Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

[The Commish]

He JUST did

Because you don't like the conclusion doesn't mean it's not a conclusion.  It's  like this that leads people to believe you and Toni Tony Tone are the same person.

If we are the same person, use the report button and let the mods know. We will be permanently banned like LHUCKS or johnjohn. If not, then shut the hell up. I am getting really tired of these accusations started by Willie Neslon who says the alias of me being Tone has been confirmed but offers no proof of who confirmed it, when it was confirmed, or how.

  Yeah, not gonna happen because I couldn't give two ####s if you were the same person or not.  It's an internet message board.  Why would I care if you were the same person?  It's the internet.  Clearly this is SERIOUS BUSINESS for you.  Seems like that's something you need to be left to work out on your own.  I just offered up a reason why the two accounts were being linked.  Take it or leave it.  It makes absolutely no difference to me  

 

[The Commish]

Because I don't need to. He wasn't going to endorse anybody until the campaign was decided. We never got more specific than that. And we didn't have to. He knows it over. 

You're a weird dude Tim...you get all indignant, then answer the question   

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

These "security officers" only have the ability to classify information because it has been delegated to them by the agency head  (or from a senior official who was delegated authority by the agency head).

Great, so they have that authority which is delegated to them. For the material from State Kerry and Obama can rescind the classifications. For the material from IC the agency head or Obama. So until that happens it has full force and effect. Heck even when Clinton let Deutch off the hook he granted him clemency, he didn't declassify the documents.

These "security officers" are making decisions on what can be safely released to the public.  They made these determinations last year. for these publicly released copies of the emails  You are arguing that the determinations of those that were delegated their authority by Kerry superseded the judgment of the Secretary of States (note this is plural) when these emails were created and of importance to be communicated among State.   Even more ridiculously you are arguing that since Hillary didn't use her authority to declassify items from 2009 through 2013  to declassify items that were tagged classified in 2015 and 2016 that the items were classified all along,

The two known exceptions being the two emails  [or threads] that Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III had the CIA and the Nation Geospatial-Intelligence Agency create the "sworn declarations" back in January that these should have been classified all along because the were about  Special Access Programs.  Problem being, at least as far as has been reported that the SAP info was in "intelligence" generated from a private citizen who was not a government employee nor contractor (despite the lofty name in the from box) and a news paper article on the CIA drone program.  Could there be more - sure!  Could there be better - sure!  Could the reporting on these be wrong - sure!  

But a bunch of "could be" that there may be unknown damning exception isn't very strong evidence - especially since the emails have gone to various places and there have been many other leaks.  And that there "could be exceptions" certainly don't allow those hypothetical exceptions justify your "born on date" rule.   Lets stick with facts like the executive order that anyone can access and read rather than the mythology of talking head experts.  With a few exceptions (which may be unconstitutional). items are chosen to be marked as classified under the authority spelled out in the executive order, not the other way around. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

These "security officers" are making decisions on what can be safely released to the public.  

They made these determinations last year. for these publicly released copies of the emails  

You are arguing that the determinations of those that were delegated their authority by Kerry superseded the judgment of the Secretary of States (note this is plural) when these emails were created and of importance to be communicated among State.  

Even more ridiculously you are arguing that since Hillary didn't use her authority to declassify items from 2009 through 2013  to declassify items that were tagged classified in 2015 and 2016 that the items were classified all along,

- They are classifying documents. As for the "then": The time to do this is when someone creates or receives a document that should be classified, this is one of the things Hillary and her staff failed at. The SO's could not have classified documents which were not provided to them on a private system whose existence was not even known to them or almost the entirety of State or IC.

- As for the "now": The SO's determinations do not supersede the SOS's, Kerry had delegated this authority to them and he has controlling authority now.

- Obviously more than one person can classify, Hillary & Friends failed their duty contemporaneously so they are being classified by the SO's upon their first learning of them.

- And Hillary cannot claim she declassified something at the time which she did not share with her own government, she did not share with her own SOs who were readily available for consultation, and she cannot declassify it now because she does not have the power. I'm guessing even when she's president she won't declassify this stuff.

And of course no one in the world gets to avail themselves of these argument but Hillary, everyone else has to face the auditing power of the diplomatic, military and intelligence security teams who determine whether information is classified and if people working for our government have failed to meet their duty to protect it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The two known exceptions being the two emails  [or threads] that Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III had the CIA and the Nation Geospatial-Intelligence Agency create the "sworn declarations" back in January that these should have been classified all along because the were about  Special Access Programs.  Problem being, at least as far as has been reported that the SAP info was in "intelligence" generated from a private citizen who was not a government employee nor contractor (despite the lofty name in the from box) and a news paper article on the CIA drone program.  Could there be more - sure!  Could there be better - sure!  Could the reporting on these be wrong - sure!  

I think the known number officially classified by the IC is in the 80-100 range. So not sure but it's mushroomed since what you're talking about occurred last summer/fall.

And while I agree that Cstu may be right about the Obama/Biden decision back in October, reality is even if that theory that Obama knew about the details (contra his 60 Minutes interviews) is correct even the deepest insiders did not know what the review of the emails would turn up at that time. so whatever they knew or thought they knew at the time was premature, it may have been based on assumptions. If they made those assumptions based on what Hillary told them then that would have been really foolish. This is a woman who can't even admit she signed two NDA's.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Lets stick with facts like the executive order that anyone can access and read rather than the mythology of talking head experts.  With a few exceptions (which may be unconstitutional). items are chosen to be marked as classified under the authority spelled out in the executive order, not the other way around. 

The EO is a fact we all agree on. The interpretation of it is obviously a conclusion that we disagree on, however it doesn't seem very complicated to me. The EO is basically a recap of the same EO that gets issued by every president and the rules covering these things date back to WW1 easily and even earlier.

If a buck private got caught with secret but unmarked information in his bureau desk drawer at home in 1918 he'd likely have been facing the same problem. Though the powers that be wouldn't have waited 2 seconds before throwing him in the brig.

 

[timschochet]

Liz Warren is trying to time her endorsement so as to have the biggest impact on Bernie supporters. She's giving a big speech tonight about Donald Trump- she's become his most effective critic IMO- and she's let it be known she is open to the VP slot. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Liz Warren is trying to time her endorsement so as to have the biggest impact on Bernie supporters. She's giving a big speech tonight about Donald Trump- she's become his most effective critic IMO- and she's let it be known she is open to the VP slot. 

Well Trump has again done Hilary a favor, he's gotten Warren into the game. I don't think Warren would show up for Hillary if anyone else was running.

 

[identikit]

Liz Warren is trying to time her endorsement so as to have the biggest impact on Bernie supporters. She's giving a big speech tonight about Donald Trump- she's become his most effective critic IMO- and she's let it be known she is open to the VP slot. 

Really doubt she is chosen.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Really doubt she is chosen.

Agreed. Hillary is going to win going away regardless of who else is on the ticket, and holding Warren's seat in the Senate is hugely important for the party. Her blasting of Trump will be equally effective either way. 

 

[squistion]

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 2h2 hours ago

People who say Bernie can't win don't seem to realize that East Virginia, North Montana and New Arizona haven't voted yet.

 

[chet]

This is like one of those puzzles where you're supposed to find all the mistakes, like the tire on a car is a pizza. Your assumption, expectation and math are all wrong.

The article doesn't claim exit polls are useless - they have limited use and the author explains what they are (e.g. trends for talking heads such as "more black voters turned out than expected"). I wouldn't expect an even outcome of outperforming exit polls because it's not random. It's not coin tosses, it's supporters of candidates, and the candidates are the same across different states. So if Hillary supporters tend not to participate in exit polls, I'm not all that surprised if that trend continues across different states.

The one thing you said that's true: "I didn't do the math"

I did do the math on Wolfram Alpha and the odds of 26 coin tosses coming out with 24 heads and 2 tails is

4.84288 X 10(power of -6) or 1 in 206,489.

Not quite 1 in 77,000,000,000 

I asked the guy who put this together, and he said, "1 in 77 billion is the probability of 11 out of 26 exit polls being outside the margin of error and all benefiting Hillary Clinton. For each, that's an individual 2.5% chance. For that to happen 11 times in a row is extremely unlikely."

So I guess it could be explained by either systematic bias or by election fraud.  

 

[The Commish]

  Why has Nate become such a #####?  

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Agreed. Hillary is going to win going away regardless of who else is on the ticket, and holding Warren's seat in the Senate is hugely important for the party. Her blasting of Trump will be equally effective either way. 

I know Massachusetts has a Republican governor, but wouldn't there be a run-off for the seat like after Ted Kennedy died?  Seems like the Democrats would have a pretty good chance to keep the seat.  This isn't like giving up a Democratic seat in a red state.

 

[chet]

 I think I found the source of the data.  Richard Charnin has written extensively on election fraud and here is a link to his blog.

In the May 28 entry, he writes the following:

Sanders exit poll share exceeded his recorded share in 24 of the 26 primaries which were exit polled. The probability is 1 in 190.000. The difference between his exit poll share and recorded share exceeded the margin of error in 11 primaries. The probability is 1 in 77 billion. Is the exit poll shift to Clinton just pure luck? Or is something else going on? 

ETA: Here's the link (also in the above quote) to some of the data he's referring to.

 

[Chadstroma]

Warren makes sense in a lot of ways. It is a nod to the Bern outs as she is very popular with them as well. Another woman on the ticket places more emphasis on the breaking new ground and accomplishment for women angle. The left would be somewhat excited about her. There is a lot she would bring to a ticket for Hillary.

 

[cobalt_27]

  Why has Nate become such a #####?  

Nate Silver is a brilliant and I think a likable guy.  He's got strong opinions and that's great.  He's a data journalist first and foremost and believes strongly that the method he follows for prognostication is superior to other prognosticators who read the tea leaves, get information from insiders, etc.  So, anytime someone challenges an outcome that doesn't square with the math, he loses his mind.  Add to the fact he probably prefers Hillary over all the others, it probably just accentuates his snarkiness.  But, ultimately, I think it just comes down to him wanting to beat back against those who insist on ignoring the data.

 

[NutterButter]

Are we really talking about voter fraud again?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

People think an all female ticket?

Cheers!

 

[squistion]

Warren makes sense in a lot of ways. It is a nod to the Bern outs as she is very popular with them as well. Another woman on the ticket places more emphasis on the breaking new ground and accomplishment for women angle. The left would be somewhat excited about her. There is a lot she would bring to a ticket for Hillary.

It doesn't matter how much sense it makes, it is not going to happen. Again, Warren is simply not up to national campaign.

 

[The Commish]

  Why has Nate become such a #####?  

Nate Silver is a brilliant and I think a likable guy.  He's got strong opinions and that's great.  He's a data journalist first and foremost and believes strongly that the method he follows for prognostication is superior to other prognosticators who read the tea leaves, get information from insiders, etc.  So, anytime someone challenges an outcome that doesn't square with the math, he loses his mind.  Add to the fact he probably prefers Hillary over all the others, it probably just accentuates his snarkiness.  But, ultimately, I think it just comes down to him wanting to beat back against those who insist on ignoring the data.

"ignoring the data" suggests that this election cycle is like any other.  It isn't and the results have shown such, so I'm not sure why he's trying to track this like he would any other election.  I sure as hell wouldn't get bent out of shape if I was wrong in this case.  WTF knows what is going on here.  Little of it has made sense.  Sounds like he needs to take a little break too.

 

[chet]

People think an all female ticket?

Cheers!

If so, how many times will we hear DJT refer to them as Crooked Hillary and Pocahontas?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Massachusetts law states that the Governor selects her replacement, but there's a loophole. This may be the most likely scenario.

Yeah, this isn't inconsistent with what I wrote.  Even without the loophole, there would be a special election to fill the seat.  The governor only gets to appoint a temporary replacement.  

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

It doesn't matter how much sense it makes, it is not going to happen. Again, Warren is simply not up to national campaign.

I don't know what this means.  

