• 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 2016 |OT10| Jill Stein Inflatable Love Doll

Status
Not open for further replies.

Crisco

Banned
GA and AZ are quite winnable at the higher end of Clinton's popular vote range (+8ish).

SC I'm more skeptical about. But they wouldn't be opening up offices if their internals weren't pointing to an opportunity there.

I mean, they opened up a campaign office here in Utah too. I visited it during the opening. It was 90 degrees outside and the air conditioning didn't work. They don't see any opportunity here or in SC.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
You mean the five day snapshot that will come and go, and has already gone?

You guys are acting like they don't know what they are doing.

Guys, they know what they are doing.

She's barely outpacing Donald Trump and had a close primary encounter with an independent Jewish socialist. I'm not sure her campaign does know what they're doing. As attractive as adam might find Mook, he's not filling me with confidence.
 
I mean, they opened up a campaign office here in Utah too. I visited it during the opening. It was 90 degrees outside and the air conditioning didn't work. They don't see any opportunity here or in SC.

The reason they have an office in Utah is in case Johnson/McMullin cut into Trump's margins and they need to take advantage of that and need the infrastructure already there.
 
Also Clinton's campaign is flush with cash and probably at or near saturation point in OH, FL, NC etc. By this point there really isn't anything else the Clinton camp can do in those states other than keep it up and hope national trends are good. Might as well invest some of their excess gobs of money into flippable red states, especially states like Georgia and South Carolina that could turn blue eventually.
 
She's barely outpacing Donald Trump and had a close primary encounter with an independent Jewish socialist. I'm not sure her campaign does know what they're doing. As attractive as adam might find Mook, he's not filling me with confidence.

Oh come on close primary? It was done after South Carolina for god sakes. Sanders was never close. Clinton gpt the third highest number of primary votes in Dem history
 

shem935

Banned
Shhh let people believe she's running a great campaign. It brings comfort.

Anyway, was there really a poll with her losing by 6 points nationally? Trump probably spewing bullshit as usual.

Again lol no.

On the subject of campaign offices and ground game and you know, fucking numbers, she is the only one using them to drive a strategy.

She wouldn't open a campaign office for the fun of cutting a ribbon. It might mean they want to drive turnout for candidates in the area, or make a push for the state, or establish infrastructure for future elections, but Clinton wouldn't open an office to burn money. Your assertion is facile.

Edit: Whatever, the conversation is pointless
 
She's barely outpacing Donald Trump and had a close primary encounter with an independent Jewish socialist. I'm not sure her campaign does know what they're doing. As attractive as adam might find Mook, he's not filling me with confidence.
You're right, if only they had reserved more adspace in Ohio.
 
She's barely outpacing Donald Trump and had a close primary encounter with an independent Jewish socialist. I'm not sure her campaign does know what they're doing. As attractive as adam might find Mook, he's not filling me with confidence.

For all intents and purposes, she dominated Sanders in the primary. It wasn't close, Sanders simply extended the life of it far greater than needed and had to deal with the little monsters he created at the DNC as a result.

I don't think there is a single point in time in the GE where she hasn't been leading. She had a single bad week recently with the entire medical fiasco, and guess what, just like the email stuff, it's going to fade and her numbers will rise as Trump stagnates like always.
 
Lol no, look at who she is running against.

Yep, a campaign that is so incompetent that Hillary and all her geniuses are bleeding percentage points daily. Lets be honest for a minute here, the Dems have a massive electoral college advantage, and Hillary is likely to barely squeak by. I'm not impressed.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
She's barely outpacing Donald Trump and had a close primary encounter with an independent Jewish socialist. I'm not sure her campaign does know what they're doing. As attractive as adam might find Mook, he's not filling me with confidence.

There's no universe where the primary was close, be real.
 

Retro

Member
It's been said numerous times already, but she really should do an Obama-esque infomercial or two all about her character and her policy (nothing on Trump) on all major networks. Try to recreate that DNC magic.

Absolutely. I mean, the problem everyone (not this thread, I just mean in general) seems to have this week is that she's spent too much time attacking Trump. He's a dumpster fire, and everyone except his supporters gets that so she doesn't really need to pour gasoline on it.

I saw an official Hillary ad last night where she just ran soundbites of Republicans talking about how awful he is, but I'm fairly comfortable saying that the ones who could be swayed already know that, and that sort of thing has no effect on those already committed. The people on the fence need to hear policy and positivity, they don't need to be reminded once again how bad Trump is and they certainly don't need to be accidentally tossed into any baskets by association.
 
She's barely outpacing Donald Trump and had a close primary encounter with an independent Jewish socialist. I'm not sure her campaign does know what they're doing. As attractive as adam might find Mook, he's not filling me with confidence.

Considering you think her win over Bernie was a "close primary" maybe Daddy Mook doesn't much worry about our confidence? :)
 

SexyFish

Banned
Trump saying Clinton's bodyguards should disarm if she doesn't like guns.

"Let's see what happens."


Jesus. He's done this before I believe too.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
There's no universe where the primary was close, be real.

No, but let's do the timewarp again: it's 2014, and I tell you "an independent Jewish socialist over the age of 70 from Vermont is going to run in the Democrat primary against Clinton. What percentage of the vote do you think he'll get?"; if you try and tell me now you wouldn't have said "5%, tops", you're lying. Instead he took 40%.

If at the same time, I told you that her presidential opponent was going to be someone with heavy neo-Nazi associations who would talk about the size of his penis on a national debate stage and went bankrupt four times, and asked you how much she'd win by, you'd probably have said Goldwater margins. Instead, she's barely outpacing him.

When you step away from these races for a moment, and examine them for what they are, Clinton is doing incredibly poorly. Thankfully the quality of her opposition means that is still most likely going to end in a win.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
You mean the five day snapshot that will come and go, and has already gone?

You guys are acting like they don't know what they are doing.

Guys, they know what they are doing.

It hasn't been a "five day snapshot." Trump has been gaining and Hillary losing voters for a month now.

Plinko, officerob & Maxim has been questioning the campaign strategy.

Guys the campaign knows what is it doing. Sham, Ebay and Bigboss are right.

I don't see it. I really, really hope so, but I don't see it. No campaign that knows what they're doing plans a month like Hillary's August. Hopefully it was just a blip and today's idiotic move by Trump finally turns the media against him.
 
No, but let's do the timewarp again: it's 2014, and I tell you "an independent Jewish socialist over the age of 70 from Vermont is going to run in the Democrat primary against Clinton. What percentage of the vote do you think he'll get?"; if you try and tell me now you wouldn't have said "5%, tops", you're lying. Instead he took 40%.

If at the same time, I told you that her candidate was going to be someone with heavy neo-Nazi associations who would talk about the size of his penis on a national debate stage and went bankrupt four times, and asked you how much she'd win by, you'd probably have said Goldwater margins. Instead, she's barely outpacing him.

When you step away from these races for a moment, and examine them for what they are, Clinton is doing incredibly poorly. Thankfully the quality of her opposition means that is still most likely going to end in a win.

So if you take stuff out of context, re-contextualize it, and put it in a specific framework, it was a photo finish!
 

Debirudog

Member
Winning the biggest states that mattered in the primary is not a close race at all. But please, let's not go back to this primary bickering already.
 

thebloo

Member
How do you squander a name like Wolf Blitzer? Play aggressive, get a show called The Blitzer Round, do something.

Also, y'all crazy up in here.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Also, i don't like the continued emphasis on the word Jewish. Feels icky.

I'm emphasizing it because it is icky to a huge part of the American electorate. Are we suddenly pretending that there isn't a significant layer of anti-semitism in the American electorate that represents a significant impediment to office for any Jewish candidate?
 
No, but let's do the timewarp again: it's 2014, and I tell you "an independent Jewish socialist over the age of 70 from Vermont is going to run in the Democrat primary against Clinton. What percentage of the vote do you think he'll get?"; if you try and tell me now you wouldn't have said "5%, tops", you're lying.

hypothetical 2016 me goes back in time to 2014 and tells 2014 me that sanders is the only one other than clinton with serious campaign infrastructure, i actually would've guessed around 25% (because a more popular obama still had 11% worth of protest votes arrayed against him and clinton didn't have the advantage of incumbency)

more importantly, hypothetical 2016 me goes back in time to 2014, 2014 me will guess that clinton wins by a decently large margin
 

Cyanity

Banned
So if you take stuff out of context, re-contextualize it, and put it in a specific framework, it was a photo finish!

That wasn't what he was saying at all. He was saying that Bernie did incredibly well, considering the circumstances. Which means America is ready for actual change. I mean, it's hard to argue that this hasn't been a populist-centered presidential race so far. If Bernie had been the nominee instead of Hillary then this probably wouldn't have even been a close race. It's hard to admit, but it's true.
 
he did incredibly well

he also still lost by a lot

end of goddamn story, now let's shut the fuck up with splitting hairs about a race that ended four months ago
 
That wasn't what he was saying at all. He was saying that Bernie did incredibly well, considering the circumstances. Which means America is ready for actual change. I mean, it's hard to argue that this hasn't been a populist-centered presidential race so far. If Bernie had been the nominee instead of Hillary then this probably wouldn't have even been a close race. It's hard to admit, but it's true.

Yes, America is so ready for "change" that he failed to win the primary.

You know what, I'm not going to do this. I'm not going to mull over this shit months after we finally ended it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom