home

Friday Open Thread

Thread.

< Milwaukee Debate Thread
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    John Nichols (Nation), (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:12:08 PM EST
    a supporter of Senator Sanders was impressed by Secretary Clinton's knowledge of Wisconsin issues and her ability to weave that knowledge into her arguments.

      .."Clinton regularly referenced individuals, issues and challenges facing Wisconsin in general and Milwaukee, in particular.  ...Clinton displayed a sense of place that was not just an example of smart politics, it was a reminder of what Americans should expect in a presidential contender and a president."  The Mayor of Milwaukee was quoted by Nichols saying ..."She knew enough about Wisconsin to use references from here to explain where she stands on national issues...impressive."

    She does this all the time (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:18:49 PM EST
    Has John Nichols never watched her give a speech, campaign, or debate?

    Parent
    Probably not (none / 0) (#35)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:28:01 PM EST
    as the previous Clinton rallies on that campus did not have swag and free cookies.  (See coverage of the media rooms last night by local media, not accustomed to such perks.)  But he has had lots of advice for her, for years.

    He is Madison-based.  Not to be confused with reality-based.  Many a Madisonian may have been through Milwaukee on the freeway to Chicago but never took an off-ramp to actually see the city.

    Parent

    Lol (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 05:29:04 PM EST
    Republicans may be beginning to feel The Bern!!!

    A Republican opposition research firm is increasing its efforts to dig up dirt on Bernie Sanders after his victory over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire.

    America Rising sent a batch of routine Freedom of Information Act requests this week asking for correspondence between Sanders' Senate office and federal government departments. The group had also submitted some requests for Sanders last month.

    Typically, such requests are sent years before the presidential race due to the lengthy FOIA process. A review of FOIA logs with federal agencies shows America Rising looking into Clinton years before the election due to her status as the presumptive nominee.

    First!! (none / 0) (#1)
    by smott on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 03:38:14 PM EST
    Interesting remarks from Jill Stein re the [ lunacy http://www.alternet.org/video/could-sanders-deliver-medicare-all ] of super-delegates , plus a history lesson for those of us too young to remember the McGovern campaign.

    Interesting remarks from Jill Stein re the [  http://www.alternet.org/video/could-sanders-deliver-medicare-all  lunacy ] of super-delegates , plus a history lesson for those of us too young to remember the McGovern campaign.

    The somewhat disingenious statement (none / 0) (#13)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 03:59:00 PM EST
    about differences in delegates is a cause of a lot of confusion that I see, in a lot of discussions by the uninformed.  (That is, informed only by a tweet or FB post or soundbyte and apparently incapable of typing a few keywords into a search engine.)

    Most delegates, that's about 80 percent of delegates, are actually chosen by voters. But not all of them are. And there's a sizable block of 20 percent of the delegates to the convention that are not chosen by voters, but are basically appointed by the Democratic National Committee. And these are existing officeholders or other, you know, people of importance inside the Democratic party.

    I have seen this denounced as "medieval" and "undemocratic," etc. -- although, as almost all superdelegates are those officeholders, they "are actually chosen by voters."

    The confusion of late that I see comes from folks who also never have nor would consider joining a party, often declare themselves as Independents, yet demand a say in the way that the parties run their organizing events -- aka primaries and caucuses -- for their party conventions.  Hmmm.

    By the way, I'm glad that you posted this, as I wanted to reply (but the thread filled) to the comment in the last thread that Sanders' campaign says that the aim is to win the nomination with the McGovern campaign as a model.  That also shows a lack of understanding of how the Democratic Party runs, since then, exactly because of the McGovern campaign.  

    (Note: I worked for the McGovern campaign, and I still think that it was stolen by dirty tricks.  But then, I also know who Henry Kissinger was. . . .)

    Parent

    Ok apologies (none / 0) (#2)
    by smott on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 03:38:40 PM EST
    Clearly need work on linking .....sigh!

    Are you using an iPad (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 03:44:10 PM EST
    Crucial last step (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 03:50:12 PM EST
    b/4 posting:  preview.

    Parent
    I did! (none / 0) (#11)
    by smott on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 03:54:23 PM EST
    And then tried to fix it, and instead of Preview hit the damn POST. Duh.
    Actually I think there must be NO space after the URL and the bracket. I think.

    Parent
    Here's my method: (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:05:33 PM EST
    Copy url.  Place a bracket [ in comment box followed immed. by link or the words you want to show up. Paste url immed. after that. Put closing bracket ] immed. after that. Preview. Post.

    Parent
    I don't do this (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:07:27 PM EST
    Because I often like to copy and paste the text.  I have a different method.

    Parent
    Tell us about it please. (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:43:12 PM EST
    No space is right. (none / 0) (#56)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 06:06:32 PM EST
    New post NH poll (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 03:42:25 PM EST
    Oh, he will freight train from here I think (none / 0) (#5)
    by smott on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 03:47:00 PM EST
    Only question is brokered convention or not.

    And I think the party will go far to prevent him from getting in. Who could they draft at this point?
    At which point he goes 3rd party I suppose.

    Parent

    Donald Trump... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 03:50:07 PM EST
    ... seems to be 'Exihbit A' for any argument about why super delegates are a good idea.

    Parent
    This is why the whole discussion bugs me (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 03:59:10 PM EST
    It's only a problem, it seems, if you are unhappy with the outcome.

    So, with Bernie they are a terrible idea.   With Donald they are a great idea.  

    Parent

    No super delegates for GOP (none / 0) (#23)
    by smott on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:08:12 PM EST
    Entirely a Dem invention.
    Confusing I know.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:11:45 PM EST

    A "superdelegate" or an "unpledged delegate" is a delegate to the Democratic National Convention or Republican National Convention that is seated automatically, based on their status as current (Republican and Democratic) or former (Democratic only) party leader or elected official. Other superdelegates are chosen during the primary season. Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination. This contrasts with convention delegates that are selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination.


    Parent
    Apologies (none / 0) (#30)
    by smott on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:15:53 PM EST
    But I still understand that Dem superDs differ in that they can choose however they want at the convention, and thus are a firewall against a candidate deemed non viable in the general.

    Parent
    I believe the Democratic and (none / 0) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:26:37 PM EST
    Republican party need to take ownership and responsibility for the candidates they present to the American people for the office of president. The primary processes are certainly a big and important part of the determining the candidate, but the system permits, in places, cross-overs and Independents to participate.

     However, the super-delegates offer a means for the parties to register their political assessments of the candidates that emerge from primary voting.   For example, the Republican party presented Richard Nixon (twice), essentially vouching for him.  His criminal behavior resulted in his resignation from office, but the Republican party should have paid a bigger price--and actually have gone the way of the Whigs.  

    Parent

    Like HRC supporters... (none / 0) (#36)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:28:59 PM EST
    ... good in 2016 bad in 2008.

    I mean seriously, they are dumb, dumb, dumb, but Trump kind proves why you might want adults stepping into the process.

    That being said, the time to complain isn't when they become a problem, like the filibuster, it's only evil when whatever team is not benefiting from it.  Change the rules when it doesn't matter, not in the middle of the game.

    They are what they are, can we get past it.  The notion that we are going to change it about as dumb as the SD's themselves.  They aren't and it only comes across are whining.

    It would be nice though if HRC supporters quit acting like the HRC supporters didn't want the exact same thing Sanders supporters want, 8 years ago.  They didn't get it nor should will Sanders.

    Also noted in 2008 the Super Delegates went out pretty close to the delegate totals, Obama got around 52% of the delegates and about 58% of the SD's.  Skewed, but not ridiculously.

    Parent

    Not sure if you are referring to me (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:35:16 PM EST
    I never wanted that in 2008.

    That said, I agree the whining like the stupid MoveOn thing is beyond annoying.   They certainly know it won't be changed this cycle and it only serves to taint the outcome.   Which seems like their goal.

    Parent

    Ditto (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:41:55 PM EST
    I haven't seen or read ANY HRC supporter saying Superdelegates are a good idea.  Maybe there are some, but no one around here has said that that I recall.

    The shocking thing about many Sanders supporters is that they are so unaware of this process.  MoveOn has no excuse - they supported Obama in 2008, and they were plenty happen then, so THEY are the ones who are hypocrites.

    Parent

    Strictly speaking (none / 0) (#44)
    by smott on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:51:12 PM EST
    The Dem Supers exist to help ensure a viable candidate goes to the general, and in 2008, they chose a winner.

    The popular vote was excruciatingly close. Less than 1% for Obama, and with Michigan, around the same in favor of Clinton.

    Really, the caucuses were where Obama's campaign completely outmaneuvered Clinton. I think caucuses are by far the bigger issue, as simple cheating can work much better there, if you can get away with it.

    Parent

    Clinton (none / 0) (#46)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:54:22 PM EST
    Had best win the delegate count, disregarding the SuperDelegates.
    Not a happy ending if Sanders is up 51-49 in delegates and the Super D 's are what throws the nomination to Madame Sec.
    They will disenfranchise a portion of the coalition

    Parent
    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by smott on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:58:34 PM EST
    It's a cluster either way.

    Best bet is one of them wins going away, and the only possibility of that happening is Clinton. Doubt she brings many of the BBros/Babes with her to the general, and she's a toss-up v Trump.

    Parent

    Wouldn't get too excited (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:58:32 PM EST
    About that until it happens

    Parent
    I had no strong opinion (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 05:00:18 PM EST
    In 2008 but the truth is I see the logic.   I'm thinking the republicans are wishing they had them.  

    Parent
    And let's remember re Michigan (none / 0) (#52)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 05:19:21 PM EST
    the machinations of the DNC in discounting that state's regular delegates (and others) to control the nomination -- well before the convention and superd's.  

    The swipe at Clinton's 2008 supporters is a convenient memory loss about many reasons for anger, culminating in the DNC actions on May 31, 2008.

    That said, back to the superd's:  The current  consternation, again, shows in the comments that I see elsewhere just how uninformed are too many, who think that the primaries and caucuses pick the parties' nominees.  

    Prepare for the uninformed to also be stunned if there is need to inform them that the popular vote in the general election also does not decide the presidency.    

    Parent

    Let's (none / 0) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 05:39:40 PM EST
    not forget Florida. The our state government decided to hold the elections early, the state Democratic party was forced to break the primary rules or having to fund the whole thing themselves at a later date. We got screwed.

    Parent
    Thanks; I couldn't think of the other (none / 0) (#58)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 06:13:46 PM EST
    sizeable state that, with Michigan, was so badly dissed by Prima Donna Brazile for the DNC.

    And the primary votes of my state also were made moot -- and it still rankles with delegates then, whom I know -- by the DNC's pressure to call off the roll call, the culminating moment for which delegates await, every four years.  They work hard for the opportunity to be a party delegate and pay their way to do so.  

    Parent

    However could you forgotten about (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 06:24:45 PM EST
    FL!

    Parent
    If he keeps (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 03:52:15 PM EST
    Winning there is nothing they can do.   Particularly after we get to the winner take all states.  

    Parent
    No supers (none / 0) (#12)
    by smott on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 03:58:21 PM EST
    For the GOP. But the folks who have dropped out (I think...?) can give their delegates to whoever they want, raising the possibility of "ganging up " as it were on the Donald. Not certain about that.

    But yah the Super delegates are the DEm party's  firewall to stop a candidate they feel is not viable. Gives a whole new meaning to the term Democratic yes?

    Parent

    Incorrect; the GOP has superd's (none / 0) (#15)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:00:54 PM EST
    but they are not as autonomous as Dem superd's.

    Parent
    It's confusing (none / 0) (#34)
    by smott on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:27:53 PM EST
    But the way I understand it is that un-pledged delegates in the GOP are bound to vote by the results of the primary,
    Unlike Supers in the Dem side, who are not bound and can give their vote to whoever they please.

    So from that perspective it's unique to the Dems.

    Parent

    The ones who have dropped out (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:02:04 PM EST
    Or who likely will drop have a negligible number of delegates.

    Plus no ones going to drop out who can find a way to keep going for the very reason that Donald MUST BE STOPPED AND IM THE ONE TO DO IT.

     

    Parent

    I believe if they merely "suspend" then (none / 0) (#20)
    by smott on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:03:41 PM EST
    They keep whatever delegates they have.

    Parent
    If (none / 0) (#18)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:02:15 PM EST
    I am reading this correctly, from Ballotpedia
    South Carolina is expected to have 50 delegates at the 2016 Republican National Convention. Of this total, 21 will be district-level delegates (three for each of the state's seven congressional districts). South Carolina's district-level delegates will be allocated on a winner-take-all basis; the candidate who wins the plurality of the vote in a given congressional district will be allocated all three of that district's delegates.[4]

    Of the remaining 29 delegates, 26 will serve at-large. South Carolina's at-large delegates will be allocated on a winner-take-all basis; the candidate who wins the greatest number of votes statewide will receive all 26 of the state's at-large delegates. In addition, three national party leaders (identified on the chart below as RNC delegates) will serve as bound delegates to the Republican National Convention. The RNC delegates will be pledged to support the candidate who wins the South Carolina primary.[4]

    Trump could get all of the delegates.

    Parent
    I think he romps from here (none / 0) (#42)
    by smott on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:44:58 PM EST
    Will the Repubs go off the deep and and draft McCain or Mittens?? Break out the popcorn.

    Parent
    That Should Read South Carolina Poll... (none / 0) (#6)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 03:48:07 PM EST
    Is there a D poll for SC or NV ?

    Parent
    POST NH poll (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 03:53:19 PM EST
    I've not seen anything recent (none / 0) (#16)
    by smott on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:01:27 PM EST
    But Clinton was up 30+ in both last I saw.

    Sanders' mis-steps coming into SC may hurt him. Bad timing to call lack of leadership on Obama, and snipe at Lewis.

    Parent

    I asked above if you are using an iPad (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:03:17 PM EST
    If you are I can help.  I figured it out.

    Parent
    Please (none / 0) (#24)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:11:40 PM EST
    could we refer to the previous thread on this, with so many posts on it about this?  Threads fill fast.

    Parent
    Whatever (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:14:02 PM EST
    Apparently the advise in the previous thread is not working.  I have a different method and I was trying to help.

    There's always another thread.

    Parent

    Testing again (none / 0) (#26)
    by smott on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:11:50 PM EST
    Placing links in comments

    Parent
    Ok definitely that space i left (none / 0) (#28)
    by smott on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:12:42 PM EST
    After the URL before the closing bracket.
    iPad, yay.

    Parent
    This one (none / 0) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:16:44 PM EST
    As does 538 (none / 0) (#40)
    by smott on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:43:25 PM EST
    Sorta suspected this as the Clinton campaign has been working to lower expectations, a clue their internals for NV are poor.

    Those Latina and union fake endorsement dirty tricks pay off for Sanders perhaps?

    Parent

    Kdog (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:43:41 PM EST
    MLB issues its first lifetime ban fir the use of performance-enhancing drugs agsinst Mets pitcher Jenry Mejia.

    S.C. polls will be interesting (none / 0) (#43)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:45:33 PM EST
    MSNBC still at it,

    Joy Reid, anecdotal evidence

    On her Twitter feed,

    The generational divide over Clinton v Sanders is real among AAs. And the age cutoff we've seen in Columbia SC is not 30, it's closer to 50.

    http://tinyurl.com/znoju2y

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:56:19 PM EST
    I've been listening to her "on the ground" off and on all day.   Here's my take on this generational divide stuff.

    Given the voting histories of the two groups I will take the old folks every time.

    And it not just her.   It's the whole network.   Todd just had an AA Sanders supporter on who in response to withering quotes from some members of the CBC responded that voters are not going to fall for the "okeydoke"

    I tried googling that term.  It didn't help much so I don't know exactly what she was talking about but it sounded distinctly unflattering to CBC members.

    Chuck is very concerned about the fairness of suoerdelegates.   A Clinton supporter just pointed out he didn't remember him being concerned in 2008.

    Parent

    Relevant polling (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:52:10 PM EST
    Will be taken after last night's debate.

    Parent
    The Tampa Bay Times (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 04:55:28 PM EST
    and The Dallas Morning News just endorsed Hillary.

    Weird timing - Friday might of a holiday weekend.

    Albright NYT Op Ed: (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 05:40:39 PM EST
    That was nice (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 06:08:49 PM EST
    Sad to think how few people it will probably actually reach.


    Parent