![]() |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11957227)
What about husbands who tolerate a straying wife?
I doubt it. I mean, your average person almost certainly isn't following the primary campaign in any great detail. Really, as far as campaigning goes, NY voters know her best, and they overwhelmingly voted for her twice. More like they remember the Clinton "scandals" of the '90's. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by johnwoo
(Post 11957298)
NY voter also voted for Trump.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11957300)
NY Republican voters voted for Trump. Clinton won two general elections for the Senate.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by johnwoo
(Post 11957303)
Californians voted for Arnold, hardly an indicator of competence or character.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11957304)
Your point being...
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by johnwoo
(Post 11957346)
Do you really need me to explain it to you.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11957347)
Yes. Start with the assertion I responded to...
Is that supposed to mean anything? If so surely the by the same logic it would apply to Arnold also. Unless of course you think Anold did an outstanding job as Governor. You do know he was governor of California do you? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by johnwoo
(Post 11957350)
Giantaxe wrote " NY voters know her best, and they overwhelmingly voted for her twice. "
Is that supposed to mean anything? If so surely the by the same logic it would apply to Arnold also. Unless of course you think Anold did an outstanding job as Governor. You do know he was governor of California do you? I also see you selectively quoted me to leave out the rather critical start of my sentence, namely, " Really, as far as campaigning goes, ...". See that word "campaigning" in there? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11957353)
Sigh. The claim I responded to was that her unpopularity was "More like to do with her style of campaigning and the lack of any charisma whatsoever". I pointed out that in the two general elections she has actually run and campaigned in she won overwhelmingly despite this purported unpopularity. So unless Schwarzenegger was similarly unpopular when he won the Gray Davis Recall election and when he was subsequently reelected, he's irrelevant to the point.
I also see you selectively quoted me to leave out the rather critical start of my sentence, namely, " Really, as far as campaigning goes, ...". See that word "campaigning" in there? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 11957353)
Sigh. The claim I responded to was that her unpopularity was "More like to do with her style of campaigning and the lack of any charisma whatsoever". I pointed out that in the two general elections she has actually run and campaigned in she won overwhelmingly despite this purported unpopularity. So unless Schwarzenegger was similarly unpopular when he won the Gray Davis Recall election and when he was subsequently reelected, he's irrelevant to the point.
I also see you selectively quoted me to leave out the rather critical start of my sentence, namely, " Really, as far as campaigning goes, ...". See that word "campaigning" in there? Oh, and in the latest CNN poll when asked if Hillary Clinton was honest and trustworthy, 64% said no. The same %age as Donald Trump. That ain't good. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11957639)
I don't think you can extrapolate the voters from NY to apply to the country as a whole. Hillary replaced a popular Democrat senator and ran against weak Republicans. Using your argument, based on Bernie Sanders's election record in VT he would win the Presidency by a YUUGE landslide.
Oh, and in the latest CNN poll when asked if Hillary Clinton was honest and trustworthy, 64% said no. The same %age as Donald Trump. That ain't good. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11957639)
I don't think you can extrapolate the voters from NY to apply to the country as a whole.
He wasn't, and he went to great lengths to note that he wasn't. His point is that Clinton is more effective at campaigning in general elections than her critics are willing to acknowledge. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 11957745)
He wasn't, and he went to great lengths to note that he wasn't.
His point is that Clinton is more effective at campaigning in general elections than her critics are willing to acknowledge. I don't think just pointing to the fact that she won shows that. Did she win because of her effectiveness or in spite of it? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by zargof
(Post 11957749)
I don't think just pointing to the fact that she won shows that.
She has proven to be an effective fundraiser and she was able to win over Republican-dominated parts of the state in 2006 that she didn't win in 2000 and that would vote for GOP presidential candidates in 2008 and 2012. She isn't as ham-fisted as you would like to believe. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 11957767)
She has proven to be an effective fundraiser and she was able to win over Republican-dominated parts of the state in 2006 that she didn't win in 2000 and that would vote for GOP presidential candidates in 2008 and 2012. She isn't as ham-fisted as you would like to believe.
Also, I'm not saying she is ham-fisted, but the evidence from Presidential primaries isn't good. I'm not sure how relevant either are to a Presidential general. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 12:54 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.