2016 Election

Quote: SanchoPanza

No other Cabinet secretary has ever had a private server to handle all e-mail messages, including official government business.

Are you serious?
LOL
The false outrage is strictly due to politics.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/02/05/Colin-Powell-Condoleezza-Rice-used-private-servers-for-classified-emails/2551454652902/

Whats funny is you would think the right would pull for somebody closer to the middle such as Clinton rather then far left Bernie
But all the attacks are to get Hill out of the race
President Sanders, has a nice ring to it :-)

Quote: terapined

Why is Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice given a free pass from conservatives and Clinton does not?
Politics

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/colin-powell-condoleezza-rice-staffers-handled-emails-deemed/story?id=36718280

Nice try...but I am not willing to give anyone a "free pass"--they can be investigated just as Clinton can. The FBI can do the investigating. I know hearings can get out of hand when either side is after the other; that is why I am okay with the FBI investigating.

If all the emails that Secretary Clinton sent and received (or passed through her private server) meet this test:

"According to Cummings, the OIG memo says those emails were sent between February 2003 and June 2008 and that none of them were marked classified at the time they were sent. "

...she should be just fine. I think policies should be updated and private accounts should not be used.

The thing is that there is still a question, in her case, of emails that WERE classified passing through her server. That should not have happened. I am comfortable with the FBI investigating that issue. I'm not as concerned about how many hearings Congress has as I am about the results of the FBI probe.

No free passes. Clinton, Rice, Kerry, Powell...none. The truth, however, would be nice.

Quote: terapined

Are you serious?
LOL
The false outrage is strictly due to politics.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/02/05/Colin-Powell-Condoleezza-Rice-used-private-servers-for-classified-emails/2551454652902/

Whats funny is you would think the right would pull for somebody closer to the middle such as Clinton rather then far left Bernie
But all the attacks are to get Hill out of the race
President Sanders, has a nice ring to it :-)

Again, the other story you posted said:

"According to Cummings, the OIG memo says those emails were sent between February 2003 and June 2008 and that none of them were marked classified at the time they were sent."

The other difference is she HAD a private server of her own; they likely used other services for email. Neither is good, but if the email was unclassified at the time it was sent, I don't see the issue whether Powell, Rice, or Clinton did it. You could make an argument for bad judgement. that obviously falls more heavily on Clinton that the others right now...she is the one running for President. The other two are not in office any more and don't appear to be interested in running for anything.

Quote: terapined

Are you serious?
LOL
The false outrage is strictly due to politics.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/02/05/Colin-Powell-Condoleezza-Rice-used-private-servers-for-classified-emails/2551454652902/

Read the post you are calling "false outrage." It says "private server." Your citation does not even mention servers, except in connection with Clinton, and not with anyone else. The fact stands, despite the distraction and distortion, that neither you nor anyone else can name any Cabinet secretary who conducted all her business, private and public, on a non-secure private server.

Quote: RonC

Again, the other story you posted said:
"According to Cummings, the OIG memo says those emails were sent between February 2003 and June 2008 and that none of them were marked classified at the time they were sent."

So what?? They don't have to "marked," as the instructions for Standard Form 312 make crystal clear. http://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard-form-312.html. If the smartest woman in the world and the third highest office holder in the Executive Branch cannot comprehend those instructions and cannot decipher Top Secret, SAP and HUMINT material when she sees it, then she is clearly unqualified to hold an even higher position.

Quote: SanchoPanza

So what?? They don't have to "marked," as the instructions for Standard Form 312 make crystal clear. http://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard-form-312.html. If the smartest woman in the world and the third highest office holder in the Executive Branch cannot comprehend those instructions and cannot decipher Top Secret, SAP and HUMINT material when she sees it, then she is clearly unqualified to hold an even higher position.

I agree that it doesn't "have" to be be marked to be classified information to actually be something that should be protected, but you can't really expect every single person to know what level everything should be marked at given that some of the information is "over classified"...I've seen some stuff that was marked in certain classifications that wasn't worthy of any level of classification. Now if you "knew" a particular item was "Top Secret" and passed it with or without classification, it is not a good thing.

I don't realistically expect ANYONE to know exactly what is classified and what is not (and what level of classification) for every single piece of information. That is why I am more concerned about two things:

--the private server, which takes it an obvious step beyond others in the same office
--traffic passed on that server and public networks that is already marked classified.

That seems like the most serious set of things to be concerned about...

Chris Christie basically took Marco Rubio out at the knees tonight during the debate. It was glorious.

Quote: ams288

Chris Christie basically took Marco Rubio out at the knees tonight during the debate. It was glorious.

I don't think it helps Christie all that much. Definitely hurt Rubio. He had that "deer in the headlights look" again, just like a few years ago when he gave the Republican rebuttal to the State of the union speech and had that strange water bottle moment. He definitely got rattled and that just makes him look like he is in over his head. Probably helps Kasich.

Wow. The betting markets have been swift to react. Rubio has lost most of the lead that he built up with his strong showing in Iowa Monday night. Rubio and Trump are almost even, co-favorites for the nomination again (Rubio slight favorite).

It will be interesting to see how much this hurts him (Rubio).

Quote: kewlj

I don't think it helps Christie all that much. Definitely hurt Rubio. He had that "deer in the headlights look" again.

He got his little boy pants taken down
and his buttocks reddened by Christie.
He was sweating like a racehorse for
the rest of the event. He's a talking
points very rehearsed fellow, when
things go awry, he's lost. This will
hurt him big time.

Quote: RonC

It isn't easy to see why she can't use what you've written about above to bolster her case for taken care of classified info; it would be like saying "hey, look...90% of the classified stuff I handled was handled correctly." I don't know if she personally should be prosecuted but I do think someone should held accountable be for the mishandling of classified information. If it is a "careerist" that didn't want to change with the times and told her it was okay to have a private server, so be it. Things change over time and we learn more about security every day. It is ignorant to have anyone responsible for information security that does not know that. She isn't off the hook completely even if it falls on someone else--the boss is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen.

If a U. S. Navy ship runs aground, even while the Captain is sleeping, the Captain often ends up fired. Responsibility. It is something a lot of people don't like to take; they just want the title.

I don't disagree with her ultimate responsibility. The info (about classified wasn't sent via email but by other routine classified means) was part of the conversation when this all started (last March?), but that wasn't interesting to either those investigating or those reporting, so it got ignored in further stories. Or maybe you were saying, "It's easy to see why she ..." above?

Yeah, if that's what you meant, I agree. But in the overall thing, it's more like 99.9993% (re: your number of 90%) of classified material was handled correctly (99% not transmitted via email, .9993 was not classified, using 22 emails (really 7 multi-response "chains") out of 30,000), and those 22 were retroactively marked, maybe as little as a single name or reference tainting a whole chain through the back-trail).

I wish the rest of government were that good at following protocol and procedures.

Here's a question that I have been wondering. Why do newspapers endorse candidates?

You would think any media source would at the very least try to portray themselves as being objective (because that is REALLY their role).

It also diminishes their 'clout'. Case in Point: Boston Herald.....Today's headline "Rubio chokes". People in that region know that the Boston herald previously endorsed Chris Christie, so that immediately diminishes their headline and effect. Wouldn't that headline have more meaning and 'clout' if they had not previously endorsed Chris Christie?

I know that in they case of the NYT it is the editorial staff that makes the endorsements, which is probably the norm.

It makes more sense in the pre-internet era, especially for the smaller offices for which it would be hard to learn much about the candidates on your own.

Quote: kewlj

Here's a question that I have been wondering. Why do newspapers endorse candidates?

Because they believe that many people are too stupid to decide for themselves. Unfortunately, it's pretty much true.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I don't disagree with her ultimate responsibility. The info (about classified wasn't sent via email but by other routine classified means) was part of the conversation when this all started (last March?), but that wasn't interesting to either those investigating or those reporting, so it got ignored in further stories. Or maybe you were saying, "It's easy to see why she ..." above?

Yeah, if that's what you meant, I agree. But in the overall thing, it's more like 99.9993% (re: your number of 90%) of classified material was handled correctly (99% not transmitted via email, .9993 was not classified, using 22 emails (really 7 multi-response "chains") out of 30,000), and those 22 were retroactively marked, maybe as little as a single name or reference tainting a whole chain through the back-trail).

I wish the rest of government were that good at following protocol and procedures.

As made clear many times, and most recently the other day in this very thread, whether or not files were marked classified is totally irrelevant, as the agreement that Clinton signed makes perfectly clear:

“As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12356, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in Sections 1.1(c) and 1.2(e) of Executive Order 12356, or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security.”

“(2) Scope of "classified information"
As used in the SF 312, the SF 189, and the SF 189-A, "classified information" is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination, as provided in Section 1.1(c) and 1.2(e) of Executive Order 12356 or any other or Executive order that requires interim protection for certain information while a classification determination is pending. "Classified information" does not include unclassified information that may be subject to possible classification at some future date, but is not currently in the process of a classification determination.”

“Question 12: For purposes of the SF 312, what is "classified information?"
Answer: As used in the SF 312, the SF 189, and the SF 189-A, "classified information" is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination, as provided in Sections 1.2 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 12958 or under any other Executive order or statute that requires interim protection for certain information while a classification determination is pending. "Classified information" does not include unclassified information that may be subject to possible classification at some future date, but is not currently in the process of a classification determination.
The current Executive order and statute under which "classified information," as used in the SF 312, is generated are Executive Order 12958, "Classified National Security Information," and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Question 13: What is the threshold of liability for violating the nondisclosure provisions of the SF 312?
Answer: A party to the SF 312, SF 189 or SF 189-A may be liable for disclosing "classified information" only if he or she knows or reasonably should know that: (a) the marked or unmarked information is classified, or meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination; and (b) his or her action will result, or reasonably could result in the unauthorized disclosure of that information. In no instance may a party to the SF 312, SF 189 or SF 189-A be liable for violating its nondisclosure provisions by disclosing information when, at the time of the disclosure, there is no basis to suggest, other than pure speculation, that the information is classified or in the process of a classification determination.
Question 14: May the language of the SF 312 be altered to suit the preferences of an individual signer?
Answer: No. The SF 312 as drafted has been approved by the National Security Council as meeting the requirements of NSDD 84, and by the Department of Justice as an enforceable instrument in a court of law. An agency may not accept an agreement in which the language has been unilaterally altered by the signer.”

Quote: HowMany

Because they believe that many people are too stupid to decide for themselves. Unfortunately, it's pretty much true.

I would agree with you, however I also believe that a good deal of it is their need to fill time, and in the case of newspapers, space.
Ever try watching a TV newscast and not help but feel that they're trying to make us meteorologists? They devote so much time to it because it is the cheapest way to fill time. Fill time. Create content. It all makes for some very bad journalism.

I think some of you guys are too focused on the email investigation. I mean sure, if Hillary gets indicted, she is out of the race. But personally, I think that is very unlikely, even if there I a case to be made. And in the absence of that indictment, the email scandal really is a non issue, even if it showed bad judgment. It isn't a concern to anyone except those that wouldn't possibly consider voting for her. The polls show that even the independents that you would hope might be influenced, don't consider this an issue or have been turned off by this as an issue because of the politicalizing of it by the republicans. In other words the republicans overplayed their hand with the Benghazi hearing.

But I do think there is a bigger danger out there for Hillary and that is Bernie Sanders, who until recent days I had dismissed as a non-factor token opposition. Sanders is only a couple top influential black Democrats away from being a real threat. A couple guys like a John Lewis or Ellijay Cummings or the popular and influential former mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown, and all of the sudden Sanders is a real threat to Hillary. There have been a couple minor defections in recent days like Former NAACP president Ben Jealous over the weekend, but Sanders needs one or two of the bigger folks before South Carolina and then the game changes.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I don't disagree with her ultimate responsibility. The info (about classified wasn't sent via email but by other routine classified means) was part of the conversation when this all started (last March?), but that wasn't interesting to either those investigating or those reporting, so it got ignored in further stories. Or maybe you were saying, "It's easy to see why she ..." above?

Yeah, if that's what you meant, I agree. But in the overall thing, it's more like 99.9993% (re: your number of 90%) of classified material was handled correctly (99% not transmitted via email, .9993 was not classified, using 22 emails (really 7 multi-response "chains") out of 30,000), and those 22 were retroactively marked, maybe as little as a single name or reference tainting a whole chain through the back-trail).

I wish the rest of government were that good at following protocol and procedures.

Perhaps I did use the wrong wording...and you may be right that MOST of the classified information was handled properly. I don't hold "most" as meeting the standard--ALL classified material should have been handled properly. Further the "wish" comment seemingly excusing the amount of badly handled info as being better than the effectiveness of the rest of government at following protocol and procedures is troubling to me. Following the rules should be, well, the rule and what is expected. Every agency should be accountable for doing things right.

The other thing is that one of the reasons often left out of commentaries by supporters of Hillary is that things passing back and forth on a private server are outside the system--how could they be properly classified if the people who help make sure information is properly marked aren't in a position to see them? This is why it doesn't matter if the material was marked or unmarked at the time of the transmission--if the Secretary or any of her staff even thought it should have been classified (...thought...meaning they might not even be sure it should be classified), it should not have been handled outside of official channels and approved means for handling sensitive issues.

Saying the "the first email with the names of operatives in it was not classified until later on" does not mean that the information was not classified to begin with and that no one is guilty of mishandling sensitive information.

Investigate Powell. Investigate Rice. Investigate Kerry. Investigate Clinton. Hold them all to the same standard and let the chips fall as they may.

Are Democrats willing to go along with that?

Quote: kewlj

And in the absence of that indictment, the email scandal really is a non issue, even if it shows bad judgment. It isn't a concern to anyone except those that wouldn't possibly consider voting for her.

Your first sentence is EXACTLY why it IS an issue AND why anybody who is going to vote should be concerned. Bad judgment, and not the first time.

Quote: steeldco

Your first sentence is EXACTLY why it IS an issue AND why anybody who is going to vote should be concerned. Bad judgment, and not the first time.

The Clintons have a history of judgement issues. Why bring them back into power?

Quote: kewlj

I mean sure, if Hillary gets indicted, she is out of the race. But personally, I think that is very unlikely, even if there I a case to be made. And in the absence of that indictment, the email scandal really is a non issue, even if it showed bad judgment.

I'm more interested in the content of her Goldman-Sachs speech, than the whole of the server issue.

If I was generally impressed with what the rightwing is going off about currently at any particular time, I'd probably vote in the other party more often.

Quote: RonC

The Clintons have a history of judgement issues. Why bring them back into power?

Its either that or a religious fanatic on the right
This atheist will go with the lesser of the 2 evils, the Clintons or Bernie
I cant vote for somebody that makes decisions based on some fantasy make believe higher being
The race on the right is absurd, a religious fanatic claims the pyramids were built to store grain and the other religious fanatic candidates give him a pass on this for fear of offending him. cmon

Clinton and Bernie are weak but at least they don't live in that twisted religious twilight zone turning the philosophy of Love Jesus taught into hate and discrimination.

Quote: RonC

Perhaps I did use the wrong wording...and you may be right that MOST of the classified information was handled properly. I don't hold "most" as meeting the standard--ALL classified material should have been handled properly. Further the "wish" comment seemingly excusing the amount of badly handled info as being better than the effectiveness of the rest of government at following protocol and procedures is troubling to me. Following the rules should be, well, the rule and what is expected. Every agency should be accountable for doing things right.

I agree. And I'm not really accepting that it's ok to say it was good enough; more of a "caca happens" thing, though I'm not sure (and they haven't said) much specific, which in itself is damaging, because speculation on what it was, and misinformation about what happened, is rampant. I genuinely don't know how a person holds Hillary personally responsible for something someone else sent her (which was said; she initiated none of this); how is she supposed to know what's classified? SoS doesn't classify things; they're told by their staff, or it's implicit in how they receive the info and whether it's marked. Administratively responsible as we talked about before, yes. My (cynical) point was that, knowing the Fed Gov't, that's a pretty low error rate for what has to be an excruciating audit.

Quote: RonC

The other thing is that one of the reasons often left out of commentaries by supporters of Hillary is that things passing back and forth on a private server are outside the system--how could they be properly classified if the people who help make sure information is properly marked aren't in a position to see them? This is why it doesn't matter if the material was marked or unmarked at the time of the transmission--if the Secretary or any of her staff even thought it should have been classified (...thought...meaning they might not even be sure it should be classified), it should not have been handled outside of official channels and approved means for handling sensitive issues.

Agreed. And without the FBI releasing the details of who sent it, who all saw it, how it was transmitted in each case, whether it had been questionable as to sensitivity, what was the content, what was the criteria for classifying it years after it had been sent as declassified, etc. ad nauseum, how people either attacking or defending can make a factual argument, well I just don't know.

However, I do know that everything I got and sent, whether from home or travel access or from within the dept. went across the FAA server, which included content parsing, email sender and recipient filtering, malware and virus checking; many files and attachments were stripped along the way (irritating to say the least when you're exchanging drafts, powerpoints, or other content). I don't know how the Clintons were set up on their server, but I'd be interested to see the transmission trail on the questionable emails; I bet they passed through the DOS filters in every case, since she wasn't writing to herself.

Quote: RonC

Saying the "the first email with the names of operatives in it was not classified until later on" does not mean that the information was not classified to begin with and that no one is guilty of mishandling sensitive information.

They've (specifically Hillary, and the FBI has acknowledged it) said that in every case the information was not classified to begin with. I don't know the truth of that, but that's the claim I've heard numerous times.

Quote: RonC

Investigate Powell. Investigate Rice. Investigate Kerry. Investigate Clinton. Hold them all to the same standard and let the chips fall as they may.

Are Democrats willing to go along with that?

I can't speak for the Dem's. I've been a Republican for 40 years. But I would certainly go along with it.

Quote: terapined

Its either that or a religious fanatic on the right
This atheist will go with the lesser of the 2 evils, the Clintons or Bernie
I cant vote for somebody that makes decisions based on some fantasy make believe higher being
The race on the right is absurd, a religious fanatic claims the pyramids were built to store grain and the other religious fanatic candidates give him a pass on this for fear of offending him. cmon

Clinton and Bernie are weak but at least they don't live in that twisted religious twilight zone turning the philosophy of Love Jesus taught into hate and discrimination.

Well...Clinton is a Methodist and Sanders is Jewish...while their exact views on what is right and wrong may not be the same as evangelicals, they are still going to be checking in with their higher power...

Quote: RonC

Well...Clinton is a Methodist and Sanders is Jewish...while their exact views on what is right and wrong may not be the same as evangelicals, they are still going to be checking in with their higher power...

Yes, Bernie is Jewish. But he did an interview with the Washington Post recently where he basically said he doesn't participate in organized religion.

Makes me like him 1000x more.

Quote: ams288

Yes, Bernie is Jewish. But he did an interview with the Washington Post recently where he basically said he doesn't participate in organized religion.

Makes me like him 1000x more.

Which means he is like many others who still pray, believe in their higher power, in spite of the fact they don't go temple or church often or at all...

Are you a fan of his form of Socialism?

Quote: RonC

Which means he is like many others who still pray, believe in their higher power, in spite of the fact they don't go temple or church often or at all...

Are you a fan of his form of Socialism?

I'd recommend googling his comments about his religious views. I'm on my iPhone and the link is long and messy so I'm not gonna bother trying to copy and paste it.

And I am a fan of his Democratic Socialism. Much more than I am a fan of Donald Trump's racism and facism, at least.

Just watching Chris Matthews grilling Rubio
campaign manager, and he tore him a new
one. Saying why would we want a president
who gets a deer in the headlights look and
keeps repeating the same sentences over and
over when some crisis comes up. Matthews
says it was obvious Rubio had some kind of
mental meltdown, he was lost, repeating
the same talking point, word for word, 6
times.

The campaign manager stumbled and stuttered
around, he was almost as bad as Rubio. You
never see a FOX commentator tear into somebody
like that, they always dance around trying to kiss
all asses at once.

Still a lot of time left, but the republican candidates look like they may be heading toward a foreseeable problem with too many candidates sticking around too long. The attacks are getting brutal, leaving many if not all of the candidates looking bad/damaged.

Likely there won't be a candidate I feel comfortable voting for. Zero chance I'd ever vote for Cruz, Trump, Christie or Sanders. Not really comfortable with Hill, not a zero chance, but would likely just not vote before voting for her. Don't really have much opinion on Rubio, would look closer if he ended up getting nominated. I like Rand Paul, in line more with my mostly libertarian views, but he never really had a chance to start with and is out now.

Steve Hayes on FOX, who has hated Trump since
June, says he's been in NH 6 days and he has
yet to find ONE Trump supporter! On CNN, a
woman reporter says she been there 6 days
and all she can find is Trump reporters. Even
the Uber drivers she's used. It just shows how
full of it FOX is, Murdoch and Ailes hate Trump.

And where is Cruz? On all 3 cable news today, I
never saw him mentioned. Lots of Trump and
Bush interviews, no Cruz. And they're still
blowing Rubio's debate all out of proportion.

I don't know, but I do think Rubio is the only one who made significant news. I'm almost certain he would have had a debate boost, but he somehow managed to shoot himself in the foot before he could benefit from it Tuesday.

Quote: rxwine

I don't know, but I do think Rubio is the only one who made significant news. I'm almost certain he would have had a debate boost, but he somehow managed to shoot himself in the foot before he could benefit from it Tuesday.

Trump and Cruz did nothing to rock the boat.
Trump is not even predicting a win now, he
says the fallout if he's wrong by even a little
bit isn't worth the hassle. He's learning the
rules very quickly. He thinks he'll win NH
handily but he's not announcing that.

News out early this morning reports a poll showing Rubio slipping in New Hampshire. It looks like his debate performance may take him from what many considered a "winning position" (Loosely, a result that bodes well for momentum, as did his third place finish in Iowa) to a "losing position" (similar loss of momentum) in New Hampshire. While New Hampshire isn't going to decide a winner, it could also propel one or two of the governors in the race into a position that puts the third place governor in a bad spot.

http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/gravis-ivr-survey-shows-trump-leading-in-new-hampshire/

I'd like to see the bottom two drop out soon (looks like Christie and Fiorina), and two more soon after that, so that we can have a real race between people who can actually win the nomination. Kasich will finish well in NH, so he isn't going anywhere in spite of the fact that he is polling nationally at 4% or so. He'll continue on for a while and see if he gains any national momentum. Bush isn't far ahead nationally, so the governors only poll about 10.8% between the three of them.

Trump's chances of winning the nomination increase every day that the field is this large...those candidates divide up the folks that don't support him.

As someone pointed out above, he is not as brash about winning this week and he has already said that he doesn't have to win NH to win the nomination. Kind of sad seeing him go from telling everyone he wins everything to doing the political thing. Just not as fun...but it is a good move on his part. Unless he looks less confident to the people, since he is running on confidence as much as anything.

Looking good for Bernie and Kasich already......if you believe 9 votes are an indicator.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/dixville-notch-new-hampshire-primary-midnight-vote/index.html

Hopefully the NH results are interesting tonight.

Blowouts by Bernie and Trump would be boring....

Quote: ams288

Hopefully the NH results are interesting tonight.

Blowouts by Bernie and Trump would be boring....

Not to dispute you (would I do that), blowouts by either and/or both will just be 'the voice of NH". Not exactly CA or NY or TX. The second and third place finishes are going to be the item of interest for me tomorrow, at least on the Republican side. I am not a big fan of any of the candidates, either party.
Let's see if the country feels the same way going forward. Bad system, but the best system our brightest and bravest have managed to come up with so far.

I need a change, Obama spoke of a need for change. I still feel a need. I wanted Walker, maybe Trump is a step in the right direction, maybe not. We have a lot of assets on the line as a nation, as the one and only, USA. Keep your powder dry, get involved. We still got the best the world has managed to offer to anyone/anytime/anyplace. God bless America.

But it might be up to us, God might be busy..

Chris Christie says today that he'll be picking
his VP running mate soon. Fiorina is still
referring to herself as 'President Fiorina'.
Running for president is mind altering,
apparently.

Quote: ams288

Hopefully the NH results are interesting tonight.

Blowouts by Bernie and Trump would be boring....

Zzzzzzzzz

'President' Fiorina is in last place at 4%. She's
probably picking out her cabinet..

Quote: ams288

Zzzzzzzzz

Well, I'm still interested in actual numbers for both sides vs. just percentages.

Looks like Chris Christie is coming in around 6th place.

Time for him to go bye-bye. He went all-in on NH. It didn't work out. Oh well. He should've ran in 2012. He also needs to sue whoever performed his lap band surgery. Clearly that doctor was just playing a cruel joke on him.

Carly and Ben Carson also need to drop out. But they're kind of cuckoo, so they'll probably stick around for a bit.

Not sure how much Christie was damaged in the bridge scandal, but he also had a reputation for being too Obama friendly.

Jeb Bush is apparently waiting for everyone to drop out or die. It's apparently the "last man on Earth" type plan. When there's no one left he's the man.

Fascinating night. Absolute worst case scenario for the republican establishment. They needed to have one candidate emerge that they could rally around. Instead 3 of the 4 establishment candidates will move on, with Christie likely dropping out. Of the 3 remaining establishment guys, Kasich, Bush and Rubio, the one that finished strongest in New Hampshire, Kasich, is the weakest of the 3. He is has no money, no organization outside of New Hampshire and is polling at 2%. Yeah he might get a bump out of a distant second place finish, but is he going to be able to raise tens of millions of dollars, build a ground game and raise his poll numbers 20 point in 10 days?? I think not.

That means a death match in South Carolina, between Rubio and Jeb. Rubio is severely wounded, and I don't think can recover (some things you just can't recover from, similar to Rick Perry's "oops" moment). Jeb has been thoroughly rejected from Day 1 of his campaign. Is the establishment really going to turn back to him now?? That doesn't make sense to me.

If Trump wins South Carolina, I think he is back where he was, cruising to the nomination, having survived what will turnout to be a "hiccup" in Iowa. If Cruz wins South Carolina, that establishment support that Jeb and Rubio are still hoping for, will probably end up backing Trump in an effort to stop Cruz, who they see as the worse general election candidate of the two. Either way, I think the republican establishment was the big loser in New Hampshire.

Quote: rxwine

Jeb Bush is apparently waiting for everyone to drop out or die. It's apparently the "last man on Earth" type plan. When there's no one left he's the man.

You joke, but that IS the plan. Stay in, get to
the convention, have Trump eliminated
by some red tape slight of hand, and Bush
is the only one standing there. I've read
this scenario over the months in several
places.

Quote: kewlj

Fascinating night. Absolute worst case scenario for the republican establishment. .

But the best scenario for Trump. The more
people that stay in the race, and the longer
they stay in, means all those 2nd and 3rd
and 4th place votes get split among more
people and the bigger the Trump win. His
supporters aren't going anywhere, the last
thing Trump wants is to be going against
just one guy at this point, he doesn't want
a close race.

I don't think Hillary gets it--we've elected a symbolic President and it really hasn't gone as well as most hoped because he was mostly symbolism and a lot less substance. It isn't his race that concerns people, it is the way he chooses to govern. His lack of experience is glaringly obvious. He has, though, given others something to consider before electing another symbolic President. Now she is trying to become yet another symbolic President and I think it is a bad move. She is trying to deny being part of the establishment by saying that she can't possible be, since she is a woman.

It won't work. Am I saying she can't win. No. She can win. It is simply this--she cannot run as a symbol of a new type of President, a woman, and also deny that she is part of the establishment. She's the wife of a career politician. She's a former Senator and Secretary of State. She's made a fortune giving political speeches. She's more establishment than many, if not most of the candidates. It is okay. I just think it is wrong for her to claim no links to the establishment just because she is a woman. People see right through that...

“But I have seen symbolism in election, symbolism that FAILS the people that so desperately need the ACTION to make change. I want my first female president to be more than a symbol, I want her to have politics that can revolutionize.”

“Blurred Lines” model Emily Ratajkowski

http://ij.com/2016/02/533526-red-hot-bernie-sanders-supporter-sends-a-fiery-message-to-gloria-steinems-sexist-criticism/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=Partners&utm_term=PRM7&utm_campaign=

“I am excited for a future in which we will have a female president, but I don’t think Hillary is that person for this generation”

Rachael Jennings, also 28, in Dublin, New Hampshire, to the Los Angeles Times.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-whos-excited-about-woman-president

I think she is tone deaf to the difference in her symbolic position--President Obama, love him or not, was a one term Senator (no real establishment ties) who moved the country with his speeches. He mobilized people to vote for him. His speeches were electric. He was a rock star. He was so many things that Hillary is not. Her line about being a woman is not going to help her as much as she thinks it is, if at all.

Actually, that is a good thing. If she wins, it should be because she wins the battle of ideas instead of based on her gender. Maybe she'll figure that out...

Last fall, I posted about how the field was severely tilted against Bernie because of the super delegate in the democratic elections that are not representative of the actual vote. At the time, I speculated that Bernie would need to win 67% of vote-related delegates to overcome Hillary's super delegate advantage.

So, after two contest, one that was basically tied and one which was a 60% to 38% sanders win, here is the delegate count: Hillary 44, Bernie 36. That tell you all you need to know about this process. :/

Quote: kewlj

Last fall, I posted about how the field was severely tilted against Bernie because of the super delegate in the democratic elections that are not representative of the actual vote.

Not only are the delegates compromised, but the entire voting process is basically nothing more than a total farce: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlDgOIdD3BY

Quote: SanchoPanza

Not only are the delegates compromised, but the entire voting process is basically nothing more than a total farce: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlDgOIdD3BY

And exactly why I'll never waste my time doing it.

Quote: kewlj

Last fall, I posted about how the field was severely tilted against Bernie because of the super delegate in the democratic elections that are not representative of the actual vote. At the time, I speculated that Bernie would need to win 67% of vote-related delegates to overcome Hillary's super delegate advantage.

So, after two contest, one that was basically tied and one which was a 60% to 38% sanders win, here is the delegate count: Hillary 44, Bernie 36. That tell you all you need to know about this process. :/

Bernie is basically working with one hand tied behind his back:

"Sanders won 60 percent of the vote, but thanks to the Democratic Party’s nominating system, he leaves the Granite State with at least 13 delegates while she leaves with at least 15 delegates."

"In the overall delegate count, Clinton holds a commanding lead after a razor-thin victory in Iowa and a shellacking in New Hampshire. Clinton has 394 delegates, both super and electorally assigned, to only 42 for Sanders."

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/10/hillary-earns-more-new-hampshire-delegates-than-sanders-after-loss/#ixzz3znDxWxuY

"Under the original Hunt plan, superdelegates were 30% of all delegates, but when it was finally implemented for the 1984 election, they were 14%. The number has steadily increased, and today they are approximately 20%."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate

Bernie could have been up to 20% of the total delegates behind before the primaries even started...so to win 50% of the delegates (assuming all 20% of the super-delegates were committed to Hillary), he'd need almost a 62.5%-37.5% advantage in "less than super delegates" to win. Talk about a stacked deck...