Hillary Has Zero Chance of Being Elected

[almaty 19]

and can give a good tongue lashing

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

William,

Are you saying Hillary has 0 chance of being elected President or are you saying she won't be elected President?

They are two very different statements.

The first statement is a statement of probabilities, one which would be impossible to measure and/or confirm unless one looked to polls. And your lack of trust of polls, presumably due to your lack of understanding of psephology, is something you've made quite clear.

As for the latter, that just amounts to betting on who will win - not on who has or does not have a chance of winning.

So which one are you claiming?

I fully understand election trends and with that, I validate my statement.

Moreover, I also understand that the American people are not ready for a Woman president. Do I share that opinion? No. I would vote for Dr. Condoleezza Rice today.

connie is hawt!

she is gay

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I really think it will happen (and I wouldn't have thought so 2 years ago) simply because the Republicans are a mess. I think Guiliani or Romney could beat her. I don't think Romney will be the nominee and I don't think Guiliani will invigorate the Republican base - I would not be surprised if there is a protest candidate if he is the nominee.

Just because a lot of people hate George Bush doesn't mean he couldn't get re-elected. Same hold true for Hillary.

Excellent point. I would much rather see someone else be President, but so far, she's a shoe-in.

[Sinergy 3]

William,

Are you saying Hillary has 0 chance of being elected President or are you saying she won't be elected President?

They are two very different statements.

The first statement is a statement of probabilities, one which would be impossible to measure and/or confirm unless one looked to polls. And your lack of trust of polls, presumably due to your lack of understanding of psephology, is something you've made quite clear.

As for the latter, that just amounts to betting on who will win - not on who has or does not have a chance of winning.

So which one are you claiming?

I fully understand election trends and with that, I validate my statement.

Moreover, I also understand that the American people are not ready for a Woman president. Do I share that opinion? No. I would vote for Dr. Condoleezza Rice today.

connie is hawt!

she is gay

gay gay gay gay gay

[almaty 19]

condie rice...is gay and be on tv, after she leaves the bush admin..hugging Ellen

[Dan J 277]

I really think it will happen (and I wouldn't have thought so 2 years ago) simply because the Republicans are a mess. I think Guiliani or Romney could beat her. I don't think Romney will be the nominee and I don't think Guiliani will invigorate the Republican base - I would not be surprised if there is a protest candidate if he is the nominee.

Just because a lot of people hate George Bush doesn't mean he couldn't get re-elected. Same hold true for Hillary.

Excellent point. I would much rather see someone else be President, but so far, she's a shoe-in.

I agree with that too, Democrats at the moment seem mostly behind Hillary. While Republicans can't make up their minds. Guiliani has the most support at the moment, but is too progressive for some of the conservative base. It wouldn't surprise me if someone like Thompson decided to run without the party nomination effectively splitting the conservative vote, sending Hillary to the White House.

But then who knows, we still have more than a year to go yet.

[no name 1]

Wow, all this gay bashing. Totally not cool.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I really think it will happen (and I wouldn't have thought so 2 years ago) simply because the Republicans are a mess. I think Guiliani or Romney could beat her. I don't think Romney will be the nominee and I don't think Guiliani will invigorate the Republican base - I would not be surprised if there is a protest candidate if he is the nominee.

Just because a lot of people hate George Bush doesn't mean he couldn't get re-elected. Same hold true for Hillary.

Excellent point. I would much rather see someone else be President, but so far, she's a shoe-in.

I agree with that too, Democrats at the moment seem mostly behind Hillary. While Republicans can't make up their minds. Guiliani has the most support at the moment, but is too progressive for some of the conservative base. It wouldn't surprise me if someone like Thompson decided to run without the party nomination effectively splitting the conservative vote, sending Hillary to the White House.

But then who knows, we still have more than a year to go yet.

It wouldn't surprise me if Hillary got in. For all her alleged liberalism, she's pretty authoritarian. That tends to be what people vote for - not necessarily a 'strong' leader, but one who provides the appearance of strength.

[Mags 112]

Would you mind just toning the gay comments down a tad?

Back to topic...thanks!

Edited September 14, 2007 by Mags

[Sinergy 3]

Would you mind just toning the gay comments down a tad?

Back to topic...thanks!

i was only trying to irritate charles, thats all

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

Would you mind just toning the gay comments down a tad?

Back to topic...thanks!

i was only trying to irritate charles, thats all

you did that when you logged on today

and here's your bonks for that comment about connie

[russ 1]

Ok, nearly zero chance then. How's that?

Her chances of winning Florida are near-zero, which would make winning the Electoral vote difficult. I think that she will have problems in PA, MI and OH as well.

Those "if the election were held today" numbers mean nothing, since:

o They are at best "likely voters." In most cases, it is a phone sample that includes too many people that won't vote. (This always favors democrats).

o They are for the popular vote.

o They don't break down by state or district.

[no name 1]

Ok, nearly zero chance then. How's that?

Her chances of winning Florida are near-zero, which would make winning the Electoral vote difficult. I think that she will have problems in PA, MI and OH as well.

Those "if the election were held today" numbers mean nothing, since:

o They are at best "likely voters." In most cases, it is a phone sample that includes too many people that won't vote. (This always favors democrats).

o They are for the popular vote.

o They don't break down by state or district.

Have you been reading Gary's crystal ball?

Edited September 14, 2007 by devilette

[DeadPoolX 9]

Ok, nearly zero chance then. How's that?

Her chances of winning Florida are near-zero, which would make winning the Electoral vote difficult. I think that she will have problems in PA, MI and OH as well.

Those "if the election were held today" numbers mean nothing, since:

o They are at best "likely voters." In most cases, it is a phone sample that includes too many people that won't vote. (This always favors democrats).

o They are for the popular vote.

o They don't break down by state or district.

I can agree with that. In Texas as well, the chances of her winning are just about "zero" too, even if individual cities vote predominantly Democratic. For instance, during the last presidential election between Bush and Kerry, Houston (the largest city in Texas and the fourth largest in the United States), voted almost entirely for Kerry. That didn't make a difference though, since the state swung to the right and went Republican, so Bush got the vote.

Now, you might say, "So what? Who cares if Hillary probably can't take Texas and Florida?" Well, I bet she cares. I bet she cares a lot -- and so does the Democratic Party. Politicians become president through the electoral college and each state has a certain number of "electoral votes" attributed to it, due to it's population size. Because of this, the states with the "most votes" are easily California, Texas, Florida and New York. On average, Democrats usually win California and New York, while Republicans get Texas and Florida. This isn't always the case, of course, but this is the norm.

So I would think that Hillary would want to grab Texas and Florida if at all possible. I doubt she'll be crushed if she loses them to her opponent, but things would most definitely be easier for her if she were to win those two states.

[Sinergy 3]

Ok, nearly zero chance then. How's that?

Her chances of winning Florida are near-zero, which would make winning the Electoral vote difficult. I think that she will have problems in PA, MI and OH as well.

Those "if the election were held today" numbers mean nothing, since:

o They are at best "likely voters." In most cases, it is a phone sample that includes too many people that won't vote. (This always favors democrats).

o They are for the popular vote.

o They don't break down by state or district.

Have you been reading Gary's crystal ball?

bwahahahahahaha