The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Tannhauser42**

I do wonder how many members of Congress are secretly squeezing cheeks hoping they don't get caught for the same thing. With as many emails as they must send, and as much information as they deal with, I'm sure that every one of them has, at some time, used their personal phone, computer, whatever to send/receive something they shouldn't have.

I'm not justifying HRC's extensive use of personal equipment, I'm just thinking out loud here about just how often these little slips happen.

**Grey Templar**

While I'm sure there have been a lot of minor slip ups, I doubt any of them have done anything approaching this magnitude.

**Ouze**

Community has forever ruined the word "magnitude" for me.

Pop-pop!

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Nah, people cared then too. *I* care about this issue, even though I downplay the issue because I don't think it's going to impact the election. I give Whembly gak about it because I think it's clear he's going to post about it every 12 hours between now and November 3rd, but I'm only poking fun at his single mindedness, and in that his interest in good governance appears - at least to me - motivated solely by how useful a cudgel it is to use against a Democratic front-runner. However I agree this needs to be investigated.

Whether or not classified information was transmitted or not, using personal email as an end-run around the Freedom of Information act is pretty dirty pool, whether it's Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, or any of the many, many other politicians who played hide-the-emails. It sucks and it needs to be treated seriously.

Remember this day... because I'll surprise you if a Republican President starts pulling the same gak that Obama does.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tannhauser42 wrote:
I do wonder how many members of Congress are secretly squeezing cheeks hoping they don't get caught for the same thing. With as many emails as they must send, and as much information as they deal with, I'm sure that every one of them has, at some time, used their personal phone, computer, whatever to send/receive something they shouldn't have.

It's NORMAL s.o.p. for Congressional Critters to have their own servers.

Remember, they're NOT supposed to use the .gov accounts while "campaigning" and furthermore, FIOA laws largely excludes Congress because it's only a "deliberative" body... not a government agency that enforces the law.

I'm not justifying HRC's extensive use of personal equipment, I'm just thinking out loud here about just how often these little slips happen.

Let's play "what ifs"... bear with me.

WHAT IF - - that the emails that HRC deleted were truly about her daughter's wedding, or her yoga stuff, or even some fetish pr0n?? Such that, there's no incriminating evidences of quid pro quo for her foundation's benefit...

Don't you think she'd release them by now? Like... here... it's fething embarrasing... but, FETHING HERE and you stupid Right-wingers are really being unreasonable.

Don't you think that HRC would gain more sympathy and, gasp, possible admiration had she released "everything"?

Yet... at the end of the day... she had her peeps try to delete an unknown amount of emails...

**Gordon Shumway**

I think what bothers me the most about her and all of this is her seemingly complete surprise and utter bewilderment that anybody would care. I'm not sure if it says something about her age (maybe she really doesn't understand the digital age, which is scary considering emails are pretty rudimentary and they aren't ephemeral like the trusty corded telephone). My mom is about her age and while her job was nothing like the magnitude of Sec. Of State, she was the operating VP of the largest bank in my state. She really does not understand the interwebs at all. She just figured out how to send text messages. When I talk to my students, I always have to keep in mind how fast stuff changes as I age. I made a reference to "Smells like teen spirit" the other day, and only two people in a class of thirty were familiar with it. This is a class of predominately college Sophomores. I felt pretty ancient.

On the other hand, it might suggest something about the general culture in DC that she really didn't think it was all that big of a deal. Which is even more scary because it suggests that the problem is more widespread.

Finally, I guess it is possible she is just pretending like she is surprised to downplay it, but damn if that's the case, she is more talented than I give her credit for as the entire campaign seems to have not been prepared how to handle it at all.

@Whembly, it was my understanding that at this point she has released everything to the authorities. They are just taking their time sorting through it and trying to recover deleted files. I honestly think she would like them to be released as soon as possible to allow her to get on with the damage control instead of the drip, drip, drip of recurring news stories that keeps the issue fresh in voters minds. That said, if they really were just private messages about her family and whatnot, I would actually lose respect for her if she turned those over. Everybody, even public officials, have the right to a certain amount of privacy. That is something I would never surrender. Granted, they shouldn't have been intermingled with the job related emails.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Don't you think she'd release them by now? Like... here... it's fething embarrasing... but, FETHING HERE and you stupid Right-wingers are really being unreasonable.

No. The "You big, mean Republicans baited me into X." defense only worked for Bill because he was a popular, charismatic President, presiding over a strong economy. Hillary is none of those things. Anything in those emails is just GOP ammunition for later on (and not just regarding her), regardless of whether or not she is guilty of anything criminal.

whembly wrote:

Don't you think that HRC would gain more sympathy and, gasp, possible admiration had she released "everything"?

No. She's far too polarizing as a public figure to generate any form of public sympathy from people that don't already feel that way.

Gordon Shumway wrote:
I honestly think she would like them to be released as soon as possible to allow her to get on with the damage control instead of the drip, drip, drip of recurring news stories that keeps the issue fresh in voters minds.

Which, as Whembly is interested in what-ifs, brings into question the political leanings of the investigators.

What if the investigation has found no wrong-doing, and the investigators are instead trying to draw out the scandal?

**Ouze**

Do you think they would do that? Just waste taxpayer dollars on a partisan witch-hunt?

**dogma**

Ouze wrote:
Do you think they would do that? Just waste taxpayer dollars on a partisan witch-hunt?

Of course not, defense and intelligence professionals have no bias...man!

Is that how the punctuation works, I'm not sure.

**whembly**

So... uh... this just happened:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/252825-poll-trump-beats-hillary-head-to-head

Labor Day Look at the 2016 General Election For President: Every Democrat Trails Trump, Though Narrowly:

Spoiler:

In an election for President of the United States, today, Labor Day, business provocateur Donald Trump narrowly defeats Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Al Gore, in head-to-head matchups, according to nationwide polling conducted by SurveyUSA.

Today it's:

* Trump 45%, Clinton 40%. (There is a 20-point Gender Gap; Trump leads by 18 points among seniors.)
* Trump 44%, Sanders 40%. (Trump leads by 10 among independents and by 6 among moderates.)
* Trump 44%, Biden 42%. (Trump leads by 10 among the best educated; Biden leads by 17 among the least educated.)
* Trump 44%, Gore 41%. (Trump leads by 12 among men and by 18 among voters age 50+.)

Among a subset of registered voters who tell SurveyUSA that they pay "a lot" of attention to politics, the scale tilts to the right: Today it's:

* Trump 54%, Clinton 36%.
* Trump 53%, Sanders 39%.
* Trump 53%, Biden 37%.
* Trump 54%, Gore 36%.

Voters were asked whether they support for a given Democrat "enthusiastically," "with reservations," or, whether they are "holding their nose" voting for a particular candidate.

* 57% of Clinton voters say they are voting enthusiastically.
* 53% of Sanders voters say they are voting enthusiastically.
* 49% of Biden backers say they are voting enthusiastically.
* 45% of Gore voters say they are voting enthusiastically.

By contrast:

* 8% of Clinton supporters say they are holding their nose.
* 8% of Sanders voters say they are holding their nose.
* 9% of Biden voters say they are holding their nose.
* 12% of Gore voters say they are holding their nose.

Voters were asked, regardless of whether they were Democrats or Republicans, and regardless of whom they might vote for in a primary, who they thought would be the major party nominees. Today, Labor Day, voters handicap the primary contests this way:

* 44% say Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee.
* 22% say Biden will be the nominee.
* 14% say Sanders will be the nominee.
* 3% say Gore.
* 9% say someone else.

* 30% say Trump will be the Republican party nominee.
* 20% say Jeb Bush will the the GOP nominee.
* 14% say Ben Carson will be the GOP nominee.
* 6% say Ted Cruz will be the nominee.
* 4% say Marco Rubio will be the nominee.
* 4% say John Kasich will be the nominee.
* 3% say Carly Fiorina will be the nominee.
* 2% say Scott Walker will be the nominee.

Cell-phone and home-phone respondents are included in this survey. SurveyUSA interviewed 1,000 USA adults 09/02/15 and 09/03/15. Of the adults, 900 were registered to vote. Of the registered voters, 58% (522) pay "a lot" of attention to politics. This survey was conducted using blended sample, mixed-mode. Respondents reachable on a home telephone (62% of registered voters) were interviewed on their home (landline) telephone in the recorded voice of a professional announcer. Respondents not reachable on a home telephone (38% of registered voters) were shown a question on their smartphone, tablet or other electronic device. Cell respondents, as is typically the case, vote more Democratic than do landline respondents. Among just the universe of cell-phone respondents, Clinton defeats Trump by 16 points; Sanders defeats Trump by 12 points; Biden defeats Trump by 17 points; and Gore defeats Trump by 17 points. The more cell-phone respondents a pollster includes in its "mix" of voters, the more Democratic the poll results will be.

Crap...

**Tannhauser42**

Meh, I don't put much faith in random telephone surveys of such small sample sizes. 1000 people would only be 20 in each state, and that assumes the survey tried to spread it out equally across the whole country.
Anyway, you know what I found to be the most interesting bit in that?

Cell respondents, as is typically the case, vote more Democratic than do landline respondents. Among just the universe of cell-phone respondents, Clinton defeats Trump by 16 points; Sanders defeats Trump by 12 points; Biden defeats Trump by 17 points; and Gore defeats Trump by 17 points. The more cell-phone respondents a pollster includes in its "mix" of voters, the more Democratic the poll results will be.

What does that suggest about party demographics?

**Grey Templar**

1000 people is actually a plenty big sample size if its collected correctly. And they would not spread it across each state. The areas would be chosen based on demographics that are most representative of the entire country.

**Tannhauser42**

1000 may be good enough for asking people if they prefer McDonalds or Burger King, but when it comes to something as complex as political opinions, I feel a sample size of 1000 is far too small.

**CptJake**

Generally polling is a science and not a 'feelings' based endeavor.

**Tannhauser42**

And yet, the results of any poll are based on the opinions or "feelings" of those being polled. Go figure.

Simply put, I do not trust the results of any single survey, especially one that freely admits its results can be skewed based on the type of phone used by the respondents.

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:
The areas would be chosen based on demographics that are most representative of the entire country.

Where in the methodology is that indicated?

**Ouze**

Way, way too early to be concerned with general election matchup polls. To be clear, I'm speaking about actually being worried.

I mean it's fun to compare them and all so I'm not gaking on anyone who posts them, and I'm sure I have or at least will have posted them myself, but realistically, the election is a lifetime away. Look how fast things can go wrong! Herman Cain. 47%. Self-deportation. Not being sure about the number of houses you own. Almost every candidate is ultimately just a single scandal or serious verbal screwup from flaming out or at least seriously hurting their odds.

And there's always this season where it's "anyone but the front runner". Wasn't Santorum on top for a minute at one point in 2008 or 2012? Santorum, FFS.

**Grey Templar**

dogma wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
The areas would be chosen based on demographics that are most representative of the entire country.

Where in the methodology is that indicated?

I can't tell for sure if that is actually what they did. Just saying thats what a good poll would do. But from what I see I think they did an acceptable job of it.

For the benefit of those interested, here is the actual survey.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d950cadf-05ce-4148-a125-35c0cdab26c6

According to the info here, it did in fact include cell phone and other device respondents and was not only landline users.

Questions 5-7 aren't using the best phrasing, but at least they aren't terrible like a lot of poll questions tend to be.

Naturally you should never take just 1 poll as your sole indicator and always read the fine print.

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:

According to the info here, it did in fact include cell phone and other device respondents and was not only landline users.

But that doesn't mean the poll controlled for demographics.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Can someone please explain the HRC email scandal? It really comes across like "old woman uses computer only way she knows how, draws hatred of haters". Isn't the use of personal email for business the norm for politicians?

I think we'd all be happier if she had just found a horny intern.

**Co'tor Shas**

Essentially it comes down to the fact that she technically wasn't allowed to use a private server, and the fact that sensitive or secret information may have been sent to her, which is a security issue. That is then wrapped up in lots of partisan politics, with a buttload of stupidity. It's not really a super big issue to most of the US electorate, but if they can prove she broke the law, than something might come of it.

**Ouze**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Isn't the use of personal email for business the norm for politicians?

No - it isn't, and should not be, for several reasons. The first is because generally email is a public record and is subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. Those systems are owned by the people, and the work that is done on them is the people's work. They have a right to know what their elected officials are doing on their dime. Using the government-issued systems ensures that, at least theoretically, the messages are being properly archived in line with the required retention policies.

Several politicians have been caught doing the state's business on private email to evade FOIA requests. Unfortunately there are rarely any significant consequences for this, regardless of how outrageous it was.

One legitimate reason for a private email, however, is to segregate fundraising and political activities(which should not happen on state time) from state business.

In HRC's specific example, an additional wrinkle is that her role means it's likely she would come into contact with sensitive and secret information. A private system may not be as secure as an official government one. Keeping classified information on such a system may be a criminal act; people have been prosecuted for mishandling classified information (although some people have skated when they should not have). Thusfar, all of the information that was found on HRC's server that was classified was retroactive, as in nor classified at the time it was handled.

I think that is about that.

**Co'tor Shas**

Although knowing the US government, I wouldn't be surprised if a private server was more secure.

**Jerram**

Ouze has most of it right except one important clarifying point. Several of the emails including ones she wrote were classified at the moment they were written just not properly marked. Retroactive marking is not retroactive classification. Clinton's team is counting on peoples misunderstanding of that point. As a person with access to classified information she had a legal obligation to both properly mark emails and to notify the proper people about improperly marked emails (so damage could be mitigated). She failed at both.

Co'tor

It isn't just the server its the entire network that classified info gets passed over. To use a regular mail anlogy she sent something that should have been hand carried with a private courier through the post office.

**Jihadin**

Think the first flag thrown was where the email originated first. CIA, NSA, DOD, FBI etc etc should make one pause at first and check the nature of the message before forwarding.

**Ouze**

Jerram wrote:
Ouze has most of it right except one important clarifying point. Several of the emails including ones she wrote were classified at the moment they were written just not properly marked. Retroactive marking is not retroactive classification. Clinton's team is counting on peoples misunderstanding of that point. As a person with access to classified information she had a legal obligation to both properly mark emails and to notify the proper people about improperly marked emails (so damage could be mitigated). She failed at both.

I'll readily admit I haven't followed this story super closely so I definitely can't speak to that point, I tried to give a broad overview. If what you say is accurate it then wasn't a intentional omission.

**sebster**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
I think what bothers me the most about her and all of this is her seemingly complete surprise and utter bewilderment that anybody would care. I'm not sure if it says something about her age (maybe she really doesn't understand the digital age, which is scary considering emails are pretty rudimentary and they aren't ephemeral like the trusty corded telephone).

I think her bewilderment is pretty much in line with standard Clinton procedure. Her and her husband see governance laws and regs as something to be bypassed or overcome, and when they're caught on this stuff they seem surprised, every single time, that anyone cares about that stuff.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tannhauser42 wrote:
What does that suggest about party demographics?

It suggests the Republican voters are generally older than Democrats. Which sounds bad, except that it's always been that way, because there's a trend for Democrat voters to move to the Republican party as they get older and more financially secure.

To be clear, the Republicans have serious demographic problems. But it isnt because their voters are old, it's because they're white and rural.

**Jihadin**

<---is not Caucasian (White)

**shasolenzabi**

I myself am older, mixed cultural heritage (Caucasian-Seminole) and am pretty much in the Bernie camp all the way

**whembly**

The intelligence community doesn't want to this to go away...

Second Review Says Classified Information Was in Hillary Clinton’s Email.

TL;DR - - Both the CIA and NGA agrees with the two independent IG that the two emails (out of 40 reviewed) were Top Secret at birth.

This is big...

The Obama FBI / DoJ is in a bind of some sort. Their best bet may be enpanel a federal grand jury...

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
The Obama FBI / DoJ is in a bind of some sort.

As opposed to the other FBI / DoJ?