-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Primaries, Politics, and Playing the Game
Author: BobR
Date: 04/20/2016 13:38:14
New York state voted yesterday, and both Clinton and Trump had resounding victories. As always, those on the losing side complained of "dirty tricks" and "voter suppression". What happened is what is known as "the party system", which is what's supposed to happen during the primaries. That is the function of the primaries, to allow the members of the parties to pick their candidate for the general election.
For better or worse, election law (other than campaign finance regulations) are left up to the states, so every state has it's own rules. Within the states, counties (or precincts) may have their own way of doing things. It's up to the campaigns to ensure that they know what those regulations are and comply with them, and ensure their supporters are doing the same. This is why it's advantageous for a candidate to belong to an established party - there is an infrastructure in place to make sure the "i's" are dotted and the "t's" are crossed - in every state, city, etc. It is difficult for new or independent candidates to run without this infrastructure, which is likely why Sanders decided to run as a Democrat, rather than try to create his own party.
Sanders as an "independent" (running as a Democrat) has electrified a certain sliver of the electorate that eschew the standards of the party system, and instead are chasing a ground-up reformation, where the old party system is no longer part of the equation. The realities of that hit them hard yesterday, when they found out that New York has a "closed" primary. This prevents members of one party (and - yes, independents) from voting for (or against) candidates in another party's primary. They also have rules in place to prevent members of a party from switching very close to the primary election. These are not new laws.
Closed primaries have their supporters and naysayers for various reasons, but it is the law in the state, and it is up to the voters to know the laws in their state. I - for one - support closed primaries. To me, an open primary is akin to letting workers in a non-union shop vote for the head of the union in the shop next door. The party is in place to bring a candidate to the general election - it is not there to cater to voters who aren't interested in the party, other than to vote for one candidate or against the other.
A lot of Sanders supporters are young, first-time voters who seem to be more concerned with supporting their candidate than doing what is required to actually get him elected - like registering to vote (and as a member of the Democratic party). Not allowing someone to vote in the Democratic party when they aren't registered to vote as one isn't voter suppression - it's the law.
I have read that persons registered as Democrats who did not vote for two years were switched to independent without their knowledge - preventing from voting in the primary. If so, that is a lousy rule. It does not, however, remove the onus from the voter to ensure their registration is correct. It has also been said that Clinton sent emails to her supporters reminding them to check their registration. Sanders did not. That is not evidence of Clinton "cheating" - it's evidence that her campaign is on top of what the situation and laws are in New York, and the Sanders campaign dropped the ball.
I have also seen reports that voting locations were changed suddenly. That does not help or hurt any candidate in particular - it hurts everyone. Every state has its own set of voting peculiarities - engaged voters and campaigns just need to be vigilant and work within them. A nationwide system that is simple and works for all voters would be ideal, but that would pretty much require a constitutional amendment, so for now - we all have to play with the cards we've been dealt.
The Sanders campaign (and - to a similar extent Trump on the Republican side) has struck a chord with voters tired of "business as usual" in politics. However much they hate it, though, they must play this game on the field provided and with the rules in place before they can achieve the power required to change them.
For better or worse, election law (other than campaign finance regulations) are left up to the states, so every state has it's own rules. Within the states, counties (or precincts) may have their own way of doing things. It's up to the campaigns to ensure that they know what those regulations are and comply with them, and ensure their supporters are doing the same. This is why it's advantageous for a candidate to belong to an established party - there is an infrastructure in place to make sure the "i's" are dotted and the "t's" are crossed - in every state, city, etc. It is difficult for new or independent candidates to run without this infrastructure, which is likely why Sanders decided to run as a Democrat, rather than try to create his own party.
Sanders as an "independent" (running as a Democrat) has electrified a certain sliver of the electorate that eschew the standards of the party system, and instead are chasing a ground-up reformation, where the old party system is no longer part of the equation. The realities of that hit them hard yesterday, when they found out that New York has a "closed" primary. This prevents members of one party (and - yes, independents) from voting for (or against) candidates in another party's primary. They also have rules in place to prevent members of a party from switching very close to the primary election. These are not new laws.
Closed primaries have their supporters and naysayers for various reasons, but it is the law in the state, and it is up to the voters to know the laws in their state. I - for one - support closed primaries. To me, an open primary is akin to letting workers in a non-union shop vote for the head of the union in the shop next door. The party is in place to bring a candidate to the general election - it is not there to cater to voters who aren't interested in the party, other than to vote for one candidate or against the other.
