We know many politicians are owned by their donors. This ballot initiative would make make it impossible to miss Can you tell me more about the initiative? What are you proposing, exactly? The initiative is a statutory change that will basically require every state legislator in California – there are 120 – to wear the […]
DR Tucker \at the Washington Monthly:
The suggestion that most Sanders-supporting progressives will refuse to vote on November 8 if Sanders isn’t the Democratic nominee defies all logic. Sure, there may be a few disgruntled Bernie-backers who will either skip the polls or pull the level for presumptive Green Party nominee Jill Stein if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, but ask yourself: considering the stakes involved, do you honestly believe that the folks who have been attracted to Sanders’s message would, in essence, concede the election to whichever radical from last night’s debate wins the GOP nomination?
Remember the nonsensical “PUMA” movement in 2008? The idea that large numbers of Clinton supporters would actually refuse to vote for Barack Obama in the general election was laughable—and the idea that most Sanders supporters will throw a tantrum in the event the Vermonter is vanquished is just as silly.
[...] To accept the premise that most Sanders supporters would go on a general-election strike if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination is to accept the right’s premise of progressive irrationality. In order to buy the idea that the “Bernie or Bust!” movement is real, one would have to believe that most Sanders supporters:
* are unmindful of the importance of the United States Supreme Court, US District Courts of Appeal, and US District Courts, and the judges appointed to each division;
* are perfectly willing to allow a situation whereby a Republican President, Republican House and Republican Senate are finally in a position to obliterate Obamacare;
* would have no problem with four years of nothing being done to stem the bloody tide of handgun violence;
* would give the Christian right the opportunity to reinstate coathangers as the only reproductive option for women facing unplanned and unwanted pregnancies;
* would tolerate a Republican president fomenting a culture of racial and religious intolerance;
* would ignore the prospect of the GOP gutting President Obama’s Clean Power Plan and successfully sabotaging the 2015 Paris climate agreement; and
* would gamble on the idea that a Republican president could be thrown out of office in 2020 in favor of, presumably, Democratic presidential nominee Elizabeth Warren.
In other words, to buy this idea, one would have to buy absolute absurdity.
Members of the progressive family are simply having an argument over who will be the best individual to lead the country into the next decade. Yes, the language in this argument is sometimes raw, crude, personal. However, does anyone really believe that at the end of the primary, the progressive family will not set aside its differences and come together?
Indeed, those Sanders supporters who say they will not vote for Hillary are the type of voter that have never voted for the Democratic nominee in the first place. They vote Green, Working Families, Socialist, Communist or not at all. So if you want to see how large their numbers are, look at prior vote totals for those parties.
The New Castle County Democratic Committee will be holding a “Candidate Forum Night” for the positions of Insurance Commissioner and Lt. Governor. The Forum will be on February 17, 2016 at 7 pm at the Local 74 Executive Banquet & Conference Center, 205 Executive Drive, Newark, Delaware 19702. During this forum there will be an interactive question and answer session with the audience. Meanwhile, the News Journal and WHYY have formed a coalition with various community groups to hose four debates for the candidates for Wilmington Mayor.
Basically, everyone needs to stop the sexist behavior, whether it is in the form of BernieBros or the Women on Women Crime that Gloria Steinem and Madeline Albright engaged in. If we did, perhaps, we could discuss issues like Climate Change, reproductive rights, immigration, Police brutality, improving our education system, Foreign Policy (altho this was touched on in the last debate) our crumbling infrastructure – you know, things that our candidates aren’t discussing. Personally, I’d like to hear about these issues, as well as income inequality. Hopefully I get my wish because these things matter, too.
Income inequality is an important issue, but it isn’t the only one, and right now I’m not sure where the candidates stand on other issues that matter to me. That’s a problem for me. A BIG one. It’s probably the reason I can’t pick a candidate. I need more, because the office of President is about more, but you wouldn’t know that by listening to the debates. Guess I’m saying, I completely understand where each candidates stand on income inequality… can we start to include other things? There actually are other things.
Meanwhile, can we step up our game and drop the sexism on both sides?
We’ve been talking for a few weeks now about former Philadelphia Chief of Police Charles Ramsey providing consulting services to the WPD. The NJ provides some detail on his $16,000/month contract — namely, that there is a very ill-defined SOW for Ramsey’s services, and that one of his Deputies from Philly is means to be on the ground here working. Working on what is still the question — which is the question for all of the consultants that the Williams Administration has hired for the WPD.
This is pretty weak, I’ll admit. But I have to hurry up and file this prediction to keep this feature going. The Panther will beat the Bronco. I mean a bronco could land a lucky kick on a panther’s head, but all mascot signs point to the panther feasting on the horse. I guess some years it is that simple.
The beginning of the Republican primary debate in New Hampshire Thursday night may go down as the most awkward in memory.
It all started when Ben Carson failed to walk onstage when his name was called, causing a bottleneck in the wings that the other candidates had to walk around. Then Donald Trump apparently didn’t hear his name and stood by Carson while other candidates walked by the two of them. On top of it all, the ABC News moderators forgot about John Kasich, leaving an empty podium on stage and one Ohio governor hovering off to the side.
Then Marcodyne Rubicon Systems Model T100 faltered last night, getting stuck on repeat.
It’s definitely political season and it’s time to watch some of the local GOP dust off and exercise their resentments. They do this, of course, because they can’t figure out how to connect with enough voters to actually govern. They also do it because they think that their resentments and bigotries are somehow supposed to entitle them to run the world. The latest local exercise in GOP bigotry was directed at Sarah McBride, who recently endorsed Bryon Short for the US House seat being vacated byJohn Carney. The Western Sussex Republican Club responded to Sarah’s Facebook announcement by reposting it with a snide and hateful comment, with a screen shot shown below. Sarah had losts of people supporting her after this stupid bit of business was posted, including a quick (but deleted) comment from John Fluharty who observed that stuff like this is why the GOP can’t win. The Western Sussex Republican Club has deleted its post, so the comments opposing them are gone. But both Sean Barney and Bryan Townsend took to Twitter to stand with Sarah and to denounce this hateful business. Note to the GOP — this stuff may speak to somebody, but this is not the stuff of electoral coalitions. Not in Delaware, it isn’t.
Booman says we are in for a long primary, even if Clinton becomes the inevitable nominee in March:
Even if Clinton rips off a bunch of big victories in a row and seems like the inevitable nominee, it’s pretty unlikely that Sanders will concede because he’ll have all the money he needs to keep campaigning. And I don’t think he really set out to win this thing at the beginning, so he’s not quitting just because he realizes that he won’t be nominated. He’ll want to keep hammering home his points and gathering delegates for the convention.
A long campaign will be painful, but 2008 showed there can be important upsides. The more states the two campaigns organize, the more work they’ll have done in advance of the general election. The more the country is focused on the differences between Clinton and Sanders, the more they’ll be focused on their messaging and values and the less they’ll be focused on the messaging and values of the Republicans.
It’s true that some feelings will get hurt and some bitterness will result. It’s not cost-free to have an extended contested nomination, and the eventual nominee will get wounded. But, even here, some of Obama’s worst vulnerabilities were old news by November precisely because they’d been hashed out in the winter and spring.
As long as the process doesn’t leave the nominee underfunded, it’s probably not a problem to have a long primary season.
In this week’s address, the President discussed climate change and how the most ambitious climate agreement in history is creating private sector partnerships that are advancing the latest technologies in clean power.
In his weekly message, Governor Markell celebrated the groundbreaking of the new US Route 301 and its positive impact on the surrounding economy.
I’m not surprised Trump thinks we “paid Iran $150 billion” as part of the nuclear deal. All the nutso GOP candidates for President keep saying that we did, and Fox News keeps reporting it as if it were true. Which it isn’t… not by a long shot. Via Salon: Donald Trump gave an interview this […]
Dylan Matthews has his winners and losers. Winner: Bernie and Hillary. Losers: Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Wall Street.
On some level, the Democratic primary process is now zero-sum, with any gains to Sanders hurting Clinton and vice versa. And that’s true in a narrow sense. But both candidates gave very strong performances that emphasized their respective strengths. Regardless of who won in relative terms, both clearly succeeded in making the most compelling case for their respective candidacies.
For Clinton, that meant giving her strongest performance to date on foreign policy. She’s still well to the right of the Democratic Party as a whole on these questions. But she also is actually well-versed in them, whereas Sanders’s comments on foreign policy appear limited to a) praising the foreign policy achievements of the Obama administration, and b) hammering Clinton for her vote for the Iraq War. [...]
Sanders clearly won on domestic policy. Clinton clearly won on foreign policy. And both gave excellent performances that offered compelling substantive grounds for supporting them. It feels perverse to label either a loser.
1 in 150 employees who say their organization does not have a set of values are “Fully Engaged.” Okay. That’s a survey of employees. Just imagine what the ratio must be for “members” of organizations that don’t have clear organizational values? How many of them are fully engaged? 1 in 500? 1 in 2,000? 1 […]
So Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders got into a little bit of a Twitter war yesterday, over Progressivism. If there is a war as to who is the MOST progressive, Bernie wins. But Bernie does what every Purist Progressive does, in that they think they can define for all who and who is not Progressive, with the answer always being that only Purists can be called Progressive. Purist Progressives are horrible, HORRIBLE, at building coalitions for this very reason. Because any deviation from dogma is a sin and the sinner must be cast out and burned at the stake.
Hillary is who she says she is, a pragmatic progressive who likes to get things done. To Bernie, getting things done is a heresy that must be condemned.
And Brian Beutler says Bernie better quit it soon or else he will be unelectable.
One of the questions at the heart of the fight between Clinton and Sanders is whether Sanders’s promise to lead a political revolution that brings the United States closer to social democracy is credible or fantastic. The argument frequently pits cynics and pragmatists, who see Barack Obama’s high-minded-candidacy-turned-difficult-presidency as an object lesson in the unloveliness of governing, against idealists and counterfactualists, who say Obama never attempted to turn the promise of his campaign into progressive action.
Even if you side with Team Sanders on this question, the insight that gave rise to that tweet (that pitting progressives against moderates is an effective tactic in a two-person Democratic primary) is incompatible with the goal of uniting the existing Democratic base with the unattached voters and Republicans of the white working class. It may even be incompatible with building a majority coalition in a general election.
The list of reasons to worry Sanders is unelectable is unusually long. To paraphrase Vox’s David Roberts: Sanders would be far and away the oldest president to take office; he has self-identified as a socialist for most of his career, undeterred by the media’s inability to distinguish between social democrats (what he is) and Leninists (what Republicans will say he is); he supports a higher tax on middle-class labor, which is politically and substantively the worst way to finance a welfare state expansion.
On top of all that, he is unabashed about his disinterest in party coalition building. He’s happy to represent one wing of it, but not inclusively enough to pick up endorsements from influential party actors. This is all exacerbated by the fact that he’s spent his congressional career as an independent who caucuses with Democrats, and has never plied his popularity into helping Democratic colleagues get elected. This increases the likelihood that down-ballot Democrats would run away from him in a tough race, rather than rally to unite the party.
But you can set all that aside, too, and just consider the ramifications of Sanders’s defeating Clinton by boxing her out of the progressive movement, and using the term “moderate” as an epithet to describe deviations from his agenda.
Progressives should welcome Clinton’s embrace of progressivism, for that means that Progressivism has control of the party. At this rate, if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, he will lose in such spectacular fashion that he will destroy Progressivism for 50 years.
“Hillary Clinton is dispatching at least 150 people from her campaign headquarters in Brooklyn Heights to New Hampshire for an all-hands-on-deck effort here in advance of the Democratic primary on Tuesday,” BuzzFeed reports.
Politico: “The feeling at Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters these days isn’t about pulling off an upset — it’s about closing the gap, and halting Sanders’ momentum by denying him an easy win in a state that should be a cakewalk. In some respects New Hampshire is the only state where Team Clinton can flip the inevitability script — with Sanders positioned as the favorite with lots to lose.”