Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump- highest negative ratings ever for both in POTUS race

muckraker10021

Superstar *****
BGOL Investor

Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Drumpf

56% negative vs. 65% negative. A race into the gutter of insult politics

by Muckraker10021 | May 7th 2016


Donald Drumpf understands that the overwhelming majority of American voters are extremely low information voters. For 20+ years cac voters have been inundated & brainwashed by FOX FAKE News, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage Weiner, Ann Coulter et al. — Cac voters actually believed the 24/7 bold faced lies propagated to them for 25 years by these media “brown-shirts”. This is why they had such a viscerally hateful reaction to the election of Barack Hussein Obama to the POTUS.

Hillary Clinton’s core supports are also extremely low information voters. Hillary’s core supporters hear the name Goldman Sachs and they think it is a funeral parlor, they hear about the TPP (Trans-Pacific-Partnership) and they think it’s a new ice cream flavor, they hear Dodd-Frank and they think it’s a law firm. Clinton to these extremely low information voters is a legacy candidate; she’s like the Colgate toothpaste they have been buying for 40 years, they are brand loyalist, they like the toothpaste they have been using for forty years and they are going to stick to that brand until they die.

Who are these extremely low information voters? — they are overwhelmingly Black & white & Latino & Asian voters over the age of 45.

The swing vote in this 2016 election are the much hated by both major political parties high information voters. These are voters who know that the TPP (Trans-Pacific-Partnership) is about the outsourcing & destruction of American jobs — American workers whether it’s a manufacturing job making cars, or a software engineering job, or a M.D. radiologist job, or a CPA (Certified Accountant) — high information voters know that corporate America is and wants to continue sending these jobs to countries where they only have to pay a fraction $$$$$$ of the wages they would have to pay in the U.S.A.

Have you had an X-Ray or MRI or CAT-Scan lately?? Many medical establishments are sending via the internet, digital copies of your medical scans over to doctors M.D. radiologist in India to look at and determine what type of surgery you might or might not need. Why are they doing this?? — because Indian M.D. radiologist working in India earn $35,000. The median salary of a M.D. radiologist in the U.S. is $377,000. It’s a race to the $$$$ bottom.

Ask anyone in the tech industry about H-1B visa foreign workers being brought here to work for 25% to 35% of the wages that the American workers they are replacing are being paid. To add insult to injury the American tech workers are forced to train the cheap imported H-1B laborers if they want to receive severance pay.

What is left of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. continues to be destroyed and outsourced to foreign countries who pay as little as 40 cents an hour to workers. It is not about companies not making a profit. It’s about companies wanting to make $$$$ GREATER profits. Just this year 2016 Carrier Air Conditioner Company fired 1,400 workers who were making $20 to $25 dollars per hour plus overtime in order to send their jobs to Mexico where they can pay the workers $10 dollars per DAY! READ and watch the story HERE


High information voters are like “kryptonite” to the corporate dominated Democratic Party establishment. They want the votes and the enthusiasm of Bernie Sanders supporters, but — candidates like Hillary Clinton are completely compromised and controlled by corporate America — Hillary supports the TPP Americans work for less treaty, she calls it the “Gold Standard”. Hillary agrees with, and has not repudiated disgraced close friend and mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel’s statement that Democratic progressive High information voters like the ones who support Bernie Sanders are FUCKING RETARDED.

She is OWNED by corporate America. Sanders has raised more money than Hillary WITHOUT taking a dime from Wall Street Banksters, Pharmaceutical drug-kingpins, etc. — not to even mention the 501c4 $$$$$$$$$$ Dark Money that Hillary and other corporate controlled Democratic Party candidates like Andrew Cuomo accept into their campaigns. If you take 501c4 money, YOU ARE CORRUPT. If that sounds harsh to you, think about it for a second. Dark Money is secret money. You set up a 501c4 corporation, let’s call it —“Friends Of A Better America” (FOABA) Hypothetically let’s say that FOABA solicits and collects funds from the world’s largest criminal cartels, and offshore companies situated on the Cayman islands, and select foreign multi-billionaires who want specific changes in U.S. law. All of the “Dark Money” is pooled together by FOABA which under IRS law doesn’t have to disclose its donors, and then they just give a ‘FOABA’ check to Hillary’s presidential campaign. This arrangement is the embodiment of Corruption. Hillary accepts 501c4 money.

Once again the corporate dominated Democratic Party establishment is hoping that with the RepubliKlan party candidate being Donald Drumpf that High information Democratic progressive voters will vote for Hillary simply because she’s not Drumpf. If she gets the Democratic Party nomination which seems likely, 90 percent of her campaign strategy will be an anti Drumpf campaign. She will talk about Donald Drumpf’s imaginary Mexican wall, she will talk about his sexism, she will talk about some of his holding corporations using bankruptcy laws, four time to restructure their debts. She will spend very little time about how she will reverse the prevailing U.S. megatrend which has American workers wages going down for the last 30 years. She will NOT talk about raising the capital gains tax back to 20%. She will not talk about a huge federally funded infrastructure program to repair the U.S. crumbling roads and bridges and ancient railroad system— which would put tens-of-thousands of Americans to work. She will NOT talk about the insane ridiculous student debt (six figures) that young people in other Western countries do not have.READTHIS


90 percent of her campaign will be just to point to Donald Drumpf and say vote for me, at least I’m not him. Will that be enough to bring in the High information voters?? We will see.


09ec3-1449595110840.jpg


Hillary_Clinton_Works_for_Corporate_America.jpg


YSQkcMp.png


G6plAOKr4I.jpg


Dear-America-is-this-the-best-we-can-do-.png
 
Last edited:
Donald Trump represents the interests of the real estate, home builders, banking industry that oppose off shoring for their own self interest. Driving by a major manufacturing site that employs thousands of people, there is a huge sign by realtors eager to earn their commission off of homes sold. No manufacturing jobs equals no sale.

The prior strategy was to give every living person a mortgage regardless if they could pay. A bank could minimize their loss on bad debt by loaning more money out in this ponzi scheme that collapsed. As a result of this collapse, lending standards have tightened.

The only way to minimize losses and increase real estate prices is to create borrowers with good paying jobs that can repay loans. Off shoring affects real estate prices and the banking industry.

Let say you have 100 billion lent out, some idiot like Obama wants to sign a bunch of trade deals that will make repayment impossible for those borrowers. In the past you could cover your losses by churning out new borrowers no matter if they could pay. When it came time for the foreclosure sale, a buyer paid off the balance, no loss on the books. Now you need borrowers that can pay with real jobs.
 
Last edited:
90 percent of her campaign will be just to point to Donald Drumpf and say vote for me, at least I’m not him. Will that be enough to bring in the High information voters?? We will see.

Assuming arguendo, that Hillary is the nominee, what does High Information Voters do ???
  • Work to shape the agenda, pre, during and post convention ? (Can the tent be enlarged (and I hope it can), without creating a schism that would give rise to Trump ???)
  • Stay home ?
  • Look to a 3rd Party ?
  • What?
 
Assuming arguendo, that Hillary is the nominee, what does High Information Voters do ???
  • Work to shape the agenda, pre, during and post convention ? (Can the tent be enlarged (and I hope it can), without creating a schism that would give rise to Trump ???)
  • Stay home ?
  • Look to a 3rd Party ?
  • What?

be-home-logo.png


Bernie Sanders Picks Rep. Keith Ellison and Cornel West for DNC Platform Committee
Sanders' selection of Rep. Keith Ellison and Cornel West indicate his intention to push progressive policies at the Democratic convention

by Hailey Wallace | May 25, 2016 | http://www.blackenterprise.com/news...h-ellison-cornel-west-dnc-platform-committee/

This week the Democratic National Committee announced Hillary Clinton’s and Bernie Sanders’ picks for the party’s Platform Drafting Committee.

Sanders’ selections include Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Rep. Keith Ellison, and noted academic, Cornel West.

“We believe that we will have the representation on the platform drafting committee to create a Democratic platform that reflects the views of millions of our supporters who want the party to address the needs of working families in this country and not just Wall Street, the drug companies, the fossil fuel industry and other powerful special interests,” Sanders said in a statement on Monday.

As it’s name implies, the Platform Drafting Committee is responsible for establishing the Democratic party’s policy for the next four years. Sanders’ has recently been embroiled in a tense back and forth with the DNC to secure more representation on this critically important committee.

Sanders’ committee picks indicate his intention to ensure a place for progressive values, such as minimum wage reform, and a revised approach to Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Democratic party’s platform.

Rep. Keith Ellison is the first Muslim elected to Congress, and has authored legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15.

Cornel West is also a dedicated progressive firebrand, who has often criticized Obama for lacking liberal values.

While Sanders’ selection of West has faced some criticism, Arab American Institute founder, James Zogby, is actually considered to be the most controversial pick. The Palestinian rights advocate has openly criticized Israeli President, Benjamin Netanyahu, and has compared the plight of Palestinians to the Holocaust.

Sanders was awarded 5 of the 15 spots on the Committee. Hillary Clinton was awarded 6, and DNC chair Debbie Wassermann will pick the remaining 4 committee members.


__________________________________________

Originally posted June 5, 2015
http://www.bgol.us/forum/index.php?posts/15507998

Read the last chapter from Dr. West's recent book below 'Black Prophetic Voices'.
Everything he says is accurate.

9780807003527_custom-72349338958cd7457f5922ac2a42d075be4a16e9-s400-c85.jpg
B1T69SNCoUS._UX250_.jpg




CONCLUSION
Last Words on the Black Prophetic Tradition in the Age of Obama

by Cornel West


The great irony of our time is that in the age of Obama the grand Black prophetic tradition is weak and feeble. Obamas Black face of the American empire has made it more difficult for Black courageous and radical voices to bring critique to bear on the US empire. On the empirical or lived level of Black experience, Black people have suffered more in this age than in the recent past. Empirical indices of infant mortality rates, mass incarceration rates, mass unemployment, and dramatic declines in household wealth reveal this sad reality. How do we account for this irony? It goes far beyond the individual figure of President Obama himself, though he is complicit; he is a symptom, not a primary cause. Although he is a symbol for some of either a postracial condition or incredible Black progress, his presidency conceals the escalating levels of social misery in poor and Black America.

The leading causes of the decline of the Black prophetic tradition are threefold. First, there is the shift of Black leadership from the voices of social movements like those in this book to those of elected officials in the mainstream political system. This shift produces voices that are rarely if ever critical of this system. How could we expect the Black caretakers and gatekeepers of the system to be critical of it? This shift is part of a larger structural transformation in the history of mid-twentieth-century capitalism in which neoliberal elites marginalize social movements and prophetic voices in the name of consolidating a rising oligarchy at the top, leaving a devastated working class in the middle, and desperate poor people whose labor is no longer necessary for the system at the bottom.

Second, this neoliberal shift produces a culture of raw ambition and instant success that is seductive to most potential leaders and intellectuals, thereby incorporating them into the neoliberal regime. This culture of superficial spectacle and hyper-visible celebrities highlights the legitimacy of an unjust system that prides itself on upward mobility of the downtrodden. Yet, the truth is that we live in a country that has the least upward mobility of any other modern nation!

Third, the US neoliberal regime contains a vicious repressive apparatus that targets those strong and sacrificial leaders, activists, and prophetic intellectuals who are easily discredited, delegitimated, or even assassinated, including through character assassination. Character assassination becomes systemic and chronic, and it is preferable to literal assassination because dead martyrs tend to command the attention of the sleepwalking masses and thereby elevate the threat to the status quo.

The central role of mass media, especially a corporate media beholden to the US neoliberal regime, is to keep public discourse narrow and deodorized. By "narrow" I mean confining the conversation to conservative Republican and neoliberal Democrats who shut out prophetic voices or radical visions. This fundamental power to define the political terrain and categories attempts to render prophetic voices invisible. The discourse is deodorized because the issues that prophetic voices highlight, such as mass incarceration, wealth inequality, and war crimes such as imperial drones murdering innocent people, are ignored.

The age of Obama was predicated on three pillars: Wall Street crimes in the financial catastrophe of 2008; imperial crimes in the form of the USA PATRIOT Act and National Defense Authorization Act, which give the president sweeping and arbitrary power that resembles a police or neofascist state; and social crimes principally manifest in a criminal justice system that is in itself criminal (where torturers, wire tappers, and Wall Street violators of the law go free yet poor criminals, such as drug offenders, go to prison). This kind of clear and direct language is rare in political discourse precisely because we are accustomed to be so polite in the face of crimes against humanity. The role of the Black prophetic tradition has always been to shatter the narrow and deodorized discourse in the name of the funky humanity and precious individuality of poor people. How rarely this takes place today! The profound failings of President Obama can be seen in his Wall Street government, his indifference to the new Jim Crow (or prison-industrial complex) and his expansion of imperial criminality in terms of the vast increase of the number of drones since the Bush years. In other words, the Obama presidency has been primarily a Wall Street presidency, drone presidency, mass surveillance presidency unwilling to concretely target the new Jim Crow, massive unemployment, and other forms of poor and Black social misery. His major effort to focus on poor Black men was charity and philanthropy - not justice or public policy.

The state of Black America in the age of Obama has been one of desperation, confusion, and capitulation. The desperation is rooted in the escalating suffering on every front. The confusion arises from a conflation of symbol and substance. The capitulation rests on an obsessive need to protect the first Black president against all forms of criticism. Black desperation is part of a broader desperation among poor and working people during the age of Obama. The bailout of Wall Street by the Obama administration, rather than the bailout of homeowners, hurt millions of working people. The refusal of the Obama administration to place a priority on jobs with a living wage reinforced massive unemployment, and the sheer invisibility of poor people's plight in public policy has produced more social despair among weak and vulnerable citizens. The unprecedented historical symbolism of the first Black president has misled many if not most Black people to downplay his substantial neoliberal policies and elevate his (and his family's) brilliant and charismatic presence. Needless to say, the presence of his brilliant and charismatic wife, Michelle - a descendent of enslaved and Jim-Crowed people, unlike himself - even more deeply legitimates his symbolic status, a status that easily substitutes for substantial achievement. The cowardly capitulation of Black leadership to Obama's neoliberal policies in the name of the Black prophetic tradition is pathetic. The role of the NAACP, National Urban League, and Black corporate media pundits, who so quickly became Obama apologists, constitutes a fundamental betrayal of the Black prophetic tradition. The very idea of Black prophetic voices as an extension of a neoliberal and imperial US regime is a violation of what the Black prophetic tradition has been and is. This violation enrages me when I think of the blood, sweat, and tears of the people who created and sustained this precious tradition. The righteous indignation of the Black prophetic tradition targets not only the oppressive system that dominates us but also the fraudulent figures who pose and posture as prophetic ones while the suffering of the people is hidden and concealed. To sell one's soul for a mess of Obama pottage is to trash the priceless Black prophetic tradition. Is it not hypocritical to raise one's voice when the pharaoh is white but have no critical word to say when the pharaoh is Black? If the boot is on our neck, does it make any difference what color the foot is in the boot? Moral integrity, political consistency, and systemic analysis sit at the center of the Black prophetic tradition.

Since the rise of the neoliberal regime, the Black struggle for freedom has been cast or reduced to an interest group, one among other such groups in American politics. Even the motto of the Black Congressional Caucus, the apex of Black elected officials, is "We have no permanent friends or permanent enemies - only permanent interests." How morally empty and ethically deficient this motto is - no reference to moral principles, ethical standards, or grand visions of justice for all; just permanent interests, like the Business Roundtable for Wall Street oligarchs, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for the security of Israel, or the National Rifle Association for gun ownership. The Black prophetic tradition indeed includes interests but goes far beyond such narrow calculations and stresses a moral high ground of fairness and justice for all. The Black prophetic tradition surely begins on the chocolate side of town, but like the blues and jazz, it has a universal message for all human beings concerned about justice and freedom.

It is no accident that the "permanent interests" of the Black Congressional Caucus so quickly became Black middle-class interests given the neoliberal regime to which they were accommodating. To be a highly successful Black professional or politician is too often to be well adjusted to injustice and well adapted to indifference toward poor people, including Black poor people. The Black prophetic tradition is fundamentally committed to the priority of poor and working people, thus pitting it against the neoliberal regime, capitalist system, and imperial policies of the US government. The Black prophetic tradition has never been confined to the interests and situations of Black people. It is rooted in principles and visions that embrace these interests and confront the situations, but its message is for the country and world. The Black prophetic tradition has been the leaven in the American democratic loaf. When the Black prophetic tradition is strong, poor and working people of all colors benefit. When the Black prophetic tradition is weak, poor and working class people are overlooked. On the international level, when the Black prophetic tradition is vital and vibrant, anti-imperial critiques are intense, and the plight of the wretched of the earth is elevated. What does it profit a people for a symbolic figure to gain presidential power if we turn our backs from the suffering of poor and working people, and thereby lose our souls? The Black prophetic tradition has tried to redeem the soul of our fragile democratic experiment. Is it redeemable?
 
Salon_website_logo.png


Time to care about damn emails:
Hillary Clinton has a serious legal problem
New State Department report criticizes Clinton's email protocol and reopens legitimate concerns about her actions

hillary-big-surprise.jpg



by H.A. Goodman | May 27, 2016 | http://www.salon.com/2016/05/27/time_to_care_about_damn_emails_hillary_clinton_has_a_serious_legal_problem/

The Democratic primary isn’t about delegate count. The Democratic primary is about defeating Donald Trump in 2016. Currently, Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by 10.8 points. Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump by 0.2 points the other day (in an average of polls), and is now only 1 point ahead according to Real Clear Politics. In addition to poll numbers, CNN disclosed the findings of a recent State Department report“slamming” Clinton’s use of a private server.

This report is highlighted in a CNN article titled State Department report slams Clinton email use:

(CNN) A State Department Inspector General report said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton failed to follow the rules or inform key department staff regarding her use of a private email server, according to a copy of the report obtained by CNN on Wednesday.

The report, which was provided to lawmakers, states, “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”

…the report notes that interviews with officials from the Under Secretary for Management and the Office of the Legal Adviser found “no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff” of the server.

…the report says that the Inspector General’s office “found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server.”

Thus, every legal defense of Clinton’s emails has just been shattered.

First, Clinton’s “convenience” excuse, which rests upon the notion that the State Department allowed her to use a private server, is now obsolete. As explained in the State Department report, there’s “no evidence” Clinton asked for, or received, approval for a private server.

This undermines every defense for Clinton, since the narrative must go from “convenience” and naiveté, to intentionally breaking protocol. As stated in the report, State Department protocol and guidelines correlate to existing laws regarding record keeping and the handling of classified data.
Now that Clinton can’t simply claim “convenience,” there’s the obvious intent to hide information.

Whether or not the over 30,000 emails she deleted were truly private (or about yoga) is now irrelevant; they should never have been combined with classified data, on an unguarded private server.

This isn’t Whitewater. It’s a huge story, and a controversy that will lead to the FBI recommending indictments. If you disagree, then store your Social Security number, bank account information, and address on a friend’s private server. After you’ve stored your most precious data on another person’s server, then try to sleep easy at night.

Nobody before Clinton, Republican or Democrat, has ever linked a private server to government networks used to store Top Secret intelligence.

Hillary Clinton broke State Department guidelines, which makes storing 22 Top Secret emails on the server even more egregious. As explained by CBS News in January, these files contained Special Access Program information:

The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton’s unsecured home server contained some of the U.S. government’s most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification.

…But seven email chains are being withheld in full because they contain information deemed to be “top secret.” The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called “special access programs” – a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes or government eavesdropping.

It is a crime to store Top Secret intelligence anywhere other than government networks; regardless of whether or not Clinton believed her server to be more secure. Furthermore, SAP data is so secretive, the U.S. government often times denies the existence of these projects.

The “high bar” that defenders of Hillary Clinton cite was just lowered to a level indicating she intentionally used a private server. This intent correlates to legal consequences. Intent means a deliberate act, and this deliberate act can’t be explained as “convenience.”


The Espionage Act states that whoever is “entrusted” with state secrets must ensure this data isn’t “removed from its proper place of custody” and that “gross negligence” isn’t a defense:

Yes, Clinton’s 22 Top Secret emails were “illegally removed from its proper place.”

Also, how did Brian Pagliano transfer this intelligence from secure State Department networks, onto a private server, without authority or documentation from State?

Who helped Pagliano transfer this data?

The recent State Department report states there’s no documentation approving Clinton’s server.

This intentional need to circumvent U.S. government networks correlates to breaking State Department guidelines. As written in the Inspector General’s report, “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service.”

According to The Washington Post, “she ignored” everything from government record keeping to cyber security. Also, “Ms. Clinton had plenty of warnings to use official government communications methods.”

If The Washington Post is correct, and “Ms. Clinton had plenty of warnings to use official government communications methods,” and her email use actually broke State Department rules, then Espionage Act laws directly relate to the 22 Top Secret emails on a private server.

There goes the “convenience” excuse found in a CNN article from 2015 titled Hillary Clinton: I used one email ‘for convenience’:

“I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two,” she said.

After the recent State Department report, even this benign excuse would lead to repercussions. Now, we know that State never gave her permission to own the server, even for the sake of convenience.




 
From my POV, the Democrats fielded a weak team, from the start.
Very weak. I think a decision was made for all the democratic heavy weights to stand down this year to give Hillary her consolation from 2008. O'Malley played a weak hand in hopes of getting his name out there for the next election opportunity and Sanders just said "fuck it! I'mma do what I wanna do!"
 
Very weak. I think a decision was made for all the democratic heavy weights to stand down this year to give Hillary her consolation from 2008. O'Malley played a weak hand in hopes of getting his name out there for the next election opportunity and Sanders just said "fuck it! I'mma do what I wanna do!"

Precisely !
 
Hillary_Trump_2016.jpg



consortium_news_01.jpg


Waiting for California and the FBI


Exclusive: Some Democratic leaders are privately scouting around for someone to replace Hillary Clinton if she stumbles again in California and/or the FBI detects a crime in her email scandal, reports Robert Parry.

by Robert Parry | June 1, 2016 | https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/01/waiting-for-california-and-the-fbi/

For months now, poll after poll have registered the judgment of the American people that they want neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump as the next President, but the two major parties seem unable to steer away from this looming pileup, forcing voters to choose between two widely disdained politicians.

The Republicans are locked in after Trump’s hostile takeover of the party’s selection process, but the Democrats have one final chance to steer clear, on June 7 when they hold several primaries and caucuses including New Jersey and California. If Bernie Sanders can upset Clinton in California – and/or if Clinton’s legal problems over her emails worsen – there remains a long-shot chance that the Democratic convention might nominate someone else.

As far-fetched as this might seem, some senior Democrats, including reportedly White House officials, are giving serious thought to how the party can grab the wheel at the last moment and avoid the collision of two historically unpopular political figures, a smash-up where Trump might be the one walking away, damaged but victorious.

Two Washington insiders – Democratic pollster and political adviser Douglas E. Schoen and famed Watergate investigative reporter Carl Bernstein – have described panicky meetings of top Democrats worried over Clinton’s troubled campaign, with Schoen also describing private talks about possible last-minute alternatives.

I’ve heard similar tales of hushed discussions – with the fill-in options including Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry or Sen. Sanders – but I still believe these fretful leaders are frozen by indecision and don’t have the nerve to pull Hillary Clinton’s hands off the steering wheel even to avoid disaster.

But at least I’m not alone hearing these frightened whispers. In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Schoen, who served as a political aide to President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, wrote: “There is now more than a theoretical chance that Hillary Clinton may not be the Democratic nominee for president. …

“The inevitability behind Mrs. Clinton’s nomination will be in large measure eviscerated if she loses the June 7 California primary to Bernie Sanders.
That could well happen. …. A Sanders win in California would powerfully underscore Mrs. Clinton’s weakness as a candidate in the general election.

“Democratic superdelegates — chosen by the party establishment and overwhelmingly backing Mrs. Clinton, 543-44 — would seriously question whether they should continue to stand behind her candidacy. …

“Mrs. Clinton also faces growing legal problems. The State Department inspector general’s recent report on Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state made it abundantly clear that she broke rules and has been far from forthright in her public statements. The damning findings buttressed concerns within the party that Mrs. Clinton and her aides may not get through the government’s investigation without a finding of culpability somewhere.

“With Mrs. Clinton reportedly soon to be interviewed by the FBI, suggesting that the investigation is winding up, a definitive ruling by the attorney general could be issued before the July 25 Democratic convention in Philadelphia. Given the inspector general’s report, a clean bill of health from the Justice Department is unlikely.

“Finally, with Mrs. Clinton’s negative rating nearly as high as Donald Trump’s, and with voters not trusting her by a ratio of 4 to 1, Democrats face an unnerving possibility.”

Besides the lack of trust, voters simply don’t like her. On Wednesday, the Real Clear Politics poll average of Clinton’s favorable vs. unfavorable numbers were 37.6 percent to 55.8 percent, an 18.2-point net unfavorable.

Looking for a Fill-in

Schoen continued: “There are increasing rumblings within the party about how a new candidate could emerge at the convention. John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, is one possibility. But the most likely scenario is that Vice President Joe Biden — who has said that he regrets ‘every day’ his decision not to run — enters the race.

“Mr. Biden would be cast as the white knight rescuing the party, and the nation, from a possible Trump presidency. To win over Sanders supporters, he would likely choose as his running mate someone like Sen. Elizabeth Warren who is respected by the party’s left wing. …

“All of these remain merely possibilities. But it is easier now than ever to imagine a scenario in which Hillary Clinton — whether by dint of legal or political circumstances — is not the Democratic presidential nominee.”

In a CNN interview after last week’s scathing State Department Inspector General’s report on Clinton’s use of her home email server, Carl Bernstein said he was hearing similar speculation:

“I was in Washington this week, I spoke to a number of top Democratic officials and they’re terrified, including people at the White House, that her campaign is in freefall because of this distrust factor. Indeed, Trump has a similar problem, but she’s the one whose numbers are going south.

“And the great hope in the White House, as well as the Democratic leadership and people who support her, is that she can just get to this convention, get the nomination – which they’re no longer 100 percent sure of – and get President Obama out there to help her, he’s got a lot of credibility… But she needs all the help she can get because right now her campaign is in huge trouble.”

On Tuesday, Clinton received a boost when California Gov. Jerry Brown endorsed her – reflecting the Democratic establishment’s view that it is safer to leave Clinton at the wheel than try to wrestle it away and face the wrath of Clinton’s female supporters who insist that it’s “her turn” after she lost a hard-fought race to Barack Obama in 2008.

Trump also administered another self-inflicted wound with a bitterly defensive press conference about his fund-raising for veteran groups, and he suffered more bruises with the release of court evidence about high-pressure sales tactics used by the now-defunct Trump University.

Trump’s black Tuesday reminded Democrats why they were so hopeful that Trump might first blow up the Republican Party and then blow up his own campaign, letting Clinton win essentially by default. But the fragility of Clinton’s own position was exposed by last week’s IG report, which reinforced public perceptions that she is imperious, entitled and dishonest.

Voter Uprising

Ironically, the two parties reached this collision point from opposite directions. The Republican Party’s establishment wanted almost anyone but Trump but the party’s favored candidates fell victim to the reality TV star’s skill at exploiting their weaknesses – almost as if he were playing a high-stakes reality TV show.

In contrast, the Democratic Party’s leadership tried to arrange a coronation for Hillary Clinton by discouraging other candidates from challenging the powerful Clinton machine, arguing that a virtually uncontested nomination would save money and limit the exposure of Clinton’s political weaknesses.

But the unlikely candidacy of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, technically an Independent although he caucuses with the Senate Democrats, revealed both a powerful hunger for change within the Democratic Party and Clinton’s political vulnerabilities amid a season of voter discontent.

Whereas Republican leaders failed to suppress their voters’ uprising – as Trump torched his GOP rivals one after another – the Democratic leadership did all they could to save Clinton, virtually pushing her badly damaged bandwagon toward the finish line while shouting at Sanders to concede.

But it has now dawned on some savvy Democrats that Clinton’s campaign vehicle may be damaged beyond repair, especially if more harm is inflicted by the FBI’s findings about her sloppy handling of government secrets. The Democrats see themselves stuck with a status-quo, legacy candidate at a moment when the public is disgusted with government dysfunction and demanding change.

Yet, whether the Democrats have the guts to go through the pain of denying Clinton the nomination may depend on what happens in California and inside the FBI.



 
truth_dig.jpg



Americans Truly Don’t Like Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton


Emerging_Choice_Hillary_Trump.jpg


by Andrea Germanos | July 2, 2016 | http://www.truthdig.com/report/item...like_trump_or_clinton_poll_suggests_20160702/


Via a new Gallup poll, more evidence came Friday that the nation’s electorate really doesn’t like this year’s leading presidential candidates.

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has the dubious distinction of being the most unfavorably viewed of any candidate over the past seven decades—displacing 1964 Republican candidate Barry Goldwater from the bottom spot.

The poll offers no smug moment for Clinton: her scores put her among the bottom four presidential candidates, with scores barely better than those of Goldwater.

The scores are on based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,025 adults, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Respondents were asked to give a number between +1 and +5 to give a favorable view of a candidate, with +5 being the most favorable. They were also asked for a number -1 to -5 to express an unfavorable view of the candidate, with -5 being very unfavorable.

With that data, Gallup indicated who has the highest unfavorable and highest favorable ratings, as well as overall favorable and overall unfavorable ratings.

Trump’s highly favorable rating is just 16 percent, and his highly unfavorable rating is 42. Goldwater’s highly favorable rating was 17, for comparison, and his highly unfavorable rating was just 26 percent.

Clinton, for her part, has a highly favorable rating of 22 percent and a highly unfavorable rating of 33 percent.

Democrat George McGovern had a bad image during his 1972 presidential bid as well. His scores are sandwiched between those of Goldwater and Clinton, having a 21 percent highly favorable rating and 20 percent highly unfavorable score.

Looking at total favorable versus total unfavorable ratings, Clinton edges out Trump, having 51 percent favorable to 50 percent unfavorable. The real estate mogul, meanwhile, has 42 percent favorable versus 59 percent negative.

Gallup states: “The wild card in this year’s ratings is that more Americans view Clinton and Trump highly unfavorably than highly favorably, and to an unprecedented degree.”

Looking at the other end of the list, Dwight D. Eisenhower (in ‘56) leads the total favorable score with 84 percent, followed by Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter (in ‘76) with 81.

The new Gallup poll is not the first survey showing voters’ distaste for both leading candidates.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released in May showed voters choosing to vote against Trump or Clinton, rather than for one of the candidates.

And an NBC News/Survey Monkey poll also released in May showed that 60 percent of respondents said they “dislike” or “hate” Clinton, and 63 percent felt that way about Trump.

votingagainst-a_0.jpg



 
Last edited:
Back
Top