Nate Silver has a pretty good piece up that explains why Donald Trump still has some series obstacles to hurdle if he wants to be the Republicans’ nominee. Almost everything he has to say could also be said about Bernie Sanders.
The two parties have different systems for awarding delegates, but most of these differences are fairly trivial. Both Trump and Sanders will probably need to rely on uncommitted delegates, most of which will be disinclined to support them.
In Trump’s case, his increasingly erratic behavior could be the biggest problem, but his lack of conservative orthodoxy and his inferior organization are also speed bumps, and these latter problems are ones he shares with Sanders to one degree or another.
Silver says that Trump is probably screwed if he can’t win on the first ballot, and I’m inclined to agree. I’d also say that Sanders is screwed if he needs to rely on superdelegates, which he will absolutely need to do. In a really best case scenario for Sanders where he pretty much runs the table of the remaining primaries and caucuses, he might manage to win the most pledged delegates, but he cannot win an outright majority of all the delegates. That’s why he and his campaign are talking about swaying superdelegates who have already committed to Clinton to change their minds.
I think this is a hopeless strategy, and mostly for the same reasons that Trump can’t hope to win on a second ballot.
The Sanders camp has adopted an adversarial posture toward the DNC and isn’t raising money for the party or many of the party’s officeholders. Clinton, meanwhile, is raising millions for both. Basic self-interest suggests that most superdelegates will prefer the candidate who is a team player and who brings in much needed money that will be used for organizing and advertising.
I don’t think Sanders has aroused the same kind of antipathy as Trump, but he isn’t doing the things he should do considering that his only path to success is to win over the party establishment.
I understand that it’s a difficult trick to run as an outsider and not alienate the insiders, but that’s the exact challenge facing Sanders and he does not seem to have figured this out.
He should realize that his mission is to take control of the DNC, not win in spite of it.
quibble about who adopted the adversarial posture towards whom.
Does it matter?
Boo, he’s going to win the general without impure DNC rich people money though! Plus, insiders like our sitting president, are corrupt Wall Street shills. When Republicans start running Marxist “revolutionary” adds, blurring lines with his voting record, and rat f__king him like he’s never experienced, the sheer goodness of his message will triumph. He doesn’t need party support; successful candidates never do!
DNC not entitled to money they don’t value, if money is speech.
Can argue the reverse, too.
Yeah, but…
That’s your take on it. It is clearly not his.
Why?
Because I think he knows full well that the DNC as it stands is completely owned by the very forces against which he is running. At best those people would okey-doke him to his face while meeting in back rooms with representatives from Goldman Sachs, Citibank etc. to plot how they could screw him up most effectively.
He’s running a long shot campaign. If his bet comes through, great. If not, he has at the very least proven that there is a young…and therefore growing…electorate that will not assent to being ruled by the .01%-owned PermaGov, and also his campaign might serve to drive HRC leftward in her search for the presidency even if that motion is only in terms of rhetoric and platform.
In 2020 there will be more people like those supporting him, less like those supporting HRC and many times less people who hew to the old-line Republican tenets. It’s just a matter of mortality.
In 2024? Provided we make it that far, of course…
Evolution wins.
Hopefully.
It’s been a long time since MLK Jr. spoke the following words, but they are no less true for all that.
I wrote above:
“It’s just a matter of mortality.”
In the long view. mortality is morality.
The “arc of the moral universe” is the ongoing process of evolution. As a man once told me, “It’s the life of Life.”
Hmmmmm…
We are seeing it in action now.
It’s slow and it’s messy, but it is also constant.
Bet on it.
I am.
I’m all in.
You are too, whether you know it or not.
Bet on that as well.
Bet on the side of evolution.
It’s the only game in town.
Always has been; always will be.
The only sure winner.
Ask the dinosaurs.
Later…
AG
Brilliant. I’ll put down the whiskey bottle for now.
DNC be a whole lot more comfortable with inviting the Koch Brothers to dinner than Bernie. Cousins under the skin. Won’t break the dishes.
‘There will be more people like those supporting him’. But I can’t imagine that at 78/9 Bernie Sanders is going to go out to mobilize them. Will there then be another Bernie Sanders by that time? No. The Democratic Party is very happy with the superdelegates, a very Machiavellian ploy to thwart an insurgent candidate like him. Thank god, they sigh, we thought of this way back then, how clever of us, getting down on their knees and praising one another. A third party is the only way. The glorious Founding Fathers, more than two centuries ago—got that, more than two centuries—delivered the fix on that strategy though they had no idea how it would play out. Let’s all be Originalists forever and ever.
You write:
Yes, I believe that there will be.
They are all over the place, fighting their individual fights. Most will lose, a few will win.
Here is the a video interview of one that I ran into on the net.
His name is John Fetterman; he is the mayor of Braddock…a small rust belt city just east of Pittsburgh…and he is running for the U.S. Senate.
I love the look!!! Really!!! Imagine that sitting in the old boy’s/old girl’s club U.S. Senate!!! It’s about time.
Here’s an article about him.
Will he win?
Doubtful. This time, anyway. But I don’t think he’ll stop fighting.
Are there more like him?
Bet on it.
Lots more.
Watch.
AG
Yep, we have someone similar running for state representative in a neighboring district here. He is a lifelong activist and never gives up. I’m anxious to see how he does.
great! please keep us posted!
I would be very curious to see what Bernie could manage using only the executive powers over departments, agencies, and regulations. Bet it would be eye-popping.
Whatever. I personally think that a third party for the future is probably the soundest way to get change, and even that won’t be easy with the stacked deck of our system.
Actually, nothing is going to work. We’re doomed. It’s over. I keep having Leonard Cohen’s “The Future” going through my head.
That’s the typical Dem-liberal off-election year spirit!
That deserves a link….https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnaxvBsyigM
I appreciate his old man’s voice so much better than his younger one.
Sanders’s first mission is to persuade a majority of voters of his agenda. Then that legitimacy gives him the power to go for changing the DNC. There are no short cuts in challenging the establishment because they automatically dismiss your authority from the beginning, using their established legitimacy as a (er) trump card.
And with this bunch, it is not even clear that outright popular rebellion against the Democratic establishment will force them to honor a Sanders victory. The mirage of electability will be overriding in the discussions going forward.
But in fact, no one knows exactly who is electable this year. In an election year that is chaotic and and features the confused position of voters, that is what makes an election clarifying–that one does not know in advance who is electable.
I know that makes it difficult for pundits to write their daily, weekly, monthly columns, but that’s what’s happening.
circular argument, since it’s indeterminable short of the test of an actual election.
It’s not circular at all. It’s one of those situations in which only the action of an election taking place can resolve the doubt and ambiguity that analysis and political theory cannot solve or predict.
But you are correct in that electability is defined by getting elected. Now that pits theories of how one gets 50% + 1 of a delegate vote to vote for you in the party convention.
One can stake out all of the “uncommitted” delegates to be committed to you in advance and whip them not to leave no matter what happens at the grassroots level of caucuses, conventions, and primary elections. And then add the delegates from the grassroots level that you can pick up during the primaries. If you win totally in this manner, you might not win the general election or you might win the general election with the freedom to respond only to your superdelegates. You do owe your soul to as many incumbents and movers and shakers as you enlisted at the beginning and who will definitely be coming to collect chits.
What you will not be is popular unless you stand with the grassroots after election. But how will you know where the grassroots stand except through highly error-prone focus groups that often seem like push polling.
Or you can do the hard slogging of as much retail politics and talking to the grassroots level of voters as you have time and energy for, building reputation through already existing social networks without knowing their specific form. And hope that you capture enough “committed” delegates through that process to convince the committed “uncommitted” delegates to swing with the direction of their states.
Only if you capture the nomination can you seize the machinery of the party. And only if you win the general election can you start remaking the party machinery to your vision of creating future victories. And even then, the establishment will not let go.
2nd sentences contradict each other (or at least any distinction between the description in your 2nd sentence and the meaning of “circular” is pretty trivial). But it’s a minor point (to me, anyway), and I think the rest of what you write is on target, so not real interested in belaboring the difference.
Essentially Booman is arguing that Bernie should give money to the establishment that has fought him every step of the way.
No, it makes no sense to me either.
His argument to them Super-delegates will be:
No, it’s not a good argument. These articles blasting Bernie’s campaign for suggesting how it could win are idiotic in the extreme. Bernie is behind significantly. He needs to apply pressure and hope Clinton makes a mistake. You can already see the pressure begin to be applied in New York.
If he strings enough wins together doubt WILL begin to form about Clinton particularly if her unfavorables do not improve.
For Clinton, the electability argument may become her Achilles Heel. Her most recent numbers against Cruz just aren’t all that good.
And we have already seen peak Trump in the prediction markets. Cruz is going to win the nomination.
I’ve read that Cruz’s numbers are going in the tank, too. If Republican establishment is gonna shaft Trump, they might figure if they have the name, they should have the game, and go for Kasich at teh convention, who gives HC fits in the general. Esp since she is not helping herself on the honest/trustworthy front these days.
Then either Sanders is profoundly naive (no evidence of that so far) or profoundly stupid (no evidence of that either) or he defines success in different terms than you do.
It’s not a difficult trick — it’s an impossible trick.
But you’re right, either Sanders was not aware of this, or he was aware of it but thought the problem was of secondary importance compared to other goals that could be accomplished by running.
Not possible. Not when you declare that you’re running in, what, June of 2015 and jump into taking on the whole party establishment with no pre-existing organization, no influence, no power base to build from.
If Sanders were serious about winning the nomination he would have had to build up that kind of a power base (say by taking control of party organizations in some of the key electoral college states) starting several years ago. Otherwise he’s toast. And you’re right, that’s what’s going to happen.
But I’ll give the man credit — he’s a hell of a patriot. Consider that he’s 74 years old, this will be his last rodeo. He could have taken a pass, sat comfortably on his hands while he bitched from the sidelines, nobody would have blamed him. Instead he took a chance that his message would catch hold and that someone would listen. That’s how he’s defining success and by that measure he’s succeeding brilliantly.
What’s that message?
… the empress has no clothes…
… the empress has no clothes…
… the empress has no clothes…
At the last possible moment, he’s redefining the possible. In his own way he’s leaving us an immense legacy.
Good. Screw ’em. They can raise their own goddamn money. They aren’t good at much but I’ll give them credit because at least they are good at that.
And I’ll give Sanders credit too because he doesn’t seem too interested in sucking up to people who would just as soon see him die in a fire.
… the empress has no clothes…
… the empress has no clothes…
… the empress has no clothes…
<quote>Then either Sanders is profoundly naive (no evidence of that so far) or profoundly stupid (no evidence of that either) or he defines success in different terms than you do.</quote>
Right. Maybe he just wants to have a good time. Maybe that’s his definition of success. It’s apparently not “winning” nor — now that he’s expressed his contempt for supporting down-ballot Dems — does his definition of success appear to include advancing the progressive cause.
The idea that he is expressing contempt for down ballot Dems is absurd.
“I understand that it’s a difficult trick to run as an outsider and not alienate the insiders, but that’s the exact challenge facing Sanders and he does not seem to have figured this out.”
This is just an absurd ask. Idiotic.
Sanders is just a political candidate. The establishment has fought him every step of the way.
What Booman is asking is impossible.
Is he suggesting there is a weird little trick Sanders should have found like those weight loss ads have?
The only way to win them over is to follow LBJ’s advice:
When you got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
Bernie couldn’t beat them enough to get them by the balls. The front loading of the primaries, the limitations created by being a Senator from a lily white state, name recognition etc…
Hillary Clinton had the largest lead any non-incumbent has ever had. Bigger than Jr’s, Gore’s, Bush Sr’s and Mondale’s. Much bigger than Muskie’s.
Bernie gave her all she has wanted – far more than these pundits who now proffer advice to someone who got miles further than they ever predicted.
And the funny thing is they think they are being smart – as if somehow the campaign that has raised far more then they ever dreamed, and come far farther than they ever envisioned have anything of use to suggest.
We’re seeing the birth of something new — a two-and-a-halfth party.
With a competition as to who is going to be the halfth.
OT perhaps to this thread, but EU might have been close to getting a dose of lachesism, courtesy of our IMF neolibs. Greece AND Germany…think they want to sink Merkel? Or Schäuble?
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/2/1509526/-Leaked-IMF-plots-to-cause-a-credit-event-in-Greece
-and-destabilize-Europe
If Bernie wanted to transform politics, he would run on mandatory voting, not a revolution of middle class whites.
Mandatory voting!!!??? They would have a harder time enforcing that idea than would Trump rounding up and deporting all illegal aliens.
Two pipe dreams.
The only way that even might have a chance of working would be if they put a “None of the above” choice of all ballots. And if they did that, the truth would rapidly become apparent. The majority of U.S. citizens think that the whole political system is totally is rotted out.
Remember the old ’60s meme?
What if they had an election and no one came?
What if they had an forced participation election and the majority of people voted “None of the above?”
What then?
No room for any of that in a PermaGov-fixed electoral system.
Who’d obey an unelected government except at the point of a gun?
Not enough guns, cops and soldiers to run that game.
Bet on it.
AG
How does mandatory voting work in Australia? I think there is a fine if you don’t vote, even if you don’t vote for anyone in particular.
With a huge number of political parties.
And recently, not very well for progressive parties.
What if they had free burgers and pizza and no one came?
I would still go.
Bad burgers and pizza.
A PermaGov speciality.
AG
But I was referring to Joe’s Pizza from the Village and a JG Melon Cheeseburger.
Too bad I live in California. Bummer.
I’d just like to see any Bernie supporter (or Bernie) explain how they’ll increase Dem turnout in midterms
Give them candidates worth voting for? Not rocket science…
My gawd man, where have you been! The rightness and sheer purity if his message will bring a massive amount of new voters out. Republicans will wither in fear and Bernie will ascend into the office of the Presidency on a flying horse wearing a crown of locally sourced, non corporate gold.
A non-GMO turkey in everyone’s pot!
Against your team’s 0 for 6 twenty year midterm record, your arrogance looks more like defensiveness.
My “team”? I’m voting for Bernie if he wins the primary. Just think he’s going to need party support (dirty money–eww) especially when the Republicans start hitting him–and it’ll be hard, in multiple ways, in multiple states–in the general. This idea that he’s some uniquely awesome candidate feels overblown to me. He hasn’t faced a tough election in a long time.
How about HRC supporters go first on that? Y’all have been at it since 1994 — that’s seven midterms and DEMs have won the House majority exactly once. And lost a Senate DEM majority going into three of those seven midterms (1994, 2002, 2014).
If you were completely fair you would acknowledge that the DLC-DNC wasn’t in the driver’s seat the 2005-2009 period (one reason why HRC didn’t win the nomination because it wasn’t as easy to fix). But it was back in the saddle in 2009. So, the actual record of the DLC-DNC is 0 for 6.
It’s bad enough that HRC cribs from Bernie’s speeches, but it you want us to explain how we’ll do what you have failed to accomplish, elect Bernie and we’ll show you. (Lord knows we couldn’t do any worse than the DLC/DNC has done in the past twenty years.)
So. It looks like Bernie Sanders retroactively won Nevada after a recount. Not because of voting shenanigans on either side, either.
https://twitter.com/search?q=nevada+caucus&ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Esearc
h
Hillary Clinton literally won the state less than two months ago and by a pretty good margin. Like, what, 6%? Yet because they outright failed to show up (and thus got replaced by alternatives) when the caucuses were formalized, Bernie ended up winning Clark County and almost certainly the state.
My preference for Bernie aside: this is just rank incompetence on the Democratic Party establishment’s, by way of HRC, part. And shows why I ripped into the DNC’s ineptitude so harshly today and yesterday. Her campaign has pretty much the entire Democratic Party apparatus behind it; it outright won the most important phase of the battle. And it still ended up losing because they tripped over their own shoelaces near the finish line.
Explain to me why Bernie Sanders and less committed Democrats should support this paper tiger organization?
damn, that’s an own goal right there.
Anyway, we shouldn’t have caucuses.
Every state is an open primary. None of this caucus bullshit. Individual primaries are picked and distributed randomly throughout the country/territories/abroad. That’s it.
Heh, well, I think that we’ll be getting something like this in 2020, if nothing else.
Fascinating. Las Vegas Sun report: Sanders wins most delegates at Clark County convention. Observers will remember that it was Clark County that made the difference for HRC on caucus day and Sanders carried the remainder of the state.
Who knew that casino workers shepherded into caucuses to vote for Clinton wouldn’t be all that committed? (Is that what happened in ’08 as well?) Except the dropout for delegates for both Sanders and Clinton was substantial. Caucus delegates: HRC 4,889 (55%) and Sanders 4,026. Today (after realignment) HRC 2,396 (45%) and Sanders 2,964.
Sanders only kept onto ~75% of his delegates and Hillary Clinton lost more than half. That’s… uh. Yeah. Incompetent DNC is incompetent. This is exhibit A in the question of ‘why does the DNC deserve any of Sanders’ credibility and his voters’ money?’
Again, this is why we should not have caucuses. That number will probably drop even more when they go to state level.
If they are going to be primaries like AZ, that doesn’t seem to be an improvement to me.
One obvious advantage of the caucuses is that there is a defined end to campaigning and afterwards a defined period in which to vote. It does ask more of voters than less than an hour of his/her time (unless one were a ’16 AZ voter), but as it’s only every four to eight years, is that too much to ask of citizens?
Yes, because only the well-to-do and the unemployed can afford to take that much tome away from home/work. You champion early voting, but you can’t early caucus. If you are scheduled to work or have small children otherwise home alone, you can’t attend a caucus.
Talk about democracy !!! And superdelegates !!! I guess a vote just isn’t what we think it is.
No kidding. I’m in Cali and am so happy we have primaries. Caucuses would be a mess given the size of the state.
Maybe we just give up on the voter delegates and stick with the “loyal” superdelegates, eh?
So much easier and cheaper. Older and wiser heads select the nominee and write the platform. Saves money for the general election. Win-win!
as reply to Jordan Orlando predicting “with absolute certainty” Clinton’s nomination up thread.
How does Hillary?
Sanders can help with the fall-off in turnout among the young, which fell by more than usual in 2010.
Beyond that, neither can. The patter is at least 80 years old.
There is indeed a poison pill on the Republican side. If Trump does not win on the first ballot he’s out, end of story, because his enemies picked who his pledged delegates were and that vote is gone after the first ballot. Cruz would not stand a chance either. Hillary would then be in serious trouble because almost anyone else they could pick would beat her badly.
“Sanders is screwed if he needs to rely on super delegates, which he will absolutely need to do.”
Since there has been a lot of establishment voter fraud Hillary must win the pledged delegates by a significant enough margin to take into account delegates she gained by that fraud. If she fails to do that and takes the nomination anyway it becomes Hillary and the Democratic Establishment that get screwed because they will have just lost an otherwise winnable election. Losers get no coat tails, only loses. What they keep forgetting about are the people who vote with their feet, best not piss them off.
“The Sanders camp has adopted an adversarial posture toward the DNC and isn’t raising money for the party or many of the party’s officeholders.”
What utter bullshit that statement is! It was the DNC who adopted an adversarial posture toward the Sanders campaign. In case you haven’t noticed, Bernie is running against that special interest money machine that Hillary is using to bribe those same office holders.
If Bernie wins the nomination and the Establishment wants Bernie to fundraise for them, the first order of business would be to fire DWS. Next thing would be to change the control over which down tickets races gets the money so it doesn’t go to obvious opponents of Bernie’s political revolution. This would be picking the lesser of a lot of evils, something Democrats have always enjoyed.
“…[Bernie’s] only path to success is to win over the party establishment…take control of the DNC, not win in spite of it.”
This is yet another bullshit statement. Bernie’s only path to success is to defeat the party establishment including the DNC. Those people are quite used to serving masters, even ones they loath. Just look at this as an unexpected change in management. They will get promptly in line or they will be forced to find a real job. There are a lot of good people looking for work, just look out that famous window.
It’s sort of sad to think the fate of the Clinton Dynasty could depend on idiots like Trump winning on the first ballot. This might be a worse mess than GWB left for Obama.
“Hillary would then be in serious trouble because almost anyone else they could pick would beat her badly.”
Like who? Romney? Ryan?
Don’t worry, the Republicans Establishment will be happy to figure that out for you. They’ll probably just look at the polls so many here think are worthless.
No, I want to know who you think it is. I want to know the name of this miraculous Republican candidate who’s going to come out of nowhere and handily beat Clinton.
Answer end of July, I promise. That’s because by then I won’t care.
If Bernie’s the nominee the point is moot.
Yeah, I can’t think of anyone either.
So, you didn’t like my answer to wait until the end of July. Why, because you can’t think of anyone who could beat her either? That’s a flippant answer one would expect from a five year old. From your other posts I would guess your mind a already made up but about what I can’t actually tell. Maybe you think Hillary is so strong that no Republican can beat her after she’s alienated almost the entire Democratic youth vote. If that is true, you best be sitting down with a stiff drink during the November returns.
Republicans know full well that their best shot at beating Hillary is running anyone other than Trump or Cruz against her, this being confirmed already by many national polls. Others on this thread have made some good guesses but who knows what the Republican Establishment will actually do, something I don’t want to worry my pretty little head about. The possibility is high that Trump won’t make the first ballot giving their Establishment the choice. A logical course of action would be to conduct some polls between now and July to see which possible candidates would poll best against Hillary then pick from that group who would best align with their values. Bottom line is, get a grip and wait until end if July.
Once again, If Bernie gets the nomination it won’t matter because he will beat any of them.
Kasich, Bush, almost any governor except Rick perry and the philanderer in Alabama. Brownback, even.
Best bet is Kasich who has all the charisma of wet oatmeal, like Hillary! but he also does not have the hate and loathing that follows Hillary. I know you think she doesn’t deserve it, but you can’t deny its reality.
John Kasich WILL beat Clinton. Paul Ryan could beat Hillary. I did not realize the extent of this until today, but if Clinton wins the nomination in the current context, THE KIDS ARE STAYING HOME.
If you mention a Clinton Supreme Court will be much friendlier to potential Political Revolution voters than one set by the GOP, they laugh like you are a paid Clinton shill.
I think that they think they can Occupy a 2020 6-3 Supreme Court GOP majority by taking to the streets, haha. I agree with their absolute disgust at the idea of voting for Clinton, though.
Kucinich
wow! brain, I meant Kasich
this claim:
Well, sure, us and our pesky search for supporting evidence for one’s claims:
It felt so good to type that Clinton would be beaten badly in the general election if she wins the nomination of the Democratic Party. How could it be wrong?
…and your point is?
stated.
Okay oaguabonita, let’s take a look at your comments so far on this thread:
1. Well, I think there’s room to quibble about who adopted the adversarial posture towards whom.
2. Perhaps only to an accurate record.
3. Exactly. ‘Electability’ is a spurious, circular argument, since it’s indeterminable short of the test of an actual election.
4. Well, by my lights, your 1st and 2nd sentences contradict each other (or at least any distinction between the description in your 2nd sentence and the meaning of “circular” is pretty trivial). But it’s a minor point to me, anyway, and I think the rest of what you write is on target, so not real interested in belaboring the difference.
5. …already clearly and succinctly stated. (nothing was stated)
6. Hilarious! Would also work well as reply to Jordan Orlando predicting “with absolute certainty” Clinton’s nomination up thread.
7. “A trained ape knows that.” (…series of off topic quotes with no link) No, not off topic at all. The point, in case it’s not obvious: illustrating the folly of a claim such as I’m not advancing any kind of argument at all, except to predict with absolute certainty that the convention will end with Clinton as the nominee. Even your chosen example, climate specialists, are not so foolish. E.g., they report confidence levels that future reality will fall within defined prediction intervals i.e., no claims of certainty, nor even specific predicted values.
Of course, all this along with the offensive tag: “The plural of anecdote is not “data”. Without data, it’s just your opinion. Opinions are like assholes: everyone has one.”
Did you notice anything missing for all these comments? That’s right; NO DATA. There is not a single bit of data or link in any of this drivel. They are what? I CAN’T HEAR YOU! Right again; they are OPINIONS. According to you, without data they are just ASSHOLES. I’ll just leave it at that.
One suggestion, if you want anyone to take you even half seriously here, lose that offensive tag.
There is a curious thing about data. Having it doesn’t always mean you will come to the correct conclusion. Bernie and Hillary had the same access to the same secret data about the Iraq war but Hillary made the wrong choice while Bernie made the correct one by voting against it. What was missing from Hillary was a thing called Judgment, something maybe new to you. Judgment involves thinking, creating ideas then forming opinions. This blog is about the exchange of ideas, opinions if you will.
Massive fail.
This is so pathetic I can only bother myself to address a couple of the most egregious examples of the inanity comprising it.
You find my “tag line” (as you call it) “offensive”. Yet you fail to identify anything “offensive” about it (I say it’s instead . . . well . . . true! Almost self-evidently so. I don’t claim it to be any earthshaking insight, or even very original; rather just a frequently needed reminder. A reminder I supply by appending it to every comment.)
Apparently, this (important) reminder that opinions are just opinions whose value is determined by the extent to which they comport with (or, at the very least, do not contradict) factual reality is for some reason “offensive” to you.
My condolences.
Finally, your leap from there to the conclusion (or pretense) that I’ve said opinions have no place, are worthless, should not be expressed without accompanying supporting data, that I’m a hypocrite to ever state an opinion without supplying supporting data . . . or whatever the fuck you think your devastating “point” is . . . is just transparently ridiculous.
It would be fair to infer from my “tag line” that I’m saying opinions in direct conflict with factual reality are self-refuting, hence worthless. It would be further reasonable to infer that I think the worth/validity of opinions correlates to the degree to which they comport with (versus conflict with) the facts that comprise Reality.
It would be really stupid, though, to infer from it that I’ve said/implied that nobody (including me) can ever state an opinion (that’s not in conflict with factual Reality), without discrediting themselves or the opinion expressed.
What an amazingly misguided (and wrong!) conclusion you leaped to!
I’m sorry for your sake that you required this tutorial, but now you have it.
clearly and succinctly stated:
(A claim, notably, presented as fact, not opinion.)
My only regret is feeding the troll.
particularly when this is how insiders roll:
How Hilllary Clinton Bought the Loyalty of 33 State Democratic Parties. (Technically, HRC was only the broker and it has been very wealthy people doing the selling.)
A new twist, too, apparently. Maybe Booman is unaware?
Clinton created a “joint fundraising committee” Sept. 10 that funneled big-money donations in excess of the per-campaign limit to the DNC. In the next 20 days, she raised and gave $600,000 to the DNC, and the figure ballooned to $18 million in the fourth quarter, according to newly released figures — a third of her total haul. Normally the party would only team up with a candidate that way if the candidate was the nominee.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/04/unusual-clinton-payments-to-dnc-create-conflict-of-interest/#ixzz4
4i8bVE7k
No, remember, this is just how the system works now. Don’t be so naive….or compassionate….or thoughtful….go get that $$ or else I cannot respect you.
-Every Hillary supporter
The Sanders camp has adopted an adversarial posture toward the DNC and isn’t raising money for the party or many of the party’s officeholders. Clinton, meanwhile, is raising millions for both.
Who should Sanders fundraise for? Joe Manchin? Claire McCaskill? Has one sitting Senator endorsed Sanders? Why should he fundraise for them? Where is Clinton getting that money? From extremely wealthy people, whom she’ll owe favors if she becomes President.
Nobody’s saying there’s a way out of this box, that he’s just somehow avoiding taking.
That’s BooMan’s point: it can’t be done. It doesn’t matter how much we want it or how “unfair” it is that we can’t have it. Wishing won’t make it so.
“Why should he fundraise for them?”
Because the only chance at this point for Sanders to win the Party nomination and have a successful Presidency is if he supports Congressional candidates. He needs to bring many superdelegates over to his side, and waving away an avenue for bringing them over to him is silly. The delegate status quo does not work for Bernie right now.
The Congressional status quo doesn’t work for him, either. If Sanders gained the nomination and won in November, he would need more Democratic members of Congress, so he could move his policy agenda. Supporting candidates would be among the ways to achieve that.
Saying Bernie should decline to support the campaigns of superdelegates because they did not endorse his campaign is justifying pure quid pro quo, transactional politics. That this form of quid pro quo would be hurtful to Sanders’ own prospects of gaining delegates at a time he desperately needs them makes it doubly odd.
And when it appears he gets the nominee Bernie will turn the organization over and raise millions for all of them.
He can’t do it during an active fight for the nomination when those same people are attacking him.
Clinton is fundrasing for the Party and Congressional candidates now. This explains a significant part of the reason that Sanders is being routed in the current superdelegate count.
I can understand why Sanders is preoccupied with having enough money in his Presidential campaign coffers to compete with Clinton. Where I consider Sanders having made a significant unforced error in response to Maddow’s question…
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bernie-sanders-fundraise-down-ballot-democrats-maddow
… is in his “let’s see” response to whether he would contribute to the Party and candidates at any point in the campaign. If he had simply said, or if he said in a follow-up clarification, that he would contribute to the Party and candidates if he won the nomination, it would mitigate the damage done.
Instead, we’re required to speculate that he may decline to fund to the Party that would be sharing funds and organizers in support of his campaign, and the campaigns of Congressmembers who would be needed to help Bernie keep more than a fraction of his campaign promises.
Hmm, Republican establishment is flat saying they will NOT turn the RNC over to Trump, regardless of whether he is the nominee or not.
What’s going on over there has the salutary effect of placing the Democratic Party primary fight in perspective, that’s for sure.
Clinton is bribing her way to power and you and Booman are arguing that Bernie should join the bidding.
I wonder if you even comprehend anymore how destructive this is on Democracy. Democrats should be ashamed to call their party “Democratic”. It should be renamed the Prostitute Party.
So what you’re saying is that Democratic Party candidates should not have any help from top leaders to have campaigns which are well funded enough to compete with the much more massive amounts of money coming in to defeat them at the polls.
Hillary and all other major Democrats are on record wanting to do something about campaign finance reform which would not be struck down by the Supreme Court. No Republican candidate supports changing the current Wild West atmosphere.
We need to hold power to change campaign finance laws, their enforcements, and to place Supreme Court and Circuit Court judges who will not undo our work. Unilaterally disarming the financing of our campaigns would get us crushed, and nothing would change.
No. (S)he is talking about DNC neutrality in DEM primaries, whether local or national. Two Democrats competing for an office. An increasing problem for progressive candidates, btw.
Why are you conflating this with the general election?
People were claiming that the DNC put fingers on the scales for Hillary in 2008, yet Obama won. The 2016 Sanders campaign is not whining incessantly and blaming the DNC for their failure to win an overall majority of pledged delegates; perhaps Frog Ponders might take a tip from the Sanders campaign.
Some find dark corruption in the shocking, shocking fact that that superdelegates would initially support a candidate who had helped them get elected and was well-positioned to win the Party’s POTUS nomination, instead of another candidate who has not helped very many Democratic Party candidates win their elections and does not even appear to be a member of the Party whose nomination he seeks.
Again, voting for Sanders despite all these things, but not drinking the Hillary haterade.
You guys go ahead and give the Democratic Party nomination to someone who won fewer pledged delegates. You go ahead and tell your must-win demographic of Millenials that someone they struggled for over several long months didn’t matter not because they were democratically defeated because of an unpopular, undemocratic rule.
I thought that the Democratic Party was looking to lose its demographic edge with the youth over an 8-12 year timeframe; but if they want to lose it literally next election, that’s cool, too, I guess. I mean, if they keep older racial minorities in their corner while having 1996 Clinton-level youth engagement, it’s not impossible for the Democratic Party to win the next Presidency. But it’s a really shitty and stupid way to build a party long term.
But nobody is saying the reality is right or wrong or good or bad — just that this is the reality.
I’m beginning to really sympathize with BooMan — he’s like a meteorologist being vilified for accurately predicting bad weather.
The thing is, we’re not talking about the weather. We’re talking about human decision-making. If the Obama Coalition shatters in 2016, it won’t be because of an act of God; it’ll be because of the very human impulse of mortgaging one’s short- and long-term future for immediate safety.
Look, he isn’t going to get the nomination. Acknowledging this doesn’t make one an accessory to a crime, or cynical, or less of a believer in progressive causes or in the nature or purpose of democracy.
And it doesn’t decrease the incredible value of his candidacy or his platform, or the historical role he’s played — the way he’s already changed the game. He’s a genuinely heroic figure, and I support everything he’s done. But he’s not going to get the nomination.
For crying out loud!
If Sanders doesn’t get the Democratic Party nomination because he was democratically defeated (he has fewer pledged delegates), that’s not super-disastrous. There’s always future elections. I still predict disaster for the Democratic Party — not because Sanders lost, but because Hillary won. But we’re talking a slow-rolling disaster that will take a few cycles to play out. And there’s still a chance for HRC to get religion and pull her head out of her ass.
If Sanders doesn’t get the nomination even though he got more pledged delegates, that’s much more immediately disastrous. Downright suicidal.
Do you understand the difference between ‘Sanders loses because a majority of Democrats rejected him’ and ‘Sanders loses because of anti-majoritarian Party rules’?
Of course I understand the difference. But, aside from indulging Joan-Didion-style “magical thinking,” I don’t understand how I or anyone else is supposed to react to that distinction.
If Sanders ends up with a majority of primary votes or delegates and then loses the nomination because of the superdelegates, that will be too bad — a real miscarriage of justice — but the system is set up in such a way that it will work out that way.
Maybe, someday, with enough reforms, the primary system will change. As has been pointed out on this very blog over the months, the Republicans changed their own system recently because of precisely these issues. But, as things stand, right now, in 2016, the game is rigged a certain way.
“What was Sanders supposed to do? Whom was he supposed to raise money for, given how unfeasible that was?” Nothing — there’s nothing he was “supposed to” do. There’s no way out of the box he’s in.
I don’t like it either…but I’m not going to pretend it’s not true, just to make myself feel better.
That wins the award for understatement of the day.
It won’t just be a miscarriage of justice — we’re talking about an outright fracturing of the party. The blowback you’ll get from telling a must-have demographic that their vote, in this case, didn’t matter is not just something you can shrug and go: ‘sucks, but what can you do? Better luck next time.’ The best case scenario is that Millenial/Gen-X turnout and voting preference tank. And that Trump is still so awful that HRC manages to win 2016. An average case scenario is that a hopeless, ressentiment-filled third party forms then and there (not Sanders, because of sore loser laws) and Trump manages to clean-sweep government.
Hell, why don’t you tell me what you think will happen? It’s August 2016, and Sanders loses in that way. Game out the 2016 Presidential election, 2018 midterms, and 2020. The Democratic Party isn’t just playing with fire here, it’s ALSO doing it in a warehouse full of dynamite.
Apparently you don’t understand the difference:
You expect the majority of DEM primary voters — heavily skewed to the younger age groups — to shrug and accept the SDs over-riding the voters’ choice because “the system is set up” to work that way? The screwed up system is at that core of what a majority of voters don’t like and don’t respect and are expressing that in polling and voting.
I’m not expecting anybody to do anything. I’m not advancing any kind of argument at all, except to predict with absolute certainty that the convention will end with Clinton as the nominee.
I can’t figure out why this simple, incontrovertible assertion is generating so many objections and so much blowback. I’m being asked if I understand “what this means” and being taken to task for not using sufficiently extravagant rhetoric in objecting to the horrible implications of the outcome I’m predicting. And, I don’t understand what any of that has to do with the accuracy of the prediction.
I feel like a global-warming specialist being asked, in outraged tones, how he or she can discuss such things so blithely. “The coastal cities will all be underwater? Don’t you realize what that will mean?” Of course I realize it. But it’s going to happen, nevertheless.
One of the striking things about this agitation by some Frog Ponders over the colorfully painted picture of villanous superdelegates “preventing the voters from having the nominee they want” is the attached presumption that Sanders will win a majority of the electoral Delegates. The chance of that actually happening is very low as well:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sanders-988-more-delegates/
“If you’re a Sanders supporter, you might look at the map and see some states — Oregon, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Montana and so forth — that look pretty good for Sanders, a lot like the ones that gave Sanders landslide wins earlier in the campaign. But those states have relatively few delegates.
Instead, about 65 percent of the remaining delegates are in California, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland — all states where Sanders trails Clinton in the polls and sometimes trails her by a lot.”
What’s additionally interesting about this, though, is that many of the same people here who are agitated to see Sanders take it all the way to the convention are the same people who mercilessly rip Hillary’s decision to run her 2008 campaign all the way to the convention under circumstances quite similar to the ones faced by the Sanders candidacy today. Hillary’s 2008 decision was bitter and power-mad, you see, while Sanders’ 2016 decision would be patriotic and principled.
I remain a Sanders voter, and I absolutely want him to take his campaign to the convention. Fighting for every single delegate has tremendous value even if it is extremely unlikely to result in gaining the nomination. But the unwillingness to deal with facts and the lack of self-awareness are strong with some here.
Because you keep shifting ground.
If the SD’s overturn a pledged majority by Bernie the party will destroy itself. Bernie will get immense pressure from his organization to run.
Here is why this is REALLY important – you are actually making an argument WITH IMMENSE implications. If you are saying you are willing to override a pledged majority you have lost any kind of standing with Bernie supporters.
THIS RHETORIC IS ACTUALLY THE SINGLE BIGGEST THREAT TO PARTY UNITY.
I have yet to meet a Bernie person who will not vote for Clinton.
Here is the only think that should be said: the candidate with the pledged majority should be the nominee.
Period. Stop playing with these SD arguements.
Not even Markos makes them.
Because that makes clear you really have nothing in common with Sanders people.
How is my “rhetoric” a threat to anybody or anything?
I’m not “shifting around” in the slightest. I’m saying, I like Sanders, and admire him, and think his movement is very historically important and will ultimately be remembered as a turning point in early 21st Century American political history.
However, come the summer, I think the nomination will go to Clinton. There’s not the slightest doubt in my mind: I’m saying this will happen regardless of how he does in the remaining states. Various people give various reasons for this prediction (including BooMan) so I don’t need to re-argue the point.
I don’t understand what damage I’m doing to anyone or anything by saying this. It’s a prediction, nothing more, nothing less. It’s not an invocation of any philosophy or a recommendation that anyone do or think anything; it’s not an exhortation to action.
And, even if it was — if “people like me” are going to scuttle Sanders’ chances by “discouraging” his supporters (which is laughable; what’s my audience here; ten people?) then what does that say about those supporters — that they must be insulated from any discouraging predictions, regardless of their applicability or accuracy?
Both the pledged delegate and superdelegate situations have been explained on this thread, repeatedly.
Bernie has almost no chance to win the majority of pledged electoral delegates. His campaign, and his more determined supporters on this blog, would be well advised to deal with that fact first. By your own admission, failing to win a pledged delegate majority makes the superdelegate argument almost entirely irrelevant.
It was completely predictable that Clinton would start the campaign with a near-complete lock on superdelegates. Hillary has helped almost all the current group of superdelegates gain their positions, the vast majority having gained their positions by winning elections.
Superdelegates are free to change the candidate they support at any time before the convention. If Sanders miraculously comes from behind in the pledged delegate count, many superdelegates would change their votes, as hundreds did in 2008 when they flipped from Clinton to Obama.
I watched the Wisconsin Democratic party fundraiser tonight. Senator Al Franken shared this with the crowd:
“I know I would not have won (my 2008 Senate) race without Hillary Clinton. I would not be standing here today as a United States Senator were it not for Hillary. She and President Clinton kept saying “Whatever you need, we’re there for you.” So, in early October, I asked Hillary if she’d come out to Minnesota and do a rally for me. She did so without hesitation. It was a huge rally at the University of Minnesota; she was great. And President Clinton came out a couple of weeks later, and he was terrific.
Now, the week before the election my phone rang, and it was Hillary. She had seen the polls; she knew how close it was going to be. So she tore up her schedule and called me and said, “Al, I’m coming out to help again.” So, on the Sunday before the election, she flew out to Duluth…It was important to me, and she did a rally in Duluth on the Sunday night before the Tuesday election, and I know that rally got me more than 312 votes. And that’s how we win.”
So, keep on laying claims about the “corrupt” superdelegate system if you must. It’s worth considering if the vehemence and the absolutism of all your claims are justified. Please consider if you know everything you need to know.
When you go back and cite something your wrote that had Sanders doing this well I will listen to you.
It is unlikely, but the chance is not zero.
We are building something for the future.
Did you know that between 500K and 1 million people on Friday will lose Food Stamp benefits that is a direct result of the Clinton Welfare Reform?
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/the-end-of-welfare-as-we-know-it/476322/
There is only 1 vehicle that exists to raise issues like this.
You simply and consistently fail to get that the Sanders campaign is about substantive issues.
Like Welfare Reform – which no one else will discuss because it means embarrassing Clinton.
So go ahead – keep trying to shut us down. There is significant portion of the Party that is not content to ignore the harm of the Clinton Welfare Reform (which Hillary said she was for in ’08). Or Iraq. Or any number of issues.
The Super-delegate systemj is absolutely corrupt. It is designed to insulate the establishment. And establishment that laid down on Iraq, that wasn’t there when there were crimes to prosecuted on Wall Street, that had no problem attacking poor people through Welfare Reform.
You want to defend those policies. Go ahead.
But usually you want to turn substantive policy arguments into narrow political ones.
I approve of what may be built from the Sanders campaign. Its chances of remaining standing are much greater if there can be a broad and truthful consideration of the full record of all candidates and Parties and the history of their policy advocacies, passages and outcomes.
A question: do you believe there is an expressed mandate from voters for a restoration, a growing, of Federal social welfare programs?
I do not see any significant evidence evidence that there is. Welfare reform isn’t even a significant plank in the Sanders campaign.
With these things true, our agreement that the welfare-to-work law passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton was bad for America overall is not useful in determining if Hillary or Bernie or the DNC are failing us by not campaigning on this. We need to build public opinion to support a restoration of investments in this area. Without changing the public’s mind on welfare, we will be unable to win and hold power long enough to make it happen.
We can see what has happened in the wake of the Affordable Care Act to see a prime example of the voter’s current mood in these areas. People on this blog have displayed that even sharp liberals don’t care to vociferously defend the ACA, instead hurling rocks at it, sometimes with dubious claims, in an era when the Act could be done away with in the wake of any upcoming national election.
It becomes difficult to move one of the two political Parties in the direction of supporting large-scale welfare program restorations when Americans have not demanded these investments in sufficient numbers.
The superdelegate system comprises 15% of the DNC Delegates who choose the Party’s Presidential nominee. The superdelegates have never overturned a POTUS primary campaign and reversed the will of the voters. These absolutist statements that the presence of the superdelegates is “absolutely corrupt” are alienating. We can see from the discussions that have been had here that the superdelegates are far from insulated; they and their very concept are being attacked mercilessly by many people.
I would hypothesize that people have given up on Washington ever helping labor in this present climate of corporatism. The most responsive sector of government that can actually be held accountable is local. That is where minimum wage can be raised to a living income for a full time worker. Some states will do it; others will make it impossible to happen locally.
If minimum wages had kept up with living costs, even, the taxpayer’s burden of corporate subsidy for full time workers through SNAP and such would not have loomed so large as to make an inviting target for demagogues.
BC was warned at the time that an economic downturn would produce just this suffering. And so it has. What we are doing to almost half of our children will have lasting social consequences.
We are seeing an era of economic and budgetary experimentations by the several States. Friday’s passages of State $15 minimum wages in California and New York were supplemented by increases in mandated paid sick days (California) and family leave (New York). California’s new Law also included cost-of-living increases of the State wage for each year after the wage reaches $15.
In support of one of the facts you bring here, analysts of the California law estimate that hundreds of thousands of people will see income increases which will allow them to transition out of eligibility for Medi-Cal, CalFresh and other social welfare programs, and into programs like the Covered California insurance exchanges, where they will enjoy the largest subsidies to purchase private health insurance.
When people give up or are prevented from participating, corporatists win. There is one Party whose leaders have recently passed laws and regulations which make it impossible or very difficult for people to vote, and another major Party whose leaders have recently made it easier for people to vote.
Typical deflection.
Which allows you to avoid the policy question.
Was Welfare Reform right?
You run like crazy from the question.
Last Friday hundreds of thousands of the poorest people in the country were hurt.
Have you no moral outrage? Because I see none.
Do you even give a damn?
Why is your first reaction a political explanation to a human tragedy.
The only way to change public opinion is to make the argument. You offer several paragraphs of nonsense – mostly to justify not bringing it up.
Did you even know that people were being thrown off food stamps? I am sure Clinton said not word.
What I see are excuses for those in power.
Sanders called attention to Welfare Reform this week. He has raised the issue repeatedly.
You are simply wrong as a matter of fact on the role it plays in the campaign.
Go here
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/02/bernie-s/sanders-welfare-reform-more-
doubled-extreme-povert/
Let us review. You:
“Which allows you to avoid the policy question.
Was Welfare Reform right?”
From my comment:
“With these things true, our agreement that the welfare-to-work law passed by Congress and signed by Bill Clinton was bad for America overall is not useful in determining if Hillary or Bernie or the DNC are failing us by not campaigning on this.”
I regret that my moral outrage fails to satisfy you. While you have been feeling morally superior, I’ve been working for many months to increase California’s minimum wage to $15 an hour with a COLA in the out years. Last Friday, our campaign became successful much more quickly than we anticipated. I hope this meets your approval.
Bernie has simply not stressed this issue on the stump. I’m voting for him; I’ve followed his campaign. In fact, Sanders spent such a long time not emphasizing the need to restore social welfare investments that people started to talk and write about it:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/heres-why-bernie-sanders-doesnt-say-much-about-welfare
-reform
Feel free to run a search engine on the question. You get a mention of Bernie criticizing the Clintons on the issue in early August, and then nothing at all until late February. Not coincidentally, that re-emphasizing of the issue by Sanders happened during the run-up to the South Carolina primary, where Bernie tried to use it to help him close the big gap he had there.
Why did Sanders allow the issue to disappear from his campaign while he sought support in Iowa and New Hampshire? The question answers itself.
Why have none of the daily reports from the campaign trail since the South Carolina primary showed Sanders mentioning the issue? Ditto.
Now, when Hillary emphasizes issues meant to appeal to a certain State’s Democratic Party primary electorate, we read no end of insults and complaints about that here: bribing, pandering, unethical, Frog Ponders have claimed. All these harsh words in response to what we call campaigning.
I don’t begrudge any candidate the completely normal and smart decision to vary their campaign emphases. Goodness gracious, a campaign manager who doesn’t vary their candidate’s message to target the next primary electorates should be fired.
We should be able to end the discussion on this point. If the welfare issue, and Hillary’s past lobbying on the welfare-to-work bill, were a resonant campaign issue, surely it would be killing Clinton with the Democratic Party’s primary electorate. Unlike the 1994 crime bill, which Bernie voted for, he voted No on the welfare-to-work bill. Why is Clinton winning?
Our movement needs to change the American public’s view of social welfare programs before we can reform them. Even Bernie is showing you that he understands this. If you respect him, perhaps this will give you pause.
You and Jordan need to stop wasting your time, as folks like fladem and Marie3 clearly have no desire to actually listen to what you’re saying and are determined to make you the enemy for reasons passing understanding.
Behold, the inevitably unhinged nature of populism.
Hate to say it, but there are a TON of people who will NOT vote for Clinton. Sure, it’s anecdotal, but it is online and on the ground and I have been shocked by how much of it I see.
I agree with their sentiment, but I disagree on tactics. I WANT that Supreme Court seat, and I can live with a Clinton pick.
But a Clinton Presidency is a horrifying prospect, as I feel she is WAY more corrupt and owned than BHO.
Well, a lot fewer Democratic Party people at this point in the election hate 2016 Clinton than 2008 Clinton (judging by the ‘I’m Democratic and will never vote for her’ statistics; right now it’s about 30% compared to 50% in 2008). Frankly, I wouldn’t be too worried about that right now. They’re alienating fewer Dems now than in 2008, so, yay?
Unless I do something stupid like go on a youth-slurring jag like Steinem/DWS/Walsh did 6-8 weeks back. But I’d like to think that the Clinton campaign learned their lesson from that.
I think she can beat Trump or Cruz but that really is not a high bar. Not a proud victory to limp to the nomination and defeat two pieces of human garbage. But she will take it.
No, not off topic at all. The point, in case it’s not obvious: illustrating the folly of a claim such as
Even your chosen example, climate specialists, are not so foolish. E.g., they report confidence levels that future reality will fall within defined prediction intervals (i.e., no claims of certainty, nor even specific predicted values).
Thanks for pointing out what I think should be obvious.
“The screwed up system is at that core of what a majority of voters don’t like and don’t respect and are expressing that in polling and voting.”
Having to think outside the system leaves people w/o a reference point and thus they cling to the skewed references they remember – even though they are obviously inadequate for modeling the present situation.
To those folks I suggest you go look at the NYT comments in the Bernie or Bust article.
“And there’s still a chance for HRC to get religion and pull her head out of her ass.”
No there isn’t. A leopard can’t change it’s spots and HRC can’t stop lying. Eventually no one believes a chronic liar.
I think I know why BooMan sounds so melancholy and nihilistic lately. He knows that the Democratic Party is, counterintuitively, headed down a road of long-term defeat despite its current apparent advantages. And they’re headed down that road because like ‘moderate’ and ‘patriot’, pragmatism has in true postmodern style become politicized and stripped of its meaning.
http://www.carlbeijer.com/2016/03/clintonites-are-kicking-young-people.html
There’s a key distinction in the way that (to paint with a broad brush) Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters function in the world: Clinton supporters place a high value on the concept of loyalty, but Sanders supporters place little value on loyalty. Thus the Clinton supporters write positively about HRC’s efforts on behalf of local Democratic candidates, while Sanders supporters say “so what?”.
?????
THIS is what you were talking about
Clinton supporters place a high value on the concept of loyalty,
Is that why fewer than half the HRC delegates chosen at the Clark Co NV caucus bothered to show up at the county convention today?
lol
I can’t believe the Republicans are serious about taking the 1968 path.
Every time I see an article that says we should get behind Hillary because there’s no difference and Sanders isn’t being nice to the DNC I am a little less likely to vote for her.
They are not the same. The DNC unilaterally violated its own contract to cut Sanders off from voter information. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been a complete failure at getting Dems elected to Congress by running DINOs. I realize that Boo has a hard on for Grayson in FLA but have you looked at the guy Schultz handpicked? My gawd. Why not just give Marco back his Senate seat.
No, it’s not me who moved left. The DNC has moved right, Hillary is up to her eyeballs in money from the fabulously wealthy. And if Sanders is guaranteed to lose, that still doesn’t make Clinton any more appealing to me.
Sanders supporters want to blow up the Democratic party. Simple as that.
Creative destruction of the free market?
When Republicans start hammering Bernie in the general, we can see how much more electable he is, assuming he gets the nomination. He’s an unknown quantity for many Americans. I predict, if things go to Cruz or Kasich, he will not be looking as strong as we think. Especially when he starts needing the “corrupt” party to help him against multi-state, huge money attacks, that are going to paint him as a hypocrite (voting record, need for evil “insider” support), Marxist dictator socialist, old crazy coot, plus whatever unpredictable stuff they’ll have in the box.
Will be curious to see if paid TV ads still have ANY significance. Maybe to the over 65 crowd…
http://www.wired.com/2016/02/jebs-downfall-proves-campaign-tv-ads-dont-really-work/
True, and I hope whatever the Republicans have planned for him doesn’t work. But, he’s a nice blank slate for them to paint a picture on. My only point is we talk a lot about HRC’s weaknesses, but seem never to want to acknowledge Bernie’s got some too. And, there are real dangers running a purity campaign against opponents who see impurity as a plus. Russ Feingold learned that lesson.
Why would this logic not apply to Hillary Clinton? Indeed, the Republicans haven’t really gone on the attack against her and her unfavorables manage to climb anyway.
