Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (4 Viewers)

[urbanhack]

Apparently flip floppers are OK as long as they're on your political "side"?

Nope, both sides suck when they do it. Stick to your guns.

When a Democrat flip flops, it is "evolving". When a Republican does it, it is "flip flopping".

wrong. the right coined this term and wore it out with John Kerry.

 

[Mister CIA]

Hillary deserves to be criticized for switching positions on gay marriage, free trade and a few other issues. These are legitimate criticisms.

Never said they weren't. But it means nothing with all the GOP candidates still on the wrong side of history, which was my point. Democrats can live with this and Republicans can't exploit it without having to come out again against gay marriage which is not a winning issue with independents or young people in 2016.

Once again Squistion turns our focus to the Republican party in a thread wholly devoted to Hillary Clinton.

Over/under I copy/post the line above in this thread - 52.5.

 

[squistion]

Hillary deserves to be criticized for switching positions on gay marriage, free trade and a few other issues. These are legitimate criticisms.

Never said they weren't. But it means nothing with all the GOP candidates still on the wrong side of history, which was my point. Democrats can live with this and Republicans can't exploit it without having to come out again against gay marriage which is not a winning issue with independents or young people in 2016.

Once again Squistion turns our focus to the Republican party in a thread wholly devoted to Hillary Clinton.

Silly me. Sanders has no chance of getting the nomination and Hillary will be running against a Republican and I have the audacity to discuss GOP candidates position on gay marriage which is currently a losing proposition for all of them. What on earth could I be thinking?

 

[Mister CIA]

Hillary deserves to be criticized for switching positions on gay marriage, free trade and a few other issues. These are legitimate criticisms.

Never said they weren't. But it means nothing with all the GOP candidates still on the wrong side of history, which was my point. Democrats can live with this and Republicans can't exploit it without having to come out again against gay marriage which is not a winning issue with independents or young people in 2016.

Once again Squistion turns our focus to the Republican party in a thread wholly devoted to Hillary Clinton.

Shilly me. Sanders has no chance of getting the nomination and Hillary will be running against a Republican and I have the audacity to discuss GOP candidates position on gay marriage which is currently a losing proposition for all of them. What on earth could I be thinking?

Fixed your post.

 

[squistion]

Hillary deserves to be criticized for switching positions on gay marriage, free trade and a few other issues. These are legitimate criticisms.

Never said they weren't. But it means nothing with all the GOP candidates still on the wrong side of history, which was my point. Democrats can live with this and Republicans can't exploit it without having to come out again against gay marriage which is not a winning issue with independents or young people in 2016.

Once again Squistion turns our focus to the Republican party in a thread wholly devoted to Hillary Clinton.

Shilly me. Sanders has no chance of getting the nomination and Hillary will be running against a Republican and I have the audacity to discuss GOP candidates position on gay marriage which is currently a losing proposition for all of them. What on earth could I be thinking?

Fixed your post.

Defending Hillary in the official Hillary thread, of all places. Shameless.

 

[Mister CIA]

Having difficulties with my GoDaddy account at the moment. Hope nobody snatches away Hillquetoast.com.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Now Hillary can get married in all 50 states!!!

Hillary is a flip flopper:https://youtu.be/9TyZBeGfeVMAbout two minutes in Matthews asks:Should New York Recognize Same-Sex Marriage? No. Hillary Today? Proud To Celebrate Marriage Equality

Does this surprise you in any way? She, like our current president, "evolved".Nice...It's all good though. I'm sure she'll be a decent president.

LOL @ "evolved". They changed to whatever would get them elected.

Exactly. People have to be a bit naive to think liberals like Obama and Hillary haven't support gay marriage all along.

Yeah, right. **** Cheney was openly pro-gay marriage long before Obama and Clinton "evolved".**** freakin' Cheney!

Yes, **** Cheney champion of gay rights! He was so vocal in his public support of gay marriage, he might as well have worn rainbow colors in the White House.He waited until 2009 when he was out of politics, hardly a profile in courage and having an openly lesbian daughter probably had more to do with it than anything else.http://www.christianpost.com/news/****-cheney-admits-politics-prevented-him-from-supporting-gay-marriage-79107/**** Cheney Admits Politics Prevented Him From Supporting Gay MarriageFormer Vice President **** Cheney has revealed that although he has long been a supporter of same-sex marriage, he did not speak out in support of the issue during the 2000 presidential campaign because it could have harmed former President George W. Bush's chances of winning.When asked why he did not make a case for same-sex marriage during an interview by ABC News, he said that "it wouldn't have done much good and probably would have sunk President George W. Bush's prospects for office," The Associated Press reported.Cheney has been a supporter of same-sex marriage ever since it was revealed that his daughter, Mary, is a lesbian. She married her longtime partner last month."I'm sure it was fine. We wished them well. She wanted to avoid having it be a media circus or having it become part of the political debate. So Lynn and I were very proud and happy and congratulated them," Cheney remarked on the marriage.The former vice president made his support of gay marriage quite clear in June 2009, where he said at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. that "freedom means freedom for everyone.""As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled today, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that."

I concede that he waited to reveal his position until he left office. And I'm sure it was due to political reasons. My point is he made his personal opinion public much earlier than Clinton and Obama.Nevertheless, my post is accurate. Clinton and Obama licked their finger, held them up to the wind and made their "decision".

Full disclosure: I agree with the recent Supreme Court's decision regarding gay marriage.

That vile terd Cheney and his minion terd Bush ran against gay rights in two successive campaigns and their repressed latent momo errand boys Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove had anti-gay marriage bills and referendums on ballots all over the country in 2004 and 2008 to rally the bigot/hate base.

Obama and Clinton may have kept their support of gay rights quiet, but they didnt demonize them and rally the country in a hate campaign against the gays like Bush/Cheney, when Cheney's own daughter was gay.

Despicable.

 

[Leviathan]

Now Hillary can get married in all 50 states!!!

Hillary is a flip flopper:https://youtu.be/9TyZBeGfeVMAbout two minutes in Matthews asks:Should New York Recognize Same-Sex Marriage? No. Hillary Today? Proud To Celebrate Marriage Equality

Does this surprise you in any way? She, like our current president, "evolved".Nice...It's all good though. I'm sure she'll be a decent president.

LOL @ "evolved". They changed to whatever would get them elected.

Exactly. People have to be a bit naive to think liberals like Obama and Hillary haven't support gay marriage all along.

Yeah, right. **** Cheney was openly pro-gay marriage long before Obama and Clinton "evolved".**** freakin' Cheney!

Yes, **** Cheney champion of gay rights! He was so vocal in his public support of gay marriage, he might as well have worn rainbow colors in the White House.He waited until 2009 when he was out of politics, hardly a profile in courage and having an openly lesbian daughter probably had more to do with it than anything else.http://www.christianpost.com/news/****-cheney-admits-politics-prevented-him-from-supporting-gay-marriage-79107/**** Cheney Admits Politics Prevented Him From Supporting Gay MarriageFormer Vice President **** Cheney has revealed that although he has long been a supporter of same-sex marriage, he did not speak out in support of the issue during the 2000 presidential campaign because it could have harmed former President George W. Bush's chances of winning.When asked why he did not make a case for same-sex marriage during an interview by ABC News, he said that "it wouldn't have done much good and probably would have sunk President George W. Bush's prospects for office," The Associated Press reported.Cheney has been a supporter of same-sex marriage ever since it was revealed that his daughter, Mary, is a lesbian. She married her longtime partner last month."I'm sure it was fine. We wished them well. She wanted to avoid having it be a media circus or having it become part of the political debate. So Lynn and I were very proud and happy and congratulated them," Cheney remarked on the marriage.The former vice president made his support of gay marriage quite clear in June 2009, where he said at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. that "freedom means freedom for everyone.""As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled today, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that."

I concede that he waited to reveal his position until he left office. And I'm sure it was due to political reasons. My point is he made his personal opinion public much earlier than Clinton and Obama.Nevertheless, my post is accurate. Clinton and Obama licked their finger, held them up to the wind and made their "decision".

Full disclosure: I agree with the recent Supreme Court's decision regarding gay marriage.

That vile terd Cheney and his minion terd Bush ran against gay rights in two successive campaigns and their repressed latent momo errand boys Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove had anti-gay marriage bills and referendums on ballots all over the country in 2004 and 2008 to rally the bigot/hate base.

Obama and Clinton may have kept their support of gay rights quiet, but they didnt demonize them and rally the country in a hate campaign against the gays like Bush/Cheney, when Cheney's own daughter was gay.

Despicable.

Cannot and will not argue with that.Completely legitimate argument.

 

[FlapJacks]

Now Hillary can get married in all 50 states!!!

Hillary is a flip flopper:https://youtu.be/9TyZBeGfeVMAbout two minutes in Matthews asks:Should New York Recognize Same-Sex Marriage? No. Hillary Today? Proud To Celebrate Marriage Equality

Does this surprise you in any way? She, like our current president, "evolved".Nice...It's all good though. I'm sure she'll be a decent president.

LOL @ "evolved". They changed to whatever would get them elected.

Exactly. People have to be a bit naive to think liberals like Obama and Hillary haven't support gay marriage all along.

Yeah, right. **** Cheney was openly pro-gay marriage long before Obama and Clinton "evolved".**** freakin' Cheney!

Yes, **** Cheney champion of gay rights! He was so vocal in his public support of gay marriage, he might as well have worn rainbow colors in the White House.He waited until 2009 when he was out of politics, hardly a profile in courage and having an openly lesbian daughter probably had more to do with it than anything else.http://www.christianpost.com/news/****-cheney-admits-politics-prevented-him-from-supporting-gay-marriage-79107/**** Cheney Admits Politics Prevented Him From Supporting Gay MarriageFormer Vice President **** Cheney has revealed that although he has long been a supporter of same-sex marriage, he did not speak out in support of the issue during the 2000 presidential campaign because it could have harmed former President George W. Bush's chances of winning.When asked why he did not make a case for same-sex marriage during an interview by ABC News, he said that "it wouldn't have done much good and probably would have sunk President George W. Bush's prospects for office," The Associated Press reported.Cheney has been a supporter of same-sex marriage ever since it was revealed that his daughter, Mary, is a lesbian. She married her longtime partner last month."I'm sure it was fine. We wished them well. She wanted to avoid having it be a media circus or having it become part of the political debate. So Lynn and I were very proud and happy and congratulated them," Cheney remarked on the marriage.The former vice president made his support of gay marriage quite clear in June 2009, where he said at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. that "freedom means freedom for everyone.""As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled today, on a state-by-state basis. Different states will make different decisions. But I don't have any problem with that. I think people ought to get a shot at that."

I concede that he waited to reveal his position until he left office. And I'm sure it was due to political reasons. My point is he made his personal opinion public much earlier than Clinton and Obama.Nevertheless, my post is accurate. Clinton and Obama licked their finger, held them up to the wind and made their "decision".

Full disclosure: I agree with the recent Supreme Court's decision regarding gay marriage.

That vile terd Cheney and his minion terd Bush ran against gay rights in two successive campaigns and their repressed latent momo errand boys Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove had anti-gay marriage bills and referendums on ballots all over the country in 2004 and 2008 to rally the bigot/hate base.

Obama and Clinton may have kept their support of gay rights quiet, but they didnt demonize them and rally the country in a hate campaign against the gays like Bush/Cheney, when Cheney's own daughter was gay.

Despicable.

Cannot and will not argue with that.Completely legitimate argument.

Monkeys and typewriters....

 

[jon_mx]

The rhetoric from the left-wing kooks on this forum is priceless.

 

[omally]

That vile terd Cheney and his minion terd Bush ran against gay rights in two successive campaigns and their repressed latent momo errand boys Ken Mehlman and Karl Rove had anti-gay marriage bills and referendums on ballots all over the country in 2004 and 2008 to rally the bigot/hate base.

Obama and Clinton may have kept their support of gay rights quiet, but they didnt demonize them and rally the country in a hate campaign against the gays like Bush/Cheney, when Cheney's own daughter was gay.

Despicable.

Obama said in the past that he was not in favor of gay marriage. He "evolved" later on near the end of his first term of presidency, and made it public after Joe Biden publicly supported gay marriage first. Clinton is the one who signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act.

 

[The_Man]

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is on track to raise more than $45 million in her first quarter as a candidate, a campaign official told POLITICO on Wednesday, representing the biggest-ever primary haul for a candidate’s first three months. The amount represents nearly half of the $100 million goal the campaign has set for itself in 2015, and 91 percent of the donations were $100 or less, the campaign said.


The campaign also noted the figure bests the previous primary record of $41.9 million set by President Barack Obama’s campaign in 2011. The Democratic front-runner has been on a cross-country fundraising spree in recent weeks, focusing on house parties with donors who give $2,700 themselves and raise $27,000 overall.


While the campaign’s efforts are expected to be supplemented by the Priorities USA super PAC — which is ramping up its own big-money efforts — this figure is just for the campaign committee.Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-campaign-fundraising-first-quarter-119636.html#ixzz3eeccJpy5

This is an example of what's so off-putting to me about Hillary as a candidate - the entire substance and theme of her campaign is HILLARY!

Her ideas and policies are an afterthought, what really matters is being able to brag that she has set a new record for dollars raised in the first 3 months of a primary campaign (and, by the way, since when is that a stat we've been tracking?).

It's all so self-referential and meaningless in the lives of voters, yet so vitally important to the Inside the Beltway chattering class. I feel like candidates whose biggest campaign theme is their own candidacy generally end being lousy campaigners.

 

[FlapJacks]

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is on track to raise more than $45 million in her first quarter as a candidate, a campaign official told POLITICO on Wednesday, representing the biggest-ever primary haul for a candidate’s first three months. The amount represents nearly half of the $100 million goal the campaign has set for itself in 2015, and 91 percent of the donations were $100 or less, the campaign said.


The campaign also noted the figure bests the previous primary record of $41.9 million set by President Barack Obama’s campaign in 2011. The Democratic front-runner has been on a cross-country fundraising spree in recent weeks, focusing on house parties with donors who give $2,700 themselves and raise $27,000 overall.


While the campaign’s efforts are expected to be supplemented by the Priorities USA super PAC — which is ramping up its own big-money efforts — this figure is just for the campaign committee.Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-campaign-fundraising-first-quarter-119636.html#ixzz3eeccJpy5

This is an example of what's so off-putting to me about Hillary as a candidate - the entire substance and theme of her campaign is HILLARY!

Her ideas and policies are an afterthought, what really matters is being able to brag that she has set a new record for dollars raised in the first 3 months of a primary campaign (and, by the way, since when is that a stat we've been tracking?).

It's all so self-referential and meaningless in the lives of voters, yet so vitally important to the Inside the Beltway chattering class. I feel like candidates whose biggest campaign theme is their own candidacy generally end being lousy campaigners.

who the hell is stupid enough to donate money to that?

probably just a bunch of billionaire money laundered into small donations...

 

[timschochet]

91% of the contributions were $100 or less? But-but- I thought she was the corporate candidate! I've been told that Bernie is who regular people want! Hillary is supposed to be so aloof and removed from the common folks out there and nobody likes her. What's happening here???

 

[FlapJacks]

91% of the contributions were $100 or less? But-but- I thought she was the corporate candidate! I've been told that Bernie is who regular people want! Hillary is supposed to be so aloof and removed from the common folks out there and nobody likes her. What's happening here???

re bundling...that's what's happening here...

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Hillary 2016: She's really only a little less progressive than **** Cheney!

 

[squistion]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/01/1398282/-Poll-Jeb-leads-among-Republicans-but-Hillary-crushes-them-all

Poll: Jeb! leads among Republicans, but Hillary crushes them all

Here's a poll you won't hear nearly as much about as the ones showing Hillary Clinton with a relatively narrow lead over her possible Republican opponents. The new CNN/ORC poll puts Jeb Bush at the front of the Republican primary field, drawing 19 percent support, with Donald Trump behind him at 12 percent, followed by Mike Huckabee at eight percent, Ben Carson and Rand Paul at seven percent, and Scott Walker and Marco Rubio at six percent. In general election head-to-heads, though, Clinton crushes them all. Let's lay it out so it's easy to see, shall we?

Hillary Clinton 54

Jeb Bush 41

Hillary Clinton 56

Marco Rubio 39

Hillary Clinton 56

Chris Christie 37

Hillary Clinton 59

Donald Trump 34

Hillary Clinton 57

Scott Walker 38

It's an early poll and it's a national poll, which are two good reasons not to put too much stock in it as a sign of where the race will be in November 2016. But these results are not open to much question about where the race stands now.

 

[FlapJacks]

Hillary 2016: She's really only a little less progressive than **** Cheney!

now, that might tempt me to vote for her....until I remember that virtually anything she touches turns to ####...

 

[The_Man]

So while Hillary's campaign is leaking stories today bragging about their record-setting fundraising take, here's what Bernie was saying yesterday:

“Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful. Unless we end this disastrous campaign finance system, our government will continue to represent the interests of the few at the expense of the many.”

I understand she thinks she can keep herself secreted away from the world and sweep to the Democratic nomination. But she's actually going to have to campaign at some point, and nothing I've seen so far gives me any confidence in her ability to do so.

 

[timschochet]

So while Hillary's campaign is leaking stories today bragging about their record-setting fundraising take, here's what Bernie was saying yesterday:

Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful. Unless we end this disastrous campaign finance system, our government will continue to represent the interests of the few at the expense of the many.

I understand she thinks she can keep herself secreted away from the world and sweep to the Democratic nomination. But she's actually going to have to campaign at some point, and nothing I've seen so far gives me any confidence in her ability to do so.

91% of all donations under $100. You can continue with the "rich and powerful" theme but your own link denies it. Hillary appears to be popular among all economic classes, and she's not hiding at all.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

So while Hillary's campaign is leaking stories today bragging about their record-setting fundraising take, here's what Bernie was saying yesterday:

Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful. Unless we end this disastrous campaign finance system, our government will continue to represent the interests of the few at the expense of the many.

I understand she thinks she can keep herself secreted away from the world and sweep to the Democratic nomination. But she's actually going to have to campaign at some point, and nothing I've seen so far gives me any confidence in her ability to do so.

91% of all donations under $100. You can continue with the "rich and powerful" theme but your own link denies it. Hillary appears to be popular among all economic classes, and she's not hiding at all.

I'm not sure how significant the 91% number is, do you? What is typical for a Presidential campaign? Why was the number $100 chosen as the cutoff? How would these numbers look if we included contributions to her SuperPAC? Just because 91% sounds like a high number doesn't mean it is a meaningful number.

 

[FlapJacks]

So while Hillary's campaign is leaking stories today bragging about their record-setting fundraising take, here's what Bernie was saying yesterday:

“Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful. Unless we end this disastrous campaign finance system, our government will continue to represent the interests of the few at the expense of the many.”

I understand she thinks she can keep herself secreted away from the world and sweep to the Democratic nomination. But she's actually going to have to campaign at some point, and nothing I've seen so far gives me any confidence in her ability to do so.

What you have to end is something cultural, maybe inbred in humans, I don't know. If I spent a billion dollars on a campaign to convince the electorate that the nmoon in made of cheese, in theory, it should not be enough. In reality, I'm thinking you could do it.

If you take the money out, then the big netwprks and big websites are carrying the big megaphones with no check on that power.

The solution is get people to stop being sheep and that no matter how much some billionaire spends to convince them that #### is shinola, they are sensible enough to reject that notion....i dont have any idea how we get there, but that is where we need to be

 

[squistion]

So while Hillary's campaign is leaking stories today bragging about their record-setting fundraising take, here's what Bernie was saying yesterday:

"Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful. Unless we end this disastrous campaign finance system, our government will continue to represent the interests of the few at the expense of the many."

A statement Hillary agrees with. She wants Citizens United overturned.

 

[The_Man]

So while Hillary's campaign is leaking stories today bragging about their record-setting fundraising take, here's what Bernie was saying yesterday:

Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful. Unless we end this disastrous campaign finance system, our government will continue to represent the interests of the few at the expense of the many.

I understand she thinks she can keep herself secreted away from the world and sweep to the Democratic nomination. But she's actually going to have to campaign at some point, and nothing I've seen so far gives me any confidence in her ability to do so.

91% of all donations under $100. You can continue with the "rich and powerful" theme but your own link denies it. Hillary appears to be popular among all economic classes, and she's not hiding at all.

From Time Magazine today:

A crucial measure of popular enthusiasm for Clinton, however, will not be just the amount of money she raises, but the number of small-donor donations to her campaign. In that arena she is likely to be outmatched by Sen. Bernie Sanders, who has raked in about $8 million with an average donation of around $40—which puts him at around 200,000 donors.

Clinton’s campaign has set a goal of raising $100 million to pay for the primary, a target that appears well within reach after just two-and-a-half months of fundraising and seven months to go before the Iowa caucus. The numbers have not been finalized, and the Federal Election Commission is not due to release campaigns’ intake through June 30 until the middle of July.

Clinton officials have not yet released the total number of donors that have given to the candidate as of June 30, but in an email to supporters on Tuesday evening shortly before the midnight deadline, the campaign said there were only “2,109 to go” before reaching 50,000 “grassroots donations.”

So it looks like Bernie has 4 times as many individual donors despite his limited name recognition. Of course Hillary is the candidate of the rich and powerful. That's her natural constituency.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

So while Hillary's campaign is leaking stories today bragging about their record-setting fundraising take, here's what Bernie was saying yesterday:

Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful. Unless we end this disastrous campaign finance system, our government will continue to represent the interests of the few at the expense of the many.

I understand she thinks she can keep herself secreted away from the world and sweep to the Democratic nomination. But she's actually going to have to campaign at some point, and nothing I've seen so far gives me any confidence in her ability to do so.

91% of all donations under $100. You can continue with the "rich and powerful" theme but your own link denies it. Hillary appears to be popular among all economic classes, and she's not hiding at all.

I'm not sure how significant the 91% number is, do you? What is typical for a Presidential campaign? Why was the number $100 chosen as the cutoff? How would these numbers look if we included contributions to her SuperPAC? Just because 91% sounds like a high number doesn't mean it is a meaningful number.

Right, the more telling number would be the percentage of the total amount raised that came from donations under $100. Presumably that number is considerably lower.

 

[FlapJacks]

So while Hillary's campaign is leaking stories today bragging about their record-setting fundraising take, here's what Bernie was saying yesterday:

"Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful. Unless we end this disastrous campaign finance system, our government will continue to represent the interests of the few at the expense of the many."

A statement Hillary agrees with. She wants Citizens United overturned.

of course she does, the clintons have all kinds of ways to circumvent campaign laws....overturning CU would create another barrier to entry for any opposition....

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So while Hillary's campaign is leaking stories today bragging about their record-setting fundraising take, here's what Bernie was saying yesterday:

"Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful. Unless we end this disastrous campaign finance system, our government will continue to represent the interests of the few at the expense of the many."

A statement Hillary agrees with. She wants Citizens United overturned.

Except he was talking about Hillary.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

So while Hillary's campaign is leaking stories today bragging about their record-setting fundraising take, here's what Bernie was saying yesterday:

"Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful. Unless we end this disastrous campaign finance system, our government will continue to represent the interests of the few at the expense of the many."

A statement Hillary agrees with. She wants Citizens United overturned.

Except he was talking about Hillary.

Also, Citizens United did not impact the contributions made directly to campaigns. So Sanders was clearly talking about other flaws in the system.ETA: I haven't read Sanders' full statement so I could be wrong about his emphasis.

 

[The_Man]

So while Hillary's campaign is leaking stories today bragging about their record-setting fundraising take, here's what Bernie was saying yesterday:

"Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful. Unless we end this disastrous campaign finance system, our government will continue to represent the interests of the few at the expense of the many."

A statement Hillary agrees with. She wants Citizens United overturned.

This is a good example of what I don't like about Hillary. She publicly claims to want Citizens United overturned even as she continues to benefit from it more than any other candidate, to the point the Center for Public Integrity calls her "the Citizens United candidate."

So, yes, Hillary is a huge beneficiary of the system she claims to decry. But because it's Hillary, her motives must be pure, so it's ok when she does it, even when the exact behavior would be a gross manipulation of democracy if someone else did it.

Let's not forget, it was her campaign that earlier today was boasting about setting the all-time 3-month fundraising record. But again, I guess that was an example of democracy in action, rather than a demonstration of which candidate can hustle the most money from the very richest people.

 

[squistion]

So while Hillary's campaign is leaking stories today bragging about their record-setting fundraising take, here's what Bernie was saying yesterday:

"Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful. Unless we end this disastrous campaign finance system, our government will continue to represent the interests of the few at the expense of the many."

A statement Hillary agrees with. She wants Citizens United overturned.

of course she does, the clintons have all kinds of ways to circumvent campaign laws....overturning CU would create another barrier to entry for any opposition....

Always thinking of protecting the little guy aren't you? From Bernie Sanders for President website:

https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/citizens_united?source=ads_google_150627&gclid=CODgmKnMusYCFQGUaQodG6QBUg

Sign the Petition

It's time for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United

The Supreme Court's decisions in Citizens United and other cases opened the gates to a flood of billions of dollars that threatens to undermine our democracy.

What we need now is a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Add your name to our petition if you agree that our democracy is not for sale.

 

[RCon]

Hillary 2016: She's really only a little less progressive than **** Cheney!

And slightly less douchey! And maybe slightly more corrupt, but that's not... Look, squirrel!

 

[dhockster]

91% of the contributions were $100 or less? But-but- I thought she was the corporate candidate! I've been told that Bernie is who regular people want! Hillary is supposed to be so aloof and removed from the common folks out there and nobody likes her. What's happening here???

91% of the total contribution dollars or 91% of the total number of contributions? Big difference Tim, don't you agree?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

91% of the contributions were $100 or less? But-but- I thought she was the corporate candidate! I've been told that Bernie is who regular people want! Hillary is supposed to be so aloof and removed from the common folks out there and nobody likes her. What's happening here???

91% of the total contribution dollars or 91% of the total number of contributions? Big difference Tim, don't you agree?

The Clinton campaign will also report that 91 percent of the donations it received were $100 or less in value. However, the Clinton aide did not have a total for how many individual donors gave to the campaign.

Let's guess, the 91% figure is not dollars contributed, but it also avoids the issue as there may be relatively few donors as well.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/01/1398282/-Poll-Jeb-leads-among-Republicans-but-Hillary-crushes-them-all

Poll: Jeb! leads among Republicans, but Hillary crushes them all

Here's a poll you won't hear nearly as much about as the ones showing Hillary Clinton with a relatively narrow lead over her possible Republican opponents. The new CNN/ORC poll puts Jeb Bush at the front of the Republican primary field, drawing 19 percent support, with Donald Trump behind him at 12 percent, followed by Mike Huckabee at eight percent, Ben Carson and Rand Paul at seven percent, and Scott Walker and Marco Rubio at six percent. In general election head-to-heads, though, Clinton crushes them all. Let's lay it out so it's easy to see, shall we?

Hillary Clinton 54

Jeb Bush 41

...

It's an early poll and it's a national poll, which are two good reasons not to put too much stock in it as a sign of where the race will be in November 2016. But these results are not open to much question about where the race stands now.

I guess I will point out that yes Hillary has indeed been doing well in the CNN polls and she has been doing consistently well. If Bush is the benchmark (yeay, Clinton v Bush!), in the CNN polls she has been pretty much in that +13 to +17 range since December.

