Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 14, 2016, 05:04:17 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
92729 Posts in 2301 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  2016 Presidential
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] Print
Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 59925 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35915


« Reply #1050 on: February 11, 2016, 10:07:46 AM »

Hillary Lost Because She Lied
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on February 11, 2016
New Hampshire exit polls in the Democratic Primary indicate that Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton among self-described liberals by 60-39. Okay.  But he also beat her among moderates and conservatives by a nearly identical 60-37 margin.

They also show that among the one-third of all voters who said "honesty and trustworthiness" were the most important qualities of a candidate in determining their vote, Sanders beat Clinton by 95-5.
 
These data indicate that Sanders' victory was not the result of an ideological vote for a socialist but was due to a personal repudiation of a liar.  It was Hillary's dearth of personal ethics and her lack of veracity, not her political ideology or her issue positions, that led to her smashing defeat in New Hampshire.

So when Hillary sought to co-opt and plagiarize Bernie's rhetoric in her concession speech, she did nothing to solve the problem that brought her low.  Nor will any shift in her message or beheadings of her staff do much to help her. 

It is not her position on the banks, TARP, Glass-Steagall, or campaign finance reform that is dragging her down.  It is her email scandal, Benghazi, and her personal speeches for fees that are causing her candidacy to crash.

Hillary can change her issue positions as frequently and as totally as she changes her hair style.  She can flip on the Keystone Pipeline and flop on the Trans Pacific Trade Deal.  But she cannot go back and delete her lies, evasions, half-truths, and distortions.  They live on video tape and in our memories, ready to spring to life as soon as she lies again.

This personal reputation is not something a new consultant can fix.  All the king's horses and all the king's men cannot put Hillary back together again.
New Hampshire means Hillary is outed.  It's downhill from here.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35915


« Reply #1051 on: February 11, 2016, 01:22:10 PM »

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35915


« Reply #1052 on: February 11, 2016, 01:24:52 PM »

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/10/newt-gingrich-says-this-candidate-is-in-an-excellent-position-to-be-donald-trumps-major-competitor-for-the-gop-nomination/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%202-11-16%20FINAL&utm_term=Firewire
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35915


« Reply #1053 on: February 12, 2016, 11:43:59 AM »

The Coming Dem-aggeddon . .

In 2008, we saw the Democrats, after a long, hard-fought and divisive primary, unite and win the general election by a big margin -- helped along by the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Can that party unite again?

It’s overstating it to say that the 2016 Democratic presidential primary is rigged. But it’s pretty reasonable to argue that the party’s establishment -- the Democratic National Committee, the elected lawmakers and movers and shakers -- have put a thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton that will be difficult to overcome:

This is what makes Clinton so powerful in the Democratic race -- even while she and Sanders battle it out among rank-and-file voters, she has a massive lead among superdelegates. Altogether, she already has 394 delegates and superdelegates to Sanders’s 44 -- a nearly ninefold lead.

Think about that -- we’ve had one tie (Iowa) and one landslide Sanders win (New Hampshire) and she’s ahead by 350 delegates.

Superdelegates can’t give Hillary the nomination if she keeps losing by landslides. But if it’s reasonably close, she could overcome the gap. According to the Associated Press, Democrats have 4,763 delegates in all; to win the nomination, you need 2,382. About 15 percent -- 712 -- of all of the delegates are “superdelegates.”

More background:

Q: Who gets to be a Superdelegate?

A: Every Democratic member of Congress, House and Senate, is a Superdelegate (240 total). Every Democratic governor is a Superdelegate (20 total). Certain “distinguished party leaders,” 20 in all, are given Superdelegate status. And finally, the Democratic National Committee names an additional 432 Superdelegates -- an honor that typically goes to mayors, chairs and vice-chairs of the state party, and other dignitaries.

Q: So they have way more importance than an ordinary voter?

A: Oh yeah. In 2008, each Superdelegate had about as much clout as 10,000 voters. It will be roughly the same in 2016.

In other words, in the most extreme scenario, if Sanders won 2,380 regular delegates and Hillary won 1,670 . . . a 58 percent to 42 percent split . . . and then all 712 superdelegates backed Hillary, she would finish with 2,382 and win the nomination.

That won’t happen, but it’s easier to imagine a scenario where a less overwhelming lead among super-delegates -- an 80/20 split? 75/25? -- helps Hillary overcome a more reasonable deficit among regular delegates.

Shane Ryan, writing at Paste, argues that Democrats would never do that:

Superdelegates have never decided a Democratic nomination. It would be insane, even by the corrupt standards of the Democratic National Committee, if a small group of party elites went against the will of the people to choose the presidential nominee.

This has already been an incredibly tense election, and Sanders voters are already expressing their unwillingness to vote for Clinton in the general election.

When you look at the astounding numbers from Iowa and New Hampshire, where more than 80 percent of young voters have chosen Sanders over Clinton, regardless of gender, it’s clear that Clinton already finds herself in a very tenuous position for the general election. It will be tough to motivate young supporters, but any hint that Bernie was screwed by the establishment will result in total abandonment.

Democrats win when turnout is high, and if the DNC decides to go against the will of the people and force Clinton down the electorate’s throat, they’d be committing political suicide.

Democrat elites would never do something insanely self-destructive and attack their own grassroots voters, right?

 “You’re all going to burn in hell, sinners!”

Hillary Clinton is not going to graciously concede to this little-known senator running to her left, who came out of nowhere and has the media swooning over his big crowds of young people on college campuses . . . again.

She and the Clinton team have a long history of pulling out all the stops to slime their opponents. Yesterday Representative John Lewis (D., Ga.) suggested Sanders is either exaggerating or lying about his youthful work in the civil rights movement:

An icon of the civil rights movement is casting doubt on the senator’s civil rights credentials.

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., implied Sanders might be overstating his involvement in the movement of the 1960s, including the Vermont senator’s claim he marched with Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

“I never saw him. I never met him,” Lewis, a close ally of King’s, said of Sanders, in a response to a reporter’s question. Lewis was speaking Thursday at an event announcing the Congressional Black Caucus PAC supports Hillary Clinton over Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination.
“I was chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee for three years, from 1963 to 1966,” Lewis said. “I was involved with the sit-ins, the Freedom Rides, the March on Washington, the march from Selma to Montgomery [Alabama] and directed [the] voter education project for six years. But I met Hillary Clinton. I met President [Bill] Clinton.”

If they have to paint Sanders as mentally unstable, or the destroyer of Medicare, they’ll do it. Remember Sanders’s bizarre 1972 newspaper column about rape fantasies? You really think Hillary Clinton will leave that untouched if she thinks Sanders is about to deny her the nomination?

And let’s face it, Bernie Sanders is doing his best possible job of convincing Democrats that Hillary Clinton represents an acquiescence to Wall Street at best and bribed subservience at worst. Last night at the debate, he came close to calling her a warmonger, saying, “In her book and in this last debate, she talked about getting the approval or the support or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger. I’m proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger.”

Do you see Democrats just hugging it out after the primaries? Letting bygones be bygones? Either Sanders wins, and the party has nominated a socialist in open revolt against the vast majority of the party’s leadership . . . or Hillary wins, and the Millennial Democrats watch the Clinton machine crush their vision for the party and the country through their trademarked shady, underhanded, ruthless tactics. In that scenario, it’s not unthinkable that a lot of Sanders activists conclude politics really is a rigged game, and walk away from traditional political activism entirely.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7512


« Reply #1054 on: February 13, 2016, 10:45:42 AM »

Debate tonight.  I am still pulling for Rubio.  More important than how he does seems to be what the story line coming out of this is.  His 'gaffe' is  lasting and fatal if he is not able to instantly prove that characterization is wrong.  The question of whether there is time to recove is intertwined with how strong the appeal of his competitors really is, and what kind of message do voters want to send.

Trump won NH big and leads in SC by double digits.  Yet 2/3rds of Republicans in both states aren't supporting him even though he has been leading for going on a year.  He still has the highest negatives, lousy general election appeal, and a ceiling much lower than his supporters can see. 

Cruz is (also) still competing to win a plurality, not a majority.  Everything I hear him say is aimed to prove he is the Senate's most conservative member, which he is, and the race's most conservative candidate, which he is.  Obama was the Senate's most liberal member (but didn't run on ideology).  Does that logic work in reverse for a conservative in a liberal media world?  I don't think so.  Cruz makes precious little effort to reach out and tell others why conservatism is better.   We are to assume he has the ability without seeing evidence of it.  The idea that the furthest right can win against the furthest left leaves out the wildcard possibility that a centrist choice might be added to the mix.  If we win just because the opponent is a crook or a socialist, the win won't translate into any change much less lasting change.

Kasich has a strong background, emphasizes moderation and competence, but has limited appeal.  His candidacy is reminiscent of other centrists who let us down.  He might make a fine President if this was a time for electing experience and competence.  But Trump and Sanders have read these times better; it is a time for a major directional shift, like the shift to the right we should have had after G.W. Bush.  (Instead we went left.)

Jeb is making an all out push in SC, for the 5th or 6th attempt at restarting.  Maybe SC voters can give him a clarifying message back. 

Christy is out.  What a jerk.  Yes he caught Rubio repeating himself, while they all do, intentionally, right while he was also telling us for the 19th time that he was once a federal prosecutor and therefore knows everything there is to know about fighting terrorism, after they are arrested.  Like the mistake of attacking Trump, those who have attacked Rubio have not benefited much from it.

It would have been nice to see Carson, Fiorina, Jindal, Walker, Nikki Haley and others all join forces in one camp if they want the nominee to be someone other than Trump or Cruz. It seems like the deadline for that is quickly approaching, if not past.  Maybe Bush can show that kind of leadership in his SC concession speech. 

