Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign Discussion

[Sherrerd]

@JohnT

Hillary beginning major outreach to disaffected Romney supporters

… “If Trump’s team had been organized, effective, or putting the party and winning above pettiness, they would have immediately worked — after he became the Republican nominee — through a list of his opponent’s supporters,” explained Republican lawyer Charlie Spies, Romney’s chief financial officer and counsel in 2008 before helping launch his super PAC in 2012. “Instead, they did not. They also made clear: Mr. Trump does not reach out to people, you’re either on board or you’re not.”

So, apparently running a campaign as a spoiled-two-year-old-in-an-adult-body doesn’t attract either top political talent or top political donors.

[JohnT]

I’m enjoying Hillary’s strategy of opening up campaign offices in States currently once thought untouchable. It keeps the Trump campaign off balance, having to spend time, money, and brainpower in places like Utah.

http://beta.deseretnews.com/article/865660805/Hillary-Clinton-to-open-campaign-office-in-Salt-Lake-City.html?pg=all

Combined with the news above, looks like she’s opening up a new front against an enemy already twice-beheaded. Even $1 million spent by Trump in Utah is $1m less spent in battleground states.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@Sherrerd

So, apparently running a campaign as a spoiled-two-year-old-in-an-adult-body doesn’t attract either top political talent or top political donors.

Who knew? This sure has been a topsy-turvy election.

[ganthet]

@JohnT

I’m enjoying Hillary’s strategy of opening up campaign offices in States currently once thought untouchable. It keeps the Trump campaign off balance, having to spend time, money, and brainpower in places like Utah.

Combined with the news above, looks like she’s opening up a new front against an enemy already twice-beheaded. Even $1 million spent by Trump in Utah is $1m less spent in battleground states.

I don’t think any poll has shown that Hillary has ever been tied or had a lead over Trump in Utah. Since Trump still hasn’t really expanded his own campaign staff, I doubt he’s going to do so now, particularly in Utah. Any money spent by Hillary in Utah would likely be better spent in Arizona and Georgia, where she has a better chance of flipping them.

[adaher]

Looks like we’re going to be talking about the Clinton Foundation and special access to the State Department for donors. Which will mean special access to the Clinton administration after January.

[elucidator]

Oh, we are, are we? I’ll have to make time out of my busy schedule so I can be on hand when you deliver the next bit of damning evidence. An approximate date/time would be helpful.

[CarnalK]

@adaher

Looks like we’re going to be talking about the Clinton Foundation and special access to the State Department for donors. Which will mean special access to the Clinton administration after January.

Well it is philanthropists donating money for ground level economic and health initiatives so we could do worse as far as granting special access.

[iiandyiiii]

You want special access? Well you better contribute to the betterment of millions of impoverished people, buddy, or no special access for you!

[adaher]

Yeah, I don’t think you want to be assuming the Clinton foundation actually accomplishes anything useful. Stories on that have been er, inconclusive on that count, and charity watchdog groups don’t even know how to begin to untangle its finances. The IRS had a tough time too.

Just so we’re okay with foundation donors getting special treatment. I guess it’s better than Trump, but we should still know what we’re buying.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Yeah, I don’t think you want to be assuming the Clinton foundation actually accomplishes anything useful. Stories on that have been er, inconclusive on that count, and charity watchdog groups don’t even know how to begin to untangle its finances. The IRS had a tough time too.

Without a lot of cites, I’m going to assume everything you say on this subject is false.

Just so we’re okay with foundation donors getting special treatment. I guess it’s better than Trump, but we should still know what we’re buying.

You mean big donors get meetings? We already knew that was the case with political donations, for any and every politician. Charity donations make it seem better, not worse.

[adaher]

It’s worse because the amounts they can give openly are truly unlimited. And it’s a way for foreigners to buy influence that is currently closed off to them by law.

[adaher]

The Foundation has been pretty amazing at enriching friends of the Clintons, however:

Clinton Foundation paid Blumenthal $10,000 monthly salary

[adaher]

As for contributing to the betterment of impoverished people, Clinton’s free trade deals did that. The Foundation does nothing of the sort. It’s a slush fund. It can loosely be called philanthropy, it just happens to be a type of philanthropy that does more for the philanthropists than any poor people.

[running_coach]

@adaher

As for contributing to the betterment of impoverished people, Clinton’s free trade deals did that. The Foundation does nothing of the sort. It’s a slush fund. It can loosely be called philanthropy, it just happens to be a type of philanthropy that does more for the philanthropists than any poor people.

Got some proof?

[CarnalK]

@adaher

The Foundation has been pretty amazing at enriching friends of the Clintons, however:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/243287-clinton-foundation-paid-blumenthal-10000-monthly-salary

Wow. $120k/year after a couple of decades of faithful service
That is amazingly enriching because I dont know jack shit about what political advisors make. I mean, most probably make a lot less right?

[running_coach]

@adaher

As for contributing to the betterment of impoverished people, Clinton’s free trade deals did that. The Foundation does nothing of the sort. It’s a slush fund. It can loosely be called philanthropy, it just happens to be a type of philanthropy that does more for the philanthropists than any poor people.

Oh, look. “Slush fund”.

Charity Navigator, which rates nonprofits, recently refused to rate the Clinton Foundation because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.”

Charity Navigator put the foundation on its “watch list,” which warns potential donors about investing in problematic charities.

Oh, look. The Post edited CN’s the full statement.

*Charity Navigator: We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

We spoke by phone with Sandra Minuitti at Charity Navigator, and she told us Charity Navigator decided not to rate the Clinton Foundation because the foundation spun off some entities (chiefly the Health Access Initiative) and then later brought some, like the Clinton Global Initiative, back into the fold. Charity Navigator looks at a charity’s performance over time, she said, and those spin-offs could result in a skewed picture using its analysis model. If the foundation maintains its current structure for several years, she said, Charity Navigator will be able to rate it again.

The decision to withhold a rating had nothing to do with concerns about the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. Further, Minuitti said citing only the 6 percent of the budget spent on grants as the sum total spent on charity by the foundation — as Willis and Fiorina did — is inaccurate.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Both campaigns are scaling up their Florida field operations bigtime: Trump, Clinton Campaigns Rapidly Open Field Offices In Florida : NPR

[Leaper]

Well, considering what I last read of the Trump operation in Florida, anything is a ramp up at this point.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

As for contributing to the betterment of impoverished people, Clinton’s free trade deals did that. The Foundation does nothing of the sort. It’s a slush fund. It can loosely be called philanthropy, it just happens to be a type of philanthropy that does more for the philanthropists than any poor people.

I don’t believe you.

[adaher]

I know, you believe Clinton to be honest and trustworthy. You’re one of those 25%.