Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

[ABQCOWBOY]

Why would she attempt to "enter the limelight" so early on? She has not being majorly attacked from the left. The GOP field is tripping over themselves trying to stuff their foot in their mouth. The only mistake she's made is acknowledging the email "scandal" at all. If history has proven anything, minor scandals wain and rarely loses elections. Not being partisan. I lean left but could equally care less about Trump University, Rand Paul's plagerism, or Christie's bridgegate in viewing them as potential candidates.

 

Because her numbers, within her own party are sliding.  Look at her numbers with Women Democrats, which is supposed to be the staple of her base.   I don't believe she can afford to sit and wait.  Legally, she may not have that luxury.   I mean, obviously this is what she is trying to do but will it server her to do so?  I don't think so but I guess we'll see. 

 

You are assuming that this is a "minor" scandal.   I don't think that's neccessarily accurate.  

 

Of the three candidates you mention in your post, none of them are serious considerations for winning the Presidency IMO.   Hillary is because she's pretty much been named the defacto nomination.  That is a problem for the Democratic Party.   If her numbers continue to slide,  that means that the DMC will be stuck with a candidate that can't win.  That's a real problem that could force the party to reconsider, which means that Hillary may not be able to just wait this out, so to speak.

[chipwhich]

I really wish the Dems had a deeper bench at the moment.

 

I can live with Hillary as president. But the Clinton penchant for falling into these low-level scandals is annoying as is the Right's incessant need to turn the Clinton's low level scandals into capital crimes.

 

If a GS-7 at the state department did the same thing and had classified information on their computer, what would happen to them?

[The Evil Genius]

Personally, I don't think the average voter cares one bit (or really knows much) about the email/server/etc issues. I suspect it's a non-issue to be honest.

 

Even more so in 15 months.

[ABQCOWBOY]

 

If a GS-7 at the state department did the same thing and had classified information on their computer, what would happen to them?

 

 

This is exactly right.  Petreaus was dismissed for not securing classified information.   It's not just GS-7s.

Personally, I don't think the average voter cares one bit (or really knows much) about the email/server/etc issues. I suspect it's a non-issue to be honest.

 

Even more so in 15 months.

 

You may be right.  The numbers would seem to suggest otherwise but it's entirely possible that you are correct.  However, should that be the case?  Should voters know and understand all of the facts?   The premise bothers me because you would think that in order to make the best, most informed decision, voters should have the opportunity to fully understand what they are voting for.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I really wish the Dems had a deeper bench at the moment.

 

I can live with Hillary as president. But the Clinton penchant for falling into these low-level scandals is annoying as is the Right's incessant need to turn the Clinton's low level scandals into capital crimes.

 

 

The circumstances are obviously different but the situation the DMC finds themselves in now reminds me of the situation the GOP had with McCain in 2008.  I never really felt as if he was a particularly strong Candidate but the GOP had very little to choose from, at the time.   I actually think the DMC is in a better situation now, then the GOP was then.  I think you do have other options but Hillaries political power, within the party is significant. 

[nonniey]

This would be my guess as well but I can't say this for sure because I have no proof, which is the problem right?   This is why I do not believe HIllary can win.   Right now, her plan is to stay out of the lime light as much as possible in an attempt to get the nomination.   Her staff probably believes that if she can do this, this Administration will have no choice but to try and cover her.   She probably feels as if the Democratic Party will support her, no matter what.  The numbers don't suggest this but that's probably what she is thinking.   I, for one, hope this is not true.   While I do not agree with Democrats on how best to Govern, I do believe that they are Americans and as such, better then just a body of people who would support a candidate regardless of circumstances. 

 

JMO

 

 

Well, I understand this but the reality is that they have already confirmed that she had classified material in her email in her personal e-mail account.  The question is not if but how much at this point. 

Oh she can win if the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot and pull a Christine O'Donnel. There are some candidates that are simply unelectable (ie Trump). I don't think that will happen but it is not impossible.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Oh she can win if the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot and pull a Christine O'Donnel. There are some candidates that are simply unelectable (ie Trump). I don't think that will happen but it is not impossible.

 

You are right, anything is possible.  I think she can win if she faces Trump but I don't think Trump will be the nominie for the GOP.   If she faces one of the others, it's very questionable at this point.  It's still early and things can and do change but this is not going away for Hillary.   She may well be forced to turn over those emails and who can say where that goes? 

 

Can she afford to do nothing?  It's very risky to hope that the GOP makes a mistake.  The GOP probably has three Candidates that could give HIllary a difficult time (not including Trump) and the chances that all three "shoot themselves in the foot" are not great.   I know you probably already know this.

[Going Commando]

Personally, I don't think the average voter cares one bit (or really knows much) about the email/server/etc issues. I suspect it's a non-issue to be honest.

 

Even more so in 15 months.

It creates a general air of negativity, saps her base of energy, and puts her campaign off message. It hurts her.

[Going Commando]

They aren't being honest.

Now I think the left supports Clinton for one reason only- she has the best chance to win. But really, her past actions and lack of commitment to true left wing issues make her probably the LEAST liberal of the candidates. People on the right want the Dems to choose anyone else because none of the other options have any chance in a general election.

I don't know that there is anything inherently unelectable about Jim Webb. He's a conservative to moderate democrat from a purple state. He's fairly clean as far as I know. Kind of a quirky background for a candidate, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. He's written a **** ton, maybe there is something in his corpus that would be a problem for him, but nothing has come out yet. Right now it doesn't seem like he stands a chance in a general election because he has zero national brand/profile. But if he actually won the nomination, it kind of presupposes that he developed one. Probably a moot point. I'm not really sure I can see a path to the nomination for Webb.

Sanders is an interesting case. If he won, it would be the first time since Carter a democrat has won without seizing the center from the Republican candidate. That makes him feel unelectable even though I think he's clean and he's a brilliant retail politician that has an authentic populist message and appeal. He'd energize bases, both on the right and left. The dfference is, the right has a smaller base and they already turn out at pretty high numbers no matter what.

I don't see how he's going to be able to keep up with Hillary in fundraising. For him to win the nomination, I think he needs Hillary to **** up.

But let's say he did beat her, I think his path to winning the general election requires something to truly galvanize Obama's coalition for him. A controversy that brings an issue that's a big winner for Democrats (or loser for Republicans) right to the forefront of the election. Like immigration. Something he can use to build his brand with minority voters. Also, something like an awful/unreasonable GoP opponent like Ted Cruz or Rick Perry would certainly help.

[@DCGoldPants]

You are right, anything is possible.  I think she can win if she faces Trump but I don't think Trump will be the nominie for the GOP.   If she faces one of the others, it's very questionable at this point.  It's still early and things can and do change but this is not going away for Hillary.   She may well be forced to turn over those emails and who can say where that goes? 

 

Can she afford to do nothing?  It's very risky to hope that the GOP makes a mistake.  The GOP probably has three Candidates that could give HIllary a difficult time (not including Trump) and the chances that all three "shoot themselves in the foot" are not great.   I know you probably already know this.

 

I just don't see it right now. I look at the numbers of the GOP side vs. Clinton and I'm trying to figure out who will give her the hardest time. Always comes down to Bush because he is the adult in the room today. He also have a name that is more toxic than hers.

 

I don't believe anybody is doing nothing. If she just pretend to be talking about topics like fair pay, and wealthcare. That's staying on the bunny slopes for her. She'll eventually need to get out there for real. But there is little benefit when these GOP debates are coming up. Even if she wanted to, I think stealing the headlines from that would be very expensive. 

[Going Commando]

I'm not sure she'd want to steal the headlines from the debate either. There is like a 75% chance it's going to be a fiasco that makes all of the candidates look worse.

[@DCGoldPants]

I'm not sure she'd want to steal the headlines from the debate either. There is like a 75% chance it's going to be a fiasco that makes all of the candidates look worse.

 

Exactly. Either its a ****-show. Or somebody rises from the debate with more mojo. But they will be the target in that primary before another debate. She could be off giving a speech on pay equality at Spelman.

[88Comrade2000]

The Dem candidate starts out with about 240 EV, they don't have that much work to do.  40% of the electorate will vote Dem unconditionally.

 

The GOP candidate has the tougher job and needs to win the big swing states; to even have a chance.

 

We'll see how things shake out after next week's debate.

[chipwhich]

The American Dream, from broke to 100 Millionaire....

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/31/428165994/hillary-clinton-to-release-8-years-of-tax-returns-weve-come-a-long-way

 

 

"We've come a long way from my days going door-to-door for the Children's Defense Fund and earning $16,450 as a young law professor in Arkansas," Hillary Clinton said. "And we owe it to the opportunities America provides."

 

Not sure why she threw that quote out there, she was destroying minimum wage then, and making more than it in today's dollars.  Out of touch with the people.

[Larry]

Oh, my God, Hillary mentioned minimum wage, even though she's never made it. (Well, at least not since becoming a Law Professor).

Obviously evil.

[88Comrade2000]

Oh, my God, Hillary mentioned minimum wage, even though she's never made it. (Well, at least not since becoming a Law Professor).

Obviously evil.

Actually, Chipwich shows even another reason why the Repubs will lose against Hillary. They just won't be able to stop themselves from looking like fools complaining about evenything Hillary does.

 

Every single issue they bring up about the Hill, won't matter in the national election.  The people who care about that stuff, were not going to be voting for her anyway.  Their only hope is that there are more of people who will vote against Hillary, than for Hillary.

 

Now, it is possible; those things may derail Hillary getting the nomination. That's up to the Dems to provide a viable alternative to her. So far, noone viable has entered the race.    So, despite all her weaknesses and flaws; if she is the nominee, she will be a formidable force against the Repub nominee.

[chipwhich]

Actually, Chipwich shows even another reason why the Repubs will lose against Hillary. They just won't be able to stop themselves from looking like fools complaining about evenything Hillary does.

 

Well lucky for me, not all the libs are blinded by Hillary.

 

In other news...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/01/hillary-clinton-email-errors-newsworthy

 

 

Clinton’s camp can quibble over whether it was a “criminal inquiry” or “security inquiry” until they are all blue in the face, but the underlying story remains correct: it’s against the law to mishandle classified information, and there are apparently many, many emails with classified information in them, despite Clinton’s repeated denials.

 

 

 

[mistertim]

The American Dream, from broke to 100 Millionaire....

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/07/31/428165994/hillary-clinton-to-release-8-years-of-tax-returns-weve-come-a-long-way

 

 

Not sure why she threw that quote out there, she was destroying minimum wage then, and making more than it in today's dollars.  Out of touch with the people.

I assume you're then for an unwritten rule saying "people who have never had to make the choice whether or not to have an abortion shouldn't ever be able to talk about abortion", right?

[chipwhich]

I assume you're then for an unwritten rule saying "people who have never had to make the choice whether or not to have an abortion shouldn't ever be able to talk about abortion", right?

 

$16,450 for a female in 1973 was damn good money.

 

In today's economy where the divide between the haves and the have nots is growing and $16,450 is greater than today's minimum wage (40 years later) and given that's one of the topics of this election....seems a tad out of touch by a 100 millionaire don't ya think?

 

Now that's a far cry from saying anything relating to abortion.  I don't even understand your question.  Yes, you can change your views on abortion...even if you had one?  I get that.  Doesn't make you out of touch with the people.

 

She would have been better just to say I have been very fortunate and left it at that.

 

Yale grad.  You kind of have a leg up on some folk.

[mistertim]

 

$16,450 for a female in 1973 was damn good money.

 

In today's economy where the divide between the haves and the have nots is growing and $16,450 is greater than today's minimum wage (40 years later) and given that's one of the topics of this election....seems a tad out of touch by a 100 millionaire don't ya think?

 

Now that's a far cry from saying anything relating to abortion.  I don't even understand your question.  Yes, you can change your views on abortion...even if you had one?  I get that.  Doesn't make you out of touch with the people.

 

She would have been better just to say I have been very fortunate and left it at that.

 

Yale grad.  You kind of have a leg up on some folk.

 

Your implied point seemed to be that she shouldn't be talking about minimum wage because she's never made it. Well, shouldn't you apply that standard to pretty much any political argument then, if you're going to apply it to that one? That's why I brought up the abortion thing. Should people who have never had to make that choice be advocating one way or the other then, if people who haven't made minimum wage shouldn't be advocating one way or the other regarding it?

[skinsmarydu]

Just my opinion...

Hillary may be "out of touch" with the average person's finances/bills/struggles. I don't believe she is, but let's just say that's the case.

The entire GOP is "out of touch" with all of that and a whole lot more.

Advantage: the Democrat in the general. No matter who it is.

[chipwhich]

The entire GOP is "out of touch" with all of that and a whole lot more.

Advantage: the Democrat in the general. No matter who it is.

 

Well some of us think outside of party only.  There is a lot more to having an opinion over gay marriage vs being out of touch with the people because you are a Yale grad making over 100M and making a comment like that when the number 1 issue is the divide between the haves and the have nots.

 

It's great that we have gay marriage, how about someone actually does something for people in need.

 

But for people like Hillary who got that ivy league education....she probably owes it to the opportunity she got that America doesn't provide everyone.  Change we can believe in, remember.  I really hope a different democrat wins the nomination.

 

 

"We've come a long way from my days going door-to-door for the Children's Defense Fund and earning $16,450 as a young law professor in Arkansas," Hillary Clinton said. "And we owe it to the opportunities America provides."

[mistertim]

Well some of us think outside of party only.  There is a lot more to having an opinion over gay marriage vs being out of touch with the people because you are a Yale grad making over 100M and making a comment like that when the number 1 issue is the divide between the haves and the have nots.

 

It's great that we have gay marriage, how about someone actually does something for people in need.

 

But for people like Hillary who got that ivy league education....she probably owes it to the opportunity she got that America doesn't provide everyone.  Change we can believe in, remember.  I really hope a different democrat wins the nomination.

Just trying to figure out where you're going with all this besides just a bunch of anti-Hillary stuff. She has an Ive League education. And? Its not like she grew up in a super rich family where she was handed everything; she earned her scholastic achievements. I assume you have beef with Ted Cruz as well then?

 

As for gay marriage, I think people who are being discriminated against or treated unequally would probably disagree with your apparent contention that they aren't people in need of something. But besides that, what would you rather people focus on where people truly need help? Lets think of a few...Food and shelter for the poor? Providing healthcare to everyone who doesn't have it? Providing a living wage to workers so they don't have to work and be on welfare at the same time?

 

As far as a college education not being something America provides for everyone I completely agree. So you agree that college should be free for scholastically qualified students then?

 

Hmm...you're starting to sound like a Bernie Sanders voter after all that.

[chipwhich]

Just trying to figure out where you're going with all this besides just a bunch of anti-Hillary stuff. She has an Ive League education. And? Its not like she grew up in a super rich family where she was handed everything; she earned her scholastic achievements. I assume you have beef with Ted Cruz as well then?

 

As for gay marriage, I think people who are being discriminated against or treated unequally would probably disagree with your apparent contention that they aren't people in need of something. But besides that, what would you rather people focus on where people truly need help? Lets think of a few...Food and shelter for the poor? Providing healthcare to everyone who doesn't have it? Providing a living wage to workers so they don't have to work and be on welfare at the same time?

 

As far as a college education not being something America provides for everyone I completely agree. So you agree that college should be free for scholastically qualified students then?

 

Hmm...you're starting to sound like a Bernie Sanders voter after all that.

 

I am just posting what's in the news many links from reputable news sources.  My point was there is a huge difference in discussing differences of opinion (like abortion, or gay marriage) as compared to being out of touch (someone worth 100 million dollars reminiscing their days of making a great income as a lawyer with a salary some wish they made today).  The comment seemed rather silly and out of touch to me.  Especially in an era where income inequality between those in Hillary's class versus the rest of America is an big topic.

 

Personally I don't care about gay marriage or abortion or similar topics.  I think it's a sad state of the union where our 3 best options are Clinton, Bush, and Trump.

Sad, very sad.

 

And the only thing anyone cares about is their team winning.

[mistertim]

If she were directly comparing herself to people making minimum wage I suppose I could see it. You were the one who brought up minimum wage. Has she come a long way from a young lawyer making an average lawyer salary in the early to mid 70s? Seems so.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge Hillary fan. She definitely has flaws, but it just seems like sometimes you're piling on just for the sake of piling on. You keep lamenting the choices we have (and I can't completely disagree with you there) so who would you like to see? Maybe not even a particular person, but what kind of person and what kind of ideology? What is important to you? You've said that the gay rights thing really isn't and same with abortion. You've also made reference to education and people not having the same chances (which I completely agree with).

 

I'm not asking to be snide or in a rhetorical way. I'm honestly just curious what you want and what is important to you because so far it seems like all you've talked about is what ISN'T important to you and what you DON'T like.