Monday Open Thread [4.11.16]
NEW YORK—FOX News–Trump 54, Kasich 22, Cruz 15
NEW YORK—FOX News–Clinton 53, Sanders 37
PENNSYLVANIA—FOX News–Trump 48, Cruz 22, Kasich 20
PENNSYLVANIA—FOX News–Clinton 49, Sanders 38
PENNSYLVANIA—Morning Call–Trump 37, Cruz 29, Kasich 28
Laura Vozella reports at The Washington Post that “Nearly a third of Virginia Republicans will vote for Hillary Clinton, pick a third-party candidate or sit out the election if Donald Trump is the GOP’s nominee for president,” according to a newly-released Christopher Newport University poll.
A new Reuters/Ipsos poll found that one-third of Donald Trump supporters said they would not support the Republican party in the general election if the businessman is blocked from the nomination. They said they would instead vote Democrat, vote third-party or sit out the election.
CIA Director John Brennan told NBC News that his agency will not engage in harsh “enhanced interrogation” practices, including waterboarding, even if ordered to by a future president. Said Brennan said: “I will not agree to carry out some of these tactics and techniques I’ve heard bandied about because this institution needs to endure.”
If Trump becomes President, I put the odds of a coup by the military at 75%, and the odds of a full scale civil war at 60%.
“Since the first day of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump has said that he gave more than $102 million to charity in the past five years. To back up that claim, Trump’s campaign compiled a list of his contributions — 4,844 of them, filling 93 pages.
“But, in that massive list, one thing was missing. Not a single one of those donations was actually a personal gift of Trump’s own money. Instead, according to a Washington Post analysis, many of the gifts that Trump cited to prove his generosity were free rounds of golf, given away by his courses for charity auctions and raffles.”
For those on the left who have resorted to the Republican tactic calling Hillary a criminal likely to be indicted, perhaps they should know this: A Politico review of dozens of recent federal investigations for mishandling of classified records suggests that it’s highly unlikely.
The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but — in nearly all instances that were prosecuted — aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.
The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.
Clinton herself, gearing up for her FBI testimony, said last week that a prosecution is “not gonna happen.” And former prosecutors, investigators and defense attorneys generally agree that prosecution for classified information breaches is the exception rather than the rule, with criminal charges being reserved for cases the government views as the most egregious or flagrant.
CNN: “April 10 marked the first time since November that Trump did not take part in the Sunday morning TV interview circuit.With the GOP frontrunner enjoying a commanding lead in New York state polls ahead of the April 19 primary, the silence seems emblematic of a new approach.”
And the world did not end.
Republican state legislators and governors in several southern states have stepped in it big time, with the growing negative reaction to a rash of their gay-bashing legislation in Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi, Virginia and Tennessee. The NFL and the NCAA essentially killed the Georgia’s bill, forcing Governor Nathan Deal (R) to veto it amid threats of the removal of the Super Bowl and the Final Fourt. Virginia’s Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe also vetoed a bill passed by the GOP legislative majority that permitted businesses and individuals to “cite their religious beliefs as a reason for refusing services to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.” Bruce Springsteen has already cancelled a Greensboro, NC concert because of the “newly-enacted Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, which prohibits transgender individuals from using the bathroom of their choosing.”
But Springsteen is a well known liberal rocker. When country music stars in Tennessee start coming out against the Discrimination bills, Tennessee Republicans should take notice. Top country artist Emmylou Harris issued a statement saying “Those who love and make country music do so because at its best it speaks to the pain and suffering everyone shares in this life…Let’s not make that life harder still for some, with this mean spirited and unnecessary legislation” in response to a bill which “seeks to prohibit students in public institutions from using the bathroom that does not conform to their gender at birth” and another, which would let counselors refuse mental health services to clients based on their religious beliefs. Country music stars Chely Wright and Ty Herndon have also released statements condemning the legislation, as has TN-born Miley Cyrus.
Martin Longman on Bernie Sander’s frustrating wins:
It’s tough to see Sanders win strong victories in Wisconsin and Wyoming and discover that he’s getting further away rather than closer to winning the nomination. You can argue about whether this is fair or not, but the rules haven’t been changed in the middle of the game. Candidates don’t set out to win some abstract and idealized version of the process. They set out to win a contest with defined challenges and obstacles, and their strategies should match those requirements. If there are no delegates to be netted out of Wyoming, it’s probably not worth spending any time, money or effort on it, especially if the polls show you’re going to win it easily without any effort.
This contest was won or lost (depending on your perspective) in the South. Beyond that, it was won far earlier when Clinton won enough party support to dissuade others from challenging her and to get most of the party officials in her corner. The reason this was so easy to accomplish is that Clinton maintained sky-high approval ratings throughout Obama’s second term, including better than 80% support from self-described progressive Democrats. That support among progressives is what made me realize as far back as 2014 that it would be fruitless to try to take her on from the left. And that’s when I knew that she’d be the nominee.
Of course, I wouldn’t call Sanders’ challenge fruitless at all if we’re talking broadly about positive influences and outcomes. But he won’t win, and I don’t think he could have won in an environment where most progressives, particularly in the South, have a very positive view of Hillary.
White progressives struggle to accept these facts because Clinton is not popular in white liberal circles. But that doesn’t get you very far, as white progressive champions always fall short unless they can unite the entire progressive community and still appeal to the middle.
Obama could do that. But there aren’t many Obamas out there.
Harold Meyerson says Republicans face a culture war backlash: “If it wasn’t obvious before, it’s become hi-definition clear in the past few weeks that the culture wars, long a powerful wedge that Republicans wielded against the Democrats, have now become a dagger that cleaves GOP ranks down the middle.”
“In one GOP-controlled state after another, legislatures have enacted measures that enabled businesses to discriminate against same-sex marriage partners or against gays and lesbians generally, only to face ferocious opposition from that pillar of Republican rectitude, American business. In many cases, opposition is so fierce it has led a number of Republican governors to veto the measures.”
The Weekly Standard argues that a brokered or contested convention is not the failure of the system: “If the primaries and caucuses produce no consensus candidate, then it is perfectly legitimate for the delegates to exercise their sovereign authority. In fact, it is essential for them to do so. Since the first party nominations— dating all the way back to the congressional caucuses in the Jeffersonian era— the mandate has been for a candidate to win a majority of the participants before he becomes the nominee, and for good reason. A party nominee is not running just as an individual, but as the representative of a coalition. If a majority of caucus members, delegates, or voters have selected somebody else, how can that nominee be said to be representative of the whole? This is the one constant amidst all the changes in the presidential nominating process from 1796 through 2016: The nominee must represent the whole party.”
“And it is in this way that the convention is not simply an appendix. Today, it serves a function similar to the House of Representatives whenever no presidential candidate receives an Electoral College majority: The House selects from the top three finishers, with the winner being the candidate who receives a majority of votes from the state delegations. The logic behind this rule is that the president is the government officer who represents the whole country, and if a majority of the country — acting through the Electoral College — fails to agree on a candidate, selection devolves to the House, which must continue to vote until a majority coalesces. The House has not been required to serve this function since 1824, as the people have reached agreement on their own. But the procedure is in place as a fail-safe. The same goes for the GOP nominating convention. If the Republican electorate fails to agree amongst itself, the choice devolves to the delegates.”
Random tidbit, but did anyone else see that Lisa Blunt Rochester pulled out of the UD debate tomorrow? From the debate event page:
Hello all,
Delaware Secretary of Labor Lisa Blunt Rochester had agreed to debate back in February. However, due to a scheduling conflict, she will not participate in Tuesday night’s debate. Nonetheless, we wish Secretary Rochester the best of luck on the campaign trail. Our debaters for Tuesday evening in the UD Dems’ debate will be Retired Marine Sean Barney, State Senator Bryan Townsend, and Accountant Mike Miller. Despite this new development, our programming and debate questions for the evening are still the same as before. Hope to see you Tuesday night at 7.
I’m a little surprised that LBR isn’t prioritizing the first real debate of the campaign (everything else so far has been forums).
“If Trump becomes President, I put the odds of a coup by the military at 75%, and the odds of a full scale civil war at 60%.”
I think the odds of near-immediate impeachment are probably higher than either.
“If Trump becomes President, I put the odds of a coup by the military at 75%, and the odds of a full scale civil war at 60%. ”
Then I, for one, am glad that “Captain America: Civil War” will soon hit the theaters so that we can get some clear ideas on how to act/conduct said modern civil war.
Depends on the composition of Congress, AAA. For Trump to be elected in the first place, you would have to imagine that a number of reactionary Republicans and Fascists would be elected along with him, and that the GOP would be in control of the House and Senate by WIDE margins. They didn’t impeach the last President who committed war crimes, so they won’t with a President Trump. They will endorse his actions because they agree with his actions.
No, what you will see instead is the military breaking with the GOP.
LOL, Prop Joe.
“”You can argue about whether this is fair or not, but the rules haven’t been changed in the middle of the game. Candidates don’t set out to win some abstract and idealized version of the process. They set out to win a contest with defined challenges and obstacles, and their strategies should match those requirements.”
This is primary reason why it’s hard to stomach folks who argue (i.e. quite a few DL commenters) that the delegate count, superdelegates, etc., all favoring Clinton right now, is somehow rigged bullshit… Those are the rules that have been in place and if one’s plan was to be the nominee of their respective party, why the hell wouldn’t one develop a strategy around those “rules for nomination”? You know how many delegates you need, the most advantageous states, etc., so the strategy should have reflected that. To start kavetching about how the delegate math is bullshit, long after highly impactful states have already voted… It’s hard to hear that as anything other than a mixture of sour grapes and woulda-coulda-shoulda.
In short, don’t get all bent out of shape towards one candidate because their strategy to secure the nomination was built upon publicly-available knowledge of delegate allocation procedures.
@Joe: Rather than be fair, let’s be honest. Sanders’ campaign, at least at the start, was never intended to win the nomination but to air his issues. I think even he was surprised at his success.
To say that he should have done differently is to say he should have done earlier exactly what Hillary supporters now say he shouldn’t do at all — criticize her all-too-easily-criticized career.
Hillary supporters, like most Americans, want it both ways, and, again like most Americans, they whine when they don’t get it.
Beyond that, all the people who whined about this when Hillary was on the losing end in ’08 don’t even see the irony in telling others today to quit whining. You’re just as hypocritical as those you’re accusing.
Being “fairly” and “legally” rigged is still rigged… Consider the stock market….
What’s the point of having primaries if the system in place allows those results to be manipulated so the party-choice wins? Right now, Clinton has more actual votes. That should be what matters in any organization calling itself Democratic.
However…. the system is still set up in such a way that Sanders could come away with more states and more votes, and not be the nominee… (winning states with less than 20 point margins) “Legal” and “fair” as that outcome is, The party cant really keep calling itself “Democratic” with a straight face.
A lot of people who support Sanders are upset about quite a few “legal” and “fair” systems in the country today. By acting like those institutions, the DNC is not giving these people much incentive to stay loyal.
The GOP is on the brink. If something emerges without all the bigotry, and less fealty to bankers and lenders (DWS, Carper, Coons, Senator-elect Gordon) The Dem party might not be too far behind…. and I say good riddance to both. Too many people are loyal to their party first.
Sanders suffers another devastating win in Wyoming.
“Depends on the composition of Congress”
Why, because so many Republicans back Trump? I think not. I think a two-thirds majority is guaranteed.
I also find it amusing that in your mind a Trump victory would sweep like-minded congresscritters into office, but a Sanders victory would not. What’s that about?
@Ben: Tom Gordon isn’t going to win his own primary without calling in a lot of favors. Sen-elect. That’s a good one.
@puck: Too true.
DD, thank you for acknowledging the frustration.
With now 7 wins in a row… (it also turns out he won http://progressivearmy.com/2016/04/10/bernie-sanders-wins-missouri-after-all/ Missouri… ) It is not hard to see why people new to the process (admittedly a lot of Sanders voters are young) are going to feel very betrayed. Sure, you can explain to them the rules, but they were explained rules (for example) about having to go to college to get a good job…. but for many of them, all the have is debt… so the “this is how it has always been” argument rings very, very hollow.
I think many of these people remember another lesson learned growing up… If you see something that needs to be changed, change it. Don’t accept something just because “it has always been”. I hope those philosophies carry the day.
If Tom Gordon runs for senate, Im calling it here and now, the Delaware DNC will back him and he will win. This state is a “stand in line for your office” type of “democracy”. Who’s excited for Gov Carney?!
All this anti-party and anti-establishment talk might be taking a toll. Take a look at the Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race:
Down ticket races matter. The truth is Kloppenburg would have had far more impact on Wisconsin than a presidential candidate. We can’t afford for this “not voting down ticket” to take hold.
The much simpler way to read it is that those Bernie voters are people who otherwise wouldn’t have voted at all.
Which still ends with the same result, no?
And could also lead to a Sanders victory in the GE along with an R House and Senate.
Im never voting for Tom Gordon for anything… I know he’s my favorite villain, but he’s a criminal…. not like ‘Hillary Clinton is a Criminal waaaa waaaa”… Tom Gordon is a real criminal, and a terrible person and I will happily vote for Mike Protack before I ever vote for that bastard… But he’s a democrat! Is Sanders supposed to endorse him?
How many other down-ticket people ya think there are all over the country who get to skate on in to office because of their party affiliation? This isnt a purity thing… this is a “WHY ARE WE PROPPING UP AWFUL PEOPLE?” thing. We need to stop this madness.
The anti-party and anti-establishment talk is required. You say we need to get people involved at the grassroots? Why would they do that without some impetus? Our kvetching is that impetus.
Moreover, the only reason Hillary Clinton is claiming to be progressive is the presence of Sanders; either she or her advisors feel more comfortable courting the middle. The more we keep talking, the better the chance that she doesn’t change back to centrist mode (I fully expect her to anyway, but she certainly will without noise from the left).
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/11/this_is_why_people_dont_trust_hillary_how_a_convenient_reversal_on_gun_control_highlights_her_opportunism/
MarcoPolo, her excuse is suspect. LBR confirmed her attendance, but that was before the candidate forum in Sussex County. It was clear she didn’t know most of the issues and repeatedly replied “Errrr, I don’t know about that.” Or, she agreed with one of the other candidates without adding anything of value. It was embarrassing.
Same result, but what’s it to us? Instead of energizing people to vote for Sanders, I’m supposed to energize them to vote for a Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate?
Ben doesn’t understand the factions within the state Democratic Party, but he’s trying to highlight the fact that down-ballot loyalty is bunk. That election is yet more proof that scaring people with how awful the GOP is does not produce turnout.
Also, we have yet to see reports detailing how many votes were suppressed by Wisconsin’s voter ID law.
The Democratic challenge for this election isn’t sniping about Hillary. It’s about turning out enough voters, or getting them to vote early, so the GOP doesn’t win through simple voter suppression.
You just don’t seem to get it: I (and I think others) are not going to carry water for policies and a candidate we don’t believe in. We’ll vote for her, but we’ll speak as we choose.
Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.
“It was clear she didn’t know most of the issues and… agreed with one of the other candidates without adding anything of value.”
An apple falling from a tree rarely strikes an Isaac Newton.
“I will happily vote for Mike Protack before I ever vote for that bastard.”
Let’s not go overboard.
I’ll tell ya what I Understand, AAA……I understand that a person who was forced out of his job for criminal activity got that exact same job back with very little resistance from the oh-so-noble Delaware DNC.
I understand that Delaware is a very noncompetitive state when it comes to higher office and if something happens to not go as planned (Markell nominated instead of Carney) the result is pretty much the same (pimping the state to big banks). I understand if we’re continually forced to do “what the grown ups say is best” and vote party line all the time without question, we’ll end up with President JP Morgan.
Since the fact I will support Hillary makes me a soulless demon who is hell-bent on continuing the oppression of ordinary American citizens (because, c’mon, that’s exactly what you guys are trying to say about folks who say they will support her), I’ll make the following sure-to-be-infuriatingly attacked analogy/point:
“With now 7 wins in a row…”… “Sanders suffers another devastating win in Wyoming.”…
To make a baseball reference, these are the equivalent of wins against the like of the Phillies (Alaska), Brewers (Utah), Padres (Hawaii), Braves (Idaho), Reds (Wyoming), and two certainly-more-impressive performances against the Marlins (Wisconsin) and the Cardinals (Washington). Many of those are games are ones that should be won by a contending team.
When the squad starts beating the bigger teams in the League, such as the Mets, the Pirates, or the Cubs (one could make those three New York, Pennsyvania, and Ohio to continue the analogy), then it should loom even larger… But equating that a series win against the Phillies (or winning Alaska politically) should be treated with as much severity and consequence as defeating the defending NL Champion Mets (or winning NY or Pennsylvania politically), that just strains logic and credulity.
Last thing on that… The rules have been the rules and if one didn’t start out in this venture trying to win, I think it’s disingenuous of the candidate and their surrogates to kavetch about a process they didn’t really want to engage in UNTIL they realized “Hey, we actually might have a chance here”… To move over and make a football reference, I will quote Herm Edwards in that regard: “Hello!!! You play to win the games.”
It’s laudable to have launched a campaign to talk about very real, very necessary issues affecting Americans. It’s laudable to have launched a campaign in the hopes of driving the prospective front-runner as far to the left as is humanly possible. It’s laudable to realize that the campaign has morphed from “drive these issues into the main arena” into “We have a legitimate shot at winning.” What’s not laudable is, once that shift is made, to start wailing, lamenting, beating-ones-breast at the rigged injustice of the process that has been in place for as long as I can remember, a process that seemed to work quite advantageously for Obama, and against Hillary, back in 2008.
Attack away, folks… Really, I’m expecting it at this point.
Getting the Congress you need to enact any part of your agenda is how it works.
Host Rachel Maddow said rival Hillary Clinton has been fundraising for her campaign as well as the Democratic Party. Will the Sanders campaign begin this type of fundraising as well, Maddow asked.
“We’ll see,” Sanders said. “Right now, our focus is on winning the nomination.”
We’ll see? It’s April. He’s now a Democrat – a party he joined to utilize his campaign exposure. Smart, but cynical. Bernie is 100% politician – and that’s not a bad thing. That said, if he can’t support down-ticket Dems (what Dem does he support and has he given them money?) then is his role just to hurt the party?
OK, the N in DNC stands for “national.” It has nothing to do with this.
He was not forced from the job; he was term-limited.
The “criminal activity” is nothing more than the way he runs a government administration, which harks back to the practices of the ’50s and ’60s in terms of patronage, coercion (political blackmail is a favorite tool) and authoritarianism. It’s what he learned from the police union, and if you want to devote yourself to a cause, curtailing the police unions of this country would be a noble one. I don’t point this out to defend him, but to show that on the political-chicanery scale, he is notable only for his lack of subtlety.
He was convicted of a misdemeanor and he ran against a highly unpopular incumbent county executive who was as compromised, and openly so, as Gordon is and whose sins were fresher in the public memory.
Also, I don’t understand this desire to deny agency to voters who vote for people we don’t like. I don’t buy the low-information voter stuff anymore. The really low-information people stay home. The voters might be voting on bad information or irrational thinking, but that’s not lack of information, it’s a conscious choice.
@AAAnonymous: “Hillary supporters, like most Americans, want it both ways, and, again like most Americans, they whine when they don’t get it.”
I’ll channel my inner Delaware Dem when I say… Get the f*** out of here with that righteous bullshit. Just because you support Bernie doesn’t make you a better American than someone who doesn’t. And if that’s how you really approach this Democratic primary, as if it is “Real Bernie Americans” versus “Fake Hillary Americans”, then you are… nevermind. No need to engage in name-calling as I need to be an adult (most of the time, anyway)
I’d like to think that my friends who are supporting Bernie aren’t as nihilistic in their evaluations of what my support of her means for my patriotism towards America.
“because, c’mon, that’s exactly what you guys are trying to say about folks who say they will support her”
Either you’re mimicking Jason (and failing) or you’re being a baby. I’m not saying anything of the sort. I’ve said exactly what I have been trying to say about Hillary supporters here — I think they’re thinking defensively and settling for warmed-over Republican hash.
You, on the other hand, are being a dick for the fun of it. Enjoy.
Oh, wait. You have patriotism for America? Fuck off, sporto.
Until your last batch of insults, it wasn’t personal. I don’t give a flying fuck who you support. If you took it personally it’s because the shoe fits.
What shift has been made? I haven’t heard Hillary get behind a reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. I haven’t hear the DNC come out in favor of Single Payer health care… or nationwide access to Community College… or cracking down on wage theft… Good Lord, their own party chair is in the pocket of predatory pay-day lenders. So far, The only thing the Sanders campaign has accomplished, is giving the establishment dems a good strawman to attack to keep their center-right economic policies in place.
“Getting the Congress you need to enact any part of your agenda is how it works.”
So Obama was a failure. Got it.
The biggest threat to a Sanders’ primary victory is the taint of the “super-delegate” process, a perjorative of the status quo within the party that intends to preserve an aristocracy of power within the party that hinders any outside challenges to policies or power-brokers.
Nothing is more threatening to a representative democracy than discouraging voters or disenfranchising them. Another incarnation of voter suppression and denial of access to the ballot box has surfaced in one of the most unlikely places. It is created within the Democratic Party by party rules and under the guise of the privileged “super-delegate” appointment. Clearly a creation of homage to a bygone era of aristocratic recognition within the party powerful it allowed those at the top of the pyramid of power, often beholden to the status quo of party politics, to be given access to the party convention and front row seats from which to preen. This mimicking of the English style of a “House of Lords” and a “House of Commons” would seem harmless enough until the “super-delegates” presumed that their appointment precluded any vote of the party faithful yet to come.
Although legally placed as a democratic party rule it is no less offensive than abrogating the party memberships’ vote or simply putting a match to the ballot box when these “super-delegates” preempt the primary election and pledge their allegiance and delegate vote to one candidate or the other before the votes have been cast and counted.
Let me make it perfectly clear that my challenge to this system is not based, in any way, on the individuals who are seeking the nomination. I do not care, in the least, about which candidate or candidates will be named or chosen for this benefit. It is the fact that preemptive pledging of a delegate vote will result in voter disenfranchisement, discourage voters from going to the polls, (viewed as an exercise in futility thereby suppressing the vote), and render the ballots yet to be cast as meaningless. It is an almost arrogant presumption on the part of those appointed “super-delegates” to think that they have the right and/or privilege to force their personal choice (or that of the party apparatus that they feel allegiance to) upon the voters of record before their votes are recorded.
They can still enjoy the honor and recognition of their positions within the party but they should have absolutely no right to pledge their delegate vote anywhere other than to the majority dictate of the people who actually vote.
Representative John Kowalko
One thing I can always count on… whenever I ask “how” I get back nonsense.
Its a far more complicated answer than a simple “how”. Surely you know that. Surely you also know that there is no way the Dems can win the house. So how does Clinton expect to get things done? Pandora, you mentioned before you were concerned about what a President Sanders might trade away for the parts of his agenda he wants to enact… You made a very valid point that governance is give and take…
Dont you realize Hillary will have to make trades as well? Dont you realize she’ll be faced with a GOP congress intent on blocking everything? please PLEASE stop using “Sanders wont be able to get anything done” as some excuse not to vote for him. Hillary will be in the exact same position.
@pandora: The word “how” does not appear in a question in your last comment.
I don’t care about building the party. The Democratic Party as currently constituted is not helpful; I do not support its candidates even when I vote for them. I’m really not interested in what Bernie does. I’m talking about us, the DL community.
My goal is to harangue Hillary from the left so she doesn’t turn to the center. Get it?
Now explain, in the context of your comment about electing fellow Democrats, how Obama is not a failure. The losses in midterms during his presidency are among the worst ever recorded. Donating to them is not electing them.
That was good! How about some more?
I don’t expect you to give a flying fuck who I vote for. I tend not to expect people on a message board to give a flying fuck about people they don’t know, don’t see in real life. That being said, your comments are occasionally brimming with hyperbolic rhetoric, such as the “Hillary supporters, like most Americans, want it both ways, and, again like most Americans, they whine when they don’t get it.”
That’s a bullshit generalization, the same as if I were to turn it around and say “Bernie Supporters, like most Millenials nowadays, think that the results and prognostications should only focus on recent events instead of the totality of the process, from the first state to the last. Again, like those same Millenials, they whine and lash out when their preferred approach isn’t immediately adopted and anything to the contrary discarded.”
Stop hating on me with dickish generalizations, I’ll do the same… Peaceful fucking process, sporto. My reasons for voting for her don’t make me a lesser American and it’d be nice if both Bernie supporters, with their “purity of progressivism” litmus, and Hillary supporters, with their “She is a real Democratic” nonsense, would just chill the fuck out… It’s like two sides, who ultimately want the same thing, keep inventing ways to attack each other, thereby making the job of the opposition (read: GOP, not the Democratic Party) much easier.
Take it easy, Sporto… I’ll be back later…
@Prop Joe: I have never said a word lamenting the candidate math. I slake my interest in inside baseball with baseball.
You come on here slinging insults, you’ll get insults back. Just to see how it goes, why don’t you try explaining yourself?
The “bullshit generalization” came right after the specific instance of it I cited. Didn’t do too well on the reading comprehension section, didja?
And just on general principles, fuck off. I’m not interested in civil discussion with any asshole who uses the word “patriotism.” That you would think I was insulting yours shows just how incapable of comprehension you are.
“PLEASE stop using “Sanders wont be able to get anything done” as some excuse not to vote for him. Hillary will be in the exact same position.”
Definitely agree… It’s Pollyanna to think that Hillary will somehow be able to get things done, w/ Congress not changing, yet Bernie will not… Unless Congress flips or becomes much, much closer in terms of party split, neither of them will likely be able to push the needle further.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-kids-vote_us_570ba48de4b0885fb50d74b0
That’s just wonderful. I hope he loses by 1 vote.
Obama didn’t get a lot done due to our abysmal off year turn-out. Even the ACA took hits from the left (not saying they weren’t valid) and always just got lumped into the ACA Sucks camp – even though they were in the Not Goes Far Enough camp. They added to the damage, many resorting to personal attacks against the President. What he did get done he had to compromise on – and so would President Sanders. Representing Vermont is a far cry from representing the entire country.
So whether it’s Hillary or Bernie there will be compromise. Which, given recent history, means those that call themselves true progressives (not all) will do what they always do and sit out the midterms. This is part of the reason why it’s so important now to support down ticket Dems – we need to ride coattails into office and the fastest way to get a foot in the door is during a Presidential election when lots of people vote.
Ben, I’ve said a hundred times that a Dem President wouldn’t get much done with an R House. What they would accomplish would be through compromise and incrementalism – two words that are now no nos.
Bernie has one job now. Keep pushing his message and pulling Clinton left while not personally destroying her. AAA may not care about her being destroyed, but his shtick is pretty much “Nothing really matters.” He’s the cool kid. 😉
Pandora…. what would Clinton compromise? I like policy discussions too and we had one about what might get (although i still highly doubt it) compromised with Sanders. Let’s talk about what the person who WILL be the nominee will trade away. My guess.. the push for a livable wage and expansion of health care access. I think she’ll do it to shore up the victories on social issues (im not saying they shouldn’t be fought for, but as we’re seeing in the Confederacy, they will HAVE to be fought for.) Is there maybe something that you would let go…. maybe something you wont feel great about saying… in order to enact Hillary’s agenda?
There’s one thing you don’t mention. the GOP doesnt “compromise’ in good faith. They take the economy hostage and pretend that allowing the government to function is some sort of tit-for-tat. Compromising with such a them allows the incremental LOSS of issues that should have been long since settled, (access to reproductive services much?) dont you think? or am I totally off on that?
One thing i do really like about Clinton is, I think she will hit Jan 20th with the same attitude Obama has now. I think she’ll beat the hell out of TrutleMan and FratBoy Paul. I think it will be truly a joy to watch her call them out every single time they hold Vet assistance hostage in order to gut funding for PP…. are you really saying THOSE PEOPLE (hehe) should be compromised with?
I think most of what will be done will be done around the edges – a tweak here and there – and not really on any big issues. One thing both sides are agreeing on is Wall Street should pay more and that companies shouldn’t be shipping jobs over seas and benefiting here from that move.
I do not see either Dem candidate trading away reproductive rights, immigration, health care, minority rights, etc. (that question of mine was directed to supporters who kept stating on this blog how social issues needed to take a back seat, weren’t important, received too much attention, etc.)
Press Advisory: Contact: John Kowalko, 302 547 9351
For immediate release Monday April 11, 2016
Legislator Files Resolution to Reinstate Glass-Steagall
State Representative John Kowalko (25thDistrict announced he has prefiled a House Concurrent Resolution (HCR 61) which will urge congress to reinstate Glass-Steagall.
The resolution will reinstate some necessary regulations on the banking industry in order to stabilize the industry and prevent future economic failures that costs billions of dollars to shareholders and consumers alike.
Representative Kowalko stated that “I hope to have Delaware join over a dozen state legislatures this year in passing a resolution urging the Congress of the United States to pass two bills, HR 381 and S. 1709, which will reinstate the Glass Steagall Act. Over the past three years, more than thirty state legislatures have filed such resolutions. Four legislatures have adopted the resolutions. Congress is now in the process of discussing this solution to the onrushing financial dislocation confronting the nation”.
“In addition, two regional Presidents of Federal Reserve Banks, Neel Kashkari of Minneapolis and James Bullard of St. Louis, have recently called for breaking up the Wall Street banks deemed “too big to fail”, which is the essence of the Glass Steagall Act”, Kowalko said.
Additionally, Glass Steagall restoration has become a “debating point” in the presidential primaries.
Candidates including Sen. Bernard Sanders and Gov. Martin O’Malley and Gov. Rick Perry and Dr. Ben Carson, have supported this measure.
Glass Steagall was implemented after the stock market crash and banking collapse of the 1930s and it worked to prevent another crash for sixty six years.
After it was repealed in 1999, another crash occurred in 2007-08. That crisis has yet to be resolved; the restoration of Glass Steagall, with its proven track record, is the necessary first step toward addressing this situation.
Kowalko stated “I hope all of my General assembly colleagues will join me in passing this important and necessary resolution to inspire Congress to take immediate action on this important issue”
HCR 61 will be on the State website after 2:30 P.M. tomorrow with sponsors but here’s the text:
WHEREAS, an effective money and banking system is essential to the functioning of the economy; and
WHEREAS, such a system must function in the public interest, without bias; and
WHEREAS, since 1933, the Federal Banking Act of 1933, known as the Glass-Steagall Act, protected the public interest in matters dealing with the regulation of commercial and investment banking, in addition to insurance companies and securities; and
WHEREAS, the Glass-Steagall Act curbed speculative activities by erecting a firewall between commercial and investment banking; and
WHEREAS, the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999, permitting commercial banks to merge with investment firms, insurance companies, mortgage companies, and other financial services firms to form vast conglomerates; and
WHEREAS, some of these conglomerates engaged in irresponsible financial practices and speculative activities which brought them to the brink of failure and contributed to the collapse of the housing market; and
WHEREAS, the collapse of the housing market helped trigger the worst recession since the Great Depression, which cost millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to bailout financial conglomerates considered too big to fail; and
WHEREAS, the worldwide recession has left millions of homes in foreclosure; and
WHEREAS, the worldwide recession has cost the loss of millions of jobs nationwide; and
WHEREAS, the worldwide recession has put severe financial strains on states, counties, and cities, exacerbating unemployment and loss of civil services; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Congress enacted the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform 26 and Consumer Protection Act,” in 2010, in response to the speculative activities and irresponsible financial practices which drove the economy into recession; and
WHEREAS, although the purpose of the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” was to address the root causes of the recession, the law does little to separate commercial and investment banking; and
WHEREAS, reinstatement of the separation between commercial banking and investment banking is necessary to strengthen our financial system and to put an end to the irresponsible financial practices and speculative activities that led to the collapse of the housing market and the subsequent recession; and
WHEREAS, the Glass-Steagall Act has widespread national support from such organizations as the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations; and
WHEREAS, the “Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2015,” H.R.381 and the “21st Century Glass-Steagall Act of 2015,” H.R.3054 and S.1709, would revive the separation between commercial banking and investment banking by imposing restrictions on affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms, and in a manner similar to that formerly provided in the “Glass-Steagall Act;”
NOW, THEREFORE:
BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the 148th General Assembly of the State of Delaware, the Senate concurring therein, that the Delaware State Legislature urges the President and Congress of the United States to enact legislation reinstating the separation between commercial and investment banking that existed under the “Glass-Steagall Act,” in order to prevent American taxpayers from being called upon to fund hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out financial institutions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be sent to the President of the United States, the presiding officers of each house of Congress, and to each member of Congress from Delaware.
SYNOPSIS
This House Concurrent Resolution urges the President and Congress to enact legislation that would reinstate the separation of commercial and investment banking functions that were in effect under the Glass-Steagall Act.
***
“I do not see either Dem candidate trading away reproductive rights, immigration, health care, minority rights, etc. (that question of mine was directed to supporters who kept stating on this blog how social issues needed to take a back seat, weren’t important, received too much attention, etc.) ” …..
First of all, good to know you dont think Sanders would trade away rights ..
I guess that makes me the doofus who A) DOES think they are under attack, B) doesnt think they should take a back seat, C) admitted he would still make deals if forced to. womp womp.
So…. accepting that incremental change is the way to get most things done, just as a discussion of policy…. would you say that some things… Climate Change mostly… cant wait for incremental change? Should we be spending our time now figuring out what these *ATTN NOW issues are so we ca push the Party’s candidate in that direction? IF we can agree that climate change is something that cant wait for increments, What sort of RIGHT NOW legislation can be passed? Clinton’s refusal (for example) to flatly say she will end fracking (which, in addition to pumping toxic chemicals into the ground water and air, is also causing earthquakes) is, to me, just about as worrisome as anything else.
“Hillary Clinton has been fundraising for her campaign as well as the Democratic Party.”
I think this simply reflects Clinton’s view that, as the leader of the party and as someone who wants to make progress, she is dependent upon more than just her force of will and the bully pulpit. The balance of power in the Congress and even state-wide races can either help or hamper her efforts in governing. She will need allies and supporting down ticket candidates is a means to gain those allies.
The bottom line is, it doesn’t matter who she puts up for SCOTUS, she is dependent upon on Congress to complete the process. It’s kinda what leading and governing is all about – influencing people to action in a certain manner.
“Clinton’s refusal (for example) to flatly say she will end fracking…”
Is that an example of “Attn Now” things? If so, sez who?
President Obama, says that fracking is a key weapon against global warming because it is a “bridge fuel” to ubiquitous renewable energy—the key to securing economic growth “with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change.”
And please note the term “bridge fuel” as in meaning “not a permanent solution” but better than relying on coal in the near term.
More on Milton resident Scott Walker, a Democrat who is running for Congress but isn’t sure what party he’ll be seeking the nomination of: http://capegazette.villagesoup.com/p/scott-walker-announces-congressional-candidacy/1505968
OMG, I KNOW him. Went to Brandywine High School with him. Real nice guy, see him every now and then at class reunion functions. Didn’t know his politics, had no idea that he’d ever run for office. Don’t honestly see a natural constituency out there for him, though. Especially at this late date.