freeman3 wrote:Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like there is only one candidate acceptable to the base and the Republican establishment: Rubio. That said, he was being panned for being rehearsed before the last debate and that's makes his performance at the start of the debate so troubling. My guess? As Republican candidates drop out Rubio picks up their support while Trump doesn't get much higher than he is now. But that assumes Rubio alters his debate style to show he is not just rehearsing lines.

It would be nice if Hillary could pick up from Bill as protecting the middle class, but the crime bill that Bill signed is 1995 is resented by Black leaders because it put so many minorities into jail. Somehow, I don't think your meme would work, RJ...it's tough, she talks about the middle-class, the Goldman-Sach speeches gets thrown at her. She talks about crime reform and the crime bill gets thrown at her. I think she still has a lot of space to operate between socialism and the right- wing vision of America. But she needs some inspiring language to bring it all together. Something like she represents the American middle that wants to provide more opportunities to those--minorities, women and workers--who are not being treated fairly without being irresponsible about taxes and spending.

The Tony Blair e-mail will be much more difficult to explain:

These redactions are justified under 5 USC 552 (b)(1), which allows the government to block the release of classified information in the FOIA process. As Judicial Watch points out, the designations 1.4(B) and (D) refer to foreign government information; the (D) can also refer to “confidential sources,” which might describe Blair or perhaps someone else Blair discussed in the redacted message. Note too that both Jake Sullivan and Hillary got this from Blair, with Hillary getting it on her personal e-mail. She then forwards it to Huma Abedin with instructions to print it out. So much for never sending or receiving classified information. Note too that this time the classification notice comes from State, and not the IG from the intel community.

This isn’t the only curiosity in the trove. Samantha Power e-mailed Jake Sullivan on March 9, 2011 — the same date as the Blumenthal memo — about issues regarding a no-fly zone in Libya that got redacted in its entirety. The State Department’s label B5 indicates communications that fall within “the deliberative process,” but the strategy of no-fly zones in Libya would almost certainly involve both diplomatic and military issues that are normally classified. This e-mail went from Power’s official government address to Sullivan’s official address, but Sullivan then forwarded it out of the government system to Hillary’s unauthorized private server. She replied back — keeping the classified info in-line — by asking Huma to print it out, which would be another security violation if this turns out to be classified information and not just “deliberative process.”

freeman3 wrote:Wow. Hillary got thumped. Sander's winning heavily in two groups let down by the economy in recent years: blue- collar workers without a college degree and those under 30.

This would be more fun than O'Malley (hopeless) or Sanders (less than hopeless)

rickyp wrote:If you go back to the beginning of this thread, it was a question of why Hillary was all by herself.
I think its apparent after Iowa and NH that she isn't now.
remember this?
Fate

This would be more fun than O'Malley (hopeless) or Sanders (less than hopeless)

One for two.

Sanders has to gain traction pretty quickly to take advantage of momentum from Iowa and NH. At least he past the "less than hopeless" stage... and has a chance. The Nevada Caucuses are next for the Dems and he might have a little chance there based upon his supporters enthusiasm. But he's down to a 5% chance in SC according to 538. Even less in Michigan....although both situations could have changed after NH.
Clinton went to Flint instead of campaigning in NH... She knows where to build the firewalls.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/ele ... emocratic/

Ray Jay wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Wow. Hillary got thumped. Sander's winning heavily in two groups let down by the economy in recent years: blue- collar workers without a college degree and those under 30.

Yah ... the media is saying that Sanders will struggle in SC because of African American and blue collar voters and in Nevada because of Latino voters; however, I would think his message appeals across ethnic and racial lines.

I listened to 4 acceptance speeches last night; I usually don't watch TV that much, but I was exhausted. I'd rate them as follows:

Clinton: Good
Sanders: Excellent
Trump: Weird
Kasich: Good, but weird in a different way.

Sanders has one enemy: the calculator.

These ideas, though, are mere footnotes to the plans’ central chapters: huge tax cuts for high earners. At 39.6%, America’s top federal income-tax rate is hardly high by global standards. Yet the candidates are racing to see who can promise to cut it most. Mr Bush aims for 28%; Mr Trump 25%. Ted Cruz wants to replace income tax entirely with a 10% flat tax and a value-added tax. Mr Rubio, whose promise of a 35% top rate seems timid by comparison, serves up largesse elsewhere by promising to abolish levies on capital gains and dividends.

The first problem with these schemes is their cost. On today’s growth forecasts, even Mr Bush’s relatively moderate plan would reduce revenues by $715 billion, or 13.5%, a year by 2026—more than the projected national defence budget. Paying for Mr Trump’s plan with reduced day-to-day spending (as opposed to mandatory spending on things like pensions and health care) would require cutting budgets by a staggering 82%

rickyp wrote:fate

Sanders has one enemy: the calculator.

Does he?
Compared to the republican candidates tax plans ....?.

Sassenach wrote:I think to a large extent Sanders' tax plans are an irrelevance, since he'd need a compliant Congress to be able to implement them. The Republican tax plans on the other hand could almost certainly happen.

The main issue for me with Sanders is that he's a very grave risk.Not so much because of what policies he might implement because I'm not convinced that he could pass anything in the face of hostile Republicans in Congress, but because of the likelihood of further polarising the debate for the next 4 years. If you think Trump is bad, just imagine the kind of demagogue that might arise after 4 more years of gridlock and anger.

freeman3 wrote:I see just as much risk from a conservative Republican being elected. The middle-class is being squeezed--wages are flat, college costs for their kids are skyrocketing and good jobs for many college graduates just out of college are scarce, retirement is looking dicey for many retirees because pensions are mostly gone from the private sector...meanwhile a few percent of the population are living in a golden age. Socialism is starting to have appeal on the left, nativism on the right. Got to do something significant for the middle-class-- otherwise, they are going to get angrier and angrier no matter who the president is. And I sort doubt even more tax cuts for the wealthy--allowing for even more wealth to flow towards towards the top--is going to help.

freeman3 wrote:As an aside, in reference to Sander's plan to pay for college tuition I looked at the tuition for my college and law school. I had to chuckle looking for at UCLA's fees. The stated tuition is $11,200 but there are $3,800 in mandatory fees. Anyway I paid about $1,300 when I went plus you could pay a nominal fee for student health coverage. $1,300 when I went would be about $2,800 today. Actual tuition and fees today total 15K. Tuition for law school started at $12,000 and went up about two or three grand by my last year. That is about $21-25K today. Actual tuition is 47K.