WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — If the presidential election were held today, it wouldn’t even be close.
Hillary Clinton is crushing her potential Republican rivals by double digits in a new CNN/ORC International poll. The Republicans’ best showing is by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who trails the former senator and secretary of state by 14 points. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who hasn’t declared his candidacy yet, lags Clinton by 17 points. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie are each 19 points behind Clinton.
Rubio and Paul have declared their candidacies, but Christie hasn’t said he’ll run.
Clinton is also the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination, with nearly seven in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents supporting her.
Even including the poll’s margin of error, Clinton would still have a double-digit lead on Rubio and the others. The poll was taken April 16-19 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. It was released Monday.
Polls are a snapshot in time and valid for that time and the people. How can a small sample of people possibly reflect sediment of the country?
ReplyDeleteSo says CNN, or better know as the Clinton News Network. The networks, cable, Madison avenue, and Hollywood will milk the Foundation money out of the Clinton's and when the checkbook is getting thin Scooby will be on the repo lot and the dems will be scurrying for a replacement to take the bullet.
DeleteAll that Chinese, Saudi, Russian, and other foreign cash will melt away.
After HRC loses will they still be offering her 300K per speech?
DeletePolls can influence the outcome long after the results are published. We have the effect here when a poll a long way out from an election gives a candidate a large lead. Voters then carry that information and even believe that to vote for anyone else is backing a loser! I believe it is us the voters who are mainly to blame; we use filters on our computers to block out extraneous rubbish but we happily study and pontificate on meaningless polls.
DeleteProbably as a result of reading poll results together with subliminal influences from sites such as this, I am of the opinion that no matter whom the Republicans put up, HRC is assured of the nomination and the eventual return to the big house. This is certainly not my personal desire, I am a life long conservative.
The previous paragraph may illustrate in a small way how opinions are formed; this in turn perhaps drives the thinking behind the meaningless polls which are conducted using questions designed not to elicit knowledge of the political process but to both lead and drive voters in a direction desired by others.
The Scot has asked elsewhere that I paint a picture of the America I want to see today. A formidable challenge and one I fear I am ill equipped to undertake. I will think on it for a day or so and see what eventuates. Perhaps, writing from so far away, about a nation I have never visited, is a task enjoyable for me but meaningless to my friends who would consider mundane some of the things I find inspiring Normal behavior is described by you, some of the things which frighten me almost into insanity.
Cheers from Aussie
That is precisely what I have wanted from you and everyone else all along. It is difficult to debate platitudes and argue points that are framed in “I think you are wrong, but I’m not in the position to give my opinion”. If we are here to discuss the merits of a position, “I think you are wrong “, isn’t very compelling to me.
DeleteFor others here I find the dualisms to be a frustration…
We often talk about the virtues and vulgarities of human traits such as self-interest and greed. Some are determined to stomp out these attributes from the private society by using the power and purity of government. We refrain from painting people, who in many cases, are groomed from a young age to act the right way… to say the right thing and to be agreeable so that one day you can summon the popular support of the common individual to have a successful career in politics, with the same brush as we do a businessman. Yet careers being what they are, advancement, power, respect and reward are the goals of each but to deflect the question of what motivates the decisions of a politician, particularly one who is driven by the desire to take things from someone else is curious indeed.
We also have another trend that has me shaking my head in amazement at the hypocrisy that, for anyone cares to stop and think about it, is quite plain to see. Not a day goes by that we don’t hear some Christian belief or ‘old time’ value come under fire for either being the product not of science and fact but one of blind belief in something that can neither be seen or explained or verified regardless of its veracity and yet, these very same people when presented with empirical evidence or scientific rigor against some position long held by them, they reply with a familiar but ever so tiring … ‘Yeah, but I don’t ‘believe’ that’s right’.
Direct conversation about the problems… their roots… and the best solutions… that’s what I want to talk about…. If my arguement can't stand the debate then perhaps someone here will change my mind but thus far no one has taken the time to do that..
Clinton News Network, that's a good one William.
ReplyDeleteWilliams bullshit comment is already full of wishful thinking and hopelessness. Besides the fact that so many Americans like her William seems to have forgotten about the blue wall.
ReplyDeleteA true shame.
DeleteLike Blacks voting unanimously for Obama, women will vote for Hilly. Doesn't matter what hes stance on anything, women will vote for her.
On the other side, the Repub's continue to roll out business as usual helping Hilly's election chances.
Both parties are a wreck, neither offer candidates that can address the issues we face today. Instead politics as usual, partisanship all the way. Once again we will get exactly what we deserve in the elections.
Ric mentions the blue wall. Basically this comes down to Madison avenue, Hollywood, and foreign money versus America.
DeleteCarvelle, Davis, Podesta, and all the queens horses won't be able to put Hillbilly back together again once she finally opens her leftest mouth.
I'm meltinggggggg,,,,,
"Once again we will get exactly what we deserve in the elections. "
DeleteKeeping in mind of course that the only candidates that ever get close to a look in with the electorate are those who are preanointed by the RNC and the DNC or those with very deep pockets.
Interesting rick should mention the 'Blue Wall' as a positive aspect of putting forth the Democratic party faithful.... it is also the very thing that defines our police state and the cover bad cops give each other every single day... King talks about certain traits in American life that frighten him to insanity.... yeah... me too.
Here is todays news from Yahoo:
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times is suggesting Hillary Clinton took actions as secretary of state because of financial donations that were made to the Clinton Foundation by Russians pushing for a Canadian uranium company.
The Times reported in an explosive piece on Thursday that Canadian records show the chairman of Russian-owned Uranium One gave over $2 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation, which the Clintons’ didn’t disclose. At the same time, Russia pushed for control of a Canadian Uranium company.
A Kremlin-connected bank promoting stock in the company also reportedly paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. Eventually, the Russian-Canadian uranium deal was approved.
Mining righta to 300,000 acres in Wyoming are under Russian sovereign control.
DeleteHave just read the NY Times article. If all the allegations are true and provable then perhaps many voters in your country will think twice before casting their Ballots. It is disturbing reading and has touched a memory of something I read some weeks ago about the AUSTRALIAN government donating to the Clinton foundation as part of the Australian foreign aid program. If true(I emphasize if) the donation would have been made because the government here felt the foundation had better utilization and distributive facilities.
DeleteI am assuming that the Clinton foundation is a registered charitable organization and that there would be no leakage of funds into campaign spending. Could someone please advise the political leanings and ownership of the NYT.I do hope for the sake of Americans everywhere it is not Rupert Murdoch. Also, if possible can someone strip out the politics and advise precisely what the foundation does to justify its tax free status
Cheers from Aussie
The NYT is a left leaning publication as are most newspapers in the US.
DeleteBetween 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item.
The foundation is a 501c organization per the papers filed with the IRS.
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.
The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.
Wasn't until I got almost to the end that the last line of the first para registered... :-)
DeleteThe foundation announced yesterday that they would be refiling their IRS paperwork for the past five years. Seems some things went unreported that have now come to light.
DeleteThe Canadian group that organized the Russian control of approximately 30% or our nations uranium supply has also donated 145 Million dollars to the foundation. Much of which went unreported. Of course they are updating now.
The New York Times along with the upcoming book Clinton Cash has cause quite a stir. The possibility of the IRS investigating this sordid series of events? Approximately zero.
And yet congress will confirm new AG Ms. Lynch without her opinion about weather or not her agency will bother to investigate these minor alleged infractions.
And so it goes.
William.
DeleteThe foundation announced yesterday that they would be refilling their IRS paperwork for the past five years..
Can you please advise if this course of action is allowed?. For example, if the foundation has made deliberate errors or omissions in their previous filings, will a replacement filling remove potential threats of criminal or civil charges? I can understand the reason for refilling in the event of a genuine error but deliberate falsification, if it exists is a different matter.
King, I have to watch what I post. This all will play out. The donors are not pleased that the light of day will leak through the Clinton Iron Curtain.
DeleteI don't want to end up another smudge on the Clinton chalkboard.
Huge money, huge access, huge power players. It's all about to collapse. An era is ending. Everyone has to be careful at this stage.
DeleteOf course should the IRS choose to formally Audit these particular returns, if any fraud is detected, the IRS can audit returns for an unlimited number of years previous. ... of course they won't find fraud only 'mistakes' which would allow them to review back 3 to 6 years depending on the type of errors.... That is if they actually were to do their jobs and formally audit this foundation...
Well, the IRS could require the Clintons to turn over the server where the information was is located.
DeleteOh I forgot, that server's information was erased.
William, I am afraid that the IRS has a deplorable track record of caring for hard drives in their possession... even if they are empty.
DeleteLou above:
ReplyDeleteMany thanks as always for the background on this story. If the NYT is left leaning I guess that makes some of the editorials in "Right leaning "journals easier to understand.
What I cannot yet understand is the break up of the "Income" the foundation has generated. The salary total seems a bit outlandish for a charity?. The ratio of disbursements to "causes" to total income is very small and the sixty percent of income listed as expenditure for "other causes" is laughable and paints the IRS in a poor light. Now, I note there are statements from the foundation rebutting the article so I shall revisit the NYT for further clarification. Again and as always my sincere thanks for your unstinting assistance. The debate between reds and Blues with the hoop la so loved by Americans is fascinating to us foreign country boy farmers. It was not until I gained just a little knowledge of the politics in US that I found the enjoyment which is available on a daily basis.
What is concerning me at present is that there is so much smoke being generated by both parties that the fire they are trying to light is destroying itself in a tsunami of self immolation. What next I wonder,a campaign to ensure Jeb Bush is a non starter in the Republican primaries?
Cheers from Aussie
Jeb is a non starter.
ReplyDeleteThe establishment like him and he can raise money. The problem is when you leave the party, the independents like myself loathe another Bush in the WH.
Much the same for Hillary.
Tax Fraud and False Statements
Filing a false return in general involves the intention of the individual or business to defraud the government with misstatements such as omitting sources of income or even claiming phantom dependents. Even if the error doesn’t involve underpayment, lying on a return or lying during an audit can involve charges. Once the tax return is signed, the IRS considers fraudulent information on that return to be perjury -- a felony subject to criminal charges and up to three years in prison and/or $250,000 in fines. Civil tax fraud can bring a penalty of up to 75 percent added to the tax due.
Having said that, the Clinton's are democrats and any penalty will easily be paid and quickly swept under the rug. The media will quickly kill the story.
A little something from Reuters:
(Reuters) - Hillary Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.
The foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny in recent weeks. Republican critics say the foundation makes Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, vulnerable to undue influence. Her campaign team calls these claims "absurd conspiracy theories."
The charities' errors generally take the form of under-reporting or over-reporting, by millions of dollars, donations from foreign governments, or in other instances omitting to break out government donations entirely when reporting revenue, the charities confirmed to Reuters.
The errors, which have not been previously reported, appear on the form 990s that all non-profit organizations must file annually with the Internal Revenue Service to maintain their tax-exempt status. A charity must show copies of the forms to anyone who wants to see them to understand how the charity raises and spends money.
The unsettled numbers on the tax returns are not evidence of wrongdoing but tend to undermine the 990s role as a form of public accountability, experts in charity law and transparency advocates told Reuters.
"If those numbers keep changing - well, actually, we spent this on this, not that on that - it really defeats the purpose," said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government transparency advocacy group.
For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.
Those entries were errors, according to the foundation: several foreign governments continued to give tens of millions of dollars toward the foundation's work on climate change and economic development through this three-year period. Those governments were identified on the foundation's annually updated donor list, along with broad indications of how much each had cumulatively given since they began donating.
FOUNDATION DEFENDS TRANSPARENCY
"We are prioritizing an external review to ensure the accuracy of the 990s from 2010, 2011 and 2012 and expect to refile when the review is completed," Craig Minassian, a foundation spokesman, said in an email.
The decision to review the returns was made last month following inquiries from
Reuters, and the foundation has not ruled out extending the review to tax returns extending back 15 or so years.
ReplyDeleteMinassian declined to comment on why the foundation had not included the necessary break-down of government funding in its 990 forms. He said it was rare to find an organization as transparent as the foundation.
"No charity is required to disclose their donors," he said. "However, we voluntarily disclose our more than 300,000 donors and post our audited financial statements on our website along with the 990s for anyone to see."
Separately, the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), the foundation's flagship program, is refiling its form 990s for at least two years, 2012 and 2013, CHAI spokeswoman Maura Daley said, describing the incorrect government grant break-outs for those two years as typographical errors.
CHAI, which is best known for providing cheaper drugs for tens of thousands of people with HIV around the world, began filing separate tax returns in 2010, and has previously refiled at least once both its 2010 and 2011 form 990s. For both those years, CHAI said its initial filings had over-reported government grants by more than $100 million.
Some experts in charity law and taxes said it was not remarkable for a charity to refile an erroneous return once in a while, but for a large, global charity to refile three or four years in a row was highly unusual.
"I've never seen amendment activity like that," said Bruce Hopkins, a Kansas City lawyer who has specialized in charity law for more than four decades, referring to the CHAI filings.
Clinton stepped down from the foundation's board of directors this month but her husband, Bill Clinton, and their daughter, Chelsea Clinton, remain directors.
The foundation said last week after Hillary Clinton became a candidate that it would continue to accept funding from foreign governments, but only from six countries that are already supporting ongoing projects. CHAI will also continue to receive foreign government funding, again with additional restrictions.
Nick Merrill, Clinton's spokesman, has declined to answer inquiries about the foundation and CHAI.