Hillary Clinton is Done

[The Big Dog]

You admit this is a CT. The CT forum is that way ---->>>>

That is the exact opposite of what that post says, "skeptic" ginger.

any press releases from the campaign you want to share with everyone?

 

[Trakar]

This Op-Ed from the NYTs is worth a skim:

Is Hillary Clinton Really in Danger of Losing the Primary?


He doesn't think Sanders can break out into the general electorate. One thing I remember well from the Obama campaign because my son was in college at the time and because I heard it again and again, Obama won over the younger liberal voters, like Sanders is now, but then the older voters started saying, well my son's (or daughter's) interest in Obama made me take a closer look at him.

I don't hear that with Sanders.

Actually. this is exactly what I hear a lot of, especially at the rally I attended in Portland, and on the few older adult social media sites I visit. That said, this is predominantly on the left coast.

 

[Foolmewunz]

What data? Did you read the article? They admit there is very little data to go on. We all have access to the same polls, etc.

When it comes to predicting election outcomes where there is months of polling data on two serious candidates, Nate Silver is without peer. If he says it, I give it serious weight. But his 85% chance Hillary will get the nom is totally subjective -which means not based on data. It means basically nothing and even he is careful to point that out.

Actually, I was more interested in the data you are viewing on the voting patterns, by election district, in the last twenty elections. If you don't have that, then you're not really viewing the same data, are you? That's 538's strength, after all. Everyone gets the polling data. Nate rubs that up against the historical voting data and the contradictions between that data and the polls of the time.

I'm not saying he's flawless. He's good. But he isn't using a crystal ball. It's a rolling prediction. As the aggregate polls change, his predictions change. In that respect, Gallup's final poll the eve of the election is nearly as accurate in most Federal elections. What I am saying, though, is that I doubt you are looking at the same figures and that your guess, as an inexperienced amateur, is not dissimilar to the obviously facetious analogy offered. Your argument fails because Silver is actually an expert. My six year old can answer "Why doesn't the car start?" within his range of data and experience. Prongthep, my mechanic, has it all over him in experience and tools of the trade, just as Silver has it all over you with the same.

 

[wareyin]

If all they know is that something is wrong with the car, their guesses are equal. That's where we are in the primaries right now. And given Hil-dawg's growing problems and slipping poll numbers, it gets less and less likely that she will get the nom.

No, not remotely equal. The mechanic has experience at least knowing what goes wrong with cars. The person who has never worked on a car has absolutely no basis on what to guess. Silver has experience analyzing voter trends, polls, and much more, while I doubt that you have any of that. This puts you in the realm of the guy looking for turn signal fluid because his car won't start, because one guess is as good as another.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Maybe I spoke too soon!

Turns out that Hillary's Arab lesbian lover may be a Muslim Brotherhood sleeper agent!

<link removed>

Yep, she's toast.

Probably too late, but if you went to this link I suggest that you run a virus scan, it attempts to plant a Trojan.

 

[DavidJames]

If all they know is that something is wrong with the car, their guesses are equal. That's where we are in the primaries right now. And given Hil-dawg's growing problems and slipping poll numbers, it gets less and less likely that she will get the nom.

That shows you really aren't paying attention. At this point she has it wrapped up. Not because the problems you reference aren't important or supporters are blind to them. At this point there is only one other candidate on the radar.

At this point HRC will get the nomination because there aren't any viable (to the majority) candidates. Personally, I think this is a problem. I want more candidates to choose from, although if given the choice today, I'll pick Sanders.

 

[Upchurch]

Remember when the Bush Administration ran their emails through an RNC server and then, toward the end of Bush's term, they deleted the emails and produced none of them to be archived and conservatives didn't bat an eye?

Ah, good times.


eta: a link for those who don't remember.

Nope I don't remember that.

 

[Bob001]

It's almost certain that, barring some catastrophe, Hillary Clinton will get the Democratic nomination. Here's the important question: Can she beat any likely Republican candidate in the general election? Assuming they don't pick a ridiculous running mate, could HC beat Christie, Bush, Graham or another mainstream candidate, maybe running with Carly Fiorina? The best thing the Repubs could do for the Dems would be to nominate Trump, Cruz or some other loon.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Is there a Republican candidate that is not a loon?

 

[Bob001]

Is there a Republican candidate that is not a loon?

Sure. Christie, Graham, Bush, Kasich etc. are conservatives, but not extremists. They have records of accomplishment as public servants. The loons are the fanatics like Trump, Cruz, Huckabee, Walker, Rand Paul, Jindal, Santorum etc. I think many middle-of-the-road Americans could support someone from the first group who would never vote for someone from the second group.

 

[jhunter1163]

I would at least consider voting for Kasich; he's not obviously nutty.

It's sad that "not obviously nutty" is the strongest recommendation I can come up with for any Republican candidate.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sure. Christie, Graham, Bush, Kasich etc. are conservatives, but not extremists. They have records of accomplishment as public servants. The loons are the fanatics like Trump, Cruz, Huckabee, Walker, Rand Paul, Jindal, Santorum etc. I think many middle-of-the-road Americans could support someone from the first group who would never vote for someone from the second group.

Lindsey Graham would take us into war with Iran. I heard his response to the Iran deal and it was essentially saying bomb 'em. That's crazy in my book.

Christie in all likelihood is blatantly corrupt. Not that they aren't all unduly influenced including Clinton, but Christie's tactics cross the line. I also take issue with the claim he has accomplishments.

