WWTBAM Bored

Just in case.

Bubba?

Still the one..... and only.

Hmmmm, I wonder if Donny's gonna have some bitchin' babes at the big bash tonight?

Estonut wrote:Bubba?

Chelsea 2036!

Widely circulated in April:

She reached for her phone to read of her win…
The final results of Wisconsin were in…

She stared at the screen as her face turned bright red…
Then she threw it at Bill, and here's what she said…

What the Hell’s wrong with them? Why can't they see?…
I'm sweet and I'm kind, I love birds, I love bees….

I'm not bought or corrupt, I’m just honest, that's me…
I just don’t understand… why those PEASANTS can't see!…

Vandal wrote:

Estonut wrote:Bubba?

Chelsea 2036!

Nope. Clinton's are done. Move on.

BackInTex wrote:

Vandal wrote:

Estonut wrote:Bubba?

Chelsea 2036!

Nope. Clinton's are done. Move on.

The Democrats have a problem in that they don't have any attractive younger candidates at the moment. Elizabeth Warren will probably be the driving force in the party for the next four years and she's 67 now. Tim Kaine shot himself in the foot with his debate performance. Joe Biden is way too old, as is Bernie Sanders. I've got a feeling that Corey Booker is going to be much more visible in the next couple of years.

BackInTex wrote:

Vandal wrote:

Estonut wrote:Bubba?

Chelsea 2036!

Nope. Clinton's are done. Move on.

George?

I was hoping either of the Castro brothers would have been the VP choice. That's Julian & Juaquin of Texas. Secty of Housing etc & rep for Texas, respectively.

I like Cory Booker a lot but reviews of his Newark mayorality cite some missteps & he has his own to-me-disturbing reported habit of chatting women up on social media. None of them underage (that anyone claims, or claims to know of) but its a stupid way for politicians ( or anybody, in my opinion) to look for love.

I'm a big fan of Warren but don't think it would have helped this run. Bernie would have helped it even less, & he was never gonna do it, anyway.

Yeah , I believe politicians have to go w/ the optics that can win for them, so long as the optics-bearing people have the abilities the job needs.

And yeah, by "optics" I do mean "find a talented, charismatic person who can get out the Latina/Latino &/or African-American vote in the way HC failed to do".

She had no problem w/ aging old women who Mr. Trump would have never given an attractiveness rating, the only rating of women that matters w/ the country's new President, even when I was younger & reputedly skippier.

I'm scared for all my friends, including many young ones, whose optics make them walking targets & sitting ducks in ways my aging woman optics do not.

Boy, does the media suck!

The day before the election, Politico.COM said:
Clinton looks poised to lock it up - By Shane Goldmacher | November 7, 2016

The day after the election, Politico.COM said:
Inside the Loss Clinton Saw Coming - By Edward-Isaac Dovere | November 9, 2016

Estonut wrote:Boy, does the media suck!

The day before the election, Politico.COM said:
Clinton looks poised to lock it up - By Shane Goldmacher | November 7, 2016

The day after the election, Politico.COM said:
Inside the Loss Clinton Saw Coming - By Edward-Isaac Dovere | November 9, 2016

If you had had as many things hit you over the years as Hillary Clinton has, you'd be cautious too, and it's a good strategy in sports or in politics not to approach a contest as if you'd already won it. Just ask the Patriots in Super Bowl 42.

But Trump's people themselves thought they had lost based on their own polling. That's different from four years ago when Romney went into election night thinking, based on his internal polling, that he would win. The fit that Karl Rove pulled on Fox News, refusing to believe the Ohio results, wasn't just him being a bad sport. He and the others in the Romney campaign really believed they had it (as did some of the polls that year).

Oddly, the one poll that was consistently right this year was the LA Times tracking poll, which occasionally showed Clinton tied or ahead by a single point but otherwise showed Trump in the lead. Their methodology was strange (they used the same voter sample of about 2500 for the entire election, merely choosing different subsets every day for their polling), but they were the only pollster besides a couple of Republican house polls that hinted that Trump would win.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:Boy, does the media suck!

The day before the election, Politico.COM said:
Clinton looks poised to lock it up - By Shane Goldmacher | November 7, 2016

The day after the election, Politico.COM said:
Inside the Loss Clinton Saw Coming - By Edward-Isaac Dovere | November 9, 2016

If you had had as many things hit you over the years as Hillary Clinton has, you'd be cautious too, and it's a good strategy in sports or in politics not to approach a contest as if you'd already won it. Just ask the Patriots in Super Bowl 42.

But Trump's people themselves thought they had lost based on their own polling. That's different from four years ago when Romney went into election night thinking, based on his internal polling, that he would win. The fit that Karl Rove pulled on Fox News, refusing to believe the Ohio results, wasn't just him being a bad sport. He and the others in the Romney campaign really believed they had it (as did some of the polls that year).

Oddly, the one poll that was consistently right this year was the LA Times tracking poll, which occasionally showed Clinton tied or ahead by a single point but otherwise showed Trump in the lead. Their methodology was strange (they used the same voter sample of about 2500 for the entire election, merely choosing different subsets every day for their polling), but they were the only pollster besides a couple of Republican house polls that hinted that Trump would win.

You missed the point completely. The day after the loss, they are now writing that Hillary "saw the loss coming." There was absolutely no hint of that, whatsoever, as everyone dismissed the USC poll outright.

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:Boy, does the media suck!

The day before the election, Politico.COM said:
Clinton looks poised to lock it up - By Shane Goldmacher | November 7, 2016

The day after the election, Politico.COM said:
Inside the Loss Clinton Saw Coming - By Edward-Isaac Dovere | November 9, 2016

If you had had as many things hit you over the years as Hillary Clinton has, you'd be cautious too, and it's a good strategy in sports or in politics not to approach a contest as if you'd already won it. Just ask the Patriots in Super Bowl 42.

But Trump's people themselves thought they had lost based on their own polling. That's different from four years ago when Romney went into election night thinking, based on his internal polling, that he would win. The fit that Karl Rove pulled on Fox News, refusing to believe the Ohio results, wasn't just him being a bad sport. He and the others in the Romney campaign really believed they had it (as did some of the polls that year).

Oddly, the one poll that was consistently right this year was the LA Times tracking poll, which occasionally showed Clinton tied or ahead by a single point but otherwise showed Trump in the lead. Their methodology was strange (they used the same voter sample of about 2500 for the entire election, merely choosing different subsets every day for their polling), but they were the only pollster besides a couple of Republican house polls that hinted that Trump would win.

You missed the point completely. The day after the loss, they are now writing that Hillary "saw the loss coming." There was absolutely no hint of that, whatsoever, as everyone dismissed the USC poll outright.

Not everyone. In Nate I trust. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
If you had had as many things hit you over the years as Hillary Clinton has, you'd be cautious too, and it's a good strategy in sports or in politics not to approach a contest as if you'd already won it. Just ask the Patriots in Super Bowl 42.

But Trump's people themselves thought they had lost based on their own polling. That's different from four years ago when Romney went into election night thinking, based on his internal polling, that he would win. The fit that Karl Rove pulled on Fox News, refusing to believe the Ohio results, wasn't just him being a bad sport. He and the others in the Romney campaign really believed they had it (as did some of the polls that year).

Oddly, the one poll that was consistently right this year was the LA Times tracking poll, which occasionally showed Clinton tied or ahead by a single point but otherwise showed Trump in the lead. Their methodology was strange (they used the same voter sample of about 2500 for the entire election, merely choosing different subsets every day for their polling), but they were the only pollster besides a couple of Republican house polls that hinted that Trump would win.

You missed the point completely. The day after the loss, they are now writing that Hillary "saw the loss coming." There was absolutely no hint of that, whatsoever, as everyone dismissed the USC poll outright.

Not everyone. In Nate I trust.

Nate? The guy who had Hillary's chances of winning at 71.4% on Election Day (until the votes started coming in)?

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -forecast/

How did this indicate he saw the loss coming?

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Estonut wrote:You missed the point completely. The day after the loss, they are now writing that Hillary "saw the loss coming." There was absolutely no hint of that, whatsoever, as everyone dismissed the USC poll outright.

Not everyone. In Nate I trust.

Nate? The guy who had Hillary's chances of winning at 71.4% on Election Day (until the votes started coming in)?

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... -forecast/

How did this indicate he saw the loss coming?

Not coming. But possible. A lot more possible than those who had the election at 95% or better. And one of the scenarios he discussed pre-election is pretty much exactly what happened -- Trump flipping the Rust Belt.

Reports are that Trump's own team didn't expect to win. They had a concession speech in the can and had to revise a victory speech on the fly. I'm pretty sure they feel like they drew to an inside straight and hit. --Bob

I wonder how much either Clinton will be commanding for their speeches now.

Should be the same, since there was never any pay-for-play involved, right?

Estonut wrote:I wonder how much either Clinton will be commanding for their speeches now.

Should be the same, since there was never any pay-for-play involved, right?

LOL

I suppose that even if Clinton had won, the Republicans in Congress who abandoned any pretense of being there to serve the country and devoted themselves fulltime to trying to obstruct President Obama would have done the same to her. At least now they will have to do their jobs.

elwoodblues wrote:I suppose that even if Clinton had won, the Republicans in Congress who abandoned any pretense of being there to serve the country and devoted themselves fulltime to trying to obstruct President Obama would have done the same to her. At least now they will have to do their jobs.

Wanna bet?

Bob Juch wrote:

elwoodblues wrote:I suppose that even if Clinton had won, the Republicans in Congress who abandoned any pretense of being there to serve the country and devoted themselves fulltime to trying to obstruct President Obama would have done the same to her. At least now they will have to do their jobs.

Wanna bet?

That would be tough to win or lose. How would you determine an outcome?

And to correct Elwood, Congressmen are not there to serve their country. They are there to represent and serve their constituents, who as we can see from the election maps, red or blue, are certainly not "the country".

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

elwoodblues wrote:I suppose that even if Clinton had won, the Republicans in Congress who abandoned any pretense of being there to serve the country and devoted themselves fulltime to trying to obstruct President Obama would have done the same to her. At least now they will have to do their jobs.

Wanna bet?

That would be tough to win or lose. How would you determine an outcome?

And to correct Elwood, Congressmen are not there to server their country. They are there to represent and serve their constituents, who as we can see from the election maps, red or blue, are certainly not "the country".

Their oath of office says they will "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," not their district, not their state.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Wanna bet?

That would be tough to win or lose. How would you determine an outcome?

And to correct Elwood, Congressmen are not there to serve their country. They are there to represent and serve their constituents, who as we can see from the election maps, red or blue, are certainly not "the country".

Their oath of office says they will "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," not their district, not their state.

"support and defend" <> "serve"

I'd never heard of this (British) guy until his post-election video went viral.

About him:
Everything You Need to Know About Jonathan Pie

He makes many good points in his "analysis." NSFW due to language.