• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love how Hilldawg does not need Ohio nor Florida to win. She doesn't even need NH if she gets VA and NV.

So many paths to victory.
Well, of those tossups if she got VA and NV she'd need at least one other state to win. NH would put her exactly at 270, but CO and IA would work too.

A small part of me wants a 270-268 result for the complete meltdown on the right which would probably be more entertaining than a Hillary blowout. But I'd rather have more seats in Congress.
 

pigeon

Banned
Obama beat Romney by 12 points in Oregon in 2012, why are we considering this a likely blue state?

I mean, it's a horse race website. Every single toss-up state listed is a state Obama carried in 2012. So the analysis is starting from the assumption that the base case is that Hillary will run two points behind Obama.

Is that an accurate assumption? I mean, I guess it could be, but I'm not really convinced. The economy is stronger now than in 2012. Obama's approval ratings are maybe a point wider -- but in 2011 they were about to balloon out to -10, and he still won. Hillary does great with people of color. So why assume she'll lose two points by default against the Republican field?

And, of course, that's completely disregarding the collapsing Republican coalition and the absurd primary situation, and assuming they find a coalition candidate that everybody can vote for.
 
I mean, it's a horse race website. Every single toss-up state listed is a state Obama carried in 2012. So the analysis is starting from the assumption that the base case is that Hillary will run two points behind Obama.

Is that an accurate assumption? I mean, I guess it could be, but I'm not really convinced. The economy is stronger now than in 2012. Obama's approval ratings are maybe a point wider -- but in 2011 they were about to balloon out to -10, and he still won. Hillary does great with people of color. So why assume she'll lose two points by default against the Republican field?

And, of course, that's completely disregarding the collapsing Republican coalition and the absurd primary situation, and assuming they find a coalition candidate that everybody can vote for.
I think the base assumption is always that the presidential election will be more or less tied. All of those states were listed as tossups in 2012 even when it became increasingly obvious that Obama was going to win several of them handily with the only tough call being Florida. Sabato's final prediction even had Romney winning Virginia and Florida.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
I think the base assumption is always that the presidential election will be more or less tied. All of those states were listed as tossups in 2012 even when it became increasingly obvious that Obama was going to win several of them handily with the only tough call being Florida. Sabato's final prediction even had Romney winning Virginia and Florida.

His reason lol
It’s not very scientific, but in these three states the polling averages and our sources aren’t giving us enough to work with.

I still like his blog. He had Ohio for Obama in September 2012. He deserves some credit.

He also said this.

Iowa and Wisconsin may very well be tight, as they were in 2000 and 2004. But these states have a Democratic lean (even Michael Dukakis won them in 1988), and according to the poll averages, Obama has never trailed in either state during this campaign. Recent surveys from credible, state-level pollsters (Ann Selzer in Iowa and Charles Franklin in Wisconsin) show Obama with solid leads in both states, and these results have reinforced our inclinations.

The map is going to change guys so don't sweat on it.
 
His reason lol


I still like his blog. He had Ohio for Obama in September 2012. He deserves some credit.
I think Sabato is smart and less hack-ish than other political analysts. However I also think conventional wisdom (which pundits often turn to in absence of enough data) is often wrong, especially in more recent presidential elections as the country shifts leftward but the media has treated the Republicans as America's default party.

Obama barely won Florida so I wouldn't call anyone dumb for giving it to Romney. The polls in Virginia were clearly showing an Obama victory, but its dramatic shift left in both Obama elections caught everyone off-guard.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
I think Sabato is smart and less hack-ish than other political analysts. However I also think conventional wisdom (which pundits often turn to in absence of enough data) is often wrong, especially in more recent presidential elections as the country shifts leftward but the media has treated the Republicans as America's default party.

Obama barely won Florida so I wouldn't call anyone dumb for giving it to Romney. The polls in Virginia were clearly showing an Obama victory, but its dramatic shift left in both Obama elections caught everyone off-guard.

In their defense they can't state something as fact and not back it up with numbers considering they are "analyst" and "neutral". You and I believe that NH is a Lean Democratic state and that Hillary will ultimately win it despite whatever both sides and operatives say from now until November 2016. Larry Sabato can't say that and instead goes off data and numbers. Hillary "could" win NH because of x, y, and z.
 

benjipwns

Banned
15 months out, Nevada isn't looking like much of a true swing state.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 3, 2011
Raleigh, N.C. – Three months ago, things were looking pretty grim for President Obama in Nevada. It was then one of the first swing states he won last time in which he trailed one of his potential Republican opponents, down 46-43 to Mitt Romney. In a state he won by 12 points in 2008, Obama has begun to turn things back around, now leading Romney by a point and four others tested against him by nine to 12.

The entire movement in Obama’s approval rating, from 45% approving and 52% disapproving to 47-50 now, has come with independents. Democrats remain at a weak 79-17 and Republicans at 7-89. The president’s standing here is in league with that in other swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Arizona, where Romney has been either slightly ahead or behind in recent months.

Despite ceding a little ground to the president, Romney is still by far the GOP’s most electable candidate. His 47-46 defict is leagues better than Rick Perry’s 49-40, Herman Cain’s 48-39, Michele Bachmann’s 50-40, or Sarah Palin’s 51-39. Of these, only Romney and Palin were polled previously. Palin trailed by a similar 50-39 margin then.

Romney is the only Republican to win the independent vote, 49-44. Obama leads with this group by 10 over Perry, 13 over Cain, and 20 against each Bachmann and Palin. Along with Cain, Romney is also one of only two who earns more Democratic votes than the president does Republicans. The silver lining for the Republicans is that more of the GOP is undecided than are Democrats, meaning things will likely get closer once the party settles on a nominee.

“What our polling shows in Nevada is what we’re starting to see in most swing states right now- if the GOP nominates Mitt Romney it has a very good chance and if it nominations anyone else Obama probably gets reelected,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling.
 
In their defense they can't state something as fact and not back it up with numbers considering they are "analyst" and "neutral". You and I believe that NH is a Lean Democratic state and that Hillary will ultimately win it despite whatever both sides and operatives say from now until November 2016. Larry Sabato can't say that and instead goes off data and numbers. Hillary "could" win NH because of x, y, and z.
Sure.

I mean if I were being completely honest I'd only say Hillary will probably win the presidential election with the map being similar to 2012 (CO, IA and VA having small Dem tilts and OH/FL being close as ever) and the Democrats have a good chance of winning the Senate but it's not a slam dunk or even close to being one. Though I will say Mark Kirk's rather um, unhinged comments lately are going to sink him and that Feingold is probably coming back. The rest are tossups at best.

As the election gets closer, if things look the same as they do now I imagine some pundits like Sabato will start weighing things towards Hillary. While some will still pretend it's a dead heat and it's anyone's game because ratings and fuck you, Nate Silver!
 
http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/sarah-palin-subscription-web-channel-offline-article-1.2284885

JUNEAU, Alaska — Sarah Palin's foray into a subscriber-based online channel, where she could connect directly to viewers without a media filter, is shutting down.

The Sarah Palin Channel launched last July, with membership rates of $9.95 a month or $99.95 annually. Starting Aug. 1, Palin says she's making her content free on Facebook and her political action committee website.
3fBRJFm.jpg
 

HylianTom

Banned
I haven't been looking at Nate Silver lately. Or Sam Wang, for that matter. If both of them have moved to other material or devolved into Blitzeresque "dead heat" hacks, I hope someone else steps up to fill the void.
 

pigeon

Banned
I haven't been looking at Nate Silver lately. Or Sam Wang, for that matter. If both of them have moved to other material or devolved into Blitzeresque "dead heat" hacks, I hope someone else steps up to fill the void.

I'm sure they'll tune back in when the Presidential race really starts. 538 has regular political articles and they're tracking endorsements in the GOP nomination race, but no heavy coverage yet because there just aren't enough (or meaningful enough) polls yet.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
I haven't been looking at Nate Silver lately. Or Sam Wang, for that matter. If both of them have moved to other material or devolved into Blitzeresque "dead heat" hacks, I hope someone else steps up to fill the void.

