Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fudbucker said:
You can assert there won't be an indictment all you want, it doesn't make it true. We know that FBI investigations can (and often do) end in indictments. You don't know what the FBI knows, neither do I. An indictment is possible and would likely end Clinton's candidacy. It wouldn't even take an indictment. The FBI would simply have to recommend criminal charges be filed. Clinton would never recover from that.
Click to expand...


"It is almost always the cover-up rather than the event that causes trouble." -- Senator Howard Baker during the height of the Watergate scandal circa 1972.​

FBI Director James Comey's criminal investigation into the now missing emails, may well include sworn testimony under oath, which lays a foundation for perjury indictments.

What did Crooked Hillary know, and when did she know it?
 
Fudbucker said:
And you're forgetting the Clinton of 2008 is not the same Clinton as 2016. She hadn't had a disastrous tenure as SecState, she wasn't being investigated by the FBI, she hadn't gotten huge amounts of money for speeches to big banks.

"The speech in 2013 was one of three Clinton made on behalf of Goldman Sachs. According to public records, Clinton gave 92 speeches between 2013 and 2015. Her standard fee is $225,000, and she collected $21.6 million dollars in just under two years. Clinton made 8 speeches to big banks, netting $1.8 million, according to a CNN analysis."
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/

That was politically a very stupid thing to do. After 2008, people HATED Wall Street and Clinton decides she's going to make tens of millions giving speeches to big banks? Seriously? How tone deaf can she be? And now people see her as a phony Wall Street shill, and she can't put away an old Socialist. Terrible candidate is terrible.
Click to expand...
And yet she's well ahead of Sanders.

It's like you can't let go of what you thought would happen when clearly it is not happening. And the claim she had a disastrous tenure as SecState, that is an imaginary position altogether.
 
Fudbucker said:
And now people see her as a phony Wall Street shill, and she can't put away an old Socialist. Terrible candidate is terrible.
Click to expand...

You keep repeating this claim, as though Sanders continuing his campaign long after it is viable reflects on Clinton. Why do you hold Clinton accountable for her opponent's actions?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No, he needs 85% of the remaining pledged delegates to get a majority of pledged, then half of superdelegates to come to his side. Without a majority of votes, his weak argument that he's stronger against Trump is not going to result in a mass defection of supers from Clinton to him.

There are 780 pledged delegates left and he's behind by 274. Half plus 274 is 664 and that is 85% of the remaining pledges.


You really need to move past that denial stage of grief. You are only postponing the inevitable.
Click to expand...

"As it stands, using delegate counts from Daniel Nichanian and estimates for Tuesday's contests from the Green Papers, Sanders needs to win 67 percent of the remaining pledged delegates in order to pass Clinton by the time voting ends."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-bad-delegate-math-just-keeps-getting-worse/
 
wareyin said:
You keep repeating this claim, as though Sanders continuing his campaign long after it is viable reflects on Clinton. Why do you hold Clinton accountable for her opponent's actions?
Click to expand...

Why do I hold Clinton accountable for the fact May's almost over and her opponent can still win?

Gee, I don't know.
 
Fudbucker said:
Bernie needs 67% of remaining pledged delegates to get a majority.
Click to expand...

Super delegates also count. The majority of the supers have declared support for Clinton. The only supers who have changed their mind have left Sanders to support Clinton. Ignoring this does your position no favors.
 
wareyin said:
Super delegates also count. The majority of the supers have declared support for Clinton. The only supers who have changed their mind have left Sanders to support Clinton. Ignoring this does your position no favors.
Click to expand...

If Bernie wins enough pledged delegates to get a majority, it will only be because Clinton f's up so badly, she loses the remaining contests by 40+ point margins. In that case, the supers would go with the pledged delegate winner.

"The purpose of superdelegates -- which by the way, have never been a determining factor in who our nominee is since they've been in place since 1984 -- is to make sure that party activists who want to be delegates to the convention don’t have to run against much better-known and well-established people at the district level," said the South Florida congresswoman [Wasserman].
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...-wasserman-schultz-says-superdelegates-never/
 
Fudbucker said:
Why do I hold Clinton accountable for the fact May's almost over and her opponent can still win?

Gee, I don't know.
Click to expand...

There was this, from the WaPo link you yourself provided:

Since the middle of March, Clinton's lead has been virtually unassailable.
Click to expand...

Yes, it might not be mathematically impossible, but as a practical matter, it's impossible.
 
jhunter1163 said:
There was this, from the WaPo link you yourself provided:



Yes, it might not be mathematically impossible, but as a practical matter, it's impossible.
Click to expand...

Unless some Black Swan event happens, which aren't exactly unheard of in politics.

I'm not saying it's likely, and the betting odds on Sanders are at 3%, but who thought Hart would blow it? Or Kennedy would be shot after winning California? Or Nixon would end up resigning?

Has there even been a primary contest where the candidate in the lead has been embroiled in an ongoing FBI investigation? No? Then this situation is unique, and Bernie can honestly say he still has a chance.
 
"It is a steep hill to climb, and I acknowledge that, but we have the possibility of walking into the Democratic convention with a majority of pledged delegates," Sanders said last week in California.

To accomplish that, Sanders will need to win about 70% of all remaining pledged delegates in the final nine contests, according to CNN estimates.

That would be a significant jump from his performance in the previous 48 contests, where he has won only about 45% of the pledged delegates.

Sanders could pull this off by crushing Clinton in the remaining contests by a 2-to-1 margin. But he's only been able to accomplish that in eight races, and he hasn't hit that level of support since March."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/16/politics/democratic-superdelegate-math-sanders-clinton/

Sanders is being pretty candid about his chances: it's possible, but a "steep hill", and CNN backs him up. There's still a path to victory for Sanders. Not a likely one, but it still exists.
 
16.5 said:
Excellent example of the use of the Rule of So!

The evidence has been presented. Clinton's sleazy friend admitted they were doing it. The response was that they are not doing it without attribution, unfortunately other than their official twitter account (whicj isn't what we are talking about of course) the Shillaries have failed to show attribution.

The Big Dog (aka 16.5) has found evidence that Correct the Record has ghost written opeds without attribution. :eye-poppi

But you keep up with your rule of so, you have an awful candidate whose water needs toting.
Click to expand...
I see you've degenerated to outright lies.
 
Fudbucker said:
Unless some Black Swan event happens, which aren't exactly unheard of in politics.

I'm not saying it's likely, and the betting odds on Sanders are at 3%, but who thought Hart would blow it? Or Kennedy would be shot after winning California? Or Nixon would end up resigning?

Has there even been a primary contest where the candidate in the lead has been embroiled in an ongoing FBI investigation? No? Then this situation is unique, and Bernie can honestly say he still has a chance.
Click to expand...

So now you are holding Clinton accountable because the only way Sanders can win is if she gets shot? That's rational.
 
wareyin said:
So now you are holding Clinton accountable because the only way Sanders can win is if she gets shot? That's rational.
Click to expand...

Because that's totally what I said, right?I didn't say anything about a Gary Hart-esque scandal in May, or an indictment. Just assassination, right?

If we're going to discuss this, can you accurately represent what I've said?
 
Fudbucker said:
Because that's totally what I said, right?I didn't say anything about a Gary Hart-esque scandal in May, or an indictment. Just assassination, right?

If we're going to discuss this, can you accurately represent what I've said?
Click to expand...

I only addressed the single slightly realistic option. If you think the most heavily vetted candidate who has had every action scrutinized by HDS suffering haters for decades has a scandal about to drop, you are not even wrong. Indictment? Yeah, not gonna happen.

If you wish accuracy, perhaps constantly calling the candidate who has always been heavily favored to win, and at no point has been in any serious jeopardy from any of her rivals, a "terrible" candidate is not the way to go.
 
wareyin said:
I only addressed the single slightly realistic option. If you think the most heavily vetted candidate who has had every action scrutinized by HDS suffering haters for decades has a scandal about to drop, you are not even wrong. Indictment? Yeah, not gonna happen.

If you wish accuracy, perhaps constantly calling the candidate who has always been heavily favored to win, and at no point has been in any serious jeopardy from any of her rivals, a "terrible" candidate is not the way to go.
Click to expand...

I wish accuracy in how you represent what I say. Please don't put words in my mouth and/or distort my posts. You think the only realistic way Bernie can win is if Hillary dies. Fine, that's what you believe. But don't imply I also believe that.
 
Fudbucker said:
I wish accuracy in how you represent what I say. Please don't put words in my mouth and/or distort my posts. You think the only realistic way Bernie can win is if Hillary dies. Fine, that's what you believe. But don't imply I also believe that.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know that you don't believe that. Sadly, to maintain your belief, you have to ignore the delegate counts, the polls, and reality itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom