Almost anybody, excepting Trump, would have beaten Hillary. I can't believe given a halfway reasonable alternative candidate, the voting American public would vote for a candidate while she is being investigated by the FBI.Halfway reasonable alternatives don't win Republican primaries.
And that's pretty unfortunate. Because there were a couple of semi -mainstream alternatives in this cycle to Hillary's brand of "politics as usual, bomb every brown country I can find" style.
Hell, I could have found myself voting for Bernie Sanders just on his foreign policy positions alone. (IE: Let's not make the mistake George Washington warned us about and stake our entire foreign policy on someone else's interests)
|
Almost anybody, excepting Trump, would have beaten Hillary. I can't believe given a halfway reasonable alternative candidate, the voting American public would vote for a candidate while she is being investigated by the FBI.Halfway reasonable alternatives don't win Republican primaries.
In 2016, I agree with you. Other years, not so much.
Edit: Any reasonable Democratic candidate would be 20 points ahead of Mr. Trump.
Almost anybody, excepting Trump, would have beaten Hillary. I can't believe given a halfway reasonable alternative candidate, the voting American public would vote for a candidate while she is being investigated by the FBI.
Then there weren't a lot of "halfway reasonable candidates" running, since the polls definitely had Clinton doing well.
She was up by seven points over Cruz.
That same source had her up by about 2 over Bush, although it did suggest that either Kasich or Rubio could beat her. But the actual polls don't seem to support the idea that Clinton was a particularly weak candidate, which is good, because she isn't. She's spectacularly well qualified and has a very good campaign behind her. She's facing a well funded anti-Clinton campaign, but that's nothing new. It would have been a close election against almost anyone,.... but only in the fever dreams of the Koch brothers was she easily beatable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to see "funny," look at the performance of any Democratic presidential candidate between 1968 and 1988. The United States has been a center-right country for a long time.
The conclusion is a step too far for me. That change was almost entirely about race, the result of the switch of the Solid South from D to R.
For most of that period, we still liked traditional liberal economics, we just didn't want to apply them to black people.
Reagan started to shift that, largely by making the dog whistles subtler and implying it was only them benefiting from the government.
Welfare queens showing up to cash their checks in limousines is subtler? (I'm not saying you're wrong, but YEESH.)
Would have? I'm pulling for my Lady, but it's not like it's safe to speak in the past tense yet! ;)Even given today's October surprise that based on new eviidence the FBI has reopened its criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton, I think she is going to win.
MogIA indicated otherwise even before this latest news.
MogIA indicated otherwise even before this latest news.Would have? I'm pulling for my Lady, but it's not like it's safe to speak in the past tense yet! ;)Even given today's October surprise that based on new eviidence the FBI has reopened its criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton, I think she is going to win.
I personally think that Clinton is going to win the popular vote, but lose the Electoral race.
As others have quipped before, a great many of the U.S.'s problems seem to be the curse from having built the country upon hundreds of thousands of Native American graves.
Or that the country was being built during a historical time when genocidal-imperialism was beginning to be frowned upon. I'm mean, this wouldn't be a problem today if we had sent the Army out to kill every native male and marry (read: enslave) all the women, then forced them to learn English and forbid the the transfer of heritage to progeny via religion, language, ritual, and culture. The real problem is the same one we are facing today; containment policy doesn't work.
[/unmitigated yet truthful snark]
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, no, the FBI has NOT reopened it's investigation. Read Comey's letter.Uhm, OK. I just did. I'm not sure how the FBI takes "appropriate investigative steps" without investigating? What am I missing?
The FBI investigation into Clinton's emails was never closed. While the FBI was separately investigating emails between Anthony Weiner and a 15-yro (Eww!), they received new evidence--an email-capable device (probably a smartphone). Upon cursory examination, the device also appears to have some emails from Clinton to Weiner and/or Abedin.
At this point, Comey is just covering his butt from the Republicans in the House, like Jason Chaffetz, who are still gunning for Clinton. There is no evidence that any of the emails on the device contain classified information or document illegal activities. There is no evidence that any of these emails are even new and not already in the FBI's possession from those Clinton herself already turned over.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the first aspect is that the FBI has not technically closed the case, though why after they've declined to indict is not something I'm personally knowledgable on. What you're missing is the part where Comey carefully avoids mentioning what it is that they've discovered. Does it pertain the the servers? To the Podesta emails? Even initial reports are saying no, that it's actually related to the Abedin/Weiner thing. He's obligated to update his testimony for the relevant House committees, but as with his no-indictment press conference he chooses to do so in as partisan a way as possible. So what we got is a substance-free innuendo designed to lead you to the conclusion that you apparently drew. It's yet another smoke-and-mirrors game that doesn't mean anything except that Comey wants Clinton to lose.
While we're at this, anyone want to talk about how interesting it is that Clinton is the *only* exception to the FBI/DOJ rules about not discussing ongoing cases, especially in election season? Amazing! Somehow Comey has managed to avoid writing vague letters about the FBI investigation into Manafort's ties to Russia criminal enterprises. Congrats to Comey I guess for single-handedly guaranteeing that no Democratic president will appoint a Republican to FBI directorship again. Hope it was worth it bud.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He is promoting trickle down economics, the same economic platform that romney, reagan, bush 2 and bush 1, Obama, Clinton 2 and Clinton 1 all went for. The same economic platform the 1% has always justified.
Fixed that for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally think that Clinton is going to win the popular vote, but lose the Electoral race.MogIA indicated otherwise even before this latest news.Would have? I'm pulling for my Lady, but it's not like it's safe to speak in the past tense yet! ;)Even given today's October surprise that based on new eviidence the FBI has reopened its criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton, I think she is going to win.Yeah, but you've been predicting doom at every step of the way. Every debate, every drop of scandal, each was going to be the turning point.
It's possible. Anything is possible in politics, but she's still in better shape than the winner of any election I remember.
DON'T JINX IT, OKAY?!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh* Aggregate polling still has Trump at +3 in Texas, and the state is a traditional conservative stronghold, decade-old talk about rising Hispanic population notwithstanding. Come on, guys, work with me here.
Being a conservative stronghold would benefit Clinton, the conservative candidate. But Trump is a reactionary candidate, and large swaths of Texas are reactionary in politics. To clarify, there is no liberal candidate in this election, except maybe Jill "Moonchild" Stein.
*sigh* Aggregate polling still has Trump at +3 in Texas, and the state is a traditional conservative stronghold, decade-old talk about rising Hispanic population notwithstanding. Come on, guys, work with me here.Being a conservative stronghold would benefit Clinton, the conservative candidate. But Trump is a reactionary candidate, and large swaths of Texas are reactionary in politics. To clarify, there is no liberal candidate in this election, except maybe Jill "Moonchild" Stein.
I've tried explaining the flaw(s) in "I am a conservative, Hillary is the worst human in the universe, therefore Hillary cannot also be a conservative." to some conservative friends but they can't go there. I've tried explaining that there are (large) positive numbers to the right of zero and to the left of a zillion on a number line but no success there either.
In today's news, Eric Garner's daughter blasted the Clinton campaign's consideration of using her father's death at the hands of police for political purposes. I see where she's coming from... but that got national media attention, you know. More to the point, do you have anything positive to say about the fact that, apparently, they decided not to do that, mainly because their focus was on gun violence there?
"i want the government to stop doing something but i don't want it to be political...."
*facepalm*
He is promoting trickle down economics, the same economic platform that romney, reagan, bush 2 and bush 1, Obama, Clinton 2 and Clinton 1 all went for. The same economic platform the 1% has always justified.Fixed that for you.
Democrats run on doing less of that sort of thing. Republicans run on doing more of it.
Nothing I've see or heard from these releases rises (sinks?) to proper ratf*#&ing levels.
Hey! Watch your language, my rats are reading this with me right now!
(They help me sound-out the big words...)| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And as Mango Unchained unshackled Trump predicted, a voter attempted to vote multiple times (in Des Moines).
RIGGED! RIGGED SO BIGLY!
(Yes, it's a Republican voter who was caught...)
I personally think that Clinton is going to win the popular vote, but lose the Electoral race.MogIA indicated otherwise even before this latest news.Would have? I'm pulling for my Lady, but it's not like it's safe to speak in the past tense yet! ;)Even given today's October surprise that based on new eviidence the FBI has reopened its criminal investigation of Secretary Clinton, I think she is going to win.Yeah, but you've been predicting doom at every step of the way. Every debate, every drop of scandal, each was going to be the turning point.
It's possible. Anything is possible in politics, but she's still in better shape than the winner of any election I remember.
Fact is.. Clinton has been vulnerable at every stage, and pretty much only her phenomenal skill and Trump's own missteps have kept her campaign afloat, any lesser Democrat's ship would be doing the Titanic split about now.
The announcement of the FBI reopening it's investigation is bad at this time, being less than two weeks before The Day. As voters are going to be less willing to elect a President that may be facing impeachment charges before she even assumes office. While it's been said that the investigation was never actually closed, it's been REPORTED as such and reopened.
And yes, I had been predicting disaster because Clinton IS a more vulnerable candidate, being female, being a Clinton, and for making honest mistakes borne from perceived arrogance. I do believe that Sanders had the advantage of not having Clinton's baggage and that the acrimony of his defeat still hangs over a lot of his supporters who were less than enchanted about Hillary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*sigh* Aggregate polling still has Trump at +3 in Texas, and the state is a traditional conservative stronghold, decade-old talk about rising Hispanic population notwithstanding. Come on, guys, work with me here.Being a conservative stronghold would benefit Clinton, the conservative candidate. But Trump is a reactionary candidate, and large swaths of Texas are reactionary in politics. To clarify, there is no liberal candidate in this election, except maybe Jill "Moonchild" Stein.
She's perceived by Liberals as being Conservative, but by everyone else as being a Liberal Democrat, and especially a Clinton.
You know, I really expected a better October Surprise. We've already done e-mails to death.
Personally, I prefer the "Hillary Clinton is the most successful mass murder in U.S. history" story. Maybe Wikileaks could drop a bombshell about the Clintons having knives in their kitchen. Or something.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I prefer the "Hillary Clinton is the most successful mass murder in U.S. history" story. Maybe Wikileaks could drop a bombshell about the Clintons having knives in their kitchen. Or something.
If Clinton was the mass murderer her enemies claim she is, Anthony Weiner would have been dead 6 or 7 times before today.
"Prep another rez, Huma. We're digging him back up again so I can kill him yet another time."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I prefer the "Hillary Clinton is the most successful mass murder in U.S. history" story. Maybe Wikileaks could drop a bombshell about the Clintons having knives in their kitchen. Or something.
If she actually was — or any sort of one, let alone most successful in U.S. history — there damn sure wouldn't be an Anthony Weiner issue for Huma Abedin to worry about anymore.
Ha! Ninja'd!
Great minds think alike, Pill. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
JEB would have beaten her. Romney would have beaten her. Kasich would have crushed her. Hell, if he'd been the GOP candidate, Bernie probably could have beaten her. Hillary is not a popular candidate, she had a rough primary, and the GOP has been running propaganda and smear campaigns against her since she refused to bake cookies as First Lady. Add in sexism and the emails/Clinton Foundation baggage and the GOP came into this election with every advantage.The "Clinton would lose handily to anyone but Trump" meme is a weird one. Like, we saw what 2012 did to Romney, no Republican can get through the primaries without talking crazy--a phenomenon evidenced this time around by primary-voting Republicans choosing Trump, He Who Says The Most Outlandish Nonsense. Romney tried to tack back to center and was 1) called out for it by everyone not on the far right, and b) castigated by the far right for not being a "true conservative". Any hypothetical Republican would have run smack into the exact same dynamic.
I find the idea that KASICH would be trouncing her to be especially hilarious. KASICH, the guy who had way fewer delegates than Rubio...two months after Rubio suspended his campaign. The GOP has primed their voters to buy into a lot of nonsense, and now they're reaping the whirlwind. I'll buy "closer race" arguments but "easily beating" Clinton is silliness.
As an aside, the primary also wasn't that bad for Clinton. She won pretty handily, coasted across the finish line with the bulk of her war chest ready to roll, and is now polling somewhere between 88-92% party support, which certainly doesn't suggest that she was especially damaged by the primary. Anyone remember the PUMAs in '08?
You know what's really silly? Citing Republicans' behavior and success during the primaries as evidence of anything for the generals. Kasich lost because nobody noticed him. That's basically an advantage in a one-on-one race with someone with a negative favorability rating.
And citing how well she's doing against the only other presidential candidate to ever reach a lower favorability rating than her while running as evidence that she would trounce someone like Kasich. That's silly, too.
Rubio is an idiot. I'm not gonna bother saying he would be likely to win. It would be close. But Kasich? A popular Ohio governor who's free from most of the racism/homophobic baggage that's been dragging down Republicans in the general? I have an extremely hard time believing Bernie supporters would be so willing to fall in line—most of them see Hillary as basically a Republican anyways. One Bernie supporter I know told me that she sees Hillary and Kasich as basically identical on most issues.
And as
Mango Unchainedunshackled Trump predicted, a voter attempted to vote multiple times (in Des Moines).RIGGED! RIGGED SO BIGLY!
(Yes, it's a Republican voter who was caught...)
no no no that's only a democrat thing.
I still say the trump became the nominee the files the FBI had were deleted, the computers that held them were stuffed into a woodchipper, and then the woodchipper was set on fire.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kasich...
I live in Ohio. I voted against him both times. Even still, I have to admit that he's not that bad. He's actually been reasonable about some important things.
Watching the republican debates, when he was onstage with the main candidates, gave me an odd sense of pride that my state's governor was the only adult on a stage full of Muppets-esque caricatures.
I did understand that was exactly why he had no chance of winning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still say the trump became the nominee the files the FBI had were deleted, the computers that held them were stuffed into a woodchipper, and then the woodchipper was set on fire.
I'm still blaming Trump's floating-to-the-top and subsequent unflushablity on either Barry Allen or Rex Hunter recklessly screwing up the timeline yet again.
Pill,
No I'm pretty sure it's Booster Gold's fault. Or else Cable. I haven't decided. Rip and Barry are too busy doing other screw ups.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been hanging out with booster for the last 40 hours. It isn't him.
That's like arguing that a spark plug is the only thing that matters for a car. I mean, sure, if everything else is there, but that spark plug won't do jack if you're missing the engine block. To put it another way, Ohio and Florida matter because California and Texas are locked up.Texas is locked up you say?
Given that the Libertarians have pretty much thrown in the towel, that 4 percent could pretty much lock it up for Trump. They sure as hell won't vote for a Democrat, and especially not a Clinton.
Kasich lost because nobody noticed him.
Actually I think it was because the only time he was noticed, it was for putting on the feedbag at a rate that would make a kobold proud.
He did get the Church of Food's endorsement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been hanging out with booster for the last 40 hours. It isn't him.
Tell Skeets I said "Hi." And waggle your eyebrows at Goldstar for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been hanging out with booster for the last 40 hours. It isn't him.
He's a time traveler. He can be in two places at once.
Hey GreyWolfLord, I have to confess that I am kind of waiting to see whether fresh evidence causes you to reevaluate your conclusion that Hillary Clinton wields control over all or nearly all American media. I was going to make it a daily thing, mentioning every day I see bad stories about Clinton, but Clinton got so much bad press today I can't keep track. Including bad pressed splashed all over the top of mainstream-liberal bastions like the NYT.
If all the other more scattered bad press I've encountered earlier hasn't changed your mind, surely the dump truck full of bad press today challenges the theory?
Dave, I owe you a post but I won't have time to digest your quite long one for a bit, apologies.
As Churchill allegedly said, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."Direct democracy... the system that made California pretty much ungovernaable.
This is less election related but still int he ball park. I wonder how hard it would be to change the system to a direct democracy.
Churchill had a good sense of humor. Sadly I agree the average voters is whats the word... rough we will say. But if you assume The average voter is a ninny how can you have any sort of democracy at all? I remember from applied statistics that generally with a large enough group the majority tends to make the "right" decision (is the decision right just because the majority choose it? shut up!)
Also don't get me wrong I don't think its something we are ready for now or would be ready for in even 20 years.
I'm going to have to look into the California thing.
One thing i would ask is it always a problem with the set up system itself or is it sometimes how It's implemented as well. (I've heard the it works in a perfect world argument but then anything works in a perfect world.
Democracy is about splatter protection. This is something many people don't understand, or acknowledge.
Let us take another political system. Hereditary monarchy. Many countries had something similar in the olden days, but some places did not make the post hereditary. Those places were plagued by succession wars, an effect of unclear rules for putting up the next grand poobah. Whatever else hereditary positions are, they are clear and simple.
By a similar token, democracy is a simple system (in theory, of course). It is a way to make sure that if enough people are very unhappy about the current administration, they can assume power the next one. The win for society is that you will not have civil wars, blood in the streets, massacres and everything else that comes as a consequence of disenfranchised citizens in large enough numbers. The number of people needed to overturn a system by violence is larger than the number needed to elect the top representative. In itself, this is one of the key selling points of democracy.