Rubio got where he is by challenging the establishment.  In his first two years he was rated the Senate's third most conservative Senator, behind Jim Demint and Mike Lee, before Ted Cruz and Gang of 8.  His conservatism comes across to the middle with a softer edge than Cruz and others.  His message discipline was a strength, now a weakness to overcome.  His consistent lead in general election matchups will come back if his setback can be overcome - in the debates, in the media appearances and in the primary results.  If not, he is toast and I don't see a good outcome for this race.

P.S.  I wish Pat was here; he might know who benefits most from Gilmore leaving the race.  )
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5008


« Reply #1055 on: February 13, 2016, 11:45:24 AM »

Doug all good points and I agree with you on everything.

One reason we think that Rubio (or Cruz) may be good is their Latino heritage.

One would think that is the case but then I see this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/12/no-joke-trump-can-win-plenty-of-latinos.html    shocked
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5008


« Reply #1056 on: February 13, 2016, 11:56:04 AM »



Obviously Davide Alexrod is not my favorite guy, yet  sometimes he does make some good points that I can relate to and are not simply partisan:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/12/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-pronouns/

OTOH Obama could be the most "I" and "me" president that ever lived so his theory there falls apart.

Trump is an interesting example when looking at it from this perspective.  Surely he is about him but his message "make America great again" is about us.  And quite inclusive.
Kind of a paradox. 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7512


« Reply #1057 on: Today at 10:45:28 AM »

(What would Pat say?)  sad   Pat always pointed to Huffington Post for poll conglomeration and Reuters for the most accurate, up to date poll. (?)

Over at HuffPost they show Trump leading Clinton in the NONE of the last 10 polls, now down by double digits on Reuters.  
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

They show Cruz leading Clinton in NONE of the last 7:  http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-cruz-vs-clinton

In contrast, Rubio is leading Clinton in 4 of the last 5: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-rubio-vs-clinton


Ted Cruz says how great his Supreme Court appointments will be.  But second place doesn't get to make court appointments.  Everything he said again last night was to prove he is most pure, not to prove most electable.

Donald Trump says he will make America great again, doesn't really say how, by winning again I guess.  But down 10 polls in a row when everyone knows both candidates well is not exactly winning again. Romney didn't make America great again and his agenda for the most part was as good or better than Trump's.  Nor did he make great Supreme Court appointments.  

Might as well endorse Hillary.
                                                 Clinton  Trump
Ipsos/Reuters   2/6 - 2/10   1,337 RV   44   34   10   Clinton +10
Morning Consult   2/3 - 2/7   2,197 RV   45   40   15   Clinton +5
Quinnipiac   2/2 - 2/4   1,125 RV   46   41   10   Clinton +5
PPP (D)   2/2 - 2/3   1,236 RV   47   40   13   Clinton +7
Ipsos/Reuters   1/30 - 2/3   1,434 RV   44   36   10   Clinton +8
Morning Consult   1/21 - 1/24   4,001 RV   45   39   16   Clinton +6
CNN   1/21 - 1/24   907 RV   48   47   4   Clinton +1
ABC/Post   1/20 - 1/24   850 RV   54   42   6   Clinton +12
Zogby (Internet)   1/19 - 1/20   843 LV   45   45   10   -
Morning Consult   1/14 - 1/17   4,060 RV   44   42   14   Clinton +2
NBC/WSJ   1/9 - 1/13   800 RV   51   41   -   Clinton +10

                                                 Clinton   Cruz
psos/Reuters   2/6 - 2/10   1,337 RV   44   34   12   Clinton +10
Morning Consult   2/3 - 2/7   2,197 RV   45   42   13   Clinton +3
Quinnipiac   2/2 - 2/4   1,125 RV   45   45   3   -
PPP (D)   2/2 - 2/3   1,236 RV   46   44   10   Clinton +2
Ipsos/Reuters   1/30 - 2/3   1,434 RV   44   34   11   Clinton +10
Morning Consult   1/21 - 1/24   4,001 RV   45   38   17   Clinton +7

                                               Rubio   Clinton
Morning Consult   2/3 - 2/7   2,197 RV   44   43   14   Rubio +1
Quinnipiac   2/2 - 2/4   1,125 RV   48   41   4   Rubio +7
PPP (D)   2/2 - 2/3   1,236 RV   46   44   10   Rubio +2
Morning Consult   1/21 - 1/24   4,001 RV   39   44   16   Clinton +5
CNN   1/21 - 1/24   907 RV   50   47   3   Rubio +3
« Last Edit: Today at 10:50:16 AM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 5008


« Reply #1058 on: Today at 12:13:03 PM »

And I am not sure that should Clinton be forced out (not holding my breath) that Trump could beat Sanders or Biden.

Can we run all 3?  We get the conservatism of Cruz, the backbone of Cruz and Trump, the oratory skill of Trump, the likability of Rubio.    Maybe they can all marry and we get 3 for 1.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!