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

democrattotheend

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Jan 30, 2008, 03:33 PM
Number of posts: 8,134

Journal Archives

PURE SPECULATION: Could Bernie be staying in because he knows something we don't?

As the title indicates, this is pure speculation and not based on any kind of insider knowledge.

Many of the Hillary folks have said that Bernie sounds delusional when he talks about flipping the superdelegates. I happen to agree with them on that, as I believe it is highly unlikely that the establishment Democrats who make up the superdelegates would override the will of the primary voters to take the nomination away from someone like Hillary in favor of someone like Bernie (the other way around is a different story).

In fact, I am pretty confident the superdelegates would not do such a thing, UNLESS something happened that rendered Hillary completely unelectable. Something big enough that it would be reasonable for the supers to conclude that the voters would have chosen differently had they known (think Edwards scandal in 2008).

The other day, after the IG report came out, I was wondering if perhaps Bernie knows/knew something that we don't that plays a part in motivating him to take it all the way to the convention. At first, I thought that was unlikely, because Bernie is such an outsider and so much of the party establishment is in Hillary's corner that it's unlikely he would have an inside track on information.

But then I remembered that Tad Devine, one of Bernie's campaign managers, was one of Kerry's top people in 2004.

As the current Secretary of State, there is a decent chance Kerry knows whether the Clinton e-mail scandal is big enough to tank her candidacy, or whether there is some other scandal lurking that is totally unrelated to the e-mails. And unlike many in the party establishment, Kerry has no reason at this point to be beholden to the Clintons, and in fact he is one of the few Democrats I trust not to be given his history. But I would assume that he, like most Democrats and most sane Americans, does not want to see Trump become president.

So is it possible that he or someone who works with him could have sent some sort of a signal to the Bernie campaign, probably through Devine, that Bernie should stay in the race? Obviously, I am not talking about leaking any classified information - he wouldn't have to and I have no reason to believe he would. All he would have to do is say something innocuous if he ran into Devine at an event, something like "I hope Bernie stays in until the end."

I can't speak for all Bernie supporters, but I myself am not hoping for an indictment or any other scandal that will take down Hillary. I have accepted at this point that she will probably be the nominee. But if her actions at State with e-mail or anything else were more damning than is currently public, I sure as hell hope it comes out before it's too late. And if my theory somehow turned out to be true, I would be pretty darn grateful to Kerry for helping to prevent a President Trump.
Posted by democrattotheend | Sat May 28, 2016, 02:23 PM (119 replies)

Can we please stop accusing President Obama of bribery, at least without any evidence?

I posted this in General Discussion because it was about the 2008 primaries, not the 2016 primaries, but I was told to repost it here.

I have repeatedly seen people here repeat the claim, without anything to back it up, that the president offered Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State position prior to her endorsement as a quid pro quo.

As someone pointed out in another thread, to have done so would have been illegal:

18 U.S. Code 599 - Promise of appointment by candidate

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 721; Pub. L. 103322, title XXXIII,  330016(1)(H), (L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)



Hence, this meme that is casually repeated here with no evidence is actually a very serious accusation against a president who has given us no reason to believe he considers himself above the law. Not only has nobody ever been able to provide a link when I have asked for it, but it is clear from the articles that were published at the time of the appointment that her nomination was extensively negotiated after the election.

In fact, this article from November 2008 discusses her initial reluctance to take the position, citing concerns about access, personnel, and other issues: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22obama.html. I can't find the article, but I remember also reading that she went through a period after losing the nomination where she just wanted to be done with politics and spend time with Chelsea.

If you recall, Hillary made a trip to Chicago in late 2008 that she initially insisted was for personal reasons, but turned out to be to meet with Obama about the SOS position. If her nomination was something they had already agreed on 6 months earlier, why the secret negotiations in Chicago?

Given that it would have been a crime for Obama to use the Secretary of State position to get Hillary on board with his campaign, if there were any indication whatsoever that that had happened, wouldn't the Republicans have pounced on it?
Posted by democrattotheend | Thu May 26, 2016, 02:15 PM (14 replies)

What if John Edwards had been the nominee in 2008?

If you recall, his scandal blew up and he eventually admitted to it in June 2008, not long after Obama clinched the nomination. What if Edwards had been the one who had just clinched the nomination? Would we have had to go ahead with nominating him because it would be "undemocratic" to do otherwise?

I am not saying it has gotten to that point with Hillary at this time, but if she is indicted or more damning information is released that would seriously compromise her chances of getting elected, then that is when I think it's legit for the superdelegates to nominate Bernie even if Hillary has more votes. In my opinion, the superdelegates should only give the nomination to someone who did not win the highest number of pledged delegates if there is a scandal that is so big that it's reasonable to say the majority of primary voters would have voted differently had they known.

I am not hoping that happens, but I think the stuff that has come out recently is enough that I am glad Bernie is still in the race and fighting for every delegate in case we need a backup candidate, because it would be a lot more undemocratic to nominate someone who never even ran in the primaries, like in 1968.
Posted by democrattotheend | Thu May 26, 2016, 01:11 PM (12 replies)

Can we please stop accusing President Obama of bribery, at least without any evidence?

I have repeatedly seen people here repeat the claim, without anything to back it up, that the president offered Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State position prior to her endorsement as a quid pro quo.

As someone pointed out in another thread, to have done so would have been illegal:
18 U.S. Code 599 - Promise of appointment by candidate

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 721; Pub. L. 103322, title XXXIII,  330016(1)(H), (L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)


Hence, this meme that is casually repeated here with no evidence is actually a very serious accusation against a president who has given us no reason to believe he considers himself above the law. Not only has nobody ever been able to provide a link when I have asked for it, but it is clear from the articles that were published at the time of the appointment that her nomination was extensively negotiated after the election.

In fact, this article from November 2008 discusses her initial reluctance to take the position, citing concerns about access, personnel, and other issues: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22obama.html. I can't find the article, but I remember also reading that she went through a period after losing the nomination where she just wanted to be done with politics and spend time with Chelsea.

If you recall, Hillary made a trip to Chicago in late 2008 that she initially insisted was for personal reasons, but turned out to be to meet with Obama about the SOS position. If her nomination was something they had already agreed on 6 months earlier, why the secret negotiations in Chicago?

Given that it would have been a crime for Obama to use the Secretary of State position to get Hillary on board with his campaign, if there were any indication whatsoever that that had happened, wouldn't the Republicans have pounced on it?
Posted by democrattotheend | Thu May 26, 2016, 12:43 PM (24 replies)

MSNBC just called Indiana for Bernie

Per screenshot on twitter...https://twitter.com/suzetteforsyth/status/727666901367848961

Posted by democrattotheend | Tue May 3, 2016, 09:13 PM (0 replies)

Let's do a money bomb to make sure Bernie can stay in through California!

I would post this in the Bernie group but one of the admins locked me out of there last night because I was apparently "too negative." So I am posting it here. At the risk of sounding "negative" again, I am concerned that the staff layoffs mean Bernie is not raising as much money as before, and if his fundraising dries up he may not be able to continue until everyone has voted. So who wants to join me in making sure that doesn't happen? https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=homepage_main_nav
Posted by democrattotheend | Wed Apr 27, 2016, 06:42 PM (11 replies)

Attention Hillary supporters: make up your minds!

For the last several weeks, some (though by no means all) of you have posted thread after thread calling for Bernie to quit. Yet many of the same people who have been calling for him to drop out are now criticizing him for laying off staff. You do realize that if he drops out he will have to lay off all of his campaign staff, right?

That said, if you are concerned about the people who are being laid off, by all means, feel free to chip in and help him keep more of them. https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=homepage_main_nav
Posted by democrattotheend | Wed Apr 27, 2016, 06:18 PM (22 replies)

I just got "swindled" out of another $18

By a fraudster who tricked me into believing that he is going to win the nomination despite the odds.

For those wondering why I would spend more money on a candidate who most likely is not going to win, I did so for the same reason I first gave to him in 2015 when I thought he had virtually no chance to win: I want his message to be heard, and I am proud to be part of a movement that has helped to prove it is possible to be a viable candidate without relying on huge contributions from corporate fatcats. I want to help Bernie fight for every delegate because the more delegates he has, the stronger message we can send to the powers that be in the party that progressive online activists are more than just a group to pat on the head and throw a bone to when a candidate wants to raise money and then ignore us. At a minimum, I want to see the party adopt Bernie's strong stand on overturning Citizens United and getting big money out of politics. So long as Bernie is pushing that message, I will keep donating even though I know he is unlikely to be the nominee at this point.

P.S. If anyone is wondering why $18, it is considered lucky in Judaism to give gifts in multiples of 18.

P.P.S. In light of the news about him having to lay off staff, does anyone care to join me to make sure he has enough money to push on to California? https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=homepage_main_nav
Posted by democrattotheend | Wed Apr 27, 2016, 08:42 AM (11 replies)

Bernie "congratulates Clinton on her victories, and I look forward to issue-oriented campaign"

In the remaining 14 states. I think this is spot on. I want him to stay in until the end but return to the positive message that got him so far instead of focusing on Hillary.
Posted by democrattotheend | Tue Apr 26, 2016, 11:26 PM (10 replies)

I'll admit it. Part of me wants it to be over.

I know this is not going to be a popular opinion here, but I was pretty crushed after New York, and since then I have basically come to terms with the fact that Bernie is highly unlikely to be the nominee. This whole primary season has been an emotional roller coaster, with things looking bleak and then something happening to get my hopes up again. But at this point the writing is on the wall, absent some major event that renders Hillary completely unelectable. Part of me wants to see Bernie stay in until the end of all the primaries, so everyone can have a chance to participate. But part of me thinks he will have more leverage and lasting influence if he steps aside now, rather than being relegated to a Kucinich-like protest candidate or worse, being blamed if Hillary loses in the fall (whether such blame is fair or not). Part of me wants to see him go out on a high note, and use the influence he has gained and the movement he has built to influence the party platform and support progressive down ballot candidates.

If he does stay in, I think at this point he should return to the positive message that got him so far in the first place, rather than continuing to emphasize the differences between him and Hillary. He went further than anyone expected, and he has the potential to become an influential figure leading a movement to get progressives elected and hold the party's feet to the fire. I am afraid that if he stays in too long (certainly, if he stays in after the voting is done) and does anything that could lead to him being blamed if we lose in November, he will lose the opportunity to have that influence.

Am I wrong to feel this way?
Posted by democrattotheend | Tue Apr 26, 2016, 10:56 PM (9 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »