Support NeoGAF

[JesseEwiak]

Not even "particularly corrupt". I hate how so many find that acceptable on any side.

Corruption is how things get done. The President who did the most for black people since Grant was a Dixiecrat who black voters were worried about JFK's VP pick 8 years previous.

 

[Coriolanus]

Corruption is how things get done. The President who did the most for black people since Grant was a Dixiecrat who black voters were worried about JFK's VP pick 8 years previous.

Part of the reason why it's called pork barrel nowadays.

 

[kirblar]

Compromise is not corruption.

 

[User 406]

= /s

Weak, you should have said, "closing Guantanamo".

Also, the freak-outs right now are kind of glorious.

Like, in here? It's starting to look like some purportedly "pragmatic" Democrats are starting to lose their shit over some bullshit optics and rhetoric in a primary fight like it's their first dance. They need to stop working themselves up into melodramatic lather and remember the point of the exercise. Or maybe castigating people for taking an emo moral stand by not voting if their candidate doesn't make it is only justified if it's not your candidate that's struggling.

PoliGAF going crazy. Secession soon.

Man, what ever did happen to somedude? Wonder if he was in the Oregon kerfluffle.


Edit: And of course, when I finally get my slow ass around to posting this, the thread is three pages longer and other people have already made the same point. I hate election season.

 

[Holmes]

I agree that a lot of the Clinton vs. Sanders BS is stuff that the media is stroking to make the race more contentious and heated.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Compromise is not corruption.

No, but buying compromise is kind of corruption.

Just a little bit.

 

[GregLombardi]

I agree that a lot of the Clinton vs. Sanders BS is stuff that the media is stroking to make the race more contentious and heated.

This is the thing that gets under my skin the most. It is such a waste of time BECAUSE of this, not because it isn't worth going over all the issues and whether Clinton or Sanders are qualified, etc.

 

[Coriolanus]

Weak, you should have said, "closing Guantanamo".

It came to mind, but that was such a sui generis thing that it felt unfair.

Guess i coulda mentioned "increasing government transparency". Cuz god damn if there wasn't some serious backpedalling and fuckery in there.

No, but buying compromise is kind of corruption.

Just a little bit.

Better to rewrite it as "compromise most certainly can be motivated by corruption".

As the resident south american, i'm the expert on corruption and stuff

 

[JesseEwiak]

A rant from one of the posters on a reasonable Republican site I visit that talks about elections from largely an analytical way. This is how a supposed centrist feels on there, let alone the conservatives.

There is no difference between a “moderate” liberal and “the most liberal person,” at least on questions of constitutional law. Every liberal justice, allegedly “moderate” or not, votes in complete left-wing lockstep on every case that addresses a constitutional question.

The distinctions between the four liberal justices on the court are less significant than the distinctions between Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Rehnquist. Stephen Breyer will occasionally join all the Republican justices on something insignificant like recess appointments, that’s it. But otherwise the only difference between a “moderate” liberal and “the most liberal person” is that the former might be a bit friendlier to businesses and prosecutors in cases that don’t involve a constitutional question.

This is the most consequential single political event of the entire Obama, and Bush and Clinton administrations. I fully expect McConnell and/or traitors (yes, traitors) in the Senate GOP caucus to cave on this, but if on the off chance they care one iota more about conservatism than they do about their own immediate self-interest then they absolutely cannot and should not.

What McConnell ought to do is say that if any Republican votes for Obama’s nominee, whether in committee, on cloture or the actual nomination vote, then they will be stripped of all committee memberships, kicked out of the caucus, and will receive no financial or organizational support from the RNC and NRSC – but their primary challenger will.

If Mark Kirk loses reelection, then that’s unfortunate. If Susan Collins says she’s retiring because conservatives are big meanies, then good, take your drama elsewhere. If the Chamber of Commerce people say everyone’s giving them side-eye at their cocktail parties, bummer. If the Democrats take a 15-point lead in the generic ballot, then I guess we’ll have to try to weather the storm.

What I’m saying is we need to treat defections on this issue like parties in parliamentary systems treat defections on a confidence vote; except this is far more important than a confidence vote. If Scalia is allowed to be replaced by a liberal, and the rest of the court stays the same or becomes even more liberal, then we almost might as well wrap up the GOP and call it a night.

The Second Amendment is gone and private gun ownership will be outlawed. The First Amendment is gone too, to be replaced by European/Canadian-style criminal prosecution for “hate speech.” In fact, they will stop even pretending to consider the Constitution in their rulings, on the grounds that it was written by dead white male racist sexist slaveowners, and therefore has no relevance to today.

The court will overturn tax cuts and mandate tax increases on the basis of a “disparate impact” on education spending (as Democrat state supreme courts have been doing for a few decades). Any and all conservative legislation on the federal or state level will be overturned; any and all liberal legislation will be upheld.

Soldiers and police will be treated as criminals; criminals and terrorists will be allowed to run free. The police will be disarmed and it will be made nearly impossible to convict criminals. Military rules of engagement will be so restricted that soldiers will be unable to defend themselves without being prosecuted, much less conduct offensive operations. Israel will be found guilty of war crimes and human rights violations, as will officials involved with foreign policy in past GOP administrations. The death penalty is very gone and so is the life sentence (long since done away with in Europe).

A property right will be discovered for reparations (in inheritable annuity form) and perpetual affirmative action for every aggrieved minority. Entitlements are gonna go bust? That’s a property right too (famous 5-4 decision), and so are those underfunded state pension funds, so they’ll be paid by seizing assets from the creditors. Unpopular industries – insurance, Wall Street, oil, landlords and so on – will be subjected to regular centi-billion-dollar shakedowns, like tobacco.

Our immigration, naturalization and voter registration laws are to be eliminated; anyone in the world will have the right to come here and be granted immediate US citizenship and voting rights. And if it’s your deal (it’s not mine), social conservatism will be truly well and buried. Whatever federal and state restrictions on abortion exist will be eliminated, and LGBT issues? – don’t make me laugh. Churches will lose their tax-exempt status and be found to be covered by anti-discrimination and “hate speech” laws, which will be rather more vigorously enforced against churches and synagogues than mosques.

Will all these things happen immediately? No, of course not. But some of them will happen immediately. And on a long enough time scale I can guarantee everything I predict here will come to pass. The Warren Court was about as liberal for its day as the court described above would be for ours.

Could any of us have predicted how fast and how far Obama would shift this country to the left, indeed to the left oftentimes of his own 2008 campaign positions? That’s a regular pattern; Democrats (and Republicans!) always govern to the left of their own campaign positions, and Supreme Court nominees from both parties almost always wind up being further left than they let on.

Now, I’m a pro-choice, pro-gay rights moderate who wishes the party would stake out more centrist positions on economic issues and foreign policy. I’m actually even a registered independent (if only because of MA’s open primary). I am very much a “big tent” guy. But this is it, the issue where you’re either for us or against us.

There was a time to talk about how you would vote Democrat or third party if your favorite candidate didn’t get the nomination. That time has passed along with Justice Scalia. Assuming McConnell and the GOP Senate caucus hold out until Nov. 8, there’s one phrase that describes someone (registered in a competitive state) who doesn’t pull the GOP lever, and that phrase is “liberal Democrat.”

We can disagree on who should be the nominee, but if you favor handing total, perpetual victory to the left on their entire agenda because Rubio, Kasich or Bush are too squishy, or because Trump or Cruz don’t meet your exacting and refined tastes, then you are either a liberal Democrat or you might as well be.

Whether you are a conservative on fiscal issues, social issues, national security, law and order, immigration or anything else, then helping to elect Clinton or Sanders means you are willing to accept 180 degrees the opposite of your viewpoints being US government policy for the rest of your life.

End angry rant (and yes, sorry about the angry rant, but it’s something I’m passionate about).

 

[Aaron Strife]

Honestly not obvious to me. Bloomberg may be running then. Similarly ridiculous, just in different ways. Would depend on polling nationally.

Yeah, if polling looked something like Trump 40 Bloomberg 40 Sanders 15 I would probably go for Bloomberg.

Got to vote strategically.

 

[RastaMentality]

Yeah, if polling looked something like Trump 40 Bloomberg 40 Sanders 15 I would probably go for Bloomberg.

Got to vote strategically.

Bloomberg would definitely be dealing with a R congress in this case which would be interesting and most likely not gridlock.

 

[theprodigy]

Yeah, if polling looked something like Trump 40 Bloomberg 40 Sanders 15 I would probably go for Bloomberg.

Got to vote strategically.

This isn't happening.

really I don't get the big deal over Bloomberg

 

[eBay Huckster]

This isn't happening.

really I don't get the big deal over Bloomberg

reminder that this is PoliticoGAF

 

[User 406]

A rant from one of the posters on a reasonable Republican site I visit that talks about elections from largely an analytical way. This is how a supposed centrist feels on there, let alone the conservatives.

There is no difference between a “moderate” liberal and “the most liberal person,” at least on questions of constitutional law. Every liberal justice, allegedly “moderate” or not, votes in complete left-wing lockstep on every case that addresses a constitutional question.

The distinctions between the four liberal justices on the court are less significant than the distinctions between Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Rehnquist. Stephen Breyer will occasionally join all the Republican justices on something insignificant like recess appointments, that’s it. But otherwise the only difference between a “moderate” liberal and “the most liberal person” is that the former might be a bit friendlier to businesses and prosecutors in cases that don’t involve a constitutional question.

This is the most consequential single political event of the entire Obama, and Bush and Clinton administrations. I fully expect McConnell and/or traitors (yes, traitors) in the Senate GOP caucus to cave on this, but if on the off chance they care one iota more about conservatism than they do about their own immediate self-interest then they absolutely cannot and should not.

What McConnell ought to do is say that if any Republican votes for Obama’s nominee, whether in committee, on cloture or the actual nomination vote, then they will be stripped of all committee memberships, kicked out of the caucus, and will receive no financial or organizational support from the RNC and NRSC – but their primary challenger will.

If Mark Kirk loses reelection, then that’s unfortunate. If Susan Collins says she’s retiring because conservatives are big meanies, then good, take your drama elsewhere. If the Chamber of Commerce people say everyone’s giving them side-eye at their cocktail parties, bummer. If the Democrats take a 15-point lead in the generic ballot, then I guess we’ll have to try to weather the storm.

What I’m saying is we need to treat defections on this issue like parties in parliamentary systems treat defections on a confidence vote; except this is far more important than a confidence vote. If Scalia is allowed to be replaced by a liberal, and the rest of the court stays the same or becomes even more liberal, then we almost might as well wrap up the GOP and call it a night.

The Second Amendment is gone and private gun ownership will be outlawed. The First Amendment is gone too, to be replaced by European/Canadian-style criminal prosecution for “hate speech.” In fact, they will stop even pretending to consider the Constitution in their rulings, on the grounds that it was written by dead white male racist sexist slaveowners, and therefore has no relevance to today.

The court will overturn tax cuts and mandate tax increases on the basis of a “disparate impact” on education spending (as Democrat state supreme courts have been doing for a few decades). Any and all conservative legislation on the federal or state level will be overturned; any and all liberal legislation will be upheld.

Soldiers and police will be treated as criminals; criminals and terrorists will be allowed to run free. The police will be disarmed and it will be made nearly impossible to convict criminals. Military rules of engagement will be so restricted that soldiers will be unable to defend themselves without being prosecuted, much less conduct offensive operations. Israel will be found guilty of war crimes and human rights violations, as will officials involved with foreign policy in past GOP administrations. The death penalty is very gone and so is the life sentence (long since done away with in Europe).

A property right will be discovered for reparations (in inheritable annuity form) and perpetual affirmative action for every aggrieved minority. Entitlements are gonna go bust? That’s a property right too (famous 5-4 decision), and so are those underfunded state pension funds, so they’ll be paid by seizing assets from the creditors. Unpopular industries – insurance, Wall Street, oil, landlords and so on – will be subjected to regular centi-billion-dollar shakedowns, like tobacco.

Our immigration, naturalization and voter registration laws are to be eliminated; anyone in the world will have the right to come here and be granted immediate US citizenship and voting rights. And if it’s your deal (it’s not mine), social conservatism will be truly well and buried. Whatever federal and state restrictions on abortion exist will be eliminated, and LGBT issues? – don’t make me laugh. Churches will lose their tax-exempt status and be found to be covered by anti-discrimination and “hate speech” laws, which will be rather more vigorously enforced against churches and synagogues than mosques.

Will all these things happen immediately? No, of course not. But some of them will happen immediately. And on a long enough time scale I can guarantee everything I predict here will come to pass. The Warren Court was about as liberal for its day as the court described above would be for ours.

Could any of us have predicted how fast and how far Obama would shift this country to the left, indeed to the left oftentimes of his own 2008 campaign positions? That’s a regular pattern; Democrats (and Republicans!) always govern to the left of their own campaign positions, and Supreme Court nominees from both parties almost always wind up being further left than they let on.

Now, I’m a pro-choice, pro-gay rights moderate who wishes the party would stake out more centrist positions on economic issues and foreign policy. I’m actually even a registered independent (if only because of MA’s open primary). I am very much a “big tent” guy. But this is it, the issue where you’re either for us or against us.

There was a time to talk about how you would vote Democrat or third party if your favorite candidate didn’t get the nomination. That time has passed along with Justice Scalia. Assuming McConnell and the GOP Senate caucus hold out until Nov. 8, there’s one phrase that describes someone (registered in a competitive state) who doesn’t pull the GOP lever, and that phrase is “liberal Democrat.”

We can disagree on who should be the nominee, but if you favor handing total, perpetual victory to the left on their entire agenda because Rubio, Kasich or Bush are too squishy, or because Trump or Cruz don’t meet your exacting and refined tastes, then you are either a liberal Democrat or you might as well be.

Whether you are a conservative on fiscal issues, social issues, national security, law and order, immigration or anything else, then helping to elect Clinton or Sanders means you are willing to accept 180 degrees the opposite of your viewpoints being US government policy for the rest of your life.

End angry rant (and yes, sorry about the angry rant, but it’s something I’m passionate about).

Well wouldja lookit that. He totally gets it.

Vote smart, kids. This is for all the marbles.

 

[Aaron Strife]

This isn't happening.

really I don't get the big deal over Bloomberg

I mean that's totally a hypothetical, I wouldn't expect it at all even if he did get in.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I don't understand the request to stop "villifying" Sanders. I (as well of a few others) have a very strong negative opinion of him, and I don't believe my criticism of him is unfair in any way, so this comes off as a request to pull punches to me.

Idunno, when democrats are calling him the biggest liar in the race on either side, that comes across as hyperbole to me. It reeks of fear that he might beat someone's preferred candidate more than legitimate critique.

 

[benjipwns]

Idunno, when democrats are calling him the biggest liar in the race on either side, that comes across as hyperbole to me. It reeks of fear that he might beat someone's preferred candidate more than legitimate critique.

No politician has ever lied more than Bernie Sanders. The scoundrel is making unrealistic promises just to get votes!

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Yeah, if polling looked something like Trump 40 Bloomberg 40 Sanders 15 I would probably go for Bloomberg.

Got to vote strategically.

Bloomberg would be the Ralph Nader of 2016.

 

[Macho Madness]

Idunno, when democrats are calling him the biggest liar in the race on either side, that comes across as hyperbole to me. It reeks of fear that he might beat someone's preferred candidate more than legitimate critique.

I agree. I think some people are just getting a bit heated about this and letting their emotions get out of hand.

That Jon Ralston guy just tweeted out some interesting stuff about the Nevada caucus by the way:

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/

 

[RustyNails]

I think you guys need to dial down the rhetoric. He's doing what politicians do. There's no need to go down the road of vilifying him, in the way that Hillary Clinton is literally personally an evil war criminal bought and paid for by the Rand Corporation under supervision by reverse vampires.

Anyway, I thought I'd touch upon an earlier point. That the current state of the race implies an implicit weakness in the campaigns. I don't know if that's really the case, as I'd say that strengths can very easily be weaknesses given the particular set of circumstance and vice versa.

I think Clinton is going to get the nomination, but I also believe we should call out Bernie Sanders' bullshit instead of treating him with kid gloves and going D'AWW at his proposals. You want to sail the big ships? Well get ready for the currents headed your way. If you think this is villification then wait till what GOP has in store for this guy if he gets the nomination. They're going to dig up his past and find a Weather Underground like commie group and talk to its members. If not, they will make one (exactly like they made one for John Kerry). By the time the poor guy is explaining how he does not agree with those views, another one is going to come up and he will be on the defense until election. Someone needs to call him out because the media sure as hell isn't. Hillary is not the best candidate. But frankly anyone's going to have a hard time against someone who comes in and tells you anything is possible! Even walls for a Mexican border! This is craven politics. And candidates need to be answerable for exploiting people's ignorance and obfuscating the processes.

 

[Retromelon]

Edit: And of course, when I finally get my slow ass around to posting this, the thread is three pages longer and other people have already made the same point. I hate election season.

When I woke up today, after i posted news that had already been announced literally 100 pages earlier, i read people talking about nominating an indian justice so i naturally searched "ruth bader ginsburg" to see what happened and it said she mourns the loss of her dear friend antonin scalia. I am the slowest ass

 

[benjipwns]

I think Clinton is going to get the nomination, but I also believe we should call out Bernie Sanders' bullshit instead of treating him with kid gloves and going D'AWW at his proposals.

And you don't think you should call out Clinton's bullshit because as much or more so (considering she's the presumptive nominee)...

 

[NeoXChaos]

Jon Ralston ‏@RalstonReports 21m21 minutes ago
I asked a dozen NV political experts this wknd who they thought would win Dem caucus. Most believe Hillary, but think it'll be close. 1/?

Jon Ralston ‏@RalstonReports 21m21 minutes ago
Most experts cite Hillary's superior org, but all think Sandersmentum will make it closer than it should be. Some Ds think he will win. 2/?

Jon Ralston ‏@RalstonReports 18m18 minutes ago
Some samples of what NV political insiders think: 3/3

Jon Ralston ‏@RalstonReports 18m18 minutes ago
My take: Too early to predict NV. HRC pulling out all stops, but Sanders Surge worrying her. Town hall 2/18, same-day registrants are key.

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/699036854922797056

 

[Suikoguy]

A rant from one of the posters on a reasonable Republican site I visit that talks about elections from largely an analytical way. This is how a supposed centrist feels on there, let alone the conservatives.

That's a centrist? Are you serious?

"Soldiers and police will be treated as criminals; criminals and terrorists will be allowed to run free. The police will be disarmed and it will be made nearly impossible to convict criminals. Military rules of engagement will be so restricted that soldiers will be unable to defend themselves without being prosecuted, much less conduct offensive operations. Israel will be found guilty of war crimes and human rights violations, as will officials involved with foreign policy in past GOP administrations. The death penalty is very gone and so is the life sentence (long since done away with in Europe)."

This is about as far right as I've seen this election.
Edit: That person has no idea how the courts work at all.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I don't know. I just think there's a reasonably big difference between calling him a ridiculous craven old lying coot, and pointing out the impracticality of policy platforms.

It would be nice to approach both these candidates from the viewpoint that they're ultimately good people that are ultimately driven by a desire to do good. /kumbaya

 

[RustyNails]

And you don't think you should call out Clinton's bullshit because...

What Clinton's bullshit. Like how she will release 500k prison population?

 

[JesseEwiak]

That's a centrist? Are you serious?

"Soldiers and police will be treated as criminals; criminals and terrorists will be allowed to run free. The police will be disarmed and it will be made nearly impossible to convict criminals. Military rules of engagement will be so restricted that soldiers will be unable to defend themselves without being prosecuted, much less conduct offensive operations. Israel will be found guilty of war crimes and human rights violations, as will officials involved with foreign policy in past GOP administrations. The death penalty is very gone and so is the life sentence (long since done away with in Europe)."

This is about as far right as I've seen this election.
Edit: That person has no idea how the courts work at all.

This is his own description of himself - "Now, I’m a pro-choice, pro-gay rights moderate who wishes the party would stake out more centrist positions on economic issues and foreign policy. I’m actually even a registered independent (if only because of MA’s open primary). I am very much a “big tent” guy. But this is it, the issue where you’re either for us or against us."

To be fair about the Courts, several State Supreme Courts have basically said legislatures have to increase funding, but that's because the right to an education is in the state's constitution. Not so much in the national one.

 

[benjipwns]

This is about as far right as I've seen this election.

You obviously haven't heard Bernie Sanders talking about guns.

 

[Suikoguy]

You obviously haven't heard Bernie Sanders talking about guns.

It's ironic that it's the only practical part of his platform.

This is his own description of himself - "Now, I’m a pro-choice, pro-gay rights moderate who wishes the party would stake out more centrist positions on economic issues and foreign policy. I’m actually even a registered independent (if only because of MA’s open primary). I am very much a “big tent” guy. But this is it, the issue where you’re either for us or against us."

To be fair about the Courts, several State Supreme Courts have basically said legislatures have to increase funding, but that's because the right to an education is in the state's constitution. Not so much in the national one.

That description of events that he sees happening are equivalent to drinking the far right extremist kool-aid.
I'd make a sizable bet if he has never read a court opinion.

 

[kirblar]

This is his own description of himself - "Now, I’m a pro-choice, pro-gay rights moderate who wishes the party would stake out more centrist positions on economic issues and foreign policy. I’m actually even a registered independent (if only because of MA’s open primary). I am very much a “big tent” guy. But this is it, the issue where you’re either for us or against us."

To be fair about the Courts, several State Supreme Courts have basically said legislatures have to increase funding, but that's because the right to an education is in the state's constitution. Not so much in the national one.

Unsaid- "But because I'm a straight man, I don't bother to base my vote on those policies because they don't effect me."

 

[User 406]

That description of events that he sees happening are equivalent to drinking the far right extremist kool-aid.
I'd make a sizable bet if he has never read a court opinion.

But the motherfucker can do math.

We need those SC appointments.

 

[Makai]

I don't know. I just think there's a reasonably big difference between calling him a ridiculous craven old lying coot, and pointing out the impracticality of policy platforms.

It would be nice to approach both these candidates from the viewpoint that they're ultimately good people that are ultimately driven by a desire to do good. /kumbaya

Bloomberg or Trump?

 

[aspiegamer]

Even if they did, you are talking about people eating cheetos in their underwear threatening literally the most powerful people in the world.

Superdelegates are not indie game devs or whoever else usually ends up as the target of Reddit's ire. I don't think it would play out quite the same way.

I really hope this theory doesn't end up getting tested, and I very much hope you're right! The demographic crossover is just a little too weird in several areas. The old criteria was "anyone on Twitter who disagrees", but, yeah, I'm hoping this ends up being a bit out of their league. You can try to fight the system but don't go after specific people already deep in the cogs.

 

[benjipwns]

What Clinton's bullshit. Like how she will release 500k prison population?

To reuse an example:

That’s why on day one, Hillary will set bold, national goals that will be achieved within ten years of her taking office:

Generate enough renewable energy to power every home in America, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of Hillary’s first term.

Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world.

Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships and trucks.

Hillary’s plan is designed to deliver on the pledge President Obama made at the Paris climate conference last December—without relying on climate deniers in Congress to pass new legislation. Her plan will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 30 percent in 2025 relative to 2005 levels and put the country on a path to cut emissions more than 80 percent by 2050.

Cut methane emissions across the economy. Hillary would cut emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, by 40-45 percent.

That’s why Clinton announced a $30 billion plan to ensure that coal miners and their families get the benefits they’ve earned and respect they deserve, to invest in economic diversification and job creation, and to make coal communities an engine of US economic growth in the 21st century as they have been for generations.

Attract private investment through an improved New Markets Tax Credit and zero capital gains taxes. Complementing the public investments in infrastructure, land, energy, and innovation described above, Clinton will attract new private investment by extending and expanding the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) program so all communities suffering from a decline in coal production or a coal plant closure qualify. The NMTC program has steered billions in investment to low income neighborhoods since it began in 2000. Clinton will also offer companies a chance to eliminate capital gains taxes on long-term investments in hard-hit coal communities.

Arts and culture. A community’s artistic and cultural capital can be as important in attracting new jobs and investment as its roads, rail lines and bridges. The rich cultural history in Appalachia and other coal communities is a unique asset that can be leveraged for economic growth. Clinton will increase funding for the local arts and culture programs that are designed to support broader economic development, like the Crooked Road project in Southwestern Virginia.

This is just from one page and a link to "THE DETAILED PLAN" on that page. And it's all pie in the sky, vague, unlikely, promises that not only won't be but probably cannot be kept.

 

[Rafa=FedKilla]

Jeb's campaign is sadder than an SPCA commercial.

 

[B-Dubs]

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/699036854922797056

After reading a lot of his stuff the last few days, even in the last week or so, it feels like he's been trying really hard to hype up the Nevada caucuses and make them more important. So part of me feels like his commentary might be slightly tinted by that desire.

 

[benjipwns]

Jeb's campaign is sadder than an SPCA commercial.

This is a bigger lie than everything Bernie Sanders has ever said combined. Nothing can be that sad. They're weaponized sadness.

 

[Iolo]

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/699036854922797056

Literally anyone in this thread could have written this tweet

My take: Too early to predict NV. HRC pulling out all stops, but Sanders Surge worrying her. Town hall 2/18, same-day registrants are key.

 

[B-Dubs]

Literally anyone in this thread could have written this tweet

Like I said, his coverage just feels like a hype machine. Like he's the Nevada Wolf Blitzer.

 

[benjipwns]

Literally anyone in this thread could have written this tweet

I could not have, I did not know there was a town hall on the 18th.

 

[tmarg]

If you actually believe it is a close race, at this point you should just be watching SC. Hyping Nevada seems weird, if that's what you're going for.

 

[danm999]

Ralston is just making shit up to fill the void and give himself a moment in the sun.

He covers Nevada politics after all. This is the brief window in time people give half a shit about that.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

“Bush Lied, People Died — that’s the Democrats’ refrain,” said former senator Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), a Bush backer. “It’s a bridge too far. What do they say? Jump the shark? 9/11, blaming Bush — that’s a kooky thing, that’s a conspiracy thing, that’s way out there.”

It is a conspiracy to credit Dubya with 9/11 even though he was credited with national security concerns every other day by Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop_b

 

[JesseEwiak]

Like I said, his coverage just feels like a hype machine. Like he's the Nevada Wolf Blitzer.

He was actually pretty good during the '08 primaries and 2010 Senate race since he knows where all the bodies are buried in Nevada poltiics, but since leaving the newspaper he worked at has kind of fallen into Internet Journalist hype mode.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Norm Coleman is still alive?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Sort of like how no one cares about J Ann Selzer anymore and won't again for like 4 years.

 

[ivysaur12]

I think it's kind of fun that we have no idea what's going to happen in Nevada.

I do think Hillary has it if just because how inept the Bernie campaign seems to be in Nevada. Not just the stuff with Culinary, but also they seem as if they don't know how to properly connect with the right voters (why are they calling Republicans?) or even in their apparent messaging about "voting" vs. caucusing. If this was in a month, maybe they could turn it around, but I dunno.

I don't think there's enough time for Bernie to build an actual organization, which will hurt him going forward. He'll be playing catchup as the days start getting smaller in between primaries.

 

[Makai]

Like I said, his coverage just feels like a hype machine. Like he's the Nevada Wolf Blitzer.

Well, I remember not too long ago a lot of Hillary fans here saying a Nevada win was extremely unlikely because of diversity. I got way more bullish on his national chances after seeing that poll. Hillary's 2008 map is starting to look possible for Bern.

 

[Veritigo_X]

It is a conspiracy to credit Dubya with 9/11 even though he was credited with national security concerns every other day by Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop_b

I'm feeling like these are the same exact discussions Republicans were having when Trump made the same point at an early debate. "A bridge too far" lol, it didn't hurt him then it won't now.

 

[Poodlestrike]

It is a conspiracy to credit Dubya with 9/11 even though he was credited with national security concerns every other day by Republicans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop_b

They're trying to tie the valid point that 9/11 is Bush's responsibility to the truther stuff that he planned it. Basic diversion.