2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton is already looking ahead to the GE campaign against Trump...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-digs-in-as-trump-moves-on-1459208576As Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump aim to clinch their parties nominations, the former secretary of state is poised to start the general-election campaign with a far more sophisticated operation in key swing states than businessman.
UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)N/T
calguy
(5,733 posts)But life goes on. Hillary knows she will all but put Bernie away after those big east states like NY, NJ, PA.
It's only prudent to look at the future and get after the real foe....the Trumpster.
UMTerp01
(1,048 posts)I don't give a DAMN what narrative other people are pushing. She's already put him away. I'm just sitting back and waiting until June because its official. I'm not getting worked up over nonsense because he won some caucus states over the weekend that put a little dent in her delegate lead. There are big states upcoming where he won't win by those margins to catch up to her delegate count. People can post whatever they want and say its not over until they are blue in the face and show me cartoons of little birdies all they want. I know math and yes while its not impossible, its improbable. So yes she should be pivoting to the general election.
Number23
(24,544 posts)Very well said!
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)pacalo
(24,727 posts)I mean, she has her own server in her basement; for what did the Clinton Foundation fork out to make things happen?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Pony up.....
pacalo
(24,727 posts)the image of suitcases full of money being handed out to those who comply comes to mind when she or her people talk as though the primaries have been decided. Hillary said from the beginning, "He's not gonna win".
I just don't have any faith that she even cares about the people outside of her new income bracket.
okasha
(11,573 posts)She's hardly mentioned Sanders until he broke his word and went negative.
Sanders is a distraction. Trump is the real threat. Priorities.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)She has earned that position being on every side of every issue.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Frankly, I think she'll reduce Trump to a quivering hunk of melting lard, just as she did Trey Gowdy.
I think her candidacy shows how weak she is. Someone that has been running since 2007 can't put quite beat Bernie Sanders. She will cost us gains in the house, and gains in state and local government. She was the worst candidate out of the top three running, but she was better than Webb and Chafee.
okasha
(11,573 posts)I think you're wrong on all counts except for the second half of your last sentence.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)her former campaign co chair heading the dnc . 900 state seats, 16 governorships, house and senate losses. The track record of success is not there. But hey people find her trustworthy... oh wait.. honest.. oh wait.. capable.. oh wait. sincere... oh wait. Inspiring.. oh wait ... nevermind. She will be the best democratic candidate money can buy.
okasha
(11,573 posts)or that the majority of people must necessarily share your views because you're convinced you're right. Voting results so far say you're wrong.
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)I am the people, just as you are. Independents are people, just as you are. Her negatives are as high as Donald Trump's. Do you deny that?
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)Priorities: Don't count your chickens
before they have hatched.
She definitely should look carefully at a possibility
that the FBI investigation as well as others may
defeat her high aim.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 29, 2016, 12:01 AM - Edit history (1)
but the Indictment Fairy fell victim to Lady Cottington. Poor wee thing.
(See Lady Cottington's Pressed Fairy Book.)
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)Just you wait, Henry Higgins,
just you wait.
okasha
(11,573 posts)The King is going to have me shot?
You're royalty of Hungaria?
To quote 'enry 'iggins:
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)If Trump manages to pull out a win in Wisconsin, then yes, I do think he will be the nominee. However the GOP is attacking him on all fronts and it's working. I don't see Kasich getting the nomination without destroying the party, the age of television and the internet would bludgeon their party for it.
Leaving the only viable option, Cruz.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)it comes to Cruz, I disagree. The party will try
its best to chose by any shenanigans Kasich.
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)They will try, I just don't think it will succeed without it destroying their party. There have been a handful of people who've jumped on the Cruz bandwagon, those people will need to stick with him as if they do not, it will double screw their party. In any case, a Costco run will be in order!
awake
(3,226 posts)Lately Hillary supporters are trashing Bernie and those who believe in his ideas, before Hillary can truly take on the Republicans she will need most of Bernie's supports and continuing to trash talk about Bernie's backers will only make it harder for us all to move on.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)but it needs repeating....
If it is Clinton v Trump in the GE...
Trump will turn to Clinton and say, "I gave money to both your campaign for Senate & the Clinton Foundation, in order to get the following favors, which you did. I personally know you do favors for rich donors, so please tell America what you promised to do for Wall Street and Pharma firms..." It will be at that moment she loses the GE.
I hope I am wrong l, but Trump already hinted at this during a debate and in speeches. If he does is, it would be devastating for the Hillary campaign.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)He has a 17% favorable ratings among Latinos and a nearly 80% unfavorable rating. His unfavorables are also sky high among Muslims, African Americans and Jews.
He can't get enough white Christian men to the polls to offset those problems.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)... If there has been a survey that gives a breakdown that who would vote for a person that owes favors to wall street. Before you say it, because we follow politics we may know such is nonsense. But, do you trust those that don't and who have been bombarded by 30 years of anti-Hillary too -- especially when she seems to be in the pocket of those that stole their pension or house from them? I wouldn't bank on that.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)most people won't. But let's assume they did. They are going to punish Hillary for the mortgage scandal by supporting a billionaire and one of the biggest real estate developers in the country who has done all kinds of shady real estate deals bailed himself out via bankruptcy several times and knowingly dealt with the mafia?
Oh and someone who also women despise and won't vote for, someone who Latinos despise and won't vote for, African Americans won't vote for, etc?
Is that what you would have me buy?
There is no narrative that gets you there.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)..Say a whole group won't vote for someone because they are a member of said group.That is utterly racist and hateful. Tbe Black and Latino communities are not a homogeneous unit that votes one way or the other because they are a member of that community.
ETA: I reread what you said and were talking about Trump. That said, what I wrote still is true.
okasha
(11,573 posts)know Trump despises us. Why on earth do you think we'd vote for him?
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)The comment wrong, but implying a group is fully unified behind a cause is to stereotype those that don't.
okasha
(11,573 posts)I suggest you look up some of the threads about mansplainin' and whitesplainin' and why they're offensive.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Isn't implying someone is mansplaining or whitesplaining offensive when you don't know who you are accusing of such? Even after reading my profile, you can only ascertain my sex not my race or life experiences?
okasha
(11,573 posts)But I addressed what you did, not who you are.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)No, you threatened me and implied you knew me. I let the subtle threat slide, but don't you dare assume you know me.
Maybe I said what I did from experience and not from some 'splaining platform.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Nor did I imply I know you. I can, however, see what you post on this forum and draw conclusions. You really can't stop me from doing so or from "daring" to think what I think.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)The implied threat came when you said I was new here and should head the warning of your 'explaining examples. Thus, implying I should step in line. I never hid what I posted or implied that I was. You can read all of them, reading of such still doesn't give you the right to accuse me of 'x:splaining'
ibegurpard
(16,815 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)P.s., that meme is getting pretty stale
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)You can put MONEY on it!
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Hydra
(14,459 posts)So I'm not sure what she's planning on rolling out for the GE when she's having trouble now. "I'm not Donald!"?
k8conant
(3,034 posts)to quote Church Lady.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)CaliforniaPeggy
(151,761 posts)Perfect for her Coronation!
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)with crown, sceptre, and globus cruciger?
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)Those will be provided by Goldman Sachs