I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

This was an interesting Reddit thread talking about how disorganized the Sanders ground game was compared to Obama 08 and 12. AFAIK, Hillary has all of Obama's main people. I can only imagine what the comparable Trump threads look like. https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/co...z5mx?context=3

I learned what a true ground game looks like during Bernie's mayoral campaign back in 1981. It was absolutely incredible in its detail, energy, thoroughness, and just downright folksy Vermont niceness. I have still never seen anything like it.

But a national campaign needs a whole nother level. I don't think Hillary has quite the people power Obama had, but she's got all the pros.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Dude, you know I love you like that cousin of mine who doesn't hide the single malt when family arrives (even though he knows that I think that our potato-grubbing ancestors are rolling in their graves because he drinks that pretentious smoky shit), but this is Hillary. Fucking. Clinton. we are talking about.

We've been cleaning the house out. My wife gave several bottles of my best single malt, 25 year old stuff, to a guy who helps around the house. He plans to throw a very big party.

I have no idea if he knows what he has or not, but it's clear he's going to enjoy it.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I learned what a true ground game looks like during Bernie's mayoral campaign back in 1981. It was absolutely incredible in its detail, energy, thoroughness, and just downright folksy Vermont niceness. I have still never seen anything like it.

But a national campaign needs a whole nother level. I don't think Hillary has quite the people power Obama had, but she's got all the pros.

I saw that Donald Trump is copying Ted Cruz now and has hired the data/microtargeting operation that Cruz used so effectively. I suppose this could be considered evidence that he is actually trying to win, a topic of much debate lately in GOP circles. It is too little far too late, but it's probably enough for Reince to delay turning off the spigot and funding down ballot races only until late September.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I saw that Donald Trump is copying Ted Cruz now and has hired the data/microtargeting operation that Cruz used so effectively. I suppose this could be considered evidence that he is actually trying to win, a topic of much debate lately in GOP circles. It is too little far too late, but it's probably enough for Reince to delay turning off the spigot and funding down ballot races only until late September.

Properly, Reince should have had a national ground game in place the day the convention ended. The RNC should take some of the heat for the disorder. Things like targeting voter lists are best done by the Party, since it takes many months and even years of data work to do it, but on the R side it's outsourced to consultants instead.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Properly, Reince should have had a national ground game in place the day the convention ended. The RNC should take some of the heat for the disorder. Things like targeting voter lists are best done by the Party, since it takes many months and even years of data work to do it, but on the R side it's outsourced to consultants instead.

I am normally not reluctant to place blame on Reince at ALL, but I think this epic failure is on Trump. He had no organization, and because he's Trump, most of the experienced campaign operatives of his vanquished foes were unwilling to work for him (if they had aspirations of future work in the party). It's not the GOP's job to set up field offices and coordinate his ad buys. Reince had to argue with Trump, who for his ego wanted things like offices in all 50 states (when it is a waste of resources in places you *should* definitely win (Idaho) and definitely lose (Hawaii)). Trump also couldn't even be bothered to make the 25 fundraising calls Reince required and got bored after 3 calls.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

A year ago I would have argued with my last breath that by and large the Republican party wasn't racist. Now all I can say is that I am no longer a Republican.

Progress. Now if we could get you to come to a slightly broader understanding of racism that takes into consideration that the past matters and has an ongoing effect on inequality today, you'd be that much closer to being a former conservative too.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We've been cleaning the house out. My wife gave several bottles of my best single malt, 25 year old stuff, to a guy who helps around the house. He plans to throw a very big party.

I have no idea if he knows what he has or not, but it's clear he's going to enjoy it.

My condolences on your pending divorce.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I saw that Donald Trump is copying Ted Cruz now and has hired the data/microtargeting operation that Cruz used so effectively. I suppose this could be considered evidence that he is actually trying to win, a topic of much debate lately in GOP circles. It is too little far too late, but it's probably enough for Reince to delay turning off the spigot and funding down ballot races only until late September.

I'm assuming this was written before the news that Trump hired the Brietbart guy as the new head of his campaign.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm assuming this was written before the news that Trump hired the Brietbart guy as the new head of his campaign.

Yes. Another instance in which Trump mistakes flattery for competence. But, honestly, Trump was blaming Russian mob-fixer Manafort for all of his recent missteps, and reports were that Manafort had given up on trying to make Trump act, well, like not an insane person and was just cashing his checks.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We've been cleaning the house out. My wife gave several bottles of my best single malt, 25 year old stuff, to a guy who helps around the house. He plans to throw a very big party.

I have no idea if he knows what he has or not, but it's clear he's going to enjoy it.

Thankfully, I never acquired a taste for the stuff. I don't drink my cousin's single malt (unless he insists, which he sometimes does), but I appreciate that he offers it. Very unlike his father, who my dad (a Stanwix* on draft with a Segram's 7 on the side kind of guy) used to call the cheapest** drunk he knew.

Dad didn't hang with WASPs much, or he would have called Uncle Not Charlie "the cheapest drunk I know, other than those gin-swilling golfers on the other side of the lake." In defense of my uncle, he was always nice to me and used to let me read his collection of Louis L'Amour paperbacks.

I did have a client give me a very nice bottle of 25 year old Japanese scotch-styled whiskey once. Not at all peaty. He had received it at a closing in Japan and had stopped drinking (heart attack) before he had a chance to open it. I probably was viewed by him as "the help," too. :-)

Anyway, carry on.

*Sniff. I miss Ironweed.

**They also served store-branded soda at family gatherings, but since we never had the stuff in the house (Kool Aid was where it was at), it never bothered me.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I'm sure this has been tried in the past, but was deemed too cumbersome. Given the state of tech, it's pretty easy now, so... How soon before we see this "hack" appearing:

"Good evening. My name is Tom Roberts, and I'm running for Congress. But you could call me Tim, or Bill, or Ethel, or even call me by number. Call me 278 if you like. It doesn't matter because I'm nothing but a voting instrument.

If you elect me I promise to do nothing but vote exactly as you, my constituents, tell me to vote.

How?

Well, we've set up a website and database which all constituents of this district can join. You can register just like you would a Pay Pal or Amazon account. Nothing compulsory. If you want to participate, great; if not, that's fine too.

Three days before any vote in Congress, we'll allow you to vote at my website, using your registered account. When your voting is done, we'll put up the result on the website. (Your vote will of course remain anonymous.)

I will then vote whatever the majority of you have told me to vote.

You will have all of the power. No lobbyist or special interest group will corrupt the vote by getting to me. They'd have to get to you.

All analytics regarding my website will be public, for you, or your friend who works in IT, to audit.

Total transparency, and direct democracy. You the people, skipping the middlemen - taking complete control."

This is coming. Somebody in tech is going to do this, just for the sheer academic kick of disrupting the current model.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We've been cleaning the house out. My wife gave several bottles of my best single malt, 25 year old stuff, to a guy who helps around the house. He plans to throw a very big party.

I have no idea if he knows what he has or not, but it's clear he's going to enjoy it.

WTF? Have you lost your goddamned mind?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore

"Ashamed"? No, that ain't it.

When people are hit - in public - with tire irons for wearing Trump shirts...

when cars are vandalized and tires slashed for having a Trump (hell, any GOP candidate's) sticker...

when people are called racist, and stupid, and xenophobic, etc., and publicly Doxxed for supporting a national candidate...

don't you think a large segment of that voting block is going to clam up - or outright deny their position - to save their health, property and reputation?

SlaveNo(so yes, the polls are way the fuck off)More

The "correctness" is annoying. BUT... Trump has been a uniquely enormous douchebag, and done nothing to repudiate the actual bigots at his rallies. Lay down with dogs...

AND, the polls are so bad that, mathematically, the hidden Trump vote - which is very real - will not come close to bridging the gap.

Trump's biggest problem is with people like us. We could vote for almost any GOP candidate because, why not? I mean -- Hillary's a fine centrist at heart, and probably won't raise taxes... but why take a chance on her if you've got a sure thing? But Trump? He's just too fucking stupid. He's potentially worse than Hillary, so those of us who would've voted GOP are forced to use the same calculation on Trump... "I don't know what that guy's going to do, but there's a solid possibility it'll cost me more than what Hillary might, so why take a chance?"

I don't give a stale fuck about his claptrap on walls or his idiot stance on Muslims.* That's all bullshit for the lowest common denominator voter. What's rendered Trump unqualified for my vote is his sheer stupidity. It's one thing to be an outsider with a disruptive plan. I'd welcome that. It's quite another to be a fool with no clear agenda or understanding of the job he's seeking.

Trump will lose with people like you and me, and without us, he's not winning the popular vote.

I'm voting Johnson in the desperate hope he and Weld get enough traction to vault the Libertarian Party to a level where it will significantly inform D and R platforms in the future.

______________
* I do recoil at his Nixonian "law and order" pitch, but again - that's just bullshit for the Archie Bunker voters.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why do people support Trump? Interesting and depressing.

Here's why: http://spectator.org/39326_americas-...ls-revolution/

And here's old Aunt Peggy on the why of it: http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-glob...men-1470959258

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is coming. Somebody in tech is going to do this, just for the sheer academic kick of disrupting the current model.

You realize that this person will not get elected, right?

If voters are remotely rational (arguable), they will know that you can't hand someone power and then expect them not to use it because they promised. A rational voter would likely also realize that their fellow voters are not sufficiently informed to be the best way to decide.

If voter are irrational (also arguable), this person gives then next to zero emotional appeal.

And then there's the logistical problem that you don't know about lots of votes - e.g., amendments - three days in advance.