Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (7 Viewers)

[SaintsInDome2006]

That's Congress and btw that just got delayed. - Lets put it this way, when do you think would be too long for her to go without taking and really answering any reporters' questions?

 

[squistion]

That's Congress and btw that just got delayed. - Lets put it this way, when do you think would be too long for her to go without taking and really answering any reporters' questions?

It would be too long if she maintained this profile until the first debate this fall, as that might be a moderator's question for her.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

It's a really weird strategy, but maybe it's a good one. Don't take questions, don't answer questions with real reporters, do no national interviews with actual reporters. She has a big lead in the first minute of the game based on name recognition,so run the ball every down, just play defense, take no chances on offense, even if she's constantly punting, and run out the clock.

It is smart for this season. Let the GOP beat itself up until there's a winner. She'll probably go on offense as soon as it's clear who the R nominee is.

Shes on offense now.

Disagree - but not worth arguing over.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/wall-street-warns-hillary-clinton-117819.html

NEW YORK — Wall Street has a message for bank-bashing U.S. populist politicians: Put down the pitchforks or you could wind up like Ed Miliband.

Senior financial executives say the Labour leader’s anti-bank, soak the rich rhetoric helped sink his party in the U.K. elections and assured a surprisingly big reelection win for Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservative party last week. Miliband resigned as Labour leader following the loss.

These bankers and their ideological supporters say if likely Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton keeps tacking to the left on Wall Street issues — as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, other progressive Democrats and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders are demanding — she could wind up facing the same fate.

“Cameron embraced the role of the financial sector in growing the U.K. economy and creating jobs, never once criticizing hedge funds, banks or the wealthy,” said a top executive at one of Wall Street’s largest firms. “Milliband ran against hedge funds and bankers, promising bonus and mansion taxes and lost big. Is that a lesson for Hillary as well?”

This executive, like several others who cited the U.K. election result as a warning to populists, declined to be identified by name or by firm for fear of eliciting a heavy backlash.

Another executive said Milliband’s adoption of Warren’s approach to the financial sector and banking regulation failed even though U.K. voters trust banks even less than U.S. voters, according to opinion surveys.

“Seems like there might be some political lessons for the U.S. out of the U.K. election — with Milliband’s Warren style, anti-business, anti-bank rhetoric clearly falling flat with the general public even as the press ate it up,” this executive from another of Wall Street’s largest firms said. “And the Edelman trust barometer actually shows that British voters are more distrustful and wary of the banks than here in the U.S.”

The financial executives cited Miliband’s attacks on Cameron and the Conservatives as the “party of hedge funds” and his calls for higher taxes on the industry as failing to captivate U.K. voters. And they noted that despite polls showing a very tight race, Cameron and his party won 51 percent of the vote and 331 seats in Parliament to just 36 percent and 232 seats for Miliband and his Labour party.

Conservative analysts also said U.S. politicians including Clinton should take note of the U.K. result.

“There are two lessons here,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the American Action Forum. “One is the Miliband lesson. The U.S. has now seen that people in the U.K. don’t really like this focus on inequality and redistribution. It’s not where people are. And the second is that conservatives were very effective in saying they were for working people but keeping the focus on work not excessive government intervention and benefits.”

 

[timschochet]

I agree with the article and I think Hillary needs to be careful here. The rhetoric that Warren and Sanders spout is popular with progressives in this country, but just like the Tea Party on the other side, they (progressives) don't decide elections. Hillary needs to maintain control of the center. The center doesn't especially like pitchforks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I agree with the article and I think Hillary needs to be careful here. The rhetoric that Warren and Sanders spout is popular with progressives in this country, but just like the Tea Party on the other side, they (progressives) don't decide elections. Hillary needs to maintain control of the center. The center doesn't especially like pitchforks.

It is hard to imagine someone more in the bag for Wall Street than Hillary. With her they would get the cover of being populist while also having the benefits of someone they almost own.

 

[urbanhack]

I agree with the article and I think Hillary needs to be careful here. The rhetoric that Warren and Sanders spout is popular with progressives in this country, but just like the Tea Party on the other side, they (progressives) don't decide elections. Hillary needs to maintain control of the center. The center doesn't especially like pitchforks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

George Washington Univ. Battleground Poll:

https://mediarelations.gwu.edu/sites/mediarelations.gwu.edu/files/GWBattlegroundPoll57-toplines.pdf

Hillary:

- Favorable - 48%

- Unfavorable - 49%

- Strong Favorable - 21%

- Strong Unfavorable - 29%

- Would Consider Voting For - 47%

- Would Not Consider Voting For - 51%

- DNK - 2%

- Would Consider Voting For: Strong - 30%

- Would Not Consider Voting For: Strong - 44%

- DNK - 2%

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Yeah, pretty convenient of anonymous Wall Street dudes to make that argument. I don't know enough about British politics to say whether Miliband's rhetoric on income inequality was what hurt him. I doubt if the Wall Street guys know either. I don't think British elections are a particularly good predictor of American elections.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yeah, pretty convenient of anonymous Wall Street dudes to make that argument. I don't know enough about British politics to say whether Miliband's rhetoric on income inequality was what hurt him. I doubt if the Wall Street guys know either. I don't think British elections are a particularly good predictor of American elections.

Seems more like a little fist shaking at Liz Warren to stay the hell out of the race.

Hillary's not mentioned in that piece, Warren is.

 

[Rove!]

http://jaybookman.blog.ajc.com/2015/05/06/hillary-talks-policy-gop-talks-scandal-repeat-ad-infinitum/

Hillary talks policy; GOP talks scandal: Repeat, ad infinitum

In Las Vegas Tuesday, Hillary Clinton moved to cement her standing among Latino-American voters by pledging to fight for "a path to full and equal citizenship." And if Congress refuses to act, as president, I would do everything possible under the law to go even further than President Obama has.

"This is where I differ with everybody on the Republican side," she told a group of students whose parents face deportation. "Make no mistakes. Today not a single Republican candidate, announced or potential, is clearly and consistently supporting a path to citizenship. Not one."

Meanwhile, Republicans continue to talk alleged scandal Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, emails, etc.

Its a matter of faith among Republicans that their intense, visceral dislike for Hillary Clinton is shared or can at least be spread among the American people as a whole. Theyre certain that if they just try hard enough, yell loud enough, stomp their feet vigorously enough, the rest of the world can be made to see her as the wicked villainess that they know her to be. Thats why theyre dragging her back to Capitol Hill this month to testify yet again on the 2012 tragedy in Benghazi, which they seem intent on turning into the most investigated and re-investigated event since the Kennedy assassination.

History, however, suggests that their approach may not work. It may be emotionally rewarding; it may succeed in firing up the GOP base. But as a strategy for winning elections, it doesnt have a strong track record.

Republicans took the scandal-based approach with Bill Clinton, who won in 1992 amid allegations of womanizing and then easily won re-election in 1996. In December 1998, when House Republicans vented their Clinton hatred with votes to impeach him, Clinton enjoyed a 73 percent job approval rating among the American people as a whole. When he left office in 2001, he exited with a higher Gallup rating than had Ronald Reagan.

Undaunted, the GOP applied the same strategy against Barack Obama, again expecting that the intensity of their hatred would somehow spill out into the larger electorate. Instead, Obama has become the first person to get more than 51 percent of the vote in two consecutive presidential elections since Ike Eisenhower. Today, Obamas Gallup standing equals that of Reagan at this point in his presidency and is on the rise.

But with Hillary, were told, it will be different. This time, Republicans are claiming that they will be able to redefine the former secretary of state in much the same way as the Democrats succeeded in redefining Mitt Romney in 2012.

Theyll certainly have the financial resources to make that pitch heard, but again, it seems unlikely. While Romneys image was still fairly malleable, Hillary has been on the political scene for close to a quarter century now. Her public image is well established, both pro and con, as is the Republicans animus against her. And by this point, I think it has become background noise for many voters. Theyve witnessed a long string of alleged Clinton scandals; theyve repeatedly witnessed those scandals come to little or nothing.

The boy has cried Wolf! so many times that voters are going to have to see an actual, living, breathing, 100 percent-authenticated, DNA-verified Canis lupus. And even then they may not believe it.

what drivel

now she says she'' go further than Obama, but I thought Obama went as far as a President could legally go?

you may like her positions, but she's dumber than Palin

Of course Obama had also said previously his hands were tied by the Constitution but then he went ahead and did it anyway.

Now Hillary says she can and will do more as president so we have no idea if she's full of it or if he is.

of course she's full of it....

 

[Gawain]

- Would Consider Voting For - 47%

- Would Not Consider Voting For - 51%

- DNK - 2%

- Would Consider Voting For: Strong - 30%

- Would Not Consider Voting For: Strong - 44%

- DNK - 2%

With the exception of Rubio, Paul and Huckabee, all other Rs come in with a larger unfavorable rating. Of those, only Rubio has 50% of the respondents possibly voting for him.

I'd be a strong no vote for Hillary, but against Huckabee, I'd hold my nose.

Republicans need an option that doesn't stink.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That's Congress and btw that just got delayed. - Lets put it this way, when do you think would be too long for her to go without taking and really answering any reporters' questions?

It would be too long if she maintained this profile until the first debate this fall, as that might be a moderator's question for her.

I think she will have to say something about the TPP, I think that will be her next appearance where she steps out from behind the curtain to read off some script. Now will she take real questions and give real answers on that and other subjects? Maybe not, my guess is she is personally very surprised by the mainstream press coverage of her and Bill's (alleged) conflicts and the emails. I think her timeline is whenever her finger in the wind tells her the storm is over or when she thinks she needs to create one of her own, probably on a new policy initiative.

The position on illegal immigration backfired on her because she made it look like Obama was dissembling by default. If she bucks Obama on TPP that will be really interesting.

 

[squistion]

The position on illegal immigration backfired on her because she made it look like Obama was dissembling by default.

Given the enthusiastic reception by Latinos and progressives, hardly a backfire. And making Obama look like he was dissembling by default? Please. It is a matter of interpretation how far a President can go with executive actions and Hillary interprets more broadly than Obama.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Now that the TPP has failed it's test vote I'm guessing Hillary declares she is against it.

 

[timschochet]

Now that the TPP has failed it's test vote I'm guessing Hillary declares she is against it.

I hope not. We'll see.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary Clinton Hasn't Answered a Press Question in 21 Days (And Her Opponents Are Taking Notice)Today is the one month anniversary of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. It also marks 21 days since she has answered a question from the press.

During this "ramp up" phase of her candidacy, Clinton has kept her distance from the media, answering only a handful of questions from the reporters following her on the campaign trail.

As the days go by, Clinton’s opponents have begun to take notice and Clinton’s limited engagement with reporters is becoming an issue. ...

Not surprisingly the press is also taking notice: The New York Times launched a new feature called “Questions for Hillary,” dedicated to posing hypothetical questions that it would ask Clinton (if the paper had the chance).

By ABC News’ count, Clinton has responded -- in one way or another -- to a grand total of nine questions from reporters since she launched her campaign last month. Most recently, on April 21 she answered a question from a reporter about her position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Agreement.

Clinton has not answered any questions from reporters since, though she has fielded her fair share from voters in events her campaign has organized.

Here’s how Clinton campaign spokesman Jesse Ferguson explained the approach: “The focus of our ramp up period is to hear from voters about the issues they care about. She’s enjoyed engaging in hours of public question and answers sessions and, as the campaign progresses, looks forward to more engagement with voters and the press as well.” ...

Even so, Clinton’s strategy differs from that of many other announced or likely presidential candidates such as Bush and potential Democratic rivals Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, who have been doing regular television interviews and answering multiple questions on their campaign stops.

...

As reporters swarmed during her first official campaign stop last month in Iowa, Clinton dodged their questions but offered this: “We'll have lots of time to talk later.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-answered-press-question-21-days-opponents/story?id=30969628

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary Clinton, MIA on tradeFORTY-FOUR senators in the Democratic caucus voted Tuesday to block action on a crucial “trade promotion authority” bill, delivering an embarrassing setback to President Obama, who strongly supports the bill — and, more importantly, sowing doubts about U.S. leadership among friends and foes around the world. Leaders of both parties swore that this would not be the final word, that they would find a face-saving exit from the arcane procedural conflict that Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is using as a fig leaf for the ascendant anti-trade agenda within his party.

As it happens, they are probably right, in part because there are still enough Democrats in the Senate (in addition to the one, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, who had the guts to vote against Mr. Reid on Tuesday) who favor trade. Still, it’s remarkable how much power the anti-trade left wing of the Democratic Party has come to wield within the Senate, which historically was a bastion of bipartisan pro-trade sentiment. Mr. Obama wants trade promotion authority — “fast-track” authority — to grease the legislative skids for his proposed ­Trans-Pacific Partnership, a measure that would enhance U.S. exports to Asia, as well as security ties to key nations such as Japan. Progressives oppose the trade deal on the spurious grounds that it would kill American jobs.

So powerful has the opposition on the left become, in fact, that it has turned the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, into a quiet follower on the issue, rather than the forceful leader she once was — and still could be. While her opponents for the Democratic nomination populistically posture, all she has mustered are a couple of anodyne remarks. “Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security,” she said in a recent visit to New Hampshire.

Ms. Clinton’s dash for the tall grass is transparently inconsistent with the position she embraced as Mr. Obama’s secretary of state. “Our hope is that a TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a benchmark for future agreements — and grow to serve as a platform for broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific,” she wrote in an October 2011 cover story for Foreign Policy magazine. Indeed, given this well-known record, her avoidance now rather insults the electorate’s intelligence.

With the president’s agenda embattled in the Senate, this would be a good time for Ms. Clinton to abandon her political caution and speak up for what she said so recently were her principles. In refusing to take a stand, Ms. Clinton is not only abandoning the president she once served but also missing an opportunity to help define the values of the party she would lead in November 2016.

Will Democrats look backward, in the vain hope of sheltering America from global economic forces? Or will they confidently embrace change and competition? Ms. Clinton tells prospective supporters that hers is a campaign to “win the future.” Her performance on trade so far implies that it’s just about winning the nomination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-mia/2015/05/12/d89d9e68-f8bc-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html

 

[Slapdash]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/wall-street-warns-hillary-clinton-117819.html

NEW YORK — Wall Street has a message for bank-bashing U.S. populist politicians: Put down the pitchforks or you could wind up like Ed Miliband.

Senior financial executives say the Labour leader’s anti-bank, soak the rich rhetoric helped sink his party in the U.K. elections and assured a surprisingly big reelection win for Prime Minister David Cameron and his Conservative party last week. Miliband resigned as Labour leader following the loss.

These bankers and their ideological supporters say if likely Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton keeps tacking to the left on Wall Street issues — as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, other progressive Democrats and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders are demanding — she could wind up facing the same fate.

“Cameron embraced the role of the financial sector in growing the U.K. economy and creating jobs, never once criticizing hedge funds, banks or the wealthy,” said a top executive at one of Wall Street’s largest firms. “Milliband ran against hedge funds and bankers, promising bonus and mansion taxes and lost big. Is that a lesson for Hillary as well?”

This executive, like several others who cited the U.K. election result as a warning to populists, declined to be identified by name or by firm for fear of eliciting a heavy backlash.

Another executive said Milliband’s adoption of Warren’s approach to the financial sector and banking regulation failed even though U.K. voters trust banks even less than U.S. voters, according to opinion surveys.

“Seems like there might be some political lessons for the U.S. out of the U.K. election — with Milliband’s Warren style, anti-business, anti-bank rhetoric clearly falling flat with the general public even as the press ate it up,” this executive from another of Wall Street’s largest firms said. “And the Edelman trust barometer actually shows that British voters are more distrustful and wary of the banks than here in the U.S.”

The financial executives cited Miliband’s attacks on Cameron and the Conservatives as the “party of hedge funds” and his calls for higher taxes on the industry as failing to captivate U.K. voters. And they noted that despite polls showing a very tight race, Cameron and his party won 51 percent of the vote and 331 seats in Parliament to just 36 percent and 232 seats for Miliband and his Labour party.

Conservative analysts also said U.S. politicians including Clinton should take note of the U.K. result.

“There are two lessons here,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin of the American Action Forum. “One is the Miliband lesson. The U.S. has now seen that people in the U.K. don’t really like this focus on inequality and redistribution. It’s not where people are. And the second is that conservatives were very effective in saying they were for working people but keeping the focus on work not excessive government intervention and benefits.”

Translation: Don't say bad things about Wall St if you want their money, which you need to be elected in this "democracy"

 

[BassNBrew]

Hillary Clinton, MIA on tradeFORTY-FOUR senators in the Democratic caucus voted Tuesday to block action on a crucial “trade promotion authority” bill, delivering an embarrassing setback to President Obama, who strongly supports the bill — and, more importantly, sowing doubts about U.S. leadership among friends and foes around the world. Leaders of both parties swore that this would not be the final word, that they would find a face-saving exit from the arcane procedural conflict that Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is using as a fig leaf for the ascendant anti-trade agenda within his party.

As it happens, they are probably right, in part because there are still enough Democrats in the Senate (in addition to the one, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, who had the guts to vote against Mr. Reid on Tuesday) who favor trade. Still, it’s remarkable how much power the anti-trade left wing of the Democratic Party has come to wield within the Senate, which historically was a bastion of bipartisan pro-trade sentiment. Mr. Obama wants trade promotion authority — “fast-track” authority — to grease the legislative skids for his proposed ­Trans-Pacific Partnership, a measure that would enhance U.S. exports to Asia, as well as security ties to key nations such as Japan. Progressives oppose the trade deal on the spurious grounds that it would kill American jobs.

So powerful has the opposition on the left become, in fact, that it has turned the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, into a quiet follower on the issue, rather than the forceful leader she once was — and still could be. While her opponents for the Democratic nomination populistically posture, all she has mustered are a couple of anodyne remarks. “Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security,” she said in a recent visit to New Hampshire.

Ms. Clinton’s dash for the tall grass is transparently inconsistent with the position she embraced as Mr. Obama’s secretary of state. “Our hope is that a TPP agreement with high standards can serve as a benchmark for future agreements — and grow to serve as a platform for broader regional interaction and eventually a free trade area of the Asia-Pacific,” she wrote in an October 2011 cover story for Foreign Policy magazine. Indeed, given this well-known record, her avoidance now rather insults the electorate’s intelligence.

With the president’s agenda embattled in the Senate, this would be a good time for Ms. Clinton to abandon her political caution and speak up for what she said so recently were her principles. In refusing to take a stand, Ms. Clinton is not only abandoning the president she once served but also missing an opportunity to help define the values of the party she would lead in November 2016.

Will Democrats look backward, in the vain hope of sheltering America from global economic forces? Or will they confidently embrace change and competition? Ms. Clinton tells prospective supporters that hers is a campaign to “win the future.” Her performance on trade so far implies that it’s just about winning the nomination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-mia/2015/05/12/d89d9e68-f8bc-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html

That's Tim's gal.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Thought you political nuts might enjoy this, Mrs. Clinton being interviewed in 1979:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/hillary-clinton-1979#.pivwLQNGA

Watch This Rare, Long-Forgotten Interview With Young Hillary Clinton... In 1979, a month into her tenure as Arkansas first lady, Rodham sat down for an interview with the Arkansas public affairs program In Focus. The interview, available on BuzzFeed News for the first time in decades, is among the earliest, and most open, glimpses of Clinton’s efforts to balance public and private life, a theme that has followed her long career....

Interesting stuff. I like this Hillary, but she is not the same gal.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

From Nate Silver, 535:

There Is No ‘Blue Wall’By Nate Silver

If you were browsing campaign coverage at this point in advance of the 1992 election, you’d be reading a lot about the Republicans’ impregnable “red wall.” OK — it wouldn’t have been called the “red wall” (the association of Republicans with red states and Democrats with blue states came about more recently). But you’d have been reading a lot about Republicans’ supposed “lock” on the Electoral College.

The argument was something like this. During the past six presidential elections, from 1968 through 1988, 21 states voted Republican every time. These included almost all states in the fast-growing West — most importantly, California and its trove of electoral votes — along with some wealthy, suburban states (Illinois, New Jersey and Virginia) and a couple of traditionally Republican states in New England (including Vermont).1

Together, these states accounted for 191 electoral votes. They weren’t quite enough to clinch victory for the Republicans, the argument went, but they put the GOP at a substantial advantage. The Democrats, who’d won only the District of Columbia every time, had to win more than three-quarters of the electoral votes from the remaining, “competitive” states.

You probably know what happened next. In 1992, Bill Clinton won nine Republican “lock” states, containing 118 of the red wall’s 191 electoral votes, en route to a 370-168 overall Electoral College victory. Four of the GOP “lock” states — California, Illinois, New Jersey and Vermont — haven’t voted Republican since. Democrats obliterated the red wall.

Nowadays, of course, it’s become common to hear talk about the “blue wall” — the set of 18 states that, along with the District of Columbia, have voted for the Democrat in each of the most recent six presidential elections, from 1992 through 2012. Together, they represent 242 electoral votes. Many pundits, ignoring the lessons of history, claim the “blue wall” or some close variation of it puts the Democratic nominee (likely Hillary Clinton) at a substantial advantage for 2016.

The error that these commentators are making is in attributing the Democrats’ recent run of success to the Electoral College. In fact, the Electoral College has been a minor factor, if it’s helped Democrats at all, and one probably best ignored until the late stages of a close presidential race.

But wait. Wasn’t Barack Obama’s margin in the Electoral College in 2012 — 332 electoral votes, to Mitt Romney’s 206 — awfully impressive given that he won the popular vote by only a few percentage points?

Actually, it was pretty much par for the course. The nature of the Electoral College is to accentuate small margins in the popular vote; Obama’s electoral vote tallies have been fine, but historically ordinary.

In the chart below, I’ve plotted the past century’s worth of presidential elections (from 1916 to 2012). The horizontal axis shows the Democrat’s margin of victory or defeat in the popular vote and the vertical axis how many electoral votes he received. (Totals are prorated to 5382 electoral votes, the current total.)3 Then I’ve drawn an “S”-shaped curve to show the long-term relationship.

Based on the past century’s worth of data, you’d expect a Democrat who won the popular vote by 3.9 percentage points — as Obama did against Romney — to win about 330 electoral votes. That pretty much exactly matches Obama’s 332.

And you’d expect a Democrat who won the popular vote by 7.3 percentage points, as Obama did in 2008 against John McCain, to claim about 380 electoral votes. Obama won 365 that year instead. By comparison, when F.D.R. won the 1944 popular vote by 7.5 percentage points, he won the Electoral College 432-99.

So when commentators talk about the Democrats’ “blue wall,” all they’re really pointing out is that Democrats have had a pretty good run in presidential elections lately. And they have, if you conveniently draw the line at 1992 (it doesn’t sound so impressive to instead say Democrats have won five of the 12 elections since 1968). During that time, Democrats have won four elections pretty clearly, lost one narrowly and essentially tied the sixth. This has been evident from the popular vote, however. The one time the Electoral College really mattered — that was 2000, of course — it hurt the Democrats.

Republicans, in all likelihood, would have won by similar Electoral College margins if they’d done as well as the Democrats in the popular vote, casting all sorts of cracks in the blue wall. Suppose, for instance, that Romney, rather than Obama, had won the 2012 election by 3.9 percentage points. What would the map have looked like?

It would have looked pretty red. A 3.9-point Romney victory represents a 7.8-point swing from the actual result. So if the swing were distributed uniformly, Obama would have lost every state that he won by 7.8 percentage points or less. That means he’d have lost three “blue wall” states — Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — along with Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia.

An alternative technique is to assume that some states are more “elastic” than others, meaning that they contain more swing voters and are more responsive to national trends. Based on our previous calculations, for instance, New Hampshire is relatively elastic — its vote swings a lot — whereas Georgia (where there are a lot of black voters and a lot of conservative whites and not many voters in between) is less so.

But running the calculation that way changes the outcome of just one electoral vote. Romney would have narrowly won the rural, 2nd Congressional District of Maine, which like Nebraska awards one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, in addition to his other spoils. That would have put Romney on 332 electoral votes — exactly the total that Obama finished with, as it happens.

Where you’d see more evidence of an impregnable “blue wall” is in the event of an extremely lopsided election. Suppose that Democrats had lost the 2012 election by 18.2 percentage points, as Walter Mondale did to Ronald Reagan. In 1984, Mondale won only 13 electoral votes — 10 from his home state of Minnesota, plus D.C.’s three. In contrast, I estimate that a Democrat losing by that margin now would still carry states totaling 104 electoral votes: California, New York, Maryland, Vermont, Hawaii, and D.C. That’s a reflection of the fact that the country is far more geographically polarized than it once was.

But this cuts both ways. If Obama had won by Reagan’s 1984 margin, Republicans would still have won Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Utah, Nebraska,4 West Virginia, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming — for 136 electoral votes. Neither party’s slate is close to a majority, however, and they mostly offset each other. (In the chart below, I’ve run this calculation for all possible outcomes, up to a 30-point win for either party.)

What about in the event of an extremely close election, instead of a lopsided one? Another election as close as 2000, for instance?

Obama would probably have won such an election in 2012. My method has him winning the Electoral College 285-253 in the event of an exactly tied popular vote, for instance.

But it would have had to be very close indeed. If Obama had lost the popular vote by just 1 percentage point, for instance, I have him losing the election 279-259, as highly elastic states like New Hampshire and Colorado would have fallen out of his column.

The net impact of this is minor. Our Election Day forecast in 2012 estimated that there was about a 5 percent chance that Obama would win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote (and about a 1 percent chance that Romney would do so).5 So if you want to argue that Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the popular vote next year are 50 percent but that her Electoral College chances are more like 53 percent or 55 percent instead, go ahead — that’s probably about what the “blue wall” amounts to. (And even that advantage is tenuous, possibly reflecting Obama’s superior turnout operation in swing states — an edge that Clinton might or might not replicate.)

Hey, look: I can get carried away, too.6 If the 2016 election turns out to be close, we’ll be sweating the small stuff by October and November. The difference between a 50 percent and a 55 percent chance of victory for Clinton or Marco Rubio or whomever because of Electoral College dynamics will seem like a pretty big deal.

But for now? The Electoral College just isn’t worth worrying about much. If you see analysts talking about the “blue wall,” all they’re really saying is that Democrats have won a bunch of presidential elections lately — an obvious fact that probably doesn’t have much predictive power for what will happen this time around.

I’m not saying Clinton is doomed. Rather, I think the “fundamentals” point toward her chances being about 50-50, and I wouldn’t argue vigorously if you claimed the chances were more like 60-40 in one or the other direction. But Clinton is no sort of lock, and if she loses the popular vote by even a few percentage points, the “blue wall” will seem as archaic as talk of a permanent Republican majority.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Linked within:

Democrats Shouldn’t Count on an Electoral College Edge in 2016 Last week, FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver explained why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a plan to circumvent the Electoral College in favor of the national popular vote, isn’t likely to work. We’re probably stuck with the Electoral College.

Democratic partisans might not be too displeased by that. After all, Democrats have overperformed in the Electoral College relative to the popular vote in the past two elections.

But here’s the thing: The Electoral College advantage has swung back and forth.

I found this out by gathering presidential election data since 1900. For each year, I looked at the margin between the major parties in each state, compared it with the national margin, and calculated how many electoral votes were more Democratic or Republican than the nation as a whole.

During the first half of the 20th century, Republicans benefited greatly from the Electoral College. They could have lost the national popular vote and won the electoral college in 12 of the 13 elections from 1900 to 1948. On average, they could have lost by 2.2 percentage points nationally and emerged victorious.

A large part of the GOP’s advantage was caused by the Democratic vote’s concentration in the South. Democratic candidates were racking up huge margins in the region, but a candidate gets the same number of electoral votes whether he wins a state by 50 percent or 1 percent. The election in 1928 was the only one in which a majority of electoral votes leaned more Democratic than the nation. That was partially because the Democrats nominated Al Smith, a Catholic, at a time when many Southerners were prejudiced against Catholics.

Since 1952, the Electoral College picture has changed. Beginning in that year, Republicans began making inroads into the South. Democratic votes became more dispersed, and the Republican advantage in the Electoral College waned. Today, the South is solidly red, but Democrats still win over 35 percent of the vote there. That’s a far cry from pre-1952, when Republican candidates sometimes didn’t break 10 percent of the vote.

From 1952 to 2012, the majority of electoral votes leaned more Republican than the nation seven times and more Democratic nine times. But in the past five elections, Democrats appear to have opened up a bit of an edge. They could have won the Electoral College while losing the popular vote four of five times. Still, in that streak was 2000, when Republicans won the Electoral College without winning the popular vote.

Indeed, knowing how many electoral votes leaned more toward one party than the nation in one election tells us very little about how many will lean toward that party in the next election.

An Electoral College advantage is often taken as a sign of a structural advantage, but for the most part, it’s been cyclical. The Democratic edge in 2008 and 2012 may be more due to randomness than demographics.

Candidates, campaign strategies and luck matter. In 2016, a Hillary Clinton map may look very different from a Barack Obama map. Clinton has traditionally polled better in Appalachia than Obama but worse in the West. A map in which the Republican Party is increasingly reliant on the white vote may put it in better shape in the Midwest, while one in which the party tries to wins elections by appealing to Latinos may put it in better shape in the South and Southwest.

Democrats might have an Electoral College advantage in 2016, but they shouldn’t count on it just because they had an edge in 2012.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why... is Bill Clinton suddenly all over the place when no one can find Hillary to ask her how she plans to run the country?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/05/13/if-hillary-clinton-wins-bill-clinton-hopes-to-move-back-to-the-white-house/

He was on the Today show, Monday it was him getting paid by Univision for a 15 minute speech (hello, FCC?...) and yesterday it was him on Letterman.

Meanwhile one of the articles posted above says that Hillary and her campaign have asked Bill to not campaign for Hillary. Bubba sure seems to do what he likes.

 

[DocHolliday]

You think?

 

[timschochet]

Why... is Bill Clinton suddenly all over the place when no one can find Hillary to ask her how she plans to run the country?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/05/13/if-hillary-clinton-wins-bill-clinton-hopes-to-move-back-to-the-white-house/

He was on the Today show, Monday it was him getting paid by Univision for a 15 minute speech (hello, FCC?...) and yesterday it was him on Letterman.

Meanwhile one of the articles posted above says that Hillary and her campaign have asked Bill to not campaign for Hillary. Bubba sure seems to do what he likes.

honestly, part of me thinks he's doing this to piss you off. (By "you" I mean conservative types who are obsessed with the Clintons.)

