HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » TheDormouse » Journal
Page: 1

TheDormouse

Profile Information

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

Journal Archives

Why does Hillary oppose a $15 federal minimum wage?

Serious question.

Bernie (and Martin O'Malley) supports a $15 federal minimum wage.

If Hillary's opposition is out of pragmatism, under the notion that congressional Republicans would never support a $15 minimum wage, well, they won't agree to a $12 federal minumum wage either, yet she says she does support a $12 minimum wage.

And on a related subject--
In negotiating, when you want a higher price than the other party wants, you should always start from above where you really want to end up so that you have room to negotiate. So does Hillary really only want a $12 federal min wage, or is that just her starting-above point, with an aim to ultimately achieve something actually even lower?

Why doesn't ANYBODY ask Cruz & Rubio about the 2013 government shutdown?

Why doesn't Chris Wallace or Megyn Kelly ask Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio why they were so hell-bent to shutdown the government in 2013 and allow the US to default on its debt obligations, resulting in our credit rating being downgraded for the first time in history?

Ok, so that was kind of a rhetorical question.

Why doesn't Anderson Cooper ask it during a debate or town hall? (Ok--another rhetorical question.)

But why doesn't DONALD TRUMP, or one of his slimy surrogates, ask this?
They should be constantly asking this in every forum possible.

Trump interview by Larry King 2013 (30-second clip):



"Ted Cruz doesn't talk about the government shutdown he led"
CNN, January 16, 2016
"... on his six-day Iowa tour last week, Cruz didn't mention the shutdown once. It hasn't come up in the debates. Undecided voters don't ask about it in town halls."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/16/politics/ted-cruz-government-shutdown-obamacare/

Who are the liars that Melissa Harris-Perry was referring to?

MHP reportedly wrote this in her email to staff:

I have stayed in the same hotels where MSNBC has been broadcasting in Iowa, in New Hampshire, and in South Carolina, yet I have been shut out from coverage. I have a PhD in political science and have taught American voting and elections at some of the nationís top universities for nearly two decades, yet I have been deemed less worthy to weigh in than relative novices and certified liars. I have hosted a weekly program on this network for four years and contributed to election coverage on this network for nearly eight years, but no one on the third floor has even returned an email, called me, or initiated or responded to any communication of any kind from me for nearly a month. It is profoundly hurtful....
(emphasis added)

https://medium.com/@JamilSmith/melissa-harris-perry-s-email-to-her-nerdland-staff-11292bdc27cb#.71h2ls52p

I finally stopped watching MSNBC for good a few weeks ago.
But before that, I did watch a few bits of MSNBC's analysis of debates and primary elections, and I wondered why they didn't have MHP as one of their featured analysts. I just assumed that it was because of some conflicts with her teaching schedule at Wake-Forest.

Now, I'm not so sure.

But I'd love to hear who it is that she feels are the "certified liars" that MSNBC has instead chosen to provide a platform for.

Hillary was one of the more liberal Senators, based on her actual votes

There are a number of issues with Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy that should give liberal voters pause, such as her vote authorizing Bush and Cheney to wage war in Iraq; her relationship with Wall Street and corporate interests; her proposals for how to proceed against the Islamic State and how to handle Syria; and her shifting positions on trade agreements (NAFTA, TPP, etc), the Keystone XL pipeline, and gay marriage.

But let's not lose sight of the fact that during her time in the Senate, the votes she cast placed her among the progressive members of that body.

Bernie Sanders was without question the most progressive member of the Senate, based on votes cast during the 107th-110th Congresses.

But Hillary came in as the 11th most progressive, to the left of Leahy, Mikulski, Durbin, Biden, and Reid.
Obama came in at 23rd most progressive, so clearly to Hillary's right.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate#

(the rankings are based on the algorithm developed by political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal)

I think one of the discussions we could have is about how the overall political climate in the country has shifted so far to the right in the past few decades that what passes for liberal these days might not be considered all that liberal in other contexts.

Who has the actual turnout numbers for past primaries/contests?

Lot of people keep talking about how Republican turnout is up while Democratic turnout has been down this primary season.
It's a very important topic, but it isn't getting the kind of careful analysis that it merits.

Who has the actual numbers?

Let's take the Democrats in South Carolina, for instance.

1992 - 116,000 (?)*
1996 - no real primary**
2000 - caucus, not a primary***
2004 - 292,000 voters
2008 - 530,000 voters
2012 - no real primary**
2016 - 367,000

Yes, 367,000 votes cast this year is down from 530,000 votes cast in 2008. But 2008 had Obama, the first African-American candidate with a realistic shot at the nomination on the ballot, AND had John Edwards, who was FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, on the ballot. So 2008 probably isn't exactly a representative year.

The 2016 South Carolina Democratic turnout is clearly better than the 2004 turnout was.
It's also a lot better than the 1992 turnout was, although that apparent increase is tempered somewhat by the fact that the state population has grown quite a bit since the early 1990s.

* http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?fips=45&year=1992&f=0&off=0&elect=1

** Clinton and Obama were incumbent Democratic presidents

*** Did the party ever release the actual total turnout numbers? What were they, for comparisons sake?

Most South Carolina primary voters had made up their minds over a month ago

According to the exit poll, 60% (or 3 out of 5) of South Carolina Democratic primary voters said that they had made up their minds on whom to vote for more than a month before casting their votes.

So it seems that a large percentage of South Carolina voters had already decided even before the Iowa Caucus and before the recent spate of announcements of Clinton endorsements by prominent African-American leaders like Reps. Jim Clyburn and John Lewis--at least, that is, if the poll participants are to be believed.

Another 25% (or 1 in 4) only made up their minds in the past week (that is, 8% on the day of the election, 7% within "the last few days," and 7% "the last week".

Interestingly, although Clinton did better overall even with those who decided within the past month, the margin of her win among them was not as great as it was among those who had already made up their minds before that.
Clinton won 76-24 among those who'd decided more than a month ago, but only 61-38 among those who decided in the last month (but more than a week ago).

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/27/us/elections/south-carolina-democrat-poll.html


Looks like maybe Sanders was starting to pull off a few votes from the swayable pool in the last few weeks, perhaps after his strong showing in Iowa and New Hampshire suggested his candidacy was more viable than the beltway has generally allowed.
Go to Page: 1