US Presidential Contenders

[E_T]

Might be getting dirty/dusty inside.  Need to get a can of canned air, your vacume and open it, clean out good (as well as the fan blades) and check to be sure that your fans are working correctly...

[Rusty Edge]

At this point I got nothin' to lose.

[Rusty Edge]

*This is a Huffington post opinion piece. It is anti-Clinton rather than anti-[Sleezebag]. I chose it because
it sort of summarizes WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON WITH THE Clinton CAMPAIGN NEWS-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/hillary-needs-collective_b_11854308.html

* Hillary has been doing well with fundraising in Hollywood, the  Hamptons and Martha's Vinyard. About as well/hour  as when she was fundraising on Wall Street.

[E_T]

She actually asked former Republican Sec States to endorse her???  Did the Dem versions do as much???

[E_T]

You know, this e-mail BS just gets better and better...

Good for Powell to telling her that the whole thing was a very bad idea in the first place...  but she knows best, right...   Oy Vey...

[Rusty Edge]

She actually asked former Republican Sec States to endorse her???  Did the Dem versions do as much???

There have been a lot of national security people endorsing her... but as for former Secretaries of State ... as best I can tell, only Madeleine Albright, 64th US Secretary of State (1997–2001) has endorsed her, and presumably herself.

Kerry has praised her as the first major party woman candidate, but praise is sort of a Secretary of State's stock in trade. He praised her for being a woman, and Kerry as a former Democratic presidential candidate and Hillary's successor at State you think he would be in a position to say a lot more about her if he were so inclined.  Many former Secretaries have praised her at one time.

[E_T]

She actually asked former Republican Sec States to endorse her???  Did the Dem versions do as much???

There have been a lot of national security people endorsing her... but as for former Secretaries of State ... as best I can tell, only Madeleine Albright, 64th US Secretary of State (1997–2001) has endorsed her, and presumably herself.

Of course she did, being her hubby's SoS... 

Kerry has praised her as the first major party woman candidate, but praise is sort of a Secretary of State's stock in trade. He praised her for being a woman, and Kerry as a former Democratic presidential candidate and Hillary's successor at State you think he would be in a position to say a lot more about her if he were so inclined.  Many former Secretaries have praised her at one time.

Praise and Endorsement are two different things, I guess he isn't wanting to try to keep the job, if she is elected...

Which brings up a whole new area of questions, Whom are the three going to want for Staff and Cabinet positions, if elected?  Chief of Staff is usually (but not always) the Campaign Manager.  but whom are they looking at getting to take over Defense, State and Treasury, as those are the big three...  Well, might as well include Homeland, too...

[Rusty Edge]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-lead-keeps-shrinking/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

Sep 6, 2016 at 12:49 PM
Election Update: Clinton’s Lead Keeps Shrinking

10 questions as the stretch run begins.

I, for one, welcome the unofficial end of summer. I’ll miss the Olympics and fancy tomato salads. But it’s an election year, and Labor Day is usually accompanied by a return to more substantive news cycles — along with a significant increase in the amount of polling.

That was certainly true Tuesday morning, which brought a bevy of new data, including about a half-dozen new national polls and a 50-state poll from SurveyMonkey (conducted in conjunction with The Washington Post). People are focusing on the flashier results among these polls: that CNN’s poll shows Donald [Sleezebag] narrowly ahead among likely voters, for instance, while SurveyMonkey has Hillary Clinton tied with [Sleezebag] in Texas. At times like these, though, it’s especially useful to zoom out and take a more holistic approach.

The clearest pattern is simply that [Sleezebag] has regained ground since Clinton’s post-convention peak. He now has a 31 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only model, and a 33 percent chance according to polls-plus. For a deeper look, let’s run through our set of 10 framing questions about the election1 in light of the most recent polling:

1. Who’s ahead in the polls right now?

Clinton’s ahead, by a margin of about 3 percentage points in an average of national polls, or 4 points in our popular vote composite, which is based on both national polls and state polls. While the race has tightened, be wary of claims that the election is too close to call — that isn’t where the preponderance of the evidence lies, at least for the moment. If one candidate is ahead by 3 or 4 percentage points, there will be occasional polls showing a tied race or her opponent narrowly ahead, along with others showing the candidate with a mid- to high single-digit lead. We’ve seen multiple examples of both of those recently.

In swing states, the race ranges from showing [Sleezebag] up by 1 point in Iowa to a Clinton lead of about 6 points in her best states, such as Virginia. That’s a reasonably good position for Clinton, but it isn’t quite as safe as it might sound. That’s because the swing states tend to rise and fall together. A further shift of a few points in [Sleezebag]’s favor, or a polling error of that magnitude, would make the Electoral College highly competitive.

2. What’s the degree of uncertainty?

Higher than people might assume. Between the unusually early conventions and the late election — Nov. 8 is the latest possible date on which Election Day can occur — it’s a long campaign this year. But just as important, many voters — close to 20 percent — either say they’re undecided or that they plan to vote for third-party candidates. At a comparable point four years ago, only 5 to 10 percent of voters fell into those categories.

High numbers of undecided and third-party voters are associated with higher volatility and larger polling errors. Put another way, elections are harder to predict when fewer people have made up their minds. Because FiveThirtyEight’s models account for this property, we show a relatively wide range of possible outcomes, giving [Sleezebag] better odds of winning than most other statistically based models, but also a significant chance of a Clinton landslide if those undecideds break in her favor.

3. What’s the short-term trend in the polls?

It’s been toward [Sleezebag] over the past few weeks. Clinton’s lead peaked at about 8.5 percentage points in early August, according to our models, and [Sleezebag] has since sliced that figure roughly in half. Of [Sleezebag]’s roughly 4-point gain since then, about 2 points come from [Sleezebag]’s having gained ground, while the other 2 points come from Clinton’s having lost ground — possibly a sign that her lofty numbers in early August were inflated by a convention bounce.

One slight caveat: If you’re talking about the very short term, it’s not quite as clear who’s gaining, as the most recent daily and weekly tracking polls have been flat lately instead of showing continued gains for [Sleezebag]. By late this week, we should have a better sense of whether [Sleezebag]’s position is still improving.

4. What’s the medium-term trend in the polls?

It depends on where you measure it from. Clinton had a lead of 6 to 7 percentage points when we launched our forecast in June. That dwindled to about 3 percentage points just before the conventions got underway, and then a tie once [Sleezebag] got a modest bounce after the Republican convention. Clinton then got a comparatively large bounce after her convention, bringing her lead to about 8 points, but it’s receded some. Overall, her current lead of 4 percentage points is close to or slightly below where the race has been on average throughout the campaign.

5. Which states shape up as most important?

It’s still early enough — and we’re lacking recent, high-quality polling in enough states — that I’d discourage you from fixating on any one exact combination of states that Clinton or [Sleezebag] might win to clinch the Electoral College. Instead, you might think of this election as a battle between the Big Ten states and the ACC states, either of which offer a plausible path to victory for Clinton. If she holds on to most of the Big Ten states that President Obama won four years ago, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin, she can afford to lose ACC states such as Florida, Virginia and North Carolina. If she can win either Florida or both Virginia and North Carolina — and certainly if she sweeps all three ACC states — she can sacrifice quite a bit of ground in the Big Ten. The handful of competitive states outside of these groups, such as Nevada and New Hampshire, have few enough electoral votes that they’ll serve as tiebreakers only in the event of an extremely close race.

According to our tipping-point index, however, the single most important state is Florida. That’s because its 29 electoral votes are as much as many combinations of two and three swing states put together.

6. Does one candidate appear to have an overall edge in the Electoral College, relative to his or her position in the popular vote?

Our models, somewhat in contrast to the conventional wisdom, have usually found that [Sleezebag] is more likely to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote than the other way around. Some of this is for a quirky reason: [Sleezebag] is underperforming recent Republican nominees in polls of deeply red states. Last week, for instance, there were new polls of Kansas and Alaska that showed [Sleezebag] winning by 7 points and 10 points, respectively. By comparison, Mitt Romney won Kansas by 22 points and Alaska by 14. Losing states like those by 10 points instead of 20 would yield a better popular vote margin for Clinton, but wouldn’t help in the Electoral College.

The SurveyMonkey poll showing a tied race in Texas is in line with this theme. The race probably isn’t really tied there, as other recent polls in Texas have [Sleezebag] ahead. But a close call — Clinton losing Texas by only 5 percentage points — could yield wasted votes for Clinton in terms of their impact on the Electoral College. It’s plausible that Clinton gains among Hispanic voters are contributing to this pattern, since most Hispanics are not concentrated in swing states. (Almost half the Hispanic population is in Texas or California alone.)

7. How do the “fundamentals” look?

Some “fundamentals”-based models, which look at economic data and other nonpolling factors to forecast the election, suggest that a generic Republican candidate should be a slight favorite over a generic Democrat in this election. Our polls-plus model also contains a fundamentals model based on an economic index, and it slightly disagrees, finding that the economy is about average or, based on more recent data, very slightly above average — conveying just the slightest re-election edge to Democrats.

This is literally something of an academic debate, however. Overall, the fundamentals imply that the election ought to be close. If Clinton or [Sleezebag] win by a significant margin, it probably has more to do with the peculiarities of the candidates than the underlying conditions of the race.

8. How do FiveThirtyEight’s forecasts compare against prediction markets?

[Sleezebag]’s chances are currently about 30 percent in betting markets, a close match for FiveThirtyEight’s forecasts.

9. What would keep me up late at night if I were Clinton?

My first question would be whether the race has settled into a 4-point Clinton lead, as the polls have it now, or is continuing to trend toward [Sleezebag]. If I’m still ahead by 4 points or more at the time of the first debate on Sept. 26, I’ll feel reasonably good about my position: A [Sleezebag] comeback would be toward the outer edges of how much trailing candidates have historically been able to move the polls with the debates. If the race gets much closer, though, my list of concerns gets a lot longer. It would include geopolitical events that could work in [Sleezebag]’s favor, third-party candidates who seem to be taking more votes from me than from [Sleezebag], and the tendency for incumbent candidates (since Clinton is a quasi-incumbent) to lose ground in the polls after the first debate.

10. What would keep me up late at night if I were [Sleezebag]?

As the polls have ebbed and flowed, I’ve been 8 or 10 points behind Clinton at my worst moments, but only tied with her at my best moments. I’ve also never gotten much above 40 percent in national polls, at least not on a consistent basis, and I’ve alienated a lot of voters who would allow me to climb higher than that. In other words, maybe that dreaded [Sleezebag] ceiling is there after all, in which case I’ll have to get awfully lucky to win the election, probably needing both a favorable flow of news in the weeks leading up to Nov. 8 and a large third-party vote that works against Clinton.

[Rusty Edge]

Which brings up a whole new area of questions, Whom are the three going to want for Staff and Cabinet positions, if elected?  Chief of Staff is usually (but not always) the Campaign Manager.  but whom are they looking at getting to take over Defense, State and Treasury, as those are the big three...  Well, might as well include Homeland, too...

I suspect that should Hillary win, some of Obama's cabinet will stay on if they want to. The Sec. of Ag was supposed to be on her VP shortlist. If Hillary or [Sleezebag] win expect them to pass over Senators for cabinet positions. They'll  need every Senator they've got to pass things in Congress.
I assume Chris Christie will get a position somewhere. I've read that [Sleezebag] likes him, but Ivanka's husband doesn't. I've read transition team.

Johnson and Weld have said that Mitt Romney would make an excellent Secretary of State. At the moment, a 12th Amendment scenario seems Johnson's most viable path. That means that Weld would not be Vice President ( most likely Mike Pence would be.) , but would be free to serve as Chief of Staff, National Security Advisor, Chief advisor, etc.  They have said that they haven't asked anybody yet, as it would be presumptuous.

[Rusty Edge]

GLEANINGS-

* I have more doubts about Hilary's health. In part because the campaign and the media  are attacking those who raise questions about her health, rather than explain them away. It's not like NBC is such a hard-hitting Clinton critic. I'll refrain from repeating some stuff until there's conformation, but it fits the Parkinson's theory. Regardless, something's not right.

* Polls. Lots of stuff coming out after the holiday. Basically the race is tightening up. I doubt Gary will make the first debate by the criteria. The designated polls aren't being done, although he's rising in some other ones. One designated poll did come out, and it had him slipping to 7%. Thing is, they really undersampled Millenials, so much so that they won't say, only that the margin of error there is 8-8.5%.  Gary is also leading among active duty military and their families.

* [Sleezebag]'s criticisms of Hillary's pay to play approach, and the Clinton foundation are coming back to bite him, now that journalists have set out to prove that he is just as bad.

* 88 retired admirals and generals endorse [Sleezebag]. While that may sound impressive, 500 of them took out a full page ad to endorse Romney.

* The Dallas newspaper has rejected [Sleezebag] as unqualified. A  Johnson endorsement may follow.

[E_T]

Crap... early voting starts shortly after the VP debate, so they need to be in the first debate or we might as well get ready to have [Sleezebag] as pres...  f#c&

[Rusty Edge]

Tonight was NBC's Commander-In-Chief debate.

Active duty military dislikes Hillary and [Sleezebag] even more than the general population. They wanted Gary Johnson included ( he is their favorite in the polls), but NBC was against it, according to the Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran's Association.

Do they like Gary because he wants to end regime change and focus on defending America?
Do they loathe Clinton because they would be dishonorably discharged at best if they handled classified info as she did?
Do they despise [Sleezebag] because he would order them to commit war crimes?

Maybe some of each.

The Good news- Hillary seemed healthy, and she didn't spike my blood pressure. The Bad- she continued to insist that she never sent or received classified info on a private device, in direct conflict with the FBI's findings. I can't believe much of anything she says anymore.

The Good News- Uh...he may have been sincere sometimes, like when he was talking about how he knew more than Obama's generals.  The BAD- I think he'd be out of his depth in the White House.

[Rusty Edge]

Meanwhile in the Johnson campaign-

* The Dallas paper endorsed Hillary

* Mitt Romney called for Johnson and Weld to be in the debates.

The campaign released an analysis of recent polls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JlBByr0ISg


Rising: A Look at the Polls
 Sep 5, 2016 

A representative democracy requires a competition of ideas. Let's have one.

The Commission on the Presidential Debates (CPD), a tax-exempt nonprofit partnership between the Democratic and Republican parties, has selected 5 polls to determine who gets to participate in the all-important presidential debates. Under the commission's selected criteria, unless a candidate is the nominee of the Republican or Democratic party, he or she must receive a 15% average among the polls conducted by ABC-Washington Post, CBS-New York Times, CNN-Opinion Research Corporation, Fox News, and NBC-Wall Street Journal.



According to the CPD, these pollsters were chosen for their reliability, sample sizes, the soundness of survey method, and their reputation and longevity. This selection criteria fails to consider other real-world realities such as the universal consensus that traditional polling has become increasingly unreliable and that getting to 15% without significant media attention is nearly impossible.

Yet, despite this unfair reality, we are climbing toward that arbitrary number.

It is also important to consider that the CPD does not articulate standards that the private pollsters must follow. The CPD, most simply, relies on these organizations to adopt their own methodologies.

To date, some of the CPD polls are rather suspect.

The recent CPD poll conducted by CNN, for example, has Gary Johnson at 9%, but includes "too small a share of the national population" for voters under 34 years of age to even produce crosstabs. Hard to believe that no one under the age of 34 is going to vote this election. And given that Gary Johnson is in first place with young voters, the CNN poll should be considered in that context. Further, the pollsters didn't even offer Gary Johnson as an option until after they had already asked voters to decide between Hillary and [Sleezebag].

And the latest Fox News poll also inaccurately suggests that our poll numbers have dropped to 9% overall. What is not included in the headlines is that the Fox News poll only included 17% independent voters. However, according to most polls, approximately 4 in 10 voters are independent. And given that 62% of Gary Johnson supporters are independents, the Fox polls should be considered within that context.

Notably, the Washington Post found our ticket at 10% or higher in 42 states, and at 15% or higher in 15 states.

The truth is, 62% of America wants Gary Johnson in the presidential debates. Rigged, unfair, or just downright unreliable is not the issue. America deserves better than a choice between two highly unpopular options.

Enough speculation, here are some real objective numbers:
◦-Our campaign received over 150,000 small donations in the last 6 weeks.
◦-We raised over $5 million online last month.
◦-More than 750,000 people have signed our #LetGaryDebate petition.
◦-We reached more than 40 million people on Facebook last week alone.

Watch the polls closely, but don't take them at face value. When people hear our positive message, they join us.

A representative democracy requires a competition of ideas. Let's have one. You In?

[E_T]

You go Mitt!

[Rusty Edge]

-s-body-language-claim-doesn-n644856]http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/u-s-official-donald-[Sleezebag]-s-body-language-claim-doesn-n644856

Politics
 Sep 8 2016, 11:37 am ET
 
What Really Happened at Donald [Sleezebag]'s Intelligence Briefing

by Ken Dilanian, Robert Windrem and William Arkin

As U.S. officials cast doubt on Donald [Sleezebag]'s claim he read the "body language" of intelligence officials at a recent briefing, NBC News has learned exclusive details of what unfolded in the room — and of reported tension between one of [Sleezebag]'s advisers and the briefers.

Six current and former senior officials said they were aware of friction between retired Gen. Michael Flynn, one of the advisers [Sleezebag] brought to the briefing, and the officials who conducted the briefing. Four sources with knowledge of the briefing — including two intelligence officials who spoke to people in the room — said Flynn repeatedly interrupted the briefers until New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie intervened.

Both Christie and Flynn denied the officials' version of events, with Flynn calling the report "total b__s___" and Christie calling it "a complete work of fiction."

The Aug. 17 briefing is attracting fresh scrutiny after [Sleezebag] said at NBC's Commander-in-Chief Forum that he divined that intelligence officials were "not happy" with President Obama.

"What I did learn," [Sleezebag] said, "is that our leadership, Barack Obama, did not follow ... what our experts said to do ... And I was very, very surprised.

"I could tell — I'm pretty good with body language — I could tell they were not happy."

Related: Clinton Slams [Sleezebag] But She Blabbed About Briefing, Too

Timothy Barrett, a spokesman for the Director of National Intelligence, declined to comment Thursday on [Sleezebag]'s characterization.

However, a U.S. official pointed out that intelligence officers don't give policy advice, so it would be inaccurate to say that Obama failed to follow the advice of the intelligence community. A second U.S. official said analysts are trained not to allow their body language to betray their thinking.

Meanwhile, four people with knowledge of the matter told NBC News that one of the advisers [Sleezebag] brought to the briefing, retired general Mike Flynn, repeatedly interrupted the briefing with pointed questions.

Two sources said Christie, the New Jersey governor and [Sleezebag] adviser, verbally restrained Flynn -- one saying Christie told Flynn to shut up, the other reporting he said, "Calm down." Two other sources said Christie touched Flynn's arm in an effort get him to calm down and let the officials continue.

Christie denied that he had silenced or restrained Flynn. "The comments and actions attributed to me in this story about General Flynn are categorically untrue. I did not make the statements alleged nor did I touch General Flynn's arm for any reason during the briefing. The report is a complete work of fiction."

Flynn told NBC News the report was "total b__s___" and added, "These are anonymous sources. They're lying."

In an interview on TODAY, Flynn was asked whether he saw what [Sleezebag] claims he did at the briefing.

"I sure did...in a very specific way," Flynn said, though he went on to say that his conclusion was based not on body language but on intelligence officials drawing distinctions between the content of their briefing and White House policy.

The intelligence briefing is given to the presidential nominee from each party.

There were fewer than 10 people in the room at [Sleezebag]'s briefing, and all the briefers were career intelligence officials, including both military officers and civilians, U.S. officials told NBC News. A former senior intelligence official said the briefing team is always the same for both presidential candidates. None were political appointees, and none were among the team that briefs President Obama daily. The names of the briefers have not been made public.

The briefing was conducted at the "secret" level of classification, and it did not cover sources and methods or covert operations.
Current and former U.S. intelligence officials who asked that their names not be disclosed told NBC News that many members of the current intelligence community -- leadership rank and file -- were angered by [Sleezebag]'s comments Wednesday night, and the possibility that he may have disclosed details of his intelligence briefing or attempted to politicize it.

Former CIA and NSA director Mike Hayden, who opposes [Sleezebag], told NBC News that in almost four decades in intelligence "I have never seen anything like this before."

"A political candidate has used professional intelligence officers briefing him in a totally non-political setting as props to buttress an argument for his political campaign," said Hayden. "And his political point was actually imputed to them, not even something they allegedly said. The `I can read body language' line was quite remarkable. ... I am confident Director Clapper sent senior professionals to this meeting and so I am equally confident that no such body language ever existed. It's simply not what we do."

Michael Morell, a former acting CIA director who was President George W. Bush's briefer and is now a Hillary Clinton supporter, said [Sleezebag]'s comments about his briefing were extraordinary.

"This is the first time that I can remember a candidate for president doing a readout from an intelligence briefing, and it's the first time a candidate has politicized their intelligence briefing. Both of those are highly inappropriate and crossed a long standing red line respected by both parties," he said.

"To me this is just the most recent example that underscores that this guy is unfit to be commander in chief," Morell continued.

"His comments show that he's got no understanding of how intelligence works. Intelligence officers do not make policy recommendations. It's not their job and anyone running for president should know that. The people who briefed him, I'm pretty sure were career analysts — senior intel professionals. There is no way that they would in any way signal displeasure with the policies of the president."

That said, intelligence officials have asserted they warned the administration repeatedly about the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria well before Obama ordered a bombing campaign. And as NBC News has reported, senior intelligence officials in 2012 proposed a covert operation to oust Bashar Assad in Syria, but Obama decided not to move forward with it.