BUT voters under 45 favor Sanders by 2-to-1 ratio....
AND SHE IS NOW LOSING WITH WOMEN!
"The dem machine will be in full force!"
Hey, no big deal if the political lock of the century loses New Hampshire AND Iowa! No need to panic, everyone calm down!
AND SHE IS NOW LOSING WITH WOMEN!
"The dem machine will be in full force!"
Hey, no big deal if the political lock of the century loses New Hampshire AND Iowa! No need to panic, everyone calm down!
BUT voters under 45 favor Sanders by 2-to-1 ratio....
AND SHE IS NOW LOSING WITH WOMEN!
"The dem machine will be in full force!"
Hey, no big deal if the political lock of the century loses New Hampshire AND Iowa! No need to panic, everyone calm down!
I take Hillary, you take Bernie. Loser gone forever here.
Now is your chance to get rid of me. Let's do this. Funny to watch you dance around bets.
Uh huh, on a 33 pt spread, you get the fav on the ML, I get the dog for even odds. Sounds fair. face)(*^%
It's your primary, what the hell do I care? I'm just laughing my ass off how horrible a candidate this cackling bitch is.
I never believed this entitled queen could blow this but if she goes down in Iowa AND New Hampshire, the bottom could fall out fast. Not insurmountable but what does that say about her as a viable candidate if she loses the first two states?
Since 1976, every single nominee, in both parties, but one, went on to become the eventual nominee. For decades, those two states have held the keys to the nomination. It may seem insignificant on paper, but Iowa and New Hampshire ARE big deals.
The Dem ground game will prevail because everyone loves her or something.
ointer:Awesome thread, Russ!
k:
You stepped in it again big time in the Iran thread, like you always do. And you're getting your ass handed to you in Offshore, like always.
Trust me, even if President Trump nukes Iran and it pales in comparison, nobody will ever forget this thread and your timeless idiotic quotes.
I'll make sure of it.
I promise.
Lmao.....I knocked that guy out quicker than I do you.
I can bump your shit for years and nothing will ever beat " Fred Dalton Thompson will be the next presudent". Then you said it wasn't a prediction, it's like rooting for your favorite team. Bwaaaaaaaahhhh. Only Joe can come up with that one.
You think "fighting words", insults and your self-aggrandizing bullshit = "knock outs!"
"The Dem ground game will show up for Hillary!" - poker fraud vtard
You should never talk about what's gonna happen on Election Day. One of us is always right about that and one of us is always wrong. Duncan Hunter!!!! Lmao
Trump Rents Iowa Theater to Show Benghazi Movie, Hands Out Free Tickets… Hillary Furious
http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/...gn=Feed:+rightwingnews/hGmL+(Right+Wing+News)
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...ree-showing-benghazi-movie-13-hours/78823046/
http://rightwingnews.com/democrats/...gn=Feed:+rightwingnews/hGmL+(Right+Wing+News)
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...ree-showing-benghazi-movie-13-hours/78823046/
[h=1]Hillary 2.0 Sinking Faster Than 2008 Campaign[/h]
John Thys/AFP/Getty
by MIKE FLYNN15 Jan 2016506
[h=2]With the Iowa caucuses just two and half weeks away, Hillary Clinton suddenly finds herself in a hyper-competive race against Vermont Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
.[/h]According to polling in Iowa and New Hampshire, Hillary is now a slight underdog in the first two contests of the Democrat nomination battle.
Hillary’s current campaign struggles inevitably invite comparisons with the 2008 campaign, when she was the presumptive frontrunner for the entire campaign until votes started to be cast. In one important way, though, her campaign is doing far worse today than it was in 2008.
Hillary’s national lead, and her standing in the first two voting states, is worse today than it was at a similar point in 2008.
At this point in 2008, Hillary still enjoyed a 20 point lead against her rivals for the nomination in national polls. Today, however, her lead over Socialist Sanders is just 8 points in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls.
It should be noted that Hillary’s nearly 20 point lead in 2008 at this point in time was against TWO credible rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and John Edwards. Today, Hillary’s only rival for the nomination is Sanders. Yet, she enjoys less than half the polling advantage.
Even with the vote split three ways in 2008, she enjoyed a stronger base of support in absolute terms than she does today against a single rival. In other words, Hillary today is up against an historic mathematical conundrum.
According to national polling at the time, Hillary was in a much stronger position in 2008 than she is today. Even so, within two weeks of that polling lead in 2008 she would be fighting, unsuccessfully, for her political life.
The head winds against her are far more powerful this year than they were 8 years ago as well. At an existential level, society has changed and is no longer willing to brush aside her husband’s past transgressions and allegations of sexual abuse against female subordinates. Neither she nor her husband are as effective on the campaign trail as they were in 2008, for the simple reason that both have aged another eight years.
More importantly, perhaps, she has a far more questionable record to defend today than she did in 2008. Setting aside questions about the legality of her use of private e-mail accounts as Secretary of State, her handling of the issue has caused a serious erosion in voter’s belief in her honesty.
A Hillary victory, at this point, would require voters to elect someone they don’t trust. That is very unlikely.
Against these fundamental challenges for Hillary, Bernie Sanders is riding a campaign wave that has grown larger, faster than the one that propelled Barack Obama into the Democrat nomination.
It should be remembered that it was only after his win in Iowa that Barack Obama began attracting the size of crowds that Sanders currently draws. Sanders has amassed on-line donors and donations at a faster pace than Obama in the 2008 campaign.
It has long been assumed that Barack Obama himself represented a kind of “perfect storm” that slammed against the Clinton campaign in 2008. Most pundits attributed Obama’s strong grass-roots campaign in 2008 to his particular biography and unique rhetorical gifts.
The faster, and in some ways more successful, trajectory of the Sanders campaign suggests a more fundamental reasons for Hillary’s fall. The voters simply don’t like her. She is the frontrunner only until any other remotely credible alternative comes along.
In 2008, Hillary battled back to a narrow win in New Hampshire after losing the Iowa caucuses. She was able to contest the nomination deep into the primaries, almost up until the Democrat convention before finally conceding defeat.
This election, Hillary’s campaign may not last that long.
2350
8
by MIKE FLYNN15 Jan 2016506
[h=2]With the Iowa caucuses just two and half weeks away, Hillary Clinton suddenly finds herself in a hyper-competive race against Vermont Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
16%
.[/h]According to polling in Iowa and New Hampshire, Hillary is now a slight underdog in the first two contests of the Democrat nomination battle.
Hillary’s current campaign struggles inevitably invite comparisons with the 2008 campaign, when she was the presumptive frontrunner for the entire campaign until votes started to be cast. In one important way, though, her campaign is doing far worse today than it was in 2008.
Hillary’s national lead, and her standing in the first two voting states, is worse today than it was at a similar point in 2008.
At this point in 2008, Hillary still enjoyed a 20 point lead against her rivals for the nomination in national polls. Today, however, her lead over Socialist Sanders is just 8 points in the RealClearPolitics average of national polls.
It should be noted that Hillary’s nearly 20 point lead in 2008 at this point in time was against TWO credible rivals, Sens. Barack Obama and John Edwards. Today, Hillary’s only rival for the nomination is Sanders. Yet, she enjoys less than half the polling advantage.
Even with the vote split three ways in 2008, she enjoyed a stronger base of support in absolute terms than she does today against a single rival. In other words, Hillary today is up against an historic mathematical conundrum.
According to national polling at the time, Hillary was in a much stronger position in 2008 than she is today. Even so, within two weeks of that polling lead in 2008 she would be fighting, unsuccessfully, for her political life.
The head winds against her are far more powerful this year than they were 8 years ago as well. At an existential level, society has changed and is no longer willing to brush aside her husband’s past transgressions and allegations of sexual abuse against female subordinates. Neither she nor her husband are as effective on the campaign trail as they were in 2008, for the simple reason that both have aged another eight years.
More importantly, perhaps, she has a far more questionable record to defend today than she did in 2008. Setting aside questions about the legality of her use of private e-mail accounts as Secretary of State, her handling of the issue has caused a serious erosion in voter’s belief in her honesty.
A Hillary victory, at this point, would require voters to elect someone they don’t trust. That is very unlikely.
Against these fundamental challenges for Hillary, Bernie Sanders is riding a campaign wave that has grown larger, faster than the one that propelled Barack Obama into the Democrat nomination.
It should be remembered that it was only after his win in Iowa that Barack Obama began attracting the size of crowds that Sanders currently draws. Sanders has amassed on-line donors and donations at a faster pace than Obama in the 2008 campaign.
It has long been assumed that Barack Obama himself represented a kind of “perfect storm” that slammed against the Clinton campaign in 2008. Most pundits attributed Obama’s strong grass-roots campaign in 2008 to his particular biography and unique rhetorical gifts.
The faster, and in some ways more successful, trajectory of the Sanders campaign suggests a more fundamental reasons for Hillary’s fall. The voters simply don’t like her. She is the frontrunner only until any other remotely credible alternative comes along.
In 2008, Hillary battled back to a narrow win in New Hampshire after losing the Iowa caucuses. She was able to contest the nomination deep into the primaries, almost up until the Democrat convention before finally conceding defeat.
This election, Hillary’s campaign may not last that long.
State Department Suddenly Discovers Thousands More Clinton Documents
AP Photo/Steven Senne
by JOHN HAYWARD15 Jan 20165,251
Watchdog group Judicial Watch has been trying to squeeze Hillary Clinton’s documents out of the State Department with Freedom of Information Act requests for years. FOIA requests have a way of turning into FOIA lawsuits before any wing of the Obama Administration responds to them.
Last Friday, three years after one such suit was filed, the State Department suddenly discovered thousands of previously undisclosed Clinton documents.
“This latest find of Clinton records, at this late date, is astonishing,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton declared. “The State Department waited to last possible moment, as it did with the Clinton emails, to tell Judicial Watch and the federal courts about thousands of records that haven’t been searched, as the law requires. Who knew what – and when did they know it – about these new Clinton documents?”
Fitton also thinks the new documents include some significant information. “These newly recovered Clinton records are a potential game changer – and will be of interest to the courts, Congress, and the FBI’s criminal investigation,” he said. “It sure looks like more of the same in terms of Obama administration officials’ obstructing our FOIA requests, obstructing the courts, obstructing Congress, and obstructing justice.”
Fitton further noted that the State Department’s Inspector General recently issued a report finding that responses to information requests about Clinton’s email were “inaccurate and incomplete.”
It’s difficult to see how these inaccurate responses could have been simple mistakes, because the IG report demonstrated that many people who were demonstrably aware of Clinton’s secret private email server chose to feign ignorance.
In the case highlighted by the Inspector General, another watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington specifically asked if Clinton was using non-governmental email accounts, and even though dozens of high-ranking State officials were very well aware of her black-box server, CREW was told there were no non-gov emails to see.
That’s essentially what happened during the first stage of Judicial Watch’s pursuit of Benghazi documents, too. The State Department claimed it could find no further responsive emails, the case was closed… and then reopened after the existence of Clinton’s secret mail server was revealed.
The Judicial Watch FOIA requests pertained to “the Benghazi scandal and controversies from Clinton’s term at State.” JW has also been pursuing emails from Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The State Department made a court filing on Monday that it would begin releasing 29,000 pages of emails from Abedin, at the rate of 400 pages per month, beginning March 1 and concluding in April 2017.
In other words, the Abedin emails will come out too late to influence the Democrat primary, and most of them will be released after the 2016 election. That’s why you slow-walk FOIA requests and pretend responsive documents just randomly tumble out of closets months or years after you were supposed to produce them, folks.
In the disclosure that outraged Judicial Watch, the State Department declared it had satisfied the court order for Clinton documents in November… but then, as it explained to the court on Friday, it “located additional sources of documents that originated within the Office of the Secretary that are reasonably likely to contain records responsive to Plaintiff’s request.”
“According to information provided to Judicial Watch by various Justice Department attorneys, the new documents appear be ‘working’ records in electronic format located on both ‘shared’ and ‘individual’ drives accessible to or used by persons identified as being relevant to Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits on the Benghazi scandal and controversies from Clinton’s term at State,” said the watchdog group in its statement.
At a minimum, this is another startling demonstration of ineptitude and confusion from the mega-government that claims it can micro-manage every detail of our lives. After years of working this suit, the State Department is only now discovering that people covered by the court’s orders had a huge volume of relevant document tucked away on their personal computers? That’s not the sort of answer private entities can get away with giving government regulators.
One other interesting development in the rolling Clinton scandal: yet another watchdog group, Citizens United, filed a lawsuit this week seeking Chelsea Clinton’s correspondence with top State Department officials, including Abedin.
Chelsea Clinton is the vice chair of the controversial Clinton Foundation, whose potential links to Hillary Clinton’s activities as Secretary of State are now reportedly part of the FBI investigation. The Citizens United FOIA suit also includes other Clinton Foundation staffers and family aides. It turned into a lawsuit because the State Department dragged its heels and didn’t respond to the Citizens United FOIA request within the allotted time period.
Read More Stories About:
Big Government, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Clinton Email Scandal, Chelsea Clinton,email, Judicial Watch, Huma Abedin, Citizens United, FOIA, freedom of information act,Watchdog, crew
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
31862
98
by JOHN HAYWARD15 Jan 20165,251
Watchdog group Judicial Watch has been trying to squeeze Hillary Clinton’s documents out of the State Department with Freedom of Information Act requests for years. FOIA requests have a way of turning into FOIA lawsuits before any wing of the Obama Administration responds to them.
Last Friday, three years after one such suit was filed, the State Department suddenly discovered thousands of previously undisclosed Clinton documents.
“This latest find of Clinton records, at this late date, is astonishing,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton declared. “The State Department waited to last possible moment, as it did with the Clinton emails, to tell Judicial Watch and the federal courts about thousands of records that haven’t been searched, as the law requires. Who knew what – and when did they know it – about these new Clinton documents?”
Fitton also thinks the new documents include some significant information. “These newly recovered Clinton records are a potential game changer – and will be of interest to the courts, Congress, and the FBI’s criminal investigation,” he said. “It sure looks like more of the same in terms of Obama administration officials’ obstructing our FOIA requests, obstructing the courts, obstructing Congress, and obstructing justice.”
Fitton further noted that the State Department’s Inspector General recently issued a report finding that responses to information requests about Clinton’s email were “inaccurate and incomplete.”
It’s difficult to see how these inaccurate responses could have been simple mistakes, because the IG report demonstrated that many people who were demonstrably aware of Clinton’s secret private email server chose to feign ignorance.
In the case highlighted by the Inspector General, another watchdog group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington specifically asked if Clinton was using non-governmental email accounts, and even though dozens of high-ranking State officials were very well aware of her black-box server, CREW was told there were no non-gov emails to see.
That’s essentially what happened during the first stage of Judicial Watch’s pursuit of Benghazi documents, too. The State Department claimed it could find no further responsive emails, the case was closed… and then reopened after the existence of Clinton’s secret mail server was revealed.
The Judicial Watch FOIA requests pertained to “the Benghazi scandal and controversies from Clinton’s term at State.” JW has also been pursuing emails from Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The State Department made a court filing on Monday that it would begin releasing 29,000 pages of emails from Abedin, at the rate of 400 pages per month, beginning March 1 and concluding in April 2017.
In other words, the Abedin emails will come out too late to influence the Democrat primary, and most of them will be released after the 2016 election. That’s why you slow-walk FOIA requests and pretend responsive documents just randomly tumble out of closets months or years after you were supposed to produce them, folks.
In the disclosure that outraged Judicial Watch, the State Department declared it had satisfied the court order for Clinton documents in November… but then, as it explained to the court on Friday, it “located additional sources of documents that originated within the Office of the Secretary that are reasonably likely to contain records responsive to Plaintiff’s request.”
“According to information provided to Judicial Watch by various Justice Department attorneys, the new documents appear be ‘working’ records in electronic format located on both ‘shared’ and ‘individual’ drives accessible to or used by persons identified as being relevant to Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits on the Benghazi scandal and controversies from Clinton’s term at State,” said the watchdog group in its statement.
At a minimum, this is another startling demonstration of ineptitude and confusion from the mega-government that claims it can micro-manage every detail of our lives. After years of working this suit, the State Department is only now discovering that people covered by the court’s orders had a huge volume of relevant document tucked away on their personal computers? That’s not the sort of answer private entities can get away with giving government regulators.
One other interesting development in the rolling Clinton scandal: yet another watchdog group, Citizens United, filed a lawsuit this week seeking Chelsea Clinton’s correspondence with top State Department officials, including Abedin.
Chelsea Clinton is the vice chair of the controversial Clinton Foundation, whose potential links to Hillary Clinton’s activities as Secretary of State are now reportedly part of the FBI investigation. The Citizens United FOIA suit also includes other Clinton Foundation staffers and family aides. It turned into a lawsuit because the State Department dragged its heels and didn’t respond to the Citizens United FOIA request within the allotted time period.
Read More Stories About:
Big Government, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Clinton Email Scandal, Chelsea Clinton,email, Judicial Watch, Huma Abedin, Citizens United, FOIA, freedom of information act,Watchdog, crew
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
[h=2]Hillary Clinton Struggles to Define Her Message[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Alyssa Canobbio
January 15, 2016 9:02 am
In a phone interview on Morning Joe Friday, Hillary Clinton struggled to define what exactly her campaign message is.
Mika Brzezinski said that following the Clinton campaign has been complicated and that she had trouble understanding Clinton’s message. She added that she asked all of Clinton’s advisers and spokespeople to explain Clinton’s message and was met with diatribes but not a clear answer.
The MSNBC host then turned the same question on Clinton and asked what exactly her message is and if it was authentic.
“Well, look, I’m running because we have to build on the progress that I think we have made under President Obama and not let it get ripped away, and I have a lot of respect for my Democratic opponents, but I believe I know what it takes and I have what it takes to do the job of president and that means every part of it,” Clinton said.
“So as I just said, the economy needs to be growing—not just for people at the top. Incomes have to start rising. We have to keep our families safe and our country strong. We have to make sure that we also take on the problems that keep families up at night like caring for a loved one with Alzheimer’s or autism or addiction. You know, being able to stand up to the Republicans’ alternative universe and take it on and win.”
TWEET
BY: Alyssa Canobbio
January 15, 2016 9:02 am
In a phone interview on Morning Joe Friday, Hillary Clinton struggled to define what exactly her campaign message is.
Mika Brzezinski said that following the Clinton campaign has been complicated and that she had trouble understanding Clinton’s message. She added that she asked all of Clinton’s advisers and spokespeople to explain Clinton’s message and was met with diatribes but not a clear answer.
The MSNBC host then turned the same question on Clinton and asked what exactly her message is and if it was authentic.
“Well, look, I’m running because we have to build on the progress that I think we have made under President Obama and not let it get ripped away, and I have a lot of respect for my Democratic opponents, but I believe I know what it takes and I have what it takes to do the job of president and that means every part of it,” Clinton said.
“So as I just said, the economy needs to be growing—not just for people at the top. Incomes have to start rising. We have to keep our families safe and our country strong. We have to make sure that we also take on the problems that keep families up at night like caring for a loved one with Alzheimer’s or autism or addiction. You know, being able to stand up to the Republicans’ alternative universe and take it on and win.”
