This is why she'll never be president

[WVPATX]

What a very, very stupid stand to take. She is now trying desperately to walk it back.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...after-hearing-her-new-comments-on-va-scandal/

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

What a very, very stupid stand to take. She is now trying desperately to walk it back.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...after-hearing-her-new-comments-on-va-scandal/

A Blaze story about a Fox News interview. Well done!

 

[Keyser76]

Maybe not but I have a hundred bucks it is a democrat next year. I understand demographics.

 

[moe]

What a very, very stupid stand to take. She is now trying desperately to walk it back.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...after-hearing-her-new-comments-on-va-scandal/

No, you're wrong (again). She may not be the next prez but it won't be because she made uninformed statements on this particular issue and this coming from someone who loves to tell other people that they're not up to speed on things. I can't wait for your next nugget of political analysis smh.

 

[WVPATX]

Maybe not but I have a hundred bucks it is a democrat next year. I understand demographics.

Did demographics help in 2014? There are 32 Republican governors, control over the House and the Senate and control over 68 of 98 partisan state legislatures.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

No, you're wrong (again). She may not be the next prez but it won't be because she was uninformed and made uninformed statements on this particular issue and this coming from someone who loves to tell other people that they're not up to speed on things. I can't wait for your next nugget of polical analysis smh.

He's the poster boy wingnut. He has all the answers. Because the Bible, Rush or Fox news gave it to him.[roll]

 

[bamaEER]

What a very, very stupid stand to take. She is now trying desperately to walk it back.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...after-hearing-her-new-comments-on-va-scandal/

The Blaze? Seriously?

 

[WVPATX]

The Blaze? Seriously?

Are you disputing that Hillary downplayed the VA scandal? Do you want me to give you some of her quotes? My God, read a little. I know its hard for you, but try it.

 

[Keyser76]

Did demographics help in 2014? There are 32 Republican governors, control over the House and the Senate and control over 68 of 98 partisan state legislatures.

Nor in 2010, I'm talking about 2016, when EVERYBODY votes, like 2012.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

Nor in 2010, I'm talking about 2016, when EVERYBODY votes, like 2012.

Wingnuts love a low turnout.

 

[WVPATX]

Nor in 2010, I'm talking about 2016, when EVERYBODY votes, like 2012.

If you think Dems are excited about Hillary and will vote in the same numbers as they did for Obama you're nuts. More importantly, the GOP base will be much more energized than they were for Romney and show up in greater numbers.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

If you think Dems are excited about Hillary and will vote in the same numbers as they did for Obama you're nuts. More importantly, the GOP base will be much more energized than they were for Romney and show up in greater numbers.

Ha! You showed your ignorance again. Hillary may not energize the same people Obama did. But she will energize women. On both sides of the aisle and independents. Not surprised you overlooked this little fact.

 

[WVPATX]

Ha! You showed your ignorance again. Hillary may not energize the same people Obama did. But she will energize women. On both sides of the aisle and independents. Not surprised you overlooked this little fact.

LMAO. Have you noticed her standing with women? Shockingly low. Overlooked fact on your part. I don't think women like liars and felons.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/22/opinions/pease-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

 

[op2]

If you think Dems are excited about Hillary and will vote in the same numbers as they did for Obama you're nuts. More importantly, the GOP base will be much more energized than they were for Romney and show up in greater numbers.

OTOH the demographics that are going against the GOP over time are four years worse for them in 2016 than 2012. And other issues that are going against them over time, like gay marriage, are four years worse too. The GOP is going to have to change eventually if they want to start winning national elections again.

As far as your other bit about women not liking Hillary, the link below shows how Democrat and Republican POTUS candidates do with women over time. I think it's a safe bet that Hillary will do at least almost as good, if not better, then other recent Democrat candidates

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/gender-gap-2012-vote-largest-gallup-history.aspx

Appealing primarily to the white, male, heterosexual Chrisitan demographic is going to be a worse and worse strategy as time goes on.

 

[WVPATX]

OTOH the demographics that are going against the GOP over time are four years worse for them in 2016 than 2012. And other issues that are going against them over time, like gay marriage, are four years worse too. The GOP is going to have to change eventually if they want to start winning national elections again.

As far as your other bit about women not liking Hillary, the link below shows how Democrat and Republican POTUS candidates do with women over time. I think it's a safe bet that Hillary will do at least almost as good, if not better, then other recent Democrat candidates

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/gender-gap-2012-vote-largest-gallup-history.aspx

Appealing primarily to the white, male, heterosexual Chrisitan demographic is going to be a worse and worse strategy as time goes on.

And what happens to the Hispanic vote if Rubio is the nominee? Or even Cruz? Women don't like liars. Hillary is a serial liar and an abettor of Billy romps with interns and other women. Combine this with the fact that Hillary is simply not likable and without political instinct.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

LMAO. Have you noticed her standing with women? Shockingly low. Overlooked fact on your part. I don't think women like liars and felons.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/22/opinions/pease-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

We'll see in 2016. But citing a poll from June 2015 and an opinion piece is hardly proof that Hillary won't get women to show up in droves. But keep em coming.

 

[op2]

And what happens to the Hispanic vote if Rubio is the nominee? Or even Cruz? Women don't like liars. Hillary is a serial liar and an abettor of Billy romps with interns and other women. Combine this with the fact that Hillary is simply not likable and without political instinct.

It's interesting how you're saying that the GOP will get the Hispanic vote if Rubio is the nominee while also saying that Hillary won't get the female vote, especially since the Democrats have a history of getting the female vote with non-female candidates but the GOP doesn't have a history of getting the Hispanic vote with non-Hispanic candidates.

 

[WVPATX]

It's interesting how you're saying that the GOP will get the Hispanic vote if Rubio is the nominee while also saying that Hillary won't get the female vote, especially since the Democrats have a history of getting the female vote with non-female candidates but the GOP doesn't have a history of getting the Hispanic vote with non-Hispanic candidates.

So when W got 40% of the Hispanic vote, that doesn't count? Rubio would easily best that number which means the Dems have no hope of winning .

As for women, the Obama Clinton economy has destroyed the careers of many many women. 92% of all job losses during Obama's first term went to women. And women certainly don't like Hillary's position of abortion on demand with text payer funding with no exceptions. And women don't like a liar and Anna better of adultery .

 

[bamaEER]

Are you disputing that Hillary downplayed the VA scandal? Do you want me to give you some of her quotes? My God, read a little. I know its hard for you, but try it.

Last time I read anything from 'The Blaze' they had a story linking Obama, a black helicopter, and Saudis to the Boston marathon bombings. Funny stuff.

 

[mule_eer]

So when W got 40% of the Hispanic vote, that doesn't count? Rubio would easily best that number which means the Dems have no hope of winning .

As for women, the Obama Clinton economy has destroyed the careers of many many women. 92% of all job losses during Obama's first term went to women. And women certainly don't like Hillary's position of abortion on demand with text payer funding with no exceptions. And women don't like a liar and Anna better of adultery .

40% is losing that group, and 60% of that group is many more votes than it was 12 or 16 years ago.

I'd love to see something to back that 92% of all job losses were women statistic. That's one of those stats that is so large that it is unbelievable.

Clinton wasn't part of the economic team in the Obama admin, she was the Sec of State. I'm not sure how you lay blame for any economic issues at her feet.

Lastly, you are grasping at straws on how the female vote will react to HC. Try bringing up her marital problems in a debate or in an ad against her. I thought sticking by your spouse and working through your problems was a trait to be revered in the right wing social sphere. If it's done by someone whose politics you don't like, it's a negative? Secondly, it has nothing to do with her qualifications (or lack thereof) for a different job. If I'm hiring her to be my attorney, I don't care if her husband slept around or not. It has no bearing on her qualifications as an attorney. The same goes for president.

 

[op2]

So when W got 40% of the Hispanic vote, that doesn't count? Rubio would easily best that number which means the Dems have no hope of winning .

As for women, the Obama Clinton economy has destroyed the careers of many many women. 92% of all job losses during Obama's first term went to women. And women certainly don't like Hillary's position of abortion on demand with text payer funding with no exceptions. And women don't like a liar and Anna better of adultery .

So you pick the highest percentage of Latino vote the GOP got in the last nine election dating back to 1980 (and probably farther but I didn't look it up beyond that) and you still end up with the GOP candidate getting only 40% of the Latino vote. I think you're proving my case for me.

Obama got 56 and 55% of the female vote in 2008 and 2012. There is no chance that Hillary, being the first female candidate of a major party, would get lower than that and she'd probably get higher, maybe even 60%.

 

[moe]

So when W got 40% of the Hispanic vote, that doesn't count? Rubio would easily best that number which means the Dems have no hope of winning .

