This was probably mentioned in the comments somewhere but nobody seems to be making a big deal of the fact that the next NBC debate is on Telemundo, and it’s the only debate on a Latino network for the Republicans. So the hissy fit du jour has a second benefit, aside from working the refs: it keeps the clown show away from anyone who might ask pointed questions about the xenophobic anti-Latino racism that Republican primary voters crave.
Looking at the debate schedule, Democrats will have 6 debates during the primary cycle, and Republicans will have 11 (assuming they end up on Telemundo). As far as I’m concerned, Democrats should be matching Republicans 1:1 on debates.
Sunday Garden Chat: In Living Color
Ayn Randy
That’s because DWS is terrible at her job.
OT: Will the bootstrappers in Texas and the Confederacy be looking for Uncle Sam’s assistance after the floodwaters have receded?
Ronnie Pudding
Why do we need that many debates? You could argue the Republicans need that many because they have so many candidates and they don’t each get that much time to speak.
What are we going to learn about Clinton and Sanders that we can’t get in six debates?
debbie
The link isn’t working, but didn’t the RNC cancel the NBC debate earlier this week?
EZSmirkzz
From the, “We learned more from a three minute song than we ever learned in school.”, files, we’ll learn more in 6 Democratic debates than we’ll learn in 6 years of Republican debates.
Obviously from the morning magazine shows, (the slime oozing out of your TV set,) the Repugnantcons are going to get a lot of traction from the networks/people that are selling opioids to the masses, because there just isn’t enough public masturbation in America with the 11 remaining debates.
The Democrats, ie Hillary and Bernie, are potentially our biggest enemies if they manage to make one another unelectable when faced with the current crop of POGo Schticks. YMMV.
bystander
@Ayn Randy:
Little Lindsey Gee has already told us the American taxpayer will pay “whatever it takes”. His excuse for refusing to vote for authorizing funds for Hurricane Sandy relief was that the bill had pork in it, like money to reinforce Amtrak rail beds. You know, frivolous stuff.
BGinCHI
Interesting that Jeb, the vaunted Spanish speaker, and Rubio, the Cuban-American, aren’t more aggressive about pushing back against cancelling on Telemundo.
What does that tell us?
kc
I don’t see the point of that.
Amir Khalid
I understand the DNC chairman, Debbie Wotsername Schulz, has insisted on only six debates despite the candidates wanting more. What’s up woth that? I also understand the RNC chairman Reince Priebus has suspended the party;s relationship with NBC over the debates. What does that mean?
MattF
It’s clear the RNC regards the Republican ‘debates’ as a marketing opportunity. And if some aspiring journalist gets in the way, then the journalist gets smeared and then gets to encounter the underside of the bus.
Gin & Tonic
Democrats should be matching Republicans 1:1 on debates.
Why? “Debates’ as they are currently conducted in American Presidential politics are as useful as tits on a bull.
The Sheriff's A Ni-*bong*
Why?
Benw
Hands up, everyone who’s still not sure who they are voting for and would like at least 10 more debates to make up their mind.
Go NYC marathon runners!
West of the Cascades
@Gin & Tonic: And, anyway, the number of Democratic debates is up to seven, which seems fine for three serious candidates (http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-debate-schedule/2016-democratic-primary-debate-schedule/) – I suspect there will be a few more “forums” like the one that has been added this coming week – not officially sanctioned by the DNC (thanks DWS!) but having the three candidates in one place talking to one intelligent moderator.
Baud
Since virtual candidates aren’t invited, it really doesn’t matter how many they have. Important voices are being silenced.
Whatever the right number is, we shouldn’t simply mimic the GOP.
WaterGirl
@Baud: Bumper sticker: Baud will never be silenced!
SFAW
@Baud:
So what are you going to do about it? Just sit there and take it? You need to fight for your right to
party(sorry, was channeling the Baudstie Boys for a second) be included!Or were you maybe talking about Jeb-Jeb Brinks? (Since he doesn’t appear to be a serious/real candidate.) If that’s the case – never mind, let his “candidacy” die a quick-but-painful death.
Wag
@West of the Cascades:
If you’re the GOP, that’s the problem. Intelligent moderators ask followup questions that interrupt the memorized flow of talking points. Extemporaneous conversations? Those are for Democrats.
Kropadope
@EZSmirkzz:
If the nominated candidate becomes unelectable in the process of securing the nomination (or due to their horrific record as an office-holder) it is only his or her own fault.
Baud
@WaterGirl:
@SFAW:
You’re both right. It’s time to do some thing proactive and disruptive. The powers that be will not reform themselves.
#BLM (Baud’s Life Matters!)
SFAW
@Baud:
Uh, let’s not get carried away, now.
Betty Cracker
@Amir Khalid: People suspect DWS limited the number of Democratic debates to bolster HRC’s chances. Seems like a pretty good bet.
Her Republican counterpart suspended the relationship with NBC because the GOP candidates, base and organization are whiny-ass crybabies. It really is that simple.
OzarkHillbilly
I have to ask: Why? So you can be even more bored?
Betty Cracker
@Mistermix: Sorry I bigfooted your post, dude. I swear I didn’t see it in the mobile backroom. I blame WordPress.
jibeaux
Yeah, I think only the people paid to do so are going to watch 17+ debates, and they’re kicking themselves for not going to dental school.
This election is over a year away. I can’t believe how long silly season goes on.
Baud
@Betty Cracker:
I’ve never quite understood how fewer debates helps HRC. I can imagine positive and negative scenarios either way.
Schlemazel
@Amir Khalid:
The parties generally set the rules and could, theoretical, punish offenders though if they all joined in I don’t know what they could do. I seem to remember HRC being punished for some minor transgression in MI in 08 (anyone help me out on that?)
The RNC is desperately trying to get people to not recognize what a shitty job their boys and girl did last time & have fallen on making up lies (a skill they excel at) about the questions asked, pretending they were unfair.
What HRC and Bern should do is hire one news person to ‘interview’ them on TV. Blank stage, 3 chairs, 2 candidates and a questioner.
@Baud:
Agreed, although it is generally considered that fewer debates help the better known candidate but I don’t see that as a case here at all.
Villago Delenda Est
@MattF: If they REALLY want a marketing opportunity, they should have a select Benghazi Committee giving their candidates 11 hours of campaign exposure.
Villago Delenda Est
@Betty Cracker: You should blame Obama too for good measure.
Oh, and congratulations on the Gators’ win yesterday.
Villago Delenda Est
@Ayn Randy:
Is water wet? Is a bear Catholic? Does the Pope shit in the woods?
Hawes
I’ve emailed a few journos about the Telemundo angle, especially Tim Lee at Vox.
So far crickets.
I think the number of Dem debates is appropriate for three candidates. The GOP should have more smaller debates. Have Trump, Carson and Kasich in one debate. Rubio, Cruz and Huck in another.
Not only are their policies vacuous, but the portions are so small.
Kropadope
@Schlemazel:
She wasn’t punished, Michigan was punished for moving it’s primary up too early and was stripped of its convention delegates. Hillary was the only plausible candidate who didn’t remove her name from the Michigan ballot, so she won the state with roughly 50% of the vote (the other 50 going to none of the above). She wanted the delegates seated to bolster her chances for the nomination and the party refused. Still, I don’t see that as punishing Hillary, so much as not allowing her an unearned unfair advantage.
@Baud:
I think the idea is that more debates give lesser-known candidates a chance to be seen by the ;ess-tuned-in portion of the American public.
Amir Khalid
@Betty Cracker:
Hillary’s a stronger debater than Bernie. Why would she need that help?
Baud
@Kropadope:
Thanks. I’m not sure I would buy into that theory, but at least it’s an explanation.
Aimai
@Betty Cracker: ridiculous. More debates than six or seven will not change the overall dynamic of the race. Seven is a really high number. If people had the idea of a travelling roadshow with a regionally focused debate in each region i’d be interested in more but the number of republican debates are irrelevant to what is appropriate to the dem side. Positioning a last dem debate after the last republican fuck up makes more sense. We are competing with ghe repubs for s few stray votes. Within the dem side we have an electorate thst is choosing between two good candidates according to preferences snd tastes that are really fixed by this time.
Schlemazel
@Kropadope:
Thats it! All I could remember was it was MI and that it negatively affected HRC. Thanks.
Given that there are really only 2 candidates on the D side 6 debates is plenty. If any of the lesser lights is going to make a move 6 is more than enough chances to be seen. Besides being a hopeless ball of buffoons the GOP is not helped by having 11 debates with 6-10 bozos at a time, it allows for too much pie throwing like the last one.
Scout211
@debbie:
Yes, sort of. They keep saying that the NBC/Telemundo debate is “suspended” and NBC/Telemundo are negotiating to keep it.
