I'm going to be ill. Kaine managed to make Pence look sensible.

Post #414,230 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 9:24:11 AM 10/5/16 9:25:05 AM Reply	I'm going to be ill. Kaine managed to make Pence look sensible. How on earth can anyone do that? Luntz's focus group of OH independents were leaning Trump after the VP debate. Kaine looked desperate. One of the independent voters said he was "Trump-like." If the Clinton camp thinks The Donald's failure to pay taxes is the path for them to get the White House, that campaign is in serious trouble. Edited by mmoffitt Oct. 5, 2016, 09:25:05 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #414,232 by a6l6e6x 10/5/16 10:07:11 AM 10/5/16 10:07:11 AM Reply	Kaine was over the top excited and on hair trigger. He had the facts but the debating style was offensive. Acting like Trump will not get you converts. Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #414,233 by rcareaga 10/5/16 10:12:14 AM 10/5/16 10:12:14 AM Reply	What is it that makes you ill? You have proclaimed ad nauseam that there is no real difference between between "Goldwater Girl" and the short-fungered vulgarian, and have stated on more than one occasion that you believe that The Dread Butch Hillary would be an even worse president than the orange shitgibbon, as they're fond of calling him over at Balloon Juice. Accordingly, if Kaine scored an own goal, and if the Clinton campaign "is in serious trouble," I'd think you'd be popping a bottle of bubbly, and retiring with visions of the socialist utopia, your daughters' birthright (midwifed by the heightened contradictions to come!), dancing in your head. Now, if it was merely having to listen to Mike Pence's pious blathering for ninety minutes that brought on the gag reflex, you could have just said so. cordially,
Post #414,238 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 11:56:58 AM 10/5/16 11:56:58 AM Reply	That Pence, by comparison to anyone could look sane. I have first hand experience with that Tea Bagger troglodyte and it makes me ill that for the majority of people who are not Hoosiers, Pence could be perceived by anyone as "not that bad." It's a little disingenuous to claim I've said Hillary would be worse than Trump with one exception. I do believe that he may be less likely to get us into war with Russia. What I have said is that it is unknown whether he would be worse than Hillary for the simple reason that no one knows what he would actually do as President. If earlier rumors about what he'd said to potential VP's are correct (that he'd let the VP govern) then I know Pence would be far worse than Hillary.
Post #414,247 by rcareaga 10/5/16 1:02:42 PM 10/5/16 1:02:42 PM Reply	Shit ha-Pence then I know Pence would be far worse than Hillary. This knowledge will not, of course, move you to lift even a symbolic finger (as of this morning the folks at 538 put the likelihood of the Hoosiers' eleven electoral votes going to, you know, at 92.1%) in support of The Dread Butch Hillary, the only realistic alternative. OT, but someone pointed me to this 1997 blog entry from future Governor Pence, in which he draws profundity from what many assumed was mere popular ephemera: We stand on the decks of our own modern sophistication and wave goodbye to the old fashioned virtues of faith in God, marital fidelity and the sanctity of life, even though our very prosperity was built upon them. Like the passengers of the Titanic who gave no thought to the strength of the Irishmen who built their vessel at the Harland & Wolf shipyards in Belfast, so do we give no thought to the virtues of those who built our ship of state. And we, like they, do so at our peril. I've read this over a few times, and I still can't puzzle out how the passengers on the RMS Titanic would have been any less imperiled had they spent their waking hours contemplating the burly fitters back in Belfast versus, say, locking Kate Winslet in her stateroom. WTF was Pence talking about here? cordially,
Post #414,255 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 1:59:15 PM 10/5/16 1:59:15 PM Reply	Isn't the blog post obvious? He's lamenting an imagined time when we were all Good Christians™ who believed in the One True Holy Book™ (okay, maybe The Two True Holy Books™) and went to church every Sunday. You remember, don't you? A time when we didn't give a damn about anyone less fortunate because, well, if they weren't so damned lazy (or worse! Un-believers) they'd do well all by themselves. God Fearing Christians™ are what built this country and made it the economic powerhouse that it is. Christian Values™ are the basis for our entire society. If we abandon those ~~myths~~ truths, we will fall out of favor with The One True Almighty God™ and being the loving father he is, he will smite us all. At his core, Pence is a religious lunatic (apologies for repeating myself).
Post #414,257 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 2:20:08 PM 10/5/16 2:20:08 PM Reply	And another thing, did you really need 538 to tell you who would win Indiana? No, you didn't. There is absolutely no way, no way on Earth that a Clinton ever wins Indiana. Obama did - once - when he was able to con the youth vote into believing he was Bernie Sanders. It took them four years to figure out that he was Bill/Hillary Clinton and then Obama lost Indiana in 2012. Bill didn't win Indiana either time. His wife won't win it either. But Bernie has a shot. http://forum.iwethey.org/forum/post/407896/ HRC's nomination insured there'd be no repeat of the general election of 2008 in Indiana. Sanders could have won here.
Post #414,260 by Another Scott 10/5/16 2:33:23 PM 10/5/16 2:33:23 PM Reply	How could Bernie win there and not Hillary http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/indiana In the primary, Trump got 590k votes to Bernie's 335k. The GOP had about 1100k total votes vs 635k for Team D. How can you argue that Bernie would win but Hillary can't? This Guardian piece makes it sound like lots of people in Indiana, while not enthusiastic, are still persuadable. Cheers, Scott.
Post #414,270 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 3:14:57 PM 10/5/16 3:14:57 PM Reply	The same way Barack Obama did in 2008. The youth vote would have been very enthusiastic.
Post #414,275 by a6l6e6x 10/5/16 4:01:35 PM 10/5/16 4:01:35 PM Reply	How is the Hispanic vote there? I believe Trump has them fired up in opposition to him. Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #414,278 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 4:20:02 PM 10/5/16 4:20:02 PM Reply	I honestly don't know. They're about 6.5% or so of the population. Although down about 1.5 per cent in the last five years, Indiana's still 80% White non-Hispanic non-Latino. I don't know if we're the "Whitest" state or not, but we've got to be in the top 10.
Post #414,276 by Another Scott 10/5/16 4:10:09 PM 10/5/16 4:10:09 PM Reply	Yet Bernie beat Hillary by only 35k votes in the primary. Hmm... 2008 Indiana Exit Polls. Obama won by about 26,000 votes overall (of 2.7M). AA voters were 7% of the vote and Obama won 90% of them. 2012 Indiana Exit Polls. Obama lost by about 273,000 votes overall (of 2.5M). AA voters were 8% of the vote and Obama on 89% of them. The AA vote turned out in 2012 as strongly as they did in 2008, or even moreso. Some of the data doesn't make much sense to me... Yes, under 30s had a huge swing against Obama in 2012 (31 points, ~ 20% of the vote). But it all seemed to happen in "mid-sized cities" (27 points, 17% of the vote). Maybe those are the college towns, I dunno. He did much better in the "big cities" than in 2008. 57% of the vote was in the suburbs and Rmoney was +5 there over McCain. It looks like it would have been much closer if all of Obama's 2008 voters had turned out. Why didn't they? Dunno. You may be right that she has no chance, but I think that Hillary has an ace in the hole - women voters. Women were down 3% in 2012 compared to 2008. Bayh running and apparently doing well can't hurt Hillary's chances. Will it help? We'll see. Cheers, Scott.
Post #414,277 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 4:15:12 PM 10/5/16 4:15:12 PM Reply	I've told you why Obama's 08 voters didn't turn out. Sheesh! And please, please, please! I do NOT need reminding that we're probably going to send the Corporatist Evan Bayh back to Washington.
Post #414,280 by Another Scott 10/5/16 4:22:07 PM 10/5/16 4:22:07 PM Reply	Hehe. Bayh voted to save the economy and for the PPACA. Good enough for me. ;-)
Post #414,281 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 4:24:47 PM 10/5/16 4:24:47 PM Reply	And Bayh's "Credit Card Reform" allowed BofA to jack my rate from 9.0% fixed to 12% floating.
Post #414,284 by Another Scott 10/5/16 4:33:25 PM 10/5/16 4:33:25 PM Reply	So, get another bank. You are still able to do that. E.g. https://www.nerdwallet.com/credit-cards There's a whole lot wrong with our banking system that needs to be fixed. The GOP isn't going to fix it though. They want to control the Fed, they want to gut the little regulation that exists, they want to kill the CFPB. Courier Press: The senator said he received nearly 500 letters and e-mails from Hoosiers about how credit card companies had mistreated them. One story came from a woman in Granger, Ind. She missed her bill payment by one day and her interest rate increased from zero percent to 29 percent. One change that will come from the new law is credit card companies will be limited on when rates can be increased and will be required to leave promotional rates the same for at least six months. Currently, payments cover the least expensive parts of a credit card bill. Under the new law, payments will cover the most expensive parts of the bill, which Bayh said will be for "your benefit, not (the credit card company's) profit." Other changes include giving cardholders more time to pay a bill and requiring a co-signer for anyone under 21 years old. "It angered me when I saw how people were being abused," Bayh said. "It's a basic matter of injustice." The credit card reform bill, also known as House Resolution 627, was introduced to the House of Representatives on Jan. 22 by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y. After passing through committee, the bill passed the House on April 30 by a vote of 357-70. The bill passed the Senate by a 90-5 vote May 19, and President Barack Obama signed it into law May 22. Every Indiana representative and senator voted for the bill. Yeah, it would have been better to defeat the bill!!1 Bayh was the crucial vote!!11 (Groucho-roll-eyes.gif) You know the right way to vote. Stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Vote Candidate in the Primary, Vote the Party in the General. Come join us! ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #414,285 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 4:34:26 PM 10/5/16 4:34:26 PM Reply	Bayh's NOT going to fix the banks, see below.
Post #414,283 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 4:33:24 PM 10/5/16 4:33:24 PM Reply	You and the Banksters want him to win. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, is currently the top Democrat on the panel and widely considered the next in line for the chair if his party succeeds in retaking the chamber. But a Bayh victory in Indiana could upset that plan. The former two-term Democratic senator, who sat on the Banking Committee from 2000 to 2010, may have more seniority than Brown, allowing Bayh to leapfrog his colleague. The scenario has been quietly discussed among financial services lobbyists, most of whom prefer the more moderate and bank-friendly Bayh to the progressive Brown. Bayh "has seen upfront a lot of the problems with Dodd-Frank and we are hoping he would be somebody who could stand up to the extremists who don't think there should be any changes to Dodd-Frank," said Howard Headlee, head of the Utah Bankers Association and treasurer of the Friends of Traditional Banking, a financial services super political action committee. A financial services lobbyist who declined to speak on the record said financial lobbyists are all "talking about this and nobody knows" whether Bayh could get his seniority back and the chairmanship. http://www.americanbanker.com/news/law-regulation/could-bank-friendly-bayh-seize-chair-of-banking-committee-1090616-1.html But hey, you liked trillions to banksters in the form of TARP, so the possibility of a Bankster Tool as head of the Senate Banking Committee is a good thing, amirite? Omnes relinquite spes, o vos intrantes.
Post #414,286 by Another Scott 10/5/16 4:40:13 PM 10/5/16 4:40:13 PM Reply	Recycled "news" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-04/banks-prefer-schumer-over-sherrod-brown-for-panel-chair The Senate flipped so it became moot. We'll see what happens, but I don't expect Sherrod to roll over if he wants the job. Cheers, Scott.
Post #414,287 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 4:44:55 PM 10/5/16 4:44:55 PM Reply	If Bayh wins and the Senate goes "D", ... the owners of the Senate (that'd be the same Wall Street gangsters funding Clinton) will make damned certain their former lobbyist is head of the Banking Committee. You heard it here first.
Post #414,288 by Another Scott 10/5/16 4:51:30 PM 10/5/16 4:51:30 PM Reply	Yaya. http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/bayh-wont-booting-brown-banking-panel (from August 9): Former Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh won't be allowed to reclaim seniority and leapfrog a champion of progressive causes on the Senate Banking Committee should Bayh win the Indiana Senate race. Financial services insiders in an American Banker report broached the possibility that Bayh, who is viewed more favorably by the industry, could cut in front of Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and be in line to take the committee's chairmanship if Democrats retake control of the Senate. A senior Democratic aide effectively ended that speculation Tuesday afternoon. "There's no doubt Senator Brown will have the top slot on the banking committee next year," the aide told Roll Call. [...] The truth is that precedent is squarely on the side of incumbents like Brown being favored over potential returning former senators. Neither Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey, Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota or Alben Barkley of Kentucky was able to reclaim seniority for past years served when they returned to the chamber. And unlike Bayh, both Barkley and Humphrey had originally left the Senate to become vice president. Sorry. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #414,307 by mmoffitt 10/6/16 8:12:17 AM 10/6/16 8:12:17 AM Reply	At the risk of sounding even more the conspiracy theorist. Bayh has been a Bankster Lobbyist ever since he left the Senate. You know, the usual way a Senator goes to cash in on all the good work he did for his masters while (cough, cough, wheez, gag) representing the people. So now it looks like maybe a somewhat Progressive might be the new Senate Banking Chairman. I don't think it's too much of a stretch for the Bankster owners to go to their tool Bayh and say, "Hey, why don't you run for Senate again? Here's some money. Nobody in Indiana can beat you because of your daddy and because it's an incredibly weak field. If we get lucky, you'll either knock off the Progressive and be Chairman yourself or have at least some influence on the banking committee. We need one of our own on that committee." The cover Bayh came up with to leave the Senate so he could cash in with his Bankster buddies, that "gridlock" was the reason, is laughable now. He's going back because it's gotten better? Give me a break. His candidacy is nothing more than the Bankster Community getting one of their reliable stooges back in the Senate. And, regrettably, most Hoosiers will allow them to do exactly that.
Post #414,263 by rcareaga 10/5/16 2:45:17 PM 10/5/16 2:45:17 PM Reply	Of course I didn't "need" 538 for that. I cited them for the figure. Sanders could have won here. And Mike Pence could announce tomorrow that he's going to impose Sharia Law on Indiana. These imaginary scenarios are not impossible, but they are equally implausible. cordially,
Post #414,234 by Another Scott 10/5/16 10:50:35 AM 10/5/16 10:50:35 AM Reply	I don't have time to watch it again, but... It would be interesting to see who interrupted who first, who went over their time more often, etc. Pence was doing a "Gish Gallop" - throwing a boatload of lies out there to try to get Kaine to answer all of them rather than letting Kaine stay on message. It didn't work. I think Trump's people were convinced that they could walk all over him due to his reputation of being a "nice dad" type of guy. Kaine knew his job was to vigorously defend Hillary and the platform, and attack Trump relentlessly, and that's what he did. His job wasn't to make Tim Kaine look good. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #414,235 by malraux 10/5/16 11:26:55 AM 10/5/16 11:26:55 AM Reply	Kaine did a better job defending his candidate But came off looking worse himself in the process. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #414,240 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 12:08:41 PM 10/5/16 12:08:41 PM Reply	"Nice Guy". </me falls over> Kaine — like Hillary Clinton – has embraced for decades the DLC/’New Democrats’ agenda — meaning they are allies of Wall Street. They embrace a neo-liberal, pro corporate outlook that has done incredible damage to the vast majority of Americans. Kaine is actively pushing to weaken already grossly inadequate financial regulation and pushing to adopt the indefensible “Trans-Pacific Partnership” (TPP). By choosing Kaine, Hillary Clinton is signaling that her new-found support for financial regulation and opposition to TPP is a tactical ploy to win the nomination before she “pivots” back to the disastrous policies that she, Kaine, and Vilsack have helped inflict on the world for decades. She is playing into Trump’s claims that she is not honest. ... And that’s just the finance. On the economics, the choice of Kaine signals that Hillary Clinton is openly returning to her life-long embrace of the economic malpractice of austerity. Recall, that Bill Clinton tried, in league with Newt Gingrich, to largely privatize Social Security. That is Wall Street’s greatest dream. The only reason it didn’t happen is that the Republican rebels asked for too much and that scuttled the deal that Bill Clinton was making with the Republican congress. The same thing happened when the Tea Party sank President Obama’s efforts to reach a “Grand Bargain” with the Republicans to adopt austerity and make cuts to the safety net. The leadership of the now defunct DLC continue to applaud the cuts they made to Social Security and the oxymoron they called “welfare reform” that has brought so much misery to poor mothers. The preposterous lie that, working with President Reagan they “saved Social Security” is repeated daily on the intro to an MSNBC program. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/25/doubling-down-on-wall-street-hillary-and-tim-kaine/ Nice guy for Wall Street, perhaps.
