The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

grokit

well-worn member
Here's what they have to say:

Unlike many other polls, the IBD/TIPP Poll continues to show a tightening race, as the candidates and their surrogates slug it out in public in the waning days until the Nov. 8 polling date.

In the latest Real Clear Politics average of recent polls, Clinton stands at 45.0% to Trump's 39.4%, a 5.6% advantage in the four-way contest. In a head-to-head matchup, Clinton takes 47.9% to Trump's 42.0%, a 5.9% difference.

Among major polls, only Rasmussen, L.A. Times/USC, Reuters/Ipsos and IBD/TIPP Poll consistently show it close. Most other polls show a gap of 4 points or more, with some as high as 12 points in recent polling.

:shrug:
 

lwien

Well-Known Member
@grokit - The latest electoral polls are a bit more one-sided.....Clinton would win the election in a landslide with 347 electoral votes to Trump's 191 -- the same as the past two week's polling results. It requires 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Two questions for ALL who frequent this thread:

1.) I heard an HRC supporter say on CNBC "Trump is making one of his biggest mistakes to date when he continuously tells his base that the election is rigged. They believe anything he says and he's telling them voting is a waste of time because its a rigged system. Many of them won't even bother to vote now." Do you think the Trump supporters who believe him won't bother to vote in a perceived, rigged system?

2.) Do you think any of the HRC wiki-leaks, if taken as truth, are a criminal offense? If so, is the reason there are no indictments is because wiki-leaks are illegal and therefore inadmissible and any evidence that comes from a wiki-leak is 'poison fruit' and is also inadmissible? I'm not a lawyer but there are so many folks who believe some of the leaks expose an illegality that I'm wondering why there is no prosecution.

1) While Trump is telling all of his supporters that they system is rigged, he's also telling them to go out and vote to overcome that "riggedness", so imho, they will go out and enthusiastically vote.

2) In my opinion, she is not getting persecuted because she is a presidential nominee and therefore she gets certain "bennies" over others that don't have the same power, much the same way that poor black people get incarcerated for minor crimes while rich white people who commit huge corporate crimes don't.
There are dynamics in play within our criminal system. Some people get preferential treatment while others don't. Money and power along with who you know and who you don't know is just as much in play within the justice system as it is everywhere else.
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
While the media has tried to make his comments out to be solely based on counting the vote, it is clear from the vast amount of prior statements and comments the purported rigging of the system is a far broader claim. I suspect his base knows that and the comments will have little to do with base turn-out.

[QUOTE="His_Highness, post: 1039289, member: 21678"]2.) [I]Do you think any of the HRC wiki-leaks, if taken as truth, are a criminal offense? If so, is the reason there are no indictments is because wiki-leaks are illegal and therefore inadmissible and any evidence that comes from a wiki-leak is 'poison fruit' and is also inadmissible? [/I] I'm not a lawyer but there are so many folks who believe some of the leaks expose an illegality that I'm wondering why there is no prosecution.[/QUOTE]Prosecutions take time. There is a lot of facts to gather to prove violations of the law. Even verifying the e-mails can take time--especially if there was plenty of Bleachbit to go around.

We don't know if the powers that be will take up the gauntlet. The main legality problems for the Democrats at this time seem to be the coordination issue. There is going to be some litigation as to what illegal coordination is after this election. By any normal meaning of the word, there was coordination. There will be great lawyer dancing and meaning of "is" is to help the court come to the legal definition. I also think we won't be hearing too much about Citizen's United because once we get to defining coordination, it will be hard to say what the Democrats seem to claim to have done in the e-mails isn't coordination while still keeping current campaign finance law intact. (Also, the 501 status of a number of organizations should be suspect at this time. However, we have the corruption of the IRS issue now too. It's not like these organizations who seem to be ignoring the law are as bad as those who claim to be Tea Party organizations.)

Another problem is the prosecutor's best friend, conspiracy. There are all kinds of arguments to bring in many for conspiracy; IF the acts planned are illegal. Some, like the ducks, may not be. We will see.

There is no "poisonous tree" issue here. Fruit of the poisonous tree has to do with when a GOVERNMENT ACTOR (For a U.S. governmental agency.) does an act that is illegal to get evidence. Not only will the evidence be excluded (Absent other rationale to get it in.), but also evidence found because of something in the tainted tree will be excluded as well. Some states also have some statutes for illegal wiretapping or recording information in their evidence codes that would generally prevent use that some will try to fold into this situation too. They will fail.

Pretend we have a burglar who breaks and enters a residence, in the night and kills all the residents. (Except for Dad who is out oranging up The Donald's face.) As the burglar/murderer lingers, he looks at Dad's computer and find's child porn. Being the citizen he is, he calls the police who come and arrest burglar/murderer. Then, they go arrest dad.

Even though the evidence was found solely because a burglary and multiple murder, the evidence is still getting in. Period. Even if.
 

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
@lwien - Same question posed to @grokit for wiki-leaks prosecution: With all the hate and discontent between the republicans and HRC you don't think there is a republican supporter who could bring a wiki-case if it had merit? Maybe it's honor among thieves? :doh:

@OldNewbie - Thanks for clearing up the 'poisonous fruit'. After all that 'Law and Order' watching I guess I missed the GOVERNMENT requirement. :)
 

jay87

Well-Known Member
@grokit - The latest electoral polls are a bit more one-sided.....Clinton would win the election in a landslide with 347 electoral votes to Trump's 191 -- the same as the past two week's polling results. It requires 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Two questions for ALL who frequent this thread:

1.) I heard an HRC supporter say on CNBC "Trump is making one of his biggest mistakes to date when he continuously tells his base that the election is rigged. They believe anything he says and he's telling them voting is a waste of time because its a rigged system. Many of them won't even bother to vote now." Do you think the Trump supporters who believe him won't bother to vote in a perceived, rigged system?

2.) Do you think any of the HRC wiki-leaks, if taken as truth, are a criminal offense? If so, is the reason there are no indictments is because wiki-leaks are illegal and therefore inadmissible and any evidence that comes from a wiki-leak is 'poison fruit' and is also inadmissible? I'm not a lawyer but there are so many folks who believe some of the leaks expose an illegality that I'm wondering why there is no prosecution.

1.Do you think the Trump supporters who believe him won't bother to vote in a perceived, rigged system?
I think that it is a mistake because it will undoubtedly cause some of his supporters not to vote, but the die hard supporters who are the ones pushing his campaign through their admirably unyielding support are still going to vote. I also think those who may vote for him but aren't quite as vocal about it planned to vote from the beginning regardless of what he said.

At the end of the day we're still talking about a huge sample size so I think the effect of his calling it rigged matters less about the voting but matters much more about the context.

As a reminder this talk only began after Donald said he "may not accept the outcome of the election". He said that he'll accept the outcome if he wins, but won't accept it if he loses. :doh:

Donald is vehemently asserting that the United Sates' presidential elections are rigged. If a major presidential candidate, that is to say a politician running to represent the United States at the highest level, if that person says the election is rigged it is a very serious accusation. That implies that American democracy is a lie and that America's government is some sort of back room dictatorship. If that is true and Donald repeatedly claims that is the case, then we are talking about easily the biggest conspiracy in all of American history.

So if the stakes are that high, how is it that Donald Trump a complete political outsider is the one to uncover all of this evidence of a conspiratorial American dictatorship? The answer is there is no proof, Donald claims the entire election is rigged by some shady power that is conspiring against him.

I could even deal with all of that, but the thing that really hits me is that now there are millions of people who have taken his comments and believe in them just as much as Donald does. I'm not saying voter fraud doesn't happen but to say the election is completely rigged is much more serious than that.

Now I have to see articles talking about the possibility of violence if Donald loses because the election is rigged just like Donald said! :bang:




2. Do you think any of the HRC wiki-leaks, if taken as truth, are a criminal offense?
I am in the process of reading through this: https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton to learn more about this issue. I also echo your question because I have not been made aware of the illegal content within any of the emails that have been leaked.

While reading through the FBI report and a few articles this is what I've found:
(If anything is incorrect please correct me because I want to know more about this issue)

From what I can tell the investigation is about how the private email server used by Hillary since ~2008 for both personal and state business may have allowed unauthorized Americans or foreign government powers to access U.S. files that have the confidential or top secret classification.

The FBI found no evidence that the private email server or Clinton's mobile devices were compromised. They did say that this was partially due to the fact that they were unable to obtain all computer devices in question.

On July 10, 2015, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) initiated a full investigation based upon a referral received from the US Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), submitted in accordance with Section 811 (c) of the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1995 and dated July 6, 2015, regarding the potential unauthorized transmission and storage of classified information on the personal e-mail server of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (Clinton). The FBI’s investigation focused on determining whether classified information was transmitted or stored on unclassified systems in violation of federal criminal statutes and whether classified information was compromised by unauthorized individuals, to include foreign governments or intelligence services, via cyber intrusion or other means.

The FBI’s investigation and forensic analysis did not find evidence confirming that Clinton’ s e-mail accounts or mobile devices were compromised by cyber means.
However, investigative limitations, including the FBI’s inability to obtain all mobile devices and various computer components associated with Clinton’s personal e-mail systems, prevented the FBI from conclusively determining whether the classified information transmitted and stored on Clinton’s personal server systems was compromised via cyber intrusion or other means. The FBI did find that hostile foreign actors successfully gained access to the personal e-mail accounts of individuals with whom Clinton was in regular contact and, in doing so, obtained e-mails sent to or received by Clinton on her personal account.

After the investigation the head of the FBI recommended that no charges be brought against Clinton.

Now, my question is which crime is Hillary being accused of? Is it storing confidential information in an insecure location, or is it conspiring against the United States in exchange for some reward and the evidence for this conspiracy existed in these emails?

Also worth noting is the issue that the FBI was only allowed under the condition for immunity.



The issue about the content of the emails is the most important part of this, and if the emails were destroyed then there's no evidence and just speculation. Was Hillary making deals to sell Washington to Russia? Was she promising to arm Iranian terrorists? Was she spying on Donald Trump in his bathroom? I have no idea.

I've heard people say that she is selling out America and the emails prove all of her corruption, but I have not heard exactly what we're talking about here.

The Clinton email thing is very fuzzy and I don't claim to fully understand it so any illuminating comments are welcome. :shrug:
 
Last edited:

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
The issue about the content of the emails is the most important part of this, and if the emails were destroyed then there's no evidence and just speculation. Was Hillary making deals to sell Washington to Russia? Was she promising to arm Iranian terrorists? Was she spying on Donald Trump in his bathroom? I have no idea.

I've heard people say that she is selling out America and the emails prove all of her corruption, but I have not heard exactly what we're talking about here.

The Clinton email thing is very fuzzy and I don't claim to fully understand it so any illuminating comments are welcome. :shrug:
Hillary Clinton and her lackeys have put out any of a number of official explanations for creating the server and all have been proven false or otherwise shown to be lacking substance. The most likely explanation is that she did not want to comply with government record-keeping and open government laws for personal reasons. The timing of the data destruction is also suspect.

I am astonished her successful destruction of evidence gives her the benefit of a doubt in describing the evidence destroyed.
 

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Why didnt they know that this Obamacare insurance would be going up 25%? Did they know this info would be released so close to the election? Really bad timing for the democrats. What the hell happened?
Medical insurance for Americans will need to be changed. Nobody will be able to afford it.
Edit
@jay87 conspiracy theories about people that have died and somehow the Clintons are involved in some way? You mean like Vince Foster? She might be a "nasty woman" but really? We have some really important issues to discuss over the next 2 weeks. I'm not much on conspiracy theories. I know some issues have been talked at length.

All of the emails that are floating around I have tuned out. Maybe later I can think about it. If bad enough I guess Clinton will be impeached if elected then. I would much rather have Kaine as a president than Trump.

Republicans praising Wikileaks? This whole thing has really revealed the good republicans from the bad. Some have a really sad way of rationalizing the Wikileaks thing and Trump for president. I seriously hope some will be voted out of office.
 
Last edited:

jay87

Well-Known Member
Hillary Clinton and her lackeys have put out any of a number of official explanations for creating the server and all have been proven false or otherwise shown to be lacking substance. The most likely explanation is that she did not want to comply with government record-keeping and open government laws for personal reasons. The timing of the data destruction is also suspect.

I am astonished her successful destruction of evidence gives her the benefit of a doubt in describing the evidence destroyed.

I ask this with purity of discussion in mind: What do you think are the possible things that she's doing and trying to cover up?

I think people should be talking more about the mysterious assassinations of those investigating the Clintons in the past more than this email thing. :shrug:
 
jay87,

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
Why didnt they know that this Obamacare insurance would be going up 25%? Did they know this info would be released so close to the election? Really bad timing for the democrats. What the hell happened?
They knew. They made the law and all its regulations. 25% seems the average in the whole country. There is rumor of an over 100% increase in Arizona.

I ask this with purity of discussion in mind: What do you think are the possible things that she's doing and trying to cover up?

I think people should be talking more about the mysterious assassinations of those investigating the Clintons in the past more than this email thing. :shrug:
The most likely thing is the pay-to-play allegations and purported quid pro quo (QPQ has not been proven in any way.) between donations to the Clinton Foundation and access to Hillary. I will not go into each allegation. There are and will be plenty.

[Following in italics as it requires a lot more speculation than simple logical conclusions.]
One I have more than a passing knowledge of (Though not in a wikileak release as far as I know.) will have to do with Qatar and the World Cup. Do you remember all the problems FIFA had a bit ago? Gone now. Some have claimed Blatter was made an offer he couldn't refuse by Bubba. If we were to speculate, it might be something like promise of no U.S. prosecution in return for a resignation. Why would the Clintons want to tamp things down? If people start looking into the bribery scandal of FIFA in general and the awarding of the World Cup to Qatar, they might start associating the large cash gifts to the Clinton Foundation around critical junctures in the awarding process.
 
Last edited:

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Don't even get me started on the ACA.....I've been disgusted with it since inception.

25% increase. Is that taking into consideration the premiums only or the ridiculous doubling and tripling of the deductibles.

Don't be discouraged though....HRC is gonna fix it :rolleyes:

I have a feeling that by the time she gets done fixing it .... it'll be called Medicare-for-all and for some it will come sooner rather than later. For example...I believe one of HRC's fixes, if elected, is to offer Medicare to those 55 and up.

I know some good things have come from ObamaCare. Like the elimination of pre-existing condition consideration and being able to cover an adult-dependent longer.

I've been wondering what the cost differential would have been if the health insurance companies had been given the mandate to increase the premiums and deductibles so that they had to cover pre-existing and older adult dependents, etc. Would it have been more or less than what we're getting hit with and will get hit with. Heck...you might have even been able to keep your doctor and plan that way. :shrug:

EDIT: There were plenty of reports in the media before the 25% was announced but they were 20%. Nothing new here...move along :rofl:
 
Last edited:

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Big News!! Colin Powel has just indorsed Hillary Clinton. Bill Wells also warned folks not to vote for Trump.

Trump accuses the media of "voter suppression". I think the media should stop reporting his rallies. His supporters have been harassing the members of the media. Maybe it's not safe for them.

Trump has never explained how his health insurance program would look like. All I know is it is patient centered. He also has no knowledge of what Obamacare is. He hasn't educated himself at all.

Trump's new hotel opens in WA D.C. He will be promoting that tomorrow. Pretty bazaar when it's only less than 2 weeks before the election.
 
Last edited:

jay87

Well-Known Member
"During political campaigns, I never say a word. The people are sovereign. I would only say, study the proposals well, pray and choose with your conscience."
-- Pope Francis, addressing American Catholics.

2016-10-25-1477405549-6055223-8657304105_ca6be17729_b.jpg

(http://biannagolodryga.com/what-non-americans-think-of-the-2016-election/)

I like this guy a lot, maybe he should run for president... :brow:
 

Krazy

Well-Known Member
Geez.....this election is driving me to drink!
Did you notice that they ran an AA movie against the 3rd debate?


I'm worried because I honestly believe that if Donald Trump were replaced by a person who was much more intelligent but with the same exact attitudes, beliefs, and actions, that person would win this election in a land slide.
My concern is that NEXT election we will have a candidate that embodies all of Trumps evil/psychosis but is more presentable.
 

ClearBlueLou

unbearably light in the being....
I live in MA, and I have seen WAY more Trump signs and bumper stickers than Clinton stickers. I think that has to do with more enthusiastic support for Trump, but Clinton has lots of lukewarm supporters that are definitely still voting for her. That said I think it's going to be a lot closer than the polls show.
around here, any show of support for a Democrat (for any reason) typically results in vandalism: cars keyed/egged, tires punctured, yards torn up, windows broken.

'Course, this is the Deep South, we take our hereditary racism seriously
 
Last edited:

GetLeft

Well-Known Member
Ooop. Tightnin' up.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

(You all remember Nate Silver? "Obama may have won the presidency on election night, but pundit Nate Silver won the internet by correctly predicting presidential race outcomes in every state plus the District of Columbia — a perfect 51/51 score. Now the interwebs are abuzz with Nate Silver praise. Gawker proclaims him “America's Chief Wizard.” Nov 9, 2012)
 
GetLeft,
  • Like
Reactions: steama

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
Assange is not like the others:
he is a foreign agent acting against the interests of the USA and its people.

This is NOT true of Snowden and Manning IMO.
You are correct. Snowden and Manning are American citizens, so they have committed treason by intentionally and knowingly capturing and releasing classified and secret military and diplomatic information and intelligence.

Assange, as a foreign agent, has colluded with the Russians to interfere in an American election so has committed espionage against the United States with the intention of doing her harm.

I see no reason they can't all be on the same cellblock in a federal prison.
 

grokit

well-worn member
Last edited:

TeeJay1952

Well-Known Member
Have you ever heard of first Amendment? Most of this crap is opinions on other folks actions. A guiding principle to action is discussion. Within discussion various variables are pointed out. When you are in a group discussion, depending on who and where you are on organization chart you may have an obligation to point out possible holes in a theory or reaction from other to an action that is not your belief but must be considered by the whole. This is exactly what is meant by private conversation.

I have mental illness in my family. It is exhausting and there is no answer only treatment. I often say as we are reviewing options that Hitler had an answer but no one likes it. Clipped out and shown without context it suggests to some that I advocate Death Camps. I do not. I use that example to show that some answers are beyond the pale and without context deceptive.

It seems that people revel in the curtain being pulled back on HRC's group but hate the fact that Snowden revealed that our privacy may be invaded. How come they lost their right to talk, in private, and look at things from various angles, perceptions and voices.
 

Tranquility

Well-Known Member
My concern is that NEXT election we will have a candidate that embodies all of Trumps evil/psychosis but is more presentable.

Concern? You're concerned about the country being awesome?


around here, any show of support for a Democrat (for any reason) typically results in vandalism: cars keyed/egged, tires punctured, yards torn up, windows broken.

'Course, this is the Deep South, we take our hereditary racism seriously

Around most of the country, there is one side that seems to be expressing itself through illegal actions more than the other. We even have e-mails that show how one of the big Trump against Hillary violence victims was a paid set-up who has since recanted her allegations.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/anti-trump-violence-sweeps-the-nation/

You are correct. Snowden and Manning are American citizens, so they have committed treason by intentionally and knowingly capturing and releasing classified and secret military and diplomatic information and intelligence.

Assange, as a foreign agent, has colluded with the Russians to interfere in an American election so has committed espionage against the United States with the intention of doing her harm.

I see no reason they can't all be on the same cellblock in a federal prison.
While I agree with the tone and tenor of the post, technically, there was no treason. 18 USC 2381:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.​

Hard to believe, but we don't have any "enemies" right now.
 
Last edited:

CarolKing

Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Newt Gingrich and Megyn Kelly Get Into Bizarre Exchange on Live TV - The New York Times
The New York Times › 2016/10/26 › ne...
40 mins ago - Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker, accused Ms. Kelly, the Fox News anchor, of being ... Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, and the Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly got into a ...

Inquiring minds want to know....
It's pretty hilarious Newt getting in a fight with Megan Kelly, then he kinda threatens her with her viewership. Telling Megan she likes to talk about sex. WTF?
:leaf:
CK

Edit
Newt would be better to let this go. Folks will continue to talk about BS instead of real issues for the Trump campaign. Democrats love these surprise gifts. Keep them coming.
 
Last edited:

His_Highness

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Newt's bizarre anger on this raises more questions about Newt than any help that he gave to Trump. That anger looked more like a personal defense mechanism going on than anything else.

It's what happens when 'the pivot' doesn't work........
 
His_Highness,
  • Like
Reactions: thisperson

cybrguy

Putin is a War Criminal
For those who admire President Obama, as I do, and well appreciate the efforts he has made to help America move forward towards justice, it is very important to notice that his current efforts are NOT JUST to stop Donald and get Hillary elected. He is doing much more than that...
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/10/26/president-obamas-long-term-strategy-to-change-red-to-blue/
President Obama’s Long-Term Strategy to Change Red to Blue

by Nancy LeTourneau
October 26, 2016 9:35 AM

Pundits started noticing a change in President Obama’s speeches on the campaign trail back when he talked like this in Ohio a couple of weeks ago.

So Donald Trump may make most Republican politicians look a little bit better by comparison — I mean, it’s like the bar has gotten so low. But these are the same Republicans who tried to block us from rescuing the economy; did not offer a single vote when it came to the recovery package that made sure that we started growing again, long before any other advanced economy did. Same folks who didn’t vote for the auto industry assistance that resulted now in record-breaking auto sales. The same folks who tried to take away folks’ health insurance every chance they get; who refuse to allow votes on giving minimum wage workers a raise; refuse to support making sure women earn equal pay for equal work…

So don’t act like this started with Donald Trump. He did take it to a whole new level. I got to give him credit. But he didn’t come out of nowhere.​

Here is how he put it in Nevada:

[T]here are a lot of politicians who knew better. There are a lot of senators who knew better. But they went along with these stories [i.e., birtherism] because they figured, you know what, this will help rile up the base, it will give us an excuse to obstruct what we’re trying to do, we won’t be able to appoint judges, we’ll gum up the works, we’ll create gridlock, it will give us a political advantage. So they just stood by and said nothing. And their base began to actually believe this crazy stuff.

So Donald Trump did not start this. Donald Trump didn’t start it. He just did what he always did, which is slap his name on it, take credit for it, and promote it. That’s what he does. And so now when suddenly it’s not working, and people are saying, wow, this guy is kind of out of line, all of a sudden, these Republican politicians who were okay with all this crazy stuff up to a point, suddenly they’re all walking away. “Oh, this is too much.” … Well, what took you so long? What the heck?​

Those aren’t attempts to help Hillary Clinton win the presidency. They are meant to call out the Republicans in Congress for their gridlock and duplicity in paving the way for a Trump candidacy. In other words, Obama is making the case for voting for Democrats in down-ballot races.

That point was emphasized when the president did this:

President Barack Obama is endorsing 30 more House candidates Monday, expanding his effort to use his rising popularity to help Democrats looking to flip or hold swing districts across the country — and crush them under the association with Donald Trump.

Obama’s already taped ads and robocalls for several candidates, and more is expected in the final two weeks until Election Day.​

One of those 30 candidates is Terri Bonoff – who Anne Kim wrote about here at the Washington Monthly in a article about how Trump’s candidacy could help Democrats reclaim the suburbs. She is running in Minnesota’s 3rd Congressional district against incumbent Republican Erik Paulson. Here is the ad Obama cut in support of Bonoff:


But here’s where it gets even more interesting.

President Obama, who has endured gridlock in Washington as Republicans in the states took direct aim at his vision and legacy, is stepping in to assist more than 150 state legislative candidates, by far his biggest effort to bolster local Democrats since he took office.

“You are going to see a level of engagement down to the state representative level that I don’t think you’ve seen too many presidents engage in,” said David Simas, the director of the White House’s Office of Political Strategy and Outreach.​

Those efforts certainly aren’t aimed at defeating Trump and getting Clinton elected to protect his legacy. Nor are they about who wins control of Congress in 2016. In addition to helping fight against things like voting restrictions that have been passed by Republican state legislatures, they are aimed at a longer term strategy…one we heard about a couple of weeks ago.

As Democrats aim to capitalize on this year’s Republican turmoil and start building back their own decimated bench, former Attorney General Eric Holder will chair a new umbrella group focused on redistricting reform — with the aim of taking on the gerrymandering that’s left the party behind in statehouses and made winning a House majority far more difficult.

The new group, called the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, was developed in close consultation with the White House. President Barack Obama himself has now identified the group — which will coordinate campaign strategy, direct fundraising, organize ballot initiatives and put together legal challenges to state redistricting maps — as the main focus of his political activity once he leaves office.​

That is your Community Organizer-in-Chief at work laying the groundwork for a long-term strategy to change red to blue. I expect we’ll be hearing a lot more about this once he becomes Former President Barack Obama.
 
Top Bottom