Con Man

(Cartoonist - Adam Zyglis)

In other news, the Clinton campaign and pro-Clinton PACs have reserved $98 million in ad spending through the election beginning August 8th. Team Trump has reserved less than $1 million, which is practically nothing.

Meanwhile, Trump says he's afraid the election is going to be rigged. He's already making excuses for losing.

Finally, Representative Richard Hanna (R-NY) says he will vote for Hillary Clinton in November.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Rep. Richard Hanna, a three-term Republican, said Tuesday he will vote for Hillary Clinton for president because Donald Trump is "unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country." [...]

Hanna said it's unthinkable that anyone would criticize Gold Star parents. "I saw that and felt incensed," Hanna said in an interview. "I was stunned by the callousness of his comments."

He added, "I think Trump is a national embarrassment. Is he really the guy you want to have the nuclear codes?"

I believe there may be more Republicans who will cross over and vote for Clinton, perhaps without admitting it, than there are far-left liberals who will vote for a fraud like Jill Stein.

  • mnpollio

    As I have said in the past, I have every intention of voting for Clinton although I thought Sanders was the better candidate because a Trump presidency is unthinkable. However, if Clinton loses, it will be because she is not a very good candidate and nothing else. I have come across more Independents and borderline Democrats that are appalled by Trump, but do not think they can trust Clinton based on her bad policy decisions (Has she ever met a war she didn’t support? She really thought Walmart was a great example of the American business model? Could the Clinton Foundation be dodgier? Why does she keep bragging about monster Henry Kissinger as being her go-to foreign policy expert? Does she really think it prudent to keep reminding us that she was/is a proud “Goldwater Girl”?) and are hesitant about her. And they have a legitimate right to be. The fact that we know from the leaked e-mails that a purportedly “unbiased” DNC was trying to sabotage her closest competitor in the primaries shows that even they realized on some level what a shaky candidate she was/is. And as far as losing patience with “Purity Progressives”, I would venture to say that when the administration shifted from Bush to Obama, this very same blog was suddenly willing to embrace policies that it declared loathsome under Bush that then magically became acceptable under Obama. By the reasoning running rampant here, does that make them “Purity Corporate Democrats” when policies that were previously being criticized en masse suddenly are acceptable by this blog just because a “D” gets placed behind the candidate’s name? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but let’s not pretend that the majority of the stories here are not spun to promote whoever is the most conservative and corporate-leaning Democrat running for office.

  • gescove

    I have neither the time nor the patience with Purity Progressives who say they will sit this one out or vote for a spoiler candidate. They have done enough damage by staying at home in the mid-terms and by delivering us Bush/Cheney by voting for Nader in 2000.

    • muselet

      Today on the front page of Truthdig (, if you’re interested) is a report with the title “Don’t Fall for It: The Nader Myth and Your 2016 Vote” and the teaser “Once again, fear is being ramped up to manipulate progressives into voting for someone they do not want—Hillary Clinton—instead of someone who represents their values.”

      Apparently, there are still a fair number of people who are pouting becuase they didn’t get their rainbow-shitting unicorn.


      • JMAshby

        Truthdig is a hive of lefty wingnuts edited by charlatans.

        • muselet

          I visit the site—as I’ve explained before—mostly out of residual respect for Robert Scheer, who was a remarkable reporter and a tenacious interviewer, and who has gone completely off the rails in the past couple of decades.


        • Dread_Pirate_Mathius

          You will never see a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

      • gescove

        I’ve seen that same “analysis” before. Yes, Gore did not win as many Dems as one might have hoped in some states. But I remember being awash at the time in bullshit arguments that voters were fatigued with the Clinton administration and, by extension, Al Gore. Purity types asserted that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Gore and Bush. There was a coordinated and concerted effort to suppress Democratic votes. This “analysis” is crap and we are left with the real reason Gore lost in Florida: because Purity Progressives couldn’t be bothered to vote strategically. Do these people think for even one moment that we might be better off if they hadn’t enabled Bush? Jesus H. Christ.