# Hillary's lead over Sanders "nearly vanishes". **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 11, 2016, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833 "2016-01-11T17:48:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/241 "2016-01-22T01:11:26Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > I wonder why Hillary felt the need to lie about all the stuff she deleted. Remember back when the scandal first started and she said that the her secret “private” emails were … the ones she deleted, not the ones that she turned over that are being analyzed and discussed endlessly. Those are the ones you mean, right? Hopefully that clears that up for you, and you’ll now happily vote Clinton over Trump. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/242 "2016-01-22T01:48:33Z")
Ah–thank you for clearing that up. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/243 "2016-01-22T03:48:11Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > So Clinton is being hounded by security classifications that utterly fail a simple common sense test? Pathetic, shows how far up its own ass our security apparatus is. Yeah, this is my favorite part of all this. I can see it now… “Atom bombs, of course, are made with U235 or Plutonium.” “Excuse me, Madam Secretary, that’s classified information.” “What? I got it off Wikipedia for crying out loud.” “Yes, but it’s still classified.” “Okay, so how am I supposed to know what’s classified and what isn’t? Is there a database of all classified information that I can search after I read Wikipedia? So that I know what I can say and what I can’t.” “Of course not! You’re not supposed to look at classified information unless you have a need to know! You’re just supposed to know!” I guarantee that if you look through the emails and conversations of pretty much everybody who works for the ICIG, they have revealed classified information. I worked in the Navy on approximately 40 year old machinery on a regular basis. Most of our documentation was marked “Classified”. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/244 "2016-01-22T04:34:59Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No one really **needs** American military protection any more, not even the South Koreans. You’re right about South Korea and the Western European social democracies, but Eastern Europe definitely needs our protection. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/245 "2016-01-22T04:38:08Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > Yeah, this is my favorite part of all this. I can see it now… > > “Atom bombs, of course, are made with U235 or Plutonium.” > “Excuse me, Madam Secretary, that’s classified information.” > “What? I got it off Wikipedia for crying out loud.” > “Yes, but it’s still classified.” > “Okay, so how am I supposed to know what’s classified and what isn’t? Is there a database of all classified information that I can search after I read Wikipedia? So that I know what I can say and what I can’t.” > “Of course not! You’re not supposed to look at classified information unless you have a need to know! You’re just supposed to know!” > > I guarantee that if you look through the emails and conversations of pretty much everybody who works for the ICIG, they have revealed classified information. I worked in the Navy on approximately 40 year old machinery on a regular basis. Most of our documentation was marked “Classified”. Did you know that Presidents have the power to fix that? I’d actually consider it remarkable if she’d simply say that a) the US government overclassifies(which she sorta did), and b) that she’d reform that. It’s not just an issue that affects her personally. It also affects the viability of the FOIA. She could win a few fans among libertarians by pledging to fix the overclassification problem. You know why she doesn’t do that? Because the last thing Hillary Clinton wants is a transparent Clinton administration. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/246 "2016-01-22T05:12:31Z")
One thing which Sanders is sure to not let people forget is that Hillary Clinton hasn’t just taken money from Wall Street for her campaign. She’s taken millions from Wall Street personally in paid speaking fees, which is nothing more than a way to get around bribery laws. > **[Hillary Clinton’s Paid Speeches to Wall Street Animate Her Opponents...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/us/politics/in-race-defined-by-income-gap-hillary-clintons-wall-street-ties-incite-rivals.html)** > > The speeches, often to financial firms, emerge as a central line of attack by both Senator Bernie Sanders and the Republican “super PAC” American Crossroads. Her daughter also worked at a hedge fund owned by a Clinton contributor. I’m sure it was because she was the most qualified person for the job, and this wasn’t just a way to funnel more money to the Clinton family’s personal bank accounts. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/247 "2016-01-22T06:13:22Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Her daughter also worked at a hedge fund owned by a Clinton contributor. I’m sure it was because she was the most qualified person for the job, and this wasn’t just a way to funnel more money to the Clinton family’s personal bank accounts. You’re right. The only way it’s not bribery is if Chelsea works for someone who never contributed to a Democratic campaign. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/248 "2016-01-22T06:19:16Z")
No, the only way it’s not bribery is if Chelsea follows a more typical path for someone with a Masters in Public Health. No one is getting a great job with a hedge fund straight out of college with a non-finance degree unless someone wants a favor. But even if we take your argument seriously, the Clintons are neck deep in Wall Street. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/249 "2016-01-22T07:34:16Z")
I am a critic of capitalism, and feel it should be kept on a short leash. But I am not sure why Wall Street is singled out for abuse. They are but one cog in the vastness of capitalism. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/250 "2016-01-22T07:46:56Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I am a critic of capitalism, and feel it should be kept on a short leash. But I am not sure why Wall Street is singled out for abuse. They are but one cog in the vastness of capitalism. Yeah, there’s really no need to focus just on Hillary’s donations from Wall Street. [Take a look](https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career) at [who gives the most money to Hillary](https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019). Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan, and Lehman Brothers are on there, to be sure. But so are media companies, law firms, real estate companies, the University of California … She’s an equal opportunity money-grabber. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/251 "2016-01-22T10:25:54Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Yeah, there’s really no need to focus just on Hillary’s donations from Wall Street… But so are media companies, law firms, real estate companies, the University of California … She’s an equal opportunity money-grabber. 😕 :eek: This comment seems unusually peculiar even by your standards. You think only Republicans shouild be able to finance their campaigns? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/252 "2016-01-22T10:50:57Z")
Financing campaigns is fine, you just can’t claim to be the one to regulate Wall Street when you are beholden to them. And Clinton is beholden for her personal finances as well as her campaign finances, which is unusual in a candidate. Wall Street donors are quite happy with Clinton’s plan to regulate Wall Street: > **[Wall Street isn't worried about Hillary Clinton's plan](https://money.cnn.com/2015/10/08/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-plan/index.html)** > > Hillary Clinton unveiled her major plan to curb Wall Street's excesses. It's a very modest proposal compared to rivals like Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley. Now one way to interpret this is that Clinton’s Wall Street plans make sense. As a conservative, I find nothing troubling at all about her plans. A moderate Dem would probably feel the same way. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/253 "2016-01-22T14:20:31Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > CNN/WMUR Poll: Sanders trouncing Clinton in New Hampshire > [http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/new-hampshire-cnn-wmur-poll-democrats/](http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/new-hampshire-cnn-wmur-poll-democrats/) > > The Poll: [http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/new-hampshire-poll-democrats-full-results/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/new-hampshire-poll-democrats-full-results/index.html) I gotta say I am entertained by how all over the place polls are right now, this close to it. NH, last three polls, all with a Sanders lead, but with a spread of 24 points. (+3, +6, and +27 Bernie) Iowa, last three polls, split two with Hillary ahead to one for Bernie, with a spread of 29 points! (Hillary +21, +9, and -8) A lot for both states will ride on those who still are not sure who they will vote for (in NH for example, according to that one poll that shows Bernie completely running away with it, only 52% are sure of which way they will vote), what characteristic they think is most important that day, and who actually shows. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/254 "2016-01-22T15:43:29Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Financing campaigns is fine, you just can’t claim to be the one to regulate Wall Street when you are beholden to them. And Clinton is beholden for her personal finances as well as her campaign finances, which is unusual in a candidate. > > Wall Street donors are quite happy with Clinton’s plan to regulate Wall Street: > > [Wall Street isn't worried about Hillary Clinton's plan](http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/08/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-plan/index.html) > > Now one way to interpret this is that Clinton’s Wall Street plans make sense. As a conservative, I find nothing troubling at all about her plans. A moderate Dem would probably feel the same way. Moderate Dem checking in who agrees. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/255 "2016-01-22T15:56:11Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I gotta say I am entertained by how all over the place polls are right now, this close to it. > > NH, last three polls, all with a Sanders lead, but with a spread of 24 points. (+3, +6, and +27 Bernie) > > Iowa, last three polls, split two with Hillary ahead to one for Bernie, with a spread of 29 points! (Hillary +21, +9, and -8) > > A lot for both states will ride on those who still are not sure who they will vote for (in NH for example, according to that one poll that shows Bernie completely running away with it, only 52% are sure of which way they will vote), what characteristic they think is most important that day, and who actually shows. It’s scary that Sanders is getting a lead on Clinton in the polls. If Sanders gets the nomination, I definitely will not vote for him. i’ll write in Satan or something. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/256 "2016-01-22T15:57:22Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > It’s scary that Sanders is getting a lead on Clinton in the polls. If Sanders gets the nomination, I definitely will not vote for him. i’ll write in Satan or something. Care to elaborate? He’s basically an FDR Democrat. Does that word “socialist” scare you? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/257 "2016-01-22T17:25:23Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Care to elaborate? He’s basically an FDR Democrat. Does that word “socialist” scare you? He comes across as way too old and senile to me. He’d be the oldest President, by several years, to be sworn in. Being a socialist isn’t a qualification for a international leader, especially when he appears to be clueless in that arena. I’ll vote in the election, but it will be a write in vote if he’s chosen. A Trump v. Sanders election scares me to death. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/258 "2016-01-22T17:58:19Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Being a socialist isn’t a qualification for a international leader . . . Why not? Many of them are. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/259 "2016-01-22T19:01:53Z")
Yes, he is five years older than Donald and six than Hillary. And within a year of when Reagan was sworn in for his second term. If elected he might be a one-termer. I’d _prefer_ electing someone who I would more realistically expect to be able to complete two terms in peak form. Of course personally I’d prefer a Sanders no longer at the very top of his game to a Trump, Cruz,or Rubio at their best by a long shot. Being a democratic socialist is not a qualification, but neither is it a _dis_qualification. Pretty mundane internationally and his actually policy positions are pretty mild. His biggest ding in my mind is that he’d waste energy and time with unwinnable agenda items. Sanders elected would unfortunately be ineffective in accomplishing _any_ domestic agenda and would need to make sure he had serious foreign policy gravitas as part of his team, likely _both_ in VP and SOS positions … but the GOP alternatives? Unfortunately with the Congressional majority they have they might be _extremely effective_ and what they would be effective accomplishing would be extremely scary. Sometimes votes are to more to prevent damage than to accomplish goods. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2016, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833/260 "2016-01-22T19:19:18Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Why not? Many of them are. I’d prefer someone with at least a little experience on the international stage. On-the-job training for a 74-year-old politician doesn’t bring him up to speed quick enough to beat Father Time’s curse. Clinton brings some experience to the office. > [@DSeid](#): > > … > > Sometimes votes are to more to prevent damage than to accomplish goods. That’s the truth. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillarys-lead-over-sanders-nearly-vanishes/742833.md?page=14)