Recent polling casts doubt on the one time sure thing.
Public Policy Institute of California-
Registered Democrats, HRC over Sanders- 49% to 41%
When including independents or, “… likely Democratic voters. Clinton had 46% support, Sanders had 44%, and the margin of error was plus or minus 5.7 percentage points. “
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-california-polls-clinton-sanders-democ
ratic-primary-htmlstory.html
Independents and Democrats, just the mix needed to win the General Election in California.
So the question becomes, what will happen if Sanders wins Calif? I know, each will get a proportional share of delegates, but psychologically and politically, what will be the action in the Convention? Just shrug? I doubt it. She will be severely weakened by a 74 yr old Jewish Socialist. Think what could happen with a 60+ yr old semi-fascist.
In previous threads I suggested that the Super Delegates will have a Road to Damascus moment as to HRC as the Party’s standard bearer. Will they shift to Sanders? Unlikely. Will they impose a vice president on Hillary that will attract Sanders voters and give them (her) a real portfolio of responsibility in the Admin? That sounds more like it.
Whatever happens, the convention and supers can not ignore the fact that Hillary couldn’t win the country’s largest state in her own primary. I think Clinton campaign would throw anyone under the bus to get out of Philadelphia alive.
Ridge
Surely you jest? If that happens California joins HI, IN, MI, OR, WA, WI, WV, etc. as irrelevant. The only states that matter are those that choose Hillary.
I’m a bit perplexed by the intensity of the noise for Bernie to drop out and support HRC. Seems a bit extreme, particularly given what HRC did in ’08 and how that didn’t hurt Obama. OTOH, HRC’s team knows that BHO was in a position to grant all of HRC’s demands because they weren’t policy issues, benefited her (and Bill) alone, and never had to be disclosed to her fans, 95% of whom believe whatever she says and so whatever she asks. HRC’s team may fear Sanders’ support demands because they can’t agree to them. Thus, that could explain why for months they have been pressing him to get out. OTOH, from a practical perspective, Sanders has mucked up HRC’s game-plan. She’s had to raise double the projected amount for the primary and remained on the campaign trail twice as long as expected.
OTOH, if there’s another (and covert game) afoot, Sanders thwarting that it.
Thanks for the reply Marie-
As to the former and current Clinton Machine “machinations” <g> I couldn’t guess. However, certainly Sanders and his supporters’ positions on economic policy seems to be antithetical to those of Clinton’s; or at least a degree greater toward the non salaried/non investor members of society. So any concessions made for Sanders’ voters must be particularly painful; both personally and politically.
Right now there is the beginning of a drumbeat for Warren as VP, willing to take the hit in the Senate to win the Presidency. That would give the appearance of unity and agreement, but as a former Founding Father noted about the VP office, ….something about buckets and warm spit (in the cleaned up version).
Let me throw this out there. Nothing in Constitution prohibits the VP from also being the head of an Executive Dept. Approval by the Senate might cause some arm chair lawyers dyspepsia, but as the VP bridges the Legislative and Executive, it should not be a negative. So if Warren agrees, offer her the VP and Treasury. Man, that would certain cause a wailing and gnashing of teeth in certain quarters and encourage every Sanders supporter to work overtime for Hillary. Plus would put real power behind financial reforms, corporate welfare, and parking profits overseas. Then Hillary could ignore the naïve and immature Sanders voters and concentrate on the next Mideast War.
R
Doubt that HRC is as sharp as FDR, Warren as dull as Garner, and Sanders’ supporters as ignorant as Garner’s voters. (Still, it was a master stroke by FDR and he totally loathed Garner.)
You seem to mistake Hillary for someone that’s sympatico with the economic and regulatory messages of Warren and Sanders. The whole point of the DLC Democrats has been to dismantle the New Deal and unleash the power and might of capitalism of, by, and for the educated elites and their spawn.
So HRC is your mind is a DLC Democrat?? So you prescribe to the Randi Rhodes, and Thom Hartman idiots that think the DLC is taking over the party. WRONG!! The DLC, headed by Al From, folded up shop years ago simply because the the liberal wing of the party didn’t want to adapt to the premise of an inclusive, more moderate wing of the party. How appropriate that the people who matter most in getting Hillary to win, are the very people you want thrown out of the party.
Are you a paid troll or just an idiot?
Stone ignorant, I would guess. Did you see the post where s(he) thought S. Brown was in the same camp as McCaskill, et al?
Inquiring minds want to know! Actually I’ve been of the first opinion from the beginning.
Are you a Bernie symp or just like betting on losers such as Bernie?? for all the time you’ve been here, you have not made a single point to advance the cause of Bernie, and just attacked Hillary. To me that means you have no valid points to make about Bernie and you’re acting like a Republican just to cover up the flaws about Bernie.
How many losers have you backed in your lifetime?
As Bernie’s policy positions are well known and almost all are completely consistent with everything I’ve ever advocated for (and is documented on-line beginning in late 2002), why should I have to repeat that list every time I comment for the benefit of those that missed if the last time.
I also don’t repeat the very long list of reasons why I opposed HRC in ’08 and the longer list for my opposition to her in ’16. What I never hear from her supporters is their endorsement what HRC has and does stand for that is not even close to what Bernie has and does stand for. Never hear a defense of her secretiveness, lack of vision, and always many days late and dollars short on doing or standing up for the right thing. “Weather vanes” aren’t leaders.
the DLC label may be gone, the people and bad ideas are not.
If we’re to be accurate, the people and bad ideas preceded the DLC label. They junked the DLC, just like the neogcns junked PNAC, when enough people caught on to them and the label became a liability.
I don’t think HRC is at all sympathetic about any financial regulatory reform. But right now, its not important. It was important while accumlating the Clinton fortune, but the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees gravey train has run its course. The money is in the bank.
What is important is the Clinton Team legacy. Bill’s (and by extension her’s) is mixed. Scandal didn’t help but Bill’s innate polticial skills helped mitigate that in the public’s eye. Probably not Hillary’s. I would say there is a combination of ambition and “I’ll show him”. She wants to prove she is better than Bill without his skills. We saw this with W.
I’ve said this before, Bill is the guy who used his smarts and charm to get places and get out of scrapes. The lovable Southern Rascal. Hillary was the prom co-chair. The one who actually did the work and made sure the decorations were up. Putting up with Bill’s nonsense as his charm was going places. Well its gotten her far, but some of her steps were too cute by a 1/2. All legal but like some Civil War generals, she can’t read the ground, can’t see the changes in the political landscape and always fighting the last war’s battles.
-Health Care Initiative
-vote for Iraq War
-2008 campaign
-Private email server
-Speaking fees to financial instiutions after the collaspe
-Putting down Sanders supporters…
None of which bodes well for the General Election campaign or her One Term in the Presidency.
R
IMHO you give HRC far too much credit for being competent at anything. Seriously, when has she demonstrated any skill other than delivering some memorized speech?
Don’t recall the details but she seemed really good at back stabbing and other (metaphorical) wet work.
She’s had “staff” that takes care of that sort of thing for over two decades. Reminds me of a boss that subordinates keep as far away from the actual work as possible because such a boss’ involvement means the job will take twice as long and the end product half as good.
Yeah, her sycophants do seem good at it.
Middling considering how rarely they can get a Clinton over that public opinion majority threshold on any questionable or controversial matter involving HRC or WJC and always leave a residue of scumminess in the process.
But they do seem good at retaliation. They are not good at PR because they have no idea how ordinary people think. Bill was poor before his mother remarried and he attended a public High School in Arkansas. Not sure what HS Hillary attended but if it was Park Ridge, it was upper income, not astronomical like River Forest, more like Oak Park. Definitely not working class. I’m sure her parents kept her away from the animals.
Years ago I worked for a government agency; we prayed the boss would take a vacation so we could get our projects completed. Maybe HRC should just stay home and bake cookies, then citizens could go about their business.
heh — once worked for a woman that feared the staff would slack off if she took vacation time. The reality was that we got more done and with less stress than when she was there.
The mystery was how she ever got the job in the first place. At age 60 she was still attractive and had a nice figure — so… At a dinner, the CEO assured me that he’d never had an affair with her. (No, of course I didn’t ask a question that could possibly have been construed as “why did you hire this woman.” It was completely spontaneous on his part, but undoubtedly others had asked the question in the past.) If that wasn’t true, he’d been telling the lie for so long that it had become true enough. More likely is that it was accidental. She was there when the job was open and there weren’t any other applicants during one of those industry staff shortage periods.
Spontaneous? Sounds like guilty conscience.
That’s possible, but then and now I really didn’t think so. However, there may well have been an advantageous affair or two in her career. Those that could have explained how all of it happened were probably long retired or dead by that time I encountered this mystery.
I had one that was fearful of signing anything. He once told me (honest!), “If you never do anything, you’ll never do anything wrong.” Whenever he went on vacation, or went out of town for a meeting, I would sign the entire pile of backed up work with my name and “by direction” over his typed in name. It took him over a year to get wise. The other guy in the section was an older engineer who did excellent work but had no self-confidence. he always gave his work to me for review (I was 24 or 25). I’d hold it a few days, look it over quick for completeness only and give it back to him with “It looks fine, Ed”.
Sorry, but while you’re at it, could you recapitulate the list of state won by Clinton that don’t matter?
Even if Sanders wins California, it won’t make any difference. There are over 400 delegates alone, so even if Sanders wins by 20 points, Hillary will still get enough delegates to put her over the top. Don’t forget that New Jersey votes as well with 111 delegates and Hillary leads there by 25 points.
As I suggested, she may be the nominee, but one with severe restrictions on her. You are living in a fantasy world if you think a convention hall full of politicians won’t take into account the fact that the prospective nominee couldn’t win the bastion of Democratic political power in the US. The one with the most electoral votes and the source of a lot of its funding.
There would certainly be consequences. What they are is anyone’s guess.
R
Any promises made at the convention can be undone by “exigent circumstances”. It is stupid to believe a liar.
Suppose she abandons TPP? A slight change of wording in the preamble and “Oh, it’s been fixed.” Warren as VP and Treasury Secretary? Chop her out of the information network. Can a Treasury Secretary defy her boss? No. Fired for insubordination. But but but you made a deal! That was last August, this is February. Darker minds envision a fortuitous plane crash. Happened before and to a team player whose graft got too embarrassing.
All good points and I’m aware that nothing holds a candidate once they are in office. But, there is also a trust issue. If everything gets side railed after Nov., then the (hopefully) Dem Senate could never trust any commitments made by HRC admin about anything. Plus Warren would still be in the body, like Ceasar’s ghost, and rallying a caucus around her. Better for her to be inside the tent, pissing out.
R
You’re right. But there won’t be enough satisfaction to go around. Satisfaction deficit. A new national grievance.
It won’t mean anything unless this e-mail stuff has legs. I’m still not sure whether the MSM is preparing to do a massive revolt against HRC or if they’re just looking for a way to juice their ratings (and Trump is being boring this month as he consolidates his power) but the tone is definitely that of blood in the water.
I still don’t think that it’ll amount to anything in time for the nomination, though. Things are moving too slowly for it to have an impact on the primary, assuming that the e-mail scandal will have an impact at all.
IMO the MSM is at best doing the bare minimum in reporting on the the State IG’s report and has never had much interest in her email/server. And they’re only doing that much to avoid charges of obvious pro-HRC bias by Trump. Not smelling any MSM sharks circling this looking for blood.
What can’t be known is if John Kerry and/or Loretta Lynch have slowed down, stymied, or attempted to minimize the investigations/reviews. They were slow to act when the existence of her server became known. Other than looking closely at the possible transmission of highly classified information and breaches of her server, we don’t know what else, if anything, the FBI is looking at or even if they were able to retrieve the emails that she deleted.
I suspect that this has put BHO between a rock and a hard place.
Having some minor experience in this, I can say that the email server was opened up to any number of nation state adversaries; probably including NSA itself. No part time IT guy could prevent it. Now was it purposely left open to see who was hacking and what they were looking at, or left as rope for HRC to hang herself? Hard to say. Wheels within wheels. But as a source of intelligence, such a thing would be a gold mine, even without top secret information.
Using it as Sec of State was arrogance incarnate, and foolish to boot. Is it indicative of her character? That’s up to voters to make the call. But I can’t imagine that the various TLAs (excluding the flatfoots at the FBI and Justice) were not aware of it and reported to their superiors.
R
Question, wouldn’t those “adversaries” have to know of the existence of a server before attempting to break into it? While there are been claims that her server was breached, the FBI has denied that.
The Clintons and their close associates probably thought the server was secure. These aren’t tech savvy people and they would have trusted they guy that set it up. Thus, no intent to leave it open. In fact, it was set up to avoid anyone seeing her communications in both real and historical time.
You have to understand, the nature of an email is the same as a postcard. Unless its contents are encrypted, any number of people can read them as they pass along the Internet.
Anything associated the with Clintons would be targeted for electronic surveillance as being past President, meetings with world and business leaders, Senator, and Sec of State (who is a member of the National Security Council).
Anyone associated with the Clintons, professionally or personally, would also be subject to surveillance; constant or opportunistically. Innocent things like, “I’ll be in Prague next week, we’ll talk when I’m back” (which could or could not be on a public schedule) could provide lots of possible intelligence gathering possibilities.
So you can assume the first time that server was accessed by HRC, Bill, Chelsea, or any number of associates; agencies around the world soon knew about it. They would have probed it, found out what firewall and operating system it was using, then ran any number of 0 day exploits to access its data; leaving no trace behind. That’s what they do.
Now the neat thing is that NSA or other agencies have the capability of monitoring Internet Traffic, for both source and target + content (deep packet inspection). It was long assumed there was too much data flowing across the net to pick out particular packets; only coarse monitoring was possible. Part of the Snowden revelations is that individual data packets or frames could be targeted for address or content. Like selecting one droplet of water as it rushes out of a firehose. So it is likely they were in the server itself or watched as it was attacked, looked for and what was found. That in itself is valuable intelligence.
To think that a “private” email server of an ex President’s family, who is still at the top of the national and international political sphere and then Sec of State, would not be of interest to the friendly and unfriendly nations of the world is horribly naïve.
I mean horribly naïve or arrogant. That is the stuff you hire armies of IT guys to protect against, not a part timer.
We can speculative as to the reasons it was done. Political, convenience, privacy from GOP Congress? Who cares, it was stupid.
R
After all, we bugged Angela Merkel’s cell phone. Not a nice thing to do to an ally.
John Podesta, Clinton campaign fuctionary, has written a letter to 600 top supporters discussing the email server. Hillary hs been all over the media standing firm on her use of a private email server But privately Podesta is singing a different tune. In it-
——excerpt————
The Podesta memo takes a more contrite posture, reminding backers three separate times that Clinton has called the email setup a mistake and continues to do so in the wake of the IG report. “The secretary has once again acknowledged this was a mistake,” Podesta writes. “If she could go back, she’d do it differently.”
Podesta also takes up one of the report’s key findings: that Clinton’s email practices did differ significantly from past secretaries of state, contrary to the candidate’s frequent argument that, broadly, her email use was not “unprecedented.”
Clinton used a non-government account to conduct State Department business, as did former secretary of state Colin Powell. But no other former secretary of state has maintained government correspondence on a private home-based server…..
https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/campaign-chair-clinton-knows-email-setup-was-a-mistake?utm_term=
.hqN98AB0A#.puJKPzXmz
Full memo available on that page.
Yep, Foolish and arrogant. Those were the words I used myself to describe Clinton’s e-mail server when talking to the 22 year old member of my household. Her reply was that both Clintons are criminals and BTW 9-11 was an inside job. Talking about what’s for dinner would have been a safer topic.
The Truth Is Out There.
Unfortunately the DNC/DLC/Clintonites are not interested in the truth in this election cycle, just the pre-determined coronation.
Interesting to those who claim to like hard ball, but might not be recognizing it when it happens….
Bernie Sanders’s `Scorched Earth’ Strategy Seems to Be Working
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/sanderss-scorched-earth-strategy-is-working.html
The hyperventilating over the insult to Franks is amusing.
Bare minimum??? That’s laughable. Every channel I see has the e-mail story going full force. The only reason you think it’s a bare minimum is because it isn’t having the desired effect of derailing her campaign. Remember back when when Bernie said “no one cares about your damn e-mails”? Now, do you suddenly care?? Thing is your bias is so obvious that you can’t see straight. Seeing Hillary get the nomination makes your skin crawl at the very notion of her and her “corporatism” entering the White House, that you would rather see Trump and his “corporatism”?? Sorry Marie, but come June7th, Bernie will be officially toast, and I will be back here to make a note of it.
It evidently irritates the hell out of you that Bernie Sanders is still around. Why don’t you just now bask in the glow of your victory glory, happy and self-satisfied.?You deserve it. After all you’ve worked very hard on this and (I presume) other sites to embarrass and intimidate Hillary Clinton’s Democratic opponent. I only wonder if you’re a Clinton fetishist or being paid by the word. Your bias is pretty blinding itself. Bernie will be toast, as in burnt toast? Ha, ha, feel the Burn. I could make a very tasteless allusion but I won’d. One thing about you guys—there a few on this site recently, including eastcoastexgtremist– is that you’re so damn two-dimensional, dull and ever so easy to bait,
Does Sanders irritate me?? In a way he does, but what irritates me more is the fact that Sanders himself is does not, or will not understand the situation he is in. What good is it to stay in the race for?? All he is doing is wasting the little money he has left, and wasting everyone elses time in an effort that could be better spent going after Trump instead of Hillary. Both Ted Cruz and John Kasich came to the conclusion that Trump was going to be the nominee and both dropped out. Both could have continued on, but both of them saw no point in continuing, but Bernie cannot go quietly into the sunset. Sanders has made a mockery of the race, and I hope he pays the price down the line for it.
Interesting McClatchy reporting on voter’s usual questions about Trump and Hillary. Article presents the possibility that Trump and GOP leaders could calm fears about Trump and perhaps deliver Fla in the General. Why? Because HRC is not liked or trusted. She does have her strengths with the voters but will it be enough?
Just one more data point to consider.
R
—–excerpt—–
“A lot comes down to character,” said Cassandra Holbrook, a Manatee Technical College student. At the moment she finds Trump “a little too self-important,” but she has serious questions about Clinton’s past.
“There’s a distrust factor with Clinton, but Trump’s rhetoric worries me,” said Henry Scarfo, a Lake Mary retiree who backed Obama in 2008 and then Romney.
One thing that could send him Trump’s way is a signal from Republican leaders, notably House Speaker Paul Ryan, that Trump is OK….
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article80183192.html#storylink=hpdigest
“One thing that could send him Trump’s way is a signal from Republican leaders, notably House Speaker Paul Ryan, that Trump is OK.” That would repel me.
People just want some reassurance that Trump isn’t the lunatic he portrays in TV. The party bosses and former lights are providing that. If he keeps his mouth shut, he could win. Gingrich could teach him pseudo-history; Ryan, McConnell could pass legislation, Daughter Invanka could hand him the bills to sign. Donald could then fly around and visit his properties, the ones not in bankruptcy.
Seriously, the margins have to be great enough not to steal. That was my argument for Obama in 2008 against HRC. Its still good in 2016. Without the Sander’s wing of the party, she can’t attract enough independents.
R
“If he keeps his mouth shut” A big IF.
Boy, that really sucks, Voice. I guess you had better tune out everything aside from the Hillary Hate channel that you receive through the fillings in your teeth.
Totally unnecessary character attack upon a blog poster. As usual attack the messenger not the content of the message.
Like cliff I found your reaction to Voice, in fact, reactionary, not very informative or even clever.
The nonstop “I hate Hillary and will vote for Trump” has driven me round the bend, but yes, that’s my problem and should not be reflected here.
it’s one poster fer chrissakes. if your sensibilities are that delicate just don’t read his comments.
I’m in CA and planning to vote for Bernie with the idea that it would nudge Hillary leftward, which still seems more of a concern than the danger that her taking longer to achieve unity could hurt her in Nov.
Anybody think that’s a dumb idea? I could be swayed. Also, does anyone have any advice on which of the 20 jungle primary senate candidates to vote for? Is Kamela Harris more liberal than Boxer & Feinstein? Is there somebody else worth voting for?
538 polling statistics for California
Given the usual discriminated class discount for Clinton, the pundit prediction from that poll looks like Clinton 55% and Sanders 45%. I like the fact that 538 provides the variance in the resulting model tests.
Apply the margin of error to the above figures and Sanders will have to outperform the model to win 50% of California’s pledged delegates, but Clinton will have half of the California pledged delegates.
Nobody else provides the data behind the statistical distribution. It’s not rocket science, it’s stuff I learned in an elementary statistics class, but the 538 folks make it available for anyone to look at.
Unless she loses by thirty points, she still wins the nomination. So, in short, she wins.
I understand this, but what will be the “political” consequences from losing Calif? They won’t be nil.
I set out one possiblility, that a Sanders friendly running mate will be imposed on her plus lots of consessions in the Admin.
What do you think would happen?
R
“What will be the ‘political’ consequences of losing Calif?”
Not nil, but ‘next to nil’.
“What do you think would happen?”
Nothing.
.
And why do you think that?
Let’s say Hillary does lose California. The press will play it up as a big embarrassment for her, and such utter bull as that. Remember that New Jersey votes as well, but that one is not getting the air-time because Hillary leads by 25 points there. This is all a media scam to create hysteria and to present the idea that Trunp actually has a chance to win.
This post is based on picking a single data point (a single poll result) in isolation from the rest, then speculating about it. Methodologically not so great. It reminds me of old line:
If I had some ham, I could make ham and eggs, if I had eggs.
The Clinton Campaign must have thought something was happening in Calif.
“Clinton adds more campaign stops to avert a Sanders upset in California”
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/30/clinton-adds-more-campaign-stops-to-
avert-a-sanders-upset-in-california
West Coast POC seem to have some significant differences in voting preferences…
Sanders, the Candidate of White Men, is winning among ALL POC voters in California under the age of 50!
“Among those under 50, Sanders held a 27-point advantage among all Democratic primary voters and a 21-point edge among likely voters. Among those over 50, Clinton led by 32 points among both groups.”
(Isn’t Trump winning elderly whites in the general at this point?)
Will be very curious to see the actual voting.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-latimes-presidential-primary-poll-20160602-snap-story.html