I’m going to have to side with the right wing wackos on this one. I don’t want her to be president either.
If she wins, and then get reelected, the Presidency will have been held by only 2 families for 28 out of 36 years. It’s politically unhealthy for her to win for that reason alone.
But it’s hers to win because the Tea Party will run somebody this time around. It won’t be the Republican nominee, of course, but instead one of their “I got 15% of the vote and I ain’t gonna compromise!” pinheads. The other Clinton won both of his elections this way.
I think the “other Clinton” won both of his elections because Ross Perot was around. Those are the only elections he showed up for. It’s just that simple… as simple as about two thirds of Dem voters.
And “fuck you very much,” too.
1992 – Exit polls showed Perot drawing votes evenly from would-be Bush AND Clinton supporters (if they would have shown up at all). http://www.salon.com/2010/04/02/dan_quayle_still_blaming_perot_for_clinton/
1996 – Clinton: 49.2%, Dole: 40.7%, Perot, 8.4%. You could put every last Perot vote in the Dole column (and no, Dole would not have gotten 100% of the Perot voters had he not run), and Clinton still outpolls him by more than 100,000 votes.
You are both right and wrong. First off, where you are wrong. You are listing the national popular vote counts. Presidents are not elected based on the national popular vote, but based on the Electoral Counts. Which is derived from the popular vote counts from each state. The winner of each state’s popular vote getting the electoral votes of that state.
If Dole had received 100% of Perot’s votes, a bunch of states such as Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, just to name 3, would have swung over to Dole and he would have won the election 288-250.
Now here is where you are correct. Dole would have needed 99% of Perot’s votes to fall his way. 98% would not have done it.
I am completely aware of all that. I didn’t want to get too bogged down in details, and pointing out that Clinton tallied more votes than Dole and Perot combined was much cleaner.
Dane Cook looks terrible.
I dunno, I don’t find the tip of her finger that fascinating but then neither is her book.
And so many of you want this thing to be our president. No wonder our country is going down the toilet.
Gee, and I thought it was because our we choose to categorize well educated, succesful, influential women as “things.”
Yep. Definitely had a stroke.
Looks like she used Something about Mary’s special mousse?
Somebody snuck a snuke up my snizz! Oh My!
That bitch may have liked a cigar in her cootch, but she sure as shit didn’t like THIS in her ass!
Does she ever *not* look batshit crazy?
Yep, LifeSerial, she’s not crazy at all…nope, not at all….
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
“No, then you curve your finger and you’re right on the prostate. Yeah, if I had known, he wouldn’t have needed an obese jewess to do it. Heh, live and learn.”
“WHOA…I love watching my finger dance around my face. It takes me right back to the 60′s.”
“Whats that you say Mr. Bimble?”
“WHEN I KILLED YOU BROTHER, I TALKED JUST…LIKE…THIS!”
“Hillary isn’t here right now Mrs. Torrance…”
“This pen isn’t working !” “That’s your index finger ma’am”
Hillary always gets excited when she picks a nice round booger; hoping at last to hear a whoo
Ms. Clinton now reflexively performs a nystagmus test on herself whenever people are around, and sometimes just practices alone at home.
This has done nothing to quell rumors of a stroke and serious brain damage.
Today’s Spanish word is:
she has Manson lamps.
Commenting as a Guest. Sign in or Join.
Hilary Clinton at 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' in New York City. (July 15, 2014) -Photo: AKM-GSI, Fame/Flynet, Getty, INFphoto, Pacific Coast News, Splash News