Election Musings

~ Clarissa

Bernie is losing hope. The indifference of the African-American community is hitting him hard. He is slipping away from his graceful early – election persona of “enough with your damn emails” into “let me manufacture an email scandal of my own.” Now Bernie screeches – screeches “Speeches-speeches!” All that’s left for him to do is to say “Benghazi” or any equivalent thereof, and we’ll know he’s done.

____________

Rubio is so hapless. He appeared on TV standing under a sign that said, in large letters, “SALIDA” and in small letters “exit.” The poor fellow will always end up in the worst place for him to stand.

_____________

It is not in the least surprising that Trump won the Hispanic vote in Nevada. Republican – voting Hispanics are a lot more likely to come out for Trump than for Rubio. Documented immigrants dislike undocumented immigrants and tend to wish for the border to slam shut right behind their backs. As for Rubio, non-Cuban Hispanics feel about Cuban Hispanics the way I feel about Russians.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

28 thoughts on “Election Musings”

  1. Documented immigrants dislike undocumented immigrants and tend to wish for the border to slam shut right behind their backs. As for Rubio, non-Cuban Hispanics feel about Cuban Hispanics the way I feel about Russians.
    True, so true.
    I think the anti-Cuban antipathy is more explanatory though. Rubio and Cruz have very similar positions (now) on immigration to Trump.
    <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-triumphs-hispanics-and-five-other-takeaways-nevada&quot;
    Nevertheless, Trump won 46 percent of the Latino GOP caucusgoers, although they only made up 9 percent of the total vote. So it’s really a plurality of Republican Latino caucus goers, which are few Latinos relative to their proportion of the state population You can just as easily say that 54% of Latino Republican caucus voters voted for “Not Trump”.

    Like

    Reply

  3. Trump vs clinton about 95% chance.

    Really will be fascinating. I think Trump’s vp pick may actually matter. Normally they don’t, but this will be his first actual indication of how he might govern. If he could get an ex military leader would be fascinating, as many conservatives i hear are most worried about that issue. I think if he gave assurances that their was a competent military mind in the administration I think he has a good chance to win.

    Or he could pick sarah palin… andthen i will agree he is not serious, but I think he will show he is WAY more rationale that others think.

    Like

    Reply

    1. “Or he could pick sarah palin… andthen i will agree he is not serious”

      • Wouldn’t that be the best show on Earth, though? Just for entertainment purposes, one can’t beat something like this. 🙂

      Like

      Reply

  4. Yesterday Princeton University professor emeritus Cornel West nailed the problem with Hillary Clinton :

    “Sister Hillary Clinton is the Milli Vanilli of American politics,” West quipped, in a reference to the late 80s R&B duo’s disastrous lip-syncing scandal.
    “She lip-syncs, she gives lip service,” West said. “But when it comes to policy, who supported the crime bill? Who supported not just the deregulating of banks, but also pulled the rug from under welfare?”

    5 minute CNN interview with West via http://news.yahoo.com/cornel-west-nailed-problem-hillary-182300050.html?soc_src=mediacontentsharebuttons&soc_trk=tw

    Like

    Reply

    1. ““But when it comes to policy, who supported the crime bill? Who supported not just the deregulating of banks, but also pulled the rug from under welfare?””

      • I don’t know but it was definitely not Hillary who at the moment of this legislation passing had no job, no name, and no influence of her own over anything whatsoever.

      Like

      Reply

        1. Do you really believe she would have been given an opportunity to voice an opposing point of view? Remember, this is a woman who was not even allowed to keep her own name. Why should we believe she was allowed to keep her opinions?

          Like

          Reply

          1. “Do you really believe she would have been given an opportunity to voice an opposing point of view? ”

            Of course not — but she also didn’t have to express any public political point of view. Mamie Eisenhower didn’t, and most (I didn’t say all) first ladies have limited their public initiatives to “wifey” issues like beautifying cities and highways (Lady Bird Johnson, for example).

            Hillary actively endorsed her husband’s issues — and yes, she had “agency” (as the feminists like to say) and a choice about whether to do so.

            Like

            Reply

    2. I’ve pretty much stopped giving a damn about Cornell West ever since he started spewing his idiotic, racist nonsense about President Obama. The last person I want to listen to is someone who called Obama the first “niggerized” President and has complained that Obama was not “Black enough”.

      And Milli-Vanilli? Sheesh. Who even remembers them anymore?

      Like

      Reply

  5. Man, I’m feeling uneasy at the prospect of a Trump vs Clinton showdown. Polls say Sanders will fare much better against him than Clinton.

    Seems like this is the year of the ‘angry voter’ and issues don’t matter much, neither does policy. Republican turnout in the primaries so far has broken records. Nominating Clinton could be a mistake in this climate.

    https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency

    Like

    Reply

    1. I saw that article too. And it does have me worried. But the author is a grad student and the magazine is very very new (first or second issue). So I’m not sure how much to trust that article. I think it might be more grad student bluster than anything.

      So I’m waiting for Nate Silver to run some numbers. He is my go to statistics guy and I tend to trust his analysis. Until then, I continue to think Clinton will be more competitive than Sanders when it comes to the national election. But I’m willing to be convinced. I’ll happily vote for either Clinton or Sanders. Truly, all I care about is making sure a Republican doesn’t win the national. I just want to make sure none of those clownish, hateful, extremists become president.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I hope you’re right. At this point I just want people to tell me it’s going to be OK. Feel free to lie.

        Sent this article to a friend who’s visiting this weekend. He’s not helping.

        Like

        Reply

    2. “Polls say Sanders will fare much better against him than Clinton.”

      • This isn’t serious. Bernie has not been present on the national arena, has not fielded a single attack. Nobody knows who he is and nobody knows what dirt opponents can throw at him. As a national candidate, he simply doesn’t exist yet, so I;m not sure what those polls are measuring exactly.

      Like

      Reply

      1. The idea from some quarters that Sanders would fare better in a general election against an attack-dog Republican than Hillary is nonsensical. Sanders can’t even defend himself effectively in the primary debates against Hillary.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “The idea from some quarters that Sanders would fare better in a general election against an attack-dog Republican than Hillary is nonsensical.”

          • True. Hillary stood her ground through the Benghazi hearings, but that fortitude comes from extensive experience. Plus, all the dirt against her is already out in the open. What can anybody come up with that the voters haven’t heard many times already?

          This is a very vicious election cycle. Nobody will be cute with opponents.

          Like

          Reply

      1. Yes, we “Klan” lie, using #BlacklivesMatter idiots as totally fake klansmen who weren’t even smart enough to wear gloves. (See the link in Dan Miller’s comment below.)

        Maybe the Democrats actually are stupid enough to nominate Sanders for the general election. One can only hope! 🙂

        Like

        Reply

    3. Aaron D. Ford

      Further to my post from yesterday about people observed donning KKK regalia at a caucus site, I offer these thoughts:
      Some have wondered — even contended — that those in the photos were Black, and not White. While that may be important to some, it is a distinction without a difference to me. In my view, anyone engaging in what was observed yesterday deserves to be exposed, and that was the exact purpose of my post…
      The fact that anyone — whether an actual member of the KKK or one pretending to be one to make a point — found it appropriate to wear white sheets and hoods yesterday should astound all but the purest of racists in our society.
      To be sure, everyone has a First Amendment right to freedom of speech. But again, similar to the cross-burning analysis Justice Thomas gave in Black, KKK regalia such as that present at one of yesterday’s caucus locations “subject its targets, and, sometimes, an unintended audience … to extreme emotional distress, and is virtually never viewed merely as ‘unwanted communication,’ but rather, as a physical threat[.]” I have heard about some caucusing at that site who, indeed, were subjected that those exact sentiments…

      Like

      Reply

  7. Now that Trump has won Nevada and seems to be a serious contender for the office of President, worried Democrats are looking for alternative living arrangements if Hilary, the most likely Democrat candidate, loses in November.

    Many of them are considering Canada and the island of Cape Breton in particular with American real estate searches for the island increasing by 3450% in the past week. Some of the attractions are a low Canadian dollar and the island housing being the least expensive in North America. You can buy a nice ocean front house for the price of a used car with extremely low mortgage interest rates.

    http://www.point2homes.com/news/us-real-estate-news/americans-serious-moving-canada-local-real-estate-searches-jump.html

    Like

    Reply

    1. Some Democrats made the same threat about moving to Canada back in 1999 if George W. Bush got elected. Unfortunately, they didn’t follow through.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a reply to Clarissa Cancel reply