The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Perhaps It's the Candidate

    By LisB on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 1:35am |

    Perhaps it's the message.

    Perhaps it's the country.

    Perhaps it's girls.

    Whites.

    Blacks.

    Walls.

    Firewalls.

    Servers.

    Emails.

    Bail?

    Too big to fail?

    Jail.

    Where the boys are.

    Perhaps it's the person.

    Perhaps it's the people.

    Perhaps it's the baggage in an airport in the Cayman Islands.

    Perhaps it's circumstance.

    Perhaps it's the Times.

    Perhaps it's time..

    ...to think...

    ...that perhaps it's the candidate.

     

     

    Comments

    I'm sorry.  I don't mean to rub anything in.  But when I keep hearing for days about why liberal women should vote for a liberal woman while a liberator sends us back 40 years...and the baggage and the drama that is the Clintons comes rolling around the baggage carousel yet again, yet again...

    My brain gray-sploded.

    It's out of my system, now.  I'll move on.

    Thanks for listening. 


    by LisB on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 1:55am

    When Bernie liberates something, he'll be a liberator. Until then, he's just a wannabe like everyone else. As Gurdjieff noted, if you've seen Christ, you're a Christian - all else is just talk.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 3:27am

    I dunno, PP....he did a great job turning Vermont liberal.

     


    by LisB on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 4:19am

    Oh please - Vermont was liberal when he moved there permanently in 1968 (he was on-and-off between NY & Vermont the 4 years before). The socialist Liberty Union Party was formed in 1970 - he joined a year later, and then after a few elections went independent.

    You can read more about that transition here.

    But in any case, Vermont went through the 60's without him, and already had much of its folksy rural liberal traditions thanks to its French heritage, and then your comment ignores Howard Dean, Vermont's liberal representative, lt. governor and governor who had a huge influence on liberal Vermont health care and gay rights, as well as launched the modern internet-based campaign approach in 2004, even as CNN contrived to help him fizzle out by doctoring "Dean's Scream". (Dean & Sanders worked together on the successful protest of Lake Champlain development in 1981).

    I don't deny Sanders had a big liberal effect on Burlington as mayor, though I'd questioned how much he changed Vermont itself in congress. More details on Bernie's early years here.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 5:03am

    http://www.thenation.com/article/bernies-burlington-city-sustainable-fut...

    Here's a start.  But, don't wannabe making you look as though you haven't done your homework ;)

     

     


    by LisB on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 4:22am

    Answered above.

    BTW, Hillary is ahead by 2 delegates with only 4 left to commit, so despite the popular vote, Hillary's now ahead by 10 convention delegates.  (Iowa: Hillary 29, Bernie 21, 2 to commit; NH: Hillary 15, Bernie 13 , 4 to commit).

    Seems Hillary learned at least 1 lesson from 2008, that it's the delegates that count in the end. Sewing up many of the superdelegates early is more useful than countless other exercises.

    Also, Hillary only spent $800K to Bernie's $2.8mill in TV advertising in New Hampshire - she decided to save her bucks for states she had a better chance in March 1. Lesson learned #2: spend your money wisely, even if you have a fund-raising advantage.

    So far, the candidate is doing okay, despite all the doom-and-gloom pronouncements since June.

    But Bernie deserves a huge round of applause for putting together a great effort in New Hampshire, getting his point across, inspiring voters, winning a large majority of the popular vote. Huzzah.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 5:23am

    Super Delegates are not set in concrete. They have their voters to answer to.  You will see them switch to go with the majority of voters in their state if Sanders continues to win states.   He is off to a good start, there is no reason why he won't continue to run a good race. 


    by trkingmomoe on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 5:11pm

    In 2008 there was a lot of switching thanks to pressure because of Obama's rather historic campaign and the perceived support (even though Hillary slightly won the popular vote). I'm pretty sure the party elders won't be so swayed by Bernie this time around - superdelegates *ARE* considered a stopgap against doing something stupid, and despite many good ideas, Bernie is perceived by a number of folks as not being an ideal candidate for the party. If I were Bernie, I'd plan on winning some more regular delegates to make up for it.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 5:22pm

    Clinton did not "slightly" win the contested popular vote.  She lost it.  The vote was very very close.  In the states where voters had a choice, more chose Obama.  In Michigan, Obama's name wasn't on the ballot so he didn't get any votes there. 


    by HSG on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 6:16pm

    Hal, go do something useful. The fact is Hillary had roughly 50% of the vote any fucking way you count it, and still the superdelegates went to the historic candidate. That won't happen this time, so you better go figure out a better way to imitate a union member or scam a few more almost-endorsements or somehow pump Bernie up to be the super-aspirer to the throne. I hear he plays a great game of basketball and has the heart of a 22-year-old - maybe he is Obama Jr.

    And it should remind you that Obama won because they didn't count Florida and Michigan (or only partially, and after the momentum had shifted). By disenfranchising the #4 and #8 state in the union, suddenly the race was a lot more competitive, and then when you add all those fucking caucus states where it's not about popular vote but who grabs the caucusers best and understands the byzantine system - yep, that's how the Democratic race gets won. And the Bernie side will piss and moan about it not being fair as long as they're not winning, but as soon as there's a state where they're on top, it will be as God meant it to be, fair and American and hunky dory.

    This year, Florida and Michigan count - 344 delegates - and quite likely to go mainly to Hillary, along with an extra 50 superdelegates. Texas? 252 total. Georgia? 116. Ohio? 160. Illinois? 186. And then a bunch of other southern states that will vote for a socialist when hell freezes over. 2700 delegates by March 22, when 2400 clinches the nomination. Roughly 500 superdelegates already committed for Hillary - and most of those are seasoned politicians representing a lot of voters with a machine to throw support to their endorsee across every one of those states. As of Feb 1, Hillary had $38 million cash-on-hand to Bernie's $28 million - plus she had another $36 million in PAC money to Bernie's famous $0. It will take quite a few of those money bombs to make that up over the course of the next 6 weeks - basically, what's not there in 3 weeks doesn't matter. Go for it, buddy. Write your blog.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 7:13pm

    I got some details wrong here and I admitted it.  So sad you feel the need to write an essay rather than acknowledge that you like all of us make mistakes.


    by HSG on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 7:17pm

    Those are details and I'm giving you the big picture - 2700 total delegates committed by March 22, forty days from now, and this time you don't get to disqualify states or get superdelegates to switch. BTW, the President (Mr. Establishment) also wants Hillary. Good luck.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 7:33pm

    You've got to explain to me PP why it is so important to you that Clinton win this thing.  I want Bernie because his values are my values and I am confident that he will fight for the well over 100 million Americans who have been left behind since Reagan took office.  There is of course much more besides that.  But I'll leave it for now. 

    So what is it about the prospect of another Clinton in the White House that causes you to write so much so zealously in her service?


    by HSG on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 10:50pm

    Yeah, I'm still waiting too.

     


    by LisB on Thu, 02/11/2016 - 11:32pm

    LisB - PP provided a comprehensive response here.  http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/managing-expectations-20357


    by HSG on Fri, 02/12/2016 - 6:53am

    No, PP doesn't have to explain anything to you or Lis.  Neither do I.  But we have. Over and over and over again.  You've decided Bernie is your guy and should be everybody's guy.  I've decided Hillary Clinton is my choice, but the last thing I'm going to do is badger anyone who doesn't agree until they see things my way.

    I'll put out facts to support my choice and I'll argue against someone else's idea of facts if I disagree, but trying to make people feel small because they don't agree has never been known to change minds. 


    by Ramona on Fri, 02/12/2016 - 7:50am

    You're right.  I chose my words poorly.  In any case, PP did a good job justifying her choice in response to my post.


    by HSG on Fri, 02/12/2016 - 9:06am

    Thank you, Hal.


    by Ramona on Fri, 02/12/2016 - 10:13am

    Hillary had huge endorsements and super delegates locked up before Barack Obama won Iowa, too.  In the end, she turned it all over to him by the time the convention came around.

    Bernie had to super spend in the first two states to catch up.  Now, he's caught up just fine.  His ads are tremendously powerful and he's moving up in NV.  His ground game is very good out there. 

    He's also rising in the polls in SC.  Have you checked the outdated Pollster.com graphs at HuffPo?  I'm sure you have, but if not, you can see there that most 2016 Dem Primary charts show a steady, 45 degree angle of trajectory for Bernie, albeit from a low starting point as compared to Hillary's high one.  And, as in the Iowa and NH charts, a lot of states are showing Hillary's line wobbling from very high to median in response.  NJ and Texas are outliers.  California and Ohio are looking very promising.

     


    by LisB on Thu, 02/11/2016 - 6:14pm

    Not quite - Hillary has over double the endorsements she had in 2008 - more than anyone except George W Bush in 2000. There was a feeling of racism in 2008, that the pledged superdelegates were denying not just popular vote but a breakthrough candidacy, that influenced superdelegates crossing over. That's going to be a much harder sell in 2016, and the elder statesmen of the party are much less impressed with the Sanders message than the 2008 Obama one.

    California and Massachusetts of course are in play for Bernie. Florida very doubtful, along with recent actual polls for Georgia, NY, Michigan, NC, Arkansas. Okay, she's only ahead by 16 in Oklahoma. Don't know why no recent polls in SC or Nevada. But the CBC endorsement certainly won't hurt her in Carolina.


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 02/11/2016 - 6:49pm

    Do you really think that the millenials will care wtf the elder statesmen of either party think?

     


    by LisB on Thu, 02/11/2016 - 11:31pm

    This is a good point LisB.  The endorsements from the greybears may actually be counterproductive.  They feed into Bernie's argument to voters that Hillary is captive to the establishment which is older and much richer than you.  This claim is likely to resonate with his supporters who skew young and poor.  I ask those who support her, whose side are you on the 1% or the 99%?


    by HSG on Fri, 02/12/2016 - 6:52am

    "endorsements from the greybears may actually be counterproductive.  They feed into Bernie's argument to voters that Hillary is captive to the establishment which is older and much richer than you" - this is sounding more and more like Spartakus Youth League. I've been to Cambodia where wearing glasses was the sign of an intellectual - pretty unnerving to realize the survivors have all been pretty well selected for strong eyes, hardly a set of glasses in sight. Things they do look awful c-c-c-cold. Hope I die before I f-f-f-forgot.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 02/12/2016 - 7:21am

    One would hope that millennials recognize the name John Lewis. They may not know his name from history class. They may recognize the name from modern media like the movie "Selma". Perhaps millennials are aware of John Lewis because of a series of books detailing Lewis' life in graphic novels titled "The March". We do hope that black millennials at least are aware of Lewis' history. 

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/11/bernie-sanders-problem-...

    Bernie voted against the Brady Bill and voted in favor of civil immunity for gun manufacturers. Sanders voted for the 1994 crime bill. Millennials should be aware of his history as well.

    Edit to add:

    Bernie's vote in support of gun manufacturer immunity blocked efforts to have manufacturers play a role in stemming the tide of black market guns entering the black community today

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/bernie-sanders-vote-gun-immu...


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 02/12/2016 - 8:49am

    He answered that question in the debate.
    He was for most of the provisions of the Brady Bill, but he felt that it held a potential for abuse that would punish the wrong people.

    "For example, do I think that a gun shop in the state of Vermont that sells legally a gun to somebody, and that somebody goes out and does something crazy, that that gun shop owner should be held responsible? I don't."
    -from: The CNN Democratic debate transcript, annotated

    He was for a bill that distinguished between manufacturers and sellers who KNOWINGLY or NEGLIGENTLY sold weapons to criminals, but not those who accidentally sold weapons that were used in crimes.

    If you were to read further about Bernie Sanders, like from his own book, you'd know he is not a gun lover. 


    by LisB on Tue, 02/16/2016 - 8:09pm

    One thing, absent product liability immunity, it wouldn't take a year before making a gun without a state-of-the-art indivualised palm grip would render colt et al . bankrupt after the next toddler tragedy.


    by jollyroger on Tue, 02/16/2016 - 8:27pm

    Sanders needn't worry about gun retailers. The parents of a woman slaughtered by James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado lost a lawsuit against the gun retailers.There is a Colorado state law that requires plaintiffs who lose a lawsuit against gun retailers to pay court costs. That requirement to pay court costs only goes one-way, in favor of gun retailers. The retailers are OK.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/22/maddow-aurora-shooting_n_742141...

    The Brady Bill was associated with a decrease in gun homicides

    http://smartgunlaws.org/effectiveness-brady-actbackground-checks/


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 02/16/2016 - 8:52pm

    Your second link is associated with a Gun Control nut named Bloomberg and uses some facts and some speculation/conflation sans causation to promote a false narrative, the JAMA printed study i referenced in another post contradicts these false conclusions.

    They  did acknowledge that the fall in gun homicide rates began before Brady and years before Brady was really in effect with the national background check system in 1998.


    by Peter (not verified) on Tue, 02/16/2016 - 9:39pm

    "Gun control  nut"  is an oxymoron... Gun RIGHTS nut, on the other hand...


    by jollyroger on Tue, 02/16/2016 - 9:44pm

    The nature of science is that one study is not the final answer on a given question. In most circumstances, one waits for confirmatory studies. Your study from 2000, by definition could not include the Missouri study noting an increase in homicides after the state repealed background checks. The Missouri study was published in 2007. The John's Hopkins School of Public Health study was published in 2015. The Hopkins study looked at the impact of background checks in Connecticut. Background checks were associated with a decline in gun homicides. Retread the dates of the data in my linked article.

    There is a study in JAMA Internal Medicine from a Harvard epidemiologist published in 2013 that found decreased gun fatalities when gun laws like background checks were high.

    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390

    Science does not rest on one study. There is a classic tome "Studying a Study and Testing a Test" that helps avoid pitfalls like citing one study as being definite. It stresses concepts rather than heavy statistical methodology.

    Note: I'm assuming that you did not provide a link, but were referring to the Ludwig et. al. study in JAMA from 2000

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=192946

    Edit to add:

    I just read your post regarding the JAMA article. I hadn't read that post before my response to you here. As I thought, you were referring to the 2000 Ludwig article. Science moves on. Other investigators have produced data focusing on specific states with different approaches to background checks. The state analysis is a technique that removes variables that may be missed in a national study like the one done by Ludwig.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 02/17/2016 - 12:11am

    Your reply sounds philosophical and wise but is just old fashioned sandbagging and modern relativism . Bloomberg and other gun control nuts have a huge investment in the false paradigm that more gun control equals less gun violence so they must pay someone to produce cleverly written propaganda that seems to support their invalid claims. Some people are easily led to accept these illusions of enhanced safety through State intervention and infringement of basic rights of citizens who are not and never will be criminals.

    With all this political investment, taxpayer costs and public hype they can't admit they were wrong and their gun control schemes have failed to make people safer while other social, demographic or even environmental factors seem to be the reasons for the dramatic decline of gun and other violence.

    I don't think people such as Bloomberg are stupid enough to actually believe their own propaganda so they and their minions have an agenda that has nothing to do with reducing crime or making life for the rubes safer.

    It may also be inaccurate to claim that the huge increase in the number of guns in the last 30 years caused violent crime to drop dramatically in the US but it is accurate to claim that more guns does not equal more crime.


    by Peter (not verified) on Wed, 02/17/2016 - 11:10am

    So when presented with facts, you reply with your opinion


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 02/17/2016 - 11:24am

    Sanders comes up with all sorts of rationalizations to attempt to explain away his pandering to the gun nuts in his state. He has to pander, all politicians do, to get elected. It wouldn't bother me so much if he didn't spend so much time criticizing others and making like he's so pure. You support him so you want to believe but anyone who's looked at the issue of gun control knows he's bullshitting.

    His basic argument is that states should led in legislating gun control.  "In my view, decisions about gun control should be made as close to home as possible — at the state level." That's not a solution. That's the biggest  problem.

    The problem Chicago faces with illegal guns on the streets is the guns bought legally in Indiana and transported to Chicago. No state or city can deal with the problem of gun violence when surrounding states have lax or no gun control. So California's gun laws are subverted as guns flow in from Arizona and Nevada. Legally purchased guns in Virginia are smuggled to NY and NC.

    The only way to limit guns and gun violence is by national standards and Sanders knows this. He knows he's spinning bullshit tales to rationalize his pandering to the gun nuts in Vermont. I accept a certain amount of pandering because it's necessary to get elected in a deeply divided nation with so many under educated and misinformed voters. I just wish he'd stop with his holier than thou routine.


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 02/17/2016 - 3:23am

    Well Liz, we are off to NV.  This will be a hard one to call because of the Latino vote. They don't like to be polled. 

    Thanks for joining me in the last 2 contests. 


    by trkingmomoe on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 5:19pm

    Excuse me, but what does this mean?

    This will be a hard one to call because of the Latino vote. They don't like to be polled. 

    Do you mean, caucuses in general are hard to poll? Because caucuses aren't set up for polling it's an entirely different method of running a primary rather than one where you go to just vote.  Or do you mean something specifically about Hispanic people, and if so, what do you mean? 


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 02/10/2016 - 5:45pm

    Latinos shy away from being politically surveyed if their families came from countries that have unstable governments. They simply still fear some aspects of governmental politics. They will participate in the caucus or primary but they shy away from sharing who they support. Polling outfits know this and try hard to weigh for this in the field work they do but their formulas don't always catch the degree of their support. This can lead to surprises and upsets with Latino turn out. This is a state that polling should be watched with a cautious eye. 

    In my community, the largest group of supporters that is working for Sanders is Latino. This is because many still have very close ties to Central America. It all depends on how large of a Latino vote is in Nevada that still have close ties to Central America and how engaged they are in this election. 


    by trkingmomoe on Thu, 02/11/2016 - 1:48am

    Rather than make probably stupid assumptions, I'll just ask: why do close ties to Central America cause them to support Sanders?


    by barefooted on Thu, 02/11/2016 - 2:12am

    Wow.  1600+ reads?  For a five-minutes-in-the-making poem?  I'm flattered, I think.

    I should've posted it in the Creative Corner, but the discussions that took place after the fact were political, so I guess it's okay to keep it where it is.  Yes?


    by LisB on Tue, 02/16/2016 - 9:34pm

    It's a good poem, Lis, as yours usually are. I'm glad you put it up.

    Your comment likely spurred those that have followed as much as anything ... but that's the point of blogging!


    by barefooted on Tue, 02/16/2016 - 9:42pm

    Yes, that is the point.  Thanks.

     


    by LisB on Tue, 02/16/2016 - 10:01pm