Hillary Clinton is Done

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just read about this and... :boggled:

Not being from a caucus state I don't know much about the ground level workings so what is going on?

Is this more DNC shenanigans/incompetence? Coincidence? Or despite what the article claims is this pretty standard?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...atic-caucus-in-peril-amid-volunteering-crisis

Things are looking grim for the Iowa Democratic party’s efforts to mount a successful caucus on 1 February. The Guardian has learned the party is still lacking a temporary chairman to run the caucuses in up to 300 locations across the state with just over a week to go before caucus night.

...

One well-connected Democrat told the Guardian there “have been several hundred precincts with errors on caucus locations – wrong addresses, changed locations, or other things”. The Democrat added that many changes have happened this week. In contrast, another veteran Democrat who had long been involved in the caucus process told the Guardian that at this point before the 2008 caucuses, there were only several dozen problematic precincts in the state when the state had 1,784 individual precincts, 100 more than it has today.
Click to expand...

BenBurch - Maybe you know some Bernie supports over there who could volunteer to take up some of the vacancies?
 
Berning Love

CBSNews.com/ January 24, 2016, 10:30 AM
Poll: Sanders edges Clinton in Iowa, leads big in New Hampshire

One week before the caucuses, Iowa is effectively a tossup, as Bernie Sanders has taken a one-point edge over Hillary Clinton after trailing last month. That puts Sanders in position to potentially win both early states as he continues to hold a very large lead in New Hampshire. Clinton maintains her long-standing advantage in South Carolina in this latest round of the CBS News Battleground Tracker.

There is a big gap between the two on who better understands what voters are feeling, and to whom each would listen as president. In Iowa, 91 percent of Democratic voters believe Sanders would pick regular people over big donors. But a majority -- 57 percent -- of Democrats feel that Hillary Clinton would do what big donors want instead of what regular people want, if forced to choose.

The race has seen more critical back-and-forth between the two in recent weeks, and Democratic voters marginally see Clinton's critiques are the more unfair of the two. Twenty-eight percent of Iowa Democrats feel Clinton's critiques on Sanders have been unfair, while 16 percent say the same of Sanders' critiques on Clinton.

Sanders is more widely seen in Iowa and New Hampshire as the candidate who "gets it" -- that is, understands how people feel. Eighty-five percent say that of Sanders in Iowa and an enormous 95 percent say that of him in New Hampshire. Sixty-five percent describe Clinton that way in Iowa and 60 percent in New Hampshire -- majorities, but nowhere near the numbers Sanders put up…
Click to expand...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-sanders-catches-clinton-in-iowa-leads-big-in-new-hampshire/

Rightly or wrongly, perceptions are very important, especially within your own party during the primaries. These numbers look even worse for HRC among Independents and Republican
 
The_Animus said:
Just read about this and... :boggled:

Not being from a caucus state I don't know much about the ground level workings so what is going on?

Is this more DNC shenanigans/incompetence? Coincidence? Or despite what the article claims is this pretty standard?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...atic-caucus-in-peril-amid-volunteering-crisis



BenBurch - Maybe you know some Bernie supports over there who could volunteer to take up some of the vacancies?
Click to expand...

Is this supposed to be some conspiracy?

Have you ever been to a caucus? We have them in this state. People who chair them read the rules and people figure out what to do from that. It can be done even without a preassigned chair. I'm sure there will be plenty of people there who have been to them before and understand the process. Maybe the Guardian reporter is just trying to drum up some scandal.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Is this supposed to be some conspiracy?

Have you ever been to a caucus? We have them in this state. People who chair them read the rules and people figure out what to do from that. It can be done even without a preassigned chair. I'm sure there will be plenty of people there who have been to them before and understand the process. Maybe the Guardian reporter is just trying to drum up some scandal.
Click to expand...

Iowa has its own rules. What is most likely to happen is that people will be drafted the day of, likely a local party operative or elected official. He isn't trying to make up a conspiracy; We have a similar issue here in IL with official elections, where election judges cannot be recruited.
 
BenBurch said:
Iowa has its own rules. What is most likely to happen is that people will be drafted the day of, likely a local party operative or elected official. He isn't trying to make up a conspiracy; We have a similar issue here in IL with official elections, where election judges cannot be recruited.
Click to expand...
What was the point then of making it sound like the DNC was mucking with the process? This is the quote in case you missed it:
The_Animus said:
Is this more DNC shenanigans/incompetence? Coincidence? Or despite what the article claims is this pretty standard?
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What was the point then of making it sound like the DNC was mucking with the process? This is the quote in case you missed it:
Click to expand...

It only looks that way if you're predisposed to argue with people for the sake of arguing. Otherwise you might take people at what they actually said instead of ignoring half of it so you can accuse people of things.
 
varwoche said:
Around the same time, another poll shows Clinton +29 in Iowa. At the very least, these two polls tell us to be wary of polls.
By no means am I touting one poll over the other. I'm more or less clueless as to where things stand.
Click to expand...

That's what president Dewy said.
 
Obama hints at Clinton support. His staff openly support her.

Clinton, Once in Cabinet, Wins Support from Obama Officials
Obama's housing chief, Julian Castro, campaigned for Clinton in Nevada on Saturday and scheduled stops in Iowa on Sunday. Clinton recently accepted the endorsement of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx and appeared in South Carolina with former Attorney General Eric Holder. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, a former Iowa governor, and Labor Secretary Tom Perez also are among the current and former officials who have publicly declared their support.
Click to expand...

Obama lauds Clinton in joint interview, hints at 2016 support

Boston Globe - Hillary Clinton deserves Democratic nomination
the Globe enthusiastically endorses her in the Feb. 9 Democratic primary in New Hampshire. She is more seasoned, more grounded, and more forward-looking than in 2008, and has added four years as secretary of state to her already formidable resume. Democrats in the Granite State should not hesitate to choose her.
Click to expand...
 
kellyb said:
One of those articles is from 2013.
Click to expand...
Oh, my bad, I was looking for something in print that matched the news about Obama's interview yesterday.

Try this one instead:
Obama nudges Democrats toward Clinton, even as White House strains to remain neutral in primary

It's being interpreted as very pro-Clinton.
Obama abandoned almost all pretense of disengagement by suggesting in an interview that Clinton is a “good, smart, tough” person up against a “bright, shiny” new alternative who remains less tested than her, a reminder about picking a nominee who can win a tough general election.

“She can govern and she can start here, Day One, more experienced than any non-vice-president has ever been who aspires to this office,” he told Politico.

Obama stopped far short of expressing an endorsement or even a preference. Still, his willingness to step personally into 2016 politics reveals how deeply he believes Clinton is the candidate best suited to build on his achievements, even as the White House has had to scramble to maintain a veneer of detachment in the surprisingly competitive primary fight.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
As you would expect given that she was in his administration.
Click to expand...

I'd kind of expect it, too, but his SOTU address kind of seemed to give a nod to them both, and I think he's stated he won't be endorsing anyone.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Oh, my bad, I was looking for something in print that matched the news about Obama's interview yesterday.

Try this one instead:
Obama nudges Democrats toward Clinton, even as White House strains to remain neutral in primary

It's being interpreted as very pro-Clinton.
Click to expand...

From the full transcript of the interview:

Obama:
But my bet — and I may end up being wrong about this – my bet is that the candidate who can project hope still is the candidate who the American people, over the long term, will gravitate towards. And early on in these — in a campaign season, defining yourself by what you're not is the fastest way to consolidate a base.
Click to expand...

GLENN THRUSH: The events I was at in Iowa, the candidate who seems to be delivering that now is Bernie Sanders.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah.
Click to expand...

Here's the "bright, shiny" part in context:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah. Yeah. I think — look, I've gotten to know Hillary really well, and she is a good, smart, tough person who cares deeply about this country, and she has been in the public eye for a long time and in a culture in which new is always better. And, you know, you're always looking at the bright, shiny object that people don't, haven't seen before. That's a disadvantage to her. Bernie is somebody who —although I don't know as well because he wasn't, obviously, in my administration, has the virtue of saying exactly what he believes, and great authenticity, great passion, and is fearless. His attitude is, “I got nothing to lose.”
Click to expand...

So, to me, the relevant contrast is not between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, but relevant contrast is between Bernie and Hillary and Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and the vision that they're portraying for the country and where they want to take us and how they think about everything from tax policy to immigration to foreign policy, and that gap is as wide as I've ever seen. You know, you think about it.
Click to expand...


GLENN THRUSH: How personally gratifying for you would it be to have the first female president succeed the first African-American president?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I — my No. 1 priority is having a Democratic president succeed me, and I think there’s no doubt that, given our history, I want more women in politics generally, and I want my daughters to feel that there’s nothing that they can't do. I don't think that Democrats are going to vote for Hillary just because she’s a woman any more than they’re going to vote for Bernie just because they agree with him on one particular issue. I think, you know, voters are pretty sophisticated.
Click to expand...
 
Did Obama really describe a 74-year old, cantankerous socialist, who has been in Congress for over 25 years, as something we "haven't seen before" and a "bright, shiny object"? Projection much? Sheesh.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Did Obama really describe a 74-year old, cantankerous socialist, who has been in Congress for over 25 years, as something we "haven't seen before" and a "bright, shiny object"? Projection much? Sheesh.
Click to expand...

I agree with Obama here. When it comes to the national spotlight and serious contender for POTUS, Sanders, the 73 year old self-described socialist, very much is something we've never seen before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom