LiberalFighter

Journal Profile Recs Send DU Mail Ignore RSS feed

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Wisconsin
Current location: NE Indiana
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 41,123

About Me

Member since 3/21/2002. I have been interested in politics since the early 70's. I registered to vote by riding my bicycle to the nearest registration site while still in high school. The first time I voted was with my parents. By the general election, I was in college and voted absentee. During the Watergate hearing I was in college and watched the hearings. I have only voted for a Republican once. And it was due to the endorsement of the local union's political group. It was for the position of the county sheriff. I have never missed voting in an election. Both primary and general. I have voted in at least 69 elections. Political Science and History was my focus in college. I became more involved in politics in 1987 with the mayor's campaign helping at headquarters. It was at this time that I became a precinct committee person. In a couple of years I was involved in setting up the database for a congressional campaign due to Quayle becoming VP and Dan Coats was appointed as Quayle's replacement. I have attended many Democratic State Conventions and other Democratic fundraisers and events.

Journal Archives

2020 (1)
- November (1)
2016 (53)
- June (10)
- May (22)
- April (22)
Older Archives

Hillary Clinton Is A Progressive Democrat, Despite What You May Have Heard

Huff Post

If Sanders is the standard by which you’re going to decide whether a politician is a progressive, then almost nobody from the Democratic Party would qualify. Take Sanders out of the equation, and suddenly Clinton looks an awful lot like a mainstream progressive — firmly on the left side of the American ideological spectrum and maybe on the left side of the Democratic Party’s, as well.

Note that this partial list leaves out whole categories of policies — like immigration, gun violence, and abortion rights — where Clinton also has staked out strongly progressive positions. In some cases, her positions are arguably more progressive than the ones Sanders has taken. (The list also does not include foreign policy, where Clinton’s interventionist instincts put her at odds with many progressives — but where, as Max Fisher of Vox has noted, Clinton’s enthusiasm for diplomacy sets her apart from conservatives.)

But Clinton’s responsibility for her husband’s agenda isn’t always self-evident, because, as first lady, she had less ability to dissent than other advisers. A better indicator of her instincts is probably her subsequent record as a senator from New York. According to those same DW-NOMINATE ratings, Clinton was the chamber’s 11th most-liberal member during her tenure. It’s a crude statistic, but it suggests strongly that she was not just progressive relative to the Senate. It suggests that she was also progressive relative to members of her own party.

Posted by LiberalFighter | Mon May 9, 2016, 07:57 AM (2 replies)

Bernie Sanders begins making case to Hillary Clinton’s superdelegates

Yahoo 5-1-2016

Sanders pointed out that although he won Washington state’s Democratic caucuses by 46 points (73 percent to 27 percent) and 25 of the state’s 36 pledged delegates, Clinton has the support of 10 of Washington’s Democratic unpledged superdelegates.

But no mention of the states that Clinton won. If it was applied by the same rational to both sides Clinton would receive 374 while Sanders would be limited to 143. But that was not the purpose of the automatic delegates.

“Let’s be clear,” Sanders said. “It is virtually impossible for Secretary Clinton to reach the majority of convention delegates by June 14 — the end of the primary season — with pledged delegates alone. She will need superdelegates to take her over the top at the convention in Philadelphia. In other words, it will be a contested convention.”

So Sanders is also pushing for the "Convoluted Math" like some of the Bernies over in the other group.

It is doubtful that the delegates supporting Hillary will switch over to Sanders when he has been a jerk towards them.

Posted by LiberalFighter | Sun May 1, 2016, 07:35 PM (44 replies)

Based on the most recent Indiana poll. (50-46)

Using proportional application of delegates at each level it would be HC: 45 - BS: 38.
--
Using proportional application on total delegates it would be HC: 43 - BS: 40.
The 50 - 46 poll equates to a 52% - 48% equivalence.

Hillary will get between 43 and 45 delegates out of 83.
Sanders will get between 38 and 40 delegates.

Including only Pledged Delegates [Majority is 2,026]:
Hillary -: [1,665 + 45] 1,710 - - Need: 316 -- Advantage: 302 Delegates
Sanders: [1,370 + 38] 1,408 - - Need: 618

Pledged Delegates remaining: 933

Including Automatic Delegates [Majority is 2,383]:
Hillary -: [PD 1,710 + AD 489] 2,199 - - Need: 184 -- Advantage: 750 Delegates
Sanders: [PD 1,408 + AD 41 ] 1,449 - - Need: 934

Total Delegates remaining: PD 933 + AD 183 = 1,116
Percent Needed:
-- Hillary -: 16.5%
-- Sanders: 83.7%

Using Convoluted Majority Method *
Percent of Pledged Delegates needed to reach the Convoluted Majority:
-- Hillary -: 72.1%
-- Sanders: 104.5%

* Convoluted Majority Method involves using the majority of both Pledged Delegates (4,051) and Automatic Delegates (714) which totals 4,765. But requiring only Pledged Delegates to reach that majority.

Indiana has 9 congressional districts. There are two with 8 delegates, one with 7 delegate, three with 6 delegates, and three with 5 delegates.

Unless there is a 12.5% spread in the votes for districts with 8 delegates it is likely to split 4-4. CD1 is in the Lake County area (near Chicago) and CD7 is in Indianapolis. I think at least one of them will split in Hillary's favor. But instead of a 2 delegate advantage as it was in 2008 it will be a 3 delegate advantage.

The spread in the votes for districts with 6 delegates would need to be 16.6% otherwise the split would be 3-3. The districts are the 2nd, 8th, and 9th. The 8th and 9th would likely be the best for Sanders. But Clinton won the popular vote in all three of the districts in 2008 with the 8th and 9th by wide margins enough to get a two delegate advantage in both of them.

Districts with only 5 delegates will likely split 3-2. Clinton won CD4 and CD 6 in 2008 with Obama winning CD3. If Sanders has a chance of winning one it would be in the 3rd. Basing that only on Fort Wayne as a major city and with IPFW. But I don't think IPFW has the same draw as other universities for Sanders.

CD5 with 7 delegates has a chance of going Sanders with UAW members. But retirees could possibly pull it out for Clinton. Retirees outnumber actives by a considerable margin.

Obama won the following counties: Allen, Boone, Elkhart, Hamilton, Lake, Marion, Monroe, St Joseph, Tippecanoe. There are 92 counties in Indiana.

2008 Primary Recap
Clinton's advantage by districts were CD6 3-2, CD8 4-2, CD9 4-2.
Obama's advantage by districts were CD7 4-2.
The At Large delegates split 8-8 and the PLEO delegates split 5-4 for Clinton.

Total results were Clinton: 38 - Obama: 34
Popular votes were Clinton: 646,282 - Obama: 632,073

Posted by LiberalFighter | Sun May 1, 2016, 10:40 AM (7 replies)

Jeffrey Berman: Obama's Delegate Mastermind (2009)

Daily Kos

Berman, Sen. Barack Obama’s director of delegate selection, chimed in during a conference call with the media to make an unexpected case: Despite Clinton’s popular vote victory in Nevada and an authoritative Associated Press count giving Clinton the edge in the Nevada delegate count, Obama had actually won the state by the only measure that mattered.

"Obama had a majority in the district that had an odd number of delegates, so he won an extra seat," Berman told the puzzled press; the Associated Press delegate expert, on the call, promised to revise his count.

Obama’s Nevada delegate victory was widely viewed at the time as a curiosity, an asterisk to Clinton’s win. But in February, as Obama amassed delegates despite losing big states, the shape of the race became clear: The name of the game was delegates.

It was the game Berman and a friend, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, had been playing all along. And as Clinton’s staff scrambled after Super Tuesday to remake her strategy to meet that reality, it began to become clear that Berman had helped build Obama a lead too big to surmount.

Berman is also an automatic delegate supporting Clinton.

Posted by LiberalFighter | Sat Apr 30, 2016, 06:52 PM (3 replies)

EdwardBernays over at Bernie Sanders group

Hillary Clinton has gotten hundreds of thousands fewer votes than in the 2008 primaries.

Using a Breibart (rightwing propaganda) piece fails with the argument.

Total voter turnout in Democratic Primaries are lower in 2016 than all states in 2008 except for Illinois and Michigan.

Illinois -- 2008: 2,038,614 --- 2016: 2,039,049 -- Increase of 435 votes.
Michigan* -- 2008: 594,398 --- 2016: 1,169,075 -- Increase of 574,677.

There were no other states with a higher turnout in 2016 compared to 2008.

* Obama and other Democrats removed their name from the ballot due to Michigan not following the rules.

Running totals of 2016 primaries/caucuses completed between 2008 and 2016.

2008: 27,003,652
2016: 20,966,048

Running total of votes between Sanders in 2016 and Obama in 2008 for primaries/caucuses completed.

Obama: 13,134,833
Sanders: 9,110.693

Posted by LiberalFighter | Sat Apr 30, 2016, 12:51 PM (7 replies)

Sanders to Democratic Party: Whose Side are We On?

Bernie Sanders Press Release

He said a key reason why 63 percent of voters did not go to the polls in the last election and nearly 80 percent of young and low-income people stayed home is that “the Democratic Party, up until now, has not been clear on which side they are on on the major issues facing this country.”

On issue after issue, Sanders challenged the Democratic Party to pick sides. “You can’t be for Wall Street and the working people of this country. You cannot be for the drug companies and senior citizens and veterans,” he said. “You cannot be on the side of workers and support those corporations that have thrown millions on the street.”

The failure of Democratic leadership to send a clear message on where the party stands is why Republicans have grabbed control Congress and Statehouses. “The problem in my view is not that the Republicans are winning elections. It’s that Democrats are losing elections,” he said.

Sanders also faulted Democrats for not pushing election reforms that would increase voter turnout and help Democrats win elections. For example, he said, Democrats should get behind legislation he introduced in the Senate to register everyone to vote when they turn 18 years old. “The Democratic Party has got to be very clear. We need automatic voter registration.” In 2015, Oregon became the first state in the nation to require state agencies to automatically register voters when they get a new driver’s license or identification card.

Still attacking the Democratic Party.

Posted by LiberalFighter | Sat Apr 30, 2016, 11:02 AM (24 replies)

Scandal List

The Beauty Pageant Scandals

Racial Housing Discrimination

Mafia Ties

Trump University

Tenant Intimidation

The Four Bankruptcies

The Undocumented Polish Workers

Alleged Marital Rape

Breaking Casino Rules

Antitrust Violations

Condo Hotel Shenanigans

Corey Lewandowski

Suing Journalist Tim O’Brien for Libel

Posted by LiberalFighter | Fri Apr 29, 2016, 09:48 PM (1 replies)

Clinton shifting staff to general election swing states (USA Today)

USA Today

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is redeploying its army of primary election staff to traditional general election battleground states in preparation for a campaign against Republican Donald Trump, according to a senior campaign official.

The redeployment comes as the campaign is ratcheting back advertising in upcoming Democratic primary states, including Oregon and California. It also follows a decision by her challenger, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, to lay off hundreds of staff after losing four of five critical Eastern primary states to Clinton on Tuesday.

The Clinton campaign official wouldn’t give details on specifically where staff will be concentrated. However, those close to the campaign say the second wave is likely to hit states that Barack Obama made competitive during his first White House run eight years ago, such as Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia. The campaign also already has a state director in Colorado.

“That is the starting point this time,” said Elleithee. The real question is whether, with Trump as her likely competitor, Clinton can even further expand the map to states that Democrats believe will eventually fall into their column given the nation’s changing demographics. These include Arizona, Georgia and the big prize, said Elleithee, of Texas.

Posted by LiberalFighter | Fri Apr 29, 2016, 08:10 PM (10 replies)

Democratic - Republican Primary Vote Comparisons

Democratic Primary Popular Votes
2016: 21,708,003 * 12,255,888 (Clinton)
2012: 8,844,760 * 8,044,659 (Obama)
2008: 37,170,231 * 17,584,692 (Obama)
2004: 16,535,823 * 10,045,891 (Kerry)
2000: 14,013,416 * 10,642,105 (Gore)

Republican Primary Popular Votes
2016: 25,535,872 * 10,125,402 (Trump)
2012: 19,272,346 * 10,048,134 (Romney)
2008: 20,613,585 * 9,615,533 (McCain)
2004: 8,008,070 * 7,853,863 (Bush)
2000: 19,519,539 * 12,089,564 (Bush)

== First column of votes consist of totals of all candidates in primary ==

Information courtesy of The Green Papers

Posted by LiberalFighter | Fri Apr 29, 2016, 03:30 PM (2 replies)

Indiana Primary and History

Clinton did win Indiana 38-34 in 2008. The reason why I expect(ed) Indiana to go Sanders is because we have an open primary. But, Hillary has won more open primaries than Sanders.

Recent poll from 538 shows average of 48.8 - 41 favoring Clinton.

Indiana's polling hours are 6am to 6pm. That might be a factor too.

ANOTHER bit of information. Indiana only had 72 delegates in 2008. But because of the formula that the DNC uses to determine delegate allocation Indiana will have 83 delegates this year. In 2012 they had 96 delegates. The reason for the fluctuation is due to voter turnout for a Democratic candidate over a 3 election cycle.

Below shows the allocation of delegates in this election and the past 3. Allocation of delegates by Democratic voter turnout during those years is also at the congressional district level. This reflects how a weighting factor may give a state with comparable population a different delegate count.

Obama won Indiana in the 2008 general election which is the reason for the jump in delegates in 2012.

District * 2004 * 2008 * 2012 * 2016
CD1 -- - -- 6 -- -- 6 -- -- 10 -- -- 8
CD2 -- - -- 5 -- -- 6 -- --- 7 -- -- 6
CD3 -- - -- 4 -- -- 4 -- --- 6 -- -- 5
CD4 -- - -- 4 -- -- 4 -- --- 6 -- -- 5
CD5 -- - -- 4 -- -- 4 -- --- 6 -- -- 7
CD6 -- - -- 5 -- -- 5 -- --- 6 -- -- 5
CD7 -- - -- 5 -- -- 6 -- --- 8 -- -- 8
CD8 -- - -- 5 -- -- 6 -- --- 7 -- -- 6
CD9 -- - -- 5 -- -- 6 -- --- 7 -- -- 6
AtLarge -- 15 --- 16 ----- 11 -- -- 9
PLEO --- -- 9 -- -- 9 -- -- 22 -- - 18
Delegates -67 --- 72 -- -- 96 -- - 83

Posted by LiberalFighter | Fri Apr 29, 2016, 09:58 AM (14 replies)

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »