HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Bill USA » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 102 Next »

Bill USA

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PM
Number of posts: 4,942

About Me

Quotes I like: "Prediction is very difficult, especially concerning the future." "There are some things so serious that you have to laugh at them.” __ Niels Bohr Given his contribution to the establishment of quantum mechanics, I guess it's not surprising he had such a quirky of sense of humor. ......................."Deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation of another's position is a basic technique of (dis)information processing" __ I said that

Journal Archives

Progressivism won’t die with Hillary: Debunking myth only Bernie can foster hardcore liberal ideas

.. This is the most insightful analysis of the Clinton and Sanders candidacies/campaigns I have seen. .. Well, of course, Sanders groupies will rage the author is obviously a tool of the anti-Christ (Hillary Clinton - in case you didn't know).

Progressivism doesn’t die with Hillary Clinton: Debunking the myth that only Bernie can foster hardcore liberal ideas

Barring some kind of miracle landslide wins in New York and California’s primaries, it looks like the Bernie Sanders campaign is going to lose the race for the Democratic nomination. So now we’re onto the phase where his supporters argue that even though he lost the primary, he is still the winner anyway, of some large and abstract and noble battle beyond the griminess of the polls.


Mitchell isn’t wrong that left-leaning Americans have been drifting leftward, but trying to turn that into a triumphalist narrative of Sanders over the evil centrists is just wrong-headed. If anything, the Sanders campaign is a throwback, recycling 90s-era complaints about neoliberalism and claims that the Democratic party is so hopelessly corrupt that only an outsider with no loyalties to the party can fix it. It’s as if the past two decades haven’t even happened.

The reality is that Clinton’s campaign is much more representative of the liberalization trend than Sanders is. Despite the loud honking about centrism and DINOs coming from the Sanders camp, the truth is that the Democratic party is not a cluster of recalcitrant centrists and conservatives. The Democrats have been drifting leftward for decades now. Not as fast as the Republicans have been drifting rightward, because that’s impossible, but, even though it might be hard for Sanders fans to swallow, the movement to the left has been quite steady.

Clinton herself is part of this trend, with a Senate record that put her in the top third of most liberal Democrats, and even to the left of President Obama. She’s certainly more liberal than her husband, in part because her career as a politician started when his ended, meaning that she’s tracked left as the party has on issues like gay marriage and immigration. No wonder she voted with Sanders 93% of the time.


While the Sanders base is appealingly young, there is a major problem with the assumption that his base represents some kind of demographic future: They aren’t particularly diverse. On the contrary, the Sanders base looks disturbingly like the Republican base, dominated by white men. Clinton has won women in all but three states: New Hampshire, Vermont, and Wisconsin, and in Wisconsin, Sanders only got 50% of women. Clinton continues to crush with black voters and is doing much better than Sanders with Hispanic voters, as well.


On the gender front, the Monkey Cage pored over the data regarding the age gap between Democratic women — older women are more pro-Clinton, younger women more pro-Sanders — to see if it really is an age thing or if something else is going on. The results complicate the notion that older voters are supporting Clinton out of some kind of conservatism. On the contrary, it suggests that Clinton support is tied strongly to being more liberal on issues of gender justice.

What the researchers found was women who had faced sexism in their own professional lives were more likely to support Clinton. The older you are, the more likely you’ve dealt with gender injustice, either from having a childcare conflict or from facing discrimination at work, leading to greater levels of Clinton support in those age groups. But for women in the 18-29 age group, having experienced discrimination or childcare conflicts also led to greater levels of support. All in all, it suggests not that Clinton supporters are more conservative at all, but that they are more liberal and tuned into the issue of gender inequality.


Kentucky is a closed primary - no Repugnants voting for Bernie.


LOUISVILLE — Hillary Clinton is putting up an unexpected fight in Kentucky, a state that her campaign had thought until quite recently might be out of reach in her primary race against Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

In advance of Tuesday’s Democratic primary, Sanders also campaigned heavily in Kentucky over the weekend, and Clinton planned two additional days there, a sign that she thinks she has a chance to stop Sanders from racking up an unbroken string of victories between now and the end of primary voting in June.

Oregon’s primary will also be held Tuesday, by mail-in ballot. Republicans held their primary in Kentucky in March. Republicans will vote in Oregon Tuesday, even though Donald Trump was declared the presumptive nominee after his victory in Indiana two weeks ago.

There is little recent public polling in Kentucky, but the Clinton campaign hopes to benefit from a different political environment than the one that greeted her in nearby West Virginia, a state she lost last week by 15 points.{West Virginia has an open primary - subject to Republicans sliding in calling themselves 'independants' and voting for Bernie, their preferred candidate_Bill USA}

For instance, Kentucky will hold a closed primary, shutting out independents who have heavily favored Sanders in other contests.

Looking for Fascism? ..look here: Sanders supporters harassing convention delegates


Sen. Bernie Sanders and his boosters are intensifying their courtship of convention delegates who could determine the winner of the Democratic presidential nomination, prompting some party leaders and supporters of front-runner Hillary Clinton to claim harassment.

The Sanders campaign says it has no connection to the efforts of outside supporters to lean on superdelegates, the party leaders and elected officials who can cast nomination votes for any candidate and who are seen as increasingly pivotal in the Democrats’ unexpectedly drawn-out nominating contest.

Among those efforts is a website created last week under the name Superdelegate Hit List, providing phone numbers and addresses for superdelegates and encouraging users to submit further contact information, presumably to help advocates pressure them. Site creator Spencer Thayer, a Chicago activist, described the goal this way in a Twitter message: “So who wants to help start . . . a new website aimed at harassing Democratic Superdelegates?”

Longtime Democratic National Committee member and superdelegate Bob Mulholland wrote a letter to Sanders last week excoriating the candidate for not calling out his supporters for their “bullying” of superdelegates.

California Superdelegate Writes Open Letter to Bernie Sanders: 'Stop the Harassing Phone Calls'

Dear Senator Bernie Sanders,

I have heard many complaints from other unbound Delegates to our National Convention in Philadelphia (my hometown), about getting harassing emails, Facebook postings and phone calls, even to one woman at 10:30 at night, from some of your supporters demanding that we support you. We would expect this type of bullying tactics from Trump supporters. Roger Stone threatened on April 5th- he will send angry Trump supporters to the hotel rooms (Cleveland) of any delegates who betrays Donald. Do you have a similar Plan?

I have seen you on TV stating (demanding to many of your supporters) that Superdelegates should vote for the candidate that won their state. Really? Where is that in the National Delegate Plan that former Vermont Governor Howard Dean must vote for you? Congressman Raul Grijalva, a supporter of yours, who represents the 3rd district in Arizona, a state that voted 58% for Clinton and Grijalva's own district voted 61.7% for Clinton has not switched. Where is your letter to Congressman Grijalva, instructing him to shift his support to Clinton? Look in the mirror- you'll see a political hypocrite! From what I hear, Congressman Grijalva, when asked if he is shifting his support to Clinton, his response- drop dead. That is his right- he is a Congressman, thus a delegate.

Society has been trying to deal with High School bullies and the same Rule should apply to your campaign and your supporters. Us active Democrats enjoy healthy discussions and debates at meetings, Caucuses and Conventions but it is unacceptable for us to get harassing communications from bullies. As a Clinton supporter, I have not received harassing phone calls but it does appear women DNC Members are getting the brunt of the threats. Professionally, campaign staff and representatives should be the ones calling delegates. A 12 year old child answering the phone at home should not be hearing threats.

Most of us DNC Members have been in the Democratic Party vineyards for years, as have the Clintons. For me it has been over 40 years. I became disillusioned with the war in Vietnam (I had volunteered for the Paratroopers and Vietnam), after being wounded in March 1968 (101st Airborne), it was the beginning for me to turning to politics. So those of us with callouses on our Democratic Party hands (something lacking with you, not even going to our National Conventions to vote for our nominees), we notice things, such as not one US Senator is supporting you. Not even Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy. We noticed what you said to Rachel Maddow (March 30, 2016) when she said that Secretary Clinton has raised millions for the Democratic Party (DNC, DCCC, DSCC and State Parties) and asked you- will you do the same? You said, "We'll see." I fell off my chair. The Koch brothers announced a $900 million dollar plan against Democrats, and we have a big ticket from Governors to Congress to races in all states and your answer- we'll see. Our nominee for President has to help raise tens of millions of dollars all over our country. We cannot afford a selfish nominee.

I would urge that you and your staff publicly state that you want all harassing communications to DNC members to stop. In 2008, I received a phone call from a US Senator, urging me to support Senator Obama - a very professional and courteous call.


Bob Mulholland
DNC Member
Chico, CA

P.S. In case no one clued you in- that NY Times piece (April 4, 2016) with Jeff Weaver and Tad Devine providing "background material," is a standard practice by some consultants. They are getting very nervous. They are laying out the "DNA evidence," that the candidate (you) will lose and it is your fault, not theirs. A suggestion for you- you need to be better prepared yourself- you're coming across as shrill.

P.P.S. Secretary Clinton has received about 58% of the vote so far, thus ahead of you by 2,400,000 votes and 250 Pledged Delegates. We also notice that the Base of our Party is voting overwhelmingly for Secretary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton mocks Trump in a hypothetical general election debate


Hillary Clinton impersonated Donald Trump at an event Monday, mocking the presumptive Republican nominee during a speech where the former secretary of state pretended to be in a general election debate.

Clinton, somewhat taking on Trump's New York affect, knocked the businessman-turned-politician for lack of specificity on his economic plans.

"Let's just imagine I am on a debate stage with Donald Trump," Clinton said to applause. "Now personally, I am really looking forward to that."

Then she got into the impression, "So let's suppose, here is the question, 'so what is your plan to create jobs,' His answer is, 'I am going to create them, they are going to be great, I am going to do it. But I am not telling you what it is that I am going to do.'"

She then added, using a quick cadence to show she has specifics, "I am going to say, 'Here is what we are going to do, here is what we are going to do, here is how we are going to change the tax code, here is how we are going to incentivize people to do it.'"


Nevada's convoluted primary/state convention rules seem designed to cause confusion

Here's good article that tries to explain what happened in Nevada last Saturday.... no wonder there was confusion!

Apparently they caucus in February getting a delegate split for the candidates. But then they have meetings in April to then select people to attend the state convention. Bernies people turned out for the April meetings in greater numbers than Hillary's people - (i.e. per the February caucus). Apparently, Bernie people wanted to forget the February results and just go with the April meetings results. The party leadership did not want to nullify the February results. I think that is an accurate description of what was going on.

Here’s what happened at Saturday’s dramatic Nevada Democratic convention

Nevada's process for sending delegates to the national convention in Philadelphia is among the most complex. When the state caucused in late February, the fourth state on the calendar for the Democratic Party, the results of that process favored Hillary Clinton. Twenty-three of the 35 total bound delegates were given out proportionally in the state's four congressional districts, giving Clinton a delegate lead of 13 to 10. The results of the caucus suggested that after the state convention — which bound the state's seven at-large delegates and five delegates who are elected officials or party leaders — Clinton would end up with a 20-to-15 lead over Bernie Sanders, with Clinton winning one more delegate from the at-large pool (4-to-3) and one more from the party-leader pool (3-to-2) than Sanders.

NOTE: if you adjust the 13:10 (total of 23) delegate apportionment to a 35 delegate count (as in the 20:15 delegate split mentiooned above - arrived at after the State convention) you end up with a delegate split of 20:15 (note 20 was arrived at by rounding 19.5 to 20). Note that 35/23 = 1.52. Multiply the delegate split of 13:10 by 1.52. ... thus: 13x 1.52= 19.78, 10 x 1.52 = 15.2. These numbers were rounded to get the 20:15 split. _Bill USA

The people who attend(ed) the Democratic convention this weekend were chosen during voting in early April. At that point, Sanders out-organized Clinton, getting 2,124 people elected to the state convention (according to the tabulation at the always-essential delegate-tracking site the Green Papers) to Clinton's 1,722. That suggested that voting at the state convention would flip: Sanders would win those 4-to-3 and 3-to-2 contests, giving him a 7-to-5 victory at the convention and making the state total 18-to-17 for Clinton instead of 20-to-15.

But that's not what happened, as best as we can piece together.


The first report from the credentials committee on Saturday morning indicated that Clinton had a slight edge in delegates. Sanders fans voted against that report, per Jon Ralston, and then demanded a recount — but this was simply a preliminary figure. As in the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1, the final total delegates went through a process of realignment as the day progressed.

That was when the vote to approve the rules as written — Roberta's Rules versus Robert's Rules, as some Sanders backers dubbed them — was conducted by voice vote. The motion, seconded by a Sanders supporter, passed — which is when the room, in Ralston's phrasing, "erupts." Ensuing speakers, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (a Clinton supporter), were interrupted by a vocal group of Sanders supporters at the front of the room.


All of that tension set the stage for the final votes. The ultimate total reported by KOLO-TV was 1,695 Clinton delegates to 1,662 for Sanders, giving Clinton that one-delegate total in the at-large and party-leader pools. But the drama was far from over. Fifty-six Sanders delegates — enough to swing the majority — were denied delegate status, mostly because they weren't registered as Democrats by the May 1 deadline, according to the state party. (The Sun reports that eight potential Clinton delegates suffered a similar fate.)

Convention leaders declined to reconsider those 56 delegates, and, spurred by the casino — because the event was already well past its scheduled ending time — adjourned for the day. Sanders supporters refused to concede, remaining in the casino's ballroom after the event had ended. Eventually, casino security and law enforcement officials entered to force the Democrats out of the space, even turning off the lights to get them to depart.


Thanks to Clinton's victory in Nevada on Saturday, hard-fought on the carpeted floor of the Paris hotel and casino in Las Vegas, her lead over Sanders extends to 282, per delegate-counter Daniel Nichanian. Had Sanders's supporters been successful on Saturday, that margin would have been 278 — a number that still demands that the senator win two-thirds of the remaining pledged delegates to take the lead.

Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous."


TPM's Josh Marshall: Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous." As reported by Talking Points Memo editor, Josh Marshall, law professors and former federal prosecutors have told him "to a person" that the chances of an indictment are a "far-fetched" idea and that "on the possibility of an indictment, most of this chatter is just plain ridiculous -- a mix of ignorance and tendentiousness":

As a legal matter, the chances of Hillary Clinton facing any kind of indictment are very, very low.

Start with the fact that as far as we know, she is not actually even being investigated for anything, let alone facing a looming indictment. The simple facts, as we know them, just don't put her in line for an indictment. The first reason is the facts, which rest heavily on intent and reckless negligence. The second is tradition and DOJ regulations which make professional prosecutors very leery of issuing indictments that might be perceived or in fact influence an election. This was my thinking. But as the press coverage has become increasingly heated, I started trying to figure out if there was something I was missing - some fact I didn't know, some blindspot in my perception. So I've spoken to a number of law profs and former federal prosecutors - based on the facts we know now even from the most aggressive reporting. Not like, is this theoretically possible? Not, what the penalties would be if it happened. But is an indictment at all likely or is this whole idea very far-fetched. To a person, very far-fetched.

So why the press coverage? I think it's a combination of reasons. The most irreducible and perhaps most significant is simply prestige reporter derp and general ignorance of the legal system. Second is journalists' perennial inability to resist a process story. And third, let's be honest, wingnut page views. (TPM, 2/1/15)

ABC News: "There Doesn't Seem To Be A Legitimate Basis For Any Sort Of Criminal Charge Against Her." In a February 1 article, ABC News' legal analyst Dan Abrams debunked media outlets hyping the claim that Clinton will be indicted over her private server usage. Abrams added that "there is no evidence - not suppositions or partisan allegations but actual evidence - that Clinton knew that using a private email server was criminal or even improper at the time":


But the Republicans just love to keep repeating this threadbare RW Big Lie: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1960216

40% of BS fans will vote for Trump in Nov, the rest will vote for Justin Bieber -(just conjecture)


every bit a valid as this post: Millions will sit out the election no matter what Bernie says/does if Hillary is the candidate

Predictit - Presidential Election: Hillary 0.62, Trump: 0.40, Sanders: 0.07


Primary Turnout Means Nothing For The General Election: empirically validated, not an opinion


Republican turnout is up and Democratic turnout is down in the 2016 primary contests so far. That has some Republicans giddy for the fall; here’s an example, from a March 1 Washington Times article:

Republicans continued to shatter turnout records in their presidential primaries and caucuses Tuesday, while Democrats lagged behind in what analysts said was a clear indication of an enthusiasm gap heading into the general election.

And some commentators are saying that Democrats should be nervous. From The Huffington Post, last month:

But Democratic Party elites shouldn’t be high-fiving each other. They should be very, very worried. In primary after primary this cycle, Democratic voters just aren’t showing up.

But Democrats shouldn’t worry. Republicans shouldn’t celebrate. As others have pointed out, voter turnout is an indication of the competitiveness of a primary contest, not of what will happen in the general election. The GOP presidential primary is more competitive than the Democratic race.

Indeed, history suggests that there is no relationship between primary turnout and the general election outcome. You can see this on the most basic level by looking at raw turnout in years in which both parties had competitive primaries. There have been six of those years in the modern era: 1976, 1980, 1988, 1992, 2000 and 2008.

a very good presentation of how it is we know AGW is happening.... on Vox.com

.. I know this is not news to rational people, but this is a good presentation with links to all relevant data provided. MIght be useful for informing any who still believe it's all a hoax.


Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 102 Next »