Why Hillary can't be President

[Spike Trader]

The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has raised close to $2 billion from a vast global network that includes corporate titans, political donors, foreign governments and other wealthy interests, according to a Washington Post review of public records and newly released contribution data.

And many of the foundation’s biggest donors are foreigners who are legally barred from giving to U.S. political candidates. A third of foundation donors who have given more than $1 million are foreign governments or other entities based outside the United States, and foreign donors make up more than half of those who have given more than $5 million.

“It’s all about building networks and connections,” Lawrence said, adding that donors are likely attracted both personally to the Clintons and to the highly regarded philanthropic work of their foundation.

The donor list shows that the foundation has relied most heavily on seven donors that have each given more than $25 million, including a foundation established by a Canadian mining magnate, Frank Giustra; the national lottery of Holland; and Chicago-based Democratic donor Fred Eychaner.

Other major donors giving at lower levels run the gamut of industries and interests, such as the investment banking firm Goldman Sachs, beverage giant Coca-Cola, and the governments of Oman, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

 

[gwb-trading]

Warren only exists to make Hillary look more moderate rather than left. She has no shot at the presidency.

There is no "visceral hillary fatigue" in the country, only hatred by the right.

Now, who is Jeb's VP running mate? I can't think of anyone out there from the old Bush clan to step in.

Centrist Dems ready strike against Warren wing
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/234224-centrist-dems-ready-strike-against-warren-wing

Centrist Democrats are gathering their forces to fight back against the “Elizabeth Warren wing” of their party, fearing a sharp turn to the left could prove disastrous in the 2016 elections.

For months, moderate Democrats have kept silent, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) barbed attacks against Wall Street, income inequality and the “rigged economy” thrilled the base and stirred desire for a more populist approach.

But with the race for the White House set to begin, centrists are moving to seize back the agenda.

(More at above url)

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

There is an odd symmetry in that the bases of both parties are disgusted by their leaders. I suppose that is a start, although they are disgusted for different reasons.

I wonder, could progressive democrats and Tea Party republicans ever forge a consensus? They might be tough to stop if they did.

The gulf is not as vast as you might think. The progressives would have to give in on immigration, otherwise what would be the point for the republicans. The progressives in turn would get an Elizabeth Warren regulatory package clamping down on banks, CEO compensation, raising minimum wages, etc.

The progressives would have to abandon their pseudo-religion of AGW, and in turn the Tea Party crowd could cut their losses on gay marriage.

Both groups are skeptical of foreign military adventures of the Buhs/McCain/Obama variety.

Taxes and social spending could be sticking points. The status quo should not be intolerable for either side however.

 

[Covertibility]

 

[futurecurrents]

Awwww, but Mike is so like able. He may be a complete idiot but gee, he's a swell guy.

And Christy.....Hey! You looking at him! Like your knees?

Paul..... half right and half crazy. Like uncle Ralph.

Romney.....way too earnest and what kind of underwear is he wearing?

And Jeb baby. Waiting for his first watercolors. They will certainly be better than Georgy's.
But his innate awkwardness and Huckabee-type Christian boneheadedness and the fact that he is only as smart as the smartest Bush, makes him less than stellar as a candidate for potus.

 

[gwb-trading]

Hillary Clinton’s Use of Private Email at State Department Raises Flag
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/u...e-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department.Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.

Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.

“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level-head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle and Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.

(More at above url)

 

[Covertibility]

The GOP’s major 2016 problem — in 3 maps


The demographics favor democrats.

No one is going to care about Hillary not using a govt email account; only a recession stops her.

 

[gwb-trading]

The GOP’s major 2016 problem — in 3 maps


The demographics favor democrats.

No one is going to care about Hillary not using a govt email account; only a recession stops her.

These quotes from the article itself demonstrate that the basis of the projections is complete bunk...
"A few caveats here.

First, this is from a left-leaning group, and it is obviously a highly hypothetical exercise, based on imperfect exit polling data. Thus, odd things happen, as with Democrats winning Missouri under simulation No. 2. (Democrats didn't compete for Missouri in 2012, and they probably won't in 2016 either.)

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, all three simulations match turnout to 2012 levels, which featured higher-than-usual turnout among racial minorities -- particularly among African Americans, but also among Hispanics. That helps Democrats in a big way.

...

If Democrats can get these groups to show up and vote in the numbers that they did for President Obama, that will clearly be huge advantage. But it's also not clear that black voters will turn out at the same levels once the first black president is no longer on the ballot.

...

But it's also important to emphasize that 2012 was a very good electorate for Democrats, and it might not be repeatable in 20'16. Using 2004 turnout levels, for example, would probably produce a much different result."


Summary: The study from "the left-leaning Center for American Progress" cherry-picked the data to make the chances for Democrats in 2016 look excellent.

 

[Yannis]

 

[Scataphagos]

View attachment 149975

She doesn't need even "one". If she runs, she'll win. Because she will garner the "lets give a woman a try" vote... just like they said, "let's give a negro a try" (you know... to show how "PC racist we are not"...) in Odumbo's case. (Such people should not even be allowed to vote, but that's a discussion for another thread.)

Not to mention the Democratic block vote of the blacks and Hispanics.

America is in BIG, BIG trouble!