US Election: It's a post-TrumpDay world

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not really. Obama's favorability is +6.5, while Clinton's is -16.5.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/2/11565194/clinton-trump-unfavorable

Clinton has historically high unfavorable ratings, but they're not as bad as Trump's.

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Not really. Obama's favorability is +6.5, while Clinton's is -16.5.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/clinton_favorableunfavorable-1131.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_favorableunfavorable-643.html

Yes really. Look at the crosstabs. Same pattern. High numbers among Democrats, low numbers among Republicans. Both are hated by the opposing party and well liked by their own. It's in basically all the polls you can find crosstabs for.

Why this is should not be surprising either if you've been watching any news at all for like the past decade or more.

[Shryke]

Anyway, speaking of how terrible caucuses are, this Vox article was good:

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/2/11535648/bernie-sanders-closed-primaries-caucuses

Quote

 

Bernie Sanders wants to transform how the Democratic Party chooses its presidential nominee.

To do so, Sanders has made abolishing the closed primary — which prevents independents from voting — one of his top demands of Democratic officials, arguing that the party needs to "open the doors to working people, to senior citizens, to young people."

Expanding voter participation is indeed a noble goal. But if Sanders really wants the Democratic Party's presidential primaries to be more representative of the public, he should forget the closed primary and go after a much better target: the caucus.

On Thursday, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights published a reportshowing that caucuses — which often require voters to spend hours at the polls — have been closely connected with very low voter turnout during this election.

 

Really nice chart in there for how much caucuses suppress the vote.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/2/11565194/clinton-trump-unfavorable

Clinton has historically high unfavorable ratings, but they're not as bad as Trump's.

I know. I was just point out that it's not the greatest comparison. 

17 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't understand the speeches thing, and never did. Politicians always leverage their background in public service to make money when they re-enter the private sector, often as lobbyists or rainmakers for law firms--or giving speeches to Wall Street types. I think it's reasonable to wonder what those activities say about a candidate, but demanding that Clinton make public the speeches she was paid to give? That, by my lights, is beyond the pale. 

True, but rarely do they run for public office again afterwards. A lot of pundits took her giving paid speeches to Wall St. as a signal that she wasn't going to run again. That aside, it's pretty easy to see why people, specifically Sanders supporters, are up in arms over her not releasing the transcripts. Personally I doubt she said anything too bad, but it's bad optics to not release them, and Trump will hit her a lot harder than Sanders ever did on the issue.

[All-for-Joffrey]

19 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

It's one of the things that troubles me about this Sanders movement; its adherents often wind up repeating right-wing talking points about Hillary Clinton. I have a few pro-Sanders friends, and I swear the things they say could be lifted directly from the conservasphere.

Please. This happens from the pro-Clinton side too. Just the other week on Facebook a Clinton supporter I know posted an article from the Blaze (Glenn Beck's site) about the Verizon CEO claiming his company paid the full 35% income tax rate when Sanders said Verizon didn't pay a nickle in taxes. (This was actually true for at least 5 years up until 2013 as Verizon actually had a negative tax rate.) To be sure, I've had Sanders supporters spout nonsense to me about how Clinton is going to be indicted, if not for the emails then for the Goldman Sachs speeches (no fucking idea -- don't ask) but using right wing attacks on the other candidate is by no means endemic to Sanders supporters.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Yes really. Look at the crosstabs. Same pattern. High numbers among Democrats, low numbers among Republicans. Both are hated by the opposing party and well liked by their own. It's in basically all the polls you can find crosstabs for.

Why this is should not be surprising either if you've been watching any news at all for like the past decade or more.

Yes they both poll well with their own party and poorly with Republicans, but that alone does not account for the reasons why Obama's favorable polling numbers are 12% higher than Clinton's, and her unfavorable numbers are 10% higher than his.

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, All-for-Joffrey said:

Please. This happens from the pro-Clinton side too. Just the other week on Facebook a Clinton supporter I know posted an article from the Blaze (Glenn Beck's site) about the Verizon CEO claiming his company paid the full 35% income tax rate when Sanders said Verizon didn't pay a nickle in taxes. (This was actually true for at least 5 years up until 2013 as Verizon actually had a negative tax rate.) To be sure, I've had Sanders supporters spout nonsense to me about how Clinton is going to be indicted, if not for the emails then for the Goldman Sachs speeches (no fucking idea -- don't ask) but using right wing attacks on the other candidate is by no means endemic to Sanders supporters.

To my knowledge there aren't a couple of conservative PACs that are actually funneling money to do this sort of thing against Sanders. There are, however, groups doing that against Clinton. 

[Shryke]

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/trump-surrogate-admits-on-live-tv-hes-going-to-have-to-prove-that-hes-not-adolf-hitler/

Quote

KABC radio host John Phillips, a surrogate for GOP front-runner Donald Trump, admitted to CNN on Monday that the billionaire would have to “prove that he’s not Adolf Hitler” if he had any chance of winning a general election.

