WWTBAM Bored

... what Hillary Clinton has been doing the last four days?

This is actually somewhat of a serious question, because if you read or listen to the news, you can't hear anything about Hillary unless it's buried about six paragraphs down in an article about Trump. In the meantime, every time he shoots his mouth off, whether about the Khans, Russia, "crooked" fire marshals. the "rigged" debates, the "rigged" election, or whatever, it gets front page coverage.

Now about 90% of what Trump is spouting is total crap and much of it is harmful to him, but it's also having the effect of keeping Hillary out of the public eye at a time when she really could have kept building on the effort everyone made at the convention to repair her image.

Tonight, at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, Trump called Hillary the devil (in conjunction with his comments that Bernie Sanders made a deal with the devil he now regrets). Bingo... there's the headline. Then, Trump went on to talk about how Putin might help the U.S. deal with ISIS. That's a cracked idea, since Putin has been "dealing" with ISIS in Syria for months without much effect, but at least it's not quite as batshit as much of the rest of what Trump has said. And, he got to make his point and get press coverage of it. I don't know what Hillary said tonight or what issues she raised, and neither does anyone else because the press isn't reporting on it. They're not even reporting on her reaction to Trump's statements any more. In fact, she and Tim Kaine went on a bus tour through PA and OH over the weekend, and you never heard anything about it. It's tough to build yourself up when no one hears what you have to say, and the entire idea of that trip was to start mending fences with working class white voters. That's an opportunity that's gone by the boards.

Now, if Trump is still bad mouthing the Khans in October, this is bad news for him, but if he can settle down into anything approaching normalcy, he'll still have the press following him around every minute waiting to see if he'll do something else stupid while Hillary is left twisting in the wind.

She's hiding. Something is wrong. 240 days now with no press conference. If she wants to be president, she sure isn't showing it.

Of course, she has better handlers than Trump. They keep her hidden and shut up so she can do no harm.

silverscreenselect wrote:... what Hillary Clinton has been doing the last four days?

<snip> They're not even reporting on her reaction to Trump's statements any more. In fact, she and Tim Kaine went on a bus tour through PA and OH over the weekend, and you never heard anything about it. It's tough to build yourself up when no one hears what you have to say, and the entire idea of that trip was to start mending fences with working class white voters. That's an opportunity that's gone by the boards.

Actually, I did hear about the bus tour. She made four stops -- one in western Pennsylvania and three in Ohio, before canceling the remainder of the scheduled events because of the lack of attendance and enthusiasm during the first four. I suspect she would get coverage if she would decide to hold a press conference, but it's been well over 200 days since she's done such a thing. Some folks might think she doesn't want to answer questions that she can't control.

I've been using the time not reading about her to read about Gary Johnson.

Don't know that I will be able to vote for him in a state that will matter, but it sure is nice to have a worthy option.

silvercamaro wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:... what Hillary Clinton has been doing the last four days?

<snip> They're not even reporting on her reaction to Trump's statements any more. In fact, she and Tim Kaine went on a bus tour through PA and OH over the weekend, and you never heard anything about it. It's tough to build yourself up when no one hears what you have to say, and the entire idea of that trip was to start mending fences with working class white voters. That's an opportunity that's gone by the boards.

Actually, I did hear about the bus tour. She made four stops -- one in western Pennsylvania and three in Ohio, before canceling the remainder of the scheduled events because of the lack of attendance and enthusiasm during the first four. I suspect she would get coverage if she would decide to hold a press conference, but it's been well over 200 days since she's done such a thing. Some folks might think she doesn't want to answer questions that she can't control.

I read the same thing. She has had such low turnout at recent events that the MSM is simply pretending they didn't happen.

That, and an interview where she said "Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails." Her inability to stop lying earned her Four Pinocchios and a Pants on Fire!

silverscreenselect wrote:... what Hillary Clinton has been doing the last four days?

She actually was here in Omaha yesterday, seeking cover from the Oracle himself, Warren Buffett.

It is not a good sign if Hillary and the Democrats think that the one electoral vote out of the Omaha area will be that important to her winning the election.

The press here has covered Clinton's tour. But the most reported moment was Warren Buffett putting down Trump. Clinton is refraining from responding to every Trump insult. She's learned from watching the Republican primaries that playing Trump's game is like mud wrestling with a pig. But now she doesn't get attention.

The New York Times had an article about Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager. His previous client was former Ukranian President Yanukovych. You'd think the MSM would be all over this since it supports the view that Trump loves Russia. But it hasn't been mentioned. Guess it isn't sensational enough.

Appa23 wrote:It is not a good sign if Hillary and the Democrats think that the one electoral vote out of the Omaha area will be that important to her winning the election.

As usual, you are wrong. It is entirely possible that Hillary could hold Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia... but lose Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Ohio. The electoral vote count in that situation? 269-269. No winner until the U.S. House selects one.

If Hillary does what President Obama did in 2008 and grabs that pink congressional district from Nebraska, that's the minimum 270 electoral votes required for victory.

Ritterskoop wrote:I've been using the time not reading about her to read about Gary Johnson.

Don't know that I will be able to vote for him in a state that will matter, but it sure is nice to have a worthy option.

Wednesday night, Johnson and Weld will hold a townhall on CNN.

Appa23 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:... what Hillary Clinton has been doing the last four days?

She actually was here in Omaha yesterday, seeking cover from the Oracle himself, Warren Buffett.

It is not a good sign if Hillary and the Democrats think that the one electoral vote out of the Omaha area will be that important to her winning the election.

You got the main point in the first sentence. Buffett hit Trump on an issue on which he's vulnerable, his tax returns, and more generally, on his economic acumen (as Mark Cuban did a good bit more bluntly the day before). If Buffett lived in Los Angeles, you wouldn't have seen Hillary in Omaha yesterday.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Appa23 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:... what Hillary Clinton has been doing the last four days?

She actually was here in Omaha yesterday, seeking cover from the Oracle himself, Warren Buffett.

It is not a good sign if Hillary and the Democrats think that the one electoral vote out of the Omaha area will be that important to her winning the election.

You got the main point in the first sentence. Buffett hit Trump on an issue on which he's vulnerable, his tax returns, and more generally, on his economic acumen (as Mark Cuban did a good bit more bluntly the day before). If Buffett lived in Los Angeles, you wouldn't have seen Hillary in Omaha yesterday.

Buffett could have made that point anywhere, during his many travels, so that really is not the only reason. (Plus, as far as political points go, saying "lets compare tax returns" is not a big one.) Moreover, the Clinton campaign would not have picked an inner-city STEM school if that was the only reason. A stop in Omaha does serve the dual-purpose of getting coverage for western Iowa, but her campaign spoke a great deal about our 2nd congressional district (and has had several democratic heavyweights visit here in the past month) to ignore the difference from previous elections. Even when Obama won in 2008, he did not campaign here during the general election.

Of course, maybe Hillary campaigned here because she was afraid that she wouldn't get the clean sweep that Juch predicted without it.

She's watching Trump make the election a referendum about himself. Why interfere? --Bob

Ritterskoop wrote:I've been using the time not reading about her to read about Gary Johnson.

Don't know that I will be able to vote for him in a state that will matter, but it sure is nice to have a worthy option.

Why would you vote for someone who wants absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership?

Bob Juch wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:I've been using the time not reading about her to read about Gary Johnson.

Don't know that I will be able to vote for him in a state that will matter, but it sure is nice to have a worthy option.

Why would you vote for someone who wants absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership?

You voted for somebody who ran guns to the Mexican drug cartels. Why?

edit: That is an assumption of course. I don't know who you voted for in 2012 but I assume it wasn't Romney.

