Wednesday Open Thread [5.18.16]
Last night Hillary Clinton won Kentucky by 1 point, splitting the delegates at 27 a piece in a state demographically favored for Sanders, and she did much better than expected in Oregon, losing to Sanders by only an 8 point margin, 54-46, when the Sanders campaign was expecting a 30-40 point victory more in line with their performance in the Washington state caucus. In Oregon, Sanders wins 28 delegates to Clinton’s 24, so he gains a net total of 4 on the night.
Clinton is now 92 delegates away from clinching the nomination. Given the upcoming slate of primaries and the expected performances by the candidates in them, Hillary will likely clinch the nomination the second polls close in New Jersey and she is declared the projected winner, before we even get to California.
She will score landslides in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and New Jersey. She will likely get 7 of the Virgin Island’s 12 delegates. She will likely get 40 of Puerto Rico’s 67 delegates (both results based on a conservative estimate of a Hillary 60-40 win in both). In New Jersey, early models of the vote show a landslide for Hillary.
New Jersey – We haven't seem demographics like this since Maryland. Blowout. Clinton 64% – Sanders 36%. pic.twitter.com/3Yrdsd8lHE
— Benchmark Politics (@benchmarkpol) May 18, 2016
Assuming a 64% win in NJ, Hillary will win 97 of the state’s 142 delegates. And that puts her over the top at 8 pm on June 7. Hillary should plan on declaring victory that night. Concerns for the feelings of Sanders supporters, and for Sanders himself, after the unpleasantness of the last few days and Sander’s tantrum last night, are over. Sanders alone is responsible for lying to his supporters by suggesting that the primary has been stolen. Sanders alone is responsible for lying to his supporters by suggesting that he can win the nomination. Sanders alone is responsible for talking his supporters down from the violence and outright terroristic and misogynist behavior they have engaged in over the last few days. He will concede to Hillary without precondition or concession in mid June like Hillary did in 2008. And then we will talk about reforms to the primary process in 2020 and beyond, where we eliminate caucuses, closed primaries and super delegates. Then we will talk about the platform. But not before.
Josh Marshall on the horrible nastiness of the Bernie Sanders campaign comes from Bernie Sanders, not any underling:
The tone and tenor of a campaign always come from the top. It wasn’t obvious to me until now. This might be because [Sander’s] temperamentally like that. There’s some evidence for that. It may also be that, like many other presidential contenders, once you get close it is simply impossible to let go. I don’t know which it is. That would only be my speculation. But this is coming from Bernie Sanders. It’s not Weaver. […]
Sanders speech tonight was right in line with his statement out this afternoon. He identified the Democratic party as an essentially corrupt, moribund institution which is now on notice that it must let ‘the people’ in. What about the coalitions Barack Obama built in 2008 and 2012, the biggest and most diverse presidential coalitions ever constructed?
Sanders narrative today has essentially been that he is political legitimacy. The Democratic party needs to realize that. This, as I said earlier, is the problem with lying to your supporters. Sanders is telling his supporters that he can still win, which he can’t. He’s suggesting that the win is being stolen by a corrupt establishment, an impression which will be validated when his phony prediction turns out not to be true. Lying like this sets you up for stuff like happened over the weekend in Nevada.
Markos went ballistic on Sanders after yesterday’s condemnation of violence with a BUT from Sanders:
[J]ust excuse after excuse after excuse, even though every one of those bullet points has been debunked. That is, you have a major presidential candidate trafficking in conspiracy theory.
So to recap, your supporters create so much havoc at the state party convention that convention hall officials shut down the event out of security concerns. Sanders responds with 1) stump speech and then more stump speech, 2) arguably valid point about painting too broad a brush about his campaign, 3) condemnation of poor behavior!, but 4) unfounded insinuation that other side started it with acts of violence against his campaign, 5) a litany of debunked claims about what transpired at the convention, and 6) the end. It’s everyone else’s fault, so while such violence is wrong, well, who could blame them?
I do find it funny that Sanders supporters decry the unfairness of this caucus system when the bulk of Sanders’ delegates comes from unfair caucuses. These things are pieces of shit, no doubt. All of them! The ones Clinton won and the ones Sanders won. They need to end or be reformed. Honestly, all this confusion and even attempts at mischief-making could be avoided with a saner system. BUT, that’s all a separate argument, apparently for a different time. Because right now, we can’t even get a clean, unmitigated condemnation of violent rhetoric, actions, and harassment from Bernie Sanders!
And I still can’t fucking believe it.
I find it interesting that Bernie Sanders plans to win over the remaining super delegates and get Clinton’s to switch to him. Still. If I was a super delegate, after seeing what happened in Nevada, I would immediately endorse Hillary today. Committing the crime of terroristic threatening through vandalism and evil phone calls to super delegates does not actually win over the support of super delegates.
If [Nevada] state party officials were, in fact, responsible for genuine abuses at the convention, perhaps some of the outrage would at least be understandable, but Jon Ralston, Nevada’s top political reporter, published a piece late yesterday saying that the opposite is true.
Despite their social media frothing and self-righteous screeds, the facts reveal that the Sanders folks disregarded rules, then when shown the truth, attacked organizers and party officials as tools of a conspiracy to defraud the senator of what was never rightfully his in the first place.
Instead of acknowledging they were out-organized by a Clinton campaign chastened by county convention results and reanimated to cement the caucus numbers at the Paris, the Sanders folks have decided to cry conflagration in a crowded building, without regard to what they burn down in the process.
The Nevada Democratic Party also took some time yesterday to publish a piece explaining that, despite the near-riot on Saturday, and death threats that have followed, the convention was actually fair to Sanders and his supporters.
Last night, the state party also lodged a formal complaint with the Democratic National Committee against the Sanders campaign. It concluded:
“The people who fostered, encouraged, and gained from the unsettling scenes at the Nevada State Democratic Convention bring dishonor and discredit to our state and national parties. Having seen up close the lack of conscience or concern for the ramifications of their actions – indeed, the glee with which they engaged in such destructive behavior – we expect similar tactics at the National Convention in July.”
That last point, of course, is of particular interest. As the New York Times report noted, Democratic officials hope “that what happened in Las Vegas stays there,” but there is the possibility that Sanders supporters will pursue a similar confrontation in Philadelphia over the summer. The Vermont senator himself has vowed more than once that he wants a convention fight, though it’s not altogether clear to what end.
What happened in Nevada is that a lot of Bernie’s delegates did not show up. That’s Bernie’s fault. That is Sanders supporters’ fault. Not the Party. Not Hillary. Another 8 delegates were disqualified or denied credentials because they were not members of the Democratic Party. Listen up self righteous independents, if you want to participate in the Democratic Party process and convention, you must be registered as Democrats. That is in the rules. It is the first rule. If you are not a Democrat, you will not be voting in any Democratic convention. Simple as that. That is not corruption. That is not a rigged system. That is not stealing the election. Indeed, Hillary won Nevada by 5 points, entitling her to 20 delegates and Sanders to 15, and that is what they both got after the convention. It is as if Sanders supporters are upset that they were not allowed to steal the election themselves, and are mad that the Democrats followed the rules and followed the results of the caucus election in February.
Indeed, the M.O. of Sanders supporters everywhere seems to be that if they are not allowed to steal the nomination for Sanders, they will burn it all down, even though they have already lost the Democratic Primary to Hillary Clinton. They are 3.5 million votes behind her. They are 300 pledged delegates behind her. They are over 700 delegates behind her when super delegates are factored in.
They. Have. Lost.
Bernie. Has. Lost.
It is far past time Sanders stops lying to his supporters and tell them that they have lost.
“Democrats hold a registration advantage over Republicans in four of seven battleground states likely to play a central role in the presidential election, even as Republicans and independents have made gains,” Bloomberg reports.
“The party that now controls the White House is ahead in registered voters in Florida, Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, while Republicans hold the lead in Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Politics. Three other likely battlegrounds — Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin — don’t register voters by party.”
“There’s that guy who’ll walk into the bar and say anything to get laid. That’s Donald Trump right now to a T.” — Mark Cuban, quoted by Business Insider.
Donald Trump alleged that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos uses his ownership of the Washington Post to secure tax benefits for his company, Politico reports.
Said Trump: “Every hour we’re getting calls from reporters from The Washington Post asking ridiculous questions and I will tell you, this is owned as a toy by Jeff Bezos, who controls Amazon… He’s using the Washington Post for power so that the politicians in Washington don’t tax Amazon like they should be taxed.”
Politico: “As Trump moves to work in closer concert with the Republican National Committee apparatus, some campaign aides and allies are pushing him to block lucrative party contracts from consultants who worked to keep him from winning the nomination, according to four sources familiar with the discussions.”
“The blacklist talk — which sources say mostly targets operatives who worked for Never Trump groups, but also some who worked for Trump’s GOP presidential rivals or their supportive super PACs — strikes against a Republican consulting class that Trump has assailed as a pillar of a corrupt political establishment. It’s a sweet bit of turnabout for Trump aides and consultants who in recent months were warned that their work for the anti-establishment billionaire real estate showman could diminish their own career prospects.”
“He will concede to Hillary without precondition or concession in mid June like Hillary did in 2008”
Without PUBLIC precondition or concession, that is.
True. I am sure behind the scenes and privately, party officials and Clinton surrogates are saying they are open to all kinds of platform inclusions and election reforms.
But they are only open to them if Bernie accepts reality that he lost. And they are only open to them if Bernie enthusiastically endorses Hillary and admits the truth that he lost fair and square. If he does not do that, he gets nothing.
Bernie doesn’t have to do anything other than what he is doing – telling the truth about our rigged economy and rigged politics.
Does that “hurt” Clinton? If she is dedicated to defending those rigged systems, I suppose it could. If she finds some common ground, I don’t think that it would. It helps the entire Democratic Party to have a coherent message that is transparently on the side of the middle class and not the billionaire class.
I’m nervous that it’s already too late. After all this talk about Hillary and the DNC being corrupt, liars, rigged, etc., combined with statements like, “If the Democratic Party is to be successful in November, it is imperative that all state parties treat our campaign supporters with fairness and the respect that they have earned”, I’m not sure Sander’s can bring his supporters in line. I’m not sure he even wants to.
I’m also wondering if this is the strategy to “win” the nomination. Is the case Bernie will make be: You have to give me the nomination because my supporters will never vote for her? That’s the only path I can come up with, but if someone can show me another path, I’m listening.
This is no longer about Bernie’s message or ideas. It’s actually about overturning caucus and primary results to turn the loser into the winner. Sure, the crazy primary rules allow this crazy stuff (talk about things that should be fixed), but you don’t get to do that (or try and do that) and then claim to be the moral authority of democracy and transparency. That ship (and mantle) has sailed.
I’m worried because it seems we’re on a path that leads to the destruction of one of our candidates – that only one of them can be left standing.
I’m feeling all Jason330-y. Someone talk me down! 😉
IF Bernie steals the nomination that way, I will never vote for him or anyone who has ever supported him for anything ever again. Hillary has won fair and square. There is no rigged primary system. To say there is a rigged election system is to lie.
@Pandora, the same thing in 2008 was said of Clinton and her supporters of Obama. Hillary gave one good speech and one great speech. The good speech was when she conceeded after the primary battle was officially lost. The great speech was during the convention. Everything will be fine. Nerves are frayed right now as they were in 2008. Things will come around.
I heard a lot of that on CNN last night. The media narrative is forming around the idea that Nevada was a point of no return. I doubt that is true.
When the choice is between Clinton and Trump, and Clinton has been introduced at the convention by Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren is the running mate, all Democrats, Greens and wild-eyed zealots will come home.
@Delaware Dem, as I said, nerves are frayed. You might want to take a few Xanaxes.
I hope that is true, Jason.
Nemski, is it too early for bourbon in the coffee?
Delaware Dem, no, no alcohol. I get the feeling that you might be an angry drunk. 😉
LOL, this is a reverse. Now the Sanders supporters are talking down the Clinton supporters. That’s actually sincerely funny.
And I mean that not in a sarcastic way. Pandora and I are freaking out, and Puck, Nemski and Jason are calming us down. Thanks.
That all said, I think Hillary is
– way too hawkish, more than Obama
– too close to monied interests, yes, I get that’s the political way today
– a bad campaigner, she lost to Obama and can’t beat a 70 year old Jewish Socialist. She needs to pivot to beat the weird campaign that is Trump
I just hope my suggestion gets taken up at the convention:
“All caucuses and primaries will be replaced by on-line polls hosted at http://www.delawareliberal.net ”
That’s the best way to ensure a fair and honest outcome.
ACT UP protesters? Loved ’em, they woke up the evil establishment.
Occupy Wall Street? Brought them snacks and sleeping bags.
#BLM disruptions? Had to be done even if white people don’t get it.
…but Sanders’s Nevada supporters? Out of line! Near-riot! Not understandable! Burning it all down!
After Sanders has conceded and thrown his support to Hillary, and the same people are still out there protesting for $15/hr, against TPP, for breaking up the banks, for paid college tuition… can we still call them “Sanders supporters?” Or do we have to start calling them something else?
Nevada was out of line. I do hope you realize that. Calling Barbara Boxer a cunt is out of line. Throwing chairs is out of line. Calling for the murder of Dem party officials is out of line. Threatening the lives of the children of state party officials is out of line. No human being can possibly defend these actions.
That said, I expect Hillary to be campaigning for 15 dollars minimum wage, for making college more affordable with the goal of public college ed free, against the TPP, for relegating the banks, etc. Those protesting for these things can still protest for them. They will be called liberals, progressives, Democrats.
Jason, did you see the complaints from some McGuiness supporters that their attempts to freep the online LG poll were not registering? LOL.
Tell them the poll doesn’t accept votes from out of state.
LOL. Actually, I think it does. It just doesn’t accept new votes if your IP Address is recognized as having already voted. There are ways around that, but you have to clear your cookie cache of everything to do it.
Yes I did. It was a call back (as they cal it in the comedy biz)
DD, I’m voting for the Dem no matter what. There’s too much on the line. How 2008 of me. 🙂
Thanks, nemski and Jason, I hope you’re correct, but this feels different to me. By 2008 standards this primary isn’t even close, yet people believe it is. I’m fine with letting the primary run it’s course, but it has to pivot to reality. Clinton has won – even more so than Obama in 2008.
Truthfully, just pick one of them and get this over with. Every day this goes on more people plant their feet, and one thing I know about people… far too many of them are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. Nader’s message is alive and well.
The really sad thing is that the “message” is being lost. When’s the last time we (general we – us, journalists, pundits, etc.) discussed income inequality, college tuition, health care, social issues, etc.? It’s all about corruption, lying and a rigged system now and how one candidate is for it while one candidate is against it. Yep, the message has been replaced. That’s depressing, because I liked both candidates’ messages. But I’m nutty that way.
Don’t you see that corruption, lying, and the rigged system are at the root of income inequality, unaffordable tuition, expensive privatized health care, and social injustice? It’s not like you can talk about the symptoms without talking about the cause.
It is one thing to talk about banking and the economy as rigged. But the primary election process? If anything, it is rigged IN FAVOR of Sanders given the undemocratic caucuses. There is no rigged election and Sanders and his supporters are lying when they say they are being cheated out of the nomination. Hillary has won fair and square. Accept that, and then we can talk about fighting the rigged economy.
I do see that, puck, but that’s not what the message has morphed into. It’s become about personalities – one person is corrupt, a liar and winning by using a rigged system, while the other person is honest, truthful and losing because of cheating. We’re no longer talking about “income inequality, unaffordable tuition, expensive privatized health care, and social injustice.”
To me, that spells trouble. How do you justify voting for a corrupt, lying cheater?
What’s amazing to me is how we’ve gone from wooing Bernie supporters (which should be Bernie’s position of strength, and why he’s tossing that away is beyond me) to calming down Clinton supporters. DD’s correct. It is sorta funny. What’s not funny is that I’m having trouble understanding how you unite two aggrieved sides. Up until a few weeks ago the onus was on Clinton to win over Sanders’ supporters, but with Bernie’s latest comments he has placed that burden on himself as well. That baffles me. Why cede your position of strength?
@Pandora wrote “How do you justify voting for a corrupt, lying cheater?”
I don’t know, could you tell me? 😉
Okay, that was funny. 😉
Clever comments aside, that is what this primary has turned into. I’m not seeing an “awesome” convention speech fixing that – mainly because, in order to do that, Bernie will have to take back a lot of what he’s said. Which means either his supporters come up with another conspiracy theory on how Hillary and the DNC threatened him to support her or they label him as a sell-out.
Just for fun, could you tell me how Bernie gets his supporters to vote for Hillary and not just against Trump? He will need to do both – especially since blowing up the system will appeal to a lot of his supporters and that equals President Trump. Hell, a lot of them even say that.
Help! I’m going over the cliff!
Pandora… relax and reread Jason’s comment from above. I agree with it. It is likely how this all ends.
When the choice is between Clinton and Trump, and Clinton has been introduced at the convention by Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren is the running mate, all Democrats, Greens and wild-eyed zealots will come home.
Yes, there will be a few that vote Green or stay home, but these are voters that voted Green or stayed home in 2008 because Obama was too impure for them. The only problem with them is they tend to be real loud right now.
I think we hear mostly from the loudest Sander’s supporters. The loudest ones, the best you can do is get a vote against Trump. I dont think that’s a large enough number to put the world in jeopardy (aka, electing Trump)… but I do think some strategy comes into play.
you’d have to pretty much give up on states like Delaware. Focus on getting anti-Trump votes in Ohio and PA. 250 of the needed 270 are a lock for the D side. Delaware wont really matter electorally and will go Blue anyway. Every staunch, disaffected Sanders voter in Delaware could not vote for Clinton, and she’s still take the state. It might be close…. Sanders might get (wild ass guess) a 5% write-in. Maybe she wins by 1% here…. maybe that sends a very clear message that she doesnt have the trust of progressives…. maybe i put one too many splendas in my coffee….
Point is, I think everyone has already made up their minds. I think the only thing Clinton could do at this point is so sway people like ME away from her by trying some BS center-pivot for the general, and pick Rubio or some shit for her VP…… (which, before anyone jumps on me, it looks like she will do the opposite) I’m gonna complain about the DNC, DWS, Harry Reid, ties to banks, etc , and I’m going to hold the leader of the party accountable for all the party does on those issues. I think that’s fair, and I think as a registered Dem who thinks the party isnt progressive enough, that is my right and responsibility. I dont think I’ll ever get EXCITED about Hillary Clinton. Didn’t in 08, wont now. I WILL get excited about #brandnewcongress, I WILL get excited about 8 years from now when, hopefully, Majority Leader Warren is running for president.
A dozen reasons why 2008 was just as bad as 2016. http://www.salon.com/2008/06/23/pumas/
Yeah, I don’t like the argument that Sanders voters should not vote for Clinton in blue states. If many Sanders voters do that, those states will no longer be blue and Trump wins. So stop making that argument. That argument boils down to “I’m ok with putting the election in jeopardy so long as I can vote my conscience.”
I don’t think you have to worry about a Clinton pivot to the right or even the center. She doesn’t need to do it and she knows it. If she was facing a Kasich or a Rubio, then that might have been a concern, but not against a Trump. She will stay right where she is. And she won’t be picking a Republican. She will pick someone as VP to heal the Democratic rift to get as many of Bernie’s supporters on her side. A united Dem party wins. A divided one loses.
I’m gonna complain about the DNC, DWS, Harry Reid, ties to banks, etc , and I’m going to hold the leader of the party accountable for all the party does on those issues. I think that’s fair, and I think as a registered Dem who thinks the party isnt progressive enough, that is my right and responsibility. I dont think I’ll ever get EXCITED about Hillary Clinton. Didn’t in 08, wont now. I WILL get excited about #brandnewcongress, I WILL get excited about 8 years from now when, hopefully, Majority Leader Warren is running for president.
That’s fine. All she and I want is your vote. And you should hold her and all Dems accountable.
Even if 2016 is just as bad as 2008, Obama still won comfortably in a landslide because the PUMAs, despite their extreme vitriol and proclamations to the contrary, voted for Obama in large numbers. Hopefully, the same will be true this time.
I admit I didn’t vote Green in 2008, because I wanted Obama to have as large a margin of victory as possible. But I almost always vote Green, so when I do so this year it won’t be because I don’t like Hillary but because environmental issues are important to me.
I do wish Team Hillary would get over the fact that some people just don’t vote for Democrats unless those Democrats earn the vote. Act enough like a Green and I’ll vote for you. Act like a typical Democrat and I won’t. It really won’t make any meaningful difference in the final vote tally.
In 2012 the grand total of 1,940 people voted for Jill Stein, nearly double that number voted for the Libertarian, and Obama topped Romney by nearly 78,000 votes. So those of us who take a pass are not endangering your candidate. I’d appreciate it if you stopped vilifying people for voting their conscience.
“if you want to participate in the Democratic Party process and convention, you must be registered as Democrats.”
And I fail to see how anyone can call the system rigged because of that. The price of admission is membership and admission is open to anyone. There are no rules that prevent anyone from registering as a Democrat and gaining the right to vote in the primary. Is there something difficult about that concept?
“all Democrats, Greens and wild-eyed zealots will come home.”
Nice caveats:
If – Sanders introduces Clinton
And if – Warren is the VP nominee
Then – zealots will come home
Sanders cannot be relied upon to do that, even if the DNC and/or Clinton asks.
Warren may not agree even if asked.
The election is in jeopardy, despite the visual rainbows that are being presented.
Zealots are not unpredictable, except in their zealotry. That’s why they are called zealots.
“There are no rules that prevent anyone from registering as a Democrat and gaining the right to vote in the primary. ”
Sure there are. You can’t belong to another party, for one.
So stuff that one. It’s an exclusive club by definition. Political parties are a fact of life, but let’s not pretend they’re a pleasant or useful fact of life. They are, like all cabals, an attempt to limit power to a select few.
As for how meaningful the dead-enders are, whoever compared them to PUMAs was exactly right. Don’t mistake attention-getting misbehavior for popularity.
An exclusive club with a built in apparatus that Bernie decided he would take advantage of. I have no problem with that, btw, but let’s stop pretending that this move was above the fray. Everyone is covered in mud if we accept the parties primary system is corrupt. Everyone gave up that moral position the second they became a Dem candidate.
FYI: I’ve talked myself down a bit, so vote for who you (general you) want. I’m not proud of the way I’ve talked myself down, but it is what it is.
“Sure there are. You can’t belong to another party, for one.”
You mean that membership in the GOP should not disqualify you from membership in the Democratic Party? Yeah, I should have qualified that one better by stating that you only get to choose one party to belong to. You can’t be a member of all of them simultaneously. Sometimes I mistakenly think things are evident when they are not. So yes, you may have any dessert you wish, but may only have one. So choose wisely.
Yet in Delaware you can, or at least used to be able to, run as the candidate of two parties simultaneously. So it’s OK if you’re one of the select.
You missed my actual point, though. Parties do not help the populace. They help the people trying to gain control of the government. Big difference.
Which is why I choose not to belong to a party and why I do not complain about not being able to vote in the primary of the party I choose not to be a member of.
Stories are beginning to run in the MSM that the Democratic convention could be more fractious than the GOP convention. This not only feeds a false equivalence narrative, but also feeds the media need for a horse race.
Bernie goes on to the convention because he’s never had any other end game from the time he started to take himself seriously as a candidate; like Ronald Reagan in 1976 and Ted Kennedy in 1980, he really doesn’t see himself as damaging the ultimate nominee, he sees himself as “saving the Party” (which he never belonged to–go figure).
Moreover, the Clinton campaign’s inability to create a successful media narrative that she’s already won (and even though she has already won, Bernie has a much more interesting narrative going–castles in the air always trump the boring building of the foundations of suburban houses), and that’s hurting Clinton in too many ways to calculate now–but among them are making Trump look stronger for finishing off his opponents “faster” and repeatedly emphasizing her campaign’s unimaginative approach to selling its candidate.
Sorry, pandora, it is not time to panic yet, but it’s also not time to get talked down. Between them Clinton and Sanders seem bent on trying to find a way to seize defeat from the jaws of victory.
Based on a message on my answering machine, I think someone must be conducting a poll of the DE-AL primary race. Did anyone get polled?
There seems to have been a poll out last night for the NCCo Exec race. A push poll — from Myers.
And in more jason-is-correct about the GOP closing ranks behind Trump, Fox News capitulates by throwing Megyn Kelly to The Donald:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/megyn-kellys-guide-to-surrendering-to-donald-trump?mbid=gnep&intcid=gnep&google_editors_picks=true
Why do I wonder about the Clinton campaign so much? Late yesterday they issued a predictable blistering attack on Trump’s judicial suggestions for the Supreme Court.
I’m waiting, however, for somebody to notice that unless Clinton was one of the two Senators absent that day in 2004, she undoubtedly voted for one of them (Raymond Gruender) to be appointed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, who was approved 97-1.
And, oh yes, Gruender (the one she voted for) is one of the ones her campaign attacked by name.
@SN “I’m waiting, however, for somebody to notice that unless Clinton was one of the two Senators absent that day in 2004”
That was 12 years ago. He was probably highly qualified and he certainly didn’t have the poor track record that he has today.
@LE
You miss the point, I think. You wouldn’t, for example, get to use that excuse if you had voted for Scalia or Thomas. And to criticize the list without checking to see if you’d ever actually supported any of the people on it is a Politics 101 error. I have my doubts that the Trump campaign will be smart enough to pick up on it, but it’s still an unforced error. “Let me get this straight, Hillary Clinton is criticizing me for selecting a man that she voted to make a Federal judge?”
Just ask John Kerry how that kind of thing worked out for him.
@SN “You wouldn’t, for example, get to use that excuse if you had voted for Scalia or Thomas.”
Sure you could. Thomas’ reputation today is VERY different than the one he had when he was first nominated.
Ah, back in the day when qualified judges actually got a vote. Sure, let’s go down this path.
As far as finishing off her opponent… Why can’t Obama close the deal! 😉
And to criticize the list without checking to see if you’d ever actually supported any of the people on it is a Politics 101 error.
She voted for these guys for a different (lessor) job. She didn’t vote for a single one of them for Supreme Court. And it is completely fair to say that you may be qualified for the job you have, but you are not qualified for the promotion. Merrick Garland is on the other side of this argument — plenty of currently sitting GOP Senators won’t vote for him, even though they voted for him for the job he has now.
I’m sure that there will be people making the case that since she voted for them for lower courts jobs that there is some hypocrisy here. That argument is also a way to argue for continuing dysfunction in Congress.
Howard Dean has a measured and good take on the current state of the Democratic primary.
“She voted for these guys for a different (lessor) job”
Correct, unless one were to define all votes being equal or that all circumstances are equal or that all decades are equal or that the world has been and currently is in stasis. Which is exactly those who would criticize Clinton’s previous votes pretend is the case.
Those previous votes can only be in examined in situ as it were. Time and place do matter and political expediency is sometimes necessary. We should examine the list in that context.
I am also going to add that the Senate’s job for appointments is Advise and Consent, not Obstruct and Stamp Your Feet. You may be in the business of voting for people you would never select, but who are otherwise qualified to do the job. Judging these votes on the dysfunctional way that the GOP has bent the Congress just normalizes that BS.
The problem with Trump is he has to take everything to the ridiculous. He can’t say Bill Clinton committed adultery, too – he’s now claiming he’s a rapist. He can’t say he’ll fight ISIL, he has to say he won’t take nuking Europe off the table. He just can’t make himself stop.
My concern with the general has nothing to do with Trump. He’s 100% beatable. Sure, Republicans will come home – just like they did in 2008 and 2012 – but then, like now, there aren’t enough of them.
I’m kinda tired of all this focus on the white male vote, usually by white males. 😉 You’d think it was the ultimate game changer. It’s not. And every time I hear this conversation I just shrug. Republicans will vote for Trump. A segment of white people (a smaller segment than portrayed, and I’m sticking with that until I hear the white people on DL saying they’ll vote for Trump) will vote for Trump. And we can have that conversation, but let’s expand it to include everyone else.
Republicans may have ignored their political autopsy, but their findings were correct – They can’t win unless they expand their voters to include groups other than white men. Show me how Trump does that, and I’ll worry.