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

TheDormouse

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Feb 24, 2016, 04:38 PM
Number of posts: 1,168

Journal Archives

What are candidates allowed to use any remaining funds for after an election?

What does US law permit candidates, or their campaign organizations, to do with any uncommitted funds that may remain after the candidates win, lose, or, especially, drop out of election races?

I realize that in many high-profile races, it is more likely for the campaign to be indebted rather than to have surplus funds, and I realize that one of the main reasons that candidates drop out of races is that they have run out of money. But I am asking about the occasional cases in which the campaign actually still has surplus cash on hand.

Can the candidate give the money to another candidate? If so, does it have to be in the same election race or can it be for a future race?

Can the candidate reserve the money for a future race of his or her own, even if there are no definite plans to run again?
If so, what happens to the money if the candidate doesn't ever run again?

Etc.

Human Rights Campaign endorses Mark Kirk (R) over Tammy Duckworth (D) for Senate

In January, even before the Iowa Caucus, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT rights organization, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. At the time, the Sanders campaign said, "It’s understandable and consistent with the establishment organizations voting for the establishment candidate, but it’s an endorsement that cannot possibly be based on the facts and the record."

Hillary supporters said Sanders just had sour grapes, while Bernie supporters pointed out that when the membership of organizations are allowed to vote on endorsements, Bernie does well, but when the leadership of organizations make the decisions unilaterally, they choose Hillary.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511046133

So now, how to explain the Human Rights Campaign's decision to endorse Republican incumbent Sen. Mark Kirk over Democratic challenger Rep. Tammy Duckworth in the Illinois Senate campaign?

As David Nir has noted in Daily Kos:

Kirk's record on gay rights is far weaker than that of his Democratic opponent, Rep. Tammy Duckworth—according to no less an authority than HRC itself. In 2013-14, Kirk earned just a 78 percent score on HRC's report card, and in 2009-10, he managed an atrocious 39 percent. (Kirk has no rating for 2011-12, presumably because he missed many votes while recovering from a stroke.) By contrast, Duckworth, who was first elected to Congress in 2012, notched a perfect 100 percent in 2013-14. In what universe does it make sense for an advocacy group to support the candidate who is unambiguously worse on their key issues?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/21/1504481/-Shameful-Gay-rights-group-endorses-Republican-Mark-Kirk-over-Democrat-Tammy-Duckworth

Human Rights Campaign endorsed Hillary ... and Mark Kirk (R)

In January, even before the Iowa Caucus, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest LGBT rights organization, endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. At the time, the Sanders campaign said, "It’s understandable and consistent with the establishment organizations voting for the establishment candidate, but it’s an endorsement that cannot possibly be based on the facts and the record."

Hillary supporters said Sanders just had sour grapes, while Bernie supporters pointed out that when the membership of organizations are allowed to vote on endorsements, Bernie does well, but when the leadership of organizations make the decisions unilaterally, they choose Hillary.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511046133

So now, how to explain the Human Rights Campaign's decision to endorse Republican incumbent Sen. Mark Kirk over Democratic challenger Rep. Tammy Duckworth in the Illinois Senate campaign?

As David Nir has noted in Daily Kos:

Kirk's record on gay rights is far weaker than that of his Democratic opponent, Rep. Tammy Duckworth—according to no less an authority than HRC itself. In 2013-14, Kirk earned just a 78 percent score on HRC's report card, and in 2009-10, he managed an atrocious 39 percent. (Kirk has no rating for 2011-12, presumably because he missed many votes while recovering from a stroke.) By contrast, Duckworth, who was first elected to Congress in 2012, notched a perfect 100 percent in 2013-14. In what universe does it make sense for an advocacy group to support the candidate who is unambiguously worse on their key issues?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/21/1504481/-Shameful-Gay-rights-group-endorses-Republican-Mark-Kirk-over-Democrat-Tammy-Duckworth

The real problem with Hillary's speech transcripts

Here's the deal with those transcripts of speeches to Wall Street firms that Hillary Clinton still refuses to release. It's not that there's likely to be anything anybody wasn't expecting in them. At worse, if they were released she would be mildy embarrassed for everyone to see that she gives a variation of the same speech all the time--and gets paid very handsomely for it.

No, the real problem is that her stonewalling over what's almost certainly nothing makes her look secretive and dishonest in some viewers' eyes. If she has nothing to hide, why is she hiding this information?, they will say.

Just release the transcripts, and the story goes away.

Why are Millennial women so in love with Bernie?

Or, should that be, Why is Hillary having such a hard time attracting Millennial women?

Sanders now leads Clinton among younger voters by 54%-37%, an even bigger advantage than the 11-point edge he held in January's survey. Millennial women now back Sanders by a jaw-dropping 61%-30% while the divide among Millennial men is much closer, 48%-44%.

...

The online survey, taken by Ipsos March 3-10, polled 1,541 adults ages 18 to 34.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/14/poll-millennials-clinton-sanders-trump-president/81612520/

If I were a GOP operative, I'd try to stir up factional rivalry among Dems

Because divide-and-conquer is ALWAYS a winning strategy.

Republicans must be licking their chops watching Dems insisting that the opposing Dem candidate is so odious that they will not vote for him or her no matter what.

Because if enough potential Democratic voters get turned off and stay home on election day--or write in a name that has zero chance of winning--Republicans WILL win.

Like they won in 2010 and 2014. Look what that did to the Demcratic majorities that had been in the House and Senate after Dems unified behind a candidate and turned out in record numbers in 2008. After the disasters of 2010 and 2014, Republicans now have majorities in both Houses of Congress and many state legislatures, as well as governorships of many states. The Democratic president can get only a fraction of his agenda enacted because he has no control over Congress. He can't even get a Supreme Court nominee appointed.

And as a result of the 2010 election, the GOP got to redraw congressional district maps to give themselves a massive leg up in all future congressional elections for this decade.

Flint, Michigan lead poisoning crisis -- Water management files may have been stolen

"Mystery still surrounds an unsolved December break-in at an executive office inside City Hall where Flint water files were kept.

As of Friday, March 18, there were still no suspects in the case, and officials say it may never be known what -- other than a TV -- was taken.

But the city's new police chief Tim Johnson says it's too suspicious that there was a break-in where important documents were kept, just as investigations began heating up and decision makers were beginning to be held accountable.

'It was definitely an inside job....' Johnson said.

The office was not assigned to any city employees at the time of the break-in, city officials have said.

'It was somebody that had knowledge of those documents that really wanted to keep them out of the right hands, out of the hands of someone who was going to tell the real story of what's going on with Flint water,' he said."

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2016/03/break-in_where_water_files_sto.html

Hillary: Don't call me a "Liberal"

https://www.youtube.com/v/g1_gR278FCg&start=53&autoplay=1

Chris Matthews: You became a real liberal.

Hillary Clinton: (pause) I like to say "progressive." (smiles)

Matthews: Well, that's the new word ... Well, why do people change the word if they like the word? What was wrong with liberal?

Clinton: Nothing is wrong with it. You know--

Matthews: "Progressive" covers such a broader front. It goes all the way over to Democratic socialism all the way over to moderate, I mean, progressive...

Clinton: No, it doesn't go as far as socialism. I'm sorry, it does not cover that.

Matthews: For you it doesn't.

Clinton: No.

http://info.msnbc.com/_news/2016/03/15/35266445-

Pro-Gay legislation Bernie Sanders has supported in past quarter century

The following is a list of bills that Bernie Sanders has cosponsored since he first went to Congress in 1991.
The list has been compiled by searching congress.gov for bills Sanders cosponsored that included the term "gay" in the text. It is not intended to be comprehensive, and it does not take into account how Sanders voted on any other bills or amendment that might be regarded as intended to advance LGBT equality.

(Note that a number of the bills that were merely resolutions expressing the sense of the House of Representatives or of the Senate, rather than bills to actually change policies, are excluded.)

(A reminder: A bill can only be introduced once in each Congress, and each Congress lasts two years, so a bill that is introduced at the beginning of a Congress but fails to pass cannot be introduced again for two years.)
=======================================================

HR 1430 Civil Rights Amendments Act of 1991 - 102nd Congress (1991-1992)

HRes 271 Expressing the sense of the House that the President should rescined Department of Defense Directive 1332.14 section H.1. which bans gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans from military service - 102nd Congress

HR 5208 To prohibit discrimination by the Armed Forces on the basis of sexual orientation - 102nd Congress

HR 431 Civil Rights Act of 1993 (to prohibit discrimination on account of sexual orientation) - 103rd Congress

HR 4370 AIDS Cure Act - 103rd Congress

HR 4636 Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994 - 103rd Congress

HR 5141 Ryan White CARE Reauthorization Act of 1994 - 103rd Congress

HR 42 Ryan White CARE Reauthorization Act of 1995 - 104th Congress

HR 1863 Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1995 - 104th Congress

HR 1858 Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1997 - 105th Congress

HR 2355 Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1999 - 106th Congress

HR 3650 Permanent Partners Immigration Act of 2000 - 106th Congress
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to include permanent partners within the scope of such Act

HConRes 259 Expressing the concern of Congress regarding human rights violations against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered individuals around the world - 106th Congress

HR 690 Permanent Partners Immigration Act of 2001 - 107th Congress

HConRes 173 International Human Rights Equality Resolution - 107th Congress

HR 2692 Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2001 - 107th Congress

HConRes 330 International Human Rights Equality Resolution - 108th Congress

S 3390 Student Nondiscrimination Act of 2010 - 111th Congress

S 555 Student Non-Discrimination Act of 2011 - 112th Congress

S 1770 Every Child Deserves a Family Act - 112th Congress

S 1088 Student Non-Discrimination Act of 2013 - 113th Congress

S 5 A Bill to Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 - 113th Congress

S 302 International Human Rights Defense Act of 2015 - 114th Congres

S 439 Student Non-Discrimination Act of 2015 - 114th Congress

S1382 Every Child Deserves a Family Act - 114th Congress

SRes 184 stop Harming Our Kids Resolution of 2015 - 114th Congress
Condemning sexual orientation conversion therapy

S 1858 Equality Act - 114th Congress

What is "Third Way" & Who here supports it?

I keep seeing references to "Third Way."

What exactly is this philosophy or position?
And who here supports it?

(This is meant as a serious inquiry, so please don't come into the discussion just to post something snarky.)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »