Year: 2016

Scalia's death is a world class gift to the Democrats. First, as I said yesterday, thanks to the Republican violent racist hatred of the President, and due to the shock of the unexpected death and the immediate realization that "oh shit, Obama gets to swing the court to a liberal majority for the first time in 50 years," they reacted rather unwisely last night in demanding complete obstruction. That played right into the Democrats' hands. And placed the GOP into a lose lose situation. Either they confirm Obama's nominee, and give the country a liberal majority court for a generation, or they lose 6-7 Blue State Republican Senate Seats and the Presidency due to their obstruction, thus guaranteeing a liberal majority court for a generation. They should have negotiated with Obama for a moderate pick. Now, Obama has no need to negotiate. Either confirm his liberal pick or Hillary will get to confirm her liberal pick. Republicans are very very stupid. They let their racist emotions get the better of them time and again. Second, with a Supreme Court seat at stake, this is an enthusiasm spiker and uniter for liberals and Democrats for the coming election. Bernie Sanders supporters have to agree that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama's Supreme Court picks were liberal and so will Hillary Clinton's. So that means, even the most disappointed Sanders supporter will know that they have to vote Democratic. And that is true for Clinton supporters if Bernie is the nominee, but I see that as more unlikely now than ever, because of Scalia's death.

"The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign. Remember that," Trump said. He also called the invasion of Iraq "a big fat mistake", and noted that Bush lied…

The Lid says Bernie Sanders doesn't have his revolution yet, considering the fact that voter turnout has been down so far in 2016 as opposed to 2008:

“There’s absolutely no question that he’s built a formidable coalition that’s making him a real threat to the establishment. But if ‘revolution’ by involving a massive amount of new people in the political process is the goal, the two nominating contests in the books already aren’t slam-dunk advertisements for the plan so far. Democratic turnout in BOTH Iowa and New Hampshire was DOWN from 2008. New participants made up 44% of the electorate in this year’s Democratic contest in Iowa, down from 57% eight years ago. In New Hampshire, newcomers participated at about the same rate as in 2008.” “Yes, he’s raising massive amounts of money from small donors, which is an important data point here too. And yes, we’re only talking about the first two states, and there’s a lot of politicking left to come. But we’ll have to see some more raw vote totals — and an expansion of Sanders’ coalition in more diverse states — to be convinced that his movement is surpassing the scale of what Obama put together eight years ago.”

In an effort to be as fully transparent as possible, I must inform our readers as to a decision I have taken behind the scenes here. There was a comment posted in one of the Open Threads by Miky59, who is not a frequent commenter as best as I can tell and who is not known to me personally, that featured an audio recording of New Castle County Risk Manager Cheryl McDonough that, needless to say, was not complimentary. The comment was first moderated because we were not sure of the legality of having secret recordings posted when it was obvious that one of the people on the recording was not aware of the recording. Delaware law, as best as I can tell given my brief research on this, is unclear on the legality of recordings where one party is not aware of the recording. State privacy laws state that all parties must consent to the recording of oral or electronic conversations. Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335(a)(4). Section 1335 says it is a class G felony to intercept without the consent of all parties thereto a message by telephone or other means of communication, except as authorized by law. However, under U.S. v. Vespe, 389 F. Supp. 1359 (1975), even under the privacy laws an individual has the right to record their own conversations. Further, under Section 2402 of Title 11 of the Delaware Code, it is “authorized by law” for a person to record a communication where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of a criminal act. Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 2402(c)(4). So, with not knowing how that recording was recorded, and who consented to it, or who was involved in it, we are on questionable ground keeping it posted. Secondly, Cheryl McDonough contacted us herself and alleged that the recording was fabricated from several different "illegal" recordings with the intent to slander her. Now, I don't know if that is true. But the mere fact that she was raised this defense, coupled with the lack of knowledge of how the recording was made and where it came from, makes it questionable that the recording is authentic or legal. Thus, I am taking it down and anyone reposting it will be moderated.

For the first time since the Democrats began debating in the fall, through six debates, we have a clear winner and a clear loser. Until now, both candidates usually did well enough where pundits and supporters could say "both Hillary and Bernie won." Not last night. Hillary clearly dominated the debate and scored a knockout punch with her closing argument that, as you will read below from others smarter than me, finally established her argument against Sanders, and it is a good one. She dominated on substantive points and on speaking style: calm, cool, collected. Last night she most reminded me of the man she hopes to replace. It was her best debate performance this cycle, if not ever. Bernie, on the other hand, had his worst. I wonder if he is ill, and he could be, since it is winter, it's cold season, and he was coughing throughout the debate. He also seemed off, cranky and mean. Usually Bernie's endearing schtick, of that angry uncle or grandpa, normally comes off well. You liked his rants. Last night, the schtick was not endearing, and you heard audible groans from the audience with his mean and condescending comment "You're not in the White House yet." It played exactly how Barack Obama's "You're likeable enough, Hillary" played. An unnecessary and mean poke that has kinda shattered his charm a little bit. Hopefully it was just an off night for him, and not a sign of things to come. Substantively, the debate revealed two new weaknesses for Bernie Sanders. First, he has a Rubio problem. Constant repetition of your stump speech and one central theme became obvious rather quickly, and it did not play well. Second, when wasn't imitating Rubio, he digressed into this guy who was regurgitating 70 years of liberal and leftist foreign policy grievances, like that old crazy hippy that always shows up to every town hall meeting to talk about Cambodia. Look, I get it, Kissinger is a bad guy and Hillary should have just said "All he did was commend my running of the State Department, that's all I said at the last debate," and Bernie should have just left it at "Well, I wouldn't be listening to Henry Kissinger for any advice whatsoever," and the point would have been made. Instead, Bernie turned what was a mistake by Clinton into a massive mistake by Bernie. His young fans probably had to quickly google names like Mossadegh and United Fruit to figure out what he was talking about.