Looking past Trump, Clinton aims to help other Democrats

[webfact]

Looking past Trump, Clinton aims to help other Democrats

By JOSH LEDERMAN and CATHERINE LUCEY

 

DURHAM, N.C. (AP) — Newly confident and buoyant in the polls, Hillary Clinton is looking past Donald Trump while widening her mission to include helping Democrats seize the Senate and chip away at the Republican-controlled House.

 

Though Trump's campaign insisted Sunday it was premature to count him out, it's Clinton whose path to winning the White House has only grown wider in the race's final weeks. Even longtime Republican strongholds such as Utah and Arizona suddenly appear within her reach on Nov. 8, enticing Democrats to campaign hard in territory they haven't won for decades.

 

The shifting political map has freed Clinton and her well-funded campaign to spend time and money helping other Democrats in competitive races. Clinton said she didn't "even think about responding" to Trump anymore and would instead spend the final weeks on the road "emphasizing the importance of electing Democrats down the ballot."

 

"We're running a coordinated campaign, working hard with gubernatorial, Senate and House candidates," said Robby Mook, Clinton's campaign manager.

 

And for good reason.

 

After a merciless two-year campaign, the next president will face the daunting task of governing a bitterly divided nation. If Clinton wins, her prospects for achieving her goals will be greatly diminished unless her victory is accompanied by major Democratic gains in Congress.

 

"We've got to do the hard and maybe most important work of healing, healing our country," Clinton said Sunday at Union Baptist Church in Durham, North Carolina.

 

For Democrats, there's another reason to try to run up the score. With Trump warning he may contest the race's outcome if he loses, Clinton's campaign is hoping for an overwhelming Democratic victory that would undermine any attempt by Trump to claim the election had been stolen from him.

 

In a rare admission of fallibility by the typically boastful Trump, his campaign acknowledged he's trailing Clinton as Election Day nears.

 

"We are behind. She has some advantages," Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said. Still, she added, "We're not giving up. We know we can win this."

 

Conway laid out in granular detail Trump's potential path to winning: victories in Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Nevada and Ohio, to start. If Trump prevents Arizona and Georgia from falling to Democrats and adds in some combination of Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, he could reach the 270 electoral votes needed, Conway said.

 

It won't be easy. A current Associated Press analysis of polling, demographic trends and other campaign data rates Virginia as solidly Democratic, while Colorado, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania are all leaning Democratic. Arizona, remarkably, is a toss-up.

 

Campaigning Sunday in Florida, Trump called for voters to elect a Republican House and Senate that would "swiftly enact" his priorities, which include overhauling taxes, restoring higher spending on defense and repealing the Affordable Care Act.

 

"We can enact our whole plan in the first 100 days — and we will," Trump said.

 

If Clinton wins, Democrats would need a net gain of four Senate seats to retake the majority. House control would be much harder, considering Republicans currently enjoy their largest House majority since 1931. Democrats would need a 30-seat gain, a feat they haven't accomplished in roughly four decades.

 

Clinton's nascent focus on helping fellow Democrats comes with an inherent contradiction. For months, she deliberately avoided the strategy employed by other Democrats of trying to saddle all Republicans with an unpopular Trump. In August, she said Trump represented the "radical fringe," rather than the mainstream of the Republican Party.

 

"We have not run this campaign as a campaign against the GOP with the big broad brush — we've run it against Donald Trump," Clinton's running mate, Tim Kaine, said in a weekend interview with The Associated Press.

 

Painting Trump as too extreme even for the GOP was a strategy intended to help Clinton win over voters who identify as Republicans but dislike Trump. Yet it's been a major sore point for Democratic campaign groups, illustrated by an internal Democratic National Committee email in May that was hacked and later disclosed by WikiLeaks.

 

"They don't want us to tie Trump to other Republicans because they think it makes him look normal," top DNC official Luis Miranda wrote under the subject line "Problem with HFA," an acronym for Hillary For America.

 

Andrea Bozek of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Senate GOP's campaign arm, said Clinton's last-minute push to aid Democrats was insufficient to make up for her party's shortfalls in recruiting competitive candidates this year.

 

"Democrats have relied on political gravity from the presidential race to carry them across the finish line," Bozek said.

 

Indeed, as Clinton campaigned in North Carolina, where Democrats hope to unseat GOP Sen. Richard Burr, Clinton's argument appeared to rest on the hopes that voters offended by Trump would vote against Burr, too. She said Democratic candidate and American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Deborah Ross knows that Trump "is wrong for America."