Sally Bradshaw, a top adviser to Jeb Bush, has left the Republican party and says she will vote for Hillary if the election is close (it won't be for Trump in any event):

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/ ... p-florida/

Retiring NY Republican Congressman Richard Hanna will vote for Hillary:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/ ... index.html

These two are the first, but they won't be the last. The last prominent Democratic politican who said he would vote Republican (and gave a speech at the Republican convention) was former GA governor Zell Miller in 2004.

silverscreenselect wrote:Sally Bradshaw, a top adviser to Jeb Bush, has left the Republican party and says she will vote for Hillary if the election is close (it won't be for Trump in any event):

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/ ... p-florida/

Retiring NY Republican Congressman Richard Hanna will vote for Hillary:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/ ... index.html

These two are the first, but they won't be the last. The last prominent Democratic politican who said he would vote Republican (and gave a speech at the Republican convention) was former GA governor Zell Miller in 2004.

Didn't Lieberman endorse one of Obama's opponents? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Didn't Lieberman endorse one of Obama's opponents? --Bob

Despite being the Democratic candidate for VP in 2000, Lieberman was in independent. In the 2006 Senate race, he lost the Democratic primary and then beat both parties' official candidates in the general election. A bit like Bernie, except Lieberman was to the right of the Democratic mainstream.

Bob Juch wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:I've been using the time not reading about her to read about Gary Johnson.

Don't know that I will be able to vote for him in a state that will matter, but it sure is nice to have a worthy option.

Why would you vote for someone who wants absolutely no restrictions on gun ownership?

I don't cast my vote on one issue.

I am making up numbers, but out of probably eight issues, I agree with him on seven. That's a good match.

Also, his position on guns is consistent with his other positions (as little federal influence as possible). I appreciate and salute consistency.

silverscreenselect wrote:Sally Bradshaw, a top adviser to Jeb Bush, has left the Republican party and says she will vote for Hillary if the election is close (it won't be for Trump in any event):

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politics/ ... p-florida/

Retiring NY Republican Congressman Richard Hanna will vote for Hillary:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/politics/ ... index.html

These two are the first, but they won't be the last. The last prominent Democratic politican who said he would vote Republican (and gave a speech at the Republican convention) was former GA governor Zell Miller in 2004.

Another one jumps ship. Meg Whtman will support Hillary and make a "substantial" donation to her campaign. She will also lobby her friends to support Hillary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/po ... share&_r=0

Anyone want to make a bet on Donald Trump stepping down for "health reasons"?

If Trump drops out, what mechanism could be used to replace him?

silverscreenselect wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/po ... share&_r=0

Anyone want to make a bet on Donald Trump stepping down for "health reasons"?

Not gonna happen. His ego is too yuge to step down on his own, and I don't see any mechanism for the party to kick him off the ballot at this point.

And his response to those who have jumped ship will be what he always does with those who don't agree with him -- call them a bunch of losers.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/po ... share&_r=0

Anyone want to make a bet on Donald Trump stepping down for "health reasons"?

Not gonna happen. His ego is too yuge to step down on his own, and I don't see any mechanism for the party to kick him off the ballot at this point.

And his response to those who have jumped ship will be what he always does with those who don't agree with him -- call them a bunch of losers.

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/08/03/ ... 2016-race/

Bob Juch wrote:http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/08/03/ ... 2016-race/

LOL. Anyone who believes that probably believes Iran released the four prisoners out of the goodness of their heart and it had nothing to do with $400 million cash.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/08/03/ ... 2016-race/

LOL. Anyone who believes that probably believes Iran released the four prisoners out of the goodness of their heart and it had nothing to do with $400 million cash.

WSJ wrote:The money represented the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration reached with Iran to resolve a decades-old dispute over a failed arms deal signed just before the 1979 fall of Iran’s last monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The settlement, which resolved claims before an international tribunal in The Hague, also coincided with the formal implementation that same weekend of the landmark nuclear agreement reached between Tehran, the U.S. and other global powers the summer before.

“With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well,” President Barack Obama said at the White House on Jan. 17—without disclosing the $400 million cash payment.

Bob Juch wrote:

With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well,” President Barack Obama said at the White House on Jan. 17—without disclosing the $400 million cash payment.

Like I said....