Open Thread And The DNC

Delaware Right - Moving Delaware Forward   Okay, let’s hear what you think about the Democrat National Convention so far.  And any other topics on your mind, maybe the Lacey Lafferty idea of a riverboat casino to relief traffic issues, and raise revenue. Or any of the many races heading into the state primary.

Have fun!

22 Comments on "Open Thread And The DNC"

  1. fightingbluehen says:

    I was watching the MSNBC coverage ( because I think it’s more interesting to watch biased coverage) of the convention early evening yesterday, and they where discussing Donald Trump’s tongue in cheek statement about how he hoped the Russians could find Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails.
    Well this complete pajama boy hack, Chris Hayes goes on to compare the damage that statement did to the trump campaign, to the statement where Trump referred to a judge as a “dirty Mexican”. The problem is that Trump never called anyone a “dirty Mexican”. This happened at approximately 6:25 pm EST.

    Can’t find anything on the internet about it. Apparently no one watches MSNBC, or they just didn’t notice it. It amazes me how these people keep their jobs.

  2. fightingbluehen says:

    I thought Biden gave a really good speech, although I didn’t agree with the premise, and
    It looked like old Joe had a little touch up work done on his face recently.

  3. Pat Fish says:

    I thought Biden too gave a great speech,. Great delivery. And he did look good.

    Not that I like ole Joe all hat much and he might be the crazy Uncle in the attic but he’s OUR crazy attic Uncle.

  4. Rick says:

    The Socialist-Democrats seem to be confused. I suppose that’s due to Trump’s unpredictability, but what if they have miscalculated? Suddenly, they are the “America is great” party, even though for the last eight years all we heard was grievances and condemnation. In 2008, Michelle Obama said that she’s “never been proud of America,” now she’s all gaga over America’s “greatness.”

    The Dems are also walking a fine line between Obama’s decent job approval number (52%) and the “wrong track” number (71%). Should the Dems promote “change” or an extension of Obama’s presidency? You can’t have both. And if it’s the former, how can Hillary Clinton- a fixture within the political establishment for thirty years- represent “change?” She can’t.

    As was the case in the past several elections, a few “battleground states” will decide the winner. I like to look at Senate races within those states, to see if there’s a groundswell of support for either party within the state(s). Four Senate races where I initially believed the Republican incumbent to be in jeopardy now seem secure; Burr in NC and Toomey in PA. It also looks like Portman will prevail in OH and Rubio will take FL. Ayotte (NH) and Johnson (WI) are on the ropes, but Trump doesn’t need either of their states to win. Thus, my Senate fears have been assuaged, at least for now.

    What seems funny to me is that the Democrats seem to be trying to portray themselves as tough on terrorism without mentioning terrorism, and Hillary as a “steady hand” when facing adversity where her actual experience with terrorism (Benghazi) was a complete debacle, and then she doubled-down by lying. While it is a fact that Hillary is a hawk- much to the chagrin of traditional “liberals”- her party is seen as decidedly weak on terrorism.

    It’s also funny to listen to “liberal” pundits talk of “party unity” when the Wikileaks e-mails show the opposite to be true. They are not and will not be united, and a significant number of Sanders’ supporters will either sit-out the election, or vote third-party. Hillary had a chance to distance herself from Wasserman Blabbermouth-Shultz, but instead elected to canonize her. Another mistake.

    One of our regular posters recently cited Nate Silver as being the precient guru of prognosticators. I disagree, but his latest prediction gives Trump a 57% chance of being elected.

    There are several reasons why I predict a Trump victory;

    1) The “wrong track” number is over 70%, and Hillary is an establishment Democrat.

    2) Around 70% of Americans concider Hillary to be untrustworthy.

    3) Hillary’s numbers with men are worse than Trump’s numbers with women.

    4) GOP turnout will be high, and Socialist-Democrat turnout will be low.

    5) Hillary is attached to the hip to the black KKK- Black Lives Matter. That won’t play in Peoria.

    6) Hillary got filthy rich by selling nothing but influence

    7) Hillary’s irresponsibility risked national security.

    8) Hillary is a mediocre compaigner, and worse, is simply not likeable.

    Yes, Hillary will get a bump from the convention. A temporary bump. But remember, she has already spent $150-million and Trump has spent not much over $0. Yet, look at the polls. As Trump has often said, he “hasn’t even started on her yet.” She is a big target, and she’s going to get hit- hard.

    Hillary has baggage- a lot of baggage- probably too much baggage to be elected.

  5. delacrat says:

    “I thought Biden gave a really good speech” – FBH

    “I thought Biden too gave a great speech,…” – Pat Fish

    So what did you think was great about it ?

  6. Honi Soit says:

    @Rick: “One of our regular posters recently cited Nate Silver as being the precient guru of prognosticators. I disagree, but his latest prediction gives Trump a 57% chance of being elected.”

    Do check your facts, Rick. Nate Silver has NEVER shown Trump winning. Today Silver is showing Clinton at 53.3% chance of winning and Trump at 46.7%, which is Trump’s HIGHEST since Silver started publishing his numbers on June 8.

  7. Rick says:

    You are confusing the popular vote with the electoral college. Only the electoral collage matters.

    Read it and weep- click here

    Of course, Silver wrote-off Trump in the primaries, long ago. So his analysis is severely tainted.

    Trump…57% probability of victory.

  8. Honi Soit says:

    No Rick, I am not confusing the popular vote with the electoral college. The link you provided shows who Silver thinks would have won the electoral vote if the election had already been held. If the election were held today (July 28), Silver shows that Trump’s chances of winning the electoral college at 54.9%.

    However, the link I provided shows what Silver thinks the chances are of Trump winning the electoral college on Nov. 4. As of today, he predicts the odds of Clinton winning on Nov 4 at 53.3%.

  9. Rick says:

    Oh, so now you think that Silver can predict the future. Forget it.

    In any case, today is now…and now, Trump is ahead.

  10. Honi Soit says:

    Well Nate Silver got it absolutely right…in all 50 states…in 2012. Unlike Newt (“A Romney landslide!) or Karl Rove “At least 279 electoral votes!”). Or unlike Rick, who predicted that Romney would win:

    “Polls don’t predict turnout, and the anti-Omaba turnout is going to be unprecedented. He’s toast.” (Oct 15, 2012)

    “BO has drastically cut his air time in FL, VA and NC. This is because he knows that those states are gone.” (Oct 18, 2012)

    “Unlike RCP, I don’t see BO carrying Ohio, Wisconsin or Iowa.” (Oct 22, 2012)

    Well, Rick. Obama wasn’t toast. And contrary to your predictions, he carried Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa. But you were right about North Carolina.

    You don’t have much cred with me.

  11. Rick says:

    Did you read Silver’s post today? He basically said he has no idea who’s going to win.

    This is a change election. That’s the bottom line. And Hillary does not- can not- represent change.

  12. fightingbluehen says:

    The Democrats will work to distract from the fact that this is mostly an establishment verses anti-establishment election.

    Their main strategy is to not lose any of the minority vote and to attract the Republican and independent establishment type (never Trump) voters. Their vice presidential pick and convention mirrored this strategy.

    Sorry Hillary, but bringing in a truck load of American flags at the last minute, and waiving around “change maker” signs doesn’t change what people already know about you.

  13. mouse says:

    It’s an angry bigoted rudeness rube ilk vs sane includiveness election. Can’t believe you people are so unstable as to support someone like Trump just to satisify your tribal resentment onsessions

  14. fightingbluehen says:

    Sheltered partisan mouse…. Insulting people that she doesn’t even know for a candidate that is nothing more than a grandiose Ma Barker.

  15. kavips says:

    I was expecting Hillary to fall flat. I was surprised she didn’t. I was more surprised that she took most of Bernie’s platform and made it her own. Raising the minimum wage to $15; expunging all past college loans, and offering free tuition, supporting the end of Citizen’s United and insisting on better control on money going into politics, clamping down on Wall Street risky investments, investing $1 trillion in American construction jobs for fixing our infrastructure… (does anyone else look at interstate bridges as they go under them?), and decreasing our national debt by raising taxes on the top 1%….

    All items that need done… Meanwhile Trump will put no new investment to America, while socking us by $30 trillion in new debt to give more to the top 1%….

    Pretty much… If anyone out there still cares about our national debt, no matter what you’ve been told in the past, you had better hope Trump does not win…

  16. waterpirate says:

    While Hillary appears to have adopted Bernies platform, sadly it is a bid to unify the party and win the election. Anyone who thinks differently should make an offer on the bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale. Politicians like used car sales people will say anything and promise everything to get the deal done. When reality sets in, we realize that we have been had.

    Look back to the speaches Obama made 8 years ago, full of hop and change and a better life. Reality gave us little. For those of you who think I may be a trumpette, I feel the same about him as I do Hillary. Empty rhetoric and showmanship……

  17. Rick says:

    Can’t believe you people are so unstable as to support someone like Trump….

    Yes, let’s support an incompetent serial liar who made millions- how? Selling influence.

    (Funny how Hillary decries income disparity while wearing a $15,000 jacket)

    People support socialists because they need to be led by the nose and need to be told what to and not to do. These people are born to be slaves.

    The perfect slave lives in the modern inner city. As wards of the. elite, they get food stamps, public housing and drugs. And they don’t even have to pick cotton. All they have to do is vote for the massa’ Democrat who lives in the Big House. It’s 1850 all over again.

  18. kavips says:

    No Rick. You are wrong. People support Socialists solely because the capitalist system is not benefiting them. In fact, it is making there lives worse. When you fix the capitalistic system so EVERYBODY has the opportunity to do better, as was done by FDR in the thirties, socialism goes away…. That is all Bernie was offering, and Hillary said (??) she plans to continue… Fix the capitalistic system so it benefits all, not just the top… And then, though it does not have to be fixed entirely, just the fact that someone is doing something to make things better, makes the core of socialism fade back into the mainstream of normal political action… Socialists are to be no more feared than rabid capitalists. …

  19. Honi Soit says:

    @Rick: You disapprovingly call Hillary an “incompetent serial liar.” Seems to me you’re saying you’d think better of her if only she were more adept at lying!

  20. saltyindependent says:

    hillary is very vulnerable and beatable. the problem is that trump could lose to her. never mind his lack of tact. his lack of knowledge on foreign policy is alarming. he seems to want us to think that because he’s a tough guy it will all be fine.

  21. Henry says:

    Trump will win.

  22. Rick says:

    You disapprovingly call Hillary an “incompetent serial liar.” Seems to me you’re saying you’d think better of her if only she were more adept at lying!

    On the contrary, she is a very effective liar. Just like her husband. Lacking any scruples and dedicated only to increasing her personal wealth and retaining political power, she can blythly look into the camera and lie to the American people. And the “journalists” watch and nod approvingly.

    No, her incompetence is manifest in the results of her policy recommendations. She recommended deposing Khaddafi and Mubarak, and now Libya is an ISIS stronghold and Egypt is run by the Muslim Brotherhood. She got the 3 a.m. phone call, and hung-up, resulting in the death of a US Ambassador and several American operatives. In her desire to hide her play-for-pay relationship with Arab oligarchs, she jeopardized sensitive security documents.

    You couldn’t be a more incompetent Secretary of State if you tried.

    …his lack of knowledge on foreign policy is alarming.

    How do you access his foreign policy knowledge? To do so would require foreign policy knowledge; so, what is your “foreign policy knowledge?” For that matter, before being elected, what was Obama’s foreign policy knowledge? Reagan’s? GW Bush?

    Quit trying to imulate Joe Scarborough. You sound as trite as he does.

Got something to say? Go for it!