I was ready to give up my hope for Sanders after last weak, but he still has a little in the tank.
He dominated the lily white States of Utah and Idaho. So I guess you can chalk up Wyoming and the Canadian border States too.

Arizona went to Clinton, but it looks like voting there was a clusterfuck. People waiting in insanely huge lines until midnight, mis-registration of voters, etc.

On the other side Mitt did his job in Utah, pushing Trump out of the money.
I think the drama is just starting to cook up there.

_______________________________________

I was in PHX yesterday

reports said, Maricopa County (PHX) contracted polling places from 200 in 2012 to 60 in 2016

while, if I heard correctly, Utah votes online...?

WTF

we've seen the lack of enough ballots, etc...since Iowa

I'm not putting on my tinfoil hat just yet

base, it's a F'N embarrassment and really F'N obvious = 'Murica

dem margins though

78-21 and 80-20 in Idaho and Utah respectively = YUGE

I expect the Brussels bombings to dominate the headlines for at least an entire week = we can't talk about it

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

Rebubs could vote online in Utah. Dems had to wait in line. LONG lines.

Lines full of old people, young people, hippies, a few professionals, working class white folk, and yes Latinos...all hyped for Bernie.


I just don't get the Hilary minority narrative. Can someone explain to me what she has done superior to Bernie with regards to connecting to minorities?

Because I don't see it. Seems to me they have done equally bad jobs.

And I'll say again, I've never met a passionate Hilary supporter in my life. Haven't seen Hil stickers since '08.

They both win in the general according to polls.


Yet Bern should drop out because...Hil has tons of baggage and can take hits??

I just can't get excited to vote for someone because she has shown that she can take attack ads on her baggage...

can be interpreted as being anti-Obama. An interpretation that Hillary has capitalized on.

ah okay I hadn't considered that

reaches for the reynolds wrap

as has been established, DWS was co-chair of HRC's 08' campaign

now DNC chair

and we've seen the shitshow that has ensued

nobody would debate the debacle that the R primary has been to date

but I have to say, I am bigger fan of the GOP primary process

on-line voting
winner take all
more than 2 candidates (O'Malley was never a viable candidate, compared to the 17 that the Rs had at one time)
which correlated to more interesting debates and dominating the news cycle

even the GOP caucus makes more sense, comparatively

what does DWS have to do to get fired?

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

>
>what does DWS have to do to get fired?

Unfortunately, maybe to some this is a job well done.


Even conspiracy aside, I never ever liked the fact that the party seemed to accept it was simply her turn.


Hell, there were even some (small, but loud if I remember correctly) calling for her to run a primary in '12...

So miss me with that Obama loyalty/continuation game. She's never been a part of the Obama coalition. Yeah, yeah politics. But, nah...doesn't sit right to me.

I don't like that she, her people, the party, her supporters simply feel entitled to it.

The party seemed to accept her as the candidate in '08. As you said, no real debate of ideas etc.

And now the terrible handling of the voting? Man, I dunno...


It could also be incompetence though. I don't think the Democratic party is very good at what they are supposed to be good at- that is get democrats elected.

How does the party that argues for more access to voting have a sh!tshow process for primary/caucus?

>Hell, there were even some (small, but loud if I remember
>correctly) calling for her to run a primary in '12...

do you have a link for that? only folks I remember calling for a primary challenge were the caucus's leftists, including Sanders.

http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-talks-primary-challenge-obama-good-idea-our-democracy-and-democratic-part/

-------
"A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards. More than that no man is entitled, and less than that no man shall have." - TR

>>Hell, there were even some (small, but loud if I remember
>>correctly) calling for her to run a primary in '12...
>
>do you have a link for that? only folks I remember calling
>for a primary challenge were the caucus's leftists, including
>Sanders.
>
>http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-talks-primary-challenge-obama-good-idea-our-democracy-and-democratic-part/

Nah, and I don't have the time or enrgy. But a few things-

I'm not saying Bernie has been loyal to Obama. He has been critical in the past, and I don't think he's always been wrong. But I will admit I am very much on the left.


I could be wrong, but I feel like I remember reading articles, etc on Hilary potentially running a challenge. Or at least people asking her to.


But my point is this-

For some reason, this cycle Hilary is being treated as the Wonder Woman to Obama's Batman. As if they have been partners in justice all this time.