Post #414,245 by Another Scott 10/5/16 1:01:33 PM 10/5/16 1:01:33 PM Reply	I'd expect nothing less from Counterpunch. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/22/10-things-you-should-know-about-tim-kaine/ 4) He's known as a nice guy's nice guy The headline of a recent Washington Post story about Kaine's potential VP prospects is titled, "What’s a nice guy like Sen. Tim Kaine doing in a campaign like this?" “The boy is cleaner than the board of health,” Dave “Mudcat” Saunders, the eminently quotable Democratic political consultant told our Paul Schwartzmann. “If it’s one thing Hillary needs, it’s clean.” And Kaine's amiable style has served him well. His approval rating in polls has generally been significantly higher than his disapproval rating, and he was elected senator in 2012 by a six-point margin over Republican George Allen -- a fellow former governor and former senator who was trying to reclaim his seat. But Kaine's nice-guy demeanor has also raised questions about whether he would be able to play the traditional role of a running mate: attack dog. Heh. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #414,252 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 1:45:02 PM 10/5/16 1:45:02 PM Reply	Heh. He only beat George "Macaca" Allen by six points? </rofl> Oh and VERY impressive quoting ~~Bezos' rag~~ the Washington Post, the absolute neutral source for information about the Clinton campaign. Counterpunch has credibility the Post *used to* have.
Post #414,254 by Another Scott 10/5/16 1:56:22 PM 10/5/16 1:56:22 PM Reply	"Selected Conspiracy Websites, Newsgroups, Blogs" http://web.stanford.edu/~jonahw/PWR1/CT-Websites.htm I don't get the feeling that CP is listed there as a CT debunking or vilifying site. YMMV. Cheers, Scott.
Post #414,256 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 2:04:41 PM 10/5/16 2:04:41 PM Reply	I'm no longer a subscriber. When Alexander Cockburn was writing for them after leaving The Nation, I had a subscription and, truthfully, the only things I read on that site were articles by him and/or Ralph Nader. I don't know what its status is today, but more years than I care to contemplate back, it was a good source of true lefty essays.
Post #414,248 by boxley 10/5/16 1:23:39 PM 10/5/16 1:23:39 PM Reply	according to cnn pence beat kaine always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #414,251 by mmoffitt 10/5/16 1:40:52 PM 10/5/16 1:40:52 PM Reply	According to almost everyone.
Post #414,253 by rcareaga 10/5/16 1:47:09 PM 10/5/16 1:50:28 PM Reply	different objectives, perhaps? There seems to be some evidence that part of Kaine's fire mission involved trolling for ad footage. For the rest, well, I'm having a hard time imagining the kind of undecided voter who thinks "Holy smoke! This guy Kaine seems like an agitated motormouth! I'd feel uncomfortable having him a heartbeat away from the presidency, so I guess I'll be voting for Trump." Such people might exist, I suppose, but I shouldn't think their numbers are vast. I doubt whether this sideshow changed anyone's minds. Edit: I see that malraux beat me to the ad link cordially, Edited by rcareaga Oct. 5, 2016, 01:50:00 PM EDT Edited by rcareaga Oct. 5, 2016, 01:50:28 PM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!