 

[Shryke]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yes they both poll well with their own party and poorly with Republicans, but that alone does not account for the reasons why Obama's favorable polling numbers are 12% higher than Clinton's, and her unfavorable numbers are 10% higher than his.

Sure it does. Just a matter of how much of each of those.

[TrackerNeil]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I know. I was just point out that it's not the greatest comparison. 

True, but rarely do they run for public office again afterwards. A lot of pundits took her giving paid speeches to Wall St. as a signal that she wasn't going to run again. That aside, it's pretty easy to see why people, specifically Sanders supporters, are up in arms over her not releasing the transcripts. Personally I doubt she said anything too bad, but it's bad optics to not release them, and Trump will hit her a lot harder than Sanders ever did on the issue.

What I'd like to know is if those speeches go public and they are innocuous, if the Clinton accusers will humbly admit they made a mountain from a molehill. I'm thinking not.

EDITED TO ADD: It occurs to me that people will find in those speeches--should they ever be released--exactly what they are looking for. I wonder if that is the real reason Clinton won't release them; the media will spend weeks poring over every word, and leading a public debate that will last through Independence Day about what they really mean. Unless Clinton once said, "I feast on the flesh of Christian babies", those speeches will very likely change few opinions. If I were Clinton, I'd withhold them too. HRC has a good deal of experience being tarred by the media, so I'm not surprised she's reticent.

[ThinkerX]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

True, but rarely do they run for public office again afterwards. A lot of pundits took her giving paid speeches to Wall St. as a signal that she wasn't going to run again. That aside, it's pretty easy to see why people, specifically Sanders supporters, are up in arms over her not releasing the transcripts. Personally I doubt she said anything too bad, but it's bad optics to not release them, and Trump will hit her a lot harder than Sanders ever did on the issue.

Bad optics.  Ok. 

But this is not being thought through.  Take it a couple years down the road.  Clinton is POTUS.  Something happens, maybe in the US, maybe overseas.  Something not good and fundamentally critical to the US.  Something that happened, at least in part, as a direct result of Clintons actions or policies.  But...while she was involved, the public at large doesn't know the true depth.  Likewise, the true significance of that 'something' is not generally known.  And to fess up to either is 'bad optics,' and meanwhile the 'something' festers.  So she stonewalls, slaps 'top secret' labels on a bunch of stuff, flat out lies in a speech or five.

 

In a couple years that's likely to be Clinton, because there are situations that simply will not go away, period, and cannot easily be dealt with by an establishment politician.  A decade ago, the POTUS making calls like that was Bush II.  I blundered across a book at the library dealing with the free speech implications of his reign.  Time and again, he blundered badly, or engaged in suspect behavior - witness the middle eastern wars, or the corporate corruption that flourished in his tenure.  Time and again, accusations were made.  So, the Bush II crews response was to start slapping 'top secret' labels on dang near everything, something mostly unprecedented to that point.  If you can't confront the facts, then suppress them.  I see Clinton following that same course, and the 'bad optics' bit about these speeches as a warning light. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

The 2016 Republicans....you can't make this stuff up-

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

6 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

What I'd like to know is if those speeches go public and they are innocuous, if the Clinton accusers will humbly admit they made a mountain from a molehill. I'm thinking not.

EDITED TO ADD: It occurs to me that people will find in those speeches--should they ever be released--exactly what they are looking for. I wonder if that is the real reason Clinton won't release them; the media will spend weeks poring over every word, and leading a public debate that will last through Independence Day about what they really mean. Unless Clinton once said, "I feast on the flesh of Christian babies", those speeches will very likely change few opinions. If I were Clinton, I'd withhold them too. HRC has a good deal of experience being tarred by the media, so I'm not surprised she's reticent.

You could argue Romney lost because of what was released from his closed door speeches. He was unable to control that message and unauthorized video leaked not long before votes were cast. What did he say? He didn't care about half of America? Or something like that? Either way, Clinton no doubt has some terrible soundbytes that could be misconstrued in similar ways, and will be if they are leaked before voting. But this is the risk she is willing to run it seems.

I just think she needs to be damned careful so we don't end up with President Trump. That's the scariest thing out there, and it appears as though she seems to think that's an impossibility. 

[TrackerNeil]

2 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

You could argue Romney lost because of what was released from his closed door speeches. He was unable to control that message and unauthorized video leaked not long before votes were cast. What did he say? He didn't care about half of America? Or something like that? Either way, Clinton no doubt has some terrible soundbytes that could be misconstrued in similar ways, and will be if they are leaked before voting. But this is the risk she is willing to run it seems.

I'm not sure that 47% comment did more than confirm what people were already inclined to believe about Romney. In any case, Obama had clear structural advantages going into the 2012 race (incumbency, improving economy), and I suspect they did more to help him than anything Mitt Romney said. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

What I'd like to know is if those speeches go public and they are innocuous, if the Clinton accusers will humbly admit they made a mountain from a molehill. I'm thinking not.

EDITED TO ADD: It occurs to me that people will find in those speeches--should they ever be released--exactly what they are looking for. I wonder if that is the real reason Clinton won't release them; the media will spend weeks poring over every word, and leading a public debate that will last through Independence Day about what they really mean. Unless Clinton once said, "I feast on the flesh of Christian babies", those speeches will very likely change few opinions. If I were Clinton, I'd withhold them too. HRC has a good deal of experience being tarred by the media, so I'm not surprised she's reticent.

I doubt it too, but it doesn't really matter. I also doubt the media would spend weeks discussing them if there isn't anything in them besides her giving a pep talk to GS. There have been numerous examples of Clinton saying boneheaded things on the campaign trail that the media stopped talking about within 48 hours of them happening. Also keep in mind that the speeches are reported to be relatively short, so there won't be that much to go over. I suspect that outside of a few Sanders supporters, the issue would largely be forgotten within a week if there was nothing damaging in the transcripts. And on the flip side, not releasing them only increases suspicions towards a candidate who is notorious for not being transparent. It will drag on throughout the campaign, and Trump will be able to hit her on the issues repeatedly. Imo she's better served by just releasing them now and getting it out of the way if there is nothing to hide.

[Shryke]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I doubt it too, but it doesn't really matter. I also doubt the media would spend weeks discussing them if there isn't anything in them besides her giving a pep talk to GS. There have been numerous examples of Clinton saying boneheaded things on the campaign trail that the media stopped talking about within 48 hours of them happening. Also keep in mind that the speeches are reported to be relatively short, so there won't be that much to go over. I suspect that outside of a few Sanders supporters, the issue would largely be forgotten within a week if there was nothing damaging in the transcripts. And on the flip side, not releasing them only increases suspicions towards a candidate who is notorious for not being transparent. It will drag on throughout the campaign, and Trump will be able to hit her on the issues repeatedly. Imo she's better served by just releasing them now and getting it out of the way if there is nothing to hide.

Please. How long did the press report on the BENGHAZI!!! shit? Your continued implications on this front are ridiculous.

[Shryke]

Almost as ridiculous as that?

This:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/trump-ted-cruz-father-222730

Quote

Donald Trump on Tuesday alleged that Ted Cruz’s father was with John F. Kennedy’s assassin shortly before he murdered the president, parroting a National Enquirer story claiming that Rafael Cruz was pictured with Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pro-Fidel Castro pamphlets in New Orleans in 1963.

Quote

“His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being — you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous,” Trump said Tuesday during a phone interview with Fox News. “What is this, right prior to his being shot, and nobody even brings it up. They don't even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about it.”

“I mean, what was he doing — what was he doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death? Before the shooting?” Trump continued. “It’s horrible.”

 

[TrackerNeil]

37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I doubt it too, but it doesn't really matter. I also doubt the media would spend weeks discussing them if there isn't anything in them besides her giving a pep talk to GS. There have been numerous examples of Clinton saying boneheaded things on the campaign trail that the media stopped talking about within 48 hours of them happening. Also keep in mind that the speeches are reported to be relatively short, so there won't be that much to go over. I suspect that outside of a few Sanders supporters, the issue would largely be forgotten within a week if there was nothing damaging in the transcripts. And on the flip side, not releasing them only increases suspicions towards a candidate who is notorious for not being transparent. It will drag on throughout the campaign, and Trump will be able to hit her on the issues repeatedly. Imo she's better served by just releasing them now and getting it out of the way if there is nothing to hide.

Honestly, I think Hillary Clinton will face intense suspicion no matter what she does. To some extent, that's baked-in for her, and, I think, for female candidates in general. We like them well enough once they win, but we seem less favorably inclined when they run. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Please. How long did the press report on the BENGHAZI!!! shit? Your continued implications on this front are ridiculous.

Not nearly as ridiculous as you saying the media will treat "Clinton said nice things to GS employees" the same as them finding pictures of her sleeping with her interns. Seriously, if there is nothing in the transcripts then the story will die in a few days. There are a number of examples of Clinton saying worse things than praising GS employees, and none of them lasted as stories for more than a few days.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Please. How long did the press report on the BENGHAZI!!! shit? Your continued implications on this front are ridiculous.

Not nearly as ridiculous as you saying the media will treat "Clinton said nice things to GS employees" the same as them finding pictures of her sleeping with her interns. Seriously, if there is nothing in the transcripts then the story will die in a few days. There are a number of examples of Clinton saying worse things than praising GS employees, and none of them lasted as stories for more than a few days.