Michale

Looks like my response to you is still stuck in the belly of the filter.

I'm sure you will enjoy it when it eventually appears.

@CW,

my question is what happens if cruz becomes the nominee and it goes to the supreme court? i have no doubt that the court would uphold the nomination because they're mostly subscribers to textualist (alito, roberts, kennedy) or living document (kagan, sotomayor, ginsberg, breyer) legal philosophy. but would scalia and/or thomas dissent? based on their professed adherence to original intent, they ought to, but they've also been very partisan in their decisions, so i'm curious what their opinions would be.

JL

I'm a little surprised you didn't write about Obama's attack on Bernie... or at least offer a brief response to my comment.

Obama's U-turn from 2008 Yes We Can to Hillary's 2016 No We Can't on progressive goals like universal healthcare was a rather hypocritical, dramatic and politically timed statement.

The unexpected strength of Bernie against Clinton is all about the disgust and division within the Democratic Party between the traditional liberal/progressive wing and the neoliberal wing, so the topic would seem to be right up your alley.
And Obama openly swinging over to the other side after campaigning in 2008 as a progressive should have been an eye-opening event for many of his supporters.

I'm not the least bit surprised the establishment punditocracy aren't eager to emphasize this reality, but I thought you might wade into it.

Thanks as always.

A

Yes, it's intentional..

It's the same low-information/low-intelligence games that the Right Wingery plays with their "Odumbo" and "DemoCRAP" stuff...

I have been known to wallow in it once or twice in the past decade..

But there are those on the Right and the Left who live there...

Kay Sara Sara...

Michale

Thanks for the response.

The polling suggests I'm going out on a limb with that prediction, but it's within the margin of error the polls had in 2008 compared to the reality of the actual results I mean... and the pollsters have given no indication that they've learned their lesson or changed their ways.

Assuming this comment posts, could you rescue the comment I tried to post right before this one?

Thanks,
A

Your reading comprehension blows chunks.

The conservative National Review reported that the responses they received from Trump supporters were "openly racist and anti-Semitic".

Go challenge them if you doubt it.
Demanding proof from the messenger you can't seem to shoot is pathetic on top of pathetic.

I'm perfectly content to see you attacking your fellow wingnuts, the way the National Review attacked Trump... well, maybe thrilled would be more accurate.

But hey, if you get them to disclose the content of those racist and anti-Semitic rants, please do share.
Heck, if it turns out they were lying about it to hurt Trump, I'd laugh even harder.

And, of course, you can point to these "openly racist" responses, right??

No??

Didn't think so... :D

As for the Dems, I'm going to predict Sanders takes it by ten points, and just like in 2008, the pollsters discover their likely voters weighting was to blame.

I truly hope you are right..

Hillary doesn't DESERVE any votes at all... She is a liar, a cheat and a crook...

But, I guess, no more so than any other politician.. :D

Michale

And, of course, you can point to these "openly racist" responses, right??

No??

Didn't think so... :D

As for the Dems, I'm going to predict Sanders takes it by ten points, and just like in 2008, the pollsters discover their likely voters weighting was to blame.

I truly hope you are right..

Hillary doesn't DESERVE any votes at all... She is a liar, a cheat and a crook...

But, I guess, no more so than any other politician.. :D

Michale

OK, that was an interesting comment, and one well worth rescuing!

10 points? Wow. Food for thought about the weighting.

I'm mulling it all over, and will either post my first 2016 primary predictions in Friday's column, or get a Monday column out early (before results are in). For those who missed it last time around, my primary picks series is the precursor to the even more cool Electoral Math column series. Here's the first few from the 2008 race for example:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2008/01/02/my-picks-for-iowa/

I got three out of six of these right:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2008/01/07/my-primary-picks-for-new-hampshire/

-CW

Oh, but first, all comments have been freed from filter hell, so go back to last Friday through this column to see them. My apologies, usually the filter sticks comments into "questionable" folder, but this time moved a bunch straight into "spam" which I wasn't checking as often. Anyway, they're all posted now. If this gets annoying, PLEASE post a comment like altohone's first one here, as this always gets my attention!

OK, on to ballot availability. Michale's right, so far as Bernie -- before he started running. There technically is no capital-I, capital-P "Independent Party" in the country, so nobody's a "registered Independent." Bernie (I believe) always called himself a "Democratic Socialist" while running in Vermont. I assume that meant he ran the general election as a third-party candidate, but again, have not checked this (what I would expect to find is that after a while, the Dems just gave up and stopped running a candidate against Bernie, but that's sheer speculation on my part).

In Congress, Bernie has always "caucused" with the Democratic Party. This was because the Dems let him into their private club -- "caucusing" has whatever rules whoever runs the caucus wants, so there's nothing stopping either party from welcoming indpendents in. So Bernie got to vote for Dem leadership postions and likely got his seniority respected on committee appointments, all while not technically being a Democrat.

The primaries and the general election are another matter. Yes, we have a state-run election system. This is why we have 50 sets of rules for getting on the ballot, and why the national popular vote doesn't count, while the Electoral College does. The states don't agree on much -- the only thing really under Federal control is rules around the margins (such as dictating all states vote on the same day in the general).

So there are 50 sets of rules for who gets to appear on a ballot. Now, Michale, here's the mind-warping thing: anyone who calls himself or herself a "Democrat" or "Republican" on any state's ballot is pretty much free to do so, often just by checking a box. That's it. The parties theoretically could limit who appears on the primary ballots (since the primaries are private affairs between private organizations), but in reality they don't have this control. It's too susceptible to abuses of power.

Think about it. A candidate whom the party absolutely loathes gets banished from the ballot just because they don't like him and don't want to be associated with him. How is that not a travesty of Democracy? This is why people like Lyndon LaRouche (look him up) get to appear on state ballots as a Democrat, even though no sane Democrat wants to have anything to do with him or his followers.

This is also why the Republicans can't decide to just ban Trump from all of their ballots, too.

So the easy answer is anyone can run as any party. Bloomberg was a Democrat, then he decided to run for mayor as a Republican. Hey presto! He's a Republican.

Same holds true for Bernie. As long as he says he's a Democrat when registering to be on the ballot, that's pretty much the end of the story. That's the system, for better or worse. Party affiliation isn't like being born in Canada (sorry, couldn't resist), you can change it at any time. Bernie officially has, and is officially a Democrat in the states that require it. End of story.

-CW

ted cruz (whose name i assume you misspelled intentionally, although it's also a misspelling of turd) is perfectly eligible to be president. that is, unless one were to interpret the constitution according to the "original intent" of the founders, which is the least prevalent of the three major schools of constitutional law. that cruz himself claims to subscribe to the original intent doctrine is incredibly ironic, but it is not legally binding.

JL

"in that sense he is "registered" as a democratic candidate"

That's the only sense that matters since Vermont doesn't have party registration. He filled out the FEC forms, checked the (D) box, the Democrats accepted him, and he has pledged to support the Democratic nominee if he loses. Of course, as we both pointed out, it doesn't even matter. Parties are free to nominate whoever they please. They can even nominate someone who isn't eligible (like Terd Cruz). They just have to live with the consequences.

yes, you can be registered as a voter for one party (or no party), but be registered as a candidate for another, as would have been the case for lieberman had he been mccain's running mate. it's a very chaotic system, but that's federalism for ya.

JL

So if a state requires that a registered Democrat can only run for the DEMOCRAT candidacy, then Sanders will have to switch Party affiliation or he is scrooed in that state.. But ONLY in that state...

Right??

What a frak'ed up system... :D

Michale

vermont does not register voters by party, so thus far that's never been an issue for sanders. he has checked the democratic box for party affiliation on his FEC paperwork for the presidential nomination, so at least in that sense he is "registered" as a democratic candidate.

JL

political parties follow mostly the same rules as private clubs - they can pretty much write whatever rules they want about choosing nominees. state laws that govern primary voting don't say anything about what party the candidate must belong to.

prior to choosing palin as his running mate, mccain wanted lieberman. his choice was nixed by the party brass, but there was nothing illegal about it.

JL

Just another friendly reminder that your filter ate my first comment... and I am certain there's nothing in there that merits censorship.

Hey Mopshell, Micha, anyone interested

Just left you a response on the previous Friday Talking Points thread regarding the headline suggestions.

A

I don't find any evidence of this..

The only thing definitive was a DailyKOS commentary that claims Sanders "will register as a Democrat soon"...

That was back in Sep of 2015...

Nothing on whether or not Sanders is actually a Democrat...

Michale

Oh I get that.... If it looks like he is going to win as a Democrat then he will register as a Democrat... Kinda like Rubio saying he will give up his Senate seat if it looks like he will win the GOP nod...

Keeping their options open.. I get that...

But it just seems to me that if he is RUNNING as a Democrat, he should BE a Democrat...

I know, I know... I am expecting too much of our laws when I say they should make sense...

To be fair, I would be JUST as confused if Trump was a registered Independent and he was running as a Republican...

Michale

On all the primary ballots, Bernie is registered as a Democrat.

But his Party of affiliation is still INDEPENDENT...

I am not arguing with you on this.. I'll save that for the previous commentary.. :D

I am just trying to understand...

I mean, wouldn't it be the same as a candidate being a registered Democrat but running on the ballots as a Republican???

How does that work exactly?? And the law really allows that???

Here in Florida, I can't vote in Primaries because I am a registered NPA..

Or are you saying that voting laws and the election laws are different in that regard??

Michale

The real question is this..

Is Hillary going to SURVIVE til the Iowa polls open??

Michale

How can Bernie run as a Democrat if he is a registered Independent??

On all the primary ballots, Bernie is registered as a Democrat.

How can Bernie run as a Democrat if he is a registered Independent??

Michale

Both candidates have made being anti-ILLEGAL immigrant a centerpiece of their campaigns...

There.. fixed it for ya... :D

I gotta agree with Paula.. It's going to be great when it's over.. :D

Michale

Looks like your filter has is out for me these days.

I'd appreciate a rescue attempt whenever you have the time.

Thanks
A

Since you brought up the anti-Trump National Review article again, it may be worth discussing that they reported they were "surprised" by an "openly racist and anti-Semitic" response to it from Trump supporters.

I wonder why they were surprised by the response, as if Trumps behavior couldn't possibly be enabling his supporters to cross that line.

As for the Dems, I'm going to predict Sanders takes it by ten points, and just like in 2008, the pollsters discover their likely voters weighting was to blame.

It seems Obama attempted to put his thumb on the scale for Hillary today, but I don't think it will have the desired effect, at least in Iowa.

A