There are the standard set of excuses for these numbers:
A.) Hillary Clinton is a known quantity and attacks won’t hurt her — this requires you to either completely ignore the past few months, where 90-95%+ of people know of her and yet her unfavorables rise by dint of her favorables increasing. She is being hurt despite being a known quantity: either she’s being attacked, and it’s hurting her, or she’s not being attacked and some unknown factor is causing her unfavorables to rise.
B.) Attacks are hurting Hillary Clinton but she’ll reach a ceiling soon — this requires you to completely ignore the campaign history every post-Dukakis Republican and Democratic frontrunner, where post-primary their unfavorables monotonically increased. Their favorables sometimes increased as well, but mostly from the pool of voters who had no opinion on them. Are these people saying that unlike 2012 Obama, 2004 Bush, and 1996 Bill Clinton (all knowns with the public) it’ll be Hillary Clinton who bucks this trend?
C.) Socialism polls very unfavorable with the public right now. Hillary Clinton’s favorables might increase linearly, but Sanders would increase quadratically. And people aren’t familiar with Sanders.
You know, aside from the fact that Sanders is reasonably recognizable to the public and he’s already described as socialist by people who don’t like him, you’d think that this would show up in polling. Indeed, Sanders unfavorables are rising as the public gets to know him better but they’re increasing by about the same rate as his favorables (though slightly more after mid-February) with about 90% of people familiar with him so it’s a wash.
Bottom Line: It’s the Hillary Clinton camp who seems to think that their candidate is magically immune to Republican attacks and electoral history doesn’t apply to them.
Oh, I think people know of him, but they don’t “know” him yet. When the right wing starts cranking it’s machine, then lots of folks who don’t much pay attention will start to know him. You are kidding yourself if you think this won’t happen–it will.
If he wins the primary, he’s got my vote. It’s my neighbors and other folks who sorta-lean-Dem-because-Republicans-are-crazy that I worry about. Right now, per beer conversations last week, they’d vote for Hillary, right or wrong. Their lives aren’t bad and things are not falling apart for them. Bernie wasn’t on their radar except as the “old communist.” The right hasn’t spent time attacking Bernie and he hasn’t faced a tough, ugly election in a longtime. He might have a strong 1/2 of the Democratic base behind him, it’s the other portions of the electorate, that votes reliably, that I worry about.
I gave you statistics on electoral history and polling and your response is ‘anecdotal evidence and common sense says otherwise!’.
Okay, then. I think we’re done here, not least because getting into an anecdotal evidence fight is one of the biggest rhetorical wastes of time imaginable.
I read what you wrote and appreciate it. Guess we’ll find out if Sanders gets to the general what patterns hold true, right? I make no claim whatsoever that HRC is immune from attacks, etc.–they’ve obviously been working. And sorry, I can’t get too invested in numbers at this point in the election when Sanders is already being called “the communist” by folks I know. True, I don’t live in an area filled with liberals, but they are people who vote reliably and will swing Dem (Jerry Brown) on occasion.
Wow. So you’re saying those inattentive folks “will start to know” Bernie from the lies, distortions, misrepresentations, etc., that the right wing machine can be relied upon to crank out.
This seems to imply that it’s possible to “know” something that’s false. It isn’t. You can have an impression that’s false. You can be deceived (including by yourself) to think or presume that you know something that’s false. But you can’t in fact “know” something that’s false. If it’s false, then you didn’t actually “know” it, you just thought you did.
Slightly off-topic but does anyone know why Hillary Clinton attended both the Republican and Democratic national conventions in 1968? I believe she wrote that pro-bombing North Vietnam speech for Melvin Laird in 1968. It was before Laird moved from the House to be Nixon’s Secretary of Defense.
Was she triangulating which party she should choose for her greater glory? Going to a national convention isn’t cheap, especially for someone working through college. Was someone paying her to be at both conventions?
Soon thereafter she interned one summer for the law firm in Oakland that had been representing the Black Panthers. Was she sent there to watch and report back? This was the point in American history when every student, black and feminist organization was infiltrated by COINTELPRO. (For a good look at this read Carl Oglesby’s RAVENS IN THE STORM and this essay: http://www.namebase.org/news10.html )
In short, if you were an enterprising college student and wanted to become a power in the government, working for an intelligence agency was a good way to pursue your career.
After that H. Clinton was on the Democratic legal counsel on the Watergate investigation. Again, a great place to gain information on what the Dems on the committee knew, what they suspected and then report it back to an intelligence agency, this time the CIA.
Bill Clinton, meanwhile, was in Europe, actually a pretty good place to be to find out what was going on in the anti-war movement over there. And in the meantime Bill didn’t get drafted.
(Some of Bill’s classmates in England were pretty sure he was connected with the CIA back then. Perhaps Bill and Hillary were a match made in Langley.)
Barry Seal, who had been running guns and drugs for the CIA from at least the sixties, was part of the operation that dumped duffelbags of cocaine in Mena, AR during Iran-contra. He bragged to friends that he had the direct phone number to VP George Bush and a “get out of jail free” card from Governor Clinton. Asa Hutchinson, who once was Dubya’s first drug czar, was the federal prosecutor in that corner of Arkansas when cocaine was being delivered to Mena. Soon thereafter Seal was assassinated.
Does this prove that the Clintons were informants and collaborators in dirty CIA/FBI operations going back to the sixties? No. But both of them seem to have been in the right places at the right times.
Gloria Steinem, the feminist icon, had been a CIA propagandist and informer back in the fifties and sixties and she seems to be on the Clinton cheerleading squad (along with Kissinger and Albright). You can google Steinem and CIA and see an interview where she talks about her work for the Agency. She’s come out every eight years to play the Hillary trumpet.
I see a possible path to success that H. Clinton may have taken.
So here’s the question again. In 1968 why did Hillary go to both the Republican and Democratic conventions? Can anyone answer that question
No. But I did see her step out of a cylindrical space vessel that landed in my yard.
A very, very good source, a source so good you can’t believe how good it is, dropped blockbuster PROOF that Hillary advised Nixon at the ’68 GOP Convention to pursue the Southern Strategy. She came up with the whole thing.
Oh, yeah, and she personally murdered Vince Foster so she could watch him die.
Oh, Hillary.
Why did she go to both national conventions in 1968?
Doesn’t look to as if she did. RNC yes. (That’s documented and not debatable.) She may have been no more than one of many locals that did a “lookee-see” at the street activities at the DNC.
I don’t find her particularly credible as to all her self-reported ’69 activities and rationales. Had she changed by then, was she in the process of changing, or has she engaged in rewriting her history for that year? Who the hell knows. Still, you’re making gigantic leaps from really paltry evidence. Not that your guess couldn’t be correct, but such guesses aren’t worth speculating about IMHO.
Probably as truthful as her combat record.
Or most anything else.
You’re more in the know than I am Booman, but do you really believe the Democratic superdelegates would overturn the clear choice of Democratic primary voters?
I think that goes beyond implausible to unthinkable, and I certainly hope I’m not wrong.
I’ve been a lifelong party-line Democrat who will happily vote for Hillary if and when she’s the nominee under just about any circumstance- but not under that circumstance. A party that reverses the democratically expressed preferences of its voters is a party that must be dismantled and replaced. It’s the one political sin I consider unforgivable.
In all likelihood Bernie won’t manage to acquire the majority of pledge delegates and thus the question will be moot. But as far as I’m concerned using the superdelegates to override the voters (however imperfect the primary system may be) would fly in the face of the concept of democratic legitimacy, the bedrock foundation of everything liberalism stands for. It would be completely, 100% unacceptable and I’d be compelled to write in the actual winner in the general election rather than support the pretender.