• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Vox: Hillary Clinton "Unleashed" interview w/ Ezra Klein

Bolivar687

Banned
Jun 13, 2014
7,261
7,844
800
USA
Literally from your own link.

Also literally from my own link is the context you most certainly omitted intentionally, that even the journalist in question acknowledged that he was crossing an ethical boundry:

"Please don't share or tell anyone I did this."
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Sep 20, 2014
32,454
9
525
Burnaby, BC
Also literally from my own link is the context you most certainly omitted intentionally, that even the journalist in question acknowledged that he was crossing an ethical boundry:

"Please don't share or tell anyone I did this."

I didn't quote it because you already referenced it.

He didn't actually appear to do anything out of the ordinary though so a mostly out of context quote from hacked emails in what others describe as a routine accuracy checking doesn't ammount to much of a smoking gun for anyone claiming Clinton was illicitly working with the media. Literally his quote could basically be a colloquial way of wanting to make sure no one finds out what he's writing about. If it leaked another journos could pick up the trail and beat him to whatever story he was writing or someone else could find out and try to quash his story.

Also is there any evidence this was anything more than a one time thing anyway?
 

Neoweee

Member
Oct 8, 2014
4,739
0
415
It's been confirmed Politico was sending articles to Clinton's campaign for approval before publishing.

Hillary Clinton is the reason satire is dead.

Yes, journalists ask the subjects of articles for comment before publishing, as a basic standard. Congrats on catching up with the absolute basics of journalism.


Are you seriously acting like Hillary wanted people acting like she had a 98% chance to win? Dude. Duuuuuuuuude.
 

E-Cat

Member
Jan 14, 2013
4,159
720
725
Hillary thinks 'mild incrementalism' and 'pragmatism' are the answer to the Right's radicalism? But this is exactly what the Democratic party has been doing for years. So why don't they control the majority of the House and the Senate right now?
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Hillary thinks 'mild incrementalism' and 'pragmatism' are the answer to the Right's radicalism? But this is exactly what the Democratic party has been doing for years. So why don't they control the majority of the House and the Senate right now?
Because the President's party almost always suffers losses downballot while they control the office:
Obama didn't understand the cyclical nature of US politics and fucked up not nuking the filibuster.
 

Soulscribe

Member
Mar 21, 2010
9,093
0
600
Austin, TX
I have to laugh at anyone absolving themselves from blame and attacking her for losing an election where all of us had the fucking say. She was not a perfect candidate by any means but it's the people who shirked their responsibility and elected a monster into office instead.

Stop blaming Hillary, she was solid. Start blaming the people who weren't being adults and decided it was better to stay home than vote for someone they didn't worship as a messiah. Seems like you need to be perceived as such to win an American election now.
 

E-Cat

Member
Jan 14, 2013
4,159
720
725
Because the President's party almost always suffers losses downballot while they control the office:
So, they may as well have gone balls out to at least push a public option through. And you can say they tried, but there was a lot more Obama could have done if he got his hands dirty with the blue dogs. But he was just too indecisive of a president to have done that.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
So, they may as well have gone balls out to at least push a public option through. And you can say they tried, but there was a lot more Obama could have done if he got his hands dirty with the blue dogs. But he was just too indecisive of a president to have done that.
Hillary warned Obama in '08 not to try working with the GOP. I was part of the group that backed Obama and backed trying to get a compromise through with them.

Lesson. Fucking. Learned. (though at the time I was in favor of nuking it anyway even with the attempt at compromise because I was sure the GOP would do it to us in the future.)
 

E-Cat

Member
Jan 14, 2013
4,159
720
725
Hillary warned Obama in '08 not to try working with the GOP. I was part of the group that backed Obama and backed trying to get a compromise through with them.

Lesson. Fucking. Learned. (though at the time I was in favor of nuking it anyway even with the attempt at compromise because I was sure the GOP would do it to us in the future.)
The only time the Democrats and Republicans agree on something, it's to screw over the average person. Isn't bipartisanship great?
 

Bolivar687

Banned
Jun 13, 2014
7,261
7,844
800
USA
Literally his quote could basically be a colloquial way of wanting to make sure no one finds out what he's writing about. If it leaked another journos could pick up the trail and beat him to whatever story he was writing or someone else could find out and try to quash his story.

I could see that about the first half of that sentence but it just doesn't fit with the end of it, or what the article was about.
 
Apr 6, 2016
1,491
2
0
Yet they "intervene" from the start by displaying their votes and grouping them together in primary results helping to sway public opinion. They are a bad concept. And I'd like to see when a Zodiac killer has ever been stopped by superdelegates. Just curious how much weight this fear really has.
Seriously. Before the Iowa caucus a number of CNN hosts like Don Lemon and Jake Tapper were calling for Bernie to drop out of the primary because he "could never overcome her delegate lead" when it was still just super delegates at the time and the primaries hadn't even happened yet. That type of deliberate misinformation about delegates and primary was encouraged from the DNC.
 

pigeon

Banned
Feb 14, 2011
19,361
1
0
If i remember correctly, didn't Hillary want the media to give more coverage to rogue Republican candidates like Trump and Carson because they would be easier to beat in the general election?

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1312824

Specifically, she wanted them to get more coverage as being unacceptable and unqualified for the office. Instead they got covered as legitimate and reasonable. CNN literally hired new people, some directly from Trump's campaign, to defend Trump, because their standard conservative surrogates refused to do so because he was unacceptable.

This concept doesn't seem that complicated. Hillary wanted the media to do their job. They didn't.
 

StormKing

Member
Jun 8, 2014
677
0
0
Specifically, she wanted them to get more coverage as being unacceptable and unqualified for the office. Instead they got covered as legitimate and reasonable. CNN literally hired new people, some directly from Trump's campaign, to defend Trump, because their standard conservative surrogates refused to do so because he was unacceptable.

This concept doesn't seem that complicated. Hillary wanted the media to do their job. They didn't.

No she wanted Trump to win the primaries because she thought he would be easier to beat than a traditional Republican. The media was supposed to support Trump in the primaries or at least legitimize him and then turn on him for the general election. That was Clinton's plan. Obviously it didn't turn out as expected.
 

nomis

Member
May 15, 2011
5,028
1
780
I have to laugh at anyone absolving themselves from blame and attacking her for losing an election where all of us had the fucking say. She was not a perfect candidate by any means but it's the people who shirked their responsibility and elected a monster into office instead.

Stop blaming Hillary, she was solid. Start blaming the people who weren't being adults and decided it was better to stay home than vote for someone they didn't worship as a messiah. Seems like you need to be perceived as such to win an American election now.

parties get to choose their candidate, they don’t get to choose their electorate (with the exception of gerrymandering which doesn’t apply here)

what you’re doing is the most sycophantic brand of excuse making for the DNC and clinton fucking up
 

Pixieking

Banned
Jan 9, 2016
3,351
0
0
parties get to choose their candidate, they don’t get to choose their electorate (with the exception of gerrymandering which doesn’t apply here)

what you’re doing is the most sycophantic brand of excuse making for the DNC and clinton fucking up

Clinton captured nearly as many votes as Barack Obama did to win in 2012 (65,915,795)

Total Trump votes: 62,984,824
That number should be on the OP of every "Hillary sucks" thread. Why? Because that's how many people went out and specifically voted for someone who

Spousal raped his first wife
Walked-in to the dressing rooms of women who were changing during contests
Admitted to sexual assault on video
Called mexicans "rapists"
Said that "2nd Amendment People" could do something about Hillary
Doesn't believe in climate change
Openly questioned the first African American President's birthplace, over a number of years
Is ignorant about coal
Doesn't pay his contractors
Didn't let African Americans rent out apartments in buildings he owned
Called a former secretary of state a "nasty woman"
Has ties manufactured abroad whilst touting "America First" policies

62,984,824 went out and intentionally voted for this man, knowing all of this.

This is on Hillary; this is on the media; this is on the electorate; this is on the RNC for nominating Trump as their candidate; this is on the Russians; this is on Comey.
 

nel e nel

Member
Dec 6, 2010
4,269
1
0
Girls can be bros too!
Because the President's party almost always suffers losses downballot while they control the office:

Obama didn't understand the cyclical nature of US politics and fucked up not nuking the filibuster.



That chart shows that that is only really true for Democrats. All Republican presidents end their terms at the same level or higher.
 

Pixieking

Banned
Jan 9, 2016
3,351
0
0
I may be reading more into that chart than I ought, but wouldn't population shifts and movement in and out of states skew it? It's not voting patterns for governor, it's population that is under a Dem governor.

Unless I got the wrong end of the stick?
 

nel e nel

Member
Dec 6, 2010
4,269
1
0
Girls can be bros too!
You are not reading the chart correctly.

Then maybe provide some context for how to read the chart instead of trying to mic drop? Because all the Republican presidents show upward trends.

"Percent of Population With A Democratic Governor"? Like, does our population decrease? Or is it which party the population identifies as? Or are there only certain percentages of the population that have democratic governors? Is it supposed to be "Percent of Population That Identifies as Democratic Over Time"? That chart is not labeled well.
 

pigeon

Banned
Feb 14, 2011
19,361
1
0
No she wanted Trump to win the primaries because she thought he would be easier to beat than a traditional Republican. The media was supposed to support Trump in the primaries or at least legitimize him and then turn on him for the general election. That was Clinton's plan. Obviously it didn't turn out as expected.

Taking Trump seriously does not mean legitimizing him. It means the opposite.

I realize you have a dumb conspiratorial narrative stuck in your heads, but that doesn't make it a true one.
 

StormKing

Member
Jun 8, 2014
677
0
0
Taking Trump seriously does not mean legitimizing him. It means the opposite.

I realize you have a dumb conspiratorial narrative stuck in your heads, but that doesn't make it a true one.

No, she explicitly wanted to make Trump a mainstream Republican and force other Republicans further to the right to make them easier to beat in general election.

That's not a conspiracy, just another one of Hillary's multiple political failures.
 

Game Guru

Member
Dec 14, 2010
3,263
1
0
Then maybe provide some context for how to read the chart instead of trying to mic drop? Because all the Republican presidents show upward trends.

It's a chart detailing the number of Democratic Governors specifically. A high value means more Democratic Governors and a low value means less. In this case, a Republican President having a upward trend in Democratic Governors during their terms supports the argument that a "President's party almost always suffers losses downballot while they control the office" since if there are more Democratic Governors, there are naturally less Republican Governors.

Basically, for kirblar's statement to be true, the chart should have downward trends for Democratic Presidents and upward trends for Republican Presidents, and that is what we see in the chart here.
 

Ventrue

Member
Jul 19, 2007
4,099
0
0
31
Then maybe provide some context for how to read the chart instead of trying to mic drop? Because all the Republican presidents show upward trends.

"Percent of Population With A Democratic Governor"? Like, does our population decrease? Or is it which party the population identifies as? Or are there only certain percentages of the population that have democratic governors? Is it supposed to be "Percent of Population That Identifies as Democratic Over Time"? That chart is not labeled well.

The chart is labelled just fine. It's the percent of the population living in a state with a Democrat as governor. So as democrats win elections for governor, the percent of the population living under Democrat governors goes up.
 

nel e nel

Member
Dec 6, 2010
4,269
1
0
Girls can be bros too!
It's a chart detailing the number of Democratic Governors specifically. A high value means more Democratic Governors and a low value means less. In this case, a Republican President having a upward trend in Democratic Governors during their terms supports the argument that a "President's party almost always suffers losses downballot while they control the office" since if there are more Democratic Governors, there are naturally less Republican Governors.

Basically, for kirblar's statement to be true, the chart should have downward trends for Democratic Presidents and upward trends for Republican Presidents, and that is what we see in the chart here.

The chart is labelled just fine. It's the percent of the population living in a state with a Democrat as governor. So as democrats win elections for governor, the percent of the population living under Democrat governors goes up.

Blargh! Ok thanks, that makes more sense,I wasn't registering it late at night with wine in my system. Does the percentage of Democratic governors correlate at all to who controls congress?
 

Orniletter

Banned
Nov 20, 2013
5,195
1
505
parties get to choose their candidate, they don't get to choose their electorate (with the exception of gerrymandering which doesn't apply here)

what you're doing is the most sycophantic brand of excuse making for the DNC and clinton fucking up

I fucking hate this insistance that Republican voters should be treated like a force of nature, like a Hurricane without consciousness and mind. Something you have to accept, plan and build around because it has no free will and no ability to understand of it's own.

Clinton was a rocksolid candidate that would have whoped Trump's ass in literally every single European country. You can only shift the blame so much before you have to realize:

The electorate is to blame for his win*. Republican voters are too blame. People who couldn't be arsed to vote against him are to blame. The world understood what kind of charlatan Trump is. Shame on your electorate for voting him in anyway.

*excluding those who did vote for her, of course
 

zou

Member
Jan 6, 2006
3,098
0
1,425
The chart is labelled just fine. It's the percent of the population living in a state with a Democrat as governor. So as democrats win elections for governor, the percent of the population living under Democrat governors goes up.

you're reading the chart wrong. of course more people live in states run by democrats the more governorships they win. that's not what the chart is showing and it would be a dumb point to make. no shit, the more you win the bigger population you control.

the chart shows that democrat always lose states when they control the presidency, and gain states when the republicans are in control. basically, they buy into the republican lies and vote dems out of office. then they realize republicans don't give a shit about them and turn to dems.