Thursday Presidential Debate

[theguesser]

How was it possibly "her turn" in 2016 over the sitting VP,  from a highly successful administration, if he had wanted to run?   If Biden had chosen to run, she would have had little support, other than being a woman.  But women loved Obama, and would have supported his VP.   She had ZERO chance if Biden ran.  She would have had no constituency.   That's a stone cold Fact.   

She couldn't run as an outsider, since she had been part of the administration.  What would her platform possibly have been?    Only an outsider like Bernie would have had any kind of success against Biden, but like 2020, he would have been destroyed by Biden, much more than he was beat by Hillary.  2016 Biden was and would have been a far stronger candidate than 2020 Biden, and 2020 Biden swamped Bernie.  

 

[theguesser]

It's extremely difficult to deny a VP from an 8 year administration, if they want to be the nominee.  Nixon got it,  Bush Sr got it, Gore got it.  I can't find one in modern history who didn't.  If Biden had run in 2016, he would have been very difficult to deny.   The only way would be from an outsider who got very popular,  like a Bernie, only younger.     

[tailsyoulose]

Cool.

So what would you have made the odds of her vs biden in a 2016 primary (if straight up)?

[Deemer]

Imagine getting fired up over politics on a gambling forum

 

[tailsyoulose]

9 minutes ago, Deemer said:

Imagine getting fired up over politics on a gambling forum

 

You know people gamble on politics right?

[RaiseThese]

16 minutes ago, Deemer said:

Imagine getting fired up over politics on a gambling forum

 

Imagine no one fired up to talk about gambling on a a gambling forum.

[tailsyoulose]

35 minutes ago, theguesser said:

It's extremely difficult to deny a VP from an 8 year administration, if they want to be the nominee.  Nixon got it,  Bush Sr got it, Gore got it.  I can't find one in modern history who didn't.  If Biden had run in 2016, he would have been very difficult to deny.   The only way would be from an outsider who got very popular,  like a Bernie, only younger.     

It's almost impossible to be as wrong you consistently are.

Here's an article from 2014 making Clinton a 61 point favorite over Biden in a poll asking Democrats who should be the nominee in 2016. This was at the peak/end of Obamas presidency. Joe had been VP for 5 years by this point, and was "loved" and would have been the automatic favorite, according to you. 

But you'd have put Hillary at +250, and Biden as -300.

61 point favorite. 73-12. Biggest front runner in the history of polling.  Sheesh, prior to the 2008 primary where she lost to Obama,  she was only polling at 22%. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/01/30/hillary-clinton-is-the-biggest-frontrunner-for-the-democratic-presidential-nomination-ever-yes-ever/

 

[theguesser]

25 minutes ago, tailsyoulose said:

Cool.

So what would you have made the odds of her vs biden in a 2016 primary (if straight up)?

Biden -400

Hillary +300.  

If Biden made it clear early on that he wanted to be POTUS.   It's very likely Hillary would have never even entered the race if Joe declared early.   Again, who was her constituency?   Explain to me how she would have tried to frame herself?   She couldn't be an insider, or the next in line.   That was Biden.   She couldn't be an outsider, because she wasn't one.   Because Biden said no, she was able to seem like the next in line, since she had been SOS.  But she was hated by many D's, and she couldn't even put Bernie away without cheating from garbage insiders like Debbie Washerwoman Schultz.  She doesn't have most of them if Biden was in.  

[tailsyoulose]

1 minute ago, theguesser said:

Biden -400

Hillary +300.   

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Jan 2014 (wayyy before Beau died and Biden recused himself from running):

 

Hillary Rodham Clinton's 61-point edge over Joe Biden in new Washington Post-ABC News polling makes her the single biggest frontrunner for a Democratic presidential nomination in the history of the poll, an affirmation of the conventional wisdom that the nomination is hers for the taking.

Clinton stands at an eye-popping 73 percent in a  hypothetical 2016 primary race with Biden, the sitting vice president, who is the only other candidate in double digits at 12 percent. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has signed a letter along with a handful of other Democratic senators urging Clinton to run, is at 8 percent. And that's it.

That lead is almost three times as large as the one Clinton enjoyed in Post-ABC polling in December 2006, the first time we asked the 2008 Democratic presidential primary ballot question. At that time, Clinton took 39 percent to 17 percent for then Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, 12 percent for 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards and 10 percent for former Vice President Al Gore.  Speaking of Gore, he is the closest thing to a Clinton-sized frontrunner dating all the way back to early polling on the 1984 presidential race. In a March 1999 poll, in advance of the 2000 presidential race, Gore took 58 percent to 21 percent for former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley, a 37-point bulge.

On its face, these numbers are a massive boon for Clinton -- indicative of her status as the unquestioned and, at this point, unchallenged frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. It also proves a point we -- and many others -- have been making for quite some time now: Clinton is a much larger favorite to be the nominee at this point in the 2016 process than she was at this same time (or ever) in the 2008 contest. And, while the hypothetical 2008 matchup showed three candidates -- Obama, Edwards and Gore -- with real followings immune from Clinton's frontrunner status, there is no one out there in 2016 that can make the same claim.

[theguesser]

1 minute ago, tailsyoulose said:

It's almost impossible to be as wrong you consistently are.

Here's an article from 2014 making Clinton a 61 point favorite over Biden in a poll asking Democrats who should be the nominee in 2016. This was at the peak/end of Obamas presidency. Joe had been VP for 5 years by this point, and was "loved" and would have been the automatic favorite, according to you. 

But you'd have put Hillary at +250, and Biden as -300.

61 point favorite. 73-12. Biggest front runner in the history of polling.  Sheesh, prior to the 2008 primary where she lost to Obama,  she was only polling at 22%. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/01/30/hillary-clinton-is-the-biggest-frontrunner-for-the-democratic-presidential-nomination-ever-yes-ever/

 

And yet you are, as witnessed by the most comical VP betting I've ever seen.   

[tailsyoulose]

1 minute ago, theguesser said:

And yet you are, as witnessed by the most comical VP betting I've ever seen.   

-400 Biden

+300 Hillary

 

LOL

This is the most embarrassing L guesser has ever had to take. And that's really saying something.

[tailsyoulose]

8 minutes ago, theguesser said:

who was her constituency?   Explain to me how she would have tried to frame herself?   She couldn't be an insider, or the next in line.   That was Biden.   She couldn't be an outsider, because she wasn't one.   Because Biden said no, she was able to seem like the next in line, since she had been SOS.  But she was hated by many D's

73% of dems wanted her as the nominee two years before the primary. Biggest favorite EVER for a primary, in the history of polling. As close as you can get to being universally loved and admired by her party's voters, given that some will always dislike you.

And you're sitting here telling me she was hated by her party.  And that she was an "awful candidate". And would have put Biden at -400. Ok pal.

[theguesser]

1 minute ago, tailsyoulose said:

-400 Biden

+300 Hillary

 

LOL

This is the most embarrassing L guesser has ever had to take. And that's really saying something.

The most embarrassing Loss In Political Betting History on any Forum was your Dem VP debacle.   I never saw anything like it.   Pouncing on nobodies, getting sucked in by every rumor imaginable, , meanwhile the obvious winner was staring you in the face all along.   And all you did was bet on everyone else, and invite everyone to bet against you on Kamala on betfair, etc.   It was amazing, but damn amusing, to see.   

[tailsyoulose]

Just now, theguesser said:

The most embarrassing Loss In Political Betting History on any Forum was your Dem VP debacle.   I never saw anything like it.   Pouncing on nobodies, getting sucked in by every rumor imaginable, , meanwhile the obvious winner was staring you in the face all along.   And all you did was bet on everyone else, and invite everyone to bet against you on Kamala on betfair, etc.   It was amazing, but damn amusing, to see.   

I bet longshot underdogs for huge money pal. Its how I make millions. I'm up six figures even after counting the VP losses.

Hows your thirty dollar arbs?

[tailsyoulose]

-400 Biden. LMAO.

Fuckin buried.

[theguesser]

3 minutes ago, tailsyoulose said:

73% of dems wanted her as the nominee two years before the primary. Biggest favorite EVER for a primary, in the history of polling. As close as you can get to being universally loved and admired by her party's voters, given that some will always dislike you.

And you're sitting here telling me she was hated by her party.  And that she was an "awful candidate". And would have put Biden at -400. Ok pal.

She was a FAR bigger favorite against nobody Obama early on.   Speculation polls 2 years out, when Biden hadn't said he was running, are meaningless. That's why you're a pathetic loser.   You think meaningless crap is meaningful, and actual stuff is meaningless.   

[theguesser]

4 minutes ago, tailsyoulose said:

I bet longshot underdogs for huge money pal. Its how I make millions. I'm up six figures even after counting the VP losses.

Hows your thirty dollar arbs?

Sure, Pal.  Billy exposed you as a fraud months ago.  If you actually had bet the numbers you claimed in your VP debacle you'd be penniless.   My VP arbs were great.   With fools moving the numbers on every little rumor, it couldn't be anything but.  

[tailsyoulose]

Jesus dude. You just fucking buried yourself. just take the L like a man.

[theguesser]

1 minute ago, tailsyoulose said:

Jesus dude. You just fucking buried yourself. just take the L like a man.

If I ever did lose, and make as big a fool of myself, as you did during the VP debacle,  I would self ban for awhile out of embarrassment.  

[tailsyoulose]

Hillary Clinton is the biggest frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination ever. Yes, ever.

 

"hIlLaRy wAs hAtEd"

- guesser

[theguesser]

44 minutes ago, Deemer said:

Imagine getting fired up over politics on a gambling forum

 

The gambling forum is the other forum BBB created.   This is the Politics forum.  

[theguesser]

4 minutes ago, tailsyoulose said:

Hillary Clinton is the biggest frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination ever. Yes, ever.

 

"hIlLaRy wAs hAtEd"

- guesser

Jan 2014, as meaningless as it could be.  But you did the thing that the kids who think they're cool do with the letters on twitter and FB and IG.  How rad.  You are never ending comedy kid.  

[tailsyoulose]

It's called a "meme", grandpa.

[theguesser]

3 minutes ago, tailsyoulose said:

It's called a "meme", grandpa.

Wow kid, really?   How cool.   I'll have to remember that.  BTW, what was Biden's odds against Bernie early on.  I got 11-1 at one of my places.  I believe it was even higher than that.   So much for early polling and odds meaning anything.  

[tailsyoulose]

You have no arguments, just shit tossing. So I rest my case.

Hillary was more or less universally loved and respected by the Dem party and its voters in 2016 (and in all the years prior), and was - at the very least - an above average candidate by party standards.

The narrative that she was a "terrible candidate" is a lie that was invented after the fact, by Dems who could not accept the fact that they just flat out lost.