Nate Silver was right last time. He got every state right.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I haven't been looking at Nate Silver lately. Or Sam Wang, for that matter. If both of them have moved to other material or devolved into Blitzeresque "dead heat" hacks, I hope someone else steps up to fill the void.

They aren't worth looking at until we start getting real numbers, which won't happen until the race gets real and we close in on the first states.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Steve Smicht was so salty that night. He was crushed."George H W Bush got over 60% of the white vote in 1988, it got him 400+ electoral votes". "Last election a Republican can win with these numbers" "soul searching". What a bunch of crap. They still haven't learned their lesson. Another thrashing by Hillary wont help them either.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Steve Smicht was so salty that night. He was crushed."George H W Bush got over 60% of the white vote in 1988, it got him 400+ electoral votes". "Last election a Republican can win with these numbers" "soul searching". What a bunch of crap. They still havent learned their lesson. Another thrashing by Hillary wont do it I bet.

This is getting me so hyped for 2016.

Just got to Claire McCaskill's daughter and her weird Chloe Sevigny hair and one blue sleeve. #Bleaséd

EDIT: lol, Chris Matthews talking about how Donald Trump was saying racist things in 2012. Beautiful.
 

benjipwns

Banned
FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver and I have been tinkering with a PECOTA-style similarity system for basketball players (tentatively codenamed “CARMELO”)
To help model this and other matters of NBA interest, FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver and I have been skunkworking a little model around here that will (theoretically, hopefully, god-willing) begin to do for basketball what PECOTA did for baseball. Using a player’s advanced metrics4 and his statistical tendencies, it can project a player’s development into the future by comparing him to similar players from the past. We call it CARMELO.5

Using the beta version of CARMELO to analyze this summer’s free-agent signings
Career Arc Regression Model Estimator (with) Local Optimization.
yesssss
 

NeoXChaos

Member
This is getting me so hyped for 2016.

Just got to Claire McCaskill's daughter and her weird Chloe Sevigny hair and one blue sleeve. #Bleaséd

EDIT: lol, Chris Matthews talking about how Donald Trump was saying racist things in 2012. Beautiful.

Looking back it was so predictable and kinda boring. When 40 states are easy calls the suspense is kinda limited. IF Hillary wins, it would be something I would have told you was happening 4 years earlier. Heck an article on Bush and Clinton came out 2 days after the election predicting a Bush Vs Clinton race essentially. Our politics can get so predictable which is why the McCaskill Donnelly and your girl Heitkamp race was fun to see win. 2 of them were supposed to be doomed pre-August 2012. It was so good to see now carpetbagger Scott Brown lose to Warren and Shaheen.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Also, if you want to relive the entire 2012 election night via MSNBC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRodqexUv84&list=PLsMwJ8P2Rs2gDBPnavv9I4Uu7V6cbYkvT

EDIT: lol when Sherrod Brown gets reelected Chris Matthews does a giddy gasp.

Elizabeth Warren, Chris Matthews: "wow."

I watch that sometimes when I'm falling asleep, I'd say about every 4 months or so. A surprisingly fun night of television, and the things they bring-up through the broadcast about the GOP's woes are downright haunting.

I'm tempted to catalogue some of the GOP-related suggestions so that I can see if the same things are said on the night of November 8th next year.

(and you're right - I love the faux-dramatic gasps when certain races are called throughout the night.)
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Looking back it was so predictable and kinda boring. When 40 states are easy calls the suspense is kinda limited. IF Hillary wins, it would be something I would have told you was happening 4 years earlier. Heck an article on Bush and Clinton came out 2 days after the election predicting a Bush Vs Clinton race essentially. Our politics can get so predictable which is why the McCaskill Donnelly and America's champion Heitkamp race was fun to see win. 2 of them were supposed to be doomed pre-August 2012. It was so good to see now carpetbagger Scott Brown lose to Warren and Shaheen.

fixed
 

NeoXChaos

Member
I watch that sometimes when I'm falling asleep, I'd say about every 4 months or so. A surprisingly fun night of television, and the things they bring-up through the broadcast about the GOP's woes are downright haunting.

I'm tempted to catalogue some of the GOP-related suggestions so that I can see if the same things are said on the night of November 8th next year.

(and you're right - I love the faux-dramatic gasps when certain races are called throughout the night.)

Don't forget Karl Rove and Ohio

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TwuR0jCavk

and this lovely gif. Do we know who did this? was it a GAF member? I hope he does it again next year if things go our way.

200_s.gif
 
I've seen this movie before
Hillary Clinton spends $19M during first three months of presidential campaign

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton spent a whopping $19 million in her first three months as a candidate, a sign she's investing heavily in building out a huge campaign organization.

That leaves Clinton with just under $29 million cash on hand, more than any other candidate's direct campaign, after raising almost $48 million in total with all the checks counted. All but $1 million of that money is earmarked for the primary.

"Thanks to the more than 250,000 Americans who have stepped up to support Hillary Clinton's campaign, we have had the ability to make critical investments in our organization that will put us in position to win the primary and the White House," said campaign manager Robby Mook in a statement.

Clinton's high burn rate was a problem for her in 2008, when she spent heavily early on in the campaign on high salaries and unnecessary expenses. Her team insists that this time around the money is being put to better use in ways that will help her down the line: heavy investments in building a big digital presence and strong ground game. The Clinton campaign made big investments in analytical teams, technology and field, according to a campaign spokesman.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...pends-19m-3-months-campaign-article-1.2293695
 

benjipwns

Banned
Nate Silver was right last time. He got every state right.
I got 49 out of 50 states right in a post made in March somewhere. Florida was the only one I missed.

And I didn't need some overly complicated model to do it. Just the RCP averages and having had looked at independents in polls.

There's essentially zero suspense to be had now because everyone realized in 2000 that stopping polling the week before the election doesn't make any fucking sense.

Plus now with averages like RCP/Silver/Pollster/UnskewedPolls/etc. their scripts automatically update the trends so you can know borderline instantly if something wonky is happening in a state. Pat Caddell's argued that basically what you can get on RCP is what they paid big bucks for in 1980, and it was him tracking independents that made him realize it was a Reagan landslide when everyone else thought the election was going to be tight because of how they were (or weren't for that matter and era) weighting the polls.

Unless you don't poll it because it's Virginia's Senate race and only Dana Perino knows the truth.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Nate_Silver_538 > Cleveland_Steamer
11/14/12 2:42pm
In middle school, I once put down a bunch of fake/wrong answers on a math test since I knew that people were peeking.

By my senior year in college, however, I was reasonably burned out so it was buyer beware if anyone was trying to cheat.
Nate_Silver_538 > mastervinnie
11/14/12 2:51pm
Some people have apologized on Twitter, etc. But in general, I think apologies are overrated. If you change your behavior going forward, that's a lot more meaningful than an apology. And if you don't, an apology is an insincere gesture.
Nate_Silver_538 > JoeSchmoBoBo
11/14/12 3:10pm
Well, there's always the chance that you've specified the model incorrectly. But I think about these things really, really carefully, and probably err on the side of making somewhat conservative choices about the degree of uncertainty that we allow for.
I feel so informed. And like I know the man and his madness personally.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Looking back it was so predictable and kinda boring. When 40 states are easy calls the suspense is kinda limited. IF Hillary wins, it would be something I would have told you was happening 4 years earlier. Heck an article on Bush and Clinton came out 2 days after the election predicting a Bush Vs Clinton race essentially. Our politics can get so predictable which is why the McCaskill Donnelly and your girl Heitkamp race was fun to see win. 2 of them were supposed to be doomed pre-August 2012. It was so good to see now carpetbagger Scott Brown lose to Warren and Shaheen.

It was still a nervous night for me. 2008 was obvious but 2012 still had a slight possibility the polls were skewed towards the Democrats. 2014 justified those worries too, after those polls ended up favoring Democrats by 4 points on average.
 

benjipwns

Banned
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/247920-sanders-rains-on-hillarys-parade
The Vermont independent, who’s challenging Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary next year, hijacked a set of microphones — usually reserved for Senate leaders — after leaving a private meeting between the former secretary of State and Senate Democrats in the Capitol Tuesday afternoon.

