But that point is that HRC is hardly the only person to have done this.
Security is hard and, as Mr Palmer mentioned below, some people think that it's something they don't have to bother with (I daresay in the case of politicians it's also wanting to keep something more secret as well as laziness).
However: I disagree with Mr Tyson when he says it's unimportant. It is really very important, and something they should be getting right. Sadly, this controversy is not going to encourage people to take infosec seriously ...
Having someone be so stupid that the consequences of their actions was to lose the top job they had coveted all their life, President of the United States - that might just be the ultimate encouragement to take infosec seriously.
Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.
If this does swing the election and there is ultimately nothing of substance in the emails then the FBI will be seen to have directly interfered in the election.
I am 100% behind Clinton getting what is due to her if she has committed a crime. But this is wrong because it has been raised too close to the election for voters to know whether there is any truth in it before voting. It will therefore do her harm whether there is anything in the emails or not. The FBI knew this and have therefore taken a decision that they know will impact on the election against all previous conventions.
When we get to the bottom of this there will be political intent somewhere down the line. Doesn't bode well for US democracy when Trump is already claiming the election is "rigged".
And if they had done nothing, and it turned out there *was* a bombshell in those emails they would have impacted on the election.
The mistake was the press conference in July, not this.
But that point is that HRC is hardly the only person to have done this.
Security is hard and, as Mr Palmer mentioned below, some people think that it's something they don't have to bother with (I daresay in the case of politicians it's also wanting to keep something more secret as well as laziness).
However: I disagree with Mr Tyson when he says it's unimportant. It is really very important, and something they should be getting right. Sadly, this controversy is not going to encourage people to take infosec seriously ...
Having someone having been so stupid that the consequences of their actions was to lose the top job they had coveted all their life, President of the United States - that might just be be the ultimate encouragement to take infosec seriously.
I fear you're over-optimistic.
But as said before, she's hardly the first to be doing this. And whilst that's not an excuse for her, there's obviously a cultural problem in government (and I bet we have similar issues over here).
And for the record, I've got no doubt that Trump would be the same, if not worse: he's someone who clearly believes the rules do not apply to him.
Despite her flaws the South Carolina newspaper "The State" endorses Clinton indicating that conservatives "have no option" to support her over Donald as Trump is "unfit for the Presidency or any elected office" :
Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.
If this does swing the election and there is ultimately nothing of substance in the emails then the FBI will be seen to have directly interfered in the election.
I am 100% behind Clinton getting what is due to her if she has committed a crime. But this is wrong because it has been raised too close to the election for voters to know whether there is any truth in it before voting. It will therefore do her harm whether there is anything in the emails or not. The FBI knew this and have therefore taken a decision that they know will impact on the election against all previous conventions.
When we get to the bottom of this there will be political intent somewhere down the line. Doesn't bode well for US democracy when Trump is already claiming the election is "rigged".
And if they had done nothing, and it turned out there *was* a bombshell in those emails they would have impacted on the election.
The mistake was the press conference in July, not this.
Surely the press conference in July was correct, with what they knew at the time? They were not to know that these other emails (whatever they contain) existed?
Thanks for that Jack - if you're anywhere near being right then there's money to be made since last night Sporting were quoting a buy of Clinton at 312 ECVs and a sell ot Trump at 224 ECVs. This morning, true to recent form, they appear to have closed up shop again. It's probably best anyway for punters to wait a day or two prior to taking the plunge to get a feel for the latest, post bombshell polls. DYOR.
OT: Does anyone here work as a computer programmer? I'm considering going back to university to study a computer science conversion MSc but the whole course uses the Java programming language. Is this a good language to learn or is it 'the past'?
I did until two years ago (although software engineer is a better term IMO).
I'd argue the language is fairly irrelevant: what matters are the underlying concepts.
Firstly, software covers a vast multitude of sins. Think of the area(s) you'd like to work in: if the embedded space, then Perl/C/asm might be a good combination; if web, then Python/JS/Java. Or there is the weird and wild world of databases, where dragons and devils lurk. There are many, many more areas you could choose. Pick some that interest you and choose a course that matches as many of the areas as possible.
Secondly, most languages cover the same concepts (leaving aside compiled versus interpreted). More important than languages are data structures. Write a linked list, and then write a bug-free one. Learn binary trees and when they should be used. There's plenty more. Some languages give you them for free (e.g. linked list classes or templates), but it is vital you understand how they work. Many graduates do not.
Thirdly, if you're a good engineer then you learn more outside the course than you do in it (note: I've virtually no qualifications to be an engineer, yet was in the industry for yonks, including as a freelancer/contractor). If you don't enjoy it as an occasional hobby, you probably won't enjoy it as a career.
Fourthly, learn saleable skills. *Always* use source control, be it Git, Subversions, CVS - I even saw SCCS at a place a few years back. Get used to checking in and checking out code and documentation, but also branching and merging. Always comment and document code and checkins. As you write code, consider how you'll be testing that particular routine. This are all language-independent skills, but vital. It's good to show them at interview as well.
Fifthly, learn how compilers and linkers work, and preferably processors. They're at the root of what you'll be doing, and I see too may graduates who don't understand them (then again, I was in the embedded space). If you like low-level stuff, teach yourself assembler and write a device driver - Raspberry Pi might be good for this.
Some courses will teach you very little of this, but they're all good things to learn. Perhaps consider choosing a course not on the language they teach, but how many of the above they do.
I second pretty much all of this...
The only thing I would add is make sure you learn c++ in your own time.
Maybe Weiner was e-mailing Hilary with photos of his anatomy.
That sounds like a cock and ball story to me ....
Only one ball? Was it in profile, or is there something (ahem) incomplete about Weiner?
By all accounts, Mr. Wiener had remarkable success with women before marrying Huma Abedin (who is pretty good-looking too) which is strange when you consider what he looks like.
Surely it's like fortune tellers.
If you hit on everything that moves, you're bound to have some success.
And people only remember the correct predictions.
My best man had the same technique, he would hit on almost every woman he met with a blatent and fairly crude line, delivered with a degree of charm. 90% of the time he would be knocked back immediately, but he had plenty of the evening left to find the 10% who were up for it. It takes a pretty thick skin, and indiscrimate taste to apply the principle though!
Yes, a university housemate would use a very crude line (basically 'do you want to have sex with me?') on every girl he met in a nightclub, starting from 1am. He got lots of slaps around the face, but almost never left on his own. I was astonished this would ever work, but with 200 women in the club a 0.5% hit rate was good enough! He did this every week for three years!
I was the less appealling mate that got landed with her less appealling mate though, similtaneously embarrassed and impressed by my mates brazeness!
At tea did DavidL say England were going to win this match?
I’m inclined to agree with whoever .... was it Jack W ....... who said that while they naturally wanted England to win, there was a sneaking wish to see Bangladesh win a game against a major cricket country. Once they’ve “broken their duck” other wins might follow. Preferably against India, of course.
Despite her flaws the South Carolina newspaper "The State" endorses Clinton indicating that conservatives "have no option" to support her over Donald as Trump is "unfit for the Presidency or any elected office" :
@NickPalmer Your comment is so true regarding powerful people who ignore rules. In fact often they have scathing contempt for the very rules that they try and enforce on others. Recruitment...they bring in their mates. They use sectaries to sort out all their social affairs. Going AWOL without any kind of accountability. Coming into the office pissed and getting someone to drive them back. Getting people to forge signatures on their behalf. Getting people to manipulate auditing and financial regs. And just generally making stuff up on the hoof and expecting others to back them up. That's the public sector for you.
In the private sector...it's on whole different level of corruption. Obviously the things about people going AWOL, coming in stoned or pissed, making stuff up doesn't count...they are not under that kind of scrutiny. But the stories I know or have heard. I know someone who got the firm to fly over his dogs on the private jet to avoid quarantine. Office parties where cocaine and prostitutes were bought in. And just the corruption...fixing stuff, contracts, back handers and swindling.
That is why the Hillary email scandal is pathetic. Using your home server to process your work email. Big friggin deal. Years of public scrutiny into the Clinton affairs in the 1990's, all that money and expense...and what did they get for it? Some spunk on an intern's dress...and Clinton's use of language...:"I did not have sex with that woman." And what have they got on Hillary Clinton? She used her home email...I mean FFS with a capital F.
I tell you comrade, the right wing in the States are utterly bonkers. They are like Plato on speed. They see the world through a prism of madness...so for them Hillary using a home email server...lock up the bitch, throw away the key and fry her on the chair while you are at it.
Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.
If this does swing the election and there is ultimately nothing of substance in the emails then the FBI will be seen to have directly interfered in the election.
I am 100% behind Clinton getting what is due to her if she has committed a crime. But this is wrong because it has been raised too close to the election for voters to know whether there is any truth in it before voting. It will therefore do her harm whether there is anything in the emails or not. The FBI knew this and have therefore taken a decision that they know will impact on the election against all previous conventions.
When we get to the bottom of this there will be political intent somewhere down the line. Doesn't bode well for US democracy when Trump is already claiming the election is "rigged".
And if they had done nothing, and it turned out there *was* a bombshell in those emails they would have impacted on the election.
The mistake was the press conference in July, not this.
Surely the press conference in July was correct, with what they knew at the time? They were not to know that these other emails (whatever they contain) existed?
Saying nothing is always an option.
The press conference was a deviation from normal practice, under pressure from the DoJ. Although the end result (announcing that no charges were to be brought) was of party political benefit to one candidate, Comey tried to balance it with some fairly trenchant criticisms of her behaviour.
At tea did DavidL say England were going to win this match?
I’m inclined to agree with whoever .... was it Jack W ....... who said that while they naturally wanted England to win, there was a sneaking wish to see Bangladesh win a game against a major cricket country. Once they’ve “broken their duck” other wins might follow. Preferably against India, of course.
I prefer a million times over a good match rather than seeing England win...
Come on the Bengals. We are all Banglas this morning....
Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.
If this does swing the election and there is ultimately nothing of substance in the emails then the FBI will be seen to have directly interfered in the election.
I am 100% behind Clinton getting what is due to her if she has committed a crime. But this is wrong because it has been raised too close to the election for voters to know whether there is any truth in it before voting. It will therefore do her harm whether there is anything in the emails or not. The FBI knew this and have therefore taken a decision that they know will impact on the election against all previous conventions.
When we get to the bottom of this there will be political intent somewhere down the line. Doesn't bode well for US democracy when Trump is already claiming the election is "rigged".
And if they had done nothing, and it turned out there *was* a bombshell in those emails they would have impacted on the election. The mistake was the press conference in July, not this.
It does not speak much for the abilities of the FBI that once becoming aware of thousands of missing emails they did not widen the net into Hilary Clinton's close advisors and workers to see what they held.
Maybe Weiner was e-mailing Hilary with photos of his anatomy.
That sounds like a cock and ball story to me ....
Only one ball? Was it in profile, or is there something (ahem) incomplete about Weiner?
By all accounts, Mr. Wiener had remarkable success with women before marrying Huma Abedin (who is pretty good-looking too) which is strange when you consider what he looks like.
Surely it's like fortune tellers.
If you hit on everything that moves, you're bound to have some success.
And people only remember the correct predictions.
My best man had the same technique, he would hit on almost every woman he met with a blatent and fairly crude line, delivered with a degree of charm. 90% of the time he would be knocked back immediately, but he had plenty of the evening left to find the 10% who were up for it. It takes a pretty thick skin, and indiscrimate taste to apply the principle though!
Yes, a university housemate would use a very crude line (basically 'do you want to have sex with me?') on every girl he met in a nightclub, starting from 1am. He got lots of slaps around the face, but almost never left on his own. I was astonished this would ever work, but with 200 women in the club a 0.5% hit rate was good enough! He did this every week for three years!
I was the less appealling mate that got landed with her less appealling mate though, similtaneously embarrassed and impressed by my mates brazeness!
I used to go out drinking in London with a mate who was rather active. He'd always wear a flying jacket and model himself on Ace Rimmer.
We'd move in to chat up girls. They'd ask him: "What do you do?" And he'd reply: "Well, I race cars, I tutor people to fly gliders, I've got a private pilot's licence, and I go parachuting most weekends."
They'd turn to me and ask: "So, what do you do?"
"I'm a programmer."
I'm amazed I ever pulled in his company ...
Oh, and he's still racing cars. Except he's now bald.
At tea did DavidL say England were going to win this match?
No I didn't. I said that the first 2 or 3 overs after tea would be critical. And we lost 2 wickets. In all honesty, much as I admire Mehedi Hasan, this is a very poor effort by England.
Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.
:
And if they had done nothing, and it turned out there *was* a bombshell in those emails they would have impacted on the election.
The mistake was the press conference in July, not this.
This. I find it interesting that many here are taking the position that "I am supporting Hillary, therefore I must talk away her misbehaviour". Be honest.
She is crooked, always managing to do strange things that always come out as just not jailable - the 9,999% profit she made on cattle futures (no knowledge of the market) which she (as a lawyer) had no idea she was supposed to pay tax on was her initial foray into scandal...
I (an American citizen) want Hillary to win. As the crook she is. Rather than Trump.
While she was in government many have lost, permanently, their security clearances for doing a single instance of what she and her staff did (cutting security warnings of emails and posting them via insecure systems). Others went to jail. But that isn't the real issue.
Nor is the virtual certainty that she had the record filleted - emails were withheld.
The real issue is the cash-for-policy washing machine that is the Clinton Foundation.
Furthermore - do not buy into the Gordon Brownesque idea that "they are all at it" as a justification for her behaviour. Plenty of US politicians manage not to do these things. Obama seems to manage just fine with a financial tumble dryer, for one...
The attempts to explain away Clinton's behavior rather remind me of an Orwell essay in which he pointed out that we (humans) can't deal with the idea that someone we support and admire can do bad things. So all kinds of ridiculous nonsense is made up to excuse Salavdor Dali being a nasty suck up to Franco... because he was a great artist...
Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.
If this does swing the election and there is ultimately nothing of substance in the emails then the FBI will be seen to have directly interfered in the election.
I am 100% behind Clinton getting what is due to her if she has committed a crime. But this is wrong because it has been raised too close to the election for voters to know whether there is any truth in it before voting. It will therefore do her harm whether there is anything in the emails or not. The FBI knew this and have therefore taken a decision that they know will impact on the election against all previous conventions.
When we get to the bottom of this there will be political intent somewhere down the line. Doesn't bode well for US democracy when Trump is already claiming the election is "rigged".
And if they had done nothing, and it turned out there *was* a bombshell in those emails they would have impacted on the election. The mistake was the press conference in July, not this.
It does not speak much for the abilities of the FBI that once becoming aware of thousands of missing emails they did not widen the net into Hilary Clinton's close advisors and workers to see what they held.
The charitable version is that they (the FBI) were sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "La La La" when people pointed out the missing emails.
The earlier investigation was directed, from a high level, to find nothing, if possible.
Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.
If this does swing the election and there is ultimately nothing of substance in the emails then the FBI will be seen to have directly interfered in the election.
I am 100% behind Clinton getting what is due to her if she has committed a crime. But this is wrong because it has been raised too close to the election for voters to know whether there is any truth in it before voting. It will therefore do her harm whether there is anything in the emails or not. The FBI knew this and have therefore taken a decision that they know will impact on the election against all previous conventions.
When we get to the bottom of this there will be political intent somewhere down the line. Doesn't bode well for US democracy when Trump is already claiming the election is "rigged".
And if they had done nothing, and it turned out there *was* a bombshell in those emails they would have impacted on the election. The mistake was the press conference in July, not this.
It does not speak much for the abilities of the FBI that once becoming aware of thousands of missing emails they did not widen the net into Hilary Clinton's close advisors and workers to see what they held.
Leaving aside the fact that becomes trawling; there are obvious cost and infosec issues with that.
At tea did DavidL say England were going to win this match?
No I didn't. I said that the first 2 or 3 overs after tea would be critical. And we lost 2 wickets. In all honesty, much as I admire Mehedi Hasan, this is a very poor effort by England.
This is a throwback to the 90s, England collapsing, 10 for 64!
Thanks for that Jack - if you're anywhere near being right then there's money to be made since last night Sporting were quoting a buy of Clinton at 312 ECVs and a sell ot Trump at 224 ECVs. This morning, true to recent form, they appear to have closed up shop again. It's probably best anyway for punters to wait a day or two prior to taking the plunge to get a feel for the latest, post bombshell polls. DYOR.
At tea did DavidL say England were going to win this match?
No I didn't. I said that the first 2 or 3 overs after tea would be critical. And we lost 2 wickets. In all honesty, much as I admire Mehedi Hasan, this is a very poor effort by England.
This is a throwback to the 90s, England collapsing, 10 for 64!
It was always going to be tough batting 4th on that wicket. Basically BD got way too many runs in the third innings. It was that first session of very ordinary bowling that left England in a very difficult position.
At tea did DavidL say England were going to win this match?
No I didn't. I said that the first 2 or 3 overs after tea would be critical. And we lost 2 wickets. In all honesty, much as I admire Mehedi Hasan, this is a very poor effort by England.
This is a throwback to the 90s, England collapsing, 10 for 64!
It was always going to be tough batting 4th on that wicket. Basically BD got way too many runs in the third innings. It was that first session of very ordinary bowling that left England in a very difficult position.
Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.
If this does swing the election and there is ultimately nothing of substance in the emails then the FBI will be seen to have directly interfered in the election.
I am 100% behind Clinton getting what is due to her if she has committed a crime. But this is wrong because it has been raised too close to the election for voters to know whether there is any truth in it before voting. It will therefore do her harm whether there is anything in the emails or not. The FBI knew this and have therefore taken a decision that they know will impact on the election against all previous conventions.
When we get to the bottom of this there will be political intent somewhere down the line. Doesn't bode well for US democracy when Trump is already claiming the election is "rigged".
And if they had done nothing, and it turned out there *was* a bombshell in those emails they would have impacted on the election. The mistake was the press conference in July, not this.
It does not speak much for the abilities of the FBI that once becoming aware of thousands of missing emails they did not widen the net into Hilary Clinton's close advisors and workers to see what they held.
Leaving aside the fact that becomes trawling; there are obvious cost and infosec issues with that.
We are talking about work that could decide the POTUS and may cost the Head of FBI their job. I am surprised that the FBI's systems are so slow and cumbersome to process volumes and issues quickly.
Only metaphorically - mind you the collapse was over a 4 year period and has just been found.
Looking at Florida - it is still Republics +64K by mail, - 39K in person - however it is the 500K independents that hold the key - if they are mainly Hispanics then Clinton wins, if Deplorables (WWC) then Trump.
A timely reminder to PBers to note where the candidates are over the closing 10 ten days. Especially the Trump campaign as he has far few surrogates and will have to throw the dice to pull a route to 270.
Yesterday Trump was in Arizona (not a good sign) but in a related way he's making stops in Michigan this week - Lose Arizona (11 ECV) more than countered by winning the Great Lakes State (16 ECV), although Clinton leads in the latest EPIC/MRA +7 and Emerson +9 polls.
In contrast Clinton has multiple surrogates and is able to spread herself and them much more widely and assist in down ballot races.
Normally sound advice. But does Trump play by these rules? Does he even listen to people who tell him to go to such and such state?
Trump's state visiting strategy looks sound enough. One area he has been guided by others I think. If it was down to Trump alone he'd probably be in New York and California..
He's visiting Michigan not because he will win it he won't, but because it is a symbol of his economic message.
Think that is part of it, Nunu - Michigan is a symbol of his message and the problems of Michigan are one that resonate across the rust belt (and, in Detroit's case, across the country).
Pulpstar does have a good point though - Michigan only looks difficult for Trump if you believe the AA vote turns out: demographically, the profile of the White population suits him. If they do not, then MI is more in play.
One other thing, PBers: the assumption on here seems to be that Michelle Obama is used because she is such a fantastic personality. Might it just be that she is being used so much because the Democrats are seeing the propensity of the AA vote to turn out is not looking good at the moment and so there is a certain amount of worry? If you look at a number of states on the polling, they only look "safe" for HRC if the AA vote turn out. On that basis, I would be interested to know if Nate Silver / the pollsters are using 2008/12 assumptions on AA turnout?
Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.
If this does swing the election and there is ultimately nothing of substance in the emails then the FBI will be seen to have directly interfered in the election.
I am 100% behind Clinton getting what is due to her if she has committed a crime. But this is wrong because it has been raised too close to the election for voters to know whether there is any truth in it before voting. It will therefore do her harm whether there is anything in the emails or not. The FBI knew this and have therefore taken a decision that they know will impact on the election against all previous conventions.
When we get to the bottom of this there will be political intent somewhere down the line. Doesn't bode well for US democracy when Trump is already claiming the election is "rigged".
And if they had done nothing, and it turned out there *was* a bombshell in those emails they would have impacted on the election. The mistake was the press conference in July, not this.
It does not speak much for the abilities of the FBI that once becoming aware of thousands of missing emails they did not widen the net into Hilary Clinton's close advisors and workers to see what they held.
The charitable version is that they (the FBI) were sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "La La La" when people pointed out the missing emails. The earlier investigation was directed, from a high level, to find nothing, if possible.
Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.
If this does swing the election and there is ultimately nothing of substance in the emails then the FBI will be seen to have directly interfered in the election.
I am 100% behind Clinton getting what is due to her if she has committed a crime. But this is wrong because it has been raised too close to the election for voters to know whether there is any truth in it before voting. It will therefore do her harm whether there is anything in the emails or not. The FBI knew this and have therefore taken a decision that they know will impact on the election against all previous conventions.
When we get to the bottom of this there will be political intent somewhere down the line. Doesn't bode well for US democracy when Trump is already claiming the election is "rigged".
And if they had done nothing, and it turned out there *was* a bombshell in those emails they would have impacted on the election. The mistake was the press conference in July, not this.
It does not speak much for the abilities of the FBI that once becoming aware of thousands of missing emails they did not widen the net into Hilary Clinton's close advisors and workers to see what they held.
Leaving aside the fact that becomes trawling; there are obvious cost and infosec issues with that.
We are talking about work that could decide the POTUS and may cost the Head of FBI their job. I am surprised that the FBI's systems are so slow and cumbersome to process volumes and issues quickly.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. The sin that HRC's committed is basic info security. The FBI cannot compound that sin by having lax info sec with the data they retrieve. That means that staff who access the emails will need to have relevant clearance, and probably work from secure rooms. In addition, they probably need people with specialist knowledge to decide if some information is, or is not, classified.
You don't just give this work to someone you pull off the street.
I have some sympathy with the FBI over this, especially given the apparent volume of emails that needed to be parsed.
Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.
If this does swing the election and there is ultimately nothing of substance in the emails then the FBI will be seen to have directly interfered in the election.
I am 100% behind Clinton getting what is due to her if she has committed a crime. But this is wrong because it has been raised too close to the election for voters to know whether there is any truth in it before voting. It will therefore do her harm whether there is anything in the emails or not. The FBI knew this and have therefore taken a decision that they know will impact on the election against all previous conventions.
When we get to the bottom of this there will be political intent somewhere down the line. Doesn't bode well for US democracy when Trump is already claiming the election is "rigged".
And if they had done nothing, and it turned out there *was* a bombshell in those emails they would have impacted on the election. The mistake was the press conference in July, not this.
It does not speak much for the abilities of the FBI that once becoming aware of thousands of missing emails they did not widen the net into Hilary Clinton's close advisors and workers to see what they held.
Leaving aside the fact that becomes trawling; there are obvious cost and infosec issues with that.
We are talking about work that could decide the POTUS and may cost the Head of FBI their job. I am surprised that the FBI's systems are so slow and cumbersome to process volumes and issues quickly.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. The sin that HRC's committed is basic info security. The FBI cannot compound that sin by having lax info sec with the data they retrieve. That means that staff who access the emails will need to have relevant clearance, and probably work from secure rooms. In addition, they probably need people with specialist knowledge to decide if some information is, or is not, classified.
You don't just give this work to someone you pull off the street.
I have some sympathy with the FBI over this, especially given the apparent volume of emails that needed to be parsed.
It is the ones that they did not have to be able to parse that is the real issue.
Once again we are seeing absurd delays. I mean how many minutes does it take the FBI get a warrant? For material already in the hands of NYPD? I mean for goodness sake. Get a grip and report. Its really not that hard.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. The sin that HRC's committed is basic info security. The FBI cannot compound that sin by having lax info sec with the data they retrieve. That means that staff who access the emails will need to have relevant clearance, and probably work from secure rooms. In addition, they probably need people with specialist knowledge to decide if some information is, or is not, classified.
You don't just give this work to someone you pull off the street.
I have some sympathy with the FBI over this, especially given the apparent volume of emails that needed to be parsed.
It is the ones that they did not have to be able to parse that is the real issue.
Yes, but how far do you go down the rabbit hole before you're sure you've got all relevant emails?
It's a mess, and it's one utterly of HRC's making.
As an aside, I wonder if other politicians are changing their behaviour wrt emails and computers ...
Once again we are seeing absurd delays. I mean how many minutes does it take the FBI get a warrant? For material already in the hands of NYPD? I mean for goodness sake. Get a grip and report. Its really not that hard.
How do you know: "Its really not that hard." ? What do you think they need to do?
'About a third of likely voters say they’re less likely to support Clinton given FBI Director James Comey’s disclosure Friday that the bureau is investigating more emails related to its probe of Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state. Given other considerations, 63 percent say it makes no difference. Today, a small number of Clinton’s supporters, 7 percent, say the matter makes them less likely to support her. About one in seven in some of her key support groups, such as Democrats (13 percent) and liberals (15 percent), say so, rising much higher among groups already predisposed not to vote for her, including 47 percent among conservatives and 52 percent among Republicans and evangelical white Protestants alike. ' http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-turnout-critical-poll/story?id=43159639 (Asked Oct 28th-29th)
Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.
If this does swing the election and there is ultimately nothing of substance in the emails then the FBI will be seen to have directly interfered in the election.
... When we get to the bottom of this there will be political intent somewhere down the line. Doesn't bode well for US democracy when Trump is already claiming the election is "rigged".
And if they had done nothing, and it turned out there *was* a bombshell in those emails they would have impacted on the election. The mistake was the press conference in July, not this.
It does not speak much for the abilities of the FBI that once becoming aware of thousands of missing emails they did not widen the net into Hilary Clinton's close advisors and workers to see what they held.
Leaving aside the fact that becomes trawling; there are obvious cost and infosec issues with that.
We are talking about work that could decide the POTUS and may cost the Head of FBI their job. I am surprised that the FBI's systems are so slow and cumbersome to process volumes and issues quickly.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. The sin that HRC's committed is basic info security. The FBI cannot compound that sin by having lax info sec with the data they retrieve. That means that staff who access the emails will need to have relevant clearance, and probably work from secure rooms. In addition, they probably need people with specialist knowledge to decide if some information is, or is not, classified.
You don't just give this work to someone you pull off the street.
I have some sympathy with the FBI over this, especially given the apparent volume of emails that needed to be parsed.
Well if they had just prosecuted Clinton when they should have done instead of playing politics this wouldn't have happened.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. The sin that HRC's committed is basic info security. The FBI cannot compound that sin by having lax info sec with the data they retrieve. That means that staff who access the emails will need to have relevant clearance, and probably work from secure rooms. In addition, they probably need people with specialist knowledge to decide if some information is, or is not, classified.
You don't just give this work to someone you pull off the street.
I have some sympathy with the FBI over this, especially given the apparent volume of emails that needed to be parsed.
It is the ones that they did not have to be able to parse that is the real issue.
Yes, but how far do you go down the rabbit hole before you're sure you've got all relevant emails?
It's a mess, and it's one utterly of HRC's making.
As an aside, I wonder if other politicians are changing their behaviour wrt emails and computers ...
Clinton is the guilty party here but the FBI are making rods for their own backs. An investigation that really should have taken 9 days (what is on the server and is it top secret?) took more than 9 months. And now they are writing to Congress before obtaining a warrant to allow them to assess what they have found. It is truly pathetic and allows attacks of partisanship which inevitably cloud the question of culpability. Just stunning incompetence.
Once again we are seeing absurd delays. I mean how many minutes does it take the FBI get a warrant? For material already in the hands of NYPD? I mean for goodness sake. Get a grip and report. Its really not that hard.
Hillary is being judged in the court of public opinion in the meantime.
Once again we are seeing absurd delays. I mean how many minutes does it take the FBI get a warrant? For material already in the hands of NYPD? I mean for goodness sake. Get a grip and report. Its really not that hard.
The DoJ is apparently arguing that no warrant is necessary because the emails aren't relevant tovan ongoing investigation
The DoJ's behaviour *throughout* this whole thing stinks
Maybe Weiner was e-mailing Hilary with photos of his anatomy.
That sounds like a cock and ball story to me ....
Only one ball? Was it in profile, or is there something (ahem) incomplete about Weiner?
By all accounts, Mr. Wiener had remarkable success with women before marrying Huma Abedin (who is pretty good-looking too) which is strange when you consider what he looks like.
Surely it's like fortune tellers.
If you hit on everything that moves, you're bound to have some success.
And people only remember the correct predictions.
My best man had the same technique, he would hit on almost every woman he met with a blatent and fairly crude line, delivered with a degree of charm. 90% of the time he would be knocked back immediately, but he had plenty of the evening left to find the 10% who were up for it. It takes a pretty thick skin, and indiscrimate taste to apply the principle though!
Yes, a university housemate would use a very crude line (basically 'do you want to have sex with me?') on every girl he met in a nightclub, starting from 1am. He got lots of slaps around the face, but almost never left on his own. I was astonished this would ever work, but with 200 women in the club a 0.5% hit rate was good enough! He did this every week for three years!
I was the less appealling mate that got landed with her less appealling mate though, similtaneously embarrassed and impressed by my mates brazeness!
I used to go out drinking in London with a mate who was rather active. He'd always wear a flying jacket and model himself on Ace Rimmer.
We'd move in to chat up girls. They'd ask him: "What do you do?" And he'd reply: "Well, I race cars, I tutor people to fly gliders, I've got a private pilot's licence, and I go parachuting most weekends."
They'd turn to me and ask: "So, what do you do?"
"I'm a programmer."
I'm amazed I ever pulled in his company ...
Oh, and he's still racing cars. Except he's now bald.
"They'd turn to me and ask: "So, what do you do?"
"I'm a programmer."
I'm amazed I ever pulled in his company ..."
They probably thought you were up to date a regards all the TV Soaps and therefore good company.
The email server story is pathetic...it really is. If it had been a leading GOP candidate, I would have equally thought what erghhhhh....where is the story? Oh yes, then we find other Secretaries of State used their private email server...Colin Powell. And do I care that Colin Powell used a private email server...no..do I care that Hillary Clinton used a private email server....no.
For years the Republican dominated Congress went after the Clinton finances during his presidency and came up with a big fat zero. All innuendo and rumour...which sticks because with crap thrown at walls, something always does.
And the stuff about the Clinton Foundation is just stuff dredged up the whack jobs of the internet, the Plato's of the world.
The problem is the right cannot win the Presidency on their terms. America has changed...it's got educated, and more diverse. The right only wins the congress through gerrymandering....but how long that will last? The right needs to offer an electoral program that appeals to enough of the population to win an election. It needs to do what Cameron did and re-brand the party.
Sure, the Democrats could have selected a candidate with less baggage than Hillary? But GOP's unruly base has made it almost impossible for them to select a candidate that is capable of winning, even against a tarnished, tired and tainted Hillary.
Once again we are seeing absurd delays. I mean how many minutes does it take the FBI get a warrant? For material already in the hands of NYPD? I mean for goodness sake. Get a grip and report. Its really not that hard.
The DoJ is apparently arguing that no warrant is necessary because the emails aren't relevant tovan ongoing investigation
The DoJ's behaviour *throughout* this whole thing stinks
If this hadn’t come out in an election year, and didn’t concern one of the candidates, this would have been done and dusted in a few months.
'About a third of likely voters say they’re less likely to support Clinton given FBI Director James Comey’s disclosure Friday that the bureau is investigating more emails related to its probe of Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state. Given other considerations, 63 percent say it makes no difference. Today, a small number of Clinton’s supporters, 7 percent, say the matter makes them less likely to support her. About one in seven in some of her key support groups, such as Democrats (13 percent) and liberals (15 percent), say so, rising much higher among groups already predisposed not to vote for her, including 47 percent among conservatives and 52 percent among Republicans and evangelical white Protestants alike. ' http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-turnout-critical-poll/story?id=43159639
Another snippet: "She's backed by 88 percent of blacks (average for a Democrat)"
AA turnout will be critical for her - it is keeping her polling numbers up but, if it is not there on the day, she has problems in many states.
Once again we are seeing absurd delays. I mean how many minutes does it take the FBI get a warrant? For material already in the hands of NYPD? I mean for goodness sake. Get a grip and report. Its really not that hard.
Hillary is being judged in the court of public opinion in the meantime.
But not on the facts. Maybe there is absolutely nothing new in this material and it is just duplicates of what they had before. A computer should be able to cross check that in under a minute. Maybe there is stuff there that has been deleted and not recovered to date. That would be more complicated but not much. Maybe anything new does not relate to "secret" material at all but is domestic or party political. Again that might take a bit longer to assess but it should be reasonably obvious from the source of the material.
A timely reminder to PBers to note where the candidates are over the closing 10 ten days. Especially the Trump campaign as he has far few surrogates and will have to throw the dice to pull a route to 270.
Yesterday Trump was in Arizona (not a good sign) but in a related way he's making stops in Michigan this week - Lose Arizona (11 ECV) more than countered by winning the Great Lakes State (16 ECV), although Clinton leads in the latest EPIC/MRA +7 and Emerson +9 polls.
In contrast Clinton has multiple surrogates and is able to spread herself and them much more widely and assist in down ballot races.
Normally sound advice. But does Trump play by these rules? Does he even listen to people who tell him to go to such and such state?
Trump's state visiting strategy looks sound enough. One area he has been guided by others I think. If it was down to Trump alone he'd probably be in New York and California..
He's visiting Michigan not because he will win it he won't, but because it is a symbol of his economic message.
Think that is part of it, Nunu - Michigan is a symbol of his message and the problems of Michigan are one that resonate across the rust belt (and, in Detroit's case, across the country).
Pulpstar does have a good point though - Michigan only looks difficult for Trump if you believe the AA vote turns out: demographically, the profile of the White population suits him. If they do not, then MI is more in play.
One other thing, PBers: the assumption on here seems to be that Michelle Obama is used because she is such a fantastic personality. Might it just be that she is being used so much because the Democrats are seeing the propensity of the AA vote to turn out is not looking good at the moment and so there is a certain amount of worry? If you look at a number of states on the polling, they only look "safe" for HRC if the AA vote turn out. On that basis, I would be interested to know if Nate Silver / the pollsters are using 2008/12 assumptions on AA turnout?
Once again we are seeing absurd delays. I mean how many minutes does it take the FBI get a warrant? For material already in the hands of NYPD? I mean for goodness sake. Get a grip and report. Its really not that hard.
The DoJ is apparently arguing that no warrant is necessary because the emails aren't relevant tovan ongoing investigation
The DoJ's behaviour *throughout* this whole thing stinks
Absolutely. But there is more than a hint of revenge in the steps that the FBI has taken. It is not a good look for an impartial investigator.
Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.
If this does swing the election and there is ultimately nothing of substance in the emails then the FBI will be seen to have directly interfered in the election.
... When we get to the bottom of this there will be political intent somewhere down the line. Doesn't bode well for US democracy when Trump is already claiming the election is "rigged".
And if they had done nothing, and it turned out there *was* a bombshell in those emails they would have impacted on the election. The mistake was the press conference in July, not this.
It does not speak much for the abilities of the FBI that once becoming aware of thousands of missing emails they did not widen the net into Hilary Clinton's close advisors and workers to see what they held.
Leaving aside the fact that becomes trawling; there are obvious cost and infosec issues with that.
We are talking about work that could decide the POTUS and may cost the Head of FBI their job. I am surprised that the FBI's systems are so slow and cumbersome to process volumes and issues quickly.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. The sin that HRC's committed is basic info security. The FBI cannot compound that sin by having lax info sec with the data they retrieve. That means that staff who access the emails will need to have relevant clearance, and probably work from secure rooms. In addition, they probably need people with specialist knowledge to decide if some information is, or is not, classified.
You don't just give this work to someone you pull off the street.
I have some sympathy with the FBI over this, especially given the apparent volume of emails that needed to be parsed.
Well if they had just prosecuted Clinton when they should have done instead of playing politics this wouldn't have happened.
But then it'd implicate Obama - and this is all about protecting him and the inner circle. He knew she was using a private server - it's in Wikileaks and mentioned many times. Her emails didn't have a .state.gov address.
He lied about not knowing. It's crashingly obvious.
'About a third of likely voters say they’re less likely to support Clinton given FBI Director James Comey’s disclosure Friday that the bureau is investigating more emails related to its probe of Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state. Given other considerations, 63 percent say it makes no difference. Today, a small number of Clinton’s supporters, 7 percent, say the matter makes them less likely to support her. About one in seven in some of her key support groups, such as Democrats (13 percent) and liberals (15 percent), say so, rising much higher among groups already predisposed not to vote for her, including 47 percent among conservatives and 52 percent among Republicans and evangelical white Protestants alike. ' http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-turnout-critical-poll/story?id=43159639
Another snippet: "She's backed by 88 percent of blacks (average for a Democrat)"
AA turnout will be critical for her - it is keeping her polling numbers up but, if it is not there on the day, she has problems in many states.
Yes, minorities could be a problem for her.
'Trump has a 15-point advantage over Clinton among whites, while Clinton has 68 percent support in the latest results among nonwhites, vs. Obama's 80 percent among nonwhites in the 2012 exit poll. She's backed by 88 percent of blacks (average for a Democrat) and 60 percent of Hispanics (a bit less than average; 10 percent peel off to Johnson and Stein). A notable difference is nonwhites who are not black or Hispanic. Obama won them by 66-31 percent; it's a closer 45-40 percent, Clinton-Trump, in the tracking poll. White Catholics, a swing voter group in elections from 1976 to 2004, are now with Trump by 57-36 percent, reopening his advantage in this group to near the margin he last saw in late September. Trump counters Clinton’s 21-point lead among college-educated likely voters with a 12-point advantage among those who lack a college degree. (The latter are more numerous.) Clinton leads by 23 points among college-educated white women, a crucial bulwark for her. The two are even among college-educated white men, while Trump leads by 38 and 27 points, respectively, among non-college white men and non-college white women.' http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-turnout-critical-poll/story?id=43159639
'About a third of likely voters say they’re less likely to support Clinton given FBI Director James Comey’s disclosure Friday that the bureau is investigating more emails related to its probe of Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state. Given other considerations, 63 percent say it makes no difference. Today, a small number of Clinton’s supporters, 7 percent, say the matter makes them less likely to support her. About one in seven in some of her key support groups, such as Democrats (13 percent) and liberals (15 percent), say so, rising much higher among groups already predisposed not to vote for her, including 47 percent among conservatives and 52 percent among Republicans and evangelical white Protestants alike. ' http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-turnout-critical-poll/story?id=43159639
Another snippet: "She's backed by 88 percent of blacks (average for a Democrat)"
AA turnout will be critical for her - it is keeping her polling numbers up but, if it is not there on the day, she has problems in many states.
Indeed:
Detroit, Mich. 2010 census population White: 75,758 (10.6%); Black: 590,226 (82.7%)
They probably thought you were up to date a regards all the TV Soaps and therefore good company.
(I always forget if it should be computer 'program' or 'programme'. A bit like 'disc' versus 'disk').
I was climbing up Lose Hill in Derbyshire one day whilst I was still single. I met two beautiful girls near the summit, when they were taking a breather after completing the Limestone Way. We started chatting, and I was amazed to discover they were computer programmers.
So, two young, attractive, female, hikers, who were programmers. A heavenly opportunity.
"Who do you work for?" one asked. "Acorn," I replied with pride. "Oh, we work for IBM," she said. "A proper computer company.
I soon bid them goodbye and left. The cheek of them!
Once again we are seeing absurd delays. I mean how many minutes does it take the FBI get a warrant? For material already in the hands of NYPD? I mean for goodness sake. Get a grip and report. Its really not that hard.
The DoJ is apparently arguing that no warrant is necessary because the emails aren't relevant tovan ongoing investigation
The DoJ's behaviour *throughout* this whole thing stinks
Loretta and Bill meeting on the tarmac for 40mins to discuss golf [and he didn't play any/109F outside] and grandchildren... Seriously? The same week that no action was required? 97% of DOJ personnel donations went to Hillary...
They probably thought you were up to date a regards all the TV Soaps and therefore good company.
(I always forget if it should be computer 'program' or 'programme'. A bit like 'disc' versus 'disk').
I was climbing up Lose Hill in Derbyshire one day whilst I was still single. I met two beautiful girls near the summit, when they were taking a breather after completing the Limestone Way. We started chatting, and I was amazed to discover they were computer programmers.
So, two young, attractive, female, hikers, who were programmers. A heavenly opportunity.
"Who do you work for?" one asked. "Acorn," I replied with pride. "Oh, we work for IBM," she said. "A proper computer company.
I soon bid them goodbye and left. The cheek of them!
Surely there were opportunities there with "big" and "blue" that you missed?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. The sin that HRC's committed is basic info security. The FBI cannot compound that sin by having lax info sec with the data they retrieve. That means that staff who access the emails will need to have relevant clearance, and probably work from secure rooms. In addition, they probably need people with specialist knowledge to decide if some information is, or is not, classified.
You don't just give this work to someone you pull off the street.
I have some sympathy with the FBI over this, especially given the apparent volume of emails that needed to be parsed.
It is the ones that they did not have to be able to parse that is the real issue.
Yes, but how far do you go down the rabbit hole before you're sure you've got all relevant emails?
It's a mess, and it's one utterly of HRC's making.
As an aside, I wonder if other politicians are changing their behaviour wrt emails and computers ...
Clinton is the guilty party here but the FBI are making rods for their own backs. An investigation that really should have taken 9 days (what is on the server and is it top secret?) took more than 9 months. And now they are writing to Congress before obtaining a warrant to allow them to assess what they have found. It is truly pathetic and allows attacks of partisanship which inevitably cloud the question of culpability. Just stunning incompetence.
As far as I'm aware there's a vast quantity of data on the servers (I would love some metrics for this). I'm unsure how you can claim nine days is sufficient for the task.
Also, if there were lawyers involved they were probably charging by the hour ...
'About a third of likely voters say they’re less likely to support Clinton given FBI Director James Comey’s disclosure Friday that the bureau is investigating more emails related to its probe of Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state. Given other considerations, 63 percent say it makes no difference. Today, a small number of Clinton’s supporters, 7 percent, say the matter makes them less likely to support her. About one in seven in some of her key support groups, such as Democrats (13 percent) and liberals (15 percent), say so, rising much higher among groups already predisposed not to vote for her, including 47 percent among conservatives and 52 percent among Republicans and evangelical white Protestants alike. ' http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-turnout-critical-poll/story?id=43159639 (Asked Oct 28th-29th)
It sounds from that as though nearly all those who say they're less likely to support her weren't going to support her anyway!
That leaves the 7% of her supporters, which presumably amounts to about 3% of those polled, and it rather hinges on how much less likely they are to support her, and whether if they don't they vote for Trump instead.
If half of them abstained instead, it would cost her a quarter to a third of her current lead in the polls. If all of them voted for Trump instead, it would wipe out that lead entirely.
Blimey Emerson's Likely Voter screen is brutal. Didn't vote in 2012? Discarded. If other pollsters use an equally brutal screen then a non voter surge wpuld be completely missed.
When Trump makes ground on Hillary, it doesn't mean that does it? It means Hillary has sunk nearer Trump. And vice versa. Turnout will be depressed, which should be good for Trump with his more motivated supporters.
Blimey Emerson's Likely Voter screen is brutal. Didn't vote in 2012? Discarded. If other pollsters use an equally brutal screen then a non voter surge would be completely missed.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. The sin that HRC's committed is basic info security. The FBI cannot compound that sin by having lax info sec with the data they retrieve. That means that staff who access the emails will need to have relevant clearance, and probably work from secure rooms. In addition, they probably need people with specialist knowledge to decide if some information is, or is not, classified.
You don't just give this work to someone you pull off the street.
I have some sympathy with the FBI over this, especially given the apparent volume of emails that needed to be parsed.
It is the ones that they did not have to be able to parse that is the real issue.
Yes, but how far do you go down the rabbit hole before you're sure you've got all relevant emails?
It's a mess, and it's one utterly of HRC's making.
As an aside, I wonder if other politicians are changing their behaviour wrt emails and computers ...
Clinton is the guilty party here but the FBI are making rods for their own backs. An investigation that really should have taken 9 days (what is on the server and is it top secret?) took more than 9 months. And now they are writing to Congress before obtaining a warrant to allow them to assess what they have found. It is truly pathetic and allows attacks of partisanship which inevitably cloud the question of culpability. Just stunning incompetence.
As far as I'm aware there's a vast quantity of data on the servers (I would love some metrics for this). I'm unsure how you can claim nine days is sufficient for the task.
Also, if there were lawyers involved they were probably charging by the hour ...
Ouch. What they were looking for is material from State that was Top Secret or above that had been copied to other staffers through her personal server. So a very large percentage of the content of the server could be ignored from the get go.
Once they had identified such material (and they did) they needed to assess if it was top secret at the time it was sent and, bizarrely, at the time of the investigation. It is the latter that seems to have slowed things down.
Blimey Emerson's Likely Voter screen is brutal. Didn't vote in 2012? Discarded. If other pollsters use an equally brutal screen then a non voter surge wpuld be completely missed.
That worked quite well in 2015 for the UK. I reworked YouGov polls to only count 2010 voters and they had an average 4 point Con lead compared to YouGov's headline of a tie or Lab +1. I didn't do it for the referendum, but I don't think it would have worked as well.
'About a third of likely voters say they’re less likely to support Clinton given FBI Director James Comey’s disclosure Friday that the bureau is investigating more emails related to its probe of Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state. Given other considerations, 63 percent say it makes no difference. Today, a small number of Clinton’s supporters, 7 percent, say the matter makes them less likely to support her. About one in seven in some of her key support groups, such as Democrats (13 percent) and liberals (15 percent), say so, rising much higher among groups already predisposed not to vote for her, including 47 percent among conservatives and 52 percent among Republicans and evangelical white Protestants alike. ' http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-turnout-critical-poll/story?id=43159639 (Asked Oct 28th-29th)
It sounds from that as though nearly all those who say they're less likely to support her weren't going to support her anyway!
That leaves the 7% of her supporters, which presumably amounts to about 3% of those polled, and it rather hinges on how much less likely they are to support her, and whether if they don't they vote for Trump instead.
If half of them abstained instead, it would cost her a quarter to a third of her current lead in the polls. If all of them voted for Trump instead, it would wipe out that lead entirely.
Indeed and given this ABC poll has Clinton's lead at just 1% in a 4 way race that 7% could be crucial, maybe enough even to give Trump the popular vote although Hillary may still scrape home in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire to keep the lead in the electoral college
Blimey Emerson's Likely Voter screen is brutal. Didn't vote in 2012? Discarded. If other pollsters use an equally brutal screen then a non voter surge wpuld be completely missed.
If there is really a Dem non-voter surge in early voting, but in many cases Dems are still hovering around 2012 leads in EV despite demographic changes, then where are all the Dem likely voters?
Assuming this is true (& I don't take the Platonic view of uncorroborated sources), the decision to write the letter is pretty extraordinary.
If this does swing the election and there is ultimately nothing of substance in the emails then the FBI will be seen to have directly interfered in the election.
I am 100% behind Clinton getting what is due to her if she has committed a crime. But this is wrong because it has been raised too close to the election for voters to know whether there is any truth in it before voting. It will therefore do her harm whether there is anything in the emails or not. The FBI knew this and have therefore taken a decision that they know will impact on the election against all previous conventions.
When we get to the bottom of this there will be political intent somewhere down the line. Doesn't bode well for US democracy when Trump is already claiming the election is "rigged".
And if they had done nothing, and it turned out there *was* a bombshell in those emails they would have impacted on the election. The mistake was the press conference in July, not this.
It does not speak much for the abilities of the FBI that once becoming aware of thousands of missing emails they did not widen the net into Hilary Clinton's close advisors and workers to see what they held.
The charitable version is that they (the FBI) were sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "La La La" when people pointed out the missing emails. The earlier investigation was directed, from a high level, to find nothing, if possible.
It does look that way.
"I gave a great answer. I said that I'd found no significant evidence of it."
Re: England - big collapses are always possible on spinning pitches in the subcontinent. The number one rule on these sorts of pitches is that when you get in, you have to make it count - the biggest crime is not getting out for a very low score, it is getting out for a middling score. A lot of the pundits seem to have forgotten that - it is perfectly normal on these sorts of pitches to see scorecards where two or three players massively outscore the rest of the team combined. It is rarely like in England where a good score can often be put together on the back of a lot of 40s and 50s. And if nobody gets the big scores then what we had to day is the sort of thing that results. Unless a batsman shows a capacity to bat long, then they are no use.
As an aside - pet peeve when describing batting collapses. England did not lose "10 for 64", they lost "9 for 64". You can't include the first wicket because then every wicket would be lost for no runs. Not that it makes it sound much better.
Assuming no faithless electors break the tie the House votes, but in a weird way by state delegation. They probably choose Trump, but it's possible there would be defections and you'd end up with a compromise candidate. If they can't get a majority for one candidate then the VP gets the job, who is picked by The Senate. If they can't decide either, the Speaker of the House gets the job.
Blimey Emerson's Likely Voter screen is brutal. Didn't vote in 2012? Discarded. If other pollsters use an equally brutal screen then a non voter surge wpuld be completely missed.
If there is really a Dem non-voter surge in early voting, but in many cases Dems are still hovering around 2012 leads in EV despite demographic changes, then where are all the Dem likely voters?
I'm more think of the semi mythical Trump WWC surge Brexit Harder wave.
'About a third of likely voters say they’re less likely to support Clinton given FBI Director James Comey’s disclosure Friday that the bureau is investigating more emails related to its probe of Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state. Given other considerations, 63 percent say it makes no difference. Today, a small number of Clinton’s supporters, 7 percent, say the matter makes them less likely to support her. About one in seven in some of her key support groups, such as Democrats (13 percent) and liberals (15 percent), say so, rising much higher among groups already predisposed not to vote for her, including 47 percent among conservatives and 52 percent among Republicans and evangelical white Protestants alike. ' http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-turnout-critical-poll/story?id=43159639 (Asked Oct 28th-29th)
It sounds from that as though nearly all those who say they're less likely to support her weren't going to support her anyway!
That leaves the 7% of her supporters, which presumably amounts to about 3% of those polled, and it rather hinges on how much less likely they are to support her, and whether if they don't they vote for Trump instead.
If half of them abstained instead, it would cost her a quarter to a third of her current lead in the polls. If all of them voted for Trump instead, it would wipe out that lead entirely.
Indeed and given this ABC poll has Clinton's lead at just 1% in a 4 way race that 7% could be crucial, maybe enough even to give Trump the popular vote although Hillary may still scrape home in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire to keep the lead in the electoral college
You are missing a trick by failing to tell us that Nate Silver adjusts the ABC/Washington Post polls by reducing Clinton's lead by one point.
'About a third of likely voters say they’re less likely to support Clinton given FBI Director James Comey’s disclosure Friday that the bureau is investigating more emails related to its probe of Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state. Given other considerations, 63 percent say it makes no difference. Today, a small number of Clinton’s supporters, 7 percent, say the matter makes them less likely to support her. About one in seven in some of her key support groups, such as Democrats (13 percent) and liberals (15 percent), say so, rising much higher among groups already predisposed not to vote for her, including 47 percent among conservatives and 52 percent among Republicans and evangelical white Protestants alike. ' http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-turnout-critical-poll/story?id=43159639 (Asked Oct 28th-29th)
It sounds from that as though nearly all those who say they're less likely to support her weren't going to support her anyway!
That leaves the 7% of her supporters, which presumably amounts to about 3% of those polled, and it rather hinges on how much less likely they are to support her, and whether if they don't they vote for Trump instead.
If half of them abstained instead, it would cost her a quarter to a third of her current lead in the polls. If all of them voted for Trump instead, it would wipe out that lead entirely.
Indeed and given this ABC poll has Clinton's lead at just 1% in a 4 way race that 7% could be crucial, maybe enough even to give Trump the popular vote although Hillary may still scrape home in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire to keep the lead in the electoral college
In some ways, that outcome might suit Trump. He could claim Crooked Hillary has no mandate, acting as a Shadow President that bloviates on everything her administration does - whilst not having to run the country (leaving him free to run his business empire for 90% of the time...)
They probably thought you were up to date a regards all the TV Soaps and therefore good company.
(I always forget if it should be computer 'program' or 'programme'. A bit like 'disc' versus 'disk').
I was climbing up Lose Hill in Derbyshire one day whilst I was still single. I met two beautiful girls near the summit, when they were taking a breather after completing the Limestone Way. We started chatting, and I was amazed to discover they were computer programmers.
So, two young, attractive, female, hikers, who were programmers. A heavenly opportunity.
"Who do you work for?" one asked. "Acorn," I replied with pride. "Oh, we work for IBM," she said. "A proper computer company.
I soon bid them goodbye and left. The cheek of them!
They probably thought you were up to date a regards all the TV Soaps and therefore good company.
(I always forget if it should be computer 'program' or 'programme'. A bit like 'disc' versus 'disk').
I was climbing up Lose Hill in Derbyshire one day whilst I was still single. I met two beautiful girls near the summit, when they were taking a breather after completing the Limestone Way. We started chatting, and I was amazed to discover they were computer programmers.
So, two young, attractive, female, hikers, who were programmers. A heavenly opportunity.
"Who do you work for?" one asked. "Acorn," I replied with pride. "Oh, we work for IBM," she said. "A proper computer company.
I soon bid them goodbye and left. The cheek of them!
They were correct though
Ooooh, them's fighting words!
Given I was working with one of the designers of the ARM chip, and for the company that designed it, I rather think that Acorn has had more influence to consumers than IBM!
Blimey Emerson's Likely Voter screen is brutal. Didn't vote in 2012? Discarded. If other pollsters use an equally brutal screen then a non voter surge wpuld be completely missed.
If there is really a Dem non-voter surge in early voting, but in many cases Dems are still hovering around 2012 leads in EV despite demographic changes, then where are all the Dem likely voters?
I'm more think of the semi mythical Trump WWC surge Brexit Harder wave.
Well yes that's true. But also a thing to remember is that traditionally Republicans generally don't need to be told to vote, somewhat like the blue-rinse brigade over here. So a pollster with harsh voter screens will trend +R on that basis alone. But of course the support base of both Trump and Clinton have a somewhat different profile to their voter base, at least under the Obama terms, so it's difficult to work out which way the bias will swing this time.
Sporting have slightly revised their POTUS ECV spreads this morning, although staying with their enormous 15 vote margins for both candidates. The numbers are:
Comments
The mistake was the press conference in July, not this.
But as said before, she's hardly the first to be doing this. And whilst that's not an excuse for her, there's obviously a cultural problem in government (and I bet we have similar issues over here).
And for the record, I've got no doubt that Trump would be the same, if not worse: he's someone who clearly believes the rules do not apply to him.
http://www.thestate.com/opinion/editorials/article111181492.html
It's probably best anyway for punters to wait a day or two prior to taking the plunge to get a feel for the latest, post bombshell polls.
DYOR.
The only thing I would add is make sure you learn c++ in your own time.
Never underestimate the brilliance of a Cambridge educated chap with Pakistani heritage
Edit: Bugger
The press conference was a deviation from normal practice, under pressure from the DoJ. Although the end result (announcing that no charges were to be brought) was of party political benefit to one candidate, Comey tried to balance it with some fairly trenchant criticisms of her behaviour.
It would have been better to say and do nothing.
Come on the Bengals. We are all Banglas this morning....
We'd move in to chat up girls. They'd ask him: "What do you do?" And he'd reply: "Well, I race cars, I tutor people to fly gliders, I've got a private pilot's licence, and I go parachuting most weekends."
They'd turn to me and ask: "So, what do you do?"
"I'm a programmer."
I'm amazed I ever pulled in his company ...
Oh, and he's still racing cars. Except he's now bald.
She is crooked, always managing to do strange things that always come out as just not jailable - the 9,999% profit she made on cattle futures (no knowledge of the market) which she (as a lawyer) had no idea she was supposed to pay tax on was her initial foray into scandal...
I (an American citizen) want Hillary to win. As the crook she is. Rather than Trump.
While she was in government many have lost, permanently, their security clearances for doing a single instance of what she and her staff did (cutting security warnings of emails and posting them via insecure systems). Others went to jail. But that isn't the real issue.
Nor is the virtual certainty that she had the record filleted - emails were withheld.
The real issue is the cash-for-policy washing machine that is the Clinton Foundation.
Furthermore - do not buy into the Gordon Brownesque idea that "they are all at it" as a justification for her behaviour. Plenty of US politicians manage not to do these things. Obama seems to manage just fine with a financial tumble dryer, for one...
The attempts to explain away Clinton's behavior rather remind me of an Orwell essay in which he pointed out that we (humans) can't deal with the idea that someone we support and admire can do bad things. So all kinds of ridiculous nonsense is made up to excuse Salavdor Dali being a nasty suck up to Franco... because he was a great artist...
The earlier investigation was directed, from a high level, to find nothing, if possible.
Bangladesh win by 109.
I had so many memorable night out with him. At one stage in his twenties he had a high-paying job, yet most of his salary was going on racing.
Looking at Florida - it is still Republics +64K by mail, - 39K in person - however it is the 500K independents that hold the key - if they are mainly Hispanics then Clinton wins, if Deplorables (WWC) then Trump.
Pulpstar does have a good point though - Michigan only looks difficult for Trump if you believe the AA vote turns out: demographically, the profile of the White population suits him. If they do not, then MI is more in play.
One other thing, PBers: the assumption on here seems to be that Michelle Obama is used because she is such a fantastic personality. Might it just be that she is being used so much because the Democrats are seeing the propensity of the AA vote to turn out is not looking good at the moment and so there is a certain amount of worry? If you look at a number of states on the polling, they only look "safe" for HRC if the AA vote turn out. On that basis, I would be interested to know if Nate Silver / the pollsters are using 2008/12 assumptions on AA turnout?
You don't just give this work to someone you pull off the street.
I have some sympathy with the FBI over this, especially given the apparent volume of emails that needed to be parsed.
ABC
Donald Trump pulls within one point of Hillary Clinton in today’s @ABC News/WaPo tracking poll: https://t.co/oCYKwbvu1w https://t.co/dEwpa6BfLK
It's a mess, and it's one utterly of HRC's making.
As an aside, I wonder if other politicians are changing their behaviour wrt emails and computers ...
Today, a small number of Clinton’s supporters, 7 percent, say the matter makes them less likely to support her. About one in seven in some of her key support groups, such as Democrats (13 percent) and liberals (15 percent), say so, rising much higher among groups already predisposed not to vote for her, including 47 percent among conservatives and 52 percent among Republicans and evangelical white Protestants alike. '
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-turnout-critical-poll/story?id=43159639 (Asked Oct 28th-29th)
The DoJ's behaviour *throughout* this whole thing stinks
"They'd turn to me and ask: "So, what do you do?"
"I'm a programmer."
I'm amazed I ever pulled in his company ..."
They probably thought you were up to date a regards all the TV Soaps and therefore good company.
The email server story is pathetic...it really is. If it had been a leading GOP candidate, I would have equally thought what erghhhhh....where is the story? Oh yes, then we find other Secretaries of State used their private email server...Colin Powell. And do I care that Colin Powell used a private email server...no..do I care that Hillary Clinton used a private email server....no.
For years the Republican dominated Congress went after the Clinton finances during his presidency and came up with a big fat zero. All innuendo and rumour...which sticks because with crap thrown at walls, something always does.
And the stuff about the Clinton Foundation is just stuff dredged up the whack jobs of the internet, the Plato's of the world.
The problem is the right cannot win the Presidency on their terms. America has changed...it's got educated, and more diverse. The right only wins the congress through gerrymandering....but how long that will last? The right needs to offer an electoral program that appeals to enough of the population to win an election. It needs to do what Cameron did and re-brand the party.
Sure, the Democrats could have selected a candidate with less baggage than Hillary? But GOP's unruly base has made it almost impossible for them to select a candidate that is capable of winning, even against a tarnished, tired and tainted Hillary.
AA turnout will be critical for her - it is keeping her polling numbers up but, if it is not there on the day, she has problems in many states.
Not been impressed with Grosjean this year. Recently he's been out-classed by Gutierrez.
It feels like three
He lied about not knowing. It's crashingly obvious.
'Trump has a 15-point advantage over Clinton among whites, while Clinton has 68 percent support in the latest results among nonwhites, vs. Obama's 80 percent among nonwhites in the 2012 exit poll. She's backed by 88 percent of blacks (average for a Democrat) and 60 percent of Hispanics (a bit less than average; 10 percent peel off to Johnson and Stein). A notable difference is nonwhites who are not black or Hispanic. Obama won them by 66-31 percent; it's a closer 45-40 percent, Clinton-Trump, in the tracking poll.
White Catholics, a swing voter group in elections from 1976 to 2004, are now with Trump by 57-36 percent, reopening his advantage in this group to near the margin he last saw in late September.
Trump counters Clinton’s 21-point lead among college-educated likely voters with a 12-point advantage among those who lack a college degree. (The latter are more numerous.) Clinton leads by 23 points among college-educated white women, a crucial bulwark for her. The two are even among college-educated white men, while Trump leads by 38 and 27 points, respectively, among non-college white men and non-college white women.'
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-trump-turnout-critical-poll/story?id=43159639
Detroit, Mich. 2010 census population
White: 75,758 (10.6%); Black: 590,226 (82.7%)
(I always forget if it should be computer 'program' or 'programme'. A bit like 'disc' versus 'disk').
I was climbing up Lose Hill in Derbyshire one day whilst I was still single. I met two beautiful girls near the summit, when they were taking a breather after completing the Limestone Way. We started chatting, and I was amazed to discover they were computer programmers.
So, two young, attractive, female, hikers, who were programmers. A heavenly opportunity.
"Who do you work for?" one asked.
"Acorn," I replied with pride.
"Oh, we work for IBM," she said. "A proper computer company.
I soon bid them goodbye and left. The cheek of them!
There's so much that looks awful.
Also, if there were lawyers involved they were probably charging by the hour ...
That leaves the 7% of her supporters, which presumably amounts to about 3% of those polled, and it rather hinges on how much less likely they are to support her, and whether if they don't they vote for Trump instead.
If half of them abstained instead, it would cost her a quarter to a third of her current lead in the polls. If all of them voted for Trump instead, it would wipe out that lead entirely.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/W3RkZ <- "Possible" imo
What they were looking for is material from State that was Top Secret or above that had been copied to other staffers through her personal server. So a very large percentage of the content of the server could be ignored from the get go.
Once they had identified such material (and they did) they needed to assess if it was top secret at the time it was sent and, bizarrely, at the time of the investigation. It is the latter that seems to have slowed things down.
"That's because you haven't been looking."
"And because we haven't shown you."
As an aside - pet peeve when describing batting collapses. England did not lose "10 for 64", they lost "9 for 64". You can't include the first wicket because then every wicket would be lost for no runs. Not that it makes it sound much better.
Given I was working with one of the designers of the ARM chip, and for the company that designed it, I rather think that Acorn has had more influence to consumers than IBM!
Clinton ....... 300 - 315 (+3)
Trump ........ 221 - 236 (-3)