I assume that means they are offering to be less mean?
Baud
It’s also interesting how debates are seen as the pinnacle of the campaign process. I suspect that’s due to the influence of TV.
ruemara
Match the RNC debate schedule? Why? We don’t have a metric ton of bullshit flooding the airwaves. All our candidates are sane, have decent proposals and can debate well. We’re not nuts. DWS is a tool but limiting the debates makes perfect sense when you’re faced with a long silly season and a stupid population. Keep it short, simple and selective. They can have some single issue forums that will do more for the individual candidates than debates.
Matt McIrvin
@Baud: Early in the campaign, there was an idea that Clinton had a gigantic lead and an aura of inevitability, wasn’t the most charismatic candidate, and basically needed to run out the clock.
I think the erosion in her poll numbers to Sanders and to Biden’s phantom candidacy, followed by her good performance in the first Democratic debate and rapid recovery, changed that picture in a big way.
yellowdog
@Gin & Tonic: This! I do not understand the push for more debates. Where is the idea coming from? What does anyone think it will accomplish?
yellowdog
@Betty Cracker: Why would anyone think fewer debates would favor Hillary. She has shown herself to be an excellent debater (not not just the most recent debate, either). If the goal is to promote Hillary it seems the more debates would just improve her standing.
Matt McIrvin
@Benw: I’m not sure who I’m voting for in the primary, but debates probably aren’t going to have much if anything to do with my decision; it’ll all be about my opinion of the strategic situation on Super Tuesday.
Kropadope
@Matt McIrvin:
Fixed for accuracy
Baud
@Matt McIrvin: I suppose my confusion lies in the fact that six debates doesn’t seem to be the right number for achieving the goal of helping Hillary. You can have one or two debates to limit her exposure or a double-digit number to make each debate less important and give her time to adjust. Six seems in the middle to me somehow.
It may be that the Dems had a lot more debates in 2008, and since Hillary ended up losing to Obama, DWS figured fewer debates would be helpful simply because it would be different. Whatever her motivation, I agree with others that six is a reasonable number this time around.
Baud
@Kropadope: I think she’s a good debater, but your addition is accurate too. YMMV.
Betty Cracker
@Aimai: I like the idea of a regional roadshow. If it were up to me, Halloween would mark the start of the primary campaign season, with nominations determined no later than March for a general election campaign season to run no more than six months. That’s plenty of time, and maybe if the damn show didn’t drag on for years, people would pay more attention.
satby
OMIGOD, as far as I’m concerned 6 debates are too many. They aren’t debates anyway, though the Dem ones came a bit closer to the concept of “debate”. They’re just long shared advertisements, and no one needs more of those.
satby
and as far as the Rs using the CNBC debate as an excuse to run away from Telemundo, I suspect the candidates have been working on that since the Telemundo one was announced.
feebog
I don’t agree with this at all. We only have three viable candidates on the Dem side at this point. Two, if the polls mean anything. My nitpick with the Dem debates is the timing. None of them should be during the holiday season, and they should all be before Super Tuesday.
Omnes Omnibus
Why in the name of all that’s good and right in the world should the Dems emulate the GOP in anything, let alone the number of debates?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@satby: I suspect Li’l Marco is not happy about this move to bring in talk radio hosts for debates. I don’t listen, but from I’ve gleaned second hand talk radio is all ginned up about immigration, which is Rubio’s biggest problem with the base, and his flip-flopping on it could become a double drag
Kropadope
@Omnes Omnibus: Why in the name of all that’s good and right in the world should the Dems emulate the GOP in anything, let alone the number of debates?
You’re absolutely right. So, let’s not emulate them in nominating aggressive warmongers, let’s not emulate them in dishonest approach to argumentation, let’s not emulate them in elevating mediocrities to presidential consideration because they’re on our “side,” let’s not nominate Hillary Clinton for president.
Felonius Monk
Looking at this question about the number of debates for the Democratic candidates from the standpoint of how many do we need to decide on a candidate given the size of the candidate field — six is probably enough.
From the standpoint of exposure of the Democratic candidates ideas to the general populace, six is probably not enough. Remember you are competing with the rethugs for the minds and hearts of the voters. Democrats should probably be matching the rethugs 1:1 on debates just to keep sane ideas in front of voters.
rikyrah
The GOP threw over the debate had nothing to do with the debate – it was cover so that the GOP could cancel the next debate – which was to be on NBC associated property-TELEMUNDO.
UH HUH
UH HUH
Thanks for seeing the forest for the trees…should have heard this from the MSM, but of course, we didn’t.
Snarkworth
The purpose of more Dem debates is not to help voters decide among (between?) the candidates. It’s to get more airtime for Dem policies and to highlight the superior quality of the candidates. It’s to provide a vivid contrast with the baboon-esque displays on the other side.
Boudica
@rikyrah: The next repub debate is nov 10 on fox business. The suspended nbc debate isn’t until February I believe.
Debbie
I’m surprised Cruz’s demand that only moderators who have voted Republican should be allowed to moderate Republican debates hasn’t been mocked more openly.
gelfling545
That would be O’Malley (unless anybody really thinks Lessig has a chance) and his only hope was that HRC would be badly mauled by the investigations which hasn’t been the case & more debates won’t change that. Sanders & Clinton seem to have done a fine job of getting themselves before the public. I don’t see more debates changing much except perhaps giving O’Malley an opportunity to make a name for himself for the next round provided he doesn’t mess up which is always a possibility. Regarding additional debates, I don’t see that the game is worth the candle.
redshirt
Liberals who literally insist on losing are so tiring.
benw
@Debbie: It’s hard to keep up with all the mock-worthy shit that comes flying out of the Republican candidates’ mouths. Like being sprayed by a firehose of stupid.
MattF
@Debbie: Hadn’t heard that. Would he agree that only Democrats should question the candidates in the Dem debates?
Kropadope
@gelfling545:
Fortunate for Bernie that the rise of the internet has deteriorated the power of the media gate-keepers.
rikyrah
So, for all in the Latino community that believes there are no differences between the parties…what say you?
…………………………..
Congressman: ‘No Way’ Comprehensive Immigration Reform Will Happen, Even After Obama
BY EMILY ATKIN
OCT 30, 2015 3:09PM
It’s been widely reported that newly-elected Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) won’t bring immigration reform legislation to the House floor while President Obama remains in office. What’s been mentioned less is what will happen when Obama is gone.
According to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Ryan promised the House’s ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus in a closed-door meeting that he won’t bring comprehensive immigration reform to the floor even after a new president is elected — that is, unless he can ensure that the majority of House Republicans will vote for it. And Jordan pointed out that it’s very unlikely that the majority of Republicans will ever support anything comprehensive.
“We got assurances on the immigration issue and this comprehensive Gang-of-Eight-type of plan that that’s not going to happen,” Jordan told radio host Laura Ingraham on Friday. “And frankly, in the next Congress, there’s no way something like that moves unless the majority of our conference supports it. And the majority of our conference, as you rightly point out, doesn’t support that.”
http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2015/10/30/3717991/paul-ryan-immigration-reform-freedom-caucus/
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Can’t remember when, but once upon a time– the nineties, I guess– when it was revealed that Rush Limbaugh was not a registered voter. He said he didn’t have to vote because his candidates always win. His followers laughed, barked and clapped in their trained seal way, and shouted “mega-dittoes!” Do they still do that? I haven’t heard the “ditto-head” thing in years.
redshirt
I wonder how many conservative Latinos who might vote Republican vote Democrat instead because of the racism and xenophobia. I bet it’s a substantial number.
gelfling545
@Kropadope: A good thing too or we’d never elect a Democrat again, media being what it is.
Kropadope
@gelfling545: We’d just be stuck every year with the likes of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.
Brachiator
@redshirt:
Perhaps the more interesting question is why Latino voter turnout remains relatively low despite the Republicans clearly speaking against their interests.
From Pew:
We will see what happens this election cycle.
redshirt
@Kropadope: Instead of real candidates like Jill Stein.
Kropadope
@redshirt: She’s kind of radical for my tastes. If you want a “practical” candidate who wants to do awful things but take off the sharp edges, vote for Kasich.
Brachiator
@Kropadope:
Who else you got in mind?
Kropadope
@Brachiator: Well, it’s admittedly slim pickings this year. Though Howard Dean would have been an excellent alternative to John Kerry. Damn, did the media have the knives out for him.
Frankensteinbeck
The Republicans having a debate on Telemundo is stupid to the point of insane. I can see how it seemed like a great idea to the more intelligent RNC strategists before the campaign started. They see the Latino vote as winnable, and want and need it. At the very least, they need to stop the bleeding.
But then Trump did his ‘rapists and murderers’ dance, and a gamble became a certain big loss. Every candidate has to choose between doubling down on the anti-Mexican rhetoric, hurting themselves badly in the general, or backpedaling and throwing away the anti-Mexican bigot vote that is currently ruling the primaries. The RNC has to watch this happen directly in front of the Latino audience, and it’s guaranteed at least one candidate will go strongly anti-Mexican, because they believe this hateful shit.
They have to cauterize this wound and cancel the debate. Will the monk- uh, candidates cooperate? I don’t know.
Brachiator
@Felonius Monk:
You don’t have to have the same number of debates for this. You just have to schedule your debates so that the final ones are close to the last GOP debates.
And even here, unless you have town hall style meetings/debates the Democrats may not be getting their ideas across. They don’t control the questions. The Democrats could use social media, the Internet and other venues to get idea and policy info (including video) out just before and after the debates, to capitalize on what little publicity the debates generate for anybody who is not a politics wonk.
sdhays
@Baud: I remember reading somewhere that Hillary didn’t have a problem with debates per se, but she distrusted the moderators (with good reason, I think) and that she was open to more town-hall style debates. Questions asked by regular people tend to be more relevant than what the mainstream media likes to focus on, so that sounds like a good idea to me. I don’t know why they just don’t do them all like that.
Baud
@sdhays: That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that. I also prefer town hall debates. Media people these days are too conflicted by the need for ratings and drama IMHO.
Brachiator
@Kropadope:
We’re headed toward 2016. I don’t care about re-visiting past elections. This is only useful in letting us know the general type of candidates you like.
I don’t agree that Dean would have been an excellent alternative to Kerry. Nobody wanted or cared about him. He was old news politically.
Who you got for 2016? And how are you going to get them into the campaign at this relatively late date?
Brachiator
@Frankensteinbeck:
The GOP have painted themselves into a corner. Let’s see how they deal with it.
Everything you say is true. Trump has caused problems for them. And some of the more rabid base may get angry from seeing the candidates try to appeal to Latinos.
On the other hand, the GOP must be thinking that Bush, Cruz or Rubio will be the candidate (or the VP choice will be Latino) and they know that they simply cannot write off Latinos entirely.
Their hope, or fantasy, is that they can appeal to conservative values, maybe including anti-abortion rhetoric, and downplay immigration. And Bush and Rubio have to try to give a wink and a nod to “comprehensive immigration reform” and hope that people will take it to mean whatever they want, positive or negative.
Keith G
@Ayn Randy:
Flooding is serious and deadly business, but thanks for making light of it anyway, douche snot.
You see, most of the population of Texas lives within striking distance of coastal storms. That gives us a pretty acute appreciation of the need to contribute to, and sometimes receive funds from, emergency relief monies – money that more often than not is spent on communities located east of us.
And keep in mind that Texas is among those states that sends more money to the federal government than receives back in payments.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Thank you. Ten years of watching Dean have not convinced me to change my original opinion of him, which was “meh”. If anything, his MEK lobbying and hawkishness on Iran have made me think I overestimated him.
NCSteve
Matching them one to one? When debates are structured more like Lincoln-Douglas rather than idiot game shows, I’ll be for that. But as it is now, I’d be in favor of abolishing the fucking things altogether.
jacel
John Fugelsang said, regarding the chaos in the Republican debate arrangements, “Reince Priebus is the Debbie Wasserman Schultz of the Republican party.” Frank laughed and said that was such an insult without actually sounding like an insult.
Dey
@MattF:
Cruz hasn’t said who should moderate Dem debates, but here’s his thought regarding “real” journalists:
https://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/cruz-let-real-journalists-sean-hannity-and-rush-limbaugh-host-gop-debates-instead-of-left-wing-operatives/
jacel
@gelfling545: After hearing Martin O’Malley on Rachel Maddow’s show last week, talking about the actual problems in the Veteran’s Administration, I thought he’d be a great vice president in the model set by Al Gore. While he had a low profile during Bill Clinton’s presidency, he was working at-large to drive improvements in the performance and efficiency of specific federal agencies and programs. O’Malley’s nuts-and-bolts comments on how he’s solved logjams in bureaucratic systems as mayor and governor left me with a good feeling about what he could do quietly at the federal level.
redshirt
@Keith G:
Can I get a source for this?
MazeDancer
Yes, we had this discussion on the night the GOP announced they were continuing their impressive Hispanic outreach by cancelling Telemundo. Mentioning that Steve Schmidt, GOP consultant, had said the GOP needed 45% of Hispanic vote to win.
Which sounds high. Except, then David Koch (the ace BJ commenter, not the other one) did the math and showed a formula that the GOP actually needed 52% of the Hispanic vote.
Will keep Google searching for that post and bring the formula here, if I can find it.
redshirt
@Brachiator:
Shiny Unicorn Pony 2016!
Patricia Kayden
@rikyrah: If Rubio is the GOP nominee, he should be peppered with questions about the hard anti-immigration reform stance of his party. He should be forced to own his party’s views of Latinos (including Trump’s anti-Mexican statements). Looks like Republicans are going for the maximum angry White male vote. Good luck to them with that.
Scout211
@redshirt:
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/
Wallethub.com lists them as #24 least dependent.
sukabi
@Boudica: haven’t looked at the schedule, but Dems should have at least one debate on Telemundo and one on Univision… or at least invite both to participate in the debate process, broadcasts. STARK difference between parties, candidates.
rikyrah
@Boudica:
In the heart of primary season……..can’t have the GOP candidates saying anything in non-Frank Luntz approved language, can we?
Patricia Kayden
@Dey: Because when a Republican becomes President only friendly journalists will be allowed to question them about anything they do or say. Because Republican Presidents should never be challenged to explain themselves to “unfriendly” journalists.
And the “leftwing” media goes along with this foolishness.
Brachiator
@Patricia Kayden:
The Republicans have the white male vote in the bag in most states. They now have to peel off more white women, and also try to get a slice of Latino men, praying that Latino men will not want to vote for a woman for president.
There may be some nasty racial and gender gap pandering if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.
@MazeDancer:
This probably should be revisited to take gender gap politics into account.
Kropadope
@Brachiator: I honestly don’t know. I honestly might agree with HRC on the most with respect to domestic policy, save perhaps for gun policy. However, her support for every military action the political class dreams up is an absolute disqualifier. She has also learned to play the Republicans’ game with the media; play into their narratives when it benefits you, play the victim when the non-scandal they elevate to scandal status is in the news, benefit from them not raising your true skeletons. She has some actual interesting proposals, though, and a long history of failing to move people to support her agenda to match.
Bernie has a good combination of conservative governing temperament (as in continuity and non-disruption) combined with ambitious aspirations (Hillary 4.0 seems to share this quality too). I wish it hadn’t taken him such a long time to attempt to assume such a prominent leadership role in government, considering how long he has served. The forces The forces he’s harnessing for his presidential run have been around for years, we could have benefitted from a presidential-campaign level effort against the Iraq War or to help good candidates for office over the years.
O’Malley’s tough-not-smart-on-crime history is also a disqualifier (a trait he shares with Hillary 1.0). Chafee, while he was still running, is too one-note. Webb lost all his better-on-war-policy cred over Hillary by being agains the Iran deal.
I suppose Bernie’s the one for me, but it’s like being passable in a field full of bleh.
Villago Delenda Est
@Keith G: Yet you miss why Ayn Randy made the point: when it was the NE devastated by violent weather, the Rs of Texas felt no shame at all at voting against providing them aid. Same for Lindsey Graham…when the evil blue NE was suffering, his heart was hardened…”there’s pork in the bill!”. When South Carolina gets covered in water, there is no limit to the cash that should be thrown at the problem, to not only relieve the suffering of South Carolinians, but also to line the pockets of Lindsey’s cronies on the down low.
Another excellent example of the mean spirited stupidity of Rethuglicans would be Piyush Jindal’s disparagement of volcano monitoring as a waste of tax dollars. Tell that to air travelers anywhere near some volcano in Alaska. Tell that to the entire Seattle-Tacoma metropolitan area, sitting in the shadow of a decade volcano. But then, Seattle-Tacoma is blue. Fuck them. They’re not real ‘muricans!
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Of mild interest, because I think at this point, as annoying as we might find him, Scarborough is a third-stringer in terms of influencing any discussion in his party or his Village. A symptom, not a cause.
Joey the Scar calls Li’l Marco a liar and links to a politifact discussion of his murky personal finances
Is Scarborough a member of the Bush Clan? Or is this some old score from FL politics?
MazeDancer
Here is the electoral math reality from @DavidKoch in a thread night before last:
Also, I misremembered my then quoting of Steven Schmidt. He said on MSNBC that GOP would need 40% of the Hispanic vote. (Of course, I might have misquoted then…)
Mnemosyne (tablet)
@Keith G:
Ted Cruz opposed hurricane relief for New York after Hurricane Sandy but demanded relief money for Texas after the floods in May:
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/27/ted-cruz-demands-federal-money-texas-floods-blocking-hurricane-sandy-relief.html
Sorry, but your reps don’t get to refuse to help New York and then show up with their hands out because they really need disaster relief, unlike those slackers in New York who should have planned better. And I have no problem with reps from NY and NJ telling Cruz to go fuck himself.
Southern Beale
I love that they’re wanting to replace a Telemundo debate with a National Review one.
Ruckus
@Mnemosyne (tablet):
I have no problem with anyone telling Cruz to go fuck himself.
Same with Graham. His pork is someone else’s dinner.
People who think that government is only there to prop them up when they need it have the maturity of a 6 yr old, and not a very smart 6 yr old.
aimai
@Keith G: Is it? I don’t think that has historically been correct and if it is now Isn’t that only because they refused the Medicaid expansion and also other transfer payments that would help the poor?
Jean
I read that the last three republican presidents did not get 30% of the Latino vote (Bush was closest, but still not 30%). I don’t have the source, but if that’s true, Rs lose. Game over early.
rikyrah
Dick Gregory
@IAmDickGregory
Please send prayers and good energy to brother Paul Mooney
Brachiator
@MazeDancer:
The problem with this is that the white vote is not monolithic. Neither is the vote of people of color.
This analysis is OK, I guess, as a back of a napkin kind of thing, but two easy variables are how white women and Latino men in key states might vote in 2016, especially if Hillary is the nominee.
dogwood
@aimai:
My clear recollection is that Texas has consistently been one of the only red states that contributes more than it receives. This was true long before the passage of the ACA.
Frankensteinbeck
@Kropadope:
Again, I ask: Why do you think she’s a hawk? What is the source? I’ve seen one where she said she’d do more to arm the Syrian rebels than Obama – a truly weak level of hawkishness – and she brags about being part of the peaceful resolution with Iran. What am I missing?
Kropadope
@Frankensteinbeck: Yeah, Iraq totally didn’t happen. She was one of the driving forces behind Libya, too, if I remember correctly. Yeah, I suppose the financial warfare she helped conduct against Iran helped lead to the deal in a way.
Frankensteinbeck
@Kropadope:
So, she supported an AUMF damn near everybody did, and she has recanted since. She supported a decision Obama was enthusiastic about, that NATO and the Arab League itself begged the US to do, where we were involved for a month and let them go at it. And the sanctions were a crucial part of the Iran negotiations.
This is so far from the Republican/Media ‘bomb it all and let God sort it out’ strategy that they can’t see each other with a telescope. It is classic liberal limited interventionism. However, I honestly thank you for answering the question, because it helps me know the context to make my decisions.
redshirt
@Kropadope: Do you believe military action is ever justified by the USA?
Brachiator
@Kropadope:
To be brutally cynical, it is easier to vote to support military action when you are not the one who decides to send troops or to drop bombs.
Purists, especially Americans, are blind to the historical reality that leaders who have made huge misjudgments in the past, but who learn from them, are superior to dreamy idealists who cannot adjust. This is not an endorsement of Hillary, but just offering something to think about.
Actually, her years as an active politician have not been that long.
I understand how you end up with Sanders. Makes sense, of the current crop of candidates. He should be interviewed more about foreign policy issues, who his advisors are, and what he sees going forward.
Kropadope
@Frankensteinbeck: She and “everyone else” (conspicuously absent Bernie) supported an AUMF sold on lies with the thinnest veneer ever, already scratched to hell by the time of the vote. She recanted because she had to. As far as Syria and perhaps ISIL, I think we all know how “just the tip” ends.
Kropadope
@redshirt:
Of course I do. I don’t believe in seeking out opportunities for military action.
Frankensteinbeck
@Kropadope:
Exactly where they say it will, like pretty much everything has with the Obama administration? Afghanistan and Iraq draw downs went as planned, we did in Libya exactly what NATO and the Arab League asked for, and nothing else, and ISIL rising was a new (and crisis level) development where we’ve pursued exactly the promised strategy of support but making the locals do it. Barring much better evidence, neither inevitable mission creep into full fledged war, nor Clinton being a war-enthusiast hawk, seem to be justified.
Kropadope
@Frankensteinbeck: That’s because the final decision was with Obama, not Clinton. She always manages to arrive at the consensus position among war seekers. Once every position from “I don’t really wanna do much, but we gotta do SOMETHING” to “Bomb! Bomb! Bomb” has been consulted, she would fall somewhere on that spectrum, right where all the “grown-ups” deemed appropriate.
John Revolta
This crap about Clinton and Iraq is tiresome and well past its sell-by date.
Stick it in the bin with “Obama could have gotten us single-payer but he Didn’t. Even. Try!!”
Kropadope
@John Revolta: Obama couldn’t have gotten us single payer and we’re still paying for the mistakes made in Iraq and we will forever pay if prominent Democrats keep lending credence to neocon fantasies and they’ll keep doing it if we don’t make it clear that is unacceptable.
Brachiator
@Kropadope:
Your view of Obama and Clinton is just wrong-headed. There has been support for the Arab Spring and democracy movements. This is neither “we gotta do something” or “bomb, bomb, bomb.”
The whole point of the Benghazi hearings is that the GOP was looking for a smoking gun that would prove that the Obama Administration was following a policy of appeasement in which they refused to acknowledge terrorism and downplayed threats to the US by Muslim radicals.
The GOP approach favors punitive military action to show who is boss, or at least the installation of “reliable” pro-American authoritarians.
Kropadope
@Brachiator:
Look at Syria. Clinton has wanted the U.S. to buy into that morass since civil war started.
RaflW
It seems important to me that the NBC/Telemundo debate has been “suspended” (ie: probably cancelled). How did this escape mistermix’s attention, and garner only a handful of ‘dude it’s canceled’ comments here?
I suppose because this has become an exercise in how many Democratic debates. Which wasn’t the point.
Have a nice Sunday, y’all.
RaflW
It seems important to me that the NBC/Telemundo debate has been “suspended” (ie: probably cancelled). How did this escape mistermix’s attention, and garner only a handful of ‘dude it’s canceled’ comments here?
I suppose because this has become an exercise in how many Democratic debates. Which wasn’t the point.
Have a nice Sunday, y’all.
Raoul
It seems important to me that the NBC/Telemundo debate has been “suspended” (ie: probably cancelled). How did this escape mistermix’s attention, and garner only a handful of ‘dude it’s canceled’ comments here?
I suppose because this has become an exercise in how many Democratic debates. Which wasn’t the point.
Have a nice Sunday, y’all.
RaflW
testing. FYWP. squeal. testing.
Brachiator
@Kropadope:
What does this mean?
The US policy was that Assad must go. This may have been short-sighted, but Clinton was not the author of this policy, nor did this policy necessarily entail war and simple-minded bombing.
What would you have preferred? That the US simply ignore what was happening? You would still have the massive refugee problem. You would still have death and destruction.
Brachiator
@Kropadope:
What does this mean?
The US policy was that Assad must go. This may have been short-sighted, but Clinton was not the author of this policy, nor did this policy necessarily entail war and simple-minded bombing.
What would you have preferred? That the US simply ignore what was happening? You would still have the massive refugee problem. You would still have death and destruction.
Brachiator
@Kropadope:
What does this mean?
The US policy was that Assad must go. This may have been short-sighted, but Clinton was not the author of this policy, nor did this policy necessarily entail war and simple-minded bombing.
What would you have preferred? That the US simply ignore what was happening? You would still have the massive refugee problem. You would still have death and destruction.
Brachiator
@Kropadope:
What does this even mean?
The US policy was that Assad must go. This may have been short-sighted, but Clinton was not the author of this policy, nor did this policy necessarily entail war and simple-minded bombing.
What would you have preferred? That the US simply ignore what was happening? You would still have the massive refugee problem. You would still have death and destruction.
Brachiator
Site seems to be freezing. I blame Daylight Saving Time.
ETA: Now I see duplicate posts. Sorry. I will just step away for a while.
Villago Delenda Est
Some new format stuff happening. I think it’s still WP, though…
Oh, wait, something called “Enfold” in the upper left hand corner. New commenting software? Seems to be pretty much the same as FYWP, though….
Oh, dear, main page…”Maintenance mode”. Looks like the site will be back Monday morning.
Greg
@redshirt:
Appears to be true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state , at least for the last couple years. 2012 was the latest year in which Texas got more federal spending than it paid in taxes.