 

[squistion]

Monday it was him getting paid by Univision for a 15 minute speech (hello, FCC?...) .

Univision is cable and the FCC does not regulate the content of cable networks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Monday it was him getting paid by Univision for a 15 minute speech (hello, FCC?...) .

Univision is cable and the FCC does not regulate the content of cable networks.

I was pretty much joking but actually I did not know that, thanks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why... is Bill Clinton suddenly all over the place when no one can find Hillary to ask her how she plans to run the country?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/05/13/if-hillary-clinton-wins-bill-clinton-hopes-to-move-back-to-the-white-house/

He was on the Today show, Monday it was him getting paid by Univision for a 15 minute speech (hello, FCC?...) and yesterday it was him on Letterman.

Meanwhile one of the articles posted above says that Hillary and her campaign have asked Bill to not campaign for Hillary. Bubba sure seems to do what he likes.

honestly, part of me thinks he's doing this to piss you off. (By "you" I mean conservative types who are obsessed with the Clintons.)

Then why do Bill's aides say he won't be campaigning for Hillary? (Btw I enjoy it, he's much more interesting than Hillary, that's for sure).

[edited]

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Clinton campaign’s dilemma: What to do with Bill?

The Internet Gives Hillary Clinton Some Campaign Relationship Advice

Bill Clinton will NEVER be a silent partner in Hillary’s presidential campaign

Another Busy Day for Bill Clinton, the Noncampaigning Campaigner

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You really have to laugh.

Mrs. Campaign Reform already flipped on turning to super-PACs and their uh hidden money, now she wants to test the legal limits with yet another.

How a super PAC plans to coordinate directly with Hillary Clinton’s campaignHillary Clinton’s campaign plans to work in tight conjunction with an independent rapid-response group financed by unlimited donations, another novel form of political outsourcing that has emerged as a dominant practice in the 2016 presidential race.

On Tuesday, Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton rapid-response operation, announced it was splitting off from its parent American Bridge and will work in coordination with the Clinton campaign as a stand-alone super PAC. The group’s move was first reported by the New York Times.

That befuddled many campaign finance experts, who noted that super PACs, by definition, are political committees that solely do independent expenditures, which cannot be coordinated with a candidate or political party. Several said the relationship between the campaign and the super PAC would test the legal limits.

The pro-Clinton group plans to keep its activities within the bounds of the Internet exemption by disseminating information about Clinton on its Web site and through its Facebook and Twitter accounts, officials said. The group will be registered as a super PAC, but does not intend to spend any money on ads or other expenditures that would constitute independent political activity.

However, the FEC rules specify that online activities are exempted from campaign finance rules if they are conducted by "uncompensated" individuals, campaign finance lawyers noted. It is unclear how Correct the Record, whose staff will be paid, plans to navigate that restriction.

"The moment anyone is paid to engage in Internet activity it falls outside of that exemption," said Jason Torchinsky, an election law attorney who represents many conservative groups. "If you are a super PAC paying people and coordinating your activities with the campaign, you are not covered by the individual Internet exemption and are making impermissible in-kind contributions."

Advocates for stronger enforcement of campaign finance rules said the group's maneuver around the coordination ban effectively circumvents the limits on how much individuals can give to candidates.

“The Internet exemption wasn’t meant for a political committee to raise unlimited money in coordination with a candidate,” said Larry Noble, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. “It was meant for bloggers. It was not intended to be this massive operation where you are outsourcing your rapid response team.”

Fred Wertheimer, president of the advocacy group Democracy 21, said “it certainly looks like this new operation will violate the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which prevents an entity set up by a candidate or acting on behalf of a candidate, from raising or spending unlimited contributions, or soft money.”

“In addition, if this entity is operating as a policy arm of the campaign, it will be violating the coordination laws if it raises and spends soft money, whether or not it runs ads or other public communications,” he added.

The final beauty of this is that this Super-Pac is run by David Brock, so yet again this is the tail wagging a very ugly, stinky dog in American politics. Media Matters is now a campaign arm raising money and illegally directly coordinating with a campaign.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Washington Post has created a clock that shows how long it has been since she answered a question.

It has been 31,844.4 minutes

since Hillary answered a question from the press.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/12/heres-a-clock-that-counts-the-minutes-since-hillary-clinton-answered-a-press-question/

Here’s a clock that counts the minutes since Hillary Clinton answered a press questionWe have noted, as have others, that it has been three weeks since Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has answered a question posed to her by the press. (She's been an official candidate for a month as of today.) She's happy to talk with screened attendees of her events -- just not the media.

Last question answered: April 21, 2015, 3 p.m. (or so). Question and response on "Clinton Cash" book reported by WMUR in New Hampshire.

Note: That's fractions of minutes in the timer, not seconds.

We will, of course, update this post -- and the timer -- in the event that Candidate Clinton answers another question. Fingers crossed!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary Clinton Can’t Run for PresidentSo she’s pushed her whole campaign into the slow lane.

Thousands have run for president, but only one candidate has ever unrun for the office: Hillary Clinton. Ever since she finally announced her entry into the contest a couple of weeks ago, she has been unrunning with ferocity. First she road-tripped a minivan 1,000 miles from New York to Iowa to … listen.

Listening tours (or sessions) are supposed to add a little fabric softener to a politician’s starchy image, buffing their scaly reptilian exteriors down to kid-leather smoothness. The technique worked for Clinton in New York, where booking upstate listening stops helped her win a Senate seat in 2000. Listening is the epitome of unrunning, allowing a candidate to do nothing at all but remain operational. Today, Clinton is listening in New Hampshire, and a full-time physician has been assigned to her care, lest the pure calm of bland political chitchat turn her life signs negative and she unruns herself to death.

Why is Clinton unrunning? If the race for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination were a Little League baseball game, the party would have already recognized Clinton’s insurmountable lead and invoked the mercy rule to give the victory to her. By unrunning, she avoids the intense political debate that would only call attention to her underfunded, unannounced and relatively unknown rivals, Martin O’Malley, Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee and Joe Biden, all of whom are un-unrunning at various paces.


With nine months until the first presidential primary, Clinton can’t afford to actively run for president. Indeed, if she had her druthers, she probably wouldn’t even be unrunning now. She was pressured by the constant press attention about when she was going to announce and the email controversy. That sort of press attention was positive media attention she couldn’t control, and only by announcing could she dial it down. The email controversy was negative media attention she couldn’t control without the attention-deflecting machinery of a campaign. Indeed, she may be the first politician to announce for the presidency in order to decrease attention in her candidacy.

She’s succeeded wildly. Her coffees, roundtables, discussions and “spontaneous” meetings with voters have immersed her campaign into a box of dry ice and slowed it to the lowest metabolic levels. Suspended animation would look vigorous compared to what Clinton is now doing. This is smart. Steady coverage on the inside of newspapers is exactly what she wants. I buy what Team Clinton stalwart Donna Brazile recently told BuzzFeed’s Ruby Cramer about the campaign’s pacing (“There’s a rhythm. She’s starting off like Beethoven, with melodies and chords that people understand. But she’s got to end up like Beyoncé”) except to my ears early Clinton sounds more like a hobbled version of the Beatles’ “Within You Without You” than Beethoven.

Actively running for president at this point would be too politically damaging for Clinton. By actively running, she would have to declare herself for or against the current administration, something she doesn’t want to do until it presents some advantage. By unrunning, she can blend passively into the background, where she can be there but not here. Depending on how suggestible the audience that is listening with her, Clinton unrunning looks like a continuation of the Clinton and Obama legacy without explicitly saying so.

Having gotten what they wished for, an official Clinton candidacy, the press must now cover the Clinton 2016 slow lane the best they can. The press already knows almost everything about her, and she’s not going to voluntarily serve any fresh meat, so reporters and editors will have to go to the freezer and the landfills where her past is stored. That’s one reason behind the press excitement over Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich. Even if there’s nothing damning in the book, reporters can grind out hundreds of column inches on the subject and make it relevant to the campaign. The only alternative until the campaign awakens from dormancy will be profiles of the 24-year-old staff wizards (I’m sure they exist) who are vitalizing the Clinton campaign. I shudder.

What should ordinarily follow unrunning would be running, but that won’t be possible for Clinton. Until the 2016 campaign boiler room fires up with an identity of its own, she’ll be rerunning her 2008 campaign, necessitating yet another transition in her candidacy. According to POLITICO’s Glenn Thrush, the Clinton campaign plans to spend more time generating calm and less time fighting the press than it did in 2008. We’ve got plenty of time to come up with a snazzy phrase to describe the new, yet-to-be-released Clinton method, but until we come up with a winner, how about “un-rerunning”?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-cant-run-for-president-117209.html#ixzz3a7HyeuTc

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary Clinton's Unfavorable Score Ticks UpPRINCETON, N.J. -- Hillary Clinton's favorable rating from the American people has been steady -- near 50% -- all spring, but her unfavorable rating has inched higher and is now 46%, up from 39% in March. At the same time, the percentage of Americans with no impression of the former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state has gone down.

[GRAPH]

The last three months have been an important time for Clinton. Since officially launching her presidential campaign in mid-April, she has been deflecting criticism of her exclusive use of a private email address while secretary of state, and more recently, partisan charges of possible conflicts of interest stemming from the Clinton Foundation's reliance on foreign donors. Separately, Clinton is scheduled to testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi next week.

Against the backdrop of the press swirling around these stories, it may be comforting to the Clinton team as they focus on sewing up the Democratic nomination that most of the increase in her unfavorable rating has occurred among Republicans, not Democrats or political independents. Nearly nine in 10 Republicans now view her unfavorably, up from 75% in March. Over the same period, her unfavorable rating has increased only three percentage points among independents and Democrats, hardly significant except that it has held at this slightly higher level for two months.

... Although Hillary Clinton trails Bill Clinton in public favorability by nine points, the gap is narrower among women, nonwhites and seniors, and they are viewed equally positively by Democrats. Hillary Clinton's biggest image deficits relative to her husband are among Republicans, adults under 50 years of age and men.

Bottom Line

Hillary Clinton has thus far weathered the political storms swirling around her fairly well, with her favorable rating staying close to 50% since March, even as her unfavorable score has edged up, particularly among Republicans. Clinton still has to appear before the House Select Committee on Benghazi and may face further scrutiny over her email practices while secretary of state now that a federal judge has reopened a case probing the matter. For now, her supporters appear to be holding firm. But, should she be looking for ways to burnish her image among independents and Republicans, she might consider more strategic use of her husband on the campaign trail.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183158/hillary-clinton-unfavorable-score-ticks.aspx

That's a net -7 change in favorability since March.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just a few observations:

- I am not sure which poll it is further up, but her net was down -16 from March in another poll.

- The people who like Hillary or are are ok with her (favorable) is staying the same while the few with some room to make up their mind are going almost all unfavorable.

Leaving the right or wrong of what she is doing aside, if you compare what Obama did in 2008-12, this really pales in comparison. She is basically getting flailed with no real response from her personally. Team Obama never permitted this, even while they were getting hacked by Hillary. I can think of a lot of supposed good reasons for this - I suppose the best is the one where she does not want to saturate the electorate with her presence too early. Internally she and her team might also be genuinely surprised at the investigations by the mainstream press, they might also be surprised with the degree to which the email issues have not been a one and done situation. I think a negative will be that once she does campaign she will be completed flooded with questions that the press is demanding she answer, she may never get to the actual campaign because she will have to wade through all these weeds because she hasn't cut the grass for so long.

However, OTOH I can see one very real positive to Hillary's situation. Albeit while fundraising she has been in NV, SC, VA, two of which are battleground states, while the GOP field is crowding into NH and IA trying to get noticed, she is basically running the general while they are stuck in Phase I of the primaries. That aspect of things seems incredibly in her favor.

 

[urbanhack]

Is Hillary for or against the current trade deal they trying to push through?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Is Hillary for or against the current trade deal they trying to push through?

She hasn't said. She made some vague statement about trade deals generally, but it isn't clear where she stands on this one.

 

[urbanhack]

Is Hillary for or against the current trade deal they trying to push through?

She hasn't said. She made some vague statement about trade deals generally, but it isn't clear where she stands on this one.

big surprise.

 

[timschochet]

Is Hillary for or against the current trade deal they trying to push through?

She hasn't said. She made some vague statement about trade deals generally, but it isn't clear where she stands on this one.

id like to know her view, but it's not so important as it will be resolved one way or another long before she is elected. As I noted in the other thread, Hillary has been more specific in her proposals than any other candidate thus far, so I can give her a pass for not talking about this one.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

unrunning is a decent strategy. Why paint yourself into a position that may be in vogue now, but out of vogue in 9 months?

If you don't stand for anything, it's hard to be attacked...

i just don't get these sorts of comments. So far in this early campaign cycle, no candidate has made more soecific policy proposals than Hillary Climton. Campaign finance. Police relations . Immigration. She keeps throwing out specific proposals. So why do people keep repeating this nonsense?

Because she announced her candidacy in March and she hasn't been a candidate in almost any shape or form beyond fundraising, with a few stock exceptions.

Aside from all the other subtext you have above, I also add that it is unbelievably arrogant to ask her own base to fight on an issue for a full year, let other politicians do all the thinking, take the heat and do the heavy lifting, and then swoop in after it's apparent which side is more popular and then just adopt that position. Hillary is completely hollow, devoid of internal beliefs. Look at her big announcement on campaign finance..... and then proceeds to delve into two new Super-Pacs of her own, never mind.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Is Hillary for or against the current trade deal they trying to push through?

She hasn't said. She made some vague statement about trade deals generally, but it isn't clear where she stands on this one.

id like to know her view, but it's not so important as it will be resolved one way or another long before she is elected.

Nothing is ever completely resolved. There will be opportunities to broaden or restrict trade in the future. Knowing her views on this deal would give more insight into what she would do as President.I say this as somebody that's pretty ambivalent about the trade deal.

 

[timschochet]

unrunning is a decent strategy. Why paint yourself into a position that may be in vogue now, but out of vogue in 9 months?

If you don't stand for anything, it's hard to be attacked...

i just don't get these sorts of comments. So far in this early campaign cycle, no candidate has made more soecific policy proposals than Hillary Climton. Campaign finance. Police relations . Immigration. She keeps throwing out specific proposals. So why do people keep repeating this nonsense?

Because she announced her candidacy in March and she hasn't been a candidate in almost any shape or form beyond fundraising.

Aside from all the other subtext you have above, I also add that it is unbelievably arrogant to ask her own base to fight on an issue for a full year, let other politicians do all the thinking, take the heat and do the heavy lifting, and then swoop in after it's apparent which side is more popular and then just adopt that position. Hillary is completely hollow, devoid of internal beliefs. Look at her big announcement on campaign finance..... and then proceeds to delve into two new Super-Pacs of her own, never mind.

yes youve repeated this argument several times. It remains awfully weak. Hillary wants significant campaign finance reform. But at the moment we don't have that, and it would be pretty foolish of her not to take advantage of the same loose rules that all candidates are currently using. That hardly makes her a hypocrite, or "completely hollow, devoid of internal beliefs". It's just nonsense.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Hillary wants significant campaign finance reform. But at the moment we don't have that, and it would be pretty foolish of her not to take advantage of the same loose rules that all candidates are currently using.

From the article it sounds like Hillary is doing something no other candidate is doing or has done.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

She's coordinating with a super PAC run by David Brock / Media Matters. I mean she literally cannot do anything without crossing legal or ethical boundaries, this is how her presidency will be.

 

[timschochet]

Upcoming schedule:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/14/clinton_to_trade_fundraising_for_stumping_in_iowa_nh_126598.html

Hillary Clinton, busy this month meeting donors and raising campaign cash, will return to the campaign trail to greet Iowa and New Hampshire voters next week, and visit South Carolina before the end of May, her campaign team said.

Her trip to the Palmetto State on May 27 will complete a lap through the earliest primary states, which included Nevada, where she described her immigration reform agenda on May 5.


Within weeks, the former secretary of state is expected to hold her first large rally since her campaign launched a month ago.

Although Clinton’s attorney offered her testimony next week to the House Select Committee on Benghazi, a visit to Capitol Hill remains in limbo while negotiations continue over her insistence to limit her appearance to one day and the panel continues to press the State Department for emails and other documents it says it needs ahead of any testimony.

Next week, Clinton will campaign in Iowa on Monday and Tuesday and in New Hampshire on Thursday, with locations of her small-group events yet to be announced.

She also will appear in Virginia June 26 at a Jefferson-Jackson dinner to benefit the state’s Democrats.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'd hold my nose.

Investment idea

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Upcoming schedule:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/14/clinton_to_trade_fundraising_for_stumping_in_iowa_nh_126598.html

Hillary Clinton, busy this month meeting donors and raising campaign cash, will return to the campaign trail to greet Iowa and New Hampshire voters next week, and visit South Carolina before the end of May, her campaign team said.

Her trip to the Palmetto State on May 27 will complete a lap through the earliest primary states, which included Nevada, where she described her immigration reform agenda on May 5.


Within weeks, the former secretary of state is expected to hold her first large rally since her campaign launched a month ago.

Although Clinton’s attorney offered her testimony next week to the House Select Committee on Benghazi, a visit to Capitol Hill remains in limbo while negotiations continue over her insistence to limit her appearance to one day and the panel continues to press the State Department for emails and other documents it says it needs ahead of any testimony.

Next week, Clinton will campaign in Iowa on Monday and Tuesday and in New Hampshire on Thursday, with locations of her small-group events yet to be announced.

She also will appear in Virginia June 26 at a Jefferson-Jackson dinner to benefit the state’s Democrats.

You can take out the testimony item. State still has not delivered Hillary's hand selected tranche of printed emails so the hearing has been officially postponed pending delivery of all documentation. The federal judge reopening that one FOIA case probably means they may end up waiting for the server issues to be resolved too.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

On May 30th Martin O'Malley is joining the "fray" that is the pillow punching contest described as the Democratic "race."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/omalley-to-announce-presidential-plans-on-may-30/ar-BBjLEED?ocid=ansnewsap11

He is also the second of two Demo opponents to come out against the TPP.

Hillary is still thinking about what color drapes she will want in the Lincoln Bedroom.

 

[timschochet]

I know nothing about O'Malley. Never even heard of him until a couple of months ago.

Apparently, though, some people in Baltimore are blaming him for the riots there. Is that at all fair?

 

[timschochet]

So once O'Malley declares, then Chafee and that's it right? No chance of Biden or anyone else?