Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Fudbucker]

How many years had the GOP spent scrutinizing Edwards before his run? Oh, that's right, this situation is nothing like that one, so this argument relies on a false equivalence. Hows about you start comparing like to like, since you are complaining about accuracy?

OK, let's look at all the times the leading candidate of a political party has been involved in an FBI investigation.

::crickets::

In other words, Clinton is the most liked candidate of this election cycle. And that is including failed candidacies like O'Malley, Sanders, Rubio, Kasich, and all the rest. Yep, in bizarro world, the most liked candidates are the ones that basically nobody votes for, while the most disliked candidates are the ones everybody is casting their vote for!

No, that's the real world:

"No major party nominee before Clinton or Trump had a double-digit net negative “strong favorability” rating. Clinton’s would be the lowest ever, except for Trump."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...or-both-trump-and-clinton-is-record-breaking/

Like I said, this election isn't funny, it's pathetic, and a sad indictment of our political system.

 

[wareyin]

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/

Going by the Green Papers numbers (unsure why their super delegate count is lower, but you used it as a source earlier), Clinton needs 107 of the remaining 947 votes delegates to mathematically eliminate Sanders. That's right, 11%. Meanwhile, of the 2 highest remaining delegate counts, Clinton leads both by heavy margins in polling: Predicted wins of 24.7 points in CA, and 28.5% in NJ.

Supers aren't going to decide this one. In fact, expecting that they go against the popular vote lead (and pledged delegate lead, and number of states won) to vote for Sanders is expecting them to be the determining factor. Going along with the majority of voters, the majority of states, and the majority of pledged delegates is what they will do here.

 

[lionking]

Right, because scandals erupting in the middle of campaigns and politicians running afoul of the law are on par with alien abductions. How close did sleazebag John Edwards come to being VP? Less than a hundred thousand Ohio votes?
.

Assassination of presidential candidates is in the same order of probability as alien abduction. Extremely highly unlikely.

You cited Kennedy's assassination as a precedent. I don't think you understand that word.

 

[wareyin]

OK, let's look at all the times the leading candidate of a political party has been involved in an FBI investigation.

::crickets::

And how is that last, desperate hope shaping up for you?

::crickets indeed::

No, that's the real world:

"No major party nominee before Clinton or Trump had a double-digit net negative “strong favorability” rating. Clinton’s would be the lowest ever, except for Trump."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...or-both-trump-and-clinton-is-record-breaking/

Like I said, this election isn't funny, it's pathetic, and a sad indictment of our political system.

Or, and bear with me here, your idea that people like the ones they refuse to vote for better than the ones they are voting for is wrong. Then again, Tom Brady just got voted in the top 5 most disliked NFL players of all time. Did that make him any worse of a player?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, let's look at all the times the leading candidate of a political party has been involved in an FBI investigation.

::crickets::

No, that's the real world:

"No major party nominee before Clinton or Trump had a double-digit net negative “strong favorability” rating. Clinton’s would be the lowest ever, except for Trump."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...or-both-trump-and-clinton-is-record-breaking/

Like I said, this election isn't funny, it's pathetic, and a sad indictment of our political system.

What people fail to consider in this never-ending reminder how much Clinton is disliked is, clearly that is not the criteria people are judging their desired POTUS on. It's a chosen variable for a poll, not a systematically chosen variable people actually use to decide who to vote for based on.

 

[Fudbucker]

Going by the Green Papers numbers (unsure why their super delegate count is lower, but you used it as a source earlier), Clinton needs 107 of the remaining 947 votes to mathematically eliminate Sanders. That's right, 11%. Meanwhile, of the 2 highest remaining delegate counts, Clinton leads both by heavy margins in polling: Predicted wins of 24.7 points in CA, and 28.5% in NJ.

Yes, it would take some outside event for Bernie to win. Those events happen, and since no candidate has ever been investigated by the FBI during a primary, we really don't know what the odds of such an event are. The possibility of a scandal erupting is real, but low, but a major candidate being investigated by the FBI is unheard of. Are you privy to the what the FBI agents currently know? Do you have inside information about the status of their investigation? All we know is the investigation is ongoing. Concluding anything beyond that is not skeptical thinking. The FBI often recommends criminal charges be filed. What makes this case any different? Because, Hillary?

Supers aren't going to decide this one. In fact, expecting that they go against the popular vote lead (and pledged delegate lead, and number of states won) to vote for Sanders is expecting them to be the determining factor. Going along with the majority of voters, the majority of states, and the majority of pledged delegates is what they will do here.

If Clinton is indicted, it won't matter what Bernie's delegate count is, it will be high enough for the Supers to give him the nomination, which they would. I can't imagine even the DNC would be sleazy (or stupid) enough to allow someone under indictment to be the nominee.

 

[Fudbucker]

What people fail to consider in this never-ending reminder how much Clinton is disliked is, clearly that is not the criteria people are judging their desired POTUS on. It's a chosen variable for a poll, not a systematically chosen variable people actually use to decide who to vote for based on.

I agree. People loathe Clinton and Trump and they're both the nominees. Go figure. Turnout will probably be low, which is an advantage for the GOP.

 

[wareyin]

Yes, it would take some outside event for Bernie to win. Those events happen, and since no candidate has ever been investigated by the FBI during a primary, we really don't know what the odds of such an event are. The possibility of a scandal erupting is real, but low, but a major candidate being investigated by the FBI is unheard of. Are you privy to the what the FBI agents currently know? Do you have inside information about the status of their investigation? All we know is the investigation is ongoing. Concluding anything beyond that is not skeptical thinking. The FBI often recommends criminal charges be filed. What makes this case any different? Because, Hillary?



If Clinton is indicted, it won't matter what Bernie's delegate count is, it will be high enough for the Supers to give him the nomination, which they would. I can't imagine even the DNC would be sleazy (or stupid) enough to allow someone under indictment to be the nominee.

It's like a game of whack a mole, here. Every time one of your claims is shown to be overblown, irrelevant, or just plain wrong, you cycle back to one that was already shown to be overblown, irrelevant, or wrong.

Clinton is not going to get indicted. No, I'm not privy to the FBI's internal actions. I am, however, privy to the legal experts who have looked over the facts, as well as the public statements given by the FBI. Are you aware of indictments after the FBI has admitted no evidence of criminal wrongdoings? I'm not, especially in such high stakes investigations.

 

[Fudbucker]

It's like a game of whack a mole, here. Every time one of your claims is shown to be overblown, irrelevant, or just plain wrong, you cycle back to one that was already shown to be overblown, irrelevant, or wrong.

Clinton is not going to get indicted. No, I'm not privy to the FBI's internal actions. I am, however, privy to the legal experts who have looked over the facts, as well as the public statements given by the FBI. Are you aware of indictments after the FBI has admitted no evidence of criminal wrongdoings? I'm not, especially in such high stakes investigations.

Where has the FBI admitted that?

 

[wareyin]

Where has the FBI admitted that?

 

[Fudbucker]

No, you said

the FBI has admitted no evidence of criminal wrongdoings

I want a link to a statement from the FBI where they admit there's no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

 

[wareyin]

No, you said

I want a link to a statement from the FBI where they admit there's no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

Are those straws you are grasping for all that are keeping the Sanders dream alive?

 

[Fudbucker]

Are those straws you are grasping for all that are keeping the Sanders dream alive?

So the FBI hasn't admitted anything, which is what I figured. What you're going on is a CNN piece where unnamed officials claim there's been no evidence of criminal wrongdoing:

"U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN. The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/fbi-interviews-huma-abedin-clinton-aide/

Ironically, in that same article, it states:

Spokesmen for the FBI and Justice Department declined to comment.

Not that I'm shocked a Clinton supporter would equate a CNN article with an FBI statement, but I think we've reached a new low here.

 

[wareyin]

So the FBI hasn't admitted anything, which is what I figured. What you're going on is a CNN piece where unnamed officials claim there's been no evidence of criminal wrongdoing:

"U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN. The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/fbi-interviews-huma-abedin-clinton-aide/

Ironically, in that same article, it states:

Spokesmen for the FBI and Justice Department declined to comment.

Not that I'm shocked a Clinton supporter would equate a CNN article with an FBI statement, but I think we've reached a new low here.

Yeah, sources within the FBI, privy to the information that concerns you, have stated that there is no evidence of wrongdoing. The new low is desperately hoping that they are wrong so that Sanders can steal the nomination. I'm sorry, but that's just not going to happen.

 

[Fudbucker]

Yeah, sources within the FBI, privy to the information that concerns you, have stated that there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

You mean CNN is reporting what you just stated. Just because CNN reports something does not make it true. Can we try and be a little skeptical here? I can play the same game:

"The extradition of Romanian hacker “Guccifer” to the U.S. at a critical point in the FBI’s criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email use is “not a coincidence,” according to an intelligence source close to the case."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...r-guccifer-extradited-amid-clinton-probe.html

And I can play the same game with legal experts who think Clinton's in trouble. They all have the same access to the investigation that we have, which is none at all.

The new low is desperately hoping that they are wrong so that Sanders can steal the nomination. I'm sorry, but that's just not going to happen.

How would it be "stealing" for the DNC superdelegates to avoid a nominee who's been indicted? You wouldn't still support Clinton if she's indicted, would you? You would, wouldn't you.

 

[wareyin]

You mean CNN is reporting what you just stated. Just because CNN reports something does not make it true. Can we try and be a little skeptical here? I can play the same game:

"The extradition of Romanian hacker “Guccifer” to the U.S. at a critical point in the FBI’s criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email use is “not a coincidence,” according to an intelligence source close to the case."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...r-guccifer-extradited-amid-clinton-probe.html

And I can play the same game with legal experts who think Clinton's in trouble. They all have the same access to the investigation that we have, which is none at all.




How would it be "stealing" for the DNC superdelegates to avoid a nominee who's been indicted? You wouldn't still support Clinton if she's indicted, would you? You would, wouldn't you.

You keep relying on notoriously partisan, unreliable sources for your hope of an extremely unlikely event. I'll just keep on pointing out how each of your claims is overblown (chance of indictment), irrelevant (Clinton has the best favorability of any remaining candidate), or wrong (Sanders can pull off a 70% win in every remaining contest).

 

[Fudbucker]

You keep relying on notoriously partisan, unreliable sources for your hope of an extremely unlikely event. I'll just keep on pointing out how each of your claims is overblown (chance of indictment), irrelevant (Clinton has the best favorability of any remaining candidate), or wrong (Sanders can pull off a 70% win in every remaining contest).

Actually, you're doing a bit more than that, with your claims about FBI admissions. But whatever. Apparently, Clinton can do no wrong. I almost hope she loses to Trump, just to read the DNC postmortem. It would almost be worth it.

 

[wareyin]

Actually, you're doing a bit more than that, with your claims about FBI admissions. But whatever. Apparently, Clinton can do no wrong. I almost hope she loses to Trump, just to read the DNC postmortem. It would almost be worth it.

It's possible that Clinton could do wrong. Your problem is that your last, desperate hope for a Sanders candidacy is failing because the FBI hasn't found evidence that she did do wrong.

 

[Bob001]

My point is that no other candidates are running. Three two people are. The argument at hand is that the winning candidate is a terrible candidate because so many people wouldn't vote for her. Surely that would make the losing candidate even worse?

The difference is that Hillary started the race as the anointed nominee-in-waiting, with the almost universal support of the entire Democratic establishment, including the DNC, big donors and the media and, of course, almost all of the superdelegates. When Sanders started, he was largely treated as a comedy sideshow, particularly by the media. Yet Sanders beat Hillary in 21 states, and lost by fractions of a percent in others. It's as if Sanders started behind the starting line, and Hillary started six steps from the finish line, and yet somehow they ran almost neck and neck. Hillary will be the nominee, and she'll probably beat Trump. But for many people she inspires resignation, not enthusiasm.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-and-results.html?_r=0

 

[Foolmewunz]

Actually, you're doing a bit more than that, with your claims about FBI admissions. But whatever. Apparently, Clinton can do no wrong. I almost hope she loses to Trump, just to read the DNC postmortem. It would almost be worth it.

No. No it wouldn't and you know it. And the position is not (as you know) that Clinton can do no wrong. It is that the charges and accusations against her and Bill do actually amount to a "vast right wing conspiracy". The fact that supposed progressives are parroting them is very depressing. Whatever happened to the left-wing coffee shop intellectuals that I grew up with? They seem to have been replaced with the Billy Jack Fan generation.