Harry Reid Endorses Hillary, Republicans Focus on Trump

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2016
Posted on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 12:43:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Harry Reid has endorsed Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.

Reid said he took pains to remain neutral in the competition between Clinton and Bernie Sanders so he would not be accused of rigging the caucuses.

John Kasich is not dropping out.

Kasich's campaign is running a strategy that relies on surviving through the March 1 Super Tuesday contest and winning Michigan's March 8 primary. Kasich says people need to "chill out" because there's a "long way to go" in the GOP nominating contest.

[More...]

Who voted for Trump in Nevada? More than 75,000 voters attended the caucus, which was a huge turnout compared to prior years.

The Nevada entrance poll shows just how tailor-made this electorate was for Trump. In addition to being angry, Nevada Republicans desperately want someone from outside the political system as their nominee. Six in 10 (61 percent) said the next president should be “outside of the establishment”; Trump won an eye-popping 71 percent of those voters. Cruz was second with just 15 percent. That’s a stunning margin even in a race where Trump won overall by 22 points.

Republicans don't want to close Gitmo. No surprise there.

Is Sanders giving up on South Carolina?

Sanders is beginning a multi-state campaign trip, returning to South Carolina just before primary voting Saturday.

< Democratic Town Hall, the Late Late Show and the Rolling Stones | Apple, the Feds and San Bernadino Update >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Harry Reid Endorses Hillary, Republicans Focus on Trump | 31 comments (31 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I've been thinking about the general election (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by CST on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 12:57:56 PM EST

Trump - Hillary

I mean, one would think the Trump ads would write themselves. But one would think he'd never be the nominee.

That being said, I would hammer him on the birther stuff and the torture stuff. This is going to be all about turnout. Trump fans are angry? Time to make Democrats angrier.

You start in the summer ... (none / 0) (#3)
by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 01:25:14 PM EST

with a multi-pronged attack before he's even consolidated the Republican party.

Keep him down and make sure he never gets up.

People who say he's easy to beat weren't wrong. So far no has tried.

And if he proves more formidable (and I don't think he will) she can adjust. We've seen her do that before.

She has no pride of campaign authorship. If she sees Trump doing something that's working. She'll adopt it and adapt it to her message.

And, if all the media wants is a circus, well, the Clintons can out circus anyone.

Rubio would be a more serious challenge. Because he could play in those key swing state suburbs. But she can beat him too.

The Republicans are on defense from the jump whoever they run. They have a fractured party. And a terrible electoral map.

She'll have a unified party and an electoral wind at her back.


Marco (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 01:37:46 PM EST

only looks good until you start examining his proposals and what he has actually said. I don't think turning women into birthing slaves is exactly gonna sell in the suburbs. And then he's a minority which turns a lot of Republican voters off.


He's got some decent spin ... (none / 0) (#6)
by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 01:53:39 PM EST

that might work with some of those centrist suburban voters in swing states.

He's even better at that uniter crap than W.

But, as I said, she'll beat him too. She may just have to settle for less than 400 electoral votes though. Against Trump, she can top that.


: Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 02:28:46 PM EST

until Hillary gets a hold him that is. Nobody in the GOP primary is pointing out how nuts his ideas are because their ideas are just as nutty.

I would make it more personal (none / 0) (#31)
by Trickster on Fri Feb 26, 2016 at 12:03:08 PM EST

It's a long campaign, and there is time to hit many issues hard.

But the #1 issue is Trump: he's a buffoon and a casual liar. I would ridicule him every day. He is so, so ripe for it.


I loved that separate standard line (5.00 / 4) (#10)
by Trickster on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 02:57:51 PM EST

And it's about time. Time to draw a line in the sand. Time for some serious pushback.

No, we're not going to play your gotcha game any more. We're going to talk about the game.

By now, the game is THE BIGGEST ISSUE in the Democratic nomination campaign. Why does this woman get treated SO differently from everybody else? Why is everything she does such a scandal, just because she is the one doing it? I'm sick and tired of her never, ever getting cut ANY sort of break. Give her a chance!

She's a human being, trying to get by, just like everybody else. How about just a wee bit of empathy, huh?

I agree completely (5.00 / 5) (#14)
by Anc260 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:04:08 AM EST

In my (admittedly not too extensive) experience, Hillary Clinton is the subject of some of the most blatant double standards around.

For Barack Obama, Democratic voters considered the issue of Wall Street funding an unfortunate (at worst) reality of the political process. For Hillary Clinton, the issue is a nonstarter- it disqualifies her from the presidency altogether.

For virtually every candidate it is assumed that their campaign will release negative ads about their opponent. Hillary Clinton is endlessly scrutinized and reprimanded for "going negative."

The language used to describe her (even on mainstream cable networks) is practically unprecedented. She's been called "shrill" and "emasculating" and likened to Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction or Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Penn Jillette called her a "white bitch" on MSNBC. Michelle Obama told voters that Hillary Clinton isn't qualified to run the White House because she can't run her own house (referring to Bill Clinton's affair).

Most voters probably cannot even name the spouses of the presidential candidates. Hillary Clinton, however, has her accomplishments minimized and attributed to the success of her husband while simultaneously being blamed for the failures of his administration. In the 1990s, she was too involved in Bill Clinton's administration. In 2008, her role in the administration was belittled as not being indicative of "real experience."

Whenever a presidential candidate announces their campaign, it is assumed that it is only natural for them to covet the highest office in the land. For Hillary Clinton, the fact that she wants to be President reflects her all-consuming ambition. She is not considered a true public servant, and is painted as an self-serving opportunist (I've literally seen this argument being made numerous times by users on this site in just the past week).

The worst part of all of this is that so-called Democrats have been very eager to participate in these double standards. I was just a naive first-time voter during the 2008 Democratic primaries, but I will never, ever forget the media coverage of Hillary Clinton that year. Seeing as how I'm not a woman, that was my first experience with genuine misogyny in this country.


That was meant (none / 0) (#12)
by NYShooter on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:22:20 PM EST

as a joke, right?

Right?


: Scarcely (none / 0) (#13)
by Trickster on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 10:39:13 PM EST

Yeah if Only HRC Could Catch a Break... (none / 0) (#15)
by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 02:08:52 PM EST

...cough, cough, 400+ super delegates. She ahead of Sanders by a few, yet in reality she is ahead of him 505/71. Not a big deal, but it's so boring to read about who the candidate ahead in the polls and seriously ahead in delegate count, is a victim.

She has basically dominated the pols for the better part of a year, yet somehow everyone has it in for her. It's starting to sound like there is a war on Christmas... I mean on Clinton.


Actually (none / 0) (#16)
by jbindc on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 02:17:05 PM EST

It's kind of an amazing story considering there IS a war on her.


: Agreed... (none / 0) (#19)
by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:06:34 PM EST

... just as peculiar, how Christmas keeps holding on.

Remember 2008? (none / 0) (#17)
by Trickster on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 02:40:38 PM EST

Super delegates were against her in a decisive way, then.

And . . . of course . . . super delegates can vote however they like at the convention. If Sanders were to actually win most of the elected delegates, I'm quite sure you would see those numbers of committed super delegates swinging in the other direction.

I'll bet it would be really boring for you to read

The Hunting of the President (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AAYFAME/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1),

or
Blinded by the Right (http://www.amazon.com/Blinded-Right-The-Conscience-Ex-Conservative-ebook/dp/B000FC1GYM/ref=pd_sim_35 1_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=31zKXC37ciL&dpSrc=sims&preST=AC_UL160_SR105%2C160&refRID=1C9FGDTV TV2WPCNAGCMY)

or
The Killing of the Messenger (http://www.amazon.com/Blinded-Right-The-Conscience-Ex-Conservative-ebook/dp/B000FC1GYM/ref=pd_sim_35 1_1?ie=UTF8&dpID=31zKXC37ciL&dpSrc=sims&preST=AC_UL160_SR105%2C160&refRID=1C9FGDTV TV2WPCNAGCMY).


Got That Right... (none / 0) (#18)
by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:04:07 PM EST

... who in hell wants to read 3 books about super delegates, that seems like something they might issue to GITMO prisoners while blaring music and strobing the lights.

You might want to tell the SD that because so far she got ~430 already committed. I know, the media has been so unfair to the person on top and almost certainly going to win the primary and general. She would be Empress of the Universe if it weren't for everyone holding her back.

Pretty sure you post will be deleted because of the links anyways.


You know (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 06:00:30 PM EST

all I ask is that they be treated the same. Bernie has been fluffed to the point of it being ridiculous. He should be asked hard questions like why don't people over the age of 45 like you? why are Republicans pushing your candidacy and running ads trying to support you? You know if the GOP was running ads supporting Hillary it would be nonstop hysteria or if she was winning millennials and losing in every other category the questions would be why can't you get older voters.


So That's the Gripe... (none / 0) (#22)
by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 26, 2016 at 09:25:59 AM EST

... no one is asking Sanders questions like why no one of 45 likes him. Yeah now I understand, she practically like Jesus in that sort of persecution. Where does she find the will to go on...


: You really should read those books (none / 0) (#30)
by Trickster on Fri Feb 26, 2016 at 11:51:10 AM EST

Or do something else to get some kind of clue about the way the Clintons have been treated for the last 25 years.
The GOP treated Obama like a prince by comparison. Sure, they ridiculed and obstructed him, but they went a step farther with Clinton, they hired a swarm of private investigators and "journalists" to dig up dirt and concocted a court case against him led by the brightest legal lights in the party (Ted Olson an Ken Starr). That impeachment didn't come out of nowhere, it came directly from an orchestrated plot to take the Clinton Presidency down that began as soon as Clinton was inaugerated.
Not to mention the press. The press was positively worshipful toward Obama in 2008. Compare that to how many newspapers are jumping on Hillary for using the wrong word one time in extemporaneous remarks 20 yeras ago.

Those aren't books about super delegates (none / 0) (#21)
by Trickster on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 10:55:46 PM EST

They're books about the long-term persecution of the Clintons. All three of them are actually very good books, well written and factually meticulous.

Blinded by the Right is a confessional by a guy who took money from right-wing ideologue Richard Viguerie to find or manufacture dirt on Bill Clinton. It doesn't have the detail of the wonderful Hunting of the President, but it's an inside view.

You should really read these books, or at least portions of them, or the Cliff Notes version or something, before you give yourself the license to dump unlimited snark on the Clintons. Were they, are they, persecuted? Hell yes, and here are the documented factual details of it.


So It's Clintons... (none / 0) (#23)
by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 26, 2016 at 10:03:07 AM EST

... the right hates, Obama will be happy to learn that.

I think most of us understand that it's the party and not the name, but please explain how the right hasn't gone after every democrat of significance, unfairly, that is what they do.

I suppose it doesn't matter that we were discussion Hillary in the primaries, not Bill's eight years. But back to the actual point, the claim was HRC is getting treated unfairly, I pointed out she is not where it counts, super delegates, and instead addressing that issue, you bring Bill's presidency as proof that HRC is being untreated unfairly, super delegates be damned, her lead in the pols, be damned, he almost absurdness of becoming the next president, be damned.

I guess the lesson here is if you are treated unfairly by all you do nothing but win...


She got those pledged SD's the old fashioned way (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by mm on Fri Feb 26, 2016 at 10:18:49 AM EST

She earned them.


She doesn't have them all, of course (none / 0) (#26)
by jbindc on Fri Feb 26, 2016 at 10:39:03 AM EST

Bernie Sanders himself is a superdelegate.


But Isn't the Entire Arguement... (none / 0) (#27)
by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 26, 2016 at 11:38:03 AM EST

... that she is being treated unfairly ?

Sounds like you are making an argument that she is being treated quite fairly in that she is getting what she earned.

I agree about the super delegates, but I think you get my point, for someone who is basically the victim of grand unfairness, here she is still leading and will most likely win the presidency.

I am saying that is not how unfairness works, that argument would be better played in 2012 when she wasn't leading or destined for the presidency.


: You mean (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by jbindc on Fri Feb 26, 2016 at 11:50:22 AM EST

2008 where she actually DID get more votes and the superdelegates jumped ship to the new, shiny object anyway?
The only people whining that the process is treating her unfairly (unfairly in her favor), are Bernie supporters who are just learning (or waking up to) the process and how it works.
She is, however, NOT getting treated fairly by the media. She never has, so I'm sure she's used to it.

Don't Kill the Messenger is about Hillary (none / 0) (#28)
by Trickster on Fri Feb 26, 2016 at 11:42:48 AM EST

But they were a target package the whole time.

You know, they're back at it today. Look at all the headlines about the "super-predator" thing. What other candidate would be widely attacked for something she said 20 years ago when pretty much every other major pol was saying the exact same thing?

And I addressed super delegates already. Super delegates are a VERY minor issue compared to the overall tone of the campaign. Let Bernie win the primary campaigns solidly, and they'll flock to him. Otherwise, they're going to help the long-time party servant, not the gadfly - that's what they're there for.

I don't believe in destroying the old Democratic Party, defecating on its torch-bearers, and starting anew every 4 years.


I would add another book to the list (none / 0) (#24)
by mm on Fri Feb 26, 2016 at 10:17:00 AM EST

Fools for Scandal: How The Media Invented Whitewater


Sanders gave up on SC ... (none / 0) (#2)
by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 12:58:49 PM EST

days ago.

The campaign had a hard choice:

Work hard in SC and probably still lose by just as much.

Or start focusing on Super Tuesday.

And that's not looking too great for him right now.

He only has one state on Super Tuesday that is really "in the bank". And that's his home state.

But if he somehow manages to win four states on Super Tuesday. His campaign buys itself a few more weeks. And giving up on SC looks like the right choice.

The Sanders campaign is in survival mode. They don't have a lot of great choices right now. Just some less bad ones.

He spent (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 01:36:06 PM EST

a lot of money in the first three states however if he had ended up winning all of them I guess it would have looked like genius.


He actually needed ... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 02:02:12 PM EST

an outright win in Iowa (not a millennial participation trophy win) and to win Nevada.

I still don't think he could have won even with those victories. But he needed them to present any chance of even suggesting he had a winning team and demographic coalition that could take him all the way.

But good thing he didn't.

Because Dems need a candidate who excites minority voters in the general.

And he ain't it.


Lee on the 3rd Day at Gettysburg (none / 0) (#9)
by Trickster on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 02:51:46 PM EST

A lot of people criticize him for taking heavy losses with Pickett's Charge. But Lee knew he had to win big right there or they were going to lose the war soon anyway. So even though Pickett's Charge was a long-shot maneuver, he had to try it.

That's the shape Sanders was in. There were some pretty long odds against him winning all 3, but if he didn't, he was going to lose soon anyway. He made the right strategic decision, but it didn't work out. Them's the breaks, Bernie.


: I agree with Longstreet (none / 0) (#11)
by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:50:38 PM EST

Another time and another place would have suited the Confederacy better.
Lee made a mistake, he was correct in realizing his troops were tired of running and itching for a fight,
But Longstreet called it, wrong place to have the fight