And we're off and running!

Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

And we're off and running! - 08/01/19 10:18 PM

The Democratic Party has started the debates, a few states have primaries coming up very soon, it is time to start a whole new forum, Campaign 2020.

And-d-d-d-d-d they're off and running!
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/03/19 06:43 PM

This post didn't make it onto the current topics list BUMP
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/03/19 06:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
This post didn't make it onto the current topics list BUMP


LOL oh crap I had that problem once before, have to figure out how to fix it.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/05/19 02:18 PM

Joe, are you losing your marbles?

Joe Biden offers sympathy for "the tragic events in Houston" hours after El Paso shooting.

Quote:
Biden, 76, mistakenly referred to the shootings as ďthe tragic events in Houston today and also in Michigan the day before," but later corrected himself, according to a pool report. Biden seemingly confused Houston for El Paso and Michigan for Ohio when speaking to donors about the shootings.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/05/19 05:32 PM

Biden Trashes Millenials In His Bid To Become Even Less Likeable

Quote:
"The younger generation now tells me how tough things are. Give me a break. No, no, I have no empathy for it. Give me a break. Because hereís the deal guys, we decided we were gonna change the world. And we did. We did. We finished the civil rights movement in the first stage. The womenís movement came to be. So my message is, get involved. Thereís no place to hide. You can go and you can make all the money in the world, but you can't build a wall high enough to keep the pollution out. You can't live whereóyou can't not be diminished when your sister can't marry the man or woman, or the woman she loves. You can'tówhen you have a good friend being profiled, you can't escape this stuff. And so, there's an old expression my philosophy professor would always use from Plato, 'The penalty people face for not being involved in politics is being governed by people worse than themselves. It's wide open. Go out and change it."


Millenials are NOT going to be backing Biden. Biden needs to be winning the votes of the 25-38 year old age group, not using them as a stepping stone to win the votes of older democrats.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 08:39 PM

Elizabeth Warren is now in second place behind Joe Biden, having eclipsed Bernie Sanders.
A few more Joe Biden moments where he pens bite-sized hagiographies to his neoliberal past or trips over his own tongue and Warren may indeed take the top spot.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 08:56 PM

I'd rather she ate into Biden's lead...
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 08:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Elizabeth Warren is now in second place behind Joe Biden, having eclipsed Bernie Sanders.
A few more Joe Biden moments where he pens bite-sized hagiographies to his neoliberal past or trips over his own tongue and Warren may indeed take the top spot.

The Left need to get over Biden's senior moments. Biden is the only Democrat that moderates and Independents agree on to replace Trump.

I love Lizzy Warren - she's a better candidate for me than Hillary ever was, but the "socialist" label placed upon her by the Right will give us another four years of Trump if she is the Dem nom.

I'd want Lizzy to be FedChair in a Biden Administration. Harris as AG. Inslee as SecInterior. Buttiegig as VP. Booker FBI Director. Castro as DHS Director. O'Rourke HUD or SecEd.

Let's play this next election safe, then move the left. smile
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 09:24 PM

Calling her a socialist is a denial of reality. In 2008 she was appointed to lead the Senate committee that oversaw TARP among other things. Bailing out banks is not exactly socialist! Her CV is filled with academic appointments where she taught or was dean at various law schools (in Texas, even!), and in about 2011:

Quote:
Although she published in many fields, her expertise was in bankruptcy and commercial law. In that field, only Bob Scott of Columbia and Alan Schwartz of Yale were cited more often than Warren.


She is actually fabulously qualified. But I guess qualification doesn't mean much when we have a game-shoe host as President.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 10:04 PM

Warren is a social democrat. She's more capitalist than socialist but she understands that more money needs to be funneled downward. She knows how money works and how the laws that control money works.
This lady is smart and at the peak of her career. She'd be a dab hand at re-assembling the government that Trump has broken and has a plan to make the economy work for everyone.

In the past I thought she was probably un-electable, but here she sits in second place so I'm letting myself get my hopes up.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/11/19 10:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I'd rather she ate into Biden's lead...


She just moved from 3rd to 2nd.
That IS eating into Biden's lead.
Let him spew another 10 or twenty monster gaffes and his lead will begin to evaporate.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/12/19 02:21 AM

Well, on his worst day Biden's about 1000 times less likely to "misspeak" than Trump. But I guess we don't hold Trump to any standards at all now.
Posted by: HumblePi

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 03:34 AM

Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't mind being VP? I think we're at the stage in our country's development that we're ready for a strong woman to lead. After 3 years of not only Trump's misogyny, but the whole dark, dirty Jeffrey Epstein scandal, more people (well maybe mostly me) think it's time for a woman to be president. Tell you one thing, there won't be any sexual assaults or blowjobs in the Oval Office. There won't be any patriarchal rich white men's sexcapades at the top of the administrative food chain going on with a woman at the very top of government.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 03:44 AM

Originally Posted By: HumblePi
Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't mind being VP? I think we're at the stage in our country's development that we're ready for a strong woman to lead. After 3 years of not only Trump's misogyny, but the whole dark, dirty Jeffrey Epstein scandal, more people (well maybe mostly me) think it's time for a woman to be president. Tell you one thing, there won't be any sexual assaults or blowjobs in the Oval Office. There won't be any patriarchal rich white men's sexcapades at the top of the administrative food chain going on with a woman at the very top of government.


It might be entertaining to see "Biden Veep II" but I am almost sure he's not interested in accepting that gig for a third term.
Can you imagine Liz rolling her eyes at him every time he commits a gaffe?

I'll get behind Liz. Thing is, her and Bernie agree on a ton of things but she's actually trying to be electable. I'd love it if Bernie was as electable as she is, but he's not.
I'll vote for him if he wins the nom but it sure is looking like we're gonna get Prezzy-dint Pocahontas.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 04:04 AM

Originally Posted By: HumblePi
Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't mind being VP? I think we're at the stage in our country's development that we're ready for a strong woman to lead. After 3 years of not only Trump's misogyny, but the whole dark, dirty Jeffrey Epstein scandal, more people (well maybe mostly me) think it's time for a woman to be president. Tell you one thing, there won't be any sexual assaults or blowjobs in the Oval Office. There won't be any patriarchal rich white men's sexcapades at the top of the administrative food chain going on with a woman at the very top of government.
Hi Pi! Welcome aboard.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 04:06 AM

VOTE BLUE, NO MATTER WHO
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 04:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
[quote=HumblePi]I'd love it if Bernie was as electable as she is, but he's not.


Groan...
There it is again.
Electability...

Care to share how the second place position now leading in New Hampshire and out raising the rest of the field (second choice for biden voters, BTW) is not electable?

I'm making popcorn on this one.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 04:11 AM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
VOTE BLUE, NO MATTER WHO


Even when they're Republican!!!
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 04:21 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
[quote=HumblePi]I'd love it if Bernie was as electable as she is, but he's not.


Groan...
There it is again.
Electability...

Care to share how the second place position now leading in New Hampshire and out raising the rest of the field (second choice for biden voters, BTW) is not electable?

I'm making popcorn on this one.


Hey, if he's climbing back up, good for him and I'm happy.
I already said that if he wins, he can count on my vote.
What more do you want?

Are you never satisfied?
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 06:00 AM

I see electability being used by the pundit class again. No shame with them. I just wondered what you had that made you think he was not as electable. It's a fair question to a discredited qualifier isn't it?

I'm not trying to defend Sanders from any criticism. I'm challenging the idea of 'electability'. You can vote for Biden or Butttigieg or anyone else. It's this weird 'electability' that gets used, usually to destroy a candidate's public perception by punditry. 2016 should have schooled most everyone.

Was it the Iowa fair crowds? The corn kernel vote? I'm just asking.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 02:29 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
I see electability being used by the pundit class again. No shame with them. I just wondered what you had that made you think he was not as electable. It's a fair question to a discredited qualifier isn't it?


-Dude, it's a totally fair question.
My opinion only, after eighty years of hysteria over the tag "socialism", I think Bernie's big mistake is something mothers learn early when it is time to give small children medicine.
You trick or fool them into thinking it is tasty and you choose medicine that doesn't have an unpleasant flavor.

Plenty of Americans have already learned that socialism isn't a big bad scary word, plenty have learned that we're not going to turn into Venezuela.
But still "not enough" of them. Not yet, maybe not enough in the next ten years. (depending on other factors)

So why not do what politicians do all the time?
FDR even argued that his ideas weren't socialism and by the time he was done, the only people who still thought so were people who never voted for him and NEVER WOULD anyway.

If Bernie can manage to hit the same levels, this argument of mine will be moot and I would be delighted if it turns out that way.

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle

I'm not trying to defend Sanders from any criticism. I'm challenging the idea of 'electability'. You can vote for Biden or Butttigieg or anyone else. It's this weird 'electability' that gets used, usually to destroy a candidate's public perception by punditry. 2016 should have schooled most everyone.

Was it the Iowa fair crowds? The corn kernel vote? I'm just asking.


No, it's not anything except a question of marketing pizazz.
I am NOT one of those pundits, I'm a guy who grew up during the tail end of the Red Scare.
This is familiar territory to me.
Republicans have invested gazillions into recreating the HUAC era all over again and now they have an ARMY of Joe McCarthy's, not just the one.

So why doesn't Bernie rope a dope them?
He should and he is capable of doing it, he's way smarter than they are.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 08:07 PM

Not sure I would agree with the socialist boogeyman theory.

4 million new millennial voters come on line every year. Boomers numbers will be reducing. Millennials have a higher favorability for socialism than capitalism. It's an entirely different set of economic circumstances facing them than faced boomers.

Sanders ran as a democratic socialist and didn't seem to have much of a problem with it. He had more problems with the press and DNC than with voters themselves.

I just don't think red baiting is the handy tool it once was.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 08:14 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Not sure I would agree with the socialist boogeyman theory.

4 million new millennial voters come on line every year. Boomers numbers will be reducing. Millennials have a higher favorability for socialism than capitalism. It's an entirely different set of economic circumstances facing them than faced boomers.

Sanders ran as a democratic socialist and didn't seem to have much of a problem with it. He had more problems with the press and DNC than with voters themselves.

I just don't think red baiting is the handy tool it once was.


I am inclined to agree with you if for no other reason than the sands of time. You want I should help you pick up that big-ass hourglass and we both shake it up and down real hard to make the sand move faster?

I'd give it a try. But I doubt we can hurry it up enough in time for 2020. In 2024 it's a pretty good bet my argument will be 100% moot and yours will be the only logical one.

I promise you Chunks, you will not see me crying or whining about that. I'll be relieved.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 09:11 PM

Our Rvolution
Justice Democrats
Working Families Party

If your serious bout giving it a good shake...
laugh
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 09:23 PM

Quote:
4 million new millennial voters come on line every year. Boomers numbers will be reducing. Millennials have a higher favorability for socialism than capitalism. It's an entirely different set of economic circumstances facing them than faced boomers.

No new Millenial voters have "come on line" for several years. The youngest Millenial is 25 now and the oldest around 40. If boomers thought Millenials were weird just wait til the Z-Gen starts voting in earnest.

These younger kids are like millenials on steroids.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 09:24 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Our Rvolution
Justice Democrats
Working Families Party

If your serious bout giving it a good shake...
laugh


I was one of the first to sign up with WFP.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 09:26 PM

Right on! Well sometimes something good will fall out of NY...
FDR for one.
AOC for another!
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/15/19 09:30 PM

Your right Gregor. I kinda lump em all the same as I get older. But you made my point better. I agree with you cept there's an allful lot of racism cropping up in those younger yutes too
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/17/19 02:46 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Your right Gregor. I kinda lump em all the same as I get older. But you made my point better. I agree with you cept there's an allful lot of racism cropping up in those younger yutes too


And some of them are channeling all that crap into hundred round magazines. They load up on Orwellian Doublespeak from TrumpCo and now they're wound up. Watch 'em go.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/18/19 01:48 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Well, on his worst day Biden's about 1000 times less likely to "misspeak" than Trump. But I guess we don't hold Trump to any standards at all now.


But on his supposedly best day, he seems anxious to appease Republicans.

ĎThereís an awful lot of really good Republicans out thereí: Joe Biden at Cape Cod fundraiser

Yeah we know, Joe. But at the outset of the 2020 Democratic campaign season, who exactly are you signalling to? Most of those "really good Republicans" already left the party, and most of the ones that still remain are the Party of Trump.

Is Lindsey Graham one of those really good Republicans? How about Steve King? Mitch McConnell? Is he a really good Republican, Joe?
What about Devin Nunes? Are you signalling to Nunes?

Are you sure you joined the right party?
Posted by: itstarted

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/18/19 02:54 PM

need:
Stability
Trust
Judgement
Compromise
... and the desire and ability to listen.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 08/19/19 12:57 AM

Quote:
there's an allful lot of racism cropping up in those younger yutes too


Less than you would think. The racists and alt-right are just nosier, so they look like they have large numbers. I like to watch 4chan/b to see what the young folks are up to. Yes, there are alt-right and racist posts and threads, but more celebrate gay and trans sex, and they practically worship what they call "BBC" which is an acronym for part of Black male anatomy reputed to be larger than average. You see about 20 gay , trans, or dick comparison threads for the one "gay is a mental illness" thread.

Likewise, I suspect alt-right threads that are not just punks trolling the board are much rarer than "Trump is a cuck[old]" or "Why is this guy still President" threads.
Posted by: HumblePi

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/06/19 08:20 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: HumblePi
Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't mind being VP? I think we're at the stage in our country's development that we're ready for a strong woman to lead. After 3 years of not only Trump's misogyny, but the whole dark, dirty Jeffrey Epstein scandal, more people (well maybe mostly me) think it's time for a woman to be president. Tell you one thing, there won't be any sexual assaults or blowjobs in the Oval Office. There won't be any patriarchal rich white men's sexcapades at the top of the administrative food chain going on with a woman at the very top of government.
Hi Pi! Welcome aboard.


Thank you for the welcome smile
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/06/19 10:57 PM

Originally Posted By: HumblePi
Maybe Joe Biden wouldn't mind being VP? I think we're at the stage in our country's development that we're ready for a strong woman to lead. After 3 years of not only Trump's misogyny, but the whole dark, dirty Jeffrey Epstein scandal, more people (well maybe mostly me) think it's time for a woman to be president. Tell you one thing, there won't be any sexual assaults or blowjobs in the Oval Office. There won't be any patriarchal rich white men's sexcapades at the top of the administrative food chain going on with a woman at the very top of government.


I'll not vote for any woman candidate just because she's a woman. Same for a man. I'll vote for a candidate that I think will make a good president regardless of sex or gender or political party. When I disliked both major party candidates, I have no qualms in voting third party against both major party candidates which is exactly what I did in 2016.

What I hope from the Democrats is that they look for the most qualified and best candidate available to become the next president leaving gender and race entirely out of it. Look for the candidate that would make the best president, period.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/06/19 11:56 PM

Warren would be very qualified. Maybe the best qualified candidate, but I hope the Democrats don't nominate her. I read stories about interviews with people in those mid-western Trump states in which a LOT of women said they don't trust women. Which I find very sad, but you have got to pay attention to your voter's prejudices. Politics is the art of the possible, not "what the losers wish was true".

They voted for a Black man, but not for a White woman. Misogyny runs deep, and it's not just men. There's obviously something wrong with how we teach girls to relate to other girls.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/07/19 12:15 AM

Warren/Buttigieg ThumbsUp
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/07/19 01:03 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Warren would be very qualified. Maybe the best qualified candidate, but I hope the Democrats don't nominate her. I read stories about interviews with people in those mid-western Trump states in which a LOT of women said they don't trust women. Which I find very sad, but you have got to pay attention to your voter's prejudices. Politics is the art of the possible, not "what the losers wish was true".

They voted for a Black man, but not for a White woman. Misogyny runs deep, and it's not just men. There's obviously something wrong with how we teach girls to relate to other girls.


You're talking about Democratic women or just midwestern women all the way around?
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/07/19 01:18 AM

Actual Democratic women, who had families who voted for Democrats for decades. It just killed me, because I thought women in general were more sensible than that.

I really think the DNC needs to run their own poll: Just ask Middle America's women their Party (if any) and if they would vote for a woman.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/07/19 09:06 PM

There are 9 female republicans in the house, there are 89 female democrats. The score is 8 to 17 in the Senate. Democrats seem perfectly capable of electing women. Republicans haven't even noticed that their party has become a white christian sausage fest.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 01:00 AM

I think they will elect female Senators, Representatives, and even Governors. President is a whole quantum leap different. Hillary was 1000 times more qualified that Trump, yet a lot of White women did not vote for her. If it was about their own best interests, they would have.

Instead they voted for their own worst enemy. I think a significant percentage of that vote would have gone the other way if the Democratic candidate had been male.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 01:16 AM

Uh...I think you're crazy to suggest that Hillary lost because Democratic women didn't vote for her. Because she's a woman.

It's a lot more likely that their husbands who are marginally democrats would be caught up in Trump's snare.

But I'm just sayin'...I think that's nuts. There are a lot or reasons she lost that race but that aint one of 'em.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 01:57 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I think they will elect female Senators, Representatives, and even Governors. President is a whole quantum leap different. Hillary was 1000 times more qualified that Trump, yet a lot of White women did not vote for her. If it was about their own best interests, they would have.

Instead they voted for their own worst enemy. I think a significant percentage of that vote would have gone the other way if the Democratic candidate had been male.
There's many reasons Hillary lost. One of the biggest is independents really, really disliked her. 27% of independents had a favorable view of her vs. 70% who had an unfavorable opinion of her. Trump wasn't loved by independents either, but at 40% favorable, 57% unfavorable, that was enough for him to win the independent vote and thus the White House. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

What's interesting is that more women had an unfavorable view of Hillary, 52% than a favorable view of her 47%. Hillary just wasn't liked much. 38% of all Americans had a positive view of her, 56% a negative one. Trump was worst among all Americans, 36% positive, 60% negative. But it was independents that decided 2016. Independent men voted for Trump 50-38 with 12% voting third party against both major party candidates. Independent women went to Hillary 47-42 with 11% voting third party against both.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

I'll add this, in my opinion almost any other democrat, alive or dead would have trounced Trump. The Democrats choose about the only candidate that stood a chance of losing to him. Such is life and elections.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 04:44 AM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I think they will elect female Senators, Representatives, and even Governors. President is a whole quantum leap different. Hillary was 1000 times more qualified that Trump, yet a lot of White women did not vote for her. If it was about their own best interests, they would have.

Instead they voted for their own worst enemy. I think a significant percentage of that vote would have gone the other way if the Democratic candidate had been male.
There's many reasons Hillary lost. One of the biggest is independents really, really disliked her. 27% of independents had a favorable view of her vs. 70% who had an unfavorable opinion of her. Trump wasn't loved by independents either, but at 40% favorable, 57% unfavorable, that was enough for him to win the independent vote and thus the White House. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

What's interesting is that more women had an unfavorable view of Hillary, 52% than a favorable view of her 47%. Hillary just wasn't liked much. 38% of all Americans had a positive view of her, 56% a negative one. Trump was worst among all Americans, 36% positive, 60% negative. But it was independents that decided 2016. Independent men voted for Trump 50-38 with 12% voting third party against both major party candidates. Independent women went to Hillary 47-42 with 11% voting third party against both.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

I'll add this, in my opinion almost any other democrat, alive or dead would have trounced Trump. The Democrats choose about the only candidate that stood a chance of losing to him. Such is life and elections.


Agreed, Hillary turned people off...TWICE!! ROTFMOL (2008-2016)

Policy wonk? CHECK
Capable? CHECK
Integrity? CHECK - debatable but miles above Trump

Trouble is, she's arrogant. I don't care if she feels entitled, you have to drop the mask and meet the people, not stand around waiting for your coronation.
And when the Feds tell you that you have to upgrade your ancient Blackberry, the thing you DO NOT DO is thumb your nose and take your server private just so you aren't inconvenienced having to learn new tech.

People just flat out disliked her.
I liked her okay but she was not my first choice. Bernie was.
Over the months I watched and began to dislike her more, and get this:
Her contribution to S-CHIP is why my son is still alive today.
So, I can't HATE her!
I STILL did not WANT to vote for her - even though I did under protest.

A lot of people just stayed home, voted oppo out of spite, wrote in...too many did just that, mostly the former.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 12:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I think they will elect female Senators, Representatives, and even Governors. President is a whole quantum leap different. Hillary was 1000 times more qualified that Trump, yet a lot of White women did not vote for her. If it was about their own best interests, they would have.

Instead they voted for their own worst enemy. I think a significant percentage of that vote would have gone the other way if the Democratic candidate had been male.
There's many reasons Hillary lost. One of the biggest is independents really, really disliked her. 27% of independents had a favorable view of her vs. 70% who had an unfavorable opinion of her. Trump wasn't loved by independents either, but at 40% favorable, 57% unfavorable, that was enough for him to win the independent vote and thus the White House. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

What's interesting is that more women had an unfavorable view of Hillary, 52% than a favorable view of her 47%. Hillary just wasn't liked much. 38% of all Americans had a positive view of her, 56% a negative one. Trump was worst among all Americans, 36% positive, 60% negative. But it was independents that decided 2016. Independent men voted for Trump 50-38 with 12% voting third party against both major party candidates. Independent women went to Hillary 47-42 with 11% voting third party against both.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

I'll add this, in my opinion almost any other democrat, alive or dead would have trounced Trump. The Democrats choose about the only candidate that stood a chance of losing to him. Such is life and elections.


Agreed, Hillary turned people off...TWICE!! ROTFMOL (2008-2016)

Policy wonk? CHECK
Capable? CHECK
Integrity? CHECK - debatable but miles above Trump

Trouble is, she's arrogant. I don't care if she feels entitled, you have to drop the mask and meet the people, not stand around waiting for your coronation.
And when the Feds tell you that you have to upgrade your ancient Blackberry, the thing you DO NOT DO is thumb your nose and take your server private just so you aren't inconvenienced having to learn new tech.

People just flat out disliked her.
I liked her okay but she was not my first choice. Bernie was.
Over the months I watched and began to dislike her more, and get this:
Her contribution to S-CHIP is why my son is still alive today.
So, I can't HATE her!
I STILL did not WANT to vote for her - even though I did under protest.

A lot of people just stayed home, voted oppo out of spite, wrote in...too many did just that, mostly the former.
I was one of 9 million folks who voted against both Hillary and Trump. My disdain for both was sky high. Yeah, Hillary came across as elitist, aloof and had the personality of a wet mop. Trump with his brash in your face, obnoxious, uncouth persona was more fit for a wrestler in the WWE than the presidency.

One huge difference was that Trump energized his supporters, filled them with enthusiasm to where they were willing to go to the four corners of the earth for him. Hillary had more supporters, perhaps a lot more. But she was ho hum and failed to energize them. That failure lead to many just staying home. She either couldn't or didn't inspire Democrats to go to the polling place for her.

2020 if anything like 2018, Trump is providing that inspiration. I doubt many Democrats will stay home taking the election for granted.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 03:03 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
2020 if anything like 2018, Trump is providing that inspiration. I doubt many Democrats will stay home taking the election for granted.
That is my hope. My fervor for third party candidates has evaporated under the pall of the last 3 years. Unlike many, I believe the Democratic field is full of genuine possibilities. None are perfect, the process certainly isn't, but "blue, no matter who" is the only logical choice this election. The risk to the country and the planet is too great otherwise.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 05:06 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Originally Posted By: perotista
2020 if anything like 2018, Trump is providing that inspiration. I doubt many Democrats will stay home taking the election for granted.
That is my hope. My fervor for third party candidates has evaporated under the pall of the last 3 years. Unlike many, I believe the Democratic field is full of genuine possibilities. None are perfect, the process certainly isn't, but "blue, no matter who" is the only logical choice this election. The risk to the country and the planet is too great otherwise.


My vote depends on whom the Democrats nominate. I know I won't be voting for Trump. Now rather my vote goes to the Democratic or to a third party candidate is solely based on who the Democratic nominee is. There's three or four I would hop on their bandwagon and support all the way, another two or three that would drive me to vote third party again. Against both Trump and whomever.

I think the ball is in the Democrat's court. Who they hand that ball to will probably determine whether they win in a landslide or if another 2016 is possible. I'm not a Democrat, so it's their decision. The key voting group is independents. Independents really, really disliked Hillary. They disliked Trump also, but not as much.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 05:19 PM

Except, of course, that any vote not for the Democrat is a vote for Trump. That's what happened in 2016.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 05:45 PM

Quote:
2020 if anything like 2018, Trump is providing that inspiration. I doubt many Democrats will stay home taking the election for granted.


We're in complete agreement in regards to the past and future.

Except that I actually liked Hillary and think the world would be in a much safer place with her at the helm.

But yes. 2020 is set to be a bloodbath. It's a chance for progressives in America to take the helm and spin the wheel hard a-port.

But instead they're gonna nominate Biden. And the American Left will be dead in the water.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 06:19 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Except, of course, that any vote not for the Democrat is a vote for Trump. That's what happened in 2016.


Actually no. The third party vote helped Hillary. According to CNN exit polling when third party voters were asked whom they would have voted for in a strictly two candidate race, no third party candidates. 19% answered Trump, 16% Clinton. 65% responded they wouldn't have voted.

In other words with no third party candidates considering 9 million people voted third party, Trump would have added 1.7 million more votes than he received, Hillary an additional 1.4 million. If no third party candidates, 5.9 million who those who voted wouldn't have. Such was the disdain for both major party candidates that officially registering their vote against both Trump and Clinton drove them to the polls.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

Hillary was actually the beneficiary of the third party vote. Third party voting usually hurts the Republican more than the Democrat.

Having voted third party I've been told many times by Clinton supporters my vote for a third party candidate was a vote for Trump. I also have been told by Trump supporters my vote a third party candidate as in reality a vote for Clinton. It was against both. Neither Trump nor Clinton seen their vote tally go up by one once my vote was counted. It was a neither vote which helped neither major party candidate.

Hence, it is vital the Democrats come up with a candidate attrictive to independents. In 2016 3% of Democrats voted third party, 4% of Republicans voted third party, 12% of independents voted third party. Time to learn from the mistakes of 2016 when it comes to nominating a candidate. Candidates matter.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/08/19 11:15 PM

That analysis ignores who the Third Party candidate is: A popular leftist Third Party candidate would indeed take votes from the Democrat and help elect the Republican. Likewise, a popular right wing candidate would take votes from the Republican and help elect the Democrat. In general, a Third Party candidate can only help elect the mainstream candidate the least like them. This is why people say Third Party runs can only hurt their cause.

It would be completely different if we had a parliamentary form of government, where a Third Party could form a coalition with the mainstream Party most like them, But we don't.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/09/19 12:03 AM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
That analysis ignores who the Third Party candidate is: A popular leftist Third Party candidate would indeed take votes from the Democrat and help elect the Republican. Likewise, a popular right wing candidate would take votes from the Republican and help elect the Democrat. In general, a Third Party candidate can only help elect the mainstream candidate the least like them. This is why people say Third Party runs can only hurt their cause.

It would be completely different if we had a parliamentary form of government, where a Third Party could form a coalition with the mainstream Party most like them, But we don't.


I say you're correct in your synopsis. The reason I stated third party candidates usually hurt Republicans more is that the Libertarians are on the ballot in all 50 states presidential wise. They also run candidates for governors and senators. Most Libertarians would vote Republican if limited to just the GOP and Democratic candidates.

Johnson received 3.28% of the total vote in 2016, Jill Stein 1.07%, McMullin 0.54%. Libertarian and Conservative votes to Johnson and McMullin dwarf Stein's. My word usually doesn't mean every time, just most of the time.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/09/19 03:45 AM

By the way, Perostista...Northwest Ponderer is NWRatCon on DP, in case you didn't know.
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/15/19 02:16 AM

Too many on the Left sat home and sulked, too many Dems sat home, thinking we already had it in the bag, and that left mostly people who have been conditioned to not trust our institutions, not trust any form of government or even trust what they see and hear in the media....i.e. acting like the lady who stayed on the toilet for two years.

Basically by sitting home and sulking, or believing we had it in the bag, we let the idiots on the right make our choices for us.
But by being complacent, or acting like spoiled brats, we were the bigger idiots, bigger because we ought to have known better.

I sincerely hope that this four year long Trump bukkake party will permanently disabuse enough liberals of the idea of staying home and not bothering to vote. If not, then they will get treated to another four year long Trump bukkake session, with some scatological fun thrown in for good measure.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/15/19 03:37 AM

Quote:
I sincerely hope that this four year long Trump bukkake party will permanently disabuse enough liberals of the idea of staying home and not bothering to vote


This time it's personal. Voters want to hurt this guy and they want to hurt him bad. Everybody is going to want to be part of it. Like the Popeye's Chicken sandwich!

Something on my radar is how Trump is gonna play the China agreement into his re-election plan. Early guess is a shoddy agreement that makes him a hero for ending the trade war that he started. He declares it a victory and throws himself a parade. Republicans love him all the more for ending the trade war that THE DEMOCRATS started.....

Anybody imagine a future where that doesn't happen?
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/15/19 11:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
I sincerely hope that this four year long Trump bukkake party will permanently disabuse enough liberals of the idea of staying home and not bothering to vote


<snip

Something on my radar is how Trump is gonna play the China agreement into his re-election plan. Early guess is a shoddy agreement that makes him a hero for ending the trade war that he started. He declares it a victory and throws himself a parade. Republicans love him all the more for ending the trade war that THE DEMOCRATS started.....

Anybody imagine a future where that doesn't happen?


Nope, that is how it will be played out, and the Bubbas on the right, better known as Republicans, are going to take it hook, line and shaft.

Bukkake: a type of ... several men ... on another person. ROTFMOL Bow allhail
Posted by: Jeffery J. Haas

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/16/19 01:23 AM

Jill Biden admits her husband's policies SUCK, but please settle for him anyway.
Joe won't even be in the race next March if he's already stumbling this badly at this point.
If he is, God help us.

Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 09/16/19 12:49 PM

How dare voters stay home and not vote for candidates to screw them over! Donít they understand how politics work?! Well Trump surely showed them their errors. Maybe now voters will fall in line with another corporate hack promising access to the bananas if they can only jump high enough.
Stay at home sulkers should really take a look at themselves in the mirror and reflect on how they, and they alone, have been responsible for the Parties presidential defeat. Clearly some folks donít know whatís good for them. Who the adults in the room are and other patronizing gibberish.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/29/19 07:24 PM

Quote:
I assume your not for Sanders on account of your recurring 'he's not going to win you know? you know that don't you" hey chunks, Sanders isn't going to win..." Sure. O.K. Why would I want to argue with somebody who's made up their mind? Your entitled to your opinion.


And you to yours. That's what we do here is share our opinions.

I'm not trying to change your mind about Bernie. I'm neither for nor against him, same with Warren. Neither for nor against.

I'm very much against Joe Biden. I see Warren as the only one who has a chance of beating him. I've been wrong before but I'm not afraid to bet on a horse before the race begins. Too early to place a bet? Why?

I've outlined a lot of reasons why I think the race is gonna turn out like I've called it. You've mostly told me your candidate can't win because democrats are corrupt. I think that's a pretty safe bet and it's part of why I think he can't win. You don't like Warren? I'm cool with that, I don't know that I like her either, I'm just saying she's gonna win. We'll see how it turns out once she's in office.

You think Bernie can win? You see a path where I don't?
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/29/19 08:53 PM

For those who sulk, and not vote. PLEASE, submit an empty ballot. If you all did that a message would be sent. This is a simple fact and blank ballots are counted. voting is not a right, voting is a responsibility. Not voting does nothing, other than prove, to yourself (and others when you brag on it), that you are not responsible, don't give a damn, and, certainly, part of the problem.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 12:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
I assume your not for Sanders on account of your recurring 'he's not going to win you know? you know that don't you" hey chunks, Sanders isn't going to win..." Sure. O.K. Why would I want to argue with somebody who's made up their mind? Your entitled to your opinion.


And you to yours. That's what we do here is share our opinions.

I'm not trying to change your mind about Bernie. I'm neither for nor against him, same with Warren. Neither for nor against.

I'm very much against Joe Biden. I see Warren as the only one who has a chance of beating him. I've been wrong before but I'm not afraid to bet on a horse before the race begins. Too early to place a bet? Why?

I've outlined a lot of reasons why I think the race is gonna turn out like I've called it. You've mostly told me your candidate can't win because democrats are corrupt. I think that's a pretty safe bet and it's part of why I think he can't win. You don't like Warren? I'm cool with that, I don't know that I like her either, I'm just saying she's gonna win. We'll see how it turns out once she's in office.

You think Bernie can win? You see a path where I don't?



I never said that Sanders can't win because of DNC corruption, rather it's a very big obstacle. Just as it was last time.

There are differences between 2016 and 2020 though.
It's been said the possibilty is greater and the obstacles are greater than it was in 2016 and I'm agreeing with that sentiment.

First there's the Clinton coalition and it's tactics:
A professional class that used to be republicans of 40 years ago, their political preferences still are. I don't think that group is large enough or energized enough to beat Trump.

If there's more shenanigans like what happened with WFP endorsement Warren is sure to further alienate the left. That showed incredibly poor strategic thinking on her campaigns part. She's already alienating the left.

Then there's the match up between the candidates and Donald Trump. Here the race looks less like a walk for Biden or Warren where Sanders is just barely squeeked out by Biden for the no.2 pole position against Trump. Warrens 3rd.
Trump vs. Dem candidates

So Biden's melting like that proverbial sandcastle. His numbers have been on a downward trajectory. Which candidate is the no.2 choice among Biden leaning voters.
Biden voters pick Sanders

So either Biden supporters are not telling the truth about their second choice pick (a funny thing to be coy about wouldn't you think?) or there's something funny going on with the votes going into Warrens column as Bidens column shrinks. The polls might not be accurate. But hey, when's that ever happened before?

Then there's each candidates respective bases. Let's be honest with who's got the energy. Again. Sanders is crushing it with rallies as much as Trump is. While Warren had a good showing in NYC Sanders was much bigger. People taking time out to show up at a rally could be argued being more accurate than the polls were in 2016. That is, again, being ignored by the corporate press.

Who's Sanders coalition?

There's still a big outsider candidate sentiment and that would be Sanders again. Warren does not sound like an outsider. Her campaign is not run as an outsider. Quite the opposite. I think it would not be smart to ignore that sentiment. He also appears to be mobilizing a working class coalition, the key to most democratic victories is doing just that. It's simple. There's more of em than there are professionals though it's the professionals that insist they know what's best. S'funny that... Democrats have been losing more elections with that strategy than they ever lost with the new deal consensus.
Bartenders for Bernie

I could go on but lemme just finish it by saying it's to early to say it's in the bag.

Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 12:48 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
How dare voters stay home and not vote for candidates to screw them over! Donít they understand how politics work?! Well Trump surely showed them their errors. Maybe now voters will fall in line with another corporate hack promising access to the bananas if they can only jump high enough.
Stay at home sulkers should really take a look at themselves in the mirror and reflect on how they, and they alone, have been responsible for the Parties presidential defeat. Clearly some folks donít know whatís good for them. Who the adults in the room are and other patronizing gibberish.


If you don't like either major party candidate, you have only a few choices. Stay home and don't vote, go to the polls and vote against both major party candidates by voting third party. 9 million voters did exactly that in 2016. Or one votes for the candidate you want to lose the least, not win, but lose the least. One needs to remember that 60% of Americans disliked or view that candidate unfavorable, 58% viewed the other candidate unfavorably or negatively.

My disgust with both major party candidates in 2016 lead me to vote against both. Even knowing what I do today, I still would vote against both.

If the major parties come up with candidates that are unacceptable, who's fault is that? Neither was acceptable to me, so I didn't vote for either one of them. Others went my route, still others said to Hades with it and stayed home.

I realize that those who are party animals can't understand why who they choose are not acceptable to everyone. Each individual is different, have differing political views, different likes and dislikes, view the candidates and parties differently. I don't hold staying home against anyone or voting their preferences whether it is for a major party candidate or against both.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 01:10 AM

Originally Posted By: jgw
For those who sulk, and not vote. PLEASE, submit an empty ballot. If you all did that a message would be sent. This is a simple fact and blank ballots are counted. voting is not a right, voting is a responsibility. Not voting does nothing, other than prove, to yourself (and others when you brag on it), that you are not responsible, don't give a damn, and, certainly, part of the problem.


That happened in Michigan. It doesn't appear that the DNC got the message.

Politics works like this:

You have to get more votes to get elected. If you get less votes you lose. In order to win again you have to find a way to appeal to more voters so you can get more votes again.

Hectoring people, saying your better than the 'other side', and outright putting your thumb on the scales to rig the primary is not coming up with better appeals for voters to turn out. It's an admission that you have no ideas to lead with but want to maintain your good thing you got going at the expense of election victories.

Addressing peoples material concerns with proposals that have popular support does. It's been proven here in the past and abroad in the present.

Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 01:11 AM

Agree with that.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 02:09 AM

Quote:
it's to early to say it's in the bag.


But you have reason to be hopeful.

I'd be thrilled if it turned into a race between progressives with Joe Biden left out in the cold.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 12:01 PM

I think it is dangerous to think the election is in the bag. I think most of us thought 2016 was in the bag for Hillary. That includes me and almost every political pundit with the exception of Nate Silver. He gave Trump a 30% chance to win and was derided by almost everyone. I know I resigned myself to a Hillary win the moment it became clear Trump would be the GOP nominee. I didn't pay the election much attention after that. I even forecast a Hillary win.

I don't know how much you all pay attention to polls. I do a lot. If you look at the generic presidential poll, you have this. Question 53. The Democratic Candidate 40%, Trump 36%. Independents 26% the Democratic Candidate, Trump 28%.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/s96v7z4zoa/econTabReport.pdf

Now there are quite a lot of folks in the "It Depends," column. That I take to mean their vote will be decided by who is the Democratic nominee. There is also a lot of folks in the "I won't vote," category which make YouGov unique. Most polls force a person to choose even though they have no intention of voting.

Now here are your mythical head to head match ups thanks to RCP averages.

Biden 50.1% Trump 43.4%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html

Warren 49.7% Trump 44.0%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...arren-6251.html

Sanders 50.0% Trump 43.5%

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls...nders-6250.html

Buttigieg 47.8% Trump 44.2%

Now there are three kinds of polls, all Adults which history shows 55% of them vote on average. Registered Voters, an average of 65% of them vote and likely voters which shoots the average of those who vote up to 80%. Historical averages give or take a point or two.

The above polls are of registered voters which means that 35% of them who answered and chose a candidate won't bother to vote. For elections, you want the likely voter polls, they more accurate on gauging the results although they too can't determine who will and will not actually vote. They still include 20% of those who will not vote.

Then there is a the margin of error of every poll. Usually plus or minus 3 points. One last thing, the electoral college. The Democratic Candidate 210, Trump 163 with the rest in the tossup column which could go either way.

Back in 2016 just prior to the election the count was Clinton 206, Trump 164 with 171 in the tossup column.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 03:32 PM

Quote:
I don't know how much you all pay attention to polls.


I pay almost no attention at all to them. I mostly see them in headlines but usually don't go much deeper than that. Bernie currently ahead in New Hampshire is about all I need to know for the moment. Biden is losing ground. Chunks has pointed to a possible path for Bernie so I'm adding that into my models. Warren is still going to be seen as the centrist candidate between Biden and Bernie.

Primary voters are generally more conservative than public opinion, but I'm predicting an uptick in progressive voters this time around because Trump has energized his opposition on every front. The Trump Bump won't be felt as much in the primaries but left leaning voters are energized and may sway the election towards a more progressive candidate than Biden.

Quote:
I think it is dangerous to think the election is in the bag.

It's dangerous when voters don't show up because the polls tell them they don't need to. Don't know why you'd think it dangerous to be confident that your candidate can win.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 04:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:


[quote]I think it is dangerous to think the election is in the bag.

It's dangerous when voters don't show up because the polls tell them they don't need to. Don't know why you'd think it dangerous to be confident that your candidate can win.



It's one thing to think your candidate can win, it's another to take it for granted your candidate will win. Which I equate "In the bag," means.

Unless a couple of those Democratic candidates start to move up that I support, who wins the Democratic nomination is kind of irrelevant to me. But since you are interested in the states, that is where the nomination will be won or lost, not nationally. Currently in Iowa, its Warren, Biden, Buttigieg and Sanders.

In New Hampshire Warren, Biden, Sanders and Buttigieg.
In Nevada Biden, Warren, Sanders with Harris ahead of Buttigieg.
In South Carolina Biden, Warren, Sanders and Harris.

Then comes super Tuesday, a couple of states, the big ones. California Warren, Biden, Sanders and Harris.
In Texas Biden, O'Rourke, Warren and Sanders.

Around 40% of the total delegates are up for grabs on Super Tuesday, the chances are good we'll know who the democratic nominee will be after all the votes are counted then.
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 04:21 PM

I repeat. I will vote for anybody the Dems put up - I just want Trump gone. By the time he is done we won't have a single ally left and all the courts are going to be packed. Then there are all the 'fixes', little things, like lowering drinking water standards, attacking national monuments for miners and oil folk, climate change denial, trying to log the Alaska national park forests, lies 80% of the time, etc. you know - all them little things. I may not agree with whoever the Dems choose but whoever it is they gotta be better than Trump!
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 04:45 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
I repeat. I will vote for anybody the Dems put up - I just want Trump gone. By the time he is done we won't have a single ally left and all the courts are going to be packed. Then there are all the 'fixes', little things, like lowering drinking water standards, attacking national monuments for miners and oil folk, climate change denial, trying to log the Alaska national park forests, lies 80% of the time, etc. you know - all them little things. I may not agree with whoever the Dems choose but whoever it is they gotta be better than Trump!

Amen brother jgw Bow

smile
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 06:40 PM

Simple enough.
I guess we have to hope thatís enough reason for people to come out and vote then.
With that logic, Dems should be able to run a sack of door knobs and win.

Or Biden. Same thing really.

Thatís not fair. Door knobs wonít throw you in jail for selling weed.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 07:34 PM

Quote:
they gotta be better than Trump!


Forrest Gump would be better than Trump.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 07:45 PM

Quote:
the chances are good we'll know who the democratic nominee will be after all the votes are counted then.


I've already got a pretty good idea who it's going to be.

There's literally three choices, three ways this thing can turn out.

Three horses in the race. It's not a hard call. And if I'm wrong I'm out $5 bucks. I don't think I'm liable to sway the election.
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 08:01 PM

I have to say I admire your positive attitude towards 2020. I have serious concerns that Trump can pull off another win.

The Dems, in large part, seem to encourage this outlook and I pray that I am absolutely wrong. I am not sure we can actually survive another Trump/Putin 4 years.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 09:44 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
I have to say I admire your positive attitude towards 2020. I have serious concerns that Trump can pull off another win.

The Dems, in large part, seem to encourage this outlook and I pray that I am absolutely wrong. I am not sure we can actually survive another Trump/Putin 4 years.



You might want to save some of that concern for why the last Democratic candidate and her Husband encouraged Trump to run in the first place. You might want to spare me your derision and I wont remind you that your support of the candidate that encouraged Trump to become President makes your judgements and comments suspect.

No?

Russia, Russia, Russia?
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 10:20 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Originally Posted By: jgw
I have to say I admire your positive attitude towards 2020. I have serious concerns that Trump can pull off another win.

The Dems, in large part, seem to encourage this outlook and I pray that I am absolutely wrong. I am not sure we can actually survive another Trump/Putin 4 years.


russia, Russia?

My recollection was Bill more or less said that if you want to run, run. Back in those days the Trump's and Clinton's were friends. I don't think Bill encouraged Trump to run. But I would imagine Bill's thinking was that if Trump ran, he might disrupt the GOP primaries some, thus making it easier for Hillary to win.

I don't think Bill, Hillary or Trump himself way back when thought Trump had one iota of a chance.

My take on it anyway.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 11:03 PM

Heres the Washington Postís take.

A little later Politicoís

And Salonís take.

Sounds like good judgement. Great voter outreach.

Or the brilliant three dimensional chess playing of the Slavs.
Canít decide.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 11:11 PM

Werenít Clinton and Trump both friends with Epstein?
Síall one big family up there.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/30/19 11:30 PM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Heres the Washington Postís take.

A little later Politicoís

And Salonís take.

Sounds like good judgement. Great voter outreach.

Or the brilliant three dimensional chess playing of the Slavs.
Canít decide.


Thanks, It kind of back fired didn't it?

"So to take Bush down, Clintonís team drew up a plan to pump Trump up."
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 06:50 AM

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Werenít Clinton and Trump both friends with Epstein?
Síall one big family up there.


Quote:
Trump continued, "Heís a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about itóJeffrey enjoys his social life.Ē

- Donald Trump

Probably not the best optics to discuss your child molester friend that way. coffee
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 11:39 AM

Or invite Epsteinís groomer girlfriend to your wedding or truck around with Jeff on his plane to Ďbattle problemsí.

Trump and Clintonís mutual friends

Thereís noise that Chelsea Clinton may jump into a congressional district race here in NY.
Sure, why not.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 12:45 PM

Has the South soured on Trump?

Iíve been going over polls looking at census regions instead of party ID and the like. What Iíve been seeing is the Midwest is now Trumpís and the GOPís strongest region. Not the south. Hereís what I found in several categories.

Trumpís very favorable/very unfavorable, Northeast 30/49, Midwest 32/41, South 27/49, West 26/48%

Generic presidential vote, Democratic Candidate/Trump, Northeast 44/36, Midwest 36/39, South 42/34, West 42/34%

Should Trump run for reelection, Yes/No, Northeast 40/52, Midwest 43/46, South 36/50, West 37/51

Should Trump be impeached and removed from office, yes/no, Northeast 49/39, Midwest 41/46, South 49/37, West 48/40%

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zgaz948hzw/econTabReport.pdf

Thereís other categories in the link if you care to check them out. It does seem that the Midwest is now Trumpís strongest region of the country. The south is more in line with the Northeast and West Coast than the Midwest. To be sure that somehow YouGov didnít make a miss print, change the southís figures with the midwestís, I went back to an old poll, 31 July 2019 and found the same trend. The Midwest more pro-Trump than the south and the rest of the country.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hash0nbry8/econTabReport.pdf

You can check the differences over time also, using the 30 July poll vs. the 29 Oct poll. I always assumed the south was Trumpís strongest region, the numbers say differently. I was surprised to say the least. What effect if any this has on the 2020 election is hard to tell, too early. I do know Trump is in Trouble in Georgia. With the right candidate the democrats can take my home state, maybe even fairly easily. I found this very interesting, thought Iíd share it.
Posted by: NW Ponderer

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 01:17 PM

I found it very interesting, my friend. As I thought about it, though, I'm not surprised. There are two things that account for this, in my view:

First, most of the South is coastal. It is more dynamic (people moving in), physically closer to the Northeast than the Midwest, and more involved in international trade. It has more of a migrant population, too. The urban-rural population divide leans urban (Atlanta, Miami, Nashville, Memphis, etc.) The skew is the rural- urban ratio, and the fulcrum is the suburbs. The more and bigger the suburbs, the weaker the GOP gets (think Virginia and Johnson County Kansas, suburbs of KC, where Sharice Davids won).

Second - and remember, I'm a native Missourian - Midwesterners are extremely stubborn people. They come from pioneer stock, and stay set in their ways much longer. If you were to break down those survey results further, you would find a stark difference between the rural and urban areas of those representative States (and elsewhere in the country, too). In the rural Midwest, preachers hold sway. Radio personalities like Hannity, Limbaugh, Erickson, are just the modern equivalents of old time "revivalists". They just don't travel to the communities they preach to. There's a distinction between the bible belt and the rust belt, too.

Trump will remain strong with "believers", but industrial workers are skeptics. They went with him in '16 because they were skeptical of the establishment. But, now HE'S the establishment, and they haven't got what THEY were going for. They may not vote for dems, but they're more likely, like you, to "sit this one out".

Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 03:04 PM

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I found it very interesting, my friend. As I thought about it, though, I'm not surprised. There are two things that account for this, in my view:

First, most of the South is coastal. It is more dynamic (people moving in), physically closer to the Northeast than the Midwest, and more involved in international trade. It has more of a migrant population, too. The urban-rural population divide leans urban (Atlanta, Miami, Nashville, Memphis, etc.) The skew is the rural- urban ratio, and the fulcrum is the suburbs. The more and bigger the suburbs, the weaker the GOP gets (think Virginia and Johnson County Kansas, suburbs of KC, where Sharice Davids won).

Second - and remember, I'm a native Missourian - Midwesterners are extremely stubborn people. They come from pioneer stock, and stay set in their ways much longer. If you were to break down those survey results further, you would find a stark difference between the rural and urban areas of those representative States (and elsewhere in the country, too). In the rural Midwest, preachers hold sway. Radio personalities like Hannity, Limbaugh, Erickson, are just the modern equivalents of old time "revivalists". They just don't travel to the communities they preach to. There's a distinction between the bible belt and the rust belt, too.

Trump will remain strong with "believers", but industrial workers are skeptics. They went with him in '16 because they were skeptical of the establishment. But, now HE'S the establishment, and they haven't got what THEY were going for. They may not vote for dems, but they're more likely, like you, to "sit this one out".



I hear you. There is a huge divide between urban and rural, no doubt. Another difference is in 2016 Hillary Clinton had all the baggage, Trump was an unknown. This time around, it will be Trump with the baggage. I like your explanation, it makes sense to me.

I'm not sure about the other southern states, but here in Georgia in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's we got a lot of conservative businessmen and their companies fleeing the higher state taxes and state regulations of the Northeast to resettle here. That trend has changed. Now we're getting the more liberal folks from the northeast. Guess they ran out of conservatives.

Our politics is certainly changing, as is North Carolina's to go along with Virginia's. We're certainly much more urban. Concrete and asphalt has been replacing farmland at a steady pace. I live 25 miles south of Atlanta and it is fast becoming a suburb of that city. In my county alone, I seen the population grow from around 20,000 30 years ago to close to 250,000 today. What was farm land and small towns of less than 10,000 are large towns of 50,000 with hardly no farmland at all. I was born and raised on a farm.

I suppose that is called progress, but I hate it. One of these days there will be no farmland left, Soylent Green will become a reality.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 03:56 PM

Yeah...progress. I don't care much for it either but we've got to deal with it...Hence the need for progressive candidates. My little town is never going to be the sleepy little farming village it used to be. This country is never going back to what it once might have been.

City dwellers recognize the need because they live in the middle of it.

Rural voters find it much easier to hide their heads in the sand and pretend that progress will pass them by. Even as their farmlands are swallowed up by corporate industrial farms and everything else is paved over.

You can't go back. I don't look back and dream of how things used to be. I look to the future and dream of how things can be.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 04:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Yeah...progress. I don't care much for it either but we've got to deal with it...Hence the need for progressive candidates. My little town is never going to be the sleepy little farming village it used to be. This country is never going back to what it once might have been.

City dwellers recognize the need because they live in the middle of it.

Rural voters find it much easier to hide their heads in the sand and pretend that progress will pass them by. Even as their farmlands are swallowed up by corporate industrial farms and everything else is paved over.

You can't go back. I don't look back and dream of how things used to be. I look to the future and dream of how things can be.



Welcome to Solent Green. Enjoy.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 07:59 PM

Your view of the future is somewhat more bleak than mine.

Quote:
Georgia has 9.9 million acres of land devoted to farms, with an average farm size of 235 acres. In 2017 Georgia had more than 42,000 individual farms, and the state's farmers sold more than $9.5 billion worth of agricultural products


Quote:
Florida has 47,740 farm operations; 9.5 million acres of farmland.


I think you're a little premature with your food shortage predictions.

But keep electing conservatives and you'll make it all come true!
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 08:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
I think you're a little premature with your food shortage predictions.

But keep electing conservatives and you'll make it all come true!


:ohsnap:


smile
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 10/31/19 10:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Your view of the future is somewhat more bleak than mine.

Quote:
Georgia has 9.9 million acres of land devoted to farms, with an average farm size of 235 acres. In 2017 Georgia had more than 42,000 individual farms, and the state's farmers sold more than $9.5 billion worth of agricultural products


Quote:
Florida has 47,740 farm operations; 9.5 million acres of farmland.


I think you're a little premature with your food shortage predictions.

But keep electing conservatives and you'll make it all come true!


It's not political ideology that is causing the dwindling farm land. It's people. Neither conservatives nor liberals are even worried about it. Just the next election.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/01/19 12:01 AM

Lots of liberals are worried about it. Ever heard of Planned Parenthood, birth control, sex education? You know...far left stuff.

The conservative plan seems to mostly revolve around keeping the poors out of their neighborhoods. And denying them education and medicine.

Because Jesus.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/01/19 12:21 AM

Urban sprawl is progress?
This country was founded on real estate hustling. How did it get equated with progress I wonder.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/01/19 04:48 AM

All California counties have housing shortages. Not so much because of immigration as because residents of the state keep on having kids. Those kids grow up, get jobs, start families, and want a place to live other than their childhood bedrooms. Want less urban sprawl? Support Planned Parenthood.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/01/19 11:43 AM

I disagree that liberals are worried about dwindling farm land. Yes, their all into what you mentioned. Which if fine as I side with them on those issues. But being pro-choice has nothing to do with building more subdivisions and shopping malls, the like turning once bountiful farmland's into concrete and asphalt.

Yes, modern equipment, hybrid seed, has increased the amount of food per acre by ten or more fold. The use of insecticides and other disease inhibiting sprays has also helped increase the yield. But at some point in time, we'll reach the the max or some disease or insect will become immune to the above and wreck havoc. Mother Nature can also play havoc.

Regardless of political ideology, political party, this planet of our can only support so many people. Can Soylent Green be that far around the corner? Perhaps China had the right idea, limit each family to one child. Drastic, yes. Workable, no.

Humans I believe are paving their way to their own destruction be that eradicating farmland, sooner or later there will be a nuclear, chemical or biological war, or perhaps something natural will occur. Asteroid, Super Volcano, pandemic, something else.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/01/19 11:48 AM

Are you saying real estate development interests should be curtailed?
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/01/19 10:14 PM

All I'm saying is that there is just so much farmland. The human population is booming, farmland is shrinking. Someday those lines will cross.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/01/19 11:45 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
All I'm saying is that there is just so much farmland. The human population is booming, farmland is shrinking. Someday those lines will cross.

Farmland is also losing its fecundity and resilience. All of those modern productivity enhancements are turning out to be more cancers on the environment. Something like 50% of atmospheric CO2 loading has come from maltreatment of the soil.

It should be a major concern.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/02/19 12:06 AM

Well, lucky for us, global climate change is set to wipe out at least half the population and send the rest back to the stone age, or perhaps a sort of dystopian garbage age where primitive tools are hammered from rusting old automobile frames.

Y'know the sky's the limit if you decide the future is going to be ugly.

The future is not going to be like the past. It's not going to be like the present either. But it's going to be okay. Because a lot of smart, motivated people are going to make it okay.
Posted by: chunkstyle

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/02/19 12:12 AM

WORD!

The carbon that is being released into the atmosphere thru industrial farming is not talked about nearly enough. Canít remember where I read it but the carbon content of the Midwest soil is being depleted. Scary stuff as I recall.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/02/19 04:47 AM



Beto is out. He'd be smart to run for Senate even though he says he won't. smile
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/02/19 11:04 AM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick


Beto is out. He'd be smart to run for Senate even though he says he won't. smile

I would have never voted for him anyway. But he was in second place in Texas which has their primary on super Tuesday. It was Biden 26.8, O'Rourke 16.5 with Warren and Sanders in 3rd and 4th.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-6875.html

The question becomes is which candidate will be able to pull in the most O'Rourke supporters? As for the senate, Cornyn isn't Cruz, he's more popular. Trump has a 50% approval rating in Texas, 45% disapprove so O'Rourke probably couldn't ride the anti-Trump vote to a win against Cornyn who is much more liked by Texan's as a whole than Cruz was. My opinion at this time anyway.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/02/19 03:15 PM

Quote:
O'Rourke probably couldn't ride the anti-Trump vote to a win against Cornyn


Spot on.
I had early hopes for O'Rourke as the centrist candidate between Biden and Bernie. It didn't pan out as he was never able to capitalize on his earlier success in Texas. He has since taken all sorts of radical positions in an effort to catch the eyes of progressives, none of which would be popular if he ran against Cornyn.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/02/19 05:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
O'Rourke probably couldn't ride the anti-Trump vote to a win against Cornyn


Spot on.
I had early hopes for O'Rourke as the centrist candidate between Biden and Bernie. It didn't pan out as he was never able to capitalize on his earlier success in Texas. He has since taken all sorts of radical positions in an effort to catch the eyes of progressives, none of which would be popular if he ran against Cornyn.


I agree. When one changes their stripes, it usually doesn't work out although there has been some exceptions.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/02/19 06:29 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
O'Rourke probably couldn't ride the anti-Trump vote to a win against Cornyn


Spot on.
I had early hopes for O'Rourke as the centrist candidate between Biden and Bernie. It didn't pan out as he was never able to capitalize on his earlier success in Texas. He has since taken all sorts of radical positions in an effort to catch the eyes of progressives, none of which would be popular if he ran against Cornyn.


I agree. When one changes their stripes, it usually doesn't work out although there has been some exceptions.

Authenticity works. Americans knew that Trump was a walking, talking rectum, and, lying, welsher - that's why nothing really sticks to him. It's not like he hid who he really was. Hmm

Trump, being Trump. smile
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/02/19 08:13 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
Originally Posted By: Greger
Quote:
O'Rourke probably couldn't ride the anti-Trump vote to a win against Cornyn


Spot on.
I had early hopes for O'Rourke as the centrist candidate between Biden and Bernie. It didn't pan out as he was never able to capitalize on his earlier success in Texas. He has since taken all sorts of radical positions in an effort to catch the eyes of progressives, none of which would be popular if he ran against Cornyn.


I agree. When one changes their stripes, it usually doesn't work out although there has been some exceptions.

Authenticity works. Americans knew that Trump was a walking, talking rectum, and, lying, welsher - that's why nothing really sticks to him. It's not like he hid who he really was. Hmm

Trump, being Trump. smile


A friend of mind described the 2016 election as between the devil we didn't know and devil we did. Trump was a businessman, a TV personality, no one knew how he would govern. Trump's the devil we didn't know. Everyone knew exactly how Hillary would, she was the devil we knew. He concluded by stating we opted for the devil we didn't know over the devil we did. Perhaps Clinton was too well known.

Yes, Trump, the seven time party switcher was one who changed his stripes to run as a Republican. He did win. Romney was another who changed his stripes from a liberal, Rockefeller Republican to a conservative one, he lost. There are exceptions, true indeed.

Changing his Stripes didn't help O'Rourke in his presidential bid. There were too many authentic progressives for folks to support. Now staying as a moderate probably also would have doomed any presidential aspirations. But it would in my opinion have helped him in any statewide race in Texas. Be that senator, governor or any other office.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 01:59 AM

Most of that "devil we did know" stuff was just 30 years of Republican smears. Hillary has never been charged with any crime and she has been investigated countless times at the cost of millions of taxpayer dollars by Republicans. Are they really that incompetent? Is she the smartest criminal on Earth? Or is she actually just the victim of years of slander? You pick one. I'm waiting for an answer...
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 01:32 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Most of that "devil we did know" stuff was just 30 years of Republican smears. Hillary has never been charged with any crime and she has been investigated countless times at the cost of millions of taxpayer dollars by Republicans. Are they really that incompetent? Is she the smartest criminal on Earth? Or is she actually just the victim of years of slander? You pick one. I'm waiting for an answer...


Few politicians/elected officials actually get charged with anything. I can remember a few congressmen, a couple of senators. Each individual views things differently, candidates, political parties, events, you name it. It is all a matter of personal perspective. A majority of Americans disagree with your perception of Hillary.

During 2016 she gave me the perception of being aloof, an elitist, that she deserved the presidency only because she was a woman. She had it in the bag. You're perception is entirely different. The e-mail scandal was my main reason for nixing her. I know she was never charged, given a free pass. Being a presidential candidate, one could expect nothing less.

I also know spending 21 years on active duty and another 26 working for the army as a department of the army civilian, that any Sp/4, sergeant along with any civilian was caught with that many classified messages, including TS SCI SAP material on an unclassified server or computer would have immediately lost their security clearance and probably would have been sent straight to Leavenworth. forget that many, not reporting one classified message that shows up on NIPR would be enough to lose your clearance. Automatically. We're talking SIPR and SCIF, SCI, TS netowrk stuff. By the way there is no way to move material from NIPR, SIPR or any of the TS networks to the other without having to copy and retype.

But that is old stuff, ancient history. What was important was how Americans as a whole viewed her on election day, 2016. 56% of all Americans viewed her negatively, this was made up of only 15% of democrats, 70% of independents, 92% of republicans. Question 10. If you want to compare favorable/unfavorable of Hillary against Trump, his is question 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

As time has passed, according to Gallup, Hillary's favorable's are still very low. Democrats give her a 77% favorable vs. 30% for independents and 4% from Republicans.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/snapshot-hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-low.aspx

Fact is outside of her supporters, mostly democrats she wasn't liked or wanted. Trump was in the same boat, he wasn't liked either outside of his supporters and Republicans. Independents hated both or at least disliked both. 54% of all independents which make up around 40% of the electorate disliked both candidates and wanted neither one to become the next president.

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-...candidates.aspx

My personal thinking, opinion, feeling is that in 2016 almost any other Democratic candidate would have trounced Trump. Sanders, O'Malley, Webb, Biden especially if he had entered. Would have won easily. That didn't happen and there is now no way to prove it. Just a feeling, mostly going by the favorable numbers of each vs. Trump. Where independents held both Trump and Clinton in disdain, they gave positive numbers to the rest I mentioned.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 03:51 PM

Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Most of that "devil we did know" stuff was just 30 years of Republican smears. Hillary has never been charged with any crime and she has been investigated countless times at the cost of millions of taxpayer dollars by Republicans. Are they really that incompetent? Is she the smartest criminal on Earth? Or is she actually just the victim of years of slander? You pick one. I'm waiting for an answer...

Bow
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 04:58 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
... caught with that many classified messages, including TS SCI SAP material on an unclassified server or computer would have immediately lost their security clearance and probably would have been sent straight to Leavenworth. ...


One thing you forget, as SecState, she was the Classification/de-Classification Authority for any and all State Department originated material. Additionally, it was determined that the material that was classified at the time of the investigation was not classified at the time the State Department was handling it.

Hell, our current President reveals very highly classified material, methods, and operations on almost a daily basis.

So which is worse, sensitive, but not classified material in email(s); or classified methods, operation and material exposure on television?
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 06:00 PM

So are you saying all of the so called classified e-mails were from the state department and were unclassified at the time Hillary received them? That none of them were from DOD, Homeland Security, FBI, the president, just the state department?

I find that hard to believe. As for Trump, I'll not defend him. My disdain for both Trump and Clinton are about as high as high can get.
Posted by: logtroll

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 07:19 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
So are you saying all of the so called classified e-mails were from the state department and were unclassified at the time Hillary received them?

My recollection is that the classified info in emails they found was all classified after they got into Clinton's server. I don't recall anything about which departments they were associated with.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 08:54 PM

Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: perotista
So are you saying all of the so called classified e-mails were from the state department and were unclassified at the time Hillary received them?

My recollection is that the classified info in emails they found was all classified after they got into Clinton's server. I don't recall anything about which departments they were associated with.


While I think Hillary got away with something that no one else ever would have. It's water under the bridge. I do know with DOD that all plans are classified from the get go until the operation is completed. She had 22 TS SAP (Top Secret Special Access Program) e-mails on her sever. If you ever been involved in any of these, you know those types of messages/e-mails stay in a SCIF and can't be removed.

Having dealt with the State Department before, their security both electronic and physical is about as lax as one can get. This was a long time ago while on active duty, but I doubt their security procedures has changed much.

I can understand one not understanding the difference between NIPR, SIPR and SCI Networks and how they work. I can also understand the reluctance to inform the public about how they work, what they're used for and what type of traffic, e-mails they carry.

Perhaps, it was better to let her skate than bring how we as a country handle our information and distribution of it out into the public arena. I understand all of this, it caused me to vote against her, but not to be bothered she wasn't charged. It's all probably for the best.
Posted by: Ujest Shurly

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 09:03 PM

What I am saying is State Dept. Inquiry Into Clinton Emails Finds No Deliberate Mishandling of Classified Information and that most if not all State Department originated material was not classified at the time and if it was, she as the SecState was the declassifying/classifying authority as such could decide to declassify on the spot. Additionally, the classified found on the server was sent to her, she was not the originator. Though she should have done something about that, piss poor OpSec.

Now as to the email server, not a smart move on her part.

P.S. At the bottom of the article is a little ditty about the Trump Administration, and the Trump and Kushner clan's use of email servers and wireless phones. I wonder what the Republicans are going to do, beside nothing.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 10:16 PM

I recollect the total emails which were mostly classified ad hoc as 113. Of that only 3 threads actually had classified material embedded in the body of the email. All of those were "confidential" and marked by the "C" indicating confidential. And of all of those all actual classified material was stripped from the body leaving only unclassified words.

Now of the other 110 threads most had to do with State Dept responses to a known black operation i.e. drone assassination strikes in pakistan. And all of these were originated by news articles which the sender requested State Dept responses. They were all classified because they discussed a black op which BTW was publicly known and especially after Pres Obama declassified on the fly a la Mr Trump.

In my opinion much ado about 3 email threads which had some "confidential" headers embedded in the body of the emails.

What really rankles me is the lack of good preemptive judgement on her part especially after 20 years of demonization by right wing nuts ... you would have thought she would have the good sense to use private email account for her private business and the easily hackable government servers for government business.

As far as deleting emails, NARA regulations at the tie allowed every person who had government accounts the opportunity to delete non-government emails at every persons discretion. That she would delete personal emails would be the same as any secretary in the pool deleting private non-government related emails.

As far as all the hubbub about backups etc coming from the right wing nuts ... they are all idiots with no knowledge nor understanding of how email servers work.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/03/19 11:33 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
I recollect the total emails which were mostly classified ad hoc as 113. Of that only 3 threads actually had classified material embedded in the body of the email. All of those were "confidential" and marked by the "C" indicating confidential. And of all of those all actual classified material was stripped from the body leaving only unclassified words.

Now of the other 110 threads most had to do with State Dept responses to a known black operation i.e. drone assassination strikes in pakistan. And all of these were originated by news articles which the sender requested State Dept responses. They were all classified because they discussed a black op which BTW was publicly known and especially after Pres Obama declassified on the fly a la Mr Trump.

In my opinion much ado about 3 email threads which had some "confidential" headers embedded in the body of the emails.

What really rankles me is the lack of good preemptive judgement on her part especially after 20 years of demonization by right wing nuts ... you would have thought she would have the good sense to use private email account for her private business and the easily hackable government servers for government business.

As far as deleting emails, NARA regulations at the tie allowed every person who had government accounts the opportunity to delete non-government emails at every persons discretion. That she would delete personal emails would be the same as any secretary in the pool deleting private non-government related emails.

As far as all the hubbub about backups etc coming from the right wing nuts ... they are all idiots with no knowledge nor understanding of how email servers work.


Well, perhaps a couple of thousand?

The State Department redacted about 2,000 emails before releasing them, saying they contain classified information ó including some that have been withheld entirely because they contain "top secret" information.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/clinton-email-half-true/


In a letter to lawmakers, the intelligence communityís internal watchdog says some of Clintonís emails contained information classified Top Secret/Special Access Program, a secrecy designation that includes some of the most closely held U.S. intelligence matters.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hil...cret-ig-n499886

If I remember right the number was 24 TS SAP messages or e-mails.

During my time in the military, I was involved in a lot of this both on active duty and as a civilian working for the army. Now as I stated, DOD is a lot more security conscious, aware and stricter than the state department. I never seen a department as lax when it came to security, both physical and electronic as the state department.

I for one don't hold states security procedures in high regard. Of course the two agencies are involved in completely different jobs. One is more concerned with diplomatic relations, passports and the like, the other in national security.

I have no doubt other state department personnel and heads used private e-mail accounts instead of the governments. That's the state department. I'd never even attempt to defend anyone who did that.

Like I said, it was probably decided it was better to let her skate than to have to bring out into the public arena a lot of stuff the government doesn't want the public to know. That I understand.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 04:15 AM

Really? The Republicans in Congress "decided to let her skate"? No way: They would have LOVED to charge her with a crime, any crime at all. Right before the election? But they couldn't, because no prosecution would be successful, or even undertaken by any prosecutor. Her defense would have pointed out that Colin Powell had done the same thing, and her server was way more secure than a government server with thousands of users on it.

And your comments on "how the public felt about her" just supports my point. It's all about perception, and the Republicans succeeded in smearing her. Many did not trust her, because of that smear.

From a security point of view, she would have been MUCH better than Trump: He's tweeting, talking on TV, and having private conferences with Russians where he gives away all kinds of secure information.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 05:23 AM

You are talking of individual emails, I was talking about email threads.

Also note just talking about a black ops program, which was top secret, except everyone in the world knew about it, would have been classified as TS, except these folks did not believe simply developing a response to news articles was the same as embedding copy and pasted reports.

Your citation does not clarify anything. The accusation was she sent or received classified material. Now what I interpret that to mean is part of whole classified reports were attached or embedded in emails. I do not consider a discussion of State Dept responses to news articles regarding classified materials as classified material because the actual material to be classified is not a part of the discussion (my impression at the time from public sources). I suppose if one were to be a stickler about even obliquely mentioning classified material then there may have been cause to classify. Thus a discussion of the Pakistan drone assassination program instigated by a news article about the secret program would to me not make sense to classify, except inherently because it was closed to the public.

Note also in that citation there is no mention of how the email threads were started. I think context offers a better picture of what was going on, rather than a narrative without explanation i.e. conservatives like to say even though the emails were classified after the fact, we should look at them as if they had been classified when sent, which offers no context.

Now since I mentioned the TS CIA Pakistan Drone assassination program, this thread is now classified and you should read it ... well you know what comes next.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 12:59 PM

Simply put, to Clinton supporters she did no wrong. To the anti-Clintonista's, she should have been tarred and feathered and thrown in jail for putting this country's security at risk. You're not going to change any of their minds.

The FBI decided to late her skate, they probably had consultations with other organizations and decided its better to keep our operations and how we do things, disseminate things secret and from public view. Charging her and going to court would have put these things out in the public arena in full view of friends and enemies. Better to let her skate than have that happen.

We'll have to disagree on why the public disliked Hillary. It was no secret that they did way back in February of 2016 when a poll showed that 56% of all Americans wanted the democrats to nominate someone other than Hillary. The Democrats didn't heed what all Americans wanted, just Democrats which was their right. Now it is all Americans that decide elections, not just Democrats which they found out that November of 2016. The warning was there, the Democrats just ignored it.

I think Hillary has caused her own dissatisfaction among Americans, not just the Republican smears as you call them. She still isn't liked today by a majority of Americans. 77% of Democrats like her, 30% of independents and 4% of Republicans. It was Hillary's dislike by independents that let Trump won the independent vote and the White House. In 2016, only 27% independents liked or had a favorable view of Hillary compared to 30% today.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243242/snapshot-hillary-clinton-favorable-rating-low.aspx

Regardless of who we blame or the cause, the fact remains that Hillary plain isn't liked.

I do agree, it is all a matter of personal perspective. The good news from 2016 was that Hillary lost, the bad news was that Trump won. Such is life and politics. It was in my opinion bad politics to nominate someone as disliked as Trump was by America as a whole and more disliked than Trump by independents, 70% disliked of Hillary vs. 57% disliked of Trump back in 2016. Questions 10 and 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 02:52 PM

I was a Clinton supporter. I didn't imagine she was an angel but I don't require that in a candidate. I do require some sort of competence and experience. She'd have been an excellent president, as presidents go, not the best, not the worst. Trump is pretty obviously the worst.

And there's a fair chance he'll be re-elected. I do hope your joy at Trump's election or Clinton's defeat is tempered by the complete lack of effective government we have achieved by elevating a complete idiot to the position.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 06:08 PM

Not being all that partisan, I really didn't care who won in 2016. That is obvious by my third party vote against both. Would Clinton have been a better president, that is in my opinion a matter of personal perspectives. I'm glad Hillary lost, sad Trump won. That sums up my feelings.

I personally believe that each would have left this country in far worst shape when either one first enter office than when either one leaves office. That either one would have harmed this country. Of course that is my belief, not yours. It's my belief and perspectives that decide my vote. Not anyone else's.

I have no problem with those who think Trump is the greatest president ever and those who think he is the worst. Personal and political beliefs come into play. I also believe that almost any other Democrat other than Hillary would have trounced Trump. That Hillary by her laziness, her ho hum campaign, her inept campaign strategy, her persona that left folks with the feeling she was aloof and an elitist led to her loss more than the Russians or anything else.

Now I seen almost all Clinton supporters and most Democrats overlook the above and place all the blame on the Russians and none on Hillary. I've come to expect that, that doesn't bother me either. I think their nuts, way too partisan that perhaps they won't take the lessons learned from 2016 and apply them to 2020. It might be that those who won't learn from history are bound to repeat the same mistakes.

The biggest lesson the Democrats should learn is that candidates matter. Perhaps not to Republicans and Democrats, history has shown they vote for their party's candidate 90% of the time regardless of who their candidate is. It is to the independent, the less to non-partisan, the unaffiliated, the swing voter where candidates matter comes into play. Not the R or the D next to a candidate's name which for the most part is all the Republicans and democrats pay attention to. I wonder if the democrats have learned this yet. Time will tell.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 07:31 PM

Quote:
Simply put, to Clinton supporters she did no wrong. To the anti-Clintonista's, she should have been tarred and feathered and thrown in jail for putting this country's security at risk. You're not going to change any of their minds.

Perhaps true and valid but may I say, had Sec Pompeo done the same thing with emails, I would have come to the same conclusion i.e the minor infraction of embedding the confidential header "C" in emails and stripping out all the confidential material, and discussing responses to CIA black op programs from news article starters. Of course it was never stated but I wonder, were those threads classified because the news articles mentioned the programs or because of the discussion??? Had Sec Clinton and staff been embedding or attaching classified docs in those emails, yeah she should have been persecuted [ed.].

I did not support her but I was forced to vote for her as the alternative was far worse ... not just a little but far worse.
Posted by: rporter314

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 07:44 PM

Quote:
Now I seen almost all Clinton supporters and most Democrats overlook the above and place all the blame on the Russians and none on Hillary.
I am neither but do think if one is to assign "blame" for a political loss, then it was a complex mix of things. Despite the fact she was a competent candidate she lacked authenticity. While there may have been some influence from Russian meddling (I suspect it was more to bring out the Trump vote rather than depress the Clinton vote), I believe the major factor in the loss was Dir Comey's last minute announcement. I could almost see the black ink on the pages before me listing the latest poll numbers changing as if in some surreal TV show.

Who could have predicted Mr trump would be the voice of bigotry in America? I never envisioned it as something which would inspire the deplorables to come out or give such a highly flawed human the chance to be president of the US.
Posted by: Greger

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 07:56 PM

Quote:
such a highly flawed human


Clinton might have been a highly flawed candidate but as human beings go she's not that bad.
Posted by: jgw

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/04/19 09:36 PM

I find it interesting. Most of the folk, on this site, seem to be lefties (Democrats). Most are also upset with the "Hillary Emails". I find that pretty interesting. The Trump daughter, Ivonka (I think) has been using a private email server since Trump took over (as far as I know). That being the case one would think that the lefties would be delighted to mention this one every now and then but, I guess, not really.

They, apparently, would rather beat up a fellow progressive/lefty/Democrat than attack a Trump! Amazing! Then, again, maybe not so much........... Seems, to me, that the democratic whatever would much rather beat up one of their own than upset the Trumpies of the world.

It took the Republicans about 40 years to fine tune their Hillary demonization but it REALLY worked for, apparently, EVERYBODY! Its really quite effective, Hitler knew it and, now, the Republicans can demonstrate it. It goes like:
Tell a lie. It needs to be big and it need to be repeated often over time. It will, during that time, become fact.

It also helps if you can get congress to hold 100 million dollars worth of failed hearing. Then tell everybody they were very successful. That will put the cherry on the top of the cake for sure!
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/05/19 12:56 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
Simply put, to Clinton supporters she did no wrong. To the anti-Clintonista's, she should have been tarred and feathered and thrown in jail for putting this country's security at risk. You're not going to change any of their minds.

Perhaps true and valid but may I say, had Sec Pompeo done the same thing with emails, I would have come to the same conclusion i.e the minor infraction of embedding the confidential header "C" in emails and stripping out all the confidential material, and discussing responses to CIA black op programs from news article starters. Of course it was never stated but I wonder, were those threads classified because the news articles mentioned the programs or because of the discussion??? Had Sec Clinton and staff been embedding or attaching classified docs in those emails, yeah she should have been persecuted [ed.].

I did not support her but I was forced to vote for her as the alternative was far worse ... not just a little but far worse.


I think we'll just have to disagree. Those who worked for DOD thought it was a very serious breach of electronic security. Those who are politically inclined to support Hillary did not.

Of course State Department isn't DOD either. A presidential candidate isn't your typical PFC, Sp/4 or GS-6 either. There you have it.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/05/19 02:11 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
I think we'll just have to disagree. Those who worked for DOD thought it was a very serious breach of electronic security. Those who are politically inclined to support Hillary did not.

I seriously doubt that James Comey supported Hillary politically. Hmm
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/05/19 02:18 PM

Originally Posted By: jgw
I find it interesting. Most of the folk, on this site, seem to be lefties (Democrats). Most are also upset with the "Hillary Emails". I find that pretty interesting. The Trump daughter, Ivonka (I think) has been using a private email server since Trump took over (as far as I know). That being the case one would think that the lefties would be delighted to mention this one every now and then but, I guess, not really.

That's not the reason why it's not mentioned. Ivanka AND Jared have done the same thing that Hillary was accused of. I'm sure it's been mentioned before. The problem is that there is so much to call-out Trump on, that you just don't know where to begin. Hmm

But this much is true: if Trump is calling someone out on some thing - he's doing the very same behavior himself - I guarantee. smile
Posted by: rporter314

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/05/19 06:17 PM

And perhaps you hit it on the nail head .... they worked at State not DoD. I think I said it in a different way in a previous post.

Maybe they should all be sent to boot camp for 6 weeks before assuming their positions.

Out of curiosity I have to wonder if the current State Dept is not guilty of similar "crimes". Maybe FOIA should be consulted.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/05/19 06:40 PM

Originally Posted By: rporter314
And perhaps you hit it on the nail head .... they worked at State not DoD. I think I said it in a different way in a previous post.

Maybe they should all be sent to boot camp for 6 weeks before assuming their positions.

Out of curiosity I have to wonder if the current State Dept is not guilty of similar "crimes". Maybe FOIA should be consulted.


Unless the State Department has changed drastically, I very sure they are as lax as ever about both electronic and physical security as ever. It a mentality at State. Then again, you have two entirely different missions between State and DOD.

The State Department just doesn't give security a high priority. At least in my opinion. Not even close to DOD standards.

This was true way before Hillary and I don't expect much have changed since.
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/05/19 06:44 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
I think we'll just have to disagree. Those who worked for DOD thought it was a very serious breach of electronic security. Those who are politically inclined to support Hillary did not.

I seriously doubt that James Comey supported Hillary politically. Hmm


I haven't the slightest idea who Comey supported. I know Comey became a Democratic Party hero when he exonerated or at least refused to charge Hillary over her E-Mails. Then The Republicans wanted him fired.

Then a couple of weeks prior to the election, Comey reopened the investigation. Now he was a Republican Hero with the Democrats wanting him fired.

Finally when Trump fired Comey, he went back to being a Democratic Party hero. Go figure. Or perhaps I should say that is politics as usual.
Posted by: pdx rick

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/05/19 07:19 PM

Originally Posted By: perotista
I haven't the slightest idea who Comey supported. I know Comey became a Democratic Party hero when he exonerated or at least refused to charge Hillary over her E-Mails. Then The Republicans wanted him fired.

Jame Comey is...was a life-long Republican as has been widely reported. As is Clapper and Mueller.

Originally Posted By: perotista
Then a couple of weeks prior to the election, Comey reopened the investigation. Now he was a Republican Hero with the Democrats wanting him fired.

Finally when Trump fired Comey, he went back to being a Democratic Party hero.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. smile , Hmm
Posted by: perotista

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/05/19 10:47 PM

Originally Posted By: pdx rick
Originally Posted By: perotista
I haven't the slightest idea who Comey supported. I know Comey became a Democratic Party hero when he exonerated or at least refused to charge Hillary over her E-Mails. Then The Republicans wanted him fired.

Jame Comey is...was a life-long Republican as has been widely reported. As is Clapper and Mueller.

Originally Posted By: perotista
Then a couple of weeks prior to the election, Comey reopened the investigation. Now he was a Republican Hero with the Democrats wanting him fired.

Finally when Trump fired Comey, he went back to being a Democratic Party hero.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. smile , Hmm


I think your last sentence sums it up.
Posted by: pondering_it_all

Re: And we're off and running! - 11/06/19 04:58 AM

I think Comey and Mueller both are honorable and ethical men who also are life-long Republicans. Their political affiliation may be different than mine, but they both served the US for a very long time, and they both got the shitty end of the stick at the end of their government service careers. Trump's main problem with them is not their Party affiliation, but the fact that they tried to do the right thing. I think they will wind up the heroes of this story, when it's over. And "Trump Supporter" will be a label Republican politicians will run from for decades.