# Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign Discussion **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 4, 2016, 11:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873 "2016-05-04T11:09:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 30
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/581 "2016-08-11T09:41:59Z")
In case you hadn’t noticed, that Republican Party doesn’t exist anymore. We banned earmarks, which is a big part of how cronyism functions. That’ll put a small crimp in Clinton’s income stream I bet, but I’m sure she’ll make it up elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![DonLogan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@DonLogan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DonLogan)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/582 "2016-08-11T09:52:47Z")
[QUOTE=Jophiel] Anyone hoping for this to change the dynamic of the race is going to have to find a better story than “Once a billionaire maybe got to talk to an ambassador”. [/QUOTE] > [@Peremensoe](#): > > And explain how they think a billionaire wouldn’t get, or have got, to talk to an ambassador under any other regime. Not to mention rich donors are routinely MADE ambassadors. These emails are nothingburgers, just like Benghazi. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/583 "2016-08-11T10:00:23Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > These stories would be more damaging if she was facing an ethically clean candidate who wasn’t a nutcase. And that’s a great point, and something that’s becoming more and more obvious. As outrageous as Donald has become on an almost daily basis, if there’s a silver lining to this cloud for the Clintons, it is that Donald is missing some golden opportunities to attack them. Just yesterday there was another email dump which confirmed some of my worst fears about the Clinton Foundation – that it could be used to characterize the Clinton’s as being your classic cronyists. It was like a piece of meat dangling over an alligator pond. And where was the Donald? Distracting voters with claims that Obama created ISIS. Distracting voters the day before with the suggestion that the 2nd Amendment people could take the law and election into their own hands. Donald is drowning out whatever negative information comes out about Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/584 "2016-08-11T10:05:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > In case you hadn’t noticed, that Republican Party doesn’t exist anymore. We banned earmarks, which is a big part of how cronyism functions. That’ll put a small crimp in Clinton’s income stream I bet, but I’m sure she’ll make it up elsewhere. Earmarks were not nearly as bad as people made them out to be. Yes, there were occasionally bridges to nowhere, but they also had the effect of imposing order and discipline within the party. “You want to call me a liar on the floor of the senate? Okay, how about explaining to your voters why that construction project that was going to employ 10,000 workers and add millions to your economy just collapsed.” Yes, on the surface it seems like a shit system, but the reality is that these mechanisms resulted in consequences for political rogues. We’re kinda missing that now, and that is not an insignificant factor in the fracturing of the republican party. It may also result in the fracturing of the democratic party as well – who knows? ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/585 "2016-08-11T10:08:34Z")
> [@DonLogan](#): > > Not to mention rich donors are routinely MADE ambassadors. > > These emails are nothingburgers, just like Benghazi. Yes, but to people who think the system is rigged, this is offered as proof and this is a liability for the Clintons. ---
**Author:** ![DonLogan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@DonLogan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DonLogan)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/586 "2016-08-11T10:18:58Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Yes, but to people who think the system is rigged, this is offered as proof and this is a liability for the Clintons. People who think the system is rigged obviously already have all the proof they need to believe the system is rigged. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/587 "2016-08-11T10:30:52Z")
> [@DonLogan](#): > > People who think the system is rigged obviously already have all the proof they need to believe the system is rigged. True, but in an election year in which relatively large numbers of people have been inspired to vote against the ‘system’, or at minimum, at least not vote for it, I don’t know if you can necessarily dismiss this as inconsequential. Even if it doesn’t necessarily inspire large numbers of waffling voters to support Trump, it could be what finally convinces them to vote for a protest candidate, such as Johnson or Stein. Or not vote at all. In any case, I think it’s within the realm of the reasonable to assume that there is very real damage done to Hillary Clinton’s campaign if more of these exchanges come to light. How much damage is unclear. ---
**Author:** ![DonLogan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@DonLogan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DonLogan)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/588 "2016-08-11T10:43:28Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > True, but in an election year in which relatively large numbers of people have been inspired to vote against the ‘system’, or at minimum, at least not vote for it, I don’t know if you can necessarily dismiss this as inconsequential. Even if it doesn’t necessarily inspire large numbers of waffling voters to support Trump, it could be what finally convinces them to vote for a protest candidate, such as Johnson or Stein. Or not vote at all. In any case, I think it’s within the realm of the reasonable to assume that there is very real damage done to Hillary Clinton’s campaign if more of these exchanges come to light. How much damage is unclear. The “undecideds” may not be statistically insignificant, but there’s no point in bothering to try to get them to vote for you. If you are undecided, your vote is a coin flip, and there is no way to predict what is going to get you to decide one way or the other. You are a feather in the breeze. No one knows how to pander to you, because you don’t even know what you want. So there’s no point in trying. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/589 "2016-08-11T11:03:03Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Earmarks were not nearly as bad as people made them out to be. Yes, there were occasionally bridges to nowhere, but they also had the effect of imposing order and discipline within the party. “You want to call me a liar on the floor of the senate? Okay, how about explaining to your voters why that construction project that was going to employ 10,000 workers and add millions to your economy just collapsed.” Yes, on the surface it seems like a shit system, but the reality is that these mechanisms resulted in consequences for political rogues. We’re kinda missing that now, and that is not an insignificant factor in the fracturing of the republican party. It may also result in the fracturing of the democratic party as well – who knows? It’s the most lucrative way to reward campaign contributors. It’s small in the sense of overall spending, but actually pretty huge in the corruption machine. Banning earmarks was a great way for the GOP to show that they are trying to change. At least in some ways. Democrats, in response, seem to have embraced the old ways of doing business, abandoning their 2006 and 2008 rhetoric. That’s why I doubt they will have as much long term success as some think. Despite being in a very weak position aside from the White House, they are acting like a party for whom power is their entitlement. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/590 "2016-08-11T14:38:29Z")
Structurally, banning earmarks had the effect of making compromise and deals between Congressmen harder. Not sure that can be counted as a win for good governance. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/591 "2016-08-11T17:22:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > …That’s why I doubt they will have as much long term success as some think. Despite being in a very weak position aside from the White House, they are acting like a party for whom power is their entitlement. That’s as close to a truism about politics in general as I’ve ever seen. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/592 "2016-08-11T22:09:14Z")
HRC is doing exactly what many in this thread have been saying: [Let Trump dominate the news](http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-economy-226934). ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2016, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/593 "2016-08-11T22:35:35Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I can accept a few people like this… But pretty much EVERY PERSON who voted for Romney in the last election will vote for Trump? Just because he is a Republican? Seriously? That kind of math (“Not everyone who voted for A would vote for B, and everyone who voted for C would vote for D”, etc) never works out. Because it ignores the changes in voter turnout for various groups / demographics. In other words, if fewer people support Trump than did Romney, but they are more enthusiastic and therefore turn out in greater numbers, Trump could win. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2016, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/594 "2016-08-12T09:51:49Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > That kind of math (“Not everyone who voted for A would vote for B, and everyone who voted for C would vote for D”, etc) never works out. Because it ignores the changes in voter turnout for various groups / demographics. > > In other words, if fewer people support Trump than did Romney, but they are more enthusiastic and therefore turn out in greater numbers, Trump could win. This is why polls that survey likely voters are more accurate than polls of registered voters and the Nate Silvers of the world who compile polls to determine the most likely scenarios weight those polls more accordingly. Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2016, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/595 "2016-08-12T09:55:30Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > That’s as close to a truism about politics in general as I’ve ever seen. Usually the party out of power promises reform. The fact that Democrats are not only not focused on reform, but want to undo some reforms, like bringing back earmarks, suggests they have become fully invested in DC’s shadier practices. Figure it won’t be long before patronage comes back. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2016, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/596 "2016-08-12T10:59:54Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > In case you hadn’t noticed, that Republican Party doesn’t exist anymore. True - the old practice of “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” has been replaced by “You scratch my back or I’ll burn this entire building down and kill all of us”. Definitely an improvement. > [@](#): > > We banned earmarks, which is a big part of how cronyism functions. That’ll put a small crimp in Clinton’s income stream I bet, but I’m sure she’ll make it up elsewhere. Ah, insinuations. Where would you and the right-wing media be without them? ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2016, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/597 "2016-08-12T14:43:55Z")
Not really sure this was worthy of The Perfect Master’s time and effort, but here’s his new column on Hillary’s fluctuations in the polls since first moving into the White House: [Seriously — why do so many people dislike Hillary Clinton? - The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3301/seriously-why-do-so-many-people-dislike-hillary-clinton) And here’s CNN on how Trump’s errors may help Dems remake the Electoral College map: > **[Democrats see chance to reshape map as Trump stumbles | CNN Politics](https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/clinton-trump-electoral-map-utah-georgia/index.html)** > > Democrats are on offense in red states like Utah, Arizona and Georgia as Trump continues to falter ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2016, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/598 "2016-08-12T15:29:44Z")
LOL classic… [QUOTE=Cecil Adams] However, friends, we live in wondrous times, and in 2016 Hillary’s not even our least popular presidential candidate. Gallup again: 59 percent of Americans don’t like Donald Trump, including 42 percent who can’t stand him. Fortunately, nobody’s writing in to wonder why — I’d never get it all in a single column. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2016, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/599 "2016-08-12T21:51:16Z")
Clinton and Kaine both released their tax returns today, putting some pressure on Trump to do the same. I’m betting that he will never reveal that information. ---
**Author:** ![psychobunny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/54ee81/32.png) [@psychobunny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychobunny)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2016, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873/600 "2016-08-13T00:11:28Z")
I haven’t seen [this](http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/joint-fbi-us-attorney-probe-of-clinton-foundation-is-underway/ar-BBvwVw5?getstaticpage=true) anywhere else. It states that the Clinton Foundation is under investigation by the FBI and DOJ. Obviously it’s from a conservative site but does it have any credibility? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873.md?page=29) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-discussion/753873.md?page=31)