Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (26 Viewers)

[timschochet]

oh....ok

It won't be a big bump- it appears, from this latest poll, that much of the unification has already happened. But there are still some holdouts, hoping for an indictment or some miracle that will make Bernie the nominee. Most of these will end up voting for Hillary too I believe. 

 

[TobiasFunke]

You gotta give Commish a little slack this morning. He just lost the one thing he was leaning on hardest yesterday to show that Clinton was as bad as Trump; his theory that she wanted to "take away a Constitutional right without due process or consulting with other branches of government" or whatever:




 

Donald J. Trump Verified account ‏@realDonaldTrump


I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.

Sad!

 

[saintfool]

well, to be fair, he's only *meeting* with the NRA to discuss this. 

 

[The Commish]

You gotta give Commish a little slack this morning. He just lost the one thing he was leaning on hardest yesterday to show that Clinton was as bad as Trump; his theory that she wanted to "take away a Constitutional right without due process or consulting with other branches of government" or whatever:




 




Sad!

Pretty confident I've NEVER made a serious comparison of these two dopes.  Their crappiness is independent of one another.  She made a vague statement that you had to read a ton into just for it to make sense.  I was reading it at face value.  I postulated zero theories and made a logical assumption based on the vague statement.  I'm sorta surprised she hasn't come out and "clarified" her comment given the absurdity of it when taken at face value.

 

[The Commish]

And I'll say for the 10th time, I have no problem with people on these watch lists being restricted as long as the method of being placed on these watch lists is done in the correct manner.  As of today, the FBI just puts people on the list based on the information they know.  There is no due process.  I'm not sure this list engages the judicial system in any formal way (though I could be wrong I guess)  Relying on a list formed in that fashion is absurd.

 

[pantagrapher]

So how come nobody's talking about the Bloomberg poll? This is the first meaningful head to head poll we've had in this election cycle, because it's the first time we've had a poll featuring two presumptive nominees. And Hillary has a double digit lead. 

Back when we had meaningless polls showing a tight race between Trump and Clinton (meaningless because Hillary was still fighting it out with Sanders at the time) there were dozens of posts in here about how weak a candidate Hillary was, how she was going to lose the election, etc. etc. Now? Silence. 

The hand wringing about polls was obviously concern trolling.

 

[The Commish]

TF, if you'd like to discuss this further we can take it to the Presidential campaign thread.  I believe this thread is reserved for the important topics like why Hillary has to yell in large venues and why Trump is an idiot.....TIA

 

[TobiasFunke]

TF, if you'd like to discuss this further we can take it to the Presidential campaign thread.  I believe this thread is reserved for the important topics like why Hillary has to yell in large venues and why Trump is an idiot.....TIA

Nah, I just thought the timing was hilarious considering how you used her support for a restriction yesterday to argue that both candidates were terrible. I understand that there are other reasons you think Clinton is terrible and don't care to hear you explain it for the 500th time.

I do kind of think it's kind of funny that you fight so hard against the influence of money and special interests in politics and yet you have bought hook, line and sinker into perhaps the biggest and most successful money/special interest lobbying effort of the 20th century- the NRA convincing the public and ultimately the government that the Second Amendment affords individuals the right to buy and own guns.  But we can save that little nugget for after the election

 

[pantagrapher]

The NRA is also largely responsible for the fact that whatever mechanisms are in place for background checks, etc. are woefully inadequate and underfunded. So then they get to say "Well, we'd love to support background checks and keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, but darned if Big Government isn't too darned incompetent to handle such an important responsibility."

 

[squistion]

So how come nobody's talking about the Bloomberg poll? This is the first meaningful head to head poll we've had in this election cycle, because it's the first time we've had a poll featuring two presumptive nominees. And Hillary has a double digit lead. 

Back when we had meaningless polls showing a tight race between Trump and Clinton (meaningless because Hillary was still fighting it out with Sanders at the time) there were dozens of posts in here about how weak a candidate Hillary was, how she was going to lose the election, etc. etc. Now? Silence. 

Because it doesn't fit the narrative of the Hillary haters that nobody really likes her and she can't win the general election. 

You could make a sure bet (but not with jon_mx if you want to get paid) that as soon as any future polls come out showing Trump with a lead, the "Nobody likes Hillary, she can't win!" crowd will return with a vengeance.

 

[The Commish]

Nah, I just thought the timing was hilarious considering how you used her support for a restriction yesterday to argue that both candidates were terrible. I understand that there are other reasons you think Clinton is terrible and don't care to hear you explain it for the 500th time.

I do kind of think it's kind of funny that you fight so hard against the influence of money and special interests in politics and yet you have bought hook, line and sinker into perhaps the biggest and most successful money/special interest lobbying effort of the 20th century- the NRA convincing the public and ultimately the government that the Second Amendment affords individuals the right to buy and own guns.  But we can save that little nugget for after the election

I don't think I have ever given my views on the NRA or the second amendment here in the FFA, so I'm not sure what you're basing this comment on, but I can assure you, you aren't close to my views on guns or the NRA.  What you've posted here is of your own creation based on "off the cuff" comments at best.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't think I have ever given my views on the NRA or the second amendment here in the FFA, so I'm not sure what you're basing this comment on, but I can assure you, you aren't close to my views on guns or the NRA.  What you've posted here is of your own creation based on "off the cuff" comments at best.

I thought when you talked about Clinton taking away a "Constitutional right" without due process yesterday, the "Constitutional right" to which you referred was the right to keep and bear arms. If I misunderstood I apologize.

 

[The Commish]

I thought when you talked about Clinton taking away a "Constitutional right" without due process yesterday, the "Constitutional right" to which you referred was the right to keep and bear arms. If I misunderstood I apologize.

I am.  However, there's a difference between my beliefs and what the SCOTUS has ruled.  My comment about rights was within the lens of what the SC has said on this matter, not because I necessarily believe the 2nd Amendment says personally.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I am.  However, there's a difference between my beliefs and what the SCOTUS has ruled.  My comment about rights was within the lens of what the SC has said on this matter, not because I necessarily believe the 2nd Amendment says personally.

I think my interpretation was fair, but this also makes sense.  Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[The Commish]

I am.  However, there's a difference between my beliefs and what the SCOTUS has ruled.  My comment about rights was within the lens of what the SC has said on this matter, not because I necessarily believe the 2nd Amendment says personally.

I think my interpretation was fair, but this also makes sense.  Thanks for clearing it up.

Certainly wasn't unfair...just wrong  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So how come nobody's talking about the Bloomberg poll? This is the first meaningful head to head poll we've had in this election cycle, because it's the first time we've had a poll featuring two presumptive nominees. And Hillary has a double digit lead. 

Back when we had meaningless polls showing a tight race between Trump and Clinton (meaningless because Hillary was still fighting it out with Sanders at the time) there were dozens of posts in here about how weak a candidate Hillary was, how she was going to lose the election, etc. etc. Now? Silence. 

Because it doesn't fit the narrative of the Hillary haters that nobody really likes her and she can't win the general election. 

You could make a sure bet (but not with jon_mx if you want to get paid) that as soon as any future polls come out showing Trump with a lead, the "Nobody likes Hillary, she can't win!" crowd will return with a vengeance.

Tim, Squiz, I was the first to post that poll, I think Squiz and I even discussed it. Squiz had a great follow up point about the NeverTrump number being at 55. Which, to me, reminds me of one of those situations where the city council announces it has 4 votes out of 7 before the hearing even takes place. That is to say it's practically a done deal already.

 

[squistion]

Tim, Squiz, I was the first to post that poll, I think Squiz and I even discussed it. Squiz had a great follow up point about the NeverTrump number being at 55. Which, to me, reminds me of one of those situations where the city council announces it has 4 votes out of 7 before the hearing even takes place. That is to say it's practically a done deal already.

True dat. But you post polls all the time, so you don't count.  

Seriously, I think Tim was saying that it just didn't get the response from the usual suspects that we are accustomed to seeing.

 

[squistion]

Nate Silver on how Trump's mindset may benefit Hillary in the general election:

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 3h3 hours ago

Trump, by all appearances, learns by rote rather than being an abstract thinker, and I think he learned some bad habits in the primaries. 1/

In a 17-way primary, Trump's ability to dominate every news cycle paid dividends. With just 2 candidates, not as helpful, can be harmful. 2/

In the primaries, Trump just had to hold on to his plurality and keep opponents off-balance. Now? He's behind & base isn't big enough. 3/

In the primaries, Trump had the element of surprise, ran gadget plays. Now? Clinton's seen his playbook and had 6-9 months to prepare. 3/

Trump can win: it's early, polls fluctuate, Clinton has problems. But can he win without a change of course? Recent data says maybe not. 4/

Not only is Trump not pivoting—he seems to think the primaries proved pivoting is for losers and that he shouldn't change a thing. /5

 

[squistion]

From Kos of Daily Kos:

Open primaries? No, no and hell no

Bernie Sanders wants electoral reforms. 

• Same-day voter registration
  
• Enough staffing and training to allow people to vote in a timely fashion 
  
• Make sure the votes get counted
  

And then there's this one, which we'll quote directly.

• "We need real electoral reform within the Democratic Party. And that means — among many, many other things — open primaries. The idea that in the state of New York, the great state of New York, 3 million people could not participate in helping to select who the Democratic or Republican candidate for president would be because they had registered as an independent not as a Democrat or a Republican is incomprehensible.”
  

There’s no problem with the first three bullet points, though those are all based on state law and elections machinery. The Democratic Party has no control over them, which is why I now advocate for the party to wholly take over the primary process. 

But the idea that it is “incomprehensible” that non-Democrats get to choose the Democratic nominee is, well, incomprehensible.

There is no point to a political party unless that party can decide for itself who represents it. It costs nothing to register as a Democrat (or Republican). No one even knows which party you register under. The only reason to register as an independent is because you think you are too good or pure or uncorrupted to be a member of a party. And if that’s the case? Good for you! We are all duly impressed. So shiny and perfect!

But #### you, you don’t get to pick our candidates.



I don’t walk into a Shriners meeting, tell them they all suck and I hate their fez hats and cool stupid little parade cars, then demand a say in who leads the organization. That would be absurd and I’d be laughed out of the room. So why would anyone think differently about political parties? Yeah, I’m laughing Bernie’s idea out of the room. 
You want a say in who a party nominates, join it. If you are too cool to join it, then you are too cool to have a say. Simple. Period. End of story. 

 Of course, Sanders’ list doesn’t include caucuses, which are an abomination of democracy and dramatically depressed turnout (and I wrote that piece before the Nebraska and Washington non-binding primaries, which had dramatically bigger turnout than the caucuses—even though they did not matter). I wonder why the guy who insisted on everyone voting would suddenly clamp down when discussing those undemocratic caucuses? [...]

It’s hard to take anyone seriously when their prescription to fix a broken primary process is focused nearly exclusively on the things that hurt him, and completely glosses over and ignores the ####ed up things that helped him. 

The process is ####ed and broken, but the solution doesn’t lie in a one-sided, biased assessment of what went wrong. It requires an honest top-to-bottom review, and Sanders didn’t offer that. 

As for open primaries? Hell no. If you want a say, join the party. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

"We need real electoral reform within the Democratic Party. And that means — among many, many other things — open primaries. The idea that in the state of New York, the great state of New York, 3 million people could not participate in helping to select who the Democratic or Republican candidate for president would be because they had registered as an independent not as a Democrat or a Republican is incomprehensible.”

I actually agree with you and Kos here. Parties should be in charge of who they are as parties. I think some sort of place between DWS's tight fisted machinations and Preibus' loopy pollyanna welcoming of party hijackers could probably be arrived at though.

 

[squistion]

I actually agree with you and Kos here. Parties should be in charge of who they are as parties. I think some sort of place between DWS's tight fisted machinations and Preibus' loopy pollyanna welcoming of party hijackers could probably be arrived at though.

Actually that was a Bernie quote that Kos and I disagreed with, but I understand the point you were making.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Marquette University out with a new poll that has it 46-37 -- so yesterday's 12pt lead maybe not as big an outlier as it looked.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Marquette University out with a new poll that has it 46-37 -- so yesterday's 12pt lead maybe not as big an outlier as it looked.

The poll was just for Wisconsin I think.  A 9 point lead for Clinton in blue-leaning and Trump-hating Wisconsin is not necessarily great news. It's not terrible but it's definitely not as good as a 12 point national lead.

I think the one good takeaway for Clinton it is that it pokes a very small hole in the theory that Trump can turn midwestern predominantly white states that have voted blue in the last few elections. He still might, but if nothing else this shows he has a ways to go to get it done.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The poll was just for Wisconsin I think.  A 9 point lead for Clinton in blue-leaning and Trump-hating Wisconsin is not necessarily great news. It's not terrible but it's definitely not as good as a 12 point national lead.

I think the one good takeaway for Clinton it is that it pokes a very small hole in the theory that Trump can turn midwestern predominantly white states that have voted blue in the last few elections. He still might, but if nothing else this shows he has a ways to go to get it done.

Looks like you're right.  Sorry about that.

 

[Riversco]

The eternak problem democrats face every election is that the eviscerate the republican nominee to the point where the bar is set very very low for them in the debates.  That could be in play here if the democrats try to bury trump for the next few months and then trump excels in the debate and gets a strong rally late.

 

[dparker713]

From Kos of Daily Kos:

Open primaries? No, no and hell no

Bernie Sanders wants electoral reforms. 

• Same-day voter registration
  
• Enough staffing and training to allow people to vote in a timely fashion 
  
• Make sure the votes get counted
  

And then there's this one, which we'll quote directly.

• "We need real electoral reform within the Democratic Party. And that means — among many, many other things — open primaries. The idea that in the state of New York, the great state of New York, 3 million people could not participate in helping to select who the Democratic or Republican candidate for president would be because they had registered as an independent not as a Democrat or a Republican is incomprehensible.”
  

There’s no problem with the first three bullet points, though those are all based on state law and elections machinery. The Democratic Party has no control over them, which is why I now advocate for the party to wholly take over the primary process. 

But the idea that it is “incomprehensible” that non-Democrats get to choose the Democratic nominee is, well, incomprehensible.

There is no point to a political party unless that party can decide for itself who represents it. It costs nothing to register as a Democrat (or Republican). No one even knows which party you register under. The only reason to register as an independent is because you think you are too good or pure or uncorrupted to be a member of a party. And if that’s the case? Good for you! We are all duly impressed. So shiny and perfect!

But #### you, you don’t get to pick our candidates.



I don’t walk into a Shriners meeting, tell them they all suck and I hate their fez hats and cool stupid little parade cars, then demand a say in who leads the organization. That would be absurd and I’d be laughed out of the room. So why would anyone think differently about political parties? Yeah, I’m laughing Bernie’s idea out of the room. 
You want a say in who a party nominates, join it. If you are too cool to join it, then you are too cool to have a say. Simple. Period. End of story. 

 Of course, Sanders’ list doesn’t include caucuses, which are an abomination of democracy and dramatically depressed turnout (and I wrote that piece before the Nebraska and Washington non-binding primaries, which had dramatically bigger turnout than the caucuses—even though they did not matter). I wonder why the guy who insisted on everyone voting would suddenly clamp down when discussing those undemocratic caucuses? [...]

It’s hard to take anyone seriously when their prescription to fix a broken primary process is focused nearly exclusively on the things that hurt him, and completely glosses over and ignores the ####ed up things that helped him. 

The process is ####ed and broken, but the solution doesn’t lie in a one-sided, biased assessment of what went wrong. It requires an honest top-to-bottom review, and Sanders didn’t offer that. 

As for open primaries? Hell no. If you want a say, join the party. 

Then stop using my tax dollars for your private club.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Looks like you're right.  Sorry about that.

FWIW Obama won Wisconsin by about 7 points in 2012.  So if Clinton is currently outperforming that margin vs Trump in a state with only a 3% Hispanic population, that's pretty good.  Like I said it pokes a hole in the argument that he can put certain blue-leaning states in play just by virtue of their demographics.

However, there was also a whole weird saga with Wisconsin conservatives and Trump before the primary.  Their two most popular GOP politicians (Trump and Walker) and their most popular talk radio host all hate him, Cruz beat him by double digits in the primary.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

FWIW Obama won Wisconsin by about 7 points in 2012.  So if Clinton is currently outperforming that margin vs Trump in a state with only a 3% Hispanic population, that's pretty good.  Like I said it pokes a hole in the argument that he can put certain blue-leaning states in play just by virtue of their demographics.

However, there was also a whole weird saga with Wisconsin conservatives and Trump before the primary.  Their two most popular GOP politicians (Trump and Walker) and their most popular talk radio host all hate him, Cruz beat him by double digits in the primary.

Trump created bitterness in Utah too.

 

[squistion]

Then stop using my tax dollars for your private club.

The tax dollars that are a voluntary donation on your IRS form? Talk to your representative of Congress on that, maybe you get the law changed.

In the meantime, as Kos pointed out, it doesn't cost anything to be become a member of a political party. You want a say in the Democratic party, then join the club and register as a Democrat. Like most Democrats I don't want Republicans or Independents that have no loyalty or allegiance to the party choosing the Democratic nominee - I want Democrats being the ones making that decision.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Trump created bitterness in Utah too.

Yup, and a poll a couple days ago showed Clinton tied with him there, which is just mind-blowing.  Good on the Mormons, I guess.

 

[Sand]

Because it doesn't fit the narrative of the Hillary haters that nobody really likes her and she can't win the general election. 

No one likes her.  But, unless the FBI slaps some serious charges on her (definitely non-zero chance), I don't think Trump sniffs 200 electoral votes.

 

[The Commish]

The tax dollars that are a voluntary donation on your IRS form? Talk to your representative of Congress on that, maybe you get the law changed.

In the meantime, as Kos pointed out, it doesn't cost anything to be become a member of a political party. You want a say in the Democratic party, then join the club and register as a Democrat. Like most Democrats I don't want Republicans or Independents that have no loyalty or allegiance to the party choosing the Democratic nominee - I want Democrats being the ones making that decision.

No, I think he's talking about the federal tax dollars in the presidential campaign fund.  DWS had proposed legislation to get back at that money.  I don't think the current legislation was in place for an election cycle before she tried to reverse it back to the way it was.  Our tax dollars have gone to both the GOP and DNC for a long time prior to that blip.

 

[cobalt_27]

No one likes her.  But, unless the FBI slaps some serious charges on her (definitely non-zero chance), I don't think Trump sniffs 200 electoral votes.

This.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Then stop using my tax dollars for your private club.

Henry uses this theory and with all due respect I don't get that. Governments built public roads but that does not mean they own your car. It's for the states' good that they manage elections but it does not mean they control everything that goes on within them. The election in November is an open season, plurality wins..

 

[dparker713]

The tax dollars that are a voluntary donation on your IRS form? Talk to your representative of Congress on that, maybe you get the law changed.

In the meantime, as Kos pointed out, it doesn't cost anything to be become a member of a political party. You want a say in the Democratic party, then join the club and register as a Democrat. Like most Democrats I don't want Republicans or Independents that have no loyalty or allegiance to the party choosing the Democratic nominee - I want Democrats being the ones making that decision.

Seeing as the natural equilibrium of our government is a two party system, I want everyone to be eligible to vote in both parties' primaries.  Maybe then we can get some people that don't suck.

 

[dparker713]

Henry uses this theory and with all due respect I don't get that. Governments built public roads but that does not mean they own your car. It's for the states' good that they manage elections but it does not mean they control everything that goes on within them. The election in November is an open season, plurality wins..

Why does the government only conduct primaries for the Republicans and the Democrats?  You've already got the polling stations set up, with electronic voting, how much harder is it to have more parties on the ballots?  And seeing as you're not even voting for candidates - you're voting for delegates that can do whatever they want without legal consequence - how is this a good for the state?  

Only the parties benefit from the primaries, so they should pay for their own crap, or it should be open to the public.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Seeing as the natural equilibrium of our government is a two party system, I want everyone to be eligible to vote in both parties' primaries.  Maybe then we can get some people that don't suck.

What you'll get is the same flagrant corruption and party boss system that led states to conduct these elections in the first place.

 

[timschochet]

Rumor on the radio this morning, Hillary is interested in David Petraeus for VP.

 

[msommer]

Debatable 

It's debatable that you are a sane, rational, intelligent person?

Interesting.

 

[squistion]

Why does the government only conduct primaries for the Republicans and the Democrats?  You've already got the polling stations set up, with electronic voting, how much harder is it to have more parties on the ballots?  And seeing as you're not even voting for candidates - you're voting for delegates that can do whatever they want without legal consequence - how is this a good for the state?  

Only the parties benefit from the primaries, so they should pay for their own crap, or it should be open to the public.

It is open to the public, to anyone who is old enough and registers to vote. Register in the Democratic Party if you want to vote for the Democratic nominee. Register in the Republican Party if you want to vote for the Republican nominee. Register as an Independent if don't want any party affiliation. If you can't register for a party, don't expect to pick their nominee, otherwise there really would be point for anyone to join a political party, as there would be no benefits.

And to quote Kos again from the prior page:

I don’t walk into a Shriners meeting, tell them they all suck and I hate their fez hats and cool stupid little parade cars, then demand a say in who leads the organization. That would be absurd and I’d be laughed out of the room. So why would anyone think differently about political parties? Yeah, I’m laughing Bernie’s idea out of the room. 

You want a say in who a party nominates, join it. If you are too cool to join it, then you are too cool to have a say. Simple. Period. End of story. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

It's debatable that you are a sane, rational, intelligent person?

Interesting.

You can do better than that. 

 

[jon_mx]

This discussion bores me.  Anything new on the emails?   The wiki leaks coukd be fun.  

 

[jon_mx]

You can do better than that. 

That is debatable.  

 

[msommer]

You can do better than that. 

Why, thank you for your vote of confidence 

Save the big guns for the big targets is my motto, though

 

[The Commish]

What's with all these terrible analogies?

 

[Trey]

See I'm for opening up the primaries a bit. Same day registration and party switching is fine by me. But you need to be a registered Dem when you fill that ballot out. Use it for party building and generating a list of names to keep engaged in off year elections.

 

[dparker713]

It is open to the public, to anyone who is old enough and registers to vote. Register in the Democratic Party if you want to vote for the Democratic nominee. Register in the Republican Party if you want to vote for the Republican nominee. Register as an Independent if don't want any party affiliation. If you can't register for a party, don't expect to pick their nominee, otherwise there really would be point for anyone to join a political party, as there would be no benefits.

And to quote Kos again from the prior page:

I don’t walk into a Shriners meeting, tell them they all suck and I hate their fez hats and cool stupid little parade cars, then demand a say in who leads the organization. That would be absurd and I’d be laughed out of the room. So why would anyone think differently about political parties? Yeah, I’m laughing Bernie’s idea out of the room. 

You want a say in who a party nominates, join it. If you are too cool to join it, then you are too cool to have a say. Simple. Period. End of story. 

 Yours are or theirs are, not both.  We're paying for both, we should have access to both.  

 

[timschochet]

This discussion bores me.  Anything new on the emails?   The wiki leaks coukd be fun.  

Name a policy position that you agree with Hillary on. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Telltyawhat considering that Russian hackers just dumped the DNC's oppo report on Trump to the live web, I'm starting to reconsider this wikileak thing, if it is *something then IMO don't discount Russian government purposeful efforts to affect our election, probably a first in US history. I'm really hoping or expecting the answer is no it won't be anything. But this DNC hack and dump is scary stuff. 

 

[The Commish]

 Yours are or theirs are, not both.  We're paying for both, we should have access to both.