ugly by any measuring stick!
But that makes me think of something Ricky suggested earlier, He said something (not sure if it was this thread or another) about people being enthusiastic to vote against Trump. First off, I doubt the "anti vote" is all that energized in any situation but it could play a part in at least a small percentage of votes. But if this gets ugly (or should I say when this gets ugly) that anti-Trump feeling is lessened a great deal and may even sway in his favor for the anti-Clinton voters.

This should be a done deal and an easy victory for the Dems. It WOULD be if they had just about anyone else running. Yeah, Trump is a bad candidate for the Republicans but who really thinks Hillary is the best person to run on the Democrats side? She will keep the hard core base but those in the middle just don't like her, just don't trust her and if I were a Trump fan, I would just LOVE this match up, she is the one person he might be able to beat? I still think she will win but right now it's gonna be close (unless/until trump drops a bomb shell idiot statement that turns things around and I do fully expect that to happen)

Doctor Fate wrote:

GMTom wrote:But the bigger problem is, ok, I can't trust Clinton, can I now trust Trump? That will be a hard sell!!!

This is going to be a race to the bottom. Which candidate can make the other less popular?

I've been consistent: this will be the ugliest campaign of the modern era.

Which recent campaign was not the ugliest one when it was being fought?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

GMTom wrote:But the bigger problem is, ok, I can't trust Clinton, can I now trust Trump? That will be a hard sell!!!

This is going to be a race to the bottom. Which candidate can make the other less popular?

I've been consistent: this will be the ugliest campaign of the modern era.

Which recent campaign was not the ugliest one when it was being fought?

I dunno, but, for one example, I would say GHWB calling Reagan's policies "voodoo economics" was pretty tame compared to what Trump pulled during these primaries.

And, there has NEVER, in the history of polling, been two candidates who are less popular (high negatives, low approvals) than these two. It would be nearly impossible to build themselves up, so they will go negative.

Feel free to dispute the facts.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

GMTom wrote:But the bigger problem is, ok, I can't trust Clinton, can I now trust Trump? That will be a hard sell!!!

This is going to be a race to the bottom. Which candidate can make the other less popular?

I've been consistent: this will be the ugliest campaign of the modern era.

Which recent campaign was not the ugliest one when it was being fought?

I dunno, but, for one example, I would say GHWB calling Reagan's policies "voodoo economics" was pretty tame compared to what Trump pulled during these primaries.

So 1980 was nice and lovely, but I was thinking more about ones in the last 30 years. Or in this century.

2012 saw over 2/3rds of ads being negative: http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/releas ... ativity-2/

Which was the worst election since 2008: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09 ... newssearch

2004 saw MoveOn and SwiftBoat both indulging in personal attacks on candidates rather than issues of substance or backing their opponent.

What about in the 2000 primaries when push polling of Republicans was smearing McCain asking voters in South Carolina, "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?"

I accept that 2016 is likely to be ugly, but it's not as if we don't have to go back a while to find a "pretty" election year.

And, there has NEVER, in the history of polling, been two candidates who are less popular (high negatives, low approvals) than these two. It would be nearly impossible to build themselves up, so they will go negative.

Feel free to dispute the facts.

yes, they are both incredibly unpopular for winners of their primary races (of course, neither is yet the official party candidate). And Trump seems pathologically incapable of being anything other than insulting to whoever disagrees or opposes him on anything. Clinton has less need to go low, all she may need to do is let Trump dig his own holes and try to rise above any fray. Whether she can do that is debateable.

Where the real nastiness will come from (and already is) is from the tribes. Who needs PACs to pay for attack ads, when each candidate and ex-candidate has a willing and vocal army of fans to repeat every slur and smear they've seen (or can imagine)?

In that regard, it's partly a function of who has been standing. but it's also more to do with the growing partisan divide in the country, and the fact that both parties have tribes within them that don't actually get along that well.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-broke-federal-rules-email-server-audit-finds

What will the excuse be this time?

bbauska wrote:http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/clinton-broke-federal-rules-email-server-audit-finds

What will the excuse be this time?

There's no proof she was hacked.

That, apparently, is the standard. Until we know that she was not only incompetent, but was compromised, there will be no issue for Democrats.

She didn't cooperate with the investigation? "She wasn't legally required to" will be the retort.

Liberals will excuse anything because they think she can win. So, when she does and exploits her office to enrich herself further (as she did at State)? More excuses.

Gee, it's not looking so good for Hillary and pretty much all what Fate was saying is coming true. Those who back Mrs Clinton are going to have a hard time explaining most of this away (but "someone" here will no doubt try)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/politics/ ... email-use/
CNN, not FoxNews mind you...

some highlights:

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

"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."

n producing the report, the Inspector General's office interviewed former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice.
Clinton and several of her staff members during her tenure declined to be interviewed, the report said.

The report draws attention to two staff members in the Office of Information Resources Management, who back in 2010 "discussed their concerns about Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email account in separate meetings with the then-Director" of their office.

"According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary's personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further." The same director reportedly "instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary's personal email system again."
But 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.

(Clinton)"the truth is everything I did was permitted and I went above and beyond what anybody could have expected in making sure that if the State Department didn't capture something, I made a real effort to get it to them."
But 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."

...and it goes on.

GMTom wrote:

(Clinton)"the truth is everything I did was permitted and I went above and beyond what anybody could have expected in making sure that if the State Department didn't capture something, I made a real effort to get it to them."
But 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."

...and it goes on.

Any honest person knows what's going on: she wanted complete control of all the data in her emails. She did not want them subject to FOIA or State Department review.

Mission accomplished--and she's still the Democratic nominee with a 50%+ chance of being President, which would be handy since she can pardon herself.

That is it in a nut shell and frankly I can't understand how anyone could say otherwise. It's painfully obvious. Go ahead and argue it was as secure or even more secure than the govt server, argue she didn't realize it was not allowed or she was mislead to believe it was ok, but the whole reason was exactly so she could keep prying eyes out of her business and she felt above the laws requiring oversight!

GMTom wrote:That is it in a nut shell and frankly I can't understand how anyone could say otherwise. It's painfully obvious. Go ahead and argue it was as secure or even more secure than the govt server, argue she didn't realize it was not allowed or she was mislead to believe it was ok, but the whole reason was exactly so she could keep prying eyes out of her business and she felt above the laws requiring oversight!

I'll give you the liberal argument: Hillary is innocent until proven guilty.

Doctor Fate wrote:

GMTom wrote:That is it in a nut shell and frankly I can't understand how anyone could say otherwise. It's painfully obvious. Go ahead and argue it was as secure or even more secure than the govt server, argue she didn't realize it was not allowed or she was mislead to believe it was ok, but the whole reason was exactly so she could keep prying eyes out of her business and she felt above the laws requiring oversight!

I'll give you the liberal argument: Hillary is innocent until proven guilty.

If only they applied that logic equitably...

bbauska wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

GMTom wrote:That is it in a nut shell and frankly I can't understand how anyone could say otherwise. It's painfully obvious. Go ahead and argue it was as secure or even more secure than the govt server, argue she didn't realize it was not allowed or she was mislead to believe it was ok, but the whole reason was exactly so she could keep prying eyes out of her business and she felt above the laws requiring oversight!

I'll give you the liberal argument: Hillary is innocent until proven guilty.

If only they applied that logic equitably...

Well, and if it was the correct political standard. Whether or not Hillary committed a crime, her actions do not set a high bar for "qualified for President."

and if I were a liberal, I would have no problem stating just that, especially this year when you admit this gaffe but then simply point to Trump and ask "what is worse". Nope, never wrong, never shady, only the opposition can be wrong! So they make stuff up that nobody will believe but they figure if they say it enough, it may actually be true?

funny thing, the Clinton camp had been saying all along that this was approved but they suddenly left that part out of the recent comments. This was always mentioned up to now, I suppose the Libs will ignore that and ignore it for so long that it was never said! (in their minds)?

GMTom wrote:funny thing, the Clinton camp had been saying all along that this was approved but they suddenly left that part out of the recent comments. This was always mentioned up to now, I suppose the Libs will ignore that and ignore it for so long that it was never said! (in their minds)?

If it mattered, I'd find rickyp mindlessly repeating the talking point about it being "approved." No, it wasn't.

Trump is an idiot.

Hillary is unethical.

Good times, America!

So I should vote for someone for president with policies that I consider far worse for the country because Hillary tried to shield her email from right-wing snoops? Give me a break. I wouldn't care if a Republican did it, honestly, unless it was proven to have hurt national security. If you think it's so important then don't vote for her Otherwise, who are you trying to convince? Unless you can get her criminally charged for this you got nothing. Nothing. The Goldman Sachs speeches are significant because they say something about the influence of Wall Street on her. I'm not sure what this email saga says about Hillary and her ability to govern. If you can't get her criminally charged or link this email thing with her ability to be president then you've got, uh, nothing.