Hillary's Emailgate - The scandal that keeps on giving!

[maxparrish]

Well, those who say this doesn't matter and isn't affecting anything were dealt a harsh blow today as the republicans at the NYT report Hillary's focus groups show no one cares about much else:

Last week, Mrs. Clinton’s aides showed a video of that news conference to a New Hampshire focus group of independents and Democrats, according to a Democrat briefed on the focus group whose account was confirmed by a person in her campaign. Participants said they wanted to hear more from Mrs. Clinton about the issue.

The focus group also showed that the email issue was drowning out nearly everything else that Mrs. Clinton was hoping to communicate to voters — something Mrs. Clinton and her husband have complained about to friends.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...il-server-a-mistake-says-im-sorry-about-that/

The good news is the Hillarybot has been taken in and reprogrammed with a more authentic focus group tested set of autoresponses to questions about the email server.

Those darned Republican publishers of the NYTimes. Were they good Democrats they would have read talkfreethought and discovered that there is no scandal, and then spanked the focus group for being so gullible.

 

[fromderinside]

Wow. Because a focus group says they want to know maens there is a scandal? How about the constant pounding by the extreme right has distorted views so much that they believe there is something there when, as facts* show, there isn't.

*^{_{Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...heck-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law}}

 

[Horatio Parker]

Wow. Because a focus group says they want to know maens there is a scandal? How about the constant pounding by the extreme right has distorted views so much that they believe there is something there when, as facts* show, there isn't.

*^{_{Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...heck-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law}}

Nah, let 'em blow out their kites with this nonsense. Keeps their minds off winning an election.

Go for the quick fix!

 

[Ford]

Wow. Because a focus group says they want to know maens there is a scandal? How about the constant pounding by the extreme right has distorted views so much that they believe there is something there when, as facts* show, there isn't.

*^{_{Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...heck-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law}}

Actually the bullshit goes deeper than that.

First off, I find it hilarious that our...shall we say more conservative?...resident commenters are quoting the New York Times. Normally a right winger wouldn't even use the Times to line the bottom of the bird cage for fear that the budgies might catch a case of liberalism, but I digress...

An anonymous source quoted by the Times conveyed the one allegedly damning factoid from the focus group, but what's the context?

Is that one of the conclusions of the focus group, or just a leak of one question's results? Who are these people in the focus group? Randomly selected voters? I find that doubtful.

The focus group research I've been involved in usually recruits people who are already consumers of your product. So it is reasonable to assume that the participants in this one were liberal voters already committed to or at least predisposed to voting for Hillary. That means they're fans, and probably keep up on politics a lot more closely than the garden variety low information voter.

And the media at large (not just the right wing) has been breathlessly covering the Clinton email "scandal" with only slightly less fervor than they've been covering Trump. So yeah, the email thing is sucking all the oxygen out of the room and this tidbit from the focus group seems to prove it. I bet if you did a focus group of likely Jeb Bush voters you'd find them to be pretty annoyed with the endless Trump coverage. A focus group of Bernie Sanders supporters would wonder aloud why he hasn't been just crowned President already, and a focus group of Lindsey Graham supporters would be one southern gentleman sipping iced tea and saying "I do declare" a lot.

 

[dismal]

,,,

Wow. Because a focus group says they want to know maens there is a scandal? How about the constant pounding by the extreme right has distorted views so much that they believe there is something there when, as facts* show, there isn't.

*^{_{Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...heck-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law}}

The real question should be how the dastardly republicans got so many people into roboHillary's focus groups. And the FBI. And the inspectors General. And the NYT. And MSNBC. They are obviously very much more intelligent than the Democrats.

 

[dismal]

Wow. Because a focus group says they want to know maens there is a scandal? How about the constant pounding by the extreme right has distorted views so much that they believe there is something there when, as facts* show, there isn't.

*^{_{Fact Check: Hillary Clinton, Those Emails And The Law http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...heck-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law}}

Actually the bullshit goes deeper than that.

First off, I find it hilarious that our...shall we say more conservative?...resident commenters are quoting the New York Times. Normally a right winger wouldn't even use the Times to line the bottom of the bird cage for fear that the budgies might catch a case of liberalism, but I digress...

An anonymous source quoted by the Times conveyed the one allegedly damning factoid from the focus group, but what's the context?

Is that one of the conclusions of the focus group, or just a leak of one question's results? Who are these people in the focus group? Randomly selected voters? I find that doubtful.

The focus group research I've been involved in usually recruits people who are already consumers of your product. So it is reasonable to assume that the participants in this one were liberal voters already committed to or at least predisposed to voting for Hillary. That means they're fans, and probably keep up on politics a lot more closely than the garden variety low information voter.

And the media at large (not just the right wing) has been breathlessly covering the Clinton email "scandal" with only slightly less fervor than they've been covering Trump. So yeah, the email thing is sucking all the oxygen out of the room and this tidbit from the focus group seems to prove it. I bet if you did a focus group of likely Jeb Bush voters you'd find them to be pretty annoyed with the endless Trump coverage. A focus group of Bernie Sanders supporters would wonder aloud why he hasn't been just crowned President already, and a focus group of Lindsey Graham supporters would be one southern gentleman sipping iced tea and saying "I do declare" a lot.

Why do you imagine the state department keeps redacting the obviously non confidential information in Hilary's emails?

Wait, let me guess it's "ZMFOG teh Republicanszzz11!".

They are so fucking clever.

 

[Ford]

Actually the bullshit goes deeper than that.

First off, I find it hilarious that our...shall we say more conservative?...resident commenters are quoting the New York Times. Normally a right winger wouldn't even use the Times to line the bottom of the bird cage for fear that the budgies might catch a case of liberalism, but I digress...

An anonymous source quoted by the Times conveyed the one allegedly damning factoid from the focus group, but what's the context?

Is that one of the conclusions of the focus group, or just a leak of one question's results? Who are these people in the focus group? Randomly selected voters? I find that doubtful.

The focus group research I've been involved in usually recruits people who are already consumers of your product. So it is reasonable to assume that the participants in this one were liberal voters already committed to or at least predisposed to voting for Hillary. That means they're fans, and probably keep up on politics a lot more closely than the garden variety low information voter.

And the media at large (not just the right wing) has been breathlessly covering the Clinton email "scandal" with only slightly less fervor than they've been covering Trump. So yeah, the email thing is sucking all the oxygen out of the room and this tidbit from the focus group seems to prove it. I bet if you did a focus group of likely Jeb Bush voters you'd find them to be pretty annoyed with the endless Trump coverage. A focus group of Bernie Sanders supporters would wonder aloud why he hasn't been just crowned President already, and a focus group of Lindsey Graham supporters would be one southern gentleman sipping iced tea and saying "I do declare" a lot.

Why do you imagine the state department keeps redacting the obviously non confidential information in Hilary's emails?

Why do you imagine you know what's in the redacted information?



In a way, you've cut right to the heart of what keeps this whole "scandal" going. The Congressional Committee to Endlessly Investigate Benghazi got it into their head that Clinton was "hiding something." The more information they get, the less they find that would actually incriminate her in some sinister conspiracy, so they figure that what's left is where she's hiding the really, really sinister stuff. So she releases more...still nothing...which leads the conspiratorial thinkers to go "aha! She's hiding it deeper than we thought!"


Lather, rinse, and repeat.


It is easy, of course, to hurl accusations about what's hidden under redacted information because if you've got an axe to grind you can imagine literally anything to be in there. You can say it is "obviously non confidential" but you have no way of proving that, nor can you prove that it is the damning evidence for a decades-long conspiracy by Hillary to murder her friends for fun and profit.


If her email says "Hey Bill, just going to a meeting on Libya where we (redacted) and then off to a late lunch" you can put anything you like into that (redacted) space.


Doesn't mean you're right. But you get to keep playing this game where you imagine what evil lurks in the heart of Hillary.

 

[bilby]

Why do you imagine the state department keeps redacting the obviously non confidential information in Hilary's emails?

Why do you imagine you know what's in the redacted information?



In a way, you've cut right to the heart of what keeps this whole "scandal" going. The Congressional Committee to Endlessly Investigate Benghazi got it into their head that Clinton was "hiding something." The more information they get, the less they find that would actually incriminate her in some sinister conspiracy, so they figure that what's left is where she's hiding the really, really sinister stuff. So she releases more...still nothing...which leads the conspiratorial thinkers to go "aha! She's hiding it deeper than we thought!"


Lather, rinse, and repeat.