As for women, the Obama Clinton economy has destroyed the careers of many many women. 92% of all job losses during Obama's first term went to women. And women certainly don't like Hillary's position of abortion on demand with text payer funding with no exceptions. And women don't like a liar and Anna better of adultery .

lol you're just desperate, flailing, making stuff up but it's funny...please keep going

 

[WVPATX]

40% is losing that group, and 60% of that group is many more votes than it was 12 or 16 years ago.

I'd love to see something to back that 92% of all job losses were women statistic. That's one of those stats that is so large that it is unbelievable.

Clinton wasn't part of the economic team in the Obama admin, she was the Sec of State. I'm not sure how you lay blame for any economic issues at her feet.

Lastly, you are grasping at straws on how the female vote will react to HC. Try bringing up her marital problems in a debate or in an ad against her. I thought sticking by your spouse and working through your problems was a trait to be revered in the right wing social sphere. If it's done by someone whose politics you don't like, it's a negative? Secondly, it has nothing to do with her qualifications (or lack thereof) for a different job. If I'm hiring her to be my attorney, I don't care if her husband slept around or not. It has no bearing on her qualifications as an attorney. The same goes for president.

Do you Libs ever read?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-...omen-job-losses-statistic-accurate-after-abcs

Again, if Rubio would just get 40% of the Latino vote, the Dems can't win. That's why he is easily the strongest candidate to win .

BTW, Clinton is running for Obama's 3rd term and is tied to his overall record.

 

[bornaneer]

Ha! You showed your ignorance again. Hillary may not energize the same people Obama did. But she will energize women. On both sides of the aisle and independents. Not surprised you overlooked this little fact.

You believe most women like Hillary? My wife hates her and my wife is very good at reading people, thats why she choose me. What does your better half think of Hillary?

 

[op2]

Do you Libs ever read?

Again, if Rubio would just get 40% of the Latino vote, the Dems can't win. That's why he is easily the strongest candidate to win .

That's not what I read. Look it up and see what you find.

 

[WVPATX]

That's not what I read. Look it up and see what you find.

From The Atlantic in April, 2012:

In the last 26 months, U.S. payrolls have shrunk by 740,000 jobs and of those, 683,000 belonged to women, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

[op2]

From The Atlantic in April, 2012:

In the last 26 months, U.S. payrolls have shrunk by 740,000 jobs and of those, 683,000 belonged to women, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I was referring to the 40% Latino vote in the 2016 election thing. But anyway, if you wanted to talk about the effect of Obama's tenure on womens jobs you should go from Jan 2009 to now, not from Feb 2010 to Apr 2012.

 

[moe]

From The Atlantic in April, 2012:

In the last 26 months, U.S. payrolls have shrunk by 740,000 jobs and of those, 683,000 belonged to women, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

You're cherry picking stats (w/no link) as men were the primary job losers when the recession first started and it was GeeDub's mess that BO inherited anyways. In any event, Hillary wasn't president for any of it so I'm not sure why you're flailing the horse. I guess you keep trying to convince yourself that HC can't win.

 

[WVPATX]

You're cherry picking stats (w/no link) as men were the primary job losers when the recession first started and it was GeeDub's mess that BO inherited anyways. In any event, Hillary wasn't president for any of it so I'm not sure why you're flailing the horse. I guess you keep trying to convince yourself that HC can't win.

Obama tied McCain to Bush. Hillary will be tied to Obama. That's how politics work and why it's so difficult to win a "3rd term"

 

[WVPATX]

I was referring to the 40% Latino vote in the 2016 election thing. But anyway, if you wanted to talk about the effect of Obama's tenure on womens jobs you should go from Jan 2009 to now, not from Feb 2010 to Apr 2012.

Blacks voted in record numbers for Obama. They will not do the same for Hillary. I repeat, if Rubio gets just 40% of the vote he wins. It is highly likely however that he will get a significantly higher percentage than that.

 

[op2]

Obama tied McCain to Bush. Hillary will be tied to Obama. That's how politics work and why it's so difficult to win a "3rd term"

If the economy of the country completely tanks between now and 2016 election day, like it was during election season 2008, then the fact that Hillary belongs to the same party as Obama will do significant damage. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[WVPATX]

If the economy of the country completely tanks between now and 2016 election day, like it was during election season 2008, then the fact that Hillary belongs to the same party as Obama will do significant damage. Otherwise, not so much.

You may want to tell that to Al Gore

 

[Airport]

You believe most women like Hillary? My wife hates her and my wife is very good at reading people, thats why she choose me. What does your better half think of Hillary?

Half of my dental practice is women, probably 55%, and they do not like her. Now, it could be because I have a sharp instrument in my hand. Come to think of it, I usually have my instrument in my hand. Maybe since most of the women I see work and not on welfare, that makes it skewed.

 

[op2]

You may want to tell that to Al Gore

You're living in the past, again. That was 16 years ago. If the demographics of 2016 were in place in 2000 then it wouldn't have taken five weeks after the polls closed to determine the outcome of that election, it would have taken five minutes, and the winner would have been different.

 

[WVPATX]

You're living in the past, again. That was 16 years ago. If the demographics of 2016 were in place in 2000 then it wouldn't have taken five weeks after the polls closed to determine the outcome of that election, it would have taken five minutes, and the winner would have been different.

You do realize that men and whites in general are much more likely to vote GOP today than in 2000. You seem to be assuming the only thing that has changed is the demographics.

 

[op2]

You do realize that men and whites in general are much more likely to vote GOP today than in 2000. You seem to be assuming the only thing that has changed is the demographics.

Look at Figure 1 at the top of page 3 and Table 3 at the top of page 5. This really isn't that hard to figure out. The largest group is getting smaller over time in terms of percentage and so if your main appeal is to that largest group then you're going to have a harder and harder time as they become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. The solution is simple in principle, namely start appealing to some of those other groups whose percentage of the pie are increasing over time.

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-568.pdf

 

[WVPATX]

Look at Figure 1 at the top of page 3 and Table 3 at the top of page 5. This really isn't that hard to figure out. The largest group is getting smaller over time in terms of percentage and so if your main appeal is to that largest group then you're going to have a harder and harder time as they become a smaller and smaller percentage of the population. The solution is simple in principle, namely start appealing to some of those other groups whose percentage of the pie are increasing over time.

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-568.pdf

As I've posted, if Rubio gets 40% of the Hispanic vote, he wins. Whites will vote overwhelmingly for him and African Americans are not going to turn out any where near the numbers they did for Obama. Also, Hillary is a particularly uninspiring and deeply flawed candidate. I don't believe Americans believe either that she tells the truth or that she can be trusted.

 

[op2]

As I've posted, if Rubio gets 40% of the Hispanic vote, he wins. Whites will vote overwhelmingly for him and African Americans are not going to turn out any where near the numbers they did for Obama. Also, Hillary is a particularly uninspiring and deeply flawed candidate. I don't believe Americans believe either that she tells the truth or that she can be trusted.

You're resistance to reality is amazing. Even if the GOP manages to win the White House in 2016 the demographics will be even worse for them in 2020. Then worse yet in 2024. Then worse yet in 2028. Etc. Why do you pretend this isn't true instead of just, you know, trying to be more appealing to these groups increasing in percentage over time?

Do you think the GOP can go on indefinitely like this? They can't, nor do I understand why anyone that wants the GOP to win would want them to go on like this.

 

[WVPATX]

You're resistance to reality is amazing. Even if the GOP manages to win the White House in 2016 the demographics will be even worse for them in 2020. Then worse yet in 2024. Then worse yet in 2028. Etc. Why do you pretend this isn't true instead of just, you know, trying to be more appealing to these groups increasing in percentage over time?

Do you think the GOP can go on indefinitely like this? They can't, nor do I understand why anyone that wants the GOP to win would want them to go on like this.

You're assuming a Rubio presidency would have zero impact on Hispanics. Why do you assume Hispanics will vote the same way in 2024 as they did in 2012 after a republican Hispanic becomes president . Why do you assume a blacks will continue to give 95% of the votes to Democrats even though blacks are suffering tremendously under democrat policies?

By the way, on my post previously only dealt with Rubio

 

[op2]

You're assuming a Rubio presidency would have zero impact on Hispanics. Why do you assume Hispanics will vote the same way in 2024 as they did in 2012 after a republican Hispanic becomes president . Why do you assume a blacks will continue to give 95% of the votes to Democrats even though blacks are suffering tremendously under democrat policies?

By the way, on my post previously only dealt with Rubio

I'm assuming groups will continue to vote at abut the same rate for a party unless something causes them to change. Why would you assume Hispanics would start voting more GOP if Rubio was elected? Obama was elected but the percentage of blacks voting for Democrats didn't change much. If Ben Carson is elected the percentage blacks voting GOP won't change much.

To get people to start voting for you you have to start appealing to them.