February 2, 2016
The startling wrongness of an undeniable truth: "A win is a win."
Spoken by former senator Tom Harkin from Hillary Clinton's stage in Iowa last night, quoted in "How Iowa went wrong for Hillary Clinton/Her vaunted field organization performed as expected. But she didn't."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
71 comments:
This is perhaps the hollowest sort of Iowa caucus win--barely eking out a victory by the tiniest of margins against a crazed old radical when you had a thirty point lead a couple months ago. All the money, endorsements, advisers, top staff--and then this. It just goes to show the candidate matters, and the Dems are about to crown (coronate) a lousy one.
It'd be great if the GOP could take advantage of the Dems' mistake and take the WH and keep the Senate.
I love the statements of her shills "she won this by herself" and such--at some point the BS must feel weird coming from their mouths. They are trying so hard to make this latter-day Nixon likable, even while the entire basis of her candidacy is "it's her turn". There's really nothing else there--if you're an angry leftist, you want Bernie, if you're a moderate, well Hillary has abandoned you to try to be an angry leftist as well, with unconvincing results. The only way she can beat Bernie--or the GOP--is by default. And yet at the same time she is making herself so unpalatable that default may not even go to her.
This quote from the article says it all : " Some Democrats watching the race said it didn’t end with a better result for Clinton because of a problem with the candidate herself and the delivery of her message."
Reports that Hillary won Iowa by winning 6 out of 6 coin flips. Check those coins.
"You're likable enough, Hillary" turns out to have been just another one of Obama's lies.
From a 30% lead very recently to a tiny handful of delegates separating the two socialists. Yeah, that's a "win" Hillary. A win in name only. WINO.
Can you say "enthusiasm gap"?
I find Cruz as untrustworthy as Hillary. I think (hope?)he will suffer a wipeout in NH, which may be the end of the road for him - though he may do better in the South. He is unelectable because he's an obnoxious twit and will have little or no real support from the Republican insiders or independents.
I watched CNN's live coverage of a Hillary speech--or droning monologue--on Sunday night. She was dressed in a gray coat with green flashes----there's a whole lot of Hillary to cover up these days. Those campaign lunches and dinners and a lot of booze have put a lotta pounds on the ol grandma. The coat had all the style of a furniture van pad--in fact she just might have ripped it off a Bekins moving van come to think of it.
She was droning away; the audience was snoozing. It was clear that even Hillary wasn't interested in what Hillary was saying. I stood it for about three or four minutes than turned to something more interesting. CNN did Hillary no favors by covering that "speech".
“A win is a win,” her ally former Sen. Tom Harkin said...
Tell that to Pyrrhus.
Chris Matthews was sullen and pouty last night. He doesn't like "ties" - they are anti-democracy. He wants to KNOW who won. He LIKES concession speeches. It was hysterical.
The Dems are slowly coming to the recognition (late) that they have two loser candidates, dueling it out in a long slog.
Should be fun to watch!
Pryhhus and Hannibal would disagree.
Winning the overarching conflict (war) is more important than most any specific sub-conflict (battle).
Iowa is not winner-take-all. Both in spirit and in fact, she didn't "win". It was a tie.
Best thing for the GOP right now is if Hillary barely squeaks out the candidacy over the next few months, then gets recommended for indictment by the FBI.
I think Trump has stretched to Overton window so far that Bernie managed to squeeze through. And if Bernie didn't really think he could win it before, I am pretty sure he does now.
I think that the harsher Hillary is forced to be to Sanders, the harder it will be for her to win. By the same logic that says everybody but Cruz and Trump should support Rubio says that Hillary should support Bernie.
This is perhaps the hollowest sort of Iowa caucus win--barely eking out a victory by the tiniest of margins against a crazed old radical when you had a thirty point lead a couple months ago.
With the odd "coin flip" that she won every one of and the need to "recreate" results at some precincts. The whole thing reeks of a fix, but oh well. It's not my party.
I don't see how this anything but an utter disaster. A system designed to benefit people with experienced people who will sit thru the stifling boredom of a caucus to vote and she ties a guy whose base consists of burnouts?
Hell, Trump was more impressive (beat out Huckabee's vote total in his win in 2008 I believe).