It is easy, of course, to hurl accusations about what's hidden under redacted information because if you've got an axe to grind you can imagine literally anything to be in there. You can say it is "obviously non confidential" but you have no way of proving that, nor can you prove that it is the damning evidence for a decades-long conspiracy by Hillary to murder her friends for fun and profit.


If her email says "Hey Bill, just going to a meeting on Libya where we (redacted) and then off to a late lunch" you can put anything you like into that (redacted) space.


Doesn't mean you're right. But you get to keep playing this game where you imagine what evil lurks in the heart of Hillary.

Censorship can be a great source of misinformation.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0v7rFSUrGE[/YOUTUBE]

 

[dismal]

Why do you imagine the state department keeps redacting the obviously non confidential information in Hilary's emails?

Why do you imagine you know what's in the redacted information?



In a way, you've cut right to the heart of what keeps this whole "scandal" going. The Congressional Committee to Endlessly Investigate Benghazi got it into their head that Clinton was "hiding something." The more information they get, the less they find that would actually incriminate her in some sinister conspiracy, so they figure that what's left is where she's hiding the really, really sinister stuff. So she releases more...still nothing...which leads the conspiratorial thinkers to go "aha! She's hiding it deeper than we thought!"


Lather, rinse, and repeat.


It is easy, of course, to hurl accusations about what's hidden under redacted information because if you've got an axe to grind you can imagine literally anything to be in there. You can say it is "obviously non confidential" but you have no way of proving that, nor can you prove that it is the damning evidence for a decades-long conspiracy by Hillary to murder her friends for fun and profit.


If her email says "Hey Bill, just going to a meeting on Libya where we (redacted) and then off to a late lunch" you can put anything you like into that (redacted) space.


Doesn't mean you're right. But you get to keep playing this game where you imagine what evil lurks in the heart of Hillary.

I don't know what's in the redacted information.

It's been redacted. By the government.

Because it's government secrets.

According to the government.

 

[maxparrish]

As I write, the 5th Amendment Holdout who set up and maintained her server is behind closed doors for testimony in a depo. I believe he was offered immunity, we shall see if he testifies.

And today's poll show's Bernie is beating Hillary in NH.

Drip...drip...drip

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As I write, the 5th Amendment Holdout who set up and maintained her server is behind closed doors for testimony in a depo. I believe he was offered immunity, we shall see if he testifies.

And today's poll show's Bernie is beating Hillary in NH.

Sanders has been leading in NH for a little bit now. Where have you been?

Drip...drip...drip

You are right, your posts are torture.

 

[Horatio Parker]

"Who told thee that?" cried Ahab; then pausing, "Aye, Starbuck; aye, my hearties all round; it was Moby Dick that dismasted me; Moby Dick that brought me to this dead stump I stand on now. Aye, aye," he shouted with a terrific, loud, animal sob, like that of a heart-stricken moose; "Aye, aye! it was that accursed white whale that razeed me; made a poor pegging lubber of me for ever and a day!" Then tossing both arms, with measureless imprecations he shouted out: "Aye, aye! and I’ll chase him round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition’s flames before I give him up. And this is what ye have shipped for, men! to chase that white whale on both sides of land, and over all sides of earth, till he spouts black blood and rolls fin out. What say ye, men, will ye splice hands on it, now? I think ye do look brave."

...

 

[dismal]

Sanders has been leading in NH for a little bit now. Where have you been?

Drip...drip...drip

You are right, your posts are torture.

I suspect he meant to say there's a poll showing he's beating her in Iowa today. Lost about a 25 point lead in one poll cycle.

 

[maxparrish]

Sanders has been leading in NH for a little bit now. Where have you been?

You are right, your posts are torture.

I suspect he meant to say there's a poll showing he's beating her in Iowa today. Lost about a 25 point lead in one poll cycle.

Yep...that said, here is a rather amusing image on this latest turn:

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I suspect he meant to say there's a poll showing he's beating her in Iowa today. Lost about a 25 point lead in one poll cycle.

And Bernie has been leading for over a month.

 

[dismal]

I suspect he meant to say there's a poll showing he's beating her in Iowa today. Lost about a 25 point lead in one poll cycle.

And Bernie has been leading for over a month.

Is that what they told you on the Hillary Apologists for Hillary message control phone call this morning?

Cause reality doesn't really support that:

Quinnipiac 8/27 - 9/8 832 LV 40 41 12 3 1 0 Sanders +1
NBC/Marist 8/26 - 9/2 345 RV 38 27 20 4 2 1 Clinton +11
Gravis Marketing 8/29 - 8/31 507 RV 45 17 13 5 1 1 Clinton +28
Des Moines Register 8/23 - 8/26 404 LV 37 30 14 3 2 1 Clinton +7
Loras College 8/24 - 8/27 502 LV 48 23 16 4 0 1 Clinton +25
Suffolk University 8/20 - 8/24 500 LV 54 20 11 4 1 0 Clinton +34
CNN/ORC 8/7 - 8/11 1258 LV 50 31 12 1 1 0 Clinton +19
PPP (D) 8/7 - 8/9 567 LV 52 25 -- 7 3 1 Clinton +27
Gravis Marketing 7/29 - 7/29 236 RV 51 24 6 5 1 2 Clinton +27
NBC News/Marist 7/14 - 7/21 320 RV 49 25 10 3 1 0 Clinton +24
KBUR/WAA 6/27 - 6/29 1000 LV 63 20 -- 5 3 1 Clinton +43
Quinnipiac 6/20 - 6/29 761 LV 52 33 7 3 1 0 Clinton +19
Bloomberg 6/19 - 6/22 401 LV 50 24 -- 2 -- 0 Clinton +26
Morning Consult 5/31 - 6/8 322 RV 54 12 9 1 1 0 Clinton +42
Des Moines Register 5/25 - 5/29 437 LV 57 16 8 2 2 -- Clinton +41
Gravis Marketing 5/28 - 5/29 434 RV 59 15 -- 3 3 1 Clinton +44
Quinnipiac 4/25 - 5/4 692 LV 60 15 11 3 3 0 Clinton +45
PPP (D) 4/23 - 4/26 466 LV 62 14 -- 6 3 2 Clinton +48
Loras College 4/21 - 4/23 491 LV 57 2 6 2 1 0 Clinton +42
Quinnipiac 2/16 - 2/23 619 LV 61 5 7 0 2 -- Clinton +42
NBC News/Marist 2/3 - 2/10 321 RV 68 7 12 0 1 -- Clinton +56
Des Moines Register 1/26 - 1/29 401 LV 56 5 9 1 3 -- Clinton +40
Loras College 1/21 - 1/26 261 LV 48 4 13 0 2 -- Clinton +31
FOX News 10/28 - 10/30 352 LV 62 -- 10 2 -- -- Clinton +48
Des Moines Register 10/1 - 10/7 426 LV 53 3 9 0 1 -- Clinton +43
CNN/ORC 9/8 - 9/10 309 RV 53 5 15 2 -- -- Clinton +38
USA Today/Suffolk 8/23 - 8/26 191 LV 66 -- 8 2 -- -- Clinton +56
PPP (D) 5/15 - 5/19 356 RV 59 -- 12 1 -- -- Clinton +47
Vox Populi/DC (R) 4/22 - 4/24 RV 71 -- 13 1 -- -- Clinton +58
Suffolk University 4/3 - 4/8 135 LV 63 -- 10 -- -- -- Clinton +51
PPP (D) 2/20 - 2/23 335 RV 67 -- 12 0 -- -- Clinton +55
Harper (R) 11/23 - 11/24 308 LV 71 -- 11 1 -- -- Clinton +60
PPP (D) 7/5 - 7/7 260 RV 71 -- 12 1 -- -- Clinton +59
PPP (D) 2/1 - 2/3 313 RV 68 -- 21 0 -- -- Clinton +47
Harper (R) 1/29 - 1/29 LV 65 -- 14 -- -- -- Clinton +51
PPP (D) 7/12 - 7/15 416 RV 60 -- 18 0 -- -- Clinton +42
PPP (D) 5/3 - 5/6 335 RV 62 -- 14 1 -- -- Clinton +48

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...emocratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html#polls

 

[Horatio Parker]

I suspect he meant to say there's a poll showing he's beating her in Iowa today. Lost about a 25 point lead in one poll cycle.

And Bernie has been leading for over a month.

If Jeb or Walker or someone doesn't step up their game, they might not even beat Sanders.

I am assuming Trumpamania will be over soon.

 

[maxparrish]

And Bernie has been leading for over a month.

Is that what they told you on the Hillary Apologists for Hillary message control phone call this morning?

Cause reality doesn't really support that:

Quinnipiac 8/27 - 9/8 832 LV 40 41 12 3 1 0 Sanders +1
NBC/Marist 8/26 - 9/2 345 RV 38 27 20 4 2 1 Clinton +11
Gravis Marketing 8/29 - 8/31 507 RV 45 17 13 5 1 1 Clinton +28
Des Moines Register 8/23 - 8/26 404 LV 37 30 14 3 2 1 Clinton +7
Loras College 8/24 - 8/27 502 LV 48 23 16 4 0 1 Clinton +25
Suffolk University 8/20 - 8/24 500 LV 54 20 11 4 1 0 Clinton +34
CNN/ORC 8/7 - 8/11 1258 LV 50 31 12 1 1 0 Clinton +19
PPP (D) 8/7 - 8/9 567 LV 52 25 -- 7 3 1 Clinton +27
Gravis Marketing 7/29 - 7/29 236 RV 51 24 6 5 1 2 Clinton +27
NBC News/Marist 7/14 - 7/21 320 RV 49 25 10 3 1 0 Clinton +24
KBUR/WAA 6/27 - 6/29 1000 LV 63 20 -- 5 3 1 Clinton +43
Quinnipiac 6/20 - 6/29 761 LV 52 33 7 3 1 0 Clinton +19
Bloomberg 6/19 - 6/22 401 LV 50 24 -- 2 -- 0 Clinton +26
Morning Consult 5/31 - 6/8 322 RV 54 12 9 1 1 0 Clinton +42
Des Moines Register 5/25 - 5/29 437 LV 57 16 8 2 2 -- Clinton +41
Gravis Marketing 5/28 - 5/29 434 RV 59 15 -- 3 3 1 Clinton +44
Quinnipiac 4/25 - 5/4 692 LV 60 15 11 3 3 0 Clinton +45
PPP (D) 4/23 - 4/26 466 LV 62 14 -- 6 3 2 Clinton +48
Loras College 4/21 - 4/23 491 LV 57 2 6 2 1 0 Clinton +42
Quinnipiac 2/16 - 2/23 619 LV 61 5 7 0 2 -- Clinton +42
NBC News/Marist 2/3 - 2/10 321 RV 68 7 12 0 1 -- Clinton +56
Des Moines Register 1/26 - 1/29 401 LV 56 5 9 1 3 -- Clinton +40
Loras College 1/21 - 1/26 261 LV 48 4 13 0 2 -- Clinton +31
FOX News 10/28 - 10/30 352 LV 62 -- 10 2 -- -- Clinton +48
Des Moines Register 10/1 - 10/7 426 LV 53 3 9 0 1 -- Clinton +43
CNN/ORC 9/8 - 9/10 309 RV 53 5 15 2 -- -- Clinton +38
USA Today/Suffolk 8/23 - 8/26 191 LV 66 -- 8 2 -- -- Clinton +56
PPP (D) 5/15 - 5/19 356 RV 59 -- 12 1 -- -- Clinton +47
Vox Populi/DC (R) 4/22 - 4/24 RV 71 -- 13 1 -- -- Clinton +58
Suffolk University 4/3 - 4/8 135 LV 63 -- 10 -- -- -- Clinton +51
PPP (D) 2/20 - 2/23 335 RV 67 -- 12 0 -- -- Clinton +55
Harper (R) 11/23 - 11/24 308 LV 71 -- 11 1 -- -- Clinton +60
PPP (D) 7/5 - 7/7 260 RV 71 -- 12 1 -- -- Clinton +59
PPP (D) 2/1 - 2/3 313 RV 68 -- 21 0 -- -- Clinton +47
Harper (R) 1/29 - 1/29 LV 65 -- 14 -- -- -- Clinton +51
PPP (D) 7/12 - 7/15 416 RV 60 -- 18 0 -- -- Clinton +42
PPP (D) 5/3 - 5/6 335 RV 62 -- 14 1 -- -- Clinton +48

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...emocratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html#polls

Brutal. But did you need to toss Jimmy's truthie into a wood chipper?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is that what they told you on the Hillary Apologists for Hillary message control phone call this morning?

Cause reality doesn't really support that:

Quinnipiac 8/27 - 9/8 832 LV 40 41 12 3 1 0 Sanders +1
NBC/Marist 8/26 - 9/2 345 RV 38 27 20 4 2 1 Clinton +11
Gravis Marketing 8/29 - 8/31 507 RV 45 17 13 5 1 1 Clinton +28
Des Moines Register 8/23 - 8/26 404 LV 37 30 14 3 2 1 Clinton +7
Loras College 8/24 - 8/27 502 LV 48 23 16 4 0 1 Clinton +25
Suffolk University 8/20 - 8/24 500 LV 54 20 11 4 1 0 Clinton +34
CNN/ORC 8/7 - 8/11 1258 LV 50 31 12 1 1 0 Clinton +19
PPP (D) 8/7 - 8/9 567 LV 52 25 -- 7 3 1 Clinton +27
Gravis Marketing 7/29 - 7/29 236 RV 51 24 6 5 1 2 Clinton +27
NBC News/Marist 7/14 - 7/21 320 RV 49 25 10 3 1 0 Clinton +24
KBUR/WAA 6/27 - 6/29 1000 LV 63 20 -- 5 3 1 Clinton +43
Quinnipiac 6/20 - 6/29 761 LV 52 33 7 3 1 0 Clinton +19
Bloomberg 6/19 - 6/22 401 LV 50 24 -- 2 -- 0 Clinton +26
Morning Consult 5/31 - 6/8 322 RV 54 12 9 1 1 0 Clinton +42
Des Moines Register 5/25 - 5/29 437 LV 57 16 8 2 2 -- Clinton +41
Gravis Marketing 5/28 - 5/29 434 RV 59 15 -- 3 3 1 Clinton +44
Quinnipiac 4/25 - 5/4 692 LV 60 15 11 3 3 0 Clinton +45
PPP (D) 4/23 - 4/26 466 LV 62 14 -- 6 3 2 Clinton +48
Loras College 4/21 - 4/23 491 LV 57 2 6 2 1 0 Clinton +42
Quinnipiac 2/16 - 2/23 619 LV 61 5 7 0 2 -- Clinton +42
NBC News/Marist 2/3 - 2/10 321 RV 68 7 12 0 1 -- Clinton +56
Des Moines Register 1/26 - 1/29 401 LV 56 5 9 1 3 -- Clinton +40
Loras College 1/21 - 1/26 261 LV 48 4 13 0 2 -- Clinton +31
FOX News 10/28 - 10/30 352 LV 62 -- 10 2 -- -- Clinton +48
Des Moines Register 10/1 - 10/7 426 LV 53 3 9 0 1 -- Clinton +43
CNN/ORC 9/8 - 9/10 309 RV 53 5 15 2 -- -- Clinton +38
USA Today/Suffolk 8/23 - 8/26 191 LV 66 -- 8 2 -- -- Clinton +56
PPP (D) 5/15 - 5/19 356 RV 59 -- 12 1 -- -- Clinton +47
Vox Populi/DC (R) 4/22 - 4/24 RV 71 -- 13 1 -- -- Clinton +58
Suffolk University 4/3 - 4/8 135 LV 63 -- 10 -- -- -- Clinton +51
PPP (D) 2/20 - 2/23 335 RV 67 -- 12 0 -- -- Clinton +55
Harper (R) 11/23 - 11/24 308 LV 71 -- 11 1 -- -- Clinton +60
PPP (D) 7/5 - 7/7 260 RV 71 -- 12 1 -- -- Clinton +59
PPP (D) 2/1 - 2/3 313 RV 68 -- 21 0 -- -- Clinton +47
Harper (R) 1/29 - 1/29 LV 65 -- 14 -- -- -- Clinton +51
PPP (D) 7/12 - 7/15 416 RV 60 -- 18 0 -- -- Clinton +42
PPP (D) 5/3 - 5/6 335 RV 62 -- 14 1 -- -- Clinton +48

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...emocratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html#polls

Brutal. But did you need to toss Jimmy's truthie into a wood chipper?

I must have mistaken it with New Hampshire. Seriously, you two are seriously trolling. There are very few Clinton loyalists on this board.

And based on the polls, this one looks an outlier. Sanders is closing the gap. These polls will help Sanders and maybe he can make headway into the South. I just hope he doesn't have a cold and get crucified by the Media not unlike the last progressive out of Vermont.

 

[maxparrish]

There is a sure whole lotta people upset with us diss'in Hillary for there to be few Clinton boosters. Maybe they have felt a bit less supportive after read'in bout her knavery...a public service I am more than happy to report on.