US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4438

On July 26 2016 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Bernie supporters would still be insane to vote for Trump and I think they probably know that.

On July 26 2016 00:01 pmh wrote:
The more I think about it,the more I think that tim kaine is a bad pick.
Its the safe pick,the pick you make when you are sure that you are going to win the election. Clinton still does not see the real danger of the republican ticket.
And like others have said,this election is anything but your ordinary election. A "safe" and conservative ticket wont win you the election in November. The polarization in the country has gone to far for that.
Think Clinton should have gone all in on warren,hammering the supposed weak spot trump has with women. Clinton herself is unable to do so because she got to much dirt hanging around her,warren would be perfect.
Maybe tim kaine will surprise us positively but don't have high hopes for that.

The democrats gloating about the supposed chaotic state of the republican party a few months ago can now start reflecting on the state their own party is in. Trump is sitting and watching it fall apart,doesnt have to do anything.
Will the democratic convention be able to unify behind Clinton? it seems more doubtfull with every passing day.
But they don't have a choice, it now is Clinton or bust.

On July 26 2016 00:04 Doodsmack wrote:
Bernie supporters would still be insane to vote for Trump and I think they probably know that.

PHILADELPHIA — Hillary Clinton and her team aren’t thrilled that the head of the Democratic National Committee was forced out on the eve of the nominee’s coronation — but they aren’t exactly distraught to see Debbie Wasserman Schultz booted from the tent.
Several senior Democratic officials with ties to Hillary and Bill Clinton told POLITICO that campaign higher-ups have been trying to replace the oft-off-message Florida congresswoman from the start of Clinton’s campaign late last year.
Story Continued Below

John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman — and a former top adviser to Barack Obama — broached the idea of replacing Wasserman Schultz as early as last fall, only to be rebuffed by the president’s team, according to two people with direct knowledge of the conversation.
“It came down to the fact that the president didn’t want the hassle of getting rid of Debbie,” said a former top Obama adviser. “It’s been a huge problem for the Clintons, but the president just didn’t want the headache of Debbie bad-mouthing him. ... It was a huge pain in the ass.”

The Obama team — especially 2012 campaign manager Jim Messina — long viewed Wasserman Schultz as a major campaign liability, questioning her fundraising prowess and her tendency to appoint personal aides to positions of authority, prioritizing loyalty over competence and effectiveness as a spokesperson for Democrats. At the time, senior campaign officials leaked details of an internal survey, conducted by pollster David Binder, showing Wasserman Schultz was the least-liked Obama surrogate; she later dismissed the report as “National Enquirer” dross.

After Obama’s 2012 victory, Messina and longtime political adviser Patrick Gaspard, who worked under Wasserman Schultz at the DNC, pressed the president to push her out, advising that he tap former Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak as her replacement. Obama — who cared little for the party machinations — figured the move would be more trouble than it was worth and told his aides that he was OK having Wasserman Schultz serve as chairwoman until he left office. “It’s embarrassing that Obama left the problem for Hillary,” one former West Wing adviser told POLITICO.

Yet the aggregated animosity toward her led to a swift and brutal conclusion to her five-plus year tenure at the helm of the president’s party. Wasserman Schultz resigned less than 24 hours after WikiLeaks posted dozens of emails showing her staff working to undermine the insurgent campaign of Bernie Sanders in order to aid a Clinton organization they often derided as inept and timid.

“I know that electing Hillary Clinton as our next president is critical for America’s future,” Wasserman Schultz said in a statement issued after a day of back-and-forth with top Democratic officials urging her to step down for the sake of party unity ahead of Clinton's big week. “I look forward to serving as a surrogate for her campaign in Florida and across the country to ensure her victory. ... Going forward, the best way for me to accomplish those goals is to step down as party chair at the end of this convention.”

The move had to happen on Sunday, said a senior Democrat: Sanders-supporting delegates — without the buy-in of his campaign — had been organizing an effort over the preceding day to have state delegations vote to demand her resignation at the Monday morning caucus breakfasts. Given the number of delegations in which Sanders supporters are the majority, the movement would likely have spread, overtaking any other news on the convention’s opening day.
Clinton campaign officials declined numerous attempts by phone, email and text to respond to this story.

But the Clinton campaign was very much involved in the DNC chair’s defenestration. Earlier in the day Sunday, Sanders had again suggested that Wasserman Schultz should resign — and DNC officials announced she would be replaced as convention chair by Ohio Rep. Marcia Fudge, an influential member of the Congressional Black Caucus. By sundown — after intense negotiations with senior Clinton campaign officials — the committee tapped longtime Clinton aide, TV surrogate and party vice-chair Donna Brazile as interim chairwoman.

It was an embarrassing episode — and a sign of discord that Republicans, fresh off their own fractious convention pounced on. “I know firsthand how hard it is being the chair of a national party, but when you rig a system and spread emails around with each other and senior staff in that matter, this outcome is inevitable,” said Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, during a news conference here on Sunday, barely suppressing his glee. “Obviously, the end has come and I don’t think there was any other outcome that was foreseeable. These events show what an uphill climb the Democrats were facing in unifying their party."

On July 25 2016 23:56 WhiteDog wrote:

You work too much buddy.

On July 26 2016 00:08 Plansix wrote:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-226100



Apparently Clinton and Obama have been trying to remove her for a while now. I am amazed someone so disliked hung on for so long.

On July 26 2016 00:22 Plansix wrote:
I was in awe when she pushed back against laws regulated pay day lenders and I couldn’t understand why she was still head of the DNC. Then I remembered that people only really care about the DNC once every 2 years. But removing her ends any power her goons had and hopefully they clean house.

Frankly, I am surprised that Obama didn’t make that his mission in his last year. He has gone into full “I give no fucks” mode and that is the time you go nuts on the garbage people in your own party.

On July 26 2016 00:43 Mohdoo wrote:


I think Obama has had one final action he intends to do this year and he felt he needed DWS to get it done. Or at least getting it done in the midst of her removal would have been difficult. In that regard, it looks like he bit off more than he could chew and now we've got this mess. You could argue DWS represents a major failure by Obama.

On July 26 2016 00:07 tenacity wrote:


maybe they will vote Green and, thus, making Trump's victory even more likely.

On July 26 2016 00:47 Nebuchad wrote:


That depends on Johnson a lot.

On July 26 2016 00:56 KwarK wrote:
It's amusing to me how irrelevant the popular vote is. Most of America might as well stay at home on election day, the election is decided by a few key states.

On July 26 2016 00:56 KwarK wrote:
It's amusing to me how irrelevant the popular vote is. Most of America might as well stay at home on election day, the election is decided by a few key states.

On July 26 2016 00:56 KwarK wrote:
It's amusing to me how irrelevant the popular vote is. Most of America might as well stay at home on election day, the election is decided by a few key states.

On July 26 2016 01:00 Mohdoo wrote:


But couldn't you say "the popular vote" is what creates this dynamic? The consistent, reliable voting habits of the majority of Americans are what create this situation. They play a role, it's just that they always play the same one.

On July 26 2016 01:21 VayneAuthority wrote:
Can some one explain to me why I should care about the general election? I'm an undecided moderate and I fail to see how my life has changed in the last 12 years regardless of who has been president.

I only closely follow/vote religiously for state/local government because that has a real effect on my life.

Anyone willing to tackle this?