MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 8 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 10 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
Hits of the Day
Hillary wins with $0 spent
By PeraclesPlease on Wed, 05/04/2016 - 4:33pm |So Hillary comes away from Indiana up 1 delegate after spending about nothing, compared to $1.8mill for Bernie's TV buy. Down 6 delegates if we dont count superdelegates, but why would we do that?
Meanwhile Trump's opponents dropped out, ceding him victory. Hillary's pretending it already happened - time to get real about the national contest.
URL:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/03/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-indiana-primary/
- Add new comment
- 21199 reads
Comments
Tuesday night was a very bad night for Clinton. Regardless of how she and her allies spin it (and I don't wholly reject PP's take), the reality is she lost by 5% in a midwestern state, that Obama won in 2008, a week after she
all butwrapped up the Democratic nomination. Claiming victory when most voters reject you because moreestablishmentsuperdelegates have announced they will back you is hardly a message that is likely to go over well with skeptical Americans who understand the game is rigged against them by people like the Trumps and the Clintons.Worse for her is Trump clinched the Republican nomination. He can pivot to spend all his time attacking her while she'll continue to be dogged by "friendly" fire. In addition, it appears she may now have to answer questions about her rules-flouting decision to maintain her emails on a private server not at the State Department as she was unquestionably required to do.
36 CFR 1236.24 (Oct 2, 2009) (emphasis supplied).
She is absolutely the favorite to win and Trump is even more despised than she is. Still Tuesday went about as badly for her as it could have gone. To guarantee victory, she must improve her acting skills. She claims to care about the people but most people don't believe her. She's needs to figure out a way to convince a few in the teeth of the evidence.
by HSG on Wed, 05/04/2016 - 8:28pm
Face reality. Hillary is claiming victory because she got 3 million votes more than Sanders. It has nothing to do with super delegates. Sanders only path to victory is over turning the popular will of the people with super delegates. As a tribute to his self absorbed narcissism and a continuation of his delusional campaign that's exactly what he's now campaigning for. Hillary is beating Sanders with 58% of the vote to his 42%. The revolution has become over turning the popular vote with super delegates.
by ocean-kat on Wed, 05/04/2016 - 7:34pm
O-K - Please don't try to argue with me over who's going to be the Dem nominee because, as I have already written, barring something unforseeable or tragedy, it will be your choice - Clinton. In the comment to which you responded, I wrote: "She is absolutely the favorite to win and Trump is even more despised than she is." Do you disagree with any of that?
My point which you decided to ignore is Tuesday night was a bad night for her because she did lose Indiana and because Trump clinched the nomination and because she may be deposed about her private email server. Do you disagree with any of that.
by HSG on Wed, 05/04/2016 - 7:41pm
Let's try again.
Claiming victory when most voters reject you because more
establishmentsuperdelegates have announced they will backMost voters reject Sanders. It's not about super delegates for Hillary. She claims victory because 58% of the voters voted for her. She claims victory because she got 55% of the pledged delegates from that lop sided popular vote. Once again it's not about super delegates for Hillary. For Sanders it's all about super delegates. The only way he can win is if the super delegates over turn the lop sided popular vote for Hillary to push Sanders.
In 08 Obama won some and Hillary won some. She fought him to a virtual dead heat in the popular vote. 47.3% to 48%. What did it mean that Hillary won 6 of the last 10 primary contests in '08? It meant that she still didn't get enough votes or pledged delegates to win. In '16 Sanders won some and Hillary won some. Hillary crushed Sanders in a landslide with 58% of the vote. What does it mean that Sanders won Indiana? It means he still will not get nearly enough votes to win because by a landslide the voters prefer Hillary. What will it mean if Sanders wins a couple more states? Exactly what it meant in '08 when Hillary won 6 of the last 10 primaries.
What puzzles me is when Hillary tied Obama in the popular vote and won 6 of the last 10 primaries people said it didn't mean anything and she should have dropped out weeks ago. Now Sanders is losing by double digits and might win a few more primaries. Do you think it means the same thing it meant in 08 or something different?
by ocean-kat on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 2:03am
PP called Indiana a win for Clinton. That is the false spin to which I was referring. I get Clinton has all but clinched the nomination and have so written on a number of occasions.
by HSG on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 7:58am
She left with 1 more delegate than Bernie, which is all that matters for clinching the nomination. Not what % of youth or minoritiez, amount spent, # of phones dialed or number of small donations. It's reality, not "spin".
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 10:52am
Clinton had sewn up the nomination before Indiana. Emerging with an extra delegate or two doesn't help her become the Democratic candidate in the general election because she was already going to be the Democratic candidate. Accordingly, the fact that a few more superdelegates announced they will support her cannot be viewed as a net plus when considering how well her night went.
There are four reasons I argue it was a bad night for her. 1) Far from being a net positive, getting extra super-delegates in a state she lost (Indiana) hurts her in the general election, because it feeds the narrative that the establishment has rigged the game against candidates like Sanders (and Trump). 2) Trump and Clinton are now the inevitable candidates yet he was able to win big in a state that apparently lined up well for his opponent and beat pre-election poll estimates while she lost a state that she had been leading for some time. 3) She may well lose at least three more states before the Convention - West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oregon. Losing several states while Trump is winning them, means losing news cycles. 4) Trump can now pivot to direct all his bile on her while she has to face attacks from both the left and right.
If you disagree with anything I wrote, please set forth your rationale. I will consider your arguments very carefully. If you accept my points are valid, I would appreciate a concession from you.
by HSG on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 12:29pm
Fuck your narratives. That's all you got - hot air.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 1:00pm
ToS warning
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 4:05pm
So Bernie is going to continue to give Trump attack material on Hillary and then make demands at the convention. If the Clintons are the politicians you say they are wont they be able to block Sanders?
Edit to add:
Sanders victories in states you listed plays into the narrative that he is the white Progressive's choice.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 1:29pm
You write: "Sanders victories in states you listed plays into the narrative that he is the white Progressive's choice."
My response: So what? He won't be the Democratic nominee so this concern is irrelevant when it comes to winning the general election. For Clinton, however, when fighting for the Presidency against Trump, it will be problematic for her to be perceived as the establishment's choice.
You write: So Bernie is going to continue to give Trump attack material on Hillary and then make demands at the convention. If the Clintons are the politicians you say they are wont they be able to block Sanders?
My response: Bernie should dial down the attacks because Trump would be worse for America than Clinton. But Clinton should also reach out to him as Obama reached out to Clinton in 2008 with concrete concessions rather than empty rhetoric.
by HSG on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 2:14pm
Doesn't Bernie need to stop his attacks if he expects Hillary to reach out to him?
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 2:00pm
If he stops attacking her, why should she reach out? As long as he's landing blows, she has an incentive to get him to stop swinging.
by HSG on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 2:03pm
Once again Bernie can do no wrong in your eyes. Sanders will get a prime time speaking slot and little more.
Hillary will present her own Progressive message. Sanders will whine no matter what she says.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 2:13pm
You write: "Once again Bernie can do no wrong in your eyes."
I wrote: "Bernie should dial down the attacks because Trump would be worse for America than Clinton."
So, notwithstanding your claim, I did write that Bernie is doing wrong as I have on a number of other occasions - e.g., opposing commonsense gun control legislation, asking superdelegates to vote for him even though Clinton has many more pledged delegates, not doing enough to help progressive candidates win primaries.
In fact, RMRD, aren't you the one who sees no evil at all when contemplating or writing about Clinton? If I'm wrong, please set forth specific examples where you have criticized her.
by HSG on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 2:18pm
Because he's damaging himself, he's damaging the front runner, he's damaging the democratic party, and damaging the progressive coalition and the policy ideas he claims to support. I think you're far to extreme a Sanders partisan to see it happening.
When Sanders entered the race many Hillary supports breathed a sigh of relief. We were afraid no one would challenge her. A coronation would have been bad for her. When she was challenged by a far left liberal the liberal supporters of Hillary were ecstatic. Someone here posted "I want Hillary to win but I want Sanders to scare the pantsuit off her before she does" That was the view of many liberal Hillary supporters. That was my view.
That has all changed with what many liberal Hillary supporters see as unfair and destructive attacks on both Hillary and the democratic party. Liberal Hillary supporters and even some less partisan Sanders supporters are turning against him. I know you think the attacks are fair and objectively true. That's the main flaw in your reasoning. Your belief that your subjective analysis is objectively true.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 2:59pm
With whom and with what are you arguing? I wrote: "Bernie should dial down the attacks because Trump would be worse for America than Clinton." I also wrote here Bernie shouldn't have called Clinton "unqualified" and that he should not be asking the establishment delegates to switch sides. Do you disagree with any of that?
If Clinton wants to win in November, shouldn't she also reach out to him and his millions of supporters? Yes I and millions of Bernie supporters believe our specific criticisms of her policies are wholly accurate. Because of this, shouldn't she acknowledge that we have concerns about her and work to alleviate them. If she doesn't, isn't she jeopardizing the White House also?
by HSG on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 3:27pm
Starting with your second paragraph I believe much of what you say is correct but I would like to see you expand upon it a bit. Since you were relieved to see a challenger come forward who would “scare the pantsuit off Hillary” but think that unfair and destructive attacks on her are the ones having that effect, I would like a quick rundown on the other attacks, the fair ones that you originally hoped and expected to scare the pantsuit off her. I agree that she is attacked unfairly, but I believe she is also attacked fairly, every national politician is and the greater the threat a politician is seen to be the more unfair attacks they get, [p]art of the game but not an indictment of anyone offering fair attacks.So, unless you explain a bit and identify those fair attacks which should legitimately scare her as you see it, I see both an objective and subjective flaw in your reasoning and analysis. In Hillary’s case, and apparently you agree, there are many attacks also that are completely legitimate and so they are legitimately damaging to her and to the Democratic party.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 3:38pm
"So, unless you explain a bit and identify those fair attacks which should legitimately scare her as you see it..." - uh, havent we tilled that soil the last 6 months? Skip "email server", "war criminal" and "Nixon in a pantsuit" along with "voting your vagina" and "attacking her husband's sexual conquests" and you mostly have it.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 4:06pm
Politics is a team sport with only two teams. I'm not happy about that but I think it's obvious. There are clear differences between the parties. Very few people will vote for a third party out of fear that it will give the election to the opposition. After Nader was a large factor in the Bush win with it's disastrous consequences that fear has a real world example to validate it. I'm a huge supporter of run off or ranked voting. But until then we are stuck with a two party system.
Politics is a team sport is why I don't want to see any attacks with in the democratic party. I know that's too much to expect but I hope for the minimum. I've long held this view. I wrote several posts on TPM in 08 bemoaning the attacks by both Hillary and Obama.
I wanted Hillary to be "scared" not by attacks but by losing voters. I hoped that Sanders would put forth liberal policies and make good liberal arguments to support them. I hoped he would get a significant number of votes that would demonstrate that the liberal base was more numerous and that liberal policy was more popular than the establishment assumed. I wanted the democratic establishment and also the media to look up in surprise and note that the liberal base a very significant and growing minority. And if the unlikely came about, if the liberal base was the majority, I'd have been ok if Sanders won.
At the beginning Sanders did just that. But as time went on the good liberal arguments for liberal policy became less and less and attacks to tear down Hillary became the norm. We've discussed what I and others see as unfair attacks many times here. I'm not going to reiterate as already people are thinking tl dr. Sanders began to believe he could win and winning became the primary goal.
The Great Leader will not save us. Politics is a team sport. Sanders broke my cardinal rule. Do not damage the team. The republicans have gotten so crazy and obstructionist that we need control of both branches of congress just to get anything through congress to the president's desk. We need the control of the presidency and the senate just to protect the status quo on the Supreme Court or to liberalize it.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 5:16pm
Yes, but that seems to be just about the totality of what Hillary supporters here discuss, the unfair attacks. I already agreed that there are illegitimate attacks on her but there are also legitimate differences in some/many cases as to what constitutes a legitimate versus illegitimate attack. That said, what I asked was for you to identify attacks on her, that is attacks which you agree should scare her pantsuit off.
She is, but my personal take is that is by far her most scary concern, more so than a concern for her constituents. That said, I recognize that many of her supporters actually believe in her. Maybe they are right to do so, but I think they are mistaken.
He does put forth liberal policies and make good arguments. He did get and continues to get a very significant number of votes. His number of votes is certainly significant and show that against Hillary he gets almost an equal percentage of votes from people who are in a large liberal base and liberal policies are in fact more popular than the establishment either believed or wanted to be the case. Considering that many who would like to see Sanders be the winner but believed he didn't have a chance against the "establishment" candidate and so voted pragmatically for the one they thought, more so at an early time before Sanders had made his case to the public and given many what they see as a 'better choice', had a better chance of defeating the 'greater evil', I think it is fair to conclude that his support is even greater than his significant showing at the polls suggests. He is certainly considered to be more trustworthy and is very likely more electable than Hillary in the general.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 5:47pm
but that seems to be just about the totality of what Hillary supporters here discuss, the unfair attacks.
This is one reason why I'm reluctant to even respond when I see your name on a comment. There has been substantial policy discussion here. I've discussed Glass Steagall a couple of times with Hal replete with links including a quote from Elizabeth Warren that the repeal of Glass Steagall had nothing to do with the Great Recession. I've talked about single payer several times. I and others have often engaged in policy debate on virtually every issue. Like studying for a high school exam the day after you've forgotten the discussion even took place. I simply tired of the pretense that we haven't argued the issues.
but my personal take is that is by far her most scary concern, more so than a concern for her constituents.
Of course that's your take. It's nothing but an unsubstantiated insult. You hate the woman. Your comments reek of it with unsubstantiated insults about Hillary making a large part of everything you post. I'm not interested in attempting to read Hillary's mind to speculate on her most scary concern.
I think it is fair to conclude that his support is even greater than his significant showing at the polls suggests.
That of course is an opinion. I think it's fair to conclude his support is far less. Voters in the democratic primary is the most liberal voting block. If Sanders cannot win with them his support will be less with the less liberal general electorate. As a losing candidate the media has not spent the money to fully investigate every word he has uttered or written. He has not been vetted and vetting always finds something. One thing I'm sure of. You will not find my opinions any fairer to conclude than I found your opinions fair to conclude.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 6:38pm
You write: "I've discussed Glass Steagall a couple of times with Hal replete with links including a quote from Elizabeth Warren that the repeal of Glass Steagall had nothing to do with the Great Recession."
The only "quote" you and PP could come up with was from a 2012 Andrew Sorkin column in the New York Times. Sorkin claimed Warren told him Glass Steagall probably wouldn't have stopped the crisis. That kind of hearsay is simply not proof of anything.
So what do we know about Elizabeth Warren's thinking on this topic?
1) At one of her websites, she has the following posted:
Sure looks like she thinks Glass Steagall provided valuable protection for poor, working, and middle-class Americans.
2) Words are cheap admittedly so what has Warren done? Last July, long after Sorkin claimed she admitted Gramm, Rudman, Bliley didn't tank the economy, Warren reintroduced a bipartisan bill to reinstate Glass Steagall. "Despite the progress we've made since 2008, the biggest banks continue to threaten our economy," Warren claimed. She added "[t]he biggest banks are collectively much larger than they were before the crisis, and they continue to engage in dangerous practices that could once again crash our economy." http://thehill.com/policy/finance/247093-warren-mccain-introduce-bill-to... (emphasis supplied).
by HSG on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 8:43pm
I miss-spoke when I said, “... but that seems to be just about the totality of what Hillary supporters here discuss, the unfair attacks." Sloppy, I hate it when I do that. My bad. What I meant was that most [and I should have said “some”] of the Hillary supporters here discuss every attack on her as if any and all attacks [also called analysis of her history] are illegitimate. Of course her political history and her policy proposals for the future have been thoroughly covered and I have been a part of that discussion too.
I also said, “but my personal take is that [her fear of losing votes] is by far her most scary concern, more so than a concern for her constituents.” I stand by that statement and do not deny that it is an insult. Oh no, I insulted a politician, one whose most consequential actions I totally disagree with. I see a politician whose personal ambition, along with a sociopathic world view that I totally reject, seems to be close to all consuming and which ambition is more important to her than are the common people’s plight that she plays to. I suspect that you have reached similar conclusions about some politicians. What I reject is that in this case it is an unsubstantiated insult. I don’t think Hillary is totally bad in all aspects, I just think she is terribly bad in some important ones and has already demonstrates that as a fact. Yes, that is another opinion. That is what we share here, opinions, mostly about politics.
What you ignore is the point of my comment. I was responding to what I read as you saying that Hillary had issues that should scare her out of her pants as you said and that you originally hoped for a primary opponent. I suppose you wanted an opponent so she could practice addressing those issues that should scare the pants off her before they were brought out fresh by an expected-to-be tough Republican opponent. It seemed that you recognized some thing or things that would legitimately be problems for her candidacy. So, I asked what those things were/are as you see them. I ask again, what are the fair attacks that have been made against her or do you actually think there is no such thing? It shouldn’t be tough to actually answer that question, surely yours is a short list.
If you feel hesitant to reply feel free, as you certainly are, to not do so.
edited to change one word.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 1:31am
Hyperbolic.
speaking for myself, happy to have her challenged on ease & benefit of overthrowing governments (and what comes after), legalizing marijuana, government snooping.
Happy to have pressure to free up her leftist inclinations on health care, wage inequality, education, poverty, police abuse, helping hand for minorities, abortion, parity for women, fair taxes on business, support for renewable energy... Am fine with measures to improve fracking pollution and safety, but find it relatively Luddite to try and ban it.
Overall, 12am happy.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 3:52am
Actually, I think that she has publicly begun reaching out to him. When asked if she thought Bernie should drop out she gave a very kind and empathic answer. She said that she really understood his reluctance, and mentioned that everyone on the team has so much enthusiasm and hope that it is a very difficult decision. She also acknowledged that she also stayed in until June in 2008. She has not said anything mean-spirited about him, and despite leading questions which are designed to get her to say something negative, she adroitly refuses. After all the "artful smears" I can hardly fault her for not approaching him personally. I think she has shown enormous restraint.
Her comments after her New York win were a very big outreach to Bernie supporters. I am very impressed with her conduct, and I do think that people who have any sort of objectivity will agree that she will advance progressive goals and will be a sane presence as opposed to her likely opponent.
by CVille Dem on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 4:35pm
Cville - I agree with you that her recent rhetoric has been very good. But that is not enough to gain support from the legions of Bernie supporters who simply don't believe anything she says. Likewise, it will not create any excitement among those of us who distrust her but recognize she's better than Trump. To win us over, she must demonstrate by specific promises and concrete actions that she will forego the neoliberal economic agenda and neo-con foreign policy that she has pursued in the past.
by HSG on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 8:52pm
"Tuesday night was a bad night for her because she did lose Indiana and because Trump clinched the nomination..." - well, since she knows she'll be running against Trump, she decided to save money for the generals and not contest an extra meaningless 3 or 4 delegates in Indiana. 5% loss is respectable especially since she walks away with more delegates. She beat Obama there in 2008, so we know she could have fought and won. Instead Bernie spent $1.8 million on aired ads, and she spent next to nil. You can easily do the what-if to guess what a $1.8 million ad buy would have bought her. I'm frankly happy to see her paying close attention to finance and delegate math rather than repeat mistakes of 2008 on meaningless metrics.
"...and because she may be deposed about her private email server" - gives you a woody just thinking 'bout it, don't it.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 3:25am
One of my many frustrations as a long-time aspiring pundit is the ease with which people ignore or deny evidence that conflicts with their deeply cherished beliefs rather than change their beliefs. It is incredibly aggravating that many Clinton supporters simply can't acknowledge they've been wrong and Hillary lied to them about her email server. If the fact a federal judge may order her to try to explain her rationale for flouting federal rules persuades a few who attack me personally here that they might just might be wrong and I might just might be right, well I wouldn't be human if I didn't get a frisson of joy now would I?
by HSG on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 7:54am
Are you saying that Hillary is guilty because a judge talked about a possible deposition?
BTW
There have been nine hearings on Benghazi. Hillary must be guilty.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 8:22am
:-)
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 12:06pm
Judge Emmet Sullivan is a highly respected Clinton-appointed federal judge who denied a Motion to Dismiss Judicial Watch's lawsuit against Clinton for violating open-government laws when she used a private server for her emails. In other words, he concluded Clinton might well have intentionally disregarded federal regulations requiring her to maintain her email records at the State Department. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure government records are available to people making FOIA requests.
Unlike the Republican Congress, Sullivan has no political interest in making life difficult for Clinton or trying to embarrass her. Yet he still found she will have to answer questions under oath in writing, and perhaps at a deposition, because the plaintiff set forth a prima facie case that she violated the plaintiff's right to access public records. If Clinton had had the legal right to keep her emails on a private server and not at the State Department, Sullivan would have been compelled to dismiss the case.
by HSG on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 12:19pm
So everyone who gets deposed is guilty?
Edit add:
The Trump University trial will probably be going on at the same time.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 1:22pm
You write: So everyone who gets deposed is guilty?
My response: The suit against Clinton is a civil action not a criminal one. It is based on the premise that federal regulations obligated her to maintain her government emails at the State Department not on a private server in her house. The reason for the rules is to ensure government records are readily accessible to the public which ultimately owns them.
Clinton argued she did not have a duty to maintain the emails at the State Department and therefore she cannot be held liable for keeping them at home. Judge Sullivan rejected that argument based on the plain language of the regulation that I have cited on a number of occasions.
In other words, he ruled as a matter of law she had a duty to keep her electronic government records on the government's record-keeping system. We know she did not do this however since the records were in her Chappaqua home.
by HSG on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 2:09pm
Hal, if you didn't remind me so much of KARL Rove I would feel sorry for you. Skewing results doesn't change results. It's over, and deservedly so.
by CVille Dem on Wed, 05/04/2016 - 7:39pm
You write: "Skewing results doesn't change results."
Question 1: How did I skew results CVille?
Here is a previous question you never answered CVille so let's try again.
Question 2:
You write about me: "you are loyal to the point that you have no objectivity left." But you are the one who defends Clinton come hell or high water right? You are the one who attacks Sanders at the drop of a hat and accepts every slam on him as justified regardless of how bogus, right? I'm the one who's written about how his gun votes were wrong and harmful right? I'm the one who agrees he should do more to help progressive candidates right? I've conceded he should have released his complete tax returns for the past ten years, right?
So who exactly isn't objective here CVille?
by HSG on Wed, 05/04/2016 - 7:51pm
The fact that you conceded that he should have released his taxes for ten years does not exonerate him for not doing it. I have not attacked Sanders. I disagree with his assessment that he can achieve his goals. I also think he is giving an unrealistic impression to his young supporters.
That is not attacking.
by CVille Dem on Wed, 05/04/2016 - 8:08pm
Let's try again: 1) How did I skew results?
2) I wrote that you accept every criticism of Sanders as true regardless of whether it is founded as evidence that you are the one who lacks objectivity. One example is your eagerness to swallow the false claim he couldn't explain and had no idea how to break up the big banks. I showed evidence from a number of sources that he knew what he was talking about. Can you identify 1 just 1 criticism of Sanders that you believe is unfair or unfounded?
There is no question but there are many criticisms of Hillary Clinton that are unfair or unfounded. Here's one example that shows I am objective. I think Sanders was wrong to say Clinton is "unqualified". If you can't come up with one example of unfair criticism of Sanders, doesn't that show you're the one who lacks objectivity?
by HSG on Wed, 05/04/2016 - 8:17pm
You say that you know better than black voters on which candidate would bet serve the black community.
You channel Martin Luther King Jr. For Bernie Sanders.
Isn't it possible that you have lost your objectivity?
by rmrd0000 on Wed, 05/04/2016 - 11:02pm
Sure it is. But I rely on fact-based evidence to defend my positions. What facts have I gotten wrong?
by HSG on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 7:41am
Sanders is a single-issue candidate unable to connect with issues of race and gender
Race link
https://newrepublic.com/article/129320/bernie-sanders-needs-talk-voting-...
Gender link
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-bernie-didnt-get-my-vote/
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 8:10am
Here is a link to one of the several important "single issues" that Sanders could be expected to honestly try to deal with. But Clinton? Really? [Scroll up for the entire article.]
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 11:16am
The choice is Superdelegates vs Superpollstars. 700 party regulars, typically elected officials who appeal to voters in their districts and have built up the Democratic party and brand for a decade or more, vs. some 600-1000 hypothetical "likely voters" of all parties (or not) 6 months from now picked by various marketing/polling agencies nationwide.
6 months ago, Ben Carson was leading the pack in Wisconsin. Up to the last week Trump was winning by up to 10% in some. Cruz won by 13%.
New York polls had Hillary consistently ahead by 11%. She won by 16%. Indiana she was up by 7%, she lost by 5%.
Then there are these national "Star Wars" vs. "Spider Man" style fantasy matchups.
Since 1 March, Hillary has gone from 3% over Trump to 11.4% down to 6.2% and now 6.5%. What would a betting man/woman do?
For the whole month of January (4 months ago), Cruz was beating Sanders by 1%. Most recently Sanders was up by 13% before Cruz dropped out. But Kasich, who only won a single primary and also dropped out, is shown as 3% under Bernie.
Kasich is shown as beating Clinton now by 7.4%, and that's the crux of the matter. By what standards?
Drilling into 1 NBC poll showing Kasich beating Hillary by 12% (pdf), 13% said they knew a lot about Kasich, 56% very little. (people often make up their minds the last week). 100% were registered voters (many voters register shortly before elections, especially with GOTV ops).
In the same poll 73% say they'd be satisfied to very satisfied with Hillary as President (10% ahead of Cruz and Trump). The same poll had Cruz as the leading Republican choice 2 months ago and the combined (1st, 2nd choice) in late April. Oops, not enough to keep him in the race.
The same poll has Kasich beating Hillary by 12%, but Hillary beating Trump by 11%, so transitively Kasich beating Trump by 23%. If only.
Often poll agencies are partisan groups with a specific agenda or local pollers with little track record or experience or reputation for accuracy. If you look at the PDF, people who respond to polls have to sit through dozens of numbing questions.
Etc, etc., etc.
Super poll stars (& superpollsters) vs. Superdelegates. 6 months from now. Some combination of independents, republicans and democrats. And how do they tally the electoral college votes in with this?
Good luck.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 1:51am
The reason Kasich clobbers Clinton but loses to Trump who loses to Clinton is the different cohorts sampled. All registered voters are asked whether they prefer Kasich or Clinton. The Buckeye gets all the Republicans most of the independents and a fair number of Democrats since Clinton will be the most strongly disliked Democrat ever to run in a general election. Clinton beats Trump because he is even more strongly disliked than she throughout the country. Trump bested Kasich because only Republicans and a few right-leaning independents voted in the Republican primaries and the #nevertrump vote was always divided among a number of Republican candidates. Among Republican primary voters, Kasich is considered okay by many but Trump is very strongly liked by a plurality. Do you understand PP?
by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 8:52am
Oh, sure, I've seen that movie...
Speaking of quotes,
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 8:38am
This will break some Sandernista hearts.CNN reports that the FBI did not find evidence that Hillary Clinton broke the law with her email server
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/fbi-interviews-huma-abedin-clinto...
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 6:51pm
You write: "CNN reports that the FBI did not find evidence that Hillary Clinton broke the law with her email server."
The actual words from the article you cite are quite a bit different: "The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say."
Do you see the difference between what you wrote and what is actually in the article? If prosecutors cannot prove Clinton deliberately violated the Federal Records Act, she will almost certainly not be prosecuted, as I argued right here. From my article: "Federal agents are not going to frog-march Hillary Clinton out of her Brooklyn campaign headquarters for maintaining classified materials on a private email server contrary to federal regulations."
However, the fact that Clinton may have lacked mens rea does not mean she did not violate federal regulations. She did. It just means she won't be prosecuted criminally. She may well still be liable civilly in the case before Federal Judge Emmet Sullivan.
RMRD - would you say the misleading quote you provided demonstrates Clinton can do no wrong in your eyes, even though you've claimed I'm the one who sees no evil in Bernie?
by HSG on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 9:01pm
Hal she should have used the State Department server so she would have been hacked ike everybody else in the State Department.
by rmrd0000 on Thu, 05/05/2016 - 11:55pm
Do you think that was her reason?
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 12:12am
No, I think that she thought the personal email server was OK.
Do you think she sold secrets?
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 6:55am
She was trying her hand as a pseudonym blogger - didn't work out.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 7:12am
Doesn't the misleading incomplete quote you provided demonstrate Clinton can do no wrong in your eyes? If Clinton's concern was the security of government servers, why didn't she take steps to make them more secure? She was Secretary of State for crying out loud.
by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 7:55am
Did her server get hacked?
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 8:02am
RMRD - I have asked you several times whether Clinton can do no wrong in your eyes. You have studiously refused to answer this question as you have refused to answer other questions I've posed even though I always ask the questions you pose to me. Regarding your latest question about whether Clinton's email server was hacked, I will answer it in hopes that you will show the same respect to me and answer my latest questions.
It appears that Clinton's email server may well have been hacked. Repeated attempts were made. It is unknown whether any or how many were successful. We know attempts came from China, Russia, South Korea, Romania. At least one Romanian claims he successfully hacked into Clinton's email account.
Okay. I answered your question. Now answer the two I posed first.
1) Does the fact that you misrepresented the CNN article's conclusion about the investigation into Clintons' email server practice show Clinton can do no wrong in your eyes?
2) If Clinton was relying on a private server because of fears the State Department's email was not secure, why didn't she take steps to make it more secure?
by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 8:30am
I merely pointed out that the State Department server got hacked.
When the hacker got into other servers, he released data. He has not released data from Hillary's server. Government officials as of this date find no evidence of a hack. Your bias led you to believe the hack story. There was no criminal intent. I don't care about Hillary's damn emails.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 8:44am
1) Does the fact that you misrepresented the CNN article's conclusion about the investigation into Clintons' email server practice show Clinton can do no wrong in your eyes?
2) If Clinton was relying on a private server because of fears the State Department's email was not secure, why didn't she take steps to make it more secure?
by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 8:54am
There was no criminal intent Hal.
BTW
Do you think your repeated cries for bashing Clinton are a little over the top? I have already stated my bias.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 9:03am
You write: "Your bias led you to believe the hack story."
I wrote: "It appears that Clinton's email server may well have been hacked."
Now respond to my questions please.
1) Does the fact that you misrepresented the CNN article's conclusion about the investigation into Clintons' email server practice show Clinton can do no wrong in your eyes?
2) If Clinton was relying on a private server because of fears the State Department's email was not secure, why didn't she take steps to make it more secure?
by HSG on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 9:00am
See the comment above this post.
by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/06/2016 - 9:04am