Looking forward to the next Saturday night Democrat debate.

[50PoundHead]

That makes me think less of him, then. Is he putting party politics over the good of the country? Isn't 57 always whining about that?

If he means what he says, then he should understand that HIlary would be a disaster for the country, especially for the alleged "shrinking middle class"

If all he cares about is the Ds winning, then he should go ahead and drop out

I think his sole reason for running was to push the Democrats' agenda further leftward and he is getting labor endorsements, so that puts him in the position to have influence on a Clinton campaign. Clinton's problems will be with millenials and labor. Sanders has considerable support in both of those sectors of the Democrats' constituencies. I think Sanders is there to (1) motivate them and (2) convince Clinton that she can't win without the support of these constituencies.

[50PoundHead]

sturg, your post on Sanders got me thinking (if it can be called that for someone in his early 60s) and I wanted to add this angle. The presidential selection process has become a set of dueling coronations over the past few decades and there aren't convention fights the way there were up until the mid-1980s. In an earlier era, all types of candidates would run as favorite sons and head to convention with a pocketful of delegates to trade for various platform planks or a future appointment with the eventual nominee. The way things run now, the convention seems to merely provide a rubber stamp and the favorite son angle is played out early in the campaign in the debates and the media.

I think Huckabee is the Republican equivalent of Sanders in that he talks about very few things, but he talks about them forcefully. He has about as much chance of becoming the Republican nominee as I have of crapping a tub full of caviar, but his statements require the other Republicans to react to what he is saying. Same thing with Clinton having to react to Sanders. In both instances, that contributes to the debate and in some sense will frame the ultimate message the candidates will use in the general election.

The presidential selection process used to be a micro-game to a great extent in the era of the bosses, favorites sons, and smoke-filled rooms, but the game is played out on a larger stage with larger tools in the era of the primary and mass media. There's a lot of reasons for that and a lot of books that have been written about it that provide far better explanations than I could ever provide.

[sturg33]

sturg, your post on Sanders got me thinking (if it can be called that for someone in his early 60s) and I wanted to add this angle. The presidential selection process has become a set of dueling coronations over the past few decades and there aren't convention fights the way there were up until the mid-1980s. In an earlier era, all types of candidates would run as favorite sons and head to convention with a pocketful of delegates to trade for various platform planks or a future appointment with the eventual nominee. The way things run now, the convention seems to merely provide a rubber stamp and the favorite son angle is played out early in the campaign in the debates and the media.

I think Huckabee is the Republican equivalent of Sanders in that he talks about very few things, but he talks about them forcefully. He has about as much chance of becoming the Republican nominee as I have of crapping a tub full of caviar, but his statements require the other Republicans to react to what he is saying. Same thing with Clinton having to react to Sanders. In both instances, that contributes to the debate and in some sense will frame the ultimate message the candidates will use in the general election.

The presidential selection process used to be a micro-game to a great extent in the era of the bosses, favorites sons, and smoke-filled rooms, but the game is played out on a larger stage with larger tools in the era of the primary and mass media. There's a lot of reasons for that and a lot of books that have been written about it that provide far better explanations than I could ever provide.

I really do wish we still had convention battles... that's what our taxes should be paying for right? Not a grand party praising whoever it may be.

I was very hopeful Ron Paul's delegate strategy was going to be fruitful in 2012... but if you recall, the RNC changed the rules and didn't invite him to the show... some "process" we have

[50PoundHead]

I really do wish we still had convention battles... that's what our taxes should be paying for right? Not a grand party praising whoever it may be.

I was very hopeful Ron Paul's delegate strategy was going to be fruitful in 2012... but if you recall, the RNC changed the rules and didn't invite him to the show... some "process" we have

I agree. I think a book you would really enjoy is Rick Perlstein's "Before the Storm," which chronicles Goldwater's successful 1964 campaign. Perlstein's a lefty, but he provides a very balanced look at how Goldwater was successful (and also provides some insight on LBJ). It's one of the better books I've read about conventions and the lead-up to conventions. Charles Peters' "Five Days in Philadelphia" about the Wilkie campaign in 1940 is also a solid book describing convention floor fights.

In the political hack stage of my life, I worked a couple of heated convention floors for statewide candidates. Talk about a full-contact sport. It's hard to determine if there is a single factor that led to the demise of the embattled convention floor. There has been a move toward primaries, which are viewed as more open than caucuses, nationally, but the apportioning of delegates in many states wouldn't seem to preclude future floor fights. More than anything else, I think Americans' impatience and discomfort with conflict have made convention battles something the public wants to see avoided.

[sturg33]

I agree. I think a book you would really enjoy is Rick Perlstein's "Before the Storm," which chronicles Goldwater's successful 1964 campaign. Perlstein's a lefty, but he provides a very balanced look at how Goldwater was successful (and also provides some insight on LBJ). It's one of the better books I've read about conventions and the lead-up to conventions. Charles Peters' "Five Days in Philadelphia" about the Wilkie campaign in 1940 is also a solid book describing convention floor fights.

In the political hack stage of my life, I worked a couple of heated convention floors for statewide candidates. Talk about a full-contact sport. It's hard to determine if there is a single factor that led to the demise of the embattled convention floor. There has been a move toward primaries, which are viewed as more open than caucuses, nationally, but the apportioning of delegates in many states wouldn't seem to preclude future floor fights. More than anything else, I think Americans' impatience and discomfort with conflict have made convention battles something the public wants to see avoided.

Thanks for the recommendation... I have an 8 hour drive ahead of me and was looking for a book on tape to download. I have always been fascinated by the Goldwater campaign.

[57Brave]

It's hard to determine if there is a single factor that led to the demise of the embattled convention floor.

Television . The televised 68 Democratic Convention was when and where the country really began to question how we nominate our candidates

[50PoundHead]

Television . The televised 68 Democratic Convention was when and where the country really began to question how we nominate our candidates

Certainly a BIG contributor to the changes.

I'm getting foggy, but I think the last Republican true convention battle was Reagan v. Ford in 1976 and the last one for the Democrats was Ted Kennedy's challenge of Jimmy Carter in 1980.

[goldfly]

That makes me think less of him, then. Is he putting party politics over the good of the country? Isn't 57 always whining about that?

If he means what he says, then he should understand that HIlary would be a disaster for the country, especially for the alleged "shrinking middle class"

If all he cares about is the Ds winning, then he should go ahead and drop out

it's not party politics. He isn't part of the democratic party

he cares more about Dems putting seats on the bench than Republicans (which is why i am voting Dem no matter what cause i don't see a thing that i would vote for on the republican side that is in contention to win) if he isn't elected President

[57Brave]

He said that exact thing Saturday night.

It is expected the next POTUS will have a boat load of Supreme Court Justice appointments. I have read as many as 4.
Of course Sanders will campaign for Clinton.

Plus if you listen , their policy goals are not that far apart. Their differences are more along the lines of how we reach those goals .
My guess is the short list of court appointees would be very similar. On womens health, poverty, guns, education, infrastructure , tax and climate they are very close. In fact you can't fit a piece of paper between them.

Contrast their stances on the above issues and mix in foreign policy and they are both 180 degrees from the (R) field.
Again, Sanders made their solidarity a point of emphisis Saturday.
But, if your policy source comes through the filter of Fox,Drudge and Brietbart you won't know or understand that.

I f you sat on the couch and watched the Jets and Cowboys Saturday night instead of waiting for Hillary -- you won't know that either

[weso1]

Sanders doesn't have what it takes to win. It's that simple. He's really not a good candidate. Hillary isn't a very good candidate either, but her team has done everything they need to do behind the scenes to win easily in the end.

Bernie could win guys, if he would be tougher on Hillary. If I was a Bernie Sanders supporter I'd be very disappointed in his candidacy. He's got a real movement here and Hillary is basically buying the nomination while the Sanders supporters just make lame excuses for his terrible debates. I would actually be furious with the DNC. It sounds like the socialist wing of the democratic party is going to be ready to just fall back in line with the democrat establishment.

[jpx7]

I agree. I think a book you would really enjoy is Rick Perlstein's "Before the Storm," which chronicles Goldwater's successful 1964 campaign. Perlstein's a lefty, but he provides a very balanced look at how Goldwater was successful (and also provides some insight on LBJ).

Perlstein's great; I'd double-up the recommendation and suggest his Nixonland, as well (and I swear I'm not just pimping the author because he's a graduate of my alma mater).

[jpx7]

He's really not a good candidate.

Then who is—in your estimation—amongst this combined field?

[goldfly]

Then who is—in your estimation—amongst this combined field?

Ted Cruz is his guy


i think that says enough

[57Brave]

any one that watched Saturday would realize that without a doubt the most polished (prepared, articulate,camera ready,authentic)
candidate is HRC.

Not saying she'd make the best President, but the best candidate.

I ask again, who watched ?

[chop2chip]

"She was favored to win, and she got schlonged,"

Were they referring to Rudy ?
or Rick Perry
or Fred Thompson
Or Newt
?

Ad hominem Ad shmominem

....

"I wouldn't hand it to Trump but I'd hold my nose and vote for him versus her."
"She was favored to win, and she got schlonged,"

nah no gender issues here

Using the correct pronoun isn't the same thing as gender bias. Now, if someone said, I would vote for Trump before I ever vote for a woman, then I would agree with you.

As for "schlonged", if I had a nickel for every rape euphemism used on a message board...

[57Brave]

oh...



trumpery

noun trum·pery \ˈtrəm-p(ə-) Popularity: Bottom 40% of words

1
a : worthless nonsense
b : trivial or useless articles : junk <a wagon loaded with household trumpery — Washington Irving>

2
archaic : tawdry finery

trumpery adjective

[50PoundHead]

Perlstein's great; I'd double-up the recommendation and suggestion his Nixonland, as well (and I swear I'm not just pimping him because he's a graduate of my alma mater).

I've got all three volumes of his trifecta, but have only read the first one (and I read that years ago). He is a great researcher and a tremendous writer.

[chop2chip]

oh...

I just don't see the point of starting a fire of sexism accusations just because some may disagree with you that she would be a good president. If we want to be weary of gender bias, then it's only fair for her to be critiqued, just like any other candidate, without fear of being labeled a sexist.

[57Brave]

of course you don't. That is the point

[chop2chip]

of course you don't. That is the point

So, just to clarify. You believe that people won't vote for HRC because our country has an issue with gender bias.

I agree with that sentiment on a macro level, but in this specific case I see that as a red herring. One doesn't need to stretch that far to muster up a strong case not to vote for her. That doesn't make me a sexist.