US Presidential Contenders

[Rusty Edge]

The Dude has a point-

-should-insist-on-including-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-in-the-debates/]http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/01/roger-stone-[Sleezebag]-should-insist-on-including-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-in-the-debates/

Roger Stone: [Sleezebag] should insist on including Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the debates
posted at 10:01 pm on August 1, 2016 by Allahpundit

He has two options on the debates. It’s not an option to skip them entirely, although no doubt he’d prefer to do that. That would be interpreted, correctly, as cowardice, which would devastate his image as an alpha male. (Bad enough that he’d run away, but to run away from a woman?) So he’s stuck doing at least one. The smart play would be to study his ass off and shock the country with his surprising grasp of policy at the first debate. Everyone will be expecting [Sleezebag] the loudmouthed clod; if instead they get [Sleezebag] the statesman battling Hillary to a standstill, it’ll show millions of casual voters that all of the hype about [Sleezebag] being unready for the presidency was nonsense. And rest assured, there will be many millions of casual voters watching: The first debate between Romney and Obama drew nearly 70 million viewers, double what their speeches at the conventions that summer drew. A [Sleezebag]/Clinton debate might blow the roof off in terms of viewership. As such, [Sleezebag] delivering a surprising standout performance could change the election overnight by moving huge swaths of undecideds into his column. And, having delivered that, he could then preserve his victory by boycotting the second and third debates under whatever pretext he likes. All he has to do is turn in one excellent debate. And all he has to do to achieve that is prepare diligently.

But he’s [Sleezebag], so he won’t. Which brings us to option two: Take a page from the primaries and pack the stage with as many fringe candidates as possible in order to reduce his own speaking time. The less he has to speak, the fewer opportunities there are for him to show that he has nothing more than a bumper-sticker grasp of policy, and Roger Stone knows it. Having Johnson and Stein onstage in a two-hour debate is the difference between [Sleezebag] having to fill 45 minutes against a thoroughly prepared Clinton versus half that amount of time. I’m not sure offhand what pretext he might come up with for demanding that they be included, though. Stein in particular is an asterisk candidate. Johnson has flirted with the 15 percent threshold in some polls, but I think it’s uncomfortable to [Sleezebag]’s ego to insist under any circumstances that someone else should be allowed to share his spotlight. The pretext that’ll be given, I guess, is that this is a populist year and therefore every candidate with a few points of support in the polls deserves a voice onstage. The Debate Commission might not agree, but even if worse comes to worst [Sleezebag] will still earn some cheap goodwill from Johnson and Stein fans by going to bat for them. It’s a perfectly logical move to make. So he’ll make it.

If you missed it this weekend, incidentally, he’s already grasping for excuses to skip the debates

The debate schedule was set more than a year ago by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is bipartisan. The fact that [Sleezebag] is straining for an excuse to delegitimize them is telling; it’s not often that you’ll find the [Sleezebag] hype machine suggesting that voters might prefer to watch something besides him, especially when it’s the biggest night of his life. The truth, of course, is that Team Hillary should be more irritated about the debate schedule than [Sleezebag] is. They’re convinced she’s going to ace this. They should want maximum eyeballs for the slaughter. [Sleezebag]’s taking the lead on complaining because he wants an excuse later for backing out of the last two debates. I tried to get them to change the dates, he’ll say, but they wouldn’t listen. The world is so unfair.

Exit question: Does [Sleezebag] have a legit gripe about the debates going head to head with the NFL given that his base is working-class white men, a prime audience for football? If the answer is yes, is that mitigated any by the fact that pretty much every cable company in America includes a DVR with its cable box? You can record the debate and watch it after the game, you know. Or watch one of the eight thousand different recordings of it that’ll be uploaded to YouTube immediately afterward.

[Buster's Uncle]

The article author or the congressman?

Yeah to the article; look at how Sarah Palin did well in the VP debate w/ low expectations going in and managing not to humiliate herself - if you're stuck with low expectations, you can definitely get a lot more mileage than you really deserve by just not screwing up...

