Wow. And Bernie and Cruz cleaned up on delegates.
Bernie Sanders won 48 of Wisconsin’s pledged Dem delegates, while Hillary Clinton took 38, according to a tally the state Dem Party released this afternoon.
Though Sanders rolled to a 14-point win in yesterday’s primary, the party’s proportional system for divvying up delegates means Sanders will not significantly eat into Clinton’s lead nationally. What’s more, six of Wisconsin’s 10 superdelegates are backing Clinton.
On the GOP side, Ted Cruz won 36 of Wisconsin’s 42 delegates, according to results compiled by The Associated Press. That includes the 18 delegates at stake for the statewide results and 18 for winning six of Wisconsin’s congressional delegations. Trump picked up six delegates by winning the 3rd and 7th CDs, according to the AP.
In all, the state’s turnout was at 47.35 percent, the GAB said, though official results will not be in until after the vote is certified in a couple of weeks.
The fix is in for Hillary.
Bernie might end up with more wins and votes, but Democrats are not about Democracy. The elitists will choose Hillary.
If I was a Sanders supporter, I’d through off the bonds of your oppression, Democrat Party, and encourage Sanders to run Socialist Party after he gets the liberal shaft.
I could say the same thing about Trump….in fact I will. The fix is in. The Republicans will do whatever they can to deny Trump the nomination even if he has the most delegates. The only reason a number of Republicans are voting for Cruz is to stop Trump. Frankly you have more to worry about with Trump walking out of the convention and running as a third party candidate than the Dems do…and that would be a dream scenario.
Dave,
Since Trump is a Democrat: Calls for raising taxes, rips on Walker the great conservative reformer of our time, has had a long history of being pro-baby killing, supports stealing private property through eminent domain, donates to Bill and Hillary Clinton, has said Hillary would make a great president, been anti-second amendment, and generally rejects conservative Christian values…Republicans have good reason to deny Republican nomination to a closet Democrat.
Trump is a Republican as much as David Clark is a Democrat.
kev:
You better call Reince Pribus and tell him that Trump is a D, cuz he is all in a dither about THE Donald Trump tipping over the R apple cart. Remember just because kevin thinks it is so doesn’t make it true for everyone else..
“walker the great conservative reformer of our time”. Absolutely hilarious !! walker is no true conservative; career politician, opportunist, serial liar, sycophant, yes, but not a true conservative.
Baldy,
After all that hating on Scott Walker, you still deny being a liberal?
That is liberal fever swamp type rhetoric.
80% of likely Republican primary voters approve of the job Scott Walker is doing. That means 20% don’t approve.
And keeping a balanced perspective of approval ratings for presidents going into their final year in office:
GW Bush 30%
Obama 46%
Reagan 48%
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2016/04/pres-approval-4.png
kev:
Yes, I deny it.
In practice I am a pretty conservative guy, at least by the classical definition. Dr. Bob in Poli Sci (1969) would call me a Leopold-White conservative. But then you wouldn’t know much about the nuances of that distinction.
Baldy,
Given what you said about Scott Walker, you are not close to conservative.
You will have to give me your definition of what a “Leopold-White conservative” means beyond your unpatrotic urge in espousing defeatism at the hands of Islamic terrorists, your fever swamp hatred of Scott Walker, and your love of regulation that defies cost/benefit analysis.
I think you may be a liberal in deniel about being liberal.
Sounds like someone has a man crush.
Let’s see, Walker’s approval rating is 39%. Doyle’s was 34% when he left office. Not much of a difference if you ask me.
kev:
Given what I know about walker I wouldn’t call him a conservative either. But I am sure you have your own personal definition in “kevin’s New World Order Dictionary of Made-up Meanings”. Probably right next to “permit and “mandate”.
And as I have said before, do your own research. I just waste my precious time doing your work for you. And you may learn something in the process. Never too late to add to the old knowledge base.
Say, did you look at the CEA/EA in your WPDES file? Maybe I should say did you comprehend it? There is a C/B analysis in there. The consultant YOU hired put it together. If you feel it was incorrect you should go after their Errors and Omissions insurance.
And no, I am not in deniel (sic) about anything. I’ll freely and without malice admit when I am wrong. You should try that as well. Kinda frees up the soul…..
Pat,
If Scott Walker is not conservative, I sure would like to know what conservative looks like in action in Baldy’s world.
If it is John Kasich or Bernie Sanders, clearly, it is the base definition of conservative at issue.
I subscribe to Barry Goldwater definition.
Kevin, please point out where I said Walker wasn’t a conservative.
