Saturday Politics Open Thread

Big Tent Democrat will be going to a Trump rally in Florida tomorrow, to "observe." Follow him on Twitter.

Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry's ice cream isn't sure who he will vote for if Bernie Sanders is not the nominee. (link is to full interview video.) He told Fox' Neil Cavuto that there are some "similarities" between Sanders and Trump, especially on free trade. He said both Sanders and Trump oppose free trade agreements. Cavuto asked him why he would vote for Hillary then if Sanders doesn't get the nomination since it was her husband who gave us the free trade agreements. He said he's not sure he would.

Cavuto said he thought that's what Cohen told him in an earlier interview and Cohen reiterates he's not sure, he'll have to think hard about it. It's after the 7 minute mark. (Hat tip to Al Giordano on Twitter, but watch it for yourselves.)

Will that stop Dems from buying pints? [More...]

Trump said at a rally today in Ohio "Some [protesters] represented Bernie, our Communist friend."

It may almost be time to start a daily thread, "Trump Said."

Bernie Sanders today issued a statement calling Trump a pathological liar. He said the same thing in December.

“Nobody has seen a tape celebrating the destruction of Twin Towers in New Jersey. It doesn’t exist, and he keeps claiming it. That’s called pathologically lying.”

I wonder if Sanders and Trump remember the Castaways song from 1965 (very funny video of them singing it with go go dancer here.) "Liar, Liar, pants on fire. Your nose is longer than a telephone wire."

Why am I not surprised Sanders wades in Trump's cess pool rather than promote a higher level of discourse? That's not the way to beat Donald Trump. (I wonder who will get the last laugh in this primary mudfest.)

Speaking of politics and laughs, here's James Corden on Bernie Sanders winning Michigan. And on the last Democratic debate.

This is an open thread for all things politics.

< Bush Brother Neil Joins Ted Cruz Campaign | Saturday Open Thread: Non-Politics >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    While sitting at a lunch counter (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by fishcamp on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 07:54:53 AM EST
    yesterday, waiting for my daily fish sandwich, I realized all were Republicans.  The jolly fellow next to me had a custom Make America Great Again hat on.  It had an American flag bill with stars and stripes on the back too.  I said cool hat, and what do you think Trump could do to make America great again.  He said all of Congress needs to be switched out, and all the armed forces generals need to be fired.  He then said Trump is going to bring all industry back from Mexico and China.  Taking a chance I asked where his Trump hat made.  He took it off, looked inside, and sheepishly said, it was made in China.  The fish joint got very quiet.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 09:42:01 AM EST
    I encounter many stupid republicans who are Trump supporters.  I've seen a few hats.   I do not engage him mostly.   It's pointless.   These are the people who were going to support Donald no matter what, especially if he becomes the nominee.

    These are not the people I'm talking about.  The subject of my comments are democrats.   Sanders supporters and others who are for whatever reason supporting Donald.   They do not wear hats.  And if they did they could probably tell you who made it without taking it off.

    From your comments it sounds like you regularly engage republicans.  I think that admirable but I don't do it that much.  And almost never to argue with them.  I would rather find out what they are really thinking if I'm going to suffer through talking to them.


    lol. Moments like that are priceless. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 02:48:00 PM EST
    According to this article, During WWII, the Navy had one Admiral per 130 ships.  By the time Vietnam ended each Admiral was down to 3 ships.  Now they're down to less than 2 ships per Admiral.

    So what? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 10:43:07 AM EST
    This week the Guardian sought out Sanders fans who are contemplating switching their allegiance to Trump if Hillary Clinton secures the Democratic nomination.
    You could "seek out" and find plenty of flat earth believers, if you tried.

    They admit

    The Guardian call-out was not a poll, but controlled surveys by polling companies have identified this small but not insignificant slice of the Sanders crowd who would consider backing Trump.

    Then they cite a poll that shows how small it really is

    In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey conducted by Hart Research Associates this month, 7% of Sanders voters said they could see themselves supporting Trump..........

    A similar proportion of Sanders folk - 8% - gave Trump a positive likeability rating.

    The authors finally fess up
    That figure is unlikely to be causing Clinton campaign aides much loss of sleep.
    coming into agreement with the actual pollster
    "The data does not indicate any meaningful concern for Clinton that if she wins the Democratic nomination large numbers of Sanders voters would head to Trump," said Jeff Horwitt, a senior vice-president with Hart Research.

    Then finally the truth

    So we are not seeing the birth of a new cross-party force in American politics. But we are seeing an interesting political dynamic.
     But please I don't need a couple of british journos soliciting "Dear Penthouse" letters from some members of  Bernie's "revolution" to point how "interesting" (a rather mild adj. IMO) American politics have become.

    Assuming (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 11:09:19 AM EST
    Everything in that comment is true.  I don't.  But assuming it is,  as a person obsessed with polls are you now also in denial about what 7-8% could do to an election?

    First (none / 0) (#73)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 11:28:53 AM EST
    of all, notice the wording "considering" voting for Trump does not equal an actual vote.

    Second, even if a full 7% of his supporters do jump that's really only around 2% -3% of the electorate(and that's generously giving Sanders 50% of Democrats)

    Third, while 2% is still important there is plenty of evidence that there will be movement the other way perhaps with much greater numbers.


    Jan 9th (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 11:48:07 AM EST
    About 20 percent of likely Democratic voters say they would buck the party and vote for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in a general election, according to a new poll.

    The willingness of some Democrats to change sides could be a major problem for Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton this fall


    I have also read, and as I mentioned personally experience, democrats who will vote for hm but are reluctant t say so.

    I will leave you to it.


    To be fair and balanced (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 12:24:45 PM EST
    I should include this

    A smaller number of Republicans say they'd vote for Clinton -- about 14 percent

    To that i would suggest factoring in the massive republican turnout, sometimes more that 100%, and the reduced democratic turn out.  Over all.

    Yes yes
    I am aware of some examples of better dem turn out and I I'm sure you believe all those people are turning out to vote AGAINST Trump.  Good luck with that.



    Just saw numbers on the NOOZE (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 01:17:59 PM EST
    67% increase in republican turnout from 2012

    23% decline in democratic turnout since 2008


    Which can be explained by many factors (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 02:08:54 PM EST
    1. HRC has been the presumptive nominee for a long time.   Turnout is always down when the contest is more lopsided.

    2. There were many more candidates (and still are) on the Republican side.  That alone would bring out more people to vote because there's more choice

    3. The party out of power often fets higher turnout because their voters are more motivated to have change.

    4. As shown in Michigan, many Dems are actually voting in the Republican primaries/caucuses.

    5. Dems are notirioys for lower turnout in primary season. 2008 was an anomalie.

    6. Primary turnout is not a predictor of general eke tion turnout.

    Counting down (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 02:12:09 PM EST
    To the 5 from Trevir

    You (none / 0) (#78)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 01:31:17 PM EST
    have linked to that several times, and several times I have pointed out that this is not a poll b  
    the result of an online poll and dial-test of Trump's first campaign ad.
    if someone can explain what exactly that is I might give the numbers some credence.

    I assume you know what an online poll is (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 01:36:38 PM EST
    The visual is the product of a focus-group technique known as dial-testing. Dial-testing relies on hand-held dials that can be turned to register positive and negative reactions in real time. Participants in the focus group -- 30 is a typical size -- sit together and are instructed to continually adjust the dial to reflect how they react to a word, phrase, or sentence

    I found this information using a little known method called "googling"


    I googled and got (none / 0) (#81)
    by Towanda on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 02:11:42 PM EST
    that defined as online dial-testing.  

    An online poll is quite different in its selection of participants -- self-selection, so not reliable, not at all similar to selection of a focus group.


    The article said online AND dial test (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 02:16:31 PM EST
    I said I assume he knew what on line meant and gave the explanation of the other.

    No (none / 0) (#88)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 02:49:30 PM EST
    need to google, I know already what they all are, the point being I have never heard of such a hybrid combining the three methods. I remain highly skeptical of the results of a method that has no known track record that I know of, especially when those numbers do not show up in other standard polls.

    My inference from the article is that respondents viewed the Trump ad online (using keyboard keys as dial?) then were asking voting preferences, a classic push polling technique.

    Come back with some real numbers next time.


    Donalds town hall (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 02:21:14 PM EST
    Is being crashed by Bernie sign carrying protesters.  

    Willing to bet a Sanders event will soon be disrupted by Donald supporters.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by smott on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 08:31:45 PM EST
    Rallies on all side are going to get disrupted.
    Especially Sanders rallies.
    And if anybody thinks Sanders supporters weren't fairly organized in Chicago the other day they are fooling themselves. It was well done for them. But Bernie will pay a price in angry armed white guys showing up at his rallies I suspect. And much as I hate to admit it, Donald was spot on to call it out. Which will of course only inflame his yahoo supporters.

    What a mess this country is. I hope nobody gets killed at one of these events, but I can't imagine it won't happen.

    Yes (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 08:54:34 PM EST
    there's probably going to be retaliation at Sanders rallies. I don't know but both Sanders and Trump would be wise to maybe not do rallies for a while.

    Strong arm tactics to seize the GOP nomination (none / 0) (#1)
    by bison on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 04:29:23 PM EST
    Chicago is a precursor for things to come if Trump doesn't get the GOP nomination. Trump is setting into motion strong arm tactics to seize the GOP nomination in at the Cleveland Convention. He is intending to threaten the Convention with violence by "his people" if he doesn't get the nomination. He will claim that he has  not been treated fairly by the "establishment." Trump's campaign is a movement of a fascist rise to absolute power.

    Not sure (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 04:35:20 PM EST
    About the fascist rise to absolute power part but they are definitely sending up trial balloons about ratf'king the ejection if he doesn't get the nomination.

    And I said before the violence is a badly veiled threat to the party about the convention.


    Today (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 04:31:15 PM EST
    I ran into some hippy friends at the supermarket.  Didn't take long for the conversation to turn to politics.

    I learned that they (straight couple) both voted for Bernie in the primary and both planned to vote for Trump in the general.

    I asked why not Hillary and they both said different versions of "I just don't like her"

    Policy doesn't matter? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Coral on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 05:06:41 PM EST
    I find this attitude confounding. First, on the basis of personality hard to understand why anyone would find the Donald preferable to Hillary.

    Second, and more importantly, do these people have any understanding of the policy impact of a Trump presidency?


    Policy (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 07:18:12 PM EST
    actually does not matter with these people. It truly does not. They're all about anger and rage against "the establishment".

    If you talk to them (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 07:30:58 PM EST
    Without openly acting like you think the are morons or that "policy doesn't matter" - again, these are liberals who voted for the Kenyan twice in a very red state - you find out that their belief is the policies won't change if you vote for one if the establishment people so in that sense policy doesn't matter.

    They want to sprinkle sand in the Vaseline.  Drop a turd into the punch bowl.  Fart in church.

    I've heard more than once that they just want to blow it up.  Nothing works.   Nothing is ever done about anything that matters.  They love the fact that the republicans are as terrified of Donald as the democrats are.  The point they say is that whatever happens the day after Donald is inaugurated it will not be business as usual.

    It's a difficult argument to refute.  If you are honest.


    I don't (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 07:38:42 PM EST
    argue with them. There's no use. My only question is exactly how many of them are there in the country and how many people do they scare away?

    I didn't say argue with them (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 07:43:11 PM EST
    I said TALK to them.  Very different thing.  I would suggest more of us try it.

    Just sayin


    Oh, (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 07:56:45 PM EST
    I know Trump voters and mostly I don't even talk to them. I listen to what they have to say. The ones I know yes, are very angry at the "establishment" and do want to blow up the country hence why Cruz is running behind Trump because he actually tried to blow up the country. They also buy into these conspiracy theories about the new world order. Many of them are convinced that George Soros owns the media. I don't know any that voted for Obama. Everyone of them voted for Romney or at least professes to have voted for him.

    These are absolutely not (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 08:02:04 PM EST
    The people I'm talking about.  

    But (none / 0) (#66)
    by sallywally on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 10:02:01 AM EST
    if they vote for Trump, might not they as well be those folks?

    If you are asking my opinion (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 10:09:47 AM EST
    I would say it makes them very misguided.  It would not make them conspiracy loving Romney supporting republicans.

    Howdy: Actually, I would prefer (none / 0) (#41)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 09:27:16 PM EST
    that they fart somewhere else.  While I also understand that there are more than some people who think that they are just-gonna-knock-over-all-the-blocks-so-there attitude.  And, they may well do so.

    But, here's the thing: At some point, it might be best to stop pandering and catering to that pre-adolescent crapola. If someone is willing to listen or learn or read or inquire, that is one thing ... but, what you describe are individuals who are having a longstanding tantrum.  And, when little kids or self-centered adults do that, there isn't much you can do (short of wasting time and causing your blood pressure to rise.) There are a lot more fish in the sea ... go after them.


    And I suspect (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 09:38:46 PM EST
    They would not be overly concerned with what you "prefer"

    I'm not sure what your point is (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 09:36:25 PM EST
    "Go after them"?

    You think I'm dating them?

    I know lots if people.   My family is involved in local politics so I often go the different sorts of gatherings.  And I just know a lot of people.  If you consider discussing politics rationally with people you disagree "pandering and catering" it explains why so many of your comments sound like nonsense to me.


    Don't get so bristly, Howdy (none / 0) (#44)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 09:47:27 PM EST
    The "go after" is a political comment in terms of what is worth pursuing.  Based upon what you describe, I believe that the individuals resemble children in the middle of an extended tantrum.  Perhaps, I misread you ... but, I don't think so.

    Clearly, your comments over the years evidence an extensive network with people of varied backgrounds and interest.  That is commendable.  My own experience is with people of many persuasions as well.  In the context of this thread and your description of these people--in spite of my tendency to seek all sides of a position, etc., I would smile and change the subject.  That is me; you are you.

    Again, no need to get so bristly.  No harm intended.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 09:57:40 PM EST
    You are wrong.   They are not children.  They are not having a tantrum.  They are not stupid or misbehaving.  They are just as smart and some are just as politically active and interested as you.  Maybe more.

    The very reason I've been discussing this here and other places is to try mo make people understand this.  So they will stop making the condescending dismissive statements like you are making.  I know its fashionable.  And it's an easy way for us to feel superior.

    And besides that some of these people are my friends.  So yeah, I "bristle" at condescending dismissal.   I don't agree with them but I get it.   I understand the impulse.  The system is broken.   And it needs a kick in the ass.  Do I believe Hillary will do that.  No.  I really don't.  I'm not ready to blow it up but I understand why some people are.  Perhaps that is why I am more worried than some here.


    One other thought (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 10:20:43 PM EST
    My "point" is not to defend Trump supporters.  Surely my comment history here would not lead anyone to think I take the possibility of a Trump presidency in any way lightly.

    In fact, exactly the opposite.

    Here's the thing.  This is a problem.  It's a real problem.  If you read the post and the comments in it you know I am not the only one who has encountered it though you would think so from the replies to my comments.  But it's a problem.

    The first step in addressing a problem is to realize and acknowledge there IS a problem.  Dismissive comments about how they are all stupid racist hicks or children having tantrums is dangerous.  It's a great way to find ourselves losing an election and blinking in amazement trying to figure out what the hell happened and why Donald Trump is president when we were absolutely certain it could never possibly happen because it just doesn't make any sense.


    Am I the only (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 06:20:48 PM EST
    one who thinks the problem with many who say they "just don't like Hillary" is misogyny, pure and simple?  And as subtle as misogyny is, both in men and women, it is difficult to address.  

    Short answer NO (none / 0) (#104)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 07:10:38 PM EST
    The under 30 crowd , male and female, both do not like Hillary.

    Additionally, after 30 years in the public eye, people may have legitimate grievances.
    After 30 years you both build strong alliances and supporters (the Talk Left crowd) and at the same time can build those with strong dislikes.


    That's mit entirely true (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 07:13:52 PM EST
    It's white, middle to upper class millenials that prefer Bernie.  Bkack millenials prefer her by huge amounts.

    I have spoken (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 08:13:20 PM EST
    to many people who are life long Democrats who "do not like" her; they often say what actually bothers them, or, they cite issues, positions, etc. that are taken by male Dems whom they support.

    A lot of people are worried, Howdy (none / 0) (#46)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 10:17:12 PM EST
    Frankly, I think that you presume too much about what others intend at times.  In the particular instance, I have a negative response to individuals as you describe who seem so obtuse.  It has nothing to do with condescension; it has to do with supposedly smart people acting dumb.  That is my take based upon what you described.

    It might help if you took a look at why you presume to know my intent.  I don't presume to know your intentions in writing.  Allow me to write as bluntly as you often do: I get that you feel strongly about this situation and about people underestimating what is happening. I do get it ... and, while appreciating your observations and what you are hearing, I think there is every reason to believe that the general election phase will be quite different than the free ride so far.  Yes, Trump is a potent force this year ... and, that force is strengthened by the element of surprise that has worked to his advantage.  That element, for the most part, has been used and it will get trickier for him to stay ahead of the opposition in the general. Trump is smart; but, even that can get you only so far ... because, just like a TV show, it gets old after awhile ... it does depend on timing.  IMO.

    FWIW, we both make good points.  'Night.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 10:32:25 PM EST
    I would say it would be good to consider the possibility that disagreeing with YOU does not necessarily mean a is person obtuse or dumb.

    It just means they disagree with you.

    Does Donald have obtuse and dumb supporters.  You better believe it.  Not everyone is supporting him for the same reason or expects the same result.


    You misconstrue what I say (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 09:55:36 AM EST
    I do not and have not believed/sensed that you are dumb. If that is what your sensitivity is here, then your presumption is incorrect.  I do believe that followers/approvers of Trump (as you described them) are being obtuse to the point of being dumb and taken for a ride.

    For me, I relish and enjoy engaging in discussion & debate with others.  My own mentor, for example, had rather different views than I have; and, I respected him (even as a Nixon judicial appointee); and, I respect all who put forth their views no matter how different.  What I have a gut-reaction problem with are "smart" people who for whatever reason "dumb down."  And, Howdy, I do get to have that reaction ... just as you get to have all kinds of reactions.  Again: My legitimate reactions are in no way a reflection on you ... we all have friends & acquaintances with whom others disagree ... and, that does not diminish us.


    I understood (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 09:58:42 AM EST
    Exactly what you meant.

    I dusagree


    And, I won't take it personally. (none / 0) (#75)
    by christinep on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 12:00:38 PM EST
    Bill Maher, a supporter (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 05:19:16 PM EST
    of Bernie Sanders, had a good segment on last night's show-- on the "Bernie or Bust" crowd.  Voting for a Green candidate, a write-in, hands the election to a real "plutocrat."  And, of course, could not understand moving to Trump.  Maher also mentioned the Bernie supporters who even attacked Elizabeth Warren for not endorsing Bernie (she did not endorse either) with vitriolic comments.  

    Had dinner with some people I met for (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by vml68 on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 08:48:27 PM EST
    the very first time, a few days ago. Conversation somehow turns to politics and I was happy to hear that everyone at the table, men and women, were very pro Hillary.  
    Then, I was shocked to hear that everyone at the table was also very comfortable with the thought of Trump as President.
    I did not know these people well enough to ask for an explanation of their thought process. I just don't get it!

    Stupid, stupid... (none / 0) (#4)
    by sallywally on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 05:03:55 PM EST
    They've not learned how to think or how to take their emotions out of the analytical process (as much as possible). Haven't they listened to what Trump has been saying all aĺong? Seen the crowd manipulation and the increasing  encouragement (demand) to be violent??

    Don't mean stupid as (none / 0) (#64)
    by sallywally on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 09:58:00 AM EST
    lacking intelligence. Just needing more grounded analytical skills, perhaps, in such a profoundly important circumstance. Maybe a little hyper - visionary or too abstract. No doubt I'd have been there in my college days. I loved high principles - though not hippies so much, I thought of them as "trendy", not insightful. Maybe I still do.

    It seems to me we need some of that Hillary pragmatism to bring this vision to the world we all have to live in. Especially if she sizes up the situation well.


    Well (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 10:03:40 AM EST
    Full disclosure, I was and probably am a hippie.

    As far as high principals, I guess you didn't see my farting in church comment.  No doubt some Sanders supporters have high principals but the people I met in the supermarket want to cut the cheese on Easter Sunday.  

    High principals are not involved.   If they were supporting Trump for "high principals" that would indeed make them obtuse and dumb.  


    Oh No! (none / 0) (#70)
    by sallywally on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 10:29:47 AM EST
    Not a hippie!!!

    My specialty has been to be more outside than the other outsiders, so you can take me with a grain of salt.😕


    Did you try any version of the question (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 05:07:19 PM EST
    "Who do you think would make the best President of the United States, all things considered," on those friends of yours?

    I suppose that's better than considering (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 05:18:48 PM EST
    Kidnapping them until after the election....

    "all things" is impossible to consider (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 09:20:30 AM EST
    I have to believe people like that (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 05:32:27 PM EST
    will change their minds when if finally comes down to brass tacks. Hard to believe the Bernie supporters I know, good people all,  care so little about their country that they'd let Trump walk away with this thing without a fight.

    They will not (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 05:36:14 PM EST
    I can tell you right now.  They will not.

    You wil not change your mind (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 10:50:21 PM EST
    about what you think you know they will do, that much is reasonably certain..

    Yet at the same time you demand that people not presume too much about the mindset and intentions of Trump's supporters..

    How does that work exactly?


    Demanding that people lend (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 11:24:50 PM EST
    a modicum of respect and even admiration to Trump and his supporters while continuing to wage all-out jihad on Sanders makes you sound less like Hillary and more like John Kasich.

    Is this coming from some fear that Clinton will now be disasterously smeared with the commie brush for being forced to share a stage with Bernie and being induced by the preponderance of evidence to publicly lend creedence to some of his arguments?


    Your comments don't even make sense (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 09:26:34 AM EST
    But I will try anyway

    Top down.  I honestly can't imagine what the point is of the mind changing comment.  Clearly these people will not vote for Hillary.   That was abundantly clear.  If you prefer to tell yourself they will,  please do it.

    Your imagining I'm "demanding" either respect or admiration for Trump supporters would be funny if it was not so dangerously delusional.   I never once in any comment suggested any such thing.  

    I want Bernie out so Hillary can start focusing on the general.   Hope that's clear but I'm tired of trying to make it so.

    I tried to make it clear that taking the threat of democrats supporting Trump, which in only your world is "demanding respect and admiration", was entirely in our own self interest.

    It's a problem.   It's all around you.  People keep linking to examples and attempted explanations.   I have tried to point out the problem.  I honestly have no idea what to do about it but as a controll freak my approach to a problem I do not have a solution for is not to act like it doesn't exist.   That's just not how I roll.

    Hope this helps.


    One of the ways (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 05:35:29 PM EST
    I keep getting going Intel from these people is that I have developed a very good sense for when arguing is productive.   And when it isn't.
    Of course they have seen the same things you have seen.
    As far a policy, I think one of the things I have come to understand about this election year is that for an alarming number of people policy, analytics and who would make the best president are simply not in the mix.

    We find that hard to understand.  But that's what I see.

    Talking to them I get the impression they were not really in the "feeling the Bern" group.  That they were supporting him because he was the "other".   The challenger to the status quo.
    I suspect this is true with many of the Bernie/Trump voters.  They voted for Bernie but the would have voted for a Golden Retriever just as quickly if one had been running against Hillary the establishment candidate.

     This is a very important part of the mental state of the electorate for the coming year.  I really believe this.  And I also think, as illustrated by the replies to my comment it is not well understood.  I called them friends.   And I suppose they are.  Perhaps more acquaintances.  But they are not stupid people.  They both have masters degrees and the both voted for Obama.  Twice.

    Shorter version, IMO people should be worrying more than most are about the general election.


    Also (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 05:40:23 PM EST
    Gotta say
    Why all the scorn for my "friends" and no mention of the Ben and Jerrys guy?  Did you read what J wrote?   You think this is limited to my friends?

    It's not


    Ben and Jerry made great ice (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by caseyOR on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 06:00:16 PM EST
    cream. Then they sold to the Anglo-Dutch conglomerate Unilever. They made a nice pile of money, and more power to 'em. Got to wonder, though, why they resorted to international trade to make their deal and their money.

    Clearly, great taste buds do not guarantee an understanding of politics and the consequences of electing the wrong person.


    I for one was not expressing scorn (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Peter G on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 09:09:40 PM EST
    I am genuinely puzzled and curious what their answer would be to the "best president" question. I would not consider that to be arguing with them.

    As was i (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 09:13:58 PM EST
    I asked.  The answer was long.  I've tried to put it in a couple of comments.

    The scorn thing was sort of a joke


    I think it's somewhat limited (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 11:55:36 PM EST
    to "friends" in that part of the country. Or at least there's a much higher % of them in that part of the country.

    Friends that is, who, even as adults can be emotionally swept up enmasse in a national mood that has that refuses to be impeded by rationality.

    Who were all those well-meaning adults who knew we jest hadta' go to war with somebody after 9/11 and who so easily believed Saddam
    attacked us?

    There weren't all that many in my city.


    Per Twitter (why is it so (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 05:21:39 PM EST
    repetitious ?), Trump states early voting in FL is fraudulent. FL SOS denies this accusation.  

    Today, Clinton is awarded Polk Co. IA caucus delegates formerly awarded to Sanders, who claims manipulation by Clinton and IA Dems.

    Damn caucuses. More trouble (none / 0) (#14)
    by caseyOR on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 05:52:26 PM EST
    than they are worth.

    I got it wrong. Polk Co Dem. (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 06:20:04 PM EST
    convention today. HRC supporters requested a recount of today's vote. Sanders and Clinton sides agreed to 5th recount. But Dem. party officials wanted further recount.

    Try chairing one sometime. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 08:17:55 PM EST

    Interesting that Cohen cites trade (none / 0) (#15)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 05:53:46 PM EST
    both Sanders and Trump are to the left of Clinton on trade. This is from Sanders' site:

    Reversing trade policies like NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China that have driven down wages and caused the loss of millions of jobs.

    Here's a Vox article on how it could happen.

    The discussion of trade has had little nuance and that needs to change. Because it seems to be becoming short-hand for "angry!" and I don't think anyone benefits from having overlap with Trump.

    How about (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 05:57:27 PM EST
    So, if I understand that article, (none / 0) (#19)
    by caseyOR on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 06:08:16 PM EST
    normalizing trade relations with China caused enormous job loses in the U.S., but NAFTA did not.

    I have never heard an argument against normalizing trade relations with China. If it is the cause of these job loses why is no one talking about that?

    And, seriously, who is going to propose un-normalizing trade with China? I guess Trump might.


    There is NEVER a good result (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 06:24:53 PM EST
    When one trades with a totalitarian nation. The only ones who benefit are totalitarians on both sides. "Free Trade" is another horseshit euphemism for how to stuff more money into fewer pockets. Nothing more.

    PNTR with China (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 06:42:16 PM EST
    is "permanent normal trade relations." Sanders is also talking about it. Or "websiting" about it, if you will.

    IMO there is no point in arguing (in the context of this campaign) what NAFTA did or did not do, for Hillary anyway, although that probably appeals to her inner wonk/legislator. I think she'd be better off linking trade to foreign policy and global impact. Because all of a sudden becoming economically isolationist will have an impact on our standing in the world, and based on Sanders' campaign so far, he gives almost no thought to that at all. And that's a problem.


    I think you are right (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 06:23:53 PM EST
    One other thing I've noticed that will help everyone sleep.   I have talked to several people, democrats, who after digging you find out will almost certainly vote for Trump but they won't say it willingly.   They are understandably sheepish about telling someone like me.  But grease them a little with some outsider talk and out it comes

    This (none / 0) (#26)
    by sallywally on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 07:01:51 PM EST
    will not help me sleep. Did I miss something?

    Humor (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 07:03:07 PM EST
    Unsuccessful apparently

    Sorry! (none / 0) (#58)
    by sallywally on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 09:24:31 AM EST
    Too literal - minded after having so much anxiety over the thoughts and implications of a Bernie/Trump coalition.

    No prob (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 09:34:00 AM EST
    Humor has been difficult on this subject.

    Inappropriate?  Perhaps.   But inappropriate humor is us.


    Think (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 06:32:00 PM EST
    All that manufacturing going to China.  And things like Wal-Mart refusing to do business with vendors until the pledged (and did) move their manufacturing operations to China.  

    And companies like Apple. etc.


    HRC (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 05:54:59 PM EST
    She could've sent me to campaign there (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by lilburro on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 06:29:23 PM EST
    I certainly would have gone

    More protests (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 07:10:00 PM EST
    at Trumps's KC rally.  He says, "Get your people in line, Bernie."

    Could this (none / 0) (#61)
    by sallywally on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 09:34:34 AM EST
    become a two-person national race before the conventions? Trump manipulating circumstances to create Bernie as his opponent/unwitting partner in electing The Don? Using Bernie or Bust folks to maybe give himself a landslide?

    DC Republicans (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 07:12:41 PM EST
    Have to wonder about this (none / 0) (#40)
    by ragebot on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 09:26:03 PM EST
    Rubio won in DC and I read somewhere that a vote in the DC Republican primary is worth about fifty votes in some other Republican primaries.  I know the US Senate gives voters in some states a lot more weight than voters in other states, but that is something required by the constitution.

    So does anyone know how political parties allocate delegates, it does not seem to be based on population.  I assume the party has the power to determine just how many delegates each state/whatever gets.

    My suggestion would be some type of a changing number based on how the state voted in the previous election.  I can't remember the last time DC voted for a Republican prez or NY or CA just to name a few.  Same for some states you know before hand will be voting Republican.  If a state is predisposed to vote for the opposing party why should they get the same say in determining the candidate as a state that will be supporting the candidate.


    According to the GOP, the DC delegation ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 03:43:08 AM EST
    ... to the upcoming convention in Cleveland numbers 19 members.

    it seems to (none / 0) (#53)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 07:49:52 AM EST
    me that DC is way overrepresented here, the total vote count was less than 3000! To put it in context the Republican turnout in Hawaii, which has about twice the the population of DC, the turnout was ~13k, yet they both are assigned 19 delegates.

    There are some discrepancies regarding ... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 08:26:34 PM EST
    ... turnout in Hawaii. The local GOP is still trying to reconcile the numbers. Apparently some precincts may have turned in more ballots than there were actual attendees at the local caucus.

    That's why our own party's ballots are barcoded for March 26, which precludes the potential for ballot stuffing.



    it seems to (none / 0) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 07:50:24 AM EST
    me that DC is way overrepresented here, the total vote count was less than 3000! To put it in context the Republican turnout in Hawaii, which has about twice the the population of DC, the turnout was ~13k, yet they both are assigned 19 delegates.

    That statement (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 12, 2016 at 07:59:53 PM EST
    from Bernie is lame. Calling Trump is a liar is completely idiotic. Like character assassination is really going to work on Trump?

    The Sanders or Trump voter (none / 0) (#56)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 08:53:00 AM EST
    Courtesy of the Guardian across the pond

    But it's not just the candidates who have raised eyebrows in 2016.

    The latest startling phenomenon is the voter who is feeling the Bern, but also has eyes for the Donald.

    This week the Guardian sought out Sanders fans who are contemplating switching their allegiance to Trump if Hillary Clinton secures the Democratic nomination.

    Almost 700 people replied to the call-out, and some 500 of them said they were thinking the unthinkable: a Sanders-Trump switch.


    Arguing vs talking (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 10:22:31 AM EST
    Got the NOOZE on.   Just heard a reporter talking about altercations in KC yesterday.  He said he was surprised to see several shouting matches turn into dialogue.   Sometimes extended dialogue.

    Perhaps there is hope.

    He was AA.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#85)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 02:36:30 PM EST
    Donald Trump early Sunday accused Bernie Sanders
     of lying by saying the Vermont senator's "disrupters" aren't told to go to the GOP front-runner's events.

    Trump also threatened in a tweet that his supporters would go to Sanders events if the Democratic hopeful wasn't "careful."

    Sanders said on Saturday his supporters are not to blame for violence that broke out at a planned Trump rally in Chicago.

    Of course (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 02:48:26 PM EST
    it isn't beyond belief that Donald, ever the shownan, would pay people to hold Bernie signs in his rallies and shout things.

    I just don't think you can believe your eyes when it comes to Trump.


    I prefer (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 03:11:55 PM EST
    to apply Occam's Razor to this one, urban, extremely diverse university campus, cameras and satellite trucks, all on a Friday night. seems only pre-ordained that all politically engaged students would show up.

    Also I think it's unlikely that you could hire very many people and keep it secret.


    You are correct (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 02:59:00 PM EST
    Donalds minions are coming for Bernie.   The Republican Party may want to protect him but I don't think Donald and the minions got that memo.

    A defensive stance (none / 0) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 03:53:03 PM EST
    of Bernie by focusing on denial that his campaign has culpability for Trump's problems seems to be the wrong way to go.  A more offensive position that reiterates that dissent is as American as pizza--Trump has a right to speak, but he is not immune from criticism and protest. Indeed, the antidote to Trump is more, not less speech. Sanders has had plenty of time to learn from the hapless Republican candidates and to deploy a new and more successful strategy.  He will sure need one since he seems intent on running the primary course.

    Trump knows his so called policies will create a reaction.  After all, he has threatened the peace of mind, if not the peace, of large segments of the population.   Every stand-up comedian, which is one,  expects and knows how to deal with hecklers.  And, how to deal with the most creative protesters sneaking into a rally, unfurling a dissenting banner.  But, Trump also knows that he can't go wrong by provoking clashes of protesters, who can be labeled ISIS, communists, hippies--all to be mocked, if not socked,  to the delight of his followers.  


    Earlier today (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 04:02:59 PM EST
    HRC was giving a speech somewhere  (CNN was on and I was busy, so not really paying attention).  She was talking about diversity and then she started to get heckled.  At first, she tried to keep going,  but the heckler kept going and people were booing.  She stopped for a moment and smiled (probably thinking, "What the hell shoukd I do now in light of recent events?")  Apparently the heckler was escorted out,  so,  she turned back to the mike and said something the the effect of, "As I was saying, diversity of opinion IS important..."

    The crowd loved it.

    Also, about an hour ago, Ted Cruz was speaking at a rally and he goofed and said, "When we elect Hillary Clinton president...." (he quickly corrected himself, but there's an ad to be made.)


    Just (none / 0) (#96)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 04:23:08 PM EST
    another element of  Chaos intruding again. Conventional wisdom would say that having your supporters show up en masse to disrupt any opponents rally is verboten. In this case conventional wisdom would be 100% correct. IMO Bernie's young, enthusiastic but inexperienced supporters really screwed the pooch on this one by foolishly dragging Bernie's name into Trumps mud pit. IMO that particular bit of chaos is the last thing Bernie needs now.

    I always (none / 0) (#98)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 04:29:28 PM EST
    Liked Dr Ian Malcolms Chaos theory,

    You know, Nature, will find a way.

    Next thing you know, the damn Raptors are breeding


    Carnivorous (none / 0) (#99)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 04:37:29 PM EST
    Anchor Babies! Better add another 10 feet to the wall just to make sure.

    Yeah, I don't see the point (none / 0) (#100)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 05:03:41 PM EST
    All it's doing is energizing Trump supporters. CNN was talking to people in Dayton yesterday  at the Trump rally and many of them said they didn't have plans to show up until thw whole fiasco in Chicago happened.

    All this is doing is giving Trump MORE free air time.


    Yes (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 07:25:29 PM EST
    it helps Trump with Republican voters for sure. And it hurts Bernie with just about everybody except his supporters.

    I wonder (none / 0) (#91)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 03:23:06 PM EST
    what, if any, impact Bernie v Trump protesters will have on that subset of "Bernie or Bust" going off to Trump if Mrs. Clinton is the Democratic nominee? My thinking is that that subset will shrink.  Of course, this subset may join those other subsets, e.g., stay at homes, Green party, which may have the effect of a Trump vote, depending on the state.

    Those "Bernie or Busters" who would still vote for Trump, seem to me, to be those angry "bomb throwers" who have no fear of the application of Trump's ethnic and racial disrespect to themselves, and, of course, to others.  


    They also have no regard for Bernie Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 03:45:01 PM EST
    Bernie or Busters, you father and I are very disappointed.

    The SNL skit (none / 0) (#97)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 04:26:45 PM EST
    Bernie Sanders (Larry David) says he has a range of ages, 18 and 19. And, like those ages, Bernie (Larry) says they have a lot of great ideas, but have no idea how to make any of them happen.  Not warmly received by Bernie supporters, although the other candidates were in for their share of parody.

    I (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 03:58:33 PM EST
    was thinking the same thing, I refuse to believe that any those particular  Bernie supporters will vote for the Donald. While there might be a "sour grapes" attitude towards a Clinton victory right now, there will surely be a movement back towards the enemy of my enemy is my friend territory.

    Of course there will be some of the more wild eyed revolutionaries in Bernie's cadre who, out of pure nihilism, vote for the barbarian at the gate to come and destroy the system that they so despise.

    I am pretty  sure if Bernie and Warren come out full throatedly in support of Hillary in the general the number of crossovers, stay at homes and third party votes will have little or no significance.


    BTD (none / 0) (#101)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 05:06:20 PM EST
    Is attending the Trump rally in Boca later this evening .  He is tweeting his experience  - already tweeted pics of protestors standing outside.


    Early votes (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 13, 2016 at 05:09:24 PM EST
    From (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 07:58:36 AM EST
    the files of here we go again: Rush Limbaugh is revisiting Operation Chaos and calling it Save the Socialist.

    Just saw on Twitter (none / 0) (#113)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 12:22:15 PM EST
    That the Sanders camp, or one of his support groups,  is supposedly doing robocalls in Ohio and Illinois to encourage Dems to switch regustration and vote in the Reoublican primaries.

    It would make sense (none / 0) (#114)
    by CoralGables on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 12:56:37 PM EST
    since Sanders polls much lower than Clinton with registered Democrats. He could get lucky and siphon off some of her votes to the anti-Trump movement.

    Ohio and North Carolina (none / 0) (#117)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 04:40:57 PM EST
    Are semi-closed primaries (voters had to register by Febrauary 16 to be eligible to vote - wonder how many 17 year olds will even come out AND be eligible?)

    Florida is a closed primary.

    Illinois and Missouri are open.


    Why am (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 01:52:18 PM EST
    I not surprised to be hearing this?

    A friend of mine (none / 0) (#116)
    by CST on Mon Mar 14, 2016 at 02:01:29 PM EST
    phone banking for Sanders this weekend said that "ranting on Facebook is way less depressing"

    I'm taking that as a good sign :)


    Well if that is true it worked out well (none / 0) (#118)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 07:53:30 PM EST
    for Kasich, not so well for Sanders.

    Given tonight's results (Tuesday), ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 15, 2016 at 08:58:54 PM EST
    ... with Hillary Clinton triumphant in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Illinois, I think Bernie Sanders' campaign has likely shot its last bolt. It's time for Mrs. Clinton to graciously offer the olive branch, and somehow bring Mr. Sanders on board in some high-profile capacity.

    I'm (none / 0) (#120)
    by FlJoe on Wed Mar 16, 2016 at 06:10:56 AM EST
    looking forward to their joint appearance on SNL.