slipslidingaway
slipslidingaway's JournalAP’s Premature Call for Clinton Does Disservice to Democracy
http://fair.org/home/action-alert-aps-premature-call-for-clinton-does-disservice-to-democracy/Just leaving this here for the moment, what a weird call on the eve of the California primary.
"The Associated Press (6/6/16) has unilaterally declared Hillary Clinton to be “the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for president,” based on the news agency’s own polling of unelected superdelegates.
Superdelegates—who have a role in the Democratic nominating process based on their institutional positions rather than being chosen by voters—do not vote until the Democratic National Convention, to be held on July 25. They can declare their intention to vote for one candidate or another, just as voters can tell pollsters who they intend to vote for before Election Day, but like voters they can (and do) change their mind at any time before the actual voting. Media do not generally call elections weeks before the actual voting based on voters’ intentions.
The timing of AP’s announcement–on the eve of primaries in California, New Jersey, New Mexico, Montana and South Dakota, and caucuses in North Dakota—raises concerns of voter suppression, intentional or not. The six states choose a total of 806 delegates on June 7, making it the second-biggest day in the Democratic primary calendar (after “Super Tuesday,” March 1, when 865 delegates were at stake)...
...Compounding the damage done by AP’s premature call were other major news outlets that joined the rush to declare the nominating process over. NBC News (6/6/16) came out with “Clinton Hits ‘Magic Number’ of Delegates to Clinch Nomination.” “Hillary Clinton Clinches Democratic Presidential Nomination,” was CNN’s headline (6/6/16); an onscreen graphic reported that “Hillary Clinton Earns Enough Delegates to Win Democratic Nomination,” an odd choice of verb to describe the inclinations of unelected delegates..."
No more donations or time spent on a presidential candidate...
the Dem party chose their candidate from the get go by holding the first debate two and a half months behind the Republicans while the Repubs dominated the news day after day. Many people said it was a mistake at the time.
And the first debate was held after the NY deadline to declare a party, even two of Trump's children missed the deadline to vote for him in NY, and you cannot say that everyone else that missed the deadline were just too stupid and should have known better! Why do you need over 5 months to register for a party and vote in NY? Not to mention all those in NY who were dropped from the voting records!
I will not celebrate 'a victory' that disenfranchises millions of people and a nominee that has several active investigations, the outcome of which, we still do not know.
As was said at the time last year when the Dems took a back seat to the Repubs, if they win, we have only to look at the party leaders who sat on their hands thinking Clinton was going to glide into victory without too much trouble. But the Dems failed to read the state of the people in our nation, the young are saddled with outrageous student debt and the old are experiencing escalating costs with a flatling income. The middle class is shrinking and nobody in our party seems to notice the long term detrimental effects it will have.
Will I be celebrating regime change in another country without having the foresight as to the deadly consequences of their people and how it might affect other countries and our national security?
We need a leader who does not just say I made a mistake time and time again, apologies are nice, but if you lack the proper judgement at crucial moments in history then we need someone else. This is not a popularity contest, too many lives are at stake.
Clinton breaks a California promise
http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Clinton-breaks-a-California-promise-7945454.php"Hillary Clinton’s refusal to keep a promise to debate Sen. Bernie Sanders in California was obviously based on her assumption that the nomination is hers and that there is no need to risk further exposure in an uncontrolled setting.
If her premise were true, it might make sense from a purely strategic standpoint, even if it would represent a flat-out retreat from a pledge she made in February to participate in a California debate in May. The Clinton campaign no doubt figured that whatever flak she might encounter for the broken promise would be preferable to the potential of a gaffe or awkward debate moment that might go viral.
However, a Public Policy Institute of California poll released late Wednesday suggested that state voters do not necessarily agree that the Democratic primary is a settled issue..."
Kick for later, I know the majrity of people have been sinking in past decades ...
those who have not lost are probably a bit younger 
He was not really welcomed by the party, they never thought he would garner the support ...
he did, so they let him run on the ticket.
They never imagined he would garner the support he has, few were willing to take on the Clinton machine.
You say he is damaging the party, but 45% of the electorate agree with his views, not too shabby in elections that block almost a third of citizens who declare themselves as independents and cannot vote in certain states.
Some seem to think elections are about parties, the my team vs. your team, others are more concerned with the outcome of the majority of citizens. If the majority of citizens do not do well we lose our nation, it is a rather simple fact. We cannot survive as a nation when people are suffering and marginalized and I could honestly care less which team gets to fly their flag.
Can we just have a people flag? Both parties try and use the masses as pawns, maybe we can acknowledge that fact and speak of issues instead.
Sanders gave a great speech at Liberty University, he knew he was in unfriendly territory, but that is where you sometimes need to tread.
In case you have not noticed many people now consider themselves independents or unaffiliated, would you dismiss them or try to sway them to your point of view?
DNC and DWS scheduled the first Dem debate months after the Repubs and after the NY deadline
to change party affiliation.
O'Malley and Sanders both objected in the summer of 2015 when the schedule was announced, Clinton never objected at the time. I know that I said at the time that the Dem party was handing the election over to the Repbs and I know I was not alone.
Yes we said that months ago! Do not try and blame the Sanders people, the Dems played a dangerous game by promoting Clinton and many said so at the time!
"Now the Sanders people have gone further and are deliberately stoking anger and a sense of grievance -- less against Clinton than the party itself. This is reckless in the extreme, and it could put Trump in the White House."
Agree the Dems have been reckless from the get go, just as they were pretending about HC back in 2007, and making back room deals with the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Can we wake up please and not be guided by the corporate media!
What the Dem party does not seem to understand is that independents now make up a large portion of the electorate. The younger generation and some of the older generation cannot be brought to heel as quickly as they once were.
Van Jones astutely pointed out the difference between 2008 and today, the rebels were winning and backing Obama in 2008, they are now backing Sanders and will not conform as easily.
Just as the Clinton camp said nothing DIRECTLY about the 'disqualify him, defeat him' campaign they
will let the corporate media do the work, they sit back and say 'we never said that.'
But they do not come out and denounce the lies that are being told by the media as they are beneficial to their campaign and maybe the campaign has suggested/planted ideas as Jeff Zeleny reported.
Funny thing, nobody ever went back to Jeff Zeleny, a senior political analyst at CNN, and asked him who in the Clinton campaign told him of this new Clinton campaign strategy, and now he is covering the Sanders campaign?
Who is this Clinton aide that gave Jeff the "breaking news" which the media picked up and said Clinton wants to disqualify Sanders to which he responded?
Either someone is feeding false info to the corporate media and trying to make their opponent look bad or reporters are making stuff up.
But if reporters are making false accusations the Clinton campaign has done nothing to stop it, then I must ask where is their integrity? The disqualify, defeat strategy was such a blatant example and Clinton did nothing!
So yes I will agree that the Clinton campaign said nothing about this particular instance, they just let it all play out and hope that people do not notice the deception, just as they did with the disqualify, defeat campaign.
And she wants my vote?
The Dem party has been pushing out independents and left leaning Dems for years ...
this year the DNC decided to hold the first debate after the NY deadline for independents to register with a party. Even two of Trump's children missed the deadline, imagine the millions of independents who were not paying attention 6 months prior to the primary?
And why the hell does the US have elections that drag on for years that cost hundreds of millions of dollars and leave millions of children going to bed hungry?
There is no reason, there is no excuse except for those who think power trumps the need of a child to feel satiated before going to sleep at night ... and then the next night ....
Not to mention quashing their dreams to obtain higher skills and live a productive and satisfying life.
This is not the path to a successful nation, it is the path to a nation in decline.
Regarding the "18 trillion in debt" attack on Sanders' proposals ...
repeating so I can find all your great links later!
Thank you!
Profile Information
Member since: Tue Nov 30, 2004, 08:08 PMNumber of posts: 21,210
