Jump to content

US Elections: When Murder isn't Murder


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

So I missed this story from earlier this week...

Quote

The former attorney for the “D.C. Madam” has asked the United States Supreme Court to allow him to release records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey’s escort service, including customer names, addresses and Social Security numbers, because they allegedly could affect the 2016 presidential election.
 
In an application to the high court, filed Monday, Montgomery Blair Sibley is asking to be released from a judge’s 2007 restraining order which prohibited him from sharing Palfrey’s telephone records, during the much-publicized run-up to her federal trial for racketeering, money laundering and mail fraud.
 
And, if the Supreme Court won’t hear his argument, Sibley says he will release the identifying information of Palfrey’s customers

There's probably nothing to this story. Blair Sibley was disbarred due to an unrelated incident, he was a pretty loud voice in the "birther" nonsense, and is generally a crank (he ran a bizarre campaign for President in 2012).

BUT, it is fun to speculate about; particularly because the only thing that could really affect the election is if one of the five remaining candidates, or a spouse, is on that client list. And just to clear things up, David Vitter's name was leaked, but the identities of most of the DC Madam client were never revealed; so there's no telling who might be on there, besides just anyone who might be running for President.

Trump? He seems the most likely to have engaged a prostitute's services, but its not like he spent much time in DC in the 1993-2006 period. Although obviously he probably traveled to DC from time to time, and could've easily sought a prostitute while there.

Cruz? He was clerking and than a practicing lawyer in DC in the late '90s and then worked in the Bush administration until 2003, so he had the opportunity. Plus there is still that looming National Enquirer stuff, although every day that passes with no one confirming any of it, the less likely it appears there was anything there.

Kasich? He was in Congress from the '80s until 2001, so he also had plenty of opportunities. After that, he was mostly back in Ohio, working for Lehman Brothers, but he probably traveled back to DC semi-regularly for work.

Sanders? He was in Congress the entire time the DC Madam was active, so he also had plenty of opportunities. 

Clinton? Either one? They obviously were both in DC through January 2001, and Hillary was still in DC the rest of the time as a Senator, while Bill was mostly in New York. Its not going to be Bill though. The client list is actually a list of phone numbers, and Bill's somewhat famously never had his own phone since he became President. I suppose it could be an aid's phone, but there'd be no evidence actually linking Bill. Hillary would've had opportunities, although probably only after 2001 when she was no longer living in the White House.

Could be any of them really. I doubt anything would come of it though, but what a think it would be if it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I've already made clear that I think the Sanders campaign is wrong about this.

That wasn't my impression. But even if you do think they're wrong about this... you're not necessarily right that they're wrong.

1 hour ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Of course you can say 50% of young voters who turned out for Sanders could have voted in 2010, or 80% in 2014, but you haven't established what percentage of that group did not.

You're asking for a lot from random internet schlubs. My lack of access to detailed voting data, though, or the time to dig it up - and indeed, your lack of access to data showing that these people did vote - don't really stop us from reaching an opinion on whether the point is fair.

Yes, we're all operating on assumptions, as most of us do all the time. But the question is whether those assumptions are reasonable. I think it's reasonable to assume that a campaign that talks a lot about reaching previously unengaged voters probably does have a high percentage of previously unengaged voters supporting it. Until and unless proof emerges that for some reason that campaign is wrong about its own appeal, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mormont said:

That wasn't my impression. But even if you do think they're wrong about this... you're not necessarily right that they're wrong.

You're asking for a lot from random internet schlubs. My lack of access to detailed voting data, though, or the time to dig it up - and indeed, your lack of access to data showing that these people did vote - don't really stop us from reaching an opinion on whether the point is fair.

Yes, we're all operating on assumptions, as most of us do all the time. But the question is whether those assumptions are reasonable. I think it's reasonable to assume that a campaign that talks a lot about reaching previously unengaged voters probably does have a high percentage of previously unengaged voters supporting it. Until and unless proof emerges that for some reason that campaign is wrong about its own appeal, of course.

 

3 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Yet in response many people have pointed out that turnout is in fact down, and Sanders has failed to bring in a coalition of new voters to beat Clinton.

That's the last I'll say on this, particularly since you're rejecting the need to provide more than assumption before making slurs against Sanders voters, anyway. Yes, I'm asking that random internet schlubs refrain from denouncing Sanders voters without any evidence that what they're denouncing them for has any basis in fact. This not an unreasonable request. Now it's firmly established that it is a fact free accusation that no one will ever bother to prove, and I'm content that I've made this clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw a Prof. from the Univ. of Virginia on a CNN interview discussing the electoral college map/math. He believes Trump could only garner about 190 votes out of the electoral college (to her over 340 votes) in a head to head general election against Hillary. He went on to stress the importance of recent years demographic changes and the growth in Latino voters as an important influence for 2016. This only reinforces what has been my view of the electorate map for quite some time now. Democrats are growing faster than Republicans and the trend shows no sign of slowing anytime soon.

Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Colorado seen as important swing states. At this point it would take something extremely dramatic for the GOP to win the Presidency in November.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Just saw a Prof. from the Univ. of Virginia on a CNN interview discussing the electoral college map/math. He believes Trump could only garner about 190 votes out of the electoral college (to her over 340 votes) in a head to head general election against Hillary. He went on to stress the importance of recent years demographic changes and the growth in Latino voters as an important influence for 2016. This only reinforces what has been my view of the electorate map for quite some time now. Democrats are growing faster than Republicans and the trend shows no sign of slowing anytime soon.

Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Colorado seen as important swing states. At this point it would take something extremely dramatic for the GOP to win the Presidency in November.

The EV map for President does not look good for Republicans, it's true.  For example if you start with Obama's 2012 map and give the Republican all four of the states that you just named, it is still a win for the Democrats (270-268).  Now, you can also throw in Virginia or Iowa and that is doable, but it is a hard path to navigate. 

The possibility I'm most worried about is this:  Bernie continues to gain modest momentum, but never enough to really cut into Clinton's lead.  Clinton takes the nomination in unconvincing fashion, and the far left feels very unenthusiastic about the choice.  Trumps campaign continues its recent skid and Cruz/Kasich can successfully cut at him from both the right and left flanks.  Trump has a plurality of the delegates, but is not particularly close to a first ballot majority.  Once the delegates are unpledged it is obvious that neither Trump nor Cruz can unite the party.  Paul Ryan is chosen as a compromise choice.  Lots of Americans already dislike Hilary, and Ryan gives them a not-crazy person to vote for.  Ryan takes the Romney states plus FL, OH, WI, IA for a 269-269 tie (maybe CO as well for an outright win).  Either way, it's President Ryan.

I actually think Ryan has a better chance of winning the Presidency than Trump or Cruz at this point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Just saw a Prof. from the Univ. of Virginia on a CNN interview discussing the electoral college map/math. He believes Drumpf could only garner about 190 votes out of the electoral college (to her over 340 votes) in a head to head general election against Hillary. He went on to stress the importance of recent years demographic changes and the growth in Latino voters as an important influence for 2016. This only reinforces what has been my view of the electorate map for quite some time now. Democrats are growing faster than Republicans and the trend shows no sign of slowing anytime soon.

Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Colorado seen as important swing states. At this point it would take something extremely dramatic for the GOP to win the Presidency in November.

I think too that there will be a backlash on the local level.  Especially when it becomes clear that there is a growing disparity between the number of votes cast for Dems, vs. the composition of the house (states and federal).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The EV map for President does not look good for Republicans, it's true.  For example if you start with Obama's 2012 map and give the Republican all four of the states that you just named, it is still a win for the Democrats (270-268).  Now, you can also throw in Virginia or Iowa and that is doable, but it is a hard path to navigate. 

The possibility I'm most worried about is this:  Bernie continues to gain modest momentum, but never enough to really cut into Clinton's lead.  Clinton takes the nomination in unconvincing fashion, and the far left feels very unenthusiastic about the choice.  Trumps campaign continues its recent skid and Cruz/Kasich can successfully cut at him from both the right and left flanks.  Trump has a plurality of the delegates, but is not particularly close to a first ballot majority.  Once the delegates are unpledged it is obvious that neither Trump nor Cruz can unite the party.  Paul Ryan is chosen as a compromise choice.  Lots of Americans already dislike Hilary, and Ryan gives them a not-crazy person to vote for.  Ryan takes the Romney states plus FL, OH, WI, IA for a 269-269 tie (maybe CO as well for an outright win).  Either way, it's President Ryan.

I actually think Ryan has a better chance of winning the Presidency than Trump or Cruz at this point. 

The only issue I see with this is that Ryan is often regarded as a RINO, establishment guy, etc.  If Trump doesn't get to 1237 but has a delegate lead and the RNC takes control and appoints their guy, a guy who wasn't even running?  I don't think that will play well even if it says its OK in the RNC rule book.

Ultimately most Republicans will fall in line out of hatred for Hillary but Ryan does not really excite the conservative base and many would be really pissed that Trump didn't get it if he was in the lead.  It would be exactly the kind of DC, elitist political-class bullshit move that people on both sides of the aisle have been complaining about.  So I think it would still be an uphill battle for the Republicans even with Ryan.  It'd be a relief for me personally because, although I wouldn't vote for him, I find Ryan to be sane and I'd much rather face the prospect of losing the oval office to Ryan than Cruz or Trump.

The #1 thing I am worried about as a threat to the Dem's is the email scandal blowing up in Clinton's face after the primary, but barring that... man, the R's have been such a cluster fuck this whole primary season, it would honestly be amazing if they somehow won in November.  

I guess Kasich could be competitive nationally too against HRC, but it'd still take an act of the RNC taking over to get him there and that's the problem.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

The EV map for President does not look good for Republicans, it's true.  For example if you start with Obama's 2012 map and give the Republican all four of the states that you just named, it is still a win for the Democrats (270-268).  Now, you can also throw in Virginia or Iowa and that is doable, but it is a hard path to navigate. 

The possibility I'm most worried about is this:  Bernie continues to gain modest momentum, but never enough to really cut into Clinton's lead.  Clinton takes the nomination in unconvincing fashion, and the far left feels very unenthusiastic about the choice.  Trumps campaign continues its recent skid and Cruz/Kasich can successfully cut at him from both the right and left flanks.  Trump has a plurality of the delegates, but is not particularly close to a first ballot majority.  Once the delegates are unpledged it is obvious that neither Trump nor Cruz can unite the party.  Paul Ryan is chosen as a compromise choice.  Lots of Americans already dislike Hilary, and Ryan gives them a not-crazy person to vote for.  Ryan takes the Romney states plus FL, OH, WI, IA for a 269-269 tie (maybe CO as well for an outright win).  Either way, it's President Ryan.

I actually think Ryan has a better chance of winning the Presidency than Trump or Cruz at this point. 

On the Democratic side, I worry about that possibility too, but I'm still confident that Sanders can get most of his supporters to back Clinton. I just wish Clinton, and more specifically her team, would stop with the needless slights against Sanders. They're neither helpful nor needed.

I don't think you have anything to worry about.the Republican side. If Trump is the nominee I think a lot of people will refrain from voting for him, and if the nominee isn't Trump his supporters will bolt. I really have a hard time seeing how the Republican Party stays unified this cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I had hoped that purported allies would refrain from outright character assassination, but perhaps that was naïve of me.

After having read numerous online comments from Sanders supporters literally accusing Clinton "sucking corporate dick," you'll pardon me if Frank's use of hyperbole doesn't give me a case of the vapors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, S John said:

The only issue I see with this is that Ryan is often regarded as a RINO, establishment guy, etc.  If Trump doesn't get to 1237 but has a delegate lead and the RNC takes control and appoints their guy, a guy who wasn't even running?  I don't think that will play well even if it says its OK in the RNC rule book.

If Trump so chooses, he could absolutely sabotage a Paul Ryan presidential run.  And he's a vindictive guy, so that's a real possibility.  But it's also possible that Trump plays it a different way.  His most valuable asset is the Trump brand, and I think he's smart enough to know that wallowing in the mud for another six months will get him plenty of attention, but in the end will leave the Trump name ruined (Democrats/Independents will hate him because he's a sexist Republican pig, Republicans will hate him because he handed the election to Clinton).  So it wouldn't shock me if he actually started taking the high road at some point.  A lot will depend on how the convention goes down.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll just add one more anecdotal thing.  As I've mentioned before, I spend a lot of time discussing politics on a board that is way farther right than this one, though there are a handful of liberals there including myself.  

A theme I have noticed and discussed over there is that many of them believe that the primary mistake that the Republicans have made in the last 2 presidential elections is that they did not run a candidate who was conservative enough.  They think that running McCain and Romney (RINO's by their reckoning) didn't excite the conservative base resulting in back to back losses to Obama.  To me, that is just.. absolutely bonkers.  It's like.. do you guys want to get your asses kicked even harder?  Is that what you are after?  Because that is what nominating a far right, rather than center-right candidate is going to get you.  I'm convinced that any Cruz or Cruz-like candidate would get his ass handed to him nationally (excluding the possibility of inopportune indictments, of course).

In my opinion, McCain lost mainly because in '08 there was just no way he was going to be able to step out of the shadow of the GW Bush administration.  An administration that closed out it's time in office with an insanely low 22% approval rating.  And choosing Palin as VP was the nail in his coffin.  Romney had the difficult task of defeating an incumbent president, really stuck his foot in his mouth with the 47% thing, and admittedly was a pretty wooden personality and not the most exciting guy.  But the problem with McCain and Romney winning a national election was not that they weren't conservative enough.

Sometimes I'll chime in and say that I think out of the remaining three Kasich would have the best chance against HRC - and I do actually believe that.  Hillary is not the most popular figure in the political landscape and Kasich is the only remaining sane Republican currently running.  But most of them (but not all) don't want to have anything to do with a candidate that people on the left say they can live with, as is the case with Kasich.  :lol:  I guess they're gonna go down with the ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, S John said:

I'll just add one more anecdotal thing.  As I've mentioned before, I spend a lot of time discussing politics on a board that is way farther right than this one, though there are a handful of liberals there including myself.  

A theme I have noticed and discussed over there is that many of them believe that the primary mistake that the Republicans have made in the last 2 presidential elections is that they did not run a candidate who was conservative enough.  They think that running McCain and Romney (RINO's by their reckoning) didn't excite the conservative base resulting in back to back losses to Obama.  To me, that is just.. absolutely bonkers.  It's like.. do you guys want to get your asses kicked even harder?  Is that what you are after?  Because that is what nominating a far right, rather than center-right candidate is going to get you.  I'm convinced that any Cruz or Cruz-like candidate would get his ass handed to him nationally (excluding the possibility of inopportune indictments, of course).

In my opinion, McCain lost mainly because in '08 there was just no way he was going to be able to step out of the shadow of the GW Bush administration.  An administration that closed out it's time in office with an insanely low 22% approval rating.  And choosing Palin as VP was the nail in his coffin.  Romney had the difficult task of defeating an incumbent president, really stuck his foot in his mouth with the 47% thing, and admittedly was a pretty wooden personality and not the most exciting guy.  But the problem with McCain and Romney winning a national election was not that they weren't conservative enough.

McCain was facing an absolutely hopeless task, I honestly don't think that any Republican could have possibly won that election.  The Bush Administration was astonishingly unpopular, the economy had just tanked, and Obama was running a great and historic campaign.  Palin was an embarassment, but in the end it made no difference.  Romney on the other hand faced a difficult, but winnable campaign, but in the end Obama was able to outmanuever him.  It is possible a better candidate wins in 2012. 

I have likewise heard that sentiment that Republicans need to nominate a "real conservative", but what that means seems to change constantly.  Boehner was a Real Conservative from 1994-2010, but once he had to actually start doing some governing he became a moderate.  Likewise Paul Ryan was a Real Conservative, but since taking over the House people accuse him of being an establishment guy and a sellout. McConnell too, was well liked when he was obstructing Obama and Harry Reid, but since taking the Senate majority gavel, he seems to have become a RINO.  Is it just that once you have actual power you cannot possibly be truly conservative? 

Regardless, I share your bafflement that conservatives are unwilling to adopt a more moderate stance to improve electability.  But instead they want a firebreathing champion like Cruz, who's primary accomplishment was leading a charge to shut down the government, which failed to accomplish anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Just saw a Prof. from the Univ. of Virginia on a CNN interview discussing the electoral college map/math. He believes Trump could only garner about 190 votes out of the electoral college (to her over 340 votes) in a head to head general election against Hillary.

That's about what McCain got in 2008. Compared to the 2008 map Trump will probably lose NC, may hold on to Indiana (that will bring the D's down to 340 and lose Utah (possibly). Its not all that difficult to come up with. Personally I think he may actually do far worse the way he is alienating women voters.

Also, if Paul Ryan is the answer, then the question has to be why even have an extended primary season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

ANDREW SULLIVAN IS BACK!

He's going to write long form journalism for New York magazine, and he's posted an essay on Trump:

http://andrewsullivan.us3.list-manage.com/track/click?u=92b1a944631220d6b867072a6&id=60afb585e6&e=c2b4940f9e

 

You're a real piece of work. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What really astounds me is that Paul Ryan in now considered a squishy moderate. Paul fucking Ryan. The guy who makes all his staffers read Atlas Shrugged. The guy who wants to give fertilized eggs constitutional rights. The guy who thinks global warming was made up by scientists. The guy who thinks our culture is in a tailspin because men in inner cities refuse to get jobs. That Paul Ryan. It seems that the conservative purity test now boils down to one question: are you willing to govern? If you are then you're a dirty pinko RINO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

On the Democratic side, I worry about that possibility too, but I'm still confident that Sanders can get most of his supporters to back Clinton. I just wish Clinton, and more specifically her team, would stop with the needless slights against Sanders. They're neither helpful nor needed.

Given Sanders is still going at her, I don't see that happening and they may well be needed. Sanders still wants to make this a fight for various reasons so he will get treated as if it's a fight. If he don't want to see Clinton taking shots at him, he needs to start shifting his stance towards a more conciliatory tone. And if he doesn't want to do that, it'll continue as is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, S John said:

I'll just add one more anecdotal thing.  As I've mentioned before, I spend a lot of time discussing politics on a board that is way farther right than this one, though there are a handful of liberals there including myself.  

A theme I have noticed and discussed over there is that many of them believe that the primary mistake that the Republicans have made in the last 2 presidential elections is that they did not run a candidate who was conservative enough.  They think that running McCain and Romney (RINO's by their reckoning) didn't excite the conservative base resulting in back to back losses to Obama.  To me, that is just.. absolutely bonkers.  It's like.. do you guys want to get your asses kicked even harder?  Is that what you are after?  Because that is what nominating a far right, rather than center-right candidate is going to get you.  I'm convinced that any Cruz or Cruz-like candidate would get his ass handed to him nationally (excluding the possibility of inopportune indictments, of course).

In my opinion, McCain lost mainly because in '08 there was just no way he was going to be able to step out of the shadow of the GW Bush administration.  An administration that closed out it's time in office with an insanely low 22% approval rating.  And choosing Palin as VP was the nail in his coffin.  Romney had the difficult task of defeating an incumbent president, really stuck his foot in his mouth with the 47% thing, and admittedly was a pretty wooden personality and not the most exciting guy.  But the problem with McCain and Romney winning a national election was not that they weren't conservative enough.

Sometimes I'll chime in and say that I think out of the remaining three Kasich would have the best chance against HRC - and I do actually believe that.  Hillary is not the most popular figure in the political landscape and Kasich is the only remaining sane Republican currently running.  But most of them (but not all) don't want to have anything to do with a candidate that people on the left say they can live with, as is the case with Kasich.  :lol:  I guess they're gonna go down with the ship.

Yup. Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed. Such is the eternal refrain of the american right. It's why they are where they are now. It's what happens when you dogwhistle to secure electoral victory for decades. At some point your base believes in what you are bullshiting them with to get their votes. And then they start getting mad you aren't following through.

So you get the Tea Party. You get Donald Trump. You get the base shitting all over any attempts to expand your coalition after you look at the last 2 elections and realise there's a big problem. You may think "We need to get hispanics on board and take a more moderate tone" but you've told your base that liberals are the devil incarnate, foreigners are job-stealing terrorists, government is the whole problem and that's america agrees with them but just isn't saying it out loud. And they believed you. So now you can try and walk that shit back but the base will demand you get even more extreme because that's what you've told them is the real deal ideology and what people really want and what you need to solve all the horrible problems you've told them there are.

So now your base believes you lost because your candidate wasn't conservative enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

What really astounds me is that Paul Ryan in now considered a squishy moderate. Paul fucking Ryan. The guy who makes all his staffers read Atlas Shrugged. The guy who wants to give fertilized eggs constitutional rights. The guy who thinks global warming was made up by scientists. The guy who thinks our culture is in a tailspin because men in inner cities refuse to get jobs. That Paul Ryan. It seems that the conservative purity test now boils down to one question: are you willing to govern? If you are then you're a dirty pinko RINO.

You tell people government is the problem and they'll believe you. This can be a bad idea when you are trying to be the government though, as the GOP is learning.

I mean, the entire dysfunction going on in the House that led to Boehner's resignation and Ryan taking over is exactly because the tea party wave elected true believers. Turns out people who believe government shouldn't govern aren't people you can work with while you try to govern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Given Sanders is still going at her, I don't see that happening and they may well be needed. Sanders still wants to make this a fight for various reasons so he will get treated as if it's a fight. If he don't want to see Clinton taking shots at him, he needs to start shifting his stance towards a more conciliatory tone. And if he doesn't want to do that, it'll continue as is.

See that's exactly what I'm getting at. Sending out a top campaign surrogate to say Sanders' tone needs to change if he wants more debates is just a bad look and totally unnecessary. Clinton's lead is large enough to the point where it only looks silly to punch down with those type of attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...