He then used the impromptu press conference to question Clinton’s populist bona fides on a range of issues, including trade policy, the Iraq War, regulating big banks and tackling climate change.

“Secretary Clinton and I disagree on a number of issues,” he said to a mob of reporters.

On trade, Sanders said three decades of deals — including the North American Free Trade Agreement signed by former President Clinton — “have been disastrous for American workers.”

“Secretary Clinton, I believe, has a different view on that issue,” he said.

On climate change, Sanders noted his staunch opposition to the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which will transport “some of the dirtiest fuel on this planet.”

“I think Secretary Clinton has not been clear on her views on that issue,” he said.

And on the economy, Sanders is pushing a policy package featuring a $15 minimum wage and $1 trillion in infrastructure spending.

“I think the secretary has not been quite so clear on those issues,” he charged.

Elsewhere in the Capitol, Clinton’s reception was much friendlier. The former New York senator met with the full House Democratic Caucus, which received her with wild cheers and shrieking whistles, and held separate audiences with the Black, Hispanic, Asian Pacific American and Progressive caucuses, all of which embraced her visit with open arms.

Indeed, whatever liberal angst there is over Clinton outside the Beltway, it was nowhere to be seen in the House on Tuesday.

“I think some of the progressive issues and members have been kind of crying in the wilderness for awhile, and now those issues like climate change, like income inequality, jobs agenda, they’re resonating with the public. And I think that Hillary understands that,” said Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), another CPC member, emphasized that it’s “too soon to actually rate a person.”

“But,” she added, “I think she’s doing a phenomenal job in terms of putting the issues out in a way where people understand ... the fact that there are millions of people who are fighting and working to get into the middle class who are living in poverty, and they deserve a policy agenda that’s going to lift them up.

“That’s a big issue, and she’s talked about that in a very bold way.”

...

“We talked about the need for Asian Americans to be included in presidential appointments,” Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, said after the meeting with Clinton. “Right now, there are no APIs [Asian Pacific Islanders] in the Cabinet. There is no API that is a Supreme Court justice. We talked about the pipeline that leads to those kinds of positions and the need for inclusion there as well.”

...

The Democrats did not appear to press Clinton on some of the topics mentioned by Sanders in his public comments. Neither trade nor Keystone were mentioned in the Progressive Caucus meeting, according to Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.). And although Clinton told the lawmakers she’s committed to hiking the minimum wage, they didn’t push her on the $15 rate they’re championing.

“We didn’t get into specifics about a number,” said Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.).

Clinton’s policy tour was about building relationships as well. President Obama’s outreach to Congress has long been a bone of contention for many Democrats who think he hasn’t done nearly enough to communicate with his allies on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), a Clinton supporter, said a part of her barnstorming effort was to send an early message that she would manage the White House differently.

“Coming so early in the campaign cycle to the House Democratic Caucus is a very smart move on her part and absolutely says, ‘I want to build partnerships,’ ” Connolly said. “And she said that: ‘I want to partner with you. That’s why I’m here, and if I haven’t earned your support, I hope to do so and will make every effort to do so. But we’re going to work together.’ ”

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who heads the Progressive Caucus with Grijalva, echoed that message.

“Even people who are your friends want to feel the friendship every now and again,” he said. “And so to show up and take questions and just sort of spend some time is indicating that, ‘I value you, I think you’re important, I care about what you say.’ ”

Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.) was not so circumspect.

“I’m ready for Hillary, baby!” he said.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery

This is just too stunning to me. How the fuck do you fuck up what amounts to the easiest racket in the history of scamming? She had a bunch of ardent followers, who would give away their life savings for her, and all she had to do was create the lowest of low effort videos, no more than maybe one per week, and somehow, that was still too much for her.

This is more shocking than hilarious to me. But this just goes to show that there is literally nothing this dimwitted woman can't mess up.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Grabbing a years worth of subscriptions and then bailing out seems like a better racket to me.

