May 25 lopes commented on 50 Places in Seattle That You're Taking for Granted.
Yeah, I'm with @3 here. A lot of this list is fine, but the new Rendezvous is not the OLD Rendezvous. The OLD Rendezvous had no windows and drunks and prostitutes used to hang out in front just to get some damn sunlight because, yes, they were there (and drunk and high) in the middle of the afternoon. Then they renovated it and that's fine and all, because, honestly, that place was never gonna make it in the new Belltown. But to somehow tell people that going there now is to experience older Seattle is ill-informed at best and outright delusional at worst.

Same for the old Frontier Room, where the old labyrinth of low-ceilinged hallways led to a bar tended by a heat-packing lesbian who took no shit from no person, then another labyrinth led to a sketchy pool room in the back. Putting the new Rendezvous on this list is akin to putting the new shiny, high-ceilinged Frontier Room (if it still existed), which would be a joke (albeit a pretty funny one).

Pacific Inn, though, kids. Y'all need to go there for fish 'n chips, cheap beer, and a healthy delivery of attitude.
May 23 lopes commented on The Morning News: House Fires, Homeless Shelter Headaches, and Goodbye to Washington's Racist Place Names.
@6/9 - "Seattle Police Officers Save a Sixth Person from Overdosing with Naloxone" is much more problematic, grammatically, even though it doesn't go against your singular and antiquated pet peeve.

I did not know what Naloxene was before reading the story, and I honestly thought it must be some new designer drug that has caused a recent rash of overdoses. Syntax matters, folks.
May 3 lopes commented on In 5-4 Vote, City Council Kills Street Vacation for New Sodo Arena.
@33-- For many years, I have owned a business two blocks from Safeco and the proposed arena. I travel in this area in and around games more than pretty much anyone in this city. Game traffic clears the area and the roads are normal within 30 minutes, generally (Seahawks are closer to 45, but there is surprisingly almost no concentrated traffic coming in to Seahawks games because tailgaters start coming five hours before kick-off and fans trickle in from there; the other two teams have moderately concentrated traffic for about 45 minutes before games). Add to this that the NBA averages 1/3 of the attendance of the Seahawks and less than half that of the Sounders. Simply put: the traffic concerns are way overblown. Occidental is mostly useless and carries almost no cars.
Mar 29 lopes commented on Washington Superdelegates Still Endorsing Clinton, Spurning Pro-Sanders Majority of State Voters.
Also! There is no requirement for any voting at all. Complaining that this isn't democratic misses the point. This isn't an election; it's a party selecting a candidate to represent them in an election. If they wanted to, they could choose by making the candidates play Pin the tail on the Donkey. But they don't. They have primaries and caucuses.

Frankly, the people have about 85% of the voice in choosing delegates (superdelegates make up about 15%), which is a greater share of the voice than at any time in US history except that short time in the 1970s.
Mar 29 lopes commented on Washington Superdelegates Still Endorsing Clinton, Spurning Pro-Sanders Majority of State Voters.
Asking superdelegates to follow the vote of the people is antithetical to why superdelegates exist. They were created to return some of the voice of who the nominee is to long-time, loyal party members. This happened after a short experiment in the 70s where 100% of the voice was given to the voters and what they got was McGovern and Carter, one win in three cycles, and Reagan in the White House. (Before the 70s, of course, ALL delegates were basically what we now call superdelegates: party establishment people who voted at the convention). So they brought in the superdelegates to partially act as a check and balance to the voter, NOT to follow the voters. You might like it or you might hate it, but asking or demanding that superdelegates vote with the people shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what a superdelegate is.

Let's try to remember that superdelegates are NOT acting as elected officials in this capacity; they're acting as independent members of a political party.
Mar 23 lopes commented on Support the Real Progressive.
@14-- I'm not refuting that. I'm discussing his viability as a national candidate and the mud that will be slung at him and his vulnerabilities in a general election, then, ultimately, how they;re likely to make the pre-convention polls people are touting completely irrelevant.

I'm a long-time proponent of democratic socialism. That all has nothing to do with the point I was making, though.
Mar 23 lopes commented on Support the Real Progressive.
@2/4--

Candidate v. candidate polls taken pior to the conventions are historically WAY off the mark.

Bernie is in the blessed position of not having had to weather any negative attacks, primarily because the Republicans see him as their preferred opponent so they've let him be. Hilary has higher negatives relative to Bernie now because she has weathered GOP attacks for 25 years, which means that people have formed their opinions and she's not dropping any farther than where she is now. Bernie, on the other hand, is new and shiny as far as the national spotlight is concerned. If he gets into the general, expect his negatives to be pushed to the fore: single-issue candidate, no foreign policy experience, the dreaded "S" word. He is WAY above his potential floor. Hillary is at hers already.

Anyway, I love Bernie, but I think it's important to point out that the penchant for pointing to these pre-convention polls is both historically flawed and, in this specific case, more likely to swing away from Bernie than it would with more nationally known candidates.
Feb 16 lopes commented on Bernie's More Popular than Ever, So Why Is He Still Losing So Badly?.
Sorry, Baume, but you conveniently left off an important part of the history of superdelegates and primaries.

If that seems a little undemocratic, that's because it's supposed to be. The Democrats created superdelegates back in the 70s and 80s after voters lined up behind some particularly unsuccessful candidates. Party bosses decided they knew better than voters, so they created a system whereby the governors, senators, and various luminaries got to pick their candidate independent of voters.


Um... That's only part of the story. Up until 1968, the ONLY people selecting the party's candidate were party delegates. Or, put another way, 100% of the delegates were what we now call superdelegates. After the '68 riots in Chicago, the DNC created the primary/caucus system. THEN, after a lackluster 70s, they decided to give a small amount of power back to the party establishment. Today, it's only slightly less than 15%. So, it's only been for two nomination cycles in the history of our country ('72 and '76; '80 was an incumbent year) that voters had 100% of the power in choice of candidate.

BUT! More importantly, there is no requirement at all for a candidate to be selected democratically. None. Because this is not an election. It's the party's process for choosing a candidate for an election. Hell, if they wanted, the DNC could choose their candidate by drawing straws or arm wrestling or picking 1000 people off of the street to play the world's largest game of pin the tail on the donkey.

With today's process, the people have more say in candidate selection that at almost any time in our 228-year history (we're talking Constitution here, not Declaration).

And, finally, as others have pointed out, if by some miracle Bernie started sweeping states and dominating the primaries, the superdelegates would certainly vote for him at the convention in a show of party unity. That's why conventions are no fun anymore.
More...