Jim Lane
Jim Lane's JournalHow Clinton supporters can help elect Bernie
I begin with a couple of safe predictions:
* Clinton will do well on Super Tuesday, winning most of the states and a big majority of the pledged delegates that are at stake.
* Clinton supporters on DU will post numerous threads celebrating the victory, many of which will also opine that the race is now over (or maybe even DONE).
So Im going to survey DU and contribute to Bernie on this schedule:
1) For every OP impugning Sanderss character for not withdrawing (Hes not a real Democrat, hes out to hurt the party, hes on an ego trip, whatever), or attacking Sanders supporters on DU in light of Super Tuesday: $10
2) For every OP that doesnt go quite that far but states or implies that Bernie should drop out: $5.
3) For every OP along the lines of Its OVER its DONE but doesnt get strident about it: zero (I personally think Clintons chance of winning the nomination is greater than 50% but still less than 100%, so I disagree with the posts that have proclaimed or will proclaim that shes inevitable, but just disagreeing with my prognostication isnt being obnoxious, and this plan is to emphasize rewarding the obnoxious).
4) Non-OPs: zero (I dont want to have to wade through all those threads and besides my means are limited).
If my algorithm yields a contribution of less than $27, I'll round up to $27, so as not to lower Bernie's famous average -- but I strongly suspect that that won't be an issue.
Ill probably do my census on Thursday, to give all the venom time to come out. Ill check the Hillary Clinton Group and GD-P, but if anyone spots a qualifying OP elsewhere, please let me know.
So whos in with me?
WaPo: "It’s time to start speculating about Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick"
In this column, Chris Cillizza offers his thoughts about whom Trump might select as a running mate. Trump doesn't have the nomination locked up yet, but he's clearly the front-runner, so it's a question worth asking.
At one point, I thought a Trump/Cruz ticket was a good chance. Cillizza rules it out on the basis of the strong enmity that's developed between the two. It would certainly be a "team" with some teamwork problems, but picking a rival isn't unheard of. Reagan picked George H.W. Bush after the latter had (correctly) derided his "voodoo economics" proposals. Still, Trump/Cruz is looking unlikely.
The prospects Cillizza mentions ("in no particular order" are: Nikki Haley, Rick Scott, Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina, and a businessman to be named later (someone like Carl Icahn or Jack Welch). On that last point, Cillizza comments:
From a conventional point of view, either Kasich or Rubio would address that experience issue, by bringing on board someone who'd served in elective office, and either would also help in a key swing state. Of course, to pick anyone who'd served in elective office might undercut Trump's outsider appeal. One of the commenters suggests that Trump pick a general; that might be a way of adding experience without resorting to a politician. Too bad for Petraeus he couldn't keep his pants zipped.
Another commenter suggests Susana Martinez. IMO that idea makes more sense than Haley -- if you're going to pick a youngish female governor, might as well try to appeal to Latinos rather than Indian-Americans, and might as well go for a swing state.
Here are a couple other ideas, trying to walk the line between adding experience and not looking like a conventional politician:
* Joe Scarborough -- practiced law, then served in Congress but that was a while back, has made a successful third career in media, good name recognition, accustomed to being on camera, Floridian, nobody but a few diehard leftists would worry about the "dead intern" story.
* Gary Johnson -- successful businessman, then won two terms as Governor of New Mexico to give him the experience to complement Trump, but not a conventional Republican politician because he ran as the Libertarian candidate in 2012 and got more than a million votes.
OK, I know no one wants to contemplate the prospect of President Trump, but he could well be the nominee and he'll have to pick someone to run with him. Go ahead and speculate.
How many Jury Blacklist slots for Star members?
The instructions say 15. Someone said it was 20 so I tried adding a couple (I was already at 15) and the software accepted the new additions. So which is true:
A. The limit was increased from 15 to 20 but the instructions weren't updated.
B. The limit is still 15 but the software lets you list as many names as you want but only the first 15 will be given effect.
If the answer is B then I suggest that an attempt to add a 16th name should generate an error message rather than an apparent success. It's a trap for the unwary. I wouldn't call this a high priority, though, because it says right there that you can have only 15.
ETA: After I posted this another question arose. Someone said, "I think that people you've blocked cannot vote on your posts, either." That makes no sense to me -- because use of the Ignore function is, IIRC, unlimited, there would effectively be no limit on the jury blacklist. So I add another "which is true" pair:
C. People you've blocked cannot vote on your posts, either, so they're effectively on your jury blacklist.
D. People you've blocked CAN vote on your posts.
Thanks for clearing up these two points.
Profile Information
Name: Jim LaneGender: Male
Hometown: Jersey City
Member since: Fri Nov 12, 2004, 11:22 AM
Number of posts: 11,175