[Rusty Edge]

-voters-look-a-lot-like-kasich-supporters/?ex_cid=2016-forecast]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-anti-[Sleezebag]-voters-look-a-lot-like-kasich-supporters/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

Aug 2, 2016 at 3:23 PM
The GOP’s Most Anti-[Sleezebag] Voters Look A Lot Like Kasich Supporters

Hillary Clinton received the backing of Rep. Richard Hanna of New York on Tuesday. Hanna is the first Republican member of Congress to say explicitly that he will vote for Clinton in the fall rather than just expressing opposition to [Sleezebag]. Hanna may not be the last elected Republican to jump to Clinton, but he illustrates the contours of anti-[Sleezebag] Republicans nicely: The most anti-[Sleezebag] GOP voters look a lot more like John Kasich’s supporters (and Hanna) than Ted Cruz’s.1

There seem to be two main camps of Republican opposition to [Sleezebag]. One, embodied by Kasich, objects to [Sleezebag] on experiential and temperamental grounds — [Sleezebag] is playing to cultural grievances on issues such as immigration, and the Kasich camp wants a more inclusive GOP. The other, embodied by Cruz, objects to [Sleezebag] on ideological grounds — he’s not a conservative, they argue.

Both Cruz and Kasich have refused to endorse [Sleezebag]. But, as Hanna shows, the Kasich camp appears to be the one more likely to oppose [Sleezebag] in the general election.

During the primary season, Kasich did best in the Northeast and East North Central Census divisions. He also scored big with the well-educated and liberal-to-moderate Republicans. All of these characteristics match Hanna, a college-educated moderate from the Northeast. Among all Republicans who match these descriptions, [Sleezebag] got just 65 percent to Clinton’s 20 percent and 15 percent undecided in a June SurveyMonkey poll2 done for FiveThirtyEight. That is, to put it mildly, incredibly poor for a Republican presidential nominee among a subset of Republican voters. In the same poll, [Sleezebag] got 85 percent among all voters who either identified as Republicans or leaned toward the GOP.

Cruz voters, on the other hand, are examples of a very different animal. After Cruz declined to endorse [Sleezebag] at the Republican convention, Cruz faced some revolt from his own Texas delegation. This comports with the idea that voters who match the profile of Cruz’s supporters in the primary are mostly backing [Sleezebag]. Cruz did best in the Mountain West, West North Central and West South Central Census divisions (i.e., Kansas, Texas and Utah). He also did well among self-identified conservatives and those who attended church at least once a week. In the SurveyMonkey poll, [Sleezebag] earned 90 percent to Clinton’s 5 percent among Republican and Republican leaners who match these descriptions.3 That is, [Sleezebag] is doing far better among people who look like Cruz voters than he is among Republicans overall. Another way to put this is that the conservative base of the Republican Party seems to be betting on [Sleezebag].

What do the Hanna endorsement and the polls suggest going forward? It seems that the 2016 race is continuing a long-term trend of the Republican Party. As I wrote before, the Republican Party power structure has been trending away from voters who look like Kasich supporters to Republicans who appear most inclined to back [Sleezebag] in the fall. [Sleezebag] may be a different kind of candidate, but he seems to be accelerating but not otherwise changing existing trends.

[Rusty Edge]

The article author or the congressman?

Yeah to the article; look at how Sarah Palin did well in the VP debate w/ low expectations going in and managing not to humiliate herself - if you're stuck with low expectations, you can definitely get a lot more mileage than you really deserve by just not screwing up...

I typed a long reply to this once and lost it. The article author, although I can't refute the Congressman.  I think option #2 in the article sounds more [Sleezebag].

As for the 538 article, it makes sense. Cruz voters are issues oriented TheoCons, people don't actually like him. Kasich was one of the most qualified candidates, and possessed the most character. It follows that candidate-oriented voters would balk at [Sleezebag], and issue zealots who could hold their nose for Cruz could take it a couple of steps further and vote for [Sleezebag].

[Buster's Uncle]

Absolutely to both.

-Also Hanna - and you have to admit that took guts.

[Rusty Edge]

Since this has been a controversial issue, I'll post the whole article-
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865659254/EXCLUSIVE-Gary-Johnson-Religious-freedom-and-non-discrimination-laws.html

 
EXCLUSIVE: Gary Johnson: Clarifying my views on religious freedom, Mormons

A call for balance between religious freedom and non-discrimination

By Gary Johnson

For the Deseret News
Published: Tuesday, Aug. 2 2016 2:45 p.m. MDT

Updated: 3 hours ago
A few days ago, trying to maneuver through a “scrum” of reporters in Philadelphia, I was asked about my views regarding religious freedom and non-discrimination laws.

Given the divisiveness and pain that have accompanied several state religious freedom laws, I approach attempts at legislating religious exceptions to anti-discrimination laws with great sensitivity and care.

Religious beliefs have played a vital role in forming America’s character, as well as my own. I was raised as a

Lutheran, and I believe in God and consider my faith and involvement with organized religion to be an important part of who I am.

Yet there have also been times in our history when religion has been invoked to justify serious harm. In years past, opponents of interracial marriage, desegregation and other efforts to protect civil rights too often cited scripture and religion in making their arguments.

To be blunt, certain politicians have twisted religious liberty and used it as a tool to discriminate.

Thus, in response to a question thrown at me while walking down a street (in the rain), I expressed my reservations rather emphatically — and cited the experience of Mormons as a case-in-point where religious persecution resulted in violent episodes right here in America.

My point was that even a respected, peaceful people experienced tragic harm in the name of religion and was, in fact, persecuted by the government itself by politicians who opposed their beliefs and practices.

And on a personal level, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints came to mind because I had been in Utah the day before, as my campaign is actually based in Salt Lake City. I am well aware of the painful history of government interference with Mormons and the practice of their faith.

In part because of this unique history, I believe Utah has found an appropriate balance in a religious freedom law that serves as an example to the rest of the country that non-discrimination and religious freedom are not opposing forces, but can instead go hand in hand.

I want to be clear. I believe we can, and must, strike a balance between our shared American values of religious liberty and freedom from discrimination. My concerns lie with the possible consequences of politically-driven legislation which claims to promote religious liberty but instead rolls back the legal protections held by LGBT Americans.

This does not in any way diminish my respect for and commitment to the legitimate protection of the right to believe, to practice and to express deeply-held religious beliefs.

When it comes to civil rights and the LGBT community, states are best served when they take an inclusive approach of "fairness to all." Interestingly and commendably, Utah did just that last year with the passage of the so-called Utah Compromise.

At a time when several states, including Indiana under Governor Mike Pence’s leadership, took a divisive approach by introducing religious freedom bills that were clearly aimed at LGBT individuals, Utah took a different path. The goal was fairness for all: Fairness for people of faith seeking to live their religion, and fairness to the rights of gays and lesbians.

This approach was actually led by many leaders of the LDS Church. Having crossed the plains of the United States seeking the freedom to worship as they chose, Mormons have a keen appreciation of how minority groups can suffer under majority rule.

Rather than seek to pass a law with a thinly-veiled intent to discriminate against gays — or to permit everyday businesses to discriminate against gays — this "Utah Compromise" provides an example of how we can strike the balance between religious freedom and civil rights.

The Utah compromise barred discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered individuals in employment and housing. In addition, the Utah law requires the office of every county clerk to be available to solemnize same-sex unions. At the same time, the law provides reasonable protections for the freedoms of speech and association of bona fide religious organizations — and made the religious and LGBT protections inseverable.

It is a Utah solution that appropriately reflects the state’s diverse
and strongly held freedoms — and was supported by the LDS Church and the state’s leading LGBT groups.

In a March 2015 article in Time magazine, Jonathan Rauch, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, contrasted this approach with the discord in Indiana:

"There’s a better path. We saw it taken in Utah just a few weeks ago. The state passed new religious-conscience accommodations, but they were tied to new gay-rights protections. Both sides walked away feeling more free to live according to the lights of their consciences. Both got a win and supported the outcome.”

America is big enough to accommodate differences of opinion and practice on religious and social beliefs. As a nation and as a society, we must reject discrimination, forcefully and without asterisks.

Most importantly, as president I will zealously defend the Constitution of the United States and all of its amendments.

Gov. Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee. His running mate is former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld. Learn more at johnsonweld.com.

[Rusty Edge]

Absolutely to both.

-Also Hanna - and you have to admit that took guts.

Yes. It's one thing to say things in private, and another to burn the bridge in public.

Meanwhile [Sleezebag] was praising Ryan's primary election opponent, while refusing to endorse Ryan. ( Cheeseheads are politically engaged, and don't hesitate to hold elections. Congressional primaries are this month. )  [Sleezebag] threatened to support Ryan's primary opponent if Ryan didn't publicly endorse [Sleezebag]. Ryan did, and I think he's been regretting it ever since.

I don't know where Ryan's breaking point is, but [Sleezebag]'s attack on the Gold Star Family is must be straining the promise.

[Rusty Edge]

http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/08/03/gary-johnson-now-polling-15-amongst-midwest-states-says-cnn-poll/

Gary Johnson Now Polling 15% Amongst Midwest States Says CNN Poll
Posted at 12:30 pm on August 3, 2016 by Brandon Morse

According to CNN's new July 29-31st poll, Gary Johnson's popularity among the midwest states has increased.

Johnson is now polling at 15%, just about below half of the Republicans and Democrats, who are polling in at 37% and 39% respectively.




While the Libertarian party still can't top 10% in other parts of the nation, his 15% in the midwest is interesting because this part of the country is mostly comprised of swing states, where it's anybody's game to win or lose.

How this will effect [Sleezebag] or Clinton in the long run is anyone's guess. The Libertarian party is definitely bleeding votes from both parties. Reports vary on who Johnson is hurting more, but recent polls says he's taking more votes from Clinton than he is [Sleezebag].

If this is true, then come election time, Johnson will be a major thorn in Clinton's side as the Libertarian party saps her slim lead in these states.

Still, while we approach the end of election season, a lot can happen in this short amount of time. Johnson himself went from polling at 13% to 9% in a matter of weeks. However, there's no telling where CNN's polling will wind up after Wednesday's Libertarian town hall.

It should be remember that Johnson is also - currently - appearing on ballots in 36 states, while the Green Party is not. Those who abandoned Hillary for this 3rd option, who can't vote Green will likely either stay home, or vote for Johnson.

This proves again that while Johnson looks small fry nationally, he's a bigger fish in statewide polling. The Republican and Democrats choice to ignore the Libertarians this election may cost it.



While the Libertarian party still can't top 10% in other parts of the nation, his 15% in the midwest is interesting because this part of the country is mostly comprised of swing states, where it's anybody's game to win or lose.

How this will effect [Sleezebag] or Clinton in the long run is anyone's guess. The Libertarian party is definitely bleeding votes from both parties. Reports vary on who Johnson is hurting more, but recent polls says he's taking more votes from Clinton than he is [Sleezebag].

If this is true, then come election time, Johnson will be a major thorn in Clinton's side as the Libertarian party saps her slim lead in these states.

Still, while we approach the end of election season, a lot can happen in this short amount of time. Johnson himself went from polling at 13% to 9% in a matter of weeks. However, there's no telling where CNN's polling will wind up after Wednesday's Libertarian town hall.

It should be remember that Johnson is also - currently - appearing on ballots in 36 states, while the Green Party is not. Those who abandoned Hillary for this 3rd option, who can't vote Green will likely either stay home, or vote for Johnson.

This proves again that while Johnson looks small fry nationally, he's a bigger fish in statewide polling. The Republican and Democrats choice to ignore the Libertarians this election may cost it.

[Rusty Edge]

Gleanings-

* [Sleezebag] seems to be unraveling. If he isn't going crazy, he's making those around him do so. A donor "wants to break both of his thumbs" Newt has used the word "unacceptable". Christie has distanced himself. Rudi Julliani is rumored to be part of an "intervention", but to do this you have to go through his children to get to him. Rience Preibus has looked into the rules for replacing [Sleezebag] should he quit the race.

* from Reason -* It's the independents, stupid. Here's a Joe Hunter sentence worth pondering: "If the election was held today, among independents who know who he is, Gary Johnson would win outright."

*Johnson/Weld has a Town Hall tonight on Andersen Cooper/CNN 9PM Eastern

*Lots of stories about [Sleezebag] picking fights with everybody but Hillary ( who he has upgraded from "The Devil" to "founder of ISIS") While it may be acceptable for him to ridicule establishment politicians such as Ryan and McCain, he looks like a bully going after a crying baby and a Gold Star family.

* Hillary was in a garment factory calling [Sleezebag] out for making his merchandise in China.

[Buster's Uncle]

Crying baby?

[Rusty Edge]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/why-hillary-clinton-keeps-lying/493841/

Why Can't Hillary Clinton Stop Lying?

The Democratic presidential nominee came off a successful convention week in Philadelphia and landed right back in hot water with another fabrication.

Ron Fournier
 | Aug 1, 2016

This is a note to Clinton Democrats—a desperate plea, actually. Your candidate staged a winning convention in Philadelphia: big stars, tight messaging, and a compelling case against her rival, Donald [Sleezebag].

The Republican nominee followed up by smearing a war hero’s family, revealing his ignorance about Russia’s incursions into Ukraine, denying a relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin that he had previously claimed, and failing to quell suspicions that his team changed the GOP platform to protect Putin’s interests.

Hillary Clinton may be rising in the polls as a result, which is good news for people like me across the political spectrum who find [Sleezebag] to be vacuous, soulless, and temperamentally unfit for the presidency.

Yet I’m not angry at [Sleezebag]; I expect him to be repugnant. I am angry at Clinton, because she followed up her convention with another unnecessary lie; another excuse for people to distrust her; another thin reed upon which undecided voters could justify a belated allegiance to a man who former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg called “a dangerous demagogue.”

On Sunday, the former secretary of state told FOX News’ Chris Wallace that FBI Director James Comey cleared her of misleading the public about her rogue email server at the state department: “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”

That’s wrong and she knows it, which makes it a lie.

“Clinton is cherry-picking statements by Comey to preserve her narrative about the unusual setup of a private email server,” wrote Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler, who awarded Clinton the maximum four “Pinocchios” for her whopper. “This allows her to skate past the more disturbing findings of the FBI investigation.”

Read here if you want to know about the FBI’s findings. In addition, her actions were an assault on the Freedom of Information Act and the hallowed concept of legislative oversight.

And yet, in my mind, the case against Clinton is not as disturbing as [Sleezebag]’s mendacity, megalomania, intolerance, and intellectual slovenliness. With Clinton and [Sleezebag], the two most unpopular presidential candidates in the modern era, there is no equivalence.

I’m angry at Clinton because I expect better. The country needs better. I say again: If [Sleezebag] becomes president, the world will have Clinton to blame.

Her dishonesty could push an unknown number of independent and undecided voters into [Sleezebag]’s camp or toward a non-major-party candidate. If too many swing voters walk away from Clinton because she destroyed her credibility or because they don’t want to condone her behavior, the nuclear codes go to [Sleezebag].

That is why Clinton’s advisers, senior Democrats, and members of the liberal media need to stop covering for Clinton. Stop repeating her spin. Stop spreading her lies. Stop enabling her worse angels. It’s too late for Clinton to come clean, but honorable Democrats should at least insist that she stop muddying the water.

Please, for the sake of the country, tell her: Stop lying.

[Rusty Edge]

Crying baby?

I have to make dinner, will explain later.

[Buster's Uncle]

That's pretty rich of him...

[Rusty Edge]

-ashburn-virginia-crying-baby/]http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/donald-[Sleezebag]-ashburn-virginia-crying-baby/

Ashburn, Virginia (CNN) — Donald [Sleezebag], trying to reassure a distressed mother with a crying baby, said Tuesday that he loves hearing babies cry at his rallies and told her not to worry -- only to change his mind just a moment later.

"I love babies. I hear that baby cry, I like it," [Sleezebag] said at a campaign event here as a baby could be heard crying in the audience. "What a baby. What a beautiful baby. Don't worry, don't worry. The mom's running around, like, don't worry about it, you know. It's young and beautiful and healthy and that's what we want."

But less than two minutes later, as the baby continued to wail, [Sleezebag] took back his words.

"Actually I was only kidding, you can get the baby out of here," he said to laughs. "I think she really believed me that I love having a baby crying while I'm speaking. That's OK. People don't understand. That's OK."


Later on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton's running mate, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, speaking about the incident, asked, "You wonder who the baby is."

"I saw that Donald [Sleezebag] kicked a crying baby out of an event earlier today, so as I'm thinking about pre-K, sometimes you wonder who the baby is. Right? You wonder who the baby is," the former Virginia governor said to laughter and clapping.

He later tweeted, "First [Sleezebag] attacked the Hotel Roanoke. Then a Gold Star VA family. Today, he kicked a baby out of a VA rally. Virginia is not for haters!"

***************

As for the Hotel Roanoke, [Sleezebag] booked an event in a conference room, overfilled it, then complained that the air conditioning wasn't working ( they checked it out, it was working fine ),and tried to stiff them on the bill. Last I heard, the hotel was owned by Norfolk- Southern, regardless, they weren't about to be intimidated by [Sleezebag] and his chisseler tactics, and it became news.

I guess I haven't been keeping up with posting all of the negativity. I expect it to get worse now that we're into the last 100 days of the campaign.

[Buster's Uncle]

I am not embarrassed to have not been keeping up with posting all of the negativity...