Support NeoGAF

[Joey Fox]

Why should she feel the need to "apologize" to the 'American people"? For what?!? Who gives a shit?

For creating a personal, unsecured email server, likely partially on the government dime, that was probably hacked and definitely contained data that should have been classified at the level reserved for data that might cause exceptionally grave damage to national security if compromised. Lots of people give a shit and way more should.

 

[RustyNails]

Ruh roh. Trump better tread carefully. The base is a lot more tolerant of economic apostasy than they are of social apostasy.

Also, once again Trump proves he's the least shitty Republican presidential candidate.

They're sending Trump to blow up washington. That's all that matters. They want to restart the republic. The guy shat on veterans and came for universal healthcare. If he wanted to, he could have easily said the federal government crossed the line (like he said with McKinley/Denali thing). No externality is going to trip Trump. He has to implode from within.

I get that JEB is behind. I don't get what Bush thinks would happen if he doesn't go after "the clown car?" Does he honestly think Trump or Carson or Huckabee can win the nomination? Surely no one with a team of analysists can believe that...

Jeb is polling around 8%. I'm sure that has to be a factor, especially since Trump seems to be becoming insurmountable with each passing poll.

 

[benjipwns]

Bernie Sanders admits he's a SELLOUT to the powerful and wanted the Iraq War to continue.

And that the only option is to vote 100% for Hillary in the primaries or else we'll get Republicans in power.

Spoiler

fun book kikikiki

 

[thepotatoman]

I get that JEB is behind. I don't get what Bush thinks would happen if he doesn't go after "the clown car?" Does he honestly think Trump or Carson or Huckabee can win the nomination? Surely no one with a team of analysists can believe that...

Why?

The only advantage he has is money and endorsements, but isn't it reasonable to say Trump can spend his own money and endorsements won't mirror the popular vote? There was already debate about whether or not endorsements are the cause or the result of popular opinion, and it's not like republicans are very open to letting establishment republicans influence their decisions right now, even though Bush has been spending the last year or two lobbying for endorsements and donations.

It seems rather foolish to ignore Trump's lead, especially when he's already said a ton of stuff that the usual common sense would assume would destroy him.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I get that JEB is behind. I don't get what Bush thinks would happen if he doesn't go after "the clown car?" Does he honestly think Trump or Carson or Huckabee can win the nomination? Surely no one with a team of analysists can believe that...

Trump needs to steal Carson's voters, keep his own, and get endorsed by Cruz and he probably wins the nomination.

That's not super likely, but it's possible.

Jeb! is fucking despised by everyone who is supporting the super clown car and he'll need their voters over guys like Rubio to win the nomination also so trying to get more popular by trying to be more manly than Trump or something is also a strategy that could work.

And he's terrible at campaigning.

And Trump's constant comments about Jeb! having low T are driving Jeb! insane.

 

[Jack Remington]

Please explain. What's your beef with FOIA (unless you just want the process to be faster, then please proceed)?

It's exploitable for nuisance suits like what's going on with Hillary right now.

In a better world all those suits would get thrown right out. But no, we have to humor a troll group like FreedomWorks.

 

[Oblivion]

For creating a personal, unsecured email server, likely partially on the government dime, that was probably hacked and definitely contained data that should have been classified at the level reserved for data that might cause exceptionally grave damage to national security if compromised. Lots of people give a shit and way more should.

We have no proof that anything was compromised. It was a boneheaded move, but as far as I can tell, it wasn't illegal, and aside from Republicans bitching about it, nothing nefarious has come out of this ordeal.

 

[Jack Remington]

For creating a personal, unsecured email server, likely partially on the government dime, that was probably hacked and definitely contained data that should have been classified at the level reserved for data that might cause exceptionally grave damage to national security if compromised. Lots of people give a shit and way more should.

It was completely legal at the time. Only right wing nutjobs give a shit.

It wasn't boneheaded either. Stop humoring these people, Oblivion.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Why?

The only advantage he has is money and endorsements, but isn't it reasonable to say Trump can spend his own money and endorsements won't mirror the popular vote? There was already debate about whether or not endorsements are the cause or the result of popular opinion, and it's not like republicans are very open to letting establishment republicans influence their decisions right now.

It seems rather foolish to ignore Trump's lead, especially when he's already said a ton of stuff that the usual common sense would assume would destroy him.

Eh, I'm not convinced. Trump has like a >5% chance of winning according to 538. If I were Bush, with the establishment and billions behind me, I'd let Walker and Trump battle it out while I reap the rewards of failed candidates dropping out.

 

[RDreamer]

For creating a personal, unsecured email server, likely partially on the government dime, that was probably hacked and definitely contained data that should have been classified at the level reserved for data that might cause exceptionally grave damage to national security if compromised. Lots of people give a shit and way more should.

For doing exactly what every secretary of state did before her?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Eh, I'm not convinced. Trump has like a >5% chance of winning according to 538. If I were Bush, with the establishment and billions behind me, I'd let Walker and Trump battle it out while I reap the rewards of failed candidates dropping out.

Walker is already dead and buried, Trump ended the war with him after Walker started talking about a Canadian Wall. Walker is battling himself and losing badly.

I'm not sure the other candidates' voters would go for Bush over Rubio or Kasich either.

 

[Jack Remington]

Eh, I'm not convinced. Trump has like a >5% chance of winning according to 538. If I were Bush, with the establishment and billions behind me, I'd let Walker and Trump battle it out while I reap the rewards of failed candidates dropping out.

Walker can't do shit to Trump. He's as helpless as the Babylonians with their swords and fire sticks.

So is Rubio for that matter. I really can't wait for the day Trump turns the heavy guns on that man-child.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Walker is already dead and buried.

I'm not sure the other candidates' voters would go for Bush over Rubio or Kasich either.

All the more reason Bush should use that war chest to paint Rubio and Kasich as negative.

 

[B-Dubs]

Eh, I'm not convinced. Trump has like a >5% chance of winning according to 538. If I were Bush, with the establishment and billions behind me, I'd let Walker and Trump battle it out while I reap the rewards of failed candidates dropping out.

538 is only any good when they're working with hard numbers and historical trends that you can quantify. The analysis of Trump they put forward is based on neither. Nate is good at a lot of things, but traditional punditry is not one of them.

 

[pigeon]

For creating a personal, unsecured email server, likely partially on the government dime, that was probably hacked

What justification do you have for thinking the server was hacked?

and definitely contained data that should have been classified at the level reserved for data that might cause exceptionally grave damage to national security if compromised.

It's kind of fun to watch your talking points evolve from "had classified information" to "had information that should have been classified."

But, I mean, hopefully it's obvious at least to everybody else that, if a piece of information is not classified, there's no reason you would worry about sending it in an email. If that piece of information is later classified, then, I mean, whoops! But it's not really feasible to never send anything on the off chance that it might be classified. Probably your intelligence agencies should do a better job of figuring out what should be classified beforehand. (Leaving aside, of course, the whole argument of whether the information was appropriately classified in the first -- or rather last -- place.)

 

[Joey Fox]

It was completely legal at the time. Only right wing nutjobs give a shit.

It wasn't boneheaded either. Stop humoring these people, Oblivion.

Would it change your mind if someone hacked her emails and killed American service members with the intelligence?! What she did was wrong, it shouldn't matter if it wasn't illegal or if luckily nothing happened. To disagree with that is delusional, dishonest or ignorant.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

538 is only any good when they're working with hard numbers and historical trends that you can quantify. The analysis of Trump they put forward is based on neither. Nate is good at a lot of things, but traditional punditry is not one of them.

Any examples of this? I'm curious.

 

[Jack Remington]

There wasn't anything in the emails that could have compromised American troops. The worst you have is a second-hand account of what some European leader said at a meeting. I mean sure, stuff like that is technically "born classified", but come the fuck on.

This whole thing is a troll scandal.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Would it change your mind if someone hacked her emails and killed American service members with the intelligence?! What she did was wrong, it shouldn't matter if it wasn't illegal or if luckily nothing happened. To disagree with that is delusional, dishonest or ignorant.

Sounds like your what if machine is running at full speed.

 

[pigeon]

Would it change your mind if someone hacked her emails and killed American service members with the intelligence?!

Well, yeah, and it would also change my mind if Hillary personally assassinated Bernie Sanders with Vince Foster's gun, but that seems totally irrelevant to this discussion, because there's no reason to think it could possibly have happened.

edit: I mean, except for Chris Ruddy's new book, obviously.

 

[Joey Fox]

For doing exactly what every secretary of state did before her?

Then they were wrong too! Anyone who did what she did should go down, if you think I give a fuck about political affiliation. I was in the military, my biggest allegiance is to people in harm's way. Most of you talk in here like the only things that matter are social issues. People could have, and who knows may have, died from this. I'm disgusted.

 

[thepotatoman]

Eh, I'm not convinced. Trump has like a >5% chance of winning according to 538. If I were Bush, with the establishment and billions behind me, I'd let Walker and Trump battle it out while I reap the rewards of failed candidates dropping out.

And 538 originally based that opinion entirely on Trump's approval rating, which I did agree with back when his approval rating was terrible. But as his approval rating rose 538 did not change their opinion at all, which is basically the definition of moving the goalposts.

Their current opinion has nothing to do with statistics, only personal opinions.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

And 538 originally based that opinion entirely on Trump's approval rating, which I did agree with back when his approval rating was terrible. But as his approval rating rose 538 did not change their opinion at all, which is basically the definition of moving the goalposts.

Their current opinion has nothing to do with statistics, only personal opinions.

How in the name of god do people still get favorable and approval rating mixed up to this day.

Then they were wrong too! Anyone who did what she did should go down, if you think I give a fuck about political affiliation. I was in the military, my biggest allegiance is to people in harm's way. Most of you talk in here like the only things that matter are social issues. People could have, and who knows may have, died from this. I'm disgusted.

Given that none of the e-mail that were retroactively deemed classified contained any information like this that we're aware of. Your disgust is premature and not necessary at this time.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

And 538 originally based that opinion entirely on Trump's approval rating, which I did agree with back when his approval rating was terrible. But as his approval rating rose 538 did not change their opinion at all, which is basically the definition of moving the goalposts.

Their current opinion has nothing to do with statistics, only personal opinions.

I don't think that's true at all. They based it on unfavorability, not on approval.

Also, they're one of the only outlets who don't let their personal opinions get in the way of statistics.

 

[thepotatoman]

How in the name of god do people still get favorable and approval rating mixed up to this day.

Sorry, the difference has never been that big of a deal to me.

I don't think that's true at all. They based it on unfavorability, not on approval.

Also, they're one of the only outlets who doesn't let their personal opinions get in the way of statistics.

I was obviously talking about favorability, and yes his favorability did rise. Bam Bam was just being nitpicky about the wording.

 

[Oblivion]

Wait, is Joey Fox a legit conservative?

If so, can you explain to me what the actual scandal is with Benghazi as well? I've been waiting for an answer for 3 years now.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I was obviously talking about favorability, and yes his favorability did rise. Bam Bam was just being nitpicky about the wording.

They measure two almost completely different things. For instance, Bill Clinton had a great approval rating but a much worse favorable rating during his infidelity scandal.

So the difference matters.

 

[Joey Fox]

Wait, is Joey Fox a legit conservative?

If so, can you explain to me what the actual scandal is with Benghazi as well? I've been waiting for an answer for 3 years now.

Doesn't conservatism have to do with small government and low taxes? I don't care about those things. What I care about is the military and IT security. I wasn't paying attention during Benghazi, but I'll read up to let you know my opinion on it. It's mentioned in the FOIA emails so who knows what was on the server that could have been hacked beforehand.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

I was obviously talking about favorability, and yes his favorability did rise. Bam Bam was just being nitpicky about the wording.

But that's not what I'm talking about. Their analysis was based on how many people have an unfavorable view of Trump. That hasn't gone down as his favorables have gone up. Their claim is that with so many people disliking him, his poll numbers will start to drop as the herd thins. It makes sense, statistically, which is why I'm surprised the posters here seem to think he has enough of a shot for others to be worried about.

 

[Jack Remington]

Wait, is Joey Fox a legit conservative?

If so, can you explain to me what the actual scandal is with Benghazi as well? I've been waiting for an answer for 3 years now.

The scandal is Obama won the 2012 election.

That's literally it.

What they're looking for in those emails is something to explain how Democrats stole something that was so clearly and rightfully theirs.

The whole Benghazi fixation is basically John Cusack in High Fidelity.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

But that's not what I'm talking about. Their analysis was based on how many people have an unfavorable view of Trump. That hasn't gone down as his favorables have gone up. Their claim is that with so many people disliking him, his poll numbers will start to drop as the herd thins. It makes sense, statistically, which is why I'm surprised the posters here seem to think he has enough of a shot for others to be worried about.

Trump is at a +32 among Republicans right now:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/gallup-poll-trump-favorability-surges-with-republicans

He won over the people who despised him by hating Mexicans.

 

[benjipwns]

It's exploitable for nuisance suits like what's going on with Hillary right now.

In a better world all those suits would get thrown right out. But no, we have to humor a troll group like FreedomWorks.

It's hard as fuck to get FOIA's and the government obstructs them at every turn*. And you have to fucking pay for them. (The government demanded millions from the AP for basic records before a court forced them to hand over at a reasonable price.) And there's more exceptions than I can count. (Especially with state versions, which I worked on the evil side of for two years. I couldn't have sabotaged it if I tried.)

Three Presidential Administrations from both parties spent millions to try and block and FOIA access to Iran-Contra. (And the H.W. Bush Administration tried to destroy the records as a "favor" to the Clinton Administration.)

The FBI and other government agencies spent like twenty five years trying to block the release of papers about fucking John Lennon of all people. All of this after both he and Hoover were dead. They fight these things like mad.**

The occasional "nuisance" suit isn't reason to gut it.

*Including the now infamous fake e-mail users:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/emails-top-obama-appointees-remain-mystery
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/04/us-officials-secret-email-accounts
http://www.chillingeffects.org/uncat/weather.cgi?WeatherID=760

**http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-palmer/facts-fudge-foia_b_17888.html

To get answers to some of my questions, I filed half a dozen Freedom of Information Act requests with the US Agency for International Development, the State Department, the Marines, and the Army between May and July 2005.

I asked USAID for documents on reconstruction in Babil. Eight months and more than a dozen follow-up phone calls later, I have received nothing. Nothing except a December 2005 letter, which reads:

"This is in response to your several inquiries regarding the status of your request and specifically your request of today. We are encountering delays in the processing of your request. Processing has been delayed because of a severe backlog due to our inundation of Iraq requests."

Perhaps some of folks who work on USAID's glossy up-with-people "Iraq Reconstruction Weekly Report" - "the Iraq Investment Promotion Agency opened for business last week," trumpets the current issue - should be reassigned to the FOIA division.

I am especially interested in probing USAID because of a curious and upsetting visit I had with one its officers and two Marines in the summer of 2004. The USAID rep had just returned to the State Department's regional headquarters in the city of Hilla after a few weeks of leave. She had a problem, she told her visitors (and me). The budget for the temporary employment program she funded in Babil had swelled inexplicably from $200,000 to $400,000 during her absence, possibly because higher-ups had decided to up funding without speaking to her.

She couldn't investigate whether the program was actually working because USAID and State Department staffers were prohibited from traveling to the area. It was too dangerous. The officer didn't trust the Iraqi subcontractor hired to run the program to tell her truth. So she asked the overtaxed Marines to take a peek at her project. Major Tom West, a Marine civil affairs officer, couldn't promise her anything. West, an earnest USMC reservist and real-life Beverly Hills, CA, cop, was the Corp's pointman for civil-affairs work in Babil. He had more than a plateful of his own initiatives.

So the USAID officer said something startling: She told us she might simply cancel the project. Or, she ventured, she might just let it run, corrupt or not. The Marines offered no opinion, but West, not the most stunnable guy, looked as shocked as I felt. If the project is actually putting food on Iraqi tables, I thought, then her summary decision could starve people. But if the program is lining a Babil fat cat's pockets and she lets it continue, American taxpayers will get screwed - and Iraqis will become even more cynical about the US occupation. Weeks later, I asked her via email what she had done. She wouldn't tell me. I couldn't get an answer from a Washington, DC-based USAID public affairs officer, either.

The State Department is just as bad. I FOIAed State in June 2005 for documents about their International Police Liaison Program, State's great push to train Iraqi cops to take over security from the US. Earlier in 2005 at the Marine base in Babil, I asked one of State's cop trainers how many of his number were assigned to the province. Five, the gentleman told me. FIVE American cops to rebuild Iraqi police forces in a swath of the country with 950,000 people, and with more than a dozen separate police forces. The absurdity of this blew me away. Five? That's not even a token effort; it's a joke. (The current police-training flavor-of-the-month is the US Army's program to embed Military Transition Teams with Iraqi police forces, a policy settled on after news broke that rogue Shi'a police units were allegedly acting as death squads.) More than nine months after FOIAing documents on the liaison program and a dozen-plus follow-up calls, I have received nothing from State. The FOIA department is horribly backlogged and in disarray, I am told.

It's tragic: the very information that might help Americans determine whether Bush Administration promises are being kept is either being withheld or, if I accept USAID's explanation, is stuck in the clogged FOIA pipeline.

I have, however, had little FOIA successes. US Third Army (Central Command) sent me a copy of a video briefing US troops receive after entering the Iraq theater. Helpful tips contained therein: "Do not stare at the women," "shake hands firmly," and "punctuality is not necessarily their priority."

Third Army/Central Command denied my request for a copy of the Rules of Engagement under which US forces operate. Of course, I already had both the ROE and the rules for the use of force, which are printed on green and white cards, respectively. Newly arrived troops get them as soon as they deplane in Kuwait. As if the "insurgents", who study US forces every day, don't know from experience exactly what the ROE are. Most "insurgents" probably have hard copies, anyway: I found a pair of the cards in a mud puddle on the Marine base in Babil, a base that was open to Iraqis with proper ID when I was there.

Second Marine Division supplied me with a handful of preliminary investigation reports into civilian casualties at the hands of Marines during the BLT's 2004-05 deployment. There are two constants in the reports: no disciplinary or judicial action is recommended against Marines who mistakenly injure or kill civilians, and no Iraqi testimony is included. Some of these shoots may have been "righteous," as the grunts would phrase it - justified or understandable. But some might not be. We'll never know, and we'll probably never hear the Iraqi side of the story.

The Corps also turned over heavily redacted paperwork I requested on five Marines killed in action during that tour. Only one of five documents contains information I hadn't already read in public sources or learned from my own reporting. "Purple heart is recommended," each report concludes. The Marine Corps denied my request for more detailed documents covering the circumstances of their deaths because, in the USMC's words, releasing such reports "could result in an affront to the sensitivities of surviving next of kin." This information is therefore exempt under FOIA, the letter states.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

Trump is at a +32 among Republicans right now:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/gallup-poll-trump-favorability-surges-with-republicans

He won over the people who despised him by hating Mexicans.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that as more candidates drop out, their votes will go towards a Bush-type of nominee. Trump can't overcomb his unfavorable rating.

Edit: I'm off to bed. Maybe there's something I'm misunderestimating.

 

[benjipwns]

Wait, is Joey Fox a legit conservative?

If so, can you explain to me what the actual scandal is with Benghazi as well? I've been waiting for an answer for 3 years now.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=177533237&postcount=19523 *winks*

Oh wait, you want what the "conservative" version of the scandal is? Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack quick enough. And he probably let it happen. Which is why he didn't rush the 101st Airborne in to save Ambassador Stevens. (Who it should be noted has never been allowed to testify before the House Select Committee.)

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

But that doesn't take away from the fact that as more candidates drop out, their voted will go towards a Bush-type of nominee. Trump can't overcomb his unfavorable rating.

Jeb is even more fucked in that category though:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...bfd45ca-5161-11e5-b225-90edbd49f362_page.html

 

[thepotatoman]

But that's not what I'm talking about. Their analysis was based on how many people have an unfavorable view of Trump. That hasn't gone down as his favorables have gone up. Their claim is that with so many people disliking him, his poll numbers will start to drop as the herd thins. It makes sense, statistically, which is why I'm surprised the posters here seem to think he has enough of a shot for others to be worried about.

And which recent poll is his favorability worse than Bush's among republicans? YouGov for instance has 50/32 for Bush and 67/30 for Trump among republicans. And in that that washington post survey linked by ItWasMeantToBe19, Bush is 57/39 and Trump is 59/38 among republicans. If it's all about favorability, it seems like Bush is the one that should worry right now.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that as more candidates drop out, their votes will go towards a Bush-type of nominee. Trump can't overcomb his unfavorable rating.

Edit: I'm off to bed. Maybe there's something I'm misunderestimating.

His favorable and unfavorable rating is now doing better than Bush, making that argument not make sense anymore. 538 hasn't made any update on the matter of favorability ratings since it no longer was useful to use as ammo against Trump, but that doesn't mean pollsters stopped measuring favorability.

Your argument did make sense before his favorable rating rose. I even made the exact same argument 2 months ago. But his favorable rating changed.

They measure two almost completely different things. For instance, Bill Clinton had a great approval rating but a much worse favorable rating during his infidelity scandal.

So the difference matters.

Ok, but I assume no one is measuring Trump's approval rating. That's something that seems reserved for incumbent politicians.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Also, this Gallup poll is fascinating and bad news.

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/185315/dissecting-trump-image-among-gop-men-women.aspx

Since Trump released the policy paper on deporting brown people, his favorability among GOP men has surged after being flat for weeks.

 

[Retromelon]

All this foia talk.
What was in the blue room that was destroyed in 1965 on the wright patterson airforce base
The truth is out there

 

[benjipwns]

All this foia talk.
What was in the blue room that was destroyed in 1965 on the wright patterson airforce base
The truth is out there

All I can tell you is that it was Clinton's trump card in the Dayton Accords.

I've probably said too much.

 

[Retromelon]

Man don't even joke this is serious.
This is the scariest quote i have ever read, probably. "There is a secret government inside the government, and i don't control it." - Bill Clinton

How am i going to sleep now

 

[benjipwns]

"You can't say you love your country and hate your government." - Bill Clinton, 1995.

"Let me tell you something -- wait a minute. You know one things that's wrong with this country? Everybody gets a chance to have their fair say." - Bill Clinton, 1993

We have to go deeper.

Spoiler

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time - never. These allegations are false." - Bill Clinton, 1998.

 

[Retromelon]

Deeper?

 

[watershed]

Doesn't conservatism have to do with small government and low taxes? I don't care about those things. What I care about is the military and IT security. I wasn't paying attention during Benghazi, but I'll read up to let you know my opinion on it. It's mentioned in the FOIA emails so who knows what was on the server that could have been hacked beforehand.

From your posts it reads like you are trying to find reasons to be angry about Hillary Clinton's use of personal email for government work. It sounds like you haven't found any reasons yet so you have invented hypotheticals to fuel your sense of outrage.

The email thing is a complete non-issue used by republicans to attack Clinton (like Benghazi where some republicans want to believe both Hillary and Obama were sitting around watching Americans die and purposefully withholding troops who could have saved those lives) and a story for the media because there are literally no other interesting "scandals" in the democratic primary.

 

[benjipwns]

lol at Taibbi's account of meeting with Truthers in a diner after writing a blog post calling their theories insane

Deeper?

the master at work

 

[benjipwns]

Everybody wants a fence with Mexico!
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...01si63uzmv/tabs_OPI_Border_Fence_20150902.pdf

 

[benjipwns]

Andrea Mitchell asked some really good, hard questions: http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchel...-one-on-one-with-hillary-clinton-519588419510

Bernie not taking it lying down:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) fired back at Hillary Clinton Friday afternoon in response to a subtle dig his Democratic presidential rival made during an NBC interview earlier in the day.

"I think you can come with your own ideas and you can wave your arms and give a speech,” Clinton told NBC's Andrea Mitchell, referring to both Sanders and Donald Trump. "But are you connecting with and really hearing what people are either saying to you or wishing that you would say to them?”

A Sanders spokesman responded with a subtle dig of his own, directing attention to the record-setting number of supporters who attend the Vermont senator’s rallies.

“Bernie is doing more than attracting large crowds,” the spokesman said. “He has a concrete set of proposals to take on the billionaire class and rebuild the disappearing middle class. That’s what people are responding to.”

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Trump winning 25% of the black vote. Can't imagine this being wrong.

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

For a GOP candidate that's supposedly winning the largest share of black voters since 55+ years ago his crowds aren't the diverse melting pot you'd think they'd be.

 

[benjipwns]

Meanwhile at the 1968 Republican Convention...

Spoiler

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

My god, I just remembered that SUSA poll which had Romney winning 30% of the black vote in NC in 2012. It was good times.

 

[BertramCooper]