User 463088
Banned
So Hillary must be feeling good about Arizona. They emailed my fiance personally to ask him for money.
I'm not allowed to give anymore
-
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 |OT13| For Queen and Country
- Thread starter aspiegamer
- Start date
- Status
Not by that point in the show she wasn't.
whyamihere
Banned
Insane. Do you have a link to this?
It's part of this story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/u...ll-clinton.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur
RustyNails
Member
@yottapoint guy went off on a tweetstorm again, this time debunking the EMAILZSZZSZ nontroversy. Few tweets
Read the whole thing.
whyamihere
Banned
Carpe Carnim
Member
This is Bannon and Bossie laying groundwork for a series of "investigative reports" that will have a book tie-in. I am sure Regenery Press has contracts ready to sign Nov. 9 at midnight.
It's all a scam to fleece the outraged marks over the next 4+ years. Drudge built an Empire of Slime off rumors of a Blue Dress. They figure they can do better with less.
sunshine and gasoline
Banned
Probably. He's likely going to go absolutely wild for this last debate to pump up his supporters.
RustyNails
Member
Box of Kittens
Banned
I agree, but really this is saying that Utah is meaningless to the outcome. Which is true. If one wishes to vote McMuffin in hopes of simply embarrassing Trump I think that's fine, with the caveat that I'd still wait and see what the situation looks like as we approach election day. It's just that people have argued for voting McMuffin on the basis that there's a strategic value to denying Trump electoral votes when there isn't. There are basically two categories of votes: Clinton and not-Clinton.
I do find it amusing that, of all people, McMuffin could very well be the first third-party candidate in 48 years to carry a state. Hardly anybody has heard of him, he's rarely discussed outside of places like PoliGAF (even the John Oliver segment on third-party candidates didn't even mention him), and yet he has a legit shot at pulling it off. Perot couldn't. Anderson couldn't. Nader couldn't. For all the attention they get, Stein and Johnson aren't close to doing it. But this guy might.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
At the time of the election, she was the most qualified, living politician to run for the office.
Isn't he Mormon? That's why.
Atomic Playboy
Member
There is literally no scenario in which Hillary wins the election by the virtue of Utah's electoral votes. If she can't hit 270 without Utah, she's not hitting 270 period, and a vote for McMullin changes nothing. If she's competitive in Utah, it's because she's blowing Trump out on the National stage, so Utah's electoral votes are the difference between winning by 172 or 178. You guys are spending way too much effort worrying about a third-party spoiler in Utah while forgetting that Hillary has never, ever been projected to win those votes, and she's still safely past 270 in almost every scenario. If it were something like Florida then I could see the concern, but McMullin is not going to be responsible for no one winning a majority of the Electoral College.
RE: Responses on the last page about McMullin in Utah...
I am certainly not voting for McMullin for any "strategic" reasons as one poster may have suggested. I have no hardline party affiliation. I recognize Utah's fairly inconsequential position in the electoral math, especially considering its history as a solid red state. (as well as Hillary's current standing in the polls, the electoral map in general, and her chances of winning) I also am drawn to a principled, conservative candidate that is distanced from the horrible baggage of the Republican party. (though there are, of course, a few areas I disagree with him on... this is politics after all) Finally, I do recognize that this is in many ways a "protest vote" – however, this protest vote comes in a state that has the highest chance of going 3rd party in decades, with the opportunity to send a message, albeit likely and ultimately inconsequential, about the choices offered in this election and the future of many conservative principles that have been hijacked by a truly dangerous candidate. (this certainly won't be the last time we see McMullin, in my opinion) That opportunity is exciting to me, and is why I feel more comfortable putting my name behind a 3rd party candidate in Utah as opposed to another state in which their odds would be even longer. (or the chances of spoiling would be higher)
I would also love to see Utah go not-Red as a big middle finger to Trump.
At the end of the day, it's a choice I have put a lot of thought into over the past few weeks and is something that I am energized about – something I was not expecting earlier in the year.
I am certainly not voting for McMullin for any "strategic" reasons as one poster may have suggested. I have no hardline party affiliation. I recognize Utah's fairly inconsequential position in the electoral math, especially considering its history as a solid red state. (as well as Hillary's current standing in the polls, the electoral map in general, and her chances of winning) I also am drawn to a principled, conservative candidate that is distanced from the horrible baggage of the Republican party. (though there are, of course, a few areas I disagree with him on... this is politics after all) Finally, I do recognize that this is in many ways a "protest vote" – however, this protest vote comes in a state that has the highest chance of going 3rd party in decades, with the opportunity to send a message, albeit likely and ultimately inconsequential, about the choices offered in this election and the future of many conservative principles that have been hijacked by a truly dangerous candidate. (this certainly won't be the last time we see McMullin, in my opinion) That opportunity is exciting to me, and is why I feel more comfortable putting my name behind a 3rd party candidate in Utah as opposed to another state in which their odds would be even longer. (or the chances of spoiling would be higher)
I would also love to see Utah go not-Red as a big middle finger to Trump.
At the end of the day, it's a choice I have put a lot of thought into over the past few weeks and is something that I am energized about – something I was not expecting earlier in the year.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Yeah I think Trump would start some sort of media arm, and would try to run again in four years if Hillary. The goal would be to have a network solely dedicated to attacking Hillary and also other people in the Republican party, to prepare the field for 2020.
GoldenEye 007
Member
Hillary and the Clintons have been attacked for decades now. Not sure what another four years will do, unless she just is a terrible president on the merits. But a Trump news network wouldn't be required to point that out I guess.
whyamihere
Banned
It's a brutal endorsement for Rubio.
Box of Kittens
Banned
Also, Trump performs exceptionally poorly among Mormons for a Republican candidate.
I don't think he wants to run again. It's not where the big bucks are and what's the point of elections are rigged? I think it's interesting that Trump might start a Good Ol' Boys Network while Fox News will be targeting the Megyn Kelly and Shep Smith Conservatives.
Oh yeah, they hate him.
Box of Kittens
Banned
I don't think anybody is concerned that he'll play spoiler and cost Clinton the election. I'm just saying he won't cost Trump the election either. One may have any number of reasons to vote for him (including genuinely supporting the guy) but it's not really in the realm of a strategic vote.
Yep, this is also important to keep in mind. Utah was Trump's worst state, I think he only netted like
* Kasich got 17%.
Androidsleeps
Member
Do you guys think Trump TV will have like a daily segment dedicated to attack Rosie O'Donnell?
Aaron Strife
Banned
She'll get her own show
brianmcdoogle
Member
It'll be a two minute segment every day.
whyamihere
Banned
Okay, I respect this a lot then.
Fox News attacked Obama and the Democrats for the last 8 years and it didn't stop Obama from being elected then re-elected, though probably at least helped get conservatives out to vote for the midterms. Not to mention Fox News turned to attacking Hillary Clinton as soon as the second the 2008 election was done, and she is still winning at this point.
Setting up a media outlet to attack Hillary, by extension the Democrats, AND Republicans doesn't give you much space to build a platform nor many demographics you aren't slamming on a regular basis. It wouldn't lay the groundwork for a successful candidacy.
All you'd have is a rabid fanbase is a strong bubble you can sell a lot of pharmaceuticals, gold, merchandise and book to. You could milk that for years*.
* assuming you could get enough mainstream advertisers not scared of the association to make it sustainable in the first place.
whyamihere
Banned
Part of me still can't believe we're doing this debate tomorrow.
metalslimer
Member
I don't see what new audience Trump tv opens up that Fox News doesn't reach. I mean maybe during the primaries there was tension but they've been shilling as hard as possible for Trump since he got the nomination.
He would have to secure a lot of talent and I don't know where he is getting the money to pull this off.
The young Breitbart readers don't watch cable anyway.
He would have to secure a lot of talent and I don't know where he is getting the money to pull this off.
The young Breitbart readers don't watch cable anyway.
Box of Kittens
Banned
As a side note, the last presidential electoral vote cast for anybody other than the major party candidates for president was for John Ewards [sic].
In before people don't realize there was another John Edwards.
It'll be O'Reilly's Pinhead segment to end every show.
I'm still not entirely buying the idea Trump is going to show up to this thing. I won't believe it until he's out on the stage and answering questions.
Carpe Carnim
Member
I think it's equal parts business and revenge. Ailes got his pay-out, but his legacy won't be building the #1 cable news network, it'll be as a lecherous douche who was shit-canned by Murdoch's less ideological kid. The lesser Murdoch now has something better than a job, he's got a rep as a stone-cold giant killer. That means a lot in the media business.
Bannon just wants to watch the world burn and suck up a ton of cash, so he can laugh on the ash-pile. The Trumps just see it as another opportunity to slap their name on something using other people's money
As dumb as Trump is, I don't think he'd try to run again. That would be such a massive invitation for failure and to look like a major loser. His ego can't take it, and neither could his bank account. He'll be happy to portray himself as a victim of rigging and try to profit from his base's persecution complex.
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
Consider what has happen so far, I can.
That's a solid take down of Rubio over his political opportunism. They summed up the race nicely: Murphy is untested and basically a standard Democrat while Rubio is charismatic, but entirely politically craven and is failing on the greatest test of character in this election. If this really is a change election (lol), why not go with the new guy over the old sack of shit?
Anyways, kudos to the herald for making the right choice.
Glad I could lay it out for you!
He's going. He didn't get Pat Smith and Barry-O's half brother to come for nothing.
Fenderputty
Banned
The Senate model since the first debate is striking. Also, this is pre-Bayh +6 poll to be added.
Wang and God Nate aren't quite as optimistic unfortunately ... I'm trying not to pick and choose my models so I'm still kinda nervous about the senate
How do you guys think Chris Wallace will spin this debate? Fairly or make it a tough minefield?
The American people who have to remember Wayne Newton exists.
Apparently he will also sing at Trump's inauguration, so we have that to look forward to.
The American people who have to remember Wayne Newton exists.
Apparently he will also sing at Trump's inauguration, so we have that to look forward to.
theprodigy
Member
BlastProcessing
Member
I am honestly shocked that Wayne Newton is still with us.
Unleash the Manilow!
Seems like it's just for emotional support?
What does inviting Barack Obama's half-brother do? It seems like it's a case of Trump thinking "If I were Hillary, this would annoy me", right?
I don't know if it was a tweet I read or a post in this thread, but I'm no longer afraid of the prospect of Trump TV. To believe it's going to be successful is to ignore how difficult it is to break a new television network, and how Donald Trump is an utter failure of a businessman.
I mean, look at OWN. Its taken 5 years from OWN to go from being a borderline failure to a minor success, and that's as a tiny cable network. And OWN is backed by fucking Oprah -- billionaire and household name with millions of fans and decades worth of television experience. And a name good enough that all Oprah has to do is snap her fingers to get major sponsors.
What company is going to want to sponsor anything with the Trump stain at this point, with its openly racist audience? Who will be the minds behind it? Ailes, yeah...but Ailes alone can't launch a successful network from the ground up. Kushner? He's print. Bannon? LOL. Is Trump going to be able to hold out in the initial slow years when viewership is pathetic and the world is shitting on it daily. His ego won't be able to take
No wonder FOX isn't taking this seriously, the whole idea is a joke.
I mean, look at OWN. Its taken 5 years from OWN to go from being a borderline failure to a minor success, and that's as a tiny cable network. And OWN is backed by fucking Oprah -- billionaire and household name with millions of fans and decades worth of television experience. And a name good enough that all Oprah has to do is snap her fingers to get major sponsors.
What company is going to want to sponsor anything with the Trump stain at this point, with its openly racist audience? Who will be the minds behind it? Ailes, yeah...but Ailes alone can't launch a successful network from the ground up. Kushner? He's print. Bannon? LOL. Is Trump going to be able to hold out in the initial slow years when viewership is pathetic and the world is shitting on it daily. His ego won't be able to take
No wonder FOX isn't taking this seriously, the whole idea is a joke.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked