• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Hillary Clinton officially launches presidential campaign

Status
Not open for further replies.
water_wendi said:
When i went to get dinner i turned on talk radio. Some guy ive never heard of (during his intro it said "Constitution in one hand, bible in the other") was going on how Hillary was a "Luciferion."

This is election is gonna be something.
Click to expand...

mDNF29m.jpg


luciferion looks awesome
 
Jeb could take Florida, lots of people around here like him and think he did a good job here and the fact he can speak Spanish will gather a few votes. I was told many times, no way Rick Scott wins again, and we saw what happen. Just hope people come out to vote for Hillary like they did for Obama.
 
Keep in mind Virginia's vote mirrored the national vote in 2012.

National:
Obama: 51.1%
Romney: 47.2%

Virginia:
Obama: 51.16%
Romney: 47.28%

Maybe the D.C. metro area has grown more in 4 years, but what's that worth, 1%? Virginia was only 1% less red than the national vote in 2012 as opposed to 2008, so I wouldn't hope for much more.
 
statham said:
Jeb could take Florida, lots of people around here like him and think he did a good job here and the fact he can speak Spanish will gather a few votes. I was told many times, no way Rick Scott wins again, and we saw what happen. Just hope people come out to vote for Hillary like they did for Obama.
Click to expand...

I think both VP picks will be attempts to gain ground in Florida. Jeb absolutely needs the state, Hillary can underperform like crazy in other states if she still picks up Florida.

So get ready for Clinton/Castro v. Bush/Rubio in 2016.

benjipwns said:
Let's see you get Bill Clinton re-elected in 1996 against Bob Dole.

That's what I thought.
Click to expand...

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
 
Trouble said:
I think both VP picks will be attempts to gain ground in Florida. Jeb absolutely needs the state, Hillary can underperform like crazy in other states if she still picks up Florida.

So get ready for Clinton/Castro v. Bush/Rubio in 2016.



Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Click to expand...
Bush can't pick Rubio. Can't have running mate from the same state
 
Trouble said:
Bush/Rubio
Click to expand...
Electors can't vote for two candidates from the same state. So Jeb would have to move before getting on all the ballots.

Trouble said:
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Click to expand...
Dick Morris, before he reconverted to the GOP after his little foot fetish scandal, actually wrote a semi-decent "update" of The Prince for modern politics. All the rest of his books his wife writes about how Democrats and especially Clintons are evil, so they aren't as interesting.
 
benjipwns said:
Electors can't vote for two candidates from the same state. So Jeb would have to move before getting on all the ballots.
Click to expand...

Oh shit, yeah. I forgot about that. VP Walker it is.

It's kind of a nonsense rule now since second place doesn't become VP any more.
 
Trouble said:
Oh shit, yeah. I forgot about that. VP Walker it is.

It's kind of a nonsense rule now since second place doesn't become VP any more.
Click to expand...
Originally the rule was out of fear that you'd have like New York just vote for some New York dudes and Mass for just Mass dudes and so on. So no candidate would get a majority.

The runner-up thing was supposed to double-up on this by making the elector think about the fact they might be choosing two Presidents. (And thus prevent a deadlock for VP, even if there was none for President.)

The modern party system makes it a nonsense rule more than anything, you probably actually could do it now since the electors vote after the actual election and are chosen by the party. So the problems Hamilton had in getting the electors to cast their ballots properly for his desired outcome wouldn't be an issue.

For example, if we take the 2012 outcome, Obama gets 332 electoral votes and wants Dick Durban as VP, all of Illinois's 20 electors can vote for Biden or somebody else, and Durban still wins if the rest of the electors vote for him because 292 > anyone else.
 
Trouble said:
It could happen!

etBFYtZ.jpg
Click to expand...

Man they were giving them to people on election night too back in 2012:

rXq8AVo.png
Click to expand...

Q3LW6Nw.gif


Shit had me weak when they had the black and white ones, and they were handing them out to the kids on election night with red and blue crayons, having them color in Roves "predictions". /dead

I swear I cannot wait for 2016.
 
benjipwns said:
Electors can't vote for two candidates from the same state. So Jeb would have to move before getting on all the ballots.


Dick Morris, before he reconverted to the GOP after his little foot fetish scandal, actually wrote a semi-decent "update" of The Prince for modern politics. All the rest of his books his wife writes about how Democrats and especially Clintons are evil, so they aren't as interesting.
Click to expand...

I believe its only electors from that state. So Floridan voters can't vote for two Floridians. But texan electors could vote for both. So if we had two new hampshire candidates or alaskans there'd be no trouble because their vote is so small. But when you get in to 29 electoral votes its big deal.

Its still defeats the purpose of putting him on the ticket. Still confused on why rubio wants to run.
 
APKmetsfan said:
I believe its only electors from that state. So Floridan voters can't vote for two Floridians. But texan electors could vote for both. So if we had two new hampshire candidates or alaskans there'd be no trouble because their vote is so small. But when you get in to 29 electoral votes its big deal.

Its still defeats the purpose of putting him on the ticket. Still confused on why rubio wants to run.
Click to expand...
You're correct and should have moved on from this technicality to my later post where I described it more accurately and then nobody but us would have been the wiser.

It's like you're trying to divide the Righteous Metroid Alliance during its greatest time of need.
 
benjipwns said:
You're correct and should have moved on from this technicality to my later post where I described it more accurately and then nobody but us would have been the wiser.

It's like you're trying to divide the Righteous Metroid Alliance during its greatest time of need.
Click to expand...

Why'd you change your avatar tho
 
I don't have a say in this, but I just want to tell all you Americans that you are insane if you go for Jeb or whoever the Rep candidate will be over Hillary. So it will probably happen! :-D
 
Wrap it up folks, it's over:
Hillary Clinton just doesn’t get it: She’s already running a losing campaign
Hillary Clinton joins the race for president today. If you believe the leaks from her staff, and there’s no reason you shouldn’t, she’ll do it in a video released at noon as she herself flies high above the nation in a chartered plane. She and her top advisors, all smart people, must think it’s a good idea. It doesn’t feel like one.

For months Clinton has run a front-porch campaign — if by porch you mean Boo Radley’s. Getting her outdoors is hard enough; when she does get out it’s often to give paid speeches to people who look just like her: educated, prosperous and privileged. Needing desperately to connect with the broader public, she opts for the virtual reality of a pre-taped video delivered via social media. Go figure.

Her leakers say she’ll head out on a listening tour like the one that kicked off her first Senate race. They say listening to real people talk about real stuff will make her seem more real. This too may be a good idea, but it made more sense when she was a rookie candidate seeking a lesser office in a state she barely knew. Running for president is different. So are the times. Voters are more desperate now, and in a far worse mood. If you invite their questions, you’d better have some answers. I’ll return to this point shortly.

Her leakers say she’ll avoid big events, rallies, stadiums, that sort of thing. This is about 2008, when she and her tone-deaf team seemed to be planning a coronation. This time they say she doesn’t want to come off as quite so presumptuous. Yet next week she keynotes a ‘Global Women’s Summit’ cohosted by Tina Brown and the New York Times, at which “world leaders, industry icons, movie stars and CEOs convene with artists, rebels, peacemakers and activists to tell their stories and share their plans of action.” Orchestra seats go for $300.

Clinton personifies the meritocracy that to an angry middle class looks increasingly like just another privileged caste. It’s the anger captured best by the old ‘Die Yuppie Scum’ posters and in case you haven’t noticed, it’s on the rise. Republicans love to paint Democrats as elitists. It’s how the first two Bushes took out Dukakis, Gore and Kerry — and how Jeb plans to take out Hillary. When she says she and Bill were broke when they left the White House; when she sets her own email rules and says it was only for her own convenience; when she hangs out with the Davos, Wall Street or Hollywood crowds, she makes herself a more inviting target.

During its long ramp-up, Democrats searched for signs that this Clinton campaign would be better than the last, a seething cauldron of rivalries and resentments run by D.C. consultants who made their real livings from corporate clients. Things do look better at the top. The chief of staff is John Podesta, a man whose core competency is competency. Pollster Joel Benenson is a huge step up from the fiercely anti-populist Mark Penn.

Still, the leaks are a bad sign. All campaigns fall prey to them and it’s sometimes a good thing for the First Amendment that they do. All White House staffs leak to settle scores or advance agendas and careers. Bill Clinton’s White House added a new wrinkle — leaks that elevated the leaker at Clinton’s expense. Often the leaker wanted only to prove his insider status and savvy; the result was to frame everything Clinton did as political even before he did it. Every modern president polled as much as Clinton but none was so scorned for it. Leakers had a lot to do with that.

All political reportage is full of insider tales about how every link of sausage is made. When House Democrats resumed their push for a minimum wage hike, staff framed the initiative not as sound policy but as clever politics. Even if authorized, nearly all such leaks harm the principle. On Friday, Clinton’s campaign let slip its aim to raise $2.5 billion; maybe that’s not the best way to say hello to a struggling middle class. Someone gabbed about the message of Hillary’s planned sit downs with average families, a sure fire way to make the families look and feel like props — and to make the whole, hollow exercise look and feel like a hollow exercise.

There are three problems that go far deeper than Hillary’s image or her campaign’s operations. Each is endemic to our current politics; all are so deeply connected as to be inseparable. You already know them. The first is how they raise their money. The second is how they craft their message. The third pertains to policy.
Click to expand...
Leaders as progressive as Howard Dean and Barney Frank urge Democrats to circle the wagons and spare the party the bloodshed of a real contest, but this party needs to get its blood moving. Clinton needs a real challenge and a real debate, not just a sparring partner; not some palooka to dance her around the ring for a couple of rounds, but a real fighter. She needs the debate. We all do. But who will bring it?

Underdogs always need to get an early start, so it’s surprising that Clinton beat all of her prospective primary opponents into the race. Some seem to be auditioning for the second spot on her ticket. Others may not make the race. If no champion emerges, progressives must mount their own debate and relearn some of the skills they applied so successfully back in the days before everybody had a PAC.
Click to expand...
 
A_Gorilla said:
Obama is so obviously at the very least agnostic its not even funny.
Click to expand...


Seriously, where the fuck do you guys get that shit from? You're no better than the fuckers who say he's a Muslim.

Stop projecting your shit on him.

The man said he's a Christian. Just because he doesn't quote the Bible every time he speaks doesn't mean he's not a Christian. Some folks are, but don't feel the need to prove it to everyone.
 
AxelFoley said:
Seriously, where the fuck do you guys get that shit from? You're no better than the fuckers who say he's a Muslim.

Stop projecting your shit on him.

The man said he's a Christian. Just because he doesn't quote the Bible every time he speaks doesn't mean he's not a Christian. Some folks are, but don't feel the need to prove it to everyone.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't understand it either. I disagree with the president on a lot of issues, but I take the man at his word. He's a Christian.
 
Cub3h said:
This thread reminded me that Hillaryis44 is still a thing. As far as I know they've been pretty much hard-line right wing nuts since Obama became president, yet they seem on the bandwagon for Hillary. NeoGAF even gets a shout-out in their latest update which made me laugh.

I remember the '08 election being so much fun to follow, pretty sure I was lurking on Poligaf daily back then.
Click to expand...


Well, if Hillaryis44 is looking at this thread now--FUCK YOU, Hillaryis44. How you like the last 6 years, bitches?
 
So, as a german, not really being into the US internal politics concerning the presidential campaigns, could Hillary be the best option, out of the rumored/running persons?

I always preferred the Democrats, thinking that they are more liberal and moderate, so i hope that Clinton makes it.

Would be good, seeing Bill more often again, as the "First Man/Dude". :)

On a side note, i totally want Parker & Stone to make a new Hill-Dawg-episode for the new South Park season. That 24 parody back then was great!
 
BobLoblaw said:
Where does Hillary lose? I can't see it anywhere. I'd love to see what pickups conservatives think they can get though. :)

map_zps95j4ds7e.jpg
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton has a shot at doing better than Obama especially in the Midwest. Obama had a major issue with his race, name, and questionable religious beliefs that allowed Fox to bombard people with confusion and scary stories 24/7
 
Gambit 1138 said:
Hillary Clinton has a shot at doing better than Obama especially in the Midwest. Obama had a major issue with his race, name, and questionable religious beliefs that allowed Fox to bombard people with confusion and scary stories 24/7
Click to expand...

I honestly get the impression that Hillary will have a harder time with Ohio than Obama did.
 
benjipwns said:
"Now"? W. Bush wasn't the first shitty President and hasn't been the last.
Click to expand...

If he was just shitty in the same vein as say, Ford then sure. Who could we compare Bush to in the past 100 years? Hoover? Besides him, I honestly wouldn't put any other president since him in the same category as Bush.
 
sonto340 said:
I always hate the negative connotation that educated people gets in articles like these. Using educated like she kind of slur is absurd to me. Is it just targeted repressed jealousy or what. Pandering to a base that didn't go to college? Can someone please explain this line of logic.
Click to expand...

The guy who wrote this article has two degrees.
 
airmangataosenai said:
If he was just shitty in the same vein as say, Ford then sure. Who could we compare Bush to in the past 100 years? Hoover? Besides him, I honestly wouldn't put any other president since him in the same category as Bush.
Click to expand...
Richard Milhous Nixon is rolling in his grave at the notion that any Republican President could out do him in the last century. Hoover only got one term to wreck up the joint.

perfectchaos007 said:
Hillary is the inevitable Dem. candidate, and I wouldn't go as far as calling Rand the inevitable candidate for the GOP, but I think he has the current lead.
Click to expand...
Rand will never gain the GOP nomination, just like his father.
 
injurai said:
I honestly get the impression that Hillary will have a harder time with Ohio than Obama did.
Click to expand...

She's been polling better there than most swing states. I see her losing Colorado or Florida over Virginia and Ohio.

And she can lose Colorado and Florida and win Ohio and Virginia and still win. A Republican needs to win all 4.
 
airmangataosenai said:
I'm just saying, knowing now what we do about allowing a Republican into the highest office it's irresponsible to allow it to happen.
Click to expand...

Knowing now? That's not what you said. You said people selfishly voted for Nader and got Bush elected therefore changed history for the worse. So what you're essentially saying is they were supposed to know the future. They had to know 9/11 was going to happen and he was going to invade Iraq afterwards. That's an absurd notion.
 
slit said:
Knowing now? That's not what you said. You said people selfishly voted for Nader and got Bush elected therefore changed history for the worse. So what you're essentially saying is they were supposed to know the future. They had to know 9/11 was going to happen and he was going to invade Iraq afterwards. That's an absurd notion.
Click to expand...

It's selfish in the sense that one of the main motivations in voting for a minor third party candidate is to protest the headline candidates for not championing issues you find important. It sounds good in theory, but what ended up happening is that Bush won and undid much of the progress I'm sure many of those Nader voters would've claimed to of cared about. For people in this category, their main motivation was maintaining self-righteous purity and solidarity with a movement. To those people, yes, they were selfish.

No, they are not personally responsible, but I would like to think that everyone learned from that lesson. If you're a progressive, a vote for the Green Party might as well be a vote for a Republican. We don't live in a parliamentary system where minor candidates can get representation, Even movements like the Tea Party aren't crazy enough to leave the GOP tent for this reason. You don't change parties, you change the party. To do this you pay attention during the primaries.
 
airmangataosenai said:
It's selfish in the sense that one of the main motivations in voting for a minor third party candidate is to protest the headline candidates for not championing issues you find important. It sounds good in theory, but what ended up happening is that Bush won and undid much of the progress I'm sure many of those Nader voters would've claimed to of cared about. For people in this category, their main motivation was maintaining self-righteous purity and solidarity with a movement. To those people, yes, they were selfish.

No, they are not personally responsible, but I would like to think that everyone learned from that lesson. If you're a progressive, a vote for the Green Party might as well be a vote for a Republican. We don't live in a parliamentary system where minor candidates can get representation, Even movements like the Tea Party aren't crazy enough to leave the GOP tent for this reason. You don't change parties, you change the party. To do this you pay attention during the primaries.
Click to expand...

Yea, one is throwing their vote away on third parties. Vote democrat and hope for the best. It's literally your best option.
 
NastyBook said:
Right? Call it a shit sandwich if you want. Just so long as you acknowledge that the alternative is a turd without the bread.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider a continuation of Obama's policies, or the election of non-conservative supreme court judges to be a "shit sandwich".
 
people who say that Hilary is further to the right than Obama need to get their memory re-jogged because Hillary was almost more left leaning when it came to healthcare and education that Bams

Obama catered to the health insurance industry and delivered health INSURANCE reform not healthcare reform.

And about Wall Street: BOTH have the same friends on Wall Street. it's not like Hillary is more cozy with them than Obama. Obama chose that Ram Emanuel strategy guide and surrounded his financial team with ex Goldman Sachs people.

The only department that Hillary may be more Right leaning than Obama is on foreign affairs not domestic
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

‘Top Gun 3’ officially in the works with Tom Cruise returning.
33
310
jason10mm replied
X launches "About this account" feature, Backfires
2 3 4
164
3K
DeepEnigma replied
Interplay's Rebecca Heineman launches gofundme for cancer diagnosis
2
54
1K
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
  • Poll
Today, Windows 10 has officially reached end of life
News 
11
608
Trilobit replied
Carlton is officially cooler than Will Smith
2 3
108
3K
Beretta replied
Top Bottom