Friday Open 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 / 2) (#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?

    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.


    John Nichols is a Journalist (none / 0) (#126)
    by Palli on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    You want that he refrain from reporting anything he already knows?  

    He's not writing for himself.


    I guess (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 07:07:50 PM EST
    he must have never watched her campaign for the NY senate. I understand she completely changed the politics of the state by simply paying attention to and listening to the rest of the state outside of NYC. A friend that lives there said that even Schumer now comes to the state fair and other upstate events.

    Hillary Clinton ... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 03:22:10 PM EST
    is smart and does her homework.

    But, according to the MSM, that's NOT what we need in a president.

    We need someone with a clear, single message.

    What president has had that?

    Even Mr. Message Discipline himself Ronald Reagan didn't have that. Look at his campaign ads from 1980. They're all over the place.

    A single message would be fine if presidents did  one thing. And that one thing was entirely predictable. They do all manner of things. Much of it not predictable.

    Clear, single messages are for advertising toilet paper not electing presidents.


    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.

    The 102nd AM Radio Division is... (none / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:34:31 AM EST
    caught some of that psycho Michael Savage in the car  yesterday...it was all about Bernie. "The Pickle Man"...lol. Move over Hillary, there's a new public enemy #1 in AM land.

    It's like a dream, from total fringe irrelevance to scaring the sh:t out of the bastards in 6 months.


    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 (5.00 / 1) (#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. . . .)


    The fatal flaw in the McGovern-Shriver Democratic ticket can clearly be seen when you examine both the aggregate national breakdown of Democratic primary voters by candidate, and the subsequent process by which convention delegates were allocated to candidates.

    And in that regard, it's important to note that in 1972, only 27 of the 50 states had primaries or caucuses. The other 23 states, plus the U.S. territories and the District of Columbia, allowed party leaders to select the delegates, an easily corruptible process which lent itself to a lot of backroom deals and quid pro quos.

    No doubt, George McGovern's campaign -- managed by Gary Hart -- was incredibly well-organized and disciplined with lots of highly motivated staff and volunteers, enough so that that McGovern won a number of key primaries in a crowded and hotly contested field of Democratic candidates that included 1968 nominee Hubert Humphrey. The big prizes were the California and New York primaries in June, winner-take-all states with 271 and 230 delegates up for grabs, respectively. By winning both, he effectively put the nomination out of reach of anyone else.

    However, it must be noted that McGovern only received 25.3% of all votes cast in Democratic primaries and caucuses across the country, yet ultimately received the support of 1,729 delegates and thus cinched the nomination at the national convention in Miami in July 1972.

    Sen. Humphrey actually finished first with 25.8% of the nationwide vote, yet he won the support of only 67 delegates. Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson received only 3.1% of the Democratic vote nationwide, yet finished second to McGovern in the delegate count with 525. Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who had been shot and crippled by a would-be assassin, finished third in both the popular vote and delegates.

    Thus, there certainly were some very serious issues concerning the allocation of delegates per candidate by state. For example, Illinois had 153 delegates going to the convention in Miami, but only 65 of them were supposedly allocated by popular vote in the primary, and the other 88 were appointed by party leaders as unpledged.

    In the Illinois primary itself, Sen. Edmund Muskie received 62.6% of the vote and Eugene McCarthy 36.3%, while McGovern received a scant 0.3%. Yet when delegates were actually allocated, Muskie received 52, McCarthy none, and McGovern 13! Those 88 unpledged delegates appointed by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and other state party leaders subsequently pledged themselves to McGovern at the national convention.

    So, the McGovern campaign certainly outhustled and outlasted all of its rivals, and in the process captured the overwhelming majority of convention delegates on the first ballot. But the same level of support for the nominee was never reciprocated by Democratic voters as a whole, which proved a disaster. And the party establishment, whose influence had been marginalized thanks to the change in rules after the 1968 fiasco, was definitely angered by the convention result.

    Rather than clean up the party's act after 1968, the Democrats' redesign of the nomination process had actually made it even worse. The new system that had been put in place for the 1972 election was a thorough mishmash of state processes, and really coherent to only the relative handful of people who had rewritten the party rules -- which, not coincidentally, included George McGovern himself.

    As a result, there were lots of unhappy Democrats, and a huge chunk of mainstream Democratic voters subsequently sat on their hands during the general election campaign, which knee-capped McGovern's efforts against the very well-funded campaign of President Richard Nixon. He never stood a chance from the very get-go.

    And that very point is what renders the Nixon campaign's June 1972 break-in at DNC HQ at the Watergate Hotel & Office Complex Watergate so incredibly and inexplicably stupid in retrospect. McGovern posed no threat to Nixon that year, yet the president nevertheless sought to place his thumbs on the scales of an election which he was clearly going to win going away anyway.

    And by allowing his campaign and his own paranoia to spin out of control like that, Nixon sowed the seeds of his own ultimate political destruction, which caused a lot of grief for everyone across the country before he finally went down.

    So, if Bernie Sanders is modeling his campaign by channeling George McGovern's 1972 effort, that in and of itself is a very dubious proposition.



    I always will feel we wuz robbed here (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 08:06:48 PM EST
    but the national perspective is useful.

    Of course, so is remembering that McGovern headed the party commission that revamped the process, after 1968, for . . . 1972.


    Also, you had Nixon's dirty trickster ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 03:30:39 PM EST
    helping McGovern where they could.

    Remember, the Canuck Letter, which destroyed Muskie's campaign, was created by such tricksters.

    We'll probably never know everything they did.

    But, long story short, they got to run against who they wanted to.

    And beat him in 49 states.


    No (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 07:01:21 PM EST
    Look, don't kid us.

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

    They are chosen for the office they ran for and won.

    They are not chosen as delegates pledged to any particular candidate.

    And that is a huge difference.

    And not at all democratic.


    Srsly, you see things that aren't there (none / 0) (#69)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 07:21:55 PM EST
    if you read that I said that the officeholders were elected as delegates.

    Now, let's see if you think that the regular delegates are elected . . . to anything.

    See the difference?

    (Probably not.)


    What you wrote (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 09:22:26 PM EST
    as almost all superdelegates are those officeholders, they "are actually chosen by voters.

    Ah, I see. Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 10:14:58 PM EST
    . . . as I get accustomed to the grad-seminar level of understanding here.

    For you, we'll fill in the blanks:

    as almost all superdelegates are those officeholders, they are actually chosen by voters as officeholders.


    Kinda full of yourself, eh ;-) (2.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:14:26 AM EST
    Rest assured that there are thousands of people, including me, who don't give a flip that you are a teacher.

    And if you consider yourself irreplaceable... get a bucket....fill it with water...stick your hand in it...remove your hand...and note that there is no hole...

    What you wrote:

    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.

    If they are existing office holders then they have been voted in and/or appointed to a position... But not by voters to be a delegate.

    You know, as a sharecropper's son I understand exactly what "people of importance" means. I can remember very clearly the land owner who also owned the grocery store and the sheriff deputies who were at the voting place to make sure people "voted right."

    And that was, of course, "Democratic."

    I see that somethings haven't changed for some people.


    Yep, things have changed little (2.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:46:51 PM EST
    for lots of us, like this descendant of Teamsters and Molly McGuires who is banned from collective bargaining, because of the Southern diaspora coming north to destroy our unions. Believe me, I get the message every day from them that I am replaceable -- although they couldn't be bothered to even graduate from college, and they couldn't last a day in doing what I do to get their descendants to graduation.

    Those sharecroppers' descendants don't understand us, at all.  But they sure have the arrogance to think that they know better for us all.


    Link tips (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 05:28:42 AM EST
    Put your link first, right after the bracket with no spaces - [link text]
     The only space should be between the link and the text.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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
    If at first ... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Nemi on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:06:25 AM EST
    ... try and try. And try yet some more. Don't know if this will help, or even show up not as a link :) but this is my method. Written not on top of each other but in one line that is:

    place url
    words you want highlighted

    Best of luck. :)


    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.


    Donald Trump... (5.00 / 2) (#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.

    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.  


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.  


    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.


    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.


    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.


    Strictly speaking (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#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

    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.


    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

    And let's remember re Michigan (5.00 / 2) (#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.    


    Let's (5.00 / 2) (#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.

    Thanks; I couldn't think of the other (5.00 / 1) (#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.  


    However could you forgotten about (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 06:24:45 PM EST

    It's (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 06:40:25 PM EST
    not a proper cluster fk if Fl. is not involved.

    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.  

    You are probably correct (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:19:36 AM EST
    and that would be the exact way to lose the election.

    Obviously you know what you are (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:24:27 AM EST
    Talking about since "demos" have won 5 of the last 6 presidential elections.

    And the Repubs won 5 out of the last 9 (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:05:45 PM EST
    ...and I won't mention 2014....

    And what does any of that prove???

    People are pi$$ed inside both parties and if the Repubs start jacking with the rules they're toast.


    Mixed feelings from me about (none / 0) (#152)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:56:28 PM EST
    Superdelegates.  'having volunteered for McGovern and having been heavily involved (via husband, who was a staffer) in Carter's surprise victory via the caucus structure, I find my political reasoning process conflicts from time to time with my emotions on same. What I do understand in head & heart today is that--much as I admired McGovern in those exhilarating campaign days of '72--I do not want to see the electoral disaster that follows letting the heart overtake the head during the primary process.  No more debacles in that vein, please ... that situation that we experienced with McGovern & with Dukakis later not only is a loss at the moment for a political policies, it lasts for untold years.

    Tonight, we have the annual Democratic Dinner in downtown Denver.  As usual, we will be there ... the speakers will be Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.  The entourages should be most interesting.  Speaking of caucuses & Superdelegate  allocations, etc.: I fully expect to see the architect of understanding (and stacking) caucuses there with his own courtiers ... Gary Hart.  As he usually does, he will be telling the fewer & fewer who court him everything he knows.  (Golly, I have a bad attitude ... but then, just getting "ready" for the evening's contretemps and all.)  Actually, I do believe in the need for revision as to process ... but, the pendulum rarely stops in the middle, does it?


    I can't remember anyone wanting SDs abolished (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 05:59:36 AM EST
    in 2008. HRC supporters were naturally unhappy with the SDs not supporting HRC, so there was a lot of griping about how the popular vote was not going to tell the whole story.  Plus until then a lot of us that have not been involved in party politics had never heard of SDs, so it was a new concept to understand. The thing Sanders supporters will learn is that it is a party candidate selection process, not an election. That is part of the reason why candidates that have not previously had a party affiliation may choose to run as independents instead.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, (none / 0) (#140)
    by NYShooter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:36:40 PM EST
    The 2008 Primary season for the Democrats had 2 distinctly different halves. The first half, disproportionally, heavy with Caucuses, Obama was running away with it. The second half, Hillary found her sea-legs, and, caught on fire. One big State after another, she rolled over Obama; She took Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, even TEXAS, just to name a few.

    Preference polls, also, started swinging her way. I remember, "man on the street," type interviews on TV where those who had already voted for Obama were asked, "if you could vote today would you switch your vote to Hillary?" many claimed they would change their vote.

    Hillary's momentum in the second part of that season, super-charged by the Michigan/Florida mess, was such that I began hearing the term, "Buyer's Remorse," more and more.

    Now, I never held to the illusion that those things would give Hillary the nomination. It's just that that's when I learned what Super Delegates were all about. If, on top of Hillary's momentum, Obama's star dropping, and, anger at the Primary eliminations, one more shock occurred the outcome may have been different.

    If, let's say, a major, previously hidden scandal about Obama was unearthed, making him (in the eyes of the S.D's) unelectable, they could have thrown their votes towards Hillary, giving her the Candidacy.

    A lot of variable, and possibilities there, but, that 2008 Primary was a case where Super Delegates might have (rightfully) made a difference.


    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.  

    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?


    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.

    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.


    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.



    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 ?

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


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

    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.

    Bernie (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 07:14:19 PM EST
    seems to have written of trying to compete in SC.

    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?


    We need (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 07:17:57 PM EST
    more polling. However Hillary has Reid's people working for her and she has the Obama caucus people. I don't think Bernie is going to be able to pull that one out. It might be closer that it was a month or so ago but I think it's going to be a struggle for Bernie to win there.

    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.

    Oh sh:t... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:37:15 AM EST
    He's been suspended so long I forgot all about Mejia.

    Those tests are culturally biased;)


    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.


    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.


    Would be interesting to see (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 06:57:02 AM EST
    If the headlines screamed, "Sanders needs to find his message to seniors"; "Largest voting blocs tuning out Sanders' message"; "Campaign shakeup coming soon for Sanders as he tries to reach Boomers and Gen-X?"; or "Voters with more life experience not buying Sanders' 'revolution'".

    All the breathless discussion focuses on the people that MIGHT turn out, as opposed to the people that historically DO turn out.


    And (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:17:41 AM EST
    another headline "Why did Bernie lose Millennials to the GOP in NH?".

    From the Urban Dictionary (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 07:08:35 PM EST
    Okie Dokie

    1. Used to express approval or agreement.

    2. A response some bosses or executives expect after a question of status or quality of work

    1st Person: I want you to clear out your desk.

    2nd Person: Okie Dokie


    Uhhh . . . (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 07:19:54 PM EST
    "okie dokie" is different from the "okeydoke" in more than the spelling.

    Yes (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 07:37:15 PM EST

    okey doke

    1. someone whose been tricked or duped
    2. a trick
    3. someone who was slipped something i.e.drugs or alcohol
    "Man that okey doke was easy prey, we got his money and his car from him without him even realizing."
    "They played an okey doke on you, shad"

    My point was she was not very clear on how she imagined the members of the CBC were attempting "the okey doke"
    Or what motive they might have for fooling or tricking them beyond subverting her wishes that they support Bernie Sanders.


    Oh, I agree. I saw that interview (none / 0) (#72)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 08:03:29 PM EST
    and also saw . . . well, a flashback to 2008.

    It struck me as (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 08:35:49 PM EST
    Particularly uncalled for.  So did you also happen to see, either just before or after - I often have that stuff on during the day but don't really pay attention, the segment with the two representatives.  One Clinton supporter and one Sanders supporter?

    The Sanders supporter just kept babbling on and on and they tried and tried to get him to stop and eventually just cut his mic and left him talking to himself and went to the Clinton supporter.

    I just though, damn, if these are the front lines of the "revolution"...........
    I don't even know how to finish that.


    Has she been hitting the theme of (none / 0) (#80)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 05:40:17 AM EST
    "breaking down barriers for everyone" that she stressed during the debate? I thought that was a good framing. At least it gave the Peggy Noonan's of the world who have been complaining about her lack of "poetry" something they can point at, since they are going to need an excuse to explain the new narrative when she starts winning primaries.

    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.

    Anecdotal (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 07:20:06 PM EST
    is all that is. Bernie is too far left for the majority of voters in SC. In fact he seems to have written off the state.

    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.

    Waiting for Dowd, Bruni, (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 12, 2016 at 06:34:54 PM EST
    and Amy Chozick.

    Nice try Maddie (none / 0) (#95)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:54:34 AM EST
    But that toothpaste ain't goin' back in the tube.....

    true (none / 0) (#77)
    by vsanta004 on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 03:24:31 AM EST
    i guess this is true..


    SITE VIOLATOR!!!!!! (none / 0) (#81)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 05:41:56 AM EST
    Negative Central Bank interest rates... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 05:01:39 AM EST
    NYShooter mentioned the possibility the other day.

    It hasn't happened here but it's already policy in Japan, the EU, Switzerland and Sweden.  Central banks are desperate to push money out of Central Bank refuges and into the economies.  That's the theory, anyway.

    Can it/they get more ridiculous: (none / 0) (#86)
    by Nemi on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:31:27 AM EST
    'Hillary wore yellow debate jacket when meeting Goldman Sachs CEO' !

    The Hill. Not linking! Hope that's ok.

    I think it's a coded message (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:22:14 AM EST
    OMG (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:44:14 AM EST
    Contaminated with GS cooties!

    Who's image will be projected in the sky (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:00:05 AM EST
    After tonight's Republican Hunger Games?

    Think Ted might be tonight's piñata

    Republican Debate Mad Libs (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:49:55 AM EST
    "We need to take our country back from __________."

    (And presumably then give it to _________.)


    The good news (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:06:17 AM EST
    is a lot of them have now dropped out. So it will probably get more interesting. Are they even going to do a kiddie table anymore? Seems to me they no longer need one.

    6 candidates (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:45:57 AM EST
    6 podiums

    I just (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:52:34 AM EST
    Googled it. It's in Bob Jones country where the debate is being held. Oh, my this is going to be a good one. Expect the crowd to be with Cruz and Trump.

    Yep (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:21:22 AM EST
    Bob endorsed Donald and Ted announced his candidacy there.

    I expect them to be all over Ted about the push polls and other unchristian dirty tricks.


    Joy Reid (none / 0) (#101)
    by AnnL on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 10:02:34 AM EST
    Had Culinary workers union on  they won't endorse before caucuses. Joy Reid asked her about the "alleged" violation by the Sanders campaign inside the dining room for said union. I thought the Sanders campaign had to apologize. And of course she said there were also shenanigans in 2008. She is terrible

    Aloha and Shalom, Donald, KeysDan and co (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:06:16 PM EST
    Of course the unexamined subtext of your seeming attempts to rhetorically polish Kissinger's knob and sell the credulous on the friends of Hillary, seems to be another hackneyed version of the U.S-as-world-heroes who (selflessly and heroically) "open" nations -- that otherwise would never have had any choice whatsoever in the matter..

    One part hurray-for-our-side White Man's Burdenism, one part world history according to the New York Times, and one part fumbling HR
    talking points equals the world's biggest self-serving bullsh*t souffle. With no liberty, little justice, cheap labor, and minimal environmental regulations for all..

    Primarily, what China is is the North Korea that lines (some of) our pockets, the way the terror-sponsoring Saudi Arabia is the "terror-sponsoring" Iran that lines our pockets..

    Running interference for bs on wheels doesn't suit you folks


    Can we just say (none / 0) (#113)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:48:00 PM EST
    That Clinton's referencing of Kissinger was gob smackingingly stupid?

    At best she was going for "see even Repubs think I did a good job as SOS" but the point everybody is getting instead, is that the guy is a war criminal and any campaign not as stunningly tone-deaf as Clinton's would have  distanced themselves?

    Really dumb move. That with Albright and Steinem plus the NH shellacking makes it a horrible week. She bounced back well with the debate. But NV looms. And SC is do or die.


    Referencing? (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:08:07 PM EST
    those two are as cozy as lice..

    Apparently they frequently "see each other socially" -- which must mean that K has been completely misunderstood and unjustly made a pariah by the misogynist left or something..

    Of course she had to try to preemptively reference/spin their relationship. It was going to come up at some point..


    I'm glad you're so certain the're Cozy as Lice! (none / 0) (#135)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:21:11 PM EST
    The things we learn here!

    Point is, she's tone deaf for mentioning it at all, cozy or not.  

    And if that was a pre-emotive spin, Clinton failed rather spectacularly.

    Tone deaf.


    As I say.. (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:37:27 PM EST
    what else could she do?

    Plus Sanders brought it up in another one of his ludicrously "canned" and substanceless talking points.


    What I'd read (none / 0) (#102)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 11:46:20 AM EST
    Said Sanders supporters were wearing Union pins and essentially posing as members, in so doing implying endorsement of the Union for Sanders.

    Part of an over-arching theme of mis-representation of suppor that doesn't exist. Or fraud, if you will.

    I have not seen any apologies from the campaign for this, or for the newspaper endorsement mis-representation, or the AARP, or League of Conservation voters, or American Legion. There may be more, and worse, I believe in the case of at least one of the organizations that supposedly endorsed Sanders, had in fact endorsed Clinton instead.

    League of Conservation Voters issued a Cease and Decist.

    It really looks like a pattern of dirty tricks, and does the media call it out? Nope, they slam Bubba for having the temerity to mention it.

    I think we will have a very close race in Nevada at least in part due to this (and caucuses are always dangerous), potentially giving Sanders a lot of momentum into SC.  


    Well (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:10:50 PM EST
    Bernie seems to have given up on SC and Hillary has Reid's people in NV so I'm not sure what is going to happen in NV. The media I'm sure would like both to be close. The one recent poll out of NV that the media is touting is a right wing push poll and it relies on a very high number of new voters which have yet to materialize in either Iowa or NH.

    We are back to the way primaries used to be where momentum means nothing in the next state. Do you think voters in NH are really going to be able to tell voters in SC who to vote for?


    Yes the painfully obvious push poll (none / 0) (#109)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:42:03 PM EST
    Was from the FreshBeagle or FreeBeacon or somesuch, a conservative leaning paper.

    However, 538 gave it the highest weight if you check their site. All other polls which are generally Clinton +30 or more, have been given 0 weight, even one from this week.

    Which tells me Nate Silver and his stat boys know more they are letting on. Therefore I suspect a close Nevada and possibly a Sanders win. And the horse race wanted by everybody.  But Clinton of course.


    Hillary (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:45:23 PM EST
    Has been there organizing many more months than Sanders.  And they have the Reid organization.  My money is on Hillary.  If not by much.

    Well I hope you're right Captain (none / 0) (#115)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:51:28 PM EST
    I have bad 2008 flashbacks of young fanatics doing great work gaming caucuses in favor of their upstart.

    Forgive me if I'm waiting and seeing on this one.


    For many reasons (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    It's impossible to poll or really predict.  I just think based on past performance you should not under estimate the Reid operation.   If it comes down to gaming the young fanatics are gong to have their hands full.

    Well i hope you're right (none / 0) (#124)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:02:51 PM EST
    I believe based on what's happened thus far, there will be a shite-load of gaming. Sanders campaign has not really been called out on their shenanigans, and they have a blueprint from 2008.

    I guess we'll find out how much Reid can keep things on the straight and narrow.


    They may think (none / 0) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:06:57 PM EST
    That have a blueprint but Hillary has everyone who actually did it.

    Well they're doing plenty thus far (none / 0) (#138)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:24:15 PM EST
    With the mis-representation.
    Youngsters learn fast, perhaps.

    Do you think Clinton would game? (none / 0) (#154)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:58:08 PM EST
    After all she played Good Dem Soldier and didn't object when she got royally f***cked by Obama in the Texas caucuses.

    I wonder if she would go there now.


    Thanks; I couldn't find much on (none / 0) (#117)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:52:21 PM EST
    that Free Beacon.

    And yes, 538's weighting of polls can be weird, when polls are few and far between for a state.  The site would do better to say, as it did until that first poll in eons for NV, that 538 is just not going to say anything at all, other than to just post the poll -- and especially when NV has a caucus that is unlike most others.


    The reason 538 (none / 0) (#118)
    by CoralGables on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:52:23 PM EST
    is only including the poor Free Beacon poll is because it's the only poll taken in Nevada in 2016.

    The Gravis poll (none / 0) (#122)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    Shows Feb but looks to be 2015.

    I've no idea how Nate weights these things. The Dec poll is weighted 0.00.

    It's kind of impossible to poll/weight caucuses anyway. Where a few hundred people turn a  whole state. Or a locked door, or a stolen packet or a forged sign in sheet does the same.

    I hate caucuses.  Can you tell LOL??


    Nate Silver (none / 0) (#142)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:39:53 PM EST
    always gives higher weights to the latest polls, the polls from 2 months ago have zero weight.

    538 (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:54:41 PM EST
    is probably hedging their bets as there has been no other recent polling out of Nevada.

    Hmmmmm (none / 0) (#111)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:45:48 PM EST
    Not according to Joy


    As of last week, the Clinton campaign had only two campaign offices in South Carolina: ....

    The Sanders campaign, meanwhile, had 240 staffers on the ground as of last week - 80 percent of them African-American - spread across 10 offices statewide.

    "That's real infrastructure," said one veteran South Carolina political consultant who was involved in the 2008 effort to elect Barack Obama and who spoke on background.

    The Sanders campaign is using both traditional and innovative strategies to reach voters, including "Bernie Bingo" for seniors who get a ride to the polls after enjoying the board game with the youthful canvassers. Voters in South Carolina have been able to vote early, absentee or in person since January 1, and the Sanders campaign is taking full advantage before the end of early voting for Democrats on February 26.

    That silly article (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:48:47 PM EST
    Is by Joy Reid who is so deeply in the tank for Bernie it's gone beyond ridiculous.

    Tell you what, I will bet you Hillary not only win SC but wins it by double digits.


    From your lips (none / 0) (#119)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:52:52 PM EST
    To.....well, you know

    RCP has Hillary (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:05:22 PM EST
    Up by 30 points.   About 50 with black voters.  Clyburn is going to endorse her next week.

    Hillary is going to win SC.  

    MSNBC and Joy Reid are going to spread the bullsh!t as thick as they can.   For as long as they can.   What's new?


    RCP (none / 0) (#130)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:08:55 PM EST
    I usually rely on,

    But those are 3 weeks old, prior to the New Hampshire Clinton debacle,

    I gather the numbers are quite different now.

    And with Nevada in between, another opportunity to dent the inevitability narrative.


    New (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:41:20 PM EST
    Hampshire is going to have ZERO effect on what happens is SC.

    And Bernie is continually insulting African American voters. Really if you want to find out what is going on in SC you could read the local papers. ABC news reported that she was a resounding success with voters in SC.

    Bernie has pretty much given up on SC.


    Yes, Joy Reid (none / 0) (#164)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 02:58:40 PM EST
    and the lot of MSNBC.  Tweety has been alone in Secretary Clinton's corner, apparently not getting the front office memo, or he got it but it became illegible after a rain of spittle.

      However, they must have given him a new copy. Yesterday, he said that Mrs. Clinton is excellent in all her debates, better than Sanders, but, somehow, he sometimes feels that she does not want to be there. No tingle up his leg, it seems.

    In an article in the Sanders-oriented Salon, Elias Isquith, offers his concern that Senator Sanders is in jeopardy of having the media turn on him, losing some of the media's (relatively) soft touch. His "you are not in the WH yet," suggests a too quick to anger--angry and loud, yes, but it needs to be in a lovably earnest way.

    And, his mass incarceration promise came in for major hand-wringing that the press may decide that Sanders is not a cranky, lovable socialist grandpa, but one who gives promises that are not ambitious, but, rather, demagogic.


    Well (none / 0) (#120)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:56:09 PM EST
    Did she make up all of those stats regarding Sanders field operations?
    It seems that Sanders has not given up on South Carolina. She had best win by double digits, S.C is her firewall, if Sanders keeps it under 15%, he did a very good job. And that number will swing depending upon the results in Nevada. Ole momentum.....

    Can The Bern get the young black vote out?

    African Americans support former Secretary of State Clinton by more than a 3-to-1 margin nationwide, but among young blacks 18 to 29 years old, that margin shrinks to 46 percent for Clinton versus 33 percent for Sanders, according to recent Reuters/Ipsos polling.

    African Americans overwhelmingly back Democrats, but opinion polls in the run-up to the Nov. 8 presidential election show younger blacks more apt to reject an establishment candidate. They seem less inclined than their parents to reward Clinton for the outreach of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and more drawn to Sanders' outspoken views on reducing income inequality, cracking down on Wall Street, and cutting the cost of college.

    Pffft (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    "If he keeps it under 15%"

    Uh huh


    Do we have any reports (none / 0) (#131)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:09:51 PM EST
    That Sanders is completely bagging SC? I thought his poor timing re criticizing Obama's leadership, together w the attacks on Lewis showed that he was simply messing up.
    But maybe he doesn't care?

    Is SC proportional or winner take all?

    If the latter, Sanders may as well bag it and focus on NV, but I have to check, thought it was proportional and would behoove him to go for it as much as he can....?


    He is not "bagging it" (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:13:05 PM EST
    It is proportional.

    Good (none / 0) (#137)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:23:16 PM EST
    Then he's just messing up.
    Pity the press doesn't notice.

    I don't think he has anything (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:48:12 PM EST
    scheduled in SC. And I don't think he has anything scheduled in NV either.

    Sanders (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:42:52 PM EST
    field operation showed up to the Clyburne fish fry and got up and left in the middle of it all the while people in SC were asking them to stay. He might have a lot of people there but apparently he can't find any volunteers so he's having to pay people to canvass for him.

    Those (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:57:16 PM EST
    numbers are DEADLY for Bernie and explain why he's given up on SC.

    And apparently whoever reported that missed the disastrous event yesterday with Sanders and African Americans. They kept asking him questions that concerned them and he kept spouting Wall Street is the problem.


    If it is proportional (none / 0) (#157)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 02:03:48 PM EST
    He would be silly to bag it......

    Maybe he has Mark Penn advising him though lol!....


    Maybe it wasn't a push poll (none / 0) (#146)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:42:57 PM EST
    Apparently the "push" parts came after the who do you support part, which sounds less like pushing and more like testing potential general election lines of attack.


    I'd take the results seriously, which in this case means wait and see if this is an outlier or not. Also, note:

    Among those who have participated in the Democratic caucus before, Clinton leads by 11 points, while first-time caucusgoers support Sanders by six points.

    It's going to be close, like Iowa, I would guess.

    I'm not comfortable with stale SC polls showing Clinton up 30 points. It's going to be closer than that and there is still plenty of time to screw things up. Or as I say to my spouse, the only thing that can stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president is Hillary Clinton and we'll just have to hope she doesn't blow it.


    Why are you (none / 0) (#148)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:53:36 PM EST
    Not comfortable?

    Well, they're old for polls. (none / 0) (#151)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:55:25 PM EST
    And things change, especially as people start paying more attention.

    Let me put it differently: I hope Clinton's campaign isn't comfortable. I hope she campaigns like she's 30 points behind, as the cliche goes.


    She's gone (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 02:00:35 PM EST
    completely on the offensive after the debate. Even Bernie's supporters in places like Salon are starting to get very nervous after his last debate performance and Hillary just cut a web ad ridiculing Sanders as a johnny one note and then the same thing happened yesterday at Keith Ellison's even in MN.

    But yeah, I agree campaign like you're 30 points down.


    Well, I think the Press (none / 0) (#156)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 02:01:39 PM EST
    Can go a country mile towards stopping Clinton, has done so before, and continues to do so now.

    Clinton and her surrogates can surely shoot her own foot off, no doubt, and have done so the last week in grand style.

    But I still say the press has the biggest megaphone and is her biggest obstacle.

    They just simply loathe her, and that's a powerful pill when you've got a nationwide loudspeaker.


    You know (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 02:21:17 PM EST
    the problem is not really her surrogates. The problem is the press like you say. Sanders routinely insults large groups of people and you never hear about it.

    This reminds me of 2000 where the press was fluffing George W. Bush and trashing Al Gore and look what it got us? Their fluffing and not questioning Bush brought a total disaster on the country.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 02:19:07 PM EST
    but there's a reason why the press is held in such disrespect in the country. It seems to me that they are obviously angling for a Republican to win in 2016. Nobody in their right mind thinks that Sanders could win a national election. Heck even his own supporters according to polls don't think he can win but honestly I don't think they care. To them it doesn't matter if the president is a D or an R.

    Well it's interesting (none / 0) (#163)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 02:54:23 PM EST
    I think the press truly thought
    A) Clinton would romp virtually unopposed and
    B) the GOP are clowns, and no way Trump would last past August, never mind rally a Fascist movement big enough to actually win

    ...so they could have their fun, poke at Clinton who they hate, and give Trump as much air time as he could suck up.

    And now, after stirring the sh*t , the press is (maybe) realizing it isn't fun and games anymore. And we could seriously wind up with a President Trump. Neither Sanders nor Clinton polls well against him nationally, at best it seems a toss-up at this point , and there really seems no one to derail The Donald beyond a complete Brokered Convention Goat F*ck.

    So here we are.

    You'd think after cheerleading us into a war that killed a million or so people and spawned ISIS, rags like the NYT would be less likely to stir the pot again, but no.

    Seriously f*** them.


    SHARK OFFICIALLY JUMPED! (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 11:57:56 AM EST

    Hillary's Woman Problem - Politico
    Politico > magazine > story > 2016/02
    1 day ago - If she were black, or gay, or poor--as well as female, some young liberals might be more inclined to vote for her. .

    Baa waa waa (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:13:20 PM EST
    too funny!

    Steinem think's it's because (none / 0) (#108)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:27:58 PM EST
    she doesn't look like Zac Efron.

    She didn't (none / 0) (#125)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:03:34 PM EST
    Really say that?
    Do we have a link or a quote?....

    No (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:10:11 PM EST
    She did not.  She made a joke on Mahers show and apologized for it.

    That was humor I believe.

    However the person who suggested idiot Millennials should vote for Hillary if she was black or poor or gay was not joking .
    And has not apologized.


    No. It was a joke. (none / 0) (#134)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:13:21 PM EST
    or as they say at Fox, unnamed sources that I can't reveal at the present time allegedly overheard Steinem...;-)

    Well that does it! (none / 0) (#136)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:22:15 PM EST
    We believe!!

    By the way Porter and MKS.. (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 12:51:32 PM EST
    just to clarify, by "canned" you mean what exactly?

    Untrue? Without substance? Not worthy of discussion and delving into at the present time?

    ..delivered without the sort of verve you 'd expect from someone who studied the Method under Lee Strasberg or Stella Adler?

    I have a theory about the SC push polls (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:26:12 PM EST
    We all know that as much as we hate Ted, he's a pretty smart guy.  Possibly to smart to do something so easily tagged to him as a push poll slamming BOTH Trump and Rubio.

    I mean seriously, why not do two separate operations?  One for each that could not so easily be traced back?

    Because he's not doing it.  Donald is doing it to frame him and set him up for tonight.  After all he was caught red handed rat fu@king Carson in Iowa so Carson is already pissed.  Now Donald and Marco can be indignant too.

    Ted might have a bad night.

    Is Carson (none / 0) (#150)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:54:52 PM EST
    In the debate tonight?
    I hope he pi$$es all over Ted.

    Obama designates 3 new... (none / 0) (#143)
    by desertswine on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 01:40:04 PM EST
    national monuments in California, thereby preserving more than 1.8 million acres for the future.
    Mojave Trails, Sand to Snow, and Castle Mountains are the 20th, 21st, and 22nd national monuments that have been created or expanded under President Obama, adding up to a total of 3.5 million acres of new protections for public lands.
    Let's go hiking.

    This is (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 02:16:04 PM EST
    hilarious link

    Effective ad (none / 0) (#161)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 02:39:35 PM EST
    He's very on message, which can be good unless it is the only message you have.

    Great graphic effect (none / 0) (#162)
    by Nemi on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 02:40:51 PM EST
    the way her eyes and lips sort of match the colours of the writing in the background. :)

    Good (none / 0) (#165)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 03:00:21 PM EST
    I think accidentally or not, the Clinton campaign has at last arrived at a resonant message, after perhaps seeming scattered in the last few months, as she addressed a multitude of issues whilst Sanders  maintained his One Trick Pony message. We saw this in the summation of the last debate, and I'm glad they're running with it.

    "not a single issue candidate" is a great, non wonky summation of Hillary's comprehensive qualifications while also subtly side swiping Bernie's one-note tune.

    Good for her.


    Meanwhile here's hopng (none / 0) (#166)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 03:18:53 PM EST
    That this mother f***cker goes to jail.

    Thousands of children with potential brain damage, jail doesn't begin to reach the punishment Snyder deserves.