Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

[RCon]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-texas/index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton stands ready to take up the fight for voting rights as she takes the stage in Texas on Thursday.
Clinton, an aide said Wednesday, will call for "a new national standard of no fewer than 20 days of early in-person voting in every state, including weekend and evening voting" during the speech.

At least there's an actual, specific policy proposal this time. First one I've seen from her.

She has made specific proposals with regard to illegal immigration (trust me, you won't like it ) , campaign finance reform, and police cameras.

Links? I haven't seen anything but platitudes.

 

[squistion]

Still not tracking you. How does leaving polls open longer, so more people can vote, have anything to do with voter fraud?

Since it would allow more people to vote, Dems will support this and Republicans will oppose this.

Feel free to read the threads. Dems here didn't support it. They felt it unnecessary because it was attempting to "fix a problem that doesn't exist".

I don't remember much of that thread, but the Democrats you think didn't support expanding the ability to vote are not representative of progressive, liberals or Democrats in general from every indication I have seen. As an example, a diary from Daily Kos today which probably represents the sentiments of an overwhelming majority of Democrats:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/04/1390511/-Clinton-to-call-for-20-days-of-early-voting-across-the-nation

Clinton to call for 20 days of early voting across the nation

Here's a smart move by the Clinton campaignmaking a forceful and direct call for expanding voting rights, which puts Democrats in direct contrast with Republican efforts to restrict voting access. Anne Gearan has the details:

"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to call for an early voting period of at least 20 days in every state."

"Clinton will call for that standard in remarks Thursday in Texas about voting rights, her campaign said. She will also criticize what her campaign calls deliberate restrictions on voting in several states, including Texas."

Seems like a tough one for Republicans to answer. Surely, they will claim it opens the door to fraud, but they'll still have to argue against making it easier for people to cast their votessomething even their voters (especially the older ones) would probably benefit from.

Clinton's move comes after voting rights have come under attack in many red states and Democrats have filed several legal challenges to the restrictions passed by GOP-controlled legislatures.

"The legal effort began late last month with lawsuits in Wisconsin and Ohio, both presidential battleground states.

'This lawsuit concerns the most fundamental of rights guaranteed citizens in our representative democracy the right to vote,' lawyers wrote in a federal complaint filed Friday in Wisconsin."

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I was a major poster in that thread. No idea what Commish is talking about.

 

[Todd Andrews]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-texas/index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton stands ready to take up the fight for voting rights as she takes the stage in Texas on Thursday.
Clinton, an aide said Wednesday, will call for "a new national standard of no fewer than 20 days of early in-person voting in every state, including weekend and evening voting" during the speech.

At least there's an actual, specific policy proposal this time. First one I've seen from her.

The funny thing here is putting this in contrast with the voter ID threads here. When one suggests in those threads that the voting periods be lengthened (thus removing the excuse of it being "too hard" to get to the voting place) they are met with about how much overhead and money and resources and blah blah blah would be required. Now we'll see if that tune changes.

Not tracking you here. Why would Republicans change their tune based on a Hillary Clinton proposal? Why would they pay any attention to it at all?

Republicans wouldn't. Dems probably won't either and they were the most vocal in those threads about how this would be a waste of money to "fix a problem that doesn't exist".

Still not tracking you. How does leaving polls open longer, so more people can vote, have anything to do with voter fraud?

Since it would allow more people to vote, Dems will support this and Republicans will oppose this.

Feel free to read the threads. Dems here didn't support it. They felt it unnecessary because it was attempting to "fix a problem that doesn't exist".

What? Democrats all over the country have supported early voting and almost all proposals to increase access to voting for Americans, for decades.

 

[FlapJacks]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-texas/index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton stands ready to take up the fight for voting rights as she takes the stage in Texas on Thursday.

Clinton, an aide said Wednesday, will call for "a new national standard of no fewer than 20 days of early in-person voting in every state, including weekend and evening voting" during the speech.

At least there's an actual, specific policy proposal this time. First one I've seen from her.

The funny thing here is putting this in contrast with the voter ID threads here. When one suggests in those threads that the voting periods be lengthened (thus removing the excuse of it being "too hard" to get to the voting place) they are met with about how much overhead and money and resources and blah blah blah would be required. Now we'll see if that tune changes.

Haven't waded into that mess, but lengthening voting periods and DMV hours would seem to assuage my doubts about voter ids.

Might be a good compromise....which means it has no chance...

 

[FlapJacks]

I was a major poster in that thread. No idea what Commish is talking about.

I believe the thread title was something like "voter fraud - is it really happening?"

 

[squistion]

I was a major poster in that thread. No idea what Commish is talking about.

I believe the thread title was something like "voter fraud - is it really happening?"

In which case, The Commish is really confused as Hillary's proposal has nothing to do with supposed voter fraud.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That voter polls move was a good one. I don't think anything will come of it but politically it was smart.

 

[The Commish]

Still not tracking you. How does leaving polls open longer, so more people can vote, have anything to do with voter fraud?

Since it would allow more people to vote, Dems will support this and Republicans will oppose this.

Feel free to read the threads. Dems here didn't support it. They felt it unnecessary because it was attempting to "fix a problem that doesn't exist".

I don't remember much of that thread, but the Democrats you think didn't support expanding the ability to vote are not representative of progressive, liberals or Democrats in general from every indication I have seen. As an example, a diary from Daily Kos today which probably represents the sentiments of an overwhelming majority of Democrats:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/06/04/1390511/-Clinton-to-call-for-20-days-of-early-voting-across-the-nation

Clinton to call for 20 days of early voting across the nation

Here's a smart move by the Clinton campaignmaking a forceful and direct call for expanding voting rights, which puts Democrats in direct contrast with Republican efforts to restrict voting access. Anne Gearan has the details:

"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to call for an early voting period of at least 20 days in every state."

"Clinton will call for that standard in remarks Thursday in Texas about voting rights, her campaign said. She will also criticize what her campaign calls deliberate restrictions on voting in several states, including Texas."

Seems like a tough one for Republicans to answer. Surely, they will claim it opens the door to fraud, but they'll still have to argue against making it easier for people to cast their votessomething even their voters (especially the older ones) would probably benefit from.

Clinton's move comes after voting rights have come under attack in many red states and Democrats have filed several legal challenges to the restrictions passed by GOP-controlled legislatures.

"The legal effort began late last month with lawsuits in Wisconsin and Ohio, both presidential battleground states.

'This lawsuit concerns the most fundamental of rights guaranteed citizens in our representative democracy the right to vote,' lawyers wrote in a federal complaint filed Friday in Wisconsin."

No offense, but you consider Hillary Liberal / Progressive, so.....

With respect to this piece of her platform, it's red meat for the base. I get that. I don't believe it's a top 5 issue for her party. They have things pretty much like they want them as it is.

 

[The Commish]

I was a major poster in that thread. No idea what Commish is talking about.

Come on guys....it went something like this:

Person A: We need to be able to identify the people who are voting.

Person B: You just want to make an already tough voting process tougher so fewer people vote

Person A: What's tough about getting an ID?

Person B: It's hard for people to get to the voting place, much less getting somewhere to get an ID (Really, you could insert many different tangents here)

Person A: Ok, what about making it possible to obtain an ID at the voting place?

Person B: What? And add to the already really long lines? No thanks.

Person A: So expand the voting time window and allow it to be a one stop shop so you have plenty of time to get it all done. If you're standing in a line on the final day of voting, that's on you

Person B: This is just throwing money, time, resources at a problem that doesn't really exist.

YMMV

 

[jon_mx]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-texas/index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton stands ready to take up the fight for voting rights as she takes the stage in Texas on Thursday.
Clinton, an aide said Wednesday, will call for "a new national standard of no fewer than 20 days of early in-person voting in every state, including weekend and evening voting" during the speech.

At least there's an actual, specific policy proposal this time. First one I've seen from her.

The funny thing here is putting this in contrast with the voter ID threads here. When one suggests in those threads that the voting periods be lengthened (thus removing the excuse of it being "too hard" to get to the voting place) they are met with about how much overhead and money and resources and blah blah blah would be required. Now we'll see if that tune changes.

Not tracking you here. Why would Republicans change their tune based on a Hillary Clinton proposal? Why would they pay any attention to it at all?

Republicans wouldn't. Dems probably won't either and they were the most vocal in those threads about how this would be a waste of money to "fix a problem that doesn't exist".

Still not tracking you. How does leaving polls open longer, so more people can vote, have anything to do with voter fraud?

Since it would allow more people to vote, Dems will support this and Republicans will oppose this.

Feel free to read the threads. Dems here didn't support it. They felt it unnecessary because it was attempting to "fix a problem that doesn't exist".

What? Democrats all over the country have supported early voting and almost all proposals to increase access to voting for non-military Americans, for decades.

Fixed...

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee this week filed a lawsuit to block a new Ohio law that expands early voting rights for service members, allowing military members to vote up until the Monday before the election — three days longer than is allowed for the rest of the public.

 

[Todd Andrews]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politics/hillary-clinton-voting-rights-texas/index.html

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton stands ready to take up the fight for voting rights as she takes the stage in Texas on Thursday.
Clinton, an aide said Wednesday, will call for "a new national standard of no fewer than 20 days of early in-person voting in every state, including weekend and evening voting" during the speech.

At least there's an actual, specific policy proposal this time. First one I've seen from her.

The funny thing here is putting this in contrast with the voter ID threads here. When one suggests in those threads that the voting periods be lengthened (thus removing the excuse of it being "too hard" to get to the voting place) they are met with about how much overhead and money and resources and blah blah blah would be required. Now we'll see if that tune changes.

Not tracking you here. Why would Republicans change their tune based on a Hillary Clinton proposal? Why would they pay any attention to it at all?

Republicans wouldn't. Dems probably won't either and they were the most vocal in those threads about how this would be a waste of money to "fix a problem that doesn't exist".

Still not tracking you. How does leaving polls open longer, so more people can vote, have anything to do with voter fraud?

Since it would allow more people to vote, Dems will support this and Republicans will oppose this.

Feel free to read the threads. Dems here didn't support it. They felt it unnecessary because it was attempting to "fix a problem that doesn't exist".

What? Democrats all over the country have supported early voting and almost all proposals to increase access to voting for non-military Americans, for decades.

Fixed...

The Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee this week filed a lawsuit to block a new Ohio law that expands early voting rights for service members, allowing military members to vote up until the Monday before the election — three days longer than is allowed for the rest of the public.

jon_KooK, your bulb shines dimly.

Republicans restrict voting access for all Americans and then make exceptions for small voting blocks who vote for them. The Democrats blocked that law because it didnt expand early voting to all Ohio voters.

 

[The Commish]

jon_KooK, your bulb shines dimly.
Republicans restrict voting access for all Americans and then make exceptions for small voting blocks who vote for them. The Democrats blocked that law because it didnt expand early voting to all Ohio voters.

Is this really "progressive" logic? If I can't have it for everyone, I don't want it for anyone?

 

[jon_mx]

Todd Andrews with the 'independent' spin.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I was a major poster in that thread. No idea what Commish is talking about.

Come on guys....it went something like thiserson A: We need to be able to identify the people who are voting.

Person B: You just want to make an already tough voting process tougher so fewer people vote

Person A: What's tough about getting an ID?

Person B: It's hard for people to get to the voting place, much less getting somewhere to get an ID (Really, you could insert many different tangents here)

Person A: Ok, what about making it possible to obtain an ID at the voting place?

Person B: What? And add to the already really long lines? No thanks.

Person A: So expand the voting time window and allow it to be a one stop shop so you have plenty of time to get it all done. If you're standing in a line on the final day of voting, that's on you

Person B: This is just throwing money, time, resources at a problem that doesn't really exist.

YMMV

I don't recall anyone on the anti-voter ID side arguing against being able to get an ID at the polling place, or arguing against expanding the voting time window. What I'd imagine we said is that these proposed solutions would be an improvement over the current voter ID laws, but it would remain challenging for some people to vote and would do little to nothing to solve actual voter fraud. That's not the same thing, and it isn't inconsistent with Hillary's proposals.

 

[The Commish]

I was a major poster in that thread. No idea what Commish is talking about.

Come on guys....it went something like thiserson A: We need to be able to identify the people who are voting.

Person B: You just want to make an already tough voting process tougher so fewer people vote

Person A: What's tough about getting an ID?

Person B: It's hard for people to get to the voting place, much less getting somewhere to get an ID (Really, you could insert many different tangents here)

Person A: Ok, what about making it possible to obtain an ID at the voting place?

Person B: What? And add to the already really long lines? No thanks.

Person A: So expand the voting time window and allow it to be a one stop shop so you have plenty of time to get it all done. If you're standing in a line on the final day of voting, that's on you

Person B: This is just throwing money, time, resources at a problem that doesn't really exist.

YMMV

I don't recall anyone on the anti-voter ID side arguing against being able to get an ID at the polling place, or arguing against expanding the voting time window. What I'd imagine we said is that these proposed solutions would be an improvement over the current voter ID laws, but it would remain challenging for some people to vote and would do little to nothing to solve actual voter fraud. That's not the same thing, and it isn't inconsistent with Hillary's proposals.

There were many conversations going on in that thread and the above was one of them as well as what you're suggesting here. I'd agree your position isn't inconsistent, but former certainly is.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I was a major poster in that thread. No idea what Commish is talking about.

Come on guys....it went something like thiserson A: We need to be able to identify the people who are voting.

Person B: You just want to make an already tough voting process tougher so fewer people vote

Person A: What's tough about getting an ID?

Person B: It's hard for people to get to the voting place, much less getting somewhere to get an ID (Really, you could insert many different tangents here)

Person A: Ok, what about making it possible to obtain an ID at the voting place?

Person B: What? And add to the already really long lines? No thanks.

Person A: So expand the voting time window and allow it to be a one stop shop so you have plenty of time to get it all done. If you're standing in a line on the final day of voting, that's on you

Person B: This is just throwing money, time, resources at a problem that doesn't really exist.

YMMV

I don't recall anyone on the anti-voter ID side arguing against being able to get an ID at the polling place, or arguing against expanding the voting time window. What I'd imagine we said is that these proposed solutions would be an improvement over the current voter ID laws, but it would remain challenging for some people to vote and would do little to nothing to solve actual voter fraud. That's not the same thing, and it isn't inconsistent with Hillary's proposals.

There were many conversations going on in that thread and the above was one of them as well as what you're suggesting here. I'd agree your position isn't inconsistent, but former certainly is.

Ah yes, there's always some idiot making some dumb argument. But the anti-ID people worth actually reading on the subject (e.g. Matthias, Maurile, me) wouldn't have said what you presented as the predominant position.

 

[The Commish]

For whatever reason, Matthais was the first one that came to mind as the culprit.....it doesn't much matter at this point. The FFA wasn't the only place I've heard this argument. I guess there are lots of idiots out there.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/1/8676727/hillary-clinton-popularity

It's time for the media to admit that Hillary Clinton is popular

Quinnipiac is out with a new poll that confirms something the national media is loathe to admit, and that essentially never surfaces in their coverage of one of the most-covered people in the world today: Hillary Clinton is the most popular politician in America.

(Graph of Quinnipiac poll of Hillary versus top GOP candidates at link)

...

Vox is an interesting online magazine, it keeps coming up - the Obama interview (Ygleasias), the piece on the Clinton Foundation and the speaking fees, then the piece on how Hillary is the Most!Popular!Woman!Intheworld! (Yglesias).

I think it might be Yglesias who is the overt partisan there because it seems like the other stuff I've read there has been good.

Why Hillary Clinton is upside downLast Thursday, senior officials on Hillary Clinton's campaign insisted she hadn't been distracted or damaged by reports about the Clinton Foundation's operations or revelations that she kept her State Department email on a private server and then destroyed some of the records.

Maybe she ought to be more distracted, because new polling out Tuesday suggests she has, in fact, been damaged by those stories.

The big data points come from an ABC News/Washington Post poll.

More than half of independents and more than one-third of Democrats disapprove of Clinton's handling of email.

More than half of independents and more than a quarter of Democrats disapprove of her handling of Clinton Foundation fundraising questions.

Clinton advisers say she's laser-focused on winning a Democratic primary right now and Democratic voters don't care much about these issues. But clearly they're not a monolith. More than a third of them don't like her obfuscation on emails that were supposed to belong to the public, and more than a quarter don't appreciate the way she's dealt with questions about the way her family's foundation raises money.

Perhaps even more troubling than the disapproval numbers from Democrats are the approvals. Only 50 percent endorse the way she's handled the emails, and just 56 percent approve of the Clinton Foundation's fundraising practices. That's hardly the kind of territory a candidate wants to be in with her own party.

A clear majority of independents, who matter in a general election, are against her on both issues.

It appears to be having an effect on Clinton's overall standing with American voters. Her favorable rating stands at 45 percent in the survey, which is a seven-year low for Clinton in the ABC-Washington Post poll, and her unfavorable level is 49 percent. Her favorability was at 46 percent in a CNN/ORC survey released Tuesday — her lowest level in that poll since 2003 — and her unfavorable rating was 50 percent.

What should be most worrisome for the Clinton camp and for Democrats in general is that while her lead in the primary field is still prohibitive, her advantage over several Republican contenders has disappeared.

When they spoke last week, Clinton's advisers stipulated that they could not be named or quoted directly. Still, the polls suggest there's a significant distance between the campaign's public spin and the reality of how Americans, including a significant chunk of Democrats, feel about Clinton's standoffish approach to legitimate questions about the Clinton Foundation's symbiotic relationship with donors and about the way she handled and dismantled her email when she was a public servant.

Last week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi dodged when asked about the foundation's finances on MSNBC, saying Bill and Hillary Clinton would have to answer those questions. Ditto for Dan Pfeiffer, the former senior adviser to President Barack Obama, who called inquiries about her email and the foundation "legitimate questions" in a CNN interview.

...What isn't clear from the polling — and what matters more than anything else — is how voters in the handful of 2016 swing states feel. Still, if Clinton's overall polling continues to slide, her ability to ignore the email and foundation issues will evaporate as quickly as her leads over Republican rivals have.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/2/8708079/why-hillary-clinton-is-upside-down

I think "symbiotic" is a pretty good word for it.

 

[squistion]

Vox is an interesting online magazine, it keeps coming up - the Obama interview (Igleasias), the piece on the Clinton Foundation and the speaking fees, then the piece on how Hillary is the Most!Popular!Woman!Intheworld! (Iglesias).

They didn't say she is the "Most!Popular!Woman!Intheworld!" - the article noted that in the annual Gallup poll, where Americans are asked to name the woman they most admire, Hillary was the top choice among women named (Obama was the most named on the male side). It only polled people in this country, so it had nothing to do with how the world felt. And it wasn't measuring popularity anywhere, as admiration and popularity are not synonyms.

Now the article did claim she was the most popular politician in America, based on a Quinnipiac poll of Hillary versus top GOP candidates, so if you want to dispute that fine, but don't keep distorting what the article actually said.

 

[Todd Andrews]

jon_KooK, your bulb shines dimly.
Republicans restrict voting access for all Americans and then make exceptions for small voting blocks who vote for them. The Democrats blocked that law because it didnt expand early voting to all Ohio voters.

Is this really "progressive" logic? If I can't have it for everyone, I don't want it for anyone?

Um, no, because at the same time they were against the limited exception the GOP was pushing, they were pushing expanding it for everyone including that limited exception group.

GOP logic: I dont want rights for all Americans, just my friends.

 

[The Commish]

jon_KooK, your bulb shines dimly.
Republicans restrict voting access for all Americans and then make exceptions for small voting blocks who vote for them. The Democrats blocked that law because it didnt expand early voting to all Ohio voters.

Is this really "progressive" logic? If I can't have it for everyone, I don't want it for anyone?

Um, no, because at the same time they were against the limited exception the GOP was pushing, they were pushing expanding it for everyone including that limited exception group.

GOP logic: I dont want rights for all Americans, just my friends.

I don't disagree that's the GOP logic, but if there's a group that really believes expanding things to everyone, they'd jump at the chance to get it extended to whomever they can at the moment then continue to fight to get it for more. There's a problem in your assertion or your assumption. One of the two.

 

[FlapJacks]

jon_KooK, your bulb shines dimly.

Republicans restrict voting access for all Americans and then make exceptions for small voting blocks who vote for them. The Democrats blocked that law because it didnt expand early voting to all Ohio voters.

Is this really "progressive" logic? If I can't have it for everyone, I don't want it for anyone?

Um, no, because at the same time they were against the limited exception the GOP was pushing, they were pushing expanding it for everyone including that limited exception group.

GOP logic: I dont want rights for all Americans, just my friends.

Both parties do it...

 

[squistion]

jon_KooK, your bulb shines dimly.

Republicans restrict voting access for all Americans and then make exceptions for small voting blocks who vote for them. The Democrats blocked that law because it didnt expand early voting to all Ohio voters.

Is this really "progressive" logic? If I can't have it for everyone, I don't want it for anyone?

Um, no, because at the same time they were against the limited exception the GOP was pushing, they were pushing expanding it for everyone including that limited exception group.

GOP logic: I dont want rights for all Americans, just my friends.

Both parties do it...

But it has been disproportionately on the GOP side. From a 2014 article:http://prospect.org/article/22-states-wave-new-voting-restrictions-threatens-shift-outcomes-tight-races

Voter Suppression: How Bad? (Pretty Bad)

For the first time in decades, voters in nearly half the country will find it harder to cast a ballot in the upcoming elections. Voters in 22 states will face tougher rules than in the last midterms. In 15 states, 2014 is slated to be the first major election with new voting restrictions in place.

These changes are the product of a concerted push to restrict voting by legislative majorities that swept into office in 2010. They represent a sharp reversal for a country whose historical trajectory has been to expand voting rights and make the process more convenient and accessible.

[...]

What Explains This Sudden Shift?

Partisanship plays a key role.Of the 22 states with new restrictions, 18 passed them through entirely Republican-controlled bodies. A study by social scientists Keith Bentele and Erin OBrien of the University of Massachusetts Boston found that restrictions were more likely to pass as the proportion of Republicans in the legislature increased or when a Republican governor was elected. After Republicans took over state houses and governorships in 2010, voting restrictions typically followed party lines.

 

[Todd Andrews]

jon_KooK, your bulb shines dimly.

Republicans restrict voting access for all Americans and then make exceptions for small voting blocks who vote for them. The Democrats blocked that law because it didnt expand early voting to all Ohio voters.

Is this really "progressive" logic? If I can't have it for everyone, I don't want it for anyone?

Um, no, because at the same time they were against the limited exception the GOP was pushing, they were pushing expanding it for everyone including that limited exception group.

GOP logic: I dont want rights for all Americans, just my friends.

Both parties do it...

No they dont. You are factually incorrect.

 

[The Commish]

jon_KooK, your bulb shines dimly.

Republicans restrict voting access for all Americans and then make exceptions for small voting blocks who vote for them. The Democrats blocked that law because it didnt expand early voting to all Ohio voters.

Is this really "progressive" logic? If I can't have it for everyone, I don't want it for anyone?

Um, no, because at the same time they were against the limited exception the GOP was pushing, they were pushing expanding it for everyone including that limited exception group.

GOP logic: I dont want rights for all Americans, just my friends.

Both parties do it...

No they dont. You are factually incorrect.

Didn't the Dems just do it, in Ohio, to our military personnel? Only the "kook shtick meister" could get me arguing, albeit indirectly, for the GOP...well done. I'm spitting out the hook now

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary Clinton Traces Friendly Path, Troubling PartyWASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton appears to be dispensing with the nationwide electoral strategy that won her husband two terms in the White House and brought white working-class voters and great stretches of what is now red-state America back to Democrats.

Instead, she is poised to retrace Barack Obama’s far narrower path to the presidency: a campaign focused more on mobilizing supporters in the Great Lakes states and in parts of the West and South than on persuading undecided voters.

Mrs. Clinton’s aides say it is the only way to win in an era of heightened polarization, when a declining pool of voters is truly up for grabs. Her liberal policy positions, they say, will fire up Democrats, a less difficult task than trying to win over independents in more hostile territory — even though a broader strategy could help lift the party with her.

This early in the campaign, however, forgoing a determined outreach effort to all 50 states, or even most of them, could mean missing out on the kind of spirited conversation that can be a unifying feature of a presidential election. And it could leave Mrs. Clinton, if she wins, with the same difficulties Mr. Obama has faced in governing with a Republican-controlled Congress.

Graphic Electoral Paths for Hillary ClintonShould Hillary Rodham Clinton win the Democratic nomination for president in 2016, she would most likely follow the path that Barack Obama took to victory in 2008 and 2012.

Already, it is causing consternation among Democrats in conservative states that could be given short shrift by her campaign or bypassed altogether.

When Bill Clinton reclaimed the presidency for Democrats in 1992, his road to the White House ran through Southern and Southern-border states filled with what were then a precious commodity: swing voters.

Twenty years later, Mr. Obama convincingly won a second term without competing in states like Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee or West Virginia that powered Mr. Clinton. And because of his strong appeal among liberals, Mr. Obama did so even while losing among independent voters.

As Mrs. Clinton intensifies her campaign for the Democratic nomination, it is clear from her left-leaning policy stances, her hiring and her focus on data-driven organizing that her strategy is modeled on Mr. Obama’s, not her husband’s.

If she won, it would suggest that the so-called Obama coalition of young, nonwhite and female voters is transferable to another Democrat. And it would validate the idea that energizing core supporters is more important in presidential contests than persuading those still undecided.

To the architects of the Obama strategy, Mrs. Clinton’s approach is not mere homage: It is unavoidable, given that there are few genuine independents now and that technology increasingly lets campaigns pinpoint their most likely voters.

“If you run a campaign trying to appeal to 60 to 70 percent of the electorate, you’re not going to run a very compelling campaign for the voters you need,” said David Plouffe, a top Obama strategist who has consulted informally with Mrs. Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton has said repeatedly that she does not want a lonely victory in 2016; she wants to elect Democrats down the ballot. A group of her senior aides met recently with officials at the Democratic House, Senate and governor campaign arms to brief them on the aides’ research and plans for her message and organization. And Senate Democrats are hopeful that she will lift their prospects, because there is considerable overlap in crucial states: The results in Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin will almost certainly determine both who wins the White House and which party controls the Senate.

House Democrats, while realistic about the difficulty of retaking control, are also counting on Mrs. Clinton to drive turnout for their candidates. There will be contested races in some presidential swing states, but Democratic strategists say Mrs. Clinton could also help the party unseat House Republicans in deep-blue states like New York and California.

So to Democrats in states where Mrs. Clinton is unlikely to compete, her relying on Mr. Obama’s map would be worrisome. It would not only further diminish beleaguered state parties, but also leave Mrs. Clinton with a narrower margin for error.

“Go ask Al Gore,” Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, said about the risk of writing off states such as his, where Democratic presidential candidates prospered until 2000. “He’d be president with five electoral votes from West Virginia. So it is big, and it can make a difference.”

Centrist Democrats also worry that focusing on liberal voters could lead to a continuation of the problems Mr. Obama has faced with a Congress elected by a vastly different subset of the nation.

“That’s not good for the country,” Mr. Manchin said, adding that he hoped Mrs. Clinton would “come to the middle” if she became president.

Of her campaign, he said, “If they get her too far over, it’s going to be more difficult to govern, it truly is.”

Other rural-state Democrats are sending not-so-subtle messages.

“I think that we always appreciate when people want to kind of talk to the whole country and listen to concerns, and I think farm country is critically important,” said Senator Heidi Heitkamp, Democrat of North Dakota.

“One of the hardest things to do in politics is dispense with old behavior,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a former Obama adviser. “That will be a challenge. But they’re setting themselves up to avoid that.”

Mrs. Clinton and her husband expressed concern last year when Democratic turnout fell precipitously. Recognizing that Democrats had to be galvanized to show up at the polls, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers used surveys and focus groups to assess the risks of running a strongly liberal campaign. They concluded that there were few.

So she is embracing the central lesson of the Obama school: that voters turn out when they believe that an election makes a difference and that their party’s standard-bearer is a champion on issues important to them.

By emphatically staking out liberal positions on gay rights, immigration, criminal justice, voting rights and pay equity for women, Mrs. Clinton is showing core Democratic constituencies that she intends to give them a reason to support her.

The stoke-the-base approach is a hallmark of Mrs. Clinton’s young campaign manager, Mr. Mook. He used similar tactics to lift Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia to victory in 2013, in a race both Clintons watched closely.

It is a starkly different style from that of Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 campaign, when she was often concerned about being seen as too liberal to appeal to centrists.

This time, Mr. Pfeiffer said, “she hired people with a sense of where the electorate is now, not where it was in 1992.”

Mrs. Clinton’s strategic intentions are also evident in her focus on organizing. Mr. Mook noted twice in an interview that her campaign already had supporters in all 50 states mustering volunteers to register voters and ensure Mrs. Clinton is on the ballot. That is partly why the campaign postponed her first rally: so her team could have time to make it more of an organizing event.

That kickoff in New York next Saturday will be an important test of enthusiasm for Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy, and of her campaign’s ability to use big events to build the machinery that will identify and turn out voters.

What Mrs. Clinton says there will matter. But the organizing around the rally, and around the events her campaign is holding that night to build a volunteer network, will be just as consequential.

It is a far cry from her husband’s campaigns.

“The highest-premium voter in ’92 was a voter who would vote for one party some and for another party some,” said James Carville, Mr. Clinton’s chief strategist in 1992. “Now the highest-premium voter is somebody with a high probability to vote for you and low probability to turn out. That’s the golden list. And that’s a humongous change in basic strategic doctrine.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-traces-friendly-path-troubling-party.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I thought the above was interesting. It has seemed to me that at the same time Hillary has trotted out the same coterie of defenders on tv especially - Brazeale, Lanny Davis, Kendall, Carville, Begala - her campaign is being run by advisors who largely cut their teeth in the Obama campaigns and who have a decidedly different view and generational approach than the people who ran her campaign in 2008.

It's odd, because the Clintons invented the middle way and triangulation, what are they actually doing here? Recreating the Obama coalition and running as Obama's third term? Or is she running the classic Clinton middle way campaign with a hard, hard turn to the right during the general? I really don't think she can do the latter.

I also don't think voters can trust her on any policy issue any further than she can throw a book at Bill in the Lincoln Bedroom, once she is actually elected that is, but that is a different issue. A lot other most important positions - Patriot Act, NSA, TPP, Iran, ISIS, just as examples - are shrouded in mystery, her campaign website still does not have an Issues/Positions link, but maybe that changes after her relaunch.

That last comment from Carville is really interesting I think. If the electoral map holds then it really doesn't matter how much Hillary's distrusted or how many bad acts are revealed, and it doesn't matter if she's running to the left or middle, because she basically just has to win Florida, boom, she's done.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Wisconsin straw poll...Hillary beats Bernie by only 8% points

Hillary Clinton is crushing the rest of the Democratic presidential field in national polls, but over the weekend, in a Wisconsin straw poll, there was reason to give the Clinton camp pause and to give the Bernie Sanders camp hope.

Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist and a long shot for the White House, scored a strong second-place finish to Clinton by drawing 41 percent in a straw poll vote at the Wisconsin Democratic Party convention. Clinton won 49 percent.

The Vermont senator received 208 of 511 delegate votes at the state convention in Milwaukee on Saturday, while Clinton won votes from 252 of the delegates, leaving her just short of a majority. Both Vice President Joe Biden and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who announced his candidacy late last month, received three percent of the vote. Former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who is considering a bid, won two percent of the vote, while former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, who announced his long-shot candidacy last week, received one percent.

The result is another encouraging sign for Sanders, who is drawing large crowds in early nominating states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. In the two weeks since he announced his candidacy, the Vermont senator has seen an uptick in the polls against Clinton — who remains the heavy favorite — and Sanders is showing signs he is picking up some supporters of Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the progressive icon who has said repeatedly that she will not run for president in 2016.

While the first caucuses and primaries are still months away, and while the overall polling gap between Sanders and Clinton is still massive (roughly 50 points in a recent CNN poll), the Wisconsin results show the strength of the restive progressive movement, and the challenge before Clinton to tap into it.

Robert Hansen, the Wisconsin Progressive Democrats of America coordinator, said the state party is receptive to Sanders’ left-leaning message, in part because of Democrats’ anger over Gov. Scott Walker’s aggressively conservative tenure. “The Democratic Party of Wisconsin has a very progressive agenda that aligns very much with Bernie … the majority of people behind the scenes are far more progressive or liberal than what you’d see in some other states,” Hansen said.

He added that, since Walker’s push against unions, organized labor has “re-engaged” with the state party more than in the past, and that progressive activists have gotten more involved in the Democratic infrastructure.

Kelly Westlund, chair of the Chequamegon Democrats and a 2014 congressional candidate, noted that around 1,300 delegates attended the convention, the highest number in about 20 years, due to the closely contested party chair race. Westlund, who arranged a bus for organizers traveling from northern Wisconsin about seven or eight hours away, said the increased attendance was mostly from grassroots activists.

“I don’t know that this convention was necessarily representative of the establishment,” she said, adding that Sanders’ message is resonating in rural areas of the state.

Both she and Hansen noted that the pro-Clinton booth was located right outside the straw poll voting location.

Neither Clinton nor Sanders attended this year’s convention. A party official read a letter from the former secretary of state, in which Clinton vowed to help build the state party and to visit Wisconsin soon. Sanders recorded a video address that was played only after the straw poll, and the campaign made no organized effort at the conference, according to multiple Sanders advisers.

“Just imagine if we had really worked it,” said Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs.

Clinton won last year’s straw poll, with Warren coming in second.

The Clinton campaign had no immediate comment.

Clinton in recent weeks has been rolling out a more progressive agenda, to seize upon the energy in the left wing of the party that has mostly been directed toward Warren, despite her insistence she is not running.

The Democratic front-runner has spoken more aggressively about workers’ rights, immigration reform, an overhaul to the criminal justice system, and has refused to take a firm stance on President Barack’s Obama’s trade negotiations, which have been heavily criticized by progressives.

Still, the left lean could be a hard sell to some hard-core liberals, and Clinton is also battling stubbornly high untrustworthy ratings, which are starting to take their toll on her favorability numbers.

Straw poll results can often skew to candidates that appeal more heavily to the base. And a couple hundred delegates voting for Sanders in a state that won’t hold its primary until April 2016 doesn’t signal a crisis for Clinton.

But it’s another data point to support what Sanders advisers often call the “restive progressive base” — a growing coalition of liberal voters that are disenchanted with the last six years of Obama and are looking for more fundamental change. That the result came at a state party convention is particularly notable; Sanders, after all, is the longest-serving independent in congressional history and isn’t a member of the Democratic Party. And it’s another indication that Sanders can be competitive particularly in liberal states, such as Washington state, where a poll late last month showed him polling at 24 percent.

“The Wisconsin straw poll and huge turnouts at town meetings in New Hampshire and Iowa are sending a message that people care about real issues like income inequality and the collapse of the American middle class,” Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said in a statement Monday morning.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/wisconsin-straw-poll-surprise-a-narrow-clinton-win-118727.html#ixzz3cUm2folv

 

[squistion]

Wisconsin straw poll...Hillary beats Bernie by only 8% points

Doug Mataconis ‏@dmataconis ·

It was a straw poll. Straw polls are completely meaningless

 

[squistion]

http://www.nytimes.c...v=top-news&_r=0

I thought the above was interesting.

Meh.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/the_new_york_times_asinine_new_hillary_meme_will_no_one_think_of_the_white_people/

The New York Times asinine new Hillary meme: Will no one think of the white people?

Every week brings a new narrative about how Hillary Clinton, the breakaway favorite in the 2016 presidential race, is blowing it. This weekend we learned from the New York Times that shes thoughtlessly abandoning her husbands 23-year-old political strategy, which relied on luring white working class and southern voters back to the Democrats, in favor of Barack Obamas far narrower path to the presidency.

The headline frames the magnitude of her blunder: Hillary Clinton traces friendly path, troubling party. So even Democrats are troubled by the Clinton campaigns calculus? Thats bad.

Well, no. A few red state Democrats are troubled. But more people are probably troubled by the venerated New York Times claiming that Barack Obama, the first Democrat to win more than 50 percent of the vote twice since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, traced a far narrower electoral path than Clinton.

Obama won 69 million votes in 2008 and 66 million in 2012; Clinton won 45 million and 47 million in 1992 and 1996. Obama won 365, then 332 electoral votes; Clinton did better, with 370 and 379. But turnout in 2012 was a remarkable (for the U.S.) 58.2 percent, compared with 49 percent in Clintons second race. Obama won bigger margins among African Americans, Latinos, Asians, young voters and women than Clinton did. Both Democrats lost white working class voters overall, though Clinton lost more narrowly.

By what metric, then, could Obama be said to have cut a "far narrower path to the presidency" than Bill Clinton did? Only if the only voters that matter are white.

On Twitter, Maggie Haberman (a writer I admire, for the record) defended the piece by noting that she and Jonathan Martin were merely reporting the concerns of prominent red state Democrats. Thats fine, as far as it goes. By all means, lets hear West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchins thoughts on how Democrats should run for president.

"Go ask Al Gore," Manchin told the Times. Hed be president with five electoral votes from West Virginia. So it is big, and it can make a difference. Actually, Gore would be president if he had one more vote on the Supreme Court, or if Florida counted all of its voters. It pains me to say, but there are many viable Democratic paths to the presidency that are easier than winning back West Virginia.

Haberman and Martin also tip their hands with folderol like this: "This early in the campaignforgoing a determined outreach effort to all 50 states, or even most of them, could mean missing out on the kind of spirited conversation that can be a unifying feature of a presidential election."

Notice how Democrats are responsible for "unifying" a divided nation. Nobody is asking when well see even one of the 19 and counting Republican candidates visiting, say, Harlem during this campaign cycle. Its another example of how well-meaning journalists ignore the rightward drift of the Republican Party and the troubling fact that, in the age of Obama, white southern voters have become so thoroughly hostile to Democrats that Hillary Clinton couldnt reassemble her husbands coalition if she tried.

Oh, by the way, later the story reveals that Clinton actually has organizers in all 50 states already, a fact shared by senior Clinton campaign officials in that controversial briefing last month. We also learn that "Senate Democrats are hopeful that she will lift their prospects, because there is considerable overlap in crucial states: The results in Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin will almost certainly determine both who wins the White House and which party controls the Senate."

So shes got organizers in 50 states, and her campaign is targeting the seven crucial swing states listed above. What exactly is her campaign doing wrong?

 

[timschochet]

So shes got organizers in 50 states, and her campaign is targeting the seven crucial swing states listed above. What exactly is her campaign doing wrong?

Nothing. The truth is they've done everything right so far.

She's a lock for the nomination, and very likely a lock for the Presidency as well. That's a boring narrative that nobody wants to hear. So every day we're going to read negative stuff, because the media wants people to talk. Oh no! Sanders is within 8 points of her in Wisconsin!! Oh no, Sidney Blumenthal will testify before the Benghazi committee!. Oh no, she won't answer questions- what is she hiding?

This forum is dominated by conservatives, self-styled libertarians, and idealistic progressives. None of these three groups is rooting for Hillary- it's only a question of which of them despise her more. (However, most of the idealistic progressives will eventually support her if only because they know it will piss off the conservatives and libertarians.)

So who are the ones who will support Hillary, who really want her to be President? The moderate Democrats, the centrists, the true independents who lean toward pro-business Democrats. These groups represent the majority of the American public, and they are the ones who decide elections. But they're not well represented in this forum. Which is why those of us here who defend her (mainly Squisition and myself) are nearly isolated.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So shes got organizers in 50 states, and her campaign is targeting the seven crucial swing states listed above. What exactly is her campaign doing wrong?

Nothing. The truth is they've done everything right so far.

She's a lock for the nomination, and very likely a lock for the Presidency as well. That's a boring narrative that nobody wants to hear. So every day we're going to read negative stuff, because the media wants people to talk. Oh no! Sanders is within 8 points of her in Wisconsin!! Oh no, Sidney Blumenthal will testify before the Benghazi committee!. Oh no, she won't answer questions- what is she hiding?

This forum is dominated by conservatives, self-styled libertarians, and idealistic progressives. None of these three groups is rooting for Hillary- it's only a question of which of them despise her more. (However, most of the idealistic progressives will eventually support her if only because they know it will piss off the conservatives and libertarians.)

So who are the ones who will support Hillary, who really want her to be President? The moderate Democrats, the centrists, the true independents who lean toward pro-business Democrats. These groups represent the majority of the American public, and they are the ones who decide elections. But they're not well represented in this forum. Which is why those of us here who defend her (mainly Squisition and myself) are nearly isolated.

"Nothing"?

Hillary has a near lock on the electoral map, I think I asked earlier, or tried to, what she even could do wrong to screw that up. I can't think of anything.

Now, the political baseball talk is fun, I do think the strategy one way or the other is worth watching and commenting on.

So who are the ones who will support Hillary, who really want her to be President?

Well that's what I was asking before, if the NYT is correct she is going for the Obama coalition. If so, is that a good idea, as opposed to going for the old Clinton model? Per Jim Carville, that's quite different.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.nytimes.c...v=top-news&_r=0

I thought the above was interesting.

Meh.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/the_new_york_times_asinine_new_hillary_meme_will_no_one_think_of_the_white_people/

The New York Times asinine new Hillary meme: Will no one think of the white people?

Every week brings a new narrative about how Hillary Clinton, the breakaway favorite in the 2016 presidential race, is blowing it. This weekend we learned from the New York Times that shes thoughtlessly abandoning her husbands 23-year-old political strategy, which relied on luring white working class and southern voters back to the Democrats, in favor of Barack Obamas far narrower path to the presidency.

The headline frames the magnitude of her blunder: Hillary Clinton traces friendly path, troubling party. So even Democrats are troubled by the Clinton campaigns calculus? Thats bad.

Well, no. A few red state Democrats are troubled. But more people are probably troubled by the venerated New York Times claiming that Barack Obama, the first Democrat to win more than 50 percent of the vote twice since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, traced a far narrower electoral path than Clinton.

Obama won 69 million votes in 2008 and 66 million in 2012; Clinton won 45 million and 47 million in 1992 and 1996. Obama won 365, then 332 electoral votes; Clinton did better, with 370 and 379. But turnout in 2012 was a remarkable (for the U.S.) 58.2 percent, compared with 49 percent in Clintons second race. Obama won bigger margins among African Americans, Latinos, Asians, young voters and women than Clinton did. Both Democrats lost white working class voters overall, though Clinton lost more narrowly.

By what metric, then, could Obama be said to have cut a "far narrower path to the presidency" than Bill Clinton did? Only if the only voters that matter are white.

On Twitter, Maggie Haberman (a writer I admire, for the record) defended the piece by noting that she and Jonathan Martin were merely reporting the concerns of prominent red state Democrats. Thats fine, as far as it goes. By all means, lets hear West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchins thoughts on how Democrats should run for president.

"Go ask Al Gore," Manchin told the Times. Hed be president with five electoral votes from West Virginia. So it is big, and it can make a difference. Actually, Gore would be president if he had one more vote on the Supreme Court, or if Florida counted all of its voters. It pains me to say, but there are many viable Democratic paths to the presidency that are easier than winning back West Virginia.

Haberman and Martin also tip their hands with folderol like this: "This early in the campaignforgoing a determined outreach effort to all 50 states, or even most of them, could mean missing out on the kind of spirited conversation that can be a unifying feature of a presidential election."

Notice how Democrats are responsible for "unifying" a divided nation. Nobody is asking when well see even one of the 19 and counting Republican candidates visiting, say, Harlem during this campaign cycle. Its another example of how well-meaning journalists ignore the rightward drift of the Republican Party and the troubling fact that, in the age of Obama, white southern voters have become so thoroughly hostile to Democrats that Hillary Clinton couldnt reassemble her husbands coalition if she tried.

Oh, by the way, later the story reveals that Clinton actually has organizers in all 50 states already, a fact shared by senior Clinton campaign officials in that controversial briefing last month. We also learn that "Senate Democrats are hopeful that she will lift their prospects, because there is considerable overlap in crucial states: The results in Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin will almost certainly determine both who wins the White House and which party controls the Senate."

So shes got organizers in 50 states, and her campaign is targeting the seven crucial swing states listed above. What exactly is her campaign doing wrong?

Just a couple comments here - first the article spends a lot of time commenting on how the NYT characterizes the strategy. Secondly at the end it finally gets to the point, that Hillary is in fact running a 50 state campaign and that she is organized everywhere.

The issue of "overlap" cuts both ways though - those Senate campaigns need her to drive turnout, it might come as a surprise to them if Hillary's team thought they should be doing that.

I think I have made this additional point - Hillary has one foot in the general right now (and I think her Rosie Island speech will reflect that), she is miles ahead of all the GOP in that respect because not only are they mired in the primaries, they are in IA & NH still.

 

[Tom Servo]

Not so fast, my friend. Pat Caddell - HRC is in so much trouble John Kerry may get in the race.

Former Democratic pollster Pat Caddell has crunched the numbers from several polls and he’s convinced that Hillary Clinton, who he describes as inauthentic, is in a lot of trouble. Caddell argues that there is a metastasizing cancer surrounding her with all these scandals and it’s starting to affect her base.

In fact he believes in three months there will be several new competitors vying for the Democratic nomination and they could be Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and even John Kerry. It’s that bad for Hillary.

 

[squistion]

Not so fast, my friend. Pat Caddell - HRC is in so much trouble John Kerry may get in the race.

Former Democratic pollster Pat Caddell has crunched the numbers from several polls and hes convinced that Hillary Clinton, who he describes as inauthentic, is in a lot of trouble. Caddell argues that there is a metastasizing cancer surrounding her with all these scandals and its starting to affect her base.

In fact he believes in three months there will be several new competitors vying for the Democratic nomination and they could be Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and even John Kerry. Its that bad for Hillary.

Pat Caddell

A "former Democratic pollster" who I have never heard say, in his entire tenure with Fox, one thing favorable towards Democrats in his analysis of any poll. Never once. With Caddell all the numbers he crunches are amazingly always bad news for the Democrats.

 

[Tom Servo]

A "former Democratic pollster" who I have never heard say, in his entire tenure with Fox, one thing favorable towards Democrats in his analysis of any poll. Never once. With Caddell all the numbers he crunches are all amazingly bad news for the Democrats.

So, when the opinion is unfavorable, discount the source? Got it.

Her nomination is not inevitable.

 

[squistion]

A "former Democratic pollster" who I have never heard say, in his entire tenure with Fox, one thing favorable towards Democrats in his analysis of any poll. Never once. With Caddell all the numbers he crunches are all amazingly bad news for the Democrats.

So, when the opinion is unfavorable, discount the source? Got it.Her nomination is not inevitable.

No, it is not that the opinion is unfavorable. It is that Pat Cadell has no credibility whatsoever and is essentially a shill for the RNC. He is brought on and always described as a "former Democratic pollster" to give the false impression he is bringing a balancing viewpoint from the left, but nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[MaxThreshold]

A "former Democratic pollster" who I have never heard say, in his entire tenure with Fox, one thing favorable towards Democrats in his analysis of any poll. Never once. With Caddell all the numbers he crunches are all amazingly bad news for the Democrats.

So, when the opinion is unfavorable, discount the source? Got it.Her nomination is not inevitable.

No, it is not that the opinion is unfavorable. It is that Pat Cadell has no credibility whatsoever and is essentially a shill for the RNC. He is brought on and always described as a "former Democratic pollster" to give the false impression he is bringing a balancing viewpoint from the left, but nothing could be further from the truth.

You still haven't said why Caddell's credibility is suspect other than "he doesn't agree with me". And was he actually a former Democratic pollster? Or is that a lie?

It really appears that you are discounting the source because he's giving an unfavorable opinion. BTW, he's not the only one.

 

[squistion]

A "former Democratic pollster" who I have never heard say, in his entire tenure with Fox, one thing favorable towards Democrats in his analysis of any poll. Never once. With Caddell all the numbers he crunches are all amazingly bad news for the Democrats.

So, when the opinion is unfavorable, discount the source? Got it.Her nomination is not inevitable.

No, it is not that the opinion is unfavorable. It is that Pat Cadell has no credibility whatsoever and is essentially a shill for the RNC. He is brought on and always described as a "former Democratic pollster" to give the false impression he is bringing a balancing viewpoint from the left, but nothing could be further from the truth.

You still haven't said why Caddell's credibility is suspect other than "he doesn't agree with me". And was he actually a former Democratic pollster? Or is that a lie?

It really appears that you are discounting the source because he's giving an unfavorable opinion. BTW, he's not the only one.

He did some polling for a Democrat or Democrats at some point in time, but he is now clearly biased in interpreting any poll against Democrats. I honestly would just like to see even one clip on Fox where that is not the case (if you have one please provide the link as I would no problem admitting I am wrong here).

He is similar to **** Morris who Hannity and O'Reilly loved to have on to introduce as "former Clinton aide **** Morris" who would then always be guaranteed to trash the Clintons. Similarly I can remember the first few times I saw Cadell in the early 2000s on Fox and my mouth always dropping open thinking "What the hell? This guy is a former Democratic pollster?"

Fox does have some people representing the left that actually have a somewhat liberal viewpoint (see Alan Combes and to a lesser extent Juan Williams) but Caddell comes across as a conservative trying unsuccessfully to pose as a pollster with democratic party leanings.

And things will be so bad for the presumptive nominee over these scandals that John Kerry, Biden and Warren will enter the race in a few months? Please. I don't think I could even talk Eminence into making a bet on that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If anyone bothers to watch that Caddell piece, I think it's even more interesting that the former CEO of Morgan Stanley says that he is continuing to back Hillary Clinton. He backed her in 2008, he backed Romney, and now he's backing Hillary. He also did a fundraiser for her earlier.

I think it's political, I think they're playing to the base.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/john-mack-standing-by-hillary-clinton/vi-BBkQrz6

He doesn't sound too concerned that Hillary is at all serious about cracking down on the banks or over-regulating them.

Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack on whether Hillary Clinton becomes President she would be an anti-Wall Street president:“Listen, I think Hillary Clinton is a very smart individual. And we’ve spent time with her, mainly on healthcare, where my wife Christy has talked to her great deal. ...

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/06/morgan-stanley-hillary-clinton/

 

[squistion]

If anyone bothers to watch that Caddell piece, I think it's even more interesting that the former CEO of Morgan Stanley says that he is continuing to back Hillary Clinton. He backed her in 2008, he backed Romney, and now he's backing Hillary. He also did a fundraiser for her earlier.

I think it's political, I think they're playing to the base.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/john-mack-standing-by-hillary-clinton/vi-BBkQrz6He doesn't sound too concerned that Hillary is at all serious about cracking down on the banks or over-regulating them.

Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack on whether Hillary Clinton becomes President she would be an anti-Wall Street president:

Listen, I think Hillary Clinton is a very smart individual. And weve spent time with her, mainly on healthcare, where my wife Christy has talked to her great deal. ...

http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/06/morgan-stanley-hillary-clinton/

Actually, after finaly seeing the Cadell piece it is worse than I thought. The OP didn't state Caddell based his opinion mostly on the Wisconsin straw poll, and that the previous other polls were just a confirmation of his conclusions from Wisconsin.

Straw polls this early mean nothing. Michele Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll in 2012, but wasn't even competitive when the caucus was held.

 

[The Commish]

A "former Democratic pollster" who I have never heard say, in his entire tenure with Fox, one thing favorable towards Democrats in his analysis of any poll. Never once. With Caddell all the numbers he crunches are all amazingly bad news for the Democrats.

So, when the opinion is unfavorable, discount the source? Got it.

Her nomination is not inevitable.

He's "not a real democrat"....duh! What's better is the outright support Hillary is apparently getting from big business....see the Morgan Stanley guy. Kinda makes her "campaign finance reform" pillar a bit of a joke, no?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

A "former Democratic pollster" who I have never heard say, in his entire tenure with Fox, one thing favorable towards Democrats in his analysis of any poll. Never once. With Caddell all the numbers he crunches are all amazingly bad news for the Democrats.

So, when the opinion is unfavorable, discount the source? Got it.

Her nomination is not inevitable.

He's "not a real democrat"....duh! What's better is the outright support Hillary is apparently getting from big business....see the Morgan Stanley guy. Kinda makes her "campaign finance reform" pillar a bit of a joke, no?

As usual - No!

For someone in the financial sector what would be more important-

1. A "gravy train" economy such as the one of the late '90s
2. Or the diminished ability to be in a spending war where only a select few can compete for future access to candidates

For Hillary what would be more important-

1. Competing for super PAC funds
2. Shutting the door on potential, all lesser known candidates from narrowing the recognition gap by out spending her in a campaign

 

[The Commish]

A "former Democratic pollster" who I have never heard say, in his entire tenure with Fox, one thing favorable towards Democrats in his analysis of any poll. Never once. With Caddell all the numbers he crunches are all amazingly bad news for the Democrats.

So, when the opinion is unfavorable, discount the source? Got it.

Her nomination is not inevitable.

He's "not a real democrat"....duh! What's better is the outright support Hillary is apparently getting from big business....see the Morgan Stanley guy. Kinda makes her "campaign finance reform" pillar a bit of a joke, no?

As usual - No!

For someone in the financial sector what would be more important-

1. A "gravy train" economy such as the one of the late '90s
2. Or the diminished ability to be in a spending war where only a select few can compete for future access to candidates

For Hillary what would be more important-

1. Competing for super PAC funds
2. Shutting the door on potential, all lesser known candidates from narrowing the recognition gap by out spending her in a campaign

You used a lot of words to simply say "it's in the rules, so there's no problem" which is fine. I never understood why a candidate would try and make campaign finance reform part of a campaign. It's a no win situation unless they walk the walk during the campaign and we all know how that would turn out.

To your specific questions, big business is ALWAYS going to have access to candidates. That will NEVER change. Hillary doesn't need to compete for super PAC funds if she has enough "buddies" giving already.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

A "former Democratic pollster" who I have never heard say, in his entire tenure with Fox, one thing favorable towards Democrats in his analysis of any poll. Never once. With Caddell all the numbers he crunches are all amazingly bad news for the Democrats.

So, when the opinion is unfavorable, discount the source? Got it.

Her nomination is not inevitable.

He's "not a real democrat"....duh! What's better is the outright support Hillary is apparently getting from big business....see the Morgan Stanley guy. Kinda makes her "campaign finance reform" pillar a bit of a joke, no?

As usual - No!

For someone in the financial sector what would be more important-

1. A "gravy train" economy such as the one of the late '90s
2. Or the diminished ability to be in a spending war where only a select few can compete for future access to candidates

For Hillary what would be more important-

1. Competing for super PAC funds
2. Shutting the door on potential, all lesser known candidates from narrowing the recognition gap by out spending her in a campaign

You used a lot of words to simply say "it's in the rules, so there's no problem" which is fine. I never understood why a candidate would try and make campaign finance reform part of a campaign. It's a no win situation unless they walk the walk during the campaign and we all know how that would turn out.

To your specific questions, big business is ALWAYS going to have access to candidates. That will NEVER change. Hillary doesn't need to compete for super PAC funds if she has enough "buddies" giving already.

I didn't say anything where "it's in the rules, so there's no problem" would apply. Your second paragraph is my point. The "Morgan Stanley guy" is "ALWAYS going to have access" and Hillary "doesn't need to compete for super PAC funds" so in both cases the "undo Citizen's United" types of campaign reform wouldn't be a big fear and they would probably even benefit from it. Even it this wasn't true for the "Morgan Stanley guy" campaign finance reform can still be a "necessary evil" he is willing to lose in order to gain elsewhere.

So the support of Wall Street doesn't tell us anything about whether Hillary would use the "bully pulpit" to pursue campaign finance reform if elected.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Let me see if I have this right - Hillary may, maybe, might pursue campaign finance reform, but if she does while she is president her husband may, maybe might also go to Moscow or Palo Alto or Goldman-Sachs and get a million dollar check for a 20 minute speech he can do in his sleep and then deposit that in an undisclosed, commingled account under WJC LLC, and all the other candidates can chase their 5,000 dollar campaign checks, is that about the size of it?

 

[Trey]

Just checking in... Looks like Clinton is still approximately +45 in the D polls. Right where she needs to be.

All while Scott Walker talks about gay marriage amendments playing to the R base.

In all seriousness though, hoping she delivers a quality speech on Saturday as it's going to be picked apart by every political pundit in the country since there is nothing else to talk about.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Let me see if I have this right - Hillary may, maybe, might pursue campaign finance reform, but if she does while she is president her husband may, maybe might also go to Moscow or Palo Alto or Goldman-Sachs and get a million dollar check for a 20 minute speech he can do in his sleep and then deposit that in an undisclosed, commingled account under WJC LLC, and all the other candidates can chase their 5,000 dollar campaign checks, is that about the size of it?

I know it's probably a little surprising that the Clintons would be shameless hypocrites on an issue such as this. Try to contain your shock and disbelief.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just checking in... Looks like Clinton is still approximately +45 in the D polls. Right where she needs to be.

All while Scott Walker talks about gay marriage amendments playing to the R base.

In all seriousness though, hoping she delivers a quality speech on Saturday as it's going to be picked apart by every political pundit in the country since there is nothing else to talk about.

Well let's face it part of the reason for that has been Hillary's own reticence on the campaign trail to actually talk. It is a major opportunity for her to flip the script. If a politician wants to be president he/she needs to inspire. A rote recitation of policy initiatives won't do it. She will definitely have a grand setting by the looks of it. I'm guessing she mentions Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, but she has to bring a vision for the future.