A lot of Sanders supporters are young, first-time voters who seem to be more concerned with supporting their candidate than doing what is required to actually get him elected - like registering to vote (and as a member of the Democratic party). Not allowing someone to vote in the Democratic party when they aren't registered to vote as one isn't voter suppression - it's the law.
I have read that persons registered as Democrats who did not vote for two years were switched to independent without their knowledge - preventing from voting in the primary. If so, that is a lousy rule. It does not, however, remove the onus from the voter to ensure their registration is correct. It has also been said that Clinton sent emails to her supporters reminding them to check their registration. Sanders did not. That is not evidence of Clinton "cheating" - it's evidence that her campaign is on top of what the situation and laws are in New York, and the Sanders campaign dropped the ball.
I have also seen reports that voting locations were changed suddenly. That does not help or hurt any candidate in particular - it hurts everyone. Every state has its own set of voting peculiarities - engaged voters and campaigns just need to be vigilant and work within them. A nationwide system that is simple and works for all voters would be ideal, but that would pretty much require a constitutional amendment, so for now - we all have to play with the cards we've been dealt.
The Sanders campaign (and - to a similar extent Trump on the Republican side) has struck a chord with voters tired of "business as usual" in politics. However much they hate it, though, they must play this game on the field provided and with the rules in place before they can achieve the power required to change them.
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Comment by 
wickedpam on 04/20/2016 13:23:06
wickedpam on 04/20/2016 13:23:06
Morning 
Hm, New York looks like Virginia when it votes. NoVA seems to move the whole state like NY's major metro's move NY state.
Hm, New York looks like Virginia when it votes. NoVA seems to move the whole state like NY's major metro's move NY state.
Comment by 
Scoopster on 04/20/2016 13:24:59
Scoopster on 04/20/2016 13:24:59
Mornin' all! 
Some fun facts about the above graphic..
- In the five boroughs of NYC, with a population of 15 Million +, only ~107.5k votes were cast in the GOP primary.
- Hillary's margins outside of NYC came in areas not only with cities, but with high student populations (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse) where you'd expect Bernie's base to clean up. The notable exception is Albany/Rensellaer.
- Clinton County (waaay upstate) was won by Sanders, while Pete Seeger's home county Rockland was won by Clinton.
Some fun facts about the above graphic..- In the five boroughs of NYC, with a population of 15 Million +, only ~107.5k votes were cast in the GOP primary.
- Hillary's margins outside of NYC came in areas not only with cities, but with high student populations (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse) where you'd expect Bernie's base to clean up. The notable exception is Albany/Rensellaer.
- Clinton County (waaay upstate) was won by Sanders, while Pete Seeger's home county Rockland was won by Clinton.
Comment by 
Raine on 04/20/2016 13:27:04
Spot on, Scoop!
Raine on 04/20/2016 13:27:04
Quote by Scoopster:
Mornin' all!
- In the five boroughs of NYC, with a population of 15 Million +, only ~107.5k votes were cast in the GOP primary.
- Hillary's margins outside of NYC came in areas not only with cities, but with high student populations (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse) where you'd expect Bernie's base to clean up. The notable exception is Albany/Rensellaer.
- Clinton County (waaay upstate) was won by Sanders, while Pete Seeger's home county Rockland was won by Clinton.
Spot on, Scoop!
Comment by Raine on 04/20/2016 13:27:59
Virginia is an awful lot like NYS. I tell that to a lot of people and I don;t think they quite believe me, The graphic above is proof!
Raine on 04/20/2016 13:27:59
Quote by wickedpam:
Morning
Hm, New York looks like Virginia when it votes. NoVA seems to move the whole state like NY's major metro's move NY state.
Virginia is an awful lot like NYS. I tell that to a lot of people and I don;t think they quite believe me, The graphic above is proof!
Comment by wickedpam on 04/20/2016 13:35:17
Very much so. It plays into why we are a purple state. Still think NoVA should be its own state at this point, the rest of the state is bringing us down
wickedpam on 04/20/2016 13:35:17
Quote by Raine:Quote by wickedpam:
Morning
Hm, New York looks like Virginia when it votes. NoVA seems to move the whole state like NY's major metro's move NY state.
Virginia is an awful lot like NYS. I tell that to a lot of people and I don;t think they quite believe me, The graphic above is proof!
Very much so. It plays into why we are a purple state. Still think NoVA should be its own state at this point, the rest of the state is bringing us down
Comment by 
TriSec on 04/20/2016 13:40:34
TriSec on 04/20/2016 13:40:34
Greetings, comrades!
TriSec may be ambulatory later today with massive doses of pillage and careful medical therapy.
My achilles responds well to lengthy standing, hiking, and climbing. Unfortunately, my spinal area does not. (Plus 10 hours in a van)
TriSec may be ambulatory later today with massive doses of pillage and careful medical therapy.
My achilles responds well to lengthy standing, hiking, and climbing. Unfortunately, my spinal area does not. (Plus 10 hours in a van)
Comment by 
BobR on 04/20/2016 13:40:51
BobR on 04/20/2016 13:40:51
BLOG POSTED
Comment by BobR on 04/20/2016 13:43:40
Sorry - your graphic disappeared when I merged the blogs.
Nonetheless - I found it interesting that if you change Bernie's color to red, the map will likely look exactly like the presidential voting map
BobR on 04/20/2016 13:43:40
Quote by Raine:Quote by Scoopster:
Mornin' all!
- In the five boroughs of NYC, with a population of 15 Million +, only ~107.5k votes were cast in the GOP primary.
- Hillary's margins outside of NYC came in areas not only with cities, but with high student populations (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse) where you'd expect Bernie's base to clean up. The notable exception is Albany/Rensellaer.
- Clinton County (waaay upstate) was won by Sanders, while Pete Seeger's home county Rockland was won by Clinton.
Spot on, Scoop!
Sorry - your graphic disappeared when I merged the blogs.
Nonetheless - I found it interesting that if you change Bernie's color to red, the map will likely look exactly like the presidential voting map
Comment by Raine on 04/20/2016 13:49:43
here is the link to the graphic.
Raine on 04/20/2016 13:49:43
Quote by BobR:Quote by Raine:Quote by Scoopster:
Mornin' all!
- In the five boroughs of NYC, with a population of 15 Million +, only ~107.5k votes were cast in the GOP primary.
- Hillary's margins outside of NYC came in areas not only with cities, but with high student populations (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse) where you'd expect Bernie's base to clean up. The notable exception is Albany/Rensellaer.
- Clinton County (waaay upstate) was won by Sanders, while Pete Seeger's home county Rockland was won by Clinton.
Spot on, Scoop!
Sorry - your graphic disappeared when I merged the blogs.
Nonetheless - I found it interesting that if you change Bernie's color to red, the map will likely look exactly like the presidential voting map
Comment by Will in Chicago on 04/20/2016 13:53:21
Will in Chicago on 04/20/2016 13:53:21
I suspect that the primaries will continue for a while for both parties. First, candidates will want to influence the platform. (Bernie Sanders in particular may want to see how he can shape the party in the long run.) Secondly, the candidates still have a lot of money.
I do question the wisdom of a law to take voters off of a party's rolls after two years. I think that New Yorkers may want to take a look at that law.
As for the GOP, I fear nothing will be settled before Cleveland.
I do question the wisdom of a law to take voters off of a party's rolls after two years. I think that New Yorkers may want to take a look at that law.
As for the GOP, I fear nothing will be settled before Cleveland.
Comment by 
Mondobubba on 04/20/2016 14:01:28
Mondobubba on 04/20/2016 14:01:28
Yeah, I have seen the whining and whinging from the Bernie Bros who are Facebook friends about the voting laws in NYS and closed primaries. To them, I say, boo-freaking-hoo. Learn the laws, make sure your registration is correct. Make sure you made the change long enough in advance. Stop whining about how closed primaries are unfair. I always felt that registering as in independent was a waste of time. Make up you mind and join a party.
Comment by Scoopster on 04/20/2016 14:07:18
About Sanders & the Party - this article is pretty good laying out how the campaign should morph into a force to change the party from within (and perhaps all those rules they're so upset about can be tweaked as a result).
Scoopster on 04/20/2016 14:07:18
Quote by Will in Chicago:
I suspect that the primaries will continue for a while for both parties. First, candidates will want to influence the platform. (Bernie Sanders in particular may want to see how he can shape the party in the long run.) Secondly, the candidates still have a lot of money.
I do question the wisdom of a law to take voters off of a party's rolls after two years. I think that New Yorkers may want to take a look at that law.
As for the GOP, I fear nothing will be settled before Cleveland.
About Sanders & the Party - this article is pretty good laying out how the campaign should morph into a force to change the party from within (and perhaps all those rules they're so upset about can be tweaked as a result).
Comment by Will in Chicago on 04/20/2016 14:14:28
There is a good argument to be made about changing a party from within. The Tea Party was able to take over the GOP, largely by organizing at a local level and taking such positions as precinct captains. In the end, they helped select many of the candidates in the Republican Party.
Will in Chicago on 04/20/2016 14:14:28
Quote by Mondobubba:
Yeah, I have seen the whining and whinging from the Bernie Bros who are Facebook friends about the voting laws in NYS and closed primaries. To them, I say, boo-freaking-hoo. Learn the laws, make sure your registration is correct. Make sure you made the change long enough in advance. Stop whining about how closed primaries are unfair. I always felt that registering as in independent was a waste of time. Make up you mind and join a party.
There is a good argument to be made about changing a party from within. The Tea Party was able to take over the GOP, largely by organizing at a local level and taking such positions as precinct captains. In the end, they helped select many of the candidates in the Republican Party.
Comment by BobR on 04/20/2016 14:16:11
From the article: "And he brings a unique persona to national politics: a disheveled, irascible, sometimes grumpy man who carries a trace of Brooklyn in his accent and his blunt habits of communication"
A trace? A TRACE??
BobR on 04/20/2016 14:16:11
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Will in Chicago:
I suspect that the primaries will continue for a while for both parties. First, candidates will want to influence the platform. (Bernie Sanders in particular may want to see how he can shape the party in the long run.) Secondly, the candidates still have a lot of money.
I do question the wisdom of a law to take voters off of a party's rolls after two years. I think that New Yorkers may want to take a look at that law.
As for the GOP, I fear nothing will be settled before Cleveland.
About Sanders & the Party - this article is pretty good laying out how the campaign should morph into a force to change the party from within (and perhaps all those rules they're so upset about can be tweaked as a result).
From the article: "And he brings a unique persona to national politics: a disheveled, irascible, sometimes grumpy man who carries a trace of Brooklyn in his accent and his blunt habits of communication"
A trace? A TRACE??
Comment by Mondobubba on 04/20/2016 14:17:49
Mondobubba on 04/20/2016 14:17:49
Speaking as we have been about primary elections and delegates Sam Bee breaks down super delegates:
Comment by TriSec on 04/20/2016 14:46:50
TriSec on 04/20/2016 14:46:50
See now, Massachusetts has a partially open primary. Registered party members have to take a party ballot, but unenrolled voters can pick any party ballot they like.
We only had a couple of folks at my precinct have issues; mostly registered Dems that wanted to vote Trump but weren't allowed to do so.
We only had a couple of folks at my precinct have issues; mostly registered Dems that wanted to vote Trump but weren't allowed to do so.
Comment by Raine on 04/20/2016 14:51:13
Raine on 04/20/2016 14:51:13
Well this promisies to be very interesting.
Donald Trump still has a chance to capture the Republican presidential nomination on the first ballot at the party’s national convention this summer, thanks in part to his commanding victory in New York on Tuesday.
Unlike past GOP nominees, however, he might not have carte blanche to pick his running mate.
Delegates at the convention in Cleveland will vote separately on the nominations for president and vice president, and there is a key difference in the rules governing each vote: Although most of the delegates will be bound by their states to vote for a certain presidential candidate on the first ballot, none of them are required to vote for any candidate for vice president.
Comment by Raine on 04/20/2016 14:59:37
Raine on 04/20/2016 14:59:37
Comment by BobR on 04/20/2016 15:04:34
I'm not really sure what the point was. It was an interesting observation, but - as stated in the article - there doesn't seem to be any specific causation identified.
BobR on 04/20/2016 15:04:34
Quote by Scoopster:
NPR brings up a REALLY good point.
I'm not really sure what the point was. It was an interesting observation, but - as stated in the article - there doesn't seem to be any specific causation identified.
Comment by 
trojanrabbit on 04/20/2016 15:11:29
Yup, and if you want to re-register as "unenrolled" you can do so right after you vote.
trojanrabbit on 04/20/2016 15:11:29
Quote by TriSec:
See now, Massachusetts has a partially open primary. Registered party members have to take a party ballot, but unenrolled voters can pick any party ballot they like.
We only had a couple of folks at my precinct have issues; mostly registered Dems that wanted to vote Trump but weren't allowed to do so.
Yup, and if you want to re-register as "unenrolled" you can do so right after you vote.
Comment by TriSec on 04/20/2016 15:25:23
TriSec on 04/20/2016 15:25:23
Why, there's not one, but TWO day games today!
Comment by Mondobubba on 04/20/2016 16:09:03
Mondobubba on 04/20/2016 16:09:03
Primaries Aren't Suppose to be Democratic.
Manafort says Trump wants Republicans and independents, “not the party bosses,†to choose the nominee. Lewandowski complains that in some states, delegates are chosen based on “whether they run for statewide office and how much volunteering they have done,†while other applicants are slighted “because they haven't been involved the last 25 years. That’s everything that’s wrong with the party system.â€
Everything that’s wrong with the party system? Dude, that is the party system. A party is an organization. It has every right to award clout based on how much work you’ve put in over the years. Why should drive-by independents get more say than party bosses? I should know: I was one of those independents. In 2000, the Maryland Republican Party allowed people like me to vote in its presidential primary. I voted for John McCain over George W. Bush. McCain was a better fit for people like me. But was he a better fit for the party? And isn’t that the point of a Republican primary—to choose a candidate who will represent the GOP?
Comment by Raine on 04/20/2016 16:19:57
I will admit in advance, I have not read the articelm but I have long held the belief that primaries are not democratic. Federal elections are. Primaries are run by oganizations.
I know people don;t like to hear it, but it is what it is.
Raine on 04/20/2016 16:19:57
Quote by Mondobubba:
Primaries Aren't Suppose to be Democratic.Manafort says Trump wants Republicans and independents, “not the party bosses,†to choose the nominee. Lewandowski complains that in some states, delegates are chosen based on “whether they run for statewide office and how much volunteering they have done,†while other applicants are slighted “because they haven't been involved the last 25 years. That’s everything that’s wrong with the party system.â€
Everything that’s wrong with the party system? Dude, that is the party system. A party is an organization. It has every right to award clout based on how much work you’ve put in over the years. Why should drive-by independents get more say than party bosses? I should know: I was one of those independents. In 2000, the Maryland Republican Party allowed people like me to vote in its presidential primary. I voted for John McCain over George W. Bush. McCain was a better fit for people like me. But was he a better fit for the party? And isn’t that the point of a Republican primary—to choose a candidate who will represent the GOP?
I will admit in advance, I have not read the articelm but I have long held the belief that primaries are not democratic. Federal elections are. Primaries are run by oganizations.
I know people don;t like to hear it, but it is what it is.
Comment by Mondobubba on 04/20/2016 16:20:43
Couldn't agree with what you said there more.
Mondobubba on 04/20/2016 16:20:43
Quote by Raine:Quote by Mondobubba:
Primaries Aren't Suppose to be Democratic.Manafort says Trump wants Republicans and independents, “not the party bosses,†to choose the nominee. Lewandowski complains that in some states, delegates are chosen based on “whether they run for statewide office and how much volunteering they have done,†while other applicants are slighted “because they haven't been involved the last 25 years. That’s everything that’s wrong with the party system.â€
Everything that’s wrong with the party system? Dude, that is the party system. A party is an organization. It has every right to award clout based on how much work you’ve put in over the years. Why should drive-by independents get more say than party bosses? I should know: I was one of those independents. In 2000, the Maryland Republican Party allowed people like me to vote in its presidential primary. I voted for John McCain over George W. Bush. McCain was a better fit for people like me. But was he a better fit for the party? And isn’t that the point of a Republican primary—to choose a candidate who will represent the GOP?
I will admit in advance, I have not read the articelm but I have long held the belief that primaries are not democratic. Federal elections are. Primaries are run by oganizations.
I know people don;t like to hear it, but it is what it is.
Couldn't agree with what you said there more.
Comment by Scoopster on 04/20/2016 16:25:25
Scoopster on 04/20/2016 16:25:25
So.. changing the subject here for a moment...
Who's been keeping up with Better Call Saul this season?
Who's been keeping up with Better Call Saul this season?
Comment by trojanrabbit on 04/20/2016 16:37:24
trojanrabbit on 04/20/2016 16:37:24
Every day I get closer to the day that I fucking pull the plug on Facebook because of the squabbling. Either that or every news organization's pages get blocked.
Comment by Mondobubba on 04/20/2016 17:17:08
Me! Oh me! Meeeee! What do you think Chuck is going to do with Jimmy's confession?
Mondobubba on 04/20/2016 17:17:08
Quote by Scoopster:
So.. changing the subject here for a moment...
Who's been keeping up with Better Call Saul this season?
Me! Oh me! Meeeee! What do you think Chuck is going to do with Jimmy's confession?
Comment by Scoopster on 04/20/2016 17:23:24
Before I begin... 
.
.
.
.
.
Definitely ruin his partnership/relationship, attempt to get him disbarred but fail somehow. Now that we're starting to see some of the forecasting to Breaking Bad, I'm guessing it'll be a connection to Papa Salamanca or yet-to-be-seen Gus.
Scoopster on 04/20/2016 17:23:24
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by Scoopster:
So.. changing the subject here for a moment...
Who's been keeping up with Better Call Saul this season?
Me! Oh me! Meeeee! What do you think Chuck is going to do with Jimmy's confession?
.
.
.
.
.
Definitely ruin his partnership/relationship, attempt to get him disbarred but fail somehow. Now that we're starting to see some of the forecasting to Breaking Bad, I'm guessing it'll be a connection to Papa Salamanca or yet-to-be-seen Gus.
Comment by Scoopster on 04/20/2016 17:27:59
Scoopster on 04/20/2016 17:27:59
And Michael McKean better win an Emmy. He's playing the "straight arrow" asshole brother to perfection.
Comment by 
livingonli on 04/20/2016 17:28:05
It seems like the children are controlling the debate over there.
livingonli on 04/20/2016 17:28:05
Quote by trojanrabbit:
Every day I get closer to the day that I fucking pull the plug on Facebook because of the squabbling. Either that or every news organization's pages get blocked.
It seems like the children are controlling the debate over there.
Comment by livingonli on 04/20/2016 17:28:51
livingonli on 04/20/2016 17:28:51
One interesting note, in two districts in Westchester County, Ted Cruz got fewer votes than Ben Carson.
Comment by Mondobubba on 04/20/2016 17:35:12
I think that Gus will show up sometime next season. Actually, I am much more interested in the Mike arc than the Jimmy arc. There are, however, definite similarities between them. They both are trying to stay good, but I want to see where both of them slip. Clearly Mike could have taken out the entire Salamanca organization from his sniper's nest, but thought better of it. Or did he? Who put the stick into the horn of his car?
Mondobubba on 04/20/2016 17:35:12
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by Scoopster:
So.. changing the subject here for a moment...
Who's been keeping up with Better Call Saul this season?
Me! Oh me! Meeeee! What do you think Chuck is going to do with Jimmy's confession?Before I begin...
.
.
.
.
.
Definitely ruin his partnership/relationship, attempt to get him disbarred but fail somehow. Now that we're starting to see some of the forecasting to Breaking Bad, I'm guessing it'll be a connection to Papa Salamanca or yet-to-be-seen Gus.
I think that Gus will show up sometime next season. Actually, I am much more interested in the Mike arc than the Jimmy arc. There are, however, definite similarities between them. They both are trying to stay good, but I want to see where both of them slip. Clearly Mike could have taken out the entire Salamanca organization from his sniper's nest, but thought better of it. Or did he? Who put the stick into the horn of his car?
Comment by Mondobubba on 04/20/2016 19:10:17
Mondobubba on 04/20/2016 19:10:17
Scoop, we killed the blog.
Comment by Raine on 04/20/2016 19:27:14
Raine on 04/20/2016 19:27:14
Quote by livingonli:
One interesting note, in two districts in Westchester County, Ted Cruz got fewer votes than Ben Carson.
Comment by Mondobubba on 04/20/2016 20:25:59
Mondobubba on 04/20/2016 20:25:59
Speaking of Better Call Saul,
BRYAN WILSON THE TEXAS LAW HAWK!
BRYAN WILSON THE TEXAS LAW HAWK!