Hillary Clinton is Done

[BenBurch]

Oh god... I know... The way things are shaping Rubio is about the only sane one with a decent chance to take the lead on then "R" side. But Cruz isn't far behind him either. Trumps' lead is astounding given all the crap he says, but now I'm starting to become convinced myself that a portion of the electorate doesn't care whether what he says has any substance... That's disturbing.

Sadly, I have come to think that Trump has attracted to himself a very nasty sub-population. Our equivalent of the Brownshirts. They do care about what he says and WANT to see it have substance. And they may be enough to win him the nomination.

 

[Trakar]

Individual donors to the individual official campaigns. No one has the figures for the PACs.

As a famous football coach once remarked, "Statistics are the damnedest thing. Reminds me of the fella who drowned in river with an average depth of two feet."

Bernie Spin: Sanders has 60,000 more women supporters than Hillary.
Hillary Spin: Hillary gets 60% of her support from women. Sanders only 44%

See how that works?

Yep, one is counting actual donors, the other is extrapolating potential based upon a presumed representative sample.

 

[BenBurch]

Actually the number is 70,000+

 

[Foolmewunz]

Can anyone link to the actual filings with the FEC? I can find schedules of when they have to report and all kinds of news articles, but I like raw data.

 

[Loss Leader]

Oh god... I know... The way things are shaping Rubio is about the only sane one with a decent chance to take the lead on then "R" side. But Cruz isn't far behind him either.

What bothers me as a Democrat is that both of these gentlemen are exceedingly socially right-wing, yet next to Trump they look like moderates.

It'll be interesting to see what the eventual Republican nominee does with the Trump contingent of the party: brings them in or freezes them out.

The nominee's ability to keep Trump's supporters while staying moderate enough for the unaffiliated will be the key to defeating Clinton (if it can be done).

 

[BenBurch]

What bothers me as a Democrat is that both of these gentlemen are exceedingly socially right-wing, yet next to Trump they look like moderates.

It'll be interesting to see what the eventual Republican nominee does with the Trump contingent of the party: brings them in or freezes them out.

The nominee's ability to keep Trump's supporters while staying moderate enough for the unaffiliated will be the key to defeating Clinton (if it can be done).

That nominee will be Trump.

 

[Mike!]

That nominee will be Trump.

Stop scaring me!!!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What bothers me as a Democrat is that both of these gentlemen are exceedingly socially right-wing, yet next to Trump they look like moderates.

He makes Obama, Hillary, and Bernie Sanders together look like a moderate to me. So your sentiments I think are justified; not withstanding I also think Trump's problems go well beyond simple political disagreements which puts us in the close agreement regarding his character and qualifications. I've decided at this point he's enough to make me consider voting another party if he gets the nod.

 

[Trakar]

Can anyone link to the actual filings with the FEC? I can find schedules of when they have to report and all kinds of news articles, but I like raw data.

Open Secrets has some information with links, but the last ones I saw, a couple of days ago, were from June. I've got what the Sanders campaign is releasing but we are pretty much limited to them as a source of information, as the small donor information doesn't require as detailed demographic information even to the FEC so it is pretty much dependent upon the reportage on what the campaigns choose to collect and maintain,...at least this is the impression I'm currently getting, and that may be incorrect, so I mention such as more of a curiosity than any sort of compelling evidence of anything.

If I turn up anything that feels solid, I'll link it, regardless of whether it supports or rejects the proposition.

 

[mgidm86]

Oh god... I know... The way things are shaping Rubio is about the only sane one with a decent chance to take the lead on then "R" side. But Cruz isn't far behind him either. Trumps' lead is astounding given all the crap he says, but now I'm starting to become convinced myself that a portion of the electorate doesn't care whether what he says has any substance... That's disturbing.

To be clear, by our "two leading candidates", I meant Trump and Hillary - and all the rest for that matter.

 

[BenBurch]

Stop scaring me!!!

Ah calls 'em as ah seez 'em, Mike.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

To be clear, by our "two leading candidates", I meant Trump and Hillary - and all the rest for that matter.

No worries... Most of my comparisons are relative choices. I'm not itching for Hillary myself. This election cycle is already screwy between having a field day of crazies on one side and a complete deficit of choices and establishment on the other. Completely different from 2008 when both sides had 10 to 12 candidates each before the primaries.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Open Secrets has some information with links, but the last ones I saw, a couple of days ago, were from June. I've got what the Sanders campaign is releasing but we are pretty much limited to them as a source of information, as the small donor information doesn't require as detailed demographic information even to the FEC so it is pretty much dependent upon the reportage on what the campaigns choose to collect and maintain,...at least this is the impression I'm currently getting, and that may be incorrect, so I mention such as more of a curiosity than any sort of compelling evidence of anything.

If I turn up anything that feels solid, I'll link it, regardless of whether it supports or rejects the proposition.

Thanks. What I'm trying to determine is just where the claims of the genders of contributors are coming from. From the Sanders' campaign bally-hoo, a little further down they mentioned (and I paraphrase) "Since Hillary says that 60% of her contributors are women and she reports 400,000 contributors, that means 240,000 were women". As I said, I paraphrase but not by much.

If that's how they do statistics (September figures, using a June or July cite of a not-checked statement by a candidate), instead of my next contribution, I may just send them some Martin Gardner books.

You contribute, I assume? (You don't have to answer.... someone else with that knowledge could.) Is there a mandatory field for "gender" on your submission? And is that in the required reporting to the FEC.

Or are we listening to spin doctors on both sides of the aisle?

This is not a propo of an important argument. I just like to know where claimed figures are coming from. (I also looked long and hard to find out where Hill got her 60% figure, and that's no where to be found, either.)

 

[Dog Town]

Is there a mandatory field for "gender" on your submission?

I've never been asked my gender, when I contribute. However they do have my name. So... while that could be misleading occasionally, it is usually obvious.

YMMV.

Happy Thanks G!

 

[Trakar]

Thanks. What I'm trying to determine is just where the claims of the genders of contributors are coming from. From the Sanders' campaign bally-hoo, a little further down they mentioned (and I paraphrase) "Since Hillary says that 60% of her contributors are women and she reports 400,000 contributors, that means 240,000 were women". As I said, I paraphrase but not by much.

If that's how they do statistics (September figures, using a June or July cite of a not-checked statement by a candidate), instead of my next contribution, I may just send them some Martin Gardner books.

You contribute, I assume? (You don't have to answer.... someone else with that knowledge could.) Is there a mandatory field for "gender" on your submission? And is that in the required reporting to the FEC.

Or are we listening to spin doctors on both sides of the aisle?

This is not a propo of an important argument. I just like to know where claimed figures are coming from. (I also looked long and hard to find out where Hill got her 60% figure, and that's no where to be found, either.)

According to this Times article, the campaigns are determining gender based upon first name characteristics instead of any more qualified and more deterministic demographic question.

These findings are based on an Upshot analysis of data from Crowdpac, a Silicon Valley start-up that tracks donations and rates candidates on an ideological scale. The donors’ gender was determined by their first names. (Less than two percent of donors can’t be reliably mapped to gender.) The data includes only contributions of more than $200, because the names of smaller contributors aren’t disclosed under campaign finance law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/upshot/the-gender-gap-in-political-giving.html?_r=0

 

[Bob001]

A 20-something makes his case against HC:
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/30/mor...nnial_and_ill_never_vote_for_hillary_clinton/

 

[The Don]

A 20-something makes his case against HC:
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/30/mor...nnial_and_ill_never_vote_for_hillary_clinton/

The general tone of the article is reasonable, Hillary Clinton isn't very left wing at all and someone looking for a completely different different set of policies wouldn't support her. Then again I'd question whether a millennial writing for Salon magazine is representative of the U.S. population as a whole. If Sanders were to get the nomination, he may sweep the hipster vote (if they can be tempted to make time in their busy schedule of being tattooed and growing neck beards to come out and vote - however ironically) but at the possible expense of everyone else apart from Democratic Party stalwarts.

I only scanned the article but I'd be surprised if the author was advocating voting for the GOP candidate in the even that Hillary Clinton is selected as the Democratic Party candidate and voting for a third party candidate would only increase the likelihood of a GOP President.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I only scanned the article but I'd be surprised if the author was advocating voting for the GOP candidate in the even that Hillary Clinton is selected as the Democratic Party candidate and voting for a third party candidate would only increase the likelihood of a GOP President.

As the author says in his first paragraph, he's urging his readers to protest a possible nomination of HRC (which he calls "a big "if"") by write-in votes for Bernie Sanders in the general election.

As you say, write-in votes for any third party candidate would only increase the likelihood of a Republican president. On the other hand, the author of the article writes as though he himself lives in a state that's pretty sure to go for the Democratic candidate no matter what, so he himself has the luxury of a protest vote.

Toward the end of the article, he writes:

But Hillary is better than a Republican, so why not vote for her if Bernie doesn’t get the nod?

He answers that question by taking what he considers to be the long view. He admits Sanders is too old to run again in 2020, and electing HRC in 2016 would make it harder for Elizabeth Warren to get the nomination in 2020. He apparently thinks it would better to elect one of the Republican front-runners (Trump, Carson, Cruz, maybe Rubio) as President for four years than to allow HRC to run for a second term that ought (by natural right?) to belong to Warren.

His article is not going to be cited as an impressive display of sound political judgment.

 

[Trakar]

...I only scanned the article but I'd be surprised if the author was advocating voting for the GOP candidate in the even that Hillary Clinton is selected as the Democratic Party candidate and voting for a third party candidate would only increase the likelihood of a GOP President.

As one who feels like an increasing number of progressives, I won't vote for a conservative, but I see no reason to vote conservative lite just to keep a conservative out of office. I'd rather support a true progressive, even if it means a conservative will win. The Democratic party needs to learn that nominating candidates who tack left in the primary but will tack right in the general and govern from a conservative lite position, is a sure way to lose elections, and that isn't going to happen as long as the left keeps falling for the "lessor of two evils" argument. Sure a Democratic candidate gets elected but if that Democratic representative mostly represents corporatist conservative lite positions what difference does the letter by their name make? It's like playing poker for matchsticks, wins and loses are part of a game with no real meaning or consequences. The only way to get people really involved in politics is to let them see that there are real consequences to choosing who you vote for in elections.

 

[wareyin]

As one who feels like an increasing number of progressives, I won't vote for a conservative, but I see no reason to vote conservative lite just to keep a conservative out of office. I'd rather support a true progressive, even if it means a conservative will win. The Democratic party needs to learn that nominating candidates who tack left in the primary but will tack right in the general and govern from a conservative lite position, is a sure way to lose elections, and that isn't going to happen as long as the left keeps falling for the "lessor of two evils" argument. Sure a Democratic candidate gets elected but if that Democratic representative mostly represents corporatist conservative lite positions what difference does the letter by their name make? It's like playing poker for matchsticks, wins and loses are part of a game with no real meaning or consequences. The only way to get people really involved in politics is to let them see that there are real consequences to choosing who you vote for in elections.

Sorry, but I view throwing away one's vote on someone who I absolutely know will not win as more similar to playing poker with matchsticks. I absolutely know that if a conservative wins, the results will be far worse than if Clinton wins (for my political ideals, and apparently for your ideals as well), so I act as though there will be real world consequences. Allowing the greater of two evils to set the course for the Supreme Court for decades to come is one of those consequences, and is of far greater concern than matchsticks.