Who's supporting Clinton?

[TheVat]

I think SciameriKen might enjoy this....

[zetreque]

haha, same could be said about Trump who is now declaring that drought doesn't exist. He basically says it's all a conspiracy to not give people water. And a bunch of hot air is what we will get if he becomes president because he is becoming more outspoken about eliminating environmental and climate change mitigation policies.

[SciameriKen]

We need that facebook heart symbol for that post!

Totally agree with Zet here - Trump is coming out hard against the environment - as much as I want to vote against Hillary - and even though I'm not 100% on board with the "consensus" of climate change, I don't think we really should be antagonizing the earth right now... Damn I hate this election year...!

[mtbturtle]

I see no reason to pay attention to this election. There will be no discussion or analysis of policy. It's going to be a 24/7 Donald freakshow. I know who I'm voting for and that's not going to change. I think those who even consider voting for Trump to be beyond hope and persuasion so why bother. Enjoy the summer and turn the news off as often as possible.

[TheVat]

I think Trump potential voters are not beyond hope. Many are just disgruntled with what they see as a political system in which they have no voice. At various times in our history, that has resulted in formation of a 3rd party and a strong candidate who polls well (see George Wallace, Ross Perot, Wm Jennings Bryan, Robert LaFollette, Millard Fillmore, Strom Thurmond, et al.). What makes this election cycle such a freakshow is that the 3rd party candidate is showing up....as the GOP frontrunner. Which puts us in the bizarre world of 3rd party prospecting for a moderate Republican, like Mittens. It's possible, as Libertarians like to dream, that Gary Johnson could actually pull some votes from Trump, when some of Trump's disgruntled masses realize that Trump really has no practical plan for anything. Or that he has "New York liberal" mixed in his ideologic DNA. I could well imagine Johnson actually getting 10-15% in some states from Trump defectors. He would never win a single electoral vote, but he would, like Nader in Florida in 2000, knock out the leading contender and hand the electoral votes to Hillary.

[zetreque]

knock out the leading contender and hand the electoral votes to Hillary.

Or Sanders ;)

[mtbturtle]

Sanders isn't going to run indie Zet let it go.

Republicans voting Libertarians and Sanders supporters voting Green I think would be attractive alternatives and might send the kind of Ideological message, anti-establishment some are looking for.

[zetreque]

I meant that Hillary is going to be forced out of the primary because of her email scandal and it's going to be Sanders :)

[mtbturtle]

I meant that Hillary is going to be forced out of the primary because of her email scandal and it's going to be Sanders :)

Nobody cares about her emails ( as I recall including Sanders). There is no scandal.

[zetreque]

well I just hate people ruling out Sanders when all the websites aren't truly reflecting the popular vote. He has gained ground in Nevada for example because they are still caucusing.

[mtbturtle]

well I just hate people ruling out Sanders when all the websites aren't truly reflecting the popular vote. He has gained ground in Nevada for example because they are still caucusing.

The popular vote doesn't matter at this point. It's about delegates.

[zetreque]

Sanders is gaining ground in Nevada as far as delegates too. I'm trying to find some news. The process is not over. There are three stages to it until the national convention. Of course no one reports on it.

[zetreque]

Unlike in a primary, the Nevada caucus does not result directly in national delegates for each candidate. Instead, caucus-goers elect delegates to county conventions, who, in turn, elect delegates to state conventions, where Nevada’s national convention delegates are selected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_caucuses

of course websites, and no one mentions it or updates their records to show the latest result. I stopped following the election like you said above because it's all a joke.

[zetreque]

Wall Street Journal
Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee
May 31, 2016 6:31 p.m. ET
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-might-not-be-the-nominee-1464733898

[SciameriKen]

Zet is right that it is not over. Clinton will not get the needed total in pledged delegates, she will need super delegates. Super delegates will then weigh who is most likely to beat trump. Sanders polls better, is doing better more recently (assuming he does well next Tuesday), beats Clinton heavily among independent voters, and most importantly, is heavily supported by young voters - the future of the party.

So if super delegates truly do their job they could elect Sanders over Clinton. But let's be honest here - the Clinton machine is all powerful and the superdelegates are voting Clinton regardless of any such factors of electability.

[zetreque]

I did have access to that full WSJ article but not now. Maybe it's because I'm at home now and not on the school IP?

Anyway, it had a lot of good points. One is that only 1 in 4 people (in the polls) that would vote for Clinton actually trust her. That's saying the only reason they are voting for her is they basically have no choice given the options.

[zetreque]

I meant that Hillary is going to be forced out of the primary because of her email scandal and it's going to be Sanders :)

Nobody cares about her emails ( as I recall including Sanders). There is no scandal.

Nobody cares? That's not what I'm seeing now that I'm actually looking this stuff up. It's all over the place. Including petitions with thousands of signatures.

[SciameriKen]

I meant that Hillary is going to be forced out of the primary because of her email scandal and it's going to be Sanders :)

Nobody cares about her emails ( as I recall including Sanders). There is no scandal.

Nobody cares? That's not what I'm seeing now that I'm actually looking this stuff up. It's all over the place. Including petitions with thousands of signatures.

I concur (probably no surprise there :) I think most though, oh here we go again with another fake Clinton scandal - but the details are emerging and there could be something there. This is why there has been a lot of utterances of Joe Biden in the media and talk of him being pushed in just in case the worst happens.

[zetreque]

For some reason Martha Stewart came to mind when I saw this petition.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-people-call-disqualification-removal-hillary-rodham-clinton-2016-presidential-ballot

And I listened to a recording of Hillary Clinton being questioned which had the same exact tone and vibe as when Bill said "I did not have...."

Speaking of Nevada
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... convention

[hyksos]

Choosing between Hillary and Trump is like deciding to either take poison or shoot yourself. The only thing I can say is that we 'probably' need to elect a Democrat so that Donald Trump does not stack the Supreme Court. Remember, SCOTUS justices are for life.

[mtbturtle]

I really don't get this equivalency between Trump and Hillary both being equally bad. Trump is vile. Whatever I think of Hillary she isn't a racist. Hillary is the most qualified candidate to run in my lifetime. She has taken decades of smears and attacks and is still going. If she were a man . . .

[TheVat]

Wall Street Journal
Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee
May 31, 2016 6:31 p.m. ET
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-might-not-be-the-nominee-1464733898

Paywall, Zee.

Thomas Friedman had a good piece in the NYT this weekend, comparing the size and nature of Hillary's lies with Trump's lies. Will find link here in a sec.

I think Bernie is dreaming when he says "California is the whole enchilada." Or living in 1968, back when it was a winner-take-all primary. After a messy convention floor brawl in 1972, California reformed its primary and delegates are now apportioned based on vote totals. Polls suggest he will get 45-48% of the enchilada. Not enough. It gives me no pleasure to say this: Hillary's coronation is coming and there's no way to stop it. Superdelegates were specifically instituted to PREVENT a popular insurgent candidate from storming the ramparts and ravaging the Party establishment. (Democrats can be just as slick and sneaky as Repubs) That's why most of them are committing to the Chosen One and why Bernie has no chance of wheedling them over to his corner. SuperD's are a corruption of democracy.

[TheVat]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/opini ... atter.html

Friedman on Hillary's lies v. her opponent's double-whoppers.

[SciameriKen]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/opinion/politicians-and-the-lies-that-matter.html

Friedman on Hillary's lies v. her opponent's double-whoppers.

Lol I enjoyed watching the commenters rip this article to shreds.

I could not disagree more with his take on Bernie Sanders and the supposed lies he spouts. First off he cites the Tax Foundation analysis of his plans - which the Tax Foundation is basically utilizing models heavily dependent on failed libertarian economic philosophies, and under those false assumptions predict poor outcomes for Bernie's plans. I don't have time to go into more of the misinformed nonsense this author is spouting, other than the ridiculous downplay of the significance of Hillary's lies. Should we expect nothing less from the NYT?

[SciameriKen]

Wall Street Journal
Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee
May 31, 2016 6:31 p.m. ET
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-might-not-be-the-nominee-1464733898

Paywall, Zee.

Thomas Friedman had a good piece in the NYT this weekend, comparing the size and nature of Hillary's lies with Trump's lies. Will find link here in a sec.

I think Bernie is dreaming when he says "California is the whole enchilada." Or living in 1968, back when it was a winner-take-all primary. After a messy convention floor brawl in 1972, California reformed its primary and delegates are now apportioned based on vote totals. Polls suggest he will get 45-48% of the enchilada. Not enough. It gives me no pleasure to say this: Hillary's coronation is coming and there's no way to stop it. Superdelegates were specifically instituted to PREVENT a popular insurgent candidate from storming the ramparts and ravaging the Party establishment. (Democrats can be just as slick and sneaky as Repubs) That's why most of them are committing to the Chosen One and why Bernie has no chance of wheedling them over to his corner. SuperD's are a corruption of democracy.

I agree with everything you say here except the opinion on the Friedman piece, and how you think California will end up. I think your estimate is fair relative to the polls, but as we have seen many times before the polls can be horribly wrong. I believe this will be one of those cases as registrations in California are at never seen before pace and most of those individuals are younger. Although the state is a semi-closed primary, the restrictions are not so bad and the deadline is reasonable (it may have even been extended). There is a remote chance that some republicans could redeclare just to screw with Hillary too, since their primary is set. I'll put my prediction here as a win of 55 - 45 for Bernie.

[SciameriKen]

I really don't get this equivalency between Trump and Hillary both being equally bad. Trump is vile. Whatever I think of Hillary she isn't a racist. Hillary is the most qualified candidate to run in my lifetime. She has taken decades of smears and attacks and is still going. If she were a man . . .

I find the argument funny that she has taken years of smears and attacks and this is a good thing. This tells me that she at best likes to flirt with the limits of what is allowed and at worst she is actually guilty of some of these things.

I think the fact that she is so well known is going to be a double edged sword. She is currently tied with Trump - what is she going to say that we haven't heard before to get ahead? how can she attack trump when for whatever she goes after him with she has something in her history that also applies.

[TheVat]

Clarifying: my liking of Friedman piece was not for the Bern breakdown....I just plain don't know about the analysis cited, maybe another thread? Rather, it was his noting qualitative differences between Trump lies and HRC lies.

As for the Cali race, you may be right about some wild cards there, so we'll see how the enchilada divides. Latinos vastly favor Clinton, younguns vastly favor Bernie, and the Venn diagrams get confusing.

[mtbturtle]

I really don't get this equivalency between Trump and Hillary both being equally bad. Trump is vile. Whatever I think of Hillary she isn't a racist. Hillary is the most qualified candidate to run in my lifetime. She has taken decades of smears and attacks and is still going. If she were a man . . .

I find the argument funny that she has taken years of smears and attacks and this is a good thing. This tells me that she at best likes to flirt with the limits of what is allowed and at worst she is actually guilty of some of these things.

I find it funny you thought I meant it as a good thing. If those are the only two alternatives you can come up with, I think you are trolling. I would go with the rightwing hate machine grew up based on Clinton hating. You might stop to consider how 30+ years of exposure to this has affected your views of Hillary Clinton.

I think the fact that she is so well known is going to be a double edged sword. She is currently tied with Trump - what is she going to say that we haven't heard before to get ahead? how can she attack trump when for whatever she goes after him with she has something in her history that also applies.

Tell me about some of Hillary's hate mongering and how she mainstream this kind of rhetoric? How has she defrauded customers (Trump U)? Can we get a list of the conspiracy theories Hillary promotes?

[mtbturtle]

I think it's worth asking those Bernie supporters that don't think it makes a difference if they vote or who they vote for (all being equal) and all that, if Bernie were to propose legislation in the Senate about (insert your favorite issue) and it actually passed, who do you think would be more likely to sign it? And then there is the Supreme Court nominations, do you really think Trumps nominees don't matter?

[zetreque]

I just so happen to have a copy of the WSJ here at school.
I am puzzled by how many papers online publish the same article nearly word for word under a different author. At a glace at least half of the WSJ article is is in this article. I don't read the paper but it is disgusting how Trump is mentioned on every page of the paper when there are so many other people out there in the world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodm ... 55294.html