Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (8 Viewers)

[The Commish]

Have you ever explained our opposition to Bernie's trade policies and his attempts to protect us as individuals?

I don't understand: you want me to explain YOUR opposition? 

If you want me to explain MY opposition, I have several times but its' not too complicated: I believe that overall free trade is more beneficial to this nation than it is harmful, and that stopping it is more harmful than it is beneficial. 

The Y was missing...glad you got that figured out.  On to the question though.  So we've established previously that actual completely "free trade" is as real as unicorns.  Knowing this and understanding that regulations are always in place in just about every country, at what point does the "individuals" component of the equation come into play for you?  Right now, "beneficial to this nation" is coming on the backs of the individuals.  You don't have a problem with that?

 

[The Commish]

Hillary's answer on fracking tonight is yet another reason why I prefer her over Bernie. Bernie is opposed to fracking and means to shut it down. Hillary is concerned about fracking but specifically about certain aspects of fracking, and she notes the limited power she has as President vs. the power of the states. And she recognizes the economic consequences of simply shutting it down even if we could. 

In other words, Bernie's answer was clear. Hillary's was unclear. A lot of people want clear answers, and if they do they should vote for Bernie (or Trump.) I want my leaders to recognize that not everything has a clear answer, and that there are nuances and subtleties and you need to be thoughtful and pragmatic. I recognize that in these populist times that could very well be a losing approach. Still it's the approach that I want. 

ETA: Also loved her discussion about a Trump Presidency and what it would mean. 

Tim...."nuance" isn't using a bunch of words where a few will do.  I wish she'd have explained how on one hand she wants to significantly reduce methane gas and on the other support fracking.  I wish I'd have copied down her energy policies off her web page a couple weeks ago.  It's completely different today (just went looking for a quote from her I had seen a few days ago) than it was a couple weeks ago.  Looks like she's been busy promising a lot more stuff

 

[Sinn Fein]

Whats Wrong with Hillary?

Jeff Greenfield piece on Politico.  Pretty even-handed look at the problems facing Clinton on the road to the election.  He concludes:

But … if the discontent with the economy persists in the fall, or even deepens should the woes of China and Europe reach our shores, there is no Democrat more in the cross-hairs of an angry electorate than Clinton. Everything from her Wall Street financial links to her work as secretary of state become targets of opportunity. Those targets, further, are independent of the more obvious vulnerabilities: the possibility (remote as of now) of an FBI criminal referral; the eagerness of Trump to rebut any charge of misogyny by revisiting the most serious charges of “predator” (Bill) and “enabler” (Hillary) that put some of Bill’s past behavior outside the boundaries of “private” matters.

The polls and the gamblers now say such concerns are misplaced; that the broad American electorate will simply not put so manifestly unqualified and unfit a candidate as Donald Trump in charge of our nuclear codes. But as I wrote here seven months ago, every once in a while, voters discover they have the power to do something they have never done before; and that discovery itself becomes a significant political force. Should that happen, Democrats will need a candidate well-positioned to resist that power.

It’s far from clear that Hillary Clinton is that candidate.

 

[pantagrapher]

Jeff Greenfield piece on Politico.  Pretty even-handed look at the problems facing Clinton on the road to the election.  He concludes:

But … if the discontent with the economy persists in the fall, or even deepens should the woes of China and Europe reach our shores, there is no Democrat more in the cross-hairs of an angry electorate than Clinton. Everything from her Wall Street financial links to her work as secretary of state become targets of opportunity. Those targets, further, are independent of the more obvious vulnerabilities: the possibility (remote as of now) of an FBI criminal referral; the eagerness of Trump to rebut any charge of misogyny by revisiting the most serious charges of “predator” (Bill) and “enabler” (Hillary) that put some of Bill’s past behavior outside the boundaries of “private” matters.

I'm all for examining Hillary's weaknesses, but I have a hard time understanding why you'd call this "even-handed." It's basically a summary of every anti-Hillary screed we've been reading for months.

 

[timschochet]

Yes, Greenfield's article was well written. And he makes much of Hillary's negatives which by now all of us are very much aware of- it's a constant drumbeat. Yet he also acknowledged that it's very likely she will be our next President. 

 

[pantagrapher]

Sanders commercials here have been better than Hillary's. The strong ground game is also obvious. Two visits and two phone calls from Sanders folks. Nothing from the Hillary side.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I'm all for examining Hillary's weaknesses, but I have a hard time understanding why you'd call this "even-handed." It's basically a summary of every anti-Hillary screed we've been reading for months.

