DescentBB

Basically Hillary says she's got it all locked up and everyone else on the democrat side shouldn't even bother running:

As Hillary Clinton's campaign seeks to project dominance in a field that could soon include Vice President Joe Biden, her top advisers are touting a decisive edge on a little-discussed metric: superdelegate commitments.

At the Democratic National Committee meeting in Minneapolis, where Clinton spoke on Friday, senior Clinton campaign officials are claiming that she has already secured one-fifth of the pledges needed to win the Democratic presidential nomination. They come from current and former elected officials, committee officeholders, and other party dignitaries.

The campaign says that Clinton currently has about 130 superdelegates publicly backing her, but a person familiar with recent conversations in Minneapolis said that officials are telling supporters and the undecided in the last few days that private commitments increase that number to more than 440—about 20 percent of the number of delegates she would need to secure the nomination.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... nomination

as I said before, she has NOTHING locked up. Her backing is particularly soft. ESPECIALLY if Joe runs.

It'll be interesting to see if Clinton is actually knocked off her presumptive throne if Biden runs. It'd be great. I'm getting tired of the queen and her arrogance.

This is an intimidation play by Clinton. She knows she's vulnerable, but if she can keep Biden out of the race, she doesn't have to defend against his strengths. She won't have to pander too hard to the base, and therefore won't do as much damage to her position in the general election, if Biden stays home. She also won't have to spend nearly as much money, and can therefore save it for the general election later.

Ooooooh, the queen's in a snit. Cat fight, cat fight! Go Biden!

callmeslick wrote:

lol

Gawd, they're spittin' images.

I'll have to make that my avatar if she wins.

don't forget who provided it for you, Woody.

At the risk of going off topic, I'd just like to throw-in that Hillary Clinton doesn't have a chance. Hillary's only shot at winning is if Donald Trump runs as the Republican nominee or against the Republican nominee.

woodchip wrote:I'll have to make that my avatar if she wins.

For the love of all that is human, don't do it. I'd have to bleach my eyes every time I gazed upon your avatar. Your Joker is bad enough. Why don't you change it to something we can all remember with a positive note?

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:I'll have to make that my avatar if she wins.

For the love of all that is human, don't do it. I'd have to bleach my eyes every time I gazed upon your avatar. Your Joker is bad enough. Why don't you change it to something we can all remember with a positive note?

will do...just vote Republican next election

Isaac wrote:At the risk of going off topic, I'd just like to throw-in that Hillary Clinton doesn't have a chance. Hillary's only shot at winning is if Donald Trump runs as the Republican nominee or against the Republican nominee.

Given a choice between trump and Hillary, any sane person would choose Trump.

Isaac wrote:At the risk of going off topic, I'd just like to throw-in that Hillary Clinton doesn't have a chance. Hillary's only shot at winning is if Donald Trump runs as the Republican nominee or against the Republican nominee.

then, how come she's ahead of every GOP candidate in head-to-heads? Hell, toss out the notoriously inaccurate Fox polling, and she beats them by 6-12 percent, which would be a landslide. Plus, she is sitting on a ton of PAC money and has been through the most testing attacks she's likely to see already. I am NOT a Hillary fan, but you are naive if you believe what you wrote above.

What Hillary would have to be concerned about is:

1) Trump is only 6 points behind Hillary

2) And Trump is gaining the non white vote...which has traditionally been the playground of the Dems

The opposite happened. Trump’s position among non-white voters improved, substantially, when you look at how he fared in a head-to-head match-up with Hillary Clinton. In a CNN/ORC poll conducted in late June, Clinton led Trump by 67 points among non-white voters. By the end of July, she led by 56 points. By mid-August, 49.

So in a couple of months time Hillary has lost 20 point of the non-white vote to Trump. She loses much more and Trump is a shoo in if Hillary Clinton is the Dems nominee.

woodchip wrote:What Hillary would have to be concerned about is:

1) Trump is only 6 points behind Hillary

not in most polls. The RealClear average was higher than that by a bit, last I looked, and that includes the Fox Poll which skews the totals.

2) And Trump is gaining the non white vote...which has traditionally been the playground of the Dems]/quote]
are you smoking weed? Trump is a -61 favorable among Latinos, and -25 among blacks and Asians. Completely unwinnable numbers, even if he cuts them in half.

easy with the personal shots, slick.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:What Hillary would have to be concerned about is:

1) Trump is only 6 points behind Hillary

not in most polls. The RealClear average was higher than that by a bit, last I looked, and that includes the Fox Poll which skews the totals.

2) And Trump is gaining the non white vote...which has traditionally been the playground of the Dems]/quote]
are you smoking weed? Trump is a -61 favorable among Latinos, and -25 among blacks and Asians. Completely unwinnable numbers, even if he cuts them in half.

Slick, while I know you feel the need to defend your party, the point here is Trump is closing the gap with Hillary. Let me know when it goes the other way. And while the latino/black voters were low earlier, as of now it appears in the CNN poll (which is not exactly friendly to the GOP) that Trump will get more of the latino/black votes than Hillary will. I suggest you link a recent poll instead of mouthing 2 month old data.

not willing to cede Hillary the nomination, but if it EVER comes to her v Trump, I will gladly wager, publicly, that she outperforms Trump in every minority group: Asian, Black and Hispanic.

I notice you did not say that she would win the election

woodchip wrote:I notice you did not say that she would win the election

don't wish to consider that, frankly. However, whoever can carry 60% of the Hispanic vote, 80% of the black vote and about 2/3 of the Asian vote is going to win the election in 2016, unless all of them are unmotivated. The GOP is, thus far, doing a bang-up job of GETTING them motivated.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:I'll have to make that my avatar if she wins.

For the love of all that is human, don't do it. I'd have to bleach my eyes every time I gazed upon your avatar. Your Joker is bad enough. Why don't you change it to something we can all remember with a positive note?

will do...just vote Republican next election

I'd just as soon throw up first.

However, I may not have to worry about any Republican winning in 2016 at all and you may have to change your avatar to yet another liberal insulting character.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/13271435 ... model.html

Moody's has been right for every election since 1980.

Uh, oh. The kiss of death. Cheney wants Biden to run.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/c ... den-213179

callmeslick wrote:Moody's has been right for every election since 1980.

Yes, but not every prediction during the leadup to every election. They revise the predictions every month, and it's their last prediction that's consistently called the race for D or R correctly.

There are definitely some signs pointing toward a narrow win for the incumbent party (things like low gas prices), but there's a lot of time for the situation to change on the ground. Either party could run a terrible candidate, the economy could crater or rebound, we could be three days before the election and there could be a major terrorist attack or school shooting that makes one candidate or the other look like a fool. It's a little premature to call it, even based on Moody's projections.

We'll see in 2016. Things are constantly fluid in every election. Ben Carson is now even with Trump in the Iowa polls and Sanders has almost caught up with Clinton as well.

Very interesting, what are the main criteria you give your vote for different candidates? On the basis of what formed your opinion, sympathy or antipathy for the candidates? Based on the opinions of rating agencies? But the list of ratings of any of the major Rating Agency no criteria "Unsavory reputation" or "Compromising the facts" or "Shadow activity", for example. In the US, there are online resources at all with public access, which posted the incriminating facts about the major politicians, businessmen, judges, etc.? (Excluding the central media and tabloid press, of course.)

the rating agency merely looks at the ECONOMIC indicators, and then uses algorithms that reflect that, in most every cycle, economics drives outcome of elections,despite all other side issues.

Trump has excellent economic indicators, and yet I believe that it will not be the President of the United States. He spit on the right and left, the Democrats, Liberals and Republicans He is too independent.
If I understand correctly, the Americans can't see the skeletons in the closet of famous people, and even more candidates for the post of head of state.

sigma, you misunderstand. The model doesn't care who the candidates are at all. It has nothing to do with Trump's personal "economic indicators" or Hillary's policies.

Instead, it's this concept: the party currently in power tends to stay in power when the economy is healthy, and gets voted out of power when the economy is unhealthy. And right now, they're projecting the economy to be juuuuust the slightest bit above the dividing line, such that the Democratic candidate is likely to win several swing states by narrow margins, no matter who that candidate is or who they're running against.

sigma wrote:Trump has excellent economic indicators, and yet I believe that it will not be the President of the United States. He spit on the right and left, the Democrats, Liberals and Republicans He is too independent.
If I understand correctly, the Americans can't see the skeletons in the closet of famous people, and even more candidates for the post of head of state.

The fact that Trump and Carson are independents and have never held political office is a big plus for both men among conservatives. On the liberal side, Bernie Sanders is appealing to voters because he tends to be a very independent maverick, honest, and a contrarian, even though he's still an elected official. Voters from both parties right now are taking a dislike to the usual pick of political candidates who have connections or have already held office in Washington DC. Our system has become infested with long term, out of touch political sycophants and being a political insider is not a good trait to have if a candidate wants to get votes this next election.

true, TC, all of it. Yet, when the dust settles in November 2016, wanna bet we have a long-term political pro winning the whole thing. It's like how the GOP tends to talk up 'maverick' candidates and then goes and picks Mitt Romney or some such. Dems are little different.

This time, I wouldn't bet on it. Too many people are sick and tired of the long-term political pros. Speaking of has-been independents, when I was out today, I got behind a car with this bumper sticker plastered on the back window (blocking his view out the rear window like a true conservative ). Explain to me now why "Romney was Right"?

http://www.mediaite.com/online/think-ro ... r-for-you/

Before some of you think people like Hillary have a chance, let me throw out a word that will be bandied about more and more. That word is "Anti-establishment" as in anti-establishment voters. There is a vast disillusionment with the same old same old politicians. Come a year from now I suspect the front runners on the GOP side will be anti-establishment candidates. Unfortunately the Dems have no such candidates and will meet defeat because of it.

woodchip wrote:Before some of you think people like Hillary have a chance, let me throw out a word that will be bandied about more and more. That word is "Anti-establishment" as in anti-establishment voters. There is a vast disillusionment with the same old same old politicians. Come a year from now I suspect the front runners on the GOP side will be anti-establishment candidates. Unfortunately the Dems have no such candidates and will meet defeat because of it.

you are older than I am, Woody(I'm sort of reading between lines here, but I'd guess by about 8 years or so), and you know we've heard this before. Also, please realize that Bernie Sanders is, in a very real way the most to the core anti-establishment candidate out there. He might well prevail for the Dems, for many of the reasons you cite. The issue is the fact that GOP leaning and Dem leaning 'anti-establishment' voters have very different goals and foci, and given economic and other factors, I think the Sanders type of revolt is going to sway FAR more people than the Trump-type or the Fiorina type. They are both too typically negative thinking towards too many groups(immigrants, the poor, etc) and still far too much in the pockets of the real economic villians out there. Now, Carson puts forth some FAR more positive rhetoric, but I've seen little to show that he has the depth of thinking about foreign affairs, economic nuts and bolts or much outside the realm of his expertise to do the job effectively.
Anyhow, to return to my initial point, we've seen this before, and every time, when the dust settles, the establishment holds on. That was why I suggested as much to TC.

once again, Borowitz sort of nails the irony:
"After ridiculing Obama for being a one-term senator, it's cool to see the GOP coalescing around candidates with zero government experience whatsoever."