Pat,
Sorry, did not mean to impute that. Meant it in the context when Baldy was spouting off about Walker not being conservative.
kev:
Those facts always confuse you, don’t they?
And what is a Goldwater conservative ? Compare and contrast with a walker conservative. I’m ready to learn.
Goldwater conservative:
(from Goldwater, “Conscience of a Conservative”)
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. [I’d emphasis that phrase for Baldy]. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissable. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents ‘interests’, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest was liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.” —Barry Goldwater
I will not say Scott Walker is perfect Goldwater conservative, neither am I, but Walker is the best ray of sunshine toward a Goldwater conservative we have ever had. Reagan was hugely influenced by Goldwater and Scott Walker is as close to Reagan as we have seen since Reagan.
Baldy, why don’t you break out your socialist party/big government regulatory manuscripts and tell me your definition of “conservative”?
I dare you.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-wisconsin-debt-clock.html
Pat,
Debt is only 15% of GDP. Very healthy.
We also have substantially funded public pensions, unlike Illinois, who has hoplessly underfunded pensions and much larger debt with liberals in charge. Illinois may have to declare bankruptcy because of their pension debacle, something Walker got under control in this state.
Squirrel
Pat,
Yep, that’s what they love to eat in North Korea with socialists in charge…if they are lucky.
kev:
In all the regulations I used to be involved with there was never a mention of liberal or conservative. Laws are enacted for the common good, e.g., the CWA was enacted to make the waters of our great nation fishable and swimmable once again. It was not created to punish the poor folks in Kewaskum. You can look it up.
You gave us one quote from Goldwater and think it explains the man. It doesn’t. We all just want to know how you relate to these facts about Goldwater. Some of these will be difficult for you to reconcile given your hard and fast positions in opposition to Goldwater. (multiple sources. Hint Google can be your friend):
-He lost to LBJ in by a landslide, thus validating the Great Society programs.
– He was viewed by many of his contemporaries as a reactionary rather than a forward thinker. After 1964 he was no longer a leader of the “conservative” movement.
-He believed in UFOs
-“When you say “radical right” today, I think of those money making ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye” 1994 interview with Washington Post. (How true yet today).
-He was a vocal opponent of the religious right on a number of issues, including abortion, gay rights and religion in politics.
-He viewed abortion as a personal choice and supported abortion rights.
-He gave a speech in 1981 on how angry he was about the bullying of politicians by religious organizations, and “would fight them every step of the way”.
-His grandson is gay and Goldwater was a proponent of gay rights.
-He wasn’t a regular church-goer, and often identified as being Jewish.
– He was an avid outdoors man and student of natural history. He worked to protect and preserve natural resources.
-He was a strong supporter of the CWA, “To this end, it is my belief that when pollution is found, it should be halted at the source, even if the requires stringent government action against important segments of our national economy”. (1969)
About the only similarity between walker and Goldwater is that neither finished college. I’m not sure how you can make any claim on being a Goldwater Conservative. Just another case of situational choice on your part. I’m sure you will have an excuse to explain it all away.
You should try research sometime. I learned even more about the man than I did before. Time well spent.
Baldy,
Goldwater eloquently summed up the Reagan conservative vein of Republican Party.
I didn’t say I agreed with everything Goldwater stood for.
If “gay rights” meant be nice to gay people, all for that. I f “gay rights” means destroying religious freedom for Christians, he would have been against that.
Yes, I disagree with him on abortion, but that does not dimish his eloquence on what it means to be an economic and regulatory conservative.
Why don’t you give me your definition of conservative?
Are you afraid?
kev;
I missed a couple:
-He endorsed a D in an Arizona congressional race.
-He urged R’s to lay off Bill Clinton regarding Whitewater.
-He was opposed to the military ban on gays in the military.
-Shortly before his death he addressed Rs with, “Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you have hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have”.
-He was in favor of legalized medical marijuana.
Baldy,
Some Democrats may be worth endorsing. Just on his anti-IRS speeches alone, I would have voted for James Traficant (D-OH). I’d love to have a “best of” floor speeches DVD for him. Unfortunately, like many Deomocrats, he ended up in prison.
I don’t have a problem with what Colorado is doing…as long as the pot smokers waive all government health care subsidy, FOREVER, as a requirement for partaking in the activity…and we tax it big time.
So once again you are a “selective” conservative”. You can pick and choose what fits your personal philosophy at the moment, but feel compelled to label others that are of differing opinions.
With all the warts on Goldwaters positions I am surprised you would even say his name out loud.
Based on Goldwaters stated positions on abortion, gays in the military, protecting the environment, and religion I could call myself a Goldwater Conservative. Where does that leave you?
Baldy said,
“So once again you are a “selective” conservative”. You can pick and choose what fits your personal philosophy at the moment, but feel compelled to label others that are of differing opinions.”
Of course. That’s what we all do. Is that some sort of revelation?
Goldwater was senile the last years of his life, starting around the Clinton time.
Pro Life is a well accepted conservative position.
Even Glenn Grothman had no problem decriminalizing Marijuana at one point. More good conservatives take that position than you think.
So these are not a big deal in terms of what we are talking about.
When it comes to “gay rights”, what is meant by that? Goldwater would not support the criminal gay rights lobby today punishing Chistians worse than gang thugs for practicing their faith.
What is your definition of conservative?
I think you are afraid to say because it wil expose you as not being close to conservative.
“I think you are afraid to say because it wil expose you as not being close to conservative.”
Kevin, do you think he’s as afraid to answer your question as you are mine about “Death camps and murder”?
I’m betting not.
kev:
You claim to be a Goldwater conservative, yet are against many of the things that BG was for. His positions on religion, abortion and gays should be sending you screaming into the wilderness . I have always said I am “a pretty conservative guy”, and qualified that by saying I use the Leopold-White wise-use definition. Now it took me a semester and some serious thought back in 1969 to come to that conclusion. Hence I voted for the likes of Nixon, Ford, Bush I and Dole. Too bad I didn’t have a chance to vote for BG. Having said that you need to do some home work rather than just spout off what you heard on Sykes or Rush, cuz you sure blew it on calling yourself a Goldwater conservative.
And I sure as heck hope I am nowhere close to being the type of “conservative” that you claim to be.
Baldy,
I subscribe to his definition of a conservative when it comes to economics and government regulation. (which in my opinion is 90% of the issues)
Yes, I disagree with him on abortion, and to some extent, the role of religion in government.
You have a better definition on what it means to be a conservative?
Have at it.
So you are a selective conservative, eh?
You have said many times that I am a liberal, so I must no be qualified to make such comments. Obviously you and only you know the truth.
Baldy,
If you are saying a conservative is pro- baby killing, that would be a error on your part.
What is your definition?
kev:
You have made the claim numerous times that I am some liberal heathen dwelling in a fever swamp (whatever that is, you never answered the question), so even if I answered the question you would still claim I was wrong. That is the big difference between us; you want to impose your personal beliefs on others as the absolute truth. You are always and absolutely correct, 100% of the time. I on the other hand could care less about your religious beliefs, position on abortion or the political candidate of your choice. But when you try to impose your beliefs on others, continually lie and use outrageous hyperbole in an attempt to prove your point, then I feel I must step in and comment.
You blew it when you claimed (without a good base of knowledge) to be a Goldwater conservative. Your continued hyperbole is also not a very conservative philosophy. You can look it up…..
Baldy,
You are incoorect about that facts again.
I said “I subscribe to the Goldwater definition” of a conservative. I did not say I aligned myself with Goldwater 100%.
No where in definition does it say a conservative must be pro-baby killing. Or never support a Democrat. Or talk about “gay rights”…whatever “gay rights” may mean.
Try to pay closer attention.
Well, BG subscribed to abortion rights, gay rights, keeping religion out of politics and government, and moderation rather than extremism. None of which suits you. You just didn’t do your homework before giving yourself a label. Live with it.
Did my homework.
Why don’t you explain to me how you consider yourself conservative?
OK, but I’m sure you will disagree;
I am fiscally frugal, or as the kids used to say, a tightwad.
I believe it is none of my business what happens in somebody elses bedroom.
A womans body is her own.
I believe that anyone can have whatever religious belief they feel is right for them as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others
No religion in politics, no politics in religion
Everybody pays their fair share, recognizing that some folks can’t for whatever reason
Wise use of our resources (of all types). Remember, this is the only planet we have, make it last.
No whining
There are more, but I am positive you wouldn’t understand the nuance, so I won’t waste my time trying to explain higher level thought to you.
Baldy,
Hate to break it to you. Many of those statements are staunchly liberal positions.
Kevin,
Would you point us to the source of the conservative bible that contains the commandments with which all members of the conservative religion must follow.
Pat,
Over 1/2 of Baldy’s statements can be found at some point in the Socialist party platform.
So I would not look to Baldy to define conservatism.
I would point to Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Inst., or Americans for Growth and Prosperity as a suggestion for current conservative thought.
Do not consult liberal sources like Socialist or Democrat platform, Greenpeace, PETA, unibomber manifesto, freedom from religion foundation, NPR, PMSNBC, Rosie O’Donnell, Trump, Hillary, Bernie, or people with hairless screen names, to define conservative thought.
Kevin,
You still didn’t answer my question. What are the specific conservative commandments that the conservative religion dictates must be upheld in order not to be judged a liberal or socialist, where are these commandments found, and what is the source of these commandments.
kev:
Looks like you had to read several chapters of “kevin’s Book of Made-Up Stuff” to come up with that litany of nonsense.
Why is every opinion that doesn’t pass your flexible definition of purity make the holder of that opinion a socialist? Or is that the only derogatory name you can come up with?
How is this for a definition of kevin’s version of conservativism:
willfully ignorant, incurious, ideological, reactionary, short-sighted, self-absorbed, authoritarian.
There re more, but you won’t find them in your Dictionary of Made Up Words.
Baldy,
If I can find your statements, or phrases, to define your explaination of “conservative” in the socialist party platform…how can the statement or phrase be conservative?
It’s as simple as that.
Nothing made up. Just pointing out the obvious.
kev:
So if you can find your shoes you can go outside today as well.
Is “no whining” in the socialist platform? Or “no religion in politics, no politics in religion” ? Or “wise use of resources” ?
What I do find encouraging is that you did not dispute any of the qualities found in your version of conservatism. I thought “incurious” is most descriptive.
Kevin said,”I would point to Heritage Foundation”
The same Heritage Foundation that wrote in 1987 that, “All citizens should be guaranteed universal access to affordable healthcare.”, and, “Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.”? That Heritage Foundation?
Pat:
Great catch.
kevin views conservativism as an organic and ever evolving principle, changing to whatever whim hits him on any particular day. What was conservative yesterday is socialism today, and vice versa. We all just have to fall in line and believe him without question.
And Kevin Corinth of the American Enterprise Institute that says, “I propose equipping homeless individuals with free smartphones and service plans in return for providing daily information on themselves through a specialized app”?
Isn’t that what conservative call the “Obama Phone”?
And Tim Phillips making such outlandish statements such as, “I think it’s every American’s right and responsibility to get in the arena and to try to make the country better by advocating policies that will make the country stronger and individual Americans stronger. We do not decry folks on the left who get involved, like George Soros. We think that’s a healthy thing.”
But I constantly hear conservatives like Kevin decry folks on the left who get involved, like George Soros.
Pat,
All the way back to 1987 for that one I see.
When Heritage means “affordable”, they mean tort reform, less regulation, less government in health care, and more free-market solutions.
I would not agree with “mandate” part, but, hey I don’t agree with the 100% of time. Heritage does not advocate that today.
Pat,
I agree with Tim Phillips. The liberal political correctness “shut up” nonsense is a dangerous thing.
However, that does not prevent me from criticizing Soros for spending his money toward advocating the Cuban and N. Korea style socialist governance.
Soros can spend his money, unlike liberals, I don’t want to stop speech. However, I’m entitled to criticize his advocacy toward destruction.
kev:
So what someone said or did in 1987 isn’t relevant today? How about something that was written over 200 years ago, is that still relevant?
Yes, our Constitution is still relevant even though liberals don’t even believe in 1st amendment anymore.
Sure, this alleged policy position has been amended since 1987 with Heritage, but their body of policy work is still far better for freedom and liberty, and the U.S.A. than your average anti- American liberal think tank.
Kevin,
You are the one who said that I can look toward those three organizations for the conservative commandments, and now you once again rationalize versus call them liberal socialists for their teachings. I guess when it comes to conservativism there is a lot of latitude with what one can believe and still be considered a conservative.
Pat,
Refering to Heritage policy position of today, not 1987.
It’s not like we are talking about the scientists that used to warn about the new ice age, and catastrophic global cooling back then.
Pat:
Isn’t it amazing the lengths kevin will go to rationalize his faulty argument? If he only spent that much time and effort attempting to actually research his position.
I agree, conservativism is a pretty flexible ideology. Pick and choose what suits your mood on any particular day.
Kevin,
So what is going to be the Heritages position tomorrow, or the next day? How do we know they won’t change their position back to some socialistic policy? They sound untrustworthy as an organization to look to for conservative biblical teachings.
And what about Kevin Corinth of the American Enterprise Institute and his plan to distribute, I guess what should be called now, “Corinth Phones” to the homeless? Doesn’t that go against conservative biblical teachings?
Pat, Baldy,
For the same reason you don’t believe past scientists who warned of catastrophic ice age as the new big government problem to solve, but now say global warming is the new big government problem to solve.
Kevin,
You’re going to have to explain the logic of your last post.
kev:
In you previous post on Peabody Coal you wanted big government involved with business. You change positions by the minute..