Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   StopHillary2016.org is now a thing. From the creator, a Romney manager, "Obama's 4 year head start let him win" No, not being mentally incompetent helped him win. But go fight your windmills   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, Mitt Romney, political action committees, executive directors, Republican, Matt Rhoades  
•       •       •

793 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jun 2013 at 9:14 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



189 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-06-21 10:43:39 AM  

WippitGuud: Satanic_Hamster: Obama + Bill Clinton on the fundraising and GOTV trail would be freaking nuts.


[img.fark.net image 600x400]


I still love that picture.
 
2013-06-21 10:49:15 AM  

WTF Indeed: Philip Francis Queeg: You mean the fact that despite having most of the advantages, Hillary lost in 2008 because of the failings of her own campaign?

Let me explain to you how federal primary campaigns work.  Say there are five candidates for office, all with name req, and all calling the same party people to enlist there help. Five candidates fighting over the same finite pool of volunteers. Those volunteers in turn canvass the same finite pool of primary voters.

In 2008 the Clinton campaign had the vast majority of those party people locked up months and years ahead of time figuring that the same rules will apply to that primary that apply to all other primaries forever. Then Obama comes along and pulls some people from that pool of volunteers, but also pulls thousands of new volunteers into the primary, who in turn pull in thousands of new voters into the primary.  The advantages you claim Hillary squandered were actually very aptly used in every primary, the problem was that Obama's machine dragged in far more volunteers and voters than Hillary could muster.


Of course we could also mention her early advantages in campaign fund raising and support of the party organisation and super delegates. We could also ask why such a strong campaigner, and such a well run campaign could not draw in the number of volunteers required. We could ask why they were so complacent to assume that the "rules" would remain the same, rather than seeking ways of shaking things up to their advantage.

And no, her advantages weren't very aptly used in every primary. One of her campaign'[s primary strategic errors was the choice not to strongly contest many of the primaries in so called minor states. This allowed Obama to generate momentum through a series of victories.

Were you involved in her 2008 campaign, by any chance?
 
2013-06-21 10:58:31 AM  

verbaltoxin: PanicMan: max_pooper: Churchill2004: skozlaw: The United States is constantly enforcing its interests around the world and that didn't change under Clinton, but what you didn't see under Clinton, which you did see under many other administration through the 20th and 21st centuries, were any large, full-scale conflicts

Which is equally true of Reagan. Again, the point is that Clinton was more than willing to use military force, and for domestic political gain at that. And I think it's ridiculous to say what happened in Serbia wasn't a war- and an unconstitutional war at that.

skozlaw: Hell, more U.S. casualties occurred just in Grenada than in the entire 9 years we spent in Bosnia. More Americans were killed in Beirut than in all the Clinton interventions combined.

Again, so only American casualties count? What a myopic view.

So the new GOP talking points was that Clinton was a war monger? Really?

Around 2004, I distinctly remember hearing the military complaining that Clinton tied their hands and refused to send them into conflicts.  The accusation was that Clinton was too worried about the appearance of having Americans killed, and not interested in intervening to save the innocent.

Some of the military guys have finally come around on Clinton. Some. There are a lot though who prove why the Defense Department shouldn't be your diplomacy arm, as it's too often used by our country.

/Hint: "bomb it" is not a diplomacy tactic.


No no no, BSABSVR.
 
2013-06-21 11:07:28 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Of course we could also mention her early advantages in campaign fund raising and support of the party organisation and super delegates. We could also ask why such a strong campaigner, and such a well run campaign could not draw in the number of volunteers required. We could ask why they were so complacent to assume that the "rules" would remain the same, rather than seeking ways of shaking things up to their advantage.


Someone's not getting the idea of what a primary entails or how campaigns work.  1) An early advantage in money is only one until someone starts catching up. 2) Again, she did draw lots of volunteers, however the abnormal(best way to describe the 08 Obama campaign) drew in thousands of volunteers and voters that did not normally vote in primaries, therefore changing the margins for victory(eg what happened again in Ohio in 2012, resulting in Rove's breakdown).

Philip Francis Queeg: And no, her advantages weren't very aptly used in every primary. One of her campaign'[s primary strategic errors was the choice not to strongly contest many of the primaries in so called minor states. This allowed Obama to generate momentum through a series of victories.


"Momentum" is the word Skip Bayless would use if he was a political pundit. It means nothing in reality and is created by hard work and some luck.  Saying Hillary ran a shiatty campaign is not only is false, it doesn't give the Obama campaign the credit it deserves for running a masterful campaign to defeat one of the best campaigners in the last 40 years.
 
