Here’s your post-Super Tuesday open thread

Let’s talk about last night’s Super Tuesday results.

I think it’s clear that barring some machinations by the RNC Donald Trump will be the Republican presidential nominee, and the day Trump is officially nominated will be a sad day in our nation’s history.

What do you think?

Share:

Related Articles

15 thoughts on “Here’s your post-Super Tuesday open thread

  1. The day Trump is officially named the GOP nominee will indeed be a sad one, but the GOP brought it all on themselves with the past 20 years of Fox News and talk radio being allowed to steer the party.

    On the Democrats’ side, I think Clinton looking more and more like the inevitable nominee is a bit depressing. Will I vote for her? Yes.
    Will she do anything substantive for the middle class once she’s in the White House? I really doubt it.
    Will she do anything to help the labor movement? No.
    Will she do anything to hold rogue GOP state governments in check? No.
    Will she advance us to universal healthcare? No.
    Will she do anything to rein in the past 40 years of corporate trickle down in this country? No. Will she do anything to make college more affordable? No.

    Bernie Sanders has done something to really be proud of. He went from being a dismissed and relatively unknown candidate, to being one the media had to take seriously and actually talk about. Unfortunately, not enough people in the USA have bought into his ideas, yet.

    1. Hey Guy, obviously an enthusiastic and overwhelming majority who voted for Hillary yesterday disagree with your personal but unsupported forecast for the future. The Tuesday elections were fair and square; the people have spoken.

      I was disappointed eight years ago when an inexperienced, junior senator beat out Hillary in the primary. But I did not forecast doom and gloom lacking substantive supporting facts, but rather joined in supporting the new guy’s effort to beat the Republican candidate.

      C’mon, Guy, be fair and realistic. Such negativity only hurts Democratic turnout and helps elect a Trump or worse, a Cruz.

      I previously announced on BB that I would enthusiasticly support Bernie should he prevail in the primary. There is nothing he lacks except the experience Hillary has gained as lst Lady and as Secretary of State. Also let’s not forget a lot can happen, God forbid, that would place Bernie as the surviving candidate.

      1. I don’t see how I’m not being realistic. Hillary’s stances have moved to the left during this campaign, seemingly somewhat begrudgingly. As I said, I will vote for her and support her. Am I really going to be “enthusiastic” about it? No, sorry. She had the DNC and the mainstream media working for her from the beginning. She is another corporate Democrat, and I’ve had enough of corporatism, as have most Americans. Why not release those Goldman-Sachs transcripts, by the way?

        She is a flawed candidate and will generate a level of vitriol possibly never before seen in a presidential campaign. At least we’ll get to hear more about those “scandals” non-stop, and I’m sure my Facebook wall will be flooded with pictures of her photoshopped to make her look like Jabba the Hutt’s mother.

        She will win, but seeing her track record, I don’t see how my predictions are unfounded. And it’s not like the GOP Congress is suddenly going to all sing kumbaya and get on board with working with her, either.

      2. Hillary did not win fair and square yesterday. In the last few weeks we’ve seen John Lewis, of all people, smear Bernie with remarks that Lewis never saw him at civil rights events, Jim Clyburn make the absurd public statement that Bernie’s call for free tuition at public universities would ” kill ” historically black colleges, and Dolores Huerta falsely telling the media that Bernie supporters were chanting ” English only ” during the Nevada caucuses. Do you think this didn’t hurt Bernie with black voters in southern states and hispanic voters in Texas?

        If Trump or Cruz win the presidency you can lay it squarely in the lap of the Clinton campaign dirty tricks department.

        1. Steve, do you have some authoritative source for your allegation? If so, please provide proof.

      3. It is NOT the Democratic turnout that will help or hurt candidates running as Democrats, Duane, sorry. My sense is that the numbers of registered Dems in WI for example, which we heard during the DPW chair race on this blog, was about 14K, has probably not changed much.

        Recall petition signers, prior to the over ten percent who were deemed by the “non-partisan,” petition examiners as faulty signers, was about 1.2 million and obviously these are the folks that will need to be prompted to turn out at the polls.

        HRC won’t make that happen. My prediction.

  2. Another example: Apparently Rep. Tulsi Gabbard was “warned” not to endorse Sanders. That’s the kind of exclusionary crony politics people are sick to death of.

    1. Do you have a reliable source? Or a statement by Tulsi? I’ve watched her interviews and I heard nothing of being “warned.”

    2. Here’s one media source on the warning, but it would be interesting to know WHO and even more interesting why Tulsi didn’t reveal WHO warned her. Was it Bill, Chelsea, Hillary, a little bird, Cruz, the Joker, Tulsi’s friends or co-workers, and on and on. So who specifically is “lots of people?”

      An unnamed source is unethical as it opens the floodgates for erroneous speculation and a false conclusion as we see here.

      http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Tulsi-Gabbard-Warned-Against-Breaking-Away/2016/03/02/id/717013/

    1. And of course those numbers include all the “super delegates” that can change on a whim, just like many did in 2008. Of course, the “delegate totals” aren’t presented with that information. Another reason to be frustrated by the process and the obvious stacking of the deck in Hillary’s favor.

      1. Exactly, Guy. Those delegate counts are combining the superdelegates who have openly endorsed a candidate, plus the number of delegates who are tied proportionately to the popular vote. So, as of yesterday, Clinton has 1,034 (of which 457 are superdelegates), and Sanders has 408 (22 being superdelegates). The delegate count is clearly distorted by the superdelegates, who have no connection to the actual vote counts. Without superdelegates, the race would be much tighter, especially as the candidates are racing toward the 2,383 (which is 50% plus one of the total national state’s voting delegates and superdelegates, some 4,762 total) to win nomination.

        This is a really undemocratic voting setup, as DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who co-chaired Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign running at the time against Barrack Obama, would admit (see http://www.salon.com/2016/02/13/un_democratic_party_dnc_chair_says_superdelegates_ensure_elites_dont_have_to_run_against_grassroots_activists/). It really makes you wonder why even have primaries, when the purpose of primaries is to take power away from the Party elites in deciding who should be the nominee.

        Wisconsin at the Party national convention will have 96 delegates, of which 10 are superdelegates (5 have already committed to Clinton, regardless of our vote).

  3. Had a chance to check in with Charles P Pierce today, who explained in no uncertain terms how the queen HRC can begin to express her new found progressive creds that she’ll certainly stick to as she keeps the lead on to the Democratic national convention.

    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a42611/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resign/

    Anybody claiming HRC has moved to the left should be phoning her campaign and making the request for DWS to be gone.

    1. Just my observation, but I always thought Hill was to the left of Bill who was a centrist IMO.

      Geez, NQ, does one have to hate and smear Hillary to be a progressive? If so, i exit this discussion.

      But the question and mystery remains unanswered; who is hiding behind Tulsi’s explanation and why doesn’t Tulsi reveal her source?

      Is Tulsi guilty of “exclusionary crony politics” herself?

Comments are closed.