 

[TobiasFunke]

Nate Silver is a brilliant and I think a likable guy.  He's got strong opinions and that's great.  He's a data journalist first and foremost and believes strongly that the method he follows for prognostication is superior to other prognosticators who read the tea leaves, get information from insiders, etc.  So, anytime someone challenges an outcome that doesn't square with the math, he loses his mind.  Add to the fact he probably prefers Hillary over all the others, it probably just accentuates his snarkiness.  But, ultimately, I think it just comes down to him wanting to beat back against those who insist on ignoring the data.

Yup I think this is right.  It has to be annoying to do what he does and have people confuse probabilities with outright predictions. 

If his numbers showed that eight candidates had a 75% to win certain races, and six of them actually won, a ton of observers would criticize him for "missing" on two of eight races. It has to be frustrating to deal with that kind of stupidity over and over again from people criticizing your work, no matter how many times you explain it.

 

[cobalt_27]

"ignoring the data" suggests that this election cycle is like any other.  It isn't and the results have shown such, so I'm not sure why he's trying to track this like he would any other election.  I sure as hell wouldn't get bent out of shape if I was wrong in this case.  WTF knows what is going on here.  Little of it has made sense.  Sounds like he needs to take a little break too.

Yeah, but I think fivethirtyeight has been far superior in predicting outcomes this election season compared to others.  In fact, Silver had a great piece a week or so ago about how it was his deviation from the scientific method--and reliance on instincts and other soft data--that caused him to whiff so hard on Trump's rise.  He looked back and showed how had he focused more on the reliable data in front of him, he would have nailed it on Trump earlier.  That said, he was one of the few who predicted back in December or January that Bernie was the real deal and would take this all the way to June.

 

[TobiasFunke]

"ignoring the data" suggests that this election cycle is like any other.  It isn't and the results have shown such, so I'm not sure why he's trying to track this like he would any other election.  I sure as hell wouldn't get bent out of shape if I was wrong in this case.  WTF knows what is going on here.  Little of it has made sense.  Sounds like he needs to take a little break too.

As Nate himself retweeted this morning, House incumbents have won 168 of 170 primary races so far this election cycle. So this election cycle is pretty much exactly like any other, with just the one notable exception.  Nate is smart enough to understand the difference between an anomaly and a paradigm shift.

 

[Chadstroma]

People think an all female ticket?

Cheers!

Not sure I think there will be an all female ticket but there is some solid thinking behind making one with Warren.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Not sure I think there will be an all female ticket but there is some solid thinking behind making one with Warren.

We haven't even elected 1 female VP or President, now we are going to vote 2 in on the same ticket? OK...

 

[Chadstroma]

We haven't even elected 1 female VP or President, now we are going to vote 2 in on the same ticket? OK...

Why not?

If I liked Clinton and Warren or in other words, if I was a Democrat, I think I would be pushing this as the right ticket.

 

[The Commish]

As Nate himself retweeted this morning, House incumbents have won 168 of 170 primary races so far this election cycle. So this election cycle is pretty much exactly like any other, with just the one notable exception.  Nate is smart enough to understand the difference between an anomaly and a paradigm shift.

It's the anomaly we were discussing and it's where he is 95% snarky in his comments  As it pertains to the topic, it's not close to typical so I don't really understand why he's getting his panties in a bunch over it.

 

[timschochet]

We haven't even elected 1 female VP or President, now we are going to vote 2 in on the same ticket? OK...

Especially since Hillary Clinton is personally guilty of having ordered the murders of her enemies. Do you still believe this? 

 

[Major]

Warren won't be VP.  It'll be either Booker or Castro.  

 

[The Commish]

Yeah, but I think fivethirtyeight has been far superior in predicting outcomes this election season compared to others.  In fact, Silver had a great piece a week or so ago about how it was his deviation from the scientific method--and reliance on instincts and other soft data--that caused him to whiff so hard on Trump's rise.  He looked back and showed how had he focused more on the reliable data in front of him, he would have nailed it on Trump earlier.  That said, he was one of the few who predicted back in December or January that Bernie was the real deal and would take this all the way to June.

I'm the first to admit, I don't follow this stuff all that closely, so it's probably my bad that I rely on squis for my view of Nate.  However, unless squis was  us with tweets from Nate, Nate's initial thoughts were Bernie didn't have a chance as he began to aggressively explain away the gap closing between Bernie and Hillary.  I really don't know if he changed his tune once he was hit directly in the face with the reality that Bernie was for real or not in the Dec/Jan timeframe.

 

[Major]

I'll always have respect for Nate Silver.  He's made some great calls.  2012 predicting the Obama landslide on the dot and getting all 50 states right was impressive when folks were saying it was going to be the closest race in decades, etc. 

 

[cobalt_27]

I'm the first to admit, I don't follow this stuff all that closely, so it's probably my bad that I rely on squis for my view of Nate.  However, unless squis was  us with tweets from Nate, Nate's initial thoughts were Bernie didn't have a chance as he began to aggressively explain away the gap closing between Bernie and Hillary.  I really don't know if he changed his tune once he was hit directly in the face with the reality that Bernie was for real or not in the Dec/Jan timeframe.

I don't have all the numbers, but I disinclined recall he wrote an article or tweet really early on back in the winter (when most pundits were saying Hillary would walk away with this thing) that Bernie consistently was polling so well and that, by his estimates, this race wouldn't get decided until June.  He was spot on about Bernie well before any of us were, well before most of the other pundits were.

 

[skol asylum]

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 2h2 hours ago

People who say Bernie can't win don't seem to realize that East Virginia, North Montana and New Arizona haven't voted yet.

Pretty snarky for a Rubio guy.

 

[squistion]

Plus sour grapes for failing so miserably in Michigan outcome.

Don't have the actual numbers, but Silver has been something like 90-95% accurate with his projections on the other primaries. As far as I can tell, no one has done any better.

 

[skol asylum]

Don't have the actual numbers, but Silver has been something like 90-95% accurate with his projections on the other primaries. As far as I can tell, no one has done any better.

I was half kidding and deleted my post.

 

[Chadstroma]

I see Castro as somewhat of a wasted opportunity. I mean, really, do you have to do anything to get Hispanics to vote against Trump other than let Trump Trump?

 

[skol asylum]

She needs someone that will appeal to blue collar union working white males. That is the group Trump will try to steal.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I see Castro as somewhat of a wasted opportunity. I mean, really, do you have to do anything to get Hispanics to vote against Trump other than let Trump Trump?

your contention is that Castro's only qualification for VP is his race?

 

[Jackstraw]

We haven't even elected 1 female VP or President, now we are going to vote 2 in on the same ticket? OK...

Two white men on the ticket went 43-0. But two white women? That's just cray cray.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Two white men on the ticket went 43-0. But two white women? That's just cray cray.

Jack, read what you just wrote. 

43-0...it's not like there has never been a woman on the ticket or tried to win the party nomination before(see Hilary). 

 

[squistion]

I see Castro as somewhat of a wasted opportunity. I mean, really, do you have to do anything to get Hispanics to vote against Trump other than let Trump Trump?

Hispanics will be voting in record numbers. Everyone in the Hispanic community has a relative, friend, co-worker or acquaintance who will be deported if Trump is elected and that gives them a personal connection and motivation to go to the polls in November.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Hispanics will be voting in record numbers. Everyone in the Hispanic community has a relative, friend, co-worker or acquaintance who will be deported if Trump is elected and that gives them a personal connection and motivation to go to the polls in November.

Can whites finally gain minority status then? 

 

[Chadstroma]

your contention is that Castro's only qualification for VP is his race?

Qualification? The only qualification for a VP is how many votes can they bring to the ticket.

 

[Chadstroma]

Hispanics will be voting in record numbers. Everyone in the Hispanic community has a relative, friend, co-worker or acquaintance who will be deported if Trump is elected and that gives them a personal connection and motivation to go to the polls in November.

Hispanics, whether they know someone who could be deported or not, are already motivated to vote for Trump. That is a given.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Qualification? The only qualification for a VP is how many votes can they bring to the ticket.

She should go with Taylor Swift then, help her with the Millennials

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Everyone in the Hispanic community has a relative, friend, co-worker or acquaintance who will be deported if Trump is elected

Uhm that's a tad bit generalized, to put it politely.