2013-06-21 11:11:15 AM  

WTF Indeed: James!: Nope.

She's already locked down all the Iowa committee members for her and her people are currently making calls into New York, New Jersey, and PA.  She's either running or is locking everyone ahead of time so the Clinton's can pick the next President of the United States.


so long as she doesn't pick herself (and the republicans do what they usually do) i'll vote D again. if she runs then it's third party. want a woman president run ms warren. hell pretty much any democratic woman other than hillary.
 
2013-06-21 11:13:36 AM  

WTF Indeed: 1) An early advantage in money is only one until someone starts catching up.


Yep, Hillary's campaign failed to keep pace in fundraising. One of their errors, and a pretty serious one at that.

WTF Indeed: 2) Again, she did draw lots of volunteers, however the abnormal(best way to describe the 08 Obama campaign) drew in thousands of volunteers and voters that did not normally vote in primaries, therefore changing the margins for victory(eg what happened again in Ohio in 2012, resulting in Rove's breakdown)


Yep, Hillary's campaign failed to draw in enough new voters who supported her. Another failure on their part.

WTF Indeed: "Momentum" is the word Skip Bayless would use if he was a political pundit. It means nothing in reality and is created by hard work and some luck.


Yup, Hillary's campaign failed to put in the hard work in the smaller states.  You identified that error nicely.

You didn't answer the question about your role in Hillary's masterful, entirely successful, unstoppable juggernaut of a campaign in 2008.
 
2013-06-21 11:14:49 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: They're running Bob Dole again?


Not even Bob Dole wants Bob Dole to run again.

/Bob Dole.
 
2013-06-21 11:16:40 AM  

James!: Stone Meadow: It may disappoint you, but Hillary is going to be POTUS.

Nope, I like Hillary but she isn't ever going to be president. Not even once, not even a little.


You still haven't offered any reasons for coming to this conclusion, while all the evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion. Please do explain.

ShadowKamui: Stone Meadow: Against whom? If she declares, which I personally take as a given, no other Democrat will seriously run against her, so "screwing up" the primaries becomes a moot point.

You seriously think no other Dem is going to run against her?


Oh, there will be other Democrats in the early primaries all right. Maybe even one or two 'serious' ones, but as her lead builds up they will drop out quickly and endorse her. If there is anything the Democrats have learned from the GOP in recent years it is to fall in line quickly and present a unified front. At the end of the day it's all about winning the election. The GOP have let themselves forget that truism, and are paying the electoral price.
 
2013-06-21 11:20:00 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, Hillary's campaign failed to keep pace in fundraising. One of their errors, and a pretty serious one at that.


Both campaigns raised a record amount of money. How is that a failure?

Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, Hillary's campaign failed to draw in enough new voters who supported her. Another failure on their part.


Obama was able to tap into large black and youth voters that had never, and I mean never, voted before. How is that a failure?

Philip Francis Queeg: Yup, Hillary's campaign failed to put in the hard work in the smaller states.  You identified that error nicely.


Smaller states, while important, will not win the nomination. Ask Ron Paul and Howard Dean about how their strategies of winning small states worked out for them.

Philip Francis Queeg: You didn't answer the question about your role in Hillary's masterful, entirely successful, unstoppable juggernaut of a campaign in 2008.

I was field director for the Obama campaign.
 
2013-06-21 11:21:28 AM  

WTF Indeed: Philip Francis Queeg: You didn't answer the question about your role in Hillary's masterful, entirely successful, unstoppable juggernaut of a campaign in 2008.

I was field director for the Obama campaign.


I was A field director.

FTFM
 
2013-06-21 11:22:06 AM  

Stone Meadow: You still haven't offered any reasons for coming to this conclusion, while all the evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion. Please do explain.


Other than Hillary herself stating that she didn't want to run in 2016?
 
2013-06-21 11:28:44 AM  

James!: Stone Meadow: You still haven't offered any reasons for coming to this conclusion, while all the evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion. Please do explain.

Other than Hillary herself stating that she didn't want to run in 2016?


citationneeded.jpg
 
2013-06-21 11:29:23 AM  
Philip Francis Queeg, it's pretty obvious you haven't worked on many campaigns and while I commend your attempt to assert your 'vast knowledge' of a topic over someone whom I'm sure you have highlighted as a troll, you're actual knowledge of how elections and politics works is obviously limited to the debating on internet forums. However you do seem to have a passion for politics, so I would suggest that you contact your local party and volunteer. They are always looking for passionate people to help elect good people to office.
 
2013-06-21 11:29:40 AM  

WTF Indeed: Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, Hillary's campaign failed to keep pace in fundraising. One of their errors, and a pretty serious one at that.

Both campaigns raised a record amount of money. How is that a failure?


You admitted that she failed to maintain her advantage. Letting your opponent catch up is a failure.


Obama was able to tap into large black and youth voters that had never, and I mean never, voted before. How is that a failure?

And Hillary'scampaign failed to tap into large numbers of new voters. Hercampaign complacentlybelieved the "rules" would remain the same, as you yourself admitted. They failed to react quickly and properly to Obama's initiatives. That is a failure.

WTF Indeed: Smaller states, while important, will not win the nomination. Ask Ron Paul and Howard Dean about how their strategies of winning small states worked out for them.


How about I ask Obama how his strategy of winning small states worked out for him? But it's nice to see you acknowledge that Hillary's advantages were not aptly used in every primary.

WTF Indeed: I was field director for the Obama campaign.


Fair enough. I would suggest that if Hillary does run, and you chose to work on her campaign, that you endeavor top learn from the errors and mistakes of her 2008 campaign, rather than embrace them. Complacency in 2016 will bring no more success than complacency did in 2008.
 
2013-06-21 11:33:36 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Let's be honest, Hillary did not run well in 2008.


well to be fair she was dodging sniper fire.

not meant to be a factual statement.
 
2013-06-21 11:36:16 AM  

Stone Meadow: James!: Stone Meadow: You still haven't offered any reasons for coming to this conclusion, while all the evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion. Please do explain.

Other than Hillary herself stating that she didn't want to run in 2016?

citationneeded.jpg



"No. No, I mean, this is a great job. It is a 24/7 job, and I'm looking forward to retirement at some point." - Oct. 13, 2009 on NBC's "Today."

"Well, not me. But it will be someone." - asked about the United States electing a female president during a Dec. 5, 2010, interview with TV New Zealand.

"I think I will serve as secretary of state as my last public position and the probably go back to advocacy, and probably on behalf of women and children." - Dec. 3, 2010 at a town hall in Manama, Bahrain.

"I am very happy doing what I'm doing, and I am not in any way interested in or pursuing anything in elective office." - Nov. 21, 2010 in an interview on Fox News Sunday.

"I am not." - Asked about running in 2016 by Marie Claire magazine in an interview published Oct. 18, 2012.

"Oh, I've ruled it out, but you know me. Everybody keeps asking me. So I keep ruling it out and being asked." - Nov. 11, 2012 in an interview with the New York Times' Gail Collins.


I don't know when I turned into farking google.
 
2013-06-21 11:40:39 AM  

James!: "No. No, I mean, this is a great job. It is a 24/7 job, and I'm looking forward to retirement at some point." - Oct. 13, 2009 on NBC's "Today."

"Well, not me. But it will be someone." - asked about the United States electing a female president during a Dec. 5, 2010, interview with TV New Zealand.

"I think I will serve as secretary of state as my last public position and the probably go back to advocacy, and probably on behalf of women and children." - Dec. 3, 2010 at a town hall in Manama, Bahrain.

"I am very happy doing what I'm doing, and I am not in any way interested in or pursuing anything in elective office." - Nov. 21, 2010 in an interview on Fox News Sunday.

"I am not." - Asked about running in 2016 by Marie Claire magazine in an interview published Oct. 18, 2012.

"Oh, I've ruled it out, but you know me. Everybody keeps asking me. So I keep ruling it out and being asked." - Nov. 11, 2012 in an interview with the New York Times' Gail Collins.


I don't know when I turned into farking google.


To be fair, any question asked before she resigned as SoS would bring up ethics questions. Saying "Yes I'm running for office in 2016" while Secretary of State would be so many levels of wrong.
 
2013-06-21 11:44:56 AM  

WTF Indeed: To be fair, any question asked before she resigned as SoS would bring up ethics questions. Saying "Yes I'm running for office in 2016" while Secretary of State would be so many levels of wrong.


To be fair, being a member of the Obama admin is all it takes to bring up ethics questions for a lot of people.

She's either been lying consistently for three years or she honestly doesn't want to run again.
 
2013-06-21 11:47:36 AM  

verbaltoxin: That was it. That was all it took.


well that and hillarycare. she was doing what seemed to many like team presidenting, not a good idea.
 
2013-06-21 11:48:39 AM  

James!: To be fair, being a member of the Obama admin is all it takes to bring up ethics questions for a lot of people.

She's either been lying consistently for three years or she honestly doesn't want to run again.


That's not the case here. The only answer she could legally give to that question while SoS is "No".  So yes, she would have to lie to consistently for three years since anything but "No" would bring down a rain of hell.
 
2013-06-21 11:51:09 AM  

James!: I don't know when I turned into farking google.


farking google is illegal in all but three states. Also, you sound..."concerned."
 
2013-06-21 11:53:09 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: James!: I don't know when I turned into farking google.

farking google is illegal in all but three states. Also, you sound..."concerned."


Concerned about what?
 
2013-06-21 11:56:50 AM  

Curious: verbaltoxin: That was it. That was all it took.

well that and hillarycare. she was doing what seemed to many like team presidenting, not a good idea.


They hated her well before that. The healthcare reform debate, and her role in it, turned a froth to a boil.

I stand by my statement, though. She's still useful. All she has to do is entertain the Presidency, and that will be enough for the DNC to get together formidable candidates.
 
2013-06-21 12:08:03 PM  

James!: "I am not." - Asked about running in 2016 by Marie Claire magazine in an interview published Oct. 18, 2012.

"Oh, I've ruled it out, but you know me. Everybody keeps asking me. So I keep ruling it out and being asked." - Nov. 11, 2012 in an interview with the New York Times' Gail Collins.

I don't know when I turned into farking google.


When you make unsubstantiated statements. But now that you have attempted to back up your assertion, read more carefully. The first of those were in the context of "I have a job to do right now and am not (present tense) running for my next job", and the second you swung and missed by a mile. Read the quote in its context...it's NOTHING like what you imply.
 
2013-06-21 12:08:38 PM  
If she trolls the heck out of the GOP and then refuses to run, she will defuse a lot of Republican bankrolling.

/Has the IRS looked into this Super PAC yet?
 
2013-06-21 12:11:49 PM  

Stone Meadow: James!: "I am not." - Asked about running in 2016 by Marie Claire magazine in an interview published Oct. 18, 2012.

"Oh, I've ruled it out, but you know me. Everybody keeps asking me. So I keep ruling it out and being asked." - Nov. 11, 2012 in an interview with the New York Times' Gail Collins.

I don't know when I turned into farking google.

When you make unsubstantiated statements. But now that you have attempted to back up your assertion, read more carefully. The first of those were in the context of "I have a job to do right now and am not (present tense) running for my next job", and the second you swung and missed by a mile. Read the quote in its context...it's NOTHING like what you imply.


"I know what she said, but what she meant was..."

Whatever man, she isn't going to run.  But your time is not my time so waste it if you want.
 
2013-06-21 12:18:35 PM  

James!: Whatever man, she isn't going to run.  But your time is not my time so waste it if you want.


Politics is never a waste of time, but in the meantime I am as convinced she will run as you appear to be that she won't. Time will tell.
 
2013-06-21 12:42:52 PM  

Stone Meadow: James!: Stone Meadow: It may disappoint you, but Hillary is going to be POTUS.

Nope, I like Hillary but she isn't ever going to be president. Not even once, not even a little.

You still haven't offered any reasons for coming to this conclusion, while all the evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion. Please do explain.

ShadowKamui: Stone Meadow: Against whom? If she declares, which I personally take as a given, no other Democrat will seriously run against her, so "screwing up" the primaries becomes a moot point.

You seriously think no other Dem is going to run against her?

Oh, there will be other Democrats in the early primaries all right. Maybe even one or two 'serious' ones, but as her lead builds up they will drop out quickly and endorse her. If there is anything the Democrats have learned from the GOP in recent years it is to fall in line quickly and present a unified front. At the end of the day it's all about winning the election. The GOP have let themselves forget that truism, and are paying the electoral price.


She's the poster child of not falling in line.  She's also extremely likely to blow up during a debate and becoming a leper like Dean
 
2013-06-21 12:47:29 PM  

Stone Meadow: James!: Whatever man, she isn't going to run.  But your time is not my time so waste it if you want.

Politics is never a waste of time, but in the meantime I am as convinced she will run as you appear to be that she won't. Time will tell.


The 'what does it matter' comment is going to look awful in commercials if she decides to run.  The minority vote will most likely be much lower than 08 or 12.  It will be a close election in 16.
 
2013-06-21 01:02:42 PM  

pxsteel: Stone Meadow: James!: Whatever man, she isn't going to run.  But your time is not my time so waste it if you want.

Politics is never a waste of time, but in the meantime I am as convinced she will run as you appear to be that she won't. Time will tell.

The 'what does it matter' comment is going to look awful in commercials if she decides to run.  The minority vote will most likely be much lower than 08 or 12.  It will be a close election in 16.


Maybe, but I think the GOP have blow their collective wad wrt Hillary. Other than looking pants-on-head stupid by trying to tar her with Bengazi, what new do they have to complain about? That said, I do agree the popular vote will be fairly close. After all, 45% vote one way or the other no matter the election or candidate, but the Electoral College will be another blowout.
 
2013-06-21 01:04:20 PM  

pxsteel: The 'what does it matter' comment is going to look awful in commercials if she decides to run.


Not to anyone who might have even considered voting for Hillary, so, um, what does that matter?

pxsteel: The minority vote will most likely be much lower than 08 or 12. It will be a close election in 16.


Nobody even knows who'll be running more than three years from now, so you must be a time traveler from the future. You should be playing the stock market instead of doing this.
 
2013-06-21 01:08:30 PM  

WTF Indeed: Philip Francis Queeg: You mean the fact that despite having most of the advantages, Hillary lost in 2008 because of the failings of her own campaign?

Let me explain to you how federal primary campaigns work.  Say there are five candidates for office, all with name req, and all calling the same party people to enlist there help. Five candidates fighting over the same finite pool of volunteers. Those volunteers in turn canvass the same finite pool of primary voters.

In 2008 the Clinton campaign had the vast majority of those party people locked up months and years ahead of time figuring that the same rules will apply to that primary that apply to all other primaries forever. Then Obama comes along and pulls some people from that pool of volunteers, but also pulls thousands of new volunteers into the primary, who in turn pull in thousands of new voters into the primary.  The advantages you claim Hillary squandered were actually very aptly used in every primary, the problem was that Obama's machine dragged in far more volunteers and voters than Hillary could muster.


That is one of the best explanations I've ever read, to the point that I may copy pasta it for future reference.
 
2013-06-21 03:03:21 PM  
Could Hillary get 70% of the woman vote in the general election? I think she could. That would be hard to beat.
 
2013-06-21 05:29:14 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: I love how everyone of both parties ASSUMES Hillary's going to be the Dem nominee for '16.  Nobody else is even being considered.  They probably won't even bother having a primary.


The Rs assume it out of some form of, apparently, pants-shiatting terror.

The Ds are saying '...you know, they might have something there...' while snickering quietly.

/Or at least I am.
//Can't say I know much about her politics, but if the Rs are freaking out  this much, and given her usually-impressive competency...
 
2013-06-21 08:07:25 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: I love how everyone of both parties ASSUMES Hillary's going to be the Dem nominee for '16.  Nobody else is even being considered.  They probably won't even bother having a primary.


She's got the money, the power, the name recognition, and she came within a nonce of winning the nomination last time (and she got her own meme since then).  None of the other Democratic (realistic) possibilities have any of that, nor Obama's X-factor.  Plus she seems to have jettisoned the fools who gave her bad advice last time.  If you are a Democrat thinking about the Presidency, the odds are so not in your favor it isn't even funny.  Most will decide to hold off just because being "the guy Hillary tore a strip off of" is not worth it.  Oh, some will contest it, but only the most pathologically egocentric would want to.
 
2013-06-21 10:02:59 PM  
Stop Hillary indeed.  Now if it was Warren/Wyden, I'd feel like I was actually voting *for* someone and not just against the other guy.
 
2013-06-22 01:36:25 AM  

tinderfitles: Probably her only real challenge might be Julian Castro, which I would much rather see him become her Vice Presidential pick. Put him in the stable for a few years, let him have two terms of executive branch experience then you have a prime candidate right in the middle of a latino surge in demographics.


Generally speaking, being VP is a political dead end. Only one VP has immediately been elected as Pres. since the 1830s.
 
2013-06-22 03:38:59 AM  
The GOP is making the exact same mistake they made in '08. They're focusing on Hillary, and when she's not the nominee (because like hell she'll win the nomination, even if she DOES run), they'll have precisely squat on the actual nominee, so they'll have to throw random, conspiracy theory bullshiat at him/her, like they did with Barack Obama's birth certificate, salad and condiment habits, people he shared a room with at some point, and so on. They'll come off as crazy jackasses, lose again, and HOPEFULLY become entirely irrelevant.
 
m00
2013-06-22 01:55:48 PM  
You guys are all crazy. Obama beat Hillary in the primaries because the Bilderberg group thought the best way to increase Bush-era pro-1%er policy through 2016 was to make the President a black man, so that any policy criticism could be dismissed racist. They're saving Hillary for 2016, so they can get another 8 years of pro-1% policy and label any criticism as misogynist. After that, they'll probably find someone who is openly gay and served in the military... which is why they're laying the groundwork now to make that a thing. Jews and Asians will have to wait.
 
Displayed 39 of 189 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report