Nah

Bernie hasn't either? Cool. I'm not claiming he has been.


But this whole "Hilary is Obama part 2!" is just politics. Obama popular again. She is saying what she needs to get that support.

(Yeah, I get it, politics. But when someone tells me "she is going to be Obeazy part 2" and they sincerely believe it...I scratch my head)

Some folks forgot 08. Some folks didn't read (or believe) that article on the Obama doctrine.

Even worse, some forgot the '90s.

Even if you are straight up Obama stan, if you think she is Obama part 2 you are being pretty naïve in my opinion.

Will she be Nixon? No, of course not.

But she won't be Obama either.

maybe we just streamline things a bit better here in Georgia, but you show up to the polls, they ask you if you want a R, D, or non-partisan ballot, and you go from there. the Secretary of State's office + the local county elections offices coordinate the process at the precincts.

it's not perfect:
http://www.cbs46.com/story/20023958/secretary-of-state-to-investigate-fulton-county-voting-problems

but the parties aren't culpable when there are issues

is it *that* different elsewhere?

-------
"A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards. More than that no man is entitled, and less than that no man shall have." - TR

Some other states require to be registered as a Dem/Repub to get the corresponding ballot.

What's going on in AZ seems like a fuck up with the Secretary of State, not the DNC.
But the conspiracy theory is that the DNC coordinated to cause a mess

_______________________________________

that that would be the party's call

not to get caught up on 1 or 2 examples

it's just an overall impression of the process so far

in the D primary, you have a candidate who will benefit from voter turnout

is it just coincidence that that seems to be a challenge for the party to actually support structurally

i.e. running out of ballots, not having online voting, contracting polling places, etc...

?

we heard alot about an assault on voters rights over the past few years

and most of that was very critical of Rs

is it just another coicidence that it seems to now be benefitting the Ds establishment candidate

?

the questions ask themselves, which is again, a large part of the issue I have with the whole process

I wouldn't expect an obviously biased DNC chair to have those answers

maybe we should ask Tulsi Gabbard

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

>i.e. running out of ballots, not having online voting,
>contracting polling places, etc...

the parties aren't responsible for any of those things though

-------
"A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards. More than that no man is entitled, and less than that no man shall have." - TR

>>i.e. running out of ballots, not having online voting,
>>contracting polling places, etc...
>
>the parties aren't responsible for any of those things though

Yeah they are. The Caucus is ran by the party.

Dems didn't want online voting. Again, the party that is for easy voting access...didn't want online voting in their own caucus.

Could be some book cooking...or incompetence (not just on the process but how it would be perceived)


Why are Dems so hesitant to critique their own party?


There is reason 2010 ended up like it did. There is a reason dubya got re-elected.

There is a reason House Members get to pick their own voters.


All of it is because Democrats are terrible at this. Just awful.

A vote for Sanders requires a commitment to a series 8 year grind for his supporters. Without constant activism to validate his mandate the Republicans and conservative Democrats will just choke his Presidency. Word is he hasn't even brought the crowds to the primaries in the same way Obama did. I doubt his supporters have the stomach for an four year political grind, let alone eight. Idealism will hit cynical reality, and people will be disillusioned by the lack of Swift change, turnout will depress in his attempt for a second term, and then all bets are off, especially if the Repubs go back to a more moderate in appearance candidate.

If I had to make a bet on the next eight years, my vote would go to Hillary. Politics requires pragmatism and ugly choices.

Just IMO though.

To me, this is a case of Dems giving voters far too much credit. For the most part, MMurricans aren't going to vote for Supreme Court seats. Or for 2020. Hell, most aren't even thinking 2017.

The Dems and Dem party expecting voters to vote strategically is asinine and further proof that they aren't good at this stuff.


I don't think Bernie failing to bring the crowds Obama did is a failure. Obama was probably a once in a lifetime candidate. He checked A LOT of boxes.


Also, honest question...is Hilary??


I will never understand someone who says "well, Bernie probably won't be able to get anything done...so I'm going with Hilary"

...but they can't tell me WHAT she wants to get done, nor can they tell me why she will get more cooperation than Obama.

Point being, no one is going to get anything major done...so I prefer the person who will at least say what they want to get done.


What I do like is that I don't believe Bernie will compromise on social safety nets. I am afraid Hilary will.


Finally, I think whoever is elected will be a one-termer personally.


Now, the entire argument is pretty futile because it is going to be Hilary.

this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. and it's killing the democratic and participatory aspects of our system.

Alaska, Hawaii and Washington all vote on Saturday (all states Sanders should do well in).

i.e. - it ain't over.

-->

false.

https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/667371059885301761

More than that, it is fodder for the right to say that Dem's don't understand the threat of Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.

The truth is while you can say Most Muslims (Even 99%) are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, making a statement like the above which implies ALL ignores the fact that there are Muslim terrorist.

I might just be language stickler, but the statement above wouldn't even be true for Christians or Americans in generals so to say it about Muslims in this context is just seem like really poor word choice.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I think there's alot of muslims who don't even acknowledge the validity of ISIS member's faith. Ie They're not 'real muslims'. Even Al Queda has made that claim.

Perhaps she's making that argument? I don't know.

of non-Isis moderate muslims.

Getting into arguments whether ISIS are real muslims is a losing argument. They think they are and are doing their actions in the name of Islam and that's an aspect of the problem that should be addressed.



>I think there's alot of muslims who don't even acknowledge
>the validity of ISIS member's faith. Ie They're not 'real
>muslims'. Even Al Queda has made that claim.
>
>Perhaps she's making that argument? I don't know.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

the validity of faith thing is problematic.

I don't know....I don't disagree with Obama's choice of words concerning terrorism. I'm talking about his omission of the words 'radical islamic terror' and all that. I think the benefits of toning down the rhetoric out-weigh whatever costs there are to NOT using that language. I remain unconvinced that there's ANY cost in not using the words 'radical islamic terrorism'.

Even today....he said he's number one priority is defeating ISIS. I don't see how identifying them as representative of even a 'part' of islam adds to that goal. NOT using those terms has a couple benefits:

1. Attempts to improve muslim perspectives of America overseas.
2. Discourages use of his rhetoric for terrorist groups to manipulate in recruiting.
3. Lessens prejudice, fear and discrimination that muslims face in America.

It's hard to quantify if Obama's policy has been successful....maybe it hasn't. But again....I don't see the cost in omitting that language other than the political fall-out from the right. On a pragmatic basis...I'm with him. It appears to me that Hillary is just trying to continue this policy...even though it may be in a more active, affirmative way rather than via omission. I guess I would see your point if the argument is that she should remain on the 'omission' side of this policy rather than the affirmative nature of the quote in question.

carefully.

I think this statement though is not that. It's just not true on its face.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

the only real effect from him not using that phrase it is that it's become such a right wing talking point used to add to his image to them as the weak, feckless, too down with islam guy, but everyone who feels that way would feel the exact same way about him even if he muttered the words "radical islamic terror" 40 times a day. but making a conscious point not to say it it does have some benefits for reasons you mentioned.

It's a generalizing statement.
There are almost always going to exceptions when referring to a large group of people. But that doesn't mean you have to qualify the statement by saying something like "most ____ are..."

_______________________________________

You say it one way it's a statement no one can challenge because it's true.

Say it this way and you get a Fox News Segment, Something for Trump to talk about and scare people with and all the dumb back and forth you see in the retweet comments.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

the first sentence is totally true. the second is more true than most of what was on twitter yesterday, even if it's not how i would make that point.

the issue is the medium, not hrc's choice of words.

people wouldn't have pulled this shit on churchill or fdr or jfk.

theres your post title

------------------------------------
2019 CABG Survivor

2016 OK Survivor Champion

be about it or be without it

RIP GOATs

while Hill still Bernin

>theres your post title

I’ve been thinking about this in relation to the GOP. They’ve spent the past few months destroying each other and telling their constituents that the other guys will destroy the country if they become president. Now, that the numbers have been whittled down, they’re endorsing those same guys they were trashing.

Bernie & Hillary have taken their shots at each other but they’ve almost always been within the boundaries of real debates. It shouldn’t be that far of a leap for Democratic voters to get behind one or the other candidates, especially with the group of clowns the GOP has rolled out.

But unfortunately, I'm hearing people talking that way.

***

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/23/sanders-in-it-to-win-it-but-building-grass-roots-enthusiasm-for-democrats-regardless/

SANDERS: IN IT TO WIN IT BUT BUILDING GRASS-ROOTS ENTHUSIASM FOR DEMOCRATS REGARDLESS

SAN DIEGO — Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders continued to maintain Wednesday that he has “a path toward victory” against Hillary Clinton but shared part of his reasoning for staying in the race regardless.

The senator from Vermont said that his goal is to defeat the Republican nominee in November and suggested that a 50-state Democratic contest will help with that task.

“The way you do that is to generate a lot of grass-roots enthusiasm, and the way you generate grass-roots enthusiasm is to have real debates on the real issues facing the American people and campaign in every state in this country,” Sanders told reporters in this city, where he held a large-scale rally Tuesday night. “That’s how you bring people together.”

Sanders cited the long lines to participate Tuesday night in Idaho and Utah, the two caucus states where he scored decisive wins against Clinton.

“Those people will vote in November,” he said. “It is absolutely essential that we contest every state in this country.”

Sanders’s assessment came the morning after he lost to Clinton in Arizona, 58 percent to 40 percent, but walked away with nearly 80 percent of the vote in Idaho and Utah.

Sanders two lopsided victories netted him more delegates than Clinton on Tuesday, but her lead is still formidable. Among pledged delegates needed for the nomination, the former secretary of state leads 1,214 to 911, according to an Associated Press tally. She also has a commanding advantage among the Democratic elected officials and other party leaders known as “superdelegates.”

Sanders told reporters at a hotel here that he thought he had “an extraordinary night” on Tuesday and also cited a victory over Clinton announced earlier this week in a primary consisting of Americans living abroad.

“We have closed the delegate gap by some 25 delegates in the last week,” he said.

Asked about his path ahead, Sanders cited upcoming contests on Saturday that he said he could win in Washington state, Alaska and Hawaii, as well as primaries down the road in California and New York, the two largest states in the nation.

“We are in this thing to the end,” Sanders said. “Why in God’s name would we not give the people of New York state and California the right to determine and voice their opinion as to who the Democratic nominee would be? I mean, it’s absurd. Of course, we would.”

He was also critical of Arizona election officials for the hours-long backups that resulted at some polling stations on Tuesday.

“Whatever the cause of that problem is, people in the United states of America should not have to wait five hours to vote,” Sanders said. “What happened yesterday in Arizona is a disgrace.”

make sure Bernie plays a role.

Because he does build enthusiasm. Not as much as Obama? Okay, but more than Hilary.

I'm not sure if there is precedence, but she should even just flat out say Bernie will play a role in her domestic policies.

The Bernie youth been putting in work.

The Dem party needs to make sure they aren't just counting on Trump hate, or supreme court strategy, etc.

They still need to build turnout.

Hate of the other side won't be enough. Ask John Kerry.

he knows what's at stake. His main rationale for running as a Dem an not and Independent was so that he wouldn't contribute to electing a republican. It's not like he needed the DNC, or that they wanted him.

>I'm not sure if there is precedence, but she should even just
>flat out say Bernie will play a role in her domestic
>policies.

She needs his help on foreign policy as much as she does domestic policy.

Her foreign policy record has been abysmal at best.

-->

>She needs his help on foreign policy as much as she does
>domestic policy.
>
>Her foreign policy record has been abysmal at best.


She doesn't need his help on foreign policy...At all...She needs Bernie's connection to the youth and his economic message.....

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

>She doesn't need his help on foreign policy...At all...

That's incorrect:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsKn7Z9PfrU

She could learn a lot from her wise elder's foreign policy judgment.

-->

>
>>She doesn't need his help on foreign policy...At all...
>
>That's incorrect:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsKn7Z9PfrU
>
>She could learn a lot from her wise elder's foreign policy
>judgment.


Nah...Not buying it....

Bernie's economic message is something Hilldawg should def. take seriously...But his foreign policy really has no teeth....Americans def. don't want another stupid war...But Bernie has shown himself to be pretty vanilla when it comes to foreign policy...

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....

Give a day count for each of the possibilities. Shit hitting the fan can be anything that gets cable news graphics for more than a week straight.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

We arent really built in a way that shit can "hit the fan" unless you play with the $

I mean something happens in Mississippi and we are unaffected everywhere else...

the executive branch cant really do that..

now the Federal Reserve... yea fuck with the money and watch shit go haywire

Double 0
DJ/Producer/Artist
Producer in Kidz In The Hall
-------------------------------------------
twitter: @godouble0
IG: @godouble0
www.thinklikearapper.com

We kinda get there with mass killings especially if they happen live. Stock market crash. Military deployment. Terrorist threats depend on the location. Something's gonna happpen. May take a while but it'll happen. That's the gamble.

#america - put ya money where ya politics is.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

We've had ALL that already.. and

crickets...

Double 0
DJ/Producer/Artist
Producer in Kidz In The Hall
-------------------------------------------
twitter: @godouble0
IG: @godouble0
www.thinklikearapper.com

the cheating partisanship in that state is so blatant, it's going to take a real push to get anything fixed. but with trump and this discrimination shit and the s.c. shenanigans, 2016 might be the time to get the ball rolling on that.

Son of wealthy dude, who did boarding schools and no military school and some how he is the tough guy in the race.

Same goes for all the neo-cons who never served in the military but itching to go to war and want to call Obama weak because their idea of a commander in chief is John Wayne or Putin.

Meanwhile, we all know that Obama knows what every dude who spent any times with any proximity to the street, the dude waving the gun talking the most ish is the punk and real Gs move in silence.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

and Kerry was a combat veteran, but Bush was the cowboy blue collar guy you wanted to watch the game and have a beer with it, and Kerry was effete, french windsurfing pussy

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

---
"People that need positivity around them all the time are weak individuals in my book" - @lilduval

the comparison only applies when one of the two is acting tough.

*Jews you*

"this is okp tho, reading is completely optional" (c) desus

Proceed with caution. I am overtly racist.

<-- In Pigpen we trust

http://www.redstate.com/saragonzales/2016/03/24/angry-ted-cruz-calls-donald-trump-sniveling-coward-video/

Y'all think we gonna get our first physical fight between presidential candidates captured on video?

if trump doesn't get to 1237, it's more reasonable than a lot of the other scenarios i can imagine happening.

Trump seems like the classic bully who has never had to fight so he doesn't know what the fuck he's doing because everyone has always backed down.

Cruz...well you can't have a face like that and not learn to defend yourself a little.


"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

maybe have ben carson stab cruz in the kidney.

http://tiny.cc/ChrisChristieLike

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts..." -The Bard

but I'm 100% on his side in how he's handled this.

You really don't think the initial photo came from Cruz' campaign? Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Sets himself up to look like the better man too.

Shit is surreal.

If he did have something to do with (or knew about and was cool with) the add, I don't think it was a set up for Trump to come at his family. It's certainly possible though. Cruz is after all, a smart guy and not exactly a decent human being

His superpac released it. Hard to believe they didn't consult him beforehand. He would need time to prepare/strategize for the inevitable Trump response.

just when the shttshow couldnt get more shytshowwy

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/25/twitter_just_lost_its_god_damned_mind_over_ted_cruzsexscandal_mongering/

)))--####---###--(((

bunda
<-.-> ^_^ \^0^/
get busy living, or get busy dying.

There's a reason women remain the most powerful demographic during election time....They simply vote more in superior numbers...Over 50 plus percent....So safe to say u don't want to turn off women....Trump has proven to be a genius at this....

Key take away from Washington Post piece: "Polling shows Trump sliding sharply among women in recent months, hurting the GOP’s already shaky position with that demographic. Trump’s favorability numbers have decreased 10 points among women nationwide since November, to 23 percent, while his unfavorable number among women has jumped to 75 percent from 64 percent, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll taken this month...."

Even more frightening for the Republicans? Basically half of Republican women (47 percent according to NBC/Wall Street Journal) are giving Trump the side-eye....I don't care who you are.....you can't win general elections when your own party is split...

Every time Trump pulls a self-afflicting move (that Tweet about Cruz' wife was nuts) it offers more proof that dude gives no fucks about the Republican party....lol...

Publicly Hillary Clinton's people are saying that they r worried about Trump going Trump (he doesn't play by the rules...) But on the low they are confident dude will be cooked food in the general. He's already turned off women, blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Muslims...He's working his way up to Unicorns....

link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-cant-stop-saying-nasty-things-about-women-it-could-cost-him/2016/03/24/51a0ee82-f1d7-11e5-85a6-2132cf446d0a_story.html

GOAT of his era......long live Prince.....God is alive....