HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » uawchild » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 44 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Wed Oct 7, 2015, 07:51 AM
Number of posts: 2,208

Journal Archives

Is David Axelrod an Ageist?

"Former Obama campaign manager David Axelrod weighed in on Joe Biden's position reversal on the Hyde Amendmen, which bars federal funding for most abortions, saying it is a "flip flop flip" which highlights some of the larger problems with his candidacy:

CAMEROTA: But here is my question, has Donald Trump broken the public's appetite for consistency? He obviously changes his position on a daily or hourly basis, perhaps we've passed the era where voters still care about consistent positions.

AXELROD: Maybe, or maybe people will be looking for an alternative that offers more stability than he has offered. I just don't know. It's a very good question, have the standards changed.

Here is the issue with Biden, and people don't like to approach it, but he's 76 years old, he would be 78 when he became president and that would be eight years older than the oldest president who has ever taken office, which is Donald Trump. There are questions about that.

If you are unsteady on the campaign trail that is going to intensify those questions. This is one reason I think they've kept relatively leisurely pace on the campaign trail and away from some of the major events and away from reporters, frankly, because they are worried about things just such as the one we have just seen.


The 15% Rule for Delegates, help me out here

I want to be sure I understand the implications of the DNC's 15% rule for assigning delegates from primaries.

1. Delegates are assigned proportionally based on the % of the votes a candidate receives.

Ok, that's simple and fair.

2. BUT you need to get at least 15% of the votes to receive any delegates.

So, if a candidate gets 14% of the vote, they get zero delegates. If only one candidate gets at least 15% of the vote, they would be assigned ALL the delegates.


3. The candidates who garner at least 15% of the votes have ALL the delegates proportionally divided between them.

THIS is where it gets interesting.

Say there are 3 candidates, B,S and W:

Candidate B gets 30% of the votes
Candidate S gets 14% of the votes
Candidate W gets 16% of the votes

In this case S get ZERO delegates, B gets ~66% of ALL the delegates, and W gets ~33% of the delegates.

The 15% rule makes it seem that a candidate that really was only supported by 30% of the primary's voters was the overwhelming favorite by receiving 66% of the delegates.

I am not sure exactly why this is considered desirable, but it is the current system. Perhaps its to avoid a brokered convention or something. Perhaps it's to weed out the field and allow voters to focus on just a few candidates.

But the lessons that I take away from this is:

Do NOT split your vote between candidates with similar positions

Do not essentially throw away your chance to assign delegates by voting for a candidate that has no chance of making the 15% cut off

So, is this how the 15% rule really works? Please let me know if I got this wrong.


Dem Presidential Candidates Mostly Agree on Marijuana Legalization. The Exception? Joe Biden

In 2016, legalizing marijuana was a niche issue. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders mentioned it occasionally, while former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported the lesser step of removing pot from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.

Things have changed. Nearly every major Democratic contender for the 2020 nomination has come out in support of legalizing marijuana at the federal level, and several candidates have gone even further, proposing expunging non-violent marijuana convictions and investing in communities harmed by the War on Drugs.

The one exception: Former Vice President Joe Biden.

“It’s really an anomaly in the history of presidential politics in this country to have almost all the major Democratic candidates coming out for legalization,” says Erik Altieri, executive director of National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which supports legalization. “Basically, everyone except for Joe Biden is pretty good on this.”


Did Joe Biden say he might REVERT to favoring the Hyde Amendment in the FUTURE !?!

Biden's abrupt U-turn on abortion could cost him in the long run

Analysis: His reaction may have chipped away at his narrative — and at confidence in his decision-making — in ways that hurt him over the course of time.

By Jonathan Allen

Last month, to little fanfare, Biden told an ACLU activist that he would roll back the Hyde amendment.

But his campaign told NBC's Heidi Przybyla, in an article published Wednesday, that he still supported the provision, touching off explicit and implicit criticism from abortion-rights groups, Democratic activists and even some of his rivals for the nomination. He was getting pounded.

Ironically, for a candidate long thought to be most prone to inflicting self-harm through an off-the-cuff remark, this was no gaffe. But it did turn into a major mistake — and one that could cost him in the long run.

"I make no apologies for my last position, and I make no apologies for what I’m about to say," he said. "I can’t justify leaving millions of women without access to the care they need and the ability to ... exercise their constitutionally protected right. If I believe healthcare is a right, as I do, I can no longer support an amendment that makes that right dependent on someone’s zip code."

And still, Biden said, if the threat of accessibility for poor women was removed, he might revert to favoring the Hyde amendment.


What? Did Joe Biden actually say that? That he might REVERT to favoring the Hyde Amendment?

Doesn't he realize that the Hyde Amendment Itself is "a threat to the accessibility" for poor women?

So... Joe Biden was FOR the Hyde Amendment, then, maybe, AGAINST it, then FOR it, then, as of last night, AGAINST it... BUT might REVERT to favoring it in the future?

C'mon man. Talk about trying to straddle the fence on an issue.

The Biden Campaign

Biden just flip flopped flipped on the Hyde Amendment.

1. A week ago he suggested he might change his position from Supporting the Hyde Amendment.

2. Yesterday, he stated that he misheard the question and that he always has and still SUPPORTS the Hyde Amendment.

3. Today, he stated that he is now OPPOSING the Hyde Amendment because of recent Republican restrictions on Abortion Rights.

Three change of position in less than one week.

We are in the process of selecting our party's nominee for the 2020 Presidential Race.

Is this a "smart move to cut his loses" or does it destroy his credibility?

The choice is yours.

Personally, I think the wheels have officially come off the Biden campaign.

Biden reverses stance on Hyde Amendment after blowback

Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden said Thursday he no longer supports the Hyde Amendment, just one day after reaffirming his decades-long support for the ban on federal funding for abortions.

Biden’s presidential campaign had said Wednesday that he still supported the controversial ban.

The news sparked intense blowback from members of his party, including fellow presidential hopefuls, who criticized Biden for reaffirming his stance amid a spate of anti-abortion measures being passed in state legislatures.


OK... 1 week ago Joe Biden Suggested he might change his stance from OPPOSING the Hyde Amendment to supporting it.

Yesterday, Joe Biden said that was not true, he misheard the question and that he still SUPPORTED the Hyde Amendment.

Today, Joe Biden say's things have changed and he NOW OPPOSES the Hyde Amendment.


How are we supposed to put faith in the promises Joe Biden is making when he does this sort of thing?

Most Democrats disagree with Biden on the Hyde Amendment

"A new poll conducted for POLITICO by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found that only 36 percent of likely voters want to overturn the long-standing ban on Medicaid paying for abortion with federal funds. But among self-described Clinton voters, 57 percent support scrapping the current rules."


yep, the SAME POLL from 2016 that showed "most Americans" (58%) agreed with Joe Biden on SUPPORTING the Hyde Amendment
showed that MOST DEMOCRATS (57%) OPPOSED Biden's current position.

First, discussing a "new poll" from 2016 seems besides the point, but if we are to take away ANYTHING from that poll shouldn't it be that we Democrats OPPOSED the Hyde Amendment and we still do?

It's the official Democratic Party's position since 2016.

Elizabeth Warren up to 12% DU Primary Preference!

I just noticed the Democratic Underground blue Primary Preference Ticker just moved Warren up to 12%!


Also, Joe Biden has dropped back down to 14% from his previous high water mark of 15%.

The first debate is in 3 weeks. Things are starting to heat up!

"So Joe Biden and Republicans still support the Hyde Amendment. Luckily, we have alternatives"

"So Joe Biden and Republicans still support the Hyde Amendment. Luckily, we have alternatives"
by Kos, daily Kos Staff

"It wasn’t enough for Joe Biden to praise Dick Cheney; now he’s decided to join Republicans in still supporting the Hyde Amendment—the rule that forbids any tax dollars from being used for abortion services.

He’s always been a staunch supporter of the Hyde Amendment. “As a U.S. senator from Delaware, Biden voted against a 1977 compromise that allowed Medicaid to fund abortions that included exceptions for victims of rape and incest in addition to concerns for the life of the mother,” reports NBC News. “While the rape and incest exceptions passed in that case, Biden voted in 1981 to again remove them, in what was the most far-reaching ban on federal funds ever enacted by Congress.” Holy shit. That’s extreme shit.

Luckily, the rest of the serious Democratic candidates are on solid footing. Elizabeth Warren’s reaction to Biden’s support for the amendment was unbelievably good. Pete Buttigieg has a deft touch when discussing the topic. Bernie Sanders was unequivocal about ending the Hyde Amendment, as was (of course) Kamala Harris.

In a political climate in which red states are emboldened to assault reproductive rights with the hope that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will deliver a death blow to Roe v. Wade, it’s tragic that there’s any daylight between our presidential contenders on the issue.

Then again, we do need to whittle the field down some more. So maybe Biden is doing everyone a favor."


This bit made my brain explode:
“As a U.S. senator from Delaware, Biden voted against a 1977 compromise that allowed Medicaid to fund abortions that included exceptions for victims of rape and incest in addition to concerns for the life of the mother,” reports NBC News. “While the rape and incest exceptions passed in that case, Biden voted in 1981 to again remove them, in what was the most far-reaching ban on federal funds ever enacted by Congress.”

I had NO IDEA that Joe Biden voted AGAINST RAPE and INCEST exceptions in the anti-choice Hyde Amendment in 1977. I also had no idea that he voted in 1981 to REMOVE RAPE and INCEST exceptions that passed despite his previous vote against them.

And JUST YESTERDAY Biden states he STILL supports the Hyde Amendment? Holy Cow. Sorry, but this is 2019. The Democratic Party's official position as of 2016 is to OPPOSE the Hyde Amendment.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 44 Next »