• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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.
werepossum said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BoberFett said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
BoberFett said:
You spend more time tearing down Republicans than building Hillary up. I guess you aren't who you say you are.
Click to expand...

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/
 
BoberFett said:
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.
Click to expand...
Bush's fault if not Reagan's fault.

Jhhnn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Um, if the Obama crowd is to be believed, Mrs. Clinton has already started a war - Libya.
 
Libya totally wasn't her fault. Bush. 9/11. Vast right wing conspiracy.

Look over there! Something shiny! *sound of hillary scurrying away*
 
werepossum said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
eskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Exophase said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Exophase said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Jhhnn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Exophase said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top