If Clinton finally gets snared...

NJlonghorn

NJlonghorn

2,500+ Posts
I know Hillary's Teflon coating seems to be as effective as her husband's was. But I was thinking this morning about what would happen if something finally sticks and Hillary has to withdraw. I thought of four possible scenarios:

(1) If it happens early in the primary season, Bernie picks up Hillary's votes and gets the Democratic nod. If the Republicans persist in putting an idiot on the ticket, we could end up with a radical leftist in the White House. :puke:

(2) If it happens after Hillary has accumulated enough votes for the nomination, but before the convention, Hillary's delegates can vote for anyone. They are more likely to pick someone like Biden or O'Malley than Bernie. Or perhaps we end up with an unknown newcomer.

(3) If it happens after the convention but before the deadline to file a party's candidate, Hillary's running mate steps up to the top of the ticket.

(4) If it happens after candidates are filed, I have no idea what happens. Most likely, the ballot has Clinton on it and the Dems get trounced.
​
I know it's a long shot, but I'd love to see scenario 2 happen. If nothing else, it would be the most interesting convention ever.
 
I'm trying to imagine scenario 2. Elizabeth Warren? I can't imagine they would go with somebody like O'Mally who is getting ignored in the primaries. Joe Biden? He's as goofy as the characters Leslie Neilsen played in the Naked Gun Series and Airplane. If Biden was lined up against Cruz or Trump, it would be a really hard choice for me. Against Bush, Kasich or even Rubio, I guess I could vote R with some conviction.

Who do the Democrats have in the bullpen?
 
Crockett said:
I'm trying to imagine scenario 2. Elizabeth Warren? I can't imagine they would go with somebody like O'Mally who is getting ignored in the primaries. Joe Biden? He's as goofy as the characters Leslie Neilsen played in the Naked Gun Series and Airplane. If Biden was lined up against Cruz or Trump, it would be a really hard choice for me. Against Bush, Kasich or even Rubio, I guess I could vote R with some conviction.

Who do the Democrats have in the bullpen?
Click to expand...

What are the deadlines for getting on the ballots for the Presidential election? I'm not well versed regarding the national conventions. Is it possible that a viable candidate could come out of nowhere there? If Sanders gets the nomination it would set the Dem party back years similar to the Tea Party's pull of the Republican party to the far right.

I'm intrigued by Elizabeth Warren.
 
Well, I think the party base will be running the convention. And with the Republicans gravitating towards extremists, there might not be a centrist anyone is comfortable with. I know Sanders seems extreme, but from where I sit, less so than Cruz or Carson.
 
NJlonghorn said:
Warren is basically Sanders without the dramatic packaging. She might appeal to the party base, but not the general electorate.
Click to expand...

I hear that but when she speaks she doesn't come off as looney, at least the few times I've heard her. She definitely speaks with a gravitas that Sanders lacks although I'd need to understand her positions better. I think she's right on bringing back Dodd-Frank.

I told my wife this election may end up being the poorest selection of candidates in our lifetime. We both hit voting age in '91. I think the polarization of the media breathed energy into the extremes of the political spectrum resulting in less centrist candidates. Ronald Reagan would be John Kasich in a 2016 election.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Sorry, you're right. I believe erasing the line between traditional banking and investment banking has greatly contributed to the economic risk to the average American's savings and thus the FDIC program.
Click to expand...
Husker, the banks at the heart of and led us to the financial crisis were pure investment banks: Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch. The money center banks, JP Morgan, Citi, and BoA, were strong enough to eat their risky i-banking little brothers.

Glass-Steagall segregated i-banking and commercial banking. That means that the most important financial institutions to economic growth, investment banks, had/will have higher market betas which means they have to engage in riskier operations.

That alone is bad news for the "average American" as their companies would find it much more difficult/expensive to grow and access public capital. That's not even in a financial crisis. As an "average American," under Glass-Steagall your commercial bank and savings are still hazarded to contagion as a vast majority of their lending assets are invested in, hedged by, and collateralized by securities.

Gramm-Leach allowed banks to diversify their operations which reduces company betas and industry risk. If Glass-Steagall were still around, there would have been more Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers engaging in riskier securities operations and no JPMorgans or BoAs to eat them and cushion the crash.

Bernie Sanders also wants Glass-Steagall back. Bernie Sanders also doesn't know why unsecured student loans have higher interest rates than real-estate collateralized mortgages.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure this is a partisan-induced response, but there is absolutely no way that Clinton gets any sort of punishment if she wins the nomination. Does anyone really think that Obama would allow the DOJ to go forward with charges against the Democrats' nominee for president? It's not going to happen.

So in a real sense, Hillary needs to pick her game up and start beating off Sanders, because I'm starting to think that's the only thing standing between her and actual repercussions.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton...ified-1453419158?cb=logged0.10489958431571722

As the number of disclosed classified messages from Mrs. Clinton’s server has climbed above 1,300, her explanations have come to look increasingly improvisational and contrived. Recall that last summer—even after abandoning the claim that she maintained a private email account for convenience and because she was too busy solving the world’s problems to navigate the intricacies of a government account—she insisted that, “I did not send classified information and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified, which is the way you know that something is.”

When asked whether she had her server “wiped,” she assumed an air of grandmotherly befuddlement: “What, like with a cloth or something?” she said. “I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”

The current news, reported in the Journal and elsewhere, is that her server contained information at the highest level of classification, known as SAP, or Special Access Program. This is a level so high that even the inspector general for the intelligence community who reported the discovery did not initially have clearance to examine it.

The server also contained messages showing her contempt for classification procedures. This was bred at least in part by obvious familiarity with exactly “how it works”—such as when, an email shows, she directed a staff member simply to erase the heading on a classified document, converting it into “unpaper,” and send it on a “nonsecure” device.

Information disclosed by the State Department also reflects that in August 2011, when the State Department’s executive secretary suggested that he could provide Mrs. Clinton with a BlackBerry that would keep her identity secret but might generate communications that would be discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act,Huma Abedin, Mrs. Clinton’s closest aide, intervened and said the idea “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”
Click to expand...
 
ProdigalHorn said:
I'm sure this is a partisan-induced response, but there is absolutely no way that Clinton gets any sort of punishment if she wins the nomination. Does anyone really think that Obama would allow the DOJ to go forward with charges against the Democrats' nominee for president? It's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. If he did, it would hand the election to the GOP, which would destroy his legacy with the Left. There is no chance of him doing that. If it gets too far, Lynch will pull the plug.

zork said:
President Ford caught a lot of **** for giving Nixon a pardon. Imagine Obama giving Hillary a pardon for her crimes. Would the Democrats still vote for her?
Click to expand...

Yes, they will.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Absolutely not. If he did, it would hand the election to the GOP, which would destroy his legacy with the Left. There is no chance of him doing that. If it gets too far, Lynch will pull the plug.



Yes, they will.
Click to expand...

It's the shrinking middle that will also go Hillary's way, driven that direction by the R's inability to put up a viable candidate.
 
ProdigalHorn said:
I'm sure this is a partisan-induced response, but there is absolutely no way that Clinton gets any sort of punishment if she wins the nomination. Does anyone really think that Obama would allow the DOJ to go forward with charges against the Democrats' nominee for president? It's not going to happen.

So in a real sense, Hillary needs to pick her game up and start beating off Sanders, because I'm starting to think that's the only thing standing between her and actual repercussions.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton...ified-1453419158?cb=logged0.10489958431571722
Click to expand...
She might have been able to make an argument, a very weak one, up until this point.

But SAP information on this server? TS/SCI compartments require "just" a TS clearance and a need to know for that particular compartment. SAP programs have individually separate and more in-depth investigations on top of TS. By the nature of these programs, primarily defense systems, it's hard to buy that the correspondence was watered down or has been retroactively classified.

I heard Hilary hired some 23 year-old pop star as a campaign ambassador to attract the young women's vote. I wonder if that demographic cares about these things?

Are we making much about nothing?
 
Seattle Husker said:
It's the shrinking middle that will also go Hillary's way, driven that direction by the R's inability to put up a viable candidate.
Click to expand...

Definitely true if they go with Trump. Cruz might have a little better of a chance but not much. They need Kasich or Rubio.
 
I wonder about Cruz over Trump. You hear rumblings that Trump is actually pulling some independents and democrats (but knowing Trump, who knows if that's just hype that his team is putting out.) But Trump doesn't have nearly the hard-line conservative views that Cruz has. I mean, he "says" he's pro life, but I don't think anyone really believes he is. He reads the Bible to people who care, but does anyone really think Trump cares about religion in any real practical way? I suspect dems would see him as more likely to move to the middle than Cruz.

I actually like a lot of the concepts of what Cruz says, but he's very much a partisan politician, he backs "his guys", and people in his own party hate him enough to vote against him for spite, and about 40 percent of the country has been convinced that he's the second coming of Adolph Hitler. I'm not sure Trump isn't actually more electable.

Would have liked to see the party rally around Rubio - I think I could be OK with him. But they wasted all that time and effort on Jeb and now Rubio's in a hole he'll never escape. And since the media's not interested in covering anyone who isn't Trump or who Trump isn't bickering with, it's unlikely he's going to make a later run.
 
What does it say that Cruz may be the only politician dislike more than Obama by Capitol Hill?

I'm intrigued by the very public attempts to tear down Trump and Cruz. The former by the "conservative" elite as they recognize that Trump is a conservative by claim only. Nothing in his past demonstrates he's anything more than a liberal that sees an opportunity to use his celebrity to steal the R nomination. Cruz is more the opportunist though. He's seized the Tea Party momentum as his own. Aside from reversing stances on key issues as soon as he realizes he's out of step with the Tea Party base (ie immigration), Cruz has staked his claim to the POTUS as an obstructionist. Is it possible to win the POTUS if your agenda is simply I'll stop anything from getting accomplished? I know his supporters like to think he can simply step into the Whitehouse and wave his magic wand but it does take Congress to move any legislation forward. Cruz has NO allies there.
 
NJlonghorn said:
I know Hillary's Teflon coating seems to be as effective as her husband's was. But I was thinking this morning about what would happen if something finally sticks and Hillary has to withdraw. I thought of four possible scenarios:

(1) If it happens early in the primary season, Bernie picks up Hillary's votes and gets the Democratic nod. If the Republicans persist in putting an idiot on the ticket, we could end up with a radical leftist in the White House. :puke:

(2) If it happens after Hillary has accumulated enough votes for the nomination, but before the convention, Hillary's delegates can vote for anyone. They are more likely to pick someone like Biden or O'Malley than Bernie. Or perhaps we end up with an unknown newcomer.

(3) If it happens after the convention but before the deadline to file a party's candidate, Hillary's running mate steps up to the top of the ticket.

(4) If it happens after candidates are filed, I have no idea what happens. Most likely, the ballot has Clinton on it and the Dems get trounced.
​
I know it's a long shot, but I'd love to see scenario 2 happen. If nothing else, it would be the most interesting convention ever.
Click to expand...
NJlonghorn said:
I know Hillary's Teflon coating seems to be as effective as her husband's was. But I was thinking this morning about what would happen if something finally sticks and Hillary has to withdraw. I thought of four possible scenarios:

(1) If it happens early in the primary season, Bernie picks up Hillary's votes and gets the Democratic nod. If the Republicans persist in putting an idiot on the ticket, we could end up with a radical leftist in the White House. :puke:

(2) If it happens after Hillary has accumulated enough votes for the nomination, but before the convention, Hillary's delegates can vote for anyone. They are more likely to pick someone like Biden or O'Malley than Bernie. Or perhaps we end up with an unknown newcomer.

(3) If it happens after the convention but before the deadline to file a party's candidate, Hillary's running mate steps up to the top of the ticket.

(4) If it happens after candidates are filed, I have no idea what happens. Most likely, the ballot has Clinton on it and the Dems get trounced.
​
I know it's a long shot, but I'd love to see scenario 2 happen. If nothing else, it would be the most interesting convention ever.
Click to expand...
I am really tired of both sides using the term "idiot" to describe people they disagree with. I am not a Trump fan, but a true idiot doesn't amass a fortune of $4.5 billion dollars. I despise Obama and he is a lot of things, but not an idiot. Neither is Biden, although he needs to think a bit before he speaks.

If you can make cogent arguments against a candidate's positions feel free to do so. If you can't, calling someone an idiot makes you seem unable to post logical arguments.
 
AustinBat said:
I am really tired of both sides using the term "idiot" to describe people they disagree with.
Click to expand...

Fair point. I am a frequent critic of the tone that political discourse has taken on, so I should practice what I preach.

For what it's wotrh, I don't think Trump, Sanders, or any of the others are idiots -- although they do seem to say idiotic things a bit too often for my tastes.

Sangre Naranjada said:
Don't be such an idiot AustinBat.
Click to expand...

Well played, Sangre.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top