Liberals Suck at Politics

I attended an emergency community meeting the other night sponsored by the AFL-CIO and I came away with one giant take-a-way:  Liberals/progressives suck at politics.  I've actually known this for a while, but it was reinforced by some of the denial that I witnessed.  With the election of Trump, I think it's critical that liberals understand some things.

1. Don't care what the opposition thinks.  There is value in listening to other perspectives and understanding other points of view.  That being said, energy is much better spent trying to get non/low propensity voters to show up to the polls than to persuade conservatives to change their minds.  Are you really going to convince someone who completely disregards the scientific community and thinks climate change is a hoax that climate change is real?  No.  Are you going to persuade someone who thinks that black people have major advantages over white people that racism exists?  Not likely.  Are you going to sway someone who thinks that there is no difference between the two parties that Social Security and Medicare are more likely to be cut if they elect a Republican?  Maybe.
2. Understand the opposition.  If I had to choose Obama's biggest failing as a President, it would be not understanding conservatives.  I think that Obama thinks, that all conservatives are like the ones he met at Harvard (think David Brooks).  They're not. Newsflash:  People who allow your citizenship to become a defining issue for the first part of your presidency are not operating in good faith.  People who impeach a president over lying about a blowjob are not operating in good faith.  People who hold the economy hostage by credibly threatening not to raise the debt ceiling, are not operating in good faith.  People who refuse to even hold hearings for your SCOTUS nominee are not operating in good faith.
3. Emphasize the stakes.  You know what I didn't hear from the Clinton campaign?  I didn't hear about the Supreme Court.  I didn't hear about Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  I didn't hear about climate change.  I didn't hear about college tuition.  I didn't hear about building infrastructure.  Clinton had policies to improve these things, but they rarely if ever came up. Not in her ads, not in the debates.  The only things I heard were "Trump is a monster" (true) and "Go to HillaryClinton.com" which is the single worst phrase a candidate can utter.
4. Bipartisanship is a means not an end.  Working with the other side is fine if it aimed at achieving a greater good even though you don't get everything you want, but that is never where you should begin the conversation.  Working with the other side is bad if it ends with overly complicated policies that barely address the problem and make it easy for conservatives to label government ineffective.   Too often I see Democrats beginning from a negotiated position before negotiations have even started.  Set high goals and aim for them to be implemented broadly (like Social Security), that way if they're repealed they fuck over a much larger chunk of the population.
5. Politics happens more than once every four years.  Generally speaking, if Democrats show up to the polls, they win.  The problem is, they only show up occasionally and usually only for a presidential election.  Republicans show up to nearly every election like clockwork and that is why they control the majority of statehouses, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and soon the Presidency and the Supreme Court.  Democrats didn't even show up in high numbers in the primary where there was the possibility for real divergence from the party elite.  As brilliant film director and sexual predator, Woody Allen said, "80% of life is showing up".
6.  You don't need to like the politicians you elect.  I very seldom vote for someone I like as a human or don't have some serious disagreements with.  You have to be a little off to run for office, so don't expect these people to be perfect.  At the end of the day, you're electing someone to do a job.  Politicians are vehicles for change, not the catalyst.  It's crazy to place a whole lot of trust in politicians, so regard all of them with skepticism.
7. Voting is a collective act, not personal expression, or a consumer choice.  Refer back to rule six.  If voting was supposed to be a form of self-expression, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be anonymous.  Voting is a collective action to assign power.  Nothing more, nothing less.
8. Expect them to cheat.  People cheating to gain power?  Next thing you'll tell me is people lie on their resumes.  Seriously, they cheat because they know the electorate as a whole is not on their side.  What's the best way to respond?  Get more people to vote.
9. Politics is about power.  This is rule number one of political science, but it seems completely lost on many people.  Ultimately, power is being assigned and divided up.  The only difference between democratic forms of government and undemocratic forms of government is how power is assigned.  If you want to understand politics don't watch The West Wing, watch Game of Thrones.

Podcast 7-24-2016: Guns-a-Blazing

On this episode, Vinny and I engage in some free-association.  We talk about Trump voters, the Republican National Convention, and we go window shopping for weaponry on Armslist.com.

http://s71.podbean.com/pb/4f4e570e701a841b54e4eebd6f91a397/579e9a4f/data1/fs181/958366/uploads/Podcast_7-24-2016_podcast_7-24-2016.mp3

Notes:

• We talked about drinking here's an Economist article about global alcohol consumption.  The cited article is as of 2012 if anyone has newer or more detailed information please forward it to me.
• Tim Kaine is 58.
• Sen.  Mike Lee is running for reelection.
• A demographic breakdown of Trump supporters.

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Bernie Didn't Lose Because of the DNC

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is an idiot, a hack, and the DNC had their thumb on the scale for the Clinton campaign, but it had little to do with Clinton winning.  Clinton won because she had millions more votes than Sanders.  Her supporters showed up to vote in greater numbers and she had longstanding connections in minority communities.  That's it.

Were there incidents of voter disenfranchisement?  Yes.  Did they materially influence the outcome of the primary?  No.  In fact, the incidents of disenfranchisement particularly in Maricopa County in New Mexico, probably hurt Clinton more than they hurt Sanders.  Did party rules hurt Sanders? Maybe, but they were in place well before this primary and an equally good argument could be made that the long primary process helped Sanders by allowing his name to get out there.

Clinton received 16,847,075 votes while Sanders received 13,168,214.  This is in contrast to the 2008 Democratic primary where Obama received 17,584,692 votes and Clinton received 17,857,501.  The turnout numbers for 2008 don't even include the large states of Florida and Michigan that were excluded from the final count because they moved their primaries in violation of party rules.  The bottom line:  Worry about showing up to vote, not massive conspiracies between the incompetent DNC and the clueless Clinton campaign.

Sanders campaign accomplished a lot despite not winning the nomination:

• The TPP will likely be killed well before it has the chance to reach Clinton's desk.
•  The default position in the Democratic Party is now a public option that is the best way toward universal health care. 
• Clinton has now endorsed free tuition for families making under $125,000 a year. 
• The number of super-delegates has been cut by two-thirds in the primary process.  

These are all good and tangible things accomplished by the Sanders campaign and they will be completely abandoned if Donald Trump is our next president.

The next President will get to name 1-4 Supreme Court justices and greatly influence how the constitution is interpreted for the next 30 years. The choices are Clinton or Trump. If you're a progressive voter and you cast a third party vote or don't show up, that's half a vote for Trump.  Voting is a collective action, not a consumer choice.

Podcast 7-16-2016: May You Live in Interesting Times

In this episode, Vinny and I discuss HRC's emails, argue about Syria, talk about underinflated footballs, and the terrifying specter of a Trump presidency.

*NSFW

http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-jv2ym-6133e3/download

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Podcast 5-12-2016: Looking Toward a Long Hot Summer

After a long hiatus, Vinny and I discuss Libertarians, Clinton as the presumptive nominee, billionaires suing media outlets into oblivion, Deflategate/Ballghazi, trigger warnings for Vinny's dates, and more.

http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-53nm2-605ee5/download

NSFW
*Really disturbing images of Libertarians below the cut.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

Podcast 4/21/2016: Moderate Headaches

In this episode, Vinny and I discuss the never-ending saga of marijuana legalization in Vermont, our frenemy Saudi Arabia, the criminals behind the impeachment of Brazil's Dilma Rousseff, the bizarre but prevalent notion of political moderates, New York's primary, fraud in the Northeast Kingdom, the NFL concussion settlement, and more.

http://s51.podbean.com/pb/34b76ec08239f06a7215f684f8fe5cd9/57229f6d/data2/fs181/958366/uploads/Podcast_4-21-2016Full.mp3

NSFW

Notes:

• Speculation on the still classified 28 pages of the 9/11 report.
• A little on the bill that would allow American citizens to sue Saudi Arabia for terrorism.  In my view (and I'm certainly not a lawyer) this would set a bad precedent and potentially open us up to all sorts of legal action.  Could citizens of Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Iran, El Salvador, and/or Iraq sue us?  Would everyone in the world just start suing each other?  Declassify the 28 pages, stop selling them weapons, and stop helping them in Yemen, but allowing civil action might be a bad idea.
• Foreign workers accounted for roughly 30% of Saudi Arabia's population in 2014.
• A look at what is behind the push to impeach Brazil's Presiden Dilma Rousseff.
• The massive fraud in Vermont's Northeast Kingdom.  Looks like the underlying investment return was supposed to come from the sales of property and rents on condos.  In retrospect, it seems like people should have been much more skeptical.
• The extensive alleged criminal past of California Representative and former chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Darrell Issa.  It involves grand theft auto, arson, fraud, gun play, and drunk driving.
• Issa's net worth may be closer to $220 million rather than the $500 million figure I cited.

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Podcast 4/2/2016: The "Bernie or Bust" Movement and Minimum Wage

In this episode,  Vinny and I throw some cold water on the "Bernie or Bust" movement.  We then move on to discuss the political and economic justifications for a raise in the minimum wage.

http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-cavrx-5e1988/download

Notes:

• Zephyr Teachout is running for the House in New York's 19th Congressional district.  If you're serious about progressive policies then consider donating to her campaign or voting for her if you reside in the 19th.  She's from Vermont, for what it's worth.
• Russ Feingold is a progressive candidate for US Senate (and former US Senator) in Wisconsin. Again, the above applies.
• Tim Canova is challenging incompetent DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the Democratic Primary for Florida's 23rd congressional district.
• The minimum wage went from $0.40 in 1945 to $0.75 in 1950 to $1 in 1956.  
• From 1948 to 1960 unemployment was as follows (BLS): 

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

• 1948 3.4 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.8 4.0
• 1949 4.3 4.7 5.0 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.7 6.8 6.6 7.9 6.4 6.6
• 1950 6.5 6.4 6.3 5.8 5.5 5.4 5.0 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.2 4.3
• 1951 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.1
• 1952 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.7
• 1953 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.5 4.5
• 1954 4.9 5.2 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.0
• 1955 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.2
• 1956 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.1 3.9 3.9 4.3 4.2
• 1957 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.2
• 1958 5.8 6.4 6.7 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.4 7.1 6.7 6.2 6.2
• 1959 6.0 5.9 5.6 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.8 5.3
• 1960 5.2 4.8 5.4 5.2 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.5 6.1 6.1 6.6
 
• There were other things going on beside the minimum wage increase during this time like the baby-boom, soldiers returning from WWII, soldiers going to Korea, the G.I. bill, and the normal cyclical trends of the economy, but based on the above data I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to expect massive unemployment because of a minimum wage hike.
• During the same period of time as noted above inflation ranged from 10.2% in January of 1948 to -2.9% in October of 1949.  Again, there was a lot going on during this period of time. Since the 1920's the economy had been pretty volatile, so it takes a very selective reading of the data to pin it on a minimum wage increase (Inflation Calculator).  EDIT I just realized I cited the two extremes that occurred before either of the minimum wage increases.  Inflation from 1945-1960 was as follows:


• 1945 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.7 2.3 2.8 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3
• 1946 2.2 1.7 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.3 9.4 11.6 12.7 14.9 17.7 18.1 8.3
• 1947 18.1 18.8 19.7 19.0 18.4 17.6 12.1 11.4 12.7 10.6 8.5 8.8 14.4
• 1948 10.2 9.3 6.8 8.7 9.1 9.5 9.9 8.9 6.5 6.1 4.8 3.0 8.1
• 1949 1.3 1.3 1.7 0.4 -0.4 -0.8 -2.9 -2.9 -2.4 -2.9 -1.7 -2.1 -1.2
• 1950 -2.1 -1.3 -0.8 -1.3 -0.4 -0.4 1.7 2.1 2.1 3.8 3.8 5.9 1.3
• 1951 8.1 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.3 8.8 7.5 6.6 7.0 6.5 6.9 6.0 7.9
• 1952 4.3 2.3 1.9 2.3 1.9 2.3 3.1 3.1 2.3 1.9 1.1 0.8 1.9
• 1953 0.4 0.8 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.8
• 1954 1.1 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.0 -0.4 -0.7 -0.4 -0.7 0.7
• 1955 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.4 -0.7 -0.7 -0.4 -0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 -0.4
• 1956 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.9 2.2 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.2 3.0 1.5
• 1957 3.0 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.3 2.9 3.3 2.9 3.3
• 1958 3.6 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.2 2.8 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.8 2.8
• 1959 1.4 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.7 0.7
• 1960 1.0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.7


• Other empirical studies (namely Card and Krueger), have shown little to no increase in unemployment even when wage levels differ in neighboring states.  In the case of Card and Krueger, the minimum wage increased in New Jersey to levels above that of neighboring Pennsylvania.  The result was no discernable loss in employment compared to Pennsylvania and no noticeable rise in prices in affected restaurants.

NSFW

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Podcast 3/13/2016: Super-Duper Tuesday Predictions, Violence on the Trump Circuit, and Rahm Emanuel Needing the Cersei Lannister Treatment

Better late than never.

In this episode, Vinny and I make some terrible predictions regarding super-duper Tuesday, discuss the weather, Trump's white power rallies, and more.

http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-d4tin-5da0bd/download

Notes:

• I bring up a demographic stat at one point that I can't place a name to.  I still couldn't find it.  I'll keep looking.
• https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-challenged-over-ties-to-mob-linked-gambler-100050602.html Trump and the mob.
• Operation Linebacker II http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/linebacker-2.htm

NSFW

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Podcast 3/6/2016: Democratic Debate Color Commentary and Tuesday Predictions

On this episode, Vinny and I give the play by play on Sunday's Democratic debate.

We apologize for the quality of the audio.

http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-np3pc-5d5389/download

NSFW

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Podcast 3/5/2016: Super Tuesday Review, Preview of Saturday and Sunday Primaries/Caucuses

On this episode Vinny and I review our Super Tuesday predictions.  How wrong were we?

We'll also preview this weekend's primaries and caucuses.

http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-ycchc-5d4501/download

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Podcast 2/29/2016: SC(D) Recap, Super Tuesday Preview, Drunkenness, Syria, and Gasoline Huffing

On this episode Vinny and I discuss our terrible SC predictions, our new Super Tuesday predictions, drunkenness in history, the Syrian conflict, gasoline huffing, and more.

http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-wkt9g-5d2484/download

Notes:

• Hillary Clinton served as a Senator from January 2001-January 2009.

NSFW

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Realism for One

One of the things that irritates me the most about the upcoming election is that the media's line of questioning only seems to treat one candidate's policy proposals as though they're actually serious. Bernie Sanders is routinely questioned as though his proposals are crazy and unrealistic despite the fact that he's basically advocating for what every other western democracy already has.  I have no problem with asking Sanders tough questions like how he plans to pay for universal education or how he would get massive overhaul of the health care system through congress.  What I do have a problem with, is why other candidates are not subject to the same level of scrutiny.

Hillary Clinton has proposed a number of "reasonable" policies that under the current congress, where Obama could nominate Robert Bork and still not get him through confirmation in the Senate, would stand absolutely no chance of passing.  Clinton routinely talks about how she "would get stuff done" despite not offering any actual evidence of it.  The only things I see Clinton actually able to do given the current political climate, is work together with the Republicans to get bad free-trade deals and deeper involvement in wars we can't possibly win.

I don't hear how Clinton would pay for her policies.  Sanders at least has the decency to tell us that his "free stuff" would result in higher taxes and not just for the super-rich.  I never hear Clinton questioned on whether her "reasonable" and "technocratic" health care or education policies would create a massive amount of paperwork and bureaucracy for ordinary citizens to navigate.  I haven't heard anything about how these means-tested policies would be extraordinarily easy for congress to remove precisely because they don't apply to everyone.

Podcast 2/26/2016: Post-SC(R)/NV, Pre-SC(D)

In this episode, Vinny and I revisit our predictions of the Nevada caucuses, the Republican South Carolina primary, and make predictions for the Democratic South Carolina primary.

http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-hqs9h-5d07d0/download

South Carolina predictions:
AM:
Clinton 54%
Sanders 40%

VM:
Clinton 58-59%
Sanders 40%

Notes:

• I said we are more segregated then ever... This is undoubtedly false.  The real story however, is less clear.  It's likely that many of us are more segregated in schooling than in the late 1960s. Bottom line:  It's nuanced.  Check out this 2003 UCLA study. 

NSFW

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Podcast 2/20/2016: Nevada and South Carolina Prediction

In this episode, Vinny and I discuss where I actually agree with Donald Trump, the possibility of a fistfight in the next Republican debate, our predictions for the Republican South Carolina debate, and predictions for the Nevada Democratic and Republican caucuses.

http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-hqrcw-5cd602/download

Predictions:
VM:
SC Republican:

1. Trump 35%~
2. Cruz 25%~
3. Rubio 15%~
4. Jeb 9%~
5. Kasich 8%~
6. Carson 5%~

NV Democrats:

1. Sanders by a hair
2. Clinton

NV Republicans:

1. Trump 45%
2. Ted Cruz 25%
3. Rubio 15%
4. Kasich 10%

AM:

SC Republican:

1. Trump 30-35%
2. Rubio 20%~
3. Cruz 19%~
4. Jeb Who cares?
5. Kasich Who cares?
6. Carson Who cares?

NV Democrats:

1. Sanders by a hair
2. Clinton

NV Republicans:

1. Trump 35-40%
2. Cruz 20-25%
3. Rubio 15%~
4. Jeb 10%~
5. Carson 5%~

Notes:

• Next Republican debate is 2/25/2016 on CNN

NSFW

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

Podcast 1-31-2016: Pre-Iowa

On this episode, Vinny and I ramble on about the Sanders candidacy, luke-warm progressives, Vermont gubernatorial candidate Matt Dunne, hot Supreme Court action, our Iowa predictions, and more.

Iowa Caucus predictions:

VM: 

Democratic:

1. Sanders 
2. Clinton 
3. O'Malley 

Republican:

1. Trump 
2. Rubio 
3. Cruz 

AM:
Democratic:

1. Sanders 
2. Clinton 
3. O'Malley 

Republican:

1. Cruz 
2. Trump 
3. Rubio 

Notes:
When speaking of the overthrow of Mossadegh, I misspoke and said the "Iraqi army" when I should have said "Iranian".
Allen Dulles' law firm was "Sullivan and Cromwell" not "Simon and Cromwell"
"The Devil's Chessboard" http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Chessboard-Dulles-Americas-Government/dp/0062276166/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454520372&sr=1-1&keywords=the+devils+chessboard
"All the Shah's Men" http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/0471265179/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454520442&sr=1-2&keywords=all+the+shah%27s+men
"The Siege of Mecca" http://www.amazon.com/Siege-Mecca-Uprising-Islams-Holiest/dp/0307277739/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454520556&sr=1-1&keywords=the+siege+of+mecca
"The Seven US Ambassadors Killed in the Line of Duty"
Are agency fees for unions at public sector jobs a violation of free speech protections? http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/01/supreme-court-tackles-key-public-union-case-on-monday/ Frederichs v. CTA.
History of first amendment protections for public employees: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/FirstReport.PublicEmployees.pdf
Candidacy filings for president http://www.fec.gov/press/resources/2016presidential_form2pty.shtml
Debbie Wasserman Schultz's primary challenger Tim Canova https://timcanova.com/

NSFW

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

That Time Jim Webb Killed a Man and Other Observations from the Democratic Debate

That was a surprisingly substance filled debate.  I say surprisingly because after CNN's intro with cheesy graphics, weird hype, and Sheryl Crow national anthem intro, I thought I had mistakenly tuned into Big Brother, the Superbowl, or some kind of professional wrestling match.  As it turns out, I had just tuned into a shitty news network.

A few thoughts on our candidates:

Hillary
 

• Best quote: "No" when asked if she wanted to respond to Lincoln Chafee's criticism of her email scandal.
• Hilary is great at seeming to give a firm position on something while not really committing to anything.  A lawyer through and through.
• Hillary is a woman and she is running for President.
• Worst moment: A tie between Snowden would have been given whistle blower protection and she still can't shake the Iraq war vote.
• Overall, I think she did pretty well at least as far as superficial debate commentary goes.  She had a confident answer for everything, even if it wasn't a good answer she sounded as though she believed it.

Bernie

• Whether you agree with the man or not, you can't deny the man is passionate and sincere.
• He's an unpolished, unapologetic, angry old progressive, which is precisely what I like about him.
• Best quote:  Well I don't have the exact quote handy, but it was pretty great when he went after the media for the obsession over Benghazi and Hillary's emails.
• Worst moment:  He stumbled a little over guns.  Also he hasn't articulated the policy differences between him and Hillary clearly enough. 
• Strong showing, but did enough people see it?

Tommy Carcetti Martin O'Malley

• O'Malley is like the little brother of Hillary and Bernie.  He doesn't really differentiate himself from the other candidates very well.
• Best quote: Can't think of one.
• Worst moment:  He endorsed Hillary.
• Boring.

Lincoln Chafee

• Poor Lincoln Chafee.  Chafee seems like a genuinely likable person, but the man is just out of his league. But hey, he's never had a scandal. 
• Best quote:  When asked about his vote to repeal Glass-Steagall: Chafee "I was appointed to office; it was my very first vote. Anderson Cooper: "Are you saying you didn't know what you were voting for?" Chafee: "I'd just arrived to Senate." Chafee you sly dog you.
• Did I mention he's never had a scandal?  I know that's not something to brag about, but the man did hold office in Rhode Island.
• Get out now Lincoln.

Jim Webb
 

• Admittedly, I had only vague knowledge of Jim Webb.  I knew he was a war hero, a somewhat conservative Democratic Senator from Virginia, and that he had written some books.  What I learned last night is that he also (and I say this with no background in mental health whatsoever), is a tad off.
• Best quote:  This is hands down the best quote of the night.  When asked about what enemies he is proud to have made, "I’d have to say the enemy soldier that threw their grenade that wounded me, but he’s not around right now to talk to."  He should have walked out right there.  Seriously, has any candidate bragged about killing a man before?  Possibly, Andrew Jackson.  In fact, there's a decent chance Andrew Jackson killed someone at a debate. 
• Jim Webb, he's killed before and dammit, he'll do it again. 

Vote in Your Primaries

 

There are choices in the next presidential election and better choices in the primaries.  There is the possibility (albeit unlikely), that radically different candidates in either party could secure the nomination for president.  This requires however, that voters actually show up for something other than the presidential election.  If you want choice, you must vote in your primary.