Months ago it appeared that the was no chance that Ms.Clinton would not get her party's nomination.Now I would say it is only 50/50 as to whether she will survive the FBI investigation of her server or the house investigation which uncovered the problems with her handling of government information.Issa who conducted previous hous investigations was a buffoon.Trey Gowdy is an experienced federal prosecutor and I would not underestimate his ability to uncover more illegal or unethical activities.
Months ago it appeared that the republican nomination would be a dog fight.Now it appears that Trump has a solid hold on 20-30% of the elephants.As most of the primaries are winner take all that puts him in a commanding position in a field of 10-15.My question is will the field narrow down to 2-3 candidates in time for someone else to effectively compete with him and if so who will be the last men standing.My guess is that the field will remain large enough for his 25% bloc to carry him through to what will be a futile race for the presidency
Rest is kabuki theatre for uninformed Americans. You will start seeing money pumping in
For Hillary shortly from both sides as they are setting up Jeb for the WH
It will likely take 3b to buy the WH this time and Jeb has that secured.
They need Hillary as Jebs competitor as she is easily beatable
and they get their guy. Jeb will be the guy that ushers in police state V2, wars, and global corporate control
That's not true. Issa is definitely a buffoon!
+1
At this point in 1991 George Bush had a 92% approval rating. Shit can change quick.
Thing is, I have no idea who will catch fire. Rubio maybe but for the Dems, not a clue.
Her biggest sin in this scandal, I suspect, will be how incompetently she and her team responded to it. In the meantime, she still has a ground game Sanders can't touch in too many states, and Biden has yet to make a case for running for any reason other than to be the anti-Hillary. That traps him in a corner, because it isn't his nature to run a hostile campaign against a front-running fellow Democrat.
It's easy to focus on this shit in the dog days of August, 14+ months before the election. Republicans very well may continue to focus their energy on this, when they would be best served identifying a candidate to push Trump aside, and then putting together a platform that cuts across enough different strains of their own party, plus independents. Right now, their main game plan is cognitive dissonance.
What's the plan? "Hillary sucks" isn't a plan.
On the Clinton side of things. The Clinton's are survivors, I don't think there is anyway this prevents her from winning. Her biggest worry now has got to be Biden getting into the race and splitting the mainstream vote to the point where Sanders can win. The Dems will deal with this the same way the GOP will deal with Trump.
And then you get to pick between Clinton or Bush. Isn't America great?
Everyone has a hot take on this, and none of them has come to fruition yet. Eventually his support will peak and recede, but whether that happens in six weeks or six months is really conjecture at this point. And whether he is willing to actually entertain a third party run or not is an open question.
You forgot the black helicopters and your tin foil hat.
Quote:
don't underestimate the limited attention span of the electorate.
+1
At this point in 1991 George Bush had a 92% approval rating. Shit can change quick.
By November of 91, when Harris Wofford destroyed Bush's attorney general in special Senate Election in PA, that pretty much showed where the electorate was going a year later. that is not to say things could change, but despite the billions of dollars we spend on the election, 9 times out of ten, if you held the election a year before the people went to the polls, you would get the same result, irrespective of how the campaigns are run.
Quote:
In comment 12441079 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
don't underestimate the limited attention span of the electorate.
+1
At this point in 1991 George Bush had a 92% approval rating. Shit can change quick.
By November of 91, when Harris Wofford destroyed Bush's attorney general in special Senate Election in PA, that pretty much showed where the electorate was going a year later. that is not to say things could change, but despite the billions of dollars we spend on the election, 9 times out of ten, if you held the election a year before the people went to the polls, you would get the same result, irrespective of how the campaigns are run.
Look at the polls on Labor Day 1979 and tell that to Jimmy Carter. Look at the Labor Day 1967 polls and tell that to LBJ.
Weird how the Bushes do seem to be puppet candidates. That will weigh on Jeb. Does he really want to be pres? Hard to tell.
Weird how the Bushes do seem to be puppet candidates. That will weigh on Jeb. Does he really want to be pres? Hard to tell.
Clinton was a nobody. All things equal, Bush would've kicked his ass.
She wasn't trying to hide anything that I can see. Has anything been deleted? That would fulfill the definition.
And I wouldn't say 50/50 she gets burned by it legally. More like about a 5% chance that happens.
Because it would've already happened.
She's already taken the brunt of this issue, and she's still in front. Unfortunately, Sanders isn't a real threat.
Time to start looking for a new 'scandal'.
Quote:
His campaign could not hide is true lack of enthusiasm. That was probably the biggest reason he lost.
Weird how the Bushes do seem to be puppet candidates. That will weigh on Jeb. Does he really want to be pres? Hard to tell.
Bush41 lost because of a recession and the sluggish response to it.
Clinton was a nobody. All things equal, Bush would've kicked his ass.
Speaking of sluggish, the press was pretty damned sluggish in reporting the fact that by Sept. 1992 the economy was coming out of the recession. Add to that Pat Buchannon's convention speech that probably led to about 2 million undecided independent woman voters swinging to Clinton. But in any event, if the economy had turned even 3 months earlier Bush would have been reelected.
Quote:
His campaign could not hide is true lack of enthusiasm. That was probably the biggest reason he lost.
Weird how the Bushes do seem to be puppet candidates. That will weigh on Jeb. Does he really want to be pres? Hard to tell.
Bush41 lost because of a recession and the sluggish response to it.
Clinton was a nobody. All things equal, Bush would've kicked his ass.
I agree. The sluggish response and the fact that he didn't kick Clinton's ass was on him. He didn't want it. Couldn't handle the backlash after the "read my lips" tax hike.
It's all partisan bullshit, and Christie didn't actually threaten national security.
Has anything been deleted?
Didn't she admit that roughly 30,000 e-mails had been deleted that "her people" decided were personal? Query, if she was discussing foreign policy with Sid Blumenthal would that be personal because he was putatively an employee of the Clinton Foundation and no working for the government?
In any event, the FBI will review with respect to at least some of the questions related to the server so we'll have to wait and see what they determine.
It's all partisan bullshit, and Christie didn't actually threaten national security.
But it's not a ship-sinker.
Like I said, she'd have already tanked by now. I'll be shocked if there's anything there to actually take her down.
Come on - this is a Clinton here. She may well go down in flames, but it would more likely be from something like a stained dress or the definition of the word 'is' than an actual Federal indictment.
It's all partisan bullshit, and Christie didn't actually threaten national security.
I honestly dont know anyone who thought Christie should be impeached over the Bridge issue. However, the difference between the HRC email issue and the Christie bridge issue are obvious. The Christie bridge issue was mean-spirited and retributive. Christie's top lieutenant (possibly at Christie's direction/knowledge) used the power of office to punish a politician and his constituents for failing to endorse Christie. This wasnt even an allocation of resources (the the victors go the spoils) type issue. It was 100% unnecessary vindictiveness. The HRC email issue on the other hand was at most more in the vein of stupid/error/paranoid rather than intentionally mean.
And of course there are no HRC docs like the Bridge docs where people are gleefully doing wrong.
WHOOPS!
Nobody gets busted.
Quote:
that act like the email thing is no big deal were also huge proponents of having Christie kicked out of office over the bridge traffic flap.
It's all partisan bullshit, and Christie didn't actually threaten national security.
I'm not saying it's not a big deal. I think it's an intentional means of controlling communications, and it's unethical but it wasn't illegal. It clearly left a bit more of a mess than she intended, but the process she was following wasn't in itself illegal. So I'm not giving her a pass - it's similar to the crap the Bush Administration pulled with their e-mail 'whoopsie', and I certainly bitched plenty about that. It shouldn't just get a pass, and I'm happy to see awareness of the issue raised from the other side.
But it's not a ship-sinker.
Like I said, she'd have already tanked by now. I'll be shocked if there's anything there to actually take her down.
Come on - this is a Clinton here. She may well go down in flames, but it would more likely be from something like a stained dress or the definition of the word 'is' than an actual Federal indictment.
Spoken like someone who has absolutely zero understanding of the procedures for handling classified information, or the gravity of improper handling.
But keep dreaming.
There is no one at the top of the GOP. National level "party bosses" have never existed with the power of state and local level bosses. But in the era of the tea party movement and Superpacs, that power is even more diffuse. This isnt a hypothetical -- name the party boss(es) in question who will get Huckabee, Kasich, Walker etc. to give up? GWB? Romney? Preibus? McConnell? Boehner? The person doesnt exist.
This is a really amazing GOP primary. Many of these candidates are getting by with 1-10 donors bankrolling 75%+ of their campaign. Scary for the country really; not in a partisan way but in a is-it-good-for-democracy way, but that is a different discussion. The Koch brothers I think tried to put something in place to sort out the primary in due course by having the candidates all come to one retreat for a megadonor dog and pony show. I think the purpose of the retreat was to really organize the megadonors. If someone is going to get people to drop out, it is the megadonor money spigot guys.
But the handwringing on both sides is premature. It's August 2015. Both parties will have candidates come next summer, and it wont be Trump v. Sanders.
She wasn't trying to hide anything that I can see. H
Of course you can't see anything. You have blinders on.
Quote:
In comment 12444273 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Spoken like someone who has absolutely zero understanding of the procedures for handling classified information, or the gravity of improper handling.
And I fully understand that I'd be in seriously deep shit had I sent the sorts of data and information that Hillary has.
But I'm not Hillary.
Just calling it as I see it.
She won't be indicted over it. And she's already taken the brunt of the political damage she'll see over this.
Watch.
She's already setting little fires of distraction. She's just getting started. Nobody's going to remember this stuff next November. Bank on it.
Quote:
Eventually someone at the top of the GOP is going to take to the main stream candidates and tell them something like this. Look, we can't have Trump ruin this party. Ten of you are going to have to drop out so we can get this down to Bush, Rubio, Cruz (for the Tea Party people), and name 2 other mainstream candidates. If that doesn't swing it enough, then subtract the rest and you're left with Rubio or Bush and then should effectively end Trump.
There is no one at the top of the GOP. National level "party bosses" have never existed with the power of state and local level bosses. But in the era of the tea party movement and Superpacs, that power is even more diffuse. This isnt a hypothetical -- name the party boss(es) in question who will get Huckabee, Kasich, Walker etc. to give up? GWB? Romney? Preibus? McConnell? Boehner? The person doesnt exist.
This is a really amazing GOP primary. Many of these candidates are getting by with 1-10 donors bankrolling 75%+ of their campaign. Scary for the country really; not in a partisan way but in a is-it-good-for-democracy way, but that is a different discussion. The Koch brothers I think tried to put something in place to sort out the primary in due course by having the candidates all come to one retreat for a megadonor dog and pony show. I think the purpose of the retreat was to really organize the megadonors. If someone is going to get people to drop out, it is the megadonor money spigot guys.
But the handwringing on both sides is premature. It's August 2015. Both parties will have candidates come next summer, and it wont be Trump v. Sanders.
Yes, there are party bosses and people who control the Republican Party. Those are the people who have been at war with the Tea Party and their candidates. It may not be that visible in the elections, but in the primaries, especially the House and Senate, they are very busy. Boehner and McConnell spend all their time fundraising and then supply money to establishment candidates that will be beholden to them. Look at what they did in Mississippi to get that zombie Cochran to the primary. It was disgusting.
The DNC is trying the same thing with Hillary. O'Malley and others are fighting it. It may not be the same as the good old days with the cigar smoke filled back rooms. But there is still a lot of power that some of these guys wield.
Take it up with the former US Attorney who said she could be prosecuted with this and many other charges.
Quote:
In comment 12444375 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
In comment 12444273 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
Spoken like someone who has absolutely zero understanding of the procedures for handling classified information, or the gravity of improper handling.
You're funny. I hold a Security Clearance. :)
And I fully understand that I'd be in seriously deep shit had I sent the sorts of data and information that Hillary has.
But I'm not Hillary.
Just calling it as I see it.
She won't be indicted over it. And she's already taken the brunt of the political damage she'll see over this.
Watch.
She's already setting little fires of distraction. She's just getting started. Nobody's going to remember this stuff next November. Bank on it.
I don't bank on much of anything. But if you had a security clearance, even a TS-SCI, for one you'd see a tiny fraction the breadth and significance of what a Secretary of State would. Your ability to actually compromise national security by inadvertent disclosure is thus much lower. Are the bulk of these going to be important state secrets? Who knows, probably not. But it is still illegal, whether or not action is ever taken against her. The disregard for basic rules regarding handling classified information though should trouble even the people that accept her inevitability and think that on balance she'd be a better president than the alternatives.
Mr. Trump, what's your plan for dealing with unemployment? "Just wait, it's gonna be terrific."
The Chinese? "Just wait, it's gonna be terrific."
ISIS? "Just wait, it's gonna be terrific."
Trump has collared a portion of the disaffected Republican base, and no mainstream candidate has shown enough attractiveness or competence to counter--yet. His negatives within the party remain sky-high, and I am confident that they will be vastly higher with independents.
Interesting tidbit from polls on the Iowa caucuses: Ben Carson is now tied with Trump in one of the new polls, just a few points behind in the other. Together they get 41-46% of the poll results. A lot of those are "none of the above" votes targeted at the Republican establishment.