5 Reasons Hillary Won't Run

Ohio is a must win along with Florida, Virginia and North Carolina. This was where a pre-bridgegate Christie was so valuable. He could have take NJ's 14 electoral votes away from the Democrat and put them into the GOP column, then he probably could have place Penn, Conn and NH into the toss up or swing state column.

Kasich I think would make a good candidate, but Portman would do better as VP. Perhaps a Kasich/Martinez ticket if Susanna wins re-election as governor of New Mexico, that could be another 5 EV's in the GOP column

 

Here is some more for you to consider.....we have discussed before what are the Demos problems. They aren't saying it for nothing and you know it.


As Netroots Nation Drinks Up Democrat Kool-Aid, AFL-CIO Warns This Could Be A 'Powerful' GOP Year.....

As Katie Glueck of Politico wrote last Sunday, the faithful liberals who attended Netroots Nation last week are eating up the messaging national Democrats are spewing into the airwaves:

Hot Air’s Noah Rothman aptly noted the role single women could play in the midterm elections; these ladies could seriously ruin GOP plans to retake the Senate. Then again, the projected turnout rate for unmarried women isn’t good; a one-third drop from 2012 levels.

But what about the working class vote? In fact, this bloc of voters has just as much sway, if not more so, than single women in national elections. Molly Ball of the Atlantic wrote yesterday that, “for the past decade, the working-class vote has determined whether the country swung toward Democrats or Republicans.”



It seems even the unions aren’t too optimistic about this year’s midterm elections. Ball spoke with AFL-CIO political director Mike Podhorzer, who compiled the data with working class voters and found that the GOP wins voters making over $50,000 frequently, while Democrats have a lock on voters making under $50,000. But, the margin of victory is volatile with this bloc of Democratic voters, where a victory by a 10-point or 20-point margin dictates how elections are won, according to Ball:

51 percent of voters making less than $50,000 plan to vote for Democrats, while 40 percent plan to vote Republican. (The rest are undecided, and the GOP wins the more-than-$50,000 vote 49-44.) That's exactly the same 11-point margin that has meant Democratic doom in every election since 2004.

Democrats, Podhorzer said, still need to find a way to frame the election in terms of "who's on your side." They haven't done it so far. If they can't, Podhorzer said, "This is going to be another Republican year, in a powerful way."

Oh, and the health insurance premium figures are to be released in the fall of this year, in the days leading up to Election Day.....snip~

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...ns-this-could-be-a-powerful-gop-year-n1865742



It doesn't look good at all for the Demos.....that's despite the MS media's fiddling around with Polls and the BO-bot Kool-aid.

 

I have heard most of that, but as of yet I do not see it. Back in July of 2010 most pundits we predicting a 20 seat loss for the Dems in the House and perhaps 5 in the senate. At the end of July 2010 the Republicans lead in the generic congressional poll 45-41 and ended up the day before the election with a 51-41 lead. Today the Democrats hold a 42-40 advantage. But going district by district, it looks like the Republicanss will gain 2-5 seats in the house. In the senate, the 4-5 seat gain looks realistic for the Republicans, just short of what they need to take control.

Of course there is still 3 months to go and all of the above could change. Here is the latest from the professionals:

1 Professional Prognosticators Senate predictions as of 24 July 2014. Current senate consists of 55 Democratic held seats 45 Republican held seats.
Charlie Cook 45 Democratic 46 Republican: Tossups (7 Democratic held seats) Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, and North Carolina. (2 Republican held seats) Georgia and Kentucky (Democrat to Republican West Virginia, Montana, South Dakota) (No Republican to Democratic seats)

For the Republicans to take control of the senate according to Cook, they must retain Georgia and Kentucky and win 3 of the 7 Democratic held seats he lists as tossups.


EP 48 Republican 52 Democratic: No toss ups (Democrat to Republican Arkansas, Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota) (Republican to Democratic seats Georgia)

EP states the Democrats retain the senate.


Nate Silver 538, 50 Republican 48 Democratic: Tossups (2 Democratic held seats Alaska and North Carolina. (Democrat to Republican Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia). (No Republican to Democratic seats.)

Nate says the Republican’s must win 1 of the two seats he lists as tossups to gain control of the senate.

RCP 51 Republicans 49 Democrat (Democrat to Republican, Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia) (Republican to Democratic, Georgia)

RCP predicts the Republicans gain control of the senate.

Rothenberg 49 Democrat 49 Republican: Tossup (2 Democratic held seats) Iowa and Louisiana (Democrat to Republican, West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana, Arkansas) (No Republican to Democrat seats)

For Stuart Rothenberg the Republicans can gain the senate by winning the two tossup Democratic held states of Louisiana and North Carolina. The Democrats will remain in control if they just win one of the two tossups.

Sabato 47 Democrat 48 Republican: 5 Tossups (5 Democratic Held seats) Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, North Carolina, Louisiana (Democratic to Republican, West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana) (No Republican to Democratic seats)

It comes down for the Republicans to win 3 of the 5 tossup seats if they are to gain control of the senate per Larry Sabato.

House of Representatives: Currently 234 Republican 201 Democrat. 218 seats needed for a majority.

Cook: Republicans 232, Democrat 190 Tossups 2 Republican held seats, 11 Democratic held seats
EP: Republicans 233, Democrat 202 no Tossups Democrats gain 1 seat
Silver: No House predictions as of yet.
RCP: Republicans 230, Democrat 188 Tossups 4 Republican held seats, 13 Democratic held seats
Rothenberg: Republicans 232, Democrat 197 Tossups 2 Republican held seats, 5 Democratic held seats
Sabato: Republican 231, Democrat 195 Tossups 3 Republican held seats, 6 Democratic held seats.

If you look at these numbers, the Republicans will probably gain 2-5 seats.

 

This is about her not half a century of past American politics, your statement is looking forward. What assures you she will make a great President when she was such a lousy SecState even she can't cite any accomplishments?

You know it continues to be quite telling how her supporters and even her cannot give good reasons she would make a good president and have to resort to vague cliche's as you did.

Yes are you denying he submitted a false affidavit into a federal court proceeding?

For what was he held in contempt of court, lost his license to practice law, lost the ability to practice before the SCOTUS and plea bargained with the OIC?

Hardly and they certainly had better qualifications. BAsed on Taft....ROFL. I think Obama has proven he has no concern for the Constitution nor understanding of it (the students at his lectures gave him very low marks) and our government officials adhering to it but then you might think that makes a good justice, being able to ignore the Constitution.

 

one cannot develop any prescience about the future if one does not understand and appreciate the past. You should understand that, if someone fits your concept of what a future president ought to be like, they do, and if they don't, they just don't. Nothing I could ever say to you would get you to change your mind about Hillary, and vice versa.

In our country, we are all innocent of any crime until proven guilty in court of committing that crime. Bill Clinton is presumed innocent of the crime of felony perjury for the simple reason that he has never been found guilty of committing that crime in a court of law. See?

for the purposes of our discussion, it is more germane to point out what he was NOT punished for, and it was most certainly NOT for committing the felonious crime of perjury.

opinions about his qualifications may differ. Imagine that.

 

What? Clinton was disbarred because he committed perjury.

 

He's intentionally inflicting so much damage on our country and our culture, his intent is that no one will be able to undo it. It's pure and intentional malice. If the general pubic was better informed, he, Holder, and Jarrett would be in a federal prison by now. And what is being done to children in these detention facilities (neglect and isolation, separation of family members who came here together, then dumping them "wherever") is no less than crimes against humanity.

Will he (or Hillary, for that matter) ever be held to account for their incompetence, cover-ups, and dirty deeds in foreign and domestic policy?

 

What an absurd thing to hold against her. She was his defense attorney, what was she meant to do? "Judge, I know I'm defending this man, but lock him away he's a rapist".

I'm all against Clinton don't get me wrong, but this is just stupid. Pick better reasons.

 

Clinton was never found guilty of the crime of perjury. sorry.

 

Okay, for any carpet-munchers who rather contrive excuses for Hillary Clinton not running than find a clean and sober opponent for her, I'll add yet another:

She is insanely jealous of Sarah Palin's stellar career in show business, is dazzled by all that glitz and glamour, and would rather challenge Lady SaPa head-on to be accorded the tilte, "The Next Chuch Barris."​

 

Oh....that!

That hardly counts (to leftist apologists).

 

So you can't give any good reasons......gotcha

It was proven he submitted a false affidavit are you denying he did so yes or no?

It was proven in Judges Wrights court, are you denying he submitted a false affidavit yes or no

No it is quite germane, for what was he held in contempt of court and why is he forbidden fro practicing law before the SCOTUS?

 

For what was he held in contempt of court and why is he forever forbidden to practice law before the SCOTUS? What did he plea bargain with Ray? And did he or did he not submit a false affidavit into a federal court proceeding?

 

I think we have a plausible hypothesis that Bill Clinton will not be running for the Presidency of the United States (despite the record approval the American public accords him.)

 

I see no reason to try to convince you to vote for Hillary when it is abundantly clear that you never will.

I am denying that he was ever found guilty of the crime of perjury.

asked and answered.

not for being guilty of the crime of perjury.

- - - Updated - - -

that's all irrelevant when determining whether or not he was ever found guilty of the crime of perjury.... which he was not.

 

You mean that he didn't have a trial and was found guilty; it was adjudicated by the state bar and he admitted his guilt. The way you phrased it is rather indicative of someone who is less interested in the truth and more interested in generating useless talking points. As you wrote:

"In our country, we are all innocent of any crime until proven guilty in court of committing that crime. Bill Clinton is presumed innocent of the crime of felony perjury for the simple reason that he has never been found guilty of committing that crime in a court of law. See?"

That just isn't true. The courts grant the accused a presumption of innocence, we are not "innocent" of crimes until proven guilty. He admitted his guilt, it was handled by the state bar level, and he was disbarred, unless you think he lied when he admitted his guilt and the state bar was wrong.

 

and it's noteworthy to mention that Bill's administrative suspension from the bar was only for five years. He has been eligible to regain all his professional rights and privileges since 2006. Clearly, he is not all that interested in practicing law at this moment. However... if a job on the SCOTUS were to be offered to him, I would imagine he might reconsider.

- - - Updated - - -

He admitted that he made a false affidavit. That, in and of itself, was seen as grounds to administratively remove his license for five years. It was NOT adjudicated to be criminal perjury, however.

 

The question is about him being appointed to the SCOTUS.

 

Not about convincing me it's about convincing yourself and the basis for you doing so which is apparently quite lacking.

What you are doing is dodging as you are about everything. Yes the court held him guilty and in contempt and fined him $90,000 and he lost his license to practice law and he plea bargained it with the OIC.

Again are you denying he submitted a false affidavit into a federal court proceeding, yes or no?

Dodged, yes or no?

What did he do to be held in contempt of court and to be forbidden from practicing law before the SCOTUS?

No it is quite relevant what did he do and why did Judge Wright hold him in contempt, what did she say he did?

You can try to jump through your specious semantical hoops all you want the fact is the court did find him guilty of a crime and he faced heavy sanctions for it. So admit what he did. You do know what prima facie evidence is don't you? You do know that entering a false affidavit is prima facie evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice. You do know a federal court found he did exactly that and applied legal sanctions to him, the AR bar agreed and applied a heavy sanction for it and he no longer can practice law before the SCOTUS because of it.

I said he committed felonies and you said he didn't, what is your evidence he did not submit the false affidavit?

 

So what?

No he hasn't, he can never practice law before the SCOTUS and yet some say he should become a justice? How absurd.

Why would anyone other than his wife even consider something so stupid and do you really think someone who is barred from practice before the court should serve on it, be confirmed by the Senate?

Yes a felony.

Perjury none the less and there is no difference between civil and criminal perjury other than the punishment that can be applied. He plea bargain getting a criminal penalty admitting he had committed the offense.

So what felonies did he commit? Perjury and obstruction of justice, witness tampering, subornation of perjury as was found by a federal court and to which he plea bargained.

- - - Updated - - -

It was also handled by the federal court which applied sanctions accordingly.

 

So finally you admit that he admitted he committed perjury!

Getting simple truth from you guys is always a struggle, but some are more dishonest than others. I'm glad you self identified yourself so people are warned to not take you seriously.

 

Really? Who proposed nominating him?

I had thought the thread's topic was, " 5 Reasons Hillary Won't Run," a reassuring placebo for folks who are upset by the prospect of her being elected the next president and have no viable alternative to promote.

 

I am unaware of his having been ever been convicted of such an offense, or having ever confessed to having committed perjury. If you have a link to either, please provide it.

I don't see how his legal entanglements would now prevent Hillary from running for president, so what is the relevance?

 

Scroll back.

 

Sigh once again, did he or did he not submit a false affidavit in a federal court? Was he not held in contempt of court for doing so? Did he lose his license to practice law for doing do? Did he forever lose the right to practice law before the SCOTUS for doing so?

In his plea bargain.

What are you denying is true in the above?