Some Democrats fear Clinton's message is failing

[sgtsabai]

After reading through the Vox article, it doesn't look so bad for the middle class. The author assumed certain taxes would be passed on to employees etc. Too many assumptions there. Basically, payroll taxes are deferred wages that are paid later, comprende' ese'? That boat about passed on in lower wages is a boat that doesn't float. Oh, and most people in that lower wage category don't pay income tax, although they do pay more than their fair share in other taxes, unlike the rich and corporations. Damn right they should pay the same Social Security rate as all of us did or do. I too have no problem making the tax rate for the super rich at 90% and taxing the hell out of Wall Street and their criminals. Big corporations and the rich have not paid their fair share in many, many years therefore the US doesn't have a deficit problem (phony one at that) but a revenue problem. Bernie is on the right track, and yes, some more numbers need to be crunched, but he is the only one standing up for the middle/working class and against the real rulers of our country, the rich. There won't be anymore cabinet positions or Fed positions like Obama (Wall Street criminal/banksters tool) had. If elected will he be able to get much done? I doubt it, the Republicans will meet just like they did before Obama took office and swear an oath to block anything and everything he does, unless enough Democrats turn out to vote and upset the gerrymandered districts, voter suppression and screwed up computers (all owned by Republican corporations or their lackeys). Possible, but it won't happen for Hillary. The US might survive a Hillary president, maybe, possibly, iffy, but a Republican president, say bye bye and hello banana republic (already well on the way).

[Jingthing]

A little gossip for the Feel the Bernies.

Word is Michael Bloomberg is now seriously considering running for president as an INDEPENDENT if Sanders beats Clinton.

His polling shows he has a chance in Bloomberg / Sanders / Cruz or Trump race. But not if it's Clinton.

If it is Bloomberg vs. Trump vs. Sanders that will be major league political entertainment.

Edited January 23, 2016 by Jingthing

[mopar71]

Donors to HR Clinton include Emily's List, LGBT Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood and other groups ...

So Planned Parenthood was telling the truth? All those tax dollars they receive don't just go to abortions.

[mopar71]

Btw - just what exactly is Clinton's message (this week)? She seems to change her position based on the poll of the week as opposed to holding any deeply held beliefs. I guess it worked pretty well for her husband.

At least Bernie has been consistent for decades. I may not agree with his ideas, but I give the guy credit for actually believing them himself. Him and Rand Paul are probably the only two running who actually believe in something.

[sgtsabai]

This on Bloomberg: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-handoff Yes, PP was/is telling the truth. By law, a stupid right wingnut religious law, no federal money can be spent for an abortion. Not even for women raped. Repeal the Hyde Ammendment.

[Publicus]

Donors to HR Clinton include Emily's List, LGBT Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood and other groups ...

So Planned Parenthood was telling the truth? All those tax dollars they receive don't just go to abortions.

Planned Parenthood PAC, Planned Parenthood Votes, are among the separate organisations that are allowed in law to make political contributions.

By law, the operational, medical clinics of Planned Parenthood cannot spend money in politics. But separate entities that are affiliated with Planned Parenthood can, and they spent millions just in the 2014 election cycle to elect Democrats.

http://www.myajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/lawmaker-correct-about-political-contributions-of-/nnx7F/

No question about it. Planned Parenthood supports HR Clinton and so do the legally authorised groups that support PP.

Bernie had to backtrack on criticism that the PP endorsement of HR Clinton was an "establishment" endorsement. Well financed rightwhinge candidates and their big bags moneymen don't like it for different reasons, for sure. Facts and figures.

[sgtsabai]

Like many "establishment" endorsements, PP's more than likely do not represent the people in the organization, just the executive board. Unions are having the same problem. Where the members have a say, Bernie gets the endorsement, where the sell out executives have the say Hillary does. Hillary is a loser, neocon/neoliberal, yes I realize many of the readers here don't have a clue as to what that entails, that can loose to the top runners of the clown bus batshit crazy so-called candidates for the Republican nomination. Hillary and her corporate Democrats have ruined the the Democratic party, same with Bill and his "triangulation". Ahem, can you say Glass-Steagall which Hillary still says the repeal was right?

[sgtsabai]

A little history of Hillary and unions. Somehow I doubt many of the PP workers feel much different. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15490

[sirineou]

A little history of Hillary and unions. Somehow I doubt many of the PP workers feel much different. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15490

Unions made a calculated decision, they mistakenly assumed that Hillary would win the nomination , and wanted a seat at the table.

I blame Clinton and NAFTA for the beginning of the end of unions in the US I only hope they hung on long enough for me to collect my pension.

As a member of two trade unions I will tell you this , they are all now in damage control mode.

[NeverSure]

What some conservatives don't understand is that there are two sides to the Capitalist coin.

Production and consumption. In order that Capitalists profit through production there needs to be a healthy Consumer base.

Individual Capitalists even if they believe the above theory, cant react because such reaction in order to be successful needs to be uniform.so that all Capitalists are uniformly competitive.

That's where government comes in. Redistribution of some of the wealth only primes the economic engine. and makes business more profitable.

Arguments against above theory????

Governments don't "redistribute" wealth where it will do some good for the economy. Instead they waste it on pork, and vanity projects.

MPs should remember that government does not create a single real job, and employing even more public service bureaucrats is a drag on the economy. They should be doing whatever they can to free up capital to provide work and real jobs, not inventing ever more regulations to strangle enterprise.

even when they "waste it on pork" in what country's economy do you think they "waste" it in?

as to the argument that the "government does not create a single job" it is a red herring argument. Who ever said that government does?

I think you misunderstood the above theory,Government creates the environment that enables business to create jobs. Jobs create Consumers, consumers buy products, Business produces products, makes profits, and creates jobs, Jobs create consumers...............

Such a nice description of Trickle Down Economics. Where DID you come up with such an idea?

[NeverSure]

A little history of Hillary and unions. Somehow I doubt many of the PP workers feel much different. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15490

Unions made a calculated decision, they mistakenly assumed that Hillary would win the nomination , and wanted a seat at the table.

I blame Clinton and NAFTA for the beginning of the end of unions in the US I only hope they hung on long enough for me to collect my pension.

As a member of two trade unions I will tell you this , they are all now in damage control mode.

Many Dems seem to miss the point that Trump's anti-China and anti-jobs-exporting can resonate with unions who have long supported the very Dems who helped give their jobs away. Trump might be the first Repub in a long time to make inroads into the union vote. The Dems sure haven't done anything for them despite decades of loyal support. Trump of course is promoting himself as "The best job creator the US has ever seen".

I will be here to read what the experts here against Trump have to say on the morning they wake up to face the new President Trump.

@JingThing. Good buddy, the correct term for Hillary's inability to motivate is that "she has the personality of a bale of hay", just as I've been saying from the beginning. Next time I'm in Thailand I'll buy you a beer.

Cheers.

Edited January 23, 2016 by NeverSure

[sirineou]

What some conservatives don't understand is that there are two sides to the Capitalist coin.

Production and consumption. In order that Capitalists profit through production there needs to be a healthy Consumer base.

Individual Capitalists even if they believe the above theory, cant react because such reaction in order to be successful needs to be uniform.so that all Capitalists are uniformly competitive.

That's where government comes in. Redistribution of some of the wealth only primes the economic engine. and makes business more profitable.

Arguments against above theory????

Governments don't "redistribute" wealth where it will do some good for the economy. Instead they waste it on pork, and vanity projects.

MPs should remember that government does not create a single real job, and employing even more public service bureaucrats is a drag on the economy. They should be doing whatever they can to free up capital to provide work and real jobs, not inventing ever more regulations to strangle enterprise.

even when they "waste it on pork" in what country's economy do you think they "waste" it in?

as to the argument that the "government does not create a single job" it is a red herring argument. Who ever said that government does?

I think you misunderstood the above theory,Government creates the environment that enables business to create jobs. Jobs create Consumers, consumers buy products, Business produces products, makes profits, and creates jobs, Jobs create consumers...............

Such a nice description of Trickle Down Economics. Where DID you come up with such an idea?

"Trickle down economics is a term used to describe the belief that if high income earners gain an increase in salary, then everyone in the economy will benefit as their increased income and wealth filter through to all sections in society."

Which is what we have now,

What i described is neither trickle down or trickle up, is the natural symbiotic existence of the production. consumption cycle .

Disrupt either part and the system falls apart. What we have in the world is exactly that, the consumption part of the cycle has being interrupted. It is the failure of Trickle down economics. Money invested in high earners can residual be invested in other countries, as we all k now, money invested in the country by what you and others call socialism, stays in the country.even if it is invested badly, it still stays in the country and joins the multiplier affect.

[sirineou]

A little history of Hillary and unions. Somehow I doubt many of the PP workers feel much different. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15490

Unions made a calculated decision, they mistakenly assumed that Hillary would win the nomination , and wanted a seat at the table.

I blame Clinton and NAFTA for the beginning of the end of unions in the US I only hope they hung on long enough for me to collect my pension.

As a member of two trade unions I will tell you this , they are all now in damage control mode.

Many Dems seem to miss the point that Trump's anti-China and anti-jobs-exporting can resonate with unions who have long supported the very Dems who helped give their jobs away. Trump might be the first Repub in a long time to make inroads into the union vote. The Dems sure haven't done anything for them despite decades of loyal support. Trump of course is promoting himself as "The best job creator the US has ever seen".

I will be here to read what the experts here against Trump have to say on the morning they wake up to face the new President Trump.

@JingThing. Good buddy, the correct term for Hillary's inability to motivate is that "she has the personality of a bale of hay", just as I've been saying from the beginning. Next time I'm in Thailand I'll buy you a beer.

Cheers.

Dont look what he says, look at what he does.

Trump the champion of the Unions

"

No Surprise: Trump Is a Union Buster at His Own Hotel"

http://www.thenation.com/article/no-surprise-trump-is-a-union-buster-at-his-own-hotel/

" The Donald may denounce illegal immigrants as ‘rapists,’ but his empire’s crown jewel was erected on land cleared by a small army of undocumented Polish workers, a lawsuit alleged"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/08/trump-tower-was-built-on-undocumented-immigrants-backs.html

As I said before the Clintons started the process with NAFTA and both Bush and Obama continued it.

Now Trump is going to save us. Will we ever learn?

Sanders is the only one with any credibility.

[chuckd]

What some conservatives don't understand is that there are two sides to the Capitalist coin.

Production and consumption. In order that Capitalists profit through production there needs to be a healthy Consumer base.

Individual Capitalists even if they believe the above theory, cant react because such reaction in order to be successful needs to be uniform.so that all Capitalists are uniformly competitive.

That's where government comes in. Redistribution of some of the wealth only primes the economic engine. and makes business more profitable.

Arguments against above theory????

Governments don't "redistribute" wealth where it will do some good for the economy. Instead they waste it on pork, and vanity projects.

MPs should remember that government does not create a single real job, and employing even more public service bureaucrats is a drag on the economy. They should be doing whatever they can to free up capital to provide work and real jobs, not inventing ever more regulations to strangle enterprise.

even when they "waste it on pork" in what country's economy do you think they "waste" it in?

as to the argument that the "government does not create a single job" it is a red herring argument. Who ever said that government does?

I think you misunderstood the above theory,Government creates the environment that enables business to create jobs. Jobs create Consumers, consumers buy products, Business produces products, makes profits, and creates jobs, Jobs create consumers...............

"as to the argument that the "government does not create a single job" it is a red herring argument. Who ever said that government does?"

President Barack Obama made such a claim in 2009. How quickly we forget the more infamous gaffes he has made.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stimulus Bill Gives 'Shovel-Ready' Projects Priority

Published February 9, 200912:49 AM ET

BRIAN NAYLOR

As President Obama urges Congress to pass the $800 billion-plus stimulus package, one of his favorite selling points is the thousands of projects nationwide that he calls "shovel ready" — meaning planning is complete, approvals are secured and people could be put to work right away once funding is in place.

There is no formal definition for shovel ready. The Federal Highway Administration says it doesn't use the phrase. Its preferred term is "ready to go," according to acting administrator Jeff Paniati.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100295436

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

",Government creates the environment that enables business to create jobs."

You also seem a tad bit confused about the federal government's role in creating jobs. This administration creates regulations and rules that hamper job creation. As an example, and there are many...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Administration Announces 144 Big Regulations Right Before Thanksgiving

James Gattuso

November 24, 2015 / 374 comments 16.k

President Obama is nothing if not predictable. Required by law to release plans for new regulations twice a year, the administration has consistently done so just before major holidays, when few are paying attention.

A look at the agenda shows why the White House didn’t want it publicized. Over 2,000 regulations are now being written. Of these, 144 are deemed “economically significant”—that is, expected to cost Americans $100 million or more each.

This is a new record, beating the previous high of 136 set by President Obama this spring. <snip>

http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/24/the-obama-administration-announced-144-big-regulations-right-before-thanksgiving/

[sirineou]

What some conservatives don't understand is that there are two sides to the Capitalist coin.

Production and consumption. In order that Capitalists profit through production there needs to be a healthy Consumer base.

Individual Capitalists even if they believe the above theory, cant react because such reaction in order to be successful needs to be uniform.so that all Capitalists are uniformly competitive.

That's where government comes in. Redistribution of some of the wealth only primes the economic engine. and makes business more profitable.

Arguments against above theory????

Governments don't "redistribute" wealth where it will do some good for the economy. Instead they waste it on pork, and vanity projects.

MPs should remember that government does not create a single real job, and employing even more public service bureaucrats is a drag on the economy. They should be doing whatever they can to free up capital to provide work and real jobs, not inventing ever more regulations to strangle enterprise.

even when they "waste it on pork" in what country's economy do you think they "waste" it in?

as to the argument that the "government does not create a single job" it is a red herring argument. Who ever said that government does?

I think you misunderstood the above theory,Government creates the environment that enables business to create jobs. Jobs create Consumers, consumers buy products, Business produces products, makes profits, and creates jobs, Jobs create consumers...............

"as to the argument that the "government does not create a single job" it is a red herring argument. Who ever said that government does?"

President Barack Obama made such a claim in 2009. How quickly we forget the more infamous gaffes he has made.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stimulus Bill Gives 'Shovel-Ready' Projects Priority

Published February 9, 200912:49 AM ET

BRIAN NAYLOR

As President Obama urges Congress to pass the $800 billion-plus stimulus package, one of his favorite selling points is the thousands of projects nationwide that he calls "shovel ready" — meaning planning is complete, approvals are secured and people could be put to work right away once funding is in place.

There is no formal definition for shovel ready. The Federal Highway Administration says it doesn't use the phrase. Its preferred term is "ready to go," according to acting administrator Jeff Paniati.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100295436

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

",Government creates the environment that enables business to create jobs."

You also seem a tad bit confused about the federal government's role in creating jobs. This administration creates regulations and rules that hamper job creation. As an example, and there are many...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Administration Announces 144 Big Regulations Right Before Thanksgiving

James Gattuso

November 24, 2015 / 374 comments 16.k

President Obama is nothing if not predictable. Required by law to release plans for new regulations twice a year, the administration has consistently done so just before major holidays, when few are paying attention.

A look at the agenda shows why the White House didn’t want it publicized. Over 2,000 regulations are now being written. Of these, 144 are deemed “economically significant”—that is, expected to cost Americans $100 million or more each.

This is a new record, beating the previous high of 136 set by President Obama this spring. <snip>

http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/24/the-obama-administration-announced-144-big-regulations-right-before-thanksgiving/

You seem to forget Bush's stimulus, do you remember when he send I don't remember how much, $500, $600? to every family? actually, his stimulus was better targeted in my opinion, because families send 100% of it . unfortunately it was not enough. The stimulus does not create jobs, it is intended to restart the consumption, production cycle.It is the cycle that creates jobs. Government implements policies conducive to the creation of jobs.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Scott

[chuckd]

even when they "waste it on pork" in what country's economy do you think they "waste" it in?

as to the argument that the "government does not create a single job" it is a red herring argument. Who ever said that government does?

I think you misunderstood the above theory,Government creates the environment that enables business to create jobs. Jobs create Consumers, consumers buy products, Business produces products, makes profits, and creates jobs, Jobs create consumers...............

"as to the argument that the "government does not create a single job" it is a red herring argument. Who ever said that government does?"

President Barack Obama made such a claim in 2009. How quickly we forget the more infamous gaffes he has made.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stimulus Bill Gives 'Shovel-Ready' Projects Priority

Published February 9, 200912:49 AM ET

BRIAN NAYLOR

As President Obama urges Congress to pass the $800 billion-plus stimulus package, one of his favorite selling points is the thousands of projects nationwide that he calls "shovel ready" — meaning planning is complete, approvals are secured and people could be put to work right away once funding is in place.

There is no formal definition for shovel ready. The Federal Highway Administration says it doesn't use the phrase. Its preferred term is "ready to go," according to acting administrator Jeff Paniati.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100295436

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

",Government creates the environment that enables business to create jobs."

You also seem a tad bit confused about the federal government's role in creating jobs. This administration creates regulations and rules that hamper job creation. As an example, and there are many...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Administration Announces 144 Big Regulations Right Before Thanksgiving

James Gattuso

November 24, 2015 / 374 comments 16.k

President Obama is nothing if not predictable. Required by law to release plans for new regulations twice a year, the administration has consistently done so just before major holidays, when few are paying attention.

A look at the agenda shows why the White House didn’t want it publicized. Over 2,000 regulations are now being written. Of these, 144 are deemed “economically significant”—that is, expected to cost Americans $100 million or more each.

This is a new record, beating the previous high of 136 set by President Obama this spring. <snip>

http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/24/the-obama-administration-announced-144-big-regulations-right-before-thanksgiving/

You seem to forget Bush's stimulus, do you remember when he send I don't remember how much, $500, $600? to every family? actually, his stimulus was better targeted in my opinion, because families send 100% of it . unfortunately it was not enough. The stimulus does not create jobs, it is intended to restart the consumption, production cycle.It is the cycle that creates jobs. Government implements policies conducive to the creation of jobs.

I forgot nothing. You asked who made the claim that government created jobs. I responded that the Darling of the Democrats, Barack Hussein Obama, made such a claim and provided a link to support it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Government implements policies conducive to the creation of jobs."

You're really living on the edge with this nonsensical statement.

My response is to restate your comment to something more realistic...

"Government implements policies conducive to the creation of more government."

Why do you think there is a period set aside for public comment on any federal regulation that will impact the economy by $100 million or more?

And as a follow up question, who do you think eventually pays the costs of these expensive regulations?

That last one has an easy answer...John Q. Public pays the bills.

[willyumiii]

It has become very obvious that the woman is a pathological liar who will say or do anything to get in power.. Of course her message is failing.

Very unlike all of the GOP candidates. lol

[mopar71]

Some perspective might contribute to the thread and topic.

Oddsmakers looking at the contest between HR Clinton and Bernie Sanders for the Democratic party nomination continue to see nothing different as the new year gets underway.

HR Clinton is at odds of 1-5 which equals the probability of 83.3% to win the D party nomination.

Bernie Socialist is at odds of 7-2 which equals the probability of 22.2% of winning the nomination.

Oddsmaking is one of many aspects to include when looking into competitions of a different kind.

From months ago, but nothing has happened to change perceptions of HRH Clinton...oh, and go ahead, attack the source.

Favorability Ratings Show Hillary Clinton Is Unelectable and Bernie Sanders Wins a General Election

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/favorability-ratings-show-hillary-clinton-is-unelectable_b_8388316.html

[sirineou]

even when they "waste it on pork" in what country's economy do you think they "waste" it in?

as to the argument that the "government does not create a single job" it is a red herring argument. Who ever said that government does?

I think you misunderstood the above theory,Government creates the environment that enables business to create jobs. Jobs create Consumers, consumers buy products, Business produces products, makes profits, and creates jobs, Jobs create consumers...............

"as to the argument that the "government does not create a single job" it is a red herring argument. Who ever said that government does?"

President Barack Obama made such a claim in 2009. How quickly we forget the more infamous gaffes he has made.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stimulus Bill Gives 'Shovel-Ready' Projects Priority

Published February 9, 200912:49 AM ET

BRIAN NAYLOR

As President Obama urges Congress to pass the $800 billion-plus stimulus package, one of his favorite selling points is the thousands of projects nationwide that he calls "shovel ready" — meaning planning is complete, approvals are secured and people could be put to work right away once funding is in place.

There is no formal definition for shovel ready. The Federal Highway Administration says it doesn't use the phrase. Its preferred term is "ready to go," according to acting administrator Jeff Paniati.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100295436

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

",Government creates the environment that enables business to create jobs."

You also seem a tad bit confused about the federal government's role in creating jobs. This administration creates regulations and rules that hamper job creation. As an example, and there are many...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Administration Announces 144 Big Regulations Right Before Thanksgiving

James Gattuso

November 24, 2015 / 374 comments 16.k

President Obama is nothing if not predictable. Required by law to release plans for new regulations twice a year, the administration has consistently done so just before major holidays, when few are paying attention.

A look at the agenda shows why the White House didn’t want it publicized. Over 2,000 regulations are now being written. Of these, 144 are deemed “economically significant”—that is, expected to cost Americans $100 million or more each.

This is a new record, beating the previous high of 136 set by President Obama this spring. <snip>

http://dailysignal.com/2015/11/24/the-obama-administration-announced-144-big-regulations-right-before-thanksgiving/

You seem to forget Bush's stimulus, do you remember when he send I don't remember how much, $500, $600? to every family? actually, his stimulus was better targeted in my opinion, because families send 100% of it . unfortunately it was not enough. The stimulus does not create jobs, it is intended to restart the consumption, production cycle.It is the cycle that creates jobs. Government implements policies conducive to the creation of jobs.

I forgot nothing. You asked who made the claim that government created jobs. I responded that the Darling of the Democrats, Barack Hussein Obama, made such a claim and provided a link to support it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Government implements policies conducive to the creation of jobs."

You're really living on the edge with this nonsensical statement.

My response is to restate your comment to something more realistic...

"Government implements policies conducive to the creation of more government."

Why do you think there is a period set aside for public comment on any federal regulation that will impact the economy by $100 million or more?

And as a follow up question, who do you think eventually pays the costs of these expensive regulations?

That last one has an easy answer...John Q. Public pays the bills.

, Government's function is not to create jobs but in the process it does create jobs to the extent of it's participation in the economy as a producer of policy and administration.

I dont believe we are still talking about this, It is really a very simple first year economics concept

I made a simple comment concerning the consumption production cycle. How it has being interrupted, and how only government can restore it, , simply because it was government that allowed it to be interrupted.

If you think that consumers are doing fine, and are consuming, But industry is not producing for some other reasons

please explain

and please dont say we need less government and less regulation . Perhaps we do need less government but we do need regulation, no less not more, just better.

End of my participation on this subject

Now back to Hillary, She was part of the problem, and I dont believe she can now be part of the solution,

as I said indicated by past performance. I like Sanders his ideas of what need to be done, are close to mine, whether or not he can impliment then is an other story,

Trump and Cruz are dangerous loonies. , and if any of the other republicans make it to the nomination I am willing to take a look at them.

[sirineou]

I hate to be tooting my own horn, but if I don't who will?

This from the Thread where Hillary announced her bid for the nomination

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/816997-hillary-clinton-declares-2016-democratic-presidential-bid/

reply #6

too early to tell who we have for president

There will be others, Personally I don't think Hillary has an ice cubes chance in hell, but she is establishment and she will have her try.

Hate to tell you , I told you so.

well not really

But unlike some others who had her coronation a forgone conclusion , and are now eating crow while trying to appear reasonable

I have being consistent , Hillary is the past, a past that has brought as to this. Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results

electing the likes of Trump, Cruz, or Hillary would be doing the same thing

Let;s try something different, let's try Bernie .

and the crowns go wild . Yeaaaaaaaa

[Publicus]

Some perspective might contribute to the thread and topic.

Oddsmakers looking at the contest between HR Clinton and Bernie Sanders for the Democratic party nomination continue to see nothing different as the new year gets underway.

HR Clinton is at odds of 1-5 which equals the probability of 83.3% to win the D party nomination.

Bernie Socialist is at odds of 7-2 which equals the probability of 22.2% of winning the nomination.

Oddsmaking is one of many aspects to include when looking into competitions of a different kind.

From months ago, but nothing has happened to change perceptions of HRH Clinton...oh, and go ahead, attack the source.

Favorability Ratings Show Hillary Clinton Is Unelectable and Bernie Sanders Wins a General Election

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/favorability-ratings-show-hillary-clinton-is-unelectable_b_8388316.html

My approach to assessing the electability of each candidate for potus is fundamentally threefold: public polling, oddsmaking; more traditional statistical data sustained as viable over time, such as 2nd quarter GDP in the election year as an indicator.

Public survey polling is a snapshot of the moment and it's for free to the consumer.

Oddsmaking has a literal price and it often gets to be a premium investment risk that isn't always such a great risk. Oddsmaking is more a full length movie rather than a snapshot. People who put cold hard green down on what they think or believe work more from fundamentals than they do based on the daily headlines. The reliability of this approach has been time tested as viable indeed.

Statistical data give the longer range realities that have proved out over time, such as the GDP stat referenced. Three consecutive terms in the White House by one given party is a challenge but it is eminently doable. The popularity rating of the outgoing potus at election time is a factor in whether some dubious voters go one way or the other. There's lots more predicated in stats proved viable over numerous election cycles.

Then there's the sense of things.

One clear sense of the races is that the polling is more consistent on the Republican side than it is on the Democratic side. The best sensibility is however the fact no one has voted yet. Coming soon however, in Io-way. Iowa is however a caucus. New Hampshire will be the first actual vote at polling stations.

The sense of it based on fundamental factors is that after Iowa and NH, Trump will likely be off and running while Bernie will be bathing in two victories after which the subsequent D party primaries/caucuses will on the whole become Howard Dean time for him.

The November endgame does however have a common view. While Democrats like the commonly shared view, and Republicans do not, the view remains shared that, on election day November 8th, when voters are presented the choice between HR Clinton and a Republican, voters will choose Mrs. Clinton. That between now and then voters do want to see Hillary Clinton struggle with her baggage. Then to present her with the chocolates.

[sgtsabai]

Here is a bit on the Hillary problem, and yes she is a problem. Well, that is except for Wall Street criminals and banksters, neocons and neoliberals. Barely the lessor of 2 evils against any Republican and frankly I doubt seriously I can drink enough to vote for her, although I will never vote for a Republican, damn how I hate not being able to put into print the correct way to spell Republican. Frankly the polls just don't seem to be settled enough, especially in Iowa to predict anything, but the Hillary thugs have already started their smear campaign against the only legate choice, Bernie Sanders. So far it is backfiring and the lame stream media is even giving him a bit more coverage, not much mind you. He will only get more popular as more people get to know him. No, he won't burn out after the first few primaries. The corporate Democrats will do everything to stop him and there is a way even with him winning the majority of delegates to stop him, super delegates. Might be a last ditch effort there, Hillary calling in/giving future favors and/or Wall Street criminals and banksters buying them. Some interesting reading here: http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/01/23/bernie-sanders-rockets-to-first-place-in-iowa/

http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/01/23/hillary-and-bernie-the-credibility-gap/

http://ahtribune.com/us/2016-election/405-bernie-v-media.html

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/21/the-seven-stages-of-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition/

http://www.opednews.com/articles/WIll-the-DNC-Use-Super-Del-by-Benjamin-Kall-Bernie-Sanders-2016-Presidential-Candidate_Delegates-160121-566.html

http://www.opednews.com/populum/printer_friendly.php?content=a&id=198869

http://www.opednews.com/populum/printer_friendly.php?content=a&id=198862

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/266673-sanders-pushes-back-on-clinton-i-am-electable

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-attacks-backfire-218091

[Publicus]

The problem with everybody being wrong, bad, evil etc is that the end result is nihilism which is self-defeating.

Even in the fast-paced USA which measures its dynamic development in decades, changes still happen faster than anywhere else in the world. And for a young country the United States has a lot of history.

I'd noted the polls constantly show a rapid change that in the Republican race since summer is holding up. On the Democratic side the polling reflects an organic campaign as opposed to the R rather static one.

There's no question of the strength of Bernie's one-note message. But because he is Bernie One Note, the oddsmakers who deal in the green still see HR Clinton as the nominee....and the winner of the general election.

Today's odds to be elected POTUS November 8th 2016

HR Clinton has odds of 5-6 and the probability of 54.5%

Donald Trump at the odds of 5-2 yield the probability of 28.6% to be elected potus

Marco Rubio has odds of 6-1 or a probability of 14.2% to win

Bernie Sanders odds are 7-1 which present the probability of 12.5% to win

Raphael Edward "Ted" Cruz has odds of 14-1 at 6.67% to win

After that forget 'em for now....

We'll see what odds might look like the second week of February after the Iowa caucuses and then the New Hampshire primary where unlike Iowa, people will vote at polling stations.