home

Iowa Still Up for Grabs?

Hillary Clinton has a three point lead in the final Selzer poll -- also called the Bloomberg/Des Moines Register poll -- before today's Iowa caucuses. Here are the poll questions and the methodology.

Nate Silver at 538 says Hillary may just win Iowa. He opines Bernie Sanders is close, but has failed to grab the momentum. (Feel free to disagree with him, but skip the name-calling and personal attacks or your comment will be deleted. They aren't welcome here as to anyone.)

538 also favorably dissects the historical accuracy of Selzer's Iowa poll (there's a reason it's called the best of the Iowa polls, but still, it's not perfect.) [More...]

The New York Times endorsed Hillary for the Democratic nomination Saturday.

As Big Tent Democrat wrote Saturday, the Iowa caucus model is really poor and needs to be replaced.

Personally, I don't put much stock in Iowa's effect on the ultimate nominee. And I say that as someone who spent the week of the 2008 Iowa caucuses there covering them. Here's my live blog of how things went down on caucus night at the Des Moines caucus I attended. My opinion is not based on anything scientific (that's certainly not my skill set) -- just basic common sense.

I think the The New York Times endorsement encapsulates what will become the prevailing point of view among Democrats:

In the end, though, Mr. Sanders does not have the breadth of experience or policy ideas that Mrs. Clinton offers. His boldest proposals — to break up the banks and to start all over on health care reform with a Medicare-for-all system — have earned him support among alienated middle-class voters and young people. But his plans for achieving them aren’t realistic, while Mrs. Clinton has very good, and achievable, proposals in both areas.

The third Democratic contender, Martin O’Malley, is a personable and reasonable liberal who seems more suited for the jobs he has already had — governor of Maryland and mayor of Baltimore — than for president.

That's essentially what I've been writing here for months. After analyzing Hillary's record approvingly, the Times writes:

Hillary Clinton is the right choice for the Democrats to present a vision for America that is radically different from the one that leading Republican candidates offer — a vision in which middle-class Americans have a real shot at prosperity, women’s rights are enhanced, undocumented immigrants are given a chance at legitimacy, international alliances are nurtured and the country is kept safe.

The support for Sanders, like Trump, is loud but I question its depth. A lot of it is just mouthing off by the discontented and alienated, who don't have a great track record of showing up to vote.

I don't really have a prediction for Iowa -- other than that the weather won't stop many Iowans from going to their caucuses. I found Iowa to be the coldest, most inhospitable climate anywhere, and you couldn't pay me enough to make another trip there, but I don't recall meeting a single person who felt the same way. They all took it in stride.

Here are the results from Iowa in 2008. I analyzed the results in this post about the then-upcoming South Carolina primary.

I don't think much has changed since 2008:

The factors are out there: Race, youth and a promise of change vs. a known quantity with experience. Now we just see how it plays out.

But while I typically think the youth vote will carry the day, it doesn't. And while Obama won decisively in Iowa in 2008, especially in the urban, more diverse areas, it didn't translate to a meaningful bump in delegates.

Might this be Iowa's year to replicate "Wild in the Streets"? Of course, but I'm way too cynical at this point to believe it.

Still, while I don't believe either Trump or Sanders have a real chance of becoming President, we do get the Government we elect. So if you care, do something constructive besides taking out your frustration online. The only bad choice for President is a Republican one.

< Saturday Night Open Thread | Iowa Caucus Coverage and Results >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Iowa is a wonderful state to be from. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 07:45:50 AM EST
    Blizzard predicted.

    I'm happy to tell people that I'm "from" (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Farmboy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 08:01:36 AM EST
    Iowa, and even happier to reside in Minnesota.

    Not my monkeys. Not my circus.

    Parent

    Huffpo (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:45:55 AM EST
    says that tonight is the "Kickoff".

    Since the sports analogy so far has been related to boxing, "Undercard", "Main Event", shouldn't we be talking about "round one"?

    This whole thing is hell-on-wheels imo.

    Wonder (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:50:51 AM EST
    If the Huffers will move Donald from the "entertainment" section if he wins Iowa.  What a colossal joke that click hole is.

    Parent
    I think Robert Reich states it well: (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:36:11 AM EST
    The fundamental choice facing Democrats starting today in Iowa is not between Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. It's between accepting what's feasible under our current political-economic system -- where wealth and power are more concentrated at the top than they've been in over a century - or changing that system to make it function for the vast majority. In my view, Hillary is best equipped to manage the system we now have. She's a product of that system; her vast experience and keen insight derive from it. But Bernie Sanders is best equipped to create the system we should have. He has spent most of his life fighting for it, and is now leading a movement to change it.

    It's on his Facebook page.

    The problem I have with the "angry" label is the ease with which it can be deemed irrational: angry people aren't thinking clearly, and therefore can't be taken entirely seriously.  It allows a false equivalence between Sanders and Trump - who are not "the same" as some are wont to try to make them.  So, what's a better way to describe why I'm not all in for Hillary?  

    I'm tired of being told "no."  I'm tired of being told one thing to get my vote, and then told, "sorry, that's not going to happen."  I think her vision is limited.  I don't trust her pre-election "conversion" to more liberal positions.  Maybe I can make it simpler and just say that Sanders seems to be fighting to help me - all of us - prevail over entrenched, moneyed, stale, old, regressive ways, and Clinton's okay with the status quo.  Oh, she wants to tweak it a little bit, but basically, she isn't looking to shake anything up.  It's her comfort zone, and it remains to be seen whether she will have a better shot at "getting things done" by working with it, rather than finding a way around it.

    Does this mean I don't think she has any good ideas?  No - I think she does have some, but I see her starting from a position of wanting less, and believe she will back down even more to get "something."

    I get that you all have closed ranks around Clinton, that the only ways you can seem to find to describe Sanders - and his supporters - are negative ones, but I think you do a disservice to millions of people who aren't so much "angry" as they are tired: tired of being stuck in an endless loop of low expectations and then being expected to be thrilled with the few breadcrumbs that get tossed our way.

    When you put new ideas in front of Clinton, you get some version of "we can't."  And I'm just tired of that approach to serving the people.

    I don't hate her, I've said I will vote for her if it comes to that, but I think I'm as representative of those who support Sanders as anyone, and don't appreciate being deemed to be

    just mouthing off by the discontented and alienated, who don't have a great track record of showing up to vote.

    Stop trivializing people's issues, and if you would be offended by sexist, ageist comments being leveled at Clinton, please have the courtesy to not level them against Sanders - or anyone else.

    Here's where I just don't agree with (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:59:05 AM EST
     Reich in the particulars, though I do understand and share his goals:

    But Bernie Sanders is best equipped to create the system we should have. He has spent most of his life fighting for it, and is now leading a movement to change it.

    I'm highly skeptical that Sanders is equipped to do any such thing. If he were, surely we would have seen evidence of it before now, since he has "spent most of his life fighting for it".  

    So if I don't think he is going to change the system, I want the one best able to manage what we have now.

    If he can change the system - fantastic - he can change the system no matter who is president. It needs change in nearly every Congressional district in every state. that is the only way it is going to happen.


    Parent

    Let's (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:16:57 AM EST
    not forget Obama promised to "fundamentally change Washington". That did not work out so well and he actually got elected. I don't see Bernie being able to make any changes at all. The GOP is going to knot up screaming socialism and there's no evidence that Bernie has the ability to do anything down ticket for the party.

    Parent
    And the election of Obama pretty much (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:24:48 AM EST
    stopped his movement to change the system in its tracks. Being POTUS is the equivalent of at least  5 full time jobs. You can't do them all and lead a movement to change the system at the same time. So I'd prefer the charismatic leaders do what they do best to lead movements outside the Oval Office, leading to the changes that bring us better policy, and at the same time let the good administrators run the government.  

    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:03:35 AM EST
    I'm tired of being told "no."  I'm tired of being told one thing to get my vote, and then told, "sorry, that's not going to happen."

    Assuming Sanders becomes president  (a YUGE "if"), you're going to be very, very tired then.

    I think her vision is limited.  I don't trust her pre-election "conversion" to more liberal positions

    Maybe you should actually look at things like her speeches and voting record while in the Senate. She isn't a convert.  She's as liberal as Elizabeth Warren.  Unless EW is not liberal enough for you.  My mistake - I thought you HAD looked at them.

    I guess I'm the opposite.  I'm so tired of being told of grand and sweeping plans that are just unrealistic, but they ate said just to get my vote.  I find it refreshing  that someone says, here's my vision, but here's what we're really up against, so here's what I think can be delivered in the meantime.  This is definitely the more honest approach, which is ironic, since some people don't find her honest at all.

    Bernie is a dreamer, and we need dreamers, but as president, we need a doer.  He isn't that guy.

    Parent

    Thanks for updating on Robert (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:50:56 AM EST
    Since I blocked MoveOn I have been missing his hourly Bernie fluffing emails.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:05:34 AM EST
    even Bernie admits he's not going to be able to deliver any of his campaign promises. Speaking for myself only I would rather have someone that dealt with the reality of the situation than the situation that is wished for.

    As far as the "disaffected" I have been hearing about them for my three decades of watching politics and they never materialize when it comes to voting. And now with things like the Real ID act it's even more unlikely they are going to participate. I really wish we had 100% voter participation in elections but we don't. There are various reasons for this and I think the electoral college is one of the reasons.

    Parent

    As a rebuttal found this on reddit (none / 0) (#73)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:55:06 AM EST
    Reddit does have some good stuff depending on which subs you subscribe to...

    This is regarding the "change that system" argument ...


    A lot of it had to do with his personality. He came to Washington believing that he could change the way politics was made. He hoped to make politics more transparent which would, he believed, make politics more effective and less divisive. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Carter's self-perception as a reformer and Washington outsider concomitantly carried what can best be described as a savior complex. He looked down on other politicians, believing his deep-seated morality made him the only one capable of bringing the Washington establishment into line. Thus, Carter arrived in Washington expecting Congress to fall lock-step behind his policies. Naturally, congressmen from both parties weren't too fond of the way Carter handled congressional relations. This tension between the executive and the congress was exacerbated by Carter's aides, who were primarily old friends and staffers from when Carter was governor of Georgia. Georgia politics are, of course, nothing like Washington politics, and Carter's aides were woefully inadequate for the job. Still, he kept them, much to the chagrin of even the Democratic congressional leadership. Due to bad congressional relations, Carter had difficulty passing domestic reforms on such major issues as social security and health care. If this wasn't enough to derail his policy-making process, Carter's hands-on approach to everything didn't help.

    So if primary Sanders is really president Sanders well we have a HUGE problem in 2020 and we know how long it took for the Dem brand to recover from Carter....

    Is "changing the system" really so important, do you take a chance on that given that there is a proven track record of success (gay marriage raising taxes on rich) within the system.

    I think Bernie does look down on his fellow politicians the way Carter did.

    Parent

    Each era is different. (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 05:05:56 PM EST
    Kmkmiller: "So if primary Sanders is really president Sanders well we have a HUGE problem in 2020 and we know how long it took for the Dem brand to recover from Carter. Is 'changing the system' really so important, do you take a chance on that given that there is a proven track record of success (gay marriage raising taxes on rich) within the system. I think Bernie does look down on his fellow politicians the way Carter did."

    Jimmy Carter was elected 40 years ago, arguably as a collective voter reaction to the twin traumas of Vietnam and Watergate. Conditions in the country, as they existed four decades prior, bear scant resemblance to what we face today. Bernie Sanders is no Jimmy Carter, and vice versa. Voters need to assess Sen. Sanders on his own merits and demerits.

    Regarding his administrative skill set and how he might govern as chief executive, I would note that Bernie Sanders proved himself to be a very popular and capable four-term mayor of Burlington, VT, having lifted that city out of its vexing post-industrial doldrums to become the vibrant and modern community it is today. In 1987, he was named one of "America's 20 Best Mayors" by U.S. News & World Report.

    But the primary reason Sanders enjoyed a successful tenure as mayor is that he was actually very pragmatic in governance, had an eye for talent, and brought on board some extraordinarily capable people to serve in his administration. And he was not at all afraid to avail himself of any opportunities which presented themselves to move the city forward.

    When voters rebuffed Mayor Sanders' bond issue to support private redevelopment of the decrepit railyards fronting Lake Champlain, Sanders accepted his defeat at the polls graciously, and then filed suit against the property owners on behalf of those who had opposed him, so that those old railyards would be converted to public rather than private use.

    The move surprised his onetime adversaries in the environmental community, and it proved successful when they rallied behind him. The courts found in his favor and today, Burlington's Waterfront Park is the city's most treasured public asset.

    Sanders used Burlington's budget surplus not to experiment with his socialist ideals, but to repair city streets. To realize his downtown revitalization project, he worked effectively with business leaders and corporations to make it happen. To create the city's Church Street Marketplace, Sanders harnessed the process of urban renewal to redevelop the downtown core, while ensuring the preservation of both the district's historic buildings that today underscores the district's character.

    In fact, for all his strident oratory about leading a socialist revolution, Mayor Sanders' policies actually proved quite beneficial to Burlington's overall business climate. To be sure, he raised taxes on them, but he used those funds to revitalize neighborhoods that would attract customers and become a friendly place to shop and conduct business.

    I would suspect that those on the left who've bought into that strident oratory hook, line and sinker would likely find themselves disappointed by Sanders' obvious and pragmatic willingness to compromise. Because as mayor, his ideological purity clearly took a back seat when it came to opportunity for an actual accomplishment.

    I'm supporting Hillary Clinton because I believe that she's best prepared amongst the Democratic candidates to be president. But there is absolutely no question that of all the declared candidates for the White House, Bernie Sanders is far more qualified to be chief executive by virtue of his own compelling record in Vermont, than are any of the yahoos in the GOP.

    We should be proud to have two very fine candidates running for president, and make that three if you're still taking Martin O'Malley's candidacy seriously. By contrast, I wouldn't support any of the pikers presently campaigning for the GOP nomination, and wouldn't trust them if they were running for a seat on a local school board or water commission.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Sounds like (none / 0) (#192)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 06:27:35 PM EST
    Hypothetical president sanders will be nothing like primary candidate sanders.

    Now do sanders supporters know this?

    Parent

    Chris Bowers wrote a diary I agree with... (none / 0) (#146)
    by magster on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 03:37:42 PM EST
    on Daily Kos that I appreciated, in the event Clinton  does land a knock-out blow tonight (sorry-- another sports' analogy).

    Parent
    I don't think this is true at all (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 03:48:52 PM EST

    If she does indeed win, there will no doubt be a lot of pundits and wags who will use that victory as opportunity to dismiss the Bernie Sanders campaign as ineffective and historically unimportant.

    I have never seen anyone one this here, certainly, or even in the media suggest such a thing.  Quite exactly the opposite.  Everyone here including me has gone out of their way to say exactly the opposite.  Over and over.  And the media meme is anything but that.

    Rather I see that as something a rather sulky Sanders supporter wants to accuse us, Hillary supporters of.   I call BS.   no one has said that or will say that.

    Parent

    Wow krappy typing (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 03:54:28 PM EST
    Really have to stop that drinking game.

    But I think I got it across.

    Parent

    Seems like a straw man argument to me (none / 0) (#152)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:00:30 PM EST
    I can't get to Kos at work...does he go on to knock it down?

    Parent
    Doesn't knock it down, but cautions.... (none / 0) (#157)
    by magster on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:13:17 PM EST
    that Clinton and her supporters should not do this at the peril of alienating a large chunk of the base.

    Parent
    Here's (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:20:32 PM EST
    the problem with this whole mindset. When Bowers was in the reverse situation he did nothing of the sort. It's like the Joan Walsh endorsement of Hillary said. We're just expected to do what people like Bowers think we should do.

    Parent
    That's just silly (none / 0) (#159)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:16:50 PM EST
    because if Clinton wins tonight the news narrative will be, Sanders will tie it up next week.

    Parent
    Right... (none / 0) (#167)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:48:34 PM EST
    ...many of the "pundits and wags" incomes are dependent on the race remaining close.  The notion that they are going to call it tonight, even if it is a blowout, seems... silly.

    The only thing they want more than a tight race is an upset, and Sanders would be an upset.

    Trump is going to be a little harder in that I think he is going to win, yugely.

    Parent

    I will always (none / 0) (#182)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 05:32:17 PM EST
    remember Chris Bowers for this little piece of journalism when it became definite that Obama would be the nominee in 2008:

    "Wow, We Nominated the Black Guy".

    Parent

    Caucuses are horsesh*t fake democracy (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:24:26 AM EST
    And have ZERO to do with what we should be looking for in a Presidential primary. THAT is what should preface EVERY discussion of this cornfed, all white nonsense. All the rest is largely worthless commentary, in context of the entirety of this nation. The Iowa caucus represents what is WRONG with the process. Entirely. Hope Sanders wins, but ultimately...no genuine public good is served by this farce. And we should all get out of our delusions about it. Peace.

    Another spot on example (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:27:51 AM EST
    of discontented and alienated.

    Although your Subject line is totally correct.

    Parent

    Seems that (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:45:57 AM EST
    the hope that Sanders wins is inconsistent with your assessment of the Caucuses.

    Parent
    The parties are free to select their candidates (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Farmboy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 12:06:48 PM EST
    in any fashion that they choose, be it drawing straws or feats of strength. The best part is that if we don't like the selection process, folks can get involved and change it. Caucuses exist because people let them continue to be sold long past their shelf date.

    Similarly, if we don't like the order in which state parties select their delegates to their national conventions, again folks can get involved and change things. Iowa and New Hampshire go first because the national parties let them. Involved people can change the parties, and move other states to the front.

    Parent

    Given that the "Bernie Bros" narrative (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:43:36 PM EST
    has made a few appearances here, I found this interesting, if only to understand where it's really coming from...

    The "Bernie Bros" Narrative: a Cheap Campaign Tactic Masquerading as Journalism and Social Activism

    Even (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:51:27 PM EST
    Sanders campaign admitted they were a problem online and tweeted they needed to pipe down. IMO probably some are republicans and some are even high schoolers and the premise of the article is wrong. It's akin to the GOP saying look here's Ben Carson so we don't have a problem with race in our ranks.

    Parent
    Usually I like Glenn, but (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:52:39 PM EST
    he is so off-base and dismissive in this article. He clearly has not been paying attention to what is happening.

    Even the Sanders campaign acknowledges that this is a problem, enough of a problem that Sanders people have apologized to the Clinton campaign for it. Additionally, the Sanders campaign, through its digital media staff, is asking supporters to stop with the BernieBro cr@p, and to help the campaign police online comments.

    Not all Sanders supporters fall into this group, and I think some of this is Republican ratf*cking. Not all of it though. This kind of online behavior was rampant in 2008 with Obama supporters. Same demographic group.

    So, please, excuse me where, but Greenwald is full of sh!t.

    Parent

    the reddit candidate (none / 0) (#173)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 05:01:01 PM EST
    lets look at this way...

    the bernie sanders subreddit has 160,000 subscribers.

    the hillary clinton subreddit has about 1600 subscribers.

    now in your google search box type "misogyny" hit the space bar once and type an "r" and see what happens.

    no campaign operative or republican troll can do that.  it's a cultural thing, and no Bernie isn't to blame for it.  although sometimes i wonder: if his campaign is calling Clinton a corrupt politician, does that provoke extreme reactions on the internet?

    Parent

    Early numbers (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 07:04:35 PM EST
    57% on the Democratic side have caucuses before and 85%+ make up their mind a while ago.

    The (none / 0) (#1)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:24:15 AM EST
    support for Sanders is "loud"?

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 07:26:15 AM EST
    and "discontented and alienated".

    Parent
    I see. (none / 0) (#6)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 08:09:06 AM EST
    People interested in what Sanders is saying are old loud discontented and alienated white people.

    Whew

    Parent

    You missed the part (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 08:19:51 AM EST
    Where she said the support for BOTH Sanders and Trump are.....

    Don't take it personally.  Loud, disconnected and alienated could be the title of this years campaign book.   The whole damn country is loud, disconnected and alienated.  And in spite of all the protestations about this fact, Sanders and Trump supporters share many stated concerns.   I would say the were two sides of the same coin but I don't think that's entirely true.  I think in many cases they are the same side of the coin.

    Interesting to me Sanders supporters find this idea of offensive.   It seems so obvious.  

    The difference IMO is that Donald has become a very good candidate and he gets better and better at it all the time.   While Bernie has gotten better at it he's still just not a very good candidate IMO.

    Parent

    Lumping Sanders and Trump (none / 0) (#17)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:20:46 AM EST
    together is already a wee bit insulting imo.

    And if you're going to say that Sanders is not a very good candidate, I wonder what you consider to be the qualifications for a good candidate.

    In my opinion, Hillary is a god-awful candidate.

    As I have expressed before, I want to be on her side, but just about every time she circumvents a direct answer, or resorts to bromides, she alienates me.

    The latest, "We are on the right path, my friends. We just have to stay on it."

    That, imo, is about as tone-deaf as you can get.

    Finally, I will add that, rhetoric aside, I find that there is much more in common between Clinton and Trump than Sanders and Trump.

    Parent

    That's funny - (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by mm on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:45:00 AM EST
    Lumping Sanders and Trump together is already a wee bit insulting imo.

    Since Sanders has been wooing Trump voters for quite a while now.

    Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders said Sunday that he believes he can boost his own standing in the race by swaying supporters of Republican frontrunner Donald Trump to back his campaign.
    LINK

    Parent
    Really easy one (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:32:02 AM EST
    A "good candidate" is one who succeeds.  To your surprise it really has almost nothing to do with you personally likening or disliking a particular candidate.  
    Trump is, by any imaginable metric, succeeding.  It Looks Like Bernie will win one state.

    That's a good candidate.  And a not so good one.

    Funny I have not seen the same indignation from Trump supporters when it is suggested they share bandwidth with Bernie.  I wonder if that says anything about being in touch with reality?  Just asking.

    Parent

    In rethinking the subject (none / 0) (#39)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:00:11 AM EST
    I think that there is a common bond between supporters of Sanders and those for Trump.

    People are hurting.

    And they are looking for people outside of the recommended box to do something to help them.

    As far as being a good candidate is concerned...

    I have seen here, on this "leftist" site, references to Sanders as "grampa", rumpled, etc.
    In other words, a bad candidate.

    On the other hand, what kind of candidate, how would you describe a candidate that has managed to raise so much money in small donations from so many people?

    What you are suggesting is that Sanders would not win in the general against Trump, but Clinton would. I respectfully disagree.

    Parent

    Ann Selzer was on c-span this a.m. (none / 0) (#42)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:08:40 AM EST
    She said there one question that voters from both parties answered very, very emphatically, and, almost identically. And, that was the one that asked how strongly they felt that the rich & powerful were the main reason our country was going into the toilet. Voters from both sides answered ABSOLUTELY YES, overwhelmingly! "Off the charts," I think was the way she expressed it.

    So, assuming Trump tacks towards a little more normalcy for the General, his follower's hatred for Hillary will compensate for his need to back off somewhat with the xenophobia that's helped him so far.

    Also, I know that my concern about Hillary's email situation isn't very popular here, but, unless that's settled big time in her favor heading into the Fall, the impossible may, suddenly, not be that impossible any more.


    Parent

    I believe (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:38:03 AM EST
    Trump will pivot hard off the hard stuff if he wins the nomination and he will get away with it because the people supporting him now will say he just saying what he needs to say to win.

    Parent
    Good read on his supporters (none / 0) (#53)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:53:00 AM EST
    . . . since if they are his supporters, they already are cynical about politics, so they don't and won't care about his next cynical actions.

    Parent
    He's admitted as such (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:08:16 AM EST
    To the NYT Editorial Board

    From deporting Mexican immigrants and barring Muslims to slapping a 45 percent tariff on Chinese imports, Mr. Trump invents his positions as he goes along. His supporters say they don't care. What they may not know is how deliberately he is currying their favor. At a meeting with The Times's editorial writers, Mr. Trump talked about the art of applause lines. "You know," he said of his events, "if it gets a little boring, if I see people starting to sort of, maybe thinking about leaving, I can sort of tell the audience, I just say, `We will build the wall!' and they go nuts."


    Parent
    I saw her on another show over the weekend (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:48:04 AM EST
    Really interesting to listen to her. Trump voters seem to think that even though they are getting mistreated by the rich guys, this particular rich guy is on their side. Which is entirely possible in principle - look at the Roosevelts. But Trump is no Roosevelt.

    Parent
    What if he is just (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:49:49 AM EST
    Not "our" Roosevelt?

    Parent
    You mean maybe he really does want to help the (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:06:08 AM EST
    99%?

    Then I guess my differences with him are on policy of how that is accomplished. And personality, which I know we are not supposed to care about, but of course everyone does.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:19:50 AM EST
    I mean Roosevelt was the liberal icon.  But he was and remains the hero of the very type of person who AT THE TIME are exactly the people that Donald is appealing to now.  Low education, low information, low income, completely screwed over and forgotten by a corrupt system.

    Will he actually hel them.  I have no idea.  I suspect not.  But they are appealing to the same demographic.  

    He might be A Roosevelt, just not OUR Rossevelt.  FDR told people he was going to help them help themselves with government and they believed him.   Trumo tells them he is going to help them help themselves by making them rich.  And apparently some are believing it.

    But I still don't think the majority of Donalds support is that dumb.   I think a large part just wants to "see what happens"

    But clearly a billionaire has convinced a large group he is a man of the people.  Just like FDR.


    Parent

    Right - (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:30:51 AM EST
    Roosevelt proposed liberal policies that we agreed with and Trump's solutions will be...different...who knows what they would  be...after the YUUUGE wall is built.

    Point being it is not unheard of for many of the 99% to think someone in the 1% is on their side. I don't want to get inside Trump's head too much - it is scarey there - but I really wonder if he does indeed want to help people.

    Parent

    IMO (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:44:47 AM EST
    I think a lot of Donald's appeal is that he's sticking it to people like Mitch McConnell. And that's part of where some crossover is coming right now. A lot of it IMO is just knee jerk. He's against all the same people his voters are against.

    Parent
    Hey I'm not that old! (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 12:56:39 PM EST
    Instead of bitterly clinging to our religion and guns like the malcontents on the right, we bitterly cling to our Kurt Vonnegut and Marijuana;)

    Parent
    One more guy on twitter (none / 0) (#16)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:15:23 AM EST
    With the picture of a middle finger on his banner.

    Parent
    Just watched (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:40:30 AM EST
    The sage wise men (and women) on Mourning Joe do 20 minutes on how EXCITED and EXCITING Bernies supporters are.  How awe inspiring there enthusiasm was.   And by contrast what a poor dull grey candidate Hillary is.   How boring her rallies are and how there is a complete and total lack of excitement and enthusiasm in camp Hillary.   This went completely unchallenged in spite of the fact that the woman who conducted that last "big deal" poll was, I think, sitting on the set.

    The poll that showed that in fact Hillary's supporters are almost 10 points more excited and enthusiastic than Bernies.

    LINK

    But they are not, you know, screaming and flipping people off so........

    Parent

    They (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:45:10 AM EST
    are too invested in The Narrative for anything, numbers, facts, for them to change their thinking. What are they gonna do if Hillary walks off with a win in Iowa? I guess they're gonna ignore it.

    Parent
    If Clinton wins (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:54:01 AM EST
    No one watches their dumb show.  It's really as simple as that.

    Parent
    Thing about the media (none / 0) (#44)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:15:27 AM EST
    It's 24/7 news and who, for the most part, makes and has the time to watch news 24/7?

    Trump and Sanders supporters.  The "enthusiastic" people who obsess over this stuff.  This is probably not 100% absolutely true, but we all know they have a sense of who their demographic is.

    I mean if politicians are beholden to moneyed interests then hey..... so are journalists!! they need the ratings so they cater to their audience.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 07:36:11 AM EST
    after today the furor about Iowa is going to end but then it's going to be about NH. IMO the most interesting caucus/primary over the next few is Nevada.

    Since I've been making predictions (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 08:11:59 AM EST
    For months just like I knew what I was talking about why stop now.

    Donsld and Hillary.

    Both by wider margins that the DMR poll showed.

    Revised weather predictions (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 08:47:05 AM EST
    Say snow holding off until after caucus time

    Parent
    May prevent (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 08:55:57 AM EST
    College kids from going home.

    Parent
    Not revised by Des Moines Register (none / 0) (#12)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:05:44 AM EST
    and other Iowa media, which always said so.

    I enjoyed watching the worry from afar.  Sure, by the time that caucusers head home, there may be a few inches of snow in western Iowa.  But that will keep few home, as that does not yet a blizzard make, not to Midwesterners.  

    My prediction for Tuesday, though, is that we will see media delayed from departing Iowa, with many reports filed from reporters shivering in the winds -- it is the winds that make a blizzard; otherwise, it's just a lot of snow -- an, winning compliments for their courage from anchors in the East.

    Parent

    I saw MSNBC weather (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:09:55 AM EST
    And I usually watch local weather.  Both said the same thing.  Showed little or no snow until about 11.

    Parent
    Just heard one of the (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:11:37 AM EST
    Local Iowa experts say we could know by 10 central time.    With fingers crossed.    

    Parent
    How many college kids (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:24:05 AM EST
    Will go to their permanent homes to caucus  especially those from western Iowa, where they may not able to get back for class on Tuesday?

    Parent
    538 (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 08:50:17 AM EST
    did an interesting analysis on Trump saying his support may not be that wide but it certainly is deep. So likely it would seem his supporters are gonna be the ones that turn out tonight to caucus.

    Parent
    I expect the rural precincts to go for Trump, (none / 0) (#31)
    by Farmboy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:49:00 AM EST
    and Cruz to do better in urban, just based on comments from my FB friends.

    The same anecdotal sources make me expect Sanders and Clinton to split the urban precincts, Sanders to take the college towns, and Clinton to take rural.

    Not sure how that compares with actual polling, but I'm looking forward to tomorrow's analysis.

    Parent

    Going (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:51:43 AM EST
    by the Selzer poll Bernie's support seems to be concentrated in college towns but not that strong in other areas of Iowa. So you're probably right about rural and college towns. As far as the cities, I don't know.

    Parent
    I would say (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:52:35 AM EST
    More the opposite on Trump and Cruz

    Parent
    Both King and Grassley have said nice things (none / 0) (#38)
    by Farmboy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:59:53 AM EST
    about Trump. Those two rule the farm vote.

    Parent
    They could (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:05:02 AM EST
    But surveys are saying Curz dies less well in cities compared to Donald.

    I can tell you in the rural area I live in its all Trump.   I am surrounded by evangelicals who lovecDonald and hate Ted.  

    Shrug.

    Like I said, I think a pretty good night for Donald.

    Parent

    I think the questionable mailer that Cruise... (none / 0) (#54)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:57:29 AM EST
    sent out is going to end up hurting him. Didn't show up in Saturday's Iowa Poll as the story broke after the polling for that was done.  

    Parent
    MileHi!! I have wondered about you for the (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:25:44 PM EST
    past few years! I was worried about you and I'd check in now and then and search for posts from you. I hope you're ok. I haven't been around much either but I can't do a caucus without you guys. :) I hope you see this.

    Parent
    Rubio has one now too (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:03:44 AM EST
    Just saw it on TeeVee.  Your neighbors names with big red Xs by them for not caucusing

    Parent
    One thing that occurs to me is that (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:33:06 AM EST
    if I were an undecided GOP voter waking up this morning, I surely would not find Cruz very appealing. I think I'd either stay home or vote for Rubio.  

    Will be interested in seeing how the undecideds swing.

    Parent

    What are the odds (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 12:44:31 PM EST
    a person still undecided at breakfast on caucus day will decide to go and then actually go to the caucus?  (Rhetorical question.)

    Parent
    Here'so what MOST people in Iowa (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 12:47:38 PM EST
    High school basketball! (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    No, bee keeping, silly... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by fishcamp on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:21:08 PM EST
    God (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:06:26 PM EST
    I really hate politico.   If there is an idiotic pointless point to make they will find it.

    Parent
    Everything (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:13:19 PM EST
    Else has been written about today, so why not this?

    But a lot of 17 (almost 18) year olds and their parents will not be caucusing tonight.  As will most other people  because they have more interesting things to do.

    Plus, The X-Files are on.

    Parent

    Record turnout (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:14:39 PM EST
    Two hick towns have a basketball game.

    Who cares.

    Parent

    Stay tuned. (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:16:40 PM EST
    I just queried my high school classmates as to whether any of them will caucus. So far:  no response.

    Parent
    My bet (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:18:57 PM EST
    Some will

    Parent
    Many are in FL til April! (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:25:57 PM EST
    Or Texas or Arizona. (none / 0) (#106)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:38:36 PM EST
    11 viewed my request. None (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 06:52:11 PM EST
    replied yes or no or don't know.

    Parent
    Did you ever read it? (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:26:10 PM EST
    Answer:  no.

    Two hick towns?  Um, no. 35 varsity girls' games and at least 30 boys' games. (Not to mention around the same number of JV and freshman).  THOUSANDS of people involved.

    There's also a major high shool show choir competition across the state. (More potential fall voters and their parents!)

    The point of the article was to show what most Iowans consider more important than being breathless about caucuses.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:28:28 PM EST
    I didn't find it pointless (none / 0) (#98)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:19:52 PM EST
    What they could have said in less space is the caucuses, while not pointless, are fairly unimportant to the general population of Iowa.

    As a fan of MASH, I did enjoy the mention of Ottumwa.

    Parent

    I find it interesting (none / 0) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:25:19 PM EST
    Only to the point that out of more than 2 million registered voters about 150,000 will probably pick the person to be the republican choice for the most powerful office on earth.  About 250,000 for Dems.  On the upside.

    These people will propel of torpedo the hopes of many.

    Sad and frightening.  

    But I'm am not a sports fan on any level.   So there's that.

    Parent

    Inasanity... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:06:10 PM EST
    In a state where only about 12 percent of registered voters are expected to participate on Monday,

    According to the Iowa Secretary of State, there are 1,930,597 active registered voters in Iowa as of 01/31/2016.

    Registration affiliation:
    Democrats   584,111
    Republicans 612,112
    None           726,819
    Other              5,777

    For the caucus, you have to be register to a party to participate.

    This is how many people D's & R's are fighting to get their 'vote' with 12% showing up:

    Democrats   70,093
    Republicans 73,453

    All this work and money to grab the approval of a very small number of people that in no way represent the make-up of the rest of the country.  That is crazy.  

    For each party, it's about three-quarters of the people who go see an A&M or UT-Austin football game at home.
    ---------------

    IMO they should select the primary states by last election turnout.  Give people and the states an incentive for increasing the number of folks voting rather than letting a handful of folks play an inordinate amount of influence on an election.  If you have more people voting, you get more influence by being earlier in the primary, like Iowa, everyone shooting to be the first.

    It could also change from cycle to cycle.

    Parent

    Personally (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:12:30 PM EST
    the media emphasis on Iowa is stupid. Caucuses are stupid. Frankly if Iowa went back to being just another state in the minds of the media none of this would be much of an issue. I'm old enough to remember when nobody cared what happened in Iowa.

    Parent
    I'm old enough to remember... (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:23:02 PM EST
    that Iowa doesn't care what you think.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:29:02 PM EST
    yeah, that too.

    Parent
    Honestly... (none / 0) (#140)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:55:26 PM EST
    everyone I know back in Iowa can't wait for this crap to be over.  Especially the non-stop political commercials that have been running non-stop since last Summer.  

    They're all pretty sick and tired of the whole dog and pony show - unless they're making $ off it like my friend who's doing the floral arrangement for ABC.  

    Parent

    The year of campaigning that Iowa (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 03:04:20 PM EST
    gets every four years does bring quite a bit of money into the state. I suspect that may be the biggest reason Iowa fights so hard to remain "first in the nation".

    Parent
    Yeah, I have (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:59:51 PM EST
    a friend who lives in Ohio and she says that she hates to turn on the TV during presidential elections.

    Parent
    But they would probably (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 03:00:28 PM EST
    Have a fit if someone tried to take away their first in the nation slot.

    Parent
    The hoi poi would not. (none / 0) (#144)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 03:03:23 PM EST
    Those with a vested ($) interest would.

    Parent
    They'd have to go by percentage (none / 0) (#132)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:36:26 PM EST
    Of voter turnout or would be just California all the time.  Which would be fine by me, I mean it's diverse. Basically all groups of Americans represented somewhere in that state. Even hot messes of conservatism up north redding parts.  

    Otherwise great idea!!!! Hadn't thought of that.

    Parent

    Not Even Close... (none / 0) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:50:30 PM EST
    ...in 2012, California has 55% & Minnesota 76%.  Iowa was 70% with Wisconsin, Colorado, Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Maryland, Virgina, N Carolina, Montana, Washington, Oregon, and Florida all having over 60%.

    The lowest, West Virginia at 46%.

    LINK

    Parent

    I just learned from my NetFlix app that (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:58:49 PM EST
    At 4:30 approx I will get season 6 disc 3 of LOST that I will not be able to watch until tomorrow.

    We all have to make sacrifices.

    Parent

    so by percentage then (none / 0) (#153)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:00:53 PM EST
    thought you previously meant turnout total not percentage.

    Parent
    By law campaigns should last six weeks (none / 0) (#166)
    by Farmboy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:48:21 PM EST
    Four weeks of national campaigning, a national primary day, then two more weeks of campaigning, and capped off by election day.

    Problem solved.

    Next!

    Parent

    That sounds fantastic Farmboy.... (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 05:53:45 PM EST
    throw in publicly funded, with a weekly 2 hour commercial free debate for the 4 week national primary, twice a week before the general, and a ban on advertising of any kind and I've think we've got ourselves a winner!

    Parent
    Iowans can do what they want, Scott. (none / 0) (#186)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 05:46:43 PM EST
    After all, these are their party caucuses and not ours. What's actually crazy is both the amount of undue attention the rest of us are paying to them, and our own willingness to attach much more importance to the caucus process than it really and truly deserves.

    The Iowa caucuses are influential only to the extent that we've decided to make it so over the last 40+ years. After all, Iowa Democrats only started caucusing in 1972, when Sen. George McGovern faced off against Sen. Ed Muskie and Sen. Hubert Humphrey. And Iowa Republicans didn't begin until 1976, when incumbent President Gerald Ford faced off against (and very narrowly squeaked by) the insurgent campaign of former Gov. Ronald Reagan.

    But hey, the media loves to call a horse race and we love to watch one, so there you go. That these caucuses tend to be poor prognosticators for predicting eventual electoral success -- Muskie won that very first Iowa Democratic caucus in '72 -- apparently matters not.

    So in that regard, the Iowa caucuses probably matter more to aficionados of political pop culture, than to those with any sense of realpolitik.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Have to disagree (none / 0) (#89)
    by ragebot on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:09:18 PM EST
    Rubio is generally viewed as the establishment's best hope and Cruz is clearly the outsider who seems to be in second place.  What makes you think someone who liked an outsider would stitch to establishment instead of going with another outsider.  My guess is if you are switching from Cruz it would be Trump or staying home.

    Parent
    I have a suspicion (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:13:17 PM EST
    We are going to learn Trump has supporters who were not willing to tell pollsters.  On the republican side the can still do that because they write it down.

    Parent
    Or.... (none / 0) (#125)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:15:23 PM EST
    ...they are going to find out that a lot more people who like Trump are more likely to pick up the landline and go over politics with a stranger.

    But I doubt it, I think Trump is going to crush it.

    My point I think polls are screwed up because of the methodology rather than people giving false answers.

    Parent

    I am saying someone that is (none / 0) (#122)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:11:34 PM EST
    genuinely undecided. There are more of them than we think, opinionated folks that we are here.  I don't assume they lean towards an outsider at all.

    I think if you really undecided at this point, you pick the nicer guy, not the jerk.

    Parent

    In other words (none / 0) (#124)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:15:11 PM EST
    they are not switching from Cruz - they really had not made up their minds. I don't think he will get any of those people. They'll either pick the nice establishment guy (Rubio) or jump on the bandwagon with the popular guy (Trump).

    that is my only prediction about tonight....undecideds do not swing to Cruz.

    Parent

    The right path. (none / 0) (#13)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:08:28 AM EST
    "We are on the right path, my friends. We just have to stay on it."

    We started with two wars, and now we've got three.

    Sounds great.

    Quick question (none / 0) (#18)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:20:54 AM EST
    And it's not a trick question I'm not going to look it up and I don't exactly know the answer though i do have a hope and a suspicion.

    You say three wars.

    Are more men and women in the military on this day deployed and in harms way than in 2008?

    Parent

    Short answer: (none / 0) (#25)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:41:09 AM EST
    Iraq.
    Afghanistan.
    Syria.
    Plus all the covert sh-t we have going on.

    I am not about to google for you.
    I don't know what you hope or suspect.

    In my opinion, we, as a people, are in much greater danger than before.

    No matter what the number, the casualties we are suffering and the casualties we are inflicting are monumental.

    When Obama came in in 2008, there was a discernible sigh of relief from all corners of the globe. The Nobel people were so excited that they awarded him the Peace Prize before he had even had his breakfast.

    Now, I believe that people around the globe will experience a sigh of relief when he finally retires. No matter who replaces him.

    But, although you would never know it from the rhetoric or lack of it from the front-runners, I think that the American people are sick of these dumb wars and want them to end.

    So when Sect'y Clinton says, "We are on the right path, my friends. We just have to stay on it", I think she has lost touch with reality.

    Parent

    That's the long discontented and alienated answer (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:48:09 AM EST
    Short answer to the question is "no".

    Parent
    That is your opinon; (none / 0) (#91)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:11:30 PM EST
    I do not share it.

    Parent
    It was just (none / 0) (#35)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:52:15 AM EST
    A question.

    Did some research.  Deployments up casualties down.  As far as I can tell.

    Parent

    If deployments are up, (none / 0) (#90)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    as you say, that is the kind of path that I personally do not wish to pursue.

    Suicides are up as well.
    PTSD is up.

    This is not an easy answer.

    This represents a tragedy for many of the families involves, for the people who have bombs rained upon them, and for the American people as a whole.

    We voted to end these wars.
    And the politicians, Republican and Democrat, turned a deaf ear.

    My personal feeling: Throw the bums out!

    Parent

    Don't Forget Contractors... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:23:59 PM EST
    ...who they don't include in military counts and I want to say at one point made up around 40% of the people we had in Iraq.

    It's a shell game with the numbers, but in reality, less people are combatant roles around the world under Obama, and less civilians are dying from the US military.  But I would argue he is simply setting up the next person for the Iraq redux to be played out in Syria.

    You cannot really include people who have issues due to other Presidents, you would have a very high number even if one solder wasn't deployed.

    Parent

    You voted for the guy (none / 0) (#100)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:21:44 PM EST
    whom you thought was antiwar, because. . . .

    Well, not because he said so, because he never said so.  

    He said he had said so, but only about one war.  

    Parent

    I was (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 05:08:51 PM EST
    referring to the democratic landslide in 2006 - when they took the House and the Senate with the unambiguous mandate to end the war in Iraq.

    They didn't.
    They didn't even try.
    In fact they let Bush escalate it.

    I never went along with the idea that Obama was anti-war. How could I? He campaigned with Joe Lieberman who was running against an anti-war candidate - Lamont. It sickened me.

    And his rhetoric during the dreadful campaign of 2008 was easily as bellicose as McCain's.

    So, no.
    Obama turned out to be exactly what I anticipated he would be.

    As a postscript: You correctly said that Obama had called the Iraq war "dumb".

    So, now some fourteen or so years later - is it any less dumb?

    Disgusted.

    And no.
    I did not vote for him.
    So, thankfully, I don't have the ensuring carnage on my conscience.

    Parent

    I don't kmow who lentinel voted for (none / 0) (#117)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:04:54 PM EST
    but believe it was a she.

    Parent
    I responded in another open thread (none / 0) (#107)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:39:01 PM EST
    My position on wars.  So no need to rehash, I appreciate that Obama has conducted efforts in a way that drastically minimizes loss of life.  

    Parent
    That comment (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 05:14:28 PM EST
    is mind-boggling.

    Apparently you don't figure in the loss of life of foreign nationals and innocent civilians in Middle Eastern countries.

    I do.

    Parent

    Why, do you find that mind-boggling? (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 06:57:19 PM EST
    lentinel: "That comment is mind-boggling. Apparently you don't figure in the loss of life of foreign nationals and innocent civilians in Middle Eastern countries. I do."

    Sad to say, most Americans don't factor such losses into the overall domestic political equation, and further we tend to resist doing so.

    How many Americans were (and are) outraged by the deaths of nearly 25,000 French civilians during the Anglo-American invasion of Normandy in June 1944, mostly due to heavy Allied bombing raids? The answer is, not very many at all, even though French noncombatant deaths in that campaign outnumbered those incurred by Allied troops by more than two to one.

    I'm not saying that it's necessarily right for Americans to discount noncombatant casualties suffered in wars overseas, because it really shouldn't be. But that said, it is what it is, and that's just the way it's been. We much prefer to look first to our own losses, as do the other countries and peoples around the world.

    And that's why in 2014, the French were actually quite ambivalent about our solemn commemoration of the 70th anniversary of D-Day. Because they remember that U.S. and British air raids on Nazi German-occupied France killed nearly 70,000 civilians over the entire course of the Second World War, and over one-third of those numbers were lost in the brutal six-week Battle of Normandy.

    If you talk to those French citizens who lost family and friends in Normandy as a result of Allied attacks during "Operation Overlord," their anger is more likely to be directed at the Americans and British attackers, and less so toward the German defenders. We don't like to consider that fact, either, so we also tend to ignore that as well.

    That's because the people who care most about civilian casualties resulting from being caught in war's crossfire, tend to be the relatives and friends of those persons who were killed in that crossfire. For the rest of us, making us care about collateral damage often requires an awful lot of personal effort, mostly on the part of a handful of individuals and small groups. And further, it's an effort that's not necessarily appreciated by the public, much less lauded or rewarded.

    And in that regard, I would note only that at the turn of the 20th century, it took the better part of two decades for activists in the United States and Britain to convince their governments to finally condemn the genocide then being perpetrated upon black Africans in the Congo Free State by Belgian colonialists who were exploiting the region for its natural wealth.

    Before that slaughter was finally ended in 1908, thanks in no small part to the public outcry from American and British citizens alike and the resultant threat of sanctions by their governments against Belgium, it's estimated that some 10 million native Congolese -- about half of the estimated population of that territory -- had been killed by the Belgians.

    It's long been said that evil flourishes whenever good people say and do nothing. Well, inherent in that statement is the unfortunate tendency of most people to concoct excuses in order to avoid taking personal action and potentially incurring unpleasantness and / or responsibility. Doing the right thing isn't nearly as easy as we sometimes like to convince ourselves that it is.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    C'mon! (none / 0) (#193)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 06:31:19 PM EST
    I said ...

    I appreciate that Obama has conducted efforts in a way that drastically minimizes loss of life.  

    If I'd have said "loss of AMERICAN lives," I could understand your response.

    Parent

    Still torn (none / 0) (#19)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:25:08 AM EST
    On one hand yeah insurgents would never have a chance if all states voted on same day in a primary.....

    On the other hand if my voice actually mattered I'd be heading out the door to go vote right now instead of watching on, feeling helpless and left out and expressing frustrations on a blog.

    What state (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:27:25 AM EST
    do you live in?

    Parent
    One of the last (none / 0) (#22)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:36:44 AM EST
    One of the ones that didn't matter and no one ever talked about in 2008 too.

    Parent
    But did the Democrats, at least (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:46:06 AM EST
    allow your primary vote to be declared by your delegates at the Democratic Party convention?

    Being late in alphabetical order, my state and our primary votes never mattered to the Democratic Party in 2008, when it prematurely ended the (once-sacrosanct-purpose-for-a-convention-and-primaries) roll call.

    I remain offended by that -- as do many then-delegates here, I know.  And that has not helped our state party, which has helped the Republicans hold unprecented sway here, destroying the state.  Thanks so much, Prima Donna Brazile, et al., of the rules committee.

    Parent

    What's (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:49:20 AM EST
    going on there in WI? I read where Walker is thinking about running for a third term as gov and also he's personally in very bad financial shape from his short presidential run.

    Parent
    Yes and yes. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:14:40 AM EST
    But again: The state Democratic Party is destroyed, so even with his low approval ratings, Walker could win again -- for lack of an effective opposition.

    Obama's DoJ could have intervened -- it was begged to do so -- on the voter suppression, the redistricting, etc.  So it goes.  Wisconsin is gone.

    Parent

    Never go for a recall of a sitting Governor unless (none / 0) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:36:17 AM EST
    you are going to win it. The recall attempt strengthened him and now you're stuck with him.

    Parent
    Never go for recall if the process (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 10:51:03 AM EST
    can be corrupted, as it was, and the DoJ doesn't care, because the comfy shoes still cannot be found.

    I know that the corruption has not gotten coverage beyond the state, but the coverage was the same one-click away.

    In sum:  Never do anything, if the White House doesn't care.

    Parent

    If you're blaming people in Washington (none / 0) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:00:15 AM EST
    for the voters in Wisconsin, you haven't quite yet come to grips with reality on this one. Just as those of us in Florida got what we deserved with Rick Scott, Wisconsin got what they deserve with Walker.

    Parent
    Oh, I'm quite realistic (none / 0) (#62)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:13:49 AM EST
    about the voters in Wisconsin.

    And I'm quite realistic about the national Democratic Party -- to which some of the voters in Wisconsin looked for leadership and living up to promises.

    Promises like enforcement of fair elections.  Have you quite come to grips with the parallels between Florida in the election of 2000 and Wisconsin in the recall election?

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:25:28 AM EST
    I accept that Florida and the voters here do stupid things, and the fault always lies squarely on the people of Florida.

    Parent
    When it (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 09:40:14 AM EST
    comes time go and vote. I mean GA may be during Super Tuesday but it's not like the primary is going to be competitive here but I'm still going to vote.

    Parent
    Trump (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 11:59:22 AM EST
    Freudian? (none / 0) (#76)
    by vicndabx on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 12:24:11 PM EST
    vampaign


    Parent
    Ha! (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 12:32:53 PM EST
    No, just autocorrect and lack of proofreading.  :)

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#84)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 12:51:14 PM EST
    I wasn't going to be the first one to mention it, and, whenever someone does, they are beaten and battered bloody for being some kind of elitist.

    What I'm trying to say is that the spelling here, much worse than before is really bad, sometimes, almost unreadable.

    Is it faulty spellcheck?

    Parent

    Probably auto correct (none / 0) (#92)
    by ragebot on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:11:43 PM EST
    Auto correct is my worst enema.

    Wait that was suppose to be my worst enemy.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#108)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:47:04 PM EST
    I got a new phone right before Christmas, and it has the weirdest autocorrect.  I try to at least skim for regular proofreading, but there are words that it corrects to that aren't words. (For example,  when typing that last sentence, it corrected the word "skim" - it jumped ahead of me finishing the word and just put "skimate".  WTH is skimate??)

    Apologize to all for my increasing bad typing. I really do try and catch them!  An "edit " feature would be nice here.  

    Sigh.

    Parent

    use the preview button (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:27:55 PM EST
    that lets you edit before you hit post

    Parent
    I do that (none / 0) (#163)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:37:37 PM EST
    But I still miss stuff, since I'm doing it on my phone.

    Not a complaint, just wishful thinking.

    Parent

    The Better Question... (none / 0) (#134)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:40:53 PM EST
    ... how much of that loan went right back into Trump's pocket by his campaign using Trump businesses, like Trump owned Tag Air ?

    A billionaire presidential candidate steps out of a jet leased from his own company and checks into a hotel bearing his name. He signs copies of his books for supporters and sends a rival a shipment of his branded bottled water as a prank. Better call campaign headquarters, located in another building bearing his name. He gives rides to kids in a helicopter, emblazoned with his logo.

    The bill for all this? Check Donald Trump's campaign tab.

    The largest campaign disbursement in Trump's first disclosure -- $506,486 of the $1.4 million the campaign spent before June 30 -- went to Trump-owned Tag Air, Inc.

    LINK

    Parent

    Come on (none / 0) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:44:46 PM EST
    Didn't you hear the story about how his limo broke down and a couple stopped to help.  He paid off their mortgage.  No one asked why he didn't call AAA.


    Parent
    Listening to Weaver (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 12:35:30 PM EST
    Babble about debates on CNN.   Prediction - if Bernie loses tonight the extra debates become less likely.

    The trhee (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 12:42:15 PM EST
    past NH or including the one before NH too.

    Also his campaign is back to bashing PP and others as part of the "establishment"

    Parent

    Pisses me off. Bernistas, what (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 12:47:53 PM EST
    say you?

    Parent
    Of course, it is close in Iowa, (none / 0) (#113)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:55:01 PM EST
    and Sanders has a lot riding on it- some supporters may not like to hear it, but it is true:  Senator Sanders is a politician, has been almost all of his life.  He,too, is part of the establishment. When he wants to rebut the charge that he can't get things done in Washington he points to his Senate Committee experiences (e.g. Veterans Affairs legislation).

      Planned Parenthood and HRC are establishment because the organizations did not give him their endorsement, although he is trying to split that into what he believes are the members who support him and the leadership who is establishment.

     And, it is not just that they are establishment, but they are establishments he is "taking on."  These established organizations may earn some criticism from time to time, but they are rights advocacy groups, not Goldman Sachs. He does a disservice taking this route.

    And, on the day before Iowa, the emails are described as a "very serious issue,"  And, adding to that fire: "there is a legal process going on,"   ( not even called an investigative process as if email jail is around the corner).  But, of course,  he did not "want to politicize that issue, it is not my style."

     Yes, just like Trump's style is not to wonder about Cruz's eligibility since he was born in Canada, he is just asking for a friend.

    Parent

    Anyone who argues (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:05:52 PM EST
    That Sanders is not "establishment" is lying or delusional.

    I don't know what's more establishment than an older white guy who's been in Congress for over 30 years.

    Parent

    Debate set for Thursday in (none / 0) (#83)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 12:49:23 PM EST
    New Hampshire. MSNBC has announced that Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd will moderate a debate with all three Democratic candidate on Feb. 4.

    Parent
    There are others (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 12:53:26 PM EST
    That go all the way through May that are still beng negotiated.

    Parent
    Possible legal challenge to Iowa results (none / 0) (#105)
    by ragebot on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:33:24 PM EST
    link

    Seems Andrea thinks so, here is the blurb from the link:

    "Mitchell then predicted, "I think there are going to be protests on the Democratic side. You're going to have a legal challenge.""

    Not sure of the basis of her speculation.  But there does seem to be some bashing of Microsoft creating the app that will be used to compile the results.  Seems like Microsoft has already predicted the result in Iowa and it is a Hillary win.

    I know the race is tight, so much so that I would say Hillary and Bernie is a pick em bet.  But Microsoft used its Bing technology to get the result.  What ever the final result my guess is most folks would like to see the guy counting the votes refrain from predicting who will win the race they are counting votes for.

    Bernie's (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:48:38 PM EST
    campaign manager has been shopping this conspiracy theory before today. I'm sure that is where Mitchell is getting her info from.

    Parent
    So I guess (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by lentinel on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:52:08 PM EST
    nobody needs to vote.

    Thanks Bing.
    Thanks Microsoft.

    This makes everything so simple.

    They know how we would vote if we were to vote.

    It's like the laugh-track on sitcoms.

    Parent

    Infowars (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:50:57 PM EST
    LOL. You actually are relying on a conspiracy site for your information? LMBO.

    Parent
    Ugh. The reporting (none / 0) (#115)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:59:25 PM EST
    at the link.  "Calling" and "predicting" are not the same.

    But, yes, that an app is going to be used to tally results by Dems tonight . . . well, when I read that, I laughed.  Because I use apps.  Indeed, I use apps from Microsoft.  Now I'm laughing again.

    Parent

    If it was an android open source app (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by vicndabx on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:02:46 PM EST
    there'd be no problem.

    :-)

    Parent

    Now that made me lol (none / 0) (#130)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:30:36 PM EST
    The Iowa Caucuses (none / 0) (#127)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:23:58 PM EST
    will never be perfect

    If this app functions better than ORCA, it will help address a more fundamental issue that came to a head in the 2012 Republican caucuses, when Rick Santorum's 34-vote win was announced more than two weeks after the state GOP declared Mitt Romney the preliminary winner of Iowa (the "preliminary" part didn't get much attention in all the media coverage). And Romney's victory wasn't the only thing lost in the lengthy verification process: The votes from eight of the state's 1,774 precincts were confirmed to be lost as well. The debacle led to widespread scrutiny of the caucus process and its ability to precisely represent voters' preferences.

    So the Microsoft app will fix all that? It'll probably help, but any large-scale data-gathering process will have a margin of error, and eight of 1,774 precincts represents less than half a percentage point. The new Microsoft app may help aggregate the caucus results, but those results are still reached in a decidedly 19th-century way, in which Republicans write their preferred candidate on a blank sheet of paper and Democrats play a glorified game of musical chairs (sans chairs). Under those conditions, a 99.5 percent return seems impressive.

    Even beyond the caucuses, all elections have some margin of error -- the 2000 presidential election is a perfect example. In the wake of that election, then-professor of mathematical and statistical sciences at the University of Colorado at Denver William Briggs wrote, "Because of mechanical, electronic, and human errors, the actual precision of vote counting is several orders of magnitude worse than what is needed to determine an election as close as Florida's" and found that the margin of error nationwide was between 1 percent and 2 percent.



    Parent
    Both parties are using it (none / 0) (#121)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 02:11:16 PM EST
    and have expressed syrong confidence in its use.

    Microsoft is doing this for free.

    Since both the Sanders camp and Clinton campaign also have backups for this, I wonder what happens if Sanders squeaks it out tonight and there's a problem with the data reporting?  Will they pooh-pooh any challenges from the Clinton camp?

    Parent

    Can't get anything done (none / 0) (#114)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 01:56:47 PM EST
    Ok so I think I figured out the age gap issue. I had this brief interaction on twitter with a young person and they don't get that people disliking Clinton was, at its inception, totally gender based and was completely rooted in misogyny.

    Somehow, It's been extricated from mosgyny in their minds, so I had to explain that Clinton was a first lady who tried to be more than a merely supportive wife which earned her the first nationwide sexist attacks.  Those sexist attacks, interestingly enough, came from not necessarily the right wing but from dudebro geeks, specifically SPY magazine and other publications.

    I won't describe them, if you're of a certain age you know these attacks, and you know a large publication today wouldn't be able to get away with it... So maybe in some ways things are better but also not so good cause of this cognitive dissonance in minds of young people.

    Yes the glittery shiny revolution inspires too but it doesn't help Clinton that young women voters don't see how Clinton losing is also a reward for 25 years of sexism.

    Have to disagree (none / 0) (#189)
    by ragebot on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 06:06:00 PM EST
    If you think any attack Spy mag did was close to some of the attacks on the internet now you need to get out more.

    I am no fan of Obama or his wife.  Still it bothers me when I see stuff on the internet about him being gay or his wife being transgendered.  I don't like him for his positions and the same for his wife.  But I do think they are what I will call a traditional married couple; just with different political belief than I have.

    The examples I gave were some of the milder ones, there are a lot of attacks on the internet (from both sides I will add) not suitable for a family oriented site like Jerlyn runs.

    Parent

    I meant for a large publication (none / 0) (#191)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 06:23:43 PM EST
    Spy magazine couldn't do Clinton targeted sexism today but yes creeps on Internet have gotten worse.

    Parent
    Predictions (none / 0) (#149)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 03:55:28 PM EST
    Trump 28.4
    Cruz 24.2
    Rubio 17.9

    Hillary by 3.4

    I've probably heard (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 03:58:30 PM EST
    50 times today about that ground operation the Trump people have gone out of their way to not talk up so it would be a surprise when it happened.

    Still have that bridge?   I might be interested.

    Btw your Trump numbers are low.

    Parent

    And your Hillary numbers (none / 0) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 03:59:06 PM EST
    I (none / 0) (#156)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:08:03 PM EST
    wanted to go with higher numbers for Hillary but I
    have to fight my biases.


    Parent
    It would sure be the only (none / 0) (#154)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:02:43 PM EST
    thing in history Trump has gone out of his way to talk down. Not buying that bridge (though I'm sure it is the most luxurious bridge...)

    Parent
    And YUUUUUGE! (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:04:55 PM EST
    The internals (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:13:17 PM EST
    of Selzer IIRC had Trump voters the most motivated.

    Parent
    And, for the negatively motivated (none / 0) (#164)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:43:20 PM EST
    Trump has this:  His security staff told him there was a risk of having tomatoes thrown at him at a rally.  So, he "told the crowd gathered ..on Monday to knock the crap out of anybody who threw a tomato at him." .."I'll pay for the legal fees, I promise" they will not be much because the courts agree with us."     Aside from the "brown shirts" tone, I do not think the legal advice he is passing on is "terrific."

    Parent
    That actually made me laugh (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:47:18 PM EST
    Am I a bad person?

    Parent
    Yes... (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:58:54 PM EST
    ... but it is funny.

    Giving people carte blanche on beating the cr@p out of people could go bad very quickly, and I am not so sure that qualifies as a binding verbal agreement.  

    It's probably cheaper to hire attorneys so he doesn't have to pay than to actually pay the law suits that would surely result.  The good news, if you need some cash and don't mind a beat down...

    Plus of course there is always jail.

    Parent

    Mostly (none / 0) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:53:23 PM EST
    It was thought of Donald being smacked in the face with a tomato.  What would his hair do.   Would it have its own independent reaction?

    Parent
    I think a (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:58:34 PM EST
    cream pie in the face would give Trump a redder face than a tomato.

    Parent
    It would stop a tomato cold (none / 0) (#169)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:54:21 PM EST
    Catch it and throw it back (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 04:56:17 PM EST
    For Trump to throw (none / 0) (#178)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 05:13:00 PM EST
    it back, it would have to be a cherry tomato.  Senator Ben Sasse (R, NE) says Trump has very tiny hands.

    Parent
    Thus (none / 0) (#180)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 05:18:47 PM EST
    the "short fingered vulgarian" moniker.

    Parent
    I actually meant (none / 0) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 05:22:00 PM EST
    His HAIR might catch it and throw it back.

    On the Duck Dynasty comment below, joyful was the first word that came to my mind.  Definitely.

    Parent

    Sorry, (none / 0) (#188)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 06:03:38 PM EST
    missed that. But, then I'd have been deprived my joke.   As for his hair, I am betwixed and between.  If detachable, it would be easy to throw; if real, harder.  It must be the McCoy, though, I don't think they make toupees that bad.

    Parent
    Only two things... (none / 0) (#184)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 05:41:31 PM EST
    scare me, and one them is Carnies.

    Small hands...smell like cabbage.

    Parent

    This one goes out... (none / 0) (#174)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 05:03:52 PM EST
    That Duck Dynasty (none / 0) (#176)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 05:08:30 PM EST
    guy, campaigning for Cruz in Council Bluffs, IA, tore into gay marriage (evil, wicked and sinful)and asked to "rid the earth" of supporters of same. Cruz followed this seemingly  genocide advocate to the stage, calling the Duck Dynasty guy, "a joyful, cheerful, unapologetic voice of truth."  

    Joyful, cheerful... (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 05:43:28 PM EST
    in other words...an unapologetically gay voice of truth?

    Parent
    My Predictions (none / 0) (#183)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 05:37:25 PM EST
    DEMS:

    CLINTON 47%
    SANDERS 39%
    0'MALLEY 2%

    (Though I think Clinton's lead could be as high as 11% when all is said and done.)

    REPS:

    (This took me forever.  And I almost considered not making a prediction.  But, wrong or right, I'm happy with this one.)

    Cruz 20%
    Rubio 19.6%
    Trump 18.9%
    Carson 12%
    Paul 9%
    Bush 7%
    The rest below 5%

    (The ordering of the top three may not be entirely clear until tomorrow.)

    For all the times (none / 0) (#190)
    by ragebot on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 06:10:38 PM EST
    I have posted something and been asked "you wanna put some money on that" the first thing that came to mind on reading your predictions I have to say "you wanna put some money on that?".

    Parent
    I have! (none / 0) (#194)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 06:39:45 PM EST
    But, right or wrong, I'm just comfortable with the logic behind my predictions.

    Parent
    Logic (none / 0) (#205)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 07:07:22 PM EST
    That was your first mistake right there.

    Parent
    I'd be more than willing to bet Trump finishes in (none / 0) (#207)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 07:08:59 PM EST
    the top 2

    Parent
    He going to kill it (none / 0) (#208)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 07:10:35 PM EST
    But you know I think that

    Parent
    Ben Carson (none / 0) (#195)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 06:48:35 PM EST
    Just announced he is going to say hello and good bye at9:15 and then go home and take a nap.

    No.  Really.

    Going to FL for a few days.  Not going to NH or SC.

    Going to DC for the prayer breakfast.  Doesn't say he's dropping out.


    He doesn't have to drop out (none / 0) (#198)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 06:52:25 PM EST
    until the funds run out. The book tour can keep on rolling along for now.

    Parent
    I bet Cruz is cursing him (none / 0) (#199)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 06:54:13 PM EST
    Under his breath for not announcing this a few hours ago.

    I suspect the timing is to avoid people skipping to Ted.

    Parent

    CNN (none / 0) (#197)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 06:52:13 PM EST
    is reporting heavy turnout, especially on the Republican side. Reportedly a lot of new/changed registration.

    The (none / 0) (#201)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 07:02:56 PM EST
    Trumpsters are showing up in force!

    Parent
    The vast majority of new registrations (none / 0) (#202)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 07:03:53 PM EST
    have been reported to be on the GOP side

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#204)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 07:05:32 PM EST
    "Somewhat" conservative is far out pacing "very" conservative.

    Also a good sign for Trump.

    Parent

    More (none / 0) (#206)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 01, 2016 at 07:08:13 PM EST
    39% "somewhat liberal"

    Parent