Posted by cccp1014 on 10/9/2018 4:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/9/2018 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/9/2018 3:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/9/2018 3:37:00 PM (view original):
What do you mean you were surprised because of the biased media?

The media said he had no shot. All the experts on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, even Fox was skeptical at best.

What did you think I meant?

He was a long shot. That wasn’t bias, it was reality.

But sometimes long shots win.

He won handily. They kept talking about a mythical "blue wall"....And she outspent him by $200mil. I would have voted for him but I figured it was a waste of time. And it was in MA.

He didn't win handily. He lost the popular vote. He only won the electoral college by about 70,000 votes spread out over three states.

Please get in touch with reality.

They said he had no path to 270 and he got over 300.

She also narrowly beat him in NH, NV, and MN (always a blue state).

She won the popular vote because of Commiefornia. Where she smoked him by 4mil votes. Otherwise he basically crushed her and lets be honest he didn't waste his time in Cali in terms of campaigning. Lost cause.

He garnered 63 million votes. Impressive for someone who was not even in politics.

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/9/2018 4:38:00 PM (view original):
They said he had no path to 270 and he got over 300.

She also narrowly beat him in NH, NV, and MN (always a blue state).

She won the popular vote because of Commiefornia. Where she smoked him by 4mil votes. Otherwise he basically crushed her and lets be honest he didn't waste his time in Cali in terms of campaigning. Lost cause.

He garnered 63 million votes. Impressive for someone who was not even in politics.

You're letting the electoral college total mislead you. Yes he won. But it was very, very close. If the tiny margins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin go the other way, Clinton is President.

Also, no one said he had no path to 270, they just said it was unlikely.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/9/2018 4:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/9/2018 4:38:00 PM (view original):
They said he had no path to 270 and he got over 300.

She also narrowly beat him in NH, NV, and MN (always a blue state).

She won the popular vote because of Commiefornia. Where she smoked him by 4mil votes. Otherwise he basically crushed her and lets be honest he didn't waste his time in Cali in terms of campaigning. Lost cause.

He garnered 63 million votes. Impressive for someone who was not even in politics.

You're letting the electoral college total mislead you. Yes he won. But it was very, very close. If the tiny margins in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin go the other way, Clinton is President.

He did not need PA. Correct?

If the tiny margins in WI, PA, and MI went the other way, he would not be president.

Posted by bad_luck on 10/9/2018 5:53:00 PM (view original):
If the tiny margins in WI, PA, and MI went the other way, he would not be president.

If the queen had balls she would be the king. I am not following your logic. Are you saying that HRC did not have some narrow wins as well?

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/9/2018 5:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 10/9/2018 5:53:00 PM (view original):
If the tiny margins in WI, PA, and MI went the other way, he would not be president.

If the queen had balls she would be the king. I am not following your logic. Are you saying that HRC did not have some narrow wins as well?

My point is that the margin of victory was small.

Many races were tight. She failed to campaign in several key states after the convention. Her experts overestimated her chances. Trump had a good strategy to get to 270.

His numbers aren't great. His job performance number is better than his personal approval numbers, and is better than it was earlier in the year. Clinton and Obama didn't have great numbers at times during their first terms. Two years is an eternity in this political environment.

Posted by DoctorKz on 10/9/2018 7:03:00 PM (view original):
Many races were tight. She failed to campaign in several key states after the convention. Her experts overestimated her chances. Trump had a good strategy to get to 270.

His numbers aren't great. His job performance number is better than his personal approval numbers, and is better than it was earlier in the year. Clinton and Obama didn't have great numbers at times during their first terms. Two years is an eternity in this political environment.

Why she lost doesn't really matter, at least for the purpose of this discussion.

While I agree that we've entered a weird space-time continuum regarding political news these days (Manafort agreeing to cooperate was less than a month ago but feels like 5 years ago), the first 2020 primaries will happen in 16 months. That's a blink.

The jobs numbers can't really get better. The only thing that would really help Trump's approval numbers would be if the investigation wraps up without touching him.

He'll rally his base with racial tensions just like he did in 2016, but I think he'll have a hard time with independents in 2020 (they broke about evenly in 2016) and he's essentially dead to college educated women in the GOP.

Posted by cccp1014 on 10/9/2018 4:38:00 PM (view original):
They said he had no path to 270 and he got over 300.

She also narrowly beat him in NH, NV, and MN (always a blue state).

She won the popular vote because of Commiefornia. Where she smoked him by 4mil votes. Otherwise he basically crushed her and lets be honest he didn't waste his time in Cali in terms of campaigning. Lost cause.

He garnered 63 million votes. Impressive for someone who was not even in politics.

NH NV MN are not always blue states

And its not like Clinton campained hard in the deep south and midwest.... So your point is?

She spent $200mil more than him. Where did all the $$ go?

Posted by bad_luck on 10/9/2018 7:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DoctorKz on 10/9/2018 7:03:00 PM (view original):
Many races were tight. She failed to campaign in several key states after the convention. Her experts overestimated her chances. Trump had a good strategy to get to 270.

His numbers aren't great. His job performance number is better than his personal approval numbers, and is better than it was earlier in the year. Clinton and Obama didn't have great numbers at times during their first terms. Two years is an eternity in this political environment.

Why she lost doesn't really matter, at least for the purpose of this discussion.

While I agree that we've entered a weird space-time continuum regarding political news these days (Manafort agreeing to cooperate was less than a month ago but feels like 5 years ago), the first 2020 primaries will happen in 16 months. That's a blink.

The jobs numbers can't really get better. The only thing that would really help Trump's approval numbers would be if the investigation wraps up without touching him.

He'll rally his base with racial tensions just like he did in 2016, but I think he'll have a hard time with independents in 2020 (they broke about evenly in 2016) and he's essentially dead to college educated women in the GOP.

Bad luck thinks people who voted for DJT are morons but lauds those who vote for Warren and Blumenthal. Cannot make this stuff up.

Was this money spent or raised?

Posted by tangplay on 10/9/2018 8:44:00 PM (view original):
Was this money spent or raised?

I believe SPENT!!!!!!!!!!!!