet, but it's not like you would take a fair one anyway.
|
On May 25 2016 01:43 ticklishmusic wrote:
GH will keep making unfounded accusations about money laundering, etc, etc.
Anyways, I've finally decided what I want from that bet way back (you were so confident that Sanders would close the gap after Washington remember?). The topics are LGBT rights, financial industry reform/ regulation, trade and healthcare. Legislation, advocacy, current and former positions (spoiler alert: pretty much consistent). Have fun.
You're going to have to find what you said you wanted about them, I don't remember any more. But it's not "unfounded accusations about money laundering" lol.
Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
The Democratic front-runner says she's raising big checks to help state committees, but they've gotten to keep only 1 percent of the $60 million raised.
Conspiracytheorists.com
|
We already took issue with that article. It use of money laundering is incorrect. It also complains about things that have been true about the parties forever. States without competitive senate/house races get less money. Just like you don’t sink money into a losing fight. None of this stuff is new.
And the idea that the DNC is going to keep that money is dumb. They are holding it because the election spending spree starts after the convention. They are not going to distribute funds now, the fight has not started. They are going to put money into the races that need the money, and they won't have the all that information until after the primary season is over.
|
On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted.
Yeah it's not surprising to find that hillary supporters don't expect Hillary to do what she said she would.
|
On May 25 2016 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 01:29 kwizach wrote:On May 25 2016 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 25 2016 00:51 kwizach wrote:On May 25 2016 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted. It's not over, otherwise Hillary wouldn't be in Cali today lol. Do you have any idea what the voting age participation of black people has been so far? I remember when Hispanics were part of this firewall too... That's why Cali was a lock for her a while back, clearly a lot has changed on that front. Uh, no, not a lot has changed. 538 has her odds of winning California at 97%. She's polling around 15 points above Sanders on average. And even if she was to lose the state, it wouldn't matter much with regards to her overall lead in pledged delegates. On May 25 2016 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
You call it "spending conservatively" I call it trying not to go broke while refilling her coffers with HVF funds passed through state parties. Except she's not doing that. On May 25 2016 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
As for support plummeting, that either happened for Hillary a long time ago or there is more to support than just fundraising numbers. True, there are votes. Of which she has substantially more than Sanders. Anyway, you didn't reply to my previous query -- do you want to bet on the result of Washington state in the GE? What's changed is Hillary supporters aren't mentioning her Hispanic firewall in CA anymore. I'm not sure of where you got the impression that Hillary supporters don't think she'll decisively beat Sanders among Hispanics. On May 25 2016 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
I love the hoop jumping to keep all the narratives alive. CA is supposed to be a lock and Hillary already focused on the general yet there she is in California campaigning. Hillary isn't funneling money back into her campaign because the 88% of her "down ticket" money is going back to the DNC (after being moved through states) who is supposed to be operating under the assumption that Hillary isn't the nominee yet, while Hillary and her supporters claim only idiots could think that. I'm glad you're agreeing with me that your initial claim was bogus, since the DNC is not Hillary's campaign, and since that money is going to the DNC to then be reallocated towards battleground states in the GE. The same happened in 2012, except it was called the "Obama Victory Fund" instead of the "Hillary Victory Fund". On May 25 2016 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Yeah, I'll take both bets, we can keep it tied to the general and you can still get out if she manages to win WA. The smarter bet for me would be to say she doesn't clear 50% but that's virtually a lock for me so I presume you wouldn't take it. I'm not sure of what you mean by "keeping it tied to the general". Here's what I offered in my previous post: "Why don't we change our general election bet from a sig bet to a "can't post on TL.net for six months after the election" bet, and make our sig bet about the result of Washington state instead? And let's make it six months of the signature you suggested while we're active (that is to say, it can't overlap with the period during which we wouldn't be allowed to post): "I have no idea what I'm talking about, if you want useful information, you should stick to reading _____'s posts."?" No the HVF money is still going into her campaign (which is often lumped with her "down ticket" fundraising when convenient) which is where most of the money they raise (thorough the big donor events) goes. I can't take the faux ignorance seriously any longer on how the DNC is going to spend it's money and who's hands are holding the purse strings
Donations to the HVF go to Hillary's campaign up to the legal limit, and the rest go the Democratic party. Currently, money going to state parties is mostly getting transferred to the DNC, in order to get spent in the GE as strategically as possible. You were claiming that Hillary's campaign was "refilling [its] coffers with HVF funds passed through state parties", which is simply not true.
On May 25 2016 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
You seem to think that Obama's fundraising wasn't problematic in 08/12, I remember distinctly making basically the same argument when he started raising more money off of Wall street. Some of us have learned our lesson about thinking a candidate won't act favorably toward big donors if they promise not to during the campaign (Obama had a crap ton more credibility too).
He already raised more money from Wall street donors than Hillary in 2008, and it didn't impact his integrity.
On May 25 2016 01:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
As for the bet that's not what I read at all? But hell, why not. Terrible odds and a terrible bet, but it's not like you would take a fair one anyway.
What do you mean, that's not what you read at all? We already have a sig bet for the general election, for which you suggested that the loser adopt the following signature: "I have no idea what I'm talking about, if you want useful information, you should stick to reading _____'s posts."
I'm simply suggesting that we make another bet over the presidential results of Washington state in the GE, since you've repeatedly declared that you're absolutely sure that Clinton will not win the state. So let's transfer our sig bet to Washington state and put a six month period on the resulting sig, and let's make the stakes of our GE bet a six month period during which we're not allowed to post on TL.net. Of course, if one of us loses both bets, he'll have to start by not posting on TL.net during six months, and then have the new sig during the following six months.
