New Book "Chasing Hillary"

[Jack V Savage]

I think complaints about Hillary's likability fail a bit because Trump was extremely unlikable. Had the votes swung a bit the other way we would be hearing all about how Trump failed because of his being a complete piece of shit, and that even though he pandered hard to the rust belt, he still couldn't close the deal. It's fickle as hell.

And simply not liking the personality of a candidate is not usually enough to swing a vote in a general election anyway- much less to an obviously less likable person. Almost everything anyone has said since the election has been sketchy or flat wrong. I've even had to question my assumptions about the effectiveness of the Trump strategy in the rust belt, because his support across the middle class wasn't as high as I assumed.

Absent the Comey letter, Clinton wins by six points, and everything people are saying about the election would be reversed. That tells you that the analysis is massively flawed.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

It's in my cooler bag, and usually franks, unless I'm trying something new.

Texas Pete's. Now you know.

 

[irish_thug]

Texas Pete's. Now you know.

Available on amazon. Excellent.

 

[Fawlty]

Absent the Comey letter, Clinton wins by six points, and everything people are saying about the election would be reversed. That tells you that the analysis is massively flawed.

Is there a rough consensus on that? I agree after all the dust has settled that the letter was huge (and a lot bigger than I admitted initially- I think I was trying not to be a sore loser on that).

 

[Jack V Savage]

Is there a rough consensus on that? I agree after all the dust has settled that the letter was huge (and a lot bigger than I admitted initially- I think I was trying not to be a sore loser on that).

I was just crudely going by the post-letter move. Looks like a 1-4-point swing at the end is the consensus. Even 1 point is decisive, and puts the national PV at 3 points. Here's Silver:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

 

[Gutter Chris]

I think the "pay to play" accusation is batshit crazy. Probably you haven't looked into the claims and are just blindly going along with stuff from 4Chan or something. And the bank thing is weird. You're shifting between saying that she's like a cartoonish villain and she's like a knight. "I once did freelance work for that company, therefore I'm sworn to them and their competitors for life. It's a sacred bond."

Do you like fish sticks ?

She's not running a third time, but you're showing how easy it is to manipulate people, which is a problem for future candidates. And surely you don't consistently hold the view that losing two extremely close, extremely high-profile elections means you're a "bad" candidate. That's like saying that losing two title fights makes someone a "bad" fighter.

I want the republicans to never win the presidency again in my lifetime so yes I look at a candidate that can beat them and I take previous primary loses as a good indicator on how they will do come game day. if you cant get your whole party to like you you are going to fail at getting swing voters for sure. I like bernie but I would hold him to this same standard.

I also gamble on the ufc and while losing 2 fights might not make them a bad fighter it might indeed make them a bad bet in a big money fight that I am banking on winning

 

[Jack V Savage]

Do you like fish sticks ?

You seriously don't see how crazy that stuff sounds?

I want the republicans to never win the presidency again in my lifetime so yes I look at a candidate that can beat them and I take previous primary loses as a good indicator on how they will do come game day. if you cant get your whole party to like you you are going to fail at getting swing voters for sure. I like bernie but I would hold him to this same standard.

Every candidate gets around 90% of their party.

I also gamble on the ufc and while losing 2 fights might not make them a bad fighter it might indeed make them a bad bet in a big money fight that I am banking on winning

I bet on the UFC, too, and I'm skeptical that your approach can be a winning one.

 

[bobgeese]

I think the "pay to play" accusation is batshit crazy. Probably you haven't looked into the claims and are just blindly going along with stuff from 4Chan or something. And the bank thing is weird. You're shifting between saying that she's like a cartoonish villain and she's like a knight. "I once did freelance work for that company, therefore I'm sworn to them and their competitors for life. It's a sacred bond."



She's not running a third time, but you're showing how easy it is to manipulate people, which is a problem for future candidates. And surely you don't consistently hold the view that losing two extremely close, extremely high-profile elections means you're a "bad" candidate. That's like saying that losing two title fights makes someone a "bad" fighter.



"Charisma" is awarded after the fact, is my point. When's the last election that had a result that fundamentals wouldn't have predicted without any concern for who the candidates were? Going back to Nixon, off hand, I can't think of any (that is, Republicans had a small edge in 2016, Democrats had a small edge in 2012, Democrats had a large edge in 2008, Republicans had edges in 2004 and 2000, etc.).

Im fully aware Jack has me on ignore, but this has to be pointed out to demonstrate what a shill he is.


Pay for play is “bat shit crazy”

How about the time the Hillary had lunch with the Blackstone chairman, cashed their checks, and started working on favors for them THE NEXT DAY?





“Clinton was host at a September 2009 breakfast meeting at the New York Stock Exchange that listed Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman as one of the attendees. Schwarzman’s firm is a major Clinton Foundation donor, but he personally donates heavily to GOP candidates and causes. One day after the breakfast, according to Clinton emails, the State Department was working on a visa issue at Schwarzman’s request. In December that same year, Schwarzman’s wife, Christine, sat at Clinton’s table during the Kennedy Center Honors. Clinton also introduced Schwarzman, then chairman of the Kennedy Center, before he spoke.

Blackstone donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Eight Blackstone executives also gave between $375,000 and $800,000 to the foundation.”

....


The Clintons have been accepting money and favors for pushing their weight around in Washington for a LONG time. They’ve been pushing foreign influence in our politics, and many of you just give them a pass. They’re exactly what is wrong with Washington, it’s about time you come to terms with that.

 

[Gutter Chris]

You seriously don't see how crazy that stuff sounds?

You dont see how dirty it looks that she pals around with and takes money from some very powerful people with major interests of their own that they will want carried out. Even if its all bullshit you seriously cant see why people take issue with that sort of thing or would think badly of it ? Come on man I already told you I voted for her and im not a republican so you can speak honestly with me here

I bet on the UFC, too, and I'm skeptical that your approach can be a winning one.

would you bet on cerrone in a title fight ?

I wouldnt

reason being he has shown to choke in big fights

Quit playin jack you know exactly what im saying but it would just kill you to give it up though

can we get a list of candidates who have tanked in primaries and later went on to win the presidency in say the last 50 years. if I am wrong about losing a primary being a good indicator of failing to win later on please let me know

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

you are right none of it is against the law say but we seem to having problems with bankers in this country and her taking their money makes me believe she would be willing in the drivers seat to do their bidding

Clinton foundation looks like pay to play. If it is or isnt I cant say I wasnt there but I can comment on how it looks

Like I said I believe it because the 1 percent always have great lawyers and friends in the right places and this seems to be something that has always gone on. Its not just Hillary I believe it of all extremely wealthy people



To me already losing in a primary is a bad sign that the public does not like or trust you and before this election that was already true of her. Now with this election that makes her a 2 time loser. That is why I keep saying shes a bad candidate and she sure as hell should not run a third time




I dont believe this to be true. Some people have charisma and some people do not. obama clinton trump and bush all know how to work a room. Ya know what 2 things those 4 dudes have in common but mitt and Hillary do not ? There is always a this or that could have happened argument to be had but charisma seems to be an age old asset in winning the big one




Im all for having a go at Hillary but there are just much better things to have a whack at than something that can be put to bed so easily with zero debate . We can argue all day about her personality and if her relationship with bankers is to chummy but her love for hot sauce goes way back .

I've seen you sell yourself a little short in some posts. Fwiw, your wisdom trumps Jack's intellect. Thanks for being a member of the community.

 

[SMillard]

It would have been even more amazing if the campaign was just, like, about the issues they disagree on (financial deregulation vs. tighter regs, tax cuts for large inheritances vs. none, higher MW vs. not, tighter environmental regs vs. looser, etc.). God forbid.

You'd like to think so, but Trump winning is just an over emphasising of the fact that our elections are basically popularity contests. Remember during W's run that people said they were voting for him because "he seems like the kind of guy I'd like to have a beer with".

God forbid you actually elect someone on actual policy and plan, that would actually require people to do some homework........ and that would just be silly to expect that.

 

[HereticBD]

9 pages....

ROFL.

Okay, this is appropriate here:

She lost. Get over it.

 

[kpt018]

would you bet on cerrone in a title fight ?

I wouldnt

reason being he has shown to choke in big fights

Quit playin jack you know exactly what im saying but it would just kill you to give it up though

can we get a list of candidates who have tanked in primaries and later went on to win the presidency in say the last 50 years. if I am wrong about losing a primary being a good indicator of failing to win later on please let me know

Depends who he is fighting no? That kind of pokes a hole in your gambling logic.

I wouldn't call losing to RDA "choking" either.

 

[method115]

Come on man I already told you I voted for her and im not a republican so you can speak honestly with me here

Jack is speaking honestly with you. He will defend Hillary to the death and let me assure you there is nothing you can show him that will change his mind on Hillary, her speeches, or the clinton foundation.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You dont see how dirty it looks that she pals around with and takes money from some very powerful people with major interests of their own that they will want carried out. Even if its all bullshit you seriously cant see why people take issue with that sort of thing or would think badly of it ? Come on man I already told you I voted for her and im not a republican so you can speak honestly with me here

The implication that I'm not speaking honestly is dumb. What do you think I wasn't honest about? And I'm well aware that people think anything that someone they have been taught to hate looks bad. I'm talking about reality, though.

would you bet on cerrone in a title fight ?

Depends who he's fighting, of course. Post-Serra I, would you have bet on GSP in a title fight? Or would the assumption just be that whoever he fights, he will lose to because he lost to Hughes in his first title shot and Serra in his first defense?

Quit playin jack you know exactly what im saying but it would just kill you to give it up though

can we get a list of candidates who have tanked in primaries and later went on to win the presidency in say the last 50 years. if I am wrong about losing a primary being a good indicator of failing to win later on please let me know

Bush and Reagan previously lost primaries in that period. The general theory--if you've ever lost an election, you're a bad candidate and can never win another election--is so stupid I can't even believe you're defending it.

I've seen you sell yourself a little short in some posts. Fwiw, your wisdom trumps Jack's intellect. Thanks for being a member of the community.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack is speaking honestly with you. He will defend Hillary to the death and let me assure you there is nothing you can show him that will change his mind on Hillary, her speeches, or the clinton foundation.

It would actually be very easy to change my mind--just point out a fact I'm wrong about or a flaw in my logic.

But the issue here is that many of you have been conditioned to have an irrational hatred of Clinton, and anyone who wants evidence to support the specific claims you make is portrayed as being as biased as you are but on the other side. Personally, I don't even care about Clinton. I was fine either way in the primary (O'Malley was my first choice, but between Bernie and Clinton, I was mostly indifferent).

 

[Andy Capp]

Yet she criticized Trump for using foul language.

I think she more criticized him for being foul in general as it pertains to women.

 

[Andy Capp]

It might be the fact that her entire personality was fabricated, and shes esssentially an actor. People know when someone is fake.

I read this, then thought of this, and literally LOL'd

I would not transform in to a completely different person. I might watch my words but ill still be me. I wouldnt go around to different states while adopting fake accents and lingo to gain support as Hillary does.

There is a difference between acting a certain way around certain people and completely inventing a personality

Watch the video and tell me how it's any different.

 

[Andy Capp]

What makes you think shes serious about policy? I never got that impression at all. I feel like shes serious about gaining money and power.

Were talking about a lady who was interviewed by hip hop artists and they asked her what she always keeps in her purse, she said "hot sauce".

She will literally say anything to get people to vote for her. Nothing she says is genuine. Why would you believe anything she says? She lies and manipulates people with her fake persona.

You''re doing a remarkable job describing Trump yet he won. Seems like there were other factors at play to me.

 

[kpt018]

You''re doing a remarkable job describing Trump yet he won. Seems like there were other factors at play to me.

Exactly. For argument sake let's assume she was bullshitting about the hot sauce and was totally pandering, it still explains nothing. Trump lies at a volume that we've never seen out of a president and is so fake it's unreal. He's like a fucking character.

People mistake shit talking for "being real". Yeah, he has no shame and will say stuff normal adults wouldn't but "being real" means telling the truth and Trump lies so much there is zero reason to believe a word out of his mouth.

So people are just showing their bias here. Hillary bullshit about hot sauce (she didn't, but let's grant them that) so she's fake and robotic and unlikable. Trump lies with almost every speech and tweet yet "he's real". Purely bias at play here.