home

Saturday Open Thread

It's moving day here. I'm beyond exhausted. I also have to figure out how to hook up my cable.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

Update: This may be the second time I have ever rated a Comcast employee a 10. "Linda" was incredible -- patience, knowledge, the whole 9 yards. The connections were so screwed up, I had the coax going from the wall to the modem instead of from the wall to the single end of the splitter and from one side of the double end of the splitter to the X1 box. Everything was working fine on Monday when the movers disconnected the TV and took it out of the house so the floor people could rip out and replace the hardwood floors.

Only six days and I still blew it -- even after reading the instructions. "Linda" also got the X1 box and TV in the bedroom working again.

Hopefully next time I'll just be able to look up this post: Coax goes from wall to single end of splitter. On the double side of the splitter, one coax goes to RF in on cable box, other goes to coax on cable modem. (The router and ethernet cords I got right.)

Why use an old fashioned splitter and avoid Comcast Voice, modems and routers? I don't want Comcast Voice because their residential service doesn't have a rollover or "hunt" feature for two lines (when one line is busy, the call automatically goes to the second line), only call waiting. I got tired of paying $200 a month to Comcast Business Voice for two home phone lines. It was a long contract and when it was up, I bolted. Century Link has automatic rollover and landlines are much easier to use with a fax machine (and yes, some companies insist on faxing vs email, particularly for transmitting financial or medical information.

Also, and more importantly, if you use an Xfinity or Comcast gateway router, you are opening up your home network for Comcast to use as a hotspot. There was a lawsuit over this. Supposedly, it doesn't affect your privacy but it puts a lot of unnecessary traffic on your connection and slows it down. I live right near a coffee shop and in a semi-commercial area -- that's the last thing I need.

Update: Sorry, I've been offline and missed the news of Justice Scalia passing. BTD has a thread up here, I just put one up but will take it down since it duplicates BTD's thread.

< Friday Open Thread | Justice Antonin Scalia Dead at 79 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • New Dem SC Poll from ARG (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:21:42 PM EST
    Clinton +38

    No bump for Bernie! (none / 0) (#128)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 06:51:38 AM EST
    I was telling people he'd hit a brick down there.

    As a wise man once said, in politics, demography is destiny.

    Parent

    I keep (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 06:54:21 AM EST
    telling people though no one seems to want to listen is that Bernie has no constituency in SC outside of some college students and they are your least reliable voting bloc. I'm sure he'll meet the threshold to pick up some delegates.

    Parent
    It's possible ... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 07:05:15 AM EST
    if things go against him that day, he might not.

    But I expect he will.

    Still it will be a tough day for those little Bernie fans who think he can magically produce black votes.

    Parent

    To be fair (none / 0) (#182)
    by pitachips on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:43:14 AM EST
    ARG is nothing to brag about. They had Hillary down only 9 points in NH prior to voting and have been one of the more unreliable polling outfits.

    Parent
    They (none / 0) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:47:05 AM EST
    are unreliable but no less unreliable than the one that came out of NV the other day which has no record at all which was touted by everyone.

    You Guv is showing no change in SC from their last poll where she's +20.

    Parent

    Las Vegas Sun (none / 0) (#188)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:49:43 AM EST
    Endorses Hillary today.

    Parent
    I think this helps hillary (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by pitachips on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:44:19 PM EST
    For dem voters who are somewhat on the fence I think scalia's death makes the issue of electability more real and immediate. No one knows what will happen in congress so the issue of whether sanders or clinton would be better at enacting their agenda is somewhat of a wash. But for people whose hearts may be with sanders but think Hillary is marginally more electable I think this will push them into the Hillary camp.

    Jondee regarding "canned" (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:06:17 PM EST
    You asked in a previous thread what "canned" meant when I used it to referring to Sanders' "canned responses".

    It means something that has been prepared ahead of time and used repeatedly with no little or no variation, i.e. not spontaneous.

    The term "canned speech" or "canned response" is often used to reflect the way people like Sanders use language.

    The term comes from the notion of canned fruits, vegetables and preserves.  They are there for use at any time.  And have a consistency in taste.  But lack freshness.

    Clear?

    Of course I knew what you meant (none / 0) (#193)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 12:24:41 PM EST
    But, is that really the most important issue? Really? I thought we dealt with substance here, not which candidate comes across as more mechanical, or which one looks like as frosty as a Kelvinator turned inside-out while on it's way to a meeting with the Dalai Lama..

    Lets not get too caught up fixating on and snapping at gnats while swallowing camels, "as the Good Book says" is all I'm saying.

    Sanders is what? 73? Of course he's going to get fatigued and start running on autopilot at some points. That in itself doesn't make him a wrong-wrong-wrong doddering old futzer who never says anything worth listening to and thinking about..

    Parent

    I know one thing for sure, (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by NYShooter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:37:37 PM EST
    if the tables were turned, and, we had a Republican lame duck as President, he could nominate Mussolini, incarnate, and he'd be confirmed, and, seated before you knew what hit you. Such is the difference between Democrats and Republicans in this day and age.

    Now, before the bullets start flying, let me get this off my chest (for about the 100'th. time)

    I learned the meaning of the term, "bully pulpit," when I was in the 3'd grade. And, I learned something else in all the years between then and now. The Republicans know how to use it, The Democrats, it seems, don't even know it exists.

    Donald Trump, a despicable, narcissistic, con-man, can come on the scene, and, overnight get millions of voters to follow him slavishly. And, he did it with just his big mouth, a mic, and, a whole lot of willing ears.

    Rewind a few years: President Obama, together with all the top Democratic Leadership, were voted into office with the greatest mandate one could possibly dream of. They get one pushback from the opposition, and for the next 8 years we've been stuck with, "those mean Republicans," as the reason why hardly any of the things we voted them into office for could be accomplished.

    I could go on and on why our own Democrats are a bigger problem than those Republicans. But, I think everyone knows that by now. And, that's why, in spite of all the (self inflicted) problems and faults Hillary Clinton brings into this campaign, she's the best hope we have for some fundamental, real, and profound changes to take place......she knows how the game is played. And, I can't help but feel that when it comes to the upcoming battles with the Republicans, she's thinking to herself,

    "Batter up!"


    Beg to differ (none / 0) (#126)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 05:56:27 AM EST
    Harry Reid ran the most dictatorial Senate ever.
    At least the Republicans have gotten back to some normal order in the Senate.
    If Harry Reid was running the Senate, with a lame duck President, no SC confirmation would ever get to the Presidents desk

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:38:49 PM EST
    Go Donald!

    Go ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:40:29 PM EST
    home, Donald.

    Parent
    Come on (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:45:01 PM EST
    He's nailing Bush for lying us into a war.  Lying about WMDs.

    Sh!t.  I'm ready to vote for the guy.

     

    Parent

    I sat on the edge of my couch, eyes wide open (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by pitachips on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:52:52 PM EST
    During that exchange. I couldn't process the possibility of the GOP nominating for president a man who openly accuses their hero dubya of lying about wmds and iraq.

    Parent
    I have no idea (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:56:46 PM EST
    How that and the PP comment will play with voters but according to the poll CG posted he has some room to maneuver.

    Parent
    He's just too silly ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:51:24 PM EST
    he makes Alex Jones look like Noel Coward.

    Parent
    Love the raucous ... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:05:15 PM EST
    SC audience.

    Especially after all that Yankee reserve and Midwestern turgidity.  

    Gawd (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:14:28 PM EST
    Kasich is SUCH a buzzkill

    Parent
    Yeah, he's like the guy ... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:20:12 PM EST
    in the dorm who asks you to "keep it down" EVEN on a Friday night.

    Parent
    I think Ben (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:53:17 PM EST
    Sucked up some of Teds evangelicals tonight.

    Yeah, he did a good job. (none / 0) (#107)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:54:08 PM EST
    This will be an interesting primary.

    Parent
    And Ted got whipped (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:59:02 PM EST
    Not so sure ... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 10:01:54 PM EST
    everyone said that about the debate before Iowa.

    I don't think most people get the Cruz appeal.

    Parent

    Talking heads (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 10:07:30 PM EST
    Say Ben missed a chance by not being aggressive.  I completely disagree.  I think his goal was to take enough Ted voters to drag him down and he did just what he needed to do to appeal to the church people.  

    Parent
    Jeb clearly won ... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 10:15:39 PM EST
    but some of the others will work with certain segments.

    Parent
    Um (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 10:41:02 PM EST
    I don't agree.  To put it mildly.

    But fact is what we think doesn't matter that much

    check out the results of the DRUDGE poll

    Not the DRUDGE site btw.

    But Donald killed it.   Like 60%.

    Second is Ted with about a third if that.

    Bush is 3%

    Parent

    Online polls ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 12:21:57 AM EST
    aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

    And who reads Drudge anymore?

    Have I landed in 1998?

    Trump seemed completely lost. He was like an angry monkey in a cage throwing his own excrement about.

    But I guess some people like that.  In a dungeon somewhere.

    However, they don't elect it president.

    Parent

    No idea who they are (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 07:37:45 AM EST
    But more than 200,000 voted in the poll.  

    They are the right wing.   As for "my Trump obsession", that's actually funny.

    I suppose when he is nominated you will blame me for trying to tell you for months he would be.

    If only I had ignored and denied hard enough.

    Parent

    He won't be nominated ... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:03:09 AM EST
    and he probably won't even win SC.

    The press is getting bored with him.  And he's losing the plot.

    I don't know what he was doing on stage last night. But it's not how you become president.

    It was embarrassing.

    But I bet my southern friends will do me proud. And send that Yankee back north with his tail between his legs.

    Parent

    How can you type (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:05:09 AM EST
    With your fingers in your ears?

    Parent
    I have (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:34:20 AM EST
    to say NORMALLY I would agree with you about the "Yankee" thing in SC but Trump is not Bernie. He has not been hermetically sealed in a state like Vermont for decades. Trump is pretty worldly and a lot of these voters are familiar with him from TV. And the stuff he is saying appeals to enough voters for him to win in SC. However the thing is can he still win in a three way to two way race? I honestly don't know. Fact of the matter is we have no idea where the voters for the other candidates are going to end up when they drop out.

    Parent
    Last night ... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:48:50 AM EST
    he was less like Pat Buchanan and George Wallace.

    And more like Charlie Sheen.

    He actually seemed like he needed a mental health intervention.

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:56:52 AM EST
    Well, I did not watch so I won't comment.

    Parent
    And I'm done talking about Trump ... (none / 0) (#156)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 09:30:25 AM EST
    for the holiday weekend.

    He gets more ink and screen time than he deserves.  And I'll add no more to it.

    Parent

    Don't like DRUDGE? Ok (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:00:56 AM EST
    Here's 5 more polls, mostly right wingish.   Interestingly the DURDGE margin was about the smallest one.  

    LINK

    Parent

    Just one more (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:04:08 AM EST
    I thought the most interesting of those was The Blaze.  That's Becks outfit.   Glen Beck is a Cruzer and hates Trump.  He can't be happy with that result.

    Parent
    I'll just add ... (none / 0) (#142)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:10:44 AM EST
    my poll predictions are beating Nate Silver this cycle.  So far.

    We'll see how things go in SC.

    I've yet to make my prediction there.

    And, let's remember, Ron Paul won almost every online poll both times he ran.  And by just as large margins.

    Parent

    You low balled Donalds margin in NH (none / 0) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:22:27 AM EST
    by 15 or so.

    But I'm fine seeing what happens in SC.

    I'm am not predicting I am reporting.   In case you missed it I said I hope he loses.  I'll say it again.  I hope he loses.  I hope you are right.

    Parent

    8% (none / 0) (#149)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:45:59 AM EST
    Oh (none / 0) (#136)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:02:01 AM EST
    And sort of by definition online polls are not, you know, printed on paper.

    Parent
    It was an intentional spoonerism. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:05:27 AM EST
    For comic effect.

    Parent
    My mistake (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:10:40 AM EST
    Most of the humor in your comments on this subject has been unintentional.

    Parent
    Shrug ... (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 09:33:29 AM EST
    I don't quite understand your comments.

    They just seem bizarre to me.

    Anyway, I'm done talking about the orange guy till at least Tuesday.

    In fact, I've talked very little about him this cycle.  I don't find him at all interesting.

    Parent

    That'll show him! (none / 0) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 10:35:21 AM EST
    But like the rampant ... (none / 0) (#192)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 12:23:58 PM EST
    aggressive negativity on the Internet, I may not be able to end it.  

    But I don't have to be part of it.

    Parent

    Hillary Clinton won! (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:58:46 PM EST
    And she didn't even have to be there to do it.

    David Frum (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 10:50:27 PM EST
    We have not yet come to grips with the magnitude of what just happened.
    The front runner for the republican nomination advocates impeaching the last republican president.
    Nothing close this has ever happened before.

    Um, yeah.  What he said.
    I'm loving the establishment talking heads try to process and spin this.   It's not working well.  Questions like "but there was no WMDs, right?"

    Relax ... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 12:31:21 AM EST
    things like that have happened before.

    Paul Tsongas once had oral pleasure with Cokie Roberts in the middle of a Democratic debate.

    And Pat Robertson once played the Star Spangled banner with his armpit accompanied by Pat Buchanan on a kazoo.

    But seriously, Ron Paul probably actually was the front runner (though the MSM wouldn't admit it) when he said all that and more in two cycles of debates.  Back when it actually mattered.

    But anyway long may your Trump obsession wave. It's very bizarre. Yet you seem to enjoy it.  So ... carry on.

    Parent

    GOP Debate or Nascar Sprint Cup (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 06:44:12 PM EST
    I wonder which they will choose to watch in South Carolina.

    Death of Antonin Scalia (none / 0) (#2)
    by sallywally on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 06:49:22 PM EST
    Mitch McConnell has already said Scalia should not be replaced until a new president is in place. Gee, could that have anything to do with the fact that a replacement by Obama would change the calculus of the court?

    Mr. Obama (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:02:44 PM EST
    is president of the US, it is his responsibility to nominate so as to fill vacancies that may occur on the Supreme Court   This reinforces and brings home the results of the election of 2012 and the stakes in the election of 2016.

      If President Obama nominates, say, Elizabeth Warren, even if her nomination is blocked by the Republicans, it makes the election of a Democratic president clear, and would likely consolidate the Democrats around the primary winner.

    RIP Justice Scalia.

    Parent

    Man--now we'll endlessly read that Warren is (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:18:20 PM EST
    more valuable in the U.S. Senate.  

    I suggest the President nominate Michelle Obama.

    Parent

    I'll start that chorus (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:22:59 PM EST
    What a waste having Warren on the SCOTUS would be at this point in her career. Michelle too for that matter.

    Surely there are others. I'm not in favor of some lame duck not-meant to be confirmed nominee. Play it straight Obama! The GOPmwill self destruct over it no matter what.

    Parent

    Armando tweets the obvious choice (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:30:33 PM EST
    is Pamela Karlen. Yale graduate x 3.  Clerked for Justce Blackmun. Former U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Voting Rights. Currently teaches at Stanford.

    Parent
    Make it so (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:38:25 PM EST
    Except he's already changed his mind! (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:44:32 PM EST
    Pamela Karlan (none / 0) (#40)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:55:48 PM EST
    would be my first choice (note spelling), but totally unrealistic. Or Jeffrey Fisher (Kansas farm boy; not a Yale or Harvard grad; Protestant; proponent of Scalia's strict theories of Sixth Amendment rights; Stanford Law prof). Or Bryan Stevenson. But for a serious possibility, look here.

    Parent
    Why is Karlan (none / 0) (#43)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:58:32 PM EST
    Unrealistic?

    Parent
    Way too great (none / 0) (#54)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:12:05 PM EST
    Tony was sort of (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:13:56 PM EST
    The court jester wasn't he?

    Parent
    Do you mean (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:26:35 PM EST
    "Nino"?  Antonin was never called "Tony." (Kennedy is a "Tony," btw.) But true, Scalia was pretty funny, if too often in a mean-spirited way. When I argued before the Supremes in 1990 he asked me a trick question, half in Latin, which I responded to by giving it back to him the same way, and he cracked up. Proceeded to defend me against Justice O'Connor (whom he seems not to like) for the rest of the argument. Marshall was so against me (or my client) that he turned his chair around and wouldn't even look at me. I lost in a 9-0 opinion by Kennedy. But I had fun anyway.

    Parent
    great story Peter (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:29:08 PM EST
    thanks for sharing that.

    Parent
    I heard a story this afternoon (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:30:59 PM EST
    That at some event with the other justices after the gay marriage decision he belted out a full version of "The Times They Are A'changin'"

    I would pay to see that.

    Parent

    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:33:13 PM EST
    Half joking, as it would not help his wife's campaign, but it would be entertaining.

    President and Justice Clinton.

    Parent

    She would bring religious diversity (none / 0) (#12)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:22:14 PM EST
    to the court, as she is a Protestant. . . .

    Parent
    Harriet Miers isn't available? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:43:25 PM EST
    Such a breathtakingly asinine demand ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:18:44 PM EST
    ... by Sen. McConnell speaks volume about how excessively partisan and shamelessly right-wing the GOP has become. What an incredibly stupid and reckless statement for a Senate Majority Leader to make!

    Fine, Republicans. Block Obama's nominee, get enveloped by an unnecessary controversy of your own choosing, hand Democrats a major campaign issue on a silver platter mere months before a presidential election, and then watch what happens to you this fall.

    I'll make the nachos and margaritas.

    Parent

    Sen. Grassley (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:38:10 PM EST
    Has already stated he won't bring nominee out of committee.

    As discussed on CNN, who would WANT this nomination that will go nowhere and could cut them off for future consideration should a Dem become President?

    Parent

    Harry Reid (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:41:26 PM EST
    The president, I expect.  But you are right they won't move on it.  So he should pick someone to motivate the base in this election.   Sure, the republicans will also be motivated.  But we have the demographics.

    Parent
    Harry (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:49:01 PM EST
    "There is no doubt Justice Antonin Scalia was a brilliant man. We had our differences and I disagreed with many of his opinions, but he was a dedicated jurist and public servant. I offer my condolences to his family."

    "The President can and should send the Senate a nominee right away. With so many important issues pending before the Supreme Court, the Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible. It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat. Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate's most essential Constitutional responsibilities

    Parent

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 02:28:45 AM EST
    The idea that Republicans would prevent a Supreme Court nomination from even reaching the Senate floor for a vote, when 24 of their own are facing re-election this fall, why, the myopic optics of that breathtaking bit of blind combativeness just boggle the mind. As a brazen bit of GOP posturing, this refusal to put country before party would rank right up there with their legislative forebears' conscious decision to block ratification of the Treaty of Versailles back in 1920. Politically, they'd be potentially slitting their own throats.

    Parent
    It's possible they are ... (none / 0) (#195)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    ... willing to go down with the ship.

    Politically, they'd be potentially slitting their own throats.


    Parent
    Sometimes I wonder how (none / 0) (#196)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 01:22:19 PM EST
    the deeply-held belief in all this End Times the-Lord-has-decreed-things-must-get-worse-and-worse jazz effects the Republican base's attitude toward reality and society..

    A lot of them seem to think it's sacreligious, and somehow also unpatriotic, to attempt to cooperate to improve anything..

    If they "cut their own throats" maybe it's like Cruz's pastor saying "I'm not afraid to go to jail"..

    Parent

    There are likely to be 4 more nominees (none / 0) (#41)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:56:07 PM EST
    in the next 8 years....I think this nominee whoever it is will remind the base about that. I don't think ther eis a need to pick anyone specific for that purpose now.

    Ick.

    Parent

    Except (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:01:46 PM EST
    That he is the president and the constitution says he is supposed to do that.  

    I feel sure he will nominate someone

    Parent

    He has already said he will nominate (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by sallywally on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:18:17 PM EST
    Someone and fulfill his constitutional duty.

    Parent
    Yes, I'm sure he will (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:21:53 PM EST
    I just meant he won't nominate anyone for the particular purpose of exciting the base. I think he'll pick whoever he would have picked if this had happened a year ago.

    Parent
    Exactly. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 02:41:24 AM EST
    I want Obama to choose Scalia's replacement both wisely and responsibly. Heaven forbid that his priority would be to seek a Supreme Court nominee who "excites the base." Since the establishment of the Court in 1790, there have been only 17 Chief Justices and 100 Associate Justices, with Justices serving for an average of 16 years. This is an opportunity for him to establish his legacy.

    Parent
    Why would it cut them off for a future Dem (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:48:06 PM EST
    nomination?

    I guess I'm not up on all the intrigue here. I can't see Obama playing games like this.

    Parent

    If they get held up (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:00:16 PM EST
    Long enough, they likely won't want to get dragged through again.

    If they get rejected, it will be highly unlikely they'll get another bite at the apple (or nominated for a lower court,  if they don't already sit on the bench).

    Parent

    YOU CAN LEAVE (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 06:55:56 PM EST
    YOUR (tin foil) HAT ON!


    Right Wingers Already Having an Orgy of Conspiracy Theories About Scalia's Death

    LINK

    hint - ITS RICIN

    He'll be added to the Clinton death list by mornin (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:18:58 PM EST
    You are so behind the curve (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:25:08 PM EST

    [...]

    Vince Foster please check your email.

    [...]



    Parent
    Yes, and who was (none / 0) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:05:00 PM EST
    among the quail hunting party of 40 at that dude ranch. Where was Cheney?  And, how is Harry Whittington?

    Parent
    Seriously (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:11:58 PM EST
    In 26 days the guy would have been 80 years old.

    RICIN fer fu@ks sake.

    Parent

    Major pro corporate guy (none / 0) (#7)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:17:30 PM EST
    Is the leading candidate

    Color me disappointed if that happens

    The speculation game (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:23:34 PM EST
    Someone else suggested Jay Johnson.

    I like Dans idea.   Nominate Elizabeth Warren and let the people decide.

    Parent

    I would expect someone about (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:30:13 PM EST
    5-10 years younger than Warren

    Parent
    Warren might have something to say (none / 0) (#20)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:33:09 PM EST
    about being nominated. Like, she might not want to sit on the Supreme Court or she might want to stay in the Senate or she might find the idea of a confirmation fight horrifying.

    There are other people who are qualified. We do not have to limit ourselves to Warren for Everything.

    Parent

    How about this (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:38:45 PM EST
    Ignore the fence straddling krap and nominate seeing that will excite the youth vote?   LIKE Elizabeth Warren.

    Parent
    Unless, of course, Warren is not (none / 0) (#25)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:41:11 PM EST
    interested in the job or the hassle. She has to agree to be nominated.

    Parent
    Yes, but I believe (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:49:34 PM EST
    she would see the much greater good, made all the more so by the possibility of a Trump, Rubio, Cruz administration. Ordinarily, I would feel that a person 10 years younger would be better for a Court appointee, or, of course, an excellent candidate such as suggested by BTD.  But, these are no ordinary times.  Elizabeth Warren is not needed in the senate as much as she is as nominee for the Supreme Court, at this time.

    Parent
    Someone (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:42:43 PM EST
    Like

    Elizabeth Warren.

    But not

    Elizabeth Warren.

    Parent

    Ha! That's your Trumphobia speaking (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:43:58 PM EST
    Do you really think that if Trump is that close to winning that Warren hanging out there is going to turn the tide? I don't know, that sounds crazy to me.

    Stay the course!

    Parent

    I didn't follow that (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:53:19 PM EST
    You don't think an inspirational nominee would motivate the liberal base?

    I couldn't disagree more if that's your point.

    Who ever the republican nominee is and especially if it Trump

    Parent

    Why would it especially motivate them (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:59:10 PM EST
    If it is this president's nominee. I agree it will remind people that it is important, but I don't think we need to sacrifice Warren on that altar.

    Parent
    Whatever (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:03:01 PM EST
    Warren was only part of the point.  That said, I agree with Dan.

    Parent
    I guess I don't think it will be that close. (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:06:19 PM EST
    And if for some reason it is, that won't be enough to make a difference. Just as likely to turn people off as an obvious gimmick.

    Parent
    Would obamas nominee carry over to the next (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:03:17 PM EST
    presidency? Else I don't see how it is inspirational except as a reminder that the SCOTUS is at stake in the election. No need to put a big name out there for that.

    Parent
    I don't think so, ruffian (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:14:25 PM EST
    But since a president CAN fill a Supreme Court vacancy during a Senate recess  (on a temporary basis), the Senate can't officially go on recess if Mitch wants to play tbat way.  Since many of them are up for re-election, that might cause some problems.

    Parent
    Well, when a Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:53:52 PM EST
    supporter is asked if he/she will support Sanders, if the nominee, it seems that the answer is generally. yes.  If, the reverse, it seems that some of the Sanders supporters say no, that they will vote for Trump. Having a Supreme Court nominee of prominence and wide acceptance hanging in the balance, their is likely, in my view, to be a different result. In a close election, that will be important.

    Parent
    Very true (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:56:43 PM EST
    I said someone "like" Warren.  But the truth is there is no one like Warren in American politics.

    Parent
    Oh, for heaven's sake and crying out loud! (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:52:12 PM EST
    Justice Scalia hasn't even been dead 24 hours, the president has only offered his condolences to the family and nobody in his administration has said anything of the sort, yet per some irresponsibly callous and fact-free speculation in the New York Daily News -- the New York Daily News, fer Chrissake!! -- you're already divining the tea leaves.

    "Color me disappointed." Jesus, Mary and Joseph! For that matter, you can color me disappointed, too, if my plane to Honolulu next Tuesday morning plunges headlong into Hilo Bay on takeoff. Because I have no more idea what the future might hold in store for me in that regard, than do you or Laura Bult or Jeffrey Toobin about any prospective nomination President Obama might make to the High Court.

    So please, just stop right there and get a grip on yourself.

    Seriously.

    Parent

    Chill Donald (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:06:11 PM EST
    Seriously.

    Parent
    Will the NewYorker (none / 0) (#53)
    by smott on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:10:15 PM EST
    Settle your stomach? link

    Srinivasan is a legit possibility, but don't let that stop your tirade.

    Parent

    New GOP poll in SC from ARG (none / 0) (#16)
    by CoralGables on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:26:35 PM EST
    and this one may have an big effect on who gets attacked tonight.

    Trump  35
    Kasich 15
    Rubio  14
    Cruz   12
    Bush   10
    Carson  2

    Carson (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:28:46 PM EST
    Could be the difference between Ted being 3rd or 4th.

    He will be smilin tonight.

    Parent

    Scalia's death (none / 0) (#24)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:40:11 PM EST
    Could make conservatives look again to someone like Ted Cruz.

    Parent
    For what it's worth.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:46:31 PM EST
    Cruz and Rubio are the only lawyers still in the race--and I don't think Rubio can match Cruz in this area. So I definitely think it can help him.

    Perhaps worth noting that like Obama, Hillary taught law and Sanders does not have a JD.  

    Parent

    did rubio pass the bar exam? (none / 0) (#116)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 10:25:56 PM EST
    Sure. After all, all he had to do (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 11:40:13 PM EST
    was repeat the answers that he had memorized.

    Parent
    Hehe.. (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 11:51:48 PM EST
    But you do us lawyers wrong by saying it is just rote memorization.....

    Parent
    As Professor Kingsfield (none / 0) (#121)
    by MKS on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 11:55:52 PM EST
    from that oldie but goodie film Paper Chase said, students come to law school with a "skull full of mush" and he teaches them to "think like lawyers."

    Parent
    Graduating from law school is one thing (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    (and what Prof. Kingsfield was talking about). Passing the bar exam is another (which Prof. Towanda hit right on the head, speaking as someone who passed two state bar exams and has graded essays for one state's exam; the standard is pitifully low and does involve a lot of memorization).  For this reason, passing the bar (exam), while mandatory, actually has little to do with being even a half-decent lawyer.

    Parent
    Yes, Cruz has clerked for and argued (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 07:50:36 PM EST
    before the court. He has a lot more credibility on the topic.

    On the other hand, don't want to look too 'smarty pants' for the rubes!

    Parent

    For all his credentials (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:19:11 PM EST
    Cruz just had a serious deer in the headlights moment when he was just called out about the so-called 80  years since confirming a justice during an election year.  

    Parent
    That was great. Way to go John Dickerson (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:22:26 PM EST
    The nominee will (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:21:14 PM EST
    So not be Cruz.

    Parent
    I think the question they should be asking (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:22:49 PM EST
    Is when was the last time the court went a full year short a Justice.

    Any one know that?

    Parent

    great question (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:29:48 PM EST
    I will try to find out.

    Parent
    Couldn't figure it out from Wikipedia (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:33:21 PM EST
    Learned number of 9 justices was not settled on until 1869 though. And the articles did not mention any long vacancies after that, so I'm betting a year long vacancy has not happened.

    Parent
    Longest vacancy was during Tyler (none / 0) (#70)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:35:00 PM EST
    administration, but I cannot how long that vacancy was.

    Parent
    From Wiki (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:38:07 PM EST
    Two vacancies occurred on the Supreme Court during Tyler's presidency, as Justices Smith Thompson and Henry Baldwin died in 1843 and 1844, respectively. Tyler, ever at odds with Congress--including the Whig-controlled Senate--nominated several men to the Supreme Court to fill these seats. However, the Senate successively voted against confirming John Canfield Spencer, Reuben Walworth, Edward King and John M. Read (King was rejected twice). One reason cited for the Senate's actions was the hope that Clay would fill the vacancies after winning the 1844 presidential election.[92] Tyler's four unsuccessful nominees are the most by a president.[104]

    Finally, in February 1845, with less than a month remaining in his term, Tyler's nomination of Samuel Nelson to Thompson's seat was confirmed by the Senate. Nelson, a Democrat, had a reputation as a careful and noncontroversial jurist. Still, his confirmation came as a surprise. Baldwin's seat remained vacant until James K. Polk's nominee, Robert Grier, was confirmed in 1846.[104]

    Parent

    So, all that Obama needs to do (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Towanda on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:54:02 PM EST
    is send forward a proslavery nominee, and the Senate will approve it, just like it did then.

    Parent
    They would too. Same as it ever was. (none / 0) (#92)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:00:26 PM EST
    Well, maybe not 2/3 (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:01:14 PM EST
    835 days is the longest (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:39:13 PM EST
    time between the death of a justice and the confirmation of a successor. This occurred during Tyler's administration.

    Parent
    But those same people (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:02:38 PM EST
    Don't want another librul on the court.

    Parent
    Debate drinking game (none / 0) (#56)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:14:04 PM EST
    'Ram down our throat'

    Wow, with so many Republicans against (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:39:37 PM EST
    the Iraq war, I wonder how it got approved.

    Are you glad you watched (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:40:16 PM EST
    ruffian?

    My mom is great.

    She should be running.

    Oh no, Majot Garrett. The IQ of the debate (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:44:17 PM EST
    just dropped by half.

    Parent
    What happened??? (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:44:46 PM EST
    Rotating moderators (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:47:03 PM EST
    Ted Cruz schools Major on what the (none / 0) (#88)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:48:30 PM EST
    VAT is. Thanks a lot Major, John Dickerson had him on the ropes.

    Parent
    As a wise man once said .... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:45:52 PM EST
    who the heck names their kind "Major"?!?

    Parent
    kid (none / 0) (#85)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:46:36 PM EST
    Yes! I had to tear myself away (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:41:35 PM EST
    from my 'The Americans' binge, but it is worth it.

    Parent
    Donald is going to cause a riot (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:42:52 PM EST


    Is that Amy Winehouse sitting behind (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:46:19 PM EST
    Major?

    Parent
    Her ghost? (none / 0) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:47:55 PM EST
    Yeah, looked like it for a minute (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 08:50:02 PM EST
    Then the lady lifted up her head more.

    Parent
    Gotta say, I like this 'to he!! with it' Jeb! (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:13:14 PM EST
    Poor Kasich, playing dad.

    Parent
    Now Donald is defending (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:29:06 PM EST
    Planned parenthood.??

    I think you're ... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:33:57 PM EST
    in love.

    ;)

    Parent

    Dude (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:37:06 PM EST
    He just said Planned Parenthood does important work on women's health in a republican primary debate.

    Can you tell me the last time that happened.

    The POINT is, if this guy makes it anyone who thinks he will not be a general election threat is just not listening.

    Parent

    Fascists always toss the ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:46:56 PM EST
    left a couple of bones.  

    They quickly forget them if they're given power.

    Parent

    Why do you think (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:49:30 PM EST
    I've been screaming about this for months?

    Parent
    Let's dispel, once and for all, with this ... (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:55:44 PM EST
    fiction that CaptHowdy doesn't know what he's talking about.  He knows EXACTLY what he's talking about.

    And, let me add, let us dispel with this fiction that CaptHowdy doesn't know what he's talking about.  He knows EXACTLY what he's talking about.

    Parent

    Fascinating (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 06:36:43 AM EST
    Now how are people like Bob Jones who have been railing about things like Planned Parenthood forever going to explain this to their congregations?

    Parent
    Let's review (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 07:50:05 AM EST
    He defends PP.  He says W is responsible for 9/11 and that he lied us into an unnecessary war and the lied about WMD.   He strongly defended Social Security and Medicare.

    Last night Bob Costa, one of the best political reporters around, said he was punching the republican orthodoxy in the face and offering people a whole new definition of what it means to be a republican.

    Sadly for us, considering the rest of what he says, it just might work.  I will repeat.  I hope it DOES NOT.  Because he represents a real threat to Hillary Clinton..   I strongly believe anyone on that stage last night would be and easier battle for Clinton.   Not just because of the things mentioned above but because he will not play by the rules.  He will engage in asymmetric warfare.

    Parent

    I agree he is a bigger great to Clinton than (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 10:48:59 AM EST
    are the other GOPers, precisely because at heart is really is a lot more moderate than they are.

    But that goes double vs Sanders. Can anyone imagine Sanders in a debate with Trump, hailing a cab while Trump ridicules him about socialism? They are writing the SNL sketch as we speak.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:15:27 AM EST
    Bernie has already been ridiculed for all the "free stuff" he's going to hand out to everybody by Trump. And if Trump has nothing but vague statements about things? Well, that's pretty much what Bernie has been shopping too. Trump is good on TV. Bernie is terrible on TV. Trump would wipe the floor with him and the fact that Bernie's purity trolls are driving people away from him I would expect that Trump would be able to pick up votes from both Moderate and Conservative Dems. If Bloomberg runs he could pick up those votes. Either way Bernie gets wiped out in a general election plus the drag he creates on downticket races in a two-way race. In a three way race I don't think he would have much effect on down ticket.

    Parent
    Definitely (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:00:54 AM EST
    see your point. He's doing the GOP a big favor in the long run. It will be interesting to see if those statements about PP and W have any effect on GOP primary voters. I have to laugh in a way because he just punched his own endorsers like Phyllis Schafly in the mouth.

    Parent
    Trump's (none / 0) (#143)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:13:56 AM EST
    punching at the GOP may cost him the nomination and will probably kill him in the general.

    Maybe he can attract some independents but he appears to be driving away many parts of the Republican base.

    Right here

    He defends PP.  He says W is responsible for 9/11 and that he lied us into an unnecessary war and the lied about WMD.   He strongly defended Social Security and Medicare.
    he pokes the right to lifers, fiscal scolds and neo-cons right in the eye, they will not forget.

    I see the forced birth crowd staying home in November, the fiscal scolds rushing to Bloomberg (or even Clinton if he does not run) and the neo-cons leaning towards Hillary.

    Parent

    Did you look at the six polls (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:24:55 AM EST
    I posted upthread?

    Yeah yeah, I know.  Online polls blah blah.

    How about this, don't look at the winner but the margins, the sources, and the participation.

    He does not by any metric appear to be crashing.
    To me.


    Parent

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:27:00 AM EST
    "Kill him in the general"?   Really?

    Since when did running to the center kill a candidate in the general?   As Hillary is being dragged further left by the day?

    Parent

    It's truly amazing to see (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by smott on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:00:16 AM EST
    And really, Trump isn't even attacking the Iraq war-mongers  for the most horrible idea in 100 years and all the lies and so on, he's attacking them for being LOSERS. INCOMPETENT war-mongers. And it's working. People don't hate the Iraq war because it was a monstrously bad idea, they hate it because we LOST.

     Additionally, many of his ideas are actually deeply popular in the electorate esp re SS.

    He's telling older voters he will protect their SS. He's telling younger voters he'll bring their job back.

    He will be a hell of a tough candidate for Clinton and I think he beats Sanders by a mile, because conservative Dems who've been pi$$ed on by Sanders supporters for their impurity will actually have a place to go. Nauseating as that sounds.

    Parent

    Conservative Dems? (none / 0) (#169)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:13:45 AM EST
    There are none. Hillary was close to one....Once

    Parent
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:18:47 AM EST
    well why is your guy Karl Rove spending millions trying to attack her from the left. And now he's saying she's the same as Trump on immigration. You guys just can't decide whether she's liberal or conservative can you?

    Parent
    That is pretty obvious (none / 0) (#176)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:28:23 AM EST
    He wants Hillary to move even further left than she now is.

    See, pretty simple.

    But, are there any Conservative Dems left?

    I think that was the question.

    Parent

    Trevor (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:32:19 AM EST
    I live in the south.  There are "blue dog" democrats IN MY FAMILY who have not voted for a democrat in a statewide or national office since Bill Clinton,

    Yes Trevor.  There are moderate democrats.  The south is freakin overflowing with them.

    There are also conservative democrats.  

    Really.   There are.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#184)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:46:25 AM EST
    Are they still Democrat?
    They haven't voted that way.

    Todays Democrats have left them behind, they have no future in todays Democrat Party. I don't see how the new coalition of Democrats includes them, they feel sorta left out, don't they?

    The Joe Manchins are gone, West Virginia, once a Democrat stronghold, has turned red.

    And as I thought about it, there are still a couple out West

    Parent

    People who refer to the "Democrat Party" (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 02:08:44 PM EST
    are not actually interested in discussing the Democratic Party.

    Parent
    You are (none / 0) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:48:19 AM EST
    so funny but you actually are pointing out why the GOP is so terrified of Hillary. It's because those voters WILL vote for Hillary.

    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:44:35 AM EST
    are out of touch with reality. The party that has no moderates left is the GOP. They've all been run off by the teabillies and gerrymandering. Like Howdy says the south is full of them and you're assuming that all minorities are left wing. As a matter of fact minorities span the ideological spectrum as much as any other demographic group.

    And comparing her with Trump on immigration is now left wing? LOL. The truth is I guess they don't know how to attack her. Too left one day and then too right the next. The truth is they are just desperately slinging mud to try to get something anything to stick.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:39:20 AM EST
    he has a point since there are a lot of Republicans that are single issue forced birthers. Maybe they will no longer care about that issue if Trump is the nominee or maybe they will sit home or maybe they will vote based on other issues. No way to tell right now it seems.

    Parent
    Ok let's play that out (none / 0) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:47:53 AM EST
    It's Donald and Hillary, for the sake of argument - it could as easily be Cruz and Sanders.

    Here we are in November with the future of the Supreme Court, as literally as it could possibly be, hanging in the balance.

    Now, they are going to stay home?  Really?

    Mmmmmk

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#154)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:58:22 AM EST
    if they think Donald is not going to appoint another Scalia they might. Otherwise who knows.

    Parent
    Trump (none / 0) (#159)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 10:44:05 AM EST
    has given the forced birthers no reason to trust him, he is on tape supporting reproductive rights and speaking any good words about PP is pure blasphemy to these people.

    Even if they do decide that they need to drag themselves to the polls to take their chances on Trump, they probably won't be posting yard signs,  knocking on doors and advocating for him in church and elsewhere.

    Parent

    The women will put Clinton over.. (none / 0) (#180)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:36:17 AM EST
    she'll probably draw the biggest turnout and get the highest percentage of the female vote in history. And then there's the Latino and Black vote..

    As much as Trump may hammer on Hillary's Iraq war vote, his stance on the Iraq War, which we know he won't back away from, won't hurt Hillary so much as it cripples the overall credibility of the GOP and the neocon True Believers in the eyes of the public.

    And then there's the issue of style.
    Trump is like James Hoffa Jr. He'd
    make a perfect head of the Teamsters, but he's probably the least statesman-like and "presidential" candidate in U.S history; who not only has a tendency to step in it rhetorically, but to glory in stepping in it.

    Parent

    I don't really disagree (none / 0) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:40:16 AM EST
    With that.

    Ninos timely passing makes that a helluva lot more likely.   IMO

    Parent

    any (none / 0) (#155)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 09:05:10 AM EST
    Republican candidate needs all of the base to show up and support them to have a realistic chance of winning, just through demographics. Roughly speaking for every 1% of Republican votes he loses he needs to gain 2% of Independents.

    Everybody, even the base, understands the concept of moving toward the center in the general but Trumps in your face attacks on Republican orthodoxy during pandering season will be too much for many Republicans to swallow.

    Parent

    So, this was typical Trump (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Towanda on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    telling the GOP elite that they're fired.

    He is inviting a backlash from the powers-that-be in the party, his shtick to show the serfs that he speaks for them.  If the GOP elite is wise, they will not give him the denunciation -- the attention -- that he wants.  Fun times.

    Parent

    GOP (none / 0) (#163)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 10:58:51 AM EST
    Elite, wise?

    Parent
    Yeh, thus the "if" (none / 0) (#168)
    by Towanda on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:12:51 AM EST
    typed while I pull up the lawn chair and pop the popcorn for the fun times ahead, because my bet is that wisdom will not prevail, and the GOP elite will continue to feed the Trump monster.

    If they decide to also feed, say, the Kasich campaign, then we will face other monsters.

    Parent

    Is it too late to get him into the Dem race? (none / 0) (#160)
    by ruffian on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 10:44:12 AM EST
    JUST KIDDING!

    Parent
    He doesn't need to (none / 0) (#165)
    by smott on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:01:27 AM EST
    He'll own enough Dems in the general to get in.

    Parent
    What's (none / 0) (#167)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:09:09 AM EST
    your reasoning/proof of Trump attracting Dems in large numbers?

    Parent
    In fact (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:27:55 AM EST
    There is actual imperial polling data that Trump attracts some number of democrats.  I have seen 20%.

    I also, again, personally know several lifelong democrats who support Donald.

    This is a fact.  We need to understand and react to the facts. NOT what we wish the facts were.

    Parent

    I have seen (none / 0) (#186)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:47:45 AM EST
    no such polling among Dems, but I have seen polling where around 20 of Republicans would never vote for Trump.

    As for anecdotal evidence I have seen several lifelong Republicans say they would rather vote for Hillary, live on the electric tv machine..

    Maybe Trump can make a slight gain in the southern white working class but they have long been predisposed to go Republican anyway. The idea that he could make any kind of inroads on the other traditional constituencies (minorities,women, educated whites etc.) seems a little far fetched.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:49:56 AM EST
    there was some poll a while back that showed that 20% of Dems would vote for Trump but it also showed that 16% of Republicans would vote for Hillary. However, it did not report any top line numbers. So if Hillary beats Trump by 10 points let's say it's pretty much a wash.

    Parent
    As above (none / 0) (#172)
    by smott on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:18:43 AM EST
    My reasoning is Sanders,  should he get in, will have a lot of POd Dem base that may not vote for him.  He's got white youth locked up but needs more.

    Why I also think Bloomberg sees an opp if it's Trump v Sanders. Disaffected base on both sides perhaps.

    But really this is an Interestng move by Trump. Praising PP. Conserving SS. Improving health care so fewer are left out. I think that is actually a move to go after more traditional voters, to build on  his Angry  Trumpsters. You could even read it as pre-emptve towards Bloomberg. Just very interesting.

    Parent

    Bloomberg (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:20:40 AM EST
    definitely sees an opening with Trump and Sanders. Sanders would probably come in third in a three way.

    Parent
    YES (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:33:21 AM EST
    if Bernie's revolution fails his movement will be cast into the wilderness for a political generation and the Democratic party will be severely wounded. Terrifying outcome if you ask me.


    Parent
    I actually feel this might be (none / 0) (#191)
    by smott on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 12:02:33 PM EST
    Donald pivoting to the general. He maybe feels he has the nom sewed up, he now must concentrate on raising his ceiling (his floor is rock solid angry Trumpsters)...so he's pivoting to deeply popular ideas, showing he's not owned by the GOP, and appealing to conservatives who think the war was a mistake , worry about their healthcare, don't want to lose their SS, and so on.

    I think if this works he would be a beast in the general.

    As our Captain has been telling us!....

    Parent

    Even (none / 0) (#194)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 12:51:01 PM EST
    if he thinks he can let off the gas now for the nomination now he is a fool, the Republican calendar and delegate allocation rules means it is liable to be a slog,
     I am still calling March 15th as the big day, if Trump takes winner take all Ohio and Florida he can probably coast to the nomination if he loses one of them, possibility to a surging favorite son it, then it becomes dicier for him, as the race moves to the northeast and midwest.

    Parent
    Who said (none / 0) (#197)
    by smott on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 01:29:27 PM EST
    He was letting off the gas
    ?
    He's building. It's ballsy, and if it works he will be very hard to beat.

    Parent
    I think I just heard ... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:32:51 PM EST
    Mr. Roboto buzz and clink.

    And I know Robots.

    ;)

    Jeb has a dent in his cheek (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:50:38 PM EST
    Maybe he is the robot!

    Parent
    Jeb is more of a clone ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Feb 13, 2016 at 09:59:35 PM EST
    than a robot.

    Parent
    At staying at a friend's ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 07:14:22 AM EST
    condo in the Hamptons. And it's bitterly cold out here.  When I woke up it was -3 with a wind chill factor of -26.

    The little HVAC heater, which generally does an excellent job, is struggling to keep up.

    But it's supposed to be 41 tomorrow and 53 and raining by Tuesday.

    As Cosmo Kramer once said, nature is a mad scientist!

    Robot, c'mon down here (none / 0) (#152)
    by fishcamp on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 08:53:42 AM EST
    for a warm boat ride and a cool boat drink.  We were in the low 70's here yesterday which sounds way better than the frigid Hamptons.  My current house guest is from Albany where I see it was -12 this morning.  He doesn't want to go back home, so you may have to wait a few more days.

    The Sunday shows (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:07:26 AM EST
    Are actually worth the time today.

    Wowee

    One of the funniest  moments being repeatedly played is Cruz trying to shame Marco for speaking Spanish then being goaded via ego to speak Spanish himself in a republican primary debate.  Ted is dead.

    The Little Cuban fella (none / 0) (#170)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:14:41 AM EST
    Ain't dead yet.

    Parent
    Trevor (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:29:04 AM EST
    Everything you have said about this election has been wrong.

    Sorry.

    Parent

    Rubiobot (none / 0) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 11:51:02 AM EST
    the laughingstock. I would put more money on Jeb at this point than Rubio. You also thought Christie had a shot but he's closed down shop.

    Parent
    I'm truly interested (none / 0) (#198)
    by smott on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 01:34:22 PM EST
    To follow the money here.
    The elites will go far to stop Trump.

    But they loathe Cruz, and apparently loathe Marco only a bit less, though he's certainly stupider and more malleable.

    Jeb is spending money like water and going nowhere.
    Kasich? His Nbrs are positive and maybe he outperforms them in SC.

    How far are the GOP elites willing to go to stop Trump?

    It's an intriguing question.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#199)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 01:45:08 PM EST
    My guess was the establishment lane to be filled by the little Cuban fella, or Christie.

    CBS polling of the debate gave the little Cuban guy a better night than the other 2 establishment guys left.

    If it gets to only 3, Trump, Cruz and the little fella, (Bush and Kasich will most likely soon be gone)

    There is always a shot.

    I still do not see the Donald getting there, especially when it is down to 3. If it gets down to 3 after SC, The Donalds chances are less and less.

    Parent

    Here ya go Joe (none / 0) (#202)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 02:19:49 PM EST

    About 20 percent of likely Democratic voters say they would buck the party and vote for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in a general election, according to a new poll.

    The willingness of some Democrats to change sides could be a major problem for Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton this fall.

    A smaller number of Republicans say they'd vote for Clinton -- about 14 percent

    LINK

    I think the nom is Donald's to lose (none / 0) (#203)
    by smott on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 02:29:16 PM EST
    Perhaps there is a brokered convention and someone is drafted and it's a goat f*ck, but if that looks likely, he goes Indy.  Not sure the deadline re when he must make that decision though. More intrigue!

    It seems clear to me he's pivoting to the general and now talking about issues that are deeply popular with the electorate on both sides, SS, Medicare, the war as a mistake, and so on.

    The PP thing, wow. Ballsy. Maybe to show he is not owned? Dunno.

    Anyway, it is his to lose IMO.

    A certain former regular poster's (none / 0) (#204)
    by jondee on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 02:37:54 PM EST
    favorite right wing son just called Bush a liar and wmd-shilling neocons "hoaxers".

    No wonder he's making himself scarce lately.

    Howdy (none / 0) (#205)
    by FlJoe on Sun Feb 14, 2016 at 02:44:46 PM EST
    I saw that earlier but
    The survey by Washington-based Mercury Analytics is a combination online questionnaire and "dial-test" of Trump's first big campaign ad among 916 self-proclaimed "likely voters"
     Never heard of a combo online questionnaire dial test before, and the 'self proclaimed "likely voter"' sounds like an iffy screener to me. link