HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » democrattotheend » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »

democrattotheend

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jan 30, 2008, 03:33 PM
Number of posts: 8,668

Journal Archives

Flashback: Hillary "took it to the convention" in 2008

As in, she did not release all of her pledged delegates, and she was formally nominated at the convention. That was one of the things she requested of the Obama campaign. I believe the way they did it - with her receiving some votes and then coming to the floor to propose nominating Obama by acclamation - was a compromise between the campaigns.

I liked the way it was done in 2008. In some ways, I would have liked it even better if they had done the full roll call. But the way it went down was also pretty exciting. It made the convention a lot more interesting than 2004, when everyone released their delegates beforehand and the Kerry campaign controlled everything (although they did introduce Obama to the world, so I guess they did a pretty good job).

I believe the prior practice of candidates releasing their delegates and letting the winning candidate control everything about the convention is relatively new. Conventions used to be contested and issues in the party platform used to be debated. From what i have heard conventions were a lot more interesting back then, and got more TV coverage. Now it is basically just an infomercial that the parties have to beg the networks to cover for an hour a night.

My point is, Bernie promising to "take it to the convention" does not mean that he won't endorse Hillary and that he will keep campaigning against her until the convention. He could mean that, but I think it is more likely that he intends to force a genuine debate about some of the issues in the party platform and maybe have his name placed into nomination. I think that would be good for the party, as it would make the convention more interesting, more democratic, and maybe get more media coverage.
Posted by democrattotheend | Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:10 PM (13 replies)

Does Hillary have any campaign events scheduled in DC (targeted at DC voters)?

If not, I hope she adds one. Not because she hasn't clinched the nomination - I concede that she has. But DC voters are the most loyal to the party of any voting entity in the country, and yet they rarely get any attention from national politicians. Politicians go to work there and they do fundraisers there, but they rarely venture outside the Northwest corridor (and maybe the small slices of the other corridors right near the Capitol) and address/interact with regular DC voters.

We know Bernie is going ahead with his scheduled rally at RFK Stadium tomorrow.

Obviously, the DC primary won't change the outcome of the race, and she Hillary will probably win it handily next week and in November. But I think it would be a nice gesture if she would add a campaign event in a place like Anacostia, to send the message to DC voters that she still cares about and wants their votes.

If any of the Hillary supporters here are connected to the higher-ups in the campaign, perhaps you can suggest this to them if you agree.
Posted by democrattotheend | Wed Jun 8, 2016, 03:00 PM (5 replies)

I don't support taking it to the convention, but I salute Bernie for going on to DC

The residents of DC have limited voting rights and are usually ignored by national politicians despite being so close by. So while I see the writing on the wall, I am happy to see that Bernie is going ahead with his scheduled rally at RFK Stadium on Thursday. He will probably get slaughtered in the primary, but I salute him for trying for every last vote and not giving DC voters the short shrift.

It would be a nice gesture if Hillary would also do an event targeted at DC residents, especially in an underserved part of town like Anacostia, to make a statement that DC voters still matter to the party. I hope she will consider doing so.
Posted by democrattotheend | Wed Jun 8, 2016, 01:06 PM (2 replies)

Has anyone seen/read 11.22.63? (SPOILERS)

I wasn't sure if this should go here or in the Lounge. I figured it was at least tangentially related to current events so I posted it here.

I finished watching it last week, and then bought the book and skipped to the end because I was so unsatisfied with the explanation of the alternate history on the show.

I couldn't figure out why I was so shaken up by it, until yesterday, when I realized that there are some striking similarities to how things could turn out. In the alternate history, thanks to Jake intervening, Kennedy is not killed in 1963 and is reelected in 1964. But then a backlash ensues and he is followed by George Wallace, an avowed racist who gets us into a nuclear war and uses bombs on American cities to stop the race riots. By 2011/2016 when Jake returns, the US has been all but reduced to rubble.

This is the kind of thing that would give me nightmares no matter what, but I think it's especially disturbing because I could see Trump being like Wallace in the book. He is running on an openly racist platform, and he is so unstable and ill-tempered, not to mention ill-versed in foreign policy, that I really don't trust him with the nuclear access codes. And if elected he would follow a young, charismatic two-term president who has been compared to Kennedy by many people, including members of the Kennedy family.

The Hulu show and book really served as a stark reminder of how dangerous Trump is.

That said, I really didn't like a lot of things about the ending: the show didn't explain the alternate history well at all, and the alternate history in the book didn't totally make sense. Why would Kennedy surviving the assassination attempt cause earthquakes to start happening right away that didn't happen in our reality?
Posted by democrattotheend | Wed Jun 8, 2016, 12:29 PM (5 replies)

What was the turnout in California?

Was it lower than expected? Or were there a lot of people who left the top of it blank? If so, I think that shows the AP had a big impact. If not, then maybe both candidates' internals were horribly off.
Posted by democrattotheend | Wed Jun 8, 2016, 11:46 AM (28 replies)

Sally Kohn: Bernie Sanders, End the Campaign, but not the revolution

This article is written by a Bernie supporter and I mostly agree with it, although I am skeptical that Hillary's shift to the left in response to Bernie will last.

I wanted Bernie to fight until the end of the primaries, and he has (except DC, but most likely there won't be enough outstanding votes there for him to have a chance), but I think he will do more good for the movement he started and for his own legacy if he goes out on a high note instead of becoming at best a Kucinich-like fly on the wall whom nobody takes seriously and at worst a spoiler.


It was unfortunate that the AP decided to call the race before states like California and New Jersey weighed in, but even those votes are just to confirm the now foregone conclusion. Say what you will about the primary rules and whether they should be reconsidered, Hillary Clinton played by those rules and won fair and square. And Bernie Sanders lost. The only thing left now is for Sanders "to do it right."
I still believe in Bernie Sanders. I believe in his commitment to make the Democratic Party more accountable to progressive populist values and to make American elections more accountable to voters. That has been his revolutionary mission from day one -- to disentangle our political system from Wall Street and big business and thus render the decisions and actions of politics less reflexively centrist.
And Sanders has already succeeded. Clinton is a more progressive and accountable candidate because of Sanders. Her positions on fracking, universal health care and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal have all become more progressive because of Sanders' prodding.


http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/07/opinions/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-kohn/index.html
Posted by democrattotheend | Tue Jun 7, 2016, 10:07 PM (5 replies)

Why such disparity between the Dakotas?

At the time of this post, Hillary is up 54-46 in South Dakota, whereas Bernie is up 62-30 in North Dakota. Why such disparity between what I understand to be two relatively politically similar states? Is one a primary and one a caucus?
Posted by democrattotheend | Tue Jun 7, 2016, 09:32 PM (29 replies)

What the AP did was like calling the presidential election on November 1 based on a Gallup poll

It would have been one thing if Hillary attained a majority of pledged delegates, even before all the votes were cast in every state. That is what happened in 2004. That's normal.

Even if a bunch of supers publicly came out in support of her yesterday, it might have made more sense, although Bernie is correct that they have not voted yet.

However, what the AP did was call around to superdelegates and then call the race a day before the last big primaries based on the private representations of superdelegates who would not even go public about how they plan to vote a month and a half from now.

How is that different from the AP calling the general election the day beforehand based on which candidate was leading in the final Gallup poll?

FWIW, I don't think they did either candidate a favor. They shortchanged voters of both candidates in the last 6 states plus DC, they preemptively minimized whatever success Bernie might have tonight, success which might have, as many of you have called for, enabled him to go out on a high note. And they shortchanged Hillary by stealing her thunder and making what is undeniably a historic moment anti-climactic.

I don't see why we are fighting about this. What the AP did was bad for the whole party, and it's part of a larger pattern this season of brushing the Democratic candidates and their achievements aside to make room for the All Trump, All The Time show. We should all be mad about it.
Posted by democrattotheend | Tue Jun 7, 2016, 08:21 PM (47 replies)

In 2008 and 2012, I might not have voted for the "lesser of two evils"

For the record, I don't actually think Hillary is evil, but pretend I do for the sake of argument.

In 2008 and 2012, the Republicans nominated candidates whom I didn't like, but the prospect of either McCain or Romney as president didn't scare me half as much as the prospect of Trump as president. If Hillary had won in 2008 I might have considered casting a protest vote. But if I lived in a swing state this year, I wouldn't have to think about it for 2 seconds.

So for those who complain of "always being asked to vote for the lesser of two evils", I get it. My grandparents felt that way about pretty much everyone they voted for, except George McGovern and to some extent Obama.

So I am not asking you to vote for the lesser of two evils every time. But I am asking you to do so this time.
Posted by democrattotheend | Tue Jun 7, 2016, 07:34 PM (48 replies)

Have the superdelegates who supposedly put Hillary over the top been identified?

Or is NBC counting them without identifying them?
Posted by democrattotheend | Tue Jun 7, 2016, 12:27 AM (11 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »