Considering you have spammed nearly every thread with the news we have all "here'd" it. This hack has been known for a while.
Tim Kaine Wouldn’t Do Much To Help Clinton Win The Election http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tim-kaine-probably-wouldnt-win-clinton-the-election/ If Hillary Clinton chooses Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia as her running mate, as betting markets and journalists suspect, then in some ways, it’s a dull story. Kaine has traditional credentials, having served as Virginia’s governor before joining the U.S. Senate. He’s young enough, at 58, that he could run for president himself in 2020 or 2024. He’s not especially liberal, but he’s no Blue Dog Democrat, either. He’s a white guy, although he speaks good Spanish. If Mike Pence is a “generic Republican,” then Kaine is a “generic Democrat.” The difference is that Kaine comes from a swing state, whereas Donald Trump would likely lose Pence’s home state, Indiana, only in a national landslide. If you’re going to pick someone from a swing state, is Virginia among the better options? And how much difference does the vice presidential nominee really make in his or her home state? Our previous research suggests that a vice presidential pick adds about 2 percentage points to his party’s margin in his home state. So, for instance, if Clinton would otherwise win Virginia by 3 percentage points, her margin would theoretically increase to 5 points with Kaine on the ticket. Not all VP bonuses are created equal, of course; there’s some evidence that VP nominees chosen from less populous states (for instance, Joe Biden of Delaware or Sarah Palin of Alaska) make more difference than those picked from larger ones. But Kaine seems like a fairly typical case: Virginia is a medium-size state, and Kaine’s approval ratings there are solid but not spectacular. It actually takes quite a confluence of circumstances, though, for those 2 percentage points in one swing state to change the winner of the Electoral College. For Kaine to swing the election for Clinton, she’d have to be losing Virginia without him (otherwise he’d be superfluous) but not losing it by more than 2 percentage points (otherwise, he wouldn’t help enough). Likewise, she’d have to be losing the Electoral College without Virginia’s 13 electoral votes, but she’d need to have at least 257 from other states or Virginia wouldn’t make a big enough impact.1 What are the odds of all of that happening? About 1 chance in 140, according to our polls-only model, based on a set of simulations I ran early Friday afternoon. That translates into only about a 0.7 percent chance that a VP pick from Virginia would swing the election to Clinton. Not very impressive, right? Actually, it’s pretty good as far as these things go. A home-state VP pick would make more of an impact in Florida (where it would increase Clinton’s chances of winning the Electoral College by 1.8 percentage points), Ohio (1.3 points), Pennsylvania (1.1 points) or North Carolina (0.8 points). But Virginia is fifth on the list. I’ve seen some griping that Kaine is a poor pick because Clinton ought to be able to win Virginia without him. In theory, that makes sense. Virginia’s demographics don’t seem very Trumpian. And mathematically, you stand to gain more from a VP pick in a state that’s slightly below-average for you than one that’s slightly above-average. But based on the polls, Clinton is vulnerable in Virginia. She leads there by only 2.6 percentage points in the polls-only model as of this afternoon, almost exactly matching her 2.5-point lead nationally. Of course, a 0.7 percent increase in your chances of winning the Electoral College wouldn’t be worth it if your VP pick caused you problems in other respects. Presidential candidates seem to realize this, which is why there have been running mates from non-competitive states such as Delaware and Wyoming in recent years. But elections are won on the margins, and Clinton would be marginally better off with Kaine’s help in Virginia than without it.
The guest speaker lineup keeps getting sadder and sadder by the day. Rape Hoaxer Lena Dunham To Speak At Democratic National Convention Lena Dunham became the subject of controversy a few years back when rape claims she made in a book were shown to be completely fabricated. Now she’s going to speak at the Democratic convention. Breitbart reports: Rape-Hoaxer Lena Dunham to Speak at Star-Studded Democratic National Convention Actress Lena Dunham will deliver a speech at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia this month alongside fellow actress America Ferrera and a host of other female celebrities who will be in town to watch Hillary Clinton accept her party’s nomination for president. The 30-year-old Girls star announced her plans to be at the Democratic National Convention on Twitter Wednesday morning. http://americanlookout.com/rape-hoaxer-lena-dunham-to-speak-at-democratic-national-convention/?tgp=1
Yes, the woman who claims she drank alcohol, popped Xanax, snorted coke, and then was raped, is going to go on stage to endorse and support a woman whose own husband has been accused of... ...rape, sexual harassment, etc. Gee golly! This ought to be good.
Can't wait to see the Sanders supporters freak out at the DNC. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DNCLeaks?src=hash">#DNCLeaks</a>: Democratic officials 'plotted to expose Bernie Sanders' as an <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/atheist?src=hash">#atheist</a> <a href="https://t.co/v9M89oNRoy">https://t.co/v9M89oNRoy</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins">@RichardDawkins</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/atheism?src=hash">#atheism</a></p>— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) <a href="https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/756620148493123585">July 22, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I am an admitted Democrat and liberal... and I completely agree with you. She has also bashed Woody Allen several times for molesting his daughter.. oh, wait, he was never found guilty of it and nothing was ever brought up about it until he was nominated for Midnight in Paris. She's a complete ass and I will certainly turn the channel when she's on. We're still way far ahead of the Republican speakers.
The only Liberals I know that cap for this chick are Upper West Side trust fund baby types. She does seem to get under the skin of MRA types though. Anyway, we can only hope she doesn't strip naked as she's prone to do.
Just LOL at the start to the democratic convention. Wasserman Schultz sacked after WikiLeaks revealed the rigged primaries.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Best anti-DNC sign. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SeeYouInPhilly?src=hash">#SeeYouInPhilly</a> <a href="https://t.co/suKBbH8i4L">pic.twitter.com/suKBbH8i4L</a></p>— Alexandra Rosenmann (@alexpreditor) <a href="https://twitter.com/alexpreditor/status/757257993650106373">July 24, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I know, it's almost as stupid as a candidate working with a powerful media mogul accused of sexual harassment and calling that media mogul who stepped down amongst the sexual harassment charges a "very very good person". What kind of idiot would do that?
Other than that she was on an HBO show I've never seen I know very little about her. What sort of speaking role is she being given and is she speaking specifically to endorse Clinton?
I think the party chairs for either party is basically a thankless ****ty job. Has to wrangle all the ego and gets to be the first one thrown under the bus when things don't go well. Has anyone in recent history really won popular accolade in that position?
