merrily
merrily's JournalObama on TV NOW being great!
No, nothing like it. Amusing how some people seem to view Benghazi as a shibboleth.
Gee, all we have to do is mention Benghazi and trying to hold Hillary responsible for her Iraq War speech and vote (or for anything, really) will automatically seem silly.
Sorry, no. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=801381
Now, you've circled back to electability, which I've already covered, a sign of last wordism.
Will you even read this?
I don't see much practical difference between what the Democratic candidates would get done in office. If anything, Clinton would be the most effective in fighting the GOP.
Not surprisingly, I disagree. Also, your perspective is all wrong, given the reality of Congress.
Republicans currently control both Houses. Projections are that, because of the 2010 redistricting, they will continue to control the House for years. Obama should have "fought" them 2009-2011, when he had strong majorities in both Houses. When Republicans are in control, fighting them is pissing in the wind and only makes a Democrat look weak. When they are in control, you have to work with them, not false bravado "fight" them for benefit of the fans in the bleachers.
Hillary has long berated Republicans in ad hom, applause line/cheap shot ways, sometimes making herself look foolish in the process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vast_right-wing_conspiracy
She was disrespectful to, and openly contemptuous, of Republican members of the House during her "grilling," which, judging by the gifs in DU sig lines she and her DU fans apparently found Hillarious. However, I thought it extremely shortsighted for someone who was then simultaneously seeking the Presidency. She recently called them the enemy of which she is most proud. Say what you will, they are her fellow Americans and people with whom she hopes to work, beginning in January, 2017. To me, all this was not funny, but very poor judgment-- not nearly as bad as Hillary's Iraq War speech and vote, but bad.
Contradistinctively, Sanders has (mostly) berated Republican politicians on issues, something all politicians understand. They may not agree with him, but they like him personally and respect him (as someone with whom to work). http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251715777. Also, he is able to work with them so well that the veterans' bill he did with McCain not only passed, but became a case study in working across the aisle in the Brookings Institute. https://www.google.com/search?q=merrily+Sanders+Brookings+Institute&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl
Despite all her boasts of getting things done better than Obama and Sanders could, Hillary's Senate record on passing bills or amendments that she wrote or co-wrote is pitiful. Sanders's record, even as an independent, is much better than hers--and with bills and amendments that were substantive, not re-naming a Post Office or celebrating the anniversary of the American Revolution.
Oh, I know very well that the juries have not been stacked in favor of Bernie for some time now.
I've served on a lot of juries. For a minute and a half, the votes were unanimous or six one way, with the occasional five one way. That was not surprising, given that about 90% of the board was the "left of the left." What was surprising: suddenly votes got very close. 4 to 3 or 3 to 4. Yet, Bernie's supporters were still in the great majority. I would love to know the explanation, but I'm relatively certain I never will.
Aided and abetted. Helped sell the war to Americans, much as did Colin Powell in his UN speech.
Her speech was not for her fellow Senators, any more than Powell's speech was for nation members of the UN.
Ambassadors to the UN do not come inwith an open mind about war until they hear what they think is the best speech and neither do Senators. Their decisions are made in other rooms, for reasons having nothing to do with televised speeches. Those speeches were for American viewing public many of whom are swayed by such things.
Colin Powell had just polled most trusted figure in the Bush Administration. Hillary was not just a Senator, but the First Lady of President that, bless his heart, always polled popular, even after impeachment. She was as close to the face of the Democratic Party as any individual member of Congress can possibly be.
First Lady and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech put the Democratic imprimatur on that vote and that war to help sell it to Americans.
Please show love to Ohio State Rep Nina Turner and other endorsers
Ms. Turner decided that Senator Sanders earned her endorsement. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251799937
As you will recall, New Hampshire State Representative Timothy Smith was, IIRC, the first state or federal Democratic officeholder to endorse Senator Sanders. In answer to questions from facebook users, he said that there was indeed enormous pressure for Democratic politicians to endorse "another candidate." (No doubt the Lincoln Chafee machine struck again!) So, any Democratic officeholder who endorses Senator Sanders deserves love. http://www.democraticunderground.com/128054423
Smith thought showing love to endorsers publicly might make a difference, showing politicians that the public would have their back if they made the choice they were being pressured not to make. So do I.
Show love to Ms. Turner and, if you haven't gotten around to showing love to Smith, please do that as well. And, of course, the co-chairs of the House Progressive Committee, which Bernie founded during his first year in Congress, Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva, who have also endorsed Sanders.
https://www.facebook.com/Keith.Ellison/
https://www.facebook.com/Rep.Grijalva/
https://www.facebook.com/Rep-Timothy-Smith-235121411547/timeline/
https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=Nina%20Turner%20state%20representative
You know what to do.
Who Votes
NOTE TO HOSTS: In a literal way, this OP is not directly related to the primary election of Senator Sanders. However, from a less literal perspective, it is. For one thing, it tells us where we may want to focus giving out leaflets, campaign buttons (hopefully from the Sanders store) and our GOTV efforts and so on. For another, a lot has been said about the support of the youth vote" for Sanders, are they showing up in polls, will they or won't they vote, etc. That said, I'm going to love you just as much if you lock or not.Who Votes
Potentially useful terms:
Millennials, aka Gen Y--Those born in a year from the early 1980s through the early 2000s (Some say 1982-2004).
The youngest generation whose members will be eligible to vote in 2016 and the largest living generation.
Gen X-- Those born in a year from 1965 through the early 1980s
Post War Baby Boomers--those born in a year from 1946 through 1964 (after this, the bracket years get fuzzier)
Let's just call everyone else, including the so-called Greatest Generation, either the oldest voters or too young to vote in 2016.
Let's start with the so-called youth vote. As Senator Sanders has pointed out many times, most people who are eligible to vote do not show up to vote. The conventional political wisdom is that the youth vote is notorious for not voting, so young voters do not really matter. However, I have posted that the conventional political wisdom is neither conventional nor wisdom. (apologies to Mike Myers).
2012 In 2012, the youth vote was decisive for Obama. Repeat: In 2012, the youth vote was decisive for Obama.
About half of all eligible people ages 18-29 voted in Tuesday’s election, roughly the same level as 2008, according to Peter Levine, the center’s director. The youth vote’s share of the electorate actually increased slightly from 18 percent to 19 percent. In total, 22 million-23 million young people voted, according to the analysis.
Levine and "Rock The Vote" President Heather Smith both said in a conference call with reporters on Wednesday that increased turnout over presidential elections in 2004, 2008 and 2012 shows high voter turnout is a “new normal” with the millennial generation, compared to less engaged voters in Generation X. In the 1990s, youth turnout was regularly less than 40 percent.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/study-youth-vote-was-decisive-083510#ixzz3rK749NfS
Moral: The "conventional political wisdom notwithstanding," campaigning and GOTV efforts in college campuses and places where college kids gather will be far from wasted. Before you go, check online for residency requirements and the like so you can answer questions. If you can't figure out how to find them or parse them, call your Secretary of State's Office or your town or city hall.
2004-2008
In the last three general elections – 2004, 2006, and 2008 — young voters have given the Democratic Party a majority of their votes, and for all three cycles they have been the party’s most supportive age group. This year, 66% of those under age 30 voted for Barack Obama making the disparity between young voters and other age groups larger than in any presidential election since exit polling began in 1972.
The article says that the youth vote was not decisive for Obama in 2008, but young voters made a difference, both with their votes and with their enthusiastic volunteer efforts.
http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/11/13/young-voters-in-the-2008-election/ (lots of info of various kinds in this article).
So, whatever the case may have been in the 1990s or earlier, there's a new sheriff in town as far as voters showing up at the polls--and especially for Democrats. This is the future of our Party and we'd better think twice before we turn them off with cronyism or shenanigans.
OK, who else shows up at the polls? Educated people and wealthy people--and we know there's a correlation between education and earnings. Great reasons for Democrat to push for making higher education more and more accessible. (The more people vote, the likelier Democrats are to be elected). http://cnnchangethelist.tumblr.com/post/31863379479/on-who-votes-and-who-doesnt
Women vote in greater numbers than men and a good percentage of older people also vote.http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/census-data-finds-who-votes-and-who-doesnt/ (June 2012, probably based on data gathered in 2011)
Beloveds, this is so very important. It is the first opportunity Americans have had of this kind since at least LBJ (domestically--Sanders is better on foreign policy).
Holidays are upon us and the first caucus (Iowa) is February 1, the first primary (New Hampshire) February 9 and Super Tuesday is March 1.
It's Donation O'Clock, Volunteer O'Clock and GOTV O'Clock, maximum efforts on all three, from now until at least Super Tuesday.
Occam's razor seems to be cited to try to convince us that all is exactly as it seems
on the surface or exactly as we've been told--until and until someone who thumbed his or her nose at Occam long enough to start investigating indisputably proves otherwise. Then, those who had theretofore been wielding Occam's razor to slice consideration of that issue suddenly scatter silently....until the next time.
As far as I am concerned, Godwin can * Occam's Razor and Occam can * Godwin's fake "Law." Both have become internet code for "I'm right and this is all I've got to 'prove' it, but sit down and shut up anyway."
Finally connected with my politics buddy who attended a fundraising dinner with Sanders.
The event was held in a home in Beverly Hills proper on several acres of land. Price was $200 a head.
In 2008, I was invited to an event at $2000 a head in Boston to be in the reception area to see Obama before he went into the dinner, which was $10,000 a head. So, $200 a head is quite reasonable.
Not only that, but Sanders was coming from an event held for young people that was only $25 a head (another reason he has our hearts, as well as our minds). After the event my buddy attended, Sanders was going to another fundraising dinner. And there was a rally somewhere in that 24 hours as well, so it had to have been exhausting.
The band America, from the 1960s played. (That's what my friend said. I googled. They formed in 1970.)
My friend said he sat directly across the pool from Sanders as Sanders spoke. Sanders gave what my friend dubbed "the greatest hits from his stump speech." Then, for me, the disappointing part: After Sanders finished his prepared remarks, those present clustered around him and my buddy did not "feel like elbowing my way in." So, he had no little very personal tidbit to relate.
Some time ago, my friend had sent me the Sanders' buttons he had been given at the event. So, there's that. I had ordered buttons to give away when the Sanders store had its sale at the end of the fundraising quarter, but these buttons will be the ones I keep.
And that's all she wrote. (This was an enormous amount of info for my friend to convey. I told you he was terse.)
P.S. More details in Reply 3 from dirtydickcheney, who also attended the event.
Gonna pat myself on the back (and maybe get others thinking?)
So, Saturday, I had to get medical care. (No worries; it needed immediate attention, but was simple to treat and I am much better.)
It being Saturday and this being Boston, that meant going to the hospital. I took a cab. On the way back, I had the presence of mind to tip the cab driver more than 100% of the fare. (Not as big a deal as it sounds. The fare was not much.)
And, as I handed him the money, I said "Keep the change and please consider voting for Senator Sanders in the Democratic primary." He looked as stunned as he could look. Don't know if it did any good, but I bet he tells the story to someone else.
The reason I pat myself on the back is, I don't think many people going to the drug store from the hospital would have the presence of mind to squeeze in a bit of campaigning.
Where or how have you sneaked in, or squeezed in, a plug for Senator Bernie Sanders?
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:49 AMNumber of posts: 45,251