Its even-handed because its not a hit piece, its not a pro-bernie piece, its not a pro-Trump or GOP piece - but just an observation of the issues facing Clinton by a disinterested party - who happens to have a pretty good history in political reporting.  

Yes, it points out what many of us have been saying - but that is just the reality that many Clinton supporters have been ignoring.

 

[timschochet]

Did any of you guys watch Hillary's town hall last night on CNN? She was a little tired, and perhaps that made her less guarded, but she seemed very warm and likable. She also displayed an incredible amount of knowledge. 

I really think she is going to make a very good President. What's more, I believe she is a very good person. I wish some of you could get over your distrust and see that. 

 

[timschochet]

Sanders commercials here have been better than Hillary's. The strong ground game is also obvious. Two visits and two phone calls from Sanders folks. Nothing from the Hillary side.

Where is "here"? (On my phone) 

 

[Guest]

Whats Wrong with Hillary?

Jeff Greenfield piece on Politico.  Pretty even-handed look at the problems facing Clinton on the road to the election.  He concludes:

But … if the discontent with the economy persists in the fall, or even deepens should the woes of China and Europe reach our shores, there is no Democrat more in the cross-hairs of an angry electorate than Clinton. Everything from her Wall Street financial links to her work as secretary of state become targets of opportunity. Those targets, further, are independent of the more obvious vulnerabilities: the possibility (remote as of now) of an FBI criminal referral; the eagerness of Trump to rebut any charge of misogyny by revisiting the most serious charges of “predator” (Bill) and “enabler” (Hillary) that put some of Bill’s past behavior outside the boundaries of “private” matters.

The polls and the gamblers now say such concerns are misplaced; that the broad American electorate will simply not put so manifestly unqualified and unfit a candidate as Donald Trump in charge of our nuclear codes. But as I wrote here seven months ago, every once in a while, voters discover they have the power to do something they have never done before; and that discovery itself becomes a significant political force. Should that happen, Democrats will need a candidate well-positioned to resist that power.

It’s far from clear that Hillary Clinton is that candidate.

Unless she is indicted or something else changes radically beyond what's above, I don't see the election being all that close.  Yes, up to 40% of the 40% of Republicans will make it to the polls and pull for Trump, but that number is capped. Maybe he draws 50 million votes.  Because the election will be a referendum on Trump, I think at least 60% of the 50% that are Democrats show and vote for Hillary, at least half holding their noses but really voting against Trump.  That's 100 million votes, or 2x Trump.  Now factor is the additional <10%.  Even if they ALL went for Trump, he still loses in what amounts to a landslide.

The sad thing is that the same dynamics would play for Bernie or Biden or any other candidate who doesn't lug a legacy of deceit and pandering.  But can't see this as being close, and if anything Trump's rising antics and the sentiment of violence and hate brewing ensures a ring fence around his base and will stoke more voters outside of that fence to show up and vote when they may otherwise not be inspired. 

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

I really think she is going to make a very good President. What's more, I believe she is a very good person.

This is breaking news!

 

[Sinn Fein]

Did any of you guys watch Hillary's town hall last night on CNN? She was a little tired, and perhaps that made her less guarded, but she seemed very warm and likable. She also displayed an incredible amount of knowledge. 

I really think she is going to make a very good President. What's more, I believe she is a very good person. I wish some of you could get over your distrust and see that. 

All shtick aside - this is not an important attribute for a president.  This is important if you are a policy wonk working behind the scenes.  If you are president, you don't need knowledge, you need to have good people behind you, and you need to trust and empower them.  Then, you need to be able to make sound judgments based on the knowledge of others.  For all of her knowledge, she has made a number of terrible decisions whether it is foreign policy, or domestic policy.

 

[timschochet]

All shtick aside - this is not an important attribute for a president.  This is important if you are a policy wonk working behind the scenes.  If you are president, you don't need knowledge, you need to have good people behind you, and you need to trust and empower them.  Then, you need to be able to make sound judgments based on the knowledge of others.  For all of her knowledge, she has made a number of terrible decisions whether it is foreign policy, or domestic policy.

I don't agree on either count. I think knowledge helps. I think the sheer ignorance of Donald Trump is very dangerous. 

And as you know, I firmly dispute your claim of Hillary's lack of competence and judgment with regard to either foreign or domestic policy. In both cases I strongly prefer her judgment to that of your candidate. 

 

[pantagrapher]

Where is "here"? (On my phone) 

Chicago

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Did any of you guys watch Hillary's town hall last night on CNN? She was a little tired, and perhaps that made her less guarded, but she seemed very warm and likable. She also displayed an incredible amount of knowledge. 

I really think she is going to make a very good President. What's more, I believe she is a very good person. I wish some of you could get over your distrust and see that. 

You're poisoning your brain by watching this stuff.  Between talk radio, evening cable news, and political debates, you're living on an intellectual diet of donuts and fritos.  

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The weekend brouhaha didn't do a thing to the odds...unchanged from Friday:

Hillary   61.8%
Trump     22.6%
Sanders    7.3%
Cruz       3.7%
Kasich     2.8%
Rubio      1.9%

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't agree on either count. I think knowledge helps. I think the sheer ignorance of Donald Trump is very dangerous. 

And as you know, I firmly dispute your claim of Hillary's lack of competence and judgment with regard to either foreign or domestic policy. In both cases I strongly prefer her judgment to that of your candidate. 

I think SF's points are valid but the normal, rational discussion points are ridiculous vs Trump now. One of the most annoying facets of watching Trump interviews are the lack of what why where how who questions. I mean we can all say Hillary and the other GOP & Dem candidates are wrong or show terrible judgement but at least they are aware of basic facts details and rationales. Trump is a guy who said he's as rich as he feels. Ludicrous.

 

[timschochet]

I think SF's points are valid but the normal, rational discussion points are ridiculous vs Trump now. One of the most annoying facets of watching Trump interviews are the lack of what why where how who questions. I mean we can all say Hillary and the other GOP & Dem candidates are wrong or show terrible judgement but at least they are aware of basic facts details and rationales. Trump is a guy who said he's as rich as he feels. Ludicrous.

ALL normal discussion points are invalid now, I agree. Trump changes everything. That's why I wrote that all that talk before about Bernie being a socialist doesn't matter anymore. Bernie is no less electable than Hillary. Because Trump is on the other side. 

 

[Bukkeye_State]

You're poisoning your brain by watching this stuff.  Between talk radio, evening cable news, and political debates, you're living on an intellectual diet of donuts and fritos.  

What's the over/under on posts where Tim repeats himself and says Hillary would make a good President? 10,000?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm waiting for some enterprising talk show host or reporter to ask Trump about the current situation in Kraplakistan or Tomainia and see what he says.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

ALL normal discussion points are invalid now, I agree. Trump changes everything. That's why I wrote that all that talk before about Bernie being a socialist doesn't matter anymore. Bernie is no less electable than Hillary. Because Trump is on the other side. 

Someone in here a while back predicted Donald would call Sanders a communist. They were right. But yeah I think Dems should be consistent here, if Donald is so absurdly a bad candidate then yeah might as well go Sanders if they believe in him and his policies.

 

[timschochet]

What's the over/under on posts where Tim repeats himself and says Hillary would make a good President? 10,000?

Let's work hard on making that happen. Hillary would make a superb President. What's the count? Shall I do it again? 

 

[timschochet]

Someone in here a while back predicted Donald would call Sanders a communist. They were right. But yeah I think Dems should be consistent here, if Donald is so absurdly a bad candidate then yeah might as well go Sanders if they believe in him and his policies.

At this point I got no problem with it. If you think Bernie is better by all means vote for him. 

 

[squistion]

Someone in here a while back predicted Donald would call Sanders a communist. They were right. But yeah I think Dems should be consistent here, if Donald is so absurdly a bad candidate then yeah might as well go Sanders if they believe in him and his policies.

I wonder who that was?

 

[Gr00vus]

The weekend brouhaha didn't do a thing to the odds...unchanged from Friday:

Hillary   61.8%
Trump     22.6%
Sanders   7.3%
Cruz     3.7%
Kasich     2.8%
Rubio     1.9%

Is 7.3% a high water mark for Sanders? I can't recall him having a higher number in any of your previous updates.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I wonder who that was?

Could likely have been you, if so you were right. 

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Is 7.3% a high water mark for Sanders? I can't recall him having a higher number in any of your previous updates.

I think that's close to where he's been for awhile.  May have gone from 14-1 to 12-1 or something like that, but that's a really small move in % terms.

 

[Trey]

Looking at the upcoming primary map..

Tomorrow should be a good day for Clinton then she plays defense for a while. But April 26th should be the dagger of sorts when NY PA and MD all have closed primaries.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm just gonna leave this here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Looking at the upcoming primary map..

Tomorrow should be a good day for Clinton then she plays defense for a while. But April 26th should be the dagger of sorts when NY PA and MD all have closed primaries.

Some stats for you:
 

Contests so far w/ D turnout 100% of 2008 or greater:

Bern 51.1%, HRC 47.1%

80-99%:

Bern 50.7%, HRC 46.9%

Sub-80%: HRC 68.3%, Bern 30.4%

Huge split in Dem race so far

Primaries:

Hillary 9-4, 60.0% of vote, Bernie 38.2%

Caucuses:

Bernie 5-3, 57.9% of vote, Hillary 41.8%.

 

[Trey]

@SaintsInDome2006 two things on the above posts:

A. I prefer my politicians to be genial and friendly and collegiate amongst each other. I'd like to see a similar photo with Speaker Ryan someday in all honesty.

B. I don't have the data to back it up but I believe Clinton has won overwhelming among Democrats but has lot amongst Is and Rs thus the closed nature of the April 26 slate is going to hurt Bernie no matter the turnout. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

@SaintsInDome2006 two things on the above posts:

A. I prefer my politicians to be genial and friendly and collegiate amongst each other. I'd like to see a similar photo with Speaker Ryan someday in all honesty.

B. I don't have the data to back it up but I believe Clinton has won overwhelming among Democrats but has lot amongst Is and Rs thus the closed nature of the April 26 slate is going to hurt Bernie no matter the turnout. 

A - Actually I agree. I'd like our politicians to be congenial too. I'm not sure everyone would view that photo as we do though. Also have to remember that people who have lived in the White House share a rare common bond, they've experienced weird things and trials no one else can relate to. It's a small club.

B - You may be right. I was hoping to plot that somehow into the forthcoming states but that's pretty complicated, I just thought they were interesting trends.

 

[Smack Tripper]

@SaintsInDome2006 two things on the above posts:

A. I prefer my politicians to be genial and friendly and collegiate amongst each other. I'd like to see a similar photo with Speaker Ryan someday in all honesty.

B. I don't have the data to back it up but I believe Clinton has won overwhelming among Democrats but has lot amongst Is and Rs thus the closed nature of the April 26 slate is going to hurt Bernie no matter the turnout. 

This woman has defined republicans as her number one enemy in the world. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Clinton leads Bernie Sanders just 46/41 in Ohio and 48/45 in Illinois, while narrowly trailing Sanders in Missouri 47/46. Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri are all open primary states and Sanders is benefiting from significant support from independent voters and a small swath of Republicans planning to vote in each state, putting him in position to potentially pull an upset sweep of the region on Tuesday night.

- PPP

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/PPP_March_15_Dem_Surveys.pdf

 

[Trey]

- PPP

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/PPP_March_15_Dem_Surveys.pdf

Very interesting. The Indy appeal is obvious. I wonder if the R crossover is shenanigans or legit.

 

[The Kerminator]

I saw today that the Grand Dragon of the KKK endorsed Hillary. Not sure how anyone can support a racist like Hillary.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Very interesting. The Indy appeal is obvious. I wonder if the R crossover is shenanigans or legit.

It might be both, a mix. I think the protectionist message has to be resonating and I think his good government/ethics message could appeal to people who see no real alternativ or maybe want to send a message to the establishment or Hillary.

Supposedly there has been crossover from Hillary to Trump because of the favored opponent strategic voting argument. Same thing could also happen with R's and Sanders I guess.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Huma to Hillary, Subject: "Koch"

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05797224.pdf

:whoosh:

 

[SIDA!]

I posted this in the Bernie thread, but didn't get a response. Very low energy over there right now. So, I am going to copy and paste it here to see if anyone wants to whack it around a bit.

----

Wanted to throw out a scenario that I have been mulling over in my head. Obviously, Tuesday will go a long way towards validating whether or not the following is possible.

It seems to me that with the Michigan upset, and if Tuesday shakes out in Bernie's favor, that Bernie may in fact take the momentum in the race such that he starts winning more and more states but due to proportionality fails to capture a majority of the delegates because she has crushed him in some states with high delegate counts.

Do any of you see a scenario whereby the Dem Party realizes that Bernie is the candidate with the momentum and even though he doesn't get the delegate count he is the more favored candidate?

For example, before the BCS playoff system it was often common for a young NCAA football team to get tripped up early in the season. However, by the time they reached the end of the season one could consider them one of the best teams in the country. However, due to those early losses and the structure of the system, they would not be allowed to play for the championship.

What happens if say Bernie wins 30 of the 50 states?

 

[timschochet]

I posted this in the Bernie thread, but didn't get a response. Very low energy over there right now. So, I am going to copy and paste it here to see if anyone wants to whack it around a bit.

----

Wanted to throw out a scenario that I have been mulling over in my head. Obviously, Tuesday will go a long way towards validating whether or not the following is possible.

It seems to me that with the Michigan upset, and if Tuesday shakes out in Bernie's favor, that Bernie may in fact take the momentum in the race such that he starts winning more and more states but due to proportionality fails to capture a majority of the delegates because she has crushed him in some states with high delegate counts.

Do any of you see a scenario whereby the Dem Party realizes that Bernie is the candidate with the momentum and even though he doesn't get the delegate count he is the more favored candidate?

For example, before the BCS playoff system it was often common for a young NCAA football team to get tripped up early in the season. However, by the time they reached the end of the season one could consider them one of the best teams in the country. However, due to those early losses and the structure of the system, they would not be allowed to play for the championship.

What happens if say Bernie wins 30 of the 50 states?

Whoever gets the majority of delegates (not super delegates) wins. The number of states doesn't matter. 

 

[SIDA!]

Whoever gets the majority of delegates (not super delegates) wins. The number of states doesn't matter. 

I assume that that is how it plays out. Going to be interesting though if you look down and see Bernie winning states that are blue/purple and Clinton winning a lot of states that are red and won't go Dem. 

 

 

[Trey]

I assume that that is how it plays out. Going to be interesting though if you look down and see Bernie winning states that are blue/purple and Clinton winning a lot of states that are red and won't go Dem. 

 

Clinton beat Obama in FL OH PA. Obama won lots of red states and small caucuses.

Obama got more pledged delegates. This flipped the supers.

if Sanders wants to be the nominee all he needs to do is win more delegates.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I posted this in the Bernie thread, but didn't get a response. Very low energy over there right now. So, I am going to copy and paste it here to see if anyone wants to whack it around a bit.

----

Wanted to throw out a scenario that I have been mulling over in my head. Obviously, Tuesday will go a long way towards validating whether or not the following is possible.

It seems to me that with the Michigan upset, and if Tuesday shakes out in Bernie's favor, that Bernie may in fact take the momentum in the race such that he starts winning more and more states but due to proportionality fails to capture a majority of the delegates because she has crushed him in some states with high delegate counts.

Do any of you see a scenario whereby the Dem Party realizes that Bernie is the candidate with the momentum and even though he doesn't get the delegate count he is the more favored candidate?

For example, before the BCS playoff system it was often common for a young NCAA football team to get tripped up early in the season. However, by the time they reached the end of the season one could consider them one of the best teams in the country. However, due to those early losses and the structure of the system, they would not be allowed to play for the championship.

What happens if say Bernie wins 30 of the 50 states?

Weirdly enough walls both keep in as well as keep out. It will be an interesting twist if Hillary's firewall hems her largely to the South.

 

[huthut]

I assume that that is how it plays out. Going to be interesting though if you look down and see Bernie winning states that are blue/purple and Clinton winning a lot of states that are red and won't go Dem. 

 

I was wondering this exact same thing. It seems pretty obvious that Clinton will get the south, which probably is not going to go for her during the general election. What happens if one candidate is favored in swing states and another in states that everyone already knows the outcome for. I would rather have the candidate the wins swing states and loses all others when it comes to having an improved chance to win.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Deluded in more ways than one here.

 

[pantherclub]

Let's work hard on making that happen. Hillary would make a superb President. What's the count? Shall I do it again? 

I don't understand how any logical and rational person can sincerely believe this to be true.   This woman is as corrupt and power hungry as any politician in the last 100 years.   

 

[chet]

What a ####. Great article on how she treats people.

 

[The Commish]

Have you ever explained our opposition to Bernie's trade policies and his attempts to protect us as individuals?

I don't understand: you want me to explain YOUR opposition? 

If you want me to explain MY opposition, I have several times but its' not too complicated: I believe that overall free trade is more beneficial to this nation than it is harmful, and that stopping it is more harmful than it is beneficial. 

The Y was missing...glad you got that figured out.  On to the question though.  So we've established previously that actual completely "free trade" is as real as unicorns.  Knowing this and understanding that regulations are always in place in just about every country, at what point does the "individuals" component of the equation come into play for you?  Right now, "beneficial to this nation" is coming on the backs of the individuals.  You don't have a problem with that?

bump

 

[chet]

What a ####. Great article on how she treats people.

More detail on the above.

 

[AnonymousBob]

What a ####. Great article on how she treats people.

Even if that is all true, being a cold, cruel, unlikable jerk doesn't mean she would make for a bad President as the article mentioned at the end. I'm not really interested in holding my next potential President to the standard of being a great McDonald's employee.