The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

Adobewan

Well-Known Member
Sanders Isn’t Doing Well With True Independents
By Harry Enten

ap_16144801214205.jpg

Bernie Sanders during an interview with The Associated Press on Monday in Los Angeles.
A lot has been made of Bernie Sanders’s appeal with independent voters during the Democratic presidential primary. He has won people who identify as independents in state after state, while Hillary Clinton has won people who identify as Democrats. Some Sanders backers have argued that this will translate to the general election; they point to general election polls that show Sanders doing better against Donald Trump than Clinton is.

The problem with this analysis, however, is that most independents are really closeted partisans, and there is no sign that true independents disproportionately like Sanders.

Most voters who identify as independent consistently vote for one party or the other in presidential elections. In a Gallup poll taken in early April, for instance, 41 percent of independents (who made up 44 percent of all respondents) leaned Democratic, and 36 percent leaned Republican. Just 23 percent of independents had no partisan preference. In the last three presidential elections, the Democratic candidate received the support of no less than 88 percent of self-identified independents who leaned Democratic, according to the American National Elections Studies survey. These are, in effect, Democratic voters with a different name.

Right now, Clinton is struggling with this group. According to a Gallup poll conducted May 15 to May 21, her favorable rating among Democratic-leaning independents was just 51 percent, compared with 73 percent among people who identify as Democrats. That’s a 22-percentage-point difference. Sanders and Trump, on the other hand, had gaps of just 3 and 7 percentage points, respectively, between independents who lean toward their party and their party’s pure partisans.

Sanders did slightly better with Democratic-leaning independents (71 percent favorable) than he did with plain-old Democrats (68 percent favorable), but that appeal does not seem to extend to true independents — those who are most likely to change party allegiances between elections and whose split between the Republican and Democratic candidates nearly matched the split in the nation overall in the last two elections, according to the ANES. In the Gallup poll, Sanders had a 35 percent favorable rating among independents who don’t lean toward either party. Clinton’s favorable rating with that group was 34 percent. Trump’s was a ridiculously low 16 percent.

One could argue that Sanders has greater potential with these true independents than Clinton: Just 63 percent of them had formed an opinion of him, according to the Gallup poll, while 83 percent had done so for Clinton. But it’s also possible that these true independents will turn against him in greater numbers as they learn more about him.

For now, though, Sanders’s big advantage over Clinton in general election matchups is his edge among Democratic-leaning independents, not pure independents. Currently, all the Democratic groups that like Clinton also like Sanders, but the reverse is not true. As my colleague Nate Silver and NBC News’s Mark Murray have both pointed out over the past week: Clinton has yet to win over a number of Sanders supporters, but Sanders does very well among most Clinton supporters.

But that we’re talking about Clinton’s need to win over Democratic-leaning independents rather than true independents is a hopeful sign for her campaign — these voters have tended to stick with the Democratic Party. If Clinton can lure these Sanders voters back into her tent, she’ll probably lead Trump by somewhere around 5 percentage points nationally, instead of the 2 percentage points she leads him by now. My guess is that she’ll probably win many of them over, considering that a large portion are normally reliable Democratic voters. This year is so crazy, though — who can really say?
Some might consider that a misleading headline.

This opinion article seems to be saying Bernie is winning with independents, but the author sees "no sign true independents disproportionately like Sanders”.
Other than the appeal to independent voters, winning people in state after state, and polls showing Sanders doing better than Trump in the general, that the author sights in the previous paragraph.

What exactly is the point of this article other than to plant that sound bite of a headline?

It’s good to check our sources and their biases as well:

Is 538 in the Bag for Hillary?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/04/is-538-in-the-bag-for-hillary/

Nate Silver's Analysis Saying Hillary Clinton Is More Electable Than Bernie Sanders Is "Biased And Wrong" | Video | RealClearPolitics
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ment_into_thinking_trump_could_never_win.html
 

grokit

well-worn member
Senate Democrats Considering Replacing DNC Chair
By Marlee Kokotovic - May 25, 2016 | News Report 9

Democrats discuss whether to #DumpDebbie from her position as chairperson of the Democratic National Committee.

debbie.jpg

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 16: Debbie Wasserman Schultz speaks onstage at the FORTUNE Most Powerful Women Summit on October 16, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Paul Morigi/Getty Images for FORTUNE)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, may soon be losing her position. She could be giving up her seat as soon as the beginning of summer. At least a dozen top elected officials are on board with this decision.

“There have been a lot of meetings over the past 48 hours about what color plate do we deliver Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s head on,” a U.S. Senate Democrat supporting Hillary Clinton told The Hill on Tuesday. “I don’t see how she can continue to the election. How can she open the convention? Sanders supporters would go nuts,” the source concluded.

Wasserman Schultz has been accused of favoring Clinton because of her history with the candidate. She was the co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. In December, she was responsible for stripping the Sanders campaign of access to the DNC’s 50-state voter file, which caused a lot of outrage amongst the party.

The hashtag #DumpDebbie is already going viral by Twitter users to urge the removal of Wasserman Schultz.

http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/05/25/senate-democrats-considering-replacing-dnc-chair/

:myday:
 

Adobewan

Well-Known Member
Senate Democrats Considering Replacing DNC Chair
By Marlee Kokotovic - May 25, 2016 | News Report 9

Democrats discuss whether to #DumpDebbie from her position as chairperson of the Democratic National Committee.

debbie.jpg

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 16: Debbie Wasserman Schultz speaks onstage at the FORTUNE Most Powerful Women Summit on October 16, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Paul Morigi/Getty Images for FORTUNE)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, may soon be losing her position. She could be giving up her seat as soon as the beginning of summer. At least a dozen top elected officials are on board with this decision.

“There have been a lot of meetings over the past 48 hours about what color plate do we deliver Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s head on,” a U.S. Senate Democrat supporting Hillary Clinton told The Hill on Tuesday. “I don’t see how she can continue to the election. How can she open the convention? Sanders supporters would go nuts,” the source concluded.

Wasserman Schultz has been accused of favoring Clinton because of her history with the candidate. She was the co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. In December, she was responsible for stripping the Sanders campaign of access to the DNC’s 50-state voter file, which caused a lot of outrage amongst the party.

The hashtag #DumpDebbie is already going viral by Twitter users to urge the removal of Wasserman Schultz.

http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/05/25/senate-democrats-considering-replacing-dnc-chair/

:myday:
Unfortunately, her dirty work is already done so she's likely to still receive favor from the rich and powerful Clintons.
The quality of her life is likely to improve, though not necessarily the rest of our's.
Mission accomplished!
 

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Unfortunately, her dirty work is already done so she's likely to still receive favor from the rich and powerful Clintons.
The quality of her life is likely to improve, though not necessarily the rest of our's.
Mission accomplished!

I wonder how long it'll take before she'll be making the rounds of the unbelievably lucrative speaking circuit? I hear there is a void to be filled now. :brow:
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Trump is calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas. No rules apply to this guy.

I knew Hillary's email server would become a problem. This takes away from the real issues. All of this hadn't been resolved before she ran for office.

Edit
It's only a matter of time before someone gets seriously injured protesting Trump when he's speaking. He's not s healthy influence to the American's psyche. IMO people like him are very dangerous as we already found out. Nothing too bad has happened so far. I think it's only a matter of time.

All the money it's costing these cities for police staff and other employees to make sure nobody gets injured.

Trump, can come to Sesttle, they love a nice riot there. Last time Trump came to WA state he didn't come to Seattle.
 
Last edited:

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Berniebros have turned into the most paranoid bunch of partisans I have ever seen in a presidential election. They have come to believe that it is simply impossible for Bernie to lose (Hey the pope and sparrows are on his side! Onward true believers!), therefore if he does lose, it's because somebody cheated. The media is in the tank! They are not covering Bernie properly. The DNC is in the tank! They arranged the debates so Bernie would lose! (I still don't understand how that is even possible). They rigged the rules so Bernie would lose! (Funny, most of those rules pre-dated Bernie's candidacy). Exit polls (which have, as you know, never, ever been wrong) prove conclusively that whenever Hillary won, the vote count was rigged! Of course whenever Bernie won anything the elections were clean. In clean elections, Bernie wins - because he should, don't you know? Here's a new howler: Nate Silver is in the tank for Hillary! So if a pollster correctly predicts a win, that just shows he's in the tank for the (fraudulent) winner and his incorrect predictions caused the real winner to lose! Any poll that favors Bernie must be correct and any poll that does not shower glory on Bernie is fraudulent. It's not paranoia if everybody really is against you!

I blame Bernie. A responsible politician accepts defeat when he is well and truly defeated and does not encourage his followers to go this route. How exactly is he going to turn this around and support the democratic candidate at the end of the process? Which Bernie are you going to believe: the pre-June 7th Bernie who paints Clinton as a corrupt, cheating monster in the pay of wall street (and nurses unions!) or the post-June 7th Bernie who tells you Clinton is wonderful and vote for Clinton? Saint Bernie of the clay feet!
 
Last edited:
Gunky,

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Hillary screwed up with the email server and its created a shit storm. Now all the info today. She has shot herself in the foot and she doesn't need the Bernie supporters to hurt her she's done that herself.
When you know that you are going to run for president you don't do stuff like the personal email server. She had very bad advice.
She has too much baggage. I don't want Donald Trump. She has created an in for Trump and more negative. She may have caused the Republicans to get the presidency. All these pledged super delegates going her way before the debates or voting even started in the primary.

Edit
I just heard that the federal government is paying for police protection in these cities during the rioting. Your tax dollars at work America. They need to bill Donald Trump the 10 billion dollar billionaire.
 
Last edited:

Gunky

Well-Known Member
Hillary screwed up with the email server and its created a shit storm. Now all the info today. She has shot herself in the foot and she doesn't need the Bernie supporters to hurt her she's done that herself.
When you know that you are going to run for president you don't do stuff like the personal email server. She had very bad advice.
She has too much baggage. I don't want Donald Trump. She has created an in for Trump and more negative. She may have caused the Republicans to get the presidency. All these pledged super delegates going her way before the debates or voting even started in the primary.
Please explain how the private email server Hillary used as Secretary of State harmed anyone or anything. Who got hurt? What was damaged? Why should this be considered anything other than a minor, inconsequential, technical issue which republican congressmen sought to turn into a political issue via hearings?
 
Gunky,

Snappo

Caveat Emptor - "A Billion People Can Be Wrong!"
Accessory Maker
Hillary screwed up with the email server and its created a shit storm. Now all the info today. She has shot herself in the foot and she doesn't need the Bernie supporters. She has too much baggage. I don't want Donald Trump.
Right! With all of her baggage and now with the IG report, also claiming that she's refused to cooperate despite her public protestations to the contrary, the Democratic party is in deep doo doo - they may literally just dump Trump into our lap. The problem with our media reports on this stems from sketchy and incomplete accounts of exactly HOW did Clinton violate email policy - e.g., were any/all of such violations flagrant and compromising of US security and lives? In the least case, was she just unwitting and careless, or at worst did she commit gross negligence with an arrogant disregard for policy. Not good in any case. Yeah, she's shot both of her own feet, but I still think she'll walk.
 
Last edited:

Joel W.

Deplorable Basement Dweller
Accessory Maker
She violated a federal law by having the private server.

She then may have violated another federal law when she was required to retain copies of all official correspondence and provide them to the State Department prior to stepping down as Secretary of State in 2013. Clinton failed to do so.

Lets not forget being investigated by the FBI for violation of yet another federal law on the handling of classified information (emails). By using a secret, unsanctioned, and unsecured private e-mail server that was housed in a bathroom for official State Department correspondence.
The IG report also revealed that Clinton’s server was hacked multiple times, despite repeated claims that it never was.

I'm sure she'll be fine, unless she was trying to hide something? :ninja:

Edit:
"The Federal Bureau of Investigation is losing confidence in Hillary Clinton and her mishandling of a private email server, a New York Post columnist suggested on Sunday.

"FBI chief James Comey and his investigators are increasingly certain presidential nominee Hillary Clinton violated laws in handling classified government information through her private e-mail server," Charles Gasparino said career agents had told him."

The FBI earlier this month granted immunity to Bryan Pagliano, a Clinton aide who helped to establish the server in the basement of her Chappaqua, New York home, as part of its investigation into the matter.

"You don't start granting people close to Clinton immunity unless you are seriously looking at charges against your target," Gasparino quoted one former official as saying.

Snipped
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/r...certain-clinton-broke-the-law/article/2586348
 
Last edited:

Snappo

Caveat Emptor - "A Billion People Can Be Wrong!"
Accessory Maker
Hillary Clinton refused to cooperate with the Inspector General is what I read.

Maybe whoever was advising Hillary didn't do a good job. She didn't know a lot about computers and email servers.
Feigning ignorance for Hillary often equates to a predictable pattern of plausible deniability, I'm afraid. It's her business-as-usual cavalier attitude about this issue and all other problematic issues that have plagued her that dissuade my trust in her. Frankly I think she's always been plenty savvy about her emails and server, and even more-so after the fact - the response she gave when asked about "washing" her server was just waaay too stupid to be genuine, IMO - left a real bad taste in my mouth, just like her howling retort re Benghazi i.e., "What difference does it now make?!" Cavalier callous indifference is not a good defense mechanism.
 

Joel W.

Deplorable Basement Dweller
Accessory Maker
Maybe whoever was advising Hillary didn't do a good job. She didn't know a lot about computers and email servers.

According to the report, some State Department technology staff said they were instructed to not talk of Clinton’s email set-up after they raised concerns about the unusual arrangement. One employee told investigators that he or she "raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements,” the document states.

But they were told to drop it: "According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...inspector-general-report-223553#ixzz49iYhvTFK
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook


We are all so hosed....:ugh:
 

thisperson

Ruler of all things person
I've seen you post in a similar vein Gunky, and must just say that there was a media blackout, there was a drop of voters from registrars in which mostly Bernie supporters were affected. It really is suspicious that Hillary outperforms her polls. Most nations would balk at a 5 point discrepancy. And yes even though the rules pre-date Bernie, they were put in place to affect a Bernie style insurgent candidate. Like the superdelegates picking Clinton first.

I'll just say it was a long and wild ride. He certainly wasn't treated fairly. It's only been recently that I've even seen anything close to the MSM discussing Bernie seriously. And most of the time they are just saying he should drop out.

Besides Gunky, your own candidate went all the way to CA last time. What's so wrong with Bernie going all the way to the convention. His polls and performance in Open Primaries suggest an unprecedented level of interest in a surging populist candidate. Clinton hasn't had anywhere near the enthusiasm support at her rallies.

I haven't heard of any Clinton rally hitting 25k people.

So yeah. I think you are heavily biased. I can see that now. I'm sure you see me the same.
 

thisperson

Ruler of all things person
Eyy, they are letting Bernie pick 5 of 15 of something at the convention.

That's a start. I heard 40 out of 60 something other people were all Hillary people though.

I should start reading up on the convention's rules. I feel like I know too little about this.
 

BD9

Well-Known Member
I like Politfact because they don't always tell me what I want to hear. I tend to over research things. Especially things that I believe to be true. At least when being proved wrong, I've learned something. Hopefully....

Here Politifact fact checks Hillary. I posted a video of Hillary lying for 13 minutes and some things in that video where taken out of context and others where, well, Hillary being Hillary. If you watched that I apologize for posting it since there were some misleading things in that video.
Enough my blah blah blah, here's the link.

0t1CF7tl.png
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
The report says that Hillary broke email rules. Jeffrey Toobin said from CNN that Hillary didn't get formal approval for the email server. She felt like she was above the rules. She was running for president, it shows she's lacking in leadership skills. All of this makes it bad for the democrats. She really was foolish IMO.

Edit
An email server is very important. I will put it this way. She acted like she was above the rules.
I'm not sure @Gunky what this devotion to Hillary is?

What a problem for the democrats it is, that's all I can say. Thank you Hillary.
 
Last edited:

Gunky

Well-Known Member
The report says that Hillary broke email rules. Jeffrey Toobin said from CNN that Hillary didn't get formal approval for the email server. She felt like she was above the rules. She was running for president, it shows she's lacking in leadership skills. All of this makes it bad for the democrats. She really was foolish IMO.

How do you know what she felt like? There you go again applying prejudice regarding her character rather than evidence. She continued the practice of previous secretaries of state and appears to have been motivated by convenience: she wanted to only carry one device. This all happened when government communication methods and the rules regarding those methods were changing because of the advent of email. I'm not saying it was a good decision but it amounts to a trivial technical mistake. Have you ever considered what a minuscule part of her job as secretary of state this email server business is? She met with world leaders, her opposites in other countries, played the grand game of state, set up the sanctions that brought Iran to the negotiating table. And out of all that, people are fixating on a private email server! It's a stupid gotcha with no significance, a canard lovingly embellished by dedicated republican propagandists and relentlessly pursued by multiple, moronic republican congressional investigations. Don't be duped. She did not break any laws; she violated State Department guidelines, which the IG report admitted were vague. The IG criticisms had nothing to do with security. Their concern was the preservation of government records.

On another note:
 
Last edited:
Gunky,
  • Like
Reactions: Derrrpp

Snappo

Caveat Emptor - "A Billion People Can Be Wrong!"
Accessory Maker
Was Hillary aware of the multiple attempts to hack her server soon after each attempt? If yes, did she tighten up her email security practices or proceed with business-as-usual cavalier indifference? Fact... she was not allowed to divert her government communications to her private server. That was rule number one! The whole house of cards falls irreparably once that rule is broken. Good judgement?
 

Joel W.

Deplorable Basement Dweller
Accessory Maker
Not reporting the hack(s), is another violation/law broken.

I gotta ask, why is the FBI handing out immunity to staffers, if no laws were broken?

Why risk it with a private server? What's the reasoning behind it?

Time will tell I think.

The advent of email? Lol. Seriously?
 
Last edited:

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I'm upset that we are just finding all this info now about Hillary. She was so concerned that her personal emails would be revealed. That was one of the rason she chose a home server?

I'm not sure if it was the republicans to chooe now to release this info because the primary is almost over? The timing is suspicious.

Of course I would choose Hillary over Trump but this info is very damaging. Maybe Bernie still has a chance?

I wouldn't give national secrets to Trump or trust him with any presidential duties. He needs to go back to being the millionaire or billionaire. The 10 billionaire he claims to be. Get under his skin and show how terrible he can be is my advise.

Edit
I hope Obama decides to take the gloves off and start calling Trump on his stupidity. It sounds like he might.

Trump said he wanted to debate Bernie. Bernie said game on. That I want to see.

Edit again
Who knows what will be revealed come Sept and Oct.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom