US Presidential Contenders

[Rusty Edge]

And it's a Fox poll as reported by Fox.  There's billions of ways to rig a poll and skew the reporting of the results w/o even trying or being deliberately dishonest.

I plead ignorance here. Yes, I know you've discredited them before, but it came across to me as  a little passionate and personal and opinionated.

Yeah, sure,  I know what push polling is, what it's for, and used to know it when I heard it, but we use nomo robo to ditch those calls, and before that we let the machine handle them, and before that I said, no thank you. I haven't dealt with one personally since near the turn of the century. I used to know the names of the prominent Democratic and Republican Party pollsters, too.

But I actually thought that FOX just hired a credible objective outside poller, much the same as the network news organizations, if for no other reason than to buy itself credibility. Surely they could afford to. Looking back at it, I guess I made this assumption because I see these polls referenced in articles from other sources, mentioned on another network, and listed alongside other polls , and averaged in with them, as if they were equally valid and impartial.

I stand corrected. Thanks Buncle and Oerdin. It's good to have people that will tell me when my fly is open, and such.

[Buster's Uncle]

Oh, I don't know who conducted the poll on their behalf, or anything about the methodology - just that it's Fox and they're more in the habit of whiffy dirty pool tactics than merely capable of them - and that I find the numbers themselves to look highly suspect on their own.  Don't know that your fly's down for anything but taking Fox's word for anything in the first place.

About Oerdin - he tends to talk a lot of good sense from a mostly leftish perspective about politics, and I imagine his training and practical experience in psy-ops in the eastern phase of the Second Oil Crusade is about as good as my degree and journalism experience for insights into how mass media works, better in a lot of ways.  Worth listening to even when he's wrong.

(I think I just now realized why he's the one who understood my speeches about community-building and knew the truth when he heard it, in fact - a lot of my reasoning has got that communications degree behind it, and a psy-ops guy's gonna see that clearly.)

(He also tells good service stories...)

[Rusty Edge]

The Inspector General of the State Department released his report today. While her practices may have been generally consistent with those of previous Secretaries of State, going back to 1997, the security regulations were different when she took office, being more strict. She ignored them.

Yes, she handled some stuff with the highest security classification on her private e-mail or device(s), but that was classified retroactively.

We talked before about how the State Department should have found a solution for her. Well, apparently they offered her a couple of solutions, one of which was carrying a second phone, and  she refused. A second phone would have been an acceptable solution to me, at least temporarily.

Supposedly she failed to report some hacking attempts , but I'm not certain that was in this report.

So the report doesn't exactly square with her prior public statements on the subject. No laws against lying on the campaign trail.

Of course she is claiming that the Inspector General's investigation was politically motivated because it's negative. Maybe so. But I could just as easily believe that she was an unpopular boss, and that it's personal rather than political. A lot of employees get furious when the former boss tries to publicly put a spin on work history.


She could have been more forthright and less lawyerly about this all and it wouldn't have been news.... No, not really her nature.

[Dale]

[fuddle-duddle] I hope he wins.   

What can you tell us of immigration policies down there?

Don't try to get in on a refugee boat.

[Buster's Uncle]

I think yours is fair take on the emails, Rusty - congratulation on reasoning it out fairly.  It's not nothing, and grounds to question her competence and honesty, but there's nothing to make a criminal case out of.

[ColdWizard]

If only I could extract myself and Buster from this dystopian nightmare timeline, I would leave the electorate to what they deserve, not without regret, but without hesitation.

It Can Happen Here.

What timeline could possibly be better than a cross between 1984 and Idiocracy?

[Buster's Uncle]

Can't think of a funny answer, but I'd be gettin' more lovin' there.

[Unorthodox]

So is the email stuff going to be enough to push Sanders in? 

[Buster's Uncle]

Heck no.  Only Republicans who already hated her and Bermie-heads likewise, care.  It's basically costing her close to zero votes - nobody's on the fence about her, though many are screwing up their faces knowing they'll have to vote for her this fall or live in Hell.

I'm wincing right now.

[Rusty Edge]

[[Sleezebag]-Sanders debate would be Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare

Jake Novak   | @jakejakeny
4 Hours Ago

Just when you thought the 2016 election was starting to get a little predictable, a big wrench has been thrown into the works.


A Donald [Sleezebag] vs. Bernie Sanders debate in the coming days before the June 7th California primary is getting closer to becoming a reality. If this happens, it will likely be a huge boost for Sanders, a mild aid to [Sleezebag], and -- to borrow the key buzz word of this election so far – a YUGE pain in the neck for Hillary Clinton.

For Sanders, this entire election has been a "nothing to lose" proposition. He was given no chance to even make a dent in Mrs. Clinton's inevitable coronation, er presidential nomination, by the Democrats. And as a lifetime Senate backbencher, he was not in danger of losing a chairmanship or leadership position. While it's basically impossible for Sanders to overtake Clinton in the delegate battle, the latest PPIC poll shows Sanders trails her by just two percentage points among likely California primary voters.

Needless to say, if Sanders wins this primary it will wound Mrs. Clinton greatly. And Sanders chances to do just that would rise if this debate comes off. The contest would no doubt be the most-watched event in Sanders' political life and Clinton wouldn't even be there to defend herself. For a campaign that's been suffering a number of failures lately, its refusal to debate Sanders and setting off this alternative contest vs. [Sleezebag] is perhaps the biggest failure yet. She can't even benefit from a sympathy factor if [Sleezebag] and Sanders get too nasty in attacking her in absentia, because her absence is entirely her own fault.


It's also not wise for Clinton to allow any major campaign event to occur without her participation. With many right wing and progressive voters still hoping she may be disqualified from the race if she is indicted over her State Department email scandal, this kind of "Clinton-less" event gives them a taste of what they've been praying for all year.

The only potential negative for Sanders is he's wading into waters vs. [Sleezebag] that he's not quite used to. His battle with the Clinton campaign has become nastier of late, but it's nothing compared to what Donald [Sleezebag]'s opponents have had to face over the past 10 months. Sanders can get pretty nasty himself, as many of his Senate colleagues can tell you, but even though he can fight fire with fire against [Sleezebag] it doesn't mean that's the kind of image he wants to present to undecided voters in California and nationwide.

If the debate gets so nasty that it becomes an embarrassment on the level of some of the GOP debates earlier this year, the Clinton campaign could possibly get some traction by claiming it was staying above an unnecessary nasty fray all along. Sanders, by contrast, could come off looking like the Democratic Party home wrecker the Clinton forces have been portraying him to be for last month. But Mrs. Clinton and establishment Democrats and Republicans have been acutely tone deaf about the new and rising tolerance the voters have had for nastiness in this new social media dominated world. It goes with the territory.

So what's in this for [Sleezebag]? He already has the California primary sewn up, and he seems to be getting into a groove attacking Clinton. At the same time, he's been sending almost daily encouragement to Sanders' camp with comments about how the Democratic Party primary process is rigged against him. So why would [Sleezebag] seemingly take his eye off the Clinton ball and simultaneously risk angering even the few Sanders voters who could potentially switch over to him or just stay home in the general election?

The answer is the exposure will be worth it, even for the overexposed [Sleezebag]. Right now, [Sleezebag]'s #1 best goal is to prove to as many people as possible that he's not crazy. And a relatively cordial, yet lively, debate vs. fellow firebrand Sanders would go a long way toward accomplishing that goal. And each and every moment [Sleezebag] and Sanders seem to be on the same page about Hillary Clinton's record or choreographed path to the Democratic nomination will be extremely helpful to the [Sleezebag] camp. [Sleezebag]'s winning image as an outsider can only be enhanced by a sustained national TV appearance with fellow outsider Sanders.

The only unanswered question is how the Clinton camp will be able to stay out of this debate as the publicity and excitement over it grows. "The best thing Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta could do is call everyone's bluff and get Hillary to show up to the debate after all, eliminating [Sleezebag] from the podium. But the Clinton campaign has been about predictability for years now and no matter how disastrous the outcome, it's desperately sticking to the script.  ]

Well, that's what the queen-in-waiting gets for ditching the CA Democratic debate, claiming she's already won the nomination and she needs to concentrate on [Sleezebag]. To ignore the Bern is to ignore his supporters. She's going to reap what she sows.

[Buster's Uncle]

That's he second time I've seen someone say "yuge pain" this week - and I'd venture the only thing painful about it would be getting punched because Yugoslavians don't like when you leave off the "former" prefix.

[Unorthodox]

I would kinda like to see a Sanders-T rump debate.  I've come away from all this with a lot of respect for the old man, even if I disagree with him on issues.  I'd like to see if T rump could rattle him. 


Plus, I think T rump would win vs Hillary at this point, honestly.  They're both going to go negative, and that's his ballpark. 

[Buster's Uncle]

I don't agree with that conclusion -everything I said all along is still against the Pig- but the rest scans perfect.

[Unorthodox]

I'd actually enjoy a full on Simpsons sticker at this point.  "I voted for Kodos" 

[Buster's Uncle]

Please be patient while your request is being processed...