 

"Unlike her opponent, Deborah has never been afraid to stand up to Donald Trump," Clinton said.

 

Still, Clinton's campaign said she remained intent on reaching out to GOP voters and was specifically targeting Republican politicians who haven't denounced Trump. Campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said the policies Clinton has prioritized for her first 100 days "are ones that Republicans should have every reason to work with us on."

 

Clinton isn't the only Democrat putting a premium on down-ballot races. President Barack Obama flew Sunday to Nevada to campaign for the Democratic Senate candidate there before heading to California to raise money for House Democrats. He and Vice President Joe Biden have recorded ads, raised money and campaigned in person for dozens Democratic candidates this year.

 

Mook spoke on CNN's "State of the Union." Conway spoke on "Fox News Sunday" and NBC's "Meet the Press."

___

Lederman reported from Washington. AP Polling Director Emily Swanson in Washington contributed to this report along with AP writers Jill Colvin in Naples, Florida, Kathleen Ronayne in Boston and Alan Suderman in Gainesville, Florida.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-10-24

[klauskunkel]

11 hours ago, webfact said:

"We've got to do the hard and maybe most important work of healing, healing our country," Clinton said

just say a prayer over the boo-boo and let the healing begin

[klikster]

This election is disgusting, embarrassing, corrupt and potentially devastating for my country and for much of the free world. IMHO, neither candidate deserves the office.

 

I would actually like to see the scenario described here develop.

[Publicus]

 

Downballot, in the contests for Senate and the House, the Democratic Party challenger doesn't need to win the race by 7% or some such percentage.

 

The norm when an incumbent loses reelection -- meaning no scandal -- is that the incumbent loses by 1% or by 2%. Often the challenger's margin of victory is 0.7% which is just outside the mandatory recount range of 0.5% where such laws exist. It's rare that a mandatory or a requested recount changes the outcome anyway.

 

With the Clinton campaign's massive and extensive get out the vote campaign in full operation for months since the August convention, and given the direction and the trends of this election, the edge goes to the Democrats in the Senate, and it's put the Republicans in the House in a panicked defense.

 

The Democrats may produce 7 new U.S. Senators which is a grand number, but each would have won by 1% give or take, not by 7% or anything like it. It happens this way virtually every time. Upwards of seven new Democratic Party U.S. Senators looks like a huge election blowout, and the bottom line is that it is one. But not by 7%. 

 

All the D challenger needs in the Senate or in the House is 50.1%. Even better is 50.7%. Fifty-one percent would be a landslide. 

[spidermike007]

As a life long democrat I can say we have never had such an inferior candidate. My plan is to sit out this election. I just cannot hold my nose long enough to vote for her.  Even though I despise the alternative. 

[Grubster]

Anybody that is for free trade with oppressive countries will never get my vote.

[JAG]

4 hours ago, klikster said:

This election is disgusting, embarrassing, corrupt and potentially devastating for my country and for much of the free world. IMHO, neither candidate deserves the office.

 

I would actually like to see the scenario described here develop.

 

I'm not a US citizen, so feel free to ignore me!

 

I am a supporter of democracy, which manifests itself in a number of different (all imperfect) ways. I'm British, we have a "first past the post parliamentary system, with a hereditary monarch as head of state, which  broadly reflects the will of the electorate . I have a basic understanding of the US presidential system. I consider that it to basically reflects the will of the electorate.  Like you in my opinion neither candidate is particularly palatable, but as I said I don't have a vote.

 

The scenario which you outline however seems to me, however desirable a candidate Evan McMullin may be,  completely undemocratic, because it would entail a candidate with a vastly smaller share of the popular vote than either Trump or Clinton ending up as President.

 

The incoherent whinging about things being "rigged" would then be true,rather than the bluster of a narcissistic buffoon. 

Edited October 24, 2016 by JAG

[Publicus]

 

Every Democrat who fails to vote for HRC fails to cancel the vote for Trump by every lifelong Republican.

 

This is modified by the large number of Republicans who have said they cannot vote for Trump, in contrast to the very few Democrats who have said they cannot vote for Clinton.

 

Failure to vote gives the other guy +1 in each instance. In the 50 states each +1 adds up, in the 'battleground' states in particular. Inaction has consequences which also means accepting responsibility.

[Opl]

58 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

As a life long democrat I can say we have never had such an inferior candidate. My plan is to sit out this election. I just cannot hold my nose long enough to vote for her.  Even though I despise the alternative. 

 

Maybe you could decide this way:

- do not consider the 2 major candidates only  if you dislike both  

- instead , take in consideration the core supporters of each camp

- finally, vote against the ones you do not want to be assimilated to

Edited October 24, 2016 by Opl

[JAG]

58 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

As a life long democrat I can say we have never had such an inferior candidate. My plan is to sit out this election. I just cannot hold my nose long enough to vote for her.  Even though I despise the alternative. 

 

 

As I have just said (post #7)  I do not have a vote. It really is the lesser of two evils isn't it?

 

The USA has a unique place on the world stage. The outcome of this (and every) Presidential election has a huge influence on the world. You are a US Citizen, a great privilege. Privilege brings with it responsibility. Could I , perhaps pompously, suggest that as an American Citizen you do hold your nose and vote?

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Grubster said:

Anybody that is for free trade with oppressive countries will never get my vote.

How do you feel about people who import large quantities of steel from them?

[Thaidream]

A vote for Trump is a vote for disaster and the ultimate destruction of the US. This man is not even qualified as a candidate for any office let alone the Presidency. While Clinton has here issues and warts- she at least has the basic qualifications to become President and will not destroy the US with nonsensical ideas such as building walls and deporting 11 million people. There are just too many real issues that need to be addressed and Trump has no plan and no agenda other than making America a failure while he and his cronies get richer. Undoubtedly, the worst candidate in American history.

[Grubster]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

How do you feel about people who import large quantities of steel from them?

I think they are worthless bags of scum. That was one of the first big industries to bail out on their own people. Fair trade OK, but asking your people to compete with the starvation wages, lack of pensions, horrible conditions, lack of safety, etc. etc. is not fair trade. Wall street bottom line is all that matters now.

[Grubster]

4 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

A vote for Trump is a vote for disaster and the ultimate destruction of the US. This man is not even qualified as a candidate for any office let alone the Presidency. While Clinton has here issues and warts- she at least has the basic qualifications to become President and will not destroy the US with nonsensical ideas such as building walls and deporting 11 million people. There are just too many real issues that need to be addressed and Trump has no plan and no agenda other than making America a failure while he and his cronies get richer. Undoubtedly, the worst candidate in American history.

I find Hillary to be even more entwined with the elite peoples of the world, and this will be my first no vote in my voting age life. I really don't feel anybody has a chance of bringing the American dream back home. Its over and I'm old so I will just ride it out from here, I won't be too surprised if they start taking my pensions and stuff soon.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, Grubster said:

I find Hillary to be even more entwined with the elite peoples of the world, and this will be my first no vote in my voting age life. I really don't feel anybody has a chance of bringing the American dream back home. Its over and I'm old so I will just ride it out from here, I won't be too surprised if they start taking my pensions and stuff soon.

Yet it's Trump who wants to lower their taxes hugely and disproportionately and repeal the controls on hedge funds and banks.  Go Trump!

[Thaidream]

Trump if elected will lower the taxes of the wealthy and take off all controls on hedge funds and banks- both groups which caused the largest loss of funds for the middle class and poor in American history. Trump is a disaster and I believe would destroy everything in America simply to his own narcissistic end.  Do not believe any of his rhetoric about making America Great Again- he is only interested in making his own family great again because he is a poor businessman who hides behind the bankruptcy and eminent domain law. He has no real plan and is trying to make the American public believe he can build walls and make others pay for them. Never, ever going to happen.

This demagogue belongs where all demagogue belongs- on the scrapheap of history. Soon he will be swept away as a footnote in the history books and remembered for what he is - a person with no vision and a divider of people who created nothing but ill will. Good riddance to him.

[Grubster]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yet it's Trump who wants to lower their taxes hugely and disproportionately and repeal the controls on hedge funds and banks.  Go Trump!

This little squabble over income taxes has been the biggest smoke screen in history, yes I'm for less tax on working class and more on the rich but the percentages they are fighting over is like pissing on a volcano. George H.W. Drew up NAFTA and Bill Clinton signed it, Ronald Reagan started deregulation and Bill Clinton continued it. All the while the big sucking sound of good jobs going elsewhere was and is getting louder and louder. What good does raising taxes on the rich do when all the loop holes allow them to write them all off anyway, while they collect their taxpayer funded subsidies. Don't make me pick the lesser of two evils, I won't do it. Hillary is clearly going to win anyway but you will see the working class environment continue to slide. These Dems and Repubs laugh at us behind closed doors.

