A year from today, we’ll be swearing in a new president. Will it be a guy who calls himself a Democratic Socialist? The answer is, not if a lot of Democrats have anything to say about it.
Said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO): “The Republicans won’t touch [Sanders] because they can’t wait to run an ad with a hammer and sickle.”
On the other hand, a new CNN/WMUR poll out of New Hampshire shows voters there breaking hard and late for the Vermont senator.
Bernie Sanders’ lead over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire is on the rise, with the Vermont senator leading the former secretary of state by 27 points, 60% to 33%, a new CNN/WMUR poll has found.
The new poll, mostly conducted before Sunday night’s debate, found Sanders’ support has grown by 10 points since a late-November/early December CNN/WMUR poll, which found Sanders holding 50% to Clinton’s 40%.
The whole spectacle has Democrats forming a circular firing squad, and some of my friends are not impressed.
Personally, I don’t think things have gotten all that nasty. There has probably been less than the standard rough and tumble between the Clinton and Sanders camps, and we should expect things to heat up a bit now as the voting looms on the horizon.
But, like in any healthy relationship, it’s important not to say things that you can never take back. Go ahead and say you’ll never vote for the other candidate, but no one should believe you, including yourself.
Stay calm, keep your head, do your work, and live with the results.
That’s my advice.
Said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO): “The Republicans won’t touch [Sanders] because they can’t wait to run an ad with a hammer and sickle.”
And she’s still a Senator and not a lobbyist because the Missouri GOP decided to run a jackass against her. She also stood with racist Jay Nixon during the whole Michael Brown affair.
Yeah, Democrats can sure use more like Missouri Dems. Sheesh.
And McCaskill is in which camp? Her statement is hardly an objective bit of analysis nor logical. Why would the Republicans wait when they should be and could be creating their anti-Bernie image now?
It is a worthy question why Republicans haven’t conjured up more anti-Bernie rhetoric already, then use that rhetoric to lump Bernie and Hillary into the same bucket and claim “All Democrats..” blah blah blah.
My first hunch is that Republicans are sticking with the tried-and-true bogeyman of attacking the Clinton name. The GOP base has had 20 years of Fox and Limbaugh indoctrination about all things Clinton. Their base is trained to react to the Clinton name. It’s a cost and time effective attack.
However, the GOP base hasn’t had 20 years of Fox and Limbaugh indoctrination about Bernie. I think they delay because they don’t want to distract their base by requiring them to assimilate new information about this atypical Democratic candidate.
If Bernie takes Iowa, then we’ll hear the socialist / commie attacks. I think the GOP delays that messaging attack at its own peril. The longer they wait, the more likely some parts of the GOP base will try to answer for themselves, “Who is this guy?” Independent thinking is not in the GOP’s self-interest.
The “rough and tumble” mud slinging lies have all come from the Clinton camp. I’ll NEVER vote for any of them OR their allies again. No better than Bush and maybe worse. Cheaters and liars, all of them. I’ll change my party registration to stop her if I can.
That’s the opposite of staying calm.
I know you a little bit.
You ain’t voting for Cruz or Trump or Jeb or Rubio.
I will if they have a chance of taking Illinois from Clinton. If not, I’ll vote Green or Libertarian or whatever nut cake party is on the ballot. Or, if by some chance like Hillary has a fatal stroke (Are you listening, God?) O’Malley or someone non-DLC is on the ballot, yes, I’ll vote Dem. No, if it’s Shumer or someone like him.
But I’ll back down from one point. I’ll not re-register as Republican. We have too many down ballot choices, notably for Senator and for the vacated Duckworth House seat. And I’m seeing the same tactics there. I got an e-mail today from Raja K.’s campaign saying Noland would cut Social security. I’m forwarding it to Noland’s campaign and asking for a rebuttal or affirmation. I’m reasonably aware of Noland’s record in the Illinois Senate and although he’s no Liberal, I see nothing that indicates he’s a neo-liberal. I’m really sick of dirty mud-slinging campaigns based on lies. Mud-slinging based on truth, yes, but to Hell with the Big Lie.
“Stay calm, keep your head, do your work, and live with the results. “
Yeah, take it in the butt like a good little altar boy.
Elections are decided by a majority. That’s how life works; sorry. If you can’t get African-Americans and Latinos on board for Sanders, or convert some of the right-wing pinheads who might other vote Libertarian, there won’t be enough votes for Sanders to win. Unless you’re advocating violent overthrow, you then have to choose among the remaining options or take your marbles and go home.
As much as I find Hilary Clinton less than ideal, it would be really important to elect her over Trump or Cruz or any of the other GOP clowns. Politics isn’t all or nothing. It just isn’t.
Generally for those on the left it’s nothing v. less than nothing.
you don’t think people on the right feel the same way?
“As much as I find Hilary Clinton less than ideal”
Not less than ideal, unless you also consider Bush less than ideal.
How about thoroughly corrupt, a rotten human being, Goldman-Sachs poster girl ?
When it comes to hatred of Hillary Clinton, you are apparently at the top of the heap here. What links and facts could you provide here that would substantiate that “she’s thoroughly corrupt, a rotten human being and a Goldman-Sachs girl”. I genuinely would love to read the sources on which your characterizations are based.
I will most forcefully state that I, too, have no kind feelings for purity voters. It is, of course, your right to stay home if your candidate doesn’t win the nomination. But I find disgust and cynicism vis-a-vis politics are too often used as crutches and this “I won’t vote for the nominee if it’s not the one I want” stance is just plain childish and counter productive.
Only one person can cliam that slot in this campaign;
Heidi Cruz, currently on unpaid leave from the Vampire Squid, while Raphael runs for POTUS.
Her job;
She serves as regional head of the Houston office in the private wealth-management unit, which serves individuals and families who have on average more than $40 million with the firm.
Only went on leave March 2015.
If Cruz by some political miracle wins, GS would have the ear of the President in a way very few Wall Streeters could only dream of.
religiousrightwingnut dad of the religiousrightwingnut candidate?
Thanks for the some of my friends link. Apparently we should just all shut up and fall in line. Sounds like the same old plan. How’s that worked out exactly?
Interesting round this 2016, neither party wants to let its voters decide on their candidate
Au contraire — do your best work for Sanders (or whomever), but don’t get too disappointed if the voters have other preferences.
Given that the entire rant is based on an obviously false premise: i.e., that Sanders supporters generally are naive enough to “magically” think that the innocent fun of the “meme” that set boo’s friend off is instead an actual, realistic political program. Presuming that the meme is driven by such “magical thinking” is as dumb as that “magical thinking” he imagines in order to condemn it.
Note that I endorse 100% as a policy goal:
But I’m also a realist, so I recognize that ain’t gonna happen unless/until we actually succeed at fomenting the anti-Totalitarian-Agricultural-Revolution counter-revolution. But about that I’m not an optimist, so I am likewise pessimistic about survival of our culture/civilization, species, many other innocent species we haven’t already managed to take down with us, and a large proportion of the planet’s ecological functionality.
Nah – elections are always emotional. You give everything you got.
The more important part is when they are over.
How it should be done: the way Clinton behaved around the convention in 08.
How it should not: the way Kennedy behaved at the convention in ’80.
Bernie will give Clinton a hug and all of this will be forgotten by October.
I think this what Booman is saying. The criticism here should be of Republicans, not of other Democrats. At least not to the point where people are vilifying other Democratic candidates. Disagree on policy, sure. On character, bad move!
Actually, I’m saying that this is low blow season. We’ll survive and get over it.
The thing that rang true to me was “circular firing squad.”
Democrats argue and fight in primaries.
It is pretty ugly already. It got ugly in ’08 (Perhaps you have forgotten Bill Shaheen’s comments about Obama and drug use.
Bernie is not going to pull a Ted Kennedy.
None of it will matter in October.
Was the difference the behavior of Kennedy and Clinton or the behavior of Carter and Obama?
How many concessions did Carter make to the liberal DEM elite and voter base from ’76 through the ’80 convention?
How much did Obama give to the Clintons to get them to fall in line? Control of the DNC, a high profile admin position for Hillary and choosing Clinton elites for admin appointments over non-neo-liberals, a blind eye to Bill’s questionable moneybag associations, and no objection to a second run by Clinton in ’16 if she so chose?
Yes, Bernie will endorse Clinton over the GOP and any third party. But if she wins, he’s not going to sit quietly in the Senate and accept all the expected pro-corporate and pro-military policies.
Neglected to include this from Business Week – Obama’s Parting Gift to Hillary Clinton
Kennedy acted like an ass. No two ways about it.
Anger at him within the Party was so deep he never ran again for President. I know his Press Secretary – he said he really wanted to run in ’84. But his behavior in New York made it impossible.
Clinton did not contest the nomination at the convention – I suspect because she knew she would run again.
When Clinton wins Bernie will do what he has since 1984: say it is too important not to vote Democratic for President.
And then he will raise hell, like he always has.
I’ll vote the hell out of Clinton when she’s nominated, and I’m donating the hell out of my wallet to Sanders now.
I think, frankly, that this is a bigger problem for pundits than people. Martin’s co-blogger at WaMo is so transparently skeevy about this race (just raising some questions!) that I’ve lost what little respect I had for her. The same is true of many front-page bloggers at dKos, and Ta-Nehisi Coates’s recent take-down of Sanders is … very much in the ‘Oh, yeah, well Al Gore rides around in jets so he doesn’t care about climate change!’ school of punditry.
I’m perfectly fine with someone who backs Clinton, because they are farther to the right than I am, more satisfied with the status quo, more trusting of working within the system to achieve incremental progress, and/or more of a hawk. That’s how democracy works. I’m 100% fine with someone who is voting out of generational-gender solidarity (my mother-in-law identifies with Clinton for extremely good reasons, and it’s just not my place to question that).
It’s thin film of slime that bothers me. And the sense, I guess, that pundits aren’t admitting their truth, and instead are circling around it and whistling for the dogs …
Well I long ago decided I would not be voting for Clinton. Down ticket Dems are a different story however.
Then we’ll know who to thank when President Cruz is sworn in.
Central to the establishment (of either party’s, really) justification for running uninspiring, ideologically misaligned is that the other party are full of unpersuadable dullards*. That is, 43-49% of the population is so stupid and tribal that in absence of black swans once their ‘natural’ candidate reaches a certain threshold of respectability that no matter what candidate the opposing party put up these people are unreachable.
Since Zombie Hitler (D-NY) would get as many votes as Cyber Genie Jesus (D-MA) from these unpersuadable dullards, the powers that be have have no responsibility for the quality of candidates they run nor the platform they run on. No no, responsibility for winning elections comes from people who aren’t in the party that the unpersuadable dullards. And as long as the powers that be provides a candidate that’s at least a sliver of being politically better than the opposition, anyone who isn’t in the party of unpersuadable dullards must give their all to support the candidate.
This is why the Democratic Party blames the handful of voters who went Nader more than the many, many more who voted Bush. You’d think that would be the focus of the Democratic Party, trying to get a sliver of Republican voters instead of a much greater proportion of Nader voters. But remember: people who voted for Bush over Gore were unpersuadable dullards who were completely unreachable by the Democrats no matter what Gore said or did. Only the Nader voters were persuadable.
* Without stabbing the Rainbow Coalition in the back we mean, you privileged class-only white Berniebro socialists.
If the electoral college votes for Cruz and the delegates were assigned because of one vote in one state, yeah go ahead. But really HRC represents the Dem establishment which is not leftist, and is not in the mood to search for anything resembling real solutions to people being treated like shit by the establishment.
I’d be really interested in hearing how the establishment “treats you like shit.” I live in a different country, but I’ve never experienced the establishment in my country treating me like shit. I don’t know what kind of solution you seek.
I hear Bernie blame the oligarchs for all the problems in the United States, but I don’t see any solutions that are not a bad joke. It is easy to point fingers – whether you are Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump – but governing well is actually hard to do.
What is it you expect from government?
Pointing fingers would be a nice start, actually.
you have a different system in your country; ppl don’t live with the ongoing feeling of being on the edge of ruin, like most ppl here. odd that you don’t know about the differences.
I appreciate the fact that we have a stronger safety net in Canada, but I’m not sure that is very relevant to most people. It is better to be poor in Canada than in the United States, but I’ll feel past the edge of ruin if I need the safety net or if the level of the minimum wage is important to me personally. Unless you live in a ghetto (or on a reserve in Canada), grinding poverty is probably not an issue for you either.
Americans make more money and have more job security than Canadians. Our unemployment rate is higher. We have higher taxes.
I’ve had money problems at one time or another, and I wish I had a lot more of it – that’s why they call it money, after all – but an ongoing feeling that doom was around the corner? I’ve never lived with that. My standard of living is certainly no higher than the median American standard of living and I figure I’ve got it pretty good.
Why do most Americans feel the way you feel?
stronger safety net not relevant to most people? I don’t think you’ve thought this through or maybe you haven’t been following the economic situation for the past 9 years? you should read up on that, 2007 2008
I have thought it through. I do understand the devastation of the Great Recession. But most people did not lose their jobs. Most people did not lose their house. Most people did not need food stamps or welfare. Most people did not need the safety net either here or in the United States. For most people, the quality of the safety net does not matter. That’s all I meant. (It also explains why it is hard to marshal the political will to improve programs for the poor.)
Since the recession, unlike most other places, the American economy has had a robust recovery and it is easily outperforming the rest of the world. The Canadian economy sucks right now. Unemployment is up again and because the Canadian dollar is so weak against the American dollar, food prices are skyrocketing. From where we sit, things are looking pretty good south of the border at least in terms of the economy.
I don’t get the fear or the worry or the resentment I read in this forum. Is the future that bleak?
Well all the economic gains have gone to the top, it’s only in 2015 after 7 years, that wages have finally started ticking up. It’s also the case that in America you are always one event away from disaster. Obama lessened that somewhat with Obamacare but there’s still things like being laid off. Most of the jobs available are either skilled (so if you don’t happen to have it too bad) or marginal in terms of living wages. As a nonwhite you’ve also got to deal with a lot more animosity in daily life and of course that law enforcement can act with impunity.
But basically what I mean by establishment is the dem establishment which consistently pushes rightward out of fear and only really exercises its power when the dem base looks like it’s going to get a glimmer of hope in terms of good leftwing policy. Can’t have that! Kick in the teeth!
To summarize: big business smash you down (oft times with government help) the local authorities smash you down and when you look to be having some success in fighting back against this smashing, your own party comes in and smash you down.
Clinton
The people to thank would be the Clintons whose ambition and desire for riches know no bounds.
Booman writes:
Yes.
Duh.
He’s from da neighborhood!!!
Ain’t that much about who he is or what he’s saying. Location, location, location.
The real question is, can he translate that attention nationally?
My bet?
No.
My heartfelt wish?
Yes.
He would not be an efficient president…opposed on every level by PermaGov DemRats and Ratpubs alike…but his election alone would create the biggest crack in the PermaGov structure ever!!!
We shall soon see.
Won’t we.
AG
DemRats. Ratpubs. How cute.
Colorful. Fun to read.
Short for DemocRats and RatPublicans. The left and right wings of the centrist Permanent Government. PermaGov foir short.
AG
When I force myself to picture the actual election, I pretty much see Hillary as the nominee; she just snaps into focus unprompted. (I’m not saying this is good or bad; I’m just saying that’s what I envision.)
But when I try to see her opponent, that’s when I have trouble. Seriously, I can’t imagine any of the Republican candidates as actually ending up on a national ticket. I keep waiting for some “real” candidate to appear.
I keep trying to picture Trump or Cruz standing in some stadium smiling and waving in front of a jumbotron, at the end of a convention…and it just seems impossible. Then I switch the image to Rubio or Kasich…and I have the same problem.
I didn’t have this problem with McCain or Romney…or Dukakis or Mondale, or any other badly-losing candidate. (I’m not old enough to remember McGovern; maybe that’s a better example.) I just have no idea what’s coming; it’s very bizarre.
she just snaps into focus unprompted
Only when she’s been well rehearsed in advance as to a particular line of attack and the intensity of it. She flubbed in the last debate because Sanders and MOM ramped up the intensity of the attacks on where she’s vulnerable. Both she and Bill have been more or less protected by the media during their elections. Unlike Gore who was pummeled with nothingburgers that were made to seem scary.
IMO, Trump is the only GOP candidate that could conceivably effectively pummel her and throw her off balance. OTOH, I suspect he’s not disciplined enough to do all the homework necessary to accomplish that. Cruz has a persona that’s too mean and nasty to succeed in the abstract and Hillary does best against such an opponent. Rubio is too much of a lightweight to do more than memorize a few zingers that will play well in the moment, but not boost his overall credibility. Jeb is just lame. Kaisich doesn’t seem to be enough up on his game to get there by the general election.
You’re giving me too much credit. : )
I’m not really talking rationally here (which, if I were, all of your points would be valid and correct). I’m more talking about my visceral sense of it; my imagination. At this point four or eight or twelve years ago, I had no trouble picturing election night. This time, I’m finding it nearly impossible; it’s like trying to imagine an alien invasion or something.
Some general elections and the outcomes are easier to imagine than others. ’96 and ’04-’12 were easy because they followed conventional paths.
2000 was unconventional in a number of ways. Gore made a high number of small flubs. (How the hell could have gone into the first debate with clownish make-up? That led to him choking in the second one — against an idiot.) The “all hail to the king (Clinton)” DEM convention reduced the gain Gore could have gotten from it, and he is to be given credit for increasing his stature with his speech. Who could possibly imagine that the SCOTUS would decided the outcome? (And we all should have anticipated the FL would be fixed by the GOP — they were simply not competent enough to fix it seamlessly.)
’92 started off as conventional. Buchanan and the GOP hate-fest convention may well have hurt GHWB more than the Perot dramas did. But his visually arrogant and bored demeanor in the debate may have sealed his loss.
Don’t know if I had had a front row seat during the ’84 and ’88 DEM primaries if I could have imagined those elections. But a House REP as a running mate is a loser. Bentson seemed old even though he was younger in ’88 than many candidates we’ve seen since then.
’80? If the hostages had been released before the election, Carter could well have won.
’72 — over with the Eagleton affair. (I still exercised my right to vote FOR a fine candidate and AGAINST a slimebag.)
’68 — what a horrible and messy year.
I don’t really buy Gore’s 2000 loss as being due to his debate performance. I know that makes an evocative and grokkable story for the political junkies because the idea of elections hinging on specific, human-interest events makes elections seem fun and exciting but the polling doesn’t really reflect that.
Gore was trailing Bush for most of the year but never really had a lead. Still, the long-term polling trend was for Gore to slightly rise and Bush was to modestly dip. Gore’s numbers didn’t change a lot after the debates, after all, and the trend afterwards was upwards.
Stuff like that is why I claim that a more accurate description of U.S. Presidential elections is a demographic death march where the outcome is decided months if not years in advance and small-to-medium impact events really don’t have an affect on the final outcome.
I didn’t say that Gore’s debate performances caused him to “lose.” First, he didn’t lose; just didn’t win by enough to easily overcome the various fixes put in place before the election and after the vote counting began in FL. I said that he made a number of flubs. Not enough that would have defeated him if he’d entered the race as the front runner. But by early-mid 1999, the general public was tired of the Clinton admin and Bush was looking better in retrospect. Not GWB, who wasn’t actually well known, but the father who what most people responding to the early polls thought was running.
Gore didn’t take the lead until after his convention speech. He didn’t hold onto it after the first debate and only recovered slightly after the third debate. Demographics simply don’t explain the ups and downs in the polling and final near 50/50 split over the course of 16 months.
Where you’re wrong about demographics is in the assumption that POC will always remain on the left. Will be true if they continue to get a smaller slice of the economic pie. But it doesn’t take a large shift in those that obtain more and/or mis-remember a better past when they adhered more to conservative religion to defeat demographic changes. As the US culture is oriented towards obtaining wealth and hewing to conservative religions (mostly Christian, but not exclusively because all religions have conservative/reactionary sects that are more patriarchal), the Republican message is always a simpler and therefore, easier sell.
I’m thinking of voting for Martin O’Malley in the primary, if he’s still in the race when my state’s primary happens.
Clinton has a serious ethics problem, and yes it’s blown out of proportion by the right wing but still. I can’t vote for her in the primary.
Despite Sanders’ impressive success, the man is in his mid-seventies (will be over eighty before an 8-year term is done) and I’m not convinced he has the faintest clue how to handle the presidency if he won it.
In the general I’ll vote for whoever wins the primary. I’m in a safe blue state, so if I’m super unhappy at that point I can always vote green.
I hope that when all this is over someone writes a long piece about why more Democrats didn’t run. Were they intimidated? Did they just think it was futile? I’m truly curious.
MOM isn’t ready for prime time. He may never be, but at this point, I wouldn’t object to him as VP. However, that would be a high risk with minority voters given his record in Baltimore and could dampen enthusiasm.
Yeah, I realize that. But having ruled out the other two options, that’s where I’m left. 🙂
Question: who exhibited more energy and cognitive wherewithal during the primaries, the 60 and 64 year old Romney (’08 and ’12) or the 74 year old Sanders?
MOM doesn’t even have a day job and isn’t exactly a ball of fire. When I said that I’d be okay with him as VP, I meant VP for Sanders. As VP for Clinton he wouldn’t be a factor in the administration and in four or eight years would remain a lightweight but a neoliberalcon lightweight by then.
I have to trust that Sanders’ ego won’t over-ride his good sense. He’ll choose as VP someone that he’s confident could step into his shoes if ever needed. If his physical or mental health prevents him from being a fully active and engaged POTUS, he’ll step aside. Unlike Reagan who was obviously mentally impaired in his first team.
I don’t doubt his capabilities. I once went on a week-long backpacking trip in the Sierras led by a 72-year-old guy who trotted cheerfully up the mountains with his 30-year-old gear while the rest of us huffed and puffed and followed slowly. Sanders reminds me a little of that guy.
I am, at this point, getting so fed up with both Sanders’ and Clinton’s inability to debate health care in a useful way that I’m ready to vote for O’Malley just so I don’t have to support either one of them in the primary.
Here is a comment for your pissed off friend. When Obama was elected in 2008 he said thank you to his supporters, but I’ve got this. Then he installed his Al From DLC inspired administration proceeding to make the most horrible grand bargains possible that fortunately the Republicans were too stupid to take. Result of all this was his base went back to sleep giving control of the House to the Republicans in the next midterm election. Good thing Obama got all he could out of his two year blue dog congress because that’s all he had.
It’s going to take Bernie at least a couple of cycles to defeat the Republicans and completely dismantle the Al From inspired Clinton Machine. And you blame Bernie for having to clean up this mess?
The person I want to see eat a bag of dicks is not Tim O’Connell but Chuck Schumer. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz could already be history after facing a primary with a real progressive this cycle.
The only thing Hillary is running on is the false idea that she would do better against Republicans than Bernie. There is a good chance she could even lose. If Hillary does manage to sling enough mud to win the nomination, the only reason left to vote for her would be SCOTUS nominations. If she did regain the Senate, which I doubt facing an unnecessarily pissed off base because of the DNC, she would barely have to years to get those seats filled because her base will go right back to sleep. At best all we could hope for would be a four year delay until the Republicans once again have it all, in a census year no less.
You should be the one to grow a pair and Feel the Bern.
This never happened
Claire McCaskill, there’s a Democrat for you! Uh, or is she for Wall Street? Didn’t she renege on all her campaign promises?
what campaign promises could she have kept? she’s in the minority and has very little power
She was part of the Senate majority from 2007 to 2015.
Why do so many Democrats make up excuses for DEM politicians that are flat out untrue?
okay, again what promise did she not keep?
Ask her constituent voters. I don’t happen to live in MO.
you and Wilderness made a specific accusation so I assumed you had something to back it up
Guess I was wrong
I made no accusations at all. And it appears that Voice only asked a question. You were the one that jumped in with an excuse as to why she couldn’t deliver on any campaign promises and I merely pointed out that the excuse you offered was total BS. Then you got all huffy and demanded that I list the campaign promises that she didn’t keep even though I hadn’t accused her of breaking any and as I’m not a constituent of hers wouldn’t even know what pledges she made.
Guess you were being a jackass.
the question itself is an accusation
She’s not my Senator I don’t really care, but just for the record, she was in the majority for 4 years. 2 of which were under a Republican President, so there wasn’t much she could do during those years.
During the 2 years under Obama the Senate did get quite a few things done and as a Democrat from a red state I doubt she promised much more than was delivered.
I could be wrong though
Majority in the Senate for eight years. Six of those with a DEM POTUS.
but since 2010 nothing has gotten passed the House that are Democratic priorities.
I get what you’re saying, I’m just not seeing how anyone can say she broke her promises from anytime between 2007-2009 & 2011-present when Democrats didn’t control Congress.
Now if there are things she promised to do that she either failed to do when she could have or did the opposite during that 2009-2011 time frame I can get on board with criticizing her.
I did thing her little stunt to help Akin get nominated in her re-election and then boasting about it afterwards was sleazy. However, at the moment, I’m only criticizing her for this:
(McCaskill ’16 = Ferraro ’08)
Apparently she thinks she’s some genius able to read the minds of Republicans. Instead of being thankful that she lucked out and drew an opponent too wacky even for MO.
The nicest touch in the ad is the last shot — Bernie smiling. Been saying for some time that he needs to smile more because he doesn’t have a warm and natural smile.
Sometimes the election result is different from poll.
I’m going to make a prediction. If Hillary gets beat up as bad as I think she’s going to in IA and NH she’s going to tell Debbie we need more debates going forward.