SIDEBAR
»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«
Mugsy’s Electoral Predictions (2016 edition)
Nov 7th, 2016 by Admin Mugsy

Share
 

Tomorrow/Tuesday is Election Day, and I predicted last December before the primaries even began that it would come down to Hillary vs Trump and that Hillary would win. I started telling people last month that “Hillary has a 99.9% chance of winning.” Famed election wiz Nate Silver said during ABC’s ThisWeek yesterday that “all these polls predicting 90%-95% chance of victory for Clinton are assuming that all these races where the Clinton lead is within the 3 point margin of error will all fall her way.” No. Some of us are just real good at spotting trends, and so far, I’m 2 for 2 with one to go. Are the races close in some states? Yes. But is it likely they will ALL fall the same way? Because that’s what we are talking about here. In order for Trump to win, he quite literally must run the table on nearly every single toss-up state PLUS flip one large (or two small) previously blue states. That’s a long shot even my Uncle Louie wouldn’t bet on.

There are currently twelve states where the polls are still considered “too close to call”: Florida (29), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), Pennsylvania (20), New Hampshire (4), North Carolina (15), Georgia (16), Colorado (9), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), Arizona (11) and Iowa (6). (RCP includes Maine as a toss-up. Fox reports NM & ME as solidly blue, but includes VA as a toss-up.) Maine & Virginia both went Blue in 2012, and Hillary currently leads in Maine by 5.5 points. Virginia (Kaine’s home state) currently shows her up by over 4-points and having never trailed Trump since polling began a full year ago. So the number is not 14. Not 13. It’s 12… or is it?
 

Fox: 13 toss-up states.
Fox: 13 toss-up states

 

Real Clear Politics says 13+1 states are “too close to call”:
RCP's 14 toss-up states

 

Here is my own analysis of the remaining toss up states and how I predict this election to pan out:

First, let’s weed out the “sure things”. Most polls seem to agree Trump has a lock on 164 Electoral votes. Hillary’s lock is “over 200”, but that number is a range. One of them needs 270 to win. Those “toss up” states that really aren’t “toss ups” at all. People who say that are in a perpetual game of C.Y.A., unwilling to offend either side or are worried about looking partisan (and yes, I said “either” side because there are only two parties left in this race. If you are still entertaining fantasies of Johnson or Stein pulling out a surprise victory, check yourself in at the nearest mental facility. I’m serious. You’re delusional.)

Arizona: It’s close. Very close. But it’s going to land Red. Trump has led there almost consistently since August. The only time in the last 80+ years they went Blue was in Bill Clinton’s RE-election for a second term, and Hillary is not Bill. Plus Trump’s support spiked recently when the (now retracted) claim the Justice Dept was reopening the investigation into Hillary’s emails, “confirming” what most Conservatives in the Deep Red state already believed about her. And even if Comey himself were arrested & charged with trying to influence the election based on false claims, it would neither be enough to shake the distrust Republicans there already have of her, nor can it take back all those EARLY VOTES already cast during that period when Trump’s poll numbers spiked.

So color AZ red, taking Trump to 175.

New Mexico: It’s close, but Trump has NEVER led there. Color NM Blue. Plus 5 for Hillary for “over 205”.

Colorado: Tied once (briefly) but Trump has never led there. Color CO Blue. Plus 9 for Hillary for “over 214”.

Iowa: Trump took the lead there back in September and has led ever since. This would be a solid flip for Trump (and he needs two.) Color IA Red. Taking Trump to 181.

Michigan: Close, but this shouldn’t even be in question. Hillary has never trailed there and still leads by 5. Color MI Blue, giving Hillary another 16 for “over 221”.

Georgia: Other than a mild flirtation with Clinton last August, while close, has been consistently Red… not just for Trump but last went Blue in 1992 (unintentional rhyme.) Color GA red, taking The Donald to 197.

Florida: The quintessential “swing” state. Every four years, the “Sunshine State” drives us mad as we all try to guess which way a state that is literally shaped like a flaccid wind-sock will fall. There’s a reason people call Florida, “God’s waiting room” with all the elderly (mostly white) retirees filling that state, a key Republican demographic. Typically, the large anti-Castro Cuban population tends to vote Conservative, but with each passing year, that population grows ever smaller. Meanwhile, younger Cuban Americans are very supportive of President Obama’s decision to reestablish relations with Cuba such that people can now visit the country and see long-lost relatives, and lifting an embargo that clearly wasn’t working (serving only to keep the poor citizenry impoverished.) Hispanics make up over 23% of the state’s population, and Donald Trump is on the proverbial “Shit List” of most of them. Another 17% is African-American… another large anti-Trump demographic. So that’s 40% of the state’s population where Trump is as popular as a leper at a hot-tub party. 56% of the state’s population is white… not solidly Conservative, but enough to negate the anti-Trump minority vote.

So Florida comes down to a small percentage of white voters and groups listed as “other” that tend to be evenly split ideologically. Trump only outpolled Clinton briefly last September. Other than that, she has led fairly consistently and continues to do so today. So this state falls in the Blue column taking Hillary to “over 250”.

Nevada: Hillary has led there almost consistently except for the month of September when Trump led by two. A last second spike has Trump up over Hillary again, but only by 2%… not enough to make up for her huge lead during Early Voting there. So I think we can color this one Blue for Hillary, taking her to “over 259”.

And as I said earlier, Maine is not truly in question. Plus 3 for Hillary for “over 262”.

So that leaves just FOUR states that could easily go either way.

Pennsylvania has 20 electoral votes. The race may be painfully close there, but Trump has NEVER led the state and hasn’t been close to even tying Clinton since June. The reason PA is close is because the two largest cities… Pittsburgh on one end of the state and Philadelphia on the other… are deep blue, with Oklahoma everywhere in between. This gives Republicans false hope every election of turning the state red, but this won’t be that year. If Hillary takes PA, that’s 270+. Pennsylvania is game over for Trump if he loses there. So if you’re looking for one state to watch election night, PA is it. I knew the 2008 race was over the moment John McCain lost PA, but it took the pundits hoping against hope for hours that he would miraculously flip states he had no chance of winning all night long. His chances of winning were over very early that night but no one dared admit it.

If PA goes red, that takes Trump to 217.

New Hampshire: Not sure what’s going on here. Solidly blue up until last Wednesday. The biggest question is how many votes did Hillary bank during Early Voting there and who turns out on Election Day? If it comes down to “Ground Game”. Trump has none. The Clinton campaign is a well oiled machine with sophisticated GOTV efforts. The race there is close enough that I expect a Clinton comeback to take those 4 Electoral Votes, taking her to “over 266” (not including PA.)

If Hillary loses NH, Trump goes to 221.

Ohio: The Buckeye State has been flip-flopping like a fish on dry dock since mid-September. Ohio is over 75% white. 37% are college educated whites whom tend to vote Blue. 33% are non-college whites that tend to vote Red (draw your own conclusions from that). Ohio went Blue in 2008 & 2012, and while Kerry “lost” Ohio is 2004, it took a LOT of GOP election shenanigans (fewer voting machines & long lines in the rain in poor Blue districts, and plenty of voting machines & shorter lines [if any] in wealthier red districts) for Kerry to end up “losing” Ohio by (IIRC) only around 12,000 votes. So Ohio has tended to fall Blue the past 20 years. Their 18 Electoral Votes would take Hillary to “over 280” and the presidency.

But if Trump takes Ohio too, that’s 239.

North Carolina: All over the place for the past two months. Hillary spiked and Trump plunged when Trump was caught on tape joking about committing sexual assault and flailing wildly at his accusers, but the candidates switched places quickly when Comey revealed the FBI might be reopening the investigation into Hillary’s emails. The race there is that close. Only question is: How many Early Votes was Hillary able to bank before the polls switched back? If Hillary takes NC, that’s 277 and the presidency

If Trump takes NC too, he gets to 255.

If any ONE of those four states falls for Hillary (sans New Hampshire), the election is over (and nearly over with NH.)

If ALL FOUR of these truly “Swing” states fall Trump’s way… a longshot at best… plus me being right on all the close states he’s likely to win (3), he’s STILL 15 EV’s short. So what state or states did I give Hillary that Trump must steal away? (keep in mind, we only need to flip 7.5 Electoral Votes, not all 15.)

Colorado, Michigan and Florida by themselves would be enough to put Trump over the top if they defy trends and end up going Red.

Stealing away any combination of NM, NV, IA, and NH would also give Trump the win (if he sweeps those four “too close to call” states plus takes the three I said he’s likely to win.)

Easy prediction: Johnson, Stein & McMullin won’t win a single state. Of the three, McMullin has the best shot of stealing away a state (Utah), but Trump leads by ten there, so that’s not going to happen. Johnson & Stein can only hope to break the “5% threshold” for their Parties. Johnson might get that far. Stein won’t.

People who want Trump to be president “because of his record as a successful businessman” need look no further than how badly he has run his presidential campaign to know he would have been a total failure as a president (and yes, I’m already talking in the past tense. That’s how sure I am of his impending loss.) His biggest test was running his campaign. Huge failure. No ground game. Few offices. Few (No?) surrogates outside his own family hosting a rally without Pence or Trump himself in attendance (while Hillary has Bernie, Warren and both Obama’s hosting rallies without her in addition to her daughter and husband.)

To semi-quote Right-Wing Congressman Peter King in 2004: “It’s all over but the counting” (although he added sinisterly: “And we’ll take care of the counting.”)

There will be no unity on Wednesday (Hell, I doubt Trump will even make the obligatory call to congratulate Hillary Tuesday night, opting instead to claim the race was somehow stolen and issue a call to challenge the results for weeks that will go largely ignored.) Fighting will begin in earnest on Wednesday and the bickering will resume. If you were eager for this race to be over and the fighting to cease with the election results, you’re in for four very long, painful years.

Will either candidate break 50%? I have my doubts. Remember what I said last week: A few years ago, Newt Gingrich admitted that much of the animosity towards Bill Clinton was because he won the presidency with less than 50% of the vote, bringing into question (in their minds) his legitimacy as president (of course, if Poppy Bush had won with the same percentage and by the same margin, it would have been heralded as a great victory and even a mandate.) So if Hillary also wins with less than 50%… look out.

It’ll be the “Three I’s” for the next four years: Investigation, Indictment, Impeachment no matter WHO wins. If you were anxious for this all to be over by Tuesday night, think again.

My final prediction: 319 Hilary, 219 Trump. And watch Pennsylvania. If it falls for Hillary early, Trump’s only path to victory is to win every other swing state in the East including Florida, plus both New Mexico and Nevada, or Colorado. Nine or 10 of the remaining 12 swing states? As my Uncle Louie would say: Fughedabowdit.
 


Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Increasingly Unhinged, Trump Preps Supporters for Epic Loss with Talk of Election Rigging
Oct 17th, 2016 by Admin Mugsy

Share
 

In these final three weeks before Election Day, any other candidate would be talking about their inevitable glorious victory and their first days in office. Donald Trump on the other hand is telling supporters at every campaign stop that “the election is rigged”, accusing “The Media” of colluding with the Clinton campaign to help her win. He is NOT however commenting on reports of possible Russian hacking possibly intended to help HIM (other than to DEFEND Russia during the second presidential debate.) Trump actually suggested there is no proof “Russia” specifically was behind the reported DNC hacks, even questioning if there EVEN WERE any hacks despite being told about them during his National Security briefing.

“Everyone is against me/us!” The cry of the wounded rednecked Conservaloper. Never mind the fact Clinton has always lead him in nearly every poll since the race began. Only in a select few polls has Trump ever led this race… however briefly… back when that same “Media” was hammering Clinton over emails. And even then, by no more than 2 points. (Note: Do not get the idea I support Clinton or even defend her with these observations. Believe it or not, it is possible to criticize Trump without supporting Hillary. – Mugsy)

As a matter of simple campaign strategy, telling your supporters over & over again that “the system is rigged” is incredibly dumb in the final days of an election (even WHILE Early Voting is taking place in some states). You only create a sense of futility that results in many of your supporters staying home on election day. Why bother voting when the election is rigged?

Moron. Childish reactionary moron.

Like any good Teabagger, Trump has always been a fan of conspiracy theories. From his own suggestions that President Obama was born in Kenya (and all the “Secret Muslim” talk that goes with it) to “Global Warming is a myth hatched by the Chinese”, it comes as no surprise that he would see a conspiracy behind why he has been the subject of so much criticism by “The Media” in these final weeks of his campaign. “Foolish consistencies are the hobgoblins of small minds!” – Poet Ralph Waldo Emerson

Trump is also fear-mongering concerns of actual Election Fraud, actively recruiting “poll watchers” on his website. This would only discourage “in-person voter fraud”… the same nonexistent form of Voter Fraud that “Voter ID” laws were supposed to prevent. But with Courts rolling back these highly questionable, clearly discriminatory “voter disenfranchisement” laws, the Trump campaign believes this is the Obama White House actively moving to aide massive election fraud. Now keep in mind that even Millions of illegitimate votes cast against him in a single state wouldn’t likely change the outcome thanks to there being an “Electoral College”. It would take enough fraudulent voters across a dozen states to swing each of those state’s elections to change the outcome. Tens of millions. There have been barely 30 cases of in-person voter fraud nationwide since 2000 (two I can name off the top of my head: Mitt Romney claiming to live in his sons’ basement so he could vote in Massachusetts, and Ann Coulter using her secretary’s address on her voter registration to avoid giving out her home address.)

Republicans think in-person voter fraud is real and has been taking place on a massive scale for years. And their proof of this? “We keep losing.” (despite the fact they have controlled BOTH houses of Congress for eighteen of the last twenty-four years, while complaining about what a “mess” the country is in.) What other explanation can there be? But what if you WIN? Might this not place a cloud over your OWN victory? At the very least, it proves you were whining about nothing. At worst, it raises the specter that “election fraud” helped YOU win. Should someone THAT stupid be elected president?

It has gotten so bad, even the GOP is telling Trump to knock it off with all the attacks on his fellow Republicans and foreboding of a stolen election. Just as I note, it threatens to “undermine” their own victories and suppress voter turnout.

I even saw an interview with a Trump campaign spokes-person on Fox over the weekend that cited reports (going viral on the Internet) of some counties in 2012 where Romney did not receive one single vote… “clear evidence of a stolen election” (despite the districts in question being almost entire poor & black.) The Fox anchor had to point out they found nearly as many examples of majority-white precincts where Obama did not receive a single vote, asking, “Is this evidence of election fraud too?” If you’re looking for intellectual honesty this election season, look elsewhere.

Speaking of “disconnected from reality”, one of Trump’s biggest supporters/defenders… Rudy “Honey, can my mistress live with us” Giuliani… claimed on CNN’s “State of the Union” yesterday that “Dead people tend to vote for Democrats”. Giuliani… like Trump… is fear-mongering an expectation of a stolen election… basically conceding Trump’s inevitable loss with a preemptive excuse for why it will happen, again, without regard for how his own words might suppress the voter turnout they so desperately need.

In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Giuliani said he “remembers an election in Chicago in which 720 supposedly dead people voted” (I could find nothing about “720 dead voters casting ballots in Chicago” in a Google search other than Giuliani himself making the charge. He appears to be alluding to this Chicago Tribune article that claims “30” dead Chicagoans reportedly voted in 1983 (bear in mind the Tribune hasn’t endorsed a Democrat in over 20 years, choosing to endorse Gary Johnson this year.) Not exactly “massive voter fraud”… taking place over thirty years ago, and not large enough to swing a national election in which one candidate leads by approximately 4 percentage points nationwide (Hillary now leads Trump by 15-points in Kaine’s home state of Virginia.)

Over the weekend, Giuliani also claimed that “no one disputes the 1960 Presidential election (56 years ago) was stolen” from Richard Nixon. Actually, many DO dispute that. But regardless, when you have to go back more than a half century to find an example of a “stolen” election… and even then, one that was so close that only a few hundred votes in a single state made the difference… you’re only citing the exception that proves the rule. “Election Theft” and “in-person Voter Fraud” is rare to the point of being nonexistent.

And while Giuliani cites small-scale election fraud on the “precinct level”, another Trump surrogate Newt “as many mistresses as Trump” Gingrich tells ABC’s “This Week” that “small-scale election fraud on the precinct level” is NOT the kind of election fraud Trump is talking about.

Get your stories straight, guys. The Trump campaign is rapidly dissolving into a parody of itself.

So the next time some Trump supporter tries to tell you how “brilliant” he is, simply point out (after his bankruptcies and string of business failures) the stupidity of discouraging his own supporters with talk of a “rigged” system only days before the election.

(Prediction: Trump’s running mate Mike Pence said on “Meet the Press” yesterday that he shared Trump’s concern of massive nationwide election fraud… and yet said that the Trump campaign would abide by the election night results. Seriously? Does ANYONE seriously envision an election night concession phone call from Trump to Hillary congratulating her on her victory? Of course not. He will whine like the 14 year old child we all now know him to be, declare the election “stolen” and Hillary’s presidency “illegitimate”.)
 


Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Someone at the DNC needs to go to jail. If the Clinton campaign wants Sanders voters, they must.
Aug 1st, 2016 by Admin Mugsy

Share
 

There has been a lot of discussion lately over just WHO hacked into the DNC’s email server to expose the fact that the DNC subverted democracy, actively aiding the Clinton campaign and deliberately sabotaging the Sanders campaign to ensure Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee (despite polling worse against all the GOP candidates), but NO discussion whatsoever about the revelations themselves and what (if anything) should be done about it.

When news of these hacked emails broke last June, I agonized over “How does one support Hillary without rewarding the DNC for subverting democracy?” I’m even more ambivalent today about the idea. In one of my first Op/Ed’s this primary season (last February), I stated how if Clinton were to win the nomination, I would vote for her despite the fact I know her to be a closet-Conservative, a hawk, and an opportunist whose positions on the issues shift like the desert sands because the alternative… no matter whom it was going to be… would be far worse.

But now, I’m not entirely certain I can keep that promise as a result of these revelations regarding the DNC. My ambivalence having more to do with ensuring the DNC is held to account for undermining the election of the next president of the United States than any dislike/mistrust I have for Hillary Clinton. Electing a political wind-sock would not be the worst thing so long as that wind-sock tends to drift Left when pushed. But “rewarding” the DNC by actively supporting their hand-picked candidate only encourages them to do so again in the future. Someone needs to be held CRIMINALLY responsible. The simple resignation of DNC Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz is not enough. A self-inflicted slap on the wrist is meaningless. Nothing so toxic that the Clinton campaign wasn’t willing to appoint her “honorary chair of [the Clinton] campaign’s 50-state program”. Schultz’s career in Washington is anything but over.

No, someone needs to GO TO JAIL over what happened if we are to ensure this never happens again. If I’m to cast my vote for Hillary next November rather than vote 3rd Party or leave that space blank on my ballot, someone in the Clinton campaign needs to step up and say, “That’s not right what they did! People need to know they can trust our elections and that their own Party does not actively sabotage the candidacy of fellow Democrats to promote one candidate over another!”

But instead, the Clinton Campaign is leading the charge in misdirecting the media to focus on the leakers rather than the revelations themselves. Their charge is that “this is Russia attempting to aide Donald Trump.” We actually have little-to-no evidence that that is the case. What if the “leaker” turned out to be Edward Snowden? Plenty of Democrats love Snowden. He IS after-all living in Russia. But you never hear anyone from the Clinton camp blaming Snowden for the leaks. Why? You know why as well as I do. Because it would make things very difficult for both the Clinton campaign AND supporters of Edward Snowden now supporting Hillary.

The silence and misdirection surrounding this story feels every bit as orchestrated as the primaries themselves. Meet the Press yesterday conducted an interview with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who mentions how skillfully the Clinton campaign has changed the subject from “how the DNC subverted the Sanders campaign” (“pushing fake stories that Sanders supporters were violent, etc.”) to instead get everyone to focus on the leakers themselves instead. MtP host Chuck Todd spends the entire 10 minute interview trying to get Assange to reveal the identity of the leaker while Assange keeps trying to bring the focus back to the revelations themselves… that “the DNC actively sabotaged the Sanders campaign and disenfranchised millions of Sanders voters” by undermining his campaign and nullifying their vote:
 


 

Not once during the interview did Todd discuss the revelations inside those leaked emails. Instead, he begins the interview with the false claim Assange was being being detained pending being tried for “child rape” (he has long been cleared) and ends the interview with the false charge that a Wikileaks revelation was responsible for the failed deadly Turkish coup last month… both obvious attempts to impugn the integrity or Assange and the value of Wikileaks itself.

Lately, I’ve been seeing these memes from Hillary supporters trying to “pre-blame” a potential “Trump victory” on Sanders voters who are threatening to vote for Trump. Total nonsense. The number of Bernie supporters that will vote for Trump would probably fill a phone booth with room left over to hold another convention. If Hillary loses to Trump, it won’t be because Sanders voters gave him the win. It will be because the DNC hand-picked the weakest candidate in the race to go up against him despite the fact she never polled beyond the single digits against ANY GOP candidate since the race began in mid-2015.

Some have tried to argue that the DNC was only promoting Hillary over Sanders because “Hillary was a Democrat and Sanders was not”. Even if that were true (it’s not. Sanders changed his Party affiliation before running), Maryland governor Martin O’Malley was ALSO in the race, so now, justify the DNC taking sides to push Clinton over O’Malley before a single vote had been cast. If anyone has a case against the DNC, it would be Governor O’Malley (whom has said nothing other than his lack of surprise that Russia may have been the ones who hacked the DNC.)

Hillary supporters don’t GET (and likely don’t care) that the DNC *undermined our Democracy* by actively promoting one candidate over another, while simultaneously actively *suppressing* the others. If they were REAL Democrats, that should raise serious concerns in them. But it doesn’t so long as their candidate is the one who benefited. But just imagine if Hillary had decided NOT to run again and Donald Trump… who once said he would be more likely to run as a Democrat, had in fact done so, and the DNC decided to ensure “The Donald” was the Democratic nominee? It could have happened. How would all these blase’ Hillary supporters feel about DNC malfeasance THEN? The neo-Democratic Party of today has become indistinguishable from the GOP of 40 years ago, where manipulating elections was once the exclusive purview of Republicans. But now, as long as it is THEIR candidate benefiting from this anti-Democratic misbehavior, they are just fine with it.

They undermined the Sanders campaign. They made sure Sanders would lose and then get Hillary to adopt his most popular positions in an attempt to assuage his supporters into supporting her. Am I supposed to just accept that because the alternative is worse?

I’m also repeatedly annoyed by the (false) claim that this Democratic platform is “the most Progressive platform in history” to try and mollify me. FDR had a FAR more progressive platform than what Hillary is proposing this election. Arguably, even Nixon’s platform of ending the war in Vietnam, creating the EPA and promising a National Health Insurance program was every bit as Progressive.

But far worse is the nonsense claim Hillary is the “most experienced candidate in history!” Even President Obama said it in his Convention speech last Wednesday, and we KNOW he knows better. Hillary was a Senator for 8 years and Secretary of State for 4. Thomas Jefferson… who wrote the Declaration of Independence, served as Governor of Virginia, was appointed both Vice President AND our first Ambassador to France… was FAR more experienced than Hillary… as was every other Founding Father who went on to become president. Every former governor or senator that went on to become VP and then president had more “experience” than Hillary Clinton does now. Hell, even Al Gore… who was also a Senator for 8 years, then VP for 8 years, and in the House of Representatives for 5 years before that had more “experience” than Hillary. She’s not even “the most experienced candidate of the last TWELVE years” let alone “in history.”

But I digress.

The DNC hand-picked the most vulnerable Democratic candidate, and now tries to guilt Sanders voters into supporting Hillary with the threat of a Trump victory. The only option left available to us is to make good on that threat.

It was only the threat of a “contested convention” that got the DNC to incorporate much of the Sanders platform into the official Party platform. And it is only the need of Sanders voters to vote for Hillary in November that will ensure she doesn’t lose in a razor-thin election defeat to Donald Trump. If they believe this race is going to be close, they are going to need the support of every Sanders voter. And right now, they think they have enough of us “locked up” that they don’t have to court our votes anymore. In a PBS interview from the floor of the DNC Convention, Senator Barbara Boxer said, “We have about 95% of Sanders voters, so I think we’ll be okay.” Translation: “We don’t need to worry about that last five percent. We’ll win without them.”

It’s a giant game of chicken, and the DNC is betting that Sanders voters will blink first. But Sanders voters have more leverage. We know a Democratic Congress will block every insane thing Trump might try to do (and block his SCotUS picks). The Generals have publicly stated they would “refuse” any unconstitutional order (such as ordering them to resume using “torture”.) And a Trump victory makes winning the all-important 2020 election ever more likely (“2020” will be a HUGE deal because it’s a Census year when redistricting takes place. And the Party in charge of Congress draws those maps. Before Obama, this country had never had more than two presidents serve two 8-year terms back to back. Now we’ve had three (Clinton-I, Bush-II, Obama). The likelihood of Hillary being re-elected to a second term to be the fourth straight two-term president are incredibly unlikely, making 2020 likely to be a big Republican year. So there is a small argument to be made that a Trump victory now might actually help Democrats in 2020 (and beyond.) That gives us leverage.

So, to the Clinton Campaign I say: The ball is in your court. Do you hold the DNC accountable (calling for a criminal prosecution?), or do we hold you accountable for doing nothing?

It’s hard not to think of Pastor Niemöller’s famed “first they came for the…” poem. Hillary supporters be warned. Ignore the DNC’s crimes now, and you have no recourse next time when the candidate they undermine is yours.
 

Silverman-ridiculous

 


Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
If Hillary Wants My Vote, here is what she must do.
Jun 27th, 2016 by Admin Mugsy

Share
 

How many times have Hillary supporters (and Hillary herself) tried to guilt Bernie supporters into voting for her simply to “Stop Trump”? Following up on last weeks’ unanswered question of how Bernie supporters could possibly be expected to vote for Hillary without rewarding the questionable tactics of the DNC to suppress support for Senator Sanders… be it either by denying him debates so the he remained a relative unknown for as long as possible, or outright voter disenfranchisement (as seen in NY, AZ & PR to name only a few examples)… this week we take a look at just what Hillary herself can & must do to avoid being materially harmed for things the DNC did on her behalf.

At least once or twice a week now it seems, a Hillary supporter will tell me to “face reality”, that if I don’t vote for Clinton, I’m only “helping Trump win.” Sorry. Call me crazy, but I need a better reason than “not as bad as the other guy” to vote someone President of the United States. Why should I vote for someone whom they themselves can’t give me a good reason to vote FOR them better than “the other guy is worse”? Or that I would be “obstructing history” by not electing the “first woman president” (yet they didn’t “obstruct history” by not nominating the first Jewish candidate? But I digress.) Presently, my fall-back candidate is Jill Stein of the Green Party, so I’ve got the “first woman” thing covered.

So here is my brief (and undoubtedly incomplete) list of things Hillary Clinton should consider doing if she intends to draw any significant proportion of the 13 Million Sanders voters (whom she can’t defeat Trump without) over to her side:

  • Call for the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as head of the DNC. This is more of a symbolic gesture than anything else, but it would register the disapproval of Sanders voters with how the DNC conducted themselves and show that there are consequences for that misbehavior. A lack of ANY consequences demonstrates tacit approval of the DNC’s highly questionable (bordering on downright illegal) handling of the 2016 Primaries, giving them the green light to do the same in future elections. It will also demonstrate to Sanders voters that you acknowledge the nomination process was handled poorly, “unnecessarily” casting a cloud over your “victory”.
  •  

  • You claim to “support a $15 Minimum Wage, just not nationally by fiat. Only $12 Nationally” while supporting higher rates on “a state-by-state basis.” But the country MUST raise the minimum wage to $15 eventually, and as long as a person working full-time for “minimum wage” still qualifies for public assistance (food stamps, housing, child services, etc), all you are doing is subsidizing corporate-America by shifting the burden from businesses to the taxpayer. So, please tell us how quickly do you see us getting to a $15 national “Minimum Wage”?
  •  

  • What is your plan to invest in infrastructure? This country is still trying to squeeze out the last drops of value from our last investment in infrastructure during The Great Depression. Millions of Americans are driving across Depression-Era built bridges, children being educated in Depression-Era built schools, trains running on tracks that date back to the 19th century transporting people & deadly cargo (oil trains) at speeds that also date back to the 19th century, and trying to power a 21st century society using an electrical grid that dates back to the early 20th century.
  •  

  • What about promoting GREEN technology as both “business opportunity” and to fight “Climate Change”? Do you have a strategy?
  •  

  • Speaking of which, what IS your plan to fight Climate Change? Senator Sander made the point that Climate Change is a greater threat to humanity than gnat-like terrorist organizations like “ISIS”. Do you share his urgency?
  •  

  • You say you want to see the “Citizens United” Supreme Court decision overturned, noting in fact that it was a judgement AGAINST YOU personally and you therefore are motivated to see it overturned. Yet you took full advantage of the “SuperPAC” provisions and virtually unlimited cash flowing from Corporate America into our political campaigns made possible by “Citizens United”. You chose not to eschew SuperPAC money in THIS election, will you fight to overturn “Citizens United” before you have a chance to take advantage of it again in 2020?
  •  

  • RELEASE THE (BLEEPING) TRANSCRIPTS of (all 42) paid speeches given after resigning as Secretary of State. You claim there is nothing embarrassing or potentially harmful to your campaign in them, yet you keep finding new excuses not to release them. First it was, “I will when everyone else does” (when there was no evidence anyone else had), then it was “in exchange for Trump’s tax returns.” Trump not releasing his returns is TRUMP’S problem. Refusing to release your Transcripts only HELPS him by allowing him to point to YOUR OWN avoidance of transparency.
  •  

  • You say you are for “Universal Health Care”… just not “Universal SINGLE-PAYER Health Care”, going so far as to say it “will never ever happen.” You may be unaware that we ALREADY have a “Universal SINGLE-PAYER Health Care” system. It’s called “Medicare”, providing basic full coverage to Seniors and beloved by even 80% of Republicans. WHY NOT propose “Medicare for All?” How often have we all watched late night infomercials for “St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital” where tearful families call it a “miracle” to simply receive the same free medical care other industrialized nations take for granted? It’s pathetic.
  •  

  • You only propose making higher education “affordable”, while Senator Sanders campaigned on making “public colleges & universities free (again.)” Why are you against free public college? Presently, we have a system where tens of thousands of young people find their only way to afford college is to risk their lives by enlisting in the military to earn the money… once not a huge deal, but in this new age of Endless War, it is yet one more of this nation’s great shames that the poor must risk life & limb just to afford college while the wealthy do not.
  •  

  • Call to put an end to disgraceful private for-profit prisons. Your campaign cut ties with the private prison industry late last year, even criticizing the practice, yet you have not said you would do anything to abolish the industry (unlike Sanders, who introduced a bill to ban the Federal Government from using them [ibid]). The United States actually has MORE people in prison than China (which has quadruple our population plus political prisoners.) We spend more on prisons than we do on Education (yes, there’s a connection), and the corporations that run these prisons spend millions lobbying Congress for more & stricter laws to fill their prisons and their coffers. Even a majority of Republicans agree matters of “security” should not be privatized. It’s time for the industry to go.
  •  

  • You stated that you oppose “reinstating Glass-Steagall” (repealed by your husband) but instead call for a “21st century Glass-Steagall” (unlike Sanders who wants the old law reinstated.) Why? What “deficiencies” are you aware of in the old law that need updating? What changes do you believe are needed? And if Democrats don’t regain control of Congress, do you trust Republicans to help write that new regulation of all things financial without filling it full of loopholes & goodies for their friends in the financial industry? Assure us you’re not looking to do the same for YOUR friends in the financial industry.
  •  

  • You are squishy on the subject of “Free-Trade”… particularly the TPP. You tell critics you “oppose the TPP”, but in an interview last May, you added the caveat “in its current form”. What assurances can you give Sanders voters that you will oppose all destructive free-trade agreements? When Americans must compete with lower-wage workers in other countries with lower standards of living, there is no way we can compete, and the American worker ALWAYS loses.

In any other election year, a candidate such as yourself with an “Honest & Trustworthy” rating below that of Used Car Salesman wouldn’t have a prayer of winning the presidency if it were not for your “good fortune” (cough) to be running against an opponent “less popular than head lice”…
 

Hillary: Only 33% say she's trustworthy
 
Trump less popular than lice

 
I’ve noted previously on here that despite being an ardent Bernie supporter, I’m not “Bernie or Bust”. I don’t like giving myself ultimatums, boxing myself into a position I may be uncomfortable with later. I also happen to live in a state (Texas) with no “write-in vote” capability… not that I’d utilize it if we did because write-ins have a success rate just South of snowballs in Hell. I’m also a realist. I accept that it would likely take an Earth-shattering revelation to convince enough Super Delegates to back Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton this late in the game. A few examples of what those revelations might be come to mind:

  • Someone (“Anonymous”, “WikiLeaks”, Snowden) leaks damaging video from one of Hillary’s infamous “Wall Street speeches” (that she continues to refuse to release the transcripts of despite insisting there’s nothing damaging in them.)
  •  

  • It is revealed that she solicited donations to “The Clinton Foundation” WHILE Secretary of State, and evidence of that (criminal) act was among those 30,000 “personal, non-work related” emails she deleted.
  •  

  • A major health issue incapacitates her.

