RugbyRebels

There's an echo in here.

Mellsblue wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:a) Comey is toast. b) but to make the big deal of it that they did with so little evidence was very odd

C) Its farcical.

a) this will probably depend on who wins the election.
b) check out his links to the Republican Party and all will become clear.
c) Just the latest farcical act in a farcical situation.

His political links have been mentioned in the press. Its hard to defend his actions given that the vast majority of policemen across the world would want something a bit more solid before making public an investigation of that magnitude at such a time. Considering that at the time of the initial announcement the FBI didn't even have access to the emails, it was peculiar and difficult to counter Democrat claims that it was politically motivated.

Mellsblue wrote:There's an echo in here.

I once tried to convince my 4yr old Son and his mates that they needed to watch the action replay of a goal really closely because sometimes they miss it on the replay. They watched intently before they twigged.

I can't remember where but I nicked this idea from someone 15yrs ago. For a 'naughty Dad' gag, it's a classic.

The investigation into Clinton's email scandal was headed by FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, whose wife is a new political candidate and received a whopping 675 K in donations from a democratic PAC run by Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, who is a long-time associate of the Clintons.'

Meanwhile, assistant attorney general Peter Kadzik and Clinton campaign manager John Podesta are good friends, having met at law school, and Kadzik actually represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, after the former was accused of attempting to silence Lewinsky by offering her a prestigious job.

Kadzik also represented billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, who was indicted on 65 criminal charges, including tax evasion to the tune of 50 million dollars. But despite being on the FBI's Most Wanted list, Rich eventually received a pardon from Bill Clinton. Rich's wife, meanwhile, had donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clintons.

Right before FBI Director James Comey made his announcement on Clinton's email investigation, Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton on an airplane in Arizona for 31 minutes. So it's pretty likely we'll see Lynch continue in her position throughout a hypothetical Hillary Clinton presidency.

Very good take on the elections here: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/14/ ... in-revolt/

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-demo ... ion-521044

I'd clocked that before, a pretty good take on it. I keep coming back to voter turnout being appalling, perhaps the polls might have been right had people felt it was important to actually vote, but both voters and the parties will hopefully think hard on such poor voting numbers.

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-demo ... ion-521044

I'd clocked that before, a pretty good take on it. I keep coming back to voter turnout being appalling, perhaps the polls might have been right had people felt it was important to actually vote, but both voters and the parties will hopefully think hard on such poor voting numbers.

I saw some really interesting information about this, but can't remember where or even whether it was TV or online. A lot of Trump's media effort was at suppressing the Clinton vote. Making Sanders supporters stay at home or vote Green was every bit as valuable as persuading people to turn out for him. They calculated that it would be much easier.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-demo ... ion-521044

I'd clocked that before, a pretty good take on it. I keep coming back to voter turnout being appalling, perhaps the polls might have been right had people felt it was important to actually vote, but both voters and the parties will hopefully think hard on such poor voting numbers.

I saw some really interesting information about this, but can't remember where or even whether it was TV or online. A lot of Trump's media effort was at suppressing the Clinton vote. Making Sanders supporters stay at home or vote Green was every bit as valuable as persuading people to turn out for him. They calculated that it would be much easier.

I can understand such aim, but it seems a dangerous game to play to disengage the electorate even before it demonstrably gives one less of a mandate

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'd clocked that before, a pretty good take on it. I keep coming back to voter turnout being appalling, perhaps the polls might have been right had people felt it was important to actually vote, but both voters and the parties will hopefully think hard on such poor voting numbers.

I saw some really interesting information about this, but can't remember where or even whether it was TV or online. A lot of Trump's media effort was at suppressing the Clinton vote. Making Sanders supporters stay at home or vote Green was every bit as valuable as persuading people to turn out for him. They calculated that it would be much easier.

I can understand such aim, but it seems a dangerous game to play to disengage the electorate even before it demonstrably gives one less of a mandate

I'm not sure anyone that matters really gives a monkey's about turnout. I'm pretty sure that the man in the Iowa SUV (or whatever the equivalent of the Clapham omnibus is) won't give a damn.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-demo ... ion-521044

I'd clocked that before, a pretty good take on it. I keep coming back to voter turnout being appalling, perhaps the polls might have been right had people felt it was important to actually vote, but both voters and the parties will hopefully think hard on such poor voting numbers.

I saw some really interesting information about this, but can't remember where or even whether it was TV or online. A lot of Trump's media effort was at suppressing the Clinton vote. Making Sanders supporters stay at home or vote Green was every bit as valuable as persuading people to turn out for him. They calculated that it would be much easier.

From what I have read, that was a fairly fertile furrow to plough. Once Sanders was defeated, the assumption by the Democrat leadership that everyone would fall in line behind Hillary was deeply flawed.

Needs to be noted that for all her flaws and after running a less than glittering campaign, Clinton is on course to be 1-2% points up on the popular vote. She's currently about a million votes ahead of Trump and that margin is likely to grow.

Some Dems stayed at home and some switched, notably in the key rustbelt states that went narrowly Trump's way and were decisive.

I still think whilst the electoral college is a stupid and indeed dangerous idea, and I'd have thought that even had Clinton/sanity won narrowly, they could improve it by not awarding all votes from each state to the winner but rather split the votes on proportional basis. It'd give a closer outcome to what people across the voted for, and it'd make all states important.

Where the votes can't easily be split on proportional basis award the extra vote to the winner in a given state.

Digby wrote:I still think whilst the electoral college is a stupid and indeed dangerous idea, and I'd have thought that even had Clinton/sanity won narrowly, they could improve it by not awarding all votes from each state to the winner but rather split the votes on proportional basis. It'd give a closer outcome to what people across the voted for, and it'd make all states important.

Where the votes can't easily be split on proportional basis award the extra vote to the winner in a given state.

There are 2 that actually do that aren't there?

Interesting:

A majority of Democratic and independent voters made clear that they don’t foresee Hillary Clinton in their 2020 vision of the presidential election, according to a USA Today/Suffolk University poll released Wednesday.

Sixty-two percent of Democrats and independents surveyed said the twice-failed presidential candidate shouldn’t mount another campaign in 2020, and only 23 percent would be excited by her campaign if she did.

The two people they would most like to see are two of the most prominent Democratic-aligned politicians unlikely to seek the White House in 2020: Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Vice President Joe Biden. Forty-four percent and 43 percent of those voters, respectively, said they would be excited to see Sanders and Biden run.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/p ... 020-232898

Rowan, can you PLEASE stop with the not-so-secret Clinton crush. She lost, she ain't going to be
back so she is now irrelevant

Final count -
Clinton: 65,844,954 (48.2%)
Trump: 62,979,879 (46.1%)
Diff: 2,865,075

Tough to lose when you win the popular vote by that margin but thems the rules. And of course thats the end for her.

fivepointer wrote:Final count -
Clinton: 65,844,954 (48.2%)
Trump: 62,979,879 (46.1%)
Diff: 2,865,075

Tough to lose when you win the popular vote by that margin but thems the rules. And of course thats the end for her.

I don't know that's the end for her. I remember someone saying when she lost to Obama that it was the end for her, and some other analyst noting if you thought it was the end you'd not understood the person, that Hillary would still think she could go on to serve as President, and then perhaps do a stint as the pope.

Still, given her age, and given so few people could be bothered to turn out to vote it does rather look over in the Presidential stakes. Gavin Newsom is getting the early attention for the next slot, on which basis the NRA will start to train their beads on him

On the popular vote, I'm not too worried one can win the popular vote and lose the election, in many ways it's a strength the bigger states can't dominate so easily. Though I'd also note given each state gets 2 senators there's already plenty of protection for smaller states, and any idea they might need or deserve more is a little daft.

rowan wrote:Interesting:

A majority of Democratic and independent voters made clear that they don’t foresee Hillary Clinton in their 2020 vision of the presidential election, according to a USA Today/Suffolk University poll released Wednesday.

Sixty-two percent of Democrats and independents surveyed said the twice-failed presidential candidate shouldn’t mount another campaign in 2020, and only 23 percent would be excited by her campaign if she did.

The two people they would most like to see are two of the most prominent Democratic-aligned politicians unlikely to seek the White House in 2020: Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Vice President Joe Biden. Forty-four percent and 43 percent of those voters, respectively, said they would be excited to see Sanders and Biden run.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/p ... 020-232898

In other news, the Pope has a little balcony.

Of course she won't run again in 2020. Age aside, she is now seen as a loser and her career is over. I wouldn't like to predict who the Democratic nominees will be for 2020, but I would bet that Hillary will not be one of them.

I also suspect that Bernie may be a bit long in the tooth by then as well.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:Interesting:

A majority of Democratic and independent voters made clear that they don’t foresee Hillary Clinton in their 2020 vision of the presidential election, according to a USA Today/Suffolk University poll released Wednesday.

Sixty-two percent of Democrats and independents surveyed said the twice-failed presidential candidate shouldn’t mount another campaign in 2020, and only 23 percent would be excited by her campaign if she did.

The two people they would most like to see are two of the most prominent Democratic-aligned politicians unlikely to seek the White House in 2020: Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Vice President Joe Biden. Forty-four percent and 43 percent of those voters, respectively, said they would be excited to see Sanders and Biden run.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/p ... 020-232898

In other news, the Pope has a little balcony.

Of course she won't run again in 2020. Age aside, she is now seen as a loser and her career is over. I wouldn't like to predict who the Democratic nominees will be for 2020, but I would bet that Hillary will not be one of them.

I also suspect that Bernie may be a bit long in the tooth by then as well.

Yep. Probably time for some major changes within the party, both structurally and in terms of personnel.

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:Interesting:

A majority of Democratic and independent voters made clear that they don’t foresee Hillary Clinton in their 2020 vision of the presidential election, according to a USA Today/Suffolk University poll released Wednesday.

Sixty-two percent of Democrats and independents surveyed said the twice-failed presidential candidate shouldn’t mount another campaign in 2020, and only 23 percent would be excited by her campaign if she did.

The two people they would most like to see are two of the most prominent Democratic-aligned politicians unlikely to seek the White House in 2020: Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Vice President Joe Biden. Forty-four percent and 43 percent of those voters, respectively, said they would be excited to see Sanders and Biden run.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/p ... 020-232898

In other news, the Pope has a little balcony.

Of course she won't run again in 2020. Age aside, she is now seen as a loser and her career is over. I wouldn't like to predict who the Democratic nominees will be for 2020, but I would bet that Hillary will not be one of them.

I also suspect that Bernie may be a bit long in the tooth by then as well.

Yep. Probably time for some major changes within the party, both structurally and in terms of personnel.

So why keep posting stuff about her?

belgarion wrote:

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
In other news, the Pope has a little balcony.

Of course she won't run again in 2020. Age aside, she is now seen as a loser and her career is over. I wouldn't like to predict who the Democratic nominees will be for 2020, but I would bet that Hillary will not be one of them.

I also suspect that Bernie may be a bit long in the tooth by then as well.

Yep. Probably time for some major changes within the party, both structurally and in terms of personnel.

So why keep posting stuff about her?

What a silly fellow you are, Belgarion. I posted some interesting news that came up is all.

Interesting to who? Nobody cares about the fact that Democratioc Party members don't think Clinton
will stand in 2020.

The last post before your 'interesting news' post was over a month ago. Nobody cares about her apart from you