[kenberg]

The speech I will remember six months from now was given by Michelle Obama. Either she is the greatest actress since Helen Hayes or she was speaking from the heart. I really liked it.

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2016-July-26, 06:43, said:

They represent the establishment, Bernie ran against the establishment, the establishment fought back. No surprise at all.

But WHAT DID THEY ACTUALLY DO TO FIGHT BACK??
I didn't spend much time reading about the emails. What I did read showed DNC staffers discussing plans to sabotage Bernie's campaign.....and then not doing anything about these plans.

[cherdano]

kenberg, on 2016-July-26, 06:44, said:

The speech I will remember six months from now was given by Michelle Obama. Either she is the greatest actress since Helen Hayes or she was speaking from the heart. I really liked it.

I suspect she genuinely believes that Hillary, not Trump, should be the next US president. Just a hunch.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2016-July-26, 06:44, said:

The speech I will remember six months from now was given by Michelle Obama. Either she is the greatest actress since Helen Hayes or she was speaking from the heart. I really liked it.

I think you would have to be a sociopath in order to speak so naturally and be faking; and I don't think Michelle Obama is a sociopath.

[awm]

cherdano, on 2016-July-26, 09:01, said:

But WHAT DID THEY ACTUALLY DO TO FIGHT BACK??
I didn't spend much time reading about the emails. What I did read showed DNC staffers discussing plans to sabotage Bernie's campaign.....and then not doing anything about these plans.

The debate schedule seemed rigged to favor Hillary, starting with very few debates and at odd times (favors more widely known candidate) with more debates scheduled only after Bernie started doing surprisingly well and Hillary's side pushed for them.

There was also an incident where Bernies campaign was denied access to voter databases for some time. And some fund raising events where the DNC hosted Hillary to raise money "for the party" but almost all the money went to her campaign.

I'm not sure why all the news organizations insisted on reporting vote totals including super delegates even though they don't officially vote til the convention and are unlikely to overrule the electorate. But it wouldn't surprise me if the DNC had a hand in those numbers (which made Bernies campaign seem hopeless long before it actually was).

And there were also things they could've done and didn't, like make some statement about Bill Clintons practice of campaigning for his wife at polling places on election day. Or investigating the Bernie supporters whose registrations mysteriously changed from Dem to Independent in closed primary states.

Most likely none of these things mattered. Hillary Clinton's strong relationships with the African American community and her endorsements from so many elected officials were likely to carry the day regardless. But there is plenty of (at least) appearance of impropriety here.

[billw55]

What is the surprise here? Did anyone really think that the DNC was not backing Clinton?

Also, what will it take for people to learn to not say anything in an email that you wouldn't want in a headline? Maybe microsoft and others could help out by changing the "send" button to "publish". If people had to click "publish" every time they send an email, they might think things over better. Or not.

[cherdano]

awm, on 2016-July-26, 10:00, said:

The debate schedule seemed rigged to favor Hillary, starting with very few debates and at odd times (favors more widely known candidate) with more debates scheduled only after Bernie started doing surprisingly well and Hillary's side pushed for them.

There was also an incident where Bernies campaign was denied access to voter databases for some time. And some fund raising events where the DNC hosted Hillary to raise money "for the party" but almost all the money went to her campaign.

I'm not sure why all the news organizations insisted on reporting vote totals including super delegates even though they don't officially vote til the convention and are unlikely to overrule the electorate. But it wouldn't surprise me if the DNC had a hand in those numbers (which made Bernies campaign seem hopeless long before it actually was).

And there were also things they could've done and didn't, like make some statement about Bill Clintons practice of campaigning for his wife at polling places on election day. Or investigating the Bernie supporters whose registrations mysteriously changed from Dem to Independent in closed primary states.

Ok, let me rephrase my question. Was there anything that the DNC staff did that was improper, for which there was no evidence last week, and for which there is evidence now?
- The debate scheduling was ridiculous, but possibly counter-productive (no surprise that Hillary's campaign pushed to change this).
- The voter database row was publicised back then (and there seemed to be justification for their actions); any more news about that in the leaked emails?
- I used NY Times and 538 as my news sources on the status of the race, and I don't even remember whether they included superdelegates. I only cared about the non-superdelegate count, and it was easy to find that, I don't remember having to jump through any hurdles. Meanwhile, any evidence in the emails that the DNC controlled how other news organisation reported on the race?
- Any evidence in the emails for nefarious dealings with your other allegations?

[cherdano]

I only now realised that this is the 2nd conversation I have that goes along the following lines:
Bernie bro: "The primary was rigged against Bernie by nefarious dealings. And now the emails prove it!"
Me: "What nefarious dealings exactly did the emails prove, other than the little shenanigans that we already knew about?"
Bernie bro: "Wow you are so naive. Of course there is a lot more going on than what was in the emails."

[Winstonm]

I don't think Barbara Boxer did much for Hillary - I think the play is to de-emphasize, if possible, the gender aspect, not harp about electing a woman president. And to characterize Hillary as "still standing" seems a bit anti-climatic, does it not?

[barmar]

billw55, on 2016-July-26, 10:43, said:

Also, what will it take for people to learn to not say anything in an email that you wouldn't want in a headline?

Nothing. Email and texting are how people communicate these days.

In particular, you can't really have group conversations using anything other than email (or something comparable, like a social network). It's impractical to wait to get everyone in a meeting.

[shyams]

Michael Moore: Why Trump will win...

http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

PS: Congratulations, President Trump!

[Vampyr]

kenberg, on 2016-July-25, 19:50, said:

I liked Paul Simon singing Bridge Over Troubled Waters. Becky thought maybe he should have accepted his age and declined to sing, but I'm a sucker for this sort of thing and was ready to sing along. Becky would surely have objected to that.

I thought it was ghastly. And it's nothing to,do,with age -- he simpluy can't sing the notes Art could. So he just made up tunes.

The man made a huge mistake breaking up one of the finest pop duos ever.

[kenberg]

Vampyr, on 2016-July-27, 05:07, said:

I thought it was ghastly. And it's nothing to,do,with age -- he simpluy can't sing the notes Art could. So he just made up tunes.

The man made a huge mistake breaking up one of the finest pop duos ever.

As I say, I can be a sucker for such things. Becky agrees with you on this.

And Al Franken seemed seriously confused. I thought it looked like early dementia, I'm not joking here, but Becky thought that he just wasn't good at using a teleprompter. I'm still not sure my view is wrong. Nonetheless, I enjoyed parts of his monologue.

What I realized, with perhaps more surprise than is warranted, is that I was enjoying watching this convention. I haven't watched it all, I would have to be paid to watch it all, but with the Republican convention I could watch only a short bit and then I had to turn it off. Usually I am interested in a variety of views. I read George Will and Michael Gerson. I particularly like Gerson. But for the R convention, no. They can talk to themselves and someone can let me know when it is over.

And I did really like Michelle Obama.

Last night I watched the roll call and a bit more, and then I took a break from politics. They went on without me, no doubt.

I am really hoping that the Dems don't throw this away.

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2016-July-27, 05:07, said:

I thought it was ghastly. And it's nothing to,do,with age -- he simpluy can't sing the notes Art could. So he just made up tunes.

The man made a huge mistake breaking up one of the finest pop duos ever.

Some blame Paul, others Art. Whatever the case, successful pop groups usually break up. For every Rolling Stones or U2, there are several Beatles or Zeppelin or Genesis or S&G. It is the normal, expected course of events.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2016-July-26, 22:37, said:

Nothing. Email and texting are how people communicate these days.

In particular, you can't really have group conversations using anything other than email (or something comparable, like a social network). It's impractical to wait to get everyone in a meeting.

Sure, but they should be more cautious about what they are sending in that case.

I am serious about the "publish" button. My company has this as explicit policy. Once you click send the whole world has it. Never write anything you would be embarrassed to see in the newspaper. (And we do sometimes have group meetings by voice.)

[Zelandakh]

billw55, on 2016-July-27, 06:54, said:

Some blame Paul, others Art.

And some blame Mike Nichols. It is kind of irrelevant at the end of the day. Of course it is part of their legend being so high that they essentially went out after their best work, in the same way as with Dean and Monroe but without the coffin.

[PassedOut]

shyams, on 2016-July-27, 04:11, said:

Michael Moore: Why Trump will win...

http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

PS: Congratulations, President Trump!

What Mike says there pretty much reflects my fear about what will happen and why. I'm not saying that it will for sure, and I certainly hope that it doesn't, but I do consider it more likely than not. The folks who thought Trump could not be nominated, and the folks who think that he can't be elected in November are out of touch with reality, in my opinion. After all, the US reelected Bush the second after he blew through the surplus in six months, ignored the threat from bin Laden, let bin Laden off the hook after the 9/11 attack, and launched an obviously stupid war against Iraq instead of dealing with our attacker.

I remember people in Japan asking how Bush the second could get a single vote after that performance. Pointing out that their elections don't always make sense either didn't help.

If Trump loses, I'll be elated, but I'm not going to get my hopes up.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on 2016-July-27, 07:40, said:

What Mike says there pretty much reflects my fear about what will happen and why. I'm not saying that it will for sure, and I certainly hope that it doesn't, but I do consider it more likely than not. The folks who thought Trump could not be nominated, and the folks who think that he can't be elected in November are out of touch with reality, in my opinion. After all, the US reelected Bush the second after he blew through the surplus in six months, ignored the threat from bin Laden, let bin Laden off the hook after the 9/11 attack, and launched an obviously stupid war against Iraq instead of dealing with our attacker.

I remember people in Japan asking how Bush the second could get a single vote after that performance. Pointing out that their elections don't always make sense either didn't help.

If Trump loses, I'll be elated, but I'm not going to get my hopes up.

It will revolve around voter turnout. If the Democrats sit on their hands, Trump will win.

For example, Michigan had the greatest primary voter turnout in its history, yet they accounted for only 34% of registered voters. I believe this election will revolve around how many of that missing 66% in Michigan, and similar numbers in other states, show up at the polls in November.

[mike777]

I must say per 538 Trump got quite a bump last week. At the very least it shows AZ, OH, Fl and NC switching. Hillary still ahead with 273 voutes.
Will not be surprised if these states switch back to Hillary in the coming weeks.

As per the numerous posts and media Trump is getting killed and compared to Germany and Italy of the 1930's. The generally message is Trump is somewhere between a Nazi Fascist and an Italian Fascist.

[Al_U_Card]

Ross Perot played a similar role but he lacked charisma (read interest) and just played spoiler. Wilkie played the same role but couldn't buck FDR's popularity.
Hope and Change were pretty much absent during the last 8 years. There is a lot of dissatisfaction out there and the logjam that is congress is only exacerbating the situation.
Folks want to be happy, healthy and safe. A father-like figure provides some of that and DT's message of shaking up the complacent and corrupt in Washington resonates with a lot of people whose individual vote is just as large as the intellectual dilettantes that are busy counting pin-head angels as it were...

There have already been too many President Clintons for Hil to have mass-appeal. Celebrity is the new watch-word of American society and DT has it, like it or not. Prez IS a popularity contest, after all.