drip, drip, drip....

Michale

drip, drip, drip, drip....

Michale

She deglided, um, because she didn’t, I mean, these are, these are personal emails and I think that everyone understands even Hillary Clinton gets a zone of privacy and she decided that she, uh, she retains a couple months-worth of emails so you can, you know, so she can, uh, uh, find personal emails she needs to but after that, she doesn’t need them anymore. So, she made this decision, I think is, obviously, you know, she was former secretary of state, so we want to be sure people understand, uh, how she handled classified information when shew as secretary of state, she was very careful with it, she didn’t deal with it online, she dealt with it on hard copy, in meetings, not on the computer.”
-Clinton Campaign Spokesperson..

Well, I am glad that she cleared up THAT....

W.T.F.!???

Michale

That's true..

The email server scandal is a perfect example..

Everyone on the Left tried to pooh it away as nothing.

Now it's a CRIMINAL investigation...

Michale

I don't really have some strong belief that Hillary has a lock on the nomination and then is toast in the general election. It's mostly just my habitual political pessimism.

The bookies computing the odds for a Hillary win won't factor in things like being abducted by aliens or being found in bed with a dead man or a live woman because those types of things are unknowable..

One thing that IS knowable is that we haven't heard the last of Clinton's scandals..

But since the seriousness of the scandals is unknown, the odds ignore that which is not quantifiable...

In other words, it's as ridiculous to quote odds NOW for an event that is taking place in 14 months as it is ridiculous to quote POLLS now for an election that is taking place in 14 months...

It's as meaningless as:

"HILLARY IS TOAST!!!"
"YEA!! WELL, IT'S GOING TO RAIN TOMORROW!!!"

See what I mean??

Michale

Whoever the Republicans nominate. Eep.

You and DSWS have laid out a scenario for Clinton failing to win the nomination.

What? I think she has a lock on the nomination. I was talking about how she's running her general election campaign.

By definition, the odds-makers cannot factor in the Scandal-Factor.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

To your response, I'll just add, !!!!!!!!etc.

Odds are based on whatever the betting population is influenced by. Bookies offer bets on all possibilities, at whatever odds the bookie thinks will get people to take all the bets in equal quantity. If a significant number of prospective bettors believe that voodoo is going to influence the event they're betting on, a bookie's job is to know that. If a would-be bookie tries to insist on a rational basis for everything, they wind up as just another bettor.

Heh.

Do you have a secret server you need to wipe clean? Having trouble clearing out those pesky Top Secret emails? Well Hillary's got just the thing: the Secret Server Wiper.

WARNING: May Not Fool the FBI

Too funny.... :D

I mean, honestly.. What kind of moron gives the enemy so much ammo??? :D

Michale

hehehehehehehe

Now THAT is funny!! I got to get me one of those for my computer shop... :D

Michale

Moderation???

Hi, I'm Michale... Nice ta meetcha...

:D

Michale

By your definition maybe. I'll have to remember that rhetorical sleight of hand - abracadabra, "By definition!"

What's magic about it??

Odds are computed based on KNOWABLE factors...

What's "knowable" about Hillary's unknown scandals??

Michale

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

By your definition maybe. I'll have to remember that rhetorical sleight of hand - abracadabra, "By definition!"

Anyway, I'm having a bit of trouble resolving toast:I think:not surprised. Maybe a bit of moderation in your position?

By definition, the odds-makers cannot factor in the Scandal-Factor... They go with tangibles, not "what if"s..

But, in Clinton's case, the "what if"s are near certainty, given Hillary penchant for ignoring the established rules and making up her own...

I don't think she will win the nomination.. But it won't surprise me if she does...

Nice Trek.. :D

Michale

You and DSWS have laid out a scenario for Clinton failing to win the nomination. It's plausible, but how likely is it to occur? Horse race polls don't tell you that, at least not directly, they might if you have the right model and more types of data. A 3% lead in a two way election CAN be a decisive lead, enough to call the election with maybe 90% confidence. But not always.

Futures markets with real money give you a means to estimate the probability of a discrete event occurring. Historically, markets do this about as well as the best "scientific" approaches. Especially about 14 months out from the election.

As of yesterday, the only two money-changing-hands futures markets which I can track both give Clinton about a 75% chance of winning the Democratic Nomination. This estimate has not changed a lot over the past few months. The crowd (in its collective wisdom) is discounting the impact of the Clinton (Alleged)Scandal. Nate Silver, with a more a more wonky approach goes a little higher, about 80%

The markets give substantially different numbers if you ask what the probability of Hillary winning BOTH primary AND the general election is: about 46%. The highest ranking Republican, JEB!, has about a 17% chance in the same markets. Trump, 5%, and Walker 4% So who exactly is toasty here?

This doesn't mean the markets think the general election is all that lopsided. The markets say the probability of some Democrat winning the election is about 60%.

Now if you believe your own analysis,and that's your call, I humbly suggest you get your credit card out and mouse over to Ladbrokes or Betfair - you will be able to get a very high payoff - if your hunch right.

But you say, all this will change. It might, you have 14 months. It hasn't changed much yet.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it Amok time."

http://seanmunger.com/2013/10/23/stravinsky-in-space-the-classic-fight-music-from-star-trek-audio/

Long version!

Stop it!! Yer killing me!!!! :D

I don't believe that Hillary will go the distance in the Primary.. DSWS made a great case for that....

But it would not surprise me if she did.. Party Loyalty is a powerful force...

But in the General???

You just *HAVE* to know that the GOP is saving the big guns for the General...

If, like Paula claims, all of this is just the "vast Right Wing Conspiracy" (which is funny since it's all DEMOCRATS who are doing the actual investigating) then can you imagine what the "BIG GUNS" are going to look like?? The devastation that they will cause...

She is polling only SIX POINTS above Trump, fer chreest's sake!!

That should be a clue and a half for you...

Michale

Here's another laugh for you. Ladbrokes puts Clinton's winning the nomination at 80%.
It's called evidence. Backed up with by punters credit cards. .... And a good record in predicting US presidential politics.. All could change, but it has't yet.

She is leading TRUMP in the polls by ONLY 6 points....

If THAT doesn't tell ya'all how serious Hillary's problems are, she could murder someone right in front of ya'all and ya'all would be perfectly OK with it..

Michale

Oh, wait ...

I thought I did..

If I were a Democrat, I wouldn't like any candidate that kissed the ass of special interest groups...

And, really, the only person who hasn't done that to date is Biden....

So, I would hope that Biden throws his hat into the ring...

But, of course, once he does, he will likely start puckering up as well... :^(

Michale

"Ouch! And the ref takes a point away!!"
-Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR

:D

Michale

When all this first came out, Hillary unequivocally stated that she did NOT send classified information via her home-brew bathroom-closet email server..

Now that it has been discovered that she HAD, in fact, sent classified info via her private mailserv,

NOW her story changes..

NOW her story is that she didn't send MARKED classified information via her private email server..

My gods!!!

This woman was THE SECRETARY OF STATE for the United States..

Are you telling me that OUR SecState couldn't recognize classified intelligence just by reading it!!???

And the fact that people will still VOTE for Hillary??

WOW....

Michale

I know ... posting links in lieu of a comment is a sign of laziness, I think. :)

Do you want me to answer that?

Oh, wait ...

And THIS is who ya'all will vote for President???

SERIOUSLY!??? :^/

Michale

The Queen is getting a bit pissy that her subjects would DARE question her...

The IMPLOSION is coming...

Michale

Lame deflection, considering the blatant lies that the Clintons are famous for.......

This isn't about Rove...

It's about Hillary and the fact that her trustworthy poll numbers are in the toilet...

Michale

The Left defended Bill then as voraciously as they defend Hillary today..

The Left was totally wrong then...

The Left is totally wrong now...

Michale

It's ALL a "vast right wing conspiracy"...

They forced a private server on Hillary Clinton..

The conspiracy forced Hillary to hire some cut-rate broom-closet company who kept the UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF STATE mail server in a bathroom closet...

Hillary is completely innocent...

Anyone who actually believes that is in the VAST minority of this country...

Michale

So tiresome.

Can you tell how much money has been bet?

"betting against Hillary sounds an awesome play!"

BetFair has a horse racing TV channel that I watch and they relentlessly promote their online casino, but I've never looked at their website until now. I have to admit that I don't understand it. Are they giving odds or is it exchange wagering?

On what planet???

Michale

Yea... ZERO sounds about right...

Put another way... Your 77% might be accurate if there wasn't ANY Clinton scandal...

But Clinton is up to her neck in scandals... And more is coming..

drip, drip, drip, drip...

Yea, scandals don't mean a damn thing to the Democrat and Republican kool-aid drinkers...

But they DO mean a LOT to the Independents...

Michale

You are free to offer your own probability, which I'm pretty sure is near zero.

Aye, there's the rub....

as to the e-mails, everyone wants to label everything "the next watergate," and the media have been doing so for the last forty years. i'll believe it when i read the contents, as i'm sure we all eventually will.

No one ever got to hear the missing 18 minutes of the Nixon tape...

That didn't prevent Watergate from being Watergate...

regardless of whether or not the allegations are true, chasing clinton scandals is generally a losing political strategy. so unless the charges stick and hillary actually goes to jail, harping on that stuff is as likely to strengthen the clinton campaign as weaken it.

Has Clinton ever been criminally investigated by the FBI under a DEMOCRAT administration??

The problem ya'all have is the EXACT same problem the Clinton campaign has...

Ignoring the problem and hope it goes away..

Over at BetFair the market is currently putting Hillary's implied odds of winning the nomination at around 77%

Thanx, TS... That's the best laugh I have had all week!! :D

Michale

Liz - as thought experiments, go yours outlined in both 1 and 6 carry a lot of logical freight.

Everybody else. What the hell is your setting for toast? 5% chance of getting the nomination? 10%?
50%? Please put hard numbers on your toaster settings!

Over at BetFair the market is currently putting Hillary's implied odds of winning the nomination at around 77% It's tracking down a little from her high, but hasn't changed much over many months. That doesn't smell like burnt toast to me, but hey, if you know something I don't (definitely possible) or all the punters (less possible), betting against Hillary sounds an awesome play! As a point of comparison, BetFair's highest probability of winning the Republican primary goes to JEB! (at just 40).% JEB! would kill for those numbers.

how about the fact that biden tends to be completely up-front about his views and intentions. perhaps other politicians would flirt this way and waffle that way, but if joe were serious about running he would say so. being as he has not yet said so, i think it's a reasonable conclusion that at the moment he doesn't seem interested. i'm sure he's open to changing his mind, but at the moment it seems like his answer is no thanks.

JL

Well for starters, he hasn't made any statements to indicate he's going to run for president.

JL

Why do you so easily dismiss Biden, saying that he doesn't seem interested?

You know, don't you, that he lives, eats and breaths policy and everything that is still good about the political process ...

I asked it many times before and never got an answer..

Is THIS the best candidate that the Democrat Party can field??

Michale

As the United States Secretary of State, she was using a private email server that was housed in a bathroom closet in a studio-loft of a small start-up....

Are you shitting me!???

The negative ads just write themselves..

Michale

there's the rub, isn't it? sanders is a lightweight, biden doesn't seem interested, and nobody else is even on the map. the likelihood of another "rock star" type like 2008 obama spontaneously showing up is extremely low (and those who feel let-down by the obama presidency are less likely to go that direction even if someone similar did show up). hillary is smart, committed and has the political chops to actually do the job once elected.

as to the e-mails, everyone wants to label everything "the next watergate," and the media have been doing so for the last forty years. i'll believe it when i read the contents, as i'm sure we all eventually will.

regardless of whether or not the allegations are true, chasing clinton scandals is generally a losing political strategy. so unless the charges stick and hillary actually goes to jail, harping on that stuff is as likely to strengthen the clinton campaign as weaken it.

-JL

I don't think that anyone on the Dem side can win...

Clinton has so poisoned the well she has irrevocably damaged the Democrat Party name..

The Dems have such an electoral advantage that this election would have been a shoe-in for any conventional Democrat candidate..

But Hillary has really fraked things up.. Like I said above, we have 14 months until the election.. Does anyone honestly believe that there is GOOD news out there that will erase the bad??

Does anyone really believe that there is an ATTA-BOY out there large enough to erase a million OH-SHITs???

And ANY candidate that steps up to fill the Hillary vacumn will automatically start with a deficit as "the Junior Varsity"....

About the only way a Dem Candidate can prevail is if Trump is the GOP candidate..

And even THAT is not a sure thing...

Which says, more than anything else, how far the Dem Party has fallen...

Michale

Even Hillary Clintonistas are resigned to the fact that their candidate, their "warrior" is mortally wounded...

Michale

I think we can ALL agree that this entire mess could have been avoided if Hillary had just followed the rules like everyone else..

Can we agree on that??

Assuming yes, then her entire judgment is called into question...

All Party loyalty aside, ya'all have to ask yourself one question..

"Do I really want a POTUS with such bad judgment??"

The *ONLY* reason to vote for Hillary *IS* Party Loyalty...

Michale

That's true..

That means we have FOURTEEN MONTHS for more revelations about Hillary to come out..

I mean, honestly.. Do you think that we are going to find out anything GOOD about Hillary in the next 14 months??

As far as the polls.. Yes, if you look at JUST the numbers, Hillary is doing good in the polls..

But, if you look at the TRENDS... If you look at where the polls were 3-6 months ago and compare them to now??

The polls tell a completely different story..

This is a shame, since even Clinton getting nominated will be historic for women. In 2008, she tapped into this energy and it was apparent from her supporters. "First woman president" was a big draw, and it likely will be again for Clinton.

I kinda doubt it... "First xxxxx President" has already happened and it was a big... a HUGE disappointment...

"First"s don't seem to be a very good reason to vote for someone..

So far, the Clinton campaign shows no real evidence of being able to react quickly to much of anything. Time and again, something newsworthy happens and we get nothing but silence from Team Clinton. Then -- usually days later -- Hillary comes out with a pre-parsed answer for how she would have reacted.

Hay, don't blame Hillary... It takes a while to organize focus groups and distill and analyze the results....

{/snark} :D

It smacks of focus-group testing and "Which answer will hurt us the least?" thinking.

Uh.. yea.. Like that... :D

From all appearances, they had literally not considered that their master plan could be flawed or could ever fail. When it did fail, they scrambled for a month before they really got back on their feet again, but by that point it was really too late.

And history is repeating itself with Hillary's Nixon-esque email scandal..

Hillary Clinton needs to get her face in front of the media.

Hillary has a "TWO WEEKS" problem whenever she is actually interviewed...

Which is why her staff is NOT letting her do interviews that they cannot completely control...

Hillary Clinton can indeed be an exciting presidential candidate -- she proved that the last time she ran. She can fire up women in particular (by speaking about the glass ceiling once again, perhaps)

YYAAAAAWWWWNNNNNNNNN

"Vote for me because I am a woman and I will be a First"!!

That just doesn't inspire excitement in Americans these days..

Americans are thinking, "Maybe a "First" is not a good reason to vote for someone..."

"I've heard this bed time story before.."
-Indiana Jones

Great commentary... :D

But I gotta agree with DSWS...

Hillary *IS* toast....

She simply is NOT a good candidate.. She has flaws.. The skeletons in her closet have skeletons in THEIR closets...

And, if by some miracle, she is actually elected POTUS, it will be Nixon all over again....

Michale

She is toast.

Elections are decided by turnout. The winner in a general election is whoever gets their voters to show up, while their opponent's voters don't.

Hillary already has about eighty strikes against her (bringing her to two outs in the ninth, with the last batter at two and oh) because of how absolutely she energizes the Republican base. If she runs her general campaign with the goal of making the Democratic base stay home, she might as well be using her third-string pitcher as well, to ward off any chance of extra innings.

"Don't blame me. I voted for Capuano."
-- Dan Wylie-Sears

The pundit world is gleefully ignoring a few facts, since they are inconvenient to the "Hillary is toast!" talking point.

Actually, it's not nearly as bad as you think. The pundit world isn't really ignoring anything and they don't take their fun with the "Hillary is toast!" tp very seriously, at all.

Do you want to know how I know this? How any Biden supporter knows this?

Because, "Hillary is toast!" only until the discussion turns to a possible third and final Biden presidential run. Then, all of a sudden - in the same breath, even - Hillary not only isn't toast, anymore but, she's actually running a pretty strong campaign.

Meanwhile, a substantive discussion of the issues will have to wait ... for a Biden campaign announcement that he's all in, if ya'll are lucky.