Run Hillary Run - Still an outside possibility

[merjet]

Poll reported today. Same %'s Selene shows for July 2015.

[Selene]

Poll reported today. Same %'s Selene shows for July 2015.

Yes Monmouth in NJ.

A...

[Selene]

How did you get access to internal polling?

You follow John Podesta around in a liquor store for 30 minutes and just listen.

However, the answer to how you get the internals is you know someone in the campaign who can share them with you.

A...

[william.scherk]

I want to make sure I understand, Adam. Regarding your unsourced copy-paste from data tables in a PDF of the Monmouth poll results in #274, you are not claiming that the figures quoted have anything to do with Hillary Clinton campaign's internal polling. Is that right?

I may be mixing up 'internal polling' (polls commissioned by a campaign which results are held private) with 'internals' from polls that are reported in the press, like the Monmouth poll you copied from. By those 'internals' I think you may mean the less-reported details (questions, demographics, methodology, margins of error).

You are not claiming any access to privately-held poll results from the Clinton campaign, are you?

Edited July 15, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

I want to make sure I understand, Adam. Regarding your unsourced copy-paste from data tables in a PDF of the Monmouth poll results in #274, you are not claiming that the figures quoted have anything to do with Hillary Clinton campaign's internal polling. Is that right?

I may be mixing up 'internal polling' (polls commissioned by a campaign which results are held private) with 'internals' from polls that are reported in the press, like the Monmouth poll you copied from. By those 'internals' I think you may mean the less-reported details (questions, demographics, methodology, margins of error).

You are not claiming any access to privately-held poll results from the Clinton campaign, are you?

Internals, do not get released to anyone, they stay within the care custody and control of the campaign manager and staff.

Many times, bad ones are kept from the candidate who is the cash cow.

Now you know I have been involved in NY City politics for at least fifty-two (52) years and that includes today.

So I think you can infer how I might have heard about the internals.

Also, I was not joking about the John Podesta situation. It is also in Drudge today. I was a tad busy when I wrote the post today.

John Podesta, Chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, has already decided that Governor Jeb Bush will be the Republican nominee for president. Here’s why I know.

While shopping at Magruder’s of DC yesterday evening around 6:30, I overheard a parts of a lengthy—20 minutes– cell phone conversation between Podesta and someone— about Hillary’s campaign.

With an earpiece dangling from his left ear, Podesta told the person on the other end there were two things he was most concerned about. The first was being “outgunned” in money by Jeb Bush; second that he was worried about the “psychosis of the media . . .which is something we created.” He added with a humble chuckle – and I’m paraphrasing – that they certainly couldn’t complain about the media’s coverage of Hillary because it was something of her campaign staff’s own making.

http://conservativeblackchick.com/blog/2015/07/14/overheard-at-the-liquor-store-hillarys-worried-about-jeb/

By the way, I detest Podesta.

A...

[william.scherk]

These are the types of trend lines that Evita's internals are showing...and they are scared early...

How did you get access to internal polling?

[T]he answer to how you get the internals is you know someone in the campaign who can share them with you.

You are not claiming any access to privately-held poll results from the Clinton campaign, are you?

Internals, do not get released to anyone, they stay within the care custody and control of the campaign manager and staff. [...]

So I think you can infer how I might have heard about the internals.

If you can't say, you can't say. I won't infer anything. I was more just wondering why you would parlay the unsourced Monmouth quotes as if they aligned with the mysterious Clinton 'internals.' I expect, all things being equal, that campaign internal polls are matched against public polls. Remembering the shock of Mitt Romney that he lost in 2012**, it seems to me that if your internal polls do not match the public polls, you are fooling yourself.

Perhaps next time you borrow figures from a publicly-available poll, you will refer to the site and page from which you borrowed.

I don't think you are presently claiming any 'insider' connection.

Thanks for the funny and revealing story from Black Conservative Chick. Fun stuff.

It seems Jeb represents a clear and present danger to Team Hillary. My advice to Jeb is to keep playing it cool and rational, like hes done with the Confederate flag and Donald Trump. One of Jebs biggest threats to Hillary is his command of the Spanish language and ability to connect with Hispanic voters. Jeb should start speaking in Spanish morein stump speeches, interviews and debates.

Jeb (and the other 15 GOP candidates) should limit his media interviews like Hillarys been doing. If he must do an interview here or there, Jeb should consent only to request from conservative press just as Hillary did when she cherry-picked CNN to do her first unserious interview. Fewer interviews means less ammunition for the liberal media to use to harpoon Jeb, should he become the 2016 GOP nominee. Lets face: the verbal bullets are going to fly from Republicans at one another starting August when the first GOP debate is scheduled.

Watching Podesta push his cart into the parking lot and load up his hooch into his Ford Focus, all I could do was smile. If Hillarys own team is having doubts about her inevitable presidency, Jeb needs to give Hillary more than just something to worry about; he needs scare her!

-- this aligns with the way I see the race shaping up in the primaries. Bush is presently the one candidate within striking distance of Clinton. Trump is a sideshow.

_______________________________

** From a CBS News post-mortem analysis of the Romney mistakes in interpreting polls:

As a result, they believed the public/media polls were skewed - they thought those polls oversampled Democrats and didn't reflect Republican enthusiasm. They based their own internal polls on turnout levels more favorable to Romney. That was a grave miscalculation, as they would see on election night.

Those assumptions drove their campaign strategy: their internal polling showed them leading in key states, so they decided to make a play for a broad victory: go to places like Pennsylvania while also playing it safe in the last two weeks.

Those assessments were wrong.

They made three key miscalculations, in part because this race bucked historical trends:

1. They misread turnout. They expected it to be between 2004 and 2008 levels, with a plus-2 or plus-3 Democratic electorate, instead of plus-7 as it was in 2008. Their assumptions were wrong on both sides: The president's base turned out and Romney's did not. More African-Americans voted in Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida than in 2008. And fewer Republicans did: Romney got just over 2 million fewer votes than John McCain.

2. Independents. State polls showed Romney winning big among independents. Historically, any candidate polling that well among independents wins. But as it turned out, many of those independents were former Republicans who now self-identify as independents. The state polls weren't oversampling Democrats and undersampling Republicans - there just weren't as many Republicans this time because they were calling themselves independents.

3. Undecided voters. The perception is they always break for the challenger, since people know the incumbent and would have decided already if they were backing him. Romney was counting on that trend to continue. Instead, exit polls show Mr. Obama won among people who made up their minds on Election Day and in the few days before the election. So maybe Romney, after running for six years, was in the same position as the incumbent.

The campaign before the election had expressed confidence in its calculations, and insisted the Obama campaign, with its own confidence and a completely different analysis, was wrong. In the end, it the other way around.

Edited July 15, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

William:

The reason that I did not post the link was because I did not have time.

And unless you are completely incapable of reading between the lines my statement was not connected to the trend lines of the Monmouth poll released today on Drudge right above the Podesta link.

And I did "hear" in key ED's that I know personally inside of NY City that her numbers are horrendous.

A...

[william.scherk]

The reason that I did not post the link was because I did not have time.

Sure. You had time to copy-paste the Monmouth figures, but you had no time to copy-paste the URL. You were 'a tad busy.' Okay. Like I suggested, maybe next time you will be more diligent and provide a source ... because the impression left was that the numbers you quoted were from some 'inside' source. That is why I asked for some clarification.

And unless you are completely incapable of reading between the lines my statement was not connected to the trend lines of the Monmouth poll released today on Drudge right above the Podesta link.

??? Your copypasta from Monmouth illustrated month-to-month changes in their polling. The copied excerpt was directly linked in the 'statement' to Clinton internals.

I tried not to 'read between the lines' or interpret your dance of the veils. I asked for clarification, which you did not provide. If your statement was read straight, it meant you had some inside knowledge: "These are the types of trend lines that Evita's internals are showing..."

See what I mean? Hillary Clinton's 'internals' are showing similar trend lines as (hastily pastily) Monmouth. The question that came to mind was "How do you know this, Adam? What are your sources of information?"

And I did "hear" in key ED's that I know personally inside of NY City that her numbers are horrendous.

That is an important data point, I guess. Someone in some unmentionable NYC electoral districts said that Clinton's numbers are horrendous ... this could mean many things. I don't expect you to lift the veils and give detail. You probably don't have the time ...

Edited July 15, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

... this could mean many things. I don't expect you to lift the veils and give detail. You probably don't have the time ...

Fascinating.

You just do not get it.

[Mikee]

contempt:
1 condescension, derision, disdain, disregard, disrespect, mockery, neglect, scorn, slight
2 (a state of contempt) disgrace, dishonor, humiliation, shame

William is not disguising it much these days... Somethings not going as well as expected evidently.

[Brant Gaede]

contempt:

1 condescension, derision, disdain, disregard, disrespect, mockery, neglect, scorn, slight

2 (a state of contempt) disgrace, dishonor, humiliation, shame

William is not disguising it much these days... Somethings not going as well as expected evidently.

I didn't realize it until recently, but he was Canadian all along.

--Brant

they like what we like?

[Selene]

Well lookie here...

For the first time in our history, a socialist is running a close second and gaining ground on the front-runner in a presidential race.

Anyway you look at it, Senator Bernie Sanders is making history and may very well play a deciding role in who will be the next president. How real is the Sanders movement? Well, at this point in his campaign in 2007, Barack Obama had 180,000 donors on his way to setting records with low-donor contributions; Bernie Sanders has 250,000.

How’s he doing with voters in early states? “The next time Hillary Rodham Clinton visits New Hampshire, she need not look over her shoulder to find Bernie Sanders; the Vermont Senator is running right alongside her in a statistical dead heat for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, according to a CNN/WMUR poll,” wrote The New York Times on June 25.

But lest the Sanders surge in New Hampshire be dismissed as neighboring state advantage, the Clinton campaign seems even more worried about losing Iowa. In a carefully orchestrated bit of expectation lowering, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook recently said, “the caucuses are always such a tough proving ground” and Clinton campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmeri said, “We are worried about [sanders].”

Iowa was where the Axelrod-Plouff brain trust caught Evita with her pantsuit pants down...[ gag ]

caiuci are very very strange events and are treated as special elections where the polls do not close...it is similar to the meeting that Heinlein described in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress...

A...

[william.scherk]

contempt:

1 condescension, derision, disdain, disregard, disrespect, mockery, neglect, scorn, slight

2 (a state of contempt) disgrace, dishonor, humiliation, shame

William is not disguising it much these days... Somethings not going as well as expected evidently.

I think you might be on to something. Contempt is sometimes rational and sometimes not, sometimes deserved and sometimes wholly wrong and misdirected. Contempt can be expressed in strong terms -- as many folks do here on myriad subjects -- or in a minor key of mockery or ridicule. Contempt can be well-warranted, and contempt can be a result of prejudice or bigotry -- or just old-fashioned revulsion, which can have various emotional inputs or instigations.

Political topics certainly invite contempt. Who does not have contempt for the grotesqueries of an American political system that will spit up in the end -- after a billion and more dollars are expended -- two hoary old dynastic operators like Clinton and Bush? (that is my ballot prediction for 2016)

Clinton deserves harsh scrutiny and certainly invokes contempt from Republicans and Independents, and most certainly from the Objectivish-oriented here. She is everything politically repulsive and disgusting to an Objectivist or Randian. That contempt can be expressed by calling her ugly, a ratty vagina, a hag, a lesbian, a Marxist, a liar, a criminal, and so on.

If I had to reduce my own genesis of contempt to a single factor, I think I would identify bullshit as the primary instigator. And the principal component of the bullshit for me would be sloppy and irrational thinking and arguments.

For some of the folks here (excepting incorrigible people such as Greg), the single point of contact or adhesion I have is Reason. Difficult, sustained and protracted reasoning is attractive to me, because it is in my eyes the best tool for gaining proper and valid understanding of the world and what is in it. I expect everyone here (excepting the nitwits and the bigoted) to be able to think critically, to examine their own arguments, to do the diligent work necessary to arrive at reliable knowledge.

If the only take-home received from recent comments of mine is contempt, then I have probably failed to communicate my points and the basis for my questions, and let emotion rule my expression. I do want straight-thinking, warranted arguments and claims based on something other than vague nostrums and puerile slogans. I want the highest and best efforts from folks I engage with. I don't want slop and prevarication and wishful thinking and other irrational nonsense.

As to the subject of your comment, I will interpret it as me having unfairly taken issue with Adam's statements and lazy habits. It seems contemptuous to question his bases of knowledge. It seems contemptuous to ask him to answer the old question "How do you know?"

So be it. This is not a girl's club. Folks have strong opinions. I would rather everyone expressed those opinions in the strongest terms, based on critical assessments. I would rather an argument be conducted at full heat rather than no argument at all.

[Brant Gaede]

Canadian contempt for American contempt.

It may not make the world go round, but it does OL.

--Brant

mirror, mirror on the wall,

who is the laziest of all?

critical thinking in a thimble

Trudging to Armageddon

[william.scherk]

Adam's copypasta suggests Hillary is in trouble in New Hampshire -- and so will at some point bow out of the race entirely. Some thousand years from the primary, it is I guess a judgment call. From my understanding, New Hampshire primary voters wait until the last weeks of a campaign before they double down on their choice**. At the moment, Clinton leads Sanders in both New Hampshire and Iowa. I don't know how she is doing in the cloaca/caiuci ...

Here's a long excerpt from a top Republican insider (and loser):


[From Stuart Stevens, the chief strategist for Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign, published today in the Daily Beast -- "This Is How Hillary Loses the Primary]

Like him or hate him, Bernie Sanders is the real deal. He’s the most left-wing candidate to emerge as a serious threat to a front-runner in modern history and the faithful love him. Will he be the next president? No. But if Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, it is likely to set off a chain reaction that will topple Clinton.

Hillary Clinton’s greatest strength—more than being a woman, more than being a Clinton—is the fact that polls show her consistently beating Republicans. Democrats see her as someone who can hold the White House. If she loses to Bernie in Iowa or New Hampshire, most likely the subsequent polls will show her losing to a handful of top Republicans.

And then what happens? Will the Democratic Party rally around her?

Perhaps. But more likely party voices, with great and solemn regret (masking their deep panic), will begin to say that Hillary had her chance, she fought a good fight, but we can’t lose the White House.

Who would get in? I still think Elizabeth Warren could be drawn in under this scenario. It’s very different to get into a race to challenge the inevitable Hillary Clinton versus getting into a race to save the party from a wounded Hillary Clinton. John Kerry could get in. Who knows? Perhaps Martin O’Malley does emerge as the viable alternative.

So how does Hillary Clinton avoid the danger of this scenario? Easy. She has to win Iowa and New Hampshire. She should win Iowa and New Hampshire, and handily. She’s running against an obscure 73-year-old socialist from a tiny state that has few minorities and little organized labor, two of the longtime power centers in the Democratic Party.

But to beat Sanders, Clinton has to stop trying to be Sanders-lite and get about the business of explaining why he’s wrong and she’s right. That’s how every race is won or lost. She has to lay out the case that Sanders has bad ideas—and most of his are—that will kill jobs and hurt people. She has to run as Hillary Clinton, not some new creation that a bunch of thirtysomething operatives put together as a poli-sci project.

One of life’s truths is that we all tend to become more like ourselves the older we get. If you’re marrying someone over 65 with the hope they will change, the odds for success are slim.

Hillary Clinton, who has collected vast fortunes in campaign donations from Wall Street and hasn’t driven a car in over a quarter of a century, can’t win a progressive primary. So if she doesn’t change the terms of the race, she’s going to lose. Again.

____________________________

** from the CNN/WMUR poll cited by Stevens:

New Hampshire primary voters typically decide who they will vote for in the last weeks, or days of the campaign and it is no surprise that few voters have made up their minds about who they will support in 2016. Currently, only 20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they have definitely decided who they will support, 26% are leaning toward a candidate, but the majority of voters (54%) are still trying to decide who to support.

Edited July 15, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

I predict that if Hilliary bows out it will be at the most disadvantageous time for the winner going into the national election. It's called spite.

She may de facto crap out as the nominee and run a lousy campaign. She has to understand on the gut level she's all about her and has nothing to offer to the country generally. In that sense she's the anti-Obama and maybe the anti all the other candidates. Everyone's vain and ego driven to varying extents. Most of us try to find the right leavening so when we come out of the oven we're going to be socially acceptable and consumable. With her the leavening is more vanity.

--Brant

and I don't even have to know what I'm talking about--I'm that good!

[william.scherk]

Brant, I think (I wish I were wrong) that Hillary Clinton will clinch the Democratic nomination. I hope at least there will be some drama and action in the Democratic race for those Democratic voters who wish she would fucking retire or die off.

There will be lots of drama in the Republican race, since no one is reaching Hillary-like numbers right now. As the field narrows, someone will take the lead and fight to maintain it, and it won't be anyone other than Bush, in my view. I hope to be wrong (on Bush), but the GOP members want to win, and from today's vantage, Republicans view Bush as the one who gets closest to denying Clinton a victory.

Meanwhile in the socialist shithole to the north, the leftmost party in Parliament is likely to deny our Conservative government another term. Our election is slated for October 19th, 2015.

[Jules Troy]

Yup, notice the move by Bank of Canada today Bill? It is their last gasp before the election. They lowered interest rates again so the masses of people can "feel good" about the value of their one asset strategy rising. Interest rates go down, the value of real estate goes up. Looks good to those that are lacking in critical thinking. Yup the loonie plunged about 2 cents 5 minutes after the announcement this morning.

Here is the problem, especially in places like Vancouver and Toronto. People are pickled in Debt. The average in Canada is an earnings to debt ratio of 163%. In 2000 it was around 103%..

A single detached home in Van is listed at 2.2 million. Over the border in Seattle the same house is 600k..

People are borrowing upwards of 12x gross earnings to get into a cheap 2% 5 year mortgage.

They are making the payments, the value of the house is increasing, life is great! Real estate always goes up!! Excepttttt for the last 100 years the Canadian system has always mirrored the US one usually with a lag of 6 months to a year.

Well the Americans are raising interest rates this year. Canada has no choice but to follow suite or risk debasing the loonie down to below 50 cents US..

What happens when Canada is forced to raise interest rates? The price of real estate will drop. Not only does it drop but it becomes an illiquid asset as the market corrects. So the people that put 5-10% down and have no money at the end of the month for RRSP or TFSA when their mortgage comes due.." If interest rates rise 1% that monthly payment suddenly jumps from 3800/ month up to 5200ish/month. Hopefully they did not take out a heloc too because any equity they may have had in the home will be rapidly vanishing.

Alberta has elected an NDP government, we are not feeling it yet. But we will be. With soft oil prices and an anti business atmosphere already oil companies have cancelled projects. One was 20 billion dollars.. Oh yess and naughty little Rachel will be "examining" the oil royalty structure in the near future after already raising corporate taxes from 10% up to 12% as well as taxes on anyone making over 125k/ year. (Anyone in the oil patch that has not been layed off already or is flipping burgers)..

Now if the PC's lose the federal election, Canada's beaver is cooked.

[Selene]

Adam's copypasta suggests Hillary is in trouble in New Hampshire -- and so will at some point bow out of the race entirely. Some thousand years from the primary, it is I guess a judgment call. From my understanding, New Hampshire primary voters wait until the last weeks of a campaign before they double down on their choice**. At the moment, Clinton leads Sanders in both New Hampshire and Iowa. I don't know how she is doing in the cloaca/caiuci ...

Now this is just a simple curious question, does this reverse hockey stick mean that we are facing a future of having the frozen vagina Evita not our President?

[Selene]

As Yogi Berra said..."It is deja vu all over again."

In the first three months of her presidential campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton has assembled a massive political battleship — hiring more than 400 staff members, collecting reams of expensive polling data and tapping top-flight consultants.

The details of her sprawling operation emerged this week in a newly filed campaign finance report. The documents showed that Clinton’s organization has spent nearly $19 million — or 40 percent of the $47 million it raised in its first quarter, a year and a half before the 2016 election.

Campaign officials said they needed to expand quickly to be able to weather a surprisingly competitive Democratic primary fight and intense general-election battle.

But the large expenditures cut against the image Clinton’s team has promoted of a lean organization that would not repeat the mistakes of what many considered her undisciplined campaign in 2008. And they raise questions about whether Clinton’s fundraising can keep pace with her rapid spending.

Evita and her ferret, John Podesta, have poured more than half of her campaigns available cash into this opening debacle of a campaign.

Apparently, Huma is making more than Mook/Monk, her youthful "manager."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-burns-through-millions-as-she-assembles-a-political-battleship/2015/07/16/09794ca2-2bd6-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html?wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1

A...

[Brant Gaede]

She ran out of money in 2008, running against Obama for the nomination.

--Brant

I think her airplane got downsized too

on another subject off this one, I think US politics is getting above-boarded Mexicoed as an extension of the prior below-boarded Mexicoed--it started in 1960--but it's been a PRI thing all along

[Selene]

She ran out of money in 2008, running against Obama for the nomination.

She ran out of "usable" money in 2008 with the campaign finance laws.

That will not happen this time.

However, she is so unappetizing and everyone feels it and just will not admit it yet.

A...

[Selene]

This is interesting and why she is so predictable.

She is running the same play book as 2008.

Hillary Clinton is reserving time for her first major ad buys of the 2016 campaign – shelling out $7.7 million for TV spots in Iowa and New Hampshire for the fall, a campaign official told POLITICO.

The ad buys would allow Clinton to go on the air as early as the first week in November through Election Day in each State – Feb. 1 for the Iowa caucuses, Feb. 9 for the New Hampshire primary.

It’s possible Clinton could buy additional time in either state sooner, the official emphasized, but she wanted to lock down the dates to counter the expected avalanche of ads bought by GOP candidates and their related super PACs.

And reserving time doesn’t necessarily mean Clinton will use it: If the campaign decides to pull out, officials can reallocate the money elsewhere.

“It’s smart to do now,” the officials said.

In Iowa, the campaign is spending $3.6 million to reserve space in eight media markets statewide; in New Hampshire, they are buying several slots with a high percentage of the cash going to the expensive Manchester/Boston market in the southern part of the state, and neighboring Burlington, Vt.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-first-ad-buy-2016-120295.html#ixzz3gYnsH3MC

No one will be listening to the TV blanketing of Iowa - these are cauci and Podesta made the same mistake last time as did Evita.

A...

[william.scherk]

I'm waiting for a survey of opinion on college campi that raises some rumpi suggesting that iowa cauci deserve cacti up their ani with a whole lot of animi.

[Mikee]

Just stop it, damn you, stop it! I'm telling you, you better take me seriously...