The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[bilateralrope]

2) Because in many cases states are good proxies for territorial interest blocs that deserve representation, such as "farm country" and "areas affected by hurricanes."3) Because (tying into (2)) many problems are localized to specific regions of the country, and having a single state which cares deeply about the issue represented tends to make it easier to ensure someone speaks up for the issue.
4) Because the federal government relies heavily on state governments to implement certain programs in return for federal funds, and it is irresponsible to create a situation where states as states are not represented at the federal level, if the federal government is routinely going to be telling states how to spend money and how to regulate local affairs.

I'm a bit unsure about point 1, but I'll accept these three. So arguing about point one is pointless.

That does complicate things. I'm thinking leave the senate as having members who represent states, with congress being proportional representation.

Except that it tends to be a lot easier and more profitable for all parties involved to court majority votes rather than minority votes. Spending your campaign dollars appealing to increase turnout among 90% of the population pays off more than staking out a position which increases your appeal among the other 10%.

A minority party that exists solely to represent gays and lesbians and so on might be able to secure a few seats in a proportional election if there are hundreds of legislators total, IF the gays and lesbians and so on become single-issue voters. However, a number of problems arise as a side effect.

The party that exists only to represent gays and lesbians is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that parties will arise to represent the people who are ignored by parties who go after the majority.

1) The constitutent supporters of the LBGT-representing "Rainbow Party" have much less direct control over who represents them, personally. They vote for a party, not an individual. This makes it easier for unsavory individuals to remain in the government through politicking.

2) For this system to work effectively, the electorate has to fragment into a host of minority parties dominated by identity politics. This makes it difficult to keep a broad national perspective on issues that don't directly affect any single one of the 'identity parties' (e.g. income inequality).

Several countries have proportional representation. Including the one I'm in (well, MMP instead of simple proportional representation). All the parties here have a national perspective.

Can you point to any countries where the loss of national perspective has happened ?

3) Broad national parties now have NO incentive to appeal to members of the minority groups. They might make bargains with the Rainbow Party in Congress, but they have no reason to even try to appeal to gay voters in general elections. Whereas appealing to homophobes is still a workable strategy... A pro-worker party can win more votes and power by becoming 'pro-worker' AND homophobic, and it won't lose many voters because all the gays were already voting for the Rainbow Party anyway.

Until you're in a situation where major party 1 has 47% of the vote, major party 2 has 49%, rainbow party has 4%. Now for anything to get done, either the major parties have to work together, or they have to get support from the rainbow party. Which means that some of the rainbow parties agenda gets in.
Or one of the major parties sees that most of the homophobes are supporting the other major party. So they decide that trying to get rainbow party members to support them instead will gain them more votes than they lose.

Last election in New Zealand someone pointed out that the Green party was able to get parts of its agenda into law when it wasn't a member of the ruling coalition. This happens because the parties in the coalition usually only agree to support each other in a few pieces of legislation (sometimes the agreement is only for confidence and supply votes). For the rest, each party decides on its own. Which means that there are times when the major party in the coalition needs the support of opposition parties to pass things, because they can't get the support from minor coalition members.

4) Proportional representation means you can't re-fill a seat with a special election if a specific representative dies or retires or is impeached, because you can't even calculate who should have what seats without reapportioning ALL the seats.

In New Zealand each party has a list of people who will fill the seats allocated by a proportional vote. When a list MP leaves parliament, the next person on the list for their party replaces them. Though, since the party writes and edits the list, it really comes down to the party deciding who replaces the lost MP.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ooh, that beautiful, beautiful Now-cast.

Arizona is .1% from fifty-fifty.

Even in Polls-only, Iowa is half a percent from fifty-fifty, and Arizona isn't far behind it.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm a bit unsure about point 1, but I'll accept these three. So arguing about point one is pointless.

(1) is a simple fact. Redrawing state boundaries is an extremely difficult act under the US constitution, and cannot be done easily to redistrict electoral territory for political purposes. There has been ONE significant state boundary change in American history, aside from purchases of foreign territory added to an existing state. And it was associated with the Civil War.

This means that if you have to pick a set of territorial subdivisions to use as representative districts in the US, the state boundaries have the tremendous advantage of being politically neutral. All state boundaries were drawn at a time so far in the past as to be irrelevant to modern politics, and they cannot be changed for the convenience of modern politicians.

This is very much not the case for the territorial district boundaries within each state, which are redrawn after each census, and which routinely become a political football.

That does complicate things. I'm thinking leave the senate as having members who represent states, with congress being proportional representation.

The House of Representatives, you mean? This then leads to the political difficulties I discussed with proportional representation.

Moreover, the House has control over appropriations and finances (all budgets originate in the House). And many of the issues where the states DO need representation in Congress somehow touch on matters of finance and appropriations.

By contrast, the Senate has most of the influence over things like appointment of federal officials, and foreign policy.

Therefore, doing as you say ensures that states are not meaningfully represented in the legislative chamber that handles finances, while granting them representation in the chamber that handles the issues in which they have little or no direct interest.

Except that it tends to be a lot easier and more profitable for all parties involved to court majority votes rather than minority votes. Spending your campaign dollars appealing to increase turnout among 90% of the population pays off more than staking out a position which increases your appeal among the other 10%.

A minority party that exists solely to represent gays and lesbians and so on might be able to secure a few seats in a proportional election if there are hundreds of legislators total, IF the gays and lesbians and so on become single-issue voters. However, a number of problems arise as a side effect.

The party that exists only to represent gays and lesbians is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that parties will arise to represent the people who are ignored by parties who go after the majority.

The problem is not only what happens as a result of the existence of the Rainbow Party in and of itself. There are other problems that arise as a result of half a dozen, or a full dozen, similar parties forming. When there is a party to represent the gays, and a party to represent rural farmers in the American West, and a party to represent libertarians, and a party to represent Latinos, and a party to represent fifty-something suburban business owners who are confused by all these changes in society but aren't actually very religious, and so on.

The atomization of society into parties is fractal. The minimum practical limit on the size of a party is "too small to have political influence." And in a nation with a legislature of 435 representatives, with proportional representation, that means there can be a LOT of parties.

...

1) The constitutent supporters of the LBGT-representing "Rainbow Party" have much less direct control over who represents them, personally. They vote for a party, not an individual. This makes it easier for unsavory individuals to remain in the government through politicking.

2) For this system to work effectively, the electorate has to fragment into a host of minority parties dominated by identity politics. This makes it difficult to keep a broad national perspective on issues that don't directly affect any single one of the 'identity parties' (e.g. income inequality).

Several countries have proportional representation. Including the one I'm in (well, MMP instead of simple proportional representation). All the parties here have a national perspective.

This in turn suggests that special-interest parties strongly supporting the interests of specific minorities neglected by the national parties... are not really a thing that happens.

A party can be national, and take stances on all issues, and have an incentive to gain supporting votes from all parts of society and the nation.

Or a party can be local/minority, take stances on the issues which strongly impact that minority, and be largely indifferent to whether it receives supporting votes from the rest of the population.

These are mutually contradictory goals.

3) Broad national parties now have NO incentive to appeal to members of the minority groups. They might make bargains with the Rainbow Party in Congress, but they have no reason to even try to appeal to gay voters in general elections. Whereas appealing to homophobes is still a workable strategy... A pro-worker party can win more votes and power by becoming 'pro-worker' AND homophobic, and it won't lose many voters because all the gays were already voting for the Rainbow Party anyway.

Until you're in a situation where major party 1 has 47% of the vote, major party 2 has 49%, rainbow party has 4%. Now for anything to get done, either the major parties have to work together, or they have to get support from the rainbow party. Which means that some of the rainbow parties agenda gets in.

The problem is that the major parties ONLY have incentive to work with the Rainbow Party if it holds the controlling votes. And this is only a stable condition of things if the Rainbow Party is the ONLY third party.

If there are, for example, half a dozen minority parties plus a few broad-spectrum parties that each command 20-30% of the vote, then there is much less incentive to pay attention to any one of the minority parties.

Or one of the major parties sees that most of the homophobes are supporting the other major party. So they decide that trying to get rainbow party members to support them instead will gain them more votes than they lose.

Which already happens even in a two-party system- witness the movement of racial minorities to the Democrats as the Republicans pursued the Southern Strategy,

In New Zealand each party has a list of people who will fill the seats allocated by a proportional vote. When a list MP leaves parliament, the next person on the list for their party replaces them. Though, since the party writes and edits the list, it really comes down to the party deciding who replaces the lost MP.

This ties back into my objection that proportional representation comes with a loss of personal accountability for representatives. The representatives are 'hired and fired' by the Party, not by the voters.

[Q99]

Interesting. You know the 'both candidates are historically unfavorable' thing?

This article breaks it down

Donald Trump is unfavorable with everyone. Whites to a lesser extent, but still, no group has a favorable impression of him. Even broken down into smaller demographic groups he breaks 50% with no groups whatsoever.

Hillary is in the green with pretty much everyone but whites, sometimes by a lot (+59% margin for black americans, +28% for asian americans), and it's only her unpopularity with white voters that drags her average down.

Paints it in a rather different light.

[bilateralrope]

I'm going to bow out of discussing proportional vs FPP voting here. Responding further would require would require me to do more research than I have time to do. Especially when I can't see the US switching to proportional any time soon.

If a separate thread to discuss FPP vs proportional is made, I might take part. Take this as a concession if you want.

[Eternal_Freedom]

According to a BBC News post I caught on Facebook earlier, Trump was at a speech/event/rally/whatever in Nevada and said that terminally ill people should "hang on" till election day, and vote for him (of course). That's just...wow.

[The Romulan Republic]

According to a BBC News post I caught on Facebook earlier, Trump was at a speech/event/rally/whatever in Nevada and said that terminally ill people should "hang on" till election day, and vote for him (of course). That's just...wow.

Because, as always, its all about him.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

[The Romulan Republic]

Iowa's gone marginally blue again in the Polls-only.

Iowa and Arizona both in the Now-cast.

Don't know if it'll last. Probably depends heavily on the upcoming debates. Best of luck to Secretary Clinton.

[FireNexus]

Do you have to ejaculate over every tenth-of-a-point shift in the now cast? It neither generates discussion nor says anything terribly useful.

[Iroscato]

Do you have to ejaculate over every tenth-of-a-point shift in the now cast? It neither generates discussion nor says anything terribly useful.

Agreed. Could you calm it down with the constant interjections please TRR? They're annoying and it makes you look incredibly high-strung.

[Terralthra]

Hey, let's not kink-shame. They can masturbate to whatever they'd like; they should keep that sort of thing in private, though.

[Lord Insanity]

Once again the presidential election is 51* separate state elections not a single national election. *(D.C. counts as a state for this purpose.) This is completely fair because everyone is playing by the same rules. In order to win a candidate must appeal to a broad cross-section of the country and not just focus on a few major population centers.

That is so far from reality it's obscene. With the stupid, undemocratic (small "d") electoral college, candidates can take for granted electoral votes from certain huge red or blue states (Texas for Republicans (for now) and California for Democrats) and instead focus on a handful of "swing/battleground states". That means that my vote now in WA counts less than my vote in FL 12 years ago. This effectively means that Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania decide who governs the entire United States.

That's pretty goddamned far from "a broad cross-section of the country" .

Right because all Democrats and all Republicans prefer their respective parties for the same reasons across the whole country.

If a state is solidly one party over another it is the fault of the opposing party failing to address that state's residents' concerns. This applies not just for the electoral college and presidential elections but also senators and state governors.

Since the point of "electoral colledge makes the candidates care for small states" has come up, again (even though reality of what states they do visit does not support this), this seems to be the time to post these videos, again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

and in case of a tie or no candidate gets 270 votes (if a third party candidate snatches a few, miracolously)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHEDXzOfENI

The second video seems to present a reasonable argument that we should have a better defined tie breaking system in place.

The first one is almost as bad as a creationist video. First he shows how small states have no real power despite their proportional votes counting more. Then shows how a candidate can win the presidency by winning just under 23% of the national popular vote by winning a 50% +1 majority in all the smallest states. Way to prove the opposite point intended.

Here is another article from MIT citing the guy that actually did the math. (It is short enough I am just quoting the whole thing.)

Math of elections says voters win with 'winner take all'

Deborah Halber, News Office correspondent
April 10, 2007

If we want individuals and small groups to have the democratic power to elect the president fairly, we must score presidential elections by winner-take-all states--not in a single giant national district too large for small numbers to turn, said Alan Natapoff, a research scientist at MIT who has studied the mathematics of voting power and has testified before Congress concerning the Electoral College.

In an op-ed, "Stop plan to diminish Marylanders' voting power," that appeared April 5 in the Baltimore Sun, Natapoff urged Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley not to sign a bill that, if passed by enough states, would bypass the Electoral College and elect the president by raw popular vote. Natapoff contends that the proposed legislation is unconstitutional and that the change would destroy the individual voter's national voting power.

"Small numbers of votes will never turn a national raw-vote election in our lifetime, yet a mere 537 votes in Florida turned the election of 2000," Natapoff wrote in the op-ed. "When close states vote on a winner-take-all basis, their individual voters have large national leverage. Without that leverage, we would all be equally impotent--an irony that would give equality a bad name."

Natapoff would count popular votes cast for any candidate vote-for-vote for the state's winner: If Florida casts 6 million votes for all the candidates, its winner should receive precisely 6 million electoral votes plus the popular-vote equivalent of two senatorial electoral votes--a quarter of the popular vote in the average state, or about half a million votes now.

"This system would empower voters in poorly contested states, who could withhold their vote from the state's winner by casting a blank ballot," Natapoff wrote. "The dominant candidate would need (acceptance from his opposition) or risk losing 40 percent of the state's electoral votes." It would give 80 million impotent voters in those states an immediate impact on presidential elections. It is the only basic change we need or dare make, he says.

Small states cancel each other in a close election. The greater coherence of large states under winner-take-all, Natapoff claims, gives them much greater national power per vote--in proportion to the square root of their size--than the same number of electoral votes in small states. That, he believes, is why senatorial electoral votes have worked for two centuries and are still needed.

In 2000, he says, California cast half as many popular votes, but had the same net electoral vote impact, as the 29 smallest states combined-even counting their 58 senatorial electoral votes. Without senatorial electoral votes, Natapoff says, small states will not have their fair share of voting power per vote. What is worse, he believes, eliminating senatorial votes without a Constitutional amendment breaks the promise of the Constitution (Article V) that no state will be deprived of them without its consent.

A version of this article appeared in MIT Tech Talk on April 11, 2007

Notice he offers a solution to the single party stranglehold some states have while still retaining the mechanic that allows a minority candidate a slim change to win a close election.

[bilateralrope]

Notice he offers a solution to the single party stranglehold some states have while still retaining the mechanic that allows a minority candidate a slim change to win a close election.

Why do you think it's a good thing in a democracy for the candidate who gets the most votes at the polling booths to not be the winner ?

[The Romulan Republic]

Do you have to ejaculate over every tenth-of-a-point shift in the now cast? It neither generates discussion nor says anything terribly useful.

Agreed. Could you calm it down with the constant interjections please TRR? They're annoying and it makes you look incredibly high-strung.

Changes in polls and projections are relevant election news. Even slight ones, I would argue, in places where its a close race. And since I have been so harshly and frequently criticized for pessimistic posts about alarming news, it seems only reasonable that I should post positive news as well.

If a moderator tells me to stop, then of course I will. Otherwise, I respectfully (or disrespectfully, in FireNexus's case) don't much care weather you approve of what I post.

And frankly, while I may be mistaken, I get the feeling that certain people here are just jumping on me at the slightest pretext because they're nursing a grudge over past arguments. Which I find much more damaging to productive discussion.

[Q99]

Iowa's gone marginally blue again in the Polls-only.

Iowa and Arizona both in the Now-cast.

Don't know if it'll last. Probably depends heavily on the upcoming debates. Best of luck to Secretary Clinton.

At this point, every day it's not moving Trump, gives it less time to potentially move that way.

Even when the media reverted to the 'let's pretend this is a normal race and for some reason go back to talking about e-mails as if they were a major thing,' phase they had before the debate, the attrition was pretty slow, and it's harder to move the needle in october to boot.


Btw, a thing I find interesting and that makes it more discussion-worthy than 'the needle moved a little' is the polls in the last day or two have *not* been more Clinton particularly than the days before from what I can see. But what they have done is include less undecides, meaning there's less room for things to potentially move against Hillary.

538 did an article on how more people deciding, even if they split evenly between the candidates, favors her

[Q99]

Republicans in congress praise Kaine

The first-term senator has made a point of getting along with his GOP counterparts: He's built a rapport with conservative firebrand Ted Cruz, delivered a book on polio to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell after hearing the Kentucky Republican discuss his childhood battles with the disease, and works out in the Senate gym with Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.).

For one party to praise the other’s VP nominee in the thick of election season is unusual, to put it mildly.

But in a chamber defined by partisan squabbling and gridlock, Kaine is something of a throwback to a chummier era of Senate politics, in spite of his history as the head of the Democratic National Committee and a Virginia governor who butted heads with the state's GOP. Several Republicans interviewed last week said they hope Kaine's GOP relationships and genuine interest in policy would pay legislative dividends in a potential Clinton White House.

Republicans aren’t just looking for Kaine to replicate the role of the current vice president, who they also admire but feel was bridled by Obama. They want Kaine to be Biden-plus: a bipartisan-minded, straight talker who also has the latitude to seek deals with Republicans.

So it seems Kaine has been actively bridge-building, despite being reasonably left-leaning, and the Republicans think they can talk to him even more than they could talk to Biden, who made some good deals. This is quite potentially useful.

[The Romulan Republic]

Iowa's gone marginally blue again in the Polls-only.

Iowa and Arizona both in the Now-cast.

Don't know if it'll last. Probably depends heavily on the upcoming debates. Best of luck to Secretary Clinton.

At this point, every day it's not moving Trump, gives it less time to potentially move that way.

Even when the media reverted to the 'let's pretend this is a normal race and for some reason go back to talking about e-mails as if they were a major thing,' phase they had before the debate, the attrition was pretty slow, and it's harder to move the needle in october to boot.


Btw, a thing I find interesting and that makes it more discussion-worthy than 'the needle moved a little' is the polls in the last day or two have *not* been more Clinton particularly than the days before from what I can see. But what they have done is include less undecides, meaning there's less room for things to potentially move against Hillary.

538 did an article on how more people deciding, even if they split evenly between the candidates, favors her

Another things that's notable now is that their was the concern (even if a slim concern) that the supposed "loss" of Kaine to Pence would hurt Clinton's numbers, at least blunt her momentum. And it did briefly seem, a few days back, that her post-first debate momentum had stalled.

That now doesn't appear to be the case.

[Q99]

Another things that's notable now is that their was the concern (even if a slim concern) that the supposed "loss" of Kaine to Pence would hurt Clinton's numbers, at least blunt her momentum. And it did briefly seem, a few days back, that her post-first debate momentum had stalled.

That now doesn't appear to be the case.

General opinion is VP debates move little to nothing. But he did stock up some ammo for her, and the results were close.

[Elheru Aran]

Close enough that there's been plenty of (left) media attention given towards Pence's evasions, lies, and repetitions, perhaps more than there was with Ryan the last go-around.

[Q99]

"Wouldn't it be nice if we attacked first?" - Trump on Foreign policy, Business Insider

Trump, who has been criticized for refusing to publicly discuss details of his campaign's anti-terrorism proposals, asked on Thursday: "Isn't there an element of surprise?"

"Remember when we were young and we were studying history, and they talk about some of the great generals, and the great attacks? ... Wouldn’t it be nice if we attacked first, and talked about our great victory later?" the GOP nominee added.

"It's a very, very sad thing. We are being run by people that are incompetent."

Combined with his nuclear comments, that is terrifying.

[The Romulan Republic]

His comments on nuclear weapons alone, particularly in light of his "temperament", are more than reason enough to keep him far, far away from the Presidency.

[Wild Zontargs]

Hey, you know what we haven't talked about in a few pages? Emails!

White House Coordinated on Clinton Email Issues, New Documents Show (archived to get around paywall)

White House Coordinated on Clinton Email Issues, New Documents Show
Emails obtained by the Republican National Committee find close contact with Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign in early 2015

WASHINGTON—Newly disclosed emails show top Obama administration officials were in close contact with Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign in early 2015 about the potential fallout from revelations that the former secretary of state used a private email server.

Their discussion included a request from the White House communications director to her counterpart at the State Department to see if it was possible to arrange for Secretary of State John Kerry to avoid questions during media appearances about Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement.

In another instance, a top State Department official assured an attorney for Mrs. Clinton that, contrary to media reports, a department official hadn’t told Congress that Mrs. Clinton erred in using a private email account.

The previously unreported emails were obtained by the Republican National Committee as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking records of Mrs. Clinton’s time in office. The RNC provided to The Wall Street Journal only some of the emails, leaving it unclear what was in the remaining documents. The RNC said it released only emails relevant to the communication between the White House and State Department.

Meredith McGehee, chief of policy, programs, and strategy at the nonpartisan advocacy group Issue One and an expert on ethics and campaign finance, said the email exchange would probably raise no legal concerns because federal law permits members of the White House staff to engage in some political activity.

Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement has dogged her campaign for months, with Republicans and other critics saying it shows a carelessness with government secrets and undermines her claim to good judgment. Donald Trump’s campaign posted a statement on his website last month saying the Obama White House knew Mrs. Clinton was using a private email server.

Mrs. Clinton has acknowledged the arrangement was a mistake, but she has rejected the notion that national secrets were placed at risk. Her campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment about the new email disclosures.

The emails highlight the revolving door between the State Department, the White House and the Clinton campaign in early 2015 as Mrs. Clinton geared up to run for president.

The New York Times reported on March 2, 2015, that Mrs. Clinton had exclusively used a private email server for government business when she was secretary of state. That set off months of controversy for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, culminating in a Federal Bureau of Investigation probe that recommended against prosecution of Mrs. Clinton.

At the time of the initial report, Mrs. Clinton hadn’t formally declared her intention to mount a presidential campaign, but she had begun hiring staff ahead of her formal announcement on April 12, 2015.

Ten days after the story broke, White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri emailed State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki to ask, “between us on the shows…think we can get this done so he is not asked about email.” That apparently referred to Mr. Kerry, who appeared in an interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation” three days later.

Ms. Palmieri had previously announced she would be leaving the administration to join Mrs. Clinton’s campaign in mid-2015, but was still at the White House when she sent the email. Other emails show Ms. Palmieri helped arrange for Ms. Psaki to move from the State Department to the White House communications job Ms. Palmieri was vacating. “Agree completely and working to crush on my end,” wrote back Ms. Psaki, who would move to the White House weeks later.

A day later, Ms. Psaki added, “Good to go on killing CBS idea.” She continued, “And we are going to hold on any other TV options just given the swirl of crap out there.” Mr. Kerry wasn’t asked on CBS about the email server, though it isn’t clear how Ms. Psaki could have guaranteed that.

Teased by Ms. Palmieri about her use of the phrase “swirl of crap,” Ms. Psaki wrote back: “Ha I mean—the challenging stories out there.”

CBS spokeswoman Caitlin Conant said the network had made no commitments about what questions Mr. Kerry would face. “No subject was off-limits when this interview was arranged, as is the CBS News standard,” she said. “CBS News’ State Department correspondent was in Egypt with Secretary John Kerry in the home stretch of the Iran nuclear deal negotiations and discussed policy issues of the day with him on this official trip.”

State Department spokesman John Kirby added that there was nothing unusual about the Palmieri-Psaki exchange. “It is common practice for State Department and White House staffers to be in touch when agency officials are potentially conducting television interviews,” he said.

The RNC also obtained an entirely redacted discussion between nearly a dozen top White House communications officials with a subject line referring to Mr. Kerry’s appearance on CBS. A White House official said the internal debate at the time was about whether Mr. Kerry should appear on the shows at all, rather than any attempt to influence what questions were asked.

In another email coming from the State Department, Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary for management, told Heather Samuelson, one of Mrs. Clinton’s attorneys, about new documents the State Department had posted concerning the former secretary of state.

Ms. Samuelson was one of the attorneys who reviewed Mrs. Clinton’s emails to determine which were government-related and which were personal before providing the official ones to the State Department. She was interviewed by the FBI as part of its probe and granted limited immunity in exchange for turning over her laptop as part of the investigation.

In another exchange, Mr. Kennedy told Ms. Samuelson that Politico was “running [a] story that State official said Secretary Clinton did wrong thing. Wildly inaccurate reporting.”

A Politico spokesman said the organization stood by its reporting. The story reported that Joyce Barr, assistant secretary of state for administration, had said in testimony to Congress that Mrs. Clinton’s record-keeping practices were “not acceptable.” An internal watchdog report later concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email use wasn't permitted under State policy.

Mr. Kirby, the State Department spokesman, said Mr. Kennedy was “simply offering a reaction to a press article.” He added it wasn’t unusual for State officials to be in contact with former secretaries or their staff.

Glad to see the partisan political system continues to carry out its real job: protecting its own people.

[maraxus2]

snip

Nobody gives a shit.

[maraxus2]

snip

Nobody gives a shit.

To elaborate, nobody gives a shit that hasn't already made up their minds that they give many shits about ServerGate. Clinton's email problems have received wall-to-wall coverage for the better part of a year, and it's not as though the political class/modestly informed voters haven't heard about it. Now it's becoming like Benghazi, complete with amateur sleuths on the various dipshit parts of the internet coming out of the woodwork to prove that Clinton's people did nefarious shit and that jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

Clinton's email problems is less of an actual scandal now, and more of a shibboleth, one that indicates that the believer in question despises Clinton and everything she's perceived to stand for. But the American public very clearly doesn't think that ServerGate disqualifies her from being President. She's leading in polls by a larger margin now than she has in the last month or so.

Hence why I say "nobody gives a shit." Maybe it should read "nobody gives a shit, outside of the knuckleheads who would write things like 'Social Justice Must Be Destroyed' in their signature block."

[Dalton]

"I just start kissing them..Just kiss. I don’t even wait,' Trump said. “And when you’re a star they let you do it."