Racist republicans? I'm shocked :)

Hillary Clinton accuses GOP presidential candidates of talking in 'coded, racial' language about Obama and the poor

By Francesca Chambers, White House Correspondent For Dailymail.com In Charleston

Published: 14:38 +11:00, 17 January 2016 | Updated: 14:37 +11:00, 17 January 2016

Hillary Clinton said tonight at a Democratic Party dinner that Republican White House candidates are using 'coded, racial' language to talk about President Barack Obama and the poor.

'What I really find so appealing, is the insulting, mean-spirited derogatory language that is used,' she said, talking about the GOP's presidential debates, 'starting first and foremost against our president.'

They're going after immigrants and refugees, and 'now they've thrown in New Yorkers,' Clinton said at the annual First in the South dinner, held this year in Charleston, South Carolina.

Hillary Clinton said tonight at a Democratic Party dinner that Republican White House candidates are using 'coded, racial' language to talk about President Barack Obama and the poor

'Republicans are so quick to demonize President Obama or to demean him,' she said.

'Both Ted Cruz and Chris Christie called him a child the other night,' Clinton continued. 'Too often we hear Republicans talking in coded, racial language about free stuff, takers and losers.'

Her voice growing louder as she went on, the Democratic presidential candidate, 'That has absolutely no place in our democracy and in our politics and we should all stand up and say that loudly and clearly.'

Clinton said that 'instead of insulting our president, we should be thanking him for saving our economy and'leading our country through some very dangerous times.'

The country should also be thanking him for 'saving' the auto industry, though regulations on Wall Street and 'repairing the damage he inherited from the prior administration when it comes to our standing in the world.

'Now I have noted that very often my name is linked to the president. Now I personally consider that a great compliment,' she said, to clapping and cheers.

Clinton noted that Republicans like to call it the 'Obama-Clinton foreign policy' and said, 'Well my goodness, I heard that during the early debates, and I thought to myself, "Well maybe they just don't know what President Obama and I got done." '

'So I sent them all a copy of my book "Hard Choices." I wrote each of them a letter and I said, "You know there are so many of you you could have a book club." '

Clinton said she told her Republican rivals - at one point there were 17 - if you want to know about crippling sanctions on Iran and how to get China and Russia on board, 'You can read about it.'

'There's just a lot of useful information,' she said of her memoir detailing her time at the State Department.

She added, 'I have not gotten one thank you note. I'll let you you know that right now.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3403224/Hillary-Clinton-accuses-GOP-presidential-candidates-talking-coded-racial-language-Obama-poor.html#ixzz3xTIwyKl5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

15 March is a crucial day in the Republican nomination process, as that’s when states are allowed to use winner takes all/most delegate methods. On 15 March, five big states - Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri - vote, and the winner of each of these states will be all but guaranteed most of their delegates. If Trump still has a big national vote lead by 15 March, he wins the nomination then.

Interesting article on the election process for the republicans:

http://theconversation.com/will-donald-trump-win-the-us-republican-presidential-nomination-52702

The US Presidential nominations are not decided by a national vote, but rather by a series of state by state contests that are held between February and June this year. These contests elect delegates to the national conventions in July 2016, at which the presidential candidates for both major parties are formally selected. The general election will be held in November 2016.

Donald Trump has retained a big national lead in the polls since July 2015, and this lead has increased over the last two months. The Huffington Post Pollster aggregate currently has Trump at 37.0%, followed by religious right winger Ted Cruz at 19.3% and current establishment favourite Marco Rubio at 11.3%. Ben Carson once threatened Trump’s lead, but has collapsed to 7.5%, and former favourite Jeb Bush now only has 5.0%. All other candidates are at 3% or less.

However, early state polls are considered more important than national polls. In Iowa, which will on 1 February be the first state to vote, Trump is tied with Cruz on 28% each with 13% for Rubio and 8% for Carson. However, the highly regarded Des Moines Register/Selzer Iowa poll gives Cruz a slight 25-22 lead over Trump, with Rubio on 12% and Carson 11%; Cruz’s lead is down from 31-21 in the December Selzer poll.

In New Hampshire (NH), which votes on the 9 February, Trump leads with 29% to Rubio’s 14%, but four establishment candidates (Rubio, Bush, John Kasich and Chris Christie) combined have 44%, 15% higher than Trump’s current vote. If one of the establishment candidates could consolidate this establishment vote, that candidate would probably beat Trump in NH.

An important distinction is that Iowa is a caucus, while NH is a primary. Primaries are managed by the state electoral authority, with polling places open all day, and absentee voting allowed. Caucuses are managed by the state’s party organisation, and usually require voters to go to a local caucus site by a specified time. There is then some attempt at persuading voters before they can actually cast votes. As a result, caucus turnout is much lower than primary turnout, and good ground organisation is regarded as essential in caucus states. Cruz is reported to have a stronger organisation than Trump in Iowa.

A Trump win in Iowa could allow him to win the nomination quickly. If Trump wins Iowa, where a religious right candidate like Cruz or Carson would be expected to do well, it is likely that Trump will then easily win NH and South Carolina, the next two states to vote. Trump would then roll into the March states with some momentum, and be very hard to stop even if the establishment has unified around a single candidate by that stage.

However, a Trump loss in Iowa would be bad for him, particularly if establishment favouring voters in NH can use the Iowa results to consolidate around a single candidate, most likely to be Rubio. If Rubio wins NH and Cruz wins Iowa, it would be hard for Trump to get back in the race for the nomination.

The reason why Trump is in a position to win the nomination is not because Republican voters like his personality, but because they like his positions on the major issues. According to a December CNN national poll, 57% of Republicans think Trump is the best candidate to handle the economy, 55% think he is best able to handle illegal immigration, and 47% think he is best able to handle ISIS.

I think that a Trump nomination is now a realistic possibility, but the result in Iowa will be very important. There is still time for Iowa polling to change radically; at this stage in 2012, Newt Gingrich was the clear leader, but finished fourth. However, 73% of Iowa Trump voters are firmly committed to him.

Sanders closes on Clinton in Democratic nomination contest

A month ago, the Huffington Post’s Pollster gave Hillary Clinton a crushing 56-30 lead over Socialist Democrat Bernie Sanders in the national Democratic polls, but now this lead has been reduced to a 52-39 margin, and two recent polls only give Clinton single digit leads. In Iowa, Clinton’s lead has been reduced to a 47-42 margin, with two recent polls giving Sanders the lead. In NH, Sanders' lead has widened somewhat to 50-44.

It is still likely that Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. Both Iowa and NH are overwhelmingly white, and Clinton will do better in more ethnically diverse states, as Sanders does not appeal to blacks in the way Obama did in 2008. Clinton also has massive support from the Democratic party establishment.

Sanders represents the Democratic stronghold of Vermont in the US Senate. While he is very popular in Vermont, I do not think the US as a whole is prepared to vote for a socialist. Currently Sanders performs about as well as Clinton in head to head match-ups against the various Republican candidates. However, he has not been exposed to the full vitriol of the Republicans and their supportive media in the way that Clinton has. If Sanders did become the Democratic nominee, his favourability numbers would crash when exposed to this vitriol.

My opinions of the general election options are: if it is Clinton (Dem) vs either Trump or Cruz (Rep), Clinton will win easily. If it is Clinton vs Rubio (Rep), it will be a tight race. If it is Sanders (Dem) vs Rubio, Rubio will win easily. If it is Sanders vs Trump or Cruz, I have no idea what will happen.

Let the record state that trident didnt fire the first missile in this particular skirmish

Typical left wing bias, where are the "numbers of wars entered into under false pretences" and "numbers of guns confiscated".

Yeah but Obama probably isn't even an American, you know.....](*,)

Democrat plus black

The success of Obama can be directly related to the hatred Fox News has for him, and they loathe him.....

Hillary Clinton folks

[youtube]mlz3-OzcExI[/youtube]

:)

re Qaddafi, "we came, we saw, he died"

Interesting article - but again, these polls are not necessarily predictive. One poll is not necessarily indicative.

I'd hardly say "It's Over" before the first primary has even occurred though!

It's over - Trump wins.

Even when the fabled 'field reduction' that Azza assures us will happen, Trump actually boosts his numbers to 45% with the next best at 30% (Cruz).

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/poll-trump-nears-50-in-3-way-race-gop-likes-strong-bold-over-conservative/article/2580352

Cruz is in his own strife, Trump will hammer him with this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us/politics/ted-cruz-wall-street-loan-senate-bid-2012.html?_r=0

I think Obama has been a good president, but-

He didn't kill Qaddafi
Averted WW3???? Is that a reference to the Iran deal?
Background checks - very very minor changes. He doesn't have the numbers in congress to pass real gun reform.
Economy turned around - I give him credit for the strong stimulus package passed in the face of the GFC. However, in regards to the long term economy, presidents generally don't actually have that much influence.
Killing Obama? Well, its not like they weren't already looking for him. He just happened to be in the big chair when they found him.

The biggest achievement on that list is without doubt the health care reforms.

Not really - all those things Obama did can be done by a PM.

By definition the PM controls the legislature.

The US separates out the Executive and Legislature. In Australia the Executive controls the Legislature.

Carbon reduction policy - BIGGEST TICK

:roll:

killed Bin Laden - tick
killed Qaddafi - tick
averted WWIII - tick
health care reform - tick
background checks - tick
economy turned around - tick

if Obama was white he'd be lauded as one of the greatest presidents in history

It's actually a good example of how much more individual power an American President has than an Australian Prime Minister

Great article by the way - has really made me reconsider his domestic achievements.

I think long-term the legacy of the Iran deal will grow and grow also.

But, they do really need to fix their electoral boundary issues in the Congress. It really is at the root of all their problems with their political gridlock.

WWIII :-#

Imagine if Trump was in charge :shock:

The way the Republicans bang on about Obama you'd think he'd done nothing.

This ordeal with Iran has shown how much progress has been made by his government. Imagine if Bush was in charge, the entire US army would be pointing their weapons at Iran by now :lol:

Cheers for the link - I'll have a read!

=d> Excellent article.

Michael Grunwald is a respected source on this topic. Obama should be lauded for his domestic achievements as president in addition to his obvious successes on foreign policy.

Obama got a shit-ton of stuff done, most of which people don't even know about.

This article is really long but an excellent summary: essential reading.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/obama-biggest-achievements-213487?source=socnet_fb_fyo_20160112_bo_he-built_politico_1&utm_medium=socnet&utm_source=fb&utm_campaign=socnet_fb_fyo_20160112_bo_he-built_politico_1&utm_content=20160112_bo_he-built_politico_1

This is a good example of the weakness of the power of the President when his party does not control congress.

Limited to changes in regulations and the limited range of presidential orders.

Not a shot at Obama - just the inherent issues of separating out the Executive and Legislative arms of govt in a polarised country.

Obama certainly has done the maximum he could within the limits of his authority.

:lol:

Some facts you ignorant fuckwit.

- I detest firearms/weapons
- I'm pro-choice on abortion
- I'm pro-gay marriage
- I'm pro renewable energy (providing it's viable)

Please stop trying to tell me what my ideology is because clearly you have no idea :lol:

People from your end of the ideological spectrum

Bypassing Congress to get carbon dioxide categorised as a pollutant to implement policy through the EPA
http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants

Republicans are surely unelectable. Who in their right mind would vote for these gun toting lunatics?

I was watching a speech on the news following Obamas speech on gun control where thousands of people were cheering this bloke saying something along the lines of "it's our right to have guns and gun control is a violation of our rights". This idiot clearly doesn't watch the news.

... and people are worried about Trump?