Nevada Caucus Day: Immigration Matters

Today is caucus day for Nevada Democrats. Will Nevada Latinos buy into Bernie Sanders? Or will they take a pass? Nevada civil rights activist Dolores Huerta is pushing hard for Hillary. She says Bernie Sanders is a spoiler on immigration.

©ivil right activist Dolores Huerta intercepted potential voters as they lined up to make their lunch orders [at Tacos El Gordo restaurant] and urged them to caucus for Hillary Clinton.

"I was reminding them -- these are young Latinos, children of immigrants -- that way back in 2007, we had a great opportunity to pass immigration reform," Huerta said. "And Hillary Clinton also co-authored that bill with Senator [Ted] Kennedy. But Bernie Sanders came out against the vote."

"He was a spoiler on the immigration bill and he’s a spoiler in this campaign."

Her online editorial recounts Bernie's immigration vote as an Independent in the Senate and calls him a "Johnny Come Lately" on immigration reform: [More...]

in 2006, he voted for a bill pushed by James Sensenbrenner, one of the most anti-immigrant members of Congress, that would have allowed undocumented immigrants to be detained indefinitely pending deportation. This bill was widely viewed as a desperate attempt by Republicans to boost their reelection prospects that year by cracking down on immigrants, and the ACLU called it “inhumane.” Bernie voted for it anyway. (You’ll note that he was running for Senate — as an independent.)

...In 2007, he voted against Senator Ted Kennedy’s immigration reform bill.

She also says he voted for a bill protecting the anti-immigrant vigilantes.

She says the same thing I've been saying for months:

I have no doubt [Bernie] he means well.... But my question for Bernie is, where the heck was he for the last 25 years? Where was he on immigration reform? On indefinite detentions? On vigilante justice against undocumented workers? He was nowhere. That’s where.

[Sorry, couldn't resist.]

Here is the Nevada Democrat Delegate Selection Plan. Here is the Nevada Democratic Party's FAQ on the caucuses.

< South Carolina: Time for Republicans to Vote | Saturday Open Thread (Non-Election Edition) >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And Bernie voted for (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 02:38:33 AM EST
    an amendment in favor of the anti-Latino Minutemen.

    Mr. Sanders' Minutemen vote was more perplexing. Regarded as heroes by some conservatives and racist thugs by Democrats in border states, the private militia claimed American officials were tipping off the Mexican government about the whereabouts of their patrols. The militia found a sympathetic ear in some quarters of Congress, where Republican Jack Kingston of Georgia introduced an amendment barring the Department of Homeland Security from providing "a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona."

    The amendment sailed through Congress with the help of the GOP and some conservative Democrats--and Mr. Sanders, who in theory had no reason to weigh in because he represented a state nowhere near the Mexican border.


    Dolores - not Dorothy - Huerta ... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:31:24 AM EST
    ... was the late Cesar Chávez's most trusted compatriot and advisor, and with Chávez and his brother Richard (her longtime partner and father of the youngest four of her 11 children) co-founded the National Farm Workers Association, which is better known today as United Farm Workers (UFW). What Mary Harris "Mother" Jones was to West Virginia miners, Señora Huerta is to the migrant farm workers and laborers in California's Central Valley, a revered maternal figure, protector and champion.

    Señora Huerta is a true hero of the U.S. labor movement and at almost 86 years old, she's still going strong. A recipient of both the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Eleanor Roosevelt Award for Human Rights, she is a beloved and inspirational figure to many in the Latino community, and has been a tireless advocate for immigration reform and women's rights as well.

    Señora Huerta is a longtime friend and supporter of both Bill and Hillary Clinton and as a delegate from California at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, she was given the honor of formally placing Mrs. Clinton's name in nomination.


    Huerta shouted down (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 05:54:43 PM EST
    by Sanders supporters shouting "English only," she and others tweet, when she tried at a caucus to translate instructions from English to Spanish.

    Have they finally gone too far, so that Sanders -- himself, not staff or surrogates -- will apologize?  They may not care about alienating the Latina/o vote, or basic decency, but Dems do.


    She coined the "Si, se puede" slogan (none / 0) (#4)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:50:13 AM EST
    for the farmworkers' movement -- "Yes, We Can" -- coopted by another candidate in 2008, so it may have been a particular pleasure for her to nominate his opponent at the convention.

    thanks, fixed now (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:54:22 AM EST
    The Bern (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:55:13 AM EST

    And his civil rights cred

    Chicago Tribune has the story and photo

    Chicago Tribune archival photo of a young man being arrested in 1963 at a South Side protest is Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders, his campaign has confirmed, bolstering the candidate's narrative about his civil rights activism.

    The black-and-white photo shows a 21-year-old Sanders, then a University of Chicago student, being taken by Chicago police toward a police wagon. An acetate negative of the photo was found in the Tribune's archives, said Marianne Mather, a Chicago Tribune photo editor.

    lol; that's back when "La Hillary" (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 08:02:36 AM EST
    was a "Goldwater Girl."

    Now Bernie's "El Viejito" (the little old man)

    So many quotation marks, so little time.


    O.T response.... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by NYShooter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 01:27:16 PM EST
    Mr Natural, just so you know, I wrote a Mea Culpa to you on the thread below, "Valentine's Day Open Thread," comment #222.

    Nobody (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 08:08:15 AM EST
    ever questioned that. The question is what has he done since then are the questions that have been asked.

    I do believe (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 09:29:01 AM EST
    That John Lewis questioned The Bern's cred

    When a reporter asked Lewis to comment on Sanders' involvement in the movement--Sanders as a college student at the University of Chicago was active in civil rights work--the congressman brusquely interrupted him. "Well, to be very frank, I'm going to cut you off, but I never saw him, I never met him," Lewis said. "I'm a chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee for three years, from 1963 to 1966. I was involved in the sit-ins, the freedom rides, the March on Washington, the march from Selma to Montgomery, and directed their voter education project for six years. But I met Hillary Clinton. I met President Clinton."

    Definitions (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 09:33:09 AM EST

    A concern troll is a person who participates in a debate posing as an actual or potential ally who simply has some concerns they need answered before they will ally themselves with a cause. In reality they are a critic.

    Lol (none / 0) (#12)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 09:34:42 AM EST
    Facts can be so inconvenient at times

    Indeed (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 09:37:30 AM EST
    They can be

    Paragraphing (none / 0) (#14)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 09:48:47 AM EST
    before the last two sentences could clarify it for you.

    Or maybe not.


    So John (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 11:52:39 AM EST
    Lewis says he never met him? He probably did not meet him. Bernie says he marched so he was one of 200,000 people. Nothing you say backs up the point you are trying to make.

    Also, check Sanders' timeline (none / 0) (#20)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 12:12:40 PM EST
    as he was less involved in the civil rights movement after mid-1963, focusing more in his senior year at U of Chicago on getting to graduation in 1964.  Then, he moved back to New York City, working there (with no indication -- despite claims -- that he went to Selma for the march in 1965).

    So, it is understandable that, when Lewis was chair, Sanders would have had little to no contact with SNCC -- which, as its name denotes, was primarily a Southern organization.



    Student Non-Violent Coordinating (none / 0) (#21)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 12:19:07 PM EST
    Committee ( SNCC), does not have southern in its name. While it activities mainly took place in the south, SNCC recruited from across the country.

    It is not surprising that John Lewis did not meet everyone who ever participated in a SNCC action.


    ... Much less would Lewis know most folks (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    involved in the broader civil rights movement, which was by no means limited to SNCC. Look, I admire John Lewis enormously, but his statement about Sanders vs Clinton as it relates to participation in the civil rights movement is totally bogus, and, to my mind, indefensible. Nor is it very important. Frankly, I'm surprised we haven't heard yet in this election cycle -- if we're going to be looking at what candidates did before they were even 21 years old -- about Hillary's role while a law student in connection with the demonstrations in support of a fair trial for the Black Panther leaders on trial in New Haven for participating in a murder conspiracy, which was ten years later than 1963.

    Sorry; correct -- (none / 0) (#23)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 01:02:32 PM EST
    as I was thinking of SCLC.

    And yes, SNCC was founded by a Northerner, and other Northerners were involved -- and yes, I looked up the locus of SNCC's activities in the years when Lewis was chair, and it was the South.

    I also agree that Lewis hardly would have met everyone involved -- but that would have been primarily in the South, not the locus of Sanders' activism in the few months when he was active in Chicago and Lewis was chair of SNCC.


    I read Bernie's wiki page... (none / 0) (#15)
    by magster on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 09:54:05 AM EST
    Interesting man and unconventional path to where he is today.

    That said, I hope Hillary has a strong showing today.


    I boldly predict (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 09:17:03 AM EST
    No one has a freakin clue what's going to happen.

    So I'm bettin on Harry.

    As I've noted ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    the data is terrible.

    Even the Washington Post admitted that.

    And the rumors spinning around today aren't any better.

    I had to use extra-special secret sauce to make my prediction today.


    Some counterpoint... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 10:06:42 AM EST
    from activist Meleiza Figueroa...Hillary Clinton Cries Crocodile Tears for Latin American Immigrants.

    My take...on immigration issues, both Dem nominees leave a lot to be desired. Bernie is too nativist in his zeal to protect American workers, and Hillary is too down with globalization in her zeal to protect American business.

    PREDICTION: (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 01:38:57 PM EST
    CLINTON 52%
    SANDERS 48%

    52 (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 02:00:27 PM EST
    48 sounds reasonable.

    Looks like I was ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:44:50 PM EST
    pretty darn close.  

    Clinton may do a bit better.


    Chris Hayes (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:14:36 PM EST
    Is trashing the process.

    Bernie is losing.

    Yes, last I checked (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:53:01 PM EST
    Hillary was winning 51-49 with everything that has been turned in and winning Clark County by 10 points which means there is no way Bernie can catch up.

    I'm sure Chuck Todd is not going to report the fact that she's going to win until about 90% is reported. But judging by what you are saying about Hayes they know.


    Ah, Mathews thinks the problem is that it is not (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:56:20 PM EST
    a secret ballot.

    Can't they change (none / 0) (#55)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:58:52 PM EST
    the rules?  The caucuses are over yet.

    MSNBC (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:01:44 PM EST
    Officially changing the discussion to the number of delegates which is not a huge difference.

    Isn't that how it (none / 0) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:13:03 PM EST
    ultimately went in Iowa?

    Tweety (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:00:39 PM EST
    Has been far from the most shameless Bernie fluffer.   But I'm sure he got the memo.

    Tweety: Hillary has no message and no joy (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:09:01 PM EST
    Yeah, Bernie seems like a real happy guy.

    Senator Sanders (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:18:41 PM EST
    has many attractive qualities, but I don't think he has ever been accused of being a "laugh-a-minute" kind of guy.  

    Yeah (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:11:36 PM EST
    I caught a conversation between him and "he who shall remain nameless" that Hillary just had no message at all.  Now, BERNIE, he's got him a message.  True, it may pie in the sky BS but he's got a "message".

    And THATS what's important.


    And he has a slogan! Feel the Bern! (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:24:53 PM EST
    Tweety can't figure out how Clinton can beat a slogan like that.

    And, it is easy to get that (none / 0) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:14:06 PM EST
    message, message, message.

    Noun verb message (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:15:12 PM EST
    Btw (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:14:42 PM EST
    They actually said the part about pie in the sky.

    I did not add that.


    Yes, Tweety (none / 0) (#61)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:11:50 PM EST
    got the message about a week ago.

    Chris Mathews: please reports, somebody, (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:54:38 PM EST
    anybody, say this Clark Cty result is bad for Hillary

    Nate Silver is predicting ... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:55:17 PM EST
    Clinton to win the state by 5-6 points.

    Based on some of dat funky math he uses.

    Apparently (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:16:12 PM EST
    that much maligned Gravis poll actually got Nevada right. Maybe 538 will upgrade their polling on their site.

    I was the only ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:45:44 PM EST
    poll out of Nevada that even claimed to have reliable data.

    It was the only poll .. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:47:26 PM EST
    not "I".

    I may be many things.  But I am not a Gravis poll.


    Tweety is an idiot (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:22:57 PM EST
    That's really all there is to it

    Dissapointed, too, in (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:41:47 PM EST
    Stephen Colbert.  His opening monologue seemed unfair--mocking Mrs. Clinton's response to Scott Pelley...just say no if asked if you ever lie. Looking to land the prized advertising demographic.

    Chris Cillizza at WaPo (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:48:37 PM EST
    Wrote about Pelley's question. And while he did allow as how Hillary might have answered as she did out of concern that someone somewhere sometime might drag up an old remark of hers that could be shaded so as to appear a lie, you know, given the entire industry built around trying to destroy her, still she should have just said she never lied.

    So, here is a woman whose every utterance and action is ripped apart and refashioned into something sinister, and, even knowing that, people cannot understand why she speaks so carefully.



    Colbert has given every (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:51:01 PM EST
    Indication of a "anybody but Hillary" mindset, starting with the big wet kiss he gave Biden during Joe's "will he or won't he?" phase, and continuing with his fawning over Bernie.

    Yes, and I thought (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:58:13 PM EST
    it especially unseemly, and particularly unfunny, to invoke Nixon's "I am not a crook."  Nixon, in my view, is in that category of serious villains that should not be compared with frivolously.  Although, most of his audience did not seem to get that reference.

    It's about ratings (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 05:06:45 PM EST
    And who his audience is

    Yes, Colbert is (none / 0) (#104)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:05:16 PM EST
    working to change the demographics from what he inherited from David Letterman.  It is apparent in his guests,music, band, and monologues.

    But it's not funny (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by sallywally on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:40:45 PM EST
    It's sneering, and that's just plain unkind and lacking in class. I can't see him the same way after this.

    And for liberals and progressives ... (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 05:53:43 PM EST
    ... who purport to despise the Republican Party and everyone in it, it's amazing how so many willingly mimic the GOP's storyline about the Clintons' trustworthiness as public officials.

    I know,me too, sorry to say (none / 0) (#106)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:07:48 PM EST
    He does make jokes about Bernie too, but no real critiques or scoldings like that. But he did give it a twist in that it is pretty clear that people that promise to never lie are in fact probably just saying that to say it.

    I understand he has to chase the younger people...I have not watched the mainstream late night talk shows for years until he came along, but it used to be that the people that actually watched these shows on the big 3 networks are older.

    I can't think of anything he could do though that would make me stop watching his show though. I have unconditional love.


    I'm afraid to ask. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:37:26 PM EST

    Nevada (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by AnnL on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:24:40 PM EST
    Yahoo for Hillary Clinton!

    IMO (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:38:33 PM EST
    This is pretty much it for Bernie.  He won't go away but he's going to lose SC pretty big then we have the southern primaries.   He might take a couple of caucuses but the Bernie wave has crested.


    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:52:06 PM EST
    It is a bad loss, especially since the media hyped the "breaking the fire wall" in Nevada. The worry, however, is that the continued Sander's candidacy will not move from a wholesome primary contest to a damaged precursor to the general election.

    Well, the press got their week ... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:59:11 PM EST
    to write all their "Clinton team in a panic" stories.

    Hope it will satisfy them until the general.

    The most unhinged article I read started something like this:

    "Let's face it.  Hillary Clinton is not a good politician."

    I pretty much stopped reading after that.


    Might not be a knock-out punch for Hillary... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by magster on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:07:13 PM EST
    but Bernie is on a stool in the corner of the ring asking for Mick to cut him.

    Well (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:49:02 PM EST
    on Super T he'll win VT of course and maybe MA. After that I'm not sure where he wins.

    Sanders has conceded (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:48:40 PM EST
    this time.

    Bernie supporters (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by AnnL on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 08:01:41 PM EST
    Yelling English only when Dolores Huerta trying to translate at caucus site. From Washington Post. Apparently on tape. Not a good look for Sanders

    MSNBC Reporting: (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by NYShooter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 08:23:41 PM EST

    RUBIO: One Step Closer To Becoming 45th. President


    Bernie opposed immigration (none / 0) (#2)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 02:48:27 AM EST
    reform, not out of some humanitarian concern about the guest worker program, but because he believes immigration depresses wages.

    He said exactly that in his interview on Lou Dobbs's show.


    MKS... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 10:12:02 AM EST
    Question first ya, as someone who is well informed on our sordid history of dirty in South and Central America, what's your take on Hillary's role in the aftermath of the Honduran coup while she was SOS?

    Hillary and the U.S. were (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 12:08:48 PM EST
    not responsible for the coup.  How you deal with such a situation will have many different possible choices.

    The criticism that Hillary did not do enough to put the ousted leader back in seems a little overdone.

    The key here is that there was no Arbenz style CIA led-coup.  The Honduras coup was by all accounts homegrown.  The aftermath involves a lot of second guessing.  And those pointing fingers at Hillary are not among the least biased.

    The U.S. did not send troops to support the new leader.  

    So, I give the benefit of the doubt to both Hillary and Obama on this. They were responding to a crisis created by others.


    Thank you... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 02:09:31 PM EST
    I find it disappointing that Obama and Clinton were not more forceful in denouncing the military coup (with some SOA connections), and did nothing to advocate for returning the duly elected government into power.

    If the situation was reversed, and it was a leftist coup of a duly elected right wing government, our reaction would most likely have been very different.


    Come on and take a day off, counselor.. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by jondee on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:13:12 PM EST
    The spin is making my head spin.

    Clinton all-around-flunkey Lanny Davis was employed at the time by some of the billionaire oligarchs who were one of the driving forces behind the coup, and the generals themselves had been trained at the school for torturers and assassins at Fort Benning formally known as the School of the Americas..

    The responsibility is a matter of degree. It's not an all or nothing affair.

    Hillary said in her book that her hope was that in the aftermath of a coup that was internationally
    condemned, her hope was that "order would be restored" so that "the question of Zelaya would become moot"..

    Moot how exactly? one should ask. By turning Hondurus into some sort of Latin American Myanmar?  


    Based on MSNBC (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 01:34:10 PM EST
    "Between the lines" I get the feeling they are looking at entrance polls and are preparing Bernie supporters for a win.

    That said, they were wrong in Iowa.

    Oops (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 01:34:46 PM EST
    Preparing them for a HILLARY win.

    CNN's (none / 0) (#28)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 01:43:00 PM EST
    visuals are skewing  older, Latino and women, lots of Hillary signs and tee shirts.

    Entrance polls (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 02:00:31 PM EST
    Are coming up at 3 eastern

    1/3 (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 02:01:45 PM EST
    Non white voters

    About the same as 2008 (none / 0) (#36)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 02:41:24 PM EST
    according to a report that I read.  That could be good for Clinton, who won the most caucusers in 2008 -- except that she did not win the most delegates, owing to imbalances in districting.

    Another poll says, though, that Nevadans are shifting leftward . . . which is good, except it tells us nothing without where they started.

    Plus, entrance polls are not exit polls.  The long lines could be sending some back to work, with limited break time, before they can cast their preferences.  Or, of course, they can change their minds after entrance polls.

    In sum, it remains . . . a caucus, with an extra leavening of Nevada craziness.


    The good (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:54:37 PM EST
    news apparently is all the "reports" about Bernie picking up minority voters was apparently false.

    Prediction (none / 0) (#33)
    by AnnL on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 02:31:11 PM EST
    Is 52-48 good or bad? I'm hoping good I can't take much more Hillary bashing

    If she (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 02:37:51 PM EST
    wins by 30 points they will bash her. It is just what they do.

    You can't take much more Hillary bashing? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 02:54:46 PM EST
    Why, it's only February! We've yet to hear how she was a closet lesbian who drove her husband into the arms of numerous women, or how she murdered her lover Vincent Foster and had his body dumped in Ft. Marcy Park. And of course, there's Bennnn-GHAZEEEeee ...!!!

    They're really just getting started.


    Where are you seeing (none / 0) (#38)
    by NYShooter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 02:54:57 PM EST
    all this "Hillary Bashing?" All I see is "Sanders Bashing" here.

    Now, if you're talking about the Media, "Hillary/Bill Bashing," has been going on for 30 non-stop years.

    No surprises there.


    I think (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 02:58:59 PM EST
    she's talking about the media. I wish the media would just quit with all their manufactured drama but they just can't seem to.

    I about lost my dinner when Teeety (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:11:07 PM EST
    said it is Fox news that keeps the innuendo and Clinton scandals alive. Good god, does he even listen to himself?

    Better hope she does not win then, (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:14:41 PM EST
    and goes to live on an island someplace. Even then...the bashing would not stop.

    Results (none / 0) (#43)
    by AnnL on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:16:35 PM EST
    CNN Clinton losing 50-49

    Those are a few rural areas (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:20:53 PM EST
    and expected to go for Sanders.

    In Vegas, baby, Clinton won all six casino caucus sites on the Strip.  

    Best line:  And they said that nobody could win in the casinos.


    but, but... Tom Brokaw (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:42:19 PM EST
    and Chris Matthews just told me that working people on the strip don't go for Hillary...they find it "ominous"!!!!

    AP Results (none / 0) (#44)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:19:33 PM EST
    CNN Clinton winning 51-49 (none / 0) (#46)
    by sallywally on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:20:57 PM EST

    approximately.... (none / 0) (#47)
    by sallywally on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:22:55 PM EST
    Sanders supporters ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 03:53:07 PM EST
    look worried.  And are already asking for their "participation trophies".

    "But won't we have won if, like, we do better with Hispanics, or whatever you call 'em, than, like, people said?"

    Fox declares ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:10:44 PM EST
    Nevada for Clinton.

    SITE VIOLATOR!!! (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:19:22 PM EST

    Oh, c'mon! What have the Oscars violated? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 05:02:44 PM EST
    That is, aside from their occasional assaults on decorum, good taste and our sensibilities?



    HRC win (none / 0) (#85)
    by AnnL on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 04:58:27 PM EST
    MSNBC but he almost won!

    MSNBC gives Bernie ... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 05:00:51 PM EST
    a participation trophy.

    It is not whether you win or lose... (none / 0) (#92)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 05:19:08 PM EST
    it's how you play the game that really matters.

    Still could not be more proud of Bernie for making this run...amazing it is so close.

    Keep on Bernin' till the convention and beyond!


    Fight on, Comrade! (none / 0) (#94)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 05:28:47 PM EST
    But aren't you a libertarian?

    Or did you jump to Bernie after Rand dropped out?


    I'm an enigma... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 05:39:27 PM EST
    social libertarian, fiscal socialist...today at least;)

    Been with Bernie since Day 1 this go round...never a big Rand guy, his dad was cooler.

    I havent been this into a primary since '96...usually I'm just waiting to see which third party candidates make my ballot. This is a whole new world.


    I don't understand ... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 05:42:45 PM EST
    libertarians who support Bernie.

    But I've seen some.

    I REALLY don't understand libertarians who support Trump.

    And I've seen a lot of those.


    Labels don't work... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 05:56:25 PM EST
    so well sometimes.

    In Trump and Sanders case, I think you get some people who are just sick of lobbyists and the two party system and wanna shake it up for the sake of shaking it up. The monkeywrench effect, for lack of a better term. I understand that appeal. If there was a trump-like candidate who wasn't Donald F#ckin' Trump I might get down with that action.


    And say what you will about Bernie... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:07:43 PM EST
    His ideological opponents have great respect for him and his integrity...I hear that from conservatives all the time.  That's rare in this business.

    Do you (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:13:43 PM EST
    want to know why conservatives say that? I've had this discussion with them and it's because Bernie calls himself a socialist. They believe that Hillary really is a socialist but she's just lying about it.

    That's part of it... (none / 0) (#121)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:49:59 PM EST
    another part is conservatives can see he hasn't been bought.

    We'd be surprised at how many Republican despise what the Koch Bros. and Sheldon Andersons are doing, even if they piggybank their horses. Everybody wants leadership they can trust to be on the level, there's a thirst for it across ideological lines.


    If he were a real leftist on ... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:14:09 PM EST
    foreign policy ... might have considered supporting him.

    Too close to the status quo on that score.


    Agreed... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:44:39 PM EST
    I'm not crazy about his foreign policy, he sounds boilerplate Democrat lately. "Crush ISIS" and all that jazz.

    Civil liberties I have doubts too.

    Oh but the economic issues...he's head and shoulders man, with a record of integrity to back up the rhetoric. And on a personal level, I feel like I can trust him as much as a politician can be trusted. I may not always agree, but I am confident his position isn't influenced by a special interest, only his judgement. That's no small thing.


    But Bernie is influenced by (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:55:50 PM EST
    special interests. His votes and positions on gun control were very much influenced by special interests, the gun interests.

    His support for that giant Pentagon boondoggle, the F-35 fighter jet, also influenced by special interests, defense contractors.

    And do you think Bernie just glommed onto Sierra Blanca as the ideal dumping ground for Vermont's and other state's nuclear waste by throwing a dart at a map? Once again he was influenced by special interests.

    However, I do not think BernIe has ever given a speech to Goldman Sachs. So, if that is the only issue that matters to you, well, Sanders is probably your guy.


    C'mon Casey be fair... (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:18:17 PM EST
    Was it the gun lobby or his rural constituents that influenced him?

    The military industrial complex or jobs in Vermont instead of South Carolina?

    Sierra Blanca sounds like a raw deal, and definitely uncool. But special interests? Who? And isn't Texas the primary villain there?

    I'd bring up who signed the toxic waste bill into law but I'm trying not to hold Bill against Hillary too much. ;)


    You could (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:25:12 PM EST
    say that about any politician. Is it really a "special interest" or are they "bought and paid for". You could say Bernie was "bought and paid for" with the F-35. How few jobs that ultra expensive boondoggle actually produce for Vermont? I'm sure probably very few.

    Bernie was against the NRA until he figured they could help him and then he did a 180 on his stance on guns. Did the NRA buy him (they gave him money)or did he sincerely have a change of heart on guns over the process of a year or so?


    I am being fair, kdog. (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:35:56 PM EST
    Immunity for gun manufacturers had nothing to do with farmers with shotguns, and everything to do with the gun lobby.

    And if it is just fine for Bernie to support what is quite possibly one of the biggest wastes of tax dollars in the history of defense spending because the defense contractor employs Vermonters, why is it such a sin for Hillary to give speeches to banks which provide jobs to New Yorkers?

    As to Bill's decisions, Hillary, like every First Lady we had ever had, is not responsible for the decisions her husband made. Do you hold Michelle Obama responsible for Barack's drone war? Is Laura Bush being called to account for the Katrina or the Iraq War?


    None of this makes Bernie a bad (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:39:32 PM EST
    person or a bad candidate. It does make him a professional politician who has been in elective office for decades, no better and no worse than so many other politicians.

    Points taken... (none / 0) (#147)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 08:08:14 PM EST
    I don't mean to deify, I'm aware of his political faults...at the end of the day, I find they pale against his unique positives.  The Clinton Wall Street connections are another level imho. I could never vote for Chuckie Schumer either, it's not personal!

    Well, with Bill it's personal, his treatment of the sacrament as president was a personal attack;)


    We all have our issues. (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 08:17:41 PM EST
    For you it is Clinton and Wall Street. For me, I think Sanders' positions and votes on guns have caused, and continue to cause, major and possibly  irreparable harm to to this country. It is a big issue for me.

    As to Bill, well, every president is accountable for the decisions he makes while in office. Just don't blame Hillary for the things Bill did.


    I agree with that ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:50:49 PM EST
    wasn't enough for me this time.

    Despite what we may write/read.. (none / 0) (#123)
    by kdog on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:54:28 PM EST
    in the comments section, reasonable people can disagree my friend. The tribalism is a bit much sometimes, and I'm as guilty as the next guy.

    I just try to keep ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:02:02 PM EST
    a sense of humor about it all.

    As we know, we'll probably get screwed whoever wins.

    So best to start laughing now.


    fuel for the fire, kdog (none / 0) (#151)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 21, 2016 at 05:43:32 AM EST
    Some commentary I stumbled across today

    David Stockman: Take Cover---Now Comes The Gong Show

    Since [anti-establishment candidates, Sanders and Trump] are basically campaigning against the Imperial City and all of its careerists, cronies and corruptions, the first impulse is to cheer them on. After all, nothing could be worse than the self-perpetuating gang of war mongers, welfare statists, K-Street lobbyists and pork-barreling politicians who rule the nation today from their permanent berths in Washington DC.  Unfortunately, there is something worse.

    Counterpunch: The True Danger of the Sanders Campaign

    You'll love this one:

    Team Clinton: Fools, Damn Fools and Democrats


    More narrative (none / 0) (#152)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 21, 2016 at 08:32:27 AM EST
    then commentary.
    It is gaining surprising traction on the claim that the economy is rigged in behalf of the 1% and Wall Street, and that's actually correct. But this baleful reality is not owing to the inherent tendencies of unregulated capitalism, as Bernie contends; it arises from the very opposite. Namely, the Fed's destruction of honest price discovery in the financial markets.
    Sure the greedheads have rigged the economy, but the Fed made them do it.


    Now we have a New Deal/Great Society Keynesian running around America calling these things socialism.
    No you are saying it, repeating the  decades old conservative line you just described in the preceding paragraph,
    A good deal of the resistance to the New Deal and what followed it came from a certain sector of the capitalist class, huddled around the figure of Friedrich Hayek, who insisted that the economics of John Maynard Keynes were socialist. For decades, this has been the line of austerity-minded politicians on both sides of the aisle
    of course it's all a set-up to bash Hillary as the wicked witch of wall street,  
    And when Chairman Bernie loses to Hillary, which he almost certainly will, she in turn will be able to use the opening he has created to enact the policy suggestions of her major backers, including the wretched Lloyd Blankfein.....
    is he trying to say Hillary, minus Bernie, would be less in bed with wall street? That makes no sense whatsoever.

    Levine(paraphrasing the whole article: Let me use a long winded BS philosophical argument to give me a chance to call Hillary a "fool" and a "dunce", mostly for being a mainstream Democrat.


    Actually, it IS whether you win or lose. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 09:04:24 PM EST
    In politics, with a few notable exceptions, there are no moral victories. Those are for people who either can't or won't aspire to anything better. Whether an incumbent official wins re-election by a margin of 1% of the vote or 15%, he or she is going to be the one taking the oath of office, and not his or her opponent.

    And the key to playing the game is -- surprise! -- actually learning how to play the game in the first place. Mrs. Clinton's victory in today's caucuses was due to her campaign's ground game, and its ability to identify her supporters, enroll them in the Nevada Democratic Party if they haven't already done so themselves, and then turn them out at today's precinct meetings at the designated hour.

    A party caucus is not a primary election run by the state or county, but an internal process that's the sole province and function of the party itself. It is a physical meeting of its members, which is called to order for the expressed purpose of selecting delegates / candidates for an upcoming election / convention, filling a current vacancy in office caused by resignation or death of an official, or making a decision about a given policy matter.

    As such, the process is closed to all those who aren't actual members of the party. If a caucus is called statewide, members meet either by precinct or district simultaneously, call their respective meetings to order at the designated time, conduct their business, adjourn their meetings and then call in their decision / results to state party HQ.

    In that regard, it doesn't matter at all if Sen. Sanders can turn out 20,000+ to a campaign rally in Las Vegas, since the actual allocation of Nevada's delegates to the upcoming Democratic National Convention was determined today by those 13,000 party members who caucused statewide.

    Personally, I'm not a fan of caucuses for the purpose of candidate selection, since the actual voting is restricted to a relative handful of people. From the standpoint of choosing a president, it's not a very democratic process at all.

    But because Hawaii is also a caucus state, it's been incumbent upon me to understand how they work so that whenever I called the precinct and district meetings to order during my time as a district or regional chair, I would ensure that the process runs smoothly, it's conducted fairly and openly per party rules, and nobody is there at that meeting who shouldn't be.

    When a state party's presidential preference poll is conducted by caucus, a campaign's prospects for success comes down to organization and discipline. If your side has it and the others don't, you're more than likely going to win.

    And that's what happened today. And that's also why we've seen occasional surprises in caucus states, when a frontrunner takes things for granted and assumes that his or her supporters will organize themselves and simply show up. Uh-uh. Won't happen. Your campaign literally have to work the room and line up your support at these precinct meetings manually.



    Andrea Mitchell (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 05:14:28 PM EST
    Still blathering about "IF SHE HAD LOST....."

    She wrote the script ... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 05:29:41 PM EST
    and she's gosh darn gonna deliver it!

    Is there a breakdown of Nevada (none / 0) (#90)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 05:13:16 PM EST
    caucus goers that shows age and race/ethnicity? I ask because the PBS Newshour reporter just stated that, once again, Sanders swept millennials, but did not tell us if that was all millennials, white millennials, African-American millenials, etc.

    I have seen numbers that indicate Sanders' overwhelming millenial support is only with white people, that Clinton has far more support among millenials of color. And yet, every news story I hear or read just speaks of the generic millenial vote going for Sanders.

    Earlier I read (none / 0) (#93)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 05:24:59 PM EST
    Clinton won voters 45 & over
    Sanders won voters under 45

    Clinton won among Black voters
    Sanders won among Latino voters

    I think the Guardian has the break down by county and demographics, but many sites have taken down the details since the caucus results were called.


    That's not accurate ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 05:30:53 PM EST
    we have to wait for the full entrance poll data.

    Just heard (none / 0) (#153)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Feb 21, 2016 at 10:10:54 AM EST
    Jeff Greenfield say on CNN that Hilary won the heavily Latino precincts in NV which casts doubt on entrance polls claiming to show that Sanders won the Latino vote.  

    From what I've seen (none / 0) (#137)
    by nycstray on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:39:39 PM EST
    Sanders won white male/bros and the kids. Kids did not turn out in enough numbers though. All subject to change when the real numbers come out, of course :)

    Hey, stray, I've been thinking (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:43:21 PM EST
    about you. Have not see you in these parts for awhile. How are things?

    Howdy! (none / 0) (#143)
    by nycstray on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:47:42 PM EST
    Things are okay, just been avoiding too much politics. CA votes late June, so . . .

    How are you?  


    How much money ... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 05:47:08 PM EST
    will the Sanders campaign raise in the next 24 hours?

    Will they even reach $1 million?

    I do not think this Nevada loss (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:11:40 PM EST
    will cost Sanders very many, if any, of his supporters/donors. I doubt he will expand his support very much, but his people will stick with him. His campaign is billing the Nevada result as not so much a loss for Bernie as it is a great effort by Bernie, an almost won.

    There is stil a whole lot of campaign real estate to cover over the next few months. I expect both Sanders and Clinton to stay in the fight to the very end, just as Clinton and Obama did in 2008.


    I think (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:16:35 PM EST
    it will definitely lose him supporters but it will be the Republicans who have been donating to his campaign not his "real" supporters. The Republicans are going to look at the map and the states that are coming up and are going to quit donating to him however I agree that his hardcore supporters are going to stay with him.

    I think Rove and the other (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:23:42 PM EST
    GOP super PACs will keep running anti Clinton ads for as long as Sanders is in the race. Even if Bernie is losing and the math shows no way for him to get the nomination, if Bernie is still in the race there are still opportunities to attack Clinton.

    Also, the longer a losing Sanders stays in the less time there will be for the Dems to repair the inevitable wounds that the two sides inflict upon one another and unite around Clinton.


    I'm not (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:29:45 PM EST
    even sure they'll continue to waste their money doing that. They've got so many problems and wasting money trying to prop up an obviously losing candidate doesn't make a lot of sense because even if they think it's a divide and conquer strategy at some point when you're attempting to prop up someone who's losing by 30 points it just becomes silly.

    I don't know...it takes a lot of funding for the (none / 0) (#112)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:17:46 PM EST
    long haul. Both Obama and Clinton were well funded in 2008. To maintain finding levels like that they usually need to show they have a chance to win? tHe finding after Super Tuesday should say a lot about how long it will really be a race.

    It was suggested today (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:22:04 PM EST
    I forget by who, that where he spends money in the next couple of week will tell how serious he is.  For example if he spends money in states Hillary is ahead instead of just some caucus states where he might pull out a win.

    He's spending money (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:48:12 PM EST
    in MA it seems but probably not many other Super Tuesday states. He sounded like he's basically skipping SC tonight but I don't blame him No reason to waste his money somewhere he's down by 30 points.

    I'm surprised how dejected ... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:19:02 PM EST
    and fatalistic his supporters seem.

    But that wasn't my question.


    Well, he already conceded SC today (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:24:58 PM EST
    by ending his concession speech with "on to Super Tuesday."

    i.e. "On to being ... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:24:45 PM EST
    beaten REALLY badly."

    And is he skipping South Carolina?



    Time to talk about (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 05:48:34 PM EST

    Or just total delegates (none / 0) (#124)
    by CoralGables on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:55:49 PM EST
    Today so far it's:

    Clinton  22
    Sanders 15

    Clinton  29
    Sanders 21

    New Hampshire
    Clinton 15
    Sanders 15

    Totals (subject to change)

    Clinton  66
    Sanders 51


    Superdelegates (none / 0) (#117)
    by AnnL on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:42:07 PM EST
    Talk to Tad Devine. Didn't he help develop the process? Heard Rachel asking Wasserman Schultz about how unfair it seems

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:49:49 PM EST
    he did and honestly the same people never cared about the Super D's back in 2008 when they decided who the nominee was going to be. Secondly it's unlikely they are going to be picking the nominee this time as it's likely that Sanders is going to get nowhere near enough delegates.

    Carson "isn't going ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:28:43 PM EST

    He says.


    Wittle wee-wee.

    Carson (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:31:07 PM EST
    is performing his function which is to keep Cruz's numbers down.

    I thought he ... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:33:35 PM EST
    was there so we can keep track of his followers.



    Jeb! (none / 0) (#139)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:40:58 PM EST
    To suspend his campaign, says CNN, speaking now.

    Just put this (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:43:21 PM EST
    In the other thread

    Hat tip


    So if Marco (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:45:52 PM EST
    Had Jebs 8% Donald would have only won by 4.



    and with (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by FlJoe on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:52:19 PM EST
    Kasich's 8% he wins by 4. Rubio can and will compete in a three man race, the math is still on Trump's side though.

    The disemboweling (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 07:55:34 PM EST
    Of Marco starts tomorrow.