[Thaidream]

There is no doubt that both parties have become nothing more than a place for the wealthy to control America. That is why Bernie Sanders was so popular- He would have actually done something about election reform; carving out a fair tax code; reducing a bloated military budget and transfer those funds to the middle class and poor. My vote for Clinton is merely a vote for a person who will not destroy the country but hold it in place until someone can come along with a reasonable agenda like Sanders and get elected and push it through.

Trump came to prominence because Americans are fed up with the 1% who control all the wealth continuing to get richer off the backs of the 99%.  There must be a redistribution of wealth in America. If I really thought Trump would help make America a great country again - I would vote for him. However, his temperament and  the way he talks down to women; people of color; the disabled and anyone who disagrees with him shows he is not a person to be trusted. His business dealings show me he has no substance by using the bankruptcy laws to avoid paying fair wages; severance etc to the working poor.

Clinton is no saint- but she won't destroy the fundamental things in America that have kept the country together. She will maintain the status quo and possibly provide some assistance to the middle class and poor in real tax relief.  She won't redistribute wealth or go after big business but she is a much better candidate than Trump.

Time is running out in America. The people will not wait forever for the change that is needed but Clinton will buy some time and hopefully in the not too distant future America may get a President who will push through the needed changes that must be made. 

[ilostmypassword]

36 minutes ago, Grubster said:

This little squabble over income taxes has been the biggest smoke screen in history, yes I'm for less tax on working class and more on the rich but the percentages they are fighting over is like pissing on a volcano. George H.W. Drew up NAFTA and Bill Clinton signed it, Ronald Reagan started deregulation and Bill Clinton continued it. All the while the big sucking sound of good jobs going elsewhere was and is getting louder and louder. What good does raising taxes on the rich do when all the loop holes allow them to write them all off anyway, while they collect their taxpayer funded subsidies. Don't make me pick the lesser of two evils, I won't do it. Hillary is clearly going to win anyway but you will see the working class environment continue to slide. These Dems and Repubs laugh at us behind closed doors.

Thanks to the recent tax increase on the wealthy - the one that was promoted by Obama - the rich are already paying more in taxes.  And certainly the Democrats want to increase the minimum wage.

[Grubster]

21 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Thanks to the recent tax increase on the wealthy - the one that was promoted by Obama - the rich are already paying more in taxes.  And certainly the Democrats want to increase the minimum wage.

No they are not paying more tax, with the loop holes their tax owed line still says "0".  They may raise the minimum wage a buck or so, that would get it back to what it was twenty years ago in buying power. The volcano is still erupting.

[Publicus]

 

Some people don't need to go behind closed doors.

 

Democratic Party taxes on the rich are the reason they're Republicans.

 

Republican Party tax breaks for the rich are the reason they're Republicans.

 

The alternative as we can see is nihilism and anarchy.

[ilostmypassword]

28 minutes ago, Grubster said:

No they are not paying more tax, with the loop holes their tax owed line still says "0".  They may raise the minimum wage a buck or so, that would get it back to what it was twenty years ago in buying power. The volcano is still erupting.

Nobody says that most of the .01 percent pay 0 percent. Remember the uproar about Romney. He was paying about 14%.  

"The average tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose significantly in 2013, from 21.9 percent in 2012 to 27.1 percent in 2013. This increase in the average tax rate of the 1 percent was largely due to several changes to the federal tax code, imposed at the end of 2012 as part of the “fiscal cliff” tax deal: a new 39.6 percent income tax bracket, a higher top rate on capital gains and dividends, and the reintroduction of the Pease limitation on itemized deductions.[3]"

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update

Edited October 24, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[Grubster]

24 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Nobody says that most of the .01 percent pay 0 percent. Remember the uproar about Romney. He was paying about 14%.  

"The average tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose significantly in 2013, from 21.9 percent in 2012 to 27.1 percent in 2013. This increase in the average tax rate of the 1 percent was largely due to several changes to the federal tax code, imposed at the end of 2012 as part of the “fiscal cliff” tax deal: a new 39.6 percent income tax bracket, a higher top rate on capital gains and dividends, and the reintroduction of the Pease limitation on itemized deductions.[3]"

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update

The top tax in the two periods of history when our country was booming was 90%, so again 21.9 to 27.1 is pissing in the wind. The government Dems and Repubs have shifted to user taxes and real estate taxes. User taxes are the most unfair of all, The tax on your phone could be .01% of your income when its .000001 of the multi millionaires income. You can't even live on your own little piece of property if you can't afford the real estate tax and many can't. Its all smoke and mirrors, I am a life long Democrat but I am appalled at the bills they let pass also, usually just by one or two votes on the Democrat side by the ones that have the least chance of losing their next election. I have never heard a Democrat try to end the insider trading they enjoy. I would still vote Democrat but I sure think the gig is over and the elite own both sides of the isle. Good luck.

[Publicus]

 

Good news for the good guyz...

 

 

A new ABC News poll finds Hillary Clinton has jumped to a 12 point lead over Donald Trump nationally, 50% to 38%, with Gary Johnson at 5%.

 

Key finding: “Likely voters by a vast 69-24 percent disapprove of Trump’s response to questions about his treatment of women. After a series of allegations of past sexual misconduct, the poll finds that some women who’d initially given him the benefit of the doubt have since moved away.

 

 

 

 

There's more...

 

Washington Post: “Emboldened by polls predicting an electoral-college landslide in the presidential race, Clinton is shifting her strategy to lift up other Democrats coast to coast. She and her party are rushing to capitalize on a turbulent turn in Trump’s candidacy, which has ruptured the Republican Party, to make down-ballot gains that seemed unlikely just a month ago.”

 

“For Clinton, the move is opportunistic and has governing implications. If elected, a mandate may not be enough for her to muscle a progressive agenda on immigration and other issues through a Republican-controlled Congress. She would almost certainly govern more efficiently with Democratic majorities.”

 

 

 

She already commands a brigade...

 

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign “has built a field team in swing-states across the country that is larger than a U.S. Army brigade, giving her a huge advantage over Republican Donald Trump on Election Day,” The Hill reports.

 

“Between Clinton’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and state party operations, campaign finance reports show Democrats employ 5,138 staffers across 15 battleground states… By contrast, Trump’s campaign, the Republican National Committee and state parties employ just 1,409 staffers in 16 states.”

 

The Electoral College as seen when the dawn broke this morning, 270 needed to win....

 

 

 

 

A subscription political report I've read for years shot one to my inbox yesterday, "Landslide Watch."   

 

Today just came "A Wave May Be Forming." These folk don't write like that unless....

 

Solid red Texas is now a toss-up state, as of sunrise today (RCP) -- the state Romney won in 2012 by 16%.

 

The Great Republican Train Wreck of 2012. Aka: The Republican Party Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

 

The deciding factor is that it's Republican "Likely Voters" who are telling pollsters now that they're not going to vote after all. The ABC poll cited in the first graph found a 12% dropoff of Republican "likely voters" since their last poll at the beginning of the month.

 

While HRC now has 91% support of Democrats, Trump is tumbling back and down to his present 82% support among Republicans. Trump needs more of his Republicans than Clinton presently has of her Democrats. Trump now is losing Republicans each day with 15 or so dayze to go.

[klikster]

9 hours ago, JAG said:

The scenario which you outline however seems to me, however desirable a candidate Evan McMullin may be,  completely undemocratic, because it would entail a candidate with a vastly smaller share of the popular vote than either Trump or Clinton ending up as President.

 

First, thank you for your civil response.

 

But, to call the political process in the USA "democratic" seems a stretch due to the existance/mandate of an "electoral college". Further, the scenario outlined in the linked article sets out the procedures required by the Constitution's 12th Amendment;

 

 "dictates that the top three presidential vote-getters’ names are sent to the incoming House, with each state delegation getting one vote. The top two electoral-vote-receiving vice presidential candidates are sent to the Senate."

 

As to rigged, the Urban Dictionary suggests:

 

rigged

1. The word rigged is used to describe situations where unfair advantages are given to one side of a conflict. 
2. Describes the side of the a conflict that holds an unfair advantage.

 

There is much unfair in the US political system.

[jerojero]

Now Trump wants help from GOP Establishment in Senate and House?

[Publicus]

 

13 hours ago, klikster said:

 

First, thank you for your civil response.

 

But, to call the political process in the USA "democratic" seems a stretch due to the existance/mandate of an "electoral college". Further, the scenario outlined in the linked article sets out the procedures required by the Constitution's 12th Amendment;

 

 "dictates that the top three presidential vote-getters’ names are sent to the incoming House, with each state delegation getting one vote. The top two electoral-vote-receiving vice presidential candidates are sent to the Senate."

 

As to rigged, the Urban Dictionary suggests:

 

rigged

1. The word rigged is used to describe situations where unfair advantages are given to one side of a conflict. 
2. Describes the side of the a conflict that holds an unfair advantage.

 

There is much unfair in the US political system.

 

Gee, the nihilists and the anarchists have got so polite during the campaign.

 

Maybe they weeded themselves out cause quite a few of 'em have gone to ground after calling President Obama a secret but sworn enemy of the United States who was out to destroy the USA.

 

Now Trump the Birther is their guy, or his "message" is what they've been wanting to hear for decades. Either way it's nihilism and anarchy.

 

The Constitution governs the process which in its conception was structured by the Founders to preclude or prevent a tyrant grabbing power. 

 

So let's look at things as they're developing...

 

“Hillary Clinton and her allies have an animating aim in the final 14 days of the 2016 contest – drive up the score so dramatically that claims by Donald Trump of Democratic vote-rigging will be rendered inconsequential thanks to the margin of victory,” Politico reports.

 

“And if their final bombardment of campaign activity drags down-ballot Democrats across the finish line and sweeps proponents of Trump’s alt-right ideology off the political table, all the better."

 

It's a partisan political campaign for Potus so there's nothing wrong with trying to run up the score. Blow out the right so they're knocked out of it completely. Once and for all in a definitive and conclusive statement by the general electorate.

 

 

Nothing wrong either with making a buck...

 

 Wired: “Tonight, the Trump campaign is kicking off a show that will air on the candidate’s Facebook page every night at 6:30pm ET via Facebook Live from the campaign war room at Trump Tower.

 

“The series, which will stream Trump’s rallies directly each night and feature pre-and post-event commentary, comes on the heels of the campaign’s debate night Facebook Live last week, which brought in more than 9 million views.”

 

According to Business Insider, Lahren accused Bill and Hillary Clinton of murder in an interview today.

 

While we're at it, let's see how the Founders might be doing in this election cycle...

 

North Carolina: Clinton 47%, Trump 46%, Johnson 4% (Monmouth)

North Carolina: Clinton 47%, Trump 44%, Johnson 4% (PPP)

North Carolina: Clinton 42%, Trump 41%, Johnson 8% (Lucid)

NC is a red state.

 

Florida: Clinton 45%, Trump 39%, Johnson 6% (Lucid)

FL used to be a swing state, or a 'battleground' state.

 

Virginia: Clinton 43%, Trump 38%, Johnson 9% (Lucid)

VA had been a red state from 1968 to 2004. Color it blue however.

 

Georgia: Clinton 44%, Trump 40%, Johnson 8% (Lucid)

GA is a deep red state, although Bill and Hillary won it in 1992.

 

Nevada: Clinton 48%, Trump 41%, Johnson 8% (Bendixen& Amandi)

Nevada: Clinton 46%, Trump 42%, Johnson 5% (Rasmussen) 

If Raz says the Republican is cooked somewhere, we can stick a fork in him. 

 

Edited October 25, 2016 by Publicus
Typo.

[Silurian]

All these various Clinton "conspiracies" are really covering up for the one huge BIG conspiracy. Is Hillary a true blue Cubs fan? Since Hillary is also a fan of the Yankees does that make her UNFAITHFUL? Holy Cow! (in a nod to Harry Caray) I can't even begin to imagine the fallout from this news.

 

Hillary Clinton flip-flops to World Series bound Cubs?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5183218230001/hillary-clinton-flip-flops-to-world-series-bound-cubs/?#sp=show-clips

 

[Silurian]

Colin Powell backed Obama in 2008 and 2012. Now he backs Hillary.

 

Colin Powell says he's voting for Clinton

http://us.cnn.com/2016/10/25/politics/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-endorsement/index.html

 

[Morch]

Trump stops holding high-dollar fundraisers that were raising big cash for the GOP

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/25/trump-halts-big-money-fundraising-cutting-off-cash-to-the-party/?postshare=7781477429683957&tid=ss_tw