She has effectively clinched it, and she did so weeks or even months ago. Barring an increasingly unlikely indictment.
There were no “normal” Republicans that chose to run, except for Pataki and maybe Kasich (and even he’s a stretch). Certainly none that had anything close to a chance at the nomination.
That’s why Democrats are being stupid. An indictment is not the minimum standard for getting rid of a candidate. Maybe when they see her trailing by 5 points or more they’ll start to rethink things.
Trailing who? General election polls in May have an even poorer track record than general election polls from February. They won’t really tell us anything until after the convention bounces wear off – when August comes, they’ll start to tell us something.
They can’t change the candidate in August.
What do you think the worst outcome of a Trump presidency would likely be?
Why do you see an indictment less likely now than, say a week or a month ago? I’d say the IG’s report certainly didn’t help her any, and in my mind probably makes it more likely, not less. It may never have been likely, but I’d say the odds have gone up recently, not done. What do you see that makes you think it’s going the other way?
Just that the longer it goes, the less likely it is, I think. Perhaps I’m letting wishful thinking influence me, but I think the justice department doesn’t want to be accused of interfering with politics, and therefore if they plan to indict will do so allowing plenty of time for the Democratic party to adjust, rather than a late indictment that would make adjusting for it much more difficult.
But we’ll see. I don’t have anything concrete.
Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers and seas boiling, forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together . . .
Hillary Clinton is going to be the next POTUS.
Just accept it.
Wouldn’t that just be interfering with politics on the side of the Democrats?
I don’t understand.
Does the JD usually let people know if they are about to be indicted? Do they let companies know that they are about to indict the CEO? Would they let the GOP know beforehand?
See how that narrative will be written?
In any case, no, the JD wouldn’t just be letting events play out if they alerted the Democratic Party early about a pending indictment so the DP could find a new nominee, they’d be deliberately meddling in the process and they’d be doing it in favor of the Democratic Party. The JD has no business taking any political factors into account when bringing an indictment, IMO.
Not to mention even if we assume no indictment, it’s not as if Democrats don’t know what she did was wrong. An indictment should change nothing. If they don’t believe it’s wrong now, an indictment shouldn’t change their minds.
If the Democrats nominate Clinton, and she gets indicted, that’s just tough. They knew it was a possibility and they did it anyway. You gamble, you lose.
Aye; that’s how I see it and I’m a likely not-Trump voter.
I’m not worried about a terrorist attack. I’m not sure that hurts Hillary. Here’s what I do worry about: The ACA and/or some new Clinton “scandal.”
Health insurance companies have been quietly consolidating their power in the past few years, hoping to make themselves “too big to fail.” A couple of weeks ago, I received an email from my provider saying they would be pulling out of Oregon in 2017 and they wanted to give me lots of time to plan for that. The next day, I got an email saying I’d received the first email in error. But I’ve no doubt they’re going to pull out of my state at open enrollment time for 2017. Many health insurance companies have indicated they can’t afford (ha!) to continue to offer services, Blue Cross/Blue Shield being the most notable and the largest. My provider is Lifewise. Looks like they’re going to do the same thing. I predict a lot of anger directed toward the ACA right before the elections – and there are a lot of people (rightly or wrongly) who hate the ACA.
OTOH, we haven’t begun to see the consolidation of the Dems behind Hillary. I think many surrogates and prominent Democrats are just waiting for Hillary to cross the finish line before taking up the banner. Look for Bernie, Obama, Biden, Kerry, Warren, Reid, Pelosi and all the rest of the heavy hitters to commence a laser-focused surgical strike on Trump. Bernie has said ‘never Trump.’ He’ll bring the youngsters and the far left. Kerry learned from his swift-boating treatment and will lead that charge. Obama can orate like nobody’s business, and he’ll be her number one fan. Further, I’m sure he’s given her his blueprint for how to run a ground game.
To this add a tepid Republican base and Gary Johnson, and I think Hillary will win.
Or else I’m just whistling in the dark.
Al Gore for Vice?
Whether they have “business” or not, they always take political factors into account, in the real world. I’m just saying that, whatever they say, the leaders of the investigation will not want to be accused of sabotaging a presidential campaign, and the best way to avoid that is (if they are planning an indictment) to make it soon, or not at all.
You’re still trying to spin this to yourself as being significant, aren’t you? It’s the only straw you can grasp, so that’s understandable, but it’s really time for you to look at the big picture.
I’ve also noticed the insurance companies throwing their weight around. They started playing nice in 2013 and 2014 once the election cycle finished and once the outcome of the SCOTUS case became final. Now they’re just going to use market mischief and claim that ACA is harming their businesses. This is one area where I might actually be a Bernie Bro. We need to once and for all end privatized health insurance as we know it. A few years ago I was even open to the idea of keeping the private insurance companies primarily involved in disbursing claims but it’s a lost cause. You can’t deal with people who have shareholders to impress. I think we need to tell investors to find another business to go into and break up the insurance companies and replace it with public funding. We could still use private insurance for ‘gap’ insurance or to pay for special care or gourmet health services. But insurance companies are scamming the public and threatening economic growth and productivity in the long-run. It needs to end.
I think of myself as a “classic conservative”, and I am happy to be a registered Democrat, because the Republican party does not govern conservatively!
Small government which does not meddle in the private affairs of individuals? Not the GOP.
Does not overspend, but instead figures out how to pay for the things it needs? Not the Republicans. In my lifetime (since '78), the most fiscally responsible party has been the Democrats, with only GHW Bush being the lone republican exception.
I think the government should be responsible for handling essential functions - health, safety, education and infrastructure - and protect the rights of its people to live their lives in “pursuit of happiness”, but the Republicans show little to no interest in enhancing our infrastructure, improving our health care system, making education more accessible, and they are blind to the graft and excess in the defense industry. And their idea of freedom is dictating to people how they are supposed to behave.
I don’t question why a person has conservative values. I question why a person has any faith that the GOP would respect those values. Just like abortion for liberals, I promise you that the Democrats really aren’t going to take away your right to guns: it’s just a scare tactic to get people out to vote. To those who can’t believe Trump is a possibility, I’m just sayin’…try the Democratic waters. There’s sanity on this side!
I’m getting nervous as fuck about the chance of him winning. I’m already working on my tunnel to Canada.