2016 Presidential

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/31/polling-firm-trump-surges-into-lead-in-michigan-wisconsin-new-hampshire-maine/

[G M]

https://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/dementia-1.jpg

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/sean-long/2014/03/27/media-ignore-c%C3%A9sar-ch%C3%A1vezs-opposition-illegal-immigration-racial

[DDF]

What do you get when you combine the following?

Donald Trump + (Goldman Sachs * 2) = A 650 million outstanding loan due to Goldman Sachs from the Donster = GS Employees given charge of his campaign operations and finances, + a probable Secretary of the Treasury position should Trump Win
http://fortune.com/2016/07/19/here-is-who-donald-trump-wants-for-treasury-secretary/
His outstanding loan to Goldman Sachs http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-donald-trump-companies-at-least-650-million-in-debt/

Hillary Clinton + her Foundation + a liberal orgy that's finally named Chelsea + 1 yamika = "the whole Clinton clan will convene at Goldman Sachs headquarters in Manhattan for a meet and greet with top donors to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The New York Times reported last month" http://freebeacon.com/blog/clintons-sachs-ual-relations/ AND a the reality that 25 million dollars from lost hedge funds at Goldman Sachs = a $10,000,000 apartment for love child in Manhattan. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3584863/Chelsea-Clinton-s-husband-Marc-colleagues-Goldman-Sachs-shutter-25million-hedge-fund-losing-nearly-investors-money-good-thing-10million-apartment.html

Crooked Clinton + 2 Guys from Kansas = Yet another way Clinton is attached to Trump and vice versa because....
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/07/koch-brothers-now-supporting-hillary-clinton.html
Is the same as
Goldman Sachs = Koch=Trump=Clinton
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-10/koch-goldman-agree-to-buy-printing-ink-maker-flint-from-cvc

We've gone full circle and haven't even said anything that hasn't been in the news. Vote? What flippin vote?

[G M]

The big money has purchased access to both. Still, this will be the most hacked and fraudulent vote in what is left of this nation's history.

What do you get when you combine the following?

Donald Trump + (Goldman Sachs * 2) = A 650 million outstanding loan due to Goldman Sachs from the Donster = GS Employees given charge of his campaign operations and finances, + a probable Secretary of the Treasury position should Trump Win
http://fortune.com/2016/07/19/here-is-who-donald-trump-wants-for-treasury-secretary/
His outstanding loan to Goldman Sachs http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-donald-trump-companies-at-least-650-million-in-debt/

Hillary Clinton + her Foundation + a liberal orgy that's finally named Chelsea + 1 yamika = "the whole Clinton clan will convene at Goldman Sachs headquarters in Manhattan for a meet and greet with top donors to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The New York Times reported last month" http://freebeacon.com/blog/clintons-sachs-ual-relations/ AND a the reality that 25 million dollars from lost hedge funds at Goldman Sachs = a $10,000,000 apartment for love child in Manhattan. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3584863/Chelsea-Clinton-s-husband-Marc-colleagues-Goldman-Sachs-shutter-25million-hedge-fund-losing-nearly-investors-money-good-thing-10million-apartment.html

Crooked Clinton + 2 Guys from Kansas = Yet another way Clinton is attached to Trump and vice versa because....
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/07/koch-brothers-now-supporting-hillary-clinton.html
Is the same as
Goldman Sachs = Koch=Trump=Clinton
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-10/koch-goldman-agree-to-buy-printing-ink-maker-flint-from-cvc

We've gone full circle and haven't even said anything that hasn't been in the news. Vote? What flippin vote?

[DDF]

The big money has purchased access to both. Still, this will be the most hacked and fraudulent vote in what is left of this nation's history.

What do you get when you combine the following?

Donald Trump + (Goldman Sachs * 2) = A 650 million outstanding loan due to Goldman Sachs from the Donster = GS Employees given charge of his campaign operations and finances, + a probable Secretary of the Treasury position should Trump Win
http://fortune.com/2016/07/19/here-is-who-donald-trump-wants-for-treasury-secretary/
His outstanding loan to Goldman Sachs http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-donald-trump-companies-at-least-650-million-in-debt/

Hillary Clinton + her Foundation + a liberal orgy that's finally named Chelsea + 1 yamika = "the whole Clinton clan will convene at Goldman Sachs headquarters in Manhattan for a meet and greet with top donors to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The New York Times reported last month" http://freebeacon.com/blog/clintons-sachs-ual-relations/ AND a the reality that 25 million dollars from lost hedge funds at Goldman Sachs = a $10,000,000 apartment for love child in Manhattan. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3584863/Chelsea-Clinton-s-husband-Marc-colleagues-Goldman-Sachs-shutter-25million-hedge-fund-losing-nearly-investors-money-good-thing-10million-apartment.html

Crooked Clinton + 2 Guys from Kansas = Yet another way Clinton is attached to Trump and vice versa because....
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/07/koch-brothers-now-supporting-hillary-clinton.html
Is the same as
Goldman Sachs = Koch=Trump=Clinton
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-10/koch-goldman-agree-to-buy-printing-ink-maker-flint-from-cvc

We've gone full circle and haven't even said anything that hasn't been in the news. Vote? What flippin vote?

Johnson, the pothead that he is (actually...he might not be, but he acts like it) (and with the exception of very few people), I'm not big on potheads, at least he and Stein (whom I loathe) at least are not bought and paid for.... yet. I especially like the last section of what you wrote. I personally, think it's time to start over.

[DDF]

My favorite quote of the night?

"I have a lot of experience handling classified material."
                                                       Hillary Clinton

Yes... you do.... you hand it out like candy on Halloween.


