Coffee talk

[Bloody Brian Burke]

How "flawed" Clinton is as a candidate is wildly overblown. No, she's not perfect, and she wasn't my first choice, but she's been diligent in her work her entire political career, and her voting record is by and large what so-called progressive democrats should have wanted.

She got railroaded, and that's not really the party's fault, even if there were better options out there.

Bullshit lol. How flawed she is was reflected in how badly she was beaten. There really is no better argument than the outcome of the election itself.

If anybody was railroaded here it was democratic voters that had to deal with the fact that eight years ago it was decided that come hell or high water Hilary Clinton was going to be the democratic nominee because Obama stole that from her.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Truthfully, Bernie wasn't going to beat Turnip either.

/I started to fix my typo, but decided that worked better anyway, so I went with it

We don't know that. Different candidates turn out different voters. Without the baggage of emails and the Clinton presidency and, sadly, the female factor who the hell knows how last night plays out.

 

[dash]

Vote Milos, you know he's primed to provide great service.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

That is why it is key to supplement your income with sound investments and contrarian sports betting.

/by the way, I did win my election bet on the SportsHoopla bookie - I could see the writing on the wall

coulda had this

You could have won £15 million through £5 bet on Trump, Brexit and Leicester

 

[jstewismybastardson]

tired or into pops coke stash?

 

[Darkstone42]

Truthfully, Bernie wasn't going to beat Turnip either.

/I started to fix my typo, but decided that worked better anyway, so I went with it

Head-to-head polls did suggest he'd perform better specifically against Trump, and he seemed to inspire better voter turnouts, which ultimately is what did Clinton in, so there's a decent chance he actually does beat Trump.

But then the question turns to whether Clinton's scandals or Sanders being a self-proclaimed socialist would be the bigger impact on the campaign.

 

[esls79]

Quick question - are political science majors real scientists?

 

[Darkstone42]

Bullshit lol. How flawed she is was reflected in how badly she was beaten. There really is no better argument than the outcome of the election itself.

If anybody was railroaded here it was democratic voters that had to deal with the fact that eight years ago it was decided that come hell or high water Hilary Clinton was going to be the democratic nominee because Obama stole that from her.

She seems to have won the popular vote, so I wouldn't say she got beaten very badly. The problem was electoral college votes aren't precisely distributed based on population, and Trump won a lot of states with high electoral college votes relative to their populations. California and New York are really valuable states in the electoral college, but it takes a lot more individual votes in either to win one electoral vote than it does in, say, Montana.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Head-to-head polls did suggest he'd perform better specifically against Trump, and he seemed to inspire better voter turnouts, which ultimately is what did Clinton in, so there's a decent chance he actually does beat Trump.

But then the question turns to whether Clinton's scandals or Sanders being a self-proclaimed socialist would be the bigger impact on the campaign.

I think he probably wins also because his message was more likely to connect with the disillusioned blue-collar workers in WI, MI, and PA and his proximity probably pulls in NH as well. Hard to say if anything else changes, but those states alone - assuming no other changes - would have been enough.

 

[Darkstone42]

I think he probably wins also because his message was more likely to connect with the disillusioned blue-collar workers in WI, MI, and PA and his proximity probably pulls in NH as well. Hard to say if anything else changes, but those states alone - assuming no other changes - would have been enough.

The only state Clinton won that I could see Sanders losing is New Mexico, but gaining Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania more than would have made up for that. The rest of the states Clinton won were going blue almost no matter what.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

lot more support for Bernie amongst the African American community too

 

[jstewismybastardson]

I even think more millennials were on board with Sanders and she did this with them v Trump

 

[BGDave]

How "flawed" Clinton is as a candidate is wildly overblown. No, she's not perfect, and she wasn't my first choice, but she's been diligent in her work her entire political career, and her voting record is by and large what so-called progressive democrats should have wanted.

She got railroaded, and that's not really the party's fault, even if there were better options out there.

Railroaded?

You feel that she was not seriously flawed. All I can say is that I know of one voter (me) who voted for her opponent because I believe she quite likely committed many and serious criminal acts during and after her tenure as Sec of State. That's it. That is the reason.

I voted against her. Not for Trump. I have no problem with her chromosone status (so it is definitely not a woman thing), but I highly value following the laws. It was the only point that mattered to me.

And I am not the only one who felt that way. So yes, in my mind, she was "flawed".

Remember Joe Lieberman? If he ran against Trump, I would have proudly voted for him. And send him $$ too (which for anyone who knows me, is a big deal). Even though I think he is goofy, I would have voted for Joe Biden as well.

You have explained your support for HRC, and I have explained mine. Unlike most of what passes for "discussion" online, I appreciate your calm, rational explanation. And hey, we get to do it all again in 4 years

 

[BGDave]

I even think more millennials were on board with Sanders and she did this with them v Trump

Funny tho, how a person's political views morph over time. Those stats will not hold up 20 years from now when that generation hits their 40s.

 

[BGDave]

That is why it is key to supplement your income with sound investments and contrarian sports betting.

/by the way, I did win my election bet on the SportsHoopla bookie - I could see the writing on the wall

I put my last 400 or so in vCash on Trump. I am a believer, @esls79

 

[BGDave]

She seems to have won the popular vote, so I wouldn't say she got beaten very badly.

As of this writing, she was up around 206,000 votes out of approx 120 million. Or .001717. And not sure the status of absentee ballots, military ballots, etc. Pretty close to a tie IMO. But I agree with your basic premise.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

Funny tho, how a person's political views morph over time. Those stats will not hold up 20 years from now when that generation hits their 40s.

A lot of the social views likely will as each generation is generally more tolerant than the one that came before them. The economic views certainly will not as people start having mortgages, kids, etc.

That's one of the reasons the Republicans were successful this campaign is that they didn't focus so much on social issues other than immigration, which even that didn't get much play later in the campaign.

You didn't hear nearly so much talk about abortion, gay rights, etc. during this election because the Repubs knew that was not a winning topic for them anymore.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

The only state Clinton won that I could see Sanders losing is New Mexico, but gaining Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania more than would have made up for that. The rest of the states Clinton won were going blue almost no matter what.

I'd have to do the math, but I think gaining those 4 but losing NM would still give it to Trump. It would have to be an "all others equal" scenario or she'd have to flip something else like OH, FL, NC, etc. if she lost NM.

 

[dash]

Pitter patter, let's get at 'er...

 

[Darkstone42]

I'd have to do the math, but I think gaining those 4 but losing NM would still give it to Trump. It would have to be an "all others equal" scenario or she'd have to flip something else like OH, FL, NC, etc. if she lost NM.

New Mexico is only 6 electoral votes. For sure getting NH, PA, WI, and MI would have given the election to the democrat. Getting those four and losing NM puts the democrat at 273 electoral votes.