US Gen. Election Thread VI: You've Got E-Mail

[ArchMandible]

The law doesn't compel his hotels to wash their dirty laundry. Why waste perfectly good money when not doing so is, well, as good a business as not paying taxes???

You can ask the Native Americans about how comfy unwashed laundry sent to them as gifts turned out.

That never actually happened. The epidemics were caused by accidental contact through the expansive trade routes of the Americas, and from person to person. There is no indication theough out history that smallpox blankets were actually a thing that existed to any extent thaat would cause an outbreak, as the smallpox scabs were not particularly virulent.

That said, this is quite gross

[San Lumen]

So I saw a posting by a friend of mine on social media who has very reliable sources regarding new polls from important states all taken 100 percent after Comey's shameful actions. They show either no change or a slight movement towards Clinton.

I think Trump-leaning people moved on from that video of him saying disgusting things (Because apparently that's forgivable) and came back to him. It appears she's not losing support, more that he's gaining it again.

Wonder how things would go if another video, potentially worse, came out.

I hope one does honestly. I hate Trump with a vengeance. There is still time for opposition stuff to drop in the few days before an election. Its happened before. heck Mother Nature pulled her own October surprise with Hurricane Sandy in 2012.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... ump-brexit

The polls for Brexit were much closer than those between Clinton and Trump, the most terrifying prospect is a lack of turnout of the Democratic side, as happened on the Remain side for Brexit.
Then again, this is a pretty unprecedented election, it pays to be cautious with polls. I am making no bets until election night.

Generally Brexit polls gave between a 2-4 point win for Remain, which is certainly close and within margins of error whereas, well.. right now the disparity in polls is so wide in the US elections it's really hard to get a clear view, I would estimate Clinton currently has a 4-5 point lead. Of course that's nationally and the US elections are by state not a single national vote.

I'm just.. I guess I just wouldn't be overly surprised by a Trump win.

Frankly, the nightmare will continue, the partisan rancor will only heighten regardless of who wins, I certainly want Clinton to win but I half wish she'd never run. I dread the next four years of constant inquests, reports and legal challenges.

If Clinton wins, which I am fairly confident she will, the GOP really has only a handful of options. The two most prominent are:
a) Refuse to apologise for the farce of a candidate that they have put forward and double down as they have in the past on their increasingly right wing shift, thereby condemning themselves to the political wilderness as they become ever more extreme.
B) Actually stand up to the wing nuts in their party, and enter a long, fighting slog to regain control of their party from the vocal, radical, minority, thereby condemning themselves to the politcal wilderness until they sort themselves out.

Either hands the Democrats a fairly decent hand.
Should Trump win, he will poison the GOP for years to come.

[Dahon]

Should Trump win, he will poison the GOP for years to come.

Just the GOP? And just "poison"?

[Great Franconia and Verana]

I think Trump-leaning people moved on from that video of him saying disgusting things (Because apparently that's forgivable) and came back to him. It appears she's not losing support, more that he's gaining it again.

Wonder how things would go if another video, potentially worse, came out.

I hope one does honestly. I hate Trump with a vengeance. There is still time for opposition stuff to drop in the few days before an election. Its happened before. heck Mother Nature pulled her own October surprise with Hurricane Sandy in 2012.

I'm pretty sure most voters are, to quote our favourite democratic socialist, "tired of your damn emails." The email saga was so thoroughly gnawed on by the GOP and FBI that any more talk without evidence about Hillary Clinton just becomes back ground noise to average, nonpolitical people. Similar now to Benghazi.

Not to mention now, most people are talking about the actions of Jim Comey than the actual issues, which is much better optics for the Democrats.

In brighter news for the Clinton camp, Hillary has gotten some good news from Nevada.
https://www.google.ca/amp/m.huffpost.com
Just goes to show the importance of Ground Game.

[AiliailiA]

So I saw a posting by a friend of mine on social media who has very reliable sources regarding new polls from important states all taken 100 percent after Comey's shameful actions. They show either no change or a slight movement towards Clinton.

There are no reliable sources showing polls. We're in the same situation as two days after a debate: there are daily tracking polls and some dodgy internet polls, but no reliable polling yet to determine what effect the thing had.

It also has to play out a few more days. Comey may make further statements, or discussion might focus more on his motives than the (possible) existence of incriminating Clinton/Abedin emails, or the whole story might just fade. Anyone who could reliably predict these things would be a 'super-politician' and be virtually unbeatable.

---

You can ask the Native Americans about how comfy unwashed laundry sent to them as gifts turned out.

That never actually happened. The epidemics were caused by accidental contact through the expansive trade routes of the Americas, and from person to person. There is no indication theough out history that smallpox blankets were actually a thing that existed to any extent thaat would cause an outbreak, as the smallpox scabs were not particularly virulent.

The Siege of Fort Pitt. It's Wikipedia, but it seems quite well documented.

Smallpox infection was mostly accidental, Native Americans didn't have immunity and it would have been devastating without any deliberate infections of them. But ...

That said, this is quite gross

It wouldn't bother me. On the other hand, I wouldn't pay $900 a night to stay anywhere, and I think those who do have a right to expect the highest standard.

This is the Trump International Hotel in DC which Trump boasted about in the third debate, btw. He said it showed how trustworthy he must be if DC let him develop the Old Post Office on Pennsylvania Ave. That's the Hotel (he has a 60 year lease on the building, doesn't actually own it).

[AiliailiA]

I hope one does honestly. I hate Trump with a vengeance. There is still time for opposition stuff to drop in the few days before an election. Its happened before. heck Mother Nature pulled her own October surprise with Hurricane Sandy in 2012.

I'm pretty sure most voters are, to quote our favourite democratic socialist, "tired of your damn emails." The email saga was so thoroughly gnawed on by the GOP and FBI that any more talk without evidence about Hillary Clinton just becomes back ground noise to average, nonpolitical people. Similar now to Benghazi.

I don't agree. Benghazi was bullshit from the start, whereas the private email server was a genuine misjudgement by Clinton. She admits that herself.

If there's nothing more, it will fade to almost neutral: possibly something there, possibly just political interference by Comey, and for the "average, nonpolitical people" that breaks about even.

If there is something there — if the FBI find one clearly incrimidating email and release it — that could turn the whole election. It might not even be Comey: an unconfirmable but plausibly authentic leak of several emails from someone else in the FBI could do a lot of damage and it's not just more noise because the private email server wasn't just 'noise' in the first place.

I'm quite nervous actually.

[Corrian]

Ah, the joys of just sitting at my desk and reading about them instead.

Will you stop rubbing it in our faces? We all realize how awesomely fantastic and hip Washington is.

:p

Sorry, it's too much fun to brag about that

[Great Franconia and Verana]

I'm pretty sure most voters are, to quote our favourite democratic socialist, "tired of your damn emails." The email saga was so thoroughly gnawed on by the GOP and FBI that any more talk without evidence about Hillary Clinton just becomes back ground noise to average, nonpolitical people. Similar now to Benghazi.

I don't agree. Benghazi was bullshit from the start, whereas the private email server was a genuine misjudgement by Clinton. She admits that herself.

If there's nothing more, it will fade to almost neutral: possibly something there, possibly just political interference by Comey, and for the "average, nonpolitical people" that breaks about even.

If there is something there — if the FBI find one clearly incrimidating email and release it — that could turn the whole election. It might not even be Comey: an unconfirmable but plausibly authentic leak of several emails from someone else in the FBI could do a lot of damage and it's not just more noise because the private email server wasn't just 'noise' in the first place.

I'm quite nervous actually.

Im not saying its inconsequential, until we find out exactly whats in the emails, we cannot be sure. But unless there is as you say, an incriminating email or a smoking gun, I dont think this will effect the race much.

Until this hypothetical bombshell is dropped, the idea they are looking at the emails again doesnt matter that much because we already spent a year and a half hearing about them. If they find something, then Clinton is in hot water, but as said before, we probably wont get much until after election night.

I'm not too worried about the emails, ive heard reports that alot of the emails could possibly be duplicates of emails already read/none of them were from Clinton or on her server at all.

[AiliailiA]

*self snip*

I'm quite nervous actually.

Im not saying its inconsequential, until we find out exactly whats in the emails, we cannot be sure. But unless there is as you say, an incriminating email or a smoking gun, I dont think this will effect the race much.

Until this hypothetical bombshell is dropped, the idea they are looking at the emails again doesnt matter that much because we already spent a year and a half hearing about them. If they find something, then Clinton is in hot water, but as said before, we probably wont get much until after election night.

I'm not too worried about the emails, ive heard reports that alot of the emails could possibly be duplicates of emails already read/none of them were from Clinton or on her server at all.

Well now we agree; I was just reacting to the implication that Benghazi and 'the emails' were comparable scandals.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

Im not saying its inconsequential, until we find out exactly whats in the emails, we cannot be sure. But unless there is as you say, an incriminating email or a smoking gun, I dont think this will effect the race much.

Until this hypothetical bombshell is dropped, the idea they are looking at the emails again doesnt matter that much because we already spent a year and a half hearing about them. If they find something, then Clinton is in hot water, but as said before, we probably wont get much until after election night.

I'm not too worried about the emails, ive heard reports that alot of the emails could possibly be duplicates of emails already read/none of them were from Clinton or on her server at all.

Well now we agree; I was just reacting to the implication that Benghazi and 'the emails' were comparable scandals.

I was comparing them in a vague sense. Until new, incriminating information is brought to light, I think any furor about the emails will be blunted by the public's inundation with the topic for the last year and a half.

That being said, if Abedin has anything bad on that computer, Clinton is in trouble.
Abedin did testify under oath that she gave the FBI all the emails pertaining to the investigation that she had, so its possible she knows the computer has nothing to do with Clinton.

[Bombadil]

Well now we agree; I was just reacting to the implication that Benghazi and 'the emails' were comparable scandals.

I was comparing them in a vague sense. Until new, incriminating information is brought to light, I think any furor about the emails will be blunted by the public's inundation with the topic for the last year and a half.

That being said, if Abedin has anything bad on that computer, Clinton is in trouble.
Abedin did testify under oath that she gave the FBI all the emails pertaining to the investigation that she had, so its possible she knows the computer has nothing to do with Clinton.

The whole impeachment process against Bill Clinton started with a bullshit investigation into Whitewater that went on and on until it diverted into bringing out poor Monica - I imagine these email investigations will similarly go on and on and widen in scope until either she completes her terms or something is found.

It's going to be a depressing 4 or 8 years.

[Dahon]

You know you guys can cut that depression short, stomp it till it dies like this year must, et cetera, if you just vote Trump, you know.

Of course under Trump, the unmentionable might happen -- but anything for that magic conch shell! All heil the magic conch!)

[AiliailiA]

Well now we agree; I was just reacting to the implication that Benghazi and 'the emails' were comparable scandals.

I was comparing them in a vague sense. Until new, incriminating information is brought to light, I think any furor about the emails will be blunted by the public's inundation with the topic for the last year and a half.

That being said, if Abedin has anything bad on that computer, Clinton is in trouble.
Abedin did testify under oath that she gave the FBI all the emails pertaining to the investigation that she had, so its possible she knows the computer has nothing to do with Clinton.

Maybe it's just that Abedin lent Weiner her computer (or vice versa) and she has a higher security clearance than he does. If any emails-in-common between Abedin and Clinton dealth with classified matters, and Weiner could have seen them, that could be bad.

It would be bad for Abedin though, not Clinton.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

I was comparing them in a vague sense. Until new, incriminating information is brought to light, I think any furor about the emails will be blunted by the public's inundation with the topic for the last year and a half.

That being said, if Abedin has anything bad on that computer, Clinton is in trouble.
Abedin did testify under oath that she gave the FBI all the emails pertaining to the investigation that she had, so its possible she knows the computer has nothing to do with Clinton.

The whole impeachment process against Bill Clinton started with a bullshit investigation into Whitewater that went on and on until it diverted into bringing out poor Monica - I imagine these email investigations will similarly go on and on and widen in scope until either she completes her terms or something is found.

It's going to be a depressing 4 or 8 years.

The GOP does have a strange hate for the Clintons. Hillary in particular.

Seeing how Clinton's approval ratings go up whenever she is actually doing the job rather than running for it, she may prove surprisingly popular. If history cam repeat itself that is.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

I was comparing them in a vague sense. Until new, incriminating information is brought to light, I think any furor about the emails will be blunted by the public's inundation with the topic for the last year and a half.

That being said, if Abedin has anything bad on that computer, Clinton is in trouble.
Abedin did testify under oath that she gave the FBI all the emails pertaining to the investigation that she had, so its possible she knows the computer has nothing to do with Clinton.

Maybe it's just that Abedin lent Weiner her computer (or vice versa) and she has a higher security clearance than he does. If any emails-in-common between Abedin and Clinton dealth with classified matters, and Weiner could have seen them, that could be bad.

It would be bad for Abedin though, not Clinton.

It probably would have been best to insulate Wiener from the campaign entirely. He aught to have never been near anything important, and Abedin should have been careful to not let him get involved.

[AiliailiA]

Maybe it's just that Abedin lent Weiner her computer (or vice versa) and she has a higher security clearance than he does. If any emails-in-common between Abedin and Clinton dealth with classified matters, and Weiner could have seen them, that could be bad.

It would be bad for Abedin though, not Clinton.

It probably would have been best to insulate Wiener from the campaign entirely. He aught to have never been near anything important, and Abedin should have been careful to not let him get involved.

One slip of the mouse, and Angela Merkel gets an inbox full of dick pics.

[Corrian]

You know, I watched an interview with Anthony Weiner, and he seems kind of like an ass in general.

[Hittanryan]

The whole impeachment process against Bill Clinton started with a bullshit investigation into Whitewater that went on and on until it diverted into bringing out poor Monica - I imagine these email investigations will similarly go on and on and widen in scope until either she completes her terms or something is found.

It's going to be a depressing 4 or 8 years.

The GOP does have a strange hate for the Clintons. Hillary in particular.

Seeing how Clinton's approval ratings go up whenever she is actually doing the job rather than running for it, she may prove surprisingly popular. If history cam repeat itself that is.

Clinton tends to be strongest on policy, disregarding whether or not you agree with her policy. This helps her in debates and once she's in office. She is not, however, a strong campaigner. You can go all the way back to her "baking cookies" gaffe to see that. Obama arguably won the 2008 primary on his superior campaigning skills and charisma compared to Clinton, not his experience or policy positions.

As far as the Republicans' burning hatred for Hillary Clinton in particular, that I cannot understand. You can't say it's anger over Benghazi or her term as Secretary of State, because she's been the target of abject loathing ever since Bill Clinton took office thirty years ago. If any conservative posters would be willing to (calmly and rationally) point out the exact event in the early 90's which set Hillary Clinton apart from other politicians, I am sincerely curious as to what it is. Due to my rigorous studies learning to read in Pre-K, I was unfortunately out of the political loop at the time.

[Bombadil]

The GOP does have a strange hate for the Clintons. Hillary in particular.

Seeing how Clinton's approval ratings go up whenever she is actually doing the job rather than running for it, she may prove surprisingly popular. If history cam repeat itself that is.

Clinton tends to be strongest on policy, disregarding whether or not you agree with her policy. This helps her in debates and once she's in office. She is not, however, a strong campaigner. You can go all the way back to her "baking cookies" gaffe to see that. Obama arguably won the 2008 primary on his superior campaigning skills and charisma compared to Clinton, not his experience or policy positions.

As far as the Republicans' burning hatred for Hillary Clinton in particular, that I cannot understand. You can't say it's anger over Benghazi or her term as Secretary of State, because she's been the target of abject loathing ever since Bill Clinton took office thirty years ago. If any conservative posters would be willing to (calmly and rationally) point out the exact event which set Hillary Clinton apart from other politicians, I am sincerely curious as to what it is.

It was a blow in the culture wars against the GOP, when the 'good old days, upstanding religious right' lost out to a couple of pot-smoking liberal hippies.. they're symbolic of that shift.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

The GOP does have a strange hate for the Clintons. Hillary in particular.

Seeing how Clinton's approval ratings go up whenever she is actually doing the job rather than running for it, she may prove surprisingly popular. If history cam repeat itself that is.

Clinton tends to be strongest on policy, disregarding whether or not you agree with her policy. This helps her in debates and once she's in office. She is not, however, a strong campaigner. You can go all the way back to her "baking cookies" gaffe to see that. Obama arguably won the 2008 primary on his superior campaigning skills and charisma compared to Clinton, not his experience or policy positions.

As far as the Republicans' burning hatred for Hillary Clinton in particular, that I cannot understand. You can't say it's anger over Benghazi or her term as Secretary of State, because she's been the target of abject loathing ever since Bill Clinton took office thirty years ago. If any conservative posters would be willing to (calmly and rationally) point out the exact event which set Hillary Clinton apart from other politicians, I am sincerely curious as to what it is.

This is true.
I can tell Clinton struggles to really give those barn burning speeches that Obama was able to, and is rather a policy wonk really. It will be interesting to see how her governing style is different to Obama's if she wins.

I also agree with the second paragraph, I have researched Clinton relatively extensively, as I find her a fascinsting person in general and I cannot find the root of the right wings hatred of her.

[Thermodolia]

Personally, I haven't lost confidence in the FBI.

I have. The director needs to announce he is dropping the case and resigning or face removal by his own staff.

Or be sued out of the office and have congress tighten the FBI's leash. I'm sure Comey would not want the FBI to be under the direct control of a joint congressional committee.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

What polling sites so you guys use? I like FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPolitics personally, but I was wondering what elese could be reliable/interesting?

[The Conez Imperium]

Clinton tends to be strongest on policy, disregarding whether or not you agree with her policy. This helps her in debates and once she's in office. She is not, however, a strong campaigner. You can go all the way back to her "baking cookies" gaffe to see that. Obama arguably won the 2008 primary on his superior campaigning skills and charisma compared to Clinton, not his experience or policy positions.

As far as the Republicans' burning hatred for Hillary Clinton in particular, that I cannot understand. You can't say it's anger over Benghazi or her term as Secretary of State, because she's been the target of abject loathing ever since Bill Clinton took office thirty years ago. If any conservative posters would be willing to (calmly and rationally) point out the exact event which set Hillary Clinton apart from other politicians, I am sincerely curious as to what it is.

This is true.
I can tell Clinton struggles to really give those barn burning speeches that Obama was able to, and is rather a policy wonk really. It will be interesting to see how her governing style is different to Obama's if she wins.

I also agree with the second paragraph, I have researched Clinton relatively extensively, as I find her a fascinsting person in general and I cannot find the root of the right wings hatred of her.

They probably hate her because she is everything they aren't. A successful politician? Someone with ambition? Someone who is going to be president?

[Hittanryan]

Clinton tends to be strongest on policy, disregarding whether or not you agree with her policy. This helps her in debates and once she's in office. She is not, however, a strong campaigner. You can go all the way back to her "baking cookies" gaffe to see that. Obama arguably won the 2008 primary on his superior campaigning skills and charisma compared to Clinton, not his experience or policy positions.

As far as the Republicans' burning hatred for Hillary Clinton in particular, that I cannot understand. You can't say it's anger over Benghazi or her term as Secretary of State, because she's been the target of abject loathing ever since Bill Clinton took office thirty years ago. If any conservative posters would be willing to (calmly and rationally) point out the exact event which set Hillary Clinton apart from other politicians, I am sincerely curious as to what it is.

It was a blow in the culture wars against the GOP, when the 'good old days, upstanding religious right' lost out to a couple of pot-smoking liberal hippies.. they're symbolic of that shift.

Why did Hillary in particular become so reviled though? Policy? Surely there were other Baby Boomer politicians in 1992 who were farther left and more incendiary in their rhetoric than the Clintons. Policy-wise they were downright centrists, they're criticized today for enacting NAFTA and approving of Congress' repeal of Glass-Steagall.

It can't logically be the sex scandals. Republican politicians who have sex scandals like Newt Gingrich seem to be forgiven by conservatives unless they turn out to be gay (i.e. Mark Foley). Even disgraced Democrats like Anthony Wiener and Eliot Spitzer only seem to become jokes for a while and then go away unless they remain in power. Furthermore the scandal was around Bill, not Hillary.

Or is it really as simple as the old boys' clubs being somehow intimidated by a woman with a law degree? Or a woman who shows some backbone? Given the Reagan-era conservatives' attitudes towards Margaret Thatcher, I'm not sure I would entirely believe that.