Youtube video removed due to NBC copyright violations.

[Crafty_Dog]

I wanted to shoot Matt Lauer for all his interruptions of Trump.

[G M]

Anyone that thinks that China, Russia and others weren't reading everything in Hillary's servers is a child.

My favorite quote of the night?

"I have a lot of experience handling classified material."
                                                       Hillary Clinton

Yes... you do.... you hand it out like candy on Halloween.


[youtube]irTxkWX5Sz0[/youtube]

[DDF]

Anyone that thinks that China, Russia and others weren't reading everything in Hillary's servers is a child.

My favorite quote of the night?

"I have a lot of experience handling classified material."
                                                       Hillary Clinton

Yes... you do.... you hand it out like candy on Halloween.

You got that right. Oddly, the original video had its settings changed to private. Hillary was getting smashed in the comments section.

[DDF]

I wanted to shoot Matt Lauer for all his interruptions of Trump.

Hard to say that it wasn't more than biased. Then again, in a country as polarized as the US is currently, one of them was going to get hit.

[G M]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAiFSHfMeio

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAiFSHfMeio[/youtube]

Campaign stop at a convenience store.

[DDF]

Evidently NBC is hammering anyone that is using the video. My apologies.

I'll remove it so it doesn't chew up space.

[G M]

Evidently NBC is hammering anyone that is using the video. My apologies.

I'll remove it so it doesn't chew up space.

Memory holes gotta eat.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trump-blitz-begins-1473375660?tesla=y

The Trump Blitz Begins
The GOP nominee is finally—relentlessly—arguing that Clinton is unfit for office.
0:00 / 0:00

Potomac Watch Columnist Kim Strassel on Donald Trump’s most effective political attack yet--on Hillary Clinton’s ethics. Photo credit: Reuters.
 
By
KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Sept. 8, 2016 7:01 p.m. ET
883 COMMENTS

Think of it as the moment when Donald Trump truly learned to throw a (campaign) punch. It came about three weeks ago, amid the latest swirl of stories on the Clintons’ ethics. Hillary Clinton had recently blamed her private email server on Colin Powell.Judicial Watch had released more emails that showed the Clinton Foundation begging the State Department for special favors on behalf of its donors. Bill Clinton had floated laughable plans to reform the foundation.
The Trump campaign pounced. It began blasting out every new revelation about—or editorial-board comment on—Mrs. Clinton’s shady dealings. It unleashed surrogates, in particular the former prosecutors Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie, to make the legal case against her. Mr. Trump devoted a significant portion of a speech in Texas to detailing the lies she had told about her server, and the pay-to-play allegations at the foundation. Within a few days the campaign had cut a web ad hitting her for “corruption” and calling the foundation a “slush fund.”

Mrs. Clinton’s slip in the polls is a direct result of the latest flood of scandal. Less noticed is the skillful way that Team Trump is making those hits land. The Republican nominee’s campaign has been doing more right lately, though nothing more so than this. When it comes to the dissection of Mrs. Clinton’s misdeeds, the Trump campaign is firing on 16 cylinders.

If attacking your corrupt opponent on corruption seems obvious, it wasn’t to Mr. Trump for a long time. The GOP nominee is a scrapper, and part of his draw was the expectation that he would speak bluntly about the Clintons. He did, though as voters would soon realize, only in fits and incomplete starts. He delivered a speech on her ethics in June—then never sustained the argument. He ignored prime opportunities (the State Department inspector general report; FBI Director James Comey’s press conference), flitting to other subjects instead. He seemed to think the occasional #CrookedHillary tweet was enough.

This was frustrating if only because Mrs. Clinton’s venality is the concrete with which Mr. Trump must pave his road to the White House. This is a woman whom close to two-thirds of voters view as untrustworthy. She has based her entire campaign around the argument that she is more credible and competent to lead the nation—a claim utterly undermined by revelations about her foundation’s business model, her cavalier handling of classified information, and her inability to “recall” most of her tenure as secretary of state.

Mr. Trump’s new approach is to unrelentingly hit all sides of that claim—making the case that Mrs. Clinton is “unfit” to hold the top job. Case in point: After Wednesday’s commander-in-chief forum on NBC, the Trump campaign detailed precisely why Mrs. Clinton should not be trusted with national security. Mr. Trump hit her during the forum, while a follow-up press release highlighted her bad judgment in using an “illicit” email server and the risk of a “hack of classified info”; noted how her drone emails would “undermine” security; and flagged her stumbling attempt to tell a vet in the audience why she should be held to a different standard on classified information than military officers. Good, smart stuff.

The unrelenting pressure has put Mrs. Clinton in the spotlight and on the defense. That by consequence has somewhat sheltered the Republican nominee from attacks. Listening to Mrs. Clinton—the subject of an FBI investigation, the facilitator of the Crown Prince of Bahrain—on Wednesday drop a line about Mr. Trump’s “scams” and “frauds” was downright amusing. Sort of like watching Al Capone accuse Eliot Ness of having the occasional light beer.

Also effective has been the campaign’s drumbeat about Mrs. Clinton’s refusal to hold press conferences. (“Hiding Hillary: Day 278!”) Her longtime approach to scandals has been to ignore them and wait for the press to get weary. But the stories keep pouring out this time, and her refusal to address them has made her look shady, arrogant, slippery. She finally succumbed to pressure and took a few cursory questions from reporters Thursday, though none on the email or foundation.

Mr. Trump’s new all-in-on-Hillary approach came about the same time as his staff shakeup. It is likely due in part to the presence of Breitbart’s Stephen Bannon and (more recently) Citizens United’s David Bossie. The press has focused on Breitbart’s fractious role in the conservative world, but Mr. Bannon and Mr. Bossie have both devoted careers to tracking and exposing Mrs. Clinton’s ethical troubles.

Turning voters away from Mrs. Clinton is the groundwork. Mr. Trump still needs to give voters a reason to turn toward him. His sober approach of recent weeks is a start. A challenge will be to translate what has so far been campaign-engineered press releases and speeches into an on-the-fly prosecution of Mrs. Clinton during the presidential debates. Mr. Trump is right that Hillary is unfit to be president. Now, to keep proving it.

[Crafty_Dog]

By Jeremy Stern
Sept. 9, 2016 6:43 p.m. ET
83 COMMENTS

Wednesday’s “Commander-in-Chief Forum” between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump showed how out of touch America’s leadership is with the nation’s military. The televised interviews were an opportunity for the candidates to audition for leader of the armed forces. What followed were stale discussions that answered few of the questions troops actually have. Though the forum was held before a group of veterans, the questions asked and selectively fielded from the audience put America’s civil-military divide on full display.

The first sign that politicians and journalists are not at home talking policy with military personnel is their fixation on the Iraq war. Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump and NBC host Matt Lauer touched on this topic four times. (How to win the war on terror, by contrast, was asked exactly once.) Like many politicians, the candidates competed for the honor of supporting the 2003 invasion of Iraq the least. The underlying assumption is that, having paid the highest price, troops must have the lowest opinion of that unpopular war. Perhaps, but members of the military have a much more complicated relationship to unpopular wars than ordinary citizens assume.

From the first day of basic training, soldiers are indoctrinated to the principle of civilian control. Every member of the military has taken a solemn oath to obey the president and defend the Constitution. Troops understand that their job is implementation, not policy, and that not every decision made in the White House is going to be the right one. Not every war will be vindicated, not every casualty justified. That’s life in a liberal democracy.

What troops want is a president who will deliver the resources, strategy and public support they need to win once the decision to go to war is made. Far more consequential to troops than the decision to invade Iraq was the Pentagon’s inability to provide them with the equipment they needed and the public’s collapse of support for the war they were asked to fight. Rather than renounce or deny support for Iraq like beauty contestants reciting their wish for world peace, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump should have been asked what lessons they learned from Iraq and why next time will be different.

Another sign that politicians and journalists are unfamiliar with military life is what Mr. Lauer called the “emotional burden” of putting “American men and women in harm’s way,” which was discussed six different times. Troops don’t like war more than other people, and their families certainly abhor it most. But war plays a more complex role in the lives of troops than the hackneyed “boots on the ground” versus “war weariness” debate we often have.

For hundreds of thousands of troops, the military is not just a choice and a job; it is a necessity and a calling. The U.S. armed forces offer a paycheck, pension, health care, housing, community and purpose to many young Americans who would struggle to find them elsewhere. Members of the military understand that in exchange their country may call upon them to go to war.

For most troops, this is not a deal with the devil. Experience in war allows young soldiers to gain the trust and respect of their superiors and subordinates, and combat deployments are essential to their promotion through the ranks. Deployments are also an opportunity for troops to apply their skills and training and to be awarded for doing so with integrity and distinction.

It’s not always popular to say, but there are very few people in the military who haven’t made peace with the dangers that entails. War is a physical and psychological risk, yes, but it is also an opportunity to seek honor and adventure. You might not know it if your contact with millennials is mainly on campuses where political correctness and microagressions can be an obsession, but honor and adventure are very natural things for young Americans to want. Last I heard, the rank-and-file still like Reagan, Roosevelt and Lincoln more than Carter, Hoover or Buchanan.

Apart from so many questions on military intervention and Iraq, only one question was asked about the Department of Veterans Affairs. By contrast, five questions were asked about Vladimir Putin. Each candidate was asked just once about the alarming rate of suicide among veterans, while a combined 14 questions went to Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal and Mr. Trump’s history of controversial, media-baiting comments. Sequestration, which has contributed to the Pentagon’s decision to cut tens of thousands of troops from service and slash billions of dollars from their benefits, was never mentioned.

A leadership class with more military experience and closer ties to the military community would enrich our national-security debate. For now, it seems, we’re stuck with an elite increasingly out of touch with those who serve. No wonder a July survey of Military Times subscribers found that more than 82% of military personnel were “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” with Mrs. Clinton as the Democratic nominee, and more than 61% felt that way about Mr. Trump as the GOP nominee.

The candidate who wins the military vote will be the one who stops using troops to justify campaign positions, and starts speaking to the concerns our men and women in uniform actually have.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjcTb2ORVd0

http://ijr.com/opinion/2016/09/259944-democrats-check-hillary-told-general-petraeus-2007-flipping-trump/?utm_campaign=bencarson&utm_medium=partners&utm_source=facebook&utm_term=prm6

[Crafty_Dog]

second post

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/new-photos-bill-clinton-trump-melania-227945

[G M]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/709501/hillary-clinton-health-9-11-ceremony-medical-episode-coughing-faint

Hidden.

[ccp]

The media "barred from leaving the area".

All these episodes do beg the question as to whether she is physically fit to be President.   I guess one could say she will just have to rest and not play golf for 1/4 of the year like Bamster once she is President.

Maybe she needs to speak softly and stop screaming and yelling with her patent scowl in order to rest her larynx more.

Maybe she has HPV from FSF.

[G M]

https://mobile.twitter.com/zgazda66/status/774993814025011200

82 degrees, 38% humidity today.

[G M]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/09/11/breaking-video-of-hillary-fainting-after-leaving-911-ceremony/

[Crafty_Dog]

From a different site.

http://libertyviral.com/breaking-new-video-hillarys-medical-episode-emerges-video/#axzz4Jxnla900

This looks like cause for serious attention , , ,

[DDF]

Not going to post another video showing it, but I've worked a significant number of details like these here in Mexico.

You NEVER want to touch the principal.

The point man had to actually smash Clinton's right breast, with his left hand in order to prevent her from going down, until the agent working right flank could support Clinton as well.

She's got more than pneumonia.

[G M]

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/11/cnn-secret-service-agents-helped-van-law-enforcement-says-threw-like-side-beef/

Panic?

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.facebook.com/ProgressiveViewsUSA/videos/1777765265845939/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

[ccp]

Evan Sanjay Gupta last night reported how the Clinton mob was going to cover up her pneumonia.  Supposedly it was diagnosed Friday.  Though for all we know it was not 3 days ago but the Friday 10 days ago when one thinks about how the Clintons lie using word games.   Either way this was not even going to be reported until they were forced to say something about her condition with the publicity of the the having the Secret Service throw her into the van like a pork roll.  (or a can of span).

Again the Clintons caught in a cover up and lie.  

BTW I was proud of Dr Gupta saying the truth last night about this and was frankly surprised as was obviously Poppy Whorelow whose facial expression gave away at her panic at his saying anything disparaging about her feminist warrior queen.   If I had to listen to one more CNN "host" point out "to be fair"  Trump has released even less health records then her highness the Empress Dowager. 

[ccp]

In the very unlikely event Clinton had to drop out ( meaning she drops dead)  picking a replacement would no be straight forward at all according to this:

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/09/if-hillary-had-to-leave-the-ticket-this-is-how-a-n.html

The Supremes again?

[DDF]

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/11/cnn-secret-service-agents-helped-van-law-enforcement-says-threw-like-side-beef/

Panic?

I'm certain that the Secret Service is better than we are, but we're also pretty good at what we do.

My experience? I've worked the Enrique Peña Nieto's perimeter, the Dalai Lama, UN personnel, the governor, my general, and other things.

First off, they often times don't even like us, so they wouldn't want to be touched by us anyways. In my general's case, as far as myself and my squad are concerned, we almost revere our general, and wouldn't want to touch him because he's our general. In the case for example, of a visiting governor's wife I had to provide security for, the reasons are obvious. If you touch the principal or throw them around, it denotes either danger or carelessness, neither of which are good.

It was damage control at best, and panic at worst. I'm leaning towards the former due to the way they closed, preventing any additional footage from being taken. Also interesting, was the fact that the Secret Service didn't allow certain press members to leave afterwards. I forget where I read that, but I did. I'll see if I can't find it and post it here.

First EDIT: Former SS Agents stating protocol was broken (which I would agree with, if for no other reason than Clinton was left exposed - leaning against the concrete post and with a visible lack of agents surrounding her). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/secret-service-followed-atypical-protocol-with-clinton-s-early-departure-from-sunday-911-event-a7237706.html

The Secret Service denied that protocol was broken (not surprising), but then again, they sully themselves with prostitutes in foreign countries, so who's to say?

"However, in a tweet Sunday evening the Secret Service said it had not violated protocol. " http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/295353-secret-service-may-have-broken-protocol-while-protecting

In fact, they have tweeted about it twice now. https://twitter.com/SecretService?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
"The @SecretService is confident in the actions taken by its Protective Detail earlier today."
and
"FACT CHECK: At no time did @SecretService personnel violate security protocols during the early departure of one of our protectees."

Personally, I think them even explaining it makes the situation look worse.

[G M]

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/11/cnn-secret-service-agents-helped-van-law-enforcement-says-threw-like-side-beef/

Panic?

I'm certain that the Secret Service is better than we are, but we're also pretty good at what we do.

My experience? I've worked the Enrique Peña Nieto's perimeter, the Dalai Lama, UN personnel, the governor, my general, and other things.

First off, they often times don't even like us, so they wouldn't want to be touched by us anyways. In my general's case, as far as myself and my squad are concerned, we almost our general, and wouldn't want to touch him because he's our general. In the case for example, of a visiting governor's wife I had to provide security for, the reasons are obvious. If you touch the principal or throw them around, it denotes either danger or carelessness, neither of which are good.

It was damage control at best, and panic at worst. I'm leaning towards the former due to the way they closed, preventing any additional footage from being taken. Also interesting, was the fact that the Secret Service didn't allow certain press members to leave afterwards. I forget where I read that, but I did. I'll see if I can't find it and post it here.

First EDIT: Former SS Agents stating protocol was broken (which I would agree with, if for no other reason than Clinton was left exposed - leaning against the concrete post and with a visible lack of agents surrounding her). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/secret-service-followed-atypical-protocol-with-clinton-s-early-departure-from-sunday-911-event-a7237706.html

The Secret Service denied that protocol was broken (not surprising), but then again, they sully themselves with prostitutes in foreign countries, so who's to say?

"However, in a tweet Sunday evening the Secret Service said it had not violated protocol. " http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/295353-secret-service-may-have-broken-protocol-while-protecting

In fact, they have tweeted about it twice now. https://twitter.com/SecretService?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
"The @SecretService is confident in the actions taken by its Protective Detail earlier today."
and
"FACT CHECK: At no time did @SecretService personnel violate security protocols during the early departure of one of our protectees."

Personally, I think them even explaining it makes the situation look worse.

Yes. Typically they never comment at all about their protective details, from what I have seen.

[G M]

I have some EP training, the closest to working an EP detail I have done is protect two scantily clad young women promoting a cigarette brand at a biker rally filled with a lot of 1%ers.

Having said that, I know that you want to keep the principal in a secure location until you can move them to their transportation for rapid loading and departure. Having Ill-ary propped up and waiting for a vehicle was not a good thing from a protection perspective.

[DDF]

I have some EP training, the closest to working an EP detail I have done is protect two scantily clad young women promoting a cigarette brand at a biker rally filled with a lot of 1%ers.

Having said that, I know that you want to keep the principal in a secure location until you can move them to their transportation for rapid loading and departure. Having Ill-ary propped up and waiting for a vehicle was not a good thing from a protection perspective.

100%. We've been screamed at because of it, when it's happened.

[G M]

http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=8546

The Dead Witch Crisis
Posted on September 11, 2016   

The news is now full of reports that Hillary Clinton had some sort of “episode” as she was getting into her assisted living van. It’s possible she was still drunk from the night before or maybe just so hungover she could barely walk. The campaign says she has pneumonia, which could mean anything or nothing. She has disappeared from sight so we’re left to speculate, but she is clearly a woman with serious health problems. The question people are beginning to ask is can she continue to campaign? If not, will she be forced to drop out? What would happen if she did?

The funny thing about all of this is most Americans don’t know how we actually select Presidents. The voting that is done in November will not, as a legal matter, select the next President. Voting merely selects the electors who will then meet on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December. They actually meet in their respective state capitals where they cast their votes for President and Vice President. All but Maine and Nebraska have a winner take all system for selecting electors so your vote sort of matters, unless you live in a one-party state.

Similarly, each state has rules for getting on the November ballot. For example, Evan McMuffin, the Never Trump candidate, missed the deadline to be on many state ballots. This applies to the party candidates, as well, so a last minute change would create complications for the Democrats. If Hillary Clinton was suddenly incapacitated or simply quit the race, the Democrats would have a problem. They would have to go to court in some states to have their new candidate listed on the ballot. It’s not impossible, but it would be a complication.

So, what are the possible scenarios?

At this late date, finding a replacement would be complicated. The Democrat Party has rules for this scenario so they could move quickly. The rules strongly encourage the party to pick the runner up, but they can pick anyone to fill the slot. Bernie Sanders would be the obvious option, but that would mean certain defeat to Donald Trump, the nightmare scenario for both parties. The Bernie Bros are committed, but their numbers are limited. Most Americans would assume his nomination is a surrender.

They could go with a famous person with some traction in the party, but the choices are limited. Joe Biden is famous, but old and prone to saying wildly offensive things to black people and women. Elizabeth Warren is popular with the crazies, but she scares normal people. She’s also a very poor campaigner. She passed on a chance to run and passed on the VP spot. This makes forcing Clinton aside a troublesome scenario simply because the other options are only slightly better than having a corpse at the top of the ticket,

That brings up another option. Imagine that on Halloween it is reported that Clinton fell off her broom again and hit her head, rendering her incapacitated. The Democrats could reach out to Congressional Republicans and ask for a delay in the election. Congress does not have the power to dictate when people vote. They do have the power to decide when the Electors must be selected by the states. Congress could work with the states to postpone the election to December 3 in order to sort things out.

This brings us back to the first scenario, but the difference here is the crisis feel would open another dimension. The Democrats would feel free to pick anyone they like and would probably consult with the Republicans to come up with a “senior statesman” they could offer up as safe choice in a crisis. In other words, this delay would allow both parties to reset the game board so that the election was no longer about the insurgent Trump versus the corrupt system. Instead, it would be about the steady hand in a time of crisis versus the irrational hothead.

Another scenario, the high risk scenario, is for Congress to cancel the election entirely. Article II gives Congress the power to set the date electors are chosen so they can delay this indefinitely. Speaker Ryan would become acting President until Congress could come up with a new election date. Since Republicans control something like 35 state legislatures, they could stall the process so that they can stack the Electoral College with party members, who would pick a party insider. A governor like Kasich or even Jeb Bush could be installed as president.

Those are the Machiavellian scenarios. Given the nature of the political class, it seems unlikely that any of those would happen, even if Clinton drops dead tomorrow. Even so, it offers a little glimpse into the future. Over the last century, we have invested enormous power into the office of President. If you’re wondering how we can flip from republic to empire, a crisis such as the above would offer the opportunity. One candidate that is unacceptable and one that is dead, opens the door for the political class to bypass the voters and install their own man.

[ccp]

Dems could consider Debbie Wasserman Schultz for President.  How about Nancy Pelosi?

Lena Dunham?  George Soros?

Chuck Schumer?  Terry McAullife?

Bring back Sanders?

Mike Boomer Bloomberg to save the world?

[Crafty_Dog]

Thanks for the Dead Witch article GM

[DougMacG]

I'm sure it's not intentional but the Hillary health scare has become the latest shiny object stopping us from discussing the issues and competing ideologies of governing - even in a Presidential election year.

I really like Trump' attack on the inner city black vote going to Democrats.  If he can break into some of these 'groups', blacks and legal Hispanics, it will be a game changer.

Poll have tightened, very divided and still leaning in Hillary's favor.  Pundits seem to skip over the possibility that the landslide could go Trump's direction.

In the end, the Bush, Romney, Rino and purist groups will all get on board.

[Crafty_Dog]

"the Hillary health scare has become the latest shiny object stopping us from discussing the issues and competing ideologies of governing - even in a Presidential election year."

Its been fun, but agreed.  Unless something else develops, let's move on gents.

