HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » JackRiddler » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 24,979

Journal Archives

The content? Sure. The "security" scandal? No.

The e-mails show a Secretary of State engineering an unprovoked war to destroy the nation of Libya, backing a military coup d'etat in Honduras, and facilitating a soft coup leading to a civil war in the Ukraine. Not to mention actors profiteering from all of the above. Among other things.

All that is policy in the Kissingerian mode, and fair game.

The bullshit about oh dear god it's a violation of security law, I don't think should be a focus. That just plays into repressive politics and the secrecy regime that makes such routinely criminal policy possible. I believe in more disclosure of policy, not less!

But I wouldn't mind seeing a whole raftload of natsec criminals dating back to Reagan indicted for the crimes they've actually committed. Not the crimes against "security," but the crimes against humanity.

But that's a bipartisan routine, is it not? And sadly even Sen. Sanders has largely voted for it, even if he avoided supporting the most barbaric atrocities, such as the war of aggression that destroyed the nation of Iraq.

The Clinton Surrogate Problem

Nuff said.

Sanders people: Stop engaging on "corporate whores"

It's an intentional waste of time. It happens every day. To every move by Sanders or anyone associated with him, some smear will be applied. Figure it out. Talk about issues, issues, issues. War and peace. Truth and lies. Social Security, education, health care and peace. Corporate power. Climate change. Fracking. A corrupt process that allows corporations and rich people to buy politicians' loyalties with legalized bribery - call that what you will. No more of this personal bullshit!

If no one at the enormous Washington Square Park rally had said anything but "flowers," the RBRB (Rovian Brock Ratfucker Brigade) would be doing this fainting couch routine about how flowers are sexist, racist, violent and dishonest. Why do you think that is? Because sexist, racist, violent, dishonest (and as we've seen even Nazi!) are the shock words deployed by this brand of gutter politics.

What do you think they're going to say, "We disagree with tuition-free college and saving Social Security?" That's what they've got: attack words. If they took these terms at face value for the true horrors they actually represented, they would not debase them through trivial use.

No one outside Clinton village gives a shit about this round, by the way. If anything it will backfire. Let them promote (the lie) that Sanders personally called politicians including Clinton corporate whores. Do you think this loses votes? We are not going through a very politician-loving moment of our history.

Also, believe me the bigger problem even in New York is NOT...

omg someone said corporate whore! That's total bullshit.

Every day, they will have their message attacking anything Sanders did, for any available reason. If the only word they heard was "flowers" they'd say the same things: violence, brutishness, sexism, racism, etc. You saw the guy who now calls Sanders supporters Nazis? It's just a list of charged negative codewords they recite every day without fail. Pure Rovian Ratfucking 101.

But the real problem, still, unfortunately, is this very common response: "Who is Bernie Sanders?"

Nice fundraising and mobilization by the campaign and its supporters, but it's hard to compete against all the noise of 24/7 media distractions of all kinds, and 25 years of name recognition.

This board is a yak-yak bubble of a vanishingly small group.

Trash tabloid...

Very superficial stuff, but nowadays nowhere near as radioactive as NY Post, which is just utter misanthropic evil.

The 2 tabloids have a daily contest for who can produce the dumbest pun as a front page headline.

98% of New Yorkers never read DN, but they do see the front page on display all over the place.

The main readership of both, historically and today, starts from the back with the sports pages.

Used to be very right-wing. Broke a long distribution strike back in the early 1990s, if I'm rembering the dating.

The editorial slant remains right-wing, along with the owner.

The news teams often breaks real stories, actually, and DN employed investigative reporter Juan Gonzalez until he retired from it last week, I think.

Turnout - motivation - is everything.

Screw the polls, we've been allowing this constant manipulation and distraction. What happened to issues? Blah blah blah the numbers always say the result is predetermined, so only losers even talk about those!

Primary polling is the most dubious. If they turn out right in one case or the other, do they audit whether their "likely voter" model actually held up, or whether it was still only a lucky hit?

538 treated Michigan the same way the faux-experts treated the 2007-8 crash: Astonishing! Black swan! No one could have imagined!

Did they say something was wrong, and change the model? Ha! They were off in Wisconsin again by 6-8 points.

In any case, if it really was a hard science and they could predict perfectly, what would that mean? Would we still have elections?! Why bother, right? No doubt this has affected turnout - possibly even against Clinton, since she's always such a damn lock.

It's deeply unethical how the pollsters don't acknowledge their influence, and just keep pretending they're impartial observers and proliferating new variations of the same bullshit.

Those Vermont guns - per capita!

“The number of crime guns in New York from Vermont is so small that it could even be attributed to one or two bad actors. Using the per capita measure of trafficked guns originating from Vermont is as pointless as counting guns trafficked per 100,000 head of cattle.”


A commenter wrote:

This shit is so convoluted that I could barely even follow the Clinton campaign logic reading the article. The basic is that instead of thinking of guns as a product of weapons dealers, the Clinton campaign is making a “per capita” argument as if the entire population of the state of Vermont is involved in the trafficking of guns, counting on Vermont’s small population to inflate “per capita” numbers. Example, two guys bring a gun to NYS that gets used in a crime, one from California and one from Vermont. Since California has a population of 39 Million and Vermont less than 1 Million (626,042), that’s more guns “per capita” coming from Vermont – 1 (gun) divided by 39,144,818 or 626,042 respectively. Vermonters – so dangerous. Pass the maple syrup.

Thesis: Peak Clinton in New York was in 2008.

What reason is there to believe, and what indicators show, that support for HRC as a presidential candidate, as measured in the absolute number of votes in the New York state Democratic primary, will surpass her 2008 level of 1.07 million? I expect that number to decline, in the belief, first, that those who have become involved since will not break for HRC, and second, that fewer of those who did vote for her then will do so now.


If 40,000-plus are registering just before the deadline they are bloody well intending to vote. And we know who that surge is going to benefit.

But it's still only a fraction compared to the incredible 5 million (I'm estimating and I think lowballing) eligible to vote in this "closed primary." A relatively small fluctuation compared to the 2008 turnout of 1.8 million could completely overturn expectations in either direction. Many turns that influence the turnout are possible in the next eight days. It's wonderfully unpredictable.

How many registered Democrats in New York state? 5.26 million?

That is doubtless an accurate number, posted below. It is down a bit from the most recent number I had been able to find, which was from 2006 (5.4 million registered Democrats). It is doubtless up from last year, thanks to a surge of new registrations leading up to the March 25 deadline, with 40,000 just in one 10-day period (March 10-20).

The total number of voters in 2008, when New York was rolled into "Super Tuesday" in February: 1.8 million (Clinton 1.07 million, Obama 751 thousand).

This time New York is the only primary on April 19, and the candidates are almost exclusively invested in it, with almost 2 weeks lead time. A media shitstorm is underway and almost everyone thinks this vote is likely to decide a hotly contested fight for the nomination.

Most polls in the contests so far in this primary season have significantly underestimated the results for the insurgent candidacy. Sanders' barnstorming is packing venues and parks in the tens of thousands.

Because of these disparate factors, it would be misguided to pretend any "likely voter" model is particularly likely. Enjoy the uncertainty. Life is better with surprises.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »