BootinUp
BootinUp's Journal2016 General Election TREND CHART: Trump vs. Clinton CLINTON +4
Poll Chart
2016 General Election: Trump vs. Clinton
Currently tracking 164 polls from 29 pollsters
Updated about 10 hours ago
Election on November 8, 2016
FAQ
This chart combines the latest opinion polls into trendlines using a poll-tracking model and is updated whenever a new poll is released.
[url=https://flic.kr/p/GDP3d5][img]
[/img]
Clinton questions whether Trump is as wealthy as he claims | Wash Post
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at IBEW Local 11 in Commerce, Calif., on Tuesday May 24, 2016. (Photo by Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Hillary Clinton upped the pressure on Donald Trump to release his tax returns on Thursday, suggesting that he is trying to hide unflattering revelations about his finances.
“Either he’s paying no taxes or he’s paying very little,” Clinton said. “The only way to find out which it is is for him to release.”
“Ether he’s as wealthy as he claims or maybe he’s not, the only way to find out is for him to release.”
Trump, now the likely Republican nominee, has refused to release his tax returns, which is not a requirement but a longtime practice for candidates running for president.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/26/clinton-questions-whether-trump-is-as-wealthy-as-he-claims/
WARNING: The Email Scandal will be HIGHLY Exaggerated, Its All They Have Left
Its OBVIOUS that the Email scandal is not good news for Clinton. It is ALSO obvious that a good number of Bernie supporters at DU have been distorting the seriousness of it because its all they have left to help their cause. Be on the lookout for RW spin.
Just heard that Paul Manafort told Howard Fineman this
Rachel Reported it:
The vice presidential pick will also be part of the process of proving he’s ready for the White House, Manafort said.
“He needs an experienced person to do the part of the job he doesn’t want to do. He seems himself more as the chairman of the board, than even the CEO, let alone the COO.”
“There is a long list of who that person could be,” Manafort added, “and every one of them has major problems.”
The campaign probably won’t choose a woman or a member of a minority group, he said. “In fact, that would be viewed as pandering, I think.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-paul-manafort-general-election_us_574619eee4b0dacf7ad3e201
Tell me that my country isn't this stupid. I mean I really think he IS goin down, but these f***ers scare me.
Some of these political analysts are just off their rocker
watching With All Do Respect on MSNBC. They had a pollster guy on talking about polls they did in the rust belt. Results were surprisinly good for Hillary. Then he goes on a fantasy tour story about how Trumpster has a lot of upside. These people were wrong about Trump in the Primary and now they are going to be wrong about him in the GE. Mark my words.
Josh Marshall: This was never more than some poor judgment overlayed by a big bureaucratic ...
pissing match all slathered over by a thick layer of partisan game playing and media derp.
The Emails
ByJosh Marshall PublishedMay 25, 2016, 3:47 PM EDT 5205 views
A brief note on the State Department IG Report on the Clinton email issue. The ledes of a lot of stories present this as a rough hit for Clinton, bad news blah blah blah. Let's focus on the essential point: Continued at TPM
I’ve Worked for Both Clintons and I Know Exactly Why Donald Trump Is Assaulting Their Marriage
May 25, 2016
Having worked for both Clintons, I see Donald Trump’s gutter-level assault on their marriage through a different prism than the pundits. Donald isn’t attacking Hillary Clinton’s marriage out of some shrewd political plan. He’s not focusing his attention on Bill Clinton’s past because of some genius campaign strategy. It’s much simpler than that: Donald fears women. More specifically, he fears Hillary.
There’s a reason Donald’s attention is focused more on Bill Clinton — and even Bernie Sanders — than on Hillary. It’s because he desperately wants to run against a man. He’s the proverbial schoolyard bully who joyfully sucker-punches other boys but is secretly petrified of the girls. He needs a man in the race, named Bill or Bernie (or both), to shield him from a head-to-head contest with Hillary.
For a deeply insecure male like Donald, whose degrading attitude toward women will be his downfall, being defeated by a woman is the ultimate humiliation. Women are objects to him, not worthy rivals. Recall his words:
“Beauty and elegance, whether in a woman, a building, or a work of art, is not just superficial or something pretty to see.”
Or the crasser version:
“You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of (expletive).”
For Donald, a woman is something you own, not someone you respect. Women know men like Donald, which is why he polls so abysmally with them.
At BNR we launched the #WomenTrumpDonald hashtag for a reason: it is the perfect encapsulation of the 2016 election. And the tag has caught on quickly for that reason.
This is also personal for me.
Over the past decade, I’ve worked for both Hillary and Bill Clinton. I know how different they are, and each so exceptional in their own way.
Continued at Blue Nation Review
The Truth About the Sanders Movement
Paul Krugman's Conscience of a Liberal Blog
The Truth About the Sanders Movement
May 23, 2016 6:17 pm May 23, 2016 6:17 pm
In short, it’s complicated – not all bad, by any means, but not the pure uprising of idealists the more enthusiastic supporters imagine.
The political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels have an illuminating discussion of Sanders support. The key graf that will probably have Berniebros boiling is this:
Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump’s success to anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to which Mr. Sanders’s support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men.
The point is not to demonize, but, if you like, to de-angelize. Like any political movement (including the Democratic Party, which is, yes, a coalition of interest groups) Sandersism has been an assemblage of people with a variety of motives, not all of them pretty. Here’s a short list based on my own encounters:
1.Genuine idealists: For sure, quite a few Sanders supporters dream of a better society, and for whatever reason – maybe just because they’re very young – are ready to dismiss practical arguments about why all their dreams can’t be accomplished in a day.
2.Romantics: This kind of idealism shades over into something that’s less about changing society than about the fun and ego gratification of being part of The Movement. (Those of us who were students in the 60s and early 70s very much recognize the type.) For a while there – especially for those who didn’t understand delegate math – it felt like a wonderful joy ride, the scrappy young on the march about to overthrow the villainous old. But there’s a thin line between love and hate: when reality began to set in, all too many romantics reacted by descending into bitterness, with angry claims that they were being cheated.
3.Purists: A somewhat different strand in the movement, also familiar to those of us of a certain age, consists of those for whom political activism is less about achieving things and more about striking a personal pose. They are the pure, the unsullied, who reject the corruptions of this world and all those even slightly tainted – which means anyone who actually has gotten anything done. Quite a few Sanders surrogates were Naderites in 2000; the results of that venture don’t bother them, because it was never really about results, only about affirming personal identity.
Continued at NYT
5 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE STATE OIG REPORT (Clinton email scandal)
On key points, IG report confirms what Secretary Clinton has said all along about her personal email use
Don’t fall for the political spin coming from Hillary Clinton’s political opponents regarding the report out this morning from the State Department Office of Inspector General on the use of email by previous Secretaries of State. We read the report closely, and here are the five things you should know.
1. The OIG report shows that there was long-standing precedent for Secretaries of State and their staff to use non-State.gov email:
“OIG discovered anecdotal examples suggesting that Department staff have used personal email accounts to conduct official business, with wide variations among Secretaries and their immediate staff members. For instance, OIG reviewed the Department email accounts (.pst files) of senior Department employees who served on the immediate staffs of Secretary Powell and Secretary Rice between 2001 and 2008. Within these accounts, OIG identified more than 90 Department employees who periodically used personal email accounts to conduct official business, though OIG could not quantify the frequency of this use.” [State Department Inspector General Report, “Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements,” May 2016, pg 19]
2. The OIG report shows that no Secretary of State used a State.gov email until Secretary Kerry:
“OIG searched selected hard-copy records from her tenure and did not find any evidence to indicate that Secretary Albright used either Department or personal email accounts during that period.” [pg. 20]
“During Secretary Powell’s tenure, the Department introduced for the first time unclassified desktop email and access to the Internet on a system known as OpenNet, which remains in use to this day. Secretary Powell did not employ a Department email account, even after OpenNet’s introduction.” [pg. 21]
“Secretary Rice and her representative advised the Department and OIG that the Secretary did not use either personal or Department email accounts for official business.” [pg. 22]
“Secretary Kerry uses a Department email account on OpenNet and stated that, while he has used a personal email account to conduct official business, he has done so infrequently.” [pg. 25]
3.The OIG report confirms that people throughout the State Department knew Secretary Clinton did not use a State.gov email account:
“OIG did find evidence that various staff and senior officials throughout the Department had discussions related to the Secretary’s use of non-Departmental systems, suggesting there was some awareness of Secretary Clinton’s practices.” [“Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements,” State OIG, pg. 38]
4. The OIG report contains no evidence of a breach of Secretary Clinton’s email. It does, in fact, contain evidence that the State Department was aware and proactive on issues of cyber-security:
“Department implemented a mandatory annual requirement for all Department computer users to take Cybersecurity Awareness training.” [pg. 59]
“Beginning in 2009, the Cyber Threat Analysis Division (CTAD) in DS issued regular notices to Department computer users highlighting cybersecurity threats. CTAD notices addressed BlackBerry security vulnerabilities, citing this device as a weak link in a computer network. CTAD warned that BlackBerry devices must be configured in accordance with Department security guidelines.” [pg. 59]
“DS cybersecurity staff conducted two cybersecurity briefings of S/ES staff, the Secretary’s immediate staff, and Bureau of Public Affairs staff in April and May 2011.” [pg. 34]
“On June 28, 2011, the Department, in a cable entitled ‘Securing Personal E-mail Accounts’ that was approved by the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security and sent over Secretary Clinton’s name to all diplomatic and consular posts…’” [pg. 34]
5. The OIG report shows Secretary Clinton made public approximately 55,000 pages of work emails, an unprecedented amount. NARA confirmed that the production covered preservation requirements for federal records:
“In December 2014, in response to Department requests, Secretary Clinton produced to the Department from her personal email account approximately 55,000 hard-copy pages, representing approximately 30,000 emails that she believed related to official business.” [pg. 23]
“NARA agrees with the foregoing assessment but told OIG that Secretary Clinton’s production of 55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during her tenure and to surrender such records upon her departure.” [pg. 23]
http://correctrecord.org/5-takeaways-from-the-state-oig-report/
From the Office of Inspector General: Evaluation of Email Records Management
and Cybersecurity Requirements
CONCLUSION
Longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and communications have existed within the Office of the Secretary that go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State. OIG recognizes that technology and Department policy have evolved considerably since Secretary Albright’s tenure began in 1997. Nevertheless, the Department generally and the Office of the Secretary in particular have been slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership. OIG expects that its recommendations will move the Department steps closer to meaningfully addressing these risks.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842429/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf
---------------------------------------
Mother Jones
IG Report on Clinton Email Concludes With...Nothing New
Kevin DrumMay 25, 2016 11:58 AM
snip....
In other words, this is pretty much all the stuff we already knew. The Department of State apparently has epically bad email systems. Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton should have consulted with State's IT staff about her personal email account. She didn't. She should have turned over her work emails sooner. She didn't. Ditto for her staff.
And that's about it. Hillary screwed up. The IG report doesn't present any evidence that her system was ever hacked. Nor does it suggest that Hillary was deliberately trying to prevent work-related emails from being retained. Nor was she the only one conducting official business on a personal account. Colin Powell did it too, as well as dozens of other State employees.
Nonetheless, Hillary exercised poor judgment here. That's been clear for a long time. Beyond that, though, there's not much more to say.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/05/ig-report-clinton-email-concludes-withnothing-new
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: Fri Nov 7, 2003, 06:44 PM
Number of posts: 47,135