One other thing to point out, and it doesn't undercut the results, but CNN is the only main poller doing "All Voters." They also don't ask re: trustworthiness or how people relate to Hillary. The only reason that matters if at all is as a point of comparison, because it is the Registered Voter and Likely Voter polls with the crosstabs and deeper questioning that have been showing the Demo primary race squeezing to under 10 points in NH and IA. Fwiw the RCP average has also narrowed down from +13 to around +5-6 nationally vs Bush. Hillary is still the odds on favorite to win vs Bush and the field.

 

[The_Man]

Touting this "91 percent of donations were $100 or less" is an effort to inoculate Hillary's campaign vs. Bernie's claims about big money influence, and to falsely make it look like she is enjoying the same kind of grass roots support he is getting.

Disingenuous to begin with, it's even more insincere when you consider it's a stat that was leaked in the exact same breath as the "ZOMG - Hillary raises record amount of $$$!" announcement.

 

[The Commish]

It's an early poll and it's a national poll, which are two good reasons not to put too much stock in it as a sign of where the race will be in November 2016. But these results are not open to much question about where the race stands now.

Love the "Not worth putting much stock in it but I am" shtick....when we hit this phase, we know it's politics season

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Democratic Turnout a '16 Risk Factor, Poll FindsDemocratic voters are skeptics this summer.

They doubt presidential contenders can deliver favored reforms from Washington, no matter how enticing the policy agendas sound. Those doubts depress enthusiasm about next year’s White House contest and could impact turnout for the eventual Democratic nominee.

Those were among early warnings in a survey released Monday of likely 2016 voters, sponsored by Democracy Corps and Women’s Voices, Women Vote Action Fund.

Americans want change and reforms, but “people don’t think any of this is going to happen,” Stan Greenberg, chairman and CEO of polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, said during a reporter roundtable organized by the Christian Science Monitor.

Their skepticism doesn’t turn on the idea of a Democratic nominee who would follow a two-term Democrat, President Obama. “It’s because the old political system is uniquely corrupted” in their eyes, Greenberg said. “What matters is how deep the critique people have about what’s happening in the country, both politically and economically.”

Voters define corruption as money in politics and Washington power brokers who are self-serving and disconnected from everyday Americans and their concerns. This is why Clinton’s wealth, the Clinton Foundation’s fundraising, her decades lived as a VIP, and her missing emails discourage some voters from accepting the leading Democratic candidate as trustworthy, even if they favor the economic and social policies she stakes out.

Overall, the survey found that voters are evenly divided when asked if Democrats or Republicans would do a better job “cleaning up the mess in government” (31 percent each).

In the survey, respondents expressed more favorable feelings about Obama than about Clinton (by eight percentage points), but Clinton is basically matching Obama’s 2012 support among the key elements of the party’s base, and she’s outpacing his support among white unmarried women. Obama did better in 2012 among minority voters, but according to the survey, Clinton does better among white millennial voters. Clinton fell far behind against a generic Republican ticket among working-class white voters without college degrees.

To succeed Obama, a Democratic candidate has to animate secular voters and what Greenberg calls the rising American electorate (unmarried women, people of color, and younger voters). These slices of the population will make up a majority of the total electorate for the first time in 2016, according to the pollster.

Greenberg insisted Clinton’s progressive campaign agenda is not a mirror image of Obama’s governing platform. “I would dispute that Obama was on this agenda” of equal pay, preserving Medicare and Social Security, promoting infrastructure spending, helping working women and reducing college debt burdens, he said, pointing to questions posed to respondents as part of the survey.

“The country doesn’t think he was dealing with this agenda. The first time he really talked about this is this year’s State of the Union” address, Greenberg said firmly.

“This is not his agenda. I actually think Hillary has a big opportunity.”

Asked what Clinton is not talking about that voters want to hear from a candidate, Greenberg said he was struck by how closely the former first lady’s launch speech this month at Roosevelt Island in New York tracked what voters tell pollsters.

“I thought, `Wow, she saw a draft of the questionnaire!’”

Greenberg served as an outside political adviser to President Clinton in the 1990s and calls Hillary Clinton a friend, although he said he is not working for her campaign. Women’s Voices, Women Vote Action Fund, the sponsor of the poll, works to increase the number of progressive Democrats, especially unmarried women, who register to vote and participate in elections.

The Democratic Party’s strategy to hold control of the White House and win congressional seats next year relies on America’s shifting demographics and on voter turnout. But “if the disparity in enthusiasm is not addressed, that strategy is at risk,” Democracy Corps wrote in a synopsis of the findings that began, “Democrats need to give voters a reason to participate.”

The threat comes down to an enthusiasm gap of 19 points between the Democrats who say they are “extremely interested” in the congressional and local races in 2016, and the much more energized GOP voters.

The pollsters surveyed 950 likely voters June 13-17, of which 60 percent were contacted through their cellphones. Focus group interviews May 19 and June 4, both in Florida, supported the findings. The margin of error for the full sample was plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/29/poll_democratic_voters_lack_faith_in_clinton_127177.html

Hillary is the lead horse and likely to win.

However she is perhaps the most flawed presidential candidate since Nixon, and maybe more than Nixon.

This poll is by Democracy Corps and a couple women's interest groups, which are liberal in origin, DemCorps is by Jim Carville IIRC. I think what gets me here is her well discussed strategic decision to follow the Obama model for electoral victory, which is so dependent on voter enthusiasm, and yet she is at -19 in enthusiasm even though apparently she is doing everything right in terms of strategy.

 

[squistion]

Hillary is the lead horse and likely to win.

However

Make that your signature line and you will save hours of cutting and pasting your daily Hillary bashing links until the Democratic convention is held.

 

[Fennis]

So while Hillary's campaign is leaking stories today bragging about their record-setting fundraising take, here's what Bernie was saying yesterday:

Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful. Unless we end this disastrous campaign finance system, our government will continue to represent the interests of the few at the expense of the many.

I understand she thinks she can keep herself secreted away from the world and sweep to the Democratic nomination. But she's actually going to have to campaign at some point, and nothing I've seen so far gives me any confidence in her ability to do so.

91% of all donations under $100. You can continue with the "rich and powerful" theme but your own link denies it. Hillary appears to be popular among all economic classes, and she's not hiding at all.

I'm not sure how significant the 91% number is, do you? What is typical for a Presidential campaign? Why was the number $100 chosen as the cutoff? How would these numbers look if we included contributions to her SuperPAC? Just because 91% sounds like a high number doesn't mean it is a meaningful number.

If Hilary had 100 donors, it would mean 91 gave $100 each for a total of $91,000. The other 9 gave $4,989,888 each. Not sure why that would be impressive.

 

[Fennis]

So while Hillary's campaign is leaking stories today bragging about their record-setting fundraising take, here's what Bernie was saying yesterday:

Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful. Unless we end this disastrous campaign finance system, our government will continue to represent the interests of the few at the expense of the many.

I understand she thinks she can keep herself secreted away from the world and sweep to the Democratic nomination. But she's actually going to have to campaign at some point, and nothing I've seen so far gives me any confidence in her ability to do so.

91% of all donations under $100. You can continue with the "rich and powerful" theme but your own link denies it. Hillary appears to be popular among all economic classes, and she's not hiding at all.

I'm not sure how significant the 91% number is, do you? What is typical for a Presidential campaign? Why was the number $100 chosen as the cutoff? How would these numbers look if we included contributions to her SuperPAC? Just because 91% sounds like a high number doesn't mean it is a meaningful number.

If Hilary had 100 donors, it would mean 91 gave $100 each for a total of $91,000. The other 9 gave $4,989,888 each. Not sure why that would be impressive.

even if I am off by orders of magnitude (which surely I am) with 10,000 donors, her top 9% of donors gave her $50,000 each. Hardly a grass roots fundraising effort she is trying to make it out to be, with almost 98% of her total is raised by the top 9%.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

So while Hillary's campaign is leaking stories today bragging about their record-setting fundraising take, here's what Bernie was saying yesterday:

Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful. Unless we end this disastrous campaign finance system, our government will continue to represent the interests of the few at the expense of the many.

I understand she thinks she can keep herself secreted away from the world and sweep to the Democratic nomination. But she's actually going to have to campaign at some point, and nothing I've seen so far gives me any confidence in her ability to do so.

91% of all donations under $100. You can continue with the "rich and powerful" theme but your own link denies it. Hillary appears to be popular among all economic classes, and she's not hiding at all.

I'm not sure how significant the 91% number is, do you? What is typical for a Presidential campaign? Why was the number $100 chosen as the cutoff? How would these numbers look if we included contributions to her SuperPAC? Just because 91% sounds like a high number doesn't mean it is a meaningful number.

If Hilary had 100 donors, it would mean 91 gave $100 each for a total of $91,000. The other 9 gave $4,989,888 each. Not sure why that would be impressive.

The max any person can give directly to a candidate is $5400.

 

[FlapJacks]

Democratic Turnout a '16 Risk Factor, Poll Finds

Democratic voters are skeptics this summer.

They doubt presidential contenders can deliver favored reforms from Washington, no matter how enticing the policy agendas sound. Those doubts depress enthusiasm about next year’s White House contest and could impact turnout for the eventual Democratic nominee.

Those were among early warnings in a survey released Monday of likely 2016 voters, sponsored by Democracy Corps and Women’s Voices, Women Vote Action Fund.

Americans want change and reforms, but “people don’t think any of this is going to happen,” Stan Greenberg, chairman and CEO of polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, said during a reporter roundtable organized by the Christian Science Monitor.

Their skepticism doesn’t turn on the idea of a Democratic nominee who would follow a two-term Democrat, President Obama. “It’s because the old political system is uniquely corrupted” in their eyes, Greenberg said. “What matters is how deep the critique people have about what’s happening in the country, both politically and economically.”

Voters define corruption as money in politics and Washington power brokers who are self-serving and disconnected from everyday Americans and their concerns. This is why Clinton’s wealth, the Clinton Foundation’s fundraising, her decades lived as a VIP, and her missing emails discourage some voters from accepting the leading Democratic candidate as trustworthy, even if they favor the economic and social policies she stakes out.

Overall, the survey found that voters are evenly divided when asked if Democrats or Republicans would do a better job “cleaning up the mess in government” (31 percent each).

In the survey, respondents expressed more favorable feelings about Obama than about Clinton (by eight percentage points), but Clinton is basically matching Obama’s 2012 support among the key elements of the party’s base, and she’s outpacing his support among white unmarried women. Obama did better in 2012 among minority voters, but according to the survey, Clinton does better among white millennial voters. Clinton fell far behind against a generic Republican ticket among working-class white voters without college degrees.

To succeed Obama, a Democratic candidate has to animate secular voters and what Greenberg calls the rising American electorate (unmarried women, people of color, and younger voters). These slices of the population will make up a majority of the total electorate for the first time in 2016, according to the pollster.

Greenberg insisted Clinton’s progressive campaign agenda is not a mirror image of Obama’s governing platform. “I would dispute that Obama was on this agenda” of equal pay, preserving Medicare and Social Security, promoting infrastructure spending, helping working women and reducing college debt burdens, he said, pointing to questions posed to respondents as part of the survey.

“The country doesn’t think he was dealing with this agenda. The first time he really talked about this is this year’s State of the Union” address, Greenberg said firmly.

“This is not his agenda. I actually think Hillary has a big opportunity.”

Asked what Clinton is not talking about that voters want to hear from a candidate, Greenberg said he was struck by how closely the former first lady’s launch speech this month at Roosevelt Island in New York tracked what voters tell pollsters.

“I thought, `Wow, she saw a draft of the questionnaire!’”

Greenberg served as an outside political adviser to President Clinton in the 1990s and calls Hillary Clinton a friend, although he said he is not working for her campaign. Women’s Voices, Women Vote Action Fund, the sponsor of the poll, works to increase the number of progressive Democrats, especially unmarried women, who register to vote and participate in elections.

The Democratic Party’s strategy to hold control of the White House and win congressional seats next year relies on America’s shifting demographics and on voter turnout. But “if the disparity in enthusiasm is not addressed, that strategy is at risk,” Democracy Corps wrote in a synopsis of the findings that began, “Democrats need to give voters a reason to participate.”

The threat comes down to an enthusiasm gap of 19 points between the Democrats who say they are “extremely interested” in the congressional and local races in 2016, and the much more energized GOP voters.

The pollsters surveyed 950 likely voters June 13-17, of which 60 percent were contacted through their cellphones. Focus group interviews May 19 and June 4, both in Florida, supported the findings. The margin of error for the full sample was plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/06/29/poll_democratic_voters_lack_faith_in_clinton_127177.htmlHillary is the lead horse and likely to win.

However she is perhaps the most flawed presidential candidate since Nixon, and maybe more than Nixon.

This poll is by Democracy Corps and a couple women's interest groups, which are liberal in origin, DemCorps is by Jim Carville IIRC. I think what gets me here is her well discussed strategic decision to follow the Obama model for electoral victory, which is so dependent on voter enthusiasm, and yet she is at -19 in enthusiasm even though apparently she is doing everything right in terms of strategy.

Most flawed ever...a strong track record of failure...probably the least successful major candidate in the race...

 

[Gopher State]

With Bush the guy for the GOP, Hillary wins big. I havenot voted DFL the past four elections, I will vote Clinton this time

 

[squistion]

So while Hillary's campaign is leaking stories today bragging about their record-setting fundraising take, here's what Bernie was saying yesterday:

Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful. Unless we end this disastrous campaign finance system, our government will continue to represent the interests of the few at the expense of the many.

I understand she thinks she can keep herself secreted away from the world and sweep to the Democratic nomination. But she's actually going to have to campaign at some point, and nothing I've seen so far gives me any confidence in her ability to do so.

91% of all donations under $100. You can continue with the "rich and powerful" theme but your own link denies it. Hillary appears to be popular among all economic classes, and she's not hiding at all.

I'm not sure how significant the 91% number is, do you? What is typical for a Presidential campaign? Why was the number $100 chosen as the cutoff? How would these numbers look if we included contributions to her SuperPAC? Just because 91% sounds like a high number doesn't mean it is a meaningful number.

If Hilary had 100 donors, it would mean 91 gave $100 each for a total of $91,000. The other 9 gave $4,989,888 each. Not sure why that would be impressive.

The max any person can give directly to a candidate is $5400.

Oof.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If Hilary had 100 donors, it would mean 91 gave $100 each for a total of $91,000.

I'm having trouble replicating your math.

 

[Fennis]

If Hilary had 100 donors, it would mean 91 gave $100 each for a total of $91,000.

I'm having trouble replicating your math.

Where was an abacus when I needed one.

 

[Fennis]

So while Hillary's campaign is leaking stories today bragging about their record-setting fundraising take, here's what Bernie was saying yesterday:

Elections should be determined by who has the best ideas, not who can hustle the most money from the rich and powerful. Unless we end this disastrous campaign finance system, our government will continue to represent the interests of the few at the expense of the many.

I understand she thinks she can keep herself secreted away from the world and sweep to the Democratic nomination. But she's actually going to have to campaign at some point, and nothing I've seen so far gives me any confidence in her ability to do so.

91% of all donations under $100. You can continue with the "rich and powerful" theme but your own link denies it. Hillary appears to be popular among all economic classes, and she's not hiding at all.

I'm not sure how significant the 91% number is, do you? What is typical for a Presidential campaign? Why was the number $100 chosen as the cutoff? How would these numbers look if we included contributions to her SuperPAC? Just because 91% sounds like a high number doesn't mean it is a meaningful number.

If Hilary had 100 donors, it would mean 91 gave $100 each for a total of $91,000. The other 9 gave $4,989,888 each. Not sure why that would be impressive.

The max any person can give directly to a candidate is $5400.

Well, that's a problem. I expect to see a Saints post on Clintons violation of campaign fundraising law, quoting me.

 

[RCon]

Directly to a candidate is different than donating to a PAC or super-PAC, right? Aren't PAC donations more or less unlimited?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Directly to a candidate is different than donating to a PAC or super-PAC, right? Aren't PAC donations more or less unlimited?

Right, I was talking about candidate campaigns, which is what Hillary reported. There are limits on donations to regular PACs that are engaged in federal election activity. There are no contribution limits to SuperPACs.

 

[The Commish]

Directly to a candidate is different than donating to a PAC or super-PAC, right? Aren't PAC donations more or less unlimited?

Pretty much...which is Fennis' point (minus the small multiplication error). It still stands.