Trump this!

[Ariel]

Koji potez Trampa? Nije ga on pozvao na duel nego je odgovarao na Kimelovo pitanje, i još je bio dovoljno retardiran da to formuliše u "What's he gonna pay me?" Posle se kao vadio da će, ako mu Bernie plati za debatu, dati sve u charity.

 

Aha, nisam ispratio, ja rekoh smislio je foru kako da malo potkopa babu još pre nego što ona postane zvanično kandidat, malo pomogne Berniju time što će mu pružiti priliku da zasija u Kaliforniji pred prajmariz, dodatno revoltirajući Bernijeve glasače u fazonu "eto, vidite kakav bi Berni bio u pravoj predsedničkoj trci, sad bre neću ni da glasam". A nije isključeno da je Trampara baš zato tako potrčao za Kimelovim predlogom.

[Weenie Pooh]

Realno bi trebalo da je potrčao više. Ako bi debatu organizovao Fox, nema sumnje da bi tema bila "Just how crooked is Crooked Hillary?", pa bi Trump imao priliku da privuče neke independents koji su glasali za Sandersa, ili bar da osnaži Bernie or bust raspoloženje među njima.

 

Umesto toga, ona je krenuo u svoje standardno "Strašan sam biznismen, moje ime garantuje visok rejting" tamburanje.

[Ariel]

vidi ga klasično britansko "da ne bude posle da vam nisam rekao" lol

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-will-win-the-us-presidency-by-a-landslide-dont-underestimate-him-yet-again-a7051686.html

 

 

Winning and losing elections in America is not about pinching votes from the other team. It is getting your team out to vote. In the US, voter turnout hasn’t exceeded 60 per cent for nearly 50 years. In 1968, 60.7 per cent of eligible voters actually managed to drag themselves out of bed and exercise a right that people had fought and died for. In 1996, less than 50 per cent bothered turning up.

Clinton, on the other hand, does not inspire that level of emotion. The so called “woman card” that she plays is not motivating women either. In the Iowa caucus, only 14 per cent of women under 30 voted for Hillary; in New Hampshire it was around 10 per cent. Young women went for the 'old white guy' – Bernie Sanders.Getting out your own voters is far easier, and far more important, than pinching votes from the other side. In both 2008 and 2012, Obama ran a massive “get out the vote” campaign, inspiring many first time voters with the promise of hope, change and making history by electing the first black man to the White House. Voter turnout in 2008 was the highest since 1968.

Trump is accused of having a “woman problem”, but so does Clinton. Both Clinton and Trump are widely unpopular, but Trump has one advantage: he is inspiring first-time voters to turn out on polling day.

[Prospero]

Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee

 

A Sanders win in California would turbocharge the mounting Democratic unease about her viability.

 

 

Douglas E. Schoen

May 31, 2016 6:31 p.m. ET

 

 

There is now more than a theoretical chance that Hillary Clinton may not be the Democratic nominee for president.

 

How could that happen, given that her nomination has been considered a sure thing by virtually everyone in the media and in the party itself? Consider the possibilities.

The inevitability behind Mrs. Clinton’s nomination will be in large measure eviscerated if she loses the June 7 California primary to Bernie Sanders. That could well happen.

 

A recent PPIC poll shows Mrs. Clinton with a 2% lead over Mr. Sanders, and a Fox News survey found the same result. Even a narrow win would give him 250 pledged delegates or more—a significant boost. California is clearly trending to Mr. Sanders, and the experience in recent open primaries has been that the Vermont senator tends to underperform in pre-election surveys and over-perform on primary and caucus days, thanks to the participation of new registrants and young voters.

 

To this end, data from mid-May show that there were nearly 1.5 million newly registered Democratic voters in California since Jan. 1. That’s a 218% increase in Democratic voter registrations compared with the same period in 2012, a strongly encouraging sign for Mr. Sanders.

 

A Sanders win in California would powerfully underscore Mrs. Clinton’s weakness as a candidate in the general election. Democratic superdelegates—chosen by the party establishment and overwhelmingly backing Mrs. Clinton, 543-44—would seriously question whether they should continue to stand behind her candidacy.

 

There is every reason to believe that at the convention Mr. Sanders will offer a rules change requiring superdelegates to vote for the candidate who won their state’s primary or caucus. A vote on that proposed change would almost certainly occur—and it would function as a referendum on the Clinton candidacy. If Mr. Sanders wins California, Montana and North Dakota on Tuesday and stays competitive in New Jersey, he could well be within 200 pledged delegates of Mrs. Clinton, making a vote in favor of the rules change on superdelegates more likely.

 

Another problem: In recent weeks the perception that Mrs. Clinton would be the strongest candidate against Donald Trump has evaporated. The Real Clear Politics polling average has Mrs. Clinton in a statistical tie with Mr. Trump, and recent surveys from ABC News/Washington Post and Fox News show her two and three points behind him, respectively.

 

Then there is that other crack in the argument for Mrs. Clinton’s inevitability: Bernie Sanders consistently runs stronger than she does against Mr. Trump nationally, beating him by about 10 points in a number of recent surveys.

The worries about Mr. Sanders’s strength have stirred the beginnings of a capitulation to him—by the Clinton camp, in league with the Democratic National Committee—at the convention. To placate him, they have already granted Mr. Sanders greater influence over the party platform. Two divisive figures, Cornel West and Rep. Keith Ellison, have been added to the platform committee, ensuring that the party will be pulled further left. In addition to putting Mr. Sanders’s socialist nostrums on display, the platform negotiations are likely to spur an ugly fight over the U.S. relationship with Israel.

 

Mrs. Clinton also faces growing legal problems. The State Department inspector general’s recent report on Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state made it abundantly clear that she broke rules and has been far from forthright in her public statements. The damning findings buttressed concerns within the party that Mrs. Clinton and her aides may not get through the government’s investigation without a finding of culpability somewhere.

With Mrs. Clinton reportedly soon to be interviewed by the FBI, suggesting that the investigation is winding up, a definitive ruling by the attorney general could be issued before the July 25 Democratic convention in Philadelphia. Given the inspector general’s report, a clean bill of health from the Justice Department is unlikely.

 

Finally, with Mrs. Clinton’s negative rating nearly as high as Donald Trump’s, and with voters not trusting her by a ratio of 4 to 1, Democrats face an unnerving possibility. Only a month or two ago, they were relishing the prospect of a chaotic Republican convention, with a floor fight and antiestablishment rebellion in the air. Now the messy, disastrous convention could be their own.

 

There are increasing rumblings within the party about how a new candidate could emerge at the convention. John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, is one possibility. But the most likely scenario is that Vice President Joe Biden—who has said that he regrets “every day” his decision not to run—enters the race.

 

Mr. Biden would be cast as the white knight rescuing the party, and the nation, from a possible Trump presidency. To win over Sanders supporters, he would likely choose as his running mate someone like Sen. Elizabeth Warren who is respected by the party’s left wing.

 

Where is President Obama in all this? So far he has largely stayed out of the campaign, other than to say that he doesn’t believe Mrs. Clinton compromised national security with her home-brew email server. But with her poll numbers dropping, her legal headaches increasing, the Sanders candidacy showing renewed vigor, and Donald Trump looming as a wrecking ball for the president’s legacy, Mr. Obama and adviser Valerie Jarrett might begin sending signals to the Democratic National Committee and to the vice president that a Biden rescue operation wouldn’t displease the White House.

 

All of these remain merely possibilities. But it is easier now than ever to imagine a scenario in which Hillary Clinton—whether by dint of legal or political circumstances—is not the Democratic presidential nominee.

 

 

Mr. Schoen served as a political adviser and pollster for President Bill Clinton, 1994-2000.

 

[Weenie Pooh]

Čule su se i ranije te ideje da bi Biden mogao da uleti pravo niotkuda, ali za tako nešto su minimalne šanse. Bila bi teška šamarčina biračima: "Znamo da ste mesecima glasali za osobu A ili osobu B, ali evo vam umesto njih osoba C - verujte nam na reč da će on da pobedi Trumpa, znamo mi." 

 

Kerry je još luđa varijanta. Ne vidim kako bi takve izbore pravdali u javnosti, i kako bi mislili da dovoljno njihovih glasača izađe na izbore pod takvim okolnostima. Šanse za takvo unutarpartijsko ludilo verovatno teže nuli, ali bio bi istorijski perfect storm potreban da dovede Trumpa u Belu kuću.

[Budja]

 

Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee

 

A Sanders win in California would turbocharge the mounting Democratic unease about her viability.

 

 

Douglas E. Schoen

May 31, 2016 6:31 p.m. ET

 

 

There is now more than a theoretical chance that Hillary Clinton may not be the Democratic nominee for president.

 

How could that happen, given that her nomination has been considered a sure thing by virtually everyone in the media and in the party itself? Consider the possibilities.

The inevitability behind Mrs. Clinton’s nomination will be in large measure eviscerated if she loses the June 7 California primary to Bernie Sanders. That could well happen.

 

A recent PPIC poll shows Mrs. Clinton with a 2% lead over Mr. Sanders, and a Fox News survey found the same result. Even a narrow win would give him 250 pledged delegates or more—a significant boost. California is clearly trending to Mr. Sanders, and the experience in recent open primaries has been that the Vermont senator tends to underperform in pre-election surveys and over-perform on primary and caucus days, thanks to the participation of new registrants and young voters.

 

To this end, data from mid-May show that there were nearly 1.5 million newly registered Democratic voters in California since Jan. 1. That’s a 218% increase in Democratic voter registrations compared with the same period in 2012, a strongly encouraging sign for Mr. Sanders.

 

A Sanders win in California would powerfully underscore Mrs. Clinton’s weakness as a candidate in the general election. Democratic superdelegates—chosen by the party establishment and overwhelmingly backing Mrs. Clinton, 543-44—would seriously question whether they should continue to stand behind her candidacy.

 

There is every reason to believe that at the convention Mr. Sanders will offer a rules change requiring superdelegates to vote for the candidate who won their state’s primary or caucus. A vote on that proposed change would almost certainly occur—and it would function as a referendum on the Clinton candidacy. If Mr. Sanders wins California, Montana and North Dakota on Tuesday and stays competitive in New Jersey, he could well be within 200 pledged delegates of Mrs. Clinton, making a vote in favor of the rules change on superdelegates more likely.

 

Another problem: In recent weeks the perception that Mrs. Clinton would be the strongest candidate against Donald Trump has evaporated. The Real Clear Politics polling average has Mrs. Clinton in a statistical tie with Mr. Trump, and recent surveys from ABC News/Washington Post and Fox News show her two and three points behind him, respectively.

 

Then there is that other crack in the argument for Mrs. Clinton’s inevitability: Bernie Sanders consistently runs stronger than she does against Mr. Trump nationally, beating him by about 10 points in a number of recent surveys.

The worries about Mr. Sanders’s strength have stirred the beginnings of a capitulation to him—by the Clinton camp, in league with the Democratic National Committee—at the convention. To placate him, they have already granted Mr. Sanders greater influence over the party platform. Two divisive figures, Cornel West and Rep. Keith Ellison, have been added to the platform committee, ensuring that the party will be pulled further left. In addition to putting Mr. Sanders’s socialist nostrums on display, the platform negotiations are likely to spur an ugly fight over the U.S. relationship with Israel.

 

Mrs. Clinton also faces growing legal problems. The State Department inspector general’s recent report on Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state made it abundantly clear that she broke rules and has been far from forthright in her public statements. The damning findings buttressed concerns within the party that Mrs. Clinton and her aides may not get through the government’s investigation without a finding of culpability somewhere.

With Mrs. Clinton reportedly soon to be interviewed by the FBI, suggesting that the investigation is winding up, a definitive ruling by the attorney general could be issued before the July 25 Democratic convention in Philadelphia. Given the inspector general’s report, a clean bill of health from the Justice Department is unlikely.

 

Finally, with Mrs. Clinton’s negative rating nearly as high as Donald Trump’s, and with voters not trusting her by a ratio of 4 to 1, Democrats face an unnerving possibility. Only a month or two ago, they were relishing the prospect of a chaotic Republican convention, with a floor fight and antiestablishment rebellion in the air. Now the messy, disastrous convention could be their own.

 

There are increasing rumblings within the party about how a new candidate could emerge at the convention. John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, is one possibility. But the most likely scenario is that Vice President Joe Biden—who has said that he regrets “every day” his decision not to run—enters the race.

 

Mr. Biden would be cast as the white knight rescuing the party, and the nation, from a possible Trump presidency. To win over Sanders supporters, he would likely choose as his running mate someone like Sen. Elizabeth Warren who is respected by the party’s left wing.

 

Where is President Obama in all this? So far he has largely stayed out of the campaign, other than to say that he doesn’t believe Mrs. Clinton compromised national security with her home-brew email server. But with her poll numbers dropping, her legal headaches increasing, the Sanders candidacy showing renewed vigor, and Donald Trump looming as a wrecking ball for the president’s legacy, Mr. Obama and adviser Valerie Jarrett might begin sending signals to the Democratic National Committee and to the vice president that a Biden rescue operation wouldn’t displease the White House.

 

All of these remain merely possibilities. But it is easier now than ever to imagine a scenario in which Hillary Clinton—whether by dint of legal or political circumstances—is not the Democratic presidential nominee.

 

 

Mr. Schoen served as a political adviser and pollster for President Bill Clinton, 1994-2000.

 

 

 

 

Izvor: WSJ

 

Ne vredi citati americku stampu, suvise je pristrasna, kao i ovaj clanak.

[Prospero]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-donald-trump_us_57508150e4b0eb20fa0d31f9?mj0ckv73soazcl3di

 

 

“Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different, they are dangerously incoherent,” she said. “They’re not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies. He is not just unprepared, he is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.”

 

The election, Clinton added, presented “a choice between a fearful America that’s less secure and less engaged with the world and a strong, confident America that leads to keep our country safe and our economy growing.”

Clinton had a lot of material to get through. She recited some of Trump’s past statements on foreign policy, provoking laughter from the audience when she noted that he said he understands Russia because he held the Miss Universe pageant there. She also mentioned his past support for increased nuclear proliferation, taking out the families of terrorists and defaulting on the national debt, and mocked his remark that his primary consultant on foreign policy issues is himself, because he has a “very good brain.”

 

She ridiculed him for saying that climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese and criticized his statement that he prefers prisoners of war who weren’t captured, like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was.

“This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes, because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because someone got under his very thin skin,” Clinton said. “We cannot put the security of our children and grandchildren in Donald Trump’s hands, we cannot let him roll the dice with America.”

 

Clinton noted that Trump has praised leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un, declaring he has a “bizarre fascination with dictators and strongmen.”

“I will leave it to the psychiatrists to explain his affection for tyrants,” she said.

 

She also criticized Trump for his suggestion that the United States should scale back its involvement in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

“If Donald gets his way, they’ll be celebrating in the Kremlin,” she said. “We cannot let that happen.”

 

Clinton had to balance the temptation to spend her entire speech mocking Trump with her desire to appear presidential, which is perhaps why she spoke in front of a backdrop of American flags in San Diego, a city that has a strong connection to the military.

 

She already has an edge against Trump when it comes to national security. A NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 56 percent of Americans believe she would be better at handling foreign policy, compared to 29 percent who thought Trump would be better. She also led Trump by 10 points on the question of who would be a better commander-in-chief.

 

She noted that her tenure as secretary of state gives her the type of foreign policy experience Trump lacks, mentioning her work to advance agreements to fight climate change, a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, a nuclear weapons reduction deal with Russia and sanctions against Iran. She also pointed out that she was in the Situation Room with President Barack Obama debating whether to initiate the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

“I’m not new to this work, and I’m proud to run on my record, because I think the choice before the American people in this election is clear,” she said. “Making Donald Trump commander-in-chief would be a historic mistake.”

[Ariel]

Izvor: WSJ

 

Ne vredi citati americku stampu, suvise je pristrasna, kao i ovaj clanak.

 

WSJ navija za Bernija :D užasi postmoderne.

[Weenie Pooh]

Toliko navijaju da sugerišu Bajdena i Kerija i Miki Mausa i Lebron Džejmsa kao jačeg kandidata od njega.

[ObiW]

Toliko navijaju da sugerišu Bajdena i Kerija i Miki Mausa i Lebron Džejmsa kao jačeg kandidata od njega.

A njemu jadnom fali samo 270 delegata i 3 miliona glasova da postane kandidat na izborima... picqin dim, da se PPPPita.

[Weenie Pooh]

Ceniš da su ovi ostali bliži po broju glasova? Tekst sugeriše da bi trebalo da uleti White Knight kandidat na konvenciji jer je Clinton slab kandidat. Ko jebe primaries, glasove koji su otišli njoj lepo ćemo da presipamo u džak osobe C i gotovo, svi srećni, svi zadovoljni. 

 

Nema šanse da su toliko ludi, ali bilo bi spektakularno gledati Trumpa kako ih oduvava uz rekordno nisku izlaznost dem glasača.

[Budja]

Ceniš da su ovi ostali bliži po broju glasova? Tekst sugeriše da bi trebalo da uleti White Knight kandidat na konvenciji jer je Clinton slab kandidat. Ko jebe primaries, glasove koji su otišli njoj lepo ćemo da presipamo u džak osobe C i gotovo, svi srećni, svi zadovoljni. 

 

Nema šanse da su toliko ludi, ali bilo bi spektakularno gledati Trumpa kako ih oduvava uz rekordno nisku izlaznost dem glasača.

 

Tekst je golo govno ciji je cilj da kaze da treba glasati za Trampa, slicno kao sto WP, NYT, Politico i ostali pro-Clinton mediji sugerisu da se GOP raspao, te da je stoga logicno glasati za babu.

 

Jebe se WSJ za demokrate kao i ostalim pomenutima za zdravlje GOPera.

 

I toga ce da bude jos vise do izbora, mainstream mediji ce se podeliti kao i pre Tramp/Sanders ere.

[hazard]

“Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different, they are dangerously incoherent,” she said. “They’re not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds and outright lies. He is not just unprepared, he is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.”

 

Trumpacolypse 2016 

[Ariel]

Toliko navijaju da sugerišu Bajdena i Kerija i Miki Mausa i Lebron Džejmsa kao jačeg kandidata od njega.

 

a najbolje da stvarno navijaju za bernajza, nego je ceo ton članka u fazonu "berni babu može stići i prestići i na strašnom mestu postojati a e vidi ovo možda može i bajden hehe džast an aftertot" pa se otud smejuljim što mi je krajnje simpatična ta taktika gde oni kao objektivni, a u stvari podržavaju bernija, A U STVARI.... No, nije to baš tako providno za čitalaštvo WSJ, rekao bih.

[dragance]

Nije providno qrac. Wall Street se usrao Bernija i uticaja koji može imati na babu (mada su šanse za to ravne nuli), kao i Trampare koji bi tek bio propast za njih. Stoga moraju da grebu noktima da barem nekoga imaju u rezervi, ako baba zaglavi optuznicu.