Jarqui
Jarqui's JournalDebates tend to expose candidates to problems
The DNC doesn't want Hillary damaged/exposed to a lot of problems from debates.
To minimize the potential damage, they're minimizing the number of debates and the number of people who would see them.
And it keeps the competitors like Bernie from getting known/exposure
As I posted in this link below about that poll
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=933536the demographics significantly tilt in Clinton's favor.
On favorability, it's about an 8 pt improvement swing on Sanders favorability data alone ... and probably close to an 8 pt swing the other way on Hillary's.fa.orability
Therefore, under demographics they're likely to see in a general election, Clinton's numbers vs the GOP candidates are likely to go down and Sanders' numbers vs the GOP candidates are likely to go up. If I had to bet on it, Sanders would probably pass Clinton a bit if we projected those numbers using fairer age demographics.
At the very least, I would not thump my puffed out chest too hard relying on this poll.
That unfavorable rating for Sanders is a real outlier
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-ratingand pretty consistent from PPP
Emerson College Polling Society (whoever they are) is the only other one in that vicinity
The age demographic does not explain it all but Sanders favorability improves from -15 to -8 when you project to a 2008-2012 age demographic
Is David Johnson of the NYT ok?
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/05/us/memo-places-hillary-clinton-at-core-of-travel-office-case.html?pagewanted=allIn the memorandum, apparently intended for Thomas F. McLarty, who was the White House chief of staff, Mr. Watkins wrote that "we both know that there would be hell to pay" if "we failed to take swift and decisive action in conformity with the First Lady's wishes."
Now, what exactly did Mr Safire get wrong in that example of Hillary's deception. Not a damn thing.
LA Times better?
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/23/news/mn-44043
Mrs. Clinton maintained that she played no part in the firings.
"Mrs. Clinton does not know the origin of the decision to remove the White House travel office employees," her lawyers told congressional auditors in 1994. They added that the first lady "did not direct that any action be taken."
Mrs. Clinton told Congress in 1996 that the earlier answers "were accurate."
But later that year a memo surfaced from then-presidential aide David Watkins stating that the first lady had been behind the firings. The matter was then referred by Atty. Gen. Janet Reno to Starr, who began submitting evidence about the controversy to a federal grand jury.
Specifically, Starr examined whether Watkins perjured himself during a congressional investigation of the episode when he insisted under oath that Mrs. Clinton had not played any role in the firings.
During lengthy hearings by a Republican-led House committee, the White House later surrendered memos written by Watkins that suggested Mrs. Clinton had instigated the firings at the urging of Hollywood producer Harry Thomason, a longtime friend of the Clintons who was seeking a share of the White House travel business.
The nonpolitical travel office, staffed by career employees, is in charge of making all travel arrangements for the White House press corps, whose members reimburse the office for expenses incurred in covering the president on his travels throughout the world.
President Clinton later apologized for the firings and offered other jobs in the government to most of those who had been dismissed.
Is there anything there that materially contradicts William Safire's example?
Nope.
You can go through each one of those examples in my post. There is video and/or documentation to back them up. I refer to the Washington Post Pinocchios. Politico. The set of four email lies. The Bosnia sniper lie. the Irish peace lie. NAFTA lie. etc. None of those references relied on Goldberg or Safire or the right wing. But we're supposed to ignore all of Clinton's lying because Safire and Goldberg also observed it and took the time to describe it with real examples? Ridiculous. Not everything everybody says is wrong unless you like them and embrace their point of view. Safire and Goldberg made their case with real examples of Hillary's deceitful behavior. Shooting them as messengers is not going to change that in the eye of the public. Either Hillary lied or she didn't. In the cases I noted that they brought up, the vast majority of the public would regard them as Safire & Goldberg did: as lies. It doesn't matter who wrote about them - Hillary lied.
I've been watching these guys since Clinton's PAC hired them
Those age demographics significantly favor Clinton
Q50 If you are 18 to 29 years old, press 1. If 30 to
45, press 2. If 46 to 65, press 3. If you are older
than 65, press 4.
18 to 29........................................................... 12% (18.5%) (Sanders does better with this age group)
30 to 45........................................................... 22% (29.8%) (Sanders does better with this age group)
46 to 65........................................................... 44% (36.7%) (Clinton does better with this age group)
Older than 65.................................................. 23% (15%) (Clinton does better with this age group)
(In parenthesis are the 2008 and 2012 average demographics for the general election)
roughly)
Roughly 15% fewer young voters that favor Sanders and 15% more older voters who favor Clinton
Clinton Favorability -17
Sanders Favorability -15 ??? (minus 15!!!)
- something's up there - and this was before the data debacle hit the news.
Yesterday's PPP poll, again wildly uses demographics that favors Clinton
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_121715.pdf
Q41 If you are 18 to 45 years old, press 1. If 46 to
65, press 2. If you are older than 65, press 3.
18 to 45 23% (48.3%) (Sanders does better with this age group)
46 to 65 47% (36.7%) (Clinton does better with this age group)
Older than 65 31% (15%) (Clinton does better with this age group)
Does PPP have their finger on the scale for Hillary? Doesn't look good to me. Why would they do this and be that far off? I don't remember this happening in 2008 or 2012 - maybe it did was I was dumb. And this group isn't the only pollster where I'm seeing this. Seems to happen a lot.
Once again, the classic Clinton defense: SHOOT THE MESSENGER!!
The problem is, the messenger didn't utter the lies, Hillary did.
The messenger didn't make up sniper fire in Bosnia to pad her scant 2008 foreign policy experience the media was questioning when she claimed she was ready to take that 3AM call ... because she couldn't provide a credible example in her career of when she took a 3AM call ever before. And she followed it with a lie about being integral to the peace process in Ireland (Good Friday Agreement). The media didn't create that deception - Hillary did all by herself.
The media didn't create the lie nor the memo that exposed her lie in Travelgate. All William Safire really did in that article, like many in the media did, was report it as an example of her lying. He was backing up his assertion that she is a "congenital liar" with real indisputable examples of her lying and deceptions.
Same with this
"The records show Hillary Clinton was lying when she denied actively representing a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S.& L., and indicate she may have conspired with Web Hubbell's father-in-law to make a sham land deal that cost taxpayers $3 million."William Safire didn't create those records or that lie that those records proved as such. Like many in the media, he just reported on it.
"Shame on you, Barack Obama" for maintaining she had previously supported NAFTA was a LIE. She tried to spin the same crap to Tim Russert. But the proof came out that she had supported NAFTA as First Lady both in documents and video. Again, that's no one else's fault but Hillary's.
Fast forward to recently: four family members of Benghazi victims separately came out to various left and right wing media to report that Hillary lied to them. That's not the media out to get Hillary. That's four different family members of three different families pissed off Hillary lied to them. Of course, the only thing to do is "deny, deny, deny".
On the emails:
“The server contains personal communications from my husband and me” LIE: her husband doesn't use email
"easier to carry one device for my work… instead of two." LIE: she did carry two and use two or more for work
“I’ve never had a subpoena” LIE: the House produced the subpoena
"everything I did was permitted" LIE: Washington Post gave three Pinocchios with their explanation
Now her personal IT guys emails are missing at the State Department in their backups, from her server and those backups and from his state department computer for only the time when Hillary was at the State Department. He's taking the 5th. Why not say "I just setup Hillary's personal server at her request." ? This is not honest and forthright behavior in the face of stuff that should be there and is missing in several places. But Clinton supporters blame the media for reporting that and think the rest of us are so stupid, we'll fall for "it's all the media's fault. Hillary and her poor IT guy that was paid roughly $10,000 less than Hillary as Secretary of State plus paid privately, bear no responsibility for all this stuff that's been deleted and is missing".
We get it. "Shoot the messengers! Hillary takes no responsibility for anything she says or does when lying and deception are involved!!! And the media is horrible for reporting it!"
While they're at it in the computer department,
hopefully they can get some assurances this isn't going to blow up:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/hillary-clinton-bryan-pagliano-emails-state-department-216679
The State Department has told Senate investigators it cannot find backup copies of emails sent by Bryan Pagliano, the top Hillary Clinton IT staffer who maintained her email server but has asserted his Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions on the matter.
...
the FBI has taken possession of Pagliano’s government computer system, where traces of the messages are most likely to be found, according to the letter.
Grassley, an Iowa Republican, has been considering whether to grant Pagliano immunity in exchange for testimony on who approved Clinton's private email setup and whether anyone raised any objections to the system.
Convince me there's nothing to be concerned about there. The FBI did recover Hillary's deleted emails.
http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-recovered-clintons-deleted-emails-2015-9
For Sanders campaign manager to be "very confident" their data was compromised and there was something about finding traces of Clinton's stuff, losing backups may not be enough in this case. He may already have evidence.
So in the wake of deleted emails on several computers & lost backups for several computers, the FBI, the Senate, the House, the IG, 12 GOP candidates, a bunch in the media and now the Sanders campaign are after you. How does she sleep at night?
What a wonderful endorsement from a wonderful man
But here’s what’s really important: Bernie’s climate plan comes with unique credibility. Because he’s worked hard for change when it wasn’t popular or easy. I know this because he’s a fellow Vermonter who I’ve watched for decades. And I know it in my bones because, in the early days of the fight against the Keystone Pipeline, he was almost the only person on Capitol Hill who signed on to help with the fight. He was dogged, and sometimes he was grumpy, and he never let up.
That’s the spirit we’re going to need going forward. As the revelations of the last few weeks have made clear, the biggest and richest of the oil companies, Exxon, knew everything there was to know about climate change decades ago, and yet helped spread the disinformation and deceit that have held back progress for a quarter-century.
To stand up to that kind of power requires backbone and passionate commitment. And it requires a leader who can mobilize a movement.
When we talk about alternative energy, there’s solar, and there’s wind. And there’s Bernie Sanders."
I don't know if Bernie is going to win this primary but I suspect receiving words like that will mean a lot to him. Really nice endorsement.
I think it's posturing BS
When you review the four logs, (one log did basically nothing which is probably why they were not suspended), only one looked in Iowa and they look at only one Clinton field in the data "Support" ... for a total of 3 whole minutes. That's right, read it again .. "one field" "three minutes" because the session timed out.
They saved them in lists - unique otherwise meaningless voters IDs - not the data itself. And they did not go back and "export" those lists - didn't export any of the state lists - according to the logs.
What they did is on activity logs for all to see - and they knew it Those saved lists were deleted/turned over and not exported.
If "support" was such a critical data field, why didn't they go for it in all the other states? It couldn't have been that critical or concern them that much because they didn't know Clintons data.
Looking at the summary of one data field in Iowa for 3 minutes and then turning the data over is going to tilt the primary scales in Iowa?
Pure and utter bullshit.
"Schultz ... appears to have acted without ... authority under law, contract or party rule"
So they agree DWS didn't have a legal leg or rule to stand on
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Aug 23, 2015, 03:58 PMNumber of posts: 10,130
