Super Tuesday Results

Final Update 10:00 pm: Fox calls Vermont for Donald Trump. Kasich was two points behind. Why is this the final update? Results are apparently over. Even Fox just switched from analysts to clueless pundits.

Update: 9:30 pm: Hillary wins Massachusetts. Bernie wins Minnesota. Trump won MA on the Republican side, with Rubio coming in a pretty close second. Alaska's polls close in 30 minutes. Vermont is still too close to call, but with 80% of the vote in, Trump is now ahead of Kasich by 2 points.

Fox says Rubio fell short of Cruz in the delegate count tonight. Rubio got shut out of delegates in Texas and Alabama because he didn't get 20% of the vote. But, Rubio got only one delegate less than Trump in Virginia. Fox's number cruncher (think John King on CNN) takes a looks forward to the next two weeks. Florida is 99 delegates, winner take all. Ohio has 66 delegates. Kasich is a threat there. He won 86 of 88 counties in his last election. He won in Ohio's heavily Democratic counties.

Update 9:00 pm: Bernie Sanders wins Colorado, where he spent over a million dollars on ads. He's well ahead of Hillary in Minnesota. Marco Rubio wins Minnesota -- his first victory. Cruz came in second, and Trump third. [More...]

Oddest media coupling: Karl Rove and Joe Trippi on Fox News, who Fox has dubbed the "Campaign Cowboys" as shorthand for "grizzly campaign veterans". Fox says it took the name from the movie Space Cowboys. Whatever... it's a bit unsettling to watch the two yuck it up together with big laughs, which they have been doing all night.

Trump takes 6 states, Cruz takes 2, Rubio has 1. (Vermont is still too close to call, but it's between Trump and Kasich.) Hillary takes 7 states, Bernie takes 4.

What is Bernie's game plan? He's not stupid, he knows he's not going to be the nominee. Most prevalent theory: He wants "his movement" to leave a permanent imprint on the Democratic party and be his legacy.

Republicans didn't campaign in Colorado because no straw vote was taken at caucuses. Why not? There's a dispute between local Republicans and the national party about whether the caucus votes would be binding, and as a result, the state republican party decided there would be no preference vote.

Update: 8:30 pm: Marco Rubio is doing a Fox News interview. He disparages Ted Cruz' total three state win saying Cruz was supposed to clean up in five or seven states. Rubio says he never said he'd win Super Tuesday, tonight is not a big surprise. Rubio said (like Cruz) he appeals to the most conservative and evangelical voters. Rubio said he got a lot of delegates tonight. In Virginia, he says, he got almost as many as Donald Trump.

Rubio says Trump will never be the nominee of the Republican party. He says Republicans have to rally to stop Donald Trump. He calls Trump a "world class con artist." He calls him "a fraud" and a "scam artist." He uses "con artist" at least five times.

Rubio says Trump would be a disaster as a nominee. He says the media created Donald Trump, and the same media will destroy him in the general election, in the unlikely event he becomes the nominee.

Rubio says he's the only one can stop Donald Trump, unify Republicans and beat Hillary. Megan Kelly tells Rubio that Trump is beating 20 points in his home state of Florida. Rubio disputes her numbers. He says he will win in Florida. He says he likes Gov. Kasich, and then refers to him as just "an asterisk."

Update 8:12 pm MT: Ben Carson says he's not dropping out. John Kasich is still doing well in Vermont. Ted Cruz has three states (total, this includes his Iowa win weeks ago.) Marco Rubio has none.

Update 7:10 pm MT: Hillary wins huge around the country. So far, Bernie has Vermont and Oklahoma. On the Republican side, Cruz has won Texas and Oklahoma. Trump has won the remaining states. Will Rubio win any state? John Kasich did well in Vermont.

New phrase from Rubio: He's a "child of the Regan revolution." A Fox News pundit talks about "Establishment Republicans" and "Movement Republicans."

A watchable conservative: Byron York on Fox News. He tried to explain what's going on with Trump and conservatives. He didn't provide much enlightenment, but he kept his voice modulated and didn't insult anyone. I couldn't even tell whether he's a Trump supporter. Unwatchable: Everyone on CNN. Even John King grates on me these days, he's gotten louder and is speaking even faster than usual, much faster than I can listen. Hillary has already given her speech. She said America needs more "kindness and love." I'd rather see a more "happy" America. (I'm still into happy this week, thanks to the happiest, most giddy man on television, James Corden of CBS' Late Late Show.) Trump is such a curmudgeon. Is he ever happy? Does he ever laugh if he's not being sarcastic or snide?

Rubio is speaking now from Miami. Odd phrasing? Right after saying, "I love you Miami", he says, "I've traveled the country and I'm proud to be back." Why would he be proud to be back in Miami? Did he mispeak and mean to say glad or happy vs. proud?

5:10 pm MT: Hillary wins Virginia and Georgia. Bernie Sanders wins....Vermont. Hillary won a trove of delegates just from these two states.

Sanders is in Vermont tonight, Hillary is in Miami. Both will hold campaign events tonight.

Marco Rubio will hold a rally in Florida. Ted Cruz will be in Texas. Trump will hold a press conference at 9 p.m. ET tonight.

Trump has 40% of Georgia, with Cruz and Rubio around 24%. Trump and Kasich are leading in Vermont -- it's too close to call, same for Virginia Repbulicans.

CNN has so many chirons on the bottom of the screen I can turn the sound off and not miss anything except the grating voice of somebody named Gloria and Sanders' top shill Van Jones, who CNN unfortunately holds out as an expert. (I've been outraged all election season that CNN has this guy on an as an expert when all he does is shill for Sanders.) The woman with Gloria in the red dress has the most unflattering eyeglass frames I've ever seen. Whoops, there are three women all with red dresses on the CNN set. I'm talking about the one with the dark hair.)

< Super Tuesday Open Thread | Trump's Super Tuesday Press Conference: He's a "Unifier" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Watching MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Lena on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:02:39 PM EST
    What torture. MSNBC is giving Trump unlimited time for his "victory speech," apparently. Why spend $$ on advertising when MSNBC does it for you?

    I just heard a comment from one ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 11:24:33 PM EST
    ... of the MSNBC panelists tonight, to the effect that "the majority of GOP voters" are going to Donald Trump, as they were discussing various scenarios under which he might still be denied the nomination by the party establishment.

    I really wish that a lot of people, journalists in particular, would learn the difference between the terms "majority" and "plurality." Trump won the Virginia primary tonight with 36% of the vote. While he finished first with a clear plurality, but he didn't win the support of even close to a majority of GOP voters. In fact, 64% of Virginia Republicans still cast their primary ballot today for somebody else. Trump's been benefiting greatly from a still-splintered opposition.

    There is now a definite schism in the GOP. It's pretty clear that about 35-40% of the party's primary voters really want Trump, but also apparent that the rest of the GOP electorate is hardly enamored with or sold on him. Until he starts polling above 50% in primaries with regularity, this could pose a real problem for him down the road, especially should four people stay in the race and keep splitting the vote.

    If the primaries conclude with Trump leading in the delegate count, but still significantly below the threshold of the 1,237 delegates needed to secure the nomination outright -- say, by about 150-200 or so -- I'd look for all hell to break loose at the Republican National Convention, as the establishment makes an aggressive but risky power play to seize on the convention floor what they failed to gain in the popular primary vote.

    The last brokered presidential nominating conventions were in 1948 for Republicans (Thomas Dewey), and 1952 for the Democrats (Adlai Stevenson). Suffice to say that it's been a very long time since the country's borne witness to one in either party, and if history's any guide or indicator, it's not necessarily a pretty sight to behold as various factions dig in their heels. At that point, you can start passing the popcorn.



    With some winner take alls coming up in 2 weeks (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 11:41:41 PM EST
    If Kasich and Rubio don't win their home states it will be extremely difficult to stop Trump unless they change the rules at the convention. If Trump wins either Ohio or Florida he'll be difficult to keep from 1237 by the time this is done.

    The talk of needing other candidates to drop out to stop Trump would be misguided. To stop Trump from reaching the magic number, Kasich, Cruz, and Rubio all need to stay in the race for now.


    GOP senator endorsing Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:26:19 PM EST
    tomorrow, according to several sites.

    Best guesses are that it's Susan Collins.

    Next will come Trump attacking her, because: lady parts.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:35:46 PM EST
    I wonder what the reaction will be to that.

    That would be great (none / 0) (#49)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 11:14:28 PM EST
    remember when the late Sen. Specter switched in 2009? Of course, here we are today, but that did buy us a small reprieve from total GOP horror.

    Some outlets (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:49:05 PM EST
    Calling MA for HRC

    Sure looks that way (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CST on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:55:38 PM EST
    But given the exit polls and how close it is, I see why they are holding off calling it.

    Still, looks like a pretty great night for Clinton.


    Clinton needed about ... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 10:40:28 PM EST
    a 66 pledged delegate margin to make Sanders' chance of catching up all but impossible.

    She dramatically exceeded that. She will walk away from tonight with a 200+ delegate lead.

    Yeah, (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 10:48:27 PM EST
    he's pretty much done. The next few states are not going to help him any.

    In an interesting twist of fate (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 09:45:52 AM EST
    The Bernie backers have a new enemy. They are now attacking Elizabeth Warren.

    No true liberal fallacy (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 09:48:45 AM EST
    Except Bernie Sanders of course.

    Why? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 09:49:50 AM EST
    Because she didn't come out and endorse Bernie? Honestly her endorsement might not have made any difference if you remember 2008 and Kerry and Kennedy endorsing Obama.

    Yep (none / 0) (#78)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 09:52:08 AM EST
    They want to try and get someone to primary her for not endorsing Sanders.

    Maybe there was a reason she didn't....?


    "they" (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 09:58:14 AM EST
    not MA voters.

    Yes (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:01:54 AM EST
    "The Bernie backers" previously referenced.

    yea (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by CST on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:04:21 AM EST
    I wasn't arguing with you, I'm just annoyed with "them" and felt the need to clarify that this isn't going to happen in real life because "they" are all taking crazy pills and Elizabeth Warren's seat is safe from a primary and if she's not good enough for these people - no one is.

    Having just read some of the critical (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 06:32:22 PM EST
    comments posted to Sen. Warren's Facebook page, misogyny once again rears its ugly head, I think we can put to rest the ridiculous claim that people do not hate political women, they just hate Hillary. And I do realize that not all people fall into this category, but many do. And many of them appear to be men.

    How dare Warren make her own political decisions! Doesn't she know her place?


    You know (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 06:47:36 PM EST
    though this disrespect was even obvious looking back with the people demanding she run for president. She said no over and over and they would not accept that. It was like she should do it because they said so even though she obviously did not want to run.

    Oh, I know you weren't (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:08:56 AM EST
    Just clarifying because there are a couple of people with selective reading skills who will now accuse me of being a shill and piling on to Bernie, his supporters, Elizabeth Warren, (fill in the blank), whatever.

    Apparently bevause I show support for one candidate, I'm supposed to be "fair and balanced" with regards to the other.  I guess they got that idea from Fox News or something.


    Has (none / 0) (#106)
    by sallywally on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 11:58:49 AM EST
    she endorsed anyone??

    No (none / 0) (#123)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:36:50 PM EST
    Rachel maddow stated very (none / 0) (#125)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:40:50 PM EST
    pointedly that Warren is the only woman in the Senate that has not endorsed Clinton. Seemed like she was implying that was tantamount to an endorsement of Bernie, so the false reports weren't wrong in spirit.

    Warren is wise... (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 01:00:50 PM EST
    not to endorse.  I would think she'd prefer Sanders, for obvious reasons, but knows he can't win.  And when she endorses Hillary after the primary, it will help bring Bernie supporters on board, and help dispel doubts about whether Hillary is serious about addressing the rigging in our economy.

    yes, I do agree (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 01:45:52 PM EST
    but have to add that the doubts about whether Hillary is serious about the rigged economy were raised by Bernie...so how are he and Warren going to dispel them now?

    Come now ruffian... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 02:29:28 PM EST
    Those doubts are older than the Sanders campaign...it was an issue in the 2008 primary as well.  The only difference was Obama took as much Wall St. money as Clinton, if not more, so there was little to no contrast between the candidates on this issue.  Bernie has highlighted the doubts by being in contrast, but he did not raise them or invent them.  

    OK, I see where the mixture of issues is (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 02:37:02 PM EST
    The source of campaign donations is leading people to conclude that the candidates Obama and Clinton do not care about income inequality or a rigged economy. I just don't believe that.

    Pleaze... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 03:00:23 PM EST
    ... at least for Obama, his admin has been a revolving door of WS folks including Holder & Geithner.  I think a lot of people know why no one was held to the flame for the housing/foreclosure BS and it ain't because no one is to blame.

    Elizabeth Warren: "Enough is Enough" With Obama's Wall Street Appointees

    I wish I had an hour with Obama and some truth (none / 0) (#152)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 03:04:33 PM EST
    serum. I have a hard time believing he picked these guys because he was bought off...but we all clearly deserve a better explanation than we have gotten. I agree wholeheartedly with that.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 03:42:48 PM EST
    it's to the point of no other choice but to hire bankers to regulate the banks, the system is so complex that it takes someone with deep knowledge and experience to be qualified. It's hard to imagine that anybody with those tools would sacrifice more than a couple of years working for government peanuts.

    To be blunt, when President Sanders moves to break up the big banks next spring, he will have to hire bankers to do it. Yeah, the system is rigged, but there is no quick or easy fix.


    OK, So We Should Hire Industry Insiders... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 04:37:42 PM EST
    ... for appointments that regulate the industry ?

    Seriously, if it's too complected that only they understand then it's absolutely, without a doubt, something that is not allowed.  The notion that you can make your industry so complex that only the insiders understand it is why Sanders was even in this race.

    That is called brainwashing from WS and it's permeated into everything including TL.  Democrats saying Elizabeth Warren is wrong on WS appointments in the government.

    Maybe if Trump's tax return is too complex we will hire his accounts as auditors.

    Good fricken gravy, now I have heard it all.


    Nail on the head sir! (none / 0) (#183)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 06:38:27 PM EST
    Imagine a homicide detective saying "Damn this is the most complicated murder I've ever investigated, we better get the accused to prosecute the case, no one else can understand it!"

    I have assumed it was because (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 06:13:01 PM EST
    He was tight with University of Chicago economists. Actually, I'm fairly certain I read about that kinship early in his Presidency.

    People who follow economic policy often divide up the schools of thought into freshwater economists and saltwater. Chicago is considered freshwater. It was a lot of "fresh" economists who cheered us into the crash. Krugman falls under salty.


    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 06:31:29 PM EST
    it was Obama's association with the University of Chicago that really caused the problems with the economic advisers.

    Remember U of C is the home of Milton Friedman and the birthplace of supply side.


    He Didn't Hire Them... (none / 0) (#158)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 04:29:27 PM EST
    ...because he was bought off.  But the money is what creates the relationships that lead to these appointments.

    So, playing Devil's Advocate (none / 0) (#154)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 03:23:25 PM EST
    Leaving aside actual names, what kind of people shoukd fill these positions?  No one with Wall Street experience?  Some people with Wall Street experience and some academics?  If you agree that some positions could be filled with people with Wall Street ecperience, how many and in what kinds of positions?

    Should we put a person with no Wall Street experience in charge to regulate financial markets (ala Michael Brown of FEMA)?  You say you work in accounting/finance - should we put you or someone with your skills in a high level position?

    I agree that it is a revolving door, but I don't think the answer is as easy as you think. I'm genuinely curious as to whom you think woukd be good  (and the article you posted about Warren doesn't give any suggestions).


    Well, for starters, (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by NYShooter on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 04:50:32 PM EST
    we have an army of regulators, who, by definition, have to know all the ins and outs of the system. They know where the bodies are buried, but, because they also know the government is in cahoots with the Banksters, they've been reluctant to take any aggressive steps against them.

    Another pool to draw from would be the top executives of the many regional banks. They, also, know how the game is played, but, because their charters preclude them from getting involved in the tax-payer guaranteed gambling the TBTF Banks have been playing they've had to watch it from afar.

    Then, you have the executives who are a rung or two below the 50 million dollar bonus boys at the top. I'm sure there are a few who haven't been corrupted by the system yet.

    And, there more, but this is at least a start.


    Um... (none / 0) (#168)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 05:01:08 PM EST
    Whete do those regulators come from?  What are their backgrounds?

    And bank executives who make $40 million bonuses are ok?

    You do realize that "Wall Street" just doesn't mean a street in NYC where most large financial companies arent even located, right?  


    Let me try, jb. Academics are (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 05:57:22 PM EST
    certainly one place to recruit. Stiglitz, Krugman, people like them, not necessarily them. Bill Black would be a great choice for Treasury or the SEC.

    State prosecutors who have worked financial crime cases are another source.

    We could start recruiting young lawyers for lower level positions, give them experience and promote them.

    These are just a few ideas. Knowledge of the financial industry is not limited to those who rake in the big bucks on Wall Street.


    Robert Reich... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 06:35:10 PM EST
    comes to mind too. Liz Warren, if she wasn't a senator. Can we clone her? ;)

    Even members of the media who have covered the greatest financial crimes of the late 20th/early 21st Century.  I'd rather enjoy Matt Taibbi as head of the SEC, he can hire the forensic bean counters.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#185)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 08:52:45 PM EST
    But I think we need more than lawyers. (Here's an old joke among lawyers - they went to law school because they weren't good at math).  But state prosecutors don't do a lot of high level financial fraud cases.  They usually prosecute workers' comp and state insurance fraud.  The cases where you have defendants as the big banks and financial houses- those are generally federal cases, prosecuted by Assistant US Attorneys. And most of those, naturally, are in NY, although there are some in other places.

    But it's a start.  Odd that those who rail against the system don't actually have specific suggestions though.

    I don't think you can regulate big banks without having SOME Wall Steet experience as regulators.  Oh, we could be pie in the sky dreamers and say, "Well, the system shouldn't be that complex."  Except, it IS that complex.  Wishing it were different won't make it so. I'd rather have some peiple on there who KNOW the tricks of the trade, rather than having a while force of people who might have read about it somewhere.

    But I appreciate that someone actually took my question seriously and not as a chance to imagine that it was a cheerleading gambit fir HRC.


    I thought you were asking a serious question, (none / 0) (#171)
    by NYShooter on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 05:10:39 PM EST
    I won't be making that mistake again.

    Funny... (3.50 / 2) (#160)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 04:44:30 PM EST
    ... you could just say playing HRC advocate.  I mean why beat around the bush.  

    I think I addressed this above, but if it's too complicated for non-industry regulators to understand, it should not be legal.

    That is one hell of a racket, make your industry so complex that the US Government has no other option but to hire industry insiders.


    So (none / 0) (#164)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 04:58:21 PM EST
    You are beyond the point of ever giving me a thought ful, rational answer to legitimate questions becayse of your insanely clouded judgment. I never mentioned HRC, but you are apparently obsessed.

    Ok, got it.

    But now we all know not to take you too seriously because you can't be rational about things like this.


    Don't Blame Me... (none / 0) (#200)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 11:36:13 AM EST
    ... because you have starry eyes for HRC, after I asked you a criticism and you replied with some tom foolery*, that is when I knew you were incapable of being objective in anything related to HRC.

    Like right now, I am pretty sure all you are doing is laying the groundwork for the inevitable HRC appointments.  You are defending the indefeasible and calling me irrational.

    When you decide to be serious I will reply to you comments seriously.  I am not going to go back and forth with someone who can't find a real criticism with someone who has been in/around politics for around 50 years.  That would be the definition of futility.

    *The criticisms, off the top of my head were, not shutting down Sanders supporters with more force, that she tries too hard to be cool, and some other silly personality trait silliness.

    FWIW, we are in this spot, with industry people regulating their industries because of the dollars.  Acting like that is where we are and nothign can be done is ridiculous, anything done, can be undone, but that isn't going to happen when Presidents and candidates, on both sides, are taking money from them in order to get elected/re-elected.  That is why I like Sanders, on one issue, but I was never a supporter, and while I told you that time and time again, you lack of objectivity made it impossible for you to understand that.

    I am under no obligation to provide you, or anyone, a list of names.  This is not my industry, nor am I in any way qualified to understand the requirements.  I can state the coal industry should not be regulated by former coal company CEO's without having to provide a list of names of people who are capable of regulating the coal industry.  We need industry people, just not in top appointments, we need people who are objective working with people who understand the industry.  

    The notion that the US government doesn't have the resources to find people capable, and not directly related, is silly, if that is the case, our government has seriously failed us and indisputable proof that industry dollars, that many here claim to have no influence, have more influence than our government is capable of controlling.

    But I believe it can be fixed, that the US government has the resources to regulate every industry in way that balance both the industry and the best interests of the public.  But it has to start with not taking their 'uninfluential' dollars and not appointing industry people in top positions.


    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 12:48:22 PM EST
    Move on, dude.

    Your obsession of what you think I believe is getting crazy.


    Bernie could get a lot of cred in this area (none / 0) (#202)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 12:55:23 PM EST
    by floating some names. Is he doing that?

    It doesn't bear much scrutiny (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Trickster on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 09:55:44 PM EST
    Numerous academics have examined the link between campaign contributions and online votings concluded there pretty much isn't one.  In the biz, it pretty much goes without saying that what you get for your money is access.

    But the clincher is that, if she had actually sold out, it would show up in her votes in the Senate or in her platform.  It doesn't.


    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#147)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 02:50:56 PM EST
    I do believe it is a conflict of interest and has at least some effect on governing...even if only on a semi or sub-conscious level.

    Not to say I think Obama & Clinton don't care, or that they're "crooked"...just that I don't think it is possible for millions in campaign and super-pac donations not to have an effect on their decisions and focus.  And the proof is in the income gap.

    Good news is I don't think the issue can be back-burnered or neglected anymore...it's coming to a head.  Thanks to Occupy, Liz Warren, Bernie Sanders, Robert Reich, and many others.


    With you there (none / 0) (#153)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 03:12:57 PM EST
    It definitely is systemic and everyone is probably influenced, some more overtly than others. And some need less money to win election in their state so it is easier to only take it from the 'correct' donors.

    I think the Wolf PAC campaign for constitutional conventions in every state to get an constitutional amendment for campaign finance reform is the best idea I have heard. It is the only way that starts at the ground up and goes around the DC machine.


    The last thing we need is a round of state-level (none / 0) (#186)
    by Peter G on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 09:23:34 PM EST
    constitutional conventions with a mandate to amend the First Amendment. Lord knows what they'd come up with (after repealing the Establishment Clause, that is). The path to overturning Citizens United is a couple of progressive appointees to the Supreme Court and test case or two. That precedent can be cut back and gutted just like the reactionaries did to Roe v Wade. It's a push and pull, not a one-way ratchet.

    ruffian: They'll figure it out (none / 0) (#141)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 01:51:45 PM EST
    Because it is in the party's interest and their interest to do so.  Campaign rhetoric is toned down at the great coming together of a convention (unless--cough, cough--we are looking at the great coming apart Republican convention scheduled in little over four months.)

    Christ...imma bout to lose patience (none / 0) (#178)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 06:14:17 PM EST
    At this point in the race (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:03:37 AM EST
    Compared to 2008, HRC has a notably larger lead over Sanders than the one that Barack Obama had over her.

    - and noticebly fewer voters in those numbers (none / 0) (#84)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:16:04 AM EST
    Yes it is (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:33:08 AM EST
    And that's shameful.

    But it really has no bearing on a general election.

    Voter turnout for Republicans is higher because they've been in mostly red states with a lot of candidates.  In races with fewer candidates, or where there is a clear front runner, turnout is usually lower.

    Turnout has been low comparitvely among young people. Not unusally so, but there's no revolution sweeping across the land,despite what you might hear.

    Also, 20,000 people in MA changed from Dem to Indy or Republican. You think that means it's turning into a red state? Amazingly, they still had record turnout.

    I'm not worried

    There are a few major problems, however, in trying to use turnout in the primaries to extrapolate what will happen in the general election.

    The first is historical. Michael McDonald, a professor at the University of Florida and a voter turnout guru, notes that in 2000 the Republican primary turnout ran ahead of that for Democrats (by around 3 million votes), and yet Al Gore won the popular vote over George Bush.

    Over at RealClearPolitics, Sean Trende adds that 1988 saw the second-highest Democratic primary turnout ever. But Republican George H.W. Bush went on to win the general election anyway.

    Another big reason not to overanalyze the primary data: The Republican coalition is primed to participate in these early contests in a way the Democratic coalition isn't.

    Republican voters tend to be better-educated, wealthier, older white people, McDonald said. This demographic votes with much greater frequency in midterm and congressional elections than the Democratic coalition, which is one reason Democrats have held on to the presidency while losing other branches of government. That dynamic limits the number of Democratic voters who show up to the primaries as well, McDonald said.

    You Should Be Worried... (none / 0) (#103)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 11:47:57 AM EST
    ...we all should be, that analysis lost me at 'Republican voters tend to be better-educated' in a race with Trump leading, and the 1998 & 2000 comparisons instead of 2008 or 2012.

    Dallas Republicans scramble for more ballots as GOP voter turnout `through the roof'

    Voter turnout overwhelmed some North Texas precincts today as Super Tuesday shaped up to tell a tale of two primaries: Republicans stood in long lines, while their Democratic counterparts breezed through their ballots.

    By late afternoon, Dallas County Republicans faced a problem they had never seen before: a shortfall of ballots.

    Why would red states matter, they were red states last time around.  On the news they mentioned that turn out so far is completely opposite of 2012.  D's had 8M to R's 5M in the primaries at this point, is the opposite with D's at 5M and R's 8M.

    While I don't think primaries are a good predictor, they most certainly show trends and all D's should be nervous that there has been a 6M voter turn out swing with only 13M cast.


    "So far" in terms of the calendar (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Towanda on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 11:58:25 AM EST
    or in terms of the number of states aka number of primaries and caucuses?  

    The calendar is different this time for Republicans, I read, with more states sooner.  

    So, if those media were basing that concern on the calendar -- and didn't do their homework on the difference -- then, this would be less worrisome.

    I'm trying to find reportage on this, relevant to what you saw or read.  Remember any sources?


    It Was on The Today Show... (none / 0) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 01:41:22 PM EST
    ...and I looked for it before I posted.  The numbers I remember because I was surprised enough to rewind it.

    It's up at NBC, it was 2008, not 2012.

    More than 5.6 million votes were cast in the Democratic contest on Tuesday in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia. About 8.3 million were cast on the GOP side in the same set of states.  

    But back in 2008, about 8.2 million votes were cast in the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the same nine states. On the GOP side, it was just about five million.



    Yeah (none / 0) (#139)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 01:46:56 PM EST
    Like I posted earlier, 2008 was an extreme outlier, since 1972, Suoer Tuesday turnout has been steadily declining.

    And So it 2016 (none / 0) (#150)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 03:00:55 PM EST
    Ah, not 2012 but 2008 (none / 0) (#177)
    by Towanda on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 06:13:22 PM EST
    Well, 2008 was an aberrant year in so many ways that I would have to see longitudinal analysis or something for this, then, to be worrisome.

    Not worried because ... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:19:37 PM EST
    ... There is next to nothing going on in the D primary to get excited about unless you are a political junkie. There are two flawed but broadly well-liked (among Democrats) if not well-known (Sanders) candidates, one of which is the obvious pick by her resume. No one but us has much reason to bother even thinking about it, and by last night's results it is difficult to argue with that - in retrospect. Of course we knew the outcome wasn't assured, but we are that sort of people. Expect turnout to decrease now that she is all but the foregone nominee.

    Compare this to the R side, where they are immersed in a battle royal between candidates that loathe each other with supporters that find the other guy unacceptable. A battle over what the party will look like; maybe over whether or not it will exist. Of course their turnout is through the roof.


    Well (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 11:59:28 AM EST
    having Cruz being from Texas might account for something. I live in a heavily GOP district and there was really no upsurge in voting but I haven't checked GA as whole and it might be up from previous years.

    2012 (none / 0) (#109)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:04:46 PM EST
    Is a useless year to compare to - there was a Democratic incumbent running unopposed.

    And if you don't want to believe the historical demographics from a voting exoert, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

    The sites I see most pushing the "Democrats are worried...." are conservative sites, which means the cable news people then feel obligated to pick it up.

    No, I'm not going to worry in March.


    Primary voters (none / 0) (#117)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:21:56 PM EST
    Don't look like America

    For starters, it's a small group. Just 20 percent of American adults vote in presidential primaries. They tend to be older, whiter, and better-educated than your average general election voter.

    Primary voters also tend to be highly partisan, which helps explain why ideas at the fringes of each party (free college for all, a giant wall along the Mexican-US border) gain traction during the primaries.

    Also, "Super Tuesday" began in 1988 and since then, voter turnout has fallen, with the exception of 2008 (because of its historic nature with two of the candidates), so that is probably why 2008 was not considered in the other analysis I posted.

    Primary voting is about 20%.   General Ekection is about 50%.

    Still not worried.


    And this quote re the factor (none / 0) (#179)
    by Towanda on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 06:18:03 PM EST
    of the changed calendar by Republicans that I had read about (at fivethirtyeight.com) is from your link:

    "Our primary is earlier this cycle. . . . In 2012, the nominee was already established. Texas still has a voice in the outcome."


    Good analysis by Jamelle Bouie (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:28:34 AM EST
    At Slate

    Upshot is that the efforts of the Obama ground game that continued after 2008 to make black voters regular voters have paid off. They are coming close to or exceeding g their vote share in the 2008 primaries. This is a really good result for sustained voter outreach. Hope we can start to replicate it among youthful voters.

    That is good news (none / 0) (#96)
    by Towanda on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 11:01:58 AM EST
    as I did not think that the "Obama coalition" would continue -- although is there evidence that it came through in the midterm election in 2012?  and that it helped downticket?  From the composition of Congress, I don't think so.  And what the party really needs is turnout for more than president, and every year.

    538 delegate tracker (none / 0) (#1)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 06:15:17 PM EST
    may be useful:

    Our delegate tracker interactive projects that Clinton would need to win 453 delegates tonight to be "on track" for a majority of pledged delegates, while Sanders would need 412.

    So, I'd say anything under close to 500 would be a very good night for Clinton, while anything over 550 would be a terrific night. Anything over 400 would be a celebration-worthy night for Sanders, while anything under 300 would be a viability-devastating outcome for him.

    (The longer and in-depth analysis is good reading.)

    NYT delegate tracker (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 07:33:28 PM EST
    projects Clinton as more than halfway to 500 delegates (with 266) with her fifth win, Arkansas, at 7:30 pm CDT.

    Clinton about 15 delegates (none / 0) (#41)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 10:27:29 PM EST
    away from hitting her target per the NYT tracker -- and it has yet to call Massachusetts.

    Sanders about 180 delegates from hitting his target to still have a good path to the nomination.  And it ain't gonna happen.


    And she's over her target (none / 0) (#42)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 10:28:26 PM EST
    as soon as I clicked to post.



    Sanders' loss in MA has to hurt. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 01:17:03 AM EST
    And winning there was an unexpected but welcome boost for Hillary Clinton, because her campaign had been downplaying expectations in MA, even as both the candidate and her husband made personal appearances.

    Good (none / 0) (#2)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 06:26:43 PM EST
    news for Rubio, making it close in VA
    Bad news for Rubio, struggling in third in GA.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 06:40:13 PM EST
    that does not surprise me one bit about Rubio.

    Rubio (none / 0) (#5)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 06:46:05 PM EST
    might get skunked in delegates in Ga.

    Hillary's numbers (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 06:39:35 PM EST
    in VA are really shocking to me. She's getting a ton of votes in Appalachia. I mean something like 95% of the vote there is going to her.

    She's winning (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 07:15:31 PM EST
    most groups

    All income levels
    Postgraduate degrees
    College degrees
    Some college
    HS diploma
    NoVa suburbs
    Tidewater / Southeast
    Richmond area

    She even is winning "very liberal" by 10+!

    Bernie is winning 17-29 and indys


    Exit polls (none / 0) (#6)
    by CST on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 07:03:05 PM EST
    Show Bernie winning Oklahoma and MA

    CNN (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 08:18:09 PM EST
    says they have now changed in MA and show Hillary winning however it looks like Bernie is going to take OK.

    Yep (none / 0) (#7)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 07:14:15 PM EST
    and showed Cruz ahead in OK, interesting, bodes well for Ark and Tex, he might be able to pad his delegate count.

    Oklahoma (none / 0) (#15)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 08:16:49 PM EST
    being called for Cruz, first upset of the night.

    Ok (none / 0) (#18)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 08:19:39 PM EST
    to Sanders.

    HRC (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 07:19:09 PM EST
    Up in big Texas with 5% in

    A view (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 01:10:17 PM EST
    jbindc: A particularly striking aspect about last night's HRC victories is the extent of her vote-getting appeal.  The results and underlying demographics in Texas, Virginia, and Massachusetts demonstrate that breadth.  The "older youth" component--30 to 45 (or thereabouts)--is starting to move to her favor as well.  (For future reference, even the under-30 group has shown a shift of 10 to 15 percent more toward her.)

    A point about the Latino vote: Consider Texas and its example of well over 60 percent support for HRC.  In Colorado, no numbers can really be available from the caucuses given the unusual packed circumstances last night here, but.... Although Clinton definitely has work to do in Colorado--including spending advertising $$$ in the general, presumably--she did manage solid wins in a few counties: (1) In the eastern plains counties, and (2) In two southernmost counties bordering New Mexico, which have the highest proportion of Hispanic populace in the state (Conejos and Costilla counties.)

    Later about the semi-managed chaos of the Colorado caucus system this year ... where superprecinct sites were overrun with numbers sometimes exceeding fire codes, multi-hour waits outside, shouted meetings in schoolyards, people turned away after waiting for hours, etc.  Balanced against the real & overwhelming physical challenges at many sites--as seen personally and as reported on TV last night and this a.m.--is the uplifting fact of youthful exuberance.  As expected, Sanders did very well with his Colorado win; but, note also, that the delegate allocation under the rules is a lot closer than he might like.  Wherever Colorado goes in future primary seasons, I really expect some change--either in the caucus system or in a return to a more expansive, accessible primary system.  That is a matter for another day, of course.


    The Democratic Party in American Samoa (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 07:21:38 PM EST
    Has said HRC has won.

    Whew! Some exit polls (not for American (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 07:36:42 PM EST
    Samoa) indicate 50% of people voting Republican do not want to see Trump become U.S. President.

    Yes, northern Virginia Dems (none / 0) (#13)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 07:49:27 PM EST
    did a lot of crossover to vote against Trump, per a lot of reports.

    Unfortunately, a lot of them reportedly went to Cruz.  That was unwise.  They ought to have gone to Rubio . . . who is going nowhere.


    CBS just called Texas for Cruz. (none / 0) (#14)
    by caseyOR on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 08:00:58 PM EST
    Also, Texas went to Clinton.

    Super Tuesday (none / 0) (#16)
    by AnnL on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 08:17:33 PM EST
    What's going on in Mass?

    It's very close (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 08:27:13 PM EST
    Which everyone pretty much saw coming.

    The last (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 08:36:03 PM EST
    word Rubio ever needs to use in sentence describing himself is the word "child". He's becoming the new Jeb Bush it would seem.

    ... and was the exact word she used for Marco Rubio: child.

    "Oh, just look at him, he pouts," she said. "Adults don't pout -- or at least they're not supposed to, anyway. He so reminds me of my cousin Walt, even down to his big ears -- you probably don't remember Walt, but he was born later in Aunt Ann's life when she was 43 so she just spoiled him rotten, and he'd whine and pout if he didn't get his way even when he was 40, may he rest in peace."

    This was the most animated I've heard her in a while. She's really excited for Hillary Clinton with all those wins tonight. I think there are a lot of middle-aged and older women like her who really want to see history made with the first female president, even if they won't quite come out and admit it. I do, too, but that's because I also believe that Hillary Clinton is the best person for the job.

    Besides, if not now -- when?


    It looks (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 08:50:32 PM EST
    like Rubio is completely shut of delegates here in Ga and Cruz managed to pick up one lowly delegate. I guess you could say at least Cruz got something.

    They (none / 0) (#24)
    by FlJoe on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:15:02 PM EST
    will get more than that, most if not all the districts are going to be split 2 to 1 with Trump getting most if not all of the 14 districts and Rubio Cruz splitting the rest, anybody above 20% will get a share of the 30 at large delegates.

    Rubio is in real trouble in TX, TN, VT and Al of not even making the 20% threshold for at large and making it doubtful he can pick up many district delegates, though he should be able to to that in some states.

    Rubio is looking at more thirds than seconds, his delegate count will be pathetic, there is not enough lipstick in the media's kit to spin this one, he is toast.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:22:37 PM EST
    I agree. Rubio is toast.

    Just got back from CO caucus... (none / 0) (#25)
    by magster on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:19:09 PM EST
    ... unlike reports of IA and NV, very well organized. Very congenial, Kumbayah.

    Doesn't make it any less undemocratic as Sanders' probably carried the HS lunchroom, but will get 2/3 the delegates.

    When will we hear CO results? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:21:10 PM EST
    Soon? or no?

    Looks like Sanders will win (none / 0) (#33)
    by magster on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:42:19 PM EST
    About 60-40. My caucus site was very representative apparently.

    what age group (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 10:24:54 PM EST
    was most representative at your caucus? Were there more millenials or boomers? What about male/female?

    Seemed like all demographics were... (none / 0) (#43)
    by magster on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 10:34:43 PM EST
    pretty well represented, at least as far as Douglas County goes. I was surprised at how many older voters were Bernie frankly.

    Seemed like all demographics were... (none / 0) (#44)
    by magster on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 10:34:57 PM EST
    pretty well represented, at least as far as Douglas County goes. I was surprised at how many older voters were Bernie frankly.

    thanks, (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 11:27:52 PM EST
    I didn't know you were in Douglas county.

    How was it at your own caucus, Jeralyn? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 11:28:33 PM EST
    I'd turn on some results but every time I do (none / 0) (#27)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:21:29 PM EST
    there is some Republical giving his 'remarks'. I guess they call them remarks now since no one concedes anything. So thanks for the updates everyone!

    I know... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:29:54 PM EST
    Cruz now...surf away, come back, he's still babbling.

    Finally he shuts up.


    Rubio (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:54:02 PM EST
    sounds just like those stupid pundits when it comes to Hillary. Oh, so she won GA by 50 pts? Well, why didn't she win it by 60 POINTS. Rubio got completely shut out tonight and he's losing in his home state. You're done Rubio but you just don't know it yet.

    Rubio may have hit a new high tonight (none / 0) (#37)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 10:04:28 PM EST
    He's leading in Minnesota so all those victory speeches he's been giving each election night were just a primer for this one state.

    Unlucky for Rubio, he'll now drop to 3rd in the delegate count because he's going to take the goose egg in delegate rich Texas.


    Florida hasn't voted yet (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 10:22:30 PM EST
    He may or may not lose. And he did win Minnesota and got a lot of delegates from coming in second in Virginia. I wouldn't count him out yet. I think he has more of a chance than Ted Cruz, whom Republicans in Congress don't like.

    Well, (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 10:46:52 PM EST
    polling is showing him losing to Cruz and so far that polling has been pretty much right.

    Rubio needs to win Florida, Jeralyn. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 11:53:42 PM EST
    A victory by him there, and a brokered GOP convention becomes a very real possibility. That the best that the party establishment can hope for at this point.

    But even should that happen, Rubio's not going to be the nominee. Rather, he's now reduced to trying to play spoiler, hoping to deny Trump the nomination outright on behalf of that aforementioned establishment. Should a brokered convention occur, it will probably yield a GOP nominee who's not presently in the race, because hard feelings will likely rule the day and no faction will allow one of the other factions to prevail. (Hello, Paul Ryan?)

    So, it's not necessarily in the Democrats' interests to see a brokered GOP convention, because brokered conventions are entirely unpredictable and we could end up facing a true wild card.



    Thought I saw a tweet that.... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by magster on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:04:09 AM EST
    Gov. RIck Scott endorsed Trump. Rubio won't win FL, imo.

    I don't think he will, either. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 01:05:07 AM EST
    "Marco Rubio is a bag of feathers they have to nail to the floor to keep him from floating off."
    - Charles Pierce, "All In with Chris Hayes," MSNBC (Feb. 29, 2016)

    I don't even think Florida will be all that close. With the apparent exception of Republicans in Minnesota, I think most people have Marco Rubio's number and see him for what he is.



    lol. I don't know what he is, (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 08:43:24 AM EST
    but I know what he isn't.

    He isn't a president.


    It's a big night for Sanders (none / 0) (#38)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 10:14:25 PM EST
    He's still going to get hammered in the delegate count but did have a successful run this evening in the caucus states. The problem for Sanders is he was beaten in the four biggest states on the calendar this evening.

    Another tough spot for Sanders, even with a good night winning four states, when superdelegates are added in he's still losing two of the states he won tonight. (Colorado and Minnesota)

    Good, but short of expectations (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 04:44:57 AM EST
    His team was predicting winning 5 states.  He fell short.

    This dimwad (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 10:54:50 PM EST
    on facebook just said that she wants Bernie to win the nomination so she can vote for Gary Johnson but will vote for the Republican if it is Hillary. I'm like well, that's a great endorsement of Bernie. You want him to win but then won't even vote for him?

    Ah, Facebook! (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:31:54 AM EST
    She sounds like what Betty White was talking about during her opening monologue, when she hosted Saturday Night Live (May 8, 2010):

    "You know, I have so many people to thank for being here, but I really have to thank Facebook. When I first heard about the campaign to get me to host 'Saturday Night Live,' I didn't know what Facebook was. And, now that I do know what it is, I have to say, it sounds like a HUGE waste of time. I would never say that people on it are losers -- but that's only because I'm polite.

    "People say, 'But Betty, Facebook is a great way to connect with old friends.' Well, at my age, if I want to connect with old friends, I need a Ouija board. Needless to say, we didn't have Facebook when I was growing up. We had Phonebook, but you wouldn't waste an afternoon on it. Facebook just sounds like a drag. In my day, seeing pictures of people's vacations was considered a punishment. And, when we were kids, we didn't say we were single. We were just kids! It was weird if you weren't single!"

    May we all be that cool and hip as older adults.


    Ohio and Fl (none / 0) (#60)
    by smott on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 07:24:29 AM EST
    Are winner take all for delegates.

    If Trump wins one of them, it'll be very difficult to stop him.
    If he wins both , it's likely over.

    I start to entertain notions of for ex) Cruz and Rubio telling all their OH voters to vote for Kasich, or something like that. Basically a NotTrump push.

    I don't (none / 0) (#69)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 09:03:12 AM EST
    see them actually telling their voters to vote for someone else, Trump would just scream collusion. However this is shaping up to be a defacto divide and deny strategy. It's getting almost impossible for anybody besides Trump to outright win the nomination but there are several pathways to deny him the majority.

    You are correct that the anybody but Trump crowd can take a little solace in the fact that there remain three different candidates that can possibly compete with him in different areas of the country.


    The next two weeks (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 09:17:49 AM EST
    Are going to be quite a ride.  There seems to be agreement that if he wins Ohio and FL it really is over.

    Good point about no winnowing.    Cruz won enough to stay in, Marco and Kasich will be on till their states so no one is going anywhere.

    Full panic mode red alert is now in effect.  

    About the prevent defense, I just heard Bill Krystol agree that yes it would be suicide to take the nomination but many republicans think suicide would be preferable to a Trump candidacy.

    I said a while ago this might be the only way they coukd stop him but I didn't believe they would pull the trigger.    I still don't.
    In any other year against any other democrat, maybe.   Not this year.  Not against Hillary.

    It will be interesting to see if Marco is willing to lose his home state by 20 points.   Hard to believe he will.   They say Rick Scott will endorse Donsld soon.  I guess that was the news that didn't happen last night.  


    It's hard (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 09:32:49 AM EST
    to know exactly what the GOP is going to do come convention time. They might go for suicide since there are rumblings that a number of GOP senators are getting ready to defect publicly to Hillary if Trump is the nominee. So is it worse to have Trump as your nominee with elected officials publicly defecting or take away the nomination from Trump at the convention and hold together what is left of the party?

    actually (none / 0) (#85)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:26:30 AM EST
    the contests leading up to WTA Tuesday do not look all that good for Trump

    This Sat: KS,KY,ME all closed Caucus
              LA closed primary

    This Sunday; PR

    Next Tues: Hawaii closed Caucus
               Idaho closed primary
               Michigan & Mississippi open primaries.

    No real slam dunks for him and he is going to lose some of his advantage with independents. in the closed primary/caucus states. It's possible that the could lose all of the caucus states and even struggle in some of the closed primaries.

    This probably is relatively meaningless in the delegate count, but "only" winning 3 or 4 states out of the next 9 will be spun as him losing his momentum going into march 15th.


    Hmm (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:47:07 AM EST
    let's take a stab at those. Ky and KS are probably Cruz territory. I have no idea about ME. Trump will win LA.

    PR probably Rubio.
    Hawaii who knows?
    Idaho even though it's closed I bet Trump romps there. Trump also will take MI and MS.

    Coming through all those if it's winnowing itself down to two I would imagine it would be Cruz and Trump.


    I (none / 0) (#101)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 11:37:43 AM EST
    could possibly see Kasich stealing Maine and Cruz being competitive in and maybe stealing LA or MS.

    MI looks solid with the non Trumps still fighting over a distant 2nd, don't know much about Idaho but Trump surely has the white supremacist vote locked up so I will give him that one.

    This thing is far from over and things will remain murky until March 15th and possibly beyond.


    Kasich (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 11:56:33 AM EST
    could take Maine considering he almost took VT yesterday though his performance in caucuses has been subpar. I can't imagine either Rubio or Cruz has much support there. It might be a repeat of Vermont with Kasich and Trump fighting it out for a win.

    It has (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 09:26:30 AM EST
    been wild watching the GOP try to spin Trump's results last night. Well, he only got 30% something of the vote etc. etc. etc. They have gone overboard trying to deny what the GOP has been doing for decades.

    Looks like Sanders... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 08:14:21 AM EST
    did enough last night to take his issues all the convention...and for that I'm very happy.  

    4 states, not too shabby.  Keep on Bernin' baby.

    Except the headlines (none / 0) (#62)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 08:23:26 AM EST
    are saying there is no path forward for him. Couple that with him going home to Vermont and giving a speech at 7:30 last evening before disappearing for the night, and Sanders (if not his paid staff) has already resigned himself to the inevitable.

    The possible states he can win (and has won)lack diversity which leaves him running as the small tent of white males Democrat.


    I have no expectations... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 08:30:45 AM EST
    of Bernie getting the nom...the delegate/super delegate count is on the wall.  This whole exercise is about something greater than a simple nomination.  

    I caught some of his speech last night, I thought it was really good...he's finally kicked that flu and got his mojo working for the stretch run, and hopefully beyond.



    the pledged delegate count (none / 0) (#73)
    by CST on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 09:33:08 AM EST
    Is what matters.  The Super delegates aren't going to matter.  And I know that you know that, but it's one of those things going around the internet these days to discredit the eventual nominee - when the truth is - she will almost certainly win fair and square.

    As fair and square... (none / 0) (#87)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:31:01 AM EST
    as these things go, yes there is no doubt.

    Though I heard Slick Willy may have allegedly broken some rules about campaigning inside a polling station in Mass.  No biggie, but the campaign would be wise to keep that loose cannon on a leash going forward.


    No he didn't (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:37:19 AM EST
    Not unless you count his very presence as "distributing campaign materials.".

    jbindc: "No he didn't. Not unless you count his very presence as 'distributing campaign materials.'"

    Yes, most people would interpret his presence at that Boston polling place as "campaign material." While his personal appearance there likely didn't violate Massachusetts election law in a technical sense, it most certainly does run directly counter to the spirit of that law.

    Further, for someone who surely remembers how the Beltway media pounced upon his legal parsing of the definition of the verb "is" during his 1998 deposition in the lawsuit brought by Paula Jones, Mr. Clinton obviously should have known better than to skirt the frontiers of the law as he did. So, too, should have his handlers. They created an unnecessary (if fleeting) controversy and potential distraction for his wife's campaign.



    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 11:30:02 AM EST
    But the Mayor of Boston was there too.   They were thanking poll workers and br8ng them coffee.

    Even if true, as CST says, it's a $20 fine.

    The Secretary of State of MA gave a reminder.  If he didnt see fit to take it further, then there really is nothing more to be discussed, unless you are a Bernie supporter.

    It's kind of like the warning letter the FEC sent to the Sanders' campaign with questions about possible impermissible contribitions that exceeded the limit allowed per election cycle and possible donations from outside the US and from unregistered political committees.

    It will all get worked out - Nothing to see here.


    ... or even Bernie Sanders. And I don't care if Mr. Clinton & Co. broke out their hymnals and started singing "Rock of Ages" to voters as they waited in line yesterday morning.

    Granted, our political media holds the Clintons to a double standard when compared to other candidates and campaigns. But it's a waste of time to argue about a reality that's unlikely to change any time in the foreseeable future. From a campaign perspective, you keep your eye on the prize, accept that it is what it is, and conduct yourselves accordingly.

    So, why give the media something to "tsk-tsk" about, when you don't have to? Bill Clinton's appearance at that polling place created an unnecessary potential risk of controversy, and one which was clearly disproportionate to whatever possible benefit his wife's campaign could have derived from it.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with the law itself, and everything to do with the need of  Bill and Hillary Clinton to avoid even the smallest appearance of impropriety. For her to prevail in November, both must take great pains to not further reinforce the prevailing media narrative that they're somehow shifty and therefore untrustworthy. That didn't happen yesterday morning in Boston.



    it was debatable (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by CST on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    he wasn't actually technically campaigning - although some would suggest his mere presence is campaigning - and they aren't wrong in theory but by the letter of the rule simply being Bill Clinton isn't campaigning.

    Also - this is something that happens at every election in MA, it's not a big deal, and even if you are campaigning they just ask you to leave or move 150 feet away, and the worst case scenario is you get a $20 fine which is less than a parking ticket for an unpaid meter.

    I'm not saying it was a great idea, I just get frustrated with all the tinfoil hats.  Over a million people voted - it was a very fair primary overall.  Compared to what happens at caucuses - where campaigning inside is part of the process - this is nothing.  But none of Bernie's supporters are complaining about caucuses today.  It's just frustrating.


    the double (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:51:23 AM EST
    standard is really annoying. Hillary has to be perfect but the lowest possible standards there are exist for Bernie. He has seems like some serious FEC problems and can you imagine if Hillary had done that? The same people would be yelling and screaming for her to be hauled off to jail.

    As I said, no biggie... (none / 0) (#95)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:56:21 AM EST
    I don't care, just found it a bit funny...leave it to Bill to be the lone blemish on an otherwise huge accomplishment for Hillary in Super Tuesday's hardest fought state, and perhaps most liberal, state.  You just can't take that guy anywhere! ;)

    Without that Mass win, the narrative could have been "Sanders owns north of the Mason-Dixon" or "Hillary the Dixiecrat".  


    The Boston mayor was there too (none / 0) (#97)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 11:04:23 AM EST
    kdog: Take a look at some (none / 0) (#136)
    by christinep on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 01:37:34 PM EST
    very powerful demographics outside the deep south. Especially, look at the large state of Texas, and Virginia, and Massachusetts. Even the early states & demographics in Nevada and Iowa.  The breadth of HRC's vote reach is important ... in the south and well beyond.  

    Certainly, we wouldn't want to suggest that the minorities in the south don't matter in terms of votes nor that the same would be true in the north. We can look forward to seeing more evidence in voter-rich states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania and New York.

    Hillary is honestly winning among both the pledged and unpledged delegates.  She is doing it fairly & squarely.  Her campaign, in my estimation, almost verges on being squeaky clean. Fascinating.  And ...if all continues apace in the state of the Democratic contest, the probability is that Bernie Sanders message will be incorporated into the convention message and beyond.  The progress, to date, suggests a genuine coming-together by May/June.  It will work; and, the contrast with the Republican coming-undone will be persuasively stark.


    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 03:35:39 PM EST
    The argument that Mrs. Clinton's wins in the South  are irrelevant since they are red states anyway, is either uninformed or sour grapes--or both.  These are Democratic Party primaries, and Democrats in Southern states have a right to influence who the nominee should be to run against a Republican challenger in the general election as the Democratic Party's standard bearer.

      This determination is not a direct function of the likely electoral results of that state. Democrats in southern states are just as committed to a Democratic presidential victory over a Republican in this national election. Democrats in the south have an especially tough fight in their red, or purple, states.  And, of course, many donate to the national campaigns.

    Democrats in southern states include people of color as a large part of the base.  Discounting the value of Southern state wins, may bring the perspective of disrespecting a critical part of the Democratic party. Not a good strategy for supporters of Senator Sanders, who is struggling to make his good record on civil and human rights better known. Indeed, the big loss sustained by the Sanders Campaign in South Carolina was not for a lack of trying--with the expenditure of much time and money.



    kdog (none / 0) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 08:28:03 AM EST
    you taking oculus and MT to Radio City Music Hall tonight for Katy Perry and Elton John?

    Nyet... (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 08:42:22 AM EST
    Are they going?  I could pop out for a smoke during Katy's set;)

    I did see The Scandinavian Cajun Anders Osborne last Friday up at The Capitol in Port Chester...he never disappoints, it was freakin' awesome.  


    Gawd. Elton John who (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:44:00 AM EST
    sang that saccharine song at Princess Di's funeral.

    leave Sir Elton alone! (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 10:51:09 AM EST
    He was Di's friend...he can sing any song he thinks she would like at her funeral!

    Just as your own family can request that Ozzy Osborne perform "Crazy Train" live at your funeral.

    Yes, yes. Of course. But in the midst (none / 0) (#187)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 09:32:49 PM EST
    of traditional Church of England liturgy and British classical choral music--mis-match.

    I think the princess either would've loved the departure from protocol, if you are a Christian who believes in eternal life -- or was beyond caring at that point, if you aren't.



    Unhelpful to Rubio in Florida (none / 0) (#66)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 08:42:34 AM EST
    The GOP primary ballot has 13 Republicans listed and Jeb Bush is still on it,

    and he's right at the top of the list.

    Since (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 08:45:08 AM EST
    Rubio only got 49% of the vote in 2010 when he actually won I wonder if his popularity hasn't always been overrated by the media.

    Yeah, I'm sure there's probably some voters in the single digits that will vote for Jeb in that primary as a protest or something.


    pretty much (none / 0) (#74)
    by CST on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 09:41:42 AM EST
    nailed the MA map, although not even I expected it to look that "clean" with Bernie dominating central/western MA and Hillary dominating in greater Boston.  I was wrong about Cambridge though - Hillary really performed well in Metro Boston.  And the north and south shores that I couldn't tell what would happen - ended up being the only fuzzy part of the map.

    When you compare it to the 2008 map, you can see what flipped (hint, it wasn't just black people, almost the entire map flipped with the exception of the uber-liberal parts of western MA)

    In a late breaking result ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 11:39:52 AM EST
    ... that came in after most all of your respective bedtimes, former Gov. Sarah Palin's endorsement of Donald Trump certainly didn't further his cause in her home state, as Ted Cruz won Alaska's GOP caucuses last night.

    Lindsay Graham (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:02:28 PM EST
    is now asking Republicans to unite around Ted Cruz. It seems that the proverbial canary in the coal mine is telegraphing that the establishment is giving up on Rubio.

    Well, (none / 0) (#110)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:05:44 PM EST
    Cruz has won 4 states to Rubio's 1.

    True (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:17:13 PM EST
    that. I just thought it was interesting and I guess it's not going to get any better for Rubio going forward I'm guessing from Lindsay's statement. And Cruz at least could win his state which it looks unlikely that Rubio is going to be able to pull off. It looks like their two most hated people are going to be the last two standing before too long.

    Basically the GOP has to decide (none / 0) (#165)
    by smott on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 04:58:55 PM EST
    How they're going to commit suicide.
    Either w Trump as the nom, or by an open convention and having Mittens or somebody choppered in at the 11th hour.

    EIther way, the game is up. Their base has realized (belatedly) that they've been boned up the arse for 40 years or so. The party has imploded.

    Though you could make an argument that allowing Trump the nom, then disavowing him brutally such that they perhaps hang onto the Senate, is the best way back for the elites. The Donald (presumably) loses the general, the GOP holds the Senate, Clinton is handcuffed for her term, and the Tea Party is told their way doesn't work, and TPers get ushered out next couple cycles.

    Just tossing spaghetti at the wall, I dunno.

    But their party for all intents and purposes doesn't exist anymore in its former incarnation.  Only question is whether, and how fast they can get back to where the elites have control.
    Maybe we now truly have Dems, Repubs, and the White Nationalist Party. And Repbs are 3rd currently.


    Don't forget (none / 0) (#167)
    by smott on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 04:59:55 PM EST
    Ohio is open-carry.
    Cleveland is gonna get interesting this summer.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 05:07:23 PM EST
    and it seems there is now a push to get Rubio out of the race and probably there's one going on trying to get Kasich out too. It seems that they have decided that Ted Cruz is the one to go one on one with Trump. Trump might still win that one but I guess they've decided they'd rather lose with Cruz than with Trump.

    I should buy stock in antacids.


    I'm not certain Cruz wouldn't be worse than Donald (none / 0) (#173)
    by smott on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 05:33:07 PM EST
    This guy is a true believer. An End Times azzhole with the nuke codes.

    It's a mark of how far we've come that the GOP might actually attempt to coalesce around him.
    Though perhaps it's a head fake, they have zero intent of truly supporting him, and it's their way of getting rid of him and hopefully Trump at the same time. Who knows.

    And yeah Roger Ailes has declared Rubes dead. Though in all seriousness, the races in which he might do better are still ahead, and Cruz has mostly shot his wad.

    So a Cruz lifeboat could tip too.

    Basically we have to hope the Dems don't f-ck this up. Which is what worries me.

    Double up on the ant-acids with a whiskey chaser!!


    I think (none / 0) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 06:06:19 PM EST
    they are equally bad just in different ways.

    It could be a head fake but honestly people were laughing at Rubio talking about how he's winning while the only thing he actually won was a caucus in MN.

    I can see Rubio having a chance in future states if there is no Trump but as long as Trump is in Rubio is not going to win. Cruz at least one three states and they were primaries to boot. So there's actually a case for Cruz or at least a better case for him than Rubio.


    Marco can announce (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:14:49 PM EST
    He is running for his senate seat until the end of June.  If he is still behind by double digits at voting time he will find a way to drop out.   And run for the senate without first losing his home state.


    Honestly (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:19:18 PM EST
    I think he's running for president to get out of running for election. He doesn't seem to really like the senate much and I'm not sure he could even win reelection. Of course that depends if FL dems can actually come up with a candidate.

    I predict... (none / 0) (#124)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:39:37 PM EST
    a lucrative lobbyist gig for Rubio this time next year...no nomination (obviously), and no run to hold his senate seat.

    He has raised his profile, time to board the gravy train and make some real money.  He's milked "public service" for all it's worth at this point.

    And if no lobbying firm will have him, they can always use another talking head at FOX.  Maybe him and Carson can do a show together...The Doc Robot Hour or something.


    If the GOP figures out to nominate Kasich (none / 0) (#126)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:46:19 PM EST
    despite the sticky wicket of him not actually winning enough delegates, I still think Rubio will be the VP pick.

    I'm backing off of thinking he will be everyone's VP pick...


    I would hope... (none / 0) (#127)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:56:03 PM EST
    Kasich has better sense than that!  

    If by some miracle the GOP can steal this thing from Trump, would they really nominate a lame Trump impersonator for VP?


    He is back about 20 in FL (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 01:01:28 PM EST
    Maybe he doesnt want to run for the senate, maybe he wants to run for governor some day.   He's a young guy.  But if he wants  any political future in FL he doesnt want to lose a presidential primary by 20 points. It seems to me.

    Or even 10 points.

    And IMO he's nobody's VP.  I though so for a while but, no.


    ... he's much better off ridin' the K Street gravy train than he is as a member of Congress.

    And here's another issue. Bernie Sanders, who's 30 years older than Marco Rubio, has not only done a much better job of running for president than has the GOP's Boy Wonder, but he's done so while also not missing very many votes on Capitol Hill.

    Has Rubio even bothered to show up in the U.S. Senate for a single vote over these past seven or eight months? Surely, someone will confront him over having gone AWOL, in any Senate re-election campaign he might mount after dropping out.



    I think you're on to something, dog (none / 0) (#143)
    by NYShooter on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 02:13:19 PM EST
    Let' see:

    Can you picture, "President Rubio?"......Nah, doesn't click.

    How about a slick, back slapping lobbyist cruising the halls of Congress?.......Perfect!


    Yes... (none / 0) (#146)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 02:41:33 PM EST
    it is his ticket...on second thought, he sweats too much for the bright lights of television.  

    And as Don alludes, lobbying for the credit card industry fits to a T...nobody knows how to swipe up debts like Marco!  


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#157)
    by KeysDan on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 04:06:30 PM EST
    That is my assessment of Rubio, as well.  For him, it's about money.  He wants some more without the work part.  That "Doc Robot Hour" has a lot of potential....one of those gruesome medical shows. Talk of relationships between anatomy and celebrity personality.  Trump's hands should be a specialty of Dr. Carson's being in the field of pediatrics and all.  And, the merit of sweat gland removal so as to give that calm, cool and collected look while under hot lights. And, save money on Poland Spring to boot. Rubio can be the sweat gland donor.

    Most likely (none / 0) (#190)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 05:35:29 AM EST
    He is aiming for the Governors seat in Florida

    His distaste for the Senate is nothing gets done,

    As Governor, things can get done


    No, his distaste is for work anywhere (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 07:37:21 AM EST
    His gig as a visiting professor at FIU ended after he missed 30% of his classes. It was all of 5 miles from his house and he couldn't make it.

    Well, nothing is going to get (none / 0) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 06:01:15 AM EST
    done if you can't even bother to show up like Rubio. Even when there is something to vote on he doesn't bother to show up.

    Lol (none / 0) (#192)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 06:56:55 AM EST
    If he is campaigning for President while Governor, then yes, you would be correct.
    But as a sitting Governor, I do not think he has to campaign, he will govern.

    Well (none / 0) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 07:16:22 AM EST
    when given the chance to actually do a job Rubio doesn't show up for work. Maybe the FL voters will be okay with the fact that he's lazy. I mean there's always the chance that they won't care.

    Rubio didn't show up for work long before running for President. For some reason you feel like you need to continually apologize for his laziness.


    Rubio's (none / 0) (#195)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 07:55:24 AM EST
    political career is done for the foreseeable future, he is a terrible candidate, he seems to play into his weaknesses. After bring accused of shirking his duty as a Senator he missed the year ending vote on the spending bill(after railing against it). After being criticized for repeating  canned talking points he continued to do so. After being labeled as being an unexperienced lightweight lacking in gravitas he sinks into a poo-fling battle with Trump.

    IMO, after digesting the ST results, I believe his foray into the realm of scatological comedy in the last few days, hurt him badly.

    Sorry Marco, it will soon be time for you to get a real job, come back in 10 years with some grey hair and some real experience(and some new programming) and maybe you can do something.


    Rubio is channeling his inner Judy Garland (none / 0) (#196)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 08:12:52 AM EST
    today. Clicking the heels of his boots saying there's no place like home. He's all in on Kansas hoping to win another before March 15.

    I suppose (none / 0) (#197)
    by FlJoe on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 08:38:08 AM EST
    KS is his best bet for him on Saturday, although it seems closer to OK and AR then to MN or VA. LA should be Trump/Cruz territory and ME bring Trump/Kasich (New Englanders refusing to "feel the Rub"), who knows what's happening in KY.

    I will go out on a limb and give Rubio PR on Sunday for what may be his last political win ever.


    If heavily (none / 0) (#199)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 09:39:14 AM EST
    evangelical Kansas is the best state for Rubio he's not going to be doing much in the other states. I would imagine KS is Cruz/Trump territory.

    I finally saw the clips of his ...attacks?... (none / 0) (#198)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 03, 2016 at 08:56:34 AM EST
    whatever they were....they are even worse than I could have imagined. Yes, he is toast politically if the voters have one lick of sense or shame left.

    It sounds like the GOP has other plans (none / 0) (#120)
    by mm on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:26:12 PM EST
    for that Senate Seat


    A seat is up for grabs.

    Despite not coming close to winning any states so far, Ben Carson has been steadfast in his plan to stay in the Republican presidential race as long as he can.

    The Republican Party, though, reportedly wants him to focus on a different office: Senator from Florida.

    GOP operatives have told CNN they are going to push Carson to abandon his quest for the White House and instead focus on a Senate run for the Sunshine state.

    The Florida seat currently held by Carson's presidential rival Marco Rubio is up for grabs this year, and Rubio has indicated he won't be seeking reelection regardless of what happens in the presidential race. For a political neophyte like Carson, a run for Senator could be a good stepping stone.

    The GOPs "plans" (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:29:27 PM EST
    Haven't been working so well.



    Carson is selling books (none / 0) (#122)
    by CoralGables on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:35:39 PM EST
    He doesn't really want a job.

    Carson has been running (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by smott on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 04:49:16 PM EST
    A stunningly good grift

    The turn out numbers are very interesting (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:17:44 PM EST
    Almost a mirror of party turnout in 2008.  8 million + republicans 5 million + democrats.

    Close to the exact opposite of 2008.

    Link (none / 0) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:22:56 PM EST
    We (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 12:23:25 PM EST
    apparently had record turnout on both sides here in GA.

    Ben Carson (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 01:19:31 PM EST
    Out.   Says he won't debate.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 01:25:40 PM EST
    the offer to run for the senate in FL was just too appealing to him.

    I wonder if Cruz is now going to pick up his voters?


    Yes (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 01:27:47 PM EST
    I'm sure he will endorse Ted.

    Would that be turning the other cheek or bending over and spreading them?

    He will not run for senate in FL


    No (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 02:51:50 PM EST
    I'm not talking about him endorsing Ted besides I'm not even sure if endorsing sends voters to the other candidate anyway. It's just that Carson's base of support seems to come from the same people that back Cruz mainly evangelicals. I guess Carson's voters could go to Trump but Trump seems the least likely.

    I'd be surprised if he endorses Cruz (none / 0) (#161)
    by smott on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 04:48:28 PM EST
    He stayed in this long  just to pi$$ on Ted after the rat-f-ck in Iowa.
    I dunno who he might endorse (not that it matters much) but I really doubt he'll support the guy who f-cked him.

    Well (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 04:59:41 PM EST
    I'm more or less talking about his voters wandering off to other candidates now that he's out not whether he endorses anybody or not.

    Oh yah (none / 0) (#169)
    by smott on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 05:01:34 PM EST
    It will be interesting. Cruz is the closest in type. I guess we'll see.

    But not to worry (none / 0) (#135)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 01:28:37 PM EST
    Carson said he's not planning on formal suspending his presidential campaign and will go into more detail during an appearance at the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference on Friday.
    His new plan is to wait for July in Cleveland, when Jesus will arise from his lair beneath the R&R HOF and personally deliver a brokered nomination to him.....meanwhile do you want to buy a book or two?

    Carson (none / 0) (#132)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 01:23:05 PM EST
    ah, Colbert is gathering the tributes... (none / 0) (#140)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 01:47:30 PM EST
    Time for an episode of the Hungry for Power Games

    From our "Hook 'Em, Horns!" file: (none / 0) (#151)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 03:02:15 PM EST
    And in another Super Tuesday result that hasn't garnered any headlines, but yet holds potentially serious repercussions for the country's entire public education system:

    "A woman who could determine the nation's textbook curriculum believes the Civil War was not caused by slavery, Barack Obama is a former gay Arab prostitute, and gays are abominations. Mary Lou Bruner is running for an open seat on the Texas State Board of Education. On Tuesday [she] came within two percentage points of an outright win. [Her] eventual victory looks all but assured. The board picks curriculum and textbooks for Texas's schools and because of Texas's outsized purchasing power, its decisions can influence publishers whose materials are used in several other states."

    Everything's Bigger in Texas -- Even Our Bat$H!+ Droppings.