Bush really is blind to or at a minimum can't admit how badly his brother's administration was. GW had baggage that resulting in him blindly finishing Daddy's war. What baggage does Jeb have? It concerns me. If Jeb had to make a decision that said GW screwed up, could he do it? I doubt it.

I don't know Kasich well enough to say one way or the other.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Christie in all likelihood is blatantly corrupt. Not that they aren't all unduly influenced including Clinton, but Christie's tactics cross the line. I also take issue with the claim he has accomplishments.

Here's another big mark against Christie: He's anti-marijuana.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is once again threatening marijuana users in states that have legalized the drug, telling them to "enjoy it" while they can because, if he becomes president, there'll be a crackdown.

“If you’re getting high in Colorado today, enjoy it,” Christie said Tuesday during a Newport, New Hampshire, town-hall meeting, Bloomberg reports. “As of January 2017, I will enforce the federal laws.”

That would be a tough pill for a lot of people to swallow. I expect if he did get the nomination, he'd shut up about that pretty quick.

 

[Meadmaker]

That shows you really aren't paying attention. At this point she has it wrapped up. Not because the problems you reference aren't important or supporters are blind to them. At this point there is only one other candidate on the radar.

At this point HRC will get the nomination because there aren't any viable (to the majority) candidates. Personally, I think this is a problem. I want more candidates to choose from, although if given the choice today, I'll pick Sanders.

I keep hoping that her uninspiring campaign and her inability to draw crowds will convince some other Democrat to jump in. I don't know who that would be, though. It's so much about name recognition and media image. You get to run for President if the media thinks you are running for President, and Hilary has had a near monopoly on press coverage.

I haven't paid close attention to Elizabeth Warren, but when I have paid attention, I've liked what I heard. She and Biden were the only names I could even come up with that are named as potential candidates. Al Gore is also mentioned sometime, but I really think candidates ought to be under 70. Of course, there are only two Dems in the race now, and neither fits that bill.

 

[Meadmaker]

I would at least consider voting for Kasich; he's not obviously nutty.

It's sad that "not obviously nutty" is the strongest recommendation I can come up with for any Republican candidate.

I think that describes both of the last two Republican nominees. Unfortunately, I also have to judge them by the company they keep. A vote fo a Republican President gives John Boehner and Mitch McConnell a lot of influence. If I could have been certain of a Democratic legislature, I could have voted for Romney. Maybe even McCain, except that there was no way I would have put Sarah Palin or Paul Ryan a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

 

[Bob001]

Slate summarizes the Hillary email issue. With regard to her claim that she set up a private server so she didn't have to carry more than one electronic gadget, there is this:

But it would sound much more believable if Clinton hadn’t described herself earlier this year as “two steps short of a hoarder” who lugs around a BlackBerry, an iPhone, an iPad, and an iPad Mini in her purse,

And there's this:

Hillary’s private email account and server effectively shielded her messages from Freedom of Information Act requests, congressional subpoenas, and other searches.

And this:

After taking a close look at a small sample of about 40 of Clinton’s work emails to or from her personal account, a pair of government investigators warned late last month that they’d found what they said were several intelligence secrets, at least two of which they believe should have been marked as “top secret” but weren’t. The information, the investigators said, is classified now and was likewise back when it was sent.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/08/20/hillary_clinton_email_scandal_explained.html

 

[The Don]

Lindsey Graham would take us into war with Iran. I heard his response to the Iran deal and it was essentially saying bomb 'em. That's crazy in my book.

Christie in all likelihood is blatantly corrupt. Not that they aren't all unduly influenced including Clinton, but Christie's tactics cross the line. I also take issue with the claim he has accomplishments.

Bush really is blind to or at a minimum can't admit how badly his brother's administration was. GW had baggage that resulting in him blindly finishing Daddy's war. What baggage does Jeb have? It concerns me. If Jeb had to make a decision that said GW screwed up, could he do it? I doubt it.

I don't know Kasich well enough to say one way or the other.

My personal feeling is that as long as they don't select an absolute nutjob (and possibly even if they do) then the Republican candidate would beat Hillary.

Whatever her qualities are and regardless of whether or not she would be a good president there are enough people who would simply never vote for Hillary that she cannot get elected. Some people who might vote for a Democratic Party candidate don't like her because she is female, some because she of her history, some because of the way she comes across and some because they've bought into what the press is saying about her.

 

[Trakar]

My personal feeling is that as long as they don't select an absolute nutjob (and possibly even if they do) then the Republican candidate would beat Hillary.

Whatever her qualities are and regardless of whether or not she would be a good president there are enough people who would simply never vote for Hillary that she cannot get elected. Some people who might vote for a Democratic Party candidate don't like her because she is female, some because she of her history, some because of the way she comes across and some because they've bought into what the press is saying about her.

The issue isn't just true among the bat-crazy whack jobs on the right. Hillary alienates, and turns political interest off in a lot of centrist and leftist voters for reasons that have nothing to do with the idiocy about emails, Benghazi, vast rightwing conspiracies or sexism.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Is there a Republican candidate that is not a loon?

Christie. All the others seem to be drinking the biblehumper koolaid.

{edit} at first I thought I had a typo in there, but on reflection decided to let it stand.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Christie. All the others seem to be drinking the biblehumper koolaid.

{edit} at first I thought I had a typo in there, but on reflection decided to let it stand.

No. He's a loon as well.