home

Saturday College Football Open Thread

After my historic debacle last week, I've had to mortgage the house, break my 401(K), sell my stocks and break my piggy bank. But hope springs eternal and really, do my daughters REALLY need to go to college? The picks, with a little bit of analysis of the 4 biggest games:

Michigan (-7) over Michigan State. There was never a doubt, not even a little bit, that Harbaugh would have Michigan back on top. The surprise is that he's doing it this fast. Michigan' talent level is not as good as the other major powers, though it probably is equal to Michigan State's (certainly not Ohio State.) But Michigan a 7 point favorite over MSU? Feels like too much in a rivalry game. But Sagarin rates Michigna 18 points better than MSU. And the game is in Ann Arbor. Can't ignore the numbers.

Alabama (-4) 4 units over Texas A&M. Every year people stat the season remembering how good Saban is. Then he has an early struggle or loss an they seem to forget. Bama always improves a lot during the season. They are doing so now. Yes the game is in College Station but by November this game would have a double digit line. Good opportunity here imo.

LSU -7 over Florida. Obviously I'm rooting for a different result. But this is a tough matchup for Florida who can;t match LSU's depth. A Saturday night in Baton Rouge is almost impossible when you have the better team. Here Florid probably does not. Even with Will Grier at QB (he's suspended for the season), probably would not. I expect good things from Treon Harris, Florida's replacement for Grier - he has the experiene and the talent to do well. But Heisman winner to be Leonard Fournette wil b too much for my Gators.

But Go Gators!

More on the flip,

USC +5 over Notre Dame. Notre Dame is clearly better than USC. And now USC's coach was fired. The game is in Notre Dame. But Sagarin rates USS the better team by 4 points!! Say what?I n Sagarin I trust - damn my lying eyes.

over Penn State. Like most investors, I've lost my shirt on the defending national champions who I believe have not covered the spread in ANY games this year. That's got to change right? I this this week it does.

The rest: Oregon @ Washington -3.0 (3 units) (Ducks are done), Arizona State +6 @ Utah, Missouri (+16) @ Georgia, @ North Carolina, Boston College @ Clemson -17 (4 units), TCU @ Iowa State +22, Vanderbilt @ South Carolina -3 (Happy Trails Ole Ball Coach!), Air Force @ Colorado State + 5, Syracuse +7 1/2 @ Virginia, Virginia Tech +4 @ Miami Florida, Nebraska @ Minnesota PICK, Oklahoma -3 @ Kansas State, Buffalo @ Central Michigan -5, Pittsburgh +4 1/2 @ Georgia Tech, Western Michigan @ Ohio -3, Marshall -3 @ Florida Atlantic, Tulsa @ East Carolina -13, South Florida @ Connecticut -2, Texas Tech @ Kansas +35, Louisiana Tech @ Mississippi State - 13, Iowa PICK 3 units @ Northwestern, Mississippi @ Memphis +11, Purdue +24 @ Wisconsin, West Virginia +23 @ Baylor, Louisville +8 @ Florida State.

Go Gators!

< Clinton-Castro Appearance in San Antonio | Mexico Claims El Chapo Injured in Failed Search Operation >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Not betting the college fund on baseball, BTD? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 02:05:40 PM EST


    Do you have a financial (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 02:34:57 PM EST
    investment in the outcome?

    Parent
    Not yet- I don't have irrational exuberance! (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 02:56:30 PM EST
    Geaux Tigers! (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 06:07:50 PM EST
    Well someone's got to say it... Might as well be me since I have LSU family ties.

    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 02:23:23 PM EST
    Dear friends,

    For some time now E Bible Fellowship (and myself) have been looking towards October 7th as the likely end of the world. We believed there was a strong likelihood that God would complete His judgment and bring about the world's destruction on that day. There was much biblical information pointing to this date and we freely shared it with all. Yet, consistently stressing throughout the entire time period that the world ending on that date was a "strong likelihood." Since it is now October 8th it is now obvious that we were incorrect regarding the world's ending on the 7th.



    Ps (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 03:59:14 PM EST
    This is not Firesign Theater.   It's a real press release from the folks who recently said the world was going to end.

    Hard to tell sometimes

    Parent

    The enemy of my enemy (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by CST on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 09:54:22 AM EST
    In this case... is still my enemy, only now with more popcorn.

    Link

    "Members of the Westboro Baptist Church plan to protest Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis on Monday, the group announced on Twitter.

    The church, known for picketing funerals with inflammatory signs about gay people, argued that Davis has committed adultery by getting divorced and remarried. "Divorce, remarriage & same-sex 'marriage' are all sin," read an image of one protest sign posted to Twitter by the group."

    OH MY GOD!!! (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 12:23:42 PM EST
    BIDEN IS 48 HOURS AWAY FROM MAKING A DECISION.

    OR AT THE VERY LEAST DECIDING TO MAKE A DECISION!!!!

    Oh my god
    Oh my god
    Oh my god

    48hours!!!!

    Are we are sufficiently prepared ??   Maybe we should all sit down for the next 48 hours.   Just t be safe.

    Between this and a Cubs-Mets (none / 0) (#130)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 12:29:47 PM EST
    game at Wrigley, I won't sleep until Thursday!!!!

    Please save us Joe, from the multiplicity of good choices already available. Clearly you are so superior as to wipe them all away.

    Parent

    If he jumps (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 02:06:53 PM EST
    in at this point I think the only people who will be excited are all 5 members of the draft Biden movement.

    Talk about trying to create excitement for someone and totally botching it.

    Parent

    I am Pretty Sure... (none / 0) (#136)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 02:47:35 PM EST
    ...the entire republican party would get boners if Biden enters, even the females.

    Parent
    Charlie Pierce (none / 0) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 02:46:28 PM EST
    It really is time for Biden to get off the pot. He is squandering his accumulated goodwill in a lot of places, and he's vulnerable to charges that he is merely the vehicle for a lot of ambitious staffers and aides who like to be anonymous in the newspapers. So, if this announcement actually is coming from Biden himself, he should be held rigidly to the 48-hour standard. If, in two days, he's still "mulling," he should be ignored. This is edging again dangerously close to an exercise in discreet ratfcking as regards to the present Democratic frontrunner. Link

    My only disagreement is that this exercise has gone over the edge into a not so discreet ratfcking of HRC.

    Parent

    I completely agree (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 04:31:51 PM EST
    His goodwill is officially gone in this household.

    Stfu and go back to doing whatever it is you do, Joe.

    Parent

    Can't say that I ever had a desire (none / 0) (#138)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 04:56:30 PM EST
    for a President Biden.

    All this drama combined with references to his dying son's death bed wish, does not make me change my mind.

    Parent

    Agree again (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 05:05:10 PM EST
    I do not and never got the appeal of Biden.  I didn't get his choice as VP.   Of all the possible choices, Biden??  I thought at the time.
    To me he always seems like the most typical craven opportunist pol you could imagine.

    Nothing in recent weeks has changed that.


    Parent

    Joe (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by FlJoe on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 05:51:32 PM EST
    Appeals to the plutocrats, that counts for a lot.

    Parent
    Re Michigan and "there was never (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 11:45:06 AM EST
    a doubt":  

    Harbaugh takes over in 2015. His two predecessors, Rodriguez and Hoke did not meet expectations of the alumni, fans, and AD. Presumably recruitment was not the best under Rodriguez and Hoke. How did Harbaugh's team manage to be victorious from the start of his tenure?

    Recruitment was better than they thought (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 12:14:00 PM EST
    and Harbaugh is a better coach that the previous two. He can win with their guys. They couldn't

    Parent
    An Iowa fan just informed me last yr's (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 02:36:16 PM EST
    Iowa qtrback transferred to Michigan.

    Parent
    Yes. (none / 0) (#49)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 08:05:39 PM EST
    He got cut loose after a dismal performance in our bowl game (and questionable leadership in the locker room).  

    Working out pretty good for both teams so far.  We were hoping to play UM in the Big Ten championship game, but your guys had to give the game away on the last play (fumbled snap on a punt run back by MSU player for a TD).

    Go Hawks!

    Parent

    What a shocker. Who was supposed to (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 08:10:05 PM EST
    defend the punter--the guy who got tossed out of the game?

    Parent
    Maybe it was BTD's bookie. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 08:18:00 PM EST
    He lost on the Michigan game - but more than made up for it with Iowa's victory.

    Parent
    You two must have been (none / 0) (#3)
    by fishcamp on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 01:32:02 PM EST
    secret Yoopers in another life.  (-:

    Cue the didactic lecture on (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 02:00:30 PM EST
    pressing "parent"!!!

    PS, Unfortunately I've never even visited the U.P.

    Parent

    The didactic lecture was absorbed, (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by fishcamp on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 09:01:34 AM EST
    but that erratic "parent" button often has a mind of it's own.

    Parent
    re Lessig on Sanders from the last thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 01:42:16 PM EST
    I understand that the presidency would be the ultimate microphone from which to spread Sanders' ideas even if a bill never gets passed. But I don't think you can spend 4 years just talking about ideas, and that is all I hear Sanders do - and all I think he wants to do. Even in a friendly conversation with Maher in which Maher expressed his support and regretted only being able to give him a capped amount of money, and Maher was inviting him to say something new about what he would do as president....he just kept repeating the statistics about income inequality and so on, and promised to raise taxes on the rich, and got vague about who else he would have to raise taxes on.

     I've said before that I don't think he expects to win the job, or even wants the job. He wants to spread ideas. I think action on the ideas has to come from the ground up, not the top down. Spread the ideas and get like minded people in congress and then something can happen.

    The policies and ideas that a president (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 02:28:41 PM EST
    Promotes are important.

    Once again, what legislation that HRC is proposing can she get through the make up of this current Congress? Please, if you are going to maintain that HRC will do more than just talk, back this premise up with some type of examples of what she can accomplish with a Republican Congress. Personally,  I don't see the current Republican Congress passing any worthwhile legislation under Hillary any more than they would under Sanders.

    If, as I believe, neither can get any worthwhile  legislation through, I would prefer a president who is using his office to sell big policies that will actually benefit real people rather than someone who is content with the corporate centric status quo or is willing to promote moderate Republican policies to maintain the appearance that they are willing to compromise.


    Parent

    I'm not saying she will get one thing passed (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 02:46:44 PM EST
    either, at least no major things like free college. but IMO she is much better qualified at all the other aspects of the job, like diplomacy, speaking about a wide range of issues, picking justices and other career civil servants, understanding all aspects of a problem presented, making informed decisions on a range of issues, etc.

    Parent
    That is quite different than stating that your (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 03:42:05 PM EST
    issue with Bernie is "there is no way they are going to get done with the political system as messed up as it is now."

    If neither candidate can get anything worthwhile passed, that nullifies that as an issue IMO as why not to vote for Sanders.

    As to HRC's ability to understand all aspects of a problem and her ability to make informed decisions, I tend to disagree with that assessment when it comes to her more robust foreign policy and agreement with the Patriot Act.

    Parent

    The difference is that most of what he is saying (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 03:58:46 PM EST
    for a reason to elect him requires passing legislation. Is not running as a good diplomat or chief executive. He is running as a reformer.

    Parent
    I am well aware that HRC is (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 04:34:15 PM EST
    not running as a reformer. She is saying this is what I would like to do as president and this is why you should vote for me. The policies that she says she supports require legislation to become law as well. She will have the same problem getting anything other than Republican agenda items through this Congress. She is on record as supporting a more robust American involvement in places like Syria. She could probably get support for that from the Republicans and more money for our never ending military presence in Afghanistan. Personally, I would prefer those policies not be implemented and funded but they are doable with this Congress.

    Parent
    Our lips are moving, but it's like we're (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Anne on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 04:51:34 PM EST
    speaking a foreign language...

    Sanders is a reformer who understands the obstacles Congress puts in the way, so he wants a grassroots revolution to force Congress to act.

    Clinton is a pragmatist who understands the obstacles Congress puts in the way, so she will take a more traditional, working-with-the-other-side approach.

    She says she will use executive action; presumably, Sanders would have that option, as well.

    Maybe someone can explain to me the difference between "change" and "reform," and then explain why "reform" is being framed as a bad thing.

    Parent

    Do you have any ideas on whether Bernie (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 05:21:09 PM EST
    actually wants to do the day in day out job of being president? That is the other part I struggle with.

    Parent
    Do you have any proof that Sanders (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 09:14:37 AM EST
    does not want to do the day to day job of being president or is this just a gut feeling or something you heard someone else say?

    Parent
    Gut feeling, based on him never expressing an (none / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 12:14:11 PM EST
    interest in the job before, at least that I know of. I think he is interested in the movement more than the job.

    Parent
    I can't explain that (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 04:58:47 PM EST
    But I do worry about any plan that depends on a "grassroots revolution".

    It sounds great.  It of course would be great.  But when less than half the population is registered to vote and half these actually vote,  well.  

    Parent

    How do we change that? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 05:27:56 PM EST
    Do we change that by telling candidates who are strongly promoting more citizen involvement that their goal is impossible so we will stick with the establishment candidate who tells people that the good stuff is impossible.

    What is the main reason people give for not voting? Right or wrong they don't believe that their vote will change anything. They see establishment politicians continue to take money from Wall Street and pass laws for Wall St. They hear that one of richest countries on earth can not afford programs that benefit them but have endless funds for tax breaks for the wealthy and trillions of dollars for endless wars (excuse me - military engagements).

    They do not believe that our government works for them and for the most part they are right. We are not as bad as the other guy doesn't appear to be a compelling argument to encourage more citizen involvement. I will fight against all odds for the things that you need just might do the trick but we are now too afraid to try it.


    Parent

    A couple of things (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 05:43:17 PM EST
    About being afraid to try it.   I would usually be more inclined to try something unorthodox than I am in the coming presidential election.  As I said before it's not typical.  The next president could conceivably have 4 Supreme Court placements.  The literal future of the country for the rest of my life is on the line.  And not only the future but all the progress we have made would be put at risk.  The republicans certainly understand this which is why they will do everything up to and possibly including hit men to keep Trump from the nomination.  Personally, after we get the court staffed with progressives who are not pushing 80 I will be much more inclined to take risks.

    The other thing is what I think could possibly be a grassroots uprising, against Sanders.   This man will be turned into Castro, Stalin and Pol Pot all rolled into one.   As great as I personally think Bernie is I also think he is thr ripest for swift boating and demonizing I have probably ever seen.   And has been mentioned by other commenters, he doesn't really seem to get this.   That he doesn't get bothers me the most.

    Parent

    I know he's not perfect - who is? - but (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Anne on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 09:25:27 PM EST
    he seems to be able to be pointed without being offensive; he's like an insider who's an outsider, if that makes sense.

    I'm under no illusions that the whole Democratic Socialist thing isn't going to be a problem for him - it maybe less of a problem as more people see and hear him, but we know Republicans, and there's no way Bernie's not being turned into some kind of red menace.

    Except I can see him more or less just saying, "Eff You, call me all the names you want, doesn't change that you're wrong on the issues."  I don't get the sense that he's afraid of that, but I know it's coming.

    I know Clinton's not ever going to be as bad as even the sanest of the Republicans, but I just wish sometimes it didn't always feel like we were settling for something that's less than what we really want.

    [and can I just say that Joe Biden is just flat-out pissing me off now.  Go home, Joe; you've played hard to get and it hasn't made people want you more - it's just reminding them why they didn't want you to be president the last two times you tried and failed, so just go home.]

    Parent

    I know I should just shut up and maybe I am (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 10:22:41 PM EST
    tired and confused...but it is an election. There is no such thing as 'settling'. The one that gets the most votes wins.  Vote for whoever you want and try to convince others. That is not settling.

    Parent
    I guess I just can't wrap my brain around (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 10:34:25 PM EST
    people on this blog 8 years later talking about 'settling' for Hillary Clinton.

    Parent
    So, I guess that means that you've (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Anne on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 09:34:25 AM EST
    never felt like you were holding your nose and voting for the Democrat because your conscience wouldn't let you take the chance of ending up with the GOP in charge?

    This time, it may come down to people choosing not to vote for whom they may really want - Sanders - because even though they feel he aligns more with their positions, he may ultimately not be as electable in a general election - and there we are again: voting for someone we may not be feeling enthusiastic about because of the specter of a President Trump, or a President Rubio.

    It may be a case of Clinton being much better than the other guy, but she still may not be the first choice of primary voters - and that's where "settling" comes into play.

    For me, it may come down to putting on some blinders and choosing to focus on the things that may affect me on a day-to-day basis, and convincing myself that domestic issues are going to have to be enough - or enough of them will have to do.  I can only hope that as the race continues, Sanders' influence will continue to have a positive effect on Clinton that will continue to influence her long after the election.

    But the truth is that I've lost count of how many elections where I've been in this position - so if you or anyone want to know where apathy comes from, or why, perhaps, people are excited and energized by Sanders, that's a good place to start.

    Parent

    Anyone who has ever supported a candidate (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ruffian on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 11:33:29 AM EST
    that did not win the nomination has felt that disappointment. I think of it as accepting the reality that I did not get what I want, and then voting for my best option in the next round.  To me the word settling implies there was a negotiation, rather than a vote that I lost, but I realize there are nuances to the word, and that might be the way you look at it.

    I was glad to vote for John Kerry and Barak Obama - the were not my first choices and are not perfect but better than letting the GOP win - I don't feel bad about that at all.  

    Parent

    Yes, all I have been talking about assumes he gets (none / 0) (#39)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 05:48:22 PM EST
    elected POTUS at all. I have stayed out of the electability issues, just for the sake of argument, because there are days I don't see how any passenger in the GOP clown car can win. But that is unrealistic thinking in its own way.

    Parent
    I don't believe that for a second (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 06:16:24 PM EST
    The dem has some advantages going in but the next president will win by a couple of percentage points.   It's just where the country is.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 07:49:29 PM EST
    you misjudge the apathy of the American voter here
    They see establishment politicians continue to take money from Wall Street and pass laws for Wall St. They hear that one of richest countries on earth can not afford programs that benefit them but have endless funds for tax breaks for the wealthy and trillions of dollars for endless wars
     The lack of participation has been a thing since at least the late forties while the government was  at least marginally functional and the influence of wall street  money was less pervasive and most Americans were proud and supportive of the military.

    While Bernie is extremely correct in pointing out the obvious problem with Democracy, one would have to engage in bit of that "magical thinking to believe that he could somehow turn that longstanding trend of American voter apathy around. His message resonates with his base, who are decidedly not apathetic but It's nearly impossible the get a message through to those who have been disconnected from the political process.

    Parent

    I think you are giving apathy too much (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 11:27:45 PM EST
    credit and ignoring other factors including the fact that the powers that be go out of their way to make it very difficult to vote in many areas.

    Voting Lines Stretch To Eight Hours

    "Six hours is ridiculous in terms of waiting in line," one Ohio voter told CNN. "I still haven't had an opportunity to vote," said a Florida reader after waiting in line for three hours. "It seems crazy."

    Rachel Maddow discussed the long lines -- eight to ten hours in some places -- on MSNBC last night. While she admitted that images of people waiting hours to vote was inspiring, she reminded viewers that not everyone has the time to do it. Long lines, she argued, are a new kind of poll tax.

    Florida took center stage in the 2012 elections, when voters around the state had to wait in line at the polls for up to nine hours. Gov. Rick Scott (R) initially denied that there was any problem, saying it was "very good" that people were getting out to vote.

    But a new study shows that tens of thousands of people were actually discouraged from voting because of the long lines.

    Everyone complains that young people don't vote, but consider the experience of students at Kenyon College in Ohio in the 2004 election. Officials in Knox County, Ohio, provided just two voting machines for the school's 1,300 voters. Some students waited in line for 10 hours, and the last bleary-eyed voter did not cast a ballot until nearly 4 a.m.

    That vs 70.9% in Oregon where the state makes voting easy.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#68)
    by FlJoe on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 09:24:40 AM EST
    are the one who asserted
    What is the main reason people give for not voting? Right or wrong they don't believe that their vote will change anything.
    You mentioned nothing about suppression.

    Voter suppression is vile attempt by the Republicans
    to destroy the Democrat's base and Democracy itself.
    Every Democrat knows it, they do not need Maddow or Bernie to tell them about it, Hillary yesterday slammed Alabama about it.   Will Bernie as a candidate change this? Would he fight any harder against it as President? No and no.

    You were answering Howdy's doubt about this Bernie's "revolution".

    It sounds great.  It of course would be great.  But when less than half the population is registered to vote and half these actually vote,  well.

    I think the doubt is well founded, it is rather naive to think that Bernie can change decades of voter apathy, along with the return of suppression, by preaching  his supercharged "civic lessons" to the choir.

    You ask

    Do we change that by telling candidates who are strongly promoting more citizen involvement that their goal is impossible so we will stick with the establishment candidate who tells people that the good stuff is impossible.

    Actually I think we should stomp our feet, cheer loudly and have a grand old weekend at Bernie's....but Monday morning will come, sorry for pointing that out.

    I happen to think Bernie's campaign is the best thing to happen for the Democrats in decades, he has reinvigorated the "for the people" heart of the party. However in the wider political arena this is just a small step in the right direction.

    Parent

    I think that you are the one with (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 10:22:58 AM EST
    the PomPoms and the one who decided to interject sarcasm  into what was a very civil debate.

    There are numerous reasons why more people do not vote in this country. I tried to point out various other reasons. You choose to believe that Americans are just too apathetic to vote regardless of the motivation. I look at the people who traveled across the country because they were energized by the message of Howard Dean, I look at the young people who were energized and decided to vote because of Obama's message that they could be involved in their own destiny and I look at the record crowds that Bernie is getting and the millions of dollars he has received due to his message and I see possibilities.

    Yes, these possibilities can be squashed by the establishment's efforts to maintain the status quo, by politicians not following up on their promises to let their voters continue to help form their destiny and by naysayers who spread their negativity far and wide convincing people that it is not going to happen. Talk about setting up a perfect environment for apathy.

    Nothing ever changes when you keep repeating the same actions over and over again. Keep repeating your mantra it's not going to happen. It has worked quite well as a self-fulfilling prophecy for decades.

    Parent

    Pom Poms (2.00 / 2) (#75)
    by FlJoe on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 12:28:56 PM EST
    ??? I am  politically pragmatic, I had the rah-rah beaten out of me a long time ago, no offense but Bernie's fans seem more the "rabid" type if you bothered to understand my words
    I happen to think Bernie's campaign is the best thing to happen for the Democrats in decades, he has reinvigorated the "for the people" heart of the party.
    you would see I understand the value of the idealism that Bernie represents and stimulates, I am glad he is riding shotgun.

    I am not "choosing" to believe in American voter apathy it's been  empirically proven over decades, under many different candidate sets and political landscapes. If you can't admit to that then you are moving into Jim territory.

    You see

    look at the people who traveled across the country because they were energized by the message of Howard Dean, I look at the young people who were energized and decided to vote because of Obama's message that they could be involved in their own destiny and I look at the record crowds that Bernie is getting and the millions of dollars he has received due to his message and I see possibilities.
    I see Dean flaming out, I see Obama's energized youth ticking up VAP by a wopping 0.4% over the 2004 snoozefest only to see it drop 4.1% in 2012.

    Maybe you should look into the mirror before you decry the repeating of actions. You appear to be repeating the same mistake of projecting enthusiasm into nonexistant wide spread support in the case of Dean or the inability to live up to that enthusiasm in the case of Obama.

    Parent

    IMO (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 11:42:32 AM EST
    what Bernie is doing is long term or setting up things for long term. Just my opinion but I don't think he can accomplish a whole lot in a year but over a couple or more years, yes. The type of grassroots organizing he's talking about take a long time to accomplish.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 08:28:22 PM EST
    if everybody voted by mail it would change a lot of that. Doesn't Oregon have high voter participation? I've missed a few elections because I had a sick child an no one to watch. There are a lot of reasons people can't get to the polls on voting day.

    Parent
    Not so sure about that. In CA, any one (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 08:37:32 PM EST
    registered voter may request to always vote by mail. No reason needed. Here's the stats from the last midterm:

    Sec. of State

    Parent

    Doesn't (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 08:58:41 PM EST
    Oregon though just send them out to all registered voters and you don't have to request them? Maybe somebody else around here knows better than me about that.

    Parent
    70.90% of registered voters did vote in (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 10:25:50 PM EST
    Oregon in the 2014 general election. A ballot is mailed to each registered voter.

    Parent
    You are putting a lot of words in my mouth there (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 05:53:47 PM EST
    just because I don't think running for a presidential nomination is the best way to promote citizen involvement in politics.  

    Parent
    I'm putting words in YOUR mouth? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 06:04:45 PM EST
    I don't think so. Your name was not mentioned in my comment and my comment was a reply to CaptHowdy and not addressed to you.

    Parent
    Sorry! (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 10:23:37 PM EST
    Oops! (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 08:14:00 PM EST
    And really (none / 0) (#99)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 09:10:12 AM EST
    Can the "grassroots movement" that Bernie wants, go deeper than just the federal level? Are Bernie and Hillary out there talking about electing more Democrats in general?  As Matthew Yglesias points out, the Democrats are in denial.

    In some ways, the Democrats' biggest disadvantage is simply their current smugness. A party that controls such a small share of elected offices around the country is a party that should be engaged in vigorous debate about how to improve its fortunes. Much of the current Republican infighting -- embarrassing and counterproductive though it may be at times -- reflects the healthy impulse to recognize that the party lacks the full measure of power that it desires, and needs to argue about optimal strategies for obtaining it.

    On the Democratic side, the personal political success of Barack Obama has created an atmosphere of complacency and overconfidence. If a black guy with the middle name Hussein can win the White House, the thinking seems to be, then anything is possible. Consequently, the party is marching steadily to the left on its issue positions -- embracing same-sex marriage, rediscovering enthusiasm for gun control, rejecting the January 2013 income tax rate settlement as inadequate, raising its minimum wage aspirations to the $12-to-$15 range, abandoning the quest for a grand bargain on balancing the budget while proposing new entitlements for child care and parental leave -- even though existing issue positions seem incompatible with a House majority or any meaningful degree of success in state politics.

    Whatever you make of this agenda substantively, there's no way to actually enact it without first achieving a considerably higher level of down-ballot electoral success than Democrats currently enjoy.

    But instead of a dialogue about how to obtain that success, Democrats are currently engaged in a slightly bizarre bidding war between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to see whether Congress in 2017 will reject a legislative agenda that is somewhat to the left of Obama's or drastically to its left. The differences between them are real, of course, and at least somewhat important.

    But the much more significant question facing the party isn't about the White House -- it's about all the other offices in the land. The problem is that control of the presidency seems to have blinded progressive activists to the possibility of even having an argument about what to do about all of them. That will change if and when the GOP seizes the White House, too, and Democrats bottom out. But the truly striking thing is how close to bottom the party is already and how blind it seems to be to that fact.



    Parent
    I absolutely agree that if Democrats want (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 09:59:28 AM EST
    to make serious progress, they can't put it all in the hands of a Democratic president.  We need more Democrats in town and county councils and state legislatures and City halls and State houses - which isn't the easiest thing to do - if we want to move the agenda in the direction we want it to go.

    That being said, I would be less worried about what Sanders is or isn't doing in this regard, and more concerned about the so-called leadership of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the head of the DNC.  What is she doing, what is the organization doing, to promote Democrats at the state and local level?  Is there a strategy, and if not, why not?

    Maybe some here who have attended a Sanders event can speak to the strength of his call for more people to vote: is it just a call to vote for president, or is it a call to generally be more active and vote up and down the ballot?

    I hate to reduce everything to sports analogies, but it isn't enough to have an elite QB or an ace pitcher.  There's a reason there are 11 men on offense and 11 on defense on a football team, and 9 players (plus a DH in the AL) on a baseball team: the QB and the pitcher can't win games all by themselves - and neither can the president do it all from the local on up to the Oval.

    Parent

    I thunk (none / 0) (#105)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 10:25:21 AM EST
    We can also look to the current head of the Democratic Party and see that historic losses of state seats started (or were accelerated) in 2008 when he was elected.  I don't remember OFA being out as much in full force talking about local and state elections, especially in the off years when he wasn't on the ballot.  That's kind of his job now, as he is a lame duck, but I fear his usefulness as a messenger has passed.

    That being said, I think it's a valid point to show that trying to elect Bernie Sanders, and to a lesser extent, Hillary Clinton, is not going to be the triumph of liberal politics that many supporters hope it will be.  Bernie has been in Congress a long time - if he was such a leader in advocating for his positions, why have so many people (who might be interested in his message) not heard of him before now?

    Parent

    As far as senators from small states go (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by CST on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 10:48:13 AM EST
    Bernie has been a lot louder and more visible over the years than most.

    I realize being in New England skews things, but I'd be hard-pressed to name any of the senators from NH, or ME, or RI, or CT, or the other VT senator (shoot, sometimes I have trouble remembering the other MA senator).  But I've known about Bernie for years.

    Parent

    Couldn't that be a regional thing? (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 10:56:38 AM EST
    Can you name the Senators from other states, not in NE, that have been just as loud on their issues as you think Bernie has been?  Could someone not as interested in politics as you who doesn't read political blogs do the same?  Could you even name both Senators of a given state if I gave you one?  (I know many if them, but wouldn't come close to getting them all).

    Parent
    yes it almost certainly is (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by CST on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 11:05:30 AM EST
    A regional thing to an extent.  But I don't know the other regional senators, and I certainly couldn't name two from any state off the top of my head.  Shoot I had no clue who Lincoln Chafee was on the stage and he's apparently from Rhode Island?  So Bernie has at least been louder than the rest of them.  I think in general it's just kind of hard to have a national profile as a senator, especially if you're from a smaller state.  And the few exceptions we do have are the ones who tend to run for president.

    But at least regionally he's been pretty visible.  Which is more than I can say for most of them.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 10:44:38 AM EST
    no doubt that Obama and his PPUS strategy has been a disaster for the party everywhere. However I disagree about the issues. Both Hillary and Bernie are campaigning on issues and campaigning on getting a mandate for those issues which is something Obama never did. Now how much of that can actually be pushed through the nuts that run the house is another question but if that mandate is used effectively some of can get enough votes in the house. Especially if someone like Hillary can carry a state like Arkansas that has a lot of Republican reps. If their districts vote for Hillary they are going to perhaps think more of saving their own skins than worrying about the tea nuts.

    Parent
    The movement's already gone grassroots (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    Kshama Sawant -- Seattle's socialist city councilmember -- is the one who started the $15 hour minumum wage movement. It is now law, and other cities across the nation are picking up the steam. Even cities that aren't pushing for it are seeing the effects. I work on the eastside of Lake Washington, and my business owners in Bellevue -- who are not subject to the law -- are still moving towards the $15 hour for non-salaried full timers, because they know they can't find good workers unless they do. Otherwise, employees will simply go elsewhere for jobs. Since my employers, and many in Western Washington, are having their best year ever, due to the strong regional economy, it's not like paying workers a little more is hurting them After all, they still make us pay for our own healthcare.

    It's not just about Bernie Sanders, or whoever's at the top of the ticket. The citizens are pushing it at the local and state level already. And it's having results.

    Parent

    The test will be (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 11:07:30 AM EST
    In 2016 and beyond if that gets more people to the polls to vote for Democrats.  And since this took place in Seattle (and San Francisco), the real test will be if it can get people to vote and policies to change in areas that are more politically moderate.  It's about building a bench of politicians who can get these policy changes through and who can climb the ranks, so by 2024 and beyond, there are good people with proven track records in place to run for higher offices.

    I don't think the Dems have many more votes to pick up in SeaTac.

    Parent

    It's not just in Sea-Tac (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by shoephone on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 11:12:57 AM EST
    You should educate yourself on the issue. And, you conveniently glossed over the FACT that I stated, which is that other cities in Western Washington are moving towards $15 an hour, regardless that they don't have to by law.

    Parent
    I think one of the hardest things (none / 0) (#115)
    by CST on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 11:14:58 AM EST
    Facing the Dems going forward is how clustered the  demographics are.

    You have large cities with large populations where 90-95% of the vote goes to Democrats, but even if you take intentional gerry-mandering out, you're still gonna have skewed districts just because of demographic clustering.

    It's a problem that I don't know how we solve beyond trying to convert traditional Republicans to the cause.  If, as it seems, population centers keep shifting back to the city it's only going to become more of a problem.

    Mid-term turnout is also abysmal, but the deck is stacked regardless.

    Parent

    I can (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 09:31:24 AM EST
    tell you that Hillary is working to rebuild the party, state and local parties.

    Parent
    I'm saying change and reform are the same (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 05:09:34 PM EST
    thing and they are both good, if they are in the direction Bernie wants to go. He's not saying anything I don't already know. But he can't do it alone and so far I don't see the populist uprising happening.

    Parent
    I'll try it another way (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 05:13:23 PM EST
    Reform is good. But if reform is your main thing and you can't make it happen, what else have you got in your repertoire?

    Parent
    A president can try to accomplish certain (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 09:09:11 AM EST
    agenda items but you have forgotten the other component. A president also chooses what actions not to pursue as well.

    Sanders voted against the Patriot Act. Hillary Clinton voted for it.

    Sanders is on record as believing that the Muslin nations must take the responsibility of leading the effort in defeating ISIS.

    HRC is on record as wanting a more robust American involvement in Syria and taking a tougher stance on Vladimir Putin.

    In my mind there is no question that Sanders would be less likely to further erode our constitutional rights and much less likely to get America into more and more involvement in the ME and Africa. As I said, things a president won't do are as important to me as the things he can do.

    Ask yourself, how much further do you want to drain our coffers to support a more robust American involvement? How much longer do you want to be a military presence in Afghanistan? What domestic programs are you willing to cut so that we can increase our already bloated military and defense budget.

    Ask yourself if HRC could get legislation through the current Congress to support a more robust involvement in the ME, to continue or increase our military presence in Afghanistan, and to offset increases in military and defense spending with more cuts to domestic programs.

     IMO, this type of legislaion is very doable in the current environment in DC. Personally, I would prefer that it be left undone.

    Parent

    "Reform" can be a curious catch-all (none / 0) (#58)
    by christinep on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 09:45:59 PM EST
    Because of the use of that word/concept that I experienced--and many others during the Reagan administration, e.g.--my inclination is to look carefully or to back up.  Reagan's people appropriated the word for use in government programs to change direction ..."regulatory reform" became the charge for diminishing enforcement programs in EPA via a number of "reforms" such as switching burdens and/or creating more steps to surmount before promulgating environmental regs.  That "reform" was continued under Bush I to a lesser extent when costs analyses of regulatory impact prolonged or frustrated regulation.

    In a broader sense where "reform" was the appropriated word in a negative sense, it is useful to take a look at the sphere of public employees and the concoction of "merit pay." Some would say that merit pay--once sold by its fair-sounding name--actually functioned as a way to upend employee expectations by pitting staff against each other via upending seniority & other employee experience approaches -- in fact, some found that merit easily became associated with favoritism (including political favoritism.)

     "Merit pay" became a buzzword for reform in more than the federal system and some local government personnel systems, it sounded so fair & "reforming" initially that it sold well in education with regard to teachers.  While it is best to let teachers speak for themselves as to how that reform worked in the wrong hands (see Scott Walker, e.g.), suffice to say that the ranking process tied to raises & promotions more often than not undermined the very trust in the system that it was supposed to strengthen.

    I don't want to be unduly harsh about the word ... but my experience and the experience of many employees with whom I worked engendered a negative reaction to the periodic "reforms" promised under different administrations.  Yet, I do recognize that the word is neutral ... it is like an unfilled vessel.  The real question for me whenever I hear that word now is to ask for details ... without details, the reform concept is particularly subject to appropriation throughout a system; and, without sufficient detail defining key steps & measures, "reform" easily transforms into a perversion of the promising sound it offers.

     The sad part of some "reform" programs I witnessed is that the word itself is rather promising--as compared to the more neutral aspect of general "change"--yet, unless the word is specifically defined in each instance, it has more than an even chance of disappointing.  In short: Without solid definition of what "reform" means in a situation, the expectations of those involved often do not align with the promotion. and anger or resentment results.

    One of the more troublesome billed "reforms" near Denver these days has a local school board focus.  In Jefferson County, the majority slate of so-called reform candidates won a few years ago only to translate their "reform" to pushing for revision of history books.  BTW, the revision envisioned expunging historical details (aka facts) about racism and other problematic realities, etc.  Thank goodness, this latest school district "reform" mission may be upended in an upcoming recall election.

    The word "reform" would benefit from very specific definition.

    Parent

    In your opinion, will Hillary (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 02:34:12 PM EST
    Cinton's public statements favoring stricter gun control adversely effect her chances, if nominated, in the general?

    Parent
    I do t think so (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 02:48:41 PM EST
    The public expects the Dem to be strong on gun control. People that have that as their major issue are not voting for the Dem no matter who it is.

    Parent
    *don't think so (none / 0) (#16)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 02:49:39 PM EST
    No (none / 0) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 03:48:59 PM EST
    Since there is no way she will get stricter gun control legislation passed with the political system as messed up as it is now.

    Parent
    I have heard Sanders say repeatedly (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Anne on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 03:23:33 PM EST
    that his goal is to energize and inspire the electorate to work for change from the ground up.

    Here's what he said in the debate:

    But here's where I do disagree. I believe that the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, the power of the drug companies, the power of the corporate media is so great that the only way we really transform America and do the things that the middle class and working class desperately need is through a political revolution when millions of people begin to come together and stand up and say: Our government is going to work for all of us, not just a handful of billionaires.

    What does that mean?:

    What I mean is that we need to have one of the larger voter turnouts in the world, not one of the lowest. We need to raise public consciousness. We need the American people to know what's going on in Washington in a way that today they do not know. And when people come together in a way that does not exist now and are prepared to take on the big money interest, then we could bring the kind of change we need.

    And he also said this:

    But the only way we can get things done is by having millions of people coming together. If we want free tuition at public colleges and universities, millions of young people are going to have to demand it, and give the Republicans an offer they can't refuse.

    If we want to raise the minimum wage to $15 bucks an hour, workers are going to have to come together and look the Republicans in the eye, and say, "We know what's going on. You vote against us, you are out of your job."

    And this:

    Now, at the end of our day, here is the truth that very few candidates will say, is that nobody up here, certainly no Republican, can address the major crises facing our country unless millions of people begin to stand up to the billionaire class that has so much power over our economy and our political life.

    So, he clearly recognizes the obstacle that is the Congress - he's not saying, like Clinton is, that he's somehow better positioned or suited to "getting things done," he's saying that these changes are only going to come if the American people rise up in huge numbers and don't give the Congress any other choice.  He's saying that it's time the people's attitude was, "our way or the highway."

    I like that his message is one of populist empowerment, and if that's all he gets to do - whip a left-leaning coalition to demand change, and box Clinton in to a more left-leading position - he will have served a valuable purpose.  

    I think it's a better strategy than "I know how to work with Republicans," because as we all know, there is no working with Republicans.  The only kind of "working with Republicans" there is is the kind where the Democrat is the only one making concessions.  

    Parent

    Well I hope he keeps on going with it after (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 04:43:14 PM EST
    this election season. No matter who wins, it is a long term project. If Bernie wins he will have to continue to build a coalition to get the obstacles out of congress in 2018. If Clinton wins she will be most influenced if she fears losing re-nomination in 2020.

    Parent
    Yes,yes (none / 0) (#36)
    by FlJoe on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 05:38:11 PM EST
    and yes to what Bernie says, but those are all bottom up solutions. It's a far cry from the top down actions that will be needed from the next president.

    Some times I think people mistake campaign strategy for governing strategy.

    I think it's a better strategy than "I know how to work with Republicans," because as we all know, there is no working with Republicans.

    Right now Hillary has nothing to lose by playing "the I can work with them" card now and especially during the general and save her "kick their a** card" when push comes to shove.

    You might call that cynical politics,. but you would be redundant.

    Parent

    Sanders is talking about more change than (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 01:49:26 PM EST
    Obama ever thought of...and people think Sanders  can do it with the current makeup of Congress? I just don't see it.

    Parent
    The current makeup? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 02:13:55 PM EST
    Yup, the Tea Party never counts defense spending (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 02:19:02 PM EST
    As spending or big government.

    And that clown will certainly be re-elected, barring the proverbial dead girl or live boy.

    Parent

    With a Republilcan Congress, (none / 0) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 02:52:30 PM EST
    especially with the runaway, fantastical and fanatical Republican House, it will be a challenge for either a President Sanders or President Clinton just to govern, let alone to make progressive gains.  So, this alone, is not my worry.

      My concern for Senator Sanders relates to  the general election should he be the nominee. No small worry given the prospects of any of the Republican dolts in the White House.

     In the debate, and again, on Bill Maher's show, Senator Sanders makes the leap that his meaning for democratic socialism is self-evident. References to Denmark and other Scandinavian countries are explanatory enough.

     Bill Maher, who says he is a Sanders supporter, tried to help Sanders in bringing depth and width to the meaning of democratic socialism (e.g. in US, social security, Veterans Admin,public schools) and to de-demonizing the name of socialism.

     Senator Sanders did not seem to want to hear it, or see the need to do it.   He is focused and on message.  He does not veer away.  It is working in the primary--he taps an urgent vein of populism and energizes many.  But, it is incumbent upon Sanders to define in easy to understand terms what he means and what it offers for the country.

     The NYT business page, Oct 17, presents ways by which his ideas for the country can be financed. He needs to assimilate the details into a package.  It will not be enough, after awhile, to just give a "millionaires and billionaires," presentation. A message worthy of being stated, but one that needs to be protected from the inevitable onslaught.


    Parent

    I understand your concern about (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 05:44:18 PM EST
    the General Election and think your advise has  merit.  All candidates need to flesh out and assimilate their ideas in a more detailed package. So far, I haven't seen any candidate reach that level of detail in this stage of the race.

    Having said that, the linked NYT article does present data that Sanders should incorporate into his position statements and speeches, sooner rather than latter.

    Parent

    One more thing, (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 05:59:04 PM EST
    personally I would like HRC to provide more details on what a more robust involvement in Syria would look like, how much it would cost and how she plans to pay for it. Same info about her plans for Afghanistan. Also, I would like details on exactly what issues she believes she can work across the isle to get passed into law. IMO some bills are better off dying on the vine rather than being passed into law.

    Parent
    Yes, me too (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 06:04:36 PM EST
    John Dickerson is hosting the next debate, and he said in a podcast that he wants to ask more about what they would do as president, as opposed to focusing on things they have done in the past. I think that will be good.

    Parent
    Agreed. Details on Mrs. Cllinton's (none / 0) (#76)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 01:14:29 PM EST
    robust involvement in Syria are necessary, but the prelude to the details would be the goals and objectives for our involvement in Syria.  And, what she would like a peace, or even an armistice, to look like. Especially, at this point in the bollixed situation.

     However, my thinking on the Sanders' campaign and its duty to see the need for offering greater depth and width to the meaning of democratic socialism is set on a different plane. Senator Sanders is not a fringe candidate or a gadfly content with getting his ideas out into the public forum.  He is promulgating the ideas of a serious candidate for the presidency--ideas that are too big to fail.  If allowed to be marginalized, ridiculed and distorted beyond recognition by Republicans, income inequality and other reforms as a popular movement may be set back and eclipsed by opponent lies.

     Senator Sanders, in my view, owes it to his supporters to give cogent arguments (so that they, in turn, can explain to others ) that present and protect. It can be done; the NYT article cited disputes the "break the bank" argument. Senator Sanders must be the sage on the stage.

     The idea of getting legislation through a dysfunctional, bomb-throwing Congress, is  irrelevant if Sanders does not win the presidency; and almost irrelevant if he does, if his  ideas are allowed to be strangled in the cradle.

     Mrs. Clinton, while, in the largest part, agreeing with Senator Sanders, chose to frame the necessary revolution as protecting capitalism from itself.  A tactic not totally unlike that of FDR with instant and long-lasting results. .  


    Parent

    Not sure if the upcoming TV movie about (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 02:53:15 PM EST
    the OJ trial is realistic in all counts, but the barking of the Akita dog actor in the trailer sure freaks out my dog. She just went ballistic looking for it in the house.

    Very curious about this (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 04:20:06 PM EST
    Nit thrilled about Travolta playing Schapiro but Cuba looks to have OJ down.  Nathan Lane as F. Lee Bailey.

    Parent
    Wonder if this guys parents (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 04:30:39 PM EST
    Ever told him he was wasting his time on comicbooks?

    Another Robert Kirkman comic book is getting a TV series.

    Cinemax has picked up Outcast, a 10-episode drama series based on the Skybound/Image comic title by creator Kirkman (The Walking Dead) and artist Paul Azaceta.

    The series follows Kyle Barnes, "a young man who has been plagued by demonic possession all his life. Now, with the help of the Reverend Anderson, a preacher with personal demons of his own, Kyle embarks on a journey to find answers and regain the normal life he lost. But what Kyle discovers could change his fate - and the fate of the world - forever," the show description says.



    Parent
    Probably did! But how could they foresee (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 04:33:58 PM EST
    comic books coming back to rule the culture?

    Parent
    I am about to find out what happens to Omar (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 05:00:39 PM EST
    And McNulty et al.  I just got the last two discs of The Wire.

    So I got the vodka and I'm goin in.

    Parent

    Had a conversation about The Wire with a work (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 06:01:04 PM EST
    friend yesterday. He started out saying he was currently watching it again for the 3rd time...I assumed he knew what happened and I gave something away...well it turns out he has forgotten some things. I felt bad, but gees, he told me he had seen it before!

    Parent
    I hope they get it right (none / 0) (#42)
    by McBain on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 05:59:16 PM EST
    I hope they show the mistakes made by the prosecution and LAPD and don't blame the jury

    Parent
    Mets vs Cubs (none / 0) (#56)
    by Peter G on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 09:15:53 PM EST
    Both teams playing well. Reasonably close at 3-1 Mets in the 7th.

    Congrats to k-dog - well done. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 17, 2015 at 10:19:37 PM EST
    We'll get'cha tomorrow!

    Parent
    Good games, good games... (none / 0) (#106)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 10:36:17 AM EST
    The Arms of Flushing were not kind to The Bats of Chicago...

    Matt "Dark Knight" Harvey Game 1...7 2/3rds, 2 runs, 4 hits, 9 K's.

    Noah "Thor" Syndergaard Game 2...5 2/3rds, 1 run, 3 hits, 9 K's.

    Jeurys "El Hombre" Familia Games 1 & 2...2 1/3rd, 0 runs, 2 hits, 1 K, 2 Saves.

    No rest for the weary with The deGrominator on tap for Game 3 in Chi-town.  

    Keep rockin' and rollin' Metropolitans!!!  

    Parent

    Driving home the old adage (none / 0) (#118)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 11:33:15 AM EST
    Good pitching beats good hitting. Can't help but admire the job your guys are doing.

    Hope things go better in the Friendly Confines or I am going to be up late on work nights and going to bed sad - it has been a hard couple of nights!

    Parent

    Bittersweet victories... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 11:56:37 AM EST
    for me, since I love you and Casey so much...I must admit.  Unlike the NLDS where I relished in Dodger misery;)

    Taking nothing for granted, the home crowd should give you guys a boost...hoping for at least 1 outta 3 to bring it back home with two shots to close it out.

    I hear ya on the late nights...the games get me so amped up not even extra toking can calm me down to get to bed before 1 am.  I've been dragging arse all through the playoff run.

    Funny anecdote...as I am racing home from the Cedar Beach Blues Festival on Saturday to catch the first pitch for Game 1, a white cat darts out in front of my car and crosses my path as I slam on the brakes, narrowly avoiding hitting the feline.  If black cats are a bad omen, surely white cats are a good omen right?  

    Parent

    Ha! that's what did it. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 12:26:54 PM EST
    Keeping all white cats out of your path this week.

    And good to know that taking up a new toking habit would not do me any good anyway. Last night I resorted to a snoozer - 'the Affair' on Showtime. If that does not amp you down a few notches nothing will.

    Thanks for the sympathy - really, knowing you has helped me maintain my humanity and not become a Metricidal maniac!

    Parent

    Whatever happens the rest of the way... (none / 0) (#131)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 12:39:03 PM EST
    we shall be united in rooting for the National League representative in the Fall Classic over whoever emerges from the Bush League.  If it can't be the Mets, no other team I'd rather see win it all than the Cubbies.

    If we don't snap a 107 year dry spell this year, we'll snap a 29 year one!

    And with any luck, with two teams so stocked in young talent, we could be meeting again in more than one NLCS to come.  The future has arrived for the Cubs & Mets!!!

    Parent

    As my t -shirt says: (none / 0) (#133)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 01:17:16 PM EST
    The Next Millennium is Ours!

    I was weeping some crocodile tears when the announcers were saying it was all the way back in 1986 when the Mets had last won. Gees, that's even within my lifetime, let alone my Dad's.

    I am all on board with beating the Bush league! They are beneath my notice :-)

    Parent

    Larry David as Sanders on SNL (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 10:29:40 AM EST
    We did nail this one during the debate.

    This could be good (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 02:13:36 PM EST
    ABC This Week) Sen. Bernie Sanders expressed delight over "Curb Your Enthusiasm" actor Larry David's impersonation of him on "Saturday Night Live," joking that he may invite the fellow Brooklyn native to join him on the campaign trail.



    Parent
    The SNLdebate skit (none / 0) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 03:51:46 PM EST
    was very funny, although I thought the depiction of Anderson Cooper was more offensive stereotype than humorous caricature.  Other than this skit, it was downhill thereafter in the laugh department. Glad to see that Tracy Morgan is doing well after the tragic accident, but he added nothing of comedic value and subtracted a lot--leaving little.  

    Parent
    I'm glad someone said that besides me (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 03:57:31 PM EST
    I try not to be over sensitive.  But it did seem rather gratuitous as far as Cooper.

    Meh.   I like to think we are at a point where that stuff reflects more on the perp than the target,    It was stupid.   I think most people got that.

       

    Parent

    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 04:07:39 PM EST
    But, it is a little dated.  The skit was funny in its own right, Cooper's portrayal was going for the old-fashioned cheap and unearned laugh.  Better things to poke fun at Cooper about--from his rapid fire questioning to some the questions.  

    Parent
    I posted this n the wrong thread (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 02:05:03 PM EST
    This morning.  If you squint it's Bernie.

    Parent
    Oh, my (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 02:22:52 PM EST
    it is hysterical.

    Parent
    Ben Carson suspends his presidential (none / 0) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 04:01:02 PM EST
    campaign.  Question.  How can we tell?  Answer. from his checkbook, presidential campaigns help to push books and are lucrative.   But, the book tour during the interregnum is just what the doctor ordered.  On his return he will be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. Well, at least, bushy-tailed.

    Really - are the debates just too long for him? (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 04:11:57 PM EST
    I thought he was supposedly the up and comer.

    Parent
    No... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 11:41:52 AM EST
    ...he just can't get past the fact that he can't bill CNN for the two hours.  

    Doctor's Dilemma.

    Parent

    His communications spokesperson (none / 0) (#125)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 11:49:57 AM EST
    Says he is not suspending his campaign, for a book tour, or otherwise.  

    From the National Review (no, I'm not linking):

    Ying Ma, the deputy communications director for the Ben Carson campaign, tells me that "rumors about Dr. Ben Carson suspending his campaign are all nonsense. We will be holding multiple fundraisers and public/semi-public events between now and the next GOP debate."

    She adds: Nothing about that even remotely indicates a suspension. It is true that Dr. Carson has been appearing in numerous interviews about his new book, but even during these interviews, he's talking about the campaign and his vision for America. The confusion about the suspension originated from a story written by an ABC reporter who was an embed on our campaign bus. She has not been invited to participate in our fundraisers (which are all closed to the press), and she certainly isn't accompanying Dr. Carson to his interviews about his new book. Unfortunately, she has interpreted her lack of access to him as a suspension of the campaign. She is very much mistaken.

    .

    So, take it FWIW.

    Parent

    Tennessee preacher (none / 0) (#87)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 05:53:58 PM EST
    makes his case for making all abortions illegal, as God wants.  "Think about this,...."Put yourself in this situation, What if your parents had decided to have an abortion?  How would you feel? You wouldn't have experienced life...you wouldn't be here today.  I wouldn't be here today."

    If I wasn't here I don't think I would have any feelings, not being a being. But, my parents could have had an abortion and I would be here, if the abortion was performed on a sibling zygote or such. And, if it was me, it should not have affected the preacher being here today. Unless...

    If life begins at conception (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by ruffian on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 08:06:15 PM EST
    I WOULD have experienced life. Preacher needs to get his strong straight.

    Parent
    Seen Leftovers? (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 08:33:24 PM EST
    Interesting developments with a certain character.

    Parent
    Baseball has been taking my TV time (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 07:09:24 AM EST
    Unfortunately that will probably end this week.

    Parent
    Oh ye of little faith! (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 07:41:16 AM EST
    I understand Matt Harvey may be available next season.

    Parent
    So might Daniel Murphy be available (none / 0) (#95)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 08:00:26 AM EST
    In one of the more odd occurrences, Cubs were originally favored to win the NLCS but Mets were favored in Game 1, Game 2, and now favored again in Game 3.

    Parent
    No Mets Hot Stove talk... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 10:38:51 AM EST
    till the postseason is over please.  Thank You! ;)

    Parent
    So the oddsmakers had a lot of (none / 0) (#120)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 11:37:11 AM EST
    faith in the benefits of Wrigley Field? At least before the series started....I think they will come back and win Game 3...can they win 4 of the next 5? That is tough.

    Parent
    That is the kind of thing that only (none / 0) (#121)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 11:37:48 AM EST
    happens AGAINST the Cubs.

    Parent
    We Would Probably Feel the Same... (none / 0) (#124)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 11:49:51 AM EST
    ...way as when the parent decided to self-gratify and all our millions of brothers and sisters went down the drain.  

    IOW, not much of anything.

    If I am not mistaken, using the preachers logic, our soul goes to the next baby at point of birth.  So if anything, people who have birth defects would probably feel pretty damn good about getting a normal functioning body.

    Parent

    Advanced alien life? (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 07:36:06 PM EST
    The Atlantic


    "We'd never seen anything like this star," says Tabetha Boyajian, a postdoc at Yale. "It was really weird. We thought it might be bad data or movement on the spacecraft, but everything checked out."

    When I spoke to Boyajian on the phone, she explained that her recent paper only reviews "natural" scenarios. "But," she said, there were "other scenarios" she was considering.

    Jason Wright, an astronomer from Penn State University, is set to publish an alternative interpretation of the light pattern. SETI researchers have long suggested that we might be able to detect distant extraterrestrial civilizations, by looking for enormous technological artifacts orbiting other stars. Wright and his co-authors say the unusual star's light pattern is consistent with a "swarm of megastructures," perhaps stellar-light collectors, technology designed to catch energy from the star.



    I don't want to start a panic by saying its aliens (none / 0) (#91)
    by desertswine on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 09:29:38 PM EST
    But it's aliens!  And they want to eat us!

    Parent
    And they (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 18, 2015 at 09:34:54 PM EST
    are going to take everyone's guns!

    Parent
    Well if they (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 08:15:52 AM EST
    Are planning to eat us and they are into marbling they will probably start in the south.
    So they just might take the guns too.

    It would almost make it worth it.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 08:30:44 AM EST
    I hope no one here (none / 0) (#98)
    by CST on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 09:07:13 AM EST
    is a Colts fan...

    Gotta say, that game was a nailbiter, right up until the point where the Colts handed the game away.

    I guess I'd rather be lucky than good.

    I think the Colts were lucky (none / 0) (#103)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 10:08:50 AM EST
    and it helped overcome their dumb and keep them in the game. Otherwise they lose badly.

    Parent
    I take it (none / 0) (#104)
    by CST on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 10:12:35 AM EST
    you are a fellow pats fan.

    A part of me would've been happy with a loss just to get it out of the way.  This constant winning is starting to get familiar and I just can't handle that kind of pressure.

    And yes, I know that sounds like a ridiculous first-world football problem.

    Parent

    Meanwhile, here in Baltimore, we're (none / 0) (#116)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 11:18:31 AM EST
    apparently just playing for the draft picks now, and finding a bunch of hours on Sundays we didn't have before.

    It's a new and weird thing not to have a winning, or even a competitive, team.  On the heels of a disappointing Orioles season and Terps football circling the drain, it's going to be up to the basketball team...we hope whatever this curse is doesn't continue.

    Parent

    Cheer up (none / 0) (#117)
    by jbindc on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 11:30:24 AM EST
    As I lifelong Lions fan who is celebrating our first win of the season, I can help guide you through this time of need and despair.  There are many of us who have been through it so many times, we're kind of numb to the pain and we just shrug our shoulders and say, "It figures."

    We can help set up support and therapy groups in your city, because we are the experts, second to none.

    Maybe if we franchise down to Baltimore, we can finally get the matching jackets.

    Parent

    I kind of made this point to my (none / 0) (#123)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 11:46:20 AM EST
    husband yesterday, that there are cities where the teams play this bad year after year, so maybe we shouldn't make too big a deal out of it.

    We both kind of did other things, while checking scores occasionally - he was watching a marathon of DaVinci's Demons and I was reading the paper and puttering.

    Like I said, it's 3 extra hours on Sunday, which, with all the stuff we have coming up, is not a terrible thing!

    Parent

    I just (none / 0) (#119)
    by CST on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 11:36:45 AM EST
    Pretend that Baseball was cancelled for the year and that we're skipping Hockey.

    And all those people up the thread are just really excited for the Mets offseason.  The only silver lining is that the Yankees are now out.  But the Blue Jays???   Who on earth gave them permission to be good?

    Parent

    Do You Speak... (none / 0) (#127)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 11:57:32 AM EST
    ...of this play ?

    I mean for god's sake, why didn't they try that with Houston ?  I did like seeing what I would call the craziest pre-snap line-up I have ever witnessed.

    Same with the on-side, pretty innovative, but failed on the execution.

    Parent

    I don't know that this one (none / 0) (#132)
    by CST on Mon Oct 19, 2015 at 01:00:00 PM EST
    even qualifies as "innovative" so much as "what on god's earth were you thinking".

    I feel like this is what happens when you treat regular season games like playoff games.  Maybe you need a whole season to practice those plays.

    As for the onside kick - to be honest it looked to me like the Colts ended up with the ball but I'm not complaining.

    Parent

    It Was Innovative... (none / 0) (#141)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Oct 20, 2015 at 01:48:17 PM EST
    ...in that they had basically just shifted the line over and were going to snap it back to the the person in back of the line.  

    HERE, look at this, it had potential had the got the ball to the guy around the 20.  They never showed that view on TV.

    Parent

    The. Hearings begin (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 22, 2015 at 09:08:26 AM EST
    I guess this is the open thread