Yesterday, in Massachusetts, a lot of people went to the polls to vote in the Republican primary. There were 310,847 folks who voted for Donald Trump. That gave him a very healthy 49.3% of the vote in what was basically a five-man race. John Kasich came in second place with 113,471 votes, which comes to a mere 18.0% of the vote. Rubio got 17.8%;, Cruz got 9.6%, and Carson got 2.6%.
That’s an overwhelming endorsement of Trump by Massachusetts right-leaning voters.
So, naturally, the first thing the Republican governor of The Bay State did this morning was endorse Trump, right?
Massachusetts Republican Governor Charlie Baker, under pressure from Democrats and the news media to take a position on whether he would publicly support Donald J. Trump, should he be the GOP presidential nominee, said Wednesday he did not vote for Trump on Tuesday and “I’m not going to vote for him in November.”
Now, most of these Massachusetts Trump voters are the same folks who gave Charlie Barker the surprise upset victory that made him the governor in the first place. If 49.3% of them (or thereabouts) are morally rudderless simpletons, how does that reflect on their decision to back Baker?
Seriously, it’s a demonstration of the incredible chasm that has opened up between the Republican base and the thinnest shred of human decency and intellect, that a guy can come into a state and win half the vote in a five-way race and basically sew up the nomination, and the governor of the same party’s reaction is to tell that guy and his supporters to drop dead.
the world by following that advice, never seem to take it.
Breitbart being the arguable exception proving the rule? Or Scalia?
Mitt is going to deliver a speech on thursday on the state of the GOP. They are going to the bench of loosers to save the GOP.
I’m Mitt Romney, bitches, and I’m all you’ve got left.
Well sure because Rubio and Cruz are sooo much better.
If I were a Republican (which thankfully I’ve never been and will never be), I’d rather take my chances with the one out of the three that isn’t pitching a Christian theocracy.
And Baker isn’t really a sane GOPer, either. It would be hilarious of Trump ginned up a primary challenge to Baker. Meaning he urged his supporters to find someone to challenge Baker in 2 years, or what ever.
And any challenger to Baker would probably get his clock cleaned — if one could even be found.
No kidding! Except that the bulk of the GOP are all up with that Talibangelical/dominionist crap. Oddly enough, the Talibangelicals are UP with Trump, even though they whine about some of his allegedly liberal ways.
The bar for “sane Republican” is very low these days. Not that it was ever very high.
But must remember that Baker defeated Chokely (a DEM party/elite favorite) in one of the bluest states.
I thought she lost because the elite/estsblishment had a grudge against her and didn’t support her in the election.
You could be correct. State based intra-party factions aren’t always readily apparent to outsiders. Now that I’ve thought about it, seem to recall that she was favored by the state-based DEM elites and the rift between that faction and the Boston based power was more fractious than usual with her as the candidate for Gov and Senator.
As I understand, Cokely was not very popular within the Democratic Party so much as the DP hierarchy in Mass. They keep running her and she keeps losing. But I’m three thousand miles away in Oregon, so the news I get for Massachusetts is thin.
If the GOP sanity bar is so low, how is that they still can’t get over it?
Guess Rubio is still near the top of the GOP leader board since he did win one state yesterday. (Sanders only won four; so, he’s obviously dead meat).
However, the media seems now to be bored with the primaries; they want to get on to the really big shew. The jungle rumble between Clinton and Trump.
35 states to go.
Not according to Trump and Clinton supporters (along with some that claim to have supported Sanders all the way but are now calling for him to drop out).
Realistically, the 35 remaining states do matter for the GOP to select its nominee democratically. (Not that the GOP elites want that much democracy this time around.) Seems like a good reason for Rubio and Kasich to remain in the race until the last primary vote is counted in the last primary state. That’s the surest way to deprive Trump of massive wins in the remaining states. Winning with generally less than 40% of the vote isn’t going to get the job down.
On the DEM side, however, Clinton wins even when she loses. ie CO caucus. Bernie won with 58.9% to 40.4%. He gets 33 delegates and Clinton gets 24. (Bern is shortchanged in a strictly proportional allocation.) Adding in the superdelegates, he ends up with 33 and she gets 34.
Hey! Let’s compare apples and oranges!
That always works, right?
Gimme a freaking break.
GOP primaries move to winner take all coming up, that’s why they’re saying Trump may have an insurmountable lead.
What is your delegate problem?
If he got 58% of the vote, 33 out of 57 delegates rounds to 58%. Why should he get more? Why is 58% vs 58% him being shortchanged? Such an allegation is idiotic.
Read the freaking rules.
If you’d take the time to go look at how the proportional voting rules go, you’d see that he got exactly what the rules say he should. There are even rules for rounding. It’s a two-step process.
I won’t spell it out. For the rules, go to http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D-Math.phtml
Then for MA go to http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/MA-D#0301
The numbers listed don’t seem to be quite the final vote totals, but you can follow down about how it breaks down with the Congressional Districts.
If you know the rules, you don’t have to run around accusing people of shennanigans with no basis in fact to what you are alleging.
Unless you don’t care about rules and facts and would rather everything be tilted in Sanders’ favor -which is what it sounds like: “OH!!!! My guy didn’t get favored treatment!!! What’s wrong with this stupid party?!?!?!”)
And if we had gone for winner-takes-all, Hillary would be winning by an even larger margin.
Oh right — “the rules” because “the rules” are never written in favor of one faction over another. Listen, bub, as a woman of a certain age I know all about “the rules” that told girls/women what we could and couldn’t do and only men were fully autonomous beings. “The rules” were even worse for POC, particularly women.
Yet, if we’re accepting your representation here, the DNC rules have been shaped to favor a woman running against a group of men for the Party’s POTUS nomination.
Logic- how does it work?
GAH. If I enjoy any more popcorn, I’m gonna POP, myself!
Tee hee hee… me loves me some schadenfreuda in the morning. Smells like Victory.
Not that I expect either the 1% PTB running the GOP, the GOP pols, like Baker, or the putative GOP voters to ever come to their senses and, you know, start trucking in reality any time soon. sad to say. There will be no come to Jeebus moments for this crowd. I think they’re all too far gone.
Have no idea how this pans out. None.
Confused about who you think has…the thinnest shred of human decency and intellect? The Republican base voting for Trum or its elites telling them to pound sand?
Sen. Shelby in Alabama managed to hold on–there was some doubt.
Charlie Baker is immensely popular with pretty much every segment of the state’s voting population; his numbers run around 70 percent. He’s perceived as highly competent at running the government, he’s socially liberal, he doesn’t dabble in partisan politics, and people just plain like him. Further analysis here:
http://www.wbur.org/2015/12/22/baker-favorability-economy
All that said, he doesn’t need the Trump wing of the GOP. It’s true he didn’t beat Martha Coakley by much, but as a sitting, wildly popular governor he doesn’t face the kind of reelection pressures that so many other GOP politicians do. My take as a Massachusetts resident is, he’s free to speak his mind and too decent a human being to support Trump.
That speaks volumes as to the state of the MA DEM party and the politicians it has been breeding. It’s like after the past few decades in which numerous Republicans have been elected Governor, they don’t seem to have figured out why that is.
It would seem their governor could not privatize the place to see if trickle down worked?
Didn’t have enough power in the legislature. Sort of like how the GOP has come to operate at the national level. As long as they control Congress, they don’t have to authentically get too exercised about a DEM POTUS. (At the PR level, they have to maintain the fiction for their rubes.)
This shows a remarkable ignorance of the three branches of government, and the fact that Congress holds only a very limited ability to control the vast powers of the Executive. Among those powers is the ability to shape the Judiciary, the other branch.
I wish the GOP were as ignorant as you propose they are here. It does not appear that they are, given their extraordinary amount of fretting over their prospective Presidential nominee today.
“…the ability to shape the judiciary…” – WTFF???!!!
Obviously you live in some kind of time warp or bubble.
Have you not been paying attention to how POTUS cannot get Scalia’s replacement even a job interview with the insane GOP Senate?
And how many OTHER judicial seats have not been filled because that same GOP Senate just sits on nominees, hoping against hope that they will someday soon had GOP President?
And if you somehow think that this is a new development, what cardboard box have you been living under for the last umpteen years? The very REASON that Harry Reid had to pull out the Nuclear Option in 2013 was over judicial nominees not getting a hearing in the GOP Senate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-w
ould-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html
PAY ATTENTION!
You know how things work in perfect world. Fine. Now inform yourself how the REAL world works.
Harry Reid’s elimination of the filibuster hasn’t done any good. They don’t filibuster; they just do nothing and let time go by.
what Reid deployed (as it did not include SCOTUS nominees — which now looks very relevant, indeed).
Mostly agree w/ the rest, except the precipitous conclusion from this too-limited evidence that cfdj lives in a bubble (etc.). S/he has a record here that clearly demonstrates the contrary.
I’m glad we’re talking about this. People with accurate information on this subject should feel free to join in. Martin, I believe you wrote quite a bit about this at the time.
Steve, what was the outcome to the nomination fights that are referenced in your linked 2013 story? A bunch of Judicial nominations were pushed through by Reid and the Democrats. In other words, Reid’s limited elimination of the filibuster succeeded in breaking a logjam of the President’s Judicial appointments.
Most crucially, the D.C. Circuit Court, the District Court which hears a disproportionate number of the Federal cases with broadest impact, the District Court which has seen a disproportionate number of its Judges ascend to the Supreme Court, had all of its open seats filled for the first time since Clarence Thomas left the Circuit in 1992 to take his Supreme Court seat.
Here’s a handy summary of the current state of the history of the major Federal Courts, including the state of unfilled judicial openings:
https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_judicial_appointment_controversies
As pointed out at the link, after hundreds of nominations and considerations by the Senate, we are now down to 44 Federal Court vacancies, with only 12 of those currently awaiting Senate review. The President has not placed nominations forward to fill the other 32 openings.
This letter from the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, near the end of President Bush’s second term, leads me to understand that there were about 34 Federal Court vacancies which remained near the end of Bush’s Presidency:
https:
web.archive.org/web/20100106172425http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200809/092608f.html
I believe that letter is interesting for a number of additional reasons, but I’ll leave those aside for now.
Yes, since the Republicans regained control of the Senate majority, their ability to block President Obama’s Judicial nominees has increased. But President Obama, in the end, has had success in filling open Judicial seats with his appointees at a level similar to Bush.
A big, big tell in whether Obama has made his mark on the Judiciary is revealed by the state of the most consequential cases which the Supreme Court is hearing in the current session. With the death of Justice Scalia, many of these cases are somewhat likely to deadlock the Judges with 4-4 decisions.
If that were to take place, the appealed rulings on those cases by the lower Federal Courts would be implemented. In the strong majority of these highly consequential cases, the rulings would be favorable to liberal/progressive causes. This is not entirely a coincidence; more Federal Judges now seated were nominated by Presidents from the Democratic Party than were nominated by Presidents from the Republican Party. Most crucially, this is the balance in the D.C. Circuit Court.
There are other benefits we have derived from the GOP’s incredible levels of obstruction. The elimination of the filibuster for non-SCOTUS Judiciary nominees means that the Republicans have had an obstructionist tool taken from them when the Democrats re-take Senate majorities.
The Republicans did not prevent President Obama from filling the two Supreme Court vacancies which took place earlier in his term. Their announced plan to obstruct the President from filling the Scalia vacancy will almost certainly make it easier to win back that Senate majority so we can take advantage of the GOP Senate’s loss of the filibuster on Judicial nominees.
Senator Kirk recognizes how vulnerable this awful obstructionism makes him; that is why he has broken from McConnell and his fellow Caucus members and is calling for the Senate to hold hearings and vote on Obama’s upcoming SCOTUS nominee. Other Senators in swing states will resist joining Kirk at their electoral peril. Most of the time, Senate process fights are not resonant; such ahistorical obstruction of a SCOTUS nominee one is much easier to make resonant as a campaign issue.
Thank you for this. I had been wondering about the D.C. Circuit Court since I was aware of its importance.
A lot of Brer Rabbits on both sides of the isle.
Which “isle” is that?
The Isle of Man?
The Isle of Wright?
Isle of Wight?
The Isle of Kill the Bill for Us, Please.
Actually, Boo, I regard it as a shred of human decency and sign of courage. I don’t see why a governor of a state has any moral obligation to back a candidate simply because half the voters in his state’s party primary voted for that candidate, especially if he thinks that person is a danger to the republic. Of course he should back the guy he himself voted for.
Not everything a politician does has to be a political calculation, or if it is a political calculation it can be one that requires courage and vision. one that goes against the trend. On the Democratic side, look at Tulsi Gabbard.
Couldn’t be perpetrated and experienced by a worse major Party. The wild public flailing about and desperate avoidance of personal and collective responsibility for this outcome are extraordinary.
I’ve seen comments here and elsewhere that essentially are asking why the “Republican Establishment” is so opposed to Trump. He is, so goes the saying, only repeating out loud what the R-E has been saying all along by dogwhistle. And they are correct as far as it goes. Which really isn’t too far.
The tribal wisdom of the R’s has always been that on obstructionism both sides do it, on racism WE (as opposed to those in other places who only CLAIM to be) are true Scotsmen and not racist, on feeding the 1% There must be SOMETHING to this trickle down and Laffer curve stuff, and so on and so on.
What is terrifying the R-E is that the communications are beginning to break down (or possibly leak thru). Current Republicanism is a water empire where the element of control is communications. When the actual message is seen in its basest format a lot of people are going to recoil saying “this isn’t me”. Much like the good Germans of 1945-46.
While the reality of Water Empire has been debunked, the concept (control of a large population by extreme control over a scarce/necessary resource) fits the current Republican hold to a T. 35 years of RW radio and Fox News to a large segment of the population that literally trusts NO OTHER SOURCE.
The theory is that when an outside invader finally pierces the Water Empire realm, it bursts apart like glass.
When the messaging of Fox and RW Wurlitzer no longer coincide with each other, there is room for independent thought … after all, you have think to mediate the differences. Once anyone begins to think the R-E house of cards is exposed.
Xtian Evangelists become exposed as the power hungry mongers they really are.
Yes, a goodly portion of the Republican Party really is racist, not just “those others over there”.
No, the Republican elected officials don’t really keep America safe.
All the talking points, all the arguments and all debate comes into question. Leading to the dissolution of the Empire in question.
Nikki Haley, bless her little heart, has had a Come to Jesus moment. And she is right.
LOL Boy, was that ever a case of mouth engaged before mind in gear.
actually had some meaningful insight, and then proceeded to communicate it truthfully (i.e., your “really is racist” link).
Who could have ever imagined such an occurrence? Are they having a snowball fight in hell right now?
“Much like the good Germans of 1945-46.”
Actually it was the good Germans of 1918-1945.
In 2009, just as the Tea Party was coming to the fore, I started researching a book about Germany that had to include a lot about the rise of Hitler. As I learned more and more about the Brown Shirts rising out of the Freikorps, it freaked me out how similar their rise was to what I was seeing in the Tea Party.
The Freikorps and several similar groups had a LOT of enabling around them, including the courts. There is so much enabling about the Tea Party, but so far it hasn’t reached enabling by the courts. (That is IMHO one of the reasons right now that the courts are so important.) If it ever does, we are down the Hitler road – with it only to be determined who the new one will be.
Those TPers aee SCARY freaking people. If they EVER get the idea that the rest of us are not going to keep them under control, the USA is fucked.
by ’45-’46 I was referring to the shock and revulsion that “good Germans” experienced when the pictures of Auschwitz, Treblinka and etc were broadcast to the world.
Of course anyone attempting to think and listen would have realized what was happening in ’42 or ’43. But, just like the R’s of 2000-2009, they had their head up their ass chanting the mantras of its all for the best in the end.
Yes. And the fetish for guns equally alarming in that context.
Lest we forget, Hitler’s chancellorship resulted from a narrow plurality win by the NSDAP in a deeply fractured electorate. This narrow mandate led to his formation of a conservative parliamentary coalition among minority parties which, having passed the Enabling Acts granting Hitler unprecedented powers, provided no obstacle to his tyrannical designs and quickly descended into irrelevance.
Watching someone from Trump’s Secret Service detachment rough up a journalist was a very strong red flag for me.
Here’s a grand, statesmanlike sound-bite of Rubio’s which might be a candidate for most ahistorical ever:
LOL, my jaw dropped. His “great movement” apparently to be constructed entirely free of self-awareness. It is hard to choose among his and other Republicans’ plainly-stated bollocks these days. For example, Paul Ryan’s “This party does not prey on people’s prejudices. We appeal to their highest ideals.” is a very strong runner-up.
Tribalism is all they had. Trump has broken rank, and that must not be allowed. If his supporters can’t be trusted to defend the GOP at all times, what use are they?
Good point. Hitler had to eliminate Röhm and neutralise the Brownshirts before the industrialists came aboard in the mid-thirties; the torch-lit mob they probably rightly feared might sometime roust them from their beds and string them up with piano-wire.
Now the tables are reversed. These factions were neutralised within the GOP but now they claim leadership and start asserting some authority. I would be terrified too. “This is not who we are.” Bollocks. These are the goons you’ve sent to rough-up your opponents for decades; you know exactly who they are.
Good for Gov. Baker. He and other republicans will have to go a lot farther than just saying “I’m not gonna vote for him” to derail Trump. The convention should be interesting.
You know, I can’t stop thinking that Trump is actually running as a character in a new reality TV show, “Real Candidates of the Republican Party”, and that we are all just extras.
I figured the show would be named “American Fascists”. I still hope that’s the plan. It would be the only reality show I would watch.
Amen to praise for Charlie Baker…..but Martin, keep in mind that he’s the most recent in a line of really moderate Republican Governors of Massachusetts.
The most recent Democrat to run for Governor was a horrid woman named Coakley, a former DA who was not interested in justice, and the sitting attorney general who was of little value to her office or our state.
We have difficulty understanding Trump voters. Considering that Sam Brownback is governor of Kansas, Paul LePage is governor of Maine, Bobby Jindal was the recent governor of Louisiana. There’s a LOT of what Charlie Pierce calls the Prion disease going around, and it’s not unique to Trump.
It drives me crazy when I see outsiders trying to jam Massachusetts into national templates for political concepts like Republicans/conservatives, or assuming that it’s a liberal true-blue state through and through. The political landscape is way more complex than that, starting with the differences between the eastern, metrowest, western, North Shore, South Shore regions, and going on from there. Heck, just understanding Boston politics requires thorough knowledge of the city’s neighborhoods, their historical and current demographics, etc. etc. I don’t even try to explain things much any more.
Most of us here are open to listening to those with knowledge that we lack. One thing to keep in mind when talking to westerners is that political party machines are mostly foreign to us. Suburbia and political machines don’t go that well together. Even in the big cities where they do exist and hold some power, it’s not enough to get the outcome they want.
Its not so much knowledge as experience and vistas. MA is SMALL and OLD.
Not small relative to Texas or Alaska, small relative to South Carolina (SC is 3 times the size of MA [32Ksqmi vs 11K sq mi]). From the Easternmost point of Boston to the westernmost point in MA (stockbridge) in 2hrs (mapquest). People in the west (say KS, or CO, or ID) don’t have the gut feeling that you, as a dedicated believer, can literally campaign in the 4 most distant parts in the state … and have time for a good dinner before going to bed on the same day. This makes for some very intense politicking.
MA is OLD (by US standards). There have been continuous anglo political machinations in MA since 1630 (when dissident religious leaders were run out). Neighborhoods are made up of people whose ancestors lived there in 1716. And that’s in Sterling … Boston is even worse. Talk about tribalism. Only in NM can you find continuous political action this long. And that history was interrupted by the Anglo invasions of 1845-1866.
Okay, here’s just one thing to learn about Massachusetts: The most conservative governor in the last half-century was a Democrat, who defeated Dukakis for the nomination and then a liberal Republican in 1978:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_J._King#Governor
Why did King win despite Dukakis’s generally good governance, especially during and after the Blizzard of ’78? Here’s Wikipedia’s summary:
Dukakis came back in 1982 and beat King, “having made peace with the state Democratic Party, MDC, the state police and public employee unions”, going on to win the election for his second term as governor.
Sellout! Knuckling under to corrupt entrenched interests! Well, if those corrupt entrenched interests hold the reins of power, if they guard the gates to where you need to go to get anything of what you hold dear accomplished, what do you do? Do you rail against them and fail? Or do you get the best compromise you can, get to where you need to go, and get as much done as lies within your power?
As Finley Peter Dunne noted, “Politics ain’t beanbag.”
Yeah. Been wondering at the timing of DWS’s attack on Warren’s pet agency.
Schadenfreude salad:
A refreshing and insightful read.
LOL I asked Booman how George fit his theory of last man standing marathon. Never got an answer.
Trump has 50 times the brain Dubya had. And you know it.
And Taibbi knows it. It must have been a slow news day over at Rolling Stone.
In addition, Bush KNEW he was a retarded genetic mistake and needed handling.
Taibbi opens with, “If Donald Trump scores huge on tonight and seizes control of the nomination in the Super Tuesday primaries, it will mark the beginning of the end of the Republican Party, and perhaps the presidency.”
WTF? “…scores huge on tonight…”? What kind of English is THAT? Doesn’t Rolling Stone have an EDITOR? A proof reader? Doesn’t it have a Dick Cheney to make sure such Muprhy’s Law shit down’t make it into the magazine?
(Yes, “Muphry’s Law” – look it up.)
In an article pointing out hos stupid someone else is, starting out with a poorly proofread sentence is a really DUMB thing to do.
…Mind boggling… Just mind boggling.
The article is a litany of stupid shit Dubya did and said. And that has nothing to do with Trump.
Dubya being dumb in just about anything is a true thing (as stated). Saying Trump is in that category?
That article is just a waste of hot air. If you are going to slam someone, at least be honest about it, Matt. Don’t smear Trump with Bushisms.
“Of course, Trump’s ignorance level, considering his Wharton education, is nearly as awesome as what Bush accomplished in spite of Yale.”
And then Taibbi gives us some of his OPINIONS about Trump as if they are fact.
As much as the next Liberal, I don’t want Trump winning the WH.
But at least stop with the mischaracterization of a man who is – in spite of Taibbi’s leaving it out – an accomplished businessman who would have lost all that Daddy left him if he was 1/10th the idiot Bush was.
Trump has more real world brains in his little finger than Bush, and – I am speculating – than Taibbi, too.
Trump is a performer, partly a product of Hollywood at this stage in his life. He knows how to stroke an audience, and he is making a mockery of American politics, at least on the Right.
But he’s also outed the GOP as the liars and criminals and hypocrites and racists and misogynists that they are – partly by himself speaking in public the things they dare not SAY in public and then pointing at them when they try calling him on it.
It’s great theater, and he knows it. And he is plenty smart enough that when it works, he’s going to keep on doing it.
Dubya could do that? Hell no. Not before hell freezes over.
The self promoter is laughing all the way to Election Day, and has flummoxed everyone on both sides of the aisle. That is STUPID? Not even.
What Taibbi HOPES is Trump’s stupidity is Trump’s genius (enlivening spirit), and Taibbi is too utterly stupid to get it. And Taibbi is deathly afraid of Trump, so the only thing he – as a writer – can do is pull out his pen and try to be as vicious as possible, hoping some of his diatribe sticks. But the Teflon Donald won’t be affected by Taibbi’s rant, not in the slightest.
What a dumb article and what a dumb ass for actually asking Rolling Stone to publish it.
This is NOT Rolling Stone’s best moment.
“Muprhy’s” or “Muphry’s”? WTTW: this is how spelling/grammar flames (tempting though they are, from one who knows) come back to haunt you.
I totally agree with Taibbi’s premise:
Thus the Republican party laid the track for Trump. Say what you will of Trump’s ‘genius’, such as it is, he talks like a New York fire-fighter.
What commentary could I possibly add? Speaks for itself.
We may be on our way to doing much the same:
Running an establishment candidate in a ‘change’ election is a risk we don’t seem to be acknowledging.
Why does everyone pick out 2008 as some magical benchmark of DEM participation and think that year is important?
In 2008 – a year of great and frantic DEM intensity after 8 years of Dubya – 131 million people cast votes for President.
Four years later, with the basically inept Mitt Romney running against an incumbent President, 132 million Americans cast ballots.
In 2010, an off-year, 96 million voted.
In 2014, an off-year, 92 million voted.
With all the hubbub this year and 75 million GOP candidates running (not really), this idea that Dems are going to stay home is utter garbage.
This idea is put out SOLELY by the Sanders Bernie Bots who are beginning to realize that the Pied Piper of Burlington is going to lose, so – in their desperation – they are dreaming up fantasies to convince the rest of Democratic voters to:
“Hurry up! And make sure you all vote for Bernie! He is the only one who can enliven the debate!”
Bullshit.
It is nothing but sour grapes. If 131 million would turn out with John McCain and 132 million with Mitt Romney, then, if ANYTHING, 140 million will come out with Trump as the GOP’s sucker of the decade. The higher the vote totals, the better the DEM candidate will do. And have coattails.
I say “Sucker” because of the electoral vote Blue Wall (google it.) Neither Hillary nor Sanders could POSSIBLY lose this election. 19 states totaling 242 electoral votes have gone Democratic for SIX straight elections. The DEMs only need 28 more EVs to lock up the White House. Those 19 states are not going to change because Trump is running. If anything this promises to be Goldwater all over again. Looking SANE, versus the self-promoting used car salesman (and fraud), Hillary or Sanders will win most of the swing states, putting the total far above 300.
I’ve been saying this for 6 months.
I’ve talked to people asking them WHICH D demographic is going to fall off participation from 2012:
Blacks? Yeah. right. Ever hear of BLM?
Mexican / Puerto Rican? Sure. Hold that thought.
women uhhhhhh ok? yup. no solidarity there.
Labor? Oh yeah. Union members won’t ever vote.
Gays? sure thing Mr. I’ll get rid of gay marriage.
I don’t think some of Bernie’s supporters are mendaciously spreading the no turn out meme. I think that they honestly believe it. I think they honestly believe it because THEY think they won’t turn out for Hillary.
Note: I specifically said Mexican and Puerto Rican rather than Hispanic. There are many sub-groups of Hispanic. Most anglo americans (like trump) think there are only 3: Cuban, Mexican and Puerto Rican. I don’t know if the Cuban vote will be depressed.
I think you are both whistling past the graveyard on this point.
MN DEM caucuses — 90% reporting — participation only down 9%.
Whatever correlation exists between primary and general election turnout, it’s not simple and straightforward. At a minimum it’s multivariate.
Last night I attended my very first Colorado Democratic caucus held in a Wheat Ridge High School auditorium. I got there about forty minutes early to find the auditorium almost full. Then it starting filling up to standing room only including a large number of people still standing in the hall. This event was only to vote for convention delegates if awarded in the future June primary mail-in vote. Tonight there would be a Clinton/Sanders straw poll for release to the media. This was only for registered Democrats who were verified at sign in. The crowd looked very conservative with a lot of grey and white heads of hair.
First thing the Democratic official said was, “we were never expecting a crowd of this size.” Surrogates for the local District Attorney and Michael Bennet gave short speeches. Then the Hillary surrogate spoke. The crowd was respectful with polite applause but certainly not enthusiastic at this point.
Then the Bernie surrogate was introduced. As she headed for the stage the crowd erupted into a chant of “Bernie, Bernie, Bernie.” This must have been quite an experience for her as the crowd interrupted almost every line of her speech with loud and sustained applause. The room was electric. I never expected this from this obviously older crowd. We were supposed to go to a classroom so each precinct could vote for delegates separately. The classrooms overflowed.
Now that Hillary has had her romp through early conservative states with loan shark Debbie keeping enthusiasm down, the primary is now over, or so MSNBC claimed by showing delegate counts that included super delegates. It’s now Hillary versus Trump, off to campaign for the general even though most of the country has not voted in any primary with Bernie saying all voters will get their chance to vote. Personally, I think this is a good thing because now we may get a preview of what a Hillary/Trump contest will really look before it’s too late and the Democratic primary is finished for real.
Remember that Independents outnumber both Democrats and Republicans. I think these Independents are not middle of the road centrists but a group of people who changed to Independent out of disgust because their former party no longer represented their interests. Things said in this campaign will determine the winner, not political identity and demographics.
I will say again, if you want to say mean things that stick, the secret is for those things to be true or appear to be true and be cleverly delivered. The Donald wasted no time; if eight years of Obama hasn’t “fixed” the economy and the lives of middle-class Americans, how will someone who has been in politics for the last 25 years offer a better solution? Then he adds, Hillary wants to make American whole again, I want to make America great again. For someone disgusted with both Democrats and Republicans, who do think they will pick?
Could Trump win against Hillary?
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2016/03/01/president-donald-trump-likely-the-next-occup
ant-of-the-white-house
So far Trump isn’t even winning a majority of Republicans (and INDs in open primary states). All we know it that generally, over 80% of Republican voters are okay with Trump, Cruz, or Rubio. Other than that all we know is the GOP elites are freaking out over Trump’s success. Is that because he will damage the GOP brand? (Isn’t Cruz a similar threat?) Or do they have some well grounded fear that he could win the general election and then not behave like a proper puppet for the GOP elites and their institutions?
Trump’s explicit racist appeals and Nazi-style campaign rally events are pure poison for the Republican brand and their future as a national Party. McConnell and Ryan are among the lengthy list of leaders who are expressing that quite forcefully.
The fact that Trump insults the GOP leaders and cannot and will not be controlled by them are meaningful but secondary concerns. If he could win, they might roll with it. He can’t win. They are aware of that. Would it be so that all Frog Ponders understood this as well.
that Drumpf could be the GOP nominee.
That he could plausibly become prez? Not so much!
Repeating myself: he draws 35ish% support from the wingnut wing of the GOP. (Many of the non-35ish% oppose him vociferously, to the point some declare they’d vote for Hillary, faced with the choice.)
The GOP (including leaning “independents”) comprises 40-45ish% (tops!) of the general electorate.
35ish% of 45ish% = 16ish% of the November electorate.
That’s just simple math.
Can someone please explain to me Drumpf’s plausible path to WH? Cuz I just don’t see it (at least beyond the pathetic corporate media just LUUVVING themselves some horserace keeping that pretense alive).
The GOP establishment’s ongoing freakout is probably the best supporting evidence for my premise.
If I wake up Nov. 5 (or whatever the precise date is) to prez-elect Drumpf, I’ll eat these words. Somehow, I don’t feel to worried.
I, like you, would like to have a good editor to proofread my posts more thoroughly. LOL
proofreading my own comments before hitting “post” (and, frankly, get pretty impatient with those [including some VERY prominent bloggers!] who can’t seem to be bothered with this simple and obvious step).
Obviously, I failed at that in this instance.
I try to conscientious about that as well, but we’re all too human.
First, I think they’re freaking out because Jeb(!) is out, the puppet they really needed for the GOP elites and their institutions. They would be fine with Hillary but the GOP base will never go for it with Hillary being such an intense object of hate. They’re really out of options.
Second, I think when all Independents can vote and the choice is between just Hillary and Trump we have something entirely different than a GOP four way race competing for a subset of Independents. My case is that Trump could be very effective with Independents delivering an overwhelming number of attacks that contain way too much truth for Hillary to be able to effectively counter. Besides, Trump will become their hero as the attacks stick. We do like winners.
What scares them the most is the new GOP normal and attitude expressed by the newly elected chair of the Republican Party, Robert Morrow, who won the helm of the Travis County (includes the Texas Capitol) GOP with 54 percent of the vote.
“Morrow’s election as Republican chair of the fifth-largest county in Texas left several members of the Travis County GOP, including vice chair Matt Mackowiak, apoplectic. Mackowiak, a Republican strategist, immediately announced over social media that he would do everything in his power to remove Morrow from office.”
Marrow’s reply; “Tell them they can go fuck themselves.”
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/texas-gop-apoplectic-as-new-county-chairman-obsesses-over-bill-clint
ons-penis-calls-hillary-an-angry-bull-dyke/
On the standard GOP crap that they’ve been peddling since Nixon for votes, Trump is challenging the GOP in two ways. First that the GOP dog-whistles are namby-pamby. It’s part of the backlash against PC language that a certain portion of the population feels they have been singled out and targeted for “schooling.” Second, GOP dog-whistles haven’t been accompanied with an action plan if elected. They just whistle again and again. Trump is gonna build a yuuge wall and nip the “problem” in the bud.
Yes, we do like winners, but we also like our winners to be larger than life. Even if to make them seem so, somebody has to put them up on a yuuge pedestal. The MSM had done that for Trump. Not that I think they intended to do that. Ratings generate revenues and Trump increased their ratings. Now that the owners have realized that they’ve created a monster that they must destroy, they’re inadvertently making the pedestal higher under the mistaken notion that the better people can see him, the better they’ll recognize that he’s a monster. They can’t do the most direct thing, take away the pedestal, because — ratings.
The other challenge for the GOP with Trump in the general election — and this is only a guess because he seems to be making it up as he goes along and therefore, he’s not predictable — is exposing the corporatist and MIC scams on workers. “They” shipped your factory and jobs to China or wherever” is a twofer. Nativism hatred of all things foreign (scapegoats are always handy) and the populist “they” (even if the speaker is a member of “they”). This is where he can do to Clinton what the other two bozos can’t. If he can make strides with this line of attack, it’s possible that the only faction that can protect the DEM and GOP elites from Trump will be the DFHs.
You are absolutely correct that the only ones who can save the DEM and GOP elites from Trump are the DFHs or more broadly, the hordes of Bernie supporters. I thought for sure that Hillary would see the importance of fairness inside the Democratic Party early on enough to fire Loan Shark Debbie the second she went on network television to accuse Bernie of being no better than a common house thief who found an unlocked door. You said they wouldn’t care and you were right, they still don’t care but they best start. If she does manage to get a majority of the pledged delegates, she will need us much more than we need or even want her. Hillary and her operatives need to watch their nasty mudslinging mouths before it’s too late.
“Many of Sanders’ voters say they have felt slighted by the Democratic Party, pointing to DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s support for Clinton in 2008 and her investigation into the DNC voter files a week ahead of the Iowa caucuses, which they believe was an effort to undermine Sanders’ chances at the nomination.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-supporters-wont-vote-hillary_us_56d7571ae4b0871f6
0edb9fe
Could she have won the nomination if her campaign and surrogates hadn’t started beating the “AAs won’t vote for Sanders” drum last summer? Then attacked him and his supporters with lies, innuendos, etc? In ’14 Bill mostly stumped with DEM candidates that were advised to run as far away from Obama as possible — they mostly lost. Hillary continued that strategy in the early days of the ’16 campaign. How would that have worked for her if she hadn’t found her Obamaphilia cloak just in time? (She also needed it for cover over the e-mail/server matter.)
Looking back at SuperTuesday ’08, what’s interesting is how poorly she did in states with low AA populations.
The very best thing Hillary could have done would have been ask the DNC for a new Chair the minute she announced her entry into the Presidential race because Debbie was a 2008 campaign co-chair in order to avoid even the slightest hint of unfairness at the top Democratic Party organization. She should have encouraged the DNC to have as many debates as possible to put the values of the Democratic Party front and center in the media to increase Democratic enthusiasm and turnout helping all Democrats.
Since Bernie has never run a negative ad in his entire political career insisting on an issue oriented campaign, Hillary should have matched him in both letter and spirit explaining this was the difference between a Republican and a progressive Democratic campaign. She would then publicly disavow any surrogate that violates this, same as Bernie has done.
When the Democratic race narrowed to just two people she should have asked the DNC to suspend the super delegate rules in this election because she loves small`d’ democracy as much as Bernie does. If she did all this to win fair and square on the issues, Trump wouldn’t have had a chance against a united Democratic Party.
I think it would be and is impossible for Hillary not to lie and cheat taking every advantage even when it’s counterproductive. It would be impossible for her to climb out of bed with Big Money and disavow her third way neoliberal neoconservative views. She had to hide these things because she knows the Democratic base has rejected those views, same as those Blue Dogs the Clinton Machine managed to install.
To answer your observation, she would never get as far as she is now without doing what she did. She could still lose the nomination because anything can happen when we see wild unexpected swings like the one we saw in New Hampshire. The fat lady still has to sing.
Clinton’s ’16 campaign is her ’08 campaign without her foot faults and with total control of the DEM institutional power. DWS at DNC isn’t just a “nice to have” for Hillary but integral to what went wrong for her in ’08. (It’s clear to me that Obama ceded control of the DEM party apparatus to the Clintons but I’m not completely clear on when that was agreed to. Have to admit that it has been effective; so effective that nobody of DEM party stature even dared to challenge her.
Why bother as Obama barely beat her. When Ferraro said that Obama was lucky because he is a black man, she was revealing data from team Clinton’s analysis of the primary and that analysis was correct. It also discounted the racist dog-whistles that her team began blowing in NH and they were stunned that AAs would have a problem with that as this wasn’t a new tactic for a Clinton and had always worked well for them in the past. Team Clinton was gobsmacked when southern AAs suddenly moved to a Obama who had never been affiliated or associated with traditional AA communities as the Clintons have. The impact of a young-dynamic-cool candidate was difficult to quantify, but the impact of Obama being a black man was quantifiable. So, team Clinton shut, locked and threw away the key to that door for her ’16 run.
Her team has nailed down everything that could possibly be nailed down for her current campaign. So much so that it was impossible for her not to win the nomination. How she and her team must have laughed when a septuagenarian, democratic socialist Jew threw his hat into the ring. The ’08 strategy was good to go for ’16. She lost in ’08 not because she or her strategy were wanting but because she had the unfortunate bad luck to end up with an advantaged competitor that came along at the right time for him. But it is fascinating to observe that what hobbled her in ’08 is the exact same thing that has given Sanders purchase. Not enough purchase yet, but it’s unmistakably there.
I’m glad you had a good experience in your Caucus last night. I’m glad Bernie took four States; he did about as well as could have been expected by advance polling.
Regarding the opinion piece you link here: I’m noticing this stuff happening more and more often from Sanders supporters at the Frog Pond. Evidences from pieces published at World Nut Daily and such. Desperate measures for desperate times, I guess.
This one’s in US News. Jeff Nesbit, the author, he looks like a nice feller. The logical reasoning of his think piece is a preposterous mess, and he stipulates facts not in evidence, but whatever. What’s his professional credentials? Among other things, we read he was “…former Vice President Dan Quayle’s communications director…”.
You don’t say.
Voters in Presidential primaries don’t care about or know Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
In fact, very few voters know or care about the delegate count.
None of this is responsible for the turnout, the outcome, nothing. No one will be moved from Hillary with this stuff. Those who want Bernie to win would be best advised to enter other arguments.
Oh, and you think Donald is the right vessel to deliver a populist message?
https:/web.archive.org/web/20061207071233http://donaldtrump.trumpuniversity.com/default.asp?item=98255
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-taj-mahal-owner-icahn-wins-fight-with-casino-union-1452877380
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/02/23/3752619/trump-hotel-dispute/
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/264027-analysis-trump-tax-plan-would-cost-95-trillion
Do tell. There’s so, so, so much more.
Excuse me, the article is from “US News and World Report,” not World Nut Daily whatever that is.
Jeff Nesbit was the National Science Foundation’s director of legislative and public affairs in the Bush and OBAMA administrations; former Vice President Dan Quayle’s communications director; the FDA’s public affairs chief; and a national journalist with Knight-Ridder and others. He’s the executive director of Climate Nexus and the author of more than 24 books. His next book, “Poison Tea” with Thomas Dunne Books at Macmillan (April 5), chronicles the secretive, 20-year alliance between the world’s largest private oil company and the planet’s largest tobacco companies to systematically build the Tea Party movement.
Maybe Jeff Nesbit is a Republican or maybe not considering his new book, Poison Tea. We were talking about a Republican competing against your beloved Hillary. Are all writers you suspect of being Republican now writing for the World Nut Daily in your world?
Get a grip.
Maybe you could forward him some “real facts” from the issues section of Hillary’s web site and get this whole thing straightened out. jeffnesbit@comcast.net.
But maybe this will help you more:
Callow – used to describe a young person who does not have much experience and does not know how to behave the way adults behave. (Thanks AG)
I led with the sentiments that I was happy that you had a good caucus experience and result, and was happy with Sanders’ four victories in caucuses and primaries last night. I’ve frequently mentioned that I will be voting for Sanders when my State primary arrives.
My motivations in offering responses to some (far, far from all) critiques of Hillary here are centered in my view that those critiques are hurtful to the effort to convert Clinton voters to Sanders voters. In order for Sanders to win, we’ve got to move voters. In my view, unpersuasive and offensive arguments are time-wasteful and counterproductive.
I acknowledged your linked opinion piece was from US News. I certainly offered a critique of its content. It’s up to you to defend its claims and methodology; you’re the one who approvingly provided the link. I find the claims so preposterous that the writer’s past as a press flack for Vice President Quayle acted in my view to explain the shoddiness of the piece.
But here you are, arguing with a Sanders supporter. A Sanders supporter trying every day to maintain my place in the reality-based community.
You remind me of the good Christian church people in Oklahoma where I grew up who would say; “Bless their heart,” then proceed to viciously attack them as if that preface made it all right. It didn’t.
I know you have very often said you’re voting for Bernie even sometimes adding you actually work for Bernie. I find both of those claims hard to believe especially in the context of what you wind up saying. I take those claims as sort of a taunt meaning, don’t challenge me or I might change my mind.
The other tiresome thing you do on this site is try to set yourself up as some sort of strategy police on Hillary voter conversion. You add, “I’m noticing this stuff (articles not up to your standards) happening more and more often from Sanders supporters at the Frog Pond.” I ask you centerfielddj, who died and left you in charge of any of this? If you find the things I say unpersuasive offensive time-wasteful counterproductive arguments, then don’t read them, let alone comment on them.
“None of this is responsible for the turnout, the outcome, nothing. No one will be moved from Hillary with this stuff. Those who want Bernie to win would be best advised to enter other arguments…Oh, and you think Donald is the right vessel to deliver a populist message?”
That last rant is nothing short of being a bully, something I will not tolerate from a person such as you.
“But here you are, arguing with a Sanders supporter. A Sanders supporter trying every day to maintain my place in the reality-based community.”
I think you need to find a reality based something. Learn some manners is all I ask. A good place to start is to research what that word callow means. Maybe AG will help you. You would be best served to forget the bully tactics. Above all, concentrate on keeping it to a positive exchange of ideas. Remember, fuck with the bull, you get the horn.
I don’t like writing this kind of post but I felt you had earned an answer since you’ve done the same kind of thing to so many other people on this site. I need to open a window.
I’ve never said I work for Bernie; I don’t.
I won’t be changing my mind, regardless of the discussions here and elsewhere; I’ll be voting for Sanders in the primary.
Overnight, I reconsidered the discussions that I’ve been involved in here at the Pond in recent weeks. I agree that I’ve sometimes been inconsiderate with my words. That I’m being experienced by you as a bully, and that another commenter recently stated they believed I was trolling them, are reactions I’ve got to take responsibility for.
For these things, I’m sorry; I plan on changing my behavior.
Here’s a request I would make, in order to try to reset the relationship we have with each other on this blog. It’s not a conditional demand; I’m planning on changing my behavior here regardless of whether I feel an increased level of respectful argumentation is reciprocal.
What I see happening right now from some is a claim, which I see moving from a general to a much more specific claim, that if Democratic Party voters choose Hillary Clinton as their nominee, those voters will be to blame for Trump winning in November. This is being predicted by some people here, and when what I and others view as plentiful counter-evidence is presented, that evidence is sometimes responded to with indignant anger.
A recommended Trump campaign against Hillary is even being advanced here by opponents to Clinton. What is very emotionally and resonantly expressed in these recommended Trump campaign plans is that the writers want these Trump attacks on Hillary to work. Some of these arguments don’t come off as merely predictive; they appear to reflect a wish for Clinton to lose. I don’t think you and others want a President Trump; I am telling you how it feels to me reading some of these comments. I don’t appear to be alone in that reaction.
Why a very left liberal would not seek ways to shoot holes in an absurd “populist” attack on Clinton by an economic royalist with extreme racist and genocidal policy expressions is beyond me.
I’m certainly not promising to avoid entering into any disagreements. In fact, we need to improve each other’s arguments so we can have the best chance of organizing success; expressing and responding to disagreement is a necessary part of that. I’m going to be more responsible and responsive about the way I enter those disagreements, however.
What an unexpected and pleasant surprise centerfielddj. Thank you and I mean it.
We are completely powerless to do anything about most things in this world. We have our own lives and we each still have our small undemocratic single vote. Another very important thing we all have is the internet and blogs like this one to say what we’re thinking. Our collective voice is immensely more powerful than any of our single voices. This is all we really have as we hope to make a difference.
Hillary is pivoting toward the general election to demonstrate she’s inevitable and to prove she’s the strongest candidate to take on Trump. She says this to anyone who will listen. The only way she can prove this is for not only her but also Bill to attack Trump. I don’t think this will be a draw. Someone(s) is going to get their asses handed to them.
Bernie is saying he’s also going pivot to the general. Since he doesn’t believe in personal attack, this is going to be interesting, issues against a non-issue candidate. There will be a lot of commercial value to matchup polls of Trump vs. Hillary and Trump vs. Sanders because this is by far the most important question we have before us as we complete primary voting in the remaining 35 states.
Regardless if any of us wants it or not, Trump is going to fire back against both Hillary and Bernie with all he’s got. It’s not our job to defend either of them but to see what’s going to stick and what’s not. How well we judge those results will determine if we really did pick the strongest candidate to go against Trump.
Agreed. Thanks for this, AustinSax.
Curious, exit polls in Massachusetts, which Clinton won narrowly, are fascinating. Here are some highlights:
Sanders got 41% of non-white voters (they don’t break down the category further).
Sanders beat Clinton among voters making under $50k, and voters making between $50k and $100k. The only income group she won was voters making over $100k.
(http://coreyrobin.com/2016/03/02/super-tuesday-march-theses/)
Just how wealthy are AA in Mass? Or did they not participate?