Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

Think I'd prefer to look around and try to establish from other sources.

As the video stated Hillary is being funded and supported by every corrupt institution in the world.

And let it be known the UK govt etc are in on it to.

This ad is good.

like a advert for a blockbuster movie,which no doubt in time it will become.

Originally Posted by Chico

Think I'd prefer to look around and try to establish from other sources.

If that's what you'd prefer then why do you so often post unsubstantiated nonsense as 'fact'.

Nate Silver. He's worth a read.


NOV 3, 2016

Election Update: Why Clinton’s Position Is Worse Than Obama’s
By Nate Silver

There’s been a potential breach of Hillary Clinton’s electoral firewall. And it’s come in New Hampshire, a state that we said a couple of weeks ago could be a good indicator of a Donald Trump comeback because of its large number of swing voters. Three new polls of New Hampshire released today showed a tied race, Trump ahead by 1 percentage point and Trump up by 5. There are some qualifications here: The poll showing Trump with a 5-point lead is from American Research Group, a pollster that’s had its issues over the years. And other recent polls of New Hampshire still show a Clinton ahead. But the race has clearly tightened in New Hampshire, with Clinton leading by only 2 to 3 percentage points in our forecast.

If Clinton lost New Hampshire but won her other firewall states, each candidate would finish with 269 electoral votes, taking the election to the House of Representatives. Or maybe not — if Clinton also lost the 2nd Congressional District of Maine, where polls show a tight race and where the demographics are unfavorable to her, Trump would win the Electoral College 270-268, probably despite losing the popular vote.

Couldn’t Clinton win Nevada to make up for the loss of New Hampshire? Or Florida? Or North Carolina? Well… of course she could. All those states remain highly competitive. The point, as we’ve said before, is just that Clinton’s so-called firewall is not very robust. If you’re only ahead in exactly enough states to win the Electoral College, and you’d lose if any one of them gets away, that’s less of a firewall and more of a rusting, chain-link fence.

To illustrate this, let’s compare Clinton’s current position in our polls-plus forecast1 — which gives her a 65 percent chance of winning the Electoral College — to FiveThirtyEight’s final election forecast in 2012, which gave President Obama a 91 percent chance. How could the model be so much more confident in Obama’s chances than in Clinton’s, even though we projected he’d win by 2.5 percentage points nationally and she’s ahead by 2.8? Part of it is because there are far more undecided and third-party voters this year, which could lead to a last-minute swing, or a polling error, and makes the model more cautious.2 But Obama’s and Clinton’s chances of winning the popular vote are relatively similar in our forecasts (76 percent for Clinton now, 86 percent for Obama then) despite that. The difference comes mostly in the Electoral College.

In the table below, I’ve run a head-to-head comparison showing how many electoral votes each candidate was projected to have at various margins of victory or defeat. For instance, Obama had a lead in states (and congressional districts) totalling 332 electoral votes in our final 2012 forecast. Clinton leads in states totalling only 272 electoral votes, just two more than the minimum she needs to win the Electoral College. This comparison is slightly unfair to Clinton because we have her down by just a fraction of a percentage point in Nevada, North Carolina and Florida — whereas Obama was ahead by just a fraction of a point in Florida — but you can see how Obama’s position was more secure. For instance, he had 303 electoral votes in states where he led by 2 percentage points or more in our final forecast, whereas Clinton has 272.

CLINTON 2016 OBAMA 2012
FOR STATES WHERE DEM. MARGIN IS … TOTAL ELECT. VOTES STATES CLINTON HAS THAT OBAMA DIDN’T TOTAL ELECT. VOTES STATES OBAMA HAD THAT CLINTON DOESN’T
>= -10 points 387 AK SC 399 IN MO MT
>= -9 387 AK SC 399 IN MO MT
>= -8 378 AK GA 362 MT
>= -7 375 GA 359
>= -6 375 AZ GA 348
>= -5 359 AZ 348
>= -4 359 AZ N2 347
>= -3 341 347 IA
>= -2 323 347 IA OH
>= -1 323 NC 332 IA OH
>=_ 0 272 332 FL IA M2 NV OH
>= +1 272 303 IA M2 NV OH
>= +2 272 303 IA M2 NV OH
>= +3 268 CO VA 281 IA M2 NV NH OH
>= +4 239 VA 253 M2 NV PA
>= +5 190 247 M2 MI MN PA WI
>= +6 185 217 M2 MI MN NM
>= +7 183 216 ME MI MN NM
>= +8 183 200 ME MN NM
>= +9 176 190 ME NM OR
>= +10 176 178 ME
Obama’s position in the Electoral College was more secure
M2 = Maine’s 2nd Congressional Distict
N2 = Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District

SOURCE: FIVETHIRTYEIGHT’S POLLS-PLUS FORECAST

The differences stem from states with substantial numbers of white voters without college degrees — in particular Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and that 2nd district in Maine. (Granted, Nevada is more diverse than the other states — and it also has a history of bad polling — so I’d be careful there.) Imagine if Clinton were 3 or 4 percentage points ahead in Ohio and Iowa instead of 3 or 4 points behind, and that she were ahead by 5 or 6 points in Nevada instead of tied there. That would make for a much more robust map: losing New Hampshire would not be a problem, for instance, and she could even afford to lose Pennsylvania. Speaking of Pennsylvania, Clinton’s polling lead is narrower there than Obama’s was. It’s also much narrower in Michigan, a state that was barely even a swing state in 2012 but presents a risk to Clinton this year.

What does Clinton get in exchange? She’s polling a little better than Obama was in the highly-educated swing states of Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado. But it’s only a little bit better — not a lot better — because African-American turnout for Clinton may be lower than it was for Obama in North Carolina and Virginia, and because third-party candidates may be eating into her margin in Colorado. She also has a much better chance of winning Arizona or Georgia than Obama did. But neither Arizona or Georgia are all that close to the electoral tipping point, and Clinton will probably win them only if she’s having a strong night overall and winning all the other swing states too.

Instead, many of Clinton’s gains relative to Obama come in states that aren’t competitive at all. Clinton’s margin in our California forecast is bigger than Obama’s was four years ago, for instance. She’s polling better than him in super-well-educated Maryland and Massachusetts. And then there are her gains in red states. While Clinton’s now very unlikely to win Texas, with Trump having recovered there in recent polls, she’s still likely to make the state a lot closer than Obama did. The same goes for Utah, Alaska and South Carolina. Those could make for some extremely blue maps if Clinton were (unexpectedly at this point) to win in a landslide. But if she’s trading voters in Ohio and Iowa for those in Texas and Maryland, she’s not getting the better side of the deal.

Election Update: Why Clinton?s Position Is Worse Than Obama?s | FiveThirtyEight

unsubstantiated to the brain washed, though as when working against the establishment takes time and patience.

Originally Posted by Chico

unsubstantiated to the brain washed, though as when working against the establishment takes time and patience

You wanna know what's ironic? It's that all those who profess to have insight and freedom of thought that the 'sheeple' lack spout the same rote and trite party-lines.

And also they're almost uniformly very poor at spelling and grammar for some - possibly related - reason.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Chico

unsubstantiated to the brain washed, though as when working against the establishment takes time and patience

You wanna know what's ironic? It's that all those who profess to have insight and freedom of thought that the 'sheeple' lack spout the same rote and trite party-lines.

And also they're almost uniformly very poor at spelling and grammar for some - possibly related - reason.

Carry on Whack job.

Edited:

You wanna know what's ironic? It's that all those who profess to have insight and freedom of thought that the 'sheeple' lack spout the same rote and trite party-lines.

And also they're almost uniformly very poor at spelling and grammar for some - possibly related - reason and possessed of wit as sharp as a bit of codfish.

FBI agents sought Clinton Foundation probe during February Justice Department meeting

WASHINGTON – FBI agents seeking an investigation into the Clinton Foundation made a presentation to Justice Department lawyers in February about the allegations they want to pursue, but public corruption prosecutors did not want to partner with them based on concerns about the strength of the information they received, two people familiar with the matter said Thursday.

The meeting at the Justice Department took place in February and reflected the conflicting views of prosecutors and investigators, according to two individuals who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations within the government.

Though agents believed they had grounds to investigate the foundation, Justice Department lawyers were far more skeptical. During the meeting, the lawyers did not direct the FBI to stop looking into the matter, but public corruption prosecutors in Washington expressed disinterest in working with the FBI on a Clinton Foundation-related investigation based on the information that was presented to them at the briefing, the people said.

It’s unclear whether FBI agents have continued to look into the Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit corporation that raises funds from private, corporate and some government donors for international projects to reduce poverty, improve health and other global needs. Critics have also accused the Clinton family of using the foundation to enrich themselves and give donors special access to the State Department when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

But the Justice Department’s public integrity section has not changed its stance on the matter since the briefing earlier this year, according to one of the people who spoke to AP.

The FBI reportedly also has looked into aides of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, including business ties in Ukraine of Paul Manafort, who resigned in August as Trump’s campaign chairman following revelations that his firm had orchestrated a secret Ukrainian lobbying campaign in Washington. The New York Times reported this week that the FBI examined possible connections between the Trump campaign and the Russians, but had found nothing direct.

The February meeting about the Clinton Foundation followed the publication of “Clinton Cash,” a book by Republican political consultant Peter Schweizer that alleges foreign governments that donated to the foundation received favors at the State Department during Clinton’s tenure as secretary. The State Department has not found any ethics violations related to the foundation while she ran the department, and Clinton campaign aides have cast Schweizer as a Republican operative working to defeat her.

It couldn’t immediately be learned what specific allegations had attracted the attention of the FBI.

Long-standing Justice Department protocol discourages investigative actions in the run-up to an election that could be seen as affecting the electoral process. That’s why Justice Department officials disagreed with the decision by FBI Director James Comey to alert Congress last week to the discovery of new emails that he said might be connected to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. That investigation ended in July without charges.

The latest emails were discovered during the FBI’s sexting investigation of former Rep. Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide. The FBI has obtained a warrant to begin the process of going through the newly found emails to see whether they were classified.

Comey has said he felt obligated to notify Congress in order to keep the public informed and because he had previously told lawmakers that the investigation had been completed.

An FBI spokeswoman declined to discuss the Clinton Foundation discussions or any possible Trump-related investigation.

FBI agents sought Clinton Foundation probe during February Justice Department meeting | The Japan Times

I ... voted ... for ... Hillary ...

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

New reports say 99percent chance her server was hacked by foreign governments.

BS!

No BS!

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

New reports say 99percent chance her server was hacked by foreign governments.

BS!

No BS!

Another right wing fantasy with "unknown sources".

Seems like 4 days is more than enough time...for Hillary to be shamed out of a victory. Nobody else to blame, but herself.

Don't shoot the messenger, folks. Just watch, as Trump starts taking big bites out of States that Hillary was all set up for.

Congrats to the Republicans are actually not in order. Most were naysayers. The Republican Win came from the most unlikely contributor of all....Hillary herself.

Done it to herself...tossed her chances completely, by her own misdeeds.

And now the newspapers, clinton should step aside.

^Ha ha ha. Performance art. What silly wankers those right wing nuts are.


Performance artist Marina Abramović has become an unlikely source of fear for rightwing groups after her name was mentioned in the Podesta emails.


In a leaked email between Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, and his brother Tony Podesta, an invitation from Abramović is forwarded. It reads: “I am so looking forward to the Spirit Cooking dinner at my place. Do you think you will be able to let me know if your brother is joining?”

more https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...sm-accusations

^The convergance of ignorance, lies and malevolence. Longway.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

New reports say 99percent chance her server was hacked by foreign governments.

BS!

No BS!

Another right wing fantasy with "unknown sources".

Report: Clinton’s private server was likely hacked by at least 5 foreign intel agencies
By World Tribune on November 3, 2016
by WorldTribune Staff, November 3, 2016

Among the avalanche of new and damning evidence in the Hillary Clinton email scandal comes the news that the former secretary of state’s private email server was almost certainly hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies.

There was a “99 percent accuracy that it (private server) had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that things had been taken from that,” Brett Baier reported for Fox News on Nov. 2, citing authoritative sourcces.

Hillary Clinton has said her private email server was never hacked.
Hillary Clinton has said her private email server was never hacked.
Clinton has maintained her email server was never hacked.

Newly released documents obtained by Judicial Watch also detail at least a dozen other incidences in which hackers attempted to breach Clinton’s private server.

The hacking attempts are detailed by Clinton aide Bryan Pagliano, who set up the server, and Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. The attempts occurred between Nov. 27 and 29 of 2010.

During congressional testimony in September, Cooper said he never held a security clearance while managing the server that contained classified information. Despite being granted immunity in the FBI’s criminal probe of the server, Pagliano refused to testify about the server.

In total, there were more than 50 hacking attempts on Clinton’s private server, many from foreign sources, according to an incident report produced by the company that managed the system.

Meanwhile, Baier reported for Fox News on new revelations that the Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than has been reported:

the laptops of Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them;
agents have found emails believed to have originated on Clinton’s server on Anthony Weiner’s laptop that are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature; and
an indictment is “likely” in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation.
Transcript from Baier’s report on Nov. 2:

“Breaking news tonight – two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations into the Clinton emails and the Clinton Foundation tell Fox the following:

The investigation looking into possible pay-for-play interaction between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Foundation has been going on for more than a year. Led by the white collar crime division, public corruption branch of the criminal investigative division of the FBI.

The Clinton Foundation investigation is a, quote, ‘very high priority.’ Agents have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple people about the Foundation case, and even before the WikiLeaks dumps, agents say they have collected a great deal of evidence. Pressed on that, one sources said, quote, ‘a lot of it,’ and ‘there is an avalanche of new information coming every day.’ “

Sources: High chance Clinton server was breached | Fox News

^That report was retracted because it was a lie you moron.

Meanwhile Hollywood is having a hissy fit, red nosed Robert de Niro wont pose with Arny!
De Niro Refuses Photo with Schwarzenegger Over Election Politics | Variety

Robert De Niro made crystal clear which candidate he supports this presidential election at the VIP cocktail reception for the annual Friends of the Israel Defense Forces Western Regional Gala held Thursday at the Beverly Hilton. The event was chaired by producing giant and FIDF national board member Haim Saban and his wife, Cheryl.

“If you’re supporting Trump, I want nothing to do with you,” said De Niro, after refusing to pose for a photograph with Arnold Schwarzenegger. (Press did manage to snap a few shots before the kerfuffle.)

Hollywood heads are exploding as Trump unleashes his secret weapon: the truth about Hillary!

^^^Fox News anchor apologizes for false report of 'likely' Clinton indictment

Fox News anchor Bret Baier apologized on air Friday for his report that Hillary Clinton faces a "likely" indictment as the result of a federal investigation into the Clinton Foundation and for his report that Clinton's private email server had been hacked by five foreign intelligence agencies.



Fox News anchor apologizes for false report of 'likely' Clinton indictment