US Presidential Contenders

[Rusty Edge]

This one's a breakdown/analysis of the latest Quinnipiac poll. It shows the high negatives of the two major party candidates. There are 5 tables which I could not copy, as text or photos. They say that a majority believes Hillary is better qualified, and more trustworthy with nukes. More Republicans than Democrats will possibly or definitely stay home on election day.

-38-johnson-5/]http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/01/quinnipiac-hillary-40-[Sleezebag]-38-johnson-5/

Quinnipiac: Hillary 40, [Sleezebag] 38, Johnson 5
posted at 10:01 pm on June 1, 2016 by Allahpundit

I know what you’re thinking, but you’re wrong. Gary Johnson doesn’t cost [Sleezebag] the election in this scenario. Without him in the race, it’s Hillary 45, [Sleezebag] 41, with [Sleezebag] winning independents by a narrow 40/37 margin. With Johnson in the mix, Hillary’s share of independents drops eight points while [Sleezebag]’s declines by only four; meanwhile just four percent of Republicans break for Johnson (so much for #NeverTrump) compared to two percent of Dems. Relatedly, a new poll of Michigan today finds Johnson at nearly 12 percent there, and once again sees him drawing more votes from Clinton than from [Sleezebag]. She drops a little more than six points with him in the race while [Sleezebag] a bit less than six. That is to say, there’s reason to believe that Johnson’s candidacy will end up helping [Sleezebag] in the end by luring away enough left-leaning pro-Sanders indies to hurt her on balance. Although, of course, that may change. If Bernie goes all-in for Hillary and unites the left, Johnson may end up as mainly a right-wing phenomenon after all, which is trouble for the GOP.

To give you a sense of how deeply sleazy Hillary Clinton is perceived as being, even a guy as compromised as [Sleezebag] wins when voters are asked which of the two candidates is more honest and trustworthy (44/39). Among independents, his advantage is 15 points. Democrats may have nominated the one person in the party who can’t beat him on that metric. Apart from Hillary’s better half, of course.


In a Clinton-[Sleezebag] matchup, men go Republican 51 – 35 percent, while women go Democratic 54 – 30 percent…

American voters give Clinton a 57 percent “very unfavorable” or “strongly unfavorable” rating, with 37 percent “strongly favorable” or “somewhat favorable.”

[Sleezebag] gets a 59 percent “somewhat unfavorable” or “strongly unfavorable” rating, with 34 percent strongly favorable” or “somewhat favorable.”

Finding a pol whose unfavorable rating is nearly as bad as [Sleezebag]’s was no easy feat. Congratulations to Democrats on going the extra mile and defying the odds to make this unlikely Republican dream come true.

Jokes aside, there’s data in the details to encourage the left, starting with the fact that [Sleezebag] is still having trouble escaping the low 40s even though his party’s united behind him while hers remains split. (He leads her among independents as well.) One number of note is how many voters from each party say they’re “dissatisfied” or “embarrassed” by their nominee each year. The combined totals are similar — 19 percent for Clinton versus 24 percent for [Sleezebag] — but the number who claim embarrassment is just six percent in her case versus 14 percent in his. I’d guess that “embarrassed” voters are the ones most likely to waver in the end because they fear their nominee isn’t fit for office. If that’s true, it supports the theory that [Sleezebag] will end up losing more Rs than Clinton will lose Ds.

It’s also tempting to believe that Republicans, who are eager to reclaim the White House and excited about [Sleezebag], will beat Democrats in turnout this year as a divided left struggles with whether to support her. There’s evidence here to support that: 42 percent of GOPers say they’re more excited to vote this year than in years past versus 29 percent of Dems. But when you ask them if they’re likely to vote, the numbers look different:

def

Hillary’s the all but certain nominee but the primary’s still being contested so it’s surprising to see Democrats say they’re more intent on showing up for her than Republicans are for [Sleezebag]. That may be an early clue that it’ll be easier for her to unite her party than everyone thinks. Maybe the left is already so committed to defeating [Sleezebag] that even most Bernie fans are vowing to show up in November, notwithstanding their bitterness about his looming defeat in the primary.

Another potential telltale number: Look how wide her margins are on “stability” questions. Here’s the result when voters are asked whom they trust more to make the right decisions with nuclear weapons.

nukes

Men are a loyal [Sleezebag] cohort on most issues but not this time. Ditto when people are asked who’s better prepared to be president:

exper

When they’re asked who’s more intelligent, men are back on [Sleezebag]’s side — barely. Women, meanwhile, are overwhelmingly pro-Hillary.

Clinton also wins easily, 53/40, when asked which candidate would better handle an international crisis. What you’re seeing here, in all likelihood, is the germ of her main line of attack on him this fall, namely that he’s way too much of a loose cannon to trust with powers as vast as the presidency’s. [Sleezebag]’s core appeal is that he’s a change agent; he’s ahead by nine points when people are asked who’s more inspiring. The obvious counter is that he’s a chaos agent, not merely one of change. Hillary running as the “stability” candidate is tricky in a populist climate, when “stability” is easily characterized as “status quo” ([Sleezebag] leads by 11 points when folks are asked who’d do more to create jobs), but [Sleezebag]’s already promised to go on being his usual loose-cannon self this fall despite the assurances from people like Paul Manafort that he’ll behave more presidentially at some point. If Democrats invest heavily in attacks on [Sleezebag] as dangerously unqualified, both by temperament and experience, it’ll probably win them late deciders. If the electorate goes into the booth with the foremost question in its mind, “Whom do I trust more with the bomb?”, Hillary wins easily. She’s shady but she’s predictable.

One last table, just because it’s so tremendously depressing:

moral

Is the GOP actually going to lose a test of morals to the farking Clintons? God almighty.

Speaking of depressing, here’s one of the cringiest moments of the campaign on either side to date. I need a drink.

[Rusty Edge]

WOW! just WOW!

Jill Stein, Green Party frontrunner, some say presumptive nominee, ( but the convention isn't until August ) is holding the door open for Bernie... and he is now leaving his option open, instead of outright denial or rejection as he used to do. He used to try to reassure the establishment that even though he was a newcomer, he was still a dedicated Democrat. Well, they are still trying to shut him out. It's not the welcome they gave Jesse Jackson.

The Greens stand for student debt forgiveness, and slavery reparations to blacks. I wonder how many youngsters they could register, and how many votes they could buy.  Bernie on a Green ticket this year sounds like the  House of Representatives picks the president to me. If nobody wins there, the Speaker takes over the presidency for 4 years.

Well in that scenario, at least nobody can say a vote for so and so is a vote for somebody else, because you don't know what will happen.

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/02/dont_rule_it_out_bernie_sanders_slightly_leaves_door_open_for_green_party_run_with_jill_stein/

[Buster's Uncle]

...Those clowns would find somebody worse than the Pig, with their track record, which I guess is good news for OJ and/or Charles Manson...

[Rusty Edge]

...Those clowns would find somebody worse than the Pig, with their track record, which I guess is good news for OJ and/or Charles Manson...

Okay. This is Unospeak. Which clowns? The RINO hunters? The Greens?  Salon.com?

[Buster's Uncle]

The worst House of Representatives since 1865 - they shouldn't be allowed to choose their own lunches.

[Buster's Uncle]

Stole this from Rhoth:

[Unorthodox]

...Those clowns would find somebody worse than the Pig, with their track record, which I guess is good news for OJ and/or Charles Manson...

Okay. This is Unospeak.

Actually, it's not.  BU means clowns as a derogatory term. 

My clowns are a highly skilled act in the circus I actually respect.   

[Buster's Uncle]

It's definitely highly pejorative when I use it, most especially when used in a context of governance.  Management should never look like a circus act not adept juggling and/or high-wire acts.

[Rusty Edge]

Thanks, that clarifies things considerably.

[Rusty Edge]

Here are some bullet points from that Clinton speech I liked. Some of them are opinions and some of them are basically redundant or rhetorical, but sadly, most of them are true. The actual article has lots of video clips to document some outrageous statements by The Leader.

-foreign-policy/]http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-attack-lines-donald-[Sleezebag]-foreign-policy/

Clinton takes on [Sleezebag]: Her 34 toughest lines
By Gregory Krieg, CNN
Updated 10:45 AM ET, Fri June 3, 2016

New York (CNN) — Hillary Clinton on Thursday blitzed presumptive Republican nominee Donald [Sleezebag] with a barrage of pointed and sarcastic attacks, casting him as dangerous with a petulant streak that could threaten U.S. national and global security.

Here are 34 of her most fiery charges:

1. "Donald [Sleezebag]'s ideas aren't just different -- they are dangerously incoherent. They're not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies."

2. "He's not just unprepared -- he's temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility."

3. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes because it's not hard to imagine Donald [Sleezebag] leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin."

4. "We cannot put the safety of our children and grandchildren in Donald [Sleezebag]'s hands. We cannot let him roll the dice with America."

5. "He has no ideas on education. No ideas on innovation. He has lots of ideas about who to blame but no clue about what to do."

6. "This is a man who said that more countries should have nuclear weapons, including Saudi Arabia."

7. "This is someone who has threatened to abandon our allies in NATO -- the countries that work with us to root out terrorists abroad before they strike us at home."

8. "He believes we can treat the U.S. economy like one of his casinos and default on our debts to the rest of the world, which would cause an economic catastrophe far worse than anything we experienced in 2008."

9. "He has said that he would order our military to carry out torture and the murder of civilians who are related to suspected terrorists -- even though those are war crimes."

10. "He says he doesn't have to listen to our generals or ambassadors because he has -- quote -- 'a very good brain.' He also said, 'I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me.' You know what? I don't believe him."

11. "He says climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese, and has the gall to say that prisoners of war like John McCain aren't heroes. (Pauses for boos) Exactly."

12. "He praises dictators like Vladimir Putin and picks fights with our friends -- including the British prime minister, the mayor of London, the German chancellor, the president of Mexico and the Pope."

13. "We are not a country that cowers behind walls. We lead with purpose and we prevail."

14. "He says he has foreign policy experience because he ran the Miss Universe pageant in Russia."

15. "If Donald gets his way they'll be celebrating in the Kremlin."

16. "And to top it off, he believes America is weak. An embarrassment. He called our military a disaster. He said we are -- quote -- a 'third-world country.' And he's been saying things like that for decades. These are the words of someone who doesn't understand America or the world."

17. "If you really believe America is weak -- with our military, our values, our capabilities that no other country comes close to matching -- then you don't know America. And you certainly don't deserve to lead it."

18. "What's [Sleezebag]'s (ISIS plan)? Well, he won't say. He is literally keeping it a secret. The secret, of course, is he has no idea how to stop ISIS."

19. "Through all his loose talk there's one constant theme: demonizing Muslims and playing right into the hands of ISIS."

20. "Donald [Sleezebag] doesn't know the first thing about Iran or its nuclear program. Ask him -- it will become very clear very quickly."

21. "There's no risk of people losing their lives if you blow up a golf course deal. But it doesn't work like that in world affairs. Just like being interviewed on the same episode of '60 Minutes' as Putin was is not the same as actually dealing with Putin."

22. "We cannot put the lives of our young men and women in uniform in Donald [Sleezebag]'s hands."

23. "The stakes in global statecraft are infinitely higher and more complex than in the world of luxury hotels."

24. "We all know the tools Donald [Sleezebag] brings to the table -- bragging, mocking, composing nasty tweets. I am willing to bet he is writing a few right now."

25. "I don't understand Donald's bizarre fascination with dictators and strongmen who have no love for America."

26. "He praised China for the Tiananmen Square massacre -- he said it showed strength. He said, 'You've got to give Kim Jong Un credit' for taking over North Korea -- something he did by murdering everyone he saw as a threat, including his own uncle, which Donald described gleefully, like he was recapping an action movie."

27. "I will leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants."

28. "I just wonder how anyone could be so wrong about who America's real friends are. Because it matters. Because if you don't know exactly who you're dealing with, men like Putin will eat your lunch."

29. "Every president faces hard choices every day, with imperfect information and conflicting imperatives. ... Making the right call takes a cool head and respect for the facts. It takes a willingness to listen to other people's points of view with a truly open mind. It also takes humility -- knowing you don't know everything -- because if you're convinced you're always right, you'll never ask yourself the hard questions."

30. "Now imagine Donald [Sleezebag] sitting in the Situation Room, making life-or-death decisions on behalf of the United States."

31. "Imagine him deciding whether to send your spouses or children into battle."

32. "Imagine if he had not just his Twitter account at his disposal when he's angry, but America's entire arsenal."

33. "Do we want him making those calls -- someone thin-skinned and quick to anger, who lashes out at the smallest criticism? Do we want his finger anywhere near the button?"

34. "Making Donald [Sleezebag] our commander-in-chief would be a historic mistake."

Clinton was right about [Sleezebag] tweeting during her remarks.

"Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin' Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions," [Sleezebag] tweeted.

"Crooked Hillary no longer has credibility - too much failure in office. People will not allow another four years of incompetence!" read another.

[Sleezebag] added, "Bad performance by Crooked Hillary Clinton! Reading poorly from the telepromter! She doesn't even look presidential!"

[Rusty Edge]

It's definitely highly pejorative when I use it, most especially when used in a context of governance.  Management should never look like a circus act not adept juggling and/or high-wire acts.

Hello President Roosevelt. Fitting you should visit this thread, as one of the strongest 3rd party candidates of all time.

[Buster's Uncle]

  ...I'm not going to hog this one for long, either... 

[Rusty Edge]

This is what got Paul Ryan upset, the day after he said he'd vote for [Sleezebag].
-tapper-lead/index.html]http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/03/politics/donald-[Sleezebag]-tapper-lead/index.html

[Sleezebag] defends criticism of judge with Mexican heritage

By Theodore Schleifer, CNN
Updated 5:48 PM ET, Fri June 3, 2016


Washington (CNN) — Donald [Sleezebag] on Friday vociferously defended his claims that a judge overseeing a lawsuit against [Sleezebag] University is biased because of his Mexican heritage -- pushing back against criticism that his objections are racist.

Speaking with CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead," [Sleezebag] repeatedly referenced his plans to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and renegotiate trade agreements between the two countries.

The presumptive GOP nominee said U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, a federal district judge in the Southern District of California, has made "rulings that people can't even believe."

"He's proud of his heritage. I respect him for that," [Sleezebag] said, dismissing charges that his allegation was racist. "He's a Mexican. We're building a wall between here and Mexico."

[Sleezebag] first broached these waters in an interview with The Wall Street Journal published Thursday, in which he said Curiel, who was born in Indiana, had an "inherent conflict of interest" in the [Sleezebag] University lawsuit.

"If he was giving me a fair ruling, I wouldn't say that," [Sleezebag] told Tapper, pointing again to Curiel's background. "I think that's why he's doing it."

"I'm building a wall. I'm trying to keep business out of Mexico. Mexico's fine," [Sleezebag] continued. "He's of Mexican heritage, and he's very proud of it, as I am of where I come from."

[Sleezebag] again called for Curiel to recuse himself from the case.

Last week, Curiel ordered parts of internal documents, including "playbooks" regarding running the enterprise, to be released as part of a lawsuit against [Sleezebag] University.

The documents were released in response to a request by The Washington Post.

[Sleezebag] also dismissed concerns raised by Hillary Clinton on Friday about his temperament when it comes to foreign policy. On Thursday, Clinton charged that [Sleezebag] had "thin skin" and should not be entrusted with the U.S. military arsenal.

"I don't have thin skin. I have very strong and very thick skin," [Sleezebag] replied Friday. "I have a strong temperament. It's a very good temperament and it's a very in-control temperament, or I wouldn't have built this unbelievable company. I wouldn't have built all of the things I've been able to do in life."

"You can't have that success without good temperament," [Sleezebag] continued. "We have been taken advantage of by everybody. We have people with weak temperaments."

[Rusty Edge]

Remember "The Post-Journalism Era in American Politics" ? Perhaps it's ending!

Trust [Sleezebag]. Believe [Sleezebag]. Because he's fighting a class action fraud lawsuit. 

-he-may-not-survive-it/]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/06/03/the-media-have-reached-a-turning-point-in-covering-donald-[Sleezebag]-he-may-not-survive-it/

The media have reached a turning point in covering Donald [Sleezebag]. He may not survive it.
 By Paul Waldman June 3 at 12:44 PM 

The news media have come in for a lot of criticism in the way they’ve reported this election, which makes it exactly like every other election. But something may have changed just in the last few days. I have no idea how meaningful it will turn out to be or how long it will last.

But it’s possible that when we look back over the sweep of this most unusual campaign, we’ll mark this week as a significant turning point: the time when journalists finally figured out how to cover Donald [Sleezebag].

They didn’t do it by coming up with some new model of coverage, or putting aside what they were taught in journalism school. They’re doing it by rediscovering the fundamental values and norms that are supposed to guide their profession. (And for the record, even though I’m part of “the media” I’m speaking in the third person here because I’m an opinion writer, and this is about the reporters whose job it is to objectively relay the events of the day).

If this evolution in coverage takes hold, we can trace it to the combined effect of a few events and developments happening in a short amount of time. The first was [Sleezebag]’s press conference on Tuesday, the ostensible purpose of which was to answer questions about a fundraiser he held in January to raise money for veterans’ groups. In the course of the press conference, [Sleezebag] was at his petulant, abusive worst, attacking reporters in general and those in the room. “The political press is among the most dishonest people that I’ve ever met,” he said, saying to one journalist who had asked a perfectly reasonable question, “You’re a sleaze.” These kinds of criticisms are not new — anyone who has reported a [Sleezebag] rally can tell you how [Sleezebag] always tosses some insults at the press, at which point his supporters turn around and hurl their own abuse at those covering the event — but [Sleezebag] seemed particularly angry and unsettled.

To see how the press looked at that revealing event, it’s critical to understand what led to it. It happened because the Post’s David Fahrenthold and some other reporters did what journalists are supposed to do. They raised questions about [Sleezebag]’s fundraiser, and when they didn’t get adequate answers, they investigated, gathered facts, and asked more questions.

It was excellent work — time-consuming, difficult, and ultimately paying dividends in public understanding. And [Sleezebag]’s attack on them for doing their jobs the way those jobs are supposed to be done couldn’t have been better designed to get every other journalist to want to do the same. They’re no different than anyone else: When you make a direct attack on their professionalism, they’re likely to react by reaching back to their profession’s core values to demonstrate that they can live up to them. [Sleezebag] may have wanted to intimidate them, but it’s likely to have the opposite effect.

The same day as the press conference, a trove of documents from [Sleezebag] University was released as part of a class-action lawsuit accusing [Sleezebag] of fraud. The documents revealed allegations as to just what a scam that enterprise was: high-pressure sales tactics, nothing resembling knowledge being imparted to the “students,” people in financial trouble preyed upon and told to max out their credit cards to pay for more seminars and courses. Some of [Sleezebag]’s other schemes may have been comical, but as far as we know nobody was victimized too terribly by buying a [Sleezebag] Steak or a bottle of [Sleezebag] Vodka. [Sleezebag] University is something entirely different, and it’s not over yet; questions are now being raised about an investigation the Texas Attorney General’s office undertook of [Sleezebag] University, which concluded that it was cheating Texans out of large sums of money; the investigation was dropped by then-AG Greg Abbott, who later got $35,000 in contributions from [Sleezebag] and is now the state’s governor.

Plenty of presidential candidates have had shady doings in their pasts, but can you think of anything that compares to [Sleezebag] University? A party’s nominee allegedly running a con not just on unsuspecting victims, but on victims specifically chosen for their vulnerability and desperation? It’s no wonder that you can’t find any Republicans who’ll defend it, in a time when ordinarily you can get a partisan hack to justify almost anything their party’s leader is doing or has done.

Then you had [Sleezebag]’s continued attacks on the judge presiding over that fraud case. It’s unusual enough for a presidential candidate to be publicly attacking a judge in a case he’s involved in, but what’s most appalling is the blatant bigotry at the basis of [Sleezebag]’s criticisms. First [Sleezebag] would simply say that in addition to being biased against him the judge is “Mexican” (which is false — the judge was born in Indiana). Now [Sleezebag] says that because the judge is “of Mexican heritage” he should be removed from the case. “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,” he says. Given all the other demographic groups [Sleezebag] has insulted and offended, the natural conclusion would seem to be that only white male judges are fit to preside over [Sleezebag]’s many, many lawsuits.

Put together this series of developments coming one after together, and I suspect that many journalists are deciding that the way to cover [Sleezebag] is just to do it as honestly and assiduously as possible, which would itself be something almost revolutionary. If the tone of his coverage up until now has been “Wow, is this election crazy or what!” it could become much more serious — as it completely appropriate given that we’re choosing someone to hold the most powerful position on earth.

The change may be seen in ways both large and small. Yesterday, in a story about some of [Sleezebag]’s remarks, CNN ran a chyron reading “[Sleezebag]: I never said Japan should have nukes (he did)”. That kind of on-the-fly fact-checking is unusual, but [Sleezebag] necessitates it because he tells such a spectacularly large number of lies. He also enables it because those lies are often repeated and obvious. So we’re beginning to see those corrections appear right in the body of stories: the reporter relays what [Sleezebag] said, and notes immediately that it’s false.

[Sleezebag] himself probably finds such treatment grossly unfair, since to him “unfair” coverage is anything that doesn’t portray him in the most glowing terms. But it is perhaps ironic that after all this time of wondering how to cover this most unusual candidate, [Sleezebag] has shown the press that the best way to do it is to cover him like every candidate should be covered. That means not just planting a camera at his rallies and marveling at how nuts it all is, but doing to work to fully vet his background, correcting his lies as swiftly and surely as they can, exploring what a [Sleezebag] presidency would actually mean, and generally doing their jobs without letting him intimidate them.

If they can keep doing that, they’ll bring honor to their profession — and I doubt [Sleezebag]’s candidacy could survive it.

[Rusty Edge]

-question-then-followed-times/BwLCDfH5xg0p4UoBxiK4SN/story.html]https://www.bostonglobe.com/2016/06/03/jake-tapper-asked-donald-[Sleezebag]-question-then-followed-times/BwLCDfH5xg0p4UoBxiK4SN/story.html

Here's another case in point-

Jake Tapper asked Donald [Sleezebag] a question. He then followed up 23 times
By Callum Borchers The Washington Post  June 04, 2016

There’s persistent ... and then there’s Jake Tapper.

The CNN anchor posed the following question to Donald [Sleezebag] on Friday:


 
‘‘Let me ask you about comments you made about the judge in the [Sleezebag] University case. You said that you thought it was a conflict of interest that he was the judge because he is of Mexican heritage, even though he is from Indiana. Hillary Clinton said that that is a racist attack on a federal judge.’’

Actually, Tapper didn’t quite get to form a question. [Sleezebag] interjected to talk about Clinton’s emails. So Tapper tried to steer the conversation back to whether [Sleezebag]’s complaint about U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel was racist. [Sleezebag] deflected again. Tapper tried again. And again.

In all, Tapper made an astounding 23 follow-up attempts.
 
Tapper’s relentlessness ultimately paid off. He finally got a straight answer out of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

Tapper: ‘‘If you are saying he cannot do his job because of his race, is that not the definition of racism?’’
   
[Sleezebag]: ‘‘No, I don’t think so at all.’’

Tapper presumably had other subjects he would have liked to get to. [Sleezebag] likely figured as much and assumed he could stall long enough for his interviewer to move on. That’s usually how it goes.

But Tapper refused to drop the subject until [Sleezebag] offered a yes-or-no answer. It was clearly an exhausting effort. But it showed that even Donald J. [Sleezebag] can be worn down by a journalist who never gives up.