home

Tuesday Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 09:08:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

NH primary is today.

Open Thread.

< Monday Open Thread | NH Primary Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Open Thread | 202 comments (202 topical)
    If Sanders win is just in ... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:59:13 AM EST
    single digits.  Clinton should be gracious.  And forget about him.  

    Attack Republicans in the next debate. Sanders will have had his day in the sun.  But Clinton will win on demographics.  

    If he wins big. She'll still win on demographics.  But she can also safely drop her best oppo. Whatever that may be. I'm sure it's juicy.

    And attack him on his top tax rate. A 77% top rate is popular with no one. Even millennials don't like. And for the numbers to work it really has to be closer to 80%.

    If enough news cycles have him defending his top rate, his numbers will collapse. It's both bad policy and bad politics.

    Taxes is where Bernie is vulnerable (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:41:35 AM EST
    He has been given a complete bye on this so far.

    The GOP wouldn't.    

    Parent

    He's really been given a bye ... (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:47:34 AM EST
    on everything.

    I've seen cute puppies that have gotten rougher coverage than Sanders.

    Parent

    Maybe this is the reason Clinton doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:44:31 AM EST
    want to release her speech transcripts:

    According to people who heard Clinton's remarks, "she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs...She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis." On the one hand, it's understandable that Clinton wouldn't condemn the people paying her several hundred thousand dollars to speak. However, the report sharply contradicts her "Cut it out" narrative, which was already unpersuasive.

    "It was pretty glowing about us," said another attendee. "It's so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director." However accurate these accounts are, it's a very bad look for Clinton. The discourse on the Left right now is focused on greed and inequality and corruption - reports like this can only undermine Clinton's campaign.

    Clinton's current dilemma is whether to release the transcripts or not. As Buzzfeed reported over the weekend, she owns the exclusive rights to the content of her speeches, and so the decision is hers and hers alone. This is really a lose-lose proposition for Clinton. If she does release the transcripts, she'll have to defend everything she said, and that's not a position she wants to be in. As another attendee of one of the speeches put it, "It would bury her against Sanders. It really makes her look like an ally of the firm."
    yes, (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:22:14 PM EST
    However accurate these accounts are, it is a very bad look for clinton.  If accurate, bad.  If inaccurate, bad. It is the charge that matters.

    Parent
    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:28:18 PM EST
    The writer of this article didn't talk to the people who attended at least one speech she made on empowering women and enrepeneurship.

    This story, posted from the rag Salon, originated with Politico, which I've been told, is there Tiger Beat on the Potomac.

    Parent

    Probably there are really embarrassing (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 01:28:24 PM EST
    things in there, even if they are not fluffing the audience. The worst thing for a candidate is to be made to look silly - see Rubio Roboto, Kerry windsurfing, Dukakis in a jeep. That hardest thing to survive is being made a laughing stock. Trump's whole strategy is making laughing stocks out of his opponents.

    You can bet there are hundreds of high level mumbo jumbo statements in 'Ted Talk' quality motivational speeches that would make wonderful campaign ad tag lines.

    She is d***med if she does. and if she doesn't. I'm sure she is jsut riding out the Bern as best she can and betting it will not be an issue six weeks from now.


    Parent

    You should hear (2.67 / 3) (#42)
    by mm on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:04:33 PM EST
    what she says in the shower.  It will make you hair curl.  I think we should just go all the way here and put a 24/7 voyeur web camera on her just so we can make sure we know every thought that crosses her mind.

    Parent
    Yes, of course (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:55:21 AM EST
    She should release them sooner than later.

    On the other hand, who are these anonymous people?

    Parent

    Republicans that want to run against Sanders (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:22:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Maybe a candidate from the party (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:33:04 PM EST
    of working people should've thought of the optics factor before she started acting like Marie Antoinette in the midst of a bad economy.

    Parent
    Just because noone (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:39:24 PM EST
    has touched Bernie so far doesn't mean that he can't be torched in 30 seconds flat using the same standards. Marie Antoinette? Are you really that desperate? I mean the over the top hysteria is becoming downright hysterical.

    Parent
    It's a metaphor.. (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:53:08 PM EST
    I'm not saying you couldn't tell the two of them apart..

    Hillary's shorter. And older. ;-)

    Parent

    What fun this jostling is ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 01:38:57 PM EST
    when it mirrors grade-school name calling ... and, when it attacks the experienced woman's persona ... lots of fun (for the Republicans.)

    Parent
    At Least You Didn't Call it... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:41:16 PM EST
    ... inaccurate.

    Parent
    Speaking of grade school. (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:03:10 PM EST
    oI love these troll ratings every time someone gets their self-important feathers a little ruffled.

    Parent
    Well .... (none / 0) (#108)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:27:42 PM EST
    I've learned here that there are a few people that can be counted on to "award" that "1" to me or others who don't agree with them ... quite readily.  Most unfortunate.  Name-calling seems to be something that some here do with each other in tough argument circumstances as well.  So, acceding to practice, the rating--goofy as the process is--was awarded to you in this growing emotional debate.  (Maybe we could practice neurolinguistic responses via blog in a positive sense.  I'll follow your style lead on that :) )

    Parent
    In Other Words... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 09:03:35 AM EST
    ... it's not your fault you gave out a '1' to a regular commenter.

    Parent
    Let Them (none / 0) (#121)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:45:03 PM EST
    Let them invest in hedge funds...


    Parent
    Well, duh :) (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:25:44 PM EST
    I know that, but it's still a good story to get breathless over without things like pertinent facts.

    Parent
    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:31:58 PM EST
    ... to me it seems unlikely that she is going to do that, surely anyone could have recorded it, and to have any of it be that damning, well it would be problematic to say the least.

    This is the same as the emails, if you are going to do it, do it right away, before the press pumps this up to something it's not.  To be clear, when I say it's the same I mean as far as decided to release, not content.  She held out on the emails and that allowed republicans to act like there was something sinister going on.

    Parent

    Why not Sanders too? (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by sallywally on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 07:08:42 PM EST
    Why only Clinton? What about his emails if not his speeches?


    Parent
    Go For It... (none / 0) (#196)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 09:02:03 AM EST
    ... no one is stopping you from asking for them.

    Parent
    Missing the point, are you? (none / 0) (#198)
    by mm on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 09:27:19 AM EST
    Get back to me when Chuck Todd, Jake Tapper, George Stephanopoulos and the rest of the media lynch mob badger the others as well.  

    CLINTON RULES

    Parent

    Well Complaining to Me About It... (none / 0) (#200)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 10:55:27 AM EST
    ... it's going to do much.  Maybe if HRC quit taking checks from WS in the middle of a campaign they might stop focusing on the content of her speeches to them.

    Either way, if you think it's unfair, you can hardly blame Sanders or his supporters.

    Parent

    Why do you keep saying (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by mm on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 10:57:22 AM EST
    She's taking checks in the middle of a campaign?  You know that is not true.  She stopped giving her paid speeches before she declared.  So quit making stuff up to make it sound worse than it is.

    Parent
    Empowering women GS speech on youtube (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Coral on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:35:52 PM EST
    Here's the link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lKlJ3Ed4fQ


    Parent
    I'm not a big fan of the anonymous source (none / 0) (#58)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:39:13 PM EST
    either - but contrast her reaction to releasing these transcripts with how she dealt with the e-mail situation.  With the e-mail, she asked that all her e-mails be made public, which I think made a lot of people feel like she had nothing to hide.

    She apparently has complete dominion over these speech transcripts, so why the hesitation?  It's making people ask more questions and adding to the speculation that there's something in them that contradicts her description of what she said - like it or not, it seems like a bad strategy when she already suffers from problems with trustworthiness.

    I get why she's annoyed, but I also see that to a large extent she did this to herself.  And I don't think her campaign is handling it particularly nimbly - also something that has dogged her over the years.

    I would prefer that she just rip off the bandaid now, and not drag this out - given that she's likely going to be the nominee, I really am not interested in her chances for election being damaged to the point where some insane person from the GOP has a better chance to win.

    Parent

    No She Didn't... (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:53:36 PM EST
    ...originally she refused to release them for the longest time, declaring the content private, then as the drum beat picked up, she decided to piece meal them out.

    Of course this is her own making, this isn't a speech from 2000, it happened in the midst of the Iowa caucus, when questions about taking WS $$ were already an issue.  

    Dare I say this was predictable, someone was going to want to know what she said to GS ?  It's insane to me that she didn't take a pass until Sanders is/was gone.

    Parent

    There's a parallel with Romney's taxes... (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by magster on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:44:41 PM EST
    ... which his resistance to releasing them just led to a drip drip that was a part of his undoing.  Clinton should just rip off the band-aid and release them all after the polls close, especially since people will be more interested in reading about the results of the primary tomorrow.

    Parent
    Have you thought (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:40:48 PM EST
    that maybe she's holding them until the hysteria gets to a fever pitch and then releasing them to only make the people screaming about them look like idiots? It has happened before.

    Parent
    Now you sound like someone who (none / 0) (#64)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:50:37 PM EST
    actually works for the Clinton campaign, because this is exactly the kind of lead-footed, ham-handed thing they would advise her to do.

    Parent
    Ham handed (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 01:03:54 PM EST
    Making your opponents look like a bunch of fools?

    Parent
    When (none / 0) (#90)
    by sj on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:02:35 PM EST
    has this happened before?

    Parent
    She said she'didn't release them (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:56:05 PM EST
    When all candidates release theirs as well.

    Or is she the only one to whom this should apply?

    #AskingForAFriend

    Parent

    No, she shouldn't necessarily be the only one (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by sj on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:05:01 PM EST
    I think every candidate who took speaking fees from Goldman Sachs should release the transcripts.

    Parent
    The Rep. John Lewis... (none / 0) (#100)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:17:07 PM EST
    Goldman Sachs speech is on youtube.  I tried to watch but got bored...he was talking about his days on the farm as a boy.  He's still sick of peanuts.

    Parent
    Her speech to GS (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    Also on Youtube, about empowering women entrepeneurs was pretty good.

    Parent
    For over 200 grand per... (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:31:14 PM EST
    it better be a lot better than pretty good!

    For that kinda bread, it should be the best damn speech ever given...like "I Have a Dream" and "Sermon on the Mount" and Rocky's speech in Moscow after the Drago fight in Rocky IV all rolled into one.

    Parent

    Celebrity keynoters (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:15:37 PM EST
    and speakers make an almost obscene amount. Not only the high rollers, but also, for Conventions  like Fasteners and Widgets of America.  The range is $35,000 to $235,000 according to one agency. And, if you are a former US Senator, former Secretary of State, among the World's most admired women, and wife of a former US President, the speaker does not even have to be a spellbinder.  The politician who holds the record is probably President Reagan, after leaving office, received $2 million for a speaking tour from the Japanese.

    Parent
    I'll bet they are worth it (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:16:51 PM EST
    As I've mentioned on this blog previously, HRC is one of the best orators I've ever heard. I saw her speak in 1992 in support of her husband's campaign. She went about 40 minutes using what appeared to be one index card of notes, and it was just riveting. Compelling, substantive, organized, intelligent and articulate.

    Parent
    I'll bet they were, too (none / 0) (#141)
    by sj on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:23:52 PM EST
    (comparatively speaking)
    I'll bet they are worth it (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    I've also said it before: she shines at this sort of personal appearance.

    Parent
    I, too, have (none / 0) (#150)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:43:04 PM EST
    heard Mrs. Clinton speak and I would agree fully with your assessment.  It was at a garden party hosted for local Democrats at the home of a  Key West same sex couple who were long time friends of then, Senator Clinton. I was fortunate to be placed with her at a luncheon round table for eight, and had a special opportunity to visit with her.   She spent a great deal of time with the crowd, answering many, including some polite, but incisive, questions about the Iraq war. Have a nice photo, Mrs. Clinton, spouse and me.

    Parent
    One of the political reporters that (none / 0) (#154)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:52:16 PM EST
    was speaking on Sirius's politics station said that she has seem Clinton do many more meet and greet activities with the voters than Sanders does. This was in the lead up to Iowa. It just surprised me because I thought Sanders was more gregarious, but the reporter said no, he pretty much gives his speech and moves on, without a lot of smaller group events.  Though I guess when you are filling stadiums with big events, there is no need or time to do the smaller events.

     

    Parent

    now there's a real reason (none / 0) (#110)
    by CST on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:33:36 PM EST
    Not to release transcripts.  What if she loses?  They might decide to pay someone else $10,000 to read one of her previous speeches.

    Parent
    Outsourse it... (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:42:31 PM EST
    to Southeast Asia...Ha!

    But we both know they're not paying for the speech...ever.  It's really an appearance fee, like when some Arab prince pays Lindsay Lohan to go to his birthday party.

    Parent

    She'said the most frustrating woman in the world (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:42:22 PM EST
    She could stand on stage and read the classifieds from the NYT and there will be people who will pay her that kind of money.

    They want to be near her, shake her hand, and get their picture taken with her.

    Parent

    Exactly... (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:45:48 PM EST
    you're buying access...not a speech.

    Parent
    100% Accurate kdog (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:50:19 PM EST
    No matter how its spun.

    And this is not a HRC discussion, it's about all of them taking large amounts of money with the expectation of something.

    Parent

    Okay. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 03:43:41 PM EST
    What's Bernie's response when one of the Wall Street execs call him a communist who wants to confiscate 90% of his money? Quit focusing on the speeches and start talking about how Bernie is going to respond when he gets hit by these people?

    Parent
    Famous , not frustrating (none / 0) (#137)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:16:55 PM EST
    Well, ok, maybe frustrating too.

    Parent
    Why limit it to Goldman Sachs? (none / 0) (#104)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:25:37 PM EST
    Why not every speech they gave outside their official duties?  Whether it was at GS, or the Sierra Club, or a defense contractor and regardless if they took money or not?

    Parent
    Funny... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:43:15 PM EST
    ... int hat you are trying to be funny, but I would be down with it.  I have never liked politicians speaking to anyone one group in private.

    Parent
    You're right (none / 0) (#139)
    by sj on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:20:43 PM EST
    Let's not limit it to GS. In fact, let's not limit it to Presidential candidates.

    There are multiples ways to open it up for declared candidates for all national offices.

    1). Release transcripts for all speeches for which one received speaking fees -- works for me.

    2). Release transcripts for speeches where fees were over an arbitrary dollar amount -- not a fan of that. Then all these comments would be focusing on what that amount was and how un-faiiirrrr it was.

    3). Release transcripts for all speeches everywhere. What is the problem with that? It works for me, too, although I think it's unnecessary. What voters are trying to determine is what the candidate perceives as his or her priorities. And nothing says that like money.

    After all, how I make my money certainly says something about me.

    So bottom line, you're right. Release them all. That avoids all the pretzeling.


    Parent

    Yes... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:47:16 PM EST
    ...if they are running for office.

    Parent
    Not saying it is a bad idea... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:55:16 PM EST
    but it is interesting that it is just coming up now, with this candidate, when politicians have been giving speeches to private groups forever.

    Parent
    They may have been giving speeches ... (none / 0) (#171)
    by sj on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:18:35 PM EST
    ... to private groups forever, but being paid more than half a million dollars for the privilege is a relatively new phenomenon.

    Parent
    Can anyone suggest an alternative theory (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 08:07:47 PM EST
    to this: that when a bunch a rich and powerful folks pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone who is a strong contender for the Presidency, what they want is not to be enlightened on some subject but rather to curry favor, to cultivate access, and otherwise to purchase a deep feeling of obligation from that contender?  

    Parent
    Why do you assumr (none / 0) (#183)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 08:17:27 PM EST
    That it was only the rich and powerful who attended these talks?  Many times there are large groups of people how attend -all levels of employees included.

    Parent
    It is the rich and powerful who pay (none / 0) (#185)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 08:33:05 PM EST
    and who agree to pay, regardless of who attends. That's the question I posed. I didn't say or assume anything about who attended; that part didn't even cross my mind, actually. As I've previously suggested, I hope lots of people attended. She's a wonderful and inspiring speaker, whom I will be very pleased to see as President (all things considered). Nevertheless, the question I posed is a serious one, and it troubles me.

    Parent
    It is my understanding (none / 0) (#186)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 08:40:29 PM EST
    That the company pays - not the individual executives.  It's a line item under things like "training" or "business development" or something else.

    I've been to all-hands meetings where they brought in speakers  (not one as big as HRC), but the fee was budgeted in to some account for corporate meetings.

    Parent

    But do you think that because the people who (none / 0) (#189)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:57:29 PM EST
    pay want to get some deep feeling of obligation necessarily means they Do get that feeling of obligation? They are paying someone that is already rich and has a healthy sense of self worth. I think it is far from proven that she feels any sense of obligation to people that pay her speaking fees, beyond giving them a good speech and personal contact.

    Parent
    And if they really are buying obligation (none / 0) (#190)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:06:45 PM EST
    and influence, the transcripts of the speeches are not where the evidence is going to be found. They will just provide the embarrassing sound bites.

    Parent
    Ruffian, your points are all good (none / 0) (#194)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 03:59:10 AM EST
    Paying people like Clinton big bucks to speak, does not foster obligation in or of the speaker to the paying company in any respect. As you indicated, it's entertainment and education. Companies and organization do this frequently with former government officials and others, although not necessarily at fee levels as high as Clinton commanded. Companies do this for their employees, as well as for their customers and clients. The speeches are often informational, and sometimes can be inspirational.

    Yes, the transcripts would probably have some sound bites. Most speakers in Clintons' position would not be rude or lecture the company. They would likely be as nice as possible, and not try to create controversy at the speech, generally. I suppose Trump might be an exception.

    This is merely politicians looking to score some points or get some advantage. It should be a non-issue, but in this day and age of politics, it probably isn't.

    Parent

    Not really any evidence (none / 0) (#195)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 04:06:44 AM EST
    Just How Cozy Is Hillary Clinton With Wall Street?  by Kevin Drum (not historically a huge HRC cheerleader).  [Bolding is mine].

    Still, what about Clinton? How cozy with the financial industry is she? I asked about this on Twitter over the weekend, figuring that all the Bernie supporters would give me an earful. But no such luck. Mostly they just told me that she had taken Wall Street money and given Wall Street speeches. The only concrete criticism was one that Elizabeth Warren made in 2004: that Clinton had changed her view on the bankruptcy bill after she accepted lots of Wall Street money to get elected to the Senate.

    But that didn't really hold water. She opposed the bill in 1999 because she wanted alimony and child-support payments to take precedence over credit card companies during bankruptcy proceeding. The bill passed anyway, but Bill Clinton vetoed it. In 2001, she brokered a compromise that gave priority to alimony and child support, and then voted for the bill. It didn't pass at the time, and in 2005 her compromise was removed from the bill. She said then that she opposed it.

    This is classic Hillary. Once George Bush was president, she had no way of stopping the bill--so she worked hard behind the scenes to get what she could in return for her vote. Love it or hate it, this is the kind of pragmatic politics she practices. But there's no hypocrisy here; no change of heart thanks to Wall Street money (she supported the bill when it protected women and children and opposed it when it didn't); and no real support for the financial industry.

    SNIP

    I think it's safe to say that Clinton has hardly been a scourge of the banking industry. Until recently, her main interests were elsewhere. But if there's a strong case to be made for "coziness," I've failed to find it. Anyone care to point me in the right direction?


    Parent
    Trump spoke of this issue in the first debate (none / 0) (#191)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 02:28:57 AM EST
    His words were forgettable.

    These are not: "A republic, if you can keep it."

    Parent

    No, not really. (3.40 / 5) (#187)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 08:55:51 PM EST
    Former President Ronald Reagan received a $2 million honorarium from the Fujisankei Communications Group in 1990 for two speeches he delivered in Japan.

    Donald Trump was paid $1.5 million per appearance when he addressed the Learning Annex in both 2006 and 2007.

    Even George W. Bush raked in over $15 million in speaking fees in 2011 alone and further, each and every one of his speeches has been closed to the public.

    And it's long been public knowledge that Bill Clinton is a very much-in-demand public speaker who can command up to $500,000 per engagement.

    Personally and honestly, I think that this is an entirely manufactured controversy and really much ado about nothing. Honoraria have been around since forever, and for nearly just as long, their receipt / demand by certain individuals whom we dislike or oppose has also served as a convenient vehicle to criticize and attack them.

    I mean, if someone offers something that's in demand, why shouldn't he or she get paid for its purchase and delivery? That's the reality and reflection of the marketplace in action.

    And if that something happens to be one's own knowledge, experience, wisdom or even personal presence, where is it written that he or she is then required to give it away for free?

    But to insinuate, without any evidence or foundation whatsoever other than personal feeling, that honoraria and speaking / lecture fees to these individuals are somehow the equivalent of bribes, payoffs, kickbacks or worse -- well, that sort of hyperbole really says a lot more about the person who's leveling that baseless charge, than it does of the person receiving the honorarium or fee.

    Speaking for myself only. Aloha.

    Parent

    What does it say about me, in your opinion (5.00 / 6) (#188)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:29:56 PM EST
    that I am skeptical that such enormous fees are often paid not for the pleasure of hearing the person speak but to curry favor?
    [T]o insinuate, without any evidence or foundation whatsoever other than personal feeling, that honoraria and speaking / lecture fees to these individuals are somehow the equivalent of bribes, payoffs, kickbacks or worse -- well, that sort of hyperbole really says a lot more about the person who's leveling that baseless charge, than it does of the person receiving the honorarium or fee.

    That's quite a nasty remark, Donald. (By the way, I did not say or insinuate that speaker fees were a form of bribe or payoff; I have defended politicians on such criminal charges, and I know very well -- and often have to argue to prosecutors and judges -- that currying favor with the powerful is not covered by bribery laws.) You have read many of my comments here over the years; you must have some opinion of my integrity and character. Tell me what this entirely realistic observation, which I made about someone I generally support, not as a cheap shot at someone I despise (like W), reveals about me, please. Or, you might apologize.

    Parent
    Yes, (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:37:02 PM EST
    Tori Burch made a speech at Goldman Sachs so they will now be dictating what she designs. Archbishop Dolan made a speech at Goldman Sachs so Goldman Sachs will now be dictating canon law to the Catholic Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke before Goldman Sachs so Goldman Sachs will now be dictating what the Anglican Communion does going forward. This is just about how hysterical and over the top the whole nonsense has gotten. Apparently speaking about women entrepreneurs is not awful. Seriously is the Bernie campaign this stinking desperate?

    Parent
    Much as you would like to reduce this to (none / 0) (#63)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:48:18 PM EST
    that level of silliness, that isn't the problem.

    But if you insist on doing so, I should point out that Tori Burch isn't running for president, nor is the Archbishop, and neither, as far as I know, ever entertained the idea of doing so at the time they were giving their speeches.

    But if you think Tori Burch wouldn't do Lloyd - or any of the higher-ups - some favors ("of course, I would love for your wife to wear one of my gowns to the Met Gala"), then you might have to think that maybe Clinton would, too.  What favor?  Maybe just the opportunity to have her ear - which is something you or I will never have.

    She may be regretting that she didn't donate her fees to charity - at least she would have that going for her.

    Parent

    Why are they called fees (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 01:04:57 PM EST
    to describe what was in essence her salary at the time?  I understand the optics here, but it's a d@mn shame we Democrats require people to make the "right" kind of money.

    Parent
    Shame ? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 01:23:48 PM EST
    I would call that awesome, a party with principle, glad we aren't taking money from certain special interests, and Bernie would like for us to not have to take money from anyone.

    How is that a shame ?

    Parent

    She was a private citizen (2.00 / 1) (#80)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 01:30:14 PM EST
    so that example falls flat - except for those who see it as a way it to make their guy look better.  The moral crap you are trying to sell is even more ironic when the bs you are flinging (w/o any clear knowledge of what was even discussed) is hardly of a moral nature.

    Bernie is trying to make us all better people - please spare me.

    Parent

    I Never Said That... (none / 0) (#83)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 01:45:16 PM EST
    ...nothing even close.  And unless HRC has left the party, my statement most certainly includes her, and if you want to get technical, her even more so in that I am not entirely convinced Sanders a true blue democrat.

    Your presumed belief that the statement above is a knock on HRC is wrong, but please, you have some point to make don't let my explanation of my own words get in your way.

    Do you think it would have been acceptable for Obama to take money from anti-abortion groups in 2008/2012 ?  Of course not, and that was my point, that I am glad we have standards when it comes to taking dollars.  WS is bad, but clearly not a deal breaker for the party, and I doubt many Sanders fans are going to go republican if he doesn't get the nod.  They will get over it.

    So take your own advise about hyperbolic statements.


    Parent

    Obama (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 01:57:15 PM EST
    As a government official between 2008-2012, would not have been allowed to accept speaking fees.  You're comparing apples to oranges.  

    He does, however continue to get hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in book royalties, in addition to his government salary and all the perks of the office.

    Parent

    Next year... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:01:35 PM EST
    Obama will be raking in the speaking fees... taking a stroll down Wall St. making collections for past favors.

    Ya know, just a little something to wet his beak.


    Parent

    To Be Clear... (none / 0) (#98)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:15:35 PM EST
    ... are you saying if HRC was in office what she did deserves criticism ?

    Parent
    No, I was pretty clear (none / 0) (#103)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:21:57 PM EST
    You said that if Obama took speaking fees from anti abortion groups 2008 -2012.... I pointed out that wouldn't happen, or if it did, would be a whole different ball of wax.  

    You were comparing someone who is in office vs. a private citizen.

    Parent

    That Was not an Answer... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:38:40 PM EST
    ...to the question.

    What I am getting around to, it would seem that you think she should have different rules than people who are employed by the government even though she is trying to become an employee of the government.

    Which of course goes against just about every post you have made in regards to HRC.  Now she should get special treatment that other candidates, even though a great deal of time has been spent declaring that she is being treated differently and how that is unfair.

    Yes, I get that her status is different.

    I find it odd that I even have to write this, since it's been basically one of the only areas where HRC has a real weakness, and she knows it.  Wouldn't have just been easier for HRC to take a pass on speaking to one of the left's bugaboos rather than fight it the whole campaign ?  

    Worse, if she said something really bad, and we will get the transcripts I am sure, it could cost her the election.  I mean F, quit buddying up to WS before an election if you are a democrat, even an unemployed one.

    Parent

    Apparently you missed (none / 0) (#118)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:43:51 PM EST
    The multiple times I said she should release the transcripts.

    Parent
    I Did Not... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:46:24 PM EST
    ... nor did I miss you ducking out on question and discussion above.

    Parent
    Yes, she shouldn't have done it (none / 0) (#128)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 03:09:33 PM EST
    But so what??

    She needs to release the transcripts and move on.

    But frankly, this constant drum beating about this shows that the Sanders campaign and his supporters don't have much to go on.  She got rich.  Woo hoo.  On industries she may have a hand in regulating someday....or not. Unless you have something that can definitively show this will make her favor them, then you're spouting pure speculation and trying to spin it as fact. What ISanders a fact is that you have no idea how she'does deal with them.

    Funny, I still don't see anyone talking about all the money she made giving speeches to the tech industry, another industry she may have dealings with as president, especially when it comes to privacy, security of our personal data, 4th Amendment issues, etc.  Wanna bet why this isn't even being discussed and no pearls are being clutched over it?  I have a theory and it has a lot to do with the demographics of who works and runs said companies.

    So, unless you can be outraged about all of these and demand she come clean with her private citizen dealings with media and tech companies, please save the tired "Goldman Sachs" meme.  Your argument might be more interesting if it was all encompassing and not based on selective talking points of an opponent's campaign.

    Many people care about this and care deeply.  Good for them.  For many others, the more it's pounded into the ground, the less we care.  We care about things like jobs, clean drinking water, improved access to health care, being safe and secure in our homes, our neighborhoods, and our country.  I'd rather focus on those issues rather than how someone legally got rich.

    YMMV.

    Parent

    For Someone Who Complains... (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:34:54 PM EST
    ... constantly about people not reading posts, I don't suppose that mentioning for the 1001 time that I am not a Sanders supporter would matter.

    I am not locked in yet.

    It's the optics, taking off from Iowa to go get a check at WS.  How does that in anyway indicate she is interested in reeling in WS, it doesn't, it does the exact opposite.

    You know damn well what this is about and acting like you don't is beneath you, she could take checks from just about any industry but one or two, and yet she still at that one getting checks as of two or three weeks ago, in the middle of her campaign.

    Having issue with HRC does not equal Sanders supporter, it means that I would like to know why she can't stay away from that easy WS money knowing the optics would be bad.

    Quit frankly it is troublesome, she only had to wait until Bernie is out, but this is what is keeping him in, the R's sure as hell aren't going to go after her WS connections.  

    That is bad judgement, which whether you like it or not, it is important to me.  It really doesn't make sense, on the campaign trail, taking a day off to speak to people who are almost universally disliked and not trusted, for money ?

    Parent

    I'm not the one constantly complaining (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:08:40 PM EST
    about people not reading posts - you have me confused with Anne.

    Since you cannot, or will not, address the hypocrisy of only wanting "Goldman Sachs" released, but not addressing the silence (especially from the college crew) on how much she took from tech (which was the most money she took from any industry, by the way), then this tells me that there really is no argument and it's just a good catchphrase to stir up voters. Why aren't you howling about her speeches to tech and how she will work with them to collect your data and slow your networks, so they can charge you more for access, and blah blah blah?  

    Also, if it weren't sad, it would be funny that  everyone is assuming they know how she will deal with the financial sector because they paid her as a private citizen to speak, and it shows that people are talking out of their a$$es.  She has been tried and found guilty even though you have no idea what she would do. Teddy Roosevelt took money from Standard Oil, but he still broke them up. Barney Franks took money from the banks, yet he was still able to co-sponsor and get Dodd-Franks passed.

    There are so many more things to be outraged about in this country, like the fact that we have kids who have been poisoned by drinking contaminated water.  Why aren't Sanders supporters talking about that? There were 242 terror incidents around the world last year alone - why no mention of that?  Why no discussion of abortion and reproductive rights?  Why no discussion of civil rights?

    Parent

    It is Exactly That Kind of Thinking... (none / 0) (#199)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 09:38:41 AM EST
    ... that had given her real competition in this primary.  I don't know how to respond about the hypocrisy I don't see it.  Had she spoken to Big Oil/Coal or some middle eastern corporation people would want to know what she said to them in the middle of a primary.

    No one cares what she has to say to Tech companies, to Automakers, or to widget manufacturers.  Bernie is not in the race to reel in widget makers, there is one group that contributed immensely to the collapse of the economy, and it ain't widget manufacturers.

    The good news, she seems to finally get it, and in her speech after NH she clearly knows this is an issue she needs to get ahead of.

    You will notice JB, she isn't singling out tech companies or anyone else, so if I am being hypocritical well then so is the candidate.

    Thanks Bernie.

    For the record, she hasn't been found guilty of anything, but in politics, it's the optics, but you know this, and so does she, and so do primary voters.  To me instead of getting mad at the people who don't like her getting checks from WS, maybe you should get mad at the person taking them in the middle of the primary.  

    IMO we have seen the last of that foolishness.

    Parent

    "Goldman Sachs" isn't just the name of (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:08:24 PM EST
    one of the firms from which Clinton received large speaking fees, it's also shorthand for "financial industry" or "powerful corporate interests."

    If you're interested, here's a link to Clinton's website, where you will find a link to the list of the speaking fees she earned in 2013.

    She received $225,000 for 34 of the 41 speeches listed on her tax return. Of the remaining 7 speeches, two were for 250,000 and the others for $265,000, $275,000, $285,000, $305,000 and $400,000. In total she received $9,680,000 for these speaking engagements in 2013.

    Wall Street firms funded 14 of her 41 talks. In addition to Goldman Sachs, the list includes Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Fidelity Investments UBS and Bank of America. Her benefactors also include hedge funds and private equity firms like Apollo Management and Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts.

    Link

    Almost $10 million.  

    I mean, she couldn't even be honest about why Goldman Sachs paid her $675,000 for the three speeches she gave for them.  She disingenuously said, "because that's what they offered," when it's pretty clear from looking at the list, that that's her fee.  She - or her speaking agency - set those fees.

    And she owns the speeches, so she doesn't have to "look into" getting transcripts.

    I guess where I'm going with this is, if there's nothing wrong with what she did, why couldn't she tell Anderson Cooper that she was paid $225K per speech because that is her fee?  Why couldn't she tell Chuck Todd that she owns the speeches and assuming that providing them doesn't compromise her ability to retain control over them, she'd be happy to release them?

    We all care about the things you listed - and Clinton has a lot of good things to say about them - and this is taking people's attention off the issues of the majority of the voters and putting it right back on what is arguably her weakest point: can you trust her?

    Like I said, I'd really like her to just fish or cut bait on this, now, so she can try to put it behind her.  If she's the nominee, I seriously don't want to spend the entire general election season having to listen to the GOP and the right wing yammering on about this or what I think the next shoe to drop will be: the Clinton Foundation and CGI.

    And if she has to disclose, so should any other candidate who's been earning money giving speeches.

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#168)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:10:17 PM EST
    "Goldman Sachs" isn't just the name of (none / 0) (#166)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:08:24 PM EST
    one of the firms from which Clinton received large speaking fees, it's also shorthand for "financial industry" or "powerful corporate interests."

    But since she received more from the tech industry than any other, why the silence?  

    Because it's a good campaign slogan.

    Parent

    Your statement certainly includes her (none / 0) (#95)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:13:00 PM EST
    "her even more so."  Yet, you use as an example of the "bad side" of politics, a private citizen who made money whilst out of gov't.

    Look, I agree, the level of outside money in politics is bad, but I also understand until laws are changed and we pony up as taxpayers to fund campaigns, to not use that money to further an agenda that aligns is counter productive. To use that as an argument against our own is pennywise pound foolish.

    Parent

    I am watching MSNBC (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 01:16:00 PM EST
    With great interest to see if they can possibly fluff Bernie any more aggressively.  
    It could become downright vulgar.

    Parent
    "Bernie-fluffer" is funny (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 01:25:33 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm not sure you want to make the (none / 0) (#102)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:19:44 PM EST
    argument that Clinton was on the Goldman Sachs payroll, do you?  Because that's what the use of "salary" implies.

    Parent
    No, but you knew that. (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:37:30 PM EST
    I'm making the argument that we do a disservice to the big tent when we allow wedges to be driven between ourselves when we are all largely in agreement on the goal.  We should elevate the discussion internally instead of providing fodder for those that would work against us.

    Parent
    You didn't clarify before (none / 0) (#159)
    by sj on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:00:56 PM EST
    So I'll ask in a different way:
    I'm making the argument that we do a disservice to the big tent when we allow wedges to be driven between ourselves when we are all largely in agreement on the goal.
    Exactly what goal are we all largely in agreement with. In your view?

    Because my "goals" don't I think, coincide with yours, for example.  But I think "goals" is the wrong word. I prefer "priorities". I am looking for the candidate whose priorities are more in line with mine.

    Finding out who is funding who goes a long, long way to determining priorities.

    As for the "fodder" argument, that is total cr@p. When it comes to opposition research the Big Boys make commenters on a blog look like pikers.

    "Elevate the discussion" my a$$. That puts a target on the back of the blindfolded candidate. Because the opposition is in no way going to "elevate the discussion".

    So, what are your goals, anyway?

    Parent

    I thnk short term goals should be simple (none / 0) (#177)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 06:59:28 PM EST
    nominate the strongest Democratic candidate we can, ensure any supporters of the candidate that loses supports the nominee, don't shoot ourselves in the foot in the process.  We should all be aligned around that.

    The "cauldron of fire" argument doesn't hold much sway with me, considering one of the candidates we have has already proven herself able to stand the heat of the kitchen.

    Long Term Goals - campaign finance reform, job training & creation, infrastructure repair, improved regulation of the financial sector, universal health care, national security, immigration, Israel & Palestine, not necessarily in that order.

    Re: finding out who's financing who, that info is already available.

    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by sj on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 02:58:05 AM EST
    good enough. And yes, you're right about funding information.

    Frankly, I think a vigorous primary season centered around real issues makes for a stronger candidate. Challenging the candidates makes them stronger. If they can't hold up to a primary challenge then I don't have much hope for a general election.

    I think both candidates are stronger than that. It isn't "shooting ourselves in the foot" in my opinion. It is making our priorities known. If not now, then when? This is the only time the electorate is given any shrift at all. If the candidates don't handle it well they are shooting themselves in the foot. They have all the leverage.

    Parent

    Anne (3.67 / 3) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    it has gotten downright hysterical and screeching. It's become utterly ridiculous and it is starting to reek of desperation from the Sanders campaign along with some of the other things they have been doing lately.

    Parent
    This might be the biggest Bernie rally yet.... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by magster on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:58:29 PM EST
    here

    Bernie rally (none / 0) (#158)
    by AnnL on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:59:56 PM EST
    Too funny!

    Parent
    Let's dispel, once and for all, this fiction ... (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:31:43 PM EST
    that New Hampshire voters don't know what they're doing.  They know EXACTLY what they're doing.

    And, let me add, let us dispel with this fiction that New Hampshire voters don't know what they're doing.  They know EXACTLY what they're doing.

    -- From a leaked copy of Rubio's post election speech.

    ;)

    Your grammar is way better (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:34:50 PM EST
    He was saying "let's dispense with"

    Parent
    No, he said "dispel" ... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:45:05 PM EST
    check YouTube.

    Parent
    I was sure you were wrong (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:13:48 PM EST
    So I did check.  He said "dispel with"


    A linguist noticed an odd thing about Marco Rubio's malfunction in the GOP debate.Sure, it was weird when Rubio said a version of one talking point--"Let's dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing"--four times. But it's also weird he said "dispel with." That's not a thing.




    Parent
    I put the "with" the ... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:37:51 PM EST
    second time.  He does say it the first time.  But kinda swallows it.

    Parent
    Why you remembered it as "dispense" (none / 0) (#192)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 02:52:00 AM EST
    The big pattern matcher on your neck matched the "with" to its closest appropriate partner beginning with "dispe".  

    One rhetorician theorized that Dubya's success was due to a word salad approach to communication.  If you lay his impromptu spewings out on a page they look like word salad - incoherent, fragmented, broken grammar, broken everything.

    But if you were receptive and listening, your brain would supposedly rearrange the word salad into what you wanted to hear.  

    Parent

    Kasich Expected to Defund Planned Parenthood (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 02:52:13 PM EST
    Gov. John Kasich is expected to sign a bill stripping government money from Planned Parenthood, a move that might help him with conservatives who dominate the upcoming Republican presidential primary in South Carolina.

    - for anyone who actually believed he was the kinder, gentler alternative.

    Judd Gregg (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 09:21:14 AM EST
    is predicting that if four candidates emerge from SC on the GOP side that they are headed for a brokered convention.

    Is there any reason (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:26:55 PM EST
    Judd Gregg would have more insight into this than Joe Blow?

    Parent
    I have no idea. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:41:24 PM EST
    I report. You deride.

    Parent
    What a mess that would be... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:42:32 AM EST
    but the media would wet their pants over it.

    Parent
    Chuckles (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:45:58 AM EST
    Todd pretty much admitted as much one day. Goes to show the media cares nothing about anything other than entertainment.

    Parent
    My sense is that late deciders ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 09:38:01 AM EST
    are breaking for Kasich.  And a slightly smaller group for Bush.

    If true, in a strange way, Bush may be the bigger winner.

    Kasich is not a good fit for SC.  But Bush is.  And if Rubio has truly faded, a Bush comeback could be in the making.

    Funnily enough, Trump could win and it not matter much.  Especially if he doesn't reach 30%.  And it's not impossible for him to be second again.

    Well (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:04:17 AM EST
    CNN had one of those people on. It was a Republican saying he was going to vote for Bernie and then decided to vote for Kasich. Hopefully there's enough going on in the GOP primary that the mischief makers are going to stick to that primary instead of trying to mess with the D primary.

    Parent
    Kasich ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:17:08 AM EST
    at least as he's presenting himself these days, is a good fit for NH.

    The surly, petulant, old school Kasich would not be.  But, somehow, he's managed to put that Kasich in one of Al Gore's lock-boxes and throw away the key.

    Parent

    You'd be sour too (none / 0) (#41)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:01:25 PM EST
    if you had to run Ohio or any of its rusting neighbors.

    Parent
    The RCP average (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:13:47 AM EST
    Has Donald up 16 in SC and 21 in FL and 10-12 in NV.

    If he wins tonight those margins are not likely to shrink.

    Parent

    Donald is a dead man walking. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:25:16 AM EST
    He just doesn't know it yet.

    The press is bored with him.  The RNC is no longer scared of him.

    He may have balloons tonight.  (And he may not.)  But in the raucous, dirty world of SC, he better protect his kneecaps.

    Parent

    That's only true (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by pitachips on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:05:10 PM EST
    If the candidate and his supporters actually care about whatever oppo research they drop in SC. He's been a public figure for something like 40 years. We know he's associated with mobsters, brags about his many infidelities, is openly racist, mocks Christians to their face and owes his business career to his father. And yet he is still leading the GOP.

    Parent
    So, it might appear (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:58:07 AM EST
    BUT, by a process of elimination, I think Donald still has the best chance.

    No one else looks like they can pull it off.  Maybe Cruz but he is so hated.

    Robot Rubio?  I think he has really hurt himself.

    Bush.  No way.

    Kasich.  He is detested for the same reasons Democrats like him.

    Christie?   Sunk long ago by Bridgegate.

    If Donald stops doing stuff like using the "P" word in public, the GOP big boys will go for him and hope to co-opt him.

    Parent

    I really don't think Trump (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:05:24 PM EST
    can stop it. Not for any prolonged period of time.

    He's too narcissistic and infatuated with his "I make my own rules" schtick.

    Parent

    If he doesn't lose before this ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:53:02 PM EST
    Trump will lose because he won't spend the money.

    Once the free media evaporates, and that's already happening, he'll need to pay.

    And he doesn't want to.

    Once he disappears from TV.  So will his vote.

    Parent

    Could be (none / 0) (#85)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 01:53:38 PM EST
    But then who?  It has got to be somebody....

    Maybe Robot Rubio will get the nod as the least offensive to GOP as a whole....but what about immigration?  Trump will  hit him there if he needs to .....

    If I had to guess, I would say the ticket would be Trump/Rubio.

    Parent

    Bush ... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:16:04 PM EST
    the comeback story is already being written.

    Mr. Roboto is done. Kasich can't get enough conservatives. And Christie has no money.


    Parent

    on addiction (none / 0) (#3)
    by CST on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 09:44:05 AM EST
    and race

    "It would be cruel and perverse to seek equal abandonment of those now struggling with addiction as payback for the failures of the '80s. Nor do I write in mere hopes of inducing cheap racial guilt. The hope, however vain, is that we learn from our meanest moments."

    Only one who seems amazed by this (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:24:17 AM EST
    But I just filled up.

    1.39

    WFT

    is it even possible gas could actually drop below a dollar a gallon?   Would this be good or bad?  Or just weird.

    You have fracking ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:27:33 AM EST
    to thank for that.  

    Environmentalists may cringe. But, for good or ill, it's true.

    Parent

    Seriously (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:32:00 AM EST
    It was a pay and pump.  I gave her a 20 and my gas guzzling Tahoe would not hold 20!

    Wait, what?

    Went back in looking confused and she giggled and said, yeah, been happening a lot.

    About kneecaps based on what we have seen I can't think what it is that makes you think it's Donald that needs to worry.

    That said, I hope you are right.  I really do.

    Parent

    Most of Donald's rise ... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:46:34 AM EST
    came because he got a lot of free media.  And almost no vetting.

    He'll get less free media going forward.  And more vetting.

    They may even mention little things likes his record of hiring illegal immigrants.  On at least one occasion he was fined millions of dollars for doing it.

    Parent

    The question is (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:49:37 AM EST
    Why have they not done it?  Why are they allowing him to win primaries without one single solitary negative ad run against him?

    Not one.  Why do you think that is?

    Parent

    What is about to happen ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:06:03 AM EST
    to Christie will explain it.

    He's likely taken Rubio out.  And not benefited from it.

    And this is only amplified when you attack a front runner. They're waiting for the field to narrow. And it will narrow.

    (BTW, there have been some negative ads against Trump. Mostly from Super PACs.

    And Bush has been regularly attacking Trump in his stump speeches.)

    Parent

    Republican strategists (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:18:44 AM EST
    Are already saying NH will likely NOT narrow the field.  Hopefully SC will.

    As I said I hope you are right.   I do not think you are.

    Parent

    They may be right, but .. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:38:18 AM EST
    Kasich cannot compete in SC. Nor can Christie, even if he survives. And Rubio is likely dead.

    That means the real competitors in SC will be Trump, Cruz and Bush.  Maybe Carson.

    That's pretty narrow.

    Kasich and Christie have to look to other states. And neither have much money.

    Parent

    I saw a Rubio ad (none / 0) (#22)
    by CST on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:07:44 AM EST
    On TV that basically attacked Trump and Cruz as being unelectable in November.

    Parent
    My mistake (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:14:16 AM EST
    Did he say it 12 times?

    Parent
    A whole string of nothing but Trump's (none / 0) (#26)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:18:10 AM EST
    public boorish slob moments juxtaposed at the end with a comparison to Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln and the Gipper (for the Repbs) -- or, maybe better, at the beginning of the ad -- you would think would do it..

    Parent
    Too (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:20:48 AM EST
    LATE

    Parent
    Yeah well, you know.. (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:24:16 AM EST
    The New Yorker. Only limousine liberal elites read that..

    Parent
    Our new puppy ate the cover (none / 0) (#45)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:08:10 PM EST
    off that issue.  Smart dog.

    Parent
    Must we again point out that everyone (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:42:15 PM EST
    knows all the bad things about Trump.

    And many of them don't care. Indeed, they like him even more.

    Parent

    On the contrary (none / 0) (#182)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 08:14:22 PM EST
    We have yet to find out ALL the bad things about Trump.

    With him, new bad things are unfolding every other day.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:45:07 AM EST
    I think it has more to do with OPEC dropping prices dramatically.

    Also very bad news for the people of Texas I understand as apparently there are mass layoffs all over the state.

    Parent

    It's Killing Us... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:31:28 AM EST
    ... first time we ever lost money, in the billions, and no end in sight.

    Fracking was part of it, but Russia is the main force(OPEC tried to keep them out of the market and failed) and now I suspect Iran will be adding to the surplus.  Worse part, we have decided not to sell into Iran, not sure why, but we make all the gear to get oil out of the ground including entire land/ocean rigs.  In the past our parts division would keep us rolling when prices went south, but now prices are so low that they are cannibalizing other rigs for parts rather than buying them.

    We aren't just laying off people, we are closing plants.  And while I would be one of the last to go(tax), it sucks working in an environment where people are in fear of losing their jobs, in a region that doesn't know much else.  Somber, day in and day out.

    Even back home in Wisconsin they are feeling it, my dad said a giant plant that made sand for fracking was closed.  At one point the land with that special sand was going for ridiculous dollars, now it's over.

    Parent

    The hurt (none / 0) (#93)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:06:11 PM EST
    Theory & reality meet.  Now, as one with most of my career dedicated to & working in EPA, fracking is definitely not my friend.  As one also whose hometown long ago was in the Coal Region of Pennsylvania--and whose relatives worked in the mines (with my grandfather's death listed as caused by black-lung disease)--I feel that ongoing conflict on a personal, real level.

    We all know that those transitions are almost beyond difficult. People alternately lose hope, become very angry. The change in work-structure--while taking place globally--hits hard in particular regions at a time.  When putting on our "thinking caps"--and factoring in all the reals of immediate hurt & suffering; $$$$ costs to human beings and society; technological challenges; etc.--what will have to happen is the determination, drive, know-how, laser-like focus on actual steps & specific programs to realign again.

    As you can tell where I'm headed ... the reality of work & livelihood losses will not be addressed, abated, resolved by theory.  Vision and concern and sensibilities may form the broad discussion point.  But, it will call for concrete, specific programs and plans.  For those not confronting that kind of reality in the present ... well, I can understand why the nitty-gritty sounds almost mundane, boring.  When we really have to address something--when the time comes to do more than express concern and to do more than bewail the reality that life does throw curve-balls.... when reality bumps up against theory in day-to-day living, jobs, costs, associated taxes, et al ....

    My Dad used to say <when I was speechifying and all>: "Christy, a man needs to feed his stomach before he wants to or even can feed his mind with philosophy."

    Parent

    Not just there (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:46:53 AM EST
    My nephew got a lay off from an oil industry job in OK.

    Parent
    Which is because of ND boom ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:47:28 AM EST
    which is because of fracking.

    Parent
    Market close (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:38:03 PM EST
    Chevron down Pfizer up

    Parent
    Half true (none / 0) (#46)
    by pitachips on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:10:44 PM EST
    Tracking caused the Saudis to continue to pump. If you think the frackers actually want oil (and natural gas for that matter) prices at these prices I think you're mistaken.

    Parent
    Goldman Sachs and Millennials (none / 0) (#11)
    by Green26 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:39:53 AM EST
    In looking to see what the GS CEO had said, I found this quote and this information on the financial knowledge of millennials. Just providing information; not making a point.

    "It has the potential to personalize it, it has the potential to be a dangerous moment. Not just for Wall Street not just for the people who are particularly targeted but for anybody who is a little bit out of line," Blankfein said. "It's a liability to say I'm going to compromise I'm going to get one millimeter off the extreme position I have and if you do you have to back track and swear to people that you'll never compromise. It's just incredible. It's a moment in history."  Article.

    "One Pricewaterhouse Coopers survey found 24% of millennial respondents were familiar with basic financial concepts; 30% routinely overdrew their checking accounts (racking up banking fees) and more than 20% ended up dipping into their retirement savings (incurring fees and penalties). Nearly half couldn't come up with $2,000 in the next month in an emergency, making them "financially fragile"." Article.

    Read something this morning that (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:16:42 AM EST
    sheds some light on why Blankfein really thinks Sanders is dangerous:

    Sanders took offense when Blankfein, in a 2012 segment on "60 Minutes," said, "You're going to have to undoubtedly do something to lower people's expectations" that they will get their full Social Security and Medicare benefits because "we can't afford it." Blankfein advocated an increase in the eligibility age for both programs as well as other cuts because "entitlements have to be slowed down and contained."

    Soon afterward, Sanders excoriated Blankfein in a speech from the floor of the Senate titled "The Face of Class Warfare":

       SANDERS: Sometimes there is no end to arrogance. ... Lloyd Blankfein is the CEO of Goldman Sachs. ... During the financial crisis Goldman Sachs received a total of $814 billion in virtually zero-interest loans from the Federal Reserve and a $10 billion bailout from the Treasury Department. ... And now with his huge wealth he is coming here to Washington to lecture the American people on how we have got to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for tens of millions of Americans who are struggling now to keep their heads above water.

    [...]

    That's what Blankfein was responding to on CNBC last week when he said, "To personalize it, it has the potential to be a dangerous moment, not just for Wall Street, not just for the people are particularly targeted but for anybody who is a little bit out of line."

    And so that's why Sanders' remarks concern Blankfein: No one on Wall Street wants someone running for president asking why the United States "can't afford" Social Security and Medicare but could afford to bail them out.

    Makes sense to me.

    Parent

    Not defending GS here but there is a difference (none / 0) (#32)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:38:14 AM EST
    between a loan and a payout.

    No one on Wall Street wants someone running for president asking why the United States "can't afford" Social Security and Medicare but could afford to bail them out.

    The gov't has actually made money on the bailout:

    Altogether, accounting for both the TARP and the Fannie and Freddie bailout, $618B has gone out the door--invested, loaned, or paid out--while $390B has been returned.

    The Treasury has been earning a return on most of the money invested or loaned. So far, it has earned $294B. When those revenues are taken into account, the government has realized a $65.4B profit as of Feb. 1, 2016.

    Pro Publica

    Hyperbolic statements from our side decrease the legitimacy of the valid arguments to made for income equality and income disparity, imo.

    Parent

    A zero interest "loan" is a bailout (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by pitachips on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:14:05 PM EST


    Parent
    I'd kill (none / 0) (#49)
    by CST on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:21:51 PM EST
    For a zero interest mortgage.

    Parent
    That is Funny... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:43:16 PM EST
    ... considering the fines paid are probably about 3x the amount of interest earned.

    GS in particular paid $5B, where does that fit on your balance sheet.

    And Blankfein is most certainly downplaying 'anyone who is a little bit out of line."  Five billion, even to the largest company is a little bit more than a little bit out-of-line.  

    Parent

    What you folks are talking about (none / 0) (#69)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:56:16 PM EST
    I'm not sure.  The point of my post was in the last line.

    Parent
    Clarification: (none / 0) (#79)
    by sj on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    What you folks are talking about (none / 0) (#69)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:56:16 AM MDT

    I'm not sure.  The point of my post was in the last line.

    The last line referenced:
    Hyperbolic statements from our side decrease the legitimacy of the valid arguments to made for income equality and income disparity, imo.
    When you say "our side" who exactly do you mean? Because discerning which is which (truth vs hyperbole) is very much filtered by one's starting POV.


    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#38)
    by sj on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:52:28 AM EST
    you're defending them. It's right there in your comment.

    Parent
    Right... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 12:20:22 PM EST
    ...not even acknowledging they wouldn't exist without the bailout.  No one is talking about the profits made, because that is not what the government is designed to do, give private industry billion at near zero interest rates.

    Not even sure what this means, but $618 went out and $390 returned doesn't seem like a profit of $65.4, seems more like 10 year loans that hasn't been paid off.  And running the numbers, using simple interest that is loans at 1.5% interest.  

    What is our cost of the debt we are taking on to make loans to WS ?  More than the rate we are charging.

    Start giving people those kinds of cash loans and they will do great things as well, like paying off their house in a decade or ending their student loan debt in years rather than decades.  

    IOW, SS & Medicare payments wouldn't be as critical if the average person had access to near zero interest cash loans throughout their lives.

    Parent

    I've been saying for a while (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 10:48:18 AM EST
    That people are angry and it's a dangerous moment.  But the GS CEO, and a lot of other people seem to be missing the point.  All of the anger is based off of real concrete problems, and if we don't fix it, that's on us.

    As far as the second paragraph - what that really tells me is that millennials are broke.  Another thing I've been saying for months.  No $hit.  I would venture to guess that it's why so many of them are so angry.

    Parent

    As the mother (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:17:44 AM EST
    of a millennial I can say that part of the problem is that we have all these kids that went through NCLB for years in school. They were not taught a lot of practical stuff.

    Parent
    As the teacher of many millenials (none / 0) (#31)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:31:28 AM EST
    I am glad that my children got through most of their K12 years before NCLB.

    Fascinating to watch in recent years was a thread on a forum of faculty from across the country, as we saw the first frosh who had been entirely educated under NCLB.  We do understand the pressure put on K12 educators -- our children are among them -- but the result can be sad to see, as some students face, for the first time, logical consequences for their actions.  

    That is, we -- at least, we at open-access (or close to it) universities always have seen some such students, but the scale tipped to so many more such students who simply are not "reality-based" about expectations in higher education.

    Parent

    No offense, but (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 11:48:02 AM EST
    did you go by Cream City?  Also a Wisconsin teacher, etc.....

    Parent
    Towanda: Whenever you might care to (none / 0) (#101)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:19:23 PM EST
    talk more expansively about your experiences or impressions as an educator in the millennial atmosphere, I think that it would be very helpful.  In this election year, it certainly would be instructive to learn about how millenials approach decision-making in general? For themselves or for others?  Does this cohort seem to hold certain views, for example, about the role of government in our lives and/or about the responsibility of government? Are there any consistencies in terms of expectations about the society in which they live?  

    Parent
    There are no generalizations (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 03:50:21 PM EST
    really, as they are as diverse as every generation before them.  (At least, at my campus -- an unusual combination of R1 university, for top-tier research, as well as open-access . . . so I teach an exhausting range of abilities and preparations among undergraduates, as I did not have to do at a "select" R1 or a "select" SLAC.)

    There are tendencies, though, that can trend.  "Learned helplessness" is a term that I see faculty increasingly discuss, so it is interesting that you use the term "decision.". in recent years, I entirely rewrote my syllabi to move away from "memo-speak," the use of passive voice ("It is required that ten assignments be done") to an emphasis on students as active agents in their success . . . or not.  My syllabi now use the terms "decisions" and "responsibilities" -- and the term "consequences." Some students can be stunned when, for the first time, a professor makes clear that we do not "give" grades.  Instead, I tell them that I only record the consequences of their decisions, their actions.  

    Some also are stunned at the realization that, unlike their K12 teachers, we are not required to keep them "in school." They really can flunk out -- with no repercussions for us. (That is, if we can, in the event of a threat of a grade appeal, show that the F is for not doing what they are to do.  And that, we certainly can do, as students find out, fast.  I never have had a grade appeal, in many decades, because I keep detailed records.). I would note that this may not be so at some campuses, where repercussions are seen -- such as one whose president (not an academic but from the business sector) fired faculty today for opposition to his plan to get rid of students needing services . . . or, as he put it, to "drown the bunnies.". But those are not -- or no longer are -- reputable institutions.

    As for the role of government and its responsibilities, and expectations of government, this is foundational understanding that is crucial to my courses -- and I often do wonder whether civics still is taught, at all.  I could clog this blog with stories, so I will stop there, lest I again despair at some students' lack of preparation or the like.  

    Instead, I shall return to grading more than two hundred assignments this week (and every week), a return to the search for joy in the work of the wonderful students, who will be our future leaders.  Some will challenge the authors we read this week, from close reading and logical thinking -- and with solid evidence and sources.  That is the minimum for competence, although too many students never have had to meet even that.

    But some will challenge me to think about our readings in new ways, and they hearten me, for the sake of us all.  One preened last week, when told that he had persuaded me to a different perspective from reading "between the lines" of a primary source, one that I have used with thousands of students, who also never had seen what he saw -- and his classmates cheered.  He still has to master the correct use of the apostrophe, and he really must stop spelling "a lot" as "alot" . . . but that's the easy stuff to fix, sad as it is that it was not fixed by K6.      

    Parent

    Indeed the survey below reveals (none / 0) (#134)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:06:48 PM EST
    some of what you are talking about:

    Medium-sized businesses got the most love (35%), while start-ups and government agencies were the expressed preference for just 10% of respondents.

    Fun seems to be a deciding factor.

    A full 60% of 2015 grads -- and 69% of 2013 and 2014 grads, who were also surveyed -- said they'd rather work for a company that has a "positive social atmosphere" even if it means lower pay.

    CNN Money

    To be clear, not dissing, just posting.

    Parent

    Thank you, Towanda (none / 0) (#161)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:02:36 PM EST
    Reading your statement about rewriting the syllabi, and smiling about the move from passive to active communique, I wanted to applaud your psychological technique.  

    Your concluding paragraph sent an uplifting message.  Perhaps, those pleasant sparks of learning will counter the sedative of "learned helplessness" that you described.

    Parent

    It's great fun (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 01:19:34 PM EST
    Watching the pundits solemnly and earnestly punditize on the long term ramifications of Donald calling Ted a pu$$y and what it really "means to ME".

    I Am Going to Go Out on a Limb... (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 01:27:11 PM EST
    ... and say it's been done before, many times.  Maybe not that word, but some variation of it.

    Parent
    The New York Times informed me (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 03:53:28 PM EST
    today that the term that The Donald used is "a synonym for a cat."

    Yeh, that's the problem:  He upset us catlovers.

    Parent

    Conventional Wisdom Bust? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 01:40:49 PM EST
    Anyone see anything interesting in polls (cross tabs, demographics, etc.), or on the ground, that suggests conventional wisdom on tonight is all wrong?

    Conventional Wisdom (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 01:51:17 PM EST
    was that Trump would be done by the end of August. That's pretty much where conventional wisdom ended this cycle.

    Parent
    The (none / 0) (#88)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:01:46 PM EST
    one piece of conventional wisdom that did survive was the importance of a ground game in Iowa. WE will soon  see if NH's  famous unpredictability plays out.

    Parent
    Conventional wisdom today is ... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    Sanders wins, Trump wins, Mr. Roboto under performs.

    Parent
    If I have one prediction about New Hampshire (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:13:37 PM EST
    It's that any snow will impact the candidates themselves more than the voters.

    Parent
    turnout (none / 0) (#107)
    by CST on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:26:49 PM EST
    is steady/on the high side according to this

    Lot's of anecdotes in there that will only confuse things further.

    But this seems relevant:

    "Ward 1 moderator Pat Chadwick, a 30-year-poll worker, said the day was one of the busiest she had seen. By 1 p.m., some 2,100 ballots had been fed into the locked ballot machine. Poll workers had already filled and sealed multiple boxes of completed ballots, emptying the machine to keep it from getting over-stuffed.

    "We don't usually have to pull ballots this soon," she said."

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:41:30 PM EST
    kind of hard to know if that means anything for anybody since you don't even know which ballot the voters are pulling.

    Parent
    High turnout in Manchester ... (none / 0) (#138)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:19:46 PM EST
    sounds like good news for Clinton and Trump.

    Parent
    22% of Democrats (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:23:05 PM EST
    decided today.  Debate did not move many Democrats, according to CNN just now.

    Parent
    Saying more indies (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:31:22 PM EST
    On the republican side

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:38:39 PM EST
    though I guess it depends on exactly how many more indies go to the GOP as to whether it makes much of a difference on the Dem side.

    Parent
    That sounds like ... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:52:53 PM EST
    Sanders won't be having the huge night.  No 30 point lead.

    Parent
    Not a massive difference (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:02:19 PM EST
    42 to 39.  Red and blue.  But about the reverse of what it was in 2008.

    Parent
    So the (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:04:47 PM EST
    number of indys went down to 39% from 42% in 2008?

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:17:05 PM EST
    That was the ratio they voted in each primary.

    42 R

    39 D

    And the reverse in 2008

    Parent

    How about (none / 0) (#94)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:09:04 PM EST
    Thoughts about each Democratic candidate's potential running mates? I know it's early, but I'd be interested in what people think.

    How about the Big 3 in an administration?  State, Defense,and Attorney General.

    I have no idea for any for Sanders because he's unconventional, yet would need to compromise and get mainstream folks in those positions.

    Julian Castro's name had been bandied about for HRC, but I've also heard Mark Warners or John Hickenlooper. I doubt very seriously she would pick a woman.

    Martin O"Malley may have damaged his standing with her, but I expect he'd end up in a Clinton administration.  She could keep Loretta Lynch on as AG maybe, and maybe Wes Clark for Defense.  State?  Tough one.  No idea.

    Anyways, maybe this will be a little less anger inducing.  

    A good guessing-game (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:31:01 PM EST
    On the HRC side: (1) For VP ... Julian Castro. He is dynamic not simply by virtue of youth; but, he interacts well & projects good chemistry with HRC. As a former mayor of San Antonio & present HUD Secretary, he has the resume. Plus, he is an engaging as well as powerful speaker. The other well-known plus: A well-known Latino from the west (setting up footholds in Texas, bit by bit.) (2) For Defense ...Mark Clark would seem to be an obvious contender. He is both a team player, but strong enough by virtue of his renown to hold his own in the vast sprawls of a bureaucratic Dept.  (3)For AG ... Given HRC's breadth of friends/acquaintances as a very accomplished lawyer herself, this could well be someone not on anyone's knee-jerk list.  As you suggest, I wouldn't be surprised, tho, if L. Lynch stayed on for a little while.  (4) For State ... I'll abstain on guessing here as well.  What would be important, imo, would be a SOS with strong cachet who can command organizational and international respect by virtue of strong resume & following.  That is, I'd hope that HRC would follow the model she set and John Kerry sets in that both were perceived to have their own recognized strength (in contrast to the kind of follower, anonymous model that defined Condoleezza Rice.)

    Parent
    On the Sanders' side, I defer (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by christinep on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:34:20 PM EST
    to those who would offer possibilities.  Since I am not very familiar with his personnel interactions--in the past & now--my comments would mean nothing.

    Parent
    I wonder what (none / 0) (#97)
    by CST on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:15:27 PM EST
    John Kerry is gonna do next.  I could theoretically see him staying at state.  If only because - what else is he going to do, and who else would get the job?

    I don't see him as the type to want to go quietly into retirement, but I could be wrong.

    Parent

    Plenty (none / 0) (#119)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:44:19 PM EST
    of money available on the speaker circuit, he could  get 150K a pop easily.

    Parent
    he's a trophy husband (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by CST on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:49:00 PM EST
    The Heinz-Kerrys of the world make the Clintons look like Tiny Tim.

    Born into money and married into even more.  $150k is pocket change.

    Parent

    This is pretty funny... (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:25:50 PM EST
    Some young ladies who are feeling the Bern are using hook-up apps to campaign for Sanders.

    Though I fear this could backfire and send lonely young fellas Clinton's way.  Time and a place young Berners, time and a place;)

    When I saw the awkward intros of the GOP debate... (none / 0) (#124)
    by magster on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 02:48:36 PM EST
    I said to myself, "I can't wait to see what Colbert does with this." He did not disappoint.

    Either Rubio's programming (none / 0) (#129)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 03:13:27 PM EST
    needs updating, or no one was handy to pull his string to start the recording.

      While campaigning     in NH, Rubio bumped into a gay voter, Tim Kiersstadt, who was eating with his mother and husband in a diner.  Mr. Kierstadt  asked Rubio why he wanted to "put me back in the closet/"  Rubio said that he could live any way you wanted, but insisted that he "believes" marriage is between "One man and one woman."

     Mr. K. said he was married and Rubio's belief means that "we don't matter."  Rubio, of course, repeated his "one man.." Mr. K was not having it, saying, well that's your belief.  Rubio said he thinks that is what the law should be. And, if Mr. K did not agree , he should have the law changed by his legislature. Rubio was informed by Mr. K. that the law has been changed, The Supreme Court, and the NH legislature did the same.

    Also, as campaigning in NH, a 92-old woman asked Rubio if Lindsey is gay. Rubio, said no.  And, to Rubio's credit he showed no signs of panic, something his allies have said occurs when Rubio is placed under stress.  The presidency is a good place for Rubio, no stress under pressure and no criticisms.

    Trump shows up to vote (none / 0) (#130)
    by CST on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 03:28:15 PM EST
    In New Hampshire today

    Chuck Todd (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:51:51 PM EST
    Just said there is a rule that if a candidate gets less than 10% they get no delegates and their delegates go to the winner.

    Probably more good news for Donald

    My Predictions: (none / 0) (#157)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 04:58:28 PM EST
    REPUBLICANS:

    TRUMP 26%
    KASICH 20%
    BUSH 16%
    CRUZ 13%
    RUBIO 10%
    CHRISTIE 7%
    FIORINA 4%
    CARSON 1%

    DEMOCRATS:

    SANDERS 56%
    CLINTON 43%

    Kasich the ultimate nominee? (none / 0) (#162)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:04:17 PM EST


    Parent
    I wouldn't (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:05:54 PM EST
    say so because I'm not sure where else he wins besides Ohio in the middle of March.

    Parent
    Don't think so. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:06:02 PM EST


    Parent
    MSNBC (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:19:51 PM EST
    can not contain their glee even tho they can't talk about exit polls  so I'm thinking Bernies margin will be large.

    Parent
    CBS just called it for Sanders, (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by caseyOR on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 07:02:41 PM EST
    rather breathlessly, and described it as a big loss for Clinton. As if anyone, including Clinton, thought she would win tonight.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 07:06:29 PM EST
    I know. All the polls have been saying for literally months Bernie would win in NH.

    Parent
    But beware the bad exits ... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 05:32:18 PM EST
    we've been through that before.

    Parent
    Key portions of FBI general counsel's recent (none / 0) (#184)
    by Green26 on Tue Feb 09, 2016 at 08:28:00 PM EST
    one-para letter to State Dept in connection with FOIA lawsuit.

    "... the Bureau has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server."

    "Thus, while the FBI's response to you have changed to some degree due to these intervening events, we remain unable to provide the requested information without adversely affecting on-going law enforcement efforts."

    Link to full letter.

    Tuesday Open Thread | 202 comments (202 topical)