What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
One benefit to Hillary of running against Sanders specifically is that she hasn't really had to tack too far to the left yet.  Sanders is SO far to her left that she's mostly been able to play the role of sensible center-left moderate rather than coopt policy positions that might hurt her in a general election.

 
So far, Hillary has only won one more delegate than Sanders (52 vs. 51) not counting Super Delegates.  She will pick up most of SC 53 delegates, but still the lead is small.  On Super Tuesday there will be 1007 delegates up for grabs.  Hillary has strong leads in 5 states and a small lead in one.  Sanders has a large lead in one and a small lead in one.  Three states do not have polls or any recent polls (Bama, Ark, and Col).  Even with a great day, Hillary may win about 650 of the roughly 1000 delegates, so Bernie gets 350.    The race at that point is only 700 to 400.  A nice lead, but a long long ways to go.  There are 4819 total delegates with about 712 as Super Delegates (Hillary has about 450 in her camp).  So there is about 4100 delegates decided in the state primaries/caucuses.  2383 delegates are needed to win, even with Super Delegates Hillary will not even be half-way there.  Super Tuesday is not going to end this.  She will not even be half way towards the finish line, with National polls showing Sanders starting to get a lead. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Well, this is true, if you ignore the fact that on every major issue that has been stressed by Trump, Hillary takes the exact opposite view. But other than that...
Click to expand...
Well...when both candidates have been on both sides of issues...I am not sure how fair this is.

 
chauncey said:
What are super delegates?
Click to expand...
superdelegates_sac0213cd_zps231gfo1h.jpg


 
Assuming none of these states are all or nothing, I see Sanders doing a bit better than the polling suggests, winning 4 states and the delegates being split roughly 550 to 450 favoring Hillary.  But most these states favor Hillary demographically, so there will be better opportunities for Sanders ahead. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Assuming none of these states are all or nothing, I see Sanders doing a bit better than the polling suggests, winning 4 states and the delegates being split roughly 550 to 450 favoring Hillary.  But most these states favor Hillary demographically, so there will be better opportunities for Sanders ahead. 
Click to expand...
That's why I said the media narrative/public perception of these results are crucial.

 
chauncey said:
What are super delegates?
Click to expand...
They are truly amazing.  Able to ignore all Demicratic principles and annoint the establishment candidate.  

BTW, Super Tuesday is really more super for the GOP.   About 1/4th of their delegates are awarded vs. about 1/6th for the Dems.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find it interesting that many of the HRC supporters seem to believe that because she has been battle tested over the last 25 years by the vast right wing conspiracy that she will hold up well with Trump.  I think there was some chatter in this thread yesterday about how some of you don't think the email scandal will get any play. You think the voters don't really care about it, etc.

For many months I have been saying that the political calculus on this election cycle is all wrong. And though much of my analysis has really zeroed in on the GOP side...I have been echoing similar refrains for the general election.

And this is not a dig or a put down, but some of you guys keep on wanting to believe what you want to believe. Even though you are shown to be wrong over and over, you still stick to the idea that your next opinion will be right. It is like a political martingale system being employed by so many people here and in the pundit class. All over. It is incredible.

In this every thread...I am pretty sure it was the case, where people were talking about how Bill Clinton would eviscerate Trump. Others were talking about how Trump's infidelities would hurt him, etc. Hillary trots out the "war on women" card in January I think (hard to remember) and Trump basically destroyed her and bill in that exchange.

It was crickets. Why? Let's examine this because it is a template for how this is going to play out in the general.

First and foremost, though HRC has been bashed for decades by the right, she and her husband were inoculated by the press. Yeah..there was some stuff they HAD to cover...but they pushed nearly everything under the rug. The media aided and abetted them. Now...if you want to disagree with me...that is fine...I am not going to debate the obvious. Keep observing things through that prism.

So, the attacks she faced were never full force broadsides. It was just the right wing attacking HRC for political reasons.

Trump crosses over into the mainstream unlike any other candidate in American history. About 20% of the electorate weren't even born or old enough to even know what happened between Bill and these women. And the SJWs have become so strong on the left that they have already moved past gobbling up the Thomas Jefferson's of the world. They have moved on to William Jefferson Clinton's era. 

The other factor that nobody seems to have processed is that Trump is technically a politician. He is running for office after all. But...he isn't a politician in the eyes of the American people. Even the ones that hate him. And what does this mean? It means that he is not subject to being held to the same standards as other politicians in this race or any race before it.

People know he is bombastic. They know he is a character. They know he is a shrewd business animal who is going to do whatever he can to win. I would think twice of him if he was paying a lot of taxes. That isn't winning.

He is going to bring up issues that HRC long thought were dead and buried (pun intended) and there is an entire generation of voters who don't like her, don't trust her, and they will be shocked to learn that all of these things were allowed to happen and not really get vetted by the media. All of the American institutions in this country are under attack and looked at with skepticism...including the media.

Trump is the most dangerous GOP candidate that the Dems could ever face. HRC and the GOP losers are like the British Red Coats standing in a column and trying to fight the dishonorable American rebels who were engaging in ambushes, hiding behind trees and donning the uniforms of their opponents. 

It is going to be a massacre.





 
jon_mx said:
So far, Hillary has only won one more delegate than Sanders (52 vs. 51) not counting Super Delegates.  She will pick up most of SC 53 delegates, but still the lead is small.  On Super Tuesday there will be 1007 delegates up for grabs.  Hillary has strong leads in 5 states and a small lead in one.  Sanders has a large lead in one and a small lead in one.  Three states do not have polls or any recent polls (Bama, Ark, and Col).  Even with a great day, Hillary may win about 650 of the roughly 1000 delegates, so Bernie gets 350.    The race at that point is only 700 to 400.  A nice lead, but a long long ways to go.  There are 4819 total delegates with about 712 as Super Delegates (Hillary has about 450 in her camp).  So there is about 4100 delegates decided in the state primaries/caucuses.  2383 delegates are needed to win, even with Super Delegates Hillary will not even be half-way there.  Super Tuesday is not going to end this.  She will not even be half way towards the finish line, with National polls showing Sanders starting to get a lead. 
Click to expand...
Your "what if" is the very definition of being "over".  Sanders simply can't fall 30 pledged delegates behind, yet alone 300.

 
My Spidie sense is telling me that some Republicans might start gravitating to a "vote for the crook" vote for Hillary this year.

Something about seeing David Duke endorse and call out his minions for Trump just creates this sense in me, I've seen it before. It will happen.

Now, the funny part will be when Hillary's carnivorous sense for pandering starts to pick up this scent and she will have to almost instinctively reach out for GOP sensibilities, assuming of course if she gets past Sanders.

 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/mrs-clinton-show-voters-those-transcripts.html?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone&_r=1


Mrs. Clinton, Show Voters Those Transcripts


Everybody does it,” is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential candidate. But that is Hillary Clinton’s latest defense for making closed-door, richly-paid speeches to big banks, which many middle-class Americans still blame for their economic pain, and then refusing to release the transcripts.

A televised town hall on Tuesday was at least the fourth candidate forum in which Mrs. Clinton was asked about those speeches. Again, she gave a terrible answer, saying that she would release the transcripts “if everybody does it, and that includes the Republicans.”

In November, she implied that her paid talks for the Wall Street firms were part of helping them rebuild after the 9/11 attacks, which “was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists.”

In a debate with Bernie Sanders on Feb. 4, Mrs. Clinton was asked if she would release the transcripts, and she said she would “look into it.” Later in February, asked in a CNN town hall forum why she accepted $675,000 for speeches to Goldman Sachs, she got annoyed, shrugged, and said, “That’s what they offered,” adding that “every secretary of state that I know has done that.”

At another town hall, on Feb. 18, a man in the audience pleaded, “Please, just release those transcripts so that we know exactly where you stand.” Mrs. Clinton had told him, “I am happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same, because every other candidate in this race has given speeches to private groups.”

On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton further complained, “Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?”

The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally earning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries.

Voters have every right to know what Mrs. Clinton told these groups. In July, her spokesman Nick Merrill said that though most speeches were private, the Clinton operation “always opened speeches when asked to.” Transcripts of speeches that have been leaked have been pretty innocuous. By refusing to release them all, especially the bank speeches, Mrs. Clinton fuels speculation about why she’s stonewalling.

Her conditioning her releases on what the Republicans might or might not do is mystifying. Republicans make no bones about their commitment to Wall Street deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Mrs. Clinton is laboring to convince struggling Americans that she will rein in big banks, despite taking their money.

Besides, Mrs. Clinton is not running against a Republican in the Democratic primaries. She is running against Bernie Sanders, a decades-long critic of Wall Street excess who is hardly a hot ticket on the industry speaking circuit. The Sanders campaign, asked if Mr. Sanders also received fees for closed-door speeches, came up with two from two decades ago that were not transcribed: one to a hospital trade association, and one to a college, each for less than $1,000. Royalties from a book called “The Speech,” Mr. Sanders’s eight-hour Senate floor diatribe against President Obama’s continuation of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, were donated to the nonprofit Addison County Parent/Child Center in Vermont.