Madam Secretary, so far, I have yet to see you reach out to Sanders supporters in any way beyond simply fear-mongering over the need to “defeat Trump”. You have addressed NONE of our concerns and continue to couch your entire campaign in secrecy as you embolden the DNC to drift ever further to the Right as it fills the void left behind as Trump & his psychotics drag the GOP to the far FAR Right. I’m not on the Right. I’m not in the Middle either. And I’m not interested in voting for either. To date, you have yet to provide me with a compelling reason for me to give you my vote. There are 13 Million of us (yes, “13 Million”), and despite what so many of your foolish enthusiastic supporters believe, you won’t be able to defeat Trump without us. It’s time you started taking that seriously. Give us a reason other than “stopping Trump” to trust you with the presidency. As noted in the intro, we’ve already got the “first woman president” thing covered should we decide to vote for Jill Stein. Millions more may simply stay home on Election Day, unmoved by threats of what a Trump presidency might mean if the alternative is voting for someone they neither trust nor whose policies they support. Stop giving us reasons to NOT vote for “the other guy” and tell us why we should vote FOR you.

Because right now is your last chance.
 


Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
How Does One Support Hillary without rewarding DNC misbehavior?
Jun 20th, 2016 by Admin Mugsy

Share
 


It’s a question I’ve been asking myself for a while now: After everything the Democratic National Committee did to rig the primary in favor of Hillary Clinton, how do I, as a Bernie supporter, “reward” the DNC by voting for their hand-picked candidate? And will it even be necessary? Back in February, I wrote a long Op/Ed entitled “I’ll Support Hillary [if she becomes the nominee], but…”. Now I find myself wondering about the consequences of doing so.

There’s a not-so-old saying: “When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you’re still voting for ‘evil'”… not that I think Hillary is “evil” (though many might disagree). It’s like in the movies when the bad guy says, “You can arrest me or stop the bomb, but you can do both”, so the intrepid cop must let the mad bomber go KNOWING they’re going to do it again. And I just KNOW that if I reward the DNC by voting for the candidate they hand-picked, they’re going to do it again having learned they can thwart Democracy as well as any Republican without consequence.

You may be asking: What exactly did the DNC do that was so bad?

Well, starting from the beginning, scheduling only four debates last year between the Democratic nominees was bad enough when the front-runner is a household name (former First Lady for eight years, Senator from New York, ran for president in the 2008 election in a dead heat that stretched into June, then Secretary of State for four years, vs a relative unknown like Sanders (and O’Malley who was never even close), but ensuring those competitors STAYED unknown by scheduling those debates on Friday & Saturday nights… one even opposite an NFL Playoff game. The DNC even publicly criticized Sanders mid-campaign, taking Clinton’s side after she refused to say Sanders was “qualified” to be president, leading Sanders to react to an inaccurate newspaper headline by questioning Hillary’s own qualification to be president by questioning her judgement (not unheard of between competing candidates). When has the DNC ever taken sides in a debate between two Democratic candidates?

Then, during the Primaries themselves, we saw rampant voter disenfranchisement… not just by barring “Independents” from voting in Democratic primaries (which normally isn’t a bad idea except in this case where one of the candidates was a life-long Independent), but setting absurd deadlines for voters to change their Party affiliation from “Independent” to “Democrat” just so they could vote in this primary (In New York, the deadline to change your Party was ELEVEN MONTHS before the primary… long before many voters even knew of Bernie’s existence and whether they may want to vote for him.) In many states, we saw ballots without Sanders name on them (“Democrats only” even though he changed his Party to run), people being denied the right to vote in several states (126,000 in Bernie’s birthplace of Brooklyn), and the mass closure of polling places (over 1,100 in Puerto Rico where Sanders was FAR more popular than Clinton because he opposed the Wall Street controlled “bailout” of the Province while Hillary supported it… until she found out it was unpopular, then came out against it.)

But going back even before all that, someone posted the following disturbing graphic:
 
DNC backed Clinton AFTER Sanders declared
 

Apparently, even AFTER Senator Sanders announced his candidacy, nearly a month later, the DNC sent out a memo stating their “goal” was to help “HRC” (Hillary Rodham Clinton)… not “the eventual Democratic nominee”… defeat the eventual GOP nominee. Keep in mind that at the time, there were FIVE Democratic candidates (Clinton, Sanders, O’Malley, Webb & Chafee), but the DNC was ALREADY in the tank for Hillary. And why not? The head of the DNC… Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz… was a former spokesperson for the Clinton campaign in 2008.

So the fix was in from the beginning. Hillary was going to be the Democratic Party’s nominee come hell or high-water. It bugs the hell out of me when I hear people say, “Hillary won fair & square“. No she didn’t. On what planet is ANY of the things I mentioned above considered “winning fair & square“? I have no doubt the DNC was surprised as hell that a relative unknown like Sanders could pose such a formidable challenge to Hillary. We’ve all seen the photos of enormous crowds showing up to Sanders rallies: 20,000, 30,000, perhaps even 100,000 people flocking to support the Senator. I have challenged Hillary supporters for over a month now to produce a single verifiable photo of a Clinton rally that approaches the massive crowds that came out in support of Bernie (even offering a free BluRay player) to justify the idea that support & enthusiasm for her is just as great as it is for Bernie, thus explaining away her easy wins & delegate lead that has all but assured her of the nomination.

Nothing. Nada. Zip.

Searching on my own, the largest crowd of a Clinton rally that I could find was 5,000 people crammed onto tiny Roosevelt Island, NY. Nothing else even approached the numerous overflow crowds flocking to Sanders. Former Liberal Champion turned lobbyist & Clinton supporter Howard Dean tried to “explain away” Bernie’s huge crowds citing his own massive popularity from the 2004 race: “After a while, you start to see the same faces in the crowd over & over again.” The problem with that explanation is (among other things), it doesn’t explain why Clinton’s crowds were so much smaller. If she doesn’t have “enthusiastic fans following her from state to state” like Bernie supposedly does, wouldn’t that ALSO point to an enthusiasm gap? Somehow, I don’t think the same 20,000 fans are following Sanders from Kentucky to Michigan to California. Is Dean saying the polls that showed his own huge popularity prior to his implosion were all wrong and he was never really that popular to begin with? I’m sure that’s what he told himself every night for years afterwards rather than blame his failure on himself.

So now, we, as Bernie supporters, may be forced to chose between the candidate the DNC rigged the election for to ensure was our nominee, voting for a third-Party candidate and gamble that doing so doesn’t allow Donald Trump to win in an unnecessarily close contest that Clinton could potentially lose without Sanders voters, or (most distasteful of all), actually voting for Donald Trump for any number of reasons, not the least of which: payback for the DNC rigging the election against our preferred candidate. (Note: 2020 will be a MUCH bigger election than 2016 since it will be a census year… which means the Party in control of Congress will redraw the district maps for the whole damn country. The chances of a FOURTH 2-term presidency in a row is extremely slim. Before Obama, we had never had more than two in a row. The thought of giving the GOP time to get its act together to put forth a better candidate to defeat an unpopular Clinton presidency in 2020 is worrisome. Maybe letting an extremely unpopular GOP candidate win now so they are strapped with rallying behind him again in 2020 might not be the worst idea in the world. The fly in the ointment? It doesn’t take a Republican very long to create global chaos & economic disaster. George W. Bush had only been president eight months when his incompetence led to 9/11. Followed 18 months later by the invasion of Iraq (the consequences of which we are still dealing with today.) So there’s THAT.

The list of reasons why Bernie supporters just can’t see themselves voting for Hillary is long. It has become painfully clear that the rules just don’t apply to the Clinton’s. My qualms with Bill were mostly on a personal level (his minor infractions were rarely connected to him seeking political power), but Hillary is FAR different. Every “controversy” surrounding her leads to “ambition” & political power.

Now, I personally don’t think “Hillary’s email” is a big deal. Mostly because I don’t think anything of great significance was compromised. But what IS a big deal is the SECRECY, the PATTERN of ignoring the rules and circumventing them when they prove inconvenient. She KNEW her private email server was a security risk. Her own personal tech consultant hired to maintain the server (at quite some expense) had informed her of at least two failed hacking attempts. We know this because it came out in the State Department’s internal investigation. Yet she did not inform the State Department of the attempted hacking. Now remember, the State Department ALREADY provides their employees with FREE secure email hosting, and if anything goes wrong, it’s on THEM. Yet Hillary… at great personal expense (and inconvenience should the server go down)… chose to use a personal email server, which entailed hiring someone to build, secure, run & maintain. Why? The most obvious answer is “secrecy”. What she wanted to keep secret was anyone’s guess. Was she soliciting foreign donations to The Clinton Foundation in her capacity as Secretary of State? That would be illegal. But it also wouldn’t have fallen under “official business”, so when she says she “only deleted personal email”, “evidence” could very well have been destroyed forever.

Currently, the defense of Hillary Clinton using a private email server seems to boil down to “no evidence of a crime”. Is that the standard by which Clinton intends to run her White House?

But the secrecy doesn’t end there. What about those Wall Street speech transcripts she keeps finding new & creative ways to avoid releasing? What did she say in those speeches she doesn’t want voters to hear? She says it’s nothing that might make her look bad, but we KNOW if those speeches made her look GOOD we would have seen them by now (as evidenced when she released a single 15 minute clip talking about equality for women in the workplace from one of 42 hour-long speeches.) Is she hiding something damaging?

Clinton has done more to reach out to Republicans than Sanders voters. Who are all those anti-Trump ads intended to sway? Democrats? The most she has said to supporters of Bernie is that “We must unite to defeat Trump”… which is NOT an argument to vote FOR Clinton or to drop support for Sanders.

“First woman president” & “defeating Trump” are not terribly convincing arguments to abandon one’s principles and rally behind a candidate you believe was “gifted” the nomination like a birthday present… pretty bow & all.

The DNC has become GOP-Lite. Their standard-bearer is a Closet Conservative that has done NOTHING to reach out to Sanders Supporters. Tell us again why we should support Hillary? Meanwhile, her supporters do nothing but attack THE most Liberal member of Congress (#1 Bernie vs #12 Hillary), call him (and his wife) juvenile names, and instead of welcoming him/us into the fold, they try to get him kicked out of the Democratic Party (numerous petitions). And when I/you point out all the open hostility towards both us and Bernie, their reaction isn’t one of contrition but “We don’t need you! We can win without you!” Their arrogance surpassed only by their ignorance if they think Hillary’s lead is so large & solid that she can simply dismiss (at least) 8.5 million voters.

So how do I vote for someone that is the beneficiary of “election chicanery”, a candidate with an almost Nixonian penchant for secrecy, a candidate that has done NOTHING to reach out to me and address my concerns, and whose supremely arrogant supporters have repeatedly told me “we don’t want you. We don’t need you”? Honestly, I’m not entirely sure I can.

In any other election year, Hillary would not stand a chance of victory with an unfavorability rating approaching 60% if she were not so lucky as to be running against a man with an unfavorability rating over SEVENTY percent. The ONLY candidate with a net favorable approval rating is Sanders. Right now there is talk of a possible coup during the GOP Convention to deny Trump the nomination. This chorus grows louder as the gap between him & Clinton grows. What happens at the DNC convention a week later if that coup succeeds? Say the delegates deny Trump the nomination and pick someone more electable to be their nominee like Romney or Ryan? (a possibility I discussed several weeks ago.) Coupled with another potential Hillary “scandal” should someone “leak sensitive information” uncovered in her emails or those transcripts just in time for the Convention, or even uncover misdeeds (illegal fundraising?) that she may have engaged in during her time as Secretary of State? Suddenly, the wisdom of nominating someone with an unfavorability rating in the high-50’s/low-60’s may not seem like such a good idea any more. So don’t be so quick to dismiss Bernie or his supporters.

Note to Hillary Supporters: She won’t win without Sanders voters. Start acting like it.
 


Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
In Final Hours, DNC Election Misbehavior Runs Rampant
Jun 6th, 2016 by Admin Mugsy

Share
 

As the final seven contests of this primary season draw to a close, it appears the DNC is pulling out all the stops to ensure Hillary Clinton does not limp into the Democratic National Convention next month by employing any number of questionable (historically Conservative) voter suppression tactics. Tactics once the stock & trade of the GOP have become commonplace tools of the DNC. If they still want to convince me Hillary Clinton is not a Closet Conservative and the DNC isn’t becoming “GOP-Lite”, I dare say they couldn’t do a worse job. Two weeks before the Puerto Rican Primary & Virgin Islands caucus, when everyone was focused on the then upcoming Oregon & Kentucky primaries, I tweeted Senator Sanders that he should bear in mind that “Puerto Rico (worth 60 delegates) is ripe for a Sanders Landslide with their current economic crisis there and having gone 90% for Obama in 2008.” I don’t know if my tweet reached him, but the day of the Kentucky Primary, he wasn’t in The Bluegrass State but in Puerto Rico giving a speech about their Debt Crisis. Election night pundits even questioned why Sanders was worried about a race that was still two weeks away when Kentucky & Oregon were voting that very same day. It was a brilliant move. No one (else) was even thinking about the island territory worth more delegates than Kentucky (55) in which an eminently possible huge win could conceivably provide a net pickup of some 20 even 30 delegates for the Senator, dramatically lightening the burden on California the following Tuesday.

I’ve noted repeatedly on Facebook that “Puerto Rico is an Open Primary, is furious with Wall Street for bankrupting their economy, and that in 2008, went 90% for Barack Obama [over Clinton]”. Their former governor endorsed Sanders just prior to the New York State primary, and the Mayor of San Juan switched her support from Hillary to Sanders as well. Sanders opposes (and Clinton supported) the PR bailout bill being debated in Washington that seeks to impose Conservative austerity upon the Territory with no say in the matter. But the moment that plan proved unpopular, Clinton flip-flopped in her support declaring that she was now opposed to it as well (which was easy for her to do having previously declared she had “serious concerns” with the plan before she announced she supported it.) Hillary has a history of doing this… expressing disapproval for something unpopular before she supports it, so that later, when the people complain, she can point back and say, “Here! See where I suggested this might be a bad idea? Just before I okayed it?”
 

Hillary wants it both ways

 

How are you supposed to know where a person stands when they issue a “disclaimer” before every decision? Then, rather than stand by that decision, says, “I had reservations from the beginning. Oops!” It’s called “trying to have your cake & eat it too.” It’s also called “It’s easier to get forgiveness than permission.” I call it “having no core principles.” She already did this with her Iraq vote. “Your kid died in an unnecessary war? Forgive me.” TPP: “Your job moved to Vietnam because of a free-trade agreement I wasn’t sure about but approved anyway? Sorry!” The Commander-in-Chief doesn’t get do-overs. Some decisions you just can’t take back.

So, back to Puerto Rico. Sanders starts campaigning down there early, receives a standing ovation for his criticism of Congress and their proposed austerity measures, and was picking up endorsements.

This can not stand.

The DNC, unwilling to take any chances, starts shutting down polling places in Puerto Rico just days after Sanders unexpectedly wins the West Virginia Primary. In 2008, the island had just over 2,300 polling locations. Three weeks ago, they had only 1,500, but as election day drew to a close, the DNC shut down over 1,100 of them till only 432 remained. Worse still, some voters had to vote for president at one location and for their local officials at another [ibid]! The fact polls there close at just 3pm certainly didn’t help matters any (“Not enough time to stand in line at TWO locations before the polls close? Too bad.”) And how much do you want to bet the majority of those closed polling stations were in “Bernie-friendly” districts?

But would it be enough?

Denying Sanders a landslide in Puerto Rico still doesn’t guarantee Hillary won’t arrive at the DNC Convention limping across the finish line, possibly suffering a string of late race loses and potentially more bad news stories dogging her campaign as she loses ground against Trump in the polls while Sanders supporters are energized, motivated & mobilized?

No, we need to throw a few kinks in the hose.

How about we print up millions of different ballots for the state of California depending upon your (lack of) Party affiliation, upon half of which Bernie Sanders’ name doesn’t even appear? And if you try “writing his name in”, your ballot is instantly disqualified and tossed in the trash. If you are registered in California as “NPP” (No Party Preference), this may very well be you. If so, take your ballot back and demand a new one with Sanders’ name on it.

We all saw the misbehavior in Nevada… and I’m not talking about the understandably outraged Bernie supporters. When I watched the video of the Chairwoman holding a platform vote 30 minutes early, hold a voice-vote with no clear winner, declare a winner anyway, then defiantly (and with obvious disdain) gavel the convention to a close and childishly march off stage as conventioneers scream in protest, it’s impossible not to think of Congress cheating on a voice vote and the outrage that sparks… not just on the floor of Congress, but nationwide (BOTH sides are guilty of this.) I’ve heard Clinton supporters give arguments like, “Hey, it was just two delegates!” Might as well tell me not to complain over a “tiny” stab-wound either. It’s “Death-by-a-thousand-cuts.”

Hillary was on CBS’s “Face the Nation” yesterday, and promised: “After Tuesday, I will begin reaching out [to Sanders supporters]”. I’ve been pointing out for a long time that no one from the Clinton campaign (nor her followers) have made ANY attempt to make Sanders supporters feel welcome, and this quote proves I was right. Nor have I heard anyone provide a substantive argument for supporting Clinton’s policies over Sanders, or assure Sanders supporters their concerns will be addressed. “Math” & “inevitability” are poor arguments for convincing someone to abandon their principles and vote for someone they don’t trust. And I don’t have a lot of respect for anyone who would WANT the support of anyone who would so sell out their values so easily. But then again, look who we’re talking about? As I pointed out above, I’m not entirely sure what Hillary Clinton’s core values are to begin with because there is no principle she hasn’t sold out for political expediency (IMHO).

What infuriates me most is how no one is calling the DNC out for their obvious anti-Democratic chicanery and acts of voter suppression. Voter purges, long lines, not having enough ballots on hand, to even closing literally thousands polling stations. A victor that doesn’t care how they win as long as they win, and there’s no incentive to change a broken system that allowed them to win.

Instead, I must listen to Clinton’s supporters defend these abuses of power in the name of “Democratic purity” (aka: “Sanders isn’t a REAL Democrat. How DARE he try to change OUR Party!”)

A Party this sick needs changing… like a three-week old diaper.
 


Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
STUNNING: If Super Delegates Were Apportioned, Clinton would only lead by 20 (UPDATE #2)
Apr 6th, 2016 by Admin Mugsy

Share
 

(Update 4/10/16)

On Monday, I reported how “Meet the Press” created an entirely new number of Super Delegates in order to falsely/incorrectly claim that even by “Bernie’s own means of apportioning Super Delegates,” he’d still be way behind Hillary Clinton in the SD count. I have NO idea what they think Senator Sanders is requesting, but creating an entirely new Super Delegate system from scratch ain’t it. That made absolutely no sense, so I plugged the numbers into a spreadsheet, and what I found was STUNNING!

I don’t know if #MtP just didn’t understand Senator Sanders’ request, or if they are just really bad at math, but somehow they created an additional 106 Super Delegates out of thin air (“106” is the total number of “unbound” delegates), awarding an additional 4 SD’s to Clinton and 99 SD’s to Sanders… not enough to close the over 400 SD lead Clinton already enjoys over Sanders.

As a refresher, “Super Delegates” are current & former elected Democratic officials and members of the DNC. “Elected officials” includes members of Congress, governors and former Presidents/VP’s. But members of the DNC can be anyone with power & influence (corporate leaders.) So it is no surprise they would be predisposed to favor Clinton. They were an invention following the chaotic DNC Convention of 1968. You’ll note that the GOP does not (yet) use “Super Delegates”. So there is no justifiable argument to allow these representatives of the voters in their state to vote differently than the voters of their state.

To be clear, what Senator Sanders is requesting is for the Super Delegate votes in each state to be distributed PROPORTIONALLY according to each candidate’s win percentage. So if the state votes 50/50 for Bernie vs Hillary, the SD’s should be split 50/50 as well. That seems fair, right? I have no idea what method #MtP used or thought Senator Sanders was proposing.

Presently, “Super Delegates” can vote any way they like regardless of how the voters of their state voted. I examined the vote totals (source) and how the Super Delegates were distributed, and what I found made me sick:

States Bernie won…

  1. New Hampshire, Hillary takes all 6 (of 8) super delegates. (Sanders won 61% of vote)
  2. Colorado, Hillary takes all 8 of the 12 super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 59% of vote)
  3. Minnesota, Hillary takes 13 of 15 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 61.6% of vote)
  4. Oklahoma, Hillary takes 1 of 2 (with 2 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 51.9% of vote)
  5. Vermont, Hillary takes 3 of 9 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 86.1% of vote)
  6. Kansas, Hillary takes the only (1 of 4) super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 67.7% of vote)
  7. Nebraska, Hillary takes all 3 (of 5) super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 57.1% of vote)
  8. Maine, Hillary takes 3 of 4 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 64.3% of vote)
  9. Dems Abroad, Hillary takes 2 of 3 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 68.9% of vote)
  10. Michigan, Hillary takes all 10 (of 17) super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 49.8% of vote, Clinton 48.3%)
  11. Idaho, Hillary takes 1 of 3 (with 1 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 78% of vote)
  12. Utah, Hillary takes 2 of 4 super delegates. (Sanders won 79.3% of vote)
  13. Alaska, Hillary takes 1 of 2 (with 2 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 81.6% of vote)
  14. Hawaii, Hillary takes 6 of 8 (with 2 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 69.8% of vote)
  15. Washington, Hillary takes all 10 (of 17) super delegates distributed so far. (Sanders won 72.7% of vote)
  16. Wisconsin, Hillary takes 6 of the 7 (with 3 outstanding) super delegates. (Sanders won 56% of vote)
  17. Wyoming, Hillary takes all 4 super delegates. (Sanders won 55.7% of vote)

By no standard I can imagine does ANY of that seem fair. How does the LOSER of a race come away with most… or in many cases ALL Super Delegates belonging to a particular state?

Number of states Bernie WON where he didn’t receive a single Super Delegate: SEVEN

States… win or lose… where Sanders was not awarded a single Super Delegate: NINETEEN

  1. Iowa
  2. New Hampshire
  3. South Carolina
  4. Alabama
  5. Arkansas
  6. Colorado
  7. Georgia
  8. Tennessee
  9. Texas
  10. Virginia
  11. Louisiana
  12. Kansas
  13. Nebraska
  14. Michigan
  15. Northern Marianas Is.
  16. Illinois
  17. Missouri
  18. Washington
  19. Wyoming

States… win or lose… where Clinton was not awarded a single Super Delegate: NONE

If Super Delegates were apportioned by same percentage each candidate won:

   Hillary: 205
   Sanders: 185
——————————-
Difference: 20
(Note: “Pledged” delegates ALSO are not distributed proportionately by state. Difference in “PLEDGED” delegates if distributed proportionately: 237 [vs 290].)

Clinton’s Super Delegate lead would be cut to just TWENTY if they were awarded proportionally/fairly as Sanders suggests they should be. That’s a HUGE reduction from the FOUR-HUNDRED & THIRTY-NINE SD lead she currently enjoys as of this writing.

Notice, I did NOT award the winner of each state every Super Delegate as some might try to claim Sanders is asking, as if he’s trying to “game The System” to reap some sort of unfair advantage. No, I split the SD’s “proportionally” based on the percentage by which each candidate won. If anyone is benefiting from an unfair system here, it’s Clinton.

Now, reapportioning the Super Delegates alone doesn’t give Bernie the lead. We await the apportioning of the “Pledged” delegates for Wisconsin, but he currently trails by only slightly more than 200 delegates (with just under Two-Thousand delegates remaining). Subtracting those hundreds of undemocratically “gifted” Super Delegates awarded to Clinton definitely reveals her lead is FAR less insurmountable and her victory far less inevitable (not to mention: more reflective of the electorate.)

Senator Sanders has now won 17 states as compared to Clinton’s 20. He has won 7 of the last 8 contests. If Super Delegates are distributed according to win ratios, Sanders only needs to win the remaining states by an average of 57.03% in order to win the Democratic nomination. That’s about as close to a TIE as you’re gonna get.

Super Delegates are a “thumb on the scale” that allowed Clinton claim a 400+ “Delegate” lead before even a single vote was cast. The intent is obvious: to suppress support/turnout for her opponents by discouragement. They should not be allowed to announce whom they are supporting early. Direct anyone who says Bernie is “too far behind to win” to read this post.

Postscript: The GOP establishment behind the “Stop Trump” effort is assisting a dangerous “End Times” evangelical psychopath (Ted Cruz) win the GOP nomination simply because he is the only candidate with enough delegates to beat Donald Trump. It’s a dangerous game they are playing.
 


Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Are Republicans Responsible For Hillary’s Huge Wins in Deep Red Primary States? UPDATED
Mar 7th, 2016 by Admin Mugsy

Share

 
(ADDENDUM 3/9/16: As predicted, Sanders wins another Blue State… Michigan… whereas Clinton wins yet another deep red state with an Open Primary: Mississippi.)
 

Not to sound conspiratorial, but why is Bernie winning Caucus states by double digits but Hillary is winning Deep Red (eVoting) Primary states by enormous 30/40/50 point margins? Anyone who has followed my column lo these past eleven years knows I despise “conspiracy theories”, so I apologize in advance if it seems like I’m suggesting one now. But when a pattern starts to emerge, only a fool would ignore it. There have been exactly 22 Democratic races so far, sixteen (16) Primaries and six (6) caucuses. Bernie has won NINE ten (10) races (including “Americans Overseas”). Hillary has won thirteen (including American Samoa). Five (5) of Sanders’ ten wins were caucuses, won by double digits, nearly tied in Iowa (diff: 0.3%), and lost Nevada by only 5.2%. Clinton’s greatest caucus victory? American Samoa by 46%. As I’m sure you already know, voters must actually stick around for a headcount on Election Day to be counted in a caucus.

Meanwhile, of the fourteen sixteen “Primary” states, Hillary has won nine (9) eleven (11) of them. Of those eleven, nine were in the deep red South (the lone exception being Massachusetts where she won by 1.8%), winning by huge margins often of 30-points or more. EIGHT of the nine were OPEN primary states (exception: Louisiana), meaning anyone of either Party can crossover to vote in either Party’s primary.

During the 2008 election, radio host Rush Limbaugh called on his listeners to cross over and “vote for Hillary” in order to deny Obama an early victory, stringing out the Primary season for as long as possible while the two candidates beat each other up prior to the November election. The name he gave it was “Operation Chaos”. And despite trailing well behind Obama in delegates, and despite the very real likelihood that Clinton was only being kept afloat by Republicans seeking to sabotage the Democratic primaries, as late as May, of that year, Clinton was still refusing to drop out of the race:
 

On May 23rd [2008], at an editorial-board meeting in South Dakota, Clinton was asked, again, whether she should drop out of the race for the good of the Party. Clinton, saying she would not, employed a historical reference meant to remind her listeners that the nomination process had extended into June in previous primary campaigns. “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.” – The New Yorker

(You might remember there was a brief flurry of concern with Clinton bringing up the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in her justification for staying in the race, almost seeming to suggest the possibility that then-Senator Obama might be killed before the race was over. Hillary had to quickly apologize just a few hours later assuring reporters & concerned Obama supporters that that is not what she meant.)
 

In any case, I can’t help but be bothered by the margins by which Clinton is winning in Southern Primary states where people vote on electronic “black box” voting machines, yet losing in Caucus states (where there must be a physical head count) by double-digits. Hillary has won only two caucuses, both very early on: Iowa (by 1.8%) & Nevada (by 5.2%) for an average margin of victory of just 3.5%. Compare that to her average margin of victory in Southern Primary states by a whopping 41% (I excluded her 1.4% win in MA to avoid skewing the result.) (ADDENDUM: Clinton wins Mississippi… another Open Primary red state… by a whopping 66%, yet loses Michigan… a state she was “predicted” to win by 17 points… by 1.7%… a nearly 20 point swing. Clearly, someone was trying to discourage Sanders voters.)

Now, of course, logic dictates that the most likely reasonable explanation would be that younger Bernie supporters are more willing to stand around for hours attending a caucus and waiting to be counted than the “65 & older” demographic that Clinton leads in. But Clinton’s lead among seniors is well below Bernie’s lead with the “under 45” demographic. And consider that just as many younger voters will show up to vote in an ordinary primary as attend a caucus (five of Sanders’ ten wins have been Primaries), so “older” voters alone can’t account for huge 30/40/50 (and now 66) point margins of victory. There MUST be something else going on. And I argue that that “something else” is “Conservative Crossover”. As I pointed out above, seven eight of Clinton’s nine ten (non-caucus) wins were “open primaries” in the Deep South (the lone exception being Louisiana. Massachusetts, her only non-Southern primary win, was “Closed”.) The remaining twenty-nine (29) states are disproportionately Blue or Purple… a map that favors Sanders.

I suppose it is possible all those deep red Southern states Clinton is winning will all vote Blue come November. If you believe that, you probably also believe Goldman-Sachs just wanted financial advice from the former Secretary of State.

And as I’ve repeatedly stated on Facebook (or at least I did. I have had TWO Facebook accounts deleted in the past week… without warning… suddenly demanding I produce ID, which despite doing so, have yet to be reinstated), Hillary is “a scandal bomb waiting to go off”. Just last Thursday, the DoJ granted immunity to the man who set up Clinton’s email server. You don’t give someone “immunity” from prosecution unless you believe there is an even greater concern of criminal wrong-doing by someone else. Likewise Hillary has still as of yet refused to release the transcripts of her $675,000 speeches to Goldman-Sachs (view the Clinton “transcript clock” here, counting the days since Clinton promised to “look into” releasing those transcripts over one month ago). During last night’s debate in Flint, MI, Clinton said she would release her transcripts “when everyone else does.” Sanders waved his empty arms. “There! I’ve just released all my transcripts!”

To date, Clinton’s wins have been almost exclusively in deep red Southern states that are almost certain not to vote for her in November. Meanwhile, Sanders is winning by double digits in states that are far more likely to vote Blue in November if he is the nominee. Yesterday on Fox “news” Sunday, GOP-tool George Will predicted that if Hillary gets the nomination, Trump will concentrate heavily on courting disaffected Sanders voters on issues of “Free Trade” and “sending a message” to the “Powers that be” (read: Debbie Wasserman Schultz). Now, you may think Bernie voters will never vote for someone like Trump… the antithesis of everything Bernie supports, but all Trump needs is to pick off JUST THREE PERCENT of Bernie voters and suddenly we’re looking at “President Trump”.

Despite the fact Hillary only leads Bernie with just twelve thirteen (13) wins to Sanders’ nine ten (10), The Media, pundits and Hillary Supporters all point to her huge 2-to-1 lead in Delegates to suggest he is so far behind he can not win and perhaps should drop out now so she can concentrate on defeating Trump in November. Seriously? “Delegates” are meaningless outside of a “brokered” convention. They always vote with the candidate who has won the most states, and as I’m pointing out, Hillary is running out of Red states to keep her afloat (and all this “inevitability” talk has GOT to be killing her fundraising too. Why donate to her campaign if she has already effectively won?)

On the flip side, if Trump is “defeated” or otherwise “cheated” out of the GOP nomination via “brokered convention”… which is starting to look more & more likely, as long as he doesn’t decide to play spoiler and run third-party out of spite, an awful lot of Trump’s “anti-free trade, hates Hillary” supporters will migrate over to Independent Bernie Sanders to defeat whomever the GOP “elects” to replace him (Cruz or perhaps even Romney again), ensuring an easy victory for Sanders in November.

I know that’s a lot to think about but I encourage you to do so.

POSTSCRIPT: Last week, Facebook shutdown the account I have been using for the last eight years because “I did not appear to be using my real name.” But they were nice about it, giving me two options: 1) either I prove my legal name really is “Mugsy RapSheet” or 2) Build a new page linked to my “personal” Facebook account that uses my real name. Problem is, that method intermingles every post notification of my personal page in with my private page, and every time I send a Friend Request, it does so using my real name. Totally unacceptable. So I instead have been forced to create an entirely new account and attempt to rebuild my friends list from scratch. If you previously friended me on Facebook, I invite you to rejoin me at the new address. – Mugsy

ADDENDUM: As noted up top, my SECOND Facebook account was shutdown without warning as well. Worse, when I linked to this Op/Ed on “DailyKOS”, they too disabled my posting rights for three days based solely on FOUR accusations I was spreading “Conspiracy Theories”. I ask you? Do you think I’ve earned the right to be paranoid yet?
 


Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Cruz Comfortably Beats Trump in Iowa. Dems still too close to call. Suspicious Clinton bounce repealed.
Feb 2nd, 2016 by Admin Mugsy

Share
 

Going into the wee hours of the morning, I was watching Hillary Clinton’s delegate lead shrink all night, when around 9pm CST, with 18% of precincts left to go, leading by only 11 delegates, the Clinton campaign declared victory despite all the pollsters saying it was “too close to call.” Her lead continued to shrink with every update. By the time the number of precincts was down to just 10% remaining, her lead had shrunk to just THREE delegates when she decided to make her (pseudo) “victory” speech. Then suddenly, with an additional 1% of precincts, her lead suddenly jumped to a whopping ELEVEN delegates. That lead held for another 20 minutes when it suddenly plunged back down to just 3. The explanation? According to Chuck Todd: “A reporting error” was to blame that was caught & corrected. Hmmm. Those kind of “innocent mistakes” make me extremely uncomfortable.

With 2% of precincts still remaining as of midnight (around 1,600+ precincts), the Sanders campaign reported “90 Precincts presently had no DNC staff” (on site?), meaning no one available to count votes. Uncomfortable #2. The DNC rebuked the Sanders claim, though saying only the staff is “available” but not “on site” to tally those votes. Sounds to me like the Sanders’ campaign was right.

Most under-reported story of the night? How badly 5th place Rand Paul beat 6th place Jeb Bush (by roughly 3,200 votes.)

What does a second place finish mean for Trump? Consider his entire campaign has been one big ego trip, so coming in second was a wake-up call for him. He should win New Hampshire easily, but I doubt he’ll be taking future races for granted.

Final tally with “99% of precincts reporting” (not including those unstaffed 90 precincts and with recounts and “reporting errors” yet to be reviewed)… Hillary: 696 – Sanders: 693 – O’Malley: 8. Shortly after midnight, O’Malley officially dropped out. (note: by 12:50am, Bernies’ delegate count had fallen by one vote? Uncomfortable #3.) You can see my final hour Live-blog updates here.

MORNING UPDATE: Went to bed after 1AM. Super-Delegate count for Hillary & Bernie was 20 each. Was tied all night long. Woke up to see total is now Hillary-29/Bernie-21.
 
Rubio’s subtle hat-tip to the “Project for A New American Century”? (more here):

Rubio's nod to PNAC?

 
Ted Cruz flanked by the despicable Steve King and Cruz’s wacko-bird father (who held this exact pose for several minutes, staring straight ahead without blinking.)
The despicable threesome.

 


Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
Electorate Votes Big for Progressive Policies (and the people least likely to implement them)
Nov 10th, 2014 by Admin Mugsy

Share
 

What conclusions can be drawn from an electorate that voted overwhelmingly for Progressive policies in last Tuesday’s election only to also vote for the people LEAST likely to implement them? In EVERY state where raising the Minimum Wage was on the ballot, all Deep-RED states, it won. In EVERY state where marijuana legalization was on the ballot, it won. In EVERY state where increased gun control was on the ballot, it won. And in EVERY state where “personhood” for fertilized eggs was on the ballot, it lost. Yet in many of these same states, Republicans… who are the least likely to support these measures… won big. How does one account for that?

On The Rachel Maddow Show the night after the election, she provided an itemized list of Progressive victories the night before:
 

Howard Dean, who ran the DNC before Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and whose “50 State Strategy” played a huge role in 2006 Democratic sweep of Congress, said the most brilliant thing on “Meet the Press” yesterday:

“The Republican strategy was simply to say, We’re not Obama. And the Democratic strategy was to say, We’re not Obama either. What in the Hell kind of strategy is that?”

In recent weeks, I too have lambasted Democrats for buying into the Republican meme that “President Obama is wildly unpopular” and running away from him and his policies when they should have been defending them. When given the choice between a Party that does nothing but criticize the president vs a Party that concedes their opponents criticism, why on Earth would anyone vote for the same Party as the president? It was beyond stupid. So it was only natural that the GOP candidates would defeat their wishy-washy opponents.

Yet, when it came to ballot issues, the voters STILL expressed a CLEAR preference for Progressive positions. People WANT Progressive government, but they also want stuff to get done. Republicans went out on the campaign trail and told voters that if they want to END GRIDLOCK, they need control of both Houses of Congress. With a metaphorical gun to the electorates’ head, Republicans told voters to, “Elect me before I obstruct again!” NOT ONCE did I hear a Democrat argue the opposite: that giving THEM control of both houses would also end the gridlock in Washington (I find it curious that, despite a 16% approval rating, Control of the House was never in question thanks to Gerrymandering). Republicans already blame President Obama for their own unprecedented obstruction of Congress, but even with control of both houses, President Obama still has his Veto Pen, so if Republicans think they can “repeal ObamaCare” or include the “deportation of 12 Million undocumented workers” in their border-security bill, we’re STILL going to see gridlock in Washington. And if the Tea Party extremists get their way and begin impeachment proceedings, just how much do you expect this Congress to get done?

So what’s going on here? Did voters just not draw a connection between the policies they were voting for and the people they were electing to implement them (FACT: The more educated you are, the more likely you are to vote Democrat), or something more sinister?

I despise Conspiracy Theories, and I think the moment you start arguing “election theft” when you lose, you lose all credibility when you win. “Voter Suppression” efforts were rampant across the country this election, but they account for the record low turnout (just 36.6%) not for the inconsistent way in which people voted. Yes, there were reports of “vote flipping” on “touch screen” based voting machines (built more than a decade before modern touch screen tablet technology and thus painfully due for an update), but machines were found to be flipping votes in both directions, an indication the problem is more a em>calibration issue than one of nefarious intent.

However…

If one WERE to rig voting machines so that GOP candidates in close races ended up winning big, and Democrats with huge leads ended up winning in squeakers, it is conceivable that the people rigging the machines didn’t think to rig the “ballot issues” as well to keep the results looking consistent. If I were the conspiracy-type, such a result would definitely be ringing alarm bells in my mind. But instead, I think the problem had more to do with an electorate that just didn’t link the candidates they were voting for to the issues they supported.

In Colorado, where “Personhood” was on the ballot, that measure lost by a whopping THIRTY-POINTS, and yet they elected an Evangelical senator that ran in support of personhood during the primaries only to flip-flop on the issue come the General Election. It was a reversal no Coloradoan could claim not to know about since his opponent, Tom Udall, ran so many ads on the subject he was branded: “Tom Uterus”. But like so many other Democrats, Udall ran away from President Obama’s record of success in spite of unprecedented GOP obstruction, suggesting there was some validity to the GOP’s claims of Obama being a failure, so when faced with the choice between the Party that has been saying for six years that Obama was a failure vs a Democrat that suddenly appears to be conceding his opponents argument, who are the voters going to vote for?

So what can we expect from the next two years? While I do expect to see a LOT of fighting, I predict most of it will be in-fighting amongst Republicans… the “old guard” Republicans that learned some lessons from the past, and brash Tea Party hotheads like Ted Cruz that will make “the repeal of ObamaCare” amongst his highest priorities (NOTE: Thanks to ObamaCare health insurance premiums are slated to rise at just 7.5% next year), as he openly ridicules his fellow Republicans for an unwillingness to consider impeaching Obama (while I still consider the possibility as quite high, I think there are enough Republicans old enough to remember the brusing 1999 impeachment of President Clinton, how it was widely viewed as “petty & vindictive”, and know that if they tried it again, the Press would crucify them.)

2014 was a case study in how NOT to run an election. This was NOT, repeat NOT, a “wave” election for Republicans. Record low turnout is not a “wave”. Did more people show up to vote Republican because they oppose the President, or did more people opposed to the president simply show up to vote? Clearly from all the Progressive ballot issues that won, voters don’t disapprove of the Democratic agenda. But don’t tell that to all the Republicans they just voted for to enact that agenda. 36.6% is not a “mandate”.
 


Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
One Number Explains Tuesday’s Miserable Election Results: 65 Percent
Nov 5th, 2014 by Admin Mugsy

Share
 

65% say Country is on Wrong Track

One simple number explains the surprising scale of Democratic losses on Tuesday: 65% Percent of those Exit Polled said the country is on “the wrong track”.

o Unemployment is nearly half its 2009 post-Bush peak of 10.0%, down to 5.9% and falling.

o The Deficit is down TWO-THIRDS over what President Obama inherited.

o GDP is up to an amazing 3.5%

o Both the DOW and the S&P are at record highs.

And those exit polled overwhelmingly said the country is “on the wrong track” (only if “wrong track” to you means anything that makes Obama look good). That can ONLY be because Republican turnout was vastly superior to that of Democrats. Only a group of people SO DISCONNECTED from reality as to give this president an absurd SEVEN PERCENT approval rating (and President Bush a 63% approval rating his final year) despite a record like his could claim the country is on “the wrong track” with numbers like that.

Did the number of people believing the economy is on “the wrong track” drive people to vote Republican, or did more Republicans (who already believe the economy is “on the wrong track”) simply turn up to vote in greater numbers? I argue it was the latter.

Even races Democrats were expected to win easily were closer than expected. Many races that should have been close were blowouts. Why? TURNOUT. They had it, we didn’t. It’s that simple.

Nothing moves people to the polls like anger, and the GOP has been stoking Republican anger towards President Obama… who wasn’t even on the ballot… to the point where it moved Conservative voters to the polls in large numbers.

But one thing gnawed at me all last week: With just a 16% approval rating, how come “control of the HOUSE” was never in doubt? Think about it? How does a body with an approval rating lower than sour milk, one in which EVERY SINGLE MEMBER was up for (re)election, not only not have to worry about losing control of the House but actually PICK UP seats? Simple, rampant Gerrymandering, Voter Suppression and cuts to Early Voting locations/hours/days, all of which affect Democrats disproportionally.

Tuesday’s win wasn’t a victory for Republicans, it was a victory for ignorance, theft & apathy.
 


Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
History Has Shown Us What Happens With Republicans In Charge – and it’s not good
Nov 3rd, 2014 by Admin Mugsy

Share
 

Probably THE reason I’ve been writing this blog every week for the last ten years is because of the importance of elections. As the subtitle says, “Recording History for those Who Seek to Rewrite it”. Of course, you wouldn’t need to be reminded of something if you had no power to change it. Not only is it about the elections, but also to remind voters of what happens when they vote while uninformed/misinformed. (Side-Note to anyone that thinks elections don’t matter: Ask the people spending BILLIONS trying to suppress your vote why do they bother if elections don’t matter?) Republicans are notorious for their hypocrisy when their politicians do the very things they claim to oppose (eg: GWB decrying “nation building” during the 2000 RNC Convention, to name but one) to a wholesale rewrite of the Reagan Legacy to turn the former union-leader that raised taxes 12 times, decried Assault Weapons, never attended church and granted amnesty to 10 million undocumented immigrants into “Jesus Meets John Wayne”. I’ve written multiple times of how the founder of “The Party of Lincoln” couldn’t get elected Dog Catcher by today’s GOP. And those are the Republicans we liked. But the past three-decades has produced what has to be the most noxious, partisan, short-sighted Republican Party I’ve ever seen. Republicans have left a long (slimy) trail of hypocrisy and economic disaster in their wake, yet somehow they keep managing to get elected by people with incredibly short memories and no foresight. I’ve likened it to psychotics that believe they “don’t need their meds” WHILE ON their meds (ie: Voting Republican after Democrats clean up their mess), discontinuing them only for disaster to ensue. So let’s take a little stroll down Memory Lane for a look back at the GOP Highlight Reel.

Reagan

During his 1980 Presidential campaign, Reagan criticized the Carter Administration for allowing the National Debt to grow to to a “staggering” $800-Billion dollars. Just days after entering office, in an address to Congress in February of 1981, Reagan’s speech-writers came up with the infamous “stack of dollar bills” analogy to give people a sense of just how much money “one Trillion dollars” really is. The Reagan prescription called for a massive tax-cut intended to (quote) “starve The Beast” [ie: government] in a misguided belief that less money coming in would force Congress to cut spending and reduce the Deficit. Sounds reasonable enough. But what the Reagan Administration didn’t count on was there there isn’t that much “fat” in the Federal Budget. And spending wasn’t exactly curbed when the staunch 1950’s anti-Communist decided that the way to defeat “The Red Menace” was to spend them into oblivion via a costly arms race. Before Reagan was governor of California, the former actor was the Head of “The Screen Actors Guild”… a union to protect the rights of people in the film industry… and volunteered to be an FBI informant in McCarthy’s anti-Communist witch-hunt that led to him testifying against “the Hollywood Ten”… a blacklist that ruined the careers of a number of prominent writers, actors and directors.

What the Reagan Administration did not count on was that sucking that much money out of the economy meant fewer paychecks. Less than two years later, Reagan’s Corporate tax cuts led to 10.8% unemployment, the highest since The Great Depression and a level not seen since. To get the unemployment rate back down, the Reagan Administration went on a hiring binge, greatly expanding the size of the Federal Government… which cost money, further exploding the Debt.

By the time Reagan ran for reelection in 1984… less than four years after lambasting the Carter Administration for allowing the National Debt to grow to $800-Billion dollars… “Reaganomics” had nearly doubled 204 years worth of accumulated Debt to $1.5-Trillion dollars. Because the government was borrowing so heavily to finance the Federal Government, people enjoyed all the benefits of low taxes AND a fully-funded Federal Government without realizing just how much they were putting on the National Credit Card. By the time Reagan left office, the National Debt had more than TRIPLED to $2.7-Trillion dollars. 12-years later, soon after taking office, Dick Cheney declared that “Reagan proved that Deficits don’t matter”. Then the Bush Administration proceeded to turn Clinton’s Surplus into a $1.4-Trillion dollar a year Deficit… which didn’t seem to bother Republicans all that much until Barack Obama inherited it. Then suddenly, The Debt (but not The Deficit which is shrinking) became an apocalypse waiting to happen. But I digress.

If the hypocrisy of Deficit Spending under Reagan weren’t enough, how about being “the most corrupt Administration in history”… a title that took some doing barely a decade after the Nixon Administration. Reagan’s presidency ended with ONE-HUNDRED AND THIRTY-EIGHT public officials being indicted or going to Federal prison, the most in American history thanks to things like the “Iran/Contra” scandal (selling arms to Iran to finance the Nicaraguan Contras). And I well remember when… after Congress rejected Reagan’s request to provide rebel Contra forces with money to buy guns, as “Commander-in-Chief”, “St. Ronnie” simply circumvented Congress (sound familiar?) by ordering the U.S. military to storm the beaches of Nicaragua loaded down with as much weaponry as they could carry, dump it all there on the beach, and walk away. The Contras got their guns and Congress was forced to spend the money anyway to rearm our military.

Bush-I

Despite the exploding Debt and record corruption, the country still elected Reagan’s Vice President, George HW Bush, to continue the Reagan presidency. Unfortunately for Republicans, Poppy Bush… who ran against Reagan in 1980 criticizing his economic policies as “Voodoo economics” (the belief that you can increase Federal Revenue by slashing taxes on the rich) was a bit more responsible when it came to Federal spending (not by much mind you, but enough.) Poppy Bush, after assuring cynical Republicans that he wouldn’t raise taxes with his infamous “Read. My. Lips.” pledge, was forced to do so when he saw what Reagan’s tax cuts were doing to the Deficit. So he agreed to a small tax increase in exchange for concessions on drastic spending cuts… inflicting the worst of both worlds on the economy, which thew itself headlong into a Recession.

Bill Clinton’s 1992 Campaign Theme was “It’s the economy, stupid”, ridiculing Poppy Bush for refusing to even mention the subject on the campaign trail. So upset were most Americans with the Bush-I economy, many (myself included) turned to Third-Party candidate Ross Perot. To this day, I wonder what disasters might have befallen the country if Perot had actually won the election… a man that it turned out had no interest in “negotiating” with Congress or anyone else, believing there was a “mandate” for what he believed was right for the country and would ignore anyone that told him otherwise (that’s not a guess. That’s what we learned after one of his campaign managers, Ed Rollins, revealed when he resigned in protest.) I view my support for Perot as a learning lesson for why it is so important to be an informed voter today.

The 1994 Gingrich Revolution

In 1994, following two years of vicious partisan attacks and recriminations by Republicans against a president they viewed as “illegitimate” (thanks to Perot’s third-party candidacy that allowed Clinton to win with less than 50% of the vote), House Minority Leader Newt Gingrich orchestrated the GOP takeover of Congress during the 1994 mid-terms resulting in six straight years of pointless costly investigations in a failed attempt to derail the Clinton presidency. When their partisan witch-hunt failed to deny Clinton reelection in 1996, the GOP controlled Congress turned its attention toward “impeachment” to ensure Clinton didn’t finish out his second term. But there was no “there” there. “White Water”… a failed land deal, never produced evidence of criminal wrong-doing. Clinton’s reported philandering was an embarrassment, but not criminal. For some inexplicable reason, President Clinton allowed the GOP to subpoena him and force him to testify under oath that he wasn’t cheating on his wife… again, scummy but not a crime. Under oath, Clinton denied the truthful accusation, which in itself was (arguably) criminal, thus handing the GOP on a silver platter the justification to impeach him.

Two of Clinton’s key critics, Rep. Newt Gingrich and Sen. Henry Hyde were both currently having extramarital affairs WHILE they were denouncing President Clinton for his, a fact that did not to come out until years later. The sum culmination of six-years of investigations of everything from “The White House Christmas Card List” to “Socks The Cat’s Fan Club”: $70 Million dollars, no conviction, and Clinton leaving office with a (legitimate) popularity that rivals that of St. Ronnie (illegitimate, based on the most whitewashed record imaginable).

Bush-II

During the 2000 presidential race, George W Bush… whose only claims to fame prior to being elected governor of Texas were being a chronically failed businessman, son of a former president, and managing a baseball team that traded away Sammy Sosa… crisscrossed the nation talking down the record-breaking Clinton economy, claiming that “If only a Republican president had been in charge with the Republican Congress for the last six years… just imagine how much better things might have been.” People bought it and (arguably) elected a Republican president to preside over THE SAME Republican Congress Clinton had. The result was a disaster. Economic gains reversed almost immediately and the Stock Market plunged nearly one thousand points from Bush’s first day in office (10,587 on 1/19/2001 to 9,605 on September 10, 2001… so no blaming 9/11). The incoming Bush Administration was too busy plotting the invasion of Iraq to listen to CIA warnings of an impending attack on the US mainland by alQaeda, resulting in the arguably avoidable disaster of 9/11. A wave of post-9/11 patriotic fervor swept the GOP back in power in 2002 and Bush (narrowly) back in office in 2004 despite the disastrous decision to invade Iraq on grounds that people were quickly beginning to realize were totally bogus… with the Bush Administration actually campaigning on “You don’t change horses in mid-stream”… a “stream” that ironically only existed because they blew up the dam.

The Stock Market continued to plunge and unemployment continued to climb as rising oil/gas prices (thanks to the invasion of Iraq) made everything more expensive, ushering in the first or TWO Bush Recessions. The Bush Administration’s solution was to cut interest rates to the bone and encourage people to invest in real-estate. Millions of people were talked into taking out “Adjustable Rate Mortgages” to purchase well beyond their means, but as the economy continued to decline, those ARM rates started to go up & up. As more money shifted from buying goods to paying high interest rates on their mortgages and $3/gal gasoline, the economy started to implode as people began losing their jobs and defaulting on their mortgages, resulting in the collapse of the Banking industry and the biggest economic bailout in history… ON TOP OF the ongoing costs of two wars… one of which we never should have been in and neither with a plan to get out. President Bush would be only the second president in history to leave office with the DOW lower the day he left than the day he took office (the first was Herbert Hoover.)

The GOP under Obama

This is the Sh!t storm President Obama inherited. Yet today, less than six years later, the economy is recovering DESPITE unprecedented Republican obstruction. The DOW has nearly TRIPLED where it was following the collapse of the Bush economy (from 6,547 in March of 2009 to 17,390 last Friday), unemployment has fallen to just 5.9% (below where it was when Obama took office) and GDP grew at 3.5%, the strongest rate in 10 years.

o Republicans said Raising taxes on the rich would crash the economy. President Obama raised taxes on the Rich. The economy is strong and getting stronger by the day. The Deficit is shrinking as a result and has NOT ONCE been larger than the Deficit left to him by President Bush.

o Republicans said ObamaCare would push up unemployment as companies laid off employees rather than insure them. Instead, unemployment is at it’s lowest level in over six years… helping prove the point that tax breaks for the rich don’t create jobs, consumer demand does. So employers are hiring, not firing, despite “ObamaCare”.

o Sarah Palin’s “Death Panels”? They never materialized. In fact, people who were denied coverage by insurance companies’ OWN “death panels” before ObamaCare are now covered. The GOP has vowed to repeal that coverage if they regain power.

o They told us “the only way to get gas prices down is to approve the (disastrous) Keystone XL pipeline”. Gas is below $3/gallon and falling thanks in part to increased competition among OPEC nations, not the construction of any pipeline.

o Obama is mishandling Ebola? ONE death by a man that was turned away from a hospital in a RED state. ZERO cases of Ebola spreading within the general public. By all accounts, handling of the Ebola outbreak has been WILDLY successful.

o Mishandling ISIS? First, let’s not forget there wouldn’t even BE an ISIS if it weren’t for the invasion of Iraq ala the GOP.

o Border crisis? As I pointed out last week, the GOP is actually running ads suggesting ISIS is entering into the U.S. across the Mexican border, while others openly wonder if those poor Central American children entering the country may be carrying the African disease of Ebola. Neither of which are true.

The Republican Party, unable to run on their own record or on Obama’s economic record, are instead doing what they always do: make baseless hypocritical claims of criminal wrongdoing (“Fast & Furious” and “IRS-gate” brought to you by the backers of Iran/Contra and Iraq/WMDs), hypocritical claims of incompetency (cries of “Benghazi!” from the people that brought you “9/11”), and threats of impeachment for circumventing GOP obstruction (the same Party that praises St. Ronnie despite circumventing Congress to arm the Contras.)

They can’t win on their record, so they’ve enacted Draconian “Voter ID” laws across the country, suppressing literally millions of traditionally Democratic low-income voters in the name of “voter fraud”… an activity so rare that more people are convicted of “migratory bird violations” each year than have been convicted of voter fraud in the past decade… not only incredibly rare but hardly enough to swing an election. Don’t think for a moment that they don’t know what they’re doing. If the voters were truly on their side, they’d be doing everything to encourage the vote, not suppress it. And, a question I’ve been asking all year: I’m still waiting for someone to explain what cutting Early Voting hours/days has to do with fighting “voter fraud”?

Ebola, ISIS and trumped up claims of wrongdoing. Fear & Smear. That’s all they have to offer this election season. “Be afraid! Be very afraid! Oh, and vote Republican!” The GOP thinks you should ignore the economic growth and their unprecedented obstruction, and put them back in charge. The amazing thing is that it seems to be working. Those who do not learn from history…
 


Writers Wanted Got something to say? Mugsy’s Rap Sheet is always looking for article submissions to focus on the stories we may miss each week. To volunteer your own Op/Ed for inclusion here, send us an email with an example of your writing skills & choice of topic, and maybe we’ll put you online!

RSS Please REGISTER to be notified by e-mail every time this Blog is updated! Firefox/IE users can use RSS for a browser link that lists the latest posts! RSS


 

Share
SIDEBAR
»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«
»  Substance:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa