My Final Primary Picks
Welcome back to my final 2016 round of "call the primaries." Although tomorrow night won't actually be the last primary day (Washington D.C. votes next week), it will be the last day where both parties' nominees are not known. So it'll be the last time the game will even be worth playing.
As always, before I get to tomorrow night's predictions, I've got to update the running totals. Oh, and my apologies to Democrats in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico (who both voted over the weekend), as I neglected to make calls in their races.
Three weeks ago, I predicted Bernie Sanders would win both Kentucky and Oregon. While Bernie did clean up in Oregon, the Kentucky race was one of the closest of the entire season for Democrats. The state wasn't called until very late in the night, and in the end Hillary Clinton won it by less than 2,000 votes (out of over 400,000 votes cast). So while it was one of the closest races yet, Hillary chalked it up as a win -- meaning I now have to chalk it up as a loss.
Here are my running totals for how I've done throughout the primary season. I should note that the Republican numbers are final, since Donald Trump has wrapped up the nomination (I don't make predictions after that point, because it'd be unfairly running up my own score).
Total correct 2016 Democratic picks: 35 for 46 -- 76%
Total correct 2016 Republican picks: 37 for 47 -- 79%
Total overall correct picks: 72 for 93 -- 77%.
I'm still doing better than 3-for-4 in all categories, but just barely for Democrats. Which brings us to the final six predictions of the 2016 primary season. I'm going to present these in reverse-alphabetical order, just because.
South Dakota
No polling exists for either of the Dakotas, making both of them nothing more than gut calls. South Dakota holds a primary, and going on nothing more than geography and demographics, I'm going to predict Bernie Sanders wins South Dakota. With no poll numbers to go on, it's anybody's guess what will happen, but my gut tells me Bernie wins pretty solidly here.
North Dakota
Again, a complete dearth of polling means nothing more than gut feelings are available in North Dakota. But unlike all the other states voting tomorrow night, North Dakota is a caucus state, not a primary state. This makes it one of the easiest states to call, even without polling to rely on. Bernie wins the North Dakota caucus, and he wins it overwhelmingly -- as he's done in many other caucus states west of the Mississippi River. It won't even be close.
New Mexico
One poll exists from New Mexico, but it is really too old to be very informative. Back in late February, Clinton was up over Sanders by 14 points (47 to 33 percent). That's not much to go on now, though.
New Mexico could be very close. I say this because there are good indications for both camps, meaning nobody really knows what will happen. New Mexico holds a closed primary, which tends to benefit Clinton. But Sanders has a relatively high number of donors from New Mexico, and he's been doing very well using social media to get his message out.
Most poll-watchers are predicting Hillary wins New Mexico, mostly based on the high percentage of Latino voters and the geography (Hillary won both Arizona and Texas). I'm going to buck this trend and predict Bernie edges Clinton out here. I have nothing solid to base this on (other than gut feeling), but I think New Mexico could be the most surprising result of the night. I could easily be wrong on this one, but at the least I think we'll have to wait a few hours to hear who won the state, because it'll be so close.
New Jersey
This is perhaps the easiest state to call for tomorrow night. New Jersey is going to go for Clinton, overwhelmingly. She's been up 20-30 points in the polls, and Bernie has already all but conceded the state to her. New Jersey will get much of the press attention tomorrow night, for a couple reasons. First, it will be the first state where returns come in (it's the only Eastern Time Zone state to vote tomorrow), and all the big media is on the East Coast, so this will make it a convenient subject for conversation early on (hours before polls close elsewhere). Second, it will almost certainly put Hillary Clinton over the top in the number of delegates to win the nomination. Even not counting unpledged superdelegates (as Bernie urges us to do), Clinton will have secured more than half of the pledged delegates by winning New Jersey.
The news from the Garden State will be so big for Clinton that it'll likely push all the other states mostly off the media's radar for the rest of the night (excepting California). Clinton will (no doubt) give a big victory speech after New Jersey is called for her (which should happen approximately twelve seconds after the polls close). As I said, the easiest of predictions: New Jersey puts Clinton over the top.
Montana
Another state with no polling whatsoever. Well, unless you count polls from last year which didn't even include Bernie's name (but did include possible candidates Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden). I have to say I consider such polling absolutely worthless, at this point, for obvious reasons.
I'm going to predict another big Sanders win in Montana, which isn't really going out on a limb or anything. Geographically, Sanders has won almost every state in the region, and he'll also easily pick up Montana tomorrow night.
California
I listed tomorrow night's states in reverse order so that California would be the last on the list. It seems fitting, since California (for arcane reasons by self-serving state politicians from both sides of the aisle) votes last. We're the biggest state electorally, but in most years we are nothing but an afterthought in the primary schedule. This time around, I'm actually seeing campaign commercials on television for both Hillary and Bernie -- which is almost unheard of, out here.
But enough grumbling. California is going to be the state everyone will be watching tomorrow night (well, everyone in different time zones who stays up late, at any rate), because of the symbolic nature of who wins here. No matter who wins the state, it is not going to materially change the overall outcome at all -- a close victory by either candidate is not going to change the delegate count all that much, in other words, and it's not going to change the fact that Hillary Clinton will secure enough delegates for the nomination tomorrow night. But symbolically it could be huge. If Bernie Sanders wins California, he's going to be able to claim much more momentum heading into the convention. He'll have a stronger hand to play when fighting for items in the platform or perhaps a more-prominent prime-time speaking slot. The difference of a few percentage points over Hillary will be outsized, for Bernie. Of course, if Hillary ekes out a win here the opposite is also true: she'll have a much stronger hand to play when discussing the mechanics of the convention with Bernie's team.
The polling from the last few weeks has been odd, because only two results seem to happen. Either Bernie is trailing Hillary by only a point or two (in multiple polls), or else Clinton is 10-20 points ahead (also in multiple polls). There's nothing really in-between. It's either "within the margin of error" or a Clinton blowout. Most pundits are ignoring the blowout polls, and concentrating instead on the razor-thin margins. This might be a mistake, and there is a solid possibility that Clinton surprises everyone by chalking up a big win in the Golden State.
But Bernie's shown all the late-breaking momentum. He's been out here campaigning his heart out for the past few weeks. He has surged in the polls, although not enough to actually beat Clinton in any one poll (that I've seen). It's a rule of thumb, though, that late-breaking surges often are predictive. Which is why I'm going to throw caution to the wind and say that Bernie manages a slim victory in California. I'll be up late watching the returns come in, and I expect it'll take quite a while before the networks are willing to call the state. I have to admit a bit of personal bias here, since I'd love to vote for my state's winning candidate tomorrow night. But since these are the last contests to call, I thought I'd go out on an optimistic note for Bernie Sanders.
Conclusion
Adding it all up, it seems I'm being extremely optimistic, in fact. Bernie wins five states tomorrow night: South Dakota, North Dakota, New Mexico, Montana, and the big prize of California. Hillary wins only one, New Jersey -- but it'll be enough for her to claim the nomination.
Part of why I'm being so optimistic for Bernie is for numeric reasons, I have to admit. If I have called all of these right, it will mean the final outcome (ignoring non-states) will be perfectly balanced -- both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will have won 25 states. That, to me, seems entirely fitting for a contest that has been so closely fought between the two.
I will make an extra prediction here, as well. Bernie Sanders will give a rousing speech at his return-watching party in California (which will likely happen before the state is called for either candidate), which will be full of "I'm going to continue fighting!" rhetoric. But even if he does win California, what will happen next is that Sanders flies home to Burlington, Vermont, and then the next day (perhaps timed to appear on the Wednesday evening news on the East Coast), Bernie will give a concession speech. He will thank all his supporters for fighting what seemed an impossible fight, he will vow to fight for his agenda very hard at the convention itself, but he will also admit the reality that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee and he will rededicate himself to fighting as hard as he can to make sure that Donald Trump is defeated in November. I think it'll be too hard for him to give this speech tomorrow night (in front of an adoring crowd), but I think once the balloons have all dropped and Bernie flies home to consider his options, he will do the magnanimous thing and announce his support for Hillary Clinton.
As always, you may think my predications are laughably wrong. For the last time in this year's primary election cycle, I invite you to make your predictions known in the comments. It's been a wild ride, folks, and (excepting D.C.) it is almost one for the history books. See you all back here in four years!
[Previous states' picks:]
[AK (D)] [AK (R)] [AL] [AR] [AZ] [CO (D)] [CT] [DE] [FL] [GA] [HI (D)] [HI (R)] [IA] [ID (D)] [ID (R)] [IL] [IN] [KS] [KY (D)] [KY (R)] [LA] [MA] [MD] [ME] [MI] [MN] [MO] [MS] [NC] [NE (D)] [NH] [NV (D)] [NV (R)] [NY] [OH] [OK] [OR (D)] [PA] [RI] [SC (D)] [SC (R)] [TN] [TX] [UT] [VA] [VT] [WA (D)] [WI] [WV (D)] [WY (D)] [American Samoa (D)] [American Samoa (R)] [Puerto Rico (R)] [Democrats Abroad (D)]
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Can't wait for the primaries to be OVER!
And now it's being reported Hillary has already clinched the nomination even before tomorrow's primaries. And apparently President Obama had a phone conversation with Bernie -- plenty of conjecture about what was said but the assumption is the Pres talked to him about the numbers and the best way to wrap things up.
More conjecture floating about: Hillary's speech against the Donald was so well received it may have caused enough on-the-fence delegates to make their decision and back her.
I think her speech was exactly right -- she didn't try (thank goodness) to play HIS game, she used his game against him. She used her strengths: her wonkiness, her experience, against his lack of both. And she didn't pull punches. But they were clean shots, using his words to draw the picture as opposed to creating the sort of fictional version of him that is constantly created of her. There is no need to make anything up about the Donald -- he provides all the ammunition needed.
And she isn't afraid of him. That's the important thing. And if the Donald can't intimidate someone he loses.
The poor repubs who ran against him -- some may not have been afraid of him, but their problem was they agreed with what he was saying. Hillary has the advantage of being able to oppose him on every level. She disagrees with him and she's not afraid of him. She's not doing business with him; he can't "sue" her; if he tries he'll look like a complete vindictive idiot.
Hillary isn't declaring victory -- she wants to wait until tomorrow, after the votes are in. So the flavor of the victory is still up in the air.
California polls are probably explained in a manner similar to the Oregon polls that we knew were wrong. These are really the exact kind of states where the the Dems most likely to respond to polls are not the same as those who vote. Lots of young people will vote but not respond to polls.
Sanders could easily take Cal (though, I'm not making that prediction).
I would suggest a bit of caution on California. If they had started from scratch 2-3 weeks ago, Bernie's surge would carry him through. However, I've heard that perhaps 40% had voted early, much of that before the candidates really started their concentrated campaigning in the state.
Don't count Bernie out but he may not have enough time for a come from behind.
Hey CW
Too bad... looks like the corporate media is already calling it for Hillary so your vote won't count after all.
Of course, the rules and the DNC insisting that superdelegate votes don't actually count until their vote at the convention are going out the window... because that's how the corporatists have been swinging this whole campaign.
The news out of CA that poll workers were being falsely instructed to give independents provisional ballots and other shenanigans to help Hillary is just depressing for the Democratic party.
The other news out of CA that Jill Stein of the Green Party was offering to leave their top spot open for Bernie was pretty astounding though... and, not surprisingly completely ignored by the corporate media. But a presumptive party nominee willing to step aside is just amazing, and may well help the Greens if Hillary doesn't stroke out or get shackled up.
The way the Dem establishment has handled Bernie's surprising challenge from the left, Hillary's attitude, campaign and supporters trying to claim the race was over 4 months ago, 3 months ago, 2 months ago and up until last week, and Hillary's recent neocon foreign policy speech (already taking the votes on the left for granted), all puts her ability to unify the party in serious doubt.
But then, I registered as a Dem only to vote for Bernie... with no intention of ever giving a Wall Street coddling corporatist neoliberal warmonger like Hillary my vote... and will be changing my registration back to independent forthwith... so the party loyalists can throw their Third Way ideological sellout selves a party with their bankster, fracking and lobbyist buddies.
I hope your predictions for the last states are true though... and the vote suppressing tactics in CA fail miserably. But I also hope you're wrong about Bernie conceding, and a contested convention lies ahead.
As I predicted from the beginning, it looks like Jill Stein will be getting my vote, but I have thoroughly enjoyed watching Hillary squirm and the Big Money establishment lie, cheat and steal to maintain their chokehold over the former party of liberals.
So many eyes have been opened, and will not be shut again.
A
Ooops. One other consideration is the confusion about many of those wanting to vote as an independent signing up with a tea party group with independent in their name. Those votes will not go to Bernie as those voters wished.
[5] A: we neither of us can be sure of how the future will turn out, however strongly we may feel. All I can say is, if Hillary beats the Donald (which I expect her to do) I hope she will surprise you, and not me. Because I think she's going to do good things as President. You don't. Time will tell.
Reality Check Altohone [5]: No one who isn't the Dem or GOP nominee will be president next year. At some point in the future, maybe, but certainly not as a result of this election.
That leaves two choices: Trump and (presumably) Clinton.
This is about the Supreme Court, primarily. We already have an opportunity to swing the court. There will also be perhaps three other vacancies (minimum if we have an eight-year presidency). That's huge.
While Clinton is a corporatist, I certainly trust her more with labor issues than a GOP Prez coupled with a GOP Congress. Similarly for environmental issues (not to say I trust her, but as a matter of comparison, this seems obvious).
As for all of the other stuff, as long as we have the Congress we will have and the money in politics that we do have, no major things will change (even if Stein, Sanders, or Johnson becomes president).
Biga,
In other words, for all the claims about being against money in campaigns, being against foreign wars, being against corruption and lying...
For all of the Weigantians' claims that they are against all of that bad and horrible stuff...
They put their principles and their integrity aside and vote for the person that EPITOMIZES all of the things they claim to hate...
Because, at the end of the day when the rubber hits the road, it's ALL about winning...
They would vote for Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin if it meant they would win...
So, forget all about ideals or principles or integrity.. NONE of that has any place in this election..
It's ALL about winning...
Which is rather ironic when you really think about it. Because every poll.... EVERY POLL that pits Bernie against Trump...
Bernie wins EVERY TIME...
Chew on THAT....
Michale
And, of course, there is Comey's recommendation to indict that is waiting in the wings..
Between the devastating State IG report and Comey's recommendation to indict, Hillary is toast...
Michale
Here is the intriguing part about Blakeman’s scenario: “If a grand jury is empaneled, or if she were to be indicted before the convention, the Democrats would have to let her go.” If an indictment were to come after the convention, he says, it presents a different problem because each state needs to certify their ballots before November. If an indictment occurs after the states have certified their ballots, it would be nearly impossible to replace Hillary Clinton with another candidate.
Here’s where things might get even more interesting. In states where ballots have been certified, the party would have to go to court to ask that Clinton’s name be replaced. “They also have another problem,” says Blakeman. “Once the convention ends, how do they reconvene to substitute Hillary? They have no rules for that.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/06/07/hillary-clinton-and-fbi-primary.html?intcmp=hphz03
The Democrat Party's only hope is that Comey doesn't issue a recommendation or recommends NOT to indict..
Given (what has been universally acknowledged) Comey's integrity and devotion to the law, it's all but a certainty that Comey will recommend to indict...
Tough luck, Democrats.. You shouldn't have hung all your eggs on a lying, cheating, scheming rhymes-with-witch...
If President Trump is even half as bad as ya'all claim, the Democrat Party will have another chance in 2020...
But for now??
There will be a Republican in the White House for the next 4 years...
Michale
Trump’s nickname for Clinton, “Crooked Hillary,” gets to the heart of what so many Americans find disconcerting about the former Secretary of State and her husband. The opportunism, the sleazy connections (e.g. Frank Giustra, Sant Chatwal, Marc Rich, etc.), the millions in paid speeches from Wall Street firms and foreign companies, the endless catalog of scandals (the majority — but not all — of which are baseless), the big campaign contributions from bankers and billionaires and media moguls, and so on. Clinton has a serious image problem: people view her as the ultimate politician who will lie and cheat her way into power (there’s a reason why people believe Frank and Claire Underwood were inspired by the Clintons).
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/03/the_clintons_arrogance_might_be_their_undoing_hillary_has_a_serious_image_problem_and_blood_thirsty_republicans_arent_to_blame/
The vast majority of Americans are on the same side as I am when it comes to the scumbaggery that is Hillary Clinton...
Michale
So no matter who you vote for to be president you should join with me ( and hopefully Altohone) by committing at Voucher Vendetta to vote against the Big Money congressional and senate candidates in the 2016 general election and congressional primaries if your state has not had those yet in 2016.
Whatever our political differences, Don..
I do admire your tenacity in pursuit of something you believe it..
Such passion is a rare quality.. Don't ever lose that...
Michale
Michale [9]
It's not all about winning. It's all about Trump losing. Everything else is not nearly as important.
Don Harris [13]
I did not vote for Gore. It didn't matter as my state went blue anyway. But with Gore, we don't get Citizen's United, McCutcheon (bigger money in politics), Heller, Hobby Lobby, and others. We also would not have gotten into Iraq (Afghanistan might still have happened, if 9/11 still happened (an open question)).
Principle is important, but some things are more important.
Speak2
It's not all about winning. It's all about Trump losing. Everything else is not nearly as important.
So, as I said, ya'all would vote for Attila the Hun or Josef Stalin if it meant that Trump would lose..
"A difference which makes no difference is no difference"
-Spock
Principle is important, but some things are more important.
I will thank you not to make my points for me! :D heh
But, you called it dead on ballz accurate..
Principles and integrity are fine and dandy... But they don't....er... trump :D Party ideology....
"It seems silly to get so worked up over an arbitrary principle."
"A principle is not a principle UNLESS it's arbitrary."
-Digger
Michale
Michale (15)-
Thanks. Persistence seems to be my only asset.
heh
Welcome to my world.. It's a great place.. You'll love it here.. :D
Michale
But Bernie's shown all the late-breaking momentum. He's been out here campaigning his heart out for the past few weeks. He has surged in the polls, although not enough to actually beat Clinton in any one poll (that I've seen). It's a rule of thumb, though, that late-breaking surges often are predictive. Which is why I'm going to throw caution to the wind and say that Bernie manages a slim victory in California. I'll be up late watching the returns come in, and I expect it'll take quite a while before the networks are willing to call the state. I have to admit a bit of personal bias here, since I'd love to vote for my state's winning candidate tomorrow night. But since these are the last contests to call, I thought I'd go out on an optimistic note for Bernie Sanders.
History has shown us that those candidates with the last minute momentum always wins....
And, while the GOP Primary is unique and the General Election is certainly going to be unique....
The Democrat Primary is run-o-the-mill same ol same ol...
ALL the factors that come into play in a same ol same ol primary favor Bernie...
The momentum.. The surge of voters... The polls....
All that and so much more is going Bernie's way...
Bernie will win California by double digits....
Michale
One former long-time adviser to Clinton predicted that Trump would defeat Hillary in November. "If anyone can screw this up, she can," he said. "Get ready for President Trump."
As if to confirm this gloomy view, Clinton's rally on Friday in Culver City, a Los Angeles suburb, was almost comically inept. Her delivery veered between whispers about how "we learned yesterday that prince died dealing with his pain" and shouted applause lines about how"before there was something called Obamacare there was something called Hillarycare."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/06/07/fossil_hillary_joins_her_chorus_of_critics_130800.html
heh
Michale
A Sanders supporter who will vote for Trump in the General summed things up perfectly...
"Trump will bring more change and Hillary will be more of the same for four or eight years. As much as I hate to say it, I'd prefer to have Trump in office than Hillary."
Hillary has already lost....
Michale
Why Trump will win the White House
Donald Trump will win the 2016 presidential election.
Not “might” win. Not “could win under the following circumstances.” He’s going to win as surely as the sun rises in the east, as certainly as high tide follows low, and as definitively as Steph Curry laid waste to the Oklahoma Thunder’s defense.
Here are five reasons why:
1. His rhetoric resonates.
“Trump’s selection of issues is part of his persuasion talents,” writes Scott Adams, the creator of “Dilbert” who has been blogging for months about the Trump phenomenon. “He was smart enough to pick the topics with the most emotional power. It was intentional.”
“Keep in mind,” Adams adds, “that every candidate had the same options that Trump did, but only Trump chose correctly.” Adams says that is no accident: “The public just thinks it is.”
By the way, Adams thinks Trump will win “in a landslide.”
2. Most Republicans are falling in line.
I’m a die-hard #NeverTrump guy, but I know I’m among a minority. Although some prominent Republican leaders have withheld their support, it’s clear that the GOP rank-and-file is rallying to the presumptive nominee. On Thursday, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wis., ended weeks of speculation and endorsed Trump, saying “the reality is, on the issues that make up our agenda, we have more common ground than disagreement.” A unified Republican Party is far more likely now.
Democrats, meantime, are divided among dedicated Clinton supporters and Sanders’ cadres of bitter-enders. The Bernie voters tend to be millennials. Clinton may not be able to count on their support in November.
3. Gotcha journalism doesn’t faze Trump.
What my friends in the media fail to understand is the great mass of would-be readers and viewers really, really don’t like us. They certainly don’t trust us. And so when Trump calls ABC News reporter Tom Llamas “a sleaze” and Llamas responds with pained indignation, who do you suppose wins that confrontation?
“Why am I a sleaze?” Llamas protested.
“You’re a sleaze because you know the facts and you know the facts well,” Trump replied.
Trump never apologizes and never backs down. The media may despise him, but voters despise the media more. That’s why he’s winning.
4. Hillary follows his lead – badly.
That’s hardly her first misstep. In December, Clinton took a swipe at Trump’s “penchant for sexism” around the same time she announced that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, would be campaigning for her in New Hampshire.
Trump slapped back. Hard. “If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women’s card on me, she’s wrong!” Trump tweeted. Clinton had no answer for that. And she won’t have an answer for it when it comes time to debate.
5. Trump will crush Clinton in the debates.
Also, Clinton is not a very good debater. People forget the way Barack Obama eviscerated her during the 2008 Democratic primaries. She does not do well in situations where she doesn’t have complete control. It’s why she prefers interviews to news conferences. Interviews are more predictable. Press conferences are free-for-alls.
He’s shown he has no compunction about attacking Clinton and her husband on their moral and ethical lapses, even as he’s fighting lawsuits accusing him of fraud and dodging questions about his past infidelities and current net worth.
In a contest between two shameless politicians, the one with the least shame wins. Get ready for President Trump.
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/ben-boychuk/article81455472.html#storylink=cpy
As I said... Hillary has already lost...
If anyone has any FACTS that disprove the above.....
"I'm all ears.."
-Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates
Michale
Don Harris [20]
40 years of conservative/Republican appointed supreme court justices have enabled the big money in politics.
They began by gutting the Watergate reforms, equated money with speech, told us corporations are people (gotta wonder what the founders would have said about that one), and then opened the flood gates by gutting McCain-Feingold and giving us the recent Roberts court decisions.
Any hope of reducing money in politics must start with the supreme court. Anything that doesn't begin there will not succeed, it doesn't matter how many petitions are signed or how many small donations are received by better congressional candidates.
40 years of conservative/Republican appointed supreme court justices have enabled the big money in politics.
PLUS Bill Clinton's actions of gutting banking reforms...
Any hope of reducing money in politics must start with the supreme court.
Any hope of reducing money in politics MUST start with the Democrat Party practicing what they preach... Anything that doesn't begin there will not succeed...
"I can do this all day."
Captain Steve Rogers, CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR
Until such time as the Left quits trying to blame everything on the Right and refuses to check the mirror now and again...
Nothing will change...
Michale
Paula
7
I guess it all depends on what you mean by surprised.
She openly embraces lobbyists, so will her continuing embrace of lobbyists surprise you?
She supports fracking, so will her continuing support for fracking surprise you?
She supports illegal military interventionism despite the costs and disastrous outcomes, so will future interventions surprise you?
She supports illegal coups of leftist and democratically elected governments...
She will appoint corporatist, constitution violating "liberals" to the SC...
Rahm...
Debbie...
Sidney...
Blankfein...
... will you be surprised?
I won't be.
If you believe she will ditch those and many more disgusting policies and ethically challenged people, and thus surprise me, you don't know Hillary.
Wishful thinking wouldn't let me sleep at night.
A
Speak2
8
Didn't claim a third party win is coming, and I wouldn't cash your sad reality check.
My ballot has more than two choices.
I covered the Supremes thing a couple of columns ago.
A
Don
13
Not only not needed... offensive.
I actually have a couple of good candidates to support in my district this year.
And I would laugh my arse off if Bernie took Jill up on her offer and I got to vote Green and for Bernie after all... but I doubt he'll do that.
Like I said, lots of eyes have been opened this year.
A
And I would laugh my arse off if Bernie took Jill up on her offer and I got to vote Green and for Bernie after all... but I doubt he'll do that.
Sanders is also right to keep open the possibility of a Green Party run. Dr. Jill Stein opened the door to Sanders on April 22 when she wrote him about how they could work together to advance his political revolution. This was not the first timeshe sought to open a dialogue with Sanders on how they could work together. On Acronym TV, Stein told Dennis Trainor, Jr. that everything would be on the table, including her running as the vice presidential nominee and Sanders running as the presidential nominee.
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/02/dont_rule_it_out_bernie_sanders_slightly_leaves_door_open_for_green_party_run_with_jill_stein/
Oh my Chuck, how awesome would THAT be!!!! :D
Michale
DonH [31]
Even weak reforms like McCain-Feingold are gutted by the SC. Any reforms passed will continue to be gutted by a conservative SC.
Congress will have to consent, but the difference between a GOP and Dem Prez in who they nominate is stark.
Personally, I think the Senate majority party will be the same as the Prez next year (though, if it is Dems, they will likely lose the majority in 2018).
DonH [32]
Thank you.
Gloves really coming off: here's a doozy of an Ad put out by a SuperPac against the Donald: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/pro-hillary-clinton-super-pac-goes-after-trump-mocking-disabled-reporter
Personally, I think the Senate majority party will be the same as the Prez next year
That's a very insightful prediction...
Kudos...
Michale
Gloves really coming off: here's a doozy of an Ad put out by a SuperPac against the Donald:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/pro-hillary-clinton-super-pac-goes-after-trump-mocking-disabled-reporter
You mean, like when Obama mocked McCain for his disabilities???
Yawn.....
It's really disgusting that Hillary would use a disabled child as a campaign prop....
Michale
You mean, like when Obama mocked McCain for his disabilities???
"Well.. That's different"...
All together now..... :D
Michale
Gloves really coming off: here's a doozy of an Ad put out by a SuperPac against the Donald:
And here I thought ya'all are on record as saying SUPERPACS are "Bad"....
Apparently only RIGHT Wing SuperPACs are bad... :^/
Who would've thunked it... :D
Michale
What disabilities does McCain suffer from? While being a Republican politician might seem like a mental disorder to most people, it still isn't recognized as one by the APA.
[38] When did President Obama mock McCain for his disabilities?
And here I thought ya'all are on record as saying SUPERPACS are "Bad"....
Apparently only RIGHT Wing SuperPACs are bad... :^/
it's bad that superPACs are allowed to exist at all, but it's worse to have one side have them and the other not - kind-of like nuclear weapons. it would be best if nobody had them at all, but a balance of destructive power is the next best thing to no destructive power at all.
JL
What disabilities does McCain suffer from? While being a Republican politician might seem like a mental disorder to most people, it still isn't recognized as one by the APA.
Well, aren't we just holier than thou... :D
John McCain, current U.S. Senator from Arizona, limited use of arms and "off-kilter gait" due to torture as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physically_disabled_politicians
[38] When did President Obama mock McCain for his disabilities?
Biden criticizes Obama ad hitting McCain as technologically inept
Joe Biden offered perhaps his most off-message statement yet since being tapped as Barack Obama's running mate, saying in an interview that he thought one of his campaign's own ads was "terrible" and hadn't know about it in advance.
Asked by CBS's Katie Couric about an ad Obama released earlier this month mocking John McCain for not being able to use a computer, Biden criticized the commercial and suggested it had been aired without his knowledge.
"I thought that was terrible by the way," Biden said of the computer ad in an interview broadcast tonight on the CBS Evening News
politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/Biden_criticizes_Obama_ad_hitting_McCain_as_technologically_inept.html
I know, I know...
That's different
There.. I said it for ya'all so ya'all don't have to bother....
it's bad that superPACs are allowed to exist at all, but it's worse to have one side have them and the other not - kind-of like nuclear weapons. it would be best if nobody had them at all, but a balance of destructive power is the next best thing to no destructive power at all.
Fine...
ALL SuperPACs are bad and shouldn't exist at all..
But let's CHEER the SuperPACS from the Left..
Yea... NOT a mixed message there, eh?? :D
Michale
John McCain, current U.S. Senator from Arizona, limited use of arms and "off-kilter gait" due to torture as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War
Don't worry, people..
I won't expect any concession from ya'all that I was right about McCain's disabilities and Obama's mocking of those disabilities...
I understand that some things are just NOT within the realm of possibilities... :D
Michale
Don,
Just in case I never said it- Superpacs are not bad. They are tool, just like a hammer or religion. The tool is not bad, it all depends on how it's used.
Interesting concept... I do agree with it, in theory..
My beef has always been with the consistency (or in this case, lack thereof) of the partisan fanatics who fear-monger everything to death...
In public, the Democrats fear monger "SuperPACs are bad!! They are evil!!! They will destroy democracy as we know it!!!"
But in private, the Democrats CAN'T WAIT to have dozens of SuperPACs on their behalf...
As always, my issue is the hypocrisy....
SuperPACS that support Democrats are the cat's meow and to be cheered and revered, as Paula's comment shows...
At BEST, it's a mixed message..
At worst, it's blatant hypocrisy...
Michale
Don,
Just in case I never said it- Superpacs are not bad. They are tool, just like a hammer or religion. The tool is not bad, it all depends on how it's used.
Interesting concept... I do agree with it, in theory..
My beef has always been with the consistency (or in this case, lack thereof) of the partisan fanatics who fear-monger everything to death...
In public, the Democrats fear monger "SuperPACs are bad!! They are evil!!! They will destroy democracy as we know it!!!"
But in private, the Democrats CAN'T WAIT to have dozens of SuperPACs on their behalf...
As always, my issue is the hypocrisy....
SuperPACS that support Democrats are the cat's meow and to be cheered and revered, as Paula's comment shows...
At BEST, it's a mixed message..
At worst, it's blatant hypocrisy...
Michale
Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/
Nobody says it better and with more credibility than Glenn Greenwald..
Michale
Michale: Your hypocrisy criticism doesn't hold water. It's similar to the gerrymander discussion we had not long ago (where you said I was honorable; please hold yourself to the same standard).
Basically, even if the rules are bad, if one side doesn't use them they are at a competitive disadvantage.
Consider an analogy. According to the rules of Monopoly, if a player lands on Free Parking, nothing happens. Many people have a house rule that gives the player money.
If I'm at their house then I take the money, even if I think the rule harms the game. Otherwise, they get an advantage that I probably can't overcome (basically, the game now changes to one with that rule).
If they come to my house, then we would play with my rule (nothing happens). They can't do otherwise, but again, the playing field is level.
Decrying Super PACs, while using them while they are part of the game is not hypocrisy. Anything less is simply disadvantaging yourself.
Instead, win with the rules, then try and change the rules.
[49] Speak2: Yep!
Program Note:
I'm still working on a gigantic wrap-up of the whole primary season for today's column, I'll let everyone know when it's up. It's taking a LOT longer than I thought...
Just to let everyone know...
-CW
Program Note 2:
OK, new column is up (whew!).
This is where I'll be "liveblogging" tonight's results, for everyone's information. But I'll also try to answer all these comments later as well, I promise.
For now, though, I'm off to cast my vote.
-CW
don
32
I'm not sure how it could have been interpreted another way. Can't say that someone preaching that I can only vote for someone who supports what I oppose and opposes what I support qualifies as a discussion though...
... nor do I see any value in trying to work with those who are actively working to undermine your small donations effort...
... so, to answer your question, no.
And my advice to you would be to reevaluate your position if you hope to be successful. You should be seeking out true supporters, not those who give lip service to your idea while maintaining the status quo through their actions.
That's shooting yourself in the foot.
They'll only be all chummy and smiles as long as they are getting their way... but if you begin to pose a threat, they'll turn on you.
I'm sure you noticed that exact thing during the primaries, but I'm laying it out in no uncertain terms because I want you to be successful.
Where else are you fishing?
A
Speak,
Consider an analogy. According to the rules of Monopoly, if a player lands on Free Parking, nothing happens. Many people have a house rule that gives the player money.
If I'm at their house then I take the money, even if I think the rule harms the game. Otherwise, they get an advantage that I probably can't overcome (basically, the game now changes to one with that rule).
If they come to my house, then we would play with my rule (nothing happens). They can't do otherwise, but again, the playing field is level.
Decrying Super PACs, while using them while they are part of the game is not hypocrisy. Anything less is simply disadvantaging yourself.
Your analogy is flawed and therefore not an good example...
I really don't know how to modify it because it really has nothing to do with the hypocrisy issue..
But you (or someone else, not sure) gave a previous example of the designated hitter rule in baseball. Some coaches may not like it, but will use it when it's to their advantage to do so..
THAT is a better analogy, but still needs tweaked to be perfectly accurate...
Coach Joe Schmoe is on record as hating the designated hitter rule..
Coach Schmoe has stated time and time again that the designated hitter rule will "DESTROY BASEBALL". Schmoe continues to rant that the designated hitter rule is "evil" and is the devil's spawn and that it will likely bring about the apocalypse...
Then Joe Schmoe uses the rule to win the game..
THAT is hypocrisy..
And THAT is an exact analogy to what the Democrat Party is doing..
Michale
Speak,
Consider an analogy. According to the rules of Monopoly, if a player lands on Free Parking, nothing happens. Many people have a house rule that gives the player money.
If I'm at their house then I take the money, even if I think the rule harms the game. Otherwise, they get an advantage that I probably can't overcome (basically, the game now changes to one with that rule).
If they come to my house, then we would play with my rule (nothing happens). They can't do otherwise, but again, the playing field is level.
Decrying Super PACs, while using them while they are part of the game is not hypocrisy. Anything less is simply disadvantaging yourself.
Your analogy is flawed and therefore not an good example...
I really don't know how to modify it because it really has nothing to do with the hypocrisy issue..
But you (or someone else, not sure) gave a previous example of the designated hitter rule in baseball. Some coaches may not like it, but will use it when it's to their advantage to do so..
THAT is a better analogy, but still needs tweaked to be perfectly accurate...
Coach Joe Schmoe is on record as hating the designated hitter rule..
Coach Schmoe has stated time and time again that the designated hitter rule will "DESTROY BASEBALL". Schmoe continues to rant that the designated hitter rule is "evil" and is the devil's spawn and that it will likely bring about the apocalypse...
Then Joe Schmoe uses the rule to win the game..
THAT is hypocrisy..
And THAT is an exact analogy to what the Democrat Party is doing..
Michale
Decrying Super PACs, while using them while they are part of the game is not hypocrisy.
But Democrats are not simply "decrying" SuperPACS.. they are on record as stating that SuperPACs will "destroy democracy"...
And yet, the Democrat Party CHOOSES to "destroy democracy"...
So, what??
Either they were being emotionally hysterical and totally moronic and fear-mongering and that SuperPACs won't REALLY "destroy democracy"..
Or they are INTENTIONALLY and with willful abandon DESTROYING DEMOCRACY..
Which is it???
Michale
Decrying Super PACs, while using them while they are part of the game is not hypocrisy.
But Democrats are not simply "decrying" SuperPACS.. they are on record as stating that SuperPACs will "destroy democracy"...
And yet, the Democrat Party CHOOSES to "destroy democracy"...
So, what??
Either they were being emotionally hysterical and totally moronic and fear-mongering and that SuperPACs won't REALLY "destroy democracy"..
Or they are INTENTIONALLY and with willful abandon DESTROYING DEMOCRACY..
Which is it???
Michale
Paula,
Since you decided to chime in, let me ask you..
Do you HONESTLY think that SuperPACs will "destroy democracy" as the Democrats have stated??? Do you believe that the Citizens United ruling is "evil" as I believe you have stated on numerous occasions??
So, how can you, on the one hand state how bad and evil and wrong and evil and evil SuperPACs are... Then, on the OTHER hand cheer them when they do something you like???
Michale
So, how can you, on the one hand state how bad and evil and wrong and evil and evil SuperPACs are... Then, on the OTHER hand cheer them when they do something you like???
It's a fair question...
Will it get a fair answer???
Michale
Apologies for the double-taps..
Old war injury.. :D
Michale
It is just my opinion that the mistake many activists make is they expect people to buy in to everything they are trying to accomplish.
And react VIOLENTLY when you don't..
here, here....
Thanks for the support and advice to you and all that have commented on my ideas. Whether you agree with me or not it is all helpful.
Yer welcome. :D
Michale
It's a fair question...
Will it get a fair answer???
Of course not..
No one wants to talk about FACTS...
Everyone just wants KOOM-BYE-YA, Everything Is Awesome claptrap... :^/
Michale
Don
60
I hear ya, but that 80% includes way too many who set the issue aside to vote against their own interests and beliefs.
I think your approach is noble, but forming a core who won't make exceptions for their party (and then pretend it's acceptable) is what I was referring to.
I hadn't noticed the superpac conversation earlier... hmmm... can't say I agree there.
There's a reason why Bernie refused to have one, and I think a lot of people who may support you otherwise have negative feelings about them. Convincing people you are redefining the meaning seems like an extra and unnecessary hurdle.
Facebook is a horrible company, so I completely agree there.
Glad you're fishing elsewhere though, because, no offense to CW, but this a kind of a shallow pond with an algae problem that keeps many away.
Good luck.
A
but this a kind of a shallow pond with an algae problem that keeps many away.
I prefer to think of myself as a high end filtration system where only the strong survives.. :D
Michale
but this a kind of a shallow pond with an algae problem that keeps many away.
I prefer to think of myself as a high end filtration system where only the strong survives.. :D
Michale