The hazards of Mrs. Clinton, a presidential hopeful, earning more than $200,000 each for dozens of speeches to industry groups were clear from the start. Mrs. Clinton was making paid speeches when she hired consultants to vet her own background in preparation for a run. If they didn’t flag this, they weren’t doing their jobs.

Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public — not the candidate — who decides how much disclosure is enough. By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules. Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House.
Click to expand...

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The server is an actual smoking gun though. If a friend of yours is shot dead and the police show up at your door and seize a gun you own that's not a good sign for you.
Click to expand...
The server is completely irrelevant until it has been determined that the presence of classified information in her emails represent "mishandling classified information" from a legal or even procedural perspective.  From the perspective that matters email is a non secured system and it is always an inappropriate vehicle for communicating classified information.  If so determined that the presence represents wrong doing the server would make things worst, but it wouldn't alter anything if she behaved according to standards with her email activities.

Or, it has been determined that the server was purposefully used to thwart FOIA request.  That the State Department's inability to find her emails early on was a function of a conspiracy rather than lack of appropriate information being available to the people that matter.  Whether "forwarding to a .gov" account is a reasonable "understanding" of compliance with archival standards, even if inaccurate.  Less important, but interesting is whether anyone at the State Department really told her that they found 90% of what she delivered once they knew how to look.

Generally when I see stuff such as "on her unsecured server" or "repository of classified information" or "a backdoor to the secured government networks" or similar I really take the rest of what that person is saying with a grain of salt.   You'd be hard pressed to find very many articles that don't jump to these,

That being said, I explained early on that Hillary should have expected that non secured communication like email would at least occasionally, if not regularly be tainted by the presence of classified information when she was considering private email and a private server.  Especially in the State Department which, at least culturally is not part of the intelligence community and thus has a different mindset  But you rejected the premise that Hillary should have expected inadvertent breaches, so the manner in which using a private server showed poor judgment to me is off the table for you. 

As for your analogy...

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
The server is completely irrelevant until it has been determined that the presence of classified information in her emails represent "mishandling classified information" from a legal or even procedural perspective.  From the perspective that matters email is a non secured system and it is always an inappropriate vehicle for communicating classified information.  If so determined that the presence represents wrong doing the server would make things worst, but it wouldn't alter anything if she behaved according to standards with her email activities.

Or, it has been determined that the server was purposefully used to thwart FOIA request.  That the State Department's inability to find her emails early on was a function of a conspiracy rather than lack of appropriate information being available to the people that matter.  Whether "forwarding to a .gov" account is a reasonable "understanding" of compliance with archival standards, even if inaccurate.  Less important, but interesting is whether anyone at the State Department really told her that they found 90% of what she delivered once they knew how to look.

Generally when I see stuff such as "on her unsecured server" or "repository of classified information" or "a backdoor to the secured government networks" or similar I really take the rest of what that person is saying with a grain of salt.   You'd be hard pressed to find very many articles that don't jump to these,

That being said, I explained early on that Hillary should have expected that non secured communication like email would at least occasionally, if not regularly be tainted by the presence of classified information when she was considering private email and a private server.  Especially in the State Department which, at least culturally is not part of the intelligence community and thus has a different mindset  But you rejected the premise that Hillary should have expected inadvertent breaches, so the manner in which using a private server showed poor judgment to me is off the table for you. 

As for your analogy...
Click to expand...


Wouldn't you agree that the FBI doesn't going around seizing tangible things which they consider "irrelevant" to their investigations?

 
I've blasted her many times for political error after political error over the last year, but she absolutely should not release the transcripts until after she is no longer running against Robin Hood.

She probably had the audacity to suggest that Wall Street could play a vital role in getting our economy back on track and working for everyone. No place for comments like that in the current environment. 

All you need to do right now is run out the clock. Can't make waves by releasing transcripts. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Wouldn't you agree that the FBI doesn't going around seizing tangible things which they consider "irrelevant" to their investigations?
Click to expand...
Once it was determined that just one email, yet alone those original four stored on the server, on the thumb drive, on backups, on State Department server(s) had classified information it of course became relevant to the security referral.   That is of course a long way from your "smoking gun" and is contrary to nothing I posted.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
That being said, I explained early on that Hillary should have expected that non secured communication like email would at least occasionally, if not regularly be tainted by the presence of classified information when she was considering private email and a private server.  Especially in the State Department which, at least culturally is not part of the intelligence community and thus has a different mindset  But you rejected the premise that Hillary should have expected inadvertent breaches, so the manner in which using a private server showed poor judgment to me is off the table for you. 
Click to expand...
Grrr, damned quoting function... this is of course BFS.

Anyway.

Ok maybe I said that, I believe you. I certainly recall you discussing the wiping/deletion issue and the ways that class info could leap from one server to an unclass.

I think I reject it as an acceptable defense for Hillary. First of all the year and a half review of past SOS's archives turned up two classified emails for Powell, both below secret level, both State confidential and not IC, none for Rice and none for Albright. In 12 years. Hillary of course is looking at 1700+ and something like 80 or so above secret in 4 years.

Secondly, it allows Hillary to sidestep the issue of how this was happening. It brings it into negligence. I don't know how this could happen so frequently and so egregiously unless it was a purposeful instruction from Hillary to her aides. And then you have the retention of that documentation afterwards, for which there is zero excuse.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Once it was determined that just one email, yet alone those original four stored on the server, on the thumb drive, on backups, on State Department server(s) had classified information it of course became relevant to the security referral.   That is of course a long way from your "smoking gun" and is contrary to nothing I posted.  
Click to expand...
Security referral?

BFS, please.

The FBI does law enforcement investigations and they seize personal property when it is evidence in crimes. This isn't the Geek Squad.

 
Dear Ms. McLeod:

I am writing to update my September 21, 2015, response to your letter dated September 2, 2015, regarding Judicial Watch v. Department of State, 13-cv-1363 (D.D.C.), and your request for information pursuant to the Court’s Order of August 20, 2015. At that time, I informed you that the FBI could neither confirm nor deny the existence of any on-going investigation. Since that time, in public statements and testimony, the Bureau has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server. The FBI has not, however, publically acknowledged the specific focus, scope or potential targets of any such proceedings. Thus, while the FBI’s response to you has changed to some degree due to these intervening events, we remain unable to provide the requested information without adversely affecting on-going law enforcement efforts.
Click to expand...
s/ FBI. Filed in federal court by the State Department, signed by the FBI.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SID - You are tenacious on this HRC email issue. I love the dedication. :thumbup:

This is the only place I go to for news on this particular scandal.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Grrr, damned quoting function... this is of course BFS.

Anyway.

Ok maybe I said that, I believe you. I certainly recall you discussing the wiping/deletion issue and the ways that class info could leap from one server to an unclass.

I think I reject it as an acceptable defense for Hillary. First of all the year and a half review of past SOS's archives turned up two classified emails for Powell, both below secret level, both State confidential and not IC, none for Rice and none for Albright. In 12 years. Hillary of course is looking at 1700+ and something like 80 or so above secret in 4 years.

Secondly, it allows Hillary to sidestep the issue of how this was happening. It brings it into negligence. I don't know how this could happen so frequently and so egregiously unless it was a purposeful instruction from Hillary to her aides. And then you have the retention of that documentation afterwards, for which there is zero excuse.
Click to expand...
Egregiously?  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Doesn't contradict anything.  
Click to expand...
Ok it's a floor wax and a desert topping. It's a security referral and a law enforcement action, no doubt they're running around trying to see where these little bits of radioactive data have flown to. And no doubt they have had to tell agents, informants and allies they have been compromised too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Your "what if" is the very definition of being "over".  Sanders simply can't fall 30 pledged delegates behind, yet alone 300.
Click to expand...
That was just a worst case number.  Hillary may win a couple states by a 30 point margin, but that is not happening everywhere. In fact Bernie will win a few.  But with nearly 3000 votes still to be decided, Bernie could make up that margin if he started winning states by about 10 points. I really don't see Hillary adding more than 100 points to her lead on Super Tuesday.  I have no idea why you think 30 delegate lead is insurmountable in a race with over 4000 delegates.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In general election Florida matchups:

-  Clinton tops Trump 46 - 41 percent.

- Sanders beats Trump 46 - 41 percent.
Click to expand...
This is an old poll (Oct. 7) but illustrates what really matters - battleground states.

Democrats could win by getting Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok it's a floor wax and a desert topping. It's a security referral and a law enforcement action, no doubt they're running around trying to see where these little bits of data have flown to. And no doubt they have had to tell agents, informants and allies they have been compromised too.
Click to expand...
Which would be true if Hillary had used GMail or Yahoo instead of a private server.  Which would be true if Hillary had used the .gov account that probably was never even created.  Your "smoking gun" is irrelevant!

Now of course what evidence other than idle speculation by numerous "experts" who have not seen the emails providing fodder for articles that any of that last sentence has actually happened?  

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
263K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 1, guests: 2)
Back
Top