Dems Move On to Nevada and South Carolina

The New Hampshire results are in. Bernie won by a sliver. Pete B. came in second and Amy K. third. Then Elizabeth Warren, then Biden.

Sen. Michael Bennet and entrepreneur Andrew Yang have dropped out. Warren is staying in. Joe Biden is lagging and sagging, but trying to hold on, believing people of color in South Carolina will resurrect his campaign. [More...]

Pete and Amy are like two sides of the same sandwich -- made with white bread and mayonnaise, take your pick. I think they cancel each other out and I don't see that either has gained any traction whatsoever with Democrats of color, in Nevada, South Carolina or anywhere else.

I listened to both Pete B's and Bernie's New Hampshire post-result speeches. I'm warming to Bernie but not to Pete. I just didn't find him inspiring or specific enough. He seemed like a deer caught in the headlights -- just too wet behind the ears for me. There were awkward pauses between his sentences ended and when people clapped.

My current thoughts on Bernie Sanders: Tonight he sounded authentic to me now (finally). I have long been critical of him, mostly due to his claim to be spearheading a revolution (based on ideas and values every Jewish grandparent, parent aunt and uncle I know from Brooklyn, including my own, held long before him.) But now he's been running for President so long he has become like a comfortable old shoe. I actually believe that if he's the nominee and his health holds up, he will do everything he promises, from canceling student debt to offering health care for all to making big inroads in the reform of the criminal justice system and protecting Medicare and social security. Who knows, maybe he'll even have a Middle East peace plan both sides would listen to. He's certainly more capable than Jared Kushner.

Even if moderate Midwestern Dems are now adverse to Bernie's ideas as too far left, I think it might be worthwhile to nominate him because of how many millions more Americans will become exposed to his positions. After all, they are the right positions, I've never had a quarrel with that. And if the public isn't ready for these ideas in 2020, hopefully they will be in 2024, allowing the next generation of progressive candidates to run all the way home with them.

I'm just not convinced that any of the current crop of Dems can beat Trump. It's hard to argue with stupid, and that's the only explanation I can think of that anyone would still support him. But they do -- just look at the sea of white bread faces at his rallies who applaud his fear-mongering -- last night he said:

They're going to take away everything. They're going to take your wealth, they're going to take your guns. They're going to take away everything."

He also retold his snake story to ramp up fear of immigrants. (As I've pointed out before, there are many other meanings to that story, including that the snake is a metaphor for an untrustworthy cooperating defendant who bites his unsuspecting codefendant in the as*, killing him).

At least Bernie will give as good as he gets when it comes to battling Trump. Maybe Dems need a knock-down, drag-out fight right now to take out Trump, rather than a bland or non-charismatic mid-western moderate who doesn't offend or scare anyone.

I'm not committing yet, just thinking out loud. But I am glad Bernie won last night in New Hampshire. I'm just not sure what it means, especially with billionaires Bloomberg and Steyer throwing money at ads like drunken sailors.

As for "vote blue no matter who", while I encourage everyone else to do that, I'll only get on board so long as it isn't Biden (or Bloomberg, who I view as a Republican and I never have and never would vote for one).

< New Hampshire Votes | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's illimunating (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CST on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 10:17:18 AM EST
    Today I got some bad news out of Turkey.  It's been a long year with a lot of bad news out of Turkey, but some of it came today.  Another passport taken away and another life permanently altered because someone showed up on the wrong list.

    Erdogan was first elected President in 2014.  This wasn't happening in 2014, but it's happening now.

    I wouldn't hesitate to vote for anyone running in the general against Trump.  Not for a second.

    The "Breakout" for Bernie (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:15:23 AM EST
    seems tenuous, if not premature.  Yes, Bernie won in New Hampshire and claimed to have done so in Iowa. But, I am not ready to dub him "Landslide Bernie," and discount future possibilities.

    With the advantages of being in a neighboring state with long-time name recognition and public service, Bernie won 25.8 percent compared to Pete's 24.5 percent. A win is a win, but a 1.3 percent margin for the Bernie movement? And, to Pete, a "newcomer" as Amy, equating him to Trump, referred to him. (Amy  appeared to outshine both Bernie and Pete in the media with her 19.8 percent).

    Iowas results, while contested, stand at this point as: Pete 26.2 percent, Bernie 26.1 percent and Amy at 12.3 percent.

    Delegates, Iowa and NH, Pete, 22; Sanders, 21; Klobuchar, 7.  (out of 1991 needed for nomination).

    South Carolina and Nevada will be challenging to Bernie in the same way as for Pete and Amy. And, with his poor showings so far, for Biden too.

    Part of me hopes you are right (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:29:29 AM EST
    But I don't think so.  No one except Bernie is going to have real Super Tuesday money.  Pete is trying but the truth is if you are sitting on a pile of money after SC you can't really compete

    The other reason only part of me hopes you are right is right now it's a really easy no brainer for me.  Between Sanders and Bloomberg.

    If it becomes one of the ones I actually like I really will be conflicted by any doubt they can beat Trump.


    Not good news for Bernie. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 03:09:41 PM EST
    Yes Bernie won NH, but his percentage of the vote was HALF of what it was in 2016. That means that a lot of people that voted Bernie four years ago voted for someone else this time. Being more selective in your voters is not a winning strategy.

    Both Bernie and Trump in 2016 benefitted from who was on the other side of the ballot.


    Cake Ingredients:
    • 2 1/2 cups all purpose flour
    • 1 1/2 teaspoons baking soda
    • 1 1/4 teaspoons baking powder
    • 2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
    • 1/2 teaspoon salt
    • 2 cups sugar
    • 4 large eggs
    • 1 cup vegetable oil
    • 1 teaspoon vanilla extract
    • 2 cups grated (small pieces) carrots (do not use packaged pre-shredded carrots they are too dry)
    • 3/4 cup chopped pecans
    • 3/4 cup flaked coconut (optional)
    • 8 oz. crushed pineapple (If from a can, drain the liquid off first)

    Frosting Ingredients:
    • 2 sticks (1 cup) unsalted butter, slightly softened
    • 16 oz. cream cheese (NOTE: use real cream cheese, because reduced fat or spreadable cream cheese tends to leave the frosting rather soft and runny)
    • 2 teaspoons vanilla extract
    • 1/2 teaspoon salt (optional, and only if you want to cut the sweetness of the frosting)
    • 6 to 6 1/2 cups (690g to 747g) powdered sugar

    Cake Instructions:
    Preheat the oven to 350 degrees.

    Line the bottoms of 3 (8 inch) or 2 (9 inch) round pans with wax or parchment paper, grease with shortening and flour the paper and pans for easy release when turning out.

    (NOTE: Scratch carrot cake has a tendency to really stick to pans, even when greased, so I strongly suggest that you use the paper.)

    In a bowl, whisk together for 30 seconds the flour, baking soda, baking powder, cinnamon, and salt.

    In another mixing bowl, add the 2 cups sugar, 4 eggs, 1 cup oil and 1 tsp. vanilla. Mix 2 to 3 minutes at medium speed until the mixture is well blended and light colored.

    Using a spoon, stir in the flour until the mixture is well moistened, and then fold in the carrots, pecans, crushed pineapple and (optional) coconut.

    Pour the cake mixture evenly between the baking pans. Bake 35 minutes at 350 degrees, or until a toothpick inserted in the center comes out clean.

    (NOTE: Don't open the oven door or touch the center of the cake to test for doneness until very near the end of baking time. Otherwise, the cake may sink slightly in the center.)

    Cool cake layers in pan for 10 minutes on a wire rack then turn out. Cool completely before frosting.

    Frosting Instructions:
    Cut the butter into slices and add to the bowl of your mixer. Beat on low to medium speed until the butter is softened and smooth.

    Cut the cold cream cheese into pieces and add to the butter, beating at low to medium speed until incorporated.

    (NOTE: If you use a hand mixer, you may need to soften the cream cheese a bit more.)

    Add the vanilla. Gradually add the powdered sugar beating on low speed until blended. (If necessary, cover the bowl with a towel to mitigate the dust cloud from the powdered sugar.0

    Increase mixing speed and beat until fluffy. Don't overbeat or the frosting will become too soft. If that happens, refrigerate it for a short while and will firm back up a bit.

    You can make the frosting in advance and refrigerate until ready to use. If you do this, let it slightly soften naturally (do NOT microwave) before frosting the cake.

    (NOTE: Learn from my mistake. Frost the cake only when the cake is completely cool, otherwise the frosting will melt and you'll have a big mess.)


    Do you remember (none / 0) (#68)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 07:56:41 PM EST
    Lippy Espinda?

    Well (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:50:37 AM EST
    at least we seem to have culled down the number in the 2 that have happened already.

    It will be interesting to see what Amy and Pete can do in NV and SC. We already know it's bad landscape for Bernie. Steyer is actually in the mix in NV.


    If the Democrats do not take the White House (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 09:09:48 AM EST
    and Senate in 2020, I predict there will be no 2024 election (at least on the White House count).

    Get it together. Stop the purity tests. To hell with being "woke" (whatever the hell that means). Stop taking extreme positions to appease the far left (you have their vote already).

    This republic will not survive four more years of orange jesus and Moscow Mitch.

    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 11:20:11 AM EST
    even winning the white house won't be enough unless we take the senate too and hold the house. the entire GOP must be wiped out at the polls.

    Boy (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 08:22:03 AM EST
    I was just watched no some of the Sanders rally last night.

    Any one trying to compare Bloomberg to Trump should really watch that.

    It looked and sounded disturbingly like a Trump rally.  No threats to beat up disrupters but the largest responses came when he was talking about other democrats.  Especially Bloomberg but "democrat establishment" worked just as well.

    You were sure minute to minute they were going to launch into LOCK HIM UP

    Sanders will lose not just because his policies frighten people but because every day from screeching from the podium to refusing to release medical records he looks more and more like a blue Trump.

    I'm betting that is about the last thing anyone but his 20% fanatics want.

    It's also becoming clear a large portion of them will not vote for any democrat but him and might vote for Trump out of pure whiney spite.

    We have to win without them.  And we can.

    I have (none / 0) (#130)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 08:51:30 AM EST
    long considered a large part of Bernie's base to be a cult of personality analogous to tRumps base.

    Also  the crosstabs of the Marist poll shows Bernie has a gender gap 41%M/24%F very similar to tRump's


    And this is why (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 12:53:02 PM EST
    so many of us are dead set against Bernie becoming the nominee. And it's also why Bernie would lose against Trump in a general election along with his policies that most people don't want.

    I have been making the same point for quite a while that we are going to have to win without them and we proved we could in 2018. We actually do better when Bernie loses because his candidates are 0-118 red to blue.


    After 1 primary and 1 caucus (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 04:03:14 AM EST
    we know that Bernie's ceiling is 25% and he cannot unite the party. He's spent 5 years running for president and he appears to be in poor health refusing to release his medical records on his heart attack.

    Encouraged (none / 0) (#2)
    by NoSides on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 06:14:31 AM EST
    by the win by Bernie Sanders.

    I do believe he can win in November.
    One of the reasons I think so is that he is authentic - and I think that people are hungering for that in a politician. Someone who can speak spontaneously and from the heart.

    I hope that people who believe in him will vote for him, and not vote "strategically" for a candidate that does not represent their beliefs, but who they think can win.

    To me, voting for someone you do not believe in, for whatever reason, is the best way to insure that whoever is elected, they will not represent you.

    I have said more than once (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 07:12:42 AM EST
    I will support the nominee.  But illusions should be falling away.
    It will not be Amy or Pete.  It will not be Warren or Biden.  It will be either Sanders or Bloomberg.

    Any prediction should be met with an eye roll.  There has never been anything like what we are about to see.  It could go either way.   I could make a strong argument for why either will win.  

    All one can do is go with their gut.  Mine say Sanders can't win.  Mine says Bloomberg will be the nominee.  It's said that for months.  Since way back when the idea was laughed at.  Well, nobody is laughing now.

    Things are going to start happening very fast now.  The army Bloomberg has build is preparing for the full frontal.  We will be at Super Tuesday before you know it.  And then it's a Nantucket Sleigh-ride.

    The guy you "view as a Republican" was just endorsed  by another democratic house member he helped elect in 2018

    Lucy McBath Endorses Bloomberg

    February 12, 2020 at 6:34 am EST By Taegan Goddard 60 Comments

    Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA), a gun regulation activist whose son was shot and killed, endorsed Mike Bloomberg's Democratic presidential campaign Wednesday, joining a growing coterie of House members to support the former New York mayor two years after he helped elect them to Congress, the Washington Post reports.


    Fly in the ointment (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jmacWA on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 07:20:35 AM EST
    I can only see one reason I would vote against any of the current contenders, and that would be their VP pick.  I think of all the contenders Sanders is the one who I worry about most in this regard.  His in your face attitude towards the Dems might cause him to pick someone truly revolting

    This is it, exactly (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Zorba on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 10:38:20 AM EST
    Given the fact that Bernie has already had one heart attack, his VP pick might literally be one heartbeat away from the Presidency.
    If he gets the nomination and picks Tulsi Gabbard, I don't think  that in good conscience I could vote for him.

    How about (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 01:59:36 PM EST

    Sanders/Castro (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by leap on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 04:38:18 PM EST
    would be terrific.

    I'd like that (none / 0) (#71)
    by Zorba on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 07:32:39 AM EST
    A lot.

    My only constant in this race has been that (none / 0) (#88)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 07:31:25 PM EST
    any nominee should pick Castro as VP. To me it is a no brainer.

    Sanders is going to have to make some concessions to the more center of the left spectrum to unite the party. No way he picks Gabbard, IMO.


    With all the qualified choices (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 06:03:34 AM EST
    Even if you stick to the ones running

    It would seem crazy to me for any male nominee to NOT pick a woman.  I would bet the farm a Bloomberg would pick a woman.   can't say about Bernie.   It it would seem silly not to.

    As far as Castro personally I never got the excitement.  He is entirely suitable.  Smart and qualified.  

    But if Pete is Mayo he would be tartar sauce IMO.  Or maybe jalapeño ketchup.


    Can the convention refuse to nominate (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 03:58:41 PM EST
    the Pres nominees choice for VP?

    Consider what Gabbard has said about the Democratic Party, I could see a lot of Democratics revolting at the idea of a her as the VP pick.

    I would not vote for a Sanders-Gabbard ticket. Would have to go back to hoping AF1 crashes.


    Yes, the delegates can reject the VP choice. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 07:23:31 PM EST
    Or, the party's presidential nominee can actually decline to name a running mate, which effectively allows the delegates to choose the vice presidential nominee in an open convention.

    That's what incumbent President William McKinley did at the 1900 Republican Convention, which is how Theodore Roosevelt ended up on the ticket and later became president, when McKinley was assassinated in Sept. 1901.)

    But the last time something like this happened was 100 years ago at the 1920 Republican Convention, when Ohio Gov. Warren Harding declined to formally name a running mate, and party bosses assumed that delegates would choose their stated preference for the party's vice presidential candidate, a now-historical footnote named Sen. Irvine Lenroot (R-WI).

    Alas, Harding and his party leadership cronies, along with many of the delegates themselves, departed the convention before the VP vote was taken. And like unsupervised children when the teacher leaves the classroom, the remaining 700 or so ultra-conservative delegates did their own thing. They rejected Lenroot's candidacy in favor of everyone's favorite stick in the mud, Massachusetts Gov. Calvin Coolidge, who was far more to their liking. While that sounds like an amusing story, I would also note that this bit of convention mischief ultimately had very serious consequences when fate intervened with President Harding's sudden death in 1923.

    One can only speculate whether the 1929 stock market crash and the subsequent Great Depression might have been avoided altogether, had the far more progressive and pro-labor Sen. Lenroot -- who was in the mold of former President Theodore Roosevelt and former California Gov. Hiram Johnson -- succeeded to the White House upon Harding's demise, rather than the staunchly conservative Coolidge, who was resolute believer in laissez faire economics and did absolutely nothing as president to rein in the irrational excesses of the 1920s.

    Indeed, when Lenroot died five days short of his 80th birthday on January 26, 1949, his obituary in the Associated Press wire service report lamented, "Former Senator Irvine L. Lenroot of Wisconsin, the man who might have been the 30th President of the United States, died Wednesday night."

    And that is your useless bit of historical trivia for today, February 12, 2020.



    Lovely that someone else remembers (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Towanda on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 11:42:58 PM EST
    Senator Lenroot, an outstanding pol and person. He played a significant role, by the way, in expediting Wisconsin's ratification document for the 19th Amendment, somthat Wisconsin last yeR celebrated its historic first ratification of woman suffrage, lenroot was an ardent suffragust.

    I grew up hearing great stories about him, because my father was from northern Wisconsin and knew him and his stellar career.


    There is that (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 07:22:44 AM EST
    I think you may be right. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 08:51:39 AM EST
    Buttigieg and Klobuchar do not seem to be willing to go straight at orange jesus. They're both trying to be "bipartisan" and issue oriented. The general will not be won on the issues. It will be a street fight. Or least will if the Democrats want to win. Bloomberg is running TV ads in PA that go at the current pretender AND throws in an issue or two while he's at it. Bernie will get hammered on "free stuff." Bloomberg has the money to take on the NRA, cause they will came at him very hard since guns his one of his central issues.

    Quite frankly, I'm disappointed in whomever will end up the nominee. Unless something crazy happens at the convention. I hate to say it, but Bloomberg is the only one with an air of leadership to him. The others just don't put out that vibe.


    It will be interesting (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:39:08 AM EST
    To see if the NRA becomes an issue

    They currently are not that happy with Bernie but he has a history.  As does Bloomberg.


    As a former (none / 0) (#72)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 09:52:03 AM EST
    snipper in the US Army and a long time competitive long range precision shooter (something that requires NRA membership for most meets at less than $US50 a year) it always amuses me to see the NRA mentioned as a political force.

    If you look at what is happening in VA and CA there are on going court cases which I have little doubt those two states will lose once they get to the SC; both cases have multiple gun rights groups listed; but the NRA is not a party in either state.  The real force in those cases are law prof who are 2A experts and can easily tear apart the laws in VA and CA.

    Truth be told the NRA is more of a paper tiger than most folks think.  In some ways I view them as similar to the NCAA with the function of setting rules for competitive shooting matches and requiring safety standards that are far stricter than both pro and anti 2A guys think are necessary.


    The NRA is currently in a state of disarray. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 11:56:59 AM EST
    But you are sadly mistaken if you think they hadn't been a political force. They had a whole TV network (now discontinued) dedicated to political propaganda. Wayne LaPierre and Dana Loesch are nothing by political lobbyists. And there is the tripe spewed by Ted Nugent. But agreed, they have been kind of quiet lately.

    I resigned from the NRA a few years ago due almost exclusively to LaPierre and the endless stream of mailers begging for money. Daily. My PO box started being inundated on a nearly daily basis with fund raising pitches. And the pitches weren't for gun safety and shooting match rules.


    As mentioned yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 04:43:42 PM EST
    Was going to happen I spent several hours with my older brother today between driving both ways and lunch.

    It was really interesting.  BTW it's all clear down below for the next 3 years, woohoo

    But my brother is a lifelong hunter.  He one of those people who really lived for it when he was younger.   Has all the gear including guns.  Lots of them.  As do pretty much every male member of my family.  So when I brought up, in discussing Bloomberg, that gun control was going to be central to his campaign I could not have been much more surprised to hear him say he was absolutely in favor of common sense gun control.  

    Defined by him as regulating hand guns and assault weapons and of course the crazy shi+ like 100 round clips and bump stocks.

    I don't ever remember discussing this subject with him but I'm pretty sure that might not have been his view a few years ago.

    Which tells me, to bring this back to the election, this might help explain what Bloomberg's data is telling hm on this subject that gives him the confidence to open with that $10,000,000 super bowl ad.  Which of course my brother saw.

    That in spite of the views like the ones of ragebot, this really is a winning issue.


    PS (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 04:53:23 PM EST
    Another surprising unprompted observation was

    "Trump is out of control"

    That's a quote.  From a guy who was as completely on the Trump train as I think it's possible to be for a while.


    My point was (none / 0) (#78)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 06:28:49 PM EST
    the gun control laws proposed by VA and CA violate 2A rights and would lose in many courts including the SC.

    You also seem to misunderstand the NRA (and your brother's position on "common sense gun control laws".  The NRA has no issue with realistic background checks; even if some of the groups supporting the current suits in VA and CA do oppose background checks.

    Last time I checked there were just over 500 deaths from long guns; something both the VA and CA laws address.  The majority of deaths are the result of hand guns, and mostly what use to be called Saturday Night Specials, cheap unreliable handguns.  The largest single source of deaths is gang turf wars and innocents who get in the way of these wars.

    A big part of the problem with background checks is the people who would not pass them simply don't submit to them.  My local gun shop requires them, but almost everyone in Tallahassee knows if you go to the Mickey Ds on Jackson Bluff Road after 2:00 AM on weekends when the parking lot, and those of the near by drive ins, often have over a thousand POC you can easily buy a throwaway gun with no background check.  The public range run by the county (only supervision is trash pickup and replace toilet paper in the facilities) is also a place where you can sniff around and find guns for sale with no background check for those who are not POC.  On the other hand the local NRA affiliated range has a locked gate (key card required) and the range officer does not suffer fools.  As an aside the toughest range officer is a former master sargent who is a POC.  Not to mention how many LEOs are club members and would arrest anyone trying to illegally sell a weapon.

    There have been multiple repeatable studies of all the mass shootings that overwhelmingly show the perps did not get their guns legally so a background check would not have stopped them.

    Bottom line is the 2A makes it hard to come up with any gun control laws, but more importantly the bad guys would ignore the laws anyway.


    I agree... (none / 0) (#84)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 07:20:31 PM EST
    In fact I was thinking along the same lines int he car on the way home just now. (No, I have nothing else to think about).

    I was thinking that the only time I. might be satisfied to see Bernie win is if it comes down to a showdown between him and Bloomberg, which seems very likely to. me too. Especially since Bloomberg specifically entered the race to stop Bernie.

    I share Jeralyn's feelings about Bernie. I was never against his positions on issues, just the way he and his supporters demonize everyone else. So though I am really sad it might come down to those two out of the good field we had to start with, if it is a horserace between only those two by the time Super Tuesday rolls around, I may have to vote for Bernie.

    Aaaaargh, it is really going to hurt. But you know what? Not any worse than it would have been voting for Biden.


    Wow, I had not seen the McBath endorsement (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 07:28:01 PM EST
    That is going to be huge, if any endorsements matter.

    538 (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 07:53:42 AM EST
    That's Nevada (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 07:57:24 AM EST
    Silver (none / 0) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 08:38:42 AM EST
    is full of it, the last polling from Nevada is nearly a month old, so is mostly useless.

    Anyway him in the lead with 23% is basically the same old count of Bernie's base.

    He has still has some major obstacles to overcome, such as

    The influential Culinary Union distributed a flier that says Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders would "End Culinary Healthcare" if elected president of the United States.
    The flier, obtained by CNN on Tuesday, outlines where the leading 2020 Democratic candidates stand on health care, immigration and "Good Jobs." It singles out Sanders as the candidate who will end the union's health care among the top six Democratic candidates, pointing to his "Medicare for All" plan.
    The release of the flier by the union, which is a force in Nevada politics, comes just a week and a half away from the Nevada caucuses. The organization says it represents 60,000 hotel and casino workers in Nevada and provides health insurance coverage for more than 130,000 people. Its organizing abilities have helped deliver the state for Democrats for years. The union has not endorsed a candidate in the 2020 election.

    I just looked and reported what I saw (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 09:30:14 AM EST
    I have no idea.   Which is why I looked.  One thing I would say is it's a caucus, right?

    We know how much the bros like them caucuses.

    I noticed Amy was not even registering.  Seems like that might change.


    Judging (none / 0) (#25)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:00:58 AM EST
    by Iowa, Mayor Pete's supporters also have that caucus thing figured out. That union thing could be big, possibly knocking Bernie down a notch.

    Also FWIWI I did notice 538 updated the probability of a contested convention to one out of three up from one out of four before NH.  Bernie also dropped to 1 out of three from 2 out of 5.


    P Wire (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 01:15:16 PM EST
    Prepare for a Long Slog

    February 12, 2020 at 1:59 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 37 Comments

    Ron Bownstein: "These results raise pointed questions about whether Sanders can truly build a coalition broad enough to pull away from his rivals. Given the modest size of Sanders's New Hampshire victory, Greenberg said, `I don't see it producing a surge in the states following it.'"

    "Of course, no one else in the race has given any indication they can assemble a broader coalition of voters than Sanders has done. The limits constraining all of the top-tier contenders--and the prospect of Bloomberg further splintering the electorate with his unprecedented spending--is why more Democrats are beginning to contemplate what seemed unimaginable not long ago: that for the first time since 1952 they will arrive at their party convention in Milwaukee this July without anyone laying claim to a majority of delegates."

    Trending on the political dictionary: brokered convention.

    Of course, who will broker a convention when there are no power brokers left?

    I have read (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 01:46:41 PM EST
    Bernie is not going to SC or NV. I guess polling is bad in those 2 states for him. However that does not help solidify the prevailing vote among the prevailing 2-4 candidates.

    Sanders is 3.5% behind Biden (none / 0) (#48)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 01:57:16 PM EST
    Both are trending down; Biden probably because he failed to perform so far and Sanders because the dems are dissing him and the NV union is doing the same.

    Still being in second place means Sanders will probably win more delegates than anyone but Biden.


    Depends (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 02:23:34 PM EST
    if Sanders is even 2nd. He may not even be viable in NV.

    MSNBC just said (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 09:41:11 AM EST
    There hasn't been any polling in NV in a couple of weeks.

    I expect that will change.


    Real Clear Politics (none / 0) (#14)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 09:48:05 AM EST
    recent NV polls.

    Some ended yesterday.  Sometimes I do watch MSNBC but as soon as I see one of their talking heads saying something that is obviously not true I grab the clicker.


    The last (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:42:42 AM EST
    poll for Nevada on RCP has Bernie at 18% which means more like 14 or 15% considering how he falls below his polling numbers.

    Nevada is dead set against Bernie for sure. So is South Carolina.

    I wonder who the Reid people are supporting in NV. That is who is really gonna get a boost.


    P Wire (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 01:58:50 PM EST
    Bonus Quote of the Day

    February 12, 2020 at 2:15 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 61 Comments

    "He has a plan, that's for sure. You have to recognize, the man -- he really was a good mayor of a huge, huge, city, the largest city in America. I like him, I've always liked him. Nobody's done more on guns and climate than he has. No one."

    -- Former Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), talking to Vice about Michael Bloomberg.

    OK, listen to James Baldwin, then, (none / 0) (#57)
    by leap on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 04:36:58 PM EST
    Is that (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 04:38:39 PM EST
    Dick Cavett?

    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 04:43:37 PM EST
    Sorry (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 04:45:47 PM EST
    I attended a benefit showing tonight (none / 0) (#69)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 10:23:36 PM EST
    of Sarah Burns' 2012 documentary on the Central Park Five. In the Q&A afterwards, she mentioned (almost in passing) that following their 2002 exoneration (by DNA evidence and other information that clearly demonstrated that they were convicted based on coerced false confessions, obtained in 1989 when they were 14-16 years old) the City of NYC dragged its feet and obstructed the civil rights case for ten years under the direction of Mayor Bloomberg. During this same period, Bloomberg adamantly refused to settle the ACLU's stop-and-frisk suit against the City. (When DeBlasio was elected Mayor, he directed the City to settle both cases. The City paid the Five $41 million -- a little over $1 million per year of wrongful incarceration.)

    They should have (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 06:00:40 AM EST
    sued Trump too since he led a lynch mob. However they would not have gotten any money out of him since he doesn't have any.

    ... is longtime Las Vegas journalist John Ralston, who's now affiliated with the Nevada Independent. His latest take is as follows:

    "There has been no recent polling, but I don't think it would be relevant anyhow. Most smart people I talk to believe Bernie Sanders is the favorite here, and I think so, too. He almost beat Hillary here in 2016, a core of his followers are Make Bernie Great Again and will go nowhere, and this time he has adults running his effort, not the ragtag crew of four years ago. He also has polled well with Latinos, which is important here.

    "Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg is not to be underestimated, though. He has a big and smart team here, and the entire premise of his Nevada organization has been to take advantage here if he did well in Iowa and New Hampshire. He has been in single-digits in polls, but it's all about field now for the caucus and he has it.

    "Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has a good team here, too, but she has almost dropped out of the conversation, fair or not. And this is make-or-break for former Vice President Joe Biden. His organization is not as robust as some, but he has people who know what they are doing on board. But even his team seems to be talking more about South Carolina than Nevada. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar has not had much of a presence here, but just ramped up her TV buy. And the wild card -- businessman Tom Steyer -- is on TV more often than ads for the best slot payoffs."



    Bernie's (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 02:59:50 PM EST
    behavior says differently though. Or maybe he's not just in good enough health to travel to NV.

    Article dated 2/11 (none / 0) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 08:17:18 PM EST
    Bernie Sanders to rally in northern Nevada ahead of 2020 caucus
    RENO, Nev. (News 4-Fox 11) -- Vermont Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders will be holding early voting campaign rallies in Nevada next week.

    Senator Sanders will host a rally in Carson City, followed by another one at the University of Nevada, Reno.

    He will also travel to Las Vegas to participate in multiple rallies ahead of the 2020 Nevada caucus.

    Do you have a link showing Sander's cancelling these events? As far as I can see, these events are still part of his schedule.


    When I googled (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 08:46:06 PM EST
    Bernie campaigning in Nevada nothing came up except events a year ago. Even those events did not come up. However now I am seeing that he is going to be campaigning in Nevada with Bill de Blasio but the locations are not named. The only news talking about the rallies is Fox at least outside of maybe some local news organizations.

    That article was there a day before (none / 0) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 09:10:44 PM EST
    you stated that maybe he wouldn't be campaigning in Nevada due to poor health. There definitely wasn't anything out on the web stating that Sanders wasn't going to campaign in Nevada as you indicated. And definitely not anything saying that health issues were preventing him from campaigning in Nevada. Seems you kinda made that up out of whole cloth.

    Seems he has a real busy schedule. Here is the link: https://tinyurl.com/ruhy2t4


    I said (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 09:14:30 PM EST
    maybe he's not in good enough health. He really looks bad but then he's a 78 year old with a heart condition. When I googled Bernie Sanders Nevada campaign events what came up was 2019.

    Where is the article (none / 0) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 12:33:12 AM EST
    that substantiated your claim that he wasn't going to SC or NV. First you guessed his polling was bad in those 2 states.Then maybe he wasn't healthy enough to go.

    You never did provide a link to substantiate your claim that he wasn't going to those two states. Then in two separate comments you built on the false premise that he wasn't going to campaign and opined on the negative reasons why he wasn't going to campaign.  False premises all around. He has a very busy schedule planned for Nevada. A poll released this morning showed him in first place in Nevada. He is in second place in SC.

    I'm sure you can come up with enough reasons why you don't want Sanders to win without making stuff up.


    P Wire (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 02:48:52 PM EST
    Why There Aren't More Nevada Polls

    February 16, 2020 at 8:44 am EST By Taegan Goddard 31 Comments

    Vox: "Although the caucuses -- which will take place on February 22 this year -- have been the third Democratic primary contest in the nation since 2008, the state is notoriously hard to poll."

    "So hard, in fact, that until Friday, the most recent poll included in RealClearPolitics' Nevada polling average -- from Suffolk University -- was more than a month old."

    "We now have exactly one recent poll of the state, courtesy of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which shows Sen. Bernie Sanders in the lead among likely caucus-goers with 25 percent support."

    Just (none / 0) (#115)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 03:22:23 PM EST
    hope this doesn't turn into another clusterfk
    In some ways, it's an exciting moment for Democrats here in the Silver State: Never before have they been able to participate early in the state's presidential caucus, as they will over a four-day period. In others, it's a nerve-wracking one: No one quite knows if the new process the party has quickly re-designed in the wake of Iowa's problem-plagued contest earlier this month is going to work.
     They are going to try to meld early voting with the live caucus votes, all through a chain of technology all run by poorly trained volunteers, many of the. What could go wrong?

    This early voting is making it closer to a real primary as there is a possibility that the early voting may way outpace the actual caucus turnout.

    No one seems too confidant

    "Just crossing our fingers and hoping the party can pull it off," the staffer said. "There is the feeling that we are free falling into the unknown."


    If they screw it up (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 03:26:47 PM EST
    There should never be another caucus.

    There is no excuse for this.  


    As I have posted before (none / 0) (#12)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 09:43:18 AM EST
    my go to site is Real Clear Politics in great part because it averages polls and to me even more importantly has graphs that show trends.

    Not much question Sander is the current leader and his trend is up.  To a lesser extent Bloomberg is also trending upward; but at a massive cost he seems more than willing to pay.

    Sanders and Bloomberg seem to be on a collision course which will leave bad feelings what ever happens.  I am not sold on Bloomberg being able to get enough delegates to avoid a contested convention (unless lighting strikes, see the end of this post).  Same goes for Sanders.  Even with the kind words from Jeralyn and some others there are still a lot of road blocks establishment dems are throwing in Sanders path.  No question Clinton still has hard feelings and is still dissing Sanders; and she is far from a lone voice doing this.

    Another reason I like Real Clear Politics is it has betting data.  So far Trump is the favorite to be reelected and Sanders has double the support of Bloomberg.  As a rule I tend to avoid risking my money but the only bet I have placed so far is that Sanders will have more health issues that will render him incapable of competing for the nomination.  Sorta like what happened to Clinton last time around before the general.  The vid that went viral of her fainting and needing to be placed unconscious in her van really raised a lot of questions about her health.

    Maybe the biggest unknown(s) are what I term the September, October, and November surprises.  I have not doubt the dem candidate will have a story break that will embarrass them.  For Bloomberg I suspect he will be outed as not being woke.  Already there are twenty seven known confidential agreements he will not release women from.  Sanders does not have as much in his background (at least from what I know) but his association with the USSR back in the day will not play well in lots of places.

    Hard to see what more could be released to embarrass Trump.  Maybe his tax returns but the old one already released was not all that telling.  Another Stormy story would likely be viewed as old news and not change much.  There is already so much embarrassing stuff in public about Trump that any more would likely be lost in the shuffle.

    The biggest problem for Bloomberg is he is competing with Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Biden for the same voters.  While I view Bloomberg as the clear leader of the group all three of them will chip away, even if only a little, from his potential delegates. On the other hand Sanders seems to have clear sailing now that Warren seems to have faded.

    Whomever (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:38:11 AM EST
    is the last person standing is going to be the nominee. Right now that looks like Bloomberg due to the fact that he is getting support from POC and he has plenty of money. Bernie has had 2 chances so far in his best states to prove that he can expand his appeal and he cannot do it. He dumps millions of dollars and is upended by newbies. And has been shown in Iowa and NH that you can literally take 3 to 4 points off his poll number. He so far has underperformed every time.

    I would vote for (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 09:47:01 AM EST
    Just about any "New England Style" Republican if they were running against Trump. There's an important difference between conservatives and fascists. I say "New England Style" because the rest of the Republican party seems to be all aboard the Trump train.

    And I have never voted for a "New England Style" Republican before either.

    "New England Style" Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 10:36:58 AM EST
    seem to be what used to be called "Rockefeller Republicans" ... or, in Pennsylvania, "Hugh Scott Republicans."

    The (none / 0) (#15)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 09:49:02 AM EST
    Utah pubs don't seem to be on the Trump train.

    I still consider Mitt (none / 0) (#16)
    by CST on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 09:56:00 AM EST
    From New England.  But fair enough.

    Mitt is unlikely (none / 0) (#45)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 12:51:52 PM EST
    to stray much from the Trumpian path.  He voted "guilty" for the first Article of Impeachment but "not guilty" on the second (obstruction of Congress), which is curious.  But, the vindictive Trump will never forgive him even if he might have thought he was just taking the middle course.  

    The poor slob, impeachment defender Rep Matt Gaetz, can commiserate with Mitt, Matt having permanently run afoul of Trump by voting to curb war powers regarding Iran.  This Is the way fascists work--- lessons need to be taught for all to behold.


    Gonna miss Yang (none / 0) (#17)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 10:07:01 AM EST
    He seemed like the most normal person of the bunch.

    I don't think we've seen the last of him... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 10:32:04 AM EST
    He is a passionate and authentic idea man...if not a cabinet position in a Sanders administration (ideal near future), another run for president or Congress.  

    I'd love to vote for him for Governor of NY if he had any interest in that too.


    I like Yang (none / 0) (#22)
    by CST on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 10:40:01 AM EST
    I just don't understand why his first political race was for president.

    If the monstrosity that is currently in the WH (none / 0) (#23)
    by vml68 on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 10:54:12 AM EST
    could do it, then why not Yang?

    Btw, did you read about what happened to Yang's wife. Horrifying.


    Maybe instead of a political office... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:09:52 AM EST
    he shoulda hosted some lame reality show or made pretend he was a billionaire...lol.

    And btw your btw, f*ck Cy Vance...he would right in with Barr at the Trump DOJ.


    You can say that again. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by vml68 on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:24:59 AM EST
    f*ck Cy Vance

    Longest of long shots... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 10:55:21 AM EST
    to be sure, but still outperformed and drew more interest than several seasoned office holders.

    And I'm grateful for all the marketing he did for UBI...which I am convinced will be a necessary tool if we ever wish to address income inequality, wealth disparity, and poverty in our capitalist system.


    Why UBI rather than a higher minimum wage? (none / 0) (#26)
    by vml68 on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:02:18 AM EST
    Not arguing against UBI, just curious why you think that might be the better way to go.

    Not who you asked (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CST on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:06:06 AM EST
    But I think it's not a replacement for minimum wage its welfare with less paperwork and a hedge against large scale automation/globalization, ie. job losses.  Although if it's going to replace welfare, $1000/month isn't going to cut it.

    Why not both... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:12:06 AM EST
    UBI and a 15 dollar minimum wage?  

    Cost of living (none / 0) (#63)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 05:21:33 PM EST
    The cost of living in Manhattan, New York is double what it is in Manhattan, Kansas. The same minimum wage in both places makes no sense. Minimum wages can be set at the state and local level to reflect the local cost of living.

    Minimum wage in my state is 10.00 (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 07:36:20 AM EST
    That's a fairly new development when I was working for meals on wheels a couple of years ago it was 8 something.

    At 40 hours a week that's a bit over 19,000.00 a year  after state federal SS and Medicare tax that's about 14,500.

    Let me tell you.  That is not enough.  Even for one person.  Forget a family of three or four.  I don't know how they do it.  That's a lot less than I get in retirement income.   And I barely squeeze by with me and my two dogs who do not need to go to school.

    Sure it makes sense minimum wage might be different in different areas depending of cost of living.

    But it should be set in some way by the federal government based on that information.  Not the local hicks.

    I think the Yang idea of basic income is fantasy.  Dumb fantasy at that.  It will never happen.  Minimum wage could be raised enough to change people's lives.  


    And it's hard (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 07:49:08 AM EST
    To talk about how that might be hard on "local employers" when the largest local employer Walmart made something like 500 billion in profit last year.  The other local employees are mostly national food franchises.  

    There are very few local employers to harm.  


    In my area (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 08:00:11 AM EST
    15 an hour wouldn't even cut it for one person. Rents for one bedroom apartments are $900. You can always move further out for somewhat cheaper rents but then you are going to have the car expense so are you really saving any money? Renting out rooms in houses has become very popular due to the costs of apartments.

    As far as retirement and making ends meet, a lot of people are moving out of the country to make that work for them. There are a number of pretty large ex-pat communities in Mexico. Portugal has been another popular location.


    About 4 or 5 years ago, (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 02:12:48 PM EST
    I was offered a job in Princeton, NJ. The job was only guaranteed to last 18 months so I did not want to move there (I live about 100 miles away in PA). I looked into renting a room around Princeton to say at during the week and home weekends. Renting a room in that area was $900 to $1200 a month. Four to five years ago. My mortgage payment is less than $700 in the Susquehanna Valley. Needless to say, I passed on the job, but was able to parlay the written job offer into a nice sizable raise from my current employer.

    That's an argument (none / 0) (#131)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 09:32:31 AM EST
    ...to change the minimum wage in your area.

    As you note retirees are moving out of high cost areas for cheaper living abroad.  Raising the wage floor will accelerate that process as it will increase the cost of living. Retirees on fixed incomes will be hurt the most.


    Minimum Wage (none / 0) (#137)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 07:41:35 PM EST
    Was never meant to provide for a family. It set a bottom wage scale, for high school and college students trying to make cash in off hours. Minimum wage was never meant to provide for a family of four.
    A man or woman raising a family needs to earn far more than minimum wage, that is a given. False argument to expect otherwise. A family provider needs a job that pays more than a job that a high school or college kid could fill

    An idiotic thing to say (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 07:46:08 PM EST
    Frogs need wings.  That doesn't mean they get them.

    Plenty of people work for minimum wage in rural America.


    It is still true (none / 0) (#140)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 07:50:58 PM EST
    perhaps the job skills have changed, but I earned minimum wage in high school , college. No one ever expected anyone to raise a family on that wage. Minimum Wage WAS NEVER intended to raise a family on. That is just a fact

    You couldnt raise a family on $2 a hour, back when I was in high school. There was no outrage about the minimum wage then, only high school and college kids earned it.

    People need better job skills, and more high paying jobs. But making the minimum wage for a job applicable for a high school or college kid pay enough to raise a family is just silly


    The cluelessness is breath taking (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 07:57:34 PM EST
    Every retail job in this area pays minimum wage.   I have some experience with this because from 2011 to 2013 I had to work at some of them to supplement my income while I waited for SS.

    These jobs are not held by high school students.  They are often held by people who work more than one because you are correct it's not enough to live on.

    Please.  Just stop.


    If anyone besides that person (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 08:04:17 PM EST

    Life on $7.25 an Hour

    Eduardo Shoy, 58, holds two jobs: a KFC and Pizza Hut deliveryman and a forklift operator. "Tired?" he asked. "I'm too busy to be tired."Credit...Michael Appleton for The New York Times

    That's from 2013.  Which happens to be when I was doing it.


    Reading comprehension (2.00 / 1) (#143)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 08:06:13 PM EST
    Minimum was NEVER Intended to raise a family on.
    Please show me where that sentence is incorrect.
    Go back and check minimum wage levels, and poverty wage levels, going back to 1970.
    Minimum wage was always at or below the poverty line.. It never was intended (reading comprehension important here) for someone to raise a family on.
    It was meant for high school and college kids to be able to work and make some money.
    By raising minimum wage requirements to Raising a Family requirement, why would these places hire kids. NOT every job should pay enough to raise a family on. Never was, but that is what you want. Nonsensical

    E.G.O. (none / 0) (#89)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 07:32:30 PM EST
    The Times (none / 0) (#29)
    by NoSides on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:10:42 AM EST
    is really strange these days.

    They are portraying Sander's victory as something that will cause panic in the Democratic party.

    He is being cast as the far left against the "moderates".

    Can you imagine that Sanders's wish, in the words of Jeralyn above, to "do everything he promises, from canceling student debt to offering health care for all to making big inroads in the reform of the criminal justice system and protecting Medicare and social security. Who knows, maybe he'll even have a Middle East peace plan both sides would listen to" is being portrayed as something "far left"?

    Do we really want a candidate who promises less?

    All I can say is that Sanders' candidacy gives me a sense of hope - and a sense of pride in the Democratic Party that I have not felt in quite a while.

    I also believe that he is the one who can win.
    Because he is not the average politician. I think that is what Trump's appeal was. People looking for someone who is unscripted. And with Sanders, he is on the right side of things. Wouldn't that be nice?!

    When you say (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CST on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:16:54 AM EST
    "People are looking for" Trump qualities I would like to point out that Trump supporters are looking for those qualities.  The rest of us have an aversion to those qualities.  IMO it's a mistake to try to beat Trump by being more Trumpish.

    Trump people aren't going to leave Trump.


    Sanders has been in elected office (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 03:09:17 PM EST
    in our federal government for a very long time. He is an average politician.

    Who is up to speed on polls (none / 0) (#33)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:22:13 AM EST
    So far Bloomberg has two polls out of the needed four polls to get him into the next debate.

    I have no idea how many polls will be taken between now and the deadline; less yet how well or poorly Bloomberg might do in them.

    Can anyone enlighten me.

    Has Bloomberg... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:40:51 AM EST
    shown any genuine interest in being a part of any future debates?

    I think his primary opponents want him up there to be vetted and face scrutiny, and I can see Bloomberg trying to dodge that and let his Madison Ave. advertising executives do all the talking.


    He has (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:55:18 AM EST
    shown interest in being in the debates and Warren apparently wanted him in the debates to "vet" him though that doesn't seem to be working out too well for her.

    People just don't care about the whole purity thing regarding money and the candidates that have shopped that have ended up dropping out.


    Bloomberg's focus (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 12:25:01 PM EST
    is opposition to Trump.  No attacks on any of the Democratic primary candidates, not even soft ones.  And, it is working for him so far.  The other candidates should take the free lesson from the best consultants money can buy.

    Here (none / 0) (#40)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 11:45:37 AM EST
    is the wiki it looks like the 6 polls are Monmouth, Quinnipiac, Fox, NBC, CNN and ABC.

    Looks like they are all on  2,3 or 4 week interval so it looks like we should get at least 4 more before the debate,


    I am 100% with you (none / 0) (#43)
    by Steve13209 on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 12:07:45 PM EST
    I agree with everything you posted. The whole electability slant to primary voting is crazy, but moving the polls around a lot. Vote for whomever you WANT to be President in the primaries. Then rally around anyone besides Trump.

    Welp (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 05:10:25 PM EST
    here we go again. Sanders supporters have been attacking and harassing culinary union members and leaders in Nevada. Last time they pretended to be members using stolen uniforms or such.

    How much do staffers get paid (none / 0) (#64)
    by ragebot on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 05:34:53 PM EST
    there is a rumor that Bloomberg is way overpaying his staff compared to all the other candidates; not to mention they sign contracts for the duration and promise of no layoffs.

    Also seen something about non disclosure clause.

    I always got the impression most staff were more like volunteers or not really getting paid as much as they would make elsewhere.

    Seems like Bloomberg is not just outspending everyone else by an order of magnitude but his hiring is a different model as well.

    Third hand anecdotal evidence: (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 12, 2020 at 06:11:10 PM EST
    20-something employee with major responsibilities. Quit a good non political job. Moved to a different city for the campaign job. Campaign lays off him and many others with abrupt notice. Healthy severance. Then campaign shuts down after NH.

    Hope this link is not out of line (none / 0) (#76)
    by ragebot on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 06:02:54 PM EST
    I know "The Intercept" has some issues but this story about Bloomberg's hiring spree seems fairly legit and unbiased to me.

    It details several local and state pols who have had their staff decimated by Bloomberg hiring key members at what some described as double their former salary and a job till November no matter what.  Housing, an iPhone, and a laptop were also included.

    Several of the pols said the loss of key staff has hurt their chances of winning.  Interestingly there were claims that Bloomberg was hiring, or trying to hire, kids of top tier pols including Pelosi's daughter.  


    The intercept (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 07:47:24 PM EST
    is a tool of Russia and a Bernie Bro apologist outfit. Who cares what whines come out of there. The message I am getting here is that Bloomberg has more money than Bernie and that worries them. Seems kind of odd for the group that is always screaming about getting money out of politics. Bernie has bigger problems than Bloomberg's money unless Bloomberg is singlehandedly destroying the DSA campaigns which could be the reason they are complaining.

    I'm not clear (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 13, 2020 at 06:13:59 PM EST
    What exactly about this troubles you so.

    I can tell you from what I know he is absolutely not only hiring more people, by orders of magnitude, but also paying them more.  A lot more in some cases.  

    This has all been widely reported for months.

    So what.  He's the 12th richest person in the world.  He literally has money to burn if it gets really really cold.  Why the hell should he not do this?

    As far as "stealing" staffers from other pols, my understanding of free enterprise is that's how it works.


    What in my post (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by ragebot on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 03:16:38 PM EST
    made you think I was troubled by anything?

    My position has always been that everyone should be free to spend their money almost anyway they wish; only restrictions I would have would be things like hiring a hit man or to facilitate other illegal activities.

    What I got out of the story linked to was that some down ballot dems had been hurt by Bloomberg hiring their key staff members; not to mention the other candidates for prez are unhappy about the money dump.

    I am still convinced the dems biggest problem will be herding cats.  No question the Bernie Bros will be upset about this and may well take their ball and go home.  So far Biden and Warren have both indicated they will stay in as long as possible.  Biden keeps saying only 2% of the vote is complete so far and if he does well in NV and SC (his definition may simply be getting a small number of delegates).  Warren does not seem to be in consideration for a cabinet post (if only because her Senate seat would be open) so staying in may mean she can deal her delegates for whatever.  Sanders, Biden, and Warren have all accused Bloomberg of trying to buy the nomination and no doubt will bring it up at the debate.

    I am still convinced there are more surprises about Bloomberg.  Maybe he will catch on but so far he does not strike me as a good retail pol. Whatever one thinks about Sanders he does generate audience connections.  The next debate will tell a lot about how Bloomberg performs under the spot light.


    three (none / 0) (#80)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 07:56:11 AM EST
    polls out today, show the as race muddled as ever.

    Bernie leading in TX (+2), Biden with a huge lead in GA (+18) and Bloomberg (+1) leading in FL

    It is going to be muddled (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 01:17:32 PM EST
    until more moderates leave the race.

    Maybe just because I spend too much time (none / 0) (#83)
    by ragebot on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 03:24:00 PM EST
    in the hot tub at FSU but I would have thought Sanders would be doing better in Florida.

    I know I am mostly talking to coeds while I soak after my swim workout but Sanders is the clear favorite.


    Lots of people in FL escaped socialist (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 07:22:34 PM EST
     or communist governments. He has an uphill climb there.

    Too bad, because Dems have a real shot at FL (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 07:24:09 PM EST
    with a moderate nominee this time. No love for Trump in the big cities.

    I really think (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 06:09:37 AM EST
    Sanders has a problem with people of a certain age.  Many of whom live in FL.  People who lived thru the Cold War seem to have a big problem with the socialist thing.

    At least in my experience.


    That (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 08:00:47 AM EST
    and all the people that came to America to escape socialist dictators.

    With Sanders (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 08:02:01 AM EST
    as the nominee we would just have to write off winning Florida and from what Andrea Mitchell says FWIW Wisconsin too. I don't know if that's enough EV's to win or not.

    All right (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 08:07:01 AM EST
    added the EV's up and Bernie would bring about 255 EV's to a presidential election losing all the swing states and turning PA back blue.

    Then you have to consider the senate which Doug Jones would definitely lose and probably Cory Gardner and Susan Collins lose. So Mitch still has control. Things are gummed up. Bernie gets blamed and we're back at square 1 in 2024 with another primary because Bernie is not going to be able to run for reelection at 85 years old if he's even alive by then.


    Pennsylvania is out of bounds (none / 0) (#132)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 09:34:23 AM EST
    For any candidate that wants to ban fracking.

    I live in PA. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 11:46:10 AM EST
    You are dead wrong.

    We shall see. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 12:17:39 PM EST
    Banning fracking means lots of business in western PA for pink slip printers.

    BTW, fracking is how the US lead the world in CO2 reduction in 2019.


    You Mean Like Sweden and Denmark? (none / 0) (#90)
    by RickyJim on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 07:55:39 PM EST
    ha..no, like Cuba and other points south (none / 0) (#91)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 14, 2020 at 08:01:18 PM EST
    Not sure I buy that (none / 0) (#117)
    by ragebot on Sun Feb 16, 2020 at 05:27:11 PM EST
    Florida has a different minority breakdown.  The old school Hispanics around Miami and to some extent Tampa still have not forgiven JFK and the dems for no air support at the Bay of Pigs and letting Castro take over; so they are not voting for any dem.  But they tend to be dying off and the younger generation is more accepting to both dems and Sanders.

    There has been a huge increase in the Hispanic population around Orlando but that is mostly from Puerto Rico (not sure if you consider that communist or not) but they tend to favor the dems no matter their age.  As usual migrants from PR tend to be younger, as well as having an expectation of government services.   Bottom line is at least trend wise the demographics of Hispanics seems to favor Sanders.

    One current theory is Florida in migration from high tax and more liberal states is also turning Florida into a purple state.  Not sure how this demographics breaks out age wise.  I know lots of old folks retire to Florida but a lot of young folks move in as well.


    I Ike him. I can't help it. (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 12:04:05 PM EST
    Katie Couric on Maher

    Couric also broke some news about how the Bloomberg campaign was seeking to exploit the dynamic.

    "I talked to somebody from the Bloomberg campaign, they said they're hiring an expert on narcissism and combining that -- no, this is for real -- and combining that person with a comedy writer to get in Donald Trump's head," Couric reported

    Katie Couric was (none / 0) (#107)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 04:02:21 PM EST
    an energetic panelist.  I have not seen much of her since her infamous interview back in 2008 with Sarah Palin, when she asked Palin what newspapers and books she read, and Palin responded, "all of them Katie."

    Overall, I thought last night's show was pretty good.  Bret Stephens is a better panelist than NYTimes conservative op ed. columnist. Van Jones does not seem to add much.

    Rep.Pramila Jayapal (D.WA)is thought of as a rising star in the Democratic caucus and was effective during the House Judiciary Trump Impeachment hearings. As a Bernie supporter she made a good case for his candidacy, but I was concerned by her response to Stephens' question as to whether Bernie supporters will still go Blue if the nominee was not Bernie. While she said, yes. the response pivoted too quickly and unnervingly to-- not voting for Trump but staying home, having lost "inspiration."

    I got the sense that Bill Maher was not impressed with Senator Klobuchar.  The interview did not start out with a bang when, after Amy's stump presentation, he asked how she could keep giving the same lines over and over. Intended as a compliment, he said, after sensing a startle. And, she was not prepared for Maher's standard (obsession as Katie offered) question asked of all candidates on his show about Trump not leaving the WH if defeated in the election.

    Senator Klobuchar missed a note, too, when she, Steyer and Buttigieg were asked during interviews with Telemundo (after a forum hosted by the League of United Latin American Citizens) if they knew the name of the Mexico.  Steyer, replied that he "forgot", and Amy responded, "no".  Pete (the newcomer, like Trump, as Amy calls him) was the only one of the three who knew the answer, Lopez Obrador.


    Clarification, last paragraph: (none / 0) (#108)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 04:04:57 PM EST
    "...If they knew the name of the President of Mexico..."

    So the internet's are breathless (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 04:08:05 PM EST
    About "Bloomberg considering Hillary as a running mate"

    Search news for "Bloomberg Hillary"

    The Bloomberg statement was not a denial.  

    Nothing really surprises me anymore but WTF.


    As far as I can tell (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 04:09:19 PM EST
    DRUDGE is the source.  Still.  He has good sources.

    I discounted this (none / 0) (#111)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 04:15:29 PM EST
    when learning that the original source was Drudge. But, maybe, a little something from Bloomberg's comedian/narcissism consultant to make Trump even crazier.

    If more serious, surely Bloomberg would not even let such a story go unchecked without some good polling or other data suggesting viability.  But, I have doubts--both being New Yorkers alone would be a factor, although Hillary is, probably, viewed as a national figure.


    Same here (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 04:20:24 PM EST
    I was thinking

    A narcissism expert and a comedy writer walk into a bar with Hillary Clinton and Trump is sitting at the bar.


    All I have to say (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 15, 2020 at 07:22:42 PM EST
    is it is making the Trumpers and the Bros have exploding heads. That psychologist must not only be useful against Trump.

    Drudge (none / 0) (#138)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 07:45:14 PM EST
    Is not Drudge anymore. It appears he has sold , definitely relinquished control

    Bloomberg vs Sanders (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 07:34:22 AM EST
    The thing (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 11:22:12 AM EST
    I like about that ad is it points out that Bernie hasn't just attacked Bloomberg. It points out how nasty his supporters are to everybody. Bernie is playing this good cop bad cop thing with him saying oh, we just have to discuss our differences while his surrogates and supporters do nothing but push vile nasty narratives and threats.

    I am not on Twitter but do occasionally (none / 0) (#123)
    by vml68 on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 01:07:49 PM EST
    check Armando's and a couple of other twitter accounts and I have to say this ad has got Bernie's supporters pretty riled up.

    I thought this tweet by @AdamJSmithGA was kinda funny.

    If you ever get lost in the woods, whisper something mildly critical of Bernie Sanders and 1,000 people will come and find you.

    At this point I would be happy if Bloomberg and Bernie took each other out and cleared the way for Warren.

    It was fun (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 01:35:02 PM EST
    Reading through the comments on that video.  No need for more than that.

    Amy (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 17, 2020 at 07:46:53 PM EST
    I hope (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 04:55:27 AM EST
    take each other out is what they do. Bloomberg is now creeping up in the polls and more oppo is apparently going to start rolling out against Bernie from Bloomberg.

    You will get to see them try (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 06:34:59 AM EST
    Mini Mike will debate.  

    NPR/PBS/Marist national poll

    Sanders 31  +9 since Dec
    Bloomberg 19  +15
    Biden 15  -9
    Warren 12  -5


    It will be interesting (none / 0) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 06:44:27 AM EST
    To see in the number of viewers rises from the 7.8 mill that watched NH debate.

    I will be surprised if it dies not.


    I have not (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 18, 2020 at 12:53:56 PM EST
    watched one debate yet but I will watch the next one. If there are a lot of others like me yes, the numbers will go way up on viewership.

    Up (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 12:27:55 PM EST
    Nielsen's fast national ratings have the debate at 10 million viewers for the broadcast network -- a number that will almost certainly grow with adjustments for the live telecast. The debate also aired on Telemundo and MSNBC; this story will be updated when more complete ratings information becomes available.

    I can't stand Andrea Mitchell but (none / 0) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 09:42:19 AM EST
    The campaign managers for both the Sanders campaign and the Bloomberg campaign are on today.

    Might be worth it.

    11am central MSNBC

    You will (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 10:20:07 AM EST
    have to give us a synopsis. You seem to be very good at doing that.

    I can do that already (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 10:29:42 AM EST
    Kevin Sheekey is a level headed pro who will appear reasonable and Jeff Weaver is Jeff Weaver.

    There was the thing this morning that the Sanders campaign said Bloomberg had a heart attack.  Which seems to be not entirely accurate.

    I expect that will be discussed.


    My understanding is (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 02:51:38 PM EST
    that Bloomberg had an angioplasty/stent procedure  20 years ago. Probably for the treatment of stable (predictable, usually does not worsen) angina, and no myocardial infarction, or heart attack.  Recent studies have questioned the use of stents in stable angina, relying more on medication.  But, the procedure is still used in some instances.  

    Reports also indicate that Bloomberg, more recently, has experienced atrial fibrillation,  a disruption of cardiac electrical impulses, resulting in the heart beating in an irregular pattern. In greatest measure, A-Fib, itself, is more annoying than life-threatening.  However, it's seriousness is the increased risk of stroke (with the quivering the blood is not pumping properly causing the blood to collect in pools and clots can form, dislodge, and travel to the brain).

    A-Fib may be treated pharmacologically, or with an ablation procedure.   Anti-coagulants, such as Eliquis or Xarelto, effectively protect against the possibility of stroke.

    From the information provided by the Bernie campaign, Bernie did have a myocardial infarction and two drug-eluting stents were placed in a coronary artery. The damage to the heart was described as moderate and all subsequent tests were reported to be normal, with his current health to be good.  Of course, the issue is always future risk levels based on medical history.

    With Bloomberg and Bernie being about the same age, 78,  health matters do present an additional factor, among other factors.  As I have stated previously, the selection of a vice presidential running mate is especially critical--- for all the primary contenders, but even more so for Bernie and Mike.

    Hopefully, debate moderators will manage a question along these lines.  Indeed, if Bloomberg wanted to walk away with the debate under his arms, leaving his inevitable challenges in the dust, he would announce likely running mates.


    It seems early (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 02:53:46 PM EST
    For the running mate

    But what do I know


    OTOH (none / 0) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 03:04:22 PM EST
    California is coming pretty soon

    Me too, it (none / 0) (#163)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 03:05:04 PM EST
    is getting harder to figure out  Ordinarily, this would be much too early to discuss a veep or even the qualities desired. But, these are no ordinary times, or ordinary candidates,

    We know all will be gunning for Bloomberg tonight,  his mentioning something about a veep would bring Bernie's health  and a type of veep candidate up.  Is Bernie obligated to have Nina Turner, or can he select, say, Kamala,  without sending his supporters to the ledge


    This is my take away (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 11:20:55 AM EST
    From listening to Sheekey.  Who just mentioned in passing the morning lie about the Bloomberg heart attack.

    Bloomberg will not attack tonight.  They have been hinting as I think you noted they have all this stuff.  I think he is expected to attack

    I think he will let others attack.  Defended himself as necessary.  

    The result tomorrow will be everyone is attacking this guy means there must be something there.

    That said, there is plenty of time fir the oppo.

    My take away.  Yer welcome.


    Weaver (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 11:38:17 AM EST

    Even Andrea Mitchell tried to distance herself from the "farmer thing" BS

    He's all attack all the time.  He has desperation written on his forehead



    More than enough room for (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 11:40:31 AM EST

    on his forehead


    What is the (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 01:50:35 PM EST
    "farmer thing"?

    I checked in with twitter and the whole place has blown up over the lies Bernie's campaign has been putting out there. First of all they lied about Bloomberg being sued for sexual assault 64 times. What it is is his company had 64 sexual harassment lawsuits. So they got called out on that. Then they lied about Bloomberg having a heart attack. Then they compared releasing Bernie's medical records to birtherism. Then the story broke that Bernie was going to run against Obama in 2012 and Harry Reid had to intervene to stop him. Now ads are running in NV with Bernie's support for dumping nuclear waste on a poor Latino town and the fact that the Sanders are actually profiting from that. And also running in Nevada is an about how Bernie basically is an out of control socialist.

    So Weaver should be sweating bullets. They have no idea how to handle any of this.


    Farmers (none / 0) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 02:33:59 PM EST
    During the speaker series, Bloomberg reportedly said blue-collar workers are unable to adapt to the information economy, while implying that farming does not take the knowledge and skill of other professions.

    "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It's a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that," Bloomberg said.

    However, the viral clip excludes a key detail: that Bloomberg was not talking about modern agriculture. Bloomberg's full statement can be seen here.

    Well, (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 02:56:57 PM EST
    now I remember. Bernie and his campaign got played or either they were lying once again.

    It was hardly (none / 0) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 02:58:45 PM EST
    LOL. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 03:33:19 PM EST
    The idiots on the right fell for it too. Bernie and Limbaugh repeating the same talking points though does not surprise me.

    Bloomberg's biggest problem (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 03:45:22 PM EST
    Might end up being he doesn't speak comfortably in "bumper sticker"

    The whole business about what he said about Redlining is a similar thing.

    If you read what he said about it, it's just the truth.  From this we are supposed to believe he thinks something quite different than he was trying to say.

    The data guy has to learn how to speak Walmart.


    Handling any of this (none / 0) (#157)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 02:44:07 PM EST
    On that I agree with you.

    He has had very little scrutiny.  No body has really gone after Bernie.  For the bros or anything else

    That could change tonight.  Bernie is the one "20 points ahead".  Biden, for one is said to be looking to poke Bernie tonight.


    Suposedly (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 03:13:55 PM EST
    Biden is going to be going after both Bloomberg and Bernie. I'm not too hopeful that Biden is really going to be able to draw any blood and am looking to see what the others do. Steyer has ads out attacking Bloomberg. I haven't seen much push back against Bloomberg from other "moderate" candidates so far.

    I look forward to the conspiracy theories (none / 0) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 11:09:50 AM EST
    Around why Bloomberg was ALLOWED to be on the LEFT of the stage.

    Bloomberg is screen left on the stage, (none / 0) (#171)
    by fishcamp on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 02:59:11 PM EST
    But in fact he's on the right..  C'mon Capt. you know this stuff from your work in film.

    My right (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 03:44:34 PM EST
    Or your right

    We're both right Capt. (none / 0) (#173)
    by fishcamp on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 04:27:53 PM EST
    In the military (none / 0) (#174)
    by ragebot on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 06:08:57 PM EST
    that is your other right.

    Jeremy Bash (none / 0) (#151)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 11:55:32 AM EST
    Just said an interesting thing I had never considered.

    What's happening in the DOJ means whoever the Democrats nominate will almost certainly have some kind of criminal investigation announced into their life.

    That is so insane it's probably not something people are considering.  We should be.

    There (none / 0) (#152)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 12:40:27 PM EST
    is this
    The son of one of President Donald Trump's most vocal defenders has a new gig in Trump's Justice Department. Brady Toensing--whose mother Victoria Toensing and and step-father Joe diGenova are key players in the rapidly growing Ukraine scandal--joined the DOJ in June as a senior counsel in its Office of Legal Policy.
    and lo and behold
    Toensing played a key role in promoting allegations about Jane Sanders, the wife of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). In 2016, he pushed claims that Jane Sanders, as president of Burlington College, committed fraud by overstating the value of donations pledged to the small school in order to secure financing to buy $10 million of property to expand the school's campus. The failed deal saddled the school with debt that contributed to its closing in 2016. Toensing's accusations sparked an investigation into Sanders by the US attorney's office in Vermont. Prosecutors dropped the probe in early 2018, according to Jane Sanders, who denied wrongdoing. Bernie Sanders has cited Toensing's role in the investigation to dismiss it as politically motivated.

    I think you are on to something. (none / 0) (#153)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 12:50:31 PM EST
    Orange jesus' favorite go to is pointing out someone else's corruption. He never really wanted Ukraine to investigate Biden. Just announce an investigation. That's his in. Investigation = corrupt. So yeah, I expect whomever is the nominee to immediately be under some kind of DOJ investigation for something. It will be a complete fabrication, but he gets to tout the investigation. This is all banana republic stuff, but that's who this administration is.

    I repeat an earlier post. This country will not survive another 4 years of this mafia. This will not be the USA that you and I grew up in come 2024 if he is re-elected.


    listen to Al Franken interview Malcolm Nance (none / 0) (#167)
    by leap on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 10:44:49 PM EST
    and understand the genuine existential threat of losing the November election.


    It'll make your hair stand up. Or raise your eyebrows if hair is in short supply. Yikes.


    Thanks for the link. (none / 0) (#168)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 20, 2020 at 10:54:37 AM EST
    I listened to the entire podcast at work today.

    I have been (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 19, 2020 at 01:43:38 PM EST
    saying this since 2016. Since it worked for them in 2016 they are going to continue and it does not matter who we nominate.

    Interesting comment from Harry (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 22, 2020 at 12:04:18 PM EST
    Reid Predicts End of the Filibuster

    February 21, 2020 at 10:43 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 65 Comments

    Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told MSNBC that the filibuster in the Senate will be gone soon.

    Said Reid: "I've said and I believe this, with what the Republicans have done and my friend Mitch McConnell with the Senate, it's not a question anymore if the filibuster is going to be gone, it's when it's going to be gone. You cannot have a democracy and take 60 votes on everything, and that's not the end of the world. We have bicameral election, we have six year terms so having the House like the senate isn't going to be all that bad."

    A lot of important democrats have been kind of sort of suggesting that they plan to get rid of the filibuster if, as many expect, the democrats control the White House, the House and the Senate in January.  
    For how ever briefly.  The plan would be to dump the filibuster and pass everything as fast as they can and let future republicans try to take it back.