I find Cruz as untrustworthy as Hillary.
Cruz wins IA opposing ethanol. He avoided the most blatant pandering that almost nobody else is willing to avoid. And he won.
They are trying so hard to make this latter-day Nixon likable
Nixon was more likable because he had SOME shame (do you think, if facing people saying she will be removed from office, she'd resign? I don't) and competency. As much of a shit as he was, he actually did accomplish some stuff.
A win is a win isn't a tautology. The first win is taken broadly and the second is taken narrowly.
Hillary! seemed to be channeling Howard Dean's Iowa scream in her victory/tie speech.
She was almost as loud and unhinged.
"Nixon was more likable because he had SOME shame (do you think, if facing people saying she will be removed from office, she'd resign? I don't) and competency. As much of a shit as he was, he actually did accomplish some stuff."
Also Nixon has a message--a reason to vote for him. In 1960, it was continuation of Ike's legacy--pro civil rights moderate, low deficits, containing communism. In '68 it was law and order and peace with honor.
What reason could anyone vote for Hillary except that they think Bernie too radical, or conversely that the GOP is too extremist? It's a campaign of default but she is no steady hand or safe bet for anyone.
If you haven't already seen the Rubio post-Iowa 'win' video...do so.
There is hope for 2016 from this articulate, "youthful" (Meade alert),Tea Party candidate. He will destroy the geriatric pathological liar in the debates. And to those amnesty/Schumer anxiety freaks...chill. Marco has received the horse head in his bed message.
The air seem a bit fresher this am.
And to those who fret about the GOP"e" take a hint...there is a new GOPe normal.
Why isn't she in prison?
Hannibal knew how to gain a victory, but not how to use it
- Maharbal
SayAahh said...
And to those amnesty/Schumer anxiety freaks...chill. Marco has received the horse head in his bed message.
At least through Nov 2016. But beyond that, some of us fear "common sense immigration reform"
"The startling wrongness of an undeniable truth: "A win is a win.""
So true! I've always lost after winning an argument with my wife.
Those six coin toss wins are going to be worth a lot more the Bernie than they were to the Clinton machine. That stuff is catnip to Bernie's supporters.
"Those six coin toss wins are going to be worth a lot more the Bernie than they were to the Clinton machine. That stuff is catnip to Bernie's supporters."
That's a good point. If I was on Hillary's team, I'd have suggested they split the difference and any odd delegate be awarded to O'Malley so as not to benefit either side. To "win" Iowa on a coin toss just fires up the losing side. I'd be pissed if I were a Sanders supporter.
While Rubio isn't my guy, it's actually pretty good that he's the "establishment" candidate - he's overall pretty conservative for the GOPe. The only major issue is Amnesty. People say he's gotten the message, but I am not sure.
That said, IF the border was actually secure (well, 96% or something secure, nothing's perfect), then a lot more folks would be open to a gradual, earned amnesty for those already here. If a President Rubio could actually do that, he's have a hell of a legacy.
That said, IF the border was actually secure (well, 96% or something secure, nothing's perfect), then a lot more folks would be open to a gradual, earned amnesty for those already here. If a President Rubio could actually do that, he's have a hell of a legacy.
I speak for many.
First build a Big F'ing Fence Then we'll talk...
"While Rubio isn't my guy, it's actually pretty good that he's the "establishment" candidate - he's overall pretty conservative for the GOPe. The only major issue is Amnesty. People say he's gotten the message, but I am not sure."
I have to say, for an "establishment" guy Rubio has some pretty outsider credentials from his Senate challenge to Crist to a solid conservative record. I'm guessing the only reason "establishment" people are backing Rubio is because they find the electable alternatives unpalatable (I don't know how electable Christie is, and Bush and Kasich just aren't catching fire).
No one can really tell if Rubio was "burned" by his attempt with the Gang of 8, but considering it's the primary line of attack from his rivals and it's the main reason he is not doing better in this field I can't imagine he's thinking "I'll try this stunt again once I take office and I'm sure it'll go differently". But then, we have nothing to go on but our measure of the candidates--some believe Trump is truly anti-amnesty because he says so this year, and 2012 was so far away. Trump was never burned by his positions on amnesty (or abortion, or taxes, or health care...) and his flip flops are applauded by his fans so I also can't imagine he has any fear that if he declared an amnesty it would burn him. But Trump lovers think I have this exactly backwards.
"That said, IF the border was actually secure (well, 96% or something secure, nothing's perfect), then a lot more folks would be open to a gradual, earned amnesty for those already here. If a President Rubio could actually do that, he's have a hell of a legacy."
I think the big question on this is how we agree the border is secure--everyone seems to disagree on the facts and disbelieves their opponents' figures. Though it's not just the border--almost half our illegal aliens are legally admitted to come temporarily and work, and overstay their visas. That system needs to be fixed, and some form of tracking and verification needs to be in place.
I don't see much of anything being done though, no matter who is president next, simply because of the gridlock. Instead, we'll see some piecemeal bills (a few billion for more fencing, new penalties for knowingly hiring illegals) and more railing about it at the next election. Though if Hillary wins, there'd be one significant change--she has vowed to use executive orders to grant amnesties. And keep in mind by that time we'll be in our third term of Democratic presidents appointing judges (at all levels of course) so imagine a bunch of Ginsburgs and Sotomayors deciding whether Hillary has this authority. Then remember what we were all doing this election year.
Rubio's a good candidate because he's a good speaker with a good personality. He's very likable.
His policy views are a combination of W and Obama. Foreign interventions, amnesty, free trade, heavy federal government involvement in education and health care. He's a compassionate conservative. He'll do about as well as Romney did but Hillary won't do as well as Obama did so it would be a close race between them if they faced each other.
"First build a Big F'ing Fence Then we'll talk..."
Serious question--what exactly do we have now? Do we have fencing along some part of the border, and long gaps? If so, what percentage of the border is completely open with no natural or artificial border? And at border crossings, what degree of inspection is happening for the thousands coming in?
According to the SnapChat political reporter, more than 80% of caucus-goers in the "30 and under" category supported Bernie over Hillary. That remarkable statistic should worry Clinton and her team.
Surely someone in the DNC is pondering on what to do if Clinton is indicted. But what could the plan be now that O'Malley has folded his campaign?
feelthebern!
I think the Bernie supporters should be called 'Bernadettes'.
Just thinking out loud.
I am Laslo.
"First build a Big F'ing Fence Then we'll talk..."
"Serious question--what exactly do we have now? Do we have fencing along some part of the border, and long gaps? If so, what percentage of the border is completely open with no natural or artificial border? And at border crossings, what degree of inspection is happening for the thousands coming in?"
It will not surprise me if nobody here knows.
Hillary could be laying in a drunken stupor in the gutter and she would still sweep the South and Midwest primaries. She's simply the more reliable provider of Free Stuff. Bernie had an impressive night but there's not a chance in Hell of him winning the nomination.
According to the Border Patrol itself, they only have control over less than 700 miles of a nearly 2,000 mile long border.
Sanders can't win. Hillary can't win. Maybe the Democrats really don't want to win and get the full blame for the shitstorm next year.
The problem for the Democrats is that it appears that the Republican elite doesn't really want to win either since they know everything Obama has screwed up becomes their problem completely at 12.01 EST 01/20/17 and their fault as well.
feelthebern!
Why do I always think.....hmmmm, another 10 day regimen of antibiotics.
The really funny part. And I mean Ha Ha funny. Is that all of the usual suspects are going to vote for either Hillary or Sanders. (or both. because. democrats!) And they'll do it with all seriousness. The repubs might a bunch of infighting dweebs, but the dems are a comic opera. Bernie Sanders. Really?
"It will not surprise me if nobody here knows."
California built a fence from the ocean to Arizona and it stopped border crossers and moved them all to Arizona.
Even NPR says that it worked.
Those advocating expanded fencing already have a model they can look to: a fence the federal government built more than a decade ago along a 14-mile-stretch in San Diego, Calif., that borders Tijuana, Mexico.
Before the fence was built, all that separated that stretch of Mexico from California was a single strand of cable that demarcated the international border.
A Cultural Icon
To those on the U.S. side, the fences in urban areas between Mexico and the United States are a symbol of security. Very few sections are painted or adorned in any way.
To many Mexicans, though, the fence is either an insult to be covered up, or a business opportunity. In Nogales, Sonora, shopkeepers say they are offended that the United States built a wall between them and their twin city, Nogales, Ariz. In Tijuana, long stretches of the fence are covered in advertisements or posters. Another section has crosses and coffins nailed to it, in memory of those who died trying to immigrate.
And at Imperial Beach, which is split at the border by giant steel pillars sunk into the sand, a movie crew shoots what is billed as a “Spanish-language, science-fiction love story” with the fence as a backdrop... immigration politics as entertainment.
Back then, Border Patrol agent Jim Henry says he was overwhelmed by the stream of immigrants who crossed into the United States illegally just in that sector.
"It was an area that was out of control," Henry says. "There were over 100,000 aliens crossing through this area a year."
Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double — and in some places, triple — fencing.
Of course, the fence was built before Obama and the 2006 Democrat takeover of Congress.
Thanks Michael and Gahrie.
"Of course, the fence was built before Obama and the 2006 Democrat takeover of Congress."
Thanks for the info--followup question. If there are gaps in the fence that people are getting through, and the only reason it has not been filled in is the president has not wanted to, then there's a simple solution--Congress can appropriate money towards it and the president cannot refuse to spend appropriated money. Why has the GOP not done so? And if the reason is because "Democrats will oppose it" and "other Republicans are soft on immigration" then why not the pro-fence faction draft this legislation and publicize it?
I mean, how many times have they voted to repeal the ACA or other ineffective nonsense, but here this is an issue that fires up the GOP base more than any other right now, and for Republicans (and some Democrats) to oppose it they'd have to explain why we don't want a secure border--and even pro-amnesty voters often want the borders at least secure (even if they want more legal crossings allowed). If nothing else, this should be proposed and made a big deal out of, yet I have heard of no such standalone bill.
Man Sanders was robbed. C'mon 6 out of 6 dice rolls and now they have to "recreate" 90 caucuses (cauci?).
I wonder if the Dems will turn a blind eye to this corruption? Maybe Sanders is now a member in good standing with the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Rubio could inoculate himself about the amnesty issue by coming out for a fence first. Will he do so ?
His judgement is the question as he has signed on to an awful bill by McCaskill and Gillibrand that further adds to the "Campus Rape" hysteria and removes safeguards for accused male students.
CASA would require all schools to appoint confidential advisors to assist students claiming to be victims of sexual assault. These advisors would be trained to conduct forensic interviews with students for the purpose of gathering facts on the alleged crimes.
Takes the matter away from the police. No due process standards.
The bill has been criticized for failing to protect the due process rights of accused students and giving schools the incentive to expel accused students, even in cases where there is little or no evidence to substantiate the allegation, in order to avoid the risk of being fined.[6][10] Stop Abusive and Violent Environments and the Independent Women’s Forum have opposed the bill on the grounds that it would reduce due process protections.[
Rubio needs to get away from his "friends" on the left if he is to have any credibility.
"Why has the GOP not done so?"
Good question. The Democrats stopped enforcement of a 2006 bill and now that we have a GOP Congress, why do we see nothing change ? Obama might veto any attempt to restart the fence but why do we see "Continuing Resolutions" on spending when we have had a GOP majority in both houses since 2010 ?
This is where Trump came from.
At Brando,
I can't comment on the fence but I know after 9/11, congress funded and ordered the executive to create a passport control when leaving the country (like every other civilized country). But neither Bush nor Obama built it. It takes more than authorization and funding to get the government to do its job.
I'm with Michael on Rubio. One big miss on the gang of 8 might be excusable but him signing onto the college rape hysteria (word used intentionally) signals his judgment is beyond bad.
I think the big question on this is how we agree the border is secure--everyone seems to disagree on the facts and disbelieves their opponents' figures. Though it's not just the border--almost half our illegal aliens are legally admitted to come temporarily and work, and overstay their visas. That system needs to be fixed, and some form of tracking and verification needs to be in place.
I have a quick fix: If we have so many visa people here that we lose track of them, cut then number tremendously. We allow only whom we can keep tabs on. If they're there as students, the school must keep tabs on them or forfeit ALL federal money (including loans).
And go ahead and kill off H-1B visa. If they can prove that they cannot find any American workers for several years, we'll discuss it.
I don't see much of anything being done though, no matter who is president next, simply because of the gridlock. Instead, we'll see some piecemeal bills (a few billion for more fencing, new penalties for knowingly hiring illegals) and more railing about it at the next election. Though if Hillary wins, there'd be one significant change--she has vowed to use executive orders to grant amnesties. And keep in mind by that time we'll be in our third term of Democratic presidents appointing judges (at all levels of course) so imagine a bunch of Ginsburgs and Sotomayors deciding whether Hillary has this authority. Then remember what we were all doing this election year.
How about simply starting a massive surcharge for monies sent internationally?Mexico exports poverty and they get jobs here and send money back home, helping the Mexican economy in the process. Make that not work. 50% surcharge on all of it.
And, for fuck's sake, don't take in any "refugees". That's Europe's problem. Let them act like big boys for once and deal with it.
If Kasich wins the nomination, I will vote for Hillary or Bernie. There is little difference.
"Good question. The Democrats stopped enforcement of a 2006 bill and now that we have a GOP Congress, why do we see nothing change ? Obama might veto any attempt to restart the fence but why do we see "Continuing Resolutions" on spending when we have had a GOP majority in both houses since 2010 ?"
I could understand not being able to pass it, if Obama and the Dems (and some "anti fence"--not necessarily pro-amnesty, but actually anti-fence, Republicans) oppose it. But then this would force the opponents to explain why they refuse to secure the border at a time when any terrorist or smuggler could get across.
Maybe there's more to it, but I can't see anyone outside the fringe arguing for having a completely open border. (And granted, this wouldn't completely fix the illegal immigration problem--but it would be an improvement)
Sanders needs to demand an Al Gore style recount. Six coin tosses,and all go Hillary's way. Too bad George W is too much of a gentleman to comment. Hillary being the subject of a massive FBI investigation, Richard M. Nixon's ghost must be busting a gut from laughter.
Since the democratic establishment has yet to officially call the results (as of noon central time) I'm not really sure Hilary should be declaring victory. At any rate if it does prove to be a victory for her I would say that victory this narrow is most certainly a loss.
Especially if you take into account the overwhelming landslide for Bernie that will occur in New Hampshire
The Sanders campaign is now alleging shenanigans with the votes. Say it ain't so, Joe!
Remind me - Was Harkin the Dem who lied about battling Migs over North Vietnam, when he was really a ferry pilot or a trashhauler? I can't keep up with all the Dem lies about their combat exploits.
"Rubio could inoculate himself about the amnesty issue by coming out for a fence first. Will he do so ?"
I thought he had.
@holdfast - It was Harkin.
Next time republicans want to argue with dems about voter fraud they should bring up Bernie Sanders allegations. If dems would commit voter fraud against dems surely they would do so against republicans.
Or is Bernie Sanders full of it? I'd like to hear that from a Sanders fan.
Maybe there's more to it, but I can't see anyone outside the fringe arguing for having a completely open border. (And granted, this wouldn't completely fix the illegal immigration problem--but it would be an improvement)
No, they just pull a Pelosi and say that they don't support totally open and unfettered abortion but never seem able to list a single situation where they will stop anything.
Blogger khesanh0802 said...
I find Cruz as untrustworthy as Hillary. I think (hope?)he will suffer a wipeout in NH, which may be the end of the road for him - though he may do better in the South. He is unelectable because he's an obnoxious twit and will have little or no real support from the Republican insiders or independents.
2/2/16, 8:44 AM
Noted. Can I suggest a repair shop for your moral compass?
Pyrrhic victories are Hillary's forte: she "survives" brutal attacks over her mendacity, corruption, unethical behavior, and so on, somehow thinking each time she isn't jailed somehow adds to her credit, instead of justifying even more criticism and wariness from the more sensible half of the country.
Still, I win $100 on a bet when she wins the election, despite the damage such a "victory" will do to the US.
"Remind me - Was Harkin the Dem who lied about battling Migs over North Vietnam, when he was really a ferry pilot or a trashhauler? I can't keep up with all the Dem lies about their combat exploits. "
Yep, I am an Iowan; and Tom Harkin is dear to my heart. He is the ONLY Politian that (I know) LIED to my face while having a one on one private conversation with me (I don't get around much).
In the early 1980s I was a DJ at the ISU campus radio station, and (in return for me mentioning that he was on campus) Tom and I talked together (off air) for 5 minutes about the flight characteristics of the F-4, and what dogfighting Migs was like.
This wasn't a speech, this wasn't a news report; this wasn't me reading about it...
This was Tom Harking Lying to me PERSONALLY. He will Always have my vote for Biggest scumbag on earth.
So Iowa Dems declared Hillary and her white-haired old man the winners of the Hawkeye Cauci (there were over 1600 single caucus events and "caucus" is a latin derivative so Rush is right again) despite the fact that a precinct had not yet submitted results.
Whatever it takes to protect the guilty.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/some-democratic-precinct-results-unaccounted/79682184/
"Though it's not just the border--almost half our illegal aliens are legally admitted to come temporarily and work, and overstay their visas. That system needs to be fixed, and some form of tracking and verification needs to be in place."
I think that's a misleading stat, which is usually deployed in a dishonest manner to argue in favor of doing nothing.
First, how do we know that? We don't track exits properly, so it's really just a guess.
Second, even if true or partially true. it's not as meaningful as some might think, since at those who overstay a visa tend to be a higher quality of illegal immigrant, in that they qualified to get a visa in the first place. Equally illegal, but less overall damaging.
Third, who cares? Tackle both problems at once, or start with the physically simple (albeit expensive) solution and build the damned wall.
Fourth, I think it's misleading because it doesn't include all those who crossed illegally, were caught and then were immediately released "pending a hearing" (heh!). That's a huge source of illegals too.
"This was Tom Harking Lying to me PERSONALLY."
This is not the only example of a politician lying about the military. Kerry is one and there was an Arizona governor who got run out of office for lying but I can't remember his name.
Politicians are not the only ones with Stolen Valor, but the politicians seem to have a less pathological reason. Getting elected.
Jan Brewer lied about her father. and of course Blumenthal lied his way into office.
"A win is a win" -- wrong on both counts.
First -- it wasn't a win, so much as a statistical tie.
Second -- as the only credible candidate, with lots of money and devoting a lot of resources to the state, a win is not a win. Only a big win is a win.
The question that Hillary has to answer is: What if the dogs just don't like the dog food? What if the democratic voters are fine with electing her in theory, but in practice will seek out any semi-plausible alternative or just stay home?
Until she answers that question, she's not a winner.
There is no perfect candidate, so when I hear or read someone who is supposedly conservative or libertarian saying "If X is the Republican nominee, then I'll [vote for Hillary!] [vote for Sanders] [stay home]", I sigh. We live in a fallen world. Our institutions will be imperfect and will be led by imperfect people. When the new president is inaugerated in 2017, he or she will either try to consolidate and/or expand the Obama legacy, or begin trying to dismantle it. If the consolidate/expand approach wins, we are really really really screwed. If the dismantle approach wins, there's some hope we can get out of the sinking Posiedon.
There is no perfect candidate, so when I hear or read someone who is supposedly conservative or libertarian saying "If X is the Republican nominee, then I'll [vote for Hillary!] [vote for Sanders] [stay home]", I sigh.
Why? Let the politicians worry about creating their own coalitions and loyalties. I could give a piss what anyone thinks about what supposed ideology or party I'm supposed to stay true to. That's not what this country's about. It's about the best person for the job. Ideology should come a far second to that. The last thing I need to do is make myself into a pawn for a partisan system's ideological games and partisan battles. That's THEIR problem. Not mine.
That's not what this country's about. It's about the best person for the job. Ideology should come a far second to that.
And yet you voted for Obama. Twice.
And yet you voted for Obama. Twice.
I've seen this bandied about, but I thought The Professor voted Romney in 2012. Or is that not true?
Post a Comment