• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Clinton will get nominated, regardless of vote. So far she wins 2 states.

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Not sure that's really going to hurt her though. For one thing, it was still Obama's decision; she might have advocated for something stupid (given our experience in Iraq anyway) but he's the one who pulled the trigger. For another, her major opponent will be the Republican nominee - Sanders is merely a speed bump - and Republicans are also known for making stupid foreign policy decisions in the Middle East. Might be pretty much a wash in the general.
Oh I know it's not going to hurt her. Hillary's thralls are too brainwashed to believe anything is her fault, it's all the vast right wing conspiracy.

I'm just going to love watching either way: Hillary is nominated and loses to the Republican and the Democrat faithful lose their collective minds, or she's nominated and proceeds to start a war in the middle east. Of course to the brainwashed loons that back her, I'm sure that would be Bush's fault, but it'll be fun to watch nonetheless.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,134
13,079
136
Oh I know it's not going to hurt her. Hillary's thralls are too brainwashed to believe anything is her fault, it's all the vast right wing conspiracy.

I'm just going to love watching either way: Hillary is nominated and loses to the Republican and the Democrat faithful lose their collective minds, or she's nominated and proceeds to start a war in the middle east. Of course to the brainwashed loons that back her, I'm sure that would be Bush's fault, but it'll be fun to watch nonetheless.
The chances of anybody starting a war in the middle east that isn't already there went down tremendously with the Iran deal, something Hillary supports & something Repubs went to great lengths to try to sabotage. They're already missing one of their favorite boogeymen.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,134
13,079
136
You spend more time tearing down Republicans than building Hillary up. I guess you aren't who you say you are.
I just end up defending her against the continuous stream of innuendo & bullshit. She's far from perfect but she has a breadth & depth of qualification unmatched by any other candidate & will defend what Dems have fought hard to achieve. She's on the right side of the issues for most Dems & has a track record to prove it.

Believe what you want or read up-

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Oh I know it's not going to hurt her. Hillary's thralls are too brainwashed to believe anything is her fault, it's all the vast right wing conspiracy.

I'm just going to love watching either way: Hillary is nominated and loses to the Republican and the Democrat faithful lose their collective minds, or she's nominated and proceeds to start a war in the middle east. Of course to the brainwashed loons that back her, I'm sure that would be Bush's fault, but it'll be fun to watch nonetheless.
Bush's fault if not Reagan's fault.

The chances of anybody starting a war in the middle east that isn't already there went down tremendously with the Iran deal, something Hillary supports & something Repubs went to great lengths to try to sabotage. They're already missing one of their favorite boogeymen.
Um, if the Obama crowd is to be believed, Mrs. Clinton has already started a war - Libya.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Libya totally wasn't her fault. Bush. 9/11. Vast right wing conspiracy.

Look over there! Something shiny! *sound of hillary scurrying away*
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,134
13,079
136
Bush's fault if not Reagan's fault.


Um, if the Obama crowd is to be believed, Mrs. Clinton has already started a war - Libya.
That was already happening when we got involved, was it not?

Are we still there, or were we ever there in the same sense as Afghanistan or Iraq?
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,440
8
81
Wouldn't that actually mean she was a strong general election candidate? You don't need to do super well in Democratic strongholds because you're going to win them anyway. Someone that does better in states that aren't already locks for you is a preferable candidate.
She did very well against Bernie Sanders in South Carolina. This says little about how she'll do in the general election. There were about half as many voters in the Democrat primaries vs the Republican ones, and substantially fewer than there were in 2008.

Obama lost SC in 2012 and 2008, no way will Hillary win it in the 2016 general election so her performance against Bernie is really irrelevant for that.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,134
13,079
136
She did very well against Bernie Sanders in South Carolina. This says little about how she'll do in the general election. There were about half as many voters in the Democrat primaries vs the Republican ones, and substantially fewer than there were in 2008.

Obama lost SC in 2012 and 2008, no way will Hillary win it in the 2016 general election so her performance against Bernie is really irrelevant for that.
Yeh, the Repub base is all riled up & stupid mad at other Repubs so they gotta make a statement & tell the world they're mad by voting for Donald cuz he's mad at the same people. That's the whole deal & it won't carry him very far in the general election, if he even gets there.

You're kinda right about S Carolina but so what? It's likely indicative of N Carolina & Virginia, as well, States that a Dem might realistically win. We'll know about Virginia in the morning & N Carolina votes March 15.
 

Hugo Drax

Diamond Member
Nov 20, 2011
5,649
47
91
She did very well against Bernie Sanders in South Carolina. This says little about how she'll do in the general election. There were about half as many voters in the Democrat primaries vs the Republican ones, and substantially fewer than there were in 2008.

Obama lost SC in 2012 and 2008, no way will Hillary win it in the 2016 general election so her performance against Bernie is really irrelevant for that.
The problem with Hillary is the enthusiasm gap. The other problem is Hillary represents the same old establishment politician.

Looks like Cruz is asking Rubiobot to join him? The only way to beat Trump?
 

Exophase

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2012
4,440
8
81
Yeh, the Repub base is all riled up & stupid mad at other Repubs so they gotta make a statement & tell the world they're mad by voting for Donald cuz he's mad at the same people. That's the whole deal & it won't carry him very far in the general election, if he even gets there.

You're kinda right about S Carolina but so what? It's likely indicative of N Carolina & Virginia, as well, States that a Dem might realistically win. We'll know about Virginia in the morning & N Carolina votes March 15.
eskimospy said that Hillary doing well vs Bernie in Republican dominated states makes her a stronger general election candidate. I'm refuting that point specifically.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,134
13,079
136
eskimospy said that Hillary doing well vs Bernie in Republican dominated states makes her a stronger general election candidate. I'm refuting that point specifically.
Hillary took Virginia with a 2:1 delegate advantage over Bernie. It looks the same across much of the South. Where Bernie is winning it isn't by the same sort of margins so he'll have to do exceptionally well in later primaries to prevail.

Hildabeast? Repubs will really think so when they send out the sacrificial one, ginger or otherwise, because she'll eat 'em alive.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY