home

Republican Town Hall in South Carolina

CNN is airing a Republican presidential town hall in South Carolina.

John Kasich is on now. I think he's the only non-crazed Republican in the race. But I happened to see him last night on Stephen Colbert's show and he seemed really off. Tonight he seems really tired.

He also said last night that the debates are worthless -- nothing more than sound bites. He said the town halls are the only worthwhile events.

He's got Martin O'Malley syndrome -- mentioning his experience as a state governor way too often.

Update: Did Jeb Bush have laser surgery or get contact lenses? He looked better with glasses.[More...]

Jeb Bush just praised mandatory minimum sentences, noting Florida has them. He says he has momentum and is proud Lindsay Graham is supporting him. He calls Graham the leading national security expert in the Senate. His father (Bush I) is the greatest man alive. This guy is clueless. Bye-Bye Jeb.

< Thursday Night Open Thread | Trump Calls for Apple Boycott >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Jebs up (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:37:35 PM EST
    Talking about his mom.

    €-/

    Tap dancing around the Pope thing.

    Charles Pierce-


    It's god's own joke that the Bush family may pass from our politics in South Carolina. It was from here that came Lee Atwater, who ratfcked Michael Dukakis on behalf of Poppy in 1988. It was here in 2000 that C-Plus Augustus turned Karl Rove--an Atwater acolyte--loose on John McCain. And, in 2016, Jeb (!) may well end up life and death for fourth place with noted narcoleptic Dr. Ben Carson. The grotesquerie is glorious, a Southern gothic end for a dynastic political family, now rendered merely a curiosity, like a camel in the barnyard.

    He just mispronounced Scalias name.  Anton Scalia.  Good grief.

    That would (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:39:41 PM EST
    be ironic wouldn't it for the same state to kill off the political hopes of the same family they birthed politically.

    Parent
    Charlie finds (none / 0) (#29)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 05:33:40 AM EST
    the perfect metaphor in a SC graveyard
    Here, right here, as the place where the soul of the South Carolina Republican Primary forever would abide--by a gentle pond raucous with honking geese, fierce and territorial over the smallest things, halfway between the grave of Lee Atwater and the tomb of the Fabulous Moolah.


    Parent
    My absentee ballot arrived (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by fishcamp on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:02:31 AM EST
    In the mail yesterday.  It's the Official Presidential Preference Primary Ballot,  Democratic Party, Monroe County, Florida.  It has President vote for one,  Hillary Clinton, Martin O' Malley,   Bernie Sanders.  Then there's a renew funding for county schools, yes or no.  So I guess I'll vote today, and mail it in.  Very handy.  I could go to the post office by boat if it weren't so windy.  

    If you were to overnight it today (none / 0) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:33:15 AM EST
    You could be the first Hillary vote in Florida.

    Parent
    Yes, I could also (none / 0) (#45)
    by fishcamp on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 10:33:12 AM EST
    Drive it down to the county courthouse in Key West, but it's 75 miles away.  Mail in ballots are treated differently, but I can't remember how that is so.  The ballot itself goes into a secrecy folder and then into the big mail in envelope.  The secrecy folder is a thin paper folder, like regular folders.  It has all the info printed on the cover, with secrecy mentioned several times.  Can they pre count mail in ballots or do they wait until voting day to count them all?  No, I'm sure they can't, not that mail ins from this sparse county would be much of an indicator.

    Parent
    Anyone need a (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by magster on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:55:51 PM EST
    The democrats are on MSNBC (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:32:04 PM EST
    I have Bernie picture in pictured right now ( the whole grating thing ).  I will have to listen eventually because Jose said he was planning to hit him pretty hard on his voting record on immigration.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:38:05 PM EST
    he will ask about too the time Bernie supported dumping on a poor Hispanic town in Texas.

    Parent
    Louise Gutierrez (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:42:48 PM EST
    Sanders voted with  republicans


    Bernie Sanders has seemingly changed his tune to run for President in 2016, but many of us have long memories and remember when we needed people to stand with us. Even now, when he appears to hit all the right notes when he talks about his immigration plan, his proposals are vague and it's clear from repeated comments that he still views immigrants as a threat to American workers. I do not trust that he is fully in step with progressives, Democrats and the American people who overwhelmingly support a safe, legal and orderly immigration system.


    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:50:08 PM EST
    That would be Luis not Louise

    Parent
    Insufferable republican yuppie (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:57:05 PM EST
    Ask Jeb about that EEEEEEEEVVVVVIL marijuana.  Brain damage, antisocial behavior, munching, aimless tv viewing.  Now he is in a drug war rant.

    Dolt .45! (none / 0) (#8)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:09:05 PM EST
    needs a new campaign song.  My suggestion - this little flash from the past by Julie Brown.

    Parent
    Donald is a lot more fun (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:18:23 PM EST
    In debates.

    Otoh (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:22:33 PM EST
    The show now seems to have a laff-track

    Parent
    Donald is schooling (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:41:28 PM EST
    A republican who wanted him to take back the Bush lying thing on the Iraq war.

    Pretty interesting.   He is not taking it back.

    "I'd have to... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:45:08 PM EST
    look at some documents."

    What a close...what a pisser. I'm dying over here.

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:46:47 PM EST
    The look on his face when he said it was good too.

    Parent
    Dude... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:50:46 PM EST
    that poor guy looked like he was gonna cry...Nobody calls my GWB a liar! Take it back!

    Parent
    Read this (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:54:35 PM EST

     Around that time, he also publicly expressed support for legalizing drugs and taxing the wealthy.


    A neuroscientist explains how -- and why -- Donald Trump is only pretending to be a bigot

    I have to admit.  I have wondered about this

    Parent

    I've been saying for a while now (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by CST on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:27:40 AM EST
    He's basically just a racist Democrat.

    Frankly, I don't know if that makes it better or worse.  I think it certainly makes him more likely to win.

    We had a long conversation about the Donald at dinner last night.  And the Democrats too.  Interesting (to me) is that the generational lines on Democrats is decidedly blurred among people I know.  I know a lot of millennials who are supporting Clinton, and a ton of Boomers on board the Bernie train.  Although I wouldn't exactly call the demographics flipped - there are people on both sides at all ages, it's more that age appears irrelevant to support in my immediate social network.

    Parent

    Yup - the Southern Strategy wasn't (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:33:49 AM EST
    just for the south

    Parent
    That would be one long con... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:07:11 AM EST
    his Central Park Five baggage would indicate this elaborate liberal plot is at least 30 years in the making.

    Maybe Daniel Day Lewis could pull of such acting...but not Trump.  He plays up the bigotry, to be sure, but it is not a straight-up con.

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:44:44 AM EST
    It's just such a great fantasy.   To think about all those hateful right wing bigots watching president Donald push full legalization of drugs, universal health care and expanding the social safety net.  

    Sort of like the Manchurian Candidate in reverse.

    Parent

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:52:59 AM EST
    would make a great movie.

    I kinda had similar daydreams about Obama in 2008, that he was just pretending to be a moderate Wall St. corporate Dem, and once elected he would morph into Huey Newton and freak the whole country the f*ck out.    

    Parent

    You know one of Donalds past positions (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:48:54 PM EST
    Was legalization of all drugs.

    Parent
    I'm a very clean person (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:58:27 PM EST
    I like cleanliness

    Oh my god.

    Parent

    It could be Trump's (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 10:10:11 AM EST
    attacks on W and the Pope may have been a bridge too far.  That has been said before.  BUT attacking the Pope?  For a party that has a lot of Catholics, that may have been too much.

    Catholic Democrats have done a lot better in dodging conservative comments from past Popes.  This full on assault will not wear well.

    Parent

    You kidding? (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 10:14:17 AM EST
    Republican Catholics would have no love for this pope if their religion didn't kinda demand it.  I don't think they'd bat an eye at voting for a Republican who is critical of the current pope's focus on social, economic, and environmental justice.  In fact, it might be a selling point.

    Parent
    LIke to hear from some (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 10:24:56 AM EST
    Catholics here.....The Pope is different--and attacking him directly can sound anti-Catholic....

    Parent
    I'm very lapsed (none / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 10:32:04 AM EST
    But even in younger years I never got the impression that the 'pope is infallible' idea was really taken literally. In my youth there was a lot of discussion about the Vatican II changes in the clergy and the mass, some people did not support those.  

    Of course, there is criticism, which may be tolerated, and then there is Trump-style attacking and insulting which may turn people off.

    Parent

    No Different... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 10:56:00 AM EST
    ... that democrat Catholics not voting for a pro-choice candidate because the Pope says it's a sin.  I think people's political views are much stronger than their religious views, and when they aren't, they simply adjust their religion.  

    No republican alive thinks jesus was a liberal.

    Parent

    Or they (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:02:06 AM EST
    don't vote based on religion. It's only been in the last 30 years or so where the two have been mingled a lot.

    Parent
    Cradle Catholic here. (none / 0) (#48)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:02:59 AM EST
    American Catholics are an ornery bunch. The phrase "cafeteria Catholic" was coined because, following Paul VI's decision to forbid the use of contraceptives, so many American Catholics simply chose to ignore that Church ruling and ignored other teachings with which they disagreed. This drives the Vatican crazy.

    Conservative Catholics hate Pope Francis. They hate and resent him. They believe Francis is destroying the Church with his liberal inclusive ideas, which are not all that liberal. It's not like he's going to start ordaining women or blessing same-sex marriages. Still, they hate him. I seriously doubt they would choose Francis over Trump in this matter.

    Parent

    Watching the Dems (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:12:41 PM EST
    First question for Bernie-

    "Who's side are you on, Apple or the FBI?"

    He weasels

    "I'm on both, this is a complicated issue......"

    Basically says the FBI is right but I am a strong libertarian.

    Ok then!

    Bernie is getting groans (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:19:38 PM EST
    And not quiet ones.  

    Parent
    Hillary gets the apple question (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:46:18 PM EST
    and also weasels.   They both seem to agree with me that Apple should cooperate.  Fortunately I'm not running for  office.

    Parent
    They both weaseled? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:03:37 AM EST
    Both (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:07:21 AM EST
    Big time.  Like two ferrets down a fat mans pants.

    Parent
    This was one issue I expected (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:37:29 AM EST
    Bernie to a lot more strongly align with my opinion.

    Guess I'll stick with the ferret I entered the pants with...or something like that.

    Parent

    Townhall dems (none / 0) (#20)
    by AnnL on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:25:10 PM EST
    Lord Maddow and Hayes love the Bernie. I thought Hillary was spot on, but apparently I'm wrong

    Bernie is not a hit (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:29:56 PM EST
    I just started it since I watched the Republican thing.

    He is getting very pointed questions from the audience.   Often they are getting applause and he is not.   He has not actually been booed yet but close.  Particularly comments about Obama and Bill Clinton.

    Parent

    Hillary comes out (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:38:27 PM EST
    Ok, I admit I FFed through a lot of Bernie.

    And the polite applause is replaced by actual applause.

    Bernie is going to lose NV.

    Parent

    Who was in the audience (none / 0) (#23)
    by caseyOR on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:45:06 PM EST
    for the Dem townhall? Was it donors or first come/first seated or what? Any idea?

    Parent
    They said each candidate (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:48:18 PM EST
    Got a few.  They don't seem to be doners.  Mostly young.  Very Latin.  

    Parent
    I guess I'll catch the highlights (none / 0) (#26)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:50:07 PM EST
    ..."highlights" once they hit Youtube later.

    I do appreciate that Donald has been able to expose his fellow candidates for the GOP nomination as being perfectly ready to jump into the sewer with him. I tuned into some of the last debate and it was appalling. I wish they had started running years ago; granted Obama's approval rating fluctuates but it sure has ticked up the past few weeks.

    A love of family on par with Jeb's has not been seen since ancient times (I am thinking of Sophocles in particular). It's too bad he doesn't defend the people Trump slanders as vigorously, since he's probably got the Bush family votes in the bag.

    Other than that, the GOP race leaves me speechless.

    Jeb! Just got contact lenses. (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:53:48 PM EST


    They made him look smarter (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:55:37 PM EST
    Should have kept them

    Parent
    I'd always thought he wore the specs (none / 0) (#31)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:05:35 AM EST
    to disguise his resemblance to Dubya.

    Now it's his main selling point.

    It's gotten really, really pathetic.

    Parent

    BTD is so active on twitter and so silent.... (none / 0) (#49)
    by magster on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:03:26 AM EST
    on the blogs about the elections and his support for Clinton. Wish he'd expand his advocacy to blogs. There's some interesting arguments about the sexism of Sanders' campaign, Sanders' non-support of Obama, and a disgraceful environmental vote of Sanders that is relevant to the Flint discussion that BTD and Peter Daou have been discussing that I haven't really seen in depth on blogs. Made me much more aligned with Hillary when I was flirting with supporting Sanders.

    Sierra Blanca (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 11:06:05 AM EST
    No mames guey... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 12:25:18 PM EST
    La loba blanca con la ropa de la cordera.  

    La ropa mas fina tambien, cortesia de Goldman Sachs.

    Parent

    Bernie no puede ganar en Noviembre. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 01:50:50 PM EST
    Any insistence to the contrary is delusional, and such delusions are effectively your dreams placing themselves on semi-permanent hiatus.

    And given the horror show that's currently taking place in the GOP, are Democratic-leaning voters really so shortsighted and forgetful that they'd willingly risk a repeat performance of George W. Bush's Reign of Error, which brought upon us not only international disgrace, but also economic calamity and foreign disaster on a scale not seen since the Great Depression?

    Because that's exactly what Bernie Sanders' candidacy brings into play. That's why most Democratic elected officials are lining up behind Mrs. Clinton. Our internal polling strongly indicates that the guy is George McGovern '72 Redux. He's a self-defined socialist, and between 45-50% of American voters -- depending on the polls -- have repeatedly indicated that they will not vote for a socialist.

    And to be perfectly blunt, that would be one helluva high bar for the Democratic Party to have to surmount by November, and one that's likely impossible to overcome in such a short period as a general election campaign. Any attempts on our part between July and November to explain to that aforementioned 45-50% of voters the difference between Bernie's "democratic socialism" and the type of socialism that will be defined by a very well-funded Republican attack machine will mostly fall upon deaf ears and prove futile. We. Will. Lose. Big time.

    I've said this before and will no doubt say it again: Perfect is the enemy of the good. Recess time is over, school's out and a very harsh GOP reality awaits you out there, more than ready and willing to bite the clueless in the a$$. As the the late, great Fred Sanford (Redd Foxx) once admonished his son, "You know, Lamont, life is hard -- and it gets a lot harder when you do something stupid."

    BTD certainly sees that. That's why he's supporting Hillary Clinton. I truly wish that those progressives here who profess to value his political opinions would actually listen to him on this matter at this critical juncture, and stop chasing their own tails and calling that progress. What's at all progressive about setting yourself up, with your eyes shut, for a royal a$$-kicking? To quote a very much alive Paul Krugman, "Don't let your idealism veer into a destructive self-indulgence."

    Bernie no puede ganar en Noviembre. Esa es la realidad.

    Adios.

    Parent

    More Meaningful Non-sense... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:45:55 PM EST
    ...Sanders is the democrat equivalent of GWB.

    If you can't beat them politically, compare them to hated historical figures and present it as some sort of unquestionable fact.  The bold really helps make the point, just kind of bummed you didn't use Stalin or Pilate.

    Parent

    Not what he said (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:58:35 PM EST
    He is alluding to the risk of a GOP victory in November. There was considerable talk among liberals in 2000 about how Gore was not that much better than GWB...but that turned out pretty disastrously.

    I know Gore didn't even carry his own state. That does not change the fact that if a few hundred less people had voted for Nader in Florida we would not have had GWB and the Iraq war.

    Parent

    Why is it assumed (none / 0) (#58)
    by BTAL on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 04:31:28 PM EST
    that all Nadar votes would automatically become Gore votes?  It appears to be a bit presumptive an argument.

    Parent
    He did not need all of them, not even close. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 05:09:17 PM EST
    I feel safe in assuming Gore would have gotten 544 more than Bush did of those 97,000 votes.

    Parent
    It could also be (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by BTAL on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 05:14:12 PM EST
    "assumed" that those voters chose to reject Gore (and Bush).  What can't be assumed is that their vote was redetermined to lean towards Gore.  

    What I will "assume" is that they were citizens and voters in their own right and should not be questioned on how they cast their votes.

    Parent

    I don't think she (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 05:47:31 PM EST
    Questioning them or their right to vote for whoever they want.  I would say she was discussing the result of those votes.  Which is not in question.

    Parent
    Yes, of course people can make their own choices (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 05:51:36 PM EST
    I just want them to be aware of the consequences.

    But you know what, the beauty of it is that all the Sanders people can prove me wrong by getting out there and beating Hillary and beating Trump. I will happily stand corrected.

    Parent

    Consequences... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by BTAL on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:40:57 PM EST
    Are in the eye of the beholder.  The same can be said about Perot being the "spoiler" for Bush Sr. vs Clinton.   I won't claim that Perot cost Bush Sr. the election then as it would be applying the same Nader logic.  

    People chose to both take the effort to vote and vote according to their personal beliefs.

    Projecting historical "what ifs" isn't a solid argument - regardless of the chosen math.

    Parent

    No, the same cannot be said (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:03:29 PM EST
    of Perot's impact, based on numbers and -- again, important -- based on strategy of the opposition.

    Parent
    Well I guess I like to believe people will (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:06:30 PM EST
    do what is best for the country regardless of their personal preference for a vanity candidate. I remain convinced that at least 537 Nader voters would have voted for Gore if they had understood what the consequences would be. Call me crazy.

    Parent
    For what it worth (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:49:29 PM EST
    Tad Devine disagrees.  He went out f his way to say Bernie chose to run as a democrat specifically for the reason of not acting as a spoiler and electing a republican.  Like Nader did.

    That's what he said.  Two day ago.  Most political observers do not question this.

    Only die hard Naderites in denial do.

    Parent

    And Perot (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 06:55:00 PM EST
    Did elect Clinton.  

    Parent
    In response to your 2 posts (none / 0) (#70)
    by BTAL on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:02:45 PM EST
    1.  Sanders had to run as a Democrat for two reasons.  First, he caucused with the D's for his entire congressional career.  To run as an Independent would have been a still-birth campaign.  Secondly, there is no way in heck he could have tried in the Republican party.

    2.  Sorry but the Perot elected Clinton is the same logic as Nader elected Bush is incorrect.


    Parent
    I just told what (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:11:29 PM EST
    His communications director said.  That's what he said.  You are welcome to your opinion but that is what his communications director said.   I'm sure the transcript is around if you need convincing.

    Parent
    Tad Devine Nader comments (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:35:45 PM EST
    And Tad Devine (none / 0) (#73)
    by BTAL on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:45:38 PM EST
    is entitled to his opinion as well.  As a Clinton supporter, don't understand why you want to quote him as a font of knowledge.  YMMV

    Parent
    Why am I choosing him? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:51:52 PM EST
    Because are reeling off reasons why Bernie Sanders did and did not do things.   I think his communications director might be in a better position to do that.

    That's why.

    Parent

    It's a numbers game. (none / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 05:47:42 PM EST
    We are talking very small numbers needed to make the difference. I don't assume all of them would have done anything. Just a 5% change in that Nader vote would have been enough.  Or, gaming out Nader not being in the race at all, 545 more of those 97000 people going to the polls anyway and preferring Gore over Bush.

    Hindsight does count in deciding what to do next.  People now do not have the excuse of saying 'how much worse could a GoP president really be? '.

    Parent

    Oh god, remember the butterfly (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:47:48 PM EST
    ballot where all those liberal old ladies were hoodwinked into voting for Buchanan?

    And it was 537.    

    Parent

    Don't make me remember any more than (none / 0) (#77)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:58:14 PM EST
    I already have!

    Those 7 votes are a nice cushion, as long as I am just imagining things.

    Parent

    The third-party split (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 05:51:50 PM EST
    historically, as again in 2000, can create a sense of confusion and even chaos about the process, which results in an answer to a question entirely other than that question of where those votes would go.  

    That question is made irrelevant by manipulation of the media and the public.  

    So, at the same time that we cannot know where those Nader votes would have gone, we also can know that the third-party split was causal -- if manipulated to be so -- to the chaos and the result.

    Parent

    Exit (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 08:26:51 PM EST
    polls are all we have to go by and something like 60% of Nader voters said they would have voted for Gore. 20% would have stayed home and another 20% would have voted for Bush IIRC.

    Parent
    The hated historical event (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Towanda on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 04:02:30 PM EST
    of the 2000 election clearly is the parallel stated.

    If you can't beat them logically, better to not reply with meaningless nonsense about something else.

    Parent

    "...our internal polling" ?? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by magster on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 02:48:12 PM EST
    Are you paid campaign staffer for Clinton? If so, do you have a twitter handle?

    Parent
    Good catch! (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 05:28:30 PM EST
    Good question!

    Parent
    No, but I'm one of her state co-chairs. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 09:21:22 PM EST
    I'm doing so as an unpaid volunteer. The Clinton campaign currently has one paid staffer on the ground out here, although we might get a few more as our March 26 caucuses approach. I am privy to the party's internal polling, and I've long made no secret of my support for Hillary Clinton.

    And no, so sorry, but I don't have a Twitter handle. Quite honestly, I've got enough on my plate right now. In fact, I hardly ever read Twitter, and then only if someone forwards to me a particular thread.

    The only way I even knew about BTD's activities on Twitter was when Jeralyn posted a link to it the other day. I read some of his thread, but I soon got tired of wading through all the snark, sniper fire, taunts and insults. It's like an online pie fight, and if you're not logged in, you can't participate. And what sort of fun is a vicarious pie fight?

    So, from what admittedly little I've seen, Twitter appears quite conducive to those persons who are partial to flamethrowing, rather than engaging in actual debate. In other words, it's absolutely perfect for the DNC / RNC / Beltway media crowd, and anyone else who likes to fling poo.

    I'm fully cognizant of the fact that a lot of people use Twitter and follow its various feeds and threads, and it's certainly an easy and convenient way to post a link to an article or blog post, especially if you're on the go and using your iPhone and other mobile devices.

    Personally, I eschew the internet when I'm out of the office or away from home. My elder daughter, who's in IT, calls me a dinosaur, which I admit hurts a little -- but yeah, I plead guilty to being "old-fashioned." I only started texting a couple of years ago, and grudgingly at that. I use my cellphone for calls, email and text. That's it.

    Even Facebook, I've really no patience personally for it. And heaven forbid if ever I did develop an affinity for Twitter, because the quick repartee and putdowns are such that I'd likely log on and then never leave -- "Huh? 'HRC emails?' U moron, go sell R/W crazy someplace else!"

    In a political campaign, my especialité has long been district / precinct organizing for GOTV (Get Out the Vote) efforts, which basically involves a lot of grunt work - phone banking, community meetings, neighborhood canvassing, etc. So I'll leave the Twitter and SnapChat and other social media, etc., for others to engage younger voters.

    But you're generally not going to reach most older adults that way, and those tend to be the most reliable voters. And further, having and maintaining a good ground game can go a long way to negate whatever advantages an opposing campaign might have in money, media advertising, and internet.

    If I can identify a given swing district and get canvassing teams to cover it door-to-door three times, we're highly likely to carry that district in the ensuing election. If it's a high-rise community such as Waikiki -- even though it's a tourist / hotel district, it does have 40,000 permanent residents -- which precludes direct door-to-door, we'll do targeted mailings, run phone banks and host community events.

    So yeah, it's old-fashioned, but it also works. Never, ever underestimate the power of the ground game and personal contact in a campaign. People do tend to appreciate the effort, and it pays off in lots of votes.

    ;-D Aloha.

    Parent

    "Eso es la realidad" (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Feb 19, 2016 at 07:02:35 PM EST
    Neuter the pronoun.  "Realidad" is an abstraction.

    Parent
    I might be wrong (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 20, 2016 at 06:38:18 PM EST
    But I think BTD uses Twitter so much because they resist the NSA. He's putting his mouth where his principles are.

    Parent