Clinton spillage

[burbo]

Another poster types this:

"but we've seen registered independents and swing voters move away from the Democrats in recent years."

I respond with an appropriate, recent poll showing otherwise.

You respond with a non-sequitur.

But since we are changing topics, I'll play.

How do I explain the republican trouncing in 2014? I explain it the same way I explain the republican trouncing of 2010, or the democratic trouncing of 2006 or just about any off-cycle election of the party not in the white house going back decades with few exceptions...particularly at the 6 year mark.

I explain 2016 the same way I explain 2012 and 2008, the dems do better in presidential years because young people and minorities are more likely to vote in a presidential election and that bleeds over into congressional races. republicans do better in off-cycle elections, particularly when they don't control the WH because those electorates skew older and whiter and more male most of the time.

There are exceptions as always, but that is a general pattern that holds up pretty well.

I expect a dem victory across the board in 2016 (except redistricting means it's almost impossible to win back the house). I expect the republicans to make back gains in 2018 in the senate (although I haven't looked to see which 33 percent of seats are in play). IOW, I expect the pattern to hold because I don't see anything transformative to break that pattern one way or the other.

You're partially correct, but I did find this article on Nate Silver's 538 blog.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/voters-were-just-as-diverse-in-2014-as-they-were-in-2008/

Here's a quote from that article "That’s partially because 18- to 29-year-old voters who turned out in 2014 voted Republican by 23 percentage points more than 18- to 29-year-olds in 2008.3" There's also some statistics in that article that show a slightly higher percentage of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians voted Republican in 2014 versus 2008. I'm sure you can argue the point that events or actions since 2014, by Trump as well as other Republican candidates, might very well chase some of those voters back to the Democrat candidate. But it also shows some of the minorities are willing to consider a Republican candidate if they don't see a slam dunk choice on the Democrat side, one that might have some baggage or slightly higher than normal disapproval ratings with Democrat voters(Hillary?).

 

[qazplm]

You're partially correct, but I did find this article on Nate Silver's 538 blog.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/voters-were-just-as-diverse-in-2014-as-they-were-in-2008/

Here's a quote from that article "That’s partially because 18- to 29-year-old voters who turned out in 2014 voted Republican by 23 percentage points more than 18- to 29-year-olds in 2008.3" There's also some statistics in that article that show a slightly higher percentage of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians voted Republican in 2014 versus 2008. I'm sure you can argue the point that events or actions since 2014, by Trump as well as other Republican candidates, might very well chase some of those voters back to the Democrat candidate. But it also shows some of the minorities are willing to consider a Republican candidate if they don't see a slam dunk choice on the Democrat side, one that might have some baggage or slightly higher than normal disapproval ratings with Democrat voters(Hillary?).

The problem with that article is that the racial percentages may be the same from election to election (which I don't believe is true even if 08 compares to 14---one wonders why he didn't throw in 12 or 06) but the volume varies quite a bit, as do the age percentages.

As the article admits, almost half of young voters stayed home 17 v 10 percent, turnout was exceedingly low not just compared to presidential years but almost historically low in 2014 (lowest in 70 years), and as the commenters note correctly comparing 08 to 14 is apples to oranges, a better comparison would be 06 to 14. The older demographics, which skew heavily republican also came out in larger percentages than in 08 or 12.

So cut the youth in half, make the oldest cohorts larger, and guess what kind of election makeup you get?
Watch this election, the youth cohort will rise, the older cohort will fall, and the dems will do better.

The reason why neither side can get a permanent majority is the dems cannot reliably get their voters out in off-cycle elections, and the republicans cannot cut into the youth/minority vote enough when the dems do get those voters to come out.

And thus we see saw back and forth. If either side could square that circle, they'd be fully in charge for awhile.

I would finally point out that Dems have won the popular vote in five out of the last six elections...that suggests something there. I would also point out that the Dems and Reps have done poorly in just about every offcycle election going back to Reagan (and probably before), but where there are outliers IIRC they favor the republicans more than the Dems in those offcycle elections).

 

[BoilerJS]

The problem with that article is that the racial percentages may be the same from election to election (which I don't believe is true even if 08 compares to 14---one wonders why he didn't throw in 12 or 06) but the volume varies quite a bit, as do the age percentages.

As the article admits, almost half of young voters stayed home 17 v 10 percent, turnout was exceedingly low not just compared to presidential years but almost historically low in 2014 (lowest in 70 years), and as the commenters note correctly comparing 08 to 14 is apples to oranges, a better comparison would be 06 to 14. The older demographics, which skew heavily republican also came out in larger percentages than in 08 or 12.

So cut the youth in half, make the oldest cohorts larger, and guess what kind of election makeup you get?
Watch this election, the youth cohort will rise, the older cohort will fall, and the dems will do better.

The reason why neither side can get a permanent majority is the dems cannot reliably get their voters out in off-cycle elections, and the republicans cannot cut into the youth/minority vote enough when the dems do get those voters to come out.

And thus we see saw back and forth. If either side could square that circle, they'd be fully in charge for awhile.

I would finally point out that Dems have won the popular vote in five out of the last six elections...that suggests something there. I would also point out that the Dems and Reps have done poorly in just about every offcycle election going back to Reagan (and probably before), but where there are outliers IIRC they favor the republicans more than the Dems in those offcycle elections).

For me it was her meeting the family members of the brave soulsls

The problem with that article is that the racial percentages may be the same from election to election (which I don't believe is true even if 08 compares to 14---one wonders why he didn't throw in 12 or 06) but the volume varies quite a bit, as do the age percentages.

As the article admits, almost half of young voters stayed home 17 v 10 percent, turnout was exceedingly low not just compared to presidential years but almost historically low in 2014 (lowest in 70 years), and as the commenters note correctly comparing 08 to 14 is apples to oranges, a better comparison would be 06 to 14. The older demographics, which skew heavily republican also came out in larger percentages than in 08 or 12.

So cut the youth in half, make the oldest cohorts larger, and guess what kind of election makeup you get?
Watch this election, the youth cohort will rise, the older cohort will fall, and the dems will do better.

The reason why neither side can get a permanent majority is the dems cannot reliably get their voters out in off-cycle elections, and the republicans cannot cut into the youth/minority vote enough when the dems do get those voters to come out.

And thus we see saw back and forth. If either side could square that circle, they'd be fully in charge for awhile.

I would finally point out that Dems have won the popular vote in five out of the last six elections...that suggests something there. I would also point out that the Dems and Reps have done poorly in just about every offcycle election going back to Reagan (and probably before), but where there are outliers IIRC they favor the republicans more than the Dems in those offcycle elections).

For me you have to go no further than her complete lack of respect for the family members of the brave souls that lost their lives in Benghazi. They did throw the man who made the video in jail.
People make mistakes-fess up to your mistake. The dog ate my homework BS doesn't fly.

 

[Purdue97]

It makes a "damn bit of difference" when you are deciding whether this is something that makes Hillary Clinton "untrustworthy" or not.

You "deal with this every day" thus to you this is an outsized magnitude of importance. I deal with secret material as well. I JUST dealt with improper release of material yesterday. I can't take my darn cell phone into work because the entire floor of my building where I work doesn't allow electronics. Guess which office is involved every single time there's an issue with improper release of material from TS down to PII? JAG, which I lead. So nice try. Accidental spillage happens on a fairly regular basis unfortunately, and we aren't prosecuting or even firing folks left and right for it. It depends on a host of factors.

But I also realize there are all sorts of complexities and intricacies involved, and, once again, it isn't remotely as simple as you want it to be. This wasn't just about "State" it was also about DOD. They most certainly are a classifying authority, and they declined to raise the classification level of something the IC wanted higher for one of the four emails.

And, once again, you've skipped past the point, which is that the concern raised by the IC was NOT Hillary's email usage, it was the FOIA process being used to review her emails.
This is an interdepartmental fight over appropriate FOIA review and handling. It is not a fight over Hillary revealing or sending or doing anything improper with classified materials...which is why the original reports have had to be rewritten since the initial "breaking news" stories.

I've also seen nothing that shows definitively that Hillary sent those emails anywhere, but even if she did, again, it is not clear this isn't an issue of retroactive classification which again fits why the IGs are upset with State and the FOIA process.

From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/07/24/ranking-hillary-clintons-e-mail-problems/

"Congressional Democrats are coming to her rescue, saying the information was classified retroactively after she stepped down as secretary of state."

This last little bit makes sense, and ties in to what I am saying. Something was originally not classified, then someone later says, that should have been classified...eventually it is classified, after Hillary steps down, but BEFORE the FOIA issue arises. The FOIA issue arises and the IC is upset at the FOIA handlers for State (again NOT at Hillary) and raise the issue.

How do we know this? Look at the NY Times reporting:

"In the course of the email review, State Department officials determined that some information in the messages should be retroactively classified. In the 3,000 pages that were released, for example, portions of two dozen emails were redacted because they were upgraded to “classified status.” But none of those were marked as classified at the time Mrs. Clinton handled them."

"In May, the F.B.I. asked the State Department to classify a section of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that related to suspects who may have been arrested in connection with the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The information was not classified at the time Mrs. Clinton received it."

"The inspectors general also criticized the State Department for its handling of sensitive information, particularly its reliance on retired senior Foreign Service officers to decide if information should be classified, and for not consulting with the intelligence agencies about its determinations."

You are determined to make this really simple and clearly about Hillary, when there's little evidence it's either.

That is interesting and it might or might not turn out to be a valid point for all emails. The issue is, this stuff was coming through on a private email server, she was not always using her Govt email, and reportedly had her own lawyers decide what to and what not to delete. Wrong answer.

 

[Purdue97]

You're partially correct, but I did find this article on Nate Silver's 538 blog.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/voters-were-just-as-diverse-in-2014-as-they-were-in-2008/

Here's a quote from that article "That’s partially because 18- to 29-year-old voters who turned out in 2014 voted Republican by 23 percentage points more than 18- to 29-year-olds in 2008.3" There's also some statistics in that article that show a slightly higher percentage of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians voted Republican in 2014 versus 2008. I'm sure you can argue the point that events or actions since 2014, by Trump as well as other Republican candidates, might very well chase some of those voters back to the Democrat candidate. But it also shows some of the minorities are willing to consider a Republican candidate if they don't see a slam dunk choice on the Democrat side, one that might have some baggage or slightly higher than normal disapproval ratings with Democrat voters(Hillary?).

The problem with that article is that the racial percentages may be the same from election to election (which I don't believe is true even if 08 compares to 14---one wonders why he didn't throw in 12 or 06) but the volume varies quite a bit, as do the age percentages.

As the article admits, almost half of young voters stayed home 17 v 10 percent, turnout was exceedingly low not just compared to presidential years but almost historically low in 2014 (lowest in 70 years), and as the commenters note correctly comparing 08 to 14 is apples to oranges, a better comparison would be 06 to 14. The older demographics, which skew heavily republican also came out in larger percentages than in 08 or 12.

So cut the youth in half, make the oldest cohorts larger, and guess what kind of election makeup you get?
Watch this election, the youth cohort will rise, the older cohort will fall, and the dems will do better.

The reason why neither side can get a permanent majority is the dems cannot reliably get their voters out in off-cycle elections, and the republicans cannot cut into the youth/minority vote enough when the dems do get those voters to come out.

And thus we see saw back and forth. If either side could square that circle, they'd be fully in charge for awhile.

I would finally point out that Dems have won the popular vote in five out of the last six elections...that suggests something there. I would also point out that the Dems and Reps have done poorly in just about every offcycle election going back to Reagan (and probably before), but where there are outliers IIRC they favor the republicans more than the Dems in those off cycle elections).

Kind of a long thread, and will say this is where I miss thread view as threads take on different topics.

I would just say that I could as of now, unfortunately see Trump winning as independent with 35% of the vote in a General Election. Why? Well, I do think there is an anybody but another Bush or Clinton type attitude. I think as Trump gets out there more and some of his stances become more known he will dip into the group in the slight left. That big hit I thought was coming from MCCain remark-never happened. Of course it all matters what state(s) he can grab if he is a player or not for the electoral.

It was posted under the thread Trump, but I found some polls that show Bush is well ahead of Clinton with Hispanics in Florida as well as NC. If that is the case he wins that state(FL) and that means this a real tight election. That said, he has to win the primary.

Not sure Clinton gets the same draw as Obama did at or more importantly to the polls. I have heard more than one person say(CNN/NBC/CNBC) that she is just not a good speaker or presenter. One thing I will say about Obama he did manage to do that-get people excited. Hillary not so much. Also, will say the one candidate in this election that is 'exciting' or 'new', and is getting the free air time like Obama did, is by far Trump.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Kind of a long thread, and will say this is where I miss thread view as threads take on different topics.

I would just say that I could as of now, unfortunately see Trump winning as independent with 35% of the vote in a General Election. Why? Well, I do think there is an anybody but another Bush or Clinton type attitude. I think as Trump gets out there more and some of his stances become more known he will dip into the group in the slight left. That big hit I thought was coming from MCCain remark-never happened. Of course it all matters what state(s) he can grab if he is a player or not for the electoral.

It was posted under the thread Trump, but I found some polls that show Bush is well ahead of Clinton with Hispanics in Florida as well as NC. If that is the case he wins that state(FL) and that means this a real tight election. That said, he has to win the primary.

Not sure Clinton gets the same draw as Obama did at or more importantly to the polls. I have heard more than one person say(CNN/NBC/CNBC) that she is just not a good speaker or presenter. One thing I will say about Obama he did manage to do that-get people excited. Hillary not so much. Also, will say the one candidate in this election that is 'exciting' or 'new', and is getting the free air time like Obama did, is by far Trump.

Sad as it is, there is a swath of America and people in politics who think McCain is a clown and don't like him because he is a Hawk, so that idiotic remark might not damage him all that much.

 

[burbo]

Kind of a long thread, and will say this is where I miss thread view as threads take on different topics.

I would just say that I could as of now, unfortunately see Trump winning as independent with 35% of the vote in a General Election. Why? Well, I do think there is an anybody but another Bush or Clinton type attitude. I think as Trump gets out there more and some of his stances become more known he will dip into the group in the slight left. That big hit I thought was coming from MCCain remark-never happened. Of course it all matters what state(s) he can grab if he is a player or not for the electoral.

It was posted under the thread Trump, but I found some polls that show Bush is well ahead of Clinton with Hispanics in Florida as well as NC. If that is the case he wins that state(FL) and that means this a real tight election. That said, he has to win the primary.

Not sure Clinton gets the same draw as Obama did at or more importantly to the polls. I have heard more than one person say(CNN/NBC/CNBC) that she is just not a good speaker or presenter. One thing I will say about Obama he did manage to do that-get people excited. Hillary not so much. Also, will say the one candidate in this election that is 'exciting' or 'new', and is getting the free air time like Obama did, is by far Trump.

And then there's this: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jeb-bush-democratic-donors/2015/07/28/id/659220/

Why are big money Democrats donating to Jeb? Big money follows big money, so to speak. As much rath as the Koch brothers incur from the left, I've read where they do donate money to some Democrats. So it's not the first time that wealthy folks have donated to both sides in a political campaign.

 

[BoilerBiker]

JB would have a better chance of winning under the Democrat ticket

 

[lbodel]

Patraeus lost his job, his reputation, and plead guilty to a misdemeanor. Oh and he wasn't running for president. Maybe we wouldn't talk about it if Hillary came clean and said she did this and, you know, wasn't running for president.

Do you remember the Valerie Plame situation? She was a CIA operative that was publicly outed?

Bush started out saying if anyone in his administration leaked her identity, he would fire that person.

Well, then we found out the Vice President's Chief of Staff was part of it. He was convicted of crimes related to the leak - and sentenced to 30 days in jail. Bush commuted his 30 day sentence.

Then Bush finally did admit people in his administration were involved.

I don't want to play the "everybody does it" card - but Republicans weren't exactly on Bush's ass for this situation. But now these emails are the biggest scandal since Hilary wore a pantsuit? It's a bit dramatic.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

The biggest scandal? Hm. No. No one said that.

 

[Purdue97]

Maybe not the biggest scandal-but in the last 36 hours it is heating up quite a bit. She has fallen in polls pretty hard, Bernie is reportedly ahead of her in NH, this after her team bumped up November adds to now. Not sure why-but she seems to have the hardest time running an engaged campaign. Almost as if her handlers are hiding her.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Maybe not the biggest scandal-but in the last 36 hours it is heating up quite a bit. She has fallen in polls pretty hard, Bernie is reportedly ahead of her in NH, this after her team bumped up November adds to now. Not sure why-but she seems to have the hardest time running an engaged campaign. Almost as if her handlers are hiding her.

As the information about Clinton's emails comes out day-after-day, it's obvious that this is not going away anytime soon. qazplm and lobodel cannot just hand wave this away. The secrets involved some spy satellite-related secrets. I don't know what's worse - the way she handled the emails or the way she's tried to dismiss this issue away as "nothing major".
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/12/the-spy-satellite-secrets-in-hillary-s-emails.html

 

[qazplm]

Yep, I'm hand-waving it away. There is no smoking gun that is going to take out Hillary. Just like there was no Obama scandal that was going to take him down. If you want to beat her, you'll have to do what Obama did, work hard and beat her on the issues, and have better demographics than she has.

Yes, Bernie is ahead of her in the state that neighbors Vermont and that has almost no minorities. I don't think anyone expected her to win all 57 primaries/caucuses. Her lead is holding steady in Iowa of over 50 percent. And the southern primaries follow NH/Iowa. So if she splits the first two, which is what I think at worst happens, she'll sweep most of the Southern ones, and the inevitability theme (for nomination) will return with a vengeance.

 

[Purdue97]

Yep, I'm hand-waving it away. There is no smoking gun that is going to take out Hillary. Just like there was no Obama scandal that was going to take him down. If you want to beat her, you'll have to do what Obama did, work hard and beat her on the issues, and have better demographics than she has.

Yes, Bernie is ahead of her in the state that neighbors Vermont and that has almost no minorities. I don't think anyone expected her to win all 57 primaries/caucuses. Her lead is holding steady in Iowa of over 50 percent. And the southern primaries follow NH/Iowa. So if she splits the first two, which is what I think at worst happens, she'll sweep most of the Southern ones, and the inevitability theme (for nomination) will return with a vengeance.

Not sure you can compare the two. Obama in 08 benefited from a whole host of things. Like her or not, Hilary has the personality and charisma of a piece of cardboard. Obama also benefited from a weak candidate(GE), personality and charisma(which Hilary still does not have) record turnouts, a credit crisis, and two ongoing wars-made it easy to sell hope and change without any specifics. Clinton gets none of that this time around. Obama did not beat anyone on the issues in 08-he was very vague the entire time.

I think we will see a lot in the next week or so. The server Hilary turned in was blank, and her reason for it simply astounding. She said in 2013, she upgraded her email server. I would have thought she would have made sure she was using a top of the line server as SoS. And why not just turn in a blank server 6 months ago or whenever it was it was asked for? At this point, one just has to be party blind to admit or see it is not an issue.

Also, Clinton now is at 50% in IA, Bernie is over 30%, and the major Iowa papers really want to see Biden run.

 

[qazplm]

Not sure you can compare the two. Obama in 08 benefited from a whole host of things. Like her or not, Hilary has the personality and charisma of a piece of cardboard. Obama also benefited from a weak candidate(GE), personality and charisma(which Hilary still does not have) record turnouts, a credit crisis, and two ongoing wars-made it easy to sell hope and change without any specifics. Clinton gets none of that this time around. Obama did not beat anyone on the issues in 08-he was very vague the entire time.

I think we will see a lot in the next week or so. The server Hilary turned in was blank, and her reason for it simply astounding. She said in 2013, she upgraded her email server. I would have thought she would have made sure she was using a top of the line server as SoS. And why not just turn in a blank server 6 months ago or whenever it was it was asked for? At this point, one just has to be party blind to admit or see it is not an issue.

Also, Clinton now is at 50% in IA, Bernie is over 30%, and the major Iowa papers really want to see Biden run.

And yet those "benefits" caused Obama to lose the popular primary vote to Hillary in 08. Look it up. She got more overall votes. The reason she lost was that Obama's team was more competent, and understood better the arcane rules of the caucuses, and thus he ended up with more delegates than she did. That's her fault but this idea that she's somehow unpopular in the Dem party is based on nothing.

No one in the Dem party not a Sanders supporter cares about the emails. You can call it blind all you want. The folks already predisposed to vote for her will still, and the folks in the GE already predisposed to vote dem will as well.

 

[SDBoiler1]

And yet those "benefits" caused Obama to lose the popular primary vote to Hillary in 08. Look it up. She got more overall votes. The reason she lost was that Obama's team was more competent, and understood better the arcane rules of the caucuses, and thus he ended up with more delegates than she did. That's her fault but this idea that she's somehow unpopular in the Dem party is based on nothing.

No one in the Dem party not a Sanders supporter cares about the emails. You can call it blind all you want. The folks already predisposed to vote for her will still, and the folks in the GE already predisposed to vote dem will as well.

You are right that those predisposed to vote for Clinton certainly will, just as people predisposed to vote Republican will. However, this election will likely be decided by "independent" voters. They've gone solidly to Obama the last two elections, but I don't think Clinton will has as strong of an appeal as Obama. Clinton certainly will get her share of the female vote, but the Dems are foolish if they think women will only vote for someone of their gender. Many independent women voters will vote against Hillary because they disagree with her policies or plans. I also think the Dems would be foolish to assume that they will dominate the Latino vote, especially if certain GOP candidates get the nomination (not Trump - LOL, not Huckabee, not Paul, not Christie, probably not Dr. Carson, or Scott Walker). Will the Dems likely get a majority of the Latino vote? Yes. But don't be surprised if the majority isn't as substantial as some on the left seem to think.

 

[qazplm]

You are right that those predisposed to vote for Clinton certainly will, just as people predisposed to vote Republican will. However, this election will likely be decided by "independent" voters. They've gone solidly to Obama the last two elections, but I don't think Clinton will has as strong of an appeal as Obama. Clinton certainly will get her share of the female vote, but the Dems are foolish if they think women will only vote for someone of their gender. Many independent women voters will vote against Hillary because they disagree with her policies or plans. I also think the Dems would be foolish to assume that they will dominate the Latino vote, especially if certain GOP candidates get the nomination (not Trump - LOL, not Huckabee, not Paul, not Christie, probably not Dr. Carson, or Scott Walker). Will the Dems likely get a majority of the Latino vote? Yes. But don't be surprised if the majority isn't as substantial as some on the left seem to think.

There are very few true independent voters. Most who say they are end up voting red or blue on a pretty consistent basis, in fact, some studies suggest "independent" voters who identify with one side/party or the other actually are less likely to stray from that party than folks who actually identify as republican or democrat.

But this isn't about independent voters, it's about demographics. No one said "women will only vote for someone of their gender." What folks are saying is that Hillary will win the women's vote. do you dispute this? Given that women make up over half the electorate (54 percent in 2012), if Hillary gets a majority of them, even if it's say ONLY the same percentage as Obama in 2012 (55 percent) that's a pretty nice lead. Let's say men prefer the eventual republican nominee at the same rate as 2012...that's only 52 percent. That's a gap. It was 12 percent in 2008, it was 18 percent in 2012, and there is zero reason to believe it won't be AT LEAST that much in 2016.

Given her leads among women and AA's, she won't need a "massive lead" among Hispanics, but it will be a lead, and it will be a double digit lead. So to recap, she'll likely have a double digit lead among women, Hispanics, and nearly all AAs. And you think she's not a legit favorite??

 

[SDBoiler1]

There are very few true independent voters. Most who say they are end up voting red or blue on a pretty consistent basis, in fact, some studies suggest "independent" voters who identify with one side/party or the other actually are less likely to stray from that party than folks who actually identify as republican or democrat.

But this isn't about independent voters, it's about demographics. No one said "women will only vote for someone of their gender." What folks are saying is that Hillary will win the women's vote. do you dispute this? Given that women make up over half the electorate (54 percent in 2012), if Hillary gets a majority of them, even if it's say ONLY the same percentage as Obama in 2012 (55 percent) that's a pretty nice lead. Let's say men prefer the eventual republican nominee at the same rate as 2012...that's only 52 percent. That's a gap. It was 12 percent in 2008, it was 18 percent in 2012, and there is zero reason to believe it won't be AT LEAST that much in 2016.

Given her leads among women and AA's, she won't need a "massive lead" among Hispanics, but it will be a lead, and it will be a double digit lead. So to recap, she'll likely have a double digit lead among women, Hispanics, and nearly all AAs. And you think she's not a legit favorite??

Not if she keeps running her campaign the way she has been. She's been her own worst enemy. You said it yourself before - she lost in 2008 to Obama the way she ran her campaign. It could happen again.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Not if she keeps running her campaign the way she has been. She's been her own worst enemy. You said it yourself before - she lost in 2008 to Obama the way she ran her campaign. It could happen again.

I don't see how this is going to go away quickly. Granted, this is an editorial, but if Clinton keeps acting like she's above the law, it could well come back to haunt her.

http://observer.com/2015/08/the-countless-crimes-of-hillary-clinton-special-prosecutor-needed-now/

 

[qazplm]

Not if she keeps running her campaign the way she has been. She's been her own worst enemy. You said it yourself before - she lost in 2008 to Obama the way she ran her campaign. It could happen again.

No she lost because her folks didn't understand the intricacies of the Caucus process, that you could lose a popular vote but actually win the caucus anyways i.e. the number of delegates earned. She "ran" her campaign well enough to get a tiny majority of all votes.

Hey, if you want to believe the email stuff is going to take her down, feel free. It isn't, but obviously that particular hope/belief won't die until probably this time next year.

 

[lbodel]

The biggest scandal? Hm. No. No one said that.

That was simply a joke - since a woman wearing a pantsuit is not that big of a deal (but people made it out to be). It's the same as people getting mad about what Michelle Obama wears or if the Obamas take a vacation (which all Presidents have done and will do).

Is the Hillary situation good? No. Is it something to get crazed about? No. Was she doing this maliciously or anything? No. Was it irresponsible? Sure.

It's the same thing with Benghazi.

 

[Purdue97]

And yet those "benefits" caused Obama to lose the popular primary vote to Hillary in 08. Look it up. She got more overall votes. The reason she lost was that Obama's team was more competent, and understood better the arcane rules of the caucuses, and thus he ended up with more delegates than she did. That's her fault but this idea that she's somehow unpopular in the Dem party is based on nothing.

No one in the Dem party not a Sanders supporter cares about the emails. You can call it blind all you want. The folks already predisposed to vote for her will still, and the folks in the GE already predisposed to vote dem will as well.

Well, we will see. I do not need to look up anything up, I understood the whole 2008 Dem primary. That is why I find the statement amusing and hypocritical many times-because a lot of people(ok dems), cried about the 2000 GE, but then were fine with it in the 08 primary.

Anyway, still do not believe Clinton gets the windfall of events that Obama had in 08. And like I have said, in 08 she had a huge lead, it was chipped away and she lost it. And now so far it looks the same.

Anyway, the number of emails is now at over 300 that were marked classified. At least one of these due to it being intel from a drone has tougher laws in terms of how that information is handled(everyone and their brother knows that), and that IT company that took care of her hard drive was not certified to handle classified material. The longer this goes on, the more that is being discovered, along with Benghazi testimony in the fall, an implosion is more likely IMO.

 

[qazplm]

Well, we will see. I do not need to look up anything up, I understood the whole 2008 Dem primary. That is why I find the statement amusing and hypocritical many times-because a lot of people(ok dems), cried about the 2000 GE, but then were fine with it in the 08 primary.

Anyway, still do not believe Clinton gets the windfall of events that Obama had in 08. And like I have said, in 08 she had a huge lead, it was chipped away and she lost it. And now so far it looks the same.

Anyway, the number of emails is now at over 300 that were marked classified. At least one of these due to it being intel from a drone has tougher laws in terms of how that information is handled(everyone and their brother knows that), and that IT company that took care of her hard drive was not certified to handle classified material. The longer this goes on, the more that is being discovered, along with Benghazi testimony in the fall, an implosion is more likely IMO.

I know what article you read to get to "300" marked "classified" and that article talks not about classified but "confidential" and that most, if not all, of those 300 were confidential. Confidential is not necessarily the same thing as classified. Confidential can be as simple as containing PII.

The one about the drone I linked, and the article states that the information could as easily have come from public sources, and there is no direct link that it cames from somewhere improper...and I believe I linked that very fact up higher in this thread or another thread on this issue here.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

It's the same thing with Benghazi.

'Cept people died unnecessarily at Benghazi...

 

[lbodel]

'Cept people died unnecessarily at Benghazi...

Yes, I'm aware people died in Benghazi. But because people died doesn't make it a scandal.

 

[lbodel]

As the information about Clinton's emails comes out day-after-day, it's obvious that this is not going away anytime soon. qazplm and lobodel cannot just hand wave this away. The secrets involved some spy satellite-related secrets. I don't know what's worse - the way she handled the emails or the way she's tried to dismiss this issue away as "nothing major".
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/12/the-spy-satellite-secrets-in-hillary-s-emails.html

If you bother reading my posts, I've said in multiple that she could see the nomination slip away the longer this goes on and I've flat out said she is not going to get it handed to her. I'm not "waving it away". However, I still do not see it, at this point, as something that gets much worse - it's highly unlikely anything like charges will be pressed. But as I posted, this is supposed to last through January - whether it will actually go that long or not, I don't know. But January is when the first primaries are.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Yes, I'm aware people died in Benghazi. But because people died doesn't make it a scandal.

No, but it makes it a much bigger screw up, IMO.

 

[lbodel]

No, but it makes it a much bigger screw up, IMO.

But that's not what Republicans are doing. They're on a mission to find a scandal (and years later still haven't found it). They haven't seemed to be that interested in making sure it never happens again (even threatening to withhold money to the State Dept), they're just focusing on someone to blame it on and to make it into a scandal.

 

[Purdue97]

But that's not what Republicans are doing. They're on a mission to find a scandal (and years later still haven't found it). They haven't seemed to be that interested in making sure it never happens again (even threatening to withhold money to the State Dept), they're just focusing on someone to blame it on and to make it into a scandal.

In short, the issues with Benghazi that need to be addressed IMO:

-They(State/President/Military) knew it was a coordinated attack. What was really behind, and why was a movie blamed for weeks after? That right there indicates something is amiss.

-Why was testimony delayed/negotiated/stonewalled til October of this year?

-Emails? Who knew what and when? Although it really appears they all knew the night of the attack what was happening.

-Who made the decision not to send help and why? We know there were SF units and other assets in the area.

Are they looking for or is there a scandal? They might be looking for one, not sure there is one. That said, there is nothing wrong with asking these questions, learning about the thought process in the decision making(I mean that is pertinent since she is running for President), and would like to know why that embassy stayed unprotected when other countries embassies had left.

 

[lbodel]

In short, the issues with Benghazi that need to be addressed IMO:

-They(State/President/Military) knew it was a coordinated attack. What was really behind, and why was a movie blamed for weeks after? That right there indicates something is amiss.

-Why was testimony delayed/negotiated/stonewalled til October of this year?

-Emails? Who knew what and when? Although it really appears they all knew the night of the attack what was happening.

-Who made the decision not to send help and why? We know there were SF units and other assets in the area.

Are they looking for or is there a scandal? They might be looking for one, not sure there is one. That said, there is nothing wrong with asking these questions, learning about the thought process in the decision making(I mean that is pertinent since she is running for President), and would like to know why that embassy stayed unprotected when other countries embassies had left.

The answers to your questions exist - there has been a number of reviews, investigations, etc. - you just don't want to accept the answers.

Your question about the movie - it is not really not complicated. There WAS indeed a violent uprising because of the movie at the US Embassy in Cairo the SAME DAY. So the initial assessment was that what caused the Cairo incident was the same thing as Benghazi. News outlets reported them as being linked as well in real time - without any comment from the US Government - it was just logical that the 2 incidents that happened the same day happened to be about the same thing. The initial assessment ended up being wrong and literally no wrongdoing or anything has been found. I don't know why that's hard to understand.

Another example - the special forces conspiracy has been debunked from a Republican led investigation.

The former commander of a four-member Army Special Forces unit in Tripoli, Libya, denied Wednesday that he was told to stand down during last year's deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

In a closed-door session with the House Armed Services Committee, Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson said his commanders told him to remain in the capital of Tripoli to defend Americans in the event of additional attacks and to help survivors being evacuated from Benghazi.

"Contrary to news reports, Gibson was not ordered to 'stand down' by higher command authorities in response to his understandable desire to lead a group of three other special forces soldiers to Benghazi," the Republican-led committee said in a summary of its classified briefing with military officials, including Gibson.

 

[Purdue97]

The answers to your questions exist - there has been a number of reviews, investigations, etc. - you just don't want to accept the answers.

Your question about the movie - it is not really not complicated. There WAS indeed a violent uprising because of the movie at the US Embassy in Cairo the SAME DAY. So the initial assessment was that what caused the Cairo incident was the same thing as Benghazi. News outlets reported them as being linked as well in real time - without any comment from the US Government - it was just logical that the 2 incidents that happened the same day happened to be about the same thing. The initial assessment ended up being wrong and literally no wrongdoing or anything has been found. I don't know why that's hard to understand.

Another example - the special forces conspiracy has been debunked from a Republican led investigation.

The former commander of a four-member Army Special Forces unit in Tripoli, Libya, denied Wednesday that he was told to stand down during last year's deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

In a closed-door session with the House Armed Services Committee, Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson said his commanders told him to remain in the capital of Tripoli to defend Americans in the event of additional attacks and to help survivors being evacuated from Benghazi.

"Contrary to news reports, Gibson was not ordered to 'stand down' by higher command authorities in response to his understandable desire to lead a group of three other special forces soldiers to Benghazi," the Republican-led committee said in a summary of its classified briefing with military officials, including Gibson.

Those examples you just provided did not supply one answer to any question that was asked. And also reread my lat paragraph. I think Democrats and the main stream media think Republicans are after a scandal. Those are really just pretty basic questions. Nobody blaming anything on anybody. Clinton, Democrats, and Stae Dept really have no one to blame but themselves that this carried on for years.

 

[lbodel]

Those examples you just provided did not supply one answer to any question that was asked. And also reread my lat paragraph. I think Democrats and the main stream media think Republicans are after a scandal. Those are really just pretty basic questions. Nobody blaming anything on anybody. Clinton, Democrats, and Stae Dept really have no one to blame but themselves that this carried on for years.

Again, the answers to your questions have been answered via a 2 year investigation by the Republican-led House Intelligence committee (on top of a number of others) that concluded:

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people.

The House Intelligence Committee report was released with little fanfare on the Friday before Thanksgiving week. Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel. The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.

 

[Stairwayto7]

The latest I have read was that the hard drive was sent to an IT company to be scrubbed not long after Hilary resigned from her position, which with the timing does appear fishy. I could care less about the witch hunt, what I do care about is someone being in that high of a position and being that sloppy. Being in a senior Washington position and running a private server managed by a company working out of a garage seems border line stupid. Hilary could have been that naive, but to keep hidden a private server to handle official government work at that high of a level is absurd. I have no clue what privileges officials in that high of positions have, but I am pretty sure a simple request to have a secure server set up in her home would have been doable. This issue does nothing to change my opinion on who I am voting for because there are much more pressing issues the current field of candidates are battling over that will determine who I vote. The private server issue just effects my views of that individual person, not their overarching political stance.

 

[Jedifick]

Wait, so people think hillary did something useful in the last decade? I was still under the impression that everything she touched went up in flames.

 

[lbodel]

The latest I have read was that the hard drive was sent to an IT company to be scrubbed not long after Hilary resigned from her position, which with the timing does appear fishy. I could care less about the witch hunt, what I do care about is someone being in that high of a position and being that sloppy. Being in a senior Washington position and running a private server managed by a company working out of a garage seems border line stupid. Hilary could have been that naive, but to keep hidden a private server to handle official government work at that high of a level is absurd. I have no clue what privileges officials in that high of positions have, but I am pretty sure a simple request to have a secure server set up in her home would have been doable. This issue does nothing to change my opinion on who I am voting for because there are much more pressing issues the current field of candidates are battling over that will determine who I vote. The private server issue just effects my views of that individual person, not their overarching political stance.

Colin Powell also used a private email account as Secretary of State under Bush - and recalls no regulation or being told not to do so.

Is it crazy to think this? Yes, but again - not really Hillary-specific.

 

[Purdue97]

Colin Powell also used a private email account as Secretary of State under Bush - and recalls no regulation or being told not to do so.

Is it crazy to think this? Yes, but again - not really Hillary-specific.

Yes, one is allowed to do so. At least at that level. Here is the issue with Clinton:

-She had her server scrubbed by outsiders
-She deleted or her lawyers deleted several emails themselves
-At this point, it is not believed that the company in CO was a Govt contractor
-At this point, it is not believed that the company in CO has a security clearance
-Her lawyers security clearance, and if it is active or not is in question(he had thumb drive)
-Emails that she has released and emails of State DEpt workers are not matching up(NPR today)
-Now suddenly in same NPR story, some 18,000 emails that State said were missing are now found.
-She has supposedly helped prosecute or supported prosecution for workers that had been sloppy in the past with controlled information

Again, this people call it a witch hunt but the reality is theFBI, IG, and Federal judge are asking/demanding this information be released. At the end of hte day, what I see happening, is Clinton will offer up some sacrificial lambs that worked for her and it will be called a day.

 

[Purdue97]

Again, the answers to your questions have been answered via a 2 year investigation by the Republican-led House Intelligence committee (on top of a number of others) that concluded:

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people.

The House Intelligence Committee report was released with little fanfare on the Friday before Thanksgiving week. Many of its findings echo those of six previous investigations by various congressional committees and a State Department panel. The eighth Benghazi investigation is being carried out by a House Select Committee appointed in May.

Al Ansar(sp) claimed credit for attack and that was sent via email to Obama from State. That was at 6pm

Anyway, from what you post, sounds like there were no issues and all was fine in Benghazi. Obviously not the xase.

One should be able to read that article and realize where the issues are. One paragraph says that there was no intelligence failure, the next paragraph states it was intel analysts that made the wrong call. Contradictory.
Why did they make the wrong call? Remember these are analysts. They analyze data given to them. Now that embassy did not report any protests that day, but somebody told these analysts that there were protests in Benghazi, other wide, they would not blame it on protestors.

The whole thing does not add up. I suspect it was to cover up arms movement. As far as that goes, do not care much, just wish the USA would get smart and start arming Kurds. They love us, and they can fight.

 

[Purdue97]

Yep, I'm hand-waving it away. There is no smoking gun that is going to take out Hillary. Just like there was no Obama scandal that was going to take him down. If you want to beat her, you'll have to do what Obama did, work hard and beat her on the issues, and have better demographics than she has.

Yes, Bernie is ahead of her in the state that neighbors Vermont and that has almost no minorities. I don't think anyone expected her to win all 57 primaries/caucuses. Her lead is holding steady in Iowa of over 50 percent. And the southern primaries follow NH/Iowa. So if she splits the first two, which is what I think at worst happens, she'll sweep most of the Southern ones, and the inevitability theme (for nomination) will return with a vengeance.

Well hand wave it away all you want. I doubt her campaign mangers are. The issue now is she polling at 47%. She keeps falling. Bernie and Joe Biden who has not even announced he will run are gaining fast.

In a GE she is now behind Bush, Walker, Rubio and Trump is within five. Before she was ahead of all of the Republican candidates by a few points and ahead of Trump by double digits.

Not sure why but she has some serious issues with campaigning and public image.

 

[qazplm]

uhh CNN just came out with a poll and she's ahead of ALL the republican candidates by at least 6 pts.

There goes your falling fast theory.

 

[SDBoiler1]

uhh CNN just came out with a poll and she's ahead of ALL the republican candidates by at least 6 pts.

There goes your falling fast theory.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ary-clintons-stubborn-email-problem/31983443/