Those darn white men are Hillary Clinton's election problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03...-white-men.html?_r=0

The last Dem nominee to carry the white male vote was Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

But Democrats have won about 35 to 40 percent of white men in nearly every presidential election since 1988.

To win a general election, Mrs. Clinton would rely most heavily on strong turnout from blacks, Hispanics, women and older voters.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers expressed confidence, saying her economic policies and national security experience would appeal strongly to white men in a general election.

really ??

Joel Benenson, Mrs. Clinton’s strategist and pollster: “Winning is never about slicing and dicing the electorate,”

Democrats are masters at slicing and dicing the electorate

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Those darn white men are Hillary Clinton's election problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03...-white-men.html?_r=0

The last Dem nominee to carry the white male vote was Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

But Democrats have won about 35 to 40 percent of white men in nearly every presidential election since 1988.

To win a general election, Mrs. Clinton would rely most heavily on strong turnout from blacks, Hispanics, women and older voters.

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers expressed confidence, saying her economic policies and national security experience would appeal strongly to white men in a general election.

really ??

Joel Benenson, Mrs. Clinton’s strategist and pollster: “Winning is never about slicing and dicing the electorate,”

Democrats are masters at slicing and dicing the electorate

They won't say it.

Winning is about fooling enough of the people at the same time.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/480...hpvid1#sp=show-clips

Btw, she only needs to be pushed a bit more, and she will go full Madam Mao.

https://grabien.com/file.php?i...326&searchorder=date

Chelsea Clinton:




so Chelsea says her mom will extend obamacare to illegals

All 14 million of them


When President Obama was pushing Obamacare, he stated before a joint session of Congress in September 2009 that it would not be opened up to illegal immigrants.

Remember what happened next? Representative Joe Wilson yelled, “You lie!” and it caused quite a stir.

https://youtu.be/8-vt_OrSeWk

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
so Chelsea says her mom will extend obamacare to illegals

All 14 million of them

Kinda funny isn't it. Maybe another person in the audience could have followed up with..."Given BarryCare is tanking big time and is rapidly becoming totally unsustainable with just ~18 million Americans in it, how pray tell does Mrs. Mao plan to fund an expansion of the program to cover illegal aliens?" The answer to that question would be worth its price in gold. Of course ole Chelsea, much like her mother, isn't much of a rocket scientist, so I don't expect an answer would ever be forthcoming.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:



When President Obama was pushing Obamacare, he stated before a joint session of Congress in September 2009 that it would not be opened up to illegal immigrants.

Remember what happened next? Representative Joe Wilson yelled, “You lie!” and it caused quite a stir.

https://youtu.be/8-vt_OrSeWk

Not enough of a stir to suit my taste.

“It would be a s--tshow of the first order,”

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...enario-for-democrats

The chaos scenario for Democrats

It’s the scenario that Republicans dream of and Democrats believe is all but impossible: Hillary Clinton being forced to drop out of the presidential race due to criminal charges over her email server.

Any bombshell findings in the FBI’s investigation of Clinton could plunge the Democratic race into chaos.

In the event that Clinton stepped aside after winning the nomination at the convention, the Democratic National Committee could decide on the replacement on its own.

If an indictment came before the convention, the path would be more difficult.

Unlike the Republican Party, which binds most of its delegates to candidates regardless of delegates’ personal preferences, Democratic candidates have input on who represents them on the convention floor.

“There are no Clinton-bound delegates who would prefer voting for Sanders, for example,” delegate expert and University of Georgia professor Josh Putnam, told The Hill.

“Those folks are essentially hand-picked to be loyal. They are unlikely to stray.”

Then there are the superdelegates, the 712 Democratic Party leaders, including members of Congress, who have the freedom to support any candidate at the convention.

The superdelegates are supporting Clinton in droves right now — 95 percent of those who have expressed a preference have chosen Clinton. But they could desert Clinton just as emphatically if her candidacy came to the brink of imploding, some say.

If enough pledged Clinton delegates and superdelegates went to Sanders and delivered him 2,383 delegates, he would win the nomination.

But delegates could also coalesce around a new candidate not in the race. One likely fallback would be Vice President Biden, who came very close to running for president last year.

But denying Sanders the nomination could come with a heavy price, potentially alienating the millions of Democrats who cast ballots for him in the primary process.

“Politically, though, it would be difficult for them to vote as a bloc against someone like Sanders who has won a significant amount of votes in primaries and caucuses.”

Should the party be forced to leave Clinton, one thing that could work against Sanders is his late arrival to the Democratic Party. He’s spent his entire 30-year career in Congress as an Independent, and recently said he ran for president as a Democrat for media coverage.

So if the Democratic race ends up with its own contested convention, all bets are off on how it would conclude, since the final decision ultimately rests on the whims of the 4,765 delegates.

“It would be a s--tshow of the first order,” the Democratic strategist said.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
so Chelsea says her mom will extend obamacare to illegals

All 14 million of them

Kinda funny isn't it. Maybe another person in the audience could have followed up with..."Given BarryCare is tanking big time and is rapidly becoming totally unsustainable with just ~18 million Americans in it, how pray tell does Mrs. Mao plan to fund an expansion of the program to cover illegal aliens?" The answer to that question would be worth its price in gold. Of course ole Chelsea, much like her mother, isn't much of a rocket scientist, so I don't expect an answer would ever be forthcoming.

Chelsea would respond "Top WOmen are workingon that. Top WOmen"

Reading the above article makes you realize just how bad the game is rigged. Im willing to bet there will actually be some rinos that will support Sanders over Trump if it ever comes to it.

Id say its more of a donkey show.

BREAKING NEWS

The "Goin' Full Madame Mao" meter has experienced backtracking today.

Mrs. Clinton made an important announcement, "I love coal. I love it so much that I eat a lump every day".

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...ation-of-hillary.php

Given the need to determine sooner rather than later whether Hillary Clinton is a felon, it would be tragic if the FBI tied itself in knots going down every bunny trail associated with this matter. The perfect should not become the enemy of the good in an investigation of this urgency.

Yet there is reason to fear that it might.

The potential problem exists even in the absence of bad faith or foot dragging by bureaucrats eager to help Clinton run out the clock. The FBI prides itself in conducting thorough investigations. It doesn’t want to be less than exhaustive when conducting a high profile investigation of a presidential contender. Thus, it naturally will be disinclined to rush. Its inclination will be to conduct a gold-plated investigation — to dot every “i” and cross every “t.”

To make matters worse, the Justice Department is looking over the FBI’s investigation and must approve any prosecution of Clinton. Here’s where the possibility of bad faith compounds the problem.

Justice Department lawyers can drag the process out by constantly asking new questions. The questions may be of interest; they may even be one’s the FBI would answer if time were not of the essence. But answering them might well be unnecessary for purposes of determining whether Clinton violated the Espionage Act.

Unfortunately, the same applies to the trial. All you have to do is trip up the prosecution evidence, incongruities, ambiguities, mistakes, uncertainties, loose ends, and you have the potential for reasonable doubt.

Given the level of defense Hillary will employ, all those loose ends must be tied up, accounted for, dealt with, so there is no possibility of motions after indictment, before trial, striking evidence, counts, etc. Hillary the good is the enemy of prosecution the imperfect.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Unfortunately, the same applies to the trial. All you have to do is trip up the prosecution evidence, incongruities, ambiguities, mistakes, uncertainties, loose ends, and you have the potential for reasonable doubt.

Given the level of defense Hillary will employ, all those loose ends must be tied up, accounted for, dealt with, so there is no possibility of motions after indictment, before trial, striking evidence, counts, etc. Hillary the good is the enemy of prosecution the imperfect.

If she goes to prison, outstanding.

But if this only keeps her out of the White House, triple outstanding.

quote:

But denying Sanders the nomination could come with a heavy price, potentially alienating the millions of Democrats who cast ballots for him in the primary process.“Politically, though, it would be difficult for them to vote as a bloc against someone like Sanders who has won a significant amount of votes in primaries and caucuses.”

Don't believe this for a minute. I know a staunch Bernie supporter and he will switch to Hillary in a minute if she is nominated. If she is not on the ticket; Biden or Kerry or a yellow dog, whoever or whatever is on the Dem ticket will get his enthusiastic vote.The Dems have more "true believers" than the GOP, in the end the free stuff crowd knows the Dems will produce more free stuff with fewer strings attached.

That is not to say that the "wrong" candidate will not have an impact on Dem turnout because it certainly will. National elections are won by a few percentage points and lack of enthusiasm can cost a few points.

Bill Clinton takes a shot at Obama?

Bill Clinton in a speech today:

"But if you believe we can all rise together, if you believe we've finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that where we were practicing trickle-down economics with no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash, then you should vote for her."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/...ears/article/2001665

"No, no, he was talking about the Republicans in Congress. Connn-gresss!"

I'd suspect he was being singularly inartful, but when was the last time anyone accused him of speaking inartfully?

John Bolton a man who I respect in politics and there are very few of them has this to say about the email scandal.

quote:

So this is a far more serious than what happened to General Petraeus. And it’s one reason why I think that both the FBI and I believe the people in the Justice Department, the prosecutors who would oversee the handling of the case, are moving more and more to the conclusion that serious indictments are warranted here.

Now it’s possible that in this administration that politics can triumph over the legalities. But I think if that does happen, there’s a real risk for Obama and for the Attorney General that the FBI will explode. And a lot of things that we don’t know about, that are not on the public record at the moment, will come on the public record.

It may not be the same thing as firing Archibald Cox (the discharged Special Prosecutor) in the Watergate investigation, but if this potential prosecution is tanked for political reasons, it will be a very loud explosion. And it will stain Obama’s legacy forever. It will damage Loretta Lynch’s professional reputation and I think it will have a profound impact on the presidential election, as well.

Link

I remember the Saturday Night Massacre. I wasn't old enough at the time to understand it, but I remember it well.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Bill Clinton takes a shot at Obama?

Bill Clinton in a speech today:

"But if you believe we can all rise together, if you believe we've finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that where we were practicing trickle-down economics with no regulation in Washington, which is what caused the crash, then you should vote for her."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/...ears/article/2001665

That's the sort of thing that'll get your wife indicted.

Then again, maybe that's his plan.

Take shots at Obama and get rid of Hillary.

Win-Win?