NYT, Hillary needs an intervention!!!

[bambino]

Maybe an exorcism or a lobotomy too!!!!!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem...york-times.amp

[gnadfly]

Please let that nasty woman speak her mind and run again in 2020. Third times a charm! Let one of the many Putin's the Dems have be her running mate.

Has she given any "advice" on the Koshoggi situ? She full of frequent flier advice. Probably not since the Clintons never disposed of a body.

[Stockinglover]

She needs to go away forever, nobody else who lost Presidential elections kept hanging on, they went away.

[friendly fred]

She should state her true opinions about how many different people she hates and why. She should tell us what aggravates her when she is in front of adoring audiences and make them roar with laughter and egg her on to say as many things as she can that we can use to discredit her and her fellow travelers.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

She should state her true opinions about how many different people she hates and why. She should tell us what aggravates her when she is in front of adoring audiences and make them roar with laughter and egg her on to say as many things as she can that we can use to discredit her and her fellow travelers.

She can’t get an “adoring” audience. Unless they’re paid to go.

[rexdutchman]

The best thing she can do for the country is to run again ,

[grean]

Anyone with a pulse could have defeated Trump.

She lost spectacularly.

Today, even those who don't like Trump's, I don't know a bether way of saying it, "Trumpness", feel the policies decisions are aligned with what they want. Therefore they would probably vote for him too next time.

His popularity has gone down with folks who didn't vote for him. That's really it though. And that doesn't hurt him.

His faithful followers are still all about Trump for the most part. Yes there are a few who've been disenchanted. But he's made up votes in other republicans who didn't vote for him last time.

For the most part, the loud mouth bastard is slowly increasing the base that got him elected.

I would say it would be hard for anyone to lose any worse than Clinton did in 2016. I didn't imagine she would try again in 2020,however.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by grean

Anyone with a pulse could have defeated Trump.

She lost spectacularly.

Today, even those who don't like Trump's, I don't know a bether way of saying it, "Trumpness", feel the policies decisions are aligned with what they want. Therefore they would probably vote for him too next time.

His popularity has gone down with folks who didn't vote for him. That's really it though. And that doesn't hurt him.

His faithful followers are still all about Trump for the most part. Yes there are a few who've been disenchanted. But he's made up votes in other republicans who didn't vote for him last time.

For the most part, the loud mouth bastard is slowly increasing the base that got him elected.

I would say it would be hard for anyone to lose any worse than Clinton did in 2016. I didn't imagine she would try again in 2020,however.

Trump beat 16 Republicans with a pulse. Even “low energy” Jeb had a pulse and a shit ton of money. Just like Clinton. Trumps approval rating at this date is 47%. Higher than Obama’s at this time in his Presidency. Do you have any facts to back up your opinions?

http://amp.usatoday.com/story/1726244002

[grean]

Originally Posted by bambino

Trump beat 16 Republicans with a pulse. Even “low energy” Jeb had a pulse and a shit ton of money. Just like Clinton. Trumps approval rating at this date is 47%. Higher than Obama’s at this time in his Presidency. Do you have any facts to back up your opinions?

http://amp.usatoday.com/story/1726244002

I'm not sure what has your hackles raised. I said it would be dumb for Clinton to run again...

But since you asked,

This was fox's projection on 11/4, just 2 days before the election.

https://www.270towin.com/maps/fox-news-electoral-map


Here are the other projections from other media outlets.


https://www.270towin.com/2016-election-forecast-predictions/

Everyone had Clinton winning by a landslide. It wasn't supposed to be close or neck and neck even. They were all expecting a beating. And that was taking into account all the burned bernie voters who did not vote for Clinton or voted for Trump out right.

Trump's own campaign did not even expect to win.

I'm certain someone there assumed they were being punked.


She failed so miserably that she apologized.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by grean

I'm not sure what has your hackles raised. I said it would be dumb for Clinton to run again...

But since you asked,

This was fox's projection on 11/4, just 2 days before the election.

https://www.270towin.com/maps/fox-news-electoral-map


Here are the other projections from other media outlets.


https://www.270towin.com/2016-electi...t-predictions/

Everyone had Clinton winning by a landslide. It wasn't supposed to be close or neck and neck even. They were all expecting a beating. And that was taking into account all the burned bernie voters who did not vote for Clinton or voted for Trump out right.

Trump's own campaign did not even expect to win.

I'm certain someone there assumed they were being punked.


She failed so miserably that she apologized.

Oh, I know what the polls suggested in 2016, they were dead wrong. Saying someone other than Clinton could have beat Trump is pure conjecture. He set Republican records for votes in the primaries. He would have been a tough out for anyone. And his poll numbers are going up, not down. I think the Liberals are going to be disappointed again this year. I just pointed out where you were wrong. My hackles are just fine.

[grean]

Originally Posted by bambino

Oh, I know what the polls suggested in 2016, they were dead wrong. Saying someone other than Clinton could have beat Trump is pure conjecture. He set Republican records for votes in the primaries. He would have been a tough out for anyone. And his poll numbers are going up, not down. I think the Liberals are going to be disappointed again this year. I just pointed out where you were wrong. My hackles are just fine.

I have to say there is just as much conjecture on your part.

Clinton is hated that is to be certain. I think she did as much to rally Republicans to vote for Trump, if not more so than Trump did himself.

The Never Trump movement doesn't hold a flame against the Never Hilary movement.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

She should state her true opinions about how many different people she hates and why. She should tell us what aggravates her when she is in front of adoring audiences and make them roar with laughter and egg her on to say as many things as she can that we can use to discredit her and her fellow travelers.

+1

And above all, run for President again.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by grean

I have to say there is just as much conjecture on your part.

Clinton is hated that is to be certain. I think she did as much to rally Republicans to vote for Trump, if not more so than Trump did himself.

The Never Trump movement doesn't hold a flame against the Never Hilary movement.

No conjecture on my part. Post a link that’s shows his approval is going down as of today. As you suggested. When you said anyone with a pulse would have beaten Trump, that’s pure conjecture. I’m watching the rally tonight, it’s packed with thousands outside. OBama got 2 thousand at his rally in Vegas. I guess OBama doesn’t have much of a pulse either.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by bambino

Oh, I know what the polls suggested in 2016, they were dead wrong. Saying someone other than Clinton could have beat Trump is pure conjecture. He set Republican records for votes in the primaries. He would have been a tough out for anyone. And his poll numbers are going up, not down. I think the Liberals are going to be disappointed again this year. I just pointed out where you were wrong. My hackles are just fine.

actually, the polls were correct. Hillary did win the popular vote, but that is not what wins the election.



Hillary had a spectacular tactical failure with how she did the electoral vote calculation and maneuvers. she didn't get her ducks in place and it shows in the way she handled the tactical situation in Libya and in Syria.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

actually, the polls were correct. Hillary did win the popular vote, but that is not what wins the election.



Hillary had a spectacular tactical failure with how she did the electoral vote calculation and maneuvers. she didn't get her ducks in place and it shows in the way she handled the tactical situation in Libya and in Syria.

The polls the week of the election had her at a 90% chance of winning. The pollsters know about the electoral college Dilbert. She wasn’t supposed to lose the states where the Democrats had a supposed blue wall. They were dead wrong. And she listened to them. Her husband knew better.