I agree that your odds are terrible, but you're the one who's asserting that Clinton has zero chance of winning Washington, and that she's very likely to lose the GE against Trump. If that's what you truly believe, you should be happy to take the bets. So, we agree, then?
|
On May 25 2016 02:10 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted. Yeah it's not surprising to find that hillary supporters don't expect Hillary to do what she said she would.
You boiling this down to "said she would" is exactly the overly simplistic thinking that people keep pointing out. It's not black and white. There is no benefit to having a debate right now. There's not even an effect. This idea that voters need more of an opportunity to understand what each candidate believes is just silly. I don't think we have ever been as blasted with political news. You have to try seriously hard to not know Sanders vs Clinton at this point. And for those who don't know about the candidates, another debate won't be what does the trick. They probably won't watch that one either.
What you want out of a debate is for Bernie to have an opportunity to look better. When you're guy is down for the count, I'm sure anything feels like a great idea. It is fascinating to see how you are still even paying attention to the primary. Clinton has been running a general election campaign for over a month. Bernie got somewhat close, but there can only be one winner.
|
GH's current sig says more about him then anything you could replace it with
|
On May 25 2016 02:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 02:10 Jormundr wrote:On May 24 2016 23:55 Mohdoo wrote:
It doesn't matter how many she agreed to because there is no sense in having a debate right now. Criticize Clinton for not having debates before, but obsessing over it now is just cringey. People who are able to see how against the wall Sanders is right now are not going to view this favorably. Yelling for debates in Cali won't help. Black people still exist. Black people are Clinton's strongest defenders and they will make sure Clinton gets California.
As for $, Clinton has much more in reserves, or did. Bernie is spending til broke whereas Clinton has been spending conservatively. Think about how many states Bernie outspent Clinton in. It's always been a short term kamikaze campaign. It doesn't matter that he raised an unprecedented amount. It fizzled into nothing and his campaign didn't manage it well. Remember how much Sanders spent in NY? And my larger point was to show how Sanders supporters are not nearly as committed or resilient as they are given credit for. As soon as the memes were shown to be wrong about his chances, support has plummeted. Yeah it's not surprising to find that hillary supporters don't expect Hillary to do what she said she would. You boiling this down to "said she would" is exactly the overly simplistic thinking that people keep pointing out. It's not black and white. There is no benefit to having a debate right now. There's not even an effect. This idea that voters need more of an opportunity to understand what each candidate believes is just silly. I don't think we have ever been as blasted with political news. You have to try seriously hard to not know Sanders vs Clinton at this point. And for those who don't know about the candidates, another debate won't be what does the trick. They probably won't watch that one either. What you want out of a debate is for Bernie to have an opportunity to look better. When you're guy is down for the count, I'm sure anything feels like a great idea. It is fascinating to see how you are still even paying attention to the primary. Clinton has been running a general election campaign for over a month. Bernie got somewhat close, but there can only be one winner.
I said exactly what happened. You can justify it however you like, but she said one thing and did another. You can call it her "evolving" or whatever, but it's a large reason why the Bernie or bust crowd exists. It's hard to decide between Trump and Hillary when they both evolve too often.
(P.S. evolving is a polite way of saying that someone has no real convictions and is more than happy to lie every time it benefits them)
|
Show nested quote +On May 25 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:
We already took issue with that article. It use of money laundering is incorrect. It also complains about things that have been true about the parties forever. States without competitive senate/house races get less money. Just like you don’t sink money into a losing fight. None of this stuff is new.
And the idea that the DNC is going to keep that money is dumb. They are holding it because the election spending spree starts after the convention. They are not going to distribute funds now, the fight has not started. They are going to put money into the races that need the money, and they won't have the all that information until after the primary season is over. The idea that it goes to the state parties is what's dumb. How much gets spent on what is still a convoluted mess where often money ends up in information black holes. What do you mean, that's not what you read at all? We already have a sig bet for the general election, for which you suggested that the loser adopt the following signature: "I have no idea what I'm talking about, if you want useful information, you should stick to reading _____'s posts." I'm simply suggesting that we make another bet over the presidential results of Washington state in the GE, since you've repeatedly declared that you're absolutely sure that Clinton will not win the state. So let's transfer our sig bet to Washington state and put a six month period on the resulting sig, and let's make the stakes of our GE bet a six month period during which we're not allowed to post on TL.net. Of course, if one of us loses both bets, he'll have to start by not posting on TL.net during six months, and then have the new sig during the following six months. I agree that your odds are terrible, but you're the one who's asserting that Clinton has zero chance of winning Washington, and that she's very likely to lose the GE against Trump. If that's what you truly believe, you should be happy to take the bets. So, we agree, then?
Your wording/use of quotes was confusing. She isn't going to win Washington, so yeah she's likely to lose in my estimation (counter to current predictions). Essentially I should be getting some odds on this if you want to make it a fair bet. Either we should keep it for bragging rights or it the winning/risk should reflect the odds.
Frankly I don't think it matters much because there will be bigger problems with either of them claiming victory. Provided Hillary somehow wins, the majority of the country will believe she did so by cheating/manipulating the rules. Whether it's true or not won't matter much as we saw with a Republican party and Obama.
With neither Trump or Hillary likely to get anywhere near 50% favorable before November, Bernie is the only person with even a chance of most of the country actually wanting him to be president (even if primary voting Democrats [~2.9% of voters, 4.9% if you include leaners] prefer Hillary)
That you have a similar story on the Republican side gives a glimpse into why the leading nominees are the least liked/trusted leaders in modern polling history. Pulling from that anything other than America will be very disappointed in either of them winning. strikes me as especially naive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