Source: Everything that was selling lifetime subscriptions that then went F2P, like Star Trek Online.
 
This is just too stunning to me. How the fuck do you fuck up what amounts to the easiest racket in the history of scamming? She had a bunch of ardent followers, who would give away their life savings for her, and all she had to do was create the lowest of low effort videos, no more than maybe one per week, and somehow, that was still too much for her.

This is more shocking than hilarious to me. But this just goes to show that there is literally nothing this dimwitted woman can't mess up.

Lolz not going to lie, since you quoted Hilary in the pic I thought you you were talking about her! And I was like "holy shi she must have done something horrible"
 
It was still a nervous night for me. 2008 was obvious but 2012 still had a slight possibility the polls were skewed towards the Democrats. 2014 justified those worries too, after those polls ended up favoring Democrats by 4 points on average.
I was confident about 2012, but I won't deny there's a little Diablos in my head telling me to run around screaming before every election.

2014 I actually took with more of a "Well, that sucks!" because things went south so fast it was almost comical. Warner hanging on after dominating the polls becoming a highlight of the night, Brownback and Scott holding on. It also helped that I was out and about so I didn't get to obsessively follow results as much as I did in 08, 10 and 12.
 
2008 was pretty obvious after the financial crash. 2012 seemed like a forgone conclusion from the beginning; it was a "barring some major event/discovery, the incumbent wins" type election; which BTW is really why republicans went insane over Benghazi. Romney made some gains after the first debate but it wasn't enough, and he quickly squandered it by losing the next two debates.

I still don't understand the logic/gameplan behind his last debate performance. Did his camp think he was so far ahead that he could just nod and agree with Obama for the entire debate? The passivity made no sense. I remember Fox News trying their hardest to spin it ("he was acting presidential while Obama acted like a desperate child!") but no one was buying it. Even conservatives were pissed.
 

benjipwns

Banned
2008 was lost definitively when Johm McCain, after two years of touting his experience, calm and wise decision making, etc. spent two weeks going OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE, CANCEL THE DEBATES, WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO WASHINGTON, ME AND OBAMA HAVE TO SIT IN ON EVERY SINGLE MEETING, WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHINGGGGGG NO DEBATES ITS A CRISISSSSSSS OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGG LET ME FLY AIR FORCE ONE I CAN CRASH IT QUICKER THAN WALL STREET* while Obama kept his cool and didn't shove himself into the story more than a Senator with less than four years experience should.

*exact quote
 

NeoXChaos

Member
I cant believe after all of that we will be stuck with him for another six years barring a surprise defeat. He is 80 for what its worth on election day and Grassley will be 83. They are going to be lifers.
 

benjipwns

Banned
It was way back in May but he wasn't exactly crushing the competition: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_AZ_50515.pdf
He gets narrowly positive reviews from both 'somewhat conservative' (51/37) and moderate (50/44) Republicans. But among those who identify themselves as 'very conservative,' just 21% approve of the job McCain is doing to 71% who disapprove.

The good news for McCain is that he does lead all the prospective primary challengers we tested against him in head to head match ups, although some of them would clearly start out as toss ups. McCain leads David Schweikert 40/39, Matt Salmon 42/40, Kelli Ward 44/31, and Christine Jones 48/27.
 
2008 was lost definitively when Johm McCain, after two years of touting his experience, calm and wise decision making, etc. spent two weeks going OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE, CANCEL THE DEBATES, WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO WASHINGTON, ME AND OBAMA HAVE TO SIT IN ON EVERY SINGLE MEETING, WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHINGGGGGG NO DEBATES ITS A CRISISSSSSSS OMGGGGGGGGGGGGGG LET ME FLY AIR FORCE ONE I CAN CRASH IT QUICKER THAN WALL STREET* while Obama kept his cool and didn't shove himself into the story more than a Senator with less than four years experience should.

*exact quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1XQh1nX4yU&t=2m55s

Game set match.

What a shame so many people have failed to heed Obama's position. If you're an adult you should be able to do two things at once. If only #BlackLivesMatter extremists could discuss police brutality and black crime at the same time, for instance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom