US Presidential Contenders

[Rusty Edge]

So here, how is Kasich staying in going to help keep T rump from the nomination from a delegate standpoint? 

This question is coming from a guy in a state Kasich SHOULD have won, but the local republican leadership all universally come out and said a vote for Kasich is a vote for T rump, you need to rally behind Cruz and hope Kasich comes out of the convention at the end. 

Kasich and Cruz split more votes than Kasich and T rump?


Maybe the worry was with Utah's oddball laws that someone had to win by more than 50% to make sure T rump got nothing here.  I don't know.

It's the Romney Strategy. Do whatever denies [Sleezebag] the most delegates. Romney  endorsed Rubio in Florida, Kassich in Ohio, and Cruz in Utah. Rubio failed, but Kasich won ( both winner take all ) and since Cruz got over 50%, as you say, [Sleezebag] got nothing.

Rules vary state by state. Some award delegates by congressional district. Some award proportionately. Some have a 20% popular vote threshold.

The trouble is that Cruz ( I can't remember a sitting senator who couldn't get a single endorsement from his colleagues ) is so controversial, that it's really hard to rally around him. When Rubio suspended his campaign, some of his support shifted to [Sleezebag]. If Kasich were to drop out, some of his support would rather stay home or consider [Sleezebag] than vote for Cruz.

The Leader has a head start in delegates. If he moves up to approximately half of the popular vote, The Leader seals the deal before the convention.

To update/paraphrase the article -
“A hypothetical world in which Cruz wins 55% of the delegates and T rump gets 45% … is more favorable for T rump than a world in which T rump gets 40% of the  delegates and Cruz gets 35 and Kasich gets 25.”

Kasich has a better chance of winning in the Northeast than Cruz. Head to head, The Leader would give him a sound beating.  Together, [Sleezebag] is stuck below 50%

I predicted that [Sleezebag] would win outright before the convention, but I hope I'm wrong. Kassich's only hope is an open convention. He's my only hope of defeating Hilary.

 Funny, before this election cycle started, the thought that she would be on my tv every night making my blood boil was my worst fear. Now it's President [Sleezebag], followed by Republican presidential nominee [Sleezebag].

[Buster's Uncle]

This is a stupid country full of stupid, stupid bigots, and I am ashamed.

[Buster's Uncle]

Bernie Sanders Says Victory Means More Than Beating Hillary Clinton
Mic
By Luke Brinker  3 hours ago



Facing long odds of overcoming Hillary Clinton's significant delegate lead, Bernie Sanders is a long way from the heady days following his landslide win in New Hampshire, when there was talk of burning down Clinton's firewall in Nevada and South Carolina — setting the former secretary of state up for a repeat of her 2008 loss.

Clinton's uneven but undeniable comeback has Democrats thinking ahead to a post-Sanders world, and while he vows to remain in the race through the final nominating contests in June, he's already articulating what he'd like to hear from Clinton, should she emerge as the Democratic standard-bearer.

"If I can't make it — and we're going to try as hard as we can until the last vote is cast — we want to completely revitalize the Democratic Party and make it a party of the people rather than one of large campaign contributors," Sanders told the Young Turks host Cenk Uygur.

Sanders said he wants to see Clinton throw her support behind a "Medicare-for-all" single-payer health care system, a federal minimum wage of $15 per hour, new infrastructure spending, a "vigorous effort" to tackle climate change, tuition-free public college, ending corporate tax loopholes and imposing new regulations on Wall Street.

Still, Sanders told Uygur he's not merely running a protest campaign, and that he's mounting a campaign focused on securing the Democratic nomination and the presidency.

But should he come up short in that effort, the 74-year-old Vermont senator doesn't sound like a man vying for a role as national spokesman of the American left.

"I'm not big into being a leader," Sanders said. "I'd much prefer to see a lot of grassroots activism."

Watch Sanders' full interview with Uygur below. The comments on Clinton come around 17:30:

Bernie Sanders | The Young Turks Interview (FULL)

http://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-says-victory-means-124900364.html

[Unorthodox]

I don't see Bernie's solutions as very realistic, myself. 

His local radio ad focused on the banks.  How they took the bailout and just got bigger.  How he wants to "break them apart".  It's a good idea in theory.  REALLY MESSY in practice.  I think a lot of his position falls into that messy in practice problem. 

[Buster's Uncle]

This could well be - but there's no denying that the current system is borked and probably not the best balance of interests for the people...

[Unorthodox]

Oh, no argument there. 

"The status is NOT quo." 

[Buster's Uncle]

Yep - and since he's not going to actually win, the question is moot.  As I keep saying, the stupid/hate political trend in this country needs reversing, bad; and I see any success he has as part of fighting that...

[Rusty Edge]

I once saw a comparison of American and Canadian "panics", recessions, and depressions. The ones in Canada tended to be fewer and far less severe. The reason? Canadian bankers are much more cautious. Why?  Canadian bank failures serve as a warning. Because the American government doesn't like bank failures, and tends to intervene.
So, American bankers seek higher risks and rewards, knowing they have a safety net. Same with the boards of directors.

I can accept the logic of overreacting quickly in a crisis to prevent a snowball. I can understand that sometimes a fortune 500 is "too big to fail" , but if the government has to come to the rescue, why not re-organize things so that there is no next time? When Wachovia and Washington Mutual went down, some of their offices went to Wells Fargo, which was already too big to fail. So now things are potentially worse. The wrong lesson was learned.

I think the solution lies in a long term scheduled roll back of the safety net to where the banks are smaller and spread around enough that the loss of a bank is not a catastrophe. If they want to continue to work with the net, they should divest accordingly.

Of course, my next time theory applies to beach homes, too. IF you want to take a federal disaster deal, that means your Carolina beach house gets removed, it becomes public beach, and planted in native grass. When your California palace gets lost in a mud slide or fire, the same thing, except it gets planted it coastal redwoods or prickly pear. Or you can always carry enough insurance. But, that might only be affordable with tile roofs and stucco. If you want to build in a flood plane, or a storm surge area, you're going to live on stilts, etc. It's not that complicated.

[Buster's Uncle]

The anti-trust laws should actually be enforced...

[Buster's Uncle]

Garland nomination fight centers around disrespect for Obama, not the judge
Yahoo News
Liz Goodwin  March 25, 2016



President Obama with Judge Merrick B. Garland before announcing his nomination to the Supreme Court at the White House, March 16, 2016. (Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)



How do you get the Democratic base fired up about nominating a moderate white man in his 60s to the Supreme Court?

The progressive groups leading the charge in support of Merrick Garland’s nomination think they’ve found the answer. In social media blasts and in-person calls to action around the country, they are casting Republicans’ near-unanimous refusal to consider President Obama’s nominee as part of a history of disrespect and disdain shown to the president — a disrespect that is racially motivated.

“I talk to black audiences, and I say, look, this is part of a larger pattern of disrespect,” said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which is part of the push to get Garland a hearing. “It goes back to when Speaker [Mitch] McConnell says we’re going to make him a one-term president. You have someone like Rep. Joe Wilson [R-S.C.] saying, ‘You lie.’ You have [former Arizona Gov.] Jan Brewer shaking her finger in his face. These are signs of disrespect that would have never been justified with another president. Race is a factor.”

After Antonin Scalia died last month, civil rights groups and members of the Congressional Black Caucus urged the president to nominate a black woman to the court — a historic pick that would have rallied women of color to the cause. When the president took another, less barrier-breaking route, it was unclear whether the left would be as enthusiastic about fighting the inevitable Republican opposition to his choice.

The Democrats vying to replace Obama have seemed lukewarm about his pick. Sen. Bernie Sanders has said he would rather choose his own justice if elected, noting that there are “more progressive judges out there.” Hillary Clinton, whose campaign has been buoyed by support from women of color, dodged a question on Monday about whether she’d keep Garland as her nominee if she were elected and his nomination was still pending. (Asked if he was a good choice, she said he has a “tremendous reputation.”)

But one way to motivate the Democratic base is to point out that Republicans are disrespecting the president — who remains incredibly popular with Democrats — by refusing to even consider his pick. The progressive groups have coalesced around the message “Do your job,” and they emphasize that if Republicans refuse to bring up the nomination, it will be the first time a Supreme Court nominee has ever not been given a vote.

Henderson tells audiences: “He’s the 44th president, not three-fifths of a president.”

“Our members care about Obama as a president and his presidency a great deal,” said Jo Comerford, a campaign director for the progressive grassroots organization MoveOn. “We’ve used the ‘disrespect’ language in our communications to our members because of their loyalty.” Comerford said the GOP opposition to the president is seen by many MoveOn members as an attempt “to undermine his authority and his presidency.”

“It is flagrantly disrespectful, and it is new in the sense that we’ve never seen this kind of rank knee-jerk obstruction to a nominee,” said Stephen Spaulding, legal director of the nonpartisan Common Cause, a nonprofit that promotes accountable government and is also part of the coalition.

MoveOn and the other groups fighting for Garland’s hearing flew airplanes trailing “Do Your Job” banners over several senators’ hometowns as they returned for a two-week recess earlier this week. They plan on meeting senators with demonstrations when they return to the Capitol, as well.

It’s unclear if all the pressure will work. So far, Repubican Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine and Jerry Moran of Kansas have broken with party leadership and said they believe Garland should be granted a hearing. Several other Republican senators, including Pat Toomey of Pennsylania and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, have said they would meet with Garland as a courtesy but that they don’t believe the Senate should even consider him.

The right is, if anything, more fired up than the left. The National Rifle Association, in particular, is lobbying hard against giving Garland a vote. And as the Washington Post pointed out Thursday, only two people showed up to one of the planned protests against Republican Sen. Ron Johnson in Wisconsin. Inside the event, Johnson offered a personal “guarantee” to his supporters that he would not allow Garland to be elected, eliciting the loudest cheers of the night.

“A lot of people say, ‘Do your job.’ You know what? I’m doing my job!” Johnson said. “We need somebody that can replace Scalia.”

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/garland-nomination-fight-centers-around-disrespect-184014332.html

[Buster's Uncle]

Some Sanders supporters say it’s ‘Bernie or Bust’ and they will never vote for Hillary Clinton
Yahoo News
Hunter Walker  National Correspondent  March 26, 2016



Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders greets his supporters at a rally at Key Arena in Seattle, March 20, 2016. (Photo: David Ryder/Reuters)



Bernie Sanders has dubbed his presidential campaign a “political revolution,” but some of his supporters are rebelling against the very party he is hoping to lead.


A voluble group of die-hard Sanders backers is vowing online that it’s “Bernie or Bust,” saying they will never support his presidential primary opponent — and, at this point, likely Democratic nominee — Hillary Clinton.

Nearly two months after voting began in the Democratic primary, Clinton has racked up a lead among pledged party delegates that makes a Sanders victory increasingly implausible. In seeming recognition of this mathematical challenge and the need to begin aiming fire outside the party, Sanders in recent weeks has pivoted away from Clinton and toward Republican frontrunner Donald [Sleezebag]. Yet at the same time Sanders is making the case that he’s actually more electable in a matchup with [Sleezebag], he has also started talking about the circumstances under which he would endorse Clinton. His senior adviser, Tad Devine, has even suggested that Sanders would consider serving as Clinton’s running mate.

Despite these glimmers of reconciliation with his rival, Sanders may have unleashed a rebellion that will be beyond his power to control when it comes time to unify the party. Some “Bernie or Bust” stalwarts say they won’t back Clinton even if Sanders joins her ticket.

After Clinton’s string of victories in the first weeks of March, this weekend begins a stretch of the primary calendar that’s expected to kick off with wins for Sanders on Saturday in the Alaska, Washington state and Hawaii caucuses. This momentum means there’s little reason for some Sanders backers to reconsider their primary season passions anytime soon.

Russ Belville is an Internet radio host and marijuana legalization advocate based in Portland, Ore. In late February, he wrote a column for the Huffington Post laying out the bones of the “Bernie or Bust” position. In a conversation with Yahoo News earlier this month, Belville said Clinton couldn’t get his vote even by joining forces with Sanders.

“If Bernie Sanders were to accept a vice presidential bid from Hillary Clinton, it would so disillusion me to the integrity of Bernie Sanders that I don’t know what I would do. I can’t even conceive of him accepting that offer,” Belville said.

James Scolari, a photographer in Los Angeles, echoed that view.

“I would never vote for Hillary Clinton, and, God, I hope Sanders wouldn’t serve as her running mate,” Scolari said. “I don’t believe he would.”



A lady has her picture taken with a poster at a rally for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I- Vt., Wednesday, March 23, 2016, in Los Angeles. (AP Photo/Michael Owen Baker)


Clinton’s campaign declined to comment on this story. The “Bernie or Bust” voters who spoke with Yahoo News cited several areas where they view Clinton’s policies as insufficiently progressive, including her stance on military intervention in the Middle East, fracking, the minimum wage, Wall Street regulation and campaign finance reform. They also pointed to instances where she has changed her positions, such as on gay marriage, the Keystone pipeline and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

“I just can’t see myself voting for someone that’s a warmongering person,” cinematographer Andy Kirn of Los Angeles said of Clinton. “There are certain things about Clinton that are so unsavory and so undesirable that I can’t see myself legitimizing that with a vote, and I don’t think I’m alone there.”

Belville argues that Clinton is a “Rockefeller Republican” in Democratic clothing. “I have longed for the return of moderate Republicans, just not in the Democratic Party,” Belville told Yahoo News. “I think my basic objection is: I’m on the left. I’d like there to be a party that represents me.”

Michael Moore, a 36-year-old Iowan who volunteered for Sanders in his home state and neighboring Nebraska, said he won’t vote for Clinton if she’s the party’s nominee.

“She has always embodied whatever was most politically expedient at the moment, and she has come very clearly on the … neoliberal corpus of hawkish foreign policy and pro-corporate policies that very often harm individual Americans,” Moore said.

Data compiled by Twitter for Yahoo News shows there were about 110,000 total tweets sent with the #bernieorbust hashtag in the month from Feb. 8 and March 8. The number of messages peaked on Feb. 28, the day Clinton began to pull ahead with a huge win in South Carolina’s Democratic primary. A search on Facebook showed that as of Friday afternoon, there were about 100,000 conversations with the #bernieorbust hashtag on that site.



A child holds a sign supporting Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., while awaiting his arrival at the San Diego Convention Center Tuesday, March 22, 2016. (AP Photo/Lenny Ignelzi)


“Bernie or Bust” is not a position Sanders would want his supporters to take, says liberal radio talk show host and author Bill Press, a longtime ally of Sanders’ who hosted an early strategy meeting for Sanders’ campaign at his home in Washington, D.C.

“I do not belong in that camp. … I don’t think Bernie belongs in that camp. I haven’t talked to him about it, but I’m pretty sure he does not belong in that camp,” Press told Yahoo News. “He told me early on, the first time we talked about the possibility that he might run for president, that … if he’s not the nominee, he would do nothing to hurt the … Democratic nominee’s chances. He would do nothing, in other words, that might help a Republican get the White House.”

Sanders is not exactly a part of the mainstream Democratic establishment. For more than two decades in Congress, Sanders identified as an independent, though he generally voted with Democrats. He only officially registered as a member of the party last year after announcing his presidential bid. Naturally, many of Sanders’ supporters are independent voters rather than party stalwarts, as well.

Press is similarly distant from the party establishment. Last month, he published a book that made the case that President Obama “let progressives down.” The back cover featured an admiring blurb from Sanders. Nevertheless, Press is adamant that his fellow liberal Sanders supporters should back Clinton if she manages to win the primary.

“Just to make it clear, I’m for Bernie. If Bernie doesn’t get the nomination, in a New York heartbeat I’m for Hillary, enthusiastically. Enthusiastically!” said Press, repeating himself for emphasis.

Press argued there is “too much at stake” for progressives to war among themselves and potentially aid a Republican candidate. Indeed, “Bernie or Bust” has generated backlash from liberals who believe the phenomenon could benefit the GOP. This criticism has been particularly fierce since Donald [Sleezebag] is currently leading the Republican pack and many Democrats view him as an especially dangerous candidate.

However, many of the “Bernie or Bust” voters who spoke to Yahoo News are undeterred by the prospect of a [Sleezebag] presidency. Matt Rogina, an assistant chef’s instructor in California, said he’s more concerned about sending a message to the Democratic leadership.

“If it hands the election to Donald [Sleezebag], that is the direct fault of the Democratic national party. They’re the ones that have set the policy, they’re the establishment, they’re the status quo that we’re tired of,” Rogina explained. “We’re tired of them pretty much being another corporate party, being a ‘Republican light’ party.”

Belville, the radio host who wrote the “Bernie or Bust” column, argued that electing Clinton could cement American politics in a “far right/center right” state. Though he acknowledged [Sleezebag] could “do some dastardly things” in office, Belville believes those problems “would open up a lot of people’s minds to more progressive solutions” and move the country to the left.

Moore, the Sanders campaign volunteer from Iowa, is also unconcerned about the possibility he could help the GOP by hewing to “Bernie or Bust.”

“I’m not given to voting based on fear,” said Moore. “I believe that the two parties have, through the use of this fear of the other side, brought us to where we are today, where they throw up horrible candidates who are part of the oligarchic system, basically just two sides of the same coin.”

Scolari, the photographer, took things a step further. He said he plans to vote for [Sleezebag] if Sanders bows out.

“To me, ‘Bernie or Bust’ means I will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. And if that means I get a President [Sleezebag], I feel like he’ll be farther left than she would be anyway,” Scolari said. “At least he’s a Beltway outsider. … He’s a lunatic, but I think he’s probably going to be pretty easily handled by a professional Cabinet.”



Supporters wave signs as Bernie Sanders speaks during a campaign rally at West High School on March 21, 2016, in Salt Lake City. (Photo: George Frey/Getty Images)


Primary season divisions leading to vows to never back the opponent are neither unprecedented nor restricted to Democrats. Some conservatives are currently rallying around a #nevertrump hashtag and declaring their plans to refuse to back the Republican frontrunner. And when Clinton lost the Democratic presidential primary to Obama in 2008, some of her supporters promised not to back the future president. These Clinton loyalists called themselves PUMAs, an acronym for “Party Unity My Ass.”

Obama survived the PUMA rebellion — and data shows Clinton’s standing within the party is similar to what his was at this point during the 2008 election.

A Bloomberg/L.A. Times poll from February 2008 showed that Obama had a net favorability of 78 percent among Democrats while just 13 percent viewed him unfavorably. An ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Tuesday found that Clinton has a nearly identical net favorability of 74 percent among Democrats. While her net unfavorability was 25 percent, higher than Obama’s, she has universal name recognition among Democrats. In 2008, about 10 percent of party members said they had not heard of Obama or did not know enough to have an opinion.

Press cited his experience in a past liberal primary rebellion as evidence of why he won’t vote “Bernie or Bust.”

“My very first political campaign was 1968, [Eugene] McCarthy for president. … When McCarthy was denied the nomination and it went to Hubert Humphrey … a whole bunch of us, we all boycotted the election,” Press recounted. “We didn’t vote for Humphrey. … And so what did we get? We got Richard Nixon. Lesson learned.”

Though he disagrees with the “Bernie or Bust” strategy, Press said he understands the sentiment behind it.

“We have two centrist parties right now, and the Democratic Party has become — not as much as the Republicans — but very much the party of corporate America and Wall Street,” said Press, adding, “I think Bernie’s mission is to win the presidency but also to push the progressive agenda and get the Democratic Party to adopt the progressive agenda.”

Indeed, all of the “Bernie or Bust” voters who talked to Yahoo News said they voted for Obama in 2008 and were disappointed when his administration was not sufficiently progressive.

“I voted for him twice, and I respect the man, and I think he was in some ways a splendid president, but he didn’t end the Bush doctrine and the terrible war on terror,” Scolari said of Obama. “In fact, he expanded drone warfare in a way I find shameful and shocking. … He didn’t get Guantánamo closed.”

Kirn, the cinematographer, said he was aiming for someone like Sanders when he voted for Obama in 2008.

“We were thinking we were getting what Bernie is,” Kirn said. “Well, he didn’t follow through.”

Moore, the Sanders campaign volunteer, said he has been drawn to a more activist approach since voting for Obama. That attracted him to Sanders — and it’s also why he won’t follow along if Sanders lines up behind Clinton.

“In the process of going from 2008 to the present, I’ve kind of come into the revolution that was part of the Occupy movement and is now being embodied in the Bernie Sanders campaign,” Moore explained. “But that revolution isn’t Bernie’s revolution. He is just the current battle in the revolution, and if he doesn’t stand with the revolution, then I have no reason to support him.”

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/some-sanders-supporters-say-its-bernie-or-bust-155205844.html

[Lorizael]

I've only voted in three presidential elections (because doing otherwise would have been illegal), but I'm already too cynical to have that kind of poster-waving affection for a candidate. They don't represent you, or speak to you, or care about you. And not just because all politicians are scum (true-ish, but not the point here), but because anyone who wants widespread general support simply can't afford to have interests that perfectly align with a single person. So the odds that they do are essentially zero.

Voting is not a subtle tool. It says this person is bad, this person is bad, this person is bad, and this person is good. It's not a subtle tool and shouldn't be used to accomplish subtle aims. And the differences between two candidates of the same party are likely pretty subtle compared to the differences between candidates of different parties, so using your vote to split that hair is, well, like using a sword to do surgery; you're probably just going to make things worse.

[Buster's Uncle]

Note that many of the people interviewed talked about being supporters of what Sanders stands for, not necessarily Sanders.  I do read what I post.  Note also my favorite line in the piece, when the fellow called HRC a "Rockefeller Republican”   (Though I'd say it was unfair to Rocky, who wasn't that far right.)

It's a pretty clear primary choice, all right...

[Rusty Edge]

It's so gratifying to hear people with different political opinions share my views of Hillary.

I suppose I should be worried, that people who feel the Bern could stay home, or even jump to [Sleezebag] in the fall. Before I read this I read that women prefer Hillary 55% to [Sleezebag]'s 35%, so that has me in a good mood.

Off to check my grill...

[Buster's Uncle]

Yo - I'm demonstratively not a big fan of HRC myself, going back about 15 years now - but anybody who couldn't bring themselves to vote for the Lesser of Two Evils in a Hilbot v. Pig contest needs to seriously rethink their worldview.

I'd vote CRUZ versus the Pig, if it magically came to that as the only choices - and it's really hard to believe there's someone in contention more loathsome and fundamentally wrong for this country than Cruz.  That's how stark the choice is - and considering doing some third party crap or staying home in the ugly face of the Pig because they dislike Mrs. Clinton THAT much is just crazed.  -Sorry, but there it is.  The Pig IS that bad.