[DDF]

I'm sure it's not intentional but the Hillary health scare has become the latest shiny object stopping us from discussing the issues and competing ideologies of governing - even in a Presidential election year.

I really like Trump' attack on the inner city black vote going to Democrats.  If he can break into some of these 'groups', blacks and legal Hispanics, it will be a game changer.

Poll have tightened, very divided and still leaning in Hillary's favor.  Pundits seem to skip over the possibility that the landslide could go Trump's direction.

In the end, the Bush, Romney, Rino and purist groups will all get on board.

I disagree completely with the polls being "accurate" in any way.

From every internet thread that I have read, from every video that I have seen on youtube (both the comments, and the liek to dislike ratio), Hillary gets hammered, and people still say that she has a "lead?" Not on your life. In fact, Clinton's own youtube channel has to disable her comments because she gets beaten so badly in them. I'd put the ratio of likes to dislikes at roughly 1 "like" to every five "dislikes" on her videos.

Obviously, this isn't high tech "polling algorithms," but is one to say that only conservative Hillary "haters" use the internet, or have a different rate of usage? I don't think so... plenty of section 8 people with cellphones that you paid for.

Here's a great example:



By the way, I watched this video live, from her channel. They had initially allowed comments, but was getting chewed so badly, they had to disable them. I still have the screen shots from it. There were almost NO comments in favor of her.

Also, as seen here in Obama's video supporting Hillary, as reported by Breitbart, deleting comments and generating a huge amount of hatred and vitriol. One simply does not generate these types of numbers against them, and remain "ahead in the polls." Doesn't happen.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/10/comments-scrubbed-youtube-video-obamas-hillary-endorsement/

[DDF]

It's a little suspect, when two California based polls (one by L.A. Times/USC, and the other by KABC/Survey USA), have two different results, one placing Trump three points ahead, and the other placing Clinton 25 points ahead:

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton    LA Times/USC Tracking    Clinton 43, Trump 46    Trump +3
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein    NBC News/SM    Clinton 42, Trump 40, Johnson 11, Stein 4    Clinton +2
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton    NBC News/SM    Clinton 48, Trump 44    Clinton +4
Virginia: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein    PPP (D)    Clinton 45, Trump 39, Johnson 6, Stein 2    Clinton +6
Virginia: Trump vs. Clinton    PPP (D)    Clinton 50, Trump 42    Clinton +8
California: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein    KABC/SurveyUSA    Clinton 57, Trump 32, Johnson 3, Stein 1    Clinton +25

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Which is why, I trust none of the following numbers from this page, which averages 5 polls and gives you the perception that Clinton is winning:

http://www.270towin.com/2016-polls-clinton-trump/

But when one reads the fine print (and I did), they state; "* The average includes the most recent poll from each source released within the past ten days. If there are fewer than five qualifying polls, we look back, by date, until up to five^ qualifying polls are found. However, no polls older than 30 days are considered in the average."

So which polls do they use? Oddly, the same one that has Hillary up by 25 points in California. From their page, the link to what polls they use for to obtain their "percentages."
http://www.270towin.com/recent-polls-2016-president-senate/
Note:
Date   Poll Source   Office   Location   Results   Lead
9/12   USC / LA Times   President   California   
Clinton   58
Trump   33   
   +25

Even when one switches to the third party candidate polls, the numbers improve slightly for Trump, but the data is still skewed (garbage in, garbage out).

When we switch to the Electoral polls, we get Clinton beating Trump 273 to 175 (but when you have polls in the same city citing a 22 point difference between polls, how can you trust any of the data for any state at that point? You can't:
http://www.270towin.com/maps/consensus-pundit-electoral-map

Perhaps it's just the page. Maybe it's set up by Clinton or Soros? We know this - "270towin.com has received an estimated 1,035,800 visits over the last 30 days. The number of visits differs from visitors (or unique visitors). Visits includes multiple visits from the same individual (repeat visits)." http://www.trafficestimate.com/270towin.com

We know that it is one of the first sights to show on the google search engine when searching the query 2016 presidential polls, so it gets a lot of views, but who owns it, or "realclearpolitics" polls (the number one spot)?" The third poll listed is the NY Times, owned by Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., who uses his position and wealth to drive leftist ideology... to whom, Clinton donated $100,000 (and perhaps more on other occasions) http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-donated-100k-to-new-york-times-group-the-same-year-paper-endorsed-her/

So.... who owns the first two polling websites?

RealClearPolitics - "The web site was founded in 2000 by McIntyre, a former trader at the Chicago Board Options Exchange, and Bevan, a former advertising agency account executive. McIntyre explained "it really wasn't any more complicated than there should be a place online that pulled together all this quality information".
1. John McIntyre - his words - "As a registered Democrat, I have only a detached and anthropological interest in the current ruction within the Republican Party." No bias there.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/language-blog/bal-not-a-member-of-an-organized-political-party-just-a-democrat-20160325-story.html
2. Tom Bevan - "Our guest Tom Bevan, co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics, tackles the subject of Trump’s knowledge (or lack there-of)..." http://radio.foxnews.com/2016/03/28/tom-bevan-hillary-vs-trump-democrats-are-nervous/ Again... no bias there. Also, Bevan happens to be a History major. No liberal leanings there.
3. "RealClearPolitics is the trusted news source for the day's critical issues. In a crowded digital media environment, Washington D.C. insiders and national influencers rely on RealClearPolitics to provide authoritative, complete, and non-partisan reporting. - That was a lie. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/media_kit/

270toWin - "270toWin is a non-partisan, educational website covering presidential and congressional elections through content and interactive maps." http://www.270towin.com/advertising/ but are they really? Let's see.
1. Allan Keiter -"For outside perspective, we turned to Allan Keiter, the founder of the 270towin website," in which Democrats are seeking a strategy to prevent Republicans from winning the presidency  - http://politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/sep/12/gilberto-hinojosa/gilberto-hinojosa-says-if-democrat-carries-texas-c/
2. Who is Allen Keiter? - General Manager -270toWin- June 2004 – Present (12 years 4 months) https://www.linkedin.com/in/allankeiter
   Alanta, Georgia, but a Philly native  - https://www.intelius.com/people/Allan-Keiter/060g84sk73w - https://www.facebook.com/allan.keiter
  It's hard to nail this guy's political affiliation down, but he has been quoted by several leftist, news sources, he likes yoga, subscribes to NBC, but not to Fox, and allows for Liberal advertising on his 270toWin website "Inside the Clinton Whitehouse," and every other article on his site are pro democrat. It should also be noted that his wife is also a Democrat, having university connections to Connecticut, and having donated at least a $1000 here ( http://individual-contributors.insidegov.com/d/c/Elizabeth-Clubb ).

The polls are beyond skewed.
  

[DougMacG]

Didn’t Barack Obama say a few months back that a candidate couldn’t insult his way to the presidency?

You may be a deplorable if you stand for the National Anthem.

Or if you know all the words to the Pledge of Allegiance, especially, “under God” (and liberty before justice).

Or if you [buy groceries] with your own money.

If you’re deployable, you’re definitely deplorable.

If you don’t have an Obamaphone and you don’t believe that global warming is “settled science” — can you say deplorable?

Saying Merry Christmas — Deplorable with a capital D!

You may be a deplorable if you wouldn’t mind showing some ID at the local precinct before you vote.

You may be a deplorable if all of your children have the same last name — and it’s your last name.

Nothing says deplorable like the National Rifle Association.

If you liked your doctor and wanted to keep your doctor — you know what you are.

You may be a deplorable if you don’t think you should have to press one for English.

You may be a deplorable if you identify as a member of the gender in which you were born.

You are a deplorable if you believe All Lives Matter.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2016/09/carr_some_quick_easy_steps_to_tell_if_you_re_a_deplorable

[G M]

If you think male and female are actual biologically based concepts.

If you think some cultures are better than others.

Didn’t Barack Obama say a few months back that a candidate couldn’t insult his way to the presidency?

You may be a deplorable if you stand for the National Anthem.

Or if you know all the words to the Pledge of Allegiance, especially, “under God” (and liberty before justice).

Or if you [buy groceries] with your own money.

If you’re deployable, you’re definitely deplorable.

If you don’t have an Obamaphone and you don’t believe that global warming is “settled science” — can you say deplorable?

Saying Merry Christmas — Deplorable with a capital D!

You may be a deplorable if you wouldn’t mind showing some ID at the local precinct before you vote.

You may be a deplorable if all of your children have the same last name — and it’s your last name.

Nothing says deplorable like the National Rifle Association.

If you liked your doctor and wanted to keep your doctor — you know what you are.

You may be a deplorable if you don’t think you should have to press one for English.

You may be a deplorable if you identify as a member of the gender in which you were born.

You are a deplorable if you believe All Lives Matter.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2016/09/carr_some_quick_easy_steps_to_tell_if_you_re_a_deplorable

[DougMacG]

There is something odd about Pres. Obama having a positive job approval rating (just barely).  Maybe it's personal.  These economic results don't deserve approval.  Maybe the numbers quoted here bear more closely on the election possibilities of his chosen successor:

More people rate the economy poor than good or excellent combined.

Nearly twice as many say getting worse over getting better.

4 More Years!  (sarcasm alert)

Last week, 26 percent of people surveyed in Gallup’s poll of Americans’ confidence in the economy rated current economic conditions as excellent or good, while 30 percent labeled them poor. Thirty-seven percent of those surveyed said their economic outlook was “getting better” compared with 57 percent who said it was “getting worse.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/business/economy/census-poverty-income-donald-trump.html?_r=0
------------------------

Previously noted:
"I really like Trump' attack on the inner city black vote going to Democrats.  If he can break into some of these 'groups', blacks and legal Hispanics, it will be a game changer."

Trump is now polling 26% support from blacks in South Carolina:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/14/trump-gets-nearly-26-percent-of-the-black-vote-in-new-poll/

For Obama nationwide in two cycles I think the black vote was 98% with high turnout.  None of that enthusiasm translates to Hillary.  HRC cannot afford to lose much ground in a close election.  The undecided and discouraged will stay home and some others will give their support to Trump.  What do they have to lose?  

This is also a critical mass question.  People are all of one view because everyone they know is all of that view.  Enter some honest debate and skepticism.  Welfare 'rights' isn't a better life.  Grow the economy stupid. (Paraphrasing Bill Clinton's 1992 staff)

He is also toning down his round 'em up, send 'em home message for the so-called 11 million.  If legal Hispanics vote based on economic opportunity and growth, Trump could beat expectations with them also.  Illegals compete for their jobs too and border security benefits everyone.

[G M]

Blacks and Hispanics and blue collar whites are the people hurt most by illegal aliens.

[Crafty_Dog]

"This (black vote) is also a critical mass question.  People are all of one view because everyone they know is all of that view.  Enter some honest debate and skepticism."

Yes.

[Crafty_Dog]

Hillary's Health Gives Trump Huge Opening
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on September 15, 2016
Hillary's health now gives Donald Trump a second chance to make a good first impression -- something as rare in politics as it is in life.  Already polling is suggesting that Trump is surging in the wake of her collapse at the 9/11 ceremony.  The New York Times/CBS has the race even among all voters and gives Trump a two point lead among likely voters.  Rasmussen has The Donald two ahead. Reuters has it tied. LA Times/USC gives Trump a six point lead.

Animating the data is a sense that she may be far sicker than she is letting on.  Check out this video by a Parkinson's doctor correlating her episodes of fainting etc. with the more serious illness.  Click here to view video.
While Trump's surge is more of a bounce than a shift in the underlying pattern of the race, he has a chance to make it permanent.  If he continues to act presidential and avoid unforced errors, he can assume a permanent, sustainable lead.  Voters are giving him a second look now that Hillary's illness leads them to question her viability.  If they find a dignified, positive alternative in Trump, they are likely to feel more comfortable in backing him.

Already Trump has begun to fill the bill, triggering his surge over the past three weeks -- prior to 9/11.  His visit to flood-ravaged Louisiana, his meeting with the Mexican president, and his policy pronouncements on national security, the economy, immigration, and child care all projected a presidential image effectively.

In the meantime, consider this list, catalogued by WND.com, of Hillary's health episodes:

•  In 1998, while campaigning in New York, her right foot started swelling causing her pain.  Bethesda Naval Hospital doctors diagnosed a large blood clot behind her right knee.

•  In February, 2005, she fainted during a campaign speech and her aides had to catch her to break her fall.  They blamed a gastrointestinal problem.

•  On June 17, 2009, she fell and fractured her right elbow while walking to her car.  The break required surgery.

•  In 2009, Hillary also had a second blood clot that was diagnosed as "deep vein thrombosis," dangerous because the clot could break lose and cause a pulmonary embolism.

•  On January 12, 2011, Hillary tripped and fell boarding a plane.

•  On December 15, 2012, Hillary had to cancel an overseas trip due to a stomach virus.  While ill, she fainted and fell, sustaining a concussion.  Husband Bill said that her injury "required six months of very serious work to get over."

•  On December 31, 2012, during a follow-up exam at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, doctors discovered another blood clot (her third) in a large vein along the side of her head between the brain and the skull.

•  Throughout 2015 and 2016, Hillary has had prolonged coughing fits while giving speeches.  She attributes it to seasonal allergies.

•  On July 21 of this year, Hillary had what appeared to be a seizure while campaigning.  Recorded on video, her head seemed to move uncontrollably for about ten seconds.

•  On September 11th, at a memorial service, she had to leave the event while it was still in progress.  She had to be propped up as she walked to her van and collapsed getting in, losing a shoe in the process.  She revealed later that she had been diagnosed for pneumonia on September 9th but attended the event anyway.

We are entering unexplored territory here.  We have never had a presidential candidate who had to pull out before the election.  If Hillary resigns, the Democratic National Committee, two from each state, will choose her replacement.   While Tim Kaine would get consideration -- and Bernie would get none -- Joe Biden is the likely choice.  And he is harder to beat.  Be careful what you wish for.

[ccp]

I notice he picks up on the "parkinson" doctor's theory that she has parkinson's.   

First he is noted to be an anesthesiologist .  Parkisnson's doctors are neurologists so if he is an anesthesiologist he is would not be  a "parkinson's" doctor.

Secondly there is no evidence she looks like the patient in the video .

I don't know if it is her medical  fitness for office or just the fact that she is caught lying again and playing us all for stooges .

In any case thank God for the person who got that video of her falling and the Secret Service agents preventing her from getting  a nose job.

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/16/hillary-clinton-campaign-manager-admits-birtherism-started/

[Crafty_Dog]

Pravda on the Beach (LA Times) give 19% of black vote to Trump!

Other interesting numbers too.

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

[DDF]

Pravda on the Beach (LA Times) give 19% of black vote to Trump!

Other interesting numbers too.

http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/

I'm sticking with my original prediction. Trump is going to crush her. Double digits. Even with California letting 3 million illegals vote with their licenses, he'll still kill it.

Edit:

I dropped the ball on Johnson. I didn't think as many people from the Hillary/Sander's camp would support him. Come to find out, he's pretty attractive to them.

[DDF]

Delving deeper, we know that many Sander's voters won't actually jump ship. I think the actual number is closer to 30% (one in three voters for Sanders) Which means, 10 million voters will either vote for Trump, Stein, or Johnson. If we assign half to Stein, and split the rest between Trump and Johnson, here what it looks like in closing:

Trump - 63,500,000
Clinton - 55,640,000
Stein - 5,469,000 (counting her .5 million from 2012)
Johnson - 3,775,000 (counting the 1.27 mil he had from 2012)

I stated that Trump would get 52% of the vote. With 63.5 million and a voter turnout of 128 million, he'd have to be at 66.56 million (well within what he could reach with Sanders bailouts).

I stated that Hillary would be at 44% of the vote or 56.32 million voters of 128 million. Based on Barracks numbers of 66,000,000 in 2012, and a 1/3 to 1/2 of Sander's voters jumping ship, the empress could easily find herself 15 million votes short, putting her as low as 51,000,000, well within the target I have proposed.

Needless to say, these aren't electoral college votes, nor are they swing state votes.

1. Most Latinos already reside in Blue states, BUT.... they aren't interested in seeing other Mexicans other than their immediate family come and take their jobs.
2. States that have been blue could go red because of this, with purple states having an even higher turnover.
3. Trump won't get the Black vote, but at 12%-15% (19 million votes) of the population, and most based in Blue states, he doesn't need it.

Basically what I've come up with.