Posted on 10/03/2016 8:29:41 AM PDT by Rusty0604
This morning's Drudge Report leads with what looks like a brutal story for Bill Clinton, who isn't running for President.
The story links to the Facebook page of Danney Williams, who claims to be the child of former President Bill Clinton. His Facebook page includes the following picture:
Williams first came to the scene in 1992, when a tabloid published a story alleging Clinton's paternity. In 1999, a paternity test proved that Clinton was not the father, as the conservative publication Accuracy in Media recounts:
A claim by Bobbie Ann Williams, a Little Rock prostitute, that her son, Danny, was fathered by Bill Clinton has been proven false by DNA analysis. Star, the tabloid that first published Gennifer Flowers' claim that she had been one of Clinton's lovers, was reported to have paid Williams “a low six-figure” sum for exclusive rights to the story. It arranged to have Danny's DNA checked against that of the President.
Drudge then links to a video from Infowars, where Trump adviser Roger Stone has a whopper of a claim: the paternity test doesn't exist:
But now for the two weird bits:
1) The original site to break the news of the paternity test? The Drudge Report
Drudge is renowned for being a fresh source of news, and he's usually loathe to put stale content on his site. During October before Election Day, the homepage of the conservative internet has a lead story hinging on a Facebook page that's been up for some time, and using source material of a video that InfoWars published in January.
So, that presents the obvious question.
What does Matt Drudge know that we don't?
(Excerpt) Read more at ijr.com ...
Time will tell... Until then we will just disagree.
I haven’t seen this as a squeaker since day oneZ. Obama did not have the enthusiasm in 12 as 8 but he had ton more enthusiasm than Hillary has. You seem to think Obama’s drop in 12 was to a level equal to Hillary and it wasn’t nearly that bad Obama may not have been feeling stadiums in 12 but he wasn’t talking to empty halls like Hillary is.
She won’t get close to Obama did in 12.
Then make Bill state that he’s not Chelsea’s biological father. He will have to admit that he’s known about this all these years, which makes him deceitful. Either that or he’s a horn dog who impregnated a black prostitute and then abandoned his child because Hillary demanded it.
You underestimate the Dem GOTV ability along with voter fraud.
No I don’t, I fully expect fraud, but I also don’t think you realize how incredibly toxic Hillary is, particularly in the rust belt. Hillary will certainly win Philly, but I don’t expect it to be nearly the margin she will need, fraud and all, to overwhelm the rest of the state.
I also don’t think you remotely understand the dynamics and decimation that “free” trade has created throughout the rust belt, and the secondary whammy Obamacare has put on those trying to survive in its wake.
Here a pretty good article about what has been going on in the small towns that make up the rust belt for the last 20 year, and what the people there have been dealing with.
The Republicans with their adherence to “free” trade dogma have prevented a natural realignment that has been long overdue in these states. Trumps dumping of this dogma can be the beginning, if not wasted on that realignment if republicans aren’t so stupid as to waste it. If handled properly the rust belt could become as reliable red as the south in a few cycles.
This is another good representative capture of the ground in PA... What locally are being Calle Trumpocrats. But even this term isn’t exactly right... As life time blue collar and working class democrats are coming to recognize the party no longer represents them... And are moving from disenfranchised to republican.. Most are completely missing this, and/or just chaulking it up to the dynamic of Trump and Hillary and not seeing it’s a much deeper and longer term thing going on.
http://nypost.com/2016/09/26/the-best-debate-takes-come-from-inside-the-bar/
There is zero inmate enthusiasm for Clinton, even the most ardent Democrats here offer no argument for her, only “she’s not Trump”. That’s not going to get it done.
Again, I think you are simply stuck on “this is how it always is” thinking, and just like every pundit in the Primary season came come to grips with the fact the old rules aren’t reliable here, because this is a disruptive cycle. Standard modeling, Trump should have never been nominee... Yet here we are... Standard modeling say Hillary should be blowing this out of the water... She’s not.
Take away the Trump and Hillary dynamic and go to standard modeling and you should have a tight race with a republican slight lead.. Bad economy, party in power shooting for 3rd term... Domestic and foreign unrest. All those point to the D being in an uphill battle to maintain under traditional modeling.
But we are Aywhere but in a traditional model. Ask yourself this, before the whole primary started, what was the one common thing nearly everyone said on both sides of the aisle? All I heard from anyone who remotely was into politics or would voice and opinion was “No Clinton,No Bush”. That was universal... Now you want to think this general view hasn’t changed?
Trump has maintained a lead among independents of 10-20 points since last year in polling, even when the polls claim he’s behind every internal I’ve seen that broke down has this lead consistent. Every internal I’ve seen pretty much shows Hillary has no more than a low 40s level of support max... Her only hope of a win is to keep Trumps numbers below that.. And it’s not going to happen.
Trump has had momentum since last year, Hillary has shown zero momentum at any time in this race. Yet you think it will be a squeaker for her? Only if Trump self destructs.
Anyone who wasn’t committed to Hillary long ago isn’t likely to vote for her... She’s a know entity, nothing she says and does will sway voters to her.
Again time will tell, you can keep your, this election is the same as 2012 glasses on, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that this cycle is anything but typical. In a few weeks we will see where it all lies.
So Wikileaks came and went and as I expected nothing....
O-Keefe may have something, but forgive me if I keep the same, I’ll believe it when I see it to any claims on that too.
I also don’t think you remotely understand the dynamics and decimation that “free” trade has created throughout the rust belt, and the secondary whammy Obamacare has put on those trying to survive in its wake.
How you can make such assertions is beyond me. You know nothing about me.
There is zero inmate enthusiasm for Clinton, even the most ardent Democrats here offer no argument for her, only “she’s not Trump”. That’s not going to get it done.
The polling does not reflect it in terms of who is winning. Hillary remains ahead significantly in PA if you can believe the Franklin and Marshall poll released today. We can argue about the reliability of the polls, but Trump is behind in most of them at the national level. The battleground polls show a very close race. I reiterate my statement that if Trump wins, it will be close and if Hillary wins, it will be a blowout. The Dem GOTV is very strong. I have seen it time and again in NoVA where I was both an election officer and poll watcher for over 20 years. And changing demographics are a critical factor along with voter fraud.
Take away the Trump and Hillary dynamic and go to standard modeling and you should have a tight race with a republican slight lead.. Bad economy, party in power shooting for 3rd term... Domestic and foreign unrest. All those point to the D being in an uphill battle to maintain under traditional modeling.
This is not a traditional race. It remains to be seen how influential Obama is in shaping the race given his above 50% approval ratings. He has devoted most of October along with his wife to the campaign trail on behalf of Hillary. And the fact that many of the GOPe like the Bushes, Kasich, Graham, and others are either not supporting Trump or mocking him, is not helpful.
But we are Aywhere but in a traditional model. Ask yourself this, before the whole primary started, what was the one common thing nearly everyone said on both sides of the aisle? All I heard from anyone who remotely was into politics or would voice and opinion was “No Clinton,No Bush”. That was universal... Now you want to think this general view hasn’t changed?
First, that was the primary. Clinton has been much more effective with her operations research along with support from virtually all of the MSM. When you have newspapers that never endorse a Dem in their history, endorsing Hillary, it undermines support from independents and the country club Reps. Second, it all depends on turnout.
Again time will tell, you can keep your, this election is the same as 2012 glasses on, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that this cycle is anything but typical. In a few weeks we will see where it all lies.
We have a better shot at winning than in 2012 or 2008. However, the Dem political machine is better organized and funded than ours. And they have the added advantage of a partisan MSM along with the domination of the education system and pop culture. And then there is demography that each year adds more Dem voters while we die out. Trump's outreach to blacks could be a game changer,
The filthy degenerate Clintons use sex issues to distract people. The Clintons are probably the source of raising these issues. The porn star from Venezuela is the latest distraction raised by the Clinton filth. There is no way these devils did not know the entire history of this porn queen before they pushed her on the public. Poor creature is too stupid to know the extent of her being used and tossed aside.
Really? I got up this morning and watched the entire interview in real time. My take is far different than yours. Assange said he will release all the US election material before November 8 and the first batch will be released this week. Let's see what happens this week before writing Wikileaks off.
In response to a question, Assange said that he would not be announcing the release of US related material at 3 am US time. He also said that the Internet was running wild with speculation claiming things that Wikileaks never said.
Wikileaks will be releasing material every week for the next 10 weeks covering a variety of topics besides the US elections.
F&M poll is laughable, If you buy that poll you are saying Hillary will outperform Obama in 12, and if you believe that, you are truly not paying attention. Polls are polls, they say what they say, that does not mean they are accurate, or depicting what is actually going on... Dewey defeats Truman and all that rot.
I can produce a poll to say whatever I want, its really not hard... oversampling, improper weighting, leading questions. Push Polls, gas lighting, etc... all exist and are real. Doesn’t mean the polls don’t exist, just means they are not accurate to what is going on.
The article I cited talked about dems going Trump, just about every single one of those people will not show up in a likely voter poll, because by their own admission they have not voted in the last 2 presidential races... so modern polling will filter them out as unlikely voters... Because their model says they aren’t likely to vote because they didn’t the last 2 times... but does that mean those people will not vote? I’d bet good money those people, and lots more like them will indeed be showing up on election day.
Secondly, if you thing Hillary is going to outperform Obama in 12, you are smoking some good good stuff. Hillary will not pull O’s numbers, anywhere. Polling showing her up 7 or 12 in PA is laughable on its face. Obama got the state by about 5.5 in 12, Hillary will not meet, let alone outperform Obama in PA... if you think that, I doubt you have been on the ground here at all.
OBama polling over 50%? So what. Hate to break this to you, but Clinton was over 50% in 2000, that didn’t mean he wasn’t toxic on the campaign trail. Obama is TOXIC in the rust belt, and he has the same interesting polling behavior that HIllary has.. being the less he’s seen the higher he polls.. the more he gets out in OCT and stumps, the lower he’ll and she will poll.
Finally you admit that this is not a typical cycle.. its just you can’t seem to recognize how untypical it is. You are applying typical viewpoint to the cycle... established politician against a neophyte... she she would... but that ignores the very foundation of why this cycle is atypical... its atypical because its a disruptive cycle... and Trump is the disruption, and he has been able to do everything traditional views have said he could not do for the past year.
You seem to think an endorsement matters, you are putting far too much weight on things that are not beneficial because you are approaching this as its just another election. When you are running a campaign claiming the system is stacked and corrupt, and you have a candidate that is clearly an embodiment of that corruption, endorsements of the status quo are not helpful, they just reinforce the corruption narrative. Every single crazy attack in the press, every single thing that in a traditional cycle would matter, doesn’t help.. it’s just reinforcing the disrupting narrative.
I do agree that if Trump is successful in his outreach to minorities, it could be a huge game changer, and his willingness to say the simple truth to these groups... look around, do you think the Dems have helped you? Are your neighborhoods better off? are your schools? are your children safer? If not, then why not give me a shot?
He will certainly do better with blacks than Romney or McCain did, if only for the fact that Hillary is not black... will he get more than 10%? We shall see, some polls have shone him far exceeding those numbers, and if he does, that’s another nail in Hillary’s coffin.
All those things you keep trying to argue are why Hillary will win, better ground game, more money, name recognition, party backing... all of those things were just points she was spotted at the start of the game... NONE of them have given her an increase to her functional max. Yes, she consolidated her base faster than Trump did, but she hasn’t had momentum once this entire cycle. The closest she’s had was when Trump let himself get off message with the kahn nonsense in early August, he quickly recovered and rebuilt his momentum... Hillary hasn’t had momentum once this cycle beyond Trump’s stumbling.
Trump has had momentum since last year, Hillary has none. Her original plan was to simply try to run out the clock, and it wasn’t going to work and won’t work, because Trump has the momentum and always has.
The dorslife tracking poll is about the only polls that’s showing the honest movement, Trump has been on a solid steady upward direction entire cycle, with the sole dip during the kahn nonsense where he got off message and got bogged down and allowed his momentum to be stalled, he adjusted and rebuilt... Hillary has never had momentum... she peaked right around the whole kahn nonsense... and her line has been on a fairly steady and predictable downward path since... while Trumps has been steadily and generally upward. This is the race, Hillary has a funcitonal max of 42/43% that’s it.
She is winning only those making under 35k, women, blacks, latinos, college grad and women. But the poll clearly shows, Trump is in the drivers seat in the race...
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
But when these same folks are asked who they think will win, not who they intend to vote for, HIllary is in the lead... Why is that? Because they are viewing the outcome like you are... falsely. If these folks vote the way they claim, Hillary will lose and lose solidly, but the majority of them think Hillary will win... You are making the I think Hillary will win, when the evidence is pretty solid she will not... Unless Trump self destructs between now and Nov 8.
Again, time will tell, a few more weeks and its over one way or another... either way I’ll get up and go to work the next day. So, we will see who’s view is correct. Given the “pundit” and “traditionalist” view has been WRONG for over a year, we will see which one winds up the winner in the end.
Taken in the aggregate, the polls have been fairly accurate. The RCP polling data show Clinton being ahead by 3.8% in a four way race.
The PA polling data show Clinton ahead by 4.6%. The two most recent polls show Clinton expanding her lead: F&M +12 and Quinnipiac +5. Believe them or not, Trump is trailing in every PA poll.
I can produce a poll to say whatever I want, its really not hard... oversampling, improper weighting, leading questions. Push Polls, gas lighting, etc... all exist and are real. Doesn’t mean the polls don’t exist, just means they are not accurate to what is going on.
I am familiar with political polling having actually constructed one myself in a graduate statistics course. The key is a representative sample. The wording of the questions also has an impact depending upon what kind of poll you are constructing. The polling companies depend on revenue, which is based on the validity of their findings. As we approach election day, the polls get more accurate because their credibility and revenue are at stake.
The article I cited talked about dems going Trump, just about every single one of those people will not show up in a likely voter poll, because by their own admission they have not voted in the last 2 presidential races... so modern polling will filter them out as unlikely voters... Because their model says they aren’t likely to vote because they didn’t the last 2 times... but does that mean those people will not vote? I’d bet good money those people, and lots more like them will indeed be showing up on election day.
This is the so-called monster vote. We will see if it exists. The registration data don't reflect a major increase in voters so these "unlikely" voters must be registered by now or they won't be able to vote in many states.
Secondly, if you thing Hillary is going to outperform Obama in 12, you are smoking some good good stuff. Hillary will not pull O’s numbers, anywhere. Polling showing her up 7 or 12 in PA is laughable on its face. Obama got the state by about 5.5 in 12, Hillary will not meet, let alone outperform Obama in PA... if you think that, I doubt you have been on the ground here at all.
Will Trump outperform Romney? As I pointed out, the Dems win PA by manufacturing huge numbers in Philly and Allegheny County (Pittsburgh). They amassed (probably thru fraud) a 600,000 vote margin that offset the 300,000 margin Romney achieved in the rest of the state. Detroit performs the same function in MI.
FYI: Kerry amassed almost as many votes in 2004 in PA that Obama had in 2012. Obama received 300,000 less votes in 2012 than he did in 2008 and still won comfortably. MCCain and Romney received fewer votes in PA than Bush did in 2004. Can Hillary match Kerry in PA? Can Trump surpass Bush in 2004?
OBama polling over 50%? So what. Hate to break this to you, but Clinton was over 50% in 2000, that didn’t mean he wasn’t toxic on the campaign trail. Obama is TOXIC in the rust belt, and he has the same interesting polling behavior that HIllary has.. being the less he’s seen the higher he polls.. the more he gets out in OCT and stumps, the lower he’ll and she will poll.
Clinton had the Monica problem. Big difference. Obama is interested in getting the black and Hispanic vote to the polls. It is called identity politics. He could care less about the non-Hispanic white vote.
Finally you admit that this is not a typical cycle.. its just you can’t seem to recognize how untypical it is. You are applying typical viewpoint to the cycle... established politician against a neophyte... she she would... but that ignores the very foundation of why this cycle is atypical... its atypical because its a disruptive cycle... and Trump is the disruption, and he has been able to do everything traditional views have said he could not do for the past year.
Of course it is not typical. The Reps have a candidate who has never run for elective office in his life. He has no political experience. He has the lowest approval levels of any candidate to run matching Hillary in that regard. This is why the Dems are attacking Trump personally claiming he is unfit for the Presidency and dangerous because he has his finger on the nuclear button. Hillary loses on policy.
All those things you keep trying to argue are why Hillary will win, better ground game, more money, name recognition, party backing... all of those things were just points she was spotted at the start of the game... NONE of them have given her an increase to her functional max. Yes, she consolidated her base faster than Trump did, but she hasn’t had momentum once this entire cycle. The closest she’s had was when Trump let himself get off message with the kahn nonsense in early August, he quickly recovered and rebuilt his momentum... Hillary hasn’t had momentum once this cycle beyond Trump’s stumbling.
I didn't say Hillary would win. I said she has many advantages that will make it an uphill and close race for Trump to win despite Hillary's totally flawed record and outright lies. She is one of the worst candidates ever yet she is more than holding her own with Trump because of the Dem organization, money, and the partisan MSM. Right now, Hillary has the momentum after the first debate.
Trump is seen on the defensive talking about Miss Universe and his purloined tax returns. The MSM is playing all this up big time. This was all a setup. Hillary had already distributed the press packages about Machado to the MSM before the debate and told them she would be raising the issue. She also raised the tax issue at the debate, no doubt aware of what the NYT had beforehand. Hence Hillary's speculation on why Trump was hiding his tax returns. The MSM and Hillary are working hand in glove. It is all orchestrated.
But when these same folks are asked who they think will win, not who they intend to vote for, HIllary is in the lead... Why is that? Because they are viewing the outcome like you are... falsely. If these folks vote the way they claim, Hillary will lose and lose solidly, but the majority of them think Hillary will win... You are making the I think Hillary will win, when the evidence is pretty solid she will not... Unless Trump self destructs between now and Nov 8.
There you go again making things up. Where did I say Hillary would win? My difference with you is that I don't consider Trump to have the election in the bag. Again, if Trump wins, it will be a close election not a landslide either in popular vote or in the electoral vote. Like her husband, Hillary will not win 50% of the vote or more. Bill won with 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49% in 1996.
Again, time will tell, a few more weeks and its over one way or another... either way I’ll get up and go to work the next day. So, we will see who’s view is correct. Given the “pundit” and “traditionalist” view has been WRONG for over a year, we will see which one winds up the winner in the end.
If Hillary wins, the country is the loser. I will have a very tough time accepting her victory. It means the end of this country as we know it. The Constitution and the vision and values of our Founders will be cast into the dustbin of history. The only redeeming factor is that I will not have that many years to go and see the continuing decline of the country. Unfortunately, my daughter will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.