2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

oik wrote: »

No, but it's a neat get out clause for avoiding any direct criticism of Obama or Bill because they're not running. They're referred to as "Mr. President" and both have a working relationship with the "Madame President" so to deny their continuing influence on the White House after this election is idiotic.

Tim Kaine is an Obama loyalist fyi and Michelle Obama has been instrumental in helping Hillary get elected. Loretta Lynch is owed by Hillary big time and she is an Obama loyalist. Obama's influence will continue after he leaves office if Clinton is elected so scrutiny of him is very relevant to Clinton.

No one is suggesting that Clinton and Obama are the same person, but that's the standard that some people here try to uphold before we can mention them in the same sentence and it's either ignorant or disingenuous.

What's idiotic is to imagine that calling previous presidents "Mr. President" has any bearing on who actually will be running the presidency. The party supports it's candidate (unless you're Trump, and antagonise that party beyond the line); that's the norm, and most people realise that different administrations have different priorities, policies, and motivations. Attempting to paint Hillary with the record of either Obama, or Bill, just makes no sense - she's a different candidate.

Re: collective cabinet responsibility - no one is pretending that May wasn't beholden to that, but that doesn't imply that she is therefore beholden to her predecessor's policies.

oik wrote: »

When her husband is a former president who is more popular, smarter and a better politician than her it's reasonable to assume that he will wield considerable influence within the White House. If you deny this then you don't really understand how power works and you probably believe he spoke to the AG on a plane for 30 minutes about their grandkids.

When her VP is a loyalist to her predecessor who was more than likely installed by him to ensure some measure of continuity of the policy and legacy of the former president in return for the campaigning efforts of him and his wife on your behalf, it's reasonable to assume that there will be a continuation of policies already in place, even if some of them go against her own wishes. She made a deal.

The job isn't a popularity contest. You could put Daniel O'Donnell in the Whitehouse with Hillary, and she would still be the one in charge. I think it's you who doesn't understand how power works. Your VP stuff is probably better off in the CT forum.

To answer your last question - it's you.

osmiumartist wrote: »

Nonsense. He's saying people interpret things they way they do because they're biased from the off. While making no case that that isn't what he's doing himself by coming to that conclusion.
Dress it up if you like. Still transparent. Hard luck.

He made a straightforward case for basic comprehension of the comment - and the need for abandoning basic comprehension to misinterpret the comment. Perhaps you missed it?

The timing of the FBI investigations are surely odd. It could be seen as an attempt to change the election outcome. Since she is not going anywhere, surely such an investigation could wait until after the election?

Count Dooku wrote: »

Who the hell would be "more likely" to vote for her after this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/30/post-abc-poll-finds-tight-presidential-race-with-mixed-reaction-to-fbis-review-of-clinton-e-mails/

People who think it's a ploy

An ABC poll that at one stage has Clinton 12% ahead of Trump, now have Clinton 1% ahead.
A NYT poll has Trump 4% ahead in Florida.
While another poll gives Clinton a commanding lead in North Carolina.

On CNN a few days ago, they asked if people were telling the truth to pollsters.
They had some expert or so called expert who said he analysed the polls and then online polls and came to the conclusion that Trump has a small silent vote of 1%.

On another program they used artificial intelligence to predict the result, and the result was a Trump victory.
Then an analysis of the stock market: it was found that in the 3 months before the presidential election that if the stock market was up, then the incumbent party won, if down the opposition won.
Currently the main indexes on the US stock markets are down 1% for the three months which indicate a Trump victory.

At the moment one would say Clinton will win, but momentum seems to be with Trump and the question is - has Clinton built up a big enough firewall with early voting given recent events and even the change in the polls before the latest FBI probe?

K-9 wrote: »

But what is there in the latest news to change minds on the emails anyway?

Nobody has a clue about what is actually in them.

It just says, will we have 4 years of controversies with Clinton, like all the controversies that the Bill Clinton presidency suffered from.
Then Hillary did a press conference which only had three questions asked before she left it - the latest controversy just highlights a problem that Clinton has been doing worse than Trump in when it comes to trsut and honesty in polls.
When someone's actions when they were in power has been questioned and presumed over, then the Clinton campaign were all praise for Comey when it suited (Trump all complaints when it didn't) and now that unknown emails on her closest aides and her estranged husband Anthony Weiner's laptop is involved, and that are pertinent to the case...now all attack on Comey from Clinton or her people.
At the very least, after all the destroyed and missing devices, the lies and after all devices were suppose to have been handed over to the FBI.
It just adds to the trust and honesty problems that Hillary Clinton is suffering from.
We saw why she didn't want to release the Goldman Sachs private speeches as they just added to the 'say one thing to the public, another in private'.
Some polls say that anything up to 13% of people don't know who to vote for, I say many will not vote, but the latest events do not push people towards Clinton.

Overheal wrote: »

the 538 model still has her winning with 79% odds; 77% polls plus.

The MSM is in the business of making the race seem tighter than it is because it keeps viewers watching which keeps sponsors buying ads.still I suppose "artificial intelligence" isn't as bad as 2008 when wolf blitzer ripped off Star Wars with the CNN "holographic interviews" oh and their "magic wall" - just a big touch screen tv. Wow. Popcorn please

That's still a 10% gain for Trump since the letter was released on Friday and even they are admitting they won't get a full picture until mid-week. Clinton will most likely still win with the support she has but the undecided won't move to her now, she is tainted.

Also, love how she asked the FBI to release the information they have, how does she not understand an agency is not going to release details of an ongoing investigation to anyone?