GatewayRedbirds.com

pioneer98 wrote:

Cheddar Tom wrote:

Fat Strat wrote:In some ways I think it's the nature of the national Democratic party to be less focused on what's happening in states and local government. Their ideology lends itself to more centralized federal control & influence and the more "to the left" you get, the stronger that federal control needs to be.

Look at Bernie - does he have any platform issue where he's saying "the states should decide that"? I really don't know, but I can't think of any. In a socialistic ideology, the purpose of state and local governments is to execute the policies passed by the altruistic federal leadership. (That's an oversimplification, obviously.)

It has more to do with incompetent leadership and the geographic/regional breakdown of Democratic constituents....Howard Dean pushed a 50-state strategy and Bill Clinton 'triangulated' to win redder districts at the federal level. Most constituents reside in urban areas and rural Democrats are severely outnumbered. That aside....the party doesn't do enough to try and reverse this.

That's a great point - maybe Dems are doing well in state houses....but just in the really blue states like California, New York, Washington, etc. And they just kind of suck everywhere else, or maybe gave up on everywhere else.

I can't speak everywhere but Dem support is terrible in Illinois. Down ticket candidates get very little help here. The Republicans however just shovel money in here. Maybe it's because I'm downstate but if you are running for something like state rep here on the Dem ticket you are on your own.

pioneer98 wrote:That's a great point - maybe Dems are doing well in state houses....but just in the really blue states like California, New York, Washington, etc. And they just kind of suck everywhere else, or maybe gave up on everywhere else.

yep. unless its a sure win that gives them power, the dems aren't going to care about states.

See WI again with Walker recall - outstate money galore on the GOP, nothing from the Dems. (IMO they blew that - as partisan tribal as it got, there was an opportunity to get the few in the middle that recognized Walker's asshattery).

WI -also demonstrates how much of this isn't really party driven, but Kochian-wealthy or corporate donor driven. Right now, these donors happen to mostly be GOP. The dems don't have such massive benefactors in key state races. Again, when it's a sure thing the Dems will win they get the donors that always sidle up with the winner.

In Missouri, we have a mini-Koch called Rex Sinquefield. He put $2 million into getting the STL and KC 1% earnings tax ended (amongst many other political donations. ) He was soundly defeated. Just another example of the contrast = where the GOP has donors willing to buck up big money for losing/pet causes at state/local level, (at least they are losing in the short-term. )

Along these lines -RE: When Hillary kicks some $ back down to state/local races, I didn't read Michael's links (sorry man). I wonder how much of this is to the Cuomo's and Rahm type-races?

pioneer98 wrote:

Would the numbers for Cruz be significantly different? The would "definitely would"/"would consider" percents may be higher with the conservative base, but there are a lot of people who would not vote for Cruz under any circumstance.

Bill Clinton... yikes. If this race was the least bit fair, this would bury the campaign. But it's not, so it won't. Can't imagine the outrage if Bernie or Jane said that stuff.

What did he do? Did he say something bad? Hookers?

He's a real jerk.

this is from "the adventures of pluto nash" (2002)

Just went off on some Black Lives Matter protesters.

He didn't really say anything we didn't already know about his defense of the crime bill that he passed. Said that gang members were killing the people whose lives you say matter and that African lives matter too. Gave them the ol' Clinton stern finger. But when your campaign so actively tries to twist identity politics to your advantage it's kind of ridiculous when statements like that get a pass.

edit: some full quotes

“Here’s the thing. I like protestors, but the ones that won’t let you answer are afraid of the truth.”
“Hillary spent her time trying to get healthcare for poor kids—and who were they? Their lives matter.”
“I don’t know how you would characterize the gang leaders who got 13-year-old kids hopped up on crack and sent them out into the street to murder other African American children. Maybe you thought they were good citizens—she didn’t.”
“You are defending the people who killed the lives you say matter. Tell the truth.”
“The reason they know it’s true is [the protestors] won’t hush. When somebody won’t hush and listen to you, that ain’t democracy. They’re afraid of the truth. Don’t you be afraid of the truth.”
“I’ll tell you another story about a place where black lives matter: Africa.”

From that same AP poll:
http://bigstory.ap.org/a636c58b5e9d4da4bb77dcce87148132

Ted Cruz, who is seeking to catch Trump in the Republican delegate count, is viewed unfavorably by 59 percent, while 55 percent have negative views of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

It should be frightening that Hillary is only viewed 4% less unfavorable than Cruz.

Who are these 45% who do not have a negative view of Hillary? It's like those 2 in 10 dentist who want their patients to chew Bazooka bubble gum instead of Trident.

i [expletive] hate trident