Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

why can't he check her? Wasn't Michigan the first big state for the Dems? he keeps winning the big states coming up, he can't catch her, or you see Michigan as a fluke?

Because she has a 219 pledged-delegate lead and added to it last night. His "win" in Michigan gained him 7 more delegates than her from Michigan, while she added a net 27 from Mississippi. All the Dem primaries award delegates proportionately, so small margin win mean almost nothing for him. He need to win big, and he's not done that outside of Vermont, New Hampshire and Minnesota.

And that's before we start talking about super delegates.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Really? Come on. She sucks. Bill was a rock star. So when you hear Clinton, you think, "Yeah, he was full of shit like the rest, but damn -- things were good, and he was a natural."

Then you see Hillary. And you think, "She's smart. But she's also the Democratic equivalent of Mitt Romney. Stuffed fucking suit. How'd Bill have anything in common with her?"

Sharing a last name with The Master sets a bar way too high for a politician of such limited ability. And the dynasty thing. We had a second Bush, and that turned out... uh, near apocalyptically bad?

Yet Mitt did not inspire the kind of nastiness and derisiveness that Hillary gets... He got dismissed more than anything.

Who else gets the kind of personally hostile abuse that Hillary gets.... Obama, certainly. Pelosi, more than a bit. Reid doesn't. See some patterns?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

why can't he check her? Wasn't Michigan the first big state for the Dems? he keeps winning the big states coming up, he can't catch her, or you see Michigan as a fluke?

Set aside what comes next, we can discuss that later. Today, Hank, I am actually interested in what you have to say about what happened in Michigan. Could you feel that one coming? Were you surprised? Where did the support come from?

You have the floor.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think anyone hates her.

I don't think there's anything you've said lately that I disagree with more. And while it's true that there are those who think of her as a pure politician whose ambition is her only compass, and who dislike her for that reason, there are way more people who absolutely despise her. And none of them can articulate why. But it's been like this for dozens of years.* The amount of vitriol that she endures is second only to Obama. I really have (almost) seen nothing like it.

And it's hard to say that it's just because she's a woman. Palin vitriol was based on her proud stupidity. Fiorina was virtually ignored because she's a joke. Is it because Hillary actually has a chance to win as a woman? Is it because she's been playing the game very well for years? Is it a combination of things? I honestly don't understand it.

TM

*Ask Penske.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Who else gets the kind of personally hostile abuse that Hillary gets.... Obama, certainly. Pelosi, more than a bit. Reid doesn't. See some patterns?

Disagree. Reid and Pelosi get put in the same bucket, I've found.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Disagree. Reid and Pelosi get put in the same bucket, I've found.

TM

OK, antennae are up. I've always felt Pelosi got a very different, more personal kind of vitriol. But let's both keep an eye out.

It would actually restore some of my faith in humanity if Reid gets it same as Pelosi.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

why can't he check her? Wasn't Michigan the first big state for the Dems? he keeps winning the big states coming up, he can't catch her, or you see Michigan as a fluke?

Dems award delegates proportionately, so her big win in MS and narrow loss in MI yesterday means she gained on him, and she already has a serious lead.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

And it's hard to say that it's just because she's a woman. Palin vitriol was based on her proud stupidity. Fiorina was virtually ignored because she's a joke. Is it because Hillary actually has a chance to win as a woman? Is it because she's been playing the game very well for years? Is it a combination of things? I honestly don't understand it.

TM

*Ask Penske.

Of course it's a combination of things....

All of which come down to not just being a woman... but an uppity one. And challenging the role the misogynists ascribe to her.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

why can't he check her? Wasn't Michigan the first big state for the Dems? he keeps winning the big states coming up, he can't catch her, or you see Michigan as a fluke?

I think he can catch her. I still don't think he will, but I am willing to admit that I could be Not Right.

I hope he doesn't. I like Hillary - she may be wrong sometimes (usually when she is trying to position herself; the Iraq vote and the decision to use a private email server are both examples of this), but she does her homework on policy issues.

I think Bernie speaks to a good chunk of the traditional New Deal coalition that still makes up part of the Democratic Party's base, so I expect him to do well in places like Michigan. (I didn't expect him to actually win it, btw). I don't think Bernie wins a general election. But, then again, I thought Trump would be out of the race long ago (I thought it would be because he didn't want to file disclosure reports), so who knows?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I hope he doesn't. I like Hillary - she may be wrong sometimes (usually when she is trying to position herself; the Iraq vote and the decision to use a private email server are both examples of this), but she does her homework on policy issues.

I am in the category of people who genuinely like Hillary as well. And it is not just that she is smart and well-informed. She is a battle-hardened, seen-it-all, put up with no bullshit auntie, who has got a good heart and claws of steel.

I find the number of us who really like her small among white men but much larger in other demographics. It is very annoying how often white men just presume Hillary put-downs are ok and everyone should just go along.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Dems award delegates proportionately, so her big win in MS and narrow loss in MI yesterday means she gained on him, and she already has a serious lead.

Is Adder on ignore?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Set aside what comes next, we can discuss that later. Today, Hank, I am actually interested in what you have to say about what happened in Michigan. Could you feel that one coming? Were you surprised? Where did the support come from?

You have the floor.

Hmmm, I live in Berkeley Midwest. There were lots of Bernie signs, but I can't think of a single Hil sign. I would think her strength would be in Wayne county, not in my area. Maybe Detroit turnout was low?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I am in the category of people who genuinely like Hillary as well. And it is not just that she is smart and well-informed. She is a battle-hardened, seen-it-all, put up with no bullshit auntie, who has got a good heart and claws of steel.

I find the number of us who really like her small among white men but much larger in other demographics. It is very annoying how often white men just presume Hillary put-downs are ok and everyone should just go along.

I agree with all of the positive things said about her here (other than Sebby's "no one hates her" line, which is ridiculous). The negative that I agree with is NotBob's "positioning" comment. Her vote on the Iraq war, in particular, was cowardly IMO. I do not believe she honestly thought it was a good idea, but she was afraid to stand on that.

I think many people view that as indicative of an overall willingness to change her position to what she views as popular or advantageous. I do not agree with that. She was not unique, or even unusual, among Dems who were cowed by the post-9/11 war fervor, and that was exactly what W, Rove, Cheney, FOX, and many many other were trying to accomplish with the "if you oppose war you support Saddam, and terrorists, and al Qaeda, and granny-rape" hysteria. (Ah, memories.... Bilmore and his "murder-marchers" polemics...)

People's willingness to see that instance as a broad indicator is, of course, driven to a great extent by their overall feelings towards her, which in many cases are a seething hatred driven by her sex and her refusal to play the gender role that was expected of women of her age. But, at least among those who lack the seething hatred, I see the legitimacy of the concerns, to an extent.

If I had the choice, I would rather vote for someone who had the courage and leadership to stand against the Iraq War, but my first priority is someone highly competent, effective, and not engaging in pipe dreams.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I agree with all of the positive things said about her here (other than Sebby's "no one hates her" line, which is ridiculous). The negative that I agree with is NotBob's "positioning" comment. Her vote on the Iraq war, in particular, was cowardly IMO. I do not believe she honestly thought it was a good idea, but she was afraid to stand on that.

I think many people view that as indicative of an overall willingness to change her position to what she views as popular or advantageous. I do not agree with that. She was not unique, or even unusual, among Dems who were cowed by the post-9/11 war fervor, and that was exactly what W, Rove, Cheney, FOX, and many many other were trying to accomplish with the "if you oppose war you support Saddam, and terrorists, and al Qaeda, and granny-rape" hysteria. (Ah, memories.... Bilmore and his "murder-marchers" polemics...)

People's willingness to see that instance as a broad indicator is, of course, driven to a great extent by their overall feelings towards her, which in many cases are a seething hatred driven by her sex and her refusal to play the gender role that was expected of women of her age. But, at least among those who lack the seething hatred, I see the legitimacy of the concerns, to an extent.

If I had the choice, I would rather vote for someone who had the courage and leadership to stand against the Iraq War, but my first priority is someone highly competent, effective, and not engaging in pipe dreams.

Part of what you get with Hillary is the education she's gotten in public life. I think that vote was the beginning of her education on the middle east, and really since that first bit of grammar school learning she's been through high school, college and grad school on the subject.

So I'm more interested in talking about her role as secretary of state than a single vote a decade and a half ago in the Senate. And as a secretary of state, I think she did very well.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Part of what you get with Hillary is the education she's gotten in public life. I think that vote was the beginning of her education on the middle east, and really since that first bit of grammar school learning she's been through high school, college and grad school on the subject.

So I'm more interested in talking about her role as secretary of state than a single vote a decade and a half ago in the Senate. And as a secretary of state, I think she did very well.

I agree.

That vote was far more important to me back in the 2008 primaries, and was a key part of why I supported Obama.

A long time has passed, and as you say she's gotten a lot of education.

And, really -- the choice between someone who voted for the Iraq war and acknowledges that was a mistake, and someone who wants to carpet-bomb cities where ISIS is active or resume torturing suspects or engaged in targeted killing of family members or.... well, you get the point.