|
People Say No To Clinterminator
Here are some interesting results from exit polls in the New Hampshire primaries:
Among voters who cared most about honesty and trustworthiness, 91 percent chose Mr. Sanders and only 5 percent chose Hillary Clinton, according to exit polls. She also performed poorly among voters who wanted a candidate who seemed to care most about people like themselves. And the younger the voters, the more skeptical they were of Mrs. Clinton: She received just 16 percent of the support from people under 29, and 32 percent from those 30 to 44. The only age group she won: voters over 65.
…
She lost many major demographic groups, performing best among the older and wealthier, and among people who care about experience and electability in November. But these voters were small in number compared with Mr. Sanders’s legions.
…
Something went wrong between Mrs. Clinton and the women of New Hampshire. Mr. Sanders won 55 percent of their votes compared with Mrs. Clinton’s 44 percent, with married women and especially nonmarried women breaking his way, according to exit polls.
Pretty devastating for Clinton. More:
Mrs. Clinton topped Mr. Sanders by a wide margin among voters who said the next president should generally continue President Obama’s policies. But they accounted for only about four in 10 Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire — far fewer than in Iowa. Instead, just as many voters said the next president should change to more liberal policies — and eight in 10 of these voters backed Mr. Sanders. Almost two-thirds of Democratic voters said they support replacing the current health care system with a single taxpayer-funded plan for all Americans.
The voters recognized that Clinton is a corrupt, lying piece of s***. They see that she would be even more to the right than Obama already is. Only the rich and old like her. Everybody else wants less warmongering than she represents and more socialist policies.
I don't understand why Clinton thought the same policy positions that let her lose against Obama eight years ago would let her win in this cycle. She probably is so full of herself that she believes she deserve the nomination no matter what.
But it seems that her wish to finally become the all-ruling Clinterminator ..
image via Billmon – bigger
.. will never be fulfilled.
As a man much smarter than myself once said: 50% of politics is about payback. There is a deep current of payback running through the population, and the Clintons will reap what they’ve sown. I think wanting to dock their clock once and for all is more of a factor for most women than any feminist/gender bias.
IMO, Loretta Lynch holds the key to the 2016 presidential election. Even if she does nothing,Lynch could very well determine who the next US president is, and that makes her currently the most powerful woman in the world — a black woman from a humble North Carolina family and (unlike Obama) a descendant of slaves.
An analysis of Hil’s options w/ respect to a possible Federal indictment or two is always a fun way to pass some time. Below are some of my own thots on three possible indictment scenarios.
It looks like there are two distinct potential grounds for indictment: 1) influence peddling, either direct or through Clinton Foundation; 2) illegal possession of classified Emails. I don’t distinguish these types of indictments below, but they could well result in distinct outcomes. The scenarios are presented in what I kinda’, sorta’, probably think is the most likely to the least likely. Also, the outcomes are twisted by my assumption that Trump will be the Republican nominee. But even if I’m wrong there, he will certainly be a factor in both races right up until the nominations.
Scenario 1. Loretta continues the present gambit of trying to help the Democrats as much as possible by sitting on the indictments and doing everything possible to delay the release of more Emails.
Outcome: Hil is screwed.
First thot: In this scenario, DT would continue to keep mum about Hil’s possibly being indicted b/c the polls indicate that Bernie will beat DT 2x worse than Hil will, so DT wants to run against Hil. If DT’s dream comes true and Hil gets the nomination, then he would wipe the floor with her, her unresolved legal problems, and Loretta’s (i.e. the Democrats’) attempt to protect Hil.
Second thot: Will Bernie play the felony-card if Loretta doesn’t make a move? The stupidest thing Sanders has ever said is: “I am sick and tired of hearing about Hillary’s damn Emails.” The Email issue was a gift that he might have needed down the road in a tough primary race and he sh*t on it in an attempt to look noble or chivalrous (sp?). Watch – Trump will eventually take Sanders to task for his comment as meaning Sanders is sick and tired of hearing about the possibility that a Democratic politician might get prosecuted for a felony or two.
But the sleigh-ride is over for Bernie, so he’s got some tough decisions. From here on out it’s an uphill fight. Having put his foot in his mouth about the Emails, he may be able to save his bacon and beat Hil over the head with the 2nd potential indictment: influence peddling. That plays into his anti-WallSt message.
Scenario 2. Loretta announces before Democratic nominations that DoJ will not pursue an indictment, closes all investigations.
Outcome: Hil is screwed.
First of all, this would sink Hil’s nomination and the Democrats’ chance of winning the WH b/c of the odor arising from what would be the latest example of Democrat back-room dealing. If Hil does get nominated, DT would make mincemeat out of her disappearing felonies and the crooked Democrat AG.
Second of all, the lack of an indictment probably means Obama could not preemptively pardon Hil to protect her from Republicans later indicting her if they get into office. True, Ford pardoned Nixon, but I’m not sure the precedent would hold and it was never reviewed by the courts. I mean, if a president can pardon someone for something they’ve never even been indicted for, then the whole system becomes a farce. “I pardon Michelle for any crimes of any nature she might have committed at any time in the past.”
Third, double jeopardy doesn’t apply until a case actually goes to trial, so if the Republicans win the WH, Loretta’s decision not to indict Hil would go down the toilet. Trump might even run on that very fine legal point – he would certainly not pull any punches.
Scenario 3. Loretta indicts Hil before the nominations.
Outcome: Hil is screwed, the Democrats are screwed.
If Lynch does this, she would almost certainly warn Hil days or weeks before hand, so Hil can get out of the race prior to actually being indicted. Nothing worse than the marshals cuffing you during a rally, especially if your sleaze-ball, should’a-been-indicted-long-ago husband is there, too.
I mean, if Loretta indicts Hil, the nomination/election will be Hil’s last worry. Hil’s only goal would be to stay out of prison. Even if Obama were to immediately pardon her, she would never get the nomination.
Would Obama pardon her post-idictment? Good question? If he did, Democrats lose the election automatically. In fact, if Hil is indicted, unless Obama comes out and explicitly says that he will not pardon her even after the election, the Democrats will lose regardless who the candidate is. If Bernie gets the nomination, as he will if there is an indictment, in order to win the election he would also have to tell America that as president he would not interfere with the indictment or prosecution, which would deprive him of millions and millions in cash thank-you “notes” from the Clintons.
Posted by: Denis | Feb 10 2016 21:51 utc | 25
|
