Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
varwoche said:
When you parrot the right wing echo chamber, you run the risk of foisting bs, as apparently is the case here.

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...s_is_how_your_hillary_smear_sausage_gets.html
Click to expand...
Just like the knee jerk right wing talking head response whenever Obama bashing is brought up, "Clinton is responsible". Supposedly some campaign staffers suggested Obama was born in Kenya. But there's no evidence it ever happened.

From Wiki:
During the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primaries, anonymous e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced that questioned Obama's citizenship in an attempt to revive Clinton's faltering primary election campaign.
Click to expand...
Birtherism: Where it all began
The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama. ...
That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.
Click to expand...

If the emails were anonymous, how the hell does anyone know they were from Clinton supporters, and even if they were, that doesn't make Clinton the source. Yet I heard it again today on Hardball from their right wing rep.

Now maybe there is another source where a Clinton supporter admitted to being the source, but it's a myth that birtherism started with Clinton as the right wing tries to clearly implicate.

We are seeing the shift from 'blame Obama' to 'blame Clinton' and she hasn't even won the primary yet.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Just like the knee jerk right wing talking head response whenever Obama bashing is brought up, "Clinton is responsible". Supposedly some campaign staffers suggested Obama was born in Kenya. But there's no evidence it ever happened.

From Wiki:

Birtherism: Where it all began


If the emails were anonymous, how the hell does anyone know they were from Clinton supporters, and even if they were, that doesn't make Clinton the source. Yet I heard it again today on Hardball from their right wing rep.

Now maybe there is another source where a Clinton supporter admitted to being the source, but it's a myth that birtherism started with Clinton as the right wing tries to clearly implicate.

We are seeing the shift from 'blame Obama' to 'blame Clinton' and she hasn't even won the primary yet.
Click to expand...

Whenever they're referring to Hillary Clinton supporters, odds are very good they're referring to the PUMAWP PAC. Who were such big supporters of her, that when she dropped out of the race and started backing Obama for President, they immediately started backing Sarah Palin... :rolleyes:

As always, Barackryphal has the more accurate, and fascinating, story on the origins of the whole birther mythos:
http://barackryphal.blogspot.dk/2011/06/secret-origin-of-birthers.html
http://barackryphal.blogspot.dk/2011/06/secret-origin-part-2.html
 
Last edited:
I keep getting the numbers 79, 80, 80, 83 thrown at me saying that over the next 8 years our 4 oldest USSC justices will be almost 90 years old! And no matter how much I dislike and mistrust Hillary, "we can't afford to take the chance of having a republican choosing their replacements."

The problem is, what kind of Justices will Hillary nominate. If I don't trust her to stick to and lead on progressive issues that are most important to me, Economic and Judicial justice for the broad and diverse masses of people in the lower and middle classes, to wage constant wage constant war on issues of climate change, and to focus law enforcement and regulatory oversight on Wall Street and the banking and corrupt financial investment industries, while working night and day to clean up and remove special interest money and influence from politics,...why would I trust her judgment on who should sit on the nation's highest court?

Furthermore, if I (among many others) are the ones being particular (will vote for Sanders, won't vote for Clinton in either primary, or general if she wins primary) wouldn't it make more sense for them to come to my side of the fence if they want a maximum turnout of democratic candidate voters in the general election (all having Hillary on the general ballot will do is maximize Republican turnout for whoever is running against her, and alienate the progressive branch of the Democratic party)
 
Hillary Triangulates against Progressives

Triangulating against Sanders (and, by proxy, the left wing of the Democratic Party) with conservative attacks does make some sense. For one, she is a Clinton, and this is what they do.

At issue is Sanders’ support for a single-payer universal health care system, which he and others brand as “Medicare for all.” A single-payer bill he introduced in 2013 would have levied a 2.2 percent tax on individuals making up to $200,000 or couples making up to $250,000, and progressively increased that rate to 5.2 percent for income beyond $600,000. It also would have tacked an extra 6.7 percent payroll tax on the employer side, at least some of which employers would likely pass on to workers…

Clinton, however, is going much further by appropriating one of the right’s central talking points against government-funded universal health insurance: Think of the taxes! She’s not just saying that a single-payer system is a political nonstarter with conservatives. She’s reciting the actual conservative talking point that would make a single-payer system a political nonstarter.

There are fairly obvious policy counterpoints to that argument. She is well-aware of them and chooses to ignore them, because they would either blunt or negate her convenient political attack. Sure, under Sanders’ plan, the combination of the income and payroll taxes would add up to 8.9 percent (assuming employers pass on the full 6.7 percent payroll tax) on most earners. But people would not be paying for health insurance anymore, and a universal, public system would save money by eliminating all of the actuarial costs and profit expectations associated with the private insurance system…

…Perhaps the Clinton campaign has some horrific polling data that’s leading them to launch this direct assault on Sanders, or it’s just trying to distract everyone from Clinton’s bizarre explanation at Saturday’s debate for her voluminous contributions from Wall Street over the years. But it also seems like Clinton feels like she has the nomination secure and is triangulating ahead of the general election, mortgaging progressive policy in the process. Does that sound familiar?
Click to expand...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...nton_triangulates_against_bernie_sanders.html

And her supporters wonder why progressives and other left-leaning perspectives don’t trust her.
 
Nurses Rip Clinton on Single Payer.

National Nurses United condemned the Hillary Clinton campaign for its attack on Senator Bernie Sanders’ proposal for healthcare for all, including its slanted use of data on the economics of Medicare for all.

“Any politician that refuses to finance guaranteed health care has abandoned my patients, and I will never abandon my patients. That’s why we support improved Medicare for all, and that’s why I support Bernie Sanders,” said NNU Co-President Jean Ross, RN.

“While the Affordable Care Act corrected some of the worst injustices in our insurance, profit-based healthcare system, the work of healthcare reform is far from done. Today, 33 million Americans remain uninsured. Tens of millions more remain underinsured, facing bankruptcy due to unpayable medical bills or the choice of getting the care they need or paying for food or housing for their families.”

“The only fix for our broken system once and for all is the prescription Bernie Sanders has so eloquently presented – joining the rest of the world by expanding and updating Medicare to cover everyone.:

NNU also criticized Clinton for citing a rightwing report first published in the Wall Street Journal on the inflated cost of $15 trillion to implement a Medicare for all system.

The Journal report claimed as its source research by University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor Gerald Friedman.

But Friedman himself has criticized the Journal report, noting in a Huffington Post column that the “economic benefits from Senator Sanders’ proposal would create dynamic gains by freeing American businesses to compete without the burden of an inefficient and wasteful health insurance system.” (…)
Click to expand...

http://www.singlepayeraction.org/2015/11/18/nurses-rip-clinton-on-single-payer/

So Hillary likes the conservative echo chamber,…hardly surprising.
 
John Wittneben simmered as he listened to Hillary Rodham Clinton defend her ties to Wall Street during last weekend’s Democratic debate. He lost 40 percent of his savings in individual retirement accounts during the Great Recession, while Mrs. Clinton has received millions of dollars from the kinds of executives he believes should be in jail.

“People knew what they were doing back then, because of greed, and it caused me harm,” said Mr. Wittneben, the Democratic chairman in Emmet County, Iowa. “We were raised a certain way here. Fairness is a big deal.”

The next day he endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders in the presidential race…

One of Mrs. Clinton’s most prominent supporters in Ohio, former State Senator Nina Turner, defected to Mr. Sanders this month in part, she said, because she felt he would be tougher on special interests. And some Democratic superdelegates, whose backing is crucial, said Mrs. Clinton’s ties to big banks, and her invocation of 9/11 to defend her ties to Wall Street at the Nov. 14 debate, only made them further question her independence from the financial industry

“My parents had a saying in Spanish — ‘Dime con quién andas y te diré quién eres’ — which means, ‘Tell me who you’re hanging with and I’ll tell you who you are,’” said Alma R. Gonzalez, an uncommitted superdelegate from Florida. “A lot of my Democratic friends feel that way about Hillary and Wall Street.

“Are the working people in this country going to be able to count on hard decisions being made by President Hillary Clinton with regard to her Wall Street chums?” Ms. Gonzalez continued. “Will she be another President Clinton who appoints a Treasury secretary from Wall Street? These are major concerns.”…

Jake Quinn, an uncommitted superdelegate from North Carolina, said he was concerned about Mrs. Clinton’s willingness to clamp down on Wall Street malfeasance. “The financial sector’s ongoing relative lack of accountability makes me suspicious of any candidate who sources it for significant support,” he said…

“She was waving the bloody shirt of 9/11 to defend herself, which we’re accustomed to seeing with demagogues on the right, and it just didn’t feel quite right,” said Kurt Meyer, a co-chairman of the Mitchell County Democrats in Iowa, who has not endorsed a candidate. “She connected two things, 9/11 and her ties to Wall Street, that I didn’t like her sewing together.”…
Click to expand...
“Wall St. Ties Linger as Image Issue for Hillary Clinton” - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/u...-as-image-issue-for-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0


Time will tell, the clock is ticking…
 
Indeed, the clock is ticking. Clinton has outlasted the creator of the opening post, and polls show no sign of Sanders catching up.
 
wareyin said:
Indeed, the clock is ticking. Clinton has outlasted the creator of the opening post, and polls show no sign of Sanders catching up.
Click to expand...

Really? How do you see this?

What I see is that when
Sanders unofficially announced his candidacy in April, Clinton was polling at 62% and Sanders was polling at 4%.
62 - 4 = 58% gap

A month later when he officially announced his candidacy, Clinton was polling at 62% and Sanders was polling at 10%
62-10 = 52% gap

3 months later, Clinton was polling at around 52% and Sanders is at about 23%
52-23 = 29% gap

Now its almost another 3 months and Clinton is at around 55% and Sanders is at around 31%
55-31 = 24% gap

It looks like Sanders is catching up to Clinton to me, ...whether or not he can catch up and surpass Clinton in time and sufficiently to win the Democratic nomination, that is the question of interest, and one which, as of now, only a calendar can answer.
 
Trakar said:
Really? How do you see this?

What I see is that when
Sanders unofficially announced his candidacy in April, Clinton was polling at 62% and Sanders was polling at 4%.
62 - 4 = 58% gap

A month later when he officially announced his candidacy, Clinton was polling at 62% and Sanders was polling at 10%
62-10 = 52% gap

3 months later, Clinton was polling at around 52% and Sanders is at about 23%
52-23 = 29% gap

Now its almost another 3 months and Clinton is at around 55% and Sanders is at around 31%
55-31 = 24% gap

It looks like Sanders is catching up to Clinton to me, ...whether or not he can catch up and surpass Clinton in time and sufficiently to win the Democratic nomination, that is the question of interest, and one which, as of now, only a calendar can answer.
Click to expand...
Picking other points can give a different picture. Clinton only (!) led Sanders by 13 points in October. Now it's 25. Sanders has never been closer than that 13 points, though, and the gap is again widening.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
Picking other points can give a different picture. Clinton only (!) lead Sanders by 13 points in October. Now it's 25. Sanders has never been closer than that 13 points, though, and the gap is again widening.
Click to expand...

You can select every poll that's been done to eliminate cherry-picking and short-term variation, and you still see a significant trend of Sanders gaining significant blocs of supporters and the best qualification of Clinton's trend would say only slightly declining.
 
Trakar said:
You can select every poll that's been done to eliminate cherry-picking and short-term variation, and you still see a significant trend of Sanders gaining significant blocs of supporters and the best qualification of Clinton's trend would say only slightly declining.
Click to expand...
Link to these polls? :rolleyes:

RCP's averages tell a different story. Clintons numbers were coming down and Sanders' going up until August. Then Sanders' leveled off and Clinton came down a little more.

After Biden withdrew both Sanders' and Clinton's numbers went up. And in the last week, Sanders' numbers dropped while Clinton's went up.

And a week ago, Clinton pulled ahead in New Hampshire.

You can imagine these polls say something else, but then all of us can see the same poll numbers.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Link to these polls? :rolleyes:

RCP's averages tell a different story...
Click to expand...

Now what story is that Conservative organization's selected poll averages telling?

I, generally, try to find information sources that strive for some measure of objectivity, or at the least a balanced perspective upon the facts they present.

In this case balanced was a close as I could find with wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natio..._Democratic_Party_2016_presidential_primaries

That I did not include every wiggle of weekly up and down benefits your candidate's campaign appearances over the last 6 months, nonetheless, if you want to argue about how your candidate lost a third of her lead and has now nearly come back up to where she was, while the candidate I support has more than tripled his early position at the official announcement of his candidacy with only very minor variations along what has generally been a steady trend of improvement as more and more of the population has grown to know Senator Sanders and what his public policy views are. He has now made up ground starting at 16% of Clinton's lead, he is now sitting at 56% of Clinton's lead. For him to go beyond the early primaries he'll need to get up to 85+% of Clinton's lead over the next two months and win or be extremely competitive in both of the very early primaries. while continuing to shore up national campaign and securing party delegates and popular support. If he fails to do this, the Democratic party will need to figure out how to get progressives interested and enthused about voting for Hillary throughout the next year.

Frankly, I don't see that happening, which is a shame because if a significant number of progressives sit out 2016, it will not only cripple a white house bid, it will also likely make Senate and House issues worse rather than better, not to mention what could happen to the USSC. Too bad Hillary supporters are more focused on their short term gains, rather than the party and nation's gain by not turning the reins of government completely over to the fringe radical right. But, if people never suffer the consequences of their actions, they never learn to avoid those consequences.
 
Last edited:
GOP know-nothings only win when Democrats cower — or provide an echo

...Republicans want the election to be about external threats. Democrats want it to be about domestic reforms. (...) To get the focus back where they want it, they must engage and defeat the Republicans on the issue of the hour.

On Thursday Hillary Clinton tried to do just that,(...) The problem lies in the case she makes, and this is the Democrats’ biggest problem: their frontrunner is an avatar of a spent foreign policy establishment.

In her speech Clinton called for a U.S. enforced no fly zone in Syria. In so doing she bid adieu to Obama, Sanders and Martin O’Malley and joined every major Republican candidate but Rand Paul and Trump (he’s thinking it over). She also adopted a favorite Republican ploy by not saying what she’d do if Russia continued bombing. Sadly, none of the assembled sages thought to put the question to her.

Clinton said her strategy has three main elements: defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq; “disrupt and dismantle” its global infrastructure and “harden our defenses” against “external and homegrown threats.” In another departure from Obama she said “Our goal is not to deter or contain ISIS, but to defeat and destroy ISIS.” On the less abstract question of whether to send in ground troops she left the impression she stood with Obama, but a closer reading of the text left a different impression:

Like President Obama I do not believe we should again have 100,000 American troops in the Middle East. That is just not the smart move to make here.​

Wait, 100,000? A whole field army is 80,000. President Obama opposes sending any. (...) Not unlike a certain leading Republican, Clinton lists goals with barely a nod as to how to reach them: (...) Near the end of her speech Clinton mumbles some words about opportunity and “working to curb corruption” but the “three main elements” of her plan amount to little more than an endless war on symptoms, fought with soldiers, police officers, drones and electronic surveillance on a scale heretofore unseen. Not once does she note that all these strategies have already failed; this despite 12 years in which she bore daily witness to their failure as senator and secretary of state.

We know now our safety lies not in military intervention but in the rule of law. We know our unilateralism must give way to multilateral conflict resolution. (Seldom in the last ten days have we read or heard the words ‘United Nations’) (...) Between now and Iowa the Democratic National Committee has allowed just two debates. It isn’t enough for Democrats to just say no to Republican xenophobia. They must show the American people they have a better way to make us safe and heal the world. (...) to get to the hope we have to get through the fear.
Click to expand...
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/22/pun..._win_when_democrats_cower_or_provide_an_echo/

Apologies for the elipses, it's a long very informative article.
 
BenBurch said:
Polling isn't going to be very useful this time, Ginger. Please don't get yourself too upset when what you expect doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
:sdl:

You guys are so funny. You rave about Sanders' polls and crowds then when they fail to meet expectations you dismiss Clinton's poll results.

But it so happens that I'm not worried about Sanders or Clinton at the moment. If I feel the need to worry, all I need do is look at the rising bigotry movement on the right.

But as for the polls, the Feb caucuses and primaries will be here soon enough.
 
Trakar said:
Now what story is that Conservative organization's selected poll averages telling?

I, generally, try to find information sources that strive for some measure of objectivity, or at the least a balanced perspective upon the facts they present.

In this case balanced was a close as I could find with wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natio..._Democratic_Party_2016_presidential_primaries

That I did not include every wiggle of weekly up and down benefits your candidate's campaign appearances over the last 6 months, nonetheless, if you want to argue about how your candidate lost a third of her lead and has now nearly come back up to where she was, while the candidate I support has more than tripled his early position at the official announcement of his candidacy with only very minor variations along what has generally been a steady trend of improvement as more and more of the population has grown to know Senator Sanders and what his public policy views are. He has now made up ground starting at 16% of Clinton's lead, he is now sitting at 56% of Clinton's lead. For him to go beyond the early primaries he'll need to get up to 85+% of Clinton's lead over the next two months and win or be extremely competitive in both of the very early primaries. while continuing to shore up national campaign and securing party delegates and popular support. If he fails to do this, the Democratic party will need to figure out how to get progressives interested and enthused about voting for Hillary throughout the next year.

Frankly, I don't see that happening, which is a shame because if a significant number of progressives sit out 2016, it will not only cripple a white house bid, it will also likely make Senate and House issues worse rather than better, not to mention what could happen to the USSC. Too bad Hillary supporters are more focused on their short term gains, rather than the party and nation's gain by not turning the reins of government completely over to the fringe radical right. But, if people never suffer the consequences of their actions, they never learn to avoid those consequences.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, are you seeing something in that link that suggests Sanders' is steadily closing the gap with Clinton?

There's nothing special about Clinton's numbers falling and Sanders' rising unless you can show that the trend is continuing, which it isn't.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
:sdl:

You guys are so funny. You rave about Sanders' polls and crowds then when they fail to meet expectations you dismiss Clinton's poll results.

But it so happens that I'm not worried about Sanders or Clinton at the moment. If I feel the need to worry, all I need do is look at the rising bigotry movement on the right.

But as for the polls, the Feb caucuses and primaries will be here soon enough.
Click to expand...

We rave about them because we know there is a systematic bias on these results.

You are doing nowhere near as well as you believe.